The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06/01/1999 TENTATIVE AGENDA CITY OF SHAKOPEE REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JUNE 1, 1999 LOCATION: 129 Holmes Street South Mayor Jon Brekke presiding 1] Roll Call at 7.00 p.m. 2] Pledge of Allegiance 3] Approval of Agenda 4] Mayor's Report 5] Approval of Consent Business-(All items noted by an * are anticipated to be routine. After a discussion by the Mayor,there will be an opportunity for members of the City Council to remove items from the consent agenda for individual discussion. Those items removed will be considered in their normal sequence on the agenda. Those items remaining on the consent agenda will otherwise not be individually discussed and will be enacted in one motion.) 6] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS -(Limited to five minutes per person/subject. Longer presentations must be scheduled through the City Clerk. As this meeting is cablecast,speakers must approach the microphone at the podium for the benefit of viewers and other attendees.) *7] Approval of Minutes of March 16, 1999 *8] Approve Bills in the Amount of$ 145,644.16 9] Communications: 10] Public Hearings: 11] Liaison Reports from Councilmembers 12] Recess for an Economic Development Authority Meeting 13] Re-convene 14] Recommendations from Boards and Commissions: *A] Final Plat of Brittany Village 1st,located northeast of CR 17 & 17th Ave. E. -Res. 5156 *B] Text Amendment Regarding Design Standards in the Highway Business Zone-Ord. 551 TENTATIVE AGENDA June 1, 1999 Page -2- 15] General Business A] Public Works and Engineering 1. Street Width for Sarazin Street Improvement Project No. 1999-3 *2. Rahr Malting Proposal to Discharge Biosolids into the City's Sanitary Sewer System 3. Traffic Control Signage at Thomas Avenue/Atwood Street/Hennes Avenue *4. Accepting Feasibility Report for 1999 Street Overlay and Alley Reconstruction Improvements,Project No. 1999-6-Res.No. 5157 5. Approving Plans and Ordering Ad for Bids on Sarazin Street from St. Francis Ave. to 880 feet South,Project No. 1999-3 -Res.No. 5158 B] Police and Fire *1. Participation in Southwest Metro Task Force for 2000-Res.No. 5154 C] Parks and Recreation 1. Status of Municipal Pool and Closing Policy-on table D] Community Development 1. Marcus Theatres Request for Waiver of Minor Subdivision Criteria *2. Lebens CUP Appeal Regarding Setback Requirements-Res.No. 5155 *3. Oppidan CUP Appeal for Retail Center,Drive-Through Facility&Gas Station- Res.No. 5159 *4. Text Amendment Regarding Fences on Double Frontage Lots-Ord.No. 550 5. Appeal by Robert Polk of the BOAA denial of a 4' side yard setback variance E] General Administration 1. Class and Number of Liquor Licenses 2. Southwest Suburban Publishing Sites 3. Derby Days Financial Sponsorship 4. Civil Prosecution-Alcohol Violations 5. Amending Res.No. 1891 which Adopted Assessments for the V.I.P. Interceptor *6. Direct Deposit-New Hires *7. Resolution of Appreciation for the Finance Department for the 1998 Audit-Res. 5160 16] Other Business 17] Recess for executive session to discuss labor negotiations 18] Re-convene 19] Adjourn to Tuesday,June 15, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. TENTATIVE AGENDA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA Regular Meeting June 1, 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: co 1 [99 9 5. Financial A.)Approval of Bills 6. River City Centre Leasing-Update 7. Small Cities Development Program-Update 8. Other Business: 9. Adjourn edagenda.doc OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SHAKOPEE,MN REGULAR SESSION APRIL 6, 1999 Members Present: Brekke, DuBois, Sweeney, Link, and President Amundson 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 and Paul Snook, Economic Development Coordinator I. Roll President Amundson called the meeting to order at 7:26 P.M. Roll was taken as noted above. II. Approval of Agenda DuBois/Link moved to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried unanimously. M. Consent Agenda Brekke/Sweeney moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Approval of Minutes None V. Financial A. Approval of Bills Brekke/Sweeney moved to approve bills in the amount of $1,239.38 for the E.D.A.. General Fund. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) VI. Downtown Guidelines Mr. Snook stated that the EDA is asked to adopt the EDA-commissioned Downtown Design Guidelines to serve as the design standard for the Downtown Shakopee Facade Loan Program. The intent is to create a positive visual image for Downtown Shakopee by encouraging the restoration and preservation of the architectural heritage of traditional commercial buildings. All renovation, restoration, redesign and new construction projects seeking funding through the Facade Loan Program must meet design criteria as specified in the Downtown Design Guidelines. Official Proceedings of the April 6, 1999 Shakopee Economic Development Authority Page -2- Thomas R. Zahn, Thomas R. Zahn& Associates, approached the podium to present the design guidelines, which included the type of building projects that might occur, the process of design review, financial incentives, maintenance guidelines, and general storefront considerations. A discussion ensued as to why this particular area was suggested. Paul Snook explained that the selected area consists of both the B-3 commercial zone and a smaller area within that, which has a concentration of historic commercial buildings. He said the guidelines are guided for the typical commercial building of late 1800's design. When asked how to get the momentum and excitement going, Paul Snook said this is generally done through some type of financial incentive program or tax incentives. He said having design guidelines along with financial incentives helps. Thomas Zahn approached the podium and said that Shakopee is fortunate to have a property owner with plans to make changes. He said with Turtle's plans for change of the old Rock Spring building, all the other property owners will see the change and hopefully the idea will snowball. Mayor Brekke said that the City's goal is to restore the buildings to their original outside appearance, to further the quality of housing stock in the downtown area. He also asked how these relate to the Small Cities Development Program (SCDP) grant. Paul Snook said that having the financial incentive program included in the application actually helped to obtain the grant. In response to a question relating to the expansion of boundaries, Thomas Zahn explained that the design guidelines are directed at commercial historic downtowns, which tend to be vintage late 1800's. He said that after about 1930 or 1940 the buildings began to lose continuity of design. He said that these are design guidelines and can be applied to any building of that period, and a variety of buildings were selected. Paul Snook explained that the Small Cities Development Program grant delineated an area from Apgar to Naumkeag on the east and west and from the river to 3rd or 4th Avenue. There is also an area delineated for commercial rehabilitation. This was based on a survey to determine what was slum and what was blight. In response to a question regarding selection of the design review committee to begin the process, Paul Snook said that 3 volunteers have volunteered to participate on the Design Review Committee. Official Proceedings of the April 6, 1999 Shakopee Economic Development Authority Page -3- Brekke/DuBois moved to adopt the City of Shakopee Downtown Design Guidelines to . serve as the design standard for the Downtown Shakopee Facade Loan Program. Motion carried unanimously. Brekke/Link moved to direct staff to incorporate a consistency requirement between Small Cities Development Program grant applications, the approval of Small Cities Development Program funding for commercial rehabilitation projects and the Downtown Design Guidelines. Motion carried unanimously. VII. Adjournment Link/DuBois moved to adjourn to April 7, 1999. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:08 a.m. C: IA c . J/C J dith S. Cox .D.A. Secretary Esther TenEyck Recording Secretary CITY OF SHAKOPEE CONSENT. Memorandum TO: President & Commissioners Mark H. McNeill, Executive Director FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: EDA Bill List DATE: May 27, 1999 Introduction Attached is a listing of bills for the EDA and Seagate fund for the period 5/14/99 to 05/27/99 . Action Requested Move to approve bills in the amount of $30 .49 for the EDA General Fund and $0 . 00 for Seagate. I o 0 0 0 0 II H I 0 o 0 0 o 11 H I • • 11 A I 0 0 0 0 0 11 W C4 U I rr% ch II dr d' W V' d' II • II H 0 0 0 0 0 WM M M M M II A � II H II P11 M II M11 0 H � M O W0 H W. a • a m U z a 0 rn rn O N H CL a 0 H W N rx p co H 0crl UU1 U 1-1 (6 A ,a H O rn � N co co W ,-I x0 Uz o crl Cri H O O N L7 H [� C7 ! E° IFI vvr a.1 i vv aur ay.vi ♦t\4.1. 1€4 VOL A River City Centre Leasing Update(Commercial) 5-27-99 Total square feet: 25,373 Signed: Square Feet: Dental Office 2,294 Tobacco Warehouse/Coffee Shop 2,133 CA Nail Salon 1,350 Country Medical 1,213 S. Roach Law Office 1,635 Burnet Realty 4,009 ** GSA Office 8.250 20,884—square feet - 82%leased In Negotiation: Square Feet: Financial Office 2,539 Chiropractic Clinic 1,310 3,894 square feet— 15% In Negotiation TOTAL sq. ft. signed and in negotiation: 24,778 sq. ft. 97% of total ** U.S. Government Year 2000 Census Bureau Office. xvhakopcc\updato.dvc CITY OF SIIAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council/ Economic Development Authority FROM: Paul Snook, Economic Development Coordinator SUBJECT: Small Cities Development Program-Update DATE: May 26, 1999 This is an Informational Item. Councilor / EDA President Amundson asked staff to provide an update regarding the Small Cities Development Program (SCDP) grant the City was awarded by the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development(DTED). Following are the steps that are to take place before SCDP funds become available to property owners. • The City and State must enter into a Grant Agreement (Exhibit A). This document specifies general and special conditions of the agreement, and generally states that the City agrees to use the funds as outlined in its SCDP Application (Exhibit B). On May 18,the City received four originals of this agreement from DTED for signature by the Mayor and City Administrator. The documents were signed and sent back to DTED that same week for signature by DTED's Commissioner. Upon signature completion, DTED will return a fully executed copy to the City. • The City must select a Rehab Administrator for the program as directed by the City Council. Staff has presented a Request for Qualifications (Exhibit C) to Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority and Carver County Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Carver County HRA is being solicited to submit an RFQ since it has substantial experience specific to rehab administration of SCDP projects, and in fact has in the past been used by the Scott County HRA to do rehab administration projects in the Scott County area due to Scott HRA not having staff capacity for taking on such work. However, Scott HRA has indicated that they may have to hire their own rehab staff if they attain a certain housing grant they have applied for. Should they receive the grant, Scott HRA would then have the rehab staff to not only service their needs (created by the housing grant), but to also have the capacity to service Shakopee's SCDP program. They expect to know very soon whether they are awarded said grant. scdpmmo6.doc • The City and implementing agency for rehabilitation administration (presumably one of the HRA's) need to enter into an administrative contract. DTED requires that they receive a copy of this contract. • The City must submit Community Fair Housing/Equal Opportunity Summary Sheet, Grantee Summary Information Sheet, federal department of Housing and Urban Development Form 2880 (Disclosure) and Fair Housing Plan of Action prior to undertaking grant activities as specified in Grant Agreement. Staff is currently preparing and submitting these documents. • Prior to beginning rehabilitation activities, Grantee (City) must submit policies, procedures and forms to the Grantor (DTED) for approval for owner-occupied housing rehabilitation, rental rehabilitation, and commercial rehabilitation. The implementing agency for rehabilitation administration (presumably one of the HRA's) will assist with developing these requirements. As soon as the Rehab Administrator and City enter into into an administrative contract, these requirements will be completed. • Applications will be accepted only after the above administrative provisions are in place. The next item to bring before the Council will be staff's recommendation as to the selection of an implementing agency for rehabilitation administration. This will happen after the RFQ's have been reviewed, and after staff has met with implementation agency representatives. The way the SCDP program works is that the funds are granted to the City, which in turn provides deferred loans to qualified property owners in the identified target area. The loans become partially or entirely forgivable if the property owner retains ownership of the property for a specified time period (varies depending upon he type of loan - commercial or residential). Information as to how property owners can qualify / apply for the loan funds are forthcoming in the marketing materials to be produced by the implementing agency for rehabilitation administration. As mentioned above, the City is currently in the process of selecting the rehabilitation administrator. Generally,Exhibit D outlines the criteria to qualify for the loan funds, as specified in the City's SCDP Application. The figures within Exhibit D may be modified according to the Grant Agreement with DTED. scdpmmo6.doc \NNESo?. ft Trade & EXHIBIT A Economic Development Business & Community May 17, 1999 Development The Honorable Jon Breeke Mayor, City of Shakopee 129 Homles Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 Grant N umber: CDAP-98-0117-O-FY99 Grant Title: Shakopee Downtown Comprehensive Project Dear Mayor Breeke: Enclosed are four copies of the contract between the State of Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development(DTED) and the city of Shakopee. Please review, have the authorized individual designated in the local government resolution sign, date and return all four copies to me in the enclosed envelope along with the local government resolution if it has not already been sent. Please note, the Department of Trade and Economic Development will not sign off on a contract that is not signed and dated. Upon completion of the state signature process, I will return a fully executed copy to you for your files. Our address is: Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development Business and Community Development Division Attention Contract Coordinator 500 Metro Square- 121 7th Place East St. Paul, MN 55101-2146 If you have any questions please feel free to contact Leona Humphrey, your program representative at 651/297-4740 . Sincerely7 ,...,Ze.-e-ce.&L(17-C--(7/ Tammi Wilhelmy Contract Coordinator cc: Leona Humphrey Enclosures 500 Metro Square, 121 7th Place East, Saint Paul,Minnesota 55101-2146 USA 651-297-1291 •800-657-3858•Fax 651-296-1290/296-5287•TTY/TDD 800-627-3529 www.dted.state.mn.us STATE OF MINNESOTA GRANT CONTRACT Tran FY AID Dept/Div Seq No Sfx Obj Vendor No Type A40 99 300-1410-C99 22100 Amount Terms Asset# CCI CC2 CC3 Cost Code 4 Cost Code 5 $877,800 Date Number Entered By A40 A41 Date Number Entered By A44 A45 A46 Notice to Grantee You are required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 270.66, to provide your Minnesota tax identification number if you do business with the State of Minnesota. This information may be used in the enforcement of federal and state tax laws. Supplying these numbers could result in action to require you to file state tax returns and pay delinquent state tax liabilities. These numbers will be available to federal and state tax authorities and state personnel involved in the payment of state obligations. Grantee's Name and Address: City of Shakopee City Hall, 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 Minnesota Tax ID: 8025237 Social Security or Federal Employer ID: 41-6005539 THIS PAGE OF THE CONTRACT CONTAINS PRIVATE INFORMATION. EXCEPT AS DEFINED ABOVE, THIS PAGE SHOULD NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE GRANTEE. If you circulate this contract internally, DO NOT include this page. STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION Small Cities Development Program Grant Agreement CDAP-98-0117-O-FY99 This Agreement is made on March 29, 1999 between the State of Minnesota acting through the Department of Trade and Economic Development (hereinafter the Grantor) and the city of Shakopee, City Hall, 129 South Holmes Street, Shakopee, MN 55379 (hereinafter the Grantee). The State's authorized agent and contact person responsible for administration of this contract is Leona Humphrey (or successor) of the Business and Community Development Division, of the Department of Trade and Economic Development. The Grantor has been allocated funds by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development under the Community Development Block Grant Program and is authorized to administer the funds pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 116J.401(2). The Grantee has made application to the Grantor for a portion of the allocation for the purpose of conducting the project entitled Shakopee Downtown Comprehensive in the manner described in Grantee's "APPLICATION,"which is incorporated into this agreement by reference. In consideration of mutual promises set forth below, the parties agree as follows: The Grantor shall grant to the Grantee the total sum of EIGHT HUNDRED SEVENTY-SEVEN THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED DOLLARS ($877,800), which shall be federal funds appropriated to the State of Minnesota under the Community Development Block Grant Program. The Grantee shall perform the activities that are proposed in the application and further are specified under special conditions during the period from March 29, 1999 through September 30, 2001, in accordance with all applicable provisions of Title 1 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, its implementing regulations particularly federal statutes identified in Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 570, "Implementation Manual" provided by Grantor and all other applicable state and federal laws. Grantee agrees to complete the project in accordance with the approved budget and within'the time frames specified in the application and agreement. Any material change in the scope of the project, the budget or the completion date must be approved in writing by the Grantor. Funds made available pursuant to this agreement shall be used only for expenses incurred in performing and accomplishing such purposes and activities during the grant period described above. Notwithstanding all other provisions of this agreement, it is understood that any reduction or termination of Housing and Urban Development funds provided to the Grantor may result in a like reduction to the Grantee. Where provisions of the Grantee's application are inconsistent with other provisions of this agreement, the other provisions of this agreement shall take precedence over the provisions of the application. 1 GENERAL CONDITIONS Accounting. For all expenditures of funds made pursuant to this agreement, Grantee shall keep financial records, including invoices, contracts, receipts, vouchers, and other documents sufficient to evidence in proper detail the nature and propriety of the expenditure. Accounting methods shall be in accordance with the Common Rule, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments, published in the Federal Register on March 11, 1988, Volume 53, Number 48. Reporting. Grantee shall submit reports to.Grantor in accordance with the reporting requirements set forth in Minnesota Rule 4300.3200. Grantee shall use the forms found in the Implementation Manual provided by the Grantor. Payment/Disbursement Schedule. Grantor shall disburse funds to the Grantee pursuant to this agreement, based upon a payment request submitted by the Grantee and reviewed and approved by the Grantor. Payment requests shall be reviewed and processed on a weekly basis. The amount of grant funds requested by the Grantee must be equal to the amount of unpaid obligations minus any program income in the Grantee's possession at the time the payment request is submitted to the Grantor. Program Income. When program income derived from SCDP funds exceeds $25,000 per report year, the entire amount must be used only for DTED approved activities, be reduced from draws, or returned to the State of Minnesota. Provision for Contracts and Subcontracts. Grantee shall include in any contract or subcontract, in addition to the provisions to define a sound and complete agreement, such provisions as to assure contractor and subcontractor compliance with applicable state and federal laws. Affirmative Action. A municipality that receives State money for any reason is encouraged to prepare and implement an affirmative action plan for the employment of minority persons, women, and the disabled and submit the plan to the Commissioner of Human Rights. Antitrust. The Grantee hereby assigns to the State of Minnesota any and all claims for overcharges as to goods and/or services provided in connection with this contract resulting from antitrust violations which arise under the antitrust laws of the United States and the antitrust laws of the State of Minnesota. Termination and Cancellation. This Grant may be canceled by the Grantor at any time, upon thirty (30) days written notice to the Grantee. In the event of such cancellation, Grantee shall be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for work or services satisfactorily performed. - If the Grantor finds that there has been a failure to comply with the provisions of this agreement, that reasonable progress has not been made, or that the purposes for which the funds were granted have not been or will not be fulfilled, the Grantor may take action to protect the interests of the State of Minnesota, including the refusal to disburse additional funds and requiring the return of all or part of the funds already disbursed. Audit and Inspection. The Grantee shall comply with the requirements of the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 (P.L. 104-156). Accounts and records related to the funds provided under this agreement shall be accessible to authorized representatives of the Grantor for purposes of examination and audit. In addition, Grantee will give the U.S. General Accounting Office, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, State of Minnesota, Department of Trade and Economic Development, the Legislative Auditor, and State Auditor's Office, through any authorized representatives, access to and the right to examine all records, books, papers, and documents 2 related to the grant. Amendments. Any amendment to this agreement shall be in writing, and shall be executed by either the same persons who executed the original agreement, their successors in office, or by those persons authorized by the Grantee through a formal resolution of its governing body. Liability. Grantee agrees to indemnify and save and hold Grantor, its agents and employees harmless from any and all claims or causes of action arising from the performance of the Grant by Grantee or Grantee's agents or employees. This clause shall not be construed to bar any legal remedies Grantee may have for the Grantor's failure to fulfill its obligations pursuant to this Agreement. Other Provisions. The Grantee shall comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Chapter 13 and the Conflict of Interest provisions of Minnesota Statutes Sections 471.87-471.88. Successors and Assignees. This agreement shall be binding upon any successors or assignees of the parties. 3 Grant Number: CDAP-98-0117-O-FY99 Project Title: Shakopee Downtown Comprehensive SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1. The following activities, goals, and budget costs were revised from the application during the review process. Modifications must be approved in writing by the Grantor: • Federal Activ# Activity Title Unit Goal People LMI Served SCDP Funds Other Funds Total Objective Served Housing Rehabilitation $369,000 $105,000 $474,000 Housing Rehab Admin $40,300 $1,700 $42,000 LMI 14a Housing Rehabilitation 30 90 90 $409,300 $106,700 $516,000 Rental Rehabilitation $121,500 $121,500 $243,000 Rental Rehab Admin $40,100 $0 $40,100 LMI 14b Rental Rehabilitation 30 90 72 $161,600 $121,500 $283,100 Commercial Rehabilitation $251,250 $251,250 $502,500 Commercial Rehab Admin $20,650 $1,850 $22,500 S&B 14e Commercial Rehab 15 $271,900 $253,100 $525,000 NA 21a General Administration $35,000 $13,000 $48,000 Total Project $877,800 $494,300 $1,372,100 2. Grantee must maintain files documenting how each activity funded (except general administration), in whole or in part, with SCDP funds, meets one of the three federal objectives. The documentation must be as complete as possible and must be readily available to the Grantor throughout the life of the project. 3. The Grantee must maintain documentation that shows that professional services were procured in accordance with "The Common Rule." Professional services not procured in this manner are grant ineligible. 4. Services obtained from units of government such as HRA, RDC, or nonprofit organizations do not have to be procured by competitive negotiation, but contracts for these services must only be on a cost-reimbursement basis, accounted for in accordance with "The Common Rule." 5. Exemption to incur administrative costs for this grant under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 is hereby given. All other activities will require an environmental assessment as well as clearance of other conditions as dictated by specific activities of this grant. 6. The Grantee must comply with Minnesota Statutes, Section 290.9705 by either: A. Depositing with the State, eight percent of every payment made to non-Minnesota construction contractors, where the contract exceeds $100,000; or B. Receiving a waiver from this requirement from the Minnesota Department of Revenue. 7. The Grantee must not use SCDP funds to pay any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of a federal agency, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or any employee of a member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any federal contract, the making of a federal grant, the making of a federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any federal contract, grant, 4 loan, or cooperative agreement. If the Grantee uses non-federal funds to conduct any of the aforementioned activities, the Grantee must complete and submit Standard Form LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying." Further the Grantee must include the language of this provision in all contracts and subcontracts and all contractors and subcontractors must comply accordingly. 8. Grantee must submit construction activity detail, cost estimates and source of funds with the Request for Wage Determination for each commercial rehabilitation project. 9. Owner-occupied housing rehabilitation administration has been awarded $40,300 to accomplish 30 units. If the number of rehabilitation units accomplished is less than the unit goal, there may be a corresponding decrease in the amount allowed for project administration. 10. Rental housing rehabilitation administration has been awarded $40,100 to accomplish 30 units. If the number of rehabilitation units accomplished is less than the unit goal, there may be a corresponding decrease in the amount allowed for project administration. 11. Commercial rehabilitation administration has been awarded $20,650 to accomplish 15 units. If the number of rehabilitation units accomplished is less than the unit goal, there may be a corresponding decrease in the amount allowed for project administration. 12. The Grantee must provide a drug-free workplace by notifying employees that unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensation, possession or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the Grantee's workplace and specifying actions that will be taken against employees for violation of such prohibition. The Grantee must also establish a drug-free workplace awareness program to inform employees about the dangers of drug abuse, the availability of drug counseling and penalties for violations of the drug-free workplace policy. 13. The Grantee must adopt and enforce a policy to prohibit the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in nonviolent civil rights demonstrations (P.L. 101-144, Section 519). 14. The Grantee must adopt, make public and certify that it is following a "residential antidisplacement and relocation assistance plan" in accordance with Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, including a displacement minimization policy. 15. Grantee must submit the Community FHEO Summary Sheet, the Grantee Summary Information Sheet (GSIS), HUD Form 2880 (Disclosure) and a Fair Housing Plan of Action prior to undertaking grant activities. 16. Prior to beginning rehabilitation activities, Grantee must submit policies and procedures and forms to the Grantor for approval for owner-occupied housing rehabilitation. 17. Prior to beginning rehabilitation activities, Grantee must submit policies and procedures and forms to the Grantor for approval for rental rehabilitation. 18. Prior to beginning rehabilitation activities, Grantee must submit policies and procedures and forms to the Grantor for approval for commercial rehabilitation. 19. Prior to beginning rehabilitation activities, Grantee must submit inspection reports, work write-ups and cost estimates for the first owner occupied, rental and commercial projects. 5 20. The Grantee must submit a copy of the administrative contract between the Grantee and implementing agency for rehabilitation administration. 21. Grantee must submit a plan for the use of program income earned from the rehabilitation activity. 6 Grant Number: CDAP-98-0117-O-FY99 Grantee Name: City of Shakopee The Grantor and Grantee acknowledge their assent to this agreement and agree to be bound by its terms through their signatures entered below. GRANTEE: We have read and we agree to all STATE OF MINNESOTA by and through the of the above provisions of this agreement. Department of Trade and Economic Development. By -� By Title ape-N Title COMMISSIONER Date 5 01-7 Date By i/Li ENCUMBERED: Title Department of Trade and Economic Development ��Q.�"�� Date C(t1(5'1 By Date Encumbered [Individual signing certifies that funds have been encumbered as required by Minnesota Statute 16A.] contract/2p.con 7 EXHIBIT C REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS City of Shakopee Rehabilitation Administration Services for Minnesota Small Cities Development Program Grant The City of Shakopee has issued this Request for Qualifications to obtain a response from qualified agencies willing to provide rehabilitation administration services for the City's recent award of a Small Cities Development Program(SCDP)Grant. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The City of Shakopee is undertaking a Downtown Revitalization Program financed through a Compre- hensive Minnesota Small Cities Development Program Grant in the amount of$877,800.The funds will be utilized for the following rehabilitation activities in the Downtown Target Area: • Commercial Rehabilitation: 15 buildings • Owner-Occupied Housing Rehabilitation: 30 dwellings • Rental Rehabilitation: 30 units • Project Administration The Downtown Target Area includes Shakopee's Downtown Business District and the oldest housing in the City which surrounds the Downtown Business District.A smaller three block area within the Downtown Target Area has been established as the Commercial Target Area for the Commercial Rehabilitation Program. GOALS FOR THE USE OF SCDP FUNDS • To revitalize Shakopee's downtown area into a formerly organized central business district that has a 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 ensure 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. 1 REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS City of Shakopee DESCRIPTION OF EXPECTED SERVICES The selected agency is expected to perform all of the following tasks in addition to any other tasks necessary to complete the rehabilitation administration of the City of Shakopee's Small Cities Development Program Grant(SCDP). 1. Serve as Project Director and in the compliance positions of Environmental Coordinator,Labor Standards Officer,and Fair Housing/Equal Employment Officer. 2. Coordinate and prepare an Environmental Review Record(ERR)as specified in the SCDP Implementation Manual and Environmental Handbook. 3. Ensure that all labor standards requirements are complied with and enforced as specified in the SCDP Labor Standards Handbook. 4. Ensure that applicable civil rights laws are complied with and take the actions necessary to carry out and document compliance,as specified in the SCDP Fair Housing/Equal Opportunity Handbook. 5. Utilize Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development's(DTED) SCDP Step-by-Step Guide to Rehabilitation,and SCDP Implementation Manual to implement Commercial Rehabilitation,Owner-Occupied Housing Rehabilitation,and Rental Rehabilitation elements of the Shakopee Small Cities Development Program Grant. 6. Market the program through issuing press releases to local print and broadcast media; conducting informational meetings with property owners from the Target Area; assure that affirmative marketing is being done by compliance with all Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity Laws when soliciting applicants and contractors; make direct mailings of program information to the property owners in the Target Area; develop brochures and send them out with utility billing statements; and develop posters and post them in prominent areas in the community. 7. Maintain files documenting how each activity undertaken in whole or in part with SCDP funds (owner-occupied housing rehab;rental housing rehab; and commercial building rehab),meets one of the following three federal objectives: a.)Benefit to Low and Moderate Income People; b.) Prevention or Elimination of Slum and Blight Conditions; and c.)Alleviation of Urgent Community Development Needs. 8. Assist applicants through the application process. 9. Assure that properties proposed in program applications meet all property eligibility criteria as outlined in the SCDP Step-by-Step Rehabilitation Guide. 10. Develop and implement an Anti-Displacement Plan as part of the Rental and Commercial Rehabilitation elements of the program. 11. Assure that improvements made or proposed to be made with SCDP funds satisfy the requirements as outlined in the SCDP Step-by-Step Rehabilitation Guide. 12. Assure that applicants/recipients meet eligibility requirements(income verification,etc.)as specified in the SCDP Step-by-Step Rehabilitation Guide. 2 REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS City of Shakopee DESCRIPTION OF EXPECTED SERVICES(continued) 13. Conduct applicant selection process on a first come,first served basis. Select applicants for participation in the program based upon each proposed rehabilitation project's applicability to the program guidelines. 14. Conduct inspection of properties to determine the work necessary to bring properties into compliance with the Rehabilitation Standards. The inspector will use the Inspection Report Form found in the DTED Step-by-Step Guide to Rehabilitation Inspection or a functional equivalent of DTED's form (i.e.MHFA's Inspection Report Form). 15. Prepare Scope(s)of Work(work write-ups)that rectify any violations to the Rehabilitation Standards. The Scope(s)of Work shall contain the following: • Instruction to the bidder • Bid proposal • Program warranties • General conditions • Special conditions • Diagrams and layouts • Davis/Bacon requirements 16. Determine contractor eligibility and undertake bidding procedures as specified in the SCDP Step-by- Step Rehabilitation Guide.For commercial projects,this includes guidelines that specify Limitations, Maximum Financing,Historic Requirements,Floodplain Requirements,and Accessibility Requirements. 17. Work with the Downtown Design Review Committee to ensure that SCDP commercial rehabilitation projects that include work on the building facade adhere to the City of Shakopee Downtown Design Guidelines(All SCDP commercial rehabilitation projects that include work on the building facade must comply with these design guidelines). 18. Present each individual rehabilitation project to the Rehabilitation Committee for approval after eligibility requirements have been investigated,the property has been inspected,work write-ups have been completed and, if necessary,outside financing secured. 19. Create and maintain individual case files as outlined in the SCDP Implementation Manual. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS The City of Shakopee requires that statements of qualifications submitted in response to this RFQ include the following information: • Agency name,address,phone number,and primary contact person. • Identification of Key Personnel who will be assigned to the project,education and experience.Detail of their technical expertise which qualifies them for this work. 3 REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS City of Shakopee • Confirmation that sufficient staff will be committed to the project to ensure that the schedule will be met. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS(continued) • Listing of similar SCDP work done by the personnel who will be assigned to this project including: ❑ Description of Project(s) ❑ Key personnel who had significant involvement in the project(s) ❑ Client/contact person name,address and telephone number ❑ Status of client SCDP projects • Other References • Submittal Delivery Information: ❑ Three copies are required and must be delivered to: City of Shakopee Attn: Paul Snook 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee,MN 55379 ❑ Submittal Deadline: by 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday,June 2, 1999 SELECTION PROCESS Qualification submittals will be reviewed by a panel of City staff. Submittals will be evaluated on experience and education,and work on similar SCDP projects. The agencies which exhibit the qualifications deemed most suitable as determined by the review panel will be notified in writing to submit a formal proposal for further review and final consideration. OTHER INFORMATION All inquiries should be directed to Paul Snook,Economic Development Coordinator at(612)496-9661. The City of Shakopee may,at its sole discretion,reject any or all responses to this RFQ,and shall not be responsible for any costs incurred in the preparation and submittal of any RFQ response. The submission of an RFQ response is permission by the respondent for the City of Shakopee to verify all information contained therein.If the City of Shakopee believes it necessary,additional information may be requested from the respondent.Failure to comply with such request will disqualify the respondent from further consideration. 4 • EXHIBIT D 3. Program Description/Com►rerc;A1 ,A6A1.-f-AtidVI The description of the Commercial Rehabilitation Program is as follows: • To qualify the commercial building must be substandard and meet the criteria established in the Commercial Rehabilitation Guidelines and policies. Many of the larger buildings have been divided to accommodate 2 or more businesses. Due to store front modification,they are essentially separate buildings, although they are identified as a single tax parcel. These buildings would be eligible for one deferred loan per store front. • Commercial property owners or lessees are eligible for a 50%deferred loan with a maximum deferred loan of$25,000. If 50%of the project costs exceed$25,000, the property owner must finance the additional costs,thus, financing over 50%of the total project costs. Examples: 1 1 1. Rehabilitation Costs=$40,000 SCDP Funds -$20,000 Property Owner-$20,000 2. Rehabilitation Costs=$62,000 SCDP Funds-$25,000 Property Owner-$37,000 The City is negotiating with local banks to provide low interest loans for the property owner's share at three-quarters of the prime rate. This Program was established with the input of the 21 property owners that were interviewed. • Eligible improvements include: • Code compliance related improvements. • Energy related improvements. • Accessibility improvements as appropriate. • Exterior improvements determined necessary to correct defects. • Facade improvements approved by the City of Shakopee. • All SCDP loans shall be secured with a Repayment Agreement that stipulates the deferred loan will be forgiven on a sliding scale over a seven year period if the property owner does not sell the property. 3. Program Description oninel-_Cectiped 4.64sir►g gahab • The Housing Rehabilitation Program will provide rehabilitation funds to low/moderate income homeowners as follows: iZ< aecee-td, {D 414 C'BY�c� • Very low income households (owner occupied): Owner occupied households meeting very low income Section 8 income guidelines (50%or less of Section 8 income limits for their household size)will receive 100%deferred loans for the rehabilitation of their dwellings. The maximum deferred loan amount will be $19,000. The deferred loan will include a repayment agreement that stipulates a percentage payback of the deferred loan if the property owner sells the dwelling within a ten year period of time after rehabilitation is completed. • Moderate income households(owner occupied): Owner occupied households that are below Section 8 income limits, but above very low Section 8 income limits, will receive a partial deferred loan. Following is the schedule for deferred loans/homeowner share. 16thaVfir: e::><::>NEEMEMENEME r,,, 50%&Under 0% 100% 50%-60% 10% 90% $17,100 61%-. 7O% 20% 80% $15,200 71%- 80% 30% 70% $13,300 81%-90% 40% 60% $11,400 91%- 100% 50% 50% $ 9,500 FA's ( j i Up ruhd, as( (Fired *Other deferred loan sources will be utilized as part of the deferred loan share. Other loan sources will be utilized to assist homeowners with their share of the costs. Phi y tetvi Affordability After the household has been determined eligible in accordance with Section 8 LMI Guidelines,the Shakopee Downtown Revitalization Program will evaluate affordability based on a debt to income ratio. The affordability calculation will be conducted and the home owner's deferred loan amount will be determined after this calculation. Debt to Income Ratio: If the debt to income ratio exceeds 40%, a deduction of$750 per household member is allowable to arrive at an adjusted gross income. A 40%debt to income ratio is determined as follows: • Family Gross Annual Income: Gross Monthly Income: • Housing Expenses: House Payment Real Estate Taxes Housing Insurance Utility Costs TOTAL • Monthly Housing Debt/Income Ratio: %(divide TOTAL housing expense by gross monthly income) �tllhe occctriPo( r@hb • If debt/income ratio exceeds 40%,then deduct$750 per household member. ( (#in household)x$750=$ ) • Total Adjusted Gross Income: (gross annual income minus line above) Low Interest Loan/Homeowner Match:The homeowner has an option to apply for a MHFA Community Fix-Up Loan or to apply for a conventional loan. 5. Improvement Priorities The following priority improvements to be conducted in Shakopee were derived from actual inspections of dwellings,windshield surveys,and residents comments on surveys within the Downtown Target Area. Three categories of improvements were formulated; health/safety,energy,and basic housing quality components. The rehabilitation activity in Downtown will focus on the improvements outlined below. Each dwelling must meet or exceed the Building Official and Code Administrators International Code and the Minnesota Energy Efficiency Standards,or its equivalent,upon completion of the rehabilitation. • Health and safety improvements are also a primary emphasis of the rehabilitation efforts to be conducted in Shakopee. These improvements are risks to the occupants of the household. As such,they are mandatory improvements. These improvements are as follows in their sub-categorical ranking. • Furnace replacement and repair • Fire detection • Electrical code violations • Surface impermeability to weather,water,and rodents • Safe and unobstructed egress • Adequate and sanitary food preparation areas • Plumbing installation repair • Energy improvements are another primary improvement to be conducted in conjunction with health and safety improvements. Improvement priorities are based upon the improvements'energy cost savings per year provided to the household. • Attic insulation • Wall insulation • Storm windows • Door/window weatherstripping • Rim joist insulation • Storm doors • Basic housing quality components also will be addressed. These improvements include: • Roofing • Painting • Window replacement • Siding 6. Rehabilitation Standards The Rehabilitation Standards that will be applied to the Shakopee Owner Occupied Rehabilitation Program include: • • Minnesota Energy Efficiency Standards,or its equivalent • The Building Official and Code Administrators International Code(BOCA) 3. Program Description/ -t l lZe�+abi�i�R��oh The description of the Rental Rehabilitation Program is as follows: • To qualify,the rental unit must be substandard. • Rental property owners are eligible for 50%deferred loan with a maximum deferred loan of#7,500 per unit. Example: Duplex-Rehabilitation Costs of$29,000 Deferred Loan Amount$14,500 ($7,250 per unit) • Maximum deferred loan up to -7,S00 per unit. • SCDP funds will be used to provide 50 percent of the eligible construction costs through deferred loans. • A private loan will be used to finance the remaining construction costs. • Eligible improvements include: • Code compliance related improvements. • Energy related improvements. • Accessibility improvements as appropriate. • Exterior improvements determined necessary to correct defects. • All SCDP loans shall be secured with a Repayment Agreement and Rental Agreement. • Rental owners must agree to freeze rents for the first year following rehabilitation and must not exceed 100%of fair market rents for at least five years. The Fair Market rents are: Unit Size Fair Market Rent 0 bedroom 392.00 1 bedroom 504.00 2 bedroom 644.00 3 bedroom 872.00 4 bedroom 982.00 5 D 7 Minnesota Small Cities Development Program for Commercial Building Rehabilitation in Downtown Shakopee The City of Shakopee received a Small Cities Development Program (SCDP) grant from the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development in the amount of $877,800. A portion of the funds will be used to provide deferred loans to property owners for the rehabilitation of 15 commercial buildings in the designated Downtown Commercial Rehabilitation Target Area bounded by Fuller Street, First Avenue, Sommerville Street, and Second Avenue. The target area was determined based on 1.)the high concentration of buildings meeting the definition of substandard condition (twenty-three of thirty buildings, or 76 %), and 2.) City of Shakopee Resolution No. 4984, Resolution Identifying "Slum and Blighting" Conditions(in the target area)in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 469.002. Subd. 11. Program Description Deferred loans will be provided to eligible applicants/properties on a first come,first served basis.Loans will be secured with a Repayment Agreement that stipulates the deferred loan will be forgiven on a sliding scale over a seven year period if the property owner does not sell the property during that time.Property owners or lessees that are determined to be eligible for the program can qualify for a deferred loan for 50%of total project costs,up to a maximum of $25,000.If 50%of the total project costs exceed$25,000,the property owner must finance the additional costs.An inspection of the property by the rehabilitation administrator will determine the work necessary to bring the property into compliance with rehabilitation standards. Eligible Applicants • To be eligible,an applicant must individually or in the aggregate have,with respect to the structure to be improved,one of the following: 1.)a life estate,2.)a one-third interest in the fee title,or 3.)a one-third interest as purchaser in a contract for deed. • A lessee is eligible if the lessor also joins in the application. • All individuals having an ownership interest in the building must join in the application. • Must provide signed,third-party verifications from banks,savings and loans, insurance companies,etc. Eligible Properties • Must be located within the Downtown Commercial Rehabilitation Target Area bounded by Fuller Street,First Avenue, Sommerville Street,and Second Avenue. • The property must be determined to be substandard as defined in this program,and meet the criteria established in the Commercial Rehabilitation Guidelines and policies.A substandard building is one which needs more repair than would normally be provided in the course of regular maintenance. -over- Minnesota Small Cities Development Program for Commercial Building Rehabilitation in Downtown Shakopee Eligible Properties (continued) • Property must be a commercial structure or a mixed use structure partially utilized as a commercial structure. • A property is considered a commercial structure if it has its own store front. • The property to be improved must be a permanent structure. • The property to be improved must be considered suitable for rehabilitation in terms of structural stability and economic feasibility as defined in this program. Eligible Improvements • Health and safety needs and concerns will be considered a top priority for using SCDP funds. • Code compliance related improvements. • Facade improvements are a high priority and must meet the City of Shakopee Downtown Design Guidelines. • Exterior improvements determined necessary to correct defects. • Each improvement must be a permanent general improvement. • Energy related improvements. • Accessibility improvements as appropriate. • Improvements must meet Commercial Building Quality Standards that incorporate BOCA, Example Minnesota Standards(EMS)and MEES. • If the structure has been determined to be historically significant by the Minnesota Historical Society,plans for exterior improvements to the structure must be reviewed and commented on by the Minnesota Historical Society. Application Process Information as to how property owners can apply for this program is forthcoming through marketing materials to be produced by the administrating agency. The City is currently in the process of selecting a rehabilitation administrator. -over- CITY OF SHAKOPEE CONSENT' .Memorandum CONSENT' TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: City Bill List DATE: May 27, 1999 Introduction and Background Attached is a print out showing the division budget status for 1999 based on data entered as of 05/27/99. 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 $30 .49. Also included in the check list but under the control of the S.W. Metro Drug Task Force (code 9825) are checks in the amount of $843 . 67 . Action Requested Move to approve the bills in the amount of $145, 644 . 16 . CITY OF SHAKOPEE EXPENSES BY DEPARTMENT 05/27/99 CURRENT YEAR ANNUAL MONTH TO PERCENT DEPT---=DEPT NAME= BUDGET ACTUAL DATE EXPENDED 11 MAYOR & COUNCIL 74,080 6,139 25,887 35 12 CITY ADMINISTRATOR 219,200 15,320 73,011 33 13 CITY CLERK 201,220 19,838 72,603 36 15 FINANCE 348,770 26,339 116,883 34 16 LEGAL COUNSEL 269,000 38,359 157,177 58 17 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 751,720 36,253 174,413 23 18 GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS 232,230 6,835 62,311 27 31 POLICE 1,930,119 127,675 705,285 37 32 FIRE 618,420 11,040 175,821 28 33 INSPECTION-BLDG-PLMBG-HTG 326,710 23,001 111,980 34 41 ENGINEERING 507,620 36,082 175,997 35 42 STREET MAINTENANCE 827,730 34,517 245,255 30 44 SHOP 145,330 15,010 58,578 40 46 PARK MAINTENANCE 487,090 31,918 147,892 30 91 UNALLOCATED 594,550 2,230 55,951 9 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 7,533,789 430,556 2,359,043 31 17 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 500,630 26,994 285,189 57 TOTAL TRANSIT 500,630 26,994 285,189 57 19 EDA 403,170 6,066 34,047 8 TOTAL EDA 403,170 6,066 34,047 8 H , N sn 0 a _ Qa N a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a 04 H i H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H ri N H IX W Co OW Co Ni a) H I 00 £ z I I N N W to N U 0 H m t0 N a) H Co O ,-I N m • V U) t0 N C- a0 Co O 0 t0 U) In U) U) U) t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 U) t0 t0 t0 N N a0 ao co a0 W O O W03 Co a) C) W aD a0 W a0 1 U1 U) U) U1 U1 U) U) U) Ln U1 Ln N U1 In U1 U1 U) H N 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O O O o 0 0 o O o N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H m N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Z ad w cr Tr w w w Cr d' w w w w w w V w V w WV M M m M M M M M M M M M M M M M M O m I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I U H N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 H U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) In U) U) 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O 0 0 W CO Ca l Z H O U H W H a CU Cl) H \ U U] U] U] U] U] U] co Cl) U] CO CO CO CO CO CO Cl] Cl) CO H a a a 04 a a a a a a a a a a a a a W H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H A >4 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x H U] CO CO CO CO CO CO CO U] CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO C4 x a a x a a a x a x a a a x a x a w w w w w w iii w w w w w w w w w w w a m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m 0 X X X X X X X X T x z x x x w X X X X X X X X X X x M 0 aG W A i-7 W M 44 M a q g 4 H zH R w a w a0 wA x H a Un w H w w 41 H Uw] H w aal °4 WA w M X o �' A O 0 H >1 rtl 00 CD `D w aw - i a CO a z an H UC/1 H a rx w w m a w H w >1 H w o H CO o U a ril Z0 Pt m ZZ w 11 w w ° ° HH w a a U) am aa 0 Q 0 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 EI 00 00 00 coo 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 RWW 00 00 00 NN 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 NN 00 00 00 00 0cow to to to to to to mm to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to MM to to to to to to to to NN t?t? Thin- Thin- Thin- i/)-i/} Cl]-t/} Cl]-i? t/?C)- in-in- in-in- Thin- t/)- n- t/)-t/} thin- Cl)-t/)- Cl]-t? Cl]-t/? pcq thin- 0 /?i?U W M a4 U W H co W w N N N N N S. N N N N N N N N N NJ N H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H C7 4 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ W A U) U) U) U) U) U) U) In U) U) U) In U) U) In U) U) U) W 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ • U Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co U Cin Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co Co a) Co Co Co Co Co Co Co W x m Co Co Co Co m Co Co Co Co Co m Co Co m m Co m U• U H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H 0 u-] ,7a to N 00 Co O H N M d4 U) t0 N CO Co O H N M H In U) U) U) t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 N N N N O x NASA A N n NA SA NA NA NA NA SA t� n NA SA NA NA NA SA NA ZU H* H* H* H* Hi, H* (-i* H* r-I* * H* H* * H* H* H* H* H* 0 P.1 t0 V t0 V t0 V t0 V t0 V t0 V t0 V t0 V t0 V t0 V t0 V t0 V WV t0 V t0 V t0 V tD V t0 V O 0 N N ID) rt a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H W ON OPO al 04 in g O Z t- W N U H H N "M W N l0 t- co 01 o H N M V' N l0 l- o O s L- s l- l- l- L r s co co co co co co o co 0 03 CO m o7 07 co co co 0 co 07 07 07 07 co co 0 co N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N H O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O o O O O O 0 O O O O O O O o O o 0 O O O O o o O O O O O O O O O O O O Hz t` s r t` t` s s r t` t` t` t` t` r t` t` r t` ZPG dr V, Tr V, cr. .44 ,ir Vi V, •ir w V, Ni. V• d' •iN .M W M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M U i N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N U N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O o O o o O o O O O O o o O o 0 0 0 Z O H H a H PG U co Ul U] U1 U] W U] U] (p CA U1 U1 d) U1 N N N N cn a a a a a a a a a a a (34 a a a a a a a x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x u) CO w EA Ul un W c!a co U] U] N N co N N W Al W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W OD Ca Ca 13) en 133 Ca Ca Ca in 01 in in al cn ODW cn H Z W a H W • ° I cil 1-1 ill o0 �' Z ha 41 z W °z .1 x 0 0 Cn w xE04 w w° ha xa a a a* * * * * * * * * * *00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0000 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 R00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ° l0 l0 l0 l0 1/40 l0 l0 1/40 1/40 1/40 1/40 1/4.0 10 1/4.0 l0 l0 1/40 1/40 lD 1/40 l0 1/4.0 1/40 1/40 19 1/40 10 l0 l0 1/4.0 10 1/40 1/4.0 W 1/4.0 1/40 t/)-t? t?t/) t/}V)- t?4/1- in-t/} VI-t? t/1-Lr t?t? tit t/f t/} VH/1— 4/r VI- t/H/} VI-t/- t/)t/1- 4/1-4/1- t?t/? t?t? U W M M U W H N W N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N H El H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H O 4 . - � W G] N in in in in in in in in in in in in in in in▪ in N- x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U o1 01 01 01 rn rn 01 rn 01 rn ON 01 ON 01 01 01▪ rn 01 J W rn rn rn o1 al o1 m rn rn rn rn rn o1 rn rn 01 rn rn M x m al01ONONrn 01CAON01rn m 01m m 01at 01PC U H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H 0 0 ,•a Z w in 1/40 N co 01 o H N (Y) V in l0 N CO 01 0 1-1 H N N N N N N a0 CO a0 0 CO CO 0 0 CO CO 01 01 x N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A 0 H* H* ri* H* H* H* H* H* H* H* H* H* H* H* H* H* ri* H* O Illi WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV U U M N b) ita ,-1 ia Of a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H a W M OM M aX M H z Z 0z N w N U H M O M H N V O M V M l0 N M of o H N M .. 0 O 01 U) Ol O) in un ON Ol Ol ON 0) Ol al O O O O O10 WLn O W W O W W O O W co co a0 Ol Ol ON ON Ln U1 U) to U1 N in into U1 u) u1 U1 U) U) H O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O o o O O o H L` Ls- N L` h t` N N L� N L` N t` N h N L` t` grx w w Tr V w w w w Tr w w dr dr w w w cr w W M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Oao i L i 1 1 1 L L 1 1 1 L L 1 1 1 i L U I N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N U In U) in Ln Ln U) Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln N Ln Ln U) N 4 N r r- r r- r r r r r r r r r r r r r- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z 0 H H a H I:4 U co co co co co 0 co C0 co co co co co co - co co co co a a a a a a a (24 a a a a a a a a a W H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H 0 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x co co co co co co co co co Co M co Cn CA co U) co co x a a a x a z a x a a a a a a x a rx M W W w w W o w w w W w w w w W W w al al w a o4 al cn M al al co an co al w al al w w w W w W W w w w w w w w w w w w w Z zw z Z H U E a 0 E-1 Ca CO GI ET1W H H x H co p:1 W H 41 rra co U w o x h ca z U)itC h w o r4 co 4 a a Q H U z a ›-1 a a CQ M U W H CQ a O o H a a W a� a� a a o w o a HM a a `� z 0 a w a W G4 a °� a a w H H X co X X X z z z o 0 0 0 0 o O a a a * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 H00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 NN HH 00 NN in 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0o HH 00 o l0 to t0 t0 MO) NN l0 t0 M M N N t0 tO l0 t0 WW W1/40 to tO O to l0 to t0 t0 WW NN tO t0 W-40- J.W- i?i? i?i/} L?i0- i?M- HH t/)•;/} 4.0-40- 4.0-M- W-M- t/?i? t?t/)- i?M- M-M. M-M- i?t/? M-L? i/}L- x U W M I:4 U W H CA W N N S. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H W as in in Ln Ln U) U) U) U) N Ln to Ln to U) U) U) to U) . LL' 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o O o O o 0 0 0 0 0 ".4 U of of of on o) on an of o) on 0) at O) o) o) o) an an U co CA 01 CA O) o) al O) 6) rn O) O) al Ol Ol al Ol Ol al W Z 0) Ol o) al al Ol al al al O) Ol al al al O) O) 0) al U 0 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H 0 a Z N co W in t0 N co al 0 H N M W U) tO N co al H Ol an Ol of T an an on O O O O O O O O O O Ox NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA wn wn cOA cOA cOA wn con aon aon c0A U H* H* H* H* H* H* H* r-1* H* H* H* H* H* H* H* H* H* H* O x t0 V toy to V t0 V WV WV to V WI/ toy t0 V to V toy toy WN./ WVWV toy l0 V U 0 (1) rn it a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a H i H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H I:4 W c OU) al a6en H z z r W N C.) • H L[1 d' in Lo O1 r co al O N H N M d' L(1 to r c0 O in O O O v O O O H N H H H H H H H H l>7 01 o 01 CO 01 O1 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 o\ O\ UI In U) LI) In U1 U1 U1 U1 LI) N In In U1 In in U) L11 H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 0 o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O r O O O O O O O O O O O O O H r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r a V w V w w w w V V V w w w V d' w V w W M M M M M M M M M M M M M m M M M M L1 ILL IO W l U qC N N NN N N N N N N N N N N N N NN U.4 U1 L11 111 111 0 U1 UI L0 U1 LI) U1 L11 L11 U1 L11 in in L11 4 7� r r r N co N r r r r r r r N r r r r o 0 0 o r o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O Z 0 H Cl) E W a H H E UH U) CO to CO 'J CO CO co U) CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO U) a a a a H a at a a a a a a a a a a a W H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H A x x x x 0 x x x x x x x x x x x z x U) U) U) U) A' U] U) U) (I) U) U) U) U) U) U) Cl) U) co a a a l a a a a a a a a a Ix a a a W W W W x W w W W W W W N W W W W w U) w A m AU) U) A U) CQ U) Cs U) W U) U) CW r.4• r4 41 r4 0 r.4 41 al DI ril 41 ril 41 i4 43 rzi a3 43 A HLaaNz a R A 0 a W a a E a H a s a AA H C.7 Ca 0 0 o w Mcry M H w 0 al a rz rzH al `� a caH H 0 z CO h ol z �a Cl) El W W 0 Mul U) Z o N H a a �a �a a a w 0 a CO CO CO CO U) CO CO El E+ El A > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 E 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 r r o 0 0 0 0 o ao o 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 O mm tow tow tow NN tow tow t0 to tow tow tow tow tow tow tow tow tow tow L1-Lf t?(/1• VI W- .W i? -W-W- i/]•i? .0)--W. 411-4/J- ?L} 411-0- th W- L1-V} .W-W-i? i/f4 4A Lf W-4.4- 4.6-4/1- 4/1-4A. V1-4/1- 0 /?t/?0 W M W U W En• W r N r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r H E H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H C7 I \ - \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ W A U) in in in in U1 U1 in U1 U) U1 U1 in in U) U) 10 U1. x O O o 0 o 0 O 0 O O O O O 0 O O O O U 01 rn rn en rn 01 o1 al al en rn en rn 01 rn m rn al j W 0t 01 rn 0t rn 0) en rn rn m rn rn rn 0) (TN rn m ch W M Ot rn ch 0t m rn rn rn rn 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0) 01 • U H H H H rt H H H rl H H H H H H H H H 0 0 a Z 0 H N m V' in to r co 01 0 rl N m V' Ln to r H H H H H H H H H H H N N N N N N N N U ,L c0 A co A co A co A co A co A co A co A co A co A co A co A co A O A co A OD A co A coA Z U H* * t-1t-14. r * r * * * * ll , * * ** H * rl* * * * H.1. N to V WV WV to V WV WV to V WV 10 V WV WV WV to V WV WV WV WV WV 0 U U U1 a) rn ro a _ Q a, a, a. fai i H H H H H H xxxx x Mx x Mx x x x x x 0000 O O O O O O O O O 0 0 N H w 01 o w 01 P4I al H X zo ) C` W N U H O1 O H m d' U1U)111 U) 01 0 M r- 0 H N N N N M M M r) 0 H N H H 0 M M (N N d' ,7a,+ alO1 O1 O1 O) O O O O 0 0 1/40 N 0 U) 0 0 0 H Op U) U) U1 U1 U) N N N N N N 0 N N N N N N CO H 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O CO M 0 uO 0 p 0 M H 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E' H O U1 O O 0 H m 0 0 0 0 0 H H R H 0 H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pd d• d. d' d' d• M M M M M d' N N M (N M d' M N N W M m M m M d'd'd'd' d' m V' N d' d' W d' d' N d' OPO I I I I I ) i i ) I I I I I I I ) I I i U I N (N N N N H H H CO H H H O N H H d' H 0 VU U) U1 U1 U) U1 d' in 4 N N N N N H M M M N H d' CO H d' M 10 'O CO N O O O O O 0 0 0 0 O O O 0) O O O O O 0) 0 H g El Cl) C Cl) co H 7"' W H a H H H w 0 a H z za a a aal Pa co o a a ul Cl) w z H UU] to Cl) Cl) co ill Q W 4 co 04W H H H H H W li]W W H H U 0 H 0 0 C7 0 x x x x x ZZZZ Cl) > H H H 0 CO M Cl) Cl) CO 0000 H Pd PG a Pd a xxxx a a 0 r.0 Cl) cox 0 H w w w Pa Pa w w Pa Pa w x w w w 0 m U) PO PO PO w w w w a 0 0 • w 0 u. E. u. • a X aaaa 4 2 a 0 0 a 0 z 0 0 H X X X X X HE-'EEl Ei a X 0 a X a a a (f ro OccU H U 0 U WWWW 0000 z U) in HHHHEl H tCC aaaa 0 m U WWWW 0al al co CD HH UUU1M H CV CWCW 0 Z A w w w w W a H w a.0 w EA w W w H a a a a Ei H E' H A °o U) >' '� 0 aaaa Z w al El H m w Z O H A 3333 2 ox x H al a z El a4 El co A w HEiHH 0 w Z x w w H 0 H z0 H ( a H E-'HHH 00 Ea-' as w H w w 0 z 9 3 S N N KC 4 4 4 FC 4 N U) aW x W alPao Pal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0)d•0)O N M M 0 0 U)141 0 0 N N 0 0 0 0 '.010 0 0 0 0 N N Z00 00 00 OO 00 Md'C.1 N 01 co co 00 NN 00 HH 00 NN NN 00 00 NN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H d'H H OD CO CO 0 0 1.11 U) 0 0 CO CO 0 0 U)U1 0 0 0 O 0 0 '.0 10 0 1O 10 1/40 10 10 W 1/40 1/4.0 \O lO H U)H H co N(Ni 0 0 CO CO U)U1 CO CO N N N N 0)01 0 0 U)UI d'd' CO-1/1- L}L} LH/> 0)-4/1- (f)'t? CO-+?v)•WV). CO.+M N N Ul LO d'd' M M H H 41)•to UI U1 U1 U) d'd• '.0 10 M-C/1- f/)-41) i/)-i? L}LA t?L} V)-L? HH MM HH U L?4/). VI-i? i?4/} W M P:: 0 W El U) W N N N N N H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F4 .. \ \ \ \ \\\\ \ \ \ - \ - \ \ \ \ \ W Q U) in U) U1 U) W 10 1O 1/40 '.0 1/40 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1/40 1/40 Pd 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl. \ \ \ \ \ \\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ .Yi 0 O1 01 01 0) 0) 0)01 01 0) 0) 01 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) al 01 0) U w 01 0) 01 01 O1 0)0)0)0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 01 01 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) w x 01 0) 0) 0) 0) 01 0)0)0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 01 UU H H H H H H H R H H H H H H H H H H H H 0 I-1 Z CO 0) 0 H N M w U1 10 N CO 01 0 H N M w H N N C') M C') M M M M M M M d' d' d' d' d' 0 .Y. CO A CO A CD A CO A CO A CO A 0 A CO A CO A CO A CO A CO A CO A CO A CO A CO A CO A U H* H* H* H* H* H * H* H* H* * H* H* H* H* H* H* H* H o [xi l0 V 10 V l0 V �O V l0 V l0 V WV 1/4.0V WV WV WV WV WV WV WV 10 V WV 0 0 t0 ' a) Ir RS a ITx x x W x W x W x x x W x x x x x )0 0 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 H W CLI o1 ow 01 aE rn H R o z N w (-I U t0 N H 00 CO 01 a' .. N U) H N N co 0 M M N 00 N 01 01 M M M 0 U) d' H 01 01 H N H N M O 0 H N t0 H N 10 1.0 dV 0 H 10 10 0) er er r-I O O O 00 t`N U1 N to 00 N CO CO tO H d, 00 U) N N N 00 N N N H H 0 0 U) M M M 01 00 00 0 M M 10 CO O di er m O O O m 0 o H H H H U) d•d1 N H H d• 0 H 00 00 H O O O t- U)U) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O - O O E-' H H H er H r1 U) di el' H H r-I d' in U) H H H CO O H H Z N N N N N N M N N N N N N M U) N N N M LA N N w d'dr d' dr N N 11 d1 d, dl N N dr ds dr dr Tr Tr d' m er dr 0 co i i ) I i i I i i i I I I I I I I I I I I O si VI'l-- H H 0 O H H r0 O H H H M M Ul H N N H U N N H H ' 'd' N N N U) d'd' N CO N HH N M H N H *t t0 d, 01 M 00 00 M M M N 00 00 M H W H H 00 (1 H H M 0 O O O 0)0) O O O O 01 ON O O O 01 01 0) O 0) O O DI Cil Ill w U UU U Z �a a s z a�a U, a s a z cn U) m w U) cl) HGI H H Z �Q x EH WIE W+ H Q 4 Cli x H H H Z CO H H H w z 44 H zz w as z H as a H H a a H a H as 1-1 HH a as H a] as a Ul W a a (X 0 g CO /�' 0 CO 0 0 0 H C4 'a .ti- Cn C0 0 w 2: U1 ?. a m U1 CO MI 0 CO CO W ti)U3 0 H " HH 0 WW " El 00 0 O W 0 0 Q HH H a CC H ri as HH 00 a H a HH H w H H E-1 E-1 a °•°• a as oo a � HCIL CT)CAL 0 W UU a W W 0 C.)C.) W a W 00 0 H u. 0 0 U z z UHl 0 g1 2 Z H H H U] U H Z 0 H aZ U H Cs)to z 00 H 0 H 0 ww H cil HE-) 0 0101 w HH U w H xz 0 a0 Q UU H 0 ww a UIUI a O 00 H Z U) Z 01 a 0 FCS g a w a IX A KC H >4>4 00 W 0 0 00 0 a q0q Oaa° x H z ww H 0 w x as U lzw] 0 R a s 0 UI UI HGlx4 lx4 0 >i gi Z 0 w w W U Cr)Lx 'J ".LC4 CO a U]Ul 1:4 HH H OH 0 H /y C.)C.) 00 H U0 4 Ei Z Ul H 4-1 >4 0 0 Ch 0 x x Z 01 UI U Ul U • • ;7 h • U Ix C4 Ul 0 0 w w CA 0 w w a0 >i Z IA X X �+� 0 00 w a Ei x w Z 0 ww w CA G3 x E� r4 c4 m w a w c� H HH Cil a s a CO H '-H w x a >-I›-I M al Z 0 as X Z pm 44 > > x U) w CnW a 0 00 H 0U 0 000 0 0 U • 00 0 0 00 0 W * * K * is K K * * K # k K * * is O to t0 N N 0 0 0 0 0 M M o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U)U) U)U) N N N 0 N 01 01 er el. 0 0 d'er NO E Hd'U) MM 00 000 NN C01.001.0.41WW0 ' 0O 000 W NN eNd, WOW NN NN 00 MM N . 0.. N N O O O O O 0)01 CO H 0 LA U) O O O U)U) 0)0) N N M 01 N N N H H 01 01 0 0 er O H l-CO t0 t0 0 0 N U)0 1.0 W t0 CO U) N N U)U)O H'-I N N 0 0 N U)co 0 0 Nis er r-1 H N N U) C`H a) H H H H er TI.01 L?V} U)H N U)U) d•V 01 in-V- V!i? N N t?M M M M 411-4.0- N N V}/)• 4/1- 4/1- fV>- 5 5 L?V)- CO- VT 4//-t? VI-in-VI- V}4/)- V}t?V} 4/}irk V}V} H H N N H H t?V} in-4/1- in-t? U w C4 0 w El Ul w HH H H HH H Hr-I H HH H H H HH H H H H H H El O O O O O O O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O U' Q,' \\ \ \ \\ \ \\ \ \\ \ \ \ \\ \ \ - \ \ G[) Q 10\0 10 t0 10 t0 10 10 t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 10 1.0 10 10 t0 t0 10 10 '4 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O '.4 \\ \ \ \\ \ \\ \ \\ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ U 01 01 01 0) 01 01 01 0)01 01 01 0) 0) 01 01 0)01 0) 01 0) 01 0) ) w 0)01 01 01 01 01 01 01 Cr) 0) 0)0) 01 01 01 01 0) 01 01 0) 01 0) W x 01 01 01 01 01 01 0) 01 01 01 01 0) 0) 01 0) 01 01 0) 01 0) 0) 01 M U H r-I H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H 0 0 O 'Zi U) 10 N co 01 O H N M d' U) 10 N CO 01 o H H er er er er er N U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) 10 t0 00 A CO A con 00 A 00 A 00 A con 00 A con con 00 A 00 A con con con con 00 U H K H* Hi. H K Hi. H K Hi. H K Hi, H* Hi. H K Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. H 0 x t0 V 10 V 10 V t0 V 10 V 10 V 10 V 10 V WV 10 V 10 V 10 V WV 10 V 10 V 10 V 10 O 0 r al rn la a xx xx x x x xx xx x MMM x x xxxxxxx x x 1-1 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 00 0 0000 0 0000000 0 0 N W rn Mial • 0 Z r w o l0 N U r „ H O M 0101 O oM MMMM N Car/VM • O r-I 0 H H NN M MM N M M M M O1 rt ri H H 0 0 a V w Ln N 00 Ln Q1 O M111 to N r 0000 r OOOOHHH O O In Hrr 01 10 r MM 010 N rrrr M rrrraaa r r H N V 00 In 10 O HH V r N 0000 CO 0000040401 O O H M 00 N H O MM ON Ln 0000 N 0000444 0 0 O O HN O O to 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0000000 O N H H M VM H H M V�V HH H MV'HN in to In Ln Lntom Ln 01 N N N NO N N w lO N NN M M N N M M M M M M M M M M l0 W d' VM N W V V .�d� �r V+ V �r V'�r�r V'V1 V�V w V V m M O W 1 1 „ , 1 1 „ , 1 , 1 1 , 1 1 1 „ 1 1 1 1 1 1 U H H V'M H H H O H H H N H H R H H H O H H H N'V' H 01 U M v M,I H N N 00H NN V HHHM H HrMMMMM M to 4 r-1 TrM T M M M r M 'V-d. r mm,-1,-1 M M H M H r r r H r O O 00 O O O MO 00 O 0000 O 0000000 O O 41 Z 0 H H z W U] W 4 M H �Uj U Uj I 0000000 H Z M U1 Cn a FG co co H trl rn zzzzzzz \ 0 W W W W M Z WW ,7UZW HHHHHHH 0 H H MI H H 0 W HH a z W H x x x x x x x O H a HF a a M H as w wHa MMMMMMM o 04 04 HH 04 04 \ z 0404 w H z M HHHHHHH x H 04 04 04 M H 0404 M H W 0000000 U M 0 x 0 z xx a Hoo mmmmmmW to U co w 0404 M w 0 Coca 4 Cn m pAAppA] \ co Z M 04040404 04 04 04\\\ \\\\0000000 z H ril'Zz H H H MM HH CO \WHW Z z'7- ZZZZz W F HH H H a XX HH M OZHO H HHHHHHH a 0 04124 Cil 04 04 00 C44 C44 0 OtO 04O4M HH oM Ma04 040 a HHHHHHH o w 0 X 0404 0 0 M WW 00 04 HWOW N 04040404040404 U a U H MCaCW nH W U W W U 444 3 H U U U Z 0000000 0 H H Z co 00 H z H ',ai',aiyty, 0 N N N N N N N X H H ZZ H 00 O HEHIHN H rrrrrrr CO al C 4i H ZZ 0 w w W W p • • • • • • • 04 M Cl) l U C7 HH 0 0,040104 ,a HHHHHHH 0 RW 66 W �zC A\A\AA\gq\ 0 CncnulUlv]U]U] 0 A4 Z E. Cl) O 0,w Cl) as 00 0 ZZ Z Cl) HHHHHHH Cal z . w >1 H U w 0404 zz W W H 9 Cl) 0 ZZ Z a 0 00 HH H0000 0 0000000 Z 0 X 00 H H 0 MM XXXX H 0000000 0 ›+ HF 0 Cl) MM as 0000 fsa 0000000 H H >+ C00 V] 01 w WW PD>✓ w xxxxxxx H Z H a ZZ a W a XX 00 0 0000000 ,a; 0 0 0 ii W I HH ZZ 0000 MMMMMMVl] '> Cl) 4 4 W H H 1414 1414 14 1414141 .^l. ZZZZZ7z Z 0 W G4 R4 44 Ct, W 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H HHHHHHH H h * * * * * * * * * * * * * IC \0 04000 NN 000 00 MM MN 000 1n5M 00 IfOIf1N N 4000 00000000 00 O H r rr MM Oto to HH 01 O1 0101 OOO 0,p Ln cr 00 NO0Nto co co O Ln lf10 d4LIl 001 OO O V NN VV VSO V HH MM NN Olntn 1000111 LnL(1 MN000M NN ONr V'0100 M CO11 I 0 In r-IH 0101 4-140-rl NN NN NN MV'N NM10 0000 4.0t/}Mt/}W NN 0U)LnWrd'MLn 00 N t/} L}L>- t?t/} H H 4/}4.0- HH CO-40- Ln H 10 4/}NN WW L} CO- NN H M H H H 4/}t/}0 HH 4.0- 4.0- t/} 411-41}411. t/}t? 4/H/1- 4/}4/1. 4/1.41)1/ 4/}t/} 4/2-4/} HH H UMM a} W M M 0 W H H Cl] W H H HH H H H HH HH HHHH H HHHHHHH H H H F 0 o 00 0 0 0 00 00 0 0000 0 0000000 O O C7 4 \ \ \\ \ \ \ \\ \\ \ \\"...\ \ \\\\\\\ \ \ W 0 10 l0 l0 tO 1/40 10 l0 10 10 10 l0 10 10 10 l0 l0 l0 b l0 10 l0 l0 10 l0 l0 10 M o 0 00 0 0 0 00 00 0 0000 0 0000000 0 . 0 ^.+4 0 01 O1 01 01 01 01 01 mm mm 01 01 01 01 01 CO M 01 01 O1 01 01 01 01 01 0 W O1 01 mm 01 O1 T 01 01 01 01 Ol 01 O1 m 01 01 m 01 O1 O1 01 01 01 O1 01 W x 01 01 01a m 01 01 01a 01a 01 01010101 01 'a 0101a 010101 01 01 ` U 0 H H HH H H H HH HH H HHHH H HHHHHHH H H 0 O Z N M VV N 10 r 00 O1 O H N m V In H 10 U) 10 10 10 10 10 10 N r r r r r U M A co A c0 A co A co A c0 A c0 A O0 A c0 A o3 A OD A 00 A a) A co A 040 Z U * H* H44 H * H44 H4, ri* H I. H * H* H * H4, H * r-I* H 0 01 V 10 V 10 V 10 V 10 V 10 V 10 V 10 V 10 V 10 V 10 V 10 V 10 V 10 V 10 O 0 co w rn 01 CU Z Z x x xxxxxx x x xxxxxxx M x xxxxxxxxx , 1 0 00 0 0 000000 0 0 0000000 00 0 000000000 H - I:4 w 01 0 CO CA c4 CA H O Z I N w N 0 H U) l0 N H H H H H H .Ch 01 01 01 01 01 01 L`co M '3''3'eN'3''3'[P'3'W'3' O d' 100 H N. MMMMMM U) 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 HH '3' '3''3''3I'3'd'W W'3'd' CD Cs Cs Cs Cs Cs Cs ko co rA CD 0 CD CD CD 0 CD CD Ca Cs Cs CD Cs Cs Cs Cs Cs Cs Cs Cs Cs H O M M O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U) H 00 0 0 0 0"1 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 H H O O 000000 H UI ai 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H H rI rl L- H HHHHHH H H H HHHHHH MM N 0000000 ODC003CO py N NN N. M NNNNNN M N '3''3''3''3''3''3'N MM 10 MMMMMMMMM W d' N N M '3' '3'd''3''3''3''3' d' yr d''3I'3I V d''3' M d'd'd'd''3''3''3'd' 0 CO I i 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I l I I I l I I I I C)I H 0 0 '3' H ri H rI H rl H O H N M H N 10'31 N H H O1 H CO H H N H O'3'M O H N.W U) M NHNMU)CA N N U)U)NNLI)U)N NN LA NNHNOOCOMU)U) FC co 0000 L- co H'3'riHL.H '3' '3I HHHHHL•H HH N M10M'3'HHLDNN O 01 01 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U) CO W W Z U) 0 I.1 H U]U]W U]U)CO H Ca U) W w O W f�Cfa a WWWWWW › W W 00 H H Itill�y' C4 HHHHHH LY. H H ZZ H a >+>+ w 01400014 w a a 41 al wwwwwwwww CU a KC4 CO asaCa.fa.fa. U) a Cu HFI UC)0C)C)U0C)C) H a as as a s as a a U)U) HHHHHHHHH fY. .7 a '�'.7.7.J'.7'r7 Q 0 0 HH >>>>>a>I✓ 0 U) WW U1 F4 U]U]WWUIU] F4 U] U) CU�q U) ad D4 ad ad ad ad ad ad ad wWWWWWWWW W 0 H 0 000000 O C7 C9 «7'a U)U)U1U)U)WU1UnU) fa x H ZZZZZZ H Z Z ca Cs) H U) Cl) HHHHHH CO H WU)WU)U)U)H - >1.tlyI yy1l y>il yy1l>I >I H C)C.) f: M HHHHHH Ea H H 00 F'HHHHHH t. an "Al gggggg w g �EHE4�HHE4 P.ZZZZZZal ,�>,� CO 04000.1.1.1.1 a 00 w 0 0000Cu au00 0alal w 414 as aWa'ao HH Z FA FA FA Fi FA FA FA pA pA a HP��P��HD 0 u0 X 14 000000 a 0 C) z H M Cil Cil ET3 C4 H H H H H H fa H a' O >i HHHHHH > a 0 oE x 000000 r•C a aaaaaaaaa R z vn m w a fa ) A4 d4 C7 �� w 0 ZX w H EEEEEE 0 14 000000000 C4 xx h ww�Iu,u.IL14 H `� a 000000000 CD 4 000000 4 U) UlwwwxxUCGO U H �pp7D;� C4 (ED ED CD CD 0 cD .40_, H U]U)U)WU)U]UI HH IA AO zWZWOzw�iWZWz2OZW a >i>i 0 0 444444 Z 0 0000000 HHHHHHH ZZ Ell FA FA FA FA FA FA FA FA FA ZZFAZZZZFAZ aaaaaa H 0 as°140°14 as O '3''3' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L%01 01 01 01 01 N 0 0 0 0 Ls dI 0 0 0 0 01 0 M Ls O 0 0 M N W O 01 M 1O'3'en O NN 000 00 '3'W '3''3'0d''3''3'01 00 1010 U)100000U)00 N10'3' 00 M0010101101031U) U) 01 01 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Lf)U) N N H N U)N Cs CA CA H U)L-M M M '3'IO P U)M'3'O N'3' O N 01 01 L!)L1)0 0 0 01 C11 M M M M M M co '3''3' 10 10 N'3''3''3'0 co i?t0 N N U) M M OO 10 O ri M H M N CO i? M M '3' )'01 ri H H ri i/?i/f i/f i?i?Lf H N N '3''3' M N 0 N M L` VI i/T H H 411-40- i/?t?l0('4I) / i?H O 4/)-(/)- L?i/}i? t?i? . . i? . . VI-L} .i? .i?i/}M. . 41 VI- CO. NN NN H N U) H HN i?V? Lf L? i? i/? VI- Vf 4/)-41). 0 W M P4 C) Ill H U) W H Hri ri H rirArIHHH H H HHHHHHH HH H HHHHHHHHH H H 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 Q C7 ,' \ • S \ \ \\\\\\ . \ \\\\\\\ \\ \ \\\\\\\\\ W fa t0 l0 10 l0 10 t0 10 10 l0 l0 10 10 to 10 10 10 to 10 10\O 10 10 t0 10 l0 10 1.0 10 10 10,10 10 i O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '144 \ \\ \ \ \\\\\\ \ \ S _S _S \ \\ \ \\\\\\\\\ () 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 01 J U) 01 0101 01 01 010101010101 01 01 01010101010101 01 Ch 01 01 0101 Cn 0101 CA 0101 [)1 'Z 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 Q>01 01 01 01 01 01 01 CA 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 M C) H Hri H H HHHHHH H H HHHHHHH HH H HHHrAriHHHH C) 14 Z t0 N 0 01 0 H N co w U) 10 H N N N N 00 co co CO 00 Oo co O A U) A co A O A oo A co A Oo A oo A Oo A co A O A co n 0 * H4. H is H* H* HH i H i� H H i< ri K H Ell V l0 V 10 V l0 V l0 V l0 V l0 V 10 V t0 V 10 V WV 10 0 C) 0 0) a) la) a. a H 0 0 0 N 00 000 0 0 N 000 00 0 0 0 0 00 H N H 01 00-1 CA Cu6 C) H z z zz C- W N O N N U H01U) H V' 01 N 'D H N H Lf) M 10 0 o Tr N M VTr MHN 01 W M01d' HH N M Tr t0 N co coTr o CO a0 000 H o o H N CO a0 H o o H 01 N 00 O N N HHH a) d. N O M M a0 a0 U) N N O VW H 0 M CO 0 til 1.0 N00 co N co 0 N N M MM M 0 0 H MM O H to 0 HH MMM M H O H H H HH H O O N HH 00 0 0 MM 000 O O O 000 U)Lf) 0 0 N 0 00 H co H H 01 MM 000 H 0) N H H H cr a0 H H N 01 HH ai M N M M Tr Tr M U)tf) N co t0 N N N N O N M Tr m N N W d' N Tr Tr Tr Tr M M M Tr Tr Tr N N N MN N Tr M Tr NN OW i i ) i i i i i i I I i t i i I I ) I I I I I O W O •tr H HH NNN U) N H 000 M M O H N H 0 0 U N Tr LI) N NN HHH N N H Tr Tr cr M H Tr H O H Wer Ri M c0 N t0 WV H H H 00 H m a0 a0 a0 mm co co a0 co a0 a0 O O1 o o 00 MMM 01 0 01 010101 0 0 01 0 N 0 01 a) H H H z z H H w H 4 W U H El aaa Hx PI a U W W as 0 4 > 0 0)coEn H o co 444 41z 4 a Cl) 0 VA H w >+ w 0 HHH a 0 w -I>.>+ atD > w w 0 >+>1 Cu H Pco HHH N N G. 444 co g4 W H N 44 WWW Cu C) aaa x1 Cu a El U as U 1:4 W \ fxfxfx Cl) \ Z WWW HH W > \ WW 0 Cl) N H Z www Z Z C7 iii 3 0 H U Gd H U Cl) a 034.84a Z w N uaN CO H C) Za 56 H w w cncnm H w UUU U N N a UCC) a • w w mon www Ila u. C) • • • w� • w H w • • H O O Z W W ZZZ W Z Cl) 000 3I4 0 0 D Z 00 H fx 0 `7W HHH Cu 0 H • • • 0 Cu U C]0 P411444 0 U G. UUU cwn3 U w >01 OU C.)C...) Z www Cl) 000 H Z CO 2 H a H W al W co PI cO rx rx rx Cu w wX PI C4 CD Z 0 fx c0n HH PI 0 El zz 0 Z ti 4 H as L)4 a' 0 H r..)C.) Dia U W Ci HH Z H �] W WWW Cl) �� 0 Ca W A 000 0 w Ca Cu C2 C2 xxa U Z xxx >> Cu w x w 01 y) > 0 G. ') HHH H O UUU 44 X X W U WW U 0 Cl) >J1 C] N W WWW U U 0 .N. Cl) H HH WWW W H aaa >04 W C) H 00 4 H x Ill w HHH Z a H www 41 H H CD a Cu a w w 444 0 cot i t w H q Cu m cia ccia u)rHn r.7) x CD 3 3 xa' tea' w w Z rx� a °w H H X x R E ER REE z z z zzz 00 0 Cu Cu a ww ,O 00 00 00 000 0)000) .. lel` 00 0000 000 00 U)N 00 00 000 a0N 00 00 00 U)11)O Nt00)N 00 L()U) 00 OONN OU)U) 00 NN 00 00 000 WW 00 00 00 NNU) UNHcr MM NN U)Lf) O V a) 000 00 crV U)Lf) 00 000 O 0 0)U) LOU) 0)0) Tr Tr 0)0)00 N N N N U)to 01 0) f`f- H to Tr O M L}M Lf)Lf) H H N N O O Ln Lf) M t0 Tr Tr LT LT LT+/)- LT L}H LT L}H N H H O O M M dl Tr M N t? LT Tr.4. 4.41-4./} 411-4.1)- N N <r Tr 01 4/1- % LT L} LT LTL? L}L} . • LT L} LT L}LT . i/}t/} CO-CO-CO- In 4 LT HH H HH in-m- LT L}LT U W N C4 U W H Cl) W H H H H HH HHH H H H HHH HH H H H H HH H H O O O O O O 000 O O O 000 O O O O O O O O C9 g4 \ \ \ \ \\ \\\ \ \ \ \\\ \\ \ S. \ \ \\ W 0 to W w to WW t0 to to to to to w to W WW t0 t0 to to WW IX 0 0 0 0 00 000 0 0 0 000 0 0 O O O O 00 X \ \ \ \ \\ \\\ \ \ \ S. S.\ S.S. \ \ \ \ \\ X. U 01 0) 0) 01 ma) 010)01 01 0) 0) 0)0)0) MM 01 al 0) 0) OM U W 01 01 01 01 0)01 01010) 01 01 01 0)0101 0101 0) 01 01 0) 0)0) W N 0) 0) 01 01 010) alma) 0) 0) 01 0101 0) 0101 0) 01 01 0) 0)0) N U H H H H HH HHH H H H HHH HH H H H H HH 0 a Z t0 N co 0) 0 H N M 0) U) t0 0N) 001 0 H coH co co co 01 01 01 01 01 _ 01 01 01 01) 01 0 0 0 x coA COA 00 A COA COA W A WA 00 A 00 A CO A CO A CO A 00 A CO A 01 A 01 A U H* Hie H K HK H K H ie Hk Hie H i. H 1c H ie H is H 1. H i. Hie Hk 0 t0 V t0 V t0 V t0 V l0 V t0 V t0 V t0 V t0 V t0 V W V W V W V W V W V W V U U C) H U1 Cr) m a H 0 0 0 00 0 0 000 0 000 0 0 0 0 0000000 0 i A H (Y. W OW Ch 04l cn rn H • 0 Z MLn yri/rm- NON N 0 Ui Holto 000 N H 01 0 N WHN N HHH H t` co N111'1("1MMmM 0 H N O MHN N HHH N d' i NNNNNNN to O 0 Cl 0 aD co o 000 o UUU O O 0 0000000 N N t` Cl cow 0to H H H N W W W N o1 V N N N N N N N o H 0 O O NN 0 H scow o 000 O 0 N N 0000000 U1 O 0 H NN N N 010101 O W W W 0 0 N N 0000000 lO 0 O 0 00 O O 000 O 000 0 O O 0 0000000 O H co M H HH to Cl 000 H InHH H Cl Cl d' HHHHHHH LA 0 W M N NNN N N U U LA V' M M N M Cl M N NNNNNNN N W V V W VV V' V' M M M V' cN V'V' V V' V' d' V'V'V'V'V'V'V' V' om i 1 1 i I I 1 i i I I i i i I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I U M N H COaD H V N N N H N N N V H H CO H H H H H M O H U N LA N NN V to H H H H M M M CO t` H N H N to H N LA LA sr 4 H N Cl mm d' N H H H M H H H H H M W M H N VVl0 l0 V' O 0 O O o O O 010)01 0 000 0 0 O 0 00000W10 0 U1 U) W U) W W U W U Z 41 M MM 0 U W W W hz('J W > U U Z ›W W W W W W H Z H HH U))) MgH g Z Z W WHHHHHH H W 0 as �i HHH U)wa w W W H W000000 H ) z Cl. .Cl' z HHH ,Haw a w ) Un Z waaaaaa U ai H M UC w aa� 0U) H H `amcncU)UU)U)U) w w ao Cl) 000 aZ Z M Cl) Z cn W 0 0 00 H WG.[i. \00 0 M 0 H 0000000 H 0 w 0 Z ZZ 0 0Hz H UI U] Z HZZZZZZ \ Z H HH Z ..)J0Jal U) ZWH U] - \ W HHHHHHH 0-i H H HH H HU)H M 0 0 Z HHHHHHH W 0 gg U ,-a WWW El 'T.G.m G. 9 > H A MMM FtW 14 Cil 121 C4 L*.�� U r r� H w as w H HHH w HOW p04 g g 01 aaaaaaa w H W 0 00 X cG lx lx *. o c4a0 C4 H H W [4000000 X W UUUUUUU U Z HHH ZZZZZZZ Z U W G.G.G. HHHHHHH H Z W 00 0 000 U 0000000 0 UU U 0 M 01 M 01 010101 od 0 G. U]cn cn 4 U u, 0 **4444tuitat W U Z a:W a W a:a:W H 0 U v) H W 00 N zwzwzzwz a Waa cwn a cn aa�a�aaaa w 0 H Z HH 0 nn w U)U)U] ] Di G4 EO-1HEO-IHFHH H 0 a fxL>: L4' W 000 rC 4 4 4 H U)cnU]U)U]U)cn H �l U H �a HHF W WWW a: a W H W U)U) W HFH C4 WgC4 w 1.1 00700C900 Co W 00 0 a 000 0 000 U 0 W Z WWWWWWW CU 0000000 H g w `� W W N ZZ HHH H HHH E+ H o s WWWwwww AG q UU H H HHH H HHH H U) PG U FC >+� x x 000 0 000 0 Z W Ga W H 0 00 U U UUU U UUU U W .17 zzzzzzzzz H Cl: d1 0 a;0 Cl) w U)wU) U) MMM w U) U) w U)wU)U)U)U)w U) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * NN CO OD 00 N 01 N 00 CO CO NOON CO CO V N CO 01 C)CD 00 00 CO CO (s CO O M LA co V'N CO EA0 CO LA U1 CO CO W CO(V 0 0 01 01 to N co to CO CO l0 U11s 01 0 0 O O O O is N O O N In H O N N 01 HH NN Cs Nu)rn U1 to 0101 OtAM 01 HH OHHM 00 O0 Is is MM t-lO1/40cr HOD Cs CD W 0 NN mm 0 aD V)l0 t` NN Mm U1 U)V•V HH 01,14.0-0 WW WW HH 0101 N N H N M M-H In M M- /> WW HH 4.0-M 411-M d'V' H L1•N V VV 01, In NN t/}V) M-4/1- M M.40-4.0-M40- 40-H H Ss i?i? L}i? i/? i?M. ss s4/1- s M.i? M. 4/). LHf [N?LNf Lf 4/)- U W M O U W El co CO H H H HH H H HHH H HHH H H H H HHHHHHH H H H O o O 0 0 0 0 000 0 000 O o O o 0000000 O C) 4 �--, �� ,... S S ��\�,,,, W 0 10 l0 10 WW l0 l0 10 l0 l0 l0 tototo to l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 1D l0 110 W l0 t0 0 0 0 00 0 0 000 O 000 0 0 0 0 0000000 0 U 01 0) 01 mm 01 01 01 01 0) 01 01 01 01 o1 o1 o1 o1 01 01 01 01 010101 o1 U W o1 01 o1 mon o1 o1 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0101 01 01 01 0l 01 01 W M 01 01 01 MM 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 C 01 01 01 U U H H H HH H H HHH H HHH H H H H HHHHHHH H 0 O Z N Cl d' Lo l0 N co 01 0 H N Cl V' LA 10 H o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H H H H H H H 01 A 01 A 01 A 01 A 01 A o1 A CA A 01 A 01 A 01 A 01 A 01 A 01 A 01 A o1 U H* H* H* H * H* H* H * H* H * H* H* H* H* H * H 0 lO V l0 V lD V lO V <D V l0 V lD V l0 V W V WV WV to V lD V 10 V l0 U U H H (1) rn ro a 1 00 0 0 MMM 0 0 0 0 MMM 00 0 0 0 00 0 00 H 00 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 000 00 0 0 0 00 0 00 H N H a W Dao M a m m H 4 0z W o N U H H N N H OD W m moo NN U) H N NN NN 0 m m V )ao ao m cr H m d'U)111 cr m N U) co 00 U) M M N In 0 N MMM O m O\ M 000 S cr 0 O O NN L() OH MM N N 1"4":71 N d' in N NNN O O N N O O O m cr Tr H WW O 0 a)a)a) O M M CO 000 U)N 0 0 N MM N 00 vow 0 co NNN 0 Tr N m 000 d+rr O O N NN cr NN 0 0 0 0 000 0 O 0 0 H H H 00 O 0 O O O O O O El U)dr H N HHH H H H H N N N HH N N m HH H M M Za NN N Ln NNN N M w N MMM NN M M MNN m NN 0 X1mmVnt. Tr W Tr Tr Tr WI I Tr WI I TI r Tr dl cr Tr d4 Tr cI I I r Tr VV VI V VUI H H H HcrM H H H M o m cri HH H H H NN H TrTr O d'N H dI U)U)m N l0 H H M M U) HH m H M MM m mm a'i Tr Tr M dV ao N N M H m H W N N MM H M H SS M NN 00 O m N O O O O O m 000 0 0 O O O 0 0 O 00 Z H z H O W a W 'Zi m mmm m 0 H m mm Ei \ mm UH 0 Z W www W > W WW a WW H W H HHH H ani H HH 0 HH 44 H H a aaa A W a as o as W a Z a aaa a cn a as x as Cl) HH H H a aaa a a as U as ZZ .ti- .ti- .'7 ap p,'"'). m aa HH U W Cl) mmm m � m mu) \ mm � FCFC W HH 0 Cl) 0007 C) 0 0 WWW 00 U 00 0 A Z Z 0 ZZZ Z H Z ZZZ ZZ Z ZZ H 00 W H Z HHH H m En H 000 HH W Cx) W HH U) ZZ W H H HHH H W H aaa HH W �H W AA OH a a aaa a w El a WWW as H H C=+ a4a Cx as a"a W H www W o z W aaa WW m m Z WW 0 HH W0l a A aaa a x W a www as 0 0 0 as a4 AA ZW 0 as 000 0 a as 0 HHH 00 a Cl 0 00 a mm 00 00000 ix a HH 000 W W FC m m H WW HHH FC � W U atm HHH W AA H H Z Z WW 000 U 4 U HH 0 0 H H a4 p~a4 aaa Z W H HH a Cl Z 0 0H H mmm H 1-4x ZZ Z mm U 1: El U Ca a 000 ZZ EA E �+ UU 44 HH ,'� >4 H 0 a4 0 m 4 0 U 0 U as a4 U HHH U m W El H H ZZ H xx AD W 4 z;Z m 4 >+ HHH mm m m H HH m 00 HH 000 as ado 3 rn www A A a HH >4 as HH A A WWW x a4 0 mmm aMM , C11 u) 00 mm m H HHH H H H H Dam * 4, * * 4, * 4, * * 4, * * * * 41U)0 M ao ao d'd' 0000 mM NN IO lO lOU cr0aoN NH ao 00 00 00 H OH ao ao MME cow. cr cr 0101 0000 N N WW HH lir d'U m o m m ao 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tr O' 1010 0H U))H SS 1010 0ao00o 00 WW 00 UW dINHO NNO 00 00 00 OHH HH OV 0 ill NN Tr Tr NN aocm W HH NN OO 1010 NNTrao 010101 OO crcr mM Haom HH mdr V}W-N t? ,-1,1 t?M V}cr in-in- NN NN V cr V}+/)-i?V} O M l0 00 MM MM 4O-MM NN 44.-CO- VI. )V}V} t/}L} i/). t/} V}t? 41)-4/). -V} in-in- in.in- V}i? V}LI- LO U) H H M M 4 HH V} V} in-V} U V}V} W M Cl U W H M W H H H H HHH H H H H HHH HH H H H HH H HH H El O O O O 000 O O O O 000 0 0 O O O 00 0 00 O 4 \\ \ \ \\\ \ \ \ \ \\\ \\ \ \ \ \\ \ \\ W A U)b 10 10 U)l0 l0 10 U) l0 l0 U)l0 l0 WW to l0 l0 WW U) WW 44 O O 0 O 000 O O O O 000 O O O O O 0 0 O 00 C'4 U mm m m mmm m 01 m m mmm mm m m ON mm m mm O W mm m ON mmm m m m m mmm mm m m m 0101 m W C1 m01 m m mmm m m m m mmm mm m 01 01 01m m m0) 0 U H H H H HHH H H H H HHH HH H H H HH H HH 0 a z 10 N a) m O H N M cr U) 10 N co m O H H H H H H N N N N N N N N N N M M 0 "N4 m A MA MA m A m A MA MA m A m - A m A MAMA MA m A MA m U H 4, H* H* H 9, H* H* H* H* H 4, H 4, H* H* H* H 1. H* H 0 l0 V 10 V l0 V W V to V l0 V l0 V b V l0 V l0 V 10 V W V l0 V W V 10 V l0. O 0 N ` H N bl m a x xx xxxxxxxx (F1-1 a a a aaa a s as a aaa O O O 0 0 Ti 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H - a .� w 000 0 a6 0, 01 z H L Z L-NOIMHHHHHOO NNN 1 W 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 10 1.0 10 L- U OH tON to l0NC'IHH 000000 N 0 Ln OO O HM Ln U1 LO U)U1 O N In H Ul 01 O1 O1 VD h.CO 01 OOO VD M CO N H H H N N N N M M M 0 CA Cr dr ti'Tr Tr dr VTr dr d1 V01 N O1 01 01 01 CA 01 a1 O1 h \Oto HHHHHHHH00 CO O 111 H In NNN O1 L!1 CA LA Ln LAIR H 0 H H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L` 0 dV 0 A 0 0 H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MM HHHHHHHHHH O O d. 0 44444., 0 00 0 000 O 00 0000000000 L. 0 0 H Ln V'O co H H H H HHH H M HH HHHHHHHHHH N H H L` CO OD CO N t` OD OD N NNN w M N N M M M M M M M M M M H M N �r H H HH d' HH et MMM Tr Tr Tr wd'�rd'wwwwwd' N w w M NNN N Cl NN co eNTrw 0 ggi I L L I t t i t I , III I I I I L L L I I I I t L L L U I H H H HOHHHNVHOO N t0 LA N NNN N N NN N HM CO U LA H H H Ln LA H Lo l0 WO t0 Ln LA H N N Ln H H H H U1 H H Ln H Ln Ln ai H M M Tr 10 Tr Tr t0 10 10 l0 10 10 O1 H 00 N 01 O1 01 O1 N 01 01 N Tr 10 l0 O O O O to O1 O t0 tO 10 t0 10 10 O O O1 O 0 0 0 O O 0 0 O 0 t0 ID r4 H CO0 CO COUD CO COM CO U)U) U) $4 WWWWWWWWWW W W 5. UUUUUUUUUU U U) IS Z W COU) HHHHHHHHHH H CO CO Z a co U) 0 U WW >>>>>✓> > W Z W I H Z HH r4 r4 C4rxrx a: H 0 a U1 00 0 a r4 a s a H w as wwwwwwwwwW W a H CU H a s CO U)En En U)CO U)U)U)U) U) a CO ,W W E UH) UH) CO D CO CO zzzzzzzzCO zz 4 z X 0 0 LUH XH w c�0 0000000000 0 z Aza o� �a WWW 0 co z z H H H H H H H H H H \ HH 01 En u) ) a En H 41 W�� Tr Op ON 000 0 H H CO U)En En U)En W U)En U) U) H CTIgaga uw.wwDuD41 uDu.41 wwww 4 w .a w 0w CO UD w Na' w www W W 0000000000 a 0 w Z U)a1J l0 Z HH Z aaa H 00 aaaaaaaaaa a O c07 2000 wM CC 00 CO 0 HH,CLI EE-1 Tr z El M CO WW CO H UUU H " zzz 0 a zzz A w r:4 K4 000 H ",� H H H a a s H H H H Ci Ci Ul A HH COU)COCO H KC�4 0 0 HH UUUUUUUUUU H W 0 WWW H r4 r4 UUU zZZZZZZZZZHHHHHHHHH .a,41i El U HHH Z 0 Pi aa U HHH Z W 0 0 H H H H H H H H H H W a UU UUUUUUUUUU 0 0000000000 z 04 m www a H EnE >I>+ EnwU En En nUCU)En o A CnU)U) H Di 000 W W U)U)U)U)U)UnU)WU)U) H Pa H Hw 0 AA as Wa� UUU aFCL�RC��4��aC� x,aoaLax ��a �ua�a U EA w H 000 g4 CCI xx wwwaw 0 Z WWW >. 00 ' HHH >C 01 01 0000000000U)GOCA a H www 0 x x En U)En U)En En CO Cn U)ED Ix. o 0 a x a U qq > 33 3333333333 4 U W G4 G4Gi H a EE x zzz 00 H H N 00 to 0 0 0 0 Ln O Ln LA O O LA N N 10 1O O1 O1 O O 1/40 N[r N O O O O 0 0 0 O O M O O EA.A H HH N N M O N U10011.11010.LA O N 00 CO 10 t0 00 O 0 0 t0 L.U1 O1 dr Tr O O O Ln LA 0 O HOD V LAN t00 N N N O LA 010001 cr H O tO tO 00 HH 00 00 M Tr tO U1 Ln 00 N UO CD 00 N LA Ln 0 M Tr cr Ln Tr O1 M N H H M L-N H VD M M Ln LA H H t0 t0 N N M H H t0 H H Ln to tO H N O O Ln to t0 H CAF4.0. 10HL. O1OVNO0103 VL.0110 MM t010 i?i? CO-i? HORN 1O t0 HH HN01 HH t/}L}t)- t? L}i?t? . -i/}i/} .4/}i? . . . . . . . . • .4/1- . i/}4/} tM i/} i/}t?4/1. t?t/} HH N MNNLA HH NN HH N V t/}in- if} 4/}t?t/}H i?4.1)- t?L} VI-in- i/} in. W M G4 U W H CO W H HH HHHHHHHHHH L- t` t` t` NNN N N NN N NNN H EA 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 FC \ \\ \\\\\\\\\\ \ \ \ \ \\\ \ \ \\ \ \\\ W 0 t0 VD tO 1O lO tO 10 t0 t0 t0 VD tO t0 Ln LA to In Ln Ln In Ln U7 In LA LA Ln Ln Ln O 0 0 O o O o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 z \ \\ \\\\\\\\\\ \ \ \ \ \\\ \ \ \\ \ \\\ U O1 O1 O1 O1 O1 01 O1 01 O1 01 01 O1 O1 01 01 O1 O1 01 O1 01 O1 CA O1 O1 01 O1 01 01 J W CA O1 01 O1 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 O1 O1 01 O1 01 01 O1 O1 01 01 O1 01 01 O1 01 01 01 UW x 01 O1 O1 01 O1 O1 O1 01 O1 O1 O1 01 O1 01 01 01 O1 O1 01 O1 01 01 O1 O1 01 O1 01 01 0 HH H HHHHHHHHHH H H H H H H HH H H H H H H H 0 0 Zi N M cr Ln t0 N CO 01 0 H N M Tr U ^,.4 A M n OM1 AOM1 M M M M M Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr A alA alA Ci n rn A O1 A alA Ci A at A atA ON'',07, U 4, H i. H i. H i. H4' H4' HI. H is H i. H itH is H i. H i. H 0 V t0 V tO V t0 V t0 V t0 V t0 V 1./DV t0 V tO V t0 V t0 V t0 V t0 U U m H ` N (n Cda aaaaa a a a a a a a a H H H H H H H H H H H H H H N H a W om al aX rn a) z H 0z 1 W N 0 N H 000.00 N Al d' 111 O MMM m m m m m m 01 01 01 01 01 al m N m al to 1.11 to Ul N 111 in 01 to Lc) 01 01 01 H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \0 0 0 H H H 0 0 0 0 0 O O H 0 0 V [M V HHHHH Al m 0 H 0 H 00 0 H NNNNN a0 a) H N m N N N IX m m m m m H H Al m Al M H H W V'd'V'V'V' N N V' V• d' V• N N O CQ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 11 I 1O O O H H H N N H 111 H In N O In W N N to H H N N Ul N H H a' l0 I0 W V t` 01 01 V 00 H a) 01 of 1D 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 01 0 0 G7 W U Z H U H 0 Z H W W a a) H H 01 U W co Z al 41 4141414141 0 43 41 O 00000 0 H 01 Z 0 a) xxXxx 0 cn ul 0 r-7 M 0 aaaaa1 1 w a W a WWWWW ao co a W : W al Tr aaaaa N N 0 Fl a 0 Tr WWWWW to to o W W m m HHHHH N N a H H H N N co El Ulcllcococo zzzzz 00000 a HHHHH 44444 Ca O HHHHH 0 Q z z 0 U 0 H H 3 i i R R 00000 al 0 0 14 3 3 UUUUU co Z 0 0 CW-'H E-1 EWi Pnii a a W H 0 a Z z . W W W W W W W 4 w H al w m ZZZZZ a a al ca a) D 'a 0 K * * K # 4, 4' 000 a)0 r-1 to U) 00 00 NN NN V'd' 0101 1.0 1.0 10 El000N V'a0 1.11 111 V l 00 00 .-IH HH NN 'V' mm H gOI))Ill Nind' 10 W0 H 00 mm Ln In NN a000 00 V' O O W m 0 Vm LOU) NN 00 HH 0000 +.0-in- 00 VI. V' Hi/ i?H 4.n-in 0)0) NN 00 mm V'V' HH mm 1.0 U3- Lf i? VI-i? L}i/? i/}in- i/}i/? Ul Ll) V'd' IoW u1 H H CO-CO- VT i? V' C) VI- W x a 0 W El to W NNNNN l N N N N N N N H H NNNNN N N N N N N N N () 4 \\\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ W Q Lo to to U)Ln U) In to to In to N to c4 00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O . A4 U rnrnrnrnrn rn al rn al rn rn o1 rn U W 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0) 01 01 01 W x 01 01 CT)01 01 01 0) 01 01 01 01 01 01 M U H H H e-1.-1 H H H H H H H H U 0 1-1 Z V' to '.0 N 0 01 0 H N H V' d' V V V V in 1n in U .Y. 01 A 01 A 01 A 01 A 01 A 01 A 01 A 01 A 01 A Z U H K His H* HK His His HK H* H '.7 W I0 V WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV O 0 O 0 H • w CI) ro w N H N . H 01 O1 01 H r N ic ON CO CO ON 0 0 0 d. d. U1 0 0 0 0 d• 0 r 0 to CO M M d' O O U1 01 N N U1 O O O N O l0 N H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N M 01 0 U) U) 0 l0 0 N ao 0 U) U) N 0 M 00 .4 1.11 01 d' M N W N N d' N H d. t0 00 01 M W 0 d4 01 CO 00 VI- CO N M H d' H d. N i? t0 N Lf) 00 t0 l0 V). t/} V/} V} t? V} CO- CO- N H N N N cr M CO 111 01 i? CO- V)- CO- t/} H i/} V' T/} H VI W U D. H 0 H ZG4 w z Z H W > W W D Z H O H > a z 0) 1 irl13. w (� G` w a w E (x H -�y 0 o V] 0 Z 0) 0 ] O co �H] F4 pY a H a Raj IL, HH ...4 0 F---1 Ucci P' FG CA �l Et hr3 H H r0 W FC Z E 3 IL.Ill 4.1 Ix) ao H W H a) in H p I; Ill X (X Z 0 0 rn i 4 Cl 4 ON Cl 01 W 0 Z 3 Cl)U • U C9 IL. 0 W H at U [t. W H q H a) a 1:4 H O) W w ',.T'. H N M U1 H 0 H H 00 01 H N 0 0 0 0 LI) 0 U 0 H H H H N N d' W W LI) Ul H de L/) CO N W 0 H H H M d' 'KN d' W W W W N N N N 00 a) a H it it it it it it it 3t it it It It it it it it 4t 3t U 0 w w w w Cr. w CIi w w G. w w w w w w w w OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ.REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA MARCH 16, 1999 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; and Jim Thomson, City Attorney. The pledge of allegiance was recited. The following items were removed from the agenda: 9.A. County Update, and 15.A.1. Gary Flood's Appeal of BOAA's Decision regarding doorway on south side of building. The following items were added to the Consent Agenda: 15.B.4. Acceptance of Resignation - Howard Heller and Authorization for Hiring a Public Works Maintenance Worker; and 15.B.5. Approval of Dean Lake Bypass Channel Plans and Acceptance of Quote. DuBois/Link moved to approve the agenda as modified. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Brekke gave the Mayor's report. Sweeney/DuBois offered Resolution No. 5087, A Resolution of Appreciation to Terry O'Toole, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Brekke read and presented a framed copy of the Resolution of Appreciation to Terry O'Toole. Sweeney/Link offered Resolution No. 5081, A Resolution of Appreciation to Richard Marks, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. John Perry, Steering Committee Chair of the Vision Shakopee Downtown Strategic Planning Project, approached the podium and explained that those involved in the Vision Shakopee Project have discovered that there are many untapped assets in Shakopee. He said they have learned that citizen involvement is the key to the success of Vision Shakopee. April 7, 1999, will mark the birth of Vision Shakopee and the community at-large was invited to attend the Downtown Strategic Planning Conference at the Burnsville Holiday Inn. He said the involvement of the citizens is needed to make Shakopee one of the best places to live in the metropolitan area. Mayor Brekke presented a proclamation declaring the week of April 5-9, 1999 to be Vision Shakopee Downtown Strategic Planning Week. The following item was removed from the Consent Agenda: 15.E.7. Personal Property Tax - Electric Utilities. Official Proceedings of the March 16, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -2- The following item was added to the Consent Agenda: 15.B.4. Acceptance of Resignation - Howard Heller and Authorization for Hiring a Public Works Maintenance Worker. Sweeney/DuBois moved to approve the Consent Agenda, as modified. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Brekke asked if there were any interested citizens in the audience who wished to address the City Council on any item not on the agenda. There was no response. Sweeney/DuBois moved to approve the Minutes of January 19 and February 2, 1999. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/DuBois moved to approve bills in the amount of$501,431.20. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Mark McNeill explained that the City Attorney was previously directed to incorporate issues into an ordinance which would provide a basic level of guarantees in terms of financial reimbursements to home owners when the City's manufactured housing park is closed. Several issues were discussed and have been resolved. Some of the suggestions made by Katie Nemmers, Certified Student Attorney assisting APAC and Valley Haven, have also been incorporated. The most significant issue is that a cumulative purchase price percentage scale has been incorporated. This reduces any incentive to have a sales price that is "just over" a breakpoint that would result in a lower net payment to individual displaced residents. The park owner is also agreeable to this concept. The three issues still to be discussed include a cap on payments, the percentage scale, and verification of costs. City Attorney, Jim Thomson, explained that a revision has been made which clearly states that a future Council would not be bound to Tax Increment payments. However, he said that the way the ordinance is drafted, there is no guarantee that Tax Increment Financing would be sufficient to fully reimburse all of the displaced residents for relocation costs. The ordinance is drafted to state that if there is not sufficient Tax Increment Financing the cap would go into effect. The Ordinance is drafted in such a way that the residents would need to provide verification of their cost to relocate, and if the park owner feels the costs are too high he would have the option of hiring his own company to move them. Jim Thomson stated that since most of the residents would not be able to relocate and would have to have their homes purchased, this may not be a significant issue. However, the Council would have discretion on this. The residents have initiated a proposal which involves a sliding percentage scale which capped out at 20 percent. However, it was brought to their attention that the way it worked, if the sales price of the property was $299,000 the cap would be $104,999, or 35 percent. But if the sales price was $300,000 it would revert to 30 percent, which would reduce the amount to $90,000. This Official Proceedings of the March 16, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -3- led to the residents second sliding scale proposal, where after the first $299,000 the next $100,000 in the purchase price or the assessed value, whichever is greater, the cap would be 30 percent, the next $100,000 would be 25 percent. This proposal was incorporated into the draft. However, after doing the math, the park owner submitted a revised proposal. Jim Thomson explained that there must be some type of graduated payment plan but it must be less inflated than that of the residents' second proposal. After reviewing the proposal, he said there were some sales prices where the cap would have been less than in the residents' first proposal. Therefore, the revised proposal is that for the first $299,000 the park owner's cap would be 35 percent, between 300,000 and 699,000 the cap would be $90,000 plus 7.5 percent of the total purchase price. Anything over 700,000 would be at 20 percent. He pointed out that the modified proposal gives the residents at least as much, if not more, than their first proposal. In addition to the cap, the City would also be obligated to contribute funds if needed, if the park owner's cap was not sufficient to fully reimburse a displaced resident, with the park owner's portion to be paid first. He recommended the modified proposal with the exception of Subd. 9.B. which has been modified, with a copy on the table. A discussion ensued regarding the ability to bind a future Council. Jim Thomson explained that the State Law states that the City can adopt an Ordinance requiring the park owner or the municipality to pay relocation costs and other compensation. He said a future Council would be bound to the extent that an Ordinance is adopted. A discussion ensued regarding other parks and potential future annexation into the city. Jim Thomson explained that the Ordinance would apply to any park in the city and the cap would be the same. He said the Ordinance could be revised to apply only to manufactured home parks in existence in the city with an effective date. Mark Lambert, attorney representing Valley Haven Park owner, approached the podium and stated that the proposed Ordinance represents the most balanced Ordinance he has seen. He said in the beginning, the number one concern of the residents was that if the park is closed, that their homes be bought. So on the basis that there would be some type of Tax Increment Financing they began discussing buyouts, appraisals and working out the math. He said the compromise of having the City be responsible for a small percent gives the community owner some assurance that the City would try hard to find some Tax Increment Financing. As for the verification of relocation costs, he said this was never discussed. He said the concern is for fair bids and they should have the opportunity to avoid over pricing and asked that this not be considered at this time. Katie Nemmers, Certified Student Attorney, approached the podium and thanked the Council for their efforts to help financially in the event of a park closing. Including the City's portion, she stated that her calculations show that the net per resident would be $4,354.00 with a sale price of Official Proceedings of the March 16, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -4- $299,000. The current tax assessed value of all the homes is $232,109. When divided by the 31 homes this totals $7,487.38. She said that while the amount the residents would receive is substantially less than the current tax assessed value of their homes, the residents would like to see the Ordinance passed at this time. She said the numbers provided are fair and the main interest is to resolve the issue. Amundson/DuBois moved to amend Ordinance No. 543, Subdivision 9, Cap on Payments, by inserting a new Subdivision 9.B. as proposed by Mr. Thomson, City Attorney. Motion carried unanimously. A discussion ensued regarding the appraised value of the park, market value, and the purchase price, based on the land purchase. Jim Thomson explained that the cap is based on the higher of the two. DuBois/Amundson offered Ordinance No. 543, as revised, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota Pertaining to Manufactured Home park Closings and Adding Section 4.61 to the City Code, and moved its adoption. A discussion ensued regarding language that would restrict the Ordinance to parks currently within the City's boundaries. Jim Thomson stated that a subdivision could be added to state that the section only apples to manufactured home parks in existence as of the effective date of the Ordinance. Sweeney/Amundson moved to amend Ordinance No. 543 by adding Subdivision No. 11 which states "this section applies only to manufactured home parks that are existing in the City as of the effective date of this Ordinance." Motion carried unanimously. Ordinance No. 543 as amended carried 4-1 with Cncl. Sweeney opposed. Mayor Brekke opened the public hearing on the proposed assessments for improvements to Vierling Drive from Sage Lane to Miller Street, Project No. 1998-2. Bruce Loney explained that the preparation of plans and specifications were previously ordered for improvements on Vierling Drive, from Sage Lane to Miller Street. The project was completed and all costs have been identified. The total project costs are $644,099.24. Of these costs, $436,139.98 are assessed, $131,348.45 are the City's costs, and $76,610.81 are the County's costs. Bruce Loney reminded the Council that an amendment was previously passed to the assessment policy in which the transportation improvements for commercial properties would be assessed solely to commercial properties. There were five project areas with CR 17 Turn lanes and a cost break down was performed. Official Proceedings of the March 16, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -5- Mayor Brekke asked if there were any interested 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/Link offered Resolution No. 5078, A Resolution Adopting Assessments for Vierling Drive, from Sage Lane to Miller Street, Project No. 1998-2, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Bruce Loney stated that a feasibility report for McGuire Circle and McGuire Court improvements was previously ordered and completed. The paving improvement was initiated by a petition from the residents living on those streets. Staff also looked at alternatives to Muhlenhardt Road between CR 16 and Horizon Dr.. Bruce Loney stated that the streets on McGuire Court and McGuire Circle are badly deteriorated and warrant reconstruction of pavement. Muhlenhardt Road is an aggregate surface roadway that has remained a gravel surface road and is the only access to the McGuire Circle and McGuire Court. Mr. Loney explained that a neighborhood meeting was held in which at least six property owners were present. The general consensus form those property owners in attendance was that they were in favor of improving Muhlenhardt Road, from CR 16 to Horizon Drive, based on the City paying for 50% of the costs. The main issue is whether to reconstruct McGuire Circle and McGuire Court as a separate project or to include the Muhlenhardt Road improvement. Staff feels that Muhlenhardt Road should be improved in conjunction with the reconstruction of McGuire Circle and McGuire Court streets due to the high maintenance costs associated with a gravel surfaced Muhlenhardt Road. Mr. Loney explained that staff conducted a study to determine the reason Muhlenhardt Road is so badly deteriorated and found that there is a variation in pavement and aggregate base thickness, and the soils on McGuire Circle and McGuire Court are of a weaker clay type. Staff's recommendation is to mill the pavement in place and use it as an aggregate base to build a new pavement section over it. Building up the pavement is also recommended and is estimated to cost approximately $95,000. Twenty-five percent of the cost would be assessed. A per lot assessment would be $1,975.82 in this area. There were three alternatives to improve Muhlenhardt Road. Staff concluded that there is a definite benefit in paving Muhlenhardt Road to McGuire Circle and/or McGuire Court, Alternative 1. Currently, maintenance costs are approximately $5,000 per year. The cost to upgrade Muhlenhardt Road is $80,000 with $40,000 assessed. The cost per lot for lots with direct access is $5,700. Lots with half-lot access would have an additional $2,800 assessment. Official Proceedings of the March 16, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -6- Alternative 2 would be to vacate the highest maintenance area on Muhlenhardt Road between McGuire Circle and County Road 16. Alternative 3 would be to improve Muhlenhardt Road from County Road 16 to Horizon Drive. Curb and gutter is proposed for the north one-half and no curb and gutter south of McGuire Circle. Estimated cost is $130,000. Staff is recommending the City pay for 50% of the improvements on Muhlenhardt Road, due to the fact that double fronted lots exist on one side and there is considerable maintenance cost savings by upgrading Muhlenhardt Road. DuBois/Link offered Resolution No. 5079, A Resolution Receiving a Report and Calling a Hearing on an Improvement to McGuire Circle, McGuire Court and Muhlenhardt Road, between County Road 16 and Horizon Drive, Project No. 1999-2, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. DuBois/Link moved to direct staff to change the assessment area for Alternative 3 in the feasibility report to include all of the properties that abut Muhlenhardt Road. Motion carried unanimously. Bruce Loney reported that he talked to the property owners to see if there was any interest in the Gorman Street Reconstruction project proceeding. He said if there is no real interest in the project proceeding he would not conduct another feasibility report. DuBois/Link offered Resolution No. 5083, A Resolution Ordering the Preparation of a Report on an Improvement to Gorman Street, From 4th Avenue to County Road 17, and moved its adoption. Councilor Sweeney stated that the cost to the City is large for this project because of peculiarity to it. The City only has so many dollars per year to put into projects. Mr. Loney stated that he is not recommending improving Vierling Drive at this time. Motion carried 4-1 with Cncl. Sweeney opposed. Cncl. Sweeney offered Resolution No. 5084, A Resolution Ordering the Preparation of a Report on an Improvement to Vierling Drive, from County Road 15 to the West Plat Line of Orchard Park West, and moved its adoption. Motion failed for lack of a second. Bruce Loney reported that the Dean Lake Bypass Channel Plans have been designed and all permits have been obtained. In order to construct this channel, the excavation material must be deposited in upland areas. Staff contacted the Scott County Highway Department and they are Official Proceedings of the March 16, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -7- interested in the excavation material. Having the County utilize the excavation material reduces the cost of the project and utilizes the material for a public purpose. Quotes were received for the channel excavation based on 3,100 cubic yards of excavation. Chard Tiling & Excavation submitted the low quote of $18,250 and could do the work from March 17 to March 19, 1999, before the frost goes out. The Engineer's estimate to construct the channel was $40,000 with the overall Dean Lake Bypass improvement estimated at $200,000, including engineering and administration costs. Also associated with this project is the purchase of an easement from Norm Shutrop. Mr. Shutrop was paid $3,000.00 per acre for an easement recently from the Prior Lake Spring Lake Watershed District for channel improvements, and staff is recommending purchasing the easement at $3,000.00/acre. The estimated area of the easement is .6 acres with an estimated easement acquisition of$1,800.00. Amundson/Link moved to approve the Dean Lake Bypass channel plans and accept the low quote submitted by Chard Tiling and Excavating, Inc. of Belle Plaine for $18,250. Motion carried unanimously. DuBois/Sweeney moved to authorize the payment for a drainage easement from Norman Shutrop based on a price of$3,000.00 per acre. Motion carried unanimously. A recess was taken at 8:39 P.M. The meeting re-convened at 8:49 P.M. Sweeney/DuBois moved to remove the Revised Preliminary Plat of Dublin Square from the table. Motion carried unanimously. Councilor Link advised the Councilmembers that he met with the applicant and developer, Jim Allen, and the two arrived at a compromise proposal which reduced the density by eight units to a total of 142. The revised plan now includes 1 building that has 5 dwelling units and 5 buildings that have 6 dwelling units each. Two major intersections were aligned and the long street was changed to a public street, and the front yard setbacks were changed from 20 foot setbacks to 22- 25 foot setbacks. Michael Leek reported that after submitting the revised plat, Jim Allen stated that he did not agree with the revised plat and felt that he would absorb a significant loss. A decision regarding this plat must be made by April 11, 1999, as that is the end of the 120 day period after submission. He advised that a public hearing has been set to consider an amendment to Chapters 11 and 12 which would prohibit private streets. The amendment would be on the City Council agenda on April 6, assuming that the Planning Commission takes action. However, because Mr. Allen does not Official Proceedings of the March 16, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -8- agree with the revised plat it might not be appropriate to refer this back to the Planning Commission at this time. The options at this time are to either act on the original plat or to table consideration to the April 6th City Council meeting. Jim Thomson stated that since Mr. Allen does not agree with the revised plat, the only issue is to act on the current plat. However, he recommended not taking any action until a determination is made on the private road issue. He explained that there is a provision in the Ordinance that allows the City to approve plats with private streets but does not obligate approval. He said this is a policy decision, but legally the City can change land use regulations while plats are pending. However, once a plat is approved the regulations cannot be changed for a certain period of time and retroactively change the plat. Philip R. Krass, Attorney, approached the podium and stated that Jim Allen has committed without a way to extricate himself to a very significant land purchase, based on the Ordinance that existed when he purchased it and which exists today. He explained that the resolution that Mr. Allen discussed with Councilor Link would cost him a significant amount of money. He said that a plat has never been denied because it had private streets. He reminded the Council that an Ordinance was adopted in 1996, which changed the subdivision regulations to allow private streets. Plats have been approved and the property owner has made a significant investment in land, based on those changes and is now caught in the middle while the Council determines whether or not they want to allow private streets. He suggested that the Homeowner's Association could be obligated to maintain the streets, through the developer's agreement. Mr. Krass said that people rely on the Ordinances and the standards set by the Council, and asked why the changes shouldn't be made by an Ordinance change and asked for feedback. A discussion ensued regarding enforcement of parking issues in subdivisions with private streets. Councilor Link said he would continue to work with Jim Allen to discuss a compromise. Sweeney/DuBois moved to table the preliminary plat of Dublin Square to the April 6, 1999, meeting. Motion carried unanimously. The Heritage Village Planned Unit Development proposes to develop three, four, or five unit buildings containing 83 (total) townhouse style units. The overall density is 7.8 dwelling units per acre, which is within the density range. These will be owner occupied, and governed by a private homeowners association. The development will also contain public streets and a centrally located tot-lot/park. The Planning Commission reviewed this PUD plan and recommended approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to recording the final plat ownership issues relating to a 33 foot strip of ground must be resolved. 2. A 15% open space requirement must be met at the time of the plat, specifically indicating open space areas. 3. The landscape plan and landscaping units must meet the requirements of the City Code at time of preliminary plat application. 4. The name of the PUD must be revised from "Heritage Village" to an approved Official Proceedings of the March 16, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -9- name by city staff. 5. The proposed setbacks from the street right-of-way in the case of the front and side-yards, and rear-yard setbacks from the exterior boundary of this PUD, as well as the setbacks relating to Sarazin Street were defined. A 30 foot side-yard separation of buildings is also required. 6. Existing and proposed grades must be illustrated and how they work with the remainder of the parcel. It is also recommended that the plat move forward, including all of this property rather than platting the area as part of the PUD. 7. A trail connection is recommended through the development for future connection to the trail system proposed within the NSP easement. Gary Wollschlager, Tollefson Development, approached the podium and stated that the home builder is projecting the units to be approximately $110,000. He said all the units are two bedroom units with double car garages and enough parking space for four cars. Brekke/Amundson moved to amend the motion by adding a condition that an east-west sidewalk or trail connection be provided, and that a sidewalk or trail connection be provided around Street B. Motion carried unanimously. Amundson/Sweeney offered Resolution No. 5086, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Approving Planned Unit Development Overlay District No. 15, Heritage Village. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Amundson moved to remove proposed amendments to the Tobacco Regulations from the table. Motion carried unanimously. Staff was previously directed to prepare an amendment to the draft ordinance prohibiting persons under the age of 18 from entering off-sale liquor establishments without being accompanied by a parent. The City Attorney has since determined that the city code already addresses this issue in the liquor, wine and beer section of the City Code. The proposed amendments to the tobacco ordinance allows self-service merchandising in tobacco stores, self-service merchandising in off- sale liquor stores for the purpose of selling cigars only, and it allows the City Council to make minor changes to the tobacco regulations in the future if non-substantial, without a public hearing. Sweeney/DuBois moved to strike the sentence in Subd. 7 of Section 1 of Ordinance 542, "This subdivision shall not apply to self-service merchandising of cigars at an establishment holding an off-sale intoxicating liquor license." A discussion ensued and the City Attorney stated that the effect would be not allowing self service of cigars in off-sale liquor stores. He said the current code states that persons under 18 cannot enter liquor stores at all unless accompanied by a parent. Motion carried 3-2 with Cncls. Amundson and Brekke opposed. Official Proceedings of the March 16, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -10- Sweeney/DuBois offered Ordinance No. 542, Fourth Series, An Ordinance Relating to the Sale of Tobacco, Tobacco Products, and Tobacco Related Devices and Amending Portions of Section 6.23 of the City code, and moved its adoption. Motion carried 4-1 with Cncl. Amundson opposed. Michael Leek explained that the Council passed a motion at its March 2nd meeting, directing staff to prepare an ordinance extending the enacted development moratorium to B-1 development. Since that time there have been a number of informal discussions with various Council members about the efficacy of extending the moratorium. Staff is now requesting direction regarding whether or not to proceed in the preparation of an interim ordinance extending the moratorium. Michael Leek explained that the intersections of future County Roads 18, 21 and the Shakopee bypass are unique sites for significant regional, commercial development. The major use in the existing Crossroads Center is the grocery store, plans are being reviewed for a relocated K-Mart, an application is expected for a 122,000 square foot retail facility on the southeast corner of 169 and CR 17, and another retailer of similar size is looking at the property on the southwest corner of 169 and CR 17. The question is whether those kinds of uses are the kinds of uses that meet City generated demand, or serve a larger regional commercial purpose. Volume II of the current Comp Plan discusses the City's goals and objectives. It notes that there should be a provision for transitions between land uses with varying degrees of intensity by using mixed use development zones, open space recreational areas, setback requirements, topography and required landscape berms or other buffers. It also discusses corridor plans for Marschall Road and 1st Avenue to improve transitions between land uses. He said it is clear that there is some concern as to whether this included Marshall Road, the existing commercial stretch, or the entire length. The underlying objectives include reviewing and updating commercial zoning districts from time to time. Mayor Brekke stated that the Comprehensive Plan is the guiding document that the City has relied on throughout the decade. He said the B-1 zoning doesn't clarify what is local or regional commercial. If this isn't clarified the development around County Road 17 and 169 will be regional commercial. He said time is needed to determine if the Comprehensive Plan is still what the City wants. If so, is the B-1 zoning specific to deal with the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. A discussion ensued relating to regional and area-wide development, and local and regional commercial zoning. Cncl. Sweeney stated that if there is commercial other than locally based, commercial development will attract people outside of the immediate vicinity. He suggested addressing this in terms of"immediately adjacent." He said there will be intersecting spheres for any of these types of development. Cncl. Link recommended that the property owners for each quadrant submit a traffic plan with their site plans. Official Proceedings of the March 16, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -11- Steve Soltau, Shakopee Crossings, approached the podium and stated that the aspects of the moratorium make sense, and suggested amending the Comprehensive Plan to include their area in MUSA, which has been delayed. As a result of that delay, he said there are artificial pressures based on availability of commercial property. He said a time out would address this as well as the zoning ordinance. Dennis Klohs, approached the podium and stated that requiring developments to provide traffic reports is part of their submission, which he endorses. He said making this part of the process and a condition of the approval would be appropriate. Paul Tucci, 8949 Bolvedore Dr., Eden Prairie, approached the podium and asked if there was a way to define what regional means. Gene Hauer, 523 Timber Court., approached the podium and stated that a moratorium was out of place now when there are people who want to build. Jon Albinson, Valley Green Business Park, approached the podium and stated that the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1996 and it is a very good plan. He said aside from issues centered around money and looking at what we are trying to accomplish in the community, the Comprehensive Plan gives staff direction. Unfortunately, the B-1 issue was not addressed. He said a moratorium is a good way of addressing this now. He also suggested B-1 and B-1a or B- 1 regional zones. Looking at the Comprehensive Plan, he said he was in support of a moratorium in order to address the zoning ordinance so that it is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Dave Polacek, property owner of southwest quadrant of Why 169 and Marschall Road, approached the podium and asked what is meant by community retail use. The entire area consists of approximately 75 acres and he said he did not believe there was enough retail to fill up 75 acres of community or neighborhood retail. He said a big box retailers are needed. He also said that the property owners of three quadrants have purchase agreements under consideration and are ready to act. Brekke/Link moved to direct staff to attempt to formulate a traffic study group with members of all four quadrants, at Hwy. 169/CR 17, and to initiate a traffic study that would cover all four quadrants, to be completed in such a way that plat applications move forward and are adopted upon the completion and approval of the traffic study. Michael Leek recommended using the City's consultant, WSB and Associates, because they have already developed a computer model into which they can plug the proposed developments to generate the traffic analysis. Jim Thomson stated that there is some gray area in interpreting phrases in the ordinance and suggested addressing them at a staff level and coming back with a recommendation. Official Proceedings of the March 16, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -12- A discussion ensued regarding the cost of a traffic study and the City Attorney said there is a way to pass this on to the developers. Motion carried 4-1 with Cncl. DuBois opposed. Jim Thomson stated that staff will have to process applications currently in process if there is no moratorium. Sweeney/Amundson moved to direct staff to draft an ordinance imposing a moratorium on commercial development until a traffic study is completed. Jon Albinson stated that he would have no financial gain with or without the moratorium. He said the Comprehensive Plan needs to be implemented as written without losing sight of the Comprehensive Plan for the County Road 17 quadrant. Motion carried 4-1 with Cncl. DuBois opposed. Sweeney/DuBois offered Resolution No. 5009, A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 4973, A Resolution Granting a Conditional Use Permit for Utility Service Structures and Over Height Fence Located in the Highway Business (B-1) Zone, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/DuBois moved to grant an extension of the preliminary plat approval for Evergreen Heights to March 17, 2000, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/DuBois offered Resolution No. 5091, A Resolution Setting the Public Hearing Date to Consider the Vacation of an Easement Within Lot 7, Block 1, Marymark Addition, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/DuBois offered Resolution No. 5085, A Resolution Approving a Wetland Replacement Plan for Shakopee Crossings Limited Partnership, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/DuBois moved to accept the resignation, with regrets, of Howard Heller from the Public Works Department of the City of Shakopee effective March 31, 1999. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/DuBois moved to authorize the appropriate City staff to utilize Scott County personnel in the hiring of a Maintenance Worker for the Public Works Department. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Official Proceedings of the March 16, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -13- Sweeney/DuBois offered Resolution No. 5077, A Resolution of the Shakopee City Council Authorizing the Acceptance of a $16,000 Grant Program and enter an agreement with the Minnesota Auto Theft Prevention Program from July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2000. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Mark McQuillan, Park and Recreation Director, approached the podium and explained that the Citizen Task Force submitted a proposal to fund a $6 million of park and recreation facility projects. The recommendation was to fund this with the park bond referendum. However, the mayor recommended reducing the bond to approximately $4 million by using internal funds such as the sewer fund to bring it down to be consistent with the survey results. There was some question as to how much was available from the sewer fund and what the pay back time would be. Gregg Voxland, Finance Director, approached the podium and recommended charging the going rate of interest. He stated that he preferred 20 years, but not more than 30 years if council wishes to use sewer funds. Based on the CEP, the Capital Improvement Fund has money for cash flow for the next five years. Another option is revenues from park dedication fees. He recommended using the $700,000 from park dedication fees this year, and an internal loan from the Capital Improvement Fund for 20 years for $1,300,000. A discussion ensued relating to a referendum and an inner fund loan. Sweeney/DuBois moved to direct staff to come back with a $5 million ballot resolution with the other funding sources being $700,000 in park dedication fees and $300,000 in TIF funds. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/DuBois moved to amend Resolution No. 5075, by filling in the amount not to exceed $5 million. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/DuBois moved to amend Resolution No. 5075 by entering May 11, 1999, at 5:00 p.m. as the date to canvass the results of the election and to declare the results thereof. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Amundson offered Resolution No. 5075 as amended, A Resolution Determining the Necessity for the Issuance of General Obligation Bonds and Calling a Special Election Thereon, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Mark McQuillan, explained that Centex is seeking approval to landscape and maintain a small portion of park property at the entrance of their development (Hartley Boulevard) in Southbridge. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board reviewed the request and saw no reason to turn down the request as long as the landscape plan meets with staff's approval. A request was also made with reference to the section titled"Recitals" of the Landscape Agreement to change the language relating to a specified number of days prior to the installation of landscaping from 30 to ten days. Official Proceedings of the March 16, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -14- DuBois/Sweeney moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to enter into agreement with Classics at Southbridge which would permit the association to landscape and maintain portions of Park 13 and Park 15. Sweeney/Amundson moved to amend No. 2. of the Recitals section of the Landscaping Agreement for Classics at Southbridge to require a design of the landscaping at least 10 days prior to the installation. Motion carried unanimously. Motion carried unanimously on main motion as amended. Gregg Voxland explained that in both phases of the VIP interceptor construction oversizing costs were not assessed but held for a future connection charge in areas not currently in the city limits. In 1995 when staff developed the current connection fee only $112,000 was applied and $66,000 was missed at that time. Implementing a connection fee would help to recover approximately 1/4 of the $66,000 from some undeveloped property. In order to recover the entire $66,000, bills would have to be sent to each property owner. Sweeney/Link moved to set up a connection charge to recoup the $16,000 (plus about $9,000 interest) from undeveloped/no building property for phase two. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/DuBois moved to direct staff to change the fee schedule to update the interest schedule for the VIP interceptor. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/DuBois offered Resolution No. 5082, A Resolution Adopting the 1999 Part-time Pay Schedule for the Part-time and Seasonal Non-union Employees of the City of Shakopee, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/DuBois moved to recommend to the Scott County Board of Commissioners the appointment of Glenda D. Spiotta to serve on the Lower Minnesota Watershed District. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/DuBois moved to ratify the 1999-2000 contract with Teamsters Local 320 (Public Works). (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mayor Brekke stated he would be abstaining from discussion and voting relating to personal property tax on electric utilities. Amundson/Link offered Resolution No. 5088, A Resolution Opposing a Reduction or Exemption in the Personal Property Tax Paid by Electric Utility Providers, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried with Mayor Brekke abstaining). Official Proceedings of the March 16, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -15- Sweeney/DuBois moved to direct staff to look at franchises and if possible prepare a franchise tax at the maximum allowed by the state with a provision crediting Shakopee Public Utility for their contribution in lieu of a franchise tax. Motion carried with Mayor Brekke abstaining. Sweeney/DuBois offered Resolution No. 5089, A Resolution Supporting Repeal of the State Sales Tax for Local Government Purchases, and move its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). No Liaison reports were given. A recess was taken for the purpose of conducting the Economic Development Authority meeting at 11:42 P.M. The meeting was re-convened at 11:43 P.M. Sweeney/DuBois moved to adjourn to March 23, 1999, at 4:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 11:44 P.M. vtiiii ,) .4,, udith S. Cox City Clerk Esther TenEyck Recording Secretary CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum c n� TO: Mayor and City Council CONSENT "SENT Mark McNeill, City Administrator - FROM: Tim Benetti, Planner I SUBJECT: Final Plat of Brittany Village 1st Addition Tollefson Development,Inc. (Applicant) DATE: June 1, 1999 Discussion Tollefson Development, Inc. is requesting Final Plat approval of Brittany Village 1st Addition. The subject site is located northeast of CR. 17 & 17th Avenue East, immediately north of Longmeadow Addition (Exhibit A). A copy of the May 20th, 1999, Planning Commission staff memo has been attached for your reference. Alternatives 1. Approve the Final Plat of Brittany Village 1st Addition, subject to conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and staff. 2. Revise the conditions of approval for the Final Plat of Brittany Village 1st Addition, and approve subject to the revised conditions. 3. Do not approve the Final Plat of Brittany Village 1st Addition. 4. Table action on this item and request additional information from the applicant and/or staff. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended the approval of the Final Plat of Brittany Village 1st Addition, subject to conditions(Alternative No. 1). Action Requested Offer Resolution No. 5156, a Resolution Approving the Final Plat of Brittany Village 1st Addition, subject to conditions, and move its approval. is de.\cc\1999\Cco6o1\f'pbrval.doc RESOLUTION NO. 5156 A RESOLUTION OF'THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA,APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF BRITTANY VILLAGE 1ST ADDITION WHEREAS,Tollefson Development, Inc. and Eugene F.Hauer, are the applicant and owners of said property; and WHEREAS, the property upon which the request is being made is legally described as follows: That part of the Southwest Quarter (1/4) of the Southwest Quarter (1/4) of Section 8, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County,Minnesota, lying southerly of the MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 70-6, as on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder, together with the North 8.00 feet of the Northwest Quarter (1/4) of the Northwest Quarter (1/4) of Section 17, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County,Minnesota. and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee did review the Final Plat of Brittany Village 1st Addition on May 20th, 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 Brittany Village 1st 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. The Final Construction Plans and Specifications must be approved by the City Engineer and the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission prior to construction. 4. Developer shall file a Homeowners Association Agreement, in a form reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. The perpetual maintenance of all open space and outlots areas shall be provided for by said Homeowners Association Agreement. 5. The developer shall provide easements, as required by City Code or City Engineering. 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 payments shall be required in amounts of$1,000 per unit. The payment of park dedication fees can be deferred until issuance of building permits. If deferred, payments shall be according to the current fee schedule. 8. No building permits shall be issued for any of the proposed outlots until such time as they are replatted or combined with adjacent properties so that they meet the City's design standards. 9. The Landscape Plan, showing layout and units, shall be consistent with said plan submitted with the preliminary plat. Landscaping requirements 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. 10. The developer is required to stub water and sewer services to the adjacent parcel to be retained by Mr. Eugene Hauer, subject to City Engineer review and approval. 11. Due to the proposed townhouse development, individual sewer and water service are required for individually owned units. 12. Final Plat title to be revised to indicate this as the first addition, i.e. "Brittany Village 1st Addition." 13. Existing special assessments (if any) shall be paid off. In the event the developer requests the assessments to reapportioned and the city agrees to reapportion the assessments, the City Engineer will reapportion the existing special assessments against the lots. The developer shall waive the right to appeal the reapportionment and shall pay the fee for the reapportionment as required by the by the city's adopted Fee Schedule. B. The following conditions shall apply after the filing/recording of the Final Plat: 1. This property is approved with the following minimum structure setback variations: a) Front Yard from street R-O-W= 25 ft. b) Rear Yard from exterior PUD boundary =40 ft. c) Side Yard from street R-O-W= 25 ft. d) Front/Side/Rear Yard from Sarazin Street R-O-W= 50 ft. e) Side Yard separation of buildings = 30 ft. 2. 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. 3. Building construction, sewer and water services, fire protection and access shall be reviewed for code compliance at time of building permit application. 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 *CONSENT* PC AGENDA ITEM No. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Planner I SUBJECT: Final Plat of Brittany Village MEETING DATE: May 20, 1999 REVIEW PERIOD: April 23, 1999 -June 23, 1999 Site Information Applicant/Owner: Tollefson Development, Inc. Location: Northeast of CR. 17 and 17th Avenue East (immediately north of Longmeadow Addition) Current Zoning: Multiple Family Residential (R-3) Adjacent Zoning: North: (US Hwy. 169) South: Multiple Family Residential (R-3) East: Agriculture(AG) West: Highway Business (B-1) 1995 Comp. Plan: High Density Residential Attachments: Exhibit A: Site Location Map Exhibit B: Brittany Village Final Plat Map Introduction Tollefson Development is requesting review and approval of Final Plat of Brittany Village. This development is generally located northeast of CR. 17 & 17th Avenue East, immediately north of Longmeadow Addition (Exhibit A). Considerations Brittany Village received Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Preliminary Plat approval by the Planning Commission and Shakopee City Council. The submitted final plat is in substantial conformance with the proposed PUD and Preliminary Plat. Due to separate phasing of this plat, the City Clerk is recommending the plat title be revised to indicate this as the first addition, i.e. "Brittany Village 1st Addition," and subsequent phases to be numbered sequentially. The City Council will review a proposal by the applicant to transfer the 33 foot wide strip parcel owned by the city to Tollefson, at their May 18, 1999 meeting. The City Attorney is recommending the parcel be quit-claimed to the developer without any consideration, thereby releasing the city's obligation to sign off on this plat. Developer shall be responsible for securing clear title to the parcel and the proposed plat. The trail easement to the north and shown on the final plat map should be removed prior to recording of mylar. This easement shall be granted by deed from the developer to the City. Alternatives 1. Recommend to the City Council approval of the Final Plat of Brittany Village 1st 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) The Final Construction Plans and Specifications must be approved by the City Engineer and the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission prior to construction. iv) Developer shall file a Homeowners Association Agreement, in a form reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. The perpetual maintenance of all open space and outlots areas shall be provided for by said Homeowners Association Agreement. v) The developer shall provide easements, as required by City Code or City Engineering. 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 payments shall be required in amounts of$1,000 per unit. The payment of park dedication fees can be deferred until issuance of building permits. If deferred, payments shall be according to the current fee schedule. viii) No building permits shall be issued for any of the proposed outlots until such time as they are replatted or combined with adjacent properties so that they meet the City's design standards. ix) Prior to recording of the final plat, the applicant shall resolve the ownership issues with the 33-foot city owned strip of ground, and the 8-foot strip of ground to the south of this plat, or shall obtain signatures of all property owners for the final plat application and plat. x) Existing special assessments shall be paid off. In the event that the developer requests the assessments to be reapportioned and the City agrees to reapportion the assessments, the City Engineer will reapportion the existing special assessments against all lots. The developer shall waive the right to appeal the reapportionment and shall pay the fee for the reapportionment as required by the City's adopted Fee Schedule. xi) The Landscape Plan, showing layout and units, shall be consistent with said plan submitted with the preliminary plat. Landscaping requirements 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. xii) The developer is required to stub water and sewer services to the adjacent parcel to be retained by Mr. Eugene Hauer, subject to City Engineer review and approval. xiii) Due to the proposed townhouse development, individual sewer and water service are required for individually owned units. xiv) Final Plat title to be revised to indicate this as the first addition, i.e. "Brittany Village 1st Addition." b) The following conditions shall apply after the filing/recording of the Final Plat: i) This property is approved with the following minimum structure setback variations: a) Front Yard from street R-O-W= 25 ft. b) Rear Yard from exterior PUD boundary = 40 ft. c) Side Yard from street R-O-W= 25 ft. d) Front/Side/Rear Yard from Sarazin Street R-O-W= 50 ft. e) Side Yard separation of buildings = 30 ft. ii) 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. 2. Recommend to the City Council approval of the Final Plat of Brittany Village 1st Addition with revised conditions. 3. Recommend to the City Council the denial of the request for approval of Brittany Village 1st 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 Brittany Village 1st Addition, subject to the conditions. Action Requested Offer a motion recommending to the City Council the approval of the Final Plat of Brittany Village 1st Addition with conditions. Tim Benetti Planner I i:\commdevUwaa-pc\1999\0520\fpbrittl.doc -y Brlftariy V( Uae - final Rat u,..wiJuiuu.WiiWL.Ll11W jJJW1Jw.,.uL-ti--- rtt fi‘ s3.g. 169 C 0 ❑ _ — a - % U 0 0 17th Avenue E al ?if! IS H 1 r_ A Iht Al ❑ ❑ ❑ ci Mil PPM iii 1 m 4 I .. i I I * 4 t .. k a It 40' 0410to*.i I I , Parcels iiiiikAll N SHAKOPEE W COMMUNIIYPRIDE SINCE 1857 ,' E S /6Mwcb199915:09:53 rIgrslprojects sftemap.apr r g R g. it ° i $s g 1" 1119 1111f g gg4 `1 11i ff 111 s Y I^ ° ° Zt°kt t " ii 11 ?h .ill. 11%21 - =gg44°! $ s f� 4 I I Ig 8 g $:4 �g 1 /1.; g-s Il8tg it s , a Zatf� lak% It"t PEI T 7' - 1a is is isiit 4s i 9.1 i e 1 . it $ s j ;qiirl a 8 1:11;818 s 's a t ti Ril ' g3 il sillitii g Q 1 ° i R o� ` ( ° '� gg334aaa. R�`�a. o g.g S40p.pi$ �+�= io ��? $ n 4� A ..,iii a 011. 1a $ Rt r f P i 9 ii t S 3 4,194 k t 3g.g k R/ 0 : s g* 1 i-', ZR-211.1 NN 4g8tr- *'fit Ri t 9 s A4. q"� $ a41 s Jf tsi I �I " $ li itZr. 111 wt 1 14 � p 8b8 . t 1;rt 4 • pt.h1/%44111o _ 9} R •1 I ik 1 9 R' i E 9 I' li l: Oilf::!fi MI vs: 4 i $ 1 �' l 1 si ! r It.,' g f ig ii 1 I R I riga; s a I - n ; R' u s ° !g 1a ti 7l !!s `$! SA v frsaps1 ° 1 " I; a8Za g82 t $8�Z a /flirt s g iq a o gsi k !iIlii! ii 2111 H : HHk _ e k 3 s as s H(1 ° r c c 1 . $o R i ilia 4 $" 11 ;aIle g r t 3 3 ti °8 if $ _ �� s It Q s s ° q a 1 y lit S i € ' A -F $ 4 z i li 88 IT 1 i 2 mfa. '4 3P 9 ' t 1-414 0. d . 2S , ( 1 i 1 1 li t 1 1 a t i % 44 t. 1 illIft,1 il i .7= F. i - "... 4 1 A t ' 1 ir4 2544t124 I L./3 5 4' g s �$a� ge n a 8gg$ n 1 t : g & T ill o qIi r a �. ` �9 ° tea RIt I !id Zyg� 8;2 Qa i aid R; o goo 181°Irg 1 Z I. 3a : s $` $ a 8a3-a g w a a a i P :ili id o AR U ,t;1 ; �I' 1 °1 it I I!Li k v$ ■ R a 8 •1 A" P s s`$ �4 t ■ t b II 7 yC p . h g i ; t I it � 3[11 111 ? 2 3 s i 3$ I li z R $ 3 r' $ IL it 1 ? it f 1 Pla ,ig zi # a 1 1 ail $1 Ia .t tg 1 I IR 1 � � a i1 9is t s a t . ,fig la '2111 . 3 # R rtl ? 9 a lid, N g $ Ir s l aI f 8$ s a Aft fl ? 1 UUR_ v 0 I z a. og I 0 ta i e t 2 -r r tr, 55 cos.sec 4 11[51 S1‘42C27 r Stix I/t T.114 R.221 SEG I.T.UNE 11W4 el / 11T99 3.64Oo.00s S RARAZ r8 : a SARAZIl1l STREET >! 611.70 - _ _ _ _ _ SA8 v �- — — — �� I rocs 1 g�-2ya� a -I1 a a `"A c 1100 IE i0•- m b O.Op--_ 1c____1 i 1 al 1 m ,'�{ r ^k ' V� I II 8 v v I 8 10 Qi 1 = _`� Ems— ! 9 I I 1e. s -,i II s `" 8 I I I A 8 5 ,, i 1 1 g a- I # P�J a n♦' 6106 jf �` ��4I z 1 1 , r �I I , / 4 II 1 I o �:I \ tt, :1; 01 ri: " -I' 1� ---- I --- -- 4 ---� g - -j----I O I 1 ), Ig III OS o, 8 [ 1 .T k y 61sT UNE 07 SOUTH 330 FT. .' ,,' am-- g{ e v OF TIE NEST 110.00 FT. 1 _ 1 1 �t, u, 0 :I- t:) V --i --{ r., N V 1 I .C. mg! -'.,'k. 8 I I t:) Yt.9 _ 1 1 Ill I -., nci I > �� I 1 I I :C` .t+ I — _oo•za— :r (;) !C i I g L ,-- in t I ... 1 I ,,:71• - II_►_11, 0 14 O II 10 I I :r, -� L-a _ ,0_ _ . . _. I ,,.....1--1 -+ ci N I N 8 1--- . 1140ci �.) 1 i, .3. I; 1 ! 1 ) L ... is, -i'....... 4 TS: .):1:1) Ihl ' CI' 5%.C.:1 —A .. ::11.204 ' : 4..°71274, 8 \1 es 1. l � ., .....BRITTANY S igi 5.00 J BRITTANY .22.5 201.25 !4 !• OO'ac•y 1 s.61 3•~i a.5'��t a��115. I 1 i I --{ DRIVE 8 kl DRIVE 5125 0°45'4 1 /ll �' W1 ? ,r.. _ _ oo L I ` � ' '�a 1 I 1 --i I�:i+ a_....,--...,o1E-fl----1,0 aIr. RIC _ � v/ /1 1 1CI 30 ``COiigL\o3:0,aS ';/ 1 Iit .71114 4 �� aye/ 2' Y \g 1 . r... tC k IS did•' 8w N g 4. // fr N I I I I I 5.) rN iB�LLm.2.... G 1 1 N I 11 II /e., 'let / // O Cs_ I P # t : I �/ c ` I Iii; i 03 /0./ N 1 s 1 4 w 0. / O 1 I N s // / y I Ha! i / 1 ' 1 IL o a 1 I I — 8 / I 181:$ — . v l / `I I I � '° I d8i I - L_a ' I I II i I I BRITTANY I \ A -1 COURT 4 ri k 1 I II 8 t. I /400.01•29'tI mar.: IN.;L 1 1 0 \ -,.. '0,--i otI a I II1 — \_ a /4 a 31.02 1118 537.27 J 11.47 \ Imo•` 227.82 I N / N00 01'29 f 911.15 v ♦ 1 1 v BEAST ill.SWIr{OF SW I/t \\ 42.00 S SEG4T.114 N.22 I 1 FI I =° 5 ` I! IC I 8 - 8 1 v v iIlli _ I--15 a 11 % 42.00 1 n it itig!11— _ 1 _ 1 1 iI !+ N8 1 W z — NORTX 1 F 42.80 R 1 o $ igif + 1 1 8 w 8 1 _ 8. y(igl — I -10 1 �t-rias 1 N a •• 9 I I B B 1 8 3. I 11 1 4L00 t X 1 I i w tic c 1c zg Rt CONSENT CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Proposed Amendment to City Code Sec. 11.36 Highway Business Zone (B-1)Regulations to Allow Modification of Design Standards MEETING DATE: June 1, 1999 INTRODUCTION/DISCUSSION: On January 5, 1999 the City Council directed staff to review design standards in the B-1 district, and suggest alternatives. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this item at its February 4, 1999 meeting. The public hearing was closed and recommended to the City Council that no change be made in the B-1 zoning district standards. On February 16, 1999 the Council directed staff to prepare a text amendment allowing reduced lot size and/or setbacks by conditional use permit(CUP). The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this text amendment on March 18, 1999, closed the public hearing, and tabled the item for clarification of the term"consistent" in the draft language. On May 20, 1999 the Commission reviewed the revised language. The draft language allows reduced lot standards by conditional use permit(CUP). ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve Ord. No. 551, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee Amending City Code Sec. 11.36, Highway Business Zone (B-1), as presented. 2. Approve Ord. No. 551, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee Amending City Code Sec. 11.36, Highway Business Zone (B-1), with revisions 3. Do not approve Ord. No. 551. 4. Continue or table the matter for additional information. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer and approve Ord. No. 551, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee Amending City Code Sec. 11.36, Highway Business Zone (B-1). R. Michael Leek Community Development Director i:\commdev\CC\1999\0601\TxtAB-1.doc ORDINANCE NO. 551, FOURTH SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 11,ZONING THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1 - That City Code Chapter 11, Zoning, is hereby amended by adding the language that is underlined and deleting the language which is struck-tlgh: City Code Sec. 11.36 Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Add the following W. uses otherwise permitted in the B-1 Zone, but which have reduced lot specifications than those required by "Subd. 5. Design Standards, C. lot specifications." (Re-letter remaining items) City Code Sec. 11.87, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT STANDARDS FOR BUSINESS ZONES: CC. reduced lot specifications: 1. Shall meet all other applicable requirements of City Code Chap. 11. 2. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall make a determination that the requested lot size or setbacks meet or exceed those of immediately adjacent properties, or of other properties in the B-1 zoning district within which the subject property is located. (Re-letter remaining items) Section 2 - -Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota held the day of , 1999. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of , 1999. PREPARED BY: City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 is ,A CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor& City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Collector Street Width for Sarazin Street Project No. 1999-3 DATE: June 1, 1999 INTRODUCTION: At the May 18, 1999 City Council meeting, the Council directed staff to revisit the street width for Sarazin Street, Project No. 1999-3, south of St. Francis Avenue. Staff has reviewed this issue and has compiled information for Council consideration on the street width for this street collector. BACKGROUND: On May 4, 1999, a public hearing was held on the proposed Sarazin Street Improvement Project from St. Francis Avenue to Valley View Road. With this meeting, Council adopted Resolution No. 5134, a resolution ordering the project for Sarazin Street, from St. Francis Avenue to 800 feet south of St. Francis Avenue as described in the feasibility report. Also, at this meeting, staff asked for direction on the street width and number of parking lanes for Sarazin Street, south of St. Francis Avenue. At this meeting, City Council voted 3-2 for the street width of Sarazin Street being 36 foot wide with no parking. As mentioned in previous memos, the alternatives for Sarazin Street would be to build Sarazin Street to a 44 foot wide street to allow parking on both sides; or a future 3-lane facility, which could provide left turn lanes; or to build a 36 foot wide street with no parking, with the realization that turn lanes could be built in at a future date if necessary and needed. This issue has been discussed previously on February 6, 1996 when Sarazin Street was improved from 17th Avenue to St. Francis Avenue. Attached to this memo is the memorandum that was presented to Council in 1996 with attachments. At that time, the current subdivision regulations, which are the same regulations still governing subdivisions, required a minor collector to be 44 feet in width. In the City's Comprehensive Plan, it did list collector street widths ranging from 36 feet to 50 feet. Staff had taken this issue to the Subdivision Review Committee, and at that time the Subdivision Review Committee voted to uphold the current subdivision regulations and the street width to be 44 feet. Thus, Sarazin Street, from 17th Avenue to St. Francis Avenue is built 44 feet in width with an 80 foot right-of-way corridor. In staff's memorandum in 1996, it was felt that a 36 foot wide street with no parking on either side with some allowance for turn lanes at certain intersections would be sufficient to handle the traffic volume anticipated for Sarazin Street. In 1999, the issue was whether to continue the street width of 44 feet for Sarazin Street, south of St. Francis Avenue or to reduce this width to 36 feet wide with no parking on either side. Staff has asked WSB & Associates, who developed the Transportation Plan for the City of Shakopee and has created a model to project traffic volumes on future collector streets, to analyze the traffic volumes in this area. The result of this updated model shows that Sarazin Street, from St. Francis Avenue south to Valley View Road would have approximately 3,500 average daily traffic (ADT) in the year 2020 and Sarazin Street, north of St. Francis Avenue projected to have 5,800 ADT. This traffic volume is such that a 2-lane roadway facility can handle the traffic, with possible modifications at major intersections to allow turn lanes. Staff can summarize the arguments for each street width as follows: 36 Foot Wide Street Collector: 1. No additional City costs for oversizing the street width as the local street equivalent is 36 feet wide. There would be lower maintenance costs in maintaining a 36 foot road versus a 44 foot road as well. 2. The traffic volume is such that only a 2-lane facility is needed. 3. There is no need, in staff's opinion, to allow parking on this street as there is no direct lot access being allowed on Sarazin Street from the single family residential property to the east or west. 4. The right-of-way of 80 feet is sufficient to allow for future widening of this street and future turn lanes as necessary at major intersections. 44 Foot Wide Street Collector: 1. The cost for the extra width for the City is approximately$7,000.00. 2. A 44 foot street width would allow for a 2-lane facility with possible right or left turn lanes, as necessary, without future widening of the road. 3. A 44 foot street width matches the width north of St. Francis Avenue. 4. A 44 foot street width would allow for parking on each side if necessary. In review of all of the information on collector streets, and in this particular collector street width, staff feels that a 36 foot or 44 foot width would work to accommodate the traffic volumes in this area. For the 36 foot width, the street may need to be widened at certain locations to provide for turn lanes at future Valley View Road and St. Francis Avenue intersection. If the Council wishes to have maximum flexibility, with the least cost, the 44 foot street width would provide this. This street width would allow for parking on both sides, if necessary, or provide for a 3-lane facility which would have left turn lanes at all intersections. The difference in the decision from 1996 to 1999 is that the City has adopted a Transportation Plan which provides for different street width sections for different street collector classifications. This allows the possibility of a 36 foot wide street collector, with no parking; or a 44 wide street width collector, with parking on both sides; or a future 3-lane facility. Staff is in the opinion that either alternative would work based on the traffic volumes anticipated for this section of Sarzain Street. However, if Council is concerned that the traffic projections may be higher, the 44 foot wide street section provides the maximum flexibility at the lowest cost to the City. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Discuss this item and provide staff direction on the street width for Sarazin Street, south of St. Francis Avenue to Valley View Road. 2. Table for additional information. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has no particular recommendation, as either street width would work for this particular segment of Sarazin Street, south of St. Francis Avenue to Valley View Road. The policy decision for Council is whether to expend from the Capital Improvement Funds for a street oversizing on Sarazin Street at this time. This would allow maximum flexibility in determining parking or turn lane needs in the future, or to reduce the street width to 36 feet and widen the road for future turn lanes, if necessary. If Council is concerned that traffic volumes may be higher than anticipated and wants maximum flexibility for this street collector, then a 44 foot street width section is recommended. ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Adopt a motion as to the street width for Sarazin Street, south of St. Francis Avenue to Valley View Road. Bruce Loney Public Works Director BL/pmp WIDTH 12/ MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Collector Street Width for Sarazin Street Project No. 1996-1 DATE: January 31, 1996 MEETING DATE: February 6, 1996 INTRODUCTION: At the November 21, 1995 City Council meeting, the feasibility report for 17th Avenue and Sarazin Street (Project No. 1996-1) adjacent to the St. Francis Regional. Medical Center (SFRMC) was accepted by City Council. On December 5, 1995, this project was approved for plan preparation. One of the issues with the feasibility report and plan preparation was to determine the street collector width for Sarazin Street from St. Francis Avenue to 17th Avenue. City Council approved a directive to have this issue reviewed by the Subdivision Review Committee (SRC)for their input and to bring this issue back to City Council. Staff has met with the SRC and has their comments for Council consideration and decision of the street width for Sarazin Street. BACKGROUND: The SRC met on January 29, 1996 for its initial meeting on the updating the current subdivision regulations. At this meeting, collector street width was discussed with the members and in particular, discussion on Sarazin Street, from St. Francis to 17th Avenue. Attached to this memo is a memorandum sent to the SRC in regard to collector street width design standards. Sarazin Street is classified as a collector street in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The current subdivision regulations for a minor collector would be 44 feet in width with the right-of-way width of 80 feet. During the plat approval for the (SFRMC) site an 80 foot right-of-way width was required with the SFRMC dedicating half the right-of-way of Sarazin Street which is 40 feet. In the feasibility report, staff had shown a 36 foot street width for this street with parking on one side only. A resolution was provided to Council at the November 21, 1995 meeting and this previous resolution is attached for Council review. The SRC discussed at length the various issues associated with establishing collector street widths for a revised Subdivision Ordinance. The Committee after much discussion on the issue, voted and approved on a 5 to 2 vote. to use the current subdivision regulations for street collectors in which the street width would be 44 feet in width. This issue needs to be brought back to City Council in order to expedite the plan preparation and meet the project schedule of completing the roads by the SFRMC site by June 30, 1996. Sarazin Street provides the access for deliveries to the hospital and also entrance to the long term care facility which are both under construction. The SRC members did not feel that a revision to the current ordinance could be accomplished in the time period needed by staff in order to complete the plans. Attached to the memorandum are typical sections showing the 44 foot street width in relationship to the proposed 5 foot sidewalk and 8 foot bike trail within an 80 foot right- of-way. One typical section shows a 44 foot street width as a two lane with 10 foot parking lanes or safety shoulders. Another typical section shows a 44 foot street width as a three lane with two thru lanes and a common turning lane with no parking. The traffic volume for Sarazin Street is estimated to be approximately 5,200 vehicles per day in the year 2016. A two lane facility can handle this traffic with turn lanes at the major intersections. A three lane urban roadway can handle additional traffic capacity if needed in the future. Staff is seeking Council direction on this issue so they can proceed with plans on this project for spring construction. The cost difference between a 36 foot wide street and a 44 foot wide street is approximately $8,000.00 in construction dollars as estimated by staff. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Direct staff to use the existing subdivision ordinance street width for collectors on Sarazin Street. 2. Adopt a resolution which approves a variation of street width to 36 feet. 3. Table for more information. RECOMMENDATION: Staff would recommend Alternative No. 1, to use the current subdivision regulations as recommended by the SRC and thus not set a precedent on the future Subdivision Ordinance which is currently being reviewed for possible revision. ACTION REQUESTED: Direct staff to use the existing Subdivision Ordinance street width for collectors on Sarazin Street. B L/pmp SFRMC • 0— (s m > m D 71r 4 i m 0 C N r m A 7/ O MP LA Z ° r m D • m m xf CO I I N 73 Z —r1 V A—) m I - I W Do Tl /\ / A , I I i; z " I AJ / n „ � , Tl I1 Cly 1 D z i m D rn a Z Cl I I Z I m V^ I I D71 V l Z 7 1 m o r N m T G D X -. CC II m p I A —I D • I rTr o l ' m D �� r co O C N r m D '1 x 74O —1 T–T- AJ /II I I w I 0 1 Z N.) I O Z I-' m CO M I11 I -P o T T � � T-1 �l Z N __I w �, m 11D' 1 z� T m I A.1 1--11--1I T I``I < T o I I A_ _ / T ZN o Z I_ T I m D I 1-4, Z I 1 O r N < n D D x m oi I J W w II m m O D • r MEMO TO: Subdivision Review Committee FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director sJ��, SUBJECT: Collector Street Width Design Standards DATE: January 22, 1996 INTRODUCTION: At the November 21, 1995 City Council meeting, the feasibility report for 17th Avenue and Sarazin Street adjacent to the St. Francis Regional Medical Center site was discussed by the City Council. This report was approved and one of the issues with the feasibility report was the street collector width for Sarazin Street from St. Francis Avenue to 17th Avenue. The City Council approved a directive to bring this issue to the Subdivision Review Committee as soon as possible for their input and to bring the issue back to City Council. $ACKGROUND: In the current Subdivision Regulations, Chapter 12 of the Shakopee City Code under Section 12.07, Subd. 1, Streets and Alleys, a table is listed for the right-of-way and roadway width for the various roadway classifications and is labeled Attachment No. 1. Sarazin Street is classified a collector in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan for the City of Shakopee and thus the roadways widths for the current subdivision regulations would be 44 feet in width with the right-of-way width of 80 feet. Furthermore, the City's Design Criteria has street collector design widths listed as 48 feet for any collector as a minimum. In the City's Comprehensive Plan it does list collector street widths from a range of 36 feet to 50 feet. In the City's street collector system, many of those collectors are on the Municipal State Aid System, in which the City can then use its Municipal State Aid money to construct and maintain these collector streets. By using State Aid Funds to construct these roadways, these roadways must also meet State Aid Standards. Attached to this memo is the latest street widths for various street sections with parking or no parking or parking on one side only and with the various street classifications such as collector or arterials and is Attachment No. 2. In the current Subdivision Regulations, the street widths have minimum dimensions for each roadway classification. The roadway width can be greater than the minimum listed. DISCUSSION: The collector street width issue is being initially discussed with the Subdivision Review Committee in order to provide input and direction with the Sarazin Street collector street width for the construction of that improvement this spring and also to review the street collector widths for future subdivisions. Some factors that need to be taken into consideration from the last subdivision regulation change to the requirements that the City utilizes in its street design are as follows: 1. On residential property, the City does not allow direct lot access to its street collectors. This policy has been in effect for the last few years. 2. In the last few years the street widths minimum for State Aid Standards have been reduced. For the Sarazin Street design, an initial street width of 36 feet was reviewed and approved with the St. Francis Regional Medical Center preliminary plat. In the feasibility study, the street width of 36 feet again was described with no parking on the east side recommended due to the residential land use proposed in the area east of Sarazin Street. A 36 foot width street with parking on one side only would meet State Aid Standards which is a 32 feet minimum width. Attached to this memo is a memorandum from David Mitchell of Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Assoc. (OSM), with an analysis and recommendation for the street width design of Sarazin Street. The recommendation is for a two lane roadway with no parking on either side, thus the two lane collector could handle the anticipated traffic volume between 4,500 and 5,200 vehicles per day for the year 2016. He also does recommend additional width near the intersections of St. Francis Avenue and 17th Avenue be provided for the likelihood of future left turn lanes at these intersections. It should be pointed out that two lane collectors can accommodate traffic volumes up to 10,000 vehicles per day with special provisions of turning movements and minimum accesses or intersections along the roadway. In reviewing. the location of Sarazin Street to the overall Transportation Plan in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan, this roadway is connected to 17th Avenue and Valley View Road which both connect with CSAH 17 and C.R. 83. Sarazin Street would be classified as a minor collector. with 17th Avenue and Valley View Road considered as major collectors and the County roads as minor arterials which lead to major roads such as the Shakopee Bypass (TH 169). Collector streets are intended to serve traffic moving between local streets and major streets such as County or State Highway roads. No direct residential lot access is recommended onto a collector, however, commercial or industrial can have access with proper intersection spacing. Sidewalks along collectors is a requirement and is necessary to separate vehicular and pedestrian traffic movements. The specific design section for each collector will weigh heavily on the ultimate projected traffic volume and the traffic movements along the collector. For instance, a two lane roadway with no parking and limited number of intersections and turn lanes can provide up to 10,000 vehicles per day. Over 10,000 vehicles per day, a four lane facility should be utilized as this roadway would be considered a major collector. In utilizing traffic volume in determining what street design section and corresponding street width, a local transportation plan should be prepared by a transportation consultant to provide the traffic volume projections. These projections would be based upon the land uses listed in the Comprehensive Plan. Attached is a proposed street width standard chart for minor and major collectors and proposed right-of-way standards for new subdivisions as prepared by City Staff from analyzing various elements of transportation plans from other cities. This chart shows three roadway classifications in which the City could construct as part of its collector street system. These roadways are as follows: • Minor Collector • Major Collector _ • Minor Arterial Staff would like to review this proposed chart for street widths and right of way widths for future collectors in developing areas with the Committee for input and possible revisions. Staff will gather information from other cities and present this to the Committee members at the January 29, 1996 meeting. Staff would recommend to the Committee at this time the following: 1. The street widths for collectors be a minimum,the Municipal State Aid Standards. 2. A local transportation plan should be prepared to project traffic volumes and make recommendations as to the design section for each City collector in the 2010 MUSA. In lieu of a transportation plan, staff could consult with a transportation engineer on a case by case basis for a recommended designation for each City collector in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. 3. No parking on collectors as the adjacent property is to provide its own parking and there is no direct residential lot on collectors as per City Policy. Additionally, collectors are usually sno\v emergency routes and no parking facilitates the snow removal operation. 4. Sarazin Street, from 17th Avenue to St. Francis Avenue, should be a 36 foot wide street with no parking on either side. Widening of the roadway is necessary to accommodate turn lanes at major intersections and should be done at 17th Avenue. 5. The Committee should discuss the appropriate street widths for minor collector, major collector and minor arterial with or without parking for incorporation into the subdivision ordinance revision. The major purpose of this initial meeting is to provide input as to the width of Sarazin Street which would be a minor collector. Staff would like to take a recommendation from the Committee to Council for a street width approval on Sarazin Street at the February 6, 1996 Council meeting. A street width needs to be determined in order to complete the plans and move this project forward for completion this spring. If any member of the Committee has any questions or comments, please feel free to call me at Shakopee City Hall. BL/pmp COLLECT ATTACHMENT NO . 1 § 12.07 SEC. 12.07. DESIGN STANDARDS. Subd. 1. Streets and Alleys. • A. General. 1. The arrangement of thoroughfares and collector streets shall conform as nearly as possible to the Comprehensive Plan. Except for cul-de-sacs, streets normally shall connect with streets already dedicated in adjoining or adjacent subdivisions, or provide for future connections to adjoining unsubdivided tracts, or shall be a reasonable projection of streets in the nearest subdivided tracts. The arrangement of thoroughfares and collector streets shall be considered in their relation to the reasonable circulation of traffic, to topographic conditions, to runoff of stormwater, to public convenience and safety, and in their appropriate relation to the proposed uses of the area to be served. 2. Where the plat to be submitted includes only part of the tract owned or intended for development by the subdivider, a tentative plan of a proposed future street system for the unsubdivided portion shall be prepared and submitted by the subdivider at the same scale as set forth herein. . 3. When a tract is subdivided into larger than normal building lots or parcels, such lots or parcels shall be so arranged so as to permit the logical location and openings of future streets and appropriate resubdivision, with provision • for adequate utility connections for such resubdivision. B. Specific. 1. Streets. • (a) Width of Streets. (1) Two Way Streets. All two-way right-of-way widths and pavement widths (face to face of curb) shall conform to the following minimum dimensions: Classification Richt-of-Way Roadway Rural Local Street 60 Feet 28 Feet Arterials 100 Feet 68 Feet Collector Streets - Major 100 Feet 44 Feet - Minor 80 Feet 44 Feet Local Streets 60 Feet 36 Feet Marginal Access St. 50 Feet 28 Feet (2) One Way Streets. All one-way right-of-way widths and pavement widths (face to face of curb) shall conform to the following minimum dimensions: pogo nvis.d in 1995 1590 ATTACHMENT NO . 2 Tab. C (2) 5-892.210 STATE MD MANUAL March 16, 1992 8820.9935 GEOMETRIC DESIGN STANDARDS: URBAN; 30 TO 35 M.P.H. DESIGN SPEED; NEW OR RECONSTRUCTION in the following tables, total width is in feet, face-to-face of curbs. When a median is included in the design of the two-way roadway, add two feet to the dimension shown. This provides a one-foot reaction area on either side of the median. Minimum median width is four feet. TWO-WAY STREETS Wubir o' Density o Parang "::.... Park1r ParkBoth SIdesng . e Side Both Sides Lanes r r 2-Lane Collector Lou or 26' 32' 38, High (2-11-11-2) (8-11-11-2) (8-11-11-8) 4-Lane Collector Lou or 48' 54' 60' High (2-11-11-11-11-2) (8-11-11-11-11-2) (8-11-11-11-11-8) 2-Lane Arterial Low 30' 36' 42' (4-11-11-4) (4-11-11-10) (10-11-11-10) 4-Lane Arterial Low or 48' 56' 64' High (2-11-11-11-11-2) (10-11-11-11-11-2) (10-11-11-11-11-10) r- 6-Lane Arterial High 70' Uone None (2-11-11-11-11-11-11-2) ONE-WAY STREETS Thrc* Lwa Both Sides ie Side Both Sdes ............ . . . .. . 1-Lane Collector Lou or Mcne None None Nigh 2-Lane Collector Low or 26' 32' 38' High (2-11-11-2) (2-11-11-8) (8-11-11-8) 1-Lane Arterial Low None None None 2-Lane Arterial Low or 26' 34' 42' High (2-11-11-2) (2-11-11-10) (10-11-11-10) 3-Lane Arterial High 37' 45' 53' (2-11-11-11-2) (2-11-11-11-10) (10-11-11-11-10) Urban design roadways mi-st be a minimig nine-ton structural design. A new or rehabilitated bridge must have a curb-to-curb width equal to the required street width. M5-25 loading is required. Design speed is based on stopping sight distaN:e. Wherever possible, lane widths of 12 feet, rather than 11 feet, should be used. Refer to table 8820.995C fcr classification, capacity, ard peak-hour relationships. March 16, 1992 STATE AID MANUAL Tab. C (1) 5-892.210 8820.9950 URBAN ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION v+n: t+ -..t,.v::::... -�.::::S?.:..::v:?%•.:i:?.:-::%::i%::.• i•''!??i?iL?\•Yi�::•iti::-".;::JJ::•:::. .i:} ¢i}•vn..}. tnv::•••:v... .,r:::'?y?>:'n'^:'^;uv. : . . •.v{[.;. Y....:,- :.?;.ti?.C'?� t:v:te}:',v!1w :.YCI+R'1 W •�L:y,•�j•: CIYss �ton �.{. .. � {• ccte ; ••••••••• .rr.ty,v:::..-v:::.,n,.:...;....,,v.:v....................•.::.., .,,.:........................................... :•:::..5i^:`Yi-::C}:t{^.ti�::ii:}n(:i,vy?•,t'�` r:+in<;•'v ......................,................... ........C.::::, ...... :.... .. ...... t.... ,;';'-:r.....+..M'.,.eo., �,r.;..:;,.,<.•`';:::c;;: - �v`%f n. °t.^'t � YYnn33tt:Z;' � :•........,...:.::::t•::::::.• :.:....,,.,:, .:,..,..:.:F...v.•,:r;•tt-. .:...r..... .tr!.`n7:;;�.;iat':,,v.,>'ast•'t:�`?•y�i''�:'t�L::•v Collector Serves as a feeder Low to moderate 200 - 5,000 (Low Density) facility from operating speeds. ADT neighborhood and local streets to the • collector/ arterial network. Also serves as access for business and residential .. development. • • Collector Collects traffic from Moderate operating 1,000 10,000 (High Density) local and feeder speed provides access • ADT • .! streets and connects and traffic mobility. with arterials. Can serve local business districts. Arterial Serves intracccn nity Score access control 5,000 - 15,000 (Low Density) • • - travel. Augments with emphasis on ADT high-density arterial traffic mobility • system. Arterial forms backbone of Provides for through 12,000 Z up ADT (High Density) urban network. Serves traffic and turning as through facility. movements. May • provide divided roadway and access • control. *Additional average daily traffic may be allowed in a classification if a capacity analysis demonstrates that "level of service D" or better is achieved at the higher traffic volume. If the capacity analysis demonstrates that additional lanes are required only during peak traffic hours, then each additional driving lane may be used as a parking lane during nonpeak hours. Orr MEMORANDUM .�.. Schelen 300 Park Place East 612-595-5775 ' Mayeron& 5775 Wayzata Boulevard 1-800-753-5775 �•r^ =-y Associates,Inc. Minneapolis,MN 55416-1228 FAX 595-5774 TO: Bruce Loney, P.E. - City of Shakopee FROM: David D. Mitchell, PE DATE: January 19, 1996 SUBJECT: Sarazin Street, St. Francis Ave. to 17TH Avenue TRAFFIC VOLUME The projected traffic volume on this roadway is approximately 2,900 vehicles per day for the year 2001. This includes assumptions made for the development of properties adjacent to the St. Francis Medical Center site. I feel that the project 2001 traffic volumes are valid. Projecting the traffic volume, assuming reasonable growth in the area, would provide for a traffic volume between 4,500 and 5,200 vehicles per day for the year 2016. Traffic volumes in this range are easily handled with streets providing two through lanes of traffic. Typically, two lane roadways will accommodate traffic volumes in excess of 10,000 vehicles per day with special provisions for turning movements. With this in mind, it is my professional opinion that a two lane roadway for this length of Sarazin Street is adequate. STREET WIDTH There are numerous options available for the provision of a two lane roadway to accommodate the traffic volumes anticipated. The following provides some of these options. Street Width 26 ftto30ft 32 ftto36ft 38ftto46ft 4S ftto52ft Through 2 2 2 4 Lanes Parking None One Side Two Sides None Left turn Lane Not Possible Requires Easy to Requires Minor Accommodate Left/Through Widening and d Requires No Lane and No No Parking Parking Parking State Aid 26 feet 32 feet 38 feet 48 feet Standard N:\sw4.1 0\rn1 cMusc�o::�J c. Memorandum Bruce Loney, P.E. City of Shakopee January 19, 1996 Page 2 The table above provides for the opportunity to choose desired functions along the street and to determine a range of street widths that will accommodate the desired functions. The street width of 36 feet recommended in the feasibility report is sufficient for this portion of Sarazin Street. I would recommend that the width be widened to 38 feet near the intersections to accommodate the likelihood of future left turn treatments at the intersection of St. Francis Avenue and 17TH Avenue. I would also recommend that the entire length of roadway be designated "No Parking" at this time. The need for parking is not currently warranted along the roadway. Posting it"No Parking"provides additional space for reaction time that may be beneficial in a-hospital zone. "No Parking"provides an undefined bypass lane for potential left turn conflicts at the two driveway entrances on the west side of Sarazin Street. Designating the street "No Parking" also provides space for bicycle traffic and joggers that may accompany the future residential and commercial development in the area. Parking may be allowed on one side of the street in the future if it becomes warranted. I currently feel that a street width to accommodate parking on both sides of the street or four lanes of through traffic is not warranted and will not be warranted in the future. A 38 foot street width would provide for a future three lane design, but I do not feel the turning movements and the traffic volume would warrant the additional width. If you have any questions or desire additional information, please call me at 595-5699. DDM:ce }I:\Jdi+.l 0\C r.1 L\N ISC\0l l aaB L /5-.6. 2-. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CONSENT TO: Mayor& City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Rahr Malting Company Proposal to Discharge Biosolids Into the City's Sanitary Sewer System DATE: June 1, 1999 INTRODUCTION: Attached is a letter from Rahr Malting Company requesting the City to consider allowing Rahr to discharge biosolids and treated water to the City's sanitary sewer system. Also attached is an extension agreement, with WSB & Associates, Inc., to review this proposal on behalf of the City. BACKGROUND: Rahr Malting Company is constructing a wastewater treatment plant to manage its wastewater, versus utilizing the MCES Blue Lake Treatment Plant. The water being treated is the wastewater from the malting operation and not any domestic sewage. Rahr's proposal is for sludge management of the wastewater by using the City's sanitary sewer system versus trucks hauling. Staff has met with Rahr officials and is open to this proposal depending on a review and analysis of this proposal by a City engineering consultant with expertise in this area. WSB & Associates, Inc. has personnel who can address this proposal and their extension agreement is to review at a cost not-to-exceed $2,000.00. Rahr Malting Company has indicated they will reimburse the City for the consultant's cost of this to review their request. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Authorize the appropriate City officials to execute an extension agreement, with WSB & Associates, Inc., to consider Rahr Malting's proposal to discharge biosolids into the City's sanitary sewer system. 2. Direct staff to invoice Rahr Malting Company for cost of this extension agreement. 3. Table for additional information. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 and No. 2, so that this proposal can be analyzed and the cost of this proposal to be paid by Rahr Malting. Staff believes this proposal warrants consideration, as allowing use of the sanitary sewer system, if acceptable, will reduce the number of trucks in this area. ACTION REOUESTED: 1. Authorize the appropriate City officials to execute an extension agreement, with WSB & Associates, Inc., to consider Rahr Malting's proposal to discharge biosolids into the City's sanitary sewer system. 2. Direct staff to invoice Rahr Malting Company for cost of this extension agreement. Ale J611 Bruce Loney Public Works Director BL/pmp RAHR RAHR MALTING CO. SINCE 1847 800 WEST FIRST AVENUE,SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA 55379, PHONE 612/445-1431 May 24, 1999 Mr. Bruce Loney City Engineer City of Shakopee 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Bruce, Rahr Malting Co. requests that the city consider allowing us to discharge our bio-solids and water to the south force main rather than the north route. We understand your concern about the settling of the bio-solids and would propose the following framework. Our sludge discharge will be a maximum of 2% after treatment and approximately 100,000 gallons per day of flow. We have the ability of flushing treated effluent water with our sludge to assist the flow. This flow originates at the wastewater treatment plant and would then be pumped to the south. This would be at a 300-400 gallons per minute flow. We are making this request to allow us the time to further develop a sludge management plan that is both friendly to the community and economical to Rahr. Although this request is only a short term strategy, it could lead to a longer term opportunity if the situation is conducive for all parties (Metro, Shakopee and Rahr). Rahr is hesitant to begin a trucking regime to remove sludge from the plant due to the potential impact of increased truck traffic. At 1% solids the number of trucks required to haul sludge would be upwards of 10 per day. We are developing other environmentally friendly alternatives but they will not be implemented for several months. The piping cost to move the sludge to the north flow is $55,000 and essentially is a more complex movement. By the city's permission to allow us to discharge the 1% solids to the south flow, Rahr would save the expense of the $55,000 and we can continue to develop a more manageable process in due time. MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA•SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA Mr. Bruce Loney May 24, 1999 Page 2 We ask you to allow us to fund your engineering consultant's fee (up to $2,000)to review our request. Our plant is open to you and your people at any time for a walk- through or inspection. Our staff will always be available to answer any of your questions or concerns. The MCES has established a maximum of 2% solids for handling sludge in the sewer and have discouraged the trucking of anything less than that 2%. As always, we thank you for your consideration of this request and hope that we can move forward quickly. Should you need additional information or drawings,please let us know. As you, we want to be absolutely positive that this will not cause problems to the system. Sincerely, RAHR MALTING CO. - 247(,ciAA-1-47-11- Robert S. Micheletti Vice-President Operations A 350 Westwood Lake Office B.A.Mittelsteadt,P.E.Bret A.Weiss,P.E. by 8441 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 55426 Peter R.Willenbring,P.E. Donald W.Sterna,P.E. Ronald B.Bray,P.E. AMMEMEW 612-541-4800 &Associates,Inc. FAX 541-1700 May 18, 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 Engineering Services for Rahr Malting Company Proposal to Discharge Biosolids into the City of Shakopee's Sanitary Sewer System WSB Project No.1014.00 Dear Mr. Loney: According to our Agreement for Professional Services within the City of Shakopee and Section I-C-2 (Major Projects), this extension agreement is written to provide you with a method to reimburse engineering services for the above-referenced project. We have reviewed the information provided to us related to the above-referenced project and would offer the following proposal. We propose to complete the project on a cost-reimbursable basis with an estimated cost of$2,000. The tasks we would envision completing include the following: • Meet with City and discuss the issues related to the proposal including a site visit to the plant. • Review the Shakopee sanitary sewer system to consider the south versus north route. • Contact MCES to determine any possible concerns and along with the anticipated impact on Shakopee services. • Prepare summary report and recommendations with two exhibits. We are anticipating a fairly straightforward hydraulic review with minimal meetings. We would proposed to have all work coordinated through Chuck Janski of our office reporting directly to the City. If additional meetings are requested or further analysis anticipated,our fee would be adjusted according to our current fee schedule. We are available to begin work on this project at your convenience and anticipate completion within two weeks of your authorization. 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. Infrastructure Engineers Planners F:\W P W IN\1014.00\051999-b I.wp d EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Thanks for the opportunity. Sincerely, WSB&Associates,Inc. e-Stifik Bret A. Weiss, P.E. Vice President City Administrator nm/jw City Clerk Mayor Date F:\W P W IN\1014 00\051999-61 wpd /5 ' i • � . CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor& City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Traffic Control Signage Authorization at Thomas Avenue/Atwood Street/Hennes Avenue DATE: June 1, 1999 INTRODUCTION: This item is for Council consideration and authorization to install stop signs on Atwood Street and Hennes Avenue at the intersection of Thomas Avenue/Atwood Street/Hennes Avenue. BACKGROUND: A petition has been received by staff for all way stop sign installation at the intersection of Thomas Avenue and Atwood Street and Hennes Avenue in the Meadows North Subdivision. Staff has completed an intersection study for this request and attached is the report and recommendation. Also, included for Council information are letters from Ms. Peggy Philipp with the petition on this intersection study. The study has concluded based on the criteria contained in the recently adopted "Signing Study"that stop signs be placed on Hennes Avenue and Atwood Street. Thomas Avenue was determined to be the major street and based on the number of accidents occurring at this intersection, the stop signs on the minor street is recommended. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Direct staff to install stop signs at Hennes Avenue and Atwood Street at the intersection of Thomas Avenue and Atwood Street and Hennes Avenue. 2. Direct staff to leave the traffic signs as is. 3. Table for additional information. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, as stop signs are recommended based on the attached study. ACTION REQUESTED: Direct staff to install stop signs at Hermes Avenue and Atwood Street at the intersection of Thomas Avenue and Atwood Street and Hermes Avenue. 3t114 Bruce Loney Public Works Director BL/pmp TRAFFIC DATE: May 17, 1999 TO: Bruce Loney FROM: Ryan Halverson r.; s SUBJECT: Hennes Avenue, Thomas Avenue, and Atwood Street Stop Sign Study Per request and petition of an all-way stop sign installation, a stop sign warrant study was conducted at the intersection of Hennes Avenue,Atwood Street, and Thomas Avenue. A 48-hour traffic count was taken and Thomas Avenue was found to be the major street. The major street fails to meet the all-way stop sign volume requirement,but does meet the requirements for a two-way stop sign. This intersection also shows an accident history that may be correctable with installation of stop signs. Two (2) accident reports and four(4) insurance accident claims have been reported, as provided by the Shakopee Police Department and Ms. Peggy Philipp. This intersection fails to meet the requirement for pedestrian volume during peak traffic hours. The intersection does not have high speed or a restricted view. The speed limit of local streets is 30 miles per hour, so high speed is not a factor. The sight distance at the intersection meets the city code. According to the requirements in the Shakopee Signing Manual (Section II, Page 7), the intersection of Hennes Avenue, Thomas Avenue, and Atwood Street requires stop signs along the minor street. Therefore, stop signs should be placed on Hermes Avenue and Atwood Street at the above named intersection. Please see the attachments for more details. Attached,please find: 1.) 2-Way and 4-Way Stop Sign Requirements 2.) 48 Hour Intersection Volume Count 3.) Daily Traffic Volume Report 4.) Traffic Accident Reports and Insurance Accident Claims 5.) Photographs of Intersection conducted to determine if a two-way or four-way stop sign controlled intersection should be installed. The procedures are as follows: ii Two-Way Stop Sign Controlled Intersections: 1.=—* +nc�+C(ATts 1. If the major street traffic volume is more than 1000 vehicles reper bre., per day and the minor street traffic volume is less than 50%of V the major street traffic volume. M�� gccorG�'‘rte., }0 2. There has been more than two reported accidents, per year in S4 `' II the previous two years or, three reported accidents in the S 5 L C cxr\T od previous year of a type correctable with stop sign installation. I 3. The pedestrian volumes across the minor approach(that which would be stopping) is more than 15 pedestrians per hour during the A.M. and P.M. peak traffic hours. 4. If the safe stopping sight distance of the minor approach is restricted by less than 300 feet by horizontal and/or vertical roadway alignment or by other permanent obstructions. If two of the four conditions are met, this intersection would be a candidate for two- way stop sign control. All-Way Stop Sign Control: 1. If the major street traffic volume is more than 1500 vehicles per day and the minor street traffic volume is greater than 750 vehicles per day. 2. There has been more than two reported accidents, per year in the previous two years or, three reported accidents in the previous year of a type correctable with stop sign installation. 3. If the pedestrian volumes crossing any approach is more than 15 pedestrians per hour during the A.M. and P.M. peak traffic hours. 4. If the safe stopping sight distance on the uncontrolled approach is restricted by less than 300 feet by horizontal and/or vertical roadway alignment or other permanent obstructions. 5. If the 85th percentile speed in the intersection is greater than 35mph and the highest reported speed with two or more observations is greater than 45mph. If three of the five conditions outlined above apply,this intersection is a candidate for all-way stop sign control. Shakopee Signing WSB Project No. 1014.26 Section 11 Page 7 If the intersection meets the requirements,as outlined above,for either a two-way or all-way stop sign control, the intersection is considered a candidate for stop sign control. Based on this analysis and further review by city staff, a recommendation will be made to City Council to either install or not to install the stop sign control. If the intersection does not meet these requirements no further study would be completed without direction from city council. A letter to the resident requesting the information,outlining the findings will be sent by the Public Works Director. This letter will include the City's policies for appeal of the engineers decision. Shakopee Signing WSB Project No. 1014.26 Section I/ Page 8 City of Shakopee - Traffic Study SHAKOPEE Hennes Avenue - Thomas Avenue - Atwood Street 48 Hour Intersection Volume Count COMMUNED(I" i E SINCE 1857 Atwood Street Hennes Avenue Thomas Street Thomas Street (West Side) (East Side) Time Volume Time Volume Time Volume Time Volume 12:00 17 12:00 0 12:00 37 12:00 49 13:00 33 13:00 0 13:00 16 13:00 83 14:00 44 14:00 10 14:00 67 14:00 107 15:00 57 15:00 46 15:00 131 15:00 171 16:00 76 16:00 54 16:00 123 16:00 191 17:00 58 17:00 40 17:00 150 17:00 201 18:00 55 18:00 54 18:00 87 18:00 144 19:00 16 19:00 23 19:00 75 19:00 120 20:00 16 20:00 17 20:00 72 20:00 86 21:00 16 21:00 17 21:00 48 21:00 50 22:00 3 22:00 1 22:00 8 22:00 14 23:00 1 23:00 1 23:00 6 23:00 5 0:00 3 0:00 2 0:00 2 0:00 8 1:00 0 1:00 0 1:00 2 1:00 1 2:00 0 2:00 0 2:00 2 2:00 2 3:00 0 3:00 2 3:00 0 3:00 5 4:00 9 4:00 8 4:00 15 4:00 15 5:00 47 5:00 35 5:00 46 5:00 51 6:00 67 6:00 67 6:00 93 6:00 125 7:00 22 7:00 26 7:00 67 7:00 80 8:00 19 8:00 23 8:00 59 8:00 57 9:00 22 9:00 24 9:00 48 9:00 57 10:00 20 10:00 22 10:00 57 10:00 66 11:00 22 11:00 31 11:00 89 11:00 74 12:00 31 12:00 32 12:00 53 12:00 59 13:00 35 13:00 42 13:00 56 13:00 95 14:00 33 14:00 39 14:00 81 14:00 107 15:00 66 15:00 50 15:00 133 15:00 169 16:00 56 16:00 45 16:00 146 16:00 212 17:00 56 17:00 40 17:00 120 17:00 171 18:00 38 18:00 38 18:00 126 18:00 156 19:00 33 19:00 29 19:00 98 19:00 116 20:00 18 20:00 20 20:00 41 20:00 77 21:00 2 21:00 2 21:00 14 21:00 14 22:00 6 22:00 4 22:00 3 22:00 9 23:00 0 23:00 0 23:00 2 23:00 2 0:00 2 0:00 2 0:00 4 0:00 6 1:00 1 1:00 1 1:00 0 1:00 0 2:00 2 2:00 1 2:00 3 2:00 4 3:00 1 3:00 1 3:00 0 3:00 0 4:00 19 4:00 8 4:00 17 4:00 29 5:00 44 5:00 30 5:00 52 5:00 53 6:00 61 6:00 44 6:00 84 6:00 116 7:00 18 7:00 32 7:00 124 7:00 96 8:00 22 8:00 21 8:00 47 8:00 53 9:00 26 9:00 30 9:00 60 9:00 72 10:00 25 10:00 25 10:00 43 10:00 55 11:00 14 11:00 20 11:00 51 11:00 37 Total Volume: 48-Hour: 1232 1059 2658 3470 24-Hour: 616 530 1329 1735 Plaik CITY OF SHAKOPEE DATE PREPARED: SHAKOPEE Daily Traffic Volume Report 04-26-99 CCUMUNCLYMESICE11857 NORTH cn 0 1329 HENNES AVE ATWOOD STREET —`111111 —{ 530 I-11111► ---011111 -I 616 1735 Total Daily Volume Entering Intersection: 4210 Atwood Street — 14.6% Hennes Avenue — 12.6% Thomas Avenue (west) — 31 .6% Thomas Avenue (east) — 41.2% INTERSECTION HENNES AVE. — THOMAS AVE. — ATWOOD ST. FROM 4-12-99 TO 4-14-99 SOURCE Traffic Counts PS-32003-06(1-91) 61/Al t UI- MINNtSU IIA —DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY Tl LOCAL CASE NO TRAFFIC ACCIDENT REPORT 33 • 98/0003V (FOR POLICE USE ONLY AS REQUIRED BY STATUTE) PAGE 1 OF 1 N HIT-AND-RUN PUB PROP VEHICLES KILLED INJURED $MIN MONTH DATE YEAR DAY TIME C ❑ATTENDED ` - ^YGI'M CD ❑UNATTENDED %' p 6 6 9,i , D 9 ' F C ‘ -'"' M ROUTE SYSTEM RO TE a UMBER OR STREET NAME O AT Z ^ \ C` INTERSECTION ON 4 v.,..N oa JT• W OR 0Fr 0S 0w of COUNTY NO INT ELEM REFERENCE POINT CRY ROUTE SYS ROUTE 0,STREET,CORP UMR,REF POINT OR FEATURE '1 L all TWP • 1 i 0 a -S & e '.,•e.: ,. K"i..'''. 1, ' N . x.,es.`; .' :3:: . s , ,,` .?Iva. ;Ii i "',,• ■ < - u . * FACTOR I DRIVER LICENSE NUMBER-1 STATE CLASS DRIVER LICENSE NUMBER-2 STATE CLASS FACTOR 1 0 L e2Cf-3 a y-, -i 3-1, 1 13 0 Mtn i . 6 0 Ll 'I a g 3 $c'v S t / f FACTOR 2 NAME(FIRST,MIDDLE.LAST) RSTRCTNS WTHDRWN NAME(FIRST,MIDDLE,LAST) RSTRCTNS WTHDPNN FACTOR 2 © C. COMPLIED \ \ • COMPLIED C DA F BIRTH ,IK/ DDRESSESS o. (v\�.c.e_ Mc,G-ccs h N c.._MNUVER ADDRESS ADA OF BIRTH MNUVER 1 1 a cp PA ,_A._ A., L0L4,SL- 4 Iso, Izo 1`18x5 EntIt.e.0-Vr k,,\.,.,'1311 a.I a 1-i6 f PHYSCL CITY,STATE.ZIP CITY.STATE,ZIP PHrL 1 -)1SV \c. o tJ 3-5-3 1 ei 4 5 a RCOMND ADDRESS SEX EJECT RS WICOD TO HOSP TRANSPORT ADORE X EJECT RSTRNT INJCOD •SP TRANSPORT D C C j F '4 ci Ni ti ❑OTS AmeuuNcE�4��9,1 T 9, I ® 7� o OTHER 3 -z• 3VEHTYP OWN NAME / OAME VEHTYP 1 ADD4C-t)AZic\ \�.�eLL..�GX t L3LQ ((((``` 7 L[X T W 9\y FIRE �C`�I+WT\]I•-� OCCUP ADDRESS yA4� OCCUP FIRE oP Cat(o .J.c`L L_J\J`Q i TOW CRY,STATE,ZIP PUNG DIRECT CITY,STATE,ZIP ri15112MG DI - TOWIIT V--,,ts�_ 5-531 c1 3 r�) DM OC KE MODEL YEAR COLOR SEQUENCE OF EVENTS E MODEL YEAR COLOR SEQUENCE OF EVENTS DMGLOC 1 11 P S G 924 f I I I (N.1,- �•�C• 9a G-1-c, 1 1 I I I I DM4a. c . EV PLATE f STATE Y INSURANCE M �� PLATEL INSURANCE IINJURE4 ESSESUNIT •.STN AGE SEX EJECT RSTRNT INJCOD TO HOSP TRANSPORT A 0 AMBULANCE l -c_c.off (\-0,4.. S?a' ".1°I/S3 a 3 {M Li 9e1 ( 1 b?) Do„ER 0 AMBULANCE 9 DOS 0 AMBULANCE 7 DOTER 0 AMBULANCE DOWER 1 ACCTYP r OWNER OF OTHER DAMAGED PROPERTY AND/OR YELLOW TAG NUMBERS) Amsomosmo AMBULANCE SERVICES)AND/OR STATE AMBULANCE RUN NUMBER(S) FXDOBJ f ■■ur,7� , n ■ DESCRIPTION.CHARGES PENDING,AND OR CITATIONS ISSUED DEVICE 0 , .__INIIIIIIIIII___4 am■■ LLMN e-c iv l iQ t T( s.n or D uuuu■ w71 u■dJ�ii■■■iwf■■ IBIRII E ` I ■m■■u A� ■t;■■ . �� ► _ t� �.` WORKING 1 LOCATN I ' 1 1 I 1 I �;mg111 I 1 I -h 1„ C�p er, (� I ) ! I _ 1 1 1 r 1 SPEED 1 1 1 1 I III I , UN ITi , f I . I I I I ;J� I RD^ I WORK ! ` 1 I ' I , I y ( I- , 1 I I ! � I � / ( ( I MREL 11 . " 4) 1 !!t 11 � I I ! I Z I i , , i i � Ilir _ WE(ATHH)ER RDESGN A 1H._iHT . I _ I 1 ` 1 I I I l } J I 1 ? � , I AKEQB --Lt , 1 •■■■■Uuuu■w.■■u i�N■ ■i■■ ■■■■r�u■■u■� ■■■■ ■■■u�► - ■■■■■■■�u�TI�■■RMI�■■lu■■ - LIGHT RRDSURF _1--{ • ■■■■■■rA■u�IMU■■ ____ ■ I II1 iDIAGRMAIIIII I : ♦.. .,. I OFFICERPRANK,NAME,BADGE 0,AND AGENCY Q� � � (�/� �'^\ � ,� Q PATROL ��` L) y+�. T I '1.X 1 V ' _ .1 0 0 �. 0 SHERIFF Q OTHER UNIT MOTOR CARRIER \ 111 �� / Hag HAZ MAIL CLAS /ID MATT CLASS/ID MATL CLASS/ID BOY TVP ? ? I I ADDRESS MOTOR CARRIER ID MC AXLES AXLES TRAB.ER SOURCE DOWN UP HITCH CITY.STATE.ZIP ICR r INSPECTOR r GVWR wcwo-U/ ..,... ... .......vim.., v.I vu nI I I IVILIV I 'Jr f UDLIL 0/11-C I T T ° D TRAFFIC ACCIDENT REPORT ii a /� 0 /�� (FOR POLICE USE ONLY AS REQUIRED BY STATUTE) PAGE / OF ai II-AN -RUN PUBNP VEHIC KILLED INJURED EMTIME r1"„ 0)0 ATTENDED , ^= ON D / � n0 0 PM M UNATTENDED 'MUTE SYSTEM ROUTE NUMBEO TREET E wm,ATCT OR 0 MI 0 N CIE Z in OFT OS OW :OUNTV_NO Q i 0 �r INT ELEM REFERENCE POINT ROUTE SYS ROUTE#,STREET,CORP\fT,REF POINT OR FEATURE wp CU/�S UNIT 2 ila DRIVER r�j� VEHICLE 0 PEDESTRIAN 0 BICYCLE r Al.)I DRIVER A NSE NUMBER-t' / 8,3 7 J�7 STATE I`� NASAL/R[/4( NUMBER 7'ii .5"�7 /33 4(� STATE)M) 0 18 'ACTOR A ix( Yo yt �,1 k L { 1,1 l a b t /Q V\Z. (& TEMEf� WTH HVQ1 • \C,4A, l 11+, ! ' `A, V C.k C I�.0 /ST,MIDDLE,LAST) RSTRCTNS COM7JED WTHDFiNM FACTOR iti2 OF MNUVE MNUVER 3 l �V"� .rt 1 vi\ Vi / /J �U IBI�`It'l 'n. i ADDRESS W "'�L`�'\'„__ 1( SL • DAj / / R 1 1 L I��I� PHYSCL CITY,STATE,ZIP CITY,STATE,ZIP PIiYSCL i C(4v�Q1 crK(. 41 k) s(io17 a 11a,k.o ,ick ✓7/) �537Q / RCOMND ADDRESS SEX EJECT RSTRNT INJCOD TO HOSP TRANSPORT ADDRESS SE EJE RSTRNT NJCOO TO HOSP TRANSPORT RCOMND D CO @ SCT .N] O AMBULANCE CT 3 O AMBULANCE f� N ''( ❑OVER OODER 0 VEHTYP OWNER NAME OWNER NAME VEHTYP E1 S / " � I 1 7 3 ��I 7 ADDRESS ( OCCUP FIRE FITOW1‘..) CfTVtST rq ‘to.4. JC it) /_ / N s 1 DIRECT CITY,STATE,TIP + 6 yq IV DIRECT TOWni O'� DM`I V 4 JI^t V` 'i !U V• SE N I OF EVENTS I MIr MOT)/ v 1 ! 9 I� /SEQUENCE I I I / f DM9 EV F'LATfis^ '/ IS ! SIgTE/I YEAR INS �(�.0 r K. , ,4 V!0 ,'rIV 99 �[ re-0,4( )n Sf 3 INJURED PASSE✓NNGjGE/RRSS/WITNESSSES y`7 UNIT POSTN AGE SEX EJECT RSTRNT�AUCOD TO HOSP TRANSPORT O AABIAANCE D OTHER O MBIAANCE o OMER 0 MBU.ANCE O OTHER O MBULANCE 0 OTHER ACCTYP OWNER OF OTHER DAMAGED PROPERTY AND/OR YELLOW TAG NUMBER(S) AMBULANCE SERVICE(S)AND/OR SURE AMBULANCE RUN NUMBER(S) ,X0 DESCRIPTION,CHARGES PENDING,AND OR CITATIONS ISSUED DEVICE DNIO(TTH D BPo�o��E W V'Y` 7�' eh T va t I X W"4 1, l`I WORKWG �R EN k1l.2.C.Z kwL 0 ✓ , a S 7r-�"� 0 ' II \ SPEED ROVYOPoC \` 1A9UA S 1- r IAL cL- b \Lek IL( 30 YcW.,Q[i vCE I00r Yi 4( alv eC,iL, i211i1n U e v�-i"� / �(y�k� WE�HEI' RDESGN 1 it -..s\ re- ,' s rt,t,i,L. v L.4 v Aka a_ PTIT HD.VFw L. LIGFIT 7 T NAME, O�{IG'R \D�� "-r•T•A �1 /2 V'VC 1� 8 t7�,l�l�,�J��(� T `9 1 C� 0 SHERIFF 0 OTHER �%�.AiL K n UC ❑STATE PATROL �OG AL NIT MOTOR CARRIER HAZ HAZ MATY-CLASS/ID MATL CLASS/ID MAIL CLASS/ID BOY TYP AMT PLAC ADDRESS MOTOR CARRIER ID MC AXLES AXLES TRAILER SOURCE DOWN UP HITCH :ITV.STATE,ZIP ICR• -INSPECTOR• GVWR irzb79' !.. , .,... . . . . lanai - '1 1 O7/4/ O PM t --t-- erru. 4 0-k._ - ' a, INTERSECTION i • S.STREET.L.I.~ 1.mer rUNI um reAlufr ---t ivdoc\ S f .(zit tO [Ilex rn Wao. e k — c��L Yxa y S e.- Air 3 cc 0k s.6r;ni kY( 3�C !95 °=cc� ! a gkwn st• rTTh(ct& a10 b'4017ToHDSP SfJt&kopQcQ_/M) 37Q- .ICDo .....air_... - ..... .. _. - - um. rW... rem au—incur--MI.., RAsA! ..,.K.., .Iowsetr a MaUAml OODER O ABU AN O ODEA • • 0 M..N. 0 ODER O PYILLW 00110 .�.. _.. - AMBIAAHCE SERVICE(S)AND/OR SORE AMBULANCE RUN MIMBERIS) DESCRIPTION.CHARGES PENDING.AND OR CIW)ONS ISSUED (,141. a) 4Y.C4C (I J cc v-l/ kir-2c4.1wL 0 it_ A,011446 f4 1A -! ' c,'Lk& 6 kkek IL(/ `frau Q,(ivu / )c v iidk/Y Ctgr.2CXI - tvL ( il 1 -ham L_ sP s ,,; k..t v,1-1\14,a_ ——_ — l --_ --iem D?,,r ' 4 Ch,lLv.�,- 8 .V-1.010 t& 14 c O STATE PATROL �LOCJL 0 skeaFF pD„ER .. AT IITERSECBON WITH 7 al 0 e• S winat, warn 1 a Ca Co ��.l•ii_A- Lc rim 184 41: _ . � C i OME.DP --v C1 Zi -5-314 .� '1p NOBP r � '""C0O 'RAf°I'0RT {� o ODER ,��Q o MAR ., p� aweuN ^, "c_o `r tx•-t\¢ X f 'Llc OJ A4 11 amk£re "� a Mew v 7 amat a Moro 0ODER a Mew ----- AMBULANCE SERVICE(S)AND/OR STATE AMBULANCE RUN NUMBERS) DESCRIPTION,CHARGES PENOWO.MA OR CIUTIONgS a (t/Y\C C?•`A 1C./%0 Sit t PF%N. cam o--V:3r\v\ 1 NAME.BAooe PATROL.. - • P. 0 0 OTHER • STAfl IAM BRAD BILLINGS, Agent Lic. #20004998 Auto - Life - Health - Home and Business INIuIANCt 421 1st Avenue E. Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Phone: Off. (612) 445-3362 Fax: (612) 445-4556 1 14 Ear1 4rorxL._ L DOL CLAIM NO. DRIVER OR POLICY COVERAGES OR CAUSE A11T PD A 01/11/1998 23-7899-596 HEDSTROM, EARL G 340 C VEH 1 HEADING WEST ON Al"WOOD #2 GOING NORTH ON THOMAS #2 . VEHICL ES COLLIDED -- I. - /- w- - -- ---- - -- ----.. .-..-- ---- -'-- .r meq, IY iY AGENT/DISTRICT: 013 070 POLICY #: 07-424997-02 PAGE: 1 INCURRED DATE: 09-25-1998 CLAIM #: 00-241-173223 ENTERED: 10-08-1998 * * * L O S S- REPORT * * * ** NAMED INSURE'S** ID: 00 NAME: MERTZ, DONALD AND MARY AN PHONE (H) : 612 445-4828 ADDRESS: 670 HENNES AVE (W) : 612 445-3735 CITY/STATE/ZIP: SHAKOPEE MN 55379 VEHICLE LOC: RESIDENCE DAMAGE EST: YR: 1997 MAKE: TOYT MODEL: UCC MILEAGE: VIN: 1N4BA02E2VZ527144 LICENSE: COLOR: DRIVE IN APPOINTMENT: ** DRIVER OF INSURED VEHICLE ** ID: 01 NAME: JANUARY MERTZ PHONE (H) : 612 445-4828 ADDRESS: 670 HENNES AVE (W) : — CITY/STATE/ZIP: SHAKOPEE MN 55379 INJURY: NONE AGE: RELATION TO INSURED: DAUGHTER CITATION: NO DESCR: ** CLAIMANT OWNER OR PEDESTRIAN **` ID: 02 NAME: FOX, NICOLE PHONE (H) : 612 403-0113 ADDRESS: 403 THOMAS AVE (W) : 612 403-0113 CITY/STATE/ZIP: SHAKOPEE MN 55379 VEHICLE LOC: RESIDENCE DAMAGE EST: YR: 0093 MAKE: FORD MODEL: RNG VIN: LICENSE: COLOR: DRIVE IN APPOINTMENT: OWNER INS CO: AMERICAN FAMILY :a,a'; V—"14-140 : ! t •136 TIME REPORTED 'i'O AUEN'1': 10:00 AM P• " OF LOSS: 25/1998 HOUR OF LOSS: 08 LOSS LOCATION: HENNES AND ATWOOD STREET SHAKOPEE STIGATING POLICE DEPARTMENT: N• LOSS EX:PLANAT1ON JAN MERTZ WAS MAKING A TURN GOING AROUND THE FRONT OF FOX'S TRUCK AND AS SH E WAS COMPLETING HER TURN SHE CLIPPED THE BACK END OF THE TRUCK. THERE IS VERY LITTLE DAMAGE TO FOX'S RANGER BUT MERTZ'S CAR GOT ACOUPLE OF DENTS THE Y ARE GETTING AN ESITMATE ONE SO FAR IS 1400. PLEASE CALL THEM AND THANK YO U. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ****** NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS WERE GIVEN ****** * * * END OF LOSS REPORT * * * • T 123 - d t : s i 21d E. -- -- dd * .. �. _-� f 0 vWi . ,-- , � ' ill . -- Ncf, _ ci_ ,_„,„ .„ s I S ....., LI i,Hr-7 '• ICD NN / �- W ,- 1 _i_ 0 3 . /4.4j- S\ _ . E-1 T €1 .1 „., > )v ..,7) o'er ._ A 0O im_i_ 0... ( 0 ;N I k is ' , N rn _,1 , iL, , , , --,_„) c._, , , ,,, , , _ S .„,,, ,,,,,,„_„, v )\„ V i'v\ , .tt ., , _.,,,_ 1 , 1,-,_ 11 1,..„ E: wA _ 3 1 Z. --�. 1 1_1 s , 1 -I - ' . 1 :II I, CH 1I , ± Za E FILE NAME:Q:\TRAFFIC SIGN99\FEASIBILITY\THOMAS ATWOOD HENNES.DWG at.7tr3 CJ , F'...� 7 �aed3 g {. fxA �-i yV 3 March 31 , 1999 Dear Mr . Loney , As per our telephone conversations , here is the Stop Sign Installation Request and the petition that I promised you. I have also included the original information that you sent to me because I made some notes on the documents help explain the situation. These notes are in red ink. I have also added a fifth point under "Traffic Conditions" on the first page (page 3) of the stop sign policy. Please note that only one condition out of all 3 areas is not considered to be a problem. Also , please note the following : * Traffic heading east on Hennes cannot see around the house on the northwest corner of the intersection until you are almost in the intersection. * Much concern was expressed to me about small children at play and the speed of the traffic in the area . * Removing the stop signs on Tenth at Apgar will contribute to more traffic through the neighborhood because they will not have to stop before they turn like they do at Fuller . More people will begin to use Apgar as a through street to the Community Center instead of Fuller . * Most of the problem traffic is due to teens and parents cutting through the neighborhood on Apgar , Stott . and . Atwood to go to and from the Community Center . These are the people who are not watchingfor cross traffic and assuming that they automatically have the right-of-way . * Those that live in the area should not have to avoid this inter- section for safety . We should be able to move about in our own neighborhood without the threat of injury to person or property . * Parked cars in from of the homes at this intersection contribute to poor visibility. I contacted the Shakopee Police Department to inquire as to why the traffic report (accidents) that you requested has not materialized yet . They do not know and suggest that you contact them again. I will seek a copy on my own for myself . Please contact me as soon as you begin your study of this intersection and keep me updated on the progress . Thank you . �� . / SiHFAIKO PEE INTERSECTION LOCATION: Atwood Street , Hennes Avenue , Thomas Avenue EXISTING TRAFFIC CONTROL: None DATE: 3/31/99 TYPE OF TRAFFIC CONTROL REQUESTED: ALL WAY or TWO WAY REASON FOR THE REQUEST: many accidents ; too many near misses; new housing with small children; poor visibility due to placement of houses , cars parked in the --'� PETITION ATTACHED: 41110NO The petition must be signed by 80%of the households within a 400 foot raduis of the intersection. INSTALLATION REQUESTED BY- NAME Peggy Philipp ADDRESS 631 Hennes Avenue PHONE 496-3104 SIGNED: �. RECEIVED ENGINEERING : BY: SHAKO PEE , „f caKs Std ,•:{t a9Y °a �0 1 na, , �� ayr�- j a 'adtJa� `a Additional Information on Hennes/Atwood/Thomas Intersection * The home on the southwest corner of this intersection has recently planted a row of bushes along the east side of the yard on the Thomas Avenue side . As these bushes grow and fill out , they will become a visibility problem by decreasing the view of traffic approaching from the south and the west. * The home on the northeast corner of this intersection rests on a hill and you cannot see the oncoming traffic at the inter- section until you are just 2-3 car lengths away, no matter which direction you are approaching from. * Accident reports are attached for 4 of the 5 accidents that I have been made aware of . The 5th will be available within about a week and I will bring it in as soon I receive it. Thank you . Peggy Philipp 5/3/99 E - SHAKOPEE 5/10/99 * We are having problems obtaining the 5th accident report. The party has changed insurance companies since then and the former is not inclined to cooperate in the matter. We are still trying and will get a copy to you as soon as possible. * One last point regarding the intersection, I continue to stop when I reach it, but as soon as the traffic approaching from the north/south happens upon it, the drivers assume that they have the right of way because I am stopped and they just continue on, not paying any attention to the driving rules when it comes to uncontrolled intersections. As a resident of the area, I am sure that I can speak for all of us when I say that we should not be the only ones that should have to stop here. This should be a 4-way stop. The point here is to make the intersection safe for all with equal responsibility on the part of all drivers. The point is NOT whether or not there is a stop sign just a short distance from the intersection that would require southbound traffic to stop again (at the intersection with Fuller Street.) The question is NOT whether two stop signs placed that closely together makes sense. Each intersection should be studied individually for traffic control devices and signed appropriately based in its needs, regardless of what type of traffic control appears at the next intersection. Making this a 2-way stop or leaving it uncontrolled (this would include yield signs and slow signs because no one pays any attention to them) because there is already a stop sign at the intersection with Fuller would be a gross error in judgement on the part of the city. Sometimes common sense has to override going by the book. This is one of those times. /1/71a-174.1e . .! ,of 4r AI Peggy Philipp 15 A CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum coNSEN TO: Mayor& City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Consider Receiving a Report and Calling for a Public Hearing for the 1999 Street Overlay and Alley Reconstruction, Project No. 1999-6 DATE: June 1, 1999 INTRODUCTION: Attached is Resolution No. 5157, a resolution receiving a report and calling a hearing on improvements to 11th Avenue, from County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 17 to Merrifield Street and Block 6 Alley Reconstruction. BACKGROUND: On May 18, 1999, Resolution No. 5153 was adopted and ordered the preparation of a feasibility report for 11th Avenue, from CSAH 17 to Merrifield Street and Block 6 Alley improvements. The 11th Avenue bituminous overlay improvement was initiated by staff as part of the City's Pavement Preservation Program and Block 6 alley reconstruction was initiated from a request from Levee Drive apartment residents. The feasibility report has been completed and is attached for Council acceptance and to set a date for a public hearing. The attached resolution sets a date for the public hearing for this project for July 6, 1999. The approval of Resolution No. 5157 does not order the project nor does it commit the Council to constructing any improvements. The intent of this resolution is to accept the feasibility report and set the public hearing date. The public hearing will allow the property owners adjacent to the project area and the general public an opportunity to address the City Council on this project. Staff will make a full presentation at the July 6, 1999 Council meeting on the feasibility report for the public and the Council at the public hearing. The bituminous overlay on 11th Avenue will complete the Pavement Preservation work in this area from the 1997 Street Overlay Project. This street is for access to the Shakopee Junior High School. Block 6 alley is severely deteriorated and needs to be reconstructed. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 5157, this action will receive the feasibility report and set the date for the public hearing for July 6, 1999. 2. Deny Resolution No. 5157. This action will halt the project until such time as City Council reconsiders the resolution. 3. Table Resolution No. 5157, to allow time for staff to prepare additional information as directed by the City Council. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, to adopt Resolution No. 5157, as this would allow a public hearing and public input to take place on the proposed improvements, to decide whether or not this project should move forward to the 1999 construction season. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 5157, A Resolution Receiving a Report and Calling a Hearing on the 1997 Street Overlay (11th Avenue, from County State Aid Highway 17 to Merrifield Street) and Block 6 Alley Reconstruction, Project No. 1999-6 and move its adoption. / race Loney Public Works Director BL/pmp MEM5157 RESOLUTION NO. 5157 A Resolution Receiving A Report And Calling A Hearing On An Improvement For The 1997 Street Overlay (11th Avenue, From County State Aid Highway 17 To Merrifield Street) And Block 6 Alley Reconstruction Project No. 1999-6 WHEREAS,pursuant to Resolution No. 5153 of the City Council adopted May 18, 1999, a report has been prepared by the City Engineer,with reference to the improvement of 11th Avenue, from County State Aid Highway 17 to Merrifield Street by bituminous overlay and to improve Block 6 Alley by reconstruction of existing bituminous pavement and any appurtenant work and to assess the benefited property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429; and this report was received by the Council on June 1, 1999. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA: 1. The Council will consider the improvement of 11th Avenue, from County State Aid Highway 17 to Merrifield Street by bituminous overlay and to improve Block 6 alley by reconstruction of existing bituminous pavement and any appurtenant work, in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting and benefited property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvements pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of$49,221.91. 2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvements on the 6th day of July, 1999, at 7:00 P.M. or thereafter, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 129 South Holmes Street, Shakopee, Minnesota, and the Clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. 3. The work of this project is hereby designated as part of the 1999-6 Public Improvement Program. 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 1 I FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR 1999 STREET OVERLAY AND ALLEY RECONSTRUCTION FOR BLOCK 6 SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 1 1 I I I I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly registered 111 Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 1C.11772Ey Date 5727/9/l Registration No. 17590. t MAY 1999 I CONTENTS FOR THE 1999 STREET OVERLAY ' AND ALLEY RECONSTRUCTION FOR BLOCK 6 SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA I ' Description Page No. ' Introduction 1 Proposed Improvements 1 Background 1 Estimated Costs 2 Funding Sources 2 Special Assessments 2 ' Summary 3 Appendix I r I i 1 I I I INTRODUCTION I The Engineering Department has proposed to City Council a bituminous overlay project I for 11th Avenue, from County State Aid Highway 17 to Merrifield Street and reconstruct Block 6 Alley. City Council ordered the preparation of this report in order to consider the feasibility of this proposed project by adopting Resolution No. 5153. I PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I The improvement considered by this report would consist of a bituminous overlay of 11th I Avenue, from County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 17 to Merrifield Street. The existing street with concrete curb & gutter would have deficient sections replaced prior to the overlay. Repair of utilities such as sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer and I patching of street pavement would be done in the project areas as necessary and paid out of the Utility Enterprise Fund from the City or Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 1 For Block 6 Alley reconstruction, the existing bituminous pavement section would be removed and replaced. The existing aggregate base section may be salvageable, however, the cost estimate is based upon the aggregate base being removed and replaced. Additional investigation work will be done in design to determine whether the base can be salvaged or not. I BACKGROUND IBituminous overlay is a commonly used method of pavement preservation. I The City of Shakopee in recent years has used bituminous overlay as a means of extending the useful life of City streets. Recent examples of this are: 11th Avenue, County 15 to Tyler Street; Monroe, Madison and Jefferson Streets, from 10th Avenue to Avenue; 10th Avenue, County Road 17 to Shakopee Avenue; Swift Street, from I11th 10th Avenue to Shakopee Avenue and the 1997 Overlay Project with several streets. I Block 6 Alley is paved from Fuller Street to Atwood Street. The pavement is deteriorated to the point where it is beyond preserving and should be replaced. I I1 I r r ESTIMATED COSTS rThe street proposed to have a bituminous overlay is 11th Avenue, from CSAH 17 to Merrifield Street. This street is adjacent to the Shakopee Junior High and is a major route for school buses and is in need of an overlay. Cost of this bituminous overlay is estimated to be $37,082.38, including engineering and ' administration costs. For Block 6 Alley, the cost to reconstruct this alley is estimated to be $12,139.53. FUNDING SOURCES r The City Council recently determined that bituminous overlays would be assessed to benefiting properties at a rate of 25% of the total costs. The remainder of the funding ' would be paid by general tax levy funds in the Pavement Preservation Account. Estimated costs of this proposed overlay is shown in the Appendix. Block 6 Alley is located in the Central Business District zoning. The assessment policy for alley reconstruction in this area has been to assess 25% of the cost with the City r paying the remainder with general tax levy funds. In the 1999 Budget under Pavement Preservation, $40,000.00 was budgeted for overlays and patching. These funds will be utilized in the bituminous overlay of 11th Avenue and Block 6 Alley reconstruction. r SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS r It isro osed to special assess 25% of the street construction costs to those properties P p abutting the project limits, based upon by the lineal foot method. City Council adopted Resolution No. 4637, to revise the Special Assessment Policy to assess 25% of the bituminous street overlay projects cost. The residential lots, north of 11th Avenue,were fully assessed for the bituminous overlay on their north/south street in 1997. Only the properties south of 11th Avenue are proposed to be assessed. Any utility repairs and associated street patching, as necessary, will be paid for by the appropriate Utility Enterprise Fund. This work will be done before the street overlay work. For Block 6 Alley reconstruction, assessable costs will be assessed to abutting property owners,per the City's Assessment Policy on a front footage basis. As mentioned previously, 25% of the costs to reconstruct the alley will be assessed. The assessment rate is $5.06 F.F. r2 r r I SUMMARY Overlay of the proposed 1 lth Avenue in 1999 would be an excellent means of pavement preservation. This project is cost effective, necessary and feasible from an engineering standpoint and as stated in this report. Reconstruction of Block 6 Alley is necessary.as the existing pavement is in a deteriorated condition that is difficult to maintain. The project is cost effective, necessary and feasible from an engineering standpoint. FINANCIAL SUMMARY Project Area Assessment Tax Levy Total Cost 11th Avenue, $ 9,264.35 $ 27,818.03 $ 37,082.38 from CSAH 17 to Merrifield Street ' Block 6 Reconstruction $ 3,034.88 $ 9,104.65 $ 12,139.53 ' TOTAL $12,299.23 $ 36,922.68 $ 49,221.91 i 1 1 I i 1 I 3 I 1 I I APPENDIX I I 1 11th Avenue Location Map Block 6 Alley Existing Zoning IBlock 6 Alley Location Map I11th Avenue Estimate Costs and Assessments Block 6 Alley Estimate Costs and Assessments 1 Typical Section for Bituminous Overlay I I I I I I I I I I I - i ) STLEI ii ,--/ • c-) 73 PPM 1 D i ' ' ' li. SIBLEY ST . I � � 17 0 1 -® 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I --.1p D N `mm_• _-4- Z C C N V = p F-_ N , J � N o 0 D -L- I , SWIET o --I , = I N 0 0 I � I � I R ST , -4- 0 llo' < < I I I 1 D CD ' Jli VF RRIF- Li � 1 f—ri � - ST � ./ 1 I ' , � MERRITT c-),u 1 i V i tI I 1 z 0 .SAc 111SGS0 (cI, tk\ • -i - 0, ' ' alloi, cr171vil_l_ 747av'.., 70:2 ' 's 10.13s 52:1.0Ji ci Irk AW - 01. -1 so*No04 " _.ma ' . _s a - ing 0 cr' (4 *% cm 0 � o e / W, t10.. c\ * m mi. � \\ 10- - ' % II _ _I `S igio _ \111, 14400- 11100 ° N °' I ---71 )i-r-11 g ,- 1111 -- -JAYI tom . 0, t,•• 0 m 0 Wireki. ' Adall 1 N n � . � o °:, z IS7ci — — LC'S 30 AI 10118.3 O.L a00M.LV\T.LTIISISV 664U TIVN:a MINN TIH I i ` APGAR ST1 I ' i 1 i i ^ I \.` ! I 1 1 I1 i 1 1 [ a _w _.,. C 1 ,�1 SCOTT ,� ' 1 1 1 ( h--- , y r 4 - , O i ! ' n .0 - -t- > 3 Q M "". A P I , 1 li am. d rrx T 1 - , • 1i i 1 ; 1 1 ' 1 I 1 ; . 1 1I i 1 ; I I \ i 1 — w t 1 1 ! :T • • C ,� i\ \ 1 i 11 1 E 1 I i \\ FM, ' i ;N , 1 zm � O I • 3Nto W N �- I 0 cn PL. 5 m m n o -1 `C NC ° , �' .CD 0 CD n ° C -1 I n0 - 5 a n ° x E' = n z - O (9 0*Qg S n CD 0 ncr I -3 go o Get - zr CC;) d o g ~h I O c � O D a g a r " t-C r IC DI z D -1 < I m 0 I m I- I- t.)0 -DG O O I O N C z Y a :-c o cn C I z Z N N 'p N O LA !--' O X I 000LAo m I J J t. NC7N i--' N NN 0 0 -P. rnVc - 4 CWD 00 ,-, v0 °A 0 0 0 C\ 0 I- N °N cA v° O O O vO O C') I W ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PROJECT NAME: 11TH AVENUE OVERLAY PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENTS FOR 11TH AVENUE OVERLAY FROM ' MARSCHA MARSCHALL ROAD TO MERRIFIELD STREET SHAKOPEE, MN June-99 ' LEGAL FRONT STREET PID# OWNER DESCRIPTION FOOT ASSESSMENT 27-907-007-0 I.S.D.720 Sect-07,Twp-115,Rng-022, 1293 $8,986.35 1 505 Holmes St S. Shakopee,MN 55379 27907521200700;7-115-22-20, N1/2,SE1/4,NE1/4 (Shakopee Junior High School 1137 Mrchall Rd Shakopee,MN 55379) 27-065-001-0 Duane G.Krautkremer Lot 1,Blk 1,Plat 27065 40 $278.00 1 1641 Hillside Dr. JEJ 2nd Addn. Shakopee,MN 55379 Shakopee,MN 55379) TOTAL 1333 $9,264.35 Total Street Assessment Per Front Foot= $6.95 I i I 1 I I 1 ALLEY RECONSTRUCTION FROM ATWOOD STREET TO FULLER STREET NORTH OF 1st AVENUE I I COST ESTIMATE TOTAL_ (IMT TOTAL ITEMNO DESCRIPTION 1.r"UNITS ,i QTY.: ,,PRICE,: = PRICE I1 Sawing Bituminous Pavement Lin.Ft. 65 $ 2.25 $ 146.25 2 Common Excavation Cu.Yd. 525 $ 5.00 $ 2,625.00 I3 Class 5 Aggregate Base,6"Thick-100%Crushed Sq.Yd. 700 $ 3.00 $ 2,100.00 4 Type 31,Bituminous Base Course, 1-1/2"Thick Sq.Yd. 700 $ 2.25 $ 1,575.00 IS Type 41,Bituminous Wear Course,1-1/2"Thick Sq.Yd. 700 $ 2.65 $ 1,855.00 6 Bituminous Material for Tack Coat Gallon 70 $ 1.25 $ 87.50 7 SoddingLawn Type,Includes 4"Topsoil Sq.Yd. 160 $ 2.75 $ 440.00 1 I I SUBTOTAL ALLEY CONSTRUCTION $ 8,828.75 10%CONTINGENCY FEE $ 882.88 I SUBTOTAL= $ 9,711.63 25%ENGINEERING&ADMINISTRATION FEES $ 2,427.91 ITOTAL ALLEY CONSTRUCITON= $ 12,139.53 I I I 1 I PROJECT NAME: 1999 ALLEY RECONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENTS FOR ALLEY FOR BLOCK 6, LOTS 1 THRU 10 I SHAKOPEE, MN IJune-99 27- LEGAL FRONT ALLEY I PID# OWNER DESCRIPTION FOOT ASSESSMENT 001 068 0 Dave Denison Lot 1,Blk 6,plat 27-001 60 $303.49 239 1st Ave w City of Shakopee ' Shakopee,MN 55379 I 27-001-069-0 Mary Louise Sinnen Lot 2,Blk 6,plat-27-001 60 $303.49 229 1st Ave W City of Shakopee Shakopee,MN 55379 I 27-001-070-0 Leonel Sotelo Lot 3,Blk 6,plat-27-001 60 $303.49 221 1st Ave W City of Shakopee IShakopee,MN 55379 I 27-001-072-0 State of Minn.Dept of Transp Lot 4,Blk 6,plat-27-001 120 $606.98 K F Rasmussen City of Shakopee Mail Stop 631 N1/2 of Lot 4&N 42'of E 39'& I Transportation Bldg W 21'of N 92'of Lot 5 St Paul,MN 55155 27-001-075-0 200 Levee Drive Assoc LTD Lot 6,Blk 6,plat-27-001 300 $1,517.44 I Attn: Bergstad Properties Inc. City of Shakopee 32 10th Ave S#205 &Lots 7-10 Ex N 30' Hopkins,MN 55343 1 TOTAL 600 $3,034.88 I Total Alley Assessment Per Front Foot= $5.06 I 1 I I I .116 I Ilt . . i 7 lii c^^ J 77:••••••• r _� Z t Z RI . LI < Z 0_ 1111 i X X W i io" W r 0111 a r. s= I o I ›. _ . OH a ..,W ws Cr) J 7 1 uo 7 1 I O ` A �� I r rTl,...._,, S Fr.i �N_ II vN UIhii H ...I*a p0 W coo _ H 'a , \\ 0 E—+ ='� 3 z 0 N; Z . a ill 0 D K Ni W 4 i�J W H41 N U — I Z H = - ^ L- o as . d g cuI- \ A N N _ .., 1 3 . ...., in N CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor& City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Sarazin Street, from St. Francis Avenue to 800 Feet South of St. Francis Avenue, Project No. 1999-3 DATE: June 1, 1999 INTRODUCTION: Attached is Resolution No. 5158, which approves the plans and specifications and authorizes staff to advertise for bids for Project No. 1999-3 for the improvement of Sarazin Street, from St. Francis Avenue to 800 feet south of St. Francis Avenue. BACKGROUND: On February 2, 1999, the City Council ordered the preparation of a feasibility report for the improvements listed above. The feasibility report was completed and submitted to City Council on April 6, 1999. At that meeting, Resolution No. 5101, a resolution receiving a feasibility report and setting a public hearing date was adopted. The public hearing was held on May 4, 1999. The plans have been completed by staff and the next step in the process is for Council to approve plans and order the advertisement for bids. The improvement for Sarazin Street was initiated by a petition from the developer of Prairie Village. Sarazin Street is a designated low volume collector on the City's Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Plan and is currently unimproved south of St. Francis Avenue. The plans have been completed to accommodate a 36 foot or 44 foot collector street width. Depending on Council direction on street width, the plans can be approved for either street width. Also, staff has been in contact with Betaseed, Inc. and has a verbal agreement on right-of- way acquisition and this item will be brought back for Council authorization at a future Council meeting. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 5158. 2. Deny Resolution No. 5158. 3. Table for additional information. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, to approve plans and specifications in order to proceed with this project so as to construct the improvements this year. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 5158, A Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids for Sarazin Street, from St. Francis Avenue to 800 Feet South of St. Francis Avenue, Project No. 1999-3 and move its adoption. nice Lone Public Works Director BL/pmp MEM5158 RESOLUTION NO. 5158 A Resolution Approving Plans And Specifications And Ordering Advertisement For Bids For Sarazin Street, From St. Francis Avenue To 800 Feet South Of St. Francis Avenue Project No. 1999-3 WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 5134 adopted by City Council on May 4, 1999, Bruce Loney, Public Works Director has prepared plans and specifications for Sarazin Street, from St. Francis Avenue to 800 feet south of St. Francis, as described in the feasibility report, by street, storm sewer, concrete curb & gutter,bituminous trail, concrete sidewalk and any appurtenant work. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA: 1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is on file and of record in the Office of the City Engineer, are hereby approved. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The Advertisement for Bids shall be published as required by law. 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. L3. 1, CITY OF SHAKOPEE POLICE DEPARTMENT Memorandum CONSENT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator / FROM: Dan Hughes, Chief of Police b/ SUBJECT: 2000 Resolution for Task Force Participation DATE: May 25, 1999 INTRODUCTION: Each year the State of Minnesota, Office of Drug Policies, requires coordinators of regional task forces to submit resolutions indicating intent to participate in task force operations from each member agency. BACKGROUND: For the past several years the state and federal governments have encouraged local law enforcement agencies to form regional task forces to investigate drug law violations. Significant sums of federal and state drug enforcement money are distributed to task forces. The Shakopee Police Department has been a member of the Southwest Metro Drug Task Force since its inception and wishes to continue participation in the task force for as long as possible. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Continue participation in the Southwest Metro Drug Task Force. 2. Discontinue participation in the Southwest Metro Drug Task Force. RECOMMENDATION: Alternative#1 ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution#5154, a resolution to enter a cooperative agreement with the Office of Drug Policy in the Minnesota Department of Public Safety for participation in the Southwest Metro Drug Task Force. Dfinento001pm RESOLUTION NO. 5154 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA ,REGARDING PARTICIPATION IN THE SOUTHWEST METRO DRUG TASK FORCE. WHEREAS, The City has participated in the Southwest Metro Drug Task Force since its inception; and WHEREAS, the Task Force has successfully brought about numerous drug convictions; and WHEREAS, each year the City enters into a cooperative agreement in order to continue to participate. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS: That the Mayor, City Administrator and City Clerk are hereby are authorized to enter into a cooperative agreement with the Office of Drug Policy in the Minnesota Department of Public Safety for the project entitled Southwest Metro Drug Task Force for the calendar year 2000. Passed in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this 1st day of June, 1999. Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: City Clerk [ lpm CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Tim Benetti, Planner I R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Request for Waiver of Minor Subdivision Requirements Carlson Real Estate Company(Applicant) MEETING DATE: June 1, 1999 INTRODUCTION: Mr. Richard Shadegg, on behalf of Carlson Real Estate Company is requesting a waiver of City Code Section 12.08, Minor Subdivision Process, B. The subject site is the Shakopee Town Square Mall (Exhibit A). DISCUSSION: Marcus Theaters Corporation of Milwaukee, Wisconsin has entered into an agreement with Carlson to purchase the existing theatre and additional area for the expansion of the theatre to include up to 23 screens. An application for conditional use permit has been filed for the proposed theater expansion. Because Marcus would separately own their parcel a division of the property is required. Because area in question is completely within the mall itself, the resulting lots would clearly not meet all design standards for the Highway Business Zone (B-1). Section 12.08. Minor Subdivision Process, Subd. 1.B of the City Code states; "All resulting lots must meet the design standards and other requirements specified in Chapter 11, unless otherwise modified as part of the PUD approval." State law authorizes the city to waive compliance with its subdivision regulations in those situations where the waiver does not interfere with the purpose of the subdivision requirements. While staff is ordinarily not supportive of granting waivers to the zoning or subdivision chapters of the City Code, it is stars opinion that this is a better approach in these unique circumstances than requiring a completely new plat involving potentially several variances. Thus, at staff's suggestion, and after consultation with the City Attorney, Carlson is requesting a waiver to Sec. 12.08, Subd, 1.B. The attached draft resolution would grant the waiver and permit staff to stamp the deed conveying the property if necessary. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve Resolution No. 5161, granting the applicant's request to waive subdivision requirements, City Code Section 12.08. Minor Subdivision Process, Subd. 1.B. 2. Deny the applicant's request to waive the requirement of the Minor Subdivision requirements. 3. Table the matter for additional information from staff and/or the applicant. i:\commdev\cc\1999\cc0601\carlsww.doc ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 5161, a resolution approving a waiver of subdivision requirements, City Code Section 12.08. Minor Subdivision Process, and move its adoption. i:\commdev\cc\1999\cc0601\carlswvr.doc RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING A WAIVER TO SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS, CITY CODE SECTION 12.08. MINOR SUBDIVISION PROCESS CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA WHEREAS, Carlson Real Estate Company has made application to the Shakopee City Council, requesting a waiver to subdivision requirements, City Code Section 12.08. Minor Subdivision Process; and WHEREAS, the property upon which the request is being made is legally described on the attached legal description Exhibit A, and WHEREAS, Carlson Real Estate Company is desirous of selling a portion of their current real estate located entirely within the existing Shakopee Town Square Mall to Marcus Theatres Corporation of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and WHEREAS, due to the property identified herein is within said mall property, Carlson Real Estate Company is requesting a waiver to the requirement of regular minor subdivision procedures as specified in City Code Section 12.08. Minor Subdivision Process. WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358. Subdivision 4b. allows the City to waive compliance with its subdivision regulations in those situations where the waiver does not interfere with the purpose of the subdivision requirements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the subdivision requirements and regular preliminary and final platting procedures as specified in City Code Section 12.08. Minor Subdivision Process are hereby waived for the parcel described herein, and Staff of the City of Shakopee are hereby authorized to stamp the deed conveying said parcel accordingly. 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 S.Holmes Street Shakopee,MN 55379 CERTIFICATION OF RESOLUTION NO. I, Judith S. Cox, City Clerk of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, do hereby certify that the attached is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. , presented to and adopted by the City Council of the City of Shakopee at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the 1st day of June, 1999, as shown by the minutes of the meeting in my possession. Dated this day of , 1999 Judith S. Cox, City Clerk SEAL g"a ,ty.! i$ _4;iaitic E 1 @i Atli £1I1111 I Ea i' \�ii'� 3 I!!1 g;;�csias iJtiili !' 'i g ; 0.iiIii =EEEt @ ? 0 . r� 9 iia !ill i !I lg$° ' y3¢aiyg4' a 111111 � $ a ilhlilid' v� x`aS1 :; Efase efig P 8 •rai!{T lit 59app e a 8 p/ 1!F! StRii" �4y a aE � E si /,I , !!i t Iiib 'zt1Iir 1 l; ! ih1Ii!J . i 3 atJl° � a 6 8°s I ti ► . € as L W �� y1 r 1, g• atm 411 1��ii3� 1k4 6 9 'E3 EF 5 ^:iiijijb jf & ¢5 �u�sj ;. o s 4311 'iR,a E atl.gat °d >! a l I Ill ali„ i h �� E fi o 8 t�f O li j g� s E � sE��E� E5 El a�.S Eg a°I 1g11 Of 1t'l, 5Ei V �83 A th m3 R21A, E • I O a{ 1, ill 3 41 ='Alai ga a 51 Ea f- 1=a .1 €1 ,, ,i 5 1g5. ,4iai% isail I ,. f 53C V e; e 1¢a1 {{°ib�g ii II . _ i aF,112 - k. A eFBa•gy 4e31 m. d : II e r a Jtla List 3s I Ai IFIE:glii.a E v 0 �4i l AI .e I- ii ' / 1/ ?.. // \ '8 /:s°o a on s _Li) h) .../4- / r, 1// LII a.isillip ." 91E. ( 17 / M1yjt1 \/ / cv.1 ,,,1 \\\,/ \ . `\ , ...!,..;:::::,.....li : ig . A rW�b IN1 it `'ter, I 1 .. v ' g t ist ki ',R ill 11 / I tM1 `!r Ii, _; . \\ V • �' A• ``'�� ii; >\ 43 ,iii l �/O /i/( � ` II7, J � ;,_ - .. . — \ y. i til si 451 1 // �/ /:i J, .• ,111 \\ '1��•\� o �, Ems-, I I, GO a5 1 1 j1 t, ' /,- , -,,t / '' a V,. � \• \�, O Ill / - ,rr x/,. i \\i\ \\\ r,ll 44 �. / \ 1 / \/ki / 4//, )(,, , 0 ° 11S 4c i c . 4.i...4.knz,::!,:l:: :Y...i. :;:. :4,VL'', ,,,,, ,,. "0"\\\ N 4.. '\ i fr , ill ¢ b I / i I Qa v / 1/ 11 II ill .� 1 ' °J4 11 \ \\ z� 't z `' z �4 /� �� \�'\41 \\ .k' 4 I •l 1 �/ / \,�'" \ / �' \ i t J a+ ax 5 s£ '• y'`'k'' '•\ • \\•`* -.1? Tgp 1/jlll ll'' A V .r\ \\ \r { r ' ✓- „- f° .L ti `` '' \ \\;\ 4i+ r- 11�' 111 / �)� \ \ \t `• x' i ir� t s r/a }``,airT \` \ \ v / I I II g I C!'' .` z 3� r.�''z r sa'`� a 1 Nr \ I \• ,, r a c rt` i e 4�J ',ya 1 •% 1 4-0 1 I �I #� I/ (� , Y. x Y.,A tx .�' .y yi o!c''x • y �•\ Nitatikk-,. 1\ 11 I 1 I I I \ z',y,,. 1 r $ .0 44\ta iat'""•:x t a.#x`•l • • / 1 \,:., -% I 1 1 1 ► 1 \ K .I,r;;;.' ''0,3,r."..:as:4. • .pe;:a..M"Y�,+:r;¢t".t{'i`>VigeNI orltd:`'iiNI, 'ux.:zr?z; I , r'?s `"4 q I p ♦a c X1,,,4 7¢ �}a F `1 II I '+ I I I I 1 \ Q z { zOL': r> i"+7 ,+ d44 z xias�{4 j 1 1 6 I p Z I .. .. .. z, p;mac �d,3:, •;rfa•A.r' �2 x ,,A 4,,,�, ,,,�'�� tt T1 '6. 8c \:•,,1\\e' Y .z:.tr 1-a r €cs�;;wrr,;rt,a 1 '.. . �I� (III I © Nz y.,° ,, x. . Nr• rr> .t f',ej,rf¢ �' / �' V ISI I I I „"�a° is \\ \\ , c'tr4i� ,,P.:t 1•4ovv: y,tc r'. '% ' ''I \11 II 1 ti x. .. ;sa!' `:a% ?;1 x q ,• Mai - \ r I1II 3 ns5e \` ° .t`1 'ks`�z,'<`h,<: "4£:: :1n0: i`=: ,.- b "° 1 hO I 19..." ` '".', :->. ' ':°x`.,*i`.; i;?1`��Ikli,"�lI `r'.'s'i''`•tx+.r,•?`•xtt njt' 0 a7 r ,i ( I I II D,SOY \ \ \ > - % ,..Z,V ,P,14``,^a,''i ,loi?`'v'prot.1 .,.*11% I 1 : R I'�1Z ,1111 b \ \ `QY. l'iN °£3,"`; ;tor--- ,1,go,'''xc::,, _�� r� — aM . 1`I 11 / �•1 1 \ ,i' ,Rti r? •lf1'.9;r`ursi. I I I 111 a \'� • \ 11,1 *t...:i"Q....t:Nf..',ti Vf\*-,.,RX.:yr4r,r•.w;1"tt,'.Ag `r ,,4,4, 1 cNa(� I I :..a."!Sxy.`:•4, ?,\a14c,,,;:.y.:;im+..:� 9°v 1 III ) k/ I, \ \ 6� S'la« ,';ti l�`'.,i:;- ':>!ti z,r;Ntl.,W ,.;t;'?W�- ,(I ... °\ . • I Isl 1 I \ a nc?'s �;3:t; ^n';•aa,:? ':4.r.'1'"°.r,f`'Kz ,- ', - '' + •' _1 \• < II I� I' * \ 1 \ $1 ,;r'rt';,' ..iiis.is°>:r;,ri:;"i'.,�. i S I ,. R/ ,Li14 :`'`'.,4.irA l":k!i.wn,.'3A- : I G et I al .x s 104 , I �' \ \ 81 1 °4�{w',;��1.: p'1�N'' �i..1.,1.:.i1F4<h?,:;N.�;?: '„�L2;,� � '�4 '� III 1�y / I 4 \ `,„,„„,,,,, 'i? ,,,,m,la/,;p{ {4<till; 1 I• I S° A I III 1°k./ A; L ' I O;- \ ' 1 1 ";':yt?!�, nr::s?t..lk .,'...,ti{i�"y=• _�• , zfl Y 11111 l; tt\ ) \ r;7'ii'i"ItG�i:cl4r'r �i"�f�ai34rS'An 7�V�C`tit'd x`�� _ 11 I ' 1' `; 'i b \ I i rid`'e},ii..;./";:',?M:� '""i.,' .�x4:';M kik";,:�g�"+? T: I ■ t I >� .. • li I — a n `1;/..,..,: q:r,,....,0,.;4.,i'rl�'i 0,, w""� 1 'b r 1 '6 c11 �+ //4 \ l s , 0 c .x, x„ a +, aA 4 S 4'..2:0. ga.5 ' •.. 1 b P t I1 1 I ' a F \ `N p V / V `.,•.,.:,,,,,,,,,,:>.4x�,,....idi''..? ,,, ra.i,,,,,',k.:`,, %°.j�' tl. ■ 1 } 8 g`14 8 I II //J �,' 'i \\ •,/ 1„1 C4 1 Scflr:tx.�S. "'rr� ; AP"0t44 'W =I 1' 5`2.4 §y5 1y1 I I 1 , C, - - –\ 1 f -..1 -sy Y'vz t. ; .4%) � I - -`—. , •iF TS!.Y I1 I s i• 1 ' 0 \ C Ze x �, f .r../A, '"4.37 "x'`i.4Y x' i. _\ / .4. y I.' U�' I `1.. I. \ I{OSOLZ M.Zt lol�v,1"' - "°�,:� ',�` 4YEt 11.1/ /'~� `1.sC % v` '' I'� 1 \\ �i 'ks .� 'i7 ilr4t<•`yslISO. aD44/,Ac..{ Rh°r� • 9••1 1: •k/ ;., = F 1(11/' ill”- N. - N. �' •,\° I u.'«: r. ij yf*� a al. fiir4N4 i'•F"`;'(s¢: ;'i? `'t 0 I 6 4;31,-0? a a I///"' / / I f I n ,v, r5 I a 8'f Y I I II / / /°pt .,l/ I I I \ `I m�,a,Y:ax•[,c�w.tF.•,.. :ae•:'�2`ky'. .p.14/1.A,!. y �j \-rt.. • 6'6 i g{.3g I i I >;r`i a ya�i?: ! 7tyTyt Hill: ' 1 I/ ,keR , I . *47. w� i ' ", rt:w !�I Iec z. orsn .F i l l I p I, I " \ w:.�y;' ,tr..:r ;ryt.1�';a,N ,,. �ti / 11 111 I '1 /TT \\ ; k! a, WIl,°af4-:.' 13..f.�rs.0' :Na•• �• t-.1.11. i “ • illi f _ 1 ted, ° x.er''�srm'` t.'�; �:'' r S 1111 / • \'M>jl,6Z.lL'�lr /� .tFS/I ,m ZZ,l0.15'N t t . ,.�.�+•�-"R+, ...x,:><• t g �i b 11 / '0 4 :"�QSrc// 1 J!�'r S,ZIi '�% •'Stitt a•>z; 1 , 9 1 �'L}ia.:.',.1.41.4 ,0.l't ts'3'�•f"tS3 '•"�:'0:�. •N,�C'� ft•J /////0/ellUMIMOUS Vi 'h'+'ir".3>�, ^el{ a;;•biz.•.,' w. ls''i :ga.`•!h`.: 15 I I p ` 4' 11 o o i i P r a$Y IiI i l i c i i b i s 3 l b $ k E g 15 t c1 c3, 3 i U N G • 0 • 0111 ta i'k• .- W z g • ,. •(..f,j033 r o._ ■y i ill e .::141:0.0v_ mil .:.. 1. •,. "t.. i Ili ml . 14 :: : ic1 i I esfir!! Ir lull Sql ,g It r 9 p-3.; 0. 141\ & i \ .• \ 6/ \ IV •° • . • 1ii , A � a• f k \ % ) 11 \ '/ \\I I \ \: \ \ \ 1 ." ,t 6 \ ,,,, !! 0 0 , , a. I . a 1..,.., , . u O O O , 1 \ ,:.A. -.., \1 '1� j. �j . i H., r 1 ' i II 1.72:,.A11,;.„ i ' 0 '\„., ‘ k 1 L 0 \ I 1 __, t . . - . . ,„.. i , ,,„.„, ,, ., { / / \, ,,,, • tll.d ?!fg ip. ril 1 f P. r- gl§ g ,17,rif,14 f 1 C 11 i 1 ° • ' g 8 lir' i g ae$ � 11d11111 • l I ^•i III • -14 11. 11 111fithhiIIll pI !,,lIi 1 f, . ! •11 Lt • a I i ill diii i CITY OF SHAKOPEE CONSENT] Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Jared Andrews, Planner I SUBJECT: Resolution approving the appeal of Delores Lebens DATE: June 1, 1999 INTRODUCTION At its May 6th meeting,the Board of Adjustment and Appeals approved a conditional use permit to allow an over sized accessory garage to be built on Mrs. Lebens' property. A condition of that approval was for the garage to meet the 20 foot setback required by code. Mrs. Lebens appealed the setback condition to City Council on May 18, 1999. City Council approved the variance within the conditional use permit and directed staff to draft a resolution consistent with their determination. Staff has attached Resolution#5155 for Council approval. ALTERNATIVES 1. The City Council may approve Resolution#5155 with findings as proposed by staff. 2. The City Council may approve Resolution#5155 with modified findings. ACTION REQUESTED Make a motion to approve Resolution#5155 • J. -d Andrews Planner I is\commdev\cc\1999\cc0601\lebensrs.doc RESOLUTION NO. 5155 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA, GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN OVER-SIZED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THE OLD SHAKOPEE RESIDENTIAL(R-1C)ZONE WHEREAS,Delores Lebens, owner, has filed an application dated received April 8, 1999, for a Conditional Use Permit under the provisions of Chapter 11, Land Use Regulation(Zoning), of the Shakopee City Code, Section 11.30, Subd. 3, for over-sized accessory structures as determined by Sec. 11.81, Subd. 2.B.; and WHEREAS,this parcel is presently zoned Old Shakopee Residential Zone(R-1C); and WHEREAS,the property upon which the request is being made is legally described as; Lot 10, Block 60, Old Shakopee Plat, City of Shakopee, Scott County,Minnesota. WHEREAS,notice was provided and on May 6, 1999, 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. WHEREAS,the decision was approved May, 6th, 1999 Board of Adjustments and Appeals meeting with a condition that the garage meet the 20 foot setback from Shumway Street. WHEREAS, on May 10, 1999 the City received the applicant's appeal of the decision of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. WHEREAS, on May 18, 1999 the City Council reviewed the applicant's appeal. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA AS FOLLOWS: That the City Council adopts the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed conditional use will not be injurious to the use and the enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes that are already permitted, nor would it substantially diminish or impair property values in the area. 2. The proposed conditional use would not impede the orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses predominant in the area. 3. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and parking exist to serve the site. 4. The overall use of the property is consistent with the purposes the R-1C zone with the conditions imposed below. 5. The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan,which designates this property for single family residential use. 6. The five foot variance within the Conditional Use Permit meets the criteria for granting a variance as follows: A. 1. It would be unreasonable to require a larger setback for the garage than what was required with the original house. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to unique circumstances in how the property was originally developed before current ordinances existed. 3. The circumstances were not created by the landowner in that the setback codes have changed since the property was originally developed. 4. The variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the locality in that the preexisting garage was in less conformance with the current code than the proposed structure. 5. The problems extend beyond economic considerations in that the proposed garage is in much greater conformance with the current codes than the garage in which it is replacing due to storm damage. B. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit of the ordinance due to the hardship and preexisting development pattern of the lot. C. The 5 foot variance to the 20 foot setback is not a use variance. D. The attached conditions insure compliance and protect the adjacent properties. E. The property is not in the flood plain overlay zone. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the application for Conditional Use Permit Resolution is hereby GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. The plans received April 8, 1999 are hereby approved. 2. The structure shall not be used for any commercial or leased storage use. Passed 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 Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of , 1999. Prepared by: City of Shakopee 129 S. Holmes St. Shakopee, MN 55379 1S . �� . � CONSENT]CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Appeal of Conditional Use Permit to allow a Retail Center, Gas Station, and Uses Having a Drive-up or Drive-through Window MEETING DATE: June 1, 1999 INTRODUCTION: On May 18, 1999 the City Council reviewed Oppidan's appeal of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals denial of their request for conditional use permit(CUP). The attached resolution approves the appeal and requested CUP. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the appeal of Oppidan Investment Company, and approve Resolution No. 5159 as presented. 2. Approve the appeal of Oppidan Investment Company, and approve Resolution No. 5159 with revisions. 3. Do not adopt Resolution No. 5159 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, approval of the appeal of Oppidan Investment Company, and approval of Resolution No. 5159 as presented. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer a motion to approve Resolution No. 5159, and move its adoption. / 7" / R. Michael Leek Community Development Director Res.No. 5159 RESOLUTION NO.5159 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA, GRANTING APPROVING AN APPEAL BY OPPIDAN INVESTMENT COMPANY AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RETAIL CENTER, GAS STATION,AND USES HAVING A DRIVE UP OR DRIVE THROUGH WINDOW IN'1'HI HIGHWAY BUSINESS(B1)ZONE WHEREAS,Oppidan Investment Company, applicant, and Eugene Hauer, Sharron Bernhagen and Eileen Kerkow, owners, filed an application received March 16, 1999 for a Conditional Use Permit for retail center,gas station, and uses having a drive up or drive through window under the provisions of Chapter 11,Land Use Regulation(Zoning), of the Shakopee City Code, Section 11.36, Subd. 3.E.,J., and V; and WHEREAS,this parcel is presently zoned Highway Business(B1); and WHEREAS,the property upon which the request is being made is legally described as; The south 8.00 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 7, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County,Minnesota;and That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 7, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota lying southerly of the plat of Minnesota Department of Transportation Right-of-Way Plat No. 70-5;Except the South 8.00 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 7;and The North 8.00 feet of the North Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 18, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota; and The South 330.00 feet of the West 450.00 feet of the North Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 18, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County,Minnesota;and The North Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 18, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, Except the North 8.00 feet of said North Half and also except the South 330.00 feet of the West 450.00 feet of said North Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 18, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota. Res.No. 5159 WHEREAS,notice was provided and on April 22, and May 6, 1999,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; and WHEREAS,the Board of Adjustments and Appeals denied Oppidan Investment Company's request for CUP; and WHEREAS,Oppidan Investment Company appealed the decision of the Board, and the appeal was heard by the City Council at its May 18, 1999 meeting; and WHEREAS,the City Council concluded that Oppidan Investment Company's request met the City Code criteria for granting a CUP, and upheld Oppidan's appeal. NOW THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND APPEALS OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA,AS FOLLOWS: That the appeal of Oppidan Investment Company is hereby upheld; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the application for Conditional Use Permit is hereby GRANTED subject to the following conditions: 1. Development of the site shall generally comply with the site plan received by the City on April 29, 1999, attached as Exhibit A. 2. The retail center shall have driveways a minimum of 200 feet apart, and a minimum of 200 feet from any street intersection, unless the City Engineer approves a different location in order to improve traffic safety. 3. The retail center shall have driveways as depicted on the site plan received by the City on April 29, 1999. 4. If a lot within a retail center dedicates all its street access rights to the City, and gains its access from a recorded easement through an adjacent lot, then the minimum lot size may be reduced to 20,000 square feet. 5. Drive up or drive through window(s) shall be screened to a height of 6 feet from any adjacent residential zone. 6. Any uses which have a drive up or drive through window shall not have a public address system which is audible from any residential property. 7. Drive up or drive through window facilities shall provide stacking for at least six vehicles per aisle. The required stacking shall not interfere with internal circulation patterns or with designated parking facilities, and shall not be located in any public right-of-way, private access easement, or within the required parking setback. 8. Gas stations uses shall be screened from any adjacent residential zone. 9. Gas station uses shall not store any vehicles which are unlicensed and inoperable on the premises, except in appropriately designed and screened storage areas. 10. Gas station uses shall conduct all repair, assembly, disassembly, and maintenance of vehicles within a building, except minor maintenance such as tire inflation, adding oil and wiper replacement. Res. No. 5159 11. Gas station uses shall not have a public address system which is audible from any residential property. 12. Gas station uses shall provide stacking for gas pumps for at least one car beyond the pump island in each direction in which access can be gained to the pump. The required stacking shall not interfere with internal circulation patterns or with designated parking facilities, and shall not be located in any public right-of-way, private access easement, or within the required parking setback. 13. Gas station uses shall not sell, store, or display any used vehicles. 14. Gas station uses may have a canopy which projects up to ten feet into the required front or rear yard setback. The setback shall be maintained clear of all obstruction up to a height of thirteen feet. The canopy shall have a maximum vertical thickness of three feet. The canopy shall have a maximum height of 18 feet. 15. Landscaping on site shall comply with the requirements of the City Code. In compliance with Section 11.60, Subd. 8.E the applicant shall provide, prior to the recording of the CUP, a landscaping bond in an amount equal to 115 percent of the value of the landscaping to ensure compliance during the first year of planting. 16. All on site lighting shall be directed on site (toward the structure, parking areas, etc.) and shall comply with the lighting requirements of the City Code. A lighting plan which complies with the requirements of the City Code must be submitted at the time of Building Permit application. Lighting located within the public right-of-way shall be the responsibility of the City. 17. The applicant shall provide a combination of berming and planting along Sarazin Street to prevent headlight wash in the direction of Sarazin Street. 18. Mechanical components on the top of the structure shall be screened. Screening can be accomplished through painting, paneling or other material as deemed acceptable by the Zoning Administrator. 19. Trash compactors shall be fully screened from view. Other trash receptacles, including but not limited to dumpsters, shall be stored in fully enclosed areas, including the top. 20. Adequate lighting, acceptable to the staff and City Engineer, will be provided on 17th Avenue and Sarazin Street at the entrance(s) to the site. 21. This conditional use permit (CUP) shall not be effective until such time as the final plat for the property has been recorded with the Scott County Recorders Office and all property owners have provided signatures for the CUP application. 22. Building materials used on the sides and rear of the building shall be of the same or similar materials and colors as the front of the building. 23. Signage along Sarazin Street shall be limited to the size and height requirements of the City Code in effect at the time of sign permit application and shall be of a monument type design, constructed of face brick, stone, decorative block, painted block or other similar materials. Signage shall require an approved sign permit, if applicable. 24. Signage along 17th Avenue shall be limited to the size and height requirements of the City Code in effect at the time of sign permit application Res. No. 5159 and shall be of a monument type design, as depicted in the site plan received by the City on April 29, 1999. One business complex sign shall be allowed for proposed Lots 5 and 6 and one for proposed Lots 3 and 4. Signage shall require an approved sign permit, if applicable. 25. The developer shall construct a sidewalk connection on site to provide pedestrian access to the structure(s). 26. The parking facility located south of the"big box" retail users shall be classified as a joint parking facility for those uses. Therefore, there shall be a zero setback requirement for the parking facility along the common lot line for those uses. 27. The 40,000 square foot retail user identified in plans received by the City on April 29, 1999 shall adhere to setback requirements in effect at the time of building permit application, unless otherwise modified by a separate review process. Adopted in regular session by the City Council of the City of Shakopee,Minnesota this day of June, 1999. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk ft, ."---iummiimmiiimmi /� �� ■:IIII.'.- 1111114 Or:MI■ I. �� fJ!i"= _= 4= 11 =11' :: 111..,K r. 1�=fit vr4%I* amt ®IIIIIIIIMIIIIIdlll91 [0111111111111111 I..' sae _ leB1 1....1 NMI R2____---____...0■111111111111. -- ooippipppww_„iow............• III 11141 SIII 169 60. AG -_ ll .1 R3 --- B1 jl 00 AG 0 00 rli o!1 Lit II. mom i_ AG es iia .fps 4111M_ # 170 10..a 11.11111 ILI �iIl 10 �I Illlllt.,;•;��1i MI V/111II11► I 111 ad �,4I lir 111111: ROM R1B 1111111r,' 411111Wv AG 0, imiii„.img ow,,'1 4 ai /1„,......ft 411111 i Iii' 'll gir Pg II. 11111"till SHAKOPEE COMMUNITY PRIDE SEVIE 1857 LOIO MAP �o _ (( ID- G. (, Y CITY OF SHAKOPEE CONSENT Memorandum TO: Mayor& City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Jared D. Andrews, Planner I SUBJECT: Text amendment regarding fences on double frontage lots DATE: June 1, 1999 INTRODUCTION At its May 18, 1999 meeting the City Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance which allowed up to a six foot high fence on double frontage lots where no access is obtained. Staff has proposed Ordinance No. 550 attached for reference. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve Ordinance No. 550 as presented. 2. Approve Ordinance No. 550 with revisions. 3. Do not approve the text amendment. 4. Table the matter to request additional information from staff ACTION REQUESTED Offer Ordinance No. 550 and move its approval. Jared D. Andrews Planner I is\commdev\cc\1999\cc0601\tafences.doc ORDINANCE NO. 550 FOURTH SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CHAPTER 4, BUILDING REGULATIONS, REGARDING FENCES ON DOUBLE FRONTAGE LOTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1 - That City Code Chapter 4, Building Regulations, Section 4.03 Subdivision 1.D.1. is hereby amended by adding the language which is underlined and deleting the language which is struekgh: Section 4.03, Subd. 1.D.1. "Fences six feet and under shall be permitted anywhere on the lot except in the front yard setback In the case of a double frontage lot,fences six feet high and under shall be permitted within the front yard setback on a street frontage from which access is not obtained. " Section 2 - - Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the day of , 1999. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of 1999. PREPARED BY: City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 \5 . D . 5 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Jared D. Andrews SUBJECT: Robert and Shona Pulk Appeal of BOAA's decision regarding Variance from setbacks in the Urban Residential Zone MEETING DATE: June 1, 1999 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: 5/24/99 Letter from Robert Pulk Attachment B: 5/20/99 BOAA Staff Report INTRODUCTION: At its May 20, 1999 meeting,the Board of Adjustment and Appeals voted 4-2 on a motion to deny a 4 foot variance to the 10 foot side yard setback with findings as proposed by staff. On May 24, 1999, staff received an Appeal application and letter from Mr. Pulk. Staff has attached this letter along with a copy of the staff report for reference. ACTION REQUESTED: Make a motion to either deny the Appeal request for a 4 foot variance to the 10 foot side yard setback or approve the Appeal request for a 4 foot variance to the side yard setback and direct staff to draft a resolution consistent with that determination. Ar /1/ ared D. Andrews Planner I Attachment A To Whom It May Concern: On May 20th, 1999, I went in front of the Board of Adjustment&Appeals,with an application for a 4 foot variance to build a three season porch. I feel with the information provided at this hearing, an improper decision was made. There was alot of confusion on the Zoning Code. Myself and two of my neighbors were present and all agreed that when our homes were built,we were told there was a five foot setback. Now I'm being told it's a ten foot setback. This only allows us to build a ten foot wide porch. My wife and I don't feel this is a very sizable room. We feel if our neighbors don't oppose the building of this porch, we should be granted this variance. We feel this will increase the value of all of our homes in our neighborhood. Thank-you Robert M. Pulk May 24, 1999 ATTACHMENT B CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Board of Adjustments and Appeals FROM: Jared D. Andrews, Planner I SUBJECT: Variance of 4 feet from the 10 foot required side yard setback. MEETING DATE: May 20, 1999 ITEM NO.: 4. SITE INFORMATION Applicant: Robert and Shona Pulk Location: 1238 Heritage Drive East Current Zoning: Urban Residential (R-IB)Zone Adjacent Zoning: North: Urban Residential (R-1B)Zone South: Urban Residential (R-1B)Zone East: Urban Residential(R-1B)Zone West: Urban Residential (R-1B)Zone) Comp.Plan: Single Family Residential Attachments: Exhibit A, Location Map Exhibit B, Application information Exhibit C, 1993 ordinance on allowable setback encroachments Exhibit D, Site Plans INTRODUCTION: Robert and Shona Pulk have proposed a 14 foot wide by 16 foot deep three-season porch addition. The side yard setback in the Urban Residential Zone is 10 feet. According to the survey for the property, the house is setback 20 feet from the side lot line, which would allow up to a 10 foot three- season porch addition without a variance. Therefore, a 4 foot variance is required in order to accommodate the 14 foot wide proposal. CONSIDERATIONS: The applicant has claimed that they were told in 1993 when the house was built, that they would be able to build their porch up to a 5 foot setback. Indeed the code has changed since 1993. However even in 1993, the code only allowed "uncovered porches" up to the 5 foot setback. Covered porches, such as the applicant's 3-season porch proposal, would not qualify and would have to meet the 10 foot side yard setback. In 1994/1995, the code was changed again deleting the "balconies and uncovered porches" language. In 1997, "decks" was added as well as height restrictions to qualify for the 5 foot setback. See Exhibit C for copies of the 1993 ordinance. The applicant would still be allowed today to build a deck or "uncovered porch" up to the 5 foot setback. It is the"covered" aspect that makes the variance necessary. FINDINGS: Section 11.89, Subd. 2, of the City Code contains provisions for the granting of variances only if all of the following circumstances are found to exist. Staff has provided draft findings on each criterion. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may use or modify these draft findings as it sees fit: Criterion 1 The strict enforcement of the ordinance provisions would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration. Undue hardship means the following: 1.A. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls; Finding I.A. The property can be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The property has been put to a reasonable use for a number of years. The applicant could build up to a 10 foot wide addition without a variance. 1.B. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property; Finding 1.B. The plight of the landowner is not due to circumstances unique to the property. The property is very similar to other properties in the area. 1.C. The circumstances were not created by the landowner; Finding 1.C The circumstances are a result of landowner's choice for the location and size of the addition. The City has received no evidence that the applicant would have been able to build a three season porch closer to the lot line in 1993 as the applicant suggests. 1.D. The variance, if granted,will not alter the essential character of the locality; and Finding 1.D. The variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The addition proposed by the applicant would just be four feet closer to the side lot line than other properties were allowed in the neighborhood 1.E. The problems extend beyond economic considerations. Economic considerations do not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Finding 1.E The problems do not extend beyond home economic considerations. The problems are a result of the desire of the applicant to build a 14 foot addition rather than a 10 foot addition allowed by code. Criterion 2 It has been demonstrated that a variance as requested will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Chapter. Finding 2 The proposed variance would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of Chapter 11 (Zoning) in that there is no hardship or need to vary from the ordinance. The property is currently being put to a reasonable use, and reasonable alternatives exist which would not require a variance. Criterion 3 The request is not for a use variance. Finding 3 The request for variance to the side yard setbacks is not a use variance. Criterion 4 Conditions to be imposed by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals will insure compliance to protect the adjacent properties. Finding 4 (Not applicable if the application does not meet all the criteria for granting a variance) Criterion 5 Variances in the flood plain overlay zone also shall meet the following criteria: Finding 5 (Not applicable since the front of the property is not within the flood plain overlay zone) ALTERNATIVES: 1. Direct staff to prepare a resolution, denying the variance with findings as recommended by staff. 2. Direct staff to prepare a resolution, denying the variance with revised findings. 3. Direct staff to prepare a resolution, approving the variance with revised findings. 4. Continue the Public Hearing for additional information. 5. Table the decision for additional information. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that this application does not comply with Criterion 1A, Criterion 1A, B, C, E, and Criterion 2. Therefore, staff is recommending Alternative #1, directing staff to prepare a resolution denying a 4 foot variance from the 10 foot side yard setback within the Urban Residential(R-1B)Zone. ACTION REQUESTED Offer a motion directing staff to draft a resolution denying the request for a 4 foot variance to the side yard setback with findings. roe,umI I JW £t1L9—_ 'M —. ..mo im maAN Exhibit A law ■ =� : MUNE �mu mis.� � - _.1 _ N■ DPI MAE: INE apitsroz ,k1A 04 R 1 B 4: Illia*V 1.:1 `r\ ig �AtitlEVA • e +r 0 usiillitti 7 ogitott4o otiplev% I a.= ihigragre iliar-.1.* ■ ■ ` t. ��♦ � 4. - ■■I ■■■■ A NOMA pt411 ra sspph da gIII la 21 rel ► ,. mu . mcoj -4 -- ingok-A � (1111612"_ ��►■ ■/��•D. �. • B 1 ®®®®®®®®®®®® R2 uS HW`( 169 -.aisle' Sji: Finn alblill Z\ SHAKOPEE COMMUNITY PRIDE SINCE 1857 N Proposed Pulk Variance Parcels ROW Zoning 04/26/99 Please see the corresponding Informational Handout for the type of application you have Exhibit B for further information. Applicant's Name: Robert Pulk & Shona Buesens-Pulk Address: 1238 Heritage Drive East, Shakopee,MN 55379 Phone Number: (612) 496-2983 FAX Number: Property Owner: Shona M. Buesgens-Pulk Address: 1238 Heritage Drive East, Shakopee, MN 55379 Phone Number: (612) 496-2983 FAX Number: 1. Current legal description of all parcels (attach separte sheets, if necessary): Lot 4, Block 2,Heritage Place 3rd Addition 2. PID Number: 27-1700070 27- 27- 27- 3. Property Acreage: 9,325 total square feet 4. Present Zoning: Residential 5. Requested Zoning: 6. Existing Use of Property: Single Family Dwelling 7. Proposed name of development: 8. If development is to be phased,propsed number of phases: 9. Right-of-way or easement location propsed for vacation: 10. Size and dimension of proposed vacation: 11. Right-of-way names (if applicable): 12. Any existing utilities or improvements: 13. If proposing an amendment to the text of the Zoning Ordiance, which provision? 14. Type of Conditional Use Permit requested: 15. Variance requested to: To construct a 3 season porch 4 ft beyond 10 ft set back requirement. 16. Variance dimension requested: 4 feet 17. Please describe Inc; undue hardship that exists that is unigu., to the site which necessitates the request for a variance: Due to the current requirement of a 10ft set back, this only allows us to build a 10 ft porch. After building the structure with 2 x 6 construction, this will only leave us with a 9 ft 6 inch interior room. 18. Please provide any additional information that would be helpful for the Board of Adjustment and Appeals or Planning Commission when reviewing this request: (1.) We have applied for a building permit to construct a 3 season porch. Deck zoning allows for a 5 ft set back. Building a deck is not an option due to the fact that the side of the house where the patio door is located receives constant sun from sun rise to sun set (southern exposure). Therefore. there is a reason to put a roof on any structure built on the south side of the house. (2.) By building out an additional 4 feet, we would not be interferring with any drainage easement. (3.) Our neighbor to south has no objections to a 6 foot set back. (4.) Our original plan is to construct a 14 ft by 16 ft 3 season porch: we would not be opposed if the commission finds it more favorable to grant a 2 ft variance verses a 4 ft variance. 19. Does the request meet the criteria necessary to grant approval (please refer to the informational handout)? Yes. The south side of our home/property cannot be put to reasonable use due to it's southern exposure. Any southern structure would need a roof due to the constant sun exposure. Due to current coding requiring a minimun side set back of 10 feet. and after building the structure with 2 x 6 construction. this wo, ld only leave us with a 9 ft 6 in interior room. Prior to purchasing the land in 1993. on which I built my home. I was assued by city staff that I would be able to build a 3 season porch off of the south side of my home. at least 15 feet from the house. because at that time the code only required a set back of 5 feet. In 1994-95 the wording in the code changed to only allow decks. terraces. steps and like structures to be built within 5 feet of the property line. Because we live in a developed residential area. we are unable to purchase additional land to our south which would meet the minimum set back requirement. Therefore, the circumstances have not been created by us. the property owners. If the variance is granted. it would not alter the essential character of the locality. Submitted this U day of /4- 14) , L , 19 / f . ` •r lit 7 .r? _ 137. % : Applicant's Signature • Property\Owners Signature City staff has ten days from the date of application to determine if an application is complete. Incomplete applications will not be processed. is/commdev/admin iother.apprev.doc i § 11 .03 • Exhibit C IlF. A detached accessory building may not be located less than five (5) feet from I t rear or side lot line. Where the entrance to a garage is an alley or street, the building shall not be less than twenty (20) feet from the lot line abutting the street ior alley. G. Roadside stands for sale of agricultural products shall be permitted if: 1 1. They are erected at least 50 feet back from nearest edge of roadway surface. 1 2. Parking space is provided off the road right-of-way. H. Every man-made swimming pool, fishing pond and other water storage facility except livestock watering facilities shall be enclosed by a fence or wall sufficient to prevent uncontrolled access by small children. Subd. 7. Required Yards and Open Space. A. No yard or other open space shall be reduced in area or dimension so as to make such yard or other open space less than the minimum required by this Chapter, I and if the existing yard or other open space as existing is less than the minimum required, it shall not be further reduced. B. No required yard or other open space allocated to a building or dwelling group shall be used to satisfy yard, other open space, or minimum lot area requirements for any other building. III `✓ The following shall not be considered to be encroachments on yard requirements: 1. Chimneys, flues, belt courses, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental 1 features, mechanical devices, cornices, eaves, gutters and the like, provided they do not extend more than 2 feet into a yard. 111 2. Yard lights and name plate signs as regulated in Section 11.05. Terraces, steps, balconies, uncovered porches, stoops or similar _ structures, which do not extend in elevation above the height of the ground floor elevation of the principal building and do not extend to a distance of less than 5 feet from any lot line. In rear yards: bays not to exceed a depth of 2 feet nor to contain an area of more than 20 square It feet; fire escapes not to exceed a width of 3 feet; balconies, breezeways, detached outdoor picnic shelters and recreational equipment, and off-street parking except as regulated in Section 11.05, Subdivision 3. D. Buildings may be excluded from side yard requirements, if party walls are utilized or if the adjacent buildings are planned to be constructed as an integral structure and a conditional use permit is secured. E. For corner and double frontage setback requirements see Section 11.03, Subdivision 3, Subparagraphs D and E. 111 1993 ed. 1083 1 Exhibit D iHhiUiIJLiittH Cri - I' £ 4 N J rn cn ii] J\1 I rn f" psi D - / C. .J [. _— 11(1111[11 ` .. aJ 4� • N r I , ��- Ic . �- , ,.. K I 1� r Z: , h . , tnZ1-Ir'1 i � JiJlitlii It 2CI2I-DG7�7f''1 2,{ ❑cow Z2a C D Z .-1 ! -� UID D = ,T---- W-0 T7 r �— I r-\ \ • j > ,, nil sariai D , b - d 0 I -i Z / Z I. T(ti ' - J C' 15 E. ), CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk SUBJECT: Class and Number of Liquor Licenses DATE: May 24, 1999 INTRODUCTION: City Council is asked for direction on how to apportion the remaining liquor licenses within the three classes identified in the City Code. BACKGROUND: The current City Code provides for the apportionment of 12 intoxicating liquor licenses between three classes. (See Exhibit A) This apportionment was originally created prior to the opening of the race track in the 1980's. The purpose was to insure that there would be some licenses available for larger restaurants and hotels with restaurants that may locate in Shakopee with the coming of the race track. Up until that point in time, all but one license were issued to smaller businesses: i.e. Pullman, Arnies, Clair's Bar, Rock Spring, Pullman Club, etc. In 1996, City Council was approached by the owner of the Shakopee Ballroom who wished to obtain an on sale liquor license. There were no available licenses in the category that the Ballroom fell into (Class B). The City Council discussed and decided to retain the Classes for licenses and amended the City Code to provide for an additional license in Class B in order that the Shakopee Ballroom could obtain a license. Of eight cities surveyed at that time, only Burnsville allotted licenses to Classes and that was to provide at least three licenses for restaurants contiguous with a hotel or motel. (See Exhibit B) In 1996, five licenses, in addition to the 12 permitted by law(for a City of the 3rd Class), were approved by the voters. New businesses have located in Shakopee over time and the City has currently issued 12 on sale liquor licenses. It is time for City Council to determine whether or not it is in the City's best interest to retain the Classes for liquor licenses and if so to apportion the five remaining licenses. (See Exhibit C for current status of licenses) Classes and Number of Licenses May 17, 1999 Page -2- ALTERNATIVES: 1. Retain the Classes and allocate the five remaining licenses among the Classes. 2. Retain the Classes and current apportionment and allow five licenses to be on a first come first served basis. 3. Delete the apportionment of licenses between classes and allow licenses to be issued on a first come first served basis. RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council direct staff on whether or not to continue with Classes of licenses and if so how to apportion the remaining five licenses. if ati'L e).g/C is\clerk\jeanette\liquor\classes AXI-+ Ir� � T , f\ ,, § 5.32 A. No initial on-sale liquor license issued for premises not previously licensed shall be granted unless the licensee has an investment therein for fixtures and structures exclusive of land as follows: Class A: $200,000.00 for a Class A restaurant or exclusive liquor store. Class B: $350,000.00 for a Class B restaurant or exclusive liquor store. Class C: $2,000,000.00 for a Class C hotel/motel restaurant/lounge with a minimum of $200,000.00 of the investment expended for the restaurant/lounge area. The restaurant/ lounge must contain a minimum of 4,000 square feet of customer floor area and the licensed premises shall be a part of a motel/hotel building with a minimum of 100 guest rooms or 75 guest suites. B. The Council may provide for an independent appraisal at the expense of the applicant as an aid in determining values. If this provision is not complied with within one year from the date of the issuance of the license, the same shall be grounds for refusal or revocation of the license; and, if such license is revoked or refused, a subsequent license shall not be issued for the premises until after full compliance with the requirements hereof. C. For the purpose of this Subdivision any premises which previously held a club license shall be regarded as a premises previously licensed so as to be exempt from the provisions of this Subdivision. D. In the case of rental premises, the licensee shall be allowed to include in the investment the fair market value of the premises being rented. This shall be determined by dividing the fair market value of the entire building, exclusive of land, by the total number of square feet in the building, and multiplying that number by the total number of square feet in the rental premises. Subd. 12. Class and Number of Licenses. On-sale liquor licenses shall be classed and granted only as follows: Class A: Restaurants or exclusive liquor stores as defined in this Chapter and under 4,000 square feet customer floor area. Not more than seven (7) of these licenses shall be available for any license period. Class B: Restaurants or exclusive liquor stores as defined in this Chapter and which have over 4,000 square feet of customer floor area. Not less than three(3) of these licenses shall be available for any license period. Class C: Hotel/motel restaurant/lounge as defined in this Chapter and which receive at least 50% of its gross receipts from the sale of food for consumption on the premises and which restaurant/lounge area contains a minimum of 4,000 square feet of customer floor area. The hoteUmotel operation must have a minimum number of 100 guest rooms or 75 guest suites. Not less than two (2) of these licenses shall be available for any license period. page revised in 1995 515 EXHIBIT "B" On Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licenses Number of Licenses Classes or License Municipality That Can Be Issued Apportionment by Size Fees Savage (Jan) 12 No Classes $7,500 Must be restaurant or None issued at this time hotel/motel No bars Eagan(Liz) 21 1)Hotel - 1 issued $4,000 19 issued at this time 2) Small establishments (Going to legislature - under$350,000 for 4 add'1. licenses) value of structure- 9 3)Large establishments - over $350,000 value of structure - 9 No apportionment of licenses between the three Eden Prairie (Pat) 26 Must be restaurant with $7,500 17 issued at this time seating for 150 or Hotel with seating for 100 No apportionment of licenses between the two Prior Lake (Lori) 12 No classes $5,300 5 issued at this time No restrictions 1st come Chaska(Sue) Unlimited licenses available No classes $3,938 as a result of a referendum No restrictions in addition to state law Chanhassen (Karen) 12 Restaurant to seat 125 $6,115 to 4 issued at this time with food sales at least $14,851 60% of gross depending Non-restaurant with upon size food sales less than 60% Hotel - looking into a license for this No apportionment - 2 - Municipality Number of Licenses Classes or License That Can Be Issued Apportionment by Size Fees Bloomington Unlimited licenses available No classes $8,699 (Shelly) as a result of a referendum All licensees must sell food and their receipts must be 40% from food sales except bowling alley must be 30% from food sales (Mall of America $17,399) Burnsville (Sue) 25 for Class A- all others $5,000 (20 licenses issued) 3 for Class B - restaurant contiguous w/hotel motel (2 licenses issued) Brooklyn Center(Kim) 18 6 Classes depending $8,000 to 9 issued at this time on percent of revenue $11,000 from food sales depenting No apportionment on food sales Less food sales the higher the fee Shakopee 7 Class A- -4,000 $3,705 to customer floor area $10,570 3 Class B - 4,000+ depending customer floor area upon size 2 Class C - restaurant/ bar, hotel/motel 9 issued at this time i:clerk\judy\liqclass EXHIBIT "C" ON SALE LIQUOR LICENSES NAME SQ. FT. DATE MEASUREMENT TAKEN Class A(Under 4,000 Sq. Ft.) Babe's Place 954 6-1996 Arnie's 1,039 6-1996 Rock Spring 1,600 6-1996 Pablo's 2,784 6-1996 Turtle's 3,071 6-1996 Brew Station 3,702 9-1998 Pullman 3,840 6-1996 Class B (Over 4,000 Sq. Ft.) Main Event 4,046 4-1997 Shakopee Ballroom 5,313 6-1996 Dangerfields 5,465 5-1997 Canterbury Park 10,000+ 6-1996 Class C (Hotel/Motel) Canterbury Inn 10,000 + 6-1996 I:\clerk\jeanette\liquor\sqft CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Southwest Suburban Publishing Sites DATE: May 24, 1999 INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this memorandum is to report on the discussion held with Southwest Suburban Publishing regarding possible downtown building sites. BACKGROUND: At the City Council meeting of May 18th,the Council directed staff to contact Southwest Suburban Publishing to explore the alternative sites that had been identified by EDA Coordinator Paul Snook as a possible newspaper office. The sites are shown on the attached page, and are either vacant, or possible redevelopment candidates. On May 21st, Mr. Snook and I met with Stan Rolfsrud, General Manager of the SSP newspaper group. He indicates that he had not made inquiry as to the availability of the Fuller Street parking lot site lightly; he had previously explored the other options in the downtown area. Some of those locations are owned by individuals who have no interest in selling them. Others do not offer the physical qualities that SSP desires. Another site, such as the vacant lot adjacent to the library,is owned by the City, and is valuable for future parking development, or library expansion. All in all, Mr. Rolfsrud is simply interested in building a quality building at a site along the river because of the amenities that the location offers. He also notes that his business is uniquely suited for a site such as that. Because SSP's business is not dependent upon drive-up traffic,there would be no necessity to reopen the closed north leg of Fuller and County Road 69 although he would be agreeable to that if the development were to be mixed use with a retail element. He sees the location as offering a good site for his business and what it can offer his employees; a good opportunity for adjacent downtown businesses, by virtue of the potential customers that 65 newspaper employees will bring; and the tax base that would be generated. He is open to buying only the portion of the site that would be needed for the building footprint(perhaps up to 12,000 sq. ft. of the existing 36,000 approximate square foot land parcel, or any part or all that might be negotiated. He also indicates that Southwest Suburban Publishing owns a building in Chaska, and could move there as a possibility. He agrees with the observation that was made at an earlier City Council meeting, in that they could build"in a cornfield", and probably at a lesser cost(he has been approached by developers with business park interests). However,he likes the downtown location adjacent to the river, and is willing to make perhaps a more substantial investment to architecturally tie that building to whatever the City would want to see -"Turn of the Century"architecture to compliment the traditional commercial buildings of downtown, on construction to closely match that of the River City Centre. DISCUSSION: It would appear that the concept that is being proposed by SSP is in concert with the goals that have been established by the downtown revitalization group -employment, building of the tax base, and architecturally compatible construction. Proceeds from the land sale (to be determined) could be used to develop parking in other locations of the downtown that might be more accessible to greater numbers of people. Mr. Rolfsrud notes that he is not in a significant hurry,but for planning purposes,he does need to know the City's response to locating at the Fuller Street parking lot location. His plans are to perhaps break ground in Spring or Summer, 2000. An appraisal has been requested,which will provide basis for negotiations. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that the City continue with the appraisal information being obtained. Then once a preliminary value is known,the Council can make a decision regarding negotiating solely with Southwest Suburban Publishing,or determining whether Request For Proposals should be advertised, so that it could be determined whether anyone else has an interest that might be more attractive to the City. That might also include suggestions from the Vision Shakopee! group. ACTION REQUIRED: Unless the Council wishes to discuss something other than what is outlined in the recommendation,no action is required at this time. AA Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:tw �--+;� t _ I I L-----7--- - 111111 t W Imir 7 4 anI EXHIBIT /4, - l i . _ 1-- UN )11puoi G1,i1 ___±.. ' '1S ;16. .1 O!U4t.Iau Ectos . i ,•_____. \ • J ______ .s -, t '/11. ►� o N . n , ______ ____. 1 4 I . \ _ tu 111w .- , _ '4S - s m—a. J "' 7 ______, (77 . . _ - , I I\ .,,,.., ____--=-_ -4,-,--,-,. . . :., d ,oZ .-r _.7.1.7_____— 0, N � IS — 0 tI)) I 1 _______ 13—Lt._ ' . . . .„ , n _ , LSOWIOH . a ,______ . . I,,,.... ____. ,______. 1di • O 1S ialIni • 0 Y � N r . g _.__.____ ________•4 . II i•••• .... , • ,7— I ..... ...... .am anus emu .MUM Mem•I.S Iona ewe _ 0 0 A41.V _____ x 0 o CD6 mums E4 0 vn • CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Derby Days Financial Sponsorship DATE: May 27, 1999 INTRODUCTION: The Council is asked to consider making a direct financial sponsorship of an element of the Derby Days Celebration,to be held August 5 - 8th. BACKGROUND: Organizers of the Derby Days Celebration have approached the City, asking for financial sponsorship of some of the items which, as of this time, do not have sponsors. The organizational planning for Derby Days has gotten off to a late start this year; the whole Celebration was in jeopardy until several people stepped up to volunteer to take on the areas of responsibility only a couple of weeks ago. As a result, some of the fund raising activities are lagging. Jack McGovern,who is Co- Chair,has indicated that the following three items are still in need of sponsorship: Portable toilets- estimated cost$1700 Tent(for dance) -estimated cost$1000 T-shirts for volunteers -estimated cost$1800 He has asked the City to consider funding at least the cost of the portable toilets,and the other areas if possible. DISCUSSION: In the past,the City's contribution to Derby Days has been for in-kind services -police overtime, and public works activities(moving benches and picnic tables; building sand volleyball courts, clean-up, etc.). The Shakopee Transit has also sponsored units in the Derby Days parade, for$600. It was suggested after this request was received that Shakopee Public Utilities might also consider participation. They recently adopted a policy recognizing that, while they are a public entity,they are also a business, and as such,they may participate in contributions to worthwhile public events such as this. When approached, SPUC did agree to sponsor half the cost of the portable toilets,which would mean that the City and SPUC would each be responsible for$850. Again,the Derby Days organizing group would be most appreciative if the City could additionally sponsor either or both of the other unfunded items that remain-the tent, or volunteers' T-shirts. BUDGET IMPACT: If the Council chooses to proceed with this,the Professional Services line item in either Public Works or the Council budgets would be charged. A budget amendment could be done in the future, likely to come from the contingency fund. At this time,there is approximately$30,000 available in the contingency fund, after adjusting for a$20,000 bill that will need to be paid to Logis for some software upgrades. RECOMMENDATION: This is a policy decision for the Council. Derby Days has had a tradition of being community-based and volunteer funded, but the City's in-kind contributions have also been greater in the past-the then Assistant City Administrator was actively involved with the event. Given the situation this year,there may be merit in having a more direct City involvement. Therefore, I recommend that the City participate in sharing the cost of the portable toilets, but with the caveat that this is for 1999 only. If the Council will consider an ongoing participation, specific funding should be provided in future budgets. If the Council wants to fund either of the other two items -tent or T-shirts- it should so indicate. ACTION REQUIRED: If the Council concurs with the request to financially participate for Derby Days, it should direct that provisions be made to equally share in the cost of the portable toilets with Shakopee Public Utilities. IMO IAA01.0 Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:tw CC: Lou VanHout Jack McGovern CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Civil Prosecution-Alcohol Violations DATE: May 26, 1999 INTRODUCTION: The Council is asked to give directions as to how it wishes to handle the civil violations for retail establishments that sell alcohol to under age individuals. If it wishes to take local action, it should establish a hearing date. BACKGROUND: Recently,the Police Department conducted alcohol compliance checks for some retail establishments, and found three establishments which sold to under age customers. Those three firms were formally charged with criminal violations; the first appearance for those will be held June 28th. If necessary,trials will be scheduled,which will likely be held in July or August. As with tobacco ordinance violations, in addition to the criminal penalty which goes against the individual clerk who sold the product incorrectly,there is also a civil violation which may be imposed against the license holder. The Minnesota Liquor and Gambling Control Enforcement Division can prosecute the civil violations, as can the City. Both the State and City Ordinance,provide that a fine may be imposed of up to $2,000 and revocations or suspensions of the license of up to 60 days. The State can do its part through an administrative hearing;the City may choose to also have the same violator brought in, and the balance of the $2,000 and 60 day penalties that were not imposed by the State, could then be imposed by the City. The State has asked the City if it wishes to have the State pursue the civil violations. Typically,the State would impose a$500 fine,the proceeds of which they would retain. However,I have heard from at least one Councilmember who has indicated a preference to have the City do the prosecution of the civil offenses, as the State would likely not impose suspension of license. To be consistent,the Councilor's rationale is that alcohol violators should have at least the same type of penalty as was imposed by the tobacco violators. Regarding timing, as stated previously,the criminal violations may not be heard until as late as August. The Council does not need to wait until after the criminal prosecutions are done in order to act on this,but it had typically done so in the past for tobacco violations. It could schedule an appearance by the three violators. If they admit to the violations,the City Council could impose whatever penalty it saw fit, up to that which is allowed by the City Ordinance. If the violators choose to contest the charges, and request a hearing,the City Council would then schedule a hearing. State law requires that the hearing be held by an indepenent hearing officer,who typically is an outside attorney pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act. RECOMMENDATION: To be consistent with the action taken for tobacco violations, I recommend that the City handle the prosecution of the civil violations. If it wants to be further consistent, it should direct staff to schedule a hearing on a date after the criminal violations will likely be heard. That would mean waiting until after August; the first meeting in September would be September 7th. By taking this action,the City would be able to respond definitively to the State of Minnesota that it did not wish to have State involvement with the prosecution. ACTION REQUIRED: If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, indicate the City's desire to handle the civil prosecution of alcohol sales violations, and to schedule hearings for the civil violations after the criminal violations have been heard. rA f LJ Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:tw 15 , L. 5 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: Amending Resolution No. 1891 (VIP Interceptor) DATE: May 25, 1999 Introduction The modified amount for the VIP connection charge recently adopted is in conflict with Resolution No. 1891. Background When preparing the amendment to the 1999 Fee Schedule for adding interest to the 1995 VIP connection charge, staff did not go back to the original VIP resolution for terms . The original resolution had already been amended. The result was overlooking a provision in the original resolution that said no additional interest would be charged once the connection fee was set . Alternatives 1 . Amend Resolution no. 1891 to remove the interest restriction. 2 . Reverse the 1999 Fee Schedule amendment adding interest onto the original 1995 VIP connection fee. Recommendation I see no reason to add interest up to 1995 and not thereafter. It has been four years since the fee was set and adding interest is not inconsistent with increasing other fee annually. Action Offer Resolution No. S"J / A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 1891, A Resolution Adopting Assessments 1981-1 Public Improvement Program V. I .P. Interceptor, and move its adoption. Gregg Voxland Finance Director C:\gregg\memo\vip99B V RESOLUTION No. 5161 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION No. 1891, A RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENTS 1981-1 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM V. I . P. INTERCEPTOR BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, COUNTY OF SCOTT, MINNESOTA, that the last page of Resolution No. 1891 is hereby amended to remove the sentence; "After this point, no additional interest shall be charged. " 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 CITY OF SHAKOPEE �®�� Memorandum NT TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Direct Deposit-New Hires DATE: May 25, 1999 INTRODUCTION: The Council is asked to require the direct deposit of payroll checks as a condition of hiring for new City employees. BACKGROUND: Several meetings ago,the City Council approved changes in the fee schedule for the replacement payroll checks for City employees. The changes were meant to encourage a greater participation in the number of employees choosing direct deposit. Direct deposit reduces City cost and staff time as well as eliminating the replacement check issue and requests for early checks or special handling for absences. In talking with other cities, it appears that several are requiring direct deposit of all new employees (it is difficult to require participation by existing employees). The deposit is into any account that will accept direct deposit, such as savings or checking. In the case of minor employees, sometimes the deposit goes into a parent's account. In rare instances,the City may accommodate a specific request for non-direct deposit for younger seasonal employees, if there is no logical account for which to deposit that. However,that is not expected to be the norm. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that the Council adopt as a policy a requirement that all new employees, regardless of status(full time,part time, seasonal, etc.)be required to sign up for direct deposit at the time of hire. This would be for employees hired beginning June 1, 1999. ACTION REQUIRED: If the Council concurs, it should,by motion,require mandatory direct deposit of payroll checks by all newly hired employees, effective June 1, 1999. IASI\AA-14 Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:tw CC: Gregg Voxland Marilyn Remer Bruce Loney Mark McQuillan Mary Athmann Direct Deposit of Payroll Fact Sheet Direct deposit of payroll refers-to a program that allows employees to have their pay- checks electronically credited to their savings or.checking accounts. .At the end of each pay period, a company supplies a depository financial institution with the payment. information by modem. The financial institution sends the transaction to a processor- generally the Automated Clearing House (ACH) for distribution to the employee's. respective financial institutions. The employer provides a statement of earning to the employee with each direct deposit transaction. For employees, eliminates the need for workers to make special arrangements to deposit their payroll checks. Moreover, since direct deposit"funds are transferred electronically, there is no opportunity for theft or fraud. In contrast,the federal government estimates that more than four million paychecks are lost or stolen each year in the United States. In addition, FBI studies show that 2,000 fraudulent checks are cashed each day in the U.S. Recognizing the benefits of direct deposit, Congress recently passed legislation mandating that virtually all federal payments be made electronically. In addition,businesses can save about one dollar on each payroll check processed. And direct deposit eliminates the need for employees to take time during the work day to cash or deposit their checks. Financial institutions also benefit from direct deposit, saving an estimated 70 cents for each payment deposited through Automated ClearingHouse (ACH)Network rather than by check through a teller. Moreover, it eliminates the opportunity for human error. more facts... 1. Direct deposit often allows employees to have access to their pay sooner than by the traditional method of paper checks. 2. Direct deposit is a safer way to handle money than by traditional paper check. For employees accustomed to cashing their checks at a store or bank,it eliminates the need to carry around large sums of money. 3. Direct deposit increases a business' productivity by reducing the amount of work(and productivity lost)through issuing and reissuing lost or stolen checks. 4. More than 95 percent of all U.S.financial institutions(including some 14,500 banks,savings and loans and credit unions)are able to receive direct deposits. 5. Many financial institutions offer automatic transfers allowing employees to deposit part of their pay into multiple accounts. Money can go for such expenses as children at college or elderly parents. 6. Employees receiving their pay via direct deposit receive a paper check stub similar to the one they received with their paper check,recording such useful information as hours,wages and benefits. 7. Employees can check on the status of their deposit by calling a phone number provided by their financial institution. 15, / . 7 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum C®NSEN TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Resolution of Commendation-Finance Department DATE: May 25, 1999 INTRODUCTION: The Council is asked to adopt a resolution of appreciation for Finance Director Gregg Voxland and his staff. BACKGROUND: At the May 18th City Council meeting,the Council heard a report on the 1998 Annual Audit by the City's auditing firm, Kern, DeWenter,Viere, Ltd. They had very positive remarks about the state of the City's finances, and specifically the recording keeping and cooperation that they received from the staff. The smoothness of this audit was especially notable because it was the first year that KDV did the Shakopee audit. The cooperation of staff allowed for the audit to be done two weeks earlier than was scheduled. The Council requested that a resolution of commendation be put together for Mr. Voxland and his staff. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that the Council adopt the attached resolution. ACTION REQUIRED: A RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION TO GREGG VOXLAND AND THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT STAFF Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:tw RESOLUTION NO. 5160 A RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION TO GREGG VOXLAND AND THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT STAFF WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Shakopee is responsible for administering a total annual budget in excess of$17 million; and WHEREAS,the explosive growth that the City of Shakopee is experiencing adds to the complexity of managing the City's financial resources; and WHEREAS,the responsibility of monitoring internal accounting controls to provide assurance of the safe guarding of assets against loss or misuse and maintaining accountability for assets has been effectively managed by the City's Finance Department; and WHEREAS,this financial management received positive marks during the annual audit completed by City's Auditor, Kern, DeWenter,Viere, Ltd.; and WHEREAS, Gregg Voxland and his staff have done a commendable job in insuring that the financial operations of the City are in order; and WHEREAS,the City of Shakopee continues to receive a Certificate of Achievement from the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada, which recognizes that the City of Shakopee has achieved the highest standards in government accounting and financial reporting. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA that Gregg Voxland and the staff of the Shakopee Finance Department are hereby commended for their outstanding performance and commitment in establishing accounting systems and reporting procedures that are fiscally responsible and in the best interest of all the residents and property owners in Shakopee. Adopted in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota,held this 1st day June, 1999. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: 2000 Tentative Budget Calendar DATE: June 1, 1999 Introduction Council is asked to review a tentative calendar of events for the 2000 budget process. Background Attached is a tentative proposed 2000 budget calendar. Some dates will be modified as Council's schedule unfolds and as developments warrant. Of course, Council can change the meeting dates as desired. The Five Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)for construction projects is already underway. It is planned that Council will have a joint meeting with the Park Board &Planning Commission on June 29, 1999. Projects in the CIP for 2000 will be built into the 2000 budget in the appropriate funds (capital projects funds, sewer fund etc.). The first council meeting on the operating budget is set for August 10th. Previously there has been an early meeting intended to be a general background, idea and directional type meeting. On the June 15th meeting, Council direction is requested on plans and service levels desired (i.e. more or less snow plowing or traffic patrol or park mowing, etc.) Staff has a lot of background information on many subjects. Council should feel free to call department heads for information. If a short meeting with individual Departments or on the budget in general is desired, such as before a council meeting, please contact the City Administrator. The budget worksession's will begin at 4:30, unless another time is desired by the Council. Are there any preliminary directions Council would like to give to staff before starting the operational budget other than the assumed goal of increasing taxes no more than what would be generated by new construction? Alternatives 1.A. Accept tentative budget calendar B. Modify tentative budget calendar Action Requested Discuss and give staff direction. 2000 BUDGET CALENDAR TENTATIVE Date Who What June 15 Council Preliminary direction on budget plans,ideas,goals. June 29 Council Joint meeting with Planning Commission and Park Board for CIP discussion July 7 Staff Budget request worksheets to departments July 28 Staff Budget worksheets due back to Finance from departments. Aug 1 State Receive Local Government Aid state aid figures. Aug 10 Council Worksession on General Fund budget. Aug 19 Council Worksession. Aug 26 Council Worksession. Sept 1 State Receive Homestead/Agricultural Aid state aid figures. County Receive tax capacity numbers(?) Sept 9 Council Worksession&meeting? Adopt proposed maximum tax levy Sept 15 Staff Certify maximum property tax levy to county which will be used for proposed property tax notices. Oct 19 Council Public hearing at Reg.Council Meeting to discuss Tax Rates. Nov 15 County Proposed tax notices sent to property owners Dec 6 Council Hold actual property tax levy hearing (date reserved for cities). Dec 14 Council Adopt final tax levy and budget Dec 24 Staff Certify final tax levy. *Council can schedule additional dates for worksessions as needed. i7 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Closed Session DATE: May 25, 1999 Following the regular portion of the City Council meeting,the Council will be asked to go into an executive session for the purpose of discussing labor negotiations. /1A kOnt Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:tw