Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
09/01/1998
TENTATIVE AGENDA CITY OF SHAKOPEE REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 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] 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.) 5] Liaison Reports from Councilmembers 6] Mayor's Report 7] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS 8] Recess for an Economic Development Authority Meeting 9] Re-convene *10] Approval of Minutes of July 7, 1998 *11] Approve Bills in the Amount of$495,751.94 12] Communications: 13] Public Hearings: None .S: 14] Recommendations from Boards and Commissions: *A] Final Plat for Prairie Estates 4th Addition, located south of Pioneer Court and west of Prairie Lane-Res.No. 4980 B] Amendment to the East Dean Lake Planned Unit Development(Southbridge Addition) C] Amendment to the Beckrich Park Estates Planned Unit Development-Res.No. 4977 D] Text Amendment Regarding Nonconforming Lots-Ord.No. 526 TENTATIVE AGENDA September 1, 1998 Page -2- 15] General Business A] Community Development 1. Lusignan Appeal of Board of Adjustment and Appeals Determination to Grant A Conditional Use Permit to Shakopee Public Utilities for an Electric Substation, Res.No. 4973 *2. Kieffer& Company Appeal of Board of Adjustment and Appeals Determination to Deny A Sign Variance for Cub Foods-Res.No.4977 3. Agricultural Odors 4. Drainage Ponds and Fencing *5. Amending Final Plat of Longmeadow-Res.No. 4983 B] Public Works and Engineering *1. Reimbursement to ISD#720 for Right of Way on 17th Avenue 2. Authorize Eminent Domain Proceedings for Vierling Drive from the West Plat Line of Orchard Park West P.U.D. 1st Addition to Fuller Street-Res.No. 4965 3. Award Contract for 17th Avenue Improvements from Sarazin Street to 1/2 Mile East of Sarazin Street,Project No. 1998-5 -Res.No. 4975 -memo on table *4. 17th Avenue from Sarazin to 1/2 Mile East,Approval of Payment for Right-of- Way Acquisition,Project 1998-5 5. Suspension of Hourly Restrictions on Construction Activities for Southbridge Requested by Braun Turf Farms-memo on table C] Police and Fire D] Parks and Recreation 1. Community Center Sign El General Administration *1. Application for On Sale Liquor Licenses-The Brew Station Brewery,Inc. *2. Water Management Committee Nominations 3. Tobacco License Revocation or Suspension Hearings-set date 4. St.Francis Regional Medical Center$12,100,000 Revenue Notes, Series 1998 - Res.No. 4981 5. New Police Sergeants' Compensation *6. Amending the 1998 Fee Schedule-Res.No. 4982 7. City Administrator Performance/Salary Adjustment 16] Other Business 17] Adjourn to Thursday, September 3, 1998,at 4:00 p.m. TENTATIVE AGENDA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA Regular Meeting September 1, 1998 1. Roll Call at 7:00 p.m. 2. Approval of the Agenda 3. Approval of Minutes: IVCD 0Z G , 1998 4. Financial A.)Approval of Bills 5. 1999 Budget 6. Other Business: 7. Adjourn cdagenda.doc 4it ,1 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: President & Commissioners Mark H. McNeill, Executive Director FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: EDA Bill List DATE: August 27, 1998 Introduction Attached is a listing of bills for the EDA, the Blocks 3&4 projects and Seagate for the period 08/14/98 to 08/27/98 . Action Requested Move to approve bills in the amount of $1, 947 . 50 for the EDA General Fund, $0 . 00 for the Blocks 3&4 Funds and $1, 025 . 00 for Seagate. E.I 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 A • • • . • II W 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O O O O O II Id U 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 o O II Ln o 0 0 Ln to M 0 0 0 o Ln n E . • • II H N P1 N o N N N to Ln In Ln N II A H W LO V' di di NNNN N II [z] N N H 01 0) 0\ 0 0 0 0 T II q H H H H HHHH N II E u CAU) II x UU22CCrl ii 0000 0 H H 0 I H I M 0 N 01 H d4 • CO rn rn N w 0 � RiLn o H I (xO O O O I HPC oHH01 H H Ul Ul CO CO azzAz 0) 0043 0 O oH) UU) I En zUCil z U) H W W EI ru cr. H w aa° aw a W a a A a rli O DU ,s I CO x 4 H z 0 N 0 E E O N a Cs] 0 E 0UIP4 0 N W 0 aLL H 0U4O U) H >4 w a HEa H 0 H 0 0 200030 0 Ma U H L6 A Zcis 3EI Ul E 0 ITC c40 Al 0, LO ON Ln Z H at H w N W H ON 0 Ln 0 ,> Nd' NN ''I N In O1 0 Cn ON H M el U M d' d' d' d' W 0) 01 0) 0, rn x0 In Lf) lnln Ln O z 0 0 0 0 0 co co co co co rnrnrn0) CM rnrnrn0, 0) H H H H H \\\\ In Ln Ln LI) In (xi N N N N N EI \\\\ \ K CO CO CO CO CO A 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 * 3 3 3 3 H Ln O o 01 01 H in O Ln L. H H H d. 0 1. 3 0 01 * Z zL. O 0 17 o O o O H O H 0 N M M d' C.7 H W M0 H H co W E Tr Ti. Tr w IX H 0 Gd H O E r4 0 0 H H R H a A Cr. o a A C=• r4 ol CA ON CA L11 a 0 0 0 0 O O Tr O O Li. Cs. E o W WH CO H 01 01 0) m O o q H HH r1 E L 3 a in Ln Ln in E E 4. o E E 1. E H rI 1-12-1 O O * I� O O Cr., H H R H E E * d' E E * * Ei.0 .1 . '5 SHAKOPEE EDA Memorandum TO: EDA Chairman and Commissioners Mark McNeill, EDA Director FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: 1999 Tax Levy And Budget Adoption Resolution DATE: August 26, 1998 Introduction and Background Attached is Resolution Number 98-6 which requests the Shakopee City Council to consent to the tax levy for the EDA and adopts the 1999 budget. The levy is $108,701 after reductions for HACA in the amount of $5,379 and no allowance for uncollectables. This is a $7,000 increase over the past two years levy. The EDA could raise the levy to about $158,000. The exact number is not expected to be available until after 9/1/98. The proposed budget is attached with appropriations in the amount of $430,970. The large increase over last year is due to the taxpayments to ADC from the city and the County. Other costs not included but borne by the General Fund of the City are utility costs, administrative overhead such as accounting and bill processing/payroll, publishing, postage, and other employees time on related issues. Some allowance ($3,000) has been made in the wages amount for charge-ins from Community Development. The EDA needs to adopt a proposed maximum levy and budget amount by September 15 for certification to the County Auditor. That levy will be used for the tax notice mailed to property owners. Alternatives 1. Adopt resolution as proposed. 2. Modify amounts and adopt resolution. Recommendation Discuss and give staff direction. If the levy and budget are acceptable, the action below is appropriate. Action Offer Resolution Number 98-6, A Resolution Requesting The Shakopee City Council To Consent To The Levy Of A Special Tax By The Economic Development Authority For The City of Shakopee And Adopting The 1999 Budget, and move its adoption. Gregg Voxland Finance Director n:\budget\budres99 RESOLUTION NO. 98-6 A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL TO CONSENT TO THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX BY THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE AND ADOPTING THE 1999 BUDGET WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority in and for the City of Shakopee was created pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469 . 051 et seq. , as amended, and WHEREAS, Section 469. 107 states that the governing body of the municipality may levy a tax at the request of the Authority, and WHEREAS, the By-Laws of the Economic Development Authority for the City of Shakopee provides that a budget be prepared on an annual basis, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the Economic Development Authority hereby requests the City Council of the City of Shakopee to consent to the special tax levy of $108, 700 (after reduction for $5, 379 in HACA aid) to be collected 1998 by the Economic Development Authority for the City of Shakopee. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the attached 1999 General Fund Budget be approved with total appropriations in the amount of $430, 970. Adopted in session of the Shakopee Economic Development Authority for the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1998 . Chairman ATTEST: Executive Director CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 1999 BUDGET EDA FUND BUDGET SUMMARY 1996 1997 1998 1999 Actual Actual Proposed Proposed Revenue Taxes $ 110,565 $ 103,552 $ 101,701 $ 108,700 Intergovernmental 4,711 5,400 5,379 195,400 Charges for Service 5,200 Miscellaneous Interest 19,302 22,893 18,000 22,000 Miscellaneous 7,475 Total Revenue 134,578 144,520 125,080 326,100 Transfer in 95,000 Total Revenue and Transfers 134,578 144,520 125,080 421,100 Expenditures Personal Services 35,976 54,377 67,650 59,120 Supplies&Services 28,992 51,311 88,950 41,850 Miscellaneous - - 330,000 Total Expenditures 64,968 105,688 156,600 430,970 Excess(Deficiency) Of Revenues over Expenditures&Transfers $ 69,610 $ 38,832 $ (31,520) $ (9,870) Fund Balance December 31 399,780 438,612 407,092 397,222 CITY OF SHAKOPEE 1999 BUDGET Division Budget Object 12/31/96 12/31/97 12/31/98 Y-T-D DEPARTMENT PROPOSED Code Description ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET 06/30/98 REQUEST BUDGET DIVISION 19 - EDA 4101 WAGES FT REG 31,903 45,399 54,760 20,673 46,800 46,800 4110 WAGES - TEMP 40 769 1,000 24 1,000 1,000 4121 PERA 1,364 1,850 2,890 1,007 2,430 2,430 4122 FICA 2,434 3,501 4,270 1,563 3,670 3,670 4131 HEALTH & LIFE 0 285 4,630 129 4,820 4,820 4151 WORKERS COMPENSATION 236 402 100 0 400 400 4170 COMPENSATED ABSENCES 0 2,171 0 0 0 0 PERSONNEL SERVICES 35,977 54,377 67,650 23,396 59,120 59,120 4210 OPERATING SUPPLIES 418 2,050 2,500 123 2,500 2,500 4240 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 0 0 100 0 0 0 4310 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5,897 7,652 8,000 3,206 7,000 7,000 4320 POSTAGE 0 21 200 0 100 100 4321 TELEPHONE 24 277 600 123 300 300 4330 TRAVEL/SUBSISTENCE 67 301 800 0 500 500 4340 ADVERTISING 200 0 200 0 200 200 4350 PRINTING/PUBLISHING 118 642 500 18 500 500 4360 INSURANCE 996 1,314 1,500 0 1,500 1,500 4390 CONFERENCE/SCHOOL/TRAINING 70 895 1,700 0 1,500 1,500 4410 RENTALS 1,500 1,500 1,500 0 1,500 1,500 4430 DESIGNATED MISCELLANEOUS 19,588 35,986 45,000 0 330,000 330,000 4433 DUES 107 465 1,000 465 1,000 1,000 4435 SUBSCRIPTIONS/PUBLICATIONS 0 208 350 0 250 250 4490 CONTINGENCY 0 0 25,000 0 25,000 25,000 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 28,984 51,311 88,950 3,935 371,850 371,850 TOTAL EDA DIVISION 64,960 105,688 156,600 27,331 430,970 430,970 1999 CITY OF SHAKOPEE PROGRAM BUDGET WORKSHEET 15 Economic Development Authority Fund Program Program 190 191 Object# Description Benefits Management Total 4101 Wages FT- Reg. $ 7,500 $ 39,300 $ 46,800 4110 Wages-Temporary 1,000 $ 1,000 4121 PERA 390 2,040 $ 2,430 4122 FICA 580 3,090 $ 3,670 4131 Health & Life 4,820 $ 4,820 4151 Workers Comp 400 $ 400 Total Personnel 13,690 45,430 $ 59,120 4210 Operating Supplies 2,500 $ 2,500 4240 Equipment Maintenance $ - 4310 Professional Services 7,000 $ 7,000 4320 Postage 100 $ 100 4321 Telephone 300 $ 300 4330 Travel/Subsistence 500 $ 500 4340 Advertising 200 $ 200 4350 Printing/Publishing 500 $ 500 4360 Insurance 1,500 $ 1,500 4490 Contingency 25,000 $ 25,000 4390 Conference/School/Training 1,500 $ 1,500 (AEDC, NDC training) $ - 4410 Rents 1,500 $ 1,500 4430 Miscellaneous-Rehab Fund 45,000 $ 45,000 4433 Dues (AEDC, EDAM, CUED, C. of C.) 1,000 $ 1,000 4435 Subscriptions/Publications 250 $ 250 $ Total Supplies&Services - 86,850 $ 86,850 4550 Capital Expenditures - - - Total EDA $ 13,690 $ 132,280 $ 145,970 6i-0)1 . 445 SHAKOPEE EDA Memorandum TO: EDA Chairman and Commissioners Mark McNeill, EDA Director FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: 1999 Tax Levy And Budget Adoption Resolution DATE: August 26, 1998 Introduction and Background Attached is Resolution Number 98-6 which requests the Shakopee City Council to consent to the tax levy for the EDA and adopts the 1999 budget. The levy is $108,701 after reductions for HACA in the amount of $5,379 and no allowance for uncollectables. This is a $7,000 increase over the past two years levy. The EDA could raise the levy to about $158,000. The exact number is not expected to be available until after 9/1/98. The proposed budget is attached with appropriations in the amount of $430,970. The large increase over last year is due to the taxpayments to ADC from the city and the County. Other costs not included but borne by the General Fund of the City are utility costs, administrative overhead such as accounting and bill processing/payroll, publishing, postage, and other employees time on related issues. Some allowance ($3,000) has been made in the wages amount for charge-ins from Community Development. The EDA needs to adopt a proposed maximum levy and budget amount by September 15 for certification to the County Auditor. That levy will be used for the tax notice mailed to property owners. Alternatives 1. Adopt resolution as proposed. 2. Modify amounts and adopt resolution. Recommendation Discuss and give staff direction. If the levy and budget are acceptable, the action below is appropriate. Action Offer Resolution Number 98-6, A Resolution Requesting The Shakopee City Council To Consent To The Levy Of A Special Tax By The Economic Development Authority For The City of Shakopee And Adopting The 1999 Budget, and move its adoption. Gregg Voxiand Finance Director n:\budget\budres99 RESOLUTION NO. 98-6 A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL TO CONSENT TO THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX BY THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE AND ADOPTING THE 1999 BUDGET WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority in and for the City of Shakopee was created pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469 . 051 et seq. , as amended, and WHEREAS, Section 469. 107 states that the governing body of the municipality may levy a tax at the request of the Authority, and WHEREAS, the By-Laws of the Economic Development Authority for the City of Shakopee provides that a budget be prepared on an annual basis, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the Economic Development Authority hereby requests the City Council of the City of Shakopee to consent to the special tax levy of $108, 700 (after reduction for $5, 379 in HACA aid) -to be collected 1998 by the Economic Development Authority for the City of Shakopee . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the attached 1999 General Fund Budget be approved with total appropriations in the amount of $430, 970 . Adopted in session of the Shakopee Economic Development Authority for the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1998 . Chairman ATTEST : Executive Director EDA FUND 1999 BUDGET ACTIVITY: Activity includes the operation of the Shakopee Economic Development Authority. The EDA's mission is to enhance the quality of life in Shakopee by expanding and strengthening the local economy; broadening the city's job base and increasing its revenue base through facilitating the preservation, expansion, creation and attraction of quality businesses and related jobs. Implement strategies and administer various programs (grants, loans, etc.) to accomplish above activities. Staff must maintain EDA records and prepare materials for policy decisions by Commissioners. The Commission is comprised of the Mayor and City Council. Section 469.107 of the Minnesota Statutes states that the governing body may, at the request of the authority, levy a tax in any year for the benefit of the authority. The tax must be not more than 0.01813 percent of taxable market value. OBJECT DESCRIPTION: Description of lines items: Salaries: EDA Director, share of City Staff including Planning Director. Professional Services: Legal and other consulting costs. Dues: Membership dues for professional economic development associations such as the American Economic Development Council, Economic Development Association of Minnesota, Mid-America Economic Development Association, and Council for Urban Economic Development. Conference/School/Training: Various conferences and training courses sponsored by professional economic development associations as outlined above. Miscellaneous: $45,000 (former Rehab Grant Program) . . . use to establish Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund. $285,000 for ADC, local (TIF) effort. Contingency: $25,000 (not designated) . . . use to establish Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund. • CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 1999 BUDGET EDA FUND BUDGET SUMMARY 1996 1997 1998 1999 Actual Actual Proposed Proposed Revenue Taxes $ 110,565 $ 103,552 $ 101,701 $ 108,700 Intergovernmental 4,711 5,400 5,379 195,400 Charges for Service 5,200 Miscellaneous Interest 19,302 22,893 18,000 22,000 Miscellaneous 7,475 Total Revenue 134,578 144,520 125,080 326,100 Transfer in 95,000 Total Revenue and Transfers 134,578 144,520 125,080 421,100 Expenditures Personal Services 35,976 54,377 67,650 59,120 Supplies&Services 28,992 51,311 88,950 41,850 Miscellaneous - - 330,000 Total Expenditures 64,968 105,688 156,600 430,970 Excess(Deficiency) Of Revenues over Expenditures&Transfers $ 69,610 $ 38,832 $ (31,520) $ (9,870) Fund Balance December 31 399,780 438,612 407,092 397,222 CITY OF SHAKOPEE 1999 BUDGET Division Budget Object 12/31/96 12/31/97 12/31/98 Y-T-D DEPARTMENT PROPOSED Code Description ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET 06/30/98 REQUEST BUDGET DIVISION 19 - EDA 4101 WAGES FT REG 31,903 45,399 54,760 20,673 46,800 46,800 4110 WAGES - TEMP 40 769 1,000 24 1,000 1,000 4121 PERA 1,364 1,850 2,890 1,007 2,430 2,430 4122 FICA 2,434 3,501 4,270 1,563 3,670 3,670 4131 HEALTH & LIFE 0 285 4,630 129 4,820 4,820 4151 WORKERS COMPENSATION 236 402 100 0 400 400 4170 COMPENSATED ABSENCES 0 2,171 0 0 0 0 PERSONNEL SERVICES 35,977 54,377 67,650 23,396 59,120 59,120 4210 OPERATING SUPPLIES 418 2,050 2,500 123 2,500 2,500 4240 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 0 0 100 0 0 0 4310 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5,897 7,652 8,000 3,206 7,000 7,000 4320 POSTAGE 0 21 200 0 100 100 4321 TELEPHONE 24 277 600 123 300 300 4330 TRAVEL/SUBSISTENCE 67 301 800 0 500 500 4340 ADVERTISING 200 0 200 0 200 200 4350 PRINTING/PUBLISHING 118 642 500 18 500 500 4360 INSURANCE 996 1,314 1,500_ 0 1,500 1,500 4390 CONFERENCE/SCHOOL/TRAINING 70 895 1,700 0 1,500 1,500 4410 RENTALS 1,500 1,500 1,500 0 1,500 1,500 4430 DESIGNATED MISCELLANEOUS 19,588 35,986 45,000 0 330,000 330,000 4433 DUES 107 465 1,000 465 1,000 1,000 4435 SUBSCRIPTIONS/PUBLICATIONS 0 208 350 0 250 250 4490 CONTINGENCY 0 0 25,000 0 25,000 25,000 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 28,984 51,311 88,950 3,935 371,850 371,850 TOTAL EDA DIVISION 64,960 105,688 156,600 27,331 430,970 430,970 1999 CITY OF SHAKOPEE PROGRAM BUDGET WORKSHEET 15 Economic Development Authority Fund Program Program 190 191 Object# Description Benefits Management Total 4101 Wages FT- Reg. $ 7,500 $ 39,300 $ 46,800 4110 Wages-Temporary 1,000 $ 1,000 4121 PERA 390 2,040 $ 2,430 4122 FICA 580 3,090 $ 3,670 4131 Health &Life 4,820 $ 4,820 4151 Workers Comp 400 $ 400 Total Personnel 13,690 45,430 $ 59,120 4210 Operating Supplies 2,500 $ 2,500 4240 Equipment Maintenance $ - 4310 Professional Services 7,000 $ 7,000 4320 Postage 100 $ 100 4321 Telephone 300 $ 300 4330 Travel/Subsistence 500 $ 500 4340 Advertising 200 $ 200 4350 Printing/Publishing 500 $ 500 4360 Insurance 1,500 $ 1,500 4490 Contingency 25,000 $ 25,000 4390 Conference/School/Training 1,500 $ 1,500 (AEDC, NDC training) $ - 4410 Rents 1,500 $ 1,500 4430 Miscellaneous-Rehab Fund 330,000 $ 330,000 4433 Dues(AEDC, EDAM, CUED, C. of C.) 1,000 $ 1,000 4435 Subscriptions/Publications 250 $ 250 $ - Total Supplies&Services - 371,850 $ 371,850 4550 Capital Expenditures - - - Total EDA $ 13,690 $ 417,280 $ 430,970 OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA JULY 7, 1998 Mayor Brekke called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with Councilmembers Amundson, Link, DuBois and Sweeney present. Also present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator; R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director; Bruce Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer; Gregg Voxland, Finance Director; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Jim Thomson, City Attorney; Paul Snook, Economic Development Coordinator; and Mark McQuillan, Parks and Recreation Director. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. The following item was removed from the agenda: 15.A.6. Appointment of Planning Commissioner. Sweeney/Link moved to approve the agenda as modified. Motion carried unanimously. The following items were added to the Consent Agenda: 15.B.1. Resolution of Appreciation to Richard Cheever. DuBois/Amundson moved to approve the Consent Agenda as modified. Motion carried unanimously. Liaison reports were given by Councilmembers. As part of the Mayor's Report, Mayor Brekke asked for a motion to adopt Resolutions 4943, 4944, and 4945, commending Brie Bernstein, Jamie Anhalt, and Alex Lang for their extra ordinary performance in saving the life of Maggie Lang on June 26, 1998. DuBois/Amundson offered Resolution No. 4943, A Resolution of Commendation to Brei Bernstein, for her extra ordinary performance in saving the life of Maggie Lang on June 26, 1998, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. DuBois/Amundson offered Resolution No. 4944, A Resolution of Commendation to Jamie Anhalt, for her extraordinary performance in saving the life of Maggie Lang on June 26, 1998, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. DuBois/Amundson offered Resolution No. 4945, A Resolution of Commendation to Alex Lang, for his extra ordinary performance in saving the life of Maggie Lang on June 26, 1998, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Official Proceedings of the July 7, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -2- Mark McQuillan reported the details of the incident, stating that in the last 30 years there has not been a serious incident, and credited the staff for this. He said that Alex Lang found his sister, unconscious at the bottom of the pool and brought her to shore, where Brie Bernstein and Jamie Anhalt revived her. Mayor Brekke read the Resolutions of Commendation to Alex Lang, Jamie Anhalt, and Brie Bernstein and presented them with framed copies. Mayor Brekke commended the Shakopee Fire Department on its successful open house event, and the Jaycees for their work in helping to make the event a success. Mayor Brekke asked if there were any interested citizens present in the audience who wished to address the City Council on any item not on the agenda. There was no response. A recess was taken at 7:19 p.m. for the purpose of conducting the Economic Development Authority meeting. The meeting re-convened at 7:29 p.m. DuBois/Amundson moved to approve the Minutes of May 19, 1998. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) DuBois/Amundson moved to approve bills in the amount of $1,070,532.04. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Mayor Brekke opened the public hearing on the proposed vacation of part of Tenth Avenue right- of-way adjacent to 1005 S. Miller, which was previously continued in order to allow time for the applicant to confer with the property owner across the street and north of 10th Avenue. Michael Leek reported that the necessary discussions have taken place and that the property owner is willing to sign a quit claim deed for the right-of-way once it is vacated. This will convey the strip of the vacated 10th Avenue from the property owner north of 10th Avenue to the property owner south of 10th Avenue, adjacent to the 1005 S. Miller Street address. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the requested vacation. Steve Schmitz, 1005 S Miller St., approached the podium and asked for clarification as to the next step in the quit claim deed process. Jim Thomson, City Attorney, explained that the vacation does not determine who owns the property, it determines whether or not the street is a public street. He said that Mr. Schmitz would need to take additional steps to acquire title to the property. Having no further comments or discussion,Mayor Brekke closed the public hearing. Official Proceedings of the July 7, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -3- Link/DuBois offered Resolution No. 4926, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee Vacating the 17 Foot Wide Portion of Tenth Avenue Which is Immediately Adjacent to the North Property Line of Lot 1, Block 5, Scenic Heights 3rd Addition, City of Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. DuBois/Amundson offered Ordinance No. 520, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending Chapter 11, Zoning, Section 11.02 (Definitions), and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) DuBois/Amundson offered Resolution No. 4932, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Approving the Final Plat of French Trace 2nd Addition, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) DuBois/Amundson offered Resolution No. 4933, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Approving the Final Plat of Orchard Park West PUD 2nd Addition, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Michael Leek reported that with regard to the Super Valu Distribution Center Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), the review and comment period has ended and that few comments were made. There was nothing to warrant an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in this case, and he recommended adopting Resolution No. 4941, making a negative declaration on the need for an EIS. He also stated that the company has not committed to any site at this time. Sweeney/DuBois offered Resolution No. 4941, A Resolution Making a Negative Declaration on the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Super Valu Distribution Center Project, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. DuBois/Amundson offered Resolution No. 4937, A Resolution Setting the Public Hearing Date to Consider the Vacation of Part of an Alley Within Block 73, Original Shakopee City Plat, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) DuBois/Amundson offered Resolution No. 4938, A Resolution Setting the Public Hearing Date to Consider the Vacation of Part of a Drainage & Utility Easement Within Oudot F, Southbridge 1st Addition, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Michael Leek reported that Valley Green is requesting that a proposed Registered Land Survey (RLS) be allowed to be submitted for review without the requirements necessary with a preliminary plat. However, they would still seek approval of the RLS by the City. He said that Valley Green is only interested in selling 3.6 of the 12.644 acre site to the City for SPUC's use. Cncl. Sweeney reported that the Public Utility Commission would like the City Council to expedite this in order to get the substation on line as soon as possible. Official Proceedings of the July 7, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -4- In response to a question as to whether or not there is a downside to waiving the submission of an RLS, Michael Leek stated his only reservation was whether it is still advisable to have a subdivision ordinance that requires RLS's to be reviewed in the same way. DuBois/Sweeney moved to approve the request of Valley Green to waive the requirement of submission of a Registered Land Survey (RLS) in the form of a preliminary plat. Motion carried unanimously. DuBois/Amundson moved to authorize the appropriate city officials to prepare and submit a full application for Livable Communities Demonstration funds. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) DuBois/Amundson offered Resolution No. 4927, A Resolution of Appreciation to Richard Cheever, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) DuBois/Amundson moved to authorize the hiring of Layne Otteson for the position of Engineering Technician II starting at Step 1 of the Non-Union 1998 Pay Plan ($29,780.00/Yr.), with a step increase to $30,843.00 per year after successful completion of the six month probationary period, effective July 27, 1998, subject to the successful completion of a pre- employment physical and background check. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) DuBois/Amundson moved to authorize the hiring of Tim Adamek as Public Works Maintenance Worker and to be hired at Step I ($12,574/Hr.) of the 1998 Public Works Union Pay Schedule, with a step increase to Step 2 ($13.023/Hr.) after a successful completion of the six month probationary period, effective July 20, 1998, and subject to a successful pre-employment physical and background check. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Item 15.D.2. Naming Tahpah Park Baseball Stadium, was taken out of the regular order on the agenda. Mark McQuillan, Parks and Recreation Director,reported that the Park and Recreation Advisory Board spent considerable time discussing the request of Steve O'Neil to name the baseball stadium in Tahpah Park after the late Joe Schleper, and unanimously recommended that the City Council give strong consideration to this request. Steve O'Neil approached the podium and stated that Joe Schleper spearheaded the construction of the stadium's grandstand,batting eye, scoreboard,dugouts and batting cages. He also inspired hosting the State Amateur Baseball Tournament three years ago. He asked that the baseball stadium, and not Tahpah Park,be named after Joe Schleper Sr. DuBois/Amundson moved to name the baseball stadium at Tahpah Park after Joe Schleper. Motion carried unanimously. Official Proceedings of the July 7, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -5- The regular order of the agenda was resumed, beginning with 15.B.4. Approval of Special Lighting District for Southbridge PUD. Bruce Loney reported that the Southbridge PUD has been approved and construction for the utilities and streets has begun for phases of this project. He stated that the developers of the Southbridge PUD are requesting a different lighting fixture and spacing standards than listed in the recently approved Street Lighting Policy. This is a special lighting district and the proposed lighting fixture is similar to the downtown area along First Avenue. This is an acorn style fixture with a 100 watt bulb that is on a self weathering steel pole connected to a foundation in the ground. On a collector street a 250 watt pole at a height of 30 feet is typically required. The proposed fixtures are approximately 14 feet high. The difference is that Southbridge Parkway is more of a boulevard with a 30 foot wide median and a standard 250 watt bulb does not light up both sides of the street unless there are poles on both sides. This is what is proposed to create a unique design. The bottom line is that more lights would be installed on Southbridge Parkway than the standard allows. However, Mr. Loney stated that the proposed lighting plan is more appropriate for the design. Shakopee Public Utilities has given tentative approval for a special lighting district. Jon Albinson, Valley Green, approached the podium and explained the difference in what the proposed fixtures cost compared to the city standards cost. He said these costs are comparable to the city standards costs. In regard to the energy costs, he said there are 57 units with a 100 watt bulb and a cost of$1.90/unit per month or$108.00. He compared this to the standard, explaining that there would be 23 units with a 250 watt bulb and a cost of$4.85/unit per month or $111.00 per month. On a maintenance level, he said the cost would be approximately $100.00 more per month for all lights. DuBois/Link moved to establish a Special Lighting District for the Southbridge Planned Unit Development. Motion carried unanimously. Bruce Loney reported that the feasibility report has been completed by Bolton & Menk, Inc. for the 17th Avenue West Project, and that the project will provide access for Weston Ponds as well as an area guided for commercial North of 17th Avenue. He explained that 17th Avenue is a minor arterial roadway with traffic in excess of 10,000 vehicles per day, and that access spacing for this type of roadway along 17th Avenue should be limited according to the Draft Transportation Plan. A full turning movement access at Weston Lane, which is the access to Weston Ponds, is being proposed. This will also be the main access for the commercial area. Two property owners along the north side of 17th Avenue have requested right in-right out accesses at a safe distance from Weston Lane to serve their properties. Bruce Loney stated that these access points would be acceptable and that it is cost effective to put these in at this time. However, the property owners would be responsible for any costs, should the driveways need to be relocated in the future. Official Proceedings of the July 7, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -6- Sweeney/DuBois offered Resolution No. 4939, A Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids for 17th Avenue, from 1/4 Mile West of County State Aid Highway 17 to County State Aid Highway 17, Project No. 1998-4, and moved its adoption. Bruce Loney reported that three bids were received with the low bid submitted by S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. of Jordan, MN. in the amount of$479,250.40 for the 1998-2 Vierling Drive Project. The City's cost is for 50% of the traffic control signal, 100% of the emergency vehicle preemption and 50% of the bituminous wear course. This cost is estimated to be $120,000 including construction and indirect costs. Scott County costs for 50% of the signal is estimated to be $80,000. The remaining costs of$400,000 are to be assessed to the commercial properties. The estimated assessments for the commercial properties was $343,121.31. The new estimated assessments for Crossroads Center and Boulder Ridge is approximately 17% higher than the feasibility report. He recommended that the project proceed as the improvement is necessary to accommodate the traffic generated by the developments starting in October, 1998. A discussion ensued regarding appealed assessments in the past and the requirement of a 75% letter of credit from the developers up front to insure payment of the assessments. Judith Cox explained that in the case of Boulder Ridge that there was nothing paid up front, but as the building permits are pulled and a certificate of occupancy (CO) is issued the City will be collecting 150%of the special assessments. Jim Thomson, City Attorney, explained that if there are any concerns about assessments against petitioning projects, rather than rejecting bids he would recommend tabling discussion to obtain written confirmation from the developers. He said that a better job could be done in confirming that the developer acknowledges that their assessments might be increased. Sweeney/Link moved to table awarding a contract for the Vierling Drive Project from Sage Lane to Miller Street, 1998-2, and to direct staff to obtain written confirmation that the developers understand that their assessment will be larger and that they have no objection to paying the assessment. Motion carried unanimously. Bruce Loney reported that the bid for the 1998 Street Reconstruction Project was awarded to B.H. Heselton Co. of Fairbault, MN. He cautioned that the contractor has informed staff that they would not start work until July 20, 1998, due to delays on a project in Northfield. However, when staff indicated that this was not acceptable, work did begin on July 6, 1998. He explained that the concern is that the rest of the project may not get completed or restored to an acceptable level by the end of the construction season this year or the quality of work may be less due to the work being completed at a later date. Official Proceedings of the July 7, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -7- A discussion ensued regarding penalty clauses. Bruce Loney stated that a $200/day penalty is the standard. Jim Thomson explained that the letter that was sent to the contractor states that they will be held to the completion date with liquidated damages. DuBois/Amundson moved to authorize hiring Scott Rethwill as a probationary police officer with the Shakopee Police Department at a monthly rate of$2,743.95 subject to the satisfactory completion of a background investigation, pre-employment medical and psychological examinations from the eligible candidates listed: Scott Rethwill, Matt Conway and LeAnn Hmcir. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) DuBois/Amundson moved to authorize hiring Matt Conway as a probationary police officer with the Shakopee Police Department at a monthly rate of $2,743.95 subject to the satisfactory completion of a background investigation, pre-employment medical and psychological examinations from the eligible candidates listed: Matt Conway, LeAnn Hrncir and Tyler Mans. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) DuBois/Amundson moved to authorize hiring Tyler Maas Hrncir as a probationary police officer with the Shakopee Police Department at a monthly rate of$2,743.95 subject to the satisfactory completion of a background investigation, pre-employment medical and psychological examinations from the eligible candidates listed: LeAnn Hrncir, Tyler Maas and Abigail Hammond. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) DuBois/Amundson moved to authorize hiring Jeff Tate as a probationary police officer with the Shakopee Police Department at a monthly rate of $2,743.95 subject to the satisfactory completion of a background investigation, pre-employment medical and psychological examinations from the eligible candidates listed: LeAnn Hrncir, Abigail Hammond and Jeff Tate (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) DuBois/Amundson offered Resolution No. 4942, A Resolution of the Shakopee City Council Authorizing Execution of an Agreement for the Project Entitled Safe & Sober Communities, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) DuBois/Amundson moved to accept the resignation of Russ Lawrence with regret by reason of disability effective July 12, 1998, with 80%buyback of unused sick leave, and further request the Shakopee Police Civil Service Commission to begin the process to fill the vacancy. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) DuBois/Amundson moved to give concept approval for the Police Department to make application to the Minnesota Department of Children, Families, and Learning for funding of a Community Mobilization for Crime Prevention grant. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Official Proceedings of the July 7, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -8- DuBois/Amundson moved to authorize the appropriate City Officials to enter into an agreement with Greater Minneapolis Area Chapter American Red Cross to designate the Shakopee Community Center as a Disaster Relief Center. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) DuBois/Amundson moved to approve the application and grant an on sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license to Sabroso, Inc., dba Sabroso Restaurant and Market, 1120 East First Avenue. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) DuBois/Amundson offered Resolution No. 4934, A Resolution Apportioning Assessments Among New Parcels Created as a Result of the Platting of Orchard Park West PUD 1st Addition, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) DuBois/Amundson offered Resolution No. 4936,A Resolution Transferring Assessments to New Parcel Numbers Within Canterbury Pointe CIC 1030 (Originally Known as Parcels 27-205013-0 Through 27-205020-0), and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) DuBois/Amundson moved to approve the application and grant a temporary on-sale liquor license to Minnesota Valley Restoration Project, Inc., 2187 Highway 101, for July 24, 1998, conditioned upon compliance with insurance requirements. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) DuBois/Amundson offered Resolution No. 4924, A Resolution Amending Resolution 4803, Adopting the 1998 Budget, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) A recess was taken at 8:20 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:32 p.m. DuBois/Amundson moved to accept with regret the resignation of Beverly Mitchell from her position as secretary in the City Clerk's office, effective September 1, 1998. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) DuBois/Amundson moved to direct staff to post the vacancy, and, if necessary work through Scott County Human Resources for a replacement. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Bruce Loney gave an overview of the Engineering and Public Works CIP. He explained that this is a composite of projects over the next five years. Projects for 1999 include a trunk sewer project to serve the West Dean Lake and Business Park area and will be paid for by the sewer fund and are as follows: a trunk sewer extension to serve Pheasant Run and Prairie Village 3rd and 4th Phases; a river district sewer rehabilitation due to major leaks and sags; a trunk sewer extension, two to three years from now, to serve the area recently added to the MUSA; an extension of sanitary sewer to serve an area without municipal sewer along 1st Avenue; a 2nd phase of sewer extension along County Road 79; storm water improvements necessary to Official Proceedings of the July 7, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -9- maintain the integrity of the system; the Dean Lake outlet control structure and channel improvements to manage the 100 year flood elevation of Dean Lake; storm sewer and ponding improvements to meet future development needs in the area west of County Road 83 and south of County Road 101; and the construction of an outlet for Outlot A of Valley Park 6th Addition. A discussion ensued regarding participation and the possibility of closing the Prior Lake overflow. Street reconstruction projects include: Muhlenhardt Road - CSAH 16 to McGuire Circle; McGuire Circle - Muhlenhardt Road to end terminus; McGuire Court - McGuire Circle to end terminus; a local street collector with sidewalk and trail system on Sarazin St. from St. Francis Ave. to Valley View Road; street reconstruction of Gorman Street with sidewalks and trail and new watermain. Sanitary sewer and storm sewer will be upgraded as necessary at a cost of $400,000; the infrastructure for West Dean Lake Business park at a cost of $3,000.000; the construction of street, utility, sidewalk and trail system from County Road 15 to West Plat Line of Orchard Park West at a cost of$568,000; a new traffic signal at Vierling Drive and County Road 69 intersection at a cost of$200,000; the construction of a parking lot at the library site along 3rd Avenue and Sommerville Street at a cost of$35,000; County Road 83 reconstruction from trunk highway 169 to 17th Avenue with the addition of turn lanes on County Road 83 and a traffic signal at County Road 83 and County Road 16, at a cost of $1,000,000; 3rd Avenue - County Road 69 to Shumway Street and Shumway Street - 2nd Avenue to 3rd Avenue; and the TH 300 realignment of intersection and reconstruction of street to 10th Avenue due to redevelopment of mall at a cost of$375,000. Bruce Loney stated that among the series of road improvements are State turnback fees to be used on a number of projects which are development dependent. A discussion ensued regarding the assessment policy as it relates to paving gravel roads. There was a consensus that if a feasibility study is conducted it will be assessed 100 percent to Muhlenhardt Road. The extension of Sarazin Street is necessary for the Prairie Village 3rd & 4th Phases, and additional right-of-way will also be needed for a collector street,which will have oversizing costs. DuBois/Amundson moved to authorize city staff to enter into an agreement with Scott County for the use of the city's refueling station. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Mark McNeill asked the Council to consider an evaluation format for the City Administrator and recommended a two person subcommittee that would collect the Council evaluation forms and meet with the City Administrator to review performance, and also establish goals and objectives for the upcoming year. As an alternative to a two person subcommittee, he suggested that the entire Council perform a review as part of a regular meeting. Official Proceedings of the July 7, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -10- Sweeney/Amundson moved to authorize Mayor Brekke and Jane DuBois to gather input on the performance evaluation of the City Administrator Mark McNeill, perform that evaluation, and recommend to the full Council the results of that evaluation, and any pay adjustment. Motion carried unanimously. Mark McNeill reported that the Metropolitan Council is attempting to create a metropolitan-wide study of what the true cost of development is. The intent is to have a professional firm, Paul Teschler and Associates, study a total of ten jurisdictions: two core cities, two first ring suburbs, two developing suburbs, two nearly fully developed suburbs with much vacant land, and two school districts (one in a fully developed area, and another undergoing expansion). They are looking to subsidize approximately 80 percent of this cost. The two core cities ( Minneapolis and St. Paul) are being asked to contribute $25,000 each. The others would be asked to contribute $10,000. The advantage to the City of Shakopee's participation is that it would have a study performed that could help to better determine whether our fees (park fees, storm sewer fees, etc.) are adequate to support the development demands. Sweeney/DuBois moved to direct staff to take the action necessary to participate in the Metropolitan Council Impact Fee Study as a representative developing suburb. Motion carried unanimously. Randy Sampson, President Canterbury Park, approached the podium to address concerns related to the Lillith Concert on August 21, 1998. He said that the hours will be the same as for last year's concert. In response to concerns relating to the finish time of 11:00 p.m., Mr. Sampson indicated that the promoter is not allowing any flexibility, and indicates that 11:00 p.m. is how long the concert must go. He stated that the problems which presented themselves last year will hopefully have been corrected, which will make a smoother inflow of concert goers. Canterbury has met with members of the State patrol and Shakopee Police Department to work on traffic control issues. Randy Sampson said that last year was a learning experience for them and that they expect to be much better prepared for this year's event. Last year's attendance was 29,000 and ticket sales are expected to be similar this year. However, ticket sales will be cut off at 35,000 in order to accommodate the crowd. Mr. Sampson said that sound testing was not conducted last year but he believed that the sound levels were not unreasonable. He also said that the sound testing would be conducted this year. He said that if the sound levels are exceeded after 10:00 p.m. Canterbury would schedule future events accordingly. Jerry Pool approached the podium and discussed the usefulness and learning curves of new hires. He said that the four new officers would be a viable part of the project to alleviate the problems that were experienced last year. He said that agreements have also been contracted with the Highway Patrol and Scott County Reserve. Official Proceedings of the July 7, 1998 Shakopee City Council Page -11- In response to traffic concerns related to other events, Randy Sampson said that if charging for parking backs up traffic,cars will be waived through until traffic is caught up. Sweeney/Link moved to adjourn to July 14, 1998, at 4:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:52 p.m. • tjA4, .8\F dith S. Cox ity Clerk Esther TenEyck Recording Secretary CITY OF SHAKOPEE CONSENT, r in memorandum L�� TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: City Bill List DATE: August 27, 1998 Introduction and Background Attached is a print out showing the division budget status for 1998 based on data entered as of 08/27/98 . 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) , Blocks 3&4 (codes 9439 & 9447) and Seagate (code 9450 including Canterbury Drive) in the amount of $2, 972 .50 . Action Requested Move to approve the bills in the amount of $495, 751 . 94 . CITY OF SHAKOPEE EXPENSES BY DEPARTMENT 08/27/98 CURRENT YEAR ANNUAL MONTH TO PERCENT DEPT DEPT NAME BUDGET ACTUAL DATE EXPENDED 00 N/A 0 0 -0 0 11 MAYOR & COUNCIL 65,330 6,031 32,845 50 12 CITY ADMINISTRATOR 225,000 13,104 107,887 48 13 CITY CLERK 182,430 13,978 101,891 56 15 FINANCE 326,090 18,680 219,255 67 16 LEGAL COUNSEL 253,500 4,612 174,253 69 17 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 492,700 55,039 307,722 62 18 GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS 153,890 8,375 65,210 42 31 POLICE 1,814,370 122,810 1,124,304 62 32 FIRE 486,860 19,712 277,846 57 33 INSPECTION-BLDG-PLMBG-HTG 261,400 19,040 145,716 56 41 ENGINEERING 442,010 34,823 246,780 56 42 STREET MAINTENANCE 1,228,580 140,766 708,689 58 44 SHOP 125,890 12,036 68,716 55 46 PARK MAINTENANCE 377,940 24,873 232,201 61 91 UNALLOCATED 526,830 146,797 316,530 60 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 6,962,820 640,676 4,129,843 59 17 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 485,570 7,871 222,525 46 TOTAL TRANSIT 485,570 7,871 222,525 46 19 EDA 156,600 6,533 39,659 25 TOTAL EDA 156,600 6,533 39,659 25 H . M rn id 1 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H 0 00000 0 a w 003 1 0 z 000 w O101rn U 0 0 0 01 01 01 Q\01 N O H 10 0 H N NNN M d' 11) W N CD CO CO CO CO M M M M M M N d' O N 00 co CO 1.11 H H H 10 10 10 U) O1 01 0)01 0)0) 0) 0) 0 Lo U1 Lip U) Lo U1 N N N UI Ga i. U1 U1 U) N in U1 Ul UI U1 Ul UI U1 U) H U) 0 0 O A A A 0 H H 0 0 0 CO O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O Co 0 0 o wEL,It, O EH 0 0 o M o 0 00000 0 0 N N H U) w in Co C) O O 0 M H CO CO 0 H H H H H H 0 H N 0 O H CO Co CO N M M Co CO CO N N H N N N N N r- N 6HHw H N H H H H el.el. M H H H H w MM MM er 10 w N M N d' N N N N V'V' V' N N N N d' d'V•w V V M m O 00 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I U 0 N H ry (- N N N N N V' r N N N N V' H H HH m N IC Z H H H N O1 01 o) 01 V'V' V' 01 01 O1 01 H H M M M m N 0 0 0 V' 00 0 O O O 0 O1 01 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 01 H CO CO I--I J J S4 43 rcl C4 Ilt ZZ01 z O O EI 24 >4 5 UU w 0 H H al al 0 01H H U a U a' N E a H hi D 0 a3 ri CD A w CO W E A UU) CO HrHiw WW Cl) 0 K4 al al a1 C4 alQ • A 0000 H p' Ct. N 4 2z 0 Co Oa C/3 0000 i.1 a A 0 rno HH AEr Z •r+ O CHH 0 N 0 - aaaaa Ow 4 w N w al C.) m 10 HH .1 Co H cm Ti H wwwww w 0 Q a a H H Cu Cn LI to U)01 H N H O V' Z a s.a a s z U] I 44 4 0 1 w H M a1 al H U) 0 M M W Wwwww w H W Q,' Cl) 0 Z AEO <M AA O N O N N H HHHHH C) E N H U) w UUUUU U Cl) H H H H H >'>> > 0 UUU rn 0O 1 wwwww 0 Cwq a HHH EH-' NN H U)0)U]U)01 H 41 cn www H H HD a �mlC)C � E 04 g wwwww U) Z 0 ACO HHH W HH aaa AA W El E4 H wwwww a 0 a W wAHHHHH a > 0 a www H as F w HHHHH 20 C U H wUw 1-4 0000 O A A W 33333 a W z U EEE w xx It U H H 9 HHHHH EA''ti U W EO+ Hw 000 v]0 H UU X E W H H a els zs x.a.a E U KC a 2E www E 00 Cu w 0 U CEi O HHHHH w a 4 0 HHH U Z U) U v] v] o Cn Itt C) U U 4.CLW H HH Z 0+1 CO A .') N 4444 4 Q 4 # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # CO CO 00 00 NN NC)OO 0101 000 00 HH 00 CA CM NN NN H V'C)CID 0N 00 00 EI lo 00 00 NN Ul U)010 CA CN 000 CO Co 0101 U)U1 CD CO o1 CN PCS C)H H 100 CO 00 00 z M M U1 U1 CO co U)U) N 10 d'01 Vl d• U)V'O• 1 0 0 ep V' 10 10 Ul U) 10 10 10 10 L N U1 H N M N N M M O U)U1 V}V} V'V' V'V' C)CO O N H H N U1 N H H V'V' H H V' C' (11 N U)U) H C-co H H O N N M M H H N N Ul 10 N CO H N M M CD V'M N N C)C) N N V'V' O1 CA O1 01 C/)H L)•V}V}M Ul Ul t?N 0}it} 411-Ch. CO-t?V} .. L?CO- V}V} ;A.M. V}V} CA 4/1- V} V} CA-i? HH H HHM P111 Ln ill .Y. V} 10 V}t0 H H L}V} 0 V} VT t/}t/} W x • 0 w cnw 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 O O O H HHHHH H H H H N N N N NNN N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C7 I4 \ \ \ \ \\\ \ \\ \ \ \ \ ...... \ \\\\\ \ \ W A CO CO C) CO CD CO C) CO Co co Co CO Co Co CO 01 01 01 o)O1 01 O1 O1 H o 0 0 0 000 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 0 0 • 0 Co Co Co Co Co Co C) Co Co Co Co Co Co co Co Co Co Co co C)CO CO CO O w CA 0) 01 01 01 01 CA CA 01 0) CA 0) 01 01 O1 0) CA 01 01 01 01 0) 01 oN in w 0 H H H H 01 01 01 CA ON ON ON Ch ON CA CA CA ON ONHtHH H HH H H H H H H HH rH•i rH•I rH x U H H H H •1 H H U a Z0 w IA U1 N CO 01 0 H N M w In 10 N CO CO in in in U) in in U1 in U1 U1 H W W VI V' d' A M A M A U 0 M A M A M A 0) A M A M A M A MA M A MA M A MA M A M U Qt# 01# 01# 01# 01 # 01# 01 # 01# 01# 01# O\# 01# 01# 01 # 01# 01# x N v U1 V U1 v UI v U1 V in V U) V u1 V ill V u1 V U1 V U) V U) V UI V In V U) V 0 U U N• CD b) CISa 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0000 00 0 0 0 a w 0 al al 0 z W U H 00 N CON H M d' H 0 In a1 1' O M H O N N 01 0 M N 10 N d' ' In \ N 10 d'd'10 r-1 In 10 0 0 01 m d• U) 01 N N 0) W d' d' 01 1' l0 M MN O 0) U) CO O Ln 0)a1 HU1 N N U) O l� HH HN N In O 10 O N 01 H 0 0 W W 1' 0 M M 0 0 H - CI d' In N L() In tf) M N H H 0 H rI d' 0 ri H O H rI 00 0 01 M M M in in H M H 0 0 0 O O U) O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O El M HH H H H H H H d' H H U) If) N U)Lf) r-1 H d' '0' d' za N 14 M M M N N N N M M M N NLfN N N N N N W d' d' d'd' d' d' d'd' d' a. d' d' d• eN d'H d' d'14 al d' sN 0 W I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I U I M H H H N H H N Lf) H H O H ri H H N N H H H 0 in N d'd' H N H H M N N M Lf) d' N 0 d• If/U) N N CO a' N t0 d'd' d' d' M M H W d' d' t0 d• 1'O 1' N L- m M H 0 0 01 0) O O O O O O O O 10 O o 01 0 0 O O O O U) F W W W Iz0 co co 0 Iz0� rz0 0 N 0 >> > W W Z ✓ > Z W W W Z Z Z 0 H 0404 Cd HH W a a4 x D HH W W W El ww w as El Cr) w cA Cl)aas El El El In a El V)fn cf) a a Z Cl) Cl) H W (34 a Z Z Z HH Z as H a 1.b C7 as H H H IX H �� A Cf)0) 4 X MI X Wfn4W fri)(A X £ tO ai X Z Z z z a ria ax fn a) W 00 0 ,W C.7 C.7 F 0 0 -, H WOAzH C7C7 El F F ril ILI 't 01 A Z CI) CO Cf) COU]m Cl)al rr) 43 H F F �W�] Cl)fai Cl)al 43 H a A 1� IFl IFl 41 X X X J I El a4 G4 G4 W Lx g El H 4. G4 Z 0 O a 0 R:R H H H 4 H Z 0 0 0 F W W Z X 0 0 H Ix F W fx W W I D W as aG as W 01 a a 0: W OfxW as 01 0101 10 at Ix as a 00 a w a a a Z xax 00 w w w N U F zz 0 El H Z HH Z A g z z coZ z H 00 00 E-1alEl co [H-I U) A HH 0 0 HH W p".4� 0 F Z 0 OC 0.' 0 U Z A 4 A,' X El N C40 H H 0 0 HH O a 00 0 UU q 0 Z Z w 000 as a F RA U)U) aG a H H W F H U 000 W W a a' RC 'd fnm z a zz El U Z H a O U W Z 1� W H g W 00 a H H H El cll 4 U H > a 0 al LS 0 EE 0 F W Cl) El w 000 al al > x n '� Z .4 0 0 0 3 F 0 m A.A. U W H 0: 00 '1 Z to p ZZZ Z F Wa z0 aG 0 z 0 fx a www IZ ao w H 0 a4 u`�.1 El q q > CO . Cil UFn «w) a)CCn u) I- a a a 0 U a4 a >I OS(.1$ lal a Z w www 00 w w H W H 00 0 a4 a 0 0 H a s Ix U U 2 X al PI w Mal as a0 UU 0 U 0 0 U A AAA W W W W W NN U)U) M 0 M oo U)U) M01N 00 NN 00 00 00 .-IH 100L0H LC/U)O WW NN O zEI W•\0• \0•l0• 0 0 0• 0 0 N N• d'O U)• 0 0 .41 14• 0 0• 0 0 0)01• U)In• 10 L-•10 0• Lf)U)H CO•c0• 0•0• 0 p '010 d'.4' rtoH oo mm HM)' oo rr If/ 11 00 U)N HH N10MCo 1414a1 • ww .4'1' H 0 NN HH OMM 0101 1'd' III MO 1010 CAt? NN 00 00 NN MMLIN NN.4' 00 MM M COCO MM 00101' Wt0 HH 01 ri 0 tf}V} tat} d'd' N N H H tn.N N U) V)tn•H 10W MM H 41)411- .Lf . 4/3-VI .t? . V}V} L}V} .V} . V} 4,11-VI- 4A-1A V} H H U) 10 ri H H N M M H N 4/}4./} V} 111. t?t? V} V} t?V} CO- tf} 0 W M a U W El Cl) W H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H ri H H H El 0 0 00 0 o OO o 0 0 0 0 0 000 00 0 0 0 C7 4 �� �.., _ ��,, �� W q 01 a) a)a1 a) 01 a1 01 01 a) 0) a1 a) 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 a1 0) o 0 o 0 o 0o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o0o 0o O o 0 aG U co co co co co co co co co co co a) Co co co co co co co co co co U W a1 a1 01 a1 a1 a1 01 01 01 0) 01 0) a) a1 0)a)01 01 01 01 a1 01 Ix) ."Jr a1 a1 01 01 01 a) 01 01 a) a1 01 01 0) a1 01 01 01 01 01 0) a) 0) X 0 H H HH H H HH H H H H H H HHH HH H H H 0 0 a Z 0 H N M w U) t0 N co 0) 0 H N M w Ln 10 H W W W W W W W 10 W W N N N N N N N O AL MA MA In A M A MA M A MA MA MA MA M A M A m A m A M A M A m Z U at 4. a1 i' a1 t' a1 i' a1 ie 01 # a1 i. a1 i' 01 i' 01 i' 01 t' a1 i' 01 t' a1 i' 0)i' 01 t' 01 0 x in V U) V til V U) V U) V U) V U) V U) V N V U) V U) V U) V U) V Ln V U) V U) V Ln U U a) ' rn 03OA o00 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 000 00 00 04 CO Dao aZ z 0 z ao ao ao w d. 0)0)0) o I 01 01 01 H V V V0 N N. M M V' Ln ri ri H CO CO 10 10 O Vr V'V' N. Vr N O V'd' V 0 1.0 t0 N N H H H 0 0) VN 0) m 0) 01 01 0) ao W W W Hw a)a) N N N Ln H Na) N In M Hto Ln Ln ao Z N HLn Ln H V V.V M H N N CO 0 H M H 0 0 0 0) 'J O H 0 0 N N N M 0) N N Ln 0 W V N 0 0 0 H 01 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O N N E-L ri,-I H Vr a) H H M N H M H sr VV V• Ln ri ri H H V N N (.4 MMM 10 N N N N V• N N N N N N (") MMM N N V'V W V•V'V' H V' d'd' d' M V' d' d'd. d. V' V'V'd' V'd' CO M IILI I I I Ii iII I II I O W i i i U Xri M In Z 0 N O O H N H a0 N d'd' H H r♦O In H Ln N N �i 10 In Ln a) In N N a) In N N In N N H HH In In d'N to O r-I W L0 N N V d' H N M 10 N W W M 0) V'LD LD V.w Na, 010 1.0 a) 0 0)0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 10 10 0 0 O N W W W Cn Cn cn W U U U U, U U 41 U U UUU zzzz zz N 0 D>9 WW Z W Cl) ZZ Z Z >>> WZ O H P4 134 W H H 0 H H WW W x 1:4a4a4 Hw Cn H a a H H H CO WWW a H W L!) a Cil CI)Cn aa.w El Cn a H a Z Z Z H CO CO CO a Z H H H as Z CO a Z a H H H a 04 El H H p H p 44 4 a0 a a x4 H U 4 4 4 W Wtn Xq CO I� U) ZZ Z 0 444 COX a) Cl) 0 0 0 El H 0 0 Q 0 U H H El 0 0 0 0 H H 0) A H H H Z A ZZ 0 Z 0 Z ZZ Z 0 H H H ZZ U H CnC!)co Z HH Z 4 H H El ZZ Z Z COCOCn HX Z4 A ww 0a 0 Cr)1-1 APwwwcai OHw Cr, H Caa H 04 H H El Cra r.Et,. C! gg 000 A a4 W W H Z W H W AD r7 H 000 WJ CnA a4 Cl a4 01 w a s D Cr) a ) a 01 01 Ot a L4 a4 a4 0.01 w 0 w aaa W X 00 as 0 0 a0 O wW W Cl aaill 0W a>+ N 000 H HHH H C.)C.) z rzl W I>4>4 0 0 HH >1 .'�- a Z Z Cn Cn q) H H U)CO H 0 FC H C4 ad 124 W CO C4 k. Cr) El 0 0 0 www wO HH A w a >a x zzz x 0 00 p x 4 4 U a4 Cn H r4 IX a HHH O Z Z Z H > U0 w a D 03[11 a 0 www H w ww CO El a a CnCn Cr) CO 000 Cn ca Cn 0 aQ a4 a4 Z a 0 W H ZZZ En Cn CO CO Cr) CnCnC/) X 00 a W z El CnCn W HHH HH AA 9 WWW 0 W 00 0 D Cr) H 4 >4> a 0 HHH C.)C) U)C/) H H 4 4 0 G Z a4 3 u)Ca A H WWW AA mm� 4 H c4 IX 0 a a W CO as - 124 HHH 00 HH VI CI)En w w H 0 z a s Cl) 0 a s w w al Cl) Et 00 >1 w Z Z H wx Cr) z E+EE• i Zz aaa a a4 Cn Er) 0 a4 0 4 3 Mas 0 0 wmCn IX ..5 Z >4XZ 4 H HH a 0 tX 0orH HHH 0 a4 ^0i w w w rt. W W at. W W W x 0 to ao a0H 00 Ln Ln MN0 H H oo MM d'V' al 0) 000 00 LD 10 0000 at V•M 000 Z0 M1010L- OO 0)0) V+IOH V'Vr OO Ln u) co co 1010 000 1010 MM HL-Mr-t 10N0) 000 ".J H 0)VV ao M M 10 10 V'N N N N 0 0 V'd' N N in to 0 0 0 H H W 10 V'M M ri co 10 V' Ln Oto 0 M V'NNa% rt` NN ONN 1010 0)a) co co 00 NVV' N ' a) HH a0a0 v 0H .0 10ON rri)D Hin ti) N N i?-t? (N. H0) t? ?tLn Ln t?4./} HH Mtn N Ln N to-in- M M H 10 s?N t?HH in-t?i/} i?t?i? i?i? t?t? i?t? 0)-i?i? t?t? t? . /)t? I H H M M N N t? t? O VI-i? Cr) M C4 0 W H Cs) Czi HHH H H HH H H H H H HH H H HHH HH HH H H o 0 o O o 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O ��� �� �� ��� � . �� (i] 0 0)0)0) 0) a) 0)a) 0) 01 01 01 0) a)a) 0) 0) 0)0)0) a)0) 0)01 P4 000 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 000 00 00 • —�� � �� � � �� � ��� �� �� • U ao a)a) a) a) a)a) 03 a) co co a) a)a) co co ao ao a) a)co ao ao O CO 0)a)0) 01 0) 01 01 01 0) 0) 0) 0) 0)a1 0) 0) 0)01 0) a1 0) 01 01 W X a)a)0) a) 0) 0)a1 0) 0) 0) a) 0) 0)CA 0) 01 0)01 0) 0)0) 0)0) • U ri r-1 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H HHH H H H H 0 a 0 N co 0) 0 H N M V' Ln 10 N oro 01 00 H o a) 0 % H N N N a) co a) co co a) aa) cn O M A MA M A M A M A M M A A mA mA M A mA mA M A M A M A 0 K 01 # 01 i< 01 K 01 * a%# 0)# 01 i. 01* 0)K 01 K 01 is a)IS 01 Cr)x V Ln V Ln V Ln V Ln V Ln V N V Ln V Ln V Ln V Ln V Ln V Ln * a) i. 0) # V Ln V Ln V Ln V 0 U U a1 rn la a 1 0 0 0 0000000 00000000 000 0 00 00000000000 0 a w ow 1 0 z W ioN U to t` H U) t• GO CO CO CO CO O OD aD a0 01 01 01 00 l0 LO l0 VD l0 VD l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 O e' N N O)01 01 01 01 01 V' 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 N N N CO U1 M V'd'd•d'd'V'd'V•V•V'd' CA Tr U) 01 in Ul 01 VI 01 01 01 CD 01 01 0)O1 01 O01 1 O p00000000 un U)U) m un Ul 01 CN C4 01 CN CN CA CA CN cn Ch U)U)U)U)U)U1 U)U)U1 U1 Lf) CO l0 H 0 0 0 l0 lO VD 1D l0 l0 Ri R'i R'i R'i Ri Ri Qi O O O H 10 l0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O M o O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O F H H M l0 l0 l0 LO 10 LO VD H H 1-4 01 H H rl ri M M H H U1 U1 CO a0 CO ao 00 CO OD OD CO OD OD H Z4 M M m MMMMMMM d'd'd'M Tr PI d'd• Md'N N N N MMMMMMMMMMM N W Tr d• V' d'd'•d'd'd'd'd• d'd'd'd'd'd'd'd' d'V•d' N d'd' d•d'd'd'd'd'd'd'd'd•d' Ti' 0 fn t I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11111111111 I OH H M HHd'HlHHrl NMl0HrlNNd' r1HH 0 NN HNHrld'riaDONM V' H U M N U1 IsNNNNHHI U)U1U1l-NNNU1 NN0) d• u)in aoa3H N N N N MUl U1 141 H 4"'z���rrr M H H r40101d'lD010) ririHHHHrl[s rlrlrl co NtN HHMMMvNlDlDNl-N m O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 z H z ,pH U 0 F U W Z H H W \ H Cr) U) 00 Cl)O Hw Z 0WHraC•l W 0 W l-1 wwwwwwwwwww U) a U) Cl) F x Cl) F a g4 UUUUUUUUUUU a H H Cl) 0 Cl) a a HHHHHHHHHHH a o Q Q UH ) Cl Cl) w C11 al aaaaaaaaaaa Cl) co Cl) Z Z CO W Z CO CI En En wwCul wwwwwwww 01 W O o WWWWWWW U 0 A C7 HH U]V]U]U]WCnWWU)U]U) C7 0) A H H Cl) 00�00.�0000�y0��0yy0 l.�al-�z Haa Cl) Z al Z Cr.) w W 04(�li f� f>~ HiQ�tiW RAW R�R� w H HHHHHHHHHHH H IO Cl) W ra P4 U] e-7 F 0 EEFEFFFFFEE E 3 w w > AAAAOAA FFFG+EG+FF >Cng • C.)C..) 000040001.100 D tr4 0 0 ll (n(n(nd1Cn U]!n zzzzzoZZ 11W W 0 aC4 HHHHHHHHHHH W I p4 04 Cii ZZZZZZZ WWWOwaiWw a'Pa WW FEEFEEFEEFF a l0 Cu Cu El H H H H H H H a a a U C4 a 04 a F A O U Z£ D A A A D A A D 0 N 00 z U Cl) U U En Z 41 En H H RC 4 /•C E e-7.-7 01 0 a Cl) 0 Z CC . as a a a a a Cu Cu as >>44 al H H 0000000 �'�a Cl) 00 44444444aa4 Z > a axao4lxax ZX 0 00 00000000000 0 4 he FFHFHFF x U0 00000000000 F 4 W OCn En U)En 01 Cn U)co W Cn co F C7 C4 CnCnmcnm(nv) aaa 4 FF 444444r•4g4g4I4F4 4 Z W z z z Z z z z ea a a F U1 En C7 C9 C9 C7 C7 C7 C9 C7 C7 C9 C7 H C4 'J HHHHHHH 0))U U)U]C/Cl)ClCO HHH 0 W W W W z W W 41 43W W W z W W W 0 XO 0] 4 0000000 00000000 ZZZ z AA ZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZ U a w .X X•L ZE ZX 00 00 00 00 U U U w H H HHHHHHHHHHH a4 a a aaaaaaa aeaeaeaeaaaa Zzx z EE EXXXXZEXZEX 1 1 1 . ie 1' 1 ie 1 00 00 00 00000000 U11n 0000000 un 00 U1 00 000 10 CO U)w l0 r♦0101 a ut rl OD 0) EA d'd' 00 00 00000000 OOOOOUl0010 0101U1M 00 000 10010N01H d'Ul U1l-l-o N RN N 01 01 0 0 O N H a0 0 d'rl VD N un l-0 rI N M 0 OD 01 N l,0 0 0 r4 N M N Ul N LO N 1.H 01 N N Ul H N 0 OD CO 0101 HH o .rVDMN[sMID 0Csd'0101IDaD04U1 01N 0D UIUI U)Ma0 UlHrllDlD01 V'L}HMM01 N lDlD MM 41)4)} U)MN N r-I Nine. Ml0Nd'OHr4a0 a0 44-4)} HI d'd' MVI.M 4/}4/}4)}t?i?L}41} e-1 1'N 0 H 4)}i? 4?4?4?4/}4))4/)} 54)}4)}4)} .t1}411.4.1} . t1} 41}41} 4)} t/} 40-4/3•411. . L} H rl l0 OD rl N U7 ri 4)}L} 0 0 4/} t/} L} 4/1- U ).U N N W 4A-1/1- = }L}x C4 0 w F Cl) W H H H HHHIHHHH HHIHHIHHr1H HHHI H HH riHHIrHHHHIe-IHrir•4 H H E4 0 0 0 0000000 00000000 000 0 00 00000000000 0 O 4 �����..,,, �.,����,,,, ...,,,,, � �� ��..,,,,,,,,,���� W A 01 0)• 0) 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0)0) 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 Ch 01 01 0 0 0 0000000 00000000 000 0 00 00000000000 0 : ',. ������� �������.., ��� - �� ����������� � .`�. 0 co co• co OD OD CO CO OD CO CO OD 00 a0 CO OD CO OD OD OD OD OD OD 0 a0 CO aD 0 CO OD OD 03 aD OD aD OD a) U W 0) 0) 01 01 01 01 01 0)0)01 01 01 01 01 0)01 01 01 01 0)01 0) 0)01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0) W M 01 01 0) 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0)0)0) 0) 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0)01 01 01 x U H H H HHHHe-IHH HIHIHlHHHl HIH He-1H H HH HHHHHHHHtHHHI H 0 0 a Z N M d' U) lD N CO 0) 0 H H 01 01 0) 01 01 01 01 0) 0 0 7U D4 MA MA MA MA MA M A M A M A d' A c}' J U 01 4e 01 4. 01 I. 0) ♦< O1 # 0) # 01♦< 01 t 01 ie 0) W U1 V UI V LA V Ul V U) V Ul V UI V in V LnV UI O x U 0 U1 - a) rn (El a 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M W Dao ai O Hz 0 W 01 U N N N NO1 H H 0 NW 0 0 H N co M H V H UI O o1 O O V•V' M H M 01 M W M d' M W M M a)01 01 M N 01 N l0 l0 01 M 01 N o1 >1 01 FZ 0 0 N 0 4 0 Ill L11 W ui WW H 0 in a H HaO a) 00 0 N W 0 O H H 0 I 0 0 0 'J 0 V, 01 01 N 00 0 N H 0 H H H 0 H 0 H 0 Fj 0 111 0 0 0 00 Ul 0 0 H 000 0 0 W 0 0 0 0 H cM H H H CO CO M H H N H H H M H H H H H H (Y. N M M N M M d' N M d' N N N M Mm M m m N W d' d' d' V' d'V' d' d' d' M d'd'd' d' V' d' d' d' Ti. d' OM I II I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I i I I I UI N W M V'H H NN H V H N HHH 0 H H H H M d' H H NN UI N M ul Ul 1/40111 N in 01 N co U1 N V' m V' V'V' N m V' N N N H H V H H H H N 0 01 0 O O O O O O O 000 O 01 O O O O O z 0 H H En U) U1 U1 U) rzl 14 W U W W W W W H H U) 0 M H 0) U)MU) W H H H H U) N O > > W LQ W > z WWW U > > > > W O H a a H M H a O H H H z a a a a H HM W 0 W W a 0 W H000 W W W W W0 ,n a, cn U) a U U \ a En U) aaa H U) co U) as a HH cn a U) aaa m - a z 0 0 r'7. >> z .ti- a H MMM H a a 0 M U H 4 4 Ul M O cn 4 Xqq UcnEn En z w z z z CT r23 rn Q g H H CD Ci)U) H 0 O Q 000 O W O O O 0 a z H zzz W H W H H H z H >, CO U) H >4>' H H U] 0 H H H \ M U) U) U) H I H CO U) H H H a4 H U) 4 H H H a W 0 M cn to H U H W W 4 HH U g W 04 444 W W z W W W 4 M a L. w M '40 W a. W MxM > w H L>, GT+ W a' 4 H O O W HH W W O z WWW 4 O 0 O O O W t H a a a FH D a o4 W aaa M M H M M x a+ W p a a O MM En O a c7 000 H a LZ4 a a a O N z U W H I H• H H 4 H W H Z C4 P H U) a' 0 `� a a H v W H O 4 A Ag Wq a a a) ] ,c4 W A z U L) z H 4 C4 04 �+ H O 4 4 0 0 M M 444 0 W U W W M U al al Z Z zz H 4 \ 333 H W W M M W \ > H MN D U z '� P4 H H[� > GO W D H W W O X X Z g O O O O Z H 0 WWW U U U U U U H r 3 as U w H 444 X O O O O O 4 X X Z MM a a aa,, a WWW a'M a A m En a) W * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 01 WW 0O 00 0101 COMH NN 00 00 MM OMMO COW 00 00 00 00 00 0 Et J N NN 00 00 00 V'W M 0101 OO OO NN WN01W 10W OO OO OO OO OO O N d'V' OO NN OO N0 W V'V' U1U1 MM . . WHHO MM U1U1 0101 MM NN 00 W O N NN 00 HH 0101 WMH HH VV WW MM yrW M01 HH NN MM HH WW WW N H M-M- 00 40-44- MM M-H N 40-40- HH 40-4/1- HH M-MM- M-M- 00 4/1.4,1- MM HH NN M (0-4/1- 4.0-1.0- MM 41!41? M-(/} 4/1-M- VV HH 41).4 MI U W M C4 U W En 14 H H H H H H HH H H H H H H H H H H H H H H O O O O O O O O O O 000 O O O O O O O C, ,y' \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ L=] 0 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 010101 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 M O O O O 00 O 0 0 0 O o 0 O O O O O 0 0 • \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ • CJ U Ix) co co co co co co co co co co WWW co co co co CO CO a) 01 01 01 01 0101 01 01 01 01 010101 o1 01 01 01 01 01 01 W x 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 010101 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 M U H H H -1 HH H H H -1 H H H H H H H H H H U 0 a z N M V U1 1/40 N W 01 0 H N M V' In 10 N a) H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H H H H H H H H H U A VA VA VA VA V A VA w A VA VA d' A V' A d' A V' A VA VA VA V j W V U1 V Ul V U1 V 111 V U) V UI V U) V U1 V UI V U1 V U1 V 111 V U1 V U1 V Ul V U1 V 111 o x O 0 a) 0) m a xxx x x x xxxxxx xxx xx xx x xx x x xx 0 00 0 0 0 000000 000 00 00 0 00 0 0 00 a w Dao 0.i 0 z G7 O1 H e+' O o N H V V H 0 M H 0 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 H H N U) CO O N 01 CO M O d' O c0 cP W sr cN d'cr Ul Ul Ul O ri 10 10 0 L0 M 10 c0 N Ul 01 N UI 0 0 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 Cs 00 N 01 CO 0 U) 01 01 M U1 01 In 01 0 Ln Ill N to Ln N Ln Ln U1tD O l0 l0 ri U)N 01 Ul U) H CO COO In N VD 000000 000 HC4 00 1D 0M 0.0 H 00 10 NN N c0 M 000000 000 CO Cl) OO l0 OLS 01 N 00 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O �-1 H N H rl M H H r1 r1 H H ri Ul Ln Ln Ln ri N d' r•1 H H M H Cr)H a4 NunM M N N MNNNNN MMM N V' NN N NN d' d' NN W V' d'W d' V' Vd'V'd'd'd'd' d'd'd' V d' cM d' d'd' V' d' V'd' O X 11 1 1 i 1 ) 11 1 1 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 UI H HO H H ri HHHHOM TrMd' riri riUl H HN H H HH U H d'Ul Ul OD d' ,-i M r1 N Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul d'M d'N r1 LC)Ul 01 HH N a' M d'l0 N H d' M M d'r 10 10 N N C d'W d'1/40 M N N r1 M M'd' O 0110 O 0 O 0000 VD l0 000 OO 0O 0 00 0 0 00 CO . 0 Cl) Cl) Cl] W DI 'Z, CO H H CO H U]U]U]U]U] 'Z.z z Cl) CO CO r] CO N O W D 'J W >WWWWW HHH Z W WW r7 W O H H 1:4 r)4 H 1:4 HHHHH xxx W H HH W H E a w w a waaaaa U]U]V] E a as 0 a UI a a Cl) CO E a Cna0.aaa HHH Z a as Cl) Fa ri H a Z a aaa as aaa H a as H z0. co Cl0 CO) Z Z X cx» Zvxivxic]r]rxCO CO CO i]0.i aaa CO DI DO UO a] CAnUA] A Zv] m W C7 WO 0 C9 0000070 \\\ H HH C7 00 W 0 ON A Z 0H H 0 Z HZZZZZ C,C.0 z Z ZZ H (7z H H Z CO Z H U]HHHHH ZZZ CO W H HH a' CO ZH 1 1E-' HCO Cl)41 H 1H� U]E1E1��rEr�CEE HHH 1El 1F�1H� Z HE J w A DI 0.G. W A g fj.gwc>~gg ZZZ UH OH p; wry H E A� 4 W HO 0 H W OWWWWW HHH IX p4A W WW M Z HW 1 a :D C4 C4 D a a4 as a as x04xww w01 a 0.a w w Aa VD 0 CO CU a CO 0 0.00000 aaa Z Xw 0 00 0 a4 al N U0 00 W OU H H 0 C7 4 00 U C4 000000 Z„ZZ >> C7C7 U ZZ Z Cx] 01 01 01 01 01 01 HHH IX C4 Z Z 0 H H a s H 3131*312312* W W H H CO AA Cl) 0 a wwwwww �a�a �N as CO COn as DI 0 0 ac4xaac4 al al al U0 DI DI 00 'a: ww C4 >4 00 0 w U 000000 C4 04 ZZ c4 P as '8 lx] mm 00 a4 HH.1 4 H 0 EEE EEE AAA HH HH CAU] 4 r lx] i AA W Z 0 000000 U]U]U] WW U]U] '4:'4: 4 CO E-'E 9 al as Cl) H 0 A A A A A A >4>1 CO 0 C4 N 4 ZZ E E a4c404WWW FFE X as a4 EE W WW w al 41 w AAAAAA 01cncn as AA w ZZ 04 C4 C4 D1 41 D3 CO >C Z www D1 D1 EE x 41 43 '4; 0 00 00�' a 0al �wiywl�wi�wiww] x 00 DI DI H 0U CO CO 00 Rx x H0. Z z ZzzZZZ 00E.0 EE CEl Ems-' rrl ril X x O z CO CA U] CO Cl) Cl) DO CO CO CO U]CO U]U]CO CO CO U]co Cl) H E H E A # # # # # # # # # # # # # # O 0 0 U1 01 d' LO U) 01 01 OD OD N N 01 d'rH O T' O C-M O rH Ul VD O UI N N N 0 0 0 0 0 10 1D d'V' E O O0 NNUl NN r-r- LOU) NV'NlOL-W ri CD VD MO LnNN OOO 1010 UlOUl OO r4 V)Ul nOD LOU) riNM 00 V'd' 1010 01 ri CD1001 O c1' c}'a0[-O d'NN tOION 1,1, NcrwO 00 00 H0 O N r1 r1 d'rite H r1 t-N t-N cN 4,1.0D-r1 ri 01 01 10 M N CO .r r-r1 O M V' 0) CO 01 CO C` l0 10 O 0 01 O i? 4/3-4/1- N H OD rl H t-N H H i? i/}411-411.r1 N in i?M M.Cl d' H 4/),-4 i4}4? N i?M r1 H N N L}M Ch-Ch- 4J41)- 40-40- L? i? L? 4/}4/1- i/} i/} L? in. V)-4/1- i/} riNM HH U W X c4 U W E CO w H HH H H H HHHHHr1 HHH HH HH H Hri H H HH H 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 C7 'a: �� ������ ��� �� �� �� � �� DI A 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 Cl 01 01 01 4 0 00 0 0 0 000000 000 00 00 0 00 0 0 00 0.4 U co co co co co co 0 co O co co O CO 0 co N cD OD CO CO 00 CO CO O CO m U lx] 01 01 01 01 01 01 Cl 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 Cl = 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 X U H HH H H H H H H H H H H H H HH HH H HH H H HH U 0 r1 Z 01 0 H N M d' to l0 N co 01 0 H N H H N N N N N N N N N N M M M U x A VA a' A VA VA VA a' A q' A d' A d' A d' A d' A V A V' A q' 0 # 01# 01 # 01* al* CA* 01 # 01 # 01 # 01 # 01# 0) # 01# 01# 01 O V N V Ul V Ul V U1 V to V UI V U1 V U1 V Ul V Ul V in V Ul V Ul V Ul O 0 r _ . a, en CO 04 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 0 0 00 H H H HHH 04 W OW I 0 Z H N Z" H N ri el VD H M CO W 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 01 O O1 d'H rl 0 ri H 0 CO O O1 H MMM U) 10 d' 111 OMd'0000 r H H O NNN Z N in U1 U) M M U) r co • • • • • • • M rI rI H O 01 O1 01 01 O1 01 01 01 m 01 O 0 'V'V'I'V'd'H W 01 CO N N }I 10 l0 10 W W U1 U1 U1 U1 U) N U) r CO ri rl ri CO CO H H U1 r r r a d' in U)1.11 Ut H 0 0 0 cn O co O M co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co 0) r r Q H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 0 N O 10 O rl Hr-IrirIN N 0 N U1 Ln 17 U) O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H 0 0 0 0 O M H rl H H M rIri r4 H M co d' H r1HHHHHH r d' r-IH H U) CO NNN ZIX NNN M d' N M N N M MM M(')enm d' N NN M U) -4 MMM X41 i ' ' d' d' V' d' V' cr d'd'd'd'd'd'd' M sr d'd' d' V' N d'd'W 0 a) 1 1 I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 U Z H HH H N d' H H 0 in M n CON N H 0 0 LH H W H N 0 M d' 0 N d'N M M co d' d' N UI UI 01 U1 U1 in in in M N d• r U) rI M U1 U1 Kg'Z+ d'd'10 M r H r V' d' 10 tO H 10 1.0 U)W r r d'd' H M 0) U)r r 000 0 0 0 0 o rn 1010010101010 0 0 00 0 0 0 000 Ul W U]U1 U]U]W Cn a W Cl) U U UUUUUUU U U N 00 WW > Z Cl) >9>>>>> Z Z WW 9 0 H H H 04 W H 04 04 04 04 04 04 0 W H H C4 H as W W H a WWWWWWW H H as W Ln a Haa En H U Z a 0)0)0)CnCnaC/1 m Z a0, Cl) H H Za,al Z H H a Cl) H as 04 HDD a H Z> p aaaaaaa H 4 pp a 0 �.1a FC K 04 X Cl) 44KC4/444 Z £ En En 4 co Cl) Z Z W zzzzzzzZ En W C9Cry 0 U1 El ya C) 0000000 H 00 0 H WWW 01 Q U' Z Z H 0 Z Z HHHHHHH Z Z Z H Z Z Z Z H ZHH W a)a Z >i W H tarn C/1 Cr)U]U]UJ a W HH CO W H 000 H EA EA C/1 al 04 04 04 04 I- C*. H A a H H Pi l CID [u C4 D4WG4G4r14 �Plalislalala)al H �� W H co WWW Kg H W W 0 Z H H W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z p W W 0 r 640.3 1 p a l Ix W p H 01 a 04 0 04 04 04 f4'0: W 01 a s 04 Cl in W W W 10 a1 0 0 a 04 03 W 0 04 ala a w 04 a 0 W 0 0 a W r H H H N a) x 0 En X H 000Z cC 0 p4 U Z H a 04 HHH 0 0 H H UI 0 u2J 04 04 04 4. H as a) a H W O u mEn H H 0 UUUUUUU IX 3 H Cl) C4 a zzzzzzz Z KgKUl CD cHHHHHHH U En W £2E�ZKg os W HHH 0+ W H 0 Cl 6000UUUU En p 000 a ZZZ X ,.7 H 1g W 000000004 00 Z W UUU WWW W lx x Z a WWmU]rnEnEn Z a) C.)C) 0 Z 040404 H W C7 Iti W H r.nr�rnU]U]rnCnCO w H H HHH X Q 04 by 1gFC1g1g1g1g : x C7 C7 H a a U]U1W CD00 >4 a H W H G.44 z WWW 0 0 0 WW on a ,ax'zLSLSxQS C) 0 :4:4 W H a 3 3 3 HHH a ad Cn H H W Z Z > Z H H H .] a W Cl) Ca W 641 64113 03 al 641 00 p 04 a s Z 0 W m w m ZZZ 1CC 0 O 4 w Z rnU]Cna)rnCnUl 0 4 WW 0 04 Opp Z> D 9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 >+ N N N U W Cl, p p p K * K 44 K 44 t * 44 K K * # # N000 OO 00 rlrl C"-N. C".h. NN 000crcin001 00 W'0 NHM in Ln NN 00 MNW ZNin01rI MM OO r-r- .r v' 00 0101 00001LnNOrl OO OO C 0101 U)l0 OO Ul01Ln 01OUl U) 0)0) OO .4.v. v.1, OO OO U1Nr001OMao OO in in MM10 r-r- Tr Tr HH NMH O LnOrM r-r- d'V' NN W10 rHH r-r- in 01100)00001 0O OO MM10 d'd' a'd' NN NcrO t?H H r 4?4? d'd' t?t? 1010 rt ri H H H tD N M U)Or ao HH io 10 t?t?t? 0)0) MM NN Ont?tn• t/}t/f t> t/}i/} t?t? 4? .Lf . i?Lf CO-CO- CAC? H rI N N 10 U1 W 10 V'r r)rI d'd' ad 4/1-t/} t?t? t? t?Cr)t/}N r N N H H U s? 41).411- if}CO- 4?41)- lx) X C4 U W H U] W H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H U) U) 10 10 10 10 H H 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 NN N N N N C7 A,' \\\ ,„ \ \ \ \ \ \\\\\\\ ,„ \ \\ - \ \ --,------, W Q 0)0)0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0)01 O co O co O co C4 0 0 0 O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O '.1. U co co O co co co co co co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co co co O O co O O CO O U W 01 01 01 01 01 0) 0) 0) 0) 01 01 01 01 01 01 0) O1 01 0)0) 0) 0) 0) 01 01 0) W x 01 01 01 0) 01 0) 01 0) 01 01 01 01 0)0)01 01 01 0) 01 0) 0) 01 0) 0)01 01 Z 0 HHH H H H ri H ri HHHHr4HH ri H rIH H H H rlHri 0 0 a Z N M a U1 10 r Oo 01 0 H N M w in 10 H M M M M M M M M d' d' d' 'a' d' .r d' U "r4 d' A V' A a' A V' A d' A d' A d' A 4' A d' A d' A V' A V' A V' A sr A w U 01 4K 0)is 01 K 01# 01* 01* 0)# 0) i� 01 ie O1 0) 01 to 01 i� 01# 0) x Ln V U1 V U1 V U1 V U1 V U1 V U1 V In V U1 V U7 V Ln V U1 V to V U) V Ln 0 U U a; 0 to 0 a Qa a a H H O4 Ca o al a.Z E 0 z w 0 H of ri O CO a' to to z to N H O O o o o o E N N aP al m M o i` `" U I ri ri o o Z N O O H H to a, H H ..- a U co ca rn W of q H W as 1 O O 7 4 4 3 E E 4 N 01 1 O O to a. a. N a a a o w w 2 Ed al al co z z E E al M O 0 a. a, al cO P ] ON 00 00 w Eo, 00 0o O nO 0. 0 o r. PC to oo o to -i . 0 0 too N t v} y}L} N N to a(. 411.4/} 01 U w W +/} x a 0 w E al W to to H E N N O 4 \ W Q co O O O \ \ aL 0 c0 co U W of rn w x of of x U '-1 H U 0 a Z N 0 H V' V' z U + rn+ CA 4. Ox V to V LO V o 0 H . m VI a M O Uf H co 01 01 H R. N U1 0 N m 0 O V' H 0 V' N M 0 0 V' N UI O N O O O N O M er c0 O O 01 N I. 10 N UI V' N N UI 01 V' co m 0 H N 1 O N N UI V 01 N 01 t0 N N UI UI N 01 1f1 H a0 d. 01 N O H t0 H N V N o H co H H 01 N H H H N H U1 o Vf V> t0 V) d' M in. VT t? Lf tN d' M VI VT 4/1- t? H H H Ct. 43 Z ] A U a ZH Z it Cr Gil Et 4 Q R a H U it O H H Z Z Cl)w a w awl 4 E+ E' Z a E-1 g w 0 a ,cC a Cl) Cl) H A H H A w 4 Z 3 X CO Z 4 a a w w vi co a O w U [w-i U w A 4d H H H 4 01 H Et w w Z. C, w a w Ei E+ w H H CO a a H w U W Z H U1 0 H N V. t0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 H N V' V V V' V' N M V' U1 00 V 0 H .00 a• V' V V V VV N N N N 00 H 3k = Yt 3k = It 4k 3t 3t 4t 4t It *t 3t U 1 0 A 0 A / ff CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CONSENT TO: Mayor and City Council —� Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Tim Benetti, Planner I SUBJECT: Final Plat for Prairie Estates 4th Addition Vierling Partnership(Applicant) DATE: September 1, 1998 Discussion Vierling Partnership is requesting Final Plat approval of Prairie Estates 4th Addition. This plat is the fourth and final addition within the original Prairie Estates development. The subject site is located at the south end of Prairie Lane and north of the Upper Valley Drainageway and Boulder Ridge 2nd Addition development (see Exhibit A). A copy of the August 20th, 1998, Planning Commission staff memo has been attached for your reference. Alternatives 1. Approve the Final Plat of Prairie Estates 4th Addition, subject to conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and staff. 2. Revise the conditions of approval for the Final Plat of Prairie Estates 4th Addition, and approve subject to the revised conditions. 3. Do not approve the Final Plat of Prairie Estates 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 Prairie Estates 4th Addition, subject to conditions(Alternative No. 1). Action Requested Offer Resolution No. 4980, a Resolution Approving the Final Plat of Prairie Estates 4th Addition, subject to conditions, and move its approval. 1:\commde nccU998\cc0901\fprpe4th.doc RESOLUTION NO. 4980 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA,APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF PRAIRIE ESTATES 4TH ADDITION WHEREAS, Vierling Partnership is the applicant and owners of said property; and WHEREAS, the property upon which the request is being made is legally described as follows: Outlot A, Prairie Estates 3rd Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof Scott County,Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee did review the Final Plat for Prairie Estates 4th Addition on August 20th, 1998, 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 for Prairie Estates 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: 1. Approval of title by the City Attorney. 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. 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 , 1998. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk PREPARED BY: City of Shakopee 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee,MN 55379 * CONSENT* PC AGENDA ITEM No.8 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Planner I SUBJECT: Final Plat of Prairie Estates 4th Addition MEETING DATE: August 20, 1998 Site Information: Applicant: Vierling Partnership Location: South end of Prairie Lane;North of the Upper Valley Drainageway Current Zoning: Urban Residential (R-1B)Zone Adjacent Zoning: North: Urban Residential (R-1B)Zone South: Medium Residential(R-2)/Upper Valley Drainageway East: Urban Residential (R-I B)Zone West: Urban Residential (R-I B)Zone 1995 Comp. Plan: Single-Family Residential Area: 12,752.85 sq. ft.or.29 Acres MUSA: The site is within the MUSA boundary. Attachments: Exhibit A: Zoning Area Map Exhibit B: Prairie Estates 4th Addition Final Plat Map Introduction: Vierling Partnership is requesting Final Plat approval of Prairie Estates 4th Addition. This plat is the fourth and final addition within the original Prairie Estates development. The subject site is located at the south end of Prairie Lane and north of the Upper Valley Drainagcway and Boulder Ridge 2nd Addition development (see Exhibit A). Considerations: 1. The Preliminary Plat for Prairie Estates 3rd Addition was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on March 25th, 1993,and approved by the City Council on March 29th, 1993. The Final Plat (see Exhibit B),as submitted, is in substantial conformance with the approved Preliminary Plat. 2. This plat is the final platting of Oudot A, Prairie Estates 3rd Addition. The Upper Valley Drainageway is located adjacent to the southerly boundary of this plat. The original Prairie Estates Preliminary Plat showed Prairie Lane crossing the Drainageway and eventually connecting to Vicrling Drive. The developers discussed the possibility of either extending Prairie Lane over the Drainageway,or constructing a permanent cul-de-sac upon future platting. This outlot was created to install a temporary cul-de-sac within this 3rd development. The applicants have since sold-off this southerly section of land (now known and platted as Boulder Ridge Addition). The residents of Prairie Estates and the City agreed to reconstruct this temporary cul-de-sac as a permanent roadway. The Final Plat illustrates the applicant's dedication of the easterly section of said outlot for the permanent Prairie Lane cul-de-sac right of way. 3. Outlot A will be replatted as Lot 1, Block 1, Prairie Estates 4th Addition. The net developable area equals 9,734.71 sq.ft.,or.22 acres. The resulting lot meets the design standards for the Urban Residential Zone. 4. Park dedication fees will not apply to this plat. The applicants have a park dedication credit from the original Prairie Estates 1st Addition platting. The applicants were assessed a park dedication requirement equal to 10%of the net development area (17.20 acres). Outlot B (3.54 acres) of Prairie Estates 1st Addition was dedicated for the Upper Valley Drainageway, which exceeded the 1.72 acres for park dedication requirements. This credit was extended to the second and third addition, and a small amount of credit remains (.732 acres). Previous conditions of approval allowed this credit to be extended to future plats. Holding to this condition, this credit will again exceed the required amount of.022 acres for park dedication (10%of.22 acres=.022 acres). 5. The Building Official has commented that building construction, sewer and water services, fire protection and access shall be reviewed for code compliance at time of building permit application. All utilities and public improvements appear to be available to this site. Alternatives: 1. Recommend to the City Council approval of the Final Plat of Prairie Estates 4th Addition, subject to conditions. 2. Recommend to the City Council approval of the Final Plat of Prairie Estates 4th Addition with revised conditions. 3. Recommend to the City Council the denial of the request for approval of the Final Plat of Prairie Estates 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 Prairie Estates 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. b) The following conditions shall apply after the filing/recording of the Final Plat: i) Building construction, sewer and water services, fire protection and access shall be reviewed for code compliance at time of building permit application. Action Requested: Offer a motion recommending to the City Council the approval of the Final Plat of Prairie Estates 4th Addition. Tim Bcnetti Planner I is\commdev\boaua-pc\199810820Up-pc4th.doc aoo,rwr_.< 'Imp- EgT1Ta ASI LIS ��j . Ila C -:•,. _ '7a- ^ .T�i .� mill r® �ti YiiM} itrYV! ..',.;:l! "MI �� a �� � 111• MEIN ME MEMmom a ®s a� S© vs .14 S4a.a MEM Wiwi Mir 6._..:, ..m.• , Ili IMIN Odin re t7.imus Na .0, Pi.,tillpr _V.,......_ =.: y �03 - MIM �� rallisilafroillirac _ �� �� e�.allioma' o ll" = a ao © '0■/' 11311 '41AF •• e� - o op p . ■w �� o� �■ II �IIli ♦ � am z;iriNP "'ice Mgr PARK - I �ld.�._ .1r MP�, \.),,...Q.L, Ire= ztAlripv-4,, AI ---- ":" - =DAM HEIGOS b wilidoil, # #0 , voile tie , � wpm m�► g. ► l� i/emOI� E oeittie eats, *lt,. �iw0 R 3 o Ingirr us1131101 411115.501111,0 now . .1 Ili . ,. Li HIM 1 A meg u 2. . 3 Zç; ' ' ' -.°111"lb gir ' 1 k R 2(Li: 11/1 a. am so iiL Banm o SPy���q�p B III:IX II;:,�:III:Icl„icI tat ati1�:.«; •I mill: is TTIG I _ r__-, ,I LEGEND SUPECT UnderlyirnC Zones 5i-1111111111111. I AG 1 Agriculture 1-------- ---� RR Rural Residential I j 1IRiAI Low Density Residential 1 R?. Urban Residential __. __-_-___ .._ __._-.__....._—..__.__._._.____ R 1 Old Shakopee Residential i _ 1 I R2 I Medium Density Residential GRAPHIC SCALE t R3 I Multiple Family Residential 800 1600 sou a aoc I I61 I Highway Business --I Office Business r3 I Central Business ( IN FEET ) 1 111 I Light Industrial 1 inch = 800 ft. i Heavy Industrial 1 I MRI Major Recreation j Overlay Zones .. i I--SJShoreland Floodolcin District Z_zi`dining Overlay J -------- - - - ---- EXHIBIT A E x17 T if' WEA ll lllA I^ A 1'1 fll Tl/'1AI >0 O • I(7L_ L,'V YI..: v T!7 AIJlll l Ill,Y 1 oz pal I i T9 o�wlo E ! E 38 ti 3 1 s 7l4 7.1 1 lil I g $¢ 4va , ,f —1 ', I , a uit to I ytt1i II ) L—E Ii1—"—4 1 Q, 55 Z at! o I 9 3 I < r, sg: I 8 o n, Ill I i 1 1 ). ii N1 51: J, i I 1.--' li I , I (,j 1 1 1� :JD )> I Ci Shi �, Le a C) 4 --I c � iig :.), PRAIRIE LANE ti 99 C) ' pp � `1 5 O 010"E PI 'o Cj r vff) li (A .)�)A l�)If' I A A If' (J) 0 CJ 11x111\IL_ L.nl YL_ I I— I )�)ACIIf' ^TATE^ AffITIIIAI I& PRA\ri Ih IL_ t..I/�I L_._) 3,---;'[.3 L/L/I I IVI Y Ili a a ali t f Ml° . ' 1 € ' a .1 " 'I 1114 i11 I y : a - _ IIJ F 3 iIpai i 1 $ 3 I a€ ii of }t {a Y 99 II i li if [;91^i @ i11 t' ;i1 i�I I 01 i �f1. fiit j I; Y i f ai i • 3 i}}i: 4i _ R 1q1p4 r' a t 1 I g E 1. • 1 t 11/ li 1 fi 8 X090 r 1I II j $ 11 i A1 II 1 a n : it ii i I i �� i e 1e °s I.41. I s I EXHIBIT B pi. 5 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Amendment to the East Dean Lake Planned Unit Development (PUD) DATE: September 1, 1998 INTRODUCTION Shakopee Crossings Limited Partnership has submitted an application for an Amendment to the East Dean Lake Planned Unit Development (PUD). The applicant is requesting approval for the design of the townhome portion of the PUD, as well as approval of signage size and location for the PUD project area. A copy of the August 20, 1998, Planning Commission staff memo has been attached for your reference. DISCUSSION At its meeting on August 20th, the Planning Commission recommended approval, subject to conditions, to the City Council. One of these conditions is that any driveway exceeding 150' in length should provide a turn around mechanism (cul-de-sac, hammerhead, etc.). The applicant is requesting that the City Council reconsider this particular condition as a part of its review. For reference purposes, the applicant has provided a sketch of the proposed development, if it were to contain the turn arounds as recommended by the Planning Commission. This sketch is attached to the City Council memo as Exhibit A. The applicant is requesting that the City Council compare the Exhibit A sketch and the original application development plan (Exhibit C attached to the Planning Commission memo) and provide direction as to its preferred alternative. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission has recommended the approval of the Amendment to the East Dean Lake PUD to allow the development of the townhome portion of the site in general conformance with Exhibit C, and to allow seven (7) neighborhood signs at a size not to exceed 24 square feet, one project identification sign at a size not to exceed 58.5 square feet, and one project identification sign at a size not to exceed 24 square feet in locations which generally conform to Exhibits D and E, subject to the following conditions, as well as the original conditions of approval. 1. Any solid waste encountered on site shall be reported to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency(MPCA)and Scott County Environmental Health. 2. Signage shall require an approved sign permit. 3. Public streets within the development will have a minimum width of 32' face to face, as required by the City's design standards. 4. The layout of Windsor Drive, including the median, has not been approved, but shall be reviewed at the time of Preliminary Plat. 5. All lots abutting the private streets must be within a common interest community(CIC). 6. The following design criteria will be used for the private streets within the development: Private Driveway. Defined as a"no outlet"access,with the primary purpose of serving more than two units. If a driveway is over 150' long, as measured from a public street, then a turn-a-round is required (cul-de-sac, hammerhead, etc.). Minimum width 28' with parking on one side; or 32' width parking on both sides. Must be less than 500' long. Minimum setback from back of curb is 20'. Will not be turned over to the City in the future. Private Street. Defined as an access for units with more than one access. Minimum width 28' with parking on one side; or 32' with parking on both sides. Minimum setback from back of curb is 20'. Minimum 7 ton design. Will not be turned over to the City in the future. ALTERNATIVES 1. Direct staff and the applicant to proceed with the original application design (Exhibit C of the Planning Commission memo). 2. Direct staff and the applicant to proceed with the revised sketch (Exhibit A of the City Council memo and the recommendation of the Planning Commission). 3. Direct staff and the applicant to proceed with an alternative development design. 4. Table the decision, and request additional information from the applicant and/or staff. ACTION REQUESTED Provide direction to staff as to the preferred alternative. PPI► ulie Klima Planner II i:\comtridev\c61998\cc0901\pudamedl.doc • . _ �. — - - EXHIBIT A ..!... i ! .., .1 III!., - MM. _ : a . et- go . spa ini •ri E.-. i ,... ,,.. milli ", •I 1 I zr ..' vi !-i r� �� !i'+ �' tef _ @ t i 1 QI A �� I �� _O ( ime— 1 `� 1 r ' 3 .f _ li ���H it ..'-, ok, Apo .. i4 iL.___ 5 lasviii �iL, i1i' . , i g it: .j& 1 _ gi.,..N..'.*. NIIIiii.. dila St i . ., a xl, I; -. .: : i \ KI - eg . 0) Ca . er I.-- 2.-: .,,:. all- li I - g kit I:! •' . ; '. -- a g • • Q .— i' _ t _ !i .! 'j -.....___• "�,L. ---.----= <' , '.gm -.1•1•II r.a tIM ' m� I■1■0 I 11■I■r■I■'1. , on; III • Eil 'TIL9!M II[3 ■_ .c 1 Mgr! tl, + •t -i •, T • r/I■�/I ■ISA■I■•— r� I I I , ':ILA • •.I .... � �� � ■s] 1. , •, ,.,•, ,, . •.. _ • •_ ,■a air _in ii - 'qrJ'/ A lair I IV ■ S ■I■rllllt�,■ _I ..1. •, . , • • it/�■I■ i` ■■r ■■ . In en , ■I■!111li ql'i�■` e! ,,i . �� � r,.7f..31.• ., • 43 ( '011111 ) - i, • 1,...\ 1 .,?' ." 1.7,.:::::111 - rm. Egi .. ._ • . . . . . ,.., . .... ,,. .,. ::•, . , . ‘ , . . . ,... . gi ■lfail� •:.,/ .—s■ sago It . ss., , ;',: :::: aims , ...sm.,. `: s � ' i � i -1E0- \ ., ' V-1i � -. IMper/■. , ..t ow tjHom Forilit ' '-..S.:',:t: li 1 . , 1Zg0.lb ' ` r ,. Ns"- :7:. =•-•:2= -.1,71 4.:.,F1s. ik. ..:.:,:tts. 2,01. ,..,....p.....(1.47.-,,,,.„..._-=-.-,_±...._______:::._,...,„...:01/.. .. .:. _.. ... ...7.".„..... ,...,.,......,: •...` °T7>;il+'� �;;.7., ,/ �.\ E 0 p 1%1, �'` u 1 �'✓i Gr % ��'. �Q ._-_ .i• ) // ;' �• Yf-`-'`'-.''.' ltl :?P x)1`'1° •'r ,�7/Z. - i7 ' ii I 1 .• J 11 , / ZO'd vLb: LO CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Amendment to East Dean Lake Planned Unit Development DATE: August 20, 1998 INTRODUCTION Resolution No. 4751 approving the planned unit development of East Dean Lake was approved by the City Council on September 30, 1997 (Please see Exhibit A). Shakopee Crossings LLP is now requesting an amendment to the East Dean Lake PUD. The request is relative to the portion of the PUD that has previously been identified as the townhome development area. As a part of the original PUD request this area was illustrated in a concept form with the understanding that the development pattern would be reviewed at a later date. DISCUSSION East Dean Lake PUD is located south of Highway 169, north of County Road 16, and east of Dean Lake (See Exhibit B). The proposed development plans for this amendment are attached as Exhibit C. The original PUD granted approval to this portion of the PUD to allow for the construction of 300 townhomes. The approvals of the original PUD and the Preliminary Plat determined the location of access to the entire parcel (internal circulation will be addressed with this application), as well as, defining the areas to be accepted by the City for park dedication purposes. There have not been any variations requested along with this amendment application, relative to the townhome development. The proposed amendment also addresses signage for the East Dean Lake PUD. The applicant is proposing neighborhood signage and project identification signage. Attached as Exhibits D and E are the signage plans submitted to the City for review. The project identification signage proposed to be located at County Road 18 is temporary in nature. The applicant plans to move that signage to its permanent location along County Road 21 upon its completion. City Code limits the size of project identification signage to 24 square feet. However, the applicant is proposing signage at 58.5 square feet for the project identification monuments. The applicant is also requesting approval of a third project identification sign at a smaller scale. This sign would be located at the entrance to the residential neighborhood at the boundary of the future potential commercial property. The request is to allow this sign at a size of 15 square feet(one side only). The neighborhood monumentation allows by City Code is limited to 24 square feet. The applicant is requesting that this signage be allowed with 15 square feet (one side only) or 30 square feet (two sided 1 sign). The applicant is proposing seven (7) neighborhood sign locations. Signage shall require an approved sign permit, if applicable. Scott County Environmental Health has commented that due to the projects proximity to a former dump, any solid waste encountered on site should be reported to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and Scott County Environmental Health. Also, due to potential peat soils, this application should be reviewed by the Scott Soil and Water Conservation District. The Fire Department has recommended denial of the application, siting the following reasons: • Watermain is not looped. • Requesting another entrance to the parcel from Southbridge Parkway. • Turn arounds should be provided on dead ended driveways. • Requesting connection between private roadway segments. Exhibit F is a reproduction of' the comments provided to staff by the Fire Department for the Commissions reference. The Engineering Department has reviewed this request and has provided its comments. These comments have been attached for the Commissions reference and are attached as Exhibit G. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend to the City Council the approval of an amendment to the East Dean Lake Planned Unit Development to allow the development of the townhome portion of the site in general conformance with Exhibit C, and to allow seven (7) neighborhood signs at a size of 15 square feet (one sided only), two project identification signs (one temporary and one permanent) at size determined appropriate by the City, and a project identification sign not to exceed 15 square feet (one sided only), in locations which conform with Exhibits D and E, subject to the current conditions, as well as the original conditions of approval. 2. Recommend to the City Council the denial of the an amendment to the East Dean Lake Planned Unit Development to allow the development of the townhome portion of the site in general conformance with Exhibit C, and to allow seven (7) neighborhood signs at a size of 15 square feet (one sided only), two project identification signs (one temporary and one permanent) at size determined appropriate by the City, and a project identification sign not to exceed 15 square feet (one sided only), in locations which conform with Exhibits D and E, subject to the current conditions, as well as the original conditions of approval. 3. Continue the public hearing and request additional information from the applicant and/or staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the approval of the request for an amendment to the East Dean Lake Planned Unit Development to allow the development of the townhome portion of the site in general conformance with Exhibit C, and to allow seven (7) neighborhood signs at a size of 15 square feet (one sided only), two project identification signs (one temporary and one permanent) at size determined appropriate by 2 the City, and a project identification sign not to exceed 15 square feet (one sided only), in locations which conform with Exhibits D and E, subject to the following conditions, as well as the original conditions of approval. 1. Any solid waste encountered on site shall be reported to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and Scott County Environmental Health. 2. Signage shall require an approved sign permit. 3. Public streets within the development will have a minimum width of 36' face to face, as required by the City's design standards. 4. The layout of Windsor Drive, including the median, has not been approved, but shall be reviewed at the time of Preliminary Plat. 5. All lots abutting the private streets must be within a common interest community(CIC). 6. The following design criteria will be used for the private streets within the development: Private Driveway. Defined as a "no outlet" access, with the primary purpose of serving more than two units. If a driveway is over 150' long, as measured from a public street, then a turn-a- round is required (cul-de-sac, hammerhead, etc.). Minimum width 28' with parking on one side; or 32' width parking on both sides. Must be less than 500' long. Minimum setback from back of curb is 20'. Will not be turned over to the City in the future. Private Street. Defined as an access for units with more than one access. Minimum width 28' with parking on one side; or 32' with parking on both sides. Minimum setback from back of curb is 20'. Minimum 7 ton design. Will not be turned over to the City in the future. ACTION REQUESTED Offer a motion to recommend to the City Council, the approval of an amendment to the East Dean Lake Planned Unit Development to allow the development of the townhome portion of the site in general conformance with Exhibit C, and to allow seven (7) neighborhood signs at a size of 15 square feet (one sided only), two project identification signs (one temporary and one permanent) at size determined appropriate by the City, and a project identification sign not to exceed 15 square feet (one sided only), in locations which conform with Exhibits D and E, subject to the current conditions, as well as the original conditions of approval. 4 c Cie, als.'t--e----1 Julie Klima Planner II is\coinmdev\boaa-pc\I99H\OI2O`pudamcdl.doc 3 EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO.4751 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA,APPROVING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT#14,EAST DEAN LAKE WHEREAS,Valley Green Business Park, a Minnesota Limited Partnership; The Minneapolis Foundation, a Minnesota Non-Profit organization; Shakopee Crossings Limited Partnership, a Wisconsin Limited Partnership; and Nevac II LLC, a Wisconsin Limited Liability Corporation; owners of the properties described on Exhibit A, attached hereto, have made application for approval of a residential Planned Unit Development(PUD); and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee did review the Planned Unit Development of East Dean Lake on May 8,May 22, June 12, June 19, July 24, August 7 and August 21, 1997, and recommended its approval subject to conditions, and contingent on a negative declaration by the City Council on the need for an EIS; and WHEREAS, all notices of the public hearing for the Planned Unit Development 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 Planned Unit Development Overlay District#14,East Dean Lake is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: 1) Transportation: a) Street right-of-way dedicated to the City for the collector street identified as "A" Street shall be 100 feet wide b) That 55 feet right-of-way be dedicated for the following streets, which shall be 30 feet wide, measured from curb face to curb face; i) B Street ii) B Street Court iii) C Street iv) D Street v) D Street Court vi) E Street vii)E Street Court viii) F Street ix) G Street x) H Street xi) H Street Court xii)I Street xiii) I Street Court . xiv) J Street xv)L Street xvi) L Street Court xvii) M Street xviii) N Street xix) N Street Court xx)The inner and outer streets in the proposed "Centex" neighborhood (Neighborhood #2) c) The following streets in Neighborhood 4 (the townhouse neighborhood) shall have 60 feet of right of way, and shall be 32 feet wide measured from curb face to curb face; i) K Street ii) K Street Court iii) K Street Circle d) The maintenance of roadway medians and other landscape islands shall be the responsibility of the homeowners' associations. e) Parking shall be prohibited on "A" street and shall be limited to one side on all local streets, and all streets signed appropriately. The parking plan for the PUD shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to approval of any final plat, shall be incorporated into the homeowners' association regulations, and will remain in effect unless specifically authorized otherwise by the City Council. f) "A" street shall end in a temporary cul de sac meeting the City's standards for permanent cul de sacs, until such time as CSAH 21 is extended past the southwest corner of the PUD, at which time "A" street will be connected to CSAH 21. g) The maintenance of roadway medians and other landscape islands shall be the responsibility of the homeowners' associations. h) A 5' sidewalk shall be provided on one side of all streets. 2) Wetlands: a) The wetland information submitted is made a part of the PUD record. However, the wetland mitigation plan(s) shall be reviewed at the time of final plat and shall be consistent with the requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act. 3) Parks/Open Space: a) The homeowners associations shall maintain medians and landscape islands. b) All parks (except the tot lot areas), open space and wetlands indicated on the development plan titled "Roadway and Open Space Dedication Plan," dated "revised 7/24/97" shall be dedicated to the City. 4) Zoning Standards: a) The PUD shall have an overall density, excluding right-of-way and wetlands, of 2.51 dwelling units/acre. b) The PUD shall provide 85 acres of upland open space. c) The lot standards and variations shall be as found on pages 28-30 of the April 28, 1997, application submission. d) The construction of up to 300 units of townhouses shall be allowed in Neighborhood 4 of the approved PUD plan. The development of Neighborhood 4 will be subject to a separate site plan review process. 5) Unless otherwise modified by this resolution, the PUD shall be governed by the requirements of the underlying zoning districts. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute said Planned Unit Development. Adopted in , session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Held the 50 day of _iI•�1;1,, /4 1997. 7,..i • or of the-CRY of ShaTcopee ATTEST: W ' Jerk ' '1 PARED BY: City of Shakopee 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 EXHIBIT A Legal Descriptions City of Shakopee Resolution No. 4751,Approving PUD Overlay District# 14, East Dean Lake 6 pudedlk/RML kyited KNOW ALL MEN BY TFESE PRESENTS: That Yoke, Green Seine= n the cited ofbiert, ahs cf otaesotq to wit � • owner and proprietor of the fdowig described property _..___ _ That part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 11, Townie- fp 115. Rouge 22, and that part of Gover+vient Lot 1 Section 14, Township 115, Raige 22, Scott Canty. eirnesota, !erg nertheasterly, northweeterly. edeteedy and westerly of the foiowing deserted iris ing at a pont on the East i,e of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 1t 1055.00 feet north of rrer of sod Sar hwest Ctuater, thence North 85 degees 28 rr*irutes 31 secs ids West a distance of 1000.00 feet thence deflectng 56 degees 12 miutes 05 seconds to the left and terming southwesterly a dstwee of 10400 feet thence Westerly.pardel with the south ins of add Southwest Quater of said Section 11, a &t> of 524.68 feet thence souttnerl del pardon with the east ins of said Gavermrent Lot 1 of Section 14 and its northerly extenian to the norther shoe is of Dees Ldee and there pri 7 that port of the North Hdf of the Southwest Quarter of Section 11. Town a 115, Raige 22 shown as Po74 on ixneeota Department of Tramportatiar Meet of Way Plat Na. 70-14 on fie and of record in the Office of the Registry of Titles in and for Scott Canty, Irirneeota APO That port of Government Lot 3, lying_easterly of the West 60113 feet thereof, Government Lot 4 and the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 10. Townehp 1eo� � Scott Casty, 1�6rnesota. Axing the a -eticre and reictiorrs thereto, induang that pert of lying south of the south ire of Section 10, and northerly of the shore of Dew's Ldce, except that portion contained in Pcrc ori 74, Minnesota Depe r'tnnent of Trarnpor'tation Rest of Way Plat No. 70-13. And Govermnent Lot 1, Section 15, Township 115, Range22. Scott Canty,Minnesota And that The Mrneopois Fardatia 1, a Minnesota non-profit cap:ration, owner and proprietor of the flowing described property situated in the Canty of ScottState of Minnesota, to wit That pat of the Southwest Quarter of Section 11, Township 15, Range 22; And that pat of Goverment Lot 1 Section 14, Township 115,Rage 22.lying of southwesterly, southeast_ ,southerly and easterly of the folo descrjed,irnG at a point on the East Ire of thee' 'ter, sad Section 11,00 feet north of the' corner of said Southwest Quarter; thence North 85 degrees 28 minutes 31 seconds West a distance of 1000.00 feet thence"deflecting 56 decrees 2 minutes 05 seconds to the left and rtytng southwesterly a dstance of 1040.01 feet; thence westerly pa-dei with the south be of sad southwest Quarter of said Section 11, a distaice of 524.68 feet thence southerly pardd with the east rine of said Goverment Lot 1 of Section 14 and its ncrther}y extension to the northerly shoreline of Dew's Lake and there terminating AI of the above land being situated in the Canty of Scott State of lemesota. •And that NEVAC I, LLC., a Weccrein corporcticn, owner and proprietor of the flowing described property situated in the County of Scott, State of Nramesoto. to wit That pat of the Southeast Cud-ter of Section 11, Township 115, Range 22,and that part of the Southwest Cuerter of Section 12, Township 115, Raige 22. Scott Canty, Mnrreso a, deserted as fellows: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Section it thence North 1 degree 24 minutes 4.3 minutes East on a assumed becring, danq the east ire of the Southeast Quarter of Section 11, a distance of 759.26 feet to the point oft viing thence North 72 degrees 47 minutes 26 seconds East, a distaice of 40.69 feet; thence North 31 degrees 14 minutes 27 seconds East a distance of 105.02 feet thence North 24 degrees 24 minutes 45 seconds West, a distaice of 147.23 feet thence North 87 degrees 45 minutes 28 seconds West. a distance of 320.77 feet, thence South-24 decgees"47 meutes 45 seconds West, a distance of 137.54 feet, thence South 28 degrees 20 minutes 06 seconds East, a distance of 224.55 feet to the intersection with a ine boding South 72 degrees 47 minutes 26 seconds West from the point of beginning; thence North 72 degrees 47 mrutes 26 seconds Ecst, a distaice 250.34 feet to the point of begrning. Which les within the fc1owing deserted property: These-beets-5f the East Fldf of the-Sauttieait•Oucrter of Section 11, Tow�nshi�p 115. Ranee 22, the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quater of Section 14, Township 115, Range 22. the Northwest Gkuater of Section 13, Township 115, Rage 22. cid the Southwest Custer of the Southwest Cucrter of Section 12, Township 115, Range 22, d in Scott Carty. Mfirresota, described as flows: Beginning at the northeast corner of the Southeast Ouster of Section le thence South 01 decrees 24 minutes 43 seconds West, on on assured becreig, long the east ire of said Southeast Quarter, a distance of 2163.20 feet thence southeasterly 60175 feet dong a non-tax ntid arve concave to the Southwest, said arve has a centrd oncje of 15 degrees rnrutes 24 seconds, a radius of 2250.00 feet and a chord bearing of South 52 degrees 09 mrutes 33 seconds East thence South 44 degrees 29 melees 51 seconds East tangent to last described arve, a distance of 754.65 feet thence southwesterly 150.03 feet damp a non-taxgentid arve concave to the Northwest, said arve hes a centrd ange of 03 degrees 58 minutes 57 secanes , a raves of 215&46 and a chord bearing of South 45 degrees 24 minutes 23 seconds West thence North 44 degrees 29 mutes 51 seconds West a distance of 754.90 feet; thence northwesterly 574.58 feet dong a tangentid arve concave to the Southwest, said ais terve has a centrd erne of m 15 degrees 40 n.tes 36 seconds and a rocas of 2100.00 feet thence South 29 degrees 55 minutes 51 seconds West. a distaice of 435.86 feet thence South 00 degrees 09 minutes 18 seconds East, a deetarce of 1064.21 feet to the north ire of Scott County 14c}nwcc F6glet-of-Wr Per Cacurerrt No. 366002; thence westerly dong said north me of Scott Carty y Rigrt-of-Way to the west me of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 14; thence Nero- CO ee s 04 rrinutes 33 seconds Ecst a dstaics of 111023 feet cdong said west ire of the Northeast (.rater of the Cuarter, to the northwest tamer of said Northeast Cix iter of the Northecst Qua-ter; thence North 01 dea a 14 rri-utes 4.7 seccrw s Frwt n rriotrrri of 2RiS R + N 3 f..1 riryv +. vers{ frt of t Ecol One—Weif of the Southeast Crater of Section 11 to the north tree of said Southeast Curter; thence South 89 degrees 43 minutes 35 seconds East, dung the north ire of sad Southeast Crater, o distance of 1327.08 feet to the point of begirning. Except that pat =veined n Scott Carnty's hngrway Right-of-Wcy Per Docunent No. 315591 - -that owner and proprietor of the fobwisg _ • Limited pat o, a Wisconsin invited partnership. described property Crn the Canty of Scott. State of P4rnesota. to wit R 22, Scott Car+ty,. The West One-fes of the Southeast meter of Section 11.Township 115, enge of the West One'l•1df of the Southeast Quarter of Section 11. Town 115. Rage except that pert motherly of the fa{owirng desorbed punter thence North Cange 22, Scatt Canty. 1west corner of the Commending at the of said Westt He s the Southeast Curter a Southeast re of 992.09 Feet to the point dong the west rine sero thence defied to the rift 94 degrees 13 minutes 30 seconds of �rsg of the ine to be Ncrt ern States Power Dorman/3 dong'tse southerly One of the Na-tt�emce of the Southeast Querter and there terminating. easement to the east ine of said West One-H And The Northwest Quarter of the Northeast OuQ ter of Section 14.Township 115, Range 22. Scott Canty.Van resoto lying northerly of the south 200.00 feet thereof. Qi crter of Section 11. Township 115, Range 22. the Northeast Quarter of the Northhose ports of the East Section 4 theTSoutheast 22. the Northwest Quarter of Section 13, Township 115. R 22, N end the Southwest Quarte- of crie1t Township Range of Section 2, Township 115, Range 22, d n Scott Canty, and the Quarter of the Southwest _- _- .. . described as flows - -- __ _ _es 24 minutes 43 gegi ming at the northeast corner of the Southeast Quarter of Section 11 thence South 01 d eof 216320 feet West, on an assured the east One of said Southeast Quoter, a distance '�' lag d arve concave to the Southwest said cave has a cent 09 sem t 601.in feet along anon-t acius 52 degrees�� a d thence southeasterly a roc�us of 2250.00 feet ad a chord beerring of South crige of 15 degrees 19 minutes 24 seconds' ees 29 minutes 51 seconds East tangent to lost described strnirnc 3f 754.65' East thencece South st44 5150.03 feet dig a non-tengentid arve =cave to the NorthwestS 45 distance of 754.65 feet; 05Og! 58 r seconds , a radius of 215846 and a word bearing d �e of 03 degreesWthence th 44 degrees 29 nvrutes 51 seconds West a distance of 754.90 feet; cave has a centrd 23§eoondsthe arve has a centrd angle of degrees 24 rninut� 23 a t tid arse concave to Southwest said mamas 51 seconds West thence5decrees eosthwesterly s 36 s feet long adius of 2100.00 feet thence South 29 decrees 55 c d 40of435.86 feet seences�th 00 degrees 09 mirutes 18 seconds East, a =tame of 106421 feet to the north a distance t cesity thenceNo. 366002; thence westerly dong sad north .ne of Scott Coot Scott Cant F�gf W to th Right-of-Way Per oDf the Not er of the Nit Qu ter of Section 14; Canty Hr ay Rrc it nes shay :o the west Ins s the Northeast Qua•t sad west One of the Northeast thence North 00 degrees 04 minutes 33 seconds East a distance of 111023 feet Bong Quer, thence theastof said Northeast Carter of the Northeast Nor01 of the Qu 4rter. o ds neral' decree corer the west tine of the East One-Hdf of theNorth udegree 14 rix-ofas 47 sect E a d len o f offeetsaid er, thence South 89 degrees 43 minutes the Southeast Sectionh 11 to the north meter, a distalcs of 1327.08 feet to the point of beginning onds East, long,the north One of srnd SauttseosR,Right-of-Way Per Docursent No. 3L59t EExxcept that port contained in Scott Carsty's Highway ay Exception from the above pace!. any portion thereof lying within the flowing described Property That port of the Southeast Cucrter of Section 11, Township 115, Rare 22, and that port of the Southwest Quarter of 22. Scott Canty, ) rrsesotto, described as folows: Section 12, Township degree 24 minutes 43 minutes East a cornerCorrrnenc of said Section 11, thence North 1Northon degreesa �at the dong the east Once of the Southeast Qucrter of Section a distance of 75926 feet to the31 point Northof 72 degrees 47 minutes 26 seconds Ecs a2dist eoof240.69 feet 45West, a asarrsed 14 begriming thence East, a distc ce of 105.02 feet thence degrees 24 a minute of seconds feet, thence di minutes of 27 seconds a North 87 degrees 45 mrutess 28 seconds28 degrees 20 minutes 06 South24 degrees 7e t: tisane 45 seconds West, a cistance of 137.54 feet thence South South d 47 minutes 26 seconds South s 4.7 e offes seconds East a pint of a224.55 feet to North intersection 47 i utess2 6 seconds East a distance 250-34 feet to the West from tine,paint of begunir>g point of begirnrx} PETERS, PRICE & SAMSON LAND SURVEYORS, LTD. -`- -L----- - - a":"_ ,5 ---------- ... 317 p _ 1‘.,..t .,. __— _._„7.4.1 . ri -1 \ u' 1 __ - ... . 4 .4."*A•zft-- • 1,--- „4--.1 • 1 ..1s1r.--- --------ir..,,,, .„..m./.0t P • -o — w ...40 ,•,� X x I i______,-- -57--"c-77-7z-_- fI � g N N N ),- 'J.- > > ' °I-7_12•%;----- :,-;,..-, :..--1 ' . •° '1.; ir •::4-Mir.f:' "Waal -, ,--.', rn m IT1 • e • ' . / iiI 4. � ,_ , I� fir' • ..• ;pit l 1 • Ili . -iv.�o Ing IBJ IJ 1J .--' • Al .� o o 11- .° -._- ° • 1, J,53AI' j�1..I1 /i',- 1_ - • 14.41"""' A � SIE 01711:1F7 .; :1F7'; Via' ', 1�T : i ;ti °;;-1- aft . ii '111 io • ;--1 q. _'o i rra0.,,,i i ,''1 l;.'— ,/, ,.:, ,,_ at .,. (,44100.‘,—, , •A ., C: (z Pe A &iv "VJ'A "- ': ' I :4 /, tin...Tr, .41 '. !.. Ilk,.,• ' Ikon ' r 4I ‘ _i. th..../.. .., , ., ".54111:: 7 ‘r,:(7' w.- 4400:-:-7.--"'' 11. 1111"1714111, :6-2:: li' ( '' ' ,y a I , 1 4 1,,,,„„ • ) , . s'"=BV f��f n JA 4 w1 � � I o �� _ L. ,I pi, .,, .. • , ="ter i, ` .,I,.� =,.r.,....yyam•• ..,_ ; � 1- ' 6 , • •,,„2.;.---. - r ,.� n!9lid ',,iii.7.1411k , ;; •�/•�'•f• .49 / / 1`71 Y. //• ��q, t o •tea �1 - I , ° „' e�-.1•ey t' - ..•1 ('" P 01e/Ato •! Ai N ti- ,_••vi le. i tw -_ ♦.!a ,�,0°C Iy• i, -,1,\ • w A ‘T'; 9 1 " ••.I 1\'\\ !�- ,4 ♦474=«'4-7 °'tea ` ,;, . .;-,) j1�� o�• Itieft,(04,- w '�' ,i/jA a _ - h 1! )));:,, ,,, ..,,,,. 14 . 11. , \ Q ° � r t • s Y 10 Att"ifillit •�,Ivett° • �1 , @ °. d. , ° Ay e 07 I1''"+, 1i7 1 -.'c rp f i,„ s• e _ - ( n^li -oe'O ' �Q I :/�:'' I�` J r'O073 ! V • la ° n°-:`'?j�eo „ {�I�� ""'_' 0 ' ' j.. .' •-:_i/,. .56 °Q p O �'r•)IA • e :.p` s'--,....4.00t • a awlw.. o °' legit:7 1 ,��.,.>O � � \�,� ° '.� a4 ��f�•��,,If� +i �� ,�x Ieo�V\� L ��•'R1;,► "Eb"r,.iA't ! I {1I °I IJI "'-•1„rrr�.'�M. {G��t •'�fi • I! . .,;.1.7____nicliit LI, ., ,A • . '17141e---!W.*k '...*7, • u: :',.,_.:). --t4 , . Fir 47 4/i" k ‘,0 olk• , '..,.:, -''.1;\, s‘, A-.:. 1 El. -, i, , , 14 t.., ..44 , ,,,.(6,,, ,,,,,,,, ,,,,g2t.....,,., . i i,. i,„,.. . ,-,, ,, . ..,,a1 v,,,„,•• '4.0,,,its•NsA,..-.,,', ri,_,TAbil w, -..-..i. ap. .-_:1 r•, ''' •-1 "`1111 tifilif ,...111V,40,..40' 13).-7j*A:,-- ,0.; ' 'w I)! '; .' .).- ,.., . -rI t-ri I ki • Molist.8‘,10111.\\10% %,4,0='•4 :. -. f 1 •-''' -•4' 71 ty • .9 ri•-• , 11\ vL.4, f.! • d° ' 10 01 PP' ' J1 .,„:�• �,• ✓.• � . `°�-��• �// ; (. O •. •Tom. � l • I� � z4/,off r, - ,. ,� , :�-� t. _ , 1_4V11,11 :4df,°° /1114w-**. •1r'Zo° , 'it . S, I -L ' ! ,. a - _r L�.,.){ all 1II /o ,Pi , ( /©; - ...; •`/ r _:_l____,_7_,__ ,. ,.,,e trI ° { r^ oi • I t,.ra• :I r 1 °i I,. .,,, 0,..,..,,,..,,,,-,,,,,, , •,.... irir e a Eri'\y _, , . . : ,.., � 1.1.1 * °° o v .i, '•N .^Y 1 • w°, rr —p�° l �t�,ia', j ' b' a :�. r' °I f o•,,r,`li • 'I r.• kf t'ttwy`. er . ,w • 0' 1 j $a 171: k '::400/1 : a �1I I; �i7 • Al \- �i4 1'.' '1.1. -EV 1 oi 4;trAll fr, ' .... ) 2:. _... .1 \ '. Ii "%A 111,, WA/1144cir// ( .., ; 1.„:-ritA....c'7.4$,.,,; -;,„,_,,.....4--:,_„., k) . - :. \ . , , t ,...__.,,.3.t,,_, , k.._ . .-..-a7.-01)1 \\ r-iik , ! 444.14 y► la 1 0,-/ 4,14io.yq, .,1_;____;_.,___ _ .- A ik.;-_-_/,.._S (�'_ 1�-`. o \ it ?. -� \� -,.t_ / =- r y_ , l am 1, t o G 1 • East Dean Lake PUD and Concept Plan April 1997 Page 28 ) ' The monumentation is proposed to be at the major entrances to the East Dean Lake development,primarily at ) the east edge. The monumentation will consist of a stone masonry monument structure surrounded with a naturalized planting on either side of the boulevard with center island ) monumentation in the boulevard median. The signage will include an icon and area name with a size of approximately 2 60 square feet for each monument. The center median monument will have signage of approximately 30 square 3 feet. 3 In addition to the main entrance monuments,there will be 3 individual neighborhood monumentation of slightly smaller scale for each neighborhood. These will also be developed 3 at the edge of right-of-way and within the median of the 3 entrance. The design of the signage package will accompany each phased development with preliminary and 3 final plat submittal. 3 Master Plan Development Summary 3 3 Total Acreage 1.8 u/ac 539 ac Open Space, including wetlands 199 ac 3 74 ac R.O.W. 3 Local 45 ac 3 Collector 13.5 ac 3 Arterial 15.5 ac Net Developable Acres 3u/ac 266 ac Number of Units 848 Neighborhood 1 (net of ROW&open 120 Lots space) East Dean Lake PUD and Concept Plan April 1997 Page 29 I Riparian Lots(Shoreland 27 Lots District) Min.Lot Size 40,000 sq. ft. Min. Lot Width 125' Min. Front Yard 30' Min.Rear Yard 30' Min. Side Yard 15' Non-Riparian Lots(Shoreland 40 Lots District) Minimum Lot Size 20,000 sq.ft. Minimum Lot Width 100' Minimum Front Yard 30' Minimum Rear Yard 30' Minimum Side Yard 10' Lots Outside Shoreland Overlay 53 Lots 3111 Minimum Lot Size 15,000 sq.ft. Minimum Lot Width 90' 311 Minimum Front Yard 30' 31 Minimum Rear Yard 30' 31 Minimum Side Yard 5'&10'(15 total) Neighborhood 2(net of ROW&open space) 157 Lots 311 Minimum Lot Size 6,000 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width 55' Minimum Front Yard 25' Minimum Rear Yard 25' Minimum Side Yard 5' 1 East Dean Lake PUD and Concept Plan April 1997 Page 30 Neighborhood 3 (net of ROW 8t open space) 271 Lots Minimum Lot Size 10,000 sq.ft. Minimum Lot Width 80' Minimum Front Yard 25' Minimum Rear Yard 25' Minimum Side Yard 5&10' (15 total) Neighborhood 4(net of ROW 8c open space) 300 Units ' Minimum Building Lot Size bldg pad+10' Minimum Front Yard 25' Minimum Rear Yard 30' Minimum Side Yard 10' Parking 1 garage stall min/unit 1 parking stall in driveway ' - Average 1.5 garages/unit Average visitor stall within ROW.4 Total Units 848 3 3 • 3 3 3 a 2 a EXHIBIT B , ,1(......:.:::...; ,y Ia� r'6. ...,........." ..11. :12 r l • ,4: ,� _ , • ; . 1 .:7?"- -. 7( 1 1 `` )•,. j o n :i N , •. J.` u '!i ♦ `'`',✓`tom: 2 A mte, ,. 1/,•' •CA ' Vii" ,( _�('..... `/ n`. zgZ 'i► e. :t i r 7 n vr° O f .. / N F � '� ' i • � . Wj� 1�`E :•. `` ; � , /--,x,.„,;..-...7". ~ ;L „1 1 . i , i t. ` -sr:, ';', y ; y'U; ! • t�.-'' • .fir 0 , I / �'! • .:. ..7.4.: 1-N - " /7 t ;� "c:: iJ e..� i . , te 1. i /':f.�rr.- ,. n 2_6_,.'..... • .. ..-., •tj:: ` ._ '- 1'.. _` •., 7 'v r:41 -7., r, /p` . `--` -•-c •- 1. ly z " :1 a �� r L l L.--- s ,_ _. J 1-.._-.41.r1.7.,T ,.. % - 4, •1 .", 4.--. .V. 4 7. �ft•'i kl - '� -Z ?••-•=.''• ..mac_. ..^t" f `_,, /--..„,,.�}'•- / �+ L- _��i FSI`1 - .t.."..., ;? ;,; : i , • `r '-. ! T I •�...r, '1' • ` - < / 7 4-- i' .��'''' C•'::7-...., • t .,• f/t,-_-orf ,. ` 1 V ,.......„\c, Fes. _ -'Y_ 'iii• A 1 71.e.4-- 4Q !"`.c.,C/ 'r:':/�',,,,,�: .I "�f o,• rz.. • �'t� _I1 /:1-,!t T! / - r ,it Y E._i_;=.ice%_� yfy._ a•�•-•t j,- '''-=--.---' i'- =. CD `L •�� \�, '�r:,-...-,, i �; h; ,i '—r=—='�, -_--›,r.st - '--y�,-,'�'ii �.i-- "_-j-a 3'�' ate_—fir r-1- f t'r ,ice • �.a w.- i -='�s.-_-.,1....„4- .. 1 :; p'- f,,t a+^• L 'w'-r2.;*,,;;.:' '\-- �1 t. iii yi }'1-- -: a--•.-..- -.:3..j...,- .� ""_ • ts .• - 01 It. - -1 �!`rl .i ,!?r�''ti N,,,,,o''• i..t , ,' .. .l ___ F 2. -Ai Er i. ..'i L \ CD \l .-� 1. ...�. ' -^.....1„,....:::..e., ^ '1 , .,-.7•-•-t------ ...�. __ _'3-' • 1"'x•4" • ,(� I _,..F. ,K.�,s.,t, ,,m77. -,......-::::-., 1'• �•,�. ..en-,--• 47. r`.71 •r,• - --1; t _,...."'..4...),. 0 {�-•-`{'`z' ,.u'Y `. 711 •ar ,. ✓ I 1 - r < +i.. �'. a k . \\ s i r T s 7 J 2 (-, A AH s ay.: N F r /r ) .-../ (•,:\.„_.: O N � ( 117. Lia ,_,--.45 ,c,.r Is- -I 1 .....:_...1._ ). • • lel; ` �' fA. -� °-_. d • r-I 77 r7-- � \Ajj ac f h a / c_ it ,,rr^1';.r;,,1,�" — \ a ;4,!---,-.\ ft,-cffi---1-, ..--; 4%3,3: •4',4s . ..-- \ •.,, , . 'i ...N,..-• ' -2 , \ i. „.. 7, ., •• \ \,. , ,,,,, , -•,--,,---,....,--, , ,s‘ •....,,,,., .?„, I •n 1- 1. ..l' _ .0 \;,..---;m/ U 1 • 3 ?-I2:�— �_l4 ' [.. 'r•;Lam' {i9 .[ �\\ZZ''. \ �' 1i =L{ 0,..,. . • •„._.,. ; m ., Ina o C I -z-,%;.�' ,; /, n n ' U 4 1pE---.-----\,;.:----..,021..... Y�i c t ' '° N o IR W n �� :� C ,/ �nT a II ," O n �.t�rr�y �.�-, y A 1 I S Ii ilnlb II go. dtrc•-fv: n • ( ,:,4„; �Q�,;.< o'3 '2. . • 1' :....-1 i \ - \ ', i ,, )4; "..•;-„,, 11 1 i \ \ I .1 ; 11 )iIiI , it(— \\ i { / iti , ‘ • ‘ \ l ) l ,,,,,=-,,,.. .,,,,,..,._,__ 7.,/,.. / ,,....-_--_-_,-.,„„„- ,,s,..,,,__Jk __________,-- ----- iiI ', • ____,.•) L' • -.0\s‘lv,• 00 ________-, ! 1 , :, 1 0 \ \ _ _ .... ity.„ , , . law ,- ,:. ,..b i \l, li ii , 7___T ,, is t c !'' l .1�1 ly. 6 t 3 \ 11!'1 11------'71;1'----.'''' � s l __-__ I ____�\=__ 8/98 MON 15:04 FAX 608 251 6800 1VhYA(./VKhAl LAAh IGIuYL . .r. ,_,,_.2„---.N.---:::::---zi----3--;,.,<-:,-• EXHIBIT C i'-2.L---- N. ''.1 SHKODEE CROSSINGS Mary Romansky, Chair, Shakopee Planning Commission Shakopee City Hall 129 Holmes St. S. Shakopee,MN 55379 Re: Proposed Villages of Southbridge townhouse plat,part of the Southbridge Residential Planned Unit Development. Dear Ms. Romansky and Planning Commissioners: We are pleased to inform you that Shakopee Crossings Limited Partnership has entered into an agreement with Ryland Homes to develop the townhouse parcel of the Southbridge Residential Planned Unit Development. This project will be called the Villages of Southbridge. The purpose of this letter is to inform the Commission that representatives of Shakopee Crossings will appear at the August 6 Planning Commission meeting to request that you consider our Preliminary and Final Plats simultaneously. Approval of our final plat at the same time as our preliminary plat will allow us to begin infrastructure development during the 1998 building season and, in turn,Ryland Homes will be able to begin some construction activities this year. An expedited approval process will not negatively affect the city's ability to carefully review development proposals because many of the concerns have already been addressed as part of the PUD process: • Necessary zoning is already in place: R-1B with PUD overlay; • The use of the parcel for townhouses was reviewed and approved as part of the overall PUD; • The site density of 300 units was reviewed and approved as part of the overall PUD; • Sewers,waterrnains and stormwater management structures adjacent to the site are being developed with the capability of servicing the 300 townhouses; • The traffic to be generated by these homes has already been considered. Southbridge Parkway and the relevant intersections were designed to accommodate 300 townhouses in the area; • Design criteria of proposed interior public streets has been considered and approved as part of the PUD; Shakopee Crossings Limited Partnership a 3601 Minnesota Drive,Suite 880 ■ Edina,MN 55435 ■ (612)921-5806 ■ FAX(612)832-0609 /98 ON 15:04 PAI nuts Lit vow. ,•� -----• • • ////715 • Minimum building setbacks have been reviewed and approved as part of the overall PUD; • Required open space and park dedication needs have already been met as part of the overall PUD. While the plat we will be submitting is entirely consistent with the Southbridge PUD, we understand there may be questions from the Planning Commission about various aspects of the development. If you desire to hold a workshop involving the Commission, Shakopee Crossings,Ryland Homes and appropriate members of the design team,we would be happy to-accommodate this request and will assist in setting it up. We look forward to your review and approval of the Villages of Southbridge plat and also to seeing construction activity in 1998. Sincerely, Shakopee Crossings Limited Partnership P 57771 ‘rYi(vrig- Steven D. Soltau Trent R. Halverson D/sbued/worddocs/shakopee/- _PC From:Steven D.Sottau To:Juke KIM -1-90L) WI 1 5 1998 SHAKOPEE CROSSINGS August 13, 1998 Mary Romansky, Chair Shakopee Planning Commission Shakopee City Hall 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Ms. Romansky and Planning Commissioners: As you arc aware, a number of things are currently happening with the multifamily portion of our Southbridge Residential PUD. On July 24 we submitted a PUD amendment to the Planning Commission to present our plan to develop the 300 townhome units approved in the original PUD. On August 7 we submitted a plat for simultaneous preliminary and final consideration. The PUD is scheduled to be discussed at the August 20 Planning Commission meeting and the plats are scheduled to be discussed at the September third meeting. As we indicated at the August 6 Planning Commission meeting we are anxious to complete as much earthmoving on the site in 1998 as is possible. To expedite the process we would like to make ourselves available to answer questions or concerns from individual commissioners as they arise. Please feel free to call Trent Halverson at 921- 5807 or Steve Soltau at 921-5806 and we would be happy to address any questions or concerns you have. We look forward to hearing your thoughts on the Villages of Southbridge plan. Sincerely, Shakopee Crossings Limited Partnership /WAVY/Z-- Shakopee crossings Limited Partnership ■ 3601 Minnesota Drive,Suite 880 ■ Edina,MN 55435 I (612)921-5806 ■ FAX(612)832-0609 _ __—c `.-.•. __ 4Z >biy �Y-� r L#`. 1'},�"i1^'„�.Ir:-�t� ?�ic• :3- .1Y.� �� "T..i►.=�..�w'�V i. S Z z 0 VU F- • g < 7- z W W jn = ;N O O 13 Y Z p W zn rr S k i i r. gur. e i i Li i i i ti 13 1 Li S : < ;; I {. II `y. 1 \ 1Al - - - 1:1 _ . w \'\!\ -.--<.--- --- ,' . ;..1 / \"-� LWT 0 1 `` z �' �., ,rf. / / � O F= ... � \ 0 7M J \\ 1 o , a. 14,4:), E \. 1--co- _O / �, i• �/ �j/d0 O i��'I I ��v. Z 1.1 r...r: 10 4 \......_______1-....-_-_:_1-_,.-.--•---- -I . .. i s' * i' I'--- .-- -I s '' /-----1! "' ` OS ; `^-_ _ �` g /i ,I �-t-' w o .. N / ....,,, , , ,2,. __ __ !!!!!!!!,'''''''' _..,. / ------------,------- ��'�_-- _— 9rrE 7 / ,- , _.... _, . fz� �; ONOd ONUSI 3' \ • II17ry7ri.1' f 1 ! . �1 1. / Ei •'/I // 2 ////• / / j _ i_ ____.-0 3,411rvi ,, h -- .� 1-`i / . _♦ [ - V 1 tn p -- 1 st•oott -~— n iso I L I x,- � a. '' lb.bB$ • I Ael �, Li I T- ' \ 440 . f.. I ' sir - . / 4(,\i\\.IP' 11111)., ..,. ,\ \ .,..,....„_____,<__.:14111,, ': , I P i b 1 1.-•'ill ) r r , ,_.! 1 fr.. inti 0 \\,\ \;. „ 11 ,lriWI I _ m11 I -;dill ' 1 ------------------Th:, Q 11 I gill A- m ,7 1- ii I I j I L `� I P�d• y I , i I �1 ,J O ti ! vi Z 2 i Q ('■I■�■I■�■1LI - ■I■ I of 7, a I II i I I i ii I • I I OW f� I • I 1a 'a I • �lI_',�;_ �� V I It I I II �' 1 Ili .� .ti;• p ' III I - n w 1,, X72 lI S<<CV ��ITII f(lit_. w I ! ' I lai �O 3Z� :rlri , I �1lII( 11----11111 I , I � 1_ , �'� o<h n I Sv n I r A r Q cc 1-n I;, Q oQ cei0 o - I 1.:,! A. I 'R4 . ,, I L WO 17,5 n n , Z { i. (nom WaJJ - rt Q it n' \ lll t 1 O o ix in I I _et I , O ' I Z a fi3 it I ?I J I3 l I— 1 kq LI.- TieLLLJJJ.-=1 - — I( Il I 1 �� T 1 a �•3 • • • I �._ I ` 1'. `:i_ L! 1 W 73'X' 1111111_ . 1- i '-lt�fi (� - ~ I 111 ~ I J Pi y II lL '_an-.. - .. i �_ VIII / -e 61- r I ��Illf _,Th �� 11111 l 1111(--� 1 �,� , I I 11111 L .1 R. ' 4-� r-= it I 1 __ � 1 1 1 _ ' I i!!LS!S _ .� .-.tea- IIII, Q 1IIIIIIIIII v ,IIOw— _ ------------- —II - M„9014£.6BN - tfiTi urilr3sr3 lrxraaa sa»uoe n.ml.vmirvlr33�' ------St ►'/ i " z i f c V1 0', 9`lft 1104 +; Nadel z , Dirt 1'M'N '? , , c� ONbd`JNLLSISf� I { eL 909 - - Br l,7 _ Z FI15LS11-i, M 11, W .00.00.[-0 07.1-9,1 1-4.1 • 1 69995 V IJ 1SV3 --- NUIOS 9t 'ON 'tel '00 £t 'ON-- �AMH 31V1S_91k.dWVki=_9� �� r. — �___ N in -------- (soaks ado H i .S -....-...-_-.-_-_--_-:.:-..-:-_-_-_-777-, 'ON - N ON %QMH > ------------139‘_0-. l S31'N�1-�691, N(108 HMO—�� — -- yS - �'7 0_IIOg 1S _-_;—- 1-691 ON H1 S3N�� 4NI�08.. 1 . i 1 I i I /141 - - '-:i.,: .)-- r----' A ti . c.( ..1%-.1- •i 1 0 L 4 E-1 / • -.- , /r. •,,, .. -.-5 • 1 (.'.1. ") Asa ,-, ,.._). _i, ! -•?..• , -, . , __r;‘. ;`h I ,• ip ' i II.4 \ / • ,, „.. i -i--- [...7„,:z; _ , ..i . i 1 L .______.. i , ! 1, . --5- w . , • , 4).).-,0....,... , ..... -- 1 i .....:,, .m.).'”) • \ 1,..... i' .D.- ., -... 1 ...) J,'...t)_- 1 . 1 1 3- - -:-•)--) , -:i , .b„ ..3,r - ._ - t \ . 1--,.:. - -._ .4. _ . _ N .-c_.,...., -_..„,_:..L.-L.:-)!..,......_-_, ......-..:„ .. - , I U `." I " • -i: ..- -,_... cn iNo i ..2_•, I'D ... ,,c - ., f 'Vi r .., - 1-: • . •• ,•. .i miliR b. cs ..ri, ..r$ ,;•, 1 ("'" 1„Nal: I k„.444, , • 'Mitt..k.'.': I ' • ''•-•- 1110/PC- . I - ''•• • Ieleil'b. • 4kIlt:,,... iikv,a1 iltt., 44 worli,v. -co ,lir:' hookiike _. „9.1.1-'17.41v, V..' ,..,''''."'••' iasiiiipl- .,. -stay* V. I ff:' bA,, ,•,.. -t, -tr. N , III‘k-- ,44•. . ,,241k, • , v., ,s0ropets ,.',v004.1. '1 ,: •....,k..A._41 . ' ...zzely • 1 . .\,,-„,41, h .dmitikti.• zii, 1 k a cgt.7 .t•,..f, \ . • \ t-' ' • i 4 110 :. • , w 11, v •.- ' cm q,•- i • \ .,)s 1;,. 44 I.'s 4.1 ,,! t ,,' ' •,..:,, „ ..... . ...„. ,a +1, . 0 - a.... • 41 al , .... 1 • r--- ----- • ___ ___/ .,,:s4.,..... , ..., , ,•,.11,. - . . \.\.. ,&.„. iNfot1900, 0.1.. 1 . • ‘'i•.,. e'... •,\\•.,,i...,4 i„.„ \;••••N -11-. 1.1\ Ak% sS".1,' I \•••;,' -, ,ki111). k 7.:, S',NelF',svy-w7411#2,16 -,': VII\ serdr, ItTeee‘ft leilj; '• "TW' I .' .:""ArS"14 ACC:', • - 'T NTIT: k\t A,.:', k -*."Ar . ' C.-. ,) .. . • • :AA.,, ., . • ‘ . • \ . - .1:••., • ', es, •,‘., • ., i 1/(V".."7 ' ' .••• i''- ,t , I V_9,6 ji.7... ' Jr;" Ar% N • • ',4 . ' lir ''' ..i.' NW ‘,\ Inft. ' 'if '''. ...._ _ \k\., . . for, , 1 . AVM' t". I t‘k• . 171illii, / iblics , 1 1 t Il T I , i0,40,111. ubfto l'e "11, 'TO,,.• 9li 111 ‘\:\,,IIAITI N 4., . • • L_ -...-4 i . '''1\"' .4411 -N" --.1114 ::.4:f': 4-r101-15141 Q: ^- ° V !' • icitilkw(-- -",-- • , --i r..;. i .1".. .t-..- 4,1.- '. • ell ... "..eir . ,....s. - ?:' a_a,,,...,. ...'7...7„,!!......i.*lb AL,rm•ng.• % q;', ........ - , •, iy,... ,...-...........1 L......-......- --............ :el • ,,,. • . .t. ' ' ,-... ,... r, ,.. ,- .. ... II. _ •X,a-z . . ,1.1,0T,, ,i,• • ,... ... •,,,. .. .,.44:'i,,i ,, ,...t.. ‘ 44,, • • . . , t:,,,,i• ,ot,,,.+ ,-, .r, :, .. , __ t - E tlijj 'i s J??.,:..-': ` gioattA I 1 0 4. 4 ti , 1t,ll1N i I iis1isle1 § it1 i 1 R sl.,1,, /' / ./''''./: 14'4t:,, G P a I �1 0: JE aci 'SIN ��1?'-'!- n —....._.. ( '"i.i. g �'-f7 z Q • 7 a i- r Ell / , a 8 a xx Q � , e c_g /PI / • , . 1 klt -4%..01 1 5 / . . i ill II "C ` 1 1 I _ ` ., i P. • @ 1 1 F;: - • ,,.-14 Ir.: . "._' L 'i P ` ii $i g 1,), Ct:117T41*_:.::_qlja_.:/47.-/.4,' o•FC. (° i;i 11 1 ____: '>.,', ..:\\--‘11\II It Af' "N Zolk.4.140 ...7 41:1 ...e 1 * ....i_ •.; 4 -.1117..• -...... :`, -----./..---- Efil - a•ilf : 'o\cNfall -a a C er i/ " 1 --,,,,, ia. 17',G.P .;.•\ Lry il --- -"ef.. --y.A''k---'-'-i-i'1 OP NV, , '''. 4.4 .1.:, ,,,,,,,I, al';‘' i - ''° 'SW to AA , i i-- /14, , /-- (,ti F t ;' ki..,',A,4N/N--,, /t. •,,\ ,„,„, -4,` S4'--- t:•11, 1 e g k;? 11 1-14 • ii PIP \ ;alt; ` r E• f -- . ! i l' \ ---- - / —4 -,-:* -1' ,1, / A_,,,,,4;.rfv,.) "-•- x a•2 iii - 9 ISI �,,,���I ,\/ 1_ :' t. _ ja yrs ti ; 141 1 „,.,,s i r 1,, ---- -.\ s.*4/0! 7 7/s/b.,. 17( ,,/ilt4. SIDI I.\ f!? ••Z,,f11.6( — -- ti' -1) 49 ---;,itiv., E ; o - -/-4 ' B it((\IT% E-L / °\)\i‘ .1 .1 IF 1 T b 'L''.1 5 IVA .\--i 1-- ' N t- --)-`',. Z al v.)) t`- . 1 81 , 0,;b. t ---_------ la mil IFJ q �e , E F �11= r / � \��- E ...rwilt:1-4 ICA ------&-/.170,%.. ,;\ - ./- k_\1\_,A-f'f, ,"4.;? , ., - , - 11* V. 1 0,4,1 '-.\_il S5 ,1*,, ,--%:-. ..„,;.../.:-,:.,), .). - i 0 ' 11 Y-- \'-:.--.---,--:.-c,.;:\ t\ ;-/';, %,‘ saf 1 \ 4 4R-'-e; ‘`.*>/A/•,-;A:4 1.-- ( )) ' 1.\\-- . ''';' :/ E 6 1 \N Jett I. \.1. \ \*.//. / CII 'fd .moi < a _ _i pp t$? z Et s�ftl q sti¢ \\N„ 2 gi it iil 410.:sit• Hi )1IF I di! !gill J a• • P o \ ww Z i • 3 tu 5 E._ — ......,—.), a� .) o or or o 19):: ® ® ® 4, 4 0 I it! Tom\ � c I 4, r l\,,t s..,t:\ \ \ , -i f 4 / .' \\\\\..,,,,,,,,....:\\NN / , \ SOJ�, w , „,---\,, Z ( i a1pti\ ,,c,...„:„......,„.„:„.... • EY. '"--,..,...:-..----S-,- . ----__ I* \t --:---:---------rj'-------,_ -, _ /,. / - --- G2 5$ i _, _______ _ ._:ro, o F.,k,,..... _---__,--,,_-: ,,,,,_,-_- _.. ::, ),I. ,,,,) I 1- V_rteV•T,1 l . �, - �t tiCw, 0 1 S I "FI e. = !.„,,„/,, E...l ., .., .....e..,_L.7:::,...,_:,7 _,,,,,,,.:, , I-il:"::::: : :: '_;'''''.7 .............. N.b1. I ././ /./--,,,-,__,,,____-_-:-.4--,---_-_-_-_,-,-,!'-____ / moi[ .,c,'/ �f l (Ilii x�v73•ISN 3 1131113 - i c ./_..i, '''..4 - -7 7 �� / I/// / /1 ` �. T1N 1431 i 't, _ _-_, ,� cc h e•. / twV� 1 11111101441.1.4 Al' )IIII lilt ' 400,<, AN. --,::„,,,,,, ,;_j\ , ilrf#, ,.., $.\ . - 1 r 1 011111111111\ -,:':''' 9 ! 'I I1 � ��� ` `-1111f 1 R` Iwit iroisi i.s_m_ I\lv' co _1 IQ �' F 0. , aI, .0 I I I k� o I I 1 v, a Q �I��11111111011-��I .Rt -7,t T, III e� n I I I [1.2 i 111 9 S N ee il OZ j I d F ' I I f { - d. U~ i I l I • �iG ti ri ;II u_, I �I ! ar' n "LLJJ , Q « m ill op of v� I �1IIIJ r�III Ct vSI Y�'� No-(9., I S °�� ttroll , I-- Q�p ;�••'rei .4 ■ \o! ! Q V1� o�zv_iJ • ! r- Q �jl I n �'in iro 111N i-v3 C I pZ `'fi iiii it tx �� ice'; . n Z Ft i tiltlYILItil /i7 no +4 ' 01v N-- _� i ! : J UX �', ,. ' Jllll I J,is ''i:f1.- t , ., --,_ If ..,:;,,,..,. ,,, . . ,L ,. .. .. ,,_ ,,:.., + I I . _ �i .. 3 /1 ..`1111f Illi . .., 1 ....,_ �A I � fir➢ al � II ( I - ;,t ; -' „ .... -t ..„emi arm 1 ,.,..;;-.-i,,..!'4' tfi's 1� ii- II , iw I 4 IIL ' .11� II I w �'� ' Uw 'c'''c r - a 9z roar tn Ow �� 1 11t31r35N7 3nmaie sdnuoe m/mr.3Nner0N31 Q� [�- a L J t h .-.._._._ ..._ Z 0V i r ...oil gi L N ;,, l >18Vd V 1 M'N c� told'SNLLSIK'3 I - a`L 909 a,1 , w l a3 a ��Ja N,Ilov ran 11 M.FO.£r.LPS - — — _ 41 t..1 /''':h4.1 = Y3 s • = moos 9l ON 'ON '00 *"£l.'ON-= --- ---31Y15_9 -�1f14� (SSYdA9 33dONYHS) .S ' f`� `� -- 69l •ON 'H '1 - v ----- s3NY1 -. C ;14,----L,------------.,. g X83 -- -! �. �_�- --:-:--------7-:-'::: ;;�081S »- .. ON / ! �� 0N(108 was ' --6gt ON H 1 S3N. aon nvr. EXHIBIT G City of Shakopee Memorandum TO: Julie Klima,Planner II FROM: Joel Rutherford, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Southbridge PUD Amendment Application DATE: August 14, 1998 After review of the preliminary plat application submittals, the engineering department has the following comments and recommendation: Street Layout Although the overall layout for the streets is very different from the approved PUD, the general layout for the public street is not that much different. Both the approved plan and the amended plan include one access to Southbridge Parkway, and one access connecting the property to the west. With the public and private streets combined , it appears the traffic circulation is actually improved with the amended plan. All lots abutting the private streets must be within a C.I.C., as required by City Code. The design criteria used for the private streets shall be as follows: Private Driveway. Defined as a"no outlet"access,with the primary purpose of serving more than two units. If driveway is over 150' long, as measured from a public street, then a turn-a-round is required(cul-de-sac, hammerhead, etc.) Minimum width 28' with parking on one side; or 32' with parking on both sides. Must be less than 500' long. Minimum setback from back of curb is 20'. Will not be turned over to the City in the future. Private Street. Defined as an access for units with more than one access. Minimum width 28' with parking on one side; or 32' with parking on both sides. Minimum setback from back of curb is 20'. Minimum 7 ton design. Will not be turned over to the City in the future. (Note: The private streets/driveways are shown at 30', not 32'.) Utilities The layout for the sanitary sewer, watermain, and storm sewer shall be reviewed at the time of preliminary plat application. Recommendation Recommend approval of the PUD, subject to the following conditions: 1. Public Streets within the development will have a minimum width of 36' face to face, as required by the City's design standards. 2. The layout of Windsor Drive, including the median,has not been approved,but shall be reviewed at the time of Preliminary Plat. 3. All lots abutting the private streets must be within a common interest community (CIC). 4. The following design criteria will be used for the private streets within the development: Private Driveway. Defined as a"no outlet"access,with the primary purpose of serving more than two units. If driveway is over 150' long, as measured from a public street, then a turn-a-round is required(cul-de-sac, hammerhead, etc.) Minimum width 28' with parking on one side; or 32' with parking on both sides. Must be less than 500' long. Minimum setback from back of curb is 20'. Will not be turned over to the City in the future. Private Street. Defined as an access for units with more than one access. Minimum width 28' with parking on one side; or 32' with parking on both sides. Minimum setback from back of curb is 20'. Minimum 7 ton design. Will not be turned over to the City in the future. , ... ; 1•"•••A ,--• -._. \.•k . .,• ,rit,.......,,,,..... ,,,• --- — _, ,_ ! t •' • i IF. .. - i ' _ / . ''''''•""'` ••••* "14`i" ` •\---., -....1eM - . , "" a e="1014 0 0 0 0 0 0 - ----- • ______ •., MIIIIMIIMIlli "a., -t SMIN/1"."4"W...41111 —.- Brazi...„...••••==r3c...„1 -,, 4 .c.. . s, • .41gT^ .,="17....4.. •: • 11, \"••• . a 2•=atimismimerwoms..7411. E/1 II 'Itilii- Ai ki r •1 1 i • ) / (--) "J INIIMMINIMIIIIIMAIMANIAll IAA lie z. 0 0 0 0 rm, ........••••,,w,../.,• _....„ .....,„:-..!..._ ,,.... ......... .• ... in• ...Iv .,..... ....-..i.,.. ........... '.1-....,\*,••....4..............:41.0"Ns --.. ut. 1 , f:L fa. Cl. (a. 1...4 . ._._a la F,t). 6- ---..1 3' 3' 3* '3' r,z,, _%..„--=-__ AK.......411-aP7-- -elt."-..,;....,--:a7-0.------ - a (I) , r..) co o c....* .. - -------.----,•41=hplirstatgr; ,...........-,er.-_ „fr. trztiffloymr, -1 , •=. / " , MIAMI^ `.." -- • Iral412 1 1 wog i4L'i , • : .: ,...AI ill ‘•L - --' 0 :----r. •••1 o o o o r) , . . , 1 'CI P rrl -...-i ':.: -• afM./ ' . , , ''../77.--- ..w-im , rp -- - __ ....., ,a, _-...„--40' ,, ., -1 iasitli... -.-.; --rig s Ar-Ar-oleoem"ammul&A* * , (- - --- . ----17.•"1 `11 ,• // , AP,ar-. 4 io. '\--/': °I. lt , --1•'--- 'A, •---/: tz) ) \ ' v) 0 9 () () () .•••••••..11,1171=11nar '47,1.: ,-.....-17"4.1110 rt:=2, ear .- . /Fit, poi.w4 ., n b-• = , . , .--4_111E% r• /1-,..-1 ii.----J__io., r.-- (-) -;,, , / •s , • • liff: ","0..=..••- yr.0,/,.."3/0743,,_,.% ..,-,--;:=S; , (• .,, .:, m .... o ----- r -• • ' 6.,-----•••-,1---.—.--`-' ----,f.:':frk '0 r- ,, I 7, ', 0 7 o o 0 'a (r) --* --:r_::-:-A-;-__: ,,,,_ , -.. • •.• .,,,, ,-.,„...,: ard , 'SI'', -%N:, 1 k s• ""''. . 1" c'' -'4 _T., .--." ,0_, a imam.; .r:-...._ A • 4,,,,,..,...„, „,„,,.., „,,,, .,.,„,,,t, ,,, ...... .,.,r..,,,, , . , t--1 r- oz.. - , .,,_,, , f•,„• ALI Q-,.;:•-:,,-.,....1.1 ma,da.1:1 .%_-_,..gx\--2---..--- • i ,-.. ,:.. i--,., 0 ... (-D xj IVA, .'"--- ;-,,010- ii• r="0"-',6,---•••••,...,_Alig F., ; a.,,i,-**.,,,iif,......-.., \,.w.,'H. ... -......z, E7) u..) a V) .--•• --, r4 (I 1:3 id, ---,,, litiel-.M.,_ • 1,.. ,I4 fa) 7J (1) -5: 111•,...-.,,E--••- h- ,-..*"' 1 ID •%,„.--,1_,.....1 .,0 ilk it, 0 e, , ;;; •ith4r sNib Si... Ili • I: i ,.. r‘,..C1.; 0 .-•• rD `i , I rt, (1 •. ,0 .. II.--40....1...•61.740'--:"."‘i• a 'a', , ,... . • .-i'' °'. " ,, : f 6,-;*°'-aae."41 ).• , Itir4t*-A4011 -11 467, ) , li. .1 ,--9 IP AMU.' • • (1, f As rr, . .m 1 * --24-4-' - Joel • IVItalk-A .4(411C/ 4 1.41•9:Zi : ' -- `'',.--1-'-'- - . P.3 .40 ' . 0 Nw.... . .-10/44 - `• 1-1-voileApr. w•wsi•It4441t1'. , ", 6 t/- • a gi „" _•. .,, , , _ , --, 1 '- '• ior --. 7, .. 1 ‘ i -, tat.,,,,,, ic - • 6 v-0,0„,141;-.- -., :, 1 17-/-:-.--- jar C „ 1 1, ' . , - tn4=-.N1 ',11 '••- 0 loW ...IS" ... i • / • •') ' ',„.. '' '.. - - ••• ., - , WON 11 1 tt• ,'- •-•' . , - - /- if ft-. .-1,• •. -, ,,•,/) ,• 0 EA ' ?..'. ,_ •-- • •,,,, -- , .,/ •... •;141witi mk ,, .4 1 •••r tl .-4%" `• '-te't :• • /%' - — • VA' • 4'' ft--'-'. .'. .-.. - r -- c ' '''la /fr - -* gm ' • ' • . ... .., • .11110 , s_'L.-, „___,no ..?",41111- 4 '. saw fltro N......N. I - - '''''V-..":'-÷•=1-''' - 1 ., s. .' /"..--`er--:.•7"-74:7-04;124r-_,..r_iff,..-,:rt,w/,...• ..! ; > , Z 0 ii r) __. 9, . -- o . „or, .--- . 2,•-.: : ,, itp,Iii ..,-, ‘1 •• ' I-.) 5-• •-•a - ---/ ;', ,. . A ' , --,',.. .::'; , --•.• .* -s: ."..-4/ ...,,..45.:01 7 tr- if ,. ( 4,1V r) 'A' ' A1>?/.. , ' • .: fle •:: 1,04....a 0 to o ,, , . ' a../ * *07 ' - — • • „,..„,•\- d.,,-1 ; -- -.1 , . ' . •,q ,Pitt '''' 6%7 08 ,\ . 17 Ihnillt'. I 4-;fr.4---.1 • • ' H ,,,•-, --- - , v.,0 ( )_,.... ,...., -.t,„ -_-:_=._:- -10 , . , iy, /..., ,,,,,,,,-49,"*Id,........\ • ,(c., .,, G • co ( ,2 40, • . . • gip 400:41t; ' r - .1 ,,...•- ' .-.....:11 it •a . '3',' /1111,.....a . 7e • 12__,,,_....,f,4 ,,Nt,.....dnir.--_,.../ ti,-._ -mown tip,_,J 1-1.1,0r1:-. j* )1,7P-- • ,, 9'A ,A 11111111,410. 112j..it,LVIII ikst. _... , .. ___,.. 4. 13:1C1-14:: '.19'4,cf. "' ararteL-41A-IX.P0 1 i , I . , - _ I _. v) -6. ,' I ' ‘-,------,,.,_-7...7'--Tr - -...' " 0-1 I ra, e., _ ..:1_......!_,. ....m..., ............=ti.,..... - ---,,, ,. ,, • - Al Al6 ,...=1-1, 11,111.."11111011111MAIIINAMIIIIMS.111.111M111111 ,.I . .--•'CI o oe / ,' ,, ' x• ..„_.: - - ---:. ..; ---- "I - 5)sy tip 1 •.,/Ail ' /AMNIA 1 .MIONIANIANININAMAAMINIO-, ,,,,_.,,,...:Ett..___. ,.,,./A 4 , '-'-' r•3 It"- ' -7-2:= 7 i 1 0 •• , ii:, - , , cr) ,,,, 6-- -; .- ,.7,'„,....p...,..,4_,,, _ „..,- ., -":4-0-03, 011....2411:".-".."--"-'441 .30t,•11111-JSZ., P, , / :41 I t c, - ....:14,.___Asz!"1.!‘ 2.911./ .4 t ---- e , - .„, a , - -.... 0 - , -' ito- ,-••••• •11.0-7_,,-- ---"4"*.tkeira", .- .4,1„,.... --,4`.-_-- .„./ *: A , _ .. „ CI, La G20 ,- -- . . -, cr.? ..-;i ..).0, 0 • .e-1'• ' : ......,;:;" ,.....„.„. „ '4? /47..• ie.,/ ,, . - • ft, ..-•-) .-JE") r," / - - —2. : °I 0117. 4\ / .. L. ' -2‘-,-":"-,,••It--,......",etti..11 t, , i. fr. °,0,;_,4-A, " Kb," ,::i 1 ' ' 4 8`c>. ,......, • , - -.0411.,..::, \\ItitV * 11...",....r I . . .lik. ..gfr. 11/.01 11 ••--sylp 1, , ( ,1 ) 077.419 • a ,.,./ a .:3 0 -,. .. .Jr.-- '',.., .‘ 41 60.1,1 su.... kkt,•..., , 1 • ., 4„41' A. ou-••••••-•-...‹,0// :•,..d" i , ..-3 „sr = , \i, 7,...,-, ip 400 /'' . .,(,..1\111, 17A-17....""..kttit''",,,s t:i ,•Pato act ite,,\, 1 te ,4, /"./ .. tiO.;i:Si 4 I,,0-- r . ri) s-, 0 v) -6,_' •=-'• / 0 s(- '/„. -' ,'"-y It\ "1/4" - , . \14,,N ,7,-,,, i *- '11-..'..t\...., I*1 14 1 OralrAritri•VIV f 1 . ....) pzi F.) n ....3 ,...); ‘..,/ ' w ''P -— I' \'‘', •.07V • •••„, , ,jok, 1.1... 1 ,,.. 0:.- SI,•1 ii...1/ .,* -4••••.,;•-:.-. . \,. . • ,,/ s‘ i ; - . ...,. /4#2,..„:".00.,,,,t7 .,,,, ...• ,,..'%.th .,), • ,,'0:•40 kk i ,-A,Tr, '',..\t7-410F, .' -:,I'. e ,ii.) ;,, ,;.• I .... -• -----t-,i -- .. • , A „ -. ' .,- t,...k.'..46:.:.... ,. . ,..!.,., ....t, .. ...... .. ,.7, • p. , ..”1,.. I I 5 2 0;-7.'. --r, 7g-.- /' .s:`\,\• 1ij.e1tsr('.-,7....,0fr' ,/ i'c/o/... ._,,....7...:..ftS--•.. .t."t ,...‘.' 'Ac.i ;- . „... ."4. "*' 0Ar.6ti' 'l • 1 r.,.., ,.• O a - .-. (7(1 \ ''''''eii" ../..5' • e' 4 s \0 %,, ;..).: ‘ -:----.1i 7/15.1.---4.' ilDtpirliT,•'''\0,/,-"1".- \±1111A:41 r • q ! - P ":”' . \ 4T.',Oter,e4.1grt" '' - i 4 =, ,,,, , .,. .,. , 1, • i of IM7.2 kit I+ iviies.co.,/rio: ,1 A i,1 'i• .2 ,`' 4. '.:, . ,i.i:,,,,,,,,4, - • -- ; I NiNt , ;..< -./ _ \ , • ,... z..--- /11,. -v,,,,L....-. 0 . -:- , 0. 0 0 D) •-cs ▪ v'• r ) k illy, . ', , .- --`11,1,... ....,,„...,.. _........ •.,,,r, ,„..4.o,„4„Ele,to,,,,. ..„4. v,:...,.- .,,,,..1 0 .,•• _ i :,... F..., Fi... ,, i.,, . • , • /- -- -ir"----ifie t trj, . . 4:-.'";•_. forp...1f,,,,.7,1,,:E,:-•_-_,-„--,„rolirmajf,,,difdill ii. 1 , (2, ^,40. •,w, -- ‘,‘ ea . e fifi "Thi ° It! i o':', 01.0114-givi-5-1V-4 ..0r4 IQ•ir '11. ' a. a.. O ,,-4, r..- tJ /\`'.:% e .;) -- ,----47 %---"N - • , .-.• .-.1. ca, r 9 ,y 1\ SI- .'"' 1 ---1 IV, 4'16.7.1,01'111 1 ( I (is. 10 • ) 1 4riisitor'ww-16,0011IV- is'Al 4 ' I I ) J 1,44114I, 8 I I ir11144 1,11 0 11 ' I m (r-I, "..;', V•' •), -,,,r-' I e__,.,.. .,,LowillOot , ..*,..),111:10.\.. "I .."--1 ,,yri i‘,„ - 1 ii. • qm 4 ; ---- • m r . ----- . , )'i •-• --: Cd l'i.. ••., oftVi • I 111 ,,, . I V.ZWA Al il i" g'i. / 1,..0.4,•• •::;•,--..-fir...° a‘4.1.214'' r 0, f, ...4,Z244:Alverro'''''' ......Noi 'M.. - • i s = •▪ '1 k''',, . . *- Air, xti\ " ,---('1,...'. _ze" ..i..-Ne i .1 t it' ''..044.1:42*I.TA 44,101eLiffa.4. '. ','. ,3 , \ ,,...,..,...• . , „ b •../.••. _ I V 'e 1 Ic 1 t 'iiir ,.7r 417".. Xer:. \ .: i' 7'Ng'4'17'D \74**,.*'47.144'.44. .4.". iv li,c,i__L:.,____ -0 ,,iii4.110,, .. ,i, • ,....., %.A ; -, _.e.:x .1.,,,.-,;‘,..-e.- - t.; 'ft,\-/ 1 .1 11,41 -iv, . -.:' . .--iff. - . ' r•.,..„..-....6.--:.- -. 11 • .-, di i , ,,,,L,., ---- , i (...„.. .. ... t . ...7 , 7. ...- ,.. ,,,,„ib ..,it,,..r..0 1,1 , , .0. ,••••• .,\ 0, C IS --- i 01 IP • SS'•,, A Ii flii dgf ID \ i il 1 , 1 II.!;;;<\\Ni" '')P. s„.',.k•IN:',..,;‘,.WeAlk,,,., to Jo - .:,••••1:-"`a i'. '4 , 1 ''....:-•): \,°\., ..p• \••••\ III) . 1)., , , , ., % r''.- -....1p4.•ir•.),:, ..e ijo/fir , ;, •, • .1 1 '\. '../) pri ,.-, ,:i C..\-,'" \\.- • 4/°A.''',7,•* ., ',131.4 r if, „1 0 , 1 0 'Y 0)- trl 0 ' 1 ----1/4 ..V .... • Ilkio ' 1‘' f 41 ak ',,,e, -,,,,./-- --'--r 4 a,' .. / 7'. CP ti 101-?.. / " -( C--- 1 \e: 14, • r----*L----ol' 66 ?‘.17.7A71iiii i../.4,/ii ' . i ' 1',,i 0 o-i !I • ..I ' t, ii, ji• --- .-m.- -...----1 c'' ...0„..-. '-. p,. •;-.„.iir-r--,,:,4 ,,,,,, ? c _ „) , !T"' tt . •- 0,..-,.. .. „,/,,, ,,, •i r I . , . c .., i-k• "3 '1"4- , , z,, ,te7'. , I0P.,-/e 7,..; .,•,`. 0,,,I.,e- ,,,71‘.,,Q . 1 ,oit l, , .I. ., „).,.., --_,:: ...j\______....) ---vo- 4tit/- * • ' - •, I- ' 0=iirk,'"—.., - •'. - d, 67' 4449 44t 0 ji tl t •• 7 -,,- 0 I ,, • :., , 1114 T ,1 ,, At _ . . • .... 060„„,,andis.'1:° II c01:14(- .. . irriagii 07 liFili'liiii"ryttar ,- . 1 . ' i , t-4 „j i , .: 0 ‘• lirk44, 4:\ 4 ,.....„_.,,... 4.„,,, _,t ---`,;‘, , 44.,,D i '\ 't• , ;,1,.. *t CD lini. i'llillri :: !:. \n't.,,.. , . 049'\'to. .'•%,111111 ip,e_..kH3 • ,..//of '4,17141/7;:t-tPk.."..F.- y/:.4 \ '..i.,,,4r- '7413, Lt. fit,:t.L1 1 C A 1 \ A 0 t ..•1 iiii,g[il ' ' a' : \\..„..„„/ • .4.1 i „ --4,L,x.,,,, _.,,_.... .,, -, , ,, ,...!A,k I • ,,_, ' ' . -' e* ' ..'n'' •,1 f il, :.••• -77,',414 .1.kArtAkb''.',,.,. .r ' '.. • I '. ‘.- ' \ ' til - . (2 i 1.4'.. C ' 1 i ViglitArj.La t.4.A.4.4 iiigt.r;*1 ,, '. • I ' * ' 11C l'.['1 l'S - ( * '' k,I' . ' • --.:..41111‘,.gk V Z. V r 1' di V.. : . • '. t I p'• ' - A , :). A:il 1:.1 A AMI-it:',;.4,77;,,,sur 4,y,.. .'svi.,,,VI• •" • -- i " ;.,-..,t. ,.,, •,s,, . . _ III 't '• • / •-- /_11,--....- ,.._ • )6.), • ' g I k. ::* !WV*Itili.'011111 ..104,7.fPi414. -. (I I .e. ,,,„!--;,:..-- -e-.- .2..,,....,.- . ..-....: re...7'1:1,* ii„, ''qUir,t1. ' --:. -V170,,, --- I • ,.k. ,..., *cl NI I - .':;•,• • 6, i /' '1•744",••• •••••• -•:"mr...-..-AMPin.4 ,• ir. -NT4• 6\14%. :--: ..., loca--; _. 1-- -- "Z , - r,I I'':- •:'-''' . di.- i ,--,111r:at-I1-6-Ili'ltrfs .-. , -5--r:-.7v .. - _At'94-` .. ((j -_,Ik ,,i q-,. ...• ,, I1 -,--_1--..7.,.;:..•,_1. =- :-.:=--1); ?...r*..;L - ,i 1 ,.;;- ,L; It,r,.._., . , ,--. • i I I (") IA 1 . _ ---.-.• --.....•=figi..,..,,,,,,.., ,.„...,___,.„ ,,,I ,____ ., Alt ego.T3-... 0 `h. .....• -\--s-r--,,,s--,." ''''.,. i.i'• ,•'• ,t I-,, \ ' F = ,. , ,, , .-7.:-Lr-;;-,.._....-,:,i rni•wIt-LA '-'---'----,_, Fit,•;r-,„-4,,T.•„;•-..,,.. (14 1., -1F-,,,,„,_-- .....,„... .4,,,,•,•,,,,),- , , „jai,-4_ /2,0- i 1\ # 1 ) tri . l'N-,..V.L.--,=. '7-7.7.- li, 9")." „,. ' ' 4i. ..'.' •N.:4;•-•••........, ,-......„,......pp,-- -1.0 . , i. , - -,F);;;,.„,„:,,,,........=.7; ,.,i,„17, ,,,_,j • .,,,,,,,,l. 0.• 4444.,,,e,,,t.5.1•031,a, • t; , i\ .y, '"'''''•-••=• :i, nr: ,W, • 14141!_t • ',frit ' 1 ' , . •r1••••••- l'..A a .= ,.• ,11 --I \‘ /-64.- -----" ,,;,• 7.-.)..1:-...:.-_,.. ,-19-....a- .• %, ----5_," • ' ''''' \\ \\\ .. rI ,- -i- -'•..,•.-.-i--,,C-„9J•.1_I•f,,'i. --i,f-A..t,.) 1 )k 1 i r••.,-,.:i-1••-••-,-.----zI•.,1-,i.,/f,i•11•)---z- //`•1.) , ) i ' I 5-------- . . , trj,,r7, 1 ,,,,,_, ,;c., • 0. I, /A ,, A.') ( -..N C.::'',:.---y"-* i• . , • . . - • CI, '.:'' —--s-.---" : li ,,, eAl It • I f ..\;\ 1 . ,-:::.- 0.',. , I • i' ly, c, CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Tim Benetti, Planner I SUBJECT: Amendment to Beckrich Park Estates Planned Unit Development APPLICANT: Robert I. & Patricia E. Bergs DATE: September 1, 1998 Introduction Mr. & Mrs. Robert Bergs submitted an application for an Amendment to Beckrich Park Estates Planned Unit Development (PUD). The applicants are requesting approval for the subdivision of their existing 4.37 acre lot (a/k/a Lot 1, Block 1, Beckrich Park Estates) within the PUD into three (3) separate single-family lots. Copies of the August 6th and August 20th, 1998, Planning Commission staff memos have been attached for your reference. Alternatives 1. Approve Resolution No. 4977. 2. Do not approve the approve Resolution 4977, stating the reasons for denial. 3. Table the decision, and request additional information from the applicant and/or staff. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended the approval of the Amendment to Beckrich Park Estates Planned Unit Development (Alternative No. 1), allowing the subdivision of the applicant's property(Lot 1, Block 1)into three(3) separate lots, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. Developer shall construct the cul-de-sac access road to City of Shakopee design standards. 2. Individual sewage treatment system (including percolation and soil boring tests reports), individual water systems, and design/construction plans for each residential unit must be reviewed and approved by City Building Department. 3. Scott County Highway Department shall allow only one (1) access onto County Road 79. An access permit has been approved by the County and is on file with the City. 4. No ponding, signing, berming or landscaping will be allowed in CR 79 right-of-way. S. Any grading or utility work within CR 79 right-of-way will require a permit prior to any work commencing. 6. Applicant is required by the Planning Commission to construct the cul-de-sac access road as a public street, said street shall be designed and constructed using the City's Design Standards and Criteria for public streets. A developer's agreement may also be required 7. At time of Final Plat, applicant is responsible for payment of Trunk Storm Water Charges, and other fees as required by the City's adopted Fee Schedule. Action Requested Offer Resolution No. 4977, and move its adoption. t Tim Benetti Planner I is\commdev\cc\1998\cc0901\pud-bpe.doc RESOLUTION NO. 4977 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE BECKRICH PARK ESTATES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, on March 17, 1992, the City Council approved Resolution No. 3560, Approving the Beckrich Park Estates Final Planned Unit Development; and WHEREAS, Robert I. & Patricia E. Bergs, husband and wife, as owners of the property, have made application to amend the development plans to subdivide their existing 4.37 acre lot into three(3) separate single-family lots; and WHEREAS, the property upon which the request is being made is legally described as follows: Lot One (1), Block One (1), Beckrich Park Estates, Scott County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, all notices of the public hearing for the Amendment to the Planned Unit Development have been duly sent and posted and all persons appearing at the hearing have been given an opportunity to be heard thereon; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review the Amendment to the Beckrich Park Estates Planned Unit Development on August 6th and August 20th, 1998, and has recommended its approval. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, as follows: That the Beckrich Park Estates Planned Unit Development is hereby amended to allow the subdivision of the owner's property (Lot I, Block 1) into three (3) separate lots, subject to the following conditions: 1. Developer shall construct the cul-de-sac access road to City of Shakopee design standards. 2. Individual sewage treatment system (including percolation and soil boring tests reports), individual water systems, and design/construction plans for each residential unit must be reviewed and approved by City Building Department. 3. Scott County Highway Department shall allow only one (1) access onto County Road 79. An access permit has been approved by the County and is on file with the City. 4. No ponding, signing, berming or landscaping will be allowed in CR 79 right-of-way. S. Any grading or utility work within CR 79 right-of-way will require a permit prior to any work commencing. 6. Applicant is required by the Planning Commission to construct the cul-de-sac access road as a public street, said street shall be designed and constructed using the City's Design Standards and Criteria for public streets. A developer's agreement may also be required 7. At time of Final Plat, applicant is responsible for payment of Trunk Storm Water Charges, and other fees as required by the City's adopted Fee Schedule. Passed in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1998. Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: City Clerk Prepared By: City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Planner I SUBJECT: Beckrich Park Estates PUD Amendment No. 1 DATE: August 6th, 1998 Site Information: Applicant: Robert I. &Patricia E. Bergs, owners. Location: NE Corner of CR 78 & CR 79 Current Zoning: Rural Residential (RR)Zone Adjacent Zoning: North: Rural Residential (RR)Zone South: Rural Residential (RR)Zone East: Rural Residential (RR)Zone& Agriculture(AG)Zone West: (Jackson Township) 1995 Comp. Plan:Single Family Residential Attachments: EXHIBIT A: Location Map EXHIBIT B: Beckrich Park Estates Plat EXHIBIT C: Site Plan EXHIBIT D: Applicant's Letter of Request Introduction: Mr. & Mrs. Robert Bergs request an amendment to the existing Beckrich Park Estates Planned Unit Development. The PUD is located north of CR 78 & CR 79 (Exhibit A). The Beckrich Park PUD was approved by the City Council on March 17, 1992, and the preliminary/final plats were approved April 21, 1992 (Exhibit B). The Bergs currently own Lot 1, Block 1 of Beckrich Park Estates. On June 18, 1998, Mr. Bergs appeared before the Planning Commission to present a concept plan to subdivide this parcel into 2 or more lots. The Commission recommended the subdividing of this parcel into three (3) separate lots, with the cul-de-sac access built to City design standards (Site Plans, Exhibit C). The Bergs' letter requesting the amendment is attached for your review (Exhibit D). The Commission may recall a number of Beckrich Park Estates Association members/owners indicated their support of the applicant's proposal by means of separate letter. Discussion: The purpose of the Planned Unit Development Overlay Zone (PUD) section of the Zoning Ordinance is identified as the following: "to encourage innovation, variety, and creativity in site planning and architectural design; to maximize development compatibility to encourage the planning of large parcels of land as a unit; to provide for greater efficiency in the use of land, streets, and energy; to protect important natural and cultural landscape features; to preserve open space; and to provide quality living, working, shopping, and recreating environments for residents and visitors. " Considerations: 1. The underlying zoning for the site is Rural Residential, which is in conformance with the guided land use of Single Family Residential development in the 1995 Comprehensive Plan. The current Rural Residential (RR) district allows the construction of single family homes, with a density standard of one residential unit per 10 acres. Therefore, the proposed split of this parcel into smaller, yet similar lots located in Beckrich Park Estates would require approval through the PUD amendment process. 2. The entire parcel is 4.37 acres in size. The applicant is proposing three (3) new lots of 1.3, 1.1 and 1.6 acres, respectively(see Site Plan, Exhibit C). 3. The subject property is Torrens; therefore, upon the successful approval of this amendment, the applicants will be required to submit a Preliminary and Final Plat for the completion of this subdivision. The applicant, if given approval of this amendment, is requesting permission from the Commission for concurrent review of the Preliminary and Final Plat. 4. City Engineering Department has reviewed this request and has provided comments and conditions. Staff has incorporated these recommendations into the conditions of approval of the amendment. 5. Scott County Highway Department has reviewed this request and has provided comments and conditions. Staff has incorporated these recommendations into the conditions of approval of the amendment. 6. Scott County Highway Department has approved only one access from CR 79. An access permit must be applied for and approved prior to the PUD Amendment approval by the City. The applicant proposes to utilize their existing access from CR 79. 7. If the Planning Commission requires the cul-de-sac to be constructed as a public street, the street shall be constructed to City's design standards. (Design criteria includes a 60' dedicated right-of-way, 36' wide curbed & guttered street, and a 45' width radius cul-de-sac). Execution of a Developers Agreement for construction of this public improvement will be required as part of the Final Plat. 8. If the developer decides to create the cul-de-sac access as a private street, all lots abutting said street must be included in a Common Interest Community (CIC), as required by City Code; the street shall have a minimum pavement width of 28' with 36' cul-de-sac radius. Construction and maintenance of road to be completed by applicant. Furthermore, the private street shall not be turned over to the City in the future. 9. Applicant is responsible for payment of Trunk Storm Water Charges, and other fees as required by the City's adopted Fee Schedule. 10. The existing Beckrich Park Estates Plat illustrates the platted lot sizes ranging from 1 acre to 1.94 acres, with a majority averaging just over 1 acre. This request to split the subject parcel will conform to the original PUD and plat. 11. The applicant intends to serve each lot with individual water and sanitary septic systems. Two septic system drainfields and a building pad are shown for each lot in the preliminary site plans. The exact location of the houses and septic systems will be determined at time of the building permit applications for each lot. The applicant has submitted an Individual Sewage Treatment System report (percolation & soil boring tests) for each new lot from Halling Engineering. Each system will need to be approved by City's Building Department for code compliance. This item has been added as part of the conditions of approval. Alternatives: 1. Recommend to the City Council the approval of the amendment to the Beckrich Park Estate Planned Unit Development, allowing the subdivision of Lot 1, Block 1 into three (3) separate lots, subject to the following conditions of approval; a) Developer shall construct the cul-de-sac access road to City of Shakopee design standards. b) Individual sewage treatment system (including percolation and soil boring tests reports), individual water systems, and design/construction plans for each residential unit must be reviewed and approved by City Building Department. c) Scott County Highway Department shall allow only one (I) access onto County Road 79. An access permit must be applied for and approved prior to the PUD Amendment approval by the City. d) No ponding, signing, berming or landscaping will be allowed in CR 79 right-of-way. e) Any grading or utility work within CR 79 right-of-way will require a permit prior to at work commencing. J) Applicant is required by the Planning Commission to construct the cul-de-sac access road as a public street, said street shall be designed and constructed using the City's Design Standards and Criteria for public streets. A developer's agreement may also be required. g At time of Final Plat, applicant is responsible for payment of Trunk Storm Water Charges, and other fees as required by the City's adopted Fee Schedule. 2. Recommend to the City Council the approval of an amendment to the Beckrich Park Estate Planned Unit Development, allowing the subdivision of Lot 1, Block 1 into three (3) separate lots, subject to the following revised conditions of approval; 3. Recommend to the City Council the denial of the amendment to the Beckrich Park Estate Planned Unit Development; 4. Continue the public hearing and request additional information from the applicant and/or staff Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, a recommendation to the City Council approving the amendment to the Beckrich Park Estate Planned Unit Development, allowing the subdivision of Lot 1, Block 1 into three(3) separate lots, subject to the conditions of approval. Action Requested: Offer a motion recommending to the City Council the approval of the amendment to the Beckrich Park Estate Planned Unit Development, allowing the subdivision of Lot 1, Block 1 into three (3) separate lots, subject to the conditions of approval. Tim Benetti Planner I i:\commdev hoaa-pc\1998\0806\pudam-bp.doc i� - so __- __ _ 7 To fi ;�do z• 1 )—� N mem / G''R,o -1�RlUGu)A*1 C I n yp o --\-- 70 164 w 7 —r 0 � / \ ) .7-----I --"---) 1 (n 3I�\ T / 1 �� - _ 4-4 1___ \_ _ _ "-c/ \\ � - %\ yes - \___1 I \ ' \ \ __ .,-0. __ 1 \_..L._ _ _ __ _ __I rn • N \ sZ ---) I 0 P , — I ° \\ c • _ I Q P —— _ o -- - - -J r f CD _....— x7 T. g Pyr N aE 1 o 7 A, 1-) `P _I----- _c !TA— i-9' k.1 -; ig -P--- --FI""---777- /111' l!1 z to N) b x m ii 0 33 331 w•N w M$w M SW IW N 9••.N.T.115, 6 a GLE4 ELI'lN PARK 3RD I vt�pl -J L��= 1"'?2.62 N()°o �03M{H_ AGVIT1ONL__'l/ '4RKeL • LYN _. ,�� -L' COUNTY NO. 79 (TOWNLINE AVENUE) is rsw.auoi«�,ww.swlw.9«ro1 `\ s _8 i .N8 7raoo COUNTY -ROAD- NO.79 I a (TOWNLINE AVENUE) - X762 if1 g +0 . /1--- �,a moe.rWw uttN[Nr M017201111 (� s � MO240214WIK2!X116001•4' p u.2r2N•o70Op I1. a 1p00 ;1 4it 264.. 1 CalI 4. .4 '. O v \\\ -.- -\ 4 )•' \at,�--st" �sys 'S. 1. I xx s \�\ty \\\\ d` `• 9 cd !x •moo'` I- cd H�--_. ,,,.1.,....,• ,f... .v 1 se 4,4 \ c:,,, v. ' 4i4r,ir' lb-***'''' °‘ * 01-t. i. tkro. s. t ^ "P a o �//• , JT I I �T!� "I./ '9a\ 'N4\4 j-7(1. Nsyra•2 8 I \ _ \ i z O civ 1 1a 9\ \ D� // \\'.. 9 Ct ,04,2 X21. • 1.1 7G Z ton e A ' _ : : i' / \> ,' \�t7 j �.. ?•• z- Z 2 -fie �� 3'' >� Fe = '7/ii° fcb\ •i`�: // t." 's c� / \ N. I (71 H 8%// C3 i/ \ \� • + -� 23 si 7 EjJ \ I iNONr��v\ i'br ///r • �+ ,s 'It. ''6-Com/ AiQ Y m" w 5 .Z G \ f. �� 's4�z" I '' \ 1.¢03 yH�I 1 .3000°"'''06x4? L' $y �..W x.81 1 2 142.00 q _J ° ����33er 3 J • • N 0.1 -o� _ n o 3 seam N1•20'3.•w d iTy�� .:1 I•./ 4j f r o I 323.7. f I7.24 .'�� s \ ! / 624 »� / UNi I� "s to Io (� 1 I: �' �,r / '7 / 1 351.61co a� 1$• fid, �o iii `k' N •obi 'm 8 .A -. 1 e W 7... A X43 \ls. • -C a" /•i z O N 0616'184 W (1 ra \ St2.N w r S•r•33120 4.1 Nw 1M,SW w T • . I 3.g r ss. .se.- .t / r 9 =:' I TT Z1 18 W N.•53-00'•11,1b-' ` '04•y, 17••IV $^ ������\ +/ /° s s a v = I. 7 - _, `-- ro•3 . __,..../.22.3.1.,,___ 1 �� ~ / a 1: j $ 0 ' / Y' g :_ 1 _ 29,E �. ( . w_ * _ -L $1 °° Y �� c. 01 _w 18 18 N A `w° / , \'° Q) s1 ICO L 266]2 J L :.703 .� 1m ^ o\ \ 1= � 8 .--------. _a_401.*_- I--- 32703 ISI�_I� 6- \ 9 \a ` . • 1 = W I-i `g N032orw X5.0 1.600 gb --e0,4 \ a \� I• 1 - N IN 2366 usao 1J$ 7�-iro.ao w; a3Os ;\ S T w • •I' . .- is I -if rn 8 a' 8 I`1 1: .� a 8 v4 I x'11 I ••W 11,,1 a� \ 3 Mi N I i . - N03203w--J, HIS (-_J2e�21219L__1 \" • °r I.\ \\ 8 a� 2 ao 8 g 2...00 -� m F.---i .03---* \ Z- CO . r I »r 8� 301 30 4y .-..t y� _o r :1,72 'a D !! 1 S •I JS \ • r J'. 66 4 . N . >i w f .. Q1 �r =8131 ,4�: L% G K\S `vy90'� O a o >3► =4 D ,moi\ �8 i- ,'-..,. 01 a ` °al, =, a tc r: NZ I �L/%/ ��1 Id•R \` \Ji J\ o`' fns Z N• $_ i ,9000 o Nno•39rw 130 ? �/ J S. ��'�.6. \ S. O ••••• Y^ r 601.•67• r r. 9 £ 1_4.6,9.632 ' N \ \ I -1 i i S 1 t y 1,a 449c.•.3•w ••d Ia. rs VI \ O0 7 CO rrA• 3 (A 0 :'_7 IN s '4i ,6 U14 u o` 4 ( o g PI • 1' 4oJ. 1372 j 11 • Q i1 �C I "' 1 N (� +rqz _� Nooa3s w s g SZ5 VI N $� �I � 1�a 60.03 � 3 �m i . 11 r N �\ii { b I I 976 .1.-Z----- 1MP° ..... 732.4 J X G1 rn rn „I„i 1296.67 44.2 nag el 366 EXHIBIT B Y _-4= ==------7 " CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Planner I SUBJECT: Beckrich Park Estates PUD Amendment No. 1 (continued Public Hearing from 08/06/98 meeting) DATE: August 20th, 1998 Introduction: At the August 6th, 1998 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission tabled the above item. The Commission requested the applicant and Beckrich Park Estates Homeowners Association meet to resolve a number of private issues that exist between the two parties. Both parties were requested to reappear before the Commission to report their findings or decisions. According to the applicant, a meeting was scheduled Wednesday, August 12th, by the Homeowners Association, however, Mr. Bergs was asked not to attend. Mr. Bergs informed Staff the following day that a decision by the association was relayed to him requesting the Bergs' plat only 2 lots, with an additional requirement that each lot join the association. The Commission may wish to pursue further information from each party. City Staff continues to recommend approval of the original Planned Unit Development, subject to conditions listed below (revised conditions since last meeting are underlined). Alternatives: 1. Recommend to the City Council the approval of the amendment to the Beckrich Park Estate Planned Unit Development, allowing the subdivision of Lot 1, Block 1 into three (3) separate lots, subject to the following conditions of approval; a) Developer shall construct the cul-de-sac access road to City of Shakopee design standards. b) Individual sewage treatment system (including percolation and soil boring tests reports), individual water systems, and design/construction plans for each residential unit must be reviewed and approved by City Building Department. c) Scott County Highway Department shall allow only one (1) access onto County Road 79. An access permit has been approved by the County and is on file with the City. d) No ponding, signing, berming or landscaping will be allowed in CR 79 right-of-way. e) Any grading or utility work within CR 79 right-of-way will require a permit prior to any work commencing. f) If applicant is required by the Planning Commission to construct the cul-de-sac access road as a public street, said street shall be designed and constructed using the City's Design Standards and Criteria for public streets. A developer's agreement may also be required If the applicant is allowed by the Planning Commission to construct the cul-de-sac access road a private street, private street design criteria can be utilized„ with the condition that all lots must be part of a Common Interest Community. h) At time of Final Plat, applicant is responsible for payment of Trunk Storm Water Charges, and other fees as required by the City's adopted Fee Schedule. 2. Recommend to the City Council the approval of an amendment to the Beckrich Park Estate Planned Unit Development, allowing the subdivision of Lot 1, Block 1 into three (3) separate lots, subject to the following revised conditions of approval; 3. Recommend to the City Council the denial of the amendment to the Beckrich Park Estate Planned Unit Development; 4. Continue the public hearing and request additional information from the applicant and/or staff. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, a recommendation to the City Council approving the amendment to the Beckrich Park Estate Planned Unit Development, allowing the subdivision of Lot 1, Block 1 into three(3) separate lots, subject to the conditions of approval. Action Requested: Offer a motion recommending to the City Council the approval of the amendment to the Beckrich Park Estate Planned Unit Development, allowing the subdivision of Lot 1, Block 1 into three (3) separate lots, subject to the conditions of approval. ` r Tim Benetti Planner I is\oaiundev\bwaa-pc\1998\0820\puda nbp2.doc CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor& City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Text Amendment Regarding Nonconformities DATE: September 1, 1998 INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND Section 11.91 of the City Code addresses nonconformities and their regulation. At its August 20, 1998, meeting, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of a proposed text amendment regarding nonconformities to the City Council. Please find the August 20, 1998, memorandum attached for reference. Section 11.91, Subd. 2 provides the following information: A. Type A nonconformities shall include land and structures which are devoted to a use not permitted by this Chapter. B. Type B nonconfomities shall include developed land which is devoted to a use permitted by this Chapter, but where the site or structure is not in compliance with some other provision of the Chapter, such as the design standards applicable within that zone. Staff proposes to amend City Code in the following manner(language that is underlined is proposed to be added and language that is sttkreugh is proposed to be deleted): C. Undeveloped parcels of land which are not in compliance with some provision of this Chapter or any other relevant provision of the City Code, such as the design standards applicable within that zone, shall not be considered nonconformities. It is further the intent of this Chapter to allow development to occur on these parcels while acknowledging any variation from existing standards of the City Code. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the text amendment as proposed. 2. Approve the text amendment with revisions. 3. Do not approve the text amendment. 4. Table the matter to request additional information from staff. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the text amendment. ACTION REQUESTED Offer Ordinance No. 526, and move its approval. 'lanner II i:\conundev\c61998\cc0901\tanoncon.doc ORDINANCE NO. 526, FOURTH SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CHAPTER 11, ZONING, SECTION 11.91 (NONCONFORMITIES) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1 - That City Code Chapter 11, Zoning, Section 11.91 (Nonconformities) is hereby amended by adding the language which is underlined: C. Undeveloped parcels of land which are not in compliance with some provision of this Chapter or any other relevant provision of the City Code, such as the design standards applicable within that zone, shall not be considered nonconformities. It is further the intent of this Chapter to allow development to occur on these parcels while acknowledging any variation from existing standards of the City Code. Section 2 - - Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the day of , 1998. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of , 1998. PREPARED BY: City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee,MN 55379 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Text Amendment Regarding Nonconformities DATE: August 20, 1998 INTRODUCTION Section 11.91 of the City Code addresses nonconformities. This portion of the code defines nonconformities and provides for the regulation of these uses. It has recently come to the attention of staff that while Section 11.91 discusses the nonconformity status of structures and uses of land, it is silent regarding vacant or undeveloped parcels. DISCUSSION Section 11.91, Subd. 1 states the following: "It is recognized that there are structures and uses of land which were lawful when established hut which do not now comply with all applicable provisions of this Chapter". Subd. 2 of the same Section goes on to provide the following definitions: A. Type A nonconformities shall include land and structures which are devoted to a use not permitted by this Chapter. B. Type B nonconfomities shall include developed land which is devoted to a use permitted by this Chapter, hut where the site or structure is not in compliance with some other provision of the Chapter, such as the design standards applicable within that zone. The City Code is silent as to the status and regulation of vacant or undeveloped parcels which do not comply with provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. An example of this situation is the vacant 2 1/2 acre lots in the rural area. While these lots were lawfully created under a zoning ordinance which allowed lots of that size, the ordinance has been revised to only allow lots with minimum size of 10 acres in the rural area. In an attempt to clarify this situation for current and future users of the City Code, staff is proposing that language regarding this situation be provided in the City Code. Specifically, staff is proposing that the following paragraph be added to City Code Section 11.91, Subd. 2. Please find attached, as Exhibit A, for reference purposes Section 11.91 of the City Code. C. Undeveloped parcels of land which are not in compliance with some provision of this Chapter, such as the design standards applicable within that zone, shall not be considered nonconformities. It is further the intent of this Chapter to allow development to occur on these parcels while acknowledging_any variation from existing standards of the city Code. Section 11.83, Subd. 2 of the City Code states "the City Council may grant a zoning ordinance amendment when it finds that one or more of the following criteria exist." Based on these criteria, staff has prepared the following draft findings. Criteria #1: That the original zoning ordinance is in error. Finding #1: The original zoning ordinance is in need of additional language to clarify its intent. Criteria #2: That significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place. Finding#2: Changes in community goals and policies have not taken place . Criteria #3: That significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred; or Finding#3: Significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development patterns have not occurred. Criteria #4: That the comprehensive plan requires a different provision. Finding#4: The proposed amendment is not i►►conflict with the comprehensive plan. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend to the City Council the approval of the text amendment, as presented. 2. Recommend to the City Council the approval of the text amendment with revisions. 3. Do not recommend the proposed amendment to the City Council 4. Table a decision and request additional information from staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed text amendment to the City Council (Alternative No. 1). ACTION REQUESTED Offer and approve a motion recommending approval of the proposed text amendment to the City Council. 4trac 'lie Klima Planner II is\conundev\boaa-pc\1995\0820\tanoncon.doc EXHIBIT A §11.89 . When an appeal is received by the City, the applicant will be notified of the appeal and informed • of the date of the City Council meeting at which it will be heard. Subd. 12. Violations. No person 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. (Ord. 31, October 25, 1979; Ord. 35, January 31, 1980; Ord. 246, June 17, 1988; Ord. 377, July 7, 1994) SEC. 11.90. APPEALS. .Subd.1. Appeals from City Staff Decisions. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Zoning Administrator or other 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 Zoning Administrator or other person. The appeal shall be filed in writing with the Zoning Administrator within seven days of the date of decision. Upon receipt of an appeal, the Zoning Administrator shall schedule the matter for consideration by the Board. The Board shall have authority to affirm, modify, or reverse the decision of the Zoning Administrator or other person. This provision shall not apply in the case of a criminal prosecution for violation of this Chapter. Subd. 2. A. seals from Decision of the Board of Ad'ustment and A. •eals. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals may appeal the decision to the City Council. The appeal must be submitted in writing to the Zoning Administrator within 10 days of the date of the decision, and shall include a statement of the alleged errors or omissions of the Board. Upon appeal, the City Council shall consider the request within 90 days unless an extended period is agreed upon by the parties. • Subd.3. Construction During Appeal Period. Anyapplicant who obtains a building pp permit and starts construction after the decision of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, but prior to the termination of the appeal period, assumes the risk that the decision may be reversed upon appeal. When an appeal is received by the City, the applicant will be notified of the appeal and informed of the date of the City Council meeting at which it will be heard. (Ord. 31, October 25, 1979; Ord. 246, June 17, 1988; Ord. 377, July 7, 1994) strip SEC. 11.91. 'NONCONFORMITIES. Subd1. Purpose It is recognized that there are structures and uses of land which were lawful •when established but which do not now comply with all applicable provisions of this Chapter. While nonconformities may not be summarily terminated, it is the purpose and intent of this Chapter to discourage the survival of Type A nonconformities and such uses are hereby declared to be incompatible with this Chapter and with the comprehensive plan. It is further the purpose and intent of this Chapter to discourage the enlargement, expansion or extension of any Type A nonconformity or any increase of the impact of such nonconformity on adjoining property. It is also recognized that there are Type B nonconformities in which the uses continue to be permissible but which are operated on sites or in structures which do not fully meet the development standards of this Chapter. It is the intent of this Chapter to distinguish between uses which are not permitted and those in which development standards or other incidents of development are not in full compliance with this Chapter. Type A nonconformities will be discouraged and not allowed to expand while Type B nonconformities will be allowed to continue in existence and expand under carefully regulated conditions. Os revised n 1996 • peg. 1534 §11.91 • Subd. 2. Types of Nonconforrnities. This Chapter recognizes the following two types of nonconformities: A. Type A nonconformities shall include land and structures which are devoted to a use not permitted by this Chapter. B. -Type B nonconformities shall include developed land which is devoted to a use permitted by this Chapter, but where the site or structure is not in compliance with some other provision of this Chapter, such as the design standards applicable within -that zone. Subd.3. 'Regulation of Type A Nonconformities. Type A nonconformities shall be regulated in accordance with the following: A. No such use shall be expanded,enlarged to use more land area, intensified, replaced, structurally changed, or relocated, except to make it a permitted use. Normal maintenance and non-structural repairs shall be excepted from this prohibition; B. -No nonconformity shall be resumed if normal operation of the use has been discontinued for a period of 6 or more months. Time shall be calculated as beginning on the date following the last day in which the use was in normal operation and shall run continuously thereafter, C. Full utilization of the nonconformity shall not be resumed if the amount of land or floor area dedicated to the use is lessened or if the intensity of the use is in any manner • diminished for a period of 6 or more months. Time shall be calculated as beginning on-the day following the last day in which the nonconformity was in full operation and shall run continuously thereafter. Following the expiration of 6 months, the nonconformity may be used only in the manner or to the extent used during the -preceding 6 months. For the purposes of this subdivision, intensity of use shall include, but not be limited to, hours of operation, traffic, noise, exterior storage, signs, exterior lighting, types of goods or services offered, odors and number of employees; D. --Removal or destruction of a nonconformity to the extent of more than 50.percent of •its estimated market value, excluding land, as determined by the assessor, shall terminate the right to continue the nonconformity; 4E. Notwithstanding the prohibitions contained in /he foregoing paragraphs of this subdivision, if approved by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals a nonconformity may -be changed to another nonconformity of less intensity. In all instances the applicant has the burden of proof regarding the relative intensities of uses; f. If a nonconformity is superseded or replaced by a permitted use, the nonconforming status of the premises and any rights which arise under the provisions of this section shall terminate. G. In the floodplain overlay zone, the cost of any structural alterations or additions to any nonconforming structure over the life of the structure shall not exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure. The cost of all structural alterations and additions constructed since the adoption of the zoning ordinance must be calculated into today's • the current cost of all previous and proposed alterations and additions exceeds 50 page revised in 1996 1535 §11.91 percent of the current market value of the structure, then the structure must be • brought into conformity with the provisions of Sec. 11.56, Floodplain Overlay Zone (FP). Subd.4. Regulation of Type B-Nonconformities. Type B nonconformities shall be regulated in accordance with the following: A. 'Expansion of an existing use or structure, reconstruction of a partially destroyed structure, construction of a new structure, or other intensification of a Type B nonconformity may be permitted upon a finding by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals of the following: 1. the number and extent of nonconformities will not be increased in conjunction with the proposed construction or intensification; .2. the impact of nonconformities upon adjacent property will not be increased in conjunction with the proposed construction or intensification; and 3. the conditions to be imposed by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals will effect the intent of this section. S. A Type B nonconformity which is destroyed to the extent of more than 50 percent of its market value at the time of loss shall be replaced only in compliance with the standards of the applicable zone. A Type B nonconformity destroyed to the extent of less than 50 percent of market value at the time of loss may be rebuilt to previously existing dimensions. In reviewing a permit for any Type B nonconformity which has • been partially destroyed, the City shall seek to make the development conform as closely to the requirements of this Chapter as is reasonably practical. C. In the floodplain overlay zone, the cost of any structural alterations or additions to any nonconforming structure over the life of the structure shall not exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure. The cost of all structural alterations and additions constructed since the adoption of the zoning ordinance must be calculated into today's current cost which will include all costs such as construction, materials, and labor. If the current cost of all previous and proposed alterations and additions exceeds 50 percent of the current market value of the structure, then the structure must be brought into conformity with the provisions of Sec. 11.56, Floodplain Overlay Zone (FP). Subd.5. Nonconformity: Eminent Domain. When the taking under eminent domain of a portion of the land upon which there existed a lawful use prior to such taking results in such use becoming unlawful under this Chapter, such use is a nonconformity and may be continued only under the provisions of this Chapter. (Ord. 31, October 25, 1979; Ord. 377, July 7, 1994; Ord. 412, April 27, 1995) SECTIONS 11.92 - 11.98. Reserved. SEC. 11.99. VIOLATION A MISDEMEANOR. Every person violates a section, subdivision, paragraph, or provision of this Chapter, when the person performs an act thereby prohibited or declared unlawful, or fails to act when such failure • p.0s i.vinw in 1896 1536 15 /9.'. 1 . CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Appeal of the Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. MEETING DATE: September 1, 1998 INTRODUCTION: At it's August 18th meeting, the City Council directed staff to prepare a resolution denying the appeal of Zefere and Doreen Lusignan of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approval of a conditional use permit for an electrical substation and over-height fence. The City Attorney had not been able to complete his review of the draft findings at the time the agenda was sent out. It will be available on the table at the meeting. Accompanying this memorandum for the Council's information is a letter pertaining to property valuation issues from Patchin Messner Appraisals, Inc. to Mr. Van Hout at the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve Resolution No. 4973, denying Zefere and Doreen Lusignan's appeal, and upholding the Board of Adjustment and Appeals decision to approve a conditional use permit for an electric substation and over-height fence located in the B-1 Highway Business Zone. 2. Approve Resolution No. 4973 with revised findings. 3. Do not approve Resolution No. 4973. 4. Table the matter for additional information. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer and approve Resolution No. 4973, a resolution denying the appeal of Zefere and Doreen, and upholding the CUP for SPUC as approved by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. R. Michael Leek Community Development Director is\commdev\cc\1998\cc0901\Lusignan.doc FROM : PJP 8. Assoc. AUG.27. 1998 2:24 PM P 2/8 Patchin Messner Appraisals, Inc. Valuation Consultants (612) 895-1205 101 West Burnsville Parkway,Suite 200,Burnsville, Minnesota 55337 FAX (612)895-1521 August 27, 1998 Shakopee Public Utilities Commission 1030 East 4th Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 ATTN: Lou Van Hout, Utilities Manager RE: Dean Lake Electrical Substation Dear Mr. Van Hout: Per your request, we have reviewed the proposed project of constructing the Dean Lake electrical substation, to be located along the north side of County Road 16. You have asked us to comment on the likely impact this electrical substation will have on the values of surrounding properties in general, and upon the property located at 3650 Eagle Creek Boulevard in particular. In order to render these comments, we have taken the following steps. 1) A physical inspection was made of the proposed substation site, the general area and the property located at 3650 Eagle Creek Boulevard on August 27, 1998. Note: This was a drive-by inspection only. 2) Reviewed various drawings and other documents relating to the project, as provided by the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 3) Reviewed previous appraisal work our firm has performed, regarding the impact that high voltage lines have on the market value of residential properties. (Appraisal Report #9334, dated July 13, 1993.) 4) Reviewed research performed by others concerning the impact of electric transmission lines on residential property values - See attached Bibliography. As you know, we completed an extensive appraisal study in July of 1993, (our job #9334), regarding a similar situation in Shakopee. In this study we determined that land located directly within the boundaries of a power line easement suffered a diminution in value. However, lands located immediately outside the easement area were found not to have suffered a measurable loss in value. Our study was based on the analysis of numerous lot sales, located in four separate residential subdivisions. Three of these subdivisions were located in Lakeville, Minnesota and the other was located in Shakopee, Minnesota. FROM : PJP & Assoc. AUG.27. 1998 2:25 PM P 3/8 Lou Van Hout, Utilities Manager Shakopee Public Utilities Commission August 27, 1998 Page-2- In regards to the proposed Dean Lake Electrical substation, three existing high voltage power lines already run through the general area, just to the south of the proposed substation. These lines include a 345 KV and a 115 KV line, which are located on a single set of towers. In addition, a 230 KV line is located on another set of towers. These lines are located immediately north of the property located at 3650 Eagle Creek Boulevard. As such, the property is already influenced by a significant number of electrical facilities. In our opinion, any negative impact from electrical facilities is already inherent in the adjacent properties. Our previous study suggests that this impact is likely minimal. The addition of the substation is likely to have little or no further impact on the adjacent properties, including that property located at 3650 Eagle Creek Boulevard. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact us at your convenience. Sincerely, PATCHIN MESSNER APPRAISALS, INC. Clay . Dodd J son L. Messner, MAI cc: Michael Leek Community Development Director Patchin Messner Appraisals. Inc. FROM : PJP 8. Assoc. AUG.27. 1998 2:25 PM P 4/8 BIBLIOGRAPHY Colwell, Peter F. "Power Lines and Land Value." The Journal of RealEstate Research (Spring 1990) Vol. 5 41,pp. 117-127. Colwell, Peter F. and Kenneth W. Foley. "Electric Transmission i.ines and the Selling Price of Residential Property." The Appraisal Journal(October 1979)pp. 490-499. C;nwger, J. R., Steven C. Rottemiller.MAI,and James M. Cahill. "Transmission Line Impact on Residential Property Values." Right of Nay(September/October 1996)pp. 13-17. Delaney, Charles 3.and Douglas Timmons. "High Voltage Power Lines: Do They Affect Residential Property Value?" The Journal of Real Estate Research(Summer 1992) Vol. 7 #3,pp. 315-327. Hamilton, Stanley W.and Gregory M. Schwann. "Do High Voltage Electric Transmission Lines Affect Property Value? Land Economics(November 1995), 71(4),pp.436-444. Kling,Rsiang-te and Charles F. Seagle. "Impact of Power Transmission Lines on Property Values: A Case Study." The Appraisal Journal(July 1992)pp. 413-41$. FROM : PJP 8. Assoc. AUG.27. 1998 2:26 PM P 5/8 CERTIFICATION (Real Estate) I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: 1. The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. 2. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal, un- biased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. 3. I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. 4. My compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event. 5. My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Profes- sional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Foundation. 6. I have made a drive-by inspection of the property that is the subject of this report. 7. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute. 8. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Insti- tute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. 9. No one provided significant professional assistance to the persons signing this report, except as noted herein. 10. The appraisal assignment was not based on a requested minimum valua- tion, a specific valuation, or the approval of a loan. 11. This appraisal cannot be completely understood without reading the "Con- tingent and Limiting Conditions" section of this report, which should be thoroughly read and understood before relying on any information or analysis presented herein. 47y�'s'/ �l ,...� �/ti Clay M. Do d , Date Patcbin Messner Appraisals,inc. `— r"" Valuation Consultants FROM : PJP & Assoc. AUG.27. 1998 2:27 PM P 6/8 CERTIFICATION (Real Estate) I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: 1. The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. 2. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal, un- biased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. 3. I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. 4. My compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event. S. My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Profes- sional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Foundation. 6. I have made a drive-by inspection of the property that is the subject of this report. 7. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute. 8. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Insti- tute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. 9. No one provided significant professional assistance to the persons signing this report, except as noted herein. 10. The appraisal assignment was not based on a requested minimum valua- tion, a specific valuation, or the approval of a loan. 11. This appraisal cannot be completely understood without reading the "Con- tingent and Limiting Conditions" section of this report, which should be thoroughly read and understood before relying on any information or analysis presented herein. 12. As of the date of this report, Jason L. Messner has completed the requirements under the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute. 1\40.4,4N-- a-`1Jason L. essAl Date Patchin Messner Appraisals,Inc. Valuation Consultants FROM : PJP & Assoc. AUG.27. 1998 2:28 PM P 7/8 QUALIFICATIONS OF CLAY M. DODD, AS APPRAISER PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS MAI Candidate, Appraisal Institute. Licensed Real Estate Appraiser-State of MN, Certified General Real Property, In#20019812. Licensed Real Estate Broker-State of Minnesota. BUSINESS EXPERIENCE Patchin Messner Appraisals, Inc. (formerly.PeterJ. Patchin &Associates Inc.), Associate Appraiser, September, 1992 to Present. U.S. Postal Service, Real Estate Specialist,January, 1991 to August, 1992. Kuefler Croup Realtors, Sales Associate,June, 1989 to December, 1990. U.S.Army, Non-Commissioned Officer,April, 1983-February, 1987. Broad Construction Background Working Independently And For Various Firms. EDUCATIONAL WORK Bachelor of Science Degree, St. Cloud State University, majored in Industrial 'technology with an emphasis in Building Construction. Minored in finance with an emphasis in Commercial Real Estate. Graduated Summa-Cum-Laude, 1990. Masters of Business Administration, University of Minnesota, in progress. Significant coursework completed with emphasis in finance and accounting. SPECIALIZED REAL ESTATE TRAINING Real Estate Appraisal Principles(110),Appraisal Institute, Minneapolis, MN, 1991. Basle Valuation Procedures (120), Appraisal Institute,Minneapolis, MN, 1991. Standards of Professional Practice, Part A(410) & Part B (420), Appraisal Institute,Minneapolis, MN, 1993. Bask Income Capitalization (310),Appraisal Institute, Minneapolis, MN, 1997. Advanced Income Capitalization (510),Appraisal Institute, Minneapolis, MN, 1992. Advanced Applications(550),Appraisal Institute Minneapolis, MN, 1994. Report Writing&Valuation Analysis(540),Appraisal Institute, Minneapolis, MN, 1997. Real Estate Brokers Course, Pro-Source, Minneapolis, MN, 1991. APPRAISAL EXPERIENCE Preparation of appraisals for condemnation, tax appeal, litigation, financing, debt restructuring, acquisition and disposal, special assessment. Properties appraised include: Great Lakes grain terminals, river barge grain terminals, unit train terminals, flour mills, durum mills, oat mills, corn mills, feed mills, malting plants,country elevators,manufacturing plants, corporate headquarters, office buildings, retail malls, and vacant land. Other appraisal experience includes the valuation of small businesses and closely held corporations and determination of intangible asset value. APPRAISAL CLIENTS Amber Milling Interstate Diesel, Inc. INCLUDE Anoka County Kemper Securities Banner Engineering Knappen Milling Bay State Milling Land O'Lakes Cargill, Inc. Marquette Bank ConAgra M.C.D.A. Countrymark Co-op Metropolitan Council Control Data Systems Mid-States Mills Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. (FDIC) Pattison Bros. Grain First Interstate Bank of Arizona Peavey Grain Harvest States Cooperative Prior Lake Watershed District Hennepin County Rabobank Nederland Hubbard Milling Schreier Malting Patchin Messner Appraisnls,Inc. Valuation Consultants -FROM : PJP 8. Assoc. AUG.27. 1998 2:29 PM P 8/8 QUALIFICATIONS OF JASON L. MESSNER, AS APPRAISER PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Member,Appraisal Institute(MAI). Licensed Real Estate Appraiser-State of MN, Certified General Real Property, ID#4000836. BUSINESS EXPERIENCE Patch in Messner Appraisals, Inc.(formerly Peter). Patchin &Associates Inc.),Associate Appraiser, 1986-94, Principal since 1995. Century 21 Granite City Real Estate, Residential Salesperson, 1985. EDUCATIONAL WORK Bachelor of Science Degree, St. Cloud State University, majored in Real Estate,graduated Magna- Cum-I aude, 1986. Associates Degree in Business Administration,Willmar Community College, 1984. SPECIALIZED REAL ESTATE Basic Valuation Procedures, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, 1986. TRAINING Real Estate Appraisal Principles,American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, 1986. Capitalization Theory and Techniques(Part A),A.I.R.E.A.,Minneapolis, MN, 1987. Standards of Professional Practice,A.I.R.E.A., Minneapolis, MN, 1988;Appraisal Institute, Minneapolis, MN, 1994. Capitalization Theory and Techniques(Part B),A.I.R.C.A., Minneapolis, MN, 1989. Case Studies In Real Estate Valuation,American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers,Mpls., MN, 1990. Report Writing&Valuation Analysis,Appraisal Institute,Minneapolis,MN, 1991. APPRAISAL EXPERIENCE Preparation of appraisals for condemnation, tax appeal, litigation, financing,debt restructuring, acquisition/disposal, and special assessment appeal. Properties appraised include: office buildings, warehouses, service stations, manufacturing plants, medical and veterinary clinics,shopping centers, restaurants, apartment buildings, subsidized housing, research and development buildings,grain elevators, flour mills, development lands, farm lands, air rights, avigation easements, utility easements, highway easements,and various contaminated properties. Participant in the writing of The Effect of Contamination on The Market Value of Property, Federal Highway Admin.; Office of Right-of-Way,Washington, DC, 1993. Faculty Participant in the Hazardous Waste I itieation seminar,Minnesota Institute of Legal Education, 1995. Adjunct lecturer in environmental appraisal issues, University of St. Thomas,Mpls., MN, 1996. APPRAISAL CLIENTS Alliant Techsystems, Inc. Mpls. Community Development Agency INCLUDE B.P. Oil Pipeline Company Minnesota Department of Transportation Campbell Soup Company 3M Corporation Control Data Corporation Northwest Airlines, Inc. Deluxe Check Corporation Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co. Equitable Life Assurance Co. Philips Lighting First Bank Systems Resolution Trust Corporation Heitman Realty Company Soo Line Railroad Company Honeywell, Inc. Unisys Corporation IDS Financial Services University of Minnesota Internal Revenue Service U.5.A.A. Real Estate Company Louisville Regional Airport Authority U.S. Fish &Wildlife Medtronics, Inc. Williams Pipeline Company COURT EXPERIENCE Qualified as an expert witness in Minnesota Tax Court, Hennepin, Rice and Washington County District Court, and various Commission Hearings. Patchin Messner Appraisals,Inc. Valuation Consultants f►Sep-01-98 02:37pm From-KENNEDY t GRAVEN 6123379310 T-766 P.02/04 F-698 RESOLUTION NO.4973 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR UTILITY SERVICE STRUCTURES AND OVER HEIGHT FENCE LOCATED IN THE HIGHWAY BUSINESS (B-1)ZONE WHEREAS, Shakopee Public Utilities Commission has filed an application for a conditional use permit for utility service structures and over height fence under the provisions of Chapter 11 (Zoning) of the Shakopee City Code, Section 11.36 (Highway Business Zone) Subd. 3., and Section 4.03 Subd. 1. (Fence Construction Requirements); and WHEREAS,this parcel is presently zoned Highway Business (B-1); and WHEREAS,the property upon which the request is being made is legally described as: Pan of the East Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 9, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota lying north of the north line of County Road Number 16,formerly County Road 11,and which lies southerly and westerly of Parcel 74, as shown on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 70-11, according to the recorded Plat thereof,Scott County,Minnesota; and WHEREAS, notice was provided and on July 9, 1998, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals conducted a public hearing regarding this application, at which it heard from the Community Development Director and invited members of the public to comment; and WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals conducted its public heating on this matter and voted 6-0 to approve the conditional use permit;and WHEREAS, Zefere and Doreen Lusignan have appealed the decision by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received information from the applicant and the Lusignans subsequent to the decision by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals;and WHEREAS,the City Code sets forth the following criteria for the granting of conditional use permits: 1. The use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the immediate vicinity. 2. The establishment of the conditional use permit will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant propeny for uses allowed in the area. DT-149340 1 SH155-23 Sep-01-98 02:37pm From—KENNEDY i GRAVEN 6123379310 T-766 P.03/04 F-698 Att 3. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities have been or will be provided. 4. The use is consistent with the purposes of the zone in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use;and 5. The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. NOW THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA that the appeal is denied and that the application for Conditional Use Permit No. PC98-66 is granted,subject to the conditions set forth in Resolution No. PC98-66 adopted by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals on July 9, 1998, and based on the following findings: 1. The proposed substation will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity nor substantially diminish or impair property values in the immediate vicinity. The City received a letter dated August 27, 1998, from Patchin Messner Appraisals, Inc. The City Council adopts by reference the findings and conclusions set forth in that letter. The City Council finds that the proposed substation is likely to have little or no impact on adjacent properties, including the property owned by the Lusignans at 3650 Eagle Creek Boulevard. In making this finding, the City Council has considered three letters submitted by realtors on behalf of the Lusignans indicating that the proposal will have an adverse impact on surrounding property values. The City Council, however, finds the Patchin, Messner letter is more authoritative on this issue. The City Council concludes that the letters from the realtors did not set forth any credible basis for their opinion. One letter contained no basis for the opinion and the only basis for the other two opinions is the potential impact that stray voltage might have on the Lusignans' property. The City Council has, however, received a report dated July 28, 1998,from R.W. Beck. The City Council adopts the findings and conclusions set forth in that letter. Specifically, the City Council finds that stray voltage is primarily a concern for dairy cows not humans. The City Council also finds that any potential for stray voltage can be eliminated by the installation of equipment to isolate the neutral conductor on the electric service wires on the Lusignans' property. The Ciry Council also finds that for the reasons set forth in the July 28, 1998 report any EMF effects created by the substation will be minimal compared CO the EMF from the existing transmission lines located in the area. The City Council also finds that the visual impact on surrounding properties will be minimal due to the landscaping and fencing that is included as pan of the project. 2. The proposed location for the substation is bordered on the north and west by Highway 169, on the south by County Road 16, and on the east by County Road 83. Development of the property is consistent with the zoning and will not impede the normal and orderly development of the surrounding vacant properties. The only vacant property surrounding the site is located east of County Road 83 and north of Highway 169. The vacant parcel immediately adjacent to the site is owned by Valley Green Business Park, and the owner of that property does not object to the issuance of a conditional use permit. 3. The site contains adequate utilities, access roads and drainage. LIT-144340 2 SH155.23 Sep-01-98 02:38pm From—KENNEDY i GRAVEN 6123379310 T-766 P.04/04 F-698 4. The property is zoned Highway Business (B-1). The use is a conditional use in that zoning district and therefore is consistent with the purposes of the B-1 zone. 5. The 1995 Comprehensive Plan designates this area for commercial uses. The proposed use is therefore not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota,held this day of , 1998. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: Cry Clerk .LI r-14934() 3 0155-23 lsr4z, CITY OF SHAKOPEE CON Memorandum SENT TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Jared D. Andrews, Planner I SUBJECT: Appeal of the Denial of Variances for Kieffer& Company(for Cub Foods) MEETING DATE: September 1, 1998 INTRODUCTION: At it's August 18th meeting, the City Council directed staff to prepare a resolution supporting the appeal of Kieffer& Company of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals denial of variances to sign square foot maximums. The draft resolution containing specific findings is attached for the Council's consideration. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve Resolution No. 4973 as presented, approving Kieffer& Company's appeal and granting a 474 square foot variance resulting in 674 square feet of sign message on the front of the building, and a 90 square foot variance resulting in a 190 square foot sign on the north side of the building. 2. Approve Resolution No. 4973 with revised findings. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer and approve a motion relative to Resolution No. 497 . RESOLUTION NO. 497' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA APPROVING THE APPEAL OF KIEFFER & COMPANY, INC. OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS (BOAA) DENIAL OF REQUESTED VARIANCES, AND APPROVING THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES; 1) A 474 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO THE 200 SQUARE FOOT MAXIMUM TO PERMIT 674 SQUARE FEET OF SIGN AREA ON THE FRONT/EAST SIDE OF THE PROPOSED CUB BUILDING. 2) A 90 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO THE 100 SQUARE FOOT MAXIMUM TO ALLOW 190 SQUARE FEET OF SIGN MESSAGE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPOSED CUB BUILDING. WHEREAS, Kieffer& Company, Inc. filed an application received July 15, 1998 for variances under the provisions of Chapter 11, Land Use Regulation (Zoning), of the City of Shakopee City Code, Section 11.70 Subd. 10.A.1.&2. for a 474 square foot variance to the 200 square foot maximum sign area on the front/east side of the building and a 90 square foot variance to the 100 square foot maximum sign area on the north side of the subject building in the Highway Business (B-1)Zone; and WHEREAS, the subject property is presently zoned Highway Business (B-1); and WHEREAS, the property upon which the request is being made is legally described as: Lot 4, Block 1, Crossroads Center WHEREAS, notice was provided and on August 6, 1998, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals conducted a public hearing regarding this application, at which it heard from the Community Development Director or representatives, the applicant, and invited members of the public to comment. WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals concluded that variance criteria 1.A, LB, 1.C, 1.D, 1.E, and 2 were not met, and therefore denied the requested variances; WHEREAS, the applicant filed a timely appeal of the determination of the Board, and the City Council reviewed the appeal at it's meeting of August 18, 1998; and WHEREAS, the Council concluded that the BOAA's findings were in error, and has made the following findings relative to the requested variances: Finding 1.A. The property could not be put to a reasonable use if the owner were forced to comply with the maximum square footage limitation for signs in the City Code. The location of the property and building in relation to CSAH 17/Marschall Road would make it difficult to see the business' signage from public streets. This, in turn, would severely affect the ability to successfully use the property for commercial purposes. Finding 1.R The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property. The property was developed as part of a retail center. The orientation, distances from public streets are unique. The large building was located on the far western portion of the retail center site in order to accommodate large traffic volumes for parking and circulation, and therefore was forced to be at a distance from CSAH 17 which renders smaller signage difficult to see from the adjoining public streets. Finding 1.C. The circumstances were not created by the applicant/property owner, but result from the configuration of the Crossroads Center project and its relation to the adjoining public streets. Finding 1.D. The variance, if granted, would maintain the general relationship between building frontage and signage area contained in the City Code for most uses, and so would not alter the essential character of the either this commercial development project or the locality.. Finding 1.E. The problems extend beyond economic considerations, in that the configuration of the subject property and existing building limit the applicant's ability to be reasonably seen from public streets. Other specific limitations include the proximity of utility easements and required parking between public streets and the subject property. Finding 2 The variance as requested would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of Chapter 11. The signage proposed by the applicant maintains the same or similar ratio of linear building frontage to square footage of signage to building size as allowed for smaller businesses and buildings in the B-1 (Highway Business) district. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS: That the Kieffer& Company, Inc.'s appeal of the BOAA's denial of the requested variances is upheld based on the findings above with respect to City Code Section 11.89, Subd. 2, "Criteria for Granting Variances," and that the variances described above are hereby granted. Adopted in 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 PREPARED BY: City of Shakopee 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee,MN 55379 )5, ,9' 3 • CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Agricultural Odors MEETING DATE: September 1, 1998 INTRODUCTION: At a recent Council meeting, Councilor Link indicated that he had received complaints from residents about odors from manure being transported in the City. Staff was directed to review the issue and report to Council. DISCUSSION: Land Use: Shakopee is a City in transition. Until the early 1990's development was generally concentrated west of CSAH 83 and north of the then-proposed alignment of the Shakopee Bypass. The most recent Comprehensive Plan, adopted by the Council in the fall of 1996, dramatically expanded the area available for sewered development,both south of STH 169 and east of CSAH 83 (Southbridge). At the same time, the plan left a major portion of the City in a generalized holding classification termed"future urban area." Generally, these areas are dedicated to either agricultural or rural residential uses. The location of sewered areas adjacent rural residential or agricultural areas sets up an almost unavoidable tension between new, more intense land uses, and previously existing agricultural uses. Current City Ordinances: The current City Code contains a set of"public nuisance" provisions(Sec. 10.53). A public nuisance is described as, among other things, "...Allowing noise, odors,... that in any way have an objectionable effect upon adjacent or nearby property." The ordinance does not set any standards by which odor can be evaluated for enforcement purposes. Possible Approaches: Staff contacted the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency(MPCA), which provided a copy of the February 5, 1997 report of the Livestock Odor Task Force, entitled"A Strategy for Addressing Livestock Odor Issues." A copy of the report is attached for the Council's information. The report deals principally with feedlots, and may not be directly applicable to one of the apparent problems, i.e. the transporting of manure for use as fertilizer on farm fields. The report makes recommendations for odor policy, implementation, and interim purposes. These include: • Development of an odor rating system, • Development of an Emission/Separation Curve to aid in determining separation distances between livestock facilities and other land uses, • Development of Best Management Practices(BMPs) • Identification of funding mechanisms, • Development of a users manual, • Development of mediation services, • County Implementation. It is clear from the report that the measurement and control of agricultural odors is a complex issue requiring substantial investments of both time and money. Some elements of the report, such as the development of an odor rating system and emission/separation curve, are outside the expertise of the City and its staff. The development of an emission/separation curve would seem to be essential to determine whether the City's land use policies provide adequate separation between agricultural and other land uses. At this time staff is unsure how far the work recommended by the report has progressed. Moreover, the report contemplates county implementation. In Scott County this makes intuitive sense, in that the county already has an Environmental Health Department. In order for the City to implement the kinds of specific recommendations contained in the report staff and/or staff capabilities would need to be expanded. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Direct staff to determine whether Scott County is pursuing an agricultural odor control program, and if it is, assist them in doing so. 2. Direct staff to develop an agricultural odor-monitoring program with the assistance of the MPCA. 3. Review the City's land use policies and plan to determine whether they should be adjusted to provide better separation between agricultural and other land uses. 4. Table the matter for additional information. ACTION REQUESTED: The Council is asked for direction regarding the alternatives presented. R. Michael Leek Community Development Director i:\commdev\cc11998\cc0901\AgOdondoc Strategy for Addressing Livestock Odor Issues a Report from the Livestock Odor Task Force to the Feedlot & Manure Management Advisory Committee (FMMAC) February 5, 1997 A Strategy for Addressing Livestock Odor Issues A report from the Livestock Odor Task Force to the Feedlot & Manure Management Advisory Committee February 5, 1997 • 1 Strategy for Addressing Livestock Odor Issues 2 3 Livestock Odor Task Force 4 Report&Recommendations 5 6 Table of Contents 7 8 9 Foreword 2 10 Task Force Membership 3 11 Introduction 4 12 Recommendations of the Livestock Odor Task Force-Overview 8 13 Recommendations for Odor Policy 9 14 Recommendations for Implementation 1 2 15 Recommendations for the Interim 5 16 Conclusion 1 7 17 Appendix A- Issues&Options Considered by LOTF 1 8 18 Appendix B- LOTF Protocols 51 19 Appendix C - LOTF Member Biographies 53 20 Appendix D- Feedlot&Manure Management Advisory Committee(FMMAC) 57 21 Appendix E - Bibliography 60 • 1 3/5/97 3:34 PM i FOREWORD 2 The Livestock Odor Task Force considered it important that any livestock odor policy be 3 fair to farms of all sizes,protect the public from undue odors, and not place an excessive 4 burden on regulators or producers. Although it would be far easier to say that there is not 5 enough information available to develop such a policy, this was not the choice made by the 6 Task Force. Instead, the Task Force has made recommendations that it hopes will move the 7 state forward in resolving some of the controversy surrounding livestock odors. 8 9 2 3/5/97 3:34 PM 1 TASK FORCE MEMBERSHIP 2 Feedlot and Manure Management Advisory Committee's 3 (FMMAC) 4 LIVESTOCK ODOR TASK FORCE .5 6 Represents Name Organization Address I Phone # FMMAC Marlin Pankratz FMMAC Mountain Lake 507-427-2152 Research David Schmidt University of Minnesota St. Paul 612-625-4262 Environmental Ginny Yingling Clean Water Action Minneapolis 612-623-3666 Producer Dick Nicolai MN Pork Producers Assn Hector 612-848-238f Local Gov't Tina Rosenstein Nicollet Co. Env. Svc. St. Peter 800-247-5044 Consultant Robert Mensch Mensch Engineering Fairmont 507-235-915 - Rural Non-farm Charles Beatty Sr. Faribault 507-332-2266 County Bob Peterson Assn of MN Counties - New Richland 507-465-8073 Commissioner Waseca Co. Commissioner At-large Heather Robins Rice Co. Board of Northfield 507-663-7950 Commissioners MN Pollution Dave Nelson MPCA St. Paul 612-296-9274 Control Agency MN Department Steven Olson MDA St. Paul 612-297-3217 of Agriculture MN Department Marian Marbury MN Dept. of Health Minneapolis 612-623-5629 of Health 7 8 The task force Co-Chairs are: 9 Steve Olson, MN Dept. of Agriculture (MDA), 90 W Plato Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55107; 10 Phone: 612/297-3217 E-mail: Steven.H.Olson@state.mn.us 11 Dave Nelson, MN Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) 520 LaFayette Rd, St. Paul, MN 55155; 12 Phone: 612/296-9274; E-mail: David.R.Nelson@pca.state.mn.us 13 14 Special thank you to Bob Patton of the Minnesota Department of Agriculture for his facilitation of the 15 discussion and assistance in drafting the report. 3 3/5/97 3:34 PM 1 INTRODUCTION 2 3 What is the Livestock Odor Task Force? 4 The Feedlot and Manure Management Advisory Committee(FMMAC)was created during 5 the 1994 legislative session (Minnesota Statutes 17.136) to, among other tasks, "identify 6 needs, goals, and suggest policies for research, monitoring, and regulatory activities 7 regarding feedlot and manure management." Odor is an issue that in recent years has 8 become a source of contention in many areas of Minnesota as well as across the country. 9 In some instances, the issue has created conflict between neighbors. Because the conflict 10 adversely affects farms, their neighbors (both farm and non-farm), and local communities, 11 the FMMAC created the Livestock Odor Task Force(LOTF)to advise FMMAC on odor 12 control issues. FMMAC's charge to the LOTF was to"develop workable solutions to 13 address the odor issue." 14 LOTF consists of 12 members (see Task Force Membership on page 3) representing the 15 following constituencies involved in the odor issue: FMMAC,research, environmental, 16 producer, local government, industry/consultant, rural non-farm, Association of Minnesota 17 Counties,MN Department of Health,MN Pollution Control Agency,MN Department of 18 Agriculture, and an at-large position. LOTF was co-chaired by Steve Olson of the 19 Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA)and Dave Nelson of the Minnesota Pollution 20 Control Agency(MPCA). LOTF members were selected jointly by FMMAC,MPCA and 21 MDA. 22 In its recommendations, the LOTF has tried to meet the legislature's goals for FMMAC and 23 FMMAC's goal for the LOTF. The LOTF believes that it may be tempting to mandate 24 policy of zero odor,but this is impractical, as livestock production, or any other industry, 25 could not exist with such a policy. Likewise, having no regulation of odors will only result 26 in increased conflict in rural areas. In its odor policy recommendation the LOTF strove for 27 middle ground of protecting the public interest along with the livestock industry. To do 28 this there will be a need for reductions in odor emissions from some facilities and a 29 tolerance of some odors from the public. 30 What is the Odor Issue? 31 In livestock production, odor is a product of microbial degradation of organic matter. The 32 major source of odor on livestock farms is manure. As biological activity occurs gases are 33 released. Over 168 compounds such as hydrogen sulfide and ammonia have been identified 34 which contribute to odor from livestock manure. 35 Odors have always been associated with livestock. The question is "why is livestock odor 36 an issue now compared with 20 to 30 years ago?" In the past two decades farms have 37 increased in size. The frequency and intensity of odors from the small farms of the past 38 were possibly different and more than likely less intense and less frequent than the odors 39 generated by current facilities. Two factors might help explain the controversy: the increase 40 in density of livestock(more animals per site); and in some areas an increase in numbers of 41 people --both farm and non-farm living near livestock farms. Odor has been a contentious 42 issue in areas where human populations are stable or decreasing. 4 3/5/97 3:34 PM 1 Hydrogen Sulfide 2 Most of the odorous compounds are created during anaerobic decomposition of organic 3 matter. Of these compounds, hydrogen sulfide (H2S)has received the most attention and 4 has been the center of recent monitoring efforts in Renville County, Minnesota. 5 In addition to contributing to odor, H2S can be a health concern. H2S is a compound that, 6 at certain levels, can affect human health. Portions of the following discussion are 7 segments taken from a Minnesota Department of Health (MDH)analysis of ambient air 8 monitoring done by citizens in Renville County. The concerns regard the potential level of 9 hydrogen sulfide from livestock operations. The Department of Health is currently developing"Health Risk Value" (HRV) for several compounds including hydrogen sulfide. The proposed HRVs will be applied to several industries,not just agriculture. MDH is calculating the HRV"very conservatively,to be highly protective of the public. As long as the HRV is not exceeded,exposure to H2S should not pose any health concern -even for children,people with chronic diseases, or other vulnerable individuals." The Department of Health will use the H2S HRV as a"yardstick"in determining when H2S "may potentially be a health concern. When an HRV is exceeded, further evaluation may be necessary to determine whether there is an actual public health risk." "MDH has concluded that the levels of H2S detected at certain sites by the citizen monitoring effort do not constitute an immediate crisis or public health emergency-but they do represent a potential health concern." "Exposure to hydrogen sulfide is not associated with any increased risk of cancer. No lasting health effects have been linked with short term exposure to H2S at the levels measured during the citizens monitoring effort. This level of exposure may sometimes be associated with problems like nausea, headaches, and irritation of the eyes, throat or respiratory system-especially in children and people with underlying health problems. It could also aggravate the symptoms of asthma, but it would most likely not cause anyone to develop asthma." "Based on the results of the citizen monitoring effort- as well as earlier testing done by MDH and the MN Pollution Control Agency(MPCA) -MDH is recommending that steps be taken to reduce H2S emissions at sites where levels have exceeded the proposed HRV." 10 11 The LOTF discussed these findings at several of its meetings. It considered linking odor 12 control policy to existing hydrogen sulfide regulations, i.e. if the MPCA is planning to 13 reduce hydrogen sulfide emissions would odor be reduced as well? However, the 14 correlation between hydrogen sulfide and odor is not sufficient to warrant only one 15 standard. There can often be high odorous emissions and low hydrogen sulfide emissions 16 from the same facility. Therefore, odor emissions must be considered a separate problem. 17 The LOTF reached consensus early in its discussions that regardless of how the livestock 18 odor issue is resolved, the health of all citizens must be equally protected. Therefore, the 19 health and air quality standards related to hydrogen sulfide should be enforced. While the 20 evidence of direct health effects related to odor is still open to debate, this is not the case for 21 hydrogen sulfide. The discussion with respect to differing standards based on different 22 zoning or population density which the LOTF considered with respect to odor do not apply 23 with regard to hydrogen sulfide. 5 3/5/97 3:34 PM 1 LOTF Discussion and Methodology 2 The LOTF started a twelve month process of facilitated discussions with the identification 3 of four issue areas : 4 1. How should government policy motivate development and use of design and 5 management techniques to prevent or control odor? 6 2. What is the relationship of land use policies to odor control? Parts of this question are: 7 • What could each level of government do to reduce conflict? 8 • Can the odor problem be reduced through land use planning? 9 • If the odor problem were solved would land use conflict evaporate? 10 3. How do we measure odor to achieve the goals of policy regarding community/industry 11 exposure to odors? 12 4. What should the government policy be on how much odor a community or individual 13 should have to tolerate? 14 Assumptions 15 The LOTF discussion was guided by the following assumptions: 16 1. Both animal agriculture and the public good are important to the state of Minnesota; 17 therefore, the state should invest time and resources toward resolving the odor issue. 18 2. The state is responsible for establishing health-based criteria for specific components of 19 emissions and developing appropriate standards. 20 3. Government policy should not inhibit the creation of effective and economical odor 21 control technologies. 22 4. The state should promote low emission and low energy use systems. 23 Methodology 24 The LOTF divided into working teams to develop through a brainstorming process 25 options/alternatives to address each of the problem statements. Afterward, as a whole, the 26 LOTF reviewed, commented on and revised the options and alternatives. They then 27 developed pros and cons for each of the alternatives. Next,each group was responsible for 28 drafting a discussion on the options. The intent was to present a balanced discussion on 29 the issue that would assist the LOTF in developing recommendations. The 30 options/alternatives are described in Appendix A. Finally the LOTF as a whole evaluated 31 elements of recommendations. These were subsequently written up in draft, revised and 32 adopted by consensus. 6 3/5/97 3:34 PM 1 Overview of Recommendations 2 The most effective odor policy is one that is based on total odor emissions from a farm site. 3 An odor policy based on total emissions allows farms of any size and manure handling 4 system to be compared and regulated on a uniform basis. However, since actual monitoring 5 of odor emissions from individual farm sites is both difficult and expensive, odor 6 emissions from an individual farm site must be estimated. To be reliable, these estimates 7 must be based on on-farm odor measurements of typical odor sources. On-farm odor 8 sources include livestock housing and manure storage. (Note: odors from land application 9 are intermittent and are not currently included in the discussion of on-farm odors; however, 10 different land application methods could also be evaluated similarly). Once total emissions 11 from an individual farm site are estimated, acceptable and standardized separation distances 12 can be determined. 13 The recommended odor policy is based on two key elements: the development of an odor 14 rating system; and a method to relate odor emissions to separation distances. 15 Recommendations also address implementation and interim issues. 16 The Livestock Odor Task Force is recommending that the State of Minnesota take the 17 following actions: 18 L Recommendation for Odor Policy 19 • Total Odor Emissions Rating System. Research, development, and 20 implementation of a system for rating the total odor emissions from livestock facilities 21 based upon evaluation of new and existing manure management odor control 22 technologies,practices and size of facility. 23 • Emission/Separation Curves. Development of a line graph for use by county 24 governments in determining separation distances between livestock facilities and other 25 land uses, based on the total odor emissions rating system. 26 • Best Management Practices for Peak Odor Events. Development of best 27 management practices (BMPs)to address seasonal or periodic peak levels of odor that 28 are not adequately addressed by the total odor emissions rating system, 29 emission/separation curves, and resulting separation distances 30 II. Recommendations for Implementation 31 • Funding. Identification of funding mechanisms for rating emissions from both 32 common, and patentable production practices. 33 • Users Manual. Development of a users manual to assist county government and 34 producers in use of the total odor emissions ratings system and emission/separation 35 curves. 36 • County Implementation. Facilitation and encouragement of county implementation 37 of the total odor emissions rating system, emission/separation curves, and best 38 management practices for peak odor events, through funding and technical assistance. 39 • Mediation Services. Development and provision of mediation services to local 40 governments to assist in resolving conflicts of livestock odor. 41 • Evaluation. Assessing the effectiveness of the rating system, emission/separation 42 distance curves, and best management practices for peak odor events; and the level of 43 implementation by county governments. 7 3/5/97 3:34 PM 1 Ill. Recommendations for the Interim 2 • Promotion of Best Management Practices (BMPs) Develop fact sheets on 3 current odor control practices to assist producers in reducing odors and county 4 government in addressing complaints. 5 • Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) Support MPCA's efforts in determining extent of H2S 6 emissions from livestock operations. 7 RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE LIVESTOCK ODOR TASK 8 FORCE 9 L Recommendations for Odor Policy 10 Total Odor Emission Rating System 11 Several types of livestock farming systems are currently in use throughout the state of 12 Minnesota. These farming systems range from low density pasture systems to high density 13 confinement systems. The number of animals raised on individual farms also ranges from a 14 few animals to several thousand animals. Because of these variations each individual farm 15 will generate a different amount of odor. Trying to monitor or measure the amount of odors 16 being emitted from each farm would be a nearly impossible task. Some system therefore 17 must be developed to estimate the amount of odors generated on these farms. Having a 18 reliable estimate of the total odors generated allows farms to be compared based on odors 19 emitted rather than on the number of animals. 20 An odor rating system needs to be developed as a means to predict and compare odor 21 emissions from farms. By taking odor measurements from a variety of odor sources, a 22 rating of these sources can be established. Odors can be measured using an olfactometer 23 (see Appendix A). Olfactometery is a method that uses the human nose to evaluate the 24 strength of an odor. It is a systematic method that records the amount of clean dilution air 25 needed to make a sample of odorous air undetectable. This number is recorded as odor 26 units (ou). Although the olfactometer does not give an actual measure of odor emissions 27 (mass per time), it does indicate a relative rating of the strength of an odor from a particular 28 source. Once a system is given an odor rating it can be compared to other systems. 29 Although a particular protocol has not been established, it is thought that the sample of 30 odorous air from a particular source would be measured directly from the source, e.g., 31 directly off the surface of a manure storage basin, rather than somewhere downwind from 32 the source. 33 An odor rating for any particular type of system could be generated by taking actual air 34 samples from several existing systems, evaluating the sample using an olfactometer, and 35 averaging the results. (Note, these odor ratings would be based on average odor 36 measurements from these systems. Considerations would not be made for the multitude of 37 variables that impact gas emissions.The rating system would be based on a standard 38 testing protocol and would only indicate average odor emissions). These odor ratings 39 would be published in a table. As new technologies become available they would be 40 evaluated and given an odor rating. 41 The development of an odor rating system makes it possible to compare relative odor 42 emissions from different types of systems, or to evaluate the percent odor reduction that 43 could be anticipated by implementing an odor control technology. However, an odor rating 44 can only compare the relative odor emissions from different types of systems. What is also 45 needed is a method to compare the total emissions from different types of systems that are 46 in use on various farm sizes. Therefore, a method to relate the odor rating to the estimated 47 total odor emissions from a farm is needed. Although no such method currently exists, it is 8 3/5/97 3:34 PM 1 anticipated that such a method can be developed. This method would factor in variables 2 such as the surface area of the odor source or the amount of odorous air being ventilated 3 from a building. With this type of information the total odor emissions from a farm site 4 could be estimated. 5 Example 6 A farm is looking at some expansions and modifications. Currently they are finishing 7 1000 pigs per year in cargill units(open front barns). Manure is currently being scraped 8 from these units into an earthen basin. The farmers are proposing a new facility on the 9 same site which will finish 2500 pigs per year in a deep pitted, mechanically ventilated 10 barn. The existing facilities, including the earthen basin, will be abandoned. Does the 11 potential for off-site odors increase or decrease with this change? 12 Currently this question can not be answered. With the proposed system the cargill 13 units, the earthen storage, and the deep pitted barns will have an odor rating; some 14 number that indicates the average amount of odors generated. Using the odor rating 15 number for each system and the sizes of the facilities estimated odor impact from the 16 existing and proposed could be compared. 17 Will the system promote or stifle innovation? 18 The proposed recommendations will most likely stimulate the creation of economical odor 19 control technologies. Currently any odor control technology is seen as suspect. One key 20 factor in stimulating the creation of new technology is the ability for new products and 21 technologies to be evaluated. It is the hope of this task force that the rating of new 22 technologies will be very economical and timely. Provisions may also be made to accept 23 test results from other testing facilities. 24 What will the odor rating include? 25 The evaluation of systems will be primarily based on average odor generation from a given 26 system or technology. However, other information could be attained at the same time with 27 little additional effort. Other information may include the emissions of hydrogen sulfide or 28 ammonia or the cost of implementing the technology. 9 3/5/97 3:34 PM 1 Challenges 2 Although the Task Force has agreed that the proposed system would be the best policy 3 option, some difficulties still exist. 4 Rating manure handling systems based on odor emissions can be a simple process once the 5 protocol has been determined. However, there are a multitude of manure handling systems 6 and system variations that need to be evaluated. For instance, there are three or four 7 different methods for storing liquid manure. These few systems could easily be given a 8 ' rating,given the same type of manure was in the storage. However, odors from these 9 storage may vary by type of livestock manure,solids concentration, initial sulfate content in 10 the water, animal diet,management practices, odor reducing additives,etc.. Preliminary 11 investigations indicate that some of these factors may contribute significantly to odor while 12 others may not. Therefore, the sheer number of options or variations to evaluate may make 13 the rating system very difficult to create and maintain. 14 Another potential problem with the rating system is the lack of methodology for estimating 15 total emissions from a system based on individual odor measurements. An odor 16 measurement from the surface of a manure storage will give a ratio of dilution to threshold 17 or odor unit. This odor must then be related to the total emissions from that storage. It is 18 logical that the total emissions is related to the total area of the odor emitting surface or the 19 amount of odorous air exhausted from a building,however, these relationships have not 20 fully been established. 21 The primary goal of the rating system is to determine the total emissions from a farm site. 22 Most farms will have a combination of odor sources, some emitting surfaces and some 23 ventilation fans. These two very different types of emissions must be combined in 24 determining a total odor emissions for the farm. No current method exists that can compare 25 or combine these two odor sources. Recommendation for Odor Policy l: Total Odor Emission Rating System The State, through research and development by the University of Minnesota, should develop and implement a system for rating the total odor emissions from livestock facilities. Odor emissions from each typical livestock production practice (each typical housing, manure handling, and storage practice), for each species, utilizing each typical odor control technology would be measured and standardized. The odor measurements would be taken directly from on-farm odor sources using an olfactometer. Measurements would also be made of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and;other potential indicators of odor (e.g., total solids content of manure). Each typical practice, utilizing each typical odor control technology, would then be given a rating along a numerical scale (e.g., 1 to 10) based on the odor measurement. For any given livestock site, a total odor emissions rating would be calculated by adding together ratings of all practices,modified by factors to account for the size of the livestock facility. 26 Emission/Separation Distances 27 Another key to the odor impact on a community is separation distance, the distance between 28 an odor source and the property line, nearest neighbor, or residential area. Once an odor 29 rating system is developed it is possible to develop separation distances that are based 30 specifically on odor. Current separation distances are based on the assumption that larger 31 facilities generate more odor and therefore require greater separations. This theory would 10 3/5/97 3:34 PM 1 hold true if all operations were identical. However, with the diversity of manure handling 2 systems and facility designs and the new odor control technologies currently being 3 developed, farm size is not the only variable in odor emissions. With the odor ratings 4 system,it will be possible to develop separation distances based on the actual odor impact 5 from a facility. Therefore, the second key element of the recommendations is a method to 6 compare the odor impact of various existing and proposed farm sites on a community. One 7 method to determine this impact is with a dispersion model. A dispersion model is a 8 mathematical method of estimating how a gas,emitted into the atmosphere, is dispersed in 9 the ambient air. Although many factors exist in determining how a gas is dispersed, the 10 model could be used with a standard set of input variables. In this way, the only variable 11 would be the odor emissions as estimated by the odor rating. The separation distances 12 generated by a dispersion model could be verified by reviewing existing livestock and 13 poultry operations that are acceptable to the community. 14 A line graph would be developed showing several curves, with each curve 15 representing a different frequency or intensity of odor. The line graph would allow 16 the user to determine a separation distance between a livestock site and a receiving 17 site,based on the odor sensitivity of the receiving site and the odor rating of the 18 livestock site. 111111111111111111 �111111151•12111111Category /al®® 1. Category � �/ Category ��.■■■■■ --——Category a■■■■■■■ Total Odor Emisa 19 20 Figure 1.Odor emission vs.separation distance curves(theoretical). 21 22 A set of separation distance curves might look similar to what is shown in figure 1. In 23 figure 1 the different categories represent some indication of the acceptable limits of odor 24 impact. These categories could represent various odor intensities and frequencies. For 25 instance category 1 may be a land use classification where more intense or more frequent 26 odors could be expected. Category 4 may represent a land use classification with a fairly 27 low tolerance to intense or frequent odors. The total odor emission represented on the 28 horizontal axis would be the total odor emissions as estimated by the odor rating system. 29 The separation distances would be calculated values based on odor dispersion modeling 30 and verified by field measurements or experience with existing facilities. Recommendation for Odor Policy 2: Emission/Separation Distance Curves The State,through research and,development by the University of Minnesota,should develop a line graph for use by county governments in determining separation distances between livestock facilities and other land uses,based on the total odor emissions rating system. 1 1 3/5/97 3:34 PM 1 Best Management Practices for Peak Odor Events 2 An odor rating system would most likely rate systems at average odor emissions. Outdoor 3 manure storage facilities may emit more odor during periods of transition between cold and 4 warm weather(spring and fall turnover). Also, odor emissions are much greater when 5 manure storage facilities are being agitated during emptying. Because the recommended • 6 odor policy is based on average odor emissions,these periods of high odors will impact 7 surrounding neighbors and communities. The actual impact of these periods of high odor 8 is dependent on wind speed and direction during those periods. 9 The proposed odor rating system deals with typical odor in a quantitative way. Because of 10 the transitory nature of peaks,it would be impractical to address them in the same manner. 11 Peaks need to be addressed in a prescriptive fashion (BMPs). There are some management 12 practices and technologies that are currently available to address these periods of high 13 intermittent odors. Technologies currently being developed will also be available to 14 address those periods. Recommendation for Odor Policy 3: Best Management Practices for Peak Odor Events The State should develop best management practices(BMPs)to address seasonal or periodic peak levels of odor that are not adequately addressed by the total odor emissions rating system,emission/separation curves,and resulting separation distances. Is 11. Recommendations for Implementation 16 Implementation of Odor Rating System and Emission/Separation Distance 17 Curves 18 Current rules and regulations involving the operation and construction of livestock facilities 19 differ across the state. This inconsistency is especially obvious in the regulation of 20 livestock odors. Counties throughout Minnesota are developing methods of regulating 21 livestock facility with regard to odor. These systems typically do little to control odor 22 problems or put an excessive burden on producers. In counties where no odor regulations 23 are implemented the public may not be protected from undue or excessive odors. One 24 method to standardize these odor regulations would be for the state to set minimum 25 separation distance based on odor rating and emission/separation curves. The LOTF 26 determined that implementation of such statewide standard would not be appropriate 27 because such a standard may be too permissive for some counties and too restrictive for 28 other counties. Therefore, it was determined that the use of the total odor emissions ratings 29 and emission/separation curves should be at the option and discretion of county 30 government. However, it is important to both producers and the public that most or all 31 counties in Minnesota adopt this system. Therefore the adoption of this system should be 32 strongly supported and encouraged by the state. 33 Setting up and maintaining an efficient method to rate systems will cost money. Most 34 elements of a manure handling systems are very common. However some elements of 35 manure handling systems are specific technologies that are patented by the manufacturer. 36 This difference in systems must be accounted for when funding the odor rating test. LOTF 37 recommends that odor ratings for standard systems be funded by public funding sources 38 while ratings for patentable systems be funded through the private firm developing the odor 39 control technology. 40 What about existing facilities? 12 3/5/97 3:34 PM 1 The odor rating system is intended primarily for use in evaluating and regulating proposed 2 livestock facilities. However, the system could also be applied to existing facilities. In 3 enforcement of any new zoning provision, a local government must decide how to address 4 "nonconforming lots, buildings, or uses"; land, structures, or uses of the land that 5 complied with local laws before adoption of new zoning provisions, but that are in 6 violation of the provisions after adoption. A lawfully-existing livestock facility that does 7 not comply with new odor-related separation distance provisions could be considered a 8 nonconforming building or structure. Possible options to address nonconformities range 9 from allowing their continued existence, to requiring termination after a specified period of 10 time (a concept known as "amortization"), to immediate termination. A number of legal 11 issues are associated with addressing nonconformities in zoning regulations, and local 12 governments should obtain sound legal advice before developing and implementing such 13 regulations. 14 The following two recommendations are critical to the success of the odor rating system 15 and emission/separation curves. Recommendation for Implementation I: *Funding of Development & Operation of Total Odor Emissions Rating System and Emission/Separation Curves The state should fund the research and development of the total odor emissions rating system and emission/separation curves,and:the odor emissions ratings for commonly used livestock production practices. Odor `! emissions ratings for patentable livestock production practices and odor control technologies should be funded through fees from the firms or institutions developing the patentable practices or technologies. 16 Recommendation for Implementation 2: User's Manual Use of the total odor emissions ratings and emission/separation distance curves should be at the option and discretion of county government. The State should develop a users manual to assist county government in use of the total odor emissions ratings and emission/separation distance curves. 17 County Implementation 18 Both state and county governments have an interest in solving the issues related to odors 19 from livestock facilities. Odor policy recommendations include the state and county 20 governments in policy implementation. Under the recommendation, state government 21 would be responsible for developing and maintaining an odor rating system along with 22 setting guidelines for determining separation distances. County governments would be 23 responsible for implementing the odor rating system through their zoning authority. County 24 governments could make separation distances more or less restrictive than the state 25 guidelines. Recommendation for Implementation 3: County Implementation The state should facilitate and encourage county implementation of the total odor emissions rating system,emission/separation distance curves,and best management practices for peak odor events,through funding and technical 13 3/5/97 3:34 PM fassistance. 1 Mediation Process 2 The LOTF envisions county governments handling odor complaints by first inspecting the 3 livestock facility, followed by referral of mediation services, where appropriate. Upon a 4 livestock odor complaint,inspection would be conducted by trained county personnel to 5 determine whether the facility meets odor rating criteria, and whether odor levels being 6 generated are above those that would be expected from the plan. Inspection personnel 7 would also provide complainants information on what odors would be expected from 8 proper implementation of the odor management plan. Results of the inspection would be 9 provided to both the complainant and the producer. Subsequent to the inspection, if the 10 facility was found to be in noncompliance,then the county government would require the 11 facility to be brought into compliance. 12 If the facility was found to be in compliance with the county provisions, and an odor issue 13 still exists between the parties, mediation between the complainant and producer would be 14 offered to resolve the odor issues. Initiating mediation would be at the option of the 15 complainant and the producer. 14 3/5/97 3:34 PM Recommendation for Implementation 4: Mediation Services The LOTF recognizes that,even afterapplication of separation distances established according to the total odor emissions rating system and emission/separation distance curves,some persons affected by livestock odors will seek recourse from county government or the courts. The state should develop and provide mediation services to counties in such cases 2 Evaluation 3 This use of an odor rating system and separation distance curves is a new approach to 4 addressing this issue. As a new approach the effectiveness and implementation will need to 5 be evaluated and adjusted as necessary. After development of odor ratings,implementation 6 by counties will probably occur over a couple of years. The LOTF realizes that after a 7 period of time the rating system will need to be evaluated for its effectiveness in addressing • 8 the odor issue. The effectiveness should examine the level of implementation by counties, 9 and the usefulness to counties and livestock producers. Recommendation for Implementation 5: Policy Evaluation The State should evaluate the practicality and effectiveness of the odor rating system at the earliest point in time after the system is developed. If the odor rating system is found to be impractical or ineffective,the State should reassess it options for addressing the issue of livestock odors and take prompt action. 10 If the odor rating system is found to be practical and effective, and two years after the 11 system is developed and available for county use, the State should evaluate the rate at 12 which county agencies are adopting and using the odor rating system. The State should 13 also evaluate the how the system fits in with feedlot regulation by the State. 14 III. Recommendation for Interim 15 The projected timeline for developing the odor rating system, separation curves, and BMPs 16 for peak odor events is estimated to be 2-3 years. The LOTF recognizes that in the interim 17 efforts will need to be made to address the issue. The LOTF recommends promotion of 18 current odor control BMPs, and continued analysis by MPCA&Minnesota Department of 19 Health of the prevalence of hydrogen sulfide emissions from livestock operations. 20 The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency currently has regulations governing the 21 concentrations of hydrogen sulfide in the ambient air. Hydrogen sulfide is one of the 22 odorous gases emitted from livestock and poultry operations. The MPCA's control of 23 hydrogen sulfide emissions will most likely reduce the amount of odor generated at many 24 livestock facilities. However, reductions in hydrogen sulfide may not lead to sufficient 25 reductions in odor. Therefore, the livestock odor task force recommends that an odor 26 policy be implemented regardless of the MPCA's efforts on hydrogen sulfide. The 27 recommended odor policy should not interfere with any hydrogen sulfide regulations. Recommendation for Interim I: Interim Promotion of BMPs The Minnesota Extension Service should make a special effort to publicize whatever information is available on ways to control odor from livestock facilities. These techniques or systems could be considered best available 15 3/5/97 3:34 PM management practices. This information should be gathered from other sources throughout the state,;nation, and world. Recommendation for interim 2•'Hydrogen -Sule Evaluation "Funding should be provided by the state to increase'MPGA efforts to develop tools andstrategies to address H2S problems ; 16 3/5/97 3:34 PM 1 CONCLUSION 2 The LOTF recognizes that development and implementation of an odor rating system and 3 its other recommendations will be no simple task. However,the LOTF believes that 4 development and implementation of such a system is the right course and direction for 5 Minnesota. 6 Steps to Implement an Odor Rating System 7 The following are areas identified by the Livestock Odor Task Force for future work to 8 further address the issue of odor from livestock. These areas include implementation of 9 odor emissions based standards as well as other necessary research and education. 10 1. Develop a protocol for rating systems on odor emissions. 11 2. Designate an appropriate body to rate the systems. 12 3. Determine the relationship between relative odor measurements from systems and total 13 odor emissions. 14 4. Determine an acceptable relationship between separation distances and total odor 15 emissions. 16 5. Develop dispersion modeling. 17 6. Request funding from legislature for determining odor ratings for standard, non- 18 patentable systems and dispersion modeling. 19 17 3/5/97 3:34 PM Appendix A 1 Issues & Options/Alternatives 2 This appendix is a compilation of the various issues and options identified and discussed by 3 the Livestock Odor Task Force (LOTF). In order to make the issue of odor and the process 4 of developing recommendations more manageable, the LOTF used a facilitated process to 5 identify four issue areas. The issue areas were written in the form of problem statements. 6 The LOTF then established "working teams" to develop possible options/alternatives to 7 address the issue areas. The initial list of options was reviewed by the whole task force. 8 9 Pros and cons to each issue were brainstormed. The working teams then gathered 10 information to support, and in some cases, illustrate, both the benefits and drawbacks of each 11 option. The intent was to manage the workload while still giving each task force member the 12 opportunity to give input into areas of discussion being developed by another working team. 13 The final product is a balanced discussion of the issues and the various options available. The 14 alternatives/options represent neither consensus nor disagreement among the LOTF members. 15 Rather, this discussion was used as a springboard to developing recommendations from the 16 LOTF to FMMAC on addressing the odor issue. 17 18 19 Problem Statement 20 21 How do we measure odors to achieve the goals of our policy regarding community and/or 22 individual exposure to odors? 23 � z ► 24 25 26 Background: 27 Measurement of odors has become a focal point in the debate surrounding 28 livestock odor policies, because of the difficulty of quantifying odors in a 29 meaningful way that allows for public policy to respond to citizen and producer 30 concerns. In order to fully address the policy questions surrounding odors, we 31 must not only quantify the odors, but we must also quantify or evaluate human 32 response to those odors. 33 34 Quantification of livestock odor itself is difficult. At least 168 different compounds 35 have been identified in livestock wastes or the surrounding air. At least 30 of 36 these have very low olfactory detection limits and it is unclear for many of these 37 compounds what contribution they make to the overall "smell" generated from 38 a livestock operation. In addition, actual emissions are extremely variable and 39 depend on a wide variety of factors, including the size of the herd, age of the 40 livestock, the feed that is used, the genetic strain of the animals, whether animal 41 waste is handled aerobically or anaerobically, the sulfur content of the water, 42 and the season, temperature and humidity. As a result, developing one testing 43 method that can account for all of the variables associated with livestock odor 44 and that can quantify all of the odor causing elements in the emissions from 45 livestock waste is extremely difficult. At best, quantifiable methods such as 46 indicator gas measurement, can test for only a few compounds at a time, and 47 those compounds may not be the main odor causers. "Human-based" 48 methods, such as olfactometers and field monitors/trained sniffers measure the 49 whole odor, but are expensive and do not provide producers with predictable 50 levels that they can try to achieve. 18 3/5/97 3:59 PM 1 2 Sampling is also a difficulty in developing an odor monitoring plan. Continuous 3 monitoring of air quality requires permanent monitoring stations, but wind 4 direction is variable. Thus, either an extremely expensive network of monitors is 5 required or the monitoring system is less than adequate to measure odors 6 continuously. Periodic sampling, either with an instrument or human "sniffers" 7 may not occur at the appropriate times and so may either underestimate or 8 overestimate the level of odor to which nearby residents are exposed. 9 10 In addition to the limitations of the methods themselves, there are additional 11 aspects of the odor issue that simple quantification cannot address. For 12 example, different people experience odors differently. What may be an 13 offensive odor to one person may be merely annoying to another and 14 unnoticeable to yet another. Beyond that, there is evidence that frequent 15 exposure to an odor may cause sensitization of some people, so that subsequent 16 exposures generate a greater response in sensitized individuals than in previously 17 unexposed persons. Also, there is some concern on the part of producers that 18 odor complaints may be generated by neighbors who have other issues that are 19 not odor related. 20 21 All of this being said, there are numerous odor sampling or monitoring methods. 22 These are detailed below, with discussion of the pros and cons of the various 23 methods. 24 25 26 Olfactometer 27 28 The most accepted and most common means of measuring odor is with a 29 dynamic olfactometer. Several types of dynamic olfactometers have been 30 developed and are being used world-wide. The instruments are primarily a 31 system of delivering odorous gases at different dilutions to a panelist. This method 32 of odor measurement has been used to quantify odors from waste water 33 treatment facilities and other industrial sources for many years. The procedure 34 has been accepted and standardized by the American Society of Testing and 35 Measurement (Standard # E679-91). 36 37 In this procedure, odorous air is collected in a sample bag made of material that 38 does not absorb odors. Odorous air from the bag is then drawn through a mixing 39 chamber where it is diluted with clean air. A panelist is then presented with 40 three samples of air; one of diluted odorous air and two of odor free air. The 41 panelist is forced to make a choice as to which air sample has the odor. Initially 42 the odorous air is very dilute. This process of delivering three samples of air, two 43 clean air and one diluted odorous air, is repeated with decreasing dilutions of 44 odorous air. The dilution where the panelist consistently and correctly detects the 45 sample containing the odorous air is labeled the detection threshold. 46 47 Typically the odor sample / dilutions are presented to several panelists (six to 48 twelve). The dilution threshold is the dilution where 50% of the panelists indicate 49 detection. The results are reported as a dilution to threshold (DT) for the 50 particular odorous air sample. This number is often reported as an odor unit (ou),. 51 A high dilution to threshold indicates a high odor concentration. 52 53 The major advantage of this system is that it relates well to the actual problem -- 54 odor and human response to it -- rather than measuring a specific compound 19 3/5/97 3:34 PM I that may or may not be the actual source of the odor. This is one of the few 2 measurement techniques which allows this comparison to be made. However, 3 despite being "human based", it does not address the issue of varying response 4 to odors by different individuals. 5 6 Although olfactometry seems somewhat subjective, in actuality the results are 7 very repeatable. However, it is difficult to compare results between laboratories 8 because of subtle differences in equipment or protocol. Therefore, the best use 9 of an olfactometer is in doing odor comparisons. Currently the University of 10 Minnesota and a few other universities are using olfactometers to monitor 11 reductions in odors when various odor control technologies are used. 12 13 Olfactometers are not very effective at measuring ambient air odors downwind 14 of an odor source. This type of measurement is difficult for two reasons. First, the 15 sampling of odors (filling of the tedlar bag)takes a few minutes. During this time 16 the plume may move which would reduce the amount of odorous air captured 17 in the sample. Secondly, odors in an odor plume are very dilute compared with 18 the odor source. Very dilute odors are typically only a few dilutions away from 19 being undetectable. Because there is some degradation of the odor in the 20 sample bag and some losses of odors in the equipment used to dilute the 21 sample the final measurement will most likely be undetectable by the panelists. 22 23 Any ambient air sampling for odors is also difficult because it is often hard to 24 separate and distinguish which odors are coming from which facilities. In 25 agricultural areas typically there are many odor sources in a relatively small 26 geographic area. Therefore determining the odor contribution from one source 27 using ambient measurements is problematic. To solve the problems of ambient 28 air sampling and analysis, air samples are typically collected directly from the 29 odor emitting surface. These measurements must then be related to actual 30 ambient air concentrations at distances from the odor source. See odor 31 modeling section in Appendix A. Because odor generation is extremely variable 32 from livestock odor sources it usually requires several air samples to be analyzed 33 before any conclusions about odor emissions can be drawn. As with any air 34 sampling or odor measurement additional sampling is good but also will increase 35 the cost. Typical costs for using an olfactometer are between 125 and 150 per 36 sample (not including sample collection). 37 38 39 Electronic Nose 40 41 Several researchers are currently evaluating the use of an electronic sensor for 42 measuring livestock odor. The technology is currently being used in the food and 43 perfume industry to monitor manufacturing processes. This technology has the 44 potential to take the subjective nature out of odor quantification. Using an array 45 of electronic sensors, the electronic nose can determine the concentrations of 46 several classes of compounds. Through a process of calibration of these 47 concentrations to the results of an odor panel (i.e.,. sniffers), the numerical results 48 are correlated to odor offensiveness. However, the correlation of the electronic 49 nose responses to actual odor offensiveness is poor, at best. 50 51 Moreover, this method again does not account for the variability in human 52 perception and response to odors, nor does it give a good measure of odor 53 intensity. However, it does provide a "quantifiable" measurement of odor, which 54 could provide targets for producers to aim for in odor reduction. 20 3/5/97 3:34 PM 1 2 3 4 Measurement using Trained Odor Monitors 5 6 One of the ways that people have measured odors is to use "field monitors"- 7 people, who go through training to be able to reliably distinguish specific odors 8 and to rate their intensity. Training for field odor monitors consist of two to four 9 days of training plus an 10 additional day per year for updating. The cost per odor sample with a trained 11 sniffer is the labor cost associated with the sniffer traveling out on site and 12 spending approximately one hour making measurements. 13 14 When evaluating a odor event, the sniffers are assigned a predetermined 15 sampling strategy that outlines where and how often they will stop to "take 16 samples". For example, a person may be told to stand in a specific location and. 17 sniff once per minute for 10 minutes and then document the odor intensity at 18 each interval. This method is currently being used in Ramsey County as a means 19 of monitoring the odor from the municipal composting facility. 20 21 The advantages of this approach is that it is the most direct measure of the basic 22 problem - human perception of odors. In addition, it has been shown to be fairly 23 reliable. That is, after training, people can identify odors and rate their intensity in 24 a repeatable fashion. Typically the field monitors would be chosen from the 25 community and would represent a cross section of citizens. 26 27 There are also apparent disadvantages to this approach. The first is that it has 28 usually been used to assess the odors from one specific facility, and with a fairly 29 consistent odor emission. Odor generated from livestock facilities vary 30 substantially over the seasons and vary between facilities. Also the close 31 proximity of facilities may make it difficult to determine background odors from 32 the odors generated at a particular facility. 33 34 Another disadvantage, which is a disadvantage to most odor quantifying 35 techniques, is cost. One method of odor monitoring that can reduce this cost is 36 to use community volunteers. These volunteers could be trained to take 37 measurements at their residents or at designated locations. These measurements 38 may be less "detailed" than a field monitors but would provide some very 39 valuable information. While using local residents provides a means for 40 communities to have an active role in the regulatory process, it may also raise 41 the question of impartiality. Experience with similar situations suggests that if 42 properly managed, the community field monitors could be fairly accurate and 43 impartial. 44 indicator gas concentrations ("marker compound") 45 46 47 One of the potential ways to measure odors is to choose an indicator gas, such 48 as hydrogen sulfide or ammonia, as a surrogate, rather than to focus on odors 49 per se. If an indicator gas could be identified that was closely correlated with 50 odors, this approach would have several obvious major advantages: cost, 51 repeatability, objectivity, an established regulatory framework, connection to 52 health impact, and the facilitation of better management practices. 53 21 3/5/97 3:34 PM 1 Ambient air monitoring is not necessarily inexpensive. While "grab samples" can 2 be quite cheap, their lower limit of detection may not be adequate and the 3 sampling timeframe may not match the sampling timeframe required by 4 regulations. Establishment of a fixed air monitoring site may be necessary to 5 acquire the requisite data. In addition to adding substantially to the cost of 6 monitoring, adequate siting of the monitor may be difficult because of the 7 variability of the plume direction depending on meteorological conditions. 8 Nonetheless, assuming the latter problem can be addressed, monitoring for a 9 specific indicator gas will still be less expensive than the other methods of 10 monitoring odor. 11 12 Two major advantages of monitoring an indicator gas are repeatability and 13 objectivity. By repeatability we mean that, assuming the monitoring instrument is 14 adequately calibrated and correctly used, results from repeat samples taken 15 under identical conditions will closely agree. By objectivity we mean that, while 16 interpretation of the significance of the results in terms of health concern may 17 vary, the actual results themselves are not influenced by individual factors. In 18 contrast, the perception of odor by individuals as "offensive" is highly individual 19 and influenced by many personal factors, and therefore is neither repeatable or 20 objective. 21 22 A further advantage of monitoring an indicator gas is that a regulatory 23 framework for monitoring emissions is widely practiced and accepted. While 24 there has been some history of dealing with odors under nuisance statutes, the 25 history is limited and variable. Further, the MPCA has already abandoned efforts 26 in the Air Quality Division to develop odor rules and has indicated that it is 27 unlikely to continue to address feedlot odors through rules. In contrast the 28 control of emissions through monitoring and regulation is firmly established. 29 30 Monitoring an indicator gas also has the advantage of a direct connection to 31 health concern, presumably one of the endpoints of concern. Again, the 32 relation of odor to health impact is poorly understood. While it is clear that some 33 people respond to odors with nonspecific symptoms such as headaches and 34 nausea, the response appears to be highly individual and the basis for the 35 response, whether primarily toxicological or psychological, has not been 36 determined. In contrast, the health impacts of a specific emission can be 37 determined, at least in theory, through toxicological and/or epidemiological 38 studies. For example, there is a fair amount of scientific literature on the health 39 effects of hydrogen sulfide and this literature can form the basis for establishing 40 safe levels of exposure. 41 42 Lastly, monitoring an indicator compound could provide immediate feedback 43 regarding the adequacy of existing controls or the efficacy of new controls. This 44 would provide producers with a clear goal to shoot for, and relevant information 45 on whether the goal has been achieved. 46 47 Unfortunately, despite all the obvious advantages of monitoring an indicator 48 compound, no consistently adequate indicator compound has been identified. 49 As noted in the background section for this problem statement, there are so numerous factors that affect the quality and intensity of livestock odor and the 51 generation of emissions from livestock waste. Thus a specific gas such as 52 hydrogen sulfide may be closely related to odor offensiveness at one facility but 53 be an unimportant contributor at another. Therefore, focusing on monitoring 54 and control of one specific compound might lead to the expenditure of large 22 3/5/97 3:34 PM 1 sums of money and effort without resulting in appreciable resolution of the odor 2 problem. 3 4 Performance standard for specific compounds 5 Hydrogen Sulfide Issues and Implications: 6 One option for addressing odor emissions would be to chose a particular 7 reference compound of concern and measure that compound for compliance. 8 A limitation with this method is that no one compound has been shown to 9 correlate well with odor levels. However, hydrogen sulfide is emerging as a 10 compound of concern from certain livestock facilities. 11 12 Ambient air quality monitoring that was done in the vicinity of large swine 13 facilities in 1995 and 1996, by both concerned citizens as well as by Renville 14 County and the MPCA, found levels of hydrogen sulfide that, at times, 15 appeared to exceed state standards and which have been characterized as a 16 human health concern by the Minnesota Department of Health. MPCA efforts 17 in response to this problem have included the installation of a continuous 18 monitoring station for reduced sulfur in the vicinity of two of the swine facilities. 19 There has also been a significant amount of field work to determine if hydrogen 20 sulfide is likely the only compound of significant concern, to see how the reduced 21 sulfur levels at the swine facilities compare with other emission sources in the area, 22 and to test less costly methods for measuring sulfur compounds at these facilities. 23 24 Data thus far indicates that hydrogen sulfide is the key compound of concern. 25 The data also seems to indicate that higher hydrogen sulfide levels are found at 26 swine facilities than at cattle or poultry facilities. 27 28 The discovery of hydrogen sulfide near swine facilities at levels that appear to 29 exceed state ambient air quality standards and which have been 30 characterized as a human health concern, has major implications for the 31 industry and for the MPCA Feedlot Program. The state ambient air quality 32 standards for hydrogen sulfide read as follows: 33 34 CHAPTER 7009, MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY, AIR QUALITY DIVISION, 35 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS 36 37 7009.0010 DEFINITIONS. 38 Subpart 1. Scope. For the purpose of parts 7009.0010 to 7009.0080, the 39 following terms have the meanings given them. 40 Subp. 2. Primary ambient air quality standards; primary standards. 41 "Primary ambient air quality standards" or "primary standards" mean levels 42 established to protect the public health from adverse effects. The adverse 43 effects that the standards should protect against include acute or chronic 44 subjective symptoms and physiological changes that are likely to interfere with 45 normal activity in healthy or sensitive individuals or to interfere unreasonably with 46 the enjoyment of life or property. 47 Subp. 3. Secondary ambient air quality standards; secondary standards. 48 "Secondary ambient air quality standards" or "secondary standards" mean 49 levels established to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated so adverse effects, such as injury to agricultural crops and livestock, damage to or 51 deterioration of property, annoyance and nuisance of persons, or hazards to air 52 and ground transportation. 53 23 3/5/97 3:34 PM The ambient air quality standards for hydrogen sulfide are as follows: Pollutant/ Primary Secondary Air Contaminant Standard StandardRemarks Hydrogen Sulfide 0.05 ppm by 1/2 hour average volume (70.0 not to be micrograms per exceeded over 2 cubic meter) times per year .03 ppm by 1/2 hour average volume(42.0 not to be micrograms per exceeded over 2 cubic meter) times in any 5 consecutive days. 2 24 3/5/97 3:34 PM 1 This same standard contains requirements for measurement methodology. 2 3 7009.0060 MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY FOR HYDROGEN SULFIDE. 4 For hydrogen sulfide, measurements made to determine compliance with 5 the standards shall be performed in accordance with any measurement 6 method approved by the commissioner. The commissioner shall approve a 7 measurement method where the sensitivity, precision, accuracy, response time, 8 and interference levels of the method are comparable to that of the 9 measurement methods for the other pollutants described in part 7009.0050; and 10 when the person seeking to take the measurement has developed and 11 submitted to the agency a quality assurance plan that provides operational 12 procedures for each of the activities described in Code of Federal Regulations, 13 as amended, title 40, part 58, appendix A.2.2, Quality Assurance Requirements 14 for State and Local Air Monitoring Stations. 15 16 There are a variety of test methods available for measuring hydrogen sulfide. 17 There is a significant range in the cost as well as in the accuracy and precision of 18 these test methods.. It appears that the lower cost methods of testing for 19 hydrogen sulfide do not meet the above rule requirements. 20 21 The rule governing the issuance of permits by the MPCA is MN Rule 7001. 22 Specifically, MN Rule 7001.0140 contains justification for the denial of a permit 23 application. 24 25 Subp. 2. Agency findings. The following findings by the agency constitute 26 justification for the agency to refuse to issue a new or modified permit, 27 to refuse permit reissuance, or to revoke a permit without reissuance: 28 A. that with respect to the facility or activity to be permitted, the 29 proposed permittee or permittees will not comply with all applicable 30 state and federal pollution control statutes and rules administered by 31 the agency, or conditions of the permit; ... 32 D. that the permitted facility or activity endangers human health and 33 the environment and that the danger cannot be removed by a 34 modification of the conditions of the permit; 35 36 As discussed earlier, it appears that some feedlots, though likely a small 37 percentage of sites, have exceeded the state ambient air quality standard for 38 hydrogen sulfide. Due to a lack of information on which facilities have hydrogen 39 sulfide emission problems, and which ones do not, it is difficult to predict which 40 facilities may exceed the above standards. Therefore to address item A as well 41 as item D above, hydrogen sulfide monitoring will likely be necessary in permits for 42 certain large feedlots, particularly those for swine, at least until this problem is 43 better understood. 44 45 It seems both possible and reasonable to use a lower cost test method in such 46 monitoring to screen for possible problems. Where a possible problem is 47 discovered, additional monitoring as well as efforts to reduce emissions would be 48 required in these permits. 49 5o Reducing hydrogen sulfide levels can be expected to reduce odors, since 51 hydrogen sulfide is an odorous compound. However, it is very possible to have 52 strong odors and low hydrogen sulfide levels. Therefore hydrogen sulfide efforts 53 will not likely eliminate odor issues at livestock facilities. 25 3/5/97 3:34 PM 1 2 3 'Modeling 4 Another method to determine a facility's odor impact on the surrounding 5 community is through the use of computer modeling. Computer modeling of 6 odor movement and dispersion is a useful tool to be used with odor emission 7 measurements to compare expected ambient air concentrations of odor and 8 gases. Dispersion modeling is currently used as a tool to regulate gas emissions 9 from industrial facilities. Computer models use local weather and topographic 10 data, combined with expected headspace concentrations from various sources 11 at the site, to determine potential gas concentrations at various locations 12 around a facility. This method can also be used to predict odor concentrations 13 from facilities, improving siting of new facilities in order to prevent odor complaints 14 (when combined with adequate land-use planning to prevent nearby, 15 downwind development). Both Netherlands and Germany and currently use 16 some form of odor modeling in the process of siting new livestock facilities. 17 18 Dispersion modeling can be used as a first step in evaluating the odor impact of 19 proposed sites. However, in order to predict the impact of odors on a 20 surrounding community the actual odor emissions from a facility must be 21 quantified. This is difficult because odor emissions from livestock facilities vary 22 significantly by management practice, season, and system design. Initial 23 research is being done to try to quantify the actual emissions, using headspace 24 measurements, from various types of livestock facilities, but more research is 25 needed. 26 27 28 References: 29 Sweeten, J.M., 1995 Odor Measurement Technology and Applications: A State- 30 Of-The-Art Review. In Seventh International Symposium on Agricultural and Food 31 Processing Wastes. pp. 214-229. ASAE, St. Joseph Michigan 32 33 O'Neill, D.H. and V.R. Phillips J., Agricultural Engineering Research 1992 53, 23-50A 34 review of the control of nuisance odors from livestock buildings: Part 3, Properties 35 of the odorous substances which have been identified in Livestock Wastes or in 36 the air around them. 37 38 Klarenbeek, J.V. and T.A. van Harreveld, 1988 "On the regulations, measurement 39 and abatement of odours emanating from livestock housing in the Netherlands. 40 International Odor Conference '95 Iowa State University. 41 42 Paduch, M., "Present State of VDI-Guidelines on Odour Assessment; In Volatile 43 emissions from livestock farming and sewage operations; pg. 38-42. Elsivier 44 Applied Science 26 3/5/97 3:34 PM 1 2 3 Problem Statement 4 5 How should government policy motivate development and use of design and 6 management techniques to prevent or control odor? 7 ► 8 9 Alternatives and Pros/Cons 10 Prescriptive:Methods 11 12 Prescriptive Methods 13 One possible approach to controlling odor is to prescribe methods that are 14 acceptable. This differs from a performance standard which simply sets out the 15 goal to be achieved or a voluntary best management practice . The intent is to 16 identify technologies, and practices that are found, through some means, to 17 reduce odors from livestock operations. This is similar to a best management 18 practice except that the latter is voluntary. From the producer perspective, a list 19 of preapproved odor control methods may make the planning and, possibly, 20 the permitting process easier. The drawback is that prescriptive practices will not 21 be as effective for each farm. Technology X may work for Farmer A but not as 22 well for Farmer B. Similarly, prescribing certain technologies does not allow for 23 contingencies 24 25 Another downside to prescriptive methods is that identifying a list of practices 26 has the potential to possibly inhibit or even prevent the incentive for new, more 27 effective and affordable technologies. Most people close to this issue have the 28 view that odor control technology will continue to evolve. It is important that as 29 new technologies are developed, a system for evaluating them exists. 30 31 The theory behhd prescriptive standards is that if an activity is designed or 32 managed in a certain manner, the negative effects of the use can be softened or 33 eliminated. Typical prescriptive standards used in the past have been limits on 34 hours of operation,screening of the activity from neighboring properties or districts, 35 dust control measures as well as various other industry specific standards. 36 37 In the case of odor control from livestock confinement areas, pres.riptive standards 38 that are effective are stil being investigated. Some of the preriptive standards 39 that are being considered for use in this arena are requiring covers on manure 4o storage faclities and using manure appication methods that incorporate the 41 manure into the soil instead of laying it on the surface. Research is being 42 conducted on different management techniques such as manure storage loading 43 rates and frequency to reduce odor, additives to manure to change the odor, 44 addhg oxygen to the manure to change the odor, feed manpulation, and a 27 3/5/97 3:34 PM I wealth of other methods currently being investigated, covered in more detail in 2 other sections of this report. 3 4 The difficulty of using prescriptive standards is that they can raise expectations that 5 if the standard is carried out, the problem will be solved. In the case of odor 6 management,the level of odor and how many people will be subjected to it may 7 dictate the standard that will be required as in the case of a large faclity near a 8 population center(city or subdivision). However, if the standard is to reduce, but 9 not eliminate the odor, conflicts may stil arise. 10 11 Prescriptive standards may also beccme problematic in determining how much 12 and under what circumstances. A feedlot in a low population area that is 13 impacting a few people not invdved in the feedlot may be expected to perform 14 at an odor control level simlar to a feedlot in close proximity to a population 15 center. 16 17 Production System Components 18 19 Odor control at livestock facilities is an integral part of the entire livestock manure 20 system. Obviously, odors will be generated at livestock facilities regardless of odor 21 prevention precaution. This being the case, the next step is management of 22 odor. Significant attention has been directed towards methods of controlling 23 odor from livestock facilities." 24 25 "It is very important to consider the overall operation when you are planning a 26 manure management system. The amount of labor and your present equipment 27 should be major factors. The type of system will be based on manure 28 characteristics, equipment used, site conditions and individual management 29 preference." 30 31 There are six components in a manure management system: 32 1. Production is the amount, type, origin and consistency of manure; 33 2. Collection refers to gathering and initial storage; 34 3. Storage involves the areas used to hold manure until utilization; 35 4. Treatment refers to changing the manure characteristics, e.g., aerobic or 36 anaerobic treatment or additives to reduce odor; 37 5. Transfer refers to the movement of the manure from collection to storage 38 treatment or from storage to utilization; and 39 6. Utilization is the final use of manure such as land application or energy 40 generation." (2). 41 42 When designing a manure handling system, the above functions will have quite 43 different priorities and requirements depending upon the species of poultry and 44 livestock. If a goal of government policy is to motivate the development and use 45 of design and management techniques to prevent or control odor; a method 46 must be established to evaluate each of the components of livestock 47 production systems for each species of livestock. The components of livestock 48 production systems are: production, collection, storage, treatment, transfer and 49 utilization. 50 51 Production varies from solid to liquid depending upon species of animals and 52 housing systems. The characteristics of manure as produced by the animal can 53 be influenced by the feed ration and feed additives. Some feed additives tie 54 up or bind odor generating compounds in the waste while others improve feed 28 3/5/97 3:34 PM I digestibility, thus the animals put out less waste. Size of the operation will affect 2 the amount or volume of odors generated. 3 4 Collection of waste with pull--plug and flushing systems generally reduce the 5 odors in the barns, however the storage and treatment(or lack of treatment) 6 associated with such systems often generate more odors. 7 8 Storage facilities depend upon the storage period and consistency of manure 9 (solid or liquid). Short term storage may take place in the bedded pack pen or 10 shallow pit under slatted floors. Long term storage in deep pits under slatted 11 floors, concrete tanks, earthen basins or lagoons. 12 13 Treatment methods include: Manure additives include bacteria, enzymes, 14 nutrients, biological inhibitors(chlorine, line), pH control chemicals (hydrated 15 lime); oxidizing agents (hydrogen peroxide) and activated carbon (an 16 absorbent). Research projects at Agricultural Utilization Research Institute (AURI) 17 and land grant universities are evaluating some of the 150 or more manure 18 additive products that are now on the market. 19 20 Feed additives may also play a role in controlling the odor which comes directly 21 from the top of slotted floors in hog barns . 22 23 Aerobic treatment methods (aerated storage, oxidation ditches, aerobic 24 lagoons) are generally quite effective in minimizing odor, but are rather costly 25 operations. 26 27 Anaerobic Digestion occurring in open top containers (tanks and lagoons) will 28 give off quite offensive odors. Covered digesters used for methane generation 29 require considerable management and utilize a large part of the gas 30 generated just to keep the system warm in the Minnesota climate. The gas from 31 covered tanks and lagoons may be flared off or treated to further reduce odors. 32 33 Separation of the solids and liquids by mechanical means or settling often will 34 reduce the odors generated during storage of the liquid fraction. The solid 35 fractions may be composted to minimize odors. Composting of the solid fraction 36 will reduce the volume and odors. 37 38 Transfer from collection to storage and storage to utilization may take many 39 forms. The drag-hose system with chisel plow injection in the soil which has 40 become widely accepted in the last five years will greatly reduce odors during 41 field application of liquid manure. 42 43 Utilization will primarily be land application for fertilizer for some time to come. 44 Other uses of manure by-products such as compost will use only a small fraction 45 of the total poultry and livestock manure generated in the state. 46 47 48 Pros 49 The prescriptive method(s) of controlling odors has some advantages over 5o performance standards. 51 52 The ability to measure and compare odors for a livestock facility: 53 a. Would take some of the guess work out of comparing one system vs. 54 another; 29 3/5/97 3:34 PM 1 b. Should not require a specialist; 2 c. May be used in land use zoning; 3 4 The system which is below a given odor rating would be: 5 a. A tool of defense in lawsuits 6 b. Eligible for grants/other financial assistance. 7 Prescriptive methods would be less costly to the producer because it would: 8 a. not require design by environmental specialists; 9 b. not be subject to expensive monitoring; 10 c. deter lawsuits; and/or 11 d. not be charged high insurance premiums. 12 13 Cons 14 mho will evaluate and rate the various alternatives: a citizens committee, 15 MPCA, University of Minnesota (which college), AURI or a private consulting 16 firm? 17 2. Will the rating scheme allow or provide for use of new methods and products, 18 so as not to stifle innovation and development? 19 3. Is there currently enough scientific research data to make a fair rating? 20 4. The system does not consider management skills of owner/operator? 21 22 23 The establishment of an odor rating for each alternative is beyond the time 24 frame of the LOTF. And the number of possible system combinations soon 25 becomes overwhelming. 26 27 References 28 1. Manure Management Alternatives: A Supplemental Manual, MN Dept. of 29 Agriculture, 1995. 30 2. Manure Management Planning Guide for Livestock, MN Dept. of Agriculture, 31 1995. 32 Other 33 The appendix: Separation of Feedlots From Neighbors is based on a simple 34 odor rating (K value). 35 Odor Management Plan 36 37 Another option for addressing odors from livestock facilities would be to require 38 an odor management plan as part of the MPCA permit program. This has been 39 done on certain large facilities. Staff have considered making this a broader 40 requirement. Proponents of this approach say that it forces the facility 41 owner/operator to think about odor management issues, which might not 42 otherwise occur. In a sense, requiring a plan becomes an educational 43 requirement for the producer. 44 45 MPCA staff have developed the following list of items that should be considered 46 in such a plan. 47 48 Air Emissions Management Components 49 The following manure storage design and management 50 components can affect air emissions, odor production, and 51 neighbor perceptions: 30 3/5/97 3:34 PM 1 2 Lagoons 3 4 1. Initial design parameters 5 a. Volatile solids (or volatile fatty acids) loading rate to lagoon 6 (maximum recommended concentration) 7 b. Drinking water sulfur content 8 c. Drinking water pH 9 d. Depth of lagoon 10 e. Surface area of lagoon 11 f. Predominant wind directions during summer 12 g. Landscape setting (e.g. in valley vs. on top of hill, or adjacent to odor 13 corridor) 14 h. Lagoon berm height and effects on local air movement 15 I. Feed ration 16 • CuSO4, crude protein, etc. 17 • deodorants, binding agents, etc. 18 • increase fiber content? 19 j. Windbreaks 20 k. Concrete primary cell, clay-lined secondary cell 21 1. Public relations - inform neighbors of the project 22 23 2. Start-up practices 24 a. Water temperature at start of loading (affects metabolic and reproductive rate 25 of microorganisms) 26 b. Time of year at start-up (e.g. July & August vs. November or December) 27 c. Amount of manure loaded (i.e. concentration) 28 d. Inoculants 29 30 3. Operational issues 31 a. Manure loading frequency or schedule (frequent vs. "slug" loading) 32 b. Monitoring of lagoon contents - set acceptable ranges for operation 33 • pH, temperature, volatile solids or fatty acids, sulfur 34 35 4. Odor suppression techniques 36 a. Covers 37 • floating plastic mats 38 • floating organic mats (straw, peat, etc.) 39 b. Aeration 40 c. Deodorants or odor suppresser sprays (e.g. Odorguard) 41 d. Trees around lagoon perimeter 42 e. Modify wind patterns across lagoon surface 43 f. Odor counteractants 44 45 5. Remediation (requires assessment of reason(s) for upset of system) 46 a. Adjust lagoon "habitat" 47 • pH 48 • manure or volatile solids concentration (e.g. remove solids or add dilution 49 water) 50 • temperature (if modification feasible) 51 • aerate 52 b. Cover lagoon 53 c. Empty lagoon and start over 54 d. Treat with ferric or ferrous chloride (watch pH, though) 55 56 6. Miscellaneous 57 a. Manure solids separation 58 b. Anaerobic digestion 3 1 3/5/97 3:34 PM 1 c. aeration 2 3 This is simply a "laundry list" of things to consider. The list is designed for lagoons, 4 but might be modified for other types of facilities. In its current version, only 5 topics are listed. No guidance is given regarding the importance or use of any of 6 these factors in reducing odors. That information is available from other sources, 7 but in scattered pieces in a variety of publications. 8 9 Draw backs to this approach include the question of whether requiring a plan 10 does in fact lead to changes in facility design and operation. A predictable 11 outcome of such a requirement would be for consultants to develop standard 12 plans that are submitted for each type of facility. This would lead to higher costs 13 for the producer, but may not result in the education that was hoped for. Also, 14 lacking criteria for the approval or review of these plans, it seems that this would 15 be a weak requirement. 16 17 A factor that will likely lead to the MPCA not making this a requirement is that 18 staff efforts will be needed to focus on the hydrogen sulfide issue. Hydrogen 19 sulfide reduction plans may be required at facilities with documented problems. 20 However, there is no discretionary staff time available to work on odor 21 requirements which are not part of current rules. 22 23 Incentives 24 Managing a livestock farm to control odor is a new approach. While livestock 25 manure has always generated odor, it is only within the past few years that it has 26 become an issue. In those instances where the potential exists for odor to be a 27 concern, a change in the management approach is important. However, 28 change can be cost prohibitive. This section will look at private and public 29 incentives as methods to assist in adjusting management systems to control odor. 30 31 Private Incentives 32 Narrative 33 Examples of private incentives are Minnesota Pork Producers Association (MPPA) 34 Environmental Assurance Program (EAP): and SCAN (Sweden). The EAP program 35 provides information for producers on the environmental aspects of the raising 36 pork. SCAN is producer driven program in Sweden with the goal of reducing the 37 use of antibiotics in livestock production. 38 39 Environmental Assurance Program (EAP) 40 (Information provided by the Minnesota Pork Producers Association) 41 The goal of this educational program is to provide pork producers practical, 42 proactive information which will enable them to identify and economically 43 address the key management issues affecting the environmental quality of 44 their operations and their communities. 45 46 Key elements of the program include: environmental assurance workshops 47 sponsored by state pork producers associations; on-farm assessments to be 48 used as a basis for a voluntary farm environmental management plan to be 49 completed by the producer following the workshop; and a review of the 50 environmental management plan every two to three years at future 51 Environmental Assurance Program events. 52 32 3/5/97 3:34 PM 1 The curriculum for the workshop is tailored to incorporate specific needs for 2 the local county pork producers. Extension educators selected by the 3 Minnesota Pork Producers Association conduct the Environmental Assurance 4 Workshops. 5 6 The workshop is co-sponsored by the county producers association. 7 8 An overview of the curriculum includes: 9 1. Introduction to the Environment - the importance of a sound environment to 10 the pork industry and how improvement in environmental practices can help 11 consumers view the pork industry in a more positive way. 12 2. On-farm inventory-this quick review allows producers to focus on key 13 management areas. 14 3. Key Environmental Management Plan - how to use the on-farm assessment 15 and local expertise to develop a management plan. 16 4. Developing Environmental Management Plan - how to use the on-farm 17 assessment and local expertise to develop a management plan. 18 5. State and Local Regulations - highlights what is required for compliance and 19 how to reduce environmental liability. 20 21 Following completion of the program, producers will better understand the 22 cause-effect relationship between everyday management practices and long- 23 term environmental quality. And they will have the tools to objectively assess 24 their operation. 25 26 At the Environmental Assurance Workshop, pork producers review their 27 operation and learn practical tips they can take back to their farm. It's a way 28 for pork producers to learn new environmental practices that will help them to 29 continue producing pork responsibly. Most producers are doing a good job 30 with their operation from an environmental viewpoint. This program helps 31 them assess their current practices and then do some fine-tuning. This 32 program is another way for pork producers to show their dedication to 33 conserving the environment. 34 35 SCAN 36 Although the Scan program is not an odor program, for the purposes of this 37 discussion, it serves as an example of a program that was developed by the 38 private sector in a attempt to alleviate a problem at a critical control point. 39 Scan, the problem is antibiotic resistant salmonella and coli bacillus. The 40 critical control point is the farm. 41 42 Scan is a Swedish farmers' association that has developed a program to 43 reduce the use of antibiotics in animal production due to the evolution of 44 antibiotic resistant strains of salmonella. The program created a new 45 organizational structure consisting of an animal welfare council, a centrally- 46 placed program coordinator, animal care advisors, regional animal care 47 groups, and animal protection advisors at all animal processing facilities. 48 Scan carries out a number of measures: control and rearing programs; 49 education of processing personnel, transporters, and others; a development 50 program in the area of animal handling and transport; and an evaluation and 51 development program of new rearing systems. 52 53 Benefits 54 A major benefit to the public, of private sector incentives, is that the cost is borne 55 by the producer, not the general population. For the producer, these type of 56 programs are a way to deal with an issue without involving government. Most 57 people are more willing to do something if they are not forced through a 33 3/5/97 3:34 PM 1 mandate or regulation. However if encouragement is necessary, peer pressure 2 from other producers can be effective in improving odor control practices. 3 4 Cons 5 A drawback of private sector incentives is that the industry policing of itself may 6 not be effective. A voluntary system allows for "bad actors" to not improve 7 practices. The incentives can stimulate adoption of better practices but the 8 recourse is limited. 9 10 Public Incentives 11 Narrative 12 As stated at the beginning of the Incentives section, changing management 13 practices can be cost prohibitive. Public incentive programs can be useful to 14 producers implementing odor control practices. This discussion of public 15 incentives will center on financial assistance and a "Green Label" program. 16 17 Financial Assistance 18 Narrative 19 The cost of implementing a manure management system varies depending on 20 the type of system. In many cases, the cost is significant ranging from a few 21 thousand dollars to over $100,000, the Natural Resources Conservation Service 22 (NRCS) estimates the average cost to be approximately $40,000. Such a 23 management practice is important, but difficult for operators to absorb. The 24 cost of this type of environmental practice does not add anything directly to the 25 producer's short-term bottom line. For this reason both the state and federal 26 governments have established financial assistance programs to serve as both 27 incentive and aid in implementing management practices that provide a 28 benefit to the state's residents. Three primary assistance programs are available. 29 However, each focus on providing water quality protection. Whether odor 30 reduction/control measures would be included is currently being investigated. 31 32 A brief description of each of the programs is given below: 33 34 State Cost-Share Program: 35 (from information provided by the Board of Water & Soil Resources (BWSR)) 36 The Erosion, Sediment Control, and Water Quality Cost-Share Program (C-S 37 Program) provides funds to soil and water conservation districts (SWCDs) to 38 cost-share on priority projects. One of the Minnesota Board of Water and 39 Soil Resources' (BWSRs') first implementation programs, it began in 1977 40 and usually receives an annual appropriation of approximately $2 million. 41 The C-S Program provides technical and financial assistance to landowners 42 who install permanent, nonproduction-oriented practices designed to protect 43 and improve soil and water resources. 44 45 The C-S Program's funding is appropriated from the state's general fund. 46 Public tax dollars are made available to individual landowners through the 47 BWSR and SWCDs to share the costs associated with reducing soil erosion or 48 improving or protecting a water resource. Enabling Minnesota Statutes guide 49 the administration of the program to ensure program funds are used to 50 effectively treat problems having a significant environmental consequence, 51 on-site and off-site. 52 53 Generally, this funding is provided to SWCDs in grant amounts ranging from 54 $5,000 to $50,000 per district. A portion of the program funds are allocated 34 3/5/97 3:34 PM 1 via a competitive process for special projects. The money funds anywhere 2 from one to ten projects annually in each district. Projects eligible for the C-S 3 Program include erosion control structures, striperopping, terraces, grassed 4 waterways, diversions, storm water control systems, field windbreaks, animal 5 waste control systems, and critical area stabilization. The district board of 6 supervisors is given the authority to decide which resource problems within 7 their jurisdiction are most deserving of financial assistance, as well as the 8 amount of assistance (not to exceed 75 percent of the eligible costs for high 9 priority practices and not to exceed 50 percent for secondary priority 10 practices). Cultural or management systems, like conservation tillage or 11 rotational grazing systems, are not considered to be permanent practices; 12 therefore, they are not eligible for the C-S Program. 13 14 As part of the C-S Program, districts can utilize up to 20 percent of their 15 allocation for technical assistance costs such as salaries, travel, 16 communications, and equipment. 17 18 The BWSR administers this program at the state level; locally, it is 19 administered by the districts. Authorization and administrative guidelines for 20 the C-S Program are found in Minnesota Statutes (M.S.) 103.501 and Chapter 21 8400. 22 23 Local people identifying and solving local resource problems is the key 24 ingredient to the success of the state C-S Program. Practices installed with 25 funding from the program often stem from a cooperative effort put forth by 26 the land occupiers, local government units (LGUs), and state and federal 27 agencies. These partnerships, combined with comprehensive natural resource 28 planning to identify high priority problems to target cost-share assistance, 29 result in treating resource problems that are having a negative impact on 30 society. 31 32 33 Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP (which includes the 34 former Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) federal cost-share 35 program): 36 This new program was included in the conservation provisions in the 1996 37 Farm Bill. The specific program rules are still evolving. The program 38 consolidates the functions of four existing conservation programs into one 39 and focuses assistance to locally-identified conservation priority areas or areas 40 where agricultural improvement will help meet water quality goals. The 41 program will be funded nationally, at the level of$200 million annually. 42 EQIP will fund incentive payments for management practices and cost- 43 sharing on conservation practices. Fifty percent of the funds are dedicated to 44 conservation associated with livestock operations. 45 46 Although program implementation is still sketchy, it appears Natural Resource 47 Conservation Service (NRCS) will have overall administration of the program 48 with Farm Service Agency (FSA) responsible for county sign-ups. A state 49 technical committee will make recommendations on implementation. H.R. 50 CONF. REP. NO. 2854, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. (1996). 51 52 Agriculture Best Management Practices(BMP) Loan Program (a.k.a. State 53 Revolving Fund): 54 The program is administered by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture 55 and local units of government with technical assistance provided by regional 56 Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) and Soil and Water Conservation 57 District (SWCD) staff. Funding is from the federal Environmental Protection 58 Agency (EPA). The Loan Program is a response to needs expressed by local 35 3/5/97 3:34 PM 1 governments, agricultural producers and natural resources agencies for 2 financial incentives for water quality practices. The program provides low 3 interest financing to farmers, agriculture supply businesses and rural 4 landowners to encourage agriculture best management practices that prevent 5 or mitigate nonpoint source pollution. Local governments apply for an 6 allocation from MDA. Local governments work through local lenders to 7 deliver the loan program. 8 9 An example of one eligible activity is improvements of animal waste control 10 facilities. At this time, it is uncertain whether odor control practices will be 11 eligible outside of nonpoint source pollution prevention or mitigation. 12 Eligibility is currently being investigated. 13 14 References 15 H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 2854 104th Congress, 2d Session (1996) pp. 114-120. 16 17 Questions yet to answer 18 1. Should odor control practices be included as an eligible cost for financial 19 assistance programs? 20 2. Will odor reduction methods alone be admissible for inclusion in each of the 21 financial assistance programs? 22 3. Will odor reduction methods in combination with water quality objectives be 23 admissible for inclusion in each of the financial assistance programs, i.e. if 24 putting in an earthen pond with a cover is the cost of the cover included by 25 the funds? 26 4. Who will determine what is to be covered? 27 5. If not included, what needs to be done to include? 28 29 (combined green label section from team 3) 30 Best Management Practice-based Odor Control 31 32 Green Label Another system which serves to regulate odor emissions is either 33 mandating or approving types of manure management practices are 34 acceptable. Although this process does nothing to define "how much is too • 35 much", it is a way to definitively reduce total odor emissions. This type of 36 regulatory approach could be based on the Netherlands policy for reducing 37 ammonia emissions. 38 39 In the Netherlands, the national government has set a goal for 2005 of reducing 40 total ammonia emissions by 70%of the ammonia emissions in 1980. To do this, 41 several systems of manure management are being developed and tested. If 42 these systems reduce ammonia emissions by 40 to 60%(depending on category 43 of animal), they are classified as "Green Label" systems (GL). If producers adopt 44 such a system or practice, apply for the program by providing a technical 45 description of the total farm system (i.e., farm layout, manure management, and 46 operating procedures), and document the required ammonia emissions, they 47 are GL certified. The plan adopted for the farm evaluates the amount of 48 ammonia emitted by each component of the farm and the total emission 49 reduction is calculated for the various technologies which will be used on that so farm. Certification entitles farmers to a special depreciation rate for income 51 taxes and the guarantee that they will not have to rebuild their facility in the 52 next 15 years as a result of new government regulations. Approximately 22 53 different livestock housing systems are being marketed as GL systems. 54 36 3/5/97 3:34 PM 1 In the case of odors, the certification of certain management practices or system 2 designs that reduce odor emissions does not guarantee the area surrounding the 3 facility will be odor free. Also, in the Dutch system ammonia reductions are on a 4 per pig basis; therefore, a larger facility will still emit a large amount of ammonia. 5 Similarly, a large swine facility that has reduced odors on a per pig basis may be 6 emitting a significant amount of odors. To solve this problem, there could be limits 7 placed on the total amount of odors produced by individual facilities. Facilities 8 could be rewarded if they meet these odor emission criteria. 9 10 A modification of the Dutch system would be for farmers to prepare an odor 11 reduction plan as part of the application for a conditional use permit. The plan 12 would detail those technologies and management practices for reducing odors 13 which are best suited to that particular operation. Once approved by the local 14 zoning board, the plan would become law by its inclusion in the conditional use 15 permit. 16 17 The advantages to these systems are that the producer can chose the most 18 economical and appropriate solutions for his operation and the producer gains 19 some predictability in what will be expected of him/her. It also allows for less 20 restrictive standards and less expensive technologies for those facilities which are 21 unlikely to cause problems, either due to lower surrounding population densities 22 or other factors. 23 24 The disadvantages are that the local zoning board, or another regulatory 25 agency, must evaluate each proposal and each technology proposed. If 26 handled poorly (i.e., government inflexibility, long/complex approval process, or 27 public resistance to new technologies), this may result in stifling innovations in 28 technologies. On the other hand, if handled correctly, such a system may 29 actually stimulate innovations as researchers and companies compete to create 30 more efficient and cost effective technologies. 31 32 Another disadvantage is that someone must select an "enforceable" odor level 33 or determine how much odor reduction is to be achieved. Selecting such a level 34 is hard enough when basing it on human health effects, it is infinitely more 35 difficult when it is based on odor offensiveness. 36 37 38 Education 39 A award systems can serve as the incentive for producers to seek information on 40 the latest management practices. 41 42 References 43 "New Housing System for Pigs: Dutch Policy Ammonia Emission and Costs., N. 44 Verdoes, J.A.M., Voermans and C.E.P. van Brake; Research Institute for Pig 45 Husbandry, Rosmalen, Netherlands. 46 No Response/Do Nothing rc 47 Narrative: 48 Not responding or doing nothing regarding this issue, although controversial, is an 49 option for the state to take. Under this scenario, the state would not follow-up 50 on complaints about odor from livestock operations. 37 3/5/97 3:34 PM 1 2 Benefits 3 The benefits of such an approach is the savings in dollars and time on both the 4 front and tail ends. A policy of no regulations for odor from livestock operations 5 will reduce the amount of "red tape" producers have to go through in 6 becoming permitted as well as meeting other environmental standards for their 7 operation. The reduction, (and/or avoidance, if other options presented in this 8 report were to be adopted), of red tape and regulators time as well as a cost 9 savings in expenses, personnel, and legal fees. Regulators would not have to 10 divert time from other responsibilities such as permitting, and inspecting feedlots 11 for compliance with water quality regulations. 12 13 Cons 14 Despite the savings in time and dollars to the state, the cost of no regulations 15 would be born to the system overall, meaning that the courts would probably 16 be used more heavily to reduce conflict between neighbors and define how 17 much odor is too much. 18 19 Another drawback of the state not responding to odor from livestock operations 20 is that a segment of the population will probably not accept that as a viable 21 option. The MPCA is in the process of revising the rules regulating feedlots within 22 the state. During a comment period to identify areas for consideration in the 23 feedlot rule revision, approximately 80 percent of the comments the Feedlot 24 Program received were regarding odor.. 38 3/5/97 3:34 PM Certificationiresting 2 . _. ., 3 Narrative 4 This alternative would require a certification/testing program for producers 5 and/or others working with manure. Odor management could be included as a 6 component in an overall manure management certification program. In the 7 case of odor, the certification/training would be for the producer/operator, not 8 the system. Minnesota's Pesticide Applicators program is one example of an 9 existing certification program that possibly could serve as a model. 10 11 As a result of a mandate contained in the 1972 Federal Environmental Pesticide 12 Control Act(FEPCA), Minnesota developed a statewide program that provides 13 for the training and certification of pesticide applicators. Responsibility for 14 training lies with the Minnesota Extension Service and certification is the 15 responsibility of the Minnesota Department of Agriculture. You must be certified 16 before you can purchase or apply a restricted use pesticide. Training provides 17 information on proper application procedures and safety precautions for 18 handling pesticides. 19 20 M.S. Chapt. 186.30 contains Pesticide Use License Requirements. The statute 21 delineates five license categories: 22 • pesticide dealers - sells restricted use or bulk pesticide to the pesticide end 23 user; 24 • structural or aquatic pest control; 25 • commercial applicator- applies pesticide for hire; 26 • noncommercial applicator- applies pesticide for employer in performance of 27 official duties; and 28 • private applicator- required for use to produce an agricultural commodity. 29 30 The private applicator category applies to farmers. Certification is good for three 31 years; and requires the passing of an examination. Statute sets a nonrefundable 32 application fee of $10. Statute does not state that records be kept by private 33 applicators. 34 35 MPCA is considering certification of land application for water quality, if the 36 program progresses odor control certification could be incorporate into the 37 training. However, for a certification/training program to be successful it would 38 be necessary to identify the producers. In the case of crop protection 39 applicators, dealers are required to verify proof of farmer license before selling 40 pesticide products to a farmer. Manure/odor certification is more difficult 41 because there is not as clear of a point of contact as in the case of crop 42 protection chemicals. As a result, a manure/odor management certification 43 would be dependent upon identifying livestock producers. The challenge is how 44 to identify the estimated 35,000 livestock producers. 45 46 The state of Illhois passed an act in the 1995-96 sesson defning setbacks for 47 feedlots, based on size of feedlot and residence or population center. They 48 established a trailing progam for livestock operators requiring that they become 49 certified livestock managers trailed in various envionmental factors including odor 39 3/5/97 3:34 PM I control techniques. Any operator havhg 300 animal units or more must beccme 2 certified. 3 4 5 Benefits 6 A 1993 report from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture identifies that the 7 level of understanding among producers of regulations and practices of manure 8 management varies. The use of a certification program, will enhance the 9 likelihood of a consistent level of knowledge of management practices among 10 producers. 11 12 Cons 13 Currently, MPCA estimates Minnesota to have 35,000 feedlots. Two obstacles 14 must be overcome for a certification program to work. First, no inventory of 15 feedlots exists. A comprehensive effort to identify the locations of the state's 16 feedlots would be necessary. The second obstacle is the manageability of such 17 a program and its cost. Identifying the location of feedlots could be expensive. 18 Likewise the mechanics of running a program could increase the bureaucracy. 19 Another challenge is enforcement. For enforcement to be effective, MPCA must 20 know "who is out there". 21 22 Education 23 In the case of pesticides, certification (and recertification) provides an 24 opportunity for producers to become familiar with the latest information on 25 products, regulations, technology, and research. A similar opportunity would 26 exist with a manure management certification program. 27 28 References 29 • Minnesota Statutes Chapter 18B (extract from 1994 MN Statutes including 30 amendments from 1995 Legislative Session) pp. 21-33. 31 • "Feedlot Waste Management Study" by Angus Reid Group for the Minnesota 32 Department of Agriculture (February, 1994) 33 40 3/5/97 3:34 PM 1 2 Problem Statement 3 4 What is the relationship of land use to odor? Parts of this question are: 5 • What activities could each level of government do to reduce conflict? 6 • Can the odor problem be reduced through land use planning? 7 • Is odor itself the land use conflict? If solved, would the land use problem evaporate? 8 9 10 11 In any discussion of reducing the impact of livestock odor on a population, the 12 subject of land use invariably arises. The concept of separating different land uses 13 in order to reduce the conflicts between the uses is inherent in zonhg. Setbacks 14 and buffer zones have commonly been a tool used in zonhg to amelorate the 15 effects of a land use that has impact beyond the boundaries of the district in 16 which the use is located, such as noise, light, vibrations, electrical interference or 17 odor. The other tools avalable in land use controls are specific performance 18 standards focused on controlling the possble negative aspects of a land use. 19 20 SEPARATION 21 In the case of agricultural land uses the buffering and setback issue is not as clear 22 cut as in urban land uses Livestock have typically been a part of agriculture but 23 as specialization occurs in the ag sector, and the numbers of livestock on a 24 particular site have increased, the assumption that all agricultural land uses are 25 compatible within the same district comes into question. The problems inherent in 26 separation distances to deal with odor from livestock are: 27 1. How far is enough to satisfy the problem? 28 2. Does the separation deny the right of the land owner from using his land as 29 zoned? 30 3. What should the separation be from i.e., other farm sites, non-farm 31 residential homes or clusters, other zonhg districts? 32 33 A proposal developed by Robert Mensch, an agricultural engheer, suggests a 34 varying separation distance based upon multiplying factors of number of animal 35 units, type of housng and manure handling system and character of neijlboring 36 land use. The basic distance based on animal units ranges from 450' for 100 a.u. to 37 2,000' for 10,000 a.u.. Using this system, a 3,000 head hog total confinement deep 38 pit barn would be set back 1/2 mile from 12 housng units, down to 1/4 mile from 1 39 housng unit. 40 41 Reference: (Separation of Feedlots from Neighbors. Robert Menmh, 9 Feb. 1996) 42 43 44 Existing Standards A study of selected Minnesota livestock production counties zoning and land use (so) ordinances reveals the following with regard to setbacks for construction or expansion of livestock facilities: 41 3/5/97 3:34 PM Setback feature distance range From neighboring residences 500'- 3/4 miles Property lines 50'- 200' Parks 100'- 1 mile Subdivisions 1/4 mile- 1 mile Municipal Boundaries 12 mile- 1 mile Other feedlots if> 300 a.u. 1/4 mile 1 2 Reference: Draft matrix of So. MN County Feedot Ordnance provisions. MCEA 1996 3 4 The State of Iowa has,set in statute, separation distances for livestock faclities from 5 residences not owned by the owner of the feedlot, commercial uses religious 6 institutions or educational institutions. The distances are based on the number of 7 animals in the faclity, type of animal (bovine and others)and type of storage. The 8 setbacks range from 750'to 2500. 9 Reference: Iowa Statutes Section 455B 10 11 A telephone survey done in January 1995 of setback standards for feedlots in 12 counties in California, Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, 13 Missouri, Nebraska, North Cardina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and 14 Wisconsin showed that of the 46 counties surveyed, 17 have setbacks ranging from 15 100'to 1 mile for feedlots from residences or other types of populated areas. Some 16 listed setbacks from water bodies, but the setbacks were generally of a lesser 17 distance than from populations. 18 19 Of States reguating setbacks, the folbwing distances are requred for the listed uses: Stale Use Setback Indiana earthen manure bashs from residences 1000 pubic buildings 1500 built up areas 2000 other 500'-1300' Kansas feedlots, incl. manure storage: property lines, water supplies 100' (40 acre mini-num) Nebraska manure storage: domestic wells 100' pubic water supply wells 100' North Cardina feedlot: property line 2500 Manure storage from highway 1000 US waters 250' 20 Reference: Feedlot regulations phone survey, Scott Allen, Rice Co. 1995 21 22 Another setback method currently being consdered for use in some counties has 23 been to increase or reduce setback distances depending on the prevailing wind 24 directions. 25 26 An issue that arises with regard to using setbacks is the fact that a 1/4 mile setback 27 impacts a 125 acre radius around the feedlot, and a 1/2 mile setback impacts in 28 excess of 500 acres around the feedlot. This can lead to allegations that the 42 3/5/97 3:34 PM I setbacks are preventing landowners from using thee land for a reasonable use 2 generally allowed in the district. 3 4 Should Minnesota, like the other states listed above, establish a separation 5 distance for feedlots from other uses? Part of this question would need to address if 6 the state standard would be a setback that counties could individually make 7 more or less restrictive, or if it would preempt counties from setting other standards. 8 9 The separation distance would need to take into account the factors of the type 10 of animal at the faciity, the manure handling system in place, the number of 11 animals on the site and any odor control technology being utilzed. 12 13 At issue is the effectiveness of using separation distance for odor control. Distance 14 alone may not be an adequate solution. At the same time, preventing other uses 15 from encroaching into feedlot setback areas would be an important part of any 16 effort to control odor. 17 18 As discussed above, the basic premise of land use planning is to provide zonhg 19 districts where like uses may be grouped together to faclitate the compatibility of 20 the uses. Within the zonhg district, there may be separation distances for various 21 uses based on the impact of the specific use to neighboring uses 22 23 Within the agricultural zonhg districts in counties, houses as well as feedlots are 24 usually allowed uses. This has been the case because of the nature of farming in 25 this region. The operator of the farm lived on or near the land they farmed. The 26 house was there because the farming activity was there. Where there has been 27 extensive housng development intermixed in agricultural districts, the conflicts 28 arigng from changes in agriculture have been very magnified. 29 30 With the changes in agriculture over the years, and particulary with livestock 31 confinement odors, the inccmpatiblity of housng with this type of agriculture has 32 become apparent. A possble solution to this may be to treat livestock 33 confinement differently than other agricultural activities. An agricultural district that 34 would allow only crop production and perhaps limited livestock production, and 35 another that would permit confinement units may be a solution simiar to what 36 urban areas have done with light and heavy industrial districts. This approach has 37 been adopted by 1 County in Minnesota at this time, with the variation that smal 38 (under 300 animal units) may be allowed in the crop agricultural district. 39 40 In summary, the land use controls trend has been to attempt to reduce the effect 41 of odor from livestock faclities though putting space between the livestock and 42 the people. The more anirnals and/or the more people, the greater the distance. 43 This has not always worked to solve the odor problem, since odor can travel for 44 long distances under certain topographic and atmospheric conditions. For this 45 reason, other measures have been empbyed at the local level to resdve the 46 conflict. 47 48 Where local controls have not been effective in preserving prime agricultural land, 49 it may be a role of the state to mandate a loss control progam for this resources. 50 The Sustainable Development Task force is currently looking at the growth patterns 51 of the state, and this effort may well lead to some such mandate. 52 53 54 MITIGATION/MIXING 43 3/5/97 3:34 PM 1 Inherent in land use regulation is the concept of performance standards to 2 mitigate problems for different activities. This is a method whereby a use that could 3 have negative impacts on neighboring land uses within a district is subject to 4 certain standards that will reduce the conflict. 5 6 Since a basic precept in zonng is to allow simiar land uses in different zones that will 7 be compatible with each other, determining the level of odor that is acceptable 8 from a faciity would be very important for setting performance standards on odor 9 control as a base. A key issue with performance standards is that if they are 10 incorporated into a land use ordnance, they must be effective in obtaining the 11 desred results. Another factor to consder would be the abiity of the governing unit 12 to enforce compliance with any performance standards. 13 14 An area that has confinement livestock faclities in close prodmity to high densty 15 residential uses may requ're extensive mitigation measures to reduce the conflict 16 from odor. Where an activity that creates a lot of odor is located sufficiently far 17 away from other uses that the odor is not detectable, then the activity would be 18 exempt from the mitigation measures. 19 20 21 LEVELS OF RESPONSIBILITY 22 Minnesota State Statutes provide that controls of land use and zonng be done at 23 a local level through the use of comprehensive planning and zonng ordhances. 24 The power to zone rests with Cities, Counties and Townships. 25 26 As discussed above, zonng may address odor control measures through setbacks, 27 performance standards, zonng district use restrictions and the permitting process. 28 Counties and Townships have attempted to deal with odor by regulating the 29 location and size of feedlots and attaching conditions to the operations through 30 either the conditional use permit process or performance standards. 31 32 A survey of 17 South Minnesota County zonng ordhances reveal that 6 of them 33 require a conditional use permit for feedlots over 300 animal units, 2 for over 1,000 34 animal units, 1 for over 100 animal units, one for over 600 animal units. 8 of them 35 require conditional use permits for earthen manure storage basks. There are 36 various other provisions within ordhances which address odor such as manure 37 appication methods, setbacks on residences for manure appication and 38 development of odor control measures. Townships who have adopted land use 39 controls have used simiar measures to address odors. • 40 41 There are pros and cons relating to havhg the control of feedlot locations at 42 different levels of government. They are summarized below. 43 44 STATE ROLE 45 The advantage to the state takhg a strcng position with regard to where feedlots 46 may be located is that it creates uniformity throughout the state. This can serve to 47 reduce conflict at the local level, since the local politicians may be preempted 48 from doing more restrictive standards. This would also serve to carry out a policy of 49 protecting the feedlot industry from being zoned out of large areas of the state. 50 The disadvantage is that the state cannot be aware of the local conditions that 51 would impact the proper sithg of a feedlot. Additionally, the pubic may resent a 52 strcng role by the state in dictating land use. 53 54 COUNTY ROLE 44 3/5/97 3:34 PM 1 The advantage of county implemented land use controls, are the fle)ability for local 2 land use conditions. There may also be a strong perception by the pubic that 3 local control will be more responsive to the needs. The cons are that local control 4 is subject to the local pressures and personal agendas and that is leads to a lack 5 of statewide uniformity. 6 7 TOWNSHIP ROLE 8 Townships have increasingly taken over the feedlot sithg issue where the cittens 9 may have felt that thei. concerns were not addressed at the county level. The 10 downside is that Townships generally do not have a sufficient tax base or 11 experience to perform the functions efficiently. It also creates conflicts between the 12 townships within a county, and may conflict with the county comprehensive plan. 13 The neighbor conflicts at the township level can make controversial issues turn 14 arbitrary and capricious. 15 16 Recently, there have been court cases that have muddied the areas of 17 responsibiity between the 3 levels of government. It may be necessary to have a 18 legislative clarification of the different roles of each level with regard to feedlots and 19 land use. 20 21 45 3/5/97 3:34 PM 1 ► 2 3 4 Problem Statement 5 What should the government policy be on how much odor a community or individual 6 should have to tolerate: 7 8 9 10 Background 11 12 One of the primary questions that must be addressed with any odor policy or 13 regulation is the question how much odor should be tolerated by individuals or 14 the community, or in other words: "how much odor is too much?". This question is 15 the core of the current odor controversy. 16 17 Everyone agrees that there have always been odors generated from livestock 18 production. Apparently the odors generated in the past were not considered 19 to be "too much", although historical documents indicate that at times even 20 small farms generated too much odor. The frequency and intensity of odors 21 from the small farms of the past were possibly different and more than likely less 22 intense and less frequent than the current odors generated by current facilities. 23 Somewhere in the transition, the odors being generated have gone from 24 tolerable to extremely controversial. Two factors contribute to this phenomenon: 25 the increasing density of livestock operations which leads to a high density of 26 manure, and the increasing numbers of people — both farm and non-farm 27 residents — living in rural areas. 28 29 This also raises a further question in the odor debate: is odor a problem if nobody 30 is exposed to it? What if only one person, or only a few people, are exposed? 31 Can the complaints of one or a few people be allowed to inhibit the economic 32 development of rural areas and limit the ability of producers to expand their 33 operations? Clearly, health standards must be enforced for all members of 34 society, but what about odors that may simply be a nuisance, not a health 35 threat? And if such a decision is made, that a few people must put up with 36 what would not be acceptable to a larger population, how do we reconcile this 37 with the concept of"equal protection under the law"? These are difficult 38 questions with which local and state decision-makers continue to struggle. 39 40 One further aspect that may confound the issue of setting odor policy is the 41 possibility that some of the odorous or non-odorous gasses emitted from livestock 42 facilities may cause health problems either in the general population, or for 43 certain hypersensitive people. Just as with "Sick Building Syndrome", the 44 symptoms may be varied, and the actual cause and effect difficult to 45 document. However, recent air quality sampling in Minnesota has detected 46 exceedances of proposed health risk values for hydrogen sulfide. Additional 47 research is needed to clarify the relation between human health and livestock 48 odors/emissions. Until then, odor policies need to acknowledge the possibility of 49 these relationships and protect the public from unacceptable exposures. 50 46 3/5/97 3:34 PM 1 Most people will agree that the odors produced from some facilities is "too much". 2 However, attempting to define exactly what"too much" is remains elusive. It may 3 be tempting to mandate a zero odor policy, but this is impractical as livestock 4 production, or any other industry, could not exist with such a policy. Likewise, 5 having no regulation of odors will only result in increased conflict in our rural areas 6 and leaves too many people in an intolerable situation. Therefore, these two 7 extremes are not discussed in this section. Instead an odor policy must strive for 8 some middle ground, protecting the public interest along with the livestock 9 industry. To do this there will most likely be a need for reductions in odor emissions 10 from some facilities and a tolerance of some odors from the public. 11 12 13 Complaint-based 14 .... ,_ 15 One system of regulation that offers some compromise on odor control is one 16 based on complaints from nearby residents. The Minnesota Pollution Control 17 Agency recently proposed a complaint-based policy based on the number of 18 legitimate independent complaints (10) during a given time period (90 days). By 19 stipulating the number of complaints within a given time period, the question 20 "how much odor is too much" was defined. (Current status of policy, at time of 21 writing the proposed rule, was with the administrative law judge). 22 23 The advantage of this type of system is that it addresses the actual problem -- 24 citizen exposure to odors which they find offensive. This avoids the problem of 25 varying responses to odors by different people. This system also allows 26 community members, not government, to decide how much odor is "too much". 27 There are, however, several disadvantages. Some residents may not feel 28 comfortable reporting odors, for a variety of reasons. Other neighbors may 29 complain about odors because they have other, unrelated issues with the 30 producer, leaving the producers "at the mercy" of their neighbors and with no 31 fixed target for odor control or reduction. 32 33 Confirmation of an "odor event" requires rapid response from the appropriate 34 agencies, which may or may not occur. Also, some residents have reported 35 negative health responses without an accompanying offensive odor event. 36 Finally, a uniform number of complaints required to trigger action may not be 37 appropriate as population densities vary across the state -- it is not appropriate 38 to inflict intolerable odors/emissions on residents simply because they are 39 isolated. 40 47 3/5/97 3:34 PM 1 a. 2 Gas concentration(s) based on receptor 3 _. 4 As described above, one of the problems faced by producers is having a fixed 5 target for odor/emissions control and reduction. Also, it has been noted that 6 some emissions may be potentially harmful to human health may or may not 7 contribute to the odor problem at a feedlot operation. One option to address 8 these problems is to base an odor policy, at least in part, on indicator gas 9 concentrations, either through modeling or monitoring. 10 11 The advantages are those already discussed. If an appropriate indicator gas 12 could be identified, one that correlated well with odor, this would provide an 13 optimal solution. In addition, rather than dealing with the unknown relationship 14 between odor and health effects, a risk assessment approach could derive an 15 acceptable concentration which would be protective of the public health. 16 However, there is disagreement over what are acceptable levels-- 17 concentration, frequency and duration — and what are the appropriate 18 methods for measuring gases such as hydrogen sulfide. 19 20 Also, the lack of an appropriate indicator gas has already been described. In 21 addition, this approach would not allow for individual situations. For example, 22 there may be some farms that are sufficiently isolated that they have no impact 23 on surrounding populations. With this approach they would be subject to the 24 same regulatory requirements as farms in populated areas. Of course, 25 depending on the desired outcome, this might not be an undesirable feature, as 26 it would create a level playing field for all farms regardless of location. 27 28 The net result is that this option, alone, could result in expensive monitoring 29 requirements and emission controls that are protective of human health, but do 30 not address the issue of livestock odor. 31 32 33 34 Odor Detection Frequency and/or"Fenceline"Odor:Limits _ x . 35 36 One approach to providing protection to neighbors while also providing some 37 predictability to producers is to set some type of odor limit. This limit might specify 38 fenceline concentrations and frequency of odors. This system is currently being 39 used in the Netherlands. In 1991, the Dutch Ministry of Public Health and 40 Environmental Hygiene began regulating odor emissions from industries by means 41 of exposure limits in the form of iso-concentration lines. These iso-concentration 42 lines are determined by a standard dispersion modeling. 43 44 This guideline states that around new sources, no residential buildings should be 45 present within the odor contour representing 1 odor unit(ou) per cubic meter as 46 a calculated hourly average occurring during 99.5%of the hours in a year with 47 average meteorology of that site (Klarenbeek). This regulation then continues to 48 place limits on existing facilities (<1 ou/m3, 98%of the time) and for scattered 49 housing in industrial areas (<1 ou/m3, 95%of the time; 1 ou/m3 is the detection 50 threshold for odor concentration). Because of the inaccuracies inherent in 51 dispersion modeling, the actual emissions may be more or less than the policy 52 limits. 53 48 3/5/97 3:34 PM 1 The North Rhine-Westphalia region in Germany has an odor regulatory program 2 that is comprised of several different regulatory tools. The primary tool places 3 odor loading limits on both residential areas and industrial areas. Residential 4 zoned areas should not exceed one odor unit 10 %of the time and industrial 5 zoned areas will not exceed one odor unit 15 % of the time. (One odor unit is the 6 detection threshold for 50% of the population). 7 8 In this system, new facilities are required to have odor control best management 9 practices in place. Proposed facilities are evaluated using dispersion modeling. 10 This is done to determine the additional "odor load" on the area surrounding the 11 proposed facility. The modeled iso-concentration lines are then overlaid with 12 current odor measurements in the area to determine the "total odor load". This 13 total odor loading must not exceed the mandated guidelines for the area. The 14 guidelines are very specific on how odor emissions are measured, how areas are 15 evaluated, and certain types of exemptions. 16 17 The advantage of such systems is that they provide specific targets for producers 18 to achieve, which are imposed only when nearby residents are exposed, and 19 they treat all residents equally, regardless of population density. However, by 20 using odor units, which are based on detection thresholds for the general 21 population, these systems do not address sensitive individuals' responses to odors. 22 This system has the advantage of addressing existing facilities and can take into 23 account"odor loading", or the additive effect of odors from many sources. 24 However, these systems are susceptible to failure if the modeling is done 25 inaccurately. 26 27 References: 28 29 Verdoes, N., J.M. Voermans, , and C.P. Van Brakel. 1995. New housing systems for 30 pigs: Dutch policy, ammonia emission and costs. In "International Livestock Odor 31 Conference '95". Iowa State University 32 33 Department of the Environment, Regional Planning and Agriculture of the Land 34 North Rhine-Westphalia. 1993. Determination and Evaluation of Odour Emissions 35 (Directive on Odour Emissions) 36 37 Klarenbeek., J.V., 1995. On the regulations, measurement and abatement of 38 odours emanating from livestock housing in the Netherlands. In "International 39 Livestock Odor Conference '95". Iowa State University 40 41 49 3/5/97 3:34 PM Appendix B Organizational Protocols 2 Minnesota Livestock Odor Task Force 3 approved May 8, 1996 4 5 I.Objective 6 7 The mission of the Minnesota Livestock Odor Task Force (LOTF) is to recommend 8 workable solutions to address the odor issue. 9 10 II Membership 11 12 • Members of the LOTF were selected by Agriculture Commissioner Gene 13 Hugoson and Pollution Control Agency Commissioner Chuck Williams and 14 represent the broad range of interests in this issue. 15 • LOTF members may not be represented by alternates. 16 17 18 III Open and Interactive Process 19 20 Open Meetings. All meetings of the LOTF are open to the public and the media. 21 Meetings of the LOTF are subject to the open meeting law established by MS 22 471.705. Seven or more members may not meet to discuss LOTF business unless the 23 meeting date and time has been publicized in accordance with the open meeting law. 24 25 IV. Decision Making and Internal Organization 26 27 A. Use of Consensus. The LOTF will operate by consensus.LOTF decisions will be 28 made only with concurrence of all members represented at the meeting. No member 29 can be out voted. Members will be polled individually to verify consensus. 30 31 Consensus: Consensus is based on the term "to Consent" or "to grant 32 permission." The solution may not be "my first choice," but I will "live with" the 33 decision. Consensus means there is some level of commitment to implement the 34 agreement. 35 36 B. Failure to Reach Consensus. If the LOTF fails to reach consensus on any portion 37 of the recommendations, that portion of the recommendations shall be submitted with 38 multiple recommended options along with supporting information for each option. 39 40 C. Meeting Times. Meeting times can only be changed with the full consent of all 41 LOTF members. 42 43 D. Agenda. Draft meeting agendas will be developed by LOTF Co-Chairs Steve 44 Olson and Dave Nelson with input from all LOTF members. 45 46 47 V. Ground Rules for Interaction 48 49 A. Ground Rules. Members of the LOTF shall seek to participate constructively in 50 meetings. Ground rules for constructive interaction include: 51 52 *Listen Carefully 53 *One person speaks at a time 54 *Be committed to addressing the issues - focus on interests, not positions 55 *Focus on the Problem and the Solution - not on finding fault 56 *Share all relevant information 57 *Be brief and clear in you comments, be specific whenever possible 58 *It's OK to disagree—Disagree openly, but respectfully 50 3/5/97 4:02 PM 1 *Observe meeting time limits 2 *Ground rules may be amended at any meeting by consensus 3 4 5 B. Enforcement of Ground Rules. Ground rules can be enforced by any member of 6 the committee. 7 8 VI Responsibility of LOTF members 9 10 A. Attendance LOTF members shall attempt to attend all meetings of the LOTF. 11 Failure to attend two meeting in succession shall be sufficient cause for removal of the 12 member. 13 14 B. Preparation. Members of the LOTF shall come to all meetings prepared to work. 5 1 3/5/97 3:34 PM Appendix C David Nelson, PE 2 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 3 4 I supervise program development efforts in the Feedlot Program at the Minnesota Pollution 5 Control Agency. I have worked for the Agency since 1982, over half that time with the 6 feedlot program, with additional experience in the on-site sewage treatment program and with 7 industrial wastewater treatment facilities. Prior to working for the state, I farmed with my 8 brother for a number of years. I have been active in both national and regional work groups 9 that are attempting to address feedlot issues across the country. I have both Bachelor of 10 Science and a Master of Science degrees in Agricultural Engineering from the University of 11 Minnesota. 12 13 Steve Olson 14 Minnesota Department of Agriculture 15 16 Biography: I have been with the Minnesota Department of Agriculture for the past 5 years. 17 My involvement in feedlot and manure management issue began with the development of a 18 proposal to increase the number of animal waste control facility designs completed in specific 19 regions of the state, thereby accessing under utilized federal cost-share funds. One 20 component of this project was focus group interviews with livestock producers and support 21 persons to identify needs and attitudes toward manure management issues. In addition, I 22 coordinated the production of three feedlot and manure management publications. 23 Currently, I am providing staff support to the Feedlot and Manure Management Advisory 24 Committee (FMMAC) as well as working with the University of Minnesota on various odor 25 research projects. I am also project manager for the Composting Animal Mortalities (CAM) 26 on-farm demonstration project. This project is working with swine and sheep producers to 27 increase awareness of composting as an alternative method. I have a Bachelor of Science 28 degree in Agriculture Education and Agricultural Economics from the University of 29 Minnesota. I am currently working on a Masters program at the University of St. Thomas. 30 31 David Schmidt 32 Research 33 34 Education: MS Agricultural Engineering, University of Minnesota 35 Biography: My position with the Minnesota Extension Service, as an Assistant Extension 36 Engineer - Manure Management Systems in the Department of Biosystems and Agricultural 37 Engineering focuses on providing information to livestock producers and the public on 38 environmentally sound and economically viable manure management systems. One aspect of 39 these systems is their ability to control odor. I have done an extensive review of current odor 40 reduction technologies and the tools available to quantify the odors. Our department is 41 currently planning several research projects that attempt to quantify odor reduction of 42 different manure handling systems. We built a dynamic olfactometer to assist us in these 43 evaluations. I am currently serving as an alternate on FMMAC as co-representative for the 44 Department of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering. 45 46 52 3/5/97 4:14 PM 1 Robert L.Mensch,PE 2 Consultant/Industry 3 4 Biography: I am a registered professional engineer with BS and MS degrees in agricultural 5 engineering. I spent six years teaching and research in the area of farm structures before 6 starting consulting work in design of livestock facilities. I worked six years on a United 7 Nations Development Program/Food & Agriculture Organization (UNDP/FAO) pig farm 8 pollution control and redevelopment project in Singapore. Since 1991 my main work has 9 been preparation of construction plans and feedlot permit applications for livestock facilities 10 in Minnesota. I organized AD-HOC (A Determined Hog Odor Control) committee for the 11 on-farm testing of manure additives. AURI is now carrying out the testing of these products. 12 13 Marlin Pankratz 14 Feedlot & Manure Management Advisory Committee (FMMAC) 15 16 I have been involved in a family farm corporation in Cottonwood County since 1970. We 17 have finishing capacity for 7500 head and part interest in a 5500 head farrowing operation. 18 We also farm 360 acres. I am the current Chair of the Feedlot and Manure Management 19 Advisory Committee (FMMAC). I have served on this committee and its predecessor (the 20 Feedlot Advisory Group) since 1990 and been part of the Land Application Task Force for 21 three years. I am a member of AD-HOC Committee. I received the National Pork Producers 22 Environmental Stewardship award in 1995. I am a member of the Worker Health and Safety 23 Committee for the National Pork Producers. I am also the current co-chair for MN Ag2010, 24 which is dedicated to promoting the image of agriculture. In 1995 I was the President of the 25 Minnesota Pork Producers Association. I have spent time talking to fellow producers and 26 other groups on pork issues including odor and environment. 27 28 Tina Rosenstein 29 Local Government 30 31 Biography: I have worked as Zoning Administrator and Senior Planner for Nicollet County 32 since January of 1992. Nicollet County is primarily an agricultural county, and has policies 33 in place since 1981 preventing urban residential growth out in the ag land. I have handled 34 the feedlot permits for feedlots in excess of 300 animal units (which require a conditional use 35 permit and hearing). Our county has acknowledged that odor is a part of livestock 36 production, but out operators have recognized that they can do things to control the intensity 37 of the odor through certain practices. I have worked on an individual basis with many of our 38 operators to deal with odor both during the planning process of their facilities (location of the 39 barns and manure storage with a sensitivity of down wind neighbor proximity) and also when 40 there is a particularly malodorous condition, determining what the cause and handling is. I 41 would say that Nicollet County Commissioners have directed me to take a common sense 42 approach to livestock odor which has worked to keep the livestock industry expanding in our 43 county. 44 45 53 3/5/97 3:34 PM 1 Heather Robins 2 At-Large 3 4 5 Biography: I am a County Commissioner from Rice County, Minnesota. I have been 6 studying the topic of manure management and odor for over a year and a half. I undertook 7 this study because Rice County is creating a new feedlot ordinance. The odor of liquid 8 manure has been a frequent complaint from property owners in Rice County. 9 10 In the last year and a half, I have read thousands of pages of material on the subject, attended 11 several conferences and met with agricultural and scientific faculty from Iowa State 12 University, the University of Minnesota, Duke University and the University of North 13 Carolina. I have also met with Agricultural experts from Sweden and Germany. 14 15 Last summer I traveled to North Carolina where several counties have been overrun by 16 intensive livestock farms with liquid manure systems. What I saw there and smelled there 17 increased my determination that Minnesotans will not suffer the same abuse. 18 19 I represent a constituency that is within the limits of the city of Northfield and the town of 20 Dundas. In my urban neighborhood I am sometimes troubled by a nauseous stench from 21 agricultural establishments. The problem of odor is not just a rural one. 22 23 24 Richard Nicolai PE 25 Producer 26 27 Biography: From 1975 until present, we have farmed in Renville County. The farm consists 28 of 400 acres tillable and a 220 sow farrow to finish operation. All hogs are in total 29 confinement with deep pits under each barn. 30 31 Since July 1994, I have been employed half time as an extension engineer at the Biosystems 32 and agriculture engineering Department of the University of Minnesota. Much of that time 33 has been dealing the with the odor issue in swine facilities. I have author several news releases 34 and one Engineer Update on the topic of swine odors as well as spoken to various producer 35 groups. 36 37 I also operate Nicolai Engineering Services, which provides technical services to swine 38 producers in the area of swine odor control. 39 40 I am a member of the AD-HOC (A Determined Hog Odor Control) committee which is 41 evaluating various additives to manure pits to control odors and build-up. 42 43 54 3/5/97 3:34 PM 1 Charles Beatty Sr. 2 Rural Non-farm 3 4 High School Graduate 5 AMA Certified 6 Misc. College Credits and CEO 7 Corporate Market Management Course, University of Wisconsin 8 9 1953-1971 Wilson & Co Inc. Dairy and Poultry Division Faribault, MN 10 1971-1980 New Richmand Farms, Division of DOBOY Faribault, MN 11 1981-1985 Loyal Order of Moose Faribault, MN 12 1985-1990 Land 0 Lakes Sales Manager, Turkey Division Arden Hills, MN 13 1990-Present Met Con Companies, Construction Services Faribault, MN 14 15 Ginny Yingling 16 Environmental 17 I am the Minnesota State Director of Clean Water Action Alliance, an environmental group 18 with over 50,000 members in Minnesota and over 600,000 members nationwide. Our mission 19 is to promote policies and behaviors that protect the environment and create a sustainable 20 economy and a just society. We work with diverse coalitions of people and organizations on 21 a variety of issues that relate to the protection of our water resources. Among these issues, in 22 Minnesota we are working with rural residents and local officials to address the environmental 23 and social problems associated with large-scale, high-density livestock operations. I am 24 participating on this task force because many of the citizens with whom we are working have 25 experienced significant impacts to their health and quality of life as a result of intense odors 26 from such livestock operations. 27 28 My background is in geology. I received a bachelors degree from Penn State and a masters 29 degree from the University of Wyoming in this field. Prior to working for Clean Water 30 Action, I was employed as an environmental consultant and then as a pollution control 31 specialist and finally as a hydrogeologist at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, where I 32 worked in both the Superfund and Leaking Underground Storage Tanks programs. 33 34 Marian Marbury 35 Minnesota Department of Health 36 37 I have been an Environmental Epidemiologist in the Section of Chronic Disease and 38 Environmental Epidemiology at the Minnesota Department of Health for the past ten years. 39 In that position my research has focused on the respiratory health effects, particularly asthma, 40 of both indoor and outdoor air pollution. I have an MS in Occupational Health and an Sc.D. 41 in Occupational Health and Epidemiology from the Harvard School of Public Health. 42 55 3/5/97 3:34 PM APPENDIX D FEEDLOT AND MANURE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (FMMAC) MISSION STATEMENT& OBJECTIVES MISSION STATEMENT FMMAC's mission is to assist and advise state agencies in providing leadership and direction on the environmental and economic issues surrounding feedlot and manure management;to prioritize feedlot and manure management research, educational, and regulatory needs and goals; and to suggest related policies. The objectives of FMMAC are to: • develop and propose solutions to environmental & economic problems facing the livestock industry and, environmental and regulating communities; • identify and prioritize research, educational, and regulatory needs to focus resources for improving the environment; • foster communications and cooperation between interested parties to improve the development and acceptance of recommendations; • facilitate the exchange of information on manure management, regulatory issues, and educational material; • identify regulatory and enforcement needs, and consequences; • review existing and revised rules and policies and procedures, recommend revisions and provide recommendations on draft revised rules; • serve as a forum to identify and prioritize concerns; and • identify educational needs of producers, technical support staff and the general public. Minnesota Statutes 17.136 - Animal Feedlots. "The commissioner of agriculture and the commissioner of the pollution control agency shall establish a feedlot and manure management advisory committee to identify needs, goals, and suggest policies for research, monitoring, and regulatory activities regarding feedlot and manure management." For more information contact: Steve Olson, MN Dept. of Agriculture, Phone: 612/297-3217; E-mail: Steven.H.Olson@state.mn.us Dave Nelson, MN Pollution Control Agency, Phone: 612/296-9274; E-mail: David.R.Nelson@pca.state.mn.us 56 3/5/97 3:34 PM 1 FEEDLOT AND MANURE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2 FMMAC 3 APPOINTMENT LIST 1996 4 5 Voting Members NAME ORGANIZATION CITY CATEGORY Mr. Duane Bakke MN Pork Producers Lanesboro Producer Mr. Dave MN Farmers Union St. Paul Producer Frederickson Mr. Troy Gilchrist MN Assn of St. Michael Local Townships Government Mr. Roger Gilland MN Cattlemen's Assn Morgan Producer Mr. Palmer Norling MN Turkey Growers Blomkest Producer Assn Dr. Larry Jacobson University of St. Paul Expert Minnesota Mr. Leroy House of Princeton State Koppendrayer Representatives Representative Mr. Gary Martens MN Farm Bureau Mora Producer Mr. Jerry Miller Dairy Herd Eden Valley Producer Improvement Assn Mr. Greg Murch Sparboe Companies Litchfield Producer Dr. Sally Noll University of St. Paul Expert Minnesota Mr. Marlin MN Pork Producers Mountain Lake Producer Pankratz Dr. Gyles Randall University of Waseca Expert Minnesota Mr. Chuck MN Ext. Service Wabasha Expert Schwartau Wabasha Co. Ms. Kris Sigford MN Center for St. Paul Environmental Environmental Advocacy Mr. Scott Sparlin Izaak Walton League New Ulm Environmental Ms. Sam Sunderlin MN Lakes Assn Faribault Environmental Mr. Jim Vickerman State Senate Tracy State Senator 57 3/5/97 3:34 PM 1 FEEDLOT AND MANURE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2 (FMMAC) 3 APPOINTMENT LIST 1996 4 5 Ex-Officio Mr. Greg Farm Services St. Paul Ex-Officio Anderson Administration Mr. John Brach Natural Resource St. Paul Ex-Officio Conservation Service Mr. Wayne MN Department of St. Paul Ex-Officio Edgerton Natural Resources Ms. Tina Assn of MN St. Peter Ex-Officio Rosenstein Counties Commissioner MN Department of St. Paul Ex-Officio Gene Hugoson Agriculture Mr. Danny Potter MN Assn of Soil & Redwood Falls Ex-Officio Water Conservation Districts Mr. Jim Rossman Board of Water and Oronoco Ex-Officio Soil Resources Commissioner MN Pollution St. Paul Ex-Officio Peder Larson Control Agency 6 7 Staff Dave Nelson MN Pollution 520 LaFayette Rd. Staff Control Agency St. Paul, MN 55155 Steve Olson MN Department of 90 W. Plato Blvd. Staff Agriculture St. Paul, MN 55107 8 9 10 11 58 3/5/97 3:34 PM Appendix E 1 Bibliography 2 Below are resources that members of the task force used in gathering information on the 3 various options discussed in Appendix A. This bibliography is not intended to be a 4 comprehensive listing of all resources available on livestock odor. The National Pork 5 Producers Council recently commissioned an extensive review of available literature. To 6 obtain their literature review, executive summary, and/or bibliography contact them at 7 515/223-2600. 8 9 Chapter 7009, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Air Quality Division, Ambient 10 Air Quality Standards 11 12 Manure Management Alternatives: A Supplemental Manual, MN Dept. of 13 Agriculture, 1995. 14 15 Manure Management Planning Guide for Livestock, MN Dept. of Agriculture, 16 1995. 17 18 The appendix: Separation of Feedlots From Neighbors is based on a simple odor 19 rating (K value). 20 21 H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 2854 104th Congress, 2d Session (1996) pp. 114-120. 22 23 "New Housing System for Pigs: Dutch Policy Ammonia Emission and Costs., N. 24 Verdoes, J.A.M., Voermans and C.E.P. van Brake; Research Institute for Pig 25 Husbandry, Rosmalen, Netherlands. 26 27 Minnesota Statutes Chapter 18B(extract from 1994 MN Statutes including 28 amendments from 1995 Legislative Session) pp. 21-33. 29 30 "Feedlot Waste Management Study" by Angus Reid Group for the Minnesota 31 Department of Agriculture (February, 1994) 32 33 Feedlot regulations phone survey, Scott Allen, Rice Co. 1995 34 35 Draft matrix of So. MN County feedlot Ordnance provisions. MCEA 1996 36 37 Iowa Statutes Section 455B 38 39 Separation of Feedlots from Neighbors. Robert Mensch, 9 Feb. 1996 40 41 Sweeten, J.M., 1995 Odor Measurement Technology and Applications: A State- 42 Of-The-Art Review. In Seventh International Symposium on Agricultural and Food 43 Processing Wastes. pp. 214-229. ASAE, St. Joseph Michigan 44 45 Verdoes, N., J.M. Voermans, , and C.P. Van Brakel. 1995. New housing systems for 46 pigs: Dutch policy, ammonia emission and costs. In "International Livestock Odor 47 Conference '95". Iowa State University 48 49 Department of the Environment, Regional Planning and Agriculture of the Land 5o North Rhine-Westphalia. 1993. Determination and Evaluation of Odour Emissions 51 (Directive on Odour Emissions) 52 59 3/5/97 4:12 PM 1 Klarenbeek., J.V., 1995. On the regulations, measurement and abatement of 2 odours emanating from livestock housing in the Netherlands. In "International 3 Livestock Odor Conference '95". Iowa State University 4 • 60 3/5/97 3:34 PM 47) CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Drainage Ponds and Fencing MEETING DATE: September 1, 1998 INTRODUCTION: At its August 4, 1998 meeting the City Council asked for a briefing on drainage ponds, with specific attention to the issue of whether they should be fenced. Since that time staff has researched the issue with the LMCIT, Shakopee Engineering and Police departments. DISCUSSION: The City of Shakopee has prepared for adoption a Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan(the Plan). Among other things the Plan calls for the City to enforce the National Urban Runoff Program(NURP). This program requires that the City limit the quantity of stormwater leaving development sites, the rate at which it leaves property, and its quality. This program also results in the City requiring that holding ponds be constructed on site for new developments in the City. Recently the City approved two development projects(Crossroads Center and Weston Ponds) with ponds that have ponds that have raised questions regarding the efficacy of fencing ponds for safety. One of these ponds(Weston Ponds)is adjacent to a residential property whose current occupant(s)operate a day care. The other pond(Crossroads Center)is adjacent to three single-family residential properties. Safety Issues: The City's engineering/water resources consultant Pete Willenbring of WSB has indicated that WSB has a"no fencing" philosophy. Underlying this philosophy are the following factors: • Fences can be an eyesore, • Fences can impede emergency personnel in critical situations, • If ponds are properly designed they are not a problem for children who are responsibly supervised. The issue has been discussed in depth with Officer Lipinski, who reviews projects for the Police Department. She expressed the opinion that each case should be evaluated on its own merits. It is her further opinion that where there is a significant, foreseeable risk ponds may need to be fenced. Examples cited included adjacent to a school or adjacent to a multiple-family dwelling, where the risk of children being unsupervised is great. Scott County Human Services provided information regarding licensing requirements for day cares. A copy of the relevant Minnesota rule is attached for the Council's information as Exhibit A. A licensed provider is required to have in place a hazard plan, and to have a play area of certain size. The play area must be protected from hazards, including water hazards. Fencing can be placed around a pond adjacent to a day care. That property, however, may not continue to be used as a day care, in which case protection is not required by the attached rule. The alternative is for the day care provider to fence the play area to protect against the water hazard identified in the rule. Liability Issues: Attached for the Council's information as Exhibit B is a report entitled"Potential Liabilities in and around Ponds" prepared by an LMCIT Research Assistant, Rich Korman. The report reviews both Minnesota and foreign jurisdiction case law. Generally, foreign jurisdictions have declined to impose liability on municipalities for the death of children associated with ponds. Generally, in determining liability other courts have looked to the likelihood or probability of harm. The author reviews Minnesota law, concluding that the standard of care is that found in Restatement(Second)of Torts Sec. 339. The standard involves a 5-factor test, including that the condition is one that the possessor has reason to know involves"...an unreasonable risk death or serious bodily harm... ." The LMCIT memo is confusing in that, contrary to the cited case law, it reaches an apparent blanket conclusion that a City has a duty to fence man-made ponds if it can reasonably foresee that children will be by such ponds. That would seem to suggest that all ponds should be fenced, a conclusion that may be at odds with other public policy interests. The City Attorney has suggested that so long as the City/Council adopts and applies a consistent policy on the issue. That policy may, for example, establish criteria(such as potential risk of harm, ownership of the property, and cost to the City)that would determine whether a pond is to be fenced. Cost/Maintenance Issues: The City has required drainage or NURP ponds for several years. Since 1996 alone, about 25- 30 final plats have been approved. All or most of these have at least one, if not more, ponds. In many cases(such as Weston Ponds and Crossroads Center)the ponds are located on private property. In those cases the City takes a drainage and utility easement so that it can gain access should it ever need to maintain the ponds. Because those ponds are on private property, it doesn't seem desirable for the City to pay for, install, and maintain fencing around them. Other Communities: The City Engineer provided information from the cities of Eagan, Plymouth, Savage, and Woodbury. Savage does not require fencing. Eagan has a formal policy regarding dangerous thin ice conditions on ponds that requires warning signs,but does not require fencing Plymouth does have fencing on some, but not all, ponds, while Woodbury has a"need standard"for evaluating whether or not to fence ponds. ACTION REQUESTED: The Council is not asked to take any specific action,but may wish to provide staff with direction regarding its wishes in this matter. R. Michael Leek Community Development Director is\commdev\cc\1998\cc0901\PondFenc.doc AUG-12-98 SUN 10: 16 2 FAX NO. 2 P. 02 26 (Y1n,Rk(e. Q 09. 0 5 - ""�' Subp. 2. Outdoor play space. There must be an outdoor play space of at least 50 square feet per child in attendance, adjacent to the residence, for regular use, or a park, playground, or play space within 1,500 feet of the residence. On-site supervision must be provided by a caregiver for children of less than school age when play space is not adjacent to the residence. Enclosure maybe required by the agency to provide protection from rail, traffic, water, or machinery hazard. The area must be free of litter, rubbish, toxic materials, water hazards, machinery, unlocked vehicles, human or animal wastes, and sewage contaminants. Subp. 3. Vater hazards. Swimming and wading pools, beaches, or other bodies of water on or adjacent to the site of the residence must be inaccessible to children except during periods of supervised use. Wading pools, as defined in chapter 4717, must be kept clean. When children -use a swimming pool, as defined in chapter 4717, or beach, an attendant trained in first aid and resuscitation shall be present. Any public swimming pool:, as.defined in chapter 4717, used by children must meet the requirements of chapter 4717. Subp. 4. Means of Escape. From each room ofthe residence used by children, there must be two means of escape. One means of escape must be a stairway or door leading to the floor of exit discharge. The other must be a door or window leading directly outside. The window must be openable without special knowledge. It must have a clear opening of not less than 5.7 square feet and have a minimum clear opening dimension of 20 inches wide and 24 inches high. The window must be within 48 inches from the floor. ''i" Subp. 5. Occupancy separations. Day care residences with an attached garage must have a self-closing, tight fitting solid wood bonded core door at least 1-3/8 inch thick, or door with a fire protection rating of 20 minutes or greater and a separation wall consisting of 5/8 inch thick gypsum wallboard or its equivalent on the garage side between the residence and garage. Subp. 6. Vertical separations. For group family day care homes with a licensed capacity of more than ten children, a 1-3/4 inch solid wood core door or a door and frame with at least a 20-minute fire protection rating, must be provided whenever more than two floors of the residence are connected. These doors must be equipped with self-closing devices. Subp. 7. Heating and venting systems. . The following heating and venting guidelines must be met: A. Stove and heater locations must not block escape in case of a fire. B. Gas, coal, wood, kerosene, or .oilheaters must be vented to the outside in accordance with the State Building Code. . C. Combustible items must nat be located within 36 inches of the furnace or other heating sources. D. Whenever in use, fireplaces,, wood-burning stoves, solid fuel AUG-12-98 SUN 10: 16 2 FAX NO. 2 P. 03 Ln o, V i co WI 3c N 1 • 4, , £1IIIIIIIT.. 113m y r1 to -CO �a . II Li e W qa $4 i3 2 r._ VD W .. dl 4• o a a 0 Eli v .. am 8 .D O -J O 0 A J 1 D ca 14 coa N > 0 gV] :41 CO CO O A, 0.01 43 3 oN q �. 0 49 O ro inm i a � - 0 N b+ q ' N •4I I O .� � q B 0 N ,C, U a,1 N ti 11 1 OSo4 . 49 UA ° O 0 N O :111 O d w 0 ° � wtum •aa 1 1 >1 CD 0 -rl I >v ,4 p21 O 4.4:1 t a 14 ✓• .A q 2 rg i.4 1-1 mai � ' � co1.1 S4 14 1 i I >`o i 4 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUIIIIIII.■ U m 1 ; g I 111111111111111111111111111111111111 II may 1 .q 10 m D Hs U D 4 4P'14 Z AUG-12-98 SUN 10: 17 2 FAX NO. 2 P. 04 1. Have you completed a yard/hazard plan grid? 2. What is the potential hazard? 3. Where is your defined play area for the day care children? 4. Is the hazard visible from your yard? 5. Are there any natural barriers or obstructions between your yard and the potential hazard (water, traffic, rail, machinery, etc.) 6. Keep in mind that Rule Part 9502.0315, Subpart 29a, defines "supervision" as a caregiver being within sight or hearing of an infant, toddler, or preschooler at all times so that the caregiver is capable of intervening to protect the health and safety of the child. For the school-age child, it metes a caregiver being available for assistance and care so that the child's health and safety is protected. Describe your supervision plan (be specific) . 4. PD #045 Rev. 03-28-95 AUG-11-1998 16 41 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES 612 281 1298 P.01/06 $1"«`$�,0`��► e e i XI—I I B IT 1 4 7 Idoj POTENTIAL LIABILITIES IN AND AROUND PONDS ` sA Ve-9fi by Rich Korman, LICIT Research Assistant • The issues considered here are whether a municipality may be liable for the drowning of an infant or an adult on private or public property on the theory of either allowing a nuisance to exist or for negligently maintaining a pond. Included is a discussion of the attractive nuisance theory, even though it applies only to property owners because of policy analysis. FOREIGN JURISDICTIONS Generally, courts have refused to impose liability upon municipalities for death to children from ponds under the attractive nuisance theory. Harper v. Topeka, '92 Kan. 11, 139 P. 1018 (1914) ; Raeside v. City of Sioux City, 209 Iowa 975, 229 N.W. 216 (1930) ; Fiel v. City of Racine, 203 Wis. 149, 233 N.W. 611 (1930) ; Ochampaugh v. City of Seattle, 91 Wash.2d 514, 588 P.2d 1351 (1979) . Ochampaugh found that the "most significant factor to be considered when it must be decided whether liability will be imposed upon the possessor for a condition existing upon the land is the likelihood or probability of harm to others. " Id. at 1356. This court concluded that natural bodies of water, or similar artificial waters, do not present a likelihood or probability of such harm and noted that these natural waterways comprise one of the state' s most cherished amenities. Under the attractive nuisance doctrine, a property owner must use reasonable care to protect child trespassers where the owner reasonably anticipated the child's presence. This anticipation must be based on actual or implied knowledge of a feature's attractiveness to children. Hardy v, Missouri Pac. R.R. Co.., 266 F. 860 (1920) . The refusal to apply the attractive nuisance doctrine is based largely on the prevalence of ponds and the difficulty which a duty to fence would impose. As one court has noted, "Hundreds of bodies of water, both large and small, dot the entire state. These do take their toll on human life, especially of children, but it has not yet been deemed to be the duty of the owner to fence or barricade the ponds so as to exclude the public. " Fiel, 203 Wis. at , 233 N.W. at 613 . However, a court has noted that all bodies of water are attractive to children. Raeside, 209 Iowa at , 229 N.W. at 217. In Minnesota, the burden would be unreasonable because of the large number of ponds and lakes. It has been held that "a pond cannot be rendered inaccessible to boys by any ordinary means. Certainly no ordinary fence around the lot upon which a pond is situated would answer the purpose; therefore, to make it safe, the pond must be either filled or drained. " Omaha v. Bowman, 52 Neb. 293, , 72 N.W. 316, 318 (1914) . In 1 AUG-11-1998 16 41 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES 612 281 1298 P.02/06 48 addition, the liability of a municipality to the owner of the premise for causing the overflow of water . . . does not make them liable to third persons for the drowning of a child in a pond. Id. ,, 52 Neb. at , 72 N.W. at 317. The attractive nuisance doctrine has generally been regarded as part of the law of negligence. Conditions on privately owned land do not usually impose any responsibility upon the municipality on the theory of attractive nuisance. McOuillan's Municipal Corporations, §53 .59 (f) ; See also Rhodes v. City of Kansas City, 167 Kan. 719, 208 P.2d 275 (1949) ; Woolf v. City of Dallas, 311 S.W.2d 78 (Tex. Civ. App. 1958) . MINNESOTA LAW The attractive nuisance doctrine is not followed in Minnesota. Negligence must be shown because an attractive nuisance indicates no special departure or exception from the ordinary run of negligence cases. Hocking v. Duluth, Mesabi & Iron Range Ry. , 263 Minn. 483, 489, 117 N.W.2d 304, (1962) . One element of negligence is the existence of a duty to the plaintiff. Actionable negligence does not exist unless there has been a failure to discharge a legal duty to the one injured. However, it has, been held that there is no duty to fence or supervise a natural watercourse. Kelly v. City of New York, 25 N.Y.2d 950, 252 N.E.2d 636, 305 N.Y.S.2d 159 (1969) . The plaintiff must also show that there is a special duty to the deceased or injured, and not just a duty to the general public. See Cracra.ft v. City of St. Louis Park, 278 N.W.2d 201 (Minn. 1979) . However, it is settled in this state that a municipality owes a duty of care toward children using the streets for recreation and play. Harniug v. City of Duluth, 224 Minn. 299, 303 , 28 N.W.2d 659, (1947) . One court has found, however, no liability for the death of a child who fell into an unfenced drainage ditch, stating that the important factors are the presence of a hidden danger (e.g. a deep hole in a shallow pool) , knowledge of the condition by the municipality and the practicality of remedying the danger. Peacock v. Dexter, 544 S.W.2d 80 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976) . In Slinker v. Wallner, 258 Minn. 243, 103 N.W.2d 377 (1960) , a landowner was held liable for the wrongful death of a trespassing child under a nuisance theory. The court based its decision on the requirements that there must be a foreseeable risk of injury and an unreasonable danger. These are similar to the requirements that the city must have notice of the dangerous condition and an opportunity to cure before it can be found negligent. Fuller v. City of Mankato, 248 Minn. 342, 80 N.W.2d 9 (1956) . Other courts have found that the danger of water in a pond 2 AUG-11-1998 16:42 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES 612 281 1298 P.03,06 49 is or should be obvious to a child, and therefore is not an unreasonable risk to trespassing children. Cargill. Inc. v. Zimmer, 374 F.2d 924 (8th Cir. 1967) . This court analyzed several Minnesota cases concluding that where liability was imposed, the defendant had knowledge of foreseeable harm because of the attraction of children to the area. Id. at 930; See Heitman v. City of Lake City, 225 Minn. 117, 30 N.W.2d 18 (1947) (A child drowned when he fell of f a wall and into a harbor built and maintained by the city. Liability was imposed because children frequently used the wall and the city had not fencedit off. In addition, an occasional warning by the harbor master did not constitute the exercise of a sufficient degree of care) ; Davies v. Land O'Lakes Racing Assoc; 244 Minn. 248, 69 N.W.2d 642 (1955) (An accident occurred where children were known to play. The court, concluded that where one knowingly maintains something that may or is certain to attract children or may present a concealed danger in an area where children are more or less likely to trespass, the legal effect may justify a finding of actionable negligence) . NUISANCE A municipality is not liable for the failure to abate a nuisance which it did not create, except after notice and a request to abate is received. McQuillan's Municipal Corporations, §53.59 (a) . Generally, the failure to enact or enforce ordinances for the prevention or abatement of a public nuisance on private property will not render a municipality liable. Id. at §53 .59 (c) ; See Arnold v. City of St. Louis, 152 Mo. 173, 53 S.W. 900 (1899) (No liability for a municipality where the pond is on private property because the municipality had no control over private property and was under no duty to abate the nuisance) . In Minnesota, it has been held that a municipality, in an action for a child's death by drowning, was not chargeable with negligence as a matter of law for piling rubbish on a path within city streets. Stadherr v. City of Sauk Center, 180 Minn. 496, 231 N.W. 210 (1930) . This was the result even though the municipality owned the property where the accident occurred. Private nuisances only produce damages to one or a few persons. 58 Am. Jur. 2d Nuisances §9 (1964) . Prevention or abatement of a private nuisance is the responsibility of the injured party and not the municipality. Hill v. Stokely-Van Camp. Inc. , 260 Minn. 315, 109 N.W.2d 749 (1961) . Public nuisances affect a considerable number of persons. Minn. Stat. §609 .74 (1988) . This statute defines a public nuisance as follows, "Whoever by his act or failure to perform a legal duty intentionally does any of the following is guilty of maintaining a public nuisance: (1) Maintains or permits a 3 AUG-11-1998 16:42 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES 612 281 1298 P.04/86 50 condition which unreasonably annoys, injures or endangers the safety, health, morals, comfort or repose of any considerable number of members of the public. " Id. In general, sewage and drainage conditions which menace public health are nuisances per se and are subject to summary abatement. McOuillan's Municipal Corporations, §24.257. Stagnant water, particularly where insects breed, is without a doubt a public nuisance. 1.4. at §24.2650. Courts have used the nuisance theory in drowning accident cases which have occurred on land owned by a county. Caywood v. Board of County Comm'rs of Sedgwick County, 200 Kan. 134, 434 P.2d 780 (1967) . Here, the court listed the following things as nuisances, sewage plants discharging raw sewage, a public dump which contained a stagnant pool and a defective surface water drain. Then the court stated that swimming pools in city parks, an artificial drainage channel and a sandpit excavation full of water are not public nuisances. Id. at 786-87. STANDARDS OF CARE Minnesota courts have followed the various standards of care found in the Restatement (Second) of Torts with regard to the above situations. Bach situation has a different standard of care based on the age of the plaintiff and the location of the waterway. The general rule for liability of possessors of land to trespassers is Restatement (Second) of Torts §333 . See Hughes v. Ouarve & Anderson Co. , 338 N.W.2d 422, 424 (Minn. 1983) (Restatement (Second) of Torts §§333, 335 are the standards of care for adult trespassers) . The rule states a possessor of land is not liable to trespassers for a physical harm caused by his failure to exercise reasonable care (a) to put the land in a condition reasonably safe for their reception, or (b) to carry on his activities so as not to endanger them. If the waterway is a drainage ditch or some other type of artificial condition which is highly dangerous to constant trespassers, the standard of care is Restatement (Second) of Torts §335. See Lawler v. Soo line R.R. Co. , 424 N.W.2d 313, 316 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988) ; Watters v. Buckbee Mears Co. , 354 N.W.2d 848, 850 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984) (Both cases utilize Restatement (Second) of Torts §335 in analyzing each claim) . The rule states a possessor of land who knows, or from facts within his knowledge should know, that trespassers constantly intrude upon a limited area of land, is subject to liability for bodily harm caused by an artificial condition on the land, if (a) the condition (i) is one which the possessor has created or maintained and 4 AUG-11-1998 16:42 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES 612 281 1298 P.05/06 51 (ii) is, to his knowledge, likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to such trespassers and (iii) is of such a nature that he has reason to believe that such trespassers will not discover it, and (b) the possessor has failed to exercise reasonable care to warn such trespassers of the condition and the risk involved. If the waterway is an artificial condition highly dangerous to known trespassers, the standard of care is Restatement (Second) of Torts §337. The rule states a possessor of land who maintains on the land an artificial condition which involves a risk of death or serious bodily harm to persons coming in contact with it, is subject to liability for bodily harm caused to trespassers by his failure to exercise reasonable care to warn them of the condition if (a) the possessor knows or has reason to know of their presence in dangerous proximity to the condition, and (b) the condition is of such a nature that he has reason to believe that the trespasser will not discover it or realize the risk involved. If the waterway is an artificial condition which is highly dangerous to trespassing children, the standard of care is Restatement (Second) of Torts §339 . See Minnesota Law Section of this letter; Kukowski v. William Miller Scrap Iron & Metal go. , 353 N.W.2d 638, 641-42 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984) (Quoted and used Restatement (Second) of Torts §339) . The rule states a possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm to children trespassing thereon caused by an artificial condition upon the land if (a) The place where the condition exists is one upon which the possessor knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass, and (b) the condition is one of which the possessor knows or has reason to know and which he realizes or should realize will involve an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to such children, and (c) the children because of their youth do not discover the condition or realize the risk involved in intermeddling with it or in coming within the area made dangerous by it, and (d) the utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight as compared with the risk to children involved, and (e) the possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise protect the children. 5 AUG-11-1998 16:43 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES 612 281 1298 P.06,86 52 The remaining question to be addressed is determining who is an adult and who is a child under the restatement standards. In Hug es, 338 N.W.2d 422, 424-25, the court examines this issue in depth. There is no set age at which a plaintiff should be denied §339 instruction. Comment c to §339 states that §339 has been applied in a few instances to 16 and 17 year old children. The comment also says that as the age of the child increases, conditions become fewer for which there can be recovery under this rule, until at some indeterminate point, probably beyond the age of 16, there are no longer any such conditions. In the end, this determination has to be made after reviewing the facts and circumstances of each case. In conclusion, a municipality has a duty to fence man-made ponds if it can be reasonably foreseen that individuals, especially children, will be by such ponds. An example would be if a sewer retention pond is constructed next to a day-care center. However, with regard to natural ponds, it is uncertain whether or not fencing could be required. Even the Restatement (Second) of Torts has expressed no opinion as regards this issue. Therefore, use the same reasonableness standard as used in the above man-made pond situation. 6 TOTAL P.06 Urban/Residential Fencing Only There are 20 ponds in urban/residential Shakopee. The addition of Southbridge adds 6 ponds. The average pond in Shakopee is approximately 1,500 feet in circumference. Fencing around these ponds will cost$10-$20 per linear foot. 26 ponds x 1,500 feet = 39,000 feet 39,000 feet x $15.00/lin.ft. = $585,000 Upper Valley Drainage Ditch Approximately 52,500 feet counting both sides of the ditch. 52,500 feet x $15.00/lin.ft. = $787,500 Commercial/Industrial Ponds Approximately 35,000 feet around all commercial/industrial ponds. 35,000 feet x $15.00/lin.ft. = $525,000 R-5- COry &/07' CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Approval of a Revised Resolution Approving the Final Plat of Longmeadow MEETING DATE: September 1, 1998 INTRODUCTION: Amendments to the terms of approval of this final plat are requested to deal with 2 issues: • The resolution requires that Common Interest Community (CIC) declarations be recorded with the final plat. This is not possible, in that such declarations are not finalized and filed until the first building in a CIC is sited and in place. The proposed revision would require that the City Attorney review the CIC declarations prior to their filing. This would simplify release of the Developer's agreement. • The original resolution required Scott County review and approval of plans for 17th Avenue. Since it is no longer anticipated that 17th Avenue would be a county facility, that condition is deleted in the proposed, revised resolution. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve Resolution No. 4983, approving the Final Plat of Longmeadow with revised conditions 2. Approve Resolution No. 4983 with revisions. 3. Do not approve Resolution No. 4983. 4. Table the matter for additional information. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer and approve Resolution No. 4983. R. Michael Leek Community Development Director is\commdev\cc\1998\cc0 901\LongMead.doc RESOLUTION NO. 4983 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA,APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF LONGMEADOW WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee did review the Final Plat for Longmeadow on July 9, 1998, and recommended its approval; and WHEREAS, the property upon which the request is being made is legally described as follows: The North One-half(1/2) of the Northwest Quarter(1/4) of the Northwest Quarter(1/4) of Section 17, Township 115 Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, EXCEPTING therefrom the North 8.00 feet thereof. 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; WHEREAS, on July 21, 1998 the City Council approved Resolution No. 4949, approving the final plat of Longmeadow; and WHEREAS, certain changes to the terms of approval of the final plat of Longmeadow are necessary to facilitate the recording of that plat and/or future release of the developer's agreement for the plat. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, as follows: That the Final Plat for Longmeadow 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, electrical systems, and water systems to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. b) Installation of sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems, and construction of streets (both public and private) in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. c) Street signs shall be constructed and installed by the City of Shakopee at a cost to the developer of$270.00 per sign pole. d) The developer shall be responsible for payment of Trunk Storm Water Charges, Sanitary Sewer Trunk Charges, security for the public improvements, engineering review fees, and other fees as required by the City's adopted Fee Schedule. 3. Park Dedication Fees shall apply to the development in amounts consistent with the City's adopted Fee Schedule. The payment of Park Dedication Fees can be deferred to the issuance of building permits for each unit and/or building. 4. The development is subject to review and approval of a detailed water main and hydrant plan by the City Fire Department. 5. The Common Interest Community (CIC) declarations shall be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to filing with the Scott County Recorder's Office. 6. The Final Construction Plans and Specifications (including all streets and roadways) must be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and/or Shakopee Public Utilities Manager prior to the commencement of construction. 7. Lots abutting private streets must be within the Common Interest Community plat. 8. The following design criteria will be used for the private streets within the development: Private Driveway. Defined as a "no outlet" access, with the primary purpose of serving more than two units. If over 150' long then a turn-a-round is required (cul de sac, hammerhead, etc.) Minimum width 28' with parking on one side; or 32' with parking on both sides. Must be less than 500' long. Minimum setback from back of curb is 20'. Will not be turned over to the City in the future. Private Street. Defined as an access for units with more than one access. Minimum width 28' with parking on one side; or 32' with parking on both sides. Minimum setback from back of curb is 20'. Minimum 7 ton design. Will not be turned over to the City in the future. Private Street Jogs. Private street jogs (intersections less than 150') are not allowed for private street/driveway connections to the public street. 10. 17th Avenue shall be constructed with a minimum street width of 50' (curb face to curb face), and with sidewalk and trail consistent with City policy. Per city policy for residential developments, the developer is responsible for paying the cost of the local street equivalent (36' wide curb face to curb face). The developer will be required to sign a petition and waiver for the 17th Avenue improvement. 11. Sarazin Street shall be constructed with a minimum street width of 44' (curb face to curb face), and with sidewalk and trail consistent with City policy. Per city policy for residential developments, the developer is responsible for paying the cost of the local street equivalent (36' wide curb face to curb face). The developer will be required to sign a petition and waiver for the Sarazin Street improvements or have it constructed as part of the developer's agreement. 12. A fifteen (15) foot drainage and utility easement for trunk storm sewer shall be dedicated along the eastern edge and northern edge of the final plat. 13. The developer shall provide necessary easements, as required by City Code. 14. 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 , 1998. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk PREPARED BY: City of Shakopee 129 South Hohnes Street Shakopee,MN 55379 4983 Is14, 1, CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CONSENT TO: Mayor& City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney,Public Works Director SUBJECT: 17th Avenue, from Sarazin Street to 1/2 mile East Approval of Payment for Right-of-Way Acquisition, Project No. 1998-5 DATE: September 1, 1998 INTRODUCTION: Attached is correspondence from Independent School District (ISD) #720 regarding acquisition of 1.51 acres of property for the construction of 17th Avenue. Staff is seeking authorization to reimburse this right-of-way acquisition cost to the School District. BACKGROUND: With the purchase of property for the new elementary school east of French Trace, the (ISD) #720 also purchased the entire 17th Avenue right-of-way. This purchase of street right-of-way was done to facilitate the street construction schedule versus the City purchasing the property from Gary& Gregory Kerkow. The reimbursement to the ISD #720 would be for half of the right-of-way or 50 feet in width by 1320 feet in length. The total reimbursement based on $28,500 per acre, which is the price the School District paid for the property, is $43,181.82. This cost will be included in the project costs to be assessed for 17th Avenue. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Authorize the reimbursement cost of$43,181.82 to ISD #720 for 17th Avenue right- of-way. 2. Do not reimburse the ISD #720. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, as the property acquired by ISD#720 was necessary for the construction of 17th Avenue and would have been a project cost. The School District expedited the right-of-way acquisition by this purchase of property. ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the reimbursement payment of$43,181.82 to Independent School District#720 for 17th Avenue right-of-way purchase. Bruce Loney Public Works Director BL/pmp PAYMENT simopEE Shakopee School Board Superintendent Robert J. Ostlund Kathy Busch, Chair Director of Administrative Services: Ronald E. Ward Anne Tuttle, Vice Chair PUBLIC SCHOOLS Jessica Geis, Clerk Director of Business Services: Robert N. Martin Todd Anderson, Treasurer Director of Curriculum&Instruction: District Office Lori Gillick, Director Kenneth A. Rood Mary Romansky, Director Director of Special Services: Steve Schneider, Director Lee-Ann Sanborn Mr. Bruce Loney City Engineer City of Shakopee 129 S. Holmes St. Shakopee, MN 55379 August 24, 1998 Dear Bruce; Enclosed are copies of 1.) the legal description for the new elementary school site and 2.) the Settlement Statement for the sale of the property to Independent School District No. 720. As you will recall the district purchased the entire right-of-way for 17th Avenue, at a cost of $28,500 per acre, in order to facilitate the street construction. The school district requests reimbursement of the purchase price for the north half of the right- of- way. This is consistent with the agreement between the City and the District when Vierling Avenue was constructed south of the Senior High School. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Since , Ronald E. Ward Director of Administrative Services XC: Supt.Ostlund file 505 South Holmes • Shakopee, MN 55379 ALL SCHOOLS ACCREDITED BY THE NORTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATION (612)496-5000 • fax: (612)445-8446 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER U /ZU/9b 14:15 V612 525 1666 CLARK ENG. CORP. f6OO1i001 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The South Wolf of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter ; together with the south 50 feet of the North Half of sold Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter ; oll in Section 17, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota PARCEL AREA: 945,706 square feet or 21 .7104 acres ""I'll' Post-it"Fax Note 7671 Data 2 GTi1 a a / pages� To�O/V uhSe�D From, /. , G/�f4i5c � cofl ept.15Z 7t co. 01.412/6 00064 o�« -Phone k,c4�-q,q Fez• -�A�r 4 Fax I `,'2 /ea ' =" ' SCOTT COUNTY ABSTRACT&TITLEB. TYPE OF LOAN - t• r INC. 1. 0 FHA 2 0 FmHA 3.❑ COW.UNINS. • ,- CLOSER: Jeanne M. Segler 0 VA 5•❑ COW.INS. '' ••r DATE OF PRINTING: 03/19/98 /t\ File Number: 11-13233-001I-13233 ''" TIME OF PRINTING: 09:22 °'r JSS SETTLEMENT STATEMENT Loan Nglnsr U.S.DEPAR OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPME e' MortgageInsurance Case Number A1 C. NOTE: This form is furnished to give you a statement of actual settlement costs.Amounts paid to and by the settlement agent are shown. Items ma "(p.o.o.)"were paid outside the closing;they are shown here for informational purposes and are not included in the totals. D. NAME OF BORROWER: Independent School District No. 720, a Minnesota Municipal corporatiol ADDRESS: 505 South Holmes Street Shakopee Minnesota 55379 • E. NAME OF SELLER: Gary E. Kerkow and Gregory J. Kerkow ADDRESS: 605 Sommerville Street Shakopee Minnesota 55379 F. NAME OF LENDER: ADDRESS: G. PROPERTY LOCATION: Vacant Land Shakopee Minnesota 55379 H. SETTLEMENT AGENT: Scott County Abstract & Title, Inc. I. SETTLEMENT DATE ADDRESS: 223 South Holmes Street, P.O. Box 300 March 20, 1998 Shakopee Minnesota 55379 PLACE OF SETTLEMENT: 223 South Holmes Street, P.O. Box 300 ADDRESS: Shakopee Minnesota 55379 MarchR20 199SBENT8 AT J. SUMMARY OF BORROWER'S TRANSACTION K. SUMMARY OF SELLER'S TRANSACTION 100. GROSS AMOUNT DUE FROM BORROWER: 400. GROSS AMOUNT DUE TO SELLER: 101.Contract salsa price 618.74 6,40 401. Contract sales price 102.Personal Property 618,746, 402. Personal Property 103.Settlement charges to borrower (line 1400) 32,52'8.34 403n 'xs .. " >:M >• a. ' < 4......:,....,--:-:7,..::>" 104. .............. 404. 105. 405. Adjustments for Items paid by seller in advance Adjustments for items paid by seller in advance 106.City/town taxes to 406. City/town taxes to 107.County taxes to 407. County taxes to 108,Assessments to 408. Assessments to 109. 409. 110. 410. 111. 411. 112. 412. 120. GROSS AMT DUE FROM BORROWER '651.274.74 420.GROSS AMT DUE TO SELLER 618.746. 200. AMOUNTS PAID BY OR IN BEHALF OF BORROWER 500. REDUCTIONS IN AMOUNT DUE TO SELLER: 201.Deposit or earnest money 1,000.00 501.Excess deposit(see instructions) 1 000.I 202.Principal amount of new loan(s) 502.Settlement charges to seller pine 1400) 594.: 203.Existing loan(s)taken subject to 503.Existing loan(s)taken subject to 504.Payoff of first mortgage loan 204. 205. 505.Payoff of second mortgage loan ` '' :=%; '. :SPX; 206. 506. 207. 507. 208. 508. 209. 509. Adjustments for Items unpaid by seller Adjustments for Items unpaid by seller 210.City/town taxes to 510. City/town taxes to 211.County taxes to 511. County taxes to 212.Assessments to 512.Assessments to 213. 513. 214. 514. 215. 515. 216. 516. 217. 517. 218. 518. 219. 519. 22o.TOTAL PAID BY/-Crr3ORROWER 1,000.00 520. TOTAL REDUCTIONS AMT DUE SELLER 1.594.1: 300. CASH AT SETTLEMENT FROM/TO BORROWER aoo. CASH AT SETTLEMENT TO/FROM SELLER 301.Gross amt due from borrower (line 120) 651 274 74 601. Gross amt due to seller (line 420) 618.746.4( 302.Lass amts paid by/for borrower (line 220) ( 1.000.00)602. Less reductions In amt due seller (line 520) t 1,594.13; 303. CASH(® FROM)(❑ TO)BORROWER 650,274.74 603. CASH(fxl TO)( ❑ FROM)SELLER 617,152.27 I have carefully revi- a HUD-1 Settlement Statem-, and to the best of my knowledge and belief,It is a true and accurate statement of all receipts and disbursementsBonre o�,,. ptbr/ /•s transaction,I further certify that I have received copy of the HUD-1 Settlement Statement. Seller • independen/chool District No. 720, Gar" . Ker w a Minnesota Municipal corporation Grego J. Kerkow To the best of my knowledge,the HUD-1 Settlement Statement which I have prepared is a true and accurate account of the funds which we e received and have been or will sbursed by the undersigned as pay ctio of nthe ment of this transa . �1LfiQ� .re bale 04041 (0/ l g9 WARNING:It I.a crime 1 ngty make tale statements to the se United States Is or any other similar form.Penalties upon conviction can Include a tine and Imprisonment.For details e: Title IS U.S.Code Section 1001 end Section 1010. J JXS nun-1(3/86)RP-SPA,11134305.2 '� = --.,::-•=:,e,.:-:. OMB No.2502-0265(Exp.12-31-86) Page 1 r7 yfr B. TYPE OF LOAN �' SCOTT COUNTY ABSTRACT&TITLE, INC. i FHA 2. ❑ FmHA 3.❑ CONV.UNINS. 44 .. CLOSER: Jeanne M. Segler 4• 0 VA 5. 0 COW.INS. -. 6. File Number: I-13233 -X_, .� DATE OF PRINTING: 03/19/98 /\ TIME OF PRINTING: 09:22 I-13233-001 JSS S a' al r 7. Loan Number SETTLEMENT STATEMENT 8. Mortgage Insurance Case Number U.S.DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 4. C. NOTE: This form is furnished to give you a statement of actual settlement costs.Amounts paid to and by the settlement agent are shown. Items markec I "(p.o.c.)"were paid outside the closing;they are shown here for informational purposes and are not included in the totals. D. NAME OF BORROWER: Independent School District No. 720, a Minnesota Municipal corporation ADDRESS: 505 South Holmes Street Shakopee Minnesota 55379 E. NAME OF SELLER: Gary E. Kerkow and Gregory J. Kerkow ADDRESS: 605 Sommerville Street Shakopee Minnesota 55379 F. NAME OF LENDER: ADDRESS: G. PROPERTY LOCATION: Vacant Land Shakopee Minnesota 55379 H. SETTLEMENT AGENT: Scott County Abstract & Title, Inc. I. SETTLEMENT DATE: ADDRESS: 223 South Holmes Street, P.O. Box 300 March 20, 1998 PLACE OF SETTLEMENT: Shakopee Minnesota 55379 223 South Holmes Street, P.O. Box 300 DISBURSEMENT DATE: ADDRESS: Shakopee Minnesota 55379 March 20, 1998 J. SUMMARY OF BORROWER'S TRANSACTION K. SUMMARY OF SELLER'S TRANSACTION 100. GROSS AMOUNT DUE FROM BORROWER: 400. GROSS AMOUNT DUE TO SELLER: 101. Contract sales price 618,746.40_401. Contract sales price 618.746.4 102. Personal Property 402. Personal Property :::iii:::»:::z::::z<� :;:}::»:>:}i:}::::i:<:••}isi:::�::«<:i:;<}:•::i•:}}::•::•::;.:}:•};:�}••::::<�:>.}>••:}:;.;:•}}}i:�::.. 4:.4:4•:::x}:::.�:::::::. 103. Settlement charges to borrower (line 1400) 403::•:•;:.}}:•:::::::;.}:.}}:.}}}}:;•}:;•::.:}}:.}:.}:.}:.}i•::.}:•::::..:::.::::.�::•:.}:.}:.}:.:;•:.:.:.:;;�;:•::.};•ry }•,;:<•::;.}::::}:?::•:::•}:•}:;•:.}>::.}:•:.:.: ..................: .................. 104. 404. 105. 405. Adjustments for items paid by seller in advance Adjustments for items paid by seller in advance 106. City/town taxes to 406. City/town taxes to 107. County taxes to 407. County taxes to 10g. Assessments to 408. Assessments to 109. 409. 110. 410. 111. 411. 112. 412. 120. GROSS AMT DUE FROM BORROWER 651,274.74 420. GROSS AMT DUE TO SELLER 618.746.4C 200. AMOUNTS PAID BY OR IN BEHALF OF BORROWER 500. REDUCTIONS IN AMOUNT DUE TO SELLER: 201. Deposit or earnest money 1,000.00 501.Excess deposit(see instructions) 1,000.00 202. Principal amount of new loan(s) 502.Settlement charges to seller (line 1400) 594.13 203. Existing loan(s)taken subject to 503.Existing loan(s)taken subject to 504.Payoff of first mortgage loan 204. 205. os....0 .,--- /s6, Z CITY OF SHAKOPEE • Memorandum TO: Mayor& City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Easement Acquisition-Vierling Drive, from the West Plat Line of Orchard Park West to Fuller Street, Project No. 1998-3 DATE: September 1, 1998 INTRODUCTION On April 21, 1998, the City Council adopted Resolution 4891, which ordered the improvement and preparation of plans and specifications for the above referenced project. The purpose for this agenda item is to have the Council consider the authorization of eminent domain proceedings in acquiring easements for the Vierling Drive Project. BACKGROUND: During the preparation of the plans and specifications, staff has determined the additional easements required from the property owners adjacent to the project. Staff contacted these property owners, Bob and Roxanne Pieper, and began negotiating the acquisition of these easements. Staff met with the property owners and sent a letter responding to their issues, per their request. Attached, please find a copy of the letter sent to the Pieper's, detailing the impacts to their property and the price offered for the easements. Recent discussions with the Pieper's have indicated they are not prepared to sign over the easements at the price offered by staff. Staff has discussed the situation with the developer for the Orchard Park West Subdivision, and is recommending waiting until the 1999 construction season to construct the roadway. Staff feels the bids would be better if bid early next year. By waiting to construct the improvements, the City should have adequate time to condemn the easements if the Council wishes to do so. Staff is recommending that Council authorize condemnation proceedings at this time,while negotiations continue with the Pieper's. The Council did order this project on April 21, 1998 and per the Chapter 429 Statute on Special Assessments, the City needs to award a contract within one year of ordering the project or a new public hearing is required. The plans are nearly complete, however, condemnation can take up to six months or more and staff would like to begin the process now in case easement acquisitions cannot be negotiated. ALTERNATIVES; 1. Move to authorize staff to continue easement acquisition negotiations with the affected property owner. 2. Offer Resolution No. 4965, a resolution determining the necessity for and authorizing the acquisition of certain property by proceedings in eminent domain. 3. Table this item. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Alternative No's 1 and 2. ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Move to authorize staff to continue easement acquisition negotiations with the affected property owner. 2. Offer Resolution No. 4965, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Determining the Necessity for and Authorizing the Acquisition of Certain Property by Proceedings in Eminent Domain and move its adoption. ruce Loney W Public Works Director BL/pmp MEM4965 RESOLUTION NO. 4965 A Resolution Of The City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Determining The Necessity For And Authorizing The Acquisition Of Certain Property By Proceedings In Eminent Domain WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the City should construct Vierling Drive, from the Western Plat Boundary of Orchard Park West to Fuller Street; and WHEREAS, the City has been unable to successfully negotiate the acquisition of the necessary right-of-way. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA,AS FOLLOWS: That acquisition by the City of the property described on Exhibit A is necessary for the purpose of constructing Vierling Drive, from the Western Plat Boundary of Orchard Park West to Fuller Street. That the City Attorney is authorized and directed on behalf of the City to acquire the real estate described on Exhibit A by the exercise of the power of eminent domain pursuant to Minn. Stat. Chapter 117, and is specifically authorized to notify the owners of intent to take possession pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 117.042. The City Attorney further is authorized to take all actions necessary and desirable to carry out the purposes of this resolution. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee,Minnesota,held this day of , 1998. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk • Ow- Exhibit A That part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 115, Range 23, Scott County,Minnesota, lying westerly and northerly of the westerly and northerly right-of- way lines of Minnesota Highway Right of Way Plat No. 70-2, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the east line of said Southwest Quarter distant 990.58 feet north of the southeast corner thereof; thence deflecting 90 degrees a distance of 554.50 feet; thence deflecting right 90 degrees a distance of 400.00 feet; thence deflecting right 90 degrees a distance of 554.50 feet to said east line of the Southwest Quarter; thence southerly, along said east line of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 400.00 feet to said point of beginning. -4- 111111111 SHAKOPEE July 17, 1998 Robert and Roxanne Pieper 1410 Fuller Street Shakopee,MN 55379 RE: Easements/Vierling Drive Dear Mr. and Mrs. Pieper: As discussed during our meeting at your home,I am sending you additional information regarding the proposed improvements to Vierling Drive, including the easements affecting your property. I have enclosed 2 drawings showing the existing and proposed features along the north side of your property. The first drawing shows existing features including the shed,trees, and the location of the gasmain, along with the proposed features including the roadway,trail, and proposed easements. The second drawing shows the gas easement,the location of the existing gasmain, and the location of the proposed gasmain. As noted on this drawing,Minnegasco will be relocating the gasmain so that it will be within the easement(it currently falls outside the easement on the east end). After the gas pipe is relocated, it will actually be closer to the shed(final location will be approximately 2 to 4 feet away from the shed, as shown on the drawing). The location of the proposed trail will be approximately 3 feet from the edge of the shed. Because of the elevation difference.there may be additional work required to stabilize the slope next to the shed. This extra work may include a temporary retaining wall,or it may include paving the slope with bituminous to stabilize it. When your property is developed(and the shed removed),this slope will be cut down, and the bituminous (or retaining wall)will be removed. The drawings also show the approximate tree removal area(those trees within the "temporary" easement). During construction,the contractor will be required to protect those trees which are to remain(those trees south of the"temporary"easement). Another issue discussed during our meeting,was regarding the City policy for hooking up to the City's sanitary sewer system. Based on discussions with the Director of Public Works,the City policy requires you to hookup to the City's system if: (1) your private system fails; or(2) you do not hook up in three years, after it becomes available. 7i i 7i9S Page 1 -LETPIEPR.DOC COMMLN,TnY PRIDE SINCE 1857 129 Holmes Street South• Shakopee,Minnesota• 55379-1351 • 612-445-3650 • FAX 612-445-6718 As shown on the drawings, and as previous discussed,easements are needed from you property in order to construct the improvements. Also,as discussed during our meeting, the following offers can be made by staff regarding the cost for the easements: Permanent Roadway and Trail Easement: Area = 17,770 square feet Cost = $0.70 per square foot Offer = $12,439.00 Temporary Construction Easement: Areas = 5,045 square feet Cost = $0.07 per square foot(10%of$0.70) Offer = $353.15 The above"costs"were determined by using the price paid by rVlr. Gary Laurent for the property adjacent to your property. We believe we cannot offer any more than shown,unless we go to the City Council. If the City Council refuses to offer more,they may choose to go to condemnation. Another option that may be available, is for you and Mr.Laurent to agree to some sort of land swap. Mr.Laurent would then dedicate the easements needed,to the City. In exchange for the City paying for the easements,we are asking that you sign the waiver of assessment, as discussed. I have attached a copy of the waiver form for your review. I have also attached a copy of the feasibility report which includes your estimated assessment. These assessments would be spread out over ten years. Based on the estimated assessment,I have estimated your cost to be between$7,500 and$8,000 per year, added to your taxes, starting in the year 2000. It is my understanding the assessments cannot be deferred, unless approved by the City Council, during the assessment hearing. I am not aware of the City Council agreeing to defer assessments for any previous projects in Shakopee. I hope this information is what you are looking for at this time. If you have any questions, or would like additional information,please call me and I will be happy to assist. Sincerely, --?.—___ii., 6,44 / i a Joel R + erford, '.E. Assistant City Engineer Attachments 7/17/98 Page 2-LETPIEPR.DOC 5+40 , , I 4+99 0 3 -2111111-1 00+9 00-EL 00+9 ilk jil) 1 1 ►rl ED O£ cN1 �` r� I D O � 0 , Gl 1� + fir' �' I . t O : :.1_0111:1' . 0 ti f'1 TI D :�\ + 41,,!j:007,,,',',,,,,t:, O < COC I���lol �p CTI rn fIF1 (I' . 0 r 3> 4� ,� D ,1 D g'4°11' 1 �'�\� £ t rim i;1.1. rri A3 s zC27 WowD ► ..: 4: ;Isis 3>-9 0 \\lb I, \, . , .., _. > ,„si 3> „,. . • , K3 ,/,11L. . z , _, ,, , ;1111,, XYZ 3 rOlaill_,_ n 2 • z l� � , ! : i_i 0 = ,1 1 , . AilLik, V) F9D q1y __ID Fri X ET 1 , ,hiliii i i \t ii! , . , \ 1411 I v) m,,,,,h. 11M.... Ivy ❑ ►4;11111,--;,‘c\l„ ' L.!lk I 7 • 41 1 , 1M 1:t 1111.0 hlioRtil,' "ix -,‘ r PP• lk FULL : R T ' , Y / 5/ 6. 3 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor& City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: 17th Avenue, from Sarazin Street to 1/2 Mile East,Project No. 1998-5 DATE: September 1, 1998 INTRODUCTION: Attached is Resolution No. 4975, a resolution which accepts the bids and awards the contract for 17th Avenue improvements, from Sarazin Street to 1/2 mile east, Project No. 1998-5. BACKGROUND: On August 4, 1998, the City Council ordered the advertisement for bids for 17th Avenue, from Sarazin Street to 1/2 mile east, Project No. 1998-5. The project consists of constructing a collector street, concrete sidewalk, bituminous trail, trunk storm sewer and lateral sanitary sewer and watermain. The funding of this street project is by a combination of assessments to the benefiting properties, State Aid funds for street oversizing and trunk storm drainage funds. On August 31, 1998, sealed bids were received and are summarized in the attached resolution. The low bid was submitted by Chard Tiling and Excavating, Inc. with a bid of $669,824.58. The low bid received is lower than the Engineer's opinion of cost of$730,000.00. The total opinion of cost for this project in the feasibility report was $920,355.00 which included 10% contingency and 25%indirect costs for engineering and administration. The estimated total project cost using the low bid of$669,824.58 plus 5% contingency plus 25% indirect costs is $879,144.76. The low bid received is less than the Engineer's estimate and the feasibility report. Staff is recommending awarding the contract to Chard Tiling and Excavating, Inc. in the amount of$669,824.58. In addition to awarding the contract to the low bidder, Council will need to authorize consultant engineering services to provide construction surveying, inspection and administration services as necessary for this project. WSB & Associates is the project designer and staff is recommending an extension agreement be executed by the appropriate City officials. If Council awards this project, staff is also requesting that City Council authorize a contingency amount equal to 5% of the contract to cover minor change orders or quantity adjustments that may occur on the project. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Accept the low bid of $669,804.58 and adopt Resolution No. 4975, awarding the contract to Chard Tiling and Excavating, Inc. 2. Reject the low bid and award the bid to another bidder. 3. Reject all bids and rebid. 4. Authorize the appropriate City officials to execute an extension agreement with WSB & Associates, Inc., to provide consultant services on this project, for the City of Shakopee. 5. Authorize a 5% contingency amount for use by the City Engineer in authorizing change orders or quantity adjustments on this project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No.'s 1, 4 and 5. ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Offer Resolution No. 4975, A Resolution Accepting bids 17th Avenue, From Sarazin Street To 1/2 Mile East Of Sarazin Street And For The Extension of Sanitary Sewer From Trunk Sewer SS-H Westerly; For The Extension Of Watermain From French Trace 1st Addition To 17th Avenue And Sarazin Street; And For A Trunk Storm Sewer From 17th Avenue To Mn/DOT Linear Pond, Project No. 1998-5. 2. Authorize the appropriate City officials to execute an extension agreement with WSB & Associates, Inc. to provide consultant services for the City of Shakopee. 3. Authorize a 5% contingency amount for use by the City Engineer in authorizing change order or quantity adjustments on this project. 1 &111-k.' Bruce Loney Public Works Director BL/pmp MEM4975 RESOLUTION NO. 4975 A Resolution Accepting Bids On 17th Avenue, From Sarazin Street To 1/2 Mile East Of Sarazin Street And For The Extension of Sanitary Sewer From Trunk Sewer SS-H Westerly; For The Extension Of Watermain From French Trace 1st Addition To 17th Avenue And Sarazin Street; And For A Trunk Storm Sewer From 17th Avenue To Mn/DOT Linear Pond Project No. 1998-5 WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for 17th Avenue Improvements, from Sarazin Street to 1/2 mile east of Sarazin Street, Project No. 1998-5, bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law, and the following bids were received complying with the advertisement: Chard Tiling&Excavating,Inc. $669,824.58 Richard Knutson,Inc. $672,917.25 S.M.Hentges& Sons,Inc. $679,051.43 Ryan Contracting,Inc. $683,103.54 Barbarossa& Sons,Inc. $772,815.97 B.H. Heselton Co. $808,179.55 Northdale Construction,Inc. $809,331.96 Minger Construction,Inc. $817,245.75 AND WHEREAS, it appears that Chard Tiling and Excavating, Inc., Rt. 2, Box 200 K, Belle Plaine,MN 56011 is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA: 1. The appropriate City officials are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Chard Tiling & Excavating, Inc. in the name of the City of Shakopee for 17th Avenue, from Sarazin Street to 1/2 mile east of Sarazin Street by the installation of sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer, street, concrete sidewalk, bituminous trail, street lighting, turn lanes; and for the extension of sanitary sewer from Trunk Sewer SS-H westerly; for the extension of watermain from French Trace 1st Addition to 17th Avenue and Sarazin Street; and for a trunk storm sewer from 17th Avenue to Mn/DOT linear pond and any other appurtenant work according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk and contingent upon obtaining the necessary easements from the appropriate parties. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders tie 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 , 1998. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk /6-71 ,84, V, CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum J TO: Mayor& City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Easement Acquisition for 17th Avenue, from Sarazin Street to 1/2 Mile East, Project No. 1998-5 DATE: September 1, 1998 INTRODUCTION: The City needs to acquire permanent and temporary easements for the construction of 17th Avenue improvements on Project No. 1998-5. The property owners for storm sewer easements have tentatively agreed to an offer made by staff. This item is for the Council to authorize the payment of the easements. BACKGROUND: City Project No. 1998-5 requires easements from two parcels. Attached is a letter from staff outlining the City's final offer to the property owners and the easement descriptions and drawings. The total amount of compensation for the easements is $7,455.16 for the Hauer parcel and $3,096.62 for the Kerkow parcel. The total easement acquisition amounts on both parcels is $10,551.78 and will be paid out of the Storm Drainage Trunk Fund, except for $200.00 which is associated with 17th Avenue street construction. The values determined for the easements were based on the condemnation results previously done on these parcels for the Trunk Sanitary Sewer Project in 1996. The value of permanent easements was determined to be 30% of the value of the property. Both the Hauer parcel and Kerkow parcel have purchase agreements signed for $40,000 per acre and both parcels are guided for medium residential zoning. This figure was used in determining the permanent and temporary easements, as well as the percentages of values as determined by a condemnation action in 1996. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve a motion for the appropriate City officials to acquire easements on Project No. 1998-5 in the amount of $7,455.16 for the Hauer parcel and $3,096.62 for the Kerkow parcel. 2. Deny the easement acquisition for the easements on Project No. 1988-5. 3. Table this item for additional information. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the easement acquisitions as outlined in the attached letter in the amount of$7,455.16 for the easement on the Hauer parcel and $3,096.62 for the easement on the Kerkow parcel. ACTION REQUESTED: Approve the payment of$7,455.16 to Eugene Hauer and $3,096.62 to Gregory and Gary Kerkow for easements on 17th Avenue, from Sarazin Street to 1/2 mile east, Project No. 1998-5. ce Loney Public Works Director BL/pmp EASEMENT • B.A.Mittelsteadt,P.E. 350 Westwood Lake Office Bret A.Weiss,P.E. ��� 8441 Wayzata Boulevard Peter R.Willenbring,P.E. Minneapolis, MN 55426 Donald W.Sterna,P.E. Ronald B.Bray,P.E. 612-541-4800 &Associates,Inc. FAX 541-1700 August 7, 1998 Messr's. Gary and Gregory Kerkow 605 Sommerville Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 Re: Revised Easement Acquisition Costs P.I.D.27-9170230 17t Avenue East City of Shakopee Project No.1998-5 WSB Project No.2016.00 Dear Messr's.Kerkow: For the 17t Avenue trunk storm sewer extension through your property located east of Sarazin Street, north of proposed 17th Avenue, and south of Trunk Highway(TH) 169, attached please find a drawing of the necessary easements and proposed trunk storm sewer alignment. As you will note,we have kept the easement as tight to your property line as possible with only two manholes located within the easement. We have shown temporary easements required for construction on the east side of your property and minimized the permanent easement to a 10-foot width. We have utilized $40,000 per acre or $0.918 per square foot as the easement acquisition price, which is your purchase agreement price, and are proposing to use 30%and 10%of that value for the permanent easement and temporary easement,respectfully. Using these values,we have arrived at the following easement acquisition costs: Permanent: 6,092 square feet x$0.918 per square foot x 30% = $1,677.73 Temporary: 12,221 square feet x$0.918 per square foot x 10% _ $1,218.89 Total $2,896.62 The City is hopeful that this offer will be acceptable to you and accordingly, is moving forward at this time with the construction plans and bidding process. We look forward to your favorable response to our offer. Please give me a call at 512-9769 if you have any questions or comments regarding this offer. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, WSB&Associat s,Inc L Bret A. Weiss, P.E. Vice President c: Bruce Loney,Public Works Director,City of Shakopee nm/ly Infrastructure Engineers Planners WPW/N1016.00t080l98-ggk EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER F.'. WILLA! SHAKOPEE August 24, 1998 Gary E. Kerkow & Gregory J. Kerkow 605 Sommerville Street S. Shakopee,MN 55379 RE: 17th Avenue East Easements,Project No. 1998-5 Dear Mr. Gary& Gregory Kerkow: Please find enclosed an easement that is necessary for the construction of 17th Avenue improvements and to serve developing property. Please let me know if the easement document is acceptable. Previously, an easement acquisition offer was made to you for these easements. City staff is intending on having City Council authorize payment for these easements at the September 1, 1998 Council meeting. Previously, you had indicated that the offer was acceptable and the latest offer is what will be presented to Council. Payment of the easements will be subject to having the easement signed and notarized and delivered to the City of Shakopee, if authorized by the City Council. The easement acquisition offer for the permanent and temporary easements for the trunk storm sewer is $2,896.62, as per the August 7, 1998 offer letter, and the temporary construction easement is $200.00 for a total easement acquisition offer of$3,096.62. If there are any questions in regard to the easement document, please feel free to contact Joel Rutherford, Assistant City Engineer, or myself as soon as possible and we will be glad to meet with you to discuss your concerns. The phone number at Shakopee City Hall is 445-3650, and please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Bruce Loney, .E. Public Works Director BL/pmp EASEMENT cc: Joel Rutherford, Assistant City Engineer COMMUNITY PRIDE SINCE 1857 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee,Minnesota 55379-1351 • 612-445-3650 FAX 612-445-6718 I 1 .___.................____________________ 41, ',, 1 _.� , ... i , . , , 1 I ',,I.. : . .i 3 3 I i - Ii I .., i , !xi i , i `E, , GREG & GARY KERKOW I r I 1 PID No. 27-917-0230 LONGMEADOW ` 1 1 ADDITION 1 I 1 1 11.135.4 m2 TEMPORARY (12.221 sf1 I 1 566.0 m2 PERMANENT (6.092 sf) �Ii I i ___..-----------------.\ \ :` II i t ' 1 5 ! I 1 1 1 1 1 ; +' I I i 1 1 i 1 ` \ I I t 1 .i 1 � \ 1 ' 1 1.---6.096 m(20') TEMPORARY ' CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT �. ,,—3.046 m (10') PERMANENT DRAINAGE I i 6 UTILITY EASEMENT 1 X A v E 17TH AVENUE 111111 i re, ,, , 1 inii IBM MI 11111111111MNI 0 50 100 17th Avenue - Slope Easement laI SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA w EASEMENT SKETCH CITY PROJECT NO. 1998-5 S.A.P. 166-119-02 SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEETS I I ( I I 1 _, .1 I I 11 .1 I I !I II I II 1 H II !1 1 1 I1 i 1 11 ■ I EXISTING 100'—►I 1 k—/ 10 RIGHT OF WAY I I 1 i j' .I I I II I 1 .11 1 I .1 I 1 I ?' I I I I .11 I I j _iI� I I EASEMENT II I 11 I I 11 I j! II o I I i II I !i i1_ I GREG&GARY KERKOW !I ( . if --- 1 —f PIO No.27-917-0230 II I— i 1I ZI 11 !I <I II ,.I --- I -- -------- — --- I I •• — T-'"'F r– I .11 1 I. I ! , — ------1 i tea:mai_ II — = : I I I N-t.; 0 50 100 I 1 ±LONGMEADOW, -i I I I '7 1: I 'ADDITION I! j ��.T-- .— .ov 1 = I I I ` 1 , ,�— —\. • I I I t I 350 Westwood Lake Only. 17th Avenue WSB Pt No. 2016.00 Date:August 20,1�8 A 1/YSB +Waw Slope Easement Minneapofal,MN 55428 612441-4e00 & F" 541.1700 SHAKOPEE MINNESOTA INFRASTRUCTURE - ENGINEERS - PLANNERS SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEETS -1998 13:30 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC. 6125411700 P.02/05 t BA Miculsrcadr,P.E. 0 Westwood Lake Office Bret A.Weiss,P.E. H 'B 8441 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 55426 Peter R.Wiltenbring,P.E. Donald W.Sterna,P.E. Ronald B.Bray,I.E. 111111111111111111111111. 612-541-4800 &Associates,Inc. FAX 541-1700 August 12, 1998 Mr. Eugene Hauer 523 Timber Court Shakopee,MN 55379 Re: Revised Easement Acquisition Costs P.I.D. 27-9080370 17t Avenue East City of Shakopee Project No.1998-5 WSB Project No. 2016.00 Dear Mr. Hauer: Enclosed,please find a revised easement description and sketch of permanent and temporary easements for a trunk storm sewer extension through your parcel. This revision was necessary after additional research into the Mn/DOT right-of-way and the NSP easement legal descriptions was performed. As per your request and in accordance with your purchase agreement,we have utilized$40,000 per acre or$0.918 per square foot as the easement acquisition price, which is your purchase agreement price, and are proposing to use 30% and 10% of that value for the permanent easement and temporary easement,respectfully. Using these values,we have arrived at the following easement acquisition costs: Permanent: 19,088 square feet x$0.918 per square foot x 30% = $5,256.83 Temporary: 23,947 square feet x S0.918 per square foot x 10% = $2,198.33 Total $7,455.16 The City is hopeful that this offer will be acceptable to you and accordingly, is moving forward at this time with the plan preparation and bidding process. We look forward to your favorable response to our offer. Please give me a call at 512-9769 if you have any questions or comments regarding this offer. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, WSB &Associates,Inc. Bret A. Weiss, P.E. Vice President c: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director, City of Shakopee nm/ly Infrastructure Engineers Planners EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER F•UDPWIM20I6.00I1140798 ,wpd SHAKOPEE August 24, 1998 Mr. & Mrs. Eugene Hauer 523 Timber Court Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: 17th Avenue East Easements, Project No. 1998-5 Dear Mr. &Mrs. Hauer: Please find enclosed an easement that is necessary for the construction of 17th Avenue improvements and to serve developing property. Please let me know if the easement document is acceptable. Previously, an easement acquisition offer was made to you for these easements. City staff is intending on having City Council authorize payment for these easements at the September 1, 1998 Council meeting. Previously, you had indicated that the offer was acceptable and the latest offer is what will be presented to Council. Payment of the easements will be subject to having the easement signed and notarized and delivered to the City of Shakopee, if authorized by the City Council. The easement acquisition offer for the permanent and temporary easements, as per the August 12, 1998 offer letter, is $7,455.16. If there are any questions in regard to the easement document, please feel free to contact Joel Rutherford, Assistant City Engineer, or myself as soon as possible and we will be glad to meet with you to discuss your concerns. The phone number at Shakopee City Hall is 445-3650, and please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, /1°.(e Bruce Loney, P. Public Works Director BL/pmp EASEMENT COMMUNITY PRIDE SINCE 1857 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee,Minnesota 55379-1351 612-445-3650 FAX 612-445-6718 T14169 ' t ,/ / 70.13 m2 PERMANENT 1754.54 sf) /' /' 83.9$ m2 TEMPORARY (904.00 sfl_/.... i/ _�_ j j _---- " ' E6ENE�HAUER ---- _ PID No. 27-908-0370 ------------ ------- I ' 6.096 m 120'1 PERMANENT DRAINAGE i , b UTILITY EASEMENT I 1 V - r Y.62 m(25'1 TEMPORARY ' i CONSTRUCT IOM EASEMENT ! I ! ----� ENT —art , 560.37 m2 TEMPORARY 16031.61 3f1 /— — S Ep�SEM ,;/ // )Ti.i_-- 4 i I I * i I X: i I . 2 a 11 momsomiNNIIIIIIMINI=1 0• 0 50 100 I s 17th Avenue - Trunk Storm Sewer Extension rla SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA EASEMENT SKETCH CITY PROJECT NO. 1998-5 S.A.P. 166-119-02 SHEET 1 OF 2 SHEETS i i . ! i i i i 1 EUGENE HAUER 1 PID No. 27-908-0370 i i i • 1580.44 m2 TEMPORARY 117.011.74 sf) = I 1248.64 m2 PERMANENT (13.440.26 sf) I • I I I ` i 7.62 m (25') TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT 6.096 m(20') PERMANENT DRAINAGE w i &UTILITY EASEMENT I ' . I • I I -1% > I •18 MIMI s 0 50 100 E. 6 g 17th Avenue - Trunk Storm Sewer Extension 1 SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA I EASEMENT SKETCH CITY PROJECT NO. 1998-5 S.A.P. 166-119-02 SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS 57; 5- I i CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor& City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Request of Braun Turf Farms Regarding Hourly Restrictions on Construction Activities for Southbridge Parkway, Project No. 1997-4A DATE: September 1, 1998 INTRODUCTION: By letter dated August 28, 1998,Braun Turf Farms, the contractor performing the work on Southbridge Parkway Landscaping, Irrigation, Lighting and Restoration,has requested that City Code Sec. 10.60, Noise Elimination and Noise Prevention, Subd. 3,Hourly Restrictions on Certain Operations,D,be suspended for Saturday work hours. DISCUSSION: The above named section of the City Code restricts the hours of operation from 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. on weekdays, and from 9:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. on weekends and holidays. Braun Turf Farms is requesting a suspension on the hours as follows: Saturday 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. The earlier starting time is to expedite work in order to work longer hours to meet the schedule for the Southbridge Parkway Project. Staff would recommend that if the suspension of hours is granted, that the approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval is contingent upon minimizing noise exposure near residential areas. 2. If excessive residential complaints are received by the City, the suspension can be revoked at the discretion of the Public Works Director. 3. Blasting activities, if any, must be done from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. If Council approves the suspension, a public notice is needed to meet the City Code requirement and a notice such as a news release would be placed in the Shakopee Valley News. A noise variance was granted previously in the area to S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. for the utilities and street construction. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the suspension of City Code Sec. 10.60, Noise Elimination and Noise Prevention, Subd. 3, Hourly Restrictions on Certain Operations, D, as requested by Braun Turf Farms, as per their letter dated August 28, 1998 and direct staff to publish notice of the suspension terms with the conditions as recommended by staff. 2. Approve the suspension of City Code Sec. 10.60, Noise Elimination and Noise Prevention, Subd. 3, Hourly Restrictions on Certain Operations, D, for some other period of time as determined appropriate by the City Council, and direct staff to publish notice of the suspension terms. 3. Do not approve the suspension of City Code Sec. 10.60, Noise Elimination and Noise Prevention, Subd. 3, Hourly Restrictions on Certain Operations, D. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer and approve a motion consistent with the Council's determination relative to this request. Bruce Loney Public Works Director BL/pmp RESTRICT 08-28-98 07:20 AM FROM BRAUN TURF 460-8194 TO 612 445 6718 P01 BRAUN TURF FARMS 2950 232nd STREET EAST HAMPTON, MINNESOTA 55031 PHONE: 463-2302 FAX: 460-8194 August 28, 1998 City Of Shakopee Engineering Department Mr. Bruce Loney 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 Re: Southbridge Parkway Landscaping Dear Mr. Loney, Braun Turf Farms is requesting a change for Saturday work hours from 9:00 a.m. to be able to start at 7:O)a.m. through November 7, 1998. Please notify me if this is acceptable. Sincerely, Jenny Braun Braun Turf Fanns ,A,+wt.;h'a;.:!t 2;:i Yr.,N.',.lw.rxsv. /no at��!w.%a's:v .t:w.i,.4i..ia:�naa1)�E.:,`A�c'Gd?sy Mlk''k�iJ,'{�rti."til.R.is.: t•."K:,.e)c�•Isti+cacvu'ti�o:..:.Lb�.3• Vl�i.Y:3aT: 3.i��«4��' r JS. 0. 1 , CITY OF SHAKOPEE MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Mark McQuillan,Parks and Recreation Director Subject: Community Center Sign Date: August 27, 1998 INTRODUCTION At its October 21, 1997 meeting,the City Council authorize H&M Builders to construct an outdoor sign for Shakopee Community Center at an amount not to exceed$7,000. When the design was presented to Council last winter,some Councilors were displeased with the design and felt it should be more professionally designed. Those desires were relayed to H&M Builders. BACKGROUND H&M Builders has submitted two designs for Council to review. Option I is the original design with some modifications. Option II is a completely different design. The cost of each sign includes labor,materials, electrical(lighting on both sides)and design. Both designs call for a stone carved middle which takes six weeks for delivery. Option I $13,750 Option II $18,750 BUDGET IMPACT Last Spring,the City Council authorize City staff to use the remainder of the Community Center Project Fund for the following projects: 1. Building Sign $ 13,000 $13,000 2. Ballfield fencing $45,000 $58,000 3. Walking track striping $ 1,000 $59,000 4. Gymnastics harness/frame $ 6,000 $65,000 5. Paint ceiling of ice arena $ 14,000 $81,000 Accomplished: ballfield fencing($29,039),ice arena ceiling($17,450),gymnastics padding($600) for total of$47,089. Remaining balance is about$35,000. ACTION REQUESTED Move to authorize H&M Builders to construct Shakopee Community Center's outdoor sign at an amount not to exceed$ C:4 9 0 gol*sa• Mar . McQuillan Parks and Recreation Director 's coQ y BUILDERS Proposal for: Shakopee Community Center sign H & M Builders Inc. 13975 Clearview Dr. Shakopee,MN 55379 Phone: 612-445-7373 • Submitted to: Mark McQuillen&City of Shakopee Submitted on:08-19-98 I propose hereby to furnish material and labor-complete in accordance with specifications below,for the sum of: Option#1 $13,750.00 Option#2$18,750.00 Payments to be made as follows: Net upon receipt of statement.Finance charge of 18%per year All work to be compiled in a workman like manner according to Authorized771417/.2.. at, standard practices. Any alteration or deviation from specifications Signature below involving extra costs will be executed only upon written orders,and will become an extra charge over and above the estimate. Note:This proposal may be withdrawn by All contingent upon strikes,accidents or delays beyond my control. myself if not accepted within 30 days Owner to carry any necessary insurance. I hereby submit specifications and estimates for: Entrance sign to Community Center OPTION# 1 Brick and stone sign: Brick pillars with stone middle.Lettering and art work on both sides. Lighting of sign included.Landscaping to be done with red rock,to match existing landscaping. Dimensions of sign in accordance of blueprint. Brick pillars 2'x 2' x 6'6" 2'x 2' x 5'with stone caps. Stone 4'6"x 10' x 4"tapered to 3'.Footing to be a depth of 42" min. Total price$13,750.00 OPTION#2 Brick and stone sign:Brick surrounding stone middle.Flower planters with stone caps Lettering and art work on both sides.Lighting of sign included.. Flower planters to have liners in them to protect from freezing. City to be responsible for planting of flowers and or shrubs. Dimensions of sign in accordance of blueprint. Total price$18,750.00 • Acceptance of Proposal -The above prices,specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted You are authorized Signature to do the work as specified Payment will be made as outlined above. Signature Date of Acceptance Hi rn c c rn 0 1ST C ., Z Z is o Z �! - - - - ---_ ' - - - - - . _. an 0 �. rt ....--• 4.- - Z 10'. 2•-8„ 1•-0" 2 1/4" ''_: ' rV I ` _ Fa L I '�.mom y t 11 = , � m , I ::__ N) -- o u� cn IR _, ,-- m v c ri -4 C 0 -1— p x • no Z Z , N.' ' ' ' - - C7c z m m _. .._ m 70 < n (Al 4; _ . I 1 m mW omr-- 0 z i 1 o m 4. �� - 4. • Z , •-- [______I -. O `• ' 1 o '_ m -- CO 3 _ . 1 r -, -. - ;-1 i- •- - __— D O z Z. c 0 V4 IIIIIIIwsmllliV MEWL (401, 1.°0 `1 010 I a ....... _ ' ►,� 1 ----- I — i L/ Z... ,. , : , 1 I i v.) ~^3 X N X X X f m I ^ ) - CCN - C7 Q7 It — C � Amml i l Z rn --II I r C.) r � o m r c1 irix 17 C I' I ( Z 77 _ i III r2.-.0" t v s :17 M N N ,c ML. 'p A ^ CA .. H LX ni � .> o oil .y > - z r•n r Z ,-- L y 2.s 1.. .,. _ . (... ..,\ T v.' � , I O la 1 I . , p tri z • - `` N • •C21 1 - \ . • N I •I f N _ _!4 LN. N Iril it � �� h - Jrp Np ;Z x C � ` 1 V 1 Z • p fr1 U) 1 Z x z rn • • - , . • • N • I _ i • . . —1 — N • —+ _ - . C _.. m O .. _. 6 3/4" g c„ 2 1/4" o m • •. l ; llfllii ! II11 lltit+ Z -Gatek . ! 1/ 2 1/4" • 4•-0" /11011/4" - 1251/8" 02coL L8 3/8" ui n _ p 7C cn n z 7 m m o z c r p t t 00:n u)C 3 D N I I a t s } a V i w • X12', S"-0' ,12' - - I LI ' 1 1 ISIcsil f� I II II I L..i 1-11 I I1 H I - O .-- I I I I I I I �, z cn 7.3 O 21 rn �d co l 3• S.' 1114"11 3"-S1 r- 7 I r _ I 1 r^ • ] v C m I I �, i � ( m m 'O7 I-ID I = II fl I - - : I I �' 11 11 I i m I [�- II I I -g.] 1 "`3 ... -� I I I III � I L 0 I — _ 12"T 6 -0" i12" c_nn) colisIV13 X 8•-0„ I �cnZx 2 TCCm Z,9 allimil‘ {ri -0 mrrl©ri 1)9,. 0 nnZ rn Z 23-;� (pc' O. rn ~ o m mm p r D n /S/ 0. z , Shakopee School Board Superintendent Robert J. OstlWnd sliAliopEE Kathy Busch, Chair Director of Administrative Services: Ronald E. Ward Anne Tuttle, Vice Chair PU BLI C SC H Director of Business Services:00 LS Jessica Geis, Clerk Robert N. Martin Todd Anderson, Treasurer Director of Curriculum&Instruction: District Office Lori Gillick, Director Kenneth A. Rood Mary Romansky, Director Director of Special Services: Steve Schneider, Director Lee-Ann Sanborn Mr.Mark McNeil City Administrator City of Shakopee 129 S. Holmes St. Shakopee,MN 55379 August 28, 1998 Dear Mark; As you are aware, we are currently finalizing construction and site details for the addition to Shakopee Senior High. Part of the project includes the construction of four additional tennis courts immediately east of the city courts at Stans Park. In order to best serve both community and school needs,it is desirable to place the new courts in close proximity to the existing courts. This allows tennis activities for both school district and city recreation to be more easily supervised. I have conferred with Mark McQuillan on this matter and we are in agreement that the optimum location of the new courts would be to place them partially on city property and partially on school property. The new courts would replace the existing hockey rink,which rests partially on city property and partially on school property and is at the end of its usable life. I am requesting permission to place these new tennis courts as described above. Removal of the old hockey boards and construction of the new courts are part of the current bid specifications. The west side of the tennis courts would be in alignment with the west end of the present hockey rink. This avoids all utilities in the area. As you will recall,the City and the District made a similar agreement that resulted in the placement of one of the new softball fields at the Community Center partially on District Property. If this arrangement is agreeable to the City,we can adjust the tennis court site in our last bid addendum to be finalized next Tuesday, September 1. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Sinc rely, / —'z-4—,f- ':ei,, Ronald E. Ward Director of Administrative Services XC: Supt.Ostlund R.Michael Leek Mark McQuillan Roger Schroepfer-Wold 505 South Harries • Shakopee, MN 55379 ALL SCHOOLS ACCREDITED BY THE NORTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATION (612)496-5000 • fax: (612)445-8446 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CONSENT TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk SUBJECT: Application for On Sale and Sunday Liquor Licenses The Brew Station Brewery, Inc. DATE: August 28, 1998 INTRODUCTION: City Council is asked to consider the applications of The Brew Station Brewery, Inc. for on sale and Sunday on sale liquor licenses. BACKGROUND : Mr. Michael Lindsoe has made application on behalf of The Brew Station Brewery, Inc. for on sale and Sunday on sale intoxicating liquor licenses for a new restaurant opening up in the Crossroads Center. The applications and evidence of insurance are in order. Because this is a new business in a new building, an inspection of the premises will be conducted prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy by the Building Department. The Brew Station will be what is commonly referred to as a "brewpub" with a home brewing store located on its premise. The Brew Station will have a limited kitchen, focusing primarily on quality, high profit items, such as stone oven pizzas, hoagies, chicken & hamburgers, soups, salads and appetizers as well as fresh hand-crafted beer and root beer. The Planning Commission did approve a conditional use permit on August 20, 1998, for the restaurant which is considered a Class 2 Restaurant in a B-1 zone, copy of resolution with conditions is attached. AMMIMMMM The customary background investigation has been conducted by the Police Department and nothing in the applicant' s background would preclude him from being licensed, copy of memo attached. This application is for a Class B license, per the City Code. A Class B license is a restaurant or exclusive liquor store which has over 4, 000 square feet of customer floor areas. Under the City Code, no initial on sale liquor license may be issued for premises not previously licensed shall be granted unless the licensee has an investment therein for fixtures and structure exclusive of land in the minimum amount of $350, 000 . In the case of rental premises, the licensee shall be allowed to include in the investment the fair market value of the premises being rented. This amount has not been adjusted since the mid 1980' s. Mr. Schleisman, Building Official, has advised that the applicant more than meets this requirement. According to the City Code, 12 licenses are allocated among three Classes. Five licenses in addition to the 12 were approved by the voters a few years ago and have not been allocated into the three Classes. This matter will need to come before the City Council to address in the future. This license would be one of the five licenses not yet allocated into a Class. For explanation of Classes, see excerpt from the City Code attached. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the applications and grant on sale intoxicating and Sunday on sale intoxicating liquor licenses to The Brew Station Brewery, Inc. , 1128 Vierling Drive East, effective October 1, 1998 . Ji . th S. Cox, C ty Clerk RESOLUTION NO. PC98-79 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CLASS II RESTAURANT LOCATED IN THE HIGHWAY BUSINESS (B-1) ZONE WHEREAS, Michael S. Lindsoe has filed an application dated received July 22, 1998, for a conditional use permit for a Class II Restaurant under the provisions of Chapter 11 (Zoning) of the Shakopee City Code, Section 11.36 (Highway Business Zone), Subd. 3.; and WHEREAS, this parcel is presently zoned Highway Business (B-1); and WHEREAS, the property upon which the request is being made is legally described as: Lot 5, Block 1, Crossroads Center, Scott County, Minnesota WHEREAS, notice was provided and on August 20, 1998, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals conducted a public hearing regarding this application, at which it heard from the Community Development Director and invited members of the public to comment. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS: That the application for conditional use permit No. PC98-79 is hereby GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. The trash enclosure must be fully covered. 2. There shall be no public address system which is audible from any residential property. 3. The applicant must obtain a sign permit for any and all signs. 4. Any signs associated with this use must be screened to prevent any direct illumination from the residential property to the west. 5. Must comply with State of Minnesota Department of Health requirements. 6. Must comply with SEC. 10.60. Noise Elimination and Noise Prevention of the City Code. 7. Lighting associated with this use must not emit more than 1/2 foot-candle of light at the west property line. 8. Must obtain necessary liquor license with the City. 9. No outdoor patio is approved under this conditional use permit. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, this 20th day of August, 1998. Chair of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals ATTEST: Community Development Director j ' % City of Shakopee r' POLICE DEPARTMENT = M�t. ' . _ t 476 South Gorman Street ,. , iter., SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 `L - �f' Tel. 612/445-6666 ,,,0 N-`-• ,'' Fax. 612/445-2313 ''!''� '�" i .,, v1 August 24, 1998 77MTO: CHIEF DAN HUGHES C !I� FROM: SGT. BOB FORBERG SUBJECT: LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICANT: THE BREW STATION BREWERY,, INC. I have completed the background investigation on the above listed party and nothing in the applicant' s background would preclude him from being licensed. 7o Serve 7o Protect § 5.32 A. No initial on-sale liquor license issued for premises not previously licensed shall be granted unless the licensee has an investment therein for fixtures and structures exclusive of land as follows: Class A: $200,000.00 for a Class A restaurant or exclusive liquor store. Class B: $350,000.00 for a Class B restaurant or exclusive liquor store. Class C: $2,000,000.00 for a Class C hotel/motel restaurant/lounge with a minimum of $200,000.00 of the investment expended for the restaurant/lounge area. The restaurant/ lounge must contain a minimum of 4,000 square feet of customer floor area and the licensed premises shall be a part of a motelhotel building with a minimum of 100 guest rooms or 75 guest suites. B. The Council may provide for an independent appraisal at the expense of the applicant as an aid in determining values. If this provision is not complied with within one year from the date of the issuance of the license, the same shall be grounds for refusal or revocation of the license; and, if such license is revoked or refused, a subsequent license shall not be issued for the premises until after full compliance with the requirements hereof. C. For the purpose of this Subdivision any premises which previously held a club license shall be regarded as a premises previously licensed so as to be exempt from the provisions of this Subdivision. D. In the case of rental premises, the licensee shall be allowed to include in the investment the fair market value of the premises being rented. This shall be determined by dividing the fair market value of the entire building, exclusive of land, by the total number of square feet in the building, and multiplying that number by the total number of square feet in the rental premises. Subd. 12. Class and Number of Licenses. On-sale liquor licenses shall be classed and granted only as follows: • " I 98 Class A: Restaurants or exclusive liquor stores as defined in this Chapter and under 4,000 square feet customer floor area. Not more than seven (7) of these licenses shall be available for any license period. y 411 Class B: Restaurants or exclusive liquor stores as defined in this Chapter and which have over 4,000 square feet of customer floor area. Not less than three(3) of these licenses shall be available for any license period. Class C: Hotel/motel restaurant/lounge as defined in this Chapter and which receive at least 50% of its gross receipts from the sale of food for consumption on the premises and which restaurant/lounge area contains a minimum of 4,000 square feet of customer floor area. The hoteUmotel operation must have a minimum number of 100 guest rooms or 75 guest suites. Not less than two (2) of these licenses shall be available for any license period. page revised in 1995 515 * When the Main Event added a deck in 1996, they went from a Class A license to a Class B license. CITY OF SHAKOPEE 15°- Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council A�� FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator CONSEN 1 SUBJECT: Water Management Committee Nominations DATE: August 26, 1998 INTRODUCTION: The Council is asked to appoint members to the Water Management Citizen's Advisory Committee, and other watershed advisory committees. BACKGROUND: Attached is a letter dated July 29, 1998, from Associate County Administrator Brad Larson. In order for the County to complete the Water Management Plan which will cover all areas of Scott County except those of within the Lower Minnesota and Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed District, a Citizen's Advisory Committee and Watershed Advisory Committees are being established to be made up of representatives from the various local governmental units to provide input to the plan. Shakopee is to appoint one representative for the Citizen's Advisory Committee, and three representatives from the Shakopee Basin WMO. The Technical Advisory Committee has one representative already, Bruce Loney, PWD,who has been the City's representative on the Shakopee Basin WMO. DISCUSSION: The Citizen's Advisory Committee will receive recommendations from the Technical and Watershed Committees and make policy and program recommendations to the County Board. The Committee will meet every other month for the next 18 months. Each drainage area will have its own Watershed Advisory Committee. The Watershed Advisory Committee is to assess information relating to each watershed and make policy/program recommendations to the Citizen's Advisory Committee. These committees will meet two to three times during the next 18 months. A map has been enclosed showing the area of Shakopee with the Shakopee Basin WMO. The County would prefer that the appointee to the Citizen's Advisory Committee be a member of the City Council, or someone else who is knowledgeable and has interest on the subject. WATEK.DOC The Watershed Advisory Committee representatives can be either local citizens or political representatives. It is preferred that local citizen's nominated should live in the Watershed Advisory Committee Area. Councilor Sweeney has volunteered to serve as the elected representative, and has discussed with Shakopee Public Utilities Director Lou VanHout to serve as the alternate. He is also suggesting that Mr. VanHout,himself, and one other local citizen serve on the Shakopee Basin Committee. In order to fill the position with a local citizen, an advertisement in the Shakopee Valley News maybe necessary or nominations from Councilmembers on persons living in the Shakopee Basin Watershed in the City limits. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that Councilor Sweeney be appointed as the Shakopee representative to the Citizen's Advisory Committee,with Lou VanHout as the alternate. Further, I recommend that Mr. Sweeney, Mr. VanHout, and the Public Works Director or his designee be appointed to the Shakopee Basin Watershed Advisory Committee. ACTION REQUIRED: If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, make the following appointments: 1. Councilor Robert Sweeney to be the Shakopee Representative on the Citizens Advisory Committee, with Lou VanHout as Alternate; and 2. Bob Sweeney, Lou VanHout,and the Public Works Director or his designee as representatives to the Shakopee Basin Watershed Advisory Committee. 3. Direct staff to advertise in the local newspaper to receive nominations and to have Councilmembers submit nominations for the Shakopee Basin Watershed Advisory Committee for Scott County Water Management. ILO (Ikak-P-A-ej Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:tw WATER.DOC SCOTT COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS AND LANDS DIVISION HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT 600 COUNTRY TRAIL EAST JORDAN, MN 55352-9339 (612)496-8346 BRADLEY J. LARSON Fax: (612)496-8365 ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR July 29, 1998 • Mr. Mark McNeill, Administrator City of Shakopee Shakopee City Hall 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, Shakopee 55379 Subject: Water Management Committee Nominations Dear In 1996 the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) declared all of the joint powers WMO's in Scott County to be non-implementing and notified the County of its responsibility for water management in these areas as required by state law. Since that time there have been a number of meetings with the concerned parties regarding how the County should meet its statutory requirements for water management. At the April 21, 1998 meeting the County Board of Commissioners approved the water management organization proposal identifying a process for implementation of the county's responsibilities. The result of the process will be a water plan similar to the greater-Minnesota 110B plans. This County water planning process provides the flexibility and efficiency in the use of resources. This model will address the question of governance or principal water manager (watershed district, county, reform joint powers WMO's where possible or variation thereof) under the development of the implementation section of the plan. The decision can then be made as to what entities are most appropriate to fund and implement the plan. Enclosed is the Scott County Water Management Proposal. A key component to success of this effort will be community and public participation. In consultation with BWSR, Scott County has identified the membership on the Citizens' Advisory Committee. The Citizens' Advisory Committee will be made up of one representative from each of the cities, township, watershed districts, former water management organizations, and special interest groups. The committee members will be nominated by you, and submitted to the County Board for appointment. The Scott County Board will also appoint five at-large representatives to the Citizens' Advisory Committee. The local representative could be either a local citizen or political representatives. You may also want to nominate an alternate for the representative to ensure your participation An Equal Opportunity/Safety Aware Employer Water Management Committee Nominations Page 2 in this process. The purpose of the Citizens' Advisory Committee is to receive information and recommendations from the Technical and Watershed Committees (see attached) and make policy/program recommendations to the County Board. This Citizens' Advisory Committee will meet approximately every-other month for the next 18 months. In addition to the Citizens' Advisory Committee, four Watershed Advisory Committees will be established, made up of representatives from townships and cities within the boundaries of the former watershed management organizations. See enclosed attachment for number of representatives available to your city/township for nomination. You may nominate the same representative(s) to more that one Watershed Advisory Committee. The local representatives can be either local citizens or political representatives (recommend a combination). The purpose of the Watershed Advisory Committee is to assess information relating to the watershed and make policy/program recommendations to the Citizens' Advisory Committee. The watershed committees will each meet 2-3 times during the next 18 months. The Citizens' and Watershed Advisory Committees are the opportunity for the cities, townships, watershed districts and former watershed management organizations to provide input into the upcoming county water planning effort. It is the mission of the Scott County Board to consider all recommendations and options defined by these committees. Please provide your list of committee nominations to me by August 21. The first meeting for the appointed advisory committee members will be at the Scott County Water Planning Kickoff Meeting which will be held in September. Information on this kickoff meeting will be sent to the members in early September. If you have any further questions or comments please contact me, at phone number 496-8346, or Phil Belfiori @ BWSR at phone number 297-8026. Sincerely, q514"i) Bradley J. Larson Associate Administrator/Highway Engineer Attachments C: Scott County Commissioners: Bannerman, Malz, Bohnsack, Mackie and Marschall Dave Unmacht, Scott County Administrator j f-w:\word\meetings\tacwater\citycac.doc WATER MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION PROPOSAL Scott County assumes responsibility for developing Work Plan outline (attached) and Water Management Plan for all areas of Scott County that are not within the Lower Minnesota or Prior Lake/Spring Lake Watershed Districts or a complying Water Management Organization (WMO). • Citizen's Advisory Committee (25-30 members) • Representatives from each of the previous WMO's • Representatives from the Lower Minnesota and Prior Lake/Spring Lake Watershed Districts • Representatives from cities • At large representatives • Citizen's Advisory Subcommittees (one for each watershed/WMO area) (3-7 members) • Representatives from cities/township within watershed area • At large representatives • Technical Advisory Committee • County staff • SWCD representative • Metropolitan Council representative • Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (PCA) representative • Board of Water and Soil Resources (BOWSR) representative • DNR representative • City staff (engineers/planners) • County special levy and grants • Estimate approximately $ 75,000/yr. levy $ 75,000/vr. grant $150,000 annual budget 1 - Full-time Water Planner Hire on a time-limited (24 months) basis 1 - Intern or temporary employee Consultant services only after specific tasks identified and expertise required (Example - surface water modeling) Administrative/clerical needs handled by existing staff Coordinate technical work with Scott County SWCD staff j f-w:\word\m isc\scwmp l.doc SCOTT COUNTY WATER MANAGEMENT PIAN DRAFT OUTLINE GENERAL OUTLINE PHASE 1 -Preliminary Organization PHASE 2-Identify Issues and Problems, Set Initial Goals and Objectives PHASE 3 - Conduct Water and Land Resource Inventory PHASE 4-Data Analysis, Assessment of Problems and Opportunities PHASE S-Determine Specific Goals, Policies, and Performance Standards PHASE 6 -Develop Implementation Program PHASE 1 -Preliminary Organization TASKS RESPONSIBILITY DATES • Preliminary BWSR Meetings BWSR, Scott County, SWCD February-March 98 County Board Discussion Scott County, SWCD February-April 98 Organize Technical Committee Scott County, SWCD April 98 Organize Advisory Committee Scott County, SWCD May 98 Draft General Workplan Scott County July 98 PHASE 2-Identify Issues and Problems, Set Initial Goals and Objectives TASKS RESPONSIBILITY DATES Review watershed and WMO plans Scott County July-August 98 Conduct Issue exercise Scott County, Advisory Committees August 98 Set initial overall goals and objectives Scott County, Advisory Committees August-September 98 PHASE 3 - Conduct Water and Land Resource Inventory Water and Land Resource Inventory Source Date Date Inventory Item Organization Contact Person Requested Received Map of public waters MDNR Map of public ditch systems County Table of the major hydraulic characteristics of public waters MDNR Map of wetlands MDNR (i) Map or list of location of known existing County, q) and abandoned surface water quality and Met Council, c quantity monitoring sites MDNR Table listing the amounts and locations of MDNR all surface water appropriations NRCS, 44-4 SWCD, Precipitation data MN Climatologist MSG, General geology and topographic data County SWCD, Soils data NRCS WMO members, Map of existing land use and public County, utilities Met Council WMO members, Map of anticipated land use and public County, utilities Met Council rounsum Scott County Water Management',Plan Draft Outline Page 2 Water and land Resource_Inventory Source Date Date Ccil Inventory Item Organization Contact Person Requested Received Reference to existing and anticipated metropolitan urban services line Met Council WMO members, MDNR, (13 Water-based recreation areas and land Met Council 1.4) ownership County Map(s) or list(s) of known point pollution MDH, sites including feedlots, registered UST, MDA, AST, closed and open sanitary landfills, MPCA, etc. County PHASE 4-Data Analysis,Assessment of Problems and Opportunities TASKS RESPONSIBILITY DATES Review and Analysis of Inventory All Assessment of Problems September 98-March 39 Lakes and streams with water quality problems Flooding and stormwater rate control issues within and between communities Impacts of water quality and quantity mgt. practices on recreation activities Impacts of stormwater discharges on water quality and fish and wildlife resources Ci) Impact of soil erosion on water quality and quantity ILand use practices impact on water quality and quantity, esp. land dev. and wetland alteration Adequacy of existing regulatory controls Wto manage adverse impacts on waters and wetlands Adequacy of programs to limit soil erosion and water quality degradation, maintain values of natural storage and retention systems, and maintain water level control structures Adequacy of Capital improvement programs to correct problems of water quality, quantity mgt., fish and wildlife habitat, public water and wetland mgt., and recreational opportunities Future potential problems- relate to local, region, county, state, federal plans Prioritizing Problems and Problem Areas Scott County Water Management('Plan Draft Outline Page 3 PHASE 5-Determine Specific Goals, Policies, and Performance Standards TASKS ; {RESPONSIBILITY .DATES Water quantity Stormwater Mgt. A. maximum permissible runoff rates B. reduction of impacts of flooding on natural resources and personal and real property Peak runoff for subwatersheds Reding guidelines Define appropriate subwatersheds Surface water storage and retention systems Public ditch systems Water quality Mgt. of wetlands ID high priority areas for wetland preservation, restoration and establishment Surface water storage and retention systems A. target in-lake nutrient concentrations and pollutant loadings for sediment and nutrients B design criteria for stormwater outlet hstructures to address floatable Wpollutants and to provide for access for maintenance and repair C. pond design methodology for nutrient entrapment consistent with subwatershed goals D. compliance with pollutant loading for specific subwatersheds consistent with PCA standards Measurable parameters or quantities Relate land use to goals and policies Groundwater Recreation Erosion. Specific goals that will control soil erosion consistent with other goals in plan Scott County Water Management Plan Draft Outline Page 4 PHASE 6-Develop Implementation Program .TASKS , RESPONSIBILITY. k fp�ATES , h_ Determine appropriate regulatory controls A. regulation of activities in wetlands; description of local controls and procedures to implement WCA; any other controls needed to achieve goals; relationship to state agencies, SWCD, cities, counties; designated repositories for maps; enforcement procedures; wetland banking; methods and procedures to determine replacement wetland values in mitigation proposals B. controls or programs to reduce soil erosion and sedimentation, adopt BMP's C. enforceable provisions to protect soil from erosion are placed on permits D. identify LGU's that have not adopted state shoreland and floodplain ordinances, address flood prone areas not identified on floodplain maps L h7 E. water quality public nuisances that "44 cannot be regulated with existing controls (if noted) Determine management programs and responsibility Information Program Data Collection program Determine capital and funding needs and develop CIP Assign implementation tasks to appropriate agencies/departments Determine appropriate water planning authority and administration • Schedule for implementation Identify enforcement efforts and procedures Present plan to County Board Plan review process Submit plan to BWSR jf-w:\word\m isc\scwmp.doc iiil a CD c G. -4J ai 0 O ce - y CO 3 c O -� R •O Z R R 3 0 L O W C C R C O -J N I- ? _ +. `n > H y L a C: 3 c"n C.Y 0 3 V L > O .a. ~ a _ - rz RO ~ d f J > J 611 m r v '... 0 — a 0: L a Y ,y CIO R oO > y a �j :/, 0 y U -0�.-i R CJ C '� C L CJ CJ ` 0- "' m 3 R -' a y L.-- V n- 0 3 N � L.CU ai 3 d ° , 0 U v°i c y 0 � - mow cn �' � CU -0 . C F- > 3 CL -a ai =c- CJ U - ttz -c o . c c v c ~ y .0 R T a R CJ < R � U CA Vf to a a r. � i U 3 a a .. o Z j c 0- E U `.. i w I- v `v a io '^ 3 a C+ 0 CJ ._v Y . • tea 0 • J ^V/ 3 .Y J a .D 0 3 .Do R a CO o d 2 aVJ ^ 3 L 3 s o .L Vo `o 0` o o` ++ . 0 v U OLe. mmU F- o. I- V) v) -JCS. vJu. LL. LLu. Q `n = = mill 41.10 •.... E V E CU < -C L V 0 a V y nn. IM CJa ... N .Y CO O 0 •- J L. O Liu O . em _, i.� R � c .O R L VI ^ J L V) ''.. O V = '0 Q \n V ...,...„ ,,,...L sR ^i V .rJ J ."� F-4 L L 3 4-1 _ L = C °=J o. V (I-) \,..111.— si... to v y y ? y V 0 '^' mU2 °..a� Zcetnci,1 o• a V C: „a 0CJ til C L 3 O cl > W 0 3 0. O i OJ a — - rn 0 CJ Q I— C.U to CIJ 3 1 .0 U U `c -J L H 0 C -J R 00 Q c V o c '- cu L v c` c cn CJ N L w ^ v 0 0 N �c o v �c•'- - CJS a Z U � � X <c y R Z Q �' .=-! a COO U C W < R O 0 CL 3 N an : J a oa F- `^LLJ i.5 c d c a`l CJti. :' c =p v 3 c to,5 = 0 7 i 3 y O C O Q V m V J Z . to to V toVUVJo. � mmL Cities Shakopee 1 - Representative for Citizens' Advisory Committee 3 - Representatives for Shakopee Basin Watershed Committee Belle Plaine 1 - Representative for Citizens' Advisory Committee 3 - Representatives for Southwest Scott Watershed Committee Jordan 1 - Representative for Citizens' Advisory Committee 2 - Representatives for Sand Creek Watershed Committee New Prague 1 - Representative for Citizens' Advisory Committee 2 - Representatives for Sand Creek Watershed Committee Prior Lake 1 - Representative for Citizens' Advisory Committee 2 - Representatives for Shakopee Basin Watershed Committee 2 - Representatives for Credit River Watershed Committee Savage 1 - Representative for Citizens' Advisory Committee 3 - Representatives for Credit River Watershed Committee Burnsville 2 - Representatives for Credit River Watershed Committee Lakeville 2 - Representatives for Credit River Watershed Committee j f-w:\word\meetings\tacwater\nom l i st.doc • 5„. 0. -„v4 .% ,r ig xtah 3 ',F 3J � e ,e 1,_ tr•• i� ' f . mum` +'iQ Y'Y' a2 \� .,14::,,t.v4c `i 8 €`. a tS � ss �w7ey 2� it r ",44‘.., ,v ,7 / ! '' '''"....•'1.,"."'" ' '1," } ` . -':"-•-'.,....,c., f ei fIII ss' f 1IIM t«a 'Y gmy pp� 1£ r • 3 amu " �p 4T f'£ � ` ' � 3wac. •4 a`C -�.� C � 3 k•`b RR,-....-4,,•F • E€ °° f I M 6 St', ,�. .` .�l LIP '..*4.1,44 A 7 • • • I/ill w ' 91i+tn F ats j e�Je:s: w= oP f,� ,, ff .. ! 1 ., � > ti ' say lQ .# '. m fr , pit; {s~• f ro ..: _ ,.. 19 tiaa Ai RYt �. _._ 6 1rt1�£ r ;e> aft 6' 0 ill 1Wt< 2lP s9 fY£ 4. ... _.�._ __..__�_. • 0 Nu e I fy 4 qy CI` 1. x�, i • e u :. 1111. ,.t ll, or "' t ` m� r 1��: 11 tl •/� Vi • 'alrr r, 3 .. 541 S X a. • t 4 V,c. . . 414: /"..., %?) , G4. r' g 't t N e fes, n, :.. , f ` «4 "J 'a t v • Kt3{c fO „ ;yEC`fi �4 fbite M 3 r=s c>a �5 : srr =.7 `Mh ft NQ343 t)"w \' � U' ?{ „_ \ 1 asr r �: 8. • x, :,,� .,�., s.: s Wiz. __ - ti- —.r v: I •h 4 U ' `Nth _ Ma..- ,^, l n+an al. �� b>} J X°'+. z ... z "J ^ 3 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk SUBJECT: Tobacco License Revocation or Suspension Hearings DATE: August 27, 1998 BACKGROUND: When a tobacco licensee is accused or found guilty of violating City Code or state statute provisions relating to the tobacco establishment, the City Council may take action to revoke or suspend the tobacco license. Staff is ready to proceed with the setting of a hearing date to consider tobacco violations that occurred during the compliance checks in November, 1997. HEARING: The City Code allows the City Council to conduct a hearing and impose a penalty for a violation. The hearing may be before the entire City Council, a City Council committee, or an employee of the state office of administrative hearing. In 1996 the City Council held the hearings on the violations and has indicated in discussions since then that they wish to continue to do so. In 1996 City Council chose to hold the hearings on a Tuesday other than a regular meeting night. Council may wish consider an off meeting date at this time, also. ALTERNATIVES: 1 . Schedule a hearing before the entire City Council to review the action of the tobacco licensees for Tuesday, October 13, 1998, at 7 :00 p.m. 2 . Schedule a hearing before the entire City Council to review the action of the tobacco licensees for Tuesday, October 27, 1998, at 7: 00 p.m. 3 . Schedule a hearing before the entire City Council to review the action of the tobacco licensees for another date. 4 . Do not hold hearings on the violations. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Schedule a hearing to review the action of the tobacco licensees: Canterbury Inn, Inc. (did not renew license in 1998) Knights of Columbus Polka Dot Dairy, Tom Thumb Koehnen' s Amoco Berens Market Kmart Stores Speedway Superamerica LLC BretBecca Inc. dba/Pullman A.F.F.C. Inc. , dba/Arnies Friendly Folks Club Fraternal Order of Eagles Hennen' s Texaco 2 . Select a hearing date and time. Ju. S. Cox, ty erk CITY OF SHAKOPEE 1 -- Memorandum /Si • y TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Allina Health Bonds DATE: August 27, 1998 INTRODUCTION: The Council is asked to take action which will authorize the sale of tax exempt hospital improvement bonds for Allina Health Systems. BACKGROUND: In July,the City Council gave tentative approval to act as a conduit for the sale of tax exempt hospital improvement bonds, as requested by Allina Health Systems,the parent company of St. Francis Regional Medical Center. St. Francis is embarking on a campus expansion, which will necessitate the sale of approximately $12 million in bonds. In exchange for the City agreeing to do this, Allina has provided the City with an agreement (attached)which would reimburse the City for any out of pocket expenses, either due to increased bond interest costs by virtue of the loss of tax exempt bonding status for bonds issued for the remainder of this year, or as a result of legal fees. The notes are tax exempt bonds, and will be issued by the City with a closing date expected to be September 23rd. The notes are being sold on an negotiated basis (as compared to a competitive bid), because more attractive rates are being offered by the Underwriter,who is willing to lock in the rate a month in advance and is able to sell the notes to private investors. While the notes are not a liability to the City, the City is a party to the transaction, and the City's signatures will be needed to execute the documents. You are now being asked to approve the key terms of the note, which will include a maximum principal amount of$12.1 million, and a maximum interest rate(which shall be variable, and not to exceed 15%per year, or 22% if the interest becomes subject to income tax). Finally,the other thing you are approving is the maturity of the bonds, which shall not be later than July 1, 2028. Within those limits,the Council is authorizing the borrower Underwriter to negotiate the rest of the terms. The notes will be resold by the Underwriter, which is Norwest Investment Services Inc., to one or two institutional buyers, and will not be sold to the public. BONDS2.DOC In this action, you are authorizing the appropriate officials to sign documents with any further action by the City Council and without any responsibility to review the documents. However, Kennedy and Graven is providing a general review of these documents on behalf of the City. RECOMMENDATION: If the Council concurs with the request of Allina, it should approve the attached resolution. ACTION REQUIRED: If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, adopt the following resolution: A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF UP TO $12,100,000 ADJUSTABLE DEMAND REVENUE NOTES, SERIES 1998 (ST. FRANCIS REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER) AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF THE NOTES, A LOAN AND NOTE PURCHASE AGREEMENT,AND ASSIGNMENT ALA-ULP Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:tw BONDS2.DOC 5601 Smetana Drive P.O. Box 9310 Minneapolis, MN 55440-9310 612-992-2000 41" ALLINA HEALTH SYSTEM June 18, 1998 City of Shakopee City Hall Shakopee,Minnesota Subject: Proposed City of Shakopee, Minnesota Revenue Bonds St. Francis Regional Medical Center Ladies and Gentlemen: We understand that the City is reviewing its bond financing needs for calendar year 1998 and the City intends to issue bonds for its own purposes. The Bonds for the above mentioned Project may cause the City to issue bonds in excess of$10,000,000. On behalf of St. Francis Hospital, as the managing partner,we agree to pay to the City at closing on any City Bonds issues in 1998 (other than Private Activity Bonds)the amount necessary to compensate the City for any financial disadvantage (currently estimated to be approximately $26,000) which may be caused by any interest rate difference between City bonds which are eligible for§265 bank deductibility under the Internal Revenue Code and City bonds which are ineligible as a result of exceeding the$10,000,000 limit. ALLINA HEALTH SYSTEM C..<2.- arry A. K aniak Vice President Finance, Treasury, &Consolidations LAK:naw Extract of Minutes of Meeting of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota was duly held at City Hall in said City on Tuesday, September 1, 1998 at 7:00 o'clock P.M.. The following members were present: and the following were absent: * * * * * * * * * Member then introduced and read the following written resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF UP TO $12,100,000 ADJUSTABLE DEMAND REVENUE NOTES, SERIES 1998 (ST. FRANCIS REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER) AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF THE NOTES, A LOAN AND NOTE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, AND ASSIGNMENT M1.400677.01 RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF UP TO $12,100,000 ADJUSTABLE DEMAND REVENUE NOTES, SERIES 1998 (ST. FRANCIS REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER) AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF THE NOTES, A LOAN AND NOTE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, AND ASSIGNMENT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE: 1. City. This City is, by the Constitution and Laws of the State of Minnesota, including Sections 469.152 to 469.165, Minnesota Statutes, as amended(the "Act"), authorized to issue and sell its revenue bonds and notes for the purpose of financing the cost of acquisition of authorized projects and to enter into contracts necessary or convenient in the exercise of the powers granted by the Act and to pledge revenues of the project and otherwise secure the bonds and notes. 2. Authorization of Notes. The City hereby determines that it is necessary and expedient to authorize, and the City does hereby authorize, the issuance and sale of the City's Adjustable Demand Revenue Notes, Series 1998 (St. Francis Regional Medical Center) (the "Series 1998 Notes" or the "Notes") pursuant to the Act to provide money to be loaned to St. Francis Regional Medical Center, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation(the "Borrower"), in the aggregate maximum principal amount of$12,100,000 to finance costs of acquisition, construction, equipping and installation of an addition to and remodeling of healthcare facilities (the "Project")to be owned and operated by the Borrower. The Notes shall be issued as a single promissory note in the maximum principal amount of$12,100,000 (the "Note"), shall be dated the Closing Date (as defined in the Agreement hereinafter referred to), and shall be payable in semiannual installments of principal and interest as shall be acceptable to the Borrower and Purchaser. The Note shall mature not later than July 1, 2028, shall bear interest at the variable rate to be determined by a remarketing agent, not to exceed 15%per annum (or 22% if the interest on the Note becomes subject to income tax). the Note shall be subject to certain mandatory and extraordinary redemption under the terms to be stated on the Note as well as optional redemption on any interest payment date commencing January 1, 2004, in whole but not in part at a redemption price consisting of the principal amount to be redeemed and interest then due and a Termination Value stated on an Annex to the Note. The Notes bear interest which are subject to adjustment, at specified times and manner. 3. Documents Presented. Forms of the following documents relating to the Notes and the Project have been prepared or reviewed by Faegre & Benson LLP, as bond counsel, and submitted to the City and are now on file in the office of the City: (a) Loan and Note Purchase Agreement (the "Agreement"), dated as of September 1, 1998, by and among the City, the Borrower and Norwest Investment Services, Inc. (the "Purchaser")whereby, among other things, the City agrees to sell and the Purchaser agrees to purchase the Notes, the City agrees to make a loan to the Borrower of the proceeds of the sale of the Notes, and the Borrower covenants to complete the Project and to pay amounts sufficient to provide for the prompt payment of the principal of and interest on the Notes. (b) Assignment of Loan Repayments and Rights (the "Assignment") to be dated as of September 1, 1998, whereby the City assigns to the Purchaser all of its interest in the Loan Repayments of the Borrower under the Agreement and all of its interest in the Agreement, for the purpose of securing the Notes, with certain exceptions as set forth therein. (c) Guaranty(the "Guaranty")to be dated as of September 1, 1998 from Allina Health System and Benedictine Health System to the Purchaser. 4. Findings. It is hereby found, determined and declared that: (a) The Project furthers the purposes and policies of the Act. (b) The City held a public hearing on August 4, 1998 relating to the Project, and in the opinion of bond counsel, based on representations of the Borrower, the Series 1998 Notes will be qualified Section 501(c)(3) bonds within the meaning of Section 145 of the Code the interest on which will be exempt from Federal income tax. (c) The Purchaser has presented a proposal to purchase the Series 1998 Notes at a price below the par amount of the principal of the Notes on the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement, this Note Resolution and the Notes (and thereby receive an underwriting compensation of not more than 2.00%). (d) Under the Agreement,the Purchaser represents that it has not sold and agrees that it will not sell the Notes or any interest therein except to "financial institutions" or"institutional buyers"within the meaning of Section 80A.15, Subd. 2(g) of the Minnesota Securities Act and regulations thereunder("Investors") and only in denominations of$100,000 or greater and to no more than 35 Investors. The Purchaser has agreed to execute and to cause each Investor to execute an Investment Letter substantially in the form of Exhibit B to the Agreement, representing among other things that the Purchaser or Investor is purchasing the Notes or interest therein for investment and not with a view to redistribution thereof and that the Purchaser or Investor is a financial institution or institutional buyer and has received all information deemed by it necessary and relevant to its decision to purchase the Notes or interest therein. (e) The representations of the City in Section 2.01 of the Agreement are true and correct. (f) The Agreement provides for payments by the Borrower to the Purchaser for the account of the City of such amounts as will be sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on the Notes when due. No reserve funds are deemed necessary for this purpose. The Agreement obligates the Borrower to provide for the operation and maintenance of the Project Facilities, including adequate insurance, taxes and special assessments. The Agreement further provides for the payment of out of pocket expenses to the City as set forth therein. The Notes may be tendered for purchase on certain dates upon the terms and conditions described in the Agreement. The Purchaser has agreed to act as remarketing agent and tender agent. (g) The Borrower has approved and requested the City to accept the proposal of the Purchaser to purchase the Notes on the terms set forth herein and in the Agreement, and the proposal appears feasible and reasonable. 5. Approval and Execution of Documents. The forms of Agreement and Assignment referred to in paragraph 3 are approved and upon approval of the Project by the Commissioner of Trade and Economic Development shall be executed in the name and on behalf of the City by the Mayor and attested by the Clerk or the officers authorized to act on behalf of the foregoing officers, in substantially the form on file, but with all such changes therein, not inconsistent with the Act or other law, as may be approved by the officers executing the same, which approval shall be conclusively evidenced by the execution thereof. 6. Approval of Terms and Sale of Notes. The City shall proceed forthwith to issue its Series 1998 Notes, in the amounts, maturing, bearing interest, payable upon maturity and otherwise containing the provisions set forth in paragraph 2 hereof and in the form of Note attached to the Agreement as Exhibit A-1, which terms and provisions are hereby approved and incorporated in this Note Resolution and made a part hereof. A single Note, substantially in the form of Exhibit A-1 to the Agreement, shall be issued and delivered to the Purchaser, and principal of and interest on the Note shall be payable at the office of the Purchaser in Minneapolis, Minnesota. 7. Execution, Authentication and Delivery of Notes. The Note may be in typewritten or printed form and shall be executed by the manual or facsimile signatures of the Mayor and City Clerk (only one need be manual) and the official seal of the City may be affixed thereto. When so prepared and executed, the Note shall be delivered to the Purchaser for payment of the purchase price, upon satisfaction of the conditions specified on the Agreement, including receipt of the signed legal opinion of Faegre & Benson LLP, of Minneapolis, Minnesota, bond counsel. 8. Registration Records. The Notes shall be registered in the name of the Purchaser on behalf of Investors. The principal of and interest on the Notes shall be paid to the Purchaser for the account of the Investors entitled thereto in Federal or other immediately available funds. 9. Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Note. If a Note is mutilated, lost, stolen or destroyed, the City may execute and deliver a new Note of like amount, date, unpaid principal amount and tenor as that mutilated, lost, stolen or destroyed; provided that, in the case of mutilation, the mutilated Note shall first be surrendered to the City, and in the case of a lost, stolen or destroyed Note, there shall be first furnished to the City and the Borrower evidence of such loss, theft or destruction satisfactory to them, together with indemnity satisfactory to them. The City and the Borrower may charge the Purchaser with their reasonable fees and expenses in replacing any mutilated, lost, stolen or destroyed Note. 10. Person Treated as Holder. The person in whose name the Note shall be issued shall be deemed and regarded as the absolute Holder thereof for all purposes, and payment of or on account of the principal of and interest on the Note shall be made only to the Purchaser as the registered owner, and neither the City nor the Borrower shall be affected by any notice to the contrary. All such payments shall be valid and effectual to satisfy and discharge the liability upon the Note to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. 11. Amendments, Changes and Modifications to Agreement, Assignment and Note Resolution. Except pursuant to Section 3.03, 4.01 or 9.04 of the Agreement, the City shall not enter into or make any change, modification, alteration or termination of the Agreement, the Assignment or this Note Resolution. 12. Pledge to Holder. Pursuant to the Assignment, the City shall pledge and assign to the Purchaser and its successor Holders of the Notes all interest of the City in all Loan Repayments to be made by the Borrower under the Agreement and moneys derived from enforcement of the Agreement other than moneys received by the City as indemnity or reimbursement of advances by the City. Other than such indemnity and advance reimbursement payments, all collections of moneys by the City in any proceeding for enforcement of the obligations of the Borrower under the Agreement shall be received, held and applied by the City for the benefit of the Holders of the Notes. 13. Covenants with Holders; Enforceability. All provisions of the Notes and of this Note Resolution and all representations and undertakings by the City in the Agreement are hereby declared to be covenants between the City and the Purchaser and its successor Holders of the Notes and shall be enforceable by the Purchaser or any Holder in a proceeding brought for that purpose. 14. Escrow Account. The proceeds of the Series 1998 Notes shall be deposited into the Escrow Account to be invested and to be withdrawn by the Borrower upon order of the Authorized Borrower Representative for payment of Project Costs as provided in the Agreement. 15. Prior Action Ratified. The terms and provisions of the Agreement, the Assignment, the Guaranty and each resolution of the City heretofore adopted by the City relating to the Series 1998 Notes or the Project and the application relating thereto are all hereby incorporated by reference and adopted, ratified and confirmed; the City shall file an application for approval with the Commissioner of Trade and Economic Development; and the officers of the City and Faegre & Benson LLP as bond counsel are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver all closing documents and do every other thing necessary or convenient to carry out the terms and provisions of the Agreement and each exhibit thereto (including this Note Resolution)to the end that the Project shall be completed and that the Series 1998 Notes shall be delivered, secured and serviced and carry out the purposes and provisions of the Act with respect thereto without further resolution or other action by this City. 16. Definitions and Note Interpretation. Terms not otherwise defined in this Note Resolution but defined in the Agreement shall have the same meanings in this Note Resolution and shall be interpreted herein as provided therein. Notices may be given as provided in Section 9.02 of the Agreement. In case any provision of this Note Resolution is for any reason illegal or invalid or inoperable, such illegality or invalidity or inoperability shall not affect the remaining provisions of this Note Resolution, which shall be construed or enforced as if such illegal or invalid or inoperable provision were not contained herein. 17. Certifications. The officers of the City are authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to Faegre & Benson LLP, bond counsel, to the Borrower, to the Purchaser and to counsel for the Borrower and Guarantors, certified copies of all proceedings and records of the City relating to the Project and the Notes, and such other affidavits and certificates as may be required to show the facts appearing from the books and records in the officers' custody and control or as otherwise known to them; and all such certified copies, certificates and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall constitute representations of the City as to the truth of all statements contained therein. MI 400677 01 The motion for adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member , and upon vote being taken thereon the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. M1:400677.01 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF SCOTT ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota do hereby certify that the attached extract of minutes of a regular meeting of the City Council of the City held September 1, 1998, is a full, true and correct transcript therefrom insofar as the same relates to a project to be undertaken pursuant to Sections 469.152 to 469.165, as amended, Minnesota Statutes, by the City and St. Francis Regional Medical Center. WITNESS My hand and seal officially as said City Clerk this day of September , 1998. City Clerk (Seal) M1:400677.01 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: New Sergeants Compensation DATE: August 26, 1998 Introduction The Council action appointing the two new Sergeants did not specify the compensation for those employees. Background Two Police Officers have been appointed Sergeants. They need to be moved onto the Sergeants pay scale. Disregarding other pay factors such as longevity, performance pay, lead pay, etc. and focusing on the base pay per the union contracts, the two officers are at the top step of the Police Officer pay scale ($3, 658.59/mo. ) . Moving them onto the Sergeants pay scale at the step which is the next higher dollar amount compared to their Police Officer base pay would put them at step 2 - $3,837.74/mo. Action Requested Move that Sergeants Forberg and Robson be placed on step two of the Sergeants 1998 pay scale with a new anniversary date of August 19, 1998 for pay purposes and movement to step 3 occur after one year the appointment to Sergeant. Gregg Voxland Finance Director c:\memo\gregg\sergpay Is- , iz'.L , CITY OF SHAKOPEE C 0 AI S ) A -1---- Memorandum Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: Resolution no. 4982 amending Resolution No. 4801 Adopting The 1998 Fee Schedule DATE: August 26, 1998 Introduction and Background: Council is asked to amend the 1998 Fee Schedule for assessment reports in order to clarify and simplify the charges. The current fee reads as follows; Complete assessment rolls .... $10.00 up to 10 pages. 11 or more$2.00/each. The proposed fee would read : Complete or partial assessments rolls or other assessment reports .... $25.00 plus$5.00 shipping if applicable. For existing hard copy documents, the copying fee would apply ($.20/page). Action Requested: Offer Resolution No. 4982 a resolution amending Resolution No. 4801 adopting the 1998 Fee Schedule and move its adoption. RESOLUTION 4982 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 4801 ADOPTING THE 1998 FEE SCHEDULE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, COUNTY OF SCOTT, MINNESOTA, that the 1998 Fee Schedule for assessments rolls is amended as follows; The current fee reads as follows; Complete assessment rolls .... $10.00 up to 10 pages. 11 or more $2.00/each. The amended fee reads : Complete or partial assessments rolls or other assessment reports .... $25.00 plus $5.00 shipping if applicable. For existing hard copy documents, the copying fee would apply, Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1998. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: City Administrator Performance/Salary Adjustment DATE: August 26, 1998 INTRODUCTION: The Council is asked to consider the City Administrator's annual performance evaluation for the year ended July 22, 1998, and further consider compensation adjustments. BACKGROUND: Evaluation In accordance with earlier Council directive, on August 14th, Mayor Brekke and Councilor DuBois met with me to review my job performance for the second year of my service as Shakopee City Administrator, the anniversary of which was July 22nd. Each of the five members of the City Council had provided written comments to Mayor Brekke, which were shared with me. Salary: Compensation issues were discussed. I was hired at Step 5 of the old pay plan; however, when the new plan was adopted, I suggested being removed from the plan. After reviewing the merits of being back on the step and grade system,the recommendation of the Mayor and Councilor DuBois is that a 3% increase be approved instead. That will increase my compensation to $75,087; that would be between steps 5 and 6 of the 1998 pay plan. (Typically, City employees who are not at their top step would receive a step increase on their anniversary,totaling about 2.8%, in addition to a typical cost of living increase. For the past two years,the cost of living increase has been 2.5%,which,when combined with the typical step increase, equates to about 5.3%.) My employment agreement currently reads as follows: "The starting salary shall be Step 5 of the 1996 non-union pay plan." In order to reflect the decision last year to be removed from the pay plan, and adjust my current salary, the employment agreement should be modified as follows: SALARY.DOC The City Administrator shall be paid $75,087 annually commencing July 22. 1998; said amount shall be adjusted as needed as may be mutually agreed upon, Vehicle Allowance: I also requested that the Council consider establishment of a vehicle allowance, rather than the existing arrangement, which provides for per mile reimbursement for travel outside of the City. No compensation is done for travel within Shakopee. I provided the Mayor and Councilmember DuBois with copies of the 1998 Stanton Survey,which shows the preponderance of City Administrators in the Stanton Group Six receiving a vehicle allowance. Of those receiving a monthly vehicle allowance,the average is $337.25 per month. What I am suggesting is that my employment agreement be changed, and the automobile expenses section be replaced with the following language: The City recognizes that the City Administrator will make extensive use of his personal automobile or a city provided automobile to adequately fulfill the duties and functions of his position. In recognition thereof,the City agrees to pay the City Administrator an automobile expense allowance of$300 per month, to be adjusted annually on January 1, if a city owned vehicle is not provided for business and personal use as allowed by Resolution No. 3098. The auto expense allowance shall be adjusted as needed from time to time. RECOMMENDATION: The recommendation of the Mayor and Councilor DuBois is to increase the annual compensation by 3%,retroactive to my anniversary date of July 22nd; further,to implement a vehicle allowance of$300 per month, effective September 1st. ACTION REQUIRED: If the Council concurs, it should direct that the employment agreement with City Administrator Mark McNeill be amended to reflect the implementation of a$300/month vehicle allowance effective September 1, 1998, and a 3% cost of living adjustment retroactive to July 22, 1998. Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:tw SALARY.DOC RESOLUTION NO. 3098 A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY'S POLICY FOR CITY WHEREAS, the Shakopee City Council has determined that it is a in the best interest of theCity 1City fShakoee to owned/leased vehicleste and policy to regulate theuse private vehicles used for City business; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to clearly convey this policy to City employees. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF doeE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA that the Shakopee City Councilhereby adopt the City Vehicle Policy dated August 1, 1989 which shall be attached hereto and made a part hereof. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Resolution No. 2466 is hereby repealed in its entirety. Adopted in session of t e City Coup it of the City of Shakopee,ee, M" nnesota, held this ,�i day of 1989. ,04,;:27.../ /21' ;44-4-44-1t Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: - A 7) :L • A. Citi Clerk Approved as to form this 1989. _L_ day of City Att neyy�...�...• 0 000000000000000000 000000 O M O 0 U1 0 0 0 Oto N. O.00rN.P.t.t WC0U10PN.O'U1 u1P0.0000 0rrr.0000N0U N N mi.-n.1 r N.-.-N.-- N Nrr N Nrrr NN }N X 0 U I'H- i. r C O M CU W O 00. M M J *0 • J N- N <4-• E Cr CT N > r o U) X 0 0 0 0 0 V1 O O 0 O Lu,-=0‹01->1-Y 0 M U) N) -t VC WWI '0 z z.... r > W 0. O c7 00.W '0 to TO to to'0 N. >40 U It O #N J Nr- .t UI r r N. vO J U1 N.00 N CO N.M M.t J N. O Q .t• -•O 00 •0P ON P 0 N. N.U1 00 O P ON 0000 N. 2 1 P Pr P 0000 r0 00 P P OOP N. P N. 00 N.P0000 N- G r r r I J z in 44-N •0 00 M .t M N P .t 00 N. U1 P M M 03441 P .t U r . . . • . . . X X r MN M 40r 4r444) N -0 00 COO, M U1.0 P 00 W 00 00 P 00 N.N- NI,- N. N. N. 40 N. 40 TO vO TO VO 40 M U) TO CL' K a C f N. H H N.U) a H tYW ax.. CA rtYU rwwC CO=rW tY 0) OC OC C tY N N 00 LU O LU Cl)LU WW W W W .-.W W X W W W W W P W W W W.-..-+W W et W.-.W c7 at 07070 me CD<0 2C_2 O c70z 2 e0 2Ct•-• W Zec ec eczc<-Z0< Q c<z t70z as aaa aa•---aaa-•-»ate-a aaa--a---aaa �a--aa-- zzszzza0zzszzz0zfzoc > szzzaz0sz<CDC-zszo0 <60<<<00<<00<<<004060 X > paasQ Q004CQW naoa 00 S E Q S i S E Q E E.0Q 1 E E Q Q E Q E E a Q 8 Y$6 8 a a E E X• E a E U a t z J )-).-}T T T Y>>}}Y Y Y Y>Y Y}}Y Y}T}>Y>Y}}}...Y Y Y Y Yt . 4-4 F- U U U U U U c.)U U U U O D U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U<U U U U U 'f 0000000000000000 U10000 0.t 000000M 0000000 U1 ce ta_X r U1NN.U1.00r U1N.t Pr Pr 0OM'0 U1.t U1 O U1'0-t.t'OPrNr P UONOM 24-Ow N •,--N r a-..,-- r r r r r NN . f' 0\N z z z 1 1 1 z z z z z 1 1 1 1 z z z z 1 1 11111111111111111 j t...W J W W OC U 11==z z>1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11111111111r1-41-4z 01 000000000000000000000 00000000000E04-40•'0 a< I E E E E X 0c E E E X X X X X X X X X X X IX X X X X X X X X X\E E X E E N3 '".".'\\0.�����,..\,-'��-4.,.". -�\�����\\'U1".���� -' 10 004404110 000U1U101n0000,ttn0 0LA0004O-t0001ANOrL100 '� QJ U11AMU1NOtYU1LALAUN)NU1000MNO ONO.0.p0UINOMUINMOMN.MU1 C HQ 0440N41fRU01010164WI 0160 0900taMfAfA tNI nn NONVIN0140M0000,0 Rtl 016060 A II t, U U.J> )OMM1UU1U1N. 10NP.tOPMP.tUMO.t .tL 00 CO0U.tON.0U1.0U1N-U1.tO.t .i 00.0. NMO O.tN.N.MM'ON..t.UAMrNON.P N.04000.tNPN.OM.tUO.t.N-P f. #W N Al N N N N N N r N r r r N r r r r N r r r 44-re- r F t_ 0 N w << • «< « < << N «<< a < < < 4-I 00 <O.0.<0.Cl)<<O.a a 10.0_<<0.«d0- ui etO0.O O.<O.<0.<0.<V)<0.UI O {' .0 0 EZZZZcOZEEEE1XZZZZUEZX P EZEEEEEEEEZZU•EZU • Ez '1 rrr rr rr rrr M0 e- < r : G O • P ti H ✓ 0= 0 -t �'i 00 N •Ph. hl r r re- P r r r r r r r r r I U) A L 0 C. 0 } O co U L z 00 N O CO U1 r .1-4-4- r r !..��';� Ia tL 0 U1 3 M a a I z W co.t.t 0 N N P'OsO N in N N O 00N OO M 00 N. N-rM-trN.N..tMO0r0.OrON- T NWQ 0..t.t 00r N N N.MM'O U)IA•00 U)U)M.t N r N.POrrO'.'Or.tNr COMN PN- ++ 3E Cr O PPP P O O CO P P 00 P PP P PN-00000000 P 030300PN.PN-03N-N.N.N.00N-r-40N U rr tL J OW #W U) H U) = U W 0 N J OC.. W N. N. H LU w Y U) 1 Y W H= < Y J 0 N. 1 W CC Y >z J I- 1 W= J- 0 U) .+ w< W 0W W Q 0 J< =W Y 0 W<OC >a J CC U> = H H J a Q= == W I- J Y.-. 0 J W O w 0 0 03< U) 1 Q a W W > U a= Jw< OCU) <-4J.J0Y 2a'W W ow >H2 < N U)N CIC <r •.00C Or >J_W J_0 a'W Y U.-•U a W J.-.a a' N-H- C7 U) w< M 0 CIC >1-a UI I-. 3 D U' J > J.:x.0W2 J V)0 0 z z Y Q 3 W U) U) .. w W Q W 01 W>tr_>w UQY.W W 0 <N.U=>W=a 1<— -.t))=JO 2EQz2 Z2 J J-J W=W Jp1-0 W K1- Cly ON 00,..=,,,,,,,,..,.. W O Y U a z w-0 a&Y U U)a O N 0>0•. 0 Y Y 3 3 0 J=<w-4 0 fn&E¢_-> O -J exww U)IwwI w W a-J <00 Cle z== 0 U W w z OO=w 1-¢ = 0 a w CO E 00EUf CO 0-J r CY E 3 U m 1 ur 3 OUz z100U3 UU)N 279 ::::.Stanton Group mull 00000 O M 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ... 41 . .•00'0-N N1CO3 . . . 00000000000 0000 N N Nm1.- N NNt.M^NICO^.p� �MM^ N U.- >YO1 '0 .0 W e- 07 LL y o w s mom J I- 9t CO •J U X Q.Z 3 v 0 M oro ts C 0 A �, i �Fco X 00 0 00 0 00 00 000000 Z vM M MtA M NM m mW OM viv •O CO.OMhN1 O 0 w WIN _ O 00 NOW 60 v•0-0 IA MN CO P M.0.0NOs -MCOM 1 X NO OMN-t �t CO NN-10 O. 0� .ZO. a M O.-t O. . NN Mut.,Qp MIAO.f�O M•OPf. 1 CO COCOM CO h-.0.0 NNN O NOW.OM N•0•0 CO NM'0.0-.1 .MN Pill 0 MM M•O.O�t�tMM 7 J _ ON.}P N.U Z ^ •P Nit�lP 0.03 p..O N O.•0 M NMN X Z ��tt O.p fie- ►� '• ��v: W .O MONS O NO •NO IOA-?IOAM M IAM �v- •O e-N10M MM e-N �T�T�tMMMM.1.1. I5® 0: o- W YCt:Q Gem OC y. W OO JI-W2 a. •0 K 7 U V l C t:0WI y\.-.H 1- a' W Y I- w U . y LU EMIW W .. a 007220722 W 0222<22 Q2227 0/1<22\22222220 1-12 z Z Z 2 Z Z 0 Q 1 Z Z M Z Z-1 y 1 1 1¢Z 1 Z J 1-1 1 Q 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 J Zaaaiaa > 1 ¢QtQQQ powo0ac�ln Jccccocc¢ Y 2 2 Oa Q a I-Q a Z 2 Z`� a¢a a a¢a Q 1 U .•.a>aa>-a>a D-HH17-1117-7......>r>~ 0 I- 1-1-1-1-1441-1-111-1-1-11-1-1.-II l-H1.-HH1.-HF-HHJ.-. .._ QUUUUUUUU UUUvLJ:.00 ......0......00 WW V a 0 0.0.0.0.0.M.0.0. 0000M00 000000000000000.a0-0 N 0 0 0 0 i O O M W 0 0 0 YOW .4•-NNul ONc n ^MCO N.OA�MI�.p►�MCO - • • • • N N . SN.OMf�e-MNNMM HW 0\1- 222222222 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 X 2 2 v 2 2 Z 2 Z 2 2 2 MU >•-•22212 2 2-J-. J_J W W W J J W UJ W 02 0 2J 2222 J.-.22>22 JJrZ 2•-.J2_J2 y3 01000002 I WO1 ZZO..0000..100000...-. (IN�i is M\IZZM\ \ 01\ \\2211121\ZZMEZ11\11\2222 C KJ20 NOIA000 M 7\M ^M\\\\\\\IA\\a\\\\IA\\IA\\\\ MMONwOW N >NM MM IOANO_MOCOMMNW tte-e-e-OOe.NIAe-0 1-a UWM�WrflW N QM MMNIA< -CM • •MrO^MMCM •. O 000 0000000000 ►MM0000 U.> IAO. 0.00Ni M, WW 0000M10eN fA f�.0 •O N.t M.O MM.-WW. e-e-•O��M0.00.-f�CO CO O•�.O O•�?IM.O� MN W t7/J �?Na-M MN�t� e-Me-y1.- - 0 41W «LU < < ? <a a a Oa • a as a lyL L ,,, , .0.<<<0<<<0.aaaa aQaaGa0aa0yO.QyQyQQvddvOQm O O 00 es 0 FSmm> Y + Zm11'71122112222C011COZCOmZm110022 o a a a+ 7 • NO U y N . h c_ O 0 W zL m a H rW w Cf e- .-e-e-.- .- CO C O 141CO e-•'-•-.- e-e-e- e- e- T-..-, .- e- W • U. \ W M H® XII L a . CJ 3 M O e-.-e- e-e-e- it pm nC co y 0. 1 OQH InPOMNM OSLO N O N,t Ne- a a a O_ FWQ NCO�tUM V1M N. . . . .NONNTM�?00000l�MIA•O I�NNMM't'N _ 32Ct: in\J�1�in, N.f�.0 N. ti.M0.p.0M.0.O.O IOn IMA M.O.OWN.-NOOe-NCO COOIA IA V1 f�.0 U •OMMM.OM^.OMM1.0MvvMd•0 tL J ••. O� not pl 4tIU liJ W y -J X NM 011 .0.. U) J K _� F- y C7 0 1" 1 a S on a 1- C7 ¢ O 0 0 1- a a cm 1 _ > ~ Q Y 14.1 W 1 H W F- -411 Y Y W< W <11.1 1 > L W N J y>Q 2 y ..UI-O O 0<<0 1 a O. N= 1.. O W W Y mi- y 0 <0.1 I/JyOha--- a 1 00.0 =J a rY W U4 C7J2 I .10 0C Q 0 s 0 O 7 W1031-0W 2 7 1 W.a..Q Ct:JY m<Z.--. 0 a m S y 0[00221-W O 0 01J.-.H W y 2 O<0-I 2<~Q0 Q Q 0020 p_'w2 C Q Q C 0 0 1 7 Q-y 2 W Z W 1-1 J C e w...w O U a H U 0 N Z a 1 0.U.O O Q O 0 0.0 2 7 1101<000w 7 m =0•-1-J011140-1 YCLU YZ_143 W U>W W�37 a U y 2 a>1 1 m 1 m Q J u-I w u-U J I U.U 0 L 3 3 1 0 1 0U) W 2UO1-1(,)J N :::.Stanton Group mu --