Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/20/1999 TENTATIVE AGENDA CITY OF SHAKOPEE ADJ. REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JULY 20, 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 May 4 and May 10, 1999 *8] Approve Bills in the Amount of$1,172,561.59 9] Communications: 10] Public Hearing s 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 Southbridge 4th, located south of Southbridge Parkway - Res. No. 5189 *B] Final Plat of Savanna Oaks at Southbridge, located w. of Southbridge Parkway-Res:5190 TENTATIVE AGENDA July 20, 1999 Page -2- 14] Recommendations from Boards and Commissions continued: *C] Final Plat of Savanna Oaks at Southbridge 2nd Addition, located west of Southbridge Parkway and north of Savanna Oaks at Southbridge-Res. No. 5191 *D] Final Plat of Stone Meadow 5th Addition, located south of Vierling Drive and west of Polk St. -Res. No. 5192 15] General Business A] Community Development 1. Oppidan Appeal of Sign Variance Denial by Board of Adjustment and Appeals 2. Noise Mitigation Requirements for the Classics at Southbridge 3. Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISTS) 4. Subdivision Regulations - Ordinance No. 552 B] Public Works and Engineering *1. Sarazin Improvement Project-Easement Acquisition, Project No. 1999-3 *2. Award Bid for Sarazin Street Improvements, Project No. 1999-3 -Res. No. 5185 *3. Approve Plans for 1999 Street Overlay and Block 6 Alley Reconstruction, Project No. 1999-6 -Res. No. 5195 *4. Approve Plans for Vierling Drive from CSAH 17 to Miller St., 1999-5 -Res. 5196 C] Police and Fire *1. Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus Bottle Replacement *2. Safe and Sober Grant -Res. No. 5197 D] Parks and Recreation E] General Administration *1. Apportionment of Special Assessments for Southbridge Cove-Res. No. 5187 2. Police Officers Contract Ratification *3. City Administrator's Annual Evaluation Format *4. Property Liability Insurance Renewal - memo on table *5. Lion's Club Donation *6. Thrift Store Asbestos Removal 7. Green Acres Split for Hauer Property - memo on table 8. Downtown Parking Identification Signs *9. Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Grant Agreement -Res. No. 5198 16] Other Business 17] Adjourn to Tuesday, July 27, 1999 TENTATIVE AGENDA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA Adjourned Regular Meeting July 20, 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: IPQR4 5. Financial A.)Approval of Bills 6. Other Business: 7. Adjourn • edagenda.doc 1 CITY OF SHAKOPEE CONSENT Memorandum TO: President & Commissioners Mark H. McNeill, Executive Director FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: EDA Bill List DATE: July 15, 1999 Introduction Attached is a listing of bills for the EDA and Seagate fund for the period 07/01/99 to 07/15/99 . Action Requested Move to approve bills in the amount of $246 . 98 for the EDA General Fund and $75 . 00 for Seagate. H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 II H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 II 0 Wo 0 0 O O O O O 0 O 0 0 II X U 00 0 in in 0o 0o co 0 0 0 0 00 di O N N 01 01 01 0 0 0 0 01 H H 0 0 lO 0 lD W 'D Ln Ln in In H III N Ln 111 N d' d' d' N h h N N W H N N N M 0 H II U) cA II V] CO II H 0 0 0 0 a> O\ 01 CO 01 CO (/) H l0 N W w aNNN N P: Cr) D 0 0 0 0 H R: 1 0 0 0 0 am ( a m• z z O 00 0 A Z H H H H W W Cl) a H u] Z U) ----4WO a H a W 0 134 0 40aa H D W H PI H• 4 rC H O 0 H 124 OU C4 Ln H x tS WPyG. 0U 0W3 N W O HH' �I CO HOZU) Z rrl HH ° 0 Z U)D a U) H (1 U 0 H H z M 01 10 H W .4' 01 CO O a0 N d' H in H al lD r-i N H 0 H N d' N U M d' M d' M W N N N N N Z 0 LD lfl <D lD 1.0 U Z 0 0 0 0 0 01 01 01 01 a, 01 rn rn 01 a, 01 01 01 01 a, H H H H H O M Cr) M M W 0 1'1 1-1 r-I H E.-( �� - N N N N N O 0 0 0 0 0 * * * * * H in o 0 01 O1 H Ln 0 Ln * H H H d' 0 d' o al z Z 0 0 rj N O o H i H '•� 0 0 P4 H J 4 0 H N Mr) 0 H M 0 H H Tr w a w 0 H 00 Tr a H 0 0 H 0 O H H H H a O 114 0 0. 0 W rnHHH Ln G>, 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 o 0 00 4 G. W H CL( I:i. H H O H H Crl H HH . � H 0 i H O Ln Ln in Ln H H * 0 H H * * Z H 7.1 .H H 0 0 * Ln 0 0 * * 114 H H HH H H * d' H H * * OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA MAY 4, 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 (at 7:34 p.m.); Bruce Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer; R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director; Gregg Voxland, Finance Director; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Paul Snook, Economic Development Authority Coordinator; and Jim Thomson, City Attorney. The pledge of allegiance was recited. The following item was added to the agenda: 15.E.11. Tobacco License Application at the Tobacco Shop , 1148 Vierling Drive. Sweeney/Amundson moved to approve the agenda as modified. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Brekke gave the Mayor's Report. He read a Proclamation declaring May 18 to be Shakopee Film and Video Festival Day and presented Steve Smith with a framed copy. Steve Smith stated that he was honored to receive the award and hoped that it would help to raise the enthusiasm for the event. Judy Cox reported that the polls will be open on Tuesday, May 11, for the $5 million referendum for park improvements, beginning at 7:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. All 7 precincts will be open. Jim Thompson, City Attorney, explained that the Ballard/Flood appeal regarding a door location on the south side of the building at 735 East 1st involves the potential reconsideration of the City Council decisionon April 6, to reverse the ruling by the Board of Appeals who denied the issuance of a building permit. He said in order for this to be reconsidered the Council must move to suspend its rules to allow a reconsideration motion to be made at a meeting other than the meeting where the original action was taken. If the motion to reconsider then passes, the item is back before the Council for action. Mr. Thomson stated that the building permit was issued as a result of the Council's decision, and the work has been completed. He said he didn't believe there was any legal recourse against the City, as the applicant received a lawfully issued building permit and completed the work. DuBois/Link moved to suspend Council rules of procedure to allow for reconsideration of the Ballard/Flood appeal regarding a door location on the south side of the building at 735 East 1st. Craig Ballard approached the podium and stated that his request to have this issue heard again is based on the Council's interpretation of entrance to mean driveway. Mr. Ballard has contacted former Council members who voted on the original variance. He said that Mr. Flood knew he was purchasing a non-conforming type B building so he would not have to construct a conforming building to use as a car sales lot. He said that the main issue is that the Council acted Official Proceedings of the May 4, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -2- without having all the information. He has now provided them with additional information. He then asked that the Council reconsider its action. Murial Krusmark, Owner of The Wedding Station, approached the podium and stated that she needs a front door to the building in order to operate a business. She said she applied for the permit and constructed the door legally. She is representing Mr. Flood. Jim Thomson stated that the issue is whether the applicant legally obtained vested rights by acting on the permit. Based on the fact that they acted by constructing the door they obtained vested rights to the building permit. Motion to suspend the rules carried 3-2 with Cncls. Sweeney and Brekke opposed. Link/Amundson moved to reconsider the Council's action of April 6th regarding Mr. Flood's appeal, due to additional information. A discussion ensued regarding the cost of replacing the door at the City's expense, since the door was allowed by the City. The City Attorney said he was not sure if the building permit requires this. However, he said if the City pursues the issuance of the building permit to try to remove the door, he said a court may or may not require the City to pay for the removal. Motion to reconsider the decision on the appeal. Motion carried with Cncl. Sweeney and Mayor Brekke opposed. This matter will be discussed later during the meeting when it comes up on the printed agenda. The Minutes of March 2, March 10, and March 23, 1999 were removed from the Consent Agenda. DuBois/Link 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. Cncl. DuBois stated that she would be abstaining from the approval of the Minutes of March 23, 1999. Amundson/Link moved to approve the Minutes of March 2 and March 10, 1999. Motion carried unanimously. Amundson/Link moved to approve the Minutes of March 23, 1999. Motion carried with Cncl. DuBois abstaining. Official Proceedings of the May 4, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -3- Mayor Brekke opened the public hearing on the proposed improvements to Sarazin Street, from St. Francis Avenue to Valley View Road, Project No. 1999-3. Mr. McNeill arrived and took his seat. Bruce Loney explained that the improvement for Sarazin Street was initiated by a petition from the developer of Prairie Village. Sarazin is a designated low volume collector on the City's Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Plan and is currently unimproved south of St. Francis Avenue. Mr. Loney explained that staff conducted a feasibility report, looking at two phases of Sarazin Street improvements. The first phase would be completed just past the first entrance at Mooers Avenue. Construction of Sarazin Street is essential to providing two accesses to the Prairie Village development in order to avoid temporary overlength cul-de-sacs and good emergency vehicle connections. The second phase would be from Mooers Avenue to Valley View Road. The phasing of the Sarazin Street improvements will not impact the development phasing of Prairie Village. However, Prairie Village does need the construction of Sarazin Street to the next street intersection south of St. Francis Avenue in order to continue to develop this year. Betaseed has indicated that the 1999 growing season is critical for research that will be conducted on the eastern portion of their property adjacent to Sarazin Street and is requesting that Sarazin Street not be constructed adjacent to their property this year. The future alignment of Valley View Road to Sarazin Street was also reviewed. Mr. Loney explained that Scott County is discussing the possible relocation of the Valley View Road and County Road 17 intersection as it is on a steep hill and should be relocated. The project cost of Phase I is $216,000 with city street oversizing costs of approximately $35,000, SPUC oversizing costs of$10,000 and assessment costs of$170,000. The assessments include a 44 foot wide street with parking on both sides, or a 36 foot street with no parking on either side. The difference between the two street widths is approximately $6500 additional cost to the City. Staff is recommending to construct only Phase I improvements to Sarazin Street this year to a point 800' south of St. Francis Avenue. Staff is also recommending that further study be done for the Phase II extension of Sarazin Street to Valley View Road, and possibly incorporate this study with improving a segment of Valley View Road for the 2000 construction year. A discussion ensued regarding traffic, traffic signals and turn lanes. Mayor Brekke asked if there were any citizens present who would like to address the City Council on this issue. Official Proceedings of the May 4, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -4- Lee Johnson, Orrin Thompson Homes, approached the podium to speak in favor of a 36 foot wide street. He said this would not impact the development and that there is no reason to park on the street. He also said there would be a reduced front end cost to the City as well as a perpetual cost savings for seal coating, plowing and repair in the future. He also addressed the temptation to speed on a wide low volume road. Gary Corvell, Betaseed Farm Manager, approached the podium and explained that their research program is a very in-depth process and it takes several years to prepare the land to create the right environment. He said that the 30 acres adjacent to Sarazin Street is very critical at this time to their research and development. He said there are no plans or intentions to sell the land for development in the near future and that they intend to remain agricultural. He said that they would be opposed to Valley View Road going through their property. He said that it would be more than 10 years out before they would like to see Valley View Road through their property. Having no further comments Mayor Brekke closed the public hearing. DuBois/Link offered Resolution No. 5134, A Resolution Ordering an Improvement and Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Sarazin Street, from St. Francis Avenue to Valley View Road, Project No. 1999-3, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. A discussion ensued regarding street widths and turn lanes, and who would pay for reconstruction in the future if a wider street with turn lanes is necessary in the future. Bruce Loney stated that once the street is constructed it would be difficult to assess property owners later. DuBois/Amundson moved to direct staff to design a 36 foot wide street with no parking on either side. A discussion ensued regarding the possibility of higher traffic volumes in the future and the increased cost to the city to widen the street later, if necessary. Bruce Loney explained that this is a minor collector street and he does not see Sarazin Street extending to the bluff line. Motion carried with Cncl. Sweeney and Link opposed. Link/Amundson moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute an extension agreement with a consultant for design survey services, as determined by staff. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Brekke opened the public hearing on the Tobacco License Violations Involving Sales to Minors. Official Proceedings of the May 4, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -5- Jim Thomson, City Attorney reported that notices that have been sent to three licensees and explained that the purpose of the hearing is to determine whether action should be taken against the licensees as a result of violations that occurred on December 12, 1998. These violations occurred after the new tobacco ordinance was adopted. He stated that the licensee may address the City Council and if they admit to the violation, they may add any mitigating circumstances. If they do not admit to the violation, the hearing will be heard after all those who received a notice have been heard. Mr. Thomson explained that the ordinance requires that the first violation is a civil penalty of $200 with a suspension of the license for a minimum of 1 day but no more than 10 days. A second violation within any 36-month period is punishable by a civil penalty of $500 and a suspension of the license for a minimum of 1 day but no more than 20 days. Courtney Kellogg, Avante Petroleum, Total Mart Store, 234 W 1st Avenue, approached the podium and admitted to the violation of sale of tobacco to a minor. He stated that an employee had sold tobacco to a minor. The employee had worked in the industry for approximately seven years and stated that he had a lot of things on his mind and that his mother had just passed away. Mr. Kellogg apologized for the situation and added that stipulations have been put in place to avoid this situation in the future. He said that employees are required to sign a form stating that they are not allowed to sell tobacco to minors. In response to a question as to a training program, Mr. Kellogg stated that prior to employment employees are provided a hire packet explaining that they are not to sell tobacco to minors. They are also provided training on a daily basis after hire. Sweeney/DuBois moved to fine Avante Petroleum, Total Mart Store, 234 West 1st Avenue, $200 and to suspend their license for three days, beginning Friday, May 14, 1999, and ending at the end of business on May 16, 1999. Motion carried unanimously. Dennis King, Manager, Twin Cities Stores, Inc., Oasis Market, 1147 Canterbury Road, approached the podium and admitted to the violation of sale of tobacco to a minor. He stated that the employees are well trained and that he is in the store 14-15 hours a day himself. He explained that the employee was young and apologized for the situation. Training involves 3-day classes as well as a signed agreement not to sell tobacco to minors. Sweeney/Link moved to fine Twin Cities Stores, Inc., Oasis Market, 1147 Canterbury Road, $200 and to suspend their license for three days, beginning Friday, May 14, 1999, and ending at the end of business on May 16, 1999. Motion carried unanimously. No representative was present for the K Mart Store at 1200 Shakopee Town Square, regarding a tobacco violation which occurred on December 12, 1998. This is the second violation for the K Mart store. Official Proceedings of the May 4, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -6- Sweeney/Amundson moved to fine K Mart, 1200 Shakopee Town Square, $500 and to suspend the license for 20 days, beginning Friday, May 14, 1999. The City Attorney stated that he has a certified receipt of the notice of this hearing signed by a representative of K Mart, as well as a certified copy of the criminal conviction involving the store employee who was cited and admitted to the violation. In this situation a minor entered the store to purchase tobacco. She did not have a license but presented a college ID that did not have a date of birth and was sold the tobacco. Motion carried unanimously. Police Chief, Dan Hughes was asked to assist in monitoring and enforce the suspensions. Cncl. Sweeney reported that the Shakopee Public Utility has leased a temporary substation intended to pick up the additional load before the Dean Lake substation comes on line. The pad is being prepared now and the agreement with Northern States Power is in place and anticipated to be connected approximately June 1, and energized by July 15, 1999. Cncl. Sweeney also reported that the Public Utility Commission has passed a permanent odd-even sprinkling ban from 12:00 noon to 5:00 p.m., beginning May 1, 1999, to October 1, 1999. This is in response to the requirements placed by the Metropolitan Council, DNR and associated agencies for allowing greater water use. After a second warning a $50 fine will be imposed. Sweeney/Amundson moved to direct that the assignment of duties of the Community Service Officer include monitoring compliance of the sprinkling ban. Motion carried unanimously. A recess was taken at 8:29 p.m. for the purpose of conducting the Economic Development Authority meeting. The meeting was re-convened at 8:31 p.m. Michael Leek stated that City Council recently approved a planned unit development for Boulder Ridge Townhomes and that Sand Companies, Inc. is now requesting Preliminary Plat approval for Boulder Ridge Townhomes which are located north of Vierling Drive and west of County Road 17. They are also requesting deferral of park dedication fees until the time of building permit application. Michael Leek reported that the Preliminary Plat of Boulder Ridge Townhomes creates three lots in two blocks. He reminded Councilmembers that a private roadway was created with the plat of Boulder Ridge and the access to the proposed residential project directly onto Vierling Drive is to the west. The total size of the project has been reduced to 52 units of townhomes. The Planning Commission reviewed the preliminary plat and recommended approval with conditions. Official Proceedings of the May 4, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -7- Sweeney/Link moved to amend Resolution No. 5130, by changing Condition b) vi. to allow for park dedication fees to be collected at the time that building permits are issued. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Link offered Resolution No. 5130, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Approving the Preliminary Plat of Boulder Ridge Townhomes, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. A recess was taken from 8:39 p.m. to 8:53 p.m. Bruce Loney stated that the City Council directed the preparation of a traffic study for Marschall Road from Vierling Drive to St. Francis Avenue. He asked Chuck Rickert of WSB to present the results of the study to the City Council. Chuck Rickart, WSB & Associates, approached the podium and explained that the traffic study included Marschall Road from Vierling Drive through St. Francis Avenue, and Vierling Dr. from Miller Street through the County Road 17 intersection, and 17th Avenue through the recently re- constructed area on the other side of County Road 17. Traffic counts were taken right after Easter for four hours in the morning and four hours in the evening. The average daily counts indicated approximately 16,000 cars north of the bypass and 12,000 cars south of the bypass. Crash investigations were also looked at and it was determined that this was not an issue as there were only eight accidents in the last three years. The Boulder Ridge Development, the Crossroads Development, the K Mart Development, and the Amcon Day Care Development were taken into consideration as part of the traffic generation on the north side of Hwy. 169. There are two large area developments on the south side of Hwy. 169, which include the Target Development as well as the remaining single family and multiple family developments. Traffic distribution was also looked at and it was determined that once 17th Avenue is extended to County Road 83 there will be a significant change in traffic patterns. The results of the analysis showed that the existing intersections are operating at level C or better. Without development, in 2005, County Road 17 and 17th Avenue would need upgraded to 4-lanes with a single left turn lane in each direction and would then operate at level C. A similar situation exists for 2019 at level F with no improvements on 17th Avenue. The intersection of St. Francis would be at service level E but could be improved to service level B with improvements to a 3/4 intersection, eliminating a left turn onto County Road 17. With phasing changes Vierling Drive could be upgraded to service level D. Official Proceedings of the May 4, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -8- Overall, 15 percent of the traffic was attributed to internal trips to the fast food and Target developments. All other traffic estimates were based on 100 percent new traffic and full development on all parcels. Bruce Loney stated that County Road 17 does require some improvements and signalization, and cost participation is currently being sought. Mr. Rickart recommended that a signal be installed at CSAH 17 and 17th Avenue before any large development occurs in this area. Sweeney/DuBois moved to accept the traffic study for Marschall Road from Vierling Drive to St. Francis Avenue conducted by WSB & Associates, and direct staff to proceed with implementation of the recommendations contained therein, Alternative No. 1. Joe Ryan, President of Oppidan, approached the podium and stated that he is responsible for the southeast corner of County Road 17 and Hwy. 169. He explained that the company was also responsible for the intersection of County Road 42 and 13 and stated that it worked effectively with the County, State and City. He said from their point of view, he recommend that there be a conservative aggressive approach to the study to assure that the traffic works. He said they are prepared to accept their responsibility of the expenses and participate with the County and the City. Motion carried unanimously. Michael Leek stated that Continental 89 Fund LLC is requesting Preliminary Plat approval of Vierling Plaza. The Planning Commission reviewed the request and recommended the following revisions: that the Final Plat will incorporate the right-of-way to accommodate traffic improvements; that an agreement be reached between the applicants and the City regarding cost participation for improvements required for Vierling Drive, with the costs apportioned among the benefiting properties; that the relocation/repositioning of the Minnegasco lines be at the developer's sole cost and expense, except that the City agrees to pay 1/2 of the additional cost up to a maximum of$35,000 for that portion necessitated by the construction of the right turn lane from Vierling Drive between Marschall Road and the east line of the driveway access; that the storm sewer system upstream from the pond and the sanitary sewer system within the development will be private and that there will be an association or some other agreement providing for future maintenance of these systems; the Park Dedication fees may be deferred until issuance of building permits; and that the existing special assessments be paid off at the time of closing. A discussion ensued regarding a right-in access from Marschall Road. It is stars position that a right-in only access from Marschall Road would be appropriate. However, the County is opposed to this. Official Proceedings of the May 4, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -9- Greg Soule, Attorney for applicant, approached the podium and stated that many meetings have been held and difficulties have been resolved. He said the proposed resolution is acceptable to both the applicant and the City staff. When asked what difficulties had been resolved, Mr. Soule listed traffic and the extent of improvements on Vierling Drive in terms of how wide the road must be, as well as berming, screening, and fencing which have been addressed with the CUP. Dave Benson, 1852 E Vierling Drive, approached the podium and stated that he has been working with Mr. Severson with regard to screening. He said that a 3-5 foot berm with evergreen trees would be acceptable to him. In answer to a question, Mr. Leek stated that the trail is proposed on the south side of Vierling Drive. Sweeney/Amundson offered Resolution No. 5110, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Approving the Preliminary Plat of Vierling Plaza, and moved its adoption. Sweeney/Amundson moved to amend Resolution No. 5110 by striking the words "Planning Commission" and replacing them with "City Council" in paragraph "A". Motion carried unanimously. Motion carried unanimously on main motion as amended. Bruce Loney explained that staff anticipates receiving a petition for public improvements on Vierling Drive, from CSAH 17 to Miller Street, form the developers of Vierling Plaza. He said this has been brought to the Council to decide whether to order the feasibility report at this time. Amundson/Link offered Resolution No. 5121, A Resolution Ordering the Preparation of a Report for Vierling Drive, from County State Aid Highway 17 to Miller Street, and move its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Link/DuBois moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute an extension agreement with WSB & Associated, Inc., to provide consultant services on the preparation of a feasibility report for Vierling Drive, from CSAH 17 (Marschall Road) to Miller Street. A discussion ensued regarding the date to accept the feasibility report and set a public hearing. Mayor Brekke stated that the intent is for the next City Council meeting on May 18, 1999. Motion carried unanimously. Michael Leek explained that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals reviewed and granted a CUP for the proposed Kmart site. The Applicant has appealed in order to seek clarification of the language of several conditions relating to landscaping buffers, screening, lighting, signage, the Official Proceedings of the May 4, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -10- number of parking spaces required, and delivery truck access. The berming would be located within the Minnegasco easement but would be limited to three feet in height. The lighting must be directed toward the structure and parking areas as well as comply with the requirements of the City Code. Trucks will access Vierling Drive from Marschall Road and not County Road 16 from the east, and the number of parking spaces required has been reduced because the auto center was deleted from the building. Greg Soule explained that most of their suggestions were for clarification of conditions for the City and the applicant. Sweeney/DuBois offered Resolution No. 5132, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Granting Approving an Appeal by Continental 89 Fund and Granting a Conditional Use Permit with Revised Conditions for a Retail Facility in the Highway Business (B1) Zone, and moved its adoption. Cncl. Sweeney reminded Councilmembers that Dave Benson stated earlier that the proposed buffering was acceptable to him, and that Mr. Benson's property is the closest property to the Kmart site. Motion carried unanimously. Mark McQuillan, Parks and Recreation Director, approached the podium to request authorization to solicit bids for the improvements proposed for the Joe Schleper Baseball Stadium. The scope of the project will not be determined until bids are opened and reviewed by the Council. The main bid package will consist of restroom facilities, concession stand and press box. The canopy roof, storage area under the grandstand and landscaping will be submitted as bid alternates. Gregg Voxland approached the podium to discuss funding. The stadium project involves $380,000 of TIF funding. He stated that the City Council identified $380,000 of TIF funds for various improvements in Tahpah Park in 1995. Those funds are still identified for Tahpah Park. Even with TIF funds, the stadium project will have a $175,000 shortfall. Therefore, the project needs to be scaled back or additional funding from another source will be needed to complete the project. One suggestion would be to fund the project using a combination of TIF funds and Park Reserve Funds. Link/Amundson moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to solicit bids for the improvements proposed for the Joe Schleper Baseball Stadium Project. Motion carried unanimously. Official Proceedings of the May 4, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -11- The Council is being asked to enter into an agreement with US Aquatics to provide consulting services for the design development and specifications to upgrade the filtration system at the outdoor municipal pool. Council is also being asked to appropriate funding from the Building Fund for the repairs of the outdoor municipal pool. Two options were presented. The first option includes a project estimate of $880,000 with engineering and consulting services at 7 1/2 %. The second option prioritizes necessary repairs into phases should the Council decide to have the project completed over a period of two to three years. Phase I would include repairing the perimeter piping and inlets, the gravity sand filter box and piping and the chlorinating system. This phase is estimated to cost $160,000 with consulting fees at 9% of$14,400. Tom Schaffer, US Aquatics, approached the podium and stated that the pool is in such a condition that it must either be rebuilt or replaced, and that it not be done in phases. He said he had health and safety concerns with the pool and recommended rebuilding the pool. Sweeney/Amundson moved to direct staff to get a complete picture of the various funds, their balances and limitations on their use, as well as how they are replenished and at what rate, and if their replenishment falls within the levy limitation. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/DuBois moved to direct staff to advertise that the pool will be closed until it is repaired. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Amundson moved to hire US Aquatics for consulting and engineering services for repairs to the Shakopee Municipal Pool, Option 1, the entire pool project. Motion carried unanimously. DuBois/Link moved to participate in the Minnesota Recreation and Park Association's - Parks and Recreation "Your Best Investment" Program. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) The Board of Adjustment and Appeals approved a Conditional Use Permit (#PC99-40) for a gas station and car wash at the northeast corner of County Road 83 and 12th Avenue. Mr. Leek explained that the applicant has requested modifications to conditions #1 and #3 to be able to add an additional access/exit onto 12th Avenue. Staff has reviewed the request and is agreeable to the language change and recommends that City Council approve the appeal and direct Staff to come back with a resolution consistent with that language. In addition, the engineering fees would be paid by the applicant in this case. Michael Cronin, representing Super America, approached the podium and asked that the Council adopt the staff recommendation. Official Proceedings of the May 4, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -12- Bruce Loney explained that this issue was before the Council due to the concern of the proximity to other intersections. There would be a developer's agreement addressing that the applicant pay for the engineering fees. DuBois/Link moved to approve the Appeal of Speedway Super America LLC, and direct staff to draft a resolution consistent with that determination including a developer's agreement that would address engineering fees to be paid by the applicant. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Brekke asked the City Attorney to comment on what would be the next appropriate motion regarding the Ballard/Flood appeal, based on motions passed earlier. The City Attorney stated that there is no motion on the table and that Council is back to where it was on April 6, 1999. He said that the Appeal from the Board of Adjustments decision is the main action before the Council. Mayor Brekke stated that he now believes that Mr. Reinke's intention in 1977 was to not allow a doorway. Cncl. Sweeney stated that the intent of the Councilmembers in 1977 is not relevant today. There was a consensus not to make the previous Councilmembers' intent in 1977 part of the current discussion. Gary Flood approached the podium and stated that it sets a bad precedent when a ruling is made and a determination only to open discussion again. He said that what happened in 1977 is irrelevant unless that entire council is present. He said that one Councilmember cannot speak for the others. Craig Ballard approached the podium and stated that it is very important to know what the Councilmembers thought. He said he wanted the decision overturned on the grounds that no entrance is allowed on 1st Avenue and it adversely impacts his business, the flow of traffic, the neighbors, and the handicapped. The City Attorney stated that he had reviewed the building permit file and the issue is that a building official issued a building permit and that decision was appealed to the Board for interpretation. The Board ruled that a variance was in place that did not allow an entrance on 1st Avenue. They interpreted that as a doorway and reversed the building official's decision. He said the appealing party could request an amendment to this variance preventing this City Council from deleting that requirement in the variance approved in 1977. There is nothing preventing this City Council from deleting that requirement. He suggested that the building permit was issued legally, based on this Council's decision. He asked, as a fundamental issue, whether it makes sense to allow a building permit on the southside of the building, regardless of the intent of the Council in 1977. Official Proceedings of the May 4, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -13- DuBois/Amundson moved to deny the appeal request to allow a door on the south side of Gary Flood's building. It was noted that a vote for the motion would disallow a building permit for the door. Michael Leek stated that the building permit included internal modifications in addition to the doorway. Mayor Brekke stated that too much time has been spent on what he feels is a private civil matter between two individuals, and that it would be a major error on the City's part to overturn this at this point. Cncl. Sweeney called for a vote on the question. Motion failed 4-1 with Cncl. DuBois in favor. Sweeney/Amundson moved to approve Mr. Flood's appeal of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals determination that the 1977 variance does not allow a door on the south side of the building located at 719 East 1st Avenue. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Thomson summarized and clarified the Council's action stating that, regardless of what action was taken in 1977 by the City Council, this City Council believes that it is appropriate to allow a door now. DuBois/Link moved to find that Bonnie Mauritz has successfully completed the probationary period for Building Secretary, and awarded her permanent, full-time status in that position. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney/Amundson moved to remove discussion of the Southwest Suburban Publishing request to purchase a parking lot owned by the City, from the table. Motion carried unanimously. Mark McNeill stated that this item was previously tabled in order to give Vision Shakopee! an opportunity to review whether the proposal meets with the long term best interest of the downtown. Since then, questions have been raised as to when and how this property was acquired, how much the City paid for the property, and the size of the lot. Staff has looked into this and determined that there are three separate deeds for five lots north of the alley. They were acquired in February, April, and May, 1968, and appear to have been funded through the 1967 assessment project. Two are acquired through warranty deeds; one was through a probate deed. The City owns these lots free and clear, with the exception of the most easterly lot (lot 6). There is a restriction on the easterly 20 feet of that lot that goes back to the 1920's, and in effect, says that no structure may be constructed on or adjacent to the easterly 20 feet. The Official Proceedings of the May 4, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -14- restriction could be removed by pursuing legal action. The deeds do not show the purchase price for the lots. The parking lot is .825 acres in size. Mr. McNeill explained that Mr. Rolfsrud had indicated his willingness to incorporate whatever design standards the City would want to see, such as a "historic" downtown theme. He also indicated his willingness to purchase only the portion of the parking lot necessary for the building pad if the City wishes to retain the remainder for public parking. However, with 65 newspaper employees, parking would be a primary concern. John Gutteter, Vice Chair, Vision Shakopee!, approached the podium and thanked the City Council for the opportunity for the Board of Directors of Vision Shakopee! to begin working with the City in reviewing this proposal. He said an open minded approach was taken and asked the Councilmembers to take a non-biased approach and to consider their thoughts as they make their decision. John Perry, Vision Shakopee!, approached the podium, and explained that six of their most persuasive members were asked to discuss the pros and cons as to why this proposal should or should not move forward. The general outcome was favorable. However, two serious concerns were raised. He said that Vision Shakopee! is intended to be far sighted, but there is fear of being near-sighted so soon after the conference. He asked what the rush for a decision was if there are no plans to build for a few years. Another concern is sale development conditions. Burl Zorn, approached the podium to object to the sale of the parking lot. He stated that he recognized the Council's authority to sell the property to benefit the City. However, he said he was opposed to the sale at this time because he believes that the parking lot near the river will become more valuable as a result of the $800,000 rehabilitation grant the City has been awarded. He also stated that Vision Shakopee! was formed and partially funded with the encouragement of the Council. He explained that one of the high points that came about at the Burnsville conference included raising Huber Park above the 10 year flood plain. By doing so, many activities could take place there but would require additional parking. He reminded the Council that most of the objections to Blocks 3 & 4 related to a lack of parking downtown. He said that those involved in Vision Shakopee! should be given the opportunity to come up with a vision before the City sells the property. John Perry stated that development of a physical master plan for the Downtown Riverfront would be very beneficial. A discussion ensued regarding the possibility of future City needs for this property. Sweeney/Amundson moved to direct staff to obtain an appraisal of the parking lot located in Block 5, Original Shakopee. Motion carried 3-2, with Cncls. DuBois and Link opposed. Official Proceedings of the May 4, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -15- Mark McNeill stated that Canterbury Park will be hosting the Lilith Fair Concert Tour again this year. Because of City noise standards, which become more stringent after 10:00 p.m., staff recommended that the concert be concluded at 10:00 p.m.. However, the promoter of the event is requiring Canterbury Park not to conclude until 11:00 p.m. Mary Pat Monson, Special Events Manager, Canterbury Park, approached the podium and in response to rumors that this will be the last year for the Lilith Fair, stated that it is very likely that Sara McLoughlin will not tour next year, maybe someone else will? Mayor Brekke stated that the public is more likely to support or tolerate one large event as opposed to a number of smaller events that could cause problems. Link/DuBois moved to allow an ending time of 11:00 p.m. for the Lilith Fair concert. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/DuBois offered Resolution No. 5131, A Resolution Approving a Waiver to Subdivision Requirements, City Code Section 12.08, Minor Subdivision Process, City of Shakopee, Minnesota, and moved its adoption. (Valley Haven Mobile Home Park) Motion carried unanimously. Cncl. Link stated that he would be abstaining from discussion and voting on the issue of a waiver of the Minor Subdivision requirements for Brian and Julie Welch. DuBois/Amundson moved to approve the request of Brian and Julie Welch to waive the requirement of the Minor Subdivision requirements of City Code Section 12.08. The lots being split are located at 1050 and 1052 Marschall Road and they will not meet the applicable side year setbacks. Motion carried unanimously with Cncl. Link abstaining. DuBois/Link moved to terminate Michael Huber's probationary status. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). DuBois/Link offered Resolution No. 5127, Authorizing Execution of Agreement for Installation and Maintenance of Railroad Signal at Fuller Street (Agreement No. 77717), and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) DuBois/Link offered Resolution No. 5128, Authorizing Execution of Agreement for Installation and Maintenance of Railroad Signal at Holmes Street (Agreement No. 77718), and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) DuBois/Link offered Resolution No. 5129, Authorizing Execution of Agreement for Installation and Maintenance of Railroad Signal at Lewis Street (Agreement No. 77719), and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Official Proceedings of the May 4, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -16- DuBois/Link moved to authorize to enter into contract with Safe Assure Consultants to design and administer an OSHA compliant safety program for the Public Works Department for a cost of $4,000 for 1999 and to budget $5,668 for the year 2000. The cost for 1999 would be funded from the Street Professional Service Budget. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney/Amundson offered Resolution No. 5133, A Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids for the 1999 Sidewalk and Trail Improvements, Project No. 1999-4, and moved its adoption. Bruce Loney reported that he met with the residents to try to get the trail relocation along the Upper Valley Drainageway completely out of the drainage way. The residents were not agreeable to moving the trail closer to the homes but staff was able to move the trail up three feet above the trail bottom, which is good for a five year storm. The trail will be constructed for the most part within the existing right-of-way. However, some construction easements will be needed for all properties. Most of the residents were agreeable to this. Bruce Loney explained that letters were sent to the residents regarding the new sidewalk along Marschall Road, stating that if they had concerns to contact staff. Mr. Mulcrone responded with concerns that the sidewalk was too close to his property. Mr. Loney explained that staff's objective is to place sidewalks as far away from the street as possible for snow plowing and safety reasons. Perry Mulcrone, 1428 Prairie Lane, approached the podium and stated concerns for an existing dirt path that curves around the corner of the fence line and the walking path that runs east and west. He said that trash is a problem in this area as well. He said that the distance from his house to the street is 41' and that he would like the sidewalk closer to the street. In addition, his bedroom window will be 15 feet from the path rather than 25 feet. Mr. Loney stated that he recommended a 12' minimum for a boulevard for snow storage. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Link moved to direct staff to modify the sidewalk plans to be 12 feet from the front street for snow storage. Motion carried unanimously. DuBois/Link moved to acknowledge the satisfactory completion of probation and authorize the retention of Tracy Menden as a Police Records Technician effective May 1, 1999. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). DuBois/Link offered Resolution No. 5126, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Approving Premises Permits for the Shakopee Lions Club, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Official Proceedings of the May 4, 1999 Shakopee Valley News Page -17- DuBois/Link offered Resolution No. 5125, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Approving Premises permits for the VFW Post #4046, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). DuBois/Link moved to recommend that Larry Mueller be recommended to the Scott County Board for reappointment for a term on the Prior Lake/Spring Lake Watershed District Board. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). DuBois/Link moved to authorize the proper city officials to take the necessary action to retain registrar services for the Shakopee 84 Partnership bonds. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). DuBois/Link moved to approve the transfers for TIF funds and to close the 1993C Debt Service fund. (Outlined in the April 16, 1999, memo from Gregg Voxland, CC Document No. 270) (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mark McNeill reported that a review appraiser had determined that the Eagle Creek Thrift Store is valued at $98,000 for the building, and the .63 acres upon which it is located. Valley Green Business Park Project Manager Jon Albinson previously offered to do a Phase One environmental study, for a cost of$2,000. The results of that analysis revealed 3,050 sq. feet of vinyl asbestos floor tile, and asbestos in the floor tile mastic. This will need to be remedied prior to demolition. The cost for the tile removal is estimated at between $6,100 and $12,200, plus testing costs. Sweeney/Amundson moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute a purchase agreement with Valley Green Business Park for the sale of the Thrift Store (located at CR-83 and CR-16) for $98,000 with conditions and documents outlined in the purchase agreement. The City will pay for the removal of the asbestos. Motion carried unanimously. DuBois/Link moved to authorize the hiring of Deborah Braaten as Office Service Worker at $12.1457/hr. Step 1, Grade B of the 1999 Pay Plan, effective May 10, 1999, contingent on successful completion of a standard pre-employment physical and background check. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). DuBois/Link moved to approve the end of the six month probationary period for Charles Fuller, in his new position as Building Maintenance worker, and grant him full time regular employee status. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney/Link moved to approve the application and grant a tobacco license to Amy's Inc., dba Tobacco Shop, 1148 Vierling Drive East, upon the surrender of the license of Abuisnaineh Taha Yunes dba Tobacco Land. Motion carried unanimously. Official Proceedings of the May 4, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -18- A recess was taken at 12:02 a.m. for the purpose of conducting a closed session to discuss an assessment appeal regarding the Maras Street improvements. The meeting re-convened at 12:10 and the Mayor stated that no action was taken during the executive session. Sweeney/Link moved to table the reassessment of the Maras Street improvement project, 1996-4. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/DuBois moved to adjourn to Monday, May 10, 1999, at 4:15 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 12:11 p.m. 4111. ,I ' • th S. Cox ty Clerk Esther TenEyck Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ. REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA MAY 10, 1999 Mayor Brekke called the meeting to order at 4:20 p.m. with Councilmembers Deb Amundson and Cletus Link present and Mark McNeill, City Administrator. Those absent: Councilmembers Jane DuBois and Bob Sweeney. Also present at 4:35 p.m. : R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director, Bruce Loney, Public Works Director, Mark McQuillan, Parks and Recreation Director and Dan Hughes, Chief of Police. Link/Amundson moved to approve the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Brekke recessed the meeting for an executive session to discuss labor negotiations. Mayor Brekke re-convened the meeting at 4:35 p.m. Mayor Brekke welcomed the members representing the School District to the Work Session: Bob Ostlund, Shakopee Schools Superintendent, Ron Ward, Director of Administrative Services and the following members of the School Board: Todd Anderson, Kathy Busch, Jessica Geis, Lori Gillick, Mary Romansky and Steve Schneider. R. Michael Leek opened the Work Session by summarizing the development in the City within the last year. Mr. Leek identified some of the new developments. He noted that 637 building permits had been issued in 1998, half of which were for townhomes and the other half for single family homes. Mr. Leek stated that the building permits were running about 25-30% higher than the same time the previous year. He noted that the population is growing by about 1,200 people per year and projections for the population were at 18,000 by the end of 1999. Mr. Leek noted that there currently is a moratorium on residential building in the City due to density, land use and transportation concerns. Jane DuBois entered the meeting at 4:50 p.m. Bob Ostlund, Shakopee Schools Superintendent approached the podium. Mr. Ostlund stated that about three years ago, a task force was formed to look at the educational needs for the school district. Mr. Ostlund stated that Central School is going to be converted to an early childhood center and the School District received $400, 000 in grant money in order to accomplish that. He noted that the School District is also purchasing land for a high school and elementary school. Mr. Ostlund noted that there will be 406 kindergarten children entering the School Distgict in the fall. In addition, Mr. Ostlund noted that parents of 4 graders were given the choice of what school their children would attend. Mr. Ostlund projected that by the year 2000-2001, the School District will be short 12 elementary classrooms. He noted that a new school will be constructed in the Southbridge area. Mr. Ostlund stated that he knew another bond issue would be a concern for residents but noted that Official Proceedings of the May 10, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -2- the new school, Sunpath, was constructed 40% for growth and 60% for Central overflow and the next elementary school will be constructed 100% for growth. Mr. Ostlund stated that future concerns for the School District were deciding to build another school for grades 5-6 or add those grades to another school and deciding whether to build a new junior high or convert the current senior to a junior high. Regarding park land adjacent to Sunpath school, R. Michael Leek stated that the City took 10 acres from the Pheasant Run addition for park dedication but it may need to acquire additional land outside of dedication. Mark McQuillan stated that 40 acres are needed. Ron Ward noted that Sunpath required a large storm retention pond. Steve Schneider questioned whether it was wise to wait to purchase land because the land prices are going so high. Mayor Brekke replied that the City raised its park dedication fees to contend with that issue. Bruce Loney stated that the City is planning on realigning County Road 16 and 17 Avenue. Mr. Loney noted that the County would like to take over 17tAvenue and extensive negotiations would have to take place for that to occur. Mr. Loney stated that the City would want an agreement up front regarding speed limits. Jessica Geis stated that she had attended a meeting at the Capitol and learned that area representatives were trying to get legislation passed so that speed limits by schools were controlled by legislation. Regarding the COPS grant, Police Chief Dan Hughes stated that he is supportive of police officers in the school. Chief Hughes stated that there needs to be positive relationships between students, parents and school staff. Chief Hughes stated that the COPS grant has three elements, those being prevention, education and enforcement. He stated that there currently is one full-time officer in the school district teaching the DARE and GREAT programs, however, one officer was not enough. Chief Hughes stated that the City is interested in getting financial help from the School District as it would like another officer. He also stated that the Police Department has a good relationship with the School District and funds are available under a grant for an additional officer. Bob Ostlund agreed with Chief Hughes and noted that the cost for the first three years was nothing. He stated that the program had a great deal of potential. Mayor Brekke stated that the City would not be able to justify not funding the fourth year of the program. Bob Ostlund stated that he was receiving feedback that one officer is critical and a second officer was not as critical at this time but was unknown for the future. Jane DuBois stated that she believes in prevention. She noted that there was a possibility that additional funds may be available by the federal government in the future. Official Proceedings of the May 10, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -3- Ron Ward questioned whether a community service officer would be an option. Chief Hughes replied that the grant provides the position must be a sworn officer. Mayor Brekke stated it was the consensus that one officer is needed and the issue of an additional officer could be revisited. The plan would be for the City to pay half and the School District to pay half. Jessica Geis suggested that the Police Department apply for two positions even though it may only need one. Regarding the issue of School Safety/Security, Bob Ostlund noted that the odds are small that a tragedy such as that in Littleton, CO would occur, but that it could happen. Mr. Ostlund stated that there recently was an issue which turned out to be rumors, however, the School District and Police Department worked together. Mr. Ostlund stated that the School District is reviewing safety plans for all types of incidents. In addition, Mr. Ostlund stated that the School District is working on recognizing the signs and symptoms of problems and intervening. The School District is also working on trying to get students to recognize problems and talk about them. Mr. Ostlund stated that there can never be a guarantee that tragedy will not strike. He noted that drugs do not seem to be a problem in the schools, but drugs are a problem with school-aged children. Ron Ward stated that the positive relationships should continue in the summer months between the students and police. Regarding the Stans Tennis Courts, Bob Ostlund noted that four additional tennis courts were included in the school referendum and were near completion. Cletus Link stated that the City needs to complete its obligations. Mayor Brekke stated that the matter needs to be placed on the agenda. Mark McNeill stated that he will get estimates on costs. Regarding parking, Bob Ostlund stated that a small parking lot was being considered which would include 20 spaces at a cost of approximately $1, 000 per space. The parking lot would possibly be located east of the new football and soccer field. Mark McNeill noted that the City currently does not have any funding in its five- year capital improvement plan. Bruce Loney stated that Vierling Drive was designed to be a four-lane collector street and when the City applied for state aid, it needed to decide if there would be parking. Since the rest of Vierling Drive was no parking, the City decided to make all of Vierling Drive a no parking area. Regarding broadcasting the school board meetings, Bob Ostlund stated that the quality was so poor, it was not doing any good to broadcast the meetings. Mr. Ostlund stated that the microphones had recently been upgraded so the sound should be better. Ron Ward stated it would cost approximately $70, 000 to retrofit the board room to produce a quality sound and picture. Mr. Ward noted that another issue was that the cable line coming into the school was the same as a residential line and needs to be upgraded. Mark McNeill stated Official Proceedings of the May 10, 1999 Shakopee City Council Page -4- that the Cable Commission is in the process of renegotiating the franchise and he would bring the matter to its attention. Mayor Brekke adjourned the meeting to Wednesday, May 12, 1999, at 5:00 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, liTth:k )--• &i ( J dith S. Cox ity Clerk Janet Vogel Freeman Recording Secretary 4108 1 CITY OF SHAKOPEE CONSENT Memorandum TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: City Bill List DATE: July 15, 1999 Introduction and Background Attached is a print out showing the division budget status for 1999 based on data entered as of 07/15/99 . 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 $321 . 98 . 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 $7, 233 . 50 . Action Requested Move to approve the bills in the amount of $1, 172, 561 .59 . CITY OF SHAKOPEE EXPENSES BY DEPARTMENT 07/15/99 CURRENT YEAR ANNUAL MONTH TO PERCENT DEPT DEPT NAME BUDGET ACTUAL DATE EXPENDED 11 MAYOR & COUNCIL 74,080 47 28,621 39 12 CITY ADMINISTRATOR 219,200 14,528 101,235 46 13 CITY CLERK 201,220 9,041 94,164 47 15 FINANCE 348,770 8,488 199,312 57 16 LEGAL COUNSEL 269,000 50,520 237,117 88 17 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 751,720 23,730 247,556 33 18 GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS 232,230 5,367 97,264 42 31 POLICE 1,930,119 69,083 922,712 48 32 FIRE 618,420 32,487 263,331 43 33 INSPECTION-BLDG-PLMBG-HTG 326,710 13,064 153,573 47 41 ENGINEERING 507,620 32,185 256,974 51 42 STREET MAINTENANCE 827,730 21,811 325,177 39 44 SHOP 145,330 8,239 73,550 51 46 PARK MAINTENANCE 487,090 23,367 214,739 44 91 UNALLOCATED 594,550 -72 40,086 7 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 7,533,789 311,886 3,255,411 43 17 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 500,630 85 334,450 67 TOTAL TRANSIT 500,630 85 334,450 67 19 EDA 403,170 2,342 43,757 11 TOTAL EDA 403,170 2,342 43,757 11 H LI) 01RSa ,-. i ai CL4 1:14 au au 04 04 04 04 ro HHHH H H H H H H H a H a s 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 H H H co O W 01 0 1I En al 01 x H z M z° co w NNN H U a1 HHH H 10 CO Na' H H H 01 0l 01 01 01 01 01 01 0l 01 01 CA of of 01 H0 10 10 10 10- o ` H HH H 1010 NM V, 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 al N ›AN N N N N N in N H O O O O 0 w W w N 0 CO CO 0 0 cn if)LO cA al o ›..1 a aI-�-�ja a a�j a a a a a a a a- a cn Ln 0000 �7lj rj Fj 7ij l'7 F]hrJ r77 F] 00 'V� O 10 10 O O O HHHa1 H 1.0 Ln W co co EA MMMT) M CO COCOCO N CO OM CO CO is MMMMM(NMfN�)MMMMM1010 c0 p W do Envt,WN m H HHH H Ml� HH H HHHriHrHHHHHHHHH�-I OP 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I CI 'V' I NN N 'Wd�d'd'd'd'V'W I1 1 W I N H O I H H Lf)N N N N N I I 1 1 1 I I I I i I I I I O M H CO H N H H H H H H H H H H H O O O O O H O O O O O O O N N cyH 00010 M a1 01 01 01 01 01 NN 0101 a1 rA NHHHH 01 LO 0'OD 01 H M H N d'Ntt)H H H 0 co 0 0 0 0 0 co 01 0 0 0 00000000 I. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O r-I r-i 0 W j. 0 z En 1s Cn Z a ro W w El 1-1 a 0 X e I w aw al 4 4t7 F-1 a wa•rA a) u 4 ,,�� U CUn U UUP >~ al c) oo a WW W WWW to InH A zzzx z H Aza AU Wo w 03CO 00x0 x WWN m EA En •d,� 7 AAAAAAAAAAAAA�� a s a0 Cu (� q z CO Cl HHHHHHHEIEIEIEIHHrC1� o ,7,• l H a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a 0 aaaa W H Uwm 10 as OH z ������������� I WwWH a z Cnai.l 10 FC aH HH H f0 wGW-iCW`'GWarX4GW`'CW4GAGGAGAG4F14004CCIAal GA co W al al al al al al H H H E-1 H W M U al 0 00 z H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H U)A Z 0 `" x a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a N N Il) aI 2El Z CncnmmmmcnCnCnCnrnwu]cnCn `" En En 41 PI ril Ell wwwwwwwwwwwwwww OOy HHHHHHHHHHrHAHHHH FC FG f%1;44 0 Cn fn H H H� as O � gggg��glxIgg� CL' aaaa WWW �Zz HH N El El El El El El EA Ei El El El El El El w CO Cn CO CO CO Cn m V)01 VI CO m CO En 0 a a 0 0 0 U U U z W W 0 a m H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H Z 0000 w as aa°,a° zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz H H H W W W W W U H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H UUUU rrl 41 41 g4 g4 W UU ti)ci a qq ggqqqq q qq Ei 00x0 w CJ)COCJ) H �� FC FC�FCFCFCFC �FC�FC��FCFC 0000 a A 000 xW UU AA rn a � 44 K4 zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz HHHH x El4 CI 00 xx W 000000000000000 W aa�R" U i-7 WWW HEa4 00 H HHHHHHHHHHHHHHH A HpCpC 0 WWW H rci 41a 7 HHHHHHHpC Hpc HHHHHHpc H G7 zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz a * * * * * * H10MMM In In 00 l0 Na' 00 0101 l�0N 000 El a1•W•H•I`• 10• cJ),• W• Lnln <flC�Ln01 OO N0 vrgCD CO 10I�r-inmNup I000d' in 141 • • • • • • �7 1 � 01001 .LII UI 00 01W NMO,r OOM IO N 0-U1O W M 0101 [min O1H.4, 1010 HH MM WH In Ln 0101 000 N10 W MM ISN NLn.4OHM WNd�I�W W Wln W W 0 M OI.01 HH W W 10HH01 HH Tr I. 01 NH 10HI- MM VIII W[-HN WIC IIIHMNH V'NN MM R2C, 4/3{n-Ln-H t?{? W W H O H N 10 10 V)-40- 111 LA H r-i N M N N i?ift t?t/}U?t/}cr t?H H 411-41)-H co-co-.4., 10 10 LC)LO U VT to- i? M W W H r V} V?ill- V} W H H N i H 0 U Vl-i?V} H H W H H E ���� \E4 co co co oc, co co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO 00 0 0 CO CO CO CO 0 0 CO 0 En El 0 0 0 0 co 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O W .yi \\N 0 N 000 0 N0 000 O0 Or 0 000000000000000 N x 0000 0 0 rn \� �� 0 000000000000000 0 U W 01 01 01 01 a' a' 001 001 001 001 001 O1 01 0 0 cr%al ON CA ON CA 01 CA 0 0 0a1 0a1 0 0a1 m m 0�1 0�1 CA 0�1 001 001 001 001 01 W x mrnmrn rn rn ON U U H H H H H H H H 01 01 01 01 Q1 01 01 O1 O1 O1 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 H HH HH H HHHHHHHr-(HHHHHHH H 0 0 a\ 0 H N H H •.�. N O 0 O 0 0 NO 0 N 01 0 N kO iA M A M A 01 A M A M A m A CO A 0 0 O 0 V 10 V O V 10 V <D V N* N * N * N K N A M A 10 V ID V 10 V tD V to * N* V 10 V N (1) C)) /6 a a a ]Cxx x x x x x x x MMMM]C]C M x x x14 x W H H 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000 0 0 0 00 0 N — M W 01 O W rn a rn H Z a 1 U) ww w 0101 ri U H1.0 N H U)U)U) M d' U) M U) 0) 0) 01 0 N N N N l0 N N N N N rl H H rl''A r40 N U) 'Ji>1 d' M M N l�r" l� 0 r••• (11 l� N d' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) O U) i..a a N H N N0) d'd'd'd'd'd 0) 0 N N O o 0 0 O U) O d' d' v' 0 0 0 0 N N o r o d' In Ut to to to ut to H H ri d' CO co H H H 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H L N N N N M r-I 01 Tr H H H MMMMMf'1 M 01 H H H H 14 H H MMM M N M N d' N N N N N N N N U) M N N N M W N N d'd'd' I' d' d' d' Tr d' d' d'd'd'd'd'd' d' d' d' d'd' d' O m I I 1 I I I I I i 1 I I 1 I I ) ' ' I I I I 1 I U ", N N U)H rl ri N H H r 1 ri r 1 NCO rl M rl H M H H H r1 0) U IZ7+ H H N ri N U) U1 H H LI) U) N CO N N CO N r I U1 H r I r I U) U1 a' 0) 01 CO M H N N M M N N M H la M H d'M 10 M M H is W 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 O O 0 0 W z z H H z z H H I4 WU1 H U 14 H 0 Z co 0)U) FA 0 0 H 00 111 H H 0H Z a as w H En w U FH a s zzzzzz x a as H m CO CO 00000 z w co HHHHHH En En cnm z up m w CO ZZZ co Z Z z 0 0 0700 000 2 Z Z ZZ H PO 000 H W W Cl) H H ZZZZZZ W W H HH U] O 14x14 ,a H 14 Xa H H HHHHHH 'J x Hi 14 I� HHI� co CN d WWW D W H E 000000 a W R: g W W O �' aaa W z L7 z W W HHHHHH a Z W W W 0 N N HHH H 0 0 W x O O mmmm CO PI H OU 0 0 0 at 4 H H H 0 0 g U CO UUUUUU U) H H g4 Z zzzzzz V) W A Li X co 0 HHHHHH H a W U ›A 40 0 H 141414x1414 S 0 Z 14 W Z P 4H H H H H H 0 H O H > H U U ZZZZZZ 0 l)l [a H H Hi c4 c4 ril H I 'H al a H 000000 0 Z Z a w co z w A 2 2 14 ucxi�cxicxi3) a H O ril 111 FA al • 0 HHH U] x H El X FC 00 255255 ro X 5 5 Iauala a x H H 2 UUUUUU x H 0U ZZ 00 5 2 a U) 14 14 0 000000 x 14 14 H U U HHH 14 0 > w w U cccwwro x 4 4 1414 a mcnmcnUU) 0 w 14 14 0 0 0 444 Q Q P X44444 m m m mm co * * * * * * * * * * 41 * * * * 01 01 U)U) r1 0 d'U) N N N l� O 0 O O M M 0 O ri ri 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U)U) O O O O Co CO 10 M EA Tr V' Co Co 1010 HM rHH MM 00 00 U)U) 00 MM 0000000 1a 10 00 NN M 1�H 01 CO co CO 03 CD d1 O M 10 la ri H 0 O O O O O 10 W 10 10 O U)O U)U)U)O O O 0 O 00 CD O U)U) O 0 O O M M N N O O H H N N O O l-l- 01 01 0)01 CD CO 0)0)0)0)0)0)la CD CO O O O O HH CO N N O 0 41)-41>ri N i/}t/? U)U) O O t?i? v)-4.n- U)U) H ri H i/?ri L?i/?i/?N ri H N N H ri V? t/? i/? 10 W 10 10 H H 0 0 `.( t/}40- 40-411- i/?t/} 10 1,0 i?U/? 0 W M P4 0 W coEt W Co Co d'V'd' d' d' d' d' d' d' d' d'd'd'd'd'd' W d' d' d'd' d' CH7 H O o HHH H H H H H H H H ri ri H H 1-1 H H H H H H W A N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r- *" - 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000 0 0 0 00 0 0) 01 01 01 a1 01 ) 0) 01 01 01 0)01 0)01 0)01 01 01 0) 0)01 0) J U 0) 0 W rn 0) 0)0)0) a) 0) CA 01 01 01 0) 01 01 01 01 0)0) 01 0) 01 01 01 01 W M 01 01 0)0)01 01 01 0) 0) 0% 0) 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0) 01 0) 01 0) 01 '.l+' U H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H rl H H H ri H H H U 0 a Z H N M d' U) 10 l- CO 01 0 H N M d' U) 12) H H H H H H H H H H N N N N N N N U M A M A Cl A M A MA MA MA MA MA M A M A MA MA MA M A M Z U N* N* N * N* N* N* N* N* N* N* N * N* N* N* N * N WV to V 10 V la V WV WV 10 V 10 V WV la V 10 V 10 V 10 V la V 10 V 10 O x U 0 M r 0 M 0 N M x x x x x x x x x x MM x x x x x x x x x x x x x x MM N 0 0 0 00000000 00 0 0 000000000 0 0 0 00 .. x m 0 W mom 0• ,...x HH p a 0 Z F H v d' CO d0 'D' d' MMMMMMMM ' W \ d' co co co 1n 11 r uLor H co r-m cA M MMMMMMM u)up M1 MMM01 M\(1 L11111 co u) 0 Li) U ow oa (NI NN H u) cc 0 00000000 0 0 O a) 000000000 m O U 0Nh 0 0 H O 00000000 0 0 0 H 000000000 H O (7 00 H 0H M mH 00000000 O O O 0 000000000 O N 0 00 HHHHHHHH Hri CO M HMM WHHMHH H N rl HH grill M N N NNNNNNNN NN t!1 14) NNNNNNNNN N N NN d d d d w�d'tr�rd'd• d w d d d wwwd'd'd'rrd N M .4 <r�r OW 1 I I 11111111 ii I I I iii IIIii 11 1 11 UX H 0 N HHHHHHHH HN 0 OD OD OHmd'NH OD O 01 111 HH (.., 1liD 11 N L-CO rI M co H L()lfl N N cocoN H O N coLOcO N N d' N N L!1 LOd' HHmmNC')NH M\0 \0 \0 lOMrid'NNHIOM 00 N co NN 0 19 0 00000000 0 0 \0 1,0 000000000 01 0 01 00 CO CO CO 0U 41 41 41 Z m uu1 u] n uul Cn uu) CO41 WWWW a CO una wwwwwwww 41 41 Cq HHHHHHHH HH H H HH H HH a aaaaaaaa as aaaaaKC aas CO a a a a a a a a a s F H Z s s F}i X En ,'.J aaaaaaaa as alZ'Z.,Haazaa a a as •� D•i.7 'r7',7`.'0'D 0'a CO CO 0HH "r1 DHD't7 o z Z u1 v1 u1 01 u1 u1Wcn En F H U]gg mm cncn CO CO COO) CO 0 CO CO 00000000 C7 C) W W 0 H C7 U 00 C.9 00 ZZZZZZZZ Zz Z Zc7C7ZzzezZ U] CO HHHHHHHH HH W W HZZ WHH'Z,HH H HH u1 > H HFHHHEAPH HH > > HHHZHHHHFU H HHWawggxgggw04gCl aOAHxaAr�� co KC gg C. aa0Kt 0 a H wwwwwwww 41 41 a a WHH,'JWWHWW O Zw ww X X FC aaaaaaaa as X X aXXolaapaa Cliai a+ H Z 00000000 00 H H OOCW000100 U a 0 00 0 0 z z H H a CO KC KC X H En En u)En En CO u)Cn U U 0 C) HHFHFFHF P C4 X X U WW U CO D UUUUUUUU WW CO W 0 U C O a1 A G]A A Q Q A CO 6 �a CO 0 0 COER •0 a 00000000 U KC W a a aaaaaaaa as C7 C7 Z Z WWWWWWWWW Z F M COO H H Z X X X X X X X X .'7 H CO a U wwwwwwww aaa a 000000000 Cl) a u1 u1 H H a' HHHHHHHH f H H4 x x x x x x x x x COW 0 0 W PL.04 04044L044. C)EJ Qx .�"N4x�4x CO0 CO fs00 .fs. Z 00000000 a a Cu)MMEnmwulm a U X H H F H F F H F MM x x x x x x r=4 0 0 01 01 CO COal COPO POa1WCUCO OCtI ti EJ U C) UUUUUUUUU U U U C.)C.) 41 * 41 41 * 91 is it it it it M 00 00 0101 H('LfI OH d•l0[ W 0\0\0 OO MM al OD M NL-Lf1MMHH 00 00 i< NN d'N\O M 0 • •L(1 L• Lf•L.() d'N • • •lf•• • • • • •d' ri H M M � • •• • • • • • • • 0 0 0 • 01 01 Op ri m 0 0 \0\0 .1t.TV NN N00DLOOM NH0 N0)0 Mm 01m H.4, • 0 MM LllriLf •WWNN 00 MM MM l0 W•d• CAM O O N H\0 i?N d•N N M NAA-00 m m O O t?H M ri d'm N t?\0 m co 1n d'd' 10 10 M N\0 i/} MM WW NN i?t?t/} t/)-N N t/>-\0 i/} t? \0 W N N 411-411-in-in-in-in- HM d'd' i?t? NN 40-40-t/} i/1-t? . . . . i/}i? i/} i?i? VI-W- t?i/} MM HH MM 010 U �HH� t? HH MM CC AO-U)- L}t? t?t? a' U CO F CO CO d' d' d' d'd'd'r d'd'd•d• d'd' d' d' W d•d'd'd'd'd'd•d' d' d' d' d'd' H H H H H HHHHHHHH HH H H rLHH ri r1HHHH H H rl HH CO 0 N N N t`f`NNNNNN NN N N NNNNNNNNN N N N rN C4 0 0 0 00000000 00 0 0 000000000 0 0 0 00' s: U 01 01 01 mmmm01mm01 mm m 01 mmmmmmmmm 01 m m mm U CO m m m mmmmmmmm mm 01 01 mmmmmmmmm m m m mm COx m m m mmmmmmmm mm m m mmmmmmmmm m m m mm CO U ri H ri HHHHHHHH riH H H HHHHHH riHH H H H HH 0 H Z N 00 m 0 H N M d• V) \0 N O U ".� A M /1 M A M A M M M M M M M M M RU 41 N k N 9k N 4k N M A M n M A M A M N M n M n M A 0 x V WV WV \0 V \0 'k N i• N i• N i• N is N i• N i• N k N i• V l0 V \0 V l0 V W V WV WV WV l0 V U U w a) 1310 a LO Z 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 000000 N 1 14 W al OW 01 a I al H a 0 I H H w H 0 V H a) W W 01 O O 1O 0 H NNNNNN O 0 H M In 0 l0 5 0 N 01 0 W W H W l0 W W W W W N M N 0 N 01 HaD O 10 O O M L(1 N W N N NNNNNN N 01 t` 0 N Na) N M d'in M sN NaO N N l�N N N N H 0 M 0 W 0 N s a0 U 0 0 V+V' a0 O M O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H 0 H 0 HH a0 1) HH H H N O H 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 N. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. H H N In M H H H M 'd'V' V'V' H 01 In N N M M M M M M Z14 M N w N "4' N N N al N N '.ON N M In d' r N N N N N N W d' V' M W M V'V' V V' d'V' H d' V' d' d' M M V'V'd'V'V'V' 0(� I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I IIIIII O a0 in in H M M M H H Lf/N O in to H a) N 0 rl N CO H V'.-I U M N 0 '4' V' N N H H N N co V' d' H N in H a)aD ri N N N R,' V' co a) d' H V d' d' d' tO 10 Na) co M H N N H H M M M V' al 01 5 O O O O O O O O 01 01 O1 O O O O1 0 0 0 0 0 0 z H z H CO 0Z0 0 g El Z 0 M CO CO m FC CA O > it/ W W W Z Z Z w a H 14 H CO H H H W W W H 0 E w a w as a EE E a 0 Pi CA a H as a Z z C', pC EEE EEE H a E co as a H H H a 0 a) ZZ ZZ H W r7 J A m gi g CO W HHHHHH U CO W PG CO CO a/ E U] \ C7 CO gggggg Z L7 E CO W C7 C9 C7 W H E H E C7 U E O H Z 0 ZZ Z XW ix/ill z �ZillZ z Z Z 000(900CCA EI EE E - ZX XX E 14 X Z 0 HHHHHH Gil P Ex-' 0 w CQ l 0 HH HH w H COO w as as AA O W .7 14 W W W a 00 AA W Zp a ca 3 HHHHHH a• 0 >-. z H 0 0 0 X W W W W 0 0 W a W 14 01 MI al MI 0 CDHEl U, Z H H 14 0 0 H Z Z E H CA Z 0 HH CO CO 0 00 W 0 Z zX ZXZ 14 .-7 0 E �� U HH EE a E H z WWWWWW O i-] CO Cl Z 03 '141 W 00 Z E Y' 000000 A W CA 4 W ,.a as EE A W 4 W a 141414141414 Z Cl W w X 00 W 66 4 Z MI H H 0 W W W W W W rrl 0 Z H0 I41 >+ as Z 000000 DI 0 CA A 0 14 14 >' • W U A 01 h 0 0 WW UU 0 Z 0 O (31W q O 0 H H z z Z 0 HHHHHH CO w w w X 1414 CO 0 >4 141414141414 A W 14 W CO W ' E E C7C7 0 as U w W W W W W W W H H W 4 W 0 0U 1414 14 U W 4 NNNNNN O > X yl W u,G,, Cry 4 W W W W W H H E py 000000 4 0 W 0 a 0 CI 44 ZZ Z 14 CA 1A FC HHHHHH A 0 A A A W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W G'.r.W Ct. * 41 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 0 0 CO CO 0 0 M Cr) 01 01 CO WO V' Cr V' 0 0 in in O 0 0 0 01 01 0 0 CO 00 0 0 lO l0 O O O M M 0 Ei O O M Ma O N N 01 01 N V'N N N 0 0 V'N N 0 0 0 01 01 0 0 W W 0 0 W tO 01 0 0 in H in O O 1.0 l0 l0 W M M H rI 01 01 CO V'V' HH N - M M k0 01 N N U1 Ul N N Ul Ul Ul U1 01 W 01 O M 01 O O O t?V} H H aO CO tO LO H tO CO 01 01 0 0 kr.CO V' M Lit CO N N t W H H N N N N N N LC/01 M H X tO W t/>-V) H 4/1-4/)- H H N HH 10 W U1 O ininO HHM-M- MM i?i? .1.n•in- In w 1O t/}H M lac (/?in- t/?t? t? - t?t? t> t?t? t>t/}AO- ;It{O- H H LCI UI H r-I N H N 01 01 t/?VI- H H tfr t/f t/T t/}iik t?t? 0 VI- ill M 14 0 W CEA W V V' ' ' ' ' V V'V V V V V' V'V' V' V V V V V'd'V'd'd'd' H E H H H H H HH H H HH HH H H H H H H.-IHHHH C7 a, \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \\\\\\ W 0 N S N S t` l-N N N Nle Nle N N N S N l�rNN.NN `, O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 as 01 01 01 01 O1 O1 01 01 01 01 ,j [4 al 01 01 01 01 01 al 01 01 01 01 01 T 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 w M 01 01 01 01 Cr) 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 as as 01 0) 010101 01 01 01 M U H H H H H r-IH H H HH HH H H H H H HHHHHH 0 0 O Z 01 0 H N Cl V' in 1O N co 01 O H N M V H M V V V V V V V V' V' V' to in Ul in In U M A M A MA MA MA M A MA MA M A M A MA MA MA MA MA M ZU N* N* N* N* N* N * N* N* N * N * N* N* N* N* N* N .W \O V lO V l0 V l0 V l0 V l0 V l0 V W V l0 V 1/4.0V lO V 1O V WV 1O V 10 V 1O O T. U U In a1 in ra a a 4 1..0 000 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 00000000 0 0 0 N z co 0 Ix Ill al 0 w 01 C14 rn 0 H Z I A Z in w H U cA M H NNN N H l0 M MMM In M V' in NNNNNNNN l0 00 Ol 0 l0 l0 to 01 H V' to1.0 1.0 1.0 V' 0 1/40 l0 M M m M M M M M 1.0 CO M N N N N N 0 N N N N N 1.0 Tr N N N N N N N N N N N N N NNN S N M S NNN H N N N NNNNNNNN N N N H 0 0 0 0 W V4 0 0 0 0 0 M 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m C4' V' co 0 0 0 0 1.0 H 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 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H MMM H H H In HIn14 V H H N H MMMMMMMM M H M Z 0.i N N N l0 M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M V' N 0 M .4.4 V' V' V' V' VVV'VV' V ' ' ' • V' V' V' V'V•V'V•Tr.vas V• V' V. a.O W i I t I i I i i i i a t i I I 11111111 I I t 0E 000 M M N H HHNH H N H H Md'0V'HcNNH H to H O NMLn H N N V' H V'HN In In N N In Lt1MNN000000 H N N 4 to 1.0 N M H H V' V'V'M M N N m V' N N 10 M M H H H M 00 M O co O al O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 al 0 U] H Cl)El En 111 0 0 0 Cr) UzIX H CQ Mrzz� H 0 W > W W ZZ W W m W Cr)C4 M H H Ik H H W W H H 0 H a HHH HtEl Z wit w w HH 0 04 0 Z Z a a a HHHHHHHE-4 El H H Z Z Z a a HH a a 01 a zzzzzzzz w z fx HHH W �7 M HHHHHHHH H H U] XXX H z MU Cl)�U ] m a,'7. .'7 gggggggg MI g W > 0a H C7H H H a C7 W a A C C.!3 a H z HAzz z z A z oac..90 �C�aa a ZZ W Cl) H 1 H W W m H P4 H zzzzzzzz - Cl) z HHH CO co El H X X H H H HHHHHHHH 0 H AAA W as a g AAAAAAAA W A 404 El a4 U UHH 0 00004444 > H 4 HHH Po 0 G] a WIxAA W Cr) H W HHHHHHHH 4 mmm n a O X oxWW 0 O Z 0 P:1al001PIC01CCAAPAq El al M r4 H El ›-+ 0 W 00 a Z HEl 40 a O CWl Cw7 Cw7 0 U ZZ 0000 0 0 0 0 H OIX H W Cl) q � Z 000 Cl)HH o H HEE-'HE-' H W 0 I-) H awl 4 > a a 0 Cx W o U 00 4 W 00000000 rC O x H U) N g a a a a a $ H Z 00000000 A U1 0 HHH X >t 4 WWWW U] U] ]CMMMMMMM . a xxx 0 4: gzzzz a Z Z i 00000000 Un 4 WWW H A 3 HHHHpp] W H zWz (x MCO CaMU]U]U]U] W 0 000 m W W W 14 PI 01 MI CO PI fal al al M En ZZZZ a 3 z z pwpw�j- ww�jwwww�jw ap X Cx) H H Ci.Cz,W Ci. ii. a ci a00a a M M 'JC`JC`Jq`.�x `JCx dC 1-7 Ix * * * * * * * * * * * * * * in M 0 V' 0 0 0 0 N N 1.0 l0 10 V'01 5 1.0 CO CO 00 00 V.V. 0 0 M M m O H N 0 N V' N N 0 0 V.v Z0110001 00 00 NN MM N V'01LnN O00 MM MM o000 ko100 com Le)NIn to HH 00 MM 0 10N CO V 00 LI/Ifl MM 00 f'10In In In HH 0101 0000 NN d'V'ONHU)Ol ln1O NN 00 0101 0 l0InN0 o Ol al SN NN 1,11.01.00101 HH MM NN NN V'cr NUtNV)HOH MM 00 SN N V N N M C. N N 10 l0 l0 10 t?M t/}t?V' H H N N t}t? H H -to-t?co t/?•t? H H V' t?t? N N +n-to- pc t/?t? . . . . . . . . VT t/} t? t? t/}tir t/?t? t?t/?U) H V' coca H H V V' H H H H X t?V) H H t?in. t?t? t/}i? t?-1/1- U t/--V1- Ill /rW M Ix U W H U] W V'V•W V' V' V' V' V'V'V•V' W Ti. V' W d'V'V•V'V'V Ct.V' V. V. V• H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H HHHHHHHH H H H 0 FC \� \ \ . \\\\ \ \ \ \ \\\\\\\\ W 0 NNN N N N N NNNN N N N N NNNNNNNN N N N Ix 000 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 00000000 0 0 0• ��� � � �.,,,,, �,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 5 ^.�. 0 a1 01 ot a1 of a1 al a1 01 01 Ol ON 01 a1 01 Ol 01 01 CA CA 01 01 01 a1 a1 at 0 W 0,010, 01 a1 at at 01 Ol Ol OI 01 of Ol 01 01 01 01 010101 O1 01 01 01 Ol W x 01 al al of at a1 a) al CA 01 Ol 01 at 01 01 01 01 T 01 01 0101 al at of a1 U U HHH H H H H HHHH H - H H H HHHHHHHH H H H 0 4 Z V' Ln l0 N co 0l 0 H N M cr ,n l0 N H Ln Ln In in In In 1.0 10 l0 10 l0 l0 1.0 l0 U AG M A m A (IA M n (IA M A MA MA MA MA M A M A M A m A 'Zi 0 N * N* N* N* N* N * N* N* N* N* N * N* N* N* O x 10 V 10 V 1.0 V l0 V 10 V 10 V l0 V 1.0 V 1.0 V 1.0 V 10 V 10 V 1.0 V 10 V U U to ai rn as a x x x xxxxxxx x x xxx x x x x x xxxxxx x lr 0 0 0 0000000 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 000000 0 N C4 W 01 O Al 01 CU al M H Z 1-1 M ZZ in w H H Ln N OOO co OOO H N MCI'01 0 r1 N M 0 in l0 OtoLAO�VD� H H HHlW r r r N d' LA M d' N N N N N N N NN N N N N N N H r 0) Ln rrrrrrr r r NNN N r r alin 00 H 0 N co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 M M CO CO CO CO CO CO O 01 d+ CN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 H Cr) NNNNNN M 0 0 0 0000000 r 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 000000 0 H r1 H d' HHHHHHH r M H H H ct' H m H M lfl l0 l0 l0 l0' m Zx N N Cr) M M M M M M M w M NN N N M N N N M M M M M M N W d' d' d' d'd'Cr Cr Cr Cr d' M d' d'd'd' d' d' d' N d' d'Tr d'd'd'd' d' O CO I t I IIIIIII I L I I I I I I I I I I I t I I L OXH H N OHLnHt0HL) r rl HaH H H co o co HHHHHH N O p H d' d' Ln O\LOLf)N l0N 0 Ln Ln in ri M N d' N HNriNHN in a Z M d' H d'H t0 W t0 H H O rI r r M co M t0 c0 t0 ON d'M M d'O r- 0 0 0 0 01 0 1010 t0 0 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 01 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OA U]CO CO W U)U1 41 En WWWWWWW U al U W UUUUUUU Z CO CO HHHHHHH W U1U]CO H ,ate 0 W W >✓D>>D9 U WWW Z > H H H xxxxxxx U] Z HHH W x H a a wwwwwww w w 000 H w >i EA H A W a+ Ua]U]UlU1m]UlUte]]CU fai H CO WWa Z U] Z w Z Z 0 CO CO FC� �FG�FG CA COcAc Z FG w ftt UU4 Z ZZZZZZZ H Cl Z g 0 g X 43 0 A Z Z H HHHHHHH 0 A ZZZ Z 0 U 4 Z 000000 0 H H H U COC.)E EnEno] 4 \ HHH W U1 Z ,'yrrCC,c�'y�ZZ H cnmmuo�nLnm a HHH X w H 0 A xx x x A C4 w w w w w w w x W H a • a A A p p p A a W [x,(: al k4 a al G40 H D xP4 W W >[] 0000000 A WWW A 0 H 0 H UCf)CnU]U)U) H O 0 ' IX aa..w aa..aw 0 H 000 W w cO U CO HHHHHH CA AAAAAAA UZ HHHHHHH H xxxxxxx xxxxxxx 0 0000000 0 0 0 0 zzzzzzz ya z z U a H U) H HHHHHH oH4' R l w agagggg w i W Z x «immcnmm H I 0 0 cncDz�c�anc�0 Cl) H C H a 0 � HHHHHH a � xxc.axxx w w w 0 x AAAAAAA CD w Z 0 Z � HHHHHH W w WWZWZWWWW W W HHH ZZZZZZZ X H W 0 H D Z C..)00000 U) 4 il rl H ill C) Fl H F1 XXXXXX * * * * * * * * * * * * * * d'd' NN 00 OLnOOL)NON 00 00 L)r0lri d'd' 00 CN Cr) 00 00 0000000 coax B NN 'O LO 00 ONLnoOMO01 00 00 O1d'd'O1 rlrt 00 riri Ln L) rlr'i 0000000 r-r- • 00 Ul U) L)Ln LO LO NIOr O)Ulrl ND LO 00 Ln Ln'OC Ln Ln LO UD NN 00 NN rl01CHO W N LO LO 0 N N M M O O r Ln t0 N co 01 Ln O N N ri ri r♦N O xi' M M 0)0) d'd' O0 l0 t0 o H M M ri N O t0 LO r♦H NN t?t? t/T H r t/?O Ln t/}N t/r V)• tn• 1. L1•H H t/}i? t0 H H l0 d'd' mm M N N M N H d' NN l?in- t/}CO. N H d> (h �CA- 1.0-CO- t/)-t/} t/}CO- CO-CO-CO-CO-t/}L?t? t/}t/) N N I ' ' 4 t? H i? N in-in- () to in- CA M C4 U W H U) W d' d' d' d'd'd'd'Cr d d' cN d' d'd'd' d' d' d' d' d' d'ct'd'd'd'd HELH r1 r1 ri ri H H H H H ri H H rl ri rA rt H rl ri HHHHHH r♦ CD \ \ \ \\\\\\\ \ \ \\\ \ \ \ \ \ \\\\\\ \ cx) A N r r rrrrrrr r r rrr r N r-• N N NNNNNN r O o 0 0000000 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 000000 0 U 01 01 Cr) Cl 010101010101 01 01 01 01 01 01 0) 0) 0) 0) 0)0)01 01 01 0) 0) I) [x) 0) 01 01 01 01 O)01 0)01 01 al 01 01 0)01 O1 01 O1 01 Al 01 01 Cr)01 01 01 0) [x) x 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0)01 01 O U H H H HHHHHHH H H r-IHH H H ri H H HHHHHH H 0 a 07. c0 01 0 H N M d' in l0 r O 01 0 H H %.0l0 r N N r r r r r r r co A M A Z (..) MA MA MA M A M n M M A M 11 M n MA MA MA' M * N 0 N* N* N* N 4, N* N* N * N* N* N* N* N* N Ix)) t0 v l0 v up v 1D V t0 V N.C. V lO V O V l0 V l0 V N.0O V l0 V l0 V l0 V 0 0 U N a) tn rd a a 4 W o Lo M x xxxxxx x x x xxxxxx x xxx x x xxx N O O 000000 O O O 000000 O 000 O O 000 00 0 W 01 O al rn aX rn p H z a 0rnrnrnrnrnrn Z I 010/0/01 d1 O1 In W N H 0 \ xxxxxx N ma101 0 H 1H0 r H 0000ocr H Ln HHHHE-1E-. WW V) 0 o - - N N d1 01 I NNNNNN N N O1 01010101OL01 0 NNN 0 N Z N N M a) NN NN NN N N N (� QQ N NNN 0 N F]70 N H 0 0 W 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22Ezz2 M 00. O1 O O O H H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H N N N N N N H 0 0 0 01 0 C-I el 0 N H elLn 0 HHHHHH O O O NM d1 LI)Hcr 0 00N 0 0 NN10 C4 M N N el N N N N N N H 01 M aD co 00 CO 00 0 H Ln H N H H M CO 10 M M M M M M N co N o 0 0 o O cr N N N N M N H H H W d1 M cr cr d d'crdld'cr d1 cr W NNNNNN N Wd,d1 nt. cr 1,VN O f)] HI Ln L� I0 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1 1 I Up 10 0 N LO 00NNN LI)H 10 H O HHHHHH 0 cr V1 N H M HMH FC��Ziiii N a) N H HH HHO d1 10 H H cH H�M � H l0 D7 01 01 07 01 O 00 cr d1 M M M M M 01 0 N O 1fl 000000 t0 O O 0000001 a) 000 O O 0 00 M 41 al FA 0 0w ca FA xx.0441oEn �aEn Z Cr] 0 z co Cl) a wwMxa� aw wap H co H W W H O I I co g4 0 g4 FA 7 x H C14 EA FA .l 0 H H I .D Cn ?+ 0 14 W 14 a x H HHHCI] W 1/ a DI al H Cl) H a 0 z XXH11 ' a ax a 0 co H CO w En C e4 c4 HHH w WCQI]u] l Cl]ECr] Z w X aaWXHI 0 Cl) a Z W co CA EA aEn w 414141414141 0 U a R: How 0 C7 y� Q µ Cr] 000000 Z Cr] Z ZHU1 WalC/ HCi Cn H E-4E-1W x x O waaaaa H H Hxz al 1-4 UH Cl) H aaa rC0 H a as a s as z Qaw�xQq o awH 4.. www Cr X H HEal W-1H HHH Cu O QW awx3UU)FC 0 al a 0 aaa U Cn to co M U H EA U H 0 U U H H H H Z O H HHH 0 H ZE1 41 xxxxxx a4 Cl .1 H H e4 4 i H U Z W )Cn En coCn En X U H HHH f x x U a 000000 W ,.tS 44KC444 0 HHHZ rcl Z a' Q H ZZZZZZ x WWWWWW H 0 0 XXX H H CO 0 HHHHHH W xxxxxx CO a]mCO Z p Z HHHHHH Q HHH H w Ei w 0 U EEEEEE 0 H WWWWWW 0 LI p I1 77yy H 000000 H µ 6 EI����� z aaa 0 4• zzz H x H W UUUUUU a 0 z z z Cr] C� 0 HHHHHH W xxx H a 000 Q1 0 0 Z ?.ZZZZZ 0 0 a rnWcr]ct]mu] Z 000 H HHH X X X X X X X X X X X X Z £ X X Z X X X z z Z z 4' is K is 4k is is is is is K K is HH 00 00 00 NNNN IO M L. 00 00 0000 HONO10V1 Ln 00 �1n001 00 Ln In 1000 H 10 10 0 0 0 0 Ln Ln O O O O O NI,In 0 0 0 0 01 01 CO O Ln 0 10 cr Ln 0 0 00 C`In 0 0 0 O 0 10 0 0 N N 00 CO 01 01 01 01 10 10 10 10 OD 01 H O 0 O O cr N N Ln O O H dI O O 01 Ln 0 cr N N In Ln cr l0 0 H H i?i? Ul Ln M M i/}i/}i/}i/}H00 M Ln in 0 0 .4.d' 10 H N 10 N O M Ln N OD 01 L}T H H i/}i/} IC-('H i/} d'cf. 10 l0 N N i/}N M H H Cl N L}i? H N H i?01 N CO d1 Tr M H Ln al.4i)- i/}i/} V}L} . . . . i?i/} i?L} i?i? i/} n-i/} --v)- - i/}i/} i/}i/} 40- H H N N 10 1 10 i/)-i/} H H H H Cj v} VI. x U w H Cl] Cr] cr cr cr d1 W cr d1 d1 W d' v W v V W V d1 cr W cv cr d'W d' d1 d'W W H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H 0 µ \ \ \ \ \\\\\\ \ \ \ \\\\\\ \ \\\ \ \ \\\ W Q N N N N L`N NNN L. N L. N L.L.L`NNN N NNN N N NNN M 0 0 0 0 000000 0 0 0 000000 0 000 0 0 000 34 U rn al al m mmrnrnrnrn rn al rn mmmrnrnrn m rnrnrn 01 m alma) U w 01 a) 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0) a) 01 m 0)01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 Uw Z 01 a) a1 a) a1010101 al a) a) 01 01 a)a)a)a)a)a1 01 010)01 01 01 010101 0 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H 0 0 Z N M d' In 10 N O 01 0 H N M d' Ln H CO CO a0 a0 00 a) a0 co a) a) a1 01 0) 01 0 "!. M A M A M A M A M A M A M A M A M A Z U Nis N -14Ni4 Nis N M A M A M A M A CO Ox 10 V 10 V lO V 10 V 10 V 101/ 10 V 19V 10 V 10 V 10 V 10 V 10 V 10 U U a) Lll rn la a M x xxxxx x xxx x xxxx x x x x x x z x 1/40 0 0 00000 0 000 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N -- W 01 OW 0) w Z01p H z I-).11z 1 ul ko H 0 al al 01 0)O) \ H lO N O a0 O a0 OJ N m 0)0)01 0) d' O ri Lfl nr 00 O 0 ri d1 d'd1 d'd'd' ri o LO L.0 V N N N N d' a7 V' N N Lfl LO Lfl UI UI N O 1--ICN NNNNN N U) MN N N O 10 N N N N N N N N CO CO CO N N N N N N M d' N N N 01 N H O O ri ri ri r1 ri O M M CO O 0 0 0 0 O O CO 00 O O H H O O MMMMM O H 1-4 H 0 0000 0 a0 (Ni co O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H 0 0 0 0 0 0 O d' O O O H EA ri 0) Ul r1 d'd1 Lf) CO ri ri ri N r1.r1 H r1. r1 H 1.I U) co ri M CO a M UI N Cl N N M N N N M M M M M M M N VM N In 0 W d' d'd1 d'd'd' d1 N N N d' d1 d'd1 d' d' d1 d' M d' d' V1 N 0 I I 1 I i 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 UH H H H of 1. Oin ri L� O0 HHHH N H H H M M H 0) 0 ) C1) H VV'NNV N [Nd1� N MM NH N ri H yr N Tr Ul H H M d'.01 1.0 V 411 d1 co co co co r1.M 1.0 M d1 Cr) M C` H 441 1.0 0) O O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0)0)O) 0) 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 1.0 O z H W H H V) ED 04 Era 00 En CO CO `00 Z x Z - U) 41 w]a HHHH H H 11. .�- W CA U HH `0 Hww �Qa aMaaa >4 a W 0 0 H El 0 1-]HH W >i>4>i wwww W w EE-11 a1 z a+zz U F444 U)fA 01cn cn U) H H ril P C4 ' H U 01 H H H P i 04 ul a `�`�'� '� `� E ua hi 4 U) CA F H \ W U) W DI Ell DI CD0U 'z1Z1T.7. Z Z 3 0) 7-1 1-1 W U HU' HHH U) W 0000 0 0 H O 0 w Z Az Z HHHH H H Z L� Z W A rn oW4' H[4 M H 000 0 CO 02 U1 F�Gy 17 H D a+ w w w a,x H W W W W W W w 04 >1 w Fo 0 E-1 rx.1 H M H H U 1-7 W 44 44 4444 44 44 H z Z OWOOa H 000 1-7 0000 0 0 O 3 F? a a U' wy W 0 0100101W H • • • W aaaa a a 01 W M 0 W O W W Z D 0 0 0 H 04 04 04 04 04 w W z H 0 H CO 0 0 0 H H H 04 M a H MMMMM WWW aaaa W cn Z 0 0 0 Ii H HHH 0 W H x WWWWW xxx 0 ZZZZ W vi 0 0 z Z M 0000H 0 0 a 00000 zzz x UUUU a w 0 C) R,, H UH]cH11U)U)l1CEl EA H4 WWPa 0 wwww H 4 O H al W rilH Cu 124 11111 000 W ZXZZ H 3 0 M zzz zzz Z UUUU Z W 0 W X M0 0 H X WaaaW HHH HHHH > H a cn wwwww 0 ZZZZ w 0 O z xxxxx zzz Z 1 1 1 1 H H a 0 w H HHHHH HHH H xxxx 1-1 H U a W O a xxxxx w aaa C7 EnEll0 a W U) W H >1 Z Z ZZZZZ Z 000 w 0 00000 U) aaa 4 0444.4 wawa w w w a a a a .K * .K * * * .K * * * * * * * * 1.0 M M O O V1 ri N N N ri L-r- O O O 0 N N U)Ul O U)UI 0 O o)a0 0)0) U1 U) M M r1 ri O O O E1 40 00 00 OMNNMr1 d'V' 0000 401.0 NNOU)0 UILf) 40 l0 NN NN 0)0) d'c11 d'd' CO 1z . •.7 a) me) O O U)N O)0)d'O N N O O O O 1.0 1.0 1/41)1/4.0 UI H O N N UI U1 N N M M O O 'O)0 N N O) 0 MN N U)U) 01 0 10\0 O)M 1. 0 U)Lf U 0 1. )Li) M MN N H O L- 0)0) iI in UI /)-V) N N NH H H in- 1.0 1.0 d' V1 N N 4n-M-H c0 CJ)40- d .11 '.41 M in-L} i?L}L)- d U1.U) U)lfl i/>V} i?4/1- .VI- CO- . CO-i?V). • H H H H H N N H t?i> V}y} i?i? 1? U W x C4 U W rEA ./3 w d1 d' d1 d1 d1 d1 d' <L' n11 d'd1 d' d1 d1 3M d' d' '31 d' d' d1 4 d1 d' H• El ri ri ri H ri ri r1. ri r1.r1 ri r1 r1.r1.H r1. ri ri H H H H H H \ \ \\\\\ \ \\\ \ \\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 0 0 00000 o 000 0 0000 0 0 o O 0 0 o O • 0 0) 0) ON 0)0)01 0) 0) O)0)0) 0) 0)0)0)0) 0) Ch 0) 0) m 0) 0) 0) o w 01 0) 0)01 0)01 01 0) 0)0)0) O) 0)01 ON 01 0) 0) (3) 0) 0) Cl 0) ON w z 0) al 0)0)0)0)0) 0) 01 ON 0) O) 01 0)01 0) 0) 0) 0) 01 0) 0) 0) 0) ) U H H rIHHr1.H ri r1.HH ri HHHH H H H H r1. H H H 0 FlZZ0 N co 0) 0 H N M d' U1. 1.0 N ao 01 0 H O) 0) 0) 0) 0 0 O 0 O O o O O O ri 0x A M M dd A M A A M A w A ' A ' A d1 A dd ' A ' A d1 A a' A w d A ' A d1 0 * Ni' Ni' N + Ni' N I' N i' N 44 Ni' Ni' Ni' N44 N* N44 014. N O x V 1.0 V 1.0 V 1.0 V 1.0 V 1.0 V 1.0 V 1.n V 1.0 V 1.0 V 1.p V 1.0 V 1.0 V 1.0 V 1.0 V 1.0 O U rn o En m a X x x x x x X x x X x X x x xxxxxxX N 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 00 0 0 0000000 .. z CO 0 C4 W rn O a1 o ax m p H Z a 0 h Z Ln w H H U \ a0 H M (N a0 Ln M 0) w w Ln 0 I CO H 01 NN w w N N N N N N N > N N N 01 CO H O O COa0 � H C) r0 N N N N N N N ri al OOi N NN N N N N N N N N N O M O O O O O a1 0 00 0 0 0000000 H 0 0 H 0 0 0 0 0 an Ln Ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a0 co 0 00 0 0 0000000 H m 0) N H H H HH HI r-I HH H Ln w Ln H L-L-co CO 00 CO 00 ''W M N M N co M M M N N N NN N N O O M M M M M I Tr w w Tr Tr w w ww w ww w w NNwwww TPt 01 H H I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 'Zi II) HLn H HH H rl r-1 H (N m Ln H H HH H w M M.-i N H r-I w MH MM N wH H VN w N HIHIHH INN M 0 H H M H0 0 co M ri w M w w 0000000 0 0 0 M M M l0 0 O O O O O O O O 01 O O 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z H H M w FI U U U U U 0 a0 H H >> HH > CO W Cl) Cl)14 M0 w a ww w w HH H El a ru w0000 H CO M0 Cl. Cl.Ai rn En En CO a s Cl. H a H H H H H H Cl) z w x CO on zz z z cxnv�i Cl) m 41 m C.)En 0 w Z Cl) H W 41 41 41 41 41 41 H HHH H Cl) HEi) HH Z Hz H CD z OWUl�WUlU] > W O EI 0 H WW CO W El EI H 41 H U E�I+HHC�IC�I4 W 44 En HUH 0 �Ma LL�a'HHHHH Cl. Z Cl) w a 41 00 0 0 W � C4 Cl w HHHHHHH X 0 w a H a rxa: a a 00 Cu �FCHHHHH H 0 a O fs. O 00 Cu Cl.. 00 0 Zw Z Cl.0 33tD D 3 0 Z C)04 ZZZZEEE 0 H EA �� 0000000 co A U a]1-a 1-]1-1 1-7.l 1-a Z z HHHHHHH RS w w w w w A A z z Z H D A D A A A D 0 w A '�A CD 0 dial yi H H H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 `� 0 Cil 44 Cl.III ww ww �> A �41 0000000 C> I CO Z a H HH H Z al 41 41 00 w 0 rn 01 cn CO CQ 41 an waaaaaa Z FC N 0 0 00 0 0 000 w 41 41 w w wwwwwww M H 1H 00 7 H H HH H H w ww w w wwwwwww Cl. 00 Cl.. a 0000000 0 00 0 0 0000000 0 Ft 00 E-I 0 00 Cn Cn Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) MMU) COCO COCO CO CO CO c0 MMMMMMM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * O Ln Ln 00 00 Tr.4, OO OO NNW 00 a)as O CO a) 00 0 a)0) W 1.0 LO W 000 N N Ln 0A H a0 NN. 0O 00 en.en. 0O 0O NNw O0 co a0 ONN Ln Ln HI CO CA HH r-r- OONNHIw01 L, A 0) mM Ln L(1 00 00ap 00 00 wwao ww 00 000 Ln Ln WHIN Nn 0101 L-L• �L�LnLnwo1 N �� MM Ln to ww MM LnN NNw HiH NN 000 HH NHIM NN MM ONQ1 a1M HHi �?-Cy H N N ML} MM MM MM CO-00- V V a0 N S 0)Ol O Ln Ln i?i? V}HI H i?L} aa a0 I�d1 In HI O V}in-in. in-if/- .V? .V} H M m L0 1.0 0 0 Ln H w H N HI H H i? a0 O V}V} w w MCO.00- O iir is t`HI V} M yr M MMyr i�r ci/ 0 III H m w w w w w w w ww w w ww w ww w w wwwwwww H H H H H H H H HH H H H H H HH H H HI HI HI HI H HI HI W A N N N N N L- Nb r- N NN N NN N N NNNNNNN Lx O O O O 0 O 00 0 O 00 0 00 0 0 0000000 0 a) m m a) rn a) rnrn al ox rnrn of ' 0-o m rn mmmmmmm U w al al rn al m o) MM rn rn al m rn al ON rn m 0)0)0)0)0)0)0) Uw x 01 01 a1 a1 0\ 0) MCA 0) 01 01 a1 01 al 01 a1 0) 01 0)al 01 a1 m m U H H H H H H HH H H 1-1 HI H HH H H HIHiHHHIHi HI . 0 1-1 Z H N M w in l0 N co O O H N m w l0 H H H H H H H H H H (N (N N N N N U x A w A w A w A w A w A w A w A A w A w A w A w A w A w A d, d, 'Zi U * N* N* N* N* N* N* N * N* N* N * N* N ,k N* N* 00 U V WV WV WV WV WV WV W V WV LO V 1.0 V WV W V W V C V lN0 0 H N Cn 43 RI ]CpCpC]CpCaCACxxx xx x x xxxx xxpC]C]Cx x x x xxx x 0000000000 00 0 0 0 0000 000000 0 0 0 000 0 1/40 a (X W 0m co az O\ A 01 Z H Z 1W V0 V' H N H in U rn rn . H H NNNNNNNNNN MM r- O tp�0a0 Vcrcrd'd'V N 0 X 01Md' O 0 N(NI NNNNNNNN NN H d' OD CO OD OD NN NNNN 0 0\ W mNN H NNNNNNNNNN NN N M a0 NNNN NNNNNN H N 01 V'lom N l NNNNNNNNN Nb cn l0 VO NNNN NNNNNN O N N Md1Lf) V1 H 0000000000 0 0 M 01 H 0 0 0 0 000000 a O M H H H H 0000000000 O O H V H O O O O 000000 U O N H H H H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H O O O O O O O O 000000 O N O O O O O H 000 CO CO OD CO W00 O0 OM Lf) H H HHRH in UI Ill 111I)111 U1 N H LflHH U1 fY. MMMMMMMMMM Hd' N N N MNNN MMMMMM M cr N NNN M W V d1 d1 d1 V1 V1 V1 cr V d1 V'd1 d1 d' V1 V1 W V1 d1 Cr d1 d1 d1 V1 V1 V1 m d' d1 d1 V1 d1 001 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1 U li 1-1 H C..CV VaOONMVI Lf1Ul H H N HHHl's CDHNMU)H H d1 H HUIH H U Lf)N N N N N M Ln Lf)L1) NN d' Ln If) HLf1H l0 NlOVO VO VOM N O Ul d1 V1 H H 4 M.4.d1 V0 l0l0 VO N N N 0O d' N N M N cr VO d1 l0 VO VO VO H H OD N V'OO CO M 0000000000 0101 0 0 O 000 VO O VO VO tO VO O O N 0 0 01 0 0 U] D 0 W co 41 Z 17 co co HU]01U] ZZZZZZ Z U] u)U) Z 0 I-1 W W >43(1.114 HHHHHH H W M W H H W H H fx HHH U"U)xxU)x x CO H HH x H WWWWWWWWWW C] a a Waaa Enmcncnmco u] W a as co C4 U U U U U U U U U U U] a a U1 a a a HHHHHH H H a a s H H HHHHHHHHHH H a a a a a a H a a s a a a a a a a C4 91Ja>1J9>>9a C)X 1i7 'J 0 )CD 01CO01 YJ 0401 01 H .)D oO U D404c4fxfxfxrxxa04 W W U] co fq CnU]Cf1 000000 0 > CO U)U)U1 p Cl) WWWWWWWWWW (>+0 U1 Z aaa a as a H CO a W 01 U1 U]co co U)U]W U)En W H C7 C7 O CD CD C7 \\\\\\ \ H C) H CD C7 \ A H H Z Z H Z Z Z C7 C7 C7 C7 Ch C7 C7 U Z Z Z C7 4>1>1>>>i>4> >4>1 G4 g4 Z H H U]H H H Z Z Z Z Z Zi Z 4 H Z H H Z tE11HHE1E-1HHE1E+H Z 11 El El U)HHH HHHHHH H H HH H HHHHHHHHHH U]C7 g g Wggg ZZZZZZ Z H UQ! EA Z aaaaaaaaaa WH 0 w �7 HHHHHHHHHH 0 CO 1:4 W W O W W W HHHHHH H '.7 W D U)W H HHHHHHHHHH 4W W a a xaaa rxxaxfxa a' 0 a Waa a' DAAAAADAAC 3A X 0 0 a0oo as a s as a >1 0 zoo a �y 0000 z z z z z x z z z 00 Hzzzz H H H 0000000000 U 000000 U Z 0000000000 U Z W O1 01 01 O1 H H H H H H Z 0H aaaaaaaaaa Z 0 H H H H H H H H H H H H co D 0 CDArDA )ADAAD Cu G, H 0 W W W W 00 H a U (xfxafz 01COCO010101 Di A 0 a 0000000000 Z W W 0000 fxo4fxfx(xfx a O U 0E2HHHHHHHHHH >1>i (x] U ( HE-1E-I E-1 CDCD CDcp CD c4 aaaaaaaaaa HH X Z UlU]U]U] CAPOfl CO01Cal pO a Cry (ifflDi01ccimu)c4cnCO HH W 0 W 0Jpp] ,p >+ Z W 1 CD CD A p A O p A U U a U z C7 C7 C9 C7 U1 0)co U]co U] Cl) H > aaaaaaaaaa a H W H D I C DA4 HHHHHH H Z g4i co i4 Z WWWWWWWWWWWW H C4 0 A 0 A U]U]UpEnup01 co C9 WWW H W W W W W W W W W W W W 'a X W WWWW W W - H W W CO fx aaaaaaaaaa as Z El W xaarx gg3g gggggg W U] U U U a 00000i0000 m0 0 0 4: a W W W W xpCU)xxpC 0 W HHH Z a iiII HHHHHH Z A WWW a ��7/4W C7 H E++t�'�z11ZZ 000000 W fx xx WxH H H 2 000000 0 a U1 HE-1E-1 W UI U1 U]U)U1 Ul U]CO U1 U] 01 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 01 Cn UI CO 01 U] Cl) U1 CO CO CO CO CO i1 is ix i1 i1 ix ix i1 i1 is i1 V'CVOOCOML-OHLf)a1 01001 c0 c0 Cly VO VO Ln ODMVON CO d1 VD COON OD 00 00 00 NMMo O El.E- 010N1Od1NNV1MNN 000 VOID SN SN MMa0MO1 HN d1 d1d1M0 00 00 00 d1NVON co 01 M O CO CO cr H LO MOM 00 00 VD 1.0 L�VOO d10 NVO UINH VO d1 HH HH IO VO d'Ul d1 d1 co 0 en co mMHMOVDra1N al Ln cr NN MM MM OLnNMH d1 In OH a1U)VO MM NN 00 co HL-OOr- VO V}M Ul N C`01 H O1 O H M N V}M V}L? M M V}V} H in-in-in-N V}V)-H H in-O d1 4./I-44- V}L} M M V}H V}N N .V}if) .t?i? CA-VI- V} V} VI-V> CO- V} V} N H cr V•N VO d1 V1 N N N N U i?V} t? V}CO-0 V} if} CO-ill- V}LI H W if} M a U W H W W CrwdlTrwTrTrTPww Tr sr d' sr V1 srwdld• Tr Tr TrTrCrTr Tr Tr cr d1 Tr d' d• H El H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H W A NNNNNNNNNN CC C N N NNNN C`NNSL-C` N N N CC`r C 0000000000 00 0 0 0 0000 000000 0 O O 000 ' 0 U O1 O1 01 CA O1 O1 O1 O1 01 CA a1 al 01 a1 a1 01 O1 O1 O1 O1 O1 01 O1 O1 O1 a1 a1 O1 01 a1 a1 O1 U W co 01 O1 O1 O1 O1 O1 O1 O1 O1 O1 O1 O1 a1 a1 O1 O1 01 cn O1 O1 01 O1 O1 01 01 01 O1 al a1 a1 cn W 'U) a1 a1 O1 O1 O1 a1 O1 O1 al a1 01 01 a1 a1 01 01 01 01 01 O1 01 O1 O1 01 O1 O1 O1 O1 01 01 01 O1 U U H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H 0 I.-3 Z VO N CO a1 O H N CO w in to N H NCO M CO M M U ".� V' A w A Tr n Tr A 1 A VM' A COcr A V' A V' A d• A V1 A V' U N is N i1 N i1 N is N i1 N * N N is N+ N is N i1 N O l.0 is l0 V l0 V VO V toy V0 V l0 V l0 V VO V VO V VO V VO O U ri ri a) :s as a KC MM M MM xxx x x x M xxxxxxMMMMMMMMMMM xxx 00 00 00 000 0 0 0 0 00000000000000000 000 0 N O O (Y, — W 0 W 0) aX rn 0 H • Z O 0 0)0) h 0)0) W Ul U H H ill a) H H H C-0 l0 U) 0) 0)0)01 0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0.0) M M CO O NCO 0)CO HN MOM N N d' NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN 0)0)0) NN 00 did' ri100) N CO U) N NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN NNN H 00 ,�Oj0 LO LO NNN Cs N d' N NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN L-ls l. 01 01 01 01 01 0 N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0o FC a' NN 0)010) O M co O 00000000000000000 000 N O 0 I0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O O ri ri ri rl H rl ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri rl rl ri ri ri ri ri H NH in r- rHri UIUIUI ri Ill H N NNNNNNNNNNCVNN04NNCV NNN Ix N N H H N N M M M N N N M M M M M i1 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M W d Tr ri N d NP W d'd' d' d d d d d d'CV d d'd�d'd�Tr d W NV Tr d�TV d' TV NV d OWi � ii ii iii i i i i 11111111111111111 ILi U LO ri NN CV r-i ri rl M H H Ul ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri ri riN ri W HM d4H HNH U NH rlri U)L(1 Mrirl 1.11d' ri N QOMriNL�rIMUl01N0)NNLAL(lU1ri Ullsrl Q,Z QOM 0101 Nh MMM C d' M co ri ri ri ri ri TV CI rlr TPri01mNNN P) HrHM 0)O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cr) H H 0 0 0 Z r4 co Crl al 0 MI 41 W W HHH W W H O H H H x x x H H H `�a W as HHH a a H ,zia ,.1 as aaa a a CiC U U)CCn !� CCn CCn 0 0 iJ l Cil MI om!) W co co 4 C4 a Pi CD W W0 NFC 00 \\\ 0 H 0 W WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWW O Oz Oa ZZ 000 Z 0 Z Z ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZ G4H 3 HH ZZZ H H 0 00000000000000000 000 El 1 x HH HHH H H ]C xEl,T,xElElElEl,lEl'.CEEEEElEl ElElx I) 0 d H FC FC HHH FC FC a aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaa C)c4 l0and zzz C4 C a W WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWW HW Oi WW HHH W a W a aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaa 0a HW as R:afx a W a W WWWWWWWWwWWWWWwWW WWW ZO U 00 aaa 0 Z 0 H E-HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHH WW 00 H H H 0 0 H U co co co 41 HH UUU Ac.)a,a, 00 C4 C4 zzz 0 H ��El 00 00 HHH 0 O WW �.� UU0 4 U U FQ H H H 0 aH ZEEEEEEZEZZEZZEZE EE Cl) 00000000000000000 000 W c.)c...) HH pxx U p HH >> C aaa W UUUUUUUUUUU0UUUUU UUU Ixa C4 a' F.H4 FC CO 0 H Ww ill ill Z �a'R: FC U H x HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHH co co W W C7 C7 C7 0 H Z CAW Wu)ulODu)ulWu)ulWWu)u)u)u) co W CO c.)c.) 44FC 0 U H WWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WW WWW WW 33 UUU w 3 H co cnu)U)cou)u)CO010)u)u)u)000OCO01CO mu)CI) as �� COVICACI HH HHH- H H E-1 0 00000000000000000 000 * * * * * * * * * * * 0 ION CO MOOD 000 I-d,Ul lO 0101 Cs Cs 00 d4 I CD CO LO CD 0 0 01 C)LI1 0)O1 CO Ml-01QONU1 01 10 10 u) El co 0)d' M NNd� 000 ONUIM 00 drW UD l0 Nr UIQONUIUIMri0Nril001Nd'r 101� HTM rlri W N O LO LO ri HNM OO W IO LO ri Tr ri ri ri NN CC` CC` rH O 0 Ori lO ri ri O MN IO d'UIIO UINUI 01NU110 0 10 cH M OO CO ri0) Nri4 L-(NIL-I- NN ri ri MM t/)-V} Cq C-Cq.cy N(NI 01 O0N M ri OI-HN OOH lO O[I+M OO : N Ul Ul 4 O d' H NN N V}Ul v)-An- An-An- ri H ri V}V}i/}H N V}V}L?N H H H H H.4 CO N V}M V} V} VF . 4.1)-V}V} CO-VI- V} 2/}{/} L} t?41) 4.O-VD i?V}V}V}V}V} . in•V} V} r-i I-0 1 W N V1-N N VI- Ci fU V}V} W X fx U W H v) W dr dr d'TV d'd' TV TV dr dr dr d' dr Vr dr dr d'dr TV dr 4 dr d'TV dr dr dr W TV cM VV dr dr H H ri ri ri ri ri ri ri rl ri H H H H HHHHHH,-IHHHHHHHHHH HHH O FC \\ \\ \\ \\\ \ \ \ \ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\ W 0 NN NN NN NNN t` N N N N N N N N N l-N N N N L-N N N NLS NNN p4 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 x �-., —� �'- ��— ��,,,,,,,,,,������,,,,,,,, ��� Y, U 01 0) 0)0) 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0) 0) 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 61 01 01 01 01 01 01 0)0)0) U W 01 01 01 01 01 01 0)0)0) 0) 0) 0) 01 0)01 61 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 61 01 0)01 0) El 'M' 0)01 0)0) 0)01 01 01 01 0) 0) 0) 0) 0)01 01 CA 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 61 01 01 01 01 0)0) M C) H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H C) I-1 0 O 61 O ,-i N CO d' Ln N 0) H CO CO d' W d' d' d' d1 d' A Vim' A U .y. A d' A W A A •li A c1, A dI A cm A d+ A cf. Z UK N * N * N * N * N* N* N* N* N * N O W V l0 Vv) V IO V l0 V WV WV WV WV W V lW V O x U U N H (1) tn (IS a, a 4 M x acx x M x xxxxxxxxxxxxx x x M x xxacxxx 0 0 00 0 00 0 0000000000000 0 0 0 0 000000 J 124 .... W o al m Cu CA rn H h") z i 0 N u1 C.) m H H I- CO N 0 M d� L1 N L)Ll ul Ll Ll u)L)N u)Ll L1 0 H in 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N O N CO cr cr 01 01 an T an 01 01 01 a1 01 01 01 a'01 01 M CO H Ll Ll Ln Lo N Lo > N N CO CV 01 CD co N CVNNNNNNNNNNNN N N N M NNNNNN Z N N l0H I 00 l- N N N l-N r-N N l-N N l-N N r- l- M N N N l-N N H 0 0 N CO 01 M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cr) O O 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O N 01 d'V 0 000000000000 O H 0 O D 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 N (0 O O O O O 0 O O(0 0 0 0 0 N lf) O 0 0 0 0 0 0 H H H H H 01 H H l- a0 OD CO a0 00 00 a0 CO a0 00 aD 00 a0 M N H Tr H H H H N H 0: LD l0 NN M MM W MMMMMMMMMMMMM N cr N N NNNNNN ««P7 W sr Tr W dr Tr W Tr M NV w Tr sr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr er Tr M V V w V d.V V V 0 CO I I 1 1 1 11 1 1111111111111 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 I a0 al HH H HH N V10 ODHHHHN Tr NN M H N r- Tr HHHHNH 0 N N HH M NN u) NMNHNa0NaDa0MNL)Ll cr u) N In HHNd1NN a M M MM CO HH L- M totO M crH MHH LO tO N I- d1 l- d1 N M Wd1 cr LOM 01 01 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 z H z H El H W U] g U1 W W 41 W H 0 0 a' a' U1U1 \ HH z 01 CO 01 CO U1 CO H H Z W0101410101 H z H Z s 0 W W 41 W W W W W W W W W W W W H H H H H N H fai H H H C14 04 as U 01 CO 00000000000 .) EA z H 14 00000 as aaaa W W �.'7 Cl) H H H H H H H H H H H H H Z a aaaa a rad xxaxaxxaaxxxx CO U3 U1W0)0) CO H H CO C/) W z2 WWWWWWWWWWWWW Q O: a' zz 0 00 U]WU1WU]WU1U1v1U1U]U1U] U1 E-4 000000 W W H H W Cl)CO co ',a+,ll,'s1,S1',s1',a1›A',a1,'s1',ai}1'Ji'y1 Z U? i W HHHHH H U? CO HH a OD CO Z HHHHHHHHHHHHH H z H X HHHHNH 4 4 W W W 0 H H R H H H H H H H H H H al 0 O; a g g g g g a H H C4 44 CR. R4 R4 CO 000000aaaaaaa a U1 W H a 03 00 WW Z 00 U? HHHHHHHHHHHHH H CO H J WWWWWW Cr) Cr.) as 0 o P4 Cr.) HHH FA HHHE-IHHEIHH CD W g4 01 aaaaaa A A 00 0 as a fit) DD ) ) ) D 1 Dp 1 01 a X W 000000 K4 H 0 • • W UU 0000000000000 zzzzzzzzzzzzz 0 Z Z W W HH HHHHHHHHHHHHH Z HH H HHHHHHHHHHHHH H H co 0 R: H H HH X U' 0 zzzzzzzzzzzzz x 0 H 000000 0 '.3 CO HH C*a HH WWWWWWWWWWWWW H G�' W W 333333 000000 a a as 0 c=1 G4 x ZX ZZXXXX ZX XXX WWWWWWWWWWWWW CO nl x Cr) H H z as 0c9c7c9c9c7c7c7c7c7cDc7c7 0 0 a X x � H HH il il il il il il il il il il il il il EA xFi al aax��x��x� d a r� ax m a c°) 000000 00 W WW W WWWWWWWWWWWWW a H D k O00U)00 FA FA FA EL.EL. > 1-1.0 z HHHHHHHHHHHHH W 0 X 0 CO CO Dn R ›� 3 3333333333333 3 3 X X >4>4>i>4>4>4 * * * * * * * * * * * * Loin MM C000D 00 crHL) 00 NN0101OlONO01NMOVN LI Ln 00 NN MM Hcoo MMOln HN N CO OO 01 0 01 0 0 CO L0 Tr 0 0 O1 r-Ll N co 01 01 M In M N O to co ul In 0 0 N N M M H O O N M H 03 l0 LO L)ul CDLOd' OO NL)H 0O N N crON CONH O N%VLl 04 Q HH O0 OO MM a0 Tr MNN01aD 0 NN NN HN dr NN OM d1 in in in in.4.r-NNLn CNa0 M 011-dr NN L1Ll NN x000 vL}L}NHLIFO CO a0 CO CO L}cr d' H H H H N L}v} L}L}N L}N L}L?H L}L}N H H Ll L}L} L}LN l0 l0 L?L} v} L}N M t/}v} v}v} L}L}v} v} v} L} v}v}t? . L}v} v} v} 0101 cry CO a0 LO l0 H L}L} v}L} VD- 0 W M x 0 W H U1 W w w cr cr w w w w a'a'a'd'Tr Tr w d'w.0 w d1 w cr 0 w d1 cr d1 Cr d1 w d1 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H N H Cr) C] N N NN• N NN N l-NI-1,NI,NL,NNl,I,N r- I- N N l-l-NNL-L� '1 0 0 00 0 00 0 0000000000000 0 0 0 0 00000'0 0 01 01 O1 01• 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 O1 01 01 01 01 01 .) W a1 01 01 01 a1 a1 01 T 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 a1 01 CA 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 UCr) x 01 Ch 01 01 Ch 01 rn a1 Ch 01 01 a1 01 01 01 01 a1 a1 01 01 01 01 01 •0) 01 01 01 01 rn 01 01 0 H H HH H HH H HHHHH-HHHHHHHH H H H H HHHHNH 0 a Z 01 0 H N M cr L0 N co 01 O H H c' to in 11) In In in Lo L) In l0 t0 0 x w A cr A w A cr A w A cr A d1 A cr A d1 A cr A cr A w A 0 N* N* N * N* N * N* N * N* N* N* N* N 0 l0 V l0 V l0 V l0 V LO V L0 V l0 V L0 V l0 V LO V l0 V 40 v 0 0 M H bl - 5x 0 N z co o a - W am al a6rn 0 0z W to U H H O U) t0 Z H H d' M O zH d' p W c4 (N1 dI OW U M U17 M az N 0 U Z a z H 111 H Ei a Z H H a 4 W W H A z W x a H OI W U z H 0) I:4 0 a 3 0 E W • a H 0 * is W d 0) Ea M M t[1 z • • H• .7 N N O co co t, • M M U) N x N U H W x H a U W H U] W W H Ei H • 4 W A N a 0 x � x U rn U W rn W x o x U H U O a z N H to U x d' n z U NK O 41 to v U U H • a) rn raa N (N co O D> 0) 6l H a h Ln H Ol Ol CO O U) M N til O a0 VD 0 N CO V' U) W o O O N 01 N al al O N CO a0 CO O lD a' O U) H (`1 N- c0 O U) Ul r LO a) d' d' 0 N N Cl co 0 a0 l0 N N N H V? 01 Cl Cl U) U) l0 l0 H N 01 00 co H O l0 Cl a' V} H al N O Lf) N VD a0 in VT .CO- 5 V? (/} V} . V} N H O lO HN N Cl Ill N N N l0 N 0H(/} V} (n. U) co L} 01 H V? V)- V} N V>- )- H H N tri- (? V} CO H AOH A O Z U Z a, H H A O O H H z a a E H W W t4 H H r2. W z z X X Cal z H z P W4 0 X z X > 4 it C 2 H H W W PW O Cal W w 0 0 a z X W 0 A > 0 a aO Cilz O a a W W H W 3 4 X X p Z a r a o a H H z a° a a g O A 3 FC a H H a H a in U a co Z ��Y A C`' EH-� PC a X47 lx CO FC H 4 01 CQ H \ U A H H 1-101 W FC 7 H Z FC FC CA 4 al a a) H H ao A rn zH O CL. U H U U U0 H W H a) H U H U W H H r-I Ul Cr) a' X H U) W a W x H T1, LO CO CO 01 H h c0 CO 01 O N O O O O O LO O U) U O H H H N N N M M V W U) V/ H CO d' LO CO N W d' O H H CO CO M W d' W d' V' d' d' 1` r r r r co o0 co a Z A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A E Pk z z P P U a a w 14 w rt. G.. w rri Fri w w u, rz, a w a a, ri., rx.. rrI öONSE , CITY OF SHAKOPEE ` 'T Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Final Plat of Southbridge 4th Addition DATE: July 20, 1999 Discussion Shakopee Crossings is requesting Final Plat approval of Southbridge 4th Addition. The subject site is generally located south of Southbridge Parkway. A copy of the July 8, 1999, Planning Commission staff memo is attached for your reference. Alternatives 1. Approve the Final Plat of Southbridge 4th Addition, subject to conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and staff. 2. Revise the conditions of approval for the Final Plat of Southbridge 4th Addition, and approve subject to the revised conditions. 3. Do not approve the Final Plat of Southbridge 4th 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 Southbridge 4th Addition, subject to conditions(Alternative No. 1). Action Requested Offer Resolution No. 5189, a Resolution Approving the Final Plat of Southbridge 4th Addition, subject to conditions, and move its approval. (frjJulie Klima Planner II i:\conundev\c61999\cc0720\fpsbrdg4.doc RESOLUTION NO. 5189 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA,APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF SOUTHBRIDGE 4TH ADDITION WHEREAS, Shakopee Crossings Limited Partnership is the applicant and owner of said property;and WHEREAS, the property upon which the request is being made is legally described as follows: Outlots C, D, and K, Southbridge 1st Addition, according to the plat on file and of record in the Office of the Registrar of Titles, Scott County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee did review the Final Plat of Southbridge 4th Addition on July 8, 1999, and has recommended its approval. 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 Southbridge 4th 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: 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) The developer shall provide easements, as required by City Code, including access easements to ponding areas, if necessary. v) 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. vi) 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. vii) The developer shall pay existing levied special assessments or may request that they be reapportioned against the new lots. Developer shall pay the current fee for reapportioning each assessment code and agree to the City Engineer's reapportionment. viii) Any necessary future noise mitigation shall be the responsibility of the Homeowners Association(s). 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 A'F1'EST: City Clerk • CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Final Plat of Southbridge 4th Addition MEETING DATE: July 8, 1999 REVIEW PERIOD: June 4, 1999 to August 3, 1999 Site Information Applicant/Owner: Shakopee Crossings Limited Partnership Location: Southbridge Current Zoning: Urban Residential (R-1B)Zone/PUD 1995 Comp. Plan: Single Family Residential MUSA: The site is within the MUSA boundary. Attachments: Exhibit A: Zoning/Location Map Exhibit B: Southbridge 4th Addition Final Plat Map INTRODUCTION Shakopee Crossings Limited Partnership is requesting approval of the Final Plat for Southbridge 4th Addition. This development is generally located in the south central and southeastern portion of the Southbridge 15`Addition (East Dean Lake PUD), and south and east of Southbridge Parkway (Exhibit A). This Final Plat (Exhibit B) is in substantial conformance with the approved preliminary plat. CONSIDERATIONS 1. The preliminary plat of Southbridge 1ST Addition was approved by the City Council on March 17, 1998. 2. This development will plat 63 new single-family residential lots. All road systems shown on the plat are publicly dedicated roads. 3. The Building Official, City Planner, and City Engineer will review building site plans, setbacks, materials, and landscaping at time of building permit application. 4. Park dedication was completed at time of Southbridge Addition Preliminary Plat approval. 5. The dedication language on the title page of the final plat shall be revised to include the dedication of all roads(rather than road). 6. Levied special assessments exist on the property. The developer shall either pay the levied assessments or may request reapportionment. 7. The final plat is in substantial conformance with the approved preliminary plat. A slight revision (the elimination of several lots)has been made to the southeastern portion of the plat to accomodate potential interest of the Shakopee School District to locate a facility within this project. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend to the City Council approval of the Final Plat of Southbridge 4th 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) The developer shall provide easements, as required by City Code, including access easements to ponding areas, if necessary. v) 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. vi) 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. vii) The developer shall pay existing levied special assessments or may request that they be reapportioned against the new lots. Developer shall pay the current fee for reapportioning each assessment code and agree to the City Engineer's reapportionment. viii) Any necessary future noise mitigation shall be the responsibility of the Homeowners Association(s). 2. Recommend to the City Council approval of the Final Plat of Southbridge 4th Addition with revised conditions. 3. Recommend to the City Council the denial of the request for approval of Southbridge 4th 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 Southbridge 4th Addition, subject to the conditions. ACTION REQUESTED Offer a motion recommending to the City Council the approval of the Final Plat of Southbridge 4th Addition with conditions. ee teL17,/ ,(.. u to lima Planner II is\commdev\boaa-pc\1999\0708\fpsb4 th.doc I - L I ---,__, ,, 11 ____. �� - \ 12 �—, I I U.S H • 169 01 a 11 R 1 A �:'�I:::.th 11 R16 vdin 1 , ', 't A. : pAillka siti !hi _ Abe' ,16 b4°* 1\ - 4�ean `,�f 1 r �! Iliff- Lake -- _ X11 .4411, 11 Sq y i. AG 1 IN 7 - r - -t- I ..7: 0°11AI A SHAKOPEE N commUNnY PRIDES NCE Sass Proposed Southbridge 4th Addition Final Plat (general location) 0 Zoning.shp 1 Parcels.shp 06/14/99 ---•- Pai `..•. CI Ca eOO Z 0 Q s z N I I (- C, [w ilkiiib T I-- I I — U 1 Nob N • r\ in I v' • �, 1.._ 1 \ I Nij / \/ t, �y 1 e FF'0• 0[ .6t () l kill I ,_ I / /W li iii' ) ---- -- 1N 3.SL.00.g6S 3.6!•9£,(0„icy° J / is 1 N'4 N , ��,,,'- So sL`gLM"6y'9Z1 1 r-------- • Ls F,OL < i1 ((ttpp Vii^ r6' ti `` y{-��iL•/^ 14 -�r` LO[ N .j F_ . \ \4OL O C) ra6P'LL�h11.I t�d.01!h �' `11- ,Ifr w \O` m��( 7 ,1 k•iL `-r�7i 'F ��ir C) C:::1 O / l�,� ST • __- .•.....01,-13,, ig i'04 ! 1.1k,,, 4a: fp\ `+ 1 •i.. y 11,i �.` �i -[ ' ;�[so4 vli. i r' M.[121-4,,•90.91{,43.1 , .,? ,_ -�$;1a ,.p -h?6.D, i 8 F ,' yiL' 'i-�IR_J LN ire `dJ h O °s r ` \ �� _ roiii\ �_./4. tip i i,,,,.:9f659--1 �,-_—_ '�l-rc£i•p' i",�dp;�ia :) ``•r-26Td--i r-- ..?�� :b•�r b e61'1 _ -,,�,,,,.44,,,,,,o..).1•40.C] 1 ,,�r. 0 rirtet \ ..--- / / I.90 olt-vi�.;; 'sd--1 r-'''o +Y 9`Dr e:�:^ /- Cl . Y 'L �-1 ' j{;� 2�q'�^. �a� �d' ;.- r2/s1. r.$yct• -v ?, -r v(4O44, ‘44.:00 r�,_ ►�,yq'P (if \a� 1 .r ,p' i, 4) 1 =i, r r' h4,,'. -` \ AN 0—p -.. si,r 41,1)^ `,,,, g.111,. \�'• �9� ':•' / ` .•Ler- .l •tri 4' y'79 �•d, 't, 'd !j• .,pf. `,• ►M1.�, '*"'^ , ''\ 1 'ffi" •, ' i'' • \ / -'L LA-4 'N 13 ' ; c;•g N '' i►• 4 a, 1.. p 5p \ '95 „..;__.:,...4... t;r ,, .,,,,., `ems' 'N `;/',f0 d„'• r�� s.. . ... i r lg N ,•Iy, Ft r,' r ►�' � }+'- ., ;; y41', r'' '1�1. f I —Y- ` 18„11.51 loc[,1�? .; 1 �; ,? .- 1A3021-,-.0--%:;:%/0� tr ,y� �°`� g�.`iii::.;---- I / /h' tCdb �' ,* \yo-r' •:9:-A1 ,d , R 1 1 1.� 1 ,, 9. a _ ' I :i :� .0 / 7f2/4") .VID- • `\a v _1* .4 1u A 1 1 LIIIIIIII I4) I ' / y I. .le' 11:5°' _ , b N,s'!!?fes- , w•1---:1; i�l I rl a P 1s - rl e`� ,. .d �� -'Seo e41 -, 1 e•-• .— _.. — J / 'i�1^1 C 11 , .r; tBb• '�;• 8ie�l 6.Oi - I `S r 4r4PR,=_1--� 111 —_.1/ \ 41 "� N 32019:w , 3, I, •-n„ 3d16. .d�d�(•�` ' Co' Ea If ill N til I. ir 4‘14111;114? i zob `r '/ / / ' Ii 1° `` , OA, � arioN" N -- � ns ' r3 , \ '':•-...S... 4.1 I I 4.N v.\ f / m I g d , 1 [D / \ r/\ \ \\ /J/// R •(--0.i '$1 1 "y�,0 �i"E 'I ,ter,lj�'�DS •<�$ 4,4;,-,,,??.33,6. �� ` ` \ �/ ? R^` �"k • by 111p_19=�' .{j` hrT �y q \ \ // / w 4.'b"10 ,s 1 , r �p_41_ • bI .�+' / -;; .3 •4i.4c iy',' 4k,s,I..-ss,.�I ,1 / / \ — \ to / '`t�`8. oi `.`Pi11��1"'r - ' � •:R h 7' w '9.�`,` 0 •f, �r�[, 1, / / r \ E 14. i .+ 6 N.�p• f61. ,r' 4yt/!.P,r� w y,1, 4 9i .` 1 r �I I v1 \ / .p1 a''sl '`�„• `S•P�i,. �i.1� • ,a 1 ztrl� >,-� �, ',7-5.11 ,iMj9� c+ \ ,/// 51gZs5j9 R'•�``` ', bo ;�.1.11r /oA0 F -���,111 >0 �� ^ `` y65 F- : / / ,r \,,e"t 91// i '1.-176' W `d,,r�•�',1, S`P[!�'' •fr'45�W --,C'1`•,3d'I ,• �` •',e+ Ila-. 63 t•`;'21'�. I 'h I s�°E°� ,..• 1I..,1- 6 Y., ^`�:y`„ j'A.* �Q1�►o '16 ,�, a 9�.. '0e. `Rn ,1 r iv i!,0`00, 0.' 4Y1� • 8 •Ii .-- �1 1110040 // , '0..1•�i!b >',,1h f0 1 �f. /`" 1 M16 `JIB, b �'`�F � i,, ''�� B 5'6• -) • 1„ I , / K a r' F �'\ C' =11 f V.- 2445 i • / .0,, 1 ,i ✓ "j, 0', !' 1+ 1.J�' N N^' / �,,, hVii°1 s , R .'.`. N 4d,1 J ,, 1!.D- • 36.85wK-4 I .0.:,..‘: 000c% ,( • 1..1V. ��t1 yy , s',11 10904' r 240'0 W C) 1e.fOM7DD[ d 4•' 4.r/ 1 Ft < �,\' ♦' '`_' 1�c..!oe-vim % ,(� �r �,. ; 6 N 16 1 v r � :` ,Y>6:1 F'ij3 "- ',1►' �� t-(:):,;, 1,9ti .6r 0235•^M, 55�j1" aa 1/,1✓/ ;rte '7 jj;°�6�-' t1; ,• AIS-"ot[°1 � d -..j S,y Njs 1 S2001 •. / A'`- •,/ 1 �•:1 '•i. $ ( ),•=• y�%.(g�6 n L .,trR -= FCS/-_ •a, ,--4;,- 101 ,�+ N ,tsir. .,1 a,,ir46.YW1 1°w y 1 7 R'- - ' Z �+�`j ///!•; . ,L,ao :oil ,p l c( .y�%/1C4. ,1�j6ev" .f \ riY� ;1N% IiI '� ~ -�nyr -,. *16'491. . .1„ ,`�v C401d0 ', `a N g1 0 6'4 b 1 -, r was- --' S4 $ 1 f l,_tA1u" ''2814;560E ' 141-1 Q t ) 44 rIY\" .�' , a 0i�`X44'• 221;38.4 i; -7 1 ',fit ���,eyf�, +`f '.ir+ � ,h,�>fl�1j, ; \ Nt�ig 1!� , Av i 1 7" 1 • Q ` •.41414.4)04`66-0, ;°t ` •y �M1,y ti 4� 01-1 11 41 1 C], r_/ 91—.1 .s. a i1! ':'.'18 o x• '•k 4.. 'R; A , ", y,, 19 f Yw.w..-.--.., .. .._ , !t p _ .! 4 ly. l,,.„„ • CON 2 ENTCITY OF SHAKOPEE _.., Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Final Plat of Savanna Oaks at Southbridge DATE: July 20, 1999 Discussion D.R. Horton is requesting Final Plat approval of Savanna Oaks at Southbridge. The subject site is generally located west of Southbridge Parkway. A copy of the July 8, 1999, Planning Commission staff memo is attached for your reference. Alternatives 1. Approve the Final Plat of Savanna Oaks at Southbridge, subject to conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and staff. 2. Revise the conditions of approval for the Final Plat of Savanna Oaks at Southbridge, and approve subject to the revised conditions. 3. Do not approve the Final Plat of Savanna Oaks at Southbridge. 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 Savanna Oaks at Southbridge, subject to conditions(Alternative No. 1). Action Requested Offer Resolution No. 5190, a Resolution Approving the Final Plat of Savanna Oaks at Southbridge, subject to conditions, and move its approval. tat KE ulie Klima Planner II i:\commdev\cc\1999\cc0720\fpsvnok.doc RESOLUTION NO. 5190 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA,APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF SAVANNA OAKS AT SOUTHBRIDGE WHEREAS,D.R. Horton is the applicant and owner of said property; and WHEREAS, the property upon which the request is being made is legally described as follows: Outlot I, Southbridge 1st Addition, according to the plat on file and of record in the Office of the Registrar of Titles, Scott County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee did review the Final Plat of Savanna Oaks at Southbridge on July 8, 1999, and has recommended its approval. 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 IHE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA, as follows: That the Final Plat of Savanna Oaks at Southbridge is hereby approved 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) The developer shall provide easements, as required by City Code, including access easements to ponding areas, if necessary. v) 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. vi) 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. vii) The developer shall pay existing levied special assessments or may request that they be reapportioned against the new lots. Developer shall pay the current fee for reapportioning each assessment code and agree to the City Engineer's reapportionment. viii) Any necessary future noise mitigation shall be the responsibility of the Homeowners Association(s). viv) The final plat shall be revised to rename Oxford Road Place to Oxford Place. x) The title page of the Final Plat shall be revised to delete the signature block for the Planning Commission secretary. 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 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Final Plat of Savanna Oaks at Southbridge MEETING DATE: July 8, 1999 REVIEW PERIOD: June 11, 1999 to August 10, 1999 Site Information Applicant/Owner: D.R. Horton Location: Southbridge Current Zoning: Low Density Residential(R-1A)Zone/PUD 1995 Comp. Plan: Single Family Residential MUSA: The site is within the MUSA boundary. Attachments: Exhibit A: Zoning/Location Map Exhibit B: Savanna Oaks at Southbridge Final Plat Map INTRODUCTION D.R. Horton is requesting approval of the Final Plat for Savanna Oaks at Southbridge. This development is generally located in the south central portion of the Southbridge 1'Addition(East Dean Lake PUD), and west of Southbridge Parkway(Exhibit A). This Final Plat (Exhibit B) is in substantial conformance with the approved preliminary plat. CONSIDERATIONS 1. The preliminary plat of Southbridge 1ST Addition was approved by the City Council on March 17, 1998. 2. This development will plat 9 new single-family residential lots. All road systems shown on the plat are publicly dedicated roads. 3. The Building Official, City Planner, and City Engineer will review building site plans, setbacks, materials, and landscaping at time of building permit application. 4. Park dedication was completed at time of Southbridge Addition Preliminary Plat approval. 5. The title page of the final plat shall be revised to delete the signature block for the Planning Commission secretary. 6. The street name of Oxford Road Place shall be revised to Oxford Place. 7. Levied special assessments exist on the property. The developer shall either pay the levied assessments or may request reapportionment. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend to the City Council approval of the Final Plat of Savanna Oaks at Southbridge, 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) The developer shall provide easements, as required by City Code, including access easements to ponding areas, if necessary. v) 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. vi) 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. vii) The developer shall pay existing levied special assessments or may request that they be reapportioned against the new lots. Developer shall pay the current fee for reapportioning each assessment code and agree to the City Engineer's reapportionment. viii) Any necessary future noise mitigation shall be the responsibility of the Homeowners Association(s). viv) The final plat shall be revised to rename Oxford Road Place to Oxford Place. x) The title page of the Final Plat shall be revised to delete the signature block for the Planning Commission secreatary. 2. Recommend to the City Council approval of the Final Plat of Savanna Oaks at Southbridge with revised conditions. 3. Recommend to the City Council the denial of the request for approval of Savanna Oaks at Southbridge. 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 Savanna Oaks at Southbridge, subject to the conditions. ACTION REQUESTED Offer a motion recommending to the City Council the approval of the Final Plat of Savanna Oaks at Southbridge with conditions. Julie Klima Planner II is\commdev\boaa-pc\1999\0708\fpsavok.doc c)(14 is rr A fir-- \� ' 11 12 `-, U.S Hwy 169 11 cR1A '�''�������.� 11 R16 $1°111411 II*%k- i Titi`L`�'J thbr 5 111 IL :ft i .•04. jean \ ,� , _.,1417 7 L N _ Wit.il__ Lakell7 ` .� 11 •S.A 1 76 AG n 111 ii a■s — r romikkAi A SHAKOPEE N COMMU TrY PRIDE SINCE 1857 Proposed Savanna Oaks at Southbridge Final Plat [� Zoning.shp Parcels.shp 06/14/99 bel Q u N d 1 Pa h n I/VI I I/I111V/ -, h I „ vl11Uv ly .> g W 11 4 ICI 3k � ► nom � - I � � i i In♦/ / P,-," 1-\f`• / v/n, ITI 1'_0\1 V\71”- Q / vv r rail - ° Z' S� \ IN 0 °h°j ♦``R`j127.p0elp1e��L I ; \\ -Po ♦ C-,// 2 ��` p=22°31'06 La442.g4�♦� �\ i A'•r�sr I I ' \\ �y .s1<- / /` '7 - - - - - =-__• =8*:6.•_�.I�2;---1 ,1 „ 1, °^o�M1, I 4I• 'is \\ �1 L , 1 1.1 �N 1 + • / I r� \ ��t N�/_ c 11,11111'J� paw Ian as ,- gI l,� Vit, \ "l� vl IN q1- g1 Nq •, • I ,e 1 s N al it IN �._—..� - `` / •0.41111 NI 1 g ii-i 7 I , \ �/� C� Pi °'ro Na_z1'ao_w_----J z�.� 21.s 1 b 1 /�!� N \\ ?�/�\ '0 `> R 2 L-- -.---- ---,-- ep3y4 114 I l..,.Ii/ \).'// \ `11 Q <� h. 0,r-----rva`4e >>1°�1 Ng \I D,e,,p a` 1 �/i �,/// \\ w cp It ..... ` 1 `� Q i1 N\ / / \\ 1 \_J L cresl �'" I \mac \ :t , L.I J I- • 1"' .#,1r.ct.00N 1 bN M N 8 Zi r`\ ) J \\ ql C J Cis a > N N • g 't` 41. W )'1 4 0 \ BIZ• 19881 -. AI.►I.OSe°°S Q /t--.., , L___------ n_ -� . / '1� f* MI �IC.Sie00N 1' �_"1 lu 1--►----- -/ 1 ` `- / .50 t4 I zdZizw-1le, 1 ‘,A, 1 1co a m� M1l. , // iv el 0N 13 ♦ Apio / lei IIIIIIII C) r4 1 ,/:// // M.Ot,56°OOS 8!'t!t J`� ^y �i/ �� ,7° •O / vd �`�. .'�', rtir 66.x7- C^.I, �l ��� ., /, ° �/ lig G C� •moo < 1., � ��/ � _ O �/ /;b 'V ; , /(--), 9. ,`. /,/ \ \ r^\ , \ '' ii7 .• Vo //1 ' 1 ) \ igttii ,' • ,%1 ......„, ,--, CS 1/4_, cm //1 /, , iz, o us ..... �t ‘.„ >u fi ;p� i .., I ,°54 II O I m� EN �~ app I C ; � � �.. d N$V N 0+1 .8i.S tx)Pp '`Z u Sa ° I t'' ; in t o r o a E - p `7+ , • 5 b • O"8 .0 Ns AI O Q Iu 1 I - , C °$ v0 V$ aa5 I Z.$ o o E o p8H •0 o I •s !, rj: u8 p o e �•S ¢ n I ";5 Em o.°, of b,� � E 1 X47. v oo E p p 08 c 4. O b �g p Ob g , •S 01, b N ° • 2_E0 1 tt63 CONSENT CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Final Plat of Savanna Oaks at Southbridge 2nd Addition DATE: July 20, 1999 Discussion D.R. Horton is requesting Final Plat approval of Savanna Oaks at Southbridge 2nd Addition. The subject site is generally located west of Southbridge Parkway and north of Savanna Oaks at Southbridge. A copy of the July 8, 1999, Planning Commission staff memo is attached for your reference. Alternatives 1. Approve the Final Plat of Savanna Oaks at Southbridge 2nd Addition, subject to conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and staff. 2. Revise the conditions of approval for the Final Plat of Savanna Oaks at Southbridge 2nd Addition, and approve subject to the revised conditions. 3. Do not approve the Final Plat of Savanna Oaks at Southbridge 2nd 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 Savanna Oaks at Southbridge 2nd Addition, subject to conditions(Alternative No. 1). Action Requested Offer Resolution No. 5191, a Resolution Approving the Final Plat of Savanna Oaks at Southbridge 2nd Addition, subject to conditions, and move its approval. ulie Klima Planner II i:\commdev\cc\1999\cc0720\fpsvnok2.doc RESOLUTION NO. 5191 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA,APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF SAVANNA OAKS AT SOUTHBRIDGE 2ND ADDITION WHEREAS,D.R. Horton is the applicant and owner of said property; and WHEREAS, the property upon which the request is being made is legally described as follows: • That part of Outlot A, Southbridge 2nd Addition, according to the plat on file and of record in the Office of the Registrar of Titles, Scott County, Minnesota, lying southerly of a line described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of Lot 7, Block 2, said Southbridge 2nd Addition; thence South 84 degrees 41 minutes 01 seconds East, assumed bearing, along a northerly line of said Outlot A, a distance of 210.17 feet; thence North 00 degrees 56 minutes 25 seconds East, along a westerly line of said Outlot A, a distance of 120.35 feet to the actual point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 84 degrees 41 minutes 01 seconds East, a distance of 55.16 feet to an easterly line of said Outlot A and said line there terminating. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee did review the Final Plat of Savanna Oaks at Southbridge 2nd Addition on July 8, 1999, and has recommended its approval. 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 Savanna Oaks at Southbridge 2nd Addition is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: a) Prior to recording the Final Plat,a determination regarding the placement of a trail should be made. If necessary,the developer shall provide easements for the trail. b) 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) The developer shall provide easements, as required by City Code, including access easements to ponding areas, if necessary. v) 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. vi) 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. viii) Any necessary future noise mitigation shall be the responsibility of the Homeowners Association(s). viv) The title page of the Final Plat shall be revised to delete the signature block for the Planning Commission secretary. 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 1 • CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Final Plat of Savanna Oaks at Southbridge 2nd Addition MEETING DATE: July 8, 1999 REVIEW PERIOD: June 11, 1999 to August 10, 1999 Site Information Applicant/Owner: D.R. Horton Location: Southbridge Current Zoning: Low Density Residential (R-1A)Zone/PUD 1995 Comp. Plan: Single Family Residential MUSA: The site is within the MUSA boundary. Attachments: Exhibit A: Zoning/Location Map Exhibit B: Savanna Oaks at Southbridge 2nd Addition Final Plat Map Exhibit C: Park and Recreation Directors Comments INTRODUCTION D.R. Horton is requesting approval of the Final Plat for Savanna Oaks at Southbridge 2nd Addition. This development is generally located in the south central portion of the Southbridge 1g Addition(East Dean Lake PUD), and west of Southbridge Parkway(Exhibit A). This Final Plat (Exhibit B) is in substantial conformance with the approved preliminary plat. CONSIDERATIONS 1. The preliminary plat of Southbridge 1ST Addition was approved by the City Council on March 17, 1998. 2. This development will plat 26 new single-family residential lots. All road systems shown on the plat are publicly dedicated roads. 3. The Building Official, City Planner, and City Engineer will review building site plans, setbacks, materials, and landscaping at time of building permit application. 4. Park dedication was completed at time of Southbridge Addition Preliminary Plat approval. 5. The title page of the final plat shall be revised to delete the signature block for the Planning Commission secretary. 6. The Park and Recreation Director has commented on future trail connections within this phase. Please see attached Exhibit C. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend to the City Council approval of the Final Plat of Savanna Oaks at Southbridge 2nd Addition, subject to the following conditions: a) Prior to City Council review,a determination regarding the placement of a trail should be made. If necessary,the developer shall provide easements for the trail. b) 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) The developer shall provide easements, as required by City Code, including access easements to ponding areas, if necessary. v) 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. vi) 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. viii) Any necessary future noise mitigation shall be the responsibility of the Homeowners Association(s). viv) The title page of the Final Plat shall be revised to delete the signature block for the Planning Commission secretary. 2. Recommend to the City Council approval of the Final Plat of Savanna Oaks at Southbridge 2nd Addition with revised conditions. 3. Recommend to the City Council the denial of the request for approval of Savanna Oaks at Southbridge 2nd 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 Savanna Oaks at Southbridge 2nd Addition, subject to the conditions. ACTION REQUESTED Offer a motion recommending to the City Council the approval of the Final Plat of Savanna Oaks at Southbridge 2nd Addition with conditions. Julie Klima Planner II is\commde v\boas-pc\1999\0708\fpsavok2.doc �-xtt181 T 1 ll 11 A "/ J\ I1 12 U.S. Hwy 169 ___-__\r"----- 69r"--- - a i I i 1,N.-- , Il R 1A IC:;ki• :4s 4 I 1 1.0 ►.����� 1 R1 B I. ill#1111111411 ill' ‘ ,,: , ,q, SII Al r o- \S'S%1A&IN vir, sim rean ,N 11 Lake 11117 \ lk(co S'q•N 16 AG —J /1°11111L'Al A SHAKOPEE N COMMUNITY PRIDE SINCE 1857 Proposed Savanna Oaks at Southbridge 2nd Addition Final Plat 0 Zoning.shp Parcels.shp 06/14/99 H;ErrC, CITY OF SHAKOPEE MEMORANDUM To: Julie Klima, City Planner From: Mark J. McQuillan, Parks and Recreation Director L t'Vi Subject: Savannah Oaks 2nd Addition Date: 6-25-99 Julie: I'm concern there may not be a trail connection to the park north of this addition. See attached map. If a trail crossing can be made from Southbridge Parkway, then there is no need for a trail along the road leading north. If we can't construct a trail from the parkway, I would like to reserve the right or option to install a trail along the raodway going north. • Waa i g - . Pr•t""'"I' ... Z 0 E. 1 IP .erl aA. w � r- = ..a .0 a. 8 „ W pit eu 4 cil sat °' 0 cg . i vi.;3 s. 44,t,• �; — ,�` -- 1 -� E- 2 a 2 coz • ‘/.---. ; - "< .`_Ji , • p w '''.7*-:`;,..-','7-'...fr,)1. , ,_',_..: ::.:::,,t'::.-:',..:.:411,,:'".:L.-:-'.,..,...'li,....:,,:l:-I:, ..474 a el - L '. _,rte (-\\>.,`�, �` —� m . y cs 03 Az a F It; 1 - 3zz3C, E-- 01 in VI 1 toi....._...47 Jam, _ ;f-_ _ '• a:a:a a a a. • 1/101 Rl W W n 0 3i- • \'-- • ' I' u E-7F%E- .N.- 6...= .4 .°.r i > -rte_ � aaaa .0 ,i© -5,, . S W N Ni:4NN ,i 40 E~a z o� � a - I , .`--. ,::-. "-411111111111e . 0 -•,4 L.) • a��a •ammoaaaaaaim�aaa�aaa�■ L=a .aa Fn.wa a 36:11LI Q11 . 41 � Q -"- - - 0+ .-+ .r .4 4 vi 4 I— CO X X 7 Qa . O c u 3 Ni N a S N i is :t.. — 3 k O fi fiat b liftin EV ,„ 1144111 • i 581, 11 at: b%g __0 E a i$ it b$o 'P ��h6 oliCe 08 p n I I A l %i� _ M'SS rlOL011�93 tF'10 icno c�a O b 00 Oj.Llo!!=p ;1 • Z o° f ol' �`y 99�6S1a7 L!'4FZ _ 3,60,6[o!0 N _ os,eI°s'ctI�yo'9t.� so'9cr �I 4 I, °t 1 `71—i��'I ./ lU Ig r. ..... 1 ..141.1.s01 _ll L✓, 0 3.91.0[0!0 N n L •1- N , 1::t3 C) Nr 3.91.01'010 N h-- ed Q . 8 NF, 8 = ; 'Al ;16' 3 0 ♦ R e3 C o U m N+ '. {' 3 • L tC'9[t .....• I Y O`► 61'161 OZ (3 %h 2 I 3.91.01•°10 N -1=. L - C i'' N mN I -- -- °� o �� I of �s[a s'rz =�ri0r 3.91.0fe10N —-,:77- Z I. .� .zp I al� MIS 8e ;; .. de s —379i-3e;07:— .[11 001 N^^^-J L t1'661 J ,1 cp ' 1.z 5 .l,J 1M1' ,Il Ir 3.[Lne/0 N 1 CZ 1 O 19. r-4-4;,--‘5)(- .ry/' I q/O ) '* .n: FO .� trN / / +" / wOry abcgt • /��\\ � 1 Com\\\` a I m ch i.,• 011 b `\, a / /. 8 I �\ '0,,', ry/M1. ehp .CFr[eo I h ch o/ \\\ Op \\ / /° -7 ,^ roch aj/ „\ . �� " p/ ` In / ti .v ..-t </(N \ `� ti4. / 1 CO .,,,-= ,$fir \\ \ \\� /v °g>� . / h,+j'` OJ' At.' ( gy \ • �'r! d ♦ \ m • /i •.:1 ,0'\ tp I, b rply ^ \ ' \ r ' /� '\ ,1-•„, /) .mss\ ,/ ell Sz9- 38 -/••• \ / q�9 \'br / \ \•\ b' g I .. I i / `., ,, . 0,(‘ ,\ e.:it._\.:si,\ • I El { { ?\\ter. \ \\ rQ° / N r/\�\ ° / k1. tJJ•"CC .‘1 1 i 1i'LJi 1 1ta08 N '!b\i.\\ /,1>M1 ♦Bi \ \I ^\ { \\ Cdr ° / %- 0r\ \ / 4' I 1 I Ie. \\\\ Diep9t1 ,�nro\ \ %fix is° \ \,�1° ✓ - _ 13. 7y99000N 1 I �• - 4,'"9. \ \\ > �i'C .16eq 12' 1 1 L e�_23 2---. _..__ 1--�..\ •T� --- �— w 1�� h "._ ft f/r I I _ _ ..�-�'L'2 D�2� / \-,-'s. rr // _ .g 1 a.1Z,91.070:•,—: -0/..• \ .� ' I �.ca " • 1 I • OZl I 47 Pile—[.36.91 0.12ej5 \\ \\•\? ro\\,\ // �a`b� e sy ` v�� 1 .e°i�'i 1� \ \ 't ,t $s E_ \ \ , a►r ;.J o II 4 i€ 3�s .9s•oo 1 I �1 111{ \\ _'/ �' `�� K '!; o� h_ 3 l 11` ryl .. ., t .' / f, b I 3_0 l i I I I 4541 3 1 1 \ \ '•'r; , ) bq—/ G �` 3 I c$- <1 §I rd a8 1111 \C C4\ \�`•.< f' '�ms`s°/ M1� (�J u 1 e N" $pp I / ro hh I .4- Safi i I S17 [ 9,I IIn .�. �L\\\ p1•* - �, .__I J a c • II I a ! w S/11!`` i31 ( ,I g�rF.�tr i 16 I S g i �� I .Ctl .....Li`L =� 1 i • . .er y��vr(. '.., `` ° j i c`o ° � I 2.. 11 41. 4,-....*-----....„:1 ..,..--- .'" , .%—1. \ --' ' I ..--- % -t• c• ..01, . I e � fZ a ', A ' . , ii1 � .• I Ii I UJ.11 5 I o % it12s.41 261.68 . �$''8Z0! «iob` I o N 04' 9'06" M/ 3.S•X6loZ0 N ii 1 m€o, O / W i H1H \ # I I t% 18g § .1 a\Y .� /Ya ÔONS NT CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Final Plat of Stone Meadow 5th Addition DATE: July 20, 1999 Discussion Residential Development, Inc. is requesting Final Plat approval of Stone Meadow 5th Addition. The subject site is generally located south of Vierling Drive and west of Polk Street. A copy of the July 8, 1999,Planning Commission staff memo is attached for your reference. Alternatives 1. Approve the Final Plat of Stone Meadow 5th Addition, subject to conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and staff 2. Revise the conditions of approval for the Final Plat of Stone Meadow 5th Addition, and approve subject to the revised conditions. 3. Do not approve the Final Plat of Stone Meadow 5th 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 Stone Meadow 5th Addition, subject to conditions(Alternative No. 1). Action Requested Offer Resolution No. 5192, a Resolution Approving the Final Plat of Stone Meadow 5th Addition, subject to conditions, and move its approval. ulie Klima 'J Planner II is\commdev\cc\1999\cc0720\fpstmdw5.doc RESOLUTION NO.5192 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA,APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF STONE MEADOW 5TH ADDITION WHEREAS,Residential Development, Inc. is the applicant and owner of said property; and WHEREAS, the property upon which the request is being made is legally described as follows: Outlot B, Stone Meadow 4th Addition WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee did review the Final Plat of Stone Meadeow 5th Addition on July 8, 1999, and has recommended its approval. 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 Stone Meadow 5th 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 a Developers Agreement for construction of required public improvements: a) Street lighting to be installed in accordance with the requirements of MVEC. b) Electrical system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of MVEC. 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. e) Street signs (if needed) shall be constructed and installed by the City of Shakopee at a cost to the developer of $270.00 per sign pole. 3. Park Dedication fees are due at $541.87 per residential lot, and may be deferred until issuance of building permits. 4. The Common Interest Community (CIC) declarations shall be filed with the Final Plat. B. The following conditions shall apply after the filing of the Final Plat: 1. The City Engineer and Utilities Manager must approve the Final Construction Plans and Specifications prior to the commencement of construction. 2. The perpetual maintenance of all open space/outlot areas shall be provided for by the Homeowners Association. 3. A property owner's association or maintenance agreement for the shared driveways must be executed designating the party responsible for maintaining the driveway, and granting that party the right to assess all properties benefiting from the driveway for the cost of maintenance. The agreement also shall grant the City the right to access, and to charge the cost of such maintenance back to the property owners. 4. The structures shall be constructed with windows with an STC of 30 or greater and provide year round climate control to meet the noise levels standards. 5. Building locations and construction, sewer and water services, fire protection and fire access shall be reviewed for code compliance at time of building permit application. 6. 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. 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 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Final Plat of Stone Meadow 5th Addition MEETING DATE: July 8, 1999 APPLICATION DATE: June 11, 1999 REVIEW DEADLINE: August 10, 1999 Site Information Applicant: Residential Development, Inc. Location: South of Vierling Drive and west of Polk Street Current Zoning: Planned Unit Development # 11 (Stone Meadow) with underlying zone Urban Residential (R-1B)Zone Adjacent Zoning: North: Multiple Family Residential (R-3)Zone South: US Hwy. 169 Right-of-Way East: Urban Residential (R-1B)Zone West: Jackson Township 1995 Comp. Plan: Medium Density Residential MUSA: The site is within the MUSA boundary. Attachments: Exhibit A: Location/Zoning Map Exhibit B: Stone Meadow 5th Addition Final Plat Map Introduction Residential Development, Inc. is requesting approval of the Final Plat for Stone Meadow 5th Addition. This development is generally located south of Vierling Drive and west of Polk Street (Exhibit A). The preliminary plat for Stone Meadow was approved on March 18, 1997. This Final Plat (Exhibit . bstnntial conformance with the approved preliminary plat. This final r ia� �1...{iiiui� B) is ,:� substantial plat is the last phase of the Stone Meadow Addition. Alternatives 1. Recommend approval of the Final Plat of Stone Meadow 5th Addition subject to conditions as set forth below: 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 a Developers Agreement for construction of required public improvements: a) Street lighting to be installed in accordance with the requirements of MUEC. b) Electrical system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of MUEC. 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. e) Street signs (if needed) shall be constructed and installed by the City of Shakopee at a cost to the developer of $270.00 per sign pole. iii) Park Dedication fees are due at $541.87 per residential lot, and may be deferred until issuance of building permits. iv) The Common Interest Community (CIC) declarations shall be filed with the Final Plat. b) The following conditions shall apply after the filing of the Final Plat: i) The City Engineer and Utilities Manager must approve the Final Construction Plans and Specifications prior to the commencement of construction. ii) The perpetual maintenance of all open space/outlot areas shall be provided for by the Homeowners Association. iii) A property owner's association or maintenance agreement for the shared driveways must be executed designating the party responsible for maintaining the driveway, and granting that party the right to assess all properties benefiting from the driveway for the cost of maintenance. The agreement also shall grant the City the right to access, and to charge the cost of such maintenance back to the property owners. iv) The structures shall be constructed with windows with an STC of 30 or greater and provide year round climate control to meet the noise levels standards. v) Building locations and construction, sewer and water services, fire protection and fire access shall be reviewed for code compliance at time of building permit application. vi) 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 approval of the Final Plat of Stone Meadow 5th Addition subject to revised conditions. 3. Do not recommend approval of the Final Plat of Stone Meadow 5th Addition. l V 4. Table action on this item and request additional information. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Final Plat of Stone Meadow 5th Addition, subject to conditions,to the City Council. Action Requested Offer and pass a motion to recommend approval of the Final Plat of Stone Meadow 5th Addition, subject to conditions, to the City Council. J e Klima ' nner II i:\commdev\boaa-pc\199 9\0708\fpstmdw5.doc . / ( ► ►p I Ica:ILE L-I=1 L-1=i • 1 d 1=ti __ e 1 _ 4104, 11 — ii E-4_,_ -- -4 —1•1 Immo Num 111 . 1 I II — li :ET-- ='-- -- ili Ill rail: _-— A f. 11 lilirrfi Cod , — EIIIIIIIII _ 11171i11. •'� mo .. .. �� �����11 Q' II . .. .. .. �� 11111111111111 Cy *I ‘ 41in 1.12 MI r.hoh al .2 w. /B1 R1B mri. 11 1111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111 411 I Igi ,11"7.1 - [ND 1� III. - iiii 4.zuumn al isil moms — tut UI ►'1 ®�® /= ®®® uuo� ,. 1 . 1111 Ai* ,�i��j gal AG • R1 B , ..��'��',�un U.S.Hwy 169 sablikii A SHAKOPEE N COMMUNITY PRIDE SINCE 1857 Proposed Stone Meadow 5th Addition 0 Zoning.shp Parcels.shp 06/14/99 44 Y O lis C riS al z . V � c C o s° I •ea _ O O C Tit;�m 2 • w n' SOCA C7 6.• �•� Y 3 Q - ▪ v _• gill r•. �• u e c p " aE ° kl „;Ei • I a c � �' o° i Io 3,• 3 o tli - - i •e Y=• • a 6 G .,2.17: i a° • • S_ 2 maE i ° c - g s :tn. seo = e a i= : a 'u• -. v c ae c w< • izt ' v 0i3 E o •vi.. Se. ° ec 3 eI' c - 6P':3 � 3 u gig a ofee 2= ° s: -. 5,.i ! v v 3 e.F.-3v o0: I �:e _ a N 6 r O i• I ••- a 9 I ° E• r 0- • IC OG - Oa m T r a •3 5 W r 3 >E a c v • i C U° ° • r �= 0 3u a �. •;- E =s y • a 2 41 `o a m p =- p 7,3 n = - C !4;-&1 sa n_ o • W t -7,+ _ I _ _ 11144 Z u u e. rm• 3 SO = •_ ri 0 11V •: ° '-eos I e� 3 ~ X07,2 r 2c. - p m (F7 Y W` O vu�v G DES 's_ ..:0111 N Q 11 o = •y ;� U., 623-.7, I ; r n O o W _ g '1111 a _ q W O - - i . ,;'1 ,..- - ....4.1 I c, V� u E W E G S E p = ° - MR w' a !I : W c 3 e _ I-!2 2 ? O -g1;8 - r _ m o . 00 Y lg. p 3 U 3 • ¢ W F E I W G I H< _ h C 2 "e o w p _ FG W r O O _ n i --- COF, n: w _. w l'f--- 4 , _•• s • C - .. me 2 :E -. I i w acm ZY S a D u;V. _ ` _ 2 _ O r W -. a- F1'! ;* z -.° a s .......W 9 w _ 2 _ a c r ;•_ :,2 c 2 p C }C O .. J _ 1 2 m J o 3 E m _° W 3 3 LL V U ° _7. U U Jtrt i Ta N O eU i' I OO C `aU = °O j F <r ? l e: 4. 1 2 3 a-= - I-•i 3 ti e Z2 2 0 m V O m m -. m lie w OI°3;o a _ s-O c I u u - '^ - Y7, x __ acs r _ om wu s-w a a' O 3:�� _C _1 3 _o 3;SP.z u SIVP g 1; S 'z-5 oo _' in / !IIP' 8 - -''10 S' 3o ii � ^' >`a a �� : l l °WRQ 5 °E 2-'4,02• :. r¢ :� / 2:, S r 7, o b sg t j0 8' Mgt ii: = ... _ c i a c iei. 0-'o's I gg• tii ',.i • / ----\ WI • OEC ;42:::1F2 !hi •-•/ a <s 39 O Ij _ I '— \ / 1 q / 4' _ e$ �7 \\ 8 qtr 1 S 4') -- ICE 3.LS3Z.39N"-_. ,309 • F d�1 ° • 8 �� ''1.. s.." n8 8 (j 8 A 8 811 S�3 y, I. m i. 8 a °on m L. a a o s I- I\ �; '•I° • 1 ....c).:../.._;,.. 0021 009,...£3L.3. - L •rr 3`„,.: ".. mi-,2•.10'1)ws 8 ..i.::; .::::. z:. \ e /'qn ..'. ova 09 3iw3.3 p.eiW.•'L, ,..,.:11 AO I ... �1 `., �2,.."0 �j uwsa}w.rw3 Ru01f1 r,: iSA}. / CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Oppidan Appeal of Sign Variance Denial by Board of Adjustments and Appeals MEETING DATE: July 20, 1999 INTRODUCTION: Oppidan Investment Company made application for the following variances to sign area for the Target store proposed on the southeast corner of CSAH 17 and STH 169: • A 72.5 square foot variance to allow sign area of 272.5 square feet instead of the permitted 200 feet for a"Target" and "Pharmacy" sign on the front of the proposed structure. • A 117 square foot variance to allow a 217 square foot sign instead of the permitted 100 square feet on the rear of the building (STH 169 side). The Board of Adjustments and Appeals held a public hearing on this request at its July 8, 1999 meeting, and denied the request, having concluded that it did not meet all of the criteria for granting a variance. The Board's action was consistent with staff's recommendation. A copy of the report to the Board is attached for the Council's information. In its discussion the Board seemed to evidence receptiveness to the applicant's intention of keeping signage off the east side of the building, which faces the ongoing residential development. The applicant has appealed the Board's determination. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Uphold the determination of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, and direct staff to prepare a resolution for the Council's consent agenda that is consistent with that decision. 2. Uphold the appeal of the applicant, thereby granting the requested (or some other variance), and direct staff to prepare a resolution for the Council's consent agenda that is consistent with that decision. 3. Table the appeal for additional information. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer and pass a motion consistent with the Council'. determination. R. Michael Leek Community Development Director AppTarg.doc CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Board of Adjustments and Appeals FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Wall Signage Variance MEETING DATE: July 8, 1999 SITE INFORMATION Applicant: Oppidan Investment Company Location: Shakopee Valley Marketplace(north of 17th Avenue&east of County Road 17) Current Zoning: Highway Business(B1)Zone Adjacent Zoning: North: Highway 169 South: Minnesota Valley Health Campus PUD#6 (St. Francis Hospital) East: Multiple Family Residential(R3)Zone West: Highway Business(B 1)Zone Comp.Plan: Commercial Attachments: Exhibit A: Location Map Exhibit B: Applicant Correspondence Exhibit C: Signage Plans Exhibit D: Target Correspondence INTRODUCTION Oppidan Investment Company has made application for a signage variance in connection with Target store proposed within Shakopee Valley Marketplace (for location see Exhibit A). Attached as Exhibit B is a copy of the applicant's correspondence explaining the request. Exhibit C is the plans for the proposed signage. CONSIDERATIONS The City Code would allow 200 square feet of wall signage along the front of the building. The applicant is proposing that signage on the front of the building include "TARGET' along with its bullseye symbol and "PHARMACY". The total area required to accommodate the request of the applicant, according to Exhibit C, is 272.5 square feet. Therefore, a 72.5 square foot variance would be required to install the signage. The City Code would allow 100 square feet of signage on each of the 3 remaining sides of the building (rear, east and west). The applicant is requesting that a variance be allowed to install signage along the rear of the building that, according to Exhibit C, would be 217 square feet in size. Therefore, a 117 square foot variance would be required to install the signage. Attached as Exhibit D is communication from Target indicating that should the variance be granted, Target is willing to not install any signage along the east and west elevations of the structure now or at any time in the future. 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 Board has not received any evidence to support the notion that increased signage is necessary for the site to be viable for development. 1.B. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property; Finding 1.R The plight of the landowner is not due to circumstances unique to the property. The property is very similar to other properties guided for similar uses in the area. 1.C. The circumstances were not created by the landowner; Finding 1.C The circumstances are a result of the applicants desire to provide increased signage on site. 1.D. The variance, if granted,will not alter the essential character of the locality; and Finding I.D. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. 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 economic considerations. 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. Criterion 3 The request is not for a use variance. Finding 3 The request for a signage variance 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, B, C, E, and Criterion 2. Therefore, staff is recommending Alternative #1, directing staff to prepare a resolution denying a signage variance within the Highway Business(B1)Zone. ACTION REQUESTED Offer a motion directing staff to draft a resolution denying the request for a signage variance within the Highway Business(B 1)zone with findings. E>Q4IsIr A 1111111=, MI MI NMANIN -r rlin■■m, _ ■■■■�■�; 8.=NM -in _ip.„,,,v 4 ri�■■■■ ;ter. •.� A rr_nutainu airmo titia :41 %.I:.. i i- ■iii • 0111111* �� .� • _ .. =bpov- %am i .rim- 11101- -g =110045&$$ *saltine.j� 4' MI- ■■ siv if �►� ■ _ 211111611104,101,1■■rig 4 / g...411402...10.• *IP' • . . o■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■..�� ■■rte•�i tai�� 00 ri_a_Li ..aviriont. alla• 111 • at rum um. gpaurmarrawsz Ink tit al, 74 0 =Ito,. ost 4 4 kali --___ 1.____2_____.........„..............nm 040,,r-gaz ..,Of 0 = �t, ♦ 0 tot ♦OWg ®IIIDIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII®IIII111111111111 I�' ■■ M 41 ENO Ilia iaiii 111111 . =- U S Hwy 169 ,I B1 �� R3 �� `i R i� a ■ �■m■■.�� �' R 16 000❑ B211.11 ixi . ,4 14 44 AG ryf Ed op,Aturp•Oa ... V Lt WitilIi& m a ■■■■■■4,,1���� • =• 2IIIILI%��� 016 %1Il11110r�� ;O: 2 � ���I: I my WILLA! A SHAKOPEE N COMMUNITY PRIDE SINCE 1857 Proposed Oppidan Variance 0 Zoning.shp Parcels.shp 06/14/99 Ex4Err1 111111 • • OPPIDAN Builder of towns.Creator of value. , 5125 COUNTY ROAD 101 • #100 • MINNETONKA, MN 55345 • PHONE: 612/294-0353 • Fax:612/294-0151 • WEB: www.oppidan.com June 7, 1999 Ms. Julie Klima City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee,MN 55379 RE: Target Signage Variance Shakopee Valley Marketplace Shakopee,MN • Dear Julie: Enclosed are the applications for a sign variance for the Target Store at Shakopee Valley Marketplace as well as an elevation showing the proposed signs and dimensions of the signs. The sign variance is for the front and rear building elevations. Consistent with city code, Target would be allowed 200 square feet on the front of the building and 100 square feet on each side and the rear elevation. This is based upon the current design of building and the maximum area allowed. The front elevation is approximately 65 square feet over the 200 square foot maximum. This is due to the word"pharmacy"being placed on the elevation. Also,this assumes that the logo bullseye is considered text. If this is not the case,the signage would be approximately 15 square feet over the allowable 200 square feet. The rear building is approximately 100 square feet over the 100 square feet allowed by code. The total signage on the building is approximately 480 square feet. The total allowed under the code,based upon the dimensions of this building,is 500 square feet. The variance requested is for signage on the north and south elevations. The total building signage will be less than the 500 square feet available under code. As part of this variance request, Target would eliminate the 100 square feet of signage available on the east and west sides and places it on the south(front)and north elevations. In doing so, Target is willing to add a stipulation that they will not place any signage on the east or west sides of the building in the future. Further,they will position the"pharmacy" sign to the west to eliminate any direct impact on the residential areas to the east. I would ask that you review this request and support this variance as with the stipulation on signage on the east side. If you have any questions,please contact me. Sincere , • Paul J. cci EXHIBIT C i , ' BUILDING IDENTIFICATION 6'-9" BULLSEYE 5'-8" LETTERS The standard identification package for the P & T type stores is an interior illuminated channel letter display at the main entrance as shown, which consists of a 6'-9" bullseye combined with a set of 5'-8"TARGET letters. An alternative location for the display may be considered in cases of unusual visibility requirements. Consistency of image is critical to TARGET'S success, therefore, any variation must be approved by TARGET. I 38'!-4" • ■ 0 in ■ ----77-7 .1 71 v 7 �I W-, °' !i7 mo s ;:: F � ys , .a� � .,,,.a. '.1: f 1 e i: i.:11 I c ;a ��..!===~=' sµffi� 1�'sl :'a y�" ` PARTIAL ELEVATION - BUILDING TYPE P&T 8.. t2T 1111111 o SIGN SPECIFICATIONS ,1 - SIGN AREA : COLORS : TARGET LETTERS- 171.5 sq. ft. FACES - ROHM & HMS#2283 RED BULLSEYE-45.5 sq. ft. RETURNS - PAINT TO MATCH FACES TOTAL-217 sq. ft. MOULDINGS - PAINT TO MATCH FACES �a CONSTRUCTION : ILLUMINATION : M ALUMINUM RETURNS & BACKS 15mm CLEAR RED NEON i FLAT 3/16"THICK ACRYLIC FACES NOTE : Transformers are located ALUMINUM MOLDINGS inside letters. (see detail) L NOTE : Bullseye is comprised of -� two pieces; outer ring and inner dot. ELECTRICAL : 120V LETTER DETAIL B.1.2 BUILDING IDENTIFICATION 30" PHARMACY LETTERS TARGET stores include a Pharmacy, and it is identified with a set of internally illuminated channel letters. The preferred location for the letters is near the center of the front of the building on P, S, and T stores and at the right front of G stores". However,an alternative location for the letters may be considered in cases of unusual visibility requirements. Consistency of image is critical to TARGET'S success, therefore, any variation must be approved by TARGET. I 22'-31/2' 1 1 • Dp A , i , , , ..,, , , , . , ,__. . , ., , .„ T'^ :", ,,,,,, 'y+ �".�,,.�;.�,:xe+x�°= �� � ., ;t`�",rvSZZ;454-S'rxz .s4,zL`.s%1p"es4< ` f:; 7c,�.'`:��r.�r'".a,:. .w'.'"; 33-" Pj4„ .: ,. : ," -..' i t : -.,. z,Y .��:...x:. ,.:,,.,, y':.:...+ar :y✓;rx✓'3o ra'n:� :. ''- _. q'::ma' "v'am.<+Y'r NMwy'gp<x.;t.�/, ...,.._ ..... .w%k ... .,, :. PARTIAL ELEVATION 8" t I SIGN SPECIFICATIONS 1' SIGN AREA : COLORS : 55.5 sq.ft. FACES- ROHM & HAAS#2283 RED RETURNS-PAINT TO MATCH FACES CONSTRUCTION : TRIMCAP-PAINT TO MATCH FACES ALUMINUM RETURNS & BACKS FLAT 3/16"THICK ACRYLIC FACES ILLUMINATION : li 1"TRIMCAP RETAINERS 15mm CLEAR RED NEON _ NOTE : Transformers are located i inside letters. (see detail) 11111 ELECTRICAL : 120V LETTER DETAIL 8.3.1 F X+4 I$1T D rt DHC PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT Direct Dial: 612.761.3721 Fax:612.761.3728 DAYTON'S June 2, 1999 ieuzfia HUDSON'S Paul Tucci Oppidan, Inc. mef K 5125 County Road 101 C� % o,,,,as Suite 100 Minnetonka, MN 55345 ()TARGET RE: Target Building Signage Dear Paul: This letter shall serve as written verification that Target will not sign either the east or west side of the proposed building in Shakopee, conditioned on receiving a variance to install the proposed sign on the south (front), including the "pharmacy" sign and the north (rear) for the standard Target sign. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, , ( 1 i ce l ' Joan E. Ahrens Regional Real Estate Manager JEA/kjh \\tccsrv33\propreal\jea\letters\tucci-shakopee.doc woo NicoUet Mall,Minneapolis,MN 55403 19. 2,, CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Noise Mitigation Requirements for the Classics at Southbridge MEETING DATE: July 20, 1999 INTRODUCTION: Staff has proposed adding 2 conditions related to noise mitigation to the developers agreement for the Classics at Southbridge. These conditions are briefly; • A requirement that structures within 520 feet of STH 169 have windows with an STC rating of 30; and • A requirement that the homeowners association be responsible for the cost of any future noise mitigation measures. Steve Ach, on behalf of Centex, the developer of the Classics, objects to these requirements and wishes to address the Council regarding them. DISCUSSION: Staff has proposed imposing the first condition listed above in response to Council's action in adding such a condition to the final plat of Ryland's townhouse project in Southbridge. The condition was not included in the resolutions of approval for either the "East Dean Lake PUD," or the final plat of Southbridge 1st Addition. Mr. Ach for Centex contends that the requirement is not needed because the physical relationship of the Classics to STH 169 is different than that of the Rylands project, and so the additional noise mitigation provided by STC 30-rated windows is unnecessary, and further contends that the use of such windows will add undue additional cost to the houses in the Classics. The approval of the plat of Southbridge 1st addition contains the following language: The developer(s) shall comply with applicable state law, regulations or standards as they relate to compliance with sound mitigation (County Road 21)for existing and future streets and highways. The developer(s) shall be responsible for paying the cost of noise mitigation measures required for those portions of the project or plat adjacent to proposed County Road 21. Staff has proposed the second condition, i.e. that the homeowners association be liable for future costs of noise mitigation, on the theory that it is the homeowners association that is the logical successor to the developer(s) referred to in the condition above. The only other options that are available to pay for sound mitigation measures that may be required in the future are 1) for the City to pay those costs, or 2) for the City to install those measures and assess the costs to benefitted properties. Staff's opinion is that the first option is not desirable, and the second option would be, at best, difficult to implement. Staff's underlying intent is to protect the City against the kinds of noise issues that are now being encountered in connection with Hauer's Fourth Addition. Council should be aware that there are 3 requests for approval of final plats in the Southbridge project this evening (Southbridge 4th Addition, Savanna Oaks, and Savanna Oaks 2°a Addition). The proposed resolutions for these final plats all contain conditions approval imposing the cost of future noise mitigation measures on the homeowners association. The developers of these plats have stated their objections to staff regarding this condition. Steve Soltau of Shakopee Crossings has suggested that a condition be substituted stating simply that the City is not responsible for the cost of future noise mitigation measures. Should the Council conclude that the second condition regarding homeowners association liability should not be imposed, the final plats should be removed from consent and the resolutions amended accordingly. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Direct staff to include the proposed conditions in the developers agreement for the Classics at Southbridge. 2. Direct staff to delete the proposed conditions in the developers agreement for the Classics at Southbridge. 3. Table the matter for additional information. ACTION REQUESTED: A motion from Council giving direction to staff on the issue of the proposed conditions for the developers agreement for the Classics at Southbridge. From:Steven D.Soltau To:Michael Leek Date:7/15/99 lime:5:13:14 PM Page 2 of 3 ILl] my SOUTH BRIDGE 6-2-67.54 (92.244Ware July 14, 1999 Michael Leek Community Development Director City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379-1351 RE: Noise Mitigation On behalf of Southbridge Community Association, Savanna Oaks at Southbridge Association, Hamlet at Southbridge Homeowners Association, The Classics at Southbridge Association, Shakopee Crossingsl,imited Partnership, Centex Homes, D.R. Horton and Arcon Development, Inc., we request reconsideration of the recent changes in the form and content of the`noise mitigation" condition in the recent recommendations for several plat approvals and the resulting Developer's Agreements. With the most recent plats before you tonight, and in the situation appealed by Centex Homes after the final plat approval, additional requirements have been added to the conditions for approval and the resulting Developer's Agreement. (In the situation appealed by Centex the added language first appeared in the Developer's Agreement after approval of the final plat.) Specifically, the additional language requires that"Any necessary future noise mitigation shall be the responsibility of the Homeowners Association(s)7 We do not know what this condition requires or how it could be implemented. Further we believe the existing language set forth with the preliminary plat and Southbridge 1st Addition correctly reflects the requirements that may be reasonably imposed on the developers. This midstream change causes a great deal of concern for several reasons: • Numerous homeowners' association documents are recorded and currently apply to approximately sixty individual owners. Approximately fifty to seventy-five additional future citizens areunder contract" All parties have relied on the disclosures and information of the existing documentation. Presenting existing members with an unqualified, unquantified financial risk will not be accepted. Furthermore, not only would the existing developer's financing be impacted, but each individual homeowner's financing would be required to join or consent to any modifications. This simply cannot be done. • This`Srequirement" is not uniformly applied to current and pending subdivisions and is not even conceptually identified in the Subdivision Ordinance as a possible requirement. Several recent plats have been processed, with and without homeowners associations, without any similar language. Arguably, if this was a reasonable under state law, and the provision for such a requirement was set forth in the subdivision ordinance, this type of future obligation should apply to any type of project and not just limited to residential. • The language in the preliminary plat approval, the PUD and the 1st Addition was carefully reviewed by all parties involved at that time. The existing condition as set forth in the resolution approving Southbridge 1st Addition and the accompanying From:Steven D.Soltau To:Michael Leek Date:7/15199 lime:5:13:14 PM Page 3 of 3 Developer's Agreements, was specifically discussed and negotiated. Numerous subsequent parties and lenders have relied on this language. Most importantly, this language was relied upon in drafting documents for the Southbridge project as a whole. The language in the 1st Addition is acceptable and the developers remain committed to comply with all current requirements. • Not all property that will develop in proximity to County roads and/or State highways will be within a homeowners association. This is an unreasonable expectation and burden to place on existing and future associations, when the potential burden is not equitably apportioned to non-association property. It is inappropriate to impair the title of property simply because it is within an association. • What impacts or emitters are relevant? Are airport traffic patterns train location and or speed, utility.plants included as potential concerns to mitigate for? Where or when does the obligation end? As we discussed over a year ago,the City is in no way responsible for the noise omitted from Highway 169 or future County Road 21. The current language was altered after review by the City Attorney and an analysis of what could be required. It is unreasonable now to attempt to impose a new requirement, which was specifically negotiated and altered, so as to be considered legal and acceptable to the developers, on Homeowner's Association(s) when it also simply cannot be implemented. If any respective association subsequently petitions for the City of Shakopee to study and implement any kind of mitigation effort,then it is reasonable, and expected, that the association is financially responsible. We understand this issue has attention due to the impact on neighborhoods occupied prior to the opening of the bypass. The City has the option of responding to such concerns, but the decision to implement any construction or project must be balanced against the costs. Distinct entities, such as Homeowners Associations,Homeowners and other resident/voters are"protected" through the process that assures them of a rational benefit analysis prior to any assessment. We request modification of the language in conditions set forth in the resolution and developer's Agreements to conform to the preexisting language. It works for the City, the developers, the Homeowners Associations and the homeowners in Southbridge. Sincerely, C j Steven D. Soltau Rick Packer Steve Ach Shakopee Crossings L.P. Arcon Development, Inc. Centex Homes Souhbridge Comm. Assoc. Southbridge Comm. Assoc. Classics at Southbridge Hamlet at Southbridge Hamlet at Southbridge Don Patton Jon R. Albinson D.R. Horton Southbridge Community Association Savann Oaks At Southbridge From:Steven D.Soltau To:Michael Leek Date:7/15/99 Time:5:13:14 PM Page 1 of 3 FAX COVER To: Michael Leek From : Steven D. Soltau Company : City of Shakopee Company : Fax Number : 445-6718 Fax Number : 612-832-0609 Subject : Pages including cover page: 3 Date : 7/15/99 Time : 5:13:02 PM MESSAGE Following please find the letter regarding noise mitigation. Steven D. Soltau WinFax PRO Cover Page 07/16/99 12:35 FAX 6129367839 CENTEX HOMES 2002 13 A CENTEX HOMES Minnesota Division 12400 Whitewater Drive Suite 120 Minnetonka,MN 55343 Phone:612-936-7833 Fax:612-936-7839 July 16, 1999 City of Shakopee Michael Leek,Community Development Director 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee,MN 55379 Dear Michael: Over the past couple of weeks I've discussed with you the following issues relating to the Developers Agreement for the Classics at Southbridge: 1) requiring the homeowners association to pay for any future noise mitigation measures as a result of the construction of Hwy 169. 2) Requiring all residential structures along Hwy 169 to utilize a rated window of 30 STC or better and be provided with year round climate control. The first issue has been outlined in a letter from Southbridge Community Association, so I will speak only to the second issue regarding the windows. It is my understanding this condition was incorporated into our developers agreement because it was a requirement in David Braslau's Noise Assessment for the Villages at Southbridge (Ryland) and therefore should apply to the Classic's (Centex) neighborhood. Centex objects to this condition in the developer agreement for the following reasons: • WSB and Associates prepared a Noise Analysis dated January 9,1998 for the Centex and DR Horton neighborhoods in Southbridge. The analysis never made a recommendation to install windows with a rating of 30 STC or better to meet required noise standards. • The WSB analysis was incorporated into the Southbridge PUD approval and preliminary plat approval for Southbridge 1st Addition,which Centex Homes is a part of. • Each neighborhood in Southbridge that is located along Hwy 169 has topographic and vegetative characteristics that will demand varying noise mitigation requirements. Therefor, to apply conditions from the noise analysis prepared for the Villages to the Classics is inconsistent with the recommendations outlined in WSB's study. • The requirement as it has appears in the recent draft developers agreement was not included in any council action for preliminary or final plat approval. The condition doesn't even appear in the developer agreement for the 15t Addition. Centex Homes would expect consistency from preliminary to final approval and if there are new issues have them discussed in advance and not brought up in the developers agreement. • Centex Homes is prepared to satisfy all the conditions recommended in WSB's Noise Analysis. The approved grading plan with elevated berms along Hwy 169 coupled with a forthcoming landscape plan will meet the noise mitigation requirements. In cooperation with city staff and Shakopee Public Utilities, Centex Homes and DR Horton have exceeded the mitigation requirements by constructing a berm along Hwy 169 that will be landscaped to further enhance the Southbridge Community. 07/16/99 12:35 FAX 6129367839 CENTEX HOMES lit 003 July 16, 1999 In conclusion, Centex Homes has relied on the City's approval process to properly plan to meet all the conditions for approval. The recent additions to the developer agreement place a burden that was never anticipated. Centex Homes requests the City Council direct staff to prepare developers agreement consistent with the conditions as approved in previous resolutions. I have attached a copy of the section of the developer agreement that we are not in agreement with and our resolution for final plat approval. If you have any questions please contact me at the office at 988-8221. I would be more than willing to discuss this further if you wish and will be available at the meeting Tuesday night. Sincerely, Steve Ach Land Development Manager Enclosures:resolution,section from developer s agreement 07/16/99 12:35 FAX 6129367839 CENTEX HOMES Ul004 • 51 RESOLUTION NO.5115 A RESOLUTION OF TUE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA,APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF CLASSICS AT SOUTTIBRIDGE WHEREAS,Centex Homes is the Applicant and Owners of said property; and WKERTAS, the property upon which the request is being made is legally described as follows: Outlot H SOUTHBRIDGE 1st ADDITION, accorcEng to the recorded plat thereof,' Scott County,Minnesota; . and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee did review the Final Plat of Classics at Southbridge on April 8, 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 Classics at Southbridge 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 dedication language on the final plat cover sheet shall be revised to include"Boulevards, Circles and Curves." 07/16/99 12:36 FAX 6129367839 CENTEX HOMES [in 005 !• - ._•.in• _.... .. . :'1:" ._.... ... ..:'f:: : :.y..•.:;_;.�1.'•f7.L..:1,;:;i. 'Yv3ti._.G:..2::iti:':rtl. .l, . • •J Y 1 J 4. The Final Construction Plans and Specifications must be approved by the City Engineer and the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission prior to construction. S. The developer shall provide easements, as required by City Code, including access easements to the ponding area, if necessary. 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. B. The following conditions shall apply after the filing/recording of the Final Plat: 1. . Building construction, sewer and water services, fire protection and access shall be reviewed for code compliance at time of building permit application. 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. BE IT FURTER RESOLVED,that the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute said Plat and Developer's Agreement. Adopted in 0.,,/ ' L •session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the a10-day of 1.1.,-..,...- ° 1999. i -,J 7' 4,c41 . yor of the City of Shakopee ATTESTmfth��:�� ).14 13( • i Clerk PREPARED BY: City of Shakopee 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee,14N 55379 07/16/99 12:36 FAX 6129367839 CENTEX HOMES X1006 h'Lr (F) Residential structures constructed adjacent to TH 169 must . •, utilize windows rated at 30 STC or better and be provided with year round climate control. All other residential structures must utilize windows rated at STC 28 or better. (G) 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. (H) The Developer or its successor in title will insure that the declarations of covenants, conditions and restrictions (the Declarations) to be filed against the property comply with this paragraph. The Declarations must provide that the homeowners' association is responsible for implementing, at its cost, any future noise mitigation measures that may be required as a result of the construction of T.H. 169; and further, that the homeowner's association is responsible for the maintenancerepair, replacement or removal of landscaping located on traffic islands and medians within the public streets in the subdivision. The Declarations must further provide, with respect to each of the preceding covenants, that the covenant is made for the benefit of the City of Shakopee and that the City shall have the right to enforce the covenant. The Declarations must be executed and recorded so as to be effective and enforceable against all persons holding any interest in the property on or after the date of recording the Declaration. XI. #Zelease of Developer's Agreement The City releases Outlot H, Southbridge First Addition from all liens and encumbrances created by the Developer's Agreement between the City and the Developer dated July 21, 1998, which has been recorded as document /96798. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The City and Developer have caused this Agreement to be duly executed on the day and year first above written. THE NEXT PAGE IS THE SIGNATURE PAGE 13 /s• 6. ). CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISTS) MEETING DATE: July 20, 1999 INTRODUCTION: Recently, questions have been raised at the City Council about the permitting and monitoring of ISTS in the City. A preliminary estimate by staff based on land use categories suggests that there are between 600 and 700 IST systems in the City. This memo is intended to provide the Council with background on the current regulation and monitoring of ISTS, and to seek input from the Council on the direction that it wishes to take in the future. BACKGROUND: By City Code Sec. 4.20, SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM,the City adopted Scott County's previous ISTS ordinance. In 1997 the Legislature adopted new provisions related to ISTS (Minn.Stat. 115.55). The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) regulated rules pursuant to Sec. 115.55. Under Sec. 115.55 and MPCA rules, additional requirements for inspection of new and replacement systems were imposed. Subsequently Scott County's ISTS ordinance has been updated, but the City's ordinance has not been updated to reflect the County update. In 1996 the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act (the Act)was revised to require a new round of comprehensive plans in the Metropolitan Area. Among other things, the Act requires "...a sewer policy plan describing...the conditions under which the installation of private sewer systems will be permitted... ." (Minn.Stat. 573.859 Subd. 3(2)) This language has been interpreted by Metropolitan Council staff to mean that new comprehensive plans have an ISTS "management plan." This does not mean that the City must ultimately manage IST systems. The author of this memo has attended Metropolitan Council workshops dealing with this issue. One of the examples discussed at those workshops has been the City of Inver Grove Heights, and its turnover of ISTS management to Dakota County. In other words, the City of Shakopee could opt to retain the responsibility for ISTS management, but it could also opt(as has the City of Savage) to turn the responsibility back to the County, which has statutory responsibility for ISTS management. (See Minn.Stat. 115.35 generally) ISTS.DOC DISCUSSION: There are 3 basic components of ISTS regulation and maintenance: 1. Permitting and inspection of new systems; 2. Inspection, repair, and replacement of existing systems; and 3. Inspection and reporting related to existing systems. At present, the City permits and inspects new systems as part of the building permit review process. The City does not generally routinely inspect, or require the routine inspection of systems. The one exception staff is aware of is the Stonebrooke PUD. The homeowners association for that PUD is required, as a condition of the original PUD approval, to annually inspect IST systems and report those inspections to the City. Where the City is made aware of a failing system, it has inspected the failing and replacement systems. Like the City, Scott County permits and inspects new systems in the County, and inspects failing and replacement systems. In addition, the County has adopted a maintenance program as a part of its ordinance. This program consists very simply of 1) a stated requirement that systems be maintained in compliance with Minnesota Rules and manufacturer requirements, and 2) a requirement that property owners report the results of inspection of a system at least every 3 years. The County sends out notices to property owners informing them that an inspection and report are due; County staff does not actually conduct the inspections. At present, the County's maintenance program applies in the townships and cities of Belle Plaine, Elko, Jordan, New Market, and New Prague. In March of 1998 the City of Savage repealed its ISTS ordinance with the intent of turning over responsibility for ISTS permitting and management to Scott County. Like the City of Shakopee, the City of Prior Lake reviews and inspects new systems as a part of the building permit review, but does not currently have an ISTS management program. There are a number of options available to the City for dealing with ISTS. The following is table attempts to identify those options, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of each option. ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES City Permitting of New One stop permitting for new Responsibility/liability Systems houses served by IST would rest with the City systems Local control of new installations County Permitting of New Responsibility/liability Two stops for new housing Systems would rest with the County on IST systems; City for building permits, and County for ISTS permits County would require additional review and fees ISTS.DOC for plats where the lots are served by ISTS City Management of Local control retained(as Additional administrative Existing and Failing long as the City ordinance and personnel costs for Systems is at least as stringent as the setting up and maintaining a County ordinance) management program County Management Consistency in standards Control resides with the County Less direct city cost/duplication for operating management program ALTERNATIVES: 1. Retain responsibility for the approval, inspection, and management of new and existing IST systems, and revise City Code Sec. 4.20 by adopting the current Scott County ordinance. 2. Retain responsibility for the approval, inspection, and management of IST systems, and revise City Code Sec. 4.20 by adopting an ordinance other than the current Scott County ordinance. 3. Retain responsibility for the approval, inspection, and management of new IST systems only, and revise City Code Sec. 4.20 by adopting the relevant portions of the current Scott County ordinance. 4. Repeal the appropriate City Code sections, and turn over responsibility for approval, inspection, and management of all IST systems to Scott County. 5. Table the matter for additional information. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff's recommendation is to maintain authority for review and inspection of new IST systems, because that will provide better customer service. Staff further recommends turning over responsibility for management of existing systems over to Scott County, since it has a mechanism and procedure already in place for management of such systems in the majority of the County. REQUESTED ACTION: Provide staff with direction regarding Council's preferred alternative for addressing the management of ISTS within the City. R. Michael Leek Community Development Director ISTS.DOC /%fL l • CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Chapter 12 of the City Code, Subdivision Regulations MEETING DATE: July 20, 1999 INTRODUCTION: In 1996 the City of Shakopee established a Subdivision Review Committee(SRC)to review and recommend revisions to the City's subdivision regulations. In addition to the ordinance itself,the SRC reviewed the City's design criteria. The subdivision regulations recommended for approval by the SRC are more specific than the current regulations in the following areas: • Definitions • Requirements for preliminary and final plat submissions • The process of preliminary and final plat review • The effect of approvals and the effect of approvals. The proposed regulations differ from the current ordinance in that several specifications for public improvements would be removed from the ordinance, and incorporated into the design criteria. The criteria could more readily be amended by the Council than if they are incorporated in the ordinance. There are two additional issues that the Council should discuss and give staff direction on. First is the provision related to the reduction of security for public improvements(i.e. Sec. 12.50, found at page 22 of the draft ordinance) This provision is a substantial departure from current policy, and is an outstanding concern for the City's Engineer Bruce Loney. Council asked to give specific direction on whether to maintain the current policy regarding the reduction in security or that set forth in the draft ordinance. The second additional issue is that the provisions regarding variances from the subdivision ordinance closely follow the requirements for a variance from the zoning code(See Sec. 12.89 at page 45 of the draft). State statute does not mandate this approach, and the Council may want to consider directing staff to prepare provisions with more flexibility. The Council is asked to consider adopting the Ordinance No. 552 and the accompanying ordinance summary. R.Michael Leek Page 1 07/15/99SUBORD.DOC PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On November 5th the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend to the Council the adoption of the ordinance and ordinance summary. It's recommendation differs from the recommendation of the SRC in that the SRC had recommended a 32' local street width, while the Commission recommends a 30' local street width. This issue can be taken up at the time that the design criteria are presented to the Council. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the proposed subdivision ordinance and ordinance summary as presented. 2. Approve the proposed subdivision ordinance and ordinance summary with revisions. 3. Do not approve the proposed subdivision ordinance and ordinance summary. 4. Table the matter for additional information or other reasons. ACTION REQUESTED: A motion consistent with either alternative 1 or 2. R. Michael Leek Community Development Director R.Michael Leek Page 2 07/15/99SUBORD.DOC CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Chapter 12 of the City Code, Subdivision Regulations, and Design Criteria MEETING DATE: November 5, 1998 INTRODUCTION: On April 9, 1998 the Planning Commission first received this item. It was subsequently tabled to allow revisions to be made, and for work to be completed on the related design criteria. Accompanying this memorandum for the Commission's use is the comparative table previously provided. Also attached is a copy of the proposed design criteria. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Recommend approval of the proposed subdivision ordinance as presented. 2. Recommend approval of the proposed subdivision ordinance with revisions. 3. Recommend denial of the proposed subdivision ordinance. 4. Continue the public hearing for additional input or information. 5. Close the public hearing, but table the matter for additional information ACTION REQUESTED: A motion either recommending approval as presented or with revisions. R. Michael Leek Community Development Director R.Michael Leek Page 1 10/29/98SUBORD.DOC Comparison of Current Subdivision Ordinance and Proposed Ordinance Format: The basic ordinance format remains the same for consistency with the City Code. Substance: Section No. Current Ordinance Proposed Ordinance 12.01,TITLE,PURPOSE • Provides simplified,clearer AND INTERPRETATION statements of the purposes of the ordinance. • Provides simplified,clearer statements of applicability of the ordinance. • Consistent with state statute, specifies subdivisions that are not required to follow municipal process(Subd. 3.B.) 12.02, DEFINITIONS Adds definitions of the following; • Nonconformity, • Oversizing, • Street classifications 12.08/12.21,MINOR Follows normal subdivision • Relocated to the front of the SUBDIVISIONS process ordinance for ease of reference. • Further clarifies when prohibited,and process requirements 12.03/12.28, 12.32, • Clarifies requirements for Procedures/Preliminary/Fi compliance with submittal requirements,design criteria nal Plat Approval Process • Spells out basis for Planning Commission Recommendation(Subd.3.B.) • Final Plat process relocated to separate section(i.e. 12.32) • Sec. 12.32 spells out recording requirements,effect of approval and process for receiving extensions 12.40,DEVELOPER Clarifies developers obligations, SHALL CONSTRUCT standards to be met in constructing IlVIPROVEMENTS improvements and cost sharing. 12.41- 12.51, CITY MAY Process spelled out in detail for CONSTRUCT constricting improvements, security,release of security, R.Michael Leek Page 2 10/29/98SUBORD.DOC IMPROVEMENTS... timing,et.AL 12.0412.05/12.5442.57, • Relocated,spelled out in Submittal Requirements greaterdetail 12.07,DESIGN Contains specific detail Specific detail to be contained in STANDARDS/12.60, design criteria document not a part of the ordinance;facilitates DESIGN CRITERIA modification of the criteria R.Michael Leek Page 3 10/29/98SUBORD.DOC CityShakopeeof Design Criteria Approved , 1998 City of Shakopee Design Criteria Page 1 Table of Contents Design Criteria - Grading, Street and Utility Improvements Sect. 1 Grading Sect. 2 Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Sect. 3 Storm Sewer Sect.4 Sanitary Sewer Sect. 5 Utilities Sect. 6 Street Lights Sect. 7 Streets and Alleys Sect. 8 Sidewalks and Trails Sect. 9 Lots and Blocks Sect. 1 - Grading 1. Slopes/Grades. A. No final graded slopes shall be steeper than 3 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical(3:1). B. Driveway grades shall be less than 10%, and greater than 1.0%. Driveway grades shall not be greater than 6%within 10' of the street edge. Commercial and Industrial Driveways shall not be greater than 6% for any part of the driveway. C. Lots shall be graded so as to provide drainage away from building locations. 2. Topsoil - Sodding and Seeding. Topsoil moved during the course of construction shall be redistributed in turf establishment areas with a minimum of 4 inches of topsoil. Disturbed boulevard areas shall be seeded or sodded as required by the City Engineer. 3.Drainage. During the grading of the site,the natural drainage system shall be utilized as far as feasible for the storage and flow of runoff. 4. As-built Grading Plan. Upon completion of the grading of subdivisions, an as-built survey of the grading shall be submitted to the City. This plan shall show the existing grades of all lot corners,pads, and ponding areas. The plan shall certify that all ponding areas are within drainage and utility easements. Two benchmarks shall be shown on the as-built grading plan. No building permits shall be issued until this plan has been submitted and approved by the City Engineer. 5. Grading Permit. Grading Permits will be required,as described in Section 11.60, Subd. 6, of the City Code. 6. Tree Preservation Fence. Existing trees which are to be saved, shall be protected with a tree preservation fence. This fence shall be installed at the drip line to protect the trees which are to be saved. No grading, construction materials, or equipment will be allowed beyond this fence. City of Shakopee Design Criteria Page 2 Sect. 2 - Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to promote the public health, safety, property and general welfare of the citizens of the City and to conserve the soil, water and related resources and to control erosion and sedimentation caused by land disturbing activities. 2. Administration. The Building Official or the City Engineer(depending on the land disturbing activity) as the Administrator of this Section. Erosion control plans shall be covered under the existing building permit process. A separate fee is not required for erosion control plans. 3. Activities Subject to Erosion Control Measures. A. Any land disturbing activity in residential, multi-family, commercial or industrial zones shall be subject to erosion control measures provided that: 1. An area of 10,000 square feet or greater will be disturbed by excavation, grading, filling or other earth moving activities resulting in the loss of protective vegetation; or, 2. Excavation or fill exceeding 500 cubic yards;or, 3. The installation of underground utilities, either public or private, resulting in more than 300 linear feet of trenching or earth disturbance;or, B. Any subdivisions which require plat approval or a certified survey map. C. Agricultural lands used mainly for the production of food, general farming, livestock and poultry enterprises, nurseries, forestry, etc., are not subject to the provisions of this Section. D. Any other land disturbing activity for which the City Engineer determines to have the potential for substantial erosion. 4. Erosion Control Plans. A. All land disturbing activities covered by this Section shall be required to have an approved erosion control plan on file with the City prior to any construction starting. B. The erosion control plan shall contain any such information necessary for the Building Official and the City Engineer to determine that adequate erosion control and sedimentation measures are proposed. As a minimum, a topographic map showing existing and proposed contours, location of any natural water courses and drainageways, the extent of the land disturbing activity and any erosion control measures shall be shown on the plans submitted and approved. C. In addition to the plans, a narrative report summarizing the proposed erosion control measures shall be submitted. This report shall include language discussing the timing of the installation, phasing, stabilization of all structures, maintenance and eventual removal of all structures. City of Shakopee Design Criteria Page 3 5. Performance Standards. A. General Standards. In general, this Section does not require the use of any particular type of structure to control erosion and sedimentation. The City Engineer or Building Official shall evaluate the proposed measures to determine if they follow current accepted design criteria and engineering standards. 1. The smallest practical area of land shall be exposed at any given time during development. 2. When soil is exposed,the exposure shall be for the shortest period of time. Within 30 days of the rough grading,the site shall be seeded and mulched. • 3. All development shall conform to the natural limitations presented by the topography and soil as to create the best potential for preventing soil erosion. 4. Erosion control measures shall be coordinated with the different stages of development. Appropriate control measures shall be installed prior to development to control erosion. 5. The natural vegetation and plant covering shall be retained whenever possible. Temporary vegetation, mulching or other cover shall be used to protect critical areas and permanent vegetation shall be installed as soon as practical. B. Standards-Stormwater Runoff Erosion. 1. The natural drainage system shall be used as far as is feasible for storage and flow of runoff. Stormwater drainage shall be discharged to marsh lands, swamps, retention basins or other treatment facilities. Temporary storage area or retention ponds shall be considered to reduce peak flows, erosion damage and construction costs. If the drainage area is over five acres,a sediment basin shall be utilized. 2. Silt fence or hay bales shall be utilized to control erosion and prevent sedimentation from leaving the construction site. These structures shall be properly installed according to current standards. 3. If needed, sod shall be laid in strips at intervals necessary to prevent erosion and at right angles to the direction of drainage. 4. At existing storm sewer inlets, temporary sedimentation traps may be necessary to prevent erosion from entering the storm sewer system, and downstream waterbodies. 5. Adequate provision shall be made to prevent the tracking or dropping of dirt or other materials from the site onto any public or private street by the use of,gravel pads at all entrances. City of Shakopee Design Criteria Page 4 C. Exposed Slopes. The following control measures shall be taken to control erosion during construction: 1. No exposed slope shall be steeper in grade than three (3) feet horizontal to one(1)foot vertical. 2. Exposed slopes steeper in grade than ten(10)feet horizontal to one(1) foot vertical shall be contour plowed to minimize direct runoff of water. 3. At the foot of each exposed slope, a channel and berm shall be constructed to control runoff. The channeled water shall be diverted to a sedimentation basin(debris basin, silt basin or silt trap)before being allowed to enter the natural drainage system. • 4. Along the top of each exposed slope, a berm shall be constructed to prevent runoff from flowing over the edge of the slope. Where runoff collecting behind said berm cannot be diverted elsewhere and must be directed down the slope, appropriate measures shall be taken to prevent erosion. Such measures shall consist of either an asphalt paved flow apron and drop chute laid down the slope or a flexible slope drain. At the base of the slope drain or flood apron, a gravel energy dissipater shall be installed to prevent erosion at the discharge end. 5. Exposed slopes shall be protected by whatever means will effectively prevent erosion considering the degree of slope, soils materials, and expected length of exposure. Slope protection shall consist of mulch, sheets of plastic,burlap or jut netting, sod blankets, fast growing grasses or temporary seeding of annual grasses. Mulch consists of hay, straw, wood chips, corn stalks, bark or other protective material. Mulch shall be anchored to slopes with liquid asphalt, stakes, and netting or shall be worked into the soil to provide additional slope stability. 6. Control measures, other than those specifically stated above may be used in place of the above measures if it can be demonstrated that they will effectively protect exposed slopes. D. Dust Control Measures. 1. Temporary mulching or seeding shall be applied to open soil to minimize dust. 2. Barriers such as snow fences, commercial wind fences and similar materials shall be used to control air currents and blowing soil if the City Engineer determines it is necessary. 3. The exposed soil shall be watered to control dust, with frequency of watering repeated as necessary. 4. Permanent vegetation shall be established as quickly as possible. Within 30 days after the rough grading has been completed the entire area shall be seeded and mulched. City of Shakopee Design Criteria Page 5 6. Maintenance of Erosion Control Measures. A. The owner or developer shall be responsible for maintaining all erosion control structures in a condition that will ensure continuous functioning of those devices. If, after the installation of the erosion control structure, the City Engineer determines that additional measures are needed, they shall be installed at the expense of the owner. B. Any erosion or sediment that runs off or blows off the site onto adjoining properties, City streets, storm sewers, etc., shall be the responsibility of the owner or developer for clean up and restoration. If the owner fails to properly clean up or restore all areas affected by erosion the City will hire a contractor to complete the work and bill the owner for the expenses associated with the clean-up. 7. Technical Reference. The City officially designates the "Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sedimentation Control Planning Handbook" prepared by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency as the technical reference for this Section. This reference will be used to ensure the proper placement and installation of any proposed erosion control structures. 8. Performance Bond. The owner or developer shall submit to the City either a cash bond, an irrevocable letter of credit or other financial security to guarantee the faithful execution of the erosion control plan. This security shall be in the amount of 125% of the costs for construction of all erosion control devices, including the costs of City inspection and administration(as approved by the City Engineer). The City is authorized to draw against this security in the event the erosion control plan is not followed. 9. Unlawful Acts. It is unlawful for any person,either by the owner or the occupant of premises,to violate,neglect or refuse to comply with the requirements of this Section. In addition, if the Building Official or the City Engineer determines that adequate erosion control measures are not being followed and there is little cooperation on the part of the owner to do so,a"stop work" order may be issued to the land disturbing activity until such times as adequate measures are implemented. In all cases,the owner may appeal the "stop work" decision to the Council for review. Sect. 3 - Storm Sewer 1. Design Criteria. The design criteria, policies, and objectives shall be those described in the City's "Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan". No existing ditch, stream, wetland, pond,drain or drainage canal shall be deepened,widened, filled,re-routed or filled without approval from the City Council. 2. Pond Slopes. Pond slopes shall not exceed 4 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical. City of Shakopee Design Criteria Page 6 Sect. 4 - Sanitary Sewer 1. General. The minimum diameter for public sanitary sewer mains shall be 8" diameter. sanitary sewer design must account for the study area and all areas outside the study area which would naturally drain through the study area. Natural drainage areas will be established by using the Comprehensive Sewer Plan and Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan adopted by the City. In no case shall the design velocity be less than 2.2 feet per second nor more than 10.0 feet per second as computed by Mannings formula for flow in open channels (Mannings shall be 0.013 for purposes of design). 2. Design Criteria. Sanitary sewers shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the most current edition of Recommended Standards for Sewage Works; a report of Committee of the Great Lakes -Upper Mississippi River Board of State Sanitary Engineers. Sect. 5 - Utilities 1. Public Water. Where a connection to the City water system is presently available at or reasonably near the boundary of the subdivision, water distribution facilities, including fire hydrants, shall be installed to serve all properties within the subdivision and shall be in accordance with policies of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission.Public Water systems shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards and policies of the Shakopee Public Utility Commission. 2. Other Utilities. Electric service, phone service, and cable television installations to residential structures shall be underground from the main line to the residential structure except where extreme conditions prohibit and a variance from this requirement is authorized by the Planning Commission upon advice of the Utilities Commission. Provisions shall also be made for underground connections of street lights as required from main lines to the street line installation. Where telephone, electric and/or gas service lines are to be placed underground, conduits or cables shall be placed within easements or dedicated public ways, in such a manner so as not to conflict with other underground services, and in locations as approved by the City Engineer. All drainage and other underground utility installations which traverse privately-owned property shall be protected by easements. Sect. 6 - Street Lights Design Criteria. The subdivider shall provide for installation of street lighting and operation for a period of three (3) years as prescribed by the Utilities Manager. Street lighting shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards and policies of the Shakopee Public Utility Commission and the City of Shakopee. City of Shakopee Design Criteria Page 7 Sect. 7 - Streets and Alleys 1.General. A. 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. B. 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. C. 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. 2.Public Street Width and Right-of-Way Width. A. Two-way right-of-way widths and pavement widths(face to face of curb)shall conform to the City's adopted Transportation Plan B. All one-way right-of-way widths and pavement widths(face to face of curb)shall conform to the following minimum dimensions: Classification Right-of-Way Roadway Local 45 Feet 24 Feet Collector Streets 60 Feet 28 Feet Arterial Streets 60 Feet 28 Feet Alleys Industrial or Commercial 20 feet 16 feet(Pavement width) Residential(where permitted) 16 feet 12 feet(Pavement width) 3.Public Streets and Alleys. A. Public Streets and alleys shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Construction Standard Specifications for Public Works. All public street and alley construction shall be inspected by the City Engineering Department. City of Shakopee Design Criteria Page 8 B. The full width of the right-of-way of each street and alley dedicated in the plat shall be graded. The width shall comply with the surface provisions of this Chapter and Class V MN/DOT aggregate or other suitable base shall be required as prescribed by the Engineering Department. C. All streets shall be surfaced with a bituminous surface or portland cement concrete. D. Except where justified by special conditions, such as the continuation of an existing alley in the same block, alleys will not be approved in residential districts. Dead end alleys shall be avoided, whenever possible, but if unavoidable, such dead end alleys must provide adequate turnaround facilities at the closed end. E. Concrete curb and gutter may be required as a part of the required street surface improvement and shall thus be designed for installation along both sides of all roadways in accordance with the standards of the City. The City shall inspect all construction. • F. Rural roadway sections, that do not include concrete curb and gutter, shall consist of roadside ditches and 5 foot gravel shoulders. 4.Private Streets. Common interest community(CIC)lots that do not abut a public street must abut a private street. All other lots must abut a public street. Private Streets shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City construction specifications. A. Two-way pavement widths (face to face of curb) for private streets shall conform to the following minimum dimensions: Classification Roadway Local Streets 28 Feet(parking on one side of street) Local Streets 32 Feet(parking on both sides of street) 5.Grades. All center line gradients shall be at least 0.5 percent and shall not exceed the following: Classifications Gradient Percent Arterial Streets 5 Collector Streets 5 Local Streets 7 Private Streets 7 Marginal Access Streets 7 Alleys 8 The grades at intersecting state-aid streets shall not be greater than 0.5% for 50' on either side of the state-aid street, and not greater than 2.0% for an additional 50'. The grades at intersecting arterial streets shall not be greater than 2.0% for 200' on either side of the intersection. On local streets, the grade shall not be greater than 3.0% for 100' on either side of the intersection. The more important street at an intersection, as determined by the City Engineer, shall govern the through grade. City of Shakopee Design Criteria Page 9 6. Street Jogs. Street jogs shall not be permitted. 7. Local Streets. Local streets shall be so aligned that their use by through traffic will be discouraged. Dead end streets are prohibited,but cul-de-sacs will be permitted where topography or other conditions justify their use. 8. Cul-de-sacs. A. Public Streets Maximum length of cul-de-sac streets shall be 1,000 feet for rural service areas and 750 feet for urban service areas measured along the center line from the intersection of origin to end of right-of-way. Lot lines abutting cul-de-sacs shall be radial except in extreme cases where special permission may be granted otherwise. B. Private Streets and Driveways For private streets that serve more than 2 units that are • 150' in length or greater, a cul-de-sac may be required, as determined by the Fire Chief for the City of Shakopee, to provide a turnaround for emergency vehicles. The maximum length of private cul-de-sac streets shall be 400 feet. In lieu of a cul-de-sac, other features may be incorporated into the design of the street layout, if they provide an adequate method for emergency vehicles to turn around. Other options available are those shown on the City's detail plate for private street turnarounds. 9. Temporary Cul-de-sacs. In new subdivisions where a future public street will connect to a temporary street stub, a temporary cul-de-sac will be required. The maximum length of temporary cul-de-sac streets shall be 750 feet for both rural service and urban service areas, measured along the center line from the intersection of origin to end of pavement. The minimum paved surface diameter shall be 60 feet, without curb and gutter. A temporary cul-de-sac will not be required for street stubs that serve less than 3 lots. 10. Service Roads. Where a subdivision abuts or contains an existing or planned service road or a railroad right-of-way, the Council may require a street approximately parallel to and on each side of such right-of-way for adequate protection of residential properties and to afford separation of through and local traffic. Such marginal access streets shall be located at a distance from the major thoroughfares of railroad right-of-way suitable for the appropriate use of the intervening land, as for park purposes in residential districts, or for commercial or industrial purposes in appropriate districts. Such distances shall also be determined with due regard for the requirements of approach grades and future grade separations. 11. Half Streets. Half streets shall be prohibited, except where essential to the reasonable development of the subdivision in conformity with the other requirements of these regulations; and except where the Council finds it will be practicable to require the dedication of the other half when the adjoining property is subdivided. Wherever there is a half street adjacent to a tract to be subdivided,the other half of the street shall be platted within such tract. 12. Surface. All street surfaces shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the standard specifications and shall have a one-year warranty period after being completed and accepted by the City Engineer,before being accepted by the City for maintenance. Curb and gutter or shoulder and bituminous surfacing shall be constructed at the same time. 13. Reserve Strips. Reserve strips controlling access to streets shall be prohibited. City of Shakopee Design Criteria Page 10 14. Hardship to Owners of Adjoining Property Avoided. The street arrangement shall not be such as to cause hardship to owners of adjoining property in platting their own land and providing convenient access to it. 15. Access to Arterial and Collector Roadways. In the case where a proposed plat is adjacent to an arterial or collector road, the applicant shall not direct vehicle or pedestrian access from individual lots to such roadways. The subdivider will be required to provide access to all lots via public and/or private streets. Spacing of these public/private streets shall meet the requirements of the City's adopted Transportation Plan. 16. Platting of Small Tracts. In the platting of small tracts of land fronting arterial roadways where there is no convenient access to existing entrances and where access from such plat would be closer than 1/4 mile from an existing access point, a service road 40 feet wide shall be dedicated across the tract. As the neighboring land is platted and developed, and access becomes possible to the service road,direct access to the thoroughfares shall be prohibited. 17.Deflections/Horizontal Curves . When connecting street lines deflect from each other at any one point by more than 10 degrees,they shall be connected by a curve with a radius of not less than 200 feet. This minimum curve radius does not apply to intersecting street lines (full street intersections) or to street lines connected at "T"intersections. Collector street horizontal centerline curves shall not have a radius of less than 455 feet. 18. Street Vertical Curves The following desired design speeds and minimum vertical curve lengths shall be used for street profiles: Design Minimum Speeds Vertical Curve Length Arterial Street 50 mph 150 feet Collector Street 45 mph 130 feet Local Street 35 mph 100 feet If the algebraic difference between grades within a vertical curve is less than 1.2 percent, the allowable minimum vertical curve length is 50 feet. 19. Angle of Intersections. The angle formed by the intersection of streets shall be 90 degrees. Any variance will require approval by the City Engineer. 20. Size of Intersection. Intersections of more than four corners shall be prohibited. 21. Curb Return Radius. Curb return radius at intersections shall conform to the following table: Curb Return Radius at Intersections Local Collector Arterial Local 15 20 25 Collector 20 20 25 Arterial 25 25 25 Industrial 25 25 25 City of Shakopee Design Criteria Page 11 22. Crosspans. Double crosspans may be used at the intersection of residential streets only when necessary to prevent flooding of one side of the street. Crosspans are not allowed across collector or arterial streets. Crosspans are not allowed on streets with storm sewer systems or on other streets designated by the City Engineer. 23. Street Section Design The street section shall be designed as set forth in the "Road Design Manual" 5-291.523 and 5.291.524, as prepared by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. It shall be accompanied by a complete soils report certified by a Registered Professional Engineer. The following minimum pavement thickness and aggregate thickness shall apply to all streets: Minimum Minimum Bituminous Pavement Aggregate Base Arterial Street 4" 6" Collector Street (Residential) 4" 6" Collector Street (Commercial) 4" 6" Collector Street (Industrial) 4" 6" Local Street(Public or Private) 3 1/2" 6" Sect. 8 - Sidewalks and Trails 1. Sidewalks. A. The sidewalks shall not be located less than one foot from the property line,nor be adjacent to the curb except as determined in commercial areas. Sidewalks in industrial areas shall be located to conform to the anticipated pedestrian flow of the development. B. Sidewalks shall slope 1/4 inch per foot away from the property line and the profile grades shall conform to street grades. C. Planned unit development shall be subject to the location, widths, and grades set forth herein. D. The subdivider shall install sidewalks on both sides of an officially designated arterial street and on one side of collector streets, and walkways to schools; such collector streets and walkways to be determined by the Planning Commission and approved by the Council. If the street is along a designated trail route, a bituminous trail may be required in place of the sidewalk,as determined by the Planning Commission and approved by the Council. E. In blocks over 900 feet long,pedestrian crosswalks through the blocks, and at least 10 feet wide, may be required by the Council in locations deemed necessary to public health, convenience and necessity. F. Curb returns and intersections where sidewalk is required shall have handicap ramps. G. All sidewalks widths shall be 5 feet, except in commercial areas where the width may be wider,as determined by the City Council. City of Shakopee Design Criteria Page 12 Sect. 9 - Lots and Blocks 1. Easements. A. Easements across lots or centered on rear or side lot lines shall be provided for utilities and drainage where necessary and shall be at least 10 feet wide for telephone or power line easements and 20 feet wide for drainage, sewer or water easements. Underground utility installation shall be required. B. Where a subdivision is traversed by a water course, drainageway, channel or stream, there shall be provided a stormwater easement or drainage right-of-way conforming substantially with lines of such watercourse, and such further width or construction, or both, as will be adequate for the purpose. Parallel streets or parkways may be required in connection therewith. C. Drainage and utility easements shall be shown on the final plat, out to the 100-year high water level contour. D. Access easements, for future maintenance, shall be provided for ponding areas within subdivisions. 2. Blocks. A. Block length and width or acreage within bounding streets shall be such as to accommodate the size of residential lot required in the area by the Zoning Chapter and to provide for convenient access,circulation control and safety of street traffic. B. Residential block lengths shall not exceed 1,300 feet. Blocks intended for commercial and industrial use must be designed as such, and the block must be of sufficient size to provide for adequate off-street parking, loading and such other facilities as are required to satisfy the requirements of the Zoning Chapter of the City Code. C. A block shall be so designed as to provide two tiers of lots, unless it adjoins a railroad or major thoroughfare where it may have a single tier of lots. 3. Lot Standards. A. The lot dimensions shall be such as to comply with the minimum lot areas specified in the Zoning Chapter. B. Side lines of lots shall be substantially at right angles to straight street lines or radial to curved street lines. C. In the subdividing of any land, due regard shall be shown for all natural features, such as tree growth, wetlands, steep slopes, watercourse, historic spots, or similar conditions, and plans adjusted to preserve those which will add attractiveness, safety and stability to the proposed development. City of Shakopee Design Criteria Page 13 D. All remnants of lots below minimum size left over after subdividing of a larger tract must be added to adjacent lots rather than allowed to remain as unusable parcels. E. Double frontage (lots with frontage on two parallel streets) or reverse frontage shall not be permitted except: 1. Where lots back on an arterial or collector street,in which case vehicular and pedestrian access between the lots and arterial streets shall be prohibited. Such double frontage lots shall have an additional depth of at least 20 feet in order to allow space for screen planting along the back lot line. 2. Where topographic or other conditions render subdividing otherwise • unreasonable,such double frontage lots shall have an additional depth of at least 20 feet in order to allow space for screen planting along the back • lot line. F. All lots, except Common Interest Community lots, must abut their full frontage on a publicly dedicated street. G. Rural service lots shall be designed in such a manner whereby septic tanks, drainfields and homes are located as to allow future subdivision of the land upon the requirement of the City Engineer where future urban service expansion is probable. The City may also require at the time of final subdivision approval that a covenant be recorded which requires the placement of future structures in accordance with approved preliminary plat design. Whenever a parcel of land is subdivided into lots containing one or more acres and there are indications that such lots may eventually be subdivided into smaller plats, the Council may require that such parcel of land be divided so as to allow for the future construction of streets and the extension of adjacent streets. Easements providing for the future opening and extension of such streets may be made a requirement of the plat. H. All lots or parcels shall have direct adequate physical access for emergency vehicles along the frontage of the lot or parcel from either an existing dedicated public roadway, or an existing private roadway approved by the Council. 4. Buffering Residential Subdivision Adjacent to Intermediate and Principal Arterial Roads. A. In all residentially zoned areas determined by the Administrator to have significant noise impact within 125 feet of the roadway right-of-way or areas of noise impact estimated to maintain ambient decibel ratings of 70 DbA or greater, one or a combination of the following design requirements shall apply: 1. Lots adjacent to the roadway right-of-way shall be sized wherein a 125 foot buffer strip be provided as additional setback to lot depth or width standards supplementary to the minimum lot size and setback of the zoning provisions of the applicable district. City of Shakopee Design Criteria Page 14 • 2. An earth berm or other acceptable barrier technique shall be constructed to abate noise impact adjacent to roadway right-of-way equal to or below the 70 DbA standard accompanied by the following: a) A plan showing the existing and anticipated noise levels in DbA that are or will be expected on the site and in the immediate vicinity of the site. b) A description of the site plan construction techniques, architectural designs, and other measures expected to be taken to reduce ambient noise levels. Such description shall include sufficient plans and other drawings to enable the City to accurately identify the noise reduction measures expected to be taken. B. Prior to approving a preliminary plan as required by this Chapter, the City shall determine that the noise levels will be successfully reduced to meet the ambient 70 • DbA standard. (Ord. 58, May 7, 1981; Ord. 233, December 10, 1987; Ord. 246, June 17, 1988; Ord.287,January 16, 1990; Ord. 302, January 25, 1991; Ord. 338; August 6, 1992) 5. Buffering Residential Dwellings Adjacent to Wetlands and Stormwater Ponds. In all zoned areas where residential dwellings are adjacent to, or are within 100 feet of a wetland or stormwater pond,the following design requirements shall apply: 1. All residential dwellings shall be at least 15 feet horizontal from the 100-year high water level of the wetland or pond. 2. In commercial or industrial zoned areas where a stormwater pond is proposed to be within 100 feet of a residential dwelling, a fence shall be installed along the property line separating the commercial zoned (or industrial zoned) area and the residential property. City of Shakopee Design Criteria Page 15 CityShakopeeof Design Criteria Approved , 1999 City of Shakopee Design Criteria Page 1 Table of Contents Design Criteria - Grading, Street and Utility Improvements Sect. 1 Grading Sect. 2 Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Sect. 3 Storm Sewer Sect.4 Sanitary Sewer Sect. 5 Utilities Sect. 6 Street Lights Sect. 7 Streets and Alleys Sect. 8 Sidewalks and Trails Sect. 9 Lots and Blocks Sect. 1 - Grading 1. Slopes/Grades. A. No final graded slopes shall be steeper than 3 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical(3:1). B. Driveway grades shall be less than 10%, and greater than 1.0%. Driveway grades shall not be greater than 6%within 10' of the street edge. Commercial and Industrial Driveways shall not be greater than 6%for any part of the driveway. C. Lots shall be graded so as to provide drainage away from building locations. 2. Topsoil - Sodding and Seeding. Topsoil moved during the course of construction shall be redistributed in turf establishment areas with a minimum of 4 inches of topsoil. Disturbed boulevard areas shall be seeded or sodded as required by the City Engineer. 3.Drainage. During the grading of the site,the natural drainage system shall be utilized as much as feasible for the storage and flow of runoff. 4. As-built Grading Plan. Upon completion of the grading of subdivisions, an as-built survey of the grading shall be submitted to the City. This plan shall show the existing grades of all lot corners,pads, and ponding areas. The plan shall certify that all ponding areas are within drainage and utility easements. Two benchmarks shall be shown on the as-built grading plan. No building permits shall be issued until this plan has been submitted and approved by the City Engineer. 5. Grading Permit. Grading Permits will be required, as described in Section 11.60, Subd. 6, of the City Code. 6. Tree Preservation Fence. Existing trees which are to be saved, shall be protected with a tree preservation fence. This fence shall be installed at the drip line to protect the trees which are to be saved. No grading,construction materials,or equipment will be allowed beyond this fence. City of Shakopee Design Criteria Page 2 Sect. 2 - Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control 1. Purpose The purpose of this Section is to promote the public health, safety, property and general welfare of the citizens of the City and to conserve the soil, water and related resources and to control erosion and sedimentation caused by land disturbing activities. 2. Administration The Building Official or the City Engineer(depending on the land disturbing activity) as the Administrator of this Section. Erosion control plans shall be covered under the existing building permit process. A separate fee is not required for erosion control plans. 3. Activities Subject to Erosion Control Measures A. Any land disturbing activity in residential, multi-family, commercial or industrial zones shall be subject to erosion control measures provided that: 1. An area of 10,000 square feet or greater will be disturbed by excavation, grading, filling or other earth moving activities resulting in the loss of protective vegetation; or, 2. Excavation or fill exceeding 500 cubic yards; or, 3. The installation of underground utilities, either public or private, resulting in more than 300 linear feet of trenching or earth disturbance;or, B. Any subdivisions which require plat approval or a certified survey map. C. Agricultural lands used mainly for the production of food, general farming, livestock and poultry enterprises, nurseries, forestry, etc., are not subject to the provisions of this Section. D. Any other land disturbing activity for which the City Engineer determines to have the potential for substantial erosion. 4. Erosion Control Plans A. All land disturbing activities covered by this Section shall be required to have an approved erosion control plan on file with the City prior to any construction starting. B. The erosion control plan shall contain any such information necessary for the Building Official and the City Engineer to determine that adequate erosion control and sedimentation measures are proposed. As a minimum, a topographic map showing existing and proposed contours, location of any natural water courses and drainageways, the extent of the land disturbing activity and any erosion control measures shall be shown on the plans submitted and approved. C. In addition to the plans, a narrative report summarizing the proposed erosion control measures shall be submitted. This report shall include language discussing the timing of the installation, phasing, stabilization of all structures, maintenance and eventual removal of all structures. City of Shakopee Design Criteria Page 3 5. Performance Standards A. General Standards. In general, this Section does not require the use of any particular type of structure to control erosion and sedimentation. The City Engineer or Building Official shall evaluate the proposed measures to determine if they follow current accepted design criteria and engineering standards. 1. The smallest practical area of land shall be exposed at any given time during development. 2. When soil is exposed,the exposure shall be for the shortest period of time. Within 30 days of the rough grading,the site shall be seeded and mulched. 3. All development shall conform to the natural limitations presented by the topography and soil as to create the best potential for preventing soil erosion. 4. Erosion control measures shall be coordinated with the different stages of development. Appropriate control measures shall be installed prior to development to control erosion. 5. The natural vegetation and plant covering shall be retained whenever possible. Temporary vegetation, mulching or other cover shall be used to protect critical areas and permanent vegetation shall be installed as soon as practical. B. Standards-Stormwater Runoff Erosion. 1. The natural drainage system shall be used as far as is feasible for storage and flow of runoff. Stormwater drainage shall be discharged to marsh lands, swamps, retention basins or other treatment facilities. Temporary storage area or retention ponds shall be considered to reduce peak flows, erosion damage and construction costs. If the drainage area is over five acres,a sediment basin shall be utilized. 2. Silt fence or hay bales shall be utilized to control erosion and prevent sedimentation from leaving the construction site. These structures shall be properly installed according to current standards. 3. If needed, sod shall be laid in strips at intervals necessary to prevent erosion and at right angles to the direction of drainage. 4. At existing storm sewer inlets, temporary sedimentation traps may be necessary to prevent erosion from entering the storm sewer system, and downstream waterbodies. 5. Adequate provision shall be made to prevent the tracking or dropping of dirt or other materials from the site onto any street by the use of, gravel pads at all entrances. City of Shakopee Design Criteria Page 4 C. Exposed Slopes. The following control measures shall be taken to control erosion during construction: 1. No exposed slope shall be steeper in grade than three (3) feet horizontal to one(1)foot vertical. 2. Exposed slopes steeper in grade than ten (10) feet horizontal to one (1) foot vertical shall be contour plowed to minimize direct runoff of water. 3. At the foot of each exposed slope,a channel and berm shall be constructed to control runoff. The channeled water shall be diverted to a sedimentation basin (debris basin, silt basin or silt trap) before being allowed to enter the natural drainage system. 4. Along the top of each exposed slope, a berm shall be constructed to prevent runoff from flowing over the edge of the slope. Where runoff collecting behind said berm cannot be diverted elsewhere and must be directed down the slope, appropriate measures shall be taken to prevent erosion. Such measures shall consist of either an asphalt paved flow apron and drop chute laid down the slope or a flexible slope drain. At the base of the slope drain or flood apron, a gravel energy dissipater shall be installed to prevent erosion at the discharge end. 5. Exposed slopes shall be protected by whatever means will effectively prevent erosion considering the degree of slope, soils materials, and expected length of exposure. Slope protection shall consist of mulch, sheets of plastic,burlap or jut netting, sod blankets,fast growing grasses or temporary seeding of annual grasses. Mulch consists of hay, straw, wood chips, corn stalks, bark or other protective material. Mulch shall be anchored to slopes with liquid asphalt, stakes, and netting or shall be worked into the soil to provide additional slope stability. 6. Control measures, other than those specifically stated above may be used in place of the above measures if it can be demonstrated that they will effectively protect exposed slopes. D. Dust Control Measures. 1. Temporary mulching or seeding shall be applied to open soil to minimize dust. 2. Barriers such as snow fences, commercial wind fences and similar materials shall be used to control air currents and blowing soil if the City Engineer determines it is necessary. 3. The exposed soil shall be watered to control dust, with frequency of watering repeated as necessary. 4. Permanent vegetation shall be established as quickly as possible. Within 30 days after the rough grading has been completed the entire area shall be seeded and mulched. City of Shakopee Design Criteria Page 5 6. Maintenance of Erosion Control Measures A. The owner or developer shall be responsible for maintaining all erosion control structures in a condition that will ensure continuous functioning of those devices. If, after the installation of the erosion control structure, the City Engineer determines that additional measures are needed, they shall be installed at the expense of the owner. B. Any erosion or sediment that runs off or blows off the site onto adjoining properties, City streets, storm sewers, etc., shall be the responsibility of the owner or developer for clean up and restoration. If the owner fails to properly clean up or restore all areas affected by erosion the City will hire a contractor to complete the work and bill the owner for the expenses associated with the clean-up. 7. Technical Reference The City officially designates the "Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sedimentation Control Planning Handbook" prepared by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency as the technical reference for this Section. This reference will be used to ensure the proper placement and installation of any proposed erosion control structures. 8. Performance Bond The owner or developer shall submit to the City either a cash bond, an irrevocable letter of credit or other financial security to guarantee the faithful execution of the erosion control plan. This security shall be in the amount of 125% of the costs for construction of all erosion control devices, including the costs of City inspection and administration (as approved by the City Engineer). The City is authorized to draw against this security in the event the erosion control plan is not followed. 9. Unlawful Acts It is unlawful for any person,either by the owner or the occupant of premises,to violate, neglect or refuse to comply with the requirements of this Section. In addition, if the Building Official or the City Engineer determines that adequate erosion control measures are not being followed and there is little cooperation on the part of the owner to do so, a "stop work" order may be issued to the land disturbing activity until such times as adequate measures are implemented. In all cases, the owner may appeal the "stop work" decision to the Council for review. Sect. 3 - Storm Sewer 1. Design Criteria. The design criteria, policies, and objectives shall be those described in the City's "Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan". No existing ditch, stream, wetland, pond, drain or drainage canal shall be deepened, widened, filled, re-routed or filled without approval from the City Council. 2.Pond Slopes. Pond slopes shall not exceed 4 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical. City of Shakopee Design Criteria Page 6 Sect. 4 - Sanitary Sewer 1. General. The minimum diameter for public sanitary sewer mains shall be 8" diameter. sanitary sewer design must account for the study area and all areas outside the study area which would naturally drain through the study area. Natural drainage areas will be established by using the Comprehensive Sewer Plan and Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan adopted by the City. In no case shall the design velocity be less than 2.2 feet per second nor more than 10.0 feet per second as computed by Mannings formula for flow in open channels (Mannings shall be 0.013 for purposes of design). 2. Design Criteria. Sanitary sewers shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the most current edition of Recommended Standards for Sewage Works; a report of Committee of the Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State Sanitary Engineers. Sect. 5 - Utilities 1. Public Water. Where a connection to the City water system is presently available at or reasonably near the boundary of the subdivision, water distribution facilities, including fire hydrants, shall be installed to serve all properties within the subdivision and shall be in accordance with policies of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. Public Water systems shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards and policies of the Shakopee Public Utility Commission. 2. Other Utilities. Electric service, phone service, and cable television installations to residential structures shall be underground from the main line to the residential structure except where extreme conditions prohibit and a variance from this requirement is authorized by the Planning Commission upon advice of the Utilities Commission. Provisions shall also be made for underground connections of street lights as required from main lines to the street line installation. Where telephone, electric and/or gas service lines are to be placed underground, conduits or cables shall be placed within easements or dedicated public ways, in such a manner so as not to conflict with other underground services, and in locations as approved by the City Engineer. All drainage and other underground utility installations which traverse privately-owned property shall be protected by easements. Sect. 6 - Street Lights Design Criteria. The subdivider shall provide for installation of street lighting and operation for a period of three (3) years as prescribed by the Utilities Manager. Street lighting shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards and policies of the Shakopee Public Utility Commission and the City of Shakopee. City of Shakopee Design Criteria Page 7 Sect. 7 - Streets and Alleys 1.General. A. 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. B. 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. C. 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. 2. Street Width and Right-of-Way Width. A. Two-way right-of-way widths and pavement widths(face to face of curb)shall conform to the City's adopted Transportation Plan,with the exception of the local roads. The local road width shall be as follows: Classification Right-of-Way Roadway Local(anticipated traffic of 200,or less,cars per day,as determined by the City Engineer) 60 Feet 32 Feet Local(more than 200 cars per day) 60 Feet 36 Feet B. All one-way right-of-way widths and pavement widths(face to face of curb)shall conform to the following minimum dimensions: Classification Right-of-Way Roadway Local 45 Feet 24 Feet Collector Streets 60 Feet 28 Feet Arterial Streets 60 Feet 28 Feet Alleys Industrial or Commercial 20 Feet 16 Feet Residential(where permitted) 16 Feet 12 Feet (Pavement Width) City of Shakopee Design Criteria Page 8 3. Streets and Alleys. A. Public Streets and alleys shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Construction Standard Specifications for Public Works. All street and alley construction shall be inspected by the City Engineering Department. B. The full width of the right-of-way of each street and alley dedicated in the plat shall be graded. The width shall comply with the surface provisions of this Chapter and Class V MN/DOT aggregate or other suitable base shall be required as prescribed by the Engineering Department. C. All streets shall be surfaced with a bituminous surface or portland cement concrete. D. Except where justified by special conditions,such as the continuation of an existing alley in the same block,alleys will not be approved in residential districts. Dead end alleys shall be avoided, whenever possible, but if unavoidable, such dead end alleys must provide adequate turnaround facilities at the closed end. E. Concrete curb and gutter may be required as a part of the required street surface improvement and shall thus be designed for installation along both sides of all roadways in accordance with the standards of the City. The City shall inspect all construction. F. Rural roadway sections, that do not include concrete curb and gutter, shall consist of roadside ditches and 5 foot gravel shoulders. 4.Grades. All center line gradients shall be at least 0.5 percent and shall not exceed the following: Classifications Gradient Percent Arterial Streets 5 Collector Streets 5 Local Streets 7 Marginal Access Streets 7 Alleys 8 The grades at intersecting state-aid streets shall not be greater than 0.5% for 50' on either side of the state-aid street, and not greater than 2.0% for an additional 50'. The grades at intersecting arterial streets shall not be greater than 2.0% for 200' on either side of the intersection. On local streets, the grade shall not be greater than 3.0% for 100' on either side of the intersection. The more important street at an intersection, as determined by the City Engineer, shall govern the through grade. 5. Street Jogs. Street jogs (intersections less than 330 feet apart) must be approved by the City Engineer. 6. Local Streets. Local streets shall be so aligned that their use by through traffic will be discouraged. Dead end streets are prohibited, but cul-de-sacs will be permitted where topography or other conditions justify their use. City of Shakopee Design Criteria Page 9 7. Cul-de-sacs. A. Maximum length of cul-de-sac streets shall be 1,000 feet for rural service areas and 750 feet for urban service areas measured along the center line from the intersection of origin to end of right-of-way. Cul-de-sacs shall have a dedicated right-of-way with a minimum radius of 60 feet, and shall be paved with a minimum radius of 45 feet (to face of curb). Lot lines abutting cul-de-sacs shall be radial except in extreme cases where special permission may be granted otherwise. 8. Temporary Cul-de-sacs. In new subdivisions where a future public street will connect to a temporary street stub, a temporary cul-de-sac will be required. The maximum length of temporary cul-de-sac streets shall be 750 feet for both rural service and urban service areas, measured along the center line from the intersection of origin to end of pavement. The minimum paved surface diameter shall be 60 feet, without curb and gutter. A temporary cul-de-sac will not be required for street stubs that serve less than 3 lots. 9. Service Roads. Where a subdivision abuts or contains an existing or planned service road or a railroad right-of-way,the Council may require a street approximately parallel to and on each side of such right-of-way for adequate protection of residential properties and to afford separation of through and local traffic. Such marginal access streets shall be located at a distance from the major thoroughfares of railroad right-of-way suitable for the appropriate use of the intervening land,as for park purposes in residential districts, or for commercial or industrial purposes in appropriate districts. Such distances shall also be determined with due regard for the requirements of approach grades and future grade separations. 10. Half Streets. Half streets shall be prohibited, except where essential to the reasonable development of the subdivision in conformity with the other requirements of these regulations; and except where the Council finds it will be practicable to require the dedication of the other half when the adjoining property is subdivided. Wherever there is a half street adjacent to a tract to be subdivided,the other half of the street shall be platted within such tract. 11. Surface. All street surfaces shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the standard specifications and shall have a one-year warranty period after being completed and accepted by the City Engineer,before being accepted by the City for maintenance. Curb and gutter or shoulder and bituminous surfacing shall be constructed at the same time. 12. Reserve Strips. Reserve strips controlling access to streets shall be prohibited. 13. Hardship to Owners of Adjoining Property Avoided. The street arrangement shall not be such as to cause hardship to owners of adjoining property in platting their own land and providing convenient access to it. 14. Access to Arterial and Collector Roadways. In the case where a proposed plat is adjacent to an arterial or collector road, the applicant shall not direct vehicle or pedestrian access from individual lots to such roadways. The subdivider will be required to provide access to all lots via public streets. Spacing of these public streets shall meet the requirements of the City's adopted Transportation Plan. City of Shakopee Design Criteria Page 10 15. Platting of Small Tracts. In the platting of small tracts of land fronting arterial roadways where there is no convenient access to existing entrances and where access from such plat would be closer than 1/4 mile from an existing access point, a service road 40 feet wide shall be dedicated across the tract. As the neighboring land is platted and developed, and access becomes possible to the service road,direct access to the thoroughfares shall be prohibited. 16. Deflections/Horizontal Curves . When connecting street lines deflect from each other at any one point by more than 10 degrees,they shall be connected by a curve with a radius of not less than 200 feet. This minimum curve radius does not apply to intersecting street lines (full street intersections)or to street lines connected at "T"intersections. Collector street horizontal centerline curves shall not have a radius of less than 455 feet. 17. Street Vertical Curves The following desired design speeds and minimum vertical curve lengths shall be used for street profiles: Design Minimum Speeas Vertical Curve Length Arterial Street 50 mph 150 feet Collector Street 45 mph 130 feet Local Street 35 mph 100 feet If the algebraic difference between grades within a vertical curve is less than 1.2 percent, the allowable minimum vertical curve length is 50 feet. 18. Angle of Intersections. The angle formed by the intersection of streets shall be 90 degrees. Any variance will require approval by the City Engineer. 19. Size of Intersection. Intersections of more than four corners shall be prohibited. 20. Curb Return Radius. Curb return radius at intersections shall conform to the following table: Curb Return Radius at Intersections Local Collector Arterial Local 15 20 25 Collector 20 20 25 Arterial 25 25 25 Industrial 25 25 25 21. Crosspans. Double crosspans may be used at the intersection of residential streets only when necessary to prevent flooding of one side of the street. Crosspans are not allowed across collector or arterial streets. Crosspans are not allowed on streets with storm sewer systems or on other streets designated by the City Engineer. City of Shakopee Design Criteria Page 11 22. Street Section Design The street section shall be designed as set forth in the "Road Design Manual" 5-291.523 and 5.291.524, as prepared by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. It shall be accompanied by a complete soils report certified by a Registered Professional Engineer.The following minimum pavement thickness and aggregate thickness shall apply to all streets: Minimum Minimum Bituminous Pavement Aggregate Base Arterial Street 4" 6" Collector Street (Residential) 4" 6" Collector Street (Commercial) 4" 6" Collector Street (Industrial) 4" 6" Local Street 3 1/2" 6" Sect. 8 - Sidewalks and Trails 1. Sidewalks A. The sidewalks shall not be located less than one foot from the property line,nor be adjacent to the curb except as determined in commercial areas. Sidewalks in industrial areas shall be located to conform to the anticipated pedestrian flow of the development. B. Sidewalks shall slope 1/4 inch per foot away from the property line and the profile grades shall conform to street grades. C. Planned unit development shall be subject to the location, widths, and grades set forth herein. D. The subdivider shall install sidewalks on both sides of an officially designated arterial street and on one side of collector streets, and walkways to schools; such collector streets and walkways to be determined by the Planning Commission and approved by the Council. If the street is along a designated trail route, a bituminous trail may be required in place of the sidewalk,as determined by the Planning Commission and approved by the Council. E. In blocks over 900 feet long,pedestrian crosswalks through the blocks, and at least 10 feet wide, may be required by the Council in locations deemed necessary to public health, convenience and necessity. F. Curb returns and intersections where sidewalk is required shall have handicap ramps. G. All sidewalks widths shall be 5 feet, except in commercial areas where the width may be wider,as determined by the City Council. City of Shakopee Design Criteria Page 12 Sect. 9 - Lots and Blocks 1. Easements A. Easements across lots or centered on rear or side lot lines shall be provided for utilities and drainage where necessary and shall be at least 10 feet wide for telephone or power line easements and 20 feet wide for drainage, sewer or water easements. Underground utility installation shall be required. B. Where a subdivision is traversed by a water course, drainageway, channel or stream, there shall be provided a stormwater easement or drainage right-of-way conforming substantially with lines of such watercourse, and such further width or construction, or both, as will be adequate for the purpose. Parallel streets or parkways may be required in connection therewith. C. Drainage and utility easements shall be shown on the final plat, out to the 100-year high water level contour. D. Access easements, for future maintenance, shall be provided for ponding areas within subdivisions. 2. Blocks A. Block length and width or acreage within bounding streets shall be such as to accommodate the size of residential lot required in the area by the Zoning Chapter and to provide for convenient access,circulation control and safety of street traffic. B. Residential block lengths shall not exceed 1,300 feet. Blocks intended for commercial and industrial use must be designed as such, and the block must be of sufficient size to provide for adequate off-street parking, loading and such other facilities as are required to satisfy the requirements of the Zoning Chapter of the City Code. C. A block shall be so designed as to provide two tiers of lots, unless it adjoins a railroad or major thoroughfare where it may have a single tier of lots. 3. Lot Standards A. The lot dimensions shall be such as to comply with the minimum lot areas specified in the Zoning Chapter. B. Side lines of lots shall be substantially at right angles to straight street lines or radial to curved street lines. C. In the subdividing of any land, due regard shall be shown for all natural features, such as tree growth, wetlands, steep slopes, watercourse, historic spots, or similar conditions, and plans adjusted to preserve those which will add attractiveness, safety and stability to the proposed development. City of Shakopee Design Criteria Page 13 D. All remnants of lots below minimum size left over after subdividing of a larger tract must be added to adjacent lots rather than allowed to remain as unusable parcels. E. Double frontage(lots with frontage on two parallel streets) or reverse frontage shall not be permitted except: 1. Where lots back on an arterial or collector street,in which case vehicular and pedestrian access between the lots and arterial streets shall be prohibited. Such double frontage lots shall have an additional depth of at least 20 feet in order to allow space for screen planting along the back lot line. 2. Where topographic or other conditions render subdividing otherwise unreasonable, such double frontage lots shall have an additional depth of at least 20 feet in order to allow space for screen planting along the back lot line. F. All lots must abut their full frontage on a publicly dedicated street. G. Rural service lots shall be designed in such a manner whereby septic tanks, drainfields and homes are located as to allow future subdivision of the land upon the requirement of the City Engineer where future urban service expansion is probable. The City may also require at the time of final subdivision approval that a covenant be recorded which requires the placement of future structures in accordance with approved preliminary plat design. Whenever a parcel of land is subdivided into lots containing one or more acres and there are indications that such lots may eventually be subdivided into smaller plats, the Council may require that such parcel of land be divided so as to allow for the future construction of streets and the extension of adjacent streets. Easements providing for the future opening and extension of such streets may be made a requirement of the plat. H. All lots or parcels shall have direct adequate physical access for emergency vehicles along the frontage of the lot or parcel from a public roadway 4. Buffering Residential Subdivision Adjacent to Intermediate and Principal Arterial Roads A. In all residentially zoned areas determined by the Administrator to have significant noise impact within 125 feet of the roadway right-of-way or areas of noise impact estimated to maintain ambient decibel ratings of 70 DbA or greater, one or a combination of the following design requirements shall apply: 1. Lots adjacent to the roadway right-of-way shall be sized wherein a 125 foot buffer strip be provided as additional setback to lot depth or width standards supplementary to the minimum lot size and setback of the zoning provisions of the applicable district. 2. An earth berm or other acceptable barrier technique shall be constructed to abate noise impact adjacent to roadway right-of-way equal to or below the 70 DbA standard accompanied by the following: City of Shakopee Design Criteria Page 14 a) A plan showing the existing and anticipated noise levels in DbA that are or will be expected on the site and in the immediate vicinity of the site. b) A description of the site plan construction techniques, architectural designs, and other measures expected to be taken to reduce ambient noise levels. Such description shall include sufficient plans and other drawings to enable the City to accurately identify the noise reduction measures expected to be taken. B. Prior to approving a preliminary plan as required by this Chapter, the City shall determine that the noise levels will be successfully reduced to meet the ambient 70 DbA standard. (Ord. 58, May 7, 1981; Ord. 233, December 10, 1987; Ord. 246, June 17, 1988; Ord. 287,January 16, 1990; Ord. 302, January 25, 1991; Ord. 338; August 6, 1992) Buffering Residential Dwellings Adjacent to Wetlands and Stormwater Ponds In all zoned areas where residential dwellings are adjacent to, or are within 100 feet of a wetland or stormwater pond,the following design requirements shall apply: 1. All residential dwellings shall be at least 15 feet horizontal from the 100-year high water level of the wetland or pond. 2. In commercial or industrial zoned areas where a stormwater pond is proposed to be within 100 feet of a residential dwelling, a fence shall be installed along the property line separating the commercial zoned (or industrial zoned) area and the residential property. City of Shakopee Design Criteria Page 15 /JIS A . CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor& City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Subdivision Regulations, Ordinance No. 552 DATE: July 20, 1999 INTRODUCTION: This memo is a supplement to the memorandum provided by Michael Leek, Community Development Director, on Chapter 12 of the City Code, Subdivision Regulations, and in particular the reduction of security for public improvements provision. BACKGROUND: In the memorandum from Michael Leek, on Subdivision Regulations, it was mentioned that there is a concern for the reduction of security for public improvements with private subdivisions that is found on Page 22, Section 12.50, of the Draft Ordinance. The concern in this provision is the security paragraph which is a change from current practice. The current practice in reducing security is as described in Section 12.50, Subdivision. 1, Paragraph A. City staff does reduce the security when certain improvements are completed and will reduce security throughout the project, but in no event reduce the security below 25% of the original amount until all the improvements have been completed, including punch list items. Staff believes that this security amount is enough of a dollar amount to protect the City of any catastrophic failure of curb & gutter, bituminous pavement or utilities in order to protect the City and the public that is purchasing lots in this development. Also,the security amount does provide incentive for the developer to finish the project in a timely fashion. This security is released in total once the project is accepted by the City Engineer and maintenance bonds provided for the entire project. Paragraph B, which has been added to the Subdivision Ordinance, reduces the security further than past practices in the amount of two times the cost to install the final wear course. This security amount would provide only a 100% of the cost of the wear course for security of a failure of the street items prior to final acceptance. The provision does require the developer to provide the City with security for maintenance of all improvements other than the street, such as sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer. It has been staff's experience that bonding companies will not provide a bond for the street unless it has been totally completed and accepted. With this in mind, the security amount must cover any failure of the concrete curb or bituminous pavement until the wear course has been completed and the project accepted. Staff believes if there is a substantial failure of the curb & gutter or bituminous pavement, that this security amount will not be enough security for the City to correct the problem if it is necessary to utilize the security. If should also be pointed out that the Engineering Department has been requiring that new development streets go through one freeze/thaw winter season in order to remove settlements that may occur in the street area prior to the wear course being placed the following year. During this time many lots are being sold and being built upon and occupancy permits cannot be issued until the final wear course is installed. Staff has pointed out this revised provision to the City Attorney and his comments are that the City is at more risk with this revised provision than previous practice, and this is a Council policy decision on whether or not to leave this provision in the ordinance, modify it or eliminate it. Also, attached to this memorandum is previous memos that were provided to the Community Development Director and Subdivision Review Committee members on this subject of development securities for subdivisions. These additional memos referred to many of the items that are contained in this memorandum, and were previously presented to the Subdivision Review Committee on July 2, 1996. The purpose of this memorandum has been to outline the changes being proposed in development security reduction in the proposed Subdivision Ordinance and to explain staff's concerns on this procedure. It is a Council policy decision on whether to incorporate, modify or eliminate this change in the Subdivision Ordinance. e `e Loney Public Works Director BL/pmp ORDINANCE CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Michael Leek, Community Development Director FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Draft Subdivision Ordinance DATE: January 6, 1998 This memorandum has the following comments in regard to the Draft Subdivision that has been put together by the Subdivision Review Committee and compiled by you for comments at this time. The comments will be made and will be referenced to the section and subdivision throughout the Draft Ordinance and as follows: • On Page 9, Section 12.28, Subd. 4 - The paragraph has the following statement, "The City Council may elect to approve only a portion of a preliminary plat, and disapprove the remainder." It is not clear as for the need or the particular application in which this provision would be utilized. • On Page 11, Section 12.32, Subd. 4 - The paragraph has the following statement, "The City Council may elect to approve only a portion of a final plat, and disapprove the remainder." The question I have is when and how could this provision actually be implemented. It seems difficult to approve only a portion of a final plat, unless it was replatted. • On Page 12, Section 12.34, Subd. 1 - Approval period. The question I have is in regard to the Draft Subdivision Ordinance is whether or not the preliminary plat approval period should be for two years similar to the approval period for a final plat. • On Page 14, Section 12.40, Subd. 2, Paragraph C - A wording of this statement is recommended to be as follows: The City's share of the cost of construction, when an improvement is over sized, shall be as approved by the City Engineer. • On Page 16, Section 12.41, Subd. 2, Paragraph E - Early assessments. In this paragraph after the first sentence, a statement should be made that the final decision in regard to when special assessments are levied are at the sole discretion of the City Council. • • On Page 16, Section 12.41, Subd. 2, Paragraph F - Security for special assessments. These paragraphs should be revised to reflect the recent policy change on security for special assessments. This was recently approved at a City Council meeting. • On Page 18, Section 12.46, Subd. 1, - Construction timing. These two paragraphs need to be reviewed in further detail as they are different than what is being allowed under today's ordinance, and also the city Code that allows grading prior to preliminary plat may need to be amended to not allow any area to be graded that is under a preliminary plat review. • On Page 20, Section 12.49, Subd. 3 - Completion within ten years. I believe that this paragraph is very lenient and needs to be modified and I also recommend that a completion date be included within the developer's agreement. • On Page 20, Section 12.50, Subd. 1 - Securities. Although the Subdivision Review Committee modified the reduction in security, and in particular with the street improvements, I believe a problem exists in which the language is written. The problem exists in that it is very difficult to obtain a maintenance bond for any of the street improvements without the final bituminous wear course being placed on the street. Therefore, the 200% of the final wear course cost for security may not be adequate and I believe that this provision needs further review by the Subdivision Review Committee. • On Page 21, Section 12.50, Paragraph C - This paragraph should be modified to include that the security be released once the developer has given the City Engineer the as-built drawings of all public improvements as required the design requirements. • On Pages 22 through 34, the submittal requirements for preliminary and final plats will be reviewed by Joel Rutherford, and a memo from him will be forth coming as to the requirements on those pages. • On Page 38, Section 12.75 - Fees. This paragraph should be revised to state that the fees are based upon the latest fees as established yearly by Council resolution for the City of Shakopee. This concludes my comments on the Draft Subdivision Review Ordinance and I would be willing to meet with you at any time to discuss these comments on this proposed ordinance. ijOZCly Bruce Loney Public Works Director MEMO TO: Subdivision Review Committee Members FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director f..)/� SUBJECT: Development Securities for Subdivision Ordinance DATE: July 2, 1996 At previous Subdivision Review Committee (SRC) meetings, discussions occurred in regard to development security amounts and reduction procedures throughout the installation of development improvements. At previous meetings, SRC requested additional information from nearby Cities such as Burnsville and Chaska, as to their procedures and amount of development securities. Staff has contacted these two Cities and members of their staff and has the following results: City of Burnsville: The contact person was Deb Bloom, and the City of Burnsville requires a letter of credit in the amount of 125% of the estimated engineer's estimate for the public improvements. The letter of credit can be reduced after a major amount of work is done, such as the sanitary sewer, watermain or storm sewer installation and street paving. The City of Burnsville does require one full year between bituminous lifts and the letter of credit is reduced based upon the actual work done, and usually there is close to 25% of the engineer's estimate remaining for the security amount. This security amount can go below the 25% of the engineer's estimate, if the actual construction is more than what was estimated. The City of Burnsville also does require a maintenance bond in the amount of 100% of the engineer's estimate of the public improvements for a one year period. City of Chaska: The contact person was Bill Monk, City Engineer. The City of Chaska utilizes a letter of credit in the amount of 110% of the engineer's estimate and reductions are allowed after installation. Tr,.... .:.... ,7.._'..,. the rim-...1,,...«....c ,7 major improvement llHowever, at no time during development period does the letter of credit go below a 10% amount of the estimated amount for public improvements. Also, the City of Chaska during the warranty period maintains a 10% letter of credit amount for one year period, as well as a maintenance bond for one year of 100% of the engineer's estimate of public improvements. The City of Shakopee currently requires a security in an amount of 125% of the engineer's estimate of public improvements. This security is reduced throughout the course of the project, however it has been past City policy to reduce the security to no more than 25% until a maintenance bond is given for the warranty period. A maintenance bond is required after the improvements has been accepted by the City in the amount of 100% of the estimate of public improvements. This concludes this memorandum on development securities and intended for discussion purposes at the next SCR meeting on July 11, 1996. BL/pmp SRC ti ORDINANCE NO. 552, FOURTH SERIES AN ORDINANCE OFTE CIY OF P HER 12TS BDVHISAIONPEE,REGULATIONS.A, REPLACING CHA THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1 -That City Code Chapter 12, Subdivision Regulations is hereby amended by replacing it with the following; SEC. 12.01. TITLE,PURPOSE,AND INTERPRETATION Subd. 1. Title. Chapter 12 of the Shakopee City Code shall be known as, and may be referred to as the"Subdivision Regulations"or"Subdivision Ordinance." When referred to herein it shall be known as "this Chapter". Subd.2. Purposes. This Chapter is enacted for the following purposes: A. to protect and promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the City of Shakopee; B. to provide for the orderly, economic, and safe development of land in accordance with the City of Shakopee's Comprehensive Plan; C. to ensure adequate provision of transportation, sanitary sewers, water, storm drainage, schools, parks,playgrounds, and other public services and facilities; and D. to promote the availability of housing affordable to persons and families of all income levels; E. to provide for uniform application and review processes. Subd.3. Scope. A. General Application. From the effective date of this Chapter,the subdivision of all land within the City of Shakopee shall take place in conformance with the provisions of this Chapter, except as provided below. The establishment of new land boundaries by a Registered Land Survey is considered the subdivision of land and must be in conformance with the provisions of this Chapter. B. Optional Subdivisions. Certain divisions of land may be made without following the provisions of this Chapter. However,the property owner may elect to follow this Chapter in order to obtain the benefits provided herein. This option is available to 1 fr I the following divisions of land: 1. division of one parcel of residentially-zoned land - •. - . . . . . into two to four parcels, where all resulting parcels will be a minimum of 20 acres in area and 500 feet in width. 2. division of one parcel of commercially or industrially zoned land into two to four parcels,where all resulting parcels will be a minimum of five acres in area and 300 feet in width; 3. divisions creating cemetery lots; 4. divisions resulting from court orders; and 5. divisions resulting from the adjustment of a lot line by the relocation of common boundary. If a property owner files an application for an optional subdivision,then within ten days after receipt of the application, the City Clerk Planner shall certify that the subdivision regulations are optional to that particular division. C. Non-Conforming Subdivisions. Any existing subdivision of land which was legally established but is not in conformance with the provisions of this Chapter shall be regarded as non-conforming and may continue in existence only for such period of time and under such conditions as is provided for in Sec. 12.91 of this Chapter. Subd. 4. Application of Rules. A. In their interpretation and application, the provisions of this Chapter shall be held to be the minimum requirements for the promotion of the public health, safety, general welfare, and sound land subdivision. B. Where any provision of this Chapter is either more restrictive or less restrictive than a comparable provision imposed by any other code, ordinance, statute, or regulation of any kind, the more restrictive provision, or the provision which imposes a higher standard or requirement, shall prevail. C. No land shall be divided, combined, subdivided in any manner which that is not in conformity with the provisions of this Chapter unless otherwise provided by this Chapter. D. No person shall install a new street, alley, or other public improvement, except in conformity with this Chapter. 2 E. Words or terms defined in this Chapter shall have the meanings assigned to them unless such meaning is clearly contrary to the intent of this Chapter. The present tense shall include the past and future tenses. Subd.5. Severability. Every section or subdivision of this Chapter is declared separable from every other section or subdivision. If any section or subdivision is held to be invalid by competent authority, such action or decision shall invalidate no other section or subdivision. 3 SEC. 12.02. DEFINITIONS. Definitions in Chapter 11 are adopted by reference. Where inconsistent, definitions in this Chapter shall prevail. The following terms, as used in this Chapter, shall have the following meanings: 1. "Developer" -The property owner or the property owner's designee. 2. "Improvement" -The preparation of land for and the installation of streets, street pavement,utilities, or other public facilities. 3. "Lot" -An area, parcel, or tract of land which was created or is recognized as a lot under this Chapter. 4. "Nonconformity" -Any lot or final plat lawfully existing on the effective date of this Chapter which does not comply with all requirements of this Chapter or any amendments hereto. 5. "Oversizing"—Constructing an improvement in a size larger than needed for a particular development, in order to accommodate needs outside the boundary of the development. 5. "Parcel" - Any piece of land. 6. "Planner" -The Director of Community Development or the Director's designee. 7. "Plat" -The drawing of a subdivision prepared for filing of record pursuant to Minn. Stat. Chapter 505. 8. "Security" -A financial guarantee to assure that improvements are satisfactorily dedicated, constructed, installed, completed, and maintained, at no cost to the City. 9. "Street" - A public right-of-way affording primary access by pedestrians and vehicles to abutting properties. A street may be of any of the following types: A. "Local Street" -A street principally designed to carry motor vehicles from individual lots or parcels to a collector street. B. "Collector Street" - A street principally designed to carry motor vehicles from local streets to another collector street or to an arterial street. C. "Arterial Street" - A street principally designed to carry motor vehicles across, into, or out of the City. 4 t 10. "Subdivision" -The separation of a parcel under single ownership into two or more parcels,the combination of parcels, or the separation of a parcel under single ownership into two or more long-term leasehold interests where the creation of the leasehold interest necessitates the creation of streets or alleys for residential, commercial, industrial, or other use. •<, 5 SEC. 12.15. SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS. Each subdivision shall establish the number, layout, and location of lots, blocks, and parcels to be created, location of streets,utilities, park and drainage facilities, and lands to be dedicated for public use. SEC. 12.20. CLASSIFICATION OF SUBDIVISIONS. Subdivisions are classified as minor or major. A minor subdivision may be used for making small changes in lot lines, and can be approved administratively. A major subdivision is for more complex changes, and requires several steps. Certain subdivisions may be made without following the provisions of this Chapter, as described in Sec. 12.01, Subd. 3.B, but the property owner may elect to follow this Chapter in order to obtain the benefits provided herein. SEC. 12.21. MINOR SUBDIVISIONS. Subd. 1. Definition. The following are minor subdivisions that may be approved administratively: (1) a lot is being divided into a maximum of five lots, (2) a maximum of five lots are being combined into four or fewer lots, or (3) where common boundaries between lots are being relocated. Subd.2. When Prohibited. The Planner may not approve a minor subdivision in the following situations: A. Where the subdivision includes a change in existing streets, alleys,water, sanitary or storm sewer, or other public improvements. B. Where additional right-of-way needs to be dedicated, and the right-of-way has not previously been deeded to the City. C. Where easements need to be changed for the subdivision, and the appropriate changes have not been made through vacation and/or deeding of easements to the City. D. Where new streets, utilities, or other public improvements will be needed other than to directly serve the lots created and to provide a direct connection to an existing and approved system. E. Where the proposed minor subdivision involves any unplatted property. F. Where the proposed minor subdivision involves unusual elements, policy decisions, that the Planner determines require detailed review. 6 Subd.3. Procedure. A minor subdivision shall be approved in compliance with the following procedures: A. The developer shall submit an application along with all required fees. B. The developer shall provide a survey or surveys showing the lot or lots as they exist before the minor subdivision, and the proposed lot or lots. The developer shall provide an accurate legal description of the proposed lot or lots. All lots created or changed must meet the design standards and other requirements specified in Chapter 11, upon approval of the minor subdivision. C. The developer shall submit proof that any additional easements required by the City have been granted, and that any conflicting easements have been vacated. D. The minor subdivision shall meet all requirements specified in Sections 12.60 through 12.71, as applicable. E. When the minor subdivision is approved,the Planner will cause it to be recorded. 7 SEC. 12.26. MAJOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL PROCESS. Approval of a major subdivision requires approval of a preliminary plat,then approval of a final plat. SEC. 12.27. PRE-APPLICATION MEETING. Prior to submitting an application for preliminary plat approval,the developer will meet with the Planner or his/her designee in a pre- application meeting. In this meeting general concerns and the general concept of the proposed subdivision can be discussed. SEC. 12.28. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL PROCESS. Subd. 1. Initial Submittal. Prior to submitting the formal application for preliminary plat review tThe developer shall file five(5)copies of a preliminary plat drawing and related documentation with the Planner. Subd. 2. Review. A. Review for Compliance with Submittal Requirements. The Planner or-his/her /her designee shall review the drawing and documents to ascertain that they meet all submittal requirements specified in Sec. 12.54. If the drawing and documents do not meet all submittal requirements identified in Sec. 12.54,then the developer shall be notified of the items that are missing or inadequate within ten(10)working days. B. Review for Compliance with Design Criteria. Once a drawing and documents are determined to meet all submittal requirements,the Planner or his/her designee shall review the drawing and documents for compliance with the design criteria in Sections 12.60 through 12.71. If the drawing and documents do not comply with the design criteria in Sections 12.60 through 12.71,then the developer shall be notified of the items that do not comply. C. Outside Review. Once a drawing and documents are determined by the Planner or his/her designee to substantially comply with the design criteria the developer shall submit twenty(20) copies of the submittal materials for outside review. The Planner or his/her designee may seek comments on the drawing and documents from appropriate governmental entities and agencies, utilities, and others. D. Determination of Complete Application. Upon receipt of these 20 copies,the drawing and documents shall be considered a complete application for a preliminary plat. The Planner shall forward the application for a preliminary plat to the Planning Commission for consideration. 8 Subd.3. Planning Commission Review. A. Public Hearing. 1. A public hearing shall be scheduled before the Planning Commission on the application for a preliminary plat. Notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be published in the official newspaper at least ten days before the day of the hearing. 2. At the public hearing, all persons interested shall be given an opportunity to maketresentations be heard. B. Planning Commission Recommendation. 1. Decision. At the close of the public hearing,upon discussion and review, the Planning Commission shall recommend approval, approval with conditions, disapproval of the preliminary plat, shall otherwise forward the plat for consideration to the City Council.or may table the matter or continue the public hearing. If disapproval is recommended tThe reasons for disapproval shall be stated. 2. Grounds for Decision. The Planning Commission shall base its recommendation on the purposes and requirements of this Chapter, on comments received from staff, other governmental entities and agencies, utilities, the public, and the developer. In making its recommendation,the Planning Commission shall consider the following factors: a. whether the layout of streets, lots, utilities, and public improvements, and their relation to the topography of the land, reflect good planning and development for the City; b. whether the subdivision preserves the site's important existing natural features; c. whether the proposed plat will facilitate the use and future development of the adjoining lands; d. whether the subdivision can be economically served with streets, public services, and utilities; e. whether all applicable provisions of the City Code are met; and • f. whether the subdivision is in conformance with any official map of 9 the City and the Comprehensive Plan. Subd. 4. City Council Review. When the City Council receives a preliminary plat for consideration with the Planning Commission recommendation,the City Council shall approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the preliminary plat based upon the grounds for decision set forth above and the purposes of this Chapter. The City Council may elect to approve only a portion of a preliminary plat, and disapprove the remainder. The City Council has final authority to approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove a preliminary plat. Subd. 5. Time Limitation. A. Time Limit. The City Council shall approve or disapprove a preliminary plat within 60-1-20-days following delivery of a complete application, unless the City has approved a 60-day extension for good cause shown. An extension beyond 120 days may only be approved if requested or : - ••- . .. . - • agreed to by the developer. B. Failure to Approve within Time Limit. If the City Council fails to approve or disapprove a preliminary plat in accordance with Subd. 5.A. above within the 1 2^ dayperiod,the preliminary plat shall be deemed approved, and upon demand the City shall execute a certificate to that effect. 10 SEC. 12.32. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL PROCESS. Subd. 1. Based on Preliminary Plat. After the approval of, or during review of,the preliminary plat, prior to the expiration of the approval period described in Sec. 12.34,the developer may submit a final plat drawing and related documentation for all or a part of the land covered in the preliminary plat. If the final plat is limited to a portion of the preliminary plat,that portion must conform to all requirements of this Chapter. Subd.2. Initial Submittal.Prior to submitting the formal application for final plat review the developer shall submit five )copies of a final plat drawing and supporting documentation. Subd.3. Review. A. Review for Compliance with Submittal Requirements. The Planner or-his/her designee shall review the drawing and documents to ascertain that they meet all submittal requirements specified in Sec. 12.56, and begin review to determine whether the final plat is in substantial conformity with the preliminary plat and satisfies any conditions specified in the preliminary plat. If the drawing and documents do not contain all submittal requirements identified in Sec. 12.56,then the developer shall be notified in writing of the items that are missing or inadequate within ten(10)working days. B. Review for Compliance with Conditions. Once the drawing and documents are determined to be contain meet all submittal requirements,the Planner shall continue to review the drawing and documents for substantial conformity with the preliminary plat, conformity with this Chapter,and satisfaction of any conditions specified in the preliminary plat. If the Planner determines that the drawing and documents are not in substantial conformity with the preliminary plat or do not satisfy the conditions specified in the preliminary plat,then the developer shall be notified of the items that are not in conformity or conditions that have not been met. The developer may request the Planning Commission to rule on the issue of substantial conformity. Their ruling shall be final. C. Outside Review. Once the drawing and documents are determined to substantially conform with the preliminary plat,this chapter,and to satisfy any conditions specified in the preliminary plat, as determined by the Planner,the developer shall submit a-number-of twenty(20)copies as required by the Planner for outside review. The Planner may seek comments on the drawing and documents from appropriate governmental entities and agencies,utilities, and others. If the drawing and documents are not in substantial conformity with the preliminary plat, do not satisfy the conditions specified in the preliminary plat, or do not comply with state law or regulation,then the developer shall be notified of the items that do not comply. 11 D. Determination of Complete Application. Once the drawing and documents meet all submittal requirements, are in substantial conformity with the preliminary plat, and satisfy all preliminary plat conditions, based on internal and outside review,the developer shall submit 20 copies of the revised drawing and documents. Upon receipt of these 20 copies,the drawing and documents shall be considered a complete application for a final plat. The Planner shall forward the application for a final plat to the City Council for consideration. Subd. 4. City Council Review. The City Council shall review the application for a final plat for compliance with City Code requirements. The City Council may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the final plat. If the City Council determines that the final plat is not in substantial conformity with the preliminary plat,the City Council shall disapprove the plat, or, if the developer agrees to extend the time,the City Council shall return the plat to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. The City Council may elect to approve only a portion of a final plat, and disapprove the remainder. The City Council has final authority to approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove a final plat. Subd. 5. Time Limitation. A. Time Limit. The City Council shall approve or disapprove a final plat within 60 days following receipt of a complete application. The City Council may extend the period an additional sixty(60)days for cause shown. Written notice of the extension must be provided to the applicant. An extension of this time period beyond one hundred and twenty(120)days may be approved if requested by or agreed to by the developer. B. Failure to Approve within Time Limit. If the City Council fails to approve or disapprove a final plat within the 60-day period, and if the developer has complied with all conditions and requirements, the final plat shall be deemed approved, and upon demand the City shall execute a certificate to that effect. Subd. 6. Recording. A. No changes, erasures, modifications, or revisions shall be made in any final plat of a subdivision or any other approved division after approval has been given under the provisions of this Chapter, except as required in the conditions set by the City Council or if authorized by the Planner to correct nonsubstantive errors. B. After approval of a final plat by the City Council,the developer shall submit the following to the Planner: 1. three paper copies of the construction plans; 12 2. a copy of the subdivision plat drawing on disk in an electronic format approved by the City Engineer, or shall pay a drafting fee as specified under the current fee schedule so that the City may secure its own electronic copy; 3. copies of any required permits; 4. evidence of title, as described in Sec. 12.57; 5. the park dedication fee as set forth in Sec. 12.70; 6. security for improvements as required under Sections 12.40 through 12.51; 7. a signed developer's agreement, if required under Sec. 12.57, Subd. 3;and 8. trunk sanitary sewer fee and other applicable fees for public improvements. 9. A reduced mylar of the plat at a scale of 400':1'. C. Five mylar,er(or other prints consistent with county recording standards);copies of the final plat shall be signed by all parties holding an ownership interest in the property being platted,the Mayor,the City Attorney, and the City Clerk. D. The City Clerk shall not sign the final plat until all conditions of approval have been met,the developer's agreement(if required)has been executed, and the City Attorney has approved title. E. If the plat is not recorded within 30 days after approval by the City Council,the City Clerk shall so notify the City Attorney, who may require additional proof of good title. F. Each final plat shall be recorded with the Scott County Recorder/Registrar of Title. G. After the plat has been recorded, an additional reproducible mylar print of the final plat shall be filed with the Planner, along with two paper copies of the final plat. 13 SEC. 12.34. EFFECT OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL APPROVAL. Subd. 1. Approval Period. City Council's approval of a preliminary plat shall remain in effect for a period of two(2)years from the date of approval. City Council's approval of a final plat shall remain in effect for a period of two(2)years from the date of approval. Prior to recording of a plat, the developer may withdraw the plat, in which case City Council's approval of the plat is void. Subd. 2. Extension of Approval. Upon request by the developer,the City Council may extend the approval period for a preliminary or final plat, subject to all applicable performance conditions and requirements. A request for an extension of approval must be filed on or before the expiration date of the preliminary or final plat. If the approval period has expired,the City Council may require a new submittal unless substantial physical activity or investment has occurred in reasonable reliance on the approved plat and the developer will suffer substantial financial damage as a consequence of a requirement to submit a new submittal. Subd.3. Automatic Extension for Preliminary Plats. The approval period for a preliminary plat shall be automatically extended for an additional 12 months each time the City Council approves a final plat for any portion of the land included in the preliminary plat. Subd. 4. Rights During Approval Period. During the approval period set forth in Subd. 1 above, unless the developer and the City Council agree otherwise, no amendment to a comprehensive plan or other ordinance shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout, or dedication or platting required or permitted by the approved plat. 14 SEC. 12.40. DEVELOPER SHALL CONSTRUCT IMPROVEMENTS. Subd. 1. Responsibility. The developer shall construct all improvements required in a plat, except for specified improvements that the City has agreed to construct and assess as provided in Sec. 12.41. Before the final plat is recorded,the developer shall provide for extension of the improvements described in this Chapter to all lots in the areas to be included in the final plat at no cost to the City. Subd. 2. Cost. A. All required improvements shall be constructed by the developer at no cost to the City, except for oversizing expenses. B. The City will pay for oversizing when the oversizing is done at the specific written request of the City. C. When an improvement is oversized the City's share of the cost of construction shall be that portion attributable to the oversizing, and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Subd.3. Standards. The improvements shall be installed in accordance with the construction plans approved by the City Engineer and the provisions of this Chapter. Subd. 4. Final Plat of a Part of the Preliminary Plat Area. If the final plat does not include all land included in the preliminary plat,temporary improvements may be allowed or required by the City Council on land included in the preliminary plat but excluded from the final plat. Temporary improvements may be required in that area if necessary to protect neighboring property,to comply with provisions of the City Code, or to assure the orderly development of the property in the plat. Subd. 5. Temporary Improvements. The developer shall build and pay all costs for temporary improvements required by the City Council and shall maintain all temporary improvements for the period specified by the City Council. Prior to construction of any temporary improvement,the developer shall file with the City satisfactory security which shall insure that the temporary improvements will be properly constructed, maintained, and removed and replaced with permanent improvements if necessary. Subd. 6. Insurance. When performing work in the public right-of-way, the developer shall have insurance sufficient to protect the City from any liability or harm. No construction shall commence until the City Clerk has received and approved a certificate showing such insurance. 15 SEC. 12.41. CITY MAY CONSTRUCT IMPROVEMENTS. Subd. 1. Upon Request. A developer may request the City to construct improvements in a plat and assess the costs of their construction under Minn. Stat. Chapter 429. Subd. 2. Procedures. If the developer wants the City to construct the improvements,the developer shall comply with the following procedures: A. Petition. The developer shall submit a petition to the City Council requesting that the City to construct specified improvements, and waiving all rights to appeal the amount of special assessments which are assessed as a result of the installation of the improvements. B. City Council Action. The City Council shall consider the petition, and may, in its sole discretion, choose to accept or reject the petition. C. Construction of Improvements. If approved by the City Council,the specified improvements shall be constructed in accordance with Minn. Stat. Chapter 429. The City shall have sole responsibility for administration of the project, and will not be responsible for meeting any completion dates scheduled by the developer. The City shall not be responsible for any damages as a result of delays in the project. If the contract for the project is awarded on a unit price basis,the City may authorize changes in the contract so as to include additional units of work at the same unit price, so long as if the cost of the additional work does not exceed 25 percent(25%) of the original contract price. By requesting that the City construct the improvement,the developer acknowledges that any changes or additional work required shall be approved by the City. D. Developer to Pay. The developer agrees to pay the assessments on the following terms and conditions: 1. The developer shall waive and release any and all objections of every kind to assessments levied by the City for the specified improvements, including without limitation; objections to procedures and hearings before the City Council in connection with the Improvements and assessment therefor, objections resulting from failure to fully comply with any applicable statute, and objections to the amount of any assessment levied against any property of the developer that is benefitted : .. - •- . .. -. : by the Improvements. 2. The developer shall waive and release the right to appeal the assessment. 16 • the-assessments:- 3. hot3. The Developer shall pay the annual installments of special assessments and taxes when due. The Developer may not claim green acres status on any benefitted land. E. Early Assessment. The developer may request that the special assessments be levied prior to the final wear course being placed on streets. The final decision as to when special assessments are levied is at the sole discretion of the City Council. The cost of the final wear course may be estimated and included in the early assessment, or it may be levied after the final wear course is placed on the streets. F. All Costs Assessed. The entire cost of the installation of the specified Improvements, including any reasonable engineering, legal, and administrative costs incurred by the City, shall be paid by the developer to the City as special assessments levied against the benefitted land. The developer also shall pay any applicable interest. G. Occupancy Permits. No occupancy permit shall be issued for any lot unless any levied special assessments for that lot have been paid. If special assessments are pending but not levied,then an occupancy permit may be issued for a lot only if the developer has agreed in writing to pay the special assessments when levied. Once the pending assessments are levied, no further occupancy permits will be issued for any lot in the subdivision until all special assessments have been paid on the lots which already have occupancy permits. H. Security for Special Assessments. A developer shall provide security for special assessments under one or more of the methods in this paragraph. 1. Seventy-five Percent Cash Deposit. Prior to the recording of the final plat, the Developer shall pay to the City in cash a deposit in the sum and amount of seventy-five percent(75%)of the City Engineer's estimated total assessment for all such Plan B Improvements, said amount to be paid upon execution of the Developers Agreement. The cash so paid by the Developer to the City will bear interest for each year at a rate equal to one percent(1%) below the average interest rate(rounded to the nearest quarter percent)on the investments held by the City on December 31st of the respective year until said deposit plus all accrued interest shall be used to pay the remainder of the assessments due. Any excess in deposits will be returned to the developer. If the Developer fails to pay any assessments, interest or penalty as the same come due, the City may draw on said deposit for any such amounts not paid. 17 Those assessments as levied shall be paid by the Developer to the City as special assessments levied against the benefited land. 3. Letter of Credit. Prior to the recording of the final plat,the Developer shall submit to the City a certified letter of credit approved by the City Attorney made payable to the City of Shakopee upon which the City may draw, in the amount of 75%of the City Engineer's estimated total assessment for all such Plan B Improvements; said letter of credit to be submitted upon execution of the developer's agreement. If the Developer fails to pay any assessments, interest or penalty as the same come due,the City may draw on said letter of credit for any such amounts not paid. Those assessments as levied shall be paid by the Developer of a future lot, piece or parcel owner to the City as special assessments levied against the benefited land. The letter of credit shall be renewed annually. If not renewed,the City shall draw on all of the money in the existing letter of credit before it expires. The letter of credit shall be terminated upon payment of all assessments due on developer owned lots and may be reduced to equal the actual amount of assessments due when 75%or more of the assessments have been paid. Reductions shall be limited to one per year. L Payment within Ten Years. All special assessments must be paid in full within ten years from the date the special assessments are levied. If the special assessments are not paid,the developer will be personally liable for any unpaid special assessments plus interest, collection costs, and attorneys'fees. J. Easements and Right-of-Way. The developer shall provide the City, at no cost to the City, with all permanent or temporary easements and rights-of-way necessary for the installation of the specified or future improvements. 18 SEC. 12.42. CHANGE IN WHO CONSTRUCTS IMPROVEMENTS. Subd. 1. City to Construct Improvements. The developer may request that the City construct some or all of the improvements originally planned to be constructed by the developer. If the City Council approves,then the specified improvements shall be constructed by the City as set forth in Sec. 12.41. Subd.2. Developer to Construct Improvements. The developer may request that the developer be allowed to construct some or all of the improvements originally planned to be constructed by the City. If the City Council approves,then the specified improvements shall be constructed by the developer as set forth in Sec. 12.40. Security shall be provided as described in this Chapter. SEC. 12.43. DEDICATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. Subd. 1. Improvements. All public improvements shall be dedicated to the City free and clear from any encumbrances. Dedication shall become effective upon written acceptance of the improvement by the City Engineer. Subd.2. Easements. A public easement or right-of-way shall be dedicated around all public improvements, including streets, roads, sewers, electric, gas, and water facilities, storm water drainage and holding areas or ponds, and similar utilities and improvements. 19 SEC. 12.46. TIMING OF IMPROVEMENTS. Subd. 1. Construction Timing. A. After Preliminary Plat Approval. Grading may be done after the City Council has approved a preliminary plat. No other public improvements shall be made or constructed prior to the City Council approval of irrg a final plat. B. Acceptance. Grading done prior to the approval of a final plat are at the developer's risk. The City may refuse to accept any grading or other public improvements if the improvements were not inspected by the City at the time of installation, all engineering and inspection fees were not paid,the improvements were not constructed according to City design criteria, or security for maintenance, as described in Sec. 12.50, Subd. 3, is not provided. Subd.2. Construction Required Before Recording Final Plat. The City Council may require that certain public improvements be installed and dedicated prior to recording the final plat, when necessary for the protection of other property. Subd.3. Construction After Recording Final Plat. If a public improvement is not constructed, installed, and dedicated prior to recording the final plat, then security shall be provided to the City to assure the satisfactory completion of the improvement at no cost to the City. SEC. 12.47. SECURITY OPTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTED BY THE DEVELOPER Subd. 1. Options for Different Types of Security. The security for improvements shall be in a form acceptable to the City. The City has approved several options, and the developer may choose which option or combination of options to utilize. The options are as follows: A. cash, B. letter of credit, C. bond, D. escrow agreement, and E. other security agreement. A letter of credit, bond, escrow agreement, or other security agreement shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney. 20 Subd. 2. Amount of the Security. A. Improvements. Security shall be provided in an amount sufficient to satisfactorily complete the construction, installation, and dedication of all public improvements and erosion control measures, including all improvements required outside the final plat. B. Inspection and Administration. The security shall include an amount sufficient to cover 100%of the estimated costs of City inspection and administration as set forth in the City's fee schedule. C. Total. The amount of the security shall equal 125%of the estimated total cost of the improvements plus 100%of the estimated costs of City inspection and administration. D. Estimate Made. The estimate of total cost shall be submitted by the developer and approved by the City Engineer. Subd.3. Timing. The security shall be provided to the City and approved prior to recording the final plat. Subd.4. Deferral. The City Council may defer or waive, subject to appropriate conditions,the construction of any improvement which, in the City Council's judgment, is not in the best interests of the public health, safety, and general welfare, or which is inappropriate due to inadequacy or lack of connecting improvements. Security will not be deferred. The developer shall provide security to insure that,upon demand by the City, any deferred improvement shall be constructed. Subd.5. Improvements Excluded from the Security. If the developer has entered into an agreement with the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission for construction of an improvement, and has made satisfactory security arrangements with Shakopee Public Utilities for the improvement, then no security for the improvement shall be required by the City. Subd. 6. Exchange of Security. At any time during the period of the security,the City Attorney may accept a substitution of principal or sureties on the bond, or a substitution of a letter of credit, escrow, or other approved security agreement. SEC. 12.48. DETAILS REGARDING SECURITY OPTIONS. Subd. 1. Letter of Credit. A letter of credit shall be payable to the City of Shakopee. Subd.2. Bond. A bond shall be a performance bond with one or more corporate sureties engaged in the business of signing surety bonds in the State of Minnesota. The bond shall include a provision that the principal of the bond shall comply with all the terms of the resolution of final plat 21 approval relating to construction of required improvements. Subd.3. Escrow Agreement. The escrow holder shall be a responsible independent third party, acceptable to all parties. SEC. 12.49. SECURITY PERIOD. Subd. 1. Period. Security shall be for an initial period estimated by the developer and approved by the City Engineer, and shall be at least 30 days longer than the time necessary for completion of all improvements. The developer shall extend or renew the security as necessary to provide security until all improvements have been completed and accepted by the City Engineer.are-complete. Subd.2. Extension or Renewal of Security. Security shall be automatically renewable. An Subd.3. Completion Within Ten Years. Unless otherwise limited in the developers agreement all improvements must be completed within ten years from the date of the final plat approval, or receive City Council permission for extension or renewal of the security. Vis-meeting In determining whether to allow extension or renewal the City Council shall consider whether there is a need for the improvement. If the Council determines that there is no need,then the security shall be released. If the Council determines that there is a need,then the Council shall determine whether the improvement should be ordered constructed either at the developer's or the City's expense, and whether the security should be extended or renewed for an additional period of time. SEC. 12.50. REDUCTION IN SECURITY. Subd. 1. When May Be Reduced. A. In General. Security may be reduced upon request by the developer after acceptance of an improvement by the City Engineer. The improvement shall be a complete system, such as all of a particular utility or a block of street paving, and shall have separable costs of at least 20 percent of the total amount of the security. In no event shall the security be reduced below 25%of the original amount of security(plus 100% of the estimated cost of any unpaid inspection and administration costs), nor below 125%of the amount which the City Engineer deems necessary to complete all remaining improvements. B. Streets. When all improvements have been accepted by the City Engineer except for the final wear course on a street, then upon request by the developer the City Engineer may reduce security to 200%of the cost to install the final wear course. Prior to reducing the security the developer must provide the City with security for maintenance of all improvements other than the street, as set forth in Subd. 3 below. 22 Subd.2. When May Be Released. Security may be released in the following circumstances and when the developer complies with Subd. 3 below: A. security may be released for any improvement which the City Council has agreed to construct under Chapter 429; B. security may be released for any improvement for which the developer has provided cash as payment in full for the developer's share of the cost of the improvement, at 125%plus engineering and administrative costs,which improvement cannot be timely constructed by the developer, or which improvement the City Council determines is not appropriate for immediate development due to incompatible grades, future planning, inadequate or lack of connecting facilities, or other reasons. If the amount of security estimated for completion of the improvement exceeds the actual costs, the City shall return any excess to the developer,without interest, upon completion of the improvement; C. security may be released when the City Engineer determines that all required improvements have been satisfactorily completed in accordance with the approved construction plans, and that the developer has given the City Engineer a detailed"as- " record drawing survey of the plat showing details as required by the design requirements and in compliance with Subd. 3 of this Section. Subd.3. Security for Maintenance. Security shall not be released for any improvement until the developer has submitted security assuring the satisfactory condition of the improvement for a period of one year after acceptance by the City. If the improvements were constructed without security, security for maintenance still is required. This security may be any security listed as an option in Sec. 12.47, except that a maintenance bond shall be provided in place of a performance bond. The amount of the security shall be 60 percent of the total cost of the improvements. SEC. 12.51. WHEN SECURITY MAY BE DRAWN UPON. The City may draw upon the security whenever it appears that the developer will not comply with the conditions of the final plat, pay the administrative and inspection fee, or comply with the requirements of this Chapter, including completion of all improvements prior to expiration of the security. The City shall make reasonable efforts to notify the developer prior to making any draw. 23 SEC. 12.54. SUBMITTAL REQUJREMVIENTS FOR PRELLVIINARY PLATS. Subd. 1. Documents Re uired. The preliminaryplat shall include the entire land area owned or controlled by the developer, upnless the excluded land is of a size described as an o do subdivision under Sec. 12.01, Subd. 3.B. A developer shall submit the followingnal Planner: documents to the A. A completed application form; B. A general narrative description of the project -: . • . _ . C. Fees as specified in the adon_ try fee schedule; ' D. A description of any requested variances; E. A wetland delineation report when applicable; F. When applicable to the land being subdivided, the developer shall submit th following documentation: e 1. Evidence that a county highway permit will be granted, if the site will have access to a county road; 2. A landscape plan meeting the landscaping and tree preservation requirements of City Code Sec. 11 .61, -. . - •- • •. -- - 3. In rural service areas soil percolation tests, soil borings and sewage treatment design for two sites per proposed lot, conforming to the testing procedures of the Shakopee sewage disposal and treatment code; and develep , . . . .. - - .. e�-a�d G. All required drawings as specified in Subd 2 ubd. 2. Drawin s Re uired. In submitting a preliminary plat for consideration th shall submit the following drawings which are described in detail below: the developer A. 20 copies of a drawing of thepL ina plat; B. 20 copies of an existing conditions map; 24 within 100 feet of the parcel proposed for subdivision; D. The property lines and the property identification numbers(PIDs) of all parcels of land within 100 feet of the parcel proposed for subdvision; E. the name and address of the developer; F. the name and address of any design professional involved in the preparation of the plat, including the engineer, land surveyor, architect, planner, etc.; G. a block of zoning information including the following: 1. the current zoning of the land; 2. the total number of buildable lots; 3. the total number of outlots; 4. the total acreage included in the preliminary plat, in tenths of an acre; 5. the total acreage of street right-of-way, in tenths of an acre; 6. the total acreage of areas intended to be dedicated for public use, other than streets, alleys, pedestrian ways, and utility easements; 7. the total acreage of outlots; 8. the minimum lot depth in the subdivision; 9. the minimum lot depth under the zoning ordinance; and 10. the minimum lot width in the subdivision at the building setback; H. proposed lot and block numbers; I. the exterior dimensions of each lot; J. the area of each lot in square feet; K. the location and dimensions of any existing or proposed streets; L. the proposed street names; M. the location and dimensions of any existing or proposed easements, and the type of 26 easement; N. the location and dimensions of any existing or proposed sidewalks or trails; 0. the location of any existing structures which are intended to remain after final plat recording; and P. building setback lines. Subd. 5. Existing Conditions Man Drawing. In addition to the items listed in Subd. 3 above, an existing conditions map drawing shall contain the following items: A. the location and dimensions of any previously platted streets; B. the location and dimensions of driveways or other curb cuts; C. a location map of the subject property at a minimum scale of one-inch equals 2000 feet; D. the property lines and PID numbers of all parcels of land within 100 feet of the parcel proposed for subdivision; E. any existing infrastructure, such as sanitary sewer, storm sewer,watermains, culverts, or other underground facilities; F. the location and dimensions of any wetlands; G. the location and dimensions of any existing easements and right-of-way; H. contours of the land at two-foot intervals; L the location and size of all trees which are over six inches in diameter, measured at six feet off the ground,with all such trees proposed for removal clearly identified. Trees in a delineated woodland area, which will not be disturbed, need not be individually identified; J. the location and perimeter of all floodplains; K. the location and perimeter of all shoreland areas; L. the location of any existing wells; M. the location and dimensions of any known contaminated soils areas; 27 N. the location of any existing septic systems; 0. the location and dimensions of any existing foundations or retaining walls; P. the location and dimensions of any known fill areas; Q. the location and ordinary high water mark of any lake, stream, or other watercourse; and R. the location of any power transmission poles and towers. Subd. 6. Grading and Erosion Control Plan. In addition to the items listed in Subd. 3 above, a grading and erosion control plan drawing shall contain the following items: A. existing contours at two-foot intervals up to 100 feet off-site, shown by light dashed lines; B. proposed contours at two-foot intervals up to 100 feet off-site, shown by solid lines; C. spot and finished elevations at all property corners; D. proposed floor elevations; E. existing floor elevations for all structures; F. the lowest final grade elevation for all lots adjacent to stormwater facilities; G. street grade changes and percentage of grade; H. Ordinary high ner-mal water(OHW)level of all ponding facilities,wetlands, lakes, streams, and rivers, all of which also shall be identified and labeled; L bench mark listing location and elevation; J. grading and erosion control information, including the following: 1. maximum driveway grade; 2. maximum ditch grade; 3. minimum ditch grade; 4. maximum slope grade; 28 5. maximum street grade; 6. minimum street grade; and 7. maximum street grade within 50 feet of a street intersection; K. delineation of wetlands on the site; L. erosion control features including detail drawings as required in the erosion control plan, and lot benching details; M. an erosion control statement as required by the design criteria; N. name, registration number, and signature of the professional engineer or surveyor; and 0. storm sewer schematic to 100 feet off-site, showing both proposed and existing. Subd. 7. Street and Utilities Plan Drawing. In addition to the items listed in Subd. 3 above, a street and utilities plan drawing shall contain the following items: A. a sanitary sewer schematic to 100 feet off-site, showing both proposed and existing, including the following: 1. rim and invert elevations; and 2. pipe size, grade, and material. 3. manhole size and type. B. sanitary sewer information, including the following: 1. maximum length between manholes; and 2. minimum depth of manhole as measured from the top of the rim elevation to the sewer invert elevation; C. storm sewer schematic to 100 feet off-site, showing both proposed and existing, including the following: 1. rim and invert elevations of structures and catch basins; and 2. pipe size and material; 29 D. storm sewer information, including the following: 1. maximum length between manholes; 2. minimum depth of manhole as measured from the top of the rim elevation to the sewer invert elevation; 3. normal and high water elevations for any pond, shown on the plan view; E. typical roadway sections; F. drainage and utility easements; G. name, registration number, and signature of the professional engineer; H. sanitary sewer profiles; L storm sewer profiles; and J. street layout including curb lines. Subd. 8. Stormwater Management Plan Drawing. In addition to the items listed in Subd. 3 above, a stormwater management plan drawing shall contain the following items: A. drainage area map, showing the following: 1. a delineation of existing and proposed drainage sub-areas, including any larger tract or basin of which the subject is a part; 2. all proposed ponding areas, with the normal and high water elevations; and 3. off-site drainage volumes and rates for each subarea; B. drainage calculations, including the following: 1. total stormwater runoff from the site and entering the site; 2. gross area of the subdivision; 3. National Urban Runoff Program or Water Quality pond volume and sediment storage volume; and 4. pond sizing computations; 30 C. existing contours at two-foot intervals up to 100 feet off-site, shown by light dashed lines; D. proposed contours at two-foot intervals up to 100 feet off-site, shown by solid lines; E. normal and high water levels of all ponding facilities,wetlands, lakes, streams, and rivers, all of which also shall be identified and labeled; F. bench mark listing location and elevation; G. delineation of wetlands on the site; H. name, registration number, and signature of the professional engineer; L directional arrows showing lot and site drainage patterns; J. a narrative and summary of the stormwater calculations; K. emergency overflow routes and elevations from all ponding areas and wetlands for a 100-year storm; L. total pond volume required and available for each pond; M. National Urban Runoff Program or Water Quality pond volume required and available for each pond; N. storm sewer schematic to 100 feet off-site, showing both proposed and existing storm sewers;and 0. a delineation of the floodway, flood fringe, and floodplain. 31 SEC. 12.56. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR FINAL PLATS. Subd. 1. Documents Required. A developer shall submit the following documents to the Planner: A. a completed application form; B. a fee as specified in the fee schedule; and C. all required drawings and additional documentation specified below. Subd.2. Drawings Required. In submitting a final plat for consideration,the developer shall submit the following drawings which are described in detail below: A. 20 copies of a drawing of the final plat; B. 20 copies of a drawing of the area plat; C. 20 paper copies and one autocad copy of construction plans for all public improvements; D. when applicable to the land being subdivided,the developer shall submit the following documentation: 1. construction plans for all public improvements, including but not limited to the following: a. streets, sewer mains, storm drainage facilities, sidewalks,trails, street lights, and other public improvements governed by City design criteria; and b. watermains and other public improvements governed by Shakopee Public Utilities design criteria; 2. any required permits or approvals, including but not limited to the following: a. Minnesota Department of Transportation permit to work in the right- of-way; b. Scott County permit to work in the right-of-way; c. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency national pollutant discharge elimination system permit; 32 d. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency sanitary sewer extension permit; and e. City street cut permit for utility installation; and 3. a petition for improvements intended to be constructed by the City and specially assessed under Minn. Stat. Chapter 429, if desired by the developer. E. Copies of other documentation as deemed appropriate or necessary by the Planner. Subd.3. All Drawings. Each drawing submitted by the developer must be on paper which is 11- inches by 17-inches or 22-inches by 34-inches, unless otherwise approved in advance by the City Engineer. Each drawing shall contain the following items: A. a north arrow; B. a graphic scale with a minimum scale of one inch equals one hundred feet for parcels under 20 acres. For parcels larger than 20 acres,the Planner may authorize a smaller scale, provided that the plat must be easily interpreted at that scale. A scale of one inch equals 50 feet is preferred; C. proposed lot lines; and D. existing and proposed street rights-of-way. Subd. 4. Final Plat Drawing. In addition to the items listed in Subd. 3 above, a final plat drawing shall be submitted on autocad and shall contain the following items: A. a title block containing the name of the subdivision, "Shakopee, Minnesota", and "Final Plat"; B. the legal description of the entire parcel proposed for final platting; C. the boundary of the subdivision to scale, showing angles, bearings, distances, and either showing permanent monuments or a statement that all monuments will be set within one year after recording; D. a sworn certification by a registered land surveyor,that the plat is a correct representation of a survey made by that surveyor,that all distances are correctly 33 shown,that all monuments have been or will be correctly placed in the ground as shown or stated, and that the outside boundary lines are correctly designated on the plat; E. the name and adjacent boundary lines of any adjoining platted lands; F. lot and block numbers; G. the exterior dimensions of each lot; H. the location and dimensions of any existing or proposed streets, alleys,trails, and other public areas; L the proposed street names; J. the location and dimensions of any existing or proposed permanent easements, and the type of easement; K. a notarized statement by the property owner and any mortgage holder dedicating all streets, alleys,trails, easements, and other public areas as follows: "Streets, alleys, trails, easements, and other public areas shown on this plat are hereby dedicated to the public."; L. space for certificates of approval to be filled in by the signatures of the Mayor, City Attorney, and City Clerk, in the following form: Approved by the City of Shakopee,Minnesota,this day of 19 Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk I certify that I have examined evidence of title for this plat and recommend this plat for approval. City Attorney Subd. 5. Area Plat Drawing. In addition to the items listed in Subd. 3 above, an area plat drawing shall contain the following items: A. the name and address of the developer; 34 B. the name and address of any design profession involved in the preparation of the plat, including the engineer, land surveyor, architect, planner, etc.; C. the date of the original drawing and all revisions; D. a block of zoning information including the following: 1. the current zoning of the land; 2. the total number of buildable lots; 3. the total number of outlots; 4. the total acreage included in the final plat, in tenths of an acre; 5. the total acreage of street right-of-way, in tenths of an acre; 6. the total acreage of areas intended to be dedicated for public use, other than streets, alleys, pedestrian ways, and utility easements; 7. the total acreage of outlots; 8. the minimum lot depth in the subdivision; 9. the minimum lot depth under the zoning ordinance; and 10. the minimum lot width in the subdivision at the front building setback; E. the area of each lot in square feet; F. the property lines and PID numbers of all parcels of land within 100 feet of the parcel proposed for subdivision; G. the location and dimensions of any existing or proposed temporary easements, and the type of easement; H. the location and dimensions of any existing or proposed sidewalks or trails not otherwise shown in an easement; I. the location of any existing structures which are intended to remain after final plat recording; and 35 J. building setback lines. Subd. 6. Common Interest Community Subdivisions. In addition to the items listed above, in Common Interest Community subdivisions the developer shall provide the following: 1. evidence that perpetual access is provided to each unit; 2. evidence that a perpetual easement or other access is provided for utilities to each unit; 3. evidence that a perpetual easement or other egress is provided for storm water drainage from each unit;and 4. evidence that perpetual maintenance of common areas is provided for. SEC. 12.57. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS BEFORE FILING FINAL PLAT. Subd. 1. Evidence of Title. The developer shall submit to the City Attorney evidence of title to the property. This is required in order to allow the City Attorney to determine whether the City is acquiring clear title to any property being dedicated, such as streets, parks, and easements. Evidence of title can be either an Abstract of Title continued to date, or a Registered Property Abstract. In lieu of providing either of these,the developer may provide the City with an acceptable title insurance issued to and addressed to the City which insures the title and the City's proposed interest in the property. Subd.2. Reformation of Mortgages. If there is an existing mortgage on the property being subdivided,the developer must submit evidence that the legal description on any mortgages have been reformed to match lots and blocks of the plat. Subd.3. Developer's Agreement. If security needs to be provided for any improvements under Sections 12.40 through 12.51,the developer shall enter into a developer's agreement with the City prior to filing the final plat. The developer's agreement shall identify who is constructing each improvement, and identify the security being provided for construction and maintenance. Conditions imposed by the City Council in their approval of the final plat may be included in the developer's agreement, along with any other appropriate provisions. 36 SEC. 12.60. DESIGN CRITERIA. Subd. 1. Purpose. Each subdivision of land needs to blend with and complement surrounding divisions of land. In order to accomplish this, the City has established certain design criteria to which all divisions of land must conform. Subd.2. City Design criteria. The City Engineer has prepared and adopted design criteria and specifications for construction and installation of public improvements. All public improvements be designed, constructed, and installed according to and conform to the City design criteria. SEC. 12.61. GRADING. All grading for a subdivision shall be done in accordance with the City design criteria. SEC. 12.62. EROSION CONTROL. Subd. 1. Required. Erosion control shall be provided for all land in a subdivision during construction. Subd.2. Design criteria. All erosion control measures shall be designed, constructed, installed, and removed in accordance with the City design criteria. SEC. 12.63. STORM SEWER Subd. 1. Required. Storm sewer or surface water drainage facilities shall be provided for all land in a subdivision. Subd. 2. Design criteria. All storm sewers shall be designed, constructed, and installed in accordance with the City design criteria. Subd.3. Trunk Fees. The developer shall pay to the City trunk storm sewer fees as established by the City Council. SEC. 12.64. SANITARY SEWER. Subd. 1. Required. Sanitary sewer facilities shall be provided for all developable lots in a subdivision. Private sewer systems or septic systems shall be allowed only outside the Metropolitan Urban Service Area. Subd. 2. Design criteria. All sanitary sewers shall be designed, constructed, and installed in accordance with the City design criteria. Subd.3. Trunk Fees. The developer shall pay to the City trunk sanitary sewer fees as established by the City Council. 37 SEC. 12.65. UTILITIES. Subd. 1. Required. Public water, electric, and gas shall be provided for all developable lots in a subdivision. Provision for other utilities, such as telephone and cable television, shall be included in the design of the subdivision, but are not required to be installed. Subd. 2. Design criteria. All utilities shall be designed, constructed, and installed in accordance with any applicable City design criteria. SEC. 12.66. STREET LIGHTS. Subd. 1. Required. Street lights shall be provided in a subdivision as required in the City design criteria. Subd.2. Design criteria. All street lights shall be designed, constructed, and installed in accordance with any applicable City design criteria. Installation of Street Lighting.The subdivider shall provide for installation of street lighting and operation for a period of three(3)years as prescribed by the Utilities Manager. SEC. 12.67. STREETS AND ALLEYS. Subd. 1. Required. All lots shall abut either a public street or common property specified for street or driveway use in a common interest community subdivision. Subd.2. Design criteria. All streets and alleys shall be designed,constructed, and installed in accordance with the City design criteria. Right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City at no cost to the City at the width specified in the design criteria. SEC. 12.68. SIDEWALKS AND TRAILS. Subd. 1. Required. Sidewalks and trails shall be provided where specified in the City's sidewalk and trail plans. Subd.2. Design criteria. All sidewalks shall be designed, constructed, and installed in accordance with the City design criteria. SEC. 12.69. LOTS AND BLOCKS. Subd. 1. Lots. All lots shall be of at least the minimum size specified in the City's zoning ordinance. Subd.2. Monuments.Permanent monuments shall be placed at the corner of each lot as required by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 505. 38 Subd.3. Blocks.Blocks shall be of a size to facilitate neighborhood development and to provide smooth traffic circulation. Block shapes and dimensions shall be set in accordance with the City design criteria. SEC. 12.70. PARKS AND DEDICATIONS. Subd. 3. Purpose. The City Council recognizes it is essential to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Shakopee that the character and quality of the environment be considered to be of major importance in the planning and development of the City. In this regard,the manner in which land is developed and used is of high priority. The presentation of land for park, playground, public open space purposes and trails as it relates to the use and development of land for residential, commercial and industrial purposes is essential to the maintaining of a healthful and desirable environment for all residents of the City. We must not only provide these amenities for our citizens today, we must be mindful of our future citizens. The City Council should recognize that demand for park, playground, public open space and trails within a municipality is directly related to density and intensity of development permitted and allowed within any given area. Urban type developments mean greater numbers of people and higher demands for park, playground, public open space and trails. To disregard this principle is to inevitably over-tax existing facilities and thus diminish the quality of the environment for all residents. Subd. 2. Standards for Accepting Dedication of Land for Public Purposes: It should be the policy of the City of Shakopee that the following standards and guidelines for the dedication of land for park, playground, and open space purposes(or cash contribution in lieu of such dedications) in he subdividing and developing of land within the City shall be directly related to density and intensity of each subdivision and development. 1. As a prerequisite to subdivision approval, subdividers shall dedicate land for parks, playgrounds, public open spaces and trails and/or shall make a cash contribution to the City's park fund and trail fund as provided by this section. 2. Land to be dedicated shall be reasonably suitable for its intended use and shall be at a location convenient to the people to be served. Factors used in evaluating the adequacy of the proposed park and recreation areas shall include size, shape, topography, geology, hydrology, tree cover, access and location. 3. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board shall recommend to the Planning 39 Commission and City Council the land dedication and cash contribution requirements for proposed subdivisions. 4. Changes to the density of plats shall be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board for reconsideration of park dedication and cash contribution requirements. 5. When a proposed park, playground, recreational area, school site or other public ground has been indicated in the City's official map or Comprehensive Plan and is located in whole or in part within a proposed plat, it shall be designated as such on the plat and shall be dedicated to the appropriate governmental unit. If the subdivider elects not to dedicate an area in excess of the land required hereunder for such proposed site,the City may consider acquiring the site through purchase or condemnation. 6. Land are conveyed or dedicated to the City shall not be used in calculating density requirements of the City zoning ordinance, and shall be in addition to and not in lieu of open space requirements for planned unit developments. 7. When private open space for park and recreation purposes is provided in a proposed subdivision, such areas may be used for credit, at the discretion of the City Council, against the requirements of dedication for park purposes, provided the City Council finds it is in the public interest to do so. 8. The City, upon consideration of the particular type of development, may require larger or lesser parcels of land to be dedicated if the City determines that present or future residents would require greater or lesser land for park and playground purposes. 9. In residential plats, the City of Shakopee shall have a standard of one(1) acre of park land for every seventy-five(75) people. Thus, one acre of land shall be conveyed to the City as an outlot warranty for every seventy-five(75) people the platted land could house based on the following population calculations: Single-family detached dwelling lots...3.0 persons per lot Duplex/Twin homes 3.0 persons per dwelling unit Apartments, Townhouses, condominiums, other multiple family dwelling units....1 person per bedroom 10. In plats other than residential, the City hereby finds that, as a general rule, it requires that an amount of land equal to 10% of the undeveloped land proposed to be subdivided be dedicated or reserved to the public for public use for parks, playgrounds, trails, wetlands or open space. Should the land to be dedicated have greater fair market value than the average fair market value in the plat, the City shall only be authorized to require dedication of an amount of land equal to 10% of the fair market value of all the property being platted. 11. In lieu of park land donation, the City may require an equivalent cash donation based upon average undeveloped land value in the City. The cash dedication requirement shall be established annually by the City Council. 12. In lieu of trail donation, trail construction, or trail easement dedication, the city may 40 require a cash donation for the trail system. The cash dedication requirement shall be established annually by the City Council. Dedication for trails in the form of cash shall apply only to residential plats. 13. The City may elect to receive a combination of cash, land and development land for park use. The fair market value of land the City wants and the value of the development of land shall be calculated. That amount shall be subtracted from the cash contribution required by subsection (k) above. The remainder shall be the cash contribution requirement. 14. Fair market value shall be determined as of the time of filing the final plat in accordance with the following order of preference: (1) the price the subject land sold for within the past year, (2) based on the average fair market value of undeveloped city residential property by zoning classification, served by major City utilities. (3) an appraisal performed for or on behalf of the City within the past year, (4) an appraisal performed for or on behalf of the subdivider within the past year. The fair market value determination shall exclude any value added to such land within the past year for improvements serving such land. 15. Planned unit developments with mixed land uses shall make cash and/or land contributions in accordance with this section based upon the percentage of land devoted to the various uses. 16. Park and trail cash contributions are to be calculated at the time of the final plat approval. 17. The cash contributions for parks and trails shall be deposited in either the City's park development fund or multi-purpose pedestrian fund and shall be used only for park acquisition or development and trial acquisition and development. 18. If a subdivider is unwilling or unable to make a commitment to the City as to the type of building that will be constructed on lots in the proposed plat, the land and cash contribution will be a reasonable amount determined by the City Council. 19. Wetland, ponding areas , drainageways accepted by the City shall not be considered in the park land and/or cash contribution to the City. 20. When a proposed trail has been indicated in the City's official Comprehensive Plan Map, and it is located in whole or in part within the proposed plat, it should be designated on the plat and should be dedicated to the City. If the subdivider elects not to dedicate and area in excess of the land required for a trail, the City may consider acquiring it through condemnation. 21. Required land dedication and/or payment of fees in lieu of land dedication shall be required at the time of final subdivision approval. However, at the request of any party submitting a plat, the Council may, at it's exclusive discretion, determine the • . . . . . . . .. , . •: • . enter into a contractual agreement with said developer to 41 allow said payment to be deferred until a building permit or permits are issued for the lots in said plat. Any such deferment shall be in accordance with the park dedication fees in effect at the time of fin-al-plat-approval of issuance of the building permit(s). SEC. 12.71. LANDSCAPING. Subd. 1. Required. Landscaping shall be provided for all land in a subdivision. Subd. 2. Design criteria. Landscaping shall be designed and installed in accordance with the zoning ordinance and City design criteria. SECTIONS 12.72- 12.74. Reserved. SEC. 12.75. FEES. The developer shall pay the City an administrative and inspection fee consistent with the fee established annually by the City.based on %of the estimated cost of the improvements. All engineering and inspection fees are due prior to inspection, if the final plat for the property has not been recorded. If the final plat is to be has-been recorded,then one-half of the fees are due prior to recording the final plat, and the other one-half may be included in the security and must be paid prior to the time of acceptance of the final improvements. Fees shall be based upon the most recent fees as established yearly by Council for the City of Shakopee. 42 SEC. 12.80. ADMINISTRATION. Subd. 1. Enforcing Officer. This Chapter shall be administered and enforced by the Planner or his/her designee in accordance with its terms. Subd. 2. Duties of the Planner.The Planner's duties shall include the following: A. administer all applications under this Chapter; B. serve as staff advisor to the Planning Commission and the City Council; C. prepare reports and information for the Planning Commission and the City Council, and attend their meetings and participate in their hearings and discussions; D. maintain records of all preliminary plats, final plats, minor subdivisions, variances, appeals, and other matters regulated by this Chapter; E. determine that all building permits comply with the terms of this Chapter; F. institute appropriate enforcement proceedings and actions against violators; and G. perform such other functions as may be necessary to enforce and administer this Chapter. Subd.3. Notice.Failure to give notice or to give adequate notice of proceedings under this Chapter,when such is required by this Chapter shall not invalidate any proceeding, provided that a good faith attempt has been made to comply with the notice requirement. Subd. 4. Fees.The fees required by this Chapter shall be those specified in the most recent Fee Schedule adopted by the City Council. Fees are payable at the time a drawing and documents are submitted to initiate a preliminary or final plat, or upon submission of an application for any other procedure governed by this Chapter. No application shall be deemed to be complete until the fee has been paid. The fee may be waived by the City Council in the case of applications filed in the public interest by the Planning Commission or City Council. 43 SEC. 12.83. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AMENDMENTS. Subd. 1. Initiation. An amendment to the subdivision regulations may be initiated only by the City Council or by the Planning Commission. All amendments shall be consistent with the purposes of this Chapter. Subd.2. Criteria for Granting a Subdivision Regulations Amendment.The City Council may approve an amendment to the subdivision regulations amendment when it finds that one or more of the follow criteria have been met: A. that the original subdivision regulations ordinance is in error; B. that significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place; C. that significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred; or D. that the comprehensive plan requires a different provision. Subd. 4. Planning Commission Recommendation.The Planning Commission shall review each proposed amendment to the subdivision regulations, and submit its recommendation to the City Council. Subd. 5. City Council Action. After receipt of the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the City Council shall consider and act on the amendment. Subd. 6. Reapplication.No amendment which is denied wholly or in part by the City Council shall be resubmitted for a period of six(6)months from the date of denial, except on grounds of new evidence or change of conditions. Each reapplication shall be considered a new application. 44 SEC. 12.89. VARIANCES. Subd. 1. Unusual Hardship. The City Council may vary the subdivision regulations as they apply to specific properties where an unusual hardship exists on the land or where the City Council has previously granted variations from this Chapter as a part of a separate Planned Unit Development (PUD) application and review. Prior to Council action,the Planning Commission shall have reviewed the application and approved, approved with conditions,or denied the application. Failure of the Planning Commission to make a decision, after a written request to do so at a specifically designated meeting, shall constitute a denial. Subd. 2. Specific Grounds for Granting Variances. Variances may be granted only when the City Council finds that extraordinary hardships or practical difficulties may result from strict compliance with the subdivision regulations, or that the purposes of the subdivision regulations may be served to a greater extent by an alternative proposal. The City Council must find that the variances meets all of the specific grounds set forth below. A. the variance will not have the effect of nullifying the intent and purpose of the subdivision regulations; B. the purposes and intent of this Chapter may be equally served by the alternative proposal; C. the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public safety, health, or welfare, or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located; D. the conditions upon which the request for a variance are based are unique to the property for which the variance is sought, and are not generally applicable to other property in the City; E. the conditions upon which the request for a variance are based do not result from the actions of the developer; F. due to the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific property involved, such as inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems, an unusual hardship to the property owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the provisions of this Chapter is carried out; and G. the variance will not in any manner vary the provisions of the zoning ordinance, comprehensive plan, or any official map. Subd. 4. Application. An application for a variance shall be filed with the Planner or his/her 45 designee on the appropriate forms stating the unusual hardship claimed and the specific relief requested. Subd.5. Submission with Preliminary Plat.Request(s)for a variance under this Chapter shall be submitted with the application for Preliminary Plat approval. A. An application submitted independent of a preliminary plat must meet all submittal requirements for a preliminary plat, except those waived by the Planner as unnecessary due to the specific nature of the variance requested. Subd. 7. Decision.Upon recommendation by the Planning Commission,the City Council may grant or deny a variance. Variances may be approved by the affirmative vote of a simple majority of those present. If the City Council denies a variance, it shall make a finding and determination that the conditions required for approval do not exist. No application for a variance which has been denied wholly or in part shall be resubmitted for a period of six(6)months from the date of denial, except on grounds of new evidence or proof of change of conditions. Subd. 8. Additional Conditions.In granting a variance,the City Council may impose conditions in order to preserve the health, safety or welfare of the community or in order to meet the purposes of this Chapter or the comprehensive plan. Subd. 9. Recording. Each variance shall be enumerated in, and thereby recorded with the final plat resolution in the Scott County Recorder's office. Subd. 10. Term of Variance. A variance granted by the City Council shall expire if the preliminary or final plat to which it relates expires. Subd. 11. Violations. No developer shall violate,fail to comply with, or assist, direct, or permit the violation of the terms or conditions of a variance. Such violation shall be a violation of the variance and shall render the variance null and void. 46 SEC. 12.90. APPEALS. Subd. 1. Appeals from City Staff Decisions. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Planner, the Planner's designee, or other City staff person regarding the enforcement of this Chapter, may appeal to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. The appeal shall specify what error allegedly was made in an order, requirement, decision, or determination made by the Planner or other person. The appeal shall be filed in writing with the Planner within seven days of the date of decision. Upon receipt of an appeal,the Planner shall schedule the matter for consideration by the Board. The Board shall have authority to affirm, modify, or reverse the decision of the Planner or other person. This provision shall not apply in the case of a criminal prosecution for violation of this Chapter. Subd.2. Construction During Appeal Period. Any developer who obtains a building permit and starts construction during an appeal period assumes the risk that the decision may be reversed upon appeal. When an appeal is received by the City,the developer will be notified of the appeal, unless the developer filed the appeal. 47 SEC. 12.91. NONCONFORMITIES. Subd. 1. Purpose. When a lot or final plat existed on the effective date of this ordinance and no longer fully meets the regulations of this Chapter, such lot or plat will be allowed to develop under carefully regulated conditions. Subd.2. Development of Nonconforming Lot or Plat. Development of a nonconforming lot or plat may be permitted upon a finding by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals of the following: A. the number and extent of nonconformities will not be affected or will be reduced in conjunction with the proposed development; B. the impact of nonconformities upon adjacent property will not be affected or will be reduced in conjunction with the proposed development; and C. the conditions to be imposed by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals will effect the intent of this section. Subd.3. Nonconformity; Eminent Domain.When the taking under eminent domain of a portion of the land upon which there existed a lawful lot or division of land prior to such taking results in such lot or division of land becoming unlawful under this Chapter, such use is a nonconformity and may be continued only under the provisions of this Chapter. 48 SEC. 12.96. REGISTERED LAND SURVEYS. No parcel of land may be divided through a registered land survey. If a registered land survey is designed to create more than one parcel of land, modify property lines, or combine parcels of land,the property must be platted under this Chapter. If a registered land survey only clarifies a metes and bounds description on a single parcel of land, platting is not required. SEC. 12.97. RECORDING WITHOUT COMPLIANCE WITH THIS CHAPTER. Subd. 1. Filing of Conveyance of Land. No conveyance of land to which these regulations apply shall be filed or recorded with the office of the Scott County Recorder/Registrar of Title, if the land is described in the conveyance by metes and bounds or by reference to an unapproved registered land survey made after April 21, 1961, or to an unapproved plat made after these regulations become effective, except if the land described: A. was a separate parcel of record as of July 25, 1972,when the City first adopted subdivision regulations; B. was the subject of a written agreement to convey entered into prior to July 25, 1972; C. was a separate parcel of not less than two and one-half acres in area and one hundred fifty feet in width on January 1, 1966; D. was a separate parcel of not less than five acres in area and 300 feet in width on July 1, 1980; E. is a single parcel of commercial or industrial land of not less than five acres and having a width of not less than 300 feet and its conveyance does not result in the division of the parcel into two or more lots or parcels, any one of which is less than five acres in area or 300 feet in width; or F. is a single parcel of residential or agricultural land not less than 20 acres and having a width of not less than 500 feet and its conveyance does not result in the division of the parcel into two or more lots or parcels, any one of which is less than 20 acres in area or 500 feet in width. Subd. 2. Exception. In any case in which compliance with Subd. 1 of this Section will create an unnecessary hardship and failure to comply does not interfere with the purpose of the subdivision regulations, the City Council may waive such compliance by adoption of a resolution to that effect and the conveyance may then be filed or recorded. Subd.3. Sales of Lots From Unrecorded Plats.It is unlawful to sell, trade, or otherwise convey any lot as a part of, or in conformity with, any plat of any subdivision unless the plat has been recorded with the Scott County Recorder/Registrar of Title. 49 SEC. 12.99. VIOLATION A MISDEMEANOR A violation of this Chapter occurs when 1)a person performs an act prohibited by or declared unlawful by this Chapter, 2)a person fails to act in accordance with this Chapter when such action is required, and 3)a person knowingly makes or submits any false statement or document in connection with any application or procedure required by this Chapter. Upon conviction of a violation, such person shall be punished as for a misdemeanor. 50 Section 2—That the City Council hereby adopts the following summary for purposes of publication: ORDINANCE XXX SUMMARY Sec. 12.01. TITLE, PURPOSE, AND INTERPRETATION This section sets forth the purpose, scope, and rules for application of the Subdivision Regulations. Sec. 12.02. DEFINITIONS This section defines significant terms used in the Subdivision Regulations, and addresses how inconsistencies with other portions of the City Code are to be dealt with. Sec. 12.21. MINOR SUBDIVISIONS. This section establishes a class of subdivisions consisting of five(5) or fewer lots that may be approved administratively, and establishes a procedure for minor subdivisions. Sec. 12.28. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL PROCESS. This section establishes the process for determining applications to be complete, for Planning Commission and City Council review of preliminary plats. Sec. 12.32. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL PROCESS. This section establishes the process for determining applications to be complete, for Planning Commission and City Council review of final plats. Sec. 12.34. EFFECT OF APPROVAL. This section establishes that the effective period for preliminary plat approval is one (1) year, and for final plat approval is two (2) years. It further provides a process for approval of extensions, and sets forth rights during the approval period. Sec. 12.40. DEVELOPER SHALL CONSTRUCT IMPROVEMENTS. This section requires developers to construct improvements required in a plat. Sec. 12.41. CITY MAY CONSTRUCT IMPROVEMENTS. This section sets forth a process by which developers may request that the City construct certain public improvements. It further establishes the method by which developers are to pay for 51 4, improvements installed by the City. Sec. 12.47 and 12.48.SECURITY OPTIONS and DETAILS REGARDING SECURITY OPTIONS. Section 12.47 sets for the options for providing security for improvements in connection with a plat, as well as the required amounts and timing. Section 12.48 addresses related issues. Sec. 12.54. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PRELIMINARY PLATS. This section spells out the following: • The documents that are required for a complete preliminary plat application, • The drawings that are required for a complete preliminary plat application, including grading and erosion control, and street and utilities plans • Information that is required on drawings, Sec. 12.56. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR FINAL PLATS. This section spells out the following: • The documents that are required for a complete final plat application, • The drawings that are required for a complete final plat application, including grading and erosion control, and street and utilities plans • Information that is required on drawings, Sec. 12.60— 12.69.DESIGN CRITERIA—LOTS AND BLOCKS These sections address criteria to be applied to the configuration of plats as well as the desi n certain improvements in plats. g of Sec. 12.70. PARKS AND DEDICATIONS. This section establishes the standards for accepting park dedication in land, cash or some combination of land and cash. Sec. 12.80. ADMINISTRATION. This section establishes the responsibilities of the Planner in administering the subdivision regulations. Sec. 12.99 VIOLATION A MISDEMEANOR. 52 This section makes violation of the subdivision regulations a misdemeanor. Sec. 12.83. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AMENDMENTS. This section sets forth the process of initiating Planning Commission and City Council review of amendments to the subdivision regulation. Sec. 12.89. VARIANCES. This section establishes the process for seeking variances from the subdivision regulations, as well as the grounds for granting variances. Section 3 -Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication of the summary above. Adopted in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota held the day of 1998. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Ordinance No. 531 Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the dayof 1998. PREPARED BY: City of Shakopee 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 [subdregn\all] 53 /5: /. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CONSENT TO: Mayor&City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Joel Rutherford,Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Sarazin Improvement Project-Easement Acquisition DATE: July 20, 1999 INTRODUCTION: The City needs to acquire easements for the construction of Sarazin Street, City Project 1999-3. The property owner for the easements has agreed to an offer made by staff. This item is for the Council to authorize the payment of the easements. BACKGROUND: City Project No. 1999-3 requires additional easements from the property owned by Betaseed, Inc. Attached is a sketch of the easement area, a copy of a letter sent to Betaseed with the offer from staff, and a letter from Betaseed, Inc. agreeing to the offer. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve a motion for the appropriate City officials to acquire the easements in the amount of $3,377. 2. Deny the easement acquisitions. 3. Table this item for additional information RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Approve a motion for the appropriate City officials to acquire the easements in the amount of $3,377. /.4 Joel Rutherford Assistant City Engineer - _ - - , LOT N0. 19993 E .J. fli. rrahG; g i > 'iAVC hVL N. I; _ 14 _ 1. I . cief ),mC)sz �n v Pr 0.)C 1989-3 • �--1 I r r_ .< . ) Z• m0 -<C n j I . --4 O lj >I N ' Z � . 'I' n r S4'• Fr^.�c. ,A , . I 1 I I 1; i - -" o ' li . i pro.i r; c o� m c W. y� ..„, : cp �m> �Zri m r • 1 Vi iii i _. 1 Ilk ki 1 1� e` ►3ck See N7kikkitt:101 d { \`1 CITY PROJECT NO. 1999--3 I �� MOORES AVEN V mil 1 1 1 I .. .�euiT ro nnlrlc ... ��.•,. SHAKOPEE June 16, 1999 Gary Korbel Betaseed,Inc. 1788 Marschall Road P.O.Box 195 Shakopee,Minnesota 55379 RE: Easements/Sarazin Street Dear Mr. Korbel: As discussed during previous meetings and correspondance,the City is proposing to extend Sarazin Street from St.Francis Avenue to the Betaseed property. Because the project being proposed will extend into the Betaseed property,the City would like to purchase the necessary easements to construct the roadway and utilities. In a previous meeting,I indicated the City was able to make an offer of$30,000 per acre for the permanent easements,and$3,000 per acre for temporary easements. Based on the amount of easement area needed, the cost for these easements would be: Permanent Roadway and Utility Easement: Area = 0.1098 acre(4,782 square feet) Cost = $ 30,000 per acre Offer = $3,294.00 Temporary Construction Easement: Area = 0.0275 acre(1,197 square feet) Cost = $ 3,000 per acre Offer = $ 83.00 The current plans for the project include starting construction this summer,but leaving the areas you want protected until after your research is completed(later this fall or early next year). The contractor can install the storm sewer and construct most of the street without disturbing the areas needing protection. Later on,the boulevard areas,in the area being protected,will be graded. Please review and respond to the amounts offered for the easements,so that staff can ask Council to authorize payment for the easements If you have any questions,or would like additional information, please call me and I will be happy to assist. Sincerely, 6• ceney, Director of PIWK Works COMMUNITY PRIDE SINCE 1857 129 Holm6sSr9?TSouth Shakopee,Minnesota• 55379-1351 • 612-445-3650 - FAX 612-4-45-671:1 Page I -LETBETAS.DOC BETASEED Betaseed, Inc,178B Marschall Road,P.O Box 195, Shakopee, MN 55379-0195 Telephone (6121445-8090 Fax.1612)496-0205 4%0 • July 6, 1999 163 111 g/12 JUC Op SHAK OpFF Mr. Bruce Loney,P.E. Director of Public Works City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379-1351 Reference: Easements/Sarazin Street Dear Mr. Loney: The city of Shakopee's offer of $30,000 per acre for the permanent easements related to the Sarazin Street project is accepted. Per your letter, dated June 16, 1999, we will receive $3,294.00 for the permanent roadway and utility easement and $83.00 for the temporary construction easement. If you have any additional questions,please contact either Gary Korbel or me. Sincerely, Do • d J. Weaver Chief Financial Officer dw:j u199:shakopeelandsale cc: Gary Korbel Joe Dahmer Art Quinn Jay Miller y.. / 6 . a , CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CONSENT TO: Mayor& City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Joel Rutherford, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Consider Bids for Sarazin Street from St. Francis Avenue to 800 feet South of St. Francis Avenue, Project No. 1999-3 DATE: July 20, 1999 INTRODUCTION: The bids for Project No. 1999-3 were opened on July 5, 1999. The purpose of this item is to consider awarding the contract for the project to the apparent low bidder. Attached is Resolution No. 5185 for City Council consideration. BACKGROUND: The bids for these projects were opened on July 5, 1999. The following is a summary of the bids received: S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. $125,480.04 N.W. Asphalt, Inc. $142,838.08 McNamara Contracting, Inc. $153,432.85 After checking the references for the low bidder, S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc., staff is recommending awarding the contract for this project to them. Staff is also requesting authorization to execute a consultant contract with Bolton & Menk, Inc. to provide construction surveying services with this project. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Accept the low bid and adopt Resolution No. 5185, awarding the contract to S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. 2. Table this item. ACTION REOUESTED: 1. Offer Resolution No. 5185, A Resolution Accepting Bids on Sarazin Street, from St. Francis Avenue to 800 Feet South of St. Francis Avenue, Project No. 1999-3, and move its adoption. 2. Move to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute an extension agreement with Bolton & Menk, Inc. to provide construction surveying services for the City of Shakopee. 3. Move to authorize a 5% contingency amount for use by the City Engineer in authorizing change orders or quantity adjustments on this project. Joel Rutherford Assistant City Engineer JAR/pmp MEM5185 RESOLUTION NO. 5185 A Resolution Accepting Bids On Sarazin Street, From St. Francis Avenue To 800 Feet South Of St. Francis Avenue Project No. 1999-3 WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the Sarazin Street improvements, Project No. 1999-3, bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law, and the following bids were received complying with the advertisement: S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. $125,480.04 N.W. Asphalt, Inc. $142,838.08 McNamara Contracting, Inc. $153,432.85 AND WHEREAS, it appears that S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc., P.O. Box 69, Jordan,MN 55352 is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA: 1. That the appropriate City Officials are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. in the name of the City of Shakopee for the Sarazin Street improvements according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1999. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk tr6.. CITY OF SHAKOPEE C 3 V S E NI Memorandum TO: Mayor& City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney,Public Works Director SUBJECT: 1999 Street Overlay and Block 6 Alley Reconstruction Project No. 1999-6 DATE: July 20, 1999 INTRODUCTION: Attached is Resolution No. 5195, which approves the plans and specifications and authorizes staff to advertise for bids for Project No. 1999-6 for the improvement of 11th Avenue, from County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 17 to Merrifield Street by bituminous overlay 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. On June 1, 1999, Resolution No. 5157 was adopted accepting the feasibility report and setting a public hearing date for July 6, 1999. At the July 6, 1999 public hearing, Resolution No. 5179 ordering the preparation of plans and specifications for the project was adopted. City staff has completed the plans for Council approval and the next step would be to advertise for bids. 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 warrants reconstruction of the existing pavement. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 5195. 2. Deny Resolution No. 5195. 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 REOUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 5195, A Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids for the 1999 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. /,>W .9 `Bruce Loney Public Works Director BL/pmp MEM5195 RESOLUTION NO. 5195 A Resolution Approving Plans And Specifications And Ordering Advertisement For Bids For The 1999 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. 5179 adopted by City Council on July 6, 1999, Bruce Loney, Public Works Director has prepared plans and specifications for 11th Avenue, 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 as described in the feasibility report. 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 IS: Q, 5e: CITY OF SHAKOPEE C•NSENT Memorandum TO: Mayor& City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Vierling Drive, from CSAH 17 to Miller Street Project No. 1999-5 DATE: July 20, 1999 INTRODUCTION: Attached is Resolution No. 5196, which approves the plans and specifications and authorizes staff to advertise for bids for Project No. 1999-5 for the improvement of Vierling Drive, from County State Aid Highway(CSAH) 17 to Miller Street. BACKGROUND: On June 15, 1999, Resolution No. 5162 was adopted and ordered the preparation of plans and specifications for Vierling Drive improvements, from CSAH 17 to Miller Street. The plans have been prepared by WSB & Associates, Inc. for the widening of Vierling Drive to accommodate commercial traffic in this area. The improvement for Vierling Drive was initiated by the City council based upon the plat of Vierling Plaza and proposed K-Mart development. Vierling Drive is a designated major arterial on the City's Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Plan and is currently improved to a four lane undivided urban roadway. The widening of Vierling Drive including turn lanes, concrete median and bituminous trail/concrete sidewalk construction is for traffic control purposes for the commercial traffic adjacent to and nearby Vierling Drive. The City is participating in the cost of the bituminous overlay and lowering of a gas main for the right turn lane on Vierling Drive to the first site entrance of Vierling Plaza. The traffic control signal at Vierling Drive and Marschall Road was installed in 1998. Vierling Drive widening improvements, east of CSAH 17, were deferred until there was more commercial development. The assessments for the widening of the roadway for turn lanes and concrete median are to be assessed 100% to the benefiting properties in commercial zoned areas, as per the City's Assessment Policy. The plans include turn lanes, concrete medians on Vierling Drive with a right turn lane on northbound CSAH 17 and a watermain extension into the site. The next step for this project is to approve plans and advertise for bid. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 5196. 2. Deny Resolution No. 5196. 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. 5196, A Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids for Vierling Drive, from County State Aid Highway 17 to Miller Street, Project No. 1999-5 and move its adoption. X":/d4 c./ ' ce Loney Public Works Director BL/pmp MEM5196 RESOLUTION NO. 5196 A Resolution Approving Plans And Specifications And Ordering Advertisement For Bids For Vierling Drive, From County State Aid Highway 17 To Miller Street Project No. 1999-5 WHEREAS,pursuant to Resolution No. 5162 adopted by City Council on June 15, 1999, Bruce Loney,Public Works Director has prepared plans and specifications for Vierling Drive, from County State Aid Highway 17 (Marschall Road) to Miller Street by street widening, bituminous paving, concrete medians, concrete curb & gutter, watermain, storm sewer, street lighting, sidewalk,bituminous trail and any appurtenant work as described in the feasibility report. 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 15, C. I, r Memo CONSENT, ET To: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, Shakopee City Administrator From: Marvin Athmann, Shakopee Fire Chief OVA Date: 7/6/99 RE: Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus Bottle Replacement Introduction: Self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) are used routinely by the fire department. They allow firefighters to safely work in hazardous atmospheres such as smoke or chemical vapors. SCBA utilize a high-pressure(4500psi) air cylinder to provide air through the apparatus to the firefighter. These cylinders require periodic safety checks and have a finite life time. We have several cylinders that were taken out of service last year and several more must be taken out of service this year( approximately 12 total). These cylinders need to be replaced. Replacement Air Cylinders are a line item in the 1999 Fire Department budget for $10,000. Background: Two bids were received for replacement SCBA air cylinders. One is from Clarey's Safety Equipment and one is from Scott Aviation. The totals are listed below. Price per cylinder # Cylinders Total $ 1. Clarey's Safety Equip. $882.00 per cylinder 11 $9702.00 2. Scott Aviation $1250.00 8 $10,000.00 Alternatives: 1. Purchase no replacement cylinders. 2. Purchase 11 replacement cylinders from Clarey's safety for$9702.00 Recommendation: We recommend the purchase of 11 replacement SCBA air cylinders from Clarey's Safety Equipment for a total of$9702.00. 05/27/99 16:09 FAX 7042828423 SCOTT AVIATIk COST SVC 7001 SCOTT . SAFETY IS OUR LIFE'S WORK?" To: Mr. Dave Judd- Shakopee Fire Department From: Larry L. Crowder- Scott Health And Safety Thursday, May 27, 1999 Re: Price Quote • Mr. Judd: Enclosed is a price quote for the Scott part no. 804723-01 (Cylinder and Valve Assembl), Carbon, 4500 psi 60min). The list price is $1250.00 each. Thank you, Larry Health & Safety Products :III 309 W. Crowell Street • Monroe, NC 28112-4649 • Tel.: (704) 282-8400 • Fax: (704) 282-8423 44'c/4xerCO14704 May 25 99 04: 19p Clarey 's Safety Equipment 507289-0325 p. 1 May-25-99 04:06P St. Mark's Church 612 445-9639 P.02 nay cm, 99 04:01F Clarey's Safety Equipment 507289-0325 p. l Fax Please deliver immediately to: Dave Judd of: Shakopee Fire Department(MN) Fax number: 16124459639 Voice number: 16124453650 Fax received from: Linda M. Kimber of: CLAREY'S SAFETY EQUIPMENT Fax number: 5072894)325 Voice number: Date: 5/25/99 Time: 4:01:03 PM Number of Pages: 1 Subject: Add1'1Info Message: If you can mix your puchase between cylindets.and.other Scottequipment, the difference between the(11)cylinders and the$10,000 budgeted couldbe used as follows: two(2)AV2000 at$149.00 each ne(1)voice amplifier at$210.00 each (with the balance of$88:00 being used for misc. parts) Justarridea!! • CITY OF SHAKOPEE CONSENT Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor, City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Dan Hughes, Chief of Police Date: July 13, 1999 Subject: Safe& Sober Grant INTRODUCTION: The Police Department is seeking approval to participate with the Min esota Department of Public Safety in a Safe& Sober Grant. BACKGROUND: The Safe& Sober project is a federally funded program administered .h the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS) dedicated to addressing issues oft affic safety through highly publicized overtime enforcement projects. Research has shown he top two traffic safety priorities are the reduction of impaired driving and the increase •f safety belt and child seat use. The research has also shown enforcement efforts do no have a lasting effect on drivers' behavior if the majority of the public is not aware of hem. Combining increased enforcement activity with public awareness efforts has been •and to result in long-lasting improvements on driver behavior. The Safe& Sober Project is scheduled in enforcement waves centered :round December party times, Spring proms and graduations, Independence Day, and La•or Day. If the grant application is accepted and awarded we would begin media relea es and enforcement activities in the Fall of 1999 and conclude the project in t e Fall of 2000. The grant requests $23,400 in funds to be used to pay officers overtim. to participate in the four enforcement waves. The key objectives of the project are to reduce impaired driving, speed ng and traffic accidents while increasing seat belt usage in our community. Some ke secondary objectives include reducing alcohol usage by minors and a reduction in raffic related complaints. The project should have a significant impact on the key an. secondary objectives which will mean a safer community for our citizens and visit•rs. BUDGET IMPACT: The grant has no impact on the existing budget. The grant does not r•quire matching funds from the City. There will be some administrative duties associ. ed with the grant which have been included in the application as our contribution to the everall value of the grant. ACTION REQUESTED: If Council concurs, they should, move the passage of the attached reso ution which authorizes the appropriate City staff to enter into a grant agreement wi h the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic safety for the project en'itled Safe& Sober Communities during the period from October 1, 1999 through Septem er 30, 2000 for the amount of$23,400 or a lesser amount if awarded by the Department o Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety. (Note: The resolution form and language is s row 1 recommended by the grant guidelines to ensure acceptability and quick•r processing of awarded grants by DPS.) Dan Hughes Chief of Police RESOLUTION NO. 5197 A RESOLUTION OF THE SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT FOR THE PROJECT ENTITLED SAFE& SOBER COMMUNITIES BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS: That the Shakopee Police Department is hereby authorized to enter into a grant agreement with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of the Traffic Safety for the project entitled SAFE& SOBER COMMUNITIES during the period from October 1, 1999 through September 30, 2000. That the Shakopee City Administrator is hereby authorized to execute such agreements and amendments as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the Shakopee Police Department and to be the fiscal agent and administer the grant. Adopted in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this 20th day of July, 1999. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk MEMORANDUM /61 8 . / 4 TO: Mayor and CityCouncil CONSENT Y Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk SUBJECT: Apportionment of Special Assessments for Southbridge Cove DATE: July 7, 1999 INTRODUCTION: City Council is asked to consider adopting the attached Resolution No. 5187 which apportions existing special assessments against newly created lots located within the plat of Southbridge Cove. BACKGROUND: Prior to the platting of Southbridge Cove, there were existing special assessments against it for the 1997-4 and 1997-4A Southbridge Parkway Collector Street . Now that the parcel has been subdivided into smaller lots as a result of platting, it is necessary to apportion these assessments against each of the new lots. Resolution No. 5187 apportions the existing special assessments against the newly created lots within the plat. The developer has agreed to the apportionment in the developers agreement for this subdivision. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Offer Resolution No. 5187, A Resolution Apportioning Assessments Among New Parcels Created As A Result of the Platting of Southbridge Cove, and move its adoption. PL,`)W - Cites Clerk is\clerk\jeanette\app-spec\memo RESOLUTION NO. 5187 A RESOLUTION APPORTIONING ASSESSMENTS AMONG NEW PARCELS CREATED AS A RESULT OF THE PLATTING OF SOUTHBRIDGE COVE WHEREAS, on November 17, 1998, Resolution No. 5016 adopted by the City Council levied assessments against properties benefited by the Southbridge Parkway Collector Street, Project No. 1997-4 and 1994-4A; and WHEREAS, a parcel benefited by the said improvement and known as parcel number 27-250079-0 has been subdivided into the plat of Southbridge Cove; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to apportion the installments remaining unpaid against this parcel because of the platting of Southbridge Cove. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA that the 1999 payable remaining balance of assessments (to parcel 27-250079-0 for the 1997-4 and 1997-4A Southbridge Parkway Collector Street) are hereby apportioned as outlined in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all other parts of Resolution Number 5016 shall continue in effect. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1999 . Mayor City Clerk is\clerk\jeanette\app-spec\new-plat Exhibit A Levied Amount s/a 27110 (Project 1997-4) Parent Parcel=27-250079-0(Outlot E-Southbridge 1st Addition) $ 532,489.74 (Remaining Balance) Preliminary Plat-Total Number of Lots 109 Lots Split Assessment Split Southbridge Cove 1st Addition 45 Lots 41% $ 218,322.00 Anticipated 2nd Phase(Outlot A) 64 Lots 59% $ 314,167.74 27-277001-0 ARCON DEVELOPMENT LOT 1, BLOCK 1 $ 4,851.60 7625 METRO BLVD.,SUITE#350 SOUTHBRIDGE EDINA,MN 55439 COVE 27-277002-0 ARCON DEVELOPMENT LOT 2,BLOCK 1 $ 4,851.60 7625 METRO BLVD.,SUITE#350 SOUTHBRIDGE EDINA,MN 55439 COVE 27-277003-0 ARCON DEVELOPMENT LOT 3,BLOCK 1 $ 4,851.60 7625 METRO BLVD.,SUITE#350 SOUTHBRIDGE EDINA,MN 55439 COVE 27-277004-0 ARCON DEVELOPMENT LOT 4, BLOCK 1 $ 4,851.60 7625 METRO BLVD., SUITE#350 SOUTHBRIDGE EDINA,MN 55439 COVE 27-277005-0 ARCON DEVELOPMENT LOT 1,BLOCK 2 $ 4,851.60 7625 METRO BLVD.,SUITE#350 SOUTHBRIDGE EDINA,MN 55439 COVE 27-277006-0 ARCON DEVELOPMENT LOT 2, BLOCK 2 $ 4,851.60 7625 METRO BLVD.,SUITE#350 SOUTHBRIDGE EDINA,MN 55439 COVE 27-277007-0 ARCON DEVELOPMENT LOT 3,BLOCK 2 $ 4,851.60 7625 METRO BLVD.,SUITE#350 SOUTHBRIDGE EDINA,MN 55439 COVE 27-277008-0 ARCON DEVELOPMENT LOT 4, BLOCK 2 $ 4,851.60 7625 METRO BLVD.,SUITE#350 SOUTHBRIDGE EDINA,MN 55439 COVE 27-277009-0 ARCON DEVELOPMENT LOT 5,BLOCK 2 $ 4,851.60 7625 METRO BLVD.,SUITE#350 SOUTHBRIDGE EDINA,MN 55439 COVE 27-277010-0 ARCON DEVELOPMENT LOT 6, BLOCK 2 $ 4,851.60 7625 METRO BLVD.,SUITE#350 SOUTHBRIDGE EDINA,MN 55439 COVE 27-277011-0 ARCON DEVELOPMENT LOT 7,BLOCK 2 $ 4,851.60 7625 METRO BLVD.,SUITE#350 SOUTHBRIDGE EDINA,MN 55439 COVE Page 1 27-277012-0 ARCON DEVELOPMENT LOT 8, BLOCK 2 $ 4,851.60 7625 METRO BLVD., SUITE#350 SOUTHBRIDGE EDINA,MN 55439 COVE 27-277013-0 ARCON DEVELOPMENT LOT 9,BLOCK 2 $ 4,851.60 7625 METRO BLVD.,SUITE#350 SOUTHBRIDGE EDINA,MN 55439 COVE 27-277014-0 ARCON DEVELOPMENT LOT 10,BLOCK 2 $ 4,851.60 7625 METRO BLVD.,SUITE#350 SOUTHBRIDGE EDINA,MN 55439 COVE 27-277015-0 ARCON DEVELOPMENT LOT 11,BLOCK 2 $ 4,851.60 7625 METRO BLVD.,SUITE#350 SOUTHBRIDGE EDINA,MN 55439 COVE 27-277016-0 ARCON DEVELOPMENT LOT 12,BLOCK 2 $ 4,851.60 7625 METRO BLVD.,SUITE#350 SOUTHBRIDGE EDINA,MN 55439 COVE 27-277017-0 ARCON DEVELOPMENT LOT 13,BLOCK 2 $ 4,851.60 7625 METRO BLVD., SUITE#350 SOUTHBRIDGE EDINA, MN 55439 COVE 27-277018-0 ARCON DEVELOPMENT LOT 14,BLOCK 2 $ 4,851.60 7625 METRO BLVD.,SUITE#350 SOUTHBRIDGE EDINA,MN 55439 COVE 27-277019-0 ARCON DEVELOPMENT LOT 15,BLOCK 2 $ 4,851.60 7625 METRO BLVD.,SUITE#350 SOUTHBRIDGE EDINA,MN 55439 COVE 27-277020-0 ARCON DEVELOPMENT LOT 16,BLOCK 2 $ 4,851.60 7625 METRO BLVD.,SUITE#350 SOUTHBRIDGE EDINA,MN 55439 COVE 27-277021-0 ARCON DEVELOPMENT LOT 17,BLOCK 2 $ 4,851.60 7625 METRO BLVD.,SUITE#350 SOUTHBRIDGE EDINA,MN 55439 COVE 27-277022-0 ARCON DEVELOPMENT LOT 18,BLOCK 2 $ 4,851.60 7625 METRO BLVD.,SUITE#350 SOUTHBRIDGE EDINA,MN 55439 COVE 27-277023-0 ARCON DEVELOPMENT LOT 19, BLOCK 2 $ 4,851.60 7625 METRO BLVD.,SUITE#350 SOUTHBRIDGE EDINA,MN 55439 COVE 27-277024-0 ARCON DEVELOPMENT LOT 20,BLOCK 2 $ 4,851.60 7625 METRO BLVD.,SUITE#350 SOUTHBRIDGE EDINA,MN 55439 COVE 27-277025-0 ARCON DEVELOPMENT LOT 21, BLOCK 2 $ 4,851.60 7625 METRO BLVD.,SUITE#350 SOUTHBRIDGE EDINA,MN 55439 COVE 27-277026-0 ARCON DEVELOPMENT LOT 1,BLOCK 3 $ 4,851.60 7625 METRO BLVD.,SUITE#350 SOUTHBRIDGE EDINA,MN 55439 COVE Page 2 27-277027-0 ARCON DEVELOPMENT LOT 2,BLOCK 3 $ 4,851.60 7625 METRO BLVD.,SUITE#350 SOUTHBRIDGE EDINA, MN 55439 COVE 27-277028-0 ARGON DEVELOPMENT LOT 3,BLOCK 3 $ 4,851.60 7625 METRO BLVD.,SUITE#350 SOUTHBRIDGE EDINA,MN 55439 COVE 27-277029-0 ARGON DEVELOPMENT LOT 4,BLOCK 3 $ 4,851.60 7625 METRO BLVD.,SUITE#350 SOUTHBRIDGE EDINA, MN 55439 COVE 27-277030-0 ARGON DEVELOPMENT LOT 5,BLOCK 3 $ 4,851.60 7625 METRO BLVD.,SUITE#350 SOUTHBRIDGE EDINA, MN 55439 COVE 27-277031-0 ARGON DEVELOPMENT LOT 6,BLOCK 3 $ 4,851.60 7625 METRO BLVD.,SUITE#350 SOUTHBRIDGE EDINA,MN 55439 COVE 27-277032-0 ARGON DEVELOPMENT LOT 7,BLOCK 3 $ 4,851.60 7625 METRO BLVD.,SUITE#350 SOUTHBRIDGE EDINA,MN 55439 COVE 27-277033-0 ARGON DEVELOPMENT LOT 8,BLOCK 3 $ 4,851.60 7625 METRO BLVD.,SUITE#350 SOUTHBRIDGE EDINA,MN 55439 COVE 27-277034-0 ARGON DEVELOPMENT LOT 9,BLOCK 3 $ 4,851.60 7625 METRO BLVD.,SUITE#350 SOUTHBRIDGE EDINA,MN 55439 COVE 27-277035-0 ARGON DEVELOPMENT LOT 10,BLOCK 3 $ 4,851.60 7625 METRO BLVD.,SUITE#350 SOUTHBRIDGE EDINA,MN 55439 COVE 27-277036-0 ARCON DEVELOPMENT LOT 11,BLOCK 3 $ 4,851.60 7625 METRO BLVD.,SUITE#350 SOUTHBRIDGE EDINA,MN 55439 COVE 27-277037-0 ARGON DEVELOPMENT LOT 12,BLOCK 3 $ 4,851.60 7625 METRO BLVD.,SUITE#350 SOUTHBRIDGE EDINA,MN 55439 COVE 27-277038-0 ARGON DEVELOPMENT LOT 13,BLOCK 3 $ 4,851.60 7625 METRO BLVD.,SUITE#350 SOUTHBRIDGE EDINA,MN 55439 COVE 27-277039-0 ARGON DEVELOPMENT LOT 14,BLOCK 3 $ 4,851.60 7625 METRO BLVD.,SUITE#350 SOUTHBRIDGE EDINA,MN 55439 COVE 27-277040-0 ARGON DEVELOPMENT LOT 15,BLOCK 3 $ 4,851.60 7625 METRO BLVD.,SUITE#350 SOUTHBRIDGE EDINA,MN 55439 COVE 27-277041-0 ARGON DEVELOPMENT LOT 1,BLOCK 4 $ 4,851.60 7625 METRO BLVD.,SUITE#350 SOUTHBRIDGE EDINA,MN 55439 COVE Page 3 27-277042-0 ARCON DEVELOPMENT LOT 2,BLOCK 4 $ 4,851.60 7625 METRO BLVD.,SUITE#350 SOUTHBRIDGE EDINA,MN 55439 COVE 27-277043-0 ARCON DEVELOPMENT LOT 3,BLOCK 4 $ 4,851.60 7625 METRO BLVD.,SUITE#350 SOUTHBRIDGE EDINA,MN 55439 COVE 27-277044-0 ARGON DEVELOPMENT LOT 4,BLOCK 4 $ 4,851.60 7625 METRO BLVD.,SUITE#350 SOUTHBRIDGE EDINA,MN 55439 COVE 27-277045-0 ARGON DEVELOPMENT LOT 5, BLOCK 4 $ 4,851.60 7625 METRO BLVD.,SUITE#350 SOUTHBRIDGE EDINA,MN 55439 COVE 27-277046-0 ARCON DEVELOPMENT OUTLOTA $ 314,167.74 7625 METRO BLVD.,SUITE#350 SOUTHBRIDGE EDINA,MN 55439 COVE TOTAL $ 532,489.74 Page 4 P ,0-1Afte-c)- t.,ottJrc/1/ J Pl0 MMD / N p19e-- Ica, " ,PP-rtd `Grw irnRs%p,(5 - J 2r,W, /57 ..3 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum ,CONS ENT TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: City Administrator Annual Evaluation DATE: July 14, 1999 INTRODUCTION: The Council is asked to approve the format and who should perform the City Administrator's annual performance evaluation. BACKGROUND: On July 22nd,I will be observing my third anniversary as City Administrator in Shakopee. Unlike other city employees, any salary adjustment is tied to my employment anniversary,which has been accompanied by a performance evaluation. This is as compared to a step increase at the employee's anniversary of hire, and cost of living adjustment on January 1st. Previously,each of the members of Council submitted written comments about my performance to the Mayor. The Mayor and one other member of the Council then met with me to review those performance comments, set goals for the upcoming year, and discuss salary adjustments. Those recommendations were then reported back to the Council, and acted upon at a future meeting. At this time, I ask that the Council consider the same format. Mayor Brekke has suggested that he and Councilor Amundson perform the evaluation this year. All members of the Council will be provided with forms to assist them in their comments. ACTION REQUIRED: The Council should approve Mayor Brekke and Councilor Amundson serving as a City Administrator performance subcommittee,which would then recommend action back to the full Council at a future meeting. /Q \4.-A-e-Q Mark McNeill City Administrator 15. E, CITY OF SHAKOPEE CONSe-i^ft Memorandum TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: 1999/00 Insurance Renewals DATE: July 16, 1999 Introduction Council is requested to approve of the renewal of property and liability insurance coverage from the League of Minnesota Cities. Background Attached is a list of property/liability insurance premiums for the renewal of the present coverage with the League of Minnesota Cities insurance Trust (LMCIT) . The policy period is August 1, 1999 to July 31, 2000 . Basic Policy The policies proposed are basically the same as current coverage. The premiums are slightly larger than last year but more items and value are covered. The total deposit premium has increased from $206, 531 to $210, 928 covering the City, SPUC and EDA. All of the coverages are from the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust. The policies of course are not prepared, but there will be more detail available on the proposals for any Council member that desires it. Optional Coverage Quotations were not requested for the following coverages (same as last year) ; Glass Signs Computer data Flood Earthquake Off premise power failure Garage keepers Volunteer accident Property belonging to others (this coverage was added for the civic center at a $75, 000 limit) Asbestos removal liability (in excess of basic coverage of $200, 000 Open meeting law defense Petro fund coverage Fire works Utility poles and lines Umbrella Policy Council did not budget for an umbrella liability policy nor has there been a recent request for or discussion of getting another umbrella policy. The city has not had an umbrella policy for about 12 years. The League reported that about 25% of the cities insured have an umbrella policy. There is some exposure that may not be not covered by immunity, particularly in the area of federal legislation such as civil rights and discrimination. The city budget contains $169, 010 for insurance (not counting employee group or work comp. insurance) and deductibles across all funds, excluding SPUC. SPUC shares in the cost of the insurance but their share for this year has not been calculated yet, last year it was $61, 893 . Action Requested Move to accept the property/liability insurance renewals from the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust with a deposit premium of $210, 928 . Gregg Voxland Finance Director is\finance\docs\insure\prplia99 15-,eNir.tr-Rq 0 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: Lion' s Club Donation DATE: July 12, 1999 Introduction & Background The Lion' s Club has issued a check for $1, 820 .45 and one for $2, 061. 55 to the City of Shakopee. This is gambling funds . The intention of the donation was set it aside for future improvements in Lion' s Park. Council controls the use of donated gambling proceeds and in the past has always directed the funds to where the donator requested. Action Move to authorize the acceptance of $2, 061 . 55 and $1, 820 .45 from the Lion' s Club and to reserve the money for future improvements to Lions Park. GreggVoxland gg Finance Director C:\gregg\memo\ b • CITY OF SHAKOPEE CONSENT Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Thrift Store Asbestos Removal DATE: July 13, 1999 INTRODUCTION: The Council is asked to award a contract for an in-depth hazardous materials evaluation, and removal of known asbestos from the Thrift Store. BACKGROUND: Several weeks ago,the City Council approved selling the Thrift Store property, 1526 County Road 83,to Valley Green Business Park. The amount to be paid is $98,000. It is anticipated that the CAP Agency will vacate the Thrift Store in mid-September; it is then the City's responsibility to abate any hazardous materials prior to the closing of this property with Valley Green Business Park. Valley Green intends to demolish yet this Fall. In June,requests for quotes were sent to three providers of asbestos abatement services. The results of those quotes were as follows: HMA Corporation $10,089.66 Peer Environmental $ 7,262.00 EnviroBate Metro $ 6,607.00 Each company was also asked to give a"per unit"cost to treat different other types of materials that might be encountered- disposal of mercury lamps, compressor oil, etc. Until the survey by the successful company is completed, it is not known what, if any of those items will need to be handled. The costs to abate those items would be in addition to the amount bid as the lump sum for the removal of asbestos floor tile and mastic. DISCUSSION: Based on the quotes received,the contract should go to EnviroBate. However,Valley Green Business Park has used Peer Environmental for their environmental work in the past. Jon Albinson,Project Director has stated that he would greatly prefer that Peer do the work. If the City is not willing to award directly to Peer,he has indicated his willingness to pay the $655 difference between the low bid submitted by EnviroBate, and Peer. He feels in the long run,Peer's familiarity with the project will save Valley Green money. Mr. Albinson has noted that Valley Green has paid in excess of$1230 to Peer for assistance in remedying the pistol range clean up,which is the parcel adjacent to the Thrift Store. The City had hired another consultant to do that work on that,but the information that was submitted to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency generated a "qualified"opinion from the MPCA, for which Valley Green had Peer get involved to help resolve the issue. We appreciate the continued cooperation of Valley Green Business Park,and understand the concern about the extra monies which have been expended by it for the pistol range clean up. Because it is under$25,000,the City is under no legal obligation to award to the low quote. However, good public policy would be to go with the low quote, except when there is a demonstrable reason not to go with the lowest. Assuming that Valley Green wishes to use Peer,the City could award the contract to Peer,with the understanding that the City would pay $6,607 (as bid by EnviroBate),with the difference of$655 being paid up by Valley Green. Any extra environmental waste clean up that would be required would the responsibility of the City. BUDGET IMPACT: The cost of clean up would be deducted from the net proceeds of the sale,both of which will be in the FY 99 budget year. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend awarding the contract to Peer Environmental,with the understanding that Valley Green Business Park will make up the difference between the low bid and Peer's. ACTION REQUIRED: If the Council concurs, it should,by motion,award a contract for the Thrift Store environmental evaluation asbestos clean up to Peer Environmental,on the condition that the $655 difference between the low bid and Peer will be paid to the City by Valley Green Business Park. tkalmiA.u Mark McNeill City Administrator JUN-15-1999 09:38 612 729 1021 P.02/03 PROPOSAL DEMOLITION ASBESTOS BUILDING SURVEY AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INVENTORY THRIFT SHOP 1526 COUNTY ROAD 83 SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA TASK I- ASBESTOS BUILDING SURVEY Professional Services 225.00 Analytical Testing 450.00 Expenses 25.00 Total Task I 700.00 TASK II-HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INVENTORY Professional Services 145.00 Total Task H 145.00 ABATEMENT/REMOVAL COSTS *ACBM(lump sum- estimated 2881 sq. Ft. VAT) 5,762.00 * Based on a per unit cost of$ 2.00 per sq.ft. of asbestos containing tile and mastic. Total Abatement/Removal 5,762.00 PROJECT TOTAL: 6,607.00 If necessary,the unit price to abate/remove the following shall be: • Fluorescent lamps- $ 1.00 per bulb. includes labor • Fluorescent light ballasts and capacitors- $ 14.00 per unit. • Mercury lamps- $ 1.00 per lamp. • Mercury switches and thermostats- $ 35.t p per unit. • Compressor oil- $ 64.00 per hour . • Freon- $ 2.50 per lb R-22 Disposal only • Other- $ per • () JUN-15-1999 09:38 612 729 1021 P.03/03 Proposal submitted by: EnviroBate Metro Firm/ Conta t person (612) 729-1080 Telephone June 15, 1999 Date Submitted 1 Proposal must be submitted to Office of Shakopee City Administrator no later than 4•:30 p.m.,Wednesday,July 7, 1999. The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals. TOTAL P.03 PROPOSAL DEMOLITION ASBESTOS BUILDING SURVEY AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INVENTORY TII1UEF SHOP 1526 COUNTY ROAD 83 SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA TASK I- ASBESTOS BUILDING SURVEY Professional Services 225.00 Analytical Testing 450.00 Expenses 25.00 Total Task I 700.00 TASK II- HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INVENTORY Professional Services 145.00 Total Task II 145.00 ABATEMENT/REMOVAL COSTS *ACBM(lump sum- estimated 2881 sq. Ft. VAT) 5,762.00 * Based on a per unit cost of$ 2.00 per sq.ft. of asbestos containing tile and mastic. Total Abatement/Removal 5,762.00 PROJECT TOTAL: 6,607.00 If necessary, the unit price to abate/remove the following shall be: • Fluorescent lamps- $ 1.00 per bulb. includes labor • Fluorescent light ballasts and capacitors- $ 14.00 per unit. • Mercury lamps- $ 1.00 per lamp. • Mercury switches and thermostats- $ 15.00 per unit. • Compressor oil- $ 64.00 per hour . • Freon- $ 2.50 per lb , R-22 Disposal only • Other- $ per Proposal submitted by: EnviroBate Metro Firm, Conta t 'erson (612) 729-1080 Telephone June 15, 1999 Date Submitted Proposal must be submitted to Office of Shakopee City Administrator no later than 4:30 p.m.,Wednesday,July 7, 1999. The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals. IS e 7 . )))„.„ se,,j 3,1) ) 41.,,a4) PATQA No M+wtAt) �,. ga.-� w av fJs 'W/0. 13tt,i,u7,0 AiTuJe) y/Li z/Lc coUzigtAs2 6/1tR a-v-s_44). 9 ,54;t0 .0,4 ab) - aa -99 15.E. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Paul Snook,Economic Development Coordinator SUBJECT: Downtown Parking Identification Signs MEETING DATE: July 20, 1999 Introduction: The City Council is asked to approve the acquisition and installation of sixteen (16) 36" x 42" city logo parking lot signs and six(6)36"x 42"city logo trailblazer signs as outlined in this memo and in WSB's signing plan. The parking lots would not have names, and consequently the lot signs would remain very simple by containing only the functional text of"PUBLIC PARKING". Background: At its December 1, 1998 meeting, Council approved the downtown parking identification sign plan developed by WSB & Associates, and directed staff to obtain and install seven of the fourteen signs as specified in the sign plan. The seven signs(with city logo)approved by Council consist of five site signs which identify the city's downtown parking lots, and two trailblazer signs which would provide direction to the River City Centre parking lot. Since the budget cycle was closed at the time of the December 1, 1998 council meeting, Council decided at that time on making the seven above-referenced signs a priority, and waiting on the other seven (trailblazer) signs until the next budget cycle. Also at that meeting, Council gave direction that a council member assist staff in naming the parking lots. See Exhibit A for the original WSB sign plan and revised sign plan, and Exhibit B for December 1, 1998 parking sign memo and related minutes of that meeting. Discussion: Before production and installation of the approved signs can take place, a decision needs to be made whether to name the parking lots, with the names of the parking lots to be placed on the signs. Staff researched files on the downtown parking lots and found that they were given names in 1970. The names are outlined in Exhibit C, Resolution No. 434 - A Resolution Naming the Five Municipal Parking Lots. Three of the five lots are in existence today (two of them no longer exist due to the mini-bypass and River City Centre developments). There have been no name changes in the lots since this resolution, so, "officially", three of the lots to this day retain their respective names. However, when considering the day-to-day use and maintenance of the lots,downtown customers/visitors,merchants,residents and city staff rarely, if ever refer to these parking lots by the names given in 1970. Staff researched the traditional downtowns of other communitites, namely Chaska, Excelsior, and Hopkins in order to find out 1.)whether they had names for their downtown public parking lots, 2.) generally, what information was on their parking lot signs, and 3.) how the signs were oriented in relation to the traffic flow and the lots. pkgismo5.doc Chaska Chaska, like Shakopee,has no signage informing motorists where public parking is in their downtown. Excelsior Excelsior has a very good informational sign system of downtown parking. The public parking lots do not have names. The text on the signs is limited to identification of public parking and simply states "FREE PARKING LOTS FOR BOAT CHARTERS & EXCURSIONS, AND DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES". In addition to the text, the signs have an arrow pointing in the direction of the referenced parking lot. The parking lot signs do not face the street but face the on-coming motorists (much like a stop sign or yield sign),with the arrow pointing to the left or right, into the lot. Hopkins Hopkins, like Excelsior, does not name their downtown parking lots. The information on their signs simply states "FREE MUNICIPAL PARKING". Like Excelsior, the parking lot signs have an arrow pointing in the direction of the referenced parking lot,with the signs facing the on-coming motorists. **An important difference between Excelsior's and Hopkins' downtown parking lot signs compared with Shakopee's sign plan by WSB&Associates is that the signs in those communities are oriented so that they are facing the on-coming motorists(much like a stop sign or yield sign),with the arrow pointing to the left or right into the lot,versus Shakopee's plan,which shows the parking lot signs facing the street(rather than the motorist). Staff highly recommends that the signs face the motorist as in Excelsior and Hopkins,so as to provide better visibility to motorists.This would require two signs near each parking lot entrance,one informing each lane/direction of traffic. Budget Impact: In their parking plan, WSB estimates the cost of the city logo parking lot(site) signs to be $450 each for a 42" x 48" sign. These signs were oriented to face the street (rather than the more appropriate orientation of facing the on-coming motorists). Originally, five of these signs were planned, along with nine$350 trailblazer signs designed to lead motorists to the parking lots(total estimated cost: $5,400). In order to have the proper orientation of the parking lot signs (facing motorists), it is necessary to have two signs near each parking lot entrance, one informing each lane / direction of traffic (except for the cases in which the parking lot entrances are on 2nd Avenue and motorists are unable to make a left turn into the lot because of the railroad). This scenario would require 15 signs accordingly: Number of Number of Lot Location Entrances/Exits Signs Needed 2nd Ave. &Fuller St. 2 3 2nd Ave.between Holmes/Lewis Sts. 2 4 2nd(City Hall) 1 1 2nd Ave. &Lewis St. 2 3 River City Centre 2 4 TOTAL 15 pkgismo5.doc Since these parking lot signs would be more like the (smaller) 36" x 42" trailblazer signs proposed by WSB(facing motorists and leading them to the lots),they would not have to be the larger 42"x 48"signs as outlined above,and consequently would cost$100 less per sign($350 vs. $450).The estimated cost of the 15 parking lot signs is$5,250. In addition, six trailblazer signs should be installed, leading motorists to the public parking lots. The locations of these signs are as follows according to WSB's recommendations: • On south side of Hwy 69,facing east-bound traffic,between Atwood&Fuller Streets • On the west side of the Hwy 101 bridge just before the stop light,facing south-bound traffic • On south side of Hwy 69, facing east-bound traffic, adjacent to the River City Centre property,just before the 101 /First Avenue intersection • On the west side of Sommerville St.,facing south-bound traffic,just before 2nd Ave. • On the north side of Hwy 101, facing west-bound traffic,just before the 101 / First Avenue intersection. • On the east side of Sommerville St.,facing north bound traffic,just before 2nd Ave. The estimated cost of the six trailblazer signs is $2,100 ($350 / sign). The total estimated cost for the signing scenario as outlined above(parking lot and trailblazer signs)is$7,350. Options: 1. Direct staff to: • Use only the functional text"PUBLIC PARKING"on the parking lot signs and not name the parking lots;and • Acquire and install sixteen(15)36"x 42"city logo parking lot(site)signs and six(6) 36"x 42"city logo trailblazer signs as outlined above and in WSB's signing plan. 2. Decide to name the downtown municipal parking lots; appoint a council member to work with staff and Vision Shakopee! members on naming the parking lots; and determine a future council meeting at which the lot names would be officially adopted and the parking signs approved. 3. Table this item and request additional information. Recommendation: Option 1. Direct staff to use only the functional text"PUBLIC PARKING" on the parking lot signs and not name the parking lots; and acquire and install sixteen (15) 36"x 42" city logo parking lot signs and six(6)36"x 42"city logo trailblazer signs as outlined above and in WSB's signing plan. Action Requested: Offer and pass a motion to direct staff to use only the functional text of"PUBLIC PARKING" on the parking lot signs and not name the parking lots; and acquire and install sixteen (15) 36"x 42" city logo parking lot signs and six(6)36"x 42"city logo trailblazer signs as outlined in this memo and in WSB's signing plan. pkgismo5.doc fXI1rr 8 CITY OF SHAKOPEE simesimMIONNIMINMIONMEND Memorandum TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Downtown Parking Task Force Paul Snook,Economic Development Coordinator SUBJECT: Downtown Parking Guide Signing Plan MEETING DATE: December 1, 1998 Introduction and Background: The City Council is asked to consider adopting the parking guide signing plan for downtown as recommended by the volunteer Downtown Parking Task Force and WSB&Associates. At its November 10, 1998 workshop session,the City Council discussed and received public comment on the recommended downtown parking changes and accompanying guide signing plan as presented by the Downtown Parking Task Force and WSB & Associates in their"Downtown Parking & Signing Study", commissioned by the EDA. Council directed staff to bring these recommendations back to the Council on December 1, 1998 for action. Discussion: Last spring,the task force conducted parking inventory and occupancy surveys in the downtown area and noticed a lack of informational signage directing motorists/customers to public parking areas.As a result, the task force and WSB propose the downtown parking guide signing plan as outlined in Exhibit A. The plan includes initial guide signs, route guide signing, and site signing. WSB also identified the approximate location and configuration for downtown parking guide signs as well as a potential sign design. Budget Impact: WSB estimates the cost of the guide signs with the City logo to be approximately $350 each for the initial and route guide signs, and approximately$450 each for the site signs. The total estimated cost for the 14 signs is$5,400. A more "generic" sign design (plain black lettering on white background without the City logo) would cost approximately $2,100 for the 14 signs. The cost for the signing would come out of the street division budget and would require a budget amendment to be prepared by the Finance Director. pkgismo4.doc Options: 1. Direct staff to implement the Downtown Parking Guide Signing Plan as recommended by the Downtown Parking Task Force and WSB,using the City logo sign design. 2. Direct staff to implement the Downtown Parking Guide Signing Plan as recommended by the Downtown Parking Task Force and WSB,using a"generic"sign design without the City logo. 3. Table this item and request additional information. Action Requested: Offer and pass a motion to direct staff according to the Council's preferred option. pkgismo4.doc OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA DECEMBER 1,1998 Page -9- Paul Snook reported that the Downtown Parking Task force is recommending the City Council consider adopting the downtown parking guide signing plan, developed by WSB&Associates. The cost of the guide signs with the City logo is estimated to be approximately $350 for each initial and route guide sign, and approximately $450 for each site sign. The total estimated cost for the 14 signs is $5,400. A generic sign design without the City logo would cost approximately$2,100 for 14 signs. The cost for signing would come out of the street division budget and would require a budget amendment. Cncl. Sweeney explained that the budget cycle has been closed and suggested prioritizing the signs and wait until the next budget cycle to complete the signing. He suggested doing the parking lot signs now and the directional signs later. Sweeney/DuBois moved to direct staff to obtain and install five high quality/city logo signs identifying the parking lots at this time and two directional signs to the River City Centre, for a total of 7 signs. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/DuBois moved that staff fmd someone on the Council to assist staff in naming the parking lots. Motion carried unanimously. Judith S.Cox City Clerk Esther TenEyck Recording Secretary pkgismo5.doc RESOLUTION NO. 434 •UArre A RESOLUTION NAMING THE FIVE MUNICIPAL PARKING LOTS WHEREAS, The City of Shakopee now has five Municipal Parking Lots and said lots are as yet unnamed, and WHEREAS, a requisite for easy identification should be of prime importance, and WHEREAS, The Shakopee Chamber of Commerce in cooperation with the City in order to resolve this problem did therefore sponsor a "Name the Parking Lots" Contest for grade school students, and WHEREAS, A prize winning list has been submitted by the Chamber of Commerce designating three categories as winners of said contest. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, That they heartily concur with the expertise of and the imaginative choice made by the Chamber of Commerce and do hereby designate the following names for the five Municipal Parking Lots: Golden Arrow Silver Arrow Red Arrow Blue Arrow Black Arrow Adopted in (n,,. 9`- )5� Session of the Common Council held this 2./14(day o/ l: -/ni , 1970. /. President of the Common Council ATTEST: • ) ' ,Al �� I , .dr/. ";2',)G City 'ep,, der Appr ed thisc'-iay o -), , 1970. • Mayor-of the City of Shakopee • . G-F$a #Y 3 . i: Y :} sd ua ,• & _^ ,44 Y-44. 7PSf ,464-" iY r •.xv4 . 4- # i 1 f s u 6 Y,, 4. it d f ', * x„ a " " � , � ly -,.f. A.” ) r y *n ' 'x ' ,*4'. ,' a< �� '.1'..'''''' L t t°717°.717'' � " +� : c: , %i "A' k41°.`°,fG, 1s-.i %0' ;rk l.tsV34i. 4uAy1P4 S .4h. +�A ^".-.0.. ,..ei -G..- t 'Ar qY. '' * 1 f� -.Z1 °E.147:14:,, - t ' ,1 �,ye 5 , e,} a01+b'( `R1; ,A44, a°12Yr1'. �rT,:."Yy .,‘;''''V-ti'''', ;v :k.4. 4 t # ,r fl . y,i ~ .,-7--,„,,• ' l Y tr 4 ;hr Y 4 s ^a : ' Black Arrow ,Pakk Lot in Block'.30, south of Second e gond Ave. a,`� wr y} p,'- it's, ,,r & t,. v S.' r x dcai:v °-r'*h7 etie, t £ wr, ,r; s� y4-K' '41.`.A.44 y, � fi ,p, „ ,4; :$ 4 een T, wi andHolmes ,� ., � utR zk. rtr' r ,t ' .tom+� .„ r, ib a4m .c€ ,,t' ."• dA„ I: P :' = ' Go].de Arx'ow Parking at `..,— n7,Block':;24,ewes of the hotel. " re +�••�... y ,�r � �.� _�'� h i r ; n c&i'� Is.`; �€r ,�� �+ int� + .o-'k.:����,,;=''afr t x ,*,`. � .lu;e .ar g r o 1- 23. 1'Bck`s21 ' across from Berens A it K , - 4'.....' ", ` a ; �h • a a YY �+'x .fry 2 a }4 " a,-,,(.'��}+4 ra-, >,,, ,R.� .14!,1.......s., 4 3 �,, is ///C� ; '�` Silver Arrow Parking lot 17-41, in Block 4, behind City Hall l}a g a 4 .,a,• i 1,1,it, $ k L`4 Lk'1, �' e"„�' 3 +'+-`4,'j'., 5^ a > Y' d,1 F' 2 i. t a x �,!y: '� 4 : N} `, ..<+ 1 .w i , Red Arrow;:Parking Lot” x �1. in Block 5, behind Brambilla Motors d .-''+ Wk{ _ `a', _ xw1� b *.., :t.'"Ii 1fi=�i �.' `o., lz,, p +'rad .•a. , '.•(a,. �` 7. 4 T•:yy , wy-'�',,•c.,43, ... :s .p_.- T� .' a h-- of -/"A ..p. k tl .. - �M =� r (�+a,r��,�� '',��F i' si$ ',,��'' env- t � ' d tn %It1 \ ct)-x n 7 \II 7 \ Cl. 0. � awit -,-I. ci , 1 .6 m; � p � $g � `1. LW � � � I.5 32oII2 ( � N � 2 ? f 3 ,f, 1 / it / /01:i 1' 1 \ . i-h r. "mq-S 4"'" 4"1 aTITAaatuu I A lirwl-Pir X', I . .-=A (\ N . 6 - \ , ' ,.)1k 6 6 ° .t Ian ��:-V6 +- : � I /I 3 a i • S I sT.M.ar ,__ \.z)\ 4_ \I-\‘\-\4 L 1 i .. .? , \I I Li \ \ , t vt cLzil \ k_01-4 p. \lc in rzi El m u sz34 = i . c, . I . jj., Is 1.... sauvoi I € II II 11 1 E .I - ---1:4-- - 1 44 18 i riri °4In-k I Li 11--+ Di:‘,0- I 4 , ,x\l.. 1 II— — — — — — '�s — j .1..‘ r‘ f e: '� ',,A ` ) r t y 5 1t .s IL § .-t'' Lir 4, t, `� f 2 f •, tQs e � aT r h o t � '+?' 0 r,5 iJ c(i lc i. p t� , ii 'tkr � :',q y ,: df `} SD ? 6th t y 2, ali i — k 3 T,w s 0 ;NI } i,';'N. j t O (I) y a a� a ,: a 7s GI. (I3 -.0t- a p .3 ' �s .�..5 gr is w a axtt �h}t ut Q V } W �� ` "i6 t YJ5 4 �°1 a i�4�g b' , : • w � (....3 �' t ".gyp . . 1 PZ �. - s t q a 13 «rw" `tiw rj 2 `" � — �mua�"B� ?''L z � Q a, 4 ' ,,,O' ',,' \ r i • 1 w ,, `, 4} ti ` x17,> > `ii _ -[ t . n ,,. , 1 7- -;\-4 '''' ^J'. 1 t ' '" . vy y 1 ,+k CI SO c Q w�'sr' ��/ `,`ty— — , �Y } _ AKpPEE • ',• • f6 • { . ;•;:,:'1':..L.- 14.1 1, � .z '.� G�Y fR`Yr.. y` 'i.' 9n arlrw. N rt to O , _ "fi ..,..r �l * x � r. vw Bk\� Y HA(. " .7 �' • iG Anx"` u (OPTIONl14,j Z Z44 a h ` ate, p Z r` t i` — \.� .•art.,.`. N �,.`w i �� tL1 l y �,,. �� r y Lam' d 1t V 1 0, . . '\„,,, .1',,,,' k,', .,-.. ,,). ' ...„. '-ety .\ ,_, ' ,r, ,,, . f, ''' Yi �, Z ''1tiVA �k �1 ..- ex 4�1� �a1¢..,..M.. . x., W?Re • Z -- 0. �� c/) ": a �:.�. 32a•xvx �, ;% II .S 55 r5 1 fi u uss�d 4 '_ , r', • •fit 1 � s 5 Yt. , Z e �Y h` '{� } o y,• ',.,.:,, '',,Z,§1:' 7 l!': Al IN ',,,‘. ' a U 1 ° 1 v Y,:4 '''''.V4'• � t • Y fit. },• V ,.: .. 44 ' g4.11.14 • `, It � f4� ) 5S. ` l xt' i>$;y El .� C:) �G( a og d • - c a 'i .gig. d Is Cill• OF+! os • — tr , ....L .vii+,... CITY OF SHAKOPEE /5. Memorandum CONSENT TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Grant DATE: July 13, 1999 INTRODUCTION: The Council is asked to enter into a grant agreement between the Metropolitan Council and the City of Shakopee for a Livable Communities Act(LCA)Local Housing Incentives Grant. BACKGROUND: Over the past year and one half, developer Greg McClenahan has been working to put together an affordable housing project of the remnant portion of the Fire Station site, located southwest of the intersection of Vierling Drive and County Road 16. An important part of that project was Mr. McClenahan's success in being able to receive grants for funding construction. One half of the funding for a first phase was received last Fall. In May, it was announced that the project would receive the balance of funding and tax credits needed in order to proceed with the construction. That grant is actually with the City and Metropolitan Council. On July 19th,the Local Housing Incentives Account Grant Agreement will go before the full Metropolitan Council. At the same time,the City should formally approve participation in this. Note that the City's contribution for this is $120,000,which is for"inkind"services- $240,000 was the value of the grading which was done earlier that caused a reduction in the amount of dirt that would have to be removed in order for this project to become a reality. That value was for grading the entire 10 acre site; because of the grant,the phasing of this project will be for two portions-the initial 5 acres upon which construction is to take place is one-half of the original 10 acres. Therefore,the$120,000 shown as the local match(page A7), is proportionately $120,000. As an aside,the Council should be aware that the other component of this development, a daycare center, is being finalized for funding. About$750,000 is needed for funding; grants that have been awarded to date total $600,000. A couple of other grant possibilities are in the works;the child care center is close to reality,but some additional work needs to be done. A closing on the property is set for mid to late August. Mr. McClenahan is buying the whole ten acres from the City at that time. The sales price is $325,000,with the seller (City)paying for the outstanding assessments of approximately $20,000. Mr. McClenahan anticipates starting construction very shortly after the closing takes place, with occupancy of the first units by May,2000. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that the City Council authorize entering into the grant agreement(attached). ACTION REQUIRED: If the Council concurs, it should,by motion,adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 5198 A RESOLUTION EXECUTING THE METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT GRANT AGREEMENT-GRANT NO. SG-99-10 V Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:tw RESOLUTION NO. 5198 A RESOLUTION EXECUTING THE METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT GRANT AGREEMENT-GRANT NO.SG-99-10 WHEREAS,the City of Shakopee has worked with EverGreen Heights Townhomes,Limited Partnership, in an effort to provide affordable housing for residential units in Shakopee; and WHEREAS,part of the funding for said EverGreen Heights Townhomes Development necessitates tax credits and grant funding from the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency; and WHEREAS,EverGreen Heights Townhomes, Limited Partnership, and the City have recently been notified that such funding has been granted; and WHEREAS,receipt of such funding will allow for the construction of said townhomes; and WHEREAS,the grant instrument is in the form of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentives Account, Grant#SG-99-10; and WHEREAS,the proceeds of that grant received by the City will be forwarded to the EverGreen Heights Townhomes Limited Partnership,with the stipulation that those proceeds of$120,000 be pledged for construction and acquisition costs. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota,that is directs that the grant agreement by and between the Metropolitan Council and the City of Shakopee be executed. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota,held this day of , 1999. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Grant No. SG-99-10 METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT GRANT AGREEMENT THIS GRANT AGREEMENT is made and entered into by the Metropolitan Council ("Council") and the City of Shakopee ("Grantee"). WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes section 473.251 creates the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund, the uses of which fund must be consistent with and promote the purposes of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act and the policies of the Metropolitan Development Guide adopted by the Council; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes sections 473.251 and 473.254 establish within the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund a Local Housing Incentives Account and require the Council to annually distribute funds in the account to participating municipalities that have not met their affordable and life-cycle housing goals, as determined by the Council, and are actively funding projects designed to help meet the goals; and WHEREAS, the Grantee is a "municipality" as defined in Minnesota Statutes section 473.254, subdivision 6 which has negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 473.254, subdivision 2 and has elected to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account program; and WHEREAS, the Grantee has not yet met its affordable and life-cycle housing goals as determined by the Council and is actively funding projects designed to help meet the goals; and WHEREAS, the Grantee agrees to provide the grant funds made available under this agreement to help fund the Evergreen Heights Townhomes project identified in the application for Local Housing Incentives Account funds submitted by Evergreen Heights Townhomes, Limited Partnership in response to a Super Request for Proposals for multi-family housing funds issued in May 1998 by the Metropolitan Housing Implementation Group; and WHEREAS, at its December 3, 1998 regular meeting, the Council awarded Local Housing Incentives Account funds to the Grantee for the Evergreen Heights Townhomes project located within the City of Shakopee. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained in this agreement, the Grantee and the Council agree as follows: Page 1 of 6 Pages ii I. DEFINITIONS 1.01 Definition of Terms. For the purposes of this agreement, the terms defined in this paragraph have the meanings given them in this paragraph unless otherwise provided or indicated by the context. (a) "Metropolitan Area" means the seven-county metropolitan area as defined by Minnesota Statutes section 473.121, subdivision 2. (b) "Municipality"means a statutory or home rule charter city or town in the Metropolitan Area. (c) "Participating Municipality" means a Municipality electing to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account program under Minnesota Statutes section 473.254. II. GRANT FUNDS 2.01 Total Grant Amount. The Council will grant to the Grantee a total sum of $120,000.00 which shall be funds from the Local Housing Incentives Account of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund. Notwithstanding any other provision of this agreement, the Grantee understands and agrees that any reduction or termination of Local Housing Incentives Account funds made available to the Council, or any reduction or termination of the dollar-for-dollar match amount required under paragraph 2.02, may result in a like reduction to the Grantee. 2.02 Match Requirement. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 473.254, subdivision 6, the Grantee shall match on a dollar-for-dollar basis the total grant amount received from the Council under paragraph 2.01. The source and amount of the dollar-for-dollar match shall be identified by the Grantee in the report(s)required under paragraph 3.03. 2.03 Authorized Use of Grant Funds. The total grant amount made available to the Grantee under this agreement shall be used only for the purposes and activities described in the application for Local Housing Incentives Account funds. A copy of the project activity and budget provisions of the application which identify eligible uses of the grant funds are attached to and incorporated into this agreement as Attachment A. If the provisions of the application are inconsistent with other provisions of this agreement the other provisions of this agreement shall take precedence over the provisions of the application. Grant funds must be used for purposes consistent with Minnesota Statutes section 473.25(a), in a Participating Municipality. Grant funds must be used for costs directly associated with the specific proposed activities and are intended to be used for"hard costs" rather than "soft costs" such as: administrative overhead; activities prior to the start of the grant project; travel expenses; legal fees; permits, licenses or authorization fees; costs associated with preparing other grant proposals; operating expenses; planning costs, including comprehensive planning costs; and prorated lease and salary costs. The Council shall bear no responsibility for cost overruns which may be incurred by the Grantee or others in the implementation or performance of the project activities described in Attachment A. The Grantee agrees to remit to the Council in a prompt manner: any unspent grant funds; any grant funds which are not used for the authorized purposes specified in this paragraph; any grant funds that are not matched on a dollar-for-dollar basis as required by paragraph 2.02; and any interest earnings described in paragraph 2.06 which are not used for the purposes of implementing the project activities described in Attachment A. Page 2 of 6 Pages Of 2.04 Budget Variance. A variance of ten percent (10%) in the amounts allocated to various eligible uses identified in Attachment A shall be considered acceptable without further documentation or Council approval. Budget variances exceeding ten percent (10%) may require approval of the governing body of the Metropolitan Council. Notwithstanding the aggregate or net effect of any variances, the Council's obligation to provide grant funds under this agreement shall not exceed the maximum grant amount specified in paragraph 2.01 of this agreement. 2.05 Disbursement Schedule. The Council will disburse the grant funds to the Grantee in accordance with the grant fund disbursement schedule contained in Attachment B, which is incorporated into and made a part of this agreement. The Council will make disbursements only upon receipt of a written disbursement request from the Grantee's authorized agent or representative. 2.06 Interest Earnings. If the Grantee earns any interest or other income from the grant funds received from the Council under this agreement, the Grantee will use the interest earnings or income only for the purposes of implementing the project activities described in Attachment A. 2.07 Effect of Grant. Issuance of this grant neither implies any Council responsibility for contamination, if any, at the project site nor imposes any obligation on the Council to participate in any pollution cleanup of the project site if such cleanup is undertaken or required. III. ACCOUNTING,AUDIT AND REPORT REQUIREMENTS 3.01 Accounting and Records. The Grantee agrees to establish and maintain accurate and complete accounts and records relating to the receipt and expenditure of all grant funds received from the Council. Notwithstanding the expiration and termination provisions of paragraphs 4.01 and 4.02, such accounts and records shall be kept and maintained by the Grantee for a period of three (3) years following the completion of the project activities described in Attachment A or three (3) years following the expenditure of the grant funds, whichever occurs earlier. For all expenditures of grant funds received pursuant to this agreement, the Grantee will keep proper financial records including invoices, contracts, receipts, vouchers and other appropriate documents sufficient to evidence in proper detail the nature and propriety of the expenditure. The Grantee also will keep proper financial records and other appropriate documents sufficient to evidence the nature and expenditure of the dollar-for-dollar match funds required under paragraph 2.02. Accounting methods shall be in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. 3.02 Audits. The above accounts and records of the Grantee shall be audited in the same manner as all other accounts and records of the Grantee are audited and may be audited or inspected on the Grantee's premises or otherwise by individuals or organizations designated and authorized by the Council at any time, following reasonable notification to the Grantee, for a period of three (3) years following the completion of the project activities described in Attachment A or three (3) years following the expenditure of the grant funds,whichever occurs earlier. 3.03 Report Requirements. The Grantee will provide to the Council one or more written reports which report on the status of the project activities described in Attachment A, the expenditures of the grant funds, and the source and expenditure of the dollar-for-dollar match funds required under paragraph 2.02. The reporting schedule and the content of the written report(s) are identified in Attachment C, which is incorporated into and made a part of this agreement. Page 3 of 6 Pages of 3.04 Environmental Site Assessment. The Grantee represents that a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment or other environmental review has been or will be carried out, if such environmental assessment or review is appropriate for the scope and nature of the project activities funded by this grant, and that any environmental issues have been or will be adequately addressed. IV. AGREEMENT TERM 4.01 Term. This agreement is effective upon execution of the agreement by the Council. Unless terminated pursuant to paragraph 4.02, this agreement will expire upon completion of the project activities described in Attachment A or following the expenditure of all grant funds by the Grantee, whichever occurs earlier. 4.02 Termination. This agreement may be terminated by the Council for cause at any time upon fourteen (14) calendar days' written notice to the Grantee. Cause shall mean a material breach of this agreement and any amendments of this agreement. If this agreement is terminated, the Grantee shall receive payment on a pro rata basis for project activities described in Attachment A that have been completed. Termination of this agreement does not alter the Council's authority to recover grant funds on the basis of a later audit or other review, and does not alter the Grantee's obligation to return any grant funds due to the Council as a result of later audits or corrections. If the Council determines the Grantee has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of this agreement and the applicable provisions of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act, the Council may take any action to protect the Council's interests and may refuse to disburse additional grant funds and may require the Grantee to return all or part of the grant funds already disbursed. 4.03 Amendments. The Council and the Grantee may amend this agreement by mutual agreement. Amendments, changes or modifications of this agreement shall be effective only on the execution of written amendments signed by authorized representatives of the Council and the Grantee. V. GENERAL PROVISIONS 5.01 Equal Opportunity. The Grantee agrees it will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, membership or activity in a local civil rights commission, disability, sexual orientation or age and will take affirmative action to insure applicants and employees are treated equally with respect to all aspects of employment, rates of pay and other forms of compensation, and selection for training. 5.02 Conflict of Interest. The members, officers and employees of the Grantee shall comply with all applicable state statutory and regulatory conflict of interest laws and provisions. 5.03 Liability. Subject to the limitations provided in Minnesota Statutes chapter 466, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the Grantee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Council and its members, employees and agents from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses, including but not limited to attorneys' fees, arising out of or resulting from the conduct or implementation of the project activities funded by this grant, except to the extent the claims, damages, losses and expenses arise from the Council's own negligence. Claims included in this indemnification include, without limitation, any claims asserted pursuant to the Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act (MERLA), Minnesota Statutes chapter 115B, the federal Page 4 of 6 Pages or Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) as amended, 42 U.S.C. sections 9601 et seq., and the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) as amended, 42 U.S.C. sections 6901 et seq. This obligation shall not be construed to negate, abridge or otherwise reduce any other right or obligation of indemnity which otherwise would exist between the Council and the Grantee. The provisions of this paragraph shall survive the termination of this agreement. This indemnification shall not be construed as a waiver on the part of either the Grantee or the Council of any immunities or limits on liability provided by Minnesota Statutes chapter 466, or other applicable state or federal law. 5.04 Acknowledgments. The Grantee shall acknowledge the financial assistance provided by the Council and the State of Minnesota in promotional materials, press releases, reports and publications relating to the project activities described in Attachment A which are funded in whole or in part with the grant funds. The acknowledgment should contain the following, or similar, language: This project was financed in part with funds provided by the Metropolitan Council through the Local Housing Incentives Account of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund. 5.05 Permits, Bonds and Approvals. The Council assumes no responsibility for obtaining any applicable local, state or federal licenses, permits, bonds, authorizations or approvals necessary to perform or complete the project activities described in Attachment A. 5.06 Contractors and Subcontractors. The Grantee shall include in any contract or subcontract for project activities appropriate contract provisions to ensure contractor and subcontractor compliance with all applicable state and federal laws. Along with such provisions, the Grantee shall require that contractors and subcontractors performing work covered by this grant comply with all applicable state and federal Occupational Safety and Health Act regulations. 5.07 Attachments. The following are attached to this agreement and are incorporated into and made a part of this agreement: (a) Attachment A - Project activity and budget provisions of the application for Local Housing Incentives Account funds (b) Attachment B - Grant Fund Disbursement Schedule (c) Attachment C - Written Report Submission Schedule 5.08 Warranty of Legal Capacity. The individuals signing this agreement on behalf of the Grantee and on behalf of the Council represent and warrant on the Grantee's and the Council's behalf respectively that the individuals are duly authorized to execute this agreement on the Grantee's and the Council's behalf respectively and that this agreement constitutes the Grantee's and the Council's valid,binding and enforceable agreements. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantee and the Council have caused this agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives. This agreement is effective on the date when both parties have finally executed this document. Page 5 of 6 Pages Approved as to form: METROPOLITAN COUNCIL By Associate General Counsel Thomas C. McElveen,Director Housing and Local Assistance Date CITY OF SHAKOPEE By Jon P. Brekke,Mayor Date By Mark McNeill, City Administrator Date By Judith S. Cox, City Clerk Date Page 6 of 6 Pages ATTACHMENT A APPLICATION FOR LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT FUNDS This attachment comprises pages A-1 through A-9 and incorporates the application for Local Housing Incentives Account grant funds contained in a Minnesota Housing Finance Agency Multifamily Application Form which was submitted by the Evergreen Heights Townhomes, Limited Partnership in response to a Super Request for Proposals for multi-family housing funds issued in May 1998 by the Metropolitan Housing Implementation Group. 1 • 132541 MHFA NUMBER A2792 MINNESOTA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY `. Multifamily Underwriting Division .` 400 Sibley Street,Suite 300 St.Paul,MN 55101-1998 MULTIFAMILY UNDERWRITING FORM This form isused for both multifamily first mortgage loan programs and deferred loans. 77/0 vim. ernj /lag %.'rifyL. 2 Super RFP Fall'98 Round j.„A+-A `edtom a �"4 ' 7%%VACversion P/Lpec.ac. (CusTj' /c�.si.1"*+,4f4) . Click where appropriate: O Application O Initial Closing DATE: 9/22/98 O Selection 0 Pre-Occupancy HDO: RFP 0 Commitment 0 Final Closing HMO: VC I. REQUEST FOR FUNDS: Amount of funds requested: Deferred Loans $400,000 MHFA 1st Mortgage Anticipated TDC $3,106,177 (Line X.D) rAre you applying for Low Income Housing Tax Credits for this development? 0 Yes 0 No Round 1'99 HTC application anticipated rHave you received Low Income Housing Tax Credits for this development? O Yes 0 No If yes,Allocating Agency: Year of allocation? Amount of Allocation rHave you previously applied for MHFA funding for this development,other than Tax Credits? „Yes ONo r Have you previously received MHFA funding for this development,other than Tax Credits? I0 Yes 0 No XXX II. PROJECT LOCATION: - Development Name: Evergreen Heights TH-Phase I Street Address: Vierling Drive and Co Rd 16 City: Shakopee Zp: 55379 County:Scott Congressional District 2 Legislative District 35/3513 III. DEVELOPMENT TEAM: Name City Phone Processing Agent Attorney: Winthrop and Weinstein Mpls 347-0600 Architect: William Jacobson Mpis 871-6386 General Contractor: Fulco Chaska 448-3200 Management Agent A.I.M.S. Mpls 533-7193 IV. APPLICANT(S)INFORMATION: Full Name of Applicant(s)/Organization:Evergreen Heights Townhomes,Limited Partnership Street Address:5212 Hope Street City:Prior Lake County:Scott State:MN Zip: 55372 Social Security No(s)or MN Tax ID No(s):41-1898637 7 - (for all borrowers,including spouses) Contact Person:Gergory McClenahan The:General Partner Telephone:Work:447-6464 Fax:831-1869 Home: MHFA Multifamily Underwriting Form 8/97 -11 9/25/98 4:29 PM Of 02541 . MHFA NUMBER • IV. APPLICANT(S)INFORMATION (Continued): • —Type of Applicant/Organization: ❑Nonprofit Agency/Corporation ❑Housing Authority/Community Development Agency ❑Umited Profit Entity ®For Profit Organization/Corporation ❑Unit of Government ❑Community-Based Organization Specify: ❑Other(Specify): ❑Individual ❑Community Housing Development Organization(CHDO) Proposed Ownership Entity: ❑General Partnership ®Umited Partnership ❑Individual(s) ❑Corporation ❑Other(Specify): Names of Proposed General Partners: Name of GeneraV Umited Partnership: Gregory McClenahan Evergreen Real Estate Development Corp Evergreen Heights TH-Ltd Partnership V. PROJECT INFORMATION: —Type of Activity(check all that apply): ❑Acquisition ❑Refinance ®New Construction ❑Conversion/adaptive re-use ❑Rehabilitation ❑Historic Preservation/Renovation ❑Demolition ❑Other(Specify) Total Site Area in Sq.Ft Acres 10.00 Density: 2.80 units/acre Type of Construction: Wood Frame 7 Year Built If Existing: 0 Occupied 0 Vacant • Types of Type of Number of Number of Number of Gross Square Structures Building(1) Buildings(2) Stories (DU) U ling Units Feet(3) Residential A TH 7 2 28 43,120 Residential B Other. TOTALS 7 28 43,120 (1)Walk-up(WU),Townhouse(TH).Elevator(E),Single family(SF).Duplex(DP). (2)Total number of residential structures,excluding detached garages. (3)Count Basements and Balconies at 1/2 sq.footage. Number of Parking Spaces: it of surface parking 50 #of covered parking 34 TOTAL 84 Check all that apply and Indicate number of units —Type of Housing #of units:) Population Targeting: #of units): ®Permanent Rental 28 ❑General Occupancy . ❑Perm.Rental with Services ®Families with Children 28 ❑HIV/AIDS Housing ❑Youth ❑Emergency Shelter ❑Single Adults ❑Transltional(up to 24 mos.) ❑Single Men ❑°Single Women ❑Publicly Owned Housing ❑Homeless/near homeless ❑Homeownership CI Other. (Specify) Households wk.pecial mach ❑People/families with HIV/AIDS ❑Elderly ❑Other(specify): Low-Income Targeting: (indicate the number and percent of units for each Income level proposed) 28 (#) or 100(%)of the low-income units will serve households at 50%or less of the area median income. (#) or (%)of the low-income units will serve households at %or less of the area median income. (#) or (%)of the low-Income units will serve households at %or less of the area median Income. MHFA Multifamily Underwriting Form 8/97 A _22 9/25/98 429 PM 15 D2541 MHFA NUMBER • VI. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Zoning: • r Is property in historic district or designated a historic building? 0 Yes ®No Present Zoning/Classification: 112 Max.units/acre: 8 1 Are there variances,conditional use permits or special use permits required? 0 Yes O No F Is the property in compliance with current zoning requirements? 0 Yes O No If No,what is the proposed rezoning classification: Unusual Site Features: , r Floodplain High-tension wires II 0 Yes 0 N r 0 Yes 0 N r Steep ravines or grades rRock Formations ®Yes 0 No I 0 Yes O No r Near AirportPoor Drainage 0 Yes 0 No r 0 Yes 0 N rCreek,lake,etc. Fig 0 Yes 0 No r 0 Yes 0 No ffr With 300 feet of railroad rHigh Water Table 0 Yes 0 No I OYes 0 N F Unstable soil Industrial/Environmental azard 0 Yes ONo r UYes ONo Planning and Development: I Is the property in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan? ®Yes ❑No ❑Not Applicable F Is the site part of a larger development program? 0 No 0 Yes (attach applicable plan and written confirmation from city) —Type of Program: ❑Neighborhood Revitalization Plan ❑Planned Unit Development(PUD) ❑Housing and Redevelopment Authority(HRA) ❑Tax increment Financing(TIF) ❑Other Specify: Utility Information: Isor will the development be connected to the following: Municipal Water O Yes 0 No r C 0 Yes 0 No F Municipal Sewer Electric OYes 0 No r OYes 0 No r Off-site public improvements necessary? 0 No 0 Yes(state nature,amount and plan for construction) Site Control: r Does Applicant currently control the property/building? OYes ONo Type of Site Control: Purchase Agreement(w/extension resolution by City) If Ownership: Purchase Price of the Properly/Building: Date of Purchase: If Purchase Is Proposed: Date of Purchase/Option Agreement: Feb-98 Expiration Date of Purchase/Option Agreement 10/1/99 Type of Existing Loan: r ❑Mortgage ❑Contract for Deed ❑Other ® ' None I Current Indebtedness on this property/bullding: For Existing Loans: 1st Lender 2nd Lender Name Of Lender City owns property Address of Lender Original Loan Amount Monthly Payment _ Term Interest Rate _ Date of First Payment Unpaid Balance Date of Maturity — Hud Insured ?Y or N . MHFA Multifamily Underwriting Form 8/97 A - 3, 9/25/98 4:29 PM D2541 MHFA NUMBER VIL MANAGEMENT INFORMATION: Proposed Management Entity: A.I.M.S. Name of Property Manager. Donna Yaeger Phone No.: 533-7193 r Does the above entity currently manage the property? Il Q Ye8 Length of Time: 0 No ®N/A F Will the building have an on-site caretaker? Yes Q No VIII. ESTIMATED ANNUAL INCOME AND EXPENSES: A. HOUSING INCOME Unit a of DU Approx.Size Proposed Total Annual Estimated Monthly Gross Rental Rooms Total Rooms(I Type (Net Rentable Monthly Contract Rent Cost of Rent Per Unit• of Units x (OBR, Sq.Ft.)of Contract Rent(it x rent x 12)Monthly (Proposed Rooms Per 1BR, Units Per Unit Utilities Paid Contract Rent Unit) 2BR, by Occupant +Utilities) etc.) 2 BR 12 1136 $609 $87,696 $74 $683 4.5 54 3 BR 15 1320 $702 $126,360 $88 $790 6 90 4 BR 1 1584 $774 $9,288 $107 $881 7 7 TOTAL 28 TOTAL $223,344 _ TOTAL 151 UNITS: HOUSING INCOME: ROOMS: not reflected In rents or units/owned by HRA Utilities to be paid by Occupant(Excluding Telephone): 'Efficiency=3.5 rooms ®Heat-Type: Natural Gas 1 BR=3.5 rooms ®Hot Water ® Air Conditioning 2 BR=4.5 rooms 3BR=6.0rooms ®Household Electric ❑ Other-Specify: 4 BR=7.0 rooms • B. GROSS POTENTIAL RENT 1. Rental Housing Potential $223,344 2. Parking/Garage Rent Potential e of surface parking 50 Monthly fee 8 of covered parking 34 Monthly fee 3. Commercial Rent Potential 4. Miscellaneous Rent Potential 5. Gross Potential Rent(Total Lines 8.1 thru 8.4) $223,344 C. RENTAL LOSS: 1.Rental Housing Vacancy Vacancy Factor 7.0% x Line 81= $15,634 2. Parking/Garage Vacancy Vacancy Factor 7.0% x Line B2= 3. Commercial Vacancy Vacancy Factor x Line 83= 4. Miscellaneous Unrealized Income 5. Employee Rent Credits 6. Out of Service Units 7. Rental Concession Adjustments 8. Bad Debt 9.Total Rental Loss (Total Lines C.1 thru C.8) $15,634 D. NET RENTAL COLLECTIONS: (Line 8.5 minus C.14) $207,710 E. OTHER INCOME 1. Tenant Fees 2. Other Income Laundry Equipment $/DUIVear Annual Tax Increment Financing(TIF)Receipts: Other(Specify): 3. Forfeited Security Deposits 4. Interest Income 5. Total Other Income (Total Lines E.1 thruE.4) F. TOTAL REVENUE(Lines D plus E.5) $207,710 MHFA Multifamily Underwriting Form 8/97 A _44 9/25/98 4:29 PM r D2541 MHFA NUMBER G. ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENSES: la. Advertising and Marketing $1,000 lb. Management Fee $Per Unit Per Month Fee: $35 %of Total Revenue less TIF: 5.3% $11,000 1c. Legal $3,000 1d. Auditing $2,500 1e. Telephone $1.500 1f. On-Site Management Payroll $28,000 1g. Other Administration $8,000 lh. Total Administration(Total Lines to thru 1g) $55,000 2a. Elevator Maintenance/Contract 2b. Exterminating $500 2c. Rubbish Removal $5,000 2d. Other Contract Services 2e. Janitor Supplies $500 2f. Maintenance Supplies $1,500 2g. Grounds Maintenance $3,000 2h. Snow Removal 21. Heat&NC Repair Services $500 21. General Repair Services $3,000 2k. Paint/Decorating Materials $1,500 21. Maintenance&Jan.Payrol $2,500 2m. Other Maintenance and Operating 2n. Other. HOLLMAN units 2o. Total Maintenance (Total Lines 2a thru 2n) $18,000 3a. Electricity $2,200 3b. Water&Sewer $13,000 3c. Gas and Oil 3d. Total Utilities (Total Lines 3e thru 3e) $15,200 4. Insurance $4,000 H TOTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATING EXPENSES (Add Lines G.1 h,G.2o,G.3d,and G.4) $92,200 1.Total Mgmt.and Operating Expenses Per Unit Per Mo.(Une H./Total'#Units/12) $274 2.Total Mgmt.and Operating Expenses Per Room Annually (Une H./Total#Rooms) $611 RESERVES AND ESCROWS 1. Real Estate Taxes- $Per Unit $929 X#Units= $26,000 2. Replacement Reserve- $Per Rom $20 X#Rooms= $3,020 3. Painting&Decorating Reserve-5/Room $30 X#Rooms= $4,530 4. Miscellaneous Reserves-S Per Room X#Rooms= 5.Total Reserves&Escrows (Total Lines L1 thru L4) $33,550 J. EFFECTIVE GROSS EXPENSES(Add Lines H and 1.5) (Total Mgmt and Operating Expenses plus Reserves and Escrows) $125,750 K. NET OPERATING INCOME(Line F,Total Revenue, minus Line J) I $81,960 IX. MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE MORTGAGE: A. Net Operating Income(Une VIII.K) - If zero($0)or minus,skip this section and go to Section X. $81,960 B. Debt Coverage Ratio 1.15 C. Net Operating Income Available for Debt Service (Net Operating Income(VIII.K) dMded by Debt Service Reserve(IX.B)) $71,270 D. Annual Debt Service for proposed Subordinated Debt,if any: Other Subordinated Debt 1. Lender MHFA Super RFP Deferred Loan(this request) Rate 1.00% Term 30 Years • Principal$ $450,000 Annual Debt Service$ (Deferred) 2. Lender Rate Term Years Principal$ Annual Debt Service$ 3. Total Annual Subordinated Debt Service: E. Net Operating Income(NOI)less Total Annual Subordinated Debt Service (Une IX.0 minus Une IX.D.3) $71,270 F. Estimated Maximum Mortgage Based on income Approach: 1. First Mortgage Terms Term: 30 Years Rate: 9.00% Years 30 a) Debt Service Factor 0.096554714 Amortization: b) Plus Annual Fee (MHFA only) c) Total Debt Service Factor 0.096554714 2. Maximum Mortgage $738,131 (Net Operating Income(IX.E)divided by Total Debt Service Factor( 3. Net Mortgage Loan(Maximum Mortgage divided by 1.04) (Applies to MHFA 1st Mortgage loans only) 4. Development Cost Escrow(DCE) (Maximum Mortgage minus Net Mortgage Loan)(Une IX.F.2 minus Une IX.F.3) MHFA Multifamily Underwriting Form 8/97 A -6 9/25/98 4:29 PM y�( D2541 MHFA NUMBER X. ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT COST: • A. Acquisition or Refinance Existing Debt Costs: 1. Acquisition/Refinance $5,022 $IDU $140,603 2. Special Assessments 3. Other 4. TOTAL $140,603 B. If New Construction,complete Section 01 below. If Rehabilitation,complete Section 12 below: 1. New Construction a) Residential $37 $/gross sq.ft._ $1,577,516 b) Garages Storage c) Other. $/gross sq.ft. d) Sitework $5,108 $/DU. $143,014 e) Net Construction $61.448 $/DU= $1,720,530 (Total Unes B.ta.thru B.1.d.) f) General Requirements 2.7%%of Une B.1.e. $46,806 g) Builder's General Overhead 1.8%%of Une13.1.8- $31,203 h) Builder's Profit 4.5%%of Une B.1.e. $78,009 J)Gross Construction(Contract Amount) (Total Unes 8.1.e thru B.1.1) $67,020.S/DU: TOTAL $1,876,548 k) Construction Contingency(Minimum 4%,subject to MHFA review) $72,310 2. Rehabilitation:(if available attach a more detailed scope;otherwise,complete this section). a)Site work:(grading,paving,drainage,landscape,Wines,etc.) b)Exterior.(includes roof,siding and trim,windows and doors,etc.) c)Interior: (includes cabinets,appliances,fixtures,and wall, ceiling,and floor finishes,etc.) d)Mechanical Systems: (includes heating,air conditioning, plumbing,and fixtures,etc.) e)Electrical Systems: (includes service,wiring,and fixtures) f)Specify Other. g)Specify Other. h)Net Rehabilitation (Total Line B.2.a thru B.2.g) I)General (%of Line B.2.h) Requirements A Builder's General (%of Line 8.2.h) Overhead k)Builder's Profit (%of Une B.2.h) I)Other- Specify: m)Gross Rehabilitation(Contract Amount) (Total Line B.2.h thru B.2.1) /DU TOTAL n) Construction Contingency(Minimum 7%,subject to MHFA revieew) C. Soft Costs 1. Development expenses a)Architect's Fee-Design(75%of Total) $16,872 b)Architect's Fee-Supervision(25%of Total) $5,624 Total Architect's Fee $22,496 1.3%of fine B.1.e or B.2.h e)Legal $49,386 d)Processing Agent e)Marketing $25,000 f)Surveys and Soil Borings $16,069 g)Bond Premium h)Building Permit(s) i)Sewer-Water Access Charge $152,655 j)Developer's Fee 10.6%%of Une X.D $330,000 k)Appraisal Fee $4,017 I)Cost Certification/Audit(MHFA 1st mortgage) • m)Energy Audit n)Environmental Assessment o)Furnishings and Equipment p)Title and Recording $25,676 q)Other Fees-Specify: $28,012 r) TOTAL $653,311 2. Financing and Carrying Charges a)Construction interest at%: months $194,450 b)Taxes During Construction $1,607 c)Insurance During Construction $1,607 d)Agency Inspection Fee(MHFA First Mortgage Only) (.5%of gross construction cost) e)Agency Financing Fee(2%of Net Mortgage) (MHFA First Mortgage Only) f)Agency Bridge Loan Fee(2%) g)Other Fees-Specify: Origination Fees(Const(65fK)&Perm.(20KJ) $77,224 h)Other Fees-Specify: Reserves(75K)and Syndicaiton(14K) $88,517 i) TOTAL $363,405 Subtotal C.1.s end C2.I $1,016.716 D. Total Development Cost(TDC) $110,935 Per DU TOTAL $3,106,177 (Total Lines A.4,B.1.j&k or13.2.m&n,C.1.r and C.2.1) E. Gross TDC(TDC+DCE) (NOTE: MHFA First Mortgage only-Lines X.D plus IX.F.4) MHFA Multifamily Underwriting Form 8/97 A e 6 9/25/98 4:29 PM 1'� 02541 MHFA NUMBER XI. EQUITY REQUIREMENTS: • A. Gross TDC(from X.E above)(NOTE:MHFA First Mortgage only) $110,935 $3,106,177 OR Total Development Cost(X.D)(Non-MHFA First Mortgage) Per Unit B. Maximum Mortgage Loan(MHFA)(Line IX.F.2)or Non-Agency 1st Mortgage $26,362 $738,131 Per Unit C. Additional Funding Needed(XI.A.minus XI.B.) $84,573 $2,368.046 Per Unit D. Additional Funding: . Name of Source Term 1 Rate Amount Per Unit —Committed— I.Owner Cash Deferred Developer Fee $108,571 $3,878, B Yes 2.Syndication Proceeds $1,714,475 $61,231 _Yes 3.MHFA Incentive Loan _Yes 4.MHFA Bridge Loan Yes 5.City site work In kind $120,000 $4,288 Yes 6.Scott County Ed Coop $25,000 $893 Yes 7. _Yes Super RFP Def.Ln.Fall'98 $400,000 $14,286 —Yes TOTAL $2,368,046 $84,573 E. Other Requirements 1. Worldng Capital Escrow(3%of Une IX.F.3•MHFA Net Mortgage)' MHFA 1st mortgage only 2. Rent Up Escrow (3%of Line IX.F.3-MHFA Net Mortgage)' MHFA 1st mortgage only with unoccupied building 3. Completion Assurance Escrow'(MHFA determines$) 4. Insurance Escrow(MHFA determines$)for MHFA 1st Mortgage 5. Other-List: 6. Other-List: 'Can be Cash or Letter of Credit. F. Maximum Allowable Return on Equity (10%of owner cash,Line XI.D.1,plus 10%of syndication proceeds Line XI.D.2, plus 1%of(TDC,Une X.D.,minus Developer Fee,Une X.C.1.J.)) $210,066 G. Other Conditions: XV. REHABILITATION INCENTIVE LOAN WORKSHEET-(MHFA First Mortgage Rehab Only) 1. TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST(Line X.D) 2. AGENCY NET MORTGAGE LOAN(Une IX.F.3) 3. TOTAL EQUITY REQUIREMENT (Line XV.1 minus Line XV.2) 4. TOTAL ADDITIONAL FUNDING ON LINESXI.D.5 THRU XI.D.8 5. EQUITY REQUIREMENT LESS ADDITIONAL FUNDING LINES XI.D.5 THRU XI.D.8(Line XV.3 minus Line XV. 6. EQUITY REQUIREMENT LESS SYNDICATION PROCEEDS(LINE XV.5 minus XI.D.2) 7. MINIMUM REQUIRED OWNER EQUITY(1,000 X#OF UNITS) 8. OWNER EQUITY THAT WILL BE MATCHED(Une 6-Line 7) 9. TO CALCULATE INCENTIVE LOAN,THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS MUST BE ANSWERED*YES* a. Owners cash equity Is>$1,000 x number of units. b. The Gross Rehabilitation Cost(X.B.2.m)exceeds$1,000 x number of units. c. Mortgage is maximum based on Income approach. 10. INCENTIVE LOAN IS EQUAL TO THE LEAST OF LINES 10 a,b,or c a. Gross Rehabilitation Cost less$1.000 times number of total units (X.B.2.m)minus($1,000 x#of units) b. Loan cannot exceed$3,000 x number of units. c. Loan cannot exceed 80%of Line 8 11. REHABILITATION INCENTIVE LOAN:LEAST OF UNES 10.a,b,or c: I MHFA Multifamily Underwriting Form 8/97 A -77 9/25/98 4:29 PM , . , . 04/, 2)c, ,.._., i c , I EVERGREEN HEIGHTS TOWNHOMES Introduction EverGreen Heights will be a 68-unit rental townhome development (built in two equal phases) located south of Vierling Drive, near the intersection of Vierling Drive and County Road 16 in Shakopee, Minnesota. Fifty-six units will be financed by federal tax credits and private or state-sponsored fmancing. The other twelve units will be owned by Scott County HRA and operated as public housing. The development is designed to provide housing to three, four and five-person families with incomes between $20,000 and $35,000, for whom there are more limited housing alternatives. There also will be an adjacent daycare facility, which will be operated to provide affordable daycare so as to promote working opportunities for resident parents. The multi-family use is buffered from adjacent properties by major roadways and a firestation. The proposed site plan and architectural and landscaping features provide single-family identity, visual appeal, community atmosphere and outdoor recreational and leisure opportunities. Physical Development The development will consist of 68 two-story, side-by-side townhomes, which will be built in two phases of 34 units. Each 34-unit phase will have 2 handicap-accessible units and 6 Scott County HRA units. There will be a resident manager/caretaker. Each phase will have 8 buildings containing a mix of 12 two-bedroom units, 19 three-bedroom units, and 3 four- bedroom units. Each townhome will have an attached, oversized single car garage and a private surface parking area. Sixteen additional general parking areas will be provided. Unit density will be less than 7 per acre. The exterior will be clad in maintenance-free siding of contemporary colors. The building front ground level will be brick. The units will have natural gas, forced air heat and central air conditioning. All units will have standard kitchen appliances, plus dishwasher. Washer and dryer hook-ups will be provided in each unit. A separate dining area will be provided. Each unit will have a private, rear patio area. Each unit will have a half bathroom downstairs and a compartmentalized, full bathroom upstairs. Tenants will pay gas and electric utilities. The owner will provide garbage service and water and sewer. A 100-child-capacity, daycare facility/community center will be located on an adjacent two acre parcel with access off County Road 16. The center will be owned and operated by a private, non-profit entity with the objective to provide affordable child care to residents and working parents of Shakopee and Scott County. A community room will also be located in the building and be available for resident use and larger group functions. Site amenities will include several age-appropriate play areas, several open picnic areas and one outdoor picnic shelter with all areas (including the day care facility) connected by hard GAM-179015.1 A - 8 • surface walkways. The grounds will be appropriately enhanced by shrubs, deciduous and evergreen trees, perennial and annual flowering plants and landscaping medium. Location The development is located on approximately 10 acres of open land, which rises 30-40 feet on the north, south and east sides from surrounding land. The site is bounded on the south by the Highway 169 bypass, on the west by the new Shakopee fuestation, on the east by County Road 16 and proposed industrial uses and on the north by Vierling Drive. The location permits immediate access to Highway 169 and the metropolitan freeway system. Tenant Profile Prospective tenant households' incomes must fall below the following limits: Household size Income 2 $29,160 • 3 $32,820 4 $36,480 5 $39,420 6 $42,300 Maximum rents, exclusive of tenant-paid utilities, are as follows: 2 Bedroom Unit $609 3 Bedroom Unit $702 4 Bedroom Unit $774 Tenants must also satisfy background checks regarding criminal activity and credit and landlord-tenant history. The development is conceived to provide affordable housing opportunities for low and moderate income families. Tenants may continue to live at EverGreen Heights Townhomes after their incomes exceed the initial income guidelines, but it is anticipated many tenant households will move up to single-family homes in Shakopee and the surrounding area. GAM-179015.1 ATTACHMENT B GRANT FUND DISBURSEMENT SCHEDULE The total grant amount specified in paragraph 2.01 of this agreement shall be disbursed to the Grantee for uses consistent with this agreement according to the following schedule: The Council will disburse grant funds in response to written disbursement requests submitted by the Grantee and reviewed and approved by the Council. Written disbursement requests shall indicate the project activity funded by this agreement, the contractor(s)/vendor(s) to be paid, and the time period within which the project activity was or will be performed. Disbursements prior to the performance of a project activity will be subject to terms and conditions mutually agreed to by the Council's authorized agent and the Grantee. Individual disbursement requests should specify the project or activity to be funded and identify dollar amounts by project or activity. Subject to verification of a written disbursement request and approval for consistency with this agreement, the Council will disburse a requested amount to the Grantee within two (2)weeks after receipt of a written disbursement request. �U� ATTACHMENT C WRITTEN REPORTS AND SUBMISSION SCHEDULE Beginning three (3) months after the Grantee initially receives grant funds, the Grantee shall submit to the Council written quarterly reports which shall contain at least the following elements: • A summary description of the grant funds received and expended to date, including a description of the purposes or uses for which the grant funds were expended, and an itemized list of all project costs and sources of funds used to cover the project costs. • A summary of the required dollar-for-dollar match funds expended to date. The summary must identify the source and amount of the match funds required under paragraph 2.02 of this contract and describe the purposes or uses for which the match funds were expended. • A statement identifying expected grant and match fund expenditures within the next quarter. The Grantee's final written quarterly report shall be submitted within two (2) months following the expenditure of all grant funds by the Grantee and must: include a summary description of the project assisted with the grant funds; contain a certification by the Grantee's chief financial officer that all grant funds and match funds have been expended in accordance with this agreement and the provisions of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act; identify the final number of households served by the project; identify the final number of unit sizes and rent ranges; and include a statement describing in reasonable detail how the project helped the Participating Municipality within which the project is located meet the negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals established with the Council. The Grantee also shall complete and submit to the Council a Monitoring and Evaluation Report which will assist the Council in monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the Local Housing Incentives Account program. The contents, format and completion date of the Monitoring and Evaluation Report will be determined by the Council. This reporting requirement may survive the termination or expiration of this agreement. AUTHORIZED AGENT The Council's authorized agent for the purposes of administering this agreement is Linda Milashius or another designated Council employee. The written report(s) submitted to the Council shall be directed to the attention of the Council's authorized agent at the following address: Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 East Fifth Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-1634