Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/16/1999 TENTATIVE AGENDA February 16, 1999 Page -2- 14] Recommendations from Boards and Commissions continued: B] Amendment to Zoning Ordinance relating to design standards in the(B-1) business district C] Amendment No. 2 to the East Dean Lake Planned Unit Development -Res. No. 5064 15] General Business A] Police and Fire *1. Completion of Probationary Period for Sergeants Forberg and Robson *2. Hiring of Fire Fighters B] Parks and Recreation *1. Stans Park Playground Equipment C] Community Development 1. Coldwell Banker Commercial appeal of BOAA denial of a conditional use permit for multiple structures on one lot and 80% office to warehouse ratio in the Heavy Industrial (I-2) zone for property located in the southwest corner of 12 Avenue and Valley Park Drive *2. Amending City Code to Allow Massage Centers in the Major Recreation District - Ord. No. 539 3. Residential Development Moratorium- Ord. No. 540 D] Public Works and Engineering 1. Award contract for River District Trunk Sewer Reconstruction, Project 1999-1 - Res. No. 5065 - memo on table *2. Resolution of Support for CR 42 Corridor Study-Res. No. 5067 *3. Assessment Hearing for Vierling Drive from Sage Lane to Miller Street, Project No. 1998-2 -Res. No. 5069 4. 12th Avenue Improvement Project No. 1992-4 -Project Funding Shortfall *5. Approval to Participate in Federal Aid Preservation Applications on Scott County Signals E] General Administration 1. Manufactured Housing Park Closing Ordinance 2. Appointments to Boards and Commissions-Res. No. 5066 *3. Completion of Probationary Period for Jeanette Shaner 44. Apportionment of Assessments for Stone Meadow 3rd Addition-Res. No. 5068 *5. City Code Amendment for Massage Licensing *6. Assignment and Assumption of Developer's Agreement - Southbridge 2nd 7. Canterbury Park- Casino Gambling 16] Other Business 17] Recess for executive session to discuss labor negotiations 18] Re-convene 19] Adjourn TENTATIVE AGENDA CITY OF SHAKOPEE ADJ. REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA FEBRUARY 16, 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 A] Resolution of Appreciation to Becky Kelso -Res. No. 5061 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 December 1, 1998, December 15, 1998, and January 25, 1999 *8] Approve Bills in the Amount of$498,188.53 *9] Communications: Letter from Kathy Prochaska resigning from Park and Recreation Board 10] Public Hearings: 11] Liaison Reports from Councilmembers 12] Recess for an Economic Development Authority Meeting 13] Re-convene 14] Recommendations from Boards and Commissions: A] Final Plat of White Pines Addition, located south of CR-16 and east of Roundhouse Street - Res. No. 5062 TENTATIVE AGENDA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA Adjourned Regular Meeting February 16, 1999 1. Roll Call at 7:00 p.m. 2. Approval of the Agenda 3. Approval of Consent Business-(All items noted by an 4 are anticipated to be routine.After a discussion by the President,there will be an opportunity for members of the EDA to remove items from the consent agenda for individual discussion.Those items removed will be consideredin their normal sequence on the agenda.Those items remaining on the consent agenda will otherwise not be individually discussed and will be enacted in one motion.) 4. 4 Approval of Minutes:^ � s 15 l`l9$ 5. Financial 4 A.)Approval of Bills 6. Small Cities Development Program Grant Award 7. Other Business: Adjourn • edagenda.doc OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION DECEMBER 1, 1998 Members Present: Brekke, DuBois, Sweeney, Amundson, and President Link Members Absent: None Staff Present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator;R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director; Others Present: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer;Judith S. Cox, City Jim Thomson, City Attorney; Paul Snook, Economic Development Coordinator; and Gregg Voxland, Finance Director I. Roll Call President Link called the meeting to order at 7:09 P.M. Roll was taken as noted above. II. Approval of Agenda DuBois/Amundson moved to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried unanimously. III. Approval of Minutes None IV. Financial A. Approval of Bills Sweeney/DuBois moved to approve bills in the amount of$16,495.00 for the E.D.A. General Fund and$222.39 for Seagate. Motion carried unanimously. V. Adjournment DuBois/Sweeney moved to adjourn to December 5, 1998. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 7:11 p.m. �•L Ju ith S. Cox .D.A. Secretary Esther TenEyck Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA ADJOURNED REGULAR SESSION DECEMBER 15, 1998 Members Present: Brekke, DuBois, Sweeney,Amundson,and President Link Members Absent: None Staff Present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator; R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director Others Present: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer;Judith S. Cox, City Clerk Jim Thomson, City Attorney;and Gregg Voxland,Finance Director I. Roll Call President Link called the meeting to order at 8:10 p.m. Roll was taken as noted above. II. Approval of Agenda Sweeney/Amundson moved to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried unanimously. III. Approval of Minutes None IV. Financial A. Approval of Bills Brekke/Amundson moved to approve bills in the amount of$38,832.50 for the E.D.A. General Fund and$50.00 for Seagate. Motion carried unanimously. VI. Approving Modifications of Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing District Nos. 1,3, 7, and 9 and a Modified Redevelopment Plan for the Minnesota River Valley Housing and Redevelopment Project No. 1. Gregg Voxland explained that the information provided to be used to amend the TIF Plan and Budget for TIF districts 1, 3, 7 and 9 is to update the financial part of the Plan based on 1997 and 1998 events and forecasts. There are no new projects. Sweeney/DuBois offered Resolution No. 98-7,A Resolution Approving Modification of Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing District Nos. 1, 3, 7 and 9 and a Modified Redevelopment Plan for the Minnesota River Valley Housing and Redevelopment Project No. 1, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. V. Decertifying Tax Increment Financing District No. 7 Gregg Voxland explained that the Tax Increment Financing District No. 7, MEBCO has reached the end of its allowable life, and the proposed Resolution No. 98-8 officially decertifies the district. Official Proceedings of the December 15, 1998 Shakopee Economic Development Authority Page -2- Amundson/DuBois offered Resolution No. 98-8,A Resolution Decertifying Tax Increment Financing District No. 7,and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. VII. Other Business None VIII. Adjournment Sweeney/Amundson moved to adjourn to January 5, 1999,at 7:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:18 p.m. „t("AJ ,6)( dith S. Cox '.D.A. Secretary Esther TenEyck Recording Secretary CITY OF SHAKOPEE MemorandumCONSENT TO: President & Commissioners Mark H. McNeill, Executive Director FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: EDA Bill List DATE: February 11, 1999 Introduction Attached is a listing of bills for the EDA and Seagate fund for the period 12/31/98 to 02/11/99 . Action Requested Move to approve bills in the amount of $3, 359.50 for the EDA General Fund and $0 . 00 for Seagate. En 0000 E I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H II wH II i0 0 0 0 II 0000 0 0 0 O iOIa iIO I Unq I II O 0 n coo o N 0 0 0 O U 0 , 0 n 'I o 0 o to U1 to ul E N E H II r•-• H 0 0 0 N N N N W II irl .-I W NOON d' Ln lil A U I Q .- I 1-1 N N N M U I Cfl U E E n I IA E II ca to II I x uaioi n to C/2 CO II H000 II ! II H II U ate II O% II 1 I II Ot U M II N de O II eM Cl) II N � tID �zzZ CA n VI i� W II as EWn 10 aEau Wo00 g n II i W � 11 Q I II ZZZII ZZ U 0 I A H H II CI) II I14 CO co H co Z N ;W 1 WGW. ft. = II a I a a a 0 II a I W u U I z co s E co N IH at Z I AQq eZ >i � 0 E \ Z N !U E \ 0 I I� EEU a H O n 0 p r l H I E E 0 co H II I CO 0 HE I H H E Pi \ E II w al \ a 1 IQ E E PMa rNi H n 4 P o H i 0 A N 3 i w Ci III I 1 al Es p i IE� WWW co H m A II 3 0. Ea H m A l ZGGWA H IN H NS i a u x n A II to on II toNN II ri II M to W rl III II NI, Ill In 03 0 n N > II NNNtfl II II N II N II II N II MOON Itl. U 'N .Ye II 1� 00r1 �O N 0% U II t` co CO rn .T. O n 0 WW II 0000 O Z n o ko O ZZ II 0 0 0 0 II u I I I N O I at 01 0% It II rn I 01 01 01 01 II ch1 0% 01at01 II ',ri I ri rl e-I H I \' I \\\\ U 1-4I de Ch O O W N (.1 W I O O H H a II N• Q I NNN N Q II HQ I 0000 n it N * II 4. n u 4. II 4. II * II U rl to II ri 111 U 0% Ot ..-1p 01 0% H ie II H r-I .-IU rl H H ie 4. u II 0 Z n 0 ZII O U M H O I rtMMM C7 Co H n w 8 D a II w vv. w C7 9 a O cd H Ean AW 0 ii rnrna ma aII rn rn a 11 H od oG a 11 ra ri ri rl a a n o 0 0 I� n 0 0 0 0 0 0 (?ee�y H II k. W O H II II 0% 0t 0t at W W EO A I H e-7 *A I r1 r1 r♦ .-1 E it isQ7, II41 u1 E * to to u1 to E IIEs W II eH-1 0 Es * II .-I-I rH-I .-4 rrii El s CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council/ Economic Development Authority FROM: Paul Snook, Economic Development Coordinator SUBJECT: Small Cities Development Program Grant Award MTG DATE: February 16, 1999 Introduction: The Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED) approved the City's comprehensive application for a Minnesota Small Cities Development Program (SCDP) Grant for funding in the amount of$877,800. Please refer to Exhibit A, a letter to Mayor Brekke from Jerry Carlson, Commissioner of the Department of Trade and Economic Development, and Exhibit B, informational outline on the Small Cities Development Program. The granted funds will be utilized to undertake the following activities in the designated Downtown Target Area as outlined in Exhibit C, an excerpt of the application: • Owner-Occupied Housing Rehabilitation • Rental Housing Rehabilitation, and • Commercial Building Rehabilitation Background: In August of 1997 the City Council / EDA initiated efforts to pursue a Minnesota Small Cities Development Program Grant for housing and commercial building rehabilitation as part of the comprehensive revitalization of the downtown area and surrounding neighborhoods. Last October Community Partners Research, Inc., under contract with the City and working with City staff, submitted an application to DTED for an SCDP Grant in amount of $1,098,750. The purpose of the Small Cities Development Program is to assist communities through federal Community Development Block Grants in financing housing rehabilitation, public facility construction, and economic development. Proposed projects must meet one of three federal objectives: 1.) benefit to low-and-moderate income persons; 2.) elimination of slum & blight conditions; or 3.) elimination of an urgent threat to public health or safety. scdpmmo5.doc The program is subdivided into three categories, 1.) Housing Grants; 2.) Public Facility Grants; and 3.) Comprehensive Grants. A comprehensive project is one which includes housing, a public facility element, and / or an economic development activity. The most common economic development activity for this program is commercial building rehabilitation in central business districts. Shakopee's application was comprehensive in nature, combining a housing rehab element with a commercial building rehab element. Council/EDA should know that the following revitalization initiatives undertaken by the City/EDA, County HRA, and community volunteers were instrumental in leveraging the SCDP grant: • River City Centre/Blocks 3 &4 redevelopment project • Downtown/ 1st Avenue Revitalization Ad Hoc Committee (now known as the "Vision Shakopee!"downtown strategic planning initiative) • $300,000 Downtown Facade(Low-Interset)Loan Program • Shakopee Downtown Design Guidelines (to accompany the Facade Loan Program) • 1996 Comprehensive Housing Study • Shakopee Housing Action Plan(Liveable Communities Act) In coming weeks staff will be meeting with DTED to discuss and plan implementation and administration of the grant. Granted communities typically contract with local agencies such as housing and redevelopment authorities for administrative services. Information is forthcoming regarding this. scdpmmo5.doc Esoy,: XHi15.1TA - -Trade &-- - Economic Development February 8, 1999 The Honorable Jon Brekke Mayor, City of Shakopee 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: Shakopee Downtown Comprehensive Project, The City of Shakopee Dear Mayor Brekke: I am pleased to inform you that your application for a Minnesota Small Cities Development Program grant has been approved for funding in the amount of$877,800. As always, funding was very competitive this year. The Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED) received a total of 78 applications and yours was one of 33 selected for an award. Everyone involved in the preparation of your application can be proud of a job well done. DTED's Business and Community Development staff will soon provide you with information on the implementation of your grant award and will assist you in achieving your community development goals. For additional information, contact Gary Fields, Deputy Commissioner, at 651/296-4039. Finally, let me extend my congratulations to you and your staff for developing an approach which will effectively address your community development needs. Kind regards, 11/1 J-rry arl-on om issi•ner 500 Metro Square, 121 7th Place East, Saint Paul,Minnesota 55101-2146 USA 651-297-1291 •800-657-3858•Fax 651-296-4772 •TTY/TDD 800-627-3529 www.dted.state.mn.us 00) xi-iti31-c" Trade & Economic Development www.dted.state.mn.us Small Cities Development Program 500 Metro Square, 121 7th Place East Saint Paul,Minnesota 55101-2146 USA Program purpose: To provide decent housing, a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities,principally for persons of low-and-moderate income. How it works: Provides federal grants from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD)to local units of government on a competitive basis for a variety of community development projects. Eligible applicants: Cities and townships with populations under 50,000 and counties with populations under 200,000. Indian tribal governments,which can receive funds directly from HUD, are ineligible for this program. Minimum requirements: Proposed projects must meet one of three national objectives: 1. Benefit to low-and-moderate income persons; 2. Elimination of slum and blight conditions; or 3. Elimination of an urgent threat to public health or safety. In addition,proposed project activities must be eligible for funding, project need must be documented, and the general public must be involved in the application preparation. Eligible projects: State program rules subdivide grant funds into three general categories: 1. Housing Grants. Small Cities Development Program(SCDP)funds are granted to a local government which, in turn, loans funds for the purpose of rehabilitating local housing stock. Loans may be used for owner-occupied, rental, single-family or multiple family housing rehabilitation. Loan agreements may allow for deferred payments or immediate monthly payments. Interest rates may vary, and loan repayments are retained by grantees for the purpose of making additional rehabilitation loans. SCDP funds may also be used to assist new housing construction projects. Funds may also be used for land acquisition, site improvements, infrastructure or housing unit construction. In all cases, housing funds must benefit low-and-moderate income persons. 2. Public Facility Grants. SCDP funds are granted for wastewater treatment projects,including collection systems and treatment plants;fresh water projects, including wells,water towers, and distribution systems; storm sewer projects;flood control projects; and, street projects. -over- Eligible projects: 3. Comprehensive Grants. Comprehensive projects frequently include (Cont'd.) housing and public facility activities described above. In addition, comprehensive projects may include an economic development activity, which ch consists of loans from theant recipient to businesses for �' p building renovation/construction, purchase of equipment, or working capital. The most common economic development activity is rehabilitation of local commercial districts. Maximum The maximum grant award for a Public Facility or Housing project is$600,000. available: The maximum grant for a Comprehensive project is$1.4 million. Other funds required: The amount of other foods required is variable and contingent on the project type, other available sources of funds for the project, and the financial capacity of the applicant and local benefiting residents. Terms: The length of project period is normally between two and three years, depending on the size and scope of the project. Applications accepted: Part 1 of the Business and Community Development application can be submitted year-round. Complete applications(including Part 2)must be submitted by October 1 of each year. Grant awards: The annual review and ranking period will commence on October 1. Grant awards will be announced each March. Approving authority: Department of Trade and Economic Development. Disbursement of funds: Grant monies are disbursed as project costs are incurred. Contact Business and Community Development Division of the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development at 612/297-1291 or toll-free at 1-800- 657-3858. 4/98 Shakopee Downtown Revitalization Program 1999 SHAKOPEE DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION PROGRAM x141$1"r C Shakopee is undertaking a very aggressive, but feasible Downtown Revitalization Program. It has been determined that with the cooperation of the funding agencies and the citizens of Shakopee, it is more cost effective to address the needs of the Downtown in a comprehensive manner. As a result, the Shakopee Downtown Revitalization Program includes five activities and totals $10,030,000. The Shakopee Downtown Revitalization Program is summarized as follows: SHAKOPEE DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION PROGRAM Activity SCDP City Private/MHFA MHFA DOE Total Fix-Up Fund Deferred Loan Program Owner Occupied Housing Rehab 17,200 x 35 dwellings $477,500 $2,000 $70,000 $37,500 $15,000 $602,000 Rental Rehab 9,500 x 40 units $215,500 $2,500 $162,000 $0 $0 $380,000 Commercial Rehab 25,000 x 20 buildings- $362,750 $2,500 $334,750 $0 $0 $700,000 Commercial/Rental New Construction $0 $5,355,000 $2,945,000 $0 $0 $8,300,000 River City Centre General $43,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $48,000 Administration Total $1,098,750 $5,367,000 $3,511,750 $37,500 $15,000 $10,030,000 *The Commercial/Rental New Construction Activity,the River City Centre, as of October 1, 1998 is near completion. However,this activity is a vital part of the Shakopee Downtown Revitalization Program and indicates the City of Shakopee's strong commitment to the revitalization efforts. *The Private/Other financing column includes Bond Financing for the Commercial/Rental New Construction Activity. Narrative 4 Shako.ee Downtown Revitalization Pro l ram 1999 I. OVERVIEW A. INTRODUCTION Shakopee is submitting a Comprehensive Minnesota Small Cities Development Program Application for$1,098,750 to be leveraged with$8,931,250 in other funds for a total program budget of$10,030,000. The funds will be utilized to undertake the following activities in the Downtown Target Area: Commercial Rehabilitation- 20 buildings Owner Occupied Housing Rehabilitation-35 dwellings Rental Rehabilitation-40 units *Commercial/Rental New Construction "River City Centre" -52 senior housing units and 25,37 3 sq. ft. of commercial space *No SCDP funds are requested for this activity. The Downtown Target Area includes Shakopee's Downtown Business District and the oldest housing of the City which surrounds the Downtown Business District. The new River City Centre, a mixed use commercial/residential project, is also located in the Downtown Target Area. A smaller three block area within the Downtown Target Area has been established as the Commercial Target Area for the Commercial Rehabilitation Program. B. DEMOGRAPHICS Shakopee is located in Scott County on State Highway 169 approximately 20 miles southwest of Minneapolis/St. Paul. The demographics for Shakopee are as follows: Population Demographics 1997 Population 15,311 1990 Population 11,739 %Change 1990 to 1997 30.4% 1980 Population 9,941 %Change 1980 to 1990 18.1% 2000 Projected Population(Met Council) 17,500 2010 Projected Population(Met Council) 26,100 2020 Projected Population(Met Council) 38,900 Narrative 5 Shakopee Downtown Revitalization Program 1999 Housing Unit&Housing Demographics 1997 Number of Households 5,569 %Change 1990 to 1997 33.8% 1990 Number of Households 4,163 1980 Number of Households 3,226 %Change 1980 to 1990 29.1% 2000 Projected Households (Met Council) 6,400 1997 Average Number of Persons Per Household 2.69 1990 Households by Tenure-Owned 70.7% Rented 29.3% Age of Housing Units 1939 and Earlier 11.5% 1940 - 1969 34.4% 1970 - 1989 54.1% Income Data Per Capita Income 1989 $15,018 Median Household Income 1989 $37,783 Average Household Income 1989 $41,789 C. PLANNING/CITIZEN PARTICIPATION The Shakopee Downtown Revitalization Program is the result of extensive planning and citizen participation. The planning/citizen participation includes the following: 1. Downtown Revitalization Committee In 1997,the City of Shakopee established the Downtown Revitalization Committee whose members include citizens,business people, property owners, civic leaders and elected officials. The Committee was established as an advisory body to the City Council and the Economic Development Authority to provide guidance for the revitalization and preservation of the Downtown. The Committee's three initial steps have been: a. Leading the community through a visioning/strategic planning process for Downtown revitalization. b. Developing a low-interest building facade program for the restoration of the Downtown buildings to be used to leverage the Commercial Rehabilitation Program that is being proposed utilizing SCDP funds. c. Developing design guidelines for Downtown buildings. Narrative 6 Shakopee Downtown Revitalization Program 1999 2. Comprehensive Housing Study The City of Shakopee participated in the Scott County Comprehensive Housing Study in 1996. The Study included a demographic analysis, housing inventory, rental market analysis, and housing findings and recommendations. The Study included input and participation from Shakopee residents through interviews, surveys, etc. The Study specifically cited the need for affordable housing in Shakopee and Scott County. The activities proposed in the Shakopee Downtown Revitalization Program specifically addresses the preservation of affordable housing in the City of Shakopee. 3. Design Guideline Subcommittee The Downtown Revitalization Committee has established a Design Subcommittee that is working with an historic preservation consultant to develop design guidelines for Downtown building facades. The design guidelines will be used in conjunction with the Commercial Rehabilitation Program and the Facade Loan Program. By encouraging appropriate improvements,the design guidelines will improve the quality of Downtown buildings,protect property values, enhance the Downtown's character and increase the public's awareness of the quality of the Downtown environment. 4. Shakopee Housing Action Plan (Livable Communities Act) The City of Shakopee has developed a Housing Action Plan in conjunction with the Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Act. The Plan was developed with participation from citizens. The Plan includes the City of Shakopee's housing goals and policies, development standards and controls, and the City's housing activities/initiatives. The Shakopee Downtown Revitalization Program's activities address the housing needs identified in the Shakopee Housing Action Plan. 5. Other Planning/Citizen Participation Activities The following planning and citizen participation activities were also undertaken in developing the Shakopee Downtown Revitalization Program: • Community Development Surveys • Windshield Surveys • Analysis of City records,census data and State Demographer information • Inspections of owner occupied dwellings, rental buildings and commercial buildings • A Public Hearing was held to discuss community needs and the specifics of the Shakopee Downtown Revitalization Program • The Shakopee Downtown Revitalization Program was also discussed at several City Council and Economic Development Authority meetings Narrative 7 Shako s ee Downtown Revitalization Pro ram 1999 D. OVERALL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE SHAKOPEE DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION PROGRAM The goals and objectives of the Shakopee Downtown Revitalization Program include: • To revitalize Shakopee's Downtown area into a formerly organized Central Business District that has greater opportunity to realize its full potential. • To meet Shakopee's housing rehabilitation goals. • To protect the health and safety of Shakopee's households. • To provide financial assistance to Shakopee's low/moderate income households to rehabilitate their dwellings. • To address the housing rehabilitation needs of the Downtown Target Area housing stock. • To provide a funding source for rental property owners to rehabilitate their rental units and to upgrade their dwellings to be in compliance with housing codes. • To provide a funding source for commercial building owners to rehabilitate their buildings. • To provide new rental housing and commercial opportunities in the Downtown Target Area-River City Centre project. • To assure that the existing downtown commercial and rental areas can complement the new River City Centre project and continue to be a vital part of Shakopee's future. E. PREVIOUS SCDP GRANTS Shakopee has not previously received an SCDP Grant. Narrative 8 1 Q I It J I a II - 1=�ILJ I_11.-1 I '''' NdWbao �g i NP1 ®no :d � � NMI au MIME AIM INN._ memmem mommum =1S 3IdIV d MeJ� ry , . „yt../'" n " MN F = _ 1 10 �®s. _ n — . al V L 1 - ®�.` _ PENIMIN MI 1111 I", '55-11. ®mIER o ryy 13361S y10S3NNWI ID " `"-. �.MMO210 - MI e�' = lij).1 . u pu -~.1tal ' . �I I 1 I-1 s F Inno W r• e 2 I _ � }� 13381S 13HaVW ^ 'L 1S l�rdi� 3 Ia���l� F. Wardifirriiial dao liMilaP151' -Pif dr iliii rte. o o L Ir.rl e = �� �` t3als 3aowlllj ��'ImiLinaE MS- iP:i. 1/�+ — �jI a I.I/:ilr lF / MI / Al riplInting MI WY all _830N3dS Airgiv-AgErOILAIrdrit --,,- . 6, . : i 1_0_ T `�iP.A . lQI iiI - s _ r/pr3 1S 3111Aa3TOS IniriI IFI,All ] �' I� �i 2 kind' m13a1S ' SIM31 --:'Cli 1111 10710E511 W ISId 1 � iblx i� fi,, - 2 Alr ° , Alli WM Mil Lilril Ns■u W% [II �1 ,a�a', .E�is a■� �l S a311nd o8 W d�LJ�/ /".�It': " to-o c� ..ji �•i i ii■10�ir. j,� I . ;I ;i rCI,44 vlip'�I��470,1I� aooMly - i. Li Q IP '�''.� g . / �I5P' cia IJ��' CoMI I./ril � IWi1 LA.a B: 0 IMPtil ;1: le �� 133a1 sl "11005CI �li..l — —�1 " Ey MOW; NMIMIIPUIII OM sl ILrIr.I P a� ��� Ell Iia►.e 133a1s�aV9- CMo r/daldI aaA1 " n " rW I►• et " 133a1s AVMwnHs CA igIll - c v Li,,,a '15 30a31d 0 1 Sp I f n ' . M 1011 I. — _ - 2 - r _33 AV10 101021 " n " I IIf 1 OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA DECEMBER 1, 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; Bruce Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer; R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director; Gregg Voxland, Finance Director; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Paul Snook, Economic Development Coordinator; and Mark Thomson, City Attorney. The pledge of allegience was recited. The following item was added to the agenda: 15.E.11. Tobacco Land License. Sweeney/Amundson moved to approve the agenda as modified. Motion carried unanimously. Cncl. Sweeney gave a liaison report. Mayor Brekke gave the Mayor's report. Sweeney/Link moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Motion carried unanimously. 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. A recess was taken at 7:09 p.m. for the purpose of conducting the Economic Development Authority meeting. The meeting was re-convened at 7:12 p.m. Sweeney/Link moved to approve bills in the amount of $342,476.20. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Link offered Resolution No. 5030, A Resolution Adopting a Revised Assessment for Sarazin Street, Between 4th Avenue and County Road 16; Roundhouse Street, Between 4th Avenue and County Road 16; and 4th Avenue, Between Shawnee Trail and Sarazin Street, Project No. 1994-10, P.I.D. No. 27-906028-0 and P.I.D. No. 27- 905018-0, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Link moved to authorize the appropriate City Officials to sign the necessary documents to finalize the settlement of the special assessment appeals filed by the Knights of Columbus and the Hauer's. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Official Proceedings of the December 1, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -2- Sweeney/DuBois moved to remove discussion of the Dean Lake Bypass Reimbursement Agreement from the table. Motion carried unanimously. Bruce Loney reported that the December 1, 1998, memo provides the justification and estimate behind the decision of a 20 cubic feet per second (cfs) bypass channel as the most flow that could be diverted from a cost and design standpoint. It also provides the reasons for the cost share between the Watershed Districts, City of Shakopee and Valley Green Business Park. The reimbursement agreement formalizes the previously agreed to amounts by the parties involved and the City Attorney has reviewed this agreement and his comments have been incorporated. The LMRWD has also approved the agreement. However, they were uncomfortable with Recital D., which addresses the Prior Lake District's desire to contribute to the cost of constructing the Dean Lake Bypass in connection with its efforts to increase the allocation of channel capacity for flow from the Prior Lake Outlet from 50 cfs to 100 cfs, as well as to modify the Joint Powers Agreement to eliminate the existing restrictions to the release and continued flow of water from the Prior Lake Outlet that are contained in Article IV of the Joint Powers Agreement. The diversion channel is estimated at a cost of$200,000. Bruce Loney explained that the flow rate of the outlet channel was determined to be 20 cfs, based on a study by the Watershed District's hydrologist. The rational is that there would be enough flow to protect Dean Lake from a water quantity and quality standpoint, as well as a flow that the downstream wetlands could handle without degradation. In response to the LMRWD's concern with Recital D., Bruce Loney explained that the Watershed District intends to look at upgrading the channel for a potential flow increase. They would like to be a partner with the City of Shakopee as the drainage area develops and be involved. Cncl. Sweeney stated that he was concerned that there is no contractual obligation associated with Recital D. He said that the existence of a contractual obligation would place some respectability on the issue, regardless of the impact on Shakopee. He then discussed the exacerbation of run off. He said that Recital D is not in the best interest of Shakopee, as it is written. Sweeney/DuBois moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute the "Reimbursement Agreement" between the City of Shakopee, Lower Minnesota River Watershed District and Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed District, noting that Recital D is not in the best interest of the City of Shakopee. Dave Moran, 12208 Waters Edge Trail, and Prior Lake Watershed Manager, approached the podium and stated that he was also concerned about additional water going down the channel. He said the current maximum capacity is 50 cfs. However, he said in the last 10 Official Proceedings of the December 1, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -3- years this level has not been reached. The average flow is near 20 cfs. He said that once the flow has left Prior Lake there are a number of other contributors to the outlet channel. He said that for the good of all those involved, it would be best if Prior Lake contributed to the bypass channel. He said Prior Lake would get a reduction in some restrictions in Recital D. in exchange for contributing to the cost of the bypass, but overall they were looking at the construction of the bypass. He said that now is the time to look at improvements in various water courses, rather than later. A discussion ensued and there was agreement that there must be increased capacity before Recital D. becomes a reality. Pete Willenbring approached the podium and explained that the focus is what to do with the channel without the City of Shakopee paying for all of it. In reference to Recital D, he said there has never been any interest in increasing the discharge rate at this time. He said the outlet structure is currently not capable of discharging more than 50 cfs. He also explained that the current Joint Powers Agreement provides the City of Shakopee with the ability to shut the outlet off. He said he was seeking the support of possibly increasing the discharge rate and to plan for a possible increase. Motion carried unanimously. Bruce Loney stated that meetings are held on a regular basis to discuss water management and he will bring additional information to the City Council as it is provided. Sweeney/Link moved to authorize the hiring of Mark Sundgren as a probationary police officer at a monthly rate of $2,743.95 subject to the satisfactory completion of pre- employment medical and psychological examinations. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Link moved to authorize the appropriate City staff to enter into a collaborative partnership agreement with Scott County and the Minnesota Department of Economic Security, Officer of Youth Development for a Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant (JAIBG). (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Link moved to declare the Fire Department's air compressor truck to be surplus property and direct that the truck be sold by sealed bid. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Link moved to authorize the ratification of the election results of the Shakopee Fire Department for the officers in the year 1999. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Official Proceedings of the December 1, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -4- 1999 Fire Department Officers: Chief- Mary Athmann, 1st Asst. Chief- Dave Judd, 2nd Asst. Chief- Terry Stang, 1st Captain & Training Officer - Bob Riesgraf, 2nd Captain - Rick Coleman, 3rd Captain-Denny Pauly, 4th Captain-Randy Weckman. Sweeney/Link moved to accept into full member status in the Shakopee Fire Department: Bob Gieseke, Duane Hoffmann, Al Johnson, Duane Slaughter, Mark Sullivan and Mark Wandersee. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Mark McQuillan explained that staff was previously directed to look into the cost and visibility of installing a closed circuit television surveillance system at the Shakopee Community Center. He reported that in the three years that the Community Center has been open, there have not been any instances that have made staff feel a direct need for this type of system. However, he did say that there are certain times when this type of system might improve the perceived sense of well-being of the facility's patrons, and help staff supervise the entire facility at once. Staff researched two different companies that supply these systems with a cost difference of only $22.00 between the two companies. The system would also be expandable. There is an estimated $13,271 remaining in the Community Center construction fund, after allowing $15,000 for the construction of an exterior sign. When asked what he felt is a necessary improvement, Mark McQuillan stated that there are blind corners in the existing building and that he anticipated the need for a system like this in the future, particularly if there is any expansion. He said there are currently two individuals on duty. Ron Stellmaker approached the podium and explained that in a proactive manner, a camera would be a recorded situation for added liability protection. There is currently no guarantee that everything is going to be seen. He said that the system can accommodate up to 18 cameras with a picture on each monitor, but currently we would have only three. The costs of the cameras average from $350 to $400 each. DuBois/Amundson moved to direct staff to purchase a closed circuit surveillance system for the Community Center from Closed Circuit Specialists, Inc. for a total amount of $5,050 Cncl. Sweeney stated for the record that a system such as this does not automatically guarantee total safety in or around the Community Center. Motion carried unanimously. Official Proceedings of the December 1, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -5- Sweeney/Link moved to terminate Tammy Abrahamson's probationary status. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Michael Leek reported that the developer of Market Place 2nd Addition is requesting Final Plat approval with a revised plat drawing because of the anticipated difficulty in obtaining the required signatures of mortgagees on the Final Plat. The revised plat would plat certain areas as outlots and would leave lots in the 1st Addition out of the plat. Staff recommended that the developer contact the owners of Lot 6 Block 1, Lot 5 Block 1, and Lot 1 Block 1 to obtain their consent to the Final Plat, and to their receipt of the outlots as proposed by quit claim deed. We have received their consents. Additional conditions at G and H were included which direct that the outlots be dedicated to the adjacent property owners with the recording of the Final Plat. And that outlots F, G, and H be transferred by quit claim deed. In addition, the current park dedication schedule has been applied to this request in the amount of$1200 per lot. A discussion ensued regarding legal ramifications of deeding the outlots to the adjacent property owners. Jim Thomson, City Attorney, said that there is a possibility that the legal descriptions will need to be changed with the mortgage company, and explained that this is the reason the developer was directed to obtain the consent of the property owners. Michael Orman, Orman & Associates, on behalf of Klinglehutz Development, approached the podium and stated that he did not believe that the legal description that was closed on is being changed. He said the additional outlots will be conveyed to them and they will have more property than what was initially conveyed to them. Mr. Orman said that the plat was changed and they have requested the change due to technicality in obtaining the consents of the mortgage companies. He said the decision to reapply was made based on the time and cost involved. The park dedication fees which have been instituted since October 6, 1998, will result in an additional $9600 in a matter where the property being platted is not changing, but leaving out the original Market Place Addition. He said that it was his understanding that the City suggested that the initial Market Place Addition be added to the 2nd Addition plat, and asked for consideration to waive the increase in park dedication fees. Mr. Orman called attention to a letter which the City Attorney's office wrote to Michael Leek's attention regarding Lot 3 Block 208, Leremondis Addition. This letter included the recommendation that the City deed the property to Klinglehutz Development, or that the City join in the Plat as the owner of Lot 3. He said a determination needs to be made on this issue. Official Proceedings of the December 1, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -6- A discussion ensued as to who's direction it was to submit a revised plat. Michael Leek explained that the Market Place 2nd Addition could not be recorded because one of the property owners refused to sign the plat due to a discrepancy in the length of their lot. He said that because of the expectation of the property owners of Lots, 5, 6, and 1, as they related to the alley, the City suggested that the revision should show a close resemblance to the already approved Plat. On the issue of the City joining in the Plat, Michael Leek stated that he felt the City would want to join in the Plat because of the alley. Sweeney/DuBois offered Resolution No. 5033, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota Approving the Final Plat for Market Place 2nd Addition, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. DuBois/Link moved to direct staff to take the necessary action to sign the necessary documents to join in the Plat of Market Place 2nd Addition. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Link offered Resolution No. 5029, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota Approving a Formal Year 2000 Policy Statement, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Link moved that James Davis has successfully completed the probationary period for Building Inspector, and award him permanent, full-time status in that position. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Link moved to authorize the City Clerk to issue cigarette licenses for 1999. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Link moved to approve the application and grant a Pawnshop License to DRM LLC of Shakopee, dba Excel Pawn, 450 West 1st Avenue. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Link moved to approve the application and grant a Pawnbroker and Precious Metal Dealer's license to Mark Andrew Pearson and Robert Charles Hartshorn, DRM LLC of Shakopee, dba Excel Pawn, 450 West 1st Avenue. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Link moved to approve the employee licenses for the following employees of DRM LLC of Shakopee, dba Excel Pawn: Samuel David Rockne, Tracey Allen Hirzel, Jeremy David Galetka, and Patrick Brent Doolittle. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Official Proceedings of the December 1, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -7- Sweeney/Link moved to approve the application and grant a Pawnshop License to Madison Financial Companies, dba Moneyxchange, 1147 Canterbury Road. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Link moved to approve the application and grant a Pawnbroker, Precious Metal Dealer and Secondhand Dealer's license to Frank John Marzario, Madison Financial Companies, dba Moneyxchange, 1147 Canterbury Road. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Link moved to approve employee licenses for the following employees of Madison Financial Companies, dba Moneyxchange: Sherri Marzario, Jessica Dold Leff, Arthur LaFond, Kraig Ellingson, Anthony French, Dustan Drummer, and Cheryl Taylor. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Link moved to approve the application and grant a Tattoo License to Linda Kurian, Body Art, 205 South Lewis Street, conditioned upon proof of the required insurance. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Link moved to approve the issuance of a Tattoo License to Scot James Neverdahl and David Young Choe at body Art, 205 South Lewis Street, conditioned upon proof of the required insurance. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Link moved to approve the application and grant a massage center license to Dawn Marie Krause, Klip and Kurl, 238 South Lewis Street, conditioned upon proof of the required insurance. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Link offered Resolution No. 5027, A Resolution Apportioning Assessments Among New Common Interest Community Parcels Within CIC 1024 Prairie Bend, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Link offered Resolution No. 5028, A Resolution Apportioning Assessments Among New Parcels Created as a Result of the Platting of Prairie Village 3rd Addition, and move its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Link moved to authorize Delta Dental to provide the voluntary employee dental program. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Paul Snook reported that the Downtown Parking Task Force presented recommended changes to the Council, and an analysis of making Lewis Street between First and Second Avenues all diagonal parking, on November 10, 1998. The recommendations were made to increase enforcement of parking regulations downtown, for employers and employees to park in lots rather than on the street. Upon the lease-up of the River City Centre com- Official Proceedings of the December 1, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -8- mercial space, the City may want to consider conducting a downtown parking study to include an analysis of current supply and demand, projection of future demand and analysis of parking restrictions to better understand future parking needs. Time change recommendations include: First Avenue - 2-hour parking for spaces in front of Valley Sports to be consistent with the rest of the parking downtown and 2-hour parking behind the River City Centre; Holmes Street - one 30-minute parking space in front of the Shoe Shop/Jerry's Pizza; Sommerville Street - 2-hour parking for on-street parking spaces in front of the dental office, two 30-minute spaces and two 2-hour spaces in from of McGovern's Garage and Performance Shop, and that the unimproved parking lot behind the library be used for additional off-street parking for employees. Additional recommendations include: Parking Lot at Fuller and Hwy 69 - open access from 69 and install a 4-way stop; Second Avenue - include two spaces next to City Hall to be designated as 2-hour parking, the City lot in front of Pablo's be upgraded with better signage defining 8-hour and 2-hour parking limits, and the addition of three parallel on- street parking spaces on Second Avenue adjacent to the post office before the stop sign, to be designated as 30-minute parking. The additional 2-hour signs and 30-minute signs would cost $1,600, with the costs to be paid from the street division budget. Bruce Loney provided a map of Lewis Street between 1st and 2nd and stated that the streetscape was designed to incorporate some greenery with trees as well as a pleasant downtown area with one side parallel parking and one side diagonal parking. He said if diagonal parking were used on both sides of the street, some of the greenery would be lost and there would be a 23 foot wide street, which in his opinion was too narrow. Mr. McNeill recommended adopting the recommended parking issues, install the 2-hour and 30 minute signs, and enforce the parking restrictions after appropriate notice has been given. Sweeney/Link moved to direct staff to create regulatory signing in the downtown area and begin parking enforcement after appropriate notice is provided. Police Chief, Dan Hughes approached the podium and said that he was concerned about the language "continuous enforcement", explaining that enforcement will be conducted on a periodic basis. Jack McGovern approached the podium to discuss the impact of the proposed parking restrictions for his patrons. He said that the four parking spaces in front of his building with time limits is not conducive to his customers who drop off their vehicles before going Official Proceedings of the December 1, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -9- to work. He asked that if 2-hour parking is to be enforced, that it be effective for the entire downtown area, including the 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m., on 1st Avenue area so as not to create a double standard. He explained that there are safety issues in having his customers walk through the alley to get their cars, as there are large ruts and poor lighting conditions. Mayor Brekke stated that the property owners will be notified before parking restrictions are enforced. Motion carried unanimously. Paul Snook reported that the Downtown Parking Task force and WSB & Associates is asking the City Council to consider adopting the downtown parking guide signing plan for downtown. The cost of the guide signs with the City logo is estimated to be approximately $350 for each initial and route guide sign, and approximately $450 for each site sign. The total estimated cost for the 14 signs is $5,400. A generic sign design without the City logo would cost approximately $2,100 for 14 signs. The cost for signing would come out of the street division budget and would require a budget amendment. Cncl. Sweeney explained that the budget cycle has been closed and suggested prioritizing the signs and wait until the next budget cycle to complete the signing. He suggested doing the parking lot signs now and the directional signs later. Sweeney/DuBois moved to direct staff to obtain and install five high quality signs identifying the parking lots at this time and two directional signs to the River City Centre, for a total of 7 signs. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/DuBois moved that staff find someone on the Council to assist staff in naming the parking lots. Motion carried unanimously. Judith S. Cox reported that terms on various Boards and Commissions will be expiring in February. After the holidays an advertisement will be placed in the newspaper notifying residents of the expiring terms and encouraging applications to be submitted by January 27th. The City Council will contact those individuals who are eligible and merit reappointment. Eligible appointees are those individuals who have not served more than three terms. Mayor Brekke announced that there will be terms expiring on various boards and commissions the end of February and that applications will be accepted from all interested citizens of Shakopee until January 27, 1999. Official Proceedings of the December 1, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -10- Mark McNeill reported that a 3% increase cost of living and benefits adjustment has been recommended for 1999. This would be for all full/regular part-time non-contract employees. Mark McNeill explained that the health insurance rates will increase by 8% for 1999, and it is proposed to expand this program in 1999 to a full "cafeteria plan", which should be viewed as a benefit by employees. With a full cafeteria plan the City will provide life and long term disability insurance as standard and the balance of the City's contribution would be applied to health insurance. Anything remaining would be available to the employee to purchase from other pre-tax benefits (i.e. dental, cancer insurance, additional life insurance, daycare expenses, etc.) Otherwise, the employee could continue to take it or any portion of it as unspent allowance and taxable cash back. For 1999, an increase of $20.00 per employee per month was budget. This will almost offset the 8% increase in insurance premiums for 1999. The advantage of the cafeteria plan to the City is that there is no City match on FICA withheld on qualifying medical, pre-tax, daycare, etc. Sweeney/DuBois moved to approve the concept of the cafeteria insurance plan, having the City be responsible for the cost of term life and long term disability insurance for employees, and contributing $382.16 per month towards health or other flexible spending accounts as may be provided. Motion carried unanimously. DuBois/Link offered Resolution No. 5034, A Resolution Adopting the 1999 Pay Schedule for the Officers and Non-Union Employees for the City of Shakopee, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Link moved to approve the application and grant a tobacco license to Abuisnaineh Taha Yunes, Tobacco Land, 1148 Vierling Drive East, for the period beginning December 7, 1998, and expiring December 31, 1999. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/DuBois moved to adjourn to December 7, 1998, at 7:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m. .a2c u,o J dith S. Cox ity Clerk Esther TenEyck Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ. REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA DECEMBER 15, 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; Bruce Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer; R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director; Gregg Voxland, Finance Director; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Paul Snook, Economic Development Coordinator; and Mark Thomson, City Attorney. The pledge of allegiance was recited. Sweeney/DuBois moved to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried unanimously. A liaison report was given by Cncl. Sweeney in which he reported that Well No. 7 has temporarily been shut down due to high nitrate levels. Well No. 10 is also being used to dilute Well No. 6. The Dean Lake substation property purchase agreement, and the bid for substation transformers have been approved. He also reported that Shakopee Public Utility's estimate of the cash contribution to the City's General Budget for 1999 is $100,000 higher than Mr. Voxland's estimate. The value of the maintenance and energy to street lights is an additional $52,000. There was no Mayor's report. The following item was added to the Consent Agenda: 15.A.3. Authorize Purchase of Civil Defense Sirens. The following items were removed from the Consent Agenda: 11. Approval of bills in the Amount of$1,229,452.83; 15.B.3. Community Center Track Striping; and 15.E.5. Closing TIF District No. 7 MEBCO -Res. No. 5037. DuBois/Sweeney moved to approve the Consent Agenda as modified. Motion carried unanimously. 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. Mark McNeill explained that the City previously received information that Union Pacific Railroad intends to increase train speeds through Shakopee form the current 10 miles per hour to 30 miles per hour. At that time, staff was directed to invite Union Pacific representatives to appear before the City Council to explain the need for the increased speed. Mike Payette, Asst. Vice President Union Pacific, Chicago Government Affairs Office, Chicago, approached the podium to explain the proposal to increase train speeds from 10 to 30 miles per hour. He said that there are many safety benefits without any safety risks, and that this would increase the quality of life for Shakopee residents. Official Proceedings of the December 15, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -2- Mr. Payette explained that the line from St. Paul to Iowa has been a low speed line. He explained that railroads are rated on speed by how they comply with Federal railroad regulation guidelines. Since upgrading the track to 49 miles per hour, he said it would create a problem to slow the train from 49 miles per hour to 10 miles per hour through Shakopee, and increase speed back up to 49 miles per hour. Mr. Payette said that their obligation is to carry freight, and interstate commerce and that they must do the best possible job for their customers. He said that Shakopee is the only area in their 335 line from St. Paul to Iowa with a 10 mile per hour limit, and that products moving by rail in interstate commerce would never arrive if each town along the route placed a speed restriction on the train. He said they serve the western two-thirds of the United States in providing a rail option for goods and services, and under the Federal regulations they are obligated to do so in the most economical and efficient manner. Union Pacific experienced some service problems last year, which have since been resolved. Mr. Payette stated that the lower speeds hurt their service and drove a lot of rail traffic to trucks. In response to concerns as to whether Union Pacific representatives are aware of a particular situation in Shakopee, in which the track runs down the middle of 2nd Avenue, Mr. Payette stated that they are aware of this situation. He said this is why they chose to raise the speed to 30 miles per hour rather than to 40 miles per hour. He said there will still be some difficulty in slowing to 30 miles per hour and going back up to 49 miles per hour. Mr. Payette listed many statistics in relation to crossing accidents. According to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), statistics show that more accidents occur at crossings where trains operate at slower speeds. Nearly 68% of all collisions at railroad street crossings occur when train speeds are less than 40 miles per hour. He said that in the few instances in Shakopee, where motorists were interviewed after a train-car accident, the motorists stated that the train was going too slow and taking too long. He said that motorists take greater risks when trains occupy the crossings longer . He said a benefit of higher speeds is that emergency vehicles can cross much quicker. In response to concerns about increased risk of derailment with a higher speed, Mr. Payette stated that FRA statistics prove that there are more train derailments at slower speeds, and that rock and roll action at slower speeds is more conducive to train derailments. For these reasons, he said it is better to be traveling 30 miles per hour down 2nd Avenue. Mr. Payette addressed complaints regarding train whistling, stating that the whistle is likely to be less at 30 miles per hour than at 10 miles per hour. He said a train traveling at 30 miles per hour would occupy a crossing almost four minutes less than one traveling at 10 miles per hour. He explained that by law the whistling must begin 1/4 mile from crossings with two longs, a short and two longs. He said there are a number of crossings, very close together in Shakopee, which requires continual whistling as they are much closer than 1/4 mile.. Official Proceedings of the December 15, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -3- Mr. Payette explained that when the line was first built through Shakopee, there was an Ordinance that granted land for the rail line and specifically reserved power to the City to regulate train speed. However, he said this agreement has been preempted by the Federal Safety Act. He said that Operation Lifesaver presentations will be available to the schools and to driver's education classes to increase awareness. A discussion ensued regarding statistics that compare train speeds at 10 miles per hour and 30 miles per hour. Mayor Brekke requested statistics specific to these speeds. He also asked what the impact of a derailment at 30 miles per hour compared to that of a derailment at 10 miles per hour. Mr. Payette responded by stating that the cars are generally not projected farther than the railroad's right-of-way, which is 50 feet. He said the impact at 30 miles per hour would be significantly more than at 10 miles per hour. However, he said the rock and roll action is greater at 10 miles per hour. Mayor Brekke also requested statistics based on train speeds of 30 miles per hour versus 10 miles per hour as they relate to pedestrian and bicycle safety. Cncl. Sweeney explained that a train traveling three times as fast will have a force nine times as great. He also stated that Mr. Payette neglected to mention that the number of trains traveling through Shakopee will be increased substantially per day. He said this is contradictory to his comments relating to the quality of life issues with less whistle time. Mr. Payette responded by stating that they may increase the number of trains by one or two, for economic reasons. Cncl. Sweeney suggested that Union Pacific's primary interest is related to stockholder return. Cncl. DuBois questioned what the Railroad was doing to make the crossings safer. Mr. Payette responded that the signals are being changed to meet the speeds, but no signal enhancements. Mr. Payette stated that there are situations where the signals will be changed to match train speeds to meet both State and Federal guidelines. However, he said Union Pacific doesn't see a need for increased safety because the risks are not that great with an increased train speed of 30 miles per hour. Mayor Brekke stated that it is the duty of the City Council to look out for the public safety and the residents as opposed to Union Pacific's financial statements and customers. Based on the statistics provided, he said he was not convinced that this would increase safety, and that it is not in the best interest of the community to increase train speeds. He said the City is prepared to look at every legal means to try to advance their position. Mr. Payette stated that Union Pacific feels that 30 miles per hour is a safe speed, and is also the speed at which the trains must go to provide service to their customers. He said they respectfully disagree with the City's viewpoint. Official Proceedings of the December 15, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -4- Cncl. Sweeney stated that the statistics provided do not take into account the number of trains traveling at various speeds. He said the number of miles trains travel at various speeds is necessary to show the amount of exposure at those speeds. He suggested that yards are typically where more children get hurt. Mr. Payette stated that the statistics he referred to were related to vehicle accidents. Cncl. Sweeney stated that this is not a normal train street setting with a 50 foot right-of-way. He said there is a 15 foot right-of-way requirement from the nearest rail, which is into the City's right-of-way for a public street. He asked why Union Pacific objects to fencing on the City's ownership to keep children from the crossing. A discussion ensued regarding safety issues in driving or parking on 2nd Avenue, with the track so close to the road and Union Pacific's objection to the City placing a fence on the edge of the City's ownership. Mr. Payette said he understood the proposal to be that they would install a fence on their portion of the right-of-way. However, he said the fence would be a constraining force for both parties for snow removal and stated that the railroad would not voluntarily install a fence. Mayor Brekke stated that the railroad could expect that the City of Shakopee is not going to accept this plan and asked Mr. Payette when the increase is expected to take place. Mr. Payette said the plan is to increase to 20 miles per hour January 1, 1999 and increase speed to 30 miles per hour by January 15, 1999. In response to a question as to the railroad's plan to inform the community of the increased speed, he said the railroad will notify the newspapers and Operation Lifesaver is being offered at the schools. When asked what they will do in conjunction with the City as far as signage, Mr. Payette stated that the FRA does not require the railroad to do anything. Cncl. DuBois inquired about safety measures before implementing increased speeds. She asked if this could be delayed until February or March to allow time to set something in place. Mr. Payette said if he could see a program or plan as to the timeline he could take this into consideration. Bob Rush, Union Pacific Engineer, approached the podium and explained that he has been an engineer for 25 years. He said Operation Lifesaver began in Idaho in 1972 due to a number of accidents at crossings. Through the efforts of Operation Lifesaver accidents have decreased by 35% in Idaho and 40% in Nebraska. This is now a nation wide program. He said that all of the public and parochial schools and principles in Shakopee have been contacted, and after the first of the year they will see 700 children, the bus drivers will be seen in January, driver's education classes will also be visited. He said there are also a number of tapes to be shown on cable. They also plan to speak to Rahr Malting. He said the railroad is willing to work with the City and the program is free. Official Proceedings of the December 15, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -5- Mayor Brekke/Sweeney moved to direct staff to investigate and pursue whatever legal means may be available to the City to maintain train speeds at current levels. Motion carried unanimously. A recess was taken for the purpose of conducting an Economic Development Authority meeting at 8:10 p.m. The meeting re-convened at 8:18 p.m. DuBois/Sweeney moved to approve the Minutes of August 27 and September 30, 1998. Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Cncl. Sweeney explained that included in the bill expenditure list is a check for $124,097 for costs to the Public Utility Commission for the acquisition of a substation which was not used by the Utility Commission. He said that the Council had previously agreed that the costs to the City for selling it and the costs to the Utility for acquiring it were to be subtracted from the net selling price, and that the profit was to be split between the Public Utility Commission and the City. Sweeney/Link moved to approve bills in the amount of$1,229.452.83, set forth by the Finance Director. Motion carried unanimously. A recess was taken at 8:20 p.m. The meeting re-convened at 8:30 p.m. Mayor Brekke opened the public hearing on the modifications of the Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Financing Plans for TIF District Nos. 1, 3, 7 and 9. Gregg Voxland explained that the modifications of the budget are based on updated numbers for revenues and expenditures based on current projections, and recommended approval of Resolution No. 5043. Mayor Brekke asked if there were any citizens present in the audience who wished to address the City Council on this issue. There was no response. Mayor Brekke closed the public hearing. DuBois/Sweeney offered Resolution No. 5043, A Resolution Approving Modification of Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing District Nos. 1, 3, 7 and 9 and a Modified Redevelopment Plan for the Minnesota River Valley Housing and Redevelopment Project No. 1, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Brekke opened the public hearing on the applications for a Minnesota currency exchange license from: 1)MoneyXchange, 2) Game Financial Corp., and 3)Excel Pawn. Official Proceedings of the December 15, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -6- Judith Cox explained that the applicants have applied to renew their licenses with State of Minnesota and that a public hearing is required by the local governing body. Mayor Brekke asked if there were any citizens present in the audience who wished to address the City Council on this issue. There was no response. Mayor Brekke closed the public hearing. Sweeney/Link offered Resolution No. 5042, A Resolution Approving the Application of DRM LLC of Shakopee dba/Excel Pawn for a Currency Exchange License at 450 West First Avenue, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Link/Amundson offered Resolution No. 5041, A Resolution Approving the Application of Game Financial Corporation for a Currency Exchange License at 1100 Canterbury Road, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. DuBois/Link offered Resolution No. 5040, A Resolution Approving the Application of Madison Financial Companies dba/ MoneyXchange for a Currency Exchange License at 1147 Canterbury Road, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Brekke opened the public hearing on the proposed vacation of an easement located in vacated Spencer Street lying north of First Avenue and west of Lot 1, Block 1, Original Shakopee City Plat. Michael Leek reported that the utilities and other agencies that might be affected by the vacation request were notified and no objection was received. The Planning Commission reviewed the request and recommended approval of the requested vacation. Mayor Brekke asked if there were any citizens present in the audience who wished to address the City Council on this issue. There was no response. Mayor Brekke closed the public hearing. Link/Amundson offered Resolution No. 5032, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee Vacating the Drainage and Utility Easement Located in Vacated Spencer Street, West of Lot 1, Block 1, Original Shakopee Plat, City of Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Brekke opened the public hearing on the 1999 tax levy and budget. Official Proceedings of the December 15, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -7- Gregg Voxland explained that Resolution No. 5035 finally adopts the tax levy for payable 1999, and reflects a general levy of $3,128,886 which was changed to reflect additional increases in Shakopee Public Utility Commission contributions. Sweeney/DuBois offered Resolution No. 5035, A Resolution Setting 1998 Tax Levy, Collectible in 1999, and moved its adoption. A discussion ensued in which Cncl. Sweeney stated that although this will result in a small number of changes on tax bills, it is important to note for the record, that the General Levy is reduced whenever possible. He said the extra $100,000 income estimate from SPUC is true and recommended approval with the $100,000 reduction in the levy. Mayor Brekke asked if there were any citizens present in the audience who wished to address the City Council on this issue. There was no response. Motion carried unanimously. DuBois/Link offered Resolution No. 5036, A Resolution Adopting the 1999 Budget, and moved its adoption. Mayor Brekke asked if there were any citizens present in the audience who wished to address the City Council on this item. There was no response. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Brekke closed the public hearing. DuBois/Sweeney offered Ordinance No. 535, Fourth Series, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending the Zoning Map Adopted in City Code Sec. 11.03 by Rezoning Land Generally Located South of US 169, East of Marschall Road, North of 17th Avenue Extended, and Immediately East of "Longmeadow Addition," from Agriculture (AG) Zone to Medium Density Residential (R-2) Zone, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Terry Link, Fire Chief, approached the podium and explained that the City Council recently approved a request for bids for the replacement of the current Hovercraft. Two bids were returned with Windmark the lower bidder at $45,000. However, neither bidder returned a check or bid bond in the amount of ten percent. Windmark did not understand that they were to provide a bid bond and when they checked into a performance bond they found that it would be to costly. Mr. Link explained that they have agreed not to require the deposit requested and will accept payment in full upon completion. Mr. McNeill explained that it this case, a letter of guarantee as opposed to the Performance Bond is a moot issue. Official Proceedings of the December 15, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -8- The 1998 Equipment Fund has $25,000 for a replacement Hovercraft and $40,000 for a mobile breathing air unit to replace the current unit. However, board members have voted not to continue with the Air Association so there is no need to replace this truck. The money for the new Airboat/Hovercraft would come from these budget items. Sweeney/Amundson moved to waive the bid irregularity caused by the non-submittal of a bid bond as required in the Airboat bid specifications. Motion carried unanimously. Link/DuBois moved to award a purchase order to Windmark, Inc., for a rescue Airboat, contingent upon the City Attorney drafting a satisfactory contract between the City of Shakopee and Windmark. Motion carried unanimously Sweeney/Link moved to direct staff to prepare the appropriate budget amendment for the transfer of funds for the rescue Airboat. Motion carried unanimously DuBois/Sweeney moved to authorize the Police Civil Service Commission to begin the selection process to fill Community Service Officer (CSO) positions within the Police Department. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) DuBois/Sweeney moved to authorize the appropriate City staff to purchase a Whelen Model WPS 2800-5 and a Whelen WPS 2800-9 Civil Defense warning siren from Front Line Fire & Rescue for $33,183.50 plus tax, shipping and installation. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) DuBois/Sweeney moved to authorize payment in the amount of $7,496.31 to the Minnesota Police Recruitment System, as its share of the settlement and attorney fees for the cases of Fields v. MPRS, etal, and Starks v. MPRS, etal. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) DuBois/Sweeney moved to authorize the appropriate City staff to enter into a two year contractual agreement with Shakopee Towing Inc. for towing, impounding and storage of motor vehicles. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) DuBois/Sweeney moved to approve the payment of$119,604.00 from the Park Reserve Fund to the Minnesota Department of Transportation for the acquisition of Parcel 49 which consists of 10.26 acres of land located on the west border of Tahpah park. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Michael Leek reported that a number of requests were made, asking the Council to reconsider its action approving the Heritage Development rezoning request. The property is located north of CR-16, east of Sarazin and west of Canterbury Park. He explained that an Ordinance is not effective until it has been published in the official City newspaper, and noted that Ordinance No. 532 has not been published yet. Official Proceedings of the December 15, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -9- In response to the question as to why all parties were not individually notified of the review by the City Council on November 17, 1998, Mr. Leek explained that it is City policy to send notices of public hearings by the Planning Commission to those parties within 350 feet. He explained that the staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission was drafted as a recommendation. The Planning Commission's action, when they reviewed it was a motion to recommend to the City Council. The action by the Planning Commission was not in the nature of a final approval. As a practice individual notices are not sent to property owners when a recommendation goes to the City Council. Three alternative actions were provided and Michael Leek recommended that if this issue is tabled, that those people who were originally notified of the public hearing be notified when the rezoning is considered again by the City Council. Cncl. DuBois stated that she would be abstaining from any discussion and voting in the matter. Clifford Stafford, 2328 Eagle Creek Blvd., approached the podium to offer a petition signed by 168 residents of Shakopee. He said the petition asks that the Council consider this so that the area is zoned in a way that the residents would like it to be. He said that the issue is limited in scope and promises to threaten other locations in the city. He said the Developer of the Heritage Development presented his proposal at an informational meeting. Prior to that meeting the nearby residents felt that the vacant property would be developed in a similar fashion as had the properties adjacent to it. He said they were all surprised to find drawings of apartment buildings at the meeting. The residents then questioned the developer about the proposal and cited concerns about such a project. Mr. Bisch told them that the cost of constructing apartments would be less than that of most single family homes due to the bedrock situation. He said the residents did leave that meeting not sympathetic to the developer's proposal. Many of the residents were present to express their opinions and concerns at the Planning Commission meeting on November 5th. He said they clearly told the Planning Commission that they were not opposed to single family homes, townhomes or light industry. However, they did not feel that two or three story apartment buildings was acceptable. After much discussion, he said the Planning Commission recommended rezoning the property to R2 as opposed to the developer's request for a zoning of R3. Mr. Stafford stated that Mr. Bisch misrepresented the residents when he indicated that they would not be happy with anything other than single family homes. He commented on the Council's comments or lack of comments during the discussion period, and Cncl. DuBois' position for the purpose of the vote at that meeting. He related this to spot zoning and stated that such an action will lead to requests and demands by other developers to rezone other properties in the city. He asked the Council to rectify what he referred to as an error in judgment and to take action which would result in the removal of Ordinance No. 532, and results in a rezoning of the property of R2 only. Official Proceedings of the December 15, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -10- With regards to Councilor DuBois' abstaining from voting on the rezoning, Jim Thomson, City Attorney, explained that once a Councilmember has a conflict of interest they are no longer deemed a member of the Council. He said a conflict of interest has the same effect as a vacancy because that Councilmember cannot participate in the discussion or vote in a matter. John Dellwo, 2304 Eagle Creek Blvd., approached the podium and stated that he is concerned about the Council's decision to rezone the property. He said he has no objections to the land being sold or developed, but asked that the residents be heard. He said he believes that his property value will decrease because of the rezoning. John Magnus, 2084 Meridian Ct., approached the podium and said he was not aware of either of the meetings on November 5th or the 17th. He said when he purchased the property he was told that the property behind him was zoned for townhomes, condominiums and single family homes. He said he is opposed to the two and three story buildings as he would see nothing but walls. He asked for more discussion before considering rezoning the property to R3. Van Sindelar, 2256 Eagle Creek Blvd., approached the podium and stated that after speaking to Councilmembers it is his understanding that the reason for an R3 zone is that there is too much rock and there is a high assessment on the property. He acknowledged that he also paid a high assessment. He said Mrs. Parrot, the land owner, had told him the land was sold contingent on it being zoned R3. He also mentioned Cncl. DuBois' abstention on this issue and said that there is a conflict of interest and that she should be off the Council or not involved in this kind of a deal. Mayor Brekke stated that Cncl. DuBois' abstention was not germane to this issue and that no further discussion regarding any inappropriate behavior on the part of Cncl. DuBois would be permitted. Mr. Sindelar asked that the Council reconsider their decision to zone the property R3. Steve Sinell, 1837 Shakopee Avenue East, approached the podium and said he would prefer that the property be zoned R2, as recommended by the Planning Commission. He said issues such as this are likely to come to light in the future and it would be best if the Council and the Planning Commission were on the same page. He said the residents will believe that in order to protect their interests they will have to go to every Planning Commission meeting and Council meeting. He asked that the Council reconsider their decision. Bill Scheurer, 2078 Eagle Creek Blvd., approached the podium and said looking at 312 units, of which most have two cars, there are approximately 600 cars in and out twice a day. He said they have had enough assessments and does not want to see more traffic. Gary Schmitt, 2206 Eagle Creek Blvd., approached the podium and asked that the Council reconsider their rezoning. Official Proceedings of the December 15, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -11- Julia Holiday, 1957 Shakopee Avenue East, approached the podium and said they had no idea when they moved into their home that a 100 plus, multiple unit apartment building would be built there. She said they looked into this and the property was not zoned for that. She said the traffic and noise affects their quality of life, and that the new school will be maxed out by the number of children moving into the apartment complex. She also pointed out safety issues with the junior high students cutting across Eagle Creek Boulevard and cutting across private property to get to school. She said she is really opposed and that it is not only the people on Eagle Creek Boulevard that are affected, but also those in adjoining neighborhoods. Blanch Dollie, 1861 Shakopee Avenue East, approached the podium and asked if a study has been conducted for a potential traffic problem, which the residents feel will be created. She said she would like to see more evidence to support the rezoning to R3. Shirley Sindelar, 2256 Eagle Creek Boulevard, approached the podium and explained that when installing a new sewer system she could not get a variance to go less than one foot deeper than required; that there were originally going to be 312 units which was later stated to be up to 360 units with no limitation; and the access road to Canterbury road which was not to be open to traffic is open. She suggested that the City Clerk write a letter to the Planning Commission informing them that they are being removed because the Council does not listen to them. Kathy Stafford, 2328 Eagle Creek Boulevard., approached the podium to express her opinions on Mr. Bischs' previous statements. To his statement that the City staff recommends the R3 zone, she said this was fine if the City staff recommends it. However, she asked that they also listen to the residents and understand that this will deeply affect their quality of life. The fact that the properties to the east and west are zoned industrial is of no importance. She asked why more R3 zoned properties are needed, if the properties on the same side of Eagle Creek as well as other adjacent properties are zoned R3. She addressed the Comprehensive Plan and stated that two Councilmembers felt that there was already too much R2 zoning in the area. In response to the statement that the Metropolitan Council supports higher density projects whenever possible, she said a higher density of R2 is not necessary. She said the residents do not have a problem in keeping the area zoned light industry, but that an R3 zone is not compatible with other construction in the area. Without any limitation on the number of units to be built, she asked how they could be assured that there won't be 360 units. She asked that the Council reconsider its decision. Cncl. Link explained that he had missed the Planning Commission meeting in which this development was discussed, and when this issue came to the City Council there was no opposition. He said he arrived at his decision, based on the Comprehensive Plan which guides the property for R3 zoning. He asked if the developer should be denied this. He also explained that land costs in Shakopee are not cheap, and everyone knows that the assessments and bedrock are high. These costs, on top of the developer's costs add up. He asked whether Mrs. Parrot should Official Proceedings of the December 15, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -12- be denied the ability to sell her property. He said he did not feel it would be feasible for a developer to continue with the project if it is zoned R2 or Rl. John Dellwo, approached the podium again and asked why a common ground could not be reached. He said he would rather have an industry there than a two or three story apartment building. He said they are not denying Mrs. Parrot the opportunity to sell her property. He asked why they need to go from light industrial with no homes, to multiple dwelling and three story buildings. Mayor Brekke explained that the Comprehensive Plan guides the property for R2, R3 and supersedes the zoning from a planning perspective. Bruce Loney reported that County Road 16 is a 4-lane Scott County highway with a capacity of 15,000 cars a day and was taken into account when the highway was designed. He said a certain amount of density and car traffic was also taken into account for this property. With the Seagate site a traffic analysis and an EAW was conducted. 12th Avenue has been upgraded, and staff will be meeting this week with the County to discuss traffic improvements on County Road 83. He said there is only one more road connection planned from Hauer Trail through this property. He said there will be adequate traffic capacity to handle the traffic. Michael Leek stated that whether the property is zoned I1, R1, R2, or R3 the height limitation is 35 feet for all these zones. Link/Sweeney moved to table discussion until all involved parties can meet. Mr. Bisch, the developer, was not able to attend the meeting. Motion carried 3-1 with Mayor Brekke opposed. Staff will be meeting with the developer and three residents (Mr. Stafford, Mr. Sindelar, and Mr. Dellwo volunteered) to try and work out a compromise. Michael Leek reported that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals voted 7-0 to deny a 6.65 foot variance request of Genuine Parts Company (NAPA) to the required 20 foot side-yard setback in a Highway Business (B-1) Zone, with findings and conditions as proposed by staff. Bob Bean, Ulteig Engineers, the applicant's consultants for this proposal has filed an appeal.. Councilor Link advised that he would be abstaining from discussion and voting on this matter and left the council chambers. Rich Revering, Ulteig Engineers, approached the podium and presented a variance request narrative, offering alternative findings for considerations for review. He said the question hinges on the meaning of "reasonable use." Mr. Revering explained that NAPA has been seeking a suitable alternative site in Shakopee since 1995 and this is the only site found which meets their Official Proceedings of the December 15, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -13- needs in terms of accessibility, size and location. This particular layout also maximizes convenience to customers. He offered alternative findings for Council's consideration. Criterion l.A. states that the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. Mr. Revering stated that a reasonable use is one that allows them to operate competitively and in harmony with neighboring properties while providing desired services and products to the community. He said the proposed layout allows them to use the property reasonably; alternative layouts considered do not. He said that this layout is very important and is the result of much more thought and attention than merely providing square footage. The parking and entrance layout is equally important as the store must be easily visible • from traffic routes. Criterion 1.B. states that the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property. Mr. Revering stated that the property is unique in terms of its location and availability and is relatively narrow. Criterion 1.C. states that the circumstances cannot be created by the landowner. Mr. Revering said that NAPA has no control over the shape of available properties that meet their needs and that the variance is a tool for allowing the City to make desirable projects workable so that the project will cause no significant ill effect to the City. Criterion 1.D. states that the variance cannot alter the essential character of the locality. Mr. Revering explained that all adjacent landowners were given notice of the hearing and no opposition to the variance was voiced at the public hearing held by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Criterion 1.E. states that the economic consideration does not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Mr. Revering said that the problems do extend beyond economic consideration. He said it is a matter of function and the required layout that NAPA feels is necessary in order to compete in this location. Criterion 2. states that the requested variance will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Chapter. Mr. Revering stated that this project will be benefit to the community and that the variance will not be a detriment to the locality or the City. He said the average set back from the property lines will be double the minimum required and that the variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of City development policies. Criterion 3. relates to use variances and Mr. Revering explained that a use variance is not being requested. Criterion 4. relates to conditions imposed by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals to insure compliance to protect the adjacent properties. Mr. Revering stated that this criterion is not Official Proceedings of the December 15, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -14- readily applicable. Mr. Revering stated that NAPA does not support eliminating the requested access onto Marschall Road and asked that they be allowed to review and respond to any other conditions that might be considered prior to their attachment to the variance. Criterion 5. is not applicable to this request. A discussion ensued in which the layout of the store was discussed. John Harding, Genuine Parts Company, approached the podium and stated that there are a number of corporate and independently owned NAPA stores throughout the United States with many different designs. He explained that over the past 5-10 years NAPA has developed new marketing concepts for their stores. He said the parts store concept has a unique layout where certain things are designed to fit in certain areas of the store. To change the configuration destroys the marketing concept. In order to make the parts store concept economically feasible NAPA has developed two different sizes. They are proposing to build the smaller of the two layouts in Shakopee. Mr. Harding said they requested the 6.65 foot variance because the lot is no narrow. He said this is a matter of usability and visibility as it has been proven that retail traffic will only come into a location if its visible and accessible. Unfortunately, he said this is a business that thrives during inclement weather conditions which increases walk-in retail traffic. He said those people are not prone to wanting to walk from the back side of the building in those conditions. Mr. Harding explained that there are no other property owners who objected to the variance and said that they have had a good relationship with other business in the area. They are attempting to contribute to the core development area rather than move out of town. He said that by adding to the tax base and employee local residents they are contributing to the economy. A discussion ensued regarding the proposed access. Cncl. Sweeney explained that access issues to orphan parcels was discussed with the County Board. He said that the County Board then directed the County Highway Department to allow an additional access to this particular area. However, he said even though the County Board has directed the City to have two accesses, the City does not want to do this. He said there are other orphan parcels that will require access from County Highways and will not meet their standards. A discussion ensued regarding parking space and drive lane requirements. Mr. Harding stated that NAPA could reduce its variance request to 2.65 feet if 18 foot deep parking stalls were permitted. Amundson/DuBois moved to deny the Appeal request upholding the Board of Adjustment and Appeals decision on the variance request of NAPA Stores for a 6.65 side yard setback in the Highway Business (B-1) zone for property located on Marschall Road south of Snyder Drug . Official Proceedings of the, December 15, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -15- Cncl. Sweeney recommended tabling discussion and asked Mr. Harding to present the information provided to corporate headquarters to see if they could come up with different site layouts to handle this situation. Mr. Harding agreed to table discussion. Sweeney/DuBois moved to table discussion on the NAPA appeal to allow Mr. Harding time to present the information to NAPA's corporate headquarters for additional information about different site layouts and specifically outline the problems that they might create. Motion carried unanimously. A recess was taken at 10:28 p.m. The meeting re-convened at 10:39 p.m. Cncl.Link returned to his seat at the Council table. Michael Leek explained that the Planning Commission recently completed its review of the draft subdivision ordinance and related design criteria. Because of the length of the proposed ordinance, and the possible complexity of the items to be discussed, he requested a work session and provided possible dates. Sweeney/DuBois moved to set Monday, January 11, 1999, at 4:00 p.m. for a workshop session on the proposed subdivision ordinance and design criteria. Motion carried unanimously. Mark McQuillan, Parks and Recreation Director, approached the podium and explained that he had chronologically outlined the events surrounding the community sign project in his memo. He said Mark Menke has requested to appear before the City Council to discuss a bill he submitted to the City for design services of the community center sign and deferred any questions to Mr. Menke. Mark Menke approached the podium and explained that he had prepared a number of sketches and blueprints which were presented in October which resulted in a motion authorizing the construction of the sign. The funding was up in the air. Additional drawings were wanted. He drew them up with more detail and that was not enough. He was asked to come up with two or three more. He said he has been paying the architect for his time to this point and that his invoice of$2,300 includes time and expenses. He asked Council to make a decision. He said that it is okay to keep making designs, but who is paying for the architect. He said that he can not pursue with more designs until he is paid. Cncl. Link discussed the line items in Mr. Menke's invoice. Cncl. Sweeney stated that as directed by staff, Mr. Menke acted in good faith. Sweeney/DuBois moved to authorize payment to Mr. Menke in the amount of $2,300 as presented. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Brekke left the meeting at 11:03 p.m. and passed the gavel to Acting Mayor DuBois. Official Proceedings of the December 15, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -16- Mark McQuillan gave a progress report on painting directional lanes on the Community Center walking/running track. He explained that Anderson Ladd had installed the surface but the estimate from Tennis West to stripe the walking track was much lower at $850.00. Sweeney/Amundson moved to direct staff to hire Tennis West to stripe the walking track at the Community Center at a cost not to exceed $850.00. Motion carried unanimously. DuBois/Sweeney offered Ordinance No. 534, Fourth Series, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending Ordinance No. 493, Fourth Series, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) DuBois/Sweeney offered Resolution No. 5044, A Resolution Setting the Public Hearing Date to Consider the Vacation of Right-of-way within Dominion Hills, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Bruce Loney reported that upon an inspection of the River District Trunk Sewer, a problem was discovered at two locations due to the riverbank erosion near the old T.H. 169 bridge. The riverbank erosion has exposed the sewer pipe and is undermining the foundation of the pipe and a sanitary sewer pipe relocation is recommended as soon as possible to protect the integrity of the sanitary sewer system from river inflow and to pursue a second project for riverbank stabilization in this area. The feasibility report has been completed and the requested action orders the preparation of plans and specifications for an improvement project. Sweeney/Amundson offered Resolution No. 5039, A Resolution Receiving a Report Ordering an Improvement and Preparation of Plans & Specifications for the River District Trunk Sewer Reconstruction Project No. 1999-1, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Link offered Resolution No. 5045, A Resolution Requesting U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to Conduct Studies to Determine the Feasibility of Developing a Streambank Protection Project for the River District Trunk Sanitary Sewer from Fuller Street to Spencer Street along the South Bank of the Minnesota River. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Link moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute an extension agreement with WSB & Associates, Inc., to assist staff as necessary in providing design engineering services as necessary for the River District Trunk Sewer Line reconstruction. Motion carried unanimously. DuBois/Sweeney moved to authorize the purchase of the ROAD BOSS from LM PRODUCTS, INC., at a cost of$2,637.30 to be expended from the Street Capital Equipment Budget. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Official Proceedings of the December 15, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -17- DuBois/Sweeney moved to authorize the hiring of Scott Smith for the position of Engineering Technician IV starting at Step 4 of the Non-Union 1999 Pay Plan ($41,486.00/Yr.) effective January 4, 1999, subject to the successful completion of a pre-employment physical and background check. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) DuBois/Sweeney moved to approve the applications and grant on sale and Sunday on sale intoxicating liquor licenses to Heyde Hospitality, Inc., 1244 Canterbury Road, upon the surrender of the existing liquor licenses. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) DuBois/Sweeney offered Resolution No. 5038, A Resolution Setting Fees for City Licenses, Permits, Services and Documents, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) DuBois/Sweeney moved to affirm the renewal of the workers compensation with the League of Cities Insurance Trust for a deposit premium of $68,320. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) DuBois/Sweeney offered Resolution No. 5031, A Resolution Amending Resolution 4803 Adopting the 1998 Budget, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Link offered Resolution No. 5037, Resolution Decertifying Tax Increment Financing District No. 7, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. DuBois/Sweeney moved to authorize the purchase of two full size police squads from Superior Ford in the amount of$44,652 in accordance with the Hennepin County Cooperative contract. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Agenda item 15.E.7. regarding the use of TIF/Sanitary Sewer Funds for the Chaska interceptor sewer was deferred to the next meeting. DuBois/Sweeney moved to authorize the release of the letter of credit for the public improvements for Riverview Estates 2nd Addition, upon receipt of the engineering fees. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Link/Sweeney moved to adjourn to January 5, 1999. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. ula. j. 07) Ju ith S. Cox, City Clerk Esther TenEyck, Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ. REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JANUARY 25, 1999 Mayor Brekke called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. with Councilmembers Deb Amundson, Jane DuBois, Cletus Link and Bob Sweeney present. Those absent: None. Also present were Mark McNeill, City Administrator; R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director and Judith S. Cox, City Clerk. Also present were the following members of the Planning Commission: Terry Joos, William Mars, Gary Morke, David Nummer and Michael Willard. Sweeney/DuBois moved to approve the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. Bob Sweeney stated that he was on a study committee formed by the Metropolitan Airport Commission ("MAC") regarding possible expansion of facilities at the Flying Cloud Airport. Mr. Sweeney noted that the majority of the seats on the committee appear to have pro-airport interests. He stated that the MAC wants to expand the Flying Cloud Airport runway to 5,000 feet which will increase the noise substantially. Mr. Sweeney suggested that the City, as a suburb of Eden Prairie, send a letter supporting Eden Prairie's position regarding plans to expand the Flying Cloud Airport runway. Sweeney/DuBois moved to direct staff to prepare a letter for the Mayor's signature stating the City of Shakopee's support for Eden Prairie's position on the Flying Cloud Airport expansion proposal. Motion carried unanimously. The Council entered the Work Session. Mayor Brekke indicated that the Council's goal was to have more meetings with the Planning Commission to discuss development issues. Mayor Brekke thanked the Planning Commission for its hard work. R. Michael Leek approached the podium. Mr. Leek stated that there were 45% more building permits for dwelling units within the City in 1998 than there were in 1997. Mr. Leek stated that the bulk of the units were townhouse and multiple family dwellings. Mr. Leek highlighted moratorium/interim ordinances and provided an example of a development moratorium which was adopted by the City of Lakeville in 1991. Mr. Leek also provided a listing of variances and conditional use permits approved during the past year. Mayor Brekke questioned how much of a supply the City had for single family homes and Mr. Leek replied that the City had approximately a one-year supply. Bob Sweeney stated that he was aware that Lakeville adopted a moratorium and almost waited until it was too late and thought the City should look at the possibility of a moratorium at this time. Official Proceedings of the January 25, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -2- He suggested looking at all options including density, setbacks, etc. William Mars stated he was concerned about adopting a moratorium on residential building. Mr. Mars stated that a city should guide a developer rather than a developer guiding the city. He noted that the Comprehensive Plan is constantly challenged. Mr. Mars stated that if the supply is cut off, it will do something to the demand and also questioned what would happen when the moratorium was over. Gary Morke stated he was unsure of a moratorium at this time. He noted his frustration with not seeming to be on the same page as the Council. Mr. Morke stated that he finds himself thinking he understands an ordinance and makes recommendations accordingly, however, the Council overturns the Planning Commission's recommendation leaving him confused. Terry Joos stated that he is not in favor of a moratorium. Mr. Joos noted that land prices are skyrocketing. He noted the lack of MUSA was escalating the land prices and the City needs to move forward. Mr. Joos stated that he did not want the City to end up being an elitist community. He noted that Burnsville had a moratorium a few years ago, but the moratorium was put only on new developments thereby requiring all existing developments to be built out. Cletus Link stated that he had received feedback from numerous people who were concerned about the development in Shakopee and who were also not happy with the quality of the development. Mr. Link stated he thought that development was ahead of planning. Mr. Link stated he would personally like to see a moratorium. He also suggested that every parcel in town be looked at to see what is developable and what is not. Mr. Link stated the City needs to look at the big picture and also needed to ask the Native Americans what their plans were. Mr. Joos stated that some of the developers go above and beyond the City's standards, however, some of the developers just adhere to the minimum standards. Deb Amundson stated that she was open to listening to all sides. Ms. Amundson stated she was aware of some frustration by the Planning Commission. She noted that the City was trying to be flexible on some of the issues and that this was a learning experience for both bodies. Mayor Brekke stated that he had not formulated an opinion regarding a moratorium at this time. He stated that if the City does adopt a moratorium, it needs to outline very specific objectives and goals. Bob Sweeney stated that with a year's supply of lots, the City is not facing a crisis period. He suggested looking at lot sizes and all other options. Official Proceedings January 25, 1999 Page -3- Cit Shakopeey Council Jane DuBois stated that a moratorium would create an artificial demand. Ms. DuBois did not think that developments were as much a problem as the developers. She also suggested looking at lot sizes and noted that Shakopee has very small lots compared to other cities. Ms. DuBois stated that the entry level home in Shakopee is now selling for about $125,000. David Nummer stated he would probably support a moratorium because the City needs to get its rules in line. He noted that Shakopee is a very developable area. Mr. Nummer also noted that the City codes are minimums and when a developer adheres to the minimums, the City needs to accept that even though 'some developers go above and beyond the minimums. He suggested setting up design standards with a mix of homes, commercial property, etc. Michael Willard strongly encouraged residents to get involved with the City's planning. He stated that he often finds developers adhering to the minimum standards and that in 20 to 30 years, the City will not be happy with the minimum standards it set. Mr. Willard suggested that goals need to be set. He also stated that if a moratorium would cause a higher demand, then there would be twice the demand when the moratorium was lifted. Gary Morke stated that he hears many times from residents who state they were told what the plans were for neighboring lands and then the plans change to add apartments, etc. Jane DuBois stated that good planning is having a mix of development and believes that is what the Comp. Plan is showing. Cletus Link reiterated his suggestion of looking at every parcel. Terry Joos stated that current housing is being built into what use to be designated as the agricultural/rural areas. Mr. Joos noted that the townships are going to have the same problem as the City. He also stated that developers change their plans after the fact. Mr. Joos suggested that the developers need to be held to the agreements that were put in place. He noted that the developer will adapt to the City's ordinances because it wants to be in Shakopee. William Mars stated that he tries to look at what the developer wants vs. what the City wants. He suggested the minimum standards be raised. Ms. DuBois stated that she was previously on the Planning Commission and did not find it upsetting when the Council overturned a recommendation. She noted that the City has changed which requires changes in other areas. David Nummer stated that he works for the City of Plymouth which enacted a moratorium that Staff may want to look at. Terry Joos asked how a moratorium would be implemented. R. Michael Leek stated that if an application for platting activity is already on file at the time the moratorium takes effect, it would be allowed to proceed. Mr. Mars stated that he views the Comp. Plan as a guide and if a moratorium would be adopted, the City would be bound. Bob Sweeney stated that the City was used to dealing with local developers who had pride in their developments, however, that is no longer the case. Official Proceedings of the January 25, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -4- Ms. DuBois noted that Savage experienced a lot of growth and did not seem to have a problem. Mark McNeill stated that the Savage did go through the same cycle and had the same concerns. Mr. Joos stated that he wanted his children to grow up in Shakopee and noted that if the City has a great industrial park, it needs to have affordable housing. Mayor Brekke stated that he has a philosophical problem with 22 acre lots due to agricultural growth, etc. Mr. Leek stated that the Met Council did like the City's 1996 single family lot ordinance. He noted that the key issue is that the rural area is starting to be developed. Mr. Leek also noted that the Comp. Plan is not a zoning ordinance. Mayor Brekke suggested that the Planning Commission and City Council each take 15 minutes at their next meeting to brainstorm about goals and expectations of a moratorium. Bob Sweeney suggested that a Work Session may be better since it would allow more time. Mayor Brekke suggested the Planning Commission meet first and pass on their recommendations to the Council. Cletus Link suggested both bodies meet together to discuss the matter. It was decided that a Work Session will be held two hours lfore the next Planning Commission meeting scheduled for February 4 . Mayor Brekke stated that the Council shout d have the moratorium matter as. an agenda item for the February 16 meeting. Mr. Link questioned whether the school district should be invited due to the impact a moratorium could have. Mr. Sweeney suggested that too many voices could present a problem. Mayor Brekke moved the discussion to ordinance criteria and stated that both bodies look at criteria different. Mayor Brekke stated that while the Planning Commission goes through each criteria and if all criteria are not met, then it has to deny the request, the Council looks more at a request as something that can be lived with. Bob Sweeney noted that there is an appeal process. Terry Joos stated that the criteria were developed to make a decision based on facts with reasonable use being the key. He stated he would like to know why decisions are overturned other than the Council wanted to overturn the decision. William Mars stated that he respects the appeals process and tries to apply the code when making a decision. He noted that the Planning Commission was an apolitical body while the Council was a political body. Mr. Mars stated that both bodies need to have proper vision when looking at reasonable use. Cletus Link stated that he thought the Planning Commission lacked history of the site in many of its decisions. He stated that variances are needed because land use changes. Official Proceedings of the January 25, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -5- David Nummer suggested that developers look at other ways to resolve the problems. He stated he did not see the same rules being applied at both the City Council and Planning Commission levels. Jane DuBois stated that she believed the matter was that of interpretation which does not mean that one body is right and one is wrong. Bob Sweeney stated that Michael Leeks presents a capsulized version to the City Council of how the Planning Commission arrived at its decisions, when there is an appeal. He agreed that there were some political issues present at the Council level that are not present at the Planning Commission level. Terry Joos stated that the Planning Commission needs to get the Council's rationale. Gary Morke stated that the Planning Commission does not have the luxury of looking at the history and suggested that requests go directly to the Council. Mayor Brekke asked Mr. Leek if the Council usually goes over the Planning Commission's specific findings and Mr. Leek replied that the Council usually does not but has a general discussion and directs Staff to draft findings. Michael Willard stated that the meeting was helpful and he would use it to formulate his goals and ideas. David Nummer stated he believes the situation at present is set up for someone to be upset because of controversial issues. Mr. Nummer stated that the track record shows that many developers get turned down at the Planning Commission level and voiced his concern that developers will begin going straight to the Council and bypass the Planning Commission. Jane DuBois directed a question regarding the Cub Foods sign to Mr. Mars asking if it was that upsetting to him to have that big of a sign and noted that times change. Mayor Brekke stated that he appreciated everyone's opinions even though everyone did not agree. Deb Amundson voiced her appreciation of the meeting and stated that everyone is trying to do their job. She noted this is a good opportunity to shape the community for the next 20-30 years. Cletus Link stated he also appreciated the meeting and thought the air needed to be cleared. He stated that he believed the variance problems were isolated to older areas. Official Proceedings of the January 25, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -6- Terry Joos requested that should the Council take additional testimony from a developer, that that information be returned to the Planning Commission for further study and discussion. He also suggested changing the criteria to allow more flexibility. He thanked the Council for their time. Gary Morke stated he also appreciated the meeting and would like to get more feedback from the Council, when approving appeals. William Mars answered Ms. DuBois' question by stating that he did not want to see a community of signs and did not envision that the highway would have been developed as it has been. He stated that developers can be told no and will come back with other options. Mr. Mars stated that the vision of the community is important. Mayor Brekke adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, VtkoU ith S. C x ty Clerk Janet Vogel Freeman Recording Secretary CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Becky Kelso Resolution of Appreciation DATE: February 11, 1999 At its meeting of February 16th,the Council will be asked to consider a resolution of appreciation for Becky Kelso,who represented Shakopee in the State Legislature for 12 years. A suggested resolution of appreciation is attached;however,these words cannot begin to summarize the positive impact that Ms. Kelso had on Shakopee during that time. ACTION REQUIRED: The Council should,by motion, adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR BECKY KELSO, RECOGNIZING TWELVE YEARS OF SERVICE TO SHAKOPEE IN THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:tw RESOLUTION NO. 5061 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR BECKY KELSO,RECOGNIZING TWELVE YEARS OF SERVICE TO SHAKOPEE IN THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE WHEREAS,Becky Kelso served the residents of Shakopee and the surrounding area in the Minnesota House of Representatives for twelve years; and WHEREAS, during that time Becky Kelso worked tirelessly for her constituents and the people of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, amongst her many lasting contributions for the people of Shakopee are such things as approval and funding for major transportation projects as the Shakopee Downtown Mini By-pass,the Bloomington Ferry Bridge replacement, and the U.S. 169 By-pass; none of which would have been possible without her ongoing and consistent support; and WHEREAS,the Mayor and City Council of Shakopee, on behalf of the residents, do gratefully acknowledge the hard work and selflessness demonstrated by Becky Kelso during her years of service to our community. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and City Council in and for the City of Shakopee,Minnesota,that they convey to Becky Kelso their deep appreciation for the work that she has done for Shakopee as a diplomat, an advocate, and as a public servant; and FURTHER,that Becky Kelso be extended their best wishes for a happy and productive future. Adopted in adjourned regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota,held this 16th day of February, 1999. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk V CITY OF SHAKOPEE r Memorandum CONSENT TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: City Bill List DATE: February 11, 1999 Introduction and Background Attached are print outs showing the division budget status for 1998 and 1999 based on data entered as of 02/11/99 . 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 $3,359.50 . Action Requested Move to approve the bills in the amount of $498,188 .53 . 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 23,406 177,206 79 13 CITY CLERK 182,430 17,503 171,340 94 15 FINANCE 326,090 30,915 308,030 94 16 LEGAL COUNSEL 263,500 20,072 244,918 93 17 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 512,700 78,186 516,818 101 18 GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS 148,390 17,466 111,911 75 31 POLICE 1,812,370 175,761 1,707,335 94 32 FIRE 486,860 53,518 453,222 93 33 INSPECTION-BLDG-PLMBG-HTG 261,400 37,482 261,760 100 41 ENGINEERING 417,790 51,445 412,498 99 42 STREET MAINTENANCE 1,213,580 80,105 958,783 79 44 SHOP 125,890 15,115 111,709 89 46 PARK MAINTENANCE 430,960 38,608 392,141 91 91 UNALLOCATED 1,968,180 39,248 414,074 21 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 6,709,089 682,042 6,309,267 72 17 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 485,570 59,804 406,997 84 TOTAL TRANSIT 485,570 59,804 406,997 84 mom 19 EDA 156,600 51,039 128,582 82 TOTAL EDA 156,600 51,039 128,582 82 CITY OF SHAKOPEE EXPENSES BY DEPARTMENT 02/11/99 CURRENT YEAR ANNUAL MONTH TO PERCENT DEPT DEPT NAME BUDGET ACTUAL DATE EXPENDED 11 MAYOR & COUNCIL 74,080 2,306 10,531 14 12 CITY ADMINISTRATOR 219,200 9,849 18,072 8 13 CITY CLERK 201,220 10,238 17,611 9 15 FINANCE 348,770 13,704 25,514 7 16 LEGAL COUNSEL 269,000 8,063 44,078 16 17 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 751,720 12,764 28,846 4 18 GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS 232,230 3,869 13,258 6 31 POLICE 1,930,119 62,647 159,521 8 32 FIRE 618,420 6,871 39,879 6 33 INSPECTION-BLDG-PLMBGHTC 326,710 10,433 23,786 7 41 ENGINEERING 507,620 17,868 37,332 7 42 STREET MAINTENANCE 827,730 22,809 67,507 8 II 44 SHOP 145,330 6,463 11,295 8 46 PARK MAINTENANCE 487,090 10,074 26,010 5 91 UNALLOCATED 594,550 -90 16,419 3 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 7,533,789 197,869 539,658 7 17 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 500,630 165 8,048 2 TOTAL TRANSIT 500,630 165 8,048 2 19 EDA 403,170 4,517 7,006 2 TOTAL EDA 403,170 4,517 7,006 2 m ' rn 0 a Q a s aaa a s as as 4444444444044444444444444444a MN a s H H H H H H H H H H H HHHHHHHHHHHHHH H HH H M W W 0M Mi 0 Z 000 mm m mmmmmmmmmmmmmm U m W MMM mmmmmmmmmmmmmm . . . . . . . . . . . . . H H H W w t0 N W W M V' in d'M O m co r-IHH m 00 mm M WU) N N. NN Mtn N fid' U) w U) HHH W U) H H U1 U1 CJ1 Ct1 00 W CQ al J>a W Qa al CG C7 J>a 011 N d�to to to 0 M WWW V 0 WW 00 WWWWWWWWWWWWWW 0 00 V V 0 0 dII4)c0 co N MO HH NNNNNNNNNNNNNW M 00 W W M M W W CO N W W M WW M M M M M M M M M M M M M W W MM N N P M M HHH H H MN HH HHHHHHHHHHHHHH H MM H r-1 W d' dV NNN N N d'M NN VVVVVVVVVVVVVN N 14,0 N N OW 1 i III I i II I I 1111111111 � 1II i I I U rl HNNN N N HO NN OOOOOri0000000N N HHN N U .-I r4 H ri HH r'1 ri ri e-f N M U)N W m r-I M r-I N V'N U)r-I H HH Hri 0 0 000 O O O m O O 00000000000000 O O O O 0 H H 0 m HI trJ) 0 A m U U Vw H Z 0 a m co owZZ E W W W E a ClWW .H.. H CO Cl) g U U• m m UH MU< G) s~ WU oo H .7.-f r-I a. W MM m Cl) M M U M m Cl) MH 0 m W D D EHa 3+ DU WO mW �JAAAAAAAAAAAA>+ mW ;H A 0 a n£b 0 Zm oN xaaaaaaaaaaaaa o as 0 .4 H WO Nco E\\\\\\\\\\\\ ) ww m pw, > atUn� m a a s E- OH 4aw�wwwwwwwwwa�.w CO �04`n. 0 V 00 W H H H H H H H H H H H H H M o E Amo V Z .Z 0o Z0044040000404 N HH N N H n as mmmmmmmmmmmmmm 43 EH 0 a v WW ZZ WWWWWWWwWWWWW F..12 ►7 000ZZZ D 0s �� HHHHHHHHHHHHHHEEHHH W UUU cEn 00 H M H H H a HH a s z z z z z z z z z z z z z z D H HHHHHHHHHHHHHH EH mmmmmmmmmmmmmm O H A WWW U U U H W W WW HHHHHHHHHHHHHH p Z00 ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ z O 0�0 >» HH asHHHHHHHHH EEggq WW E WH 4 a WWW a DR CDOO) ������.F7C��FC��FC� zz 3 3 H MMM H 00 AA .¢ HH A A Z 0 0 0 0 0 U U HH ============== >i>i Z Z 00 Z= 00000000000000 0 as \ `a W WWW rC HH UU HHHHHHHHHHHHHH W as U U mmm WwW mZ zzzzzzzzzz mmD Cl)U H = EE zzzza N * « « # # # « « N M N 00 00 NOUN 00 mm NON 000 N0MNO W MNNU)MNOOM mm 000 mm NN mm IU) NNU)U) did' WW 0U)d' MWO oWNOOVtDOM%ONHH0 W VV 000 d'd' HH MM Nr. MM VF MM mm VHW MWN NNHHV OMMW NV OW WU) rliI V'W N MM t-ts 0 W W mm HMHW HH VV WOW MHN d�U)W HHNWNU)HM WO'•O MU) MMN W W Vf LJ` NN MM Om HO WW 4/1.4O- W d'N HNM 1?t?VfHt?+?d'4/)-r-IH4/?+?H+/1•d• NN MN U) mm t?t/? 4/3.4? .t?t? . 4?W. MVO Lf L?i? M. V? L>{? t? H U1 U1 (?L}i? U1 In /H N y} iI H y}t? 0 +? +? MVO N 4/3.44. W W. 4/1- = ?x 124 U W H M W 0 0 0 w 0 0 0 w w w 0 w 0 0 0 w 0 w 0 w 0 V 0 w V V H E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a,' \ \ \\\ \ \ \\ \\ \ \\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \\ \ \ W A N N NNN N N NN NN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NN N N W O O 000 O O O O O O 00000000000000 O O O O O h4 \ \ \\\ \ \ \\ \\ \\\ \\\\\\\\\ \ \\ \ \ 94 0 m m mmm m m mm mm m00mm00mm0m0mm m mm m m U W m m mmm m m mm mm m0mm0mm0mm00mm m mm m m W x m m mmm m m mm mm 00000000000000 m mm m m = 0 H H HHH H H HH HH HHHHHHHHHHHHHH H HH H H 0 a 0 N CO m 0 H N M in W N co m N C N H 0 NA NA NW N A N A NA N A NA NA R0 O K ow O M ow ow O t O v O V o V to V tD V o V 0 = tp V t0 V w V ..0v t0 V t0 V t0 V to U 0 N m b) Rl 1 0 00 0 0 00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000 0 0 CLS W 9 0 z w U H CO CO 01 N CO 01 0 LD H V' 0 0 VV' V Ln ' ' O Lf) H H ri LA LA 0 c' L11 M M N N ri to LA LA d' NLA LA Ln LA 0 N Ol LA M M I's N N N N N M N M LA 01 l0 l0 l0 Ol 0 l0 l0 l0 l0 0 M N 10 N N N N N N M M N l0 H LA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 H l0 0 LA LA W W l0 10 W l0 N a0 aD 0 N 0 0 0 N N 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 ri H V'cts Ti,V'V'V'V'V' E 0 0 1-1H 0 0 0 H r-1 H 01 0 0 M H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E' LA N N M H H N N Na0 H H M N H H 010/010101011,01 V' H Z a N M M Cl) M M Cl)M N H Cl) N w Cl) Cl) m N N N N N N N N N N w w w V' w 'W d' w w V'N V' w V' V' w V' d"1".44 V V V'V'V' V' V' 0 G0 I I I I I I Pill I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I UH HH H H M riV'LAN H H H H H H NMHriHCONri H r'1 U V' N H LA CO LA H N N H l0 N H N Cl) M CO CO H N N N M H N N .4i"'�.�����aaaa V' HCl) N H N MM x001 l0 M V' Cl) V' d' H1-10)0114l0NM M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 10 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O Cn CO 01 0 Cal C) U U U U U N Z U D w a H a a Z Z al H V' [H1 Z W ,.1 0 W 0 W W E H 0 N H 0 cn pa, 0 cn 04 Cil rn ZZZZZZHZ Z a 01 Cl) Cl) z Cl) U z Cl) z z ggggggEg Cl)HHHHHH4H 114 rn W H W W 0 C7 W W W X 0 C7 W 0 0 El H 0 rn A Z Z Cl) H Z z z z U H Z Z H H C7 C7 C7 C7 0 C9 Z 0 z Z H Z3:1 00 \ Q) H 00007 Cl) H 0 co Cl) ZZZZZZWZ W H 1 0L.M r1 Cl) H 04"0t;01:O U) H 0L'. U0 Cl) HHHHHHZH Z H >a U al al ✓ w 1 WWw04 04 01 E w W W w w r7Af-lr7AAHF7 H g Cra as 0 W as0lx 0 W W 0 0 0 HHHHHH0H 0 W 1 Ix) al 14 O4 a' W W W H Ix W 07 W a 0 0000 0 0010 Or w o £ HF H a 0 HE1ElICC 0' 0 A El a a ISOLQCOalfaPOCQWCQ W 0 H z H H H H H H H H H H Z z H 0 U 0 xLxaxxxxx H 0 U W0 a a a w E H H F H H H x z w Z U 0000 a Z 0 0 ZZZZZZZZZ w H EAE' 0 H Laaaa 0 H U U 00000000 H w U z aaaa UUUUUUUU H w 0 W W W W E' Cl) 0 W W D 0 z H a UUUU Cl) Cl) Z U U x0>~x0>~]C0[XX El 0 u) DI U El x0>:0>~0� H H Z Z UUUUUUUU U' W W WWWWWWWW 4 EE' W a 00Au A H a Ix. w ZZZZZZZ£ w pq LS t.11 W W 0000 W D 3 3 UUUUUUUU W E-1 E-1 FHHH H G0 'd Z 0 0 00000000 �7 al aaaa a 3 U x x u]u�mmcnv�cnrn H 0:4 HHHH 4 El * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 0101 O1MN NN NN LA LA NLA MLA LA 00 HH 00 HH 00 00 000000 NON NN 10 ElLA LA H LA N N NN N Ll)LA LA L-LA LA M 0 0 LA LA o 0 N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 01 01 01 V' 0101 NN V' 0101 co c0 N N N10 a0M10 LA Ln 00 00 1010 00 00 0LA LC)0LALC)1,LI)01 .-IH N O V'V' 01 V'V' r-I H 10 10 V'V' l0 H N J'LA NN cow 0 0 H H 0 0 0 0 01 0\01 01 01 01 N 0 a0 Cl)M w Cl V} V)-i/}r-I L1-V1' H H H H H V}N l0 0 CO CO ri H r-I H V}L} 1.0 l0 LA LA H VI-L}HCO-V)•7?N 01 Vf 4/1 ri in Lf i? CO-V1. V1• i?i? . L1•L1. CR V? VI-CO- V} L} VI-VI. CO H N N N N .Yi V} H r1 V}4/1- U ?U VT CA W M IX U w E' Cl) w 0 00 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000 0 0 H H ri HH H H H H H H r-1 H H H 1-1 ri H r-LHr-IHHHr1v-L H H C9 4 \ \\ \ \ \ \\\\ \ - \ \ \ \ \\\\\\\\ \ \ w A N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ."4 U 01 01 01 01 01 01 O1 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 U (i) 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 al 01 01 01 01 at 01 01 01 w x 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0% 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 M U H riH H H H HHHri H H H H H H riHHHH r-IHH H H U 0 O Z 0 H N Cl) d' LA l0 N CO 01 0 H N M V' H 03 CO CO 03 OD CO CO CO 03 CO 01 01 01 01 01 U A4 NAN ANANANAN A N A N A N A L's A Ls- A N A N A N A N U o* 0 * 0* 0* 0* 0 4. o* o* o* o* o* o* 0 4. o* o WV V l0 V l0 V l0 V l0 V l0 V l0 V l0 V l0 V 10 V l0 V l0 V W V W V W U• U M m tn0 a o 0 0 0 00 00 0 0 0 0 00000000000 0 0000 Pd w ow al 0 z UIn m H N N H M M Nd' In H co ID rrrrrrrrrrr O OOOO O to H N d' N Lo N In In o r In to In In In In to In In LfI LI)to r In to Ill In In co In co In N to to to N M to In Ln In Ill In In Lfl In Ln In In Hto in In In l0 In \O t0 l0 W WlD N In 10 LO lD l0 ID l0 ti)IO l0 VD tD l0 01 ID ID IO ID H 0 H O d' O O O O O O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I O O O O O A O In o O O O O N e-1 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M O O O O 03 O O O 00 0 O O O O in 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O El N H H H r-IrI HH H M H H HHRH HH--I HHHHH In MMM,, PtS N m N N N M M M M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N w M d' d' d' d'd' d'Vd' d' Vd' d'd'd'd'd'd'er d' d'd' d' d'd'd'd' O a) 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1111 I 111111 I II II U 0 H M N H d' H H In H to r H ri H H I-4 ri H ri 4-4d•4-41-4 H N CO 01 U N N N N N to a1 01 M 4-4d' N M Lo r CO e-1 M H.44TH In 4.1d' CO CO ri N I�???...... O m ri 'o Mr HH CO M CO er HrHriri M M d'er CNOt d' ri ri M er N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0000 co U)W U) 41 43 al Et3 Z cn H U) U)U) HH H w Cl) U1CnU)U)U)U)U)Cl)cnU)U) ✓ 0 w 9 w well 2>9 9 U w wwwwwwell wwww er H CO H Pd H HH as o: Z H HHHHHHHHHHH E-' w a w a as 41 D1 w w a aaaaaaaaaa.1 (NI a H a CO Cu ata 0)CO U) H a as Cu aaaaaaaa EiEiEeEe ri H F Cu a as �]�] I-� Cl) a as a aaaaaaaa 24 24 24 24 U Cl)> U) U)V) a Iti Ai U) U) U)CO 0)0)W CO CO CO U)W 0) w HHHH 01 w H 0 0 0 00 00 0 0 Cl) 000000000070 H H H H H A U Z H Z H H H H H U) Z . H H H H H H H H H ZZ 0000 HH H 24 24 24 24 4U1 U1 U) U) \ H I H W H HH U)CI) U] .7 H H EA EA EyEiE+E+E+ESE+HEi HHHH a° g wg gg www g wggggg�w� gg 9999 w a > ;' ] 0 aa al E-1 HHHH a a as s O.aiCPiaaPiw o qq 0 a 0 00 as a Ei 0 g 00000000000 Z MIa)POPO H w Z U w H H > I:4 El W gHH H H 0 CO uo D1 c)C.) U >+ GI H U)U)mU)CoUU)U)U)U)w ]C CU O0 O .7 0 U EEeEeE+EAleEAHE-'HEA H 0 COU) W .1 P$ 0 UUUUUUUUUUU 00 U CO CO 4 a 0 AAAAAAAAAAA U, w U P» 00000000000 p x W as a Ott "� H Cu Pd c4 c4 f4 P4 RS Pa'PC P$P$P4' ig P� w aaaaaaaaaaa wwww 2> 4 w Z E'E' E• w D. aG Z Z Z Z q IcC HH H H U wwwwwwwwwww 0000 U) 0 HH H Cl) O UUUUUUUUUUU xxxx Ell OH Cu COU) EA Ee E4 co co co 3 E °4 wwwwwwwwwww C4 w ZZ P4 r4 P4 P4 P4P4G D.a.C4D4 0 x0000 uE) E. a as as a EA CI) 0 �, 00000000000 0 c,�nm,�lcx�nlcx�n 4 PO a a a PPO ril PPO a Pw0 a CO U) U)COECO PEO PO PEO PEO PHO PO PEO PEO U 0 0 0 0 * * * * * * * * * * * * * kJ) 0 0 01 01 0 0 0 0 O er d' 0 0 0 0 0 N N Ul In r r M r ID IO ri d'r lO N In ID M r r O In 0 0 EA d' O O l0 l0 In In O O O r r O O O O O e-1 4-1N N l0 ID a1 O O O In N ID ID ID O O a1 01 01 r M r r N U1Ill 0101 Cr Cs Cs Od'NI' 000 00 d'd' 00 Inlll ri er O M r O 00H Orifi' d'd' 01 Ula1 Ln O ID N N a1 a1 mm HH H M d' 000 0 0 N N O O mm H M H M d'd'ID V}H r O d' 4-IH H V?CO-Vf H in-v)- HH MM OO V)U)t? NNd' In In N N H H MM V)V?An-Min-V? in-HM0 Vfi? 4n- 41). ?Vl• AO.4/1- tOrVT Vf V? V}V? Vf V} Vf Vf in. e-IHN NN dI d' H tn.i?CO- Vin- VI-CA- VI- C.) w x Cd U w H U) w o 0 o O 0 0 0 0 O O O O 00000000000 O 0 0 0 0 H E H H H H HH HH H H H H HHHHHHHHHHH H H H R H Cry 4 \ \ \ \ \\ \\ \ \ \ \ \\\\\\\\\\\ \ \\\\ w Q 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 I4 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0000 • 0 al al a1 al al at a1 01 01 01 01 a1 at at a1 a1 a1 a1 a1 a1 01 01 a1 a1 01 01 01 at U U) a1 a1 a1 a1 a1 a1 a1 a1 a1 ON al a1 at a1 a1 at 01 D1 a1 01 01 01 01 a1 01 01 at al _. Pt] 'M a1 al at a1 01 01 01 a1 01 01 a1 a1 01 a1 a1 a1 01 a1 a1 a1 O1 at 01 a1 01 01 a1 a1 M U H H H H HH HH H H H H e-I H H H H H H H H H H ri 4-4e-1e-1 r-I U 7 0 . In to r co a1 o H N M d' Ul to r H a1 a1 a1 al a1 O 0 O O O O O O U x A NA NA NA NA N A CO A On On On 03 O A CO CO gU * O* O* 0* 0* 0 * 0 * O* O* O* O* 0 * O* 0 x V l0 V tD V W V W V W V ID V lD V ID V l0 V W V 10 V 0 V ID 0 U U 0 to 0 a 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 0 Ix co Ora 1 0 Z w U H CO 01 01 01 0 W r. H N 01 M CO d' N N In m O to to to to Co t0 01 O1 t0 t0 O1 N 01 d' t0 LD N CO CO N 1.0 to In to to co to to to In to \ s' U) H CO 0 0 In N N U) to W t0 t0 t0 N W 10 t0 t0 <D t0 In 10 ri In 1.11 In t0 In to t0 t0 H 0 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0 0 0 \ d' O N i-I N N 0 M M O 0 0 0 0 0 d' 0 O 0 0 O N t0 0 0 d' M(') O rl.-i O 0 O O O O O 0 O 0 O O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O 0 O M M rl M H M d' H H 01 H M 01 In d' d'd' H H ri H O% ,Z.c4 N N N N N M N M N I"1 N N m N N N N N N N N In W d'd"r dV dr d' d' dr d' dr d' d' d' dr dr dr dr d' d'd' dr dr O Il I I l l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1C) d'H d'eM H H H t0 H H H H H H H H H d' H r-I H H U to CO to to N H M N m H to d' .-4 d' N N N to H H H HA,' t-r♦t-r- m m d' H H M N d' M d' M M M I- d'd' M d' 0 0 0 O 0 O O O O O 0 0 O O 0 O 0 O O O O 0 Z z H H z z H H U W g U UU N Z w w u Z > CO C w El a Z ZZ U) ww w EA a sr H H H Z W Gd H Z H 0 W W W H H H H F a I w F w .a w a 0 F FF a as 0 N aaF a F Z U] a F a x Z Z a a s a x H H ZZZaz a U] H a a U] a Z U H HH a as a C) Q Q H g U) H a CO U) U)`J r'7 t1� U UI U] W U) W W al 'may \ W 0 U]U1 U] \ ON W C7 C7 '.W0 F 0 0 0 0 U H F F F C7 C7 L7 C7 U 01 Q 0020 Z U] Z H Z U] Z 0 Z Z ZZ Z ZZ Z Z ri HHFH F 17 F 0F Z I:4 £ ZZ F FF F cz 17 I.7 r-7 Iz i-] >A al H W ✓ r] fs. U H H H g g g al jsil H H W H W D 0 W a W H Z RS 'J "r7'J W W W W Z I pp flu a a x a Q a 0 0 w 0 Olol a as a 0 0 al al0U1 0 F W a 0 F 0 CO U Z w al all 0 00 0 U r♦ U a a' H Z DI C7 QW F U] U) U H "NG R» U 0 au i-A• cn CilW Z 0H H W H U) Z a 0 au E a w a C4 yl H W 0 0 (.a W C) a Z O F Z >4 x Q [_+ Z 0 0 Z 0 w cn of w Z Z oF4' 0 H U v a w z w WWWW 4 a x Z U] 0 0 x Q as 3 FF Z W 9 ZZZZ U1 H w Z F 0 U) a U W HH 4 ZZ U) 0000 PS F 0 PH U U] rx U] F H 00 �.7 HH >I xxxx °n a E-4 5 w o w 3 ZZal al x as Z W 0000 w F wa 44 1 a F x a CO Cil w wW 0 Ga] r-I a 0 0 0�. i� v H H CO s '.07 4 4 Z �ti UUUU U U U U C) C) U Q Q Q Q al Q WW W au * * At * * * * * * * * * * * * * O to M d'U) O O H ri O O d'd' t0 W U)N d'd• N N 01 01 N N O O O O O d'd' O O O O 0 0 liN 10 O1 d't- m M N N 10 t0 00 CO VI d' H H t0 t0 N N M M N C. O O O M M O O O O O N N O U)O1 CO rite d'd' In to M f7 Cr d' d'd' ri H N C. 01 O1 t0 t0 N N U)U) O 01 01 t-I- to O U) t`N O O WO rl N W rl d'd' N N N N M M in-in- 0 Co ri rl to In 0 0 N N N N N W Co M M rI N up U)U) N L?L?L? o N M M H H N t- to In M M L?L? H H H rl L?L? d'd' in-C4 N L?L? 441-01 O1 U)U) L? L? L?L? . . . . L?L? (AM- 4/1.4/1 4/2-4/} 4/1-4/} 4/1-4/1. N N H rl rl H N N 'aC L?L? L?L? L?L? i?L? U co x Ix U W F w W 0000 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 o 0 H F ri rl rl H H H H H H H HH H H H H H H H H H H C7 A,' \\\\ .„ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ -.. \\ \ \\ \ \ W Q N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N lj 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O O O 0 0 O O O O O O O O 0 O .Yi \\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ S. \\ \ \\ \ \ .14 U O1 01 01 01 01 al O1 O1 O1 01 01 O1 O1 O1 01 01 01 al O1 01 01 01 U W 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 U) M 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 x U riHHri H H H H H H H H H H H HH H HH H H U 0 ?a Z N CO 01 0 H N M d' U) t0 N CO 01 0 H N f7 H O 0 0 H H H H H H H H H H N N N N C2 CO A CO A CO A CO A 0) A to A 0) A CO A 10 A CO A 00 A 0) A co A CO A co A CO A 0) U 0 * 0* 0* 0* 0* 0* 0* 0* 0* 0* 0* 0* 0 it0* 0 i 0* 0 O DI to V WV t0 V WV WV t0 V t0 V t0 V WV WV t0 V t0 V t0 V WV W V t0 V 10 U U a) . en GS a 0 00000000 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 a W 0 C Pa i 0 z Wer U Ut H H C'C'd'd'e1'd'd'd' d' 01 U)U1U1Ul lD el' N NN WN O 1/40 l0'0 1.0 l0 10 t0 l0'D 1.11 W l0 l0 1.0 l0 N d' 10 e-i e1' N N W W W 0 U)U)u1 U)If)N141 U) O H r lt)U)U1 N UI l0 0 0 M U)LA U)U1 LO .44l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 a0 U) l0 l0 W LD l0 N 0 LO 0 l0 LD l0 l0 lD H aD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l0 M 0 0 0 0 0 N m m a0 O O O O O M 0000000 o H l0 0000 0 10 H H N 00 00 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O O O O O O O d' mm M M M M M M in H H H d'I.Ul 0 H H H U1 d'4' V'd' M a N N N N N N N N N N M N N N N N N N N N 1/1N N N N M W V' 'Y'd'd'd'd'd'd'TY' d' d' d' V'V'd'd' N et' N N H V V' d'd' d' 003 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 U1 H ri N dM O ao H 'H O d' H H H N H H d' 0 O rH H H H H H U N CO CO v-1NNNMUI d' N N Hr-I N1' d' in el' V' 0 HH NH rl a' M Hr-1MMMer10N d' H M MMMd' CO N aD CO 0 MM Md' M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 C1 0 01 01 O1 0 0 0 0 0 W 1.1 WW WW WW r O z W Wzz W Q0 01 Q zz zz 0 d, H H a H HWW W H WW WW Z W 4 .1E'E a a >' >4 W E'H EA E. W N a Z E'Et EA E.E E.E-'EA En a 04zzQ a e4 44 al HH -1 HH E H H H ZZZZZZZZ 04 P4HH04 .+ 0 H H H H H H H W W , a) W W H 03 ON Cl] H Z En 0 0 0 0 OEAEH P4 0 0 E'E E,E 03 rn A z 00000000 H Z ZZZO W Z ZZ zz W H W z'Z'ziZ.7..Z.Z.Z. 1 U] H HWW E+ H 0 WW WW i Z HHHHHHHH Cl] E1 E-+iZZ H EEl 0 0 H ZZ XZ 1-7 PO 04 00000000 W �HHU 0 04 W HH HH ,'� 4 au au au au al W H ,.aH,.7HH.1HH U 0. • Cs. 0 HHHHHHHH a 0 W Warpa a W O O W '3'D 00 01 rODOO0D CO a Pa a00Cil W 04 a ora as CD W on on PO Pn W PO an M : a O O W W£ Ca 0 c) U Pa W W W W E. 'i a a aal a) a E 0 E • • . • • . . • H Z 0 Z.z 2%2% '4 £ :4z a) G. 0000 a HH HH c4 W WWWWWW W H W u1 0000 > El C' q0 ,y C7 C9 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 U W Cl] m W W 00 a z c4 o4 Cd c4 o4 a4 o4 p4 00000000 U H > a EHHH 0 E. O al Z W o4 od HH C.)C.) 01 11 Ell uU] 00000000 H w 03 °4i w 0 U x � E-1 E4 il c W Cl) Z 04040404 CCD CU z x 0 lH 0 En W HHHHHHHH ,yy u] aaaaaaaa Z `' ZZZZ ZZ a Ea a al a) Q, WWWWWWWW W 0 E' Z HHHHW In 7 ' WW W • 00000000aWOpz aa a E 0 HHHHHHHH 0 a a WWWW O 0 W a WW WW pp Cs. WG.WGG G. .G.14 . W Cx+ G. C7C)C7C7 C7 C7 c7 M xx x O 1010 OOOMMOOOlO er d' 00 N N U1M100 d' 00 ri ri 00 00 NN 000 000 O liO 00 OD U)OO U1 ri Ill OOl0 U)U) e!'d' NN U1MNNM 00 MM 00 00 MM Oerd' 000 UI O MM 01 VO..I.ca en CT en co VD r4 r4 UlU1 MM rlOMd'N UlU) 00 00 00 0101 aD0aD d'U101 U1 O in l0 10 M N M 01 M ri ri r N er d' t0 l0 d'd' N N N O aD N N l0 l0 O O U1 U1 O O CO ri O1 N4/>N Ul t? t?t/} in e)'VD t?N M N N r ri H rH rH rH ri t?t?t?aD OD ri ri t?t? r r d'd' N N L}Ul U1 t? t/} if} i/}t?L} t/}t?t/} . • t?t? t/}t/} t/}t? t?t? t?t/} . t?t/} H M CO CO N N 1.0 10 .Yi t/}t? t/}t? t?t/} t?t/} U W Z • U W Cl] W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H Et H HHHHHHe-1H H H H H.-1H1-1 H H H H H HH HH H U 4 \ \\\\\\\\ \ \ \ \\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \\ \ 14 0 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 a O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O 'r><. U 01 C1 01 01 01 ON 01 C1 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 C1 C1 C1 U W 01 01 01 C1 01 01 01 01 C1 C1 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 O1 C1 14 = 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 x U H HHHHHHHH H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H 0 a 0 er lA l0 N CO 01 0 H N M 1. U1 l0 r H N N N N N N m m m m m m m m U Z A CO A CO A CO A co A aD A CO A a0 A CO A CO A CO A a0 A CO A CO A a) 0 to O t. O01 iV O K O i' O# 0 K OK OK OK OK OK 0 K 0 * 0 V l0 V l0 V l0 V l0 V l0 V l0 V WV WV WV WV WV 10 V l0 V l0 0 U U � ` 4) tr) Cd a 00 0000 00 0 00 0 00 0000000 0000 0 0 0 C4 CA 041 CU 0 • mrnrnrnrnrnrn z rnmrnrnrnrnrn 41 HHNN d' H 04 4 V''H H vtoUl 0o N O 0 >•1>+74 >+>+>+>4 Y0 .. CO H Nln UCCON O1 C--- 01 M NM 0000000 Oo ao oa 00 10 m CV r- 40 r4 CV CV el el tn in H 000 0000 Ln in O in in tO 00 CD Cs1 Ch CN in 01010/01 OCO 01)CO co M1 0 0 ION HHHH MM o r4H 01 00 hhh17I'D 17F] r-HHHH to 0 0 00 Ln Ln U1 Ln 00 0 00 M 00 0000000 000 O 0 O O H H H H r•I H dV TN Ln H ri M ri rl HHHHHHH ri ri rl ri H r-i H P4 NN NNNN NN M MM cP d�cP MMMMMMM MMMM M M N 41 dI I wd'd�d� 4141 w Tr Vw� aww��Pw�I wcPd•di w w 0 A L l ill l i i l i t I i t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L 1 l l i I l U H H •d'd•d4 dI H N ri U)UI M CO U) Ln rl rl N 10 O rl M Ln 00 01 H H H U rl N N N N N N(� rA In 1/) N Ln N CV tO rH rl N Ln In Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln M N Q 01 M dr dr d'd' Cr H M N N H M CD ri ri tO tO tO tO tO tO tO tO tO H M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O O 01 O O tO tO tO tO ID tO tO tp t0 0 0 0 W W U1 U) CA U)U1 U)U)U)W W W U)U) Cl) En C.)C.) WW WWWWWWW 41414141 W 41 C7 UU 0000000 0000 0 0 — r`iw zz Z 'HHH HHHHHHH HHHH H H co X99>>D> >9D9 > D 41 c>~O 04 a4O41xx 04040:04 a 0: H N w 0 W H H Cl) W W 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 a CtoU)U) H H H as H H CO CO U)WU)WCO CO U)A U) W a CU -- a xx 0 aaQ Q:;4'Q 'k.' �aaQ Q a� Cl)Q O1 m �� a zz zzzzzzz zzzz z z 01 41 00 U)0AU)U) EE 00 0000000 0000 0 0 C7 r'01 A H H $ "L' CA wCOZ CO U)wCOv1 to COto to CO CO Co CO U)0,3 Pa U) H EE HHHH Z$ H Cf)a) U)U)WUtnEn01 U)U)U)U) U) Cl) -4 Al 00 aO:aa as E 4141 �I wwwwwww wwww w 41 g A 41www HH Z C741z. Cl) EE wWfx.WWDL,rt, Cta 44 D4 cz. Ga 44 :s. 41W HHHE AA H 00 41 Z 0000000 0000 0 0 41 l as4II as x c)~44' A 4100 O:O:;4xO4xx aaax o4 a a 0 00 4141 Cu as A CC C4 as aaal,aa as as a a 0 H H H H H CI 00 AAAAAAA gqAAA El Ci)C1) 44 CAU) UU EEEEEEE E-�EEE 0 zz 4141 0 4141 O4444440400C 0C ° N 44 ZZ 0000000 0000 a • 0 U)U) ZZZZZZZ ZZZZ H C4 as E 00 i4 wwwwwww wwww > >+ q0 00 EE� to U)CA CA AI >>»>>> >>» x z AA 0000 zz H C as ggggggg ggag IX W Z Al 4141 ZZZZ 4141 Z 0000000 0000 El 0 U U ZHHH U U a . 0 0 H H 0 V)U) 14,ti ctl LM 44(21,t1 ‘1$ .71 tt1 ute 41 h wW HHHH L i 011 �p]�f] O O ?�y+>+>+ ?r �+ ?� W 0 x f��G AAAAAAA AAAA A z x Cl)CAtA O0 En UC wwwwwww wwww H U) 00 0000 4 4 Pz zz a HH 1999999 9919 9 E rWs�rs�[x](Crx]]rrst��GCr]][Ws� [c�W HH HHHH HH H HH H hit] g2 g2 g2 g2 , „ 0 N # # # # # # # it # # # # # O M M tO N is M CO 0 NO1 ri 00 Ln 0 Ln 00 000 0T U)Ln M ri 000 tO tO OO MM 00 00 ri ri Ln tO CV CO CD is is ri Ln MN'O MM MLn0O 00 000 OOONOI M0O0 d' 0 .) rieC 00 0000 ri ri Ln N N d' N O 01 UI 0 ri N M 01 01 tO is M O O O O O df N Ln M M M d'l- O N t-N N In Ln O O M M 0 Ln U)OOM t0Nt-N0O t�LnN NN MO1M 00 NO Ln TNtOt-MNdreri tNOnNr-iO d4 dl . MM L} N Lf M d•ri d'ri ri r♦M Ln +h4/} Ln N 0 ri ri CP is ri in-00 N M 000 Ln 01 ri Ln is is N tO t0 U)Ln ri H Lf L} 4/1-CA-41-4/1- . 4/0-41-01. 4/1.4/1-40 V)-40 i? . . .W.t/f .t?i? . .t/}LT i? . 4/h(/f rl N CO H H H M dr d' H H 4/)-V 4/3 4/)- 4/3 L} H L} 4/1- 4./1-4/) 4/3 L} 4/341 M C4 0 41 E CO 41 00 0000 00 0 00 0 00 0000000 0000 0 0 0 H El H H H ra H H H H H H H H ri ri ri H ri ri H ri rl ri H rl ri H H H 0 4 \ . \\\\ \\ \ \\ \ \\ \\\\\\\ \\\\ . \ 41 A N N NNNN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O co 014 \\ \\\\ \\ \ \\ \ \\ \\\\\\\ \\\\ \ - \ .4 U 01 01 O1 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 O1 01 01 U M 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 O1 Da 01 O1 01 01 O1 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 O1 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 U U H H HH H H H H H ri H H rH ri ri ri ri ri ri ri rH H ri rl HH H H 0 a Z ao 01 O ri N M w in tO N CO 01 H M M dr d' d' d• dr 'V C.) .''ti A co A CO A CO A CO A CO A CD A O0 A CO A CO A 040 A CO A CO A U # 0 # 0 # 0 # O# 0 # O# 0 # 0 it 0 # O# O# O# 0 ra V t0 V lD V l0 V t0 V t0 V t0 V t0 V t0 V WV WV WV WV 0 0 N 0 tp 0 a 00 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0000 000000000000 x W 003 0.1 0 z w U N O0 co Ot m OO H 'dtdtdtdt HHHHHHHHHHHN H cNo cN.o O M NN al t0 t0 M ON N MMMM 0000000000 O t` H H O1 t0 in to t0 m t0 1/40 t0 l0 t0 H t0 t0 1/40 t0 W t0 t0 t0 l0 l0 1.0 W o o t0 t0 H MM O O m m O l00 0 0 0 O W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O H 0 H H O H O O 0 0 O In 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O m 0 0 H O O O O O O O 00 0H 0H 0 0 0 a0D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E4 H in M M M i co O1 H M M M dt 0x OD N N N w N N H M M M Mm M N M M M M MMMM(°IMMMMMMM dt dt 0 W dr c14dt dt dt dt TV .yt Tr Nr.t dt dt Trdt Tr Cr dt dt c/4 dt dt dt dt CP Tr Cr dt Vt O HH H H NN H H H H HH H W HHHH HNHH Tr COON M dtl0 O H H dt H to to N dt H N to to H N N N N to CO OD H N N N N M Ln to to N zzz01 CI cr H N N M dt M H N N M Vt H H dt N. H H M M M Vr 1/40 10 C.r-r-t0 4O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O O 0 O z H z H z g U) U UUUU W U41 HHHH • ZN H H > Z as w Eas 4 o ZZ 0 as 44 Et U) w 0 w 41 41 W H wwww wwwwwWwwwwww N a a 0 H H Z U 5C U) H H H Z N)W 01 ri H H H H H H H H H H H H H as Z w H U cnw Cr) H HHHH»»»» HH z >a' �; 4444 axxxaaxxxxax U CII W Z01 01 01 0 w W Z COW CO ZZZZ WWWWWWWWWWWW Orn W C7 C9 H 0 U) U O 0 0 0 El O O O O co W W U)U)u)uuU)U1 W U) ot A ii HH HH yaWUUEE� E x C) as rZ cAU ) I)) EE+ - -tEc-4E4NEtHE H ww H 000 40 C:1 CC U co as P >> > wwww 0044000 w as w 0 00 0 H Z 0 g Ca 01 aa0t:4 HHHHHHHHHHHH 0 00 Z A Dal 3 U a HH H W aaaa 00 00D00000 H W 00 0 0a Cl) HH a 00 al H EH.t zz w U) ,�,� aaaaaaaaaaaa 0 UU z 0 wa H >+ Z 0000 ������������ R 0 H ZZZZ 444444444444 W AA z E 00 `0 0 0 HHHH H Z 000000000000 > >Z H W W W H H 0 4 EEEE .,mu)Ucc0nv)CQu co co 44 CD a 0 41 C4 ZZ Cl)00 Z o w a as z co 00iC00 c49c49c�9c4nc49����C49c49� PWG 0 O C9 C)Li H W 0 t HH CD WW EIRE1414141414341141W4141 W RZEREEI + E QawzsUaWoH 0 H HHHH HHHHHHHHHHHH as a aI-1 £ ZT « K K K K K K K K 0 0 0 cO aKD O 0 CO o co dt d' O o 0 0 0 o H O H o 0 Ln to 10 10 10 01 01 Q1 co dt to aO gill Ln H to N to CO H O in in O1 O1 O O O O O to Ln O 0 0 O O O to N N O O dt dt CO CO c0 H M O t`t0 Ct N N t0:it.dt Ot dt dt dt N t0 N N ':g 0 N to N l�l� 0 0 N to t�N a0 N H CN O1 to to to Ln to VD H N O IO N H M O\H t0 N Oto HHN HH NN MUH Intra tote T. OO OltotO L}L} i I un UlPICDHMCN N C4 CD VI i/}tH/}t)MMf 20-1-4 H L}L} VI-4A L}L} L}t/A L}L} N N rl 4.0.04 L} �L} L}L} MM H HHHN dtN L}L} L} L}L}L}L} L}L} ."4 U W x IX U En El 00 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0000 00000000000 CD H ElH H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H WA NN 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 x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 U rnm CA rn CT a% al CM O+ 01 rnrn rn 01 010/0101 rnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnmrnrnot Uw 01 CA al O1 a%CT Ch 01 01 a% 01 01 cn a% CA IAcn cn Cn 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 W a%01 ch H01 En01rn Enrnrn CN0 rnrnrnm rnrnrnrnrnmmrnrnrnmo, '�C U H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H U 0 0 0 H N M dt in t0 N 0 01 O H N H in to to to to to to in in to t0 t0 ao A COA con a) n co n co n co A CO A o K O n ao A co Z COo COoO 0 0 K 0 K 0 K 0 K 0 K 0 K 0 K 0 K 0 K 0 K K 0 x t0 v 40 v t0 v t0 V WV l0 V WV t0 V W V WV WV W V l0 o 0 0 co m 0 0 a 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000 0 00000 0 0 0 0 0000 M w OM ai 0 z w U Ul In H H co N m V. 01 V Ul M Ul M M 10 U1 IA Ul M M W 0 (s- 0 O 0 N N O riM M M M M M NNNrr` N O M V' NNCOCO 10 10 U) inLn N M N NM U) Ul U)U)U)U)un mN U) 0 '-{HHr-I 10 10 l0 10 0 I l0 1D W l0 l0 10 10 10 10 10 10 U) r♦ t0 l0 U)Ul Ul UI H 0 0 N 0 0 H 0100000 O 00000 N CD 0 N CD CO CDM 0 0 10 O O O Ol O O O O O 0 00000 H al O H N N N N 0 0 O O M O 000000 U) 00000 0 0 M 0 0000 E .-4 H O1 ON M M Ol d'd'V4 d1 V' N VI v r4 U)VI Ul H M H HHHH nmN w M M N Vi N N N N N H N N N N N N M w N N N N N V� d� ail V' ms. d' V V't!'V'14 N V VI d'V d0 N VW Vd�d'er V� 0 CA I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I U HH H H H H H H N H 1010 N H 10 H H Ul ri H ri H M M M M U H H H H N CD ri N H H N N H N N V V4 N V' ri M Ul HHHH I:C M M m co 10 H Ol H M VV4 V• 01 ('S ' W cr M H N HHHH O 0 O O O O 000000 O 00000 O O O O 010/0101 z z H H z z H H 00000 UU U w Ei Et 4444 w 44w 4a H U) 0000 — Z w a s zzzzz a zzw z > W WWWW VV H H 0 0 WWWWW poqq WWH W x H HHHH H 0 0 0 HHHHH I� HE0 H W 0 0000 fv a a x x EI zzzzz i4 zza z m a as as H H a U U z y,HHHHH 4 H H a H as a a a a 01 U1 W W w U zggg CO z W U U Z w U)U)U)U ) zEHHFE W EEOHE H 0 0 0000 Ol A �Za Z Z C!) W'Z.'Z.Z'Z.Z 'r7 ZZZi "Z H Z ZZZZ H H U) W W Z. OWWWWW A WWH W U) H HHHH E x x H z g ZH m F HHRH a W W A Haaaaa Z as a W 'A P4 H G4 G4 U) 0 HHHHHH 0 HHg0H 0 4. U) �,p�.p�.p�„ A W z Z Z W H Z000D0 H CD0Wx0 x 0 W W WWWW I ap� 0 0 0 0 0010+0101 OI z 4010/04W0 w x O a aaaa 0 0 a U U A W UWWWWW D 41410Z41 Z a A 0 0000 H >+>4>4>4>4>4 0 00000U 0 W W W W H 444444 IX 000000 U x W ›.1 .1>f›.; 0 0 0 0 0 000000 H 0 HHHH 8 aaxxax 0 W H H0 0 H 0 ZZZ ZZ m 0 H 4 a a D Z 000000 u 0 W t-U\]U\)- W W �+ G+ ZZZZZZ W 0 aaaa W 0 0 x 000000 x U)C)U)U)U) 0 Z U) 0000 W 0 HHHHHH w HHHHH U H H U U U U 4 N W 0 H HHHHHH H U) `4 0 H E W G. 4 0 O 0 D x x 004 04 04 04 0 0 W W H > 000000 aaawa W 0 ['' 04040404 U) U) H H a W 000000 4 U) W x x w a 0 0 0 0 0 0 w x x x x x A H 0 a H HHHH II 7I 0 0 A w 000000H 00000HHHHH H H H aaaa HHHH H H E I x x EzzExz E 00000 Z 2 i 4 zzzz # 4. * N * « # # * # « * # V 1010 00 00 00 00 NN 0100000 U1 00 M 0101 ri N 01 NN 00 00 00 M O U)0 li01 CO CO 00 00 00 00 U)U) 0100000N 00 MN10NN N 1010 00 00 00 NO H0 N 1010 00 00 Ul U) 00 HH 10 CD l0 NCDCDCO V6 Vr L-VrrnHs.oM VV V4 NN 00 00 V'1OUIUl 0 O V)V) 01 01 O O sr V' N N CD CO Ul V)H M VI-TAN CO CD CD I-O N CD O CD co ri ri rl H M M V)CO i?CO O MM NN NN V)V) vain- U) V)V) 10 HH M N r♦N V?N HH V)V) L)V) WW L} V) Ul HH H UH 41> W M x U CTI H co w 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000 0 00000 0 0 0 0 0000 H E H H H H ri H r1HriHHH H HHHHH H H HH HHHH C) 4 \ \ \ \ \ \ \\\\\\ \ \\\\\ \ \ \ \ \\\\ W A N N N N N N N N N N N N N NNNNN N N N N N N N N x O O O O O O 000000 O 00000 O O O O 0000 X \ \ \ \ \ \ \\\\\\ \ \\\\\ \ \ \ \ \\\\ 4 U 01 01 01 al 01 01 01 0101 Ol 01 01 01 0101 0101 01 01 01 01 01 O1 01 0101 U w 01 01 01 ON at 01 01 S 01 010101 01 Ol Ol 010101 al 01 01 as 0\01 Ol 01 w x 01 01 01 01 01 at 010101010101 01 010/010101 al 01 01 al 01 01 01 01 U0 H H H H .-.4H HHHHHH H HHHHH H H H H HH HH 0 r7 Z M V U) 10 N Co 01 0 U1 to H 10 10 10 10 10 50 10 N N N N N N N 0 .Yr A CD A CO A CD A CO A CO A CO A CD A CO A CD A U N 0* O N O# O# O# O# O de O i� 0 K 0 i� 0 Is 0 i1 O ie O 0 al V 10 V t0 V lD V 10 V 10 V 10 V 1D V 10 V 10 V WV WV WV WV 10 0 0 01 LI) IT al a 0 00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 C4 W 0w a1 0 z W N 0H 14 LA CO 01 0 1D rn rn t` rn CO Ch O 0 O M M d•N N U1 sr un co m 0 a) 10 U) N en N N l0 10 U)U)111 11) d' N to co m 001 l[f U) 10 10 l0 10 10 10 m LC/ 10 d' 01 H1O W 1D l0 co 1.0 O N m O tD 0 01 0 M N 01 O O H 0 0 0 0 0 0 H H 0 rl f� 01 0 0 H 0 H H 10 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O O H O O U) O O O O O 0 0 10 10 H CO CO CO CO CO H H N H--I H H d' H M H H M d' H H g M M M M M M N N m M N N N N M N N N N M M W d' d'd'V'd'4 N N d' d' d' d• d' d' V' d' N d' d' d'd' O GO 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 I 1 I 1 1 I O' d' 1I I I OE H NNNNN 0 0 Ln H H w H H H H U Lf) N N N N N V' V' N W d' N H H H d' d' Lf) N M M 4H d'V'd'd•d' 03 03 a) H V' V' M M M d' 00 N d' H H 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 01 01 O 01 O 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 U) W U W W 0 U aa W Z H cn 03 u) 0 ' —4. H W WWW W W >4 7' W ''1 EaCu Z U) a E1 Ez N HH.. H Cl) HHHHH a a W a H Cu W a a Z H WU CA pC) U) m ZW W 0W W C7 Z W W W O W C) V] E C7 0 0 cn r1 A COZ H Z H >4>4>+>'> O W H W H \ H ',, Z l� WG4 1 u) EEEEE 0 0 x W E H Z E a1 E L) H W a' a W 0z 0 CD 01 P1 HHHHH p' W W aaaa W a W w aw H G1 a0 EEEEE 0 0 W a a 01 as a O 0 01 H H 0 01 ) 0 E a s 00000 C 0 W 0 E 0 C) 00 W k+rI' rl H C) U gg H 0 01 Z �' a H N Cl) W 0 C] W up rl!l Z 0 04 a W 0 W E ' Z '7. 0 Z r7 1 H 0 c4 0 W Z qW Wq 0 H �1 04 w x H Copy 2 x i2 0 3 H W a x p U) co a H ww �a Z xa W al C7 al a °x z 0 H ca Z CA Z H 0 0 0 E m a a w U°) a w a N CA U Z Z H a' 0 W 0 H0 H0 E E W >� O v• aivaivaimoi w a w Z H 20 0 000 0 z zzzzz 0 0 a a a a a a 0 N co CC # # a0 0 O co 10 H 01 N 10 O O O O d•d' 01 01 O O N N M M d'd' 10 10 U)U) O O M M O O O O O EA M 0 0 N d'rl d'd'N N N 0 0 co 03 01 01 0 0 0 0 U)in 01 01 M M 10 10 0 0 N N 0 0 LA.0 U) gO N U) 01 L-ri N Lf)10 L)Lf) O O 10 10 10 10 0 O N N co 00 H H M M d•d' O O N N Ll)Li) 01 001 C) coH 0 d' H U)U)d'M N co co un U) � rl r1 M M O O V'V' L}+? rl H N N d'd' V� H O O rl rl rl rl rl l) d'd' d'd' (� L}y} Li L} 41:1.41} L}4/? tf} t?+?L}t?L}L} N N �' H 1-4 rl VD HH VI-V} x 4/1-VD- 0 W x a U W mW o 00000 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 H E H ri H H H e-I H H H H H H H H H H H H H ri'-I O 4 \ \\\\ - \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ W q N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 01 01 cn 01 01 01 01 Ol 01 01 431 01 01 a1 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 0 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 a H al H H al H aH H 01 CA .W= 0 H HHri ri ri H H H H 0 1-3 0 N CO 01 0 H N M d' Lf) 10 N CO 01 0 H N N N N CO CO 03 ao CO o 00 CO CO CO 01 01 01 H x A CO A 00 A CO A CO A ao A co A w A CO A ao A CO A ao A CO A ao A ao A 03A CO A C) M O K 0 M O* OK O# 041 Off' OK OK OK OK OK OK O* OK O K W V 10 V 10 V W V l0 V 10 V 10 V 10 V 10 V < W D VV 10 V 10 V 1D V 1L V 10 V 10 V O x O 0 0 H m M 0 M x xx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x MM x x MMX xxxxx 0 0 0 0000000000000000000 0 00 0 0 000 00000 W W RI 0 z W 0 H 0 10 H NNNNCVNNNNNNNNNNNN NN N MMM sr V'V'V'V' 0 CO 0 CO V'V/VVI V'V'V•V'VI V'V'V•V'V'V'V'sr CO CO N 01 O CD a0 aD O CD 0 CD U) WI In O U1 U Ul M M 1 U1 un 411 U1 U1 un un U1 UI U1 U1 U1 CO UI U1 .4i4O U1 un mU1 U1 UI U1 UI 1D 10 10 U1 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1D 10 H10 10 10 lD 10 1D t0 10 10 H O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H 00 M 01 000 00000 0 0 O CO CO O 0000000000000000 CO 00 H (V) 000 00000 O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O N M O HO O O 000 00000 CO rl U) H H CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CD CO CO CD CD CO CO 00 C-C-. M O M Ul H H H H M Ullll U1 Ul W M M N M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M CO 0 0 LI) HI, N N M N N M M M M M W V' V' VI V'V•V'V'V'VI V'V'V'V'd'V'tr VI V'V'VIN N er V'VI V• VI V'V'V' V'V'V'V'VI O 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O rl H H M O rl N H H Trrl HN V'0 O N M VIM M H UI U1 H H H H M H H N O H U N U1 sr un N CO CO H N N M N N N N N MU 1N UIHH N NN V• V' HNH HM V'101D Q V' H er 10 er H H M M M M VI V'10 10 10 10 N N N CA 01 VI ao aD V' VI M<r rl H H N 1D 10 O O O 1001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ol MM O O 0 001 0 0 01010 CO cn WW W u) WW W 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z 0 HH Z a W ›WW W H H H H H `" H w w wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwW Li H al waa V)u)u)i)cxncxn N a U Cl) W W U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U M Cl) a m a a HHHHH H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H E H a a s 0,4000 D1 Cl) O 01 CP CP CP 01 0 w Z Cl)wZZwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwZz43 zZ aA Cl)WCO zu'u' as Cu as rn W Cl) o H Oocncncncncnc1u)Mco m 01cncnmu)ZE W W H 0 000 \\\\\ 0OW Z EE Z HZZ 00000 H 0000rCO CO CO71>I>I>+N>I>I>I> > >+> >4>+S+UX W W4 HE WHH lEE 7Z727 HHHHH Cl) nUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE > Z1.1 H W WWHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHxx 0 u0 CW a EEEEEA 0 W 0 wk.aaaaaa0000aaaaaww x WH 0 ZZZ Z .*a [H 0 W 0 0 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H E E a OM (.� W O W W HHHHH O E a Z aa0000000000000003a H 30 Z 0 a00 aaaaa H 000 H H H 0000000000000000000000000000 0 000 ZZ Z ZZ000 00 000 0 aaaaaa400000�al�alaaaa4 a 0 4t4tu HHHHH W W U 0000000000000000000 0 WW EH LY. W W W x a 'Ja Z 000000000000000000 U °O Z U 0000 aaac4oA4 q° CO �a qq HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH H H Z Cl) CEna)CEn ananMMal Q W W x a1 M an al 01 a1 al an al al M al an M an al al al a1 al HH W I-1 O M W x x 0 000000000000000 000 A UU 0 0 000 cnu)Cnwu) E E [>:. aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa a a 0 000 O 0 W WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW W WW X E 0AA CntlCI)u)u) U U W WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW W WW Z WWWWW a aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa a as Z 0 xxx MMIMM E E 0 y000µ000µ0,0000r000r00r00µ0 I0 00 0 1 �wiCxlCxI ]C x U U 5C xx ]Cxxxxx x H z zZZ 00000 Cl) Cl) Cl) W u)w u)u)U1 01 u)U1 W u)W W u)En w u)w u) CO MM Cl) CO W Cl)W W W M Cn CI) # # # # # # # # # # 00 00 00 00 V1100%OM Trr-H0 NCDH(s N10000 00 O)001 NN NN U101 Mfg 101 ONNO 00 NN NC OOCOU)00H01MMr1U1CDN010r100N 00 000 V'VI NU1 0)000CD HCOHTrHN U1 un U1 U1 0 0 un r-01 Cs V•M N 01 0 VIM V'1D UI O rl Ul O CO O 0 0 M O M 10\0 1D 1D CD V'10 0) N N CO CD U)V) C) NN rIH HH Nm O01N Cs CD M ID V'CDHNNNI-H 01-V' 00 01U1 dI NN HH Hrlri V. I-U1(-01MM I rj Nh i?V? MWHMM V'01i/}01CDNt?HL?N10Ul0M0) 101D Nil)M HH NN COM. I U) H10NMi?N 4/3-01. L}in- .i?Lr i?if} VT .i? i? if 1- . toy} y}L} .in H H V'N N U1 N 00 er sr NH V. V i? i? i?i?N M-V/ 1010 M. M. iM L} i? VT i/} VDVT W Z x U W El co W 0 0 0 0000000000000000000 0 00 0 0 000 00000 H E H H H HrlHHHHHHHHrlHHHHHHHH H HH H H HHH HHHHH C7 4 \ \ \ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \\ \ \ \\\ \\\\\ W A N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NN N N N N N N N N N N y. 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 00 0 0 000 00000 .Y. \ \ \ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \\ \ \ \\\ \\\\\ .X U 01 01 01 01 01 0)01 0)01 01 01 01 01 0)0)01 0)01 01 01 01 01 0) 0101 01 0) 0)0)01 01 0)01 0)0) o M0l 0) 01 0)01 0)01 0)01 01 0)01 0)0)0)0)01 0)01 0)0)01 0) 0)0) 01 0) 010)0) 0)0)010)01 W 0) 0) 0) 01 0)01 0)01 0)0)0)01 01 0)01 0)O1 0)01 01 01 0) 01 Cl 01 01 01 0)0)0) 0101010)0) VU H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H HH H H H H H HHHHH 0 a Z M w U1 N Co 01 0 H N M H 0) 01 0) 01 01 01 0 0 0 0 o g CD A CO A CD A CO A CD A CD A CA A 01 A 01A 01 A U O# O# O# O43 # O# 0 # O# O# 0 # 0 # O x 1D V 10 V 1D V l0 V WV 10 V WV WV 10 V 10 V 0 0 H H m bi Cual 5 00000 000 00 0 0000 0 0 000000000000000000 00 a W Dao al 0 z o HHH �COODCOOD00ODCO0003COODCO0003ODCOCO a,01 U CO C1 M O UI IO CO a' H • 0101 d1 N CO c0 CO 14 r OOCD OOOCO COOOOOCDOOCO COO CD CO Q O O O O t0 M di N O O in Cs U)U1 U1 VI t0 un U1 U1 Ul UI Ul U1 to U)Ul UI 111 Ul In un LA)U1 U) Ul U) MMMMH PSI H1� 0 0 0 CO 01 H N 0 0 0 1-4 0 CO 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O H tO LVD 1.ttD l0 CHH rHi rHi rHH rrA 0 01000 0 01 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 O O H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H Tr Tr yr Ul Ul HHH LA 14) N Ln U1HU1 H H NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN NN Gal cm Nw V.w 1, w w w 1, N w a 1, w Tr Tr w w w w Mw w VI a w w w 1'w w w Tr Tr TP Mw O Gl 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 i i 1 i t I i i i 1 i i i 1 i i i i i mix. U HNN' d' HHH HH N MU1U1 N in H HNMUlCsCsC000IHNNMHNU1UlN Ulla gg 0 0 0•0 0 M M M 0 M O 0 0 0 0 0 CI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0A 0I 0 0I 01 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O1 CO 0z0Uz�,y0Uz 0 cs) En N 00 ZZZ WWW HH CG HHWH W W [moi HHH W= r� =Z H Z H H N H ZZZ aaa HH a HHOH a w Cu a a H H H H HHH aaa as (4 1-31-4al.1 0 0 • 0 0 w ZZw c0cn 00r� 41 PI ww Cl) wwwa Cl) Cl) 01 cn En En[� \\ \\0\ 0 0 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww LA*I cn 41 0020 Z Z ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZ H A Z.rtlfai Z.ol Z.HH HHH zz �' HHFH E F ".��7'�7'.`J.'".C"Z ISS.'x`.t.''�.'�.'�.''W'"Z"M'Z''�'. 00 '� ' H H N a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a s CO HHHUU EI E'4 C4 Z 0 z,z WWWWWWWWWwWWWWWWWW WW w aaw HH E HHWH Ix) W a.1.1.1.4.10.3.3.1.3.1.3.3.1.3.3r1 as awaaa C4 IX 0 waow O O HHHHFHHHCw+HHHHEW1CW-sEHCw, CA CA 0 wwwZZ 000 as H UUUUU zzzzz H H H H H WWWWW0000 mwcnm�n zzzz w w W W W WH HHH U H0 C4 HHHO:a UU 0 H H H H H ....)4C..“.“.) U)co co ."C 2.2. j i 2�2� E E 2:E lE 2.lE 2.2:lE 2:11 R F EFF E z z gg 0 H R H 0 z P3 NEn00En HH U ==Z Z U 00 0000000000000000 00 D >4>4>4>4>4 V11nUn FF H as as 0 000000000000000000 C)C.) aaaaa CGaa 2C 2C a En g gil }, EFHEEEEEFFEEEFFFEE EE D0000 WwW HH WCA En 01 01 0000 0 >4 V1 VIwNV cn 01 Ca AwElE4E4E 144-, w En FFEEE 000 aW ,ggggggg O 3 333333333333333333 33 CD1 DI D1›C>C, ](I] HHH zzzz pp�D1p www as w xxxx wwEll ww xxx 41 41 a UUUU w w u,1nu1lncnmmcnrnu,lnwmrnrnlnrnv1 v2 01 EE EEE HFH 00 0 WWWW x a O]1n U11nEn 1l En U) u)u) ul FFEE F F o 0000000000 D 0000 o 0 00 Tr r-ainHN 01 LANtO NUl N tOtO O HCOtOUI UIUl 00 NMtOCONCONNNMt--OCO0001MUltrN mtOO1 Le!N00 NO el t00O 00101 MM Lil Lc; Hri O1 CO HH OD CA NU) O M O O el O1 H 010 dr O 14.ca.MH IOM tO OO HHN Ch 0.1 14 0 NUI to NNm 01 NCO 01 NON NN OUl O1 d'O\ LA U1 ep d' N. C/ COMNM HN MH CO CO dr M U1 NtOO1 Od,U) OO 01NM t0 co d'N H44 CN NM NN t/}H L}H t?d� L}H i?N N d� N N M H L}N N H H N VI- N t?t?i? fH/}L} L}L}H Ll, y} �i/} s s/}41}t/} t/} L} L} L} L} L}+/}t/} L}L} L}t? t?t? L}L} L}+? N n. U W CC a U w Cl) w 00000 000 00 0 0000 0 0 000000000000000000 H riHHHH HHri Hr�1 H HHHH H H Hr-IHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HH O 4 \\\\\ \\\ \\ \ \\\\ \ \ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\ DI q N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN N N C4 00000 0 0 0 0 0 O 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O .Y. 0 0101010101 010101 CO11 01 01010\01 C. O1 010101010101010101010/01010101010101 0101 U C 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 O1 al O1 C1 O1 O1 01 01 O1 O1 01 O1 01 O1 01 O1 01 01 01 01 01 01 O1 01 01 01 01cn HO101 01HH HHH 01H H Hr-IHH H H riHHHHHH r4H rH1HHHHHH rCM ON CA Ch cn Ch HlH HH � (xj ri ri ri rl ri ri rl ri HH H U M 0 LA Lc) N co O1 o N r1 H Z O 0 0 p O H H n H A O 01 A O1 A at A O1 n 01 A a1 n 01 n 01 le0 * 0 * 0 4. O* 0 * 0* O* 0 V 0 V O tO W V VD V t0 V t0 V t0 V LO V t0 V t0 U U N H 1, O1 GIC14 1 0 0 0 0 00000 0 0 00000000000 0 0 0 0000000 C4 W 000 '1 0 z VI H N Ca I N N U M to N H Ln 0 H l0 N N N N N N N N N N N el 14 V. 0 M Ul Ln In Ln Ln ill Ul 0 V' 01 O1 sr N l-l-M m Tr O1 000000000 0101 L- Vr C1 O/Cl O1C1 C1Cl Uf Ul to Ln CO 040 040 NN LnLnl0 IO ID ID tD t0 l0 tD LD Ul Ln V' WI l0 U)UI to U)U)U)Ul IO .D ID ID N N N V'V' t0 IO lD l0 ID tD LID l0 t0 l0 IO ID t0 rl ls- lD IO ID lD tD t0 ID 10 H O O O O H H H H H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O tD ID 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O V,V Tts Is V4 O O 00000000000 rH rH O 0000000 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N rl H rl rl H H m 01 OD OD CO 040 CD CD CD CO CD CO CO rH rl V• M H Vr r4.rl r1 H 04 m m N 01011101C1 01 01 MMMMMMMMMMM m N N NNNNNNN W V• 4:14 ,r V' Vr sr as V•V' Vr V' Vr Vr 14 VM VM V•Vr VP 4:14 V'V• Vr V' Tr V•ar V' V Cr V V' 0 W I I I I Imo I 1 I I I l l I I l l l l l l I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U I H H H H rlr4.HH r4. H rH r4.N VP r4Hr4.CO O r4 yr 01 rl Vr v HHHHHHN U m N H Ul mNM[Nm H H co co CD rlNNN M 01N Ul al in Ul CD HNMH V'N 4 H t's M N H H M H In V• V' H rl e4 01 M V'tD ID tD rl N H l- N H m fel m V'V•tD O O O O 00000 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z H z H CO CO WWWWW g W U U Z co HHHHH W \ H CO U] 01 En 01 U] t� 0 w >›.99P U .1 9 w z wZwwww Vr H H 04 04 04 x 04 Z 0 x H W H W H H H H H a wwwww w 0 wwwwwwwwwww w a H aHa.-040404 N a a U]WUIU]U] H Z UUUUUUUUUUU W 04 Z H04Zaaaa H H a co U H H H H H H H H H H H a H Z a H a a a a - x 0 FA En cn aaaaaaaaaaa 44 U) Z il.0iUiUii cl Uf co zzzzz w w wwwwwwwwwww z m W 0 00000 0 U WWUIU)WU]U!U!WWU] 0 0H 0E4000001 A Z HHHHH Cn Z H Z Z OZZZZZZ H W W W H CO CO CO CO CO \ W 'J('.>i>4'>I',aa'>4>4'>+>4'>4'>4 U] H W z4.H W H H H H I L7 0 L7 H U]U]Ci]U]U] 0 x HHHHHHHHHHH U] H : HH:HHRH HHHawwwww3 aaaw au u. w FA F4 3 93Hag'3g3 ('+a U] V1 U] 4100000 Z HHHHHHHHHHH O W .'1 Hal D41alWW 1 O O O a 040404x04 O HHHHHHHHHH x a 01 pa01aaaau C) 0 0 04 0 aaa040 H 0 0 0000000000 a 0 w 010Cc)0000 H x• x x CA w w En w U) aQ 00000000000 H E4 E4 ,7.'Z.",l'T..Z HHHHHHHHHHH 0 HHHHH O• 0 Ga HH H H H H H H H H 0 0 x 04 Cu a C7L7L700 0 ZZZZZZZZZZZZ U H H 0000000 0q ZZZZZ 414.10.1410.1014.1030.1C1101Z H H 0000000 Z W W W H HHHHH W wwwwwwwwwww H .102 g 3333333 NI H H H x [t4 rt.rt.rt.w H CD 00 ED0L7L7LD00 U O O 040404AAAA gg 4 4 0 4444gg H 444ggggrCrCggKg$44 O a a El H au X ul r4 04 1 iiiiiiiiii N ����� HCUU 4 0000000 W W W W WWWWW H WWWWWWWWWWW of X X U]U]U]U]U]U]U3 zH zH H ,..1 .1.1.1,0�,0� .l HHHHHHHHHHH O 004 AAAADAD FA FA FA 6 6 0 3 33>33 1-1 9 3 33333333333 3 X X H>4>I>4> * * * * * * * * * * * 00 00 00 IDID NNtD O CD 00 00 00 tD 001 CAN 0 M[-sr N Va ID 00 mm rl rl UI M LD e.CU1N OO OO 0O MM C1 Ul es0IOH CD CD OO 0101Uir.01 W UiNN ON lo C1 OO 0000 HH 40 Tr rl rlC rlC O O N N O O N N N Cs.CD Ul H 40 U1 U1 ID ID CD rl 0 O N N Vr N[r N O N N N H H rl rl N ID CD C1 M Cl Ul O O 01 M M M N N U1 H U1 N rl rl U1 U1 01 CA N O N N U1 N V•in lD Ul CO O H H H H H H rl(t M L?L?r4.r4. O O H rH P1 M 441-4/1. V}M H rl N 01 Vf t? Vf L)' L?H LT(/ V)N N 4.0-r4 40-r4 N Cl C1 rl H 4.1?4A Vf rl 4.11-11} i0.4.0. 40.40- 441-4.11-411-44-4/} V} i?V? t? 11) . 411.4/1- i?V} V} fel M rl .Y. +11.4.1) U W CC G4 U W H U] W 0 0 0 0 00000 0 0 00000000000 0 0 0 0000000 H H H H H H r4.r4.r4.r4.H rH rH r4.r4 r4.r4.rl r4.r4.r4 r4.rl 1.1 H H H e-4.r4.r4.H r4.rl r4. O 4 �.,,,,,,, ���,,,,,,,,,,��� ������..., W A N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N cg 0 0 0 0 00000 0 0 00000000000 0 0 0 0000000 DG C.] 01 01 O1 C1 01 al 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 C1 C1 01 Cl C1 C1 c4.01 01 01 Ol al 01 01 01 C1 01 CA 01 () W C1 01 Cl 01 al C1 C1 C1 C1 01 Cl 01 01 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 O1 01 Ol al 01 01 01 01 01 C1 01 01 W 'M 01 01 Cl 01 C1 01 01 C1 C1 01 01 Cl C1 C1 C1 C1 Cl 01 C1 C1 C1 01 01 al 01 01 01 C1 C1 01 ON Cl U• 0 H H H H r4.H r4.r4.H H H r4.H r4.r4.r4.r4.rl H H r4.rl H H H H rl r4.r4.r4.r4.r4. .1 0 w Ul ID N w C1 o H N m "r In H HU 0* O* 0* O*H H H H H N N N N N N i-/ .• Y4. C1 A C1 A 01 A Cl A 01 A 01 A 01 A Cl A Cl A C1 A C1 A 01 O * O* O* 0 * O* O* O* 0 O DI tD V l0 V ID V IDV WV W V W V WV WV ID V WV ID U U M H W t:n oS a 1 0 00 Cd Ca Ow 1 0 z W I r- 0 U ds el' H 111 r r- O a1 a1 on z a di w N N H 0 N b O 1.0 U1 O 0 0 H H H OCcl UA d' fid, O I m H H U U1 N V 0 0 0 N 0 W W W V H H as N a a as 0 Cl) U]U) on U1 on 0 z zz H H H H Q R g ii' a a al s 0 0 00 H 00 UU Z ER 0 as z 3H H 11 14 4 O U) as >+ N N * t oao mwN m H N01 r1 on U1 6 Ma) N H w O t?10 M w r CO N CO-H H H CO 01 U d' W m x C4 U w H U) W 0 o 0 H HH H H C7 4 �� W Q N N N 0 0 O x \ \\ • t) 01 a1 01 U W aN a%ON W x 01 01 01 M U H H H U 0 a z U1 H N N U x o1 A 01 A ZU 0« 0 40 O x 10 v 10 V O 0 H 0 0 rt N N H 01 01 01 H 113 Co r4 0 H CO H 0 0 to 00 0 H M 111 O1 N 0 VI N 0 0 to M O O1 to O 01 CO O CO O H CO 01 H O CO O N N to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 M O1 N M CO O M H 0 e CO 01 M 0 0 0 CO O ' t11 M M 01 ep et, H H t0 N N M m O 10 O CO dl M co 01 O M co M O1 M i? N 01 N tl1 10 H H i? L} L} LJ• i? i? O M 0 N d' 0 O1 W N O1 sP CO 10 i/? W L} i? O H L} i/1 N 4/1- 4/). ?i? N iVi• i? t? yy�� yy�I C9 E+ N 0 0 H H W a [H H DL co E o tx c7 a w Q2, as H ow 0 co z E a Co W w H H EI Z a r4 H �j o A r� a In 44 W X C p��+ g W H a H sH w� H CO rn HX V1 Rx Co H 1:41 0 at c.7 A Co cL V H w w H H VVi Co rag vaa a viiH w °a U H M to O H N H CO 01 N O 00 O 111 N O t(1 U 0 H H N N M er eM s' 1I1 H M et, 111 N M dI sN 0 H H sM er er e' d' eN N N N N Co Co Co Co EENEIEEEENEEEEEL. rz4 CONSENT Kathy Prochaska 1446 Roundhouse Circle Shakopee,MN 55379-3706 _ = . x7 /99? 11„/144Y-4-- I ;, � �co �Z�•�rv:1 r� 4 ft Al This notice is being written to inform you that I will not be able to complete my 3 year term on the advisory board. Due to complicating circumstance I will not be available to attend the Monday meetings once a month. I regret having to resign as I did enjoy meeting with everyone. /it A . CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeil, City Administrator FROM: Tim Benetti, Planner I SUBJECT: Final Plat of White Pines Addition Dennis Czech,DMC Company,Inc. (Applicant) DATE: February 16, 1999 Introduction Mr. Dennis Czech is requesting Final Plat approval of White Pines Addition. The subject site is located south of County Road 16 and west of Roundhouse Street (see Exhibit A). A copy of the February 4th, 1999 Planning Commission staff memo is attached for your reference. The Commission recommended approval of this final plat with conditions. Considerations Condition No. A.7 in the attached resolution has been revised. Staff initially recommended park fees at $1,000/unit. However, these fees were previously established by approval of White Pines Preliminary Plat, City Council Resolution No. 4630, dated March 18, 1997, at $2,595.00 per lot. Alternatives 1. Approve the Final Plat of White Pines Addition, subject to conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and staff. 2. Revise the conditions of approval for the Final Plat of White Pines Addition, and approve subject to the revised conditions. 3. Do not approve the Final Plat of White Pines Addition. 4. Table action on this item and request additional information from applicant and/or staff. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended the approval of the Final Plat of White Pines Addition, subject to conditions(Alternative No. 1). Action Requested Offer Resolution No. 5062, a Resolution Approving the Final Plat of White Pines Addition, subject to conditions, and move its approval. i:\commdev\cal999\cc0216\wpinetp.doc RESOLUTION NO. 5062 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA,APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF WHITE PINES ADDITION WHEREAS,Dennis M. Czech, of DMC Company, Inc. is the applicant, and Dean J. &Janice E. Walden, husband and wife, are owners of said property; and WHEREAS, the property upon which the request is being made is legally described as follows: Outlot A, Eagle Creek Junction 3rd Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof Scott County,Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee did review the Final Plat of White Pines Addition on February 4, 1999, and has recommended its approval; 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA,as follows: That the Final Plat of White Pines Addition is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: A. The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of the Final Plat: 1. Approval of title by the City Attorney. 2. Execution of the Developers Agreement for construction of required public improvements: a) Street lighting to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. b) Electrical system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. c) Water system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. d) Installation of sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems, and construction of streets in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. 3. A$75.00 Wetland Application Fee must be paid to the City of Shakopee. 4. Final Construction Plans and Specifications, building construction and locations, as well as sewer and water services must be approved by City Engineer, City Planner, City Building Official and/or Shakopee Public Utilities prior to construction. 5. The developer shall provide easements, as required by City Code, including access easements to the ponding area. 6. The developer shall be responsible for payment of Trunk Storm Water charges, Trunk Sanitary Sewer charges, engineering review fees, and other fees as required by the City's adopted Fee Schedule. 7. Park Dedication fees shall be assessed at $2,595.00 per lot. These fees can be deferred until issuance of building permits. 8. The developer shall install all subdivision monumentation within one year from the date of recording the plat. At the end of the one year period from recording of the Plat, the developer shall submit to the City Engineer written verification by a registered land surveyor that the required monuments have been installed throughout the plat. Monumentation may only be installed on a per lot basis at the time of building permit issuance with prior approval of the City Engineer. 9. At the time of application for building permits, the density for the development shall be reviewed to ensure that it complies with the 7-18 dwelling units per acre design standard. 10. Parking and landscaping requirements shall meet City Code requirements, and will be reviewed at the time of building permit application. The City shall require the submission of a landscaping bond in the amount equal to 115% of the value of the landscaping materials to ensure compliance and completion of plantings. 11. A property owner's association or maintenance agreement for the driveway must be executed designating the party responsible for maintaining the driveway, and granting that party the right to assess all properties benefiting from the driveway for the cost of maintenance. The agreement also shall grant the City the right to access, and to charge the cost of such maintenance back to the property owners. B. The following conditions of approval requested by Scott County Highway/Engineering Department shall also apply: 1. No direct access will be allowed onto CSAH 16 except the street access constructed under SAP 70-616-15 /CSAH 16 reconstruction. 2. The approach of the future street at the intersection with CSAH 16 must have a minimum landing length of 100 feet with a maximum of 2% grade from the outside driving lane of eastbound CSAH 16. 3. The Final Plat shall be revised to show Scott County right-of-way for CSAH 16 as 100 feet(50 feet on either side of centerline). 4. Drainage calculations for the existing and proposed conditions and a summary denoting the change of conditions for the portion entering the County system must be submitted to Scott County Highway Dept. for review. 5. A temporary rock construction entrance will be required at the street connection with CSAH 16 to control dirt and debris from entering onto the roadway during the development of these lots. The developer will be responsible for sweeping and cleanup of CSAH 16 as required by the County. 6. No berming, landscaping, or ponding will be allowed within the County right-of-way. 7. Any grading or utility work required within the right-of-way will require a permit prior to the work commencing. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute said Plat and Developer's Agreement. 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 r `1 1 f *CONSENT* PC AGENDA ITEM No. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Planner I SUBJECT: Final Plat of White Pines Addition MEETING DATE: February 4, 1999 Site Information Applicant: Dennis M. Czech,President DMC Companies Owner: Dean J. &Janice E. Walden Location: South of County Road 16 and west of Roundhouse Street Current Zoning: Multiple Family Residential(R-3)Zone Adjacent Zoning: North: Highway Business(B-1)Zone South: Multiple Family Residential(R 3)/Urban Residential(R-1B) East: Medium Density Residential(R-2)Zone West: Highway Business(B-1)/Multiple Family Residential(R-3) 1995 Comp.Plan: High Density Residential Area: 6.93 Acres MUSA: The site is within the MUSA boundary. Attachments: Exhibit A: Zoning/Location Map Exhibit B: White Pines Addition Final Plat Map Introduction Mr. Dennis Czech is requesting Final Plat approval for White Pines Addition. The proposed development is located south of County Road 16 and west of Roundhouse Street (Exhibit A). The Preliminary Plat for White Pines was approved March, 1997. On March 2, 1998 the City Council granted the property owner a twelve (12) month extension for preliminary plat approval. This Final Plat is illustrated on the attached plat map (Exhibit B). Discussion 1. The Final Plat has been slightly revised from the approved Preliminary Plat. The applicant revised the lot line between the two lots to accommodate their new site plan and each apartment building. Staff has determined that this change was minor, and the plat remains in substantial conformance with the approved Preliminary Plat. 2. This development consists of two (2) lots. The proposed use for the lots is to construct two separate apartment buildings,with approximately 120 units, each having attached and detached garage structures. These apartments will be market-rate rentals. • 3. Building site plans, setbacks, materials, and landscaping will be reviewed by the Building Official, City Planner, and City Engineer at time of building permit application. 4. On March 20, 1997, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals approved a"Shared Driveway" for this site and addition. A condition relating to this shared driveway has been made part of the conditions of approval. 5. The Engineering Department and Scott County Highway/Engineering Department have reviewed the submittal materials and each provided comment. Staff has incorporated these recommendations into the conditions of approval for the Final Plat. Alternatives Recommend to the City Council approval of the Final Plat of White Pines Addition, subject to the following conditions: a) The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of the Final Plat: i) Approval of title by the City Attorney. ii) Execution of the Developers Agreement for construction of required public improvements: a) Street lighting to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. b) Electrical system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. c) Water system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. d) Installation of sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems, and construction of streets in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. iii) A$75.00 Wetland Application Fee must be paid to the City of Shakopee. iv) Final Construction Plans and Specifications, building construction and locations, as well as sewer and water services must be approved by City Engineer, City Planner, City Building Official and/or Shakopee Public Utilities prior to construction. v) The developer shall provide easements, as required by City Code, including access easements to the ponding area. vi) The developer shall be responsible for payment of Trunk Storm Water charges, Trunk Sanitary Sewer charges, engineering review fees, and other fees as required by the City's adopted Fee Schedule. vii) Park Dedication fees shall be assessed at $1,000/unit, and can be deferred until issuance of building permits. This fee will reflect the current City's adopted Fee Schedule at time of building permit application. viii) The developer shall install all subdivision monumentation within one year from the date of recording the plat. At the end of the one year period from recording of the Plat, the developer shall submit to the City Engineer written verification by a registered land surveyor that the required monuments have been installed throughout the plat. Monumentation may only be installed on a per lot basis at the time of building permit issuance with prior approval of the City Engineer. ix) At the time of application for building permits, the density for the development shall be reviewed to ensure that it complies with the 7-18 dwelling units per acre design standard. x) Parking and landscaping requirements shall meet City Code requirements, and will be reviewed at the time of building permit application. The City shall require the submission of a landscaping bond in the amount equal to 115% of the value of the landscaping materials to ensure compliance and completion of plantings. xi) A property owner's association or maintenance agreement for the driveway must be executed designating the party responsible for maintaining the driveway, and granting that party the right to assess all properties benefiting from the driveway for the cost of maintenance. The agreement also shall grant the City the right to access, and to charge the cost of such maintenance back to the property owners. b) Scott County Highway/Engineering Department requests the following conditions of approval: i) No direct access will be allowed onto CSAH 16 except the street access constructed under SAP 70-616-15 /CSAH 16 reconstruction. ii) The approach of the future street at the intersection with CSAH 16 must have a minimum landing length of 100 feet with a maximum of 2% grade from the outside driving lane of eastbound CSAH 16. iii) The Final Plat shall be revised to show Scott County right-of-way for CSAH 16 as 100 feet(50 feet on either side of centerline). iv) Drainage calculations for the existing and proposed conditions and a summary denoting the change of conditions for the portion entering the County system must be submitted to Scott County Highway Dept. for review. v) A temporary rock construction entrance will be required at the street connection with CSAH 16 to control dirt and debris from entering onto the roadway during the development of these lots. The developer will be responsible for sweeping and cleanup of CSAH 16 as required by the County. vi) No benning, landscaping, or ponding will be allowed within the County right-of-way. vii) Any grading or utility work required within the right-of-way will require a permit prior to the work commencing. 2. Recommend to the City Council approval of the Final Plat of White Pines Addition with revised conditions. 3. Recommend to the City Council the denial of the request for approval of White Pines Addition. 4. Table a decision in order to allow time for the applicant and/or staff to submit additional information or make any necessary revisions. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, to recommend to the City Council approval of the Final Plat of White Pines Addition, subject to the conditions. Action Requested Offer a motion recommending to the City Council the approval of the Final Plat of White Pines Addition with conditions. Tim Benetti Planner I i:\commdev\boaa-pc11999\0204\fpwhpine.doc _ lor_ spi: ---'121-"J mom i 11 i w t'f�� �j 1 • Niel% ill o0 . _ .... IN- ca 1-4- Epop 4 /4,145, A.0 '-.0 --- :ts, :11-4C-4 Er htt 410 A lat • ' A W 0 01 I WWI: El l'F-. .,-; ri Pr AWSAV AilOde = ria CM a IA ockvik ,L*6 TeavoVE , Irt q Viiu - N-- f.: incelleb. A _RJOACIEP - v, (4. la . a ams40 W: , 11160000 0 %�� . NM VA m . (7 0 i1I - r . BQla fiin0 0 � - - lzba3w s ,© IID I 01.7 41") . lir 1 '. ���0 tib -- a a 3Ida3i 33.LS DNU1IA 47 9 mmum Win 0'`` W • AN 4i MIN 4ir AIM AI -I ��' w '.S b=1'I= -. : - v gill -) irigip00 ��4'AIM _ i�Ins ill i g I .11410 v diiiiii - - 1 I pir 11 til Ch/1111ir mi ��ia _S 3HI I3w � 5 MINI - I y� *`= '110 Y - .e NN — :tt min El iiiiimiami, . immi ....eve,leo, .., v - s '1S -: !\*.:- - . Nv - - ci g- 'aa � LS 111N/bHS .- . i . • lw Ill S ' - � �e.M,CII= s - dd ... 9b3N4niN vio... - .... - - :Iwo _ n` 'lsrrowao9 /vioe - - - i -bo� Iiii la t* - 3I2Itl9d . 0.1% %It 01 1 El S IZ vs 7 rti gi El Rae 2 Fl . !I I . mil El 4% von .10 a lium 7: al rem rg Si illiiiiIM 14011 W„ Vti 2 rig‘1' 51 Ili ■ illi, , N1E —L— I91 1 ten' ! "! !!4 4:110ppo • Solo. Sd iiiiv7 chin . ----m--=o oI a, j i- =1.1111-1- I 1 ggi w b�� � WA _ a _ � VHIl I2m- �i mi m © o , i _ aa4w miWb� 1.1 IM I- ....„. nuW _ . I-1111111-1 M 1.F� rXNI$IT A" Illi P 1 il . •., r e � CI i !Ili r sigh §1 gl e$qg lE m 19 m Ig p s i 9 41.11 ai e� las t Im sggn a f- 1Ci $ uga4 Pr 1 il g r43 0 00 3 F ;q ° f. g .vg b if ri 1 4i'i ! Ilga • a `"1g o. C °.7gi s S 9a $ e sag ge g 9. -g ngg a Elf" 3 aa Qs3 a S gF A f,. IQ Ql S H 8 g ';'a $g 7 3gq9Is 1 _ P ee 8t R N 3 , • gP 4 F I go !rS IJ 1$ N a in e a N g x55. „c 4r 45. c 3 ag.liti° 61. T 8i §° $ d H t p "q io § € o g if / a — > g g 1 a 1 a' Q o e 0. i o g n 1s I hZI gg a P g e 8 41. °g7 9 ° P. 4 og �s SE 8 I @ e e � V g5 ii1 i B i• g1 g :Tr s g fig 1 aL'114"] aa i m q gl gg t ea m a p Sg n2. C e ,^ a 5e. If. e 3s a Q 3 � $ S g 9 n /2,g 9 t g a P; 3 a s8 .1 s a o I I . _ r I r b Ni g' - 3 g o . E ,c ' 3 0 o I e' a s2 i i P g ; Cn ' gs Zit —1 0 u Y I ti • • •-••• 1 \ \ .... ; i•••*: ...::. ..... . I 1 I -• i y line et Outiot A.EAGLE 1 CREEK JUNGIION GRD ADDIRCN A X. $A1' 60.---. iTi 1 1 S291)(52"W --"""9-4 ------- I I 4° 50 ---------- --152.14-- /),I- _--- .k:. ----- ...C. / / I • i 34 0... , Ai vi 52 I ;P• ;;i:r.i. 1 1 (4;1'6' 11, ::•. : : II R lk 9. •" 1 I ./.....)• ...• 1 I ?.. I I Z V • • I -1 o •••••$.. 1 1 • I a fl•• :-1 I ••1 :•?:: 2: I ... ,.f I ' ..... ' A,-,.....I) 4,..) PO SI .......). /'. r . i t ....... 9.°1 ' / • I .9 1.11 ' NiG131:4. E . , ... . :..... .e.. 4-, ,41> •.' ' (...) r• A r....;.: i‘.../ 4 i 1:;.i I 11.18"4 ,i... os .." ,, 1 r L______________,' • -- - 1 ..r.:1,:-.• 9- - 4s, ,— „---------- ----..ii,3„,..i70:----------------/ .„, . .....s tit--, Ok NiS " /' ..e... .--1-2713.8 i--- : -- III ( ) \ • 0) ,--; 0 iTj \ t ., .•:•tk I I Z /. rn / , \ ," 14,30-33.1-E I N 1r u 1.1) .4.4.41111t 1) (I) \\ \ ../, .,•\...:1• A • I 1 I 1 / \ / '\\ \ \ \ I I >Z1 C\ / ,co-ADI ••• I I /I 45. \\ \ \i ...o. . ••i,"• \ N.) / \`, \ . I 40 50 I L."Cj rri • \ I 1 , , •R \ / p \ i \ \\ I 1 / / i \ iTi c") i / ). xs• /4.Z., ... ‘ rii oK .-,..,R (A 1.... .: • s lo 1 ; ,,,v ::•0 PI 1......., ..-- ..)::. -,,,,0.-, 0 , :... ....x.i i ............1..i..,,,,.& :••: ...... ._,:•.; Tvot\\ \\ 1 1,,, # 6....Y • (....-v) .4. \, 1 6_1—I , ---.:,(0 .E, ..-____ . I'll 91. \ 1 • :...i. i:•••• . .. 2: . Ci(i) l). \ j 1 C). -- T - _,..-1, I fp, ••3 \ \ • . 1,ii yi ;„ ‘ \ ...'•'' - I 0 E<") ‘...-- . - F.....H — :2: • t, ...0 A.o. ...$7..:... /5-0 1 I .... _...... ..r.)%... . i...) -- nn 1...1 -I:,: .. !...! ..-- - L__ ,....,_, 1...i ..--- • t.., .1:: t a i., „..., ,...i ;, ,,-.:. -. ,. Oa ill° jr a.1 Di I i f I wo y ° • 12! 251 s — • it I il i i ug i Ib ''.4. • "........„,,,e1 g r; t F A t g 1 51 a N. ta I 2 1 2 14_1 i • fii El:. ..ot ``'. 3'''•• I I 3 SI 111 § 2.2.5. I .1.a. 1 in 0 ry , 0 In Y4. ig N �Qpp{ C M « C Mg $ s b W � .6c3 m v c b A . CC aC$ a ft g a. u N -y C N C T 5U O O O\.� .S. cti O T E - T c A 0 C• 5 b0` MM)".. 03 z� E 12 po E a r 5 c2 8 0 « P v 0 v E Eto LVa 1 Az aw ' to m E. S O 65 v5 .44 . p O C n° 9CC ° t• a .T.y Q p 30 °.o UA < Ov 09 i m+ C 52S $ a 2 0,.v 0 . SSC y 0 01 0 V K Q o v A �_ g Z yO C8 ^dS r 0 A Fy W = U • �[ 9 ..... ;Z V F- VI •- • 30 p Z °� o o Z a F oQ O r A A 5 V O q OSI 5 �D 00 07, 0 120 We I $ v _Z ed $ ° IE S A d I i$ 0 s 0 3 av ra .25 E ..... 8 ov v c 11;174! m O U A a V° �a o§ c T °' 8 d E o.i t— va Cc pp�1 0 v ¢ ° }oW z n a. 1. W 44 51 P1444111 lmso 2 66 A nYu Nv .88 Oc Z• `o U rnZS Z M z u o E U w. WzgQe v t § $_ ty1O Ove O L $ _lin Call4111) C.11 al . s . gig 0 m ft o °�i IA oEo 2 rav N 7 Atwas 411 ' 13 ° a fi c a „n of—v 2 .;1 57• 3" :*, 0 1111144 . ° ma u b Euy« 6i � � a o z �o §n F• : 8 R a,_ .o a .,(66 r I.y zJf r k W E aEE d' EF tn$o�y d«g�j Ts s• SS `m' c� oU �. oU 41 aon oC § • cr a.•iE •� v$ zz v 8 zZ wLob rci UCC m Iv iopC-l ONa an t � p Ly O�� Fj• E€ 5 � v AVa .5 1140 �g •c5u 5V 3 • as�o u§ m @ 52 E$ E o saF.§ N ti wi mr v. FE� vt v 0 oMoy I g o ao a a° 1-6 c fi 6 W0° Ti '8 'S— �S . va 2 Z�� o a 8Oc �vm `ou c ��„8yj LI 000 0 T�av si V i0 Up U• 44 g itVyTO RV iiLii z e.> O 0 g 0 i.6 - ''.c tai $a60, s°o i , iu$o • M o �a zo Id 8$ s • « F 'fib E E :1▪1770 Af 4 4 ,. •-c 0• b ° ' ^eN • °v s b ° Cisiiig r $ m « rgCli § a vs . o.E . a . . 9�g° • ; TY °v Eg6 0 E$ I p • .$ U «v b WO Z� 5), O $ Zg :t-AG Ji 61°2 2w wo L. a omoil R 6 6 5 a az bE• mO 1 h 11! (W� o .5la N 6,..._ xo I I $ s€ N l$ LZi r^ -6 I w.5v o 'J �z 10.• evo ZZ ZZ p O E o ° O .i...:2 t,O)i ° E4m.5O O O o .z o o 5 Id Ido 0Ill o � • 0 0 00 -c+•2,p .. sro° a , .. .., .... nj!w::. IQS w- • ,.;., ,:, ..., ...•• ...:: _....... .. •:,,,, 111.1 I ,� : ~ 10 ,___� uu I 0) ../.....'/' ...,. ,••at �pR 6a � � / f.:: .:Y' i116' i''\ b.r 'i.. 60.-C1114.). • .v:.. 3 • C"IIII •;: 1 \\ \ ��„ I is t :,:;✓ • A I \\\ \� /I. /1""•4144 t.i.! .. / \ w5`, ..e.. E.;.! r w ' 5411 \\ \ k o� ' := 0.1 ' I I •O7`i (W Ii,1 • 1„,,.>.C11111111 I ...:. (P13 I \ • i.t i rip II 1 3.Q0££.0£\ r \ \\ / Li 1 1 : _ /// \ \ LI .} cov >...--- /.., . • ,..: , // �� _00_001• -----------( �1� �� ��G ittl I _ 05- I a / r �- P L__,/ _ O I P 151. d • s 1 3 :1•,fi•.9b N / Ios o , 1 l'‘ / ..,. I tai I Z 1 I V) .a:'-. Ib a I s I I €.i.; 1.•,: G , / I • ):. -rC/i' --- , •.:? ' —M. -- 1 I �.i.; O9 01, I ----0--911;4-:•-s::: 9 Z bZ•- NOILIOOV 0!1£ NOLLONrII' #33210 I I 1 •• - �'6£ ,»�� 319Y3 v ;°i�o to aup t MN \ I i 1•... CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Text Amendment Regarding Design Standards in the Highway Business(B-1)Zoning District MEETING DATE: February 16, 1999 INTRODUCTION: At its January 5th meeting, after ruling on the variance appeal of Genuine Auto Parts/NAPA and in response also to the Amcon and BDM variance requests, the City Council directed staff to review design standards in the B-1 district, and suggest alternatives. Staff did so, and reported to the Planning Commission at its February 4, 1999 meeting. DISCUSSION: Staff had suggested the following alternative approaches for the Planning Commission's consideration: • Reduction of the lot size requirement in the B-1 district, • Reduction of the setback requirements in the B-1 district, • Elimination of the additional setback requirement from adjacent residential zones, • Allowance of smaller lots or lesser setbacks as a conditional use in the B-1 district. Staff had sought direction from the Commission, and recommended that the public hearing be continued to allow the drafting of specific language based on any forthcoming direction. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Continue the public hearing to allow staff time to draft specific language based on the Commission's direction. 2. Close the public hearing, but table the matter for additional information. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission reviewed this item on February 4, 1999, closed the public hearing, and recommended to the City Council that no change be made in the B-1 zoning district standards. ACTION REQUESTED: Provide specific direction to staff regarding the alternative(s)the Council wishes to pursue, and direct staff to prepare a draft ordinance for Council's consideration. D R. Michael Leek Community Development Director is\commdev\CC\1999\0216\taB-1.doc 1. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Text Amendment Regarding Design Standards in the Highway Business(B-1)Zoning District MEETING DATE: February 4, 1999 INTRODUCTION: At its January 5th meeting, after ruling on the variance appeal of Genuine Auto Parts/NAPA and in response also to the Amcon and BDM variance requests, the City Council directed staff to review design standards in the B-1 district, and suggest alternatives. DISCUSSION: The B-1 districts currently provide the following standards: Minimum Lot Size 1 acre Minimum Lot Width 100 feet(60 feet existing for lots) Front Yard Setback 30 feet Rear Yard Setback 30 feet Side Yard Setback 20 feet Side or Rear Yard Setback from Residential Zones 75 feet Staff had previously suggested a reduction in the lot size minimum, since the market currently seems to require lots of less than 1 acre. Staff reviewed a number of other cities zoning ordinances and found similar or more stringent lot size and setback requirements, so those ordinances did not suggest any useful approaches. However, none of the ordinances reviewed included a similar residential zone setback. In light of the recent variance requests, this might suggest one alternative is the simple elimination of this requirement. Alternative approaches that the Commission might want to consider include: • Reduction of the lot size requirement, • Reduction of the setback requirements, • Elimination of the setback requirement from residential zones, • Allowance of smaller lots or lesser setbacks as a conditional use in the B-1 district. Because there are a number of alternatives, staff has not prepared a specific, proposed text amendment. Instead, staff seeks the Commission's wisdom and direction on this issue. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Continue the public hearing to allow staff time to draft specific language based on the Commission's direction. 2. Close the public hearing, but table the matter for additional information. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer and approve a motion continuing the public hearing. R. Michael Leek Community Development Director is\commdev\boaa-pc\1999\0204\taB-1.doc d. c, CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Amendment No. 2 to the East Dean Lake Planned Unit Development DATE: February 16, 1999 INTRODUCTION Ryland Homes has submitted an application for an Amendment to the East Dean Lake Planned Unit Development (PUD). The applicant is requesting approval of variations for side and rear yard setbacks, as well as, the construction of 92 of the 300 units to be constructed as detached townhome units. A copy of the February 4, 1999, Planning Commission staff memo has been attached for your reference. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION I. The Planning Commission has recommended the approval of the Amendment to the East Dean Lake PUD to allow the following: A. construction of 92 detached townhome units(in conformance with the site plan received January 19, 1999); B. side setbacks of 5 feet and 10 feet(15 feet total)for the 92 detached townhome units; C. rear yard setbacks of 25 feet for the 92 detached townhome units; D. the conditions of approval adopted in Resolution No. 4751 and Resolution No. 4976 shall be complied with unless specifically modified in this approval. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve Amendment No. 2 to the East Dean Lake PUD, subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. 2. Approve Amendment No. 2 to the East Dean Lake PUD, subject to revised conditions. 3. Do not approve Amendment No. 2 to the East Dean Lake PUD. 4. Table the decision, and request additional information from the applicant and/or staff. ACTION REQUESTED Offer a motion to approve Resolution No. 5064, A Resolution Approving Amendment No. 2 to the East Dean Lake PUD (Alternative No. 1), and move its adoption. uhe Klima Planner II is\commdev\c61999\cc0216\apud2edl.doc RESOLUTION NO. 5064 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA, APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE EAST DEAN LAKE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, on September 30, 1997, the City Council approved Resolution No. 4751, Approving the East Dean Lake Planned Unit Development; and WHEREAS,Ryland Homes, applicant and Shakopee Crossings, property owners, have made application to amend the development plans to allow the construction of detached townhome units and variations to setback requirements; and WHEREAS,the property upon which the request is being made is legally described as: Outlots A and B, Southbridge 1st Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, on file with the Scott County Recorders Office; and WHEREAS, all notices of the public hearing for the Amendment to the Planned Unit Development have been duly sent and posted and all persons appearing at the hearing have been given an opportunity to be heard thereon; WHEREAS,the Planning Commission did review the Amendment to the Planned Unit Development on February 4, 1999 and has recommended its approval. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA, as follows: That the East Dean Lake Planned Unit Development is hereby amended to allow the following: A. construction of 92 detached townhome units(in conformance with the site plan received January 19, 1999); B. side setbacks of 5 feet and 10 feet(15 feet total)for the 92 detached townhome units; C. rear yard setbacks of 25 feet for the 92 detached townhome units; D. the conditions of approval adopted in Resolution No. 4751 and Resolution No. 4976 shall be complied with unless specifically modified in this approval. Passed in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1999. Mayor of the City of Shakopee o N Z ■ Z M • N ° g� v w w W ~o 5 o B (� F,1 W O —1 - W tn - n ":1, i •e:-.1 V1 ° LLii in b '" $ $ ik 91 Q ffi4 • c-, P '" Ciik 1,..,__; v - C5 (n 2 OFA IJ :q '.1-1A'l ace irn AA ., - l' V / ,:',i'',;- yy 1 1 i 2Ww Zi1441: l �` 11110^iiy' ia `Q4 �, � • k � 4,-.41,,,, ,54''''•• \,_ •o• !, • la 7bM� oEer, byd3pp�a ��JOrde��. \ o)i, .- BHlnpS _ J \ - o :k1t, .:.4-....-Is at..4 , - - -:. •-, 4',34.t.t',sty..",, i i- Irv, ..„' I / '•I ...'".3.334,„ ''''--, • ' fig# , , ,,;..,--.,...,0.-..,,,, .,, .,...4 ® j V;J�eY'G}.IdN ViM1'w!,1'if41•VM1N iN! _. 2'1./---8 1 j N.Z -,-,---- . __I 1 1N3N35Y)d^N 3N111)L1,-/bi, — _- - -- , `!'ici.,.",.el. „-'4,4-.P.•,T,'s,f.,:".:.-_-::,,..01.,,,..„,,,__. . ,,, ,,, . .,. .„ , -,, ., ,„, „:„.„,„,.._.: __. ,... , • , .___.___, : iii — ire: •, �� —_—_ -- >+ded i .-_-:.-.7-: — _ _ --------------------________ N i , o2 • 9l'00L1 1 e �`+ I it j Z 1 I o l''1 imiNC \ 0."I :::I:�;�I:: :a • l.�1.1[II.J j gib - 1n ` Mm�^.IfY 3Fair^ i a ® 4_ ® m 4 ! !Al A ® e e j 1 • ,• -I® -I • m CJCICJLII � , 3 1 1 1 p.. 1141.,14[,=1,717::.1. 1 ���� � _ 3117 NO1dNVN e Jl,,its ® I 1 8T z V 11_ 11 .I I® =I �_ M] m ' �.t� •■ •■ ■ ■ 1 �, .-goegm_i .1 .. .,,..i . g .,,,, Ijnl 1 .E ":'- ' ' • 1l0 CL ce- .-- - _.ii R 0' J in v) o 4 ' --•----, -i -1 w•i1�- No ow-, -d • I o II. 1.ilf 115��� 1, ,� 1� r m .■..■.I. 1,• I 0 OO I ...... ... ....... x 3NV7 MK L. W • to 1 w Q ry N 9 ^alp■ e.a1-..1C °,' ,_ "'; j o z . LcVEL o- ma I 7 T 11" t �� .I • : m � 0- 3:3 I ' -..--ill1 1 •I I •1 o into t -1 •1 H,1 :t m 1 o 2 5 az= I• 1�_� .. �r - 1 IlO3 R9- j I- I 13�Q-Qef 4 1 ""I 1 -1._,0 _ _ ® I -I 5.1 lig_ -- \_. ``" • q ::125`�a.■a■�7.i■ia■`. p . •aoaoa ul. 4 �I'..,:,_.- .- _.. i6 O E_3' 4 111 i�ld�lr'd� [ 'L FS C'i- Igii i!!� j. a . ---� l Ai NV will 0: rd-ii t1ir■s ! � � � , r le =1ii dII I~ ni! ia i�4 'La " jjp■ii!•"ice mill " I _•a,i ., w ,vg ...:•.9,.44.-4.4 ■iiiii�i�ilGiGiiili ' irl rte' ,-� - nimmr---. .*r-'1 ° P--cc.,.. • All A®1 -*'�51. i .��ii 1 iii 1# NM Mil 0 Ira Mil AM q,ymb 1 EglEgli 11,2" • �D - it p, im i .9 ---®. .,® _@•i 1 £e gF,l Q'�i 0 (_ ''''''.....:,'..11:./ > e—=..-�1. 1■�—J e r �_J Eli ,1.. - �^ ow �" $ " ..8iniiqg ! (� R 9t•IOU II ) Q R1 ..1 ,4 COI IR 1N]3)3Y1 3111311,1 SN}I109.1113.13111431N37'r •-�..—•—.—•-•.•-•-.�•-•-• .-•-.-.--•-•-.-.-..-._.-..-.-.„ (,. O'qi.N1' 3�,,�, ,1 �, r�, I l N2ib'd \\ I W W C/� � tuT 5,.:',41V.,xa r ei Z V 9w1 1 .'r > 1 l 61,'909 1 �� 1 [•1,1 Lt, i F "1a tr. r .K j 80'ELSIIaN M.�OC►1gp W N2r F ;r ,00,00.f«0 r� 4ti�f:'". f<k.;'.'::8?-* `, I 99'995 L 'TM'H 911, 19fM.►O.4r.L9S w O V '9iL 'l'M'N _- - l 'ON ONOd OttiSix3 — -- V ,IlH!noS 9l '0N Oa 'OJ £l 'ON NV1H 31V1S Ol_dNIV- ! a —_----- so (SSVdA9 33dOHVHS) h 691. '0N 'H 1 S ____ — _-- 'ON �— 91, ONS UNN<10e —__--- y1S kat, S__ _N�0 1 __ - 3NyJ U_ = _ _ON .H1 $3M�l Qi4n° HLf10 F • r / z tn Z M c.i. . g • tr2 O ~ °' Sf h an 7 S M Cl Om i Z .8r _ 18ili11ill Qa '--— `h' pii it g 1. '4. 01 Il . 1 , , , ti)• . . . . :_ k• f ., Oi�4,,,,,:,,L., pQp 4� p In bo , O i • . cd, — I ' I -..—. '06,;;i-, -------------__________ , , , , .. t`a2 ' i s,..-4.- . , L%3 II, I �\ if to , : rr cf. ��W • 01 lllllllllllllll re: ......//__.2_....___/ „..,.1...„2::„..,,:krirt4':4' R - .. .', '414748,- ''''' .-::::::::::/4--</47/./.' /2 . •/,‘/ -, a. IMi1[tr3 d5F1lrl5 111 - -'='-' -• •-•'ihimsvi es*iror al—-- - -t-::::• - " . :'*'.... — .4/ --'-:..- ---:-•-•:0 - ___ .4 ------------------------------------------------------------- :-,-_,_-_,:f.,:-__-:?.._ -,...\-.-N- : :. r .\ zas� ::::------ -. ' '/I 9COOZL 'li — • — • so " 3.SO,lb.bBS " =c,cc_. W ' mai t.,, ,r, _,. ,. • ._. .. .... i .. . s -----1------ . ' ■I■Y■Ifl.■I■II.■I■ l_ ��i■s1■i ' { 1 117411r1111!11111.AIL ■■l IL - _ ■■1 _ ,yWi�3■ ; MI Mr MI 19111"1"11W., i ® I' ! I •I U JJ • e---i-N-1 1401.01V14 011 11E1 ill iE i I ,_ IL..jl■J _1. [�+] C]lint iN _ [lam [►]•�_ SCI ,. uI1■d1=�u I Z g R OSI R INN IN I rem -ft" ' ''''—' ,r1.-.. 0 L1,, w ict, S K x LS t•J i (5 0 na if; 1 I._ __.■I moil ■■l Q m .0 . R& i a -WM II i 11-1-j , I 17111 ItC1 1 +- Imam EN IN W d r7 n "co two r ■;, z I U� z . n' i M ■I■■■I■■■I■■■I■ ] [0] iii [U w o 11114 I 1( !I P 1 _ Q ■ - :- ■1■� ■1 �NI at � ri Ng- I I- ill I ■I■�i■I■■■I■c. 1 a --- I' ■iV■ ■ ■� ■iV■I 5 Z 1 ItINIMINIIIIINININ -1 _ ,, Il i .,.. �i1i1i�� = i'Ii E31' -1-� WE P�I■�. \ 8 I � �. F ib = -- "-il! ` \It sb �` W W ytlwig 11111111111Fir - 31MA6B30 .sv-.1-sv � "B�6y��3 i id M — 7NM1 AM30 ``'-—— I • S v `_, —= ABtDO -,l Ibo 1 EI �� ill.'" @:1 @ _ @ _ - ® j iiI4s11 sli ii Cf ■ -sorl.5 ..� i".� ..� - � i � g is 1 Nil ra EPA gm _ i � C h _if . i 1giWilll 4'-'' n/ 1 I 9Z'IOZI -i 1 Vj h tb Co 40 //. - L_ w O l >18Vd Z C� 00 9'lbL '1�A H I z P'9fL"1/A'N : I 1 s z ".i 6Z 909 BL"191 _ W d 9Nli5al'3 - - 606611=1.1 M.I I,Ot.IBN 1 .00.00.[=0 O I 99 99! i! M,VO.tf.L9S -_- O 0.0 _____ - - - --st.) c..) %... ( ..-----------___ 4, ct :oti __ t FLLUOS 9L 'ON 'da '00 .4 V, ;` (sValfl 33dONYHB) 69l 'ON .H 1 S -- X08 ON ` _.�_--- 69 _ . .:_ dMH .,.s:-vvF a o • , A CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Amendment No. 2 to East Dean Lake Planned Unit Development DATE: February 4, 1999 INTRODUCTION Resolution No. 4751 approving the planned unit development of East Dean Lake was approved by the City Council on September 30, 1997. Amendment No. 2(which finalized the development plans of the townhome portion of the PUD) was approved by the City Council on September 3, 1998 (Please see Exhibit B). Ryland Homes is now requesting amendment no. 2 to the East Dean Lake PUD. The request is relative to setback requirements, detached vs. attached housing units, and the elimination of turn arounds. DISCUSSION East Dean Lake PUD is located south of Highway 169, north of County Road 16, and east of Dean Lake(See Exhibit A). The proposed development plans for this amendment are attached as Exhibit C. The original plans for this area were for the construction of 300 attached townhomes. At this time, the applicant is requesting that 92 of the 300 total units be allowed to be constructed as detached townhomes. Exhibit D illustrates those units which would be constructed as detached units(the central portion of the development). Also, the applicant is requesting variations to the side and rear setbacks for the detached units. Specifically,Ryland is requesting side yard setbacks of 5 feet and 10 feet(for a total of 15 feet) and rear yard setbacks of 25 feet. With the original PUD application, setback standards were put in place for 10 foot side yards and 30 foot rear yards. However, as discussed with Amendment No. 1, the original PUD submission did not finalize the development plans for the townhome portion of the PUD. Side yard setbacks of 5 feet and 10 feet are currently utilized in 2 of the 4 neighborhoods in Southbridge. Furthermore, the 25 foot rear yard setbacks are currently utilized in 2 of the 4 neighborhoods in Southbridge. The applicant has also reoriented several units to eliminate the need for 2 turnarounds. Amendment No. 1 to the PUD required that any driveway in excess of 200 would require a turn-around (hammerhead, cul-de-sac, etc.). The extension of Devin Lane (west of Windsor Drive) and the driveway directly south of it have been revised to a length of 194.51 feet, thereby negating the need for turn-arounds. 1 • ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend to the City Council the approval of an amendment to the East Dean Lake Planned Unit Development to allow the following: a) construction of 92 detached townhome units (in conformance with the site plan received January 19, 1999); b) side setbacks of 5 feet and 10 feet(15 feet total)for the 92 detached townhome units; c) rear yard setbacks of 25 feet for the 92 detached townhome units; d) the conditions of approval adopted in Resolution No. 4751 and Resolution No. 4976 shall be complied with unless specifically modified in this approval. 2. Recommend approval of the amendment to the East Dean Lake Planned Unit Development, subject to revised conditions. 3. Recommend to the City Council the denial of the amendment to the East Dean Lake Planned Unit Development to allow the following: a) construction of 92 detached townhome units (in conformance with the site plan received January 19, 1999); b) side setbacks of 5 feet and 10 feet(15 feet total)for the 92 detached townhome units; c) rear yard setbacks of 25 feet for the 92 detached townhome units; d) the conditions of approval adopted in Resolution No. 4751 and Resolution No. 4976 shall be complied with unless specifically modified in this approval. 4. Continue the public hearing and request additional information from the applicant and/or staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Staff recommends the approval of the request for an amendment to the East Dean Lake Planned Unit Development to allow the following: a) construction of 92 detached townhome units (in conformance with the site plan received January 19, 1999); b) side setbacks of 5 feet and 10 feet(15 feet total)for the 92 detached townhome units; c) rear yard setbacks of 25 feet for the 92 detached townhome units; d) the conditions of approval adopted in Resolution No. 4751 and Resolution No. 4976 shall be complied with unless specifically modified in this approval. ACTION REQUESTED Offer a motion to recommend to the City Council, the approval of an amendment to the East Dean Lake Planned Unit Development to allow following: a) construction of 92 detached townhome units (in conformance with the site plan received January 19, 1999); b) side setbacks of 5 feet and 10 feet(15 feet total)for the 92 detached townhome units; c) rear yard setbacks of 25 feet for the 92 detached townhome units; d) the conditions of approval adopted in Resolution No. 4751 and Resolution No. 4976 shall be complied with unless specifically modified in this approval. Julie Klima Planner II \commdev\boaa-pc\1999\0204\pudam2 sb.doc 2 I o , 1. L 3IcKENNA RD. `\ _ / d V / r9 N D i I— z rn (G>) _ I ' till Lite°. ,- >.% teta aQafi :41i�h j lits ,... * # 041 k....., la. B 1154 ilirK Ilk �, ANVI . D- '! Ma= =rAill D qilli USW le Out a �� � 41,-4.1,113;‘-‘11/434416 I • :x. 0 "i'a it.67 .15 v 4 a ...--t. � � c ZO � �, i ` NZ VA:? ='� l ♦ • DS D 0zmi:i . mr,/014 li � � Ait. 111 j � OITWO II,�:.,,,•kir,.'' 70 70 IPS `.1-. iV •�� • ma D 011440 4 it "1,i 2, _ IV IV•iiw- nigaii a i �ir'kz. A ,,,i,,..,ttx: ....4,...14.1,,ip 0 ori p... A...T.__to r 1,..ir.tig, .4,,,,,, .111;.0 SII �� _ a, .s,114 A fi .ai 70 -,L ,, .\...\ 1g 0 T T '*i UI O A N -• N- CO CO CO ((.+ N C-) W D x 0 C > 1 1. i (livo = c M. 11 o 0 N g = r 200 zc m OCr D a V� C o o o m n m „� c CD a c a r' o ,a a iD o o' ° n' T a o £ o a' `1 O v o c < o m o v C s D o c -c m a c0 S a N m 5 'a m.c m 3 A 7 c n Z o 0 O O 3 C ^ W N c O a3 O N a `c c CD m N. ,' w 3 a ID a < m N I ----.441-r 1..... N O (7D y 7. N fD O O N CD 7 tD (D N 1 4 N 0 7 T. r' 2 o� CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CONSENT To: Honorable Mayor, City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Dan Hughes, Chief of Police Date: February 12, 1999 Subject: Successful Completion of Probation Introduction The Police Department is taking this opportunity to notify the City Council that the services of Sergeants Bob Forberg and Craig Robson have been satisfactory and recommend they be retained in the position of Police Sergeant as authorized by Section VIII, paragraph H-4 of the Personnel Handbook. Background The City Council authorized the appointment of Officers Bob Forberg and Craig Robson to the position of probationary Police Sergeant effective August 19, 1998. Sergeants Forberg and Robson have performed the responsibilities of the position in a satisfactory manner over the past six months. Action Requested If Council concurs, they should, by motion acknowledge the satisfactory completion of probation and authorize the retention of Bob Forberg and Craig Robson as Police Sergeants effective February 19, 1999. an Hughes Chief of Police SHAKOPEE POLICE DEPARTMENT Memorandum To: Police Civil Service Commission From: Dan Hughes, Chief of Police '41 Date: Date: February 1, 1999 Subject: Successful Completion of Probation The Police Civil Service Commission established an eligible register for the position of Sergeant in August of 1998. The eligible register was sent to the Appointing Authority on August 12, 1998 with the recommendation to appoint Officers Bob Forberg and Craig Robson to the position of Sergeant effective August 19, 1998. Effective February 19, 1999 Sergeants Forberg and Robson have performed the responsibilities of the position of Sergeant in a satisfactory manner for six months. The Appointing Authority will be asked to retain both Sergeants in their current positions. CONSENT4 MeinaandUM To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members City Administrator From: Marvin Atlunann,Fire Chief 1;4177 Date: 02/09/99 Re: Hiring of Fire Fighters INTRODUCTION: During the last quarter of 1998 the City Council authorized the Shakopee Fire Department to fill three Fire Fighter vacancies through the Scott County Personnel Department. BACKGROUND: The County Personnel Dept advertised and received seven(7)applications for Fire Fighter.They reviewed and rated the applications and forwarded them to the Fire Dept for further processing. The Fire Dept.Hiring Committee reviewed the forwarded applications.Of the seven,one applicant did not qualify due to failure to meet the Fire Dept response time limit for daytime fire calls. Another asked not to proceed with the process due to recent events in their personal life. The five remaining were interviewed and ranked on December 12th, 1998.Due to one applicant plans to move out of state in the near future only four were selected to continue to the next phase of the hiring process. The physical agility test,which involves basic firefighting skills,was administered on January 12, 1999.Three applicants responded and participated in the agility testing. The combination of the Scott County ratings,Oral interview and Physical agility testing resulted with the following ranking: 1. Mike Otteson 2. James Kiecksee 3. Paul Tessmer RECOMMEDED ACTION: Approve the hiring of Mike Otteson,James Kiecksee and Paul Tessmer as Shakopee Fire Fighters to a one- year probationary period. NOTE TO COUNCIL: Hires will be contingent upon passage of physical examination and background checks. IS% CITYMEMORANDUMEE � `� �N� �. To: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Mark McQuillan, Parks and Recreation Director Subject: Stans Park Playground Date: February 11, 1999 INTRODUCTION Council is being asked to authorize staff to purchase new playground equipment for Stans Park. BACKGROUND The 1999 Parks Capital Improvement program identifies $20,000 to upgrade and add new playground equipment in Stans Park. The original equipment was purchased and installed in 1981 through a$8,000 donation from the Maurice Stans Foundation. The equipment was made by Landscape Structures which is represented by Earl F. Andersen, Inc. Staff is proposing to purchase the new equipment from Earl F.Andersen, Inc. (Landscape Structures) so it conforms with the existing equipment. It is important the new equipment be able to attach to the equipment already there. Most playground manufacturers have their own patented clamping devises which may or may not work with other equipment. In other words, clamps made for equipment manufactured by Gametime Playground, Inc.may not interface with equipment made by Landscape Structures. Even if that was the case,both manufacturers would require the City to sign-off on a"hold harmless agreement"in case an injury occurs on the equipment. The warranties would also be affected. The total cost of the new equipment including installation and a rubberized surface under certain equipment is $19,600. The rubberized surface enables those with disabilities access to the equipment. ALTERNATIVES I. Approve funding for the purchase of new play equipment in Stans park. 2. Table for further information from staff. 3. Do nothing. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Alternative#1. ACTION REQUESTED If the City Council concurs with staffs recommendation,it should,by motion,move to authorize the appropriate City officials to purchase new playground equipment from Earl F. Andersen, Inc. with funding to be allocated from the Park Reserve Fund. Mark J cQuil Parks and Recreation Director Sent by: EARL F. ANDERSEN 612 884 5619; 02/12/99 9:59; jetFax #608;Page 2/6 C5002D 2/11 /99 SCALE: 1" = 10'-0" I r -r 1 II /' �\ I I / .• \` ,j L.,... // am 'c I �r�a.a ® `\ I J ``" ' ms`s. .-. // \ i•—"'- / a / 1I —/ ' a II 1— L:/ - � o 1 lI ._.,/• cli= U ti- r \\ .e / aro / \ MABM i / \ I win I o I L y J f -... 1 ,,..._______i.--....1.---6---I VCIOP V / (At.) 44%, -I- .. 7:-/' ( Mill lin 1 I 1IIXr l 1 ) ) )1 ie ass i _ _\ __ ,i.,= li ......... / 1ogo-.mIN OM _ _I Th. ila4 u• 1 . r---I / T \ I / n,„ 6� \ I \\ fridD .SMB mar yea. 6' // h--8' H \ / LOOSE RESILIENT SURFACE ._1��'� _—�' —111—±– \–TIMBER BORDER Sent by: EARL F. ANDERSEN 612 884 5619; 02/12/99 10:00; jetFax #608;Page 5/6 e C90211AD, C5002D,Stans Park, Shakopee, MN, Playventure, Phase One CODE QTY ITEM DESCRIPTION A 4 111401E 116" Post Alum For 40" Deck 1 B 1 123320A Curved Transfer Module to 40", Right Hand, DB C 1 111234A Square Tenderdeck, Brown Only D 1 1233318 Double Poly Slide,40"-48" Deck E 1 123538A Loop Pole, 32"-40" Deck F 1 119641A-mod. Wire Crawl Tunnel - Modified G 1 119515A Pilot Panel,(1"), (2-Color Permalene) (ups) H 2 115201A Post For 10" Panel Height I 1 120871 B 2 Seat Airplane,TuffRider,Direct Bury (ups) J 1 100014A Turtle,TuffRider, Surface Mount (ups) 2 wk K 1 115381A Extended Footing Leg,(Concrete) (ups)2 wk L 1 100032A Spring Seesaw(2 Seats),No Color Opt.Perm. 2wk M 1 100027A Log Roll,Tan Log Only,2-Alum. Posts N 1 100051C 4 Place, 8 Foot, Uncoated Chn, Galv. Legs O 1 122792A Coated Chain For Molded Bucket Seat(8') (ups) P 2 100053A Slash Proof Belt Seat - Deduct Q 1 100054A Molded Bucket Seat (ups) R 1 100055A Full Bucket Seat (ups) /5c1, CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Jared Andrews, Planner I SUBJECT: Appeal of Board of Adjustment and Appeals Decision APPLICANT: Coldwell Banker Commercial, Garfield Clark&Assoc. DATE: February 16, 1999 INTRODUCTION At its February 4, 1999 meeting, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals voted 3-3 (failed) on a motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit(CUP)for multiple structures on one lot and for up to 80% office use with a 20 foot rear yard setback in the Heavy Industrial(I-2)Zone. A copy of the February 4, 1999, staff report to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals is attached for the Council's reference. In the report, staff recommended that the applicant meet the 30 foot rear yard setback and that the Board determine a maximum average percentage somewhere under 50% office use for the development. This recommendation was based on the Board and Council's concern with approving variances within CUPs that do not meet the variance criteria. Staff also questioned the intent of the ordinance, i.e. by approving office use of more than 50%, a principal use might result, which would conflict with the purposes of the Heavy Industrial Zone. At the Board of Adjustment and Appeals meeting, the applicant stated the 20 foot setback and 80% office use was necessary for the project. Therefore, the motion was made as proposed by the applicant and failed to get a majority vote. On February 8, 1999, staff received an Appeal application from Mr. Brent Nelson, Coldwell Banker. This letter has also been attached for review. ACTION REQUESTED Discuss the Appeal, and make a motion to either deny the Appeal or approve the Appeal and CUP, and direct staff to draft a resolution consistent with that determination. Jared Andrews Planner I is\commdev\cc\1999\cc0216\cldwlapl.doc ATTACHMENT A • ATTACHMENT A CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Board of Adjustments and Appeals FROM: Jared D. Andrews, Planner I SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit multiple structures per lot, and offices occupying more than 35% of the principal structure and directly associated with a permitted use. MEETING DATE: January 7, 1999 Site Information: Applicant: Coldwell Banker Commercial, Garfield Clark&Assoc. Site Location: Southwest corner of 12 Avenue and Valley Park Drive. Current Zoning: Heavy Industry(I-2)Zone Adjacent Zoning: North: Heavy Industry(1-2)Zone South: Heavy Industry(1-2)Zone East: Heavy Industry(1-2)Zone West: Heavy Industry(I-2)Zone Comp.Plan: Heavy Industry Attachments: Exhibit A,Zoning Map Exhibit B, Applicant's request Introduction: Brent Nelson of Coldwell Banker Commercial has applied for a Conditional Use Permit for multiple structures per lot, and offices occupying up to 80% of the principle structure. (See Exhibit B) The request includes four 12,000 square foot buildings on 3.9 acres in the first phase. Future phases would need to apply for an amendment to this conditional use. This application will be the first application of this type since the ordinance was amended in 1997 for offices occupying over 35 percent. The amendment was precipitated by the Industrial Park 2000 which was approved through a PUD process. Considerations: Staff has reviewed the request and plans submitted for this application. Staff notes that 106 units of landscaping would be required for the first phase of development (48,000 square feet of building area). More detailed site plans would need to be submitted to show that the site meets landscaping and parking layout/dimension requirements. These plans could be submitted with the building permit application for compliance. The plans submitted with this application show a 20 foot setback from the south property line. The rear yard setback for the I-2 Zone is 30 feet. It is at the discretion of the Board whether this application warrants this discrepancy. Staff recommends that this plan be revised to show a 30 foot setback. There is a question raised with this application where the office use is proposed to be over 50%. The issue is whether the office use then becomes the predominant use rather than a related or accessory use. Staff proposes that the Board could limit the overall development to a certain percentage(maybe 50%), allowing the flexibility of the various users to occupy more or less of the office space, but cautions the Board in allowing the development to be occupied by greater than 50% as a whole. Proposed Findings: Staff proposes the following findings: 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 City 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 The City 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 Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and parking will be provided to serve the site. 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 overall use of the property is consistent with the purposes the I-2 zone with the attached conditions. Criteria#5 The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Finding#5 The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. It is designated for Heavy Industrial • Alternatives: I. The Board may approve the conditional use permit as presented with the modification of a maximum overall percentage of office placed on the development. II. The Board may approve the conditional use permit with revised conditions. III. The Board may deny the request with revised findings. IV. The Board may continue the public hearing for additional information. V. The Board may table the request for additional information. Recommendation: Staff recommends Alternative I., approving the conditional use with conditions as follows: 1. All parking associated with this facility shall be accommodated on site. 2. The site must generally conform to the site plans submitted except the rear yard setback must be revised to show 30 feet. 3. A detailed site plan that meets the landscaping and parking ordinance must be submitted with the building permit application as well as proof of percentage of office use within the building. 4. Site must consist of structures that are owned, maintained, and operated under unified control. *5. The overall development must not exceed percent office use. *Percentage determined by the Board. Action Requested: Offer a motion to approve Resolution#PC99-1 as presented by staff. 7 (1/- ',// d D. Andrews Planner I RESOLUTION NO.PC99-1 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA, GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MULTIPLE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES PER LOT AND OFFICES OCCUPYING MORE THAN 35 PERCENT OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AND DIRECTLY ASSOCIATED WITH A PERMITTED USE IN THE 1-2 HEAVY INDUSTRY ZONE WHEREAS,Valley Green Business Park, owner, has filed an application dated received December 11, 1998, for a Conditional Use Permit under the provisions of Chapter 11,Land Use Regulation(Zoning), of the Shakopee City Code, Section 11.46, Subd. 3, multiple principal structures per lot and offices occupying more than 35 percent of the principal structure and directly associated with a permitted use; and WHEREAS,this parcel is presently zoned Heavy Industry Zone(1-2); and WHEREAS,the property upon which the request is being made is legally described as; The East 610 feet of Lot 3, Block 2, Valley Park 12th Addition WHEREAS,notice was provided and on January 7, 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 THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA,AS FOLLOWS: That the application for Conditional Use Permit No. PC-99-1 is hereby GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. All parking associated with this facility shall be accommodated on site. 2. The site must generally conform to the site plans submitted except the rear yard setback must be revised to show 30 feet. 3. A detailed site plan that meets the landscaping and parking ordinance must be submitted with the building permit application as well as proof of percentage of office use within the building. • • 4. Site must consist of structures that are owned, maintained, and operated under unified control. *5. The overall development must not exceed percent office use. *Percentage determined by the Board. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota this 7th day of January, 1999 Chair of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals ATTEST: Community Development Director • S CERTIFICATION OF RESOLUTION NO.PC99-1 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. PC99-1, 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 7th day of January 1999, as shown by minutes of the meeting in my possession. Dated this day of , 19 . Judith Judith S. Cox, City Clerk SEAL TT I 5.v 5. z)-- 7 co K it-. O 2 K K OC fr cD 7 • Pril p o � 13T.O caacr lD Pi a (D aOO 3n S ° - n.r ' O n a c c N al p p N N u Qcr 0 \' o N � •�' � � 3N � � ` rn 1`.1 IF• l U) rt 1' ° ID Ill 7 �< r... D .7J .+ • /V . ° ul N cofD s< . (D 3 ul N 30 lD ° ED - a lIP 111W v I m O CO .r Q s .T. R. �' "0 SGU H o � � N ilia 1 0~ Q M 111Wi 01111::, V ! hi r ' PARK _Jr?, eisiti1r —0 41111111440iNm -.1 la i rev iiirt i AOC NMI (f) :ii y iiii:1111#1. ss; Wilt// �. plylilyr��: iIi E 1111 i fir;..,01; :• Willi' '' PARK DRIVE " ;is : VAI_LEY \ -1-.7 (I d 1 C d D I r- Z D 4 Drn — l P1 �� • GATEWAY V ��� .40 ; DRIVE T1 • Exhibit B ocaisw- _.. 1 1 1998 REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Approximately the East 610' of Lot 3,Block 2, Valley Park Twelfth Addition Shakopee, Scott County,Minnesota. Permit#1: Multiple Structures on one lot. Permit#2: 80%office to warehouse ratio. Location: North side of Hwy# 169,South side of 12th Ave.,just west of the intersection with Valley Green Dr. Land Area: 610' x 326' or 198,860 Sq.Ft.or 4.56 acres. Proposed Building Area: Total of 48,000 Sq.Ft.in 4 individual buildings. Office-warehouse ratio: Up to 80%on a case by case basis. Parking provided: 164 spaces or 3.4 per 1000 Sq.Ft. Building Description: 12,000 Sq.Ft.per building is typical. Single story 16'— 18'clear ceiling height Drive-in doors Air-conditioned Sprinklered Decorative block or tilt-up construction • • REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 12TH Avenue North, Shakopee,Minnesota. The subject site is currently zoned Heavy Industry I-2.The proposed development is to be an office- warehouse type of development consisting of four(4)individual buildings of approximately 12,000 square feet each. In order to accommodate the proposed development,we are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow multiple structures on a single lot.The development is planned to be marketed on a"For Sale"basis to individual business owners. The development will utilize documents for a"Common Interest Community". This will provide cross-easements for joint use of curb cuts,parking areas,loading areas,and green areas. The background leading us to propose this development is the need,evident in our communication with clients,that many small companies wish to own their own buildings.The current marketplace has virtually no buildings of less than 15,000 square feet"For Sale".Rental developments of usually more than 100,000 square feet with only large increment bays available are the most common option. The cost of building small space structures is a large part of the reason for these types of larger developments. They offer the economies of scale to keep costs affordable and provide small companies with space for their growing businesses. They do not,however,provide tenants with a sense of pride of ownership,identity nor long term control over their occupancy costs. They also do not provide the entrepreneur with the tax advantages of ownership of their building. We will keep the financial cost of these buildings competitive with the cost of leasing. We know there is a market for the ownership of buildings by small companies.The proposed development will meet the City of Shakopee's minimum of one acre lots but will allow for better utilization of the land by having fewer curb cuts,less land consumed by access roads and driveways,efficiencies of scale for plowing and mowing,and utility connections. We also hope to achieve some efficiencies in the construction process by having all,or almost all,of the buildings spoken for by the time of construction.This will allow us to schedule contracts for work that will be of a size sufficient to gain better prices. The subject property is highly visible from Hwy#169 and in some respects becomes the gateway to the Shakopee community. This is an area that should contain quality buildings in attractive settings. We feel that the proposed buildings will give the owners and the City of Shakopee a pride of ownership.We intend these buildings to be very similar to the rendering attached.All of this,we believe,will enhance the values of the surrounding area. The typical user of space such as we are designing needs a larger percentage of office than either warehouse or production space. We are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow an office to warehouse ratio of up to 80%. Some examples of these users are surveying firms,engineering fines, manufacturers' representatives,printers,computer firms,and other service oriented companies.These users are generally consistent with and would likely require an industrially zoned property. The crucial factor for these types of developments is the available parking. Our plan calls for flexibility in the loading areas. There is less need for trucks with a high percentage office user and will allow for parking cars in those areas to meet Proof of Parking and actual use requirements. We look forward to a successful development of this site into the uses we envision. ATTACHMENT B COLDU eL.L 250 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH,#280 BANKCR 63 MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55401 COMMERCIAL BUS.(612)333-6688 GARFIELD CLARK FAX(612)333-1543 WEB SITE www.garfieldclark.com & ASSOCIATES EMAILgclark@garfieldclark.com 2/8/99 Members of the City Council City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: CUP Application Appeal Dear Council Members: It has been suggested that we file this appeal to the fill City Council by the members of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. On Thursday, February 4th, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals cast a tie vote on our requests. Subsequent to the vote, even the members that voted against our CUP strongly commented that they want our type of development on the site involved. The basis for their negative vote appeared to be concern for setting a precedent and the unfortunate timing of our request and the current consideration of a new Business Park zoning district. Our decision to appeal is based on our concern over timing of our development. This is a speculative venture and somewhat untested in the market. To do the marketing necessary, obtain purchase commitments, design the final buildings, arrange financing and commence construction is time sensitive for us. Steel orders are about 12 weeks on back order now and could get longer later in the building season. If we do not get under way with our development soon, we will miss the summer construction time. Since the objective of our development is to build attractive, affordable buildings for the small entrepreneur, it is essential that we make all efforts to keep the costs down. Summer construction is, therefore, mandatory. (TIMslo Individual Membership,Society of Industrial and Office Realtors 0 neiop National Association of Industrial and Office Parks Individual Membership,Certified Commercial Investment Member•An Independently Owned and Operated Member of Coldwell Ranker Real Estate Corporation. We believe our proposed development will be an asset to the City of Shake. These structures, visible from the by-pass, will set an example of quality for the city. The site involved is a natural location for this development given it's frontage and the narrow configuration and should probably be changed to Business Park zoning in the future. We meet the standards of this zoning as it has thus far been proposed. We appreciate your consideration of this appeal and respectfully request approval. Best regards, 1 , � Mr. Brent N. Nelson CCIM Attachment to Request for Appeal Coldwell Banker Garfield Clark&Associates #17. We are trying to develop buildings for small business owners who prefer to own their own buildings rather than lease space in one of the many large scale structures being built in the marketplace. Our research shows that it is virtually impossible to find a building of 12,000 sq.ft. in the southwest metropolitan market. The reason, of course, is that small buildings are more expensive to build. It is this expense issue that leads us to request this appeal tonight. Delay in commencing the marketing of this project will necessitate winter construction and add considerably to the costs. The proposed development will fit perfectly within a Business Park zoning district. We would welcome the inclusion of our site within that zoning should it be passed. Unfortunately, we can't wait for the process to unfold for adding a new district and rezone our site. #18. Following is the information we have supplied to the city planning staff and to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals in support of our original CUP request. We thought it would be helpful in your consideration. II .1 , . IM It, R .....Yri 111' .,'4ll• (/' ✓jl I , 0,11ity,14% r• T. ` R ' I'lir - ' ''.401,., NN . ' I � N.. -- \ 1, \ , 11 '.1 ,'::::: • i Imo'fll -4, �I IiI' 1. r..�1 �' li� A', mil t\ li i Mi , ` , I \/..,a ..j.„... I i .• ..„ „...... . ..„.... / , ,,,,,....,..„ ..,,.. , ,,,,,...._,,.. .. ,, ,,,, - . .1 . . ii. , i • ,t \l, 1,.1..111.,pi.!;.: I I`i. ,. ., — tF� �i: ' .s.`. liii.. .. IL qe I 111 J '\ 1,::11 ' 0 . :, •,,...,.. , •. . , ,,,..: vims 1. 1igl- r i . .. . Amp-110 I I 7: II ,r�!. {1►.: .i- 7 1 I"% .. . • _ z : r . . • r O a r 0 n COUNTY ROAD NUMBER 83 v► L______1 1 L 1. I'1 N Z S jt 4 i vD ). a r Er; VALLEY PARK DRIVE o I 70 • O -v m � o o IV ' z O a �v rn• M 7c m ern O _ cm ^ '`� ova I i ui -- 1••- LA IP 4z . (-) 0 \ •0 Cm u kali' °II rte— �'t II �► ,- cn ' 1 t,-_ 133 70 A rri z � ► __ v_► _.� o rte— 4. : g II ii p $ 4:11 0 Z 01 ; „ t 11 tn L i -c ...._ In:g rrt " " 8 § § O 1 11 �II � �► - .-....-t.. 'c'ji. : iiitit- " - - " " 4E�t . ��� . -A4 ,ad �� ter., N op ' o 111111111 +----itta , :... .., / I ... Nio , d b ..... ill- 01 0 ;411 fi -14 t i A .,....,,,;ais NI �,� �.a r�� rel .. iid us a A - - ...._. tsi m __ __ .I.______ . VALLEY PARK d • c� DRIVE CP 326,46 /Sta. 2- . Fs- CITY OF SHAKOPEE �SN® Memorandum 11VI'i O TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Amendment of City Code Sec. 6.40 Subd. 5.A to Allow Massage Centers in the Major Recreation Zoning District MEETING DATE: February 16, 1999 Introduction: In response to a request from Elaine Lureen, at its February 2°d meeting the Council directed staff to prepare an amendment to the above-named section of the City Code. A copy of that draft ordinance is attached for the Council's consideration. Alternatives: 1. Offer and pass Ord. No. 539 amending City Code Sec. 6.40 Subd. 5.A. to permit massage centers in hotels, motels and conference centers in the Major Recreation District. 2. Approve Ord. No. 539 with revisions. 3. Do not approve Ord. No. 539. 4. Table the matter for additional information. Action Requested: Offer and pass Ord.No. 539 amending City Code Sec. 6.40 Subd. 5.A. to permit massage centers in hotels, motels and conference centers in the Major Recreation District. _ . 7/.0_ / R. Michael Leek Community Development Director MassageCentersOrd539.doc/RML 1 ORDINANCE NO. 539,FOURTH SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA, AMENDING CHAPTER 6,BUSINESS LICENSING, SUBD. 5,RESTRICTIONS AND REGULATIONS BY AMENDING ITEM A. TILE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1 -That City Code Chapter 6,Business Licensing, Subd. 5, Restrictions and Licensing, Item A. is hereby amended as follows: A. Licenses may be granted only for operation upon fixed premises which must be located in the general commercial districts or within hotels, motels and conference centers in the major recreation district of the City as established by the zoning laws of the City. The total number of licenses issued shall be limited to six. Section 2 -Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. Adopted in regular 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 , 1998. PREPARED BY: City of Shakopee 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee,MN 55379 2 MassageCentersOrd539.doc/RML CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Residential Development Moratorium MEETING DATE: February 16, 1999 INTRODUCTION: On January 25 and February 4, 1999 the Council met in joint session with the Planning Commission to discuss the desirability and efficacy of imposing a temporary moratorium on residential development within the City. DISCUSSION: Staff has prepared the attached interim ordinance based on input and direction received at the joint workshops. As drafted, the ordinance would impose a 9-month moratorium on the receipt and processing of new requests for residential plats and new applications for planned unit developments(PUD) and conditional use permits(CUPs)to allow residential development. The moratorium would apply both within and outside the City's MUSA area. As drafted,the interim ordinance would not apply to complete applications received by the date the ordinance goes into effect, nor would it apply to projects which have received preliminary plat approval. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve Ordinance No. 540, an Interim Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota Prohibiting Approval of New Residential Plats, as presented. 2. Revise Ordinance No. 540 with revisions. 3. Do not approve Ordinance No. 540. 4. Table the matter for further revision of Ordinance No. 540 or for additional information. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer and approve a motion consistent with the Council's wishes. R. Michael Leek Community Development Director is\commdev\CC\1999\0216\Moratorium.doc ORDINANCE NO. 540,FOURTH SERIES AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA PROHIBITING APPROVAL OF NEW RESIDENTIAL PLATS,PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS,AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. Definitions. The following terms, whenever used in this ordinance, shall be interpreted to mean: Plat—A drawing or map of a subdivision prepared for filing of record pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 505, and containing all the elements set forth in Shakopee city code adopted pursuant to Minn. Stat. 462.358 and Chap. 505. Residential—means use as a dwelling, including single-family attached and detached, two-family, and multiple family dwellings, but does not include uses such as hotels, motels, institutions and boarding houses. Section 2. Purpose and Intent. The City desires to conduct an in-depth study of the following: • The need for affordable and life-cycle housing in the City, and the appropriate locations within the City for affordable and life-cycle housing options, • Land use and zoning controls for growth management and residential development, In addition the City Council desires to complete its participation in the Metropolitan Council's Regional Impact Study, which is expected to be completed in 1999. City staff is authorized and directed to conduct an in-depth study of these items. In conducting and completing these studies, the City Council desires to accomplish the following goals, which are not listed in specific order: 1. The identification of the location of future collector streets and arterial roadways; 2. The identification of appropriate land use buffers and transitional land uses; 3. The development of a mixed use zoning district; 4. Fostering of life-cycle housing options; 5. A reduction in the number of variances sought in connection with residential projects; 6. Development of a policy direction regarding residential density and the reduction of urban sprawl within the City of Shakopee; 7. Retention of the City of Shakopee's small town feel; 8. The inclusion of more sidewalks,trails, and porches in the City's residential developments; 9. Revision of the residential district regulations; 10. Planning for the STH 169 corridor; 11. The preservation of core community values as expressed in the City's comprehensive plan; 12. Development and execution of orderly annexation agreements with Jackson and Louisville townships; 13. Better planning for transitions in land use at the City's boundaries. Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.355 Subdivision 4 allows the City to adopt an interim ordinance to protect the City's planning process and the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the community. The City Council finds that it is necessary to adopt an interim ordinance to allow sufficient time for the studies to be conducted to determine whether there is a need to amend the City's official controls or its comprehensive plan. Section 3 —Temporary Prohibition. Pending the completion of the studies referred to above, no residential plat, PUD, CUP or other development shall be processed or approved, and no applications for such approval will be accepted. This ordinance shall not apply to the following: 1. Property for which completed applications for preliminary plat, PUD, or CUP approval were filed on or before the effective date of this ordinance. 2. Plats which have received preliminary plat approval prior to the effective date of this ordinance, unless such approval is void by virtue of expiration. 3. The replatting of outlots, 4. Development commitments that have previously been approved by the City Council in settlement or litigation. 5. Commercial or industrial developments. Section 4 -Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication, and shall remain in effect until December 1, 1999 or the date of adoption of the official controls, whichever occurs first. Adopted in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota held the day of , 1999. Mayor of the Cityof Shakopee Y p ATTEST: City Clerk Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of , 1999. PREPARED BY: City of Shakopee 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee,MN 55379 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Shakopee Planning Commission Mark McNeill FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Residential Development Moratorium MEETING DATE: Joint Meeting; Thursday, February 4, 1999, 5:00—7:00 p.m. Planning Commission Regular Meeting follows Joint Meeting INTRODUCTION: At the January 25th joint meeting the Council and Commission set a follow-up,joint meeting to discuss the goals and objectives. The attached draft ordinance is provided to the Council and Board to assist them in focusing their discussion. Additional items the Council and Board may want to discuss include: • Whether residential plats resulting from PUD applications received before the date of the interim ordinance should be allowed to proceed. • Whether a moratorium could or should address CUPs for multiple residential structures on single lots. • The length of a moratorium. Staff suggests that something longer than 6 months might be appropriate to avoid a potential rush of projects in late summer or early fall 1999. ACTION REQUESTED: Direction is sought from the Council and the Board regarding the material to be presented to the City Council on February 16th ORDINANCE NO. XXX,FOURTH SERIES AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA PROHIBITING APPROVAL OF NEW RESIDENTIAL PLATS 'IRE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. Definitions. The following terms, whenever used in this ordinance, shall be interpreted to mean: Plat—A drawing or map of a subdivision prepared for filing of record pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 505, and containing all the elements set forth in Shakopee city code adopted pursuant to Minn. Stat. 462.358 and Chap. 505. Residential—means use as a dwelling, including single-family attached and detached, two-family, and multiple family dwellings, but does not include uses such as hotels, motels, institutions and boarding houses. Section 2. Intent. It is the intent of this ordinance to allow the City of Shakopee to complete in-depth study of the following: • The need for life-cycle housing options in the City, and the appropriate locations within the City for life-cycle housing options, • Land use and zoning controls for growth management and residential development, • The Metropolitan Council's Regional Impact Study, in which the City of Shakopee is participating. It is the further intent of this ordinance to protect the City's planning process and the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the community. Section 3 —Temporary Prohibition. Pending the completion of the studies referred to above, no residential plat or development shall be processed or approved, and no applications for such approval will be accepted. This ordinance shall not apply to the following: 1. Property for which completed applications for preliminary and final plat approval were filed on or before(Date), if those applications are on the date of this ordinance complete and being actively pursued. 2. Plats which have received preliminary plat approval prior to the date of this ordinance, unless such approval is void by virtue of expiration. 3. The replatting of outlots, 4. Development commitments that have previously been approved by the City Council in settlement or litigation. 5. Commercial or industrial developments. • • 'Section 4 -Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its ,6s'age and publication, and shall remain in effect until the completion of the studies and official controls contemplated in this ordinance, or[nine months hence]. Adopted in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee,Minnesota / held the day of , 1999. Mayor of the City of Shakopee Al[EST: City Clerk Ordinance No. 531 Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of , 1999. PREPARED BY: City of Shakopee 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee,MN 55379 i,; CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Shakopee Board of Adjustments and Appeals/Planning Commission(BOAA/PC) Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Background Paper on Development Moratoria MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 Workshop INTRODUCTION: The City Council has scheduled a joint meeting with the BOAA/PC for the purposes of discussing the idea of imposing a short-term moratorium on development, and to discuss general development philosophies. In addition,the City Council wished to discuss with the BOAA/PC a number of recent votes overriding BOAA decisions and PC recommendations, and the philosophies underlying the BOAA/PC and Council votes. RECENT DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY: In 1998 the City Council approved 27 final plats,24 of which were residential plats. A list of the approved plats is attached for the Council's and Commission's information. These final plats resulted in the creation of about 373 single family lots, and potentially 88 twinhome units and 215 townhome units. By comparison, in 1998 the City approved building permits for 182 single-family houses, 50 duplex/two-family dwellings, 156 townhouses, and 260 multifamily units. A way of viewing this comparison is that single-family lots are being consumed at the rate of 51%of those that are created each year. In other words, at the present rate of single-family home construction,there would appear to be about a 10-12 months supply of single-family lots. MORATORIUMS/INTERIM ORDINANCES: Minnesota statutes give municipalities the authority to adopt interim ordinances regulating, restricting, or prohibiting uses or development. Specifically,the statutes provides as follows: Subd. 4. Interim Ordinance. If a municipality is conducting studies or has authorized a study to be conducted or has held or has scheduled a hearing for the purpose of considering adoption or amendment of a comprehensive plan or official controls as defined in section 462.352, subdivision 15, or if a new territory for which plans or controls have not been adopted is annexed to a municipality, the governing body of the municipality may adopt an interim ordinance applicable to all or part of its jurisdiction for the purpose of protecting the planning process and the health, R. Michael Leek Page 1 01/21/99WKSHP125.doc safety, and welfare of its citizens. The interim ordinance may regulate, restrict or prohibit any use, development or subdivision within the jurisdiction or a portion thereof for a period not to exceed one year from the date it is effective, and may be extended for such additional periods as the municipality, not exceeding a total additional period of 18 months. No interim ordinance may halt, delay, or impede a subdivision which has been given preliminary approval prior to the effective date of the interim ordinance. M.S.A. 462.355 Subd. 4(1998)(emphasis added) The City is in the process of considering adoption of a revised comprehensive plan. The first public hearing on the revised plan was held at the Planning Commission on Thursday, January 21, 1999. Among other things the comprehensive plan includes the land use plan. The land use plan, among other things, posits additional areas for medium and high-density residential development. As the Commission and Council proceed with their review of the revised comprehensive plan,they may wish to discuss, or direct further study of,the amount of land proposed to be dedicated to such uses, as well as the locations of those land uses. The City of Shakopee is a participant in the Metropolitan Council's regional impact study. As a part of that study the consultant to the Metropolitan Council will be evaluating the cost of development for the City of Shakopee under a"full-growth" and"compact development" scenarios. The Council and BOAA/PC may want to consider the appropriateness of completion of the regional impact study as a basis for the imposition of a development moratorium. DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUM EXAMPLE: In 1991 the City of Lakeville adopted a one-year long moratorium on residential development. Copies of the ordinances, resolution, and press releases prepared by that city are attached for the Council and Commission's information. In the year prior to imposing the moratorium, Lakeville had issued 539 single-family home permits, more than any other in the Metropolitan Area had at the time. In addition,the City's population had increased by about 67%from 1980 to 1990. At the time the moratorium was proposed Lakeville was processing 19 residential plats, and had a combined inventory from those and previously approved plats of 3,560 lots. This represented a several-years supply of residential lots. ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council and Planning Commission are expected to give staff direction on whether to proceed with an interim ordinance/moratorium or related matters. 7/f / R. Michael Leek Community Development Director R.Michael Leek Page 2 01/21/99WKSHP125.doc FINAL PLATS, 1998 City of Shakopee,Minnesota Plat Name Number of Lots/Twinhomes/Townhomes 1. Conklin Addition Not Residential 2. Orchard Park West 1d Addition 15 lots/50 twinhomes 3. Stonemeadow 2nd Addition 24 lots 4. Tenth Avenue Addition 2 lots(both previously developed) 5. Evergreen Heights 2 lots 6. Revised Horizon Heights 5th Addition 8 lots 7. Canterbury Park 5th Addition Not Residential 8. Southbridge 1s`Addition 74 lots 9. Weston Ponds 0 / /80 units 10. Stonebrooke 3rd Addition 4 lots/6 twinhomes 11. Prairie Village 3rd Addition 29 lots 12. Orchard Park West 2nd Addition 13 lots/26 twinhomes 13. French Trace 2"d Addition 22 lots 14. Boulder Ridge 2nd Addition Roads Only 15. Longmeadow / /28 townhomes 16. Crossroads Center 3rd Addition Not Residential 17. Prairie Estates 4th Addition 1 lot 18. Pheasant Run 1s`Addition 61 lots 19. Southbridge 2nd Addition 34 lots 20. Southbridge 3rd Addition 30 lots 21. Bergs Hilltop 3 lots 22. Stonemeadow 3rd Addition / /16 units 23. HTS Properties 1s` Addition 1 lots/1 apartment building 24. Weston Ponds 2"d Addition 11 lots 25. Longmeadow 2"d Addition 131ots/91 townhomes 26. Riverview Estates 2nd Addition 10 lots 27. Eagle Creek Preserve 32 lots R.Michael Leek Page 3 01/21/99WKSHP125.doc 12/21/1998 09:15 6129854429 LAKEVILLE COMM DEVLP PAGE 02 CITY OF I.?►KEVILLE DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA R38OLUTIOW Date July 6. 1992 Resolution No. 92-115 Motion By Sindt Seconded By 141111FlUdll RESOLUTION DIUCTING PREPARATION OF GROWTH XANA4EMENT CONTROLS WhEREAS, on July 15, 1991, the City Council adopted an interim ordinance and resolution directing the completion of a study on the fiscal impact of growth and the preparation of growth manage- • ment controls based upon that study; and WHEREAS, the City has completed an in-depth analysis of the fiscal impact of growth entitled "Lakeville Growth Study, a Fiscal Impact Analysis"; and WHEREAS, following completion of the fiscal analysis, the City Council appointed a citizen task force to develop growth management strategies; and • WHEREAS, the task force has completed and presented to the city Council a report entitled "Growth Management Strategies for the City of Lakeville"; and WHEREAS, although the necessary studies have now been completed, the growth management controls necessary to implement the studies have not been drafted or adopted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Lakeville City Council that City staff is directed to draft appropriate growth management plana and controls based upon the completed studies. • ADOPTED this 6th day of July , 1992, by the City Council of the City of Lakeville. ' CITY OF LLE BY: Du a R. Zaun, r ;'TES • Aba Charlene Friodges, C ty Clerk 12/21/1998 09: 15 6129854429 LAKEVILLE COMM DEVLP PAGE 03 ORDINANCE NO. 436 CITY OF LAKEVILLE DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN INTERIM ORDINANCE TEMPORARILY PROHIBITING APPROVAL OF NEW RESIDENTIAL PLATS AND EXPANSION OR DEVELOPMENT OF NOBILE (MANUFACTURED) ROME PARES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEVILLE ORDAINS: Section 1. Definitions. The following terms whenever used in this ordinance shall be interpreted to mean: Plat means the drawing or map of a subdivision prepared for filing of record pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 505 and containing all elements and requirements sot forth in applicable Lakeville city ordinances adopted pursuant to Minn. Stat. i 462 .358 and Chapter 505. Residential means use as a dwelling, including one-family, two-family, and multiple family dwellings, but not including hotels, motels, institutions, and boarding houses. Section 2. Intent. It is the intent of this ordinance to allow the City of Lakeville time to complete an in-depth study concerning appropriate land use controls for growth management, and in the interim to protect the planning process and the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the community. Section 3. Temporary Prohibition. Pending the completion of the above referred to study and adoption of appropriate official controls, no residential plat or mobile (manufactured) home park expansion or development shall be processed or approved and no applications for such approval will be accepted. This ordinance shall not apply to the following: (1) property for 12/21/1998 09:15 6129854429 LAKEVILLE COMM DEVLP PAGE 04 which properly completed applications for plat approval were . filed on or before July 15, 1991, if those applications are, on the data this ordinance is adopted, being actively pursued, (2) plats which have been preliminarily approved by the City Council unless that approval is void pursuant to Section 10-2-2 of the Lakeville City Code, (3) replatting outlots, (4) devel- opment commitments which have previously been approved by the City Council in settlement or litigation, (5) property for• which : a grading permit has been approved by the City Council in conjunction with a request for plat approval, and (6) commercial and industrial developments. • .. section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication and shall remain in effect until the date of the adoption of the official controls contemplated hereunder or July 14, 1992, whichever occurs first. • PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Lakeville City Council this 15th day of July, 1991. V OF LLE BY: t 4,2 ijaff.4..i.set_ Du ne R. Zaun, or TTEST: - 1 . II id.iakt . aarlene Friedges, iidtilta_k___ CITY cler 12/21/1998 09:15 6129854429 LAKEVILLE COMM DEVLP PAGE 05 ORDINANCE NO. 494 CITY OF LAKEVILLE DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN INTERIM ORDINANCE TEMPORARILY PROBIBITING APPROVAL 07 CERTAIN RESIDENT/AL DEVELOPMENT AND EXPANSION 07 MOBILE (MANA7ACTURED) HOME PARES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEVILLE ORDAINS: Section i. pefinitions. The following terms whenever used in this Ordinance shall be interpreted to mean: plat means the drawing or map of a subdivision prepared for filing of record pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 505 and containing all elements and requirements set forth in applicable Lakeville city ordinances adopted pursuant to Minn. Stat. ; 462.358 and Chapter 505. ] d3ide3tial means use as a dwelling, including one-family, two-family, and multiple family dwellings, but not including hotels, motels, institutions, and boarding homes. p.ction 2. Intent. This is an extension of Lakeville Ordinance No. 466, as modified herein. It is the intent of this Ordinance to allow the City of Lakeville time to complete planning studies and adopt appropriate land use controls, and in the interim to protect the planning process and the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the community. Section 3. Temporary Prohibition. Pending the completion of the above referenced study and adoption of appropriate official controls, no residential plat or mobile (manufactured) home park expansion shall be processed or approved and no applications for such approval will be accepted. This Ordinance shall not apply to the following: (1) Plats which have been preliminarily approved by the City Council prior to this adoption of this Ordinance, including up to one acre of land outside the approved preliminary plat, unless that approval is void pursuant to Sections 10-2-2 and 10-2-3 of the Lakeville City Code; (2) Replatting outlots, including up to one acre of land outside the outlot; 3664 r03/31/93 12/21/1998 09:15 6129854429 _ LAKEVILLE COMM DEVLP PAGE 06 (3) Property for which a grading permit has been approved by the City Council in conjunction wit a request for plat approval; (4) Replatting previously platted property; (5) Platting up to three lots if new streets are not needed to access the lots; and (6) Platting property abutting Dakota County Improvement Project No. 4604 if the developer pays 100% of the cost of all street improvements and other public infra- structure. Election 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication and shall remain in effect until the date of the adoption of the official controls contemplated hereunder or December 31, 1993, whichever occurs first. ADOPTED this 5th day of April , 1993, by the City Council of the City of Lakeville. CITY OF ILLE BY: Dua a R. Zaun, or ATTEST•) ��ilkil ! {1. ,!C Charlene Friedges, ty Clerk 3664 r03/31/93 12/21/1998 09:15 6129854429 LAKEVILLE COMM DEVLP PAGE 07 • ORDINANCE NO. 466 CITY OF LAKEVILLE DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN INTERI][ ORDINA C7 TENPORIRILY PROHIBITING APP*OoAL OF CERTAIN Aa9IDEETIAL DEVELOP)EXT AND EXPANSION OR DEVELOPYEITT Ol MOBILE (NINU71CTURED) BONN P'PF' THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEVILLE ORDAINS: section 1. Definitions. The following terms whenever used in this ordinance shall be interpreted to mean: Plat means the drawing or map of a subdivision prepared for filing of record pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 505 and containing all elements and requirements set forth in applicable Lakeville city ordinances adopted pursuant to Minn. Stat. S 462.358 and Chapter 505. Dingle Family Residential means one-family and two-family dwellings. Multiple Daily Residential means multiple family dwellings with more than two (2) units, but does not include hotels, motels, institutions, and boarding houses. Rection 2. Intent. This is an extension of Lakeville Ordinance No. 436. It is the intent of this ordinance to allow the City of Lakeville time to adopt appropriate land use controls for growth management, and in the interim to protect the planning process and the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the community. section 3. Temporary Prohibition; single Family Residential Plats. Pending the adoption of appropriate official controls, no single family residential plat shall be processed or approved and no applications for such approval will be accepted. This suction shall not apply to the following: (1) plats which r07/02/92 (11 : 45 am) 12/21/1998 09:15 6129854429 LAKEVILLE COMM DEVLP PAGE 08 have been preliminarily approved by the City Council prior to the adoption of this Ordinance, including up to one acre of land outside the approved preliminary plat, unless that approval is void pursuant to Section 10-2-2 of the Lakeville City Code, (2) replatting outlots, including up to one acre of land outside the outlot, (3) property for which a grading permit has been approved by the City Council in conjunction with a request for plat approval, (4) replatting previously platted property, (5) platting up to three lots if new streets are not needed to access the lots, and (6) platting property abutting Dakota County Improvement Project No. 4604 if the developer pays 100% of the cost of all street improvements and other public infrastructure. Section 4. Temporary Prohibitions Multiple Family Dwellings. Pending the adoption of appropriate official controls, building permits shall not be issued for multiple family residential dwellings except as part of a planned unit development approved by the City prior to the enactment of this Ordinance. Plata for multiple family dwellings shall not be processed or approved and no applications for such approval will be accepted, except for plats within a planned unit development approved by the City prior to the enactment of this Ordinance and except for plats which have bean preliminarily approved by the City council prior to the adoption of this Ordinance, unless the approval is void pursuant to Section 10-2-2 of the Lakeville City Code. -2- 12/21/1998 09:15 6129854429 LAKEVILLE COMM DEVLP PAGE 09 Beation S. Temporary Prohibition; Manufactured Housing Park Development. Pending the adoption of appropriate official controls, no mobile (manufactured) home park expansion or development shall be processed or approved and no applications for such approval will be accepted. section 6. Effective Dates. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication. Section 3 shall remain in effect until the adoption of the official controls contemplated thereunder or April 2, 1993, whichever first occurs. Section 4 and Section 5 shall remain in effect until the adoption of the official controls contemplated by those sections or December 31, 1993, whichever first occurs. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Lakeville City Council this 6th day of July , 1992. CITY OF LLE BY: ‘I 14(1:tri7,4„4„,,,‘ 41/42::::: Duane R. Zaun, (VOITL:W142iika Charlene dges ty Clerk -3- 12/21/1998 09:15 6129854429 LAKEVILLE COMM/LP PAGE 10 CITY OF LAKEVILLE DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PB8QLUTIOti Date April 5, 1993 Resolution 93-57 Motion By Ruhmann Seconded By Mulvihill RESOLUTION DIRECTING COMPLETION OF A STUDY ON GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND PREPARATION OF OFFICIAL CONTROLS EASED UPON THAT STUDY WHEREAS, the City commissioned a study on the fiscal impact of growth which has been completed; and WHEREAS, the City's Strategic Growth Management Task Force has completed a study on growth management strategies; and WHEREAS, the City has directed its consulting planner, Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. , to prepare a growth management development and regulation analysis using the Task Force report and fiscal analysis report; and WHEREAS, Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. has prepared a preliminary report on growth management development and regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lakeville: 1. Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. is directed to prepare a final report with input from City staff and appropriate City committees. 2 . Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. , together with City staff, the City Attorney, and appropriate City committees, is directed to draft proposed amendments to official controls to implement the growth management study. ADOPTED this 5th day of April , 1993, by the City Council of the City of Lakeville. CITY OF LAKEVILLE • BY: . D =ne R. Zaun, yor TEST• zit t • Charlene Friedges, y Clerk 3666 r02/25/93 12/21/1998 09:15 6129854429 LAKEVILLE COMM DEVLP PAGE 11 Lakevilic FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: Robert A. Erickson, July 16, 1991 city Administrator Phone 469-4431 Lakeville approves temporary moratorium on new residential plats The Lakeville City Council authorized an interim ordinance temporarily prohibiting the approval of new residential plats and mobile (manufactured) home park expansion at its Monday, July 15, Council meeting. The ordinance will not affect residential plats being processed or previously approved, and it will not affect commercial and industrial development. The Council also passed a resolution directing the completion of a study on the fiscal impact of growth, along with the preparation of a strategic growth management plan based upon the results of the study. In recent months, the City has experienced a surge in single-family home construction. Last year, the City issued more single-family home permits (539) than any other city in the seven-county metropolitan area. By the end of June this year, 312 permits for single-family homes had been issued. Projections indicate that 525 homes could be built this year and another 500 in 1992 . In the past 10 years, the City's population has increased by nearly 10, 000, reaching 24 ,854 in 1990. Recent actions taken by the State Legislature have severely affected the City's ability to keep pace with continued housing growth and demands for service. The Legislature has restricted the City's ability to increase the tax levy limit base to account for population growth and inflation. State Local Government Aids have also been reduced, resulting in significant revenue losses in 1991 and increased (more) City of Lakeville 20195 Holyoke Avenue • P.O. Box 957 • Lakeville. MN 55044 • (612)469-4431 • FAX 469-3815 12/21/1998 09:15 6129854429 LAKEVILLE COMM DEVLP PAGE 12 Temporary mor atorium. . . .Page two taxes in 1992. The legislative process that could have enabled the City to charge impact fees was vetoed. Impact fees would require that new housing pay for at least some of the construction costs associated with growth. Mayor Duane Zaun said the proposed growth management measures will help maintain the community ambience that is so highly valued by residents. In a community survey conducted in February, residents gave high marks to the quality of life in Lakeville and to the City's delivery of services. He added, "The City Council is taking this step to provide time for serious and sober reflection on the future of Lakeville. This reflection can provide a time for evaluation and renewal. " City Administrator Robert A. Erickson explained that the proposed growth management measures were triggered by the 1991-92 budget planning process last fall. "Council Members were concerned about the City's fiscal ability to continue to endure rapid growth, " he said. "They asked how we could balance meeting the growing needs of the citizenry with declining financial resources. " As a result, City staff and the City's planning consultant began an in-depth examination of the status of all residential plats in Lakeville. Erickson said the data gathering allowed the City to clearly identify the number of lots that have been preliminary-platted and thus could proceed to final platting, along with the impact the development of those lots could have on available sewer capacity. Currently, 19 pending residential plats are being processed, representing 929 lots. In addition, previously-approved plats total 2, 631 lots, with a combined total of 3 ,560. These figures, Erickson said, indicate that a -2- 12/21/1998 09:15 6129854429 LAKEVILLE COMM DEVLP PAGE 13 Temporary moratorium. . .Page 3 temporary growth moratorium will not lead to a shortage of residential development activity in the near future. The study also identified plat approvals that are considered void due to lack of progress in finalizing and recording the plats, and those that could require re-evaluation. Developers whose property falls into these categories will be notified. Erickson emphasized that the interim ordinance will not apply to property for which completed applications for plat approval have already been filed, plats that have received preliminary approval, outlots that must be replatted or development commitments that have previously been approved by the City Council in settlement agreements. Commercial development and industrial development also are excluded. In fact, a greater emphasis is expected to be placed on these types of development in order to increase the tax base of the City. The temporary "timeout" in approving new residential plats will give the City time to complete the fiscal impact study and draft appropriate growth management plans and controls, Erickson said. The ordinance will remain in effect until the Council adopts official growth controls or until July 14, 1992, whichever occurs first. * * * * * /5. c . 3 DAHLGREN OIECIEMED SHARDLOW rtrs 19�� AND - UBAN INCORPORATED CONSULTING PLANNERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 300 FIRST AVENUE NORTH SUITE 210 February 11, 1999 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 612339.3300 Honorable Mayor Brekke and City Council Members City of Shakopee City Hall 129 Holmes St. South Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-1376 RE: Proposed Interim Development Moratorium Related to Medium Density Residential development in Shakopee Dear Mayor Henderson and Council Members: My firm has been retained by the heirs to the Lloyd Cherne Estate to assist them in planning for the future use of their 77.3 acre property,just easterly of County Road 79 (the South one-half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 18, Township 115, Range 22). From some preliminary investigation and a meeting with Community Development Director, Michael Leek, I understand that you will be considering the adoption of an ordinance establishing a moratorium to provide time to study a number of issues related to medium density housing development in your community. As a planning consultant to numerous communities throughout Minnesota I have had experience with many similar studies. I believe that they can provide many benefits to both the City and the affected property owners under the right circumstances. In particular, I believe that the process should begin by identifying all of the issues and concerns to be addressed. It should then proceed through the formulation of goals and objectives and then explore a number of different approaches and strategies to accomplish your objectives. My experience has also been that the most successful studies have involved good communication between the City and all of the other stakeholders throughout the process and they have been open and allowed opportunities for the public to participate. As the owners of one of the properties to be covered by the proposed moratorium my clients have a significant interest in its outcome. They need to fully understand your concerns and objectives, as well as the information that you will assemble and analyze during this study. They would also benefit from the opportunity to share their aspirations with you and to bring information to the process that they believe to be relevant to the study. With these considerations in mind I am writing on their behalf with a request that you structure this study in an open and inclusive manner, provide us with timely notification about the dates, times and locations for the meetings, and provide us an opportunity to have some timely input into this process. 1 Honorable Mayor Brekke and City Council Members February 11, 1999 Page 2 I would also suggest that, while there are some prescribed elements of the comprehensive planning process due to the Metropolitan Council's Regional Growth Management Plan, there are many, equally important long range planning issues that should also be part of this process. Of particular importance to my clients is the need to determine the best and most efficient and timely approach to providing municipal services to serve their land and its surroundings. These questions must be addressed regardless of the density of housing that ultimately occurs on the land and the alternatives that are available may very well prove relevant in addressing many of the issues and concerns that have prompted your study. In other words, I hope that you will approach the study in a manner that takes into account community design implications as well as traffic, demograhics, tax base, community services and the other factors normally addressed in such studies. I will be in attendance at your meeting on Tuesday, February 16, and I thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, DAHLGREN, SHARDLOW, & UBAN, INC. Joh/ Shardlow, AICP P ident & Director of Planning cc: David Cherne Steve Cherne Carol Konigson Linda Cherne Bruce Malkerson, Esquire / 5 D . CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor& City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: River District Trunk Sewer Reconstruction Project No. 1999-1 DATE: February 16, 1999 INTRODUCTION: Attached is Resolution No. 5065, a resolution which accepts the bids and awards the contract for River District Trunk Sewer Reconstruction, Project No. 1999-1. BACKGROUND: On January 19, 1999, the City Council ordered the advertisement for the River District Trunk Sewer Reconstruction, Project No. 1999-1. The project consists of relocating and reconstructing trunk sanitary sewer that is being endangered by the riverbank erosion of the Minnesota River. The funding of this project is from the Sanitary Sewer Enterprise Fund. On February 12, 1999, sealed bids were received and are summarized in the attached resolution. The low bid was submitted by Minger Construction, Inc. with a bid of$104,219.00. The low bid received is lower than the Engineer's opinion of cost of$126,797.00. The total opinion of cost for this project in the feasibility report was $161,425.00 which included 10% contingency and 25% indirect costs for engineering and administration. The estimated total project cost using the low bid of$104,219.00 plus 10% contingency plus 25% indirect costs is $143,301.13. The low bid received is less than the Engineer's estimate and the feasibility report. Staff is recommending awarding the contract to Minger Construction, Inc. in the amount of$104,219.00. In addition to awarding the contract to the low bidder, Council will need to authorize consultant engineering services to provide construction surveying, inspection and administration services as necessary for this project. WSB & Associates did the preliminary surveying and staff is recommending an extension agreement be executed by the appropriate City officials with WSB & Assoc. to provide construction engineering services. If Council awards this project, staff is also requesting that City Council authorize a contingency amount equal to 10% of the contract to cover minor change orders or quantity adjustments that may occur on the project. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Accept the low bid of $104,219.00 and adopt Resolution No. 5065, awarding the contract to Minger Construction, Inc. 2. Reject the low bid and award the bid to another bidder. 3. Reject all bids and rebid. 4. Authorize the appropriate City officials to execute an extension agreement with WSB & Associates, Inc., to provide consultant services on this project, for the City of Shakopee. 5. Authorize a 10% contingency amount for use by the City Engineer in authorizing change orders or quantity adjustments on this project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No.'s 1, 4 and 5. ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Offer Resolution No. 5065, A Resolution Accepting Bids for the River District Trunk Sewer Reconstruction,Project No. 1999-1, and move its adoption. 2. Authorize the appropriate City officials to execute an extension agreement with WSB & Associates, Inc. to provide consultant services for the City of Shakopee. 3. Authorize a 10% contingency amount for use by the City Engineer in authorizing change order or quantity adjustments on this project. /:"1:11C3-II:oney Public Works Director BL/pmp MEM5065 RESOLUTION NO. 5065 A Resolution Accepting Bids On The River District Trunk Sewer Reconstruction Project No. 1999-1 WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids on the River District Trunk Sewer Reconstruction,Project No. 1999-1,bids were received,opened and tabulated according to law, and the following bids were received complying with the advertisement: Minger Construction,Inc. $104,219.00 Widmer,Inc. $110,878.00 Ryan Contracting,Inc. $139,899.50 Barbarossa& Sons,Inc. $144,431.00 Latour Construction,Inc $174,472.25 Northdale Inc. $223,317.63 S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. $274,073.00 Richard Knutson, Inc. $292,723.23 AND WHEREAS, it appears that Minger Construction, Inc., P.O. Box 236, Chanhassen, MN 55317 is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA: 1. The appropriate City officials are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Minger Construction, Inc. in the name of the City of Shakopee for the River District Trunk Sewer Reconstruction by the installation of sanitary sewer and storm sewer and any other appurtenant work according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. 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 FEB-15-1999 15 29 IJSB 8. ASSOCIATES INC. 6125411700 P.01/02 - 350 Westwood Lake Office 8441 Wayzata Boulevard WSB Minneapolis MN 55426 (612)541-4800 Fax:(612)541-1700 FAX TRANSMITTAL &Associates,Inc. To: Bruce Loney City of Shakopee From: Bret Weiss Date: February 15, 1999 Re: Extension Agreement to Provide Construction Surveying Services River District Sanitary Sewer Improvements WSB Project No. 1014.51 Bruce, Please find attached extension agreement letter on the above-referenced project. The originals are being mailed today. Please call me if you have any questions or comments. Thank you. Attachments: 1 Faxed this date at: 3:23 PM FIWPWISA I Olai I O2I i99•fmc w1d FEB-15-1999 15:29 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC. 6125411700 P.02/02 A50 Westwood Lake Office B.A.B Mitcelsceadc,P.E.Bret A.Weiss,P.E. WSS 8441 Wayzata Boulevard Pacer 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 February 15, 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 Construction Surveying Services River District Sanitary Sewer Improvements WSB Project No. 1014.51 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 for construction surveying services for the above-referenced project. We are proposing to complete this work on a cost-reimbursable basis according to our fee schedule. 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. Sincerely, WSB &Associates,Inc. (3).1—A. Bret A. Weiss, P.E. Vice President City Administrator nm City Clerk Mayor Date Infrastructure Engineers Planners P:1WPwtrniDia,S1�t-egr-tmwrveY wvd TOTAL P.02 /s D. 2. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum r TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council —1 Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution of Support for CR 42 Corridor Study MEETING DATE: February 16, 1999 INTRODUCTION: In 1997 Dakota County and Scott County initiated a study of the CSAH 42 corridor from Trunk Highway 55 in Rosemount to Trunk Highway 169 west of Shakopee. Public Works Director/City Engineer Bruce Loney represented the City on the study Technical Advisory Committee. The cities that participated in the study have been asked to adopt the final report prepared by BRW, Incorporated, consultant for the study. The attached resolution of support has been drafted for the Council's consideration. As drafted, the resolution reserves certain access and signalization issues raised by the City. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 5067 as presented. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 5067 with revisions. 3. Do not adopt Resolution No. 5067. 4. Table the matter for additional information. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Provide direction to staff as to the preferred alternative. 71:1 �; J I R. Michael Leek Community Development Director . _t `,,,--7-..—/ 1 „ !11A7%' t o1 a1 ��;iy { '`v' i c {n •:�% co L' HJ ^ C} ( a� LI HJ (✓ °� T o e 3�N. 818 O re _i w _ w L 7: Li LL co w dU M3, w I CC 0)vs u 0. C 1:244 CO0 • �0� _ 0 ¢ad I1�V, p so co R 4 2 C''"'v COs c va ET V 3�' . i` e' � ` .e>` F . 0\„,y n E W= • N\\ ' "\ \\\a' la '\\ `\ \\ \, /\\ '1 \\ \',:r- ilo \\\ \\ \\ v 0 0 ',.s 6L aJ X10 6L'aJ CC 0 _ - I c0 i\ 0 < W c0 W11. • •• m ,z y o w V z u Q Si HJ 7 :,. Si H3 !: o a J O V s" g W eI a N a 2 To 0 ' O N Q N CO 0 {7 qiNI H �� 41' O da 1.0 o .. wo z. : •MI vu_8 CO �i cmi CO 0. LIN O O ii I - - -- --- — _ .- _....__.__ co N co ' Q N C Q 1 C 0 m N • a • r N Y i.� Q • B Q. - \ / .... B ,aen t rcv ' W" 4C p\ cs.,:_-,..---/:‘*2 I(il :::,'1:',...2.1 .41 '2".•-• 11.,',--- tr >6••CIP) F. re IQ �/ ui T C a� m a o+ C:- tr. 3 �. o,a • 1� c u s1 i.. O E `• O� r �- CC r" 1 6 I --',// o ;' .= /t`..�; . _.,()� C C= Y^ .- If 7!i f' '; •zir•;cr. 2 } 111 Ii.' 0 00 kr: 0 L. 1 --✓ y W` f--�_ I a) .�C'ta E d J 1+ 1 Y . 's L 1 0 .Y tri'.' ¢ [ i 1 'i'; i1+ A C_ 0 1 " f }'/ G '1,---;-:,.--:/,',%; ib a'i. i�l 3eii �, 4 . . r\•\.\ vim., -,4 /! O 1 •d_��\'`�\�, S` 1M `.Q\ `� v I JO-IIIA 'C'is•i \-.\7 co I — ^ £s �£e 2:10 it 0 q .7\\ \‘7.- 7 ' '7., -V's CD w n w W = rt Z 'e :. W W O LU- z O Ct._ • W y ❑ p N W sh G \<> UW ' a4 n - ".- p °C X00 +4 0 N10 4111o O0 PM d ,1 u a,1 Z o �� U U N Ti ...Ty, N 0 .f a) •••>,.,. 1 N U I %W to '�ta . ... 9 p U aQ as ' • y M -' • • 7 ca :7- • • ��� 0 q N ':/ \..../ /�' _ / - r-- a m // 3g u. 10 O co W:. r > i/'/ 0 ,i;i i U 0 .-4. . ' .., .c. •••,„,___.: .7.y,, o) ›...•,.:CO .:; $c.,__i.1. • .•:, ....._. z •..,_.,, LT-1 , • --. . zi .1 •‘.r \.' 2• ,----•:---', ; _---t-- ,:,,‘„,„_.,.. 3 o.,a.1 . low ..- .., '4c i. 0) 0 11.... __./ .......-------,, .s.3AV i i 1 ...V Po 01,415e 3C101+:-. ,; •1N1 LL ..-----r. o E Ai •3,..' z:i 41.! re fun mcc. • z„ - _.. ••,,,...,...s. : g 04—. ---- ----'z,-- -- , ,, • 1 ET HI. 7 1-2-7---, .:'..i ID Cn qr. -%\''"- 0 cm LI H/ ----'1Av ',-) -s• ,141, li,,,--7,----. ,, n I • ..‘. V Vi + : ,,, • , ,.... ,„....,„:., 'in .,,A.• . . ,. s*,..k.-Alt "')7:.'s ',,;‘,J.H.L...t - ' ; ,vt .., 1 . 4°'." :411.0t11.1; !;;_. ir_- !, .4.. ......1 , •., .,.., , r--- ., .th:--1 s':'3,?..1.'" ;t..1 I --.:.,•7----. . , .-,. ...,K., ..,• 1'''' ,.... ....1 TiVi'...4.1.1 ''''..4' ..--5.-'1--.4., F. f."\ Z 4',...4 ID ,DJ,yi•:'• ' i !._- /.....N. , ...All 3 ". Li• i .-..''....4.,?‘' a i •-lke, 51,.,,t= :1 1‘ ,•.... ',..., (1)t) .% i , ,,, • 4° - ' .31..1 '''' LI ii i‘ 4-ZY i•s>•., -.i •.'S ,1 -"- ..c,f, It 4,*/;:•,, , ',:-:.,..... ,;4..0.1 ,'"'":1 /I i • ... c E P.•••....; - ...i A L,C1...,,, oi....i.1 j i f II / 4 , ‘• 1". ill, . Alin. ,:11,_..., Ti I! ,.....:11 i .,.....C.,..... E o v..,,,,is.,..4. _ W 2 .010 ..r `...i., , •\,. i i ...L / ,,s./a x. S. 1--__ii•I PC•-• NW •%21••'.N :-- . .-----, 1;* • -• ••••• - ,,,1,., -1:... .., , it /,..,-,,z., .0..,---...• i...- , •••....,,0i:i ",,,, .I I • r`:\`.. `,! :: ‘... ,:<,•'''..•' 0 > • \ v.... -1.__1.--- , — , , •-•,_I .., ...". , .„..., ,, ,.•1 ,-,..,..,,,, ..,,, -.• • ••• •, •••,• •••••;•-• ,/••<„ 1s ....,, p,.., ..f., k '•',' '• ,e•i-' ,---:------ ..; C3 0 .•---,,- , ii-„,7 :5„...,,,, ,_•‘. 1.7-. , -,,, ,,,,, „..,, . .:,..-: ,7--i ,_. -fz v.41 , ..5„, •,,,•_,-..f.:,, •,. ‘-' .: ‘41,1;•I -1C-1--=---,---- , 1.c.. 1 .4:.• i'...)et'1. ,47,." 0 L. —4 fierj If? fiz --.•4 's al,\ ••‘ \ •,s .- ,, n i'1171!'° ..' "- - •.+- N\ li \--'. v0 C22''' 3; CC 0. ,:,. ..T.51..-----. ...,,:..- ,-, •• . \\-.;i - ..po P•- -e-o')-L-- •Ai. .., '-'.....7. \ )11)i,, ,La. , 'e 5 ‘;$... L.,77:1:-., II. \ ,•/'; ;•\ -------.,-../•,-- E • L,h ', ..".."1-,-•"\\ .;1;OA ;W.,-. / •Nit.• . •-.1,,, • "---- .....\\ •-• --'.----....1 ,S.: 5 5; i;ft, y.,NI P--;•••., ',.!;\ ", \••_..,-------",1 .-: ,_. i 5 s, • .,i ‘''-Yel,,,... :\„ _,,,,,,/\,,-......2"....‘,1 ,..,... ......... li."))El „,•__L, „,____-.- -.`s,...-:-.„/—*1/4\:::------ i,,,,,•-ic 'GI . .0:1`. ••.. -7-7 A ..i) ')tr: 0 ,;'•`, \s s.,. ' x:...":---. ' '...... • •;‘,L11`7 -7, IP- );)) LA4/Nri:::-. ,.., - R..I.• VII‘. --.‘ ---. ,..:'f; -',Cil Q.;•:,) ;al''' ,. ...; )•-•,,: et f.-...\ 2:7.-• .i.i// , , _, 'S I:I _ -.. 0 .-----' 0.• ' '..: ..,,'-'_e . , ::::: 2.: `•' x ''i •7-.. •'....--.:7:c;..:,' . 1..,;;; "---\. OA\ ,;' :7,•: , --.., ....,' . ,.•1,.,....:•:1;.4.,..,..•:,‘...-- , , _, 7.Z r.1.2 Lc; „ v„. ,,,, L,-, ...: >-A,- .:' "•.::_i? ; ---.\ ', Iv,' • \ CI ',. ':' Y•'-' %. ..:--,: -- ,x9 -...., ....).,--:.s., --': z,-' .r. s-7.-.: r•-• , .- 11 73- 4,1`..x: ..:: ;,. • ,...-z-7. J z.,-. ..,'.;(--`, :'-.-:. ::::. ._:5 fi:-...-,:,:.: -,-,•-;*. c5',..-,-"' :7..e,--,:•....,.... 0 : 'z 7' .:-<4.. -..i,-, -.,...' 17 -`:' -'''' •". :‘,,-•^",'" .... , :-:;7.• '.4.-.--: -.-..X:..,.'71••'•-•r-; . 7_L.. „;;;..,S' e.'9* .. ..... ''',/•-'' , > i I. a '---'.;-•-•5-e••••.•1.- _a:,-. 0 ... si=.1.,.k:Fl; ••,,, •„..;_., .,',,...,.Q...- ...f..--,-7::, ,' LI.ri 1 ' 4 4. ;,.,;:.. CD •., '• •`. ,...:.,...,i g-:--.-;,,,c..-: . .---', •\ 77\ I-: ..•......!,f,*•.,--.;:`"•.V-.•-...•.:• •if,',.-"\,:;. 5. _--,•--,,z---•:.". •....-.-f7—..-- ,0..,., .., z:••::..,...0,'.5 0....."..0'-• ..,.' :., Li',,-,.:i, 0;-•;-7'.7?-,,,,\ V----.-,:.:••::..--,_ 0 1 , ...•- :,Z.-:..Z•...\.•- .•,.-\'-.•..'..-•.-,.. ..-•\ 7, .:': , ,) ii., ••'. -, , ' ;Z .s; I-. sf . •.,,, .,., •. ‘,., - : ,z--5- „•,.....,•/ ,..,. , .._ _ . 'Th--: 1.7 f c▪' CI la 2 . , 1 I. ..•3 't.. ".‘"...,. ,.. ...1 , . ' ‘ > ----'\ ,r, < • .? 7 el cc 7C...1 81 HO .';:,,-- '''''"7 i , .' '' \V\' w Z . lc , , ,-.. , z a- 8T HO ;...:'r•• —-, , • - ,,„_::___., ,,, , -FZ :,"I,CC•'•".1 Z -•''. ...-" : ',•"•1' tIJ ..,.... . ......, •-2 'n' . - ,.. •-• , -• • : : , • Lu -I 11 • '.. I • • •• 2 1 ..t. ''-a . . .. • _. .. _ _ ... . . .... . • ,,.... , :,.., , ,, cr :::. • , ,,, , _._ . 7, ,,,.. ..,i .• .-• -,: , " , .. . ....--...., ,. , :.,..:-4.: X •... ____ '''• . •:.% \\..., 0 0 E 1 .> .•'.• LLJ < '.,.. :,z t-:.; 40 - ,...• ..,.........,,, .7:...-,-..- ,,., •_.:7.2''-* '''' CA•:2.; s •''• ,...... .. , •::- -, :...' :„„. . ..,'" ,. -.',..-,:. •;,,.. 41. © ' .. • ., • . - .. V .-- . •P=I w -• 1 . --- -...---.....,,,,--.:.:.• •.• .. . - , .2. ., ;.., _., i.o .., .• „-._, ., ,-.• , . • . .. ,.....r... , CA 0 . . - • ..... , , ...• , • -.s. \ ,• • _., . :•-‘' .„,_ . ,.... - , -- 1 ...- .—r- ;,• „ ,,„•:,- . . .,. • • •... . .... . , . ,..,• .• ...... 0 0 l•-• N et ''‘ 1- '',,',"..-Ts: ;•' c4 1 z et el el. E. ; 71 0 j C')To • TO 0 0 E . I ta c) o 0 u . ; La cr, , . .... . „. • •03 , • • ,- , , _• = • yr nr • • " u ,,,. ,.- 3 es tO ,,, er- tZ HO V Li • . .- 1Z HO u... a a • • • • • C • C , .--": 0 a• ..;"' • ..._ .1--, . . . . c., — .. ... „, ••......7.._ '5 = 4 ••1 . ,..;:,, co . . ': to , — .... > . co 0- c, t .> •c- : - • ..., !-. •••.• _. -- .- ...- .,. ... co ,....:-., i ; -;. ._, . .• .Y. ....' _ c o 1- • ,,... cc,,.•,!, • ,;:l.„ ••••,- • • :,- .: , RESOLUTION NO. 5067 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA, ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING THE CSAH 42 CORRIDOR STUDY WITH QUALIFICATIONS WHEREAS, in 1997 Dakota County and Scott County initiated a study of the CSAH 42 Corridor between Trunk Highway 55 in Rosemount to its western terminus at Trunk Highway 169 west of Shakopee; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the study was to evaluate traffic patterns and demands, investigate functional classification, and to recommend improvements within the CSAG 42 Corridor; and WHEREAS,the cities of Shakopee, Savage, Prior Lake, Rosemount, Lakeville, Burnsville, Apple Valley, the Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVTA), the Minnesota Department of Transportation(MNDOT), and the Metropolitan Council took part in the Study; and WHEREAS,the City of Shakopee was represented by City Engineer Bruce Loney on the Study Technical Advisory Committee; WHEREAS,the recommendations of the final report have been presented to the Shakopee City Council; and WHEREAS,the Metropolitan Council, MNDOT, and counties have recommended that the participating cities adopt the Study as a blueprint for guiding development along the CSAH 42 Corridor. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA,that the document titled County Highway 42 Corridor Study Draft Final Report, dated September 1998 is hereby accepted and adopted subject to the following qualifications: 1. As the City of Shakopee develops there may be a need for additional partial access points(either%access or Right-In/Right-Out)along Segment 1 (Figure 8-5); 2. The specific location of Traffic Signals as depicted in Figure 8-7 for Segment 3 may need to be adjusted. A Traffic Signal is depicted on the jurisdictional boundary between the cities of Prior Lake and Shakopee. Such location poses potential jurisdictional difficulties. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Shakopee will evaluate the incorporation of relevant portions of the Study into the City's Transportation Plan. Passed in regular 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 Prepared By: City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 is. a3• CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor& City Council CONSEN Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Assessment Hearing for Vierling Drive, from Sage Lane to Miller Street, Project No. 1998-2 DATE: February 16, 1999 INTRODUCTION: Attached is Resolution No. 5069, declaring the cost to be assessed and ordering the preparation of proposed assessments for Vierling Drive, from Sage Lane to Miller Street, Project No. 1998-2. BACKGROUND: The City Council ordered the preparation of plans and specifications by Resolution No. 4870 on March 17, 1998 for the above project. The project improvements are on Vierling Drive, from Sage Lane to Miller Street by the installation of traffic signalization, widening of the existing pavement surface including concrete and curbs, sidewalk, bituminous paving, storm sewer, raised concrete medians, street lighting and appurtenant work. On July 21, 1998, the City Council approved Resolution No. 4940, awarding the contract to S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. of Jordan, Minnesota for$479,250.04. The improvements have been substantially completed and the total construction costs for the project are $504,864.52. Costs associated with administration and engineering for the project totaled $104,179.41 at this time with two items of costs still to be finalized with WSB &Associates and SPUC. It is anticipated to have the final invoices by February 16, 1999 and the final numbers will be presented with a memo on the table. The City's share is for bituminous overlay and traffic signal and Scott County's share is for participating in this project for the traffic signal. This project was initiated by the City based upon the developments of Boulder Ridge and Crossings Center. The developers did sign petitions waiving the right for a hearing and appealing assessments. Also, the developers signed a letter acknowledging and agreeing to the increased costs due to the bids received. The City's costs for this project are higher than the feasibility report due to a higher cost for the signal and that staff did not factor in the cost of Scott County design and inspection for the signal. City costs will be paid for with Capital Improvement Funds and/or Municipal State Aid Funds. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 5069. 2. Deny Resolution No. 5069. 3. Table for additional information from staff. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 5069, A Resolution Declaring the Cost to be Assessed and Ordering the Preparation of Proposed Assessments for Vierling Drive, from Sage Lane to Miller Street,Project No. 1998-2 and move its adoption. 4ffq, 4-I\ f ruce Loney Public Works Director BL/pmp MEM5069 RESOLUTION NO. 5069 A Resolution Declaring The Cost To Be Assessed And Ordering The Preparation Of Proposed Assessments For Vierling Drive, From Sage Lane To Miller Street Project No. 1998-2 WHEREAS, a contract has been let for the improvement of Vierling Drive, from Sage Lane to Miller Street by the installation of traffic signalization, widening of the existing pavement surface including concrete and curbs, sidewalk, bituminous paving, storm sewer, raised concrete medians, street lighting and all other appurtenant work; and the contract price for such improvements was $ , and the final contract price for such improvement is $ and the expenses incurred or to be incurred in the making of such improvements amounts to $ , so that the total cost of the improvements will be $ . Of this cost the City of Shakopee will pay$ as its share of the cost and Scott County will pay$ as its share of the cost. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA: 1. The cost of such improvement to be specially assessed is hereby declared to be 2. The City Clerk, with the assistance of the City Engineer shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such improvement against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the district affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and keep a copy of such proposed assessment in her office for public inspection. 3. That the City Clerk shall, upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the City Council thereof. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. That a hearing shall be held on the 16th day of March, 1999, in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 7:00 P.M. or thereafter, to pass upon such proposed assessments and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by such improvements and proposed assessments will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessment. 2. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper of the City of Shakopee at least two weeks prior to the hearing and she shall state in the notice the total cost of the improvements. She also shall cause mailed notice of such hearing to be given the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota,held this day of , 1999. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk 5 P. 3 RESOLUTION NO. 5069 A Resolution Declaring The Cost To Be Assessed And Ordering The Preparation Of Proposed Assessments For Vierling Drive, From Sage Lane To Miller Street Project No. 1998-2 WHEREAS, a contract has been let for the improvement of Vierling Drive, from Sage Lane to Miller Street by the installation of traffic signalization, widening of the existing pavement surface including concrete and curbs, sidewalk, bituminous paving, storm sewer, raised concrete medians, street lighting and all other appurtenant work; and the contract price for such improvements was $479,250.04, and the final contract price for such improvement is $504,864.52 and the expenses incurred or to be incurred in the making of such improvements amounts to $138,586.12, so that the total cost of the improvements will be $643,450.64. Of this cost the City of Shakopee will pay $131,364.63 as its share of the cost and Scott County will pay $76,610.81 as its share of the cost. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA: 1. The cost of such improvement to be specially assessed is hereby declared to be $435,475.20. 2. The City Clerk, with the assistance of the City Engineer shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such improvement against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the district affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and keep a copy of such proposed assessment in her office for public inspection. 3. That the City Clerk shall, upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the City Council thereof. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. That a hearing shall be held on the 16th day of March, 1999,in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 7:00 P.M. or thereafter, to pass upon such proposed assessments and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by such improvements and proposed assessments will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessment. 2. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper of the City of Shakopee at least two weeks prior to the hearing and she shall state in the notice the total cost of the improvements. She also shall cause mailed notice of such hearing to be given the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. n NI 7 �t e 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 /5 . O. Y. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney,Public Works Director SUBJECT: 12th Avenue Improvement Project No. 1992-4 -Project Funding Shortfall DATE: February 16, 1999 INTRODUCTION: This agenda item is for Council to consider and provide direction on a project funding shortfall that has occurred with the 12th Avenue Improvement Project, City Project No. 1992-4. BACKGROUND: Project No. 1992-4 was for 12th Avenue sewer and water improvements to serve industrial property owned by Valley Green. The project was constructed in 1992 and 1993 and the assessment hearing was lfthe assessment hearing as follows in November, 1993. With this project, the funding was determined to be at the time Assessments $ 785,428.61 SPUC Oversizing 168,839.10 City Oversizing 56,230.97 Total Project Cost $1,010,498.68 The bill for the SPUC watermain oversizing of $68,839.10 to was sent to SPUC on final payments for February 13, 1998. SPUC did decide on January 11, 1999make the watermain oversizing and these payments were approved in the amounts of $98,595.59 for watermain oversizing on 12th Avenue betweenCanterburyaRteoadt and Valley Park Drive and $59,153.47 for Highway 101 Bypass Crossing he southern extension of Valley Park Drive. In reviewing the invoice and documentation sent to SPUC, the utility determined that $11,090.04 of work should not.have been charged to the utility according to previous commission resolutions. At the time the assessments were prepared, City staff did work with Art Young with SPUC in determining the watermain oversizing costs. The project was then assessed based on calculating the watermain oversizing cost by a City staff person with a SPUC staff person assisting on these calculations. The invoice sent to SPUC was inadvertently not sent until 1998. From February 1998 until January 1999, SPUC staff reviewed the invoice and have determined the amount of dollars that they should be responsible for. The issue with this item is that there is $11,090.04 which is a project funding shortfall that would have been assessed had the watermain oversizing costs of$157,749.06 been known at the time of assessment. The alternatives for this project shortfall is as follows: 1. Absorb the costs using Capital Improvement Funds. 2. Assess the $11,090.04 amount through a supplemental assessment hearing to the benefiting property owners on the project. 3. Send a letter to Valley Green Business Park requesting voluntary payment of the $11,090.04 project funding shortfall. 4. Resubmit an invoice to SPUC for this amount. Valley Green Business Park did petition the City and did waive their rights for assessments for these improvements. Attached is a copy of the petition dated December 26, 1991. Since this time, property along 12th Avenue has been subdivided and sold so that Valley Green Business Park no longer owns all the property. All of the assessments for 12th Avenue sanitary sewer and water have been paid by the developer. The petition is not binding on future property owners other than Valley Green Business Park. On this issue, staff is asking Council direction on what they prefer to do with this project funding shortfall. Staff would recommend that Council direct staff to write a letter to Valley Green Business Park requesting voluntary compliance in paying the project funding shortfall which should have been assessed to the benefiting properties in 1993. If voluntary compliance cannot be attained, staff would bring this issue back to Council for further direction. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Direct the Finance Director to transfer funds of $11,090.04 from the Capital Improvement Fund to City Project No. 1992-4 fund. 2. Direct staff to request Valley Green Business Park to pay the City $11,090.04 for the project funding shortfall. 3. Direct staff to prepare the necessary resolution to conduct a supplemental assessment hearing for the $11,090.04 project funding shortfall. 4. Direct staff to resubmit an invoice to SPUC in the amount of$11,090.04. 5. Table for additional information. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is requesting a policy decision from Council on how to proceed with this issue. ACTION REQUESTED: Move to direct staff to take the action as recommended by Council. Bruce Loney Public Works Director BL/pmp 12TH is, aS CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum :NT TO: Mayor& City Council Cc 1 Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Approval to Participate in Federal Aid Preservation Applications on Scott County Signals DATE: February 16, 1999 INTRODUCTION: Attached is a fax from Scott County Public Works on a proposed Federal Aid Preservation Project. Scott County is applying for a Federal Aid Project and is asking for a letter from the City agreeing to pay the City's participating amount if the project is approved. BACKGROUND: The Federal Aid Program has different categories in which Federal funds can be applied. Scott County is applying for a Federal Aid Preservation Application of existing Scott County signals in which light emitting diodes (LED) red signal lights would be replaced and emergency vehicle preemption (EVP) would be installed. Attached is listing of existing Scott County signals in Shakopee and the estimated cost to install LED's and EVP's and the proposed cost splits. The cost of the two projects are as follows: Project Description Total Amount Replace Red Indication with LED $ 42,000.00 Install Emergency Vehicle Preemption $120,000.00 Total $162,200.00 The LED replacement is proposed for 11 signals and EVP is for 12 signals. The City's estimated total cost to participate is $27,170.00. In the 1999 CIP the Fire and Police Departments have been budgeting $30,000.00 for EVP systems on existing signals. If the project was approved and installed, all traffic control signals would have EVP installed for a cost of$24,000.00 to the City. The LED red indications use approximately 15% - 20% of the power required for regular signal lights. The City does pay SPUC for electrical power on traffic control signals. The pay back from the power savings of the LED's would be approximately one year due to the Federal Participation. Staff believes this project would update the traffic control signals to the status of new signals and the City's cost is greatly reduced due to possible Federal participation. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Direct staff to write a letter agreeing to pay the City's costs as outlined in Scott County's Federal Aid Preservation Application. 2. Do not direct staff to write a letter of support to Scott County. 3. Table for additional information. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, as this project updates the existing traffic control signals to the latest standards in EVP and LED's and is cost effective for the City. ACTION REQUESTED: Direct staff to write a letter agreeing to pay the City's costs as outlined in Scott County's Federal Aid Preservation Application. /Ike II Bruce Loney Public Wor. 0 irector BL/pmp FEDAID FEB- 9-99 TUE 16: 11 P. 01 Scott County Public Works Highway and Surveyor 600 Country Trail East i Jordan, MN 55352 0,1114 /•:giMIIMMINI �►1115111.1111 , Sitel*"=:- .,, b Date: 2 9 7 9 11, ',001011 Number of pages(including cover sheet) 3 11111111MII AININIIIMmummommwmamor To: lA („e. 14/JEq From: BRIAN SORENSON Company: $4_`k-Q�Ei Company: Scott County Public Works Department: OA 6 • '♦ Department: Highway Phone: /E7� erg Phone: (612) 496-8060 Fax phone: qS-67rt Fax phone: (612)496-8365 C: E-Mail: bsorenson@co.scott.mn.us REMARKS: X Urgent ,For your review X Reply ASAP 0 Please comment 44411. alrto 4'- tri) i teeD ,uJ s ,e4sA4s , 664.40.- etS wate ASCOSel . tk1t 0114.6i Wit A IziFier -ctv"- ‘011,t et-4%4 ev-txf-t3 6 ri 4t g 6%42 O. �- S rJkLak . 'P ;s 1� � 00 7. WI . LED 15 Rtit ct.pg.4‘,•5 ori e rr S ,'f C'&2- s �� ttk( sect . - ..,- act c . 6€0 (6141d blest A 1 vzot - •cai kith. 4/1..k. 4 ro- ita (2. Is ,... -tr, b„.. (L. aS aye. � e3eci. . w:\word\form\fax\brianfax.doc FEB- 9-99 TUE 16: 12 P, 02 . il .13E § ;NA Ri 0 0 ., . 0 . az.; 8 E w V .W I 0 8 N( c , 3 ,71 1' :I a N R t Q v•1 O I Of o 'd m o v 8 41 8 S S 8 § 8 § I N`43 V' X 1 N l cc')I r M N ' ^ b amu. I O 8 8 O .« OOOOOOI N F p NI 61 QN V O 0 M N NV a. • W S o 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o 1'1 � N N N N N N N N N N N O .0 4 1 I — 0 i o Q to Q co O O j O co r. o 7. c7 .- N N r' N N 1 N( r' `' r N CZ1... _��.......�...�. _ . .,..... . _ a h �co Q / I �IV N N Nr CO 00 co co c0 a0 N O ti AXI r E , �o L11wfit, 0 co N Q co O N N Cl0 to 0 n W . V c Cw w w W w w w W w III W w 0. . CU c.. a a clw. a a a 0. d a . Y O.if O Y O Y Y Y Y Y Y 0 tX g 6. t oi a 4. ^— i - >¢aj : COC x L = Q nU ¢ < vd, e o CO X > O U v V v$i g U J ) I Q li a a; a3 m+ a�3 ai m 01 ck3 al 1- c O� 4' C F- 0 W U 4111) 0 0 0 N b r r- 0 0 gil fn Y Bx � cdCCOCOcCCOCICOCOCONi x U U I FEB- 9-99 TUE 16: 13 P. 03 Scott County Signals- FEDERAL AID PRESERVATION APPLICATION Install Emergency Vehicle PreEmption Total Federal City CityQuantityCost Funding Funding Intersection (by North/South County Road) _ CSAR 17 & CSAH 101 Shakopee __1 � 10000 8000 2000 ,�. ,...,•.,_„�,.,.�,...,.�,,,,,. &.�,.»..�,..�,e,.��..�___. Shakopee 1 10000 8000 2000 CSAR . _ 4TH Ave.------___�_,.,..,�_...... 1.......,.,,"mirnakopee _..___._..�..__. ..,0.,. ...00.0.44.1411811.1.401111.8111••••••..100.1*...— ........,..�. _ & CSAH 16 Gorman St.) Shakopee 1 10000 8000 ,I 2000 CSAH 17 H 1 _ Shakopee .._. _ ......,,.. ,..,. _ _.,. . __ hakopee 1 10000 8000 2000 CSAH 17 & 10TH AveAer” _______ ._ ,.�..�..._,._...-..- --.-__-- , --- .0 .—. 4 __. ..,""..`_"..��,.`....."... 2000 -�". ._& TCR 78 Shakopee 1 10000 8000 . ._.._ „. CSAH 17 ,..�.,..,_ " .,. & Shakopee 1 10000 8000 2000 ^ CSAH69Scott St.___�_____..-,...__ ,.. --,-..�-�- ___ _. ._._.._.,m,..,._.. ."---..,.,. . ,... ____._�.___ _ ~ �� � _ Shakopee 1 10000 8000 2000 �„ CSAH 69 & Fuller St. ,...,...,.,�.... r _ - . .,...,...,.,..,_,.__.., _. .. ,. doota �M _ Shakopee 1 10000 8000 2000 CSAH 69 & CSAHMIOIw..._.,"".,_,„.,,...".ialMsa, .___.. *au. .,.........,, .�...," ._..._ �. ................... .-- .... 8 _ CSA Shakopee 1 10000 8000 2000 CR 8.3 & CSAH .-. ..�„.....,..,,.�...._.., ."..,.... ----- .....,..,__, "„.,w.,..,......�,.. ---.___ ._.. - -.-.__ ..... mimaoloimm. " Shakopee 1 10000 8000 2000 CSAH 101 & First Ave. .....M_,.,,. — .."_.- _�__ ._....,___._ . -"., .4_ __,.........,............,......_..........,.._..,..,.........._.........._ ___..._...._......, 2000 & Valle Park Dr. CSAH 101Y Shakopee 1 10000 8000,..�....-.„....-_.�_._....�.,...w,.".,.......r....�,�. __.-._.___..w_.�.., ,.....�.�.�... CSAH 101 & Old CR 18 Shakopee 1 10000 8000 _ 2000 Totals ,,. ,,.. _ 12...._ $120,000 -.. $96,000 T $24,000 218199 x:\excel\traffias ignals\fedprs rv.xis /5 , 1, CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Manufactured Home Park Closing Ordinance DATE: February 11, 1999 INTRODUCTION: At its February 16th meeting,the Council will be asked to consider a closing ordinance for manufactured housing parks. BACKGROUND: In May, 1998,the City was approached by residents of the Valley Haven Park, located at 1501 First Avenue East, requesting that the City adopt a manufactured home park closing ordinance. The purpose of the ordinance would be to provide an assurance that the residents of such a facility would receive fair treatment, including compensation for the loss of their homes, should such an event occur. (Valley Haven has 31 homes at this time.) The residents were directed to meet with staff to review the proposal. In August, meetings were held with representatives of the residents,APAC (a manufactured housing residents' advocacy group), and the then owner. However, in October,the park was sold, and was purchased by Phil Johnson in November. Because of the unavailability of the owner during November, and the holidays, a meeting with the new owner,APAC, Valley Haven residents, and City representatives (including the Mayor and City Attorney, at the request of the residents) did not take place until January. DISCUSSION: At a meeting held January 21st,the residents,APAC, City representatives, and owner's representative (Mr. Johnson's attorney)examined the issues. The residents have from the beginning wanted the City to adopt an ordinance identical to that of the City of Elk River. The significant part of the Elk River ordinance is that is does not place a cap on the amount of compensation that the owner would pay to displaced residents. The owner's representative was agreeable to an ordinance similar to one in Bloomington, which placed a 20%limitation. Other issues, such as the source of funding (tax increment appears to be the most logical source of alternative funding);when payment is to be made; notice to residents to be given beyond State law; and types of eligible expenses were discussed. See attached meeting notes for details. Based on input from both sides,the CityAttorney then was to formulate a policy for discussion by the Council. See attached memorandum and draft park closing ordinance. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The City Attorney has drafted in his ordinance that if tax increment or other source of public financing is available,there would be no cap placed on the amount of money that a resident could receive. The actual market value of the home as determined by an independent outside appraiser who is knowledgeable about manufactured housing costs would determine the amount of payment. The appraiser would be determined by the City. All reasonable relocation costs would also be paid. The appraiser would be needed in any circumstance to be certain that no resident receives more compensation then the amount to which they are lawfully entitled. In addition, regardless of whether there is a cap,the owner would be responsible for the first 20%of relocation/acquisition costs. A problem would exist if tax increment, or other economic assistance was not available. The residents have indicated that they will agree to no less than a 75%reimbursement cap. The difference would have to come from other sources; if it was determined at the time that it would be a City responsibility,the exposure would be the difference between what was determined to be the cap, and 20%. Using the numbers outlined in the January 26th letter from APAC to Mayor Brekke,the maximum exposure to the City, or other agency that might be determined,based on the taxable value, would be approximately$160,000. However,based on the recent park sale of$150,000,that difference is $82,500. Also using the same numbers from the January 26th letter,APAC is determined the per home relocation to be just over$7,000 if based on taxable value and a 75%cap. Based on the same taxable value but with a 20%cap,the per home reimbursement is approximately$1,900. Using the sales price of$150,000,the per home reimbursements for 75%and 20%are approximately $3,600, and$968,respectively. At this time,the City Attorney has left the amount of the cap unspecified; however, again,the owner would be responsible for relocation costs of the first 20%of the sales price,whether or not public funding was available. It is important to note that the City Attorney is recommending that a reasonable cap be placed. Bloomington's has 20%; if it is greater than that,the entire ordinance might be ruled by court to be invalid. RECOMMENDATION: The Council should discuss the proposed ordinance; among the other policy decisions, it will need to make a decision on the cap amount. ACTION REQUIRED: The Council should determine if a park closing ordinance will be implemented; if so, it will need to settle on opti"ns to be included in the ordinance. If significantly different than the proposed ordinance, staff should be directed to incorporate these changes for consideration at the next City Council meeting. ZLuuOS Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:tw CC: APAC Valley Haven Representatives Phil Johnson Mark Lambert Meeting Notes- Valley Haven Meeting January 21, 1999 - Shakopee City Hall The meeting was convened at 7:00 p.m.. Those in attendance were: Scott Troseth- Valley Haven Glenna Crowley- Valley Haven Earl Leman- Valley Haven Althea Rank- Valley Haven Jim Pace - APAC Miriam Wyeman- APAC Paul Onkka- Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services Mark Lambert- Attorney for owner Jon Brekke- Mayor Jim Thomsen- City Attorney Mark McNeill- City Administrator Mayor Brekke opened the meeting, and asked both sides to give a brief review of what it is that they sought. Glenna Crowley stated that the Valley Haven residents wanted a park closing ordinance, with full compensation of costs for any moves. Jim Pace said that the residents were okay with tax increment, if there was a guarantee that they will get reimbursed for all expenses. Earl Leman said that they were okay with a Bloomington-style ordinance, except without a cap on expenses and wanting payment made to displaced owners 90 days in advance of a move, rather than 30. Mark Lambert, attorney for owner Phil Johnson, said that Mr. Johnson had met with all of the park residents. He said that in Valley Haven's case,the owner would need tax increment(TIF) financing in order to make it financially workable. There was discussion regarding the amount of the cap and what would be determined as reasonable. It was noted that Bloomington had 20%, which had been tested in court;Althea Rank said that 100% of value was what the residents would need. The value of the homes as determined by an independent appraiser was discussed. Mark McNeill said that there appear to be only a few appraisers who are knowledgeable about manufactured housing;he was referred to one by Green Tree Mortgage Company. It was acknowledged that Green Tree was one of the only a few places that would finance manufactured housing. Previously, the resident position was that those being moved should have their choice of being reimbursed either tax value or market value of the home, which ever was greater. However, acknowledging that the established taxable value was low, there was concurrence by both sides that the value could be determined by an independent appraiser who was familiar with manufactured housing values. That appraiser would be appointed by the City. Rank noted that, in response to a question, relocation involved more than just the physical moving of the structure itself Anything that was incidental should also be covered- she noted such things as possible crane service (especially for the two double-wides), moving permits, insurance for personal property, and the like. City Attorney Jim Thomson noted that there were three probable scenarios in the event of a park closing: 1. Resident relocates within 25 miles and receives full reimbursement for the move. 2. Resident cannot relocate home within 25 miles radius, but residents desires to retain title to the home. In this situation, the resident would be paid the average of the relocation payments paid to other residents(or double the average if the resident owned a double- wide home as requested by the residents). 3. Resident cannot, or chooses not to, relocate home within 25 miles and resident tenders title of the home to the park purchaser. In this situation, the resident would be paid the fair market value of the home as determined by an independent appraiser who is familiar with manufactured home values. Troseth stated there are only two trailers that could be moved if vacancies existed. Crowley said that in their survey, there were only two spaces available within 25 miles if other things meet those park's guidelines(age of trailer especially). There appeared to be some disagreement regarding what the state law requires of the owners. Paul Onkka said that State law requires the owners to pay;Lambert responded that that law was not clear. Lambert went on to say that the owner was in agreement with the concept of owner paying if tax increment is a possibility. He said their first preference is to partner with the City regarding funding. If the City cannot provide tax increment,the owner will have a problem with the buyout. That discussion was followed by resident concerns on the ability of the owner to withdraw the closing notice. They said that it was traumatic to receive that news that the park would be closing, and would be especially so if there was a change in plans(not to close) at the last minute. After discussion, it appeared that 90 days was a reasonable amount of time to determine whether or not tax increment would be available; after that time, it was agreed that that notice to close would not be rescinded by the owner. The cap (maximum percentage of sales price)for which the owner would be responsible as relocation cost was discussed. Jim Thomson noted that the Bloomington ordinance included the 20% cap, and had been tried in court,therefore, it was something that he could recommend as constitutional. He said that the City cannot legally require an owner to pay relocation costs that exceed the value of the park- in that case the City would be, in effect, "taking"the park, and it may have to pay those costs. Both sides agreed that they would think about it and get back to the City Administrator with what they see as being a "responsible"cap. (The residents and City officials agreed that 20%is insufficient in this case.) McNeill said that the major difference between Shakopee, and Elk River and Bloomington, was the value of the property. In Bloomington,the cap was not an issue, as the land was worth $300,000 to $400,000 per acre; a 20% cap appears to have allowed the property owner to sell and still make a profit. He said that he had also talked with the City of Elk River;while the contact there was not sure of the value, Elk River did say that it was a high visibility site on U.S. 169. McNeill said similar property in Shakopee might sell for $5.00 to $6.00 per square foot. If those prices are similar in Elk River,the 20% cap in Elk River would not be an issue. Rank said that she wanted to discuss the proposal that the residents had put together;up until that point, she said the focus had been on the Phil Johnson proposal. (A critique of Phil Johnson's ordinance was then provided to Lambert.) Rank said that she had a problem with 15.74 (C) of the Lambert proposal, which would reduce the compensation to be paid to displaced residents by any rent concessions, or other inducements. Lambert said that that was placed in the proposal as a result of experience in St. Cloud where residents had homes that were considered as assets;the end result of that situation was, in his terms, "double dipping". Lambert suggested as a compromise that if the relocation inducement or benefit was due to work that Phil Johnson had done to secure a discount for moves within 25 miles, that amount would be reduced from the benefit to be paid; otherwise, it would not. Miriam Wyeman also was concerned about Section 15.77, which omitted "misdemeanor" as a penalty for violation of any provision of the ordinance. McNeill said that one of the ways to insure that the park would stay open, is to assure that it stayed profitable. Park residents responded with concerns about income, and the lack of other housing options. In summary, residents stated that they wanted to confirm that full compensation would be paid; Lambert said that they could not guarantee a buyout without talking with the owner. Consensus was as follows: 1. There was no agreement reached on the amount of a cap to be placed into an ordinance. Parties would discuss, and get their minimum acceptable back to the City Administrator by January 28, 1999. 2. TIF, and other financing options were acceptable, as long as there was a reasonable timeframe to determine TIF's availability that would not leave residents uncertain as to whether a park closing was going to proceed. In the nine month closing period, tax increment must be determined to be available within the first 90 days, or there would be no rescinding of the notice after that. If tax increment is determined not to be available within the first 90 days, the owner would decide whether he could afford to close, and possibly rescind the notice. 3. Valuation would be determined by an independent appraiser, knowledgeable about manufactured housing issues, and appointed by the City. 4. Payment to displaced park residents shall be made no later than 90 days prior to the park closing date. It was agreed that all information be submitted to the City Administrator. APAC and the owner would also exchange comments to each other. Contact people for the residents would be Scott Troseth and APAC. Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Minutes taken by Mark McNeill, City Administrator Feb-10-99 11:52am From—KENNEDY & GRAVEN +6123379310 T-316 P.02/09 F-699 MEMORANDUM TO: Mark McNeill FROM: Jim Thomson DATE: February 10, 1999 RE: Manufactured Home Park Closing Ordinance Enclosed is a draft of a proposed ordinance regarding manufactured home park closings. The ordinance has been drafted to incorporate those provisions which the residents of the park, ADAC. and the owner for the park agree. Before highlighting the contents of the ordinance, I thought it would be helpful to briefly restate the key provisions in the state law pertaining to manufactured home park closings. State Law The state law pertaining to park closings was adopted in 1987. The key provisions in the law are: 1. At least nine months before the conversion of a manufactured home park, the park owner must prepare a closure statement and provide a copy to the local planning agency and a copy to the resident of each manufactured home in the park. Upon receipt of the closure statement, the local governing body must conduct a public hearing regarding the closing of the park. The purpose of the public hearing is to review the closure statement and any impact that the park closing may have on the displaced residents and the park owner. A park resident cannot be required to vacate the park until 60 days after this hearing is held. 2. The state law authorizes the governing body to require a park owner to pay a reasonable relocation cost to a displaced resident. The state law also provides that the city may require the parries involved in a park closing, including the city, to provide compensation in addition to relocation costs to residents to mitigate the adverse financial impact of the park closing. 3. The state law also requires that before the execution of the purchase agreement the park purchaser must notify the park owner in writing if the purchaser intends to close the park or convert it to another use within one year of the execution of the purchase agreement. if such a notice is given to the park owner,the park owner must provide each resident with a 45-day written notice of the purchaser's intent to close the park. During this 45-day period, the residents of the park have the right to buy the park for the same purchase price. 4. If within a year after the park purchase, the purchaser decides to close the park or convert it to another use, the purchaser must offer the park for purchase by the 11T-357987 1 SH 155-23 Feb-10-99 11:53am From-KENNEDY & GRAVEN +6123379310 T-316 P.03/09 F-699 residents for the original purchase pnce, plus any expenses relating to the acquisition and improvement of the park property and any increase in value due to appreciation of the park. Failure by the park owner or norne general orhanyrto other person to bring a civilly with these ce requirements authorizes thea y action to recover damages and injunctive relief. In summary, the state law was enacted to: (1) provide certain notice requirements to residents of mobile home parks; (2) provide those residents with an opportunity to purchase the park; (3) allow cities to require the park owner to pay reasonable relocation expenses to displaced residents; and (4) allow cities to adopt their own regulations requiring the park owner or purchaser to provide additional compensation to displaced residents. The state law does not mandate any payments to displaced residents. Instead, the statute gives the city the authority to require that certain payments be made. The statute also does not give the city the right to either approve or deny the closing of a manufactured home park. Any replacement use would,of course,be subject to the city's normal land use review process. Sgmmary of Propossj Ordinance 1. Options Available to Displaced Residents. When a manufactured home park closes, a displaced resident has three potential options: a. The displaced resident may relocate the manufactured home to another park within a 25-mile radius. If a displaced resident chooses this option, the ordinance requires the park owner to pay the displaced resident the reasonable costs of relocating the manufactured home. The term -reasonable costs" is defined in the ordinance. b. If a displaced resident cannot relocate the manufactured home to another park within a 25-mile radius and chooses to keep title to the manufactured home, the resident would be entitled to be paid relocation costs equal to an average of the relocation costs paid to other residents in the park. Owners of double-wide homes would be paid an amount equal to twice the average relocation costs for other residents. c. If a displaced resident cannot relocate the manufactured home to another park and the resident elects to tender title to the manufactured home to the purchaser of the park, the displaced resident will be paid an amount equal to the estimated market value of the manufactured home as determined by an independent appraiser knowledgeable in the valuation of manufactured homes. The City would select the appraiser, and the park purchaser will pay for the cost of the appraisal. IIT•1579S7 2 S11155•23 Feb-10-99 11:53am From-KENNEDY & GRAVEN +6123379310 T-316 P.04/09 F-699 • 2. Tax Increment Financin or Other Economic .sistance. The ordinance provides that the City will mak: a good faith effort to provide tax increment financing or other form of economic assistance to assist the park owner or purchaser to meet the payment requirements;s the ordinance. 3. Cap on Payments. The ordinance provides that if tax increm nt financing or other economic assistance is available, there would be no ca on the amount of the payments required under the ordinance. If such econo is assistance is not available, the owner of Valley Haven is requesting a 20% c . The residents are requesting no less than a 75% cap. The draft ordinance (Sub . 8, paragraph C) does not specify the amount of a cap. This will need to be de rmined by the City Council. The draft ordinance does, however, provide that th cap will be based on the purchase price or assessed value, whichever is greater. There are potential legal issues associated wi the cap. If the cap is so large that it deprives the park owner of the ability to sell the property, a court could declare that the ordinance constitutes a "taking" of the property. The park residents believe that a large cap is necessary in orde to insure that they will be fully compensated for the costs in relocating. I sh uld point out, however, that if the cap is so great as to constitute a"taking" of th property, a court could invalidate the entire ordinance,thereby leaving the reside ts with no protection. 4. Residents and Park Owner Concerns. ut certain The residents and the ordinance. I will briefly discuss thesek owner have both expressed concerns concernsand show ordin provisions in theshow how they have been addressed in the draft ordinancf. a. Notice to Rescind. The residents w e concerned that the park owner should not be allowed to rescind a no ce of closure and resume operation of the park based on whether tax incr mens financing or other economic development assistance was available. The residents and the park owner have agreed that any notice to rescind must be given within 90 days after the notice of closure. This provision has been incorporated into the ordinance. The ordinance does not, however, set forth a remedy if a park owner rescinds the notice of closure after the 90-day period. b. Payment of``Reasonable" Relocation �_osts. The residents have requested that the term "reasonable" be delete�rl from the requirement of paying relocation costs. The state law, and the Elk River and Bloomington ordinances, use the phrase "reasonable relocation costs". I believe it is appropriate to leave the word "reasonable" in the ordinance. The AT-157987 3 SH155-23 Feb-10-99 11:53am From—KENNEDY & GRAVEN +6123379310 T-316 P.05/09 F-699 • ordinance specifies what reasonable relocation costs consist of, so I do not believe that there is any ambiguity in using the term. c. Set-Up Costs. The park owner has requested a provision that states that relocation costs would not include costs associated with repairs or modifications to a manufactured home necessary to qualify the home for occupancy in another manufactured home park. The residents are objecting to this request. The Bloomington ordinance does not address the issue of set-up costs; the Elk River ordinance requires such payments. I have drafted the ordinance to be consistent with le Elk River ordinance. This can, of course,be changed by the City d. Reduction of Relocation Costs. The park owner has requested a provision that would allow a credit against the relocation costs for any rent concessions, payment of moving relocation costs, or other inducements given to a displaced resident by the owner of the manufactured home park to which the displaced resident relocates. Neither the Bloomington nor Elk River ordinance contain such a provision, so I have not included it in the ordinance. e. Timing of Pavrnent of Relocation Benefits. The residents and the park owner have agreed that relocation benefits should be paid no later than 90 days prior to the closing of a park. This provision has been incorporated into the ordinance. I note, however, that this provision seems inconsistent with the park owner's request that the deadline for submitting claims be 30 days after the closing date (see 1 g below). f. Penalty for Violation. The park owner has requested that the potential penalty of a misdemeanor violation not be included in the ordinance. Both the Bloomington and Elk River ordinances contain such a penalty, so I have included it in the ordinance. In all likelihood, a misdemeanor prosecution would not be the remedy used by the City for violation of the ordinance. Instead, the most likely remedy would be a court injunction action,which is another penalty imposed by the ordinance. g. Deadline for Submitting Relocation Claims. The park owner has requested that the ordinance contain a provision setting forth a deadline by which all relocation claims be submitted. The park owner has requested that all such claims must be submitted no later than 3u days after the closing. This provision has been incorporated into the ordinance. The residents have objected to this provision. )rr-157957 4 s 55.23 Feb-10-99 11:54am From—KENNEDY & GRAVEN +6123379310 T-316 P.06/09 F-699 ORDINANCE NO. _ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY IMANUFACTURED H MOfi PARK.CLOSINGS PERTAINING TO AND ADDING SECTION 4.61 TO THE CITY CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA,ORDAINS: Section i-The Shakopee City Code is amended by adding a new section to read: SECTION 4.61 MANUFACTURED HOME PARK CLOSINGS Subd. 1. PURPOSE. In view of the peculiar nature and problems presented by the closure or conversion of manufactured home parks, the City Council finds that the public health, safety and general welfare will be promoted by requiring compensation to displaced residents of such parks. The purpose of this Section is to require park owners to pay displaced residents reasonable relocation costs and to require purchasers of manufactured home parks to pay additional compensation to displaced residents and,where possible,to provide tax increment funds by the City to assist the park owner or purchaser in the payment of these costs,pursuant to the authority granted under Minnesota Statutes, Section 327C.095. Subd. 2. DEFINITIONS. The following words and terms when used in this Article shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: A. Closure Statement — A statement prepared by the park owner clearly stating the park is closing, addressing the availability, location and potential costs of adequate replacement housing within a 25 mile radius of the park that is closing and the probable relocation costs of the manufactured homes located in the park. B. Displaced Resident—A resident of an owner-occupied manufactured home who rents a lot in a manufactured home park,including the members of the resident's household, as of the date the park owner submits a closure statement to the City's Planning Commission. C. Lot— An area within a manufactured home park, designed or used for the accommodation of a manufactured home. D. Manufactured Home— A structure,not affixed to or part of real estate, transportable in one or more sections, which in the traveling mode, is 8 body feet or more in width or 40 body feet or more in length, or, when erected on site, is 320 or more square feet, and which is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities, and includes the plumbing, heating, air conditioning, and electrical system contained in it. which two or ore E. Manufactured Home Park� located,Any site, lot, field or whether free tract of charge or upon compensation,mand occupied manufactured homes IIT-157935 1 SH155-23 Feb-10-99 11:54am From-KENNEDY & GRAVEN +6123379310 T-316 P.07/09 F-699 • use as n of includes any building, structure, tent, vehicle or enclosure sed do sr not incaed for lude facilities which are equipment of the manufactured home park. This definition open only during three or fewer seasons of the year. F. Park Owner—The owner of a manufactured home park and any person acting on behalf of the owner in the operation or management of a park. G Person — An individual, corporation, finn, partnership, incorporated or unincorporated association or any other legal or commercial entity. Subd.3. NOTICE OF CLOSING. If a manufactured home park is to cllosseedd,converted least nine le or part to another use or terminated as a use of the property, the parkshall, ata ecof e months prior to the closure, conversion to another use or termination of use, p Commission. a closure statement to a resident of each manufactured home and to the City's Planning Subd.4. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING. At any public Hearing saftere prior to or forth in Subd. 6, the park delivery of the Notice of Closing to the Planning Commission, but prior to owner or prospective purchaser of the park may make application to the City for the use of tax increment financing to finance the cost of relocating and purchasing the displaced manufactured homes, any incidental costs associated therewith, and any other development expense that the City deems appropriate or eligible for such financing. The City will make a good faith effort to provide tax increment financing or other forms of economic assistance to assist the park owner or purchaser to meet the requirements of this Section. If the City is unable to provide such tax increment financing or other economic assistance, the park owner can elect to rescind its Notice of Closure and resume operation of the manufactured home park, provided, however, that notice of any such rescission shall be given to park residents no later than 90 days after the Notice of Closure has been given. Subd. 5. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING. The Planning Commission shall submit the closure statement to the City Council and request the City Council to schedule a public hearing. The City shall mail a notice at least ten days prior to the public hearing to a resident of each manufactured home in the park stating the time, place and purpof ose of a[least one resider of each manufacturedng. The paxk owner shall hovide ome the City with a list of the names and addressesCommission. in the park at the time the closure statement is submitted to the Planning Subd. 6. PUBLIC HEARING. A public hearing shall be held before the City Council for the purpose of reviewing the closure statement and evaluating the impact that the park closing may have on displaced residents and the park owner. Subd. 7. PAYMENT OF RELOCATION COSTS. After service of the closure statement by the park owner and upon submittal by the displaced theiddist of a contract or other verification of laced resident the reasonable cost of relocation expense, the park owner shall payP relocating the manufactured home to another manufactured home park located within Relocation mile radius of the park that is being closed, convened to another use or ceasing p Ron costs must be paid not less than 90 days prior to the closing of the park or its conversion to another JJT-157935 2 5in55-23 Feb-10-99 11:54am From-KENNEDY & GRAVEN +6123379310 T-316 P.08/09 F-699 use. Reasonable relocation costs shall include: (1) The actual expenses incurred in muvien ea�sonahledcost of ded issembling,gt's �moving and tured home and personal property, including th reassembling any attached appurtenances, such as porches, decks, shining and awnings, which were not acquired after notice of closure or conversion of the park, and utility"hook-up" charges. (2) The cost of insurance for the replacement value of the property being moved. (3) The cost of reasonable repairs or modifications that are required in order to physically move the manufactured home from its existing lot to the replacement lot, including repairs or modifications necessary to qualify the home for occupancy in another manufactured home park. Subd. 8. PAYM I'o ADDITIONAL.COMPENSATION. A. If a resident cannot or chooses not to relocate the or age manufactured of the manufactured home e within a 25 mile radius of the park that is being closed due to a structural or the lack of any available lot space within the 25 tle mile radius, then in to the manufacieu of the above relocation tured home and be paid an payment, a displaced resident is entitled to tender th amount equal to the estimated market value of the manufactured home as determined by an independent appraiser knowledgeable in the valuation of manufactured homes and giving due consideration to the value and condition of the home. The City shall select the appraiser and the park purchaser shall pay for the cost of the appraisal. The purchaser or park owner shall pay such compensation upon transfer of title to the home. Such compensation shall be paid to the displaced resident no later than 90 days prior to the closing of the park or its conversion to another use,. B. If a displaced resident cannot or chooses not sutu.�ural oragete the mlimitaa on of the manufactured red home within a 25 mile radius of the park that is being dosed dueto home, and the resident elects not to tender title to the manufactured home,the resident is entitled to relocation costs equal to an average of relocation oc�owtss 0% ithiaid to other n lU daysidents ln the park.of PP ca n for the ent of the average relocation costs shall be made as f funds, and 50% upon the removal of the manufactured hommanutac�tured homes shall be and any structures and in an amount the manufactured home park. Payment for double-wide equal to twice the average relocation costs paid to owners of single-wide manufactured homes. C. If tax increment financing or other economic assistance is not available to the purchaser of the park, the total relocation payments and other compensationoto bet exceed paid tdisplaced of residents rie b f y the park owner and purchaser of the park shall n the park or the assessed market value of the park,whichever is greater. nt ract or Subd. 9. VERIFICATION OF COSTS. The displacedome to the park owner fresident must submit a o approval as other verified cost estimate for relocating the manufactured condition to the park owner's liability to pay relocation expenses. If the park owner refuses to pay 111%157935 3 SH155.23 Feb-10-99 11:55am From-KENNEDY & GRAVEN +6123379310 T-316 P.09/09 F-699 contract or other verified costs estimate, the park owner shall arrange for relocating the manufactured factured home and pay thethe relocation costs identified in Subd. 7. mfact Subd. 10. PENALTY. A. Violation of any provision in this Section shall be a misdemeanor. B. Any provision of this Section may be enforced by injunction or other appropriate civil remedy. ured C. The City shall not issue a building permit in conjunction with reuseon and of manthpuf c t er homeof e park property unless the park owner has paid reasonable 30 park. has purchased those manufactured homes tendered for sale not shless note nha days liability after f e closing of the park or its conversion to another use. The Park r the payment of any claims made after such date. 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 J1T-i57935 4 SH155-23 PP lAr) A 11 )Parks 1l1an •: JuJ ' Chanv 2395University Avenue West, Suite 202 St. Paul, MN 55114 Tel: (651) 644-5525 Fax (651) 642-0060 January 26, 1999 Dear Mayor Jon Brekke, Let me first start off by thanking you for having this much anticipated meeting and exercising your authority to move this process forward. Tax Assessed Value Scott County Valley Haven parcel#279060560 Park Worth(Permanent Bldgs) $ 57,300.00 Park Worth(Land) $233,900.00 Total Park Worth $291,200.00 31 Homes worth(tax value) $232,109.00 each home valued at(average)" $ 7,487.39 As indicated by City Administrator Mark McNeil, City Attorney Jim Thompson, and yourself, a 20% cap would be detrimental and too low for a park closing ordinance in Shakopee. Shakopee citizens of Valley Haven propose a 75% cap. Total Park Worth(tax assessed) = $291,200.00 75%of$291,200.00= $218,400.00 for the 31 home owners in Valley Haven, each would receive$7,045.16 This amount is closest to the approximate(average)value of each home. Reasonable people would agree that a 20%cap would be unfair and unacceptable. This would not even cover half the cost to relocate a home, if there was a park willing to accept their homes. 20% of total park worth$291,200.00=$58,240.00 $58,240.00 divided by 31 homes= $1,878.71 per home Shakopee citizens of Valley Haven request a cap of 75% because it would adequately reimburse residents the majority of their homes' actual values. The two residents with"double wide"homes should be reimbursed double what a single homeowner will make, given that their homes are worth twice as much and cost twice as much to move. We would also like to take this opportunity to express again,with regret, some parts of Phil Johnson's proposed ordinance. Shakopee citizens of Valley Haven want an ordinance that is in An Organization of Manufactured Home Residents compliance with Minnesota law, as is their proposed ordinance. Shakopee citizens of Valley Haven are not interested in supporting passage of an ordinance that does not guarantee compensation. MR. JOHNSON'S PROPOSED ORDINANCE: Sec. 16.69 Purpose "The purpose of this Article is to pay displaced residents reasonable relocation costs, to purchase those distressed manufactured homes that cannot be relocated because of their age or condition, and where possible, to provide tax increment funds by the City to assist the park owner or purchaser in the payment of these costs, to pay, pursuant to the authority granted under Minnesota Statutes, Section 327C.095. ****This section, stressed in bold, completely undermines state law and the protection to residents guaranteed by 1987 State Law. To be in compliance with state law, the park owner must be the primary party responsible, regardless of whether or not T.I.F. is secured. This is critical because the property Valley Haven resides on is not even in a T.I.F. district and it is evident that T.I.F. is not a guarantee at this point. Sec. 15.74 Payment of Relocation Costs "These relocation costs shall be reduced by the amount of any rent concessions,payment of moving or relocation costs, or other inducements, if any, given to the Displaced Resident by the manufactured home park into which the Displaced Resident relocates." ****This entire paragraph must be omitted. What discounts or arrangements a new park owner chooses to give a future resident is between those 2 people alone. This should be of no concern to the previous park owner. Sec. 15.77 Penalty (A)Violation of any provision of this article shall be a misdemeanor,which was omitted in Phil Johnson's proposed ordinance but present in the original Bloomington and Elk River ordinances, needs to be reinstated. Park owners need to be in compliance with an ordinance and this simple,yet serious phrase, stresses accountability and incentive for compliance. (B) " the park owner shall not have any liability for the payment of any claims made after closing date." ****This sentence must be omitted. If the park is forcing these residents to leave, he/she must take full responsibility and accountability. Putting a date after which the owner is immune from paying what he/she must would only lead to putting off payment until he/she is no longer obligated to pay. In closing, Shakopee citizens of Valley Haven have made 2 huge concessions. They have allowed T.I.F. to be used, granted that compensation from another source is guaranteed, and are allowing a reasonable cap to be used. An 80% cap would actually be closer to the tax assessed average value of each home. An 80% cap on the total tax value of the park divided by 31 homes in Valley Haven would leave each homeowner with$7,514.84. Shakopee citizens of Valley Haven have, again, made another concession to lower their cap to 75%. It should be noted that Phil Johnson has yet to make any concessions. Finally, we are requesting your confirmation of the specific dates established for upcoming meetings. Thank you, Jim Paist Miriam Wyman APAC Director APAC Organizer 1S. 5 . SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS TO 2/20/99 DRAFT PARK CLOSING ORDINANCE L 20% Cap Park Owner's obligation should be limited to 20% of the purchase price or assessed value of the Park: Subd. 8 PAYMENT OF ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION. C. .. ' . .• . . . •• •• , 9 aNglyelocation payments and other compensation to be paid to the displaced,residents by the park owner and purchaser of the park shall not exceed gqiii of the purchase price of the park or the assessed value of the park, whichever is greater. IL Repairs Required to Relocate Home There should be some cap on the amount of repairs required so that a park owner does not have to completely rebuild the manufactured home in order to qualify the home into another manufactured home park In addition, the park owner should not be responsible to repairs due to the resident's neglect or obsolescence of the manufactured home Subd.7. PAYMENT OF RELOCATION COSTS. After service ofthe closure statement by the park owner and upon submittal by the displaced resident of a contract or other verification of relocation expense, the park owner shall pay to the displaced resident the reasonable cost of relocating the manufactured home to another manufactured home park located within a 25 mile radius of the park that is being closed, converted to another use or ceasing operation. Reasonable relocation costs shall include: (A) The actual expenses incurred in moving the displaced resident's manufactured home and personal property, including the reasonable cost of dissembling, moving and reassembling any attached appurtenances, such as porches, decks, skirting and awnings, which were not acquired after notice of closure or conversion of the park, and utility"hook-up" charges. (B) The cost of insurance for the replacement value of the pro-,erty being moved. (C) The cost of reasonable repairs or modifications that are required in order to physically moveahe.:manufactured.home fr9m.its existing lot to the replacement lot, but< id> sts`f all<not i eliu da including repairs or modifications necessary to qualify the home for occupancy in another manufactured home park. PAGE 2- SUGGESTED,MODIFICATIONS III. Reduction of Relocation Costs/Credits If a Park Owner secures free moves and large rent concessions for the residents, and they take advantage of these concessions,it is unfair for them to also get relocation benefits'if a third party has already assumed these costs. Mhem .+.FYI'Y•Yi.?::^:•T:?^:•:v:6Y?•)C•:TTT:•T:•:TY????•::?•i.':.}:+::T}ii>,:.+:$;T'r :4Y:+;::i:'r,'?f'F,.;{::;'i{ F'IJ.T:•T;?.rY'f T •TT'f•.;:?TT:?}•isyT:j?•:j:?;}'/••;:,+•iiv::•:YS�?+i:+i:v:•:}....N.r...................:. ..X.:. ...Y.7•../..::n.. .:':��.J.•k..v. .::,�::;:;:j:i:i:ti r'7CSti:i:Ti::vti(•:n.:::::.:n• ...f....�........ .T:.:4'•TT:^:•iii:• ::?: .,:v::•T;:nT :::::ii:•::•i}:. :;.:^:n}v.}.;:.:::v:fi�•�: ti;i:i.:i:•?;i:!}i?•i •T ; i:::?•T:?•:}?{}?•::•.+i'}T:: : .. relocatioucosts sh :b :redw ed byt ,e::af t<ofan :<r t: ononsi ,:.i:.i: <. ::.:?.:.iiT:, . :.:... ::... : : : :: `.` . "Pi�t<� 'i�:tiv�n <:;;gr:;�-�.�ca�4...:.�►at....:�....�..... ... ...�.:::::.:.::.:. ...J.. ........?.:TT:.:..............:...:.....................: :..??. ..: •:�::i>i:..J;:;,i;:iii:i:i? :::':?>>:::: ::..:...............::...:.:,.::. :...:.......:..::::•.: <.T>: ..?;?::.T:...T' {.::J.:::::::.::..:::ii:::::.>:.TT;<.::�.::?'.;:::..:::.i..•k::....:.:::.:...... ;.;.;.T..�.; .:.::?. plac . ::R. dent bytl e'r 'act7u�red bo a arl I tow ch theDi : kest .ettt els. IV. Penalty for Violations This is not a criminal matter and should not include a criminal penalty. Your city attorney has acknowledged that injunctive relief would be the probable remedy. Subd. 10. PENALTY A7------Violatiotr of any provision of this, ,tion shall be a-rnisdk..,iicanot FEB-16-1999 15:15 WILLIAM MITCHEL 651 290 6407 P.02/03 WILLIAM MITCHELL COLLEGE OF LAW February 16, 1999 MEMO To: Mark McNeill, Shakopee City Administrator Jim Thomson, Shakopee City Attorney From: Katie Nemmers,William Mitchell College of Law Law Clinic, certified student attorney representing APAC Re: Park Closing ordinance amendment Enclosed is a draft amendment to page 3,subdivision 8,letter C regarding the issue of the various percentages of the sales price Valley Haven residents would receive for their relocation or buyout costs in the event of a park closing. Please phone me at(651) 290-6351. 875 Summit Avenue St.Paul, Minnesota 55105-3076 i (651) 227-9171 wwwwmitchell.edu Miura oppornunily,AJf irmallaedclion 6mploycr FEB-16-1999 15: 15 (WILLIAM MITCHEL 651 290 6407 P.03/03 Subd. 8 PAYMENT OF ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION. C. If tax increment financing or other economic assistance is not available to the purchaser of the park, the total relocation payments and other compensation to be paid to displaced residents by the park owner and purchaser of the park property shall be based upon the total purchase price of the park or the assessed market value of the park,whichever is greater, and limited as follows: Approximate Maximum total purchase price Resident's % Dollar amount per VH resident $150,000+ 75% $112,500 $3,629.03 $200,000+ 70% $140,000 $4,516.12 $300,000+ 60% $180,000 $5,806.45 $400,000+ 50% $200,000 $6,451.61 $500,000+ 45% $225,000 $7,258.06 $600,000 and up 40% $240,000 $7,741.93 Total purchase price of the park includes all consideration given in return for the sale of the park, including, but not limited to: cash amount paid to seller, buyer's forgiveness of seller's debt, liens, mortgages, or other encumbrances on the property. The city shall have the right to order an audit of the transaction prior to deed transfer. TOTAL P.03 f Phil Riveness 5301 Northwood Ridge Bloomington, MN 55437 (612) 841-9827 February 16, 1999 The Honorable Mayor Jon Brekke City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Mayor Brekke: I understand that the City of Shakopee is considering passing an ordinance relating to the closure or conversion of use of a local manufactured home park, Valley Haven. When I served in the House of Representatives, I was the chief author of House file 574, the bill that became law in Minnesota Statutes §327C.095. In addition, I was also actively involved in encouraging the adoption of the Bloomington City Ordinance enacted under the authority of§327C.095. My intent as chief author of the bill was to allow municipalities to enact an ordinance to protect the interests of manufactured home park residents, in the event of a park closing. The impetus for this legislation arose out of a situation in Bloomington where Lyndale Lodge Park was sold to an import car dealer and all manufactured home park resicjents were forced out. One day they had homes, they next day they had nine months to move. The City of Bloomington had no authority to require the park owner nor the purchaser to compensate residents for their relocation costs nor the value of their homes, if they could not be moved. Manufactured home park residents are in the unusual position of being tenants of the land, but owners of their homes. My intent was to allow for compensation to these residents who are disadvantaged in the marketplace and often have low incomes, and are least able to bear the financial devastation of owning their home, but suddenly having no place to put it. It might have been more consistent to require in statute that all mobile home park owners pay a set amount of compensation to displaced residents. Instead, I recognized that each local park closing situation may be different, based on the size of the park, property value, sale price, the public benefit of having the land become a commercial property, and potential local government involvement in redevelopment efforts. Therefore, the statute is permissive, and gives the local units of government the ability to act to protect the very vulnerable interests of mobile home park residents, but does not require it. The statute is permissive to recognize that what works to protect the interests of residents in one jurisdiction, may not be effective for another. Because of the property's high commercial value, the 20% cap on the amount the Bloomington park owner was required to pay to residents was sufficient to compensate the residents for their costs. The effect of the application of such a cap on payment depends entirely on the purchase price of the property.With the most recent purchase price of the park at$150,000, residents have reason to be concerned that their relocation costs or other compensation would be even partially met under the 20% cap on payment. I encourage the City of Shakopee to find a solution that fairly recognizes the property owner's interest in the land while preventing the detrimental impact of a park closing on the manufactured park residents. Sincerely, Phil Ri eness Former State Senator,District 40 Former State Representative,District 40B CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum 16, 881 . TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Boards and Commissions Appointments DATE: February 11, 1999 INTRODUCTION: The Council is asked to appoint people to boards and commissions for the upcoming year. BACKGROUND: At its meeting of February 2nd,the City Council nominated all candidates who had applied for membership on boards and commissions. At that time, a panel consisting of Councilmembers Deb Amundson and Clete Link, and City Administrator Mark McNeill, were appointed to interview all candidates,to make a recommendation to the City Council for appointment. All candidates were contacted. Some incumbents declined the opportunity to interview. On February 9th, interviews were held. As a result,the committee is recommending the following be appointed to service on the boards and commissions: Planning Commission -Bill Mars*, Dave Nummer* Park& Rec Advisory Board -Jeff Kaley*, Dean Shaner*,Jason Bullard, Dave Vosejpka(one year) Shakopee Public Utilities-Mark Miller Police Civil Service Commission -Kim Weckman Cable Communications Advisory Commission - Larry Moonen Bill Anderson Shakopee Community Access Corporation Board of Directors - Jay Lyle Building Code Board of Adjustments &Appeals; and Housing Advisory&Appeals Board -None Board of Review- Cory Bullard, and two Councilmembers denotes incumbents recommended for reappointment ALTERNATIVES: 1. Conduct a ballot to determine appointments and adopt Resolution No. 5066 accordingly. 2. Concur with the interview committee's recommendations by adopting Resolution No. 5066. In addition Council designate two of its own members to serve on the Board of Review. This will make up the five member Board. (You may remember that last year, Council appointed 2 members, as there were only 3 resident candidates.) The Board of Review will meet on May 10th and May 24th to hear questions regarding assessor or market value questions. ACTION REQUIRED: 1. Nominate Bill Anderson and Larry Moonen to the Cable Communications Advisory Commission. 2. Offer Resolution No.5066,A Resolution Appointing Individuals to Various Boards and Commissions, and move its adoption. 3. Establish two Councilmembers to serve on the Board of Reviews. 11/61M46 Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:tw RESOLUTION NO. 5066 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING INDIVIDUALS TO VARIOUS BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, THAT THE FOLLOWING APPOINTMENTS ARE HEREBY MADE: 1. Bill Mars and Dave Nummer are appointed to the Planning Commission and Board of Adjustments and Appeals for four year terms expiring February 28, 2003. 2. Mark Miller is appointed to the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission for a three year term expiring March 31,2002. 3. Kim Weckman is appointed to the Police Civil Service Commission for a three year terms expiring February 28,2002. 4. Jeff Kaley,Dean Shaner and Jason Bullard are appointed to the Park& Recreation Advisory Board for three year terms expiring February 28, 2002. 5. Dave Vosejpka is appointed to fill the unexpired portion of the term of Kathy Prochaska,which shall expire on February 28,2000. 6. Jay Whiting is appointed to the Community Access Corporation Board of Directors for a three year term expiring February 28,2002. 7. Bill Anderson and Larry Moonen are appointed to the Cable Communications Advisory Commission for three year terms expiring February 28, 2002. 8. Cory Bullard is appointed to the Board of Review for a three year term expiring February 28, 2002. Adopted in adjourned regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota,held this 11th day of February, 1999. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk SUBJECT: Cable Communications Advisory Commission DATE: February 11, 1999 We currently have three residents serving on the five member Cable Communications Advisory Commission. The Commission will soon be negotiation the renewal of the current franchise with Paragon Cable. I have been in contact with Bill Anderson and Larry Moonen and both have expressed an interest in serving on the Commission for these negotiations. Mr. Anderson served on the Commission from 1983 until 1996 and Mr. Moonen served on the Commission from 1985 until 1996. Both would bring valuable experience to the relatively new membership on the Commission during the negotiations. If City Council concurs, they should be nominated and appointed as indicated in the memo from Mr. McNeill. Name: �- t al Address: Phone:(I1) 6,1 3.- ; Y90 03) S)U4 Pa TyjA/ ::")--5.--3�' 4/56 1 27 How long have you been a Shakopee Resident? rS i..1 c , , 9 7 2 Occupation: CLLS eiirz £Cf Ao"il¢� Does your work require you to travel?(Check one) eat deal / Periodically Very Little None _ whichyou feel a particular board or commission ---- Do you have any special interests or training could use? Use a separate sheet if necessary) D u � Al£SY- �,JpAic "J1 LL� 23 / ---) V i, & 4.1 12, ' , -i, a: a-r3 z-e ‘'1,7,- •-ni • P("D LAC.£ e_ v V M 'TC P xi !l c. i+eiJ Board or Commission in which you are interested? (If more than one, please indicate order of preference) Nel—(;Lt. ��-ro. .m I SS c Ls Ai Please state briefly why you are interested in serving on this Board/Commission for which you are submitting an application: o A.) i C os • • (S(-e. — • ,a/� i St 1.4 A d l , • 1,4/✓ ' recommended action, or decision Conflict of interest is defined as the haveion in any thecto receive personal gain, whether it be from which the individual has or could direct or indirect. le al or equnable interested in any business, howeverg In accordance with this definition, do you have any 8 � f interest? Yes_N� if yes, organized, which could be constructed edasa conflict please provide the details on a separate sheet of paper. Zd Wd6S:T t 666T TT 'ciad S996+Sbb+ZT9 : '0N 9NOHd 537dSOW : W06d Please list three references(Name,Address,Phone): Aki.D et-g 6 Ai ,5;g0i P r 2. 3. I hereby certify that the facts within the foregoing application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Suture( /a. Date RETURN APPLICATION AND PLEDGE TO: . . City Clerk City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee,MN 55379 ,p-e9 99.C)C- £d Wd6S:TT 666t TT 'gad 5996+Sbb+zt9 : '0N 9NOHd SB7 SOW : Wald FEB-11-1999 15:00 STAR TRIBUNE 612 6737307 P.02/04 1-eD':IL-Name: L 41V D tRSQlet) Address: l0 6.6 (Ju id 2 ST soh Phone:(H) T ' S— 1 I -1 (B) 6/ — 6-13 — yol- How long have you been a Shakopee Resident? 4/ Occupation: _ A4,24, 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) Board or Commission in which you are interested? (If more than one, please indicate order of preference) 'c ja z , cei„...1„4.4,„"i;trrs. Please state briefly why you are interested in serving on this Board/Commission for which you are submitting an application: ter" i/-v"`'� / 1j C, 2 &j4e 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. FEB-11-1999 15:00 STAR TRIBUNE 612 6737307 P.03/04 • Please list three references(Name,Address,Phone): 1. PaJC,eee,o-ae voce - yes--a��a 2. -be/vv•-e_ (/ '6 3. A.AAA-exa. f D40q5#,f;a146A-4/M I hereby certify that the facts within the foregoing application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. IQ _ at-Leat . Signature ;— / II / q / Date RETURN APPLICATION AND PLEDGE TO: City Clerk City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee,MN 55379 RECE IED FFR 1 1 1999 CITY OF SHAKOPEE PLEASE VOTE PRIOR TO THE MEETING AND GIVE TO JUDY BEFORE THE ROLL CALL ON FEBRUARY 16, 1999 FEBRUARY 16, 1999 BALLOT FOR APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment and Appeals(Vote for 2) Cory Bullard Jason Bullard Jerome Ince Jay Lyle Bill Mars Christina Nadeau Dave Nummer Park and Recreation Advisory Board(Vote for 3) Jason Bullard Jeff Kaley Christina Nadeau Dean Shaner Michael Vogel Dave Vosejpka Shakopee Public Utilities Commission(Vote for 1) Cory Bullard Mark Miller Andrew Unseth Cole Van Horn Police Civil Service(Vote for 1) Jason Bullard Kim Weckman Board of Review(Vote for 1) Cory Bullard Michael Vogel Community Access Corporation Board of Directors(Vote for 2) Jay Whiting Cable Communications Advisory Commission(Vote for 2) Larry Moonen Bill Anderson _ - /$, E,2 , Results of February 16, 1999 Balloting for Openings on Boards and Commissions Amundson Link Brekke DuBois Sweeney Total Planning Commission(2) Bullard, Cory Bullard, Jason Ince, Jerome k 1 Lyle, Jay M sar Bill x X , 4 _ 3 Nadeau,Munn=Dave x X X Park and Recreation Advisory(4) Bullard, Jason X X X X Kaley, Jeff �( X )( X Nadeau, Christina Shaner, Dean )( K X )( Vogel, Michael Vosejpka, Dave X x )( X Y Shakopee Public Utilities(1) Bullard, Cory Miller, Mark X X x 3 Unseth, Andrew Van Horn, Cole X Police Civil Service (1) Bullard, Jason u rWickman, Kim X X X Board of Review(1) YBullard, Cory x X X Vogel, Michael , Cable Access Corporation(2) f Whiting, Jay X X X X Cable Advisory(2) Anderson, Bill Y X X - , ; X Moonen, Larry )( X X w . 3. 3. CITY OF SHAKOPEE CONSENT Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk SUBJECT: Completion of Probationary Period for Jeanette Shaner DATE: February 11, 1999 INTRODUCTION: City Council is asked to terminate the probationary period for Jeanette Shaner and award her permanent, full-time status. BACKGROUND: On August 13, 1998, City Council transferred Jeanette Shaner from the position of building inspector secretary to secretary in the City Clerk's office, starting at Step 8, Grade H of the Non- Union 1998 Pay Plan. Pursuant to the City's personnel policy, all employees who are transferred to another position are required to successfully complete a six month probationary period. Ms. Shaner has assumed her new duties with the same professionalism and diligence that she exhibited in her prior positions with the City in the building department and the administration department. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council find that Ms. Shaner has successfully completed the probationary period for the secretary position and be awarded permanent, full-time status in that position. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Move to find that Jeanette Shaner has successfully completed the probationary period for the secretary position in the City Clerk's office and that she be awarded permanent, full-time status in that position. Ju it S. Co , C ty Clerk !V ; E, X MEMORANDUM CONSENT TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk SUBJECT: Apportionment of Special Assessments for Stone Meadow 3rd Addition DATE: February 11, 1999 INTRODUCTION: Attached is Resolution No. 5068, which apportions existing special assessments against newly created lots located within Stone Meadow 3rd Addition. BACKGROUND: Prior to the platting of Stone Meadow 3rd Addition, the original parcel had special assessments against it for the 1992-9 VIP Interceptor Extension and for the 1997-1 Vierling Drive Improvements. Now that the parcel has been subdivided into smaller lots as a result of platting, it is necessary to apportion these assessments against each of the new lots. Resolution No. 5068 apportions the existing special assessments against the newly created lots within the plat of Stone Meadow 3rd Addition. The apportionment was a condition of the final plat approval. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Offer Resolution No. 5068, A Resolution Apportioning Assessments Among New Parcels Created as A Result of the Platting of Stone Meadow 3rd Addition, and move its adoption. • w Q,vt,Gt. . Clerk h\judy\appmemo RESOLUTION NO. 5068 A RESOLUTION APPORTIONING ASSESSMENTS AMONG NEW PARCELS CREATED AS A RESULT OF THE PLATTING OF STONE MEADOW 3RD ADDITION WHEREAS, on June 6, 1995, Resolution No. 4223 adopted by the City Council levied assessments against properties benefited by the V.I.P. Interceptor Extension from CR-79 to the west corporate limits, Project No. 1992-9; and WHEREAS, on November 17, 1998, Resolution No. 5015 adopted by the City Council levied assessments against properties benefited by the Vierling Drive Improvements from Taylor Street to Presidential Lane, Project 1997-1; and WHEREAS, a parcel benefited by the said improvement and known as parcel number 27-226066-0 (Outlot K, Stone Meadow 1st Addition) has been subdivided into the plat of Stone Meadow 3rd Addition; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to apportion the installments remaining unpaid against this parcel because of the platting of Stone Meadow 3rd Addition. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA that the 1999 payable remaining balance of V.I.P. assessments to parcel 27-226066-0 for (1) the 1992-9the 1997-1 Interceptor Extension in the amount of $2,794.90 and (2) Vierling Drive Improvements in the amount of $92,205.49, is hereby apportioned as outlined in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all other parts of Resolution Numbers 4223 and 5015 shall continue in effect. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1999. . Mayor , City Clerk h\judy\app-stop Exhibit A Levied Amount Levied Amount s/a 27078C s/a 27107 (create 27078E) Parent Parcel=27-226066-0(Outlot K,Stone Meadow 1st Add'n) $ 2,794.90 $ 92,205.49 Area of Outlot A,Blocks 1 &2 Approx.3.05 42% $ 1,173.92 $ 38,726.24 Area of Outlot B Approx.0.98 14% $ 391.29 $ 12,908.76 Area of Outlot C Approx. 1.29 18% $ 503.08 $ 16,596.98 Area of Outlot D Approx. 1.84 26% $ 726.61 $ 23,973.51 27-268001-0 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, INC LOT IE MEADOW $ 73.37 $ 2,420.39 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 3RD ADDITION 27-268002-0 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, INC LOT 2E MEADOW $ 73.37 $ 2,420.39 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 3RD ADDITION 27-268003-0 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, INC LOT 3E MEADOW $ 73.37 $ 2,420.39 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 3RD ADDITION 27-268004-0 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT,INC LOT 4E MEADOW $ 73.37 $ 2,420.39 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 3RD ADDITION 27-268005-0 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, INC LOT 5E MEADOW $ 73.37 $ 2,420.39 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 3RD ADDITION 27-268006-0 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, INC LOT 6E MEADOW $ 73.37 $ 2,420.39 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 3RD ADDITION 27-268007-0 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT,INC LOT 7E MEADOW $ 73.37 $ 2,420.39 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 3RD ADDITION 27-268008-0 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, INC LOT 8E MEADOW $ 73.37 $ 2,420.39 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 3RD ADDITION 27-268009-0 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, INC LOT IE MEADOW $ 73.37 $ 2,420.39 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 3RD ADDITION 27-268010-0 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT,INC LOT 2E MEADOW $ 73.37 $ 2,420.39 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 3RD ADDITION 27-268011-0 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT,INC LOT 3E MEADOW $ 73.37 $ 2,420.39 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 3RD ADDITION Page 1 27-268012-0 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT,INC LOT MEADOW $ 73.37 $ 2,420.39 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 3RD ADDITION 27-268013-0 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, INC STONEOT5 MEADOW $ 73.37 $ 2,420.39 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 3RD ADDITION 27-268014-0 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, INC LOT 6 BLK 2 $ 73.37 $ 2,420.39 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE STONE MEADOW CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 3RD ADDITION 73.37 $ 2,420.39 27-268015-0 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT,INC LSTONE MEADOW $ 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 3RD ADDITION 73.37 $ 2,420.39 27-268016-0 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, INC STONE MEADOW LOT 8 BLK 2 $ 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 3RD ADDITION 27-268017-0 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTUTLOT A , INC STONE MEADOW $ - $ - 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 3RD ADDITION 391.29 $ 12,908.76 27-268018-0 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTOUTLOT B , INC STONE MEADOW $ 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 3RD ADDITION 503.08 $ 16,596.98 27-268019OUTLOT C -0 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT,INC STONE MEADOW $ 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 3RD ADDITION 726.61 $ 23,973.51 27-268020-0 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, INC UT OT D STONE MEADOW $ 15 CHOCTAW CIRCLE CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 3RD ADDITION TOTAL $ 2,794.90 $ 92,205.49 Page 2 / E J . CITY OF SHAKOPEE CONSENT Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk SUBJECT: City Code Amendment for Massage Licensing DATE: February 10, 1999 INTRODUCTION: The City Council is asked to direct staff to prepare an ordinance amending the education requirements for masseuse and masseur licensing; and, to waive the current education requirements and ratify the issuance of a temporary license to Dana Loerzel. BACKGROUND: Dana Loerzel has made application for a masseuse license. She is enrolled at Sister Rosalind Gefre's School of Professional Massage in St. Paul, MN. She has completed 168 hours of a 650 hour program. She meets all but one of the requirements of the City Code including the 100 hours of specific course work identified in the City Code. She does not have a diploma or certificate of graduation. Upon processing Ms. Loerzel's application, staff has learned that other schools provide diplomas or certificates for programs containing less than 650 hours. Persons enrolled in these schools would be eligible for a license assuming that at least 100 hours were in the specific course work identified in the City Code. It seems reasonable not to penalize an applicant by denying them a license because they have not obtained their diploma or certificate of completion because they have selected a school that has a more extensive program. Staff is recommending that the City Code be amended by adding an additional provision to the education requirements. It is proposed that an additional provision would allow an applicant to obtain a license when they have completed 160 hours of course work, continue to be enrolled in the program of their choice, and obtain their diploma or certificate of graduation within one year. If City Council deems this appropriate, the City Attorney advises that the City Council has the right to waive the education requirements of the City Code and grant a temporary license until the City Code can be amended. City Code Amendment for Massage Licensing February 10, 1999 Page -2- Based on the assumption that City Council would support such an amendment, I have issued a temporary, 30-day masseuse license to Ms. Loerzel. This would allow Ms. Loerzel to practice therapeutic massage while staff is preparing the ordinance amendment for Council consideration on March 2nd and publication on March 11th. The ordinance would take effect on March 11, 1999, at which time a permanent license would be issued. There seems to be a multitude of various regulations adopted by different municipalities, including "no licensing" . The therapeutic massage industry continues to evolve over the years. Consistent with this evolution, City Council has made amendments and probably will continue to do so during coming years. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Direct staff to prepare an amendment to the City Code 2. Do not direct staff to prepare an amendment to the City City Code 3 . Waive the education requirements for Ms. Loerzel 4. Do not waive the education requirements for Ms. Loerzel 5. Table for additional information RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternatives 1 and 3. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Direct staff to prepare an amendment to the City Code addressing the education requirements for masseuse and masseur licensing. 2. Waive the education requirements of the City Code and ratify the issuance of a temporary 30-day masseuse license by the City Clerk to Dana Loerzel at Balancing Touch, 415 East First Avenue. ((;)1ADIA-tit, is\clerk\jeanette\licenses\loerze 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 Agreement Southbridge 2nd Addition DATE: February 11, 1999 INTRODUCTION: City Council is asked to approve an assignment and assumption of obligations under the Developer's Agreement for Contractor Property Developers Co. for the improvements in Southbridge 2nd Addition; and to authorize the release of the financial securities from Contractor Property Developers Co. upon receipt of the securities from the new owner. BACKGROUND: Contractor Property Developers Co. (CPDC) has sold its interest in Southbridge 2nd to D. R. Horton Custom Homes. As part of the sale, CPDC assigned to Horton Custom Homes the performances governed by the Developer's Agreement. In conformance with a requirement in the Developer's Agreement, Horton Custom Homes will be providing the City with the financial security to insure the completion of the improvements. CPDC will be providing the maintenance bond for those improvements that have been completed thereby reducing the amount of security needed from Horton Custom Homes. The City is asked to sign a "Consent and Release" thereby consenting to the assignment by CPDC to Horton Custom Homes of the obligations under the Developer's Agreement and to release CPDC from their obligations under the Developer's Agreement. Authorization for the City Clerk to sign the "Consent and Release" will release CPDC from its obligations under the Developer's Agreement. Upon the receipt of the financial security from Horton Custom Homes and a maintenance bond from Horton Custom Homes, the letter of credit from CPDC in the amount of 605,585.25 can be released. This is the fourth request of this nature that City Council has received. The original Assumption and Assignment form and Consent and Release form were approved by the City Attorney. Any deviation from them will be approved by the City Attorney prior to execution by the City Clerk. Assignment and Assumption of Developer's Agreement Southbridge 2nd Addition February 11, 1999 Page -2- 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: 1. Approve the "Assignment and Assumption of Developer's Agreement" between Contractor Property Developers Company and D. R. Horton Custom Homes for certain property in Southbridge 2nd Addition and authorize the execution of the "Consent and Release" . 2. Authorize the City Clerk to release the letter of credit from Contractor Property Developers Company for certain property owned by Contractor Property Developers Company in Southbridge 2nd Addition upon the receipt of a letter of credit from D. R. Horton Custom Homes for uncompleted public improvements and a maintenance bond from Contractor Property Developers Company for completed public improvements. )-0.1)A;f4 (;) h:\judy\assignsb.2nd n Contractor Property Developers Company February 9, 1999 Ms. Judy Cox City Clerk City of Shakopee 129 S. Holmes Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: Southbridge 2nd Addition-Assignment of Development Contract Dear Judy, Contractor Property Developers Co. has sold its interest in Southbridge 2nd to D.R. Horton Custom Homes effective February 4, 1999. As part of that transaction, Horton assumed CPDC's obligations under the City Development Agreement. Enclosed is a copy of the Assignment Agreement with Horton and a Consent to the assignment for which we are requesting the City's approval and signature. We have requested a reduction in the original letter of credit amount from Joel Rutherford and are in the process of arranging for a maintenance bond which will be followed up with a substitute letter of credit from Horton in the reduced amount. Our goal is to provide you with Horton's letter of credit concurrently with the City's execution of the Consent form. Thank you for your assistance. Please call me if you need anything else. Sincerely, taW A I r / Jif?'s . John on • Pr side c. • er Tompkins D. Patton-D.R. Horton 9110 83rd Avenue North, Brooklyn Park, MN 55445 627-0823 • Fax 627-0838 /s. E 7. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Canterbury Park- Casino Gambling DATE: February 11, 1999 INTRODUCTION: The Council is asked to consider endorsing a plan by Canterbury Park to seek authority from the Minnesota Legislature to add casino gambling to the facility. BACKGROUND: Randy Sampson,President of Canterbury Park,has approached the City and Scott County regarding a proposal to add casino gambling,including slot machines and blackjack,to the existing racing facility. This is an idea which was considered in 1997,but did not receive legislative approval. The proposal would have Canterbury Park hosting the facility,but the gaming would actually be run by the Minnesota State Lottery. The proceeds would likely be dedicated for a specific purpose,however, at this time that purpose has not been determined. This would be similar to a situation in the State of Delaware,where Delaware contracts tracks for operation of casinos. At this time, it is anticipated that the facility would serve alcohol; details would need to be worked out regarding whether the casino would be limited to 21 and older, or if alcohol would be limited to other portions of the facility,with no alcohol in the gaming area, so that 18 year olds might also play. PROCEEDS: At this time,there is no proposed language that has been set,but Mr. Sampson does recognize that both the City and County will incur extra expense as the site of the facility. Infrastructure costs(such as signals on C.R. 83 at the entrances to Canterbury), extra policing, and social service type issues would increase. In addition,EMT calls for ambulance would increase as well. Therefore,the bill should contain some funding mechanism to local governments. In West Virginia, a similar proposal dedicates 2%of the gross revenue to local government. In addition to the State and local portion,monies for the Minnesota Horseman's Association(to help that industry), and Canterbury's management costs would need language in the legislative bill. SIMILAR EXAMPLE: Mr. Sampson cites the success of the Prairie Meadows facility in suburban Des Moines, Iowa. There, a pari-mutuel horse racing track was built in the early 1990's. However, live racing lasted only a couple of years, and when the track closed,the taxpayers of Polk County, Iowa were faced with making good on the bond guarantees. In response,the Iowa Legislature allowed casino slots to be installed, and the facility has done remarkable business since. I spoke with the City Administrator of the host community (Altoona,Iowa). He indicates that there are pros and cons brought about by the nearly 10,000 people per day that visit Altoona is a fast-growing city with a population of 9,000. From a positive standpoint,the track pays$26 million in rent and subsidy annually to Polk County. Polk County also receives 1/2 of 1%of the net on slot machines. The City of Altonna also gets 1/2 of 1%,plus,the track pays property taxes on$59 million. The 1/2 of 1%is approximately$630,000 annually; when combined with the $526,000 in property taxes paid,the net payment received by the City is in excess of$1.1 million annually. The City was able to reduce its portion of property tax levies by nearly 20%as a result. On the other hand,the Altonna City Administrator said that there were other problems in addition to the increased calls for ambulance service (Altoona supplies that through a volunteer ambulance system). They do have some policing issues, such as bad checks, in addition to the issues caused by added traffic, special events(fireworks, outdoor concerts) and spin-off development. The spin-off development maybe seen as a positive or negative, depending upon one's view;the casino has more than tripled the hotel and motel tax collected by the City's motels. CANTERBURY REQUEST: Mr. Sampson asks that the City of Shakopee send a letter for inclusion in a packet for the Legislature, stating that it would be supportive of casino gambling at Canterbury. If the Council wishes to do this, it is recommended that it be with language that sufficient funding should be included for the recovery of direct and associated costs for hosting the facility,for both the City and Scott County. In borderready to meet the LegislaturebyMarch's time 1stframe,it is anticipated that such a bill would need to e for introduction . RECOMMENDATION: If the Council concurs with the concept of adding casino gambling to Canterbury, it should direct that a letter of support be sent. ACTION REQUIRED: If the Council concurs, it should,by motion, direct that a letter be prepared for the Mayor's signature, stating the City of Shakopee's support for casino-style gaming at Canterbury Park,with the understanding that language would be included in the bill which will provide for adequate reimbursement of City and County costs for hosting such a facility. Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:tw I CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Closed Session-Labor Status DATE: February 11, 1999 Following the regular Council meeting, I will ask for the Council to recess to a closed session for the purpose of discussing the status of labor negotiations. Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:tw