Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 20, 2001 6] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS — {Limited to five minutes per person/subject. Longer presentations must be scheduled through the City Clerk. As this meeting is cablecast, speakers must approach the microphone at the podium for the benefit of viewers and other attendees.) *7] Approval of Minutes: December 5, 2000 and January 31, 2001 *8] Approval of Bills in the Amount of $519,139.51 plus $129,342.24 for refunds, returns and pass through for a total of $648,481.75 91 Communications 101 Public hearing on proposed improvements to Vierling Drive from CR 15 to Orchard Park West Planned Unit Development — Res. No. 5484 Ill Liaison Reports from Council Members 12] Recess for Economic Development Authority Meeting - none 13] Re-convene 14] Recommendations from Boards and Commissions: A] Rezoning Property from Highway Business (B I) to Multiple Family Residential (R3), Located north of CR 16 and west of Roundhouse St. — DMC Companies — Ord. No. 592 B] Preliminary Plat of Garden Court located at Marschall Rd. And Garden Lane — Res. C] Request of Scott County HRA to Rezone Property from Highway Business (B-1) to Medium Density Residential (R-2), for Property located north of Bluff Ave. - Ord. No. 593 TENTATIVE AGENDA February 20, 2001 Page —2- 15] General Business A] Public Works and Engineering 1. Accept Feasibility Report and Set Hearing for the Reconstruction of CSAH 83 and the Realignment of CSAH 16, Project 20014 — Res. No. 5474 2. Accept Feasibility Report and Set Hearing for Sarazin Street and Valley View Road, Project 2001 -5 — Res. No. 5485 3. Approve Plans for 2000 Reconstruction Project No. 20004 — Res. No. 5486 *4. Authorize Contract for Consultant Services for Pedestrian Bridges over TH 169 at CSAH 17 and at CR 79 *5. Purchase of 55 Ton Ironworker (Metal Punch/Cutter) for Public Works Shop Division *6. Purchase of a Trailer for Public Works Park Division B] Police and Fire 1. Update on Architect for New Police Station C] Parks and Recreation D] Community Development *1. City Code Amendment Regarding Building Permits for Fences — Ord. No. 591 *2. Valley Green Business Park Registered Land Survey (RLS) — Res. No. 5488 *3. Amendment to Metropolitan Council Agreement for Park and Ride Facility 4. Moving of Building Permit for Daycare Modular Units E] Personnel 1. Approve Hiring Ice Arena Maintenance Operator — memo on table F] General Administration: 1. Appeal of Denial of Taxicab Driver's License — Stanley Undem 2. Appointments to Boards and Commissions 3. Consider Establishing An Environmental Advisory Committee 16] Council Concerns 17] Other Business 18] Adjourn OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS 01 f; v aGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, 11 DECEMBER L I I, The pledge of allegiance was recited. The following item was removed from the Agenda. 15 F.9 Cleaning Contract Renewal with Masterpiece Cleaners. Sweeney/Link moved to approve the Agenda as modified. Motion carried unanimously. There was no Mayor's report this evening. The following items were added to the Consent Agenda. 15.A.1 Consultant Services for Pedestrian Bridges over TH 169 at CSAH 17 and CR 79; 15.C.1 Authorize Plans and Specifications for 2001 Park Projects; 15.E.4 Approve Job Description and Advertising for Recreation Supervisor (Aquatics); 15.F.7 Youth Building Architectural Services Sweeney/Morke moved to approve the Consent Agenda as modified. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Brekke asked if there were any citizens present in the audience who wished to address any item not on the agenda. There was no response. Sweeney/Morke moved to approve the bills in the amount of $344,308.82 plus $69,566.07 for refunds, returns and pass through for a total of $ 413,874.89. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Morke moved to continue the public hearing on the applications from Oscar Salas for a taxicab license and a taxicab driver's license to December 19, 2000. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Mayor Brekke opened the public hearing on the 2000 /01 tax levy and budget to consider the adoption of the tax levy and the budget. Mayor Brekke called for public testimony. There was no response. Official Proceedings of the Shakopee City Council The public hearing was declared closed. December 5, 2000 Page 2 Sweeney /Amundson offered Resolution No. 5456, A Resolution Setting 2000 Tax Levy, Collectible in 2001, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney /Amundson offered Resolution No. 5458, A Resolution Adopting The 2001 Budget, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Mark McNeill, City Administrator, addressed the Council and reported on the communications from the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations regarding the pay equity act notification of compliance. The City of Shakopee is required by the pay equity act to report its comparable worth compliance every three (3) years. On January 30, 2000 the report was submitted and in November notification was received by the City that they were in Compliance. Sweeney/Morke moved to receive and file the Notice of Pay Equity Compliance presented to the City of Shakopee given by the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations. Motion carried unanimously. Cncl. Sweeney stated that the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission did pass a resolution on December 4, 2000 on water rates. This resolution will take effect with the water reading of December 20, 2000. The DNR has accepted this rate schedule. The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission also adopted their capital improvement plan for 2001 -2005 for electric, water and administration for approximately $27,000,000. Cncl. Morke stated that the Shakopee Chamber of Commerce was having their planning conference on December 6, 2000. A recess was taken at 7:15 p.m. for the purposes of conducting the Economic Development Authority meeting. The meeting re- convened at 7:45 p.m. Sweeney/Morke moved to direct staff to proceed with the consultant selection process to assist the Engineering staff with the design, approval, and funding process to construct the pedestrian bridges located over TH 169 at CSAH 17 and CR 79. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Morke moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to enter into a two -year contractual agreement with Shakopee Towing, Inc. for towing, impounding and storage of motor vehicles. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Morke moved to hire Bolten and Menk, Inc. to do topographic surveys of the Tahpah Park and Lions Park project sites at a cost not to exceed $4,000 with funding allocation from the Park Reserve Fund. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Official Proceedings of the December 5, 2000 Shakopee City Council Page 3 Mark Themig, Facilities and Recreation Director, presented the proposed agreement between the City and School District for a combined aquatics program. This agreement was drawn up by Bob Greeley, Community Education Director, School District officials and City staff. It was felt that concerns brought up at the last meeting have been addressed in this agreement. The cost of staffing the school (building supervisors) if the pool is used for an aquatics program when there is no district activity is expected to be very minimal. Cncl. Morke questioned the insurance coverage statement in the Shakopee School District #720 responsibilities and the City of Shakopee responsibilities. Jim Thomson, City Attorney thought the clause "The SCHOOL DISTRICT will provide for proof of insurance naming the CITY as additionally named insured" would not be difficult to add to No.7 in the Shakopee School District #720 responsibilities. Jim Thomson, City Attorney, stated that if every thing else in the agreement was acceptable that the Council should approve the agreement with direction for the City Attorney to look at the insurance coverage issue and for him to make the appropriate modifications if necessary. Mr. McNeill, asked Mr. Themig if this agreement was deferred to the December 19, 2000 meeting would the timetable still be met? Mayor Brekke stated his intent was not to defer this issue tonight; he would act on it tonight subject to the City Attorney's review. Sweeney/Morke moved that the aquatics agreement between the City of Shakopee and Shakopee School District 9720 be entered into subject to the City Attorney's review of the insurance question regarding No. 7 in the Shakopee School District #720 responsibilities and No. 5 in the City of Shakopee responsibilities. Motion carried unanimously. Michael Leek, Community Development Director, gave a staff report on the revised alternative urban area wide review (AUAR) for proposed Shakopee Crossings. At the November 21, 2000 City Council meeting the Council considered action of the revised alternative urban area wide review for Shakopee Crossings. At that meeting the Council did pass a motion accepting the AUAR for Shakopee Crossings but withheld action on the resolution of the AUAR pending receipt of a letter of formal withdrawal of the Metropolitan Council objections to the AUAR. Helen Boyer, Director of Environmental Services for the Metropolitan Council, submitted a letter to the City indicating the Metropolitan Council's formal withdrawal of their objections based on the revisions they requested and the City agreed to. Prior to this evening meeting, Mr. Leek had a meeting with Kathy Gerlach, resident residing in the East Dean Lake area, and Linda Lehman, a hydro - geologist contacted by Mr. Ed. Fonnier, and was provided a report that was prepared for Mr. Ed. Fonnier by Linda Lehman. This report was received after the November 21, 2000 City Council meeting. Communication has been received from Kevin Bigalke, District Administrator of the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District; he has asked in his letter that any further action of the AUAR be deferred for the following reasons. 1) He wishes to review the AUAR because, he has not seen it before this time and wishes a chance to review it and provide comment; 2) he has only recently received the report from Linda Lehman and he wishes to review that; 3) the Southwest Metro Goundwater work group is meeting next Tuesday, December 12, 2000 with the intention of discussing the Shakopee Crossings AUAR and the letter from Linda Lehman. Mr. Official Proceedings of the December 5, 2000 Shakopee City Council Page 4 Leek noted that a draft AUAR and a revised AUAR were mailed to the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District back when the original comment and review period was open. In conversation today with Larry Samstad, of the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District, he remembered receiving the draft AUAR, but no comments were received from the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District regarding the draft of the AUAR during the initial comment period. According to Mr. Leek's understanding the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District did receive the draft AUAR for comment during the initial review and comment period. There were no comments received from the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District regarding the draft AUAR. There may not have been the opportunity for the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District to review the revised copy. The letter from the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District is requesting an extension of the review period. Mayor Brekke stated the review period has already been closed. Mr. Leek thought this should be looked at as a request from the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District for additional time to submit advisory comments before the resolution. Jim Thomson went through the timeline for a comment and review period for an AUAR with the City Council. Previously when comments have been received after the comment time, the City Council has accepted these comments. These were comments not objections for a revised AUAR; this is an extension for a revised AUAR, also. The report from Linda Lehman does not suggest any specific amendments, according to Mr. Leek. She felt there were some hydrology issues that needed to be addressed. Mayor Brekke said the only way to look at these comments is as untimely comments. They are outside of the comment and review period that has been closed. Mayor Brekke asked Jim Thomson if the City reacted to untimely continents in the AUAR, if the City would be exposed to any adverse claims if these comments were heard. Tim Thomson did not think the City would be exposed to any adverse claims other than perhaps the timetable to complete the AUAR process. To the extent that comments are untimely and the Council wishes to proceed with approval of the AUAR, the comments from Ms. Lehman letter and any continents from the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District can be information that the Council can take into consideration when development applications come in. Mayor Brekke stated once the Shakopee Crossings AUAR is approved the City Council would still have discretion to have a hydrology study done if the Council felt it necessary to do one. Cncl. Sweeney felt this opened the door to an unending series of revisions to the revised AUAR of Shakopee Crossings. The AUAR process calls for specific areas of review. This process was done and now the time period for comments and review is closed stated Crdcl. Sweeney. Cncl. Morke did not want to dismiss Ms. Lehman's report; he wanted follow through of some kind. Cncl. Amundson had a concern regarding the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District not having an opportunity to comment. Official Proceedings of the December 5, 2000 Shakopee City Council Page 5 Cncl. Sweeney stated Mr. Samstad, of the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District, had the draft AUAR and had the opportunity to comment but he chose not to. There are hydrology reports from Barr Engineering that Shakopee water use has no impact on Eagle Creek or the Savage Fen because they are isolated from each other by an underground stream bed. The Savage Fen AUAR addressed this water use specifically. Mayor Brekke would like to see some follow up analysis on the hydrology issue. He thought perhaps a study of the hydrology issue needed to be done as a follow -up. He felt it was logical to say the AUAR is complete, but questions still remain regarding hydrogeology, the water table, the high water mark, etc. There needs to be further information and discussion on this hydrology issue. A separate alternative is to hold the AUAR open. Cncl. Sweeney was reluctant to hold the AUAR open any longer. Sweeney /Amundson offered Resolution No. 5453, A Resolution Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota Adopting The Revised Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) For Proposed Shakopee Crossings Project, and moved its adoption. Mr. Leek stated that to be consistent with the last action perhaps Resolution No. 5453 should say "accepting the AUAR" not Adopting the AUAR. This suggestion was accepted by the motion maker and the seconder. Sweeney /Amundson offered Resolution No. 5453, A Resolution Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota Accepting The Revised Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) For Proposed Shakopee Crossings Project, and moved its adoption. The motion was reworded. Public testimony was now taken. Mr. Steve Soltau, Shakopee Crossings, approached the podium to answer questions if anyone had questions for him. There were no questions. Raymond DeGeorgio, 7385 Berkshire Court, approached the podium and stated in order to get the ground water low enough for basements to be put in, in the development where he lives, ground water needed to be pumped out. He is concerned about the hydrology and the ground water in the area. Kevin Bigalke, administrator for the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District, approached the podium and apologized for not having an opportunity to review the draft or revised AUAR for Shakopee Crossings. His request is not an intention to open up the whole formal review process, he would just like the comments from the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District considered prior to taking further action on the AUAR. He thought looking deeper into Ms. Lehman's report is now necessary. His position is protecting the water resources. He would like to make an informed decision. Official Proceedings of the December 5, 2000 Shakopee City Council Page 6 Kathy Gerlach, Eagle Creek Boulevard, approached the podium and stated neighbors have been distressed to observe the flow of ground water and the water levels to the Southbridge ponding systems. She is uneasy about this plan. Linda Lehman did validate some of the residents concerns in the Dean Lake area. Shakopee Crossings is not the resident's only focus. This is a very large issue to the residents. They will remain heavily involved in the water problems. She felt some of Ms. Lehman's suggestions could be incorporated into the mitigation plan of the AUAR for Shakopee Crossings. This document and mitigation plan will be referred to over many years. She would like to see the adoption of the AUAR tabled until the December 19, 2000 meeting to allow time for the meetings with Ms. Lehman to take place. Gary Sorenson, Eagle Creek Boulevard, thought he was hearing that the Council was afraid to take on new information to add to the information already before them before a final decision is made. Steve Soltau, Shakopee Crossings, again approached the podium to answer any questions that there may be for him. He also wanted to put a timeline on the situation. This project has been worked on for quite some time now. A formal process has been gone through, the door is not closed if the AUAR is adopted. Cncl. Morke stated Shakopee Crossings has a stake in the hydrology report also. He urged the acceptance of the AUAR and then to work with the different agencies to take a look at the hydrology. Cncl. Link thought perhaps the Shakopee Crossings AUAR was not ready to be adopted this evening. Heidi Graf, 5310 Eagle Creek Boulevard, approached the podium and stated: 1) she is just part of a larger group that shares her same concerns over the Dean's Lake area; 2) We do appreciate the steps this document has gone thru but the group feels the document is inadequate; 3) She is of the belief that development can continue once this document is accepted. We may get past a point of no return if the permit progresses. The motion carried 4 —1 with Cncl. Link dissenting. Mr. Leek made two points. 1) When looking at future developments, City staff would take into consideration any additional comments or information that is gathered; 2) the rules of the EQB allow for an amendment to an AUAR, if new information comes to light. Mayor Brekke asked Mr. Loney how this hydrology problem should be handled. Mr. Loney stated that Lower Minnesota Watershed District has taxing authority and perhaps they would like to do the hydrology study. Mr. Bigalke felt that was a good suggestion. He suggested that City of Shakopee and the Lower Nnnesota Watershed District may want to work cooperatively on this hydrology issue. He was Official Proceedings of the December 5, 2000 Shakopee City Council Page 7 not sure the Watershed District would want to do a study of the hydrology issue but this hydrology issue merits the City and the Lower Minnesota Watershed District working cooperatively on it. Cncl. Sweeney stated since it is the Lower Minnesota Watershed District requesting the review, they should be the ones doing the review. Mr. Bigalke stated that all he was requesting was an opportunity to make comments on the AUAR not a study. Mayor Brekke said at this time all he was looking for was a thoughtful response to Ms. Lehman's report. Then this information should be presented to the Council. Mr. Loney said Mr. Bigalke needed to go to his Board and the Board for the Lower Minnesota Watershed District needs to address Ms. Lehman's report. They should comment on those comments and get back to us and see if any further study is needed. Kathy Gerlach, approached the podium and stated that if the hydrology problem where approached in the manner the Council was speaking about this would provide a very accurate picture of what is in the Eagle Creek and Deans' Lake areas. Ed Fonnier, Eagle Creek Boulevard, approached the podium and asked that the data that is already there be looked at. The information we have now supports that there is a real water problem in the Eagle Creek and Dean's Lake area. Mayor Brekke stated staff is directed to bring back any information from the Lower Minnesota Watershed District following the meeting where the hydrology in the Deans' Lake and Eagle Creek area is discussed. Sweeney/Morke moved to authorize an extension agreement with WSB, Inc. for preparation of the EAW for the proposed Heritage Square residential project west of CSAH 17 and north of 17 Avenue. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Morke moved to approve the full time regular status for Facilities and Recreation Director, Mark Themig, effective December 1, 2000. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Morke offered Resolution No. 5459, A Resolution Adopting the 2001 Part -Time Pay Plan For The Part -Time Non Union Employees Of The City of Shakopee, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Cncl. Morke stated he was very uncomfortable with the proposed reclassification of the Recreation Supervisor Position. He wanted to be on record that there had been some extraordinary situations occurring at the Community Center. He felt that this wouldn't be precedent setting for setting future goals and he didn't feel what was being presented was in the best interest of the employees. Official Proceedings of the December 5, 2000 Shakopee City Council Page 8 Mr. McNeill asked Mr. Themig to explain why the recreation Supervisor 1 and Recreation Supervisor 2 positions were being combined. Mr. Themig stated that it appears that the responsibilities of the Recreation Supervisor 1 position has gown to be comparable to the responsibilities of the Recreation Supervisor H position. Many additional responsibilities were also handled by both during a vacancy. There is a third recreation supervisor who will be hired to coordinate the aquatics program. It seemed appropriate to have some equity between the three supervisors' positions since they do similar jobs. Mr. McNeill dad follow -up on some of Mr. Themig's comments. He concurred with Mr. Themig's statement that the two recreation supervisors did accept more responsibility from January until Mr. Themig was hired in June. Taking on additional duties during a transitional period has become an issue with the City of Shakopee. There are two concerns with tonight's proposal: 1) the reclassification of the grade and step and 2) the anniversary date. Because of the new aquatics recreation supervisor position starting at Step 1 of the new classification, we feel an exception in this case of should be made by placing Ms. Abrahamson at Step 2. What is proposed is generally consistent, it is the new aquatics position that is making this reclassification slightly different. Mr. McNeill stated that this is a reclassification based on job duties that have been performed for the past few years. Cncl. Sweeney wanted it on record that he is extremely uncomfortable with the Council taking on individual staff compensation issues at a Council meeting. He felt if this was done for one, then many of the other full-time employees could be coming before the Council and asking for compensation for their concern. He did not want five council members setting and discussing individual compensation or conditions of employment Mayor Brekke concurred with Cncl. Sweeney. He felt this proposal pointed out a flaw in the City of Shakopee's pay plan. Mayor Brekke would like to see a transition to a 5 Step play plan as opposed to the current 8 Step pay plan. Cncl. Sweeney would like City staff to look at the whole classification issue not just one particular area. Mayor Brekke asked Ms. Abrahamson if she wanted to make any comments. She replied no. Sweeney /Amundson moved to approve the reclassification of the Recreation Supervisor 1 and Recreation Supervisor 2 titles into the Recreation Supervisor title (exempt), effective January 1, 2001. Motion carried 4 —1 with Cncl. Morke dissenting. Sweeney /Amundson moved to approve the revised position descriptions for Recreation Supervisor (CC DOC No. 300). Motion carried 4- 1 with Cncl. Morke dissenting. Sweeney /Amundson moved to direct staff to implement the personnel assignments consistent with the reclassification of the Recreation Supervisor 1 and Recreation Supervisor 2 titles into the Recreation Supervisor title (exempt), effective January 1, 2001: Official Proceedings of the Shakopee City Council December 5, 2000 Page 9 a. Appoint Tammy Abrahamson to the Program Supervisor position, effective January 1, 2001 at Step 2, Grade G of the 2001 Pay. January 1 will be her new anniversary date for future annual step increases. b. Appoint Sherry Dvorak to the Program Supervisor effective January 1, 2001, at Step 8, Grade G of the 2001 Pay Plan, with a step increase to the Market Adjustment on February 6, 2001, the date of her regular anniversary date. Discussion ensued on anniversary dates relating to reclassifications /promotions. Motion carried 4 -1 with Cncl. Marke dissenting. Sweeney/Morke moved to direct staff to look at a reclassification and a Step and Grade reorganization for the City of Shakopee pay plan in concert with the suggestions of the City Council and bring options back to the table. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Morke moved to authorize approval of the Recreation Supervisor (Aquatics and Recreation Programs) position description and pay, and authorize staff to advertise for the position with a beginning pay at Grade G, Step 1 ($37,163). (CC DOC NO. 301) (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney/Morke moved to acknowledge the satisfactory completion of probation and authorize the retention of Kim Hartman as a Police Records Technician effective December 5, 2000. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Morke moved to acknowledge the satisfactory completion of probation and authorize the retention of Luis Diaz -Calle as a Community Service Officer effective December 19, 2000. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Morke moved to acknowledge the satisfactory completion of probation and authorize the retention of Angela Trutnau as a Police Officer effective November 22, 2000. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Morke moved to terminate John Delacey's probationary status for the Engineering Technician III position and to authorize the promotion of John Delacey to Engineering Technician IV, starting at Step 5 of the non -Union Pay Plan ($44,108.00/Xr), effective December 5, 2000 with a step increase to Step 6 of the non-Union Pay Plan for Engineering Technician IV after a six month successful probation period. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Morke offered Resolution No. 5457, A Resolution Of The City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending Resolution No. 4213, Adopting A Personnel Handbook, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Morke moved to authorize the City Clerk to issue tobacco licenses for 2001. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Official Proceedings of the December 5, 2000 Shakopee City Council Page 10 Sweeney/Morke moved to approve the application and grant a Pawnshop License to DRM LLC of Shakopee, dba Excel Pawn, 450 West First Avenue. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Morke moved to approve the application and grant a Pawnbroker and Precious Metal Dealer's license to Mark Andrew Pearson, DRM LLC of Shakopee, dba Excel Pawn, 450 West First Avenue. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Morke moved to approve employee licenses for the following employees of DRM LLC of Shakopee, dba Excel Pawn: Sam Rockne, Tracey Hirzel, Dawn McGrorty, Patrick Doolittle, Jonda Magnuson, Adam Dietrich and Paul Young. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Morke moved to approve the application and grant a Pawnshop License to Frank's Pawn, dba Shakopee Pawn, 1147 Canterbury Road. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Morke moved to approve the application and grant a Pawnbroker, Precious Metal Dealer and Secondhand Dealer's License to Frank John Marzario, Frank's Pawn Inc. dba Shakopee Pawn, 1147 Canterbury Road. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Morke moved to approve employee licenses for the following employees of Frank's Pawn Inc., dba Shakopee Pawn: Harold Wise, Troy Krahl, John Bass and Francis Christjohn. (Motion carved under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Morke move to approve the application and grant a Tattoo License to Linda Malone, Body Art, 205 South Lewis Street, conditioned upon receipt of the required certificate of insurance. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Morke moved to approve the issuance of a Tattoo License to Polly Sills at Body Art, 205 South Lewis Street, conditioned upon receipt of the required certificate of insurance. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Morke moved to direct staff to prepare an RFP for banking Services. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Morke moved to approve the application and grant an On Sale 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor license to Sky Ventures LLC dba Pizza Hut, 257 South Marschall Road, conditioned upon the surrender of the license issued to Pizza Huts of the Northwest Inc. and receipt of evidence of insurance. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Cncls. Amundson and Sweeney volunteered to serve on an interview committee with the City Administrator to interview candidates for positions on boards and commissions that will have vacancies due to expiring terms. Mayor Brekke volunteered to be a backup for this committee if needed. Official Proceedings of the December 5, 2000 Shakopee City Council Page 11 Sweeney /Amundson moved to direct staff to advise those individuals whose terms are expiring on boards and commission that they are eligible for reappointment. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Brekke announced that the City will be advertising and accepting applications from Shakopee citizens for boards and commissions beginning in January. Applications may be obtained at the City offices during regular hours or if requested they can be mailed. Cncl. Sweeney stated that any citizen who felt they knew someone who might qualify to be on a board or commission make that name known to Judy Cox, City Clerk. Sweeney/Morke moved to authorize JEA Architects to provide architectural and related services for design of renovations to the Community Youth Building, at a cost not to exceed $12,500. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney/Morke offered Resolution No, 5461, A Resolution Setting Fees for City Licenses, Permits, Services And Documents, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) A work session was set for Tuesday, January 9, 2001 from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. Sweeney/Morke offered Resolution No. 5460, A Resolution Apportioning Assessments Among New Parcels Created As A Result Of The Platting Of Orchard Park West P.U.D. e Addition, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Cncl. Link had a concern on the City initially paying for an EAW and then collecting these monies from the developer. Mr. McNeill in concert with the City Attorney will see that a contractual agreement is done with the developer making him responsible for the EAW costs. Cncl. Sweeney thought perhaps the City might want to appoint a very small committee consisting of one representative from the local Tobacco Free Futures group, one representative from the restaurants owners and let them come to the Council with a compromise that they can agree to, otherwise nothing will be done about this tobacco issue. If a compromise is obtained the City can then look into the development funding to see if funds are available to assist businesses with compliance. Cncl. Morke stated this is not an issue that government should get involved in. He would go along with facilitating getting the two groups together and is opposed to adopting an ordinance. (Mr. Morke, Mr. Link, local representative from Tobacco Free Future group, and Turtles). Sweeney/Link moved to adjourn the meeting to Tuesday, December 19, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. The motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. udith S. Cox, Ci Clerk Carole Hedlund, Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ. REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JANUARY 31, 2001 Mayor Brekke called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with Councilmembers Sweeney, Amundson, Morke, and Link present. Also present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator; R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director; Bruce Loney, Public Works Director /City Engineer; and Judith S. Cox, City Clerk. The following items were added to the agenda: 12.A. Executive session to discuss pending litigation, and 12.B. Purchase of park property Amundson/Link moved to approve the agenda, as modified. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Morke offered Resolution No. 5478, A Resolution Terminating the Employment Status of Probationary Employee Dan Schumacher, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Morke moved to accept the resignation of Planner I, Beth Thorp, with regrets, and authorize the appropriate City officials to take the necessary steps to fill the vacated position. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Brekke introduced for discussion residential development proposals, implementation of planned residential districts and setbacks. Mr. Leek drew the Councilmembers attention to three drawings in their packets on proposed developments: 1) Ryland Homes, adjacent to the proposed school in Southbridge, 2) Centex Homes, north of 17`" Avenue East and east of Marschall Road and Sun Path School, and 3) Town and Country Homes, north of 17` Avenue West and west of Marschall Road and Weston Ponds. He said that all of the developers are aware of the City's current standards and the discussions that took place in 1999 leading up to the current standards. They are proposing developments with smaller setbacks and/or narrower streets. The Planning Commission has undergone a concept review of all three proposals. The developers are wanting to know of the Council's receptiveness to the proposed developments since they do not meet the current standards. There was discussion on the issue of public streets versus private streets and the length of driveways as they relate to the drawings provided. Cncl. Sweeney stated that PRD's (planned residential developments) make it possible for adjustments within a project, but didn't recall that adjustments included street width. He is more comfortable talking about setbacks where the front yard is in the back yard. Mayor Brekke was more interested in a trade benefiting the community for reducing setbacks. Mr. Dwight Jelle, Westwood Professional Services, a registered professional engineer, representing the three developers, addressed the City Council. He stated that a creative project doesn't follow rules and that planned residential developments allow for creativity with trade -offs. He acknowledged that the Council has gone from requiring 44' wide streets to 36' wide streets. Official Proceedings of the Shakopee City Council January 31, 2001 Page 2 Mr. Jelle presented information to the City Council relating to road design attributes, roadway functions, roadway types, and the relationship of local streets to buildings. He said that other cities are going with narrower streets because of the cost of maintenance and rebuilding. He identified suggested street widths for a planned residential development with various housing types and the benefits for having narrower streets. Mr. Jelle showed photographs of some newer neighborhoods in Shakopee with narrow streets. He said that developers are proposing narrower streets and closer setbacks to the street in order to provide a more neighborly experience for those living in the neighborhood. Cncl. Sweeney noted that the areas being developed in Shakopee are flat ground and that there won't be the same flavor as in other areas in the twin cities where there is rolling topography. Cncl. Morke stated that he is comfortable with the 32' -36' wide streets and that he is not interested in narrower streets and changing the setback requirements. Cncl. Amundson stated that she is not against narrower streets if the development gets something in exchange. She doesn't see anything in exchange for the narrow streets in the three developments that are before the Council tonight. Cncl. Link stated that he agreed with Councilor Amundson. He said that narrower streets don't work in high density areas. Mayor Brekke stated that Southbridge is the best development in the City of Shakopee and one that Shakopee can be proud of The street widths are reasonable, there are common green areas and sidewalks. The multi - family areas may show a need for some changes in setbacks. Members present from the Planning Commission were invited to make comments. Commissioner Terry 3oos stated that he remembers recommending reducing street widths to 32' a few years ago, but the City Council went back to 36'. He believes narrower is better. He doesn't believe that there will be any neighborhood commercial development in the planned unit development of Town and Country Homes as it is to close to larger retail businesses. For a PUD he stated that he would look at 32' wide streets and he believes that we will see them down the road. Commissioner Bill Mars stated that he would like to see development driven by the City, according to the City's standards, to create creativity. In the past years the town has become more dense with less open space. He doesn't think that the City has gotten trade -offs from all developments. He believes that 36' wide streets is fine and maybe 32' with parking on one side_ He would like maximum standards for our community. Commissioner Mike Willard acknowledged that staff has done a good job providing the developers with the City's standards to prepare their developments. After seeing the concept plans, the Planning Commission asked the developers to bring back their plans meeting the City's standards. ti Official Proceedings of the Shakopee City Council January 31, 2001 Page 3 They didn't do so. He said that he thinks that all developments are development driven. He said that the Planning Commission needs to know what the City Council wants so that they can get the trade -offs desired. Commissioner Mark Hauser stated that he agrees with Mr. Sweeney as he likes larger streets. He pointed out that the fire marshal is concerned with safety on the narrower streets. Mr. Hauser said that he likes to ride a bike and feels safer doing so on a wider street. He said that he could be open to narrower streets, but that there needs to be standards so that we don't have to consider changes every two weeks. Mayor Brekke summarized the discussion stating that the City has standards in place for street widths and there is a consensus that they should be enforced. As for setbacks, they can possibly be looked at as a give and take if the City gets trade -offs i.e.: open space. Discussion followed on the Ryland Homes proposed development_ Mayor Brekke recessed the meeting at 6:39 p.m. for an executive session to discuss pending litigation; and, noted that discussion on the Prior Lake Outlet Channel Feasibility Study Analysis will be deferred to the February 6, 2001 City Council meeting. Mayor Brekke re- convened the meeting at 7 :17 p.m. No action was taken during the executive session. Amundson/Link moved to accept the offer for the Gene Hauer property (10 acres east of Sun Path School)) at $60,000 per acre. Motion carried with Councilmembers Sweeney and Morke dissenting. Mr. McNeill reported that staff has negotiated a price with Mr. Ames to purchase 4.88 acres for parkland which is part of 10 acres of a 30 acre potential park parcel. Mr. Ames is asking for his costs in the amount of $56,700 /acre plus interest, which equals approximately $57,000 an acre. Link/Sweeney moved to authorize the purchase of 4.88 acres from Mr. Ames for approximately $57,000 per acre. (The 4.88 acres is located in the Pheasant Run 6 Addition.) Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Brekke adjourned the meeting at 7:17 p.m. Ju ith S. Cox T y Clerk Recording Secretary CITE' OF SAK ®PEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance director RE: City Bill List DATE: February 15, 2001 Coy SE UT Introduction and Background Attached is a print out showing the division budget status for 2000 based on data entered as of 2/15/2001. Also attached are two regular council bill lists for invoices processed to date for council approval. One is generated from our old software which has 2000 business only. The other generated from our new software is 2001 business only. There is not an "Expenses By Department" report on the new system for 2001 business at this time. Also included in the checklist are various refunds, returns, pass through, etc. totaling $129,342.24. The actual net expense amount is $519,139.51. Action Requested Move to approve the bills in the amount of $648,481.75. CITY OF SHAKOPEE EXPENSES BY DEPARTMENT 12/31/00 CURRENT YEAR ANNUAL MONTH TO PERCENT DEPT DEPT NAME BUDGET ACTUAL DATE EXPENDED 11 MAYOR & COUNCIL 80,130 6,372 79,687 99 12 CITY ADMINISTRATOR 310,820 63,182 315,849 102 13 CITY CLERK 219,290 28,723 188,540 86 15 FINANCE 459,990 46,213 433,145 94 16 LEGAL COUNSEL 343,500 30,202 341,751 99 17 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 574,780 80,869 614,880 107 18 GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS 253,840 37,773 239,588 94 31 POLICE 2,173,740 298,920 2,091,167 96 32 FIRE 729,660 101,579 756,961 104 33 INSPECTION - BLDG- PLMBG -HTG 428,070 71,451 499,788 117 41 ENGINEERING 571,650 - 73,196 544,179 95 42 STREET MAINTENANCE 907,970 118,045 762,802 84 44 SHOP 156,240 20,019 144,958 93 46 PARK MAINTENANCE 679,730 145,517 619,984 91 91 UNALLOCATED 995,940 281,513 902,881 91 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 8,885,350 --- - - - - -- --------- 1,257,182 --- - - - - -- --- -- - --- 8,538,160 --- - - - - -- --- -- ---- 96 - -- -- 00 N/A 0 222 222 0 17 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 509,990 61,738 401,105 79 TOTAL TRANSIT 509,990 61,959 401,326 79 19 EDA 247,380 118,192 241,353 98 TOTAL EDA 247,380 118,192 241,353 98 H � I 1D al 0 dal o I � I H I H 0� o a 1 O N z1 w O w z1 I I H U 1 H 1 01 i H I � J � W O rQ U� U <zl x x 0 0 x 0 x 0 x 0 x x xxxxxxxxxxxx x x x x xxxx mmmm O 0 0 000000000000 O O O O 0000 H H O 0 mmmm O 0 O h O 0 l0 l0 1 10 ID O O O N CO O M m m m m m m m m m m m o O m 4 VI VIA 0 Co 0 0 N l0 N N m N m N ID ID ID ID IO IO l0 ID I'D ID l0 ID N ID m O O O O O m O OJ Ln 1 M ID �10 lD l0 lD l0 l0 �'D ID LO lD kD 1-1 l0 Ln N m m m m M M I0 h ID co 1-1 000000000000 O H Ln H Ip Ip ID ID N N H O � h M N N N N N N N N N N N N N O H m N H H H H O N O ID Ln lD N H Hr-1H H r-I H HHHHHH H H H H H.-�HH N O O O O O O O H H H H H H H H H H H H O O O O O O O O h H H H H r- i H M N N N N N N N N N N N N H V 144 H H H H H d+ V' M N M N V 'ZI M M cn (M M (M ('M M M M M Cl) Cl) M N M N N N N M C dl d V� V� ci• � d � �M VI d � V� � a+ � � � dl cr � � c1+ � c>• � Ln H H H to H tt) HHHHHHHH cr HNH O M N HHHH In N m H H N H (N H m M M IO U) C- N Ln N co co M Ln Ln I- HLn N Ln h N H M H CO M OJ MH Cl) HHHH CA L- (n HH ID El- C- H r') L- HH O m O O O m O m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O a) O CI) Ul W W W z w U w U U < H co H U) a 01 H I w > w a E+ I W a W a U a m a m a co I-i I a a H 1 m m UI � I W I O C7 O C7 q W q I H I co U] co H cn H CO Z co 0 F:4 W E{ w E a z FC O 1 al H k, L !x H H U) w Pr a a a w w a P4 a O a O P: q 1 1 W Z Ox I O H U a m � z0 a 'zt H U z z I l Ey a 0 O U W O Q U \ Z E{ v �i w W w E P4 P4 � z O H X I z a CO a Q z H W w U U Q W I z i 1 1 �K 100 IO ID �� Ln lf) 00 HH 00 00 H 1 0o mm HH mm HH Ln Ln Oo 00 i 00 co CO mm 00 IO lO MM Ln Ln O I MM 21}ll} OO MM lO ID 41 V O Leh I v)- {12. co co {I} U} O O v)? U? m m M (n v)-U2- U I yr yr D: F4 H H C7 w P.' U W x U a H U z z O U H H H H H H H H N N N N N N N N O O O O O O O O H H H H H H H H O o O O O o 0 0 O o O o O O o O N N N N N N N N O H N M C m lD h N N N N N C NN N O n o n O n o n O A o n (D n O n co q< co * co -x co* 00 41 co q� CC) * co 4c ID V ID V IO V I0 V ID V I0 V I'D V ID V U z U w � w aaaa CO z Ln aaaa H a a a a z z z W co � CO W W W W w'w W W W W W W O H E O 0000 H ca Z H ZZZ 4 000000000000 Cn H W co HHHH xxxxxxxxxxxx co H co FIHHE -I aaaaaaaaaaaa w WWWWWWWWWWWW C. W H rs, aaaaaaaaaaaa O > z O wwww wwwwwwwwwwww P: q a a aaaa PPE- 1HEIE-APPPEHPP a w a 0000 U aaaaaaaaaaaa H xxxxxx�D �Dxx�)x 000000000000 w P: P: C4 0: P; P: P; P: P; P: P: P: U H 00 C7000000C.0 C7 z z H H C1l U] CI)C!)Cn Cn�WOI�U)U] \ wwwwwwwwwwww Cf) z H H H H H H H H H H H H O H 000000000000 w E1 z q aaaaaaaaaaaa E-1 EiE+ 000000000000 H H 0000 zzzzzzzzzzzz x P rjr4 aaaa xxxxxxxxxxxx U E cn 0 wwww U U U U U U U U U U U U P: m ] g q q q WWWWWWWWWWWW < H E� PPPPPPE+E PPE --fE - I q q a W W W W P; P; P: P; P: 04 P: O W U U U U WWWWWWWWWWWW �C W q HHHH H E-H P H E-I E-I E-I E E-+ E-E EI P W x a r*. G. CT. Ct. H H H H H H H H H H H H f - j z x x 0000 E- N O ID ID N O H m h O M M Ln Ln 00 00 00 MmION O M ID N QI Hm L- Or- -1 1-1 dr NN 00 00 00 L-L�IZ4+H c0 O H O H O M H m m'v O In mm Ln Ln 0 0 t- L,: O N M N O 1? V)- vi- L} u2 U} N {f} d M m O M M N N N N mm O d H N N t? V2- vl- l)- �r M M H H CO a0 t? X12 N V). V). vi- V)- U} iJ? 01 3 1} L} - - V)- I M M U?i? -;v "T lw I;v CI -�, 'j C V v VI 114 �w d d d IQ H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H \\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \ \ \ \\\\ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ H H H H H H H H H H H.H H H H H H H H H 00000o000OOo O o O O o000 CD 0000000000CD O O o O O000 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N OJ m O H N M N N M M M M O n O n o n o n o n O w V ID V ID V IO V ID V ID N I N , 1 I n 04 al ��xx X00 x 0 x x x xxxxxx xxx x x x x x o 0 0 0 000000 000 0 0 0 0 0 I wl H 0 w I o I I , I w 0 I 1 1 Ol (A 0 1 lD l0 Qi O O H U 1 v W o \ 0 fl� H 1 00 (Q O 'r O O W W H 0 1 0 0 N H I O CG W U) M 1 ON m 1 l0 W U U) U) ri NNNNNN �I`N u) W W W O H I HH W H H M O w lD I'D �10 w w h Ol M O ,7 U O\ W U) H O ht- hh l`1` 0 (`') Ol N N N N N N N Ol Ol Ol O O Q ' 1 00 H I H H t- O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O 0.' I N N M cy+ H H H H H H H H H H H H H cc) m H H W 1 X4 M M M M M M M M M M M M M N M M M M c c d+ �, I 'll a d c ar c v c v UU i U I H M in -I I in o m r M H r I ri ri Zi 1;3 Ol H l0 M ONHH ri OI NN LI) M U) (� 1 0 0 O w M O H O O H H H H O l0 M t` c- H H I 1 M M M M M M Ol Ol lD O O O O O I I CO w co Cn CO co Ul co CO co U) U) Cl) W WWWWWW WWW w W ,, �-, i U) U] H U U U U U U U U U U U U O H > > > > > > > > > > > 1 H H H 1 as 04 124 xxaaaa rzrxcz W H > > a 1 Cl, a w w W W W W W W W W W a W w w w H I a a cn co cnmU)UlmCn mmCf) a u U U) m w;�� a a aaaaaa aaa > j a Co I � z � � W ' 00 w O N z zzzzzz zzz w w Q I ZI Zi H t 0 000000 000 C7 U] CO 0 0 H HHHHHH HHH z H H HH H m (N Cl) CO Wcoulc4Cnco U) U] U) m m Cf) U)cocn m cn Cl) H H H � ul ' U) z W C14 I o W Ga WWWWWW Ga Cz. G1 WWW E� H H W W ww ? o 0 W Ga Ci, 000000 Ga Ga Ga 1 aa, a Px rx(xcxrx 000 w H H 0 0 1 00 H a N a, aaaaaa 0x a H H c� 124 aaa o x a a 0 W CO W 000 U W UUU z i Z ZI z U U w arz 1 aaa C E E H H w aaaaaa �n� 0 ' fk z z U A I LL co U) Cl) U) U) V) U) U) K4499<9 H H H a a a W W < z W I o o w > O W W W W W W CQ CQ m Cf) H W W a) H >; CQ O W A 0.' [L [ti LL' 01 aI � wW Q w C7 fl E-i HHHHHH aaa w FC FC C7 O Q Q 0 O 000000 W W W m tx CO 1 WW W z U U UUUUUU WWW lc4 U) 1 UU Cq < H H HHHHHH 000 W W Iww H a 0 0 000000 xxx W a 6 6 r4 C14 tY w U 0 0 00 a cz Cn U m UUUUUU U)CncoCnCnV) Cf) Ct) cCi) < a 1 I * 1 0 -N 0 I U) U) U) * M M �O �D N N o M M * O O 0 0 O O �' dI M M M M 0 U) -1 1 ;3 1 O co co U) U) l- C O O U) U) N t U) U) OI OI OI OI m mw [- oo C- M 0 0 ID kD M M 0 0 J 1 HH '4 1 ri H N MM I r HH M m MM U) In OI OI H H MOON OD co MID I`O In "I, (AM C'I NN 11) )In 00 0O I {!} t!} (N 0 L).. vi- M M L? {? J}!h M ;v 0,1 U) Lf1 O Ol v). Ip M H M H m 0 m VI a, O H m O ri H L? v)- ID ID U) In H H Ol V' d d VI Ul U) lD 1 10 Ul x 1 kI; m co N H �, M co lD `� H M V) m U I � Q) v)- V)-LTM QI i/r cur m W 1 {h i? H U try !L' I W 1 H CA W e QI �1 GI c1 d VI VI �f d � d d QI GI CI CI C C d+ d W Q I N N N N N • I O O O O O N O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O - U 1 c-i ri H H H HHHHriH J W100 0 0 0 0 HriH H H H H H x100 0 0 0 0 000000 000 0 0 0 0 0 U W U N N N N N 000000 000 0 0 0 0 0 i N N N N N N N N N N N N N N (N 01 a Zi I M Q If) lD I- M O H N M cN O A U I co * O A cc) -x O A �* O A O* O A O * M 0 A O A C) O A CD O A CD O A O A 0 0 W I lD v x lD V �D V lD V O* �D V M k.0 v CO -x ko v O * w v CO 4c \D co -k co * O U 1 u v w v ko v w v H ro a O 0 0 N CTl W fi. P.' CO x U W x U H U O U N M 'll M M O LD � CO N O h N N l0 H 01 O\ CO Ln h M O M d' H O M 01 Cl) CO m CO U) r-4 L- L` O to - O O U) Ol m 1.1 m O M M m O CO H Cl) M —4 CO (n m Ol U) U) m ON H h CO lO H M Ol VI M U} i!t M CO VY vl- CO VIM t ? i/} H Q W U a m CI O H G, Z H x O > W W Z H W W P' O �D C7 R: R' H X 0 0 � O xxo Ca H H H a G H 04 W z U) CO m H co m ) L� x H -;v U) M Ol O ci m N O O U) O H ri N N M N d Ln U) N O H H M M M h h co Q q Q Q q Q Q Q Q Q Q q D�. FJr4 rU rs4 r�l r 4 w rM4 rT4 W w r:4 N O r R O O rn c4 N d. W W y o LL 'm n o Y Q 2 U LL U U o H 0 o V O N U N Q Cl O N O J W Y U Z Z z Z Z �E 2i w 2 2i :R W W W W w W W W W W W W W W W W U` (7 (9 CD 0 U U U U U U U U U U U << }< Q Q K = x cr _ LL' 2. = z z W z Z Z O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 Q Q Q Q Q F LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL 2i Q Z Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y J J Z J J J J W p (f) z co F Co co U) Z m U) Z m m cn cn Z << E- F- < Z z �- m O Z Z< Z F W H w F r O W O F-- F FQ W F h h F w w w z w w w H W F W r I (J c`J c`J C7 Z C� Z C7 Z C7 (� C7 (� C7 Z 2 z z w F z 2 Z 2 Z w z ��" z z Q z z W >> Q p¢ U p >> p p W U C w w w Q a Z U Of = U` LL' LL LL K LL= K K W Q LL p Q p Q O p W p Q w p W p Q p p p p F F Q z z U` or: z Q W Q W U z W Q Q Z Z O Q O z O 0 U O Q U O Q O Q O 0 0 0 w x Q U U Z w O Q Q Q Q Z O w Q Q Q O Q Z 2i a w U w Y w w O w W O w 2 w U w w w w O Z O X z U U a z O U V w 'D W } > } W :j rG Z :R J U U O x U J w J w O U x w J J U Q O = m w ai n ai O ai ai a ai w < ai n ai of W¢ a d d a w W a a z �? m W U Z W p cl > o w LL 0 O W piw m Q a d U Q W d C9 Z Z O LU w Z \ J J O w O W z Z W W of < W LL w 0 w W a_ cn Z 4 5 w O 3: w W U Z w O W O W U Q T- 0 _ D a CD _Z U) Z W Z Q Z U W (j C LLI C0 Q J -j z m w w m p O Z Q d Z W U W I a z m w F-, J U U m r- w w w Lil (D p LL Z O w w LL O O W Q U ZZ W Q d d W S a 2 a W S w LD(D 5c< °w -j =JZZ) Q Q LL Q O w 0 ww � 2 d O F O W U W J � J Z U U J O Z w w w m O C'I W U O U Xt p Z a (n m W W d F 2' w 2 J W W Z w Q W U W Ix U W = z F- J 0 H H H w � W Z O d (� w O O Q- Z w 2 Q p -j z F p Z O> g O Q Z O w w O O a� W o O m N 2 2 Z w m m m U > Q Q Q Q U z Z H -� W W = co w Z Z OO w W Q. F- W w � W �- W F-- F- a E W Q m 0 m Q Q � m� Q O Z J U p U U J W j U j I- p W C7 D LL w d LL = S Q LL Q U 5� w Q O O m O 2 Q O w O W m U) W Z U Z — j = Z U U w Z U Q O Z Z U } Z < = U 2 J Z J w J OU z Z 0> O> W Y m Of o w Q Q g O Q Z= w 1 � h H~ V ¢ w Q- Z J U) g ~ Z U_ O Z ct O = U W U J 2i w W 00 3: Y Q p w F- W U C7 J J w U U S U S Z w U W � J J� Z 0 F- `u W W W W W J Q Q Q Q Q Q Q m m m m m m m U U Y � U � � U E" O o W } J > m p LL > O Z w H co C7 U U J Z (D Z O O Z U U Q O 0 2 0 0 = 3 w Y Q Q O O O N O M O O O r O N m M O tn m O r N O O O .- O O O p r O n M O O N 7 N O V' O o C O O O N O O O O O O un fl Lq w rn cn O o` t- M O o N� O O rn O to M O O c0 Cl O m m V' o O O m O n O m to m V M C m , f of O o m m O m Lo m m m O m 1 m m m V O N lf7 I- O N O m O 1p m rn N M t� a- .- O N m lfJ In f� N M rn n N m M m m N I M t[') N . ( V E O N M N N M cc "I O V O N rn N (c 7 r 7 M N 7 N rn Q t!J 7 LO rn O N M -Ir to m m rn O N M C c0 m m rn O � o c0 � co m m o m m m m o� m m m m m m m m rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m o W W m (D (D (D(D m m(D m UI m m m m m m m c0 m (O m m m m m m m m m m m m m to m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m N O N d' O O � � 0 cc _ N LL W w d 'm m Y � ¢ Y 2 � U LL O U U F o U U 0 O O N N O J W Lo Y U Cf F F F Z Z Z 2 2 2 W w W w 0 a z ¢¢ g ¢ z F w� o F z z w w z z� LU W W Z J J F W Of w W W w F F z W Z `2 W ¢ Z w W 2 W N O W W F O 2 Z w 0 O Z z z U Z Z z w 2 w w 0 F w 2 2i w C7 ¢¢ z U` W Z 0 0 W W W < CD W W w 2 W 2 U z U 2 W W (11 z Z ¢ w w m z w a a C7 C7 :2 2 w C7 w ¢ Of w (D (7 (D ¢ ° () ¢ O I w 2 z ( O w Z Z 0 LLI Z Z g w Z (Wry W U` O z U Q d Q z z w¢ O W z w z� z n - Q C� 7 z¢ g¢ W Z Z > >¢ 0 0 Z O¢ J ¢ z¢ z ¢ J Z J ¢¢ Z ¢ F Z O Z¢ LL ¢ 'Q Ir N U w W Z U 2 Z Z w w U W _� U LL Z m (w d m U U U U Z ¢ fY !n U w e U O U p Z c U¢ W W U p¢¢ W U U U p w w O J O¢ Q w O }} J J ¢ W U J LL U J U J J Z W � w O? 2 w�� W W W> w 2 H O O S z W p m ~. O O> Z w� >> 'U > O U O Z° m U U m E¢ U In F F LL K 2 U U w LL U U.. m m m U- U -� U U m m U LL CJ li. U U ? U LL w m m¢ 0 N O N O co Z F F O Z Q LLI C) U_ U U m z y¢ W W W cr� CO Cl) J W p < (n W Z U m U m w W m J O w W LLI Z z J J a IL Z W J W 0 J N d 0- Cl) co 2 a U F Z (n (L a. Z z n ¢ U W W W U U F, z J Z Z Z W Z w J LL w O z z 0 W F W Z� W ¢ J 7 U m d w of W J m> J Q d m Q m Q U �� 0.. O UJ Z z w Z LL LL >> F D Z) Z Z >> Z a p Z W z z Z z Z¢ CL j w Z z m j~ o Z w Q? a w w x w m O LY - U o ( a d U< o ° o w m U LL O O° U ° o U U U v >> a w w cc W O W o O D LL a D a F ! w� w a w o 0 0 L a ¢ m m O w F ii mi F F 2 F¢ M m O O m 0 0 0 2 0t)f 2 2 m U w w 0 0 U Z U LL Z U CL U U O n7 W ? z N U W LL U z >- W U co Q OU Z O U F d U F} n> O W W O W o w d cn F p UQ Z L W U ? W Q } W Z J w W J d 0 J Z U X J m ° U` = W LO U 0 W< 0 U Z ( o p Z U Z O jm. w a p cn OS a p ( U W w Z H W t4 w l O. W W p F w U� w z F1W w w w LL ( w w j O ¢ w o )-} w W O U 0 0 0 -1- � z O a w z w U m w o z d 2 Z J O w w O w d' > 2 W U J W Z¢¢ W W LL O W W D¢ O U z Z U U U U U U 0°°° W LL LL LL LL LL 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 2 2_— O Z Z m O O ¢ 2 Z Q W CO U) w a Q F w d DJ W W W w W m w LL m U m U W O W O W W F= D F Z Fi 2 w¢ d O 2¢ O U O O ° U F Z LL' ¢ U Z w Z m Of Q o 0 z ¢ F F F 2 Q w m m U W °w z. o w ¢' c it w w O} Q Q w z Q Y Y Y J J J J r L (D O O) O O N O N O O (D O V O w O M O O O C O M M O O 1- r r N (D O O O r-: m O 01 M O O M O O V O n O N O r O r C N O a0 O r O 6] 1� r tD O O M 41 O m O co ` O W N tD tD LD O O O O V M O (D of N l0 M O O N O O O (D V E CO m to M to <D � N tO �- N r _ O r O W (O O) O N 1� O O r to LO M M (D I� V' (D D) f� r N N O (0 00 M - (0 r l- r N (9 (D N (D O ,C N M V to m r W O O N M V' N N (D N N N M O N M M M m M (D m m M n O r N M C 10 (D 1T N 41 O N U r r r N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M , T V' 'Q V V' `7 R V R to D V ( lD w w w w w w w w w co M N N N N m w w N N M co c0 m c0 N N m M O U (O (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D t0 (D 0 (0 0 co 0 0 (D w (D 0 0 0 (0 0 0 w (D 0 (D (D 0 w 0 0 w co w (D to 0 N O M O O m N a 0 0 F- o o v r-: o M Orr: o o 0 r- o o F-- v m o r, o N o m U m o o F- m U r r - N m m N o U o cy n r F v co m U m �� M o o co v F- LO m M m r- r (n (o m M m o m W o m tf) N m m n w O m M m c'J N M w m N to 7 W f� m O M W O O r t• r M co N O r M (n M to 2 r- M N m n V (o N 20 _ N m 7 m N m m r V 2 d' r m co co co r Lo 2 m N M N N R r m N f� C) Q :2 w w r w Lo r w O O w C N N ¢ Q Q (7 Q Q O J Q W [7 Q w Q W Q W F F F F¢ W Z F U F F- F- F F W W W W O Z W z z O (D 2i w w W F W Z W F- Z W w LL I F 2 2 W 2¢ Q 2 Q w Q -j O w 2 W F- Z 2 p z z 2 w J O w 2 U z¢ W F-- z J p Z W w w M Z m m r m m O m z¢ w C W w Z O W N w W z w m O m w M C m W w w w w Q W v (n v Q W (n v Q O co v v U W W (D v W z (D (D v v W w 0 n n v v W Z rl v w v"r w w Z Z m ,T m 'T z z z Z z z z a Q Z Z m m z z w¢ m m z z a p z m (D m (D z p z z z z m m co to z z w U m m (D m m m 0 o m m m co m o z z o z zp p ¢ o ? g C p F a C p ¢¢¢ z z g j z Q ¢ z z O O> w Z¢ z Q Q¢¢ z j Q¢ J¢ Q p Q z 2 2 2 Q F¢¢ F¢ U F F Z w W¢ o Q u Z 2¢¢ F g 2 U zQ 2 Z 2 2 oa w¢ m U U U U W W U a Y W X LLI O W Z m U Z U W m a U Q U a a z a . U w W W U U O a a Q J J J U J a �' U J O x a U U ¢ IL U Q Q Q Z J U O J W w x J O U w z W J J_ W K of O w W Of J J >- p w = W y p m O a O a O a W a O a F- Z w O a 2 w Q a ? w R Z Z? a 0 F- w U tL O a w 7= a m U O a �? LL O= a (n a t J U o a P n u F- U a u o a o¢ a 2 U U a rn n o m r Y (`( (D C7 U` CD = D Z Z z Z U s Z z Z Z N W U o - w _ _ Z v 0 U \ F \ Q U U J W U U Z U N W O O O O W W W m F- U U U U U U U U d d d W a F a Cl) W W = J °- w W W W a a H a� U U a W F- - ° 2 U (n U (n U U c w w w � w > � w d> w w Q� in ai z K Z v j U� ? U y F w W U U Z w> a w¢ z w w a F 0 0 2 U' 00 0 0¢ 0 z C.`J U F >> W o ZZ U O p w O O m m Q� O Q U O F� O O U Q Z Q Q w a F ? Q Z a ¢ ww F- F- F- ] ] Q. U W W U U U W W J U W Z I W W U J �= 0 K j U Z O w w w w J>> w F' O U O Z W J J z z w W a Z J D a J Q Z J J a D U W W J w Q w W Q J o= w w O O J w O w o a w O w w a o¢ a a a lif F ¢ a Q p a a F a O W Q w o F F- U U W 0 U F- ¢ O F- F- U F- F- O¢ O O O m O F- 2 Of F- (L O O 2 Q F O a 2 2 U o O U p J a o < a z U Q U a F o Z U o Z U U Co 4t Z of w U w U U = U Z U Z K w w Z w m w J= a Z o W O Z J F a O w U Q 2 ), J W o m Q z o U O U U U` o F- n U O z a w z x a co a F m w Z Q H U 2 Z w U w = z p U W W W W Z W J U Z F- a ' or: ¢ F C7 O n p W � m a o w J W co F z F a Q a m U` D >> F- U W J g N m a z J z m Q Lr U Q w W Q d a Q O w 0 a Z w J w o0 U Q 0 U N p p W W W LLL p m W a U O W a J- O S O = K F J a W> w J F U U a a a u- -> a�� w Z p= F- Q p a' f~_ = Z W W m F U F- U p w z p U ` m a' J p - F F O O O J z } J W m ow - mo o Q Z U U> (� 0 U � U U U W m W W = J} W Y W= 2 Q w a} W o W J F Z F- p m lL U 3: � >- o Z- m= 0 0 0 Q O m >: U W 2 2 Z 2 Z z 2 2 Z 2 o 2 2 W z U O a O w a a= m m o o = Q W w wQ� w af Of == U U U U U U U U U U U U m m= 0 U U = U - rn U z U O m F-- U U U 0 0 0 O o o v r-: o M Orr: o o 0 r- o o co o v m o r, o N o m U m o o o m o m m U r r - N m m N o U o cy n r o O v co m U m �� M o o co v o cn LO m M m r- r (n (o m M m o m m o m tf) N m m n N O m M m c'J N M M m N to 7 (D f� m O M n m m O O r t• r M co N O r M (n M to M m r- M N m n V (o N V' O N m 7 m N m m r V m N N d' r m co co co r Lo N m N M N N R r m N f� C) Q r Lo r O O C N N (7 O J [7 W K U It Y M C m m r m m O m N M C (o rl- m O O N M 7 to m n m m O m N M C m co N m O N M m m Q o v (n v uo v U v (n v (n v rn v co v v m v m c m v (D v (o (D c (D (D v v v v r` v n n v v r rl v v v rl v r m v v v"r m m v m m v v m ,T m 'T m v m c m v m m v c v L O m m m m m (D m co m (D m m m m m m m m m o m m m m m o m m m m m m m m m (D m (D m w m m m m m m m (o m (D m m m m co to m (D m to m w m m (D m m m m m m m m co m o m m m (D (D to N O � V O O � 6 N d z z F Z (n F w W U LU 7 w w C7 w c7 � p w w w w w w z z LL K W U 2' K� K x W 0 0 O O F- W O 0 ? J z I-- LL W Y F" Y Y Y Y z Y W W W W W W w O z H U` LL O < < O 0 U' U` F O F F- U` F- x n 2> Q F- z F F z z Z z z Q z z z z C7 z } w z w LL U Z W W W 0:: w w W ¢ Y W Q w z S W R' tr K O W U z O a Q Z W W W W Y W W W Q¢ Q w Q¢ C7 W Q O O U J z Q Q 0 z z U 0 Z C7 LL n O W¢ z Q F- O U O O O p U U� U C( O V U 0 D f- F- J Z = F- Z W ¢ Z z x m J Fr x � p J J F J F- z Q m 2 J Z LL ¢ y W W W w z Q W U W Z w U 2 W O p w W W 0 0 0 W O W W 0 0 w 3 U r G } LL c 2 w J J} U J W a Z Q Q U LL' U LL' w > LL' > i 2 i 2 i w }} ¢ Of O } Q' 2' U ri } CL Q W W y o K 0 0 ¢ W O W J W W t- z F- U lL to Q m m w to 0 x m LL Q. LL (n W 111 LL fn a 'm O c m Q LL LL Q- LL w LL tL U' LL 2 x LL 0 W (n J Q J ¢ J Q Y u C7 } d } d } d Z Z D LL U O F= ¢ w O w z O z O z O F" < 5 0 z Q ZQ QQ o U p z J p U N U N m U Z W Ox fn W U z m z z w EL z = z OU a W � a p m U) a s o � W F W w LL W_ w Q J UO F W m f_ O w J J C7 m W m LL U` W J O U LL LL 0 0 p O CL N LL x¢ F n c7 z z >> z z z z r O� W x U) O W O LL O LL z o W o W z w U LL 0 co O.. U U\` z 4 w to U W U w p Q LL LL LL Q U) Q W 0 O Ckf O O W J m¢ z Q J W W W W Q x atS In Z W W LL ' 6 d 2' X d z o U W W F- F- h- W LL U U W z p- X LL U CO W U_` U p W W 0 U W W W W > J J z W U z L LL x LL C'J ( W J W O 0 LL x LL x W W z 2' W z J LL LL J 5 LL F W 0 � O LL LL H W Z J C1 LL W LL z Q W LL Q W F- W W W W W> W Q (n 0 O F- x¢ IL O;�E 0 0 0 0 w W w W 0 F- Q U- 3: 0 0 g LL d IL F- 0 O F- W U U U w > LL x r F- z LL p D > LL W Lo LL OU LL w < ~ z U O W y O W O J m LL U F- z W W w d W Y O p z p z Z ¢ F- z W O p F- Z w aY F- U o F K D W z ca Z U U p W 2 z W Z O F w F F- z o o) O J w N J F- l/) (/) W U J Ox. F F p W Q U } d m Q j Q W W x F- ¢ W W x z ¢ Q < F O J U v Z ¢ Om If x O O U O U J m LL z Q w 0 w O o o z p Z z F= p O �O U — m p m U Z W W W Z W W a5 W O U > > O J U H x F z 2 O W w z LLI u Q it D X x Q U U p U U C) �� d O W�� >� j N 0 � w F F Z Z d >�� Q F 1�- a c U O W r O O O O F� O N O C ` O O N N O N O Cn (D O O N M O M O O O c C) O CO O O O O N O Lq O N O O h O (O O W O V W O O m tD M ch 1� ti C7 CO CO CO V O 1� (�') N O O C, O O O r CO N M M CD LO ( N O In CO N V m R CD O (O (O ) N m > r co (`') r r C co O In O O O Q CO N N N O J w W af Y In O r w m C DQ N N N N V N N N O N r N co N U O m O m m W O O O O O O O O O O O m m N O] CO O � L fn N CO 61 N CO CD c0 O � m m O � m [O m m m O W CO OJ CD CO W CD m 0 o r� 0 0 m m N CL w m C E o O = n Y U = U N U L U- U O _ � U H � U o U o N N N O � O O O n M O M tU r c) M C Cl? N M N O V N_ V W O CO O CO O] O) t(1 t` E O O N L` W M In U m (D M N N CO V N O N (D m M W Q N M o) (O M r N pc) W N V N u� � � V N O 0 U LLI o LY CL O a) tL LL lY � Y U ~ W Z w Z w Z (D o °o > W Z U > p U. LLL N LL� w Z Z) to O U- U LL w 2 O O~ z O L O U w LL P: w w tY Q d Z w 0 c~ Z m r w u La o z of Q w m CO � U U - ' U U w 0 0¢¢ m w w w 0 0 Y U` LL t- w n_ U U W W w m U w U O O O O O .- M O O O o O O ( E N v CD o 0 o S o 0 O N N N V V c m m w U O O O O 0 0 O O O 0 O O O O O f j PLEASE BRING YOUR FEASIBILITY REPORT TO THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Vierling Drive Improvements, from County Road 15 to Orchard Park West, Project No. 2001 -2 DATE: February 20, 2001 Attached is Resolution No. 5484, a resolution ordering the improvement and preparation of plans and specifications for improvements to Vierling Drive, from County Road (C.R.) 15 to Orchard Park West. On September 5, 2000, Resolution No. 5407 was adopted by the City Council which ordered the preparation of a feasibility report for an improvement to Vierling Drive, from C.R. 15 to Orchard Park West. On January 16, 2001, Resolution No. 5476 was adopted by the City Council which accepted the feasibility report and called for a public hearing on an improvement to Vierling Drive, from C.R. 15 to Orchard Park West. This project was initiated by City Council in order to complete the last segment of Vierling Drive, from Taylor Street to 12 Avenue. Vierling Drive is a major collector, which also serves undeveloped property from C.R. 15 to Orchard Park West. Staff has completed the previous 1998 feasibility report to reflect current prices. Construction of Veiling Drive includes street collector, storm sewer, watermain, box culvert, sidewalk, trail and street lighting. The City would be participating in the street oversizing, bituminous trail and assessments along Lion's Park property and box culvert in the Upper Valley Drainageway. The main issues associated with this project are as follows: 1. City cost of project due to assessments to Lion's Park land, street oversizing and trunk storm water facilities. 2. Objection from property owner on assessment to property. The feasibility report indicates the cost to the City to complete the last segment of Vierling Drive, from Taylor Street to 12 Avenue. This project was delayed last year to allow the City and property owner another year to finance the project. Staff has met with the property owner adjacent to Vierling Drive to explain the project and assessments and received no objection on proceeding with the project this year. However, attached is a letter from Cal Haaskens objecting to the assessment to the property. Council will need to decide on whether to proceed with this project after receiving input at the public hearing. If this project is ordered, staff will need assistance from WSB & Associates, Inc. for the box culvert design, legal description of property needed for Vierling Drive and preliminary surveying. Also, staff will need to obtain an appraisal for property acquisition as well. 1. Adopt Resolution No. 5484. 2. Deny Resolution No. 5484. 3. Table for additional information. 4. Authorize appropriate City officials to execute an extension agreement with WSB & Associates, Inc. for engineering services on this project. 5. Authorize staff to obtain appraisals for property acquisition. Staff recommends Alternatives No. 1, 4 and 5, to order the project plan preparation and authorize consultant assistance in preparing plans for the project. 1 1. Offer Resolution No. 5484, A Resolution Ordering an Improvement and Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Vierling Drive, from County Road 15 to Orchard Park West, Project No. 2001 -2 and move its adoption. 2. Authorize appropriate City officials to execute an extension agreement with WSB & Associates, Inc. for engineering services on this project. 3. Authorize staff to obtain appraisals for property acquisition. r Bruce Loney Public Work - Director BL /pmp MEM5484 Cal Haasken 413 Chestnut St. P one:(952) 448 -3344 Chaska, MN 55318 Direct:(952) 448 -2417 City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street Shakopee, Mn. Attention City Clerk February 7, 2001 To Judith S. Cox VC-IM-6L '' • • 11 VIERLING DRIVE, FROM COUNT ROAD 15 TO ORCHARD PARK WEST The undersigned owners of Tax Parcel Number 8279120500 have received notice of a public hearing regarding this proposed assessment. We formally object to this assessment on the basis that the proposed improvement does not increase the value of our property by an amount equal to or greater that the amount of the assessment. Sincerely / Cal Haasken & Sharon Haasken, etal WHEREAS, Resolution No. 5476 adopted on January 16, 2001, fixed a date for Council hearing on the proposed improvement of Vierling Drive, from County Road 15 to Orchard Park West by the installation of street, bituminous paving, curb & gutter, sidewalk, bituminous trail, sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer, box culvert, street lighting and all other appurtenant work as described in the feasibility report. 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 20th day of February, 2001, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard. THEREFORE, RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THI CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1. That the improvement is necessary, cost effective and feasible and is ordered as hereinafter described: Vierling Drive, from County Road 15 to Orchard Park West by the installation of street, bituminous paving, curb & gutter, sidewalk, bituminous trail, sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer, box culvert, street lighting and all other appurtenant work 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 2001 -2 Public Improvement Program. 4. The City Council shall let the contract for all or part of the improvements as authorized by Minnesota Statutes 429.041, no later than two years from the date of adoption of this resolution. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of 5 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee _ ATTEST: City Clerk Mem T: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Amendment to the Zoning Map — Rezone property from Highway Business (B 1) to Multiple Family Residential (R3) APPLICANT: DMC Companies E G DATE: February 20, 2001 WN I '/1 1 DMC Companies has requested that the City amend its zoning map to rezone property currently zoned Highway Business (B 1) to Multiple Family Residential (R3). The property is located north of County Road 16 and west of Roundhouse Street. At its January 16, 2001 meeting the Council passed a motion approving the request, and directing staff to prepare an ordinance for its consideration. That ordinance is attached for Council consideration. Also attached for the Council's information is a copy of the most recent site drawing from the architect for the project proposed by DMC Companies. ALTERNA S: 1. Approve Ordinance No. 592, rezoning property from Highway Business (B 1) to Multiple Family Residential (R3). 2. Do not approve Ordinance No. 592 rezoning property from Highway Business (B 1) to Multiple Family Residential (R3) and direct staff to prepare a resolution denying the rezoning request. 3. Table the decision and request additional information from the applicant and/or staff. 1 1 1 4. Offer and approve Ordinance No. 592, rezoning property from Highway Business (B 1) to Multiple Family Residential (R3). R Michael Leek Community Development Director gAcc\2001 \cc0201\rezDMC.doc 1 ORDINANCE OF N OF 1' MINNESOTA, AMENDING THE 1 NG MAP ADOPTED 1 1 1 E SEC. 11.03 BY REZONING LAN1 GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF 1 WEST OF ROUNDHOUSE FR1 HIGHWAY 1 C 1 1' 11 RESIDENTIAL WHEREAS, DC Companies, the Applicant, and Mary C. Lindstrand Estate, property owner, have requested the rezoning of land from Highway Business (B 1) to Multiple Family Residential (R3); WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as follows: That part of the East 518 of the North % of the Southeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, beginning at the Southwest corner of said East 518; thence north along the west line thereof a distance of 250 feet, thence South 89 degrees 42 minutes and 30 seconds East, parallel with the South line of said East 518 of the North % of the Southeast Quarter, a distance of 503 feet; thence South a distance of 250 feet to the South line of the East 518 of the North %Z of the Southeast Quarter, thence North 89 degrees 42 minutes 30 seconds West, along said line, a distance of 503 feet to the point of beginning, and WHEREAS, notices were duly sent and posted, and a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on January 4, 2000, at which time all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council heard the matter at its meeting of November 6, 2000, and found that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the area of the City within which it is located. THE 1 1 OF :I OF 1 MINNESOTA, 1' 1'• Section 1 - That the zoning map adopted in City Code Sec. 11.03 is hereby amended by rezoning the property referenced herein, from Highway Business (B 1) to Multiple Family Residential (R Section 2 - Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of ' 2001. IMIM I &,lowuld- i ll III IM r IIIIIII MIII!II 3 v I S HAK ®PEE C0MMUN=FFMESVCM IW Rez R 3 DIVIC Comp I oning N W E S Parcels 12/7/00 M ■ • •, MM \ I, III MMA �� �� 02/15/2001 12:11 6126560789 RHA ARCH PAGE 02 r, r; a� b 9 •re +a'eaa - --- -- •eve��ee •leele�0 ► RQU�DNOUSE QTR EE- C 1 0 E 2 / I . , F. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum T: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Mark Noble, Planner I SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat of Garden Lane Addition NMETINGDATE: February 20, 2001 Introduction: Received December 11, 2000 Daniel Brewer has made application for preliminary plat review for the proposed Garden Lane Addition. This plat proposal consists of four (4) lots, one encompassing the six (6) existing four -plea structures, one encompassing the proposed 48 unit apartment structure and two proposed outlots. There will also be the creation of a public street/ cul -de -sac. Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on, and considered the request at its meeting of February 6, 2001, and recommended approval, with conditions. Considerations: Mr. Brewer is proposing to construct a 48 -unit structure located north and west of the existing four -plex structures, with access proposed off County Road 17 (Marschall Road). He also is proposing 24 garage spaces in two structures located north of the proposed apartment. As noted in the applicant's narrative description (Exhibit B), they are also asking for consideration of a variance of the lot width requirement for the proposed lot. They are proposing to provide a lot width of 120 feet, where 150 feet is required (refer to Exhibits B, I & L). As noted, this only occurs in the area of the driveway and detention pond; the property is 310 feet wide at the proposed building setback line. The applicant also noted in the narrative description that they plan to make exterior improvements to the existing four -plex structures, such as new railings for the decks and landscaping between the existing buildings and the new building. At the January 4, 2001 public hearing, there was considerable discussion regarding this project, resulting in the tabling of the public hearing to the February 6, 2001 meeting. The Commission asked that the applicant hold a neighborhood meeting and that staff submit a report to the City Council (Exhibit H). As a result from the neighborhood meeting, the applicant submitted a letter (Exhibit I) and a petition (Exhibit J), both, which addressed a request to eliminate the berm along the west property line and be replaced with a six (6) foot high continuous fence and additional coniferous landscaping. Concerning an issue with right -of -way alignment, the applicant offered a sketch and short report on a possible realignment (Exhibit K). 1. Approve the attached resolution approving the preliminary plat of GARDEN LANE ADDITION subject to the proposed conditions; 2. Approve the resolution approving the preliminary plat of Garden Lane Addition subject to revised conditions. 3. Do not approve the proposed preliminary plat of Garden Lane Addition. 4. Table a decision in order to allow time for the applicant and/or staff to provide additional information. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, approval with conditions as presented. Offer Resolution No. 5489, a resolution approving the preliminary plat of Garden Lane Addition subject to the conditions as presented, and move its adoption. g:\commdev\cc\2001\Cc0220\ppgardenln.doc 1 1IM-11 1 8 013 IJIIJ 19 LIN WIRERFAS, Daniel S. Brewer, applicant, and James Vandergriend, general partner ofBVC Partnership, L.L.P., property owners, have made application for preliminary plat approval of Garden Lane Addition; and WHEREAS, the subject properties are legally described as shown on Exhibit #1; and VVEWIZEAS, the Shakopee Planning Commission held a public hearing on the preliminary plat on February 8, 2001; and WHEREAS, all required public notices regarding the public hearing were posted and sent, and A The easement shown around the pond located on Lot 1 shall be removed from the plat. B. The applicant shall work with the City's Engineering Department to ensure all required easements are shown on the Final Plat. C. The Director of Public Works and the County Engineer must review and approve the Storm Sewer Plan. D. An additional dedication of 10 feet of right -of -way from centerline shall be required along Outlot A. The additional 10 feet may be dedicated as an easement to the County. E. Resolve the issue concerning that part of Outlot B, which is located within existing County right -of -way. The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of the Final Plat: - A. Approval of title by the City Attorney. B. Execution of a Developers Agreement which shall include provisions for security for the public improvements within the final plat, and for the payment of engineering review fees and any other fees as required by the City's adopted fee schedule. 1. Street lighting to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 2. Electrical system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 3. Water system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 4. Installation of private 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. 5. Park Dedication fees shall apply to this plat in the amount of $1,500.00 per unit, and shall be paid at the time of recording of the final plat. 6. The City shall require a landscaping bond at the time of building permit application in an amount equal to 115% of the value of the landscaping materials to insure completion of the landscaping. 7. The developer shall be responsible for payment of security for the public improvements, engineering review fees, and other fees as required by the City's adopted Fee Schedule. 8. Hydrants shall be placed in accordance with the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code, the policies of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission (SPUC), and shall be approved by the Shakopee Fire Inspector. 9. Street signs shall be installed by the City of Shakopee at a cost of $270 per each sign pole. 10. The two developments are to share the playground and upgrade the playground equipment as stated by applicant. 11. Provide fencing as proposed, in lieu of berm, along west property line. 12. Provide a security system as proposed. C. Final Construction Plans and Specifications must conform to City requirements and - are subject to approval by City Engineer and the Shakopee Public Utility Commission. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the day of . 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee 4 (';� CI'T'Y OF S HAKOPEE Memorandum im FI - 21 1 - al Shakopee Planning Commission Mark Noble, Planner I Preliminary Plat of GARDEN LANE ADDITION E G A : January 4, 2001 REVIEWPERIOD: December S, 2000 —April 6, 2001 Applicant: Daniel Brewer Property Owners: Daniel Brewer, BVC Partnership LLP Location: West of County Road 17 (MarschalI Road) and south of Gorman Road Current Zoning: Multiple Family Residential (R -3) Zone Adjacent Zoning: North: Multiple Family Residential (R -3) Zone South: Multiple Family Residential (R -3) Zone East: Multiple Family Residential (R-3) Zone West: Old Shakopee Residential (R - 1C) Zone 1996 Comp. Plan: High Density Residential Area: 230,453 sq. ft_ (5.29 acres) NIUSA: The site is within the MUSA boundary. Attachments: Exhibit A: Zoning/Location Map Exhibit B: Narrative Description Exhibit C: Preliminary Plat and Site Plan Exhibit D: City Engineering Comments Exhibit E: Alternative Water Service Plan Exhibit F: Scott County Environmental Health Dept. Comments Exhibit G: Scott County Highway Dept. Comments �r r Daniel Brewer has made application for preliminary plat approval of Garden Lane Addition. The proposal would consist of four (4) lots, one encompassing the six (6) existing four -plex structures, one encompassing the proposed multi - family residential structure, and two proposed outlots. There will also be a public street/ cul -de -sac. Considerations: Mr. Brewer is proposing to construct a 48 -unit structure located north and west of the existing four -plex structures, with access proposed off County Road 17 (Marschall Road). He also is proposing 24 garage spaces in two structures located north of the proposed apartment. As noted in the applicant's narrative description (Exhibit B), they are also asking for consideration of a variance of the lot width requirement for the proposed lot. They are proposing to provide a lot width of 120 feet, where 150 feet is required. As noted, this only occurs in the area of the driveway and detention pond; the property is 310 feet wide at the proposed building setback line. The applicant also noted in the narrative description that they plan to make exterior improvements to the existing four -plex structures, such as new railings for the decks and landscaping between the existing buildings and the new building. The City has no record of a park dedication fee ever being received for this property. Therefore, park dedication fees shall apply to this plat. There are 48 proposed units and 24 existing units as part of this plat. The current fee is $1500 per unit for a total park dedication payment of $108,000. City policy states that these fees may be deferred to building permit issuance consistent with city policy if a deferment is requested and approved. The applicant has not requested such a deferment. Should a deferment be requested and approved, a minimum of $36,000 in park dedication fees would be due at the time of recording the final plat (24 existing units x $1500). The following written comments have been received: The City Engineering Department has provided comments, a copy of which is attached for the Commission's information (Exhibit D). The Fire Inspector has provided the following comments: 1) the project must comply with Shakopee Fire Prevention Bureau Policies; 2) permits are required for fire protection/detection systems; 3) dry sidewall sprinklers are to be placed on all unit patios on the west and south elevations due to lack of Fire Department access; 4) standpipes are to be provided in all stairways; and 5) the fire service line shall be looped to the northwest per Shakopee Public Utilities (see Exhibit E). The City Building Official has commented that a building code analysis is required when making application for a permit. Scott County Environmental Health Department has submitted written comments, a copy of which is attached (Exhibit F). Scott County Highway Department has submitted written comments, a copy of which is attached (Exhibit G). Alternatives: 1. Recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat of GARDEN LANE ADDITION subject to the following proposed conditions; I. Prior to review of the final plat by the City Council, the following actions shall betaken: A. The easement shown around the pond located on Lot 1 shall be removed from the plat. B. The applicant shall work with the City's Engineering Department to ensure all required easements are shown on the Final Plat. C. The Director of Public Works and the County Engineer must review and approve the Storm Sewer Plan. D. An additional dedication of 10 feet of right -of -way from centerline shall be required along Outlot A. The additional 10 feet may be dedicated as an easement to the County. E. Resolve the issue concerning that part of Outlot B which is located within existing County right -of -way. YI. The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of the Final Plat: A. Approval of title by the City Attorney. B. Execution of a Developers Agreement which shall include provisions for security for the public improvements within the final plat, and for the payment of engineering review fees and any other fees as required by the City's adopted fee schedule. 1. Street lighting to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 2. Electrical system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. _ Water system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 4. Installation of private 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. 5. Park Dedication fees shall apply to this plat in the amount of $1,500.00 per unit, and shall be paid at the time of recording of the final plat. 6. The City shall require a landscaping bond at the time of building permit application in an amount equal to 115% of the value of the landscaping materials to insure completion of the landscaping. 7. The developer shall be responsible for payment of security for the public improvements, engineering review fees, and other fees as required by the City's adopted Fee Schedule. g. Hydrants shall be placed in accordance with the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code, the policies of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission (SPUC), and shall be approved by the Shakopee Fire Inspector. 9_ Street signs shall be installed by the City of Shakopee at a cost of $270 per each sign pole. C. Final Construction Plans and Specifications must conform to City requirements and are subject to approval by City Engineer and the Shakopee Public Utility Commission. M. ;Following approval and recording of the final plat, the following conditions shall apply; A. Building construction, sewer, water service, fire protection and access will be reviewed for code compliance at the time of building permit application(s). B. The developer will provide temporary street signs as approved by the Building Official and Fire Inspector. C. No signing, berming or landscaping shall be located in the County right -of -way or County easement. D. An access permit shall be required for the modification of Garden Lane. E. A utility permit shall be required for any work within the County right -of -way. 2. Recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat of GARDEN LANE ADDITION subject to revised conditions_ 3. Recommend denial of the proposed preliminary plat of GARDEN LANE ADDITION. 4. Continue the public hearing. 5. Close the public hearing, but table a decision in order to allow time for the applicant and /or staff to provide additional information. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, approval with conditions as presented. Action Requested: Offer a motion to recommend approval of the preliminary plat of GARDEN LANE ADDITION subject to the conditions outlined in Alternative No. 1. ark Nobl Planner I SHAKOPEE x A ;.- c S Prelivi Plat of Garden Court Apts. Zoning Parcels L L RlB i N SHAKOPEE x A ;.- c S Prelivi Plat of Garden Court Apts. Zoning Parcels ADVANCE ARCHITECTURAL INC. 2727 26 Avenue S., Minneapolis, Minnesota 55406 Telephone: (612) 724 -5557 Fax: (612) 724 -5510 basalt@skypointeom Mark Noble City of Shakopee 129 Holmes St. S. Shakopee, MN 55379 Re: Application for Preliminary Plat — Narrative Description Dear Mr. Noble: The following is a description of the proposed development: Narrative Description December 7, 2000 The proposed development subdivides the existing subject property into two parcels. The existing apartments in one lot and the future apartment building in the second lot_ As required by the City's Engineer, the development is also planning to dedicate a new right -of -way for Garden Lane as shown on the proposed plat. The new apartment building is proposed to be 48 units within one building and within all Zoning Requirements_ There will also be two ancillary buildings for garages. The developer also plans on some exterior improvements to the existing apartments consisting of new railings for the decks and landscaping between the existing and new buildings. Both the existing and new driveways shall intersect at the new cal -de -sac planned for Garden Lane. Due to the geometry of the existing property, this subdivision with the new right of way has one nonconformity with the zoning requirement for lot widths at the setback. In- lieu -of the required minimum of 150 feet it is only 120' in width. However, this occurs only in the area used as a driveway and ponding. Upon reaching a lot depth of approximately 120 feet the lot is 270 feet wide. At the proposed building set back it is 310 feet wide. Please consider a waiver of this requirement for the front entry of this proposed lot. We believe in all other respects that this proposed subdivision meets the City's requirements for this subdivision. Thank you for your consideration. cerely; Daniel S. rewer Architect l City of Shakopee Memorandum TO: Mark Noble, Planner I FROM: Joel Rutherford, Assistant City Engineer AVL SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat — Garden Court Apartments DATE: December 22, 2000 After reviewing the referenced application, I have the following comments for the applicant, and for the planning department: Streets The existing site has access off of County Road 17, using a skewed driveway entrance to the existing apartments located on the parcel south of the proposed plat. The preliminary plat shows a public road access that would provide access to the existing apartments, as well as the proposed apartments. The alignment and width for the street and cul -de -sac, meet the City's requirements. Easements An easement is shown around the pond located on Lot 1. Because this pond only, serves Lot 1, it is considered a private pond per the City's policies and practices. Therefore, the easement around the pond should be removed from the plat, and all future maintenance of this pond will be the responsibility of the owner of Lot 1. Additional easements are required around the perimeter of the lots. Additional easements may also be needed for the storm sewer within Lotl that serves Lot 2. The applicant shall work with the City's Engineering Department to insure all required easements are shown on the Final Plat. Sanitary Sewer All sanitary sewer upstream from manhole 2 shall be private. The final construction plans shall indicate all private sanitary sewer. Grading Plan/Erosion Control/Storm Sewer With the final plat application, the applicant shall submit revised storm sewer calculations. The Director of Public Works, prior to review by the City Council, must approve this plan. The final construction plans shall indicate all private storm sewer. Trunk Fees This plat is outside the Storm Sewer Trunk Charge area and the Sanitary Sewer Trunk Charge area. Therefore, there will be no Trunk Storm Sewer or Trunk Sanitary Sewer charges. Recommendation Recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat, subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to review of the Final Plat, by the City Council, the Director of Public Works approves the Storm Sewer Plan, and the easements dedicated with the Final Plat. 2. Prior to recording of the Final Plat, the following actions must be completed: 1. Execution of the Developers Agreement, which shall include provisions for security for the public improvements within the Final Plat and for the engineering review fees. 2. The City Engineer and the Shakopee Public Utility Commission must approve the Final Construction Plans and Specifications. i SCOTT COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT CENTER A104 200 FOURTH AVENUE WEST SHAKOPEE, MN 55379 -1220 (952) 496 -8177 Fax: (952) 496-8489 Mark Noble, Shakopee Planning Department FROM: Steve L. Steuber, Environmentalist ATE December 20, 2000 SUBJECT Preliminary Plat for Garden Court Apartments The area in which this development is proposed is highly susceptible to ground water contamination. Therefore, precautions should be taken to minimize the potential for ground water contamination. Storm water retention ponds should be designed to provide treatment for storm water. Scott County's Ground Water Protection Plan, suggests that storm water ponds located in highly susceptible areas which will receive runoff from residential. commercial and industrial developments (where water carried contaminants are likely to be present) should be designed in accordance with Federal NURP standards which suggest use of low permeability soil to treat and retard contaminant infiltration. Until the State adopts specific storm water design criteria to protect the ground water, ponds should be designed to meet the standards for treatment specified in MPCA rules for on -site sewage systems. These rules require a three -foot separation from the water table or bedrock and constructed in, or lined with, soils that have a permeability slower than five minutes per inch. H: \ENV_HLTH \Word \Municipal Developments \Shakopee\2000 \Garden Court Apartments.doc An Equal Opporraniry /Safety Aware Employer y Fax: (952) 496 -8365 Mark Noble City of Shakopee 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 Subject: Preliminary Plat - Garden Court Apartments CSAH 17 and Garden Lane Dear Mark: We have reviewed the Preliminary Plat as it relates to Highway Department issues and offer the following comments: s An access permit shall be required for the modification of Garden Lane. A utility permit shall be required for any work within the County right -of -way. ♦ An additional dedication of 10 feet of right -of -way from centerline shall be required along Outlot A. The additional 10 feet may be dedicated as an easement to the County. s Part of Outlot B is located within existing County right -of -way. This will have to be cleared up before final plat approval. ® Any change in stormwater entering the County right -of -way shall require detailed stormwater calculations to be submitted to the County Engineer for review and approval. ® No signing, berming, or landscaping shall be located in the County right -of -way or County easement. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Since , Cram Jenso Transporta ion Planner An Equal Opportunity• /Safety Aware Employer EXNn3�� t-! Memorandum T: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Mark Noble, Planner I SUBJECT: Garden Lane Preliminary Plat DATE: February 8, 2001 1 '9 At your January 4, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission tabled the public hearing for the Garden Lane Preliminary Plat, requesting two separate matters be addressed. The first item was a request for staff to submit a report to the City Council, asking that the Council meet with the owners of the multiple family residential properties in the vicinity of the proposed Garden Lane development to discuss issues concerning law enforcement in this neighborhood. The second item was for the applicant to hold a neighborhood meeting. At that Commission meeting, several property owners who live near the proposed Garden Lane development expressed concerns about vandalism and public safety issues that they have witnessed or were aware of that occur in the neighborhood. The Commission tabled the public hearing for the preliminary plat application and asked that the developer hold a neighborhood meeting to discuss issues and concerns of the neighborhood property owners and that they invite a representative of the Police Department. The Commission also asked that the Council meet with the Police Department and the multiple family property owners /managers in this neighborhood to discuss these issues and concerns. 1 1> 1 After the close of the Commission meeting, staff discussed this issue and were informed that a number of property owners /managers of the multiple family developments in the area do meet on a regular basis with City Public Safety officials and discuss the number of police calls and other issues, which benefit both the City Police and the property owners. These types of meetings will continue until no longer deemed necessary. Staff did draft a report to the City Council regarding this issue (see attached memorandum). Additionally, the developer has held a neighborhood meeting and will report on the discussion of that meeting during their public hearing for the preliminary plat, which was continued to February 8, 2001. The developer has submitted a letter that addresses concerns and issues that were discussed at the neighborhood meeting (see attached letter from Daniel S. Brewer). One issue that will require review by the Commission pertains to a request for removal of the berm requirement for along the west property line, and instead, allow for the installation of a new fence with evergreen plantings along that west property line. A draft of a petition regarding this proposal is attached, with a signed original expected to be presented the night of the meeting. Additionally, Mr. Brewer's letter addresses several other issues that were brought up at the January 4 meeting, and by the City and other agencies during the plat review process. Y Y ► Y h oil] This memorandum is provided for your information. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Mem T: Mayor and City Council — Activity Report Mark McNeill, City Administrator F R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Commission Referral DATE: February 6, 2001 At the January 4, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission asked staff to forward a recommendation to the City Council that they meet with the single family and multiple family property owners who own property in the vicinity southwest of Gorman Street and C.S.A.H. 17/ Marschall Road. The topic of discussion for that meeting stems from concerns raised by Eastway Circle property owners at a recent public hearing for a proposed 48 unit apartment structure off Garden Lane_ The property owner's aired their concerns about the amount of vandalism and public safety violations that occur in this area. After the close of that meeting, staff was made aware that a number of property owners/ managers of the multiple family developments in this area do meet on a regular basis with City Public Safety officials. This information was not available for the Planning Commission to include in their discussion that evening. This memorandum is provided for your consideration. Prepared by: Mark Noble, Planner I G: \cc\act.rpt T ADVANCE ARCHITECTURAL Z GROUP, INC. 2727 26 Avenue S., Minneapolis, Minnesota 55406 Telephone: (612) 724 -5557 Fax: (612) 724 -5510 asalt@skypoint.com Mark Noble City of Shakopee 129 Holmes St. S. Shakopee, MN 55379 January 28, 2001 Re: Application for Preliminary Plat — Response to issues & neighborhood items Dear Mr. Noble: As recommended by the Commission at the last hearing, the neighbors and I meet to discuss the concerns they have with the proposed apartment project and the existing conditions. We met at the home of Ms. Susan Windschitl on January 17 We discussed the development and its details, the neighborhood history and current concerns. We had some mutual concerns that we felt could be address in the redesign of certain elements of the proposed development. They are addressed in a Petition being circulated that is attached to this letter_ The reasoning for the items in the petition is as follows: Concerns: 1. What is desired is improved privacy and security. 2_ There is concern about the "required berm's" affect on drainage. 3. There is concern about the City's Police ability to respond quickly and the concurrent increase in activity and security issues arising from this. 4. More than half of the neighbors' fencing is on the apartment property and is in bad condition. 5. Some of the neighbors' fencing is low and chain link. 6. Trespassing by youth and others across neighbors' property. Suggested Action: 1. Removal of all existing fencing along the abutting property line. 2. Improve privacy and security by the construction of a 6 -foot high privacy fence between their property and the apartments along the west boundary. 3. The improvement of drainage by the removal of the proposed earth berm_ 4. The deletion of the earth berm will save the developer some money, which will help defray the cost of the new fence. 5. The new fence would be constructed along the entire west boundary of both the new and existing lots and tied into the proposed garages to better control pedestrian traffic. This will reduce trespassing on the neighbor's property and the apartments from both existing and new development. 6. In addition to the new fence, the developer would plant evergreen trees along the fence to add additional screening and reduce sound between properties. 7. Surveillance cameras are now planned for the new apartments to record activity in the parking lot. This, coupled with added building security, and the new fence are viewed as improvements to the proposed design and the existing residents_ In regard to other items that were raised by other agencies of the City are addressed as follows: A. The waiver of the lot width for the proposed subdivision is not a newly created nonconformity but pre - existing that remains even if there is no subdivision made. The existing lot width is currently 120' at the current set back of 50'. The proposed subdivision does not change this width. It only brings this condition further back from Marshall. B. The issue of density was discussed and may need to be clarified. The total of land in the subdivision is 5.19 acres with an allowable density of 93 units at 18 units per acre. The proposed subdivision is proposing a total of 72 units at a density of 13.87 units,per acre. This is a diminuation of 4.13 units per acre on this subdivision as permitted by the Ordinance. C. The City Department of Public Works feels that a Public Easement over the pond is necessary since the pond is serving only the Garden Lane Apartments. Therefore this is private. However, the Applicant would like to still identify this pond as part of the drainage easement in the final plat if the City does not object. D. The City Department of Public Works feels that the sanitary sewer from manhole no. 2 should be identified as private. The Applicant has no objection and shall have the identification revised for the Final Plat. E. The City Department of Public Works did not receive the storm sewer and pond calculations from the original submission in December_ The Applicant's Engineer had included them in the submission but perhaps they did not get distributed to the right parry. In any case, these have been resubmitted on January 25 and are currently being reviewed by City staff F. SPUC has requested a watermain stub to the northwest comer of the subdivision_ The Applicant's Engineer and SPUC staff have discussed the concerns of the Utility and have suggested an internally looped watermain that would run underneath the parking lot between the pond and the building and connect to the southwest existing watermain. G. Spacing between the overhead powerline and the garages needs to be 12' minimum. The current design is for this to be 16' to 18'. Thank you for your review and assistance in these matters_ Sincerely; Daniel S. newer Architect Cc Metro Land Surveying and Engineering Jim Vander Griend To: Shakopee Plannin6 Commission From: Eastview Circle Residents Re: Garden Villa Estates proposed development We, the undersigned residents of Eastview Circle, along with Daniel Brewer, the Director of Advance Architectural Group met on January 17th, 2001. Among issues discussed, most concerning were, privacy, trespassing and vandalism. At the end of a 2 1/2 hour discussion, we agreed that a six foot wooden privacy fence with tree plantings and landscaping would be a more attractive and effective option than the proposed four -foot berm. This fence would replace existing fencing, and be constructed on the developers' property, between the existing homes and the proposed apartment complex. It is understood that the cost, construction and maintenance of the fence would be the responsibility of the apartment complex owner. One other item under consideration is the possibility of some type of electronic surveillance installed on the complex site, to discourage crime in general. In the best interest of all parties, the undersigned residents and Mr. Brewer request that the Shakopee Planning Commission consider the above. Name Address Date m �1 !c f !� 77 To: Shakopee Planning Commission From: Eastview Circle Residents Re: Garden Villa Estates proposed development We, the undersigned residents of Eastview Circle, along with Daniel Brewer, the Director of Advance Architectural Group met on January 17th, 2001. Among issues discussed, most concerning were, privacy, trespassing and vandalism. At the end of a 2 1/2 hour discussion, we agreed that a six foot wooden privacy fence with tree plantings and landscaping would be a more attractive and effective option than the proposed four -foot berm. This fence would replace existing fencing, and be constructed on the developers' property, between the existin homes and the proposed apartment complex. It is understood that the cost, construction and maintenance of the fence would be the responsibility of the apartment complex owner. One other item under consideration is the possibility of some type of electronic surveillance installed on the complex site, to discourage crime in general. In the best interest of all parties, the undersigned residents and Mr. Brewer request that the Shakopee Planning Commission consider the above. m 0 35 7����i�� ��- ® � To: MARK NOBLE Company: CITY OF SHAKOPEE Phone: 952 -233 3)800 Fax: 952 -233 -2801 M JIM BRAULT Date: 1/08/01 Pages: 3 GARDEN LANE ADDITION ❑ Originals to Follow ❑ Fax Only Remarks: ❑ Urgent ❑ For Your Review ❑ Reply ASAP ❑ Please C omment ❑ As Requested MR. NOBLE, THE ENCLOSED SKETCH ILLUSTRATES WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO DO WITH THE REMAINDER OF OUTLOT B. THE TRIANGLE PIECE LABELED "C" WOULD BE DEDICATED AS GARDEN LANE AND THE TRIANGLE PIECE LABELED `B" WOULD DE DEDICATED AS HIGHWAY RIGHT -OF -WAY. THE EAST 10 FEET OF OUTLOT A WOULD BE GIVEN AS A HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT BY SEPARATE DOCUMENT. PLEASE CALL ME IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, THANKYOU From: Pine City Office: Route 4, Box 205 Pine City, MN 55063 Phone: 320- 629 -3267 Fax: 320 -629 -0176 •� n EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING I C 1 I 2p 0 0 -/ I ; r `• r ` - - - -- �- 7 16 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT / �1� Q Cb �Y N b / r m R J'0 En 0 o N(,all mm n m --q 1�1 SASE .. s iT y p U W r � 1 0 1 En ®1 7 co n I _ Ro ' 1 1 1 1 1 e� , r% , r T MEMORAN / T HE TABLE Mem orand um TO: Board of Adjustment and Appeals FROM Mark Noble, Planner I ,,,.�,,.,/ ( SUBJECT: Garden Lane — Lot Width Variance ATE: January 4, 2001 On the Board of Adjustment and Appeals agenda for January 4, 2001 agenda, there is a public hearing scheduled to consider a Preliminary Plat for Garden Court Apartments. An element of this plat request that needs additional discussion concerns a variance of the minimum lot width requirement. In the R -3 (Multiple Family) Zone, the Design Standards stipulate that the minimum lot width is 150 feet. The lot width is defined as "the horizontal distance between the side lines of a lot measured parallel to the front line and at the building setback line. In the R- 3 Zone, the building setback line is 50 feet. In the applicant's narrative (Exhibit B), it was noted that Lot 1 of Block 1 of the proposed Garden Lane Addition is approximately 310 feet wide at the front lane of the proposed building, however, the lot at the setback line is 120 feet wide which does not comply with the Ordinance regulations and approval of a lot width variance is necessary. I have included the criteria for granting a variance for your review, which stipulates that a variance can be approved only if all of the following circumstances are found to exist: Criterion I The strict enforcement of the ordinance provisions would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration. Undue hardship means the following: I.A. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls; I. B. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property; 1.C. The circumstances were not created by the landowner; I. D. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; and I.E. The problems extend beyond economic considerations. Economic considerations do not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Criterion 2 It has been demonstrated that a variance as requested will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Chapter. Criterion 3 The request is not for a use variance. Criterion 4 Conditions to be imposed by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals will insure compliance to protect the adjacent properties. Criterion 5 Variances in the flood plain overlay zone also shall meet the following criteria:...... Please review the above noted criterion and determine whether this application complies with the criterion for granting a lot width variance. .. ... ........... 6C Q) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8 M..AM r -- — — — — — — — — — — - = 1 3-j; F z L eF �t Ct3 C.0 -4. 0 C, CYI (:0 -4, t';, 03 - "E '3 3"E e- " / (n ! ,, C 0 � p i 3 E�: r --, --- 0 � - - Cp - c r c- KST I$NE OF LOI I NEK'S "0 to "E -0 �--OFCE --1SOtl -D ,NE . S, OF NOO*39'31 -t , E —I.. ............. 577 79 � .. ... ........... 6C Q) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8 M..AM r -- — — — — — — — — — — - = 1 3-j; F z L eF �t Ct3 C.0 -4. 0 C, CYI (:0 -4, t';, 03 ,r7 S03 - "E '3 3"E e- " / (n ! ,, C 0 � p i 3 E�: r --, --- 0 � - - Cp - c r c- i S! A? -0 y o -t , > � �-4 o C� 1-- 0,5 9 A 7or •b 04 6Z V S 2 0 44 O O z 7 ou < L O C, A ,r7 S03 - "E '3 3"E e- " / (n ! ,, C 0 � p i 3 E�: r --, --- 0 � - - Cp - c r c- i S! A? -0 y o -t , > � �-4 o C� 1-- 0,5 9 A 7or •b 04 6Z V S 2 0 44 O O z 7 Q) - 3 o Lu o 0 1 - -------- 00 0 L-48.39 0 3 '" j5 �.' - - -� p1 � R =1949.86 8 i° n P � ! , ; ;: ,`Ls9.06 / D- 1'25' � i h' . 0'., —AD j\[O 17 09.86 18. 30 9 ;0. — go 6V0 0 _ , q N� 0 -- —/— C6 � v II FFO O F;� PP O N S z 5 T 0 o 3 E�: r --, --- 0 � - - Cp - > c- i S! — o - -0 y o -t , > � �-4 o A 7or 0 c S 2 0 o O O z 7 ou < L - 3 o Lu o 0 1 - -------- 00 0 L-48.39 0 3 '" j5 �.' - - -� p1 � R =1949.86 8 i° n P � ! , ; ;: ,`Ls9.06 / D- 1'25' � i h' . 0'., —AD j\[O 17 09.86 18. 30 9 ;0. — go 6V0 0 _ , q N� 0 -- —/— C6 � v II FFO O F;� PP O N S z 5 T 0 o 3 E�: r --, --- 0 � - - Cp - > c- i S! — o - -0 o Prod FO 0 -09 > o �-4 o A 7or 0 c S 2 0 o - 3 o Lu o 0 1 - -------- 00 0 L-48.39 0 3 '" j5 �.' - - -� p1 � R =1949.86 8 i° n P � ! , ; ;: ,`Ls9.06 / D- 1'25' � i h' . 0'., —AD j\[O 17 09.86 18. 30 9 ;0. — go 6V0 0 _ , q N� 0 -- —/— C6 � v II FFO O F;� PP O N m A r - o0-oz - I P 4 I� I o o � l4��. i � I 8� / AD OR NOO 90-89 INV I 5-C FOOr 4 caNc. - 1w A va 20.00 E­F.G W C I I I I I m I �/ - - - - - - - - - - 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - a sir Ir a > 0 3 o E�: r --, --- 0 � - - Cp - > c- i S! ;d < > i " -0 m > Prod FO 0 -09 > o �-4 o O 0 c S Ugb o O O z ou < L m A r - o0-oz - I P 4 I� I o o � l4��. i � I 8� / AD OR NOO 90-89 INV I 5-C FOOr 4 caNc. - 1w A va 20.00 E­F.G W C I I I I I m I �/ - - - - - - - - - - 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - a sir Ir a > I W vl O 0 3 o 3° o o ago ' 3 0 3 ooh 0 1 -0 0 1 p o �-4 o O 0 c o O O I W vl O b, LR I W vl O I I � ?.ItINIL -ST�1' 'ti lxT� '\ f YII� 16530 m 0 WALL ..`: RET WALL y -- ------- ---- -- / PROPERTY UNE 0- W� --SET BACK i ..: ;;o '� y 0000000 00000000 i A I I rn ly L Z rn 7r, 7 77 JTd I I k) I m • —� I f' `I .. > N i ..,., • • eel mow 1 ?SE�BACK� 0 m oo.na I • • •by •�..�. O d i PROPERTY UNE s I m -i 0 '� • o A� 0 al ti 0 { I T ld f t F11 IS. / v 1. 7 H G n m> U a r 10 O� wn0o n y R I 0 ti 8 E 0 m In o ° n 8oa� O 0 o C � O N W b J ti y J CA n� 0 0 P H En � a In C, > ' \ � 'la '1,a , J ., I � '-!` rte- / `�� L `,'• F11 IS. / v 1. 7 O O N J N W N �1 a g w 0 C r00 O ° ���� O ° to I-C > 7 11 Y C p ? 0, N ti H � N O a x� CERFMCM m rxwsKm rr . - - ADVANCE ABC@fBClDRAL DBDUP WW Z&M AV. m W S IN 66100 r:( PAmu) -7r W10 1 0 ar a.a...r..s li H G n m> U a r 10 O� wn0o n y R I 0 ti 8 E 0 m In o ° n 8oa� O 0 o C � O N W b J ti y J CA 0 0 P O O N J N W N �1 a g w 0 C r00 O ° ���� O ° to I-C > 7 11 Y C p ? 0, N ti H � N O a x� CERFMCM m rxwsKm rr . - - ADVANCE ABC@fBClDRAL DBDUP WW Z&M AV. m W S IN 66100 r:( PAmu) -7r W10 1 0 ar a.a...r..s li H G n m> U a r 10 O� wn0o p0 R I 0 ti 8 E 0 m In o � n 8oa� o 0 0 H En � a In C, O O N J N W N �1 a g w 0 C r00 O ° ���� O ° to I-C > 7 11 Y C p ? 0, N ti H � N O a x� CERFMCM m rxwsKm rr . - - ADVANCE ABC@fBClDRAL DBDUP WW Z&M AV. m W S IN 66100 r:( PAmu) -7r W10 1 0 ar a.a...r..s li r op y y y M° 8oa� O O N J N W N �1 a g w 0 C r00 O ° ���� O ° to I-C > 7 11 Y C p ? 0, N ti H � N O a x� CERFMCM m rxwsKm rr . - - ADVANCE ABC@fBClDRAL DBDUP WW Z&M AV. m W S IN 66100 r:( PAmu) -7r W10 1 0 ar a.a...r..s li y d A 3 r 0 s m a a a w- 4 S 0 N C -1 O. 9 m N 0 m 0 U O N 0 D Z n N I . 1 I I I I I I � / i p u \ / / \t Sµ1\•PNCI M ; Q\ / 1 1 ; ♦] RlP O 1001 � .� _� i \ \\ ' h l � t o - 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nc4 z ^ a F g 7 3 � b�N o pA� ��"` 2u D Rx2 yC ^mN 2403 O1Fi o,z ` ma n Zvo r7 U n y C � a �3 a• B�'LO o i `i 1 � a i ? d n Ip N n y O G O A u A u A d- On , � uo;< 6 ;u y o ��� bSp� o dpo� q �QU_ tJ mo> R A h a J °n ,o Unl2� rna, V'u� mm\n nu .QU.UrC-n cn _y 12n OI O OI A N A b L� n NN n NN O V m U D V J 5,:, 0 j <OC R• n ° A -c OTm. i A \ \\ ' h l � t o - 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nc4 z ^ a F g 7 3 CITY OF SAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Request of Scott County HRA to Rezone Property from Highway Business (B -1) to Medium Density Residential (R -2) MEETING DATE: February 20, 2001 The Scott County HRA has made application to rezone a portion of property on Bluff Street that it has acquired through tax - forfeiture from Highway Business (B -1) to Medium Density Residential (R -2). This request was the subject of a February 8, 2001 public hearing before the Planning Commission. At that hearing, 3 persons who own nearby businesses, testified in opposition to the request, noting their concerns about the impact on property values and vandalism. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve Ordinance No. 593, rezoning property from Highway Business (B -1) to Medium Density Residential (R -2) 2. Do not approve Ordinance No. 593, rezoning property from Highway Business (B -1) to Medium Density Residential (R -2) 3. Table the matter to request additional information from staff. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed rezoning by a vote of 6 -0. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer a motion approving Ordinance No. 593, rezoning property from Highway Business (B -1) to Medium Density Residential (R -2) R. Michael Leek Community Development Director is \commdev \cc\2001 \cc0220 \.rzscotthrado c AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP ADOPTED IN CITY CODE SEC. 11.03 BY REZONING LAND GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF BLUFF AVENUE AM WKST OF CSAH MARSCHALL ROAD. WHEREAS, Scott County HRA, applicant and property owner, has requested the rezoning of land from Highway Business (B -1) to Medium Density Residential (R -2); and WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as found on Exhibit A attached: WHEREAS, notices were duly sent and posted, and a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on February 8, 2001, at which time all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council heard the matter at its meeting of February 20, 2001, and found that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the area of the City within which it is located. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1 - That the zoning map adopted in City Code Sec. 11.03 is hereby amended by zoning the entire subject property from Highway Business (B -1) Zone to Medium Density Residential (R -2). Section 2 - Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed in Minnesota, held this day of Attest: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, .2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of , 2001. December 22, 2000 Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authonty 323 Naumkeag Street Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 To Whom it May Concern: i. MEMBER MINNESOTA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION AGENT FOR CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block 32, Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota. I David' . Moonen President Scott County Abstract & Title, Inc. SCOTT COUNTY ABSTRACT AND TITLE, R lice sed M LN41 Orr. 2- c'�i7 Memorandum fim Shakopee Planning Commission R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Amendment to the Zoning Map rezoning property from Highway Commercial (B -1) and Medium Density Residential (R -2) to Medium Density Residential (R -2) APPLICANT: Scott County HRA (HRA), Applicant and Property Owner ETING DATE: February 8, 2001 • KNE January 11, 2001/March 13, 2001 The HRA has requested that the City amend its land use map to guide the entirety of the subject property for medium density residential use, and the zoning map to rezone property currently zoned Highway Commercial (B -1) and Medium Density Residential (R -2) to Medium Density Residential (R -2). A copy of the HRA's submittal letter and preliminary proposal for development accompany this memorandum for the Commission's information. The property is located on Bluff Avenue, south of CSAH 101, and west of Marschall Road/CSAH 17. On the approved 1995 Comprehensive Plan a portion of the subject property is guided for medium density use, while a portion is unguided. Site Information: Applicant and Property Owner: Scott County HRA Location: On Bluff Avenue, south of CSAH 101, and west of Marschall Road/CSAH 17. Adjacent Zoning: North: Agricultural Preservation (AG) South: Highway Business (B -1) East: Highway Business (B -1) West: Medium Density Residential (R -2) MUSA: The site is within the current MUSA boundary. 1 Discussion: The applicant is requesting that the City amend the Official Zoning Map by rezoning property currently zoned as Agricultural Preservation (AG) to Urban Residential (R -1B). Please see Exhibit A for the location of the subject site. The City's Comprehensive Plan sets basic policies to guide the development of the City. The purpose of designating different areas for residential, commercial, and industrial land uses is to promote the location of compatible land uses, as well as to prevent incompatible land uses from being located in close proximity to one another. The Zoning Ordinance is one of the legal means by which the City implements the Comprehensive Plan. Under Minnesota statute, zoning is to conform with a city's comprehensive plan. The proposed rezoning is not inconsistent with the adopted land use plan. Exhibits B and C provide a listing of the uses, both permitted and conditional, that are allowed in the Highway Business (B -1) and Medium Density Residential (R -2) zones. Copies of the land use plans are available for viewing at City Hall and will be made available at the February 8, 2001 meeting. Findings: The criteria required for the granting of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment are listed below with proposed findings for the Commission's consideration. Criteria 41 That the original Zoning Ordinance is in error; zn Finding #1 The orio nal zoning district as depicted on the City's current z-oning map is not consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. Criteria #2 That significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place; IidliZg # Sign f cani ciian,- s in coi- Inunity goals and policies have not taken place relative FZ to the subject property. Criteria #3 That significant changes in City -wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred; or Finding #3 Significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place relative to the subject property. Specifically, the subject property has been available for development for several years, and has not only developed, but was acquired by the HPU because it went tax forfeit. Development of the subject property for residential use will be consistent with desired development patterns for this area of the City, and will likely help spark additional redevelopment. Criteria #4 That the comprehensive plan requires a different provision. 2 Finding #4 The proposed rezoning would be consistent with both the adopted and proposed Comprehensive Plan land use map. Alternatives: 1. Recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to rezone the subject property Highway Commercial (B -1) and Medium Density Residential (R -2) to Medium Density Residential (R -2). 2. Do not recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to rezone the subject property Highway Commercial (B -1) and Medium Density Residential (R -2) to Medium Density Residential (R -2). 3. Continue the public hearing and request additional information from the applicant or staff 4. Close the public hearing, but table the matter and request additi onal information. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to rezone the subject property Highway Commercial (B -1) and Medium Density Residential (R -2) to Medium Density Residential (R -2). Action Requested: Offer and approve a motion to recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to re ne the subject property Highway Commercial (B -1) and Medium Density Residential (R-2) to Medium Density Residential (R -2). R. Michael Leek Community Development Director g: \boaa- pc\2001\FebOS`szSco tt�A.doc M- R "I "I emwa-v— Zoning Boundary parcel Boundary a Date CtLea: 1 11' U 1 W Fee for Recording (payable to Scott County Recorders Office) $19.50* *Required for CUP, PUD, PUD Amendment and Vacations Please see the corresponding Informational Handout for the type of application you have requested for further information. This sheet must be returned with application PLICA FOR (please check [- ] the appropriate box and answer the corresponding questions) ❑ Variance - Questions 1-4, 6, 15 -19 Single Family Residential $ All Others $ I55 0 Appeal to City Council $ 85 ❑ Conditional Use Permit (CUP) - Questions 1-4, 6, 14, 18, 19 Over Height Fence $100 All Other Conditional Use Permits $ 200 $ 200 Renewal or Amendment of Existing CUP Appeal to City Council $100 Mineral Extraction and Land Rehabilitation $ 200 plus 52500 cash deposit (Mineral Extraction/Land Rehabilitation) ❑ Determination by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals - Questio -4, 6, 18 Application Fee: ❑ Preliminary Plat - Questions 1 4, 6 -8, 18, 19 Fee Calculation: 5200 ( acres x $4) _ 5330 ( lots x $6) = Amount Due is the GREATER of the two calculations. ❑ Final Plat - Questions 1 -4, 6 -8, 18, 19 $ 150 Application Fee: Title Review Fee SIN, ❑ PUD Concept Revie%v - Questions 1 -4, 6 -8, 18 $100 Application: ❑ Planned Unit Development (PTJ - D) - Questions 1-4, 6 -8, 1 7 0 _ acres x $351 = Application Fee: $1000 Cash Deposit ❑ Amendment to Planned Unit Development (PUD) - Questions 1 -4, 6 -8, 18, 19 Application Fee: $ 300 Cash Deposit $1000 :g Rezoning - Questions 1-6,18, 19 Rezoning less than 2.5 acres Rezoning greater than 2.5 acres $500 ❑ Zoning Text Amendment - Questions 13, 18, 19 Application Fee: $ 500 ❑ Vacation of Easements or Right -of -Way - Questions 1-4, 6, 9 -12, 18, 19 $200 . Application Fee (Right -of -Way): $100 (Easements): Applicants Name: -- Scott County BRA Address: Naunmm 1cr Street, Shakopee, MN Phone Number: 402 -9022 FAX Number: 496 -2852 Property Owner: Scott County ERA ��11�j Address: � NatankeaQ Street, Shakopee, N1N 5a Phone Number. 402 -9022 FAX Number: 496 -2852 1. Current legal descriptions of all parcels (attach separate sheets, if necessary): See attached 2. PID Numbers:27 906 - 0 27- 27- 004163 - 27- 3. Property Acreage: a rcx. 10 acres 4. Present Zoning: Bl /R2 5. Requested Zoning: 2 6. Existing Use of Property: Vacant 7. Proposed name of development: 8. If development is to be phased, proposed number of phases: 9. Right -of -way or easement location proposed for vacation: 10. Size and dimension of proposed vacation: Right -of -way names (if applicable): 12_ Any existing utilities or improvements: 13. If proposing an amendment to the text of the Zoning Ordinance, which provision? 14. Type of Conditional Use Permit requested: 15. Variance requested to: 16. Variance dimension requested: 17. Please describe the undue hardship that exists that is unique to the site which necessitates the request for a variance: 18. Please provide any : aitional information that would be helpfy for the Board of Adjustment and Appeals or Planning..ommission when reviewing this reques._ . The land which we are requesting the re— zoning was previously tax — forfeited land_ 19. Does the request meet the criteria necessary to grant approval (please refer to the informational handout)? Submitted this _ day of ja nu 2001 Applicants Si WILLIAM I. JA55A EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Property Owners afore WILLIAM I. JAFFA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR City staff has ten days from the date of application to determine if an application is complete. Incomplete applications will not be processed. i:\commdev\admiTl\other\apprev.doc PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL Nine (9) Unit Low Density Mixed Style New Construction Affordable Rental Housing Introduction: The Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (SC -HRA) proposes to construct a combination low density urban village consisting of two (2) twin homes, one (1) town home (4 plex) and one (1) stand alone single family home. The housing development is the planned catalyst to access funding from the Metropolitan Council's Livable Community Act (LCA) Demonstration Account. City guided general public amenities including connecting trail ways and landscaping, will form the basis for a downtown river front revitalization effort on the east end of the downtown community. The development will consist of two (2) and three (3) bedroom units as side by side twin homes and town homes built slab on g a two bedroom to 1 forta bedroom square footage ranging from 1,000 0 The units will have natural gas, forced air heat and central air condi All cn �I w ill have standard kitchen appliances plus dishwasher. Washer and d er hook -u p provided in each unit. Tenants will pay gas and electric utilities. The SC -HRA will provide garbage service, water, sewer and common area maintenance. Site amenities will include an age appropriate play area connecting the twin homes to the west and the town homes to the east. Site Location:_ The proposed urban village development site is located on the north side of Bluff Avenue, just east of Naumkeag Street in Shakopee, Nlinnesota. The site consists of a relativeiy narrow stri of lai run ning from west to east on Naumkeag Str eet. The subject property is relatively level and contains few trees. The site is currently undeveloped and is bordered to the west by an existing home. Nearby development consists of a mixture of residential and commercial construction. The site has water and sewer access, but will require a change in zoning, as the site is zoned R -2 and B -1. Site Control: The site is a tax - forfeited property consisting of three parcels that have been conveyed to the SC -HRA through the State of Minnesota Department of Revenue. There is approximately 570,000 in unpaid special assessments on the parcels. §11.36 SEC. 11.36. HIGHWAY BUSINESS ZONE (B-1). 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 (1) or more of the following uses: A. motels and hotels; B. restaurants, class 1; C. retail establishments; D. utility services; E. administrative, executive and professional offices; F. financial institutions; G. medical or dental clinics; H. public buildings; I. dwellings when combined in the same structure with another, permitted use within the Highway Business Zone (B -1) along the County Road 69 /State Highway 101 /First Avenue corridor west of County Road 17 /Marschall Road and east of Webster Street or a line running northwesterly along the eastem boundary of the Webster Street right -of -way; (Ord. 525, December 31, 1998) J. single and mixed use developments which comply with Section 11.50, and have received approval from the City Council. (Ord. 563, November 25, 1999) 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 11; G. private lodges and clubs; page revised in 1999 1171 §11.36 H. commercial recreation, major or minor, 1. 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, replacement of any part or repair of any part, incidental body and fender work, painting or upholstering; L vehicle rental facilities; (Ord. 546, May 6,1999) M. car washes; N. hospitals; O, theaters; P. funeral homes; Q. utility service structures; R. day care facilities; S. adult day care centers as conditional use, subject to the following conditions: The adult day care centers shall: 1. serve thirteen (13) or more persons; 2. provide proof of an adequate water and sewer system if not served by municipal utilities; 3, have outdoor leisuretrecreation areas located and designed to minimize visual and noise impacts on adjacent areas; 4. the total indoor space available for use by participants must equal at least forty (40) square feet for each day care participant and each day care staff member present at the center. When a center is located in a multifunctional organization, the center may share a common space with the multifunctional organization if the required space available for use by participants is maintained while the canter is operating. In determining the square footage of usable indoor space available, a center must not count: a. hallways, stairways, closets, offices, restrooms and utility and storage areas; b, more than 25% of the space occupied by the furniture or equipment used by participants or staff; or page revised in 1999 1172 §11.36 C. in a multifunctional organization, any space occupied by persons associated with the multifunctional organization while participants are using common space; S. provide proof of state, federal and other governmental licensing agency approval; and 5. comply with all other state licensing requirements; (Ord. 482, May 15, 1997) T. relocated structures; U. structures over thirty-five (35) feet in height; (Ord. 554, July 15, 1999) V. developments containing more than one (1) principal structure per lot; or W. other uses similar to those permitted by the subdivision, upon a determination by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, may be allowed upon the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. (Ord. 528, October 29, 1998; Ord. 554, July 15, 1999) Subd. 4. Planned Unit Oevelooment Uses. (Ord. 554, July 15, 1999) Within the highway business zone the following uses shall be planned unit development uses: A. retail centers; Subd. S. 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; E. communication service apparatusldevice(s) as permitted accessory uses, subject to the following conditions: 1. shall be co- located on an existing tower or an existing structure; 2- must not exceed 175 feet in total height (including the extension of any communication service device(s) apparatus); 3. lights and/or flashing equipment shall not be permitted unless required by state or federal agencies; 4. signage shall not be allowed on the communication service device(s) /apparatus other than danger or warning type signs; page revised in 1999 1173 §11.36 5. must provide proof from a professional engineer that the equipment will not interfere with existing communications for public safety purposes; 6. shall be located and have an exterior finish that minimizes visibility off -site to the maximum extent possible; 7, applicable provisions of the City Code, including the provisions of the State Building Code therein adopted, shall be complied with; S. all obsolete or unused towers and accompanying accessory facilities shall be removed within twelve (12) months of the cessation of operations at the site unless a time extension is approved by the City. After the facilities are removed, the site shall be restored to its original or an approved state. The user of the tower and/or accompanying accessory facilities shall be responsible for the removal of facilities and restoration of the site; 9. the applicant shall submit a plan illustrating all anticipated future location sites for communication towers and/or communication devices(s) /apparatus; 10. wireless telecommunication towers and antennas will only be considered for City parks when the following conditions exist and if those areas are recommended by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and approved by the City Council: a. City parks of sufficient size and character that are adjacent to an existing commercial or industrial use; b. commercial recreation areas and major playfields used primarily by adults; 11. all revenue generated through the lease of a City park for wireless telecommunication towers and antennas should be transferred to the Park Reserve Fund; or (Ord. 479, March 13, 1997) F. other accessory uses customarily appurtenant to a permitted use, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. Subd 6 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. minimum lot size (new lots): one (1) acre (Ord. 485, June 12, 1997) 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 page revised in 1999 1174 §11.37 minimum rear yard setback: 30 feet minimum side or rear yard setback from residential zones: 75 feet D. Maximum height: Thirty-Fire (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. COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC). (Ord. 563, November 25, 1999) Subd. 1. Purpose. The purposes of the community commercial zone are: (Ord. 563, November 25, 1999) A. to provide areas that allow the concentration of general commercial development for the convenience of Shakopee residents and the greater Shakopee trade area; B. to provide space for larger community facilities and institutions that may be appropriately located in commercial areas; C. to provide adequate space to meet the parking spaces, loading, and traffic management needs of larger scale commercial development. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. Within the community commercial zone, no structure or land shall be used except for one (1) or more of the following uses: (Ord. 563, November 25, 1999) A. retail; B. administrative, executive, and professional offices; C. medical or dental clinics; D. restaurants, class I; E. showroom facilities; F. medical or dental clinics; G. services; H. public buildings. Subd. 3. Uses Permitted with a Conditional Use Permit. Within the Neighborhood Commercial zone, no structure or land shall be used for any of the following uses except after approval of a conditional use permit; (Ord. 563, November 25, 1999) A. taverns; B. churches; C. animal hospitals and veterinary clinics; page revised in 1999 1175 §11.32 SEC. 11 .32. MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE (R -2). Subd.1. Purpose. The purpose of the medium density residential zone is to provide an area which will allow two and one -half (2.5) to eight (8) residential dwellings per acre and also provide a transitional zone between single family residential areas and other land uses. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. Within the medium density residential zone, no structure or land shall be used except for one (1) or more of the following uses: A. residential structures containing two (2) to four (4) dwelling units; B. existing single family dwellings; C. public recreation; D. utility services; E. public buildings; F. day care facilities serving twelve (12) or fewer persons; G. adult day care centers as permitted uses, subject to the following conditions: The adult day care center shall: 1. serve twelve (12) or fewer persons; 2, provide proof of an adequate water and sewer system if not served by municipal utilities; 3. have outdoor leisurelrecreation areas located and designated to minimize visual and noise impacts on adjacent areas; 4. the total indoor space available for use by participants must equal at least forty (40) square feet for each day care participant and each day care staff member present at the center. When a center is located in a multifunctional organization if the required space available for use by participants is maintained while the center is operating. In determining the square footage of usable indoor space available, a center must not count: a. hallways, stairways, closets, offices, restrooms, and utility and storage areas; b, more than 25% of the space occupied by the furniture or equipment used by participants or staff; or C. in a multifunctional organization, any space occupied by persons associated with the multifunctional organization while participants are using common space; and 5, comply with all other state licensing requirements; (Ord. 482, May 15, 1997) page revised in 1997 1151 §11.32 H. residential facilities serving six (6) or fewer persons; or I. townhouses (Ord. 467, December 19, 1996) Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Within the medium density residential zone, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: A. multiple- family dwellings containing up to six (6) units; S. (Deleted, Ord. 501, September 18,1997) C. hospitals and clinics; D. cemeteries; E. churches and other places of worship; F. public or private schools having a course of instruction approved by the Minnesota Board of Education for students enrolled in K through grade 12, or any portion thereof; G. nursing homes; H. bed and breakfast inns; 1. utility service structures; J. day care facilities serving from thirteen (13) through sateen (16) persons; K. adult day care centers as conditional use, subject to the following conditions: The adult day care centers shall: 1. serve thirt een (13) or more persons; 2. provide proof of an adequate water and sewer system if not served by municipal utilities; 3, have outdoor leisurelrecreation areas located and designed to minimize visual and noise impacts on adjacent areas; 4, the total indoor space available for use by participants must equal at least forty (40) square feet for each day care participant and each day care staff member present at the center. When a center is located in a multifunctional organization, the center may share a common space with the multifunctional organization N the required space available for use by participants is maintained while the center is operating. In determining the square footage of usable indoor space available, a center must not count: a. hallways, stairways, closets, offices, restrooms and utility and storage areas; page revised in 1997 1152 §11.32 b. more than 25% of the space occupied by the furniture or equipment used by participants or staff; or C. in a multifunctional organization, any space occupied by persons associated with the multifunctional organization while participants are using common space; 5, provide proof of state, federal and other governmental licensing agency approval; and g, comply with all other state licensing requirements; (Ord. 482, May 15, 1997) L. residential facilities serving from seven (7) through sixteen (16) persons; M. relocated structures; N. structures over two and one -half (2 -1/2) stories or thirty-five (35) feet in height; O. developments containing more than one (1) principal structure per lot; or P. other uses similar to those permitted by the subdivision, upon a determination by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, may be allowed upon the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. (Ord. 528, October 29, 1998) Subd. 4. Permitted Accessory Uses. Within the medium density residential zone, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: A. open off - street parking spaces not to exceed three (3) spaces per dwelling unit; B. garages; C. fences; D. gardening and other horticultural uses not involving retail sales; E. communication service apparatus/device(s) as permitted accessory uses, subject to the following conditions: 1, shall be co- located on an existing tower or an existing structure; 2. must not exceed 175 feet in total height (including the extension of any communication service device(s) apparatus); 3. lights and/or flashing equipment shall not be permitted unless required by state or federal agencies; 4. signage shall not be allowed on the communication service device(s) /apparatus other than danger or warning type signs; page revised in 1998 1153 §11.32 5, must provide proof from a professional engineer that the equipment will not interfere with existing communications for public safety purposes; 6. shall be located and have an exterior finish that minimizes visibility off-site to the maximum extent possible; 7, applicable provisions of the City Code, including the provisions of the State Building Code therein adopted, shall be complied with; a, all obsolete or unused towers and accompanying accessory facilities shall be removed within twelve (12) months of the cessation of operations at the site unless a time extension is approved by the City. After the facilities are removed, the site shall be restored to its original or an approved state. The user of the tower and/or accompanying accessory facilities shall be responsible for the removal of facilities and restoration of the site; 9, the applicant shall submit a plan illustrating all anticipated future location sites for communication towers and/or communication devices (s) /apparatus ; 10. wireless telecommunication towers and antennas will only be considered for City parks when the following conditions exist and if those areas are recommended by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and approved by the City Council: City parks of suff icient size and character that are adjacent to an existing commercial or industrial use; ® commercial recreation areas and major playfields used primarily by adults; 11. all revenue generated through the lease of a City park for wireless telecommunication towers and antennas should be transferred to the Park Reserve Fund; (Ord. 479, March 13, 1997) F. swimming pools; G. tennis courts; H. receive only satellite dish antennas and other antennas; 1, home occupations contingent upon approval of a home occupation permit; (Ord. 501, September 18, 1997) J. solar equipment; or K. other accessory uses, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. Subd 5 Design Standar Within the medium density residential zone, no land shall be used, and no structure shall be constructed or used, except in conformance with the following requirements: page revised in 1997 1154 §11.32 A. Density: a minimum of five (5) and a maximum of elevel (11) dwellings per acre. Streets shall be excluded in calculating acreage. B. Maximum impervious surface percentage 60% C. Lot specifications: Minimum lot width (single- family detached): 60 feet; (two-family dwelling): 70 feet; (multiple - family dwelling): 100 feet Minimum lot depth: 100 feet Minimum front yard setback: 35 feet Minimum side yard setback: 10 feet Minimum rear yard setback: 30 feet In the case of townhouse developments which contain both public streets and private streets or driveways, the front yard setback on public streets may be reduced to the average setback from private streets or driveways, so long as the front yard setback from any public street in the development is no less than 20 feet. (Ord. 467, December 19, 1996) D. Maximum height: No structure shall exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height without a conditional use permit. Subd. 6. Additional Reauirements. A. All dwellings shall have a depth of at least twenty (20) feet for at least 50% of their width. All dwellings shall have a width of at least twenty (20) feet for at least 50% of their depth. S. All dwellings shall have a permanent foundation in conformance with the Minnesota State Building Code. (Ord. 31, October 25, 1979; Ord. 60, May 14, 1981; Ord. 159, February 28, 1985; Ord. 264, May 26, 1989; Ord. 377, July 7, 1994; Ord. 435, November 30, 1995) SEC. 11.33. Reserved. page revised in 1997 -- - 1155 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Consider Accepting Feasibility Report and Calling a Hearing For the Reconstruction of CSAH 83 and the Realignment of CSAH 16 DATE: February 20, 2001 Attached is Resolution No. 5474, a resolution receiving a report and calling a hearing on the reconstruction of CSAH 83, from 12 Avenue to %2 mile south of the existing intersection of CSAH 16 and CSAH 16, from 1400 feet west of CSAH 83 to 2200 feet east of CSAH 83. ! `� IIUI On September 19, 2000, the City Council ordered the preparation of a feasibility report for the reconstruction of CSAH 83 and CSAH 16 associated with the proposed Valley Green Corporate Center and the City's Transportation Plan. The purpose of the feasibility report is to evaluate the existing infrastructure (streets, utilities, drainage) and make recommendations for any improvements that are needed. The feasibility report also addresses the estimated costs for the improvements and the proposed assessments, which would result from the project being constructed. Also, this feasibility report was intended to address specific issues as determined by Scott County Highway Department. The issues are as follows: • Specific transportation related issues raised in the AUAR especially by Mn/DOT. • Ultimate realignment of CSAH 16 /17 Avenue. • Jurisdictional issues related to CSAH 16 and 17 Avenue • Cost determination and cost participation agreements. • Timing of infrastructure improvements to CSAH 83, CSAH 16 and 17 Avenue. • Right -of way acquisition issues. Included in these specific issues would also be determining the project costs and lane configurations for both CSAH 83 and 16 improvements. In the issue of ultimate alignment for CSAH 16 /17 Avenue, the alignment for CSAH 16 would be analyzed from C.R. 83 to McKenna Road. This alignment analysis is being done to determine what the final alignment would be for C.R. 16 in this area. The attached resolution sets a date for a public hearing for this project for March 20, 2001. The approval of Resolution No. 5474 does not order the project nor does it commit the Council to constructing any improvements. The intent of this resolution is to accept the feasibility report and set the public hearing date. The public hearing will allow the property owners adjacent to the project area and the general public an opportunity to address the City Council on this project. It should be noted that accepting the feasibility report and calling a hearing on this project is the next step in a 429 Special Assessment Project, as required in the State Statute. Council should review the report for its acceptability or not and can ask for amendments prior to acceptance of the report. Staff has prepared a brief presentation for the February 20th Council meeting, which will provide an overview of the project, the feasibility report and main issues. With this feasibility report, the main issues associated with this project can be summarized as follows: 1. The realignment of CSAH 16 with 17 Avenue. 2. The tumback of 17 Avenue to the County after 17 Avenue is fully constructed. 3. Cost participation level by the City and the County. 4. Frontage road concept east of CSAH 83 along CSAH 16 by existing residents. 5. Modification of Secretariat Drive intersection with CSAH 83 to a right in/right out intersection. 6. Inclusion of trunk sanitary sewer with project. 7. Inclusion of trunk storm sewer with this project. 8. Right -of -way acquisition. 9. Watermain on CSAH 83 & CSAH 16 Issue No. 1 The realignment of CSAH 16 with 17 Avenue is the preferred alignment amongst the five alternatives studies as recommended by WSB & Associates, Inc. and the County. This alternative provides the east -west arterial route south of T.H. 169 to serve as a "reliever" and provides two accesses to Valley Green Corporate Center. Other alternatives do not provide the east -west arterial route or require much more right -of -way making these alternatives not as cost effective or feasible. Issue No. 2 Part of the County's requirements for the realignment of CSAH 16 with 17 Avenue has been the tumback of 17 Avenue to the County once completed. Also, the County would turnback CSAH 16, from CSAH 17 to CSAH 83 to the City. Consensus previously voiced by City Council has been a concern about speed limits and access control. If this project proceeds, a memo of understanding on the turnback would need to be done to outline the conditions that are acceptable to the City and County. Issue No. 3 The County Engineer has looked at the project costs and finds the cost participation level acceptable. The County Board would need to approve such an expenditure and normally is done through a Cooperative Agreement between the City and County. Issue No. 4 A frontage road concept was developed in the feasibility report. From this report, a frontage road system could be done if the existing CSAH 16 becomes the frontage road and a new roadway was built south of the existing. Both City staff and County staff agree that the frontage road along CSAH 16 is a good idea to promote safety by removing a number of driveways directly on a future four lane road. One uncertainty is whether or not right -of -way can be obtained from the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (SMSC) needed to build a future highway and leave the existing County road as a frontage road. Issue No. 5 It is proposed to place a concrete median along CSAH 83 so that Secretariat Drive would leave a right- in/right -out. This work was to be completed with the Canterbury Park 5th Addition and should be included with the overall improvements to CSAH 83. A letter from Heyde Companies about this access has been sent to staff. Issue No. 6 & 7 Trunk sanitary sewer and trunk storm drainage has been included with this project. The City's overall sanitary sewer and storm water management plans show trunk facilities along CSAH 83. These trunk lines will be deep enough to serve the Shakopee Gravel property which can redevelop someday with gravity sewers versus lift stations. The extra depth costs for the trunk sanitary sewer and storm sewer lines along CSAH 83 will be assessed to the Shakopee Gravel property. Included in this report is trunk storm sewer to divert a portion of Blue Lake Drainage District area to along CSAH 83 versus going through the SMSC's property. Preliminary discussion with the SMSC's staff and their own plan indicates a trunk storm drainage facility through their property. Staff is recommending that the trunk storm drainage facility for the Blue Lake Drainage District should go as planned through the SMSC's property as this provides the most infiltration and water quality for managing storm water. However, a trunk storm sewer cost is shown in this project area if the storm water is diverted along CSAH 83 instead of towards the Prior Lake Outlet Channel. Issue No. 8 The right -of -way acquisition will be needed to construct the County road and install trunk facilities such as sanitary sewer and storm sewer. It is anticipated that eminent domain will be needed to obtain much of the right -of -way. Right -of -way will be needed from the SMSC for CSAH 16 realignment and may be an issue due to the "fee to trust" application by the SMSC. Issue No. 9 Shakopee Public Utilities Commission (SPUC) has requested that watermain be installed on this project to complete its trunk watermain system in this area. The cost of watermain is estimated at a total of $408,705.00 with $336,369.00 assessed and $72,336.00 to be paid by SPUC as oversizing. The assessments have been distributed to property on either side of the watermain and to both properties in MUSA and non- MUSA. Last year the City did a trunk watermain extension from Southbridge Parkway to Stagecoach Road and is intending on assessing parcels outside of MUSA on that proj ect. In summary, this feasibility report was intended to provide information on issues on realigning CSAH 16, turnback of 17 Avenue to Scott County, project costs and assessments, level of participation between City, County and property owners. If the City Council agrees that CSAH 16 be realigned with 17 Avenue, CSAH 83 reconstructed to allow a major access to Valley Green Corporate Center and 17 Avenue be ultimately turned over to the County, then Council should accept the report and move for a public hearing on this project. Scott County is supportive of realigning CSAH 16 with 17 Avenue, north of the Shakopee Gravel Mine, and is requiring that the City enter into an agreement for future jurisdictional change. Mn/DOT has commented on the report and generally accepts the design with some concern of potential failure of intersection with T.H. 169 ramps. The MnDOT reviewer of the traffic volumes did not realize that the AUAR on Valley Green Corporate Center has a traffic limitation on CSAH 83 intersection. From staff's perspective, the following items are needed for a project to be ordered: • Public hearing on the proposed CSAH 83 /CSAH 16 improvement project. • County Cooperative Agreement for the cost participation of this project. • Memo of Understanding between the County and City on the jurisdictional transfers of 17 Avenue and CSAH 16 west of CSAH 83. • Public hearing for the plat of Valley Green Corporate Center. • Petition for improvements and waiver of assessment hearing by the developer of Valley Green Corporate Center. The plat of Valley Green Corporate Center has been submitted and a public hearing is tentatively scheduled for the Planning Commission on March 8, 2001. From the initial public informational meeting and subsequent correspondence from property owners east of CSAH 83 along CSAH 16, the major issues seems to be whether the frontage road will be built and the right -of -way obtained from the SMSC. The County's comment letter does address the issue by stating a further study will be needed for this segment of roadway when this roadway is reconstructed in the future. The question of right -of -way acquisition from the SMSC's property is being researched by the County and the City Attorney at this time. City staff and County staff are in support of a frontage road concept to remove direct access of driveways from CSAH 16 for a safer roadway. The feasibility report objective was to investigate on whether a frontage road system was possible and this system is possible with additional right -of -way south of existing CSAH 16. Staff will make a presentation of the report and the main issues and Resolution No. 5474 has been prepared to accept the report and call for a public hearing if Council so desires. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 5474. This action will receive the feasibility report and set the date for the public hearing for March 20, 2001. 2. Deny Resolution No. 5474. This action will halt the project until such time as the City Council reconsiders the resolution. 3. Move to receive the feasibility report but do not set a date for the public hearing at this time. This action will place the project on hold until such time as the City Council sets a date for the public hearing. 4. Table Resolution No. 5474, to allow time for staff to prepare additional information and/or revise the feasibility report as directed by the City Council. �� 1►117_�I Il @ -1 If the City Council wishes to pursue all or a portion of this project, staff recommends Alternative No. 1, to adopt Resolution No. 5474. If the City Council does not wish to pursue this project, then the appropriate action would be to move the approval of Resolution No. 5474 and vote against the motion. If Council wants to direct to revise the feasibility report and assessment procedures, then Alternative No. 4 is recommended. • t i Offer Resolution No. 5474, A Resolution Receiving a Report and Calling a Hearing on an Improvement for County State Aid Highway 83, from 12 Avenue to %2 Mile South of the Existing Intersection of County State Aid Highway 16; and for County State Aid Highway 16, from 1400 Feet West of County State Aid Highway 83 to 2200 Feet East of County State Aid Highway 83, Project No. 2001 -4 and move its adoption. �ce Loney Public Works Director BLi MEM5474 WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 5415 of the City Council adopted September 19, 2000, a report has been prepared by the City Engineer, with reference to the improvement of County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 83, from 12"' Avenue to % mile south of existing CSAH 16 intersection; and CSAH 16, from 1400 feet west of CSAH 83 to 2200 feet east of CSAH 83 by installation of sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer, street reconstruction, turn lanes, concrete median, concrete curb & gutter, traffic control signals, concrete sidewalk, bituminous trail and any appurtenant work and this report was received by the Council on February 20, 2001. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1. The Council will consider the improvement of County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 83, from 12"' Avenue to %a mile south of existing CSAH 16 intersection; and CSAH 16, from 1400 feet west of CSAH 83 to 2200 feet east of CSAH 83 by sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer, street reconstruction, turn lanes, concrete median, concrete curb & gutter, traffic control signals, concrete sidewalk, bituminous trail and any appurtenant work in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting and benefitted property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvements pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $6,963,309.50. 2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvements on the 20th day of March, 2001, at 7:00 P.M. or thereafter, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 129 South Holmes Street, Shakopee, Minnesota, and the Clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. 3. The work of this project is hereby designated as part of the 2001 -4 Public Improvement Program. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk J; f CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Sarazin Street, from Mooers Avenue to Valley View Road; and Valley View Road, from Sarazin Street to the East Plat Line of Pheasant Run 6 Addition, Project No. 2001 -5 DATE: February 20, 2001 Attached is Resolution No. 5485, a resolution receiving a report and calling a hearing on an improvement for Sarazin Street, from Mooers Avenue to Valley View Road; and Valley View Road, from Sarazin Street to the East Plat Line of Pheasant Run 6"' Addition, Project No. 2001 -5. :: �7�lJZ�111►`I1 On November 6, 2000, City Council ordered the preparation of a feasibility report for an improvement to Sarazin Street, from Mooers Avenue to Valley View Road; and Valley View Road, from Sarazin Street to the East Plat Line of Pheasant Run 6' Addition. At their January 16, 2001 meeting, City Council directed staff to prepare the feasibility report with the assumption that the properties lying on the south side of Valley View Road will be brought into MUSA prior to this project being assessed. The properties lying north of Valley View Road and those along Sarazin Street already lie within MUSA. Based upon that assumption, staff has completed the feasibility report for Sarazin Street, from Mooers Avenue to Valley View Road; and Valley View Road, from Sarazin Street to the East Plat Line of Pheasant Run 6` Addition. The purpose of the feasibility report is to determine the cost effectiveness of the improvements proposed to Sarazin Street and Valley View Road. The feasibility reports conclusion is that this project is cost effective, if the properties along the south side of Valley View Road are brought into MUSA. This would allow almost all of the properties to offset their assessment by subdividing their parcels. A detailed cost estimate is included in the feasibility report. Following is the funding summary for this project: FUNDING SOURCE Assessment City Street Oversizmg (C.I.F.) Storm Sewer Trunk Fund (Oversizing) Shakopee Public Utilities Commission FEASIBILITY C.I.P. $1,388,433.96 $610,000.00 $ 359,785.77 $280,000.00 $ 9,443.50 $ -0- $ 36,505.25 $ 10,000.00 $1,794,169.48 $900,000.00 The feasibility report project costs are higher than were indicated in the C.I.P. Projects list, due to the length of the project going to the East Plat Line of Pheasant Run 6"' Addition (the C.I.P. showed the project terminating at Pheasant Run Drive). Included in the project costs are $137,096.11 for R.O.W. acquisition. From the C.I.P. estimate to the feasibility report estimate, the overall City cost is increased approximately $70,000.00 while the assessment is increased by more than double. The assessment increase is due to the increased project length, the installation of sanitary sewer and watermain and an under estimation in the C.I.P. estimate. Staff is proposing to have an informational meeting with the affected property owners prior to the feasibility report public hearing. The properties along Valley View Road have been assessed, as per City Assessment Policy, for urban residential property with MUSA, as per Council direction. If City Council decides to order the preparation of plans and specifications for this project at the public hearing, staff feels that the design could be completed in time for construction to begin this year. However, actual construction time frame would depend on R.O.W. acquisition and other project workload. FI NNOWIVA W3 1. Adopt Resolution No. 5485. This action will receive the feasibility report and set the date for the public hearing for March 20, 2001. 2. Deny Resolution No. 5485. This action will halt the project until such time as the City Council reconsiders the resolution. 3. Move to receive the feasibility report but do not set a date for the public hearing at this time. This action will place the project on hold until such time as the City Council sets a date for the public hearing. 4. Table Resolution No. 5484, to allow time for staff to prepare additional information and/or revise the feasibility report as directed by City Council. Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, for Council to adopt Resolution No. 5485, to receive the feasibility report and set the public hearing for March 20, 2001. If the City Council does not wish to pursue this project, then the appropriate action would be to move the approval of Resolution No. 5485 and vote against the motion. If Council wants to direct to revise the feasibility report and assessment procedures, then Alternative No. 4 is recommended. Offer Resolution No. 5485, A Resolution Receiving a Report and Calling a Hearing on an Improvement to Sarazin Street, from Mooers Avenue to Valley View Road; and Valley View Road, from Sarazin Street to the East Plat Line of Pheasant Run 6 th Addition, Project No. 2001 -5 and move its adoption. r ruce Loney,/ Public Works Director BL /jd MEM5485 WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 5442 of the City Council adopted November 6, 2000, a report has been prepared by the City Engineer, with reference to the improvement of Sarazin Street, from Mooers Avenue to Valley View Road; and Valley View Road, from Sarazin Street to the East Plat Line of Pheasant Run 6 ffi Addition by installation of sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer, street reconstruction, bituminous paving, curb & gutter, concrete sidewalk, bituminous trail, street lighting and all appurtenant work and this report was received by the Council on February 20, 2001. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1. The Council will consider the improvement of Sarazin Street, from Mooers Avenue to Valley View Road; and Valley View Road, from Sarazin Street to the East Plat Line of Pheasant Run 6t' Addition by installation of sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer, street reconstruction, bituminous paving, curb & gutter, concrete sidewalk, bituminous trail, street lighting and all appurtenant work in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting and benefitted property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvements pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $1,794,169.48. 2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvements on the 20th day of March, 2001, at 7:00 P.M. or thereafter, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 129 South Holmes Street, Shakopee, Minnesota, and the Clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. 3. The work of this project is hereby designated as part of the 2001 -5 Public Improvement Program. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee City Clerk MO NIT W From Sarazin Street To the East Plat is ['ie ai Run 6 1h Addition ,. irl• = 1 Ki Engineering Department City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 (952) 233 -3800 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: 2000 Reconstruction Project No. 2000 -4 DATE: February 20, 2001 Attached is Resolution No. 5486, which approves the plans and specifications and authorizes staff to advertise for bids for Project No. 2000 -4, the 2000 Reconstruction Project. On November 3, 1999, the City Council ordered the preparation of a feasibility report for the 2000 Reconstruction Project. This report has been accepted by Council. The proposed project area includes the following streets: • 3 Avenue, from C.R. 69 to Shumway Street • Shumway Street, from 3 Avenue to 2 Avenue • Harrison Street, from 6 Avenue to 3 Avenue On March 21, 2000, Resolution No. 5319 was adopted and ordered the preparation of plans and specifications for improvements to 3rd Avenue, from C.R. 69 to Shumway Street; Shumway Street, from 3 Avenue to 2nd Avenue; and Harrison Street, from 6th Avenue to 3 Avenue. The plans have been prepared by City Engineering staff to reconstruct these streets with extension of sewer main and watermain to serve commercial parcels by C.R. 69 and 3 Avenue. Also, included is the improvement of storm sewer with concrete curb & gutter and new street pavement. The plans for this improvement include the following: • New concrete curb & gutter on 3 Avenue and Harrison Street. • Extension of sanitary sewer and water to commercial area west of Harrison Street along 3 Avenue. • 3 Avenue street width of 40 feet and to a 9 -ton capacity to support commercial truck traffic. • Extension of sanitary sewer to properties west of Shumway Street along 3rd Avenue. • Replacement of sanitary sewer and watermain as necessary in the project area. • Extension and replacement of storm sewer to complete system in the project area. Staff did conduct an informational meeting on the plans on February 15 Comments received from those in attendance were as follows: 1. Will water services be provided to the property line as part of this project? 2. Concern of Friendship Manor of any water outage that may affect their operation. 3. Driveway openings for businesses along 3 Avenue particularly Shakopee Services, due to the number of buses entering and leaving their site. 4. Access to property during construction. 5. Possible additional sanitary sewer services for Friendship Manor and Shakopee Services property. The plans have been sent over to Shakopee Public Utilities Commission's staff to review and comments should be received by February 20 Staff believes any comments received can be addressed by the February 20 council meeting. This project was delayed from last year's construction program in order for the project to be built during the summer months. Staff believes that this time of year is the best time to bid municipal work such as a reconstruction project. If Council approves the plans, it is proposed to bring bids back to Council on April 3, 2001. 1. Adopt Resolution No. 5486, a resolution approving plans and specifications and ordering an advertisement for bids for the 2000 Reconstruction Project No. 2000- 4. 2. Deny Resolution No. 5486. 3. Table for additional information. Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, to approve plans and specifications in order to proceed with this project so as to construct the improvements this year. BL /pmp MEM5486 A Resolution Approving Plans And Specifications A nd Ordering Advertisement F1 Bid For 1 2 000 R P 1> 2000- WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 5319 adopted by City Council on March 21, 2000, Bruce Loney, Public Works Director has prepared plans and specifications for the construction of 3` Avenue, from County Road 69 to Shumway Street; Shumway Street, from 3rd Avenue to 2" Avenue; and Harrison Street, from 6 Avenue to 3Td Avenue by installation of sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer, concrete curb & gutter, street reconstruction, street lighting and all appurtenant work as described in the feasibility report and has presented such plans and specifications to the Council for approval. O. RESOLVE BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF TH CITY OF O' MINNESOTA 1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is on file and of record in the Office of the City Engineer, are hereby approved. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The Advertisement for Bids shall be published as required by law. Adopted mi session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee /_V 1" x T1'`I� City Clerk CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Authorize Contract for Consultant Services on Pedestrian Bridges Over T.H. 169 at CSAH 17 and C.R. 79 DATE February 20, 2001 %s.9 Y, CONSENT This agenda item is intended to request City Council approval to enter into a contract with a consultant to provide engineering services for the pedestrian bridges over T.H. 169 at CSAH 17 and C.R. 79. • 4 0 •IIA`L1 The City has received Federal Funding for the construction of two pedestrian bridges over T.H. 169 at C.R. 17 and C.R. 79. Last fall City staff submitted applications for this funding provided by the Transportation Equity Act for the Twenty -First Century (TEA - 21) Program. Under this program, the Federal Government provides 80% funding to construct pedestrian bridges, bridge approaches, and connecting trails. The City must pay 20% of construction and provide 100% engineering and administration costs. The City has identified funding sources within the CIP (see attached). The total cost for both bridges is estimated to be $1,084,824.00. The City costs are estimated to be $373,464.00 (34.4% of total cost). This is a savings to the City of $711,360.00 by using the TEA -21 Program. Please find attached a breakdown of project and City costs. It should be pointed out that the CIP estimate did not include the 20% local contribution match for construction. The City may also be able to obtain additional MN/DOT funds through the Cooperative Agreement process, which would lower the City's amount. The City's funding is projected to be from the CIF. The "program year" for both projects is in the 2003 fiscal year. The "program year" is the Federal fiscal year when plans, specifications and estimates (PS &E) for the project are expected to be complete, and the Federal Funds can be authorized to implement the project. The 2003 fiscal year begins in October of 2002. Likewise, fiscal year 2002 begins in October of 2001. Mn /DOT has indicated to City staff that it may be possible to move the project ahead to 2002, as funding becomes available, if PS &E is complete. Request for Proposals for engineering consultant services were sent out to four consultants who were favorably ranked by Mn/DOT's staff. These consultants are as follows: • Bonestroo, Rosene & Anderlik, Inc. (BRA) • Short, Elliot, Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH) • Toltz, Duvall & Anderson, Inc. (TKDA) • WSB & Associates, Inc. (WSB) Attached to this memo is the Request for Proposal for the pedestrian bridge design and construction. With this project, it is important for the consultant to know the Federal process and have experience in pedestrian bridge projects. All of the consultant firms selected met these qualifications. On January 26, 2001, three firms submitted proposals for staff to consider and these firms are as follows: 7 • DA WSB The Selection Committee that reviewed the proposals was comprised of the City Administrator, Management Assistant and Public Works Director. After review of the proposals, the Selection Committee is unanimously recommending WSB & Associates, Inc. for the Pedestrian Bridge Project. WSB & Associates, Inc.'s proposal met all the qualifications and their price to do both the design and construction phases of the project was superior to the other proposals. Although price was not the main factor, it became a deciding factor as each consultant had a work plan that was acceptable and could deliver the personnel available. The proposals fee schedule can be summarized as follows: CONSULTANT DESIGN FEES CONSTRUCTION FEES TOTAL WSB $ 67,109.00* $ 59,716.00 $127,825.00 BRA $134,572.00 $ 77,610.00 $212,182.00 TKDA $125,200.00 $106,000.00 $231,200.00 * Design fees could be higher if aesthetic options are selected by City. The consultants were also asked to estimate the project costs based on their proposals and the costs were estimated as follows: CONSULTANT CSAH 17 C.R. 79 WSB $419,237.00 $441,337.00 BRA $415,000.00 $450,000.00 TKDA $477,500.00 $478,500.00 PROJECT PROPO Description Total Costs Federal Funding QiY 1. T.H. 169 /CSAH 17 Bridge A. Construction $419,237.00 $347,680.00 $ 71,557.00 B. Eng. /Admin. $ 63,912.00 -0- $ 63,912.00 Subtotal $483,149.00 $347,680.00 $135,469.00 2. T.H. 169 /CSAH 17 Bridge A. Construction $441,337.00 $363,680.00 $ 77,657.00 B. Eng. /Admin. $ 63,913.00 -0- $ 63,913.00 Subtotal $505,250.00 $363,680.00 $141,570.00 Grand Total $988,399.00 $711,360.00 $277,039.00* * Previous City cost estimate was $373,464.00. Additional funding may be available from Mn /DOT and Hennepin Parks for C.R. 79 bridge & trail. With this project, it is anticipated that the design and approval from the State, Federal and County governments will take over a year or more and then the project can be built once funding is available. If Council elects to enter into a contract for the pedestrian bridges, the design cost would be in 2001 and the construction cost for 2002 or 2003, depending on approvals and funding availability. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Authorize the appropriate City officials to execute an extension agreement with WSB & Associates, Inc. for engineering service of the design and construction of pedestrian bridges over T.H. 169 at CSAH 17 and C.R. 69, and as per the proposal submitted. 2. Authorize the appropriate City officials to execute a contract with one of the other consultants submitting a proposal. 3. Table for additional information. 4. Do not proceed any further with this project. Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, as WSB & Associates, Inc. had the best overall proposal and the fact the City pays for 100% of the engineering costs associated with the TEA -21 Project. Authorize the appropriate City officials to enter into an extension agreement with WSB & Associates, Inc. for engineering services of the design and construction of pedestrian bridges over Trunk Highway 169 at County State Aid Highway 17 and County Road 79, and as per the proposal submitted. A /X { dA $ruce Loney Public Worksirector BL /pmp PEDBRIDGES 9 i m § E Z" � c s2 ® / § a § § c LL. k �CL 2 7 ����o 2 a7 04 P i / �� ts A� a■ � o ad 0 fwa2 3� c oca 1 J % :6 2 §_ % ��k£wU.(30CL 0, k . co I-- a� oA ■�2 © ©ag 0 8 cc C § E 7 3 4 0 S 8 / .AU- & &§ 0 002 o 8 S 2 2 a cm co B § E c 2 ' ■ 2 \ U . co c 2 § 2 ec ` kk\ 33■ eat �k7 � \7 � ■ d � IA '0 cmii m � Z" � c s2 ® / § a § § c LL. 7 ����o 2 a7 2 b _ 0 a i: / �� ts A� a■ E ■ ■ek� ad fwa2 3� c oca 1 J % :6 2 §_ � c ��k£wU.(30CL 0, k . co I-- c 2 ' ■ 2 \ U . co c 2 § 2 ec ` kk\ 33■ eat �k7 � \7 � ■ d � IA '0 cmii m � . . 7-103 ) } \ | Z" § a § § ■ e e CL 2 b b co 9 9 z 2k ■% 2 3� c c� J % c � c � � 0, k . 2 0 o oA ■�2 © ©ag E 7 3 4 4D .AU- & &§ 0 002 o o � 7-103 ) } \ | a for 1 t 1� MI related to Pedestrian Bridge a nd Trail 1 66-090-00 1 1 66 - 090 -0 0 2 over Prepared by: City of Shakopee Engineering Department Shakopee, MN December 2000 The City of Shakopee is seeking a consultant to provide engineering services related to two pedestrian bridges over U.S. Trunk Highway 169. The increase in pedestrian traffic and planned development in these areas has necessitated the design and construction of two pedestrian bridges with bridge approaches, and connecting trails. The bridges span over TH 169 at CSAH 17 and CR 79. The City plans to construct both pedestrian bridges adjacent and parallel to the existing bridges. Currently, the bridges over TH 169 are not considered wide enough to legally be declared a pedestrian walkway. The City has received Federal Funding for the construction for the two bridges. The funding is provided by the Transportation Equity Act for the Twenty - First Century (TEA -21) program. Under this program, the Federal Government provides 80% funding to construct pedestrian bridges, bridge approaches, and connecting trails. The City must pay 20% of construction and provide 100% en,'meerin- and administration costs. The total cost for both projects is estimated to be $1,084,824. The "program year" for both projects is in the 2003 fiscal year. The "program year" is the federal fiscal year when plan, specifications and estimates (PS &E) for the project are expected to be complete, and the federal funds can be authorized to implement the project. The City desires to reprogram both bridges from 2003 ahead to 2002, with TH 169 /CSAH 17 having priority. MN/DOT has indicated to City staff that it may be possible to move the projects ahead to 2002 as funding becomes available if PS &E is complete. For this reason, the City believes it to be very important to complete PS &E by January of 2002 or earlier if possible. The selected consultant shall provide project management, contract administration, reports, survey and design, secure available Federal funding, execute cooperative agreements, coordinate approval through all necessary agencies, bid the project, and provide all necessary construction coordination and inspection through to final approval. The consultant is responsible to manage the project from beginning to end and report directly to the City. Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation are due-by 4:30 p.m., January 26, 2001, and should be submitted to (include the project title on the submittal envelope, "TH 169 Pedestrian Bridges "): City of Shakopee Engineering Department 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 Five (5) copies of proposals shall be submitted. Late proposals will not be accepted. All questions should be submitted in writing and mailed or faxed to: Bruce Loney, P. E. City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 Fax (952) 233 -3801 1 Do 1 Proposals shall, at a minimum, contain the following: 1. Executive Summary — description of the consultant's understanding of the Project. The section shall be limited to 3 pages and shall include a detailed work plan. 2. Statement of Qualifications a. Company Experience b_ Employee Experience — key employees assigned to the Project and specify ISTEA and TEA -21 experience. c. Description of current workload — workload of employees assigned to the Project, with percentage of time to be spent on this Project for each person assigned. Specify TEA -21 projects. d. Last of References — including telephone numbers of those who can verify listed experience. 3. Detailed breakdown of costs including personnel with hours and rates. The consultant shall submit a cost not to exceed dollar amount for all work (with a cost split for the design phase and construction phase of the project) and resources required to complete the Project. 4. Schedule of Activities 5. Approved affirmative action plan. 6. Evidence that the consultants and consultant firms are 1) registered in Minnesota 2) meet requirements for insurance specified by the City of Shakopee. 7. Subcontractors to be used — with separate list of information as detailed above. 8. Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost for construction of bridges and bridge approaches only. Factors upon which proposals will be evaluated include, but may not be limited to: 1. Project Team — experience, organization of team, qualifications of both company and assigned personnel with experience of assigned personnel having greater weight. 2. Work plan — understanding of project objectives, proposal detail and clarity, execution of work plan. 3. Project *deliverables — List of products, quality of samples, and assurance of schedule. 4. Project cost — clear breakdown of tasks, personnel rates, and deliverables. A presentation will be part of the evaluation process. The City may select a short list of consultant's to be invited for presentations. The City would request the assigned Project Manager attend the presentation. Presentations would be held at the City of Shakopee, City Hall, 129 Holmes Street South, if necessary. L, 1 The City intends to follow the approximate schedule below: Task 1. Issue RFP 2. Proposals due 3. Presentations/Interviews 4. Recommendation to City Council 5. Contract prepared 6. Order Plans & Specifications 7. Submit Plan for Approval 8. Design, approvals, funding, co -op agreements, misc 9. Construction Completion Date December 21, 2000 January 26, 2001 February 6, 2001 February 15, 2001 March 1, 2001 March 15, 2001 June 1, 2001 June 1, 2001— January 2002 Summer 2002 / 57 Y. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum CONSENT TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Michael Hullander, Public Works Supervisor SUBJECT: Purchase of a 55 -Ton Edwards Iron Worker for the Shop Division DATE: February 20, 2001 In the Shop Division 2001 Operating Budget, staff has identified a need for a 55 -ton Ironworker to facilitate equipment repairs and fabrication. • �� Staff has obtained three quotes for the purchase of a 55 -ton Edwards Ironworker. The costs are as follows: Vendor Price Cleveland Steel Tool Co. $6,121.00 MJB Machinery $5,999.94 Wholesale Tool Company $6,567.76 Attached to this memo is a description of an Ironworker. The Ironworker item is shown in the budget under capital expenditures as a metal punch/cutter at a cost of $6,000.00. 1. Authorize the purchase of a 55 -ton Edwards Ironworker from MJB Machinery for the price of $5,999.94. 2. Do not authorize purchase at this time. 3. Table for additional information. Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. \ 1 �; YI11111Zi Move to authorize the purchase of one new 55 -ton Edwards Ironworker from MJB Machinery for the price of $5.999.94 to be funded from the 2001 Shop Division Operating Budget. Michael llander Public Works Supervisor IRONWORKER Most Tons Per Dollar Hydraulic System Can Be Easily Modified to Operate Other Hydraulic Equipment Comfortable Operating Height PUN CHING .............................us Rated capacity ............................55 Ton Throat depth .. .............................7 Maximum capacity .....................1 /e" dia. —' /z" plate Largest std, punch & die .............1' /6" punch -1'/4" die Optional oversize table & holder.l %6 punch - 1 die Open Height ...... ..........................8' /8 Shut Height ....... ..........................6' /e Stroke........... ..............................1 y< BARSHEAR Rounds / Squares .......................1' /a" Flat maximum thickness............ 3/4 x 4" Flat maximum width ..................' /z" x 12" / 3 /8" x 14" AN GLE SHEAR Maximum size ............................3" x 3" x 4" x 4" x' /4" CYCLE TIME ...........................' /�" x 2" shear (2 sec.) H YDRAULIC S .......Reservoir -10 gallons 2,200 PSI 1 — 4' /Z" cylinder MOTOR STANDARD ...........3 HP, 3 phase, 208/240V MO TOR OPTION ................Single phase, 208/240V Voltage ......... ..............................3 phase, 440V - 575V .................. BRAKE OPTION ................... i /4 thick-8" wide '/4 thick -10" wide METRIC 50 Ton 178 mm 35 mm dia. -13 mm plate 27 mm punch -32 mm die 39 mm punch -41 mm die 206 mm 175 mm 31 mm 28 mm 20mmx100mm 13 mm x 300 mm /10 mm x 355 mm 76mmx76mmx10mm 100 mmx100mmx6mm 13 mm x 50 mm (2 sec.) 38 litre 151 Bar 115 mm cylinder 3 HP, 3 phase, 380V, 50HZ Single phase, 200V 3 phase, 400/480V, 50HZ 6 mm thick x 200 mm wide 6 mm thick x 250 mm wide D IMENSIONS Base .................. .........................41' /7" x 40 Height ............. ............................57 Weight .............. ..........................2,250 lbs. 1055 mm x 1015 mm 1448 mm 1022 kg � a CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Michael Hullander, Public Works Supervisor SUBJECT: Purchase of a Trailer DATE: February 20, 2001 z .f uNhsENT The Public Works Department has identified in its 2001 operating budget the need for an additional trailer for equipment transport. This item is for Council to consider authorizing the purchase. The Public Works Department has obtained two quotes for the purchase of a new Felling FT- 1 OWDG 2001 trailer and the costs are as follows: Vendor Price SCHARBER & SONS $7,100.00 LANO EQUIPMENT, INC. $6,798.00 Does not include sales tax. Payment to be expended from the 2001 Parks Division Operating Budget and was budgeted at $4,000.00. Staff did underestimate this item. However, additional funds are available under miscellaneous supplies to cover the expenditure. 1. Authorize the purchase of one new Felling FT -10WDG trailer from Lano Equipment, Inc. for the price of $6,798.00. 2. Do not authorize purchase at this time. 3. Table for additional information. I. e Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. Move to authorize the purchase of one new Felling FT -10WDG from Lano Equipment, Inc. for the price of $6,798.00 and will be funded from the 2001 Parks Division Operating Budget. Michael Wullander Public Works Supervisor TRAILER /�5_. 13 - � , a A 100', " I M, TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: New Police Station Architect DATE: February 15, 2001 At the February 6 City Council meeting, the Council directed staff to contact BKV, architects for the new Library, to determine if there would be any advantage to having BKV also design the Police Station for the City. I spoke with Project Manager David Kroos about this. BKV would be very interested in doing the work for the City. On Friday, February 9`', Mr. Kroos met with City staff to review the firm's qualifications and BKV considers Police and Fire Stations to be their "bread and butter" types of work. Regarding cost efficiencies, much would depend upon the timing of construction between the Library and Police Station. If they were able to be done simultaneously, from a design standpoint, it might save 1% (8% design fees vs. the more typical 9 %). However, there may also be some additional savings if the same contractor is able to bid both projects —the combination of the two projects might be able to attract larger firms. However, before making a recommendation to utilize BKV, staff will embark on a tour of other Police Stations that they have designed. After reviewing those buildings, and talking further with BKV, a recommendation regarding the utilization of that firm will be forthcoming at the March 6 City Council meeting. For your information. MM/j s CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Text amendment regarding building permits for fences E G DATE: February 20, 2001 W11 ! 1 ColaSENT At its January 16, 2001 meeting, the Council tabled this matter, and directed staff to present it with alternatives. On February 6, 2001 the Council directed that staff prepare an ordinance amendment consistent with the second of three alternatives that were presented. This alternative would eliminate the requirement of a building permit for fences under 6 feet in height, as well as a conditional use permit review. Attached for the Council's consideration is Ordinance No. 591. 1. Approve Ordinance No. 591 amending Chapter 4 regarding permits for fences. 2. Do not approve Ordinance No. 591 amending Chapter 4 regarding permits for fences. 3. Table the matter to request additional information from staff. ACTION QUESTED: Offer and pass a motion approving Ordinance No. 591, an Ordinance amending Chapter 4 regarding permits for fences. R. Michael Leek ✓ Community Development Director is \commdev \cc\2001 \cc0206 \b fences.doe 1 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, M111 AMENDING CHAPTER 4, BUIELDING REGULATIONS, REGARDING PERMITS FORFENCES Section 1 - That City Code Chapter 4, Building Regulations, Section 4.03 Subdivision 1. is hereby amended by adding the following language; A. Fences less than six (6) feet in height shall not require a building permit. Fences six (6) feet in height or greater shall require both a conditional use permit (CUP) and building permit. All proposed fence designs for fences six (6) feet in height or greater shall be approved by the Building Official prior to the issuance of a building permit. (Re -letter current paragraphs A. and B.) Section 2. - That City Code Chapter 4, Building Regulations, Section 4.03 Subdivision 1. is hereby amended by deleting paragraph C., and re- numbering as required. 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 , 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of 1 2001. PREPARED BY: City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 s CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum T: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Mark Noble, Planner I ,� SUBJECT: Approval of a Registered Land Survey Valley Green Business Park Limited Partnership (Applicant) DATE: February 20, 2001 P In troduction Valley Green Business Park Limited Partnership is requesting approval of a Registered Land Survey for a platted parcel of property. The property is located at the southeast comer of 12�' Avenue East and County Road 83 (Exhibit A). Alternatives 1. Approve the Registered Land Survey submitted by Valley Green Business Park Limited Partnership, subject to conditions recommended by staff. 2. Revise the conditions of approval for the Registered Land Survey, and approve subject to the revised conditions. 3. Do not approve the Registered Land Survey. 4. Table action on this item and request additional information from the applicant and/or staff. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the approval of Registered Land Survey submitted by Valley Green Business Park Limited Partnership, subject to conditions (Alternative No. 1). Action Requested Offer Resolution No. 5488, a Resolution Approving the Registered Land Survey submitted by Valley Green Business Park Limited Partnership, subject to conditions, and move its approval. g: \commdev \cc\ 2001 \Cc0220\RIS- VGBP(01029).rtf - Rf - G15T ERAED L41VD 5URVEY No. Scott County, Minnesota tt �430.S1 ea 20 sg� I I�— 0 00'5 N 52 W lT� IIL_ ' J 1 I� n J3 Denotes 112 inch by 14 inch iron monument II IN V �8 set and marked by Minnesota Registration No. 13595 I I I I _� a` N 2 II I� " F_ C4 f Denote iron monument found a _ III I r c l ZZ as 44 -10 °F i°h m me Orientation of this plot is based upon VALLEY PARK Northeast corner of Lot t, Block 2 TWELFTH ADDITION. o = Valley Pork Twelfth Addition CJ moo .( z 0 it 1� R- 481.06 (I2h� p o c 1739'05 106.22— C) r o - t ` �_ 55Yp r it F �S78'1B'14 I'r (; a a %f F--1 � 1 �• rn r i aD. a 3 _ 0 _ 0 200 400 c� C� - I I 1110 I Northwest corner of Lotl. Block 2 :± �o SO4'DO S2 E� — — Valley Pork Twelfth Addition — _ ro� 2 00.88 z J i < r I ` o I I Draig & Utility Eosement na e - ' v ai Per Doc. No. 90553 ,, N 45U. 58 �� _, J tt �430.S1 ea 20 sg� I I�— 0 00'5 N 52 W lT� IIL_ ' J 1 I� n I I .I � 3 o W _ r arm a CJ c r 'a o t ° w o I —z a 3 u 0 DJ ; a U F- MC it C) F- - F- F- `C C CJ CJ F -- 72, z N 04'00' S01'08'4 'E ' :.; _ I I V r f7 �r✓VI r J3 Denotes 112 inch by 14 inch iron monument II IN V �8 set and marked by Minnesota Registration No. 13595 I I I I _� a` N 2 II I� " f Denote iron monument found a _ III � ZZ as 44 -10 °F i°h m me Orientation of this plot is based upon VALLEY PARK TWELFTH ADDITION. o = III 4 - .6 moo .( z 0 0 R- 481.06 (I2h� p o c 1739'05 106.22— C) o 55Yp r it F �S78'1B'14 I'r (; ,179.06 ? _ '0 NO ' - E 3 _ 0 I I EXCEPTION Northwest corner of Lotl. Block 2 :± �o SO4'DO S2 E� — — Valley Pork Twelfth Addition — _ ro� 2 00.88 z J I I .I � 3 o W _ r arm a CJ c r 'a o t ° w o I —z a 3 u 0 DJ ; a U F- MC it C) F- - F- F- `C C CJ CJ F -- 72, z N 04'00' S01'08'4 'E ' :.; _ I I V r f7 �r✓VI r RESOLUTION 1 .;; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, APPROVING THE 1 1 WHEREAS, the property upon which the request is being made is legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 2, Valley Park Twelfth Addition, Scott County, Minnesota; except the following two parcels: That part ofLot 1, Block 2, Valley Park Twelfth Addition, Scott County, Minnesota lying Easterly of the following described line: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Lot 1, Block 2; thence South 89 degrees 02 minutes 41 seconds West, an assumed bearing, along the north line of said Lot 1, a distance of 1248.77 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described, thence South 0 degrees 56 minutes 58 seconds East, a distance of 450.58 more or less to the south line of said Lot 1 and said line there terminating. That part of Lot 1, Block 2, Valley Park Twelfth Addition, Scott County, Minnesota; described as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of said Lot 1, thence South I degree 08 minutes 50 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the west line of said Lot 1, a distance of 72.12 feet, thence North 88 degrees 51 minutes 10 seconds East, a distance of 15.00 feet, thence South 4 degrees 00 minutes 35 seconds East, a distance of 200.88 feet; thence North 86 degrees 04 minutes 21 seconds East, a distance of 203.43 feet; thence North 0 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 252.24 feet to the north line of said Lot 1; thence westerly along the north line of said Lot I to the point of beginning all notices of the public hearing for the Registered Land Survey were duly sent and posted and all persons appearing at the hearing have been given an opportunity to be heard thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, RESOLVED BY THE / UNCIL OF THE CITY *F SHAKOPEE, I / follows: That the Registered Land Survey submitted by Valley Green Business Park Limited Partnership is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: A. The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the filing/recording of the Survey: 1. Approval of title by the City Attorney. B. The following conditions shall apply after the filing/recording of the Survey: 1. Building permits for Tract A will not be allowed until said survey is recorded. 2. Park Dedication Fees are not applicable for this survey. Park Dedication Fees shall apply to the future development of Tract A in amounts consistent with the City's adopted Fee Schedule. 3. The developer shall provide necessary easements, if or when requested by City. 4. Access for the parcel will be allowed only from 12' Avenue East. Permits will be required for each access onto lf Avenue East, prior to filing, development or platting. 5. A storm water management plan and grading/erosion control plan must be submitted and approved by the City Engineer, prior to issuance of building permits. 6. Trunk storm water fees and trunk sanitary sewer fees must be paid, as required by the City's adopted fee schedule, prior to the issuance of building permits. 7. If subject site is platted in the future, drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated to the City along all lot lines, and as required by City Code, prior to the issuance of building permits. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to approve and accept said Registered Land Survey. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the day of , 2001 Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk PREPARED Y: City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Amendment to Transit Capital Agreement ME ETING DATE: February 20, 2001 Because of delays in the construction of the park and ride facility on the City -owned property adjacent to Seagate, staff requested an extension to the transit capital grant agreement (SG- 98- FF -99) with the Metropolitan Council. A copy of the proposed amendment is attached. It would extend the deadline for expenditure of fund under the grant agreement from December 31, 2000 to December 31, 2001. The City does not incur any penalties or additional obligations as a result of the proposed amendment. 1. Approve the First Amendment to transit capital Contract No. SG- 98- FF -99, extending the grant period to December 31, 2001. 2. Do not approve the First Amendment to transit capital Contract No. SG- 98- FF -99, extending the grant period to December 31, 2001. 3. Table the request for additional information �, . � Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, approval of the amendment. Offer and approve an amendment approving the First Amendment to transit capital Contract No. SG- 98- FF -99, extending the grant period to December 31, 2001. R. Michael Leek Community Development Director i:\commdev\cc\0220\SG9899.doc Contract No. SG -98 -PF -099 FIRST .1,T1 1 1 1 THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND CITY OF O'' F OR TRANSIT CAPITAL FI NANCIAL The parties agree that the grant agreement they entered into on January 10, 2000, between the Metropolitan Council and the City of Shakopee, relating to a capital grant for construction of a park and ride lot, is amended in the following particulars: 1. Article II, GRANT AMOUNT, GRANT PERIOD, AND PAYMENT OF PROCEEDS, paragraph 2.02, Grant Period, is amended to read: 2.02 Grant Period. The grant period shall commence upon the execution of this agreement and remain in force and effect until December 31, 2001. After that date, all grant funds which have not been expended shall revert to and become part of the Council's Transit Capital Fund and may be reallocated or expended by the Council for other transit capital projects. 2. The parties agree that this amendment is effective as of December 30, 2000. The remaining provisions of the above - referenced agreement shall remain in force and effect without change except as amended above. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this amendment to be executed by their duly authorized representatives. Approved as to form: Office of General Counsel Attest: By: Its City Clerk 98 -PF- 099- Ol.doc LN Regional Administrator Date: Lo Its M ayor Date: By: Its City Administrator CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum : Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FR R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Moving of Building Permit for Daycare Modular Units MEETING DATE: February 20, 2001 111210 ' l 1 Is, u. y, Fulco Construction has made application for a "Moving of Building Permit" to allow the moving, and storage of, 2 modular building units (82' long x 36' wide x 26' high) for the proposed daycare adjacent to Evergreen Townhomes. The units are proposed to be stored on property owned by Valley Green Business Park at the intersection of Vierling Drive and CSAH 16. It is staiTs understanding that the units will be stored off -site until sometime this Spring. The permit has been cleared by SPUC and approved by the Police Department. However, Because the modular units are quite large, and are proposed to be stored for an extended period on a site with high visibility, staff is asking that the Council provide direction as to whether it wishes to allow the long -term storage of the units off -site. Attached for the Council's information are the following; • "Moving of Building Permit" form; • Letter from Qwest; • Map showing travel route and destination; • Building Mover License; • Certificate of Liability Insurance; • Storage lease and agreement; • Performance bond. Engineering staff has taken photos of the units, and enlarged versions of these photos will be available for viewing at the meeting. 1. Direct staff to execute and issue the "Moving of Building Permit," and allow the storage of the modular units off -site 2. Direct that staff not execute and issue the "Moving of Building Permit." 3. Table the matter to request additional information from staff. ' 1 1 Offer a motion consistent with the Council's wishes. R. Michael Leek Community Development Director i:\ commdev\ cc\2001 \cc0220\.movingpemiitdoc �� C?TY OF S11A CPEE FED":' _ / MOVING OF BUILDING PERMIT f Permission for this movement is hereby gran.er.l to For t he movement of e uz ing) yP ,From U _ To re sota Traffic Regulation end Restriction to.compliance with the Minne ire force as of the date of issuance of this permit and is subject to revocation upon non- compliance. - •Overall length • Overall width 36 Overall height Cross weight :�b Permit No. from Minnesota Highway Departmen`� for movement over Trun4c •Highway No. % f 1n / 17• Have permits been issued for movement over streets and roads other than City of Shakopee -,C c n -( ° Has,City issued permit to relocate bu:ldi_ng at final destination Estimated time required for movement over City streets _ ours , ' DATE: o Movement to be from L to s1r M., — �f l This permit is to be carried on vehicle during the above mentioned move- ment. P. I Dated 0 t a I O v is. • -Cleared by: u - - -3_t es uorrImIsslion op U.S West__ ect Aooroved bv: • • • Swift Housemovers submitted route and has made necessary arrangements to move wires for building moves from r lots located on Vierling Dr. • Eagle Creek. Route: • • county 77 North • - • Dr. • lot. r a il 'A IN crd [A 7r I P ESIDqgIAL LN '! s6mFr" VAN —HARRISON wr_ li� ISONFIO Ilb 5:z Sr i 4- STS M STS CR 17K LN S SW—TT—ST-S WG PR SHMAMAY VLS T! OR 15 IN of co CMR 151 ),1- mi ­.MAJDISCeC -- � ,_ JACKSON _M0NR0F_; I P ESIDqgIAL LN '! VAN —HARRISON CHAPARRAL,_,' 5:z 4- CR 17K LN of co CMR 151 ),1- mi ����\ \����� \\ » « �� '�\ �A Z: FD \ K \ c) \ \ (D rt \ \ C) o U) CD Ij � CD 7 0 (D Ln OEM = m"o 0 z cz 7, (D CD I_n Ln OEM Z (D U) CD Mond C) ± I \ rc \ \ 0 � \ \ \ \ n OP NEW NNW ,dQ rm � \ \ \ \ \ � \ \ \ \ \ \ ` / \ \ \ \ cc /� \ 77 �A Z: 0 K c) AIM4 (D CL Cl C) o U) CD Ij CD CD 7 0 (D Ln OEM = m"o 0 z cz 7, (D CD I_n Ln OEM Z (D U) CD Mond C) ± I \ 0 owe n OP NEW NNW ,dQ rm 0 K c) CD (D CL Cl C) o U) CD Ij CD CD 7 0 (D Ln z cz 7, (D CD I_n Ln (D U) CD 0 ± I \ 0 ID JS DATE (MM /DD/YY) CORD IFT -1 11/02/00 PRODUCER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE The Maguire AVency HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR 1935 West County Road B-2,#241 ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. Roseville MN 55113 INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE one:651- 638 - 9100 Fax:651- 638 - 976 2 —oURED INSURER A: Federal Insurance Compan INSURER B: State Fund Mutual Insurance Swift House Moving & Heavy INSURER C: Machinery Inc. 16242 - 149th Street INSURER D: Big Lake, MN 55309 INSURER E: COVERAGtS THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY I�TR TYPE OF INSURANCE 1 GEN ERAL LIABILITY A — X� COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY I I I CLAIMS MADE ®OCCUR -- j —� HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. POLICY NUMB ER 35375694 ABOVE FOR THE POLICY RESPECT TO WHICH TO ALL THE TERMS, DATE EFFECTIVE DE MM /DD/YY 12/08/00 PERIOD INDICATED. THIS CERTIFICATE MAY EXCLUSIONS AND POLICY EXPIRATION DATE MM /DD/YY 12/08/01 NOTWITHSTANDING BE ISSUED OR CONDITIONS OF SUCH LIMITS EACH OCCURRENCE $ 1 FIREDAMAGE(Anyonefire) $ 1,000,000 MED EXP (Any one person) $ 5 PERSONAL 8 ADV INJURY 5 1,000 r 000 GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 1 1, 000 ,000 PRODUCTS - COMP /OP AGG $ 1 GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER 7 POLICY 7, JEC 7 LOC AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY A yI ANY AUTO j I ALL OWNED AUTOS 73256901 12/22/00 12/08/01 COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT (Ea accident) $ 1,000,000 BODILY INJURY - (Per person) $ (SCHEDULED AUTOS X HIRED AUTOS I BODILY INJURY (Per accident) $ X NON -OWNED AUTOS PROPERTY DAMAGE (Per accident) $ AUTO ONLY - EA ACCIDENT $ GARAGE LIABILITY ANY AUTO OTHER THAN EA ACC AUTO ONLY: AGG $ $ EACH OCCURRENCE $ EXCESS LIABILITY — � OCCUR u CLAIMS MADE AGGREGATE $ $ $ I DEDUCTIBLE $ $ RETENTION 015416201 02/13/00 02/13/01 LIMITS ER WORKERS COMPENSATION AND B ! EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY TORY E.L. EACH ACCIDENT $ 100,000 E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYE S 100,000 E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT $500,000 35375694 12/08/00 12/08/01 ACV up to $100,000 $1,000 Ded. OTHER A Coverage DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS /LOCATIONSNEHICLES /EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENT /SPECIAL PROVISIONS The Employers Liability Accident & Disease Policy Limit is $500,000. CERTIFICATE HO LDER ADDITIO INS INSURER LETTER: CANCELLATION SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATIO DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL 10 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE T THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NA LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL ,..oncc u ai irn N OR 1�ABILITY ANY KI PON THE INSIJ.RF&ITS AGENTS OR '1'VWriVM1 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Mat CI © ACORD CORPORATION 1988 ACORD 25 -S (7197) 02/12/2001 MON 16:54 FAX 952 820 0706 JOHNSON AND CONDON PA REAL EsrATF- DEVELopmENr Comm - nor' 5212 Hope Street Prior Lake, MN 55372 (612) 806-0406 Fax (612) 831 -1869 Facsu'm'le Cover Sheet TO: FAX: FROM: DATE: PAGES: RE: MESSAGE: z 001/005 02/12/2001 MON 16:55 FAX 952 820 0706 JOHNSON AND CONDON PA 16002/005 1' a This Storage Lease and Agreement is made effective as of 10- 1) , 2000, by and between Valley Green Business Park, Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnerslup, (hereinafter "Valley Green ") and EverGreen Real Estate Development Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, (hereinafter "EverGreen "). RECITALS A. EverGreen desires temporary storage for two modular building units approximately 32 feet x 64 feet and 32 feet x 44 feet in size (the "Buildings ") in the vicinity of County Road 16 and Vierling Drive, Shakopee, Minnesota. B. Valley Green owns vacant land near County Road 16 and Vierling Drive suitable for the storage needs of EverGreen, said vacant land legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 1, Canterbury Park First Addition, in Scott county, Minnesota (the "Land "), shown on two site maps attached hereto as Exhibit A. AGREEMENT Now, therefore, in consideration of the payment of $1.00 from EverGreen to Valley Green, and in consideration of the agreements contained herein, agree as follows: 1, Valley Green will permit EverGreen to place and store the Building on the Land at a location at least 100 feet north of the County Road 16 curb line and behind the existing earthen berms. 2. The period of storage shall extend from December 15, 2000 through May 15, 2001. 3. EverGreen shall restore tic Land to its original condition followino removal of the Buildings. 4. EverGreen or its agent (e-g- Fulco Construction, Inc.) shall insure all risk of loss associated with storage of the Buildings on the Land. 5. EverGreen shall indemnify and hold harmless Valley Green from any and all damages and liability for anything and everything whatsoever arising from, or out of, the storage by EverGreen of the Buildings on the Land, including damages or liability arising from the negligence of EverGreen or its agents, unless said damages and liabitity arise solely from the gross negligence or intentional acts of Valley Green, its employees or its agents. 6. EverGreen shall have sole responsibility for security and protection of the 02/12/2001 MON 16:55 FAX 952 820 0706 JOHNSON AND CONDON FA Buildings while stored on the Land 7. If EverGreen does not remove the Buildings from the Land on or before May 15, 2001, Valley Green shall have the right, upon two weeks written notice to EverGreen, to remove the modular units to an alternate storage site and obtain reimbursement from EverGreen for all costs and expenses incurred in so doing, and attorney fees and costs incurred in enforcing its rights. Said removal shall be done in a workman -like fashion using reasonable care. This Agreement is effective as of the date above written. EVERGREEN REAL ESTATE VALLEY GREEN BUSINESS PARK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED PARTNERSHIP B By y: Mc lenahan, President Wendell R. Kurtz, ice Iresidenc 269685. -pa 02/12/2001 MON 16:55 FAX 952 820 0706 JOHNSON AND CONDON PA t a .t . a• :1 l m ► �!���- r l gt t l ' � m a A � tl l+ � al Z i i Ig Q a ( 3n1 _ — ' - JNIlti3lf+ ` 1�I I 1 4 1 i;I �1 l l I llll � , I I I , r i r I , 1 ; I I I 1 i t �� I l • p , + r 1 4 + I e i I lP I ' l I ( I 1 1 I — 1 I I I I a i ; ` �I 'I t + - •`• - � • A I `` I • a .. • C7 l� l A r , , a1F � i •p F I` + It 1 r l gt t l ' � m a A � tl l+ � al Z i i Ig Q a ( 3n1 _ — ' - JNIlti3lf+ ` 1�I I 1 4 1 i;I �1 l l I llll � , I I I , r i r I , 1 ; I I I 1 i t �� I l • p , + r 1 4 + I e i I lP I ' l I ( I 1 1 I — 1 I I I I 0 An x ma mom MWE o� f � 0 c V) Z o m m n z m < a m O > V a EN D z n a b n� cps A n � x � 1 1 ::E> jm �=:v mmmusam 0 z < a m O > �on� fm :2 rm " o � 17 M ca n C v o > m rrAA Y l l m -4 W D T 1 1 ::E> O n� A®0 < a m O > �on� fm _ " o � �az ZPn 4 !-Ll� h M� A Og co) wA SOO /SOON] va NOQN00 W NOSNHOf 90LO OZS ZS6 l3 S "T NOW TOOZ /ZT /ZO rond No. 285 -001 -244 KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS that Fulco Construction, Inc., 130 Peavey Circle, Chaska, MN 55318, as Principal (hereinafter called "Principal ") and Limey zae1 � I as Surety, (hereinafter called "Surety ") are held and firmly bound unto EverGreen Real Estate Development Corporation, a Minnesota corporation (hereinafter called "Owner- Obligee" or "Owner ") and unto the Carver, Scott, Dakota CAP Agency (hereinafter called "CAP ") (hereinafter called "Co- Obligee "), their successors and assigns, as their respective interests may appear, as Obligee, in the sum of Five Hundred Thirty Thousand Dollars ($530,000.00) (hereinafter called "Penal Sum ") lawful money of the United States of America, for the payment of which Principal and Surety bind themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. WHEREAS, P incipal has entered into a Construction Contract (hereinafter called "Contract ") dated with Owner- Obligee for the construction of a childcare center designated as EverGreen eights Childcare Center, Shakopee, Minnesota, a copy of which Contract is attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, Owner- Obligee entered into a Purchase Agreement dated to , (a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof) for the construction and sale of the childcare center to Co- Obligee CAP, said center being constructed by Principal in compliance with certain specific requirements of Co- Obligee CAP, as further detailed in said Purchase Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, the condition of this obligation is such that, if Principal shall well and truly perform all the undertakings, covenants, terms, conditions, and agreements of said Construction Contract and Purchase Agreement on its part, and fully indemnify and save harmless Obligees from all cost and damage which they may suffer by reason of failure so to do, and fully reimburse and repay Obligees all outlay and expense which Obligees may incur in making good any such default, then this obligation shall be null and void; otherwise, it shall remain in full force and effect. The foregoing, however, is subject to the following further provisions: 1. Owner, with CAP's prior written approval, or Co- Obligee may declare Principal to The be in default under the Contract by a written notice of default sent to Surety. y . registered mail, postage g notic prepaid, ai, in an shall specify defaults and be served by mailing the same b e is regularly maintained by the addressee envelope addressed to Surety, at any place where an offic for the transaction of business, or e tesu d in h service n ed not be made by a public bofficermay be served under Minnesota law, sa 2. After notice of default has been served pursuant to par. 1, above, surety may promptly: (a) Have the Contract ner or Co- Obligee, applicable to and r interest and another contractor acceptable to the hired by the Surety, or owest (b) Obtain a bid or bids acceptab O wner b tween the bidder and the l Owner or Co- reasonable bondable bidder and arrange for an agreement Obligee. 3. Surety shall promptly pay directly to the entities or persons chosen under par. 2(a) or 2(b) sums reasonably necessary to complete the Contract or cure the defaults as the same become due. In no event shall Surety be obligated to pay more than the Penal Sum. 4. The Principal and Surety shall not be liable under this Bond to the Obligees, or any of them, unless the said Obligees, or any of them, shall make payments to the Principal in accordance with the terms of the Contract and Purchase Agreement, as to payments, and shall perform all the other obligations to be performed under the Contract and Purchase Agreement at the time and in the manner therein set forth. 5. No suit, action, or proceeding by reason of any default whatever shall be brought on this bond after two years from the day on which the final payment under the Contract falls due. 6. The prior written approval of Surety shall be required with regard to any changes or alterations in said Contract where the cost thereof, added to prior changes or alterations, causes the aggregate cost of all changes and alterations to exceed 10 percent of the original Contract price; but, except as to the foregoing, any alterations which may be made in the terms of the Contract, or in the work to be done under it, or the giving by the Obligees of any extension of time for the performance of the Contract, or any other forbearance on the part of either the Obligees or Principal to the other, shall not in any way release Surety or Principal of the obligations of this instrument, notice to Surety of any such alteration, extension, or forbearance being hereby waived. 7. The aggregate liability of Surety hereunder to the Obligees or their assigns is limited to the Penal Sum. Surety, upon making any payment hereunder, shall be subrogated to, and shall be entitled to an assignment of all rights of the Principal. Signed and sealed this Lo day of \.tn e , IN THE PRESENCE OF: (Title) (Prin pal) / (Seal) Richard loo - :: -2- STATE OF MINNESOTA STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. C ®UNTY OF MUTM ) (Surety) (Seal) By: Nbro3ith F. 9iian, Attcar -- - irr WEEDY N. CHMSTENSEN NOTARY PUBLIC- WXXESOTA HENNEFiN COUNTY Wy COmm1a50n Espiras J ill 31, aDOO The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of �� h t, , by ton� - ; rt —fact- _ of EM vEredith Fl- slim At on behalf of said _zmca Lzbe�ty Irriy , a t�.��c�►itt,r,r�l ;non - nom � Lib�iy Mut>�1. Ir�'arx� C arQarry -3- BOND NO. 285 -001 -244 PAYMENT BOND KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS, that we, Fulco Construction, Inc., 130 Peavey Circle, Chaska, MN 55318, as Principal (hereinafter called "Principal "), and as Surety (hereinafter called "Surety"), are held and firmly bound unto EverGreen Real Estate Development Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, (hereinafter called the "Owner-Obligee"), and Carver, Scott and Dakota CAP Agency (hereinafter called "CAP ") (hereinafter called the "Co- Obligee "), in the amount of Five Hundred Thirty Thousand Dollars and No /100 ($530,000.00) lawful money of the United States of America, for the payment whereof Principal and Surety bind themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. WHEREAS, Principal has entered into a Construction Contract (hereinafter called the "Contract "), dated � I tip , 2000, a copy of which is attached and made apart hereof, with the Owner - Obligee requiring approval of the Co- Obligee for the construction of a development designated as EverGreen Heights Childcare Center, Shakopee, Minnesota, a copy of which Contract is by reference made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, Co- Obligee, under a certain Purchase Agreement, copy of which is attached and made a part hereof, has agreed or will agree to pay to the Owner - Obligee a sum of money to be used by the Owner - Obligee in making payments to the Principal under said Contract, and the Obligees desire assurance of the prompt payment by Principal for all labor and materials furnished in the prosecution of the work provided for in the Contract. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that if the Principal shall promptly make payment to all claimants as hereinafter for all labor and material furnished in the prosecution of the work provided for in the Contract, then this obligation shall be void; otherwise, it shall remain in full force and effect. A claimant, as hereinafter defined, shall have a direct right of action hereunder against the Surety, subject to the following conditions: 1. A claimant is defined as one having a direct contract with the Principal or with a subcontractor of the Principal who has furnished labor, material, or both, in the prosecution of the work provided for in the Contract and who has not been paid in full therefor. Labor and material include, but are not limited to, that part of water, gas, power, light, heat, oil, gasoline, telephone service, or rental of equipment directly applicable to the performance of the Contract. 2. The above -named Principal and Surety hereby jointly and severally agree with the Obligees that every claimant as herein defined, who has not been paid in full before the expiration of a period of one hundred twenty (120) days after the date on which the last of such claimant's work or labor was done or performed or materials were furnished by such claimant, may sue on this bond in the name of the claimant, prosecute the suit to final judgment for such sum or sums as may be justly due claimant and have execution thereon; provided, however, that the Obligees hereunder shall not be liable for the payment of any costs or expenses of any such suit. 3. The prior written approval of Surety shall he required with regard to any changes or alterations in said Contract where the cost thereof, added to prior changes or alterations, causes the aggregate cost of all changes and alterations to exceed 10 percent of the original contract price: but except as to the foregoing, any alterations which may be made in the terms of the contract or Loan Agreements. or in the work to be done under it, or the giving by Obligees of any extension of time for the performance of the Contract, or any other forbearance on the part of either the Obligees or Principal to the Contract, or any other forbearance on the part of either the Obligees or Principal to the other, shall not in any way release Surety or Principal of the obligations of this instrument, notice to Surety of any such alterations, extension, or forbearance being hereby waived. 4. No suit or action shall be commenced hereunder by any claimant: (a) Unless the claimant shall have: (i) given written notice of claim to any two of either the Principal or either the Owner- Obligee or Co- Obligee within the period of time specified in condition 2, above; or (ii) filed a mechanic's lien in accordance with the Mechanic's Lien Act of Minnesota. The notice of claim required by (i) shall state with substantial accuracy the amount claimed and the name of the party to whom materials were furnished, or for whom the work or labor was done or performed; and, be served by mailing the same by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid and envelopes addressed to the Principal or to either of the Obligees at any place where an office is regularly maintained by the addressee for the transaction of business, or served in any manner in which summons or subpoena may be served under Minnesota law in the place in which the aforesaid development is located, save that such service need not be made by a public officer. For the purpose of this condition 4(a), the filing of a mechanic's lien, in accordance with the Mechanic's Lien Act of Minnesota is a sufficient notice hereunder. (b) After the expiration of two (2) years following the date on which Principal ceases work under the Contract. (c) Other than in a district court of Minnesota of competent jurisdiction in and for the county in which the development, or any part thereof, is situated, or in the United States District Court for the district in which the development, or any part thereof, is situated, or pursuant to the arbitration provision in the contract or any subcontracts. 5. 1 The amount of this bond shall be reduced by and to the extent of any payment or payments made in good faith hereunder, inclusive of the payment by Surety of liens which may be filed of record on account of any labor or material furnished under the Contract, whether or not claim for the amount of such lien be presented under and against this bond. 6. The Principal and Surety shall not be liable under this Bond to the Obligees, or any of them, unless the said Obligees, or any of them, shall make payments to the Principal prior to default and the Surety after default in accordance with the terms of the Contract and Purchase Agreement as to payments, and shall perform all other obligations to be performed under the Contract and Purchase Agreements at the time and in the manner therein set forth. SIGNED AND SEALED this 1 i0 ATTEST: Its: Richard J C -5- ATTEST: GJ� STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF Nc- Per✓ ) 7J1 /.� /,p STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HNSIPI ) ea r Its: et � me this day of LtRe� , by .v f of ✓1p�7lG✓ on behalf of said otary Pub. VJEMDY N. CHRISTEMMN NOTARY PUBLC-MIMESOTA HENNEPIN COLWTY Wy Commission Ems Jmt 31, The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 'l,? day of �iLt\Q, , by 1breclith F. szian Attorr� in7fact of L i berty NxatLn7 Ire , a nubzl insxanc-- c r p n behalf of said Liberty I�tu37. Ir�arx� C a>gsny -6- .>RODUCER Marsh USA Inc. 333 South 7th St.. Suite 1600 Minneapolis. MN 55402 -2400 (612) 692 -7400 INSURED Fulco Construction, Inc. 130 Peavey Circle Chaska, MN 55318 €' THIS I TO CERTIF :::............. TH .... INDICATED, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION ON O F ANY CONTRACT O T OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. POUCY EFFECTIVE POLICY EXPI-RATION LIMITS CO' POLICY NUMBER DATE (MM/DD/YY) DATE (MM/DD/YY) LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE GENERAL LIABILITY IMP30134019303 12131100 12131101 GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 2.000, 000 A PRODUCTS - COMP /OP AGG S 2,000,000 X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY PERSONAL & ADV INJURY S 1,000,000 CLAIMS MADE FTI OCCUR EACH OCCURRENCE S 1 ,000,000 OWNER'S & CONTRACTOR'S PROT FIRE DAMAGE (Any one fire) S 500.000 MED EXP (Anyone person) S 10,000 A AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY 1MP30134019303 12131100 12131101 COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT S 1,000.000 X • ANY AUTO ALL OWNED AUTOS BODILY INJURY (Per person) S SCHEDULED AUTOS ;( HIRED AUTOS BODILY INJURY (Per accident) S NON -OWNED AUTOS - PROPERTY DAMAGE S AUTO ONLY - EA ACCIDENT S GARAGE LIABILITY MUM OTHER THAN AUTO ONLY: ANY AUTO EACH ACCIDENT S AGGREGATE S EXCESS LIABILITY ZMP30134019303 12/31 /00 12/31/01 EACH OCCURRENCE $ 3,000,000 S 3.000,000 A AGGREGATE X UMBRELLA FORM S OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM , WC STP.TU- IOTH -:- ' ?:':.`:'i'i:i:; ? ? ;::: p WORKER'S COMPENSFii�ON AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY WVAl205157 12i511 00 12131161 TORY LIMITS ER EL EACH ACCIDENT EL DISEASE -POLICY LIMIT i ,00 S IGO, GGG S 500, 000 THEPROPRIETOR/ X INCL PARTNERS /EXECUTIVE OFFICERS ARE: EXCL EL DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE S 100, 000 12131100 12131101 $5,000,000 OTHER A Builders Risk 1MP30134019303 Coverage DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS/LOCATIONSIVEHICLES /SPECIAL ITEMS (LIMITS MAY BE SUBJECT TO DEDUCTIBLES OR RETENTIONSI. Evergreen Heights Real Estate Development Corporation is included as an additional insured as respect to general liability regarding: Evergreen Heights Childcare Center. E'.� LU '..'•. C•.::::: :;;x:::::3:_::_5::::i_:= i_::_:: i::_ i_ i:::•>:.:: a:::;.::.::::.>:.:::. r:.::.>::.;:.::•;;:: .._::: : :: :: :.� • SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CAN BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATETHEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL Evergreen Rear Estate Dev. Corporation 30 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, 5212 Hope Street BUT FAILURE TO MAIL SUCH NOTICE SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY Prior Lake, MN 55372 OF ANY KIND UPON THE COMPANY. ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIV <': >: >; : ><::s» : >:::: >:: >:: ;;:. »:::: >:<: »:: >::<: >::> : >::::r > ::;::::::: >:;:, :;::< <;:;: »: >:» :>::>::>::;;::;:«:>:>:: >:;:.;:. >:.;;;:.;:.;::;.::;.;;; ---- . :::::::::::::::.,.......... - - -00163 :.... . :.:::.::.:;.;:.:::..;.;:.;;;::.;:;.;;;:.::.>::.;:.;;:.::-:.;:.;::.::: : : :::.:...:.......:............ CERTIFICATE N0. 0005001 PRODUCER Marsh USA Inc. 333 South 7th St-, Suite 1600 Minneapolis, MN 55402-2400 (612) 692-7400 INSURED Fu7co Construction, Inc. 130 Peavey Circle Chaska, MN 55318 . .. ... . ... . . ........... .......... DATE (MM/DDNY) .. .......... % . .. ....... 6122100 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. COMPANIES AEF0AD0Wa-C COMPANY - A FIDELITY & GUARANTY INS 0 COMPANY B COMPANY C COMPANY D Z 9 2000 Z��. ­­ ----------­-------------- THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. Co LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFFECTIVE DATE (MM/DDNY) POLICY EXPIRATION DATE (MMtDDNY) LIMITS A GENERAL LIA BILITY .. COMMERCIAL MADE L GENERAL LIABILITY - V �OCCUR TRA I�T6R`S PROT OWNER'S & CONTRACT OR'S PROT W N C ON TER' 0 1MP30134019301 12131199 12131101 GENERAL AGGREGATE 2,000,000 PRODUCTS - COMP /OP AGG $ 2,000,000 PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $ 1,000,000 EACH OCCURRENCE 1,000,000 FIRE DAMAGE (Any one fire) 500,000 MED EYP (Any one person) I$ 10,000 AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY ANY AUTO ALL OWNED AUTOS SCHEDULED AUTOS HIRED AUTOS � AUTOS NO N -OWNED A" 1MP30134019301 12131199 12131101 COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT $ 1,000,000 BODILY INJURY (Per person) BODILY INJURY (Per accident) X PROPERTY DAMAGE $ GARAGE LIABILITY ANY AUTO Y U : M T : JAEYCESS AUTO ONLY - EA ACCIDENT $ TN OTHER THAN AUTO ONLY: EACH ACCIDENT $ AGGREGATE $ LIABILITY X UMBRELLA FORM HER THAN UMBRELLA FORM WORKER'S COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ---I PROPRIETOR/ V INCL THE F PARTNERS /EXECUTIVE S ARE- EXCL 1MP30134019301 1232920975 12131199 12131199 12131101 12131101 1 EACH OCCURRENCE $ 3,000,000 A � AGGREG $ 3,000.000 WC STATU- OTH- X TORY LIMITS ER .. ........... X " , . ... ... . . . .. ... ... EL EACH ACCIDENT $ 100,000 EL DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT $ 500,000 EL DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE $ 100,000 OFFICE OFF OTHER R isk +ABU17 er Veraq S R Coverage Co IMP30134019301 12131199 12131101 $5,000,000 I DES I CRIPTION OF OPERATIONSJLOCATIONSNEHICLESISPECIAL ITEMS (LIMITS MAY BE SUBJECT TO DEDUCTIBLES OR RETENTIONS). Evergreen Heights Real Estate Development Corporation is included as an additional insured as respect to general liability regarding: Evergreen Heights Childcare Center. .......... .... ................... -_ SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE Evergreen Real Estate Dev. EXPIRATION DATETHEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL Corporation 30 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, 5212 Hope Street BUT FAILURE TO MAIL SUCH NOTICE SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY Prior Lake, MN 55372 OF ANY KIND UPON THE COMPANY, ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTAIIVtj - --- ------- ------ 15 L CrrY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk SUBJECT: Appeal of Denial of Taxicab Driver's License by Stanley Eric Undem DATE: February 15, 2001 INTRODUCTION: City Council is asked to take action on an appeal of staff denial of a taxicab driver's license. BACKGROUND: Mr. Stanley Undem has submitted an application for a taxicab driver's license. An application for a taxicab driver's license is approved or denied by the Issuing Authority and may be appealed to the City Council. Mr. Undem has a valid State of Minnesota driver's license. He is delaying obtaining the required physician's certificate until he knows that he will be granted a license. Based upon review of Mr. Undem's application and based upon the report from Detective Molly Schrot, staff denied the application from Mr. Undem for a taxicab driver's license. Mr. Undem wishes to appeal this denial to-the City Council. City Code Section 6.03, Subd. 4. False Statements. It is unlawful for any applicant to intentionally make a false statement or omission upon any application form. Any false statement in such application, or any willful omission to state any information called for on such application form, shall, upon discovery of such falsehood work an automatic refusal of license, or if already issued, shall render any license or permit issued pursuant thereto, void, and of no effect to protect the applicant from prosecution for violation of this Chapter, or any part hereof. City Code Section 6.22, Subd. 15.C. Grounds for Denial of Driver's License. Falsification of an application for a taxicab driver's license constitutes grounds for denial of the license or renewal. RECOMMENDATION• Determine whether or not to grant a taxicab driver's license to Mr. Undem. a z - 0 g L'� -- Have you ever been convicted of a Felony Y e s' Misdemeanor Y e S If ye s, explain � 0 f �f�a.lS f}9a A R�°)li�S�cll2 R�rzn �QSrmr��_ RedLcC-e-d TD M M M p i w w l I ow J I MEW: 0 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk Mark McNeill, City Administrator RE: Appointments to Boards and Commissions DATE: February 15, 2001 INTRODUCTION: Attached for Council consideration is Resolution No. 5487, which would make appointments to expiring terms on various boards and commissions. After Council has determined the successful candidates by voting, this resolution should be adopted. BACKGROUND: Various terms on boards and commissions will be expiring at the end of February, 2001. On February 6th, City Council made nominations to the boards and commissions, following the publication of the openings and receipt of applications, pursuant to Council policy. On February 7th and 8th an interview panel made up of Councilors Bob Sweeney and Deb Amundson and the City Administrator interviewed a total of 14 applicants. The incumbents were given an opportunity to interview as well, but only one did so. After reviewing the qualifications, the committee is making the following recommendations: SPUC — Joan Lynch* Police Civil Service Commission — Ron Ward* Cable Communications Advisory Commission — Patricia Langdon* Dan Vroman Cable Community Access Corporation — Patricia Langdon* Dan Vroman EDAC — Joe Helkamp Planning Commission — Mark Houser* Park and Recreation Advisory Board — Peggy Dokka- Thorson Tim Williams Transit Commission — no applicants Building Code/Housing Advisory and Appeals — Dave Limberg* (The appointment to the EDAC will be on the March 6th E.D.A. agenda. *Incumbent DETERMINING SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES: According to Resolution No. 2206, if there is more than one person nominated for an opening, the City Clerk shall distribute paper upon which each Council member shall write his preference for the appointment to the opening and sign their name. Then the Mayor shall open the paper ballots and announce how the votes were cast. If the person receiving the most votes does not have a majority vote of the Council members present, then there shall be a second paper vote between the top two candidates. If the vote is a tie between the top two candidates, there shall then be an additional paper vote between the top two candidates. After a candidate has received a majority vote on a paper ballot, the Mayor shall announce his or her name and the fact that he or she has a majority vote. All ballots shall be turned over to the City Clerk for proper filing. After it has been determined who the candidates are that have received the majority vote, their names should be inserted into Resolution No. 5487. To speed things along, in the past City Council has filled out the ballot ahead of time and given it to the City Clerk just before the meeting. Votes are tallied with the first results presented to Council members when the matter comes up on the agenda. If additional voting is necessary it would take place at that time. Council may wish to follow this procedure to expedite the process. (BALLOT ATTACHED) The current Board of Review is comprised of five members consisting of four citizens and one council member. This year we have one term expiring and that person has chosen not to reapply and we have no other citizens interested in serving on the Board. If City Council is prepared, it would be desirable for two council members to be designated at this time to serve on the Board of Review this year. The Board of Review has been set for Tuesday, May 8th at 7:00 p.m. and Tuesday, May 22nd at 7:00 p.m. (Board of Review is held in the council chambers). Note: the Board of Review has included two Council members a number of years in the past. (The governing body of any city may appoint a special board of review. This special board of review serves at the direction and discretion of the City Council. The Council determines the number of members, the compensation and expenses, and the terms of office. At least one member of the special board must be an appraiser, realtor, or familiar with property valuations in the assessment district. - from the League Handbook) For Your Information! RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Complete 1 st ballot and give to City Clerk at the meeting prior to roll call. 2. Conduct additional ballots as needed. 3. Insert the names of the top vote getters into Resolution No. 5487. 4. Adopt Resolution No. 5487 5. Designate two Councilors to serve on the Board of Review. f JSGjs �J i s j eanette \b &capp2001 RESOLUTION NO. 5487 ��JJ3V XWO LAM F6 1 1 OWN _J �J BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNEOSTA, that the following appointments are hereby made: 1. is appointed to the Planning Commission and Board of Adjustments and Appeals for a four year term expiring February 28, 2005. 2. is appointed to the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission for a three year term expiring March 31, 2004. 3. is appointed to the Police Civil Service Commission for a three year term expiring February 28, 2004. 4. and are appointed to the Park and Recreation Advisory Board for three year terms expiring February 28, 2004. 5. is appointed to the Community Access Corporation Board of Directors for a three year term expiring February 28, 2004. 6. is appointed to the Cable Communications Advisory Commission for a three year term expiring February 28, 2004. 7. is appointed to the Transit Commission for a three year term expiring February 28, 2004. 8. is appointed to the Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals and the Housing Advisory & Appeals Board for a three year term expiring February 28, 2004. Adopted in adjourned regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this 20 day of February, 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk •• •• • i it Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment and Appeals (Vote for 1) Park and Recreation Advisory Board (Vote for 2) Mark Houser* Charley Kubler Steve Menden Mary Pennington -Hoyt Troy Ryan Cal TenEyck Shakopee Public Utilities Commission (Vote for 1) Joan Lynch* Tim Williams Police Civil Service Commission (Vote for 1) Mark Gustad Todd Olness Dan Vroman Ron Ward* Peggy Dokka- Thorson Russell Kennedy Joseph Klembarsky Jeff Reinhard Dan Vroman Tim Williams Economic Development Advisory Committee (Vote for 1) Joseph Helkamp Charley Kubler Jay Lyle* Councilmember *Incumbent •, •. TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Consider Creation of an Environmental Advisory Committee DATE: February 15, 2001 INTRODUCTION: The Council is asked to give direction as to the creation of a board to consider environmental issues. The Council is asked to consider the establishment of an Environmental Advisory Committee. It became obvious during the boards and commissions interviews that there were several candidates who had very strong credentials in environmental issues, but in order to participate, had applied for either Planning Commission or PARB. However, in view of the environmental- related discussions that City Council, Planning Commission, and PARB have had over the past couple of years, a committee specifically charged with examining issues related to Natural Resources should be considered. Several other cities already have groups that examine environmental issues. Natural Resources Director Mark McQuillan has done some research, and suggests that the responsibilities of an Environmental Advisory Committee could include such things as: • Review land use and development proposals for environmental issues; • Develop and recommend policies, ordinances and procedures for the management of natural resources, wildlife habitat and conservation development; • Provide direction for the creation of greenways and protection of cultural and ecological assists with the community; • Provide for community -wide environmental education programs; • Preserve and enhance water conveyances, water quality and wetland habitat; • Preserve and establish a healthy urban forest and; • Other issues as determined by City Council, Planning Commission and/or PARE While the duties have yet to be determined, it was evident from the interviews that the following individuals would be strong candidates for appointment, at such time that the City Council chooses to formally establish this committee. (It is suggested that that action could be taken at the March 6 City Council meeting). The five recommended individuals are: Charley Kubler Russell Kennedy Jeff Reinhard Steve Menden Mary Pennington -Hoyt Direct that staff research and bring back a resolution setting forth operating procedures relating to the establishment of an Environmental Advisory Committee. ACTION REQUIRED: If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, take the following action: Direct staff to research and bring back for formal adoption a resolution relating to the creation of an Environmental Advisory Committee. MM/j s