Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/03/1997 TENTATIVE AGENDA June 3, 1997 Page -2- 14] General Business A] Engineering 1. Storm Sewer Extension from CR-16 to Samantha Woods Addition 2. Lead Person Positions for the Public Works Department 3. Award Contract for Maras Street Improvements, Project 1996-4 -Res. No. 4678; memo on table *4. Easement Acquisition for Maras Street, Project No. 1996-4 5. Fourth Avenue and Canterbury Pointe Storm Sewer B] Police and Fire *1. Authorize Hiring Process for Fire Fighters 2. Mini Police Academy 3. Police Pistol Range/Environmental Clean Up C] Park and Recreation D] Community Development 1. ADC Telecommunications Appeal of BOAA's Decision Regarding Landscape Islands *2. Amendment to Fee Schedule for Over-Height Fence CUP's -Res. No. 4673 *3. Request County to Notify City of Lot Splits - Res. No. 4677 E] General Administration *1. St. Mary's Church Temporary Liquor License 2. On Sale Liquor License Water Hook-Ups - Ord. No. 486 3. Incorporation Petition for Spring Lake Township 4. 612 Area Code Proposed Changes 5. Library Building Offer 15] Other Business 16] Recess for an executive session to discuss labor negotiations and matters permitted under attorney-client privilege 17] Re-convene 18] Adjourn to Tuesday, June 17, 1997 at 7:00 P.M. TENTATIVE AGENDA CITY OF SHAKOPEE REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JUNE 3, 1997 LOCATION: 129 Holmes Street South Mayor Jeff Henderson presiding 1] Roll Call at 7:00 P.M. 2] Recess for an Economic Development Authority Meeting 3] Re-convene 4] Approval of Agenda 5] Approval of Consent Business - (All items noted by an * are anticipated to be routine. After a discussion by the Mayor, there will be a opportunity for members of the City Council to remove items from the consent agenda for individual discussion. Those items removed will be considered in their normal sequence on the agenda. Those items remaining on the consent agenda will otherwise not be individually discussed and will be enacted in one motion.) 6] Liaison Reports from Councilmembers 7] Mayor's Report 8] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS *9] Approval of Minutes: May 6, 1997 and May 14, 1997 *10] Approve Bills in the Amount of$288,581.07 11] Communications *A. American Cancer Society regarding access to Memorial Park after normal business hours for the"Walk in the Park" event 12] 7:00 P.M. Public Hearing on the proposed 1997 Street Overlay Public Improvement Project No. 1997-2 - Res. No. 4675 (Bring feasibility report from May 6) 13] Recommendations from Boards and Commissions A] Preliminary Plat of South Parkview 3rd Addition located west of Adams Street and north of Vierling Drive - Res. No. 4676 B] Text Amendment Regarding Minor Subdivision Process - Ord. No. 484 *C] Text Amendment Regarding Lot Area in The Highway Business (B1) Zone - Ord. 485 D] Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Add 40 Acres in the West Dean Lake Area to the MUSA Area - Res. No. 4679 i� �<:SY ,�'' �r-��' d:. ks#tom d' ;. ^t . a§,r • 6 ' "HE CITY f• Regular Meeting Tuesday,June 6, 1997 1. Roll Call at 7:00 p.m. 2. Approval of the agenda 3. Approval of May 6, 1997 minutes 4. Financial A.)Approval of Bills 1.Payment to Lee Frankman(Imperial Wok),and Phillip Hill for property taxes 5. New Business: A.)Blocks 3&4 Project 1.Change order for deletion of fencing 6. Other Business: 7. Adjourn edagenda.doc OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SHAKOPEE, MN REGULAR SESSION MAY 06, 1997 Members Present: DuBois, Zorn, Henderson, Link and President Sweeney Members Absent: None Staff Present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator; R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director; Paul Snook, Economic Development Coordinator Others Present: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Gregg Voxland, Finance Director and Jim Thomson, City Attorney 1. Roll Call President Sweeney called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. Roll was taken as noted above. 2. Approval of Agenda The following item was added to the agenda: 7.A) Clock Tower. Henderson/Link moved to approve the agenda as amended. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Approval of April 1 and April 15, 1997 Minutes Henderson/Zorn moved to approve the April 1 and April 15, 1997, minutes. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Financial A. Approval of Bills DuBois/Zorn moved to approve bills in the amount of$203.74 for the EDA General Fund and $25,791.21 for the Blocks 3 & 4 Fund. Motion carried unanimously. 5. New Business: A. Rehab Grant Program 1. Guideline and application changes Mr. Snook explained that there is an opportunity to revise the program guidelines and application relating to inspection of work and proof of a building's structural Official Proceedings of the May 6, 1997 Shakopee Economic Development Authority Page -2- soundness. He said that rather than having a Building Inspector attest to the structural soundness of a building for the Rehab Grant Program and placing the City at risk for claims, a more effective requirement would be for the applicant and building owner to attest to the structural soundness by signing such a provision in the application. Zorn/Link moved to approve the changes on Exhibit A and B: Exhibit A - Guidelines, page three, number 8 a. to: "The work has been inspected and approved by city staff". Exhibit B - Application, page two, bottom of the page to: "I Property Owner, attest that the property mentioned in this application is structurally sound.", and "I , Applicant, attest that the property mentioned in this application is structurally sound". A discussion ensued relating to building inspection control to ensure the structural soundness. DuBois/Henderson moved to amend the motion requiring the property owner to pay for a certified building inspector to ensure the soundness of the property prior to money being allocated. Motion carried with Commissioner Zorn dissenting. The main motion as amended carried unanimously. 2. Application - Shakopee 84 Partnership/ Jerry Hertel Mr. Snook asked that discussion be deferred to a later time when Mr. Hertel can be present. B. Blocks 3 and 4 1. Establish a process to hear appeal of Suburban Automotive Mr. Snook explained that the EDA has been asked to set up an appeal process for the appeal for business relocation expenses requested by David Anton, owner of Suburban Automotive. He said Conworth has reported that Mr. Anton is entitled to payment for moving expenses as Conworth put together a claim of about $3,000, but Mr. Anton never signed and filed the claim. It appears that Mr. Anton moved his business on his own, and did not reestablish the business in another Official Proceedings of the May 6, 1997 Shakopee Economic Development Authority Page -3- location. Conworth has recommended that the City either hire a mediation /arbitration service and/or provide for in-house mediation to hear the specifics for the appeal. Zorn/DuBois moved to direct staff to arrange for in-house mediation with the City Administrator designating one or two staff persons to serve as mediators. Motion carried unanimously. 6. Old Business: A. Ad Hoc Advisory Committee Mr. Snook explained that staff has been directed to arrive a committee composition, a specific charge or task for the ad hoc advisory committee, and a task timeline. He said staff recommends forming a broad-based volunteer steering committee with the EDA board and staff recruiting/soliciting committee members. A suggested size of the committee would be ten members, with one member from the EDA and one from staff providing City representation. Following a strategic planning process, a mission statement, prioritizing issues and concerns, and developing goals and objectives will be created and implemented. A six to nine month timeframe was suggested for completing this. A discussion ensued relating to the size of the committee, direct communication and expectations, and advertising for volunteers. There was a consensus that each EDA Commissioner seek candidates as well as advertise for volunteers and to bring any names back for further direction and implementation for the creation of a committee comprising of five, plus Mr. Snook, and one EDA Commissioner. 7. Other Business: A. Clock Tower Mr. Snook stated that due to the Blocks 3 & 4 development agreement the clock tower has been placed on hold. Mr. McNeill reported that $3,000 has been raised for the clock tower. The cost could go to $10-12,000 if the signature piece were a clock incorporated into the building. He added that the clock tower at 98th and Lyndale cost approximately $350,000 and was funded privately. There are also substantial maintenance costs with that clock tower. He suggested that if there is to be a clock tower, there should be some local funding and rigorous fund raising. Official Proceedings of the May 6, 1997 Shakopee Economic Development Authority Page -4- Mr. Zorn requested a report from the downtown businesses on what amount they are ready to fund toward a clock tower. 8. Recess - Re-convene President Sweeney recessed the meeting at 7:38 P.M. until after the City Council session is completed. At that time the Application of the Shakopee 84 Partnership will be discussed and will be followed by an executive session to discuss matters permitted under attorney- client privilege. President Sweeney re-convened the meeting at 11:15 P.M. 5. A. 2. Application - Shakopee 84 Partnership /Jerry Hertel Mr. Snook reported that a Rehab grant application has been submitted by the Shakopee 84 Partnership for the convenience center including Tom Thumb on Marschall Road. He said the total cost of improvements is estimated at $93,835.50. Of this amount, the applicant is requesting $23,458.88 for the grant portion. Mr. Snook explained that last year the grant program was expanded from the downtown business district to include the highway business district. The current guidelines for the highway business district still reflect the downtown business district guidelines but do not reflect the types of building material and the work that would be done on more modern buildings for the highway business district. He said staff recommends that precise interpretation of these guidelines be applied so there is no question as to what is or is not eligible. Mr. Snook explained that there is $45,000 available from the grant program and that $13,150 of the grant project funding is pending approval on another project. Staff recommends postponing action on this application with specific direction to refine the existing guidelines to reflect applicability to buildings within the highway business district, and to evaluate other economic development assistance programs for the highway business district. Jerry Hertel, developer, approached the podium and said that the tenants are expecting them to move forward with real improvements and that participation in the grant program would be helpful. He estimated the total cost of the improvements at $118,000, some of which are not recognized in the grant program. He said he is prepared to move forward and would like to have the community involved. He said the project meets the intent of the grant program and that the long term value to the community is in the assessed value of the property which equals increased taxes. Official Proceedings of the May 6, 1997 Shakopee Economic Development Authority Page -5- A discussion ensued regarding previous EDA approval to include the highway business district in the Rehab grant area and the criteria. Link/Zorn moved to approve the grant application for Shakopee 84 Partnership on the Tom Thumb center in the amount of$23,458.88. A discussion ensued relating to signage appearances and sizes. Mr. Snook stated that there are no provisions for design guidelines in the highway business district. President Sweeney expressed his opposition to advertising signs being paid for with tax payers money. Zorn/Henderson moved to amend the motion to remove the $20,090 estimated signage costs, thereby reducing the amount of the grant by $5,022.50. Motion carried unanimously The main motion, as amended, carried unanimously. Zorn/DuBois moved to direct staff to develop guidelines for design criteria for the highway business grants to be considered by the Ad Hoc Committee for the EDA to use in considering future grant requests. Motion carried unanimously. 8. Recess to discuss matters permitted under attorney - client privilege President Sweeney recessed the meeting at 11:43 P.M. for an executive session to discuss matters permitted under attorney-client privilege. 9. Re-convene President Sweeney re-convened the EDA meeting at 11:57 P.M. and stated that the EDA took no action during the executive session. Zorn/DuBois moved to appeal the condemnation award given to Su Jen Sene, Imperial Wok (Blocks 3 and 4). Motion carried unanimously. Henderson/Zorn moved to authorize that$79,625 be placed on deposit with the court to meet the three quarter requirement for the appeal process (for the Imperial Wok). Mr. Snook advised that the EDA has already paid $127,000. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Snook advised the EDA that 75% of the $336,650 award for Mr. Brambilla equals $252,487.50 and that $250,000 has already been paid which leaves $2,487.50. Official Proceedings of the May 6, 1997 Shakopee Economic Development Authority Page -6- Zorn/Henderson moved to authorize that$2,487.50 be placed on deposit with the court to meet the three quarter requirement for the appeal process for Mr. Brambilla. Motion carried unanimously. Henderson/DuBois moved that the attorney representing the City be instructed to proceed with a cross appeal on the condemnation award given to Mr. Brambilla. Motion carried unanimously. 10. Adjournment Henderson/Zorn moved to adjourn to Tuesday, May 14, 1997, at 4:30 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 12:01 A.M. .01( LI4dith S. Cox EDA Secretary Esther TenEyck Recording Secretary L.�4, CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: President & Commissioners Mark H. McNeill, Executive Director FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: EDA Bill List DATE: May 29, 1997 Introduction Attached is a listing of bills for the EDA and the Blocks 3&4 project for the period 05/16/97 to 05/29/97. Action Requested Move to approve bills in the amount of $13,308.30 for the EDA General Fund and $152,472.05 for the Blocks 3&4 Fund. Ey O O 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O II H O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O II A • . . • • • • • • • • • • 11 rs7 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O II 0 O O O O O O O O O N O W V) H 0 U1 111 In 10 m O O m m m 1` N rl W O CO N m O O O O m EA O OD O OD OD OD CD CO U1 sr O U1 111 U) OD N N N 0 H M H LO O O O 1/40 LO N O In m U1 CO U) r N C` co LQ H O H M m m 01 N m CO m O Tr Tr Tr N W m m m m co M H ri H LO N N N Ul A H H H H m U) in in lD H H H H H H II W En 0 p >I II xax aaaxaaaxa En En II O H O H H H O H H H O H LO M U) O H N lD N CO rl 01 ll) Cn rl O M O O O H O O H Tr O H W ri W Tr C H d' CP [M rl C rt. ‘F. Ln w Ut U1 U) d. U1 Ul U) Tr Ul C4 W O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E4 P4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (00 cn U� CO OH E• ll H H H OH GL' W OH C01 ,+ E4 EA EA CO W 24 01 E4 Ul KCKC H0) Z0 C1 >+ C4 Ell 24 0G .IEr] OHHEA W Er. CD OOOWFACOXHa O H as XOu] COX40 c4 0) W W Ell RSCnHOHx C4 Ell 04e4 n10. HX0EAa 0 X X A Ell KC OOAxHH2> C0a a• Z r4 FA 0 E w a ' fX O c O H O E 0 e4 AFC 24 Ell Ho (x m H ,tf WA W Ell G ,.iSWCn1xU4 0 N E4 a CO E- >C C9 0 En a a — a >+ O Z x FC w > h Kg a Tr W U) H ARS OD A ZCDH N a o 0 Z a x 01 H Ft z 3 W Z z a co 4 w co 24 01 O ZEiaZOflz4ZKa 0 KC H m A x D W EE4KC1.4 24 AwGaWC) .1X � H m El KCO N t` CD m t` CO m C) H 0 C` m m 0 H 0 0 0 LO Z VD O CO m m O LO O O O C` Tr W OD ri N O O H OD ri H H m N J ri HN HEi E ri HEaHM ri C` C` O O 111 LO C` 0 H U1 m m 4 H Is O OD I. N ri N 0 N N LD C) Dorno mm m000000 W U) Tr U) d' d. C Ul Ul U) U) U) U) X O Ln in to U1 Ul in to U) U) 1n 111 U1 o Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E Cs N 1- 1- t` N N t` N N 0- CA m m m m m m m m m m m m CA m m m m m m m m m m m ri H ri ri ri r♦ H ri ri H vi H N ri t` ri H ri N OD O CO 1- co W N N N N N N N N N N N N El \\\ \\\\\\\\\ KC In U) Ul Ul U) U1 U) to 1n in Ul Ln A O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 iX * * * * * * H Ul m al m O1 H m O m * H H H V, O (U * O m * 24 0 Z X 0 Z * F7 00 Cil H A 0 0000000 r- H 0 .7 u1 ri m m o4 Cl) G. H ri ri ri H ri ri OD m RS CO rt KC O rn C Tr U H r1 m m m CO 01 m m d' C7 H Ey C7 Tr <r W 0 H 0 w Tr w w w w Tr w w 0 H 0 H O ririri a A W mmmmmmmmm a A CU C4 mmm mmmm 01 MMM CO A a HriH x a a wTrTrcr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr C4 R: a 0 0 o O O H m m m m m m m m m 0 Er.0 F e4 ii m m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C7 A H H H 4 14 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 KC 4 2 1n U) 1n EA EA * mmmmmmmmm Ei E .-i ri ri O O * m m m m m M m M m O 0 * * Es. ri ri ri El E+ * Tr Tr w Tr w w w yr w H E, * * 1, A. I , CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: EDA FROM: Paul Snook, Economic Development Coordinator SUBJECT: Property tax payments to Lee Frankman(Imperial Wok) and Phillip Hill DATE: May 27, 1997 Introduction and Background: At its May 20th meeting,the EDA approved payment for first half 1997 property taxes and penalties in the amounts of$1,750 for the Imperial Wok property, and$666.69 for the Phillip Hill property in the Blocks 3 &4 project. The actual amounts to be paid have been revised. The reason for this is that the transactions are being handled as reimbursements rather than direct payments to Scott County, and there is an addition of a parcel to the Imperial Wok property that had been previously omitted. As to the Imperial Wok property,the total amount owed to Scott County for first half property taxes plus penalties for two parcels, is $2,594.80. The attorney for the owners of the Imperial Wok, Lee Frankman, is paying the total amount. Their liability for first half property taxes is 1/6 or$415.65. The EDA, upon receiving a receipt as proof of payment, should reimburse Mr. Frankman for the City's 5/6 portion of$2,079.35, and 100%of penalties on both parcels, $99.80,totaling $2,179.15. As to the Phillip Hill property, all of the first half property taxes of$792.82 were paid by Mr. Hill. However, $360.36 in special assessments remain unpaid with a penalty of $7.21. Total unpaid is$367.57,which Mr. Hill is responsible for. The City should reimburse Mr. Hill the City's 5/6 portion, $660.68, less the unpaid special assessment and related penalty of$367.57,totaling $293.11. Budget Impact: $2,179.15 paid to Mr. Frankman, and$293.11 paid to Mr. Hill from the Blocks 3 &4 fund. Action Requested: Offer and pass a motion to reimburse Mr. Frankman for the City's 5/6 portion of first half 1997 property taxes and 100%of penalties on both parcels,totaling $2,179.15. This reimbursement is contingent upon the City receiving a receipt as proof of payment of first half property taxes and related penalty. wkhltxmo.doc Offer and pass a second motion to reimburse Mr. Hill the City's 5/6 portion of first half 1997 property taxes, less the unpaid special assessment and related penalty,totaling $293.11. .1/ Paul Snook Economic Development Coordinator wkhltxmo.doc inns-LJ-1I It1U J. JU ?dVl Y. 1 PC906S 10 T70 BRC Tax System Inquiry arcel No. Year General Prompt 270010460 1997 MP# R 270010460 3xpayer 16573 Calc thru 052997 Total ! EMV LMV Deeded Acres PHILIPP R HILL 43,100 43, 100 324 W 1ST ST Dist 2204 SD 0720 Bk Pg SHAKOPEE MN 55379 Plat CITY of SHAKOPEE lternate Sec Twn Rn Lot Block 003 004 scrow W1/2 OF EX MN DOT PLAT rop Addr Class 204-0-099 1 of 2 110 1 AVE E Hmst Decl Statue NON-HSTD SHAKOPEE 55379 Original Abat/Addn Collections Balance Net Tax 1,585 .64 792 .82 792 .82 Special Aemte 360.36 360.36 Total before P&I 1,946 .00 792 .82 1,153.18 Penalty 7.21 7 .21 Interest Fees * * TOTALS 1,953 .21 792 .82 1,160.39 A=CSM B=ASM C=DQ D=NAL E=TR FSP P=PA S=GS G-K=APR Mod? Action? 11,1171 L 1 ,11 1 VL :!' J! !1111 r. L TC906E 20 T70 BRC Tax System Inquiry Bill No. Parcel No. Name Transaction Info R 18163 R 270010460 PHILIPP R HILL 0 1997 * * * PAYMENT * * * NET TAX 792 .82 Receipt 227015 *** TOTAL *** 792 .82 Trans# 129843 Receipt Date 05/15/97 Batch Number Payee Name HILL, PHILIPP R System Date 05/16/97 11:44 :40 Posted By TRDERHAT Terminal K7 I Penalty Interest PTR Tax Rental Tax Action? JASPERS JEROME JASPERS(1916-1994) MORIARTY & DENNIS PATRICK MORIARTY STEPHEN W.WALBURG WALBURG, P.A. LEE VICKERMAN ANNE HEIMKES TUTTLE ATTORNEYS & COUNSELLORS AT LAW MICHELLE L.HEIMKES May 22, 1997 Mr. Mark McNeill Shakopee City Administrator 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: SHAKOPEE EDA- IMPERIAL WOK PROPERTY Dear Mr. McNeill: Enclosed please find a copy of the fax transmittal sheet that was sent to Mr. Frankman dealing with the 1997 property taxes on the Imperial Wok property. Mr. Frankman will pay those taxes in full plus the penalty. The agreement with Mr. Frankman is that he will be reimbursed for 5/6ths of the first half of the property taxes plus that penalty. Paul Snook and I calculated that figure to be a total reimbursement to Mr. Frankman of$2,179.15. Once Mr. Frankman has furnished proof that he had paid those taxes, we expects to be reimbursed that amount. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, JASPERS, MORIARTY AND WALBURG, P.A. n ee Vic erman Attorney at Law LV:jt enc. 206 SCOTT STREET• SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA 55379 • (612)445-2817 BELLE PLAINE OFFICE • (612)873-2988 FAX NO.445-0812 mom JASPERS JEROME JASPERS(Ivi6.ivv4) MORIARTY & DENNIS PATRICK MORLARTY STEPHEN W.WAI_HU'RG WALBURG, P.A. LEE\ICKERMAN ANNE HEIMKES TUTTLE ATTORNEYS & COUNSELLORS AT LAW MICHELLE L.HEIMNES FACSIMILE COVER, DATE: D - (2,2 -ct? TO: Lam- Frc%n-LVoA4-te- FAX NUMBER: ' 35 7 D- FROM: Le-e_ l� OUR FILE: t,)._ StvSzoittce 6DA Yc COMMENTS: / ltrs tra-A644, �v1 /( Cj rm 'd.r e[ I�2c etisCirlc44 C6 ?viz C r�c,.�, •� : 4 at y 51,4Dee ,-}�i-3 11 a 6 e;;e) re (Mk 47C.rae 51 1 A c� i`i r st /►C 1T x T //(0 p r yr-" 1 2f -6' 41i.P -1774=-44 17,.,.p� pc f. . Pu-' rt1� f�, k�r.Skd�.p il ' 1 c -)i Ge trSt ILk. 14.k1 4►1(+� CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The document(s)accompanying this fax contain confidential information which is legally privileged.The information is intended only for the use of the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any disclosure,copying, distribution or taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information except in its direct delivery to the intended recipient named above is strictly prohibited. If you have received this fax in error, please notify us immediately by telephone to arrange for return of the original documents to us. Total pages, including cover: Please call (612) 445-2817 and ask for 1-ee, if all pages are not transmitted. 206 SCOTT STREET • SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA 55379 • (612).345-2817 BELLE PLAINE OFFICE • (612)873-2988 FAX NO.445-0812 5A . 1 , CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: EDA FROM: Paul Snook, Economic Development Coordinator SUBJECT: Deletion of fencing/change order DATE: May 27, 1997 Introduction and Background: The EDA is asked to approve a change order for the deletion of fencing the Blocks 3 & 4 demolition site as specified in the contract documents. Since the site was filled in, it was determined that fencing was not needed. Budget Impact: The EDA would receive a credit of$5,000 for this deletion. Action Requested: Offer and pass a motion approving the change order for the deletion of fencing the Blocks 3 &4 site as presented by Dulas Excavating,Inc. i/0!' Paul Snook Economic Development Coordinator fencemmo.doc TKDA TOLTZ,KING, DUVALL,ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES,INCORPORATED ENGINEERS•ARCHITECTS• PLANNERS 1500 PIPER JAFFRAY PLAZA 444 CEDAR STREET SAINT PAUL,MINNESOTA 55101-2140 PHONE:612/292-4400 FAX:612/292-0083 May 21, 1997 Mr. Paul Snook Economic Development Coordinator 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 RE: Change Order#2 Blocks 3 and 4 Demolition City of Shakopee Paul Attached are two copies of Change Order#2 Which deletes the fencing work specified in the contract documents for a credit of$5000.00. Please date and sign all copies and keep one copy for your records. Return the remaining copy to Dulas Excavating. ince ly, Doug nagel An Equal Opportunity Employer CHANGE ORDER Change Order No.: 2 Project Name: Block 3 & 4 Demolition Date: May .13. 1997 City of Shakopee Original Contract Amount $ 139,958_no Change Order(s)No. thru No. $ 10,700.00 Total Funds Encumbered Prior to Change Order $ 150,658.00 Description of Work to be Added: Delete fencing the construction limits area as shown in the Contract Documents and provide credit as indicated below. The above described work shall be incorporated in the Contract, referenced above, under the same conditions specified in the original Contract as amended unless otherwise specified herein. Any work not so specified shall be performed in accordance with the Standard Specifications adopted by the City of Shakopee, Minnesota. decreased The amount of the Contract shall be m'irr5a`3 l by $ 5.000.00 The number of calendar days for completion shall be(increased/decreased) by unchanged Original Contract Amount $ 139.958_00 Change Order(s)No. 1 thru 2 $ 5,700.00 Total funds Encumbered $ 145.658.00 Completion Date: The undersigned Contractor hereby agrees to perform the work specified in this Change Order in accordance with the specification, conditions and prices specified herein. Contractor iii j „ . _ : , e J By: . 4 / 14 „ A s Title: PM4) 4 Date: s- /9- f APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED: City Engineer Date APPROVED: City of Shakopee City Administrator Date 0. OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA MAY 6, 1997 Mayor Henderson called the meeting to order at 7: 03 P.M. with Councilmembers Jane DuBois, Burl Zorn, Robert Sweeney, and Cletus Link present. Also present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator; R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director; Bruce Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer; Jim Thomson, City Attorney; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; and Gregg Voxland, Finance Director. Mayor Henderson noted that due to a computer malfunction this meeting would not be broadcast live. A recess was taken at 7: 04 P.M. for the Economic Development Authority meeting. The meeting re-convened at 7:38 P.M. The following items were removed from the agenda: 14C.4) Public Works equipment acquisitions for 1997, and 14E. 5) Public Works labor union contract. The following items were added to the agenda: 11A. 1) Letter of resignation from James Link, 14E.8) Setting a date for a work session. Sweeney/Link moved to approve the agenda as modified. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/DuBois moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Motion carried unanimously. Liaison Reports were given by Councilmembers. Mayor Henderson gave the Mayor's report. Mayor Henderson acknowledged Commissioner Art Bannerman's presence and asked if there were any interested citizens present who wished to address the Council on any item not on the agenda. There was no response. Sweeney/DuBois moved to approve the April 1 and April 8, 1997, minutes. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda) . Sweeney/DuBois moved to approve the bills in the amount of $163,757. 30. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda) . Sweeney/DuBois moved to accept the resignation of James Link from the City of Shakopee Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment and Appeals effective immediately. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda) . Mayor Henderson opened the public hearing on the proposed vacation of a portion of Apgar Street lying south of 10th Avenue. Official Proceedings of the May 6, 1997 Shakopee City Council Page -2- Mr. Leek explained that staff has learned of an additional 12 foot strip of land owned by the State of Minnesota, located on the East side of Apgar. He said the Planning Commission reviewed the request for the vacation and recommended approval. A discussion ensued as to whether or not the State of Minnesota was notified of the street vacation and whether or not to continue the Public Hearing to a later date in order to notify them or to move forward, with a contingent waiver of approval from Mn/DOT. Mayor Henderson asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to address the council on this issue. Mike Pumper, 1175 Shumway, approached the podium and discussed access to County Road 77 for his garage and asked for either an easement or access. He said he was given approval to build his garage and that he would lose the access to that garage should this vacation take place. He also said that Mr. Menke has a proposal that he would agree to. Leroy Menke, 1185 Shumway, approached the podium and stated that both his home and shop sites would be affected by the vacation. He said that no improvements can be made to his shop as the area is zoned residential. He has 132 ' in width and can build a duplex, but he cannot do it. He will not go through another PUD process. He wondered if it would be possible to take footage from his home lot which would add 13 ' of frontage. If he can do something with his shop site he is willing to extend an easement for Mr. Pumper (through his property) . He asked City Council for some help in order to utilize his property currently occupied by his shop. He said that his property was zoned commercial but was changed to residential. He needs to know the options for his one-half acre. Mr. Thomson recommended not putting any conditions into the vacation resolution relating to resolving Mr. Menke's concerns. A discussion ensued regarding lawful access to a dedicated right- of-way and Mr. Pumper's possible land locked garage. Staff was directed to look into this matter and to report back in two weeks. There being no other comments or discussion the public hearing was closed. Sweeney/Link moved to amend Resolution No. 4662 to exclude Parcel B in the Preliminary Plat (for Meadows North) and to add the 12 foot strip of Mn/DOT property, to the east of parcels C and D, contingent upon Mn/DOT waiving notice of the public hearing. i Official Proceedings of the May 6, 1997 Shakopee City Council Page -3- Zorn/DuBois moved to table the motion to amend Resolution No. 4662 (A Resolution Vacating A Portion of The Right-Of-Way for Apgar Street South of Tenth Avenue) . Motion carried 3-2 with Mayor Henderson and Cncl. Sweeney opposed. A recess was taken at 8:30 P.M. The meeting re-convened at 8:44 P.M. The following items were taken out of the regular order on the agenda: 13a, ) 13b) deleted, 13d) , 14b-3) , 13f) , 14e-4) and 14d-2) . Mr. Leek reported that the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the requested variance to allow a maximum cul-de-sac length of 750 feet, rather than the 500 foot • requirement for Shenandoah Place. Alysheba Road would ultimately connect to CR-16. The planned unit development includes 32 single family, 22 twin homes, and two outlots for a 148 town home, common interest community. The preliminary plat of Shenandoah Place is consistent with the planned unit development and the Planning Commission has recommended approval with the conditions as outlined in the resolution. Sweeney/DuBois moved to amend Resolution No. 4658 to add item 7 under "B", that storm water trunk fees be paid by the developer, and to add item "C" a variation in the maximum cul-de-sac length to 750 feet. Motion carried unanimously. Zorn/Sweeney offered Resolution No. 4658, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee Approving the Preliminary Plat for Shenandoah Place as amended, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion of the Preliminary and Final Plat for Meadows North was removed from the agenda. (This plat includes some of Apgar Street under consideration for vacation which was tabled earlier in the meeting. ) Sweeney/DuBois offered Resolution No. 4659, A Resolution Approving the Final Plat of Stone Meadow 1st Addition, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda) . Mr. Leek reported that the request to rezone eight acres from Agricultural Preservation (AG) to Highway Business (B-i) and eight acres from Agricultural Preservation (AG)to Medium Density Residential (R-2) is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval. Link/Sweeney offered Ordinance No. 483, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending the Zoning Map Adopted in City Code Sec. 11.03 By rezoning Land Located at the Northwest Corner of Vierling Drive and County Road 17 From Agricultural Preservation J • Official Proceedings of the May 6, 1997 Shakopee City Council Page -4- (AG) to Highway Business (B1) Zone and Medium Density Residential (R2) Zone, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/DuBois offered Ordinance No. 482, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending Chapter 11, Zoning, by Adding Regulations for Adult Day Care Centers, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda) . Mr. Leek reported that Valley Green has asked that the City consider a MUSA land trade in order to accommodate a major national corporation's desire to locate in the West Dean Lake area. Staff has set a May 22, 1997, public hearing on a plan amendment for this area. Zorn/Link offered Resolution No. 4665, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Proposing a Minor Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Effect the Trade of Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) into the West Dean Lake Area, and moved its adoption. Jon Albinson, Valley Green Business Park, approached the podium and explained that his request for a modification is based on the perception that the Metropolitan Council looks at land trades above 40 acres with scrutiny, which is why he requested a 40 acre parcel. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Leek explained that the PUD for Park 2000 Southwest is the subject of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet and the review period ends May 7, 1997 . No action is requested tonight. The applicant requests that office-warehouse be a permitted use in the PUD, rather than requiring the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The applicant is requesting an increase in office area to allow for 35% of office area for the overall project. City Code currently allows for 25% office use. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the PUD. A discussion ensued relating to the quality of the jobs created by this type of development as it relates to pay scales. Zorn/Sweeney moved to table discussion of the Park 2000 Southwest Planned Unit Development. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. McNeill explained that Murphy's Landing 3-year lease expired the end of February and the City has been negotiating with them since that time. He noted a change in format from the expired lease to the proposed lease as many issues have been addressed since the 1994 lease was drafted. The new lease proposes a five year term, with an option to renew for an additional five years. Utilities and maintenance remain unchanged, as well as the rent remaining at $1. 00 per year. At this time the legal descriptions are not finalized, and there are three issues to be discussed. ti Official Proceedings of the May 6, 1997 Shakopee City Council Page -5- 1) A quit claim deed dated April 21st has rectified a parking lot description which was previously omitted with the transfer from Scott County Historical Society, Inc. to the City. 2) The DNR is requesting an easement for a paved walking path to run the length of Murphy's Landing, from Memorial Park to the grain terminal. The legal description is being provided and will be incorporated into the final document which Murphy's has agreed to. 3) The easement allowing access from CR 101 to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 47 acre conservation easement also needs to be incorporated. Shirley Olson, Murphy's Landing, approached the podium and explained that the City currently owns all of the property and improvements. Should Murphy's Landing cease to operate or default, the non-period buildings would become the property of the City. The office complex and the restaurant would revert to the City in the event of a default. She said that Murphy's Landing has an operation budget of $500, 000 with approximately 56% earned income. Mr. Voxland explained that the liability insurance Murphy's Landing is required to provide is based on the same liability the City is required to provide. He said that this amount is being proposed to increase during this legislature and the lease agreement does not reflect this. Language addressing matching the City's insurance requirement will be added to the lease. Sweeney/DuBois moved to direct the appropriate City officials to execute the lease, including insurance and legal modifications, with Murphy's Landing. Mr. McNeill explained that the City will be using outside assistance to create the legal description for the lease. Motion carried 4-0 with Cncl. Zorn abstaining. Mr. MacGillivary, Springsted, approached the podium and asked for consideration of Resolution No. 4657, authorizing the issuance of $3, 140, 000 General Obligation building bonds. A request for consideration was also made for the flexibility to underwriters in structuring their bid within certain perimeters. He said eight bids were received for the Fire Station. Smith-Barney submitted the lowest bid with a true interest rate of 5.4296%. In conjunction with the upcoming sale of general obligation improvement bonds, Moody's has refined the rating of the City's general obligation debt to A2. A growing southwest suburb with an exceleration of expansion anticipated, ample financial reserves resulting in no cashflow borrowing, and moderate debt levels reflecting rapid amortization and strong tax base growth are attributed to the change. Official Proceedings of the May 6, 1997 Shakopee City Council Page -6- Sweeney/Link offered Resolution No. 4657, A Resolution Authorizing Issuance, Awarding Sale, Prescribing the Form and Details and Providing for the Payment of $3, 140,000 General Obligation Building Bonds, Series 1997A, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. DuBois/Zorn offered Resolution No. 4666, A Resolution Amending Resolution (4657) Relating to $3, 140, 000 General Obligation Building Bonds, Series 1997A, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. The following item was taken out of the regular order on the agenda: 14B. 1) CAMAS MN, Inc. EAW. Mr. Leek reported that CAMAS MN, Shiely Division, proposes to open the quarry east of its existing quarry. They proposed to mine approximately 64 acres in the center of the site at a proposed depth of 45-50 feet over a 15 year period. An Environmental Assessment Worksheet is mandatory for non-metallic mineral mining of 40 acres or more to a depth of 10 feet or greater. At the end of a 30-day review period the Council would review any comments received and makes its determination on the EAW. A discussion ensued relating to the number of gallons of water pumped in the past compared to what is permitted. Nels Nelson, Hydrologist, approached the podium and discussed how to avoid ground water impacts and the depth of wells. Zorn/Link moved to authorize publication of notice in the "EQB Monitor" and distribution of the draft EAW for review and comment for CAMAS Minnesota, Inc. , Shiely Division. Motion carried unanimously. The following item was taken out of the regular order on the agenda: 14A. 1) Consultant For Prairie Bend Park Project. Mark McQuillan reported that $80,000 for 1997 and $40, 000 for 1998 have been identified for development of the Prairie Bend Park, to be constructed in two phases. A neighborhood meeting was held to collect ideas from the residents as to what they would like in their park. A list of ideas was created, discussed and prioritized, and will be incorporated into the master plan. He requested permission to hire Brauer and Associates to develop the Master Plan for the Prairie Bend Park. The design and specification work estimate is $2 ,550. The construction management phase is 7.5 % of the improvement costs. L Official Proceedings of the May 6, 1997 Shakopee City Council Page -7- Link/Zorn moved to direct the appropriate City officials to enter into an agreement to have Brauer and Associates, Ltd. provide design specifications as listed in paragraph A. 1 through A.4 of the contract for Prairie Bend Park at a cost of $2, 550, including expenses, with funding to be allocated from the Park Reserve Fund. Motion carried unanimously. The following item was taken out of the regular order on the agenda: 14D. 1) Code Enforcement. Sweeney/Zorn offered Resolution No. 4663, A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 4648, Which Adopted the 1997 Pay Schedule for the Officers and Non-Union Employees of the City of Shakopee, and moved its adoption. A discussion ensued relating to violations, compliance, and enforcement issues of the City Code. Motion carried unanimously. DuBois/Link moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to hire a seasonal, part-time code enforcement officer at a rate of $8.749 per hour. Motion carried unanimously. A recess was taken at 10: 07 P.M. The meeting re-convened at 10:19 P.M. The following item was taken out of the regular order on the agenda: 14B. 2) Twin Cities Housing Development Corporation. Mr. Leek explained that the TCHDC is looking for opportunities to develop affordable family housing in the Metropolitan Area generally and the City of Shakopee specifically, and asked for direction from the Council. He said they are looking for five to seven acre sites to build a townhouse development with a density of between five to seven units per acre. A discussion ensued regarding City participation and the need for rental properties in the proposed range, as well as mixed housing. It was noted that the City has a responsibility to provide housing for residents employed in the industries in Shakopee. DuBois/Sweeney moved to direct staff to proceed with discussions with Twin Cities Housing Development Corporation (TCHDC) regarding the identification of sites for affordable, rental townhouse development in Shakopee. Motion carried 4-1 with Cncl. Zorn opposed. The following item was taken out of the regular order on the agenda: 15A) Over-height fence conditional use permit fee. Official Proceedings of the May 6, 1997 Shakopee City Council Page -8- Cncl. Zorn requested Council consideration to reduce the application fee for a conditional use permit for "over-height" fences from $200 to $100. A discussion ensued relating to CUP fees. Mr. Leek stated that this fee could reasonably be brought into line with the fee for a home occupational use permit as there is not a lot of review involved. He said that there is an additional cost with any CUP, which requires a list of property owners names and addresses within 350 feet. The City has required this list to come from a certified abstract company. He said that most CUP's are for uses which the City intended to closely regulate. DuBois/Sweeney moved to approve the fee reduction for an application for a conditional use permit for over-height fences to $100 and to direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution amending the 1997 fee schedule. Motion carried unanimously. Staff was also asked to look at reducing the area for notification of the application for the conditional use permit. The regular order on the agenda resumed with 14C. 1) Release of lift station agreement and easement. Sweeney/DuBois moved to authorize the appropriate City staff to execute the necessary documents to release the agreement and easement that was recorded by Document Number 51529. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda) . Mr. Loney explained that stop sign placement is regulated by the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD) , and that specific criteria must be met to warrant the multi-way stop sign installation. Traffic volumes were counted for Scott Street at 3rd and 4th Avenues over a three day period and compared to the minimum values of 500 vehicles per hour for an eight hour period for the total of all approaches and 200 vehicles per hour for the same eight hours for the minor street. The average hourly volumes and totals for these intersections did not meet the traffic volume warrant. Mr. Loney explained that while these intersections did not meet the criteria for a 4-way stop, Council has the authority to direct the placement of signs if they deem it necessary. A discussion ensued regarding the placement of stop signs near schools for safety reasons. Mr. Loney said that money is budgeted for a traffic sign study and suggested taking another look at stop sign placement at this time. There was a consensus not to move forward with stop sign placement at Scott Street and to utilize an intern to conduct an overall analysis of stop signs in the City to bring back to the Council. 4. Official Proceedings of the May 6, 1997 Shakopee City Council Page -9- DuBois/Sweeney moved to direct staff to discuss with the County, placement of a stop sign at Vierling and Marshall Rd. for safety reasons. Motion carried 4-1 with Cncl. Zorn opposed. Mr. Loney reported that he had prepared a Street Lighting Policy as directed. He combined current and past policies and modified them into one comprehensive policy. He recommended discussing the policy to approve it in draft form and to forward it to Shakopee Public Utilities for comment. Any additional comments from them would then be brought to Council for discussion and final adoption. Zorn/DuBois moved to approve the Street Lighting Policy for the City of Shakopee and to submit it to SPUC for their review and approval. (CC Document No. 251) Jon Albinson approached the podium and referred to section 2 .A5, versus 2.A1, relating to situations in which developers desire to install more lights than are warranted by City policy, or to install non-standard lights. He asked if this would preclude the City and SPUC from maintaining and/or paying operational costs for them. He said it would be onerous for a private entity to take on the operations and maintenance of street lights. A discussion ensued relating to responsibility and maintenance for non-standard lights. Mr. Loney suggested that an agreement between the City and the utilities for operation and maintenance be added, where the developer pays the cost of the non-standard items. Motion carried unanimously. The following item was withdrawn from the agenda: 14C.4) Public Works Equipment Acquisitions for 1997. Sweeney/DuBois moved to authorize the appropriate City staff to execute the necessary documents to release the slope easement within Pinewood Estates that was recorded by Document Number 209932. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda) . Sweeney/Link offered Resolution No. 4664, A Resolution Receiving A Report and Calling A Hearing on an Improvement for the 1997 Street Overlay Project No. 1997-2, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Zorn/Sweeney moved to appoint Michael Beard to the CSAH 42 Advisory Committee. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/DuBois moved to authorize the proper City officials continuing authority to add new bond issues to the agreement with Springsted for continuing disclosure requirements. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda) . Official Proceedings of the May 6, 1997 Shakopee City Council Page -10- Sweeney/DuBois offered Resolution No. 4655, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Approving Premises Permits for the Shakopee Lions Club, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda) . Sweeney/DuBois offered Resolution No. 4656, A Resolution Apportioning Assessments Among New Parcels Created as A Result of the Subdivision of Parcel Number 27-917025-0 and the Platting of French Trace 1st Addition. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda) . Discussion of Public Works labor union contract was withdrawn from the agenda. Mr. McNeill reported that as a result of the workshop held on April 28, 1997, staff was directed to form a group to look at such things as the suitability of the existing building for a library, costs for acquisition and renovation, potential sources of new building funding, disposition of the existing building, and obtaining input from Scott County regarding these issues. A group size of between five and seven was suggested as an ad hoc study committee. He recommended advertising the availability of the committee and purpose, and that the names of candidates be brought back to Council for appointment in June. Zorn/Sweeney moved to establish an ad hoc library study committee, with membership of seven people to include one city staff person and one Councilmember, and that notification be made of its forming so as to seek applicants interested in the future of the library in Shakopee. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/DuBois moved to authorize the City Administrator's attendance at both the MCMA conference May 7 - 9, and ICMA conference September 14 - 17. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda) . There was a consensus to schedule a work session on May 14 at 4:30 P.M. for the purpose of reviewing police staffing, public works equipment, pay plan issues, and, if necessary, SPUC issues. The executive session was deleted from the agenda. DuBois/Link moved to adjourn to May 14, 1997, at 4:30. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 11: 14 P.M. C(741.- 1 u0L d • dith S. C x, City Clerk sther TenEyck, Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ.REG.SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA MAY 14, 1997 Mayor Henderson called the meeting to order at 4:31 P.M. with Councilmembers DuBois, Zorn, Sweeney, and Link present. Also present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Jim Thomson, City Attorney; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Bruce Loney; Public Works Director; Gregg Voxland, Finance Director; and Tom Steininger, Chief of Police. Sweeney/Zorn moved to approve the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. McNeill reported that the Shakopee Public Utility Commission (SPUC) has referred to City Council for action the sale of property that was acquired for a substation. Because of the change in plans, the property is no longer needed. SPUC advertised for bids to be returned by April 28th at which time they were opened. Subsequently, a further bid was received. Based on that particular action there would appear to be two high bids which were then considered by SPUC and then referred to the City Council for final disposition. (The highest bid submitted on April 28th from Laurent Builders, Inc. was $91,202, or five percent more than the next highest acceptable bid, whichever is less, and the bid submitted on May 2nd from Bert Notermann was $100,000.) (The property in question is described as the east 10 acres of the N 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of Section 19, Twp. 115N, Range 22W, Scott County, and is located on the south side of CR-78 between CR-17 and CR-79.) Mr. McNeill stated that he had the City Attorney review this matter because of questions and that an analysis was provided yesterday. He said that as he understands it, the bids received on or before April 28th at 4:00 P.M. are valid bids. The question is whether or not Council would like to accept the highest of those bids or reject all bids and start the process over. Zorn/Sweeney moved to reject all bids and rebid the sale of the property (purchased by Shakopee Public Utility Commission for a substation and no longer needed) with a minimum bid of$85,000. Discussion followed on who should handle the bidding process, SPUC or the City, and on the reasons for rebidding. Mr. Thomson summarized the discussion identifying reasons for the bids to be rejected and the rebidding for the sale of the property under the auspices of the City: 1. The irregularities in the bidding process that took place; 2. The confusion as to who should have been controlling the bidding process, Shakopee Public Utilities or the City; Official Proceedings of the May 14, 1997 Shakopee City Council Page -2- 3. The question on the bid submitted on April 28th with the contingency on five percent higher than the next one. Mr. Gary Laurent approached the podium and asked the City Council if they were aware that SPUC was in the process of selling the property, if Council had made any objections to the process that SPUC chose to sell the property, and what would City Council be doing with the bids if there had been no other bid that had come in later than the dead line date. Mayor Henderson responded that the Council was aware that SPUC was in the process of selling the property and that the process being used by SPUC did not officially come before them. He said that if there had been no bid after the deadline date that he would have to look at the process, and if there were not questions as to it, it probably would not be an issue. He stated that he felt that language stating "5% higher than the next highest bid" was vague and not responsive. Mr. Laurent stated that his bid met all of the requirements of the advertising bidding process. He also stated that if his bid was ruled out unresponsive that the bid should go to the next highest bidder. Mayor Henderson responded that his concern is whether or not the bidding process was correct and that there may be other irregularities. Discussion continued. Mr. Bert Notermann approached the podium and stated that he was informed by the facilitator that he could put a bid in, but that it is actually not a bid but a purchase agreement, and that it was the option of the City Council whether or not to accept it. He stated that Mr. Laurent's bid was illegal and that Council should be considering the actual legal bid that they got and also his offer. Because the process is cloudy he understands that they need to clear up that issue. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Zorn moved to reject Mr. Notermann's offer (to purchase the Shakopee Public Utility parcel) at this time. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Zorn moved to adjourn to Tuesday, May 20, 1997, at 7:00 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 5:01 P.M. qu-da "t4 • J • h S. Cox t y Clerk Recording Secretary g/3/F7 To: Mark McNeil, City Administrator From: Don McNeil, Chairman, Shakopee Access Corporation RE: Correspondence of Paul Ryan, Access Studio Coordinator This letter is in response to Paul Ryan's two most recent letters questioning my perceived behavior and character. I take his statements as damaging and offensive. He has taken his experiences and opinions of me and expressed them from a non-authorized position of authority. I have acted as the Chairperson of the Cable Access Corporation Board for the past 15 months and the Cable Advisory Board since March of 1997. My interest and attempts at change have focused on what positve impact the Cable TV resource could be for our community. As with any change or attempts at change, there have been opposing opinions. I feel that over the past 15 months many positive changes have occurred. The by-laws and service agreement were reviewed and updated. This action was long overdue. Through my concerns and recognition,Mr. Sweeney became aware and involved with the organization's financial accounting and reporting systems.Now he accuses me of micro-management. I feel this is unwarrented. Had I not taken the time and made the effort to acquaint him with the financial status of the organization, he would probably would not have become as involved and the problems would have continued to exist resulting in additional expense to the corporation through I.R.S. interest,penalties, etc. which to date are still unknowns. I have given a tremendous amount of my personal time and energy to filming community activities and to attempting to get them edited and played on the cable station. I have been met with resistance from Mr. Ryan and members of his staff in many of my efforts. Obviously, my persistent efforts toward changes in programming, my tenacity in attempting to acquire equipment, training and editing time were and continue to be viewed by Mr.cyan as disruptive to the functioning of his business which has been operating without change or, in my opinion,accountability for the past five years. Since I was appointed to the commission by the City Council, I am seeking your direction in responding to the uncomfortable position Mr.Ryan has placed me in. It is my sincere interest to make this community resource the best it can be for the city of Shakopee. I hope this will be a primary consideration in your counsel. I also request that if Mr. Ryan feels it necessary to contact me during the day for any reason that he do so through my residence phone and the U.S.Mail. It is disruptive to my co-workers and embarrassing to me to receive personal/confidential material over a public fax, and to have members of Mr. Ryan's staff banging on the entrance doors to my office after hours, making derogatory comments in order to get my attention. This lacks consideration for my co-workers who are not involved in my personal business. • i 3 • • Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to hearing from you. Sin AiL Don McNeil • P.S. On May 21, I filmed a state-wide meeting on Welfare-to-Work issues that would be very pertinent to members of our community. I have promised a number of state • officials a timely turn-around in getting this tape from raw footage to a completed product. I would appreciate your intervention in making an exception to the 45-day suspension that has been imposed on me so that I can complete this project which I have committed to. • • • May 30,1997 Shakopee Community Access Paul Ryan- Studio Coordinator 1255 S. Fuller St. Studio Fax. 445-6152/phone same. Shakopee, MN 55379 (PFR Production Inc.) Re: 1) Notice of Suspension 2) St. Francis Project Dear Paul, 1). Please allow me to brief per"your" suspension notice. You might want to consult with someone more knowledgeable of the total situation before you attempt to put into place such an action. I had your permission to do what I did, please refer to your letter granting that permission. What your motivation is to take this on to the 10th degree is beyond me. There have been 2 suspensions issued both of them directed at me. This situation seems to be similar in your action of August 20, 1996, when I also had a community filming commitment. It ended up costing the tax payers an additional $194.00 to cover the cost of rental of equipment not to mention the inconvenience since the equipment was available at the"public" access studio. This was also initiated by you for"lost" equipment. It was returned to you prior to making a claim for replacement. I would also like to call your attention to the fact that matters of POLICY AND PROCEDURE, RULES AND REGULATIONS are issues for the Board of Directors to hear and take appropriate actions on. Special meetings can be called to hear issues of sanctions and supensions no matter who they are directed towards, that is one of the functions of a Board. In short it is the Board who imposes sanctions, to decide upon the sanction, not the Station Coordinator. You would be requried to implement the restrictions if told to do so by the governing Board. I also request that if you feel it necessary to contact me during the day for any reason that you do so through my residence phone or the U.S. mail to my home address. Sending two of your staff up to my place of work, making 7 phone calls within 15 minutes is inappropriate. I did not have the equipment at my workplace. I shared that with you, and still you chose to send staff to my office and disrupt my co-workers by pounding on the door and making derogatory comments. St. Francis Project: After a discussion with Mark McNeill, City Admin.. it was more prudent to make arrangements to acquire equipment locally before incurring an expense of rental for the 5/31/97 St. Francis project. Your employee checked out equipment to me to include 2 batteries. One had no charge the other practically no charge. This was to be a remote shoot, Brian assured me that they were freshly charged batteries and I took him on his word. This effected the shoot. It appears to me, that your ongoing negative comments in front of your staff effect the service and •= ay I'm treated when conducting Cable Access business. Sincerely, Don McNeil • cc. Mark McNeill, City of Shakopee - City Administrator. enc. Letters 5/9/97, 5/15/97. Valley News Cable menu. • • rune 3, 1997 .• Paul Ryan, Studio Coordinator Shakopee Community Access Television • 1255 S.Fuller St. Shakopee,MN 55379 Re: VALLEY NEWS MENU LISTING • • Please see that the May 27, 1997 school board meeting gets into the schedule for the Valley News and the menu scroll. The intent of placing this on the scroll is that this program would be an on- going program. The school board meets the 2nd and 4th Monday of the month. (May 26th having been a holiday, the meeting was held May 27, 1997). 1 would also like to mention that when I was checking in equipment which wos to be checked out • again for taping of the school board meeting of May 27th,there was no equipment available since you had it reserved. Since there was a local user in line(myself)for an on-going commitment, I • didn't return the equipment at that time, and used it for the school board taping. (Faxed before the 5:00 deadline-two attempts-fax did not go through, so band-carried). S" Don McNeil May 9, 1997. Paul Ryan, Coordinator Studio fax/phone 445-6152 Shakopee Public Access PFR Production 1255 Fuller St. 14704 Hillshire Lane Shakopee,Mn 55379 Burnsville,MN 55306 Pager 622-9800 891-1938 phone/fax. Paul, Per our conversation of 5/8/97: I'm interested in taking a look at the videos you produced for cable access of the Valley Fair Amusement Park(Wild Thing?), the Community Center grand opening and the video Ron(Mrg) did of programs at the center. If you could give me a call on their availability. Sincerely, Don McNeil (H) 445-9026 SHAKOPEE Community Access Television CABLE CHANNEL 33 1255 South Fuller,Shakopee,MN 55379 5- 15-97 Don Mcneil 496-7682 Dear Don, After checking our archive footage, I found that the Community Center grand opening video did not turn out. The other footage you wanted to see is at the studio. The Community Center Activities tape is if 654. All other footage is in the Archive library. Let me know if you need further assistance. Sincerely, Paul Ryan ;, ....._ a.A (4,---m_f__t_. (--- „c_____ / . / 2 /l ( CL\q2;4*.tia'a /4,teet,"C.,te,/i-)- % er2/ AaLe-ek,762t,' cl 41 ' .4,4.d e,,) (612) 455-6152 . . _ . . SHAKOPEE Community Access Television CABLE CHANNEL 33 1255 South Fuller,Shakopee,MN 55379 /X---/ea $—,y---(4 I• / / ----- / / • rg• ------ 47:ESSED THE S -c-IP KE ) 1. y**** .:: ..4,..TI: 1.:****•.+:. , :C • .T:4:.. .*:*::* ' -- • 4(: ':,4:1.*3:--.1,:i,:i . .t•W!:1:::t:***:f.:*>M' 4******3'*•f,.***f• # ,.. \ILd*I1 ********3::***,,fc4.:j4A, • .4,3,:::rf::*****.i.:.**;.*******.M ' 1-1- IR *******:*3:1 1 :,{ 4 :.} May. 15 1997 01:29PM * 1.: 4z NO. OTHER FPCSI ILE START TIME USAGE TIME MODE PAGES RESULT CODE 4. I. — ___ ' -- _ _. * 01 49676::2 Maid. 15 1:29PM 00'41 TX on NO RESPONSE (40:, i * f 3, RESULT : NO RESPONSE +. . , << POSSIBILITY OF REASON >> * 1.RECEIUING FAX BUSY. '-.... * RECEIVING :AX CUT OF PAPER. * * 3. POWER FAILURE OR OTHERS. 3. ********** *************** ************1:****II:******* **** **** **************** *************I:*** • 4zyt2k/ � l? SHAKOPEE CABLE COMMUNITY ACCESS CORPORATION l REGULAR MEETING 6:30 P.M.MEETING JUNE 4, 1997 LOCATION: Shakopee City Council Chambers,City Hall, 129 South Holmes Street 1] Convene- 6:30 p.m. 2] Roll Call 3] Approval of Agenda 4] Secretary's Report-Minutes of May 7, 1997 5] Treasurer's Report A] Coorporates Tax Status Update (Zeigler) B] Budget Planning (Zeigler/Sweeney) 6] Recognition of Concerned Citizens 7] Communications A] Arlen Mattern, Paragon Cable,Re: Quarterly Franchise Fee Check and Summary for January, February, and March, 1997 (Paragon) B] Arlen Mattern, Paragon Cable, Re: 1996 Telecommunications Act Scrambling Requirement (Paragon) 8] Studio Manager's Report A] Monthly Usage Report(Ryan) B] Promotional Activities (Ryan) C] Update on City Hall (Ryan) 9] Old Business A] Cost of Background Music for Non-Programming Time(Ryan) B] Possible Purchases, Camera(McNeil) C] Menu/Scroll During Non-Programming(McNeil) D] MACTA [Up-Date] (Cole) E] Survey of Services (Grose/Hill/McNeil) F] Paragon's Participation,Technical Support/Programming, etc. (Grose) G] Maintenance of City Hall Studio/Programming Breakdown(May/Paragon), (McNeil/Ryan) 10] New Business A] Chairman Involvement in Studio Activities(Ryan) B] Rules, Policy and Procedures for: 1. Studio Usage (McNeil) 2. Board Members (Hill/McNeil) C] Programming Grant Requests (McNeil) 11] Other Business 12] Adjourn [I:\CABLE\5-7-97.AGN] � Z e4 — -� oeoo :: � cvo -. end ~ ' �.c= < �.r_ '- = 11 d A O �O A Q c9 = _ d 3 �ka,r k #. n • o r :4 •.; = - Z -�j M H O iv a) .+ C < O >v N � � co F-Vcp r s� - m m • Q CD O -• 7 3 <D -- .. k F n C c at:r. n - - y ( NCI tO to 3 c0D C i'.< -s + t -14•11 i n ^' J = P II Ailipp is mm = Q.n� c 0.) m 3 • J' � .,�' �` _ ��/� pf �cp —X. C lfl N ice' siy Cn.z� N N V: `.�.^•x OC-1-1 C Cr,VI VI?A►_y `:,`:.x x�]-71 a a:.n'.n� rz,.. `^ �/� ..O ONN--C L' c.0 .)C %W C-O ,�C- c•^ aGW^aO'.�c — lei v1 ^"V ^p^C��C ..C000CDCD„ CCC= O o >• ^ Q -3333�3C�3-=�c 333_ _ 3nC2C)QG^ U{ r •,. nr'3 ?o cC C= o • r 1 ,:c'•<<<'< .. ...1 -t .-•t _V,< <<'<`•<<<`<`- 'l. 1-l•`... n. 7 . C c _ - f: < G .< P y !% - ff(YV6S NNNN� l"�� < 7 �- -' -'- C:ZiG+C./ G7`<sG l.'»nC�c c —� 5� c E c• c C N C =c. 3 nnnnnn r 1'�e - - - .Y = = = < Q �.. _ QNime r •---- J` j nnnnnn `< <<e�e nr Qn�5,-,-,•<< F'r�e `C p o O O _• ==`< F. = c c c c c c '-aw::awE '---- tri CwQ�c 2 2 �O n a 14 2 � ' � CQb� �- .. .. .. c g• o_ r r ecce • r r - ry;• v: CI C .r- c_ ecce c— n= 333333 3333 0 0 y = �`—' _ �- a_ rrrrrr rrrr < e<- - CA 3 33 _ r_ c r_ r_ r_ a_ rc rc .. C r. r. y nono -.—-.-. tr F< . F61 )1111 . • nctnnca " as a:a:�l:ra: oc7:rrac -. c fp C - H r r r r�J. ,r cfl vs• H H O' `: .:xx J--1C :_A%AA41. ,.t StSCJ-Ic^. :n•..nA. `:.�:StSt-.1�] :n:�1�J�7 o .< ). .Iri- V1 w..'.^t.� :;.iC:..aC'-.1 Cr, '�CD•..)CwC'..>Ct..)„-.J 7. ...)Ct..�C'.•..)_.'.aC .:.)C -C ~ = cn Cn 33333>>vv_:4 pc 3333339 n 3_:"..K_ (.7.2-. :rv :n:�:l 333�::pc N DT7 < Ir - -.1 4< • _.\•T T'1.' • = `•C`<`-G`<`-<`< 5 o^' Ci 3.•4 T T T. T. C.`�,<`-<`G <•3- - - co pi =•- „ � C. -i m PIC) nnnn�T:. v• N•.cNi)fcc/,cNi: .,..•_ c. Uc c % c: 6 _l^nnnE N ►� ' ='. —PcT Cv:3 rrrrrr < Cc`e rrrr � � v`e tmi. r; r r r <-,�e,.rc'`< -t.e n� nc —N -GGw�rr 6 r r - �: = n r. }•� • 3 3 3 3 v.. 'l. 'I. tr ►N. r = C� C - - - - r '�3 3^ z' r r r z Com/. n a r 0 • Gc000c GG79W9.CC 9 9 c e. c C� z i:crras , r r c z S -` f 'l. 'f• 'l. �' r r - - 1 _. as az or. cccccc� •< �'a=rv: r r //•�� 333333) , r Ce. -` 41/ r r r r r r 1 w trz Cr4 CM CTO CFC O'z -------------\_____....,....„...j "• \V 1 /0 CONSENT CITY OF SHAKOPEE ___...I Memorandum TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: City Bill List DATE: May 29, 1997 Introduction and Background Attached is a print out showing the division budget status for 1997 based on data entered as of 05/29/97. 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-XXX) and Blocks 3&4 (code 9439-xxx) in the amount of $165, 780 .35 . Action Requested Move to approve the bills in the amount of $288, 581 . 07 . f CITY OF SHAKOPEE EXPENSES BY DEPARTMENT 05/29/97 CURRENT YEAR ANNUAL MONTH TO PERCENT DEPT DEPT NAME BUDGET ACTUAL DATE EXPENDED 11 MAYOR & COUNCIL 89,410 2,214 18,570 21 12 CITY ADMINISTRATOR 249,980 17,321 72,568 29 13 CITY CLERK 166,720 15,582 60,200 36 15 FINANCE 322,780 31,603 98,414 30 16 LEGAL COUNSEL 217,320 7,426 55,473 26 17 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 451,290 26,072 109,922 24 18 GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS 146,940 10,384 44,583 30 31 POLICE 1,703,140 163,697 677,060 40 32 FIRE 448,990 6,368 106,272 24 33 INSPECTION-BLDG-PLMBG-HTG 245,070 24,837 92,943 38 41 ENGINEERING 425,780 35,665 124,756 29 42 STREET MAINTENANCE 781,860 30,811 223,872 29 44 SHOP 126,540 12,165 45,641 36 46 PARK MAINTENANCE 350,420 30,149 89,377 26 91 UNALLOCATED 622,630 851 32,698 5 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 6,348,870 415,144 1,852,348 29 17 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 496,770 39,863 167,960 34 TOTAL TRANSIT 496,770 39,863 167,960 34 H w rn La ) a a KC 24 H H H H H H 0 0 000000 00 00000000 0 0 0 2 C4 w 0 a aX 0 z 0 Z W o U in H H N M dr in O O ri H H H H H l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 VD N CO N H O 0 O O O 0 O m Lf) M M M CO M M M M 01 01 O)O1 0)01 01 01 0 H dr dr dr ar dr Vr H 0) HHHHH ri MM NNNNN NNN m N H Z in U) U) LC) U) Ln Tr U) Tr Vr C dr dr Cr l0 l0 U)111 Ln U)Ln U)LC)Ln N U) dr H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 N U) Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln U)U)U) H M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 H 0 0 0 0 0 0 M M ri ri ri ri ri H H ri H er 0 O O O O m O O O ri ri ri ri ri ri O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O N E H H M H O H H Vr NNNNNN O)0) riri HH Hri H H H Tr N Z a' m m Tr Ln H m vP N M M M CO M M M M N N N N N N N N N N Tr 0 ) dr Tr Tr Tr N a' Vr Tr ,Yr ar dr dr W Vr dr dr ar Vr Vr d Cr dr Cr Cr dr dr M OW 11 1 I I i L I mill LL IIIIIIII L L L U$ O1 0) H H N 01 . dr H HHHHHH 04 c OHNO 0101N0 '44 M H 00 M M 01 M H M CO <r MHNr-NH 10 LII MOO HNNLnN U) U) N 4Z dr Vr H N O1 dr H er MVrmHHM NN lOHHMM ar C LO N N co 0) on O O O O) O O 000000 00 00000000 O O N zz Cl) H H 0 zz 0 H H Wz U al �� zU 2E.E. UIcoU]CoU.C) Co� cocl) 0 a z .14 wwwwwwww Cr) Z H Cr) W 0 0 H HHHHHH H H Cr) co E U E 00 .1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 .1 E Cr) a co Z X 2 aaaaaaaca. a Z H H H H U U a a a a1--� a a a a a H E 04Z K4 (1)0) AUA ✓ AAAA 0 4: H O2 24 0 z X Ww coc1) u)c1) v]cococ) Cl) £ H W 0 0 Cr) 0 E W w W W W W 0 U C7 C7 C7 C) C)C7 C7 C7 0 E E O H H E. H 2 ZZZZZZ 22 ZZZZZZZZ 2 2 0 E E 4 E Co W 000000 al 41 HHHHHHHH H Cr) a' O a 0 U K4 aha as a s as ww KCK444KCKCKC4 E. a x O 0 H A Re O E H W WWW 01 W C14 44 .1 04.1.1.104x04 a H E a X m �a a .1 z 0 .1.1,1.1.1.1 2424 wwwwwwww w Z Z w Cr) Cr) 4101 Cr) 01 wwwwww 00 aaaaCLI aaa a O< O x A A .1 a a x w EEE EEE C)c) 00000000 0 w >( CO DIMU)MC/) 0041 41 41 41 04 0000 Cr) HH >»» Z X 0 W Lx W O4 L4 LL' 0 H E H Cl) 2 cnci) cncncnm cnrl) H CO Z Cr) Cl) H 0)0) A w 0 D E cocococococo 00 0 0 0 $a, x 0 2 d a U mcncnmcocn 0404 2 Lx a O < H Cl) H Cr) W W W W W W U U H a al O a E w E .1 .1.1a.1.1a x o Z a 4 H z a Cr) wwwwww 00 0. 0. 0.0. Cl) < >+ H W > E 4 A 0.:LL' L4L40.'D.'. W W p0a 0 .`- A A.'� H Z a 0 4 Lx 0 HHHHHH 1=4 Lx 00000000 .1 Cr) /•C co W 0 Cr) Cr) W E 3 3 3 3 3 3 04 04 X X a'04 04 D: all D: X El W O RC a a> 4 E E E E E E C7 C7 C7 L)CD C)C)C7 a rC L4 E 0 w U0 wwwwwwww a co N Of Cl) a 0 L4 x .1 W ..axxx ,FS x HH xxxxxxxx 24 W 24 0) H K4 A 04 04 00000000 w x Cr) 0) E ,1 m w 24 0 Lel EEEEEE al 43 4444:44F4F4 a U a H 0 h E a F ro rc gtFC4 4 4r 4:4: 111 13. co g4 m 000 0) N it it * * * * * * * * it * * 00 00 00 00 00 00 NN 00 0)H 00)N LL)l0 sr 100 HO N M l0 O V)Cr CO IO IO MM 00 >r E N HH 00 00 00 NN NN 00 OMO10 Nt000 LsH01 ,r ar ar HMNO)VD 1/4-0 HH IDID 00 X A 00 LL)U) 00 00 HH 00 ID l0 NN 0MM0 ko r- N d.mN Ln ID Tr 01 LC)0L-0) O MM NN 00 L7 %.0 LO NN HH 00 NN 1010 Ln Ln NN HIONHNl00 tr100 Nw 01MNN lO Tr1 Li Ln 11)11) NN L}L} MM 00 00 NN (?L} a)0) HH rn-+/?L}U)(?H M N H d' t?N H H(1) H Vr N U) (?(? Vr d' t?L} ra v)-4/1- t/}(/} (/T(/} (/}L} V}(/?(/} (/}(/}(/} V}L}V} L}VD- = /} x 0)CO PI Lh Ln Ln H E x MM HH HH V} 0 H H (/}V} i/}4/1- al /}W (/}(/} x a 0 W E Cl) Cr) H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H E N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O C) 4 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\\\\\ \\ \\\\\\\\ \ \ W A Ln Ln Ln U) U) Ln l0 1D l0 lD l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 LO l0 10 1D l0 lc l0 l0 lD l0 10 l0 R. O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\\\\\ \\ \\\\\\\\ \ \ \ • U N N N N N N N N NNNNL-N LAN L-L-L-L-L-L-L-N L- N N U W 01 0) T O) 01 01 01 O) 0)01 0)0)0)0) 0)0) 0)01 0)01 0)0) 0)0) O) 0) 0) W x O\ 0) O1 O) O) O) 0) O1 O)0) 0)0)0)01 0)0) 0)01 0)01 0)01 0)0) O1 O) 0) U• U H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H 0 .1 2 In 1D N co 0) o H N M dr in l0 N co H N N N N N 00 O CO O CO O CO O CO O x 0) A 0) A 0) A 0) A 01 A 01 A O) A 01 A 0) A 0) A 01 A 01 A 01 A O) A 24 U dr* Vr * dr* [r * Vr* Vr* ar* Qr* cr * cr * ar * Vr* d'* ar.it 0 x U) V Ln V LL) V Ln V U) V U) V Ln V Ln V U) V U) V Ln V U) V Ln v in V U U •N 11) U) f0 0 4 Mx x x M x xxx x x X x x x x x x x x 0 0 0 00 0 000 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 x w ow CU D Z 0 z W N U o H N M M V' M d' 10 to 01 N O 111 M L(1 m M O N N N N H NM 0) M M M CO H N M U1 H L() HH M 10 10 W O H M O M H H H m 01 N H Z H V 111 V V' a1 N N N m V' t0 H 0) V' V' V' O m N Cr H W 0 M 00 H 000 0 0 HN V 0 0 01 N H O H 0 N 0 0 H MMM H 0 HH N 0 0 0 H H H 0 0 0 117 111 U) O 000 0 0 00 0 0 M O 0 O O O E+ H H H HH H V d•V H U) HH H H M H V' H d• H Zx M V' N NN N N N N N M NN N N w N N N N M W V' V' V' V'V' N V'V'V• V' V' NN V' V' V' V' V' N V V' 0 L:11 I1 I I 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 O X N V' N V'N O H H H H H 00 H 0) H M H 0 H H U D V' N N NN V' m H H M H VV 111 N a1 N V' Tr co to 4 Z N to V' 10 Cr CO M V•M M 01 CO a) N 10 H Tr V' op H H 0 0 0 00 0) 000 0 0 0)a1 o O o 0 O 01 0 0 cs) C13 41 43 41 41 co Z `H' a z'a z'a z'a CO 0 a s Cl)Z CO z'a Awa 5 0 O > a) zzz W H M W W W Z 01 Z H x 4 WWW H x 14 4 H H H W 4 W x P W 9' H H H a CO y'>' a a a E4 >' E' w a co 4 zzz a H 4 a a a Z 4 z cn H a HHH a aas a a a H a H C4 04 44 m 4 D al D 0 D 4 g a con z 0 0 X w 00m m m w7 Z CX z w 0 m mm x PPP 0 x04 0 0 0 El x E' 0 O H a as 4 ZZZ Z 0 44 Z Z Z Z 4 Z H m m 4 4 4 x WWW H Z x 04 H H H W x W Cl) m a H HH U XXX H H C.)C.) l E• El X U X co w 4 x 0404 aaa 4 l 4 4 4 a a w W E-' W W W • HHH Ix Z • • x x m x H H C. O Z Ey E-'E-' 0 DDD W H 00 W W W W D 0 D 0 W 004 X XX U www 0 a U U 0 0 0 0 W U W a U z U z 0U U z z U H H Mmm m MMM Z 00 Z H 0 >' Z H CO CO >. E'l x CO m CO H HH x 0 4 0 m 04 FC 00 W 444 H El PP 0 Cl) a H z 04 M 3 DD 0 333 m D 00 4 4 a E• 0 w x 04 00 a a DD D U H 0 o U 00 H xxx x 0 ax >+ �f m D Pz fa >' 0 004 04 D 4 4 4 W co Et E+ C) x x 4 W o Z U 04 as 01 0UU CQ mm U Cr] Z 0 H U a) H W W al W z z H CO 0 Ey co H CO C4 CO x 04 W ›4 l D 0 00 w x a1 D Z Z W co U D C.)C.) Z xxx x H C.) CJ 4.. D x 4 o D X Gil z O o0 0 DDD w 0 Z w U X x H Z 04 04 x 00 00 oa a w x Z X Ea Z CO HH w 0 00 w 0xo N E- co X ww 0 w 4 Cl) M H w H C� ,a PPP H Z 00 Z ZZ 0 u. H 0 H a H G4 H H x04 555 4 x ww Ea D a x m X a1 al al 041x) 0 000 0 H 00 0 0 W W W W W W 0) N * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 00 W V' 111 Ln NON 00 0000 OD CO H H 000 00 MM 00 U)111 V'V' 00 CA CA OD 0) 'C'' E4 00 NN HH 00101 00 0000 MM 10U) 000 MM NN 00 0000 0101 00 U1 U) 1010 X0 O O IO to N N. O CO W V•V' 0 0 0 0 041 01 M M 0 0 0 Cr Cr N b O O U)U) N N LO U) H H V'V' 0 U)U) Ol 111 H H U U N H H 10 to 01 H M M 0 0 111 U1 O M M N N 10 10 f-L- M M N N le l` N N 1010 0)w- HH M.HN VV .01i/}WN NN NN VVM NN t010 HH NN 4O-M- NN HH 01-1O R .. .. .. .. 111` .. .. ... .. V}. tt}. .. tt}(? it}. E, D4 U W x W U W N Cl) W H H H HH H HHH H H HH H H H H H H H H H E4 0 0 0 00 0 000 0 0 00 0 o O O O o O o O FC -.� ��� �� � � W 0 10 to l0 10 10 10 l0 t0 to l0 l0 WW to t0 l0 t0 10 40 10 to 04 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 O O o 0 0 o O o O o O O � � ,„ �� ��� _ �� � � a4 U N 1- N NN L- NNS L- N N N N N N N N N N N O W 01 0) 0) 0101 a1 a1 0)0) 0) 01 010) 01 01 0) 01 0) a1 a1 01 W x 0) 01 01 0101 01 01 O O1 a1 a1 010) a1 a1 0) 01 0) a1 a1 CA M U H H H HH H HHH H H HH H H H H H H H H U 0 O Z 01 0 H N M V' U1 10 N 00 CA 0 H N M V U) H CO 01 a> 01 0) a1 a1 01 01 01 0) 0 0 0 O O O U "„4 CA A 01 A CA A 01 A 01 A 01 A 01A 0) A 01 A 01 A CAA O A OA OA OA O A OA Z U V'* V'* V* V * V* V' * V* V* V * V* V* M* M* M* M44 M * M* D w Ln V U1 V UI V 111 V 1.11 V U) V U) V Lf) V LO V U1 V LO V U1 V N V 10 V Lo V ut V LO V O x U U m a) M glia 4 Q xx x x x xx x xxxxx xxx x x MX XX x x 00 0 0 0 00 0 00000 0 00 0 0 00 00 0 0 X x W OM aX Q z 0 z W U m H NO M 0 N MMMMM N Ln In m 0 1010 H N O H M co m O N HHHHH 10 H H M d' HH OW d' H '> HH N 10 O d'W m HHHHH O HH H H HH MN H H Z d'v' O O N NN m w w d'w v' w d'd' d' d' d'a' M N d' w H 00 N m in Cr d' O 00000 0 00 0 0 00 01-1 O O • O O d' Tr M HH O 00000 N O O O O O O HH 0 0 MM O O O 00 0 00000 0 00 0 0 00 00 0 0 H HH M a' ri HH r•L HNd'd'N H in Ln H 0 HH HH H H Z W N N N N N M M N N M N N M M M M N H MM NN M M Q W d'd' d' d' d' W d' d' d'V'd'V'W V' d'W W M d'd' NN Cr d' O W i I i L I L L L 1 1 1 1 1 L L L L L L 1 1 1 1 L OX 00 r♦ W M Nd' H HHHHH H NH H H HM 00 H H UQ NN co N Ln d'W H MHHMM N Ln Lf) LO 0 O10/ d'(,)• M N FC z d'd' H d' N HH M H M M M H V' N N N 0 H CO CO M H MCA O O O 00 0 00000 0 00 0 01 001 01M 0 0 CnCn CA CA 0 WW 00 CnCn W WW W W 00 U 0 C7 00 WW U 0 m H H M M H zz M H H 44 H H O z W > 9 W W zz > HH W >> mm > > H W H e4 a4 H H W W x X H r:4 e4 44 x x EA EA a 41 41 a a E4 E4 w mm a Cil 41 >4>i w w a F. Z a MM a a ZZ cn H H a Mm 44 cn m H ZH a a a HH 44 Cl as x H 4 Q 44 Q Q 44 a CA Co Q 44 a a O 4 X cn 44 m M XX 4 QQ m 44 WW 4 4 M X ZZ Z aa Ei ZZ 00 Z Z W MM Ei 0 00 0 0 PP 0 \\ 0 00 xx 0 0 Q 44 0 z z HH Z Z ZZ H 00 z >+ HH IxZH H 44 z WH MM H HWWWW M ZZ H F. XX M M HH H Z E-' MM H Ei0EZC7 M HH Ei x mm 00 m m xx 0 a, 4 W4 '4 4 4 a a 4 w E4 EA g4 w 41 41 w w WW 4 H x Ci+G. x xEiHHEA G. zz x a 4.,CLI • • w G. EA EA H Q W 00 W WUQQm 0 HH W 0 00 00 0 0 44 Q OL a xx a a00000 x xx a x c4 c4 • • x x XX CO w 0 as 0 0aWww a as o a as U0 a a x x x x x mmmmm 00 U UU xxC444 al ZZ Z ZZ 00000 E,EA HH >+ H HH 00 0 (XX Ei >>i>i>+>' N N N x x U M m H U m 00 Ei E•E-'Ei Ei N N N U U Z 41 al x Zw o0 EiEiEiEAEA H EA EA Q H H MM WWWww • • • a zz x 4g U x MM 44444 E'Ei EA H 4141 >+ Cl) O o0 w o E� FCrC \\\\\ Mm m x a9 x z A WW M 0 M 0020000 HH HM 44 x 0 0x H z 0 >i>i cx) AQ 0 Z 00 h H `- > 00 4 w 0 as 0 44444 44 a 0 Mm 4 co 44 Ei4 H PP H >c sc X X sc 00 0 Pis .8 w W 4 o w ZZ > 00000 0 00 0 XX 4 w 124e4PP WW x >>> »Z MM x Z >'>' 00 0 x WW x z mm W H 00 U 0 00 xx Z N MM 0 W 0 M ot7000 MM M m W W H x m U U >. 4 X • • C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 U ^4 Z Z C7 C7 X O m MM o 3 W C) C.) 4 WWWww O AQ Q U ZZ zz o W H HH 4 0 x • • 0 xxxxx m ZZ z /y' WW HH x '=4 WCx4 Cx, Cx, Cx. 00 0 00000 0 HH H h ci `.4 ^.Gx x 4 m N K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K 1001Mn mm MM 1010 (10O 0101 10 )OONIn 010 LnOM 00 OO ON N 000 00 00 > E-, Ln0W NN '4.'4 '4.'4. NNLn 00 10 CA Lnln an in NN rmr 00 00 011001 000 1010 00 4 Zi X Q 0HH 1010 NN 00 HHN OO 0HOOON 1010 0001 O0 OO OT'a' 000 MM d'd' O 10(O mm 1010 HH NNc)' MM L>HL}HL}M NN ICN 00 00 MOM LOMO HH d''4 t0MO -U)--O- L>L} NN NNC L>L> t/>• L> L> L}t/} L>HN MM NN HNM d'‘NC NN Wd' Q .L} . L>L> L}L>L} L)L} L>L)- -VD-O- Th .. .. L>L>U> L>> X H H M M H H P Y L} L> L}L> L>U U W X x 0 W Ei M W HH H H H HH H HHHHH H HH H ri HH HH H H H EA o 0 O O O 00 O 000.00 O 0 0 O O 00 00 O o C7 a \\ \ \ \ \\ \ \\\\\ \ \\ \ \ \\ \\ \ \ W 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10101010/0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1010 10 10 x O O O O O 00 O 00000 O 00 O O 00 00 O O • 0 NN N N N NN N NNNNN N NN N N NN sr- N N U w 0101 m m m mm an mmmmm m 0101 m m mm mm m m G7 x mm an m m mm m mmmmm an mm m m mm mm m m X 0 HH H H H HH rH HHHHH H HH H H HH HH H H U 0 4 Z 10 N co m o H N M C Ln 10 N co m o H 0 O 0 o H H H H H H H H H H N U ,Y, 0 A OA OA OA 0 A OA 0 A OA 0 A OA OA 0 A 0 A OA OA Z 0 Ln K Ln K in K in K in K in K in K Ln K Ln K Ln K Ln K Ln K Ln K Ln K in K Q W Ln V Ln V Ln V Ln V Ln V Ln V in V m V in V Ln V in V Ln V Ln V Ln V Ln V o x U U N en L6 a I-1 FC 0 00 x 00 0 0 000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X a W 041 a6 Z 0 Z W N o V) H CO NN NNNN NNN M M H 01 0 V' LI) l0 O 0 LO N H N N V'V'V'V'V' V V V'V' N V' H H O V' V' V' a0 N O rl N O HN rl rl rl ri ri ri ri rt ri HHN H �i HHHa, Ln d d• M co M N V'd V'd'd'd'W d•V V' V' d V V. W V. H l0 OH O HN 0) H 000000000 O O V' O N O O O CO H H O NN H ri 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O N 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 m 0 O O O E V' ri H H H H V' r) CO 0 CO O CO W co O 00 CO CO M M H H 01 V' a N N N M M N N N M M M M M M MMM m M N w M N M N W V N N V' V•V' V. N W V•V'V'V'V'd'Cr V' V' V' V' V' V' V' V' V' OCC) L L t i t t t i t t L L OX H 00 V' NH OD O ri ODNH riN rl V'M O 01 CO H l0 H H H 0A V' V'V' C` NH N V' NNLnr C4OOLntn N M CO N N H Ln d' FC z V co CO H H M 10 OD M VD Cs M V'ri rl N Ls l0 V. H V' M M N V' O 01 O1 O 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 01 0 o 0 Z H Z H U W W U 01 41 a Cil U z W W U 0 Z W 0 E-1 7y O Z maao H a w Z ctrl H w a Z H W FC FC a a H Cr] FC a H 0 w E E » Cr] W -7 E >' WWCLI Ell WCil Cil WW W 111 W .-1 0 E a Z FC FC C/) Ci)04 Z 4 UUUUUUUUU U U E ci) a x Z H H a s a H a HHHHHHHHH H H z a U H C4 FC 'a aA FC 'J 9'J>>>>5'J 5 •J H 1-7 A V) FC O X WW FC FCC/) Z Cr) aaaaaaaaa a a FC FC Cl) ,, X U) 0 C Z Z 0 WWWWWWWWW Cr] 41 X Z 41 Cr] E as 000 E a V)u)u)u)u)UlulU]u) Cn u) 0 0 U E A Z 4 g H HZ Z FC 0 H Z Z Z Cr] x x Cl) U)H W x >4>'>>'>'>'>>>4 >' > Z Cl) H W41 X U0 Cl) En E-+ X U EEEEEEEEE E E H C)) E a X a W RI( a HHHHHHHHH H H 0 w 4 Ell Cu H • • Cr. CL. H • 4.a 4a a a a i-7.1 .a a a Ul C=+ a Cu H 1 O 0 O O 41 D 0 H H H H H H H H H H H H Cr] 0 41 Z 01 • • a as d EE EE EE EEE E E D D a a 0 01 W U0 04 a0 w U OObXXX O D CO 0 a 0 U 41 UU ZZ >' H H E W U 04 04 4 00 a E En H Z• U U Cl)0 0 0 a H ZZ EE w 0 H W M E HH Cai)U) U U aaaaaaaaa a a Wan 03 A Z En En E Z Z H Cr] ��������� a A E O z W Q:a U U E H At FC FC FC FC FC FC FC FC FC FC H a CO 0 H 41 X A A W Cr) a W w z o a .-74 a a H 000000000 0 0 Cr. > H 0 O H U)U) FC . X FC UUUUUUUUU U U >' O Z .-1 WW E a mmma)EnEnCOUIm Cl) Cl) g4 H KC E O< E E U a a FC a At At At At FC FC FC FC FC FC FC E 4 U) Cr] Z Z E E C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C9 C7 Z a U) 0 H N 4153UlU) 0 0 wWWWWWWww w 41 0 w >' a 0 a, 0� as x ZZ a s ZZZZZZZZZ Z Z U 0 A 0 4 01 a rJ0 Z HH E EE ZZZZZZZZZ Z Z 0 a H H (x C, H g44 W W HHHHHHHHH H H Z Z 0 0 a E .1 .1.1 .1 XX X X XXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X 01 N i' i' it K # # it it it it it it K is K NN 000 00 O1.1.01 0101 00 ODMNL-V'ri LnOL-r- NLS ri ri Ln Ln 00 00 ri r) 00 00 ZV'V' O O O O O OCA 01 V'V' O O M N ri CO L-co L-N M V' V'V' M M l0 4 O O 0 O 0 0 0 O N N X .) 0 0 0 0 0 LO L!) M OA N CO OD 0 0 OD CO O rI M M H CO N OD M M Ln Lf) 0 0 Ln Ln 0 0 H H un Ll) LO Ln O TP TP LO Ln0 r-r- 01r-CN NN Ln Ln NV'Ln 00l0N NL-O V' ri ri 0000 NN NN 00 NN V'V' IOIO t/1-4/1- V''d'01 2/3-2/)- N 01 N M M V'V' ri ri t?ri M V}H 0 O rH V}V} 01-V)- Lf i? t/}L? Ln LO l0 l0 4/1-VI. Ln U) D V}i?t? 4? . V}L} 4/}V} V}i/} i/}V} i? . V}V} M r-IN HNV' V'V. MM E "4 i?V} VI-V}V} V}i/} V}i/} U W X M U Irl E U) 41 H HH H HH H H HHHHHHHHH H H H H H H H H H E 0 00 o 00 0 0 000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o O FC „„.„ ,„ -- ' ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 5, - . — 5, 5, 5, 5, 41 0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 1/40 l0 l0 VD l0 l0 l0 VD VD l0 l0 l0 l0 10 l0 l0 1/40 a 0 00 0 00 0 0 000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O U N N h N N N N N N N N N N L-N N N N N N N N N N N U W 01 01 0) 01 01 01 01 0, 01 01 0,01 01 01 01 01 0) 01 0) 0, 01 01 01 01 0) Cr] x 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0)01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 U• U H H H rl ri H H H H H H H H ri ri rl ri H H H H H 1-4 H H 0 `-1 Z H N CO V. LI) l0 N 00 01 0 H N M V. L!) H N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M O ",+G O A 0 AOA 0 A OA OA 0 A OA OA OA OA OA OA OA OA Z U LI)* LI) is L!)it LI) M Ln it Ll)K LI) it N* Ln* Ln it Lf)it Ln it Ln it Ln it Ln it ) 41 LO V ' Ln V Ln V Ln V Ln V Ln V Ln V LI) V Ln V Ln V Ln V Ln V LI) V L) V Ln V 0 x C.) U Ln N rn (IS a 0 000 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0 z 00 00 0 0 0 z C4 w 001 az E 0 z C.4 a,a, U mm H 0 N N N H N m 0101 w O Ul m m %.(3,-1 r co O N N N N N m o w w w w N 61 111 N WW NM N 1.0 N :> H HHH H Om H H HH H LO H H NN HH H co H Z w www w mm w w ww w m w w oo ww w H w H 0 000 0 NN O O 00 O a0 O O ,/..d. O O 0 N 0 0 000 0 HH O O 00 O w O O M M 00 O H O m 000 O O O O o O O O O O O 00 O O 0 O N • El m mmm N HH a0 H HH ri H 01 01 m m U)U) H H r Z C4 w mmm 1.0 NN CO m m m N m m m N N 0101 m N w JW w www w NN w w ww w w w w ww ww w w m 001 I I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I I I I 1 I O X H H N m H 00 r H Nd. H O H H w m ')'O) 1.0 N N 0 U) H H H H .4"41 N N SS H N U) r Ln til U) H N m U) 4Z r mmm m co co w 10 HH M w ri ri N N r m m 10 r O 000 01 0101 O O 00 O 01 O O 00 00 01 O O ZZZ z z HHH H H zzz H H H H H U DI U Cr) 04 41 HHH WW UH H C7 CD U Z \\\ 44 H HH Cl) H \ \ ZZ H Cl) O aa.) Cl) on on > >> Cr) > a a HH ✓ W H 000 W 44 a AA H Gx 0 0 xx r4 H H 000 w ›-I>1 Cr) Cr) WW a w 0 0 mm Cr) a A AMA w KCKC CJ Cl) mm a Cl) X x H H HH Cl) a H 000 as H a U 0 ZZ as a a mmm H > a as 4 Cl) Cl) HH on al 1-) D O ��� z WW rx rl) 44M 4 \ \ 44 4m Cr) www w 00 w Z ZZ Z Cr) Cr) ZX as Z W 000 0 xx Cl) 0 00 0 0 U U �� 0 0 O ZZZ 4 44 H HH Z H Z Z 007 00 H Z WWW XX '1 Cl) mm H Cl) Cr) Cr) ZZ ZZ Cl) H Cl) p c4 c4 4 00 H Cl) W U) El 01 RC (X HH HH Cl) El Z WWW FC H W W W 4 Cr) Cr) W AM H H W 4 0 Cl) www 0 • • a Cu WW x w w w as zz CL. x Cl) W ZZZ m 00 H 0 00 Cr) 0 z Z HH HH 0 W Cl) • 000 H • • El rx rx x a rx 0 0 rx cx c>~ a Cr) A 000 Cr-. ClU p a as 0 a U U mm as a 0 4 •W L�a'PG 00 H OU OU C)C) Z 000 Cc,Cc, OU H 0 W W HH C4 P4 Z Z H ...aU c4aZ 000 Cr) 00 0 Cr a Cl) www H MX z H W W 00 FC a m XXX Z a'a' H 0 od Cl) U U COW 04 z w ww z cc rza O aaa 0 00 Cl) H Cl) 0 aw Awo�o Z Cl) Z 0 Z W HHH x A z z 4 Cl) Cr) ZW W r7 H X W H Cr) o;rxo: xx Cr) HH m w x XXmm x a x 000 c1 UU X AA M a H a HH A 4 x co X££ al W W on CO a HH HH 111 G+ 1.4 U www -]a 0 0 0 Cr) cool H 0 Cr) X Z Z H Cc.4. H al to U C) -) >C>C w w Cl) `� m 1 Z 00 4 H H H a s xx 0 3 x 0 a XHH Cr) 44 mol Z H H Cl) AA HH H Z 0 0) H c>r rx oC a > > a rx rx rx H 0 0 Z XX D D 00 W Cl) H 0 000 0 00 Cl) 4 a'KC 'a U U Cr) HH 00 a H W Z ZZZ Z ZZ Z a as 0 m Cl) Cl) mm mm Cl) Cl) H 0) N K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K 00 0000 00 000 HH 00 0 MM 00 U)LI) 00 00 1.OLON 000 ww 00 00 EH 00 0000 U)U) 000 U)U) 00 Omm 00 NN 00 00 610)01 000 U)U) 00 00 X• 'J 00 U)U100 0161 '100 00 'w Orr 0)0) r-r- L)U1. 00 LO w001 LO 001. 0101 CA CN Lnm 0 a6 a0 r r U)O N N H 01 H H H N N O 1.0 1.0 a0 a0 r r N N U1.U) H H m LO co un 1.0 1.0 01 01 N N HHL?NHU1. HH wma0 mm HH 000 1.)-L? 10LO t?L} t?+/T NNw L}LAH NN HH C/T L} R .. .. . Cl).Lf ... Cl)-L} L?L} . . . Cl)-L} Cl)-L?L? Cl)- . . Cl)-L? H H NH M O O H x Cl)- Cl)- Cl)-1.h L} HH U Lr L} W x C4 0 Cr) El CO Cr) H r1.r1.H H HH H H HH ri ri H ri HH HH H H H H H 0 000 0 00 O O 00 0 0 0 0 00 00 O O O O a \ \\\ \ \\ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \\ \\ . \ \ Cr) A 1.0 LO LO LO 1.O LOW 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 LO 1.O 1.O b WW WW LD 1.0 1.0 cx o c o o 0 co 0 0 co 0 0 0 o 00 00 0 0 0 ��� �� �', ,„ • � •5 55 S • 0 N rrr r Nr r r rr N r r r Nr rr r r r C) Cr) 01 010101 01 010) 01 0) 010) 0) 0) 61 0) 01 01 010) 01 01 01 Cr) x 01 0) 0)0) 01 61 0) 01 01 0101 0) 01 0) 0) 0)0) 0101 61 01 01 x 0 H HHH H HH H ri HH ri H H ri HH HH H H H 0 0 .7 Z 1.0 r 00 01 O H N m w U) 1.0 r 00 01 0 H H M m CO m w w w w w w w w w w U1. in O x 0 A 0 A 0A 0 A 0A 0A 0 A 0A 0A 0A 0A 0 A 0 A OA 0A OA Z. U 1.0-K N K U)-K U) K U)iK Ln K Ln is U1. K U1.K U)K U1.K U1. K U) K U)-K U)ie U1.K "„ Cr) U) V U) V U) V U1. V U) V U) V U) V U1. V U1. V U1. V U) V U) V U) V U) V 111 V U1. V O x O 0 �o a) ti) fa a Xx x x x x xxxxx x x x x X x x x x x a, 0 0 0 0 0 00000 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 H z C4 w Dal a,6 z 0 z w U H N cr M Ln to to Lfl In W N CO 01 01 01 01 0 H N N O 01 in to to m Ln LO to Ill In Lo in Ln 0 N N Ln LO 01 LD LO N > Lo rl '-I ri ' ' rl H ri H rl H H H 0 H H H H H H H N Z N cr d' V' N d'V'W d'd' d' d' a' 0 c)'d' W V' LO d' d' LD H N 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .4' V) 0 0 0 H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O H 0 0 0 0 H 0 0 0 0 0 H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Ln 0 H 0 N H H H N N H H H rl M M M M CO 01 CO ri N Cr) H lO s1' N "Zia N M m M N N N N N N N M M M M M L0 W (N Ti. N H D w d' V' d' d' d' d'd'V'd'Tr d' Tr d' d' Tr d' M V' d' M d' N O al I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I O X d' H O H N H rl H H ri H H M H H N 01 H N H H N U D H in N H N N d'N N H CO Lo .4. H d'd' Ln LO N d' cr H 4 z M N Lo M d' d' I L0 sr M H H H W N N N rl V' N d' cm 0 0 0 0 0 00000 0 0 0 0 00 o O o o O o z z w H 0 > ZH w H H a CO w c4 Cl) U C7 U Z Cl) H Cl) m m m w '. H H u) Z a O w > w www 0 a > w w a Z al H H a H H H H z 0 a D H 0 w 4 H a w a aaa w w 0 41 41 Cu a >•' E. >' a a Cl) a aawHH H E~ 0 x 010 \ w C0 z 't H 0. a, - a4 aL aL z z z u) H 0 H u) a, w H 3. C4 0 a 0 000HH H H > 0) >4 Z D a FC U Cn 4 Cn CO u)Cn44 4 Cn a \ a4 0 u) X • u) Z XX Z 01 w w 41 H lx) Cl). w 0 0 w 0 C)C)C7 0 Cr) U u)O H 0 H E-' z A H H Cl) 0 w H H H HZZ Z \ >, w >tC) H H 4 w H Cl) N C7 H HHE.HH H a N a E-,u) a H 3 X a 4• w w H a aaaaa 0 . H w aw Cl) C) a Q Cu U 0. 0 w Cl) w aaa1,0) H a EH-' Z Nc4 Z 0 w � 01 O a, H a, 0 0 0 0 0l c0 a1 H D U D a, a Cl) 0 >' w U Cl) Z zzzzz • H Cf) HHHHH 0U ra 0. Cx. 4 U »»> XHH 4 0 • H U D aaaaa a, 0 U H 0 wwwww C1. HH a H a z a o a)u)u)ulu) o 24 24 C7 C) x D w a ww z z h 0 a Z Z H a aaaaa 0 0 Cl) XX w H 0 Z 4 Z Cil 4.444F4 Z ww 4143 N N u) H w (X H 0 4 H HH HHH H a H 00 U u) H U > C7 U NC a zzzzz H C7 H KtKt a H ,1 w Z 03 a H C7 w w w w w x r] H ,a a 0 H >t E•' Cl) Kt aaaaa C! U x w w Kt w Cl) o H 0 z C7 X u) 0a 3 w w a, 0 C9 C7 C7 C7 C7 .] H z a 0. a a w r H 3 N 00000 H ww w D w a 0 01 4 Cl) E-' HH HHH Cl) 1-1 H Z HE-' XP al N 0 FC 01 w 0 Cl) Cl) H HHHHH CO X Cl) a Cn u) a Cl) a H w a ri a a z zzzzz O O Cu Kt Kt Kt w w H w H G. H H D D D CDDDDD > > > 3 33 3 3 3 N N Kt 0) N K K K K K # K K # i, K K K * K is 0101 00 00 00 VOLO op Nl00 d'O NN NN NN 00 OMM 00 NN 03 OD 00 MM a0 >' EA Nr 00 aD OD 00 NN LONri NL00) NN rl ri NN 00 OaDN 00 NN 1010 OD OD 5010 M 4 Z X D Lo Ln N N 10 Lo N N 0 0 f'ri aD M ri 01 a'Tr N N rl rl O 0 H in LO LO in W d' LO Ln r r ri ri OD O NN NN NN 0101 00 a3a3a0.t'01a0 CO OD W d' cm cm NN 01 Tr en MM MM NN V)-V)- ri ri N r� N N 03 OD LTV} H ri LO LO ri 4/11,--1 V)t?Lo N N 1?ur N N H ri rl op O L)•t/T H ri LO Ln H H LO 0 PC t?tJ t)t0 t?CO. CO-tit t? CO- CO. CO-t? . . Cl).t? . . . Cl)Cl). Cl)t? 4/1-VT it} CO CO H Lo N H L t/TVT vrvrVT 0 w N a U w H CO W H H H H H H H H ri H ri H H H H ri ri rl ri rl H a) H H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 O O O 0 N 0 a \ \ \ \ .. \\\\\ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ w 0 L0 LO LO '.0 LO L0 LO LO LO LO L0 LO LO 10 '0 10 10 LO LO 1.0 L0 Ln a 0 0 0 0 0 00000 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 A4 \ \ \ \ \ \\\\\ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ a4 U N N N N N NNNNN N r r r NN N r r N N N U W 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 W N 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 Cl 01 01 01 N U r♦ H H H H riHHHH ri r{ rl ri HH H H ,-f H H H 0 0 a Z N M d' U) LO N a0 co O ri N M d' LO t0 N 0) H LO Ln LO LO Ln Ln Ln Ln l0 LO l0 10 l0 '.0 '.0 LO L0 U OA OA OA OA OA 0 A 0A 0A 0A 0A 0 A OA OA 0A 0A OA 0 Z U to K LO K Ln K Ln K u)K Ln K In K in K Ln K CIl K N K in K in K Ln K N* Ln K Ln D w ti) V LO V Ln V Lo V Lo V Ln V Lo V Ln V LO V Ln V LI) V LI) V Ln V LO V Ln V LI) V LO O N U 0 C` a) rn ro a a 4 A a a a a a a a a a a a a H H H H H H H H H H H H X W OW 04 Z z 0 z w U H 1/40 N a0 01 0 H N M O 0 0 0 0 H H H H Tr d' d' d' d' TrV' W Ln U) Ln Ln U) N to Ln N U) N L. H O 0 O 0 0 m 0 - 0 m O M CO 0 O 0 O O M O 0 M 0 M M N 0 0 ri O 00 O O M H a) LO H M H H ao rH N. rH Cl 03 aD L` N za C M m H M H M M H ri H H A W Tr Tr Tr N cr N Tr a' N N N N O CO I I I I I I I I I I I I O X 01 O> O1 N 1/40 N 01 ri N N N N U A Cl Cl M H N H Cl N H ri H rH 4 z Tr Tr Tr 01 H 01 tr H 01 01 01 01 O' O1 01 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 G.1 Cl) 4 Cl) a Cr) 4 0 0 H W a z H C/) C/) H O � W W K4 W 01 A aC0 ci1 � N C) Cl) a 10O a X X N Ga LO X > N N O1 w O z Z a0 0 1/40 X FC N 10 co V' p: 0 0 O P.' Cl 0 a U) O Cl Cl Cl U U U a d, U H N U N N C4 C4 IX N A H MA Tr Ci) 0 a a H cDI I 0) 0 a x rx Za H H a H H 004 A cn o 0 Z x x x 3 x a w H H a) 4 W CWn OU O H H H 3 Cr.) a 0 Z H H a 4 U H H r H z 0 Z O H a H cn 0) � 0 0q a' Z X 2y Z W H X U H C4 aW U U OU H a4 X a Cl) A A 0) N K K K K K K K K K K K K K K a0 0 0 0 0 L0 10 N N U)U) N N Cl M 01 01 0 0 co ao O O N > H M OO O0 CO OD 0)01 NN Ln U) Nh NN NN OO 0O MMO X A a) 00 O O O U)U) a0 ao a0 a0 H H Ln Ln H H N L. CO 03 H H 01 01 H O N L0 1D U)Ln 01 01 N N Tr Tr r-N Ln Ln ri H 01 01 N N O O N NCO L0 O O M M a0 co N N 01 01 N N M M 01 01 W Tr N N M M M M U) A t? tn-tn• . . tn•th . . in-in- . . I.t? . . t?tn• . '.,. x 1/40 10 H H H H LO U) H H N N L,N a) H tn•t/)- tn•in. t?s? t/-t/)- t/}tn• H H tn•tn• 00 O t/?01- N W t? X a U w H Cs) W co c0 ao aD ao ao co a) 00 co ao CO H H N N N N N N N N N N N N C7 4 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ W A U) U) Ln Ln Ln in U) Ln U) Ln Ln U) C4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 � - 5 U N N N N N C' N N N N N N O W 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 Cr) x 01 01 0) 01 01 al 01 01 O1 01 01 01 x U ri H ri H H H H ri H rH H ri 0 0Z �1 01 O ri N M V, Ln 10 N co 01 0 H L0 N N Ls N N N N N N N ao O NL A 0A 0A 0A 0A 0A 0A 0A 0A 0A 0A 0A 0A Z 0 K U)K Ln K U)K U) K Ln K U)K U)K U)K Lf)K Ln K U)K U)K Ix) V LO V U) V U) V Ln V LO v Ln v Ln V Ln V U) V U) V U) V U) V 0 x O 0 H w. tn CO N 0 0 cr 0 Ln O M U1 0 N N M Ln Ln m O O N O 0 00 M 00 m m CO N 0 W0 m H CO M 0 N LID Ln N 0 01 N 01 CO H N M H N U1 a' 0 l0 H Ln t!1 M 01 M M N N U1 N N cr CO LI) t/} H N t/} to H L} 41> t? c0 H t? t/? 41> H Lf N i/} {/} CO N m m H 01 N >{ > H a a H A H z D x A E-4 �' z H > Z 0 >+ w W 4 A 0 0 a h CC H W m Q H X a H m �' x Z uwi w 0 Z Z 4 m rn a 0 0 C] 00 w rx A m m 4 a E• w w cn U 0 H W H H CL U) cn a a W x H Ln H W 0 m 0 0 0 0 U O H H H N N M M LA d' O H H M m cr d' N N r` CO a H 3t 3t 3t 4t 3t Xk it 3t 3t 3t 4k U z Z Z Z Z z Z Z Z z Z O D a D D 5 D x D D D x U rs, w w EL, w w w r:. EL. EL, w CONSENT 1A.R.cir SOCIETY® than the sword There's nothing mightier Minnesota Division,Inc. May 9, 1997 Shakopee Parks and Recreation Department Attention: Mark McQuillan, Director 1255 South Fuller Street Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: A WALK IN THE PARK Dear Mr. McQuillan: We are in the planning stages of the 6th Annual American Cancer Society's A WALK IN THE PARK. The event will be held from Friday, July 19, 1997 at 6:00 p.m. until Saturday, July 20, 1997 at 8:00 a.m. We would like to request that we again be allowed to stay in Memorial Park after its normal closing time. You should be receiving a copy of the Certificate of Insurance naming the City of Shakopee as a Named Insured for July 19 and 20, 1997. If you do not receive it within the next few weeks, please contact me at 445-0877. Sincerely, kil! (41\ Pe• • IW • -rmann Watson Co-Cha rperson A WALK IN THE PARK STAFF RECOMMENDATION Aprove request ACTION REQUESTED Move to approve the request by the American Cancer Society to access Memorial Park. after normal hours for the "Walk in the Park" event. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor& City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: 1997 Street Overlay, Project No. 1997-2 DATE: June 3, 1997 INTRODUCTION: Attached is Resolution No. 4675, a resolution ordering an improvement and the preparation of plans and specifications for Project No. 1997-2, 1997 Street Overlay on five areas within the City. BACKGROUND: On May 6, 1997 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 4664, which received the feasibility report and called for a public hearing on the 1997 Street Overlay, Project No. 1997-2 and set the public hearing date for June 3, 1997. This project was proposed in lieu of a street reconstruction and approved by Council on January 7, 1997 to proceed as a public improvement project. The streets proposed to be included in the street overlay project are described as follows: AREA"A" Rural bituminous streets (Valley Industrial Boulevard South and Industrial Circle South) in the Industrial Park area, form County Road(C.R.) 83 to Valley Park Drive. AREA "B" Rural streets located south of C.R. 16 and east of C.R. 18 known as Foothill Trail, Horizon Drive and Horizon Circle. AREA"C" Streets east of Marschall Road, from Shakopee Avenue to 11th Avenue. AREA "D" Streets west of Marschall Road, from 10th Avenue to 11th Avenue beginning at Dakota Street and streets east of there. AREA"E" Presidential streets south of 12th Avenue and west of Monroe Street in the Minnesota Valley Subdivision. Staff did conduct information meetings with the residential areas proposed to be improved on May 28 and May 29, 1997. A total of eleven persons from the residential areas attended the meeting. Comments received have been in favor of the project with concerns on the schedule, notifications, no parking restrictions and assessments. Staff will give a presentation on the feasibility report at the public hearing. STAFF WOULD REOUEST THAT COUNCIL BRING THEIR FEASIBILITY REPORT FROM THE MAY 6, 1997 COUNCIL PACKET TO THE MEETING. At the conclusion of public hearing, if the City Council determines that this project should be constructed, attached is Resolution No. 4675 which orders plans and specifications prepared for the project. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 4675, which orders plans and specifications prepared for this project, as recommended by the feasibly report and as amended by City Council. 2. Determine that this project should not be constructed and deny Resolution No. 4675. 3. Continue the public hearing for additional comments from the public. 4. Table Resolution No. 4675 for additional information. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, to adopt Resolution No. 4675, ordering the preparation of plans and specifications for the 1997 Street Overlay, Project No. 1997-2. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 4675, A Resolution Ordering the Improvement and Plans and Specifications for the 1997 Street Overlay, Project No. 1997-2 and move it adoption. AVAQ, Bruce Loney Public Works Director BL/pmp MEM4675 RESOLUTION NO. 4675 A Resolution Ordering An Improvement And Preparation Of Plans And Specifications For The 1997 Street Overlay Project Project No. 1997-2 WHEREAS, Resolution No. 4664 adopted on May 6, 1997, fixed a date for Council hearing on the proposed improvement of City streets by bituminous overlay paving, curb&gutter and all other appurtenant work; and WHEREAS, ten days published notice of the hearing through two weekly publications of the required notice was given and the hearing was held on the 3rd day of June, 1997, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA: 1. That the improvement is ordered as hereinafter described: Polk Street from 12th Avenue to South Terminus Tyler Street from 12th Avenue to 13th Avenue Harrison Street from 12th Avenue to 13th Avenue Presidential Lane from Harrison Street to Minnesota Valley 8th Addition Presidential Circle from Presidential Lane to Terminus 13th Avenue from Polk Street to Minnesota Valley 8th Addition Jackson Street from 12th Avenue to South Terminus Dakota Street from 10th Avenue to 11th Avenue Prairie Street from 10th Avenue to 11th Avenue Naumkeag Street from 10th Avenue to 11th Avenue Shawmut Street from 10th Avenue to 11th Avenue Legion Street from 10th Avenue to 11th Avenue Sibley Street from Shakopee Avenue to 11th Avenue Ramsey Street from Shakopee Avenue to 11th Avenue Swift Street from 10th Avenue to 11th Avenue Miller Street from Shakopee Avenue to 11th Avenue Merrifield Street from 10th Avenue to 11th Avenue Merritt Street from Shakopee Avenue to 11th Avenue Valley Industrial Blvd. South From County Road 83 to Valley Park Drive Industrial Circle South from Valley Industrial Blvd. South To South Terminus Foothill Trail from C.S.A.H. 16 to Horizon Drive 20th Avenue at Foothill Trail 21st Avenue at Foothill Trail 22nd Avenue at Foothill Trail Horizon Drive from Foothill Trail to Muhlenhardt Road Horizon Circle from Horizon Drive to North Terminus 2. Bruce Loney, Public Works Director, is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. He shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvements. 3. The work of this project is hereby designated as part of the 1997-2 Public Improvement Program. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota,held this day of , 1997. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk ) 3. ,q CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat of South Parkview 3rd Addition MEETING DATE: June 3, 1997 INTRODUCTION Cletus Link is requesting approval of the preliminary plat of South Parkview 3rd Addition. The request is accompanied by a request for several variances. The public hearing was held on this matter before the Planning Commission on May 22, 1997. Please find attached for your reference a copy of the May 22, 1997, Planning Commission staff report. ALTERNATIVES I. Approve the preliminary plat with the following conditions: A. With the Final Plat application, the applicant must provide the following information: 1. A revised Landscape Plan which provides for landscaping units which meet the minimum sizes required by Section 11.60, Subd. 8 of the City Code. B. The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of the Final Plat: 1. Approval of title by the City Attorney. 2. Execution of a Developers Agreement for construction of required public improvements: a) Street lighting to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. b) Electrical system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. c) Water system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. d) Installation of sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems, and construction of streets in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard specifications of the City of Shakopee. e) Street signs shall be constructed and installed by the City of Shakopee at a cost to the developer of$270.00 per sign pole. One street sign shall be required at the intersection of Quincy Circle and Vierling Drive. 3. The Final Construction Plans and Specifications must be approved by the City Engineer and Shakopee Public Utilities. 4. The City Engineer will reapportion the existing special assessments against the lots and the developer shall waive the right to appeal the reapportionment. 5. VIP Connection Fees must be paid prior to the recording of the Final Plat. 6. The approval of the Final Plat shall be contingent upon the vacation of the existing Quincy Circle right-of-way. 7. The developer is granted a 100 foot extension to the 500 foot cul- de-sac length limit. 8. The developer is granted a 3 foot variance to the 30 foot front yard setback for Lots 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 15, Block 1. 9. The developer is granted a 18 foot variance to the 70 foot lot width requirement for all lots. II. Revise the conditions and/or findings recommended by staff, and approve the Preliminary Plat for South Parkview 3rd Addition subject to the revised conditions. III. Deny the request for approval of the Preliminary Plat for South Parkview 3rd Addition. IV. Table a decision in order to allow time for the applicant and/or staff to submit additional information or make any necessary revisions. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Commission recommended approval of the proposed preliminary plat and requested variances (Alternative No. 1). ACTION REQUESTED Offer and approve Resolution No. 4676 approving the preliminary plat with conditions. 411j ulie K ima Planner II is\commdev\cc\1997\cc0603\ppspkv3.doc RESOLUTION NO. 4676 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA,APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SOUTH PARKVIEW 3RD ADDITION WHEREAS,Cletus Link, the applicant and owner of said property, has applied for preliminary plat approval; and WHEREAS,the property for which the request is being made is legally described as; Outlots A and D, South Parkview Is!Addition, Scott County,Minnesota; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee did review the Preliminary and Plat of South Parkview 3rd Addition on May 22, 1997, 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 Preliminary Plat of South Parkview 3rd Addition is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions: A. With the Final Plat application, the applicant must provide the following information: 1. A revised Landscape Plan which provides for landscaping units which meet the minimum sizes required by Section 11.60, Subd. 8 of the City Code. B. The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of the Final Plat: 1. Approval of title by the City Attorney. 2. Execution of a Developers Agreement for construction of required public improvements: a) Street lighting to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. b) Electrical system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. c) Water system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. d) Installation of sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems, and construction of streets in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard specifications of the City of Shakopee. e) Street signs shall be constructed and installed by the City of Shakopee at a cost to the developer of$270.00 per sign pole. One street sign shall be required at the intersection of Quincy Circle and Vierling Drive. 3. The Final Construction Plans and Specifications must be approved �—" — by the City Engineer and Shakopee Public Utilities. 4. The City Engineer will reapportion the existing special assessments against the lots and the developer shall waive the right to appeal the reapportionment. 5. VIP Connection Fees must be paid prior to the recording of the Final Plat. 6. The approval of the Final Plat shall be contingent upon the vacation of the existing Quincy Circle right-of-way. 7. The developer is granted a 100 foot extension to the 500 foot cul- de-sac length limit. 8. The developer is granted a 3 foot variance to the 30 foot front yard setback for Lots 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 15, Block 1. 9. The developer is granted a 18 foot variance to the 70 foot lot width requirement for all lots. 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 , 1997. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk PREPARED BY: City of Shakopee 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat of South Parkview 3rd Addition DATE: May 22, 1997 Site Information: Applicant: Cletus Link Location: North of Vierling Drive and West of County Road 15 (See Exhibit A) Current Zoning: Urban Residential and Multiple Family Residential (R-1B and R2) Adjacent Zoning: North: Urban Residential (R-IB) South: Urban Residential (R-1B) East: Urban Residential (R-1B) West: Urban Residential (R-1B) Comp.Plan: 1995: Single Family Residential and Multiple Family Residential Area: 7 Acres MUSA: The site is within the MUSA boundary. Introduction: Cletus Link is requesting Preliminary Plat approval for a development consisting of 24 twin home units (12 twin home buildings) and an outlot (see Exhibit B). The proposed development is located north of Vierling Drive and west of County Road 15. Considerations: 1. The subject site is 7.01 acres in size. However, the portion of the property zoned for Medium Density Residential (R2) development is 5.12 acres in size. Therefore, the net density of the Medium Density Residential (R2) development is 5.68 dwelling units per acre. The City Code requires a minimum of 5 dwelling units and a maximum of 11 dwelling units per acre for the Medium Density Residential (R2)Zoning District. 2. The park dedication requirement for this plat has been satisfied with previous additions of this project. Therefore, park dedication fees will not be required at this time. 3. The Preliminary Plat does not propose any shared driveways. 4. The Building Official has commented that separate sewer/water services are required for individually owned halves of twin homes. 5. The subject site has a levied assessment balance. These assessments shall be reapportioned and the developer shall waive his right to appeal the reapportionment must be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. The subject site also has VIP connection fees due. These VIP connection fees must be paid prior to the recording of the Final Plat. 6. The Landscape Plan (Sheet No.3, Date Received of May 12, 1997) has been reviewed and provides an adequate number of landscaping units. However, the size of the units does not meet the minimum size required by the City Code. A condition requiring that this be revised and submitted along with the Final Plat has been included for consideration. 7. The right-of-way for Quincy Circle was previously dedicated with a prior addition of the project, though the roadway was not constructed. The applicant has submitted an application to vacate the original right-of-way, due to a need to relocate (by rededicating the right-of-way with this addition ) the right-of-way to the west. 8. The applicant has submitted a letter requesting several variations for the plat (see Exhibit C). Two (2) variations requested are variations to the Zoning Ordinance. These variations are for a three (3) foot variation to the required 30 foot front yard setbacks for Lots 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 15 and for an 18 foot variation from the required 70 foot lot width requirement for all lots. Variations from the Zoning Ordinance must meet the following criteria. Staff has prepared draft findings for the criteria. Criteria No. 1: The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed by the official controls. Draft Finding No.1: The property cannot be put to a reasonable use for this zoning district if used under the conditions allowed by the official controls, in that the uses allowed by the zoning district, in practicality, do not necessitate the required controls. Criteria No. 2: The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property. Draft Finding No. 2: The circumstances surrounding this request are unique to the property in that additional property was utilized by MnDOT along the eastern boundary of the subject site. Criteria No. 3: The circumstances were not created by the landowner. Draft Finding No. 3: The circumstances surrounding this request were not created by the landowner in that MnDOT required additional right-of-way along the eastern boundary of the subject site. Criteria No. 4: The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Draft Finding No. 4: The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Criteria No. 5: The problems extend beyond economic considerations. Economic considerations do not constitute undue hardship, if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Draft Finding No.5: The problems extend beyond economic considerations due to the additional property required by MnDOT. The third variation requested is for a 100 foot variation from the required 500 foot cul-de-sac length limitation. This request would be a variation from the Subdivision Regulations, and as such, must meet the following criteria. Staff has prepared draft findings for the criteria. Criteria No.1: The granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public safety, health or welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. Draft Finding No. 1: Staff has received no evidence that the variation would be detrimental to the public safety, health or welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. Criteria No. 2: The conditions upon which the request for a variation is based are unique to the property for which the variation is sought, • and are not applicable, generally, to other property. Draft Finding No. 2: The conditions upon which the request is made are that the property surrounding the subject site is already developed and other alternatives do not exist. Therefore, the conditions are not generally applicable to other property. Criteria No. 3: Literal interpretation of the provisions of this Chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of this Chapter. Draft Finding No. 3: Literal interpretation of the provisions would deprive the applicant of the right to develop the property to its boundaries. While the requirement of 500 feet is currently adhered to, the draft Subdivision Regulations propose a cul- de-sac length of 750 feet. Therefore, this is a requirement that may call for revision. Criteria No. 4: The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Draft Finding No. 4: The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The special conditions and circumstances are unique to the property. — Criteria No. 5: Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific property involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out. Draft Finding No. 5: A particular hardship would result would result if the regulations are carried out. The hardship being the reliance of the development of the subject site upon the development of the adjacent properties. 1. Alternatives: 1. Recommend to the City Council the approval of the request for approval of the Preliminary Plat of South Parkview 3rd Addition, subject to the following conditions: a) With the Final Plat application, the applicant must provide the following information: i) A revised Landscape Plan which provides for landscaping units which meet the minimum sizes required by Section 11.60, Subd. 8 of the City Code. b) The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of the Final Plat: i) Approval of title by the City Attorney. ii) Execution of a Developers Agreement for construction of required public improvements: a) Street lighting to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. b) Electrical system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. c) Water system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. d) Installation of sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems, and construction of streets in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard specifications of the City of Shakopee. e) Street signs shall be constructed and installed by the City of Shakopee at a cost to the developer of$270.00 per sign pole. One street sign shall be required at the intersection of Quincy Circle and Vierling Drive. iii) The Final Construction Plans and Specifications must be approved by the City Engineer and Shakopee Public Utilities. iv) The City Engineer will reapportion the existing special assessments against the lots and the developer shall waive the right to appeal the reapportionment. v) VIP Connection Fees must be paid prior to the recording of the Final Plat. tz!__ vi) The approval of the Final Plat shall be contingent upon the vacation of the existing Quincy Circle right-of-way. vii) The developer is granted a 100 foot extension to the 500 foot cul-de-sac length limit. viii) The developer is granted a 3 foot variance to the 30 foot front yard setback for Lots 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 15, Block 1. ix) The developer is granted a 18 foot variance to the 70 foot lot width requirement for all lots. 2. Revise the conditions recommended by staff, and recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat for South Parkview 3rd Addition, to the City Council, subject to the revised conditions. 3. Recommend to the City Council the denial of the request for approval of the Preliminary Plat for South Parkview 3rd 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 that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat of South Parkview 3rd Addition, subject to conditions, to the City Council (Alternative No. I). Action Requested: Offer a motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat of South Parkview 3rd Addition, subject to conditions, to the City Council, and move its approval. ulie K ima i Planner II is\commdcv\boaa-p6 1997\mav22\ppspkvw3.doc 5 1997 May 7, 1997 EXHIBIT C City of Shakopee --219-S. Holmes St. Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: Variation for Quincy Circle Cul -de-sac; lot depth variances Planning Commission Chairman! Members of the Planning Commission: I hereby respectfully request a variation of 100 feet from the 500 foot cul-de-sac length limitation for the Quincy Circle Cul-de-sac. This is the way it was planned and submitted to the City back in 1985. Because platting and building have already happened in this development, there are no options to revise the Outlot A area. I'm requesting a 3 foot variance for front yard set back for Lots 1-3-5- 7.9.15. Because MN Dot took 30 feet of the land for County road 15, the lots to the west of proposed Quincy Circle are only 121 feet in depth. I'm also requesting an 18 foot variance for lot width for all lots 1 thru 24. Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter. Sincerely, Cletus J. Link i 1216 Jefferson St. S . Shakopee, MN 55379 , . ... . •-•.• . . I ' - OP .... i' . gnaw ,.. . (it gill • ". •-.• ' _,,,E• •.•-•*, I ....31istil,....• .. - - - ' . . gin 31 614 2. '.,:.a..„,.. ,:asivis.-r. ,• 1.-t.%4- 1-'" S. S • .'1'''; '''''. . ' '.... se IS'Ilid%IS , ' -- r:`-!.. 1'1: 1 _‘ • , ,• ',,.Po, /,:.:-:-..- :I ,•... :.-. :-Y21;;.i. .4;6121. xi"CI ',-,...--;•-•'...'jt-,:-..x_lpi7f...,_ f..----.: i.i. '-.- ' '-. ''- EICIIIBIT A : RI . so . - ,- .- -.- m.4.4.4 . '• • • ' '.:• ..' ' • .. 'C',.: ' :,`,...,,...''..fei.41• 1 • ' • pri V.6;'. •'1..." Ast 2114.:.Nal ' j" ' ..- .‘. N‘ 1••• CIN III'cm Iv ...j.: s:-,--.1,..--,-.•,,,,,•,;:-.:.--.-•,..- ,,m.- •-.4t •mr.-Tx •mu;2r,4 is I mom. ,`..- -' ' "=-•`• -• i• ''.° igit pr,ti:., , • al MI-NOM "..•,..4<'.-;?-?;:.:. '.. .....:.-;V. ‘'..- i iii.:r'.;till .Zg a.--1 'iirc.4161'•in!a3 UM . • . ' '.• 44'1'90 1 .- : .agi aii. ne-2 .-,•-; .-, -1-*,• ..-F..• ..1.7., ..)«..---.A.--• P..:•mr.,4. 1 z"-• .•!..rs;mi.-aa 14!-,nsa: ____,-*21,6 SS • -,111111 •ell ini • .•;..•-,,.• ir•. ;--,,,.,..,,:::,.,.-1-.0.. :MX kiliat . . 11-, •_.-.111341..,21%. ... .2....i.a.intems tx,4 ..,„ .ri im .u -•.:.-. -A-;-.. -,:4:.' .-,:t.....,...-: --, ., Mil 43%a .A...v---,. mai_-_,,... A - 1 A ti ..... •-• viwermila ortrainfg......,„,..41=11.... NM •.:.--.---.• --.'':,(4'4-„,V,:, -: . . . . 1F-1 Is: -1 . -.,• i wor-i.-.4,747•4i131,, - 1-. - ,. .,-;..,-..e.,-,--...'--- ..,... •,..-,...,.::..,:-4.-..,. -4,--••,. ---.... lati,__Iri:, ... '''. 1, -. ..,./. i1 I:2 Ezi LIZ se . „ ,, ii gip iip :411= „itliutzu..,. air c,1113°4411 ..,:-.7"13:=0.1...4 evtit,.c.:,..;•-',..a':,.. :-.....:Iii....1,,..,;;A. :.e.C.7.•--.,,I.,.: ttitif,..,„ ..,...4,,a. -.27".:21.15. :. air:.i..., . --ier a .„.., Ilif.&gni rn. rac,m4sr:7.ty. 6ri..*,--.. • .ti•.' - , . :::: .1. ,•-•,?..;;.u.:•',,!.:moo it .z:i!.,1,-7. ;7;2/5-...,...; .--r•--, .,-:-.. urni • •' .:,: seaSt'MOM r3r11. IRS.21...,„. LIP.Vi,,i,:74-sit .• e -Intl ;"-•1 - . ,.,. ',,_” '.',,,-5- •""=:.!.z',4., ---.... - .. kii 12 4 231 ".3:su,sie.r_.• .„.„.....ame.,.,z1,...,....::,............., . • .4, . . V. '...-''''' '.` .'' '; 271414 1'-an!-17185A IMMO•IOW TM '.. V. ,'"7... -- '••• ,..,?..--7• !'•,•';- :. ...k.-,y: n_,mi-DE'• -: mmag.• • :` ihk ICIN3/43ZZOOTA.Mini kafra -1-1r,`.47,V• :,244',a1.IMAM;same.=-As . -.;.i ,- ,:. •,-, :4 ,.---,/- laatwicliviu2- ' ljlei 7;91 164A TAM..611111112tEntiraill.'S -.7ramiirsinsis..sess as •: ,! .' •.!.., 1 ameRe /NEM Mari.MAE Ci,-17mt F+Al sig,•tamp lamp‘gm :• ....-mismt.... ':-:--. •• aill.21111 1111M2;Sidle XX r,r.,. .ft";t4ItRe A At'MI-r2agt-_•-; gran TSI .- :-;-.ow_ ,z',,, --,;*.-!..r.,,t-..%kw L.* • - - ,..._ K 1 . ';'-.1cLiela;CIVia•-•-- - '' MOP.31:11/11111 Mir-, in 11..1 4-114ir. Nzi,gici:arms.:i,Mir!:all -. -- •... ' .... ‘,..‘ k --..-.:.:- Mt. .IN.113 • - ...an 11:21111 HIPICI. Mir'lign I Walk.' 415141,,121111E! 21111n NE • •.., s-* '.- ' • .;•-•..Meg Jimiti ,-. •- •,,. ii --' •- - me— *Bill SWIM Tzar.lin lin gal 53.... Ni N-4,INIEV,-.assvi agi . . . - .- - -1- . „..! Mika,, d#',:;.--.1, • ,:, •a—r JI a . . •--. RIES SINSIL alai•Oil* MAI ,Ztt/6.•JUNE CEllig 2111 . - , ' ".- .._. • - ' likcs 'arcs EN',75.EN211 ;also 2esra-suss Issas is - : - •- - griillia V. . - ,- swill. wrsa EF:XX'4111112/ EVEN gfillilli,-_.EMU .IIII ; -. • :-• , iid 12 •.. , .-- . ' *1 1 -azIrill•ran 117i7lE'EN,.r. 1L-i?..15 1011:111 riirs EWER. . - .- .:- . -. . •-,:; , , . ... , • 11. . , . . ... .•AVM•.-.-: vitro )..1:-...eil. ..',;_;,-..5,21iCg eVni*T41E% .nes iralitz - ,. . .. -...•- _.. ,. ADI,. cass..,.. .‘..., . 14..40.1.11 I n!el ran-rig .. . k - " .-.- . • • ...41.•- -! 6. •,''''s ilitkVIP'go if7.111,11111• .Elia '.751214 r . - . - .. ' n-'' •' min'- ' . , „i•.7..**kil*tisv‘tyrlierlIC" . - . - . _ . • •. istrl : :,.4 ,..v,-.4;w.4.v i. ..,,, ,._ ..4..mi ;xi,•, . . . . It"' . 1---1 lik' ':'''' ' - C.T SIT'E>. v 3, VI . ,.. , 5 L . .:I ,Ilin..-• 7 ' „„ 1 mg ....--, ., .7--,r.,,grpto.- SURTE , . „.., ,.. - ... .... vs_ --,[1. - _ . - - . imix ista .- . . - . ,.. . . -.., ,i, tin'a z . •TE ' '. - 16- • . II . -. . a t . , , 4 ......1•71-,,-..'-?..-' . vii.IN liii,7 • • az • r• _ w..., •.....,________Ttm. rev .Imol I - , . :- . .4„ -,• --" f. ., . - . , . . . . Z ; rt , .. • - - . .. . • 1 100 - * , _ , • - .. I :•.-._ ....-. : _ ___ ..._ ________ R I B ..- - '. - -:- . : . . . LEGEND • %G .....sesf,,,,,,\................ .- .•• ..• . _ . . . - : •.. ... . . . , . . uncenyinq Zones 7-777 ,Lar'culture • 1 .........k VI G. - ,' , RR ; RL..ral Resident.ci t._-• -1,. " 111131"m""...."41111111ft 'R1 al, Low Density Res:dential , .11111001.11111MINmala 717-r.---7 L.,r' 1 un ."- PeSider.t:01 ...........---7... __...„ ‘ - -„....• . . IR ;;C, Old Shakopee Residential ,- .-.. . III16% . ' -I .., , • ...,---- . ,-- •• • R2 1 Medium Density Residentici I R3 I Mu!tipie Family Residential . , 1E771 Highway Business i f-S7 Office Business . I Central Business I 1 i Light Industrial . nzn 'Heavy Industrial • !,Acjor Recreation • 0'.er!ov Zones ..... . . . . .... .., V . • --:- —7 codpicin District . . — . •. ... , , ,'-' ''....• - -,:: 0,e-'c,,,, - • . • • i N r 1.0 •N 0 . • 0` emit ! x LI , V' m d- ,I , 4110 f w S I- v/ • U) • O. (/ v 2 .�• N • iii!j a . • r Q W - 2 3 0 5 • O Q : ;Ai cr . ° _ • Jd al. ' d N ( 0-- .n ii: . I :• . rty- , , j , W:E. 41 Y • t646..404C •.. (f). . . 111111 i ; ; a • IC'ox i • 0 � � � • CO � .• • Q '� I I'n V•s . t i • I . (n . . . , (.1.3 iJ..s SW bat!) ; . _ .S1 'O(y h.4MN'�1{-4 o,ky 3-1-\34-1-S )- i-NriO1 Sj'Cf)l:-��. 1'tq AVM 'AO .11-1'D •f101.1-ui odSNr1213_ jp 1NJ1,1121tidaQ ti1OS3NNlw '3,,,Z,c.000t1 1 Z'•b(01 I • � ' . 'n„c92 ,coo° N t21 'LOS - _. ' u • q"� '�q� Cr 0 N N1 N N ♦ ri . r , n ,- n , n , IInn` '>, '•. Ilo. ' , . '� O-- o, i (---'.. Itg 'el'', g 1 .• •• (4 .4—r 1. asfr . , , . *•\*. _ eS ' A n___: 0- c g* . I J z • o , t • • 1 2.L N • - i-.' 417 '.1b• el, •..j. t ! - U_: \ OL. : k di- • '' ' U ti‘; ----itJ.) P J J y- , 10.4 dr� • cin ' T2 lil , N gy • • • ' ` i i:A •• ' • • i• ' • /v ••• i t .9 1 , ' c . ..,..,-,' I --, •'''! 1E :•!'' : ••:. ' • .• ! . . • !. . .. . '•;.• . ;! 4ctti , _1.0-) _in 0 /,:? ,.--; _.- k• D ` ! � ' . • ' Imo- zee / / - '`�. i . ...... I .__ ._i .. .:i .. . .._..;. ; . 13 NOS1•3A. EN • • • • / 3 , l3 . CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Text Amendment Regarding Minor Subdivision Process DATE: June 3, 1997 INTRODUCTION Valley Green Business Park has submitted an application for a text amendment to the minor subdivision process. At its May 22, 1997, meeting the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed text amendment. A copy of the May 22, 1997, Planning Commission staff memo has been attached for your reference. At the meeting,the Planning Commission recommended approval of the text amendment to the City Council. The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that Section 12.08, Subd. 1.A.1 be revised to read"Any lot within an approved Planned Unit Development (PUD), unless the lot or lots resulting from the minor subdivision are in conformance the approved PUD." and that Section 12.08, Subd. 1.B be revised to read"All resulting lots must meet the design standards and other requirements specified in Chapter 11, unless otherwise modified as part of the PUD approval." ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the text amendment, as proposed. 2. Revise the text amendment, and approve subject to the revisions. 3. Do not approve the text amendment. 4. Table action on this item and request additional information from staff. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission has recommended the approval of the text amendment, as proposed. ACTION REQUESTED Offer Ordinance No. 484, and move its approval. PA u ie Klima Planner II i:\commdev\cc\1997\cc0603\txtmrsub.doc ORDINANCE NO. 484, FOURTH SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CHAPTER 12, SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, BY AMENDING CRITERIA FOR MINOR SUBDIVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1 - That City Code Chapter 12, Subdivision Regulations, Section 12.08 (Minor Subdivision Process) is hereby amended by revising Subd. 1.A.1 and Subd. 1.B. The proposed amendments to Section 12.08 would read as follows: Szibd 1.A.I. Any lot within an approved Planned Unit Development (PUD), unless the lot or lots resulting from the minor subdivision are in conformance with the approved PUD. Subd. 1.B. All resulting lots must meet the design standards and other requirements specified in Chapter 11, unless otherwise modified as part of the PUD approval. 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 , 1997. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk PREPARED BY: City of Shakopee 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of , 1997. 1 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Text Amendment Regarding Minor Subdivision Process DATE: May 22, 1997 INTRODUCTION Jon Albinson, on behalf of the Valley Green Business Park, has submitted a text amendment application. The proposed text amendment addresses the Minor Subdivision process outlined in the City's Subdivision Regualtions. DISCUSSION Section 12.08 of the City Code outlines the requirements of the Minor Subdivision process. Section 12.08 reads as follows. Subd I. When Allowed. The City Planner has the authority to approve minor subdivisions where (1) a platted recorded lot is being.split into a maximum of five lots, or (2) a maximum of five lots are being combined into four or fewer lots. For such a minor subdivision, the following requirements must he met: A. The minor subdivisionprocess shall not be allowed in the following f g situations: 1. Any lot within an approved Planned Unit Development (PUD). 2. Where the subdivision includes the dedication of addition right-of- way or easements, or a change in existing streets, alleys, easements, water, sewer, or other public improvements. 3. Where new streets, utilities, or other public improvements will be needed other than to directly serve the lots created ant to provide a direct connection to an existing and approved system. B. All resulting lots must meet the design standards and other requirements specified in Chapter 11. C. The City Planner may require the normal preliminary and final platting procedures for any reason such as unusual complexity or special circumstances. D. The applicant shall provide a sketch of the lot or lots as they exist before the minor subdivision, and a sketch of the proposed lot or lots. E. The applicant shall provide proof of ownership of the property. F. When the proposed lot split meets all the requirements established in City Codes, the Planing Department shall notify the applicant. The City shall record the minor subdivision. The applicant shall pay for the recording Section 12.15 of the City Code addresses amendments to Chapter 12. This portion of the Code states that Chapter 12 may be amended. It further states that the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing and forward a recommendation on the proposed amendment to the City Council. Criteria for reviewing and/or approving any amendments to Chapter 12 are not provided. The applicant is proposing that Subd. 1. A. 1 be revised to read the following: "Any lot within an approved Planned Unit Development (PUD), unless the lot or lots resulting from the minor subdivision are in conformance with the approved PUD. " Because PUD's allow for flexibility in design standards and are reviewed/approved for specific properties, the intent of the current requirement is to prevent further subdivision (or alteration of the approved PUD plan). Such further subdivision could create nonconformities with respect to the requirements of both the approved PUD and the City Code. If the Commission agrees with the request of the applicant, staff recommends that Subd. 1.B also be amended to read the following: "All resulting lots must meet the design standards and other requirements specified in Chapter 11, unless otherwise modified as a part of the PUD approval. " ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend the proposed amendment to the City Council. 2. Recommend the proposed amendment with revisions. 3. Do not recommend the proposed amendment to the City Council 4. Table the matter for additional information. ACTION REQUESTED Direction from the Commission regarding the proposed amendment. CJ ' `� Julie Klim Planner II i:\commdcv\boaa-pc\1997\may22\txtmnrsb.doc CONSENT / 3 . C . CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Text Amendment Regarding Highway Business (B1) Zone DATE: June 3, 1997 INTRODUCTION Valley Green Business Park has submitted an application for a text amendment to the minimum lot size required in the Highway Business (B1) zone. At its May 22, 1997, meeting the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed text amendment. A copy of the May 22, 1997, Planning Commission staff memo has been attached for your reference. At the meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the text amendment to the City Council. The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that Section 11.36, Subd. 5.A. be revised to read"minimum lot area(new lots): one acre." ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the text amendment, as proposed. 2. Revise the text amendment, and approve subject to the revisions. 3. Do not approve the text amendment. 4. Table action on this item and request additional information from staff PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission has recommended the approval of the text amendment. ACTION REQUESTED Offer Ordinance No. 485, and move its approval. Julie Planner II i:\conundev\c61997\cc0603\txtblzne.doc .4N ORDINANCE NO. 485, FOURTH SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CHAPTER 11, ZONING, BY AMENDING DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE HIGHWAY BUSINESS (B1) ZONE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1 - That City Code Chapter 11, Zoning, Section 11.36 (Highway Business Zone) is hereby amended by revising Subd. 5.A. The proposed amendment to Section 11.36 would read as follows: Subd S.A. minimum lot size (new lots): one acre. 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 , 1997. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk PREPARED BY: City of Shakopee 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of , 1997. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Julie Klima, Planner II SUBJECT: Text Amendment Regarding Highway Business (B1) Zone DATE: May 22, 1997 INTRODUCTION Jon Albinson, on behalf of the Valley Green Business Park, has submitted a text amendment application. The proposed text amendment addresses the minimum lot size required in the Highway Business (B I) zoning district. DISCUSSION Section 11.36 of the City Code outlines the requirements of the Highway Business (B1) Zoning District. A requirement of the zoning ordinance for this district is that all new lots must be a minimum of two (2) acres in size. The applicant is proposing that the minimum lot size for this district be changed to allow a minimum lot size of one acre. Please see Exhibit A, which outlines the applicant's request. Staff has researched the minimum lot sizes required in similar zoning districts for four(4) other local communities. Three (3) of the four (4) communities allow a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet and the fourth community requires a minimum lot size of one (1) acre. (One acre is 43,560 square feet in size). Based on this information and the uses allowed in the B1 zone (see Exhibit B), the Commission may wish to consider reducing the minimum lot size to less than the applicant's request of one acre. 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 41 The original zoning ordinance is in error. The majority of the uses allowed in the Highway Business (131) zoning district require and prefer to locate on property considerably less than two (2) acres in size. Criteria #2 That significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place. Finding 42 Significant changes in community goals and policies have not taken place. The community goals and policies continue to include the attraction and retention of quality businesses. Criteria #3 That significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development. patterns have occurred; or Finding#3 Changes in City-wide or neighborhood development have not occurred Criteria#4 That the comprehensive plan requires a different provision. Finding#4 The proposed amendment is not in conflict with the comprehensive plan. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend the proposed amendment to the City Council. 2. Recommend the proposed amendment with revisions. 3. Do not recommend the proposed amendment to the City Council 4. Table the matter for additional information. ACTION REQUESTED Direction from the Commission regarding the proposed amendment. 4Julie Klima Ju Planner II is\commdev\boas-pc\1997\mav22\Lxtm n rsb.doc • DAHLGREN SIHARDL.OW EXHIBIT A AND -UBAN INCORPORATED CONSULTING PLANNERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 300 FIRST AVENUE NORTH SUITE 210 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 612.339.3300 PHONE 612.337.5601 FAX April 25, 1997 Michael Leek Community Development Director City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street S. Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: Text Amendment to Zoning Ordinance, B-1 Highway Business Zone Design Standards Dear Mike: We are writing on behalf of Valley Green Business Park to request the City's consideration of a text amendment to the design standards in the B-1 Highway Business Zone. The current standards, in Sec. 11.36, Subd. 5.A, require a two-acre minimum lot size. We believe there are many uses which the City might want to encourage along its highway frontage, and which would be welcome additions to the business community, but which could not easily meet this standard. For example, gas stations, class II restaurants, and veterinary clinics are allowed by conditional use permit in the B-1 zone. Providing they pass scrutiny under the CUP process they are typical and necessary uses in a highway business zone. Very few of these could make use of a two-acre lot and would be hindered by needing to meet this lot size minimum. With a minimum lot width of 100 feet, a two-acre lot would be over 800' deep,whereas a one-acre lot would be about 100' by 400'. Some of the other uses in the B-1 zone might also benefit from a reduced lot size standard. A one-acre minimum would make more sense, and is still a reasonable and typical lot size for business zones throughout the Metropolitan Area. We are requesting,therefore, that the B-1 Highway Business Zone standards, in Sec. 11.36, Subd. 5.A, be amended to read as follows (text amendment underlined): "A. Density: "minimum lot area: (new lots): two acres one acre (existing lots): 8,000 square feet "maximum floor are ratio: .50" We do not take issue with any of the other B-1 standards. Michael Leer City of Shallie 4/25/97 • 2 Please let us know your thoughts on this text amendment and when it will be brought to the Planning Commission and City Council for their review. Sincerely, DAHLG: ? , SHARDL• ' ,AND UBAN,INC. , � ,„,... Philip •. so.,AIC• Seniors' • ,-r For Valley Green Business Park § 11.36 SEC. 11.36. HIGHWAY BUSINESS ZONE (B-1). EXHIBIT B Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose of the highway business zone is to provide an area for business uses fronting on or with immediate access to arterial and collector streets. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. Within the highway business zone, no structure or land shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: A. motels and hotels; B. restaurants, class I; C. retail establishments; D. utility services; E. administrative, executive and professional offices; F. financial institutions; G. medical or dental clinics; or H. public buildings. Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Within the highway business zone, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: A. taverns; B. churches; C. animal hospitals and veterinary clinics; D. open sales lots or any use having exterior storage of goods for sale; E. gas stations; F. restaurants, class II; G. private lodges and clubs; H. commercial recreation, major or minor, I. bed and breakfast inns; J. uses having a drive-up or drive-through window; K. vehicle sales, service, or repair, including general repair, rebuilding or reconditioning of engines or vehicles, including body work, frame work and major painting service, pp.AvINd n 1996 1171 $ 11.36 replacement of any part or repair of any part, incidental body and fender work, painting or upholstering; L car washes; M. hospitals; N. theaters; 0. funeral homes; P. utility service structures; 4 day care facilities; R. relocated structures; S. structures over 35 feet in height; T. developments containing more than one principal structure per lot; or U. retail centers; or V. other uses similar to those permitted in this subdivision, as determined by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Subd.4. Permitted Accessory Uses. Within the highway business zone the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: A. any incidental repair or processing necessary to conduct a permitted principal use; B. parking and loading spaces; C. temporary construction buildings; D. decorative landscape features; or E. other accessory uses customarily appurtenant to a permitted use, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. Subd. 5. Design Standards. Within the highway business zone, no land shall be used, and no structure shall be constructed or used, except in conformance with the following minimum requirements: A. Density: minimum lot area: (new lots): two acres (existing lots): 8,000 square feet maximum floor area ratio: .50 pipe time**yrt 1996 1172 •• § 11.37 B. Maximum impervious surface percentage: 75% C. Lot specifications: minimum lot width: (new lots): 100 feet • (existing lots): 60 feet minimum front yard setback 30 feet minimum side yard setback 20 feet minimum rear yard setback 30 feet minimum side or rear yard setback from residential zones: 75 feet D. Maximum height 35 feet without a conditional use permit. (Ord. 31, October 25, 1979; Ord. 150, October 4, 1984; Ord. 158,January 31, 1985; Ord. 159, February 28, 1985; Ord. 246, June 17, 1988; Ord. 264, May 26, 1989; Ord. 275, September 22, 1989; Ord. 279, December 1, 1989; Ord. 292, September 7, 1990; Ord. 320, October 31, 1991; Ord. 377, July 7, 1994; Ord. 434, November 30, 1995) SEC. 11.37. Reserved. p.ge named in 1996 1173 / 3 . 0• CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to add 40 Acres in the West Dean Lake Area to the MUSA Area, and guiding it for commercial/business park use MEETING DATE: June 3, 1997 INTRODUCTION: Valley Green Business Park has requested that the City Council commence an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan to add 40 acres to the City's MUSA, and to guide the area for commercial/business park uses to accommodate land demand which has developed since the opening of the"new" STH 169. By Resolution No. 4665 the Council directed that the Planning Commission consider such an amendment. Included for the Council's information is a copy of the May 22, 1997,Planning Commission report. DISCUSSION: The City Council directed consideration of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, but before it can be submitted to the Metropolitan Council, the Council must adopt the amendment conditioned on Metropolitan Council approval. The accompanying resolution approves the MUSA trade, and guides the area identified for inclusion in the MUSA for commercial/business park uses. ALTERNATIVES: 1) Approve Resolution No. 4679 adding the subject propert: _E Y1..t , ( f of property located in Memorial Park, and guiding the sut commercial/business park use. 2) Deny the request to add the subject property to MUSA b -7 the subject property for commercial/business park use. 6171 /U S, 3) Table consideration of the proposed amendment in order COMPPLAN.DOC/RML 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendment at its meeting of May 22, 1997, and recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment with the further recommendation that Memorial Park, or some portion thereof,be removed from MUSA. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer and approve Resolution No. 4679, a resolution proposing a minor comprehensive plan amendment to effect the trade of MUSA in the West Dean Lake area. R. Michael Leek Community Development Director COMPPLAN.DOC/RML 2 RESOLUTION NO. 4679 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA,PROPOSING A MINOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO EFFECT THE TRADE OF METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA (MUSA) INTO THE WEST DEAN LAKE AREA WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Shakopee received a request from Valley Green Business Park to consider a minor Comprehensive Plan Amendment which would add MUSA area in the West Dean Lake area by trading out existing MUSA area, and which would guide the new MUSA area for commercial/business park use; and WHEREAS,the proposed amendment and land use are generally consistent with the policies set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plans; and WHEREAS,the proposed addition of MUSA, and removal of 40 acres of Memorial Park from MUSA will not adversely impact the use of those areas; and WHEREAS, implementation of the proposed plan amendment is desirable to accommodate desired and orderly development within the City of Shakopee. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, as follows: 1. That the City's Comprehensive Plan is amending by adjusting the MUSA area as shown on Exhibit A, "Area added to MUSA and Guided for Commercial/Business Park Use," and Exhibit B, "Area to be Removed from MUSA,", which are incorporated herein and made a part hereof; and 2. That the City's Comprehensive Plan is amended by guiding the area added to MUSA for commercial/business park uses. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the day of , 1997. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk COMPPLAN.DOC/RML 3 EXHIBIT A Area to be added to MUSA and guided commercial/business park use City of Shakopee City Council Resolution No. 4679 411.4 i\ Jr _ r � tA 41/Ai l v; t ,.I ,..',.4.4•11 k 1 �Y \^ o c‘ \ --- !1 a r 79./C tl �.� ,1 r 1 ‘ -• 'I. \'''. - ii, i „;.4 AO/ • 11' is „,/ / 1// / • /..(,,,.,,,,,Arz- , /— I a Al v" -f / '//i/f! '. J1/ }, -a - ' `f✓ f / mil I` • A , C 1 t . i ! "a!/,�'is' S s 5 :. ' 1 1 /�� \ r r f'- li x\ e \1(-44):1 0 \_,, 7 11 , \(\ 1 • 0 1 G -t-, ,,,,,F-4',--4//,, •,/ tp.,;:ot , 1 1, 1 ' N '• / " a j' ,', •,'�' E-4 J, I f • ilk.:410)1.4 • AT ( 1.1\ ‘ .0 72---r-- )_:-& ,,,&,,,,_, 4_._-.---. - .1 i Vii.i.: 4_, / .. ..-_,/3.- r/,',/f _c((2-_-_,--_-;- . , ,, .,/, . 11* 11 1 1 1 1 ,•' �. 11 1 (cl \ .\ NI 1 1 1 01 \ '\ i . , 1 t ,t N 74 f %1f . =y-- tiO I , r triA y tir W W 1 / ` 6 l 1 1 g---) 11116,, , . , \ 4.. Ai PIK_ . / ,...,.. L ''' :!-.'- / ' f r� i ; CJ 11 I le----....,..., 1 L 3-ii Li it ' ' , , . .,, iri$ .... , I ; ,, ,,,,,.:. . • pomalr_ear .1! 8>.2 a'n 1 1 1:1 El t (4. 1 . < P rli b ''4,4 NB_ ! 1 1 .47_, \ - .- i r. tt 1 ----lilt ., i �' •••ir ;�84 g ` {{ - 71 - msg 8 :e EXHIBIT B Area to be removed from MUSA City of Shakopee City Council Resolution No. 4679 COMPPLAN.DOC/RML 5 9. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to add 40 Acres in the West Dean Lake Area to the MUSA Area by Trading Out Other Property Currently in the MUSA DATE: May 22, 1997 INTRODUCTION: Valley Green Business Park has requested an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan to add 40 acres to the City's MUSA, and to guide the area for commercial/business park uses to accommodate land demand which has developed since the opening of the"new" STH 169. The request is outlined In Jon Albinson's letter of May 2, 1997. The area sought to be added is shown on Exhibit A. Possible areas for MUSA trade have been shown on Exhibit B (submitted by the applicant), and include the Shiely quarry site and Riverfront Park area. The request was reviewed by the City Council on May 6, at which time the Council passed Resolution No. 4665 (an unsigned copy of which is attached for the Commission's information)directing the Commission to proceed with a minor comprehensive plan amendment. DISCUSSION: Since the opening of 169, both the City and Valley Green Business Park have experienced great demand for land along the highway to accommodate office development. While the City does have an office zoning district (B-2), the only area currently either zoned or guided for such use are the Courthouse/Justice Center blocks adjacent to downtown. At the same time, the land available for development within Valley Green Business Park is rapidly being committed. In all events, the amount of office development within the Park is limited because of the I-2 (Heavy Industrial)zoning. Finally, the additional MUSA area granted by the Metropolitan Council in 1996 is largely guided for residential use, and does not include any area for office development. At one time it was contemplated that the subject area be guided for"Business Park" use. (See Exhibit C, Land Use Plan for Year 2010). This plan was not adopted. The use proposed does, however, seem consistent or compatible with surrounding existing and anticipated uses. The properties are bounded on the North by 169; to the North of that is commercial, major recreation and industrial. The old MWCC site is owned by the Shakopee Mdewankanton Dakota Community(SMDC), and is anticipated to be developed at least in part with commercial and industrial uses. The sites outlined by the applicant for the trade do not currently make use of their MUSA status, nor are they anticipated to in the near future. Even if they were to need MUSA, given the City's present rate of expansion, and the Metropolitan Council's current growth strategy, it appears likely that MUSA status would available again in the near future. Attached to this report for the Commission's information is a copy of the review procedures that would be followed by the Metropolitan Council with the submission of the proposed minor comprehensive plan amendment. (See Exhibit D) ALTERNATIVES: 1) Recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to add the subject property to MUSA by means of a trade of property to be identified by the Commission, and to guide the subject property for commercial/business park use. 2) Recommend to the City Council the denial of the request to add the subject property to MUSA by means of a trade, and to guide the subject property for commercial/business park use. 3) Continue the public hearing to obtain additional information from the applicant or staff. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer a motion to recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to add the subject property to MUSA by means of a trade, and to guide the subject property for commercial/business park use. R. Michael Leek Community Development Director RESOLUTION NO.4665 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, PROPOSING A MINOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO EFFECT THE TRADE OF METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA (MUSA) INTO THE WEST DEAN LAKE AREA WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Shakopee has received a request from Valley Green Business Park to consider a minor Comprehensive Plan Amendment which would add MUSA area in the West Dean Lake area by trading out existing MUSA area: and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment and land use are generally consistent with the policies set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plans; and WHEREAS, the proposed MUSA trade will not adversely impact the use of those areas of the City proposed to be traded out of the MUSA; and WHEREAS, implementation of the proposed plan amendment is desirable to accommodate desired and orderly development within the City of Shakopee. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF filE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, as follows: 1. That the Planning Commission proceed in and expeditious manner to hold a public hearing on the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the day of , 1997. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk PREPARED BY: City of Shakopee 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 r •Vaiicy O 'Con BUSINESS PARK May 2, 1997 Mayor Jeff Henderson City Council Members Mr. Mark McNeill CITY OF SHAKOPEE 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 Re: Metropolitan Urban Service Area Dear Mayor, Council Members and Mr. McNeill: Valley Green Business Park recently requested Council's consideration in promoting a MUSA expansion for the City of Shakopee with the Metropolitan Council. The request was based on the unprecedented development we have going on in the business park, development that will leave us with little developable land in the Urban Service Area. Also at issue was the interest expressed by a major national corporation wishing to locate their corporate headquarters (80,000 to 120,000 square foot office building) in the business park. In their review of suitable locations for an office buildin , the only site defined appropriate in Valley Green was outside the MUSA area, south of the bypass); Michael Leek recently shared information with me provided to him by Metropolitan Council staff members that would suggest the process facing the City in expanding the MUSA line with "new" MUSA will probably be lengthy and cumbersome. Our ability to accommodate a developable site for this office building prospect will not work with the processes being suggested necessary by Met Council staff. That process would also open up the City to additional levels of scrutiny beyond that which would seem necessary at this time. The alternatives available to us to accommodate this development prospect are limited. In reviewing those alternatives, it appears the only one that exists is a MUSA re-allocation within the community, which is a Minor Comprehensive Plan Amendment process as defined by the Metropolitan Council. Attached is a photocopy of the City's 1989 MUSA map whereon I have highlighted land that is undeveloped, land that will probably never be developed. One could suggest that there is an opportunity cost that lies within these parcels inasmuch as they have MUSA, but do not have the capabilities of generating tax paying developments. The parcels hatched are Memorial Park, Murphy's Landing, the existing Shiely quarry and an old quarry north of Shiely. Also attached is a graphic generated by Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, our planners, that defines an area of MUSA that was taken by MnDOT for the Shakopee bypass and never re-allocated to any other lands in the City. We would suggest these parcels are appropriate for your consideration in re-allocating the MUSA currently defined on same to other parts of the community. This would provide for the demand we are experiencing for development on parcels currently not within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area. 5240 Valley Industrial Boulevard South •Shakopee. Minnesota 55379• Telephone: (612)445-9286 • Facsimile: (612) 445-9372 Mayor Jeff Henderson, City Council Members, Mark McNeill Page Two May 2, 1997 Crosshatched is the area we would request this re-allocation to, a portion of which is also defined as the site being contemplated for this office building development. The area defined is approximately 255 acres of developable land (excluding wetlands) owned by Valley Green Business Park. One of the Met Council requirements for expansion of MUSA is that it be contiguous with existing MUSA. We are, therefore, not suggesting it appropriate for the City to consider pursuing a MUSA expansion for the office building development site only, but that it will be necessary to request expansion sufficient enough to qualify under the contiguity guideline. In December 1996, the Metropolitan Council passed their new "Growth Option." Their action mandated that all municipalities in the metropolitan area revise their Comprehensive Plan by the end of 1998 in a way that facilitates expansion of the community's MUSA line to a 2020 MUSA area, an area generally defined on the enclosed Metropolitan Council graphic. Based on our conversations with a Met Council staff member, it was suggested that MUSA land that the City may choose to "swap" at this time could be re-allocated MUSA status in the mandatory Comprehensive Plan document revisions required by year-end 1998. Assuming this to be true, the non-MUSA designation for the lands swapped would be short lived. We believe the lands being suggested for a MUSA trade are appropriate for same, and would better utilize this very valuable allocation, an allocation that has substantial opportunity cost attached to it. We would appreciate Council's consideration of our request. If deemed appropriate, this will allow Valley Green to move forward with the office building development previously referenced. If the Council believes our request is without merit, we will be in unable to accommodate this development. Thank you for your consideration of our request. Respectfully, VAL GRE N BUSINESS PARK n R. Albinson Project Director JRA:jmc Enclosures cc: Brian Brennan - Allianz of America (w/encl.) (via fax) Richard Peterson - Best & Flanagan(w/encl.) (via fax) D:\Share\Projau\Delta Dental\z w Mayor.council MMeNcill re MUSA trade wpd ,-, (• /)si 1,4'.i(r-',/,/, ' F.\ i ....- • 1 c„ V .- , ... ib, i,-,00 q't J, i' I ( I 8 e 1 -•-, \ I / / Of ,..;,,.4.,,,_‘ ,,,1,44 ,,,, ` 1 1 0 1 aj :r; L.1) .....\ \----1--, ciii, / ,/,',:,.,///,/,:f7',C2 II k k )-----.L1 ° ,..1 ,-/ / ;/ • ,-,:,../r..:,- ,:-i • \ V \ , ( 4-.' '-------- i -• /,',,;41,1, ' /-a-••I, CA4 de , - ---......./ / 1/ / ',/!,./,':1C-',/ /r ,, , • ,„,„,,,, 4,./ ,,,. ,,, , ) If , I I h; �( 11 1 D /,--� - ,1, . /;:(„5274/1 ie -:_.i� % ` ;'f 1 ' • I �” o01 • �' Irk J. i" '� 'I l 1 A'1�1 / • fl)g I x k( - U i\HL._ —__ __ �z 7Y.. . SIT . �t7 ji t � '� __:�..--.. � - -- s��a--�--� r .=-�- rte. , 4-:„ / „„; i ,) , 4,, ,- • 14 1 j 1 j /. . i� �.1N1N ,/ d ..----=-.___4. \ \ il,10/ i 1 I , •) • -„,,, .71",: _ :.:1:17:4"--''1‘4'ic,7-----1,44:.' ;111111:iir. L,fI ks,....) 3 � , F %fir -I'i L i St 4) 8A 8 "1 . /./ IC 4 . 47 g 0 IN: 0 d . ' I F/eio, , . _, , 4.„,,, , . 0 .... .. ... r:111 ,, ,,,, . ....,, , ;.di”i. I 14.11 i .-_,-..._ .1 1\ . ..-i. OS . ie VA 1 ra= 8 0 KC 4 () . kr,...., _ .,.....,.... Illifr .61 ...,1 ',.:.-A 4.§ 1 0 ''::..d..-,-.....?Ll' I i °4 E-4 qAe...7.77.111."'ll'' + i LL � \\` 9 W-- M ,le.ed \) 2, .,,.7.7'• IF.. 11 ...„...--,:rr; ,,,,,,, li, p •-:--;\ : o •B t et TS 5: . ........ ....,,, „... „Lp t . ,,,-- 5 . - , (1%.7( J l II! = 1111 1 j,P.--.. ,.� 'T-�.. !� �r I ► <I X.4 11 r ` C) / - 141r_T —13= : If al Co ?.() ?11 ilCO UaJ I/r-,�1 �9 f - ,iiii- . :r --.:: 1.1 /J 'JJ/ < ' I :,� F•ill � ►r < 1LI . • `1 T`1_11 a \ Yip 1 1,• < I o ' i ioi ��C I:I �� a ev Is \ : ' - • ---,�11 I 77 .1, ii11 nnnn ,,J•+,^•r• :tr —,, i 11 f; a S. ti UUUU CC • • --- uuuu 3 ----_--- —/— — ill -� p Q 1 D I < • nrnnn z l utuuu / a 1 Review Procedures Who needs to read The Metropolitan Council's review of your comprehensive this section? plan or plan amendment offers an opportunity to share infor- ✓ All communities mation and work out issues together. • Where the Council determines that a plan or amendment may have a substantial impact on or contains a substantial departure from metro- politan system plans,the Council has authority to require that the plan or amendment be modified to bring it into conformance with regional ✓NOTE system plans. The Council is concerned about the impacts that your Beyond its interest in managing regional systems,the Council has a plan or amendment may have statutory obligation to review and comment on the consistency of local onsystems for wastewater (sewers), trans- plans and amendments with adopted plans of the Council,including its portation (highways and Regional Blueprint and other chapters of the Metropolitan Development transit), recreation open Guide,as well as state and federal law.These include such topics as housing, space (regional parks) and stormwater management,municipal water supply,Mississippi River Critical aviation (airports). Area,Mississippi National River and Recreation Area and Metropolitan The Council is also interested Livable Communities Act among others. in how local comprehensive plans implement regional policies and plans. Please complete the form entitled"Information Summary for Compre- hensive Plan Revisions and Plan Amendments"(page A73).The form summarizes the information the Council needs to initially determine which option for review(waiver,consent list,or action item)the Council will choose.If your amendment involves simple text changes,you do not need to fill out the entire form,only Part I,"General Information,"pages A73-A74. The earlier distinction between major and minor plan amendments has been eliminated,so you now have only one set of procedures to follow and one ',NOTE form to accompany the plan or plan amendment you submit to the Council. The distinction between major and minor plan amend- ments has been eliminated. Why eliminate the distinction between major and minor plan amend- ments? Under law the Council now must complete all plan reviews within 60 days, so the old distinction of taking 90 days to complete "major"plan reviews and 60 days to complete"minor"plan reviews no longer applies. All complete plans and amendments will be reviewed in 60 days or less and when no policy issues or regional system impacts are found,the normal review procedure will be waived(see explanation of completeness on page A7.) ExHie:Tr 7.1 July 1996 Pre-Review Procedures for All Plans and Plan Amendments The Council Provides Informal Review and Comment. Some plans and plan amendments can be quite complex, and can benefit from an informal review by Council staff. Where you believe a plan or amend- ment may be controversial,or cause a regional system impact, or would /NOTE otherwise benefit from an early discussion with Council staff, you are The Council is interested in encouraged to submit a draft of the plan or amendment to the Council holding an informal review for informal review. with your community repre- sentatives to help work out Comments provided by Council staff during an informal review are problems ahead of time. advisory only.Informal reviews are not subject to the 60 day review dead- line,but they are subject to the availability of stafftime.Normally,the time needed for the informal review will depend on the complexity of the issues involved and may range from a few days to several weeks. Your Community Submits Its Plan to Adjacent Governmental Units and School Districts for Review and Comment. Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.858, Subd. 2 requires that"local governmental units shall submit /NOTE their proposed plans to adjacent governmental units and school districts Only major updates to plans for review and comment at least six months prior to submission of the and plan sections require plan to the Council...." The Council interprets this requirement as submittal to adjacent govern- applying only to major comprehensive plan updates, and updates of ment units six months before major sections of local comprehensive plans such as transportation, land submitting them to the Metro- use,wastewater,etc. politan Council. This requirement is not viewed as applicable to most other plan amend- ments. However,the Council encourages you to make it a regular practice to communicate with adjacent governmental units and appli- cable school districts about the plans and development proposals being considered by your planning commission and governing body. If the adjacent local governmental unit or school district comments on the draft plan or amendment, you should acknowledge the comments and, if a response is called for,your response. If you have not met this requirement,the review may be suspended for up to six months or until all applicable local government units waive further review. 7.2 July 1996 Review Procedures for All Plans and Plan Amendments ✓NOTE 1.Actions Required Before Submitting Your Plan or Amendment.A Minnesota Statutes Sec. local government unit submits its proposed plan or amendment to the Coun- 473.175, Subd. 2, paragraph 2 says "no action shall be taken by any local governmental unit...to place any...plan...or • AFTER, action by the planning commission(if there is one), to part thereof into effect until approve the plan or amendment; and, the Council has... acted on the plan or amendment. • AFTER,one of the following actions by the governing body... Zoning or rezonings, and/or preliminary subdivision -resolution to submit the plan or amendment to the Council for approvals are actions that place plans or amendments review without preliminary approval; or into effect, and are prohibited until after the Council has -preliminary(or conditional) approval of the plan or amendment acted on the plan or amend- subject to Council review and comment. ment review. 2. Fill out and Submit the"Information Summary for Comprehen- sive Plans or Plan Amendments" Form Together with Other Ap- ✓NOTE propriate Materials. Fill out an"Information Summary" form(see Submit seven copies of your page A73)and submit seven copies of it,the plan or amendment,accompa- plan revision or plan amend- nying maps(described in the form)and any supplemental materials to the ments and the completed Council's Referrals Coordinator(see listing under Metropolitan Council "Information Summary" found Office of Local Assistance,page 7.8). on pages A73-A78. 3. Your Community Submits its Plan or Amendment to Other Applicable Governmental Units.Minn.Stat. Sec.473.858, Subd 2, which requires six month pre-review of plans by adjacent governmental units (see"Pre-Review Procedures")also says that all local governmental units and special districts that are likely to be affected by the proposed plan or amendment must be sent a copy of the plan or amendment concurrently with your submittal of the plan or amendment to the Council. The Council interprets this requirement to mean that if you've previ- ✓NOTE ously sent a copy of the plan or amendment as noted above under "Pre- If you sent your earlier plan or Review Procedures" and have made no changes in the plan, you can amendments to adjacent notify the applicable local government units and special districts of that governments, send them only fact and not send another copy of the plan. subsequent changes or a letter indicating no changes have been made. If you have made changes,you can send those changes, and advise that the remainder of the plan remains the same. If there was no pre-review provided to applicable governmental units,you should send them the same materials(including the plan review form)that you are sending the Council. 7.3 July 1996 4.The Council Determines Whether Your Submission is Complete. The Council must review and act on all complete plans and amendments within 60 days.The Council has 10 business days to determine whether the plan or amendment is complete for review,and to notify you if it is not ',NOTE complete.If you do not hear from the Council within the initial completeness You will be notified within review period,the submittal is considered complete.Once the 10 day 10 business days if your completeness judgment has been made,clarifying questions may be asked submission is complete. during the remainder of the review period but no new issues regarding completeness will be raised. As your community reviews its comprehensive plan and prepares it for submittal by December 31, 1998, as required by 1995 amendments to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act,your Council community sector repre- sentative and Council technical assistance staff will use every opportunity to work with your community to ensure that your plan satisfies all the content requirements of Minnesota statutes,and Council system plans and policy plans. Overall updates of comprehensive plans submitted before December 31, 1998,will receive the same thorough review for completeness and consistency with content requirements as those submitted to meet the legisla- tive deadline. For amendments to specific portions of comprehensive plans received during this transition period, Council staff will: 1)comply with statutory requirements for plan reviews in determining completeness, such as Metropolitan Land Planning Act requirements for compliance with system plans, 2) comply with other legal requirements for Council review and response,and 3)recommend to the Council that local govern- ments modify their plans if their proposals result in substantial impact on or departure from a regional system plan. Staff will also consider other non-system Council policies directly related to the proposed amendment. While compliance with such poli- cies may not result in an initial determination that a proposed amend- ment is incomplete,staff will negotiate with communities during the 60-day review period to help them comply with such policies.The Council will advise the community as part of the review that future plan amendments may be deemed incomplete if communities have not taken action to bring plans into compliance with Council policies noted during the negotiations process. If a plan or amendment is incomplete,the Council will notify the con- tact person you've indicated on the review form that the submittal is incomplete,that the plan review has been suspended,and advise what additional information is needed to make the submittal complete.The 60-day clock will be started again after the needed additional information has been received,evaluated and determined to be complete. 7.4 July 1996 5.The Council Determines the Impact on Metropolitan Systems.One of the key functions of the Council's review of local comprehensive plans and amendments is to ensure that regional systems are managed efficiently and effectively,and that regional system plans are used as the basis for local planning.Plan reviews also provide the Council and local governments with the opportunity to work together to coordinate their planning efforts. To help ensure this coordination,state law gives the Council authority to require a local governmental unit to modify its plan or amendment if the Council finds that the plan or amendment results in a substantial impact on or departure from metropolitan system plans for: aviation(airports), parks and open space, transportation, and wastewater(sanitary sewers). 6.The Council Determines Consistency with the Regional Blueprint and Other Regional Policy Plans.The Council also reviews local plans or amendments for consistency with Council policies and directives contained in the Regional Blueprint and other chapters of the Metropolitan Develop- ment Guide,and for consistency with the statutory requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act and other applicable state and federal laws. The Council may recommend changes to local plans and amendments to make local plan or amendments more consistent with Council policies. 7.Extending the Review Period. If your local governmental unit needs to extend the 60-day review period, it can make a written request to the Council for an extension, specifying the length of the extension desired and why an extension is needed. In exceptional cases, the Council may notify you during the initial 60-day review period of its need for an extension, stating its reasons for an extension and the anticipated length of the extension. Extensions initiated by the Council will be limited to a maximum of 60 addi- tional days. 8. Options for Council Action. Once a determination has been made that a plan or amendment is complete for review,the Council may proceed with its review by either: a.Waiving further Council review,or b.Sending it to the Council as a consent list action(meaning with little or no discussion),or c.Sending it to Council committee for discussion and action,and later to the full Council as either a consent list or action item. 7,5 July 1996 A waiver action is most likely to occur where staff determines that the plan /NOTE or amendment is consistent with statute,has no adverse impact on any of the If your plan or amendment is regional systems,and is consistent with other Council policies. consistent with statute and This determination is made by the principal reviewer after consultation with Council policies, without other technical review staff and management.Normally,a waiver letter is adverse s . . act i regional reared immediatelyafterthe determination of completeness,and it should systems . . . a waiver action. prepared P be expected to be sent out within five days following the end of the com- pleteness review period. A consent list action is most likely to occur where staff determines that ✓NOTE the plan or amendment meets one or more of the following conditions: If your plan or amendment is consistent with statute,has neither a substantial impact on nor repre- involves no substantial impact or departure from system sents a substantial departure from metropolitan system plans, and is plans, and is generally generally consistent with other Council policies. consistent with regional policies . . . a consent list Local government staff,local officials,and other interested parties are wel- action. come to attend the committee and Council meetings.Normally,a consent list action will take longer than a waiver,with the exact timing dependent on committee and Council schedules.Most consent list items will be acted on by the Council within 30 days following the determination of completeness. An action item action is most likely to occur where staff determines that the plan or amendment is inconsistent with statute,or has a substantial INOTE impact on one or more regional systems,or represents a significant departure If your plan or amendment is from one or more regional system plans,or is inconsistent with other Council inconsistent with statute, policies. involves a substantial impact or departure from regional systems, or is not consistent The purpose here is to provide Council members with an opportunity to with regional policies . . . an discuss and debate action on the plan or amendment,and,if there is a action item for Council discus- sion and action. substantial impact on a regional system,whether to require a modifica- tion of the plan or amendment. Local government staff,local officials,and other interested parties are welcome to attend the committee and Council meetings.Most often, presen- tations and debate occur at committee meetings rather than at the Council meeting.Staff presentations on action items at committee meetings are common.Presentations by local government officials,local staff and other interested parties are invited at this time,and do not generally occur at regular Council meetings. 7.6 July 1996 Normally,an action item will take longer than a consent list action,with the exact timing dependent on committee and Council schedules.Most action list items will be acted on by the Council within 45 days following the determina- tion eterminestion of completeness,but staff will make every effort to expedite the process. 9.Responding to a Required Plan Modification(Change).A local governmental unit must respond to a required plan modification,but it may do so in several alternative ways. The impact of the development may be reduced,the development may be scaled back,the development may be staged in phases,or the use may be denied.In some cases,the Council may specify the way a required modifica- tion is to be satisfied.If there is a required plan modification,the plan or amendment must be revised to incorporate the modification and resubmitted to the Council for approval before adoption. Minn.Stat.Sec.483.866 provides procedures whereby affected local governments can contest plan modifications required by the Council.Unless a plan modification is contested,the local governmental unit is required to revise its plan consistent with the modification and resubmit it to the Council as required in Minn.Stat. Sec.473.175. The resubmittal of the modified plan will be handled as a new submittal and a new review timeline established. However, because its purpose is to confirm that the required modification was made, the Council's review normally will be done in 10 or fewer working days. 10. Your Local Government Adopts the Plan or Amendment.After considering the Council's comments and those of adjacent communities,and making any required modifications,your local government unit should adopt the plan or amendment within nine months of Council action.At that time,or subsequently,you may also take actions needed to implement the plan or amendment. 7.7 July 1996 Metropolitan Council Office of Local Assistance Please send seven copies of the"Information Summary for Comprehensive Plans or Plan Amendments"form,the plan or amendment,accompanying maps(described in the form)and any supplemental materials to: Lynda Voge,Referrals Coordinator Metropolitan Council 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul,MN 55101-1634 Phone:(612)291-6377 If you have questions about any of the procedures, requirements or submittals, you are encouraged to call one of the principal reviewers listed below. If you have technical questions about responding to plan content requirements or issues related to technical areas,you are encouraged to call one of the technical reviewers listed below. Community Sector Representatives Tom Caswell 291-6319 Hennepin County minus the city of Minneapolis Dick Thompson 291-6457 Anoka,Washington and Ramsey Counties minus St.Paul Carl Schenk 291-6410 Carver,Scott and Dakota Counties Guy Peterson 291-6418 Cities of Minneapolis and St.Paul Principal Plan Reviewers Victoria Boers 291-6621 Robert Davis 291-6317 James Utley 291-6361 Technical Plan Reviewers Aviation and Airports: Chauncey Case 229-2724 Parks and Open Space: Arne Stefferud 291-6360 Sanitary and Stormwater Management: Jack Frost 229-2078 Jim Larsen 229-2159 Transportation: Ann Braden 229-2705 Comprehensive Sewer Plans: Ed Bloom 229-2117 ("Tier II"guidelines) Water Supply: Gary Oberts 229-2079 7.8 July 1996 Sui I 1 ` 'ilk 't,t i �9pp , '\ I Z NAVa1Ke / A * rPf a O 1 11111 n }1 e I C O) I v Mg in su+r •ra I \ cu �^ nrnt[ n[ ii----- \ i g, t 1 htAR4CNAlL R D — _.____. _ _ QUI IT RAYi[r 1 i1� vOR 1 J �A DP L,,,,_,____..,,,,_,_ sort ai. f% � 1 mitt.EA (�I�� ^' nii Yn 7 01114 NIS. \ I . t nufli_ \ .111111101 sAr+� a\it 1 I /, ..g,..:"Aut al..w' .2j:t, . I tiritotiiit.At, . AS - \\,4:1:I I I I \. .\\,, _ 1LA 1 ..01% 113,it- 4,...,447, __,t \O�NOONd6 / II g • / Q411)11‘ / r /Lk& i )53 w! illipjp\ s ss /� ki: I��� 11,1 I I1�, \ / l l '\• 1 / / ���41 i`,.:. 0 R063 �/� I !1 r*ti I , Atrit T m r. INDUSTRIA I \��\J Nik rn ,��♦��,��SII , _ /� �\ ____A/ , , \ 1 i•k. W. col I.- , CP I hi* 4V. A r 4frt CP Akikak IP )5,14 / 1 \ ♦ - - ), , X. =Y ( t :� ,f K 4 ill VALLEY PARK DRIVE , �' w \ •1 '. �� II / IMI // n 0 I \\\ I i - • i y a 1 — 1_1 Sil '?..CI. / iimr 2 .... a a• /. cii �" 4'._©1, `r / ./ I I r _4.J :_i IN ._\ i 1 > /1„,,, i re- _� 1 ,1 Ir, , , 0 f (:r I i 11 I /2' /// ' , :I n , , 1) , 0g.0 1 I Ar i....,i^•-• 13 ya / CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor& City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: C.R. 16 to Samantha Woods Plat Storm Sewer DATE: June 3, 1997 INTRODUCTION: A storm sewer extension is needed from the County Road (C.R.) 16 Project to the Samantha Woods plat in order to complete the storm sewer system in this area. This agenda item is to request Council authorization for the Public Works Department to proceed with this installation. BACKGROUND: Attached is a drawing showing the proposed storm sewer extension from C.R. 16 to the Samantha Woods plat to complete the storm sewer system in this area. The City recently approved the Samantha Woods plat, which contains conditions for the developer to install the storm sewer system in the Samantha Woods plat. The C.R. 16 storm sewer connection is located approximately 170 feet to the east of Samantha Woods and was not installed as part of the C.R. 16 improvement project. Staff has been in contact with the adjacent property owner, Mr. Darwin Gilbertson, about the installation of this storm sewer extension from C.R. 16. Staff will be meeting with Mr. Gilbertson further to obtain an easement to install this storm sewer to the Samantha Woods plat. Staff has estimated the cost of this storm sewer installation at a cost between $9,000.00 and $10,000.00 utilizing private contractors. For this installation, staff is proposing to do this as a public work's project in which the Public Works and Engineering Departments would install this storm sewer, utilizing equipment and personnel from the City. Staff will need professional services from a consultant to prepare the easement and provide surveying and staking for this installation. The cost of this storm sewer extension would be paid out of the Storm Drainage Fund. The estimated cost using Public Works and Engineering personnel is estimated to be between $5,000.00 and $6,000.00. Staff is requesting Council authorization to proceed with this storm sewer extension to connect the C.R. 16 storm sewer with Samantha Woods. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Authorize staff to proceed with the installation of storm sewer from C.R. 16 to the Samantha Woods plat. 2. Do not authorize the installation at this time. 3. Table this item for additional information. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, to install the storm sewer from C.R. 16 to the Samantha Woods plat, utilizing Public Works and Engineering personnel and the cost for this project to be paid out of the Storm Drainage Fund. ACTION REQUESTED: Make a motion to authorize the installation of storm sewer, from County Road 16 to the Samantha Woods plat, with the cost to be paid from the Storm Drainage Fund. Sae, yr' ,f Bruce Loney Public Works Director BL/pmp SAMANTHA s / //—..se,c'::.')';‘cv)///////////1/1////,/r.1/ii nl/ xtffx / / /-ki///:-, - r _/ off O��1r / / 68,\(p �N 5 / %1 / P O0.D0 tl tcpb �P.Xs' ;�o�j 0.N N / Srl �d �w #a c �. 44,..4 , + N ` !�/' .s 4,.4 a cWo cs . < / b N mo " t rx l�P� / h h i h A^ *.e.„(;) �a .E p t 43 \ N / //^ `\\ I NQO \ M � / / Q.6i\• '� \ f� / �/ A\ \\\ �•� �fi , f,/ / �\ i a\ .,\, �� Vf b - ;�:; / 0.N 11\ .a 1 Ria F. ww� � w ..At N N N , .. , ' I I 1 V n_ cn Z J W IX IX Wz aJaQ��0 Wz �Iw J� o V) �ocn � zQz�Yo�c�o 0Q 0 1,1 <0Z cii o O UQ =a'J=�'W a.C� ZQ O JW O Z_ Z _ZZ V w0 = O��O�O=Zpc~/lOu�j 0a 1—I--=W (n N(n W 1— Z iY 0?m 0 tiJ U f--,�W a Q 7 ,, u_ F--cJ 0, Q m Q CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor& City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney,Public Works Director SUBJECT: Lead Person Positions for the Public Works Department DATE: June 3, 1997 INTRODUCTION: City Council authorized the lead person positions in the Public Works Department and approved the job descriptions at the February 18, 1997 City Council meeting. City Council also revised the job descriptions with minor modifications at the March 18, 1997 meeting. Staff has interviewed candidates for these positions and has recommendations for Council to consider. BACKGROUND: The lead person positions for the Public Works Department were discussed at the February 4th and March 18th City Council meetings. Council authorized staff to fill these positions with internal candidates from the Public Works Department and to proceed with executing an amendment to the Public Works bargaining unit contract, establishing a pay scale for the street lead person and the park lead person positions. Staff did conduct interviews on April 28, 1997 with four candidates that applied for the lead person positions. After the interviews, background checks, testing and review of qualifications, the Interview Committee which consisted of the City Administrator, Public Works Director and Public Works Supervisor recommends the following persons for the lead person positions: Dave Rutt for Street Lead Person and Bill Egan for Park Lead Person. With any new position with the City of Shakopee, these employees would be subject to a six month probationary period and will begin their new positions effective on June 4, 1997. It is being proposed to begin the lead person positions to the next step above Step 4 of the current top step for maintenance workers. This amount has not been finalized with the union bargaining unit, however, it is proposed to begin the lead persons at $32,166.00 per year. This amount is proposed Step 4 of the eight step pay plan for these positions and is the next amount above the top step of maintenance worker position. This salary may be adjusted depending on final negotiations between the City and the union bargaining unit. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Appoint the Dave Rutt to the position of Street Lead Person and appoint Bill Egan to the position of Park Lead Person in the Public Works Department. 2. Do not appoint these persons for these positions at this time. 3. Table for additional information. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Make a motion to appoint Dave Rutt to the position of Street Lead Person and appoint Bill Egan to the position of Park Lead Person, effective June 4, 1997 at a tentative rate of $32,166.00 per year, with the final salary contingent upon a negotiated agreement with the Public Works Bargaining Unit. 44e 41Bruce Loney Public Works Director BL/pmp PERSON 1 ; 1y. /9. y CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CONSENT ., TO: Mayor& City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Easement Acquisition for Maras Street, Project No. 1996-4 DATE: June 3, 1997 INTRODUCTION: The City needs to acquire right-of-way/easements for the construction of Maras Street for Project No. 1996-4. The property owners for Easement No. 97-2 have agreed to an offer made by staff. This item is for the Council to authorize the payment of the easement. BACKGROUND: City Project No. 1996-4 requires additional right-of-way/easements from five parcels. Attached is a letter from staff outlining the City's final offer to the property owners for Parcel B and Easement No. 97-2. The owners have agreed to the offer which was $5,500.00 for a permanent easement. Payment for the easement is subject to an executed easement delivered to the City. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve a motion for the appropriate City officials to acquire Easement No. 97-2 on Project No. 1996-4 in the amount of$5,500.00. 2. Deny the easement acquisition for Easement No. 97-2. 3. Table for additional information. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the easement acquisition as outlined in the attached letter for the amount of$5,500.00 for Easement No. 97-2. 0.01 I)" ACTION REQUESTED: Approve the payment of $5,500.00 for Easement No. 97-2 on Project No. 1996-4 for Maras Street contingent upon receiving an executed easement. nice Loney Public Works Director BL/pmp EASEMENT SHAKOPEE April 21, 1997 Earl H. Zacharias P.O. Box 15 Savage, MN 55378 RE: Easement Acquisition for the Maras Street Improvement City of Shakopee, Project No. 1996-4 Dear Mr. Zacharias: This letter is in regard to the easement acquisition associated with the Maras Street Improvement Project. The City of Shakopee has initiated eminent domain proceedings in order to acquire right-of-way and easements, in order to construct the above referenced improvements associated with this project. The City has contracted with Peter J. Patchin & Assoc., Inc. for appraisals to determine the amount of value in the taking of any easements or right-of-way. This letter contains the offer from the City for a fair market value for the taking of Parcel B, also known as Easement No. 97-2, which is an easement located on PIN No. 27- 912026-0. The value of Easement No. 97-2 is as follows: The direct taking damages to the land is estimated to be $5,500.00 for the permanent easement containing 15,040 square feet, more or less. Also, attached to this letter are the following documents for your review and consideration: 1. Legal Easement document for Easement No. 97-2. 2. Easement Sketch for Easement No. 97-2. 3. Exhibit A, for Maras Street Improvements, showing the Right of Way Acquisition for the project. Please review this letter and attachments and if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me in my office. COMMUNITY PRIDE SINCE 1857 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee,Minnesota 55379-1351 612-445-3650 FAX 612-445-6718 If you are in agreement with this proposal, please sign this letter and send it back to my attention and this item will be placed on the Council agenda for payment approval. If you are not in agreement with this proposal, the exact amount of compensation will have to be determined by a Condemnation Board at a later date. In any case, I would appreciate an answer from you as soon as possible in regard to your approval or not on this payment offer. Sincerely, Alk/t2, .ov• • Bruce Loney, P.E. Public Works Direc or BL/pmp ZACHARIAS Earl H. Zacharias Roger Zacharias ) 4 , R . 5 REVISED CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor& City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: 4th Avenue and Canterbury Pointe Storm Sewer DATE: June 3, 1997 INTRODUCTION: This Council agenda item it to request Council authorization to participate in a storm sewer installation along 4th Avenue to serve Canterbury Pointe, 4th Avenue and surrounding properties. BACKGROUND: Canterbury Pointe Subdivision was constructed last fall and the storm sewer was to outlet into the 4th Avenue rural street ditch. The approved plans for Canterbury Pointe included the regrading of this ditch to accommodate their storm sewer outlets. During the construction, it was discovered that in order to regrade the ditch, a major U.S. West fiber optic cable would need to be relocated. Staff has since conducted meetings with U.S. West and the developer to discuss options on providing a drainage system without relocating this telephone installation. The best alternative is to install a storm sewer system that staff feels will be necessary in the near future, when 4th Avenue is reconstructed from a rural street to an urban section. The estimated project cost for this storm sewer has been placed at $40,500.00, which includes the construction cost, design, engineering and construction staking. A tentative cost agreement has been proposed between U.S. West, Canterbury Pointe and the City. The cost sharing arrangement has been proposed as follows: Project Costs include actual construction costs, design engineering and construction staking. • Developer 30% of Actual Project Costs Plus Supervision • City 30%of Actual Project Costs Plus City Inspection • West 40% of Actual Project Costs Note: Developer to provide supervision of project at his cost and City to inspect installation at their cost. Staff believes this is an acceptable cost sharing arrangement, based on the fact that our cost of approximately $14,000.00 would essentially be the same cost as oversizing the pipe, if Canterbury Pointe were to install a storm sewer under a developer's agreement. In order to install this pipe, per City Code, an amendment to the Canterbury Pointe developer's agreement is necessary. One problem that the developer has with adding to the developer's agreement condition is difficulty in obtaining a Letter of Credit from his bank to install this storm sewer. The developer is willing to proceed on the cost sharing arrangement if the City will waive the security requirements for this storm sewer installation. Staff has contacted the City Attorney in this matter, and he feels that in this particular case, waiving of the security requirements is not much risk to the City since it is being done to serve the City as well as the developer. Staff is requesting Council authorization to enter into a cost sharing agreement with the developer and amend the developer's agreement for this storm sewer installation. Staff would review and approve the design, prior to the work being constructed. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Direct the City Attorney to prepare an amendment to the developer's agreement for the installation of storm sewer along 4th Avenue, between the City and Canterbury Pointe, and to include a cost sharing arrangement as described in this memorandum. 2. Do no enter into an agreement with this developer for this storm sewer installation, and require U.S. West to relocate their fiber optic cable and the developer to grade the ditch as previously approved. 3. Table this item for additional information. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, as a storm sewer system for this area is ultimately needed, and also due to the fact that U.S. West is participating in the cost of a storm sewer system in lieu of relocating their fiber optic cable. ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Make a motion to direct the City Attorney to prepare an amendment to the developer's agreement for Canterbury Pointe for the storm sewer installation along 4th Avenue, and to include a cost sharing arrangement between the City, U.S. West and the developer for Canterbury Pointe. 2. Authorize the appropriate City officials to execute the amended Developer's Agreement for Canterbury Pointe. ju di Bnice Loney Public Works Director BL/pmp SEWER CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor& City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: 4th Avenue and Canterbury Pointe Storm Sewer DATE: June 3, 1997 INTRODUCTION: This Council agenda item it to request Council authorization to participate in a storm sewer installation along 4th Avenue to serve Canterbury Pointe, 4th Avenue and surrounding properties. BACKGROUND: Canterbury Pointe Subdivision was constructed last fall and the storm sewer was to outlet into the 4th Avenue rural street ditch. The approved plans for Canterbury Pointe included the regrading of this ditch to accommodate their storm sewer outlets. During the construction, it was discovered that in order to regrade the ditch, a major U.S. West fiber optic cable would need to be relocated. Staff has since conducted meetings with U.S. West and the developer to discuss options on providing a drainage system without relocating this telephone installation. The best alternative is to install a storm sewer system that staff feels will be necessary in the near future, when 4th Avenue is reconstructed from a rural street to an urban section. The estimated project cost for this storm sewer has been placed at $40,500.00, which includes the construction cost, design, engineering and construction staking. A tentative cost agreement has been proposed between U.S. West, Canterbury Pointe and the City. The cost sharing arrangement has been proposed as follows: Project Costs include actual construction costs, design engineering and construction staking. • Developer 30%of Actual Project Costs Plus Supervision • City 30% of Actual Project Costs Plus City Inspection • West 40% of Actual Project Costs Note: Developer to provide supervision of project at his cost and City to inspect installation at their cost. Staff believes this is an acceptable cost sharing arrangement, based on the fact that our cost of approximately $14,000.00 would essentially be the same cost as oversizing the pipe, if Canterbury Pointe were to install a storm sewer under a developer's agreement. In order to install this pipe, per City Code, an amendment to the Canterbury Pointe developer's agreement is necessary. One problem that the developer has with adding to the developer's agreement condition is difficulty in obtaining a Letter of Credit from his bank to install this storm sewer. The developer is willing to proceed on the cost sharing arrangement if the City will waive the security requirements for this storm sewer installation. Staff has contacted the City Attorney in this matter, and he feels that in this particular case, waiving of the security requirements is not much risk to the City since it is being done to serve the City as well as the developer. Staff is requesting Council authorization to enter into a cost sharing agreement with the developer and amend the developer's agreement for this storm sewer installation. Staff would review and approve the design, prior to the work being constructed. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Direct the City Attorney to prepare an amendment to the developer's agreement for the installation of storm sewer along 4th Avenue, between the City and Canterbury Pointe, and to include a cost sharing arrangement as described in this memorandum. 2. Do no enter into an agreement with this developer for this storm sewer installation, and require U.S. West to relocate their fiber optic cable and the developer to grade the ditch as previously approved. 3. Table this item for additional information. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, as a storm sewer system for this area is ultimately needed, and also due to the fact that U.S. West is participating in the cost of a storm sewer system in lieu of relocating their fiber optic cable. ACTION REQUESTED: Make a motion to direct the City Attorney to prepare an amendment to the developer's agreement for Canterbury Pointe for the storm sewer installation along 4th Avenue, and to include a cost sharing arrangement between the City, U.S. West and the developer for Canterbury Pointe. Bruce Loney Public Works Director mm.... mw al 11 II VARSCHALL iRD, 111111diitrr it# , '1 ,Lj —UN Wilhal; 4ir R: JDHE4116:-. , 'OW C-__ Gil m ire ' S� VI <I\I K A, . ,ter U) 2- 0 414''" ' D EAS TWA .4VE . ' t rn 20 ' 1/\b AVM ' .D II VMS V ON IIIIII ... m __d NM milnellaTh d S -I D � unam m �y. i '.L . CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor& City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Additional Contribution to Downtown Alley Reconstruction, Project No. 1993-9 DATE: June 3, 1997 INTRODUCTION: Attached is a memorandum from Lou VanHout, Utilities Manager of Shakopee Public Utilities Commission (SPUC), in regard to the Utilities Commission's approval of additional contribution toward the Downtown Alley Reconstruction Project. BACKGROUND: The Downtown Alley Reconstruction Project began in 1995 to replace the existing overhead power system with a new underground power system, and a repaving of the alleys in the downtown blocks. At SPUC's public hearing on May 5, 1997, to review the final conversion of overhead power to underground power, the Commission did approve an additional contribution up to 10% of their previous commitment to the Downtown Alley Reconstruction Project. This amount would be $35,000.00. The memo from Lou VanHout has a priority schedule attached, in conjunction with this contribution, and staff feels this priority schedule is acceptable and that the contribution should be accepted by City Council, except that priority#2 should not be a 50%-50% split between the City and SPUC. The reductions for service line work should be 100% eligible for the SPUC contribution. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Accept the contribution, as outlined in Lou VanHout's memo from SPUC, in the amount of$35,000.00 to be expended on the Downtown Alley Reconstruction Project and per the priority schedule submitted by SPUC, except priority#2 is modified to be 100% SPUC cost. 2. Do not accept the additional contribution of$35,000.00. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Make a motion to accept the additional contribution of$35,000.00, from Shakopee Public Utilities Commission, towards the Downtown Alley Reconstruction Project No. 1993-9, to be expended per Shakopee Public Utilities Commission's priority schedule, except priority #2 is modified to be 100% eligible for Shakopee Public Utilities Commission's contribution. L . • Bruce Loney 4 Public Works Director BL/pmp ALLEY Mmmmmmmm TO: . Mark McNeill, Shakopee City Administrator FROM: Lou Van Hout, Utilities Manager1.-en,‘... RE: Additional Contribution to Downtown Undergrounding Effort DATE: 6/3/97 At the conclusion of their Public Hearing on 5/5/97, the Utilities Commission approved of an additional contribution of u2 to 10 % of their previous commitment to the Downtown Electric Undergrounding Project. This would be $35,000 additional contributed to the project. The money would be contributed to the City of Shakopee to address some of the concerns that have been raised during the course of the project. Further direction was given at the SPUC meeting last night (6/2/97) . The Commission is proposing the funds be applied until- priorities are met, or until the funds are exhausted. The priority schedule proposed was: 1st: Payment of service line assessments for customers who had existing underground service lines prior to the project. (Estimated $3,000) 2nd: Assisting with the assessments for service line work by assessing the cost of wire only from each building to the property line. The City and SPUC would then split the balance of the wire cost from that point to the connection box. (Estimated from tentative assessment role: $10,500 SPUC, $10,500 City) 3rd: Assisting with costs for electrical work done beyond the . minimum for aesthetic reasons. For example, this could apply to replacing open metering equipment and wires which could otherwise have been left in place. These funds would be disbursed by City Council for work approved for aesthetics. (Estimated at $2,500 to $ 5,000) 4th: Full or partial reimbursement to property owners who installed "buck-boost" transformers necessitated by the • voltage change. (Estimated at up to $15,000, depending on percentage reimbursed) I iq A (0 • , TO: Mark McNeill, Shakopee City Administrator FROM: Lou Van Hout,Utilities Manager RE: Additional Contribution to Downtown Undergrounding Effort DATE: 6/3/97 At the conclusion of their Public Hearing on 5/5/97,the Utilities Commission approved of an additional contribution of up to 10%of their previous commitment to the Downtown Electric Undergrounding Project. This would be $35,000 additional contributed to the project. The money would be contributed to the City of Shakopee to address some of the concerns that have been raised during the course of the project. Further direction was given at the SPUC meeting last night(6/2/97). The Commission is proposing the funds be applied until priorities are met, or until the funds are exhausted. The priority schedule proposed was: 1st: Payment of service line assessments for customers who had existing underground service lines prior to the project. (Estimated$3,000) 2nd: Assisting with the assessments for service line work by assessing the cost of wire only from each building to the property line. SPUC would then provide the balance of the wire cost from that point to the connection box. (Estimated $21,000) 3rd: Assisting with costs for electrical work done beyond the minimum for aesthetic reasons. For example,this could apply to replacing open metering equipment and wires which could otherwise have been left in place. These funds would be disbursed by City Council for work approved for aesthetics. (Estimated at$2,500 to $5,000) 4th: Full or partial reimbursement to property owners who installed"buck-boost"transformers necessitated by the voltage change. (Estimated at up to $15,000, depending on percentage reimbursed) )'. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor& City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Acquisition of Land for Water Tank and Miscellaneous Water Facilities by Eminent Domain Proceedings DATE: June 3, 1997 INTRODUCTION: Attached to this memo is a letter from Lou VanHout, Utilities Manager of Shakopee Public Utilities Commission (SPUC) in regard to purchasing a parcel of land which is described as Lots 9 and 10, Block 1, Riverview Estates 2nd Addition, City of Shakopee, Scott County, for the use of a water tank site and other miscellaneous water uses. At its June 2, 1997 SPUC meeting, the Commission voted to move forward on this property and to request City Council to take steps to initiate eminent domain proceedings to acquire the site. BACKGROUND: Attached to this memorandum is a resolution authorizing the acquisition of certain property by eminent domain proceedings, and Exhibit "A" showing Lots 9 and 10 of Riverview Estates 2nd Addition, that SPUC needs for its water tank site. The City needs to acquire this property by eminent domain as SPUC does not have the authority to acquire property. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 4680, a resolution of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota determining the necessity for and authorizing the acquisition of certain properties by proceeding in eminent domain(water tank site for SPUC). 2. Deny Resolution No. 4680. 3. Table for additional information. RECOMMENDATION: If Council agrees with SPUC's determination, that negotiation with the property owner has not been successful and the acquisition of property is needed for future public facilities, then adoption of Resolution No. 4680 is in order to initiate eminent domain proceedings to acquire this site for SPUC. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 4680, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Determining the Necessity for and Authorizing the Acquisition of Certain Property by Proceeding in Eminent Domain for Blocks 9 and 10, Lot 1, Riverview Estates 2nd Addition and move its adoption. A/W '4 Bruce Loney Public Works Director BL/pmp MEM4680 RESOLUTION NO. 4680 A Resolution Of The City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Determining The Necessity For And Authorizing The Acquisition Of Certain Property By Proceedings In Eminent Domain For Lots 9 And 10, Block 1, Riverview Estates WHEREAS, the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission and the City of Shakopee have determined that the City should acquire Lots 9 and 10, Block 1, Riverview Estates 2nd Addition, City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Scott County; and WHEREAS, the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission 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 a water tank and other miscellaneous water uses for Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 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 , 1997. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk EXHIBIT "A" r' RIVERVIEW ESTATES 2ND ADDITION —r1 ,-.1..Lae or 11(se 1/4 3[C 13. 1 / 8 0 \ i 4::-.\'') y dr ---• ,r' ,✓ .9a..1 —i u[or TIC k 132000 HUT i 1 ta• �` ` qqy (.fxe oRo1 �� N88'44'54'W 890.00 % _ is s•�' I + n r 10.3s 1 r 47151 /7/a- 227.14 -11 $ °; \ EXCEPTION W csa \11\ ) • g\ t \ g \ / , p xaa in 11,,e 2 \ \� 4 �,// w N88'44.54'W 396.13 ,1 6 S\ \ // ,�c , 1 1 r. , 7—11-2.24—--\,...: 1,T.-1,4i——� \ \ // \ +%-i` b 1. c... P• \ �\\ \ \ s// / , �i3% er \ . . \ \ 0//8 ,�/ �� b \� \\ '�. \ \ 41 re? /// t 1. \ 'Y 0 \\Y a\\\ \ \ / // , ��1 , 1 In \ 7 -. e0- 1->sa eC //� `a•4/" _ ',�'� y01 1�� \ , J•#i} �as.a ��,•' yam^i� 3 �/ N `?3'. \ ..>./ Pte"•• y /-"Os' 1m•4 1 c—�--qtr...,.. al �1 O 3e 3a 1;2 ��J rn r.. \�r \ ,J >0 130 : Ai 8 �.n Vic \ Y0- \\ gal \ , i-^' d# sv 13f� 1-— -�/ ,�p� `b t\• 8 \ A`1:>4dbE•06os „ in •• .01r,-0,:'---;.•1.;4 \- 6. • • \ —"g $ �� J ��� \ Sia ,;._ c . O % .per ``� v \ \����—9 1::. \x:61 J, �• // c i� \:.; 1;1 -� ,pnr\. 1 // //.ati° 'tri o+.::::; \ Xs'6`?,tj \J'// /-- •�\ `\ - �F,- •2taa• \ :. f \ A. ps N.j,,� n-tos''}}��''}}7} 1. \ .�:1b.stir ss ...al., " .Y of \ \N.. ' �O3 s-2.et i i_twf�J \- ____\ 't>10� C.S.A.R. NO. 16 8 (McCOLL- > 1o'DR.) N89•19'25.W 711.64 '1 '•nt I n-1 ' .. ' ,•.:;.-.,s. ,vv.: . S (,tft::.,vi... JrI. 1 T T flvtiia.v.v f1_I•,f1 i:J I I •r l v fl nIJI 1.J v —1 I • II � TO: Mark McNeill, Shakopee City Administrator FROM: Lou Van Hout, Utilities Manager L /A41._ RE: Acquisition of land for Watertank and Misc. Water Facilities by Eminent Domain DATE: 6/3/97 Since 1992, the Utilities Commission has been in negotiations with a property owner for purchase of a particular parcel of property for a watertank site and other misc. water uses. Considerable work was done to identify the site needed, and for soil borings and other work in preparation for the eventual construction of a partly underground watertank. The Commission had authorized its consultants to negotiate witI the owner for purchase of the site but have been unable to conclude that process. In view of the uncertainty of concluding negotiations on this site, the Utilities Commission is requesting that City Council take steps to initiate eminent domain proceedings to acquire the site. The question of whether to designate a "quick take" action was left to the discretion of Council or City Attorney, since the Utilities Commission definitely does need to acquire this site before development might make it unavailable. The property description is: Lots 9 and- 10, Block 1, Riverview Estates 2nd Addition, City of Shakopee, Scott County. TOTAL P.©3 CITY OF SHAKOPEE /�' C. 14 Memorandum CONSENT TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Mark Huge,Fire Chief SUBJECT: Hiring of Fire Fighters DATE: May 28, 1997 INTRODUCTION: The Council is asked to approve starting the hiring process to fill vacant fire fighter positions. BACKGROUND: By Council action the number of Fire Fighters budgeted for the Shakopee Fire Department is 44. Due to two recent resignations the number of Fire Fighters will be 40. Two other members have expressed desire to retire this Fall. Our current day time average response is 16, and the time to get a daytime truck in service has increased. DISCUSSION: We are requesting to start our normal hiring routine to fill the empty positions within the Shakopee Fire Department. This will consist of applications being screened at Scott County Personnel Department and from their recommendations we will conduct our same physical. agility and oral interviews. From this process the Council will be asked to approve the hiring of qualified candidates as probationary Shakopee Fire Fighters. RECOMMENDATION: Direct that the Shakopee Fire Department initiate steps to fill the vacant positions. ACTION REQUIRED: Motion to authorize the Shakopee Fire Department and Scott County Personnel Department to interview for candidates to fill the vacant fire fighter positions. Recommendations for filling the positions will come back to the Council at a future meeting. V Mark Huge / Fire Chief 33103 /Y. Q. ' CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Tom Steininger, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Mini Police Academy DATE: May 28, 1997 INTRODUCTION: Council is invited to attend our first Mini Police Academy from 4:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 24, 1997. BACKGROUND: At their meeting on May 20th, Council indicated an interest in attending a Mini Police Academy similar to the one the police department conducts for the public. Members of the police department would like to present a series of ten to fifteen minute presentations on thirteen selected topics. Pizza and soft drinks will be provided. ACTION REQUESTED: Please advise staff if you would like to attend. l JUN 02 '97 15:25 FR AM ENG TST ST PAUL 612 659 1379 TO 94456718 A i Y. as 3 . itAMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. etvI3C 0 May 8, 1997 Revised June 2, 1997 Mr. Tom Steininger, Shakopee Chief of Police Shakopee Police Department 476 Gorman Street Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: Proposal for Assessment Services Shakopee Police Department Pistol/Rifle Range Site SE of Eagle Creek Blvd. & County Road 83 Shakopee, Minnesota AET Proposal No. E-091.R Dear Mr. Steininger: American Engineering Testing, Inc., (AET) is pleased to offer our services to assist in estimating the extent, magnitude, and cleanup of contamination caused by usage of the referenced site as a pistol/rifle range. This proposal describes the work scope, schedule, fees, and other information regarding our services. Project Information, The subject site is located southeast of Eagle Creek Boulevard and County Road 83 in Shakopee. It is our understanding the referenced site has been used as a pistol/rifle range for about the past 17 years. Prior to the past two to four years, ammunition shot at the range was mostly 38 caliber. Most of the ammunition used at the site since then has been 45 caliber. We also understand some "4-buck" shotgun loads and 22 and 30 caliber loads have been shot at the site. It is estimated that about 60,000 rounds have been discharged at the site. You indicated that most of the ammunition has been discharged into a south bank at the site. This area is approximately 6' x 20' in size. For the past two years, ammunition has been discharged into a southeast bank. This area is about 5' x 15' in size. Most of the ammunition discharged has been within a distance of 7 to 25 yards of the bank, with maximum distances of about 70 yards. It is our understanding that there is not any "live" ammunition present within the banks or ground surface at the site. The referenced site is currently owned by Valley Green. We understand the site is to be developed industrially/commercially with a Delta Dental Clinic proposed at the site. -AN AFFIRMATIvE ACTION EMPLOYER' 2102 University Ave.W.. .St Paul,MN 55114 .812-659-9001 .Fax 612-659-1379 Duluth.Mankato .Rochester.Wausau JUN 02 '97 15:26 FR AM ENG TST ST PAUL 612 659 1379 TO 94456718 P.03/12 • Shakopee Police Department AET Proposal No. E-091.R May 8, 1997 Revised June 2, 1997 Page 2 The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has established human-health based direct contact Soil Reference Values (SRVs) for residential (unrestricted) land use. The SRVs for total lead and copper in soil are 400 and 1,300 mg/kg (parts per million), respectively. The toxicity characteristic leachate procedure (TCLP) is designed to identify wastes (projectiles and casings) likely to leach hazardous concentrations of particular toxic constituents into the groundwater. The TCLP for lead is 5.0 mg/L. If soil exhibits a TCLP of 5.0 mg/L or more, the soil is considered a hazardous waste. Special handling and disposal procedures need to be followed when working with such soils. A TCLP has not been established for copper. The scope of work described later in this proposal has been designed to judge the extent and magnitude of contamination that has been caused by usage of the site as a pistol/rifle firing range. Further exploration/sampling may be recommended to aid in identifying the most reasonable option or options to "clean" the site. Project Direction Our perception of what needs to be done at the site includes two steps. The first is to segregate projectiles/casings that have been fired into the banks/disposed of on the ground surface. This would likely be done with some sort of screening operation (similar to segregating gravel from sand), assuming the on-site soils are conducive to screening. The recovered projectile/casings would then be sent to a secondary smelter for reclaiming the lead and copper. The second step would likely involve some sort of treatment of the soil - the finer portion that passes through the screen. If the results of TCLP tests characterize the soils as hazardous waste, options available would likely include the following: disposal at a hazardous waste landfill; stabilizing the soil (so the lead doesn't leach out) and disposing of it at a demolition landfill or using it on-site; capping the soil on-site with an impermeable layer; etc. With the results of the initial testing, the options can be further explored and fees estimated for implementing the various cleanup options. The current owner, or a potential owner/occupant, of the site may request some assurances that they are not responsible for contamination at the site, that contamination has been cleaned up, that nothing further needs to be done, etc. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) JUN 02 '97 15:26 FR AM ENG TST ST PAUL 612 659 1379 TO 94456718 P.04/12 Shakopee Police Department AET Proposal No. E-091.R May 8, 1997 Revised June 2, 1997 Page 3 Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC) program has been developed for situations like this and provides a variety of assurances. Depending on the results of the initial testing, you may want to consider enrolling in the VIC program. If the site is enrolled in the VIC program, it is likely a phase I ESA, possibly a LFS, and a RAP will need to be performed. The Phase I ESA is performed to identify recognized environmental conditions associated with the site. The LFS is performed to generate sufficient study information to enable selection of an appropriate response action for contamination at the site. The RAP provides a detailed design for the selected response actions. Funding - in the form of grants - to assist in cleanup of sites enrolled in the VIC program is available through the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED). AET has served as the environmental consultant on various VIC projects that have received such funding. Two recent projects include the Arlington-Jackson redevelopment and the Riverview Parcel A redevelopment. Both these projects are in St. Paul. Funding for cleanup may also be available through the Metropolitan Council. Purpose The purpose of our work on this project is to judge the extent and magnitude of contamination at the site caused by usage of the site as a pistol/rifle range. AET is to explore and present options for "cleanup" of the firing range. In addition, AET is to solicit bids for the cleanup. Scope of Services In order to judge the extent and magnitude of contamination that has been caused by usage of the site as a pistol/rifle range, we propose to perform sampling and analysis of soil present within the banks and on the ground surface at the pistol/rifle range. Sampling of soil will focus on two main areas, the banks into which the projectiles have been fired, and the area between the shooting stations and banks. Soil samples will be collected from the banks using a shovel or hand auger. Soil samples will be collected from 0" to 6", 6" to 12", 12" to 18", and 18" to 24" into the bank. Soil samples will also be collected from the ground surface between the shooting stations and the banks. Samples will be collected from the surface to a depth of 3", from 3" to 6" and from 6" to 12". JUN 02 '97 15:27 FR AM ENG TST ST PAUL "t12 659 1379 TO 94456718 P.05/12 Shakopee Police Department AET Proposal No. E-091.R May 8, 1997 Revised June 2, 1997 Page 4 Projectiles, casings, rocks, etc., larger than about 1/4" in diameter will be removed from the soil samples using a #4 sieve (approximately 1/4" openings). Items retained on the sieve will be inventoried (lead projectile, aluminum casing, copper jacketed projectile, etc.) Soils passing through the sieve will be classified based on the Unified Soil Classification (USC) system. (The soil classification will be important in determining how easily the soils can be screened for segregation purposes.) We propose to collect soil samples from eight sampling locations within the banks. Two of the sample locations will be in the south bank that was fired into until about 2 years ago; two sample locations will be in the southeast bank that is currently being fired into; one sample location will be north of the southeast firing location; one sample location will be west of the south firing location; two sample locations will be between the south and southeast firing locations. Four samples will be collected at each sample location(i.e., 0-6"; 6-12", 12-18", and 18-24"). Soil samples from similar depth intervals will be composited. We will also collect soil samples from the ground surface between the firing stations and banks at eight sampling locations. At these sampling locations samples will be collected at 0" to 3", 3" to 6", and 6" to 12" depth intervals. Soil samples from similar depth intervals will be composited. Eighteen composited soil samples will be submitted to the laboratory for analysis of total lead and copper. Based on the results of the above analysis, five samples will be submitted for TCLP analysis to determine whether the soils are considered a hazardous waste. The chemical laboratory testing program presented above may need to be modified slightly, depending on field observations and testing. However, we will not exceed the budgeted fee without receiving authorization from the City prior to performing additional testing. Based on the results of the sampling and analysis, we will estimate the quantity of soil that has been impacted by the pistol/rifle range activities. The results of the above, along with the locations and results of field testing, laboratory testing, methodologies used, etc., will be presented in a written report. AET will also prepare a Limited Feasibility Study (LFS), if necessary, and Response Action Plan (RAP) in accordance with MPCA Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC) guidelines. If the JUN 02 '97 15:27 FR AM ENG TST ST PAUL 612 659 1379 TO 94456718 P.06/12 Shakopee Police Department AET Proposal No. E-091.R May 8, 1997 Revised June 2, 1997 Page 5 site is to be enrolled in the MPCA VIC program, it is likely that a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) will also need to be prepared (in accordance with VIC guidelines). Upon completion of the field work, Phase I ESA, LFS, and RAP, AET will solicit bids, on behalf of the City of Shakopee, for implementing the RAP. Performance Schedule We are available to begin work on this project immediately. Based on the above, and assuming normal laboratory turnaround time, we anticipate completing the field work, reviewing the laboratory analysis, and submitting a written report of the fmdings to you within 41/2 weeks of authorization to proceed. We anticipate the Phase I ESA to be available within two to three weeks and the LFS and RAP to be available within three to four weeks after the laboratory data is received. Please let us know if this schedule does not meet your timetable as we are available to review special needs that you may have. Fees Our fees for services on this project will be on a time and materials basis in accordance with the attached fee schedule rates. The estimated fees for the scope of services outlined in this proposal are summarized below: • Sample Collection $ 1,200.00 • Mechanical Laboratory Testing (sieve, inventory, classification) 1,000.00 • Chemical Laboratory Testing (total lead, copper, TCLP) 1,150.00 • Project Management, Analysis, Report Preparation 1,000.00 • Phase I ESA 1,200.00 • Limited Feasibility Study (if required), Response Action Plan, and Solicit Bids 1.500.00 $7.050.00 JUN 02 '97 15:28 FR AM ENG TST ST PAUL 612 659 1379 TO 94456718 P.07/12 Shakopee Police Department AET Proposal No. E-091.R May 8, 1997 Revised June 2, 1997 Page 6 Acceptance Please indicate your acceptance of this proposal and authorization to proceed by signing, dating and returning one copy of this proposal to us. The second copy is for your records. American Engineering Testing, Inc., appreciates the opportunity to provide this service for you and looks forward to working with you on this project. If you have any questions, or need additional information, please contact me at (612) 659-1310. Sincerely, American Engineering Testing, Inc. American Engineering Testing, Inc. CAccAL— tt..) (--r AK Charles W. Bisek Robert A. Kaiser ESA Program Manager Vice President, Environmental Div. CWB/jg Attachments: 1997 Environmental Services Fee Schedule Service Agreement PROPOSAL ACCEPTANCE Signature Date Typed/Printed Name Company '97 15:25 FR AM ENG TST ST PAUL 612 659 1379 TO 94456718 P.01/12 ASWAN ,�B»liC .."ESITSING. Le. FAX TRANSMISSION AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING 2 102 UNIVERSITY AVENUE WEST ST. PAUL, MN 55114 MAIN OFFICE: (6 I V 65$9001 SENDERS DIRECT DIAL: (612) 659-1 3 1 0 F*x: (61 2) 659-1379 To: j u,,, K /4 c ALeZ (l Date: b - Z -4 "7 Company: c.t S 1�.,, , ` Pages: I (including this cover sheet) Fax#: q q 5 - 6,-He Phone#: y q j - G So From: Chuck Bisek Subject: 4 ret" -�a `J i 1 f v:-r tQ V a,..p a at.t toss.n ._x COMMENTS: Alt a..•-- K - 'I e us t c w ( a,,,.7 5 e.t e., 1. r n cI -/. ..-. � I 0 /v � K -rir.-w �,� w. .. ..ek13 »1Nj o H4✓ 4 C4//y [^ *KR Ciu/PN. JUN 02 '97 15 28 FR AM ENG TST ST PAUL 612 659 1379 TO 94456718 P.08/12 AMERICAN CONSULTANTS it •GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING •MATERIALS •ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING, INC. American Engineering Testing, Inc. St. Paul, Minnesota FEE SCHEDULE (Effective January 1, 1997) ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE FEE SCHED n. . Description Unit Rag I. Engineering/Technical Personnel Rates A. Engineering/Environmental Technician I per hour $ 42.00 B. Drill Crew Person per hour 47.00 C. Engineering/Environmental Technician II, NDT Level II per hour 50.00 D. Drill Crew Chief per hour 58.00 E. Senior Engineering Technician III, NDT Level III per hour 60.00 F. Engineering Assistant per hour 69.00 G. Engineer I, Geologist I, Scientist I per hour 72.00 H. Senior Engineering Assistant. Engineer II, per hour 82.00 Geologist II, Scientist II I. Senior Engineer, Geologist, Scientist per hour 92.00 J. Principal Engineer per hour 110.00 K. Principal of Finn per hour 125.00 L. Litigation Preparation per hour 130.00 M. Deposition or Court Time (4-hour minimum) per hour 150.00 The rates presented are portal to portal, with vehicle mileage, expenses and equipment rentals being additional. Reduced rates may be negotiated for long-term projects. Overtime for personnel categories A-F charged at above cost plus 25% for over 8 hours per day or Saturday; and at above cost plus 50% for Sundays or Holidays. Hazardous work charged at additional 25%. U. Vehicle Mileage(personnel time and rental extra) A. Personal Automobile/Truck per mile 0.35 B. 3/4-ton Truck/Van per mile 0.48 C. 1-ton or 2-ton Rig Auxiliary Truck per mile 0.60 D. 1-ton Truck with Drill Rig per mile 0.65 E. 21/2-ton Truck with Drill Rig per mile 0.75 F. Tractor/Lowboy Trailer per mile 1.05 'AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER 2102 University Ave. W. .Stt,Paul,MN 55114 .612-659-9001 . Fax 612-659-1379 Duluth.Mankato .Rochester.Wausau JUN 02 '97 15 28 FR AM ENG TST ST PAUL 612 659 1379 TO 94456718 P.09/12 American Engineering Testing, Inc. 1997 Environmental Services Fee Schedule - Page 2 Description ugh Rare III. Site Exploration Equipment Rental/Services A. Drilling Services(Includes drill rig, carrier and 2-person crew. Auxiliary vehicle extra.) 1. Rotary Drill on 4WD 1-ton Truck per hour 140.00 2. Rotary Drill on 2WD 2/-ton Truck per hour 150.00 3. Rotary Drill on 4WD 21/1-ton Truck per hour 155.00 4. Rotary Drill on All-Terrain Vehicle per hour 180.00 5. Portable, Non-rotary Rig per hour 150.00 B. Rig Auxiliary Vehicle Rental 1. 4-wheel Trailer per hour 5.00 2. 3/4-ton Truck per hour 10.00 3. 1-ton or 2-ton Truck per hour 16.00 E. Environmental Equipment Rental/Service 1. Photoionization Detector per day 80.00 2. Flame Ionization Detector per day 95.00 3. Peristaltic Pump per day 25.00 4. 2" Submersible Pump per day 150.00 5. Dissolved Oxygen Meter per day 25.00 6. pH Meter per day 12.00 7. Conductivity Meter per day 12.00 8. Monitoring Well Sampling Kit(inc. bailer, gloves, etc.) per well 17.00 9. Monitoring Well Sampling Equipment(to 50') per day 70.00 10. Monitoring Well Sampling Equipment(deeper than 50') per day 90.00 11. ISCO Wastewazer Sampler per day 35.00 12. LEL Meter per day 25.00 13. Methane Meter per day 25.00 14. Air Velocity Meter per day 25.00 15. Level C Protective Gear quoted per job - 16. Level B Protective Gear quoted per job - 17. Level A Protective Gear quoted per job - 18. Confined Space Equipment quoted per job - 19. Coliwasa Sampler each 15.00 20. Bailers (Polypropylene) each 10.00 21. Bailers (Teflon) each 20.00 22. Vacuum Blower quoted per job - JUN 02 '97 15 29 FR AM ENG TST ST PAUL 612 659 1379 TO 94456718 P.10/12 American Engineering Testing, Inc. 1997 Environmental Services Fee Schedule - Page 3 Descrintiort Unit Rate 23. Groundwater Modeling Software per hour 25.00 24. Oil Water Interface Sensor per day 60.00 25. Well Rate of Recovery Equipment per day 150.00 26. Steam Cleaning Service(includes rental) a) Drill Rig/Tools per clean 300.00 b) Down Hole Drill Tools Only per clean 200.00 27. Steam Cleaner per day 135.00 28. Portable Generator(220 volt) per day 25.00 W. Expenses A. Direct Project Expenses: includes out-of-town per diem; plowing and towing; special equipment, materials and supplies; special travel, transportation and freight; subcontracted services, and miscellaneous costs Cost + 15% B. Equipment Replacement when Abandonment is more Feasible than Recovering Cost C. Equipment Recovery when required by Regulatory Agencies or Project Specifications Cost + 15% VIII. Clerical/Drafting Services and Rentals A. Personnel Rates 1. Word Processing Specialist per hour 42.00 2. Draftperson per hour 48.00 B. Report Reproduction 1. Minimum(copying additional) per report 50.00 2. Copying per sheet 0.35 C. Facsimile Transmitting/Receiving per page 1.00 D. Computer and Software Rental (personnel time extra) 1. AutoCAD per hour 25.00 2. Air Dispersion Modeling per hour 25.00 3. Ground Water Modeling per hour 25.00 JUN 02 '97 15 29 FR AM ENG TST ST PAUL 612 659 1379 TO 94456718 P.11/12 SERVICE AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS SECTION 1-RESPONSIBILITIES lel -The party to whom the proposal/contract is addressed is the Client of American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AET). 2�2-Prior to ART performing work. Client will provide AET with all information that may affect the cost, progress, safety and performance of the work. This includes, but is not limited to, information on proposed and existing construction. all pertinent sections of contracts between Client and property owner,site safety plans or other documents which may control or affect AET's work. If new information becomes available during AET's work,Client will provide such information to AET in a timely manner. Also, Client will provide a representative for timely answers to project-related questions by AET. -Work by AET will not relieve other persons of their responsibility to perform work according to the contract documents or specifications, and AET will not be held responsible for work or omissions by Client and other persons. AET will not be responsible for directing or supervising the work of others,unless specifically authorized in writing. LA- Work by AET often includes sampling at specific locations. Inherent with such sampling is variation between sampling locations. Client recognizes this uncertainty and the associated risk,and acknowledges that opinions developed by ART,based on the samples, are qualified to that extent. j,. -AET is not responsible for interpretations or modifications of AET's recommendations by other persons. 1,fi-Should changed conditions be alleged, Client agrees to notify AET before evidence of change is no longer accessible for evaluation. SECTION 2-STTE.ACCESS AND REST9RATION 221 -Client will furnish ART safe and Iegal site access. -It is understood by Client that in the normal course of the work,some damage to the site or materials may occur. AET will take reasonable precautions to minimize such damage. Restoration of the site is the responsibility of the Client. SECTION 3-SAFETY 1,1-Client shall inform AET of any known or suspected hazardous materials or unsafe conditions at the work site. If, during the course of AET's work,such materials Or conditions are discovered,AET reserves the right to take measures to protect AET personnel and equipment or to immediately terminate services. Client shall be responsible for payment of such additional protection costs. 3_2 - AET shall only be responsible for safety of AET employees at the work site. The Client or other persons shall be responsible for the safety of all other persons at the site. SECTION 4-SAMPLES -Curran is responsible for informing AET of any known or suspected hazardous materials prior to submittal to AET. All samples obtained by, or submitted to, AET remain the property of the Client during and after the work. Any !mown or suspected hazardous material samples will be returned to the Client at AET's discretion. 4^2-Non-hazardous samples will be held for 30 days and then discarded unless,within 30 days' of the report date, the Client provides a written request that AET store or ship the samples,at the Client's expense. SECTIQN 5-PROJECT RECORDS The project records prepared by AET will remain the property of ART. AET shall retain these records for a period of three years following submission of the report, during which period the project records can be made available to Client at ABT's office at reasonable times. SECTION b-STANDARD OF CARE ART will perform services consistent with the level of care and shall normally performed by other firms in the profession at the time of this service and in this geographic area, under similar budgetary constraints. No other warranty is implied or intended. 02DPM011(3/96) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. JUN 02 '97 15 29 FR AM ENG TST ST PAUL 612 659 1379 TO 94456718 P.12/12 Service Agreement-Page 2 SEC ON 7-INSURANCE AET carries Worker's Compensation,Property Damage and Professional Liability insurance. AET will furnish certificates of insurance to Client upon request. SECTION 8-DELAYS If AET work delays are caused by Client, work of others, strikes, natural causes, weather, or other items beyond AET's control, a reasonable time extension for performance of work shall be granted, and AET shall receive an equitable fee adjustment. SECTION 9-PAYat NT. E AND BRACH 9.1 -Invoices are due on receipt. Client will inform AET of invoice questions or disagreerneus within 15 days of invoice date; unless so informed, invoices are deemed correct -Client agrees to pay interest on unpaid invoice balances at a rate of 1.5%per mouth, or the maximum allowed by law, whichever is less,beginning 30 days after invoice date. n e Tr ....:......:.»-e...-:....,...,•,;el fnr,Gfl vve enri,nnn-navm'nt thiit he a material breach of this=recount. As a result of JUN NJd "J'r 15.35 hk HM tNU 151 51 I'HUL 612 b5.J 1.S('j IU ' 44671.8 F.12/12 Service Agreement-Page 2 SECTION 7-INSURANCE AET carries Worker's Compensation,Property Damage and Professional Liability insurance. AET will furnish certificates of insurance to Client upon request. SECTION 8-DELAYS If AET work delays are caused by Client, work of others,strikes, natural causes, weather, or other items beyond AET's control, a reasonable time extension for performance of work shall be granted. and AET shall receive an equitable fee adjustment. SECTION 9-PAYMENT.INTEREST AND BRJAC$ 9.1 -Invoices are due on receipt. Client will inform AET of invoice questions or disagreements within 15 days of invoice date; unless so informed,invoices are deemed correct. -Client agrees to pay interest on unpaid invoice balances at a race of 1.5%per mouth, or the maximum allowed by law, whichever is less,beginning 30 days after invoice date. 21-If any invoice remains unpaid for 60 days,such non-payment shall be a material breach of this agreement. As a result of such material breach,AET may, at its sole option,terminate all duties to the Client or other persons. without liability. 2.4-Client will pay all AET collection expenses and attorney fees relating to past due fees which the Client owes under this agreement. SECTION 10-LITIGATIO Payment of AET costs for Client lawsuits against AET which are dismissed or are judged substantially in AET's favor will be the Client's responsibility. Applicable costs include,but axe not limited to,attorney and expert witness fees.court costs,and AET costs. SECTION 11 aut out of AET's negligentperformance -AET agrees to hold harmless and indemnify Client from and against liability arising of the work,subject to any limitations,other indemnification or other provisions Client and AET have agreed to in writing. -Client agrees to hold harmless and indemnify AET from and against liability arising out of Client's negligent conduct, subject to any limitations,other indemnifications or other provisions Client and AET have agreed to. L -If Client has indemnity agreement with other persons,the Client shall include AET as a beneficiary. ,SECTION 12-LIMITATION OF JIAAILTTY Client agrees to limit AET'sliability to Clients arising from professional acts,errors or omissions, such that the total aggregate liability of AET shall not exceed 550,000. SECTION 13-TERMINATION After 7 days written notice,either party may elect to terminate work for justifiable reasons. In this event, the Client shall pay for all work performed,including demobilization and reporting costs to complete the file. ,SECTION 14-S VERABIL1T? Any provisions of this agreement later held to violate a law or regulation shall be deemed void, and all remaining provisions shall continue in force. However,Client and AET will in good faith attempt to replace an invalid or unenforceable provision with one that is valid and enforceable.and which comes as close as possible to expressing the intent of the original provision. SECTION 15-ENTIRE AGREEMENT This agreement,including attached appendices,is the entire agreement between AET and Client. This agreement nullifies any work orders. Any modifications to this agreement must be in writing. previous written or oral agreements.including P�1 02DPMOI 1(3/96) — AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING,INC. ** TOTAL PAGE.12 ** y. /3 . 'la CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Police Pistol Range/Environmental Clean Up DATE: May 27, 1997 INTRODUCTION: Staff is requesting authorization from Council to retain the services of an environmental consultant to determine how much hazardous material is present at the police pistol range and process a plan for clean-up. BACKGROUND: The police pistol range is located at the intersection of CSAH 16& CSAH 83 behind the Eagle Creek Thrift Shop. A range has been located there since sometime in the 1970's. The City has leased this location from Valley Green Business Park since 1983. On March 13, 1997, Valley Green notified the police department that they will be terminating the City's lease effective June 15, 1997. According to the terms of the lease, the City must stop using this property by June 15th restore it to the condition it was in when the City took it over within a reasonable period of time thereafter. Restoration of the property includes removal of fixtures such as target holders and firing points. Restoration also includes removal of lead and other hazardous substances from the property. Extraction and removal of these hazardous substances from the property is complicated. It is not permissible, for example,to simply dig up the contaminated dirt and transport it to another active firing range where lead is accumulating and deposit it there. Instead, it is necessary to either remove the lead from the dirt on site, or transport the contaminated dirt to a hazardous material landfill. Staff believes it is necessary to seek the assistance of an environmental consultant to determine the extent and magnitude of the contamination and assist the City with the clean-up process. Chief Steininger has contacted two environmental consultants who have submitted proposals which are attached to this memo. The proposals do not include the cost of the actual clean-up, which is likely to be substantial. DISCUSSION: The two proposals show a different level of involvement;the proposal of PEER carries the project to conclusion, where that of AET provides only for the testing and initial report. Staff's analysis is that task 1 of PEER,plus their investigation report($3500) would equal $7800. This compares to AET's $4350 to complete to the same level. Assuming that contaminants found in quantities that are currently suspected, a remediation plan and follow-up would be necessary. I have asked AET to provide a price for preparation of a remediation plan and other activities comparable to PEER. A recommendation should be available at the June 3rd Council meeting. BUDGET IMPACT: This cost was not anticipated at the time of the preparation of the 1997 Budget, and therefore,will need to come from contingency. Once the analysis is completed,the City will have a better understanding of what the clean-up costs will be. Staff would then pursue any available grant funding; however, there maybe a problem concerning scheduling. Valley Green Business Park would like to have the clean-up done within a couple of months. We are aware of at least the VIC Grant Program having a November funding cycle. However, Jon Albinson, Project Director for Valley Green has stated that Valley Green will"work with the City, as much as possible" if grant funding is possible. RECOMMENDATION: A recommendation will be made at the June 3rd meeting. Based on the proposed cost, staff recommends retaining American Engineering Testing to do assessment services at the shooting range. ACTION REQUESTED: If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, authorize acceptance of the proposal recommended at the June 3rd Council meeting for environmental assessment and remediation services at the Shakopee firing range. Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:tw A AMERICAN CONSULTANTS • GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING • MATERIALS • ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING, INC. mom May 8, 1997 Mr. Tom Steininger, Shakopee Chief of Police Shakopee Police Department 476 Gorman Street Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: Proposal for Assessment Services Shakopee Police Department Pistol/Rifle Range Site SE of Eagle Creek Blvd. & County Road 83 Shakopee, Minnesota AET Proposal No. E-091 Dear Mr. Steininger: American Engineering Testing, Inc., (AET) is pleased to offer our services to assist in estimating the extent and magnitude of contamination caused by usage of the referenced site as a pistol/rifle range. This proposal describes the work scope, schedule, fees, and other information regarding our services. Project Information The subject site is located southeast of Eagle Creek Boulevard and County Road 83 in Shakopee. It is our understanding the referenced site has been used as a pistol/rifle range for about the past 17 years. Prior to the past two to four years, ammunition shot at the range was mostly 38 caliber. Most of the ammunition used at the site since then has been 45 caliber. We also understand some "4-buck" shotgun loads and 22 and 30 caliber loads have been shot at the site. It is estimated that about 60,000 rounds have been discharged at the site. You indicated that most of the ammunition has been discharged into a south bank at the site. This area is approximately 6' x 20' in size. For the past two years, ammunition has been discharged into a southeast bank. This area is about 5' x 15' in size. Most of the ammunition discharged has been within a distance of 7 to 25 yards of the bank, with maximum distances of about 70 yards. It is our understanding that there is not any "live" ammunition present within the banks or ground surface at the site. We understand the site is to be developed industrially/commercially with a corporate office proposed at the site. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has established human-health based direct contact Soil Reference Values (SRVs) for residential (unrestricted) land use. The SRVs for total lead and copper in soil are 400 and 1,300 mg/kg (parts per million), respectively. 'AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER" 2102 University Ave. W. .St.Paul,MN 55114 .612-659-9001 . Fax 612-659-1379 Duluth •Mankato .Rochester .Wausau Shakopee Police Department AET Proposal No. E-091 May 8, 1997 Page 2 The toxicity characteristic leachate procedure (TCLP) is designed to identify wastes (projectiles and casings) likely to leach hazardous concentrations of particular toxic constituents into the groundwater. The TCLP for lead is 5.0 mg/L. If soil exhibits a TCLP of 5.0 mg/L or more, the soil is considered a hazardous waste. Special handling and disposal procedures need to be followed when working with such soils. A TCLP has not been established for copper. Purpose The purpose of our work on this project is to judge the extent and magnitude of contamination at the site caused by usage of the site as a pistol/rifle range. Scope of Services In order to judge the extent and magnitude of contamination that has been caused by usage of the site as a pistol/rifle range, we propose to perform sampling and analysis of soil present within the banks and on the ground surface at the pistol/rifle range. Sampling of soil will focus on two main areas, the banks into which the projectiles have been fired, and the area between the shooting stations and banks. Soil samples will be collected from the banks using a shovel or hand auger. Soil samples will be collected from 0" to 6", 6" to 12", 12" to 18", and 18" to 24" into the bank. Soil samples will also be collected from the ground surface between the shooting stations and the banks. Samples will be collected from the surface to a depth of 3", from 3" to 6" and from 6" to 12". Projectiles, casings, rocks, etc., larger than about 1/4" in diameter will be removed from the soil samples using a #4 sieve (approximately 1/4" openings). Items retained on the sieve will be inventoried (lead projectile, aluminum casing, copper jacketed projectile, etc.) Soils passing through the sieve will be classified based on the Unified Soil Classification (USC) system. (The soil classification will be important in determining how easily the soils can be screened for segregation purposes.) We propose to collect soil samples from eight sampling locations within the banks. Two of the sample locations will be in the south bank that was fired into until about 2 years ago; two sample locations will be in the southeast bank that is currently being fired into; one sample location will be north of the southeast firing location; one sample location will be west of the south firing location; two sample locations will be between the south and southeast firing locations. Four Shakopee Police Department AET Proposal No. E-091 May 8, 1997 Page 3 samples will be collected at each sample location (i.e., 0-6"; 6-12", 12-18", and 18-24"). Soil samples from similar depth intervals will be composited. We will also collect soil samples from the ground surface between the firing stations and banks at eight sampling locations. At these sampling locations samples will be collected at 0" to 3", 3" to 6", and 6" to 12" depth intervals. Soil samples from similar depth intervals will be composited. Eighteen composited soil samples will be submitted to the laboratory for analysis of total lead and copper. Based on the results of the above analysis, five samples will be submitted for TCLP analysis to determine whether the soils are considered a hazardous waste. Based on the results of the sampling and analysis, we will estimate the quantity of soil that has been impacted by the pistol/rifle range activities. The results of the above, along with estimated costs of the options available for "cleaning" the site, will be presented in a written report. Performance Schedule We are available to perform the sampling within one week of authorization to proceed. We estimate the field work will take one to two days to complete. Laboratory analysis, assuming normal turnaround time, is expected to take 10 working days for total lead and copper analysis and five additional working days for TCLP analysis of lead. Shorter laboratory turnaround time is available; however, the cost associated with the quick turnaround is generally 50% more than normal laboratory turnaround time. Based on the above, and assuming normal laboratory turnaround time, we anticipate completing the field work, reviewing the laboratory analysis, and submitting a written report to you within 41/2 weeks of authorization to proceed. Please let us know if this schedule does not meet your timetable as we are available to review special needs that you may have. Fees Our fees for services on this project will be on a time and materials basis in accordance with the attached fee schedule rates. For the scope of services outlined in this proposal we estimate a fee of$4,350.00. The estimated fee is summarized below: Shakopee Police Department AET Proposal No. E-091 May 8, 1997 Page 4 • Sample Collection $ 1,200.00 • Mechanical Laboratory Testing (sieve, inventory, classification) 1,000.00 • Chemical Laboratory Testing (total lead, copper, TCLP) 1,150.00 • Project Management, Analysis, Report Preparation 1.000.00 $ 4,350.00 Project Direction The scope of work described in this proposal has been designed to judge the extent and magnitude of contamination that has been caused by usage of the site as a pistol/rifle firing range. Further exploration/sampling may be recommended to aid in identifying the most reasonable option or options to "clean" the site. Our perception of what needs to be done at the site includes two steps. The first is to segregate projectiles/casings that have been fired into the banks/disposed of on the ground surface. This would likely be done with some sort of screening operation (similar to segregating gravel from sand), assuming the on-site soils are conducive to screening. The recovered projectile/casings would then be sent to a secondary smelter for reclaiming the lead and copper. The second step would likely involve some sort of treatment of the soil - the fmer portion that passes through the screen. If the results of TCLP tests characterize the soils as hazardous waste, options available would likely include the following: disposal at a hazardous waste landfill; stabilizing the soil (so the lead doesn't leach out) and disposing of it at a demolition landfill or using it on-site; capping the soil on-site with an impermeable layer; etc. With the results of the initial testing, the options can be further explored and fees estimated for implementing the various cleanup options. The current owner, or a potential owner/occupant, of the site may request some assurances that they are not responsible for contamination at the site, that contamination has been cleaned up, that nothing further needs to be done, etc. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC) program has been developed for situations like this and provides a variety of assurances. Depending on the results of the initial testing, you may want to consider enrolling in the VIC program. Shakopee Police Department AET Proposal No. E-091 May 8, 1997 Page 5 Funding - in the form of grants - to assist in cleanup of sites enrolled in the VIC program is available through the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED). AET has served as the environmental consultant on various VIC projects that have received such funding. Two recent projects include the Arlington-Jackson redevelopment and the Riverview Parcel A redevelopment. Both these projects are in St. Paul. Funding for cleanup may also be available through the Metropolitan Council. Acceptance Please indicate your acceptance of this proposal and authorization to proceed by signing, dating and returning one copy of this proposal to us. The second copy is for your records. American Engineering Testing, Inc., appreciates the opportunity to provide this service for you and looks forward to working with you on this project. If you have any questions, or need additional information, please contact me at (612) 659-1310. Sincerely, American Engineering Testing, Inc. -rican Eng' eering Testing, Inc. 7:1 Charles W. Bisek Robert A. Kaiser ESA Program Manager Vice President, Environmental Div. CWB/jg Attachments: 1997 Environmental Services Fee Schedule Service Agreement PROPOSAL ACCEPTANCE Signature Date Typed/Printed Name Company AMERICAN CONSULTANTS • GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING • MATERIALS • ENVIRONMENTAL immi TESTING, INC, American Engineering Testing, Inc. St. Paul, Minnesota FEE SCHEDULE (Effective January 1, 1997) ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FEE SCHEDULE Description Unit Rate I. Engineering/Technical Personnel Rates A. Engineering/Environmental Technician I per hour $ 42.00 B. Drill Crew Person per hour 47.00 C. Engineering/Environmental Technician II, NDT Level II per hour 50.00 D. Drill Crew Chief per hour 58.00 E. Senior Engineering Technician III, NDT Level III per hour 60.00 F. Engineering Assistant per hour 69.00 G. Engineer I, Geologist I, Scientist I per hour 72.00 H. Senior Engineering Assistant, Engineer II, per hour 82.00 Geologist II, Scientist II I. Senior Engineer, Geologist, Scientist per hour 92.00 J. Principal Engineer per hour 110.00 K. Principal of Finn per hour 125.00 L. Litigation Preparation per hour 130.00 M. Deposition or Court Time (4-hour minimum) per hour 150.00 The rates presented are portal to portal, with vehicle mileage, expenses and equipment rentals being additional. Reduced rates may be negotiated for long-term projects. Overtime for personnel categories A-F charged at above cost plus 25% for over 8 hours per day or Saturday; and at above cost plus 50% for Sundays or Holidays. Hazardous work charged at additional 25%. II. Vehicle Mileage (personnel time and rental extra) A. Personal Automobile/Truck per mile 0.35 B. 3/4-ton Truck/Van per mile 0.48 C. 1-ton or 2-ton Rig Auxiliary Truck per mile 0.60 D. 1-ton Truck with Drill Rig per mile 0.65 E. 21/2-ton Truck with Drill Rig per mile 0.75 F. Tractor/Lowboy Trailer per mile 1.05 "AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER" 2102 University Ave.W. .St.Paul,MN 55114 .612-659-9001 . Fax 612-659-1379 Duluth.Mankato .Rochester .Wausau American Engineering Testing, Inc. 1997 Environmental Services Fee Schedule - Page 2 Description Unit Rate III. Site Exploration Equipment Rental/Services A. Drilling Services (Includes drill rig, carrier and 2-person crew. Auxiliary vehicle extra.) 1. Rotary Drill on 4WD 1-ton Truck per hour 140.00 2. Rotary Drill on 2WD 21/2-ton Truck per hour 150.00 3. Rotary Drill on 4WD 21/2-ton Truck per hour 155.00 4. Rotary Drill on All-Terrain Vehicle per hour 180.00 5. Portable, Non-rotary Rig per hour 150.00 B. Rig Auxiliary Vehicle Rental 1. 4-wheel Trailer per hour 5.00 2. 3/4-ton Truck per hour 10.00 3. 1-ton or 2-ton Truck per hour 16.00 E. Environmental Equipment Rental/Service 1. Photoionization Detector per day 80.00 2. Flame Ionization Detector per day 95.00 3. Peristaltic Pump per day 25.00 4. 2" Submersible Pump per day 150.00 5. Dissolved Oxygen Meter per day 25.00 6. pH Meter per day 12.00 7. Conductivity Meter per day 12.00 8. Monitoring Well Sampling Kit (inc. bailer, gloves, etc.) per well 17.00 9. Monitoring Well Sampling Equipment (to 50') per day 70.00 10. Monitoring Well Sampling Equipment (deeper than 50') per day 90.00 11. ISCO Wastewater Sampler per day 35.00 12. LEL Meter per day 25.00 13. Methane Meter per day 25.00 14. Air Velocity Meter per day 25.00 15. Level C Protective Gear quoted per job - 16. Level B Protective Gear quoted per job - 17. Level A Protective Gear quoted per job - 18. Confined Space Equipment quoted per job - 19. Coliwasa Sampler each 15.00 20. Bailers (Polypropylene) each 10.00 21. Bailers (Teflon) each 20.00 22. Vacuum Blower quoted per job - A American Engineering Testing, Inc. 1997 Environmental Services Fee Schedule - Page 3 Description Unit Rate 23. Groundwater Modeling Software per hour 25.00 24. Oil Water Interface Sensor per day 60.00 25. Well Rate of Recovery Equipment per day 150.00 26. Steam Cleaning Service (includes rental) a) Drill Rig/Tools per clean 300.00 b) Down Hole Drill Tools Only per clean 200.00 • 27. Steam Cleaner per day 135.00 28. Portable Generator (220 volt) per day 25.00 VI. Expenses A. Direct Project Expenses: includes out-of-town per diem; plowing and towing; special equipment, materials and supplies; special travel, transportation and freight; subcontracted services, and miscellaneous costs Cost + 15% B. Equipment Replacement when Abandonment is more Feasible than Recovering Cost C. Equipment Recovery when required by Regulatory Agencies or Project Specifications Cost + 15% VIII. Clerical/Drafting Services and Rentals A. Personnel Rates 1. Word Processing Specialist per hour 42.00 2. Draftperson per hour 48.00 B. Report Reproduction 1. Minimum(copying additional) per report 50.00 2. Copying per sheet 0.35 C. Facsimile Transmitting/Receiving per page 1.00 D. Computer and Software Rental (personnel time extra) 1. AutoCAD per hour 25.00 2. Air Dispersion Modeling per hour 25.00 3. Ground Water Modeling per hour 25.00 V SERVICE AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS SECTION 1 -RESPONSIBILITIES 1_1 -The party to whom the proposal/contract is addressed is the Client of American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AET). 1_2 - Prior to AET performing work, Client will provide AET with all information that may affect the cost, progress, safety and performance of the work. This includes, but is not limited to, information on proposed and existing construction, all pertinent sections of contracts between Client and property owner, site safety plans or other documents which may control or affect AET's work. If new information becomes available during AET's work, Client will provide such information to AET in a timely manner. Also, Client will provide a representative for timely answers to project-related questions by AET. 1_3-Work by AET will not relieve other persons of their responsibility to perform work according to the contract documents or specifications, and AET will not be held responsible for work or omissions by Client and other persons. AET will not be responsible for directing or supervising the work of others,unless specifically authorized in writing. -Work by AET often includes sampling at specific locations. Inherent with such sampling is variation between sampling locations. Client recognizes this uncertainty and the associated risk,and acknowledges that opinions developed by AET,based on the samples, are qualified to that extent. -AET is not responsible for interpretations or modifications of AET's recommendations by other persons. 1�C-Should changed conditions be alleged, Client agrees to notify AET before evidence of change is no longer accessible for evaluation. SECTION 2 -SITE ACCESS AND RESTORATION 2_1 - Client will furnish AET safe and legal site access. 2_2-It is understood by Client that in the normal course of the work, some damage to the site or materials may occur. AET will take reasonable precautions to minimise such damage. Restoration of the site is the responsibility of the Client. SECTION 3 -SAFETY -Client shall inform AET of any known or suspected hazardous materials or unsafe conditions at the work site. If, during the course of AET's work, such materials or conditions are discovered,AET reserves the right to take measures to protect AET personnel and equipment or to immediately terminate services. Client chart be responsible for payment of such additional protection costs. 3_2 - AET shall only be responsible for safety of AET employees at the work site. The Client or other persons shall be responsible for the safety of all other persons at the site. SECTION 4-SAMPLES 4_1 -Client is responsible for informing AET of any known or suspected hazardous materials prior to submittal to AET. All samples obtained by, or submitted to, AET remain the property of the Client during and after the work. Any known or suspected hazardous material samples will be returned to the Client at AET's discretion. -Non hazardous samples will be held for 30 days and then discarded unless, within 30 days' of the report date, the Client provides a written request that AET store or ship the samples, at the Client's expense. SECTION 5-PROJECT RECORDS The project records prepared by AET will remain the property of AET. AET shall retain these records for a period of three years following submission of the report, during which period the project records can be made available to Client at AET's office at reasonable times. SECTION 6-STANDARD OF CARE AET will perform services consistent with the level of care and skill normally performed by other firms in the profession at the time of this service and in this geographic area, under similar budgetary constraints. No other warranty is implied or intended. 02DPM011(3/96) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. Service Agreement-Page 2 SECTION 7-INSURANCE AET carries Worker's Compensation, Property Damage and Professional Liability insurance. AET will furnish certificates of insurance to Client upon request. SECTION 8-DELAYS If AET work delays are caused by Client, work of others, strikes, natural causes, weather, or other items beyond AET's control, a reasonable time extension for performance of work shall be granted, and AET shall receive an equitable fee adjustment. SECTION 9-PAYMENT. INTEREST AND BREACH 9_1 -Invoices are due on receipt. Client will inform AET of invoice questions or disagreements within 15 days of invoice date; unless so informed, invoices are deemed correct. 9_2 -Client agrees to pay interest on unpaid invoice balances at a rate of 1.5% per month, or the maximum allowed by law, whichever is less, beginning 30 days after invoice date. -If any invoice remains unpaid for 60 days,such non-payment shall be a material breach of this agreement. As a result of such material breach, AET may, at its sole option, terminate all duties to the Client or other persons, without liability. 9_4-Client will pay all AET collection expenses and attorney fees relating to past due fees which the Client owes under this agreement. SECTION 10-LITIGATION REIMBURSEMENT Payment of AET costs for Client lawsuits against AET which are dismissed or are judged substantially in AET's favor will be the Client's responsibility. Applicable costs include, but are not limited to, attorney and expert witness fees, court costs, and AET costs. SECTION 11 -MUTUAL INDEMNIFICATION -AET agrees to hold harmless and indemnify Client from and against liability arising out of AET's negligent performance of the work, subject to any limitations, other indemnifications or other provisions Client and AET have agreed to in writing. 11.2-Client agrees to hold harmless and indemnify AET from and against liability arising out of Client's negligent conduct, subject to any limitations, other indemnifications or other provisions Client and AET have agreed to. 11.3 -If Client has indemnity agreement with other persons,the Client shall include AET as a beneficiary. SECTION 12 -LIMITATION OF LIABILITY Client agrees to limit AET's liability to Clients arising from professional acts, errors or omissions, such that the total aggregate liability of AET shall not exceed$50,000. SECTION 13-TERMINATION After 7 days written notice, either party may elect to terminate work for justifiable reasons. In this event, the Client shall pay for all work performed, including demobilization and reporting costs to complete the file. SECTION 14-SEVERABILITY Any provisions of this agreement later held to violate a law or regulation shall be deemed void, and all remaining provisions shall continue in force. However, Client and AET will in good faith attempt to replace an invalid or unenforceable provision with one that is valid and enforceable, and which comes as close as possible to expressing the intent of the original provision. SECTION 15-ENTIRE AGREEMENT This agreement, including attached appendices, is the entire agreement between AET and Client. This agreement nullifies any previous written or oral agreements, including purchase/work orders. Any modifications to this agreement must be in writing. 02DPM011(3/96) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. -:'1"91114•11!!---friA=----'.;':'''...:". t { # 'S . x, L ?�Yy PROPOSAL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION 8 � tk$ Shakopee FiringRange �� p g Shakopee, Minnesota , • b�y; f ° k t April1997 ,li Peer Environmental &�`,€.; Engineering Resources, Inc,'< 7710 Computer Avenues ;::. Minneapolis, MN 554351 : SCOPE OF SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION SHAKOPEE POLICE DEPARTMENT FORMER FIRING RANGE SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA BACKGROUND INFORMATION The information provided by the Chief of Police indicates the site was used as the firing range for the Shakopee Police Department from approximately 1983 to 1995. Investigation of the site is necessary to evaluate the nature and magnitude of environmental impacts associated with this property being used as a firing range. The Shakopee Police Department has requested a proposal to conduct an environmental investigation of the site. It is our understanding that the results will be used to evaluate potential cleanup actions necessary to satisfy regulatory requirements and allow future development of the property. This proposal assumes only impacts to soil in which the area of the firing range exist. PEER's experience with similar sites indicates that lead impacts are usually found within the surficial soils and lead is fairly immobile, and therefore, ground water impacts from this site are not likely. The MPCA and/or a new buyer may raise the issue of ground water impacts. At that time ground water testing may be appropriate. PROPOSED SERVICES Peer will provide the following environmental services: Task 1 Investigation of Firing Range Soil Investigation A soil investigation will be implemented to evaluate potential lead impacts to surficial and shallow soil of the firing range. Available information suggests firing from the range occurred primarily in the direction to the east bank and south bank. Investigation activities will be conducted to evaluate the potential lead contamination in soil in and around the firing range. It is expected that the majority of spent lead would have fallen out in the impact banks and the firing areas of the range. PEER will subdivide the firing range into sampling grids using standard surveying techniques. Approximately 50 surficial and stratified soil samples from the firing range. Surficial soil samples will be screened to recover spent lead, and visual estimation of the volume of lead per volume of soil present. Surficial soil samples will be collected from adjacent areas of the firing range to provide data regarding background lead concentrations in soil. Scope of Services April 28, 1997 Page 2 The soil samples collected will be submitted to Pace Analytical Services, Inc. (Pace) for analysis for total lead using EPA Method 6010. The initial data will be evaluated and then the following additional analytical testing will be completed: • The five surficial soil samples exhibiting the highest total lead concentrations will be analyzed for lead using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) to evaluate leachable lead concentrations relative to hazardous waste criteria. • Five samples exhibiting high total lead concentrations will be analyzed for total arsenic. Arsenic is used in the manufacturing process for lead bullets. • Additional sampling and analysis will be conducted as necessary to define the extent and magnitude of lead impacts in soil. Task 2 Report and Correspondence A report will be prepared following completion of the investigation activities. The report will include the following at a minimum: • Summary of previous investigation results. • Diagram showing the locations of all completed investigation activities. • Description of investigation methods and procedures. • Summary of analytical results. • Conclusions regarding the extent and volume of lead impacted soil. • Discussion of potential response actions to address lead impacted soil at the site. PEER will also prepare a Limited Feasibility Study and Response Action Plan in accordance with MPCA VIC guidance documents. The purpose of this document will be to evaluate cleanup options and define what cleanup or other actions are necessary to accomplish specific development objectives and obtain liability assurances through the MPCA VIC program. Task 3 Correspondence with City of Shakopee,Valley Green,and MPCA, In order to successfully transfer the property, investigation and potentially response actions will be required to address the environmental impacts associated with the firing range. This proposal assumes that the City of Shakopee will enter into the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC) Program concurrently with or immediately after undertaking the investigation activities. Entering the VIC Program will allow the City of Shakopee to obtain liability assurances from the MPCA regarding the identified contamination at the site and will facilitate the property transfer and re-development. Scope of Services April 28, 1997 Page 3 Task 4 Grant Research Economic development grant moneys may be available to the City of Shakopee for the cleanup of this site. The Contamination Cleanup Grant Program is administered by the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development (DIED) and was established to provide funds to clean up contaminated sites. The Metropolitan Council administers the Tax Base Revitalization Account which specifically provides funds to clean up contaminated property. PEER will research these programs as they may pertain to this site and assist the City of Shakopee with the application process for qualifying grants. COST ESTMATE ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION SHAKOPE POLICE DEPARTMENT FORMER FIRING RANGE SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA Task 1 Investigation of Firing Range Professional Services 2,200.00 Equipment and Expenses 150.00 Laboratory Analysis (Pace Analytical Services) 1,850.00 50 Soil Samples for Total Lead(initial investigation) 12 Soil Samples for Total Lead(subsequent testing) 5 Soil Samples for TCLP(leachate analysis for lead only) 5 Soil Samples for total Arsenic Subtotal Task 1 $4,200.00 Task 2 Report and Correspondence Professional Services -Investigation Report 3,500.00 -Limited Feasibility Study and Remedial Action Plan 4,000.00 Expenses 50.00 Subtotal Task 2 $7,550.00 Task 3 Correspondence with City of Shakopee, Valley Green,and MPCA Professional Services 500.00 Expenses 50.00 Subtotal Task 3 550.00 Task 4 Grant Research Professional Services 1,000.00 Expenses 50.00 Subtotal Task 4 $1,050.00 ESTIMATED COST(TASKS 1-4): $13,350.00 Peer Environmental & Engineering Resources, Inc. AGREEMENT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS SECTION 1. SERVICES AND COMPENSATION. CLIENT warrants the completeness and accuracy of information supplied by it to PEER and acknowledges that PEER is relying upon . 1.1 Peer Environmental&Engineering Resources, Inc. (PEER),shall provide such information without verification by PEER of its completeness and CLIENT the services described in the PEER Proposal or Authorization accuracy. Agreement attached hereto (the "Services") in accordance with the terms thereof and hereof In the event that these General Conditions are 2.6 CLIENT shall,at its expense,be responsible for obtaining all necessary inconsistent with the terms of the attached Proposal or Authorization permits and approvals relating to the Services. PEER will provide Agreement,the terms of such Proposal or Authorization Agreement shall reasonable assistance to CLIENT for that purpose. govern. CLIENT shall pay for the Services as agreed,and a statement of probable cost made to CLIENT shall not be binding on PEER unless stated SECTION 3. ACCESS AND RESTORATION. as a "not-to-exceed cost" PEER shall provide additional services as requested by CLIENT or as required due to material increase in the scope of 3.1 CLIENT shall provide PEER access to the site related to the Services, the Services,and CLIENT will pay for those additional services at the rate and PEER agrees to take reasonable precautions to minimize damage to shown on the attached Proposal, Authorization Agreement or Schedule of the site. However, CLIENT acknowledges that some damage may ChargE8. occur to the site or sampled materials during the normal course of the Services. The correction of any such damage shall be the responsibility SECTION 2. GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES. of CLIENT or,at CLIENTS option,PEER will correct the damage for a charge based upon PEER'S then current rate. 2.1 PEER will test samples submitted by CLIENT, or will obtain and test samples as agreed upon by the parties. CLIENT acknowledges that PEER SECTION 4. SAMPLES. will not sample each increment of the area or object to be tested. CLIENT admowledges that the results of such testing will indicate actual conditions 4.1 All test samples remaining after the Services have been performed shall only of the specific increments sampled from which PEER can make certain be discarded by PEER at PEER'S expense,unless CLIENT requests,in inferences,but that PEER cannot and does not guarantee that its procedures writing within thirty days of receipt of the written report relating to will produce results representative of the entire area or object from which those samples,that PEER store or ship those samples at cost,plus 15 the incremental sample was taken. percent 2.2 PEER shall not be responsible for the performance of any activity or SECTION S. REPORTS. obligation other than the Services. The performance of the Services by PEER shall not be construed to relieve any third party of their 5.1 As part of the Services,PEER will provide CLIENT with written reports responsibilities. containing test results and, when appropriate, recommendations and suggestions relating to compliance with established criteria for remedial 2.3 PEER shall be responsible only for the supervision of its employees in the action. Two(2)copies of each report will be provided. If additional performance of the Services, and PEER shall not be responsible for copies of a report are requested,CLIENT will be invoiced for the cost of superintending,supervising or directing the work of any third party or for report,reproduction and submittal in accordance with the rates shown on job site safety. the Schedule of Charges. 2.4 Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to require PEER to assume the 5.2 The CLIENT acknowledges that the reports, plans, and specifications status of a generator, storer,treater,hauler or disposal facility within the are instruments of service. Nevertheless, the reports, plans and scope of the Resource Conservation Recovery Act,42 USC Chapter 82,or specifications prepared under this agreement shall become the property within any state law regarding the handling treatment,storage or disposal of of the CLIENT upon completion of the work and receipt of payment by waste or hazardous materials. PEER. The CLIENT agrees to hold harmless, indemnify and defend PEER against all damages, claims, expenses and losses arising out of 2.5 CLIENT shall provide PEER in writing if requested,all information known any re-use of the reports,plans, and specifications without the written to CLIENT regarding existing and proposed conditions of the site relevant authorization of PEER to the Services. CLIENT shall immediately notify PEER of any new information or data of which CLIENT becomes aware that materially differs from information previously provided to PEER Peer Environmental & Engineering Resources, Inc. SCHEDULE OF CHARGES January 1997 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PER HOUR Clerical $30.00 Word Processor $35.00 Technician $35.00 Information Specialist $40.00 Associate Professional I $40.00 Associate Professional II $45.00 Professional I $50.00 Professional II $55.00 Professional III $60.00 Senior Professional I $65.00 Senior Professional II $70.00 Supervising Professional I $75.00 • Supervising Professional II $85.00 Principal $100.00 Services Assisting Litigation (1) EXPENSES RATE Mileage $.40 per mile Photocopies $.20/page Subcontract services Cost+ 15% Expenses Cost+ 15% EQUIPMENT & SUPPLIES Per Schedule (see other side) (1) quoted on a per project basis. Y. 0. 1 . CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Jaren I. Andrews, Planner I SUBJECT: ADC Appeal regarding landscape islands MEETING DATE: June 3, 1997 ITEM NO.: 14 D 1. Site Information: Applicant: Robert Reisselman, ADC Telecommunications Site Location: Northeast corner of 12th Avenue and Park Place Current Zoning: Heavy Industrial (I-2)Zone Adjacent Zoning: North: Heavy Industrial (I-2)Zone South: Heavy Industrial (I-2)Zone East: Heavy Industrial (I-2)Zone West: Heavy Industrial (I-2)Zone Comp.Plan: Heavy Industrial Attachments: Exhibit A,Minutes from the 5/8/97 BOAA(Item 7) Exhibit B, Letter of intent Exhibit C, Location Map Exhibit D,Landscape Plan Introduction: On May 8, 1997 ADC Telecommunications appealed staffs interpretation of SEC. 11.60 Subdivision 8, D. (1.) of the Zoning Ordinance to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. The Appeal failed with a 3 to 3 vote (See Exhibit A). Consequently, ADC is appealing the decision of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. The section of the ordinance in question reads as follows: "Landscape islands shall be constructed at the ends of every other tier of parking. Landscape islands also shall be constructed within each parking tier, a maximum of 100 feet from another landscaping island." ADCLANDS.DOC/JA 1 Considerations: The landscape plan submitted by ADC meets the number of landscaping units required. The plan does also conform to staff's interpretation of landscaping islands"at the ends of every other parking tier". It is the second sentence, however, where the ADC plan differs from staff's interpretation. Staff has interpreted the second sentence to imply that there shall be landscaping islands within each tier, and that those on the ends do not qualify as being"within each tier". Under staff's interpretation, ADC would be required to have a landscaping island located inside the ends of each tier. ADC, as staff understands, has interpreted the islands at the ends to qualify as being"within each tier". ADC has noted to staff that all of the landscape islands in their proposed plan are within 100 feet of another landscaping island. Alternatives: I. The City Council may grant the appeal, determining the application to be consistent with the intent of the ordinance. II. The City Council may deny the appeal, determining the application to be inconsistent with the intent of the ordinance. III. The City Council may table a decision for additional information. Action Requested: Offer a motion to either grant or deny the appeal. ADCLANDS.DOC/JA 2 Exhibit A City of Shakopee Board of Adjustment and Appeals Page 5 May 8, 1997 Finding #1: The Board finds staff has received no evidence that the proposed conditional use will be injurious to the use and the enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes which are already permitted, nor would it substantially diminish or impair property values in the area. Criteria #2: The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant property for uses allowed in the area. Finding #2: The Board finds staff has received no evidence that the use would impede the orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses predominant in the area. Criteria #3: Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and other necessary facilities have been or will be provided. Finding #3: The Board finds adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and parking either exist or will be provided to serve the site. Criteria #4: The use is consistent with the purposes of the zone in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. Finding #4: The Board finds the overall use of the property is consistent with the purposes of the B-1 Zone as financial institutions are a permitted use within the B-1 Zone. Criteria #5: The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Finding #5: The Board finds the use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The area is designated for Commercial use in the 1995 Comprehensive Plan. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 7. APPEAL OF STAFF INTERPRETATION Mr. Andrews stated ADC Telecommunications is appealing staff's interpretation of the landscaping ordinance relating to the need for landscape islands. He discussed the City of Shakopee Board of Adjustment and Appeals May 8, 1997 Page 6 requirement. He stated their plan differs from the staff's interpretation requiring landscape islands within each parking tier. He noted ADC has interpreted the islands at the end as being within each tier. In response to a question from Commissioner Brekke, Mr. Andrews explained what a parking tier is. He discussed staff's minimum requirement for parking islands. Mr. Brekke stated he has difficulty seeing what the difference is in the two interpretations. Mr. Andrews stated the difference is there is a landscaping island within each tier whereas ADC has an island in every other tier. ADC has indicated twice as many tiers closer to the building. It is staff's view this does not meet the Code requirement. Commissioner Romansky asked for clarification concerning the distances of the landscape islands. Mr. Andrews stated the last provision notes they need to be within 100' of a landscape island. The ADC proposal is 85-90 feet. Commissioner Romansky stated there is no minimum indicated. Mr. Andrews stated they would need to still meet the requirement despite of the size of the parking lot. Commissioner Mars asked if the applicant is intending to get away with less landscaping. Mr. Andrews stated they have more landscaping than is required in terms of numbers. Commissioner Brekke asked what the distance is from the top to the bottom of the parking lot. Mr. Andrews stated it is 145' between the end landscaping islands. Commissioner Mars noted this is within the Industrial District. He asked if this has ever come up before. Mr. Andrews stated it came up with the review of the Midwest commercial project. Mr. Mars asked if 2 landscaping units would be needed in a tier that is 200'. Community Development Director Leek stated under this ordinance, every other tier would have landscaping caps at each end. Every other tier would require a landscape island 100' from the end cap. Commissioner Brekke stated there are two points they are not in compliance with. They have two islands on every tier rather than a 3-1-3-1 scheme. He didn't see how this meets how the ordinance reads, but he likes the way it looks. Mr. Mars stated they are complying with the capping of every other tier. They do not comply with the middle unit on every tier as required by the ordinance. Mr. Leek stated the point of interpretative departure is the applicant is determining the landscape island is within a tier even though it is at the end of a tier. 1 City of Shakopee Board of Adjustment and Appeals page 7 May 8, 1997 In response to concerns from Commissioner Brekke, Mr. Leek discussed what the text is trying to accomplish. He explained what the Code is saying and what the applicant is proposing. He noted the applicant is providing more landscape islands than is required. Commissioner Romansky stated a variance from the landscape requirements could be an option. An amendment to the Code is another possibility which would address long skinny parking lots with short tiers. MOTION: Commissioners Joos/Meilleur moved to offer a motion to grant the appeal determining the application is consistent with the intent of the ordinance. Commissioner Joos stated it comes down to an interpretation of the word "within." He believed the tier itself includes both ends, and he would make the interpretation that it would be within the tier. Commissioner Joos recommended to staff the Code be reviewed. Commissioner Brekke stated he didn't want the ordinance to state within could be on the end. Commissioner Mars urged caution. He worriedalce sure about ouloopholes rethereri plsbenough h greening on eing created or the appearance of a variance. He stated planners must the site. Commissioner Brekke stated he didn't want this to change how staff interprets the ordinance in the future. In response to a comment from Ms. Romansky, Mr. Leek stated if the appeal is upheld, he would be determined to use this interpretation in the future. VOTE: Motion fails 3-3. Commissioner Stoltzman suggested all future reviews note where snow will be stored. Mr. Leek stated snow removal on private property is the responsibility of the property owner. Commissioner Joos recommended a look be taken at the ordinance in the future. 8. OTHER BUSINESS ter-Ca Exhibit B „' D 'Telecommunications MAY 2 1 1997 ADC Telecommunications,Inc. FAX(612)946-3292 4900 West 78th Street Telephone(612)938-8080 Minneapolis,Minnesota 55435 May 19, 1997 Mr. Jared Andrews City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Dear Mr. Andrews: Thank you for your continued assistance regarding the new manufacturing facility that ADC is constructing in the Valley Green Industrial Park at the intersection of 12'Avenue and Park Place in Shakopee. As per our telephone conversation, we have decided to appeal the Board of Adjustments and Appeals interpretation of our earlier appeal to them regarding the landscape island ordinance. Jared, as you understand, we are not in any way in unfriendly disagreement with the City staff or the BOAA. We simply believe our case has merit and would like the opportunity to present it to the City Council. As you know, I was not invited to offer testimony at the May 8, 1997 BOAA meeting. RSP Architects and Damon Farber Associates Landscape Architects have come up with a parking lot design that meets the needs of ADC Telecommunications and effectively has higher landscape quality than the minimum plan required by the City as per the staff's interpretation of the landscaping requirements as listed in the City's Performance Standards, Section 11.60, Subd. 8,D.1. Please accept the attached appeal of the May 8, 1997 decision of the Board or Adjustments and Appeals denying our appeal to the City Council. Specifically, we are proposing the parking islands at the end of alternate tiers be considered to be within that parking tier. We believe that our plan meets the intent of the ordinance. The interpretation of staff would result in some impractical designs if the rows of parking were short and with our interpretation, any "worst case" scenarios are limited by your 100' rule. We are proposing more net islands then your requirements call for and we are proposing two trees per island. ADC requests this arrangement for several reasons, including: 1) Our operations staff feels strongly that this arrangement best facilitates snow removal to the east. • ID 2) We require precise edge definition between the parking area and the main truck drive area located between the building and the parking lot. The islands as we have proposed provide this definition, increase the shade available, and break up the large monolithic lot. 3) The site is organized in large part to preserve the existing grove on the southern portion of the property. This grove consists of over 130 mature oak trees and we have striven to preserve this significant site feature. We feel an interpretation in our favor would allow ADC to utilize the property in an efficient manner and preserve a significant natural feature. We believe our proposed plan exceeds the intent of the City's landscaping requirements and will impact the character of the site in a positive manner. Thank you for continued consideration on this issue. Sincerely, 41,/.01-- ae,,,,.:0,4 _, Robert A Riesselman,P.E. ADC Telecommunications, Inc. 946-3966 cc: Greg Wiehle, ADC Rick Palmer, ADC Manos Ginis, RSP Mike Kraldau, RSP Tom Whitlock, DFA aki • 0 Exhibit i,\ MilcilkBLUE � �•••♦ ,,,, ____.....11111111„,„,,........„_. 44tr.Ir Irrirli LAKE 1/ ' la w _7_1._ ii\ - -----• ---- ------, 14_ __'=-4,_-,44„t. ___:.„,„... 4. .a -_____,.....44,,,.._...__; 44,,,_ AG 12 a�4 I1 - \ reit �•�•�•�•�•�4A Ni. ItV4Ij; a4!���•• M R vi I. /" �� .4♦fit �,�,�1110 ♦ \ 02� %I18 ) - M R =T -= _ tar .►, IQ' 1.= ' ielliti I 1111 ARS li1011"Ur ilit i ""-14( k. RR 1 _� DEAN I INEIMMIIIIIM I .er 1 gram /j ,, LAKE AG - karma �1� AG / AG " A AG R • n a VALLEY VIEW PAAD AG d AG • RR r • 0 `.i4 8 0 J I, 1 L________ _) 1:111111:111111111111111111111:» ��\��������� : 1111111 II / `` � , IIIIIIIIIIIIIII111111 � � \ . � � �\ �� �� � � ����� I1111111��1111111111111i1111111111 \`\.:,`nliN ni§.111`11Q`1`: �•`•�������,b.. . 1 i 11 piiil , 1 1 1 /r / 191 ISI NN% 11.1 131113i171:171:1117171712111:11.1 11 ; -1 il A \ .� lyl 11 F r� il '�Allh �� 11 rmei . / CD 171,,, ,. t `e. 191i:iti,' i I Mi. 4/ I/ .Wt ,. I ...4 All1 1 Alal ilAY'• ( Vil , inualiiii ad \ f •N!4' j! ;'Jt r, Ill iis+,111r- 31illkN\ , sv Ili (ill li4‘) 1 �. 1111111111 �r4'` \ ,,1 r1) ,- 14 1F0 \ I 1 i 11 • NI 1 � r,•'.Aqk `N I• I lel 1 ' �`.N ;z.•1 `� g. gtil, „ ek „ ,,,, 4 100610 v. NI I - ' ,I •,.. is'” c., 111,41, , :: I.g. ..:,,..t........ry2:....1,.„.4, .... '1 isiz. I m ,r,p, 0,...`,,) ,E i:1',� n0 i Iii il .14111h ill 0 m;.r 'i gall1ti1 1Y •Y l:is l!1 r' 1 11:1 ,11, � I;a lii �. \ r po ► (' hl �o„:',1C " k. ` 1'91 IPA 11 t' 92 0 \ LE ,i, wii. .,.„.„:-....,,--4,-:.- !r M '''R'''"4f4:277'. • . . !itmit, , ' :. un-T---,Bill \\. 1 * , & 1- r, , v'. , , ,,1, 0) i P . i I I 1 /1 I� \\NV:INIV: r'S0��\�.4\A &.moa.••1� ` li Iii• I Pi d (/ ' '.'' '` , , • &Pep • -1-. .1. $ b. 16J11111111 ilia _in I /4 „qui I 1 l ui 1 t .. i ' . 's _ _ k 1 . EDI I I 812TH AVENUE v m v O ir�r� � �� Ii n ' I 11111 1iI1illi i til r i , 6, , ` s phi I 1111111 Ir . I j.. ,sl It 0 J � i, 1 ..,): 1 momilimimminnimilii imimmlimmommillir 1 \11 �/ / AL 1 N. N... , -. iiiiiiIiIII HIIHi ! miiiIIii C N. \ iiiiiiIIiiiilllllllllllirni ; i�i �\ ��i��� r` ` i�S a,.§�\. .Lw :. I ,§1§111141 h. 1121::� 7:3:213:�:11»2:31» RE 1 \10 � 14) 0 131313i171111711171:111171713713.11I�► Ic► FI 1/ ■13111:111:1:1111113 0 IN a / \ . 111 ■ , 1� V 1 / ED 5) Ic+►t I ;41,_. __:, .. ..=-. 04' - N'Ij 4 \ i % iiiiiiii ii ill iii , (4) ,.. 0 qr.-. .... .. 0 0/ . 1 .::. III tO ._, ' i 1 ill gi (ik 0/ OK - B. .,,,„ . . . . iv 1 AMU 444, 0 *0 V ' ■ rr.. L.:r 1 p Q� 1 11 r1 i •` \\ v ' ' 74 , , ' , , .\ li 10111 1 (f. s' \ \4I 411,111.P11141111, r-7 14 i` � '414 0 �j �::::: i i i ►. n'`'►` .. ' 1' 1 ) I�1 , h 11 mil II top ire ��.:%1� ' i. :Li% Q (6) lir 1 :,,,,im „,, ,v,,L,....0x. „..... ►� i 1 ,111 hal hl 1 APF), / . i1, Iii lal _Iii �1 1� '�[l' � 1111 .';;;` ,, /Of AWL:0 �� ♦ of (�l �t 4 •� � 111111C Itil.,,,,7,, N,‘„_\, _ OP P1W11.— i 1 ii o / iJr. Nwrilit \ (PIMP , ,.; i 0 ,,, \\ ; , I- (e) 1 1 , aa q Ili!iljr II i 1 l' /�� ., „�. 4 i _P I�itlIIII I milli g ft4)' mil $ •1 0$1 r■..N:r: 1 y p t � p OtS4 / 4 ; i 1 [2 1 FE I Ors g<% _ - -.... mili --%...9....... ._ 11.1...ilosN., imit,..._ 1 01 —- --.. --1 '.. ." i 1 . Rkiturnigli .....46k. . • 8 . 1 2 T N AVENUE CI M rimminglimommenie lummoimi Vi3 1 -% 4. fill ON 1! ne I 1 i f 11114 p Hililli! ., tri ,u r_ 8 R 1, = -,,,,, RI 1 I s ; 1-1 if A ' DIP I till 1 i Iiii911 ' : g. LI cm 'lir 1 al i 4 I��1 �� t INT; . r '. 1 - ' r!. l . �l : fly :--r +l� Illi 1 f}!I II CONSENT /y. O. x . CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Amendment to Fee Schedule for Over-Height Fence CUPS MEETING DATE: June 3, 1997 Introduction: The Council previously approved amending the fee for fence CUPs to $100.00. The attached resolution implements that action by amending the fee schedule. Alternatives: 1. Approve Resolution No. 4673 as presented. 3. Approve Resolution No. 4673 with revisions. 4. Table the matter for additional information. Action Requested: Offer and approve Resolution No. 4673, A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 4583 Adopting the 1993 Fee Schedule. CUPFEE.DOC/RML 1 RESOLUTION NO. 4673 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 4582 ADOPTING THE 1997 FEE SCHEDULE WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a Fee Schedule for the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, changing conditions and circumstances warrant amending the Fee Schedule. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the 1997 Fee Schedule is hereby amended by adding the following: • Over-height fence conditional use permit fee- $100.00 Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the day of , 1997. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk PREPARED BY: City of Shakopee 129 S. Holmes Street Shakopee,MN 55379 CUPFEE.DOC/RML 2 • CONSENT /Al 0. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Request that County Notify City of Lot Splits MEETING DATE: June 3, 1997 INTRODUCTION: Currently it is possible for property owners to sell and record the sale of a portion of a tax parcel without that parcel having been subdivided under the City's ordinance. This situation poses a problem in that a purchaser may have acquired a property interest, but be unable to obtain a building permit. To remedy this situation, the cities of Savage and Prior Lake a filed a resolution with the County Recorder and Auditor requiring that the City be notified, and approve lot splits before they can be recorded. The attached resolution is patterned after that filed by the City of Prior Lake. ALTERNATIVES: a) Adopt Resolution No. 4677 as presented, and direct that it be filed with the appropriate County offices. b) Adopt Resolution No. 4677 with revisions, and direct that it be filed with the appropriate County offices. c) Do not adopt Resolution No. 4677. d) Table the matter for further information. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative no. 1, adoption and filing of Resolution No. 4677. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer and pass Resolution No. 4677, and direct that it be filed with the appropriate County offices. R. Michael Leek Community Development Director SPLITS.DOC/RML 3 RESOLUTION NO.4677 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA,PERTAINING TO THE SUBDIVISION OF LANDS, CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF CERTAIN CONVEYANCES, AND RECORDING SUBDIVISION ORDINANCES WHEREAS,Minn. Stat. Sec. 272.16 provides for county approval of recording documents transferring less than the whole of a parcel of land, as charged in the tax lists, without prior City approval; and WHEREAS,the process of dividing land for home sites or other uses is one of the most important factors relating to the growth of the City; and WHEREAS, the interests of unsuspecting parties purchasing portions of tax parcels could be negatively affected if the deed or other conveyance instrument is not first approved by the City; and WHEREAS,the integrity of the City's Subdivision Ordinance in guiding growth in the City will be maintained and enhanced if City approval is first required before recording instruments conveying portions of tax parcels. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, as follows: 1. That the City Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to record the City's Subdivision Ordinance, including any and all future amendments thereto, at the office of the Scott County Recorder. 2. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 272.162, the Scott County Auditor shall not transfer or divide the land in the official records of the county and shall not certify the instrument of conveyance as provided in Minn. Stat. Sec. 272.12, if: a) The land conveyed is less than a whole parcel of land as charged in the county's tax lists; b) The part of land conveyed appears within the area of application of municipal subdivision regulations adopted and filed under Minn. Stat. Sec. 462.36 Subd. 1. c) The part conveyed is part of or constitutes a subdivision as defined in Sec. 462.352, Subd. 12. Unless such instrument bears a certification thereon duly executed by the City states: a) That the City's subdivision regulations do not apply as set forth in City Code Sec. 12.01 (Purpose and Jurisdiction); or SPLITS.DOC/RML b) The subdivision has been approved by the City Council;or c) The division of taxes and filing and recording have been waived by resolution of the City in the particular case because compliance would create unnecessary hardship and failure to comply would not interfere with the purpose of the City's Subdivision Ordinance. 3. Subdivisions of land within the City shall be governed by Minn.Stat. Sec. 272.162. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the day of , 1997. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk SPLITS.DOC/RML 2 CONSENT / Y. 61 / . MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk SUBJECT: Temporary Liquor License - Church of St. Mary's DATE: May 29, 1997 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND: St. Mary's Church has made application for a temporary on-sale intoxicating liquor license for their annual summer festival on June 22, 1997. In addition to selling 3 .2 beer, they sell wine coolers. Since wine coolers are stronger than 3 .2 percent, a liquor license is required. I have consulted with the Chief of Police regarding this application. This is something that has been going on for a number of years. There is no problem with this activity. Their application and insurance certificate are in order. RECOMMENDED ACTION: If Council desires to issue the temporary liquor license: Move to approve the application and grant a temporary on-sale liquor license to the Church of St. Mary's, 535 S. Lewis Street for June 22, 1997 . 4K1C' Clerk h:judy\licenses\strnarys CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum l • TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: On Sale Liquor Licenses/Water Hook-ups DATE: May 27, 1997 INTRODUCTION: The Council is asked to consider two requests for exemptions or extensions to the City requirement that holders of on-sale liquor licenses be connected to municipal water. BACKGROUND: In 1985, in response to a public health concern when a bar in far eastern Shakopee (Stagecoach Museum, AKA 1 &44)had a failing septic system, the City Council passed an ordinance which became Section 5.02, Subd. 9 of the City Code, which reads: No on-sale license under this Chapter, except a temporary beer license, shall be granted for operation on any premises which does not have City water and sewer connections with suitable lavatory facilities. We recently became aware of two holders of on-sale liquor licenses which do not comply with that section of the ordinance. 1. K.C. Hall-For many years, it was not feasible to require the K.C. Hall to be connected to municipal water, as they were too far away from water service. (They are connected to municipal sewer). In 1995, Sarazin Street was completed, and water became available at that time. However, anticipating that a connection to Fourth Avenue will be shorter, and therefore less expensive,the K.C.'s have requested that an exemption be granted until such time as water becomes available in Fourth Avenue. (See attached letter dated May 26th). Fourth Avenue improvements are proposed in the upcoming C.I.P. to take place in 1998. The City Code allows three years after sewer and water becomes available before an abutting property is required to hookup, but that is for non-liquor holders. There is no grace period provided for liquor licensees. 2. Dangerfield's - During the recent flood, staff became aware that, while hooked up to municipal sewer,Dangerfield's does not have municipal water services. The closest service would be in the vicinity of the Rock Spring Restaurant, and would require a connection to be made across the length of the Dangerfield's parking lot. With subsurface rock, and the distance involved, that would likely be an expensive connection. (A rough estimate provided by the City's Engineering Department is $30,000 for the connection.) Staff has been in contact with the owner of Dangerfield's, and has reviewed the situation with him. He feels that he has a unique situation, in that his water supply is taken from a naturally-occurring artesian well, which he feels provides a quality of water superior to that of the City. He also stated Dangerfield's supply is tested on a regular basis by the Minnesota Department of Health. It should be emphasized that the discussion of these requests in no way implies that the existing water quality is a concern at either Dangerfield's or the K.C. Hall. Rather,the intent is to bring these properties into compliance with the City Code. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are available: For the K.C. Hall,water became available to them in 1995. Again, for non-liquor license holders, City ordinance allows 3 years to hook-up once municipal water is available. However, because of the impending Fourth Avenue improvements, we suggest that they be given until July 1, 1999, or, assuming the Fourth Avenue project will proceed as anticipated in 1998, that they be allowed 120 days in which to hook-up following the availability of services. Regarding Dangerfield's, these options exist: 1. Require hook-up to municipal water as soon as feasible. 2. Amend the City Code to provide an exemption for on-sale liquor license holders who have naturally occurring artesian water supplies, and which are tested on a regular basis by the Minnesota Department of Heath. 3. Find that City water supply is not readily available, due to distance, and therefore exempt Dangerfield's from the requirement. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend the following: 1. That the K.C. Hall be given until July 1, 1999, or 120 days after municipal water becomes available from Fourth Avenue improvements, to hook-up to municipal water, whichever is sooner; 2. That the City Code be amended to allow an exemption to any holder of an on-sale liquor license who has potable water supplied from a naturally occurring Artesian well, and whose quality is tested in accordance with standards established by the Minnesota Department of Health. Further,that the holder of said liquor license comply with all future water quality directives of the Minnesota Department of Heath. ACTION REQUIRED: If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, approve the following: 1. By motion, grant an exemption to the Knights of Columbus Hall to connect to municipal water until July 1, 1999, or 120 days following the availability of municipal water from Fourth Avenue,whichever is sooner; 2. Adopt the following Ordinance for the Dangerfield's situation: ORDINANCE NO. 486,AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, PERTAINING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF OBTAINING AN ON- SALE LIQUOR LICENSE AND AMENDING SECTION 5.02, SUBD. 9 OF THE CITY CODE. 1Pa /v`4 Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:tw CC: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director Lou Van Hout, SPUC Jim Thomson, City Attorney Judy Cox, City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 486, FOURTH SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA, PERTAINING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF OBTAINING AN ON-SALE LIQUOR LICENSE AND AMENDING SECTION 5.02, SUBD. 9 OF THE CITY CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1 - Section 5.02, Subd. 9 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: Subd.9. Water and Sewer Connection Requirement. No on-sale license under this Chapter, except a temporary beer license, shall be granted for operation on any premises which does not have City water and sewer connections with suitable lavatory facilities. The Council may waive the requirement of this subdivision for any licensee operating at premises where potable water is supplied from a naturally occurring artesian well,provided that water quality from the well is tested and approve by the Minnesota Department of Health in accordance with their standards. As a condition of receiving a waiver.the licensee shall comply with all water quality directives of the Minnesota Department of Health. 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 , 1997. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk PREPARED BY: City of Shakopee 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of , 1997. • § 5.02 -I,IQUc, i2 613 K, t/}ivO - 'v ',lC 044-7-ION Subd. 7. Unlawful Acts. A. Consumption. It is unlawful for any person to consume, or any licensee to permit consumption of, beer, wine or liquor on licensed premises more than thirty (30) minutes after the hour when a sale thereof can legally be made. B. Removal of Containers. It is unlawful for any on-sale licensee to permit any glass, bottle or other container, containing more than a trace amount of beer, wine or liquor to remain upon any table, bar, stool or other place where customers are served,more than thirty (30) minutes after the hour when a sale thereof can legally be made. C. Closing. It is unlawful for any person, other than an on-sale licensee's bona fide employee actually engaged in the performance of the employee's duties, to be on premises licensed under this Chapter more than thirty (30) minutes after the legal time for making licensed sales. Provided, however, that this Subdivision shall not apply to licensees, employees of licensees and patrons on licensed premises for the sole purpose of preparing, serving or consuming food or beverages other than beer, wine or liquor. Subd. 8. Delinquent Taxes and Charges. No license under this Chapter shall be granted for operation on any premises upon which taxes, assessments, or installments thereof, or other financial claims of the City are owed by the applicant and are delinquent and unpaid. For the purpose of this Section, "applicant" includes persons and related persons (spouses, blood relatives and spouses of blood relatives), (1) owning at least a 50% beneficial interest in the proposed license or in the entity making the application, and (2) at least an undivided one-half interest in the premises proposed to be licensed, or at least a 50% beneficial interest in the entity owning such premises. • Subd. 9. Water and Sewer Connection Requirement. No on-sale license under this Chapter, except a temporary beer license, shall be granted for operation on any premises which does not have City water and sewer connections with suitable lavatory facilities. (Ord. 1, April 1, 1978; Ord. 64, June 18, 1981; Ord. 124, August 4, 1983; Ord. 160, March 14, 1985; Ord. 179, August 22, 1985; Ord. 195,June 12, 1986; Ord. 226,August 27, 1987; Ord. 238, December 24, 1987; Ord. 271, August 25, 1989; Ord. 337, July 23, 1992; Ord. 348, December 10, - 1992; Ord. 440, December 28, 1995) SEC. 5.03. CONDITIONAL LICENSES. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the Council may, upon a finding of the necessity therefor, place such conditions and restrictions upon a license as it, in its discretion, may deem reasonable and justified. (Ord. 1, April 1, 1978) SEC. 5.04. CONVICTION OF CRIME - DENIAL OF LICENSE. A license may be denied to an applicant by the Council solely or in part due to a prior conviction of a crime by an applicant only upon a finding that such conviction directly relates to the occupation for which the license is sought, and then only after considering evidence of rehabilitation and such other evidence as may be presented, all in accordance with Minnesota Statutes. Provided, however, that an applicant must show that the applicant is presently fit papa mason in 1996 • 490 Ad/AL Liz& KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS „.,,, No', Council No. 1685 1760 4th Ave. E Shakopee, Minn.55379 Phone: 445-5555 May 26, 1997 Mark McNeill City Administrator City of Shakopee 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee,MN 55379 Dear Mark: The Shakopee Knights of Columbus Hall does not conform to City Code Subd. 9 Water and Sewer Connection Requirement which states"No on-sale license under this Chapter, exempt a temporary beer license, shall be granted for operation on any premises which does not have City water and sewer connections with suitable lavatory facilities." The K of C Hall is connected to the City's sewer system but not to water. It is our intent and desire to connect to the City's water system when the water line is extended east along 4th Avenue. It is my understanding the City plans to reconstruct 4th Avenue from Marschall Road to Shenandoah Drive in 1998 and water will be extended at that time. The Shakopee Knights of Columbus respectfully request the City to defer its requirement for water connection until City water is extended east along 4th Avenue. Sincerely, C%-li r 4Mark J. 467 cQuillan Home Association President 1x e3 . CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Request Related to Incorporation Petition for Spring Lake Township MEETING DATE: June 3, 1997 INTRODUCTION: The City of Prior Lake and Spring Lake Township(the Township)have a long-standing orderly annexation agreement. The City of Prior Lake, pursuant to that agreement, has apparently begun efforts to annex a portion of the township. These efforts are opposed by a number of residents of the Township, who have filed an incorporation petition with the Minnesota Municipal Board. At it's last meeting the Shakopee Council was addressed by Barbara Lurshen, one of the residents of the Township who have filed the incorporation petition. Ms. Lurshen asked that the Shakopee Council take a position, and write a letter, in support of the incorporation petition. The Council directed staff to review the possible"pros and cons" of annexation by Prior Lake versus incorporation of the Township as a City, and to provide the Council with a discussion of the possible impacts on the City of Shakopee. DISCUSSION: The annexation process is taking place with the apparent cooperation of the Township board, while the incorporation petition has been filed by a separate group of residents. The resolution of this issue is one which seems to rest appropriately with the City of Prior Lake, the Township board and the residents of the Township, and not with the City. Moreover, as is described below, it does not appear that the City would be significantly affected, whatever the outcome of this issue. The City has in the past worked successfully and cooperatively with both adjacent cities and townships. The City's only shared border with Spring Lake Township is County Road 72, which runs east-west between County Roads 79 on the West and County Road 17 on the East. County Road 17, running north-south, forms a portion of the City's border with Prior Lake. The shared border with the Township also forms the southernmost boundary of the City of Shakopee. The properties immediately abutting this border are currently zoned AG (Agricultural Preservation)and RR(Rural Residential). (See Exhibit A, Portion of Rural SLTWP.DOC/RML 1 Zoning Map). Both this portion of the City and the abutting portion of the Township are identified by the Metropolitan Council Growth Strategy as being within the Permanent Rural/Ag Area. (See Exhibit B, Spring Lake Township Growth Management Policy Areas) The current 2020 MUSA identified in the Metropolitan Growth Strategy generally runs north of an east-west line at about the alignment of County Road 78. Urban Reserve(i.e. areas possibly available for future expansion after 2020 are generally located north of County Road 14, and in Jackson and Louisville Township to the west. The practical effect of these circumstances is that it is extremely unlikely that the southernmost portion of the City which abuts the township would be served by sanitary sewer anytime in the foreseeable future. Thus, even if a portion of the Township near the border with the City were annexed by Prior Lake, it seems unlikely that it would result in land use or other issues which would have an impact on the City. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Offer and pass a motion in support of the incorporation petition submitted by certain residents of the Spring Lake Township, and direct the submission of a letter of support to the Minnesota Municipal Board. 2. Offer and pass a motion in support of the orderly annexation process involving the City of Prior Lake. 3. Do not take a position relative to the issue of annexation or incorporation of Spring Lake Township. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative number 3. ACTION REQUESTED: No action is requested at this time. es- -/41111111 R. Michael Leek Community Development Director SLTWP.DOC/RML 2 #/ . , opo a --.4.8.41(171.7.141 aeti VALLEY vEv ROAD COAS NE 70 MAW. i‘31' 6 ) Ok‘ k4\ li AG R ,O111J(A AVE RR AG RR AG 1� - .� it um.Num 1 i V000 DUCK 10. RRg r; L_ RR lii AG litik t .. O'DOWD Q / - , AG RR � � ii ' RR Y . LAKE Y A i ir ? AG - o[..,..,, RR IlkS • ," Ac "\\AC' s A JL Ucill , / x 14 '....".-... e EL k. RR AG 4 IC n c V SQ 04) EXHIBIT A • �,rlll i1® p ''IP , F.f ,.'r,,,1! ir�'�j ` S„� ..a* .r= isr .45•.liftmit IMM. all , all , ' .a ..-.1iiiii mmi111/ ��:P I. z �iI- ■r...� ..1.•- - �; - ` IIIA �,�,1�.�Ilffrt/', r u"°'� =-.�'e- 1' �.,1,-� �O Lb..111 ::",.,rail...4 i 4 .. _■ t1 ■■� i_l ,.,,,i1,,i,.:.. LE_'4. i[Fiat-111111 1 " ®'■ ► . ;i = El ulio. r1iw ►,�fY Jlll1` a'IIII=ll e ;, &,.., ii.,„7.1,, :in � ■.-:�...., :�t..\m •�i- � i& ` � _ riiir 1 'quo 111-473111111111 frk, re E1 111 IN Ch 5142 "am C '� �' -� 11�a ��� r, I��� ■■M\■L -_1e _ �0►®0®®Il �„ km, .IlMild ._Iff��f1l�11I� ■Iflfr_ i Nszt c -o 3 'l l S WW. r k "' 4--"'''' ' L4 z-- ,„,,,,,,itrtur,tremEilillizi LAR,-"Rag„„,, E,` " -,6.2, , iiiIlI11■II — • O - as�►'' ° �;' , . � 4 r�, — ,.,„, _, .„„...,,, Nam ri, 1 ij.R� �'�._�weak item. ■I ■ vissi XI . iii � /�� -1 , ..,,,MEM "ME WI * .'1X'f®Ell®:" .■1rat_ ® .®�i CITY OF SHAKOPEE 1 y. E. X Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: 612 Area Code Proposed Changes DATE: May 29, 1997 INTRODUCTION: The Council is asked to consider taking a position on which alternative for a revision to the Metropolitan Area area code it prefers. This would then be relayed by Shakopee Suburban Rate Authority Delegate Robert Sweeney when the SRA discusses this proposal. BACKGROUND: The attached memorandum from Jim Strommen, Attorney for the Suburban Rate Authority, describes the need to modify the existing 612 area code in the Metropolitan Area. Simply put, the advent of cellular telephone service,pagers,personal communication devices, and similar advances in technology will cause the 612 area code to exhaust prefix numbers by 1998. Mr. Strommen provided a very complete memorandum describing the pros and cons of splits in the 612 area code, the reasons for those splits, and other discussion. In the interest of brevity, this memo will summarize the three alternatives. 1. The "doughnut"split. In this case,the areas of the Twin Cities with the highest concentration of business phones (who are typically the users most impacted by area code changes, due to the need to revise stationary,business cards, etc.)would retain the existing 612 prefix. According to the information received, in the Twin Cities,the area with the highest concentration of business users are the core cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, and the first ring suburbs. All remaining areas of the existing 612 area code would be assigned a new area code. Obviously, Shakopee would be in a new area code. 2. The"river" split. Following roughly the Mississippi River and south through Dakota County, users on one side of the river would retain the 612 area code; the other side of the river would receive a new assignment. While the existing map show the southern and western users (including Shakopee)to retaining area 612, that could change in the final assignment. 3. The"overlay" alternative. In this case, the 612 area code would not change, but any new prefixes could be assigned to a new area code. In theory, you could have two area codes within the same community. All calls would require 10 key dialing inthis scenairo; 7 key dialling would be retained in options 1 and 2 above, only for calls within the same area code. DISCUSSION: A split will need to be made soon;the split last year of 612 into 612 and 320 (for out state portions of Minnesota) bought only an additional 24 months of supply. Regardless of the alternative ultimately chosen,there will be an increased likelihood that customers will need to dial ten digits when calling in the Metropolitan Area. It is a matter of preference as to which solution the Council would recommend to the SRA Council needs to be aware that this is only advisory on our part; the Public Utilities Commission will make the final decision,regardless. From Shakopee's standpoint, either the"river"or"doughnut" alternative will require a greater awareness of Twin Cities geography. The overlay alternative assures the need to dial a ten digit number each time a call is made. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the recognizable geographic boundary presented by the Mississippi River,my recommendation would be that the City of Shakopee endorse the"river"alternative. ACTION REQUIRED: If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, direct SRA Delegate Bob Sweeney to relay the Council's preference for the"river"alternative. V1'0 ALlitthk Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:tw . 1 _ r MEMORANDUM TO: SRA City Managers/Board Members/Alternates FROM: Jim Strommen, Kennedy & Graven DATE: May 2, 1997 RE: 612 Area Code Proposed Changes Enclosed is material I have received that relates to an issue that may be of importance to telephone users in your city, particularly businesses. It is information submitted to the PUC regarding a pending change in 612 area code numbering that has resulted from the explosion in wireless communication and fax machines. At least two primary options for change are being seriously considered by the Public Utilities Commission: 1. Area code split, either "doughnut" or "river" splits. 2. Area code overlay. (see attached diagrams) This would appear to be a matter of high interest to SRA cities because of the implications to changes in phone numbers and real or perceived separation from certain areas of the Twin Cities. I will be asking the SRA executive committee for authority to participate in this proceeding. A decision will be made by the PUC during 1997 because of the apparent need to make a change to accommodate the explosion in telephone numbers. INPUT FROM SRA CITIES I would like a response, if possible, from the appropriate SRA representative of your city regarding a preference between the "split" (either doughnut or river - see attached) or overlay. It is my information that this pending change will not result in a change in phone rates or local calling area. Rather it relates to potential changes in phone numbers, causing businesses to change cards - stationery, and the need for 10-digit local dialing. If you have any responses or questions, please contact me at 337-9233 or fax a response or request for additional information to 337-9310. JMS:ckr JMS122080 SU160-31 • • 4" G p f < L f E .0 k+ Ci y 'Ng. ` G W .z C i O p _ w C O , w �en . et V °o •• i 3 EA a �� _ r/ t Q =s tw < < e� Q =f it s.le G N• 1r ma �. W 0 • ha �W N • v Q m M t • •t g 'ail • • CI Z J LIJ g V un ; - se w ` Kw K0 •i_ Wr _ _ ~ Quo � � � _ Q w• us W i i Z ' V{h _ <• • r� I :J • i s GLI Cl id , I JU iii o c •u.; • J •�o .� H- I 1 r 0 W O '� �i- U q z ....aa 1 t ; , I S c, . ..ate... . I { „ cr, W MXIBIMIXIBMINENXIIIRIMM R 1 I . . .," I "4 ..143 11111111•1111111111111111 0 14k. z il�W 11110 . . . 111 .11 . ■ r 1 p l Q r , .......... ,,, apa.�� as �� ntt�■ p I j 1 1 I t Cr'CD Pr ' blIMMIIII 111i:�=®W11111111 . ; i=�I�"I _ i1111."ae1 IBM 111011.uiuiiir ' Hi '�■■ - �� N f I 1 71 , � ' ,.......� . : ilW�llliil ` it) tit ,1k_1 f� • 1111111�11C.1:W 1E IW IU IIMIIMII iII1 - : , , . 0 SII . ,a_ : V1 'V EN n#uIrnuiA CId 111111®in1iW , .�...►■1a�.ia.a.... a.a...aaa1.f�a.aaaa ■ � z , III�i1�W1WN1 ;A IW111iW 1 MUMMIll At 1'I11�i'rWWWW .�aaaa.al'.aaala..a.N.aa.. Na..1 •N.a.aN a. 1 N la Cs1 IP soutuuntaummemustimusi r ,..�■.......�a..M........ .a a un..a. a.o.a�.....■ o to n .aaaa.a— U W. r1■.a/—.....Nam. Q t11 1111 �' I ' il111111 a Ill II 11111 - l • 1111 Ce 1111111Wt�Wiiiilli N i • •ii11W1 1n aa..a�aaaa.N..+aaa.•.aaaa•a.aa..- e-(I) tea. .- ii•Ammimmia< aam�.a...aaaaaa..mo.///.-W Z • I Z N �1mob�1WN ` N a._a-C H.aa=�aaanaa.a . V i..w. .aaa.....��n III = 0 ■ .a. IN • mei = 111 }- 1 I E 11 „ ilI r iia j 1 1 � ' ' I ilk l } FITIHal I. 11•111111111 o . T 1i ; 11111 111i 1 I ' ll i Itoen uaa/taaaalamai .N '7aa N Ap©�U.. 0 en �.a.alaaaaaa�.a.. i.a... a.. ' ■ I .UU .a.aaal.a.a..Na. MEIN H aaNN�.a aa������ —aaNa..��./ H NN a. m..® .a.a..�..... .. MEM �:aN= . I— "1 /aa.aaaaaal� 1.. rt tt MUM II / 1 I l l I 1 1 i I I I i i , 'li ! I f I ! -1; l 1 1 I o r� E11 , , ! f ; }i _ ! 1 � , 1 � , , i I II I- I I- oar o 0 c.+ = = = o = 0 0 Z.) o 0 = =t` N ca a N T s3003 JNImOM 1v101 3 1 k e • r . I: S} . r Z V ii. ...._ Z W I CeilJ0 S w C 0 IM o' O C3 _ ON ' w ` LIJ 40 0 < , 0.a ZvW mss; �,0� I • ? �_ = irzz _j- ---;. s 1�. memo , 1. J C. *m: W. o° 4,--- .i �' 3 E Cif) fi lit w Vi• et 0 Ed W , • a 0 < s0.c• O. m _ CI I * t wR .< I . i f Z ` • Iii :S I S kgl. Ll! i o is �' a o �I 4 Q r CI :!.Y i #... N Y U. h. Jfil • . ! p : Z = t WIC ». C7 A 4 t; ;; 1 Fig" :• s 1 1111111111611 r� ?t W� 1, . idt IJ 4, OC o ao W s - o 0 = ^..,` ., : - 1' :f): O r. _ + y hi hi ,..r 1,01• _W te , . VAi) * � _ Z le..._ ...,4f�.. ..�Q f{Gd�� O ..ow W . Qt: • . :_� : {A« < I 1 <LW W .t . J g y ma < ._ a F.- .�.z U) • W �� � ag o° ! O! S Q la tit .•• • w • s, � 4.1 < mtl < 0 ♦ d LU . 0 . W d O NO W s 0 - T_ ! Q_�• m C <_ ss _. W d Z a C ! i G.) awi O O_ C7 y O v ••W O - G W..: {�� W W i UN Of 2 o m im i" I. 0 = _ = i WS i .- a CITY OF SHAKOPEE /�' E _ • Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill. City Administrator SUBJECT: Library Building Offer DATE: May 29, 1997 INTRODUCTION: The Council is asked to consider authorizing staff to negotiate a purchase price for the former Park Nicollet Medical Clinic, located at 10th Avenue and Marschall Road. The purpose of the acquisition would be to house a new library facility. BACKGROUND: Councilor Jane DuBois has made the Council and staff aware of the availability of the former Park Nicollet Clinic for purchase. It has been vacant since Park Nicollet moved to its new clinic building adjacent to St. Francis Regional Medical Center. A summary of facts about the building is attached. On the main level, it provides 8,120 sq. ft under one roof,with a detached 1,190 sq. ft. attached by covered walkway to the main building. There is also a basement of 3,225 sq. ft.; the lower level is not accessible by elevator. The building is located on 2.79 acres of land. The owner is represented by the agent Frauenshuh Companies. They have an asking price of $600,000, which is less then the 1996 tax market value. DISCUSSION: It is our understanding that there is other interest in acquisition of this building, and, therefore, Councilor DuBois has asked that Council consider this soon, and authorize staff to negotiate a tentative purchase price for the building. Note that this would be tentative, as the Scott County Library Board would have to be in agreement on any change of facilities. My initial contact with the Library Director has indicated a reluctance on their part to move, as they believe the existing facility is more than adequate. If the City did wish to move the library,it is possible that any additional costs that the County Library Board would have in terms of moving expenses, or furnishings might be asked to be the responsibility of the City. If the Library Board did not approve the location of the new building,the City could provide its own library. However,that would be comparatively expense. In addition to the purchase price and possible moving expenses,there is also an unknown amount that will be needed for remodeling. An architectural analysis,and possible asbestos testing would provide good information in terms of remodeling costs. In addition, it is my understanding that for the basement to be useable either by the public, or potentially by even library staff,that either an elevator or a chair lift would need to be installed. BUDGET IMPACT: Funding for this would likely need to come from the Capital Improvements Fund, unless Council chose to sell general obligation bonds. If the bond route is pursued, it would require a successful referendum. With the CIF,there are adequate funds available. However, on June 10th, the Council will have an initial review of capital improvement projects over the next five years. Obviously, whatever is expended on a library will mean that other projects will need to be reduced in priority. Off setting the cost of the purchase price and remodeling would be proceeds from the sale of the existing library building, should that be the decision of the City Council. It is unknown as to what market value that building has, or how long it might take to sell. RECOMMENDATION: If the Council sees the acquisition of a library building as a high priority,I recommend that staff be authorized to proceed with negotiating a purchase price for the Park Nicollet building, with the understanding that it would be a tentative purchase offer,with a move subject to approval by the Scott County Library Board. I would also recommend that prior to finalizing any numbers,that an architectural and asbestos analysis be done of the building. ACTION REQUIRED: If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, direct staff to enter into negotiations for the purchase of the Park Nicollet building for use as a library, and direct the architectural and environmental testing be done. lAAQ iAAii/ Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:tw 10th Avenue East SALIENT FACTS PID Number: 27-907-0200 Size of Land Parcel: 121,532 Square Feet or 2.79 Acres Building Size: Main Level 8,120 s.f. Basement 3,225 s.f. Main Level (detached) 1.190 s.f. Total: 12,535 s.f. Year Built: 1973 Parking: 62 Stalls Construction: Masonry exterior walls, face Brick, Steel joists and concrete floor over basement. Roof system contains wood trusses with asphalt shingles. Heating: Entire building is heated and air-conditioned. Furnace and air-conditioning systems are located in the basement. Sale Price: $600,000 Leased Rate: Determined on a case by case basis. Tax Market Value (1996): $622,300 Property Tax (1996): $37,922 Special Assessments: None Zoning: R-3 Multi-Family Residential Owner: Medivest Partnership Prepared by Frauenshuh Companies � y. E , 6 . RESOLUTION NO. 4681 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA, APPROVING THE PREMISES PERMITS FOR THE V.F.W.POST#4046 WHEREAS, the 1990 Legislature adopted a law which requires municipal approval in order for the Gambling Control Board to issue or renew premises permits; and WHEREAS, the V.F.W. is seeking renewal of their premises permits through July 31, 1999, for the following locations: V.F.W. Post #4046 at 1201 East 3rd Avenue and Turtle's Bar & Grill at 132 East 1st Avenue, Shakopee, MN. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS: That the premises permits for the V.F.W. Post #4046, at the following locations are hereby approved: 1201 East 3rd Avenue and 132 East 1st Avenue, Shakopee, MN. Adopted in Regular Session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, MN, held this 3rd day of June, 1997. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk [4681res.vfw] CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Labor Negotiations/Pending Litigation- Closed Session DATE: May 27, 1997. Following the regular portion of the City Council meeting of June 3rd, Council may be asked to recess to a closed session to discuss labor negotiation status and pending litigation. /1.A U`cc.kitA' Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:tw