Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
April 3, 2001
REGULAR SESSION LOCATION: 129 Holmes Street South Mayor Jon Brekke presiding 1] Roll Call at 7:00 p.m. 2] Pledge of Allegiance 3] Approval of Agenda 4] Mayor's Report 5] Approval of Consent Business - (All items noted by an * are anticipated to be routine. After a discussion by the Mayor, there will be an opportunity for members of the City Council to remove items from the consent agenda for individual discussion. Those items removed will be considered in their normal sequence on the agenda. Those items remaining on the consent agenda will otherwise not be individually discussed and will be enacted in one motion.) 6] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS — (Limited to five minutes per person/subject. Longer presentations must be scheduled through the City Clerk. As this meeting is cablecast, speakers must approach the microphone at the podium for the benefit of viewers and other attendees.) *7] Approval of Minutes: February 6 and February 20, 2001 *8] Approval of Bills in the Amount of $246,691.54 plus $105,907.48 for refunds, returns and pass through for total of $352,599.02 9] Public Hearings: A] Proposed improvements for Sarazin Street and Valley View Road, Project No. 2001 -5; Resolution No. 5502 B] Proposed assessments for Gorman Street improvements, Project 2000 -1— Res. No. 5503 C] Proposed vacation of easements within Lot 2, Block 1, Valley Park Sixth — Res. No. 5504 10] Communications: None 11] Liaison Reports from Council Members 12] Recess for Economic Development Authority Meeting 13] Re- convene TENTATIVE AGENDA March 20, 2001 Page —2- 14] Recommendations from Boards and Commissions: A] Preliminary Plat of ACC Addition located south of 1'7 Avenue, west of Betaseed/CR17, and north of Valley View Road extended — Res. No. 5498 15] General Business A] Public Works and Engineering 1. CR 83 /CR 16 Feasibility Report Amendment, Ordering the Improvements and Plans and Specifications, Project 2001 -4 - Resolution No. 5501 *2. Award Contract for 2000 Reconstruction Project, 2000 -4 — Res. No.5505 3. Valley View Road Memo of Understanding with Scott County B] Police and Fire * 1. 2001 Southwest Metro Drug Task Force Joint Powers Agreement *2. Replacement Fire Fighting Turn Out Gear C] Parks and Recreation 1. Approval of Skate Park, Project 2001 -6 D] Community Development 1. Robert Olson/Chrysler Reality Corp. Appeal of Sign Variance by the Board of Adjustment & Appeals E] Personnel * 1. Request by Julie Klima for Conversion from Full -time Exempt to Part-time Employment *2. Completion of Probationary Period of Mark Noble, Planner I *3. Extended Leave of Absence *4. Accept Resignation of John Delacey and Authorize Advertisement to Fill Various Engineering Technician Positions 5. Classification/Compensation Study Award F] General Administration: * 1. Volunteer Firefighter Insurance 2. Economic Impact Study Presentation by Tribal Administrator Bill Rudnicki 16] Council Concerns 17] Other Business 18] Adjourn to Tuesday, April 17, 2001, at 7 :00 p.m. 7 71191 Do 51 o ralsall a 0: 1 �1+ 7 �' 11 A i•i' i rWI Amundson/Link moved to approve the agenda as modified. Motion carried unanimously. The following item was added to the Consent Agenda. 15.E.5. Authorize Pilling Ice Arena Position. Sweeney /Amundson 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 /Amundson moved to approve the meeting minutes for November 6, 21, and 27, 2000; January 2 and 9, 2001. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Sweeney /Amundson moved to approve the bills in the amount of $282,866.00 plus $ 76,523.04 for refunds, returns, and pass through for a total of $359,389.04. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Mayor Brekke opened the public hearing on the Vacation of Easement within the plat of Shakopee Valley Marketplace. Mr. Leek, Community Development Director, gave a staff presentation of the application submitted by KTJ, L.L.P. for a vacation of an easement within the plat of Shakopee Valley Marketplace in connection with the proposed Kohl's Department Store. City Staff, Shakopee Public Utilities, and other relevant routing agencies and utilities have reviewed this request. The Shakopee Public Utilities watermain that is located within this easement has been discussed with Shakopee Public Utilities and they have conditionally recommended approval of this easement vacation. Shakopee Public Utilities has recommended some conditions. These conditions are: 1) that the relocation of the watermain located in the easement be at KTJ, L.L.P. expense, 2) be consistent with engineering's recommendation that this Official Proceedings February 6, 2001 of the Shakopee City Council Page 2 Mayor Brekke declared this was a public hearing and asked for public testimony. There was no response. Mayor Brekke declared the public hearing closed. Link/Amundson offered Resolution No. 5479, A Resolution Of The City Of Shakopee Vacating An Easement Within Lot 1, Block 1, Shakopee Valley Marketplace, City of Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Cncl. Sweeney reported that at the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission meeting of February 5, 2001 a resolution was passed for a fuel cost adjustment addition of approximately 10% to the cost of electric bills retroactive to January. In January, the cost of electricity purchased by Shakopee Public Utilities from Excel energy was an extra $121,000. It is anticipated that in February, there will be an increase of $127,000 of the electric purchased from Excel Energy. Mr. McNeill clarified the Waste Management fuel surcharge. The Waste Management fuel surcharge would be for those commercial accounts and those accounts that are not through the City franchise. The City does not allow for a fuel cost adjustment in the current contract and the new franchise contract with Dick's Sanitation will not allow this fuel cost adjustment either. Mr. McNeill stated that the Native American Community has requested to be put on an agenda for a presentation to the City Council regarding the Mystic Lake Casino. Cncl. Link attended a meeting between the non - smokers group and St. Francis' Hospital. As a joint effort, surveys and studies will be done on the harmful effects of smoking and these surveys/studies will be made available to the residents of the City of Shakopee. Cncl. Amundson stated the CVB (Convention and Visitors Bureau) received an award on their web site at the governor's conference. This was the highest award for a newly designed web site. - A recess was taken at 7:22 p.m. for the purpose of conducting an Economic Development Authority meeting. The meeting re- convened at 7:30 p.m. Official Proceedings February 6, 2001 of the Shakopee City Council Page 3 Mark Themig presented the facility usage agreement between Shakopee School District and the City of Shakopee. The Council members had a copy of the joint powers agreement between the Shakopee School District and the City of Shakopee. This Joint powers Agreement was originally established in 1995 to outline facility use between the School District and The City of Shakopee. This agreement permitted the School District and the City of Shakopee to use each other's facilities at no cost. This has been a good agreement. It expired November 30, 2000 and it had a clause to continue the agreement until it was cancelled or revised by either organization. Basically in this revised agreement, the same philosophy is still in place, allowing free activity space to each organization with a few minor changes. Some of these minor changes are: 1) tracking the costs of providing facility spaces, 2) updating a list of facilities that can be used, 3) revisions in time of available spaces, 4) revision of maintenance of the facilities. The Park and Recreation Advisory Board have reviewed this agreement. They voted unanimously to support the Joint Powers Agreement. Mayor Brekke was concerned about the effort involved in tracking the costs. Mayor Brekke understood why but this tracking could involve a lot of time to provide consistency. Mr. Themig addressed Mayor Brekke'°s concern. Just the staffing costs were going to be tracked for each organization. This would not result in a large project. Amundson/Sweeney moved to authorize the approval- of the Joint Powers Agreement for use of City of Shakopee Facilities and ISD #720 Facilities pending final review by the City Attorney. Cncl. Sweeney wanted this agreement revisited. It is the intention of Mr. Themig to start reviewing this policy in the fall of 2002. Motion carried unanimously. Official Proceedings February 6, 2001 of the Shakopee City Council Page 4 Pete Willenbring, consultant with WSB, approached the podium to discuss the design and cost split options that the Prior Lake Outlet Channel Feasibility Study Analysis prepared by Montgomery Watson (PLSLWD Consultant) and WSB & Associates, Inc. have come up with. Mr. Willenbring oriented the Council regarding the Outlet Channel. As part of the original Joint Powers Agreement, the PLSLWD was responsible for the construction and maintenance of the outlet channel. It was stated in the original Joint Powers Agreement that when the City of Shakopee started using the outlet channel for flow from the City of Shakopee, then the Joint Powers Agreement would need to be revised. The responsibilities for maintenance and further improvements would need to be addressed at that time. The City of Shakopee has areas that are anticipated to drain into this channel. Historically, there has not been much water from Shakopee going to this outlet channel but with the development of the Valley Green Business Park and other development in that area, the outlet channel will be used to a greater extent by the City of Shakopee. We do have a responsibility to renegotiate the Joint Powers Agreement for that reason. Originally the design of the channel would handle 50 CFS from Prior Lake. There is a need to do some channel improvement to accommodate the additional flows. The feasibility study done in conjunction with the PLSLWID took a look at the water that would leave Prior Lake and go towards County Road 101 at the end point. How much flow comes from Prior Lake, how much flow from the City of Prior Lake, and how much flow comes from the City of Shakopee has been identified. Based on this information some cost share formulas have been arrived at. Various options have been suggested for the outlet channel. Does the City of Shakopee want to put the water in a pipe or does the City of Shakopee want an open channel? If the City put the water in an open channel, do they want to create a greenway corridor through parts of the channel? Mayor Brekke liked the idea of a greenway corridor. Cncl. Sweeney cautioned that the costs for the outlet channel proposed do not contain costs for easement additions for this greenway corridor. If this project is done in the near future, there are no property owners to access the cost to and the City Will need to look at the CIP. Mayor Brekke was under the assumption that the cost would come from the Storm Water Drainage Fund. Mr. Loney stated that the Storm Water Drainage Fund was designed to pay for Storm Water Trunk Facilities. If the City would do this project now, there would need to be some bonding now, and the fund would be replenished as the areas developed around this area. According to Mr. Loney, there is approximately $2 -$3 million in the Storm Drainage fund now. The City of Shakopee has a joint easement with the PLSLWD. A fair amount of easements need to be required regardless of which way the channel is built. Official Proceedings February 6, 2001 of the Shakopee City Council Page 5 Mayor Brekke would like to see costs proposed for a drainage way with some amenities (trails and greenway) and a basic drainage channel without amenities. It was noted, timing has a significant bearing on the easement costs. The open channel is the most cost effective. If a greenway channel is built, the greenway can be used for trails and also as a maintenance bench when maintenance is needed. Mayor Brekke would like this greenway channel to serve a dual Cncl. Sweeney asked what was the time a for doing this project. 1W. Loney replied, that he thought the City of Shakopee's time frame could be later that the PLSLWD. The development in the area, would dictate our timetable, perhaps 3 -5 years. Mr. Loney viewed this as a long -term project. He thought the negotiations would probably take two- years. Mr. Willenbring addressed the flows using the outlet channel. The flow from the City of Shakopee is more of a peak flow and the flow from PLSLWD is more of a constant flow. There was discussion on the trails in the greenway outlet channel. Cncl. Sweeney suggested that a plan of action, with some time frames and dates and some points when funds need to be committed and the amounts of these funds, would make sense with a project that is on a long term time -frame. This is an outcome that the Council should be asking the Planning Department to produce. The first outcome, of this plan of action, is to identify the corridor on the ground. According to Mr. Loney, there is a channel that will be coming through the Blue Lake Drainage area. Cncl. Sweeney felt the best style corridor that would accommodate a maintenance bench for the maintenance vehicles to utilize should be the first option presented for the new outlet channel. The PLSLWD seems to be quite definite that they will not allow any more than 50 cfs coming out of Prior Lake into the channel. There is a different design standard for the type of channel that the City of Shakopee will be using as opposed to the continuous flow out of Prior Lake. Mr. Willenbring felt the watershed District had a responsibility to pay for more than an outlet channel that would handle 50 cfs. The costs for the improvements that needed to be constructed were looked at. The selective improvement, which would. only clean up the area where there is problems, now, would cost approximately $1.5 million. The cost for the overall improvements would be approximately $2.6 million. Mr. Willenbring recommended the overall improvements, this amount does not include the easement costs as Cncl. Sweeney stated. Mr. Willenbring recommended the overall improvements because, he felt there would be considerably more maintenance cost over the years with the selective option. Mr. Willenbring presented three cost split options for the PLSLWD, City of Prior Lake and City of Shakopee. Official Proceedings of the Shakopee City Council February 6, 2001 Page 7 much of the area is tributary and the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community owns much of the area. The Blue Lake Outlet Channel would be a series of ponds that is going through the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community land and ultimately to the Prior Lake Outlet Channel. The Blue Lake Outlet Channel upgrade would cost approximately $2.1 million. Mr. Loney stated that our needs for the Blue Lake Outlet Channel and Prior Lake Outlet Channel would depend on the MUSA allocation that the City of Shakopee receives from the Metropolitan Council in the Comprehensive Plan Update. Cncl. Sweeney was uncomfortable giving staff any direction at this point except the direction that the watershed district needs to think about the 50 cfs and whether this amount of flow from Prior Lake is reasonable. - Gary Anderson, resident by Deans Lake, approached the podium. It appeared to him that there would be extra water channeled into Deans Lake and Deans Lake was not designed to have this extra water. Deans Lake is a spring feed, natural DNR controlled lake. Mr. Anderson wondered if the DNR had been checked with? Does the City have this authority to channel water into Deans Lake? Mr. Loney responded to these questions. First of all, a Deans Lake by -pass channel was put in as part of the Southbridge development that can handle 20 cfs. Water can be re- routed here around Deans Lake if needed. The Lower Minnesota Watershed District mandated this design when the Southbridge development was developed. Mr. Loney stated the water coming out of Lower Prior is a pretty good surface water quality. This water from Prior Lake does keep the water level of Dean's Lake slightly higher. Cncl. Link wanted to know if the same architect being used for the Library could also be negotiated with as the architect for the new police facility. Mr. McNeill addressed this question. He stated that negotiation can be done, but Mr. McNeill was not sure that an architect that does a library can do work for a new police facility. However, there would be a list of finalists for the architectural design and if the architect for the library made the finalist selection this suggestion would be posed to him. The Council concurred with this idea. Sweeney /Amundson moved to direct staff to negotiate with the architectural firm that is designing the Library to bid the architectural design of the new police facility thereby, hopefully, reducing the costs of the City for the new police facility. Official Proceedings February 6, 2001 of the Shakopee City Council Page 8 Mr. Leek gave three alternatives that staff has come forward with. The first alternative would amend the City Code Sec. 4.03 to remove the requirement for permit for all fences that are under 6 feet in height, but require building permits for fences over six (6) feet in height per the Building Code. The second alternative would be a variation of the first alternative, with the second alternative to continue to require a conditional use permit (CUP) review for fences over six (6) feet in height. The thought behind the CUP review is that an additional level of public review is available. The third alternative is to require building permits for fences that are boundary fences and/or any fence(s) that are over six (6) feet in height per City Code 4.03. Staff is asking to be° directed to prepare an ordinance consistent with the alternative, if any, that City Council agrees with. Cncl. Sweeney asked Mr. Leek if one of these alternatives for fence permit(s) was similar to any fencing requirements of neighboring cities. Mr. Leek stated some cities require permits for fences over six (6) feet, Building Codes do require administrative review for permits, and some cities require public review. City staff did recommend alternative 2, because this alternative offers control on design and materials, and this offers neighbors notice that an overheight fence is being considered through the conditional use permit process. Sweeney/Link moved to direct staff to amend City Code Sec. 4.03 to be consistent with the recommendation of the second alternative which is: Amend City Code Sec. 4.03 to remove the requirement for building permits for all fences that are under 6 feet in height, but continue to require conditional use permits (CUP) review and require building permits for fences over six (6) feet in height per the Building Code. Motion carried unanimously. Official Proceedings of the Shakopee City Council Corporation: Patricia Langdon; 6) Economic Development Advisory Committee: Charley Kubler, Joseph Helkamp, Jay Lyle; 7) Park and Recreation Advisory Board: Peggy Dokka - Thorson, Russell Kennedy, Tim Williams, Jeff Reinhard, Joseph Klembarsky, Dan Vroman; 8) Transit Commission: Tim Williams; 9) Building Code BOAA & Housing Advisory and Appeal Board: Dave Limberg. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney /Amundson moved to approve the applications and grant temporary on -sale liquor licenses to the Church of St. Mary, 535 South Lewis Street, for March 11, 2001 and June 24, 2001. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney /Amundson moved to approve the applications and grant temporary on -sale liquor licenses to the Church of St. Mark, 350 South Atwood Street, for February 17, 2001 and July 28 and 29, 2001..(Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Sweeney /Amundson moved to approve the application and grant a tattoo license to Joshua Arment, Body Art, 205 South Lewis Street. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mr. McNeill approached the podium and stated there were several items to discuss at the next Council workshop. These items for discussion would be the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux fiscal impact study prepared by the Arthur Anderson Group, the Fire Pension Board would like to address the Council on some items prior to the budget time, and probably the main issue would be a joint meeting of the Council and the Park and Recreation Advisory Board to discuss some issues of importance. Mr. McNeill suggested that this workshop meeting be set for March 27, 2001 with the primary issue being the issues to discuss between the Park and Recreation Advisory Board and the Council. There was discussion on the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux fiscal impact study that they would like to present as to whether this item should be just a regular agenda item, with time parameters at a City Council meeting or a workshop item. It was decided to have this presentation at the first regular Council meeting in April. Mayor Brekke was concerned about the time factor and preferred to have just the presentation from the Fire Pension Board and the discussion with the Park and Recreation Advisory Board at this workshop. Mayor Brekke set the meeting date for the Workshop meeting for Tuesday March 27, 2001 at 5:00 p.. to 7:00 p.m. Mr. McNeill stated there was money identified in the CIP for the youth building repairs. This money is coming from the Building fund. City Staff does want to get the Council's authorization to do the expenditures. There has been an architectural review of the building and if all repairs were to be bid out the cost could run as high as a quarter of a million dollars. Because the Public Works Department will be acting as the general contractor, they will be doing much of the labor themselves. At this point, it is estimated with the Public Works Department help the cost may be somewhere around $100,000. City staff would like this work authorized as long as the work does Official Proceedings February 6, 2001 of the Shakopee City Council Page 11 not exceed $100,000, that the Council be periodically informed of the progress, and expenditures per supplier be approved up to $10,000 as long as competitive quotes are received. Sweeney /Amundson moved to authorize Public Works to provide repair, remodeling, and construction services to the Community Youth Building in Lions Park for a total construction budget cost not to exceed $100,000. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney /Amundson moved to authorize the per supplier expenditure without other Council authorization, to be increased from $5,000 to $10,000 for the Youth Building repairs only, as long as standard procedures are followed for the obtaining of competitive quotes. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney /Amundson moved to abate special assessments on the following parcels: Parcel 27- 047005-0, code 27096 in the amount of $431.25; Parcel 27- 047006 -0, code 27096 in the amount of $431.25; Parcel 27- 047007 -0, code 27096 in the amount of $525.00; Parcel 27- 047011 -0, code 27096 in the amount of $318.75. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mr. McNeill opened the Murphy's Landing Fire discussion. The main building was destroyed in this fire; however, Hennepin Parks still continues their interest in their operation of Murphy's Landing. In the lease that the City has with the Nlinnesota Valley Restoration Project, there is a requirement that Murphy's Landing insure these buildings. There is a provision that Murphy's Landing has the responsibility to restore or repair the premises to the condition or a similar condition as to what these conditions were when the building was first leased to them if less than 50% destroyed. The City is assuming that this includes demolition costs and removal of damaged property as well as repair or restoring. The total cash value of the insurance that Murphy's landing had was $288,000. Hennepin Parks needs to be involved in the negotiation process of the reconstruction process, when this process begins. City staff suggests that the insurance proceeds go towards the demolition and removal of debris from the main building at Murphy's Landing and when reconstruction talks get underway, then Hennepin Parks, the City and Murphy's Landing be on in those discussions because Hennepin Parks was expecting a building for their administration and for a restaurant. According to the contract, Murphy's Landing would be responsible for the demolition of all damaged buildings. The City will help Murphy's Landing procure the demolition contractors and the environment abatement contractors, but Murphy's Landing would be responsible for the work. The relatively undamaged end of the main building is at the west end, where a foundry is housed. There may be the desire to have this foundry removed entirely rather than have the foundry stand - alone. City staff is suggesting again that Hennepin Parks, Murphy's Landing and the City get together and look at this foundry question before a decision on the foundry is made. Part of this foundry decision will be driven by what the cost is to demolish and abate environmental concerns. Mr. McNeill asked if the Council concurred on the City of Shakopee helping Murphy's Landing procure the demolition and environmental contractors and with the three entities, Hennepin Parks, the City and Murphy's Landing being involved with reconstruction discussions and perhaps the demolition of the foundry building. There was Council consensus of these items. Official Proceedings February 6, 2001 of the Shakopee City Council Page 12 Mayor Brekke felt it was important to get Hennepin Parks involved in the reconstruction discussions so they could present their long term vision so all entities would know what to do. Mr. McNeill deferred to Dennis Kelly, Director of Murphy's Landing, on insurance questions because Mr. Kelly has been working with the insurance company. Mr. Kelly approached the podium and stated he was waiting to hear from the insurance company as to the amount of the damage. Murphy's Landing feels the building is a total loss but Mr. Kelly is waiting to hear the insurance company's thoughts. According to Mr. Kelly, there were no more issues regarding Murphy's Landing that needed to be addressed tonight. He thanked City staff for all of their support surrounding this fire. Cncl. Sweeney wanted the idea of a fire hydrant on the property where Murphy's Landing is located to be looked into. Cncl Link bought up the Council concern of the debris in the yard of a Shakopee resident. Mr. McNeill will follow -up on this concern. A recess was taken at 9:25 p.m. for an executive session to discuss labor negotiations with the Police Sergeants. The meeting was re- convened at 9:37 p.m. No action was taken during the executive session. Sweeney /Amundson moved to adjourn to February 20, 2001 at 8:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:37 p.. Judith S. Cox City Clerk Carole Hedlund Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS o- L ADJ. REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MESNESOTA c i ii The meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m. with Council members Link, Morke, Amundson, Sweeney and Mayor Brekke present. Also present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator, Bruce Loney, Public Works Director; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director, Tun Thomson, City Attorney, Gregg Voxland, Finance Director, Tracy Coenen, Management Assistant; Mary Athmann, Fire Chief, Mark Themig, Facilities and Recreation Director. The pledge of allegiance was recited. Mayor Brekke stated the Council meeting was delayed one -hour so the school referendum election could conclude before conducting the Council Meeting. The following items were removed from the Agenda. 15.E.1 Approve Hiring Ice Arena Maintenance Operator — deferred to a later meeting and 15.F.1 Appeal of Denial of Taxicab Driver's License- Stanley Undem. Sweeney/Morke moved to approve the Agenda as modified. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Brekke welcomed four fourth graders Jake, Sarah, Candice and Heather from Ms. Linehan's fourth grade class at Sun Path Elementary School. These students are learning about leadership and are taking a leadership class at the school. The following items were added to the Consent Agenda. 14.0 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.; 15.B.1 Update on Architect for New Police Station. Amundson/Link 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. Amundson/Link moved to approve the meeting minutes for December 5, 2000, and January 31, 2001. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Amundson/Link moved to approve the 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. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Mayor Brekke opened the public hearing on the proposed improvements to Vierling Drive from CR 15 to Orchard Park West Planned Unit Development. Official Proceedings February 20, 2001 of the City Council Page 2 Mr. Bruce Loney, Public Works Director, gave a staff report. Mr. Loney stated the improvement project was for the last segment of Vierling Drive from C.R. 15 to Orchard Park West. This project would complete Vierling Drive north of Trunk Highway 169 to Taylor Street. The City Council initiated this project. This was to have been done last year, but the City had several other projects underway and the property owner requested that this project be delayed a year. Properties adjacent to this last segment of Vierling Drive are: Lions Park, owned by the City; and property owned by Mr. Cal Haaskens. This project would need right -of -way. The improvements include the building of a street collector, sidewalk, trail, storm sewer, watermain, a box culvert, and street lighting. The City would be participating in the costs for street oversizing, bituminous trail, and the box culvert as well as the assessments along Lion's Park. One of the issues to this project is the City's cost. The City's cost of the local collector street is approximately 50 % of the street length and the other 50% of the cost would go to Mr. Haaskens. This cost is approximately $195,000. The oversizing of the road would cost the City approximately $97,000 including the trail; the cost of the box culvert is estimated, at this time, to be $191,000. The total cost of this project to the City is approximately $482,000. The approximate total project cost is $697,000. The rest of the project cost would be assessed to Mr. Haaskens. Mr. Haaskens did send a letter to the City of Shakopee objecting to these assessments. Mr. Haaskens stated to Mr. Loney, he was not opposed to the project but he wanted to keep his options open. Mr. Loney said if the Council did approve the project, he would also need authorization for an extension agreement with WSB & Associates, Inc. to design the box culvert structure and hydraulic design for this project, along with authorization for staff to obtain appraisals for property acquisitions. Mr. Loney thought property owners should donate the land to complete this project because the City is donating much of the land to complete the project. If the property owner doesn't agree to donate the land, the land will need to be purchased and the value of the City land donated needs to be established, so the City has a figure to justify the cost basis for the property acquisitions. Mayor Brekke asked Mr. Loney if a traffic study had been done on this extension of Vierling Drive. Mr. Loney stated that Vierling Drive is a collector street and it has been built to a four lane, undivided roadway standard throughout the City. Mayor Brekke was trying to get a handle on how much traffic would use this section of Vierling Drive. This connection needs to be made at some point, but Mayor Brekke wondered if now was the correct time. Mr. Loney felt the use per day for this section of Vierling Drive would be 6000 to 8000 vehicles. In the future this connection could be used extensively. Cncl. Sweeney addressed Mr. Haasken's concern. Mr. Haaskens did not feel his property would be improved equally or greater than the amount of the assessment. Cncl. Sweeney was therefore against this improvement to Vierling Drive. Mayor Brekke stated the assessments to the City of Shakopee are about 50 percent of the project, but the assessments still represent a significant dollar amount and a potential liability to the City. Mayor Brekke felt Mr. Sweeney's point was well taken. Cncl. Link stated Mr. Haasken's land was really landlocked without the Vierling Drive improvement being completed. The City's best interest had to be considered also, and with this project the City was facing a possible liability with all the assessments. Official Proceedings February 20, 2001 of the City Council Page 3 Cncl. Sweeney concurred with Mayor Brekke that this project needed to be completed at some time, but he was not sure this was the year. The only property owner, Mr. Haaskins, is objecting to this project and is setting himself up for an assessment hearing. Cncl. Morke asked Mr. Loney, if this project was not done at this time, would not doing this project at this time have a negative affect on any of the City's upcoming plans. Mr. Loney stated it would not affect the engineering department but Mr. Loney did feel the benefit was there. Cncl. Link asked for the timetable on the proposed fire station satellite that would have access to the new street. Mr. McNeill stated that the proposed construction of the fire station satellite was slated for 2003 in the CIP. However, this was to go out for a referendum. Mayor Brekke asked for public testimony. There was no response. Mayor Brekke declared the public hearing closed. Cncl. Morke stated the only advantage he could see to do this project is that this project does facilitate the access and egress to the Tapah Park area. Cncl. Morke felt there was some benefit to the City, but he was willing to listen to the other arguments. Sweeney/Morke offered 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 moved it s adoption. Cncl. Sweeney stated the benefit to Mr. Haaskens far outweighs the City's benefit at this time. Mr. Haaskins was objecting to the assessments now and Mr. Sweeney did want to open the City up to possible assessments hearings. Cncl. Morke thought he would also be voting against this resolution, because there is a single landowner that this project would assess and this landowner is setting the City up for a possible assessment hearing. Mayor Brekke agreed with Cncls. Sweeney and Morke; Mayor Brekke felt the proper time to bring back this issue was when the property owner was interested in moving ahead. Motion failed unanimously. Cncl. Sweeney reported on the Public Utilities Commission meeting regarding safety improvements to the Public Utilities Building now being used. R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director, gave a staff report on the rezoning of the property from Highway Business (B1) to Multiple Family Residential (R3), located north of C.R. 16 and west of Roundhouse St. This matter was originally reviewed on January 16, 2001 at the Council meeting; at that time, staff was directed to prepare an ordinance for the City Council's consideration. The subject Official Proceedings February 20, 2001 of the City Council Page 4 property at this time is zoned B1, in the adopted Comprehensive Plan the property is guided for Multiple Family Residential (R3). The request is to rezone to R-3. Open space and recreational area availability was an issue at the last meeting. The newest site plan was in the Cncls. packets and shows a proposal for a 52 -unit apartment located in the northwest comer of the site. The proposal also shows a recreation area of about .17 acres. It was also noted that the floor plans submitted for this apartment do also indicate an exercise area on the first level of the apartment building. Dennis Czech, DMC Companies, applicant, approached the podium and stated that after the February 6 t ` Planning Commission meeting, DMC Companies did change their site plan to allow more open space. There will be some kind of playground equipment in the open space area but the type of playground equipment has not been determined yet. Moving the parking lots attained more green space. Cncl. Link asked Mr. Czech what the density was on the 52 units. Mr. Czech replied that the density was just under 18 units per acre. Cncl. Link asked Mr. Zeck if the recreation areas could be protected more or the children. Cncl. Link was also concerned about the off street parking and guest parking. Morke /Sweeney offered Ordinance No. 592, Fourth Series, An Ordinance Of The City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending The Zoning Map Adopted In City Code Sec. 11.03 By Rezoning Land Generally Located North of CSAH 16 And West of Roundhouse From Highway Business (B -1) To Multiple Family Residential (R -3), and moved its adoption. Cncl. Morke stated this proposal does meet the City of Shakopee's current standards. The developer has a good track record with the City (he has developed two other sites in Shakopee). This pushes the issue that the City needs to look at parkland. If the Council does not like the level of density, the density levels need to be looked at at a later time and fixed. This meets the City's current standards at this time. Cncl. Morke urged the Council to approve this particular rezoning. Cncl. Amundson stated the Council is dealing with a rezoning at this time. She was not comfortable with a rezoning of (R-3) in this particular area. She did not feel justice was being done to the neighbors with this rezoning. Cncl. Sweeney stated this rezoning request is consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan Amendment that is before the Metropolitan Council. Cncl. Sweeney felt if the City did not follow the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, this non - following might cast some doubt on other items in this particular amendment. He too felt this area may be overbuilt with apartment complexes, but now was not the time to consider this. This rezoning needed to be dealt with. This parcel of land is set off from the other apartments. Cncl. Sweeney discussed putting a park in this area, but it appeared to him the best use of this parcel was for an apartment complex. Cncl. Link felt the recreational areas for children needed to be addressed. Cncl. Morke stated the City has to play by the rules the City of Shakopee established; the density level of up to 18 unites per acre is what the City has established for an (R-3) zone at this time. Official Proceedings February 20, 2001 of the City Council Page 5 Tun Thomson, City Attorney, stated the guiding and the Comprehensive Plan need to be consistent; if they are not then the guiding supersedes. Mayor Brekke stated when the City approves a preliminary plat, even if all the guidelines are met, the City does have the discretion to require less density and more open space than the developer proposes, when approving a preliminary plat. Tun Thomson stated many more things could be considered in the platting process as opposed to a rezoning. Cncl. Sweeney stated he was willing to support any revisions to the zoning requirements after this application was decided. The rules can't be changed during a process. We need to see developments with open space; we are not seeing this now from all the developers. Mr. Leek stated he is working on alternatives for the density issue and other issues regarding the R -3 zoning District. Richard Grayson, owner of the property in question for 22 years, has tried to market this property for 22 years and feels strongly that something needs to be done now. This request is entirely within the law and Council's discretion. Motion carried unanimously. Cncl. Sweeney asked if it was worth discussing, at this point, before there was any more discussion on high- density projects, if the City wanted to require more parking stalls and more park space in each project. He was willing to do motions, only, if every Council member was certain this is the way they wanted to precede. Cncl. Amundson asked if the City Code required open space in R-3. Mr. Leek stated that an amendment requiring open space was drafted and will be sent to the Planning Commission requiring open space. Cncl. Morke leaned towards a moratorium on R-3 and also to take a look at what land that the City has guided as R-3. Mayor Brekke supported Cncl. Morke's idea. Mayor Brekke felt this was in the best interests of the City. Mayor Brekke asked Mr. Thomson what process the City needed to go through to establish a change in the City Code for R-3 zoning. Mr. Thomson said the moratorium would have to be adopted by an ordinance. There would need to be a motion to direct staff to prepare an ordinance and to have this ordinance reviewed by the Planning Commission. Mayor Brekke felt because of the timing of the meetings it would be best to go directly to the Council. Official Proceedings of the City Council February 20, 2001 Page 6 Tim Thomson stated legally the City could apply the moratorium to all pending applications, whether the City wanted do this as a policy issue was up to the City, or possibly the City could craft some criteria under which pending applications could proceed. Cncl. Sweeney stated clearly the cost of housing would be impacted with changes in the ordinance. Mayor Brekke asked at what societal expense is the City willing to allow this high- density, little park space and little parking. Cncl. Sweeney felt the City had the responsibility to provide housing for the people who live and work in the City of Shakopee. He did not think green space was of a high concern to the homeless. He felt a discussion at some time needed to be held on affordable housing. Cncl. Amundson felt there was benefit from the Council decisions on this discussion of the possible alternatives to the R-3 zoning, but at this time it was not the City of Shakopee that was benefiting from what the City was giving up. Mayor Brekke felt the Council needed to decide if the PRD districts were included in this moratorium on R-3 developments. Cncl. Sweeney felt staff should be directed to come forward with a moratorium on R-3 zoning that is viable and valuable to the City. He wanted to sit down and talk about some of the issues. Morke/Sweeney moved to direct staff to prepare a Resolution for a R-3 moratorium for a length of approximately six months and have that resolution include comments on pending and future applications regarding density, parking, open space and park plans in the vicinity where R-3 would be located. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Leek gave the staff report on the preliminary plat of Garden Court located at Marschall Rd. and Garden Lane. Mr. Leek reviewed the site plan and explained the project in an overview. The Garden Lane area has six (6) four- plexes. The property is L shaped or flag configuration. The property is non - conforming, at this time, in regards to lot width along Marschall Road. The proposal before the Council tonight would create two parcels out of this one existing parcel. The southerly parcel would contain the existing structures; on the northerly parcel, there is proposed to be an apartment rental structure, with approximately 48 units proposed. Part of this request is for a variance. The lot is an existing non - conforming lot regarding the lot width and setbacks and would remain so if the platting were approved. One of the significant changes that would occur with the division of the existing parcel would be the dedication of a small street area as a public street area. It is currently a private street. The off street - parking ratio is two parking stalls to each unit. The site plan does not show specific open space; there is an open area that is shared between the two lots. There is play equipment at the shared site and there is an agreement for this shared use for a children's play area. In the northeast comer there is a drainage pond proposed, Official Proceedings February 20, 2001 of the City Council Page 7 to the west is a single - family residential area. A meeting did take place between the single - family residents and the project proposer. If the Council does proceed with the preliminary approval of this preliminary plat, the Council will need to consider the berming. Our current zoning ordinance requires berming between different land uses. Ordinarily there would be a four -foot berm; because of the drainage, the single- family residents preferred a fence. This fencing request has been incorporated by staff into the proposed conditions. The density has been discussed and the density on this proposed lot would be just fewer than 18 units per acre. If the density was looked at in the parcel as it exists now, assuming that this apartment complex was approved as is, the overall density would be somewhere between 13 -14 dwelling units per acre. The Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on this matter on February 6, 2001, and did recommend approval of this preliminary plat of Garden Lane including approval for the variance for the lot width. The lot width variance is from a requirement of 150 feet to 120 feet at one point of the setback in the area of the driveway and detention pond. Presently, the lot width at that point of the driveway and detention pond is 120 feet and would remain 120 feet if the property were split. If the Council agrees with the Planning Commission decision, Mr. Leek recommended that the Council give staff directions to come back with a resolution that sets forth findings relating to the variance. Cncl. Morke asked Mr. Leek where the road was now for the existing homes. Mr. Leek stated that now this road is a narrow strip that comes off of Marschall Road and then widens out that serves the existing four - plexes. The access would be off the proposed public cul -de -sac, which is off of Marschall Road, into the existing structures as well as to the west into the proposed Garden Lane project, if the development is approved. It is public roadway to the end of the cul -de -sac and from then on it would be a private road. At this point the cul -de -sac does not exist. Mayor Brekke asked Mr. Leek what the time line was on the project. Mr. Leek stated that this project needed to have an answer by April 6 unless there was an extension with cause. Cncl. Link asked Mr. Leek if the upgrade of the existing structures and the use of the other lot as a developed play area could be made part of the condition of the approval. Mr. Leek stated that there was a draft condition in this resolution that related to this request. However, the condition that relates to this request could be made more specific. The proposal is to remove the old fencing at the developer cost, then to install all new fencing along the entire project to separate the apartment complex project from the single- family residents. Daniel Brewer, the applicant, approached the podium to address the Council. He brought along a graphic to show the elevations and Mr. Brewer also wanted to answer some questions. Mr. Brewer addressed the question regarding the time -line. Mr. Brewer stated that he already had a 60 -day extension. In regards to the existing condition, Mr. Brewer had a survey to explain the site better. There were presently six four - plexes with a driveway between the four - plexes and the garages. This driveway to the four plexes runs parallel to a former railroad right -of -way. This private drive for the four plexes has access off of Marschall Road and is partly on adjacent property and the seller's property. It would be a problem to make this private drive a public road Official Proceedings February 20, 2001 of the City Council Page 8 because Mr. Brewer will not own all of the existing drive. However, there is an easement for this private drive. In the request to do a subdivision, Mr. Brewer was required to do this cul -de -sac that provides a better entrance and a better turn- around. The circulation would work as shown by Mr. Brewer on the graphic. The existing fence that is at the back of the single - family residents is partly on the apartment property and partly on the resident's property. The fence is in bad condition and some of the fence is easily surmountable and one of the concerns of the single — family residents was trespassing; therefore, at the neighborhood meeting it was talked about taking out the current fence and installing a six (6) foot privacy fence on the Garden Lane property all the way from the south border to the north border on the west side. The fence would then be attached to the proposed garage making it difficult for trespassers. The developer also agreed to a surveillance camera. The intention between the developer and the seller of the property is to share the redevelopment of the playground and playground equipment. Mayor Brekke noted that the property line did not include the playground equipment. The developer stated that he did the property line assuming that he could have 18 units per acre but that could be changed if need be. Mr. Brewer also had a graphic depicting the driveway and the detention pond showing the variance needed for the lot width. Mr. Leek clarified the review period. He stated that Mr. Brewer was correct. Mr. Brewer is operating under a review extension right now. The application was received on Dec. 1 P h . The time period would expire on April I&. Mayor Brekke asked Mr. Leek to estimate how many R-3 plats the City had in the works now. Mr. Leek thought this was the only plat, but the City did have a conditional use permit and a couple of PUD concepts, two of these involve a PRD and also a plat that would be coming forward as soon as the triangle piece was annexed from Jackson Township into the City of Shakopee and this plat pertained to the R-3. Mayor Brekke asked the Council if it was their intention to look at this plat proposal tonight or wait. According to Mr. Thomson, this was not a legal issue; it was a policy decision. Mayor Brekke saw some issues in this plat that were related to what the moratorium was to address. Cncl. Morke also saw a possible issue with the new public road access from a county road. Mr. Leek said this request has been submitted to Scott County and he thought this possible road access was an issue to the County. Mayor Brekke could certainly see a basis for the Council to include this plat in the moratorium and not act on it tonight. Official Proceedings February 20, 2001 of the City Council Page 9 Sweeney /Amundson moved to continue the Preliminary Plat of Garden Lane Addition for 28 days. Motion carried unanimously. Amundson/Link offered Ordinance No.593, Fourth Series, An Ordinance Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending The Zoning Map Adopted In City Code Sec. 11.03 By Rezoning Land Generally Located North Of Bluff Avenue And West of CSAH Marshall Road, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). A recess was taken at 9:20 p.m. The meeting re- convened at 9 :30 p.m. Mayor Brekke stated the next item was accepting the feasibility report and to set a hearing date for the reconstruction of CSAH 83 and the realignment of CSAH 16. Mayor Brekke stated he thought this was really a two part hearing process that begins tonight. The first part tonight would be disseminating information. Mayor Brekke wanted to find out what the impact of traffic would be on property owners now and future property owners of the reconstruction of CSAH 83 and the realignment of CSAH 16. Contingent upon Council accepting the feasibility report and ordering the hearing and if this issue continues on, the City would proceed with the public hearing. Therefore, Mayor Brekke suggested that staff present the information in the feasibility report and the petitioner provide the information on what the impacts of the proposed development would be. Secondly, a hearing is ordered and public testimony and comment be heard at that time. Cncl. Morke respectfully disagreed with Mayor Brekke. He felt that tonight was just to accept or reject the feasibility study; Cncl. Morke wanted to wait and hear from the petitioner at the next meeting. Mr. Loney stated that this is not the normal feasibility study. This feasibility study was looked at for more information and for some resolution to some of the outstanding issues in this area so a final decision could be made. Cncl. Sweeney concurred with Cncl. Morke. Cncl. Sweeney stated the Council tonight is just providing information and should not get into a long debate on issues in the feasibility report and issues presented by the developer. Cncl. Amundson wanted to hear from the petitioner tonight. Cncl. Link wanted to hear from the people tonight. Mayor Brekke asked if there was a strong objection from the Council to hear from staff on the feasibility report and then from the petitioner. Cncls. Morke and Sweeney had a strong objection to hear from the petitioner tonight. Official Proceedings February 20, 2001 of the City Council Page 10 It was decided that only the staff report would be given tonight and the petitioner would be heard from at the hearing and public testimony and comment would be taken at the hearing also. Mr. Loney, Public Works Director, and Mr. Rickart, WSB Associates, Inc., gave a report on the reconstruction of CSAH 83 and the realignment of CSAH 16. Mr. Loney reported on the issues associated with the feasibility report; Mr. Chuck Rickart addressed the transportation and storm and sanitary sewer issues associated with this project. Mr. Loney suggested what he believed, from a staff perspective, the Council needed to focus on as far as this project was concerned, and what was needed if this project moves forward. When this feasibility project was initially started, it was to look at the proposed project and reconstruct CSAH 83 and realign CSAH 16 associated with the Valley Green Corporate Center project. The County also added that this feasibility report should look at specific issues such as: transportation issues with the AUAR and transportation issues with MnDOT, the ultimate realignment of CSAH 16 and 17 Avenue and jurisdictional issues related to CSAH 16 and 17' Avenue, costs and participation agreements, timing of the infrastructure and right -of -way acquisition. Mr. Loney pointed out there is a Resolution attached to the report that would accept the report and would set a public hearing for March 20, 2001. Mr. Rickart stated traffic was the first aspect looked at in the feasibility report. Traffic in this area has been looked at extensively. There are two issues Mr. Rickart touched on. The first issue, the extensive traffic analysis that was done for this site for the AUAR recommended that the service levels at the intersections along CSAH 83 be at least at a level service D for all movements with this development complete. The City has control over the traffic movement here. The second issue of this site is that primary movement is shifting with the commercial area growing down 17 Avenue. The main movements of traffic are in an east -west direction south of the by -pass. Five (5) different alternatives were looked at. The first alternative was to leave the intersection as is with no reconstruction. This alternative did not fit the objective. The intersection of CSAH16 and CSAH 83 is a very unsafe intersection. The City Council voiced some concerns on Alternative two (2) in the feasibility study at a previous meeting but this second alternative seemed to be the best and was selected in the feasibility study contingent on City Council concerns being addressed. Alternative three (3) had very extensive right -of -way acquisition and concerns with it; the intersection was located in the correct place to service the Valley Green Corporate Center project. Alternative four (4) would probably be the best but there are property issues here to deal with and the mine issue. This alternative was considered unfeasible. Alternative five (5) is an alternative that was brought up in a public meeting that was held with the property owners involved. The primary movement of traffic with this alternative would be to the commercial area along 17 Avenue. Alternative five (5) would create a jog to serve other property in the area and there would be a grading issue created by the bluffs. This too was considered unfeasible. The residents and the Council raised an issue as to what happens to the area east of CSAH 83. WSB and Associates, Inc. showed the County a concept that something could be done east of CSAH 83 to help alleviate all of the drive way accesses right on to CSAH 16. The County was willing to look at this concept. "There are utilities that need to be moved as part of this project; this has been worked out with the Shakopee Public Utilities. The County would like to extend their jurisdiction through 17'` Avenue at a future date. This jurisdiction still needs to be finalized with the County along with an agreement. The feasibility report did look at Official Proceedings February 20, 2001 of the City Council Page 11 cost participation between the County, City and assessments. The County has tentatively agreed to the costs that are in the feasibility report. MnDOT and the County have looked at the concepts and they have no problems with the concepts the feasibility report is proposing. The County letter is in support of alternative two with the understanding that a memo of understanding would be completed in defining the jurisdictional issues and the cost participation would be formalized. Mayor Brekke asked Mr. Rickart what he meant by controls on the intersection. Mr. Rickart replied that the City had control through what was stipulated in the AUAR. The AUAR stipulated that the intersections would be at a level service of D or higher. If a larger business came in for preliminary plat approval, they would have to prove the service level of the intersection would be at a D service level when their development was complete. Cncl. Morke asked Mr. Rickart about the safety issues of one of the new intersections. Mr. Rickart replied these "new" intersections would be signalized. Mr. Loney added the left turn lanes would also be protected. The City has participated in the cost of all the County Roads. This is a practice throughout the Cities. The improvement the feasibility report is proposing is a reconstruction of CSAH 83 from the existing Hwy 169 ramps is for two through lanes all the way through the intersection of Corporate Center Drive, future CR 16 and 1'7 Avenue and then it would taper down to a single lane south to the proposed 10 avenue. The median at the intersection of Secretariat Drive would be closed. Secretariat Drive would become a right in/right out intersection and there would be some widening of the ramps to provide dual left turn lanes or dual right turn lanes. CSAH 16 improvements are: widening the existing two lane to a four lane, entrance into Valley Green Corporate Center, a secondary access to the bluff (this is an issue with the County), left turn lanes, bituminous paths, and a proposed path going into Valley Green Corporate Center and future 17 Avenue would be a four lane facility to the west. Mr. Rickart stated three (3) alternatives were looked at for storm sewer improvements for this project. The first alternative had some extremely large pipes. The second alternative was similar to alternative one in its route and the third alternative that was proposed went through Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux property. The service area for the third alternative is larger than the service areas for alternatives one and two. However, there are issues going through the Mdewakanton Sioux property. It is the recommendation that this third alternative be pursued with the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux. This provides the best storm system for this area. Costs have been included for alternative one if agreement with the Mdewakanton Sioux cannot be reached. The cost within the project area for this piece of storm sewer is approximately $1.3 million. This is a pretty extensive Trunk Storm Sewer system just for the project area. The project area to the south, where the sewer pipes are getting smaller, has a project cost of approximately $1.6 million dollars. The recommended alternative has a cost of $2.5million. This recommendation would still need a storm sewer to come up and serve the mine property. The Sanitary Trunk Sewer system was also looked at. The original concept for a sanitary storm sewer went through Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux property into the Prior Lake Interceptor. As part of the feasibility report four options were looked at. Option one is the original concept; option 2 and 4 run west of C.R. 83 about 'h mile, option three runs along C.R. 83 and comes into the southern part of the City. Official Proceedings February 20, 2001 of the City Council Page 12 Options, 2, 3 and 4 go onto the Chaska Interceptor. The size of the Chaska Interceptor may be a factor here. The feasibility report is recommending that option three be pursued. The cost is about approximately $350, 000 to bring the sewer line down to the project. Mayor Brekke asked about the collection area for the sanitary sewer. Mr. Loney responded. Option one is in the Storm Water Plan and would go to the Prior Lake Interceptor, if the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux cannot be negotiated with, the City has viable options. According to Shakopee Public Utilities, there is a 16" watermain that extends down to the existing CR 16 and Shakopee Public Utilities is proposing as part of this project to extend this 16" watermain down to the future intersection of CSAH 16 and 17' Avenue, extend an 18" watermain out to the end of the project limits on CR 16, and stub out a 12" watermain on 17' Avenue and Corporate Center Drive. Shakopee Public Utilities would pick up costs over a 12" watermain size. The rest of the costs are assessable. The extra width of right -of -way for CSAH 83 and CSAH 16 would provide the width needed for construction on the west side of 83 for the deep storm sewer and deep sanitary sewer. Some temporary easements would be around the construction limits. As part of this project, there would be new traffic signal systems and some modifications of existing signal systems. Assessments were looked at for this project. There are 12 properties that will be assessed. For properties outside of MUSA, there will only be curb and gutter assessments and a watermain assessment if a watermain assessment applies. The areas inside MUSA will be assessed by the area of the commercial property. Mayor Brekke questioned the justification of assessing the areas outside MUSA for a watermain when there is no drainage available. Mr. Loney spoke to this. Mr. Loney outlined the costs for the improvements. The roadway construction cost of this project is estimated to cost $4.6 million. Of this amount $500,000 would be City cost, approximately $1,000,000 would be County cost and the remaining $3,000,000 would be assessable costs. The Trunk Sanitary Sewer would be 100% City cost. The Trunk Storm Sewer is $1.3 million bringing the City's total contribution to $2.5 million, Shakopee Public Utilities cost would be approximately $72,000 for the watermain oversizmg, and the county costs would be approximately $1,062,000 and the assessable costs would be approximately $3,876,000. The total costs of the project would be approximately $6.9 million including the additional items that would be needed for the project. Mr. Loney stated the first recommendation would be option three for the Trunk Storm Sewer. He wanted to try working with the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux first because that would be the best plan to manage the storm water for the City. Typically, the City participates in the storm sewer cost with the County when the City urbanizes a rural roadway, of the $500,000 shown as City costs approximately $300,000 of this is Storm Sewer related costs along C.R. 83; the other Official Proceedings of the City Council $200,000 is for signals and bituminous trails. February 20, 2001 Page 13 This feasibility report does allow the Valley Green Corporate Center to develop more fully and if the Council agrees 17 Avenue can be turned over to the County. This turn over of 17` Avenue will be one of the conditions to realign C.R. 16 to 17 Avenue. Mr. Loney stated if a project is ordered, the City would need the following items: public hearing on the proposed improvement project, a cooperative agreement with the County for cost participation, a memo of understanding between the County and City of jurisdictional transfer of 17' Avenue and County Road 16 west of CR 83 would become a city road. Also, a public hearing would be needed for the plat of Valley Green Corporate Center and a petition for improvements and a waiver of assessment hearing by the developer of the Valley Green Corporate Center. The plat has been submitted by Valley Green Corporate Center. A public hearing is tentatively scheduled for March 8 for the preliminary plat of the Valley Green Corporate Center. Morke /Sweeney offered 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 'h 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 moved its adoption. Cncl. Link wanted to get all the information and hear from the people before the feasibility report was received. Cncl. Morke responded to Cncl. Link saying that the action was only to accept the report not necessarily to agree with the report. The public hearing will allow both sides to be heard. This action just puts the information on the table in a form of a report. There was discussion on hearing from the people that came to the Council meeting to speak on this matter. Cncl. Amundson thought that this was an opportunity for staff and WSB to present the feasibility report so the Council members had all the facts in front of them. When public testimony is given, all the councilors will have the same information. Motion carried 4 -1 with Cncl. Link dissenting. Mayor Brekke stated a public hearing regarding the feasibility report would be on March 20, 2001. He asked staff, if possible, to place this early in the agenda. Cncl. Sweeney suggested that a time frame for this public hearing be established at the meeting and if not all-public testimony was taken by the designated time the public hearing would be continued. Mr. Loney gave a report on the feasibility report and the setting of a hearing date for proposed improvements to Sarazin Street and Valley View Road, Project 2001 -5. On November 6, 2000 the preparation of a feasibility report was ordered for Sarazin Street, from Mooers Avenue to Valley View Road; and Valley View Road, from Sarazin Street to the East Plat Line of Pheasant Official Proceedings February 20, 2001 of the City Council Page 14 Run 6 Addition. This project is to complete a collector street in this area as shown in the Comprehensive Plan. At the January 16, 2001 meeting staff discussed with Council how to handle the properties south of Valley View Road that were not in MUSA. The direction from Council was to look at those properties once the Comprehensive Plan was accepted by the Metropolitan Council and floating MUSA was granted. The feasibility report identifies assessments per the City's policy and as per urban future MUSA property. With this project the City has improvements including: sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer, street collector sidewalk and trail. The total project cost is approximately $1,794,169. The assessment costs would be approximately $1,388,433, the City street oversizing would be approximately $360,700, the Storm Sewer Fund Oversizing would be approximately $10,000 and the Shakopee Public Utilities oversizing would be approximately $36,500. This water main would also service the new water tower in the Dominion Hills area. Mr. Loney showed a graphic and explained the project area. There is much right -of -way acquisition needed. Mr. Loney stated that with the Valley View Road study this was the preferred alignment for Valley View Road. This provides for another connection street from Mooers Avenue over to County Road 17. This will be brought back to Council at the next Council meeting with a memo of understanding from Scott County. The public hearing date for this item was discussed. Mayor Brekke felt it was a mistake to subdivide all the property along the bluff line. He did feel the report should be accepted and a hearing date scheduled. Cncl. Morke also felt the report should be accepted but he disagreed with the approach taken; Cncl. Morke would wait until the hearing to have that discussion. Cncl. Sweeney felt if the Council went the way of no subdivision up on the bluff line, whoever is favoring that decision should come up with a proposal with a way to fund this project because half of the assessments are going to the bluff line properties. There was discussion by Mayor Brekke and Cncl. Sweeney on determining the funding of this project and similar projects. Morke/Sweeney offered 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 Addition, Project No. 2001 -5, with the hearing date being set for April 3, 2001, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Loney stated there will be also be an information meeting and the property owners will be met with 1 on 1 as necessary to guide them through this process. Cncl. Link abstained from approving/denying plans for the 2000 Reconstruction Project No 2000- 4. Mr. Loney approached the podium and reported on the plans. The plans have been completed for the 2000 reconstruction. A public hearing was held in 2000 and the project was delayed for one -year. Mr. Loney went through the outstanding issues. The City is rebuilding 3 Avenue from Shumway to C.R. 69, sanitary sewer and water are being added to commercial property and the City is rebuilding Harrison Street to a 24 foot wide road, There is watermain replacement and Official Proceedings February 20, 2001 of the City Council Page 15 sanitary sewer extension. Friendship Manor at 3' and Harrison would like to have two items added to the plan. 1) A sidewalk along the south side of Third Avenue and a dry sanitary sewer pipe for a possible future sanitary sewer connection. Shakopee Services has 30-40 buses that service the school and a barrier curb is being proposed in their area; they are requesting a driveway opening of 300 -400 feet. The owner of Shakopee Services has also requested a sanitary sewer service be added so Shakopee Services can accommodate a wash bay in the bus area. There was an information meeting held with the property owners regarding these improvements. Mayor Brekke asked Mr. Loney if the requests from Friendship Manor and Shakopee Services could easily be accommodated. Mr. Loney replied the sidewalk for Friendship Manor would be in the public right -of -way and the driveway width for Shakopee Services was quite a stretch of the City Code. This was a policy decision for the Council. Mayor Brekke said he had no problems with the requests if the Engineering Department didn't have any problems. Cncl. Sweeney asked if the sidewalk in front of Friendship Manor was going to be limited to Friendship Manor property or would the sidewalks be consistent with the sidewalks along other thoroughfares. Mr. Loney approached the podium and said the sidewalks proposed are from Harrison Street on the south side of 3' Avenue to the front door of Friendship Manor. No other sidewalks were proposed. There was discussion on a trail or sidewalk for Third Avenue. Mr. Loney pointed out if a sidewalk was added to Third Avenue now it would be at the City's expense. Mr. Loney stated that if the Council decided that a sidewalk was to be added to Third Avenue, the resolution then should not be approved tonight. Mike Sperr, Shakopee Services, approached the podium and stated that they had a need for an accessible curb for the buses because the buses did not have the turning radius that most vehicles have. He did not feel the sidewalk was necessary by Shakopee Services. Cncl. Link asked Mr. Loney if any streetlights or trees were provided for this area. Mr. Loney stated Shakopee Public Utilities would take care of the lights and if any trees were taken out because of construction these trees would be taken care of Mr. Loney stated Third Avenue is being constructed to 9 -ton specifications. After 3' Avenue is reconstructed, Mr. Loney would like the grain trucks to use Third Avenue to go to Rahr Malting. This discussion regarding the use of routes by grain trucks has taken place with Rahr Malting, Inc. Mayor Brekke was comfortable approving the plans and specifications for these improvements tonight. Cncl. Sweeney felt the City was making a mistake by not providing a sidewalk. Mr. Mc Neill noted one area had been approved for town homes (Third and Adams) that anticipated children to be among their residents. Mayor Brekke stated staff could be directed to look at the feasibility of adding a sidewalk in these Official Proceedings February 20, 2001 of the City Council Page 16 plans and specifications. He was comfortable with this idea also. Staff would investigate the connections and come to the Council with maps that would show where these connections would be. Amundson/Sweeney moved to direct staff to look at options for sidewalks/trail patterns in this area and come back with some options to add to the plans and specifications for Project No. 2000 -4, the 2000 Reconstruction Project. Mr. Loney approached the podium and stated if the plans were approved tonight, March 22 would be the date for the bid opening and those bids would be brought back to the Council on April 3 Mayor Brekke asked Mr. Loney if this project could be bid now and then if decided could a sidewalk or trail be added to this project at future date? Mr. Loney stated another public hearing would be needed for the sidewalk/trail in order for the improvement to be assessed, because they were not part of the improvements in the original plans and specifications. If the City picks up the cost for the sidewalk/trail then another public hearing is not needed and Mr. Loney could address the sidewalk issue and bring back it back on March 6 Motion carried 4 -0 with Cncl. Link abstaining. Sweeney/Morke offered Resolution No. 5486, A Resolution Approving Plans and Specification And Ordering Advertisement For Bids For The 2000 Reconstruction Project No. 2000 -4, and moved its adoption. Motion carried 4 -0 with Cncl. Link abstaining. Amundson/Link moved to 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. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Amundson/Link moved 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. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Amundson/Link moved to authorize the purchase of one new Felling FT -lOWDG from Lano Equipment, Inc. for the price of $6,798.00 with funding from the 2001 Parks Division Operating Budget. (Motion carried under the consent Agenda). In a memo dated February 15, 2001, (Agenda Item No. 15.B.1), Mr. McNeill appraised the City Council that staff would be touring Police Stations that utilized BKV architects. After reviewing those buildings and talking further with BKV, staff will make a recommendation regarding utilizing BKV for the design of the Police Station. They are designing the new Library and City Council asked staff to contact BKV to determine if there would be any cost advantage to having them also design the Police Station as opposed to utilizing another firm. Official Proceedings February 20, 2001 of the City Council Page 17 Amundson/Link offered Ordinance No. 591, Fourth Series, An Ordinance Amending Chapter 4, Building Regulations, Regarding Permits For Fences, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Amundson/Link offered Resolution No. 5488, A Resolution Of The City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Approving The Registered Land Survey Submitted By Valley Green Business Park Limited Partnership, and moved its adoption. [Part of Lot 1, Block 2, Valley Park Twelfth Addition.] (Motion carved under the Consent Agenda). Amundson/Link moved to approve the First Amendment To Agreement Between The Metropolitan Council And City of Shakopee For Transit Capital Financial Assistance, Contract No. SG -98 -PF -099. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mr. Leek reported to the Council on the 'Moving of Building Permit" for Daycare Modular Units. The reason this request is before the Council tonight is because part of this proposal from Fulco Construction is the storage of a couple of very large modular constructed units for an extended period of time at a fairly visible location. This is essentially a proposal to move two of the four modular structural units for the daycare facility proposed at Vierling Drive and County Road 16 and Hwy. 169 adjacent to the Evergreen Town homes. These modular units at this time would be stored on property owned by Valley Green Business Park and Canterbury Park V PUD to about May 15 A building permit has been issued for the daycare center, the proposal is to move two modular structures approximately 64 feet to 80 feet in length. Mr. Ray Ruuska, of the engineering staff took some pictures, at a previous site, of these daycare modular units. These pictures were shown to the Council. City Staff is looking for direction whether to issue this moving permit and if the moving permit is allowed, staff would like to ask that a couple of conditions be imposed for the storage of these units. These conditions would involve time limits on the length of storage of the daycare units and require extra security against these units being moved off the storage property. Cncl. Morke asked about the security of these empty buildings and how the empty modular units would fit into the City's new ordinance pertaining to abandon buildings. Mr. Leek stated that if these building were moved by May 15 they would not fall under the new ordinance; he was not sure about the security. For the security issue, Mr. Leek deferred to Mr. Greg McClenahan. Cncl. Link thought when this daycare facility was approved, there was to be an outlet on to County Road 16 from this development. Mr. Leek remembered this discussion and Mr. Leek's recollection was that the County would not permit this access. Mr. Greg McClenahan, representing Evergreen Town homes and daycare facility, approached the podium. He stated there was an outlet onto County Road 16 for the daycare facility. He said what Evergreen Heights could not do was to run the town homes through that same outlet. There is no connection between the town homes and the daycare facility. These are two of the four structures that will encompass the daycare facility. The daycare facility will be approximately 7000 square feet. Where these units are being built, there is only room for two of these structures at one time. These structures will be finished this summer through a youth program. Right now Official Proceedings February 20, 2001 of the City Council Page 18 for security purposes, it has been decided to remove the windows and replace them with boards. There is only one other door and that will be locked. These two units would be an entirely secure structure. There is an agreement that these modular units will be removed from the Valley Green property by May 15'`. The groundwork for these two buildings is scheduled to be completed by May 15' The general contactor, Fulco Construction, and Evergreen Heights has liability insurance and eventually the Cap Agency will be the owner and they also have insurance. There is plenty of security. This site is as far removed from a residential environment as possible. These structures will be stored behind an earthen berm on Valley Green property along County Road 16, 100 feet from the right -of -way. Sweeney /Amundson moved to direct staff to issue the moving of building permit and allow the storage of two modular units off site, on the Valley Green Business Park property and Canterbury 2nd PUD until May 15, 2001 with conditions that staff feels appropriate. Cncl. Morke felt this was an extremely visible site to a number of people coming and going out of the City of Shakopee using Hwy 169. He was not in favor of the storage at this site. Motion carried 4 -1 with Cncl. Morke dissenting. Ms. Cox gave the results of the Council's voting on the nominated candidates for the openings on various Boards and Commissions within the City of Shakopee to Mayor Brekke. Mr. McNeill who served on the interview committee interviewing all of the candidates reported the results. In the contested positions a unanimous vote was cast for Mark Houser for a three year term to the Planning Commission and the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, to Peggy Dokka - Thorsen, and Tim Williams for three year terms on the Park and Recreation Advisory Board, Joan Lynch for the SPUC (reappointment), Joseph Hellcamp for the Economic Development Advisory Commission and Ron Ward for the Police Civil Service Commission. In addition City staff is recommending, Patricia Langdon, Dan Vroman be appointed to the two cable Boards, and Dave Lindberg be appointed to the Building Code and Housing Advisory and Appeals Board. Sweeney/Link offered Resolution No. 5487, a Resolution Appointing Individuals To Various Boards And Commissions, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. McNeill asked that the Council consider another action also tonight. The Board of Review will meet twice in May. Traditionally there have been two members of the City Council to serve on that Board and Mr. McNeill asked if possible if two councilors could be designated tonight to sit on the board of Review? Mayor Brekke and Mr. Link volunteered to be the delegates from the City Council. Mr. McNeill stated there were a number of individuals who were interviewed for openings on the Board and Commissions that wanted to serve the City in an environmentally oriented way. It has been discussed at a staff level to have a group that looks into and advises various Boards and Commissions on environmental issues. City Staff is suggesting that the Council authorize creating an Environmental Advisory Committee limited to five (5) individuals. At the Council's direction these positions will be advertised for anyone who might be interested. The interview committee Official Proceedings February 20, 2001 of the City Council Page 19 that interviewed the candidates for the other Board and Commission vacancies will interview these candidates and will come back before the Council with a recommendation. Cncl. Sweeney had no problems with this idea. He thought the candidates that City staff had for this committee were extremely good candidates. Mayor Brekke saw no need to advertise if good candidates could be found from among the candidates city staff already has. Cncl. Link stated the reason the City wanted to create this Environmental Advisory Committee was because they had such qualified candidates. Sweeney/Link moved to direct staff to bring back a resolution setting forth operating procedures relating to the establishment of an Environmental Advisory Committee. Mr. McNeill stated that this would be an advisory committee and ultimately recommendations would come to the City Council. It was anticipated that the Environmental Advisory Committee would work very closely with the Planning Commission and the Park Board in addition to taking direction from the Council. Cncl. Sweeney felt this Environmental Advisory Committee would be welcomed with open arms by the Planning Commission and the Park and Recreation Department. Mr. Leek stated he had a discussion with the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission would welcome this Advisory Committee. Charley Kubler, 6558 Carlisle Curve, approached the podium and stated he had conversations with Mr. McNeill regarding this type committee. Mr. Kubler thought the Environmental Advisory Committee idea was great; Mr. Kubler felt this committee should report directly to the Council so it would be a peer organization with the Planning Commission, Park and Recreation Board and possibly the Economic Development Committee. Motion carried unanimously. Morke/Sweeney moved to place into nomination the names of Charley Kubler, Russell Kennedy, Jeff Reinhard, Steve Menden and Mary Pennington -Hoyt as members of the Environmental Advisory Committee. Motion carried unanimously. Council concerns of K -Mart were discussed with Mr. Leek. These concerns related to the entranceway light, the outside speakers and the opaque fence. Mr. Leek stated that the K -Mart concerns were on the biweekly agenda for his staff to address. Mayor Brekke stated he would support the City in joining litigation against K -Mart along with the residents if that is what it was going to take to get K -Mart to comply with the conditions of their CUP. Mr. Leek stated the City does have some financial leverage to address the K -Mart issues. Official Proceedings of the City Council February 20, 2001 Page 20 Cncl. Sweeney asked if the City could revoke the CUP that K -Mart has. Tim Thomson, City Attorney, stated if there were conditions in the CUP relating to the concerns, that either K -Mart comes into compliance or in theory the City can revoke the CUP. Mayor Brekke asked Mr. Leek to keep the Council informed of the K -mart situation in the activity report. Mr. Morke had a concern of the increased graffiti within the City. Mr. McNeill stated Chief Hughes, Chief of Police, is looking into this matter. A suggestion from the public was an increase in the fine for graffiti. Mr. McNeill has been in contact with the Chief Hughes on this issue and the City will continue to monitor this situation. Sweeney/Link moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m. I �� e - Judith S. Cox City Clerk Carole Hedlund Recording Secretary / r CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance director RE: City Bill List DATE: March 29, 2001 Introduction and Background Attached is a regular council bill list for invoices processed to date for council approval. Also included in the checklist are various refunds, returns, pass through, etc. totaling $105,907.48. The actual net expense amount is $246,691.54. Action Requested Move to approve the bills in the amount of $352,599.02. r co J m M m C) d M T N U 0 M O 7 <{ m m m m O c O N M O m m t0 h m OR R n m O m V (V O -zr � o m V m m o r o m m O N O (Z O m O O cD r LO m m m m m V W E a) N Cl r o M t-1 � (f) m m (D N (D M N W O U 'T V m O O M 'R m m N m (D n N N O (O CL U p c m r N M V N n m m (f) N to R r N O m r 0 O r O- O rW 0 N O N J O O m m m O m (P) (O m m V O m M m U � o rn (D m (h w (n (D M r*� co M n r- r (n r N O O (O O O m m N m o m V (O N O m D. w O m M M M m N O w m m m x c O m m N n O O m N N M m m _ i� I-L W 0 m M r r r N N CD m V' M m r C m c o to C w m Q ) U c0 N C � c J Q m r O M 7 J J O 0 U- m (� Ir O O O O O o O o O o O O o 0 0 O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O o O O O O O O 80 O O o o M cc m m m V Lc N N N O o Lq N O 0 M N m C (D M _ _ co t- N m n N m M N t• r a) M M r m LO V N m M LO N M n LO m m m N 0 m m cQ m m z Z p U` J_ F- F � 2 Z m � I-- W m CL U Of o z w F J J O W Z W U , Z U p O Z p U� m U Z Z p LL U Z Y p O a Z Z Q Z Q Q K W O w g O Q U z O Q W w w Z w _i z Q F Q 0 z =, w a U O Q C7 (� U LL J Ow U 'U d�? w w w m O O m m N M r N V (D O m I m (D m m m j o Q N N m Cl) W ° I I N m O O 0 r m m O O O O O O (D m m p c r c- } m N I N m m c'J M .L... LN LO c O W C J m Q J U 0 0 o O 0 0 M ( 0 N m D C 'O c J Q m H Z W 2 CL 0 W w W p Z Z Z ~ O ~ O O O V V r 0 0 O V m m j o Q O m r N M W b o T- f� (D m M M m 7r V N C r N N m N N m Cl) O n V M m O � O N U r m n p c } m M V (n rn v O N L r m O R IT N C w O U L Q J U O O N N m L m Cl) N N C � c J Q m c 0 CL CD U 0 F- F- w W w w m m w Q w p m W m m O O �: ( (D N N m r V m O m m N N N N M M t t0 O O M M ( O (O O M m 7 O O r O m V m m m m m m m m m t t` n m m n n m 00 m m j o Q M m m m m r r O m m m mr- u u) O O n n O O O M m m m u u7 m m m m U U) N m m O O N N m m N N N m m O N N ti m r r r r r r r r r r O m m M M V V n n Co m m n n m N m m < <Y N N N O O o t to N N m v m m o O O o Ln o o m m N N 6 6 ( (D m m O O m m m u) m m u m o o o o r r L LO r m U ( (D c co r r) o o m m m u u7 L LO t t` O O V V ' 'V c coo 0 7 7 t` o o N V V N N L LO N V V N N O O c c0 ' 'T L LO O O N N O N N r r- ( (D M N � � T N U 0 M O 7 <{ m m m m O c O N M O m m t0 h m OR R n m O m V (V O -zr � o m V m m o r o m m O N O (Z O m O O cD r LO m m m m m V W E a) N Cl r o M t-1 � (f) m m (D N (D M N W O U 'T V m O O M 'R m m N m (D n N N O (O CL U p c m r N M V N n m m (f) N to R r N O m r 0 O r O- O rW 0 N O N J O O m m m O m (P) (O m m V O m M m U � o rn (D m (h w (n (D M r*� co M n r- r (n r N O O (O O O m m N m o m V (O N O m D. w O m M M M m N O w m m m x c O m m N n O O m N N M m m _ i� I-L W 0 m M r r r N N CD m V' M m r C m c o to C w m Q ) U c0 N C � c J Q m r O M 7 J J O 0 U- m (� Ir O O O O O o O o O o O O o 0 0 O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O o O O O O O O 80 O O o o M cc m m m V Lc N N N O o Lq N O 0 M N m C (D M _ _ co t- N m n N m M N t• r a) M M r m LO V N m M LO N M n LO m m m N 0 m m cQ m m z Z p U` J_ F- F � 2 Z m � I-- W m CL U Of o z w F J J O W Z W U , Z U p O Z p U� m U Z Z p LL U Z Y p O a Z Z Q Z Q Q K W O w g O Q U z O Q W w w Z w _i z Q F Q 0 z =, w a U O Q C7 (� U LL J Ow U 'U d�? w w w m O O m m N M r N V (D O m I m (D m m m j o Q N N m Cl) W ° I I N m O O 0 r m m O O O O O O (D m m p c r c- } m N I N m m c'J M .L... LN LO c O W C J m Q J U 0 0 o O 0 0 M ( 0 N m D C 'O c J Q m H Z W 2 CL 0 W w W p Z Z Z ~ O ~ O O O V V r 0 0 O V m m j o Q O m r N M W b o T- f� (D m M M m 7r V N C r N N m N N m Cl) O n V M m O � O N U r m n p c } m M V (n rn v O N L r m O R IT N C w O U L Q J U O O N N m L m Cl) N N C � c J Q m c 0 CL CD U 0 F- F- w W w w m m w Q w p m W m m O O c0 N C � c J Q m r O M 7 J J O 0 U- m (� Ir O O O O O o O o O o O O o 0 0 O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O o O O O O O O 80 O O o o M cc m m m V Lc N N N O o Lq N O 0 M N m C (D M _ _ co t- N m n N m M N t• r a) M M r m LO V N m M LO N M n LO m m m N 0 m m cQ m m z Z p U` J_ F- F � 2 Z m � I-- W m CL U Of o z w F J J O W Z W U , Z U p O Z p U� m U Z Z p LL U Z Y p O a Z Z Q Z Q Q K W O w g O Q U z O Q W w w Z w _i z Q F Q 0 z =, w a U O Q C7 (� U LL J Ow U 'U d�? w w w m O O m m N M r N V (D O m I m (D m m m j o Q N N m Cl) W ° I I N m O O 0 r m m O O O O O O (D m m p c r c- } m N I N m m c'J M .L... LN LO c O W C J m Q J U 0 0 o O 0 0 M ( 0 N m D C 'O c J Q m H Z W 2 CL 0 W w W p Z Z Z ~ O ~ O O O V V r 0 0 O V m m j o Q O m r N M W b o T- f� (D m M M m 7r V N C r N N m N N m Cl) O n V M m O � O N U r m n p c } m M V (n rn v O N L r m O R IT N C w O U L Q J U O O N N m L m Cl) N N C � c J Q m c 0 CL CD U 0 F- F- w W w w m m w Q w p m W m m O O N I N m m c'J M .L... LN LO c O W C J m Q J U 0 0 o O 0 0 M ( 0 N m D C 'O c J Q m H Z W 2 CL 0 W w W p Z Z Z ~ O ~ O O O V V r 0 0 O V m m j o Q O m r N M W b o T- f� (D m M M m 7r V N C r N N m N N m Cl) O n V M m O � O N U r m n p c } m M V (n rn v O N L r m O R IT N C w O U L Q J U O O N N m L m Cl) N N C � c J Q m c 0 CL CD U 0 F- F- w W w w m m w Q w p m W m m O O c 0 CL CD U 0 F- F- w W w w m m w Q w p m W m m O O O W ri M tri J) m N m 0 Z-3 IL w a5 W m O ar LY i 7 (D LL O U U O 0 O N N Q) J 0 W Y U LY z z z z W LU w w_ 2 w W W C9 > 0 U m Z M z F- w Z ¢ O O LLLL Z W Q F- F- Z w W W --� w w W Z Fa (7 F ¢ a z z W C9 Z Z x y Z (r z F W¢ z Z Z F � w w (:� a W Z W F F W F Z W F 0 2 h Z F W C9 C9 a C9 LL Z Q z LL U F Q z p Z Z Z Z 2 z Z U Z w U Z¢ F- Z w ¢ (n C7 C9 Q o m C9 U o W W F- z O O O 2 2 z 0 � w z 2 a w 2 W g 0 c O V O r z 00 F- p Z O Z Z F- t i O p Q 0 0 z Q z U O Z W o o 2 D o Q 2 U' Z n. 0 0 0 z x z ¢ a LL 0¢ z m F Q O a Q a a¢¢ a Z a¢ p a a Q N w 0 w Z Z w a W w Q U W W Z z w F Q w f? L Q ¢¢ W U Q Q w < Q 2 W Q U W Q 2 Q F- N C7 U J a ( d J 5 J D W w W o Z of W W V U w W¢ w a ¢ w Y -� W x U z W p W a w p W W ¢ O z 3 0 w O W U U O O F ¢ O r K K °o O W 5� p> m of w w w x w Qf w¢� p)f r O m rn LL rn J w m W W M U W? M W a m m U) LL LL N Q W LL LL m U LL LL U (7 LL U U tL ? M LL M LL Cl) C9 (9 z z z cn z F w w m w w z < w w J ra z z Q 5 z z U 5 z M m rn U z U J W z w W O W W W m O W U U U m co ZO w= w d F- F- d LY x F- d E- J m F- w W •a J J J Z d W F- U 0) CO U) D¢¢ LL W z z Q ai5 F- W Q, m d LL w m Z O z w m cn m W F l�l m Z m z} z D D z z W D z m Z U z0 ~ F- (D W Z~� (9 z W m z z U D ca 0 O a O m w w O z Z w z g a W Q Z z� ! U m 5 z P W LLL (.9 Ir w 11 z� <2W W2:wow o w g w= w LL w w° U LU—i w C = W >?> U>> w Z z ° W w z ¢ Q i ¢ F¢ F O O O O w>> Q LL O z H Q x x Z woo a U O O� W a O O D O O m w W L- F- 0 m U O m w 2 w o 2 m F- a F- K W W O a U w m o O W 2 m U W F- -j F- O W w m U W CO (n F- w > W U Z Z U W J U �. m U Cl) z O U J LL Q U z O> W W m U ? W p U U Z W Z U tz Z F- z O U (j W 0 (n z O m U oz -Jo Z w m U z LL -i W w U w IL Z 2 a C) z O rn > -J Q Q W O (Y O 0 Y p W E U Y U LWL ¢ x m F- W z W p 0- O E w Z U U m W O W U w W ( Y U U Z O m w w O Z w Z J = U' 2 w U Z I W a w o 3 w. a w z 2 a U w a U m Z Lz N z x W z o w ¢ w W � o F U w L U O 2 ( z 0 U W p w Z W O ? O F Y (n z 0 W w W w w Q� Z W •o 06 U z z 0 0 o ¢ U con 2 LL 2 ' J J 9 ..� O W a o m 2 w D U w w of w W N¢ C ug r a m LL m O g O U w F- 0 z m W w 0 w x O O >>>¢ 5?? O w D O w U O W m 1 0 > a Q Q U w m > a Q Q Q a m m m m m p U U U U U U o o O O O 0 W w LL LL LL LL 0 0 0 0 C M � 0 M 0 O O O O N N to to O O O (O O h M N O m O O O O O O O CD O (A LO O tO O _ (A " O O Cl! O O rl � 7 r O O V N M O C O M O m O O O O Cn to r M O V W O to et D f0 O N CO CO M to R to O ID to O CO N M co r` V M to O LC) tD O R CO to O O O to O M CO E to tU <{ M M N N O N R d' O O O COD_ N co N M M r M M V C> CD CD t� N r O M N N O M O V N N N Q CA M M c- �-- 7 N — O Cl) O Y O r� CO CA O N M C O CO n O 03 O N M -Kr to (D t'- CO O) O r N M V' O O t� O fA O N M C to CD N co O O co m D1 CA m O O CD O m O/ O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N t (D O O O co O t0 O O O O O O O r` t` t` n r r• r t� r n t- r- n r- n n r r f` t- r f` r` co CO co m co m O m co co m m m O (o CD co Co co co m m m co co co (o co m co m co m co m co co m co co w U O (O CO (D (D (D (D (O CO (D CO (D (D CO O O O (D CO O CO (D O CO (O O O co O O Co CD CO Co co co O O O O O 0 � N cl M O � 0 N (p a W d w 0 LL . 5 a Y � Q Y x U L LL U O .� U C) 0 O N N O O J 0 W Y U CY z z z z z z w w w W W w �- W U U F. Z U C7 Z Z Z w Z Z_ ~ 2 F 2 J F- F- 2 U z F - ❑ 2 a¢~ a W O m W W "j a Z W F- F- W F- ¢ Z W w LY Z c) F W W Z o w Z w w W O W Z W Z F- F- W F- W W Z F- L7 0 r 0 W 0 z Q 2 W 2 w Z Z Z 0 = Z Z) O ai ¢ C7 ¢ < W❑ z w U W C7 ° m 0 Z W Z C7 a Z 0 w U' w❑ 2 2 U` 2 Z O m 2 z w a z¢° a w Q o n❑ Z¢ a LL o m o Z° o Z o 0¢ z¢ Z LL a a a a 0 a z a= LL x Q) Z LL K tY 0❑ O K Z d U O m z z a F w° a O O 2 2° 2 z O LL <2 = ° ¢ U O =� -' ¢ U F- O J W U Z I ¢ O Z U>> n O O U W W D W z W j .� p o w W F- O > Z w a W x o? Of m 2 a J O w° o U o x o o m o o O x o 0� m Q w V w m Q. U S W z> (n LL U L w F- z m L1 L1 m w >- Z m m m m w LL LL M LL m m w LL Y w U 0 v 0 M O Z_ z 0 O 0 U F W_ 0 a Z Z z M F- a) 0 w w Z Q CL = o Z 5 Z) ¢ ° U w m >O w U U W Z U > O F W W Y S Z Z O Q Z ¢ U C w o w O > co ° LL' Z m O M a w C7 CD Z Z ui Z Z - (n W Q Ue C1 ~ W J W W ¢ m J W W W W J U W Z_ Z m U m O D U w W O m U U U U a p W~ x x Z w a = W W F J x a W W W W ¢ ¢ J J O w a w v < D IL w w a of CO c ai a F m m m 0 m N w m !n CO V) W (n m CO co W Z M Z m U m m U m m CO m Ix = Z a a } 7 0 Z > > z Cn Z O ° Z o > > 7 w ~ ❑ y O w m Z w m W m m m Z z z w < z m LU W¢ ¢ W 0 O U co U U Co U O W V) 0 W w w rz- F w z cc Cf w= LY w w w m Z a = w p= w w� w a w a w z = p > w U w 0 > U w LL >> m w 11 U LL U w W p U a z z x Z W x LL q O o o 0 w m w o W du I-- = U' :5 4 a w a a O w� 0¢ H ci O U F - F - J O w m F O m U J U h t O r F - O w F m U U Z U O Z w p Z Z m w Cl) W O Z 2 _ Q p O Q 0 1-- U m U O U v) > F- n U Z O Z W Z x U ? W Z J 0 U _> p U V J W a. U O U O 00 w Z v w O w z w q m Z w Z° z w w w m a 0 O U a25 W w Z o ° O O` LL U= W Z wa J Z m Z 2 Z C, W W J W aLL °a ~Q° >aawo�° ww(nag� M2f LU mw90 °, CO LL x F- F- p W K ❑ U O F- F- O Z Z LL _ O Z w° O° z N w w Cj) ❑° m w >> LY O tY m [Y Z U } O =_ W W Z W Z U F W J Z Z =¢ a Q U' Y Z c LD ° a w O❑ to O Z w J Cn O W °° 0 U S o ci 0 CO F- W w J K co L li w w o O¢ w w o F= ¢ J K F- ¢ w L - 3: Q W O g S S Y Z Z Z Z Y Y Y Y J J J J J J �L 2 Z 0 0 0 0 - LL LL a¢¢ LL' K LY w O O (D O N w m M r M M w O O w O O O O 0 (0 O m w w w M O O O O w M M 0 O N M w c o o O e m r*-: w m o o O 0 M 0 M o O L - Lr o N m N W o 0 0 o v m M v o v r r� r v? = V M n w N w w ( m co M w O M N O N O R N N O N C w N O (0 w O O V' r W w w O m W N N M m w w w O t• C R O w O w 7 w (D O m CO O V N CO L ' CO M N E M N r D n N O V N M w N Cl N w w n w co M of M M �! N w CO a cn r .- E ED D .-- Q N Y r- m M O N M C w CO t-- w W O N M R w (D r w M O N M C w 0 r m 0 O N M I (D m n V N N N M M M M M M CO M M M V C V V '�r 7 '7 'r C C' M w w w w w W w w w CO w (D to w w (D w L w w w w w m m w w w w w (o w m w w w w w w w w w w w m w w w w w m m m w w w w w w U w m w w w 0 0 w co w w 0 w w 0 w w w w w w w w 0 0 0 w w w w w w w m w "w w m 0 w w O m M ri M � m M m N (p M d W W N CL o O m r Y O v i U � n LL U } U O F c � m U 0 U c, 2 U LU W w J - O w Z W ° z w J F_ Z U) W F_ Q F_ ¢ W w Z z>- 2 z J 2 z z 2 F O w l r TZ g Q W W¢ w W U w w W W C7 0 2 FW- W Z U W O w (D 0 w w a z w °¢ w w Z o Z(9 Q 2 z z 0 a N C w Q Q z Q z Q 0 2 Q Q E Q¢� w W S w U m 0 0¢ w w w � w w z O j n D LL > > > U S x ° m W r ¢ O F W O J O O m m W O m ? O ? w U ( n w LL W m LL 2 m LL LL 0 0 t- m m m w w w W' a. U) U) U) 0 O 0 O Q ¢ W Z L U J U) J J (n w w � co Co � z c U (L (L (n n- 4. w a Z W Z=) Z J Z D U ° Q cn ¢ m O m O m m z z a ° z z = Z F W c (A U 0� ai U W U a: m w j O (n W Of J W m LL x m W W= Q v w D W :) d Z) LL F- D d ¢° m p 2 m 0 (n O O m 0° O F- w w 2 w 0 C) LL LL O w z0 Y O ° O ¢ O of U m m w M- - U O ° 0 ¢ Z W Z m W x x w J a 0 w F w FF-- ° W O O 2 O D 0 w Z O 2 W W F F - ¢ z 0 m w z 0 o z o o IL a w z K w m x a ¢ a ¢ 0 O ° Of > > _ > W 0 W (n (n (n !n Cn m to 0 0 W F- W F-- z O W O U W U ~ Z Z Z F¢- O ¢ C7 0 w w O w 0 U z ¢ W OW O w U ° Z z D D Z J J �"" Z J z J O w O w w U U W¢ O Q O F- O U 0 0 w 0 0 `m w w w w W ? O U CL U U C9 }} j W LL J LL of w Z- w w w d d m 0 w 2' m w w Z Z a d LLI or: O O F- Q W W Z Q w w w z w z a Z z F¢¢ a z w Q ¢ Q CO a z a z F- w U) w 0 ¢ a a O U w w a a s w OU �? OU d d¢ 0 2 W W W 0 : W w w w w m w U) U) O m z of z w w W z of of z z C9 m m w U U Z CL O z_ w a o 0 0 ( w a U o-, c U °- m o> o w IL U. W Q m C9 x m z w x x LL LL w 2 w Z F- O Q O W O Q F 0 0 W W W Q Q Q W O O F - J w O w U U r U o w U O D U F- m M a c9 > r>° ° O Z z z U LL ( O O ¢ w O v w ¢ C7 F O z z° z x F _ Z m m m ¢ z Z O O o z W O w O z 2 ° O W z w z 2 J U w 0 U� z w= w LL g z C ? a Y° �_ C z 0 � w� z o U O U Q W w J Z Z 2 J F" O w Z 0 Q w °= 0 a W ¢ w W O W¢¢ O Z J F- > z 5 m O Q Z O w U ¢ U Z 0 X w K) �_ U Z Y_ n. 0 Cl) Q w W Q 2 K .l W' Q W w w J- W U 2 fn G O O O O O O T n M C W O O W O R U7 O W O (1 O O O O N v O O M U) W O O O O O U) O O W N O O O O O n O O U) N O O O O O N O O O U1 CO N O M V N O N U) O O O O O UJ m O (p p LO M C M n V O p a' M M M M O O M O O M O N O O M O U) M M M U1 M U) O O O > E O C n m V .- .- m M o R U) n M Cl W r m M n N N V R M M N N r Y) co m O O ¢ W W m n N N V r co O N N J w W m U Y co m O N M V U) m n W m O N M C W m n N m O N M V' U] m n W M Cl N M C W W n W ( m n m n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n W n co n W n W W n n m n W n W n W n W n m m n n m n M n m n m n m M n n M m n n o W 0 W 0 W 0 W 0 W 0 W 0 o W W o W L U ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( t CO ( ( ( ( co ( ( ( ( coo ( ( ( to ( co w ( ( co m co w 0 to ( co ID w w 0 u� v ri r) o ro rn rn N ca C7 d • C N y N C W m 5 W N O m LL m O V V = N � L LL. U } U O F C O ZZ U U m c 0 o. -c U N N C 0 O U U Q O C N O F C (0 C O of E O1 o a O co co N N t ) w W Y �I U Y V) U U N W r R M J � � m N �p M LL W E d E O o Y C U � m O U U C U U o co CO r O M N O O LO M r V N C t0 N � O r V N C M 1- N p (O I� CO M t; ` M O N M [O <O r,- O M Oj O N O 9 " M O M 2 E n v_ Lici cn m Ni r" co rn m c Q 1— co 10 M r N (D N M N l0 M h t0 y f0 O ~ cl W U Z L 0 a U O LL LL K F— y W U) U M W Z 0 5 0 ~ W Z LL Z C7 po Z 0 > K 4h W I LL (A LL of � CD LL Z LL W w w — U 2 O D D O Z O LL O J of LL' CL lL W Q F Z L 5 W 2 Q (n M �++ W O m F O a LL E O= W 9 p Q Q L- M m O W W a 3: U) Y ( H W CL U p co ir = W m w W 0 Q O O O O O N O O O O O LO O m LL' E O O O C M N O N O m O LO O O O M R O LO O CO OD N O V' O U O N O N O R O V O V O C O 1� f O Co O rl n O O co O m 0 CITY OF SAKOPEE 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 6th Addition, Project No. 2001 -5 DATE: April 3, 2001 1�►i1 II.Z��Ilil�11 Y [�)►A Attached is Resolution No. 5502, a resolution ordering the improvement and preparing plans and specifications 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 6th Addition, Project No. 2001 -5. BACKGROUND: 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. On February 20, 2001, City Council accepted the feasibility report and ordered the public hearing for April 3, 2001. Subsequently staff met with the affected property owners on March 12, 2001 at an informational meeting and went over the scope of the project and received questions and comments. A written response to those questions was mailed to the property owners along with council members on March 19, 2001 and is attached to this memo. Staff is proposing that Council order the project with benefit appraisals to be done simultaneously with right -of -way acquisition appraisals. Staff is proposing to work with Patchin Messner Appraisals, Inc. for the appraisal work and Bolton & Menk, Inc. to prepare right -of -way legal descriptions and make offers to the property owners in which right -of -way is needed. It may be necessary to order eminent domain proceedings to acquire the right -of -way. Staff is projecting that the right -of -way acquisition will take at least 6 months, thus the project will more than likely not be built this year. Staff is proposing to design the project for a 2002 construction start. At this time, the Engineering Department can do the design if built in 2002 and assuming no more loss of engineering personnel. If Council desires to speed up this schedule, a consultant would need to be authorized for the design. The basic response from the property owners is that the roadway should be paved due to traffic, the proposed assessments are too high and that their property does not benefit by that amount. Staff has discussed this project and is bringing the following items for discussion: 1. Staff is recommending that a benefit appraisal be performed for all of the properties except for the Beta Seed's property and those properties owned by developers where the city has a petition and waiver for Sarazin Street and Valley View Road improvements. Staff is also recommending that included with the benefit appraisal, the existing on -site sewage treatment facilities would be inspected. It is estimated that limited benefit appraisals for this project would cost approximately $10,000.00 to $12,000.00. 2. Should the City Council consider the maintenance cost savings from the elimination of a gravel road with ditches, therefore contributing more City funds to the improvement of Valley View Road? If the response is yes, then staff should be directed to determine the amount of cost savings to the City of Shakopee. 3. Should the City Council consider deferment of assessments to those properties currently outside of MUSA? If the response is yes, then staff should be directed to explore what method of deferment should be implemented, i.e., would interest be charged and what would be the sunset clause for the deferment to end. Attached to this memo is a financing summary outlining the costs of the project. Staff will be making a presentation at the public hearing further describing the proposed improvements. From staff's perspective, the roadways need to be constructed in order to complete the roadway system in this area. The main questions from the property owners will be the cost of the improvements to their property and whether the city should participate more. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 5502, a resolution ordering the improvement and the preparation of plans and specifications 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 th Addition. 2. Deny Resolution No. 5502. This action will halt the project until such time as the City Council reconsiders the resolution. 3. Table Resolution No. 5502, to allow time for staff to prepare additional information and/or revise the feasibility report as directed by City Council. 4. Authorize staff to obtain benefit appraisals on the proposed assessments and appraisals for right -of -way acquisition. 5. Authorize staff to execute an extension agreement with Bolton & Menk, Inc. for survey, preparation of easements and design engineering services as necessary for this proj ect. 6. Provide staff direction on further cost participation and on any deferment of assessments and under what conditions. Staff recommends Alternative No.'s 1, 4, 5 and 6, for Council to adopt Resolution No. 5502, a resolution ordering the improvement and preparing plans and specifications 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 th Addition, Project No. 2001 -5, and for obtaining benefit appraisals on the proposed assessments. Also for the city to execute an extension agreement with Bolton and Menk, Inc for engineering services for obtaining right of way and design engineering services as necessary. Also, Council should provide staff direction on further cost participation and any deferments of assessments and under what conditions which could be brought back at a future Council meeting and before plans are approved. If the City Council does not wish to pursue this project, then the appropriate action would be to move the approval of Resolution No. 5502 and vote against the motion. If Council wants to direct to revise the feasibility report and assessment procedures, then Alternative No. 3 is recommended. ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Offer Resolution No. 5502, A Resolution Ordering an Improvement and the Preparation of Plans and Specifications 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 ffi Addition, Project No. 2001 -5 and move its adoption. 2. Authorize staff to obtain benefit appraisals on the proposed assessments and appraisals for right -of -way acquisition. 3. Authorize staff to execute an extension agreement with Bolton & Menk, Inc. for survey, preparation of easements and design engineering services as necessary for this project. 4. Provide staff direction on further cost participation and on any deferment of assessments and under what conditions. `f r Bruce Lo y Public W s Director BUpmp MEM5502 Z O F ❑ H Z Z a W 2 d LL O pp ig ►n In i H z U Z W W O Z N N U) N U) M O C N Y N U) a� a c O C N O C cu E m 3 O O U) O U U D d M C1 N Lq N V M Ln Cl) co O I h I U N co M co J co � Cl) O Q M M I� � � r Gf3 fR V3 ffT (fJ O O LLI O O a Y N N Z H 6e EA Lq Iq W LO Cl) 00 W co co o of aS O H (n 61 Val 6�> w ° °o CD W U N N H H Q N N N 06 d3 ER Z N Q N M ti T LO � W Cl) N Q N ? 59 6} d} W Co Co W LO rn rn y of of H Z N Ef3 tfJ O o Y Ln `n J M M cc i W O m O co ❑ 69 d3 O oq Lo Q r N ( L N Q t— M 0 6-1 6pk E9 Z M LL Y Z F y � N Z It V W N W ❑ C3 N ui Q O U) m V J W O I-- Q U) � U) W O Z N N U) N U) M O C N Y N U) a� a c O C N O C cu E m 3 O O U) O U U D d M R ESOLUTION NO. 5502 �: i r WHEREAS, Resolution No. 5485 adopted on February 20, 2001, fixed a date for Council hearing on the proposed 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' Addition by installation of sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer, street reconstruction, bituminous paving, curb & gutter, concrete sidewalk, bituminous trail, street lighting and any 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 3rd day of April, 2001, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1. That the improvement is necessary, cost effective and feasible and is ordered as hereinafter described: 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 by installation of sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer, street reconstruction, bituminous paving, curb & gutter, concrete sidewalk, bituminous trail, street lighting and any 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 -5 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 three 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 , 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee City Clerk �3- A 1. How does this project benefit the current homeowners? This proposed project would provide sanitary sewer and water utility service as well as constructing a bituminous paved street versus the gravel surface road currently. The sanitary sewer and water utilities would be available when necessary. 2. What benefit do the property owners on the south side of Valley View Road receive from new storm sewer? A new storm sewer will allow an urban street with curb & gutter to be built and allow the removal of ditches. 3. There were questions /comments regarding the feeling that there are inequities between the assessment/benefit to the individual property owners versus the developer's assessment/benefit. The feasibility report assessed all properties as per the assessment policy. 4. How come the storm water utility fee isn't used for paying the storm sewer costs proposed for the project? Per City Assessment Policy, new storm sewer installed where no storm sewer previously existed will be assessed 100% and included in the street assessment to befitting properties. The storm water utility helps for maintenance and a portion of the cost to replace existing storm sewer system 5. Why doesn't Betaseed have a sidewalk assessment? Sidewalks along collector streets are not assessed except to new plats. Betaseed is not developing at this time. 6 Does the City test the drinking water in the City? Yes, this is done by Shakopee Public Utilities and as per State Health Standards. 7. A majority, if not all, expressed that they do not want the roadway paved. 8. When are assessment paid and how long does a property owner have to pay them? The assessment can be paid in full at any time, but usually are paid over a ten year period. 9. What is the interest rate charged for assessments? The interest rate will depend on the bond issuance rate, however, this rate is estimated to be between 7.00% and 8.00 %. 10. Will the City of Shakopee purchase those properties for the proposed assessment amount? No, the City does not purchase whole parcels unless needed for the improvement proj ect. 11. Is there any consideration of deferring assessments? Yes, the Assessment Policy states the City Council may elect to defer assessments on undeveloped land for a specified length of time or until it develops. 12. Does the City of Shakopee have the authority to rezone the properties along the south side of Valley View Road? Yes, the City or property owner can initiate a rezoning hearing with the City Council making the final decision. 13. Is the City of Shakopee able to legally contribute more towards the project, therefore lowering the assessments? Yes, the City can choose to contribute more. 14. If the City of Shakopee does place the properties into MUSA, what would the expansion boundary be? The final determination of MUSA boundary will be decided once the MUSA allocation is given by the Met Council. 15. Concern was expressed regarding the three -year hook -up issue to City sewer and water. Can this be extended? City Ordinance requires hook -up within three years. The City Council could extend this but may have to modify the ordinance. 16. Can property owners elect to hook up to City sewer but remain on their well water system? The property owners must connect to City sewer and water, however, they may use their well for irrigation, car washing and other similar uses. 17. A property owner stated they understand paying some assessment but not as large as those listed in the roll. 18. The Huth residence expressed concern about headlights shining into their living room with the new alignment. 19. Another property owner stated that if they need to subdivide their parcel to pay off assessments that they should be able to profit from the sale. 20. Property owners requested maps provided to them showing the owners of each of the parcels and the corresponding PID numbers. Attached to these questions and answers is a parcel map showing the P.I.D. numbers. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Assessment Hearing for Gorman Street, from 4th Avenue to County Road 17, Project No. 2000 -1 DATE: April 3, 2001 INTRODUCTION: Attached is Resolution No. 5503, a resolution that adopts the assessments for the above referenced project. BACKGROUND: This project has been essentially completed except for the paving of the final wear course and all project costs identified. The final costs are $743,800.18, which consists of construction costs and engineering/administration costs. A breakdown of the project costs is attached to this memo. The feasibility report for this project estimated total costs to be at $796,373.90. Assessed costs include 25% of the street reconstruction plus 100% of the bituminous trail, concrete walk and curb and gutter, new watermain along Gorman Street minus oversizing and sanitary sewer services. The total amount assessed to this project is $289,587.27. The feasibility report estimated the total amount to be assessed at $344,830.06. Included in the assessed costs is an amount of $84,992.51 that the City of Shakopee and Shakopee Public Utilities will be splitting at 50% each. The City's cost for this project is for 75% of the street reconstruction minus the bituminous trail and concrete walk and curb and gutter which were assessed at 100% per the feasibility report, the watermain through the Public Works site, sanitary sewer main funded by the Sanitary Sewer Fund, and 75% of storm sewer costs funded by the Storm Sewer Fund. Shakopee Public Utilities costs include watermain oversizing on Gorman Street and the watermain replacement costs on 4 Avenue. Staff will make a presentation on the project costs and assessments at the public hearing. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 5503. 2. Deny Resolution No. 5503. 3. Table Resolution No. 5503. Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. Offer Resolution No. 5503, A Resolution Adopting Assessments for Gorman Street, from 4 Avenue to County Road 17, Project No. 2000 -1. Bruce Loney Public Works Director BL/pmp MEM5503 • Resolution Adopting . 11 1 For 1 II C Street, From Avenue 1 County Road 1 Project 1 . 2000 WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the City Council of the City of Shakopee met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessments of: Gorman Street, from 4 Avenue to County Road 17 by street reconstruction, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, watermam, concrete curb and gutter, bituminous trail, street lighting, concrete sidewalk and all other appurtenant work. RESOLVED NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT BY 1 I, OF THE CITY 01 MINNESOTA: 1. That such proposed assessment together with any amendments thereof, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named herein and each tract therein included is hereby found to be benefitted by the proposed improvements in the amount of the assessments levied against it. 2. Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of ten years, the first installment to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 2002, and shall bear interest at the rate of 6.25 percent per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added the interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 2002 and to each subsequent installment when due shall be added the interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within thirty (30) days from the adoption of this resolution; the owner may thereafter pay to the County Treasurer the installment and interest in process of collection on the current tax list, and may pay the remaining principal balance of the assessment to the City Treasurer. 4. The Clerk shall file the assessment rolls pertaining to this assessment in her office and shall certify annually to the County Auditor on or before November 30th of each year the total amount of installments and interest on assessments on each parcel of land which are to become due in the following year. Adopted in Shakopee, Minnesota, held this session of the City Council of the City of day of , 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee City Clerk H Z Z c' N 0 H tai l� H H r ro po O C4 L� Cl H n O to H w iv z ti p m N 0 0 C) 0 � z m D M O n �Cl) z m Cl) y Cl) � D i %� C/) m m 0 C) D D U) -4 z O z C" O cn 0 O -o O cn -q r ;u to W CCi) O c O O C/) z V Cl) 0 0 m r r 00 C/) C O C -� K m — c� z 4� z _ O D O < z p w m O 0 O 0 C O Ti O � cn 2 D U D � m C0 C/) r D C OD N c z z C/) Cl) a) o n w K � O Cl) z m O z -{ m 70 :;a -64 fa cn Cl) � I I w N O w O z D m w 0 0 0 0 w ° o z r O �P P N N � '- m rn N N N CS7 00 0 O N H Z Z c' N 0 H tai l� H H r ro po O C4 L� Cl H n O to H n ti p m --1-1 y 0 � z m D O m r - D m Cl) z Cl) 0 %� ccnn m 0 m U) m 00 m 00 O n m N V 00 -q C c ;u to W O c O O P z V 0 0 0 0 H Z Z c' N 0 H tai l� H H r ro po O C4 L� Cl H n O to H M O 00 O O N V 00 w W p O O P W V 0 0 0 00 0 cn D z D X N � F Cl) 00 00 m Ul -64 fa cn -e4 w O O w O m w 0 0 0 0 w ° o '- m 00 0 O N I-A W N lfl D N 00 O O 4� 00 z N O O "1 00 mD .64 V V N Efl Efl {A { N m X CO O O O O O Cl) V O O O O V N O O O O N .� tip tf3 {f+ ti4 Efi O V N N i c n 00 UI O 00 00 Ul 00 00 0 OD w co 14 00 N 0 00 v H Z Z c' N 0 H tai l� H H r ro po O C4 L� Cl H n O to H V N V N N P- N W N V co N 00 w al 00 V N V N v N N N N N O 'p V V V V V V V V U) r Q0 O n CD (n O (.0 O tD CD D 0 '* (n m D w O O O O O CD CD O O N � Cn rt 3 Cn � 3 rl) N 3 rt O O rt rt CD N (n D D O O n C N (n O � o C D 0 m Cn - C7 O Cn (D o CD o CD O CD n7 O O CD p N b N ,--r II o ffl Cv II II fA II II 69 - to r r W CO N N � n�i m O W m D7 - o Co O - O Z 0 ( C � cn X V -P co (n 00 p r N W N V l0 V CD 3 C7 V O 00 V V N r ro rt r _ 00 O _ 00 Cn ? D Z p 0 ? co -0 U7 N ID W � p p C31 N ct) OQ � - m W v W ((jn m ID Cn 'W-r � �'-' v rn � Ln Ui (n Cn W Cr9 D W W O C/) V V V V N V N N P- N W N V co N 00 w al 00 V N V N N N N N N N N 'p V V V V V V V V 1p O Co O Q0 O 1 0 O r r O (.0 O tD O O O O O O O O W W rl) N O O O O UI N O O O O O O O O Cn - C7 O Cn 0 O CD n7 O O CD p N b N ,--r LU - p ,=r 0 LU - 77 N _� rt O ID 7 p= D o - O Q- n�i m O W m D7 - o Co O - O o Co o O - O >v o - O 4�- 3 O CD C/) CD s - 70 �' O (n X �� O O X rn� X CD m X CD CD - 0- _' Mm CD 3 C7 CD :3 O 77 ' w CD N r ro rt r _ 00 O _ 00 Cn ? D Z p 0 ? co -0 U7 N ID W � p p C31 'O-r CD m ct) OQ � - m W v Ul M O ((jn m ID Cn 'W-r � �'-' v rn � Ui (n Cn W Cr9 D W W O C/) (n V 00 _ 00 =3 V CD W 4 D CD C CD D V 3 7 p a r \ CD rt _0 - 0 P a r \ Qo r Cn Cn Cn Cn �' Cn - i N Cn N 0 r N 0 r r 0 p - 0 r r CD N CD n1 rt CD \ CD r o O CD o =r W CD CD 0 o 7 CD O Q 7 Z5 CD O o- O '-'� CD rt 73 (n CD O '-'� Z5 OCi O N 61 .O-F p Z rn 0� o Cb m D c D c a s= o Q r= D' ' - m ' Ij CD X 0-`G W a R W a , D Q`G v m -,1-0 0 O= m Q° - a N4� - 0 m - o W O m;�Z- 0 Cv O t O r r Cr r Cn r O w r y r "O (n Cn Cn Ort -' Cn Q -0 -0 O n�i N z7 (n 3D ; W 70 - 03 c s= _ o D =3 I11 0 (7Q O W 73 - U'� 00 QQ ID 7 CIR CD rt D OR 0 OR n> CD n) O N CD n) O Q N 0 0 N N: \ N z r C O C UI :P rZ Cn CA S3 O �'r p 0 N V CD D O\ V o D `2 D4�, r D Cn o (n ' r o 5' O D V (p r \ \ 00 A Cn 00 W r (n p N N V N Cn r N V CU N V p N O O Co O Cn 0o O O O O O O Ul CO O O W (3) W -P V N O O T( (D 0 - 0 ffl W ffl {� Efl ffl W 69 D (A O 00 _N r Cn Cn N tn N r lfl r V W O 00 0 v t N CD W -P W 0 N W E3 CD p r N Ol N) 61 W N W ON CD ._. .« .64 �_ '.9 D C N N O O O W O C5� 00 'r'' A CD N O O O O O V N N W 6l W CD < O .+ O W O r Cn O N V N Ul r N V 00 O m Cp W O O p .off+ z O O O O O O O W O W V N C N O Owl 00 W N {q o t 6l `� O Cr 00 LTI W r 6 Cn CD (n Cn p Cn 00 p y O -P 00 N O O (n N N N 00 - rn CD 00 [n Co V O N O N(n l p N � W � O W CD - N 01 V 00 -P 41 O O O Co 0) O rt coi G1 O ti , h 0 r � r ;y N O O O ti ■ . Mem TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Mark Noble, Planner I SUBJECT: Vacation of Easements within Valley Park 6 Addition 10 1DIDNOW II IN OUC N: American Color Graphics has submitted an application for vacation of two (2) easements within Valley Park 6 Addition. The proposed area for vacation is located within Lot 2, Block 1, Valley Park 6' Addition. City staff has not received any adverse comments to the proposed vacation. Shakopee Public Utilities has provided written comments, which are attached for the Council's information. PLANNING COND41ISSION C A N: The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed vacation at its meeting of March 22, 2001, and recommended approval of the vacation. A copy of the staff memorandum prepared for the Planning Commission has been attached for the Council's information. AL A S: 1. Approve Resolution No. 5504, a resolution of the City of Shakopee approving the vacation of easements within Valley Park 6' Addition 2. Deny the proposed vacation. 3. Table the decision to allow staff or the applicant time to provide additional information. AC ON REQUESTED Approve Resolution No. 5504, a resolution of the City of Shakopee approving the vacation of easements within Valley Park 6" Addition. g. \cc \2001 \cc0403 \vacamclrgrphcs.doc A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE WITHIN VACATING EASEAWNTS 6 TH ADDITION, CITY OF SHAKOPEE, SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA WBEREAS, it has been made to appear to the Shakopee City Council that a portion of two (2) easements described below, serve no public use or interest; The West 125.00 feet of the Fast 185. 00 feet of the North 20.00 feet of Lot 2, Block 1, Valley Park Sixth Addition, Scott County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the public hearing to consider the action to vacate was held in the Council Chambers of the City Hall in the City of Shakopee at 7:00 P.M. on the 3rd day of April, 2001; and WHEREAS, two weeks published notice was given in the SHAKOPEE VALLEYNEWS and by posting such notice on the bulletin boards on the main floor of the Scott County Courthouse, at the U.S. Post Office, at the Shakopee Public Library, and in the Shakopee City Hall; and WHEREAS, all persons desiring to be heard on the matter were given an opportunity to be heard at the public hearing in the Council Chambers in the City of Shakopee. NOW, IEF ORE, BE IT RESOLVED Y THE CITY COUNCIL OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: That it finds and determines that the vacation hereinafter described is in the public interest, That the easements described above serve no finther public purpose, and That the easements described above are hereby vacated. After the adoption of the Resolution, the City Clerk shall file certified copies hereof with the County Auditor and County Recorder of Scott County. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the day of , 2001. Jon P. Brekke Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk PREPARED BY: City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 I, Judith S. Cox, City Clerk of the City of Shakopee, Nfumesota, do hereby certify Dated this day of 7 2001 Judith S. Cox, City Clerk Cons CrrY OF SELAKOPEE Memorandum Shakopee Planning Commission Mark Noble, Planner I Vacation of Easement within Valley Park 6 Addition March 22, 2001 Greystone Construction Lot 2, Block 1, Valley Park 6` Addition Adjacent Zoning. North: Heavy Industry (I -2) Zone South: Heavy Industry (I -2) Zone West: Heavy Industry (I -2) Zone East: Heavy Industry (1 -2) Zone Introduction The City Council has received a request from Greystone Construction, representing American Color Graphics, to consider the vacation of easements located within Lot 2, Block 1, Valley Park 6 Addition (see attached easement survey). Discussion The City Council will hold a public hearing on April 3, 2001, to consider this vacation request. A recommendation from the Planning Commission is needed for the vacation process. The applicant is planning to proceed with a construction project should the vacation for this area be acted upon favorably by the City of Shakopee. Other agencies, city departments and utilities have been notified of the proposed vacation. Shakopee Public Utilities has provided written comments, which are attached for your information. Alternatives 1. Recommend to the City Council the approval of the vacation. 2. Recommend to the City Council denial of the request. 3. Table the decision to allow staff or the applicant time to provide additional information. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, recommend to the City Council approval of the vacation of easements. Action Requested Offer and pass a motion recommending approval of the vacation. g.\ boaa- pc\2001 \0322\shakvlyvac.doc (01051) ark Noble Planner I W E S Z oning Bounda - Parcel Bound _ - _ .. - _ ♦ r.�.- �eaca�a ?»ester Ftir�:.�'^rYA:R.►��.�� --^" ��.. J • • , N Scale in Feet 1"=50' 0 me .I Spu Tr Per DOCa ]Va as 54 f 12` 1 85.00 Droi g0 O0 E aser" e t & Ut4it Per p1 � � n �f 20 � B I 1 L- C� PROPOSED VACATION The !Nest 125.00 feet of the East 185 -00 feet of the North 20.00 feet of Lot 2. Block 1. VALLEY PARK SIXTH ADDITION. Scott County, Minnesota. Note: Two easements would be affected by the above description the drainage & utility easement per the plat and spur track easement per Doc. No. 20754 1 hereby certify that this plan. report or specnkatlan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that 1 am a duly registered Land surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. As axveyed by us this 20114 day of �EgleJ��{ 20 Minnesota License No. 13595 c� o o x � vo sm � VJ C� PROPOSED VACATION The !Nest 125.00 feet of the East 185 -00 feet of the North 20.00 feet of Lot 2. Block 1. VALLEY PARK SIXTH ADDITION. Scott County, Minnesota. Note: Two easements would be affected by the above description the drainage & utility easement per the plat and spur track easement per Doc. No. 20754 1 hereby certify that this plan. report or specnkatlan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that 1 am a duly registered Land surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. As axveyed by us this 20114 day of �EgleJ��{ 20 Minnesota License No. 13595 , �W •-. 1 MUM TO: Shakopee Community Development Department FROM: Joseph D. Adams, Pbnninc and Engineering N- l=ger SUBJECT: STAFF REVIEW RECORD COMI TENTS for: Vacation of Easement CASE NO: 01051 DATE: 1,Iunicipal water service is available subject to our standard terms and conditions. These include, but are not limited to: installing a lateral water main distribution system in accordance with utility policy, paying the associated inspection costs, paying the Trunk W ater Charge, and paving the Water Connection Charge. Underground electric service is available subject to our standard terms and conditions. These include, but are not limited to: entering into an Underground Distribution Agreement, granting anY necessary easements, and paying the associated fees. Street Lighting installation is available subject to our standard terms and conditions. These are contained in the current City of Shakopee Street Lighting Policy. Applicant must pay the associated fees. Applicant should contact Shakopee Public Utilities directlY for specific requirements relating to their project_ 01 •' C11 TO: Shakopee Community Development Department FROM: Joseph D. Adams, PWMing and Engine Manager SUBJECT: WATER SUPPLY CAPACITY DATE: August 22, 2000 The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission is committed to meeting the growth needs of the community in regards to water supply. The Commission is working with the tifinnesota Departments of Health and Natural Resources to secure the necessary approvals to construct new wells and to pump them to increase our water supply capacity to meet projected demand levels. F Xceiaerg ysm March 27, 2001 City Council City of Shakopee 129 South Holmes St. Shakopee, MN 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 -1993 In reply to: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING to consider a request by American Color Graphics to vacate a portion of the easement at 5101 Valley Industrial Boulevard South To whom it may concern: This is a written response to the City of Shakopee's Notice to hold a public hearing on Tuesday, April 3, 2001 at 7:00 PM to consider a request by American Color Graphics to vacate a portion of the easement at 5101 Valley Industrial Boulevard South in the Heavy Industrial J -2) Zone. Please be advised that NSP needs to retain its electrical interests in the entire vacation area. Sincerely, William Bosley Siting & Land Rights 0 P", 1' ri R. TO: Economic Development Authority FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: EDA Agenda for April 3rd DATE: March 29, 2001 As of Thursday, March 29, 2001, we had not received the information from the Carver HRA, so the EDA agenda will be placed on the table for the April 3 rd meeting. Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:th 1120*9-1#16 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting April 3, 2001 1. Roll Call at 7:00 p.m. 2. Approval of the Agenda 3. Approval of Consent Business - (All items noted by an + are anticipated to be routine. After a discussion by the President, there will be an opportunity for members of the EDA to remove items from the consent agenda for individual discussion. Those items removed will be considered in their normal sequence on the agenda. Those items remaining on the consent agenda will otherwise not be individually discussed and will be enacted in one motion.) A.) + Approval of Minutes: Q qw 1 4. Financial A.) 4 Approval of Bills 5. Small Cities Development Program 0E= I 6. Other Business: cdagenda.doc SHAKOPEE, MR - 4NESOTA January 16, 2001 Members Present: President Amundson, Morke, Sweeney, Link, Brekke Members Absent: None L Roll Call President Amundson called the special meeting of the Economic Development Authority to order at 7:34 p.m. Roll call was taken as noted above. H. ARRroval of Agenda Sweeney/Link moved to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried unanimously. I[L Election of Officers for 2001 There was election of new officers for the year 2001 for the EDA. Commissioner Link nominated Commissioner Morke for President of the EDA Sweeney/Brekke moved that nominations be closed and a unanimous vote be cast for Commissioner Morke as President of the EDA. Motion carried unanimously. Newly elected, President Morke of the EDA chaired the rest of the meeting. Commissioner Sweeney nominated Commissioner Amundson as Vice-President of the EDA- Brekke/Sweeney moved that nominations be closed and an unanimous ballot be cast for Commissioner Amundson as Vice-President of the EDA- Motion carried unanimously. Official Proceedings January 16, 2001 of the Shakopee Economic Development Authority Page 2 treasurer terms do not expire unless the Commission takes specific action to end these positions. Commissioner Sweeney stated the filling of Huber Park took place well before 1995 and the Army Corp of Engineers stopped the filling because they felt future development on a flood plain was not a wise use for City monies. Commissioner Link asked Mr. Loney if something could be done to prevent the erosion. Mr. Loney stated that the City did try to work with the Army Corp of Engineers in trying to stabilize the riverbank. The City of Shakopee has qualified for a grant along with the Army Corp of Engineers; however, there are no funds available at this time for this grant. The City of Shakopee has been put on a waiting list. There has to be a cost benefit ratio, there has to be adequate number of facilities that the City is protecting to receive this grant- Mr. Loney responded to Commissioner Sweeney comment regarding the fill in Huber Park. It was the DNR that shut the City down and the City of Shakopee did do a flood profile study to show that the City of Shakopee was not impacting the river height. The river height was the DNR main concern so they did allow the fill that was already brought into Huber Park to remain there. Commissioners Amundson and Link asked if the City now put buildings down in Huber Park, would this encourage the Army Corp of Engineers to help the City of Shakopee to prevent the erosion of the riverbank at a faster rate. Commissioner Sweeney stated that one of the real problems the City of Shakopee is going to have in getting permits for these buildings is the City's ordinances and the DNR stipulations for construction in a flood plain. Commissioner Sweeney stated that he was reluctant to go along with this request but he would. The reason he was reluctant was he is against consultants. He said he was vehemently against any future studies for Huber Park. Official Proceedings January 16, 2001 of the Shakopee Economic Development Authority Page 3 President Morke was uncertain of the need for an update to the current plan. He would like some feedback on the boat landing moving, the erosion of the riverbank and the change in the topography. Commissioner Amundson thought if an outdoor theater was put in by Vision Shakopee, this theatre might create many new ideas for the use of Huber Park. This is the City's land. She felt it behooved the City to do this theater in the best way for the best possible use of the land. Commissioner Brekke said many questions were being asked and all of these questions need to be answered. We know the 1995 master plan is not what we want. The City needs an update to the Master Plan for Huber Park and he supported the request. Commissioner Link stated he would also support an update to the Master Plan for Huber Park. Scott Lucas, Secretary and Board member for the Vision Shakopee Committee, approached the podium. He felt the looks of the downtown area were important for the City of Shakopee. He showed a graphic of the proposed outdoor theater. Vision Shakopee would like all of the outdoor theater to be funded by donations_ Vision Shakopee is completely behind the outdoor theater concept for Huber Park. Link/Amundson moved to approve $7000 for an updated Master Plan for Huber Park with Brauer and Associates. Motion carried unanimously. V. Other Business There was no other business. VL Adiourn ent Link/Amundson moved to adjourn the meeting to February 6, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 7:58 p.m. Judith S. Cox ` Secretary Carole Hedlund Recording Secretary SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION February 6, 2001 Members resent: President Amundson, Sweeney, Link, Brekke Members Absent: Morke Staff Present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator, Bruce Loney, Public Works Director (7:25); Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; R Michael Leek, Community Development Director, Jun Thomson, City Attorney; Gregg Voxland, Finance Director, Paul Snook, Economic Development Coordinator; Tracy Coenen, Management Assistant, Mary Athmann, Fire Chief and Mark Themig, Recreation and Facilities Director. Roll Call: President Amundson called the meeting to order at 7:22 p.. Roll call was taken as noted above. IL Approval of Agenda- Sweeney/Link moved to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried unanimously. . Financial: A.) Approval of the Bills Brekke/Link moved to approve the bills in the amount of $87.14 for the period 12/29/2000 to 2/01/2001 (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) official proceedings of the February 6, 2001 Shakopee Economic Development Authority Page 2 Commissioner Brekke asked 1W. Snook if this program covered outdoor cellular antennas. Mr. Snook will look into this possibility. Mr. Leek and the antenna provider will work with Mr. Snook if this program is viable for outdoor antennas. Mr. Leek has scheduled a public hearing to severely Unit the height of outdoor antennas. Commissioner Link asked if the boundaries needed to be extended. Mr. Snook explained that it would be better to wait to change the program. Snook is working with the Carver County HRA to get some marketing on this Small Cities Development Program going again. VL Other Business: There was no other business. VM Adjournment: Brekke/Link moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. 4" u ith S. Cox A Secretary Carole Hedlund Recording Secretary , C /1l m ., ' TO: President & Commissioners Mark H. McNeill, Executive Director FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: EDA Bill List DATE: March 29, 2001 Introduction Below is a listing of bills for the EDA for the period 3/02/2001 to 3/29/2001. Action Requested Move to approve bills in the amount of $182.82 for the EDA General Fund. Check Date Check Number Vendor Description Amount 04/01/01 68740 Kennedy /Graven Attorney $ 39.00 04/01/01 68761 Qwest Telephone 19.71 04/01/01 68774 Paul Snook Publication 44.50 Total- $ 103.21 5A rill •L�73.y: �� k, 9 NO TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MEETING DATE: Economic Development Authority Paul Snook, Economic Development Coordinat Small Cities Development Program - update April 3, 2001 Enclosed is the March 2001 update on the Small Cities Development Program (SCDP) from the Carver County HRA. There will be another marketing effort in the month of April. Depending upon the response, staff will again contact the Department of Trade & Economic Development about extension of the grant period and transfer of funds within program categories. In summary, the HRA reports the following application activity: Applications Applications % of Requested /Mailed in Process or Completed Unit Goal Single Family Owner- Occupied Residential (goal. 30 units) 50+ 16 53% Rental Residential (goal. 30 units) 17 6 (15 units) 50% Commercial (goal. 15 units) 13 7 47% TOTAL 80 29 Note: The numbers in parentheses next to the property types listed above indicate the "rehabbed property unit goals" by property type for Shakopee's SCDP program, set by the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development. Small Cities Shakopee Rehab Program All three programs are underway. The single - family rehab program is in the final stages (home inspections, obtaining bids and closing) of processing applications. The commercial and rental portion(s) have had several delays; but are now on a smoother track for processing. The second rental loan closed in February. Bill Schwanke is currently working on inspecting two mixed use (commercial /rental) properties, which should be ready to close in the next thirty - sixty days. One commercial applicant has closed on their SCDP commercial loan. Single - Family Project Rehabilitation Recap on the program To be eligible for the program, the applicant's income must be below 80% of the area median income. The homeowner will be eligible for a 50 to 100% grant depending upon their income. The homeowner would need to provide leverage ranging from 0 to 50 %. The HRA has low- interest loans the homeowner could apply for to use as their leverage requirement. However, if they are not eligible for a leverage source due to poor credit, too many debts, no equity, etc., the leverage requirement will be waived and they will receive a 100% Small Cities grant. The grant is a 0% interest, 10 -year deferred loan. If the homeowner stays in the home for 10 years, they will not have to pay the loan back. The loan is forgiven on a pro -rated basis of 10% per year. For example, if the homeowner moves out 3 years later they would be responsible for paying back to the City 70% of what they borrowed. After their application has been approved, Dave Schaffer, the HRA's Rehab Advisor, will schedule an appointment to inspect the home to determine what improvements can be done. Dave will draw up a work write -up for the homeowner to submit to contractors. It is the responsibility of the homeowner to select the contractor(s). After reasonable bids have been attained, the homeowner will schedule a time to close on the loan with the HRA. The HRA will make the payments to the contractor(s) after the work has been inspected by Dave Schaffer. The HRA will then submit a draw request to the City (to submit to DTED) for reimbursement. Shakopee City Council Update.doc 04/03/01 Single-Family Rehab Summary We have not had much activity as far as new applicants and loan closings since the last update. However, all of the 11 closed applicant's work is under way or completed. People are starting to notice the positive changes going on in their neighborhood. We have sent out 2 additional applications recently because people starting asking their neighbors questions about the improvements they are having done and found out about the program. Furthermore, 3 additional applicants have had troubles securing bids. We have granted these 3 homeowners bid deadline extensions. One of the applicant's home is listed on the Historic Register so she is finding it more difficult to obtain bids from contractors. 6 applicants are no longer eligible for the program due to voluntarily dropping the program, being deemed over - income for the program (we are required to re- verify all income sources every 120 days until closing) or did not submit bids by the extended deadline. The number of inquiries has dramatically slowed due to the onslaught of Winter. Carver County HRA sees this trend with all of the rehab programs we administer. Everyone in the target area received two mailings about the program. However, we will be doing some additional marketing this April to include newspaper releases and flyers. Amount Funded $369,000.00 Amount Committed $151,834.60 (closed on their loans) Amount Allocated $ 79,475.00 (have been approved) Balance Remaining $137,690.40 Applicants that have closed HRA Loan Number. NO NEW APPLICANTS TO REPORT Household Composition: Loan Amount: Gross Income: Improvements: Market Val of the Property. Rental Rehabilitation Protect Shakopee City Council Update.doc 04/03/01 Recap on the program Any rental owner may apply for the program as long as their property is located in the targeted Small Cities Boundary. 51 % of their rental units need to be leased by tenants at or below 80% of Metro Area Median Income, and the rents for all of the units would need to be at or below the Fair Market Rents. If the property is in the targeted area, and both the tenant's income and rent are within the allowable limits a property owner would be eligible for a deferred loan up to $10,000 per unit. A maximum loan amount is currently under advisement with city staff. The owner is required to match these dollars with a 50% match. This is a secured loan, which will be forgiven after seven years. Compliance of rent restriction and tenant characteristics is in force for the full seven years. The loan is forgiven on a pro -rated basis of 14.28% per year. After their application has been approved, Bill Schwanke, the HRA's Rehab Advisor, will schedule an appointment to inspect the rental property to determine what improvements should be incorporated into the scope of work. Bill will draw up a work write -up for the homeowner to submit to contractors. It is the responsibility of the homeowner to select the contractor(s). After reasonable bids have been attained, the property owner will schedule a time to close on the loan with the HRA. The HRA will make the necessary payments to the contractor(s), after Bill Schwanke has inspected the work. The HRA will then submit a draw request to the City (to submit to DTED) for reimbursement Rental Rehab Summary Carver County HRA has had 4 new inquiries regarding the Small Cities Rental Loan Program; 7 rental property owners completed their applications. One of those seven has dropped from the program, due to the fact that the City will be purchasing their property in the near future. The remaining 6 active applicants represent 15 rental units. The second rental loan closed on February 2, 2001. Three of our rental applicants are in the process of obtaining bids from contractors. Bill Schwanke will assist these property owners in their pursuit to obtain competitive bids for their projects. Amount Funded $121,500.00 Amount Committed $ 60,000.00 (closed on their loans) Amount Allocated $ 52,500.00 (have been pre- approved) Balance Remaining $ 9,000.00 Applicants that have closed Once we have closed on a loan, we will submit a summary of that loan to the City Council; eg. owner, address, # of units, dollars borrowed. Attached is an example of what the summary will entail: Shakopee City Council Update.doc 04103/01 HRA Loan Number: 57R -00 -02 Loan Amount. $37,500.00 Number of Rental Units: 8 total units, 5 have SCDP Funds Monthly Rent. 5 @ $600.00 Improvements: Complete rehab and upgrade of mechanical systems and improvements to windows, walls and ceilings. Market Value of the Property: $340,000.00 Commercial Rehabilitation Project Recap on the Program Any commercial property owner may apply for the program as long as their property is located in the targeted Small Cities Boundary. Note: this boundary is the small area located in the core downtown area of the bigger Small Cities targeted area. Priority is given to owner occupied structures or where leases are currently in place. Building improvements must be directed toward correcting defects or deficiencies in the property affecting the aesthetics or the property safety, energy consumption, structural /mechanical systems, habitability or handicapped accessibility of the property. Owners are eligible for 50% of the total commercial repair costs, with a maximum loan up to $25,000. The loan is a deferred loan for seven years; which is pro -rated in case of sale. Shakopee City Council Update.doc 04/03/01 Commercial Rehab Summary Currently Carver County HRA has received 1 new inquiries; this is in addition to the original 12 from our initial marketing of the program. Out of those inquiries five have completed their applications. Our first commercial loan closed on Two of those five is currently working with our rehab specialist to obtain bids and close on their loan. Two of the commercial applicants own mixed use buildings; both their rental and commercial application have been reviewed and are being scheduled for inspection. We are waiting on Historical Clearance from the State of Minnesota Historical Society; once we have received that we will be scheduling our initial inspection. Amount Funded $251,250.00 Amount Committed $ 7,250.00 (closed on their loans) Amount Allocated $0.00 (have been approved) Balance Remaining $244,000.00 Applicants that have closed Once we have closed on a loan, we will submit a summary of that loan to the City Council; eg. owner, address, # of units, dollars borrowed. Attached is an example of what the summary will entail: HRA Loan Number. -01 -01 Loan Amount. $7,250.00 Gross Income: $14 „500.00 Improvements: New EPDM Flat Roof Market Value of the Property. $125,000.00 Shakopee City Council Update.doc 04/03/01 /</.)g, 1 0 TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat of ACC Addition MEETING DATE: April 3, 2001 APPLICATION DATE: Received February 8, 2001 I 1711 Associated Capital proposes the creation of 26 single - family detached lots and one outlot. The proposed plat is a part of larger plans contemplated by the applicant, which plans are illustrated in the attachment to the Project Description. A copy of the memorandum provided to the Planning Commission for its March 8, 2001 review is attached for the Council's information. Alternatives: 1. Offer and pass the accompanying resolution approving the preliminary plat of A.C.C. ADDITION subject to the following proposed conditions: The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of the preliminary plat: A. Approval of title by the City Attorney. B. Delete the signature block for the Planning Commission Chairperson. C. Execution of a Developers Agreement which shall include provisions for 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 sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. 5. The developer shall be responsible for payment of engineering review fees, and other fees as required by the City's adopted Fee Schedule. 6. The applicants have submitted a request to have park dedication fees deferred until the time of issuance of building permits. If deferred, the fees due will be those found in the most recently adopted City Fee Schedule. D. Final Construction Plans and Specifications must conform to City requirements and are subject to approval by City Engineer. Such plans as they relate to water or electricity are subject to the approval of the SPUC Utilities Manager. M. Following approval and recording of the preliminary 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. Further development to the south will not be permitted without a second access to the development project. 2. Approve preliminary plat of A.C.C. ADDITION subject to revised conditions. 3. Deny the proposed preliminary plat of A.C.C. ADDITION. 4. Table a decision in order to allow time for the applicant and/or staff to provide additional information. Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed preliminary plat on March 8, 2001. It recommended approval of the preliminary plat unanimously subject to the recommended conditions, as well as an added condition that the alignment of the street to the south be changed to meet the future alignment of Valley View Road extension. The attached area plat demonstrates that the applicants have made the required change, and will be carrying that forward to the final plat application. Action Requested: Offer a motion to approve the preliminary plat of A.C.C. ADDITION subject to the conditions outlined in Alternative No. 1. w R Michael Leek Community Development Director gAcc\2001 \0403 \ppACCADDN.doc 2 1 1 1 :1 11'x! 1 1 1R. 1 :1 1 11 / I 1 1 WN 1 WHEAUA Associated Capital Corporation, applicant and Betaseed, property owners have made application for preliminary plat approval of ACC Addition; and VVIBEREA the subject properties are legally described as follows; WHEREA the Shakopee Planning Commission held a public hearing on the preliminary plat on March 8, 2001; and V;HEREA all required public notices regarding the public hearing were posted and sent; and WHEREA the Shakopee Planning Commission has recommended approval subject to the conditions listed below, and VVIFIEREA the City Council reviewed the preliminary plat request at its meeting of April 3, 01 1 N OW , THEREFORE RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF :1 CITY OF SHAKOPEE, NMXNESOTA, as follows: That the final plat of ACC ADDMON is approved subject to the following conditions; I. The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of the preliminary plat: A. Approval of title by the City Attomey. B. Delete the signature block for the Planning Commission Chairperson. C. Execution of a Developers Agreement which shall include provisions for 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 sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. 3 5. The developer shall be responsible for payment of engineering review fees, and other fees as required by the City's adopted Fee Schedule. 111. 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. Further development to the south will not be permitted without a second access to the development project. THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that approval of the preliminary plat of ACC ADDITION does not constitute a representation or guarantee by the City of Shakopee as to the amount, sufficiency or level of water service that will be available to lots within the plat as they are developed. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the day of , 8001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee I:VW -M W Ei Mem T: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat of ACC Addition XIEETING DATE: April 3, 2001 APPLICATION DATE: Received February 8, 2001 Introduction: Associated Capital proposes the creation of 26 single- family detached lots and one outlot. The proposed plat is a part of larger plans contemplated by the applicant, which plans are illustrated in the attachment to the Project Description. A copy of the memorandum provided to the Planning Commission for its March 8, 2001 review is attached for the Council's information. Alternatives: 1. Offer and pass the accompanying resolution approving the preliminary plat of A.C.C. ADDITION subject to the following proposed conditions: L The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of the preliminary plat: A. Approval of title by the City Attorney. B. Delete the signature block for the Planning Commission Chairperson. C. Execution of a Developers Agreement which shall include provisions for 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 sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. 5. The developer shall be responsible for payment of engineering review fees, and other fees as required by the City's adopted Fee Schedule. 6. The applicants have submitted a request to have park dedication fees deferred until the time of issuance of building permits. If deferred, the fees due will be those found in the most recently adopted City Fee Schedule. D. Final Construction Plans and Specifications must conform to City requirements and are subject to approval by City Engineer. Such plans as they relate to water or electricity are subject to the approval of the SPUC Utilities Manager. 2. Approve preliminary plat of A.C.C. ADDITION subject to revised conditions. 3. Deny the proposed preliminary plat of A.C.C. ADDITION. 4. Table a decision in order to allow time for the applicant and/or staff to provide additional information. Action Requested: Offer a motion to approve the preliminary plat of A.C.C. ADDITION subject to the conditions outlined in Alternative No. 1. R. Michael Leek Community Development Director gAcc\2001 \0403 \ppACCADDN.doc K Elm IR :, :. I MIT I :1 WHEREAS, Associated Capital Corporation, applicant and Betaseed, property owners have made application for preliminary plat approval of ACC Addition; and WHEREAS, the subject properties are legally described as follows; WHEREAS, the Shakopee Planning Commission held a public hearing on the preliminary plat on March 8, 2001; and WHEREAS, all required public notices regarding the public hearing were posted and sent; and WHEREAS, the Shakopee Planning Commission has recommended approval subject to the conditions listed below; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the preliminary plat request at its meeting of April 3, 2001. THEREFORE, BE 1 BY THE I OF :1 OF SHAKOPEE, 11 • That the final plat of ACC ADDITION is approved subject to the following conditions; 3 5. The developer shall be responsible for payment of engineering review fees, and other fees as required by the City's adopted Fee Schedule. H. 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. Further development to the south will not be permitted without a second access to the development project. THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that approval of the preliminary plat of ACC ADDITION does not constitute a representation or guarantee by the City of Shakopee as to the amount, sufficiency or level of water service that will be available to lots within the plat as they are developed. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the day of , 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee 0 N a� a. U p rn J � � p == �� a W 1 K UVjpO� Z Nf�QJgj 3 crithd 7 O <hNOv K ' ®i E N O In < <p0 Z� 2! m z OO Z.1 ul op O � = �O Cr ya W 1Go ui �i[I f-h ^ a. in Co W O:�D.Mv �Yi I I I � I I O)• 3 Y �� i ❑■ i y o♦ o• I � T �T& • I } i I y$ 1111 rl II a � �1»b,>hinbb7b7tnbin � � o e o W a rvrvry rvrvrvrvrvrvry < n ` bl bf� b1��711731Yi blbf ° 2 44 F p6 p ---------------- 25 >p- �Z ry I a <m� i `oJ p $u qq � o i b z d h no e o w � b �i r•- WA Z m < r Q J W Q 1111Z'69B 67L! /1 Il t \IT\Tt — \X 1 ��.��_" � � `_% \\ = -- ���� �•- _-�gq ^�. i_�^ _i j Y ,� 1 1 l \ \I tl \ t \__ \\ z U) 9'9fB X ��7 \\ 3Nn Q13i�� �_ - y \\ \ \ \ \�-- \\ \ ® W Q \•\ 9W9 x 1 ^, _ \� f/7 3s -4 1 wt�7dwa! X CL W ui CL b'6C9 X I I \� \•\ \` \ \ \\ <� ` l \\ 1 ��1- =<' Ali - V Y'Q`` l h� Q I V ' —. �; 2 0 1 :9D9 x a ! IL m { as t f 9L 7 F I •� p // 'fCB X X d �_ < 1 tibf ��` � � I Q / x I I b s£e x � y d 9'9£9 X / v C'SCB X ' y / �7.uV7AN .W /• r7aro 3Nn s. Q wms ow JO ;�Wnos L•9Ce X \ \ % { •� ' -sc L•bfe X 7 _ BwR to y NO15N31X3 OVOv A3N Ail 14 � 1 I I z I o7 IL 2 1 Z ■ �r == x - L'94e XT t I ^ I i w O'S98 ti s9 LL. lj - ° WizW 5 p b X 1 1 1 N I I I L'Sbe X L L= J ( wl Lea J I m��y LL= JJ LL— .J "`1 - Meg 3T e'sbe x LL= — J k' • \ \\ 1 j N j( fl � 1 p z9ba x 1 L L— _�J LL_ � j l J FF I Xbe r—I = a am Y11 b- V1 --s f /t 3N ev7 p f 7 As It p 1 NSW! O R 5 x al 8 N �Yi I I I � I I O)• 3 Y �� i ❑■ i y o♦ o• I � T �T& • I } i I y$ 1111 rl II a � �1»b,>hinbb7b7tnbin � � o e o W a rvrvry rvrvrvrvrvrvry < n ` bl bf� b1��711731Yi blbf ° 2 44 F p6 p ---------------- 25 >p- �Z ry I a <m� i `oJ p $u qq � o i b z d h no e o w � b �i r•- WA Z m < r Q J W Q 1111Z'69B 67L! /1 Il t \IT\Tt — \X 1 ��.��_" � � `_% \\ = -- ���� �•- _-�gq ^�. i_�^ _i j Y ,� 1 1 l \ \I tl \ t \__ \\ z U) 9'9fB X ��7 \\ 3Nn Q13i�� �_ - y \\ \ \ \ \�-- \\ \ ® W Q \•\ 9W9 x 1 ^, _ \� f/7 3s -4 1 wt�7dwa! X CL W ui CL b'6C9 X I I \� \•\ \` \ \ \\ <� ` l \\ 1 ��1- =<' Ali - V Y'Q`` l h� Q I V ' —. �; 2 0 1 :9D9 x a ! IL m { as t f 9L 7 F I •� p // 'fCB X X d �_ < 1 tibf ��` � � I Q / x I I b s£e x � y d 9'9£9 X / v C'SCB X ' y / �7.uV7AN .W /• r7aro 3Nn s. Q wms ow JO ;�Wnos L•9Ce X \ \ % { •� ' -sc L•bfe X 7 _ BwR to y NO15N31X3 OVOv A3N Ail 14 � 1 I I z I o7 IL 2 1 Z ■ �r == x - L'94e XT t I ^ I i w O'S98 ti s9 LL. lj - ° WizW 5 p b X 1 1 1 N I I I L'Sbe X L L= J ( wl Lea J I m��y LL= JJ LL— .J "`1 - Meg 3T e'sbe x LL= — J k' • \ \\ 1 j N j( fl � 1 p z9ba x 1 L L— _�J LL_ � j l J FF I Xbe r—I = a am Y11 b- V1 --s f /t 3N ev7 p f 7 As It p 1 NSW! O R 5 x ZOcr-t —S F ? s a� �orn J Q � M W 1 " JUa p a< >� w <�� <� r y or w N < z w N 3 N n J O <Maiov �7 V , <m 21 O V K , 0- Z Z 1 a�� vi C CL ir cx F� > a i - N my Um �� Z N U) 10 W lo 1 O > Z < Z V7 o E < I z c 0Yn SCO�,I g n 8L 'O2i '00 S •3AV ONZZ NO ONVIINOO '2110 30VINNVO O 0 ci 0 � ( T — 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 _ r - - - T - F -' Y OOOMIIIh I- — — -I I — I r- / j ./ I T _ _ -i _ Ob 1 — A3llt/A —I ALL w LL 1 Li ui Lij -L-L L -J L 8 - - �- -�- W _ 1_J_L 1 J f FED Y � � lei ® ®a S '3AV H1L L LL- $ O m Z Q 1..L Q LL I.L Q f' L L J J V Z O U Q� F . O O U O W Q Z t— _Z — ®� Q Q ,U CjW� cv ®k-`' ¢ QU 2 O �V) Q o= z o� b= _ U 9 II N � RVa <- � m s h F O CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Consider Feasibility Report Amendment and Consider Ordering Plans and Specifications for C.R. 83 /C.R. 16 Improvement, Project No. 2001 -4 DATE: April 3, 2001 INTRODUCTION: The public hearing for this project was held on March 20, 2001 with City Council providing direction to staff on additional alternatives and proposed additional right -of- way for C.R. 16. These items have been completed and will be presented to the City Council at the April 3, 2001 meeting. Attached is Resolution No. 5501, ordering plans and specifications for C.R. 83 /C.R. 16 improvements, Project No. 2001 -4. BACKGROUND: The public hearing for the above referenced improvement project was held on March 20, 2001 and from this hearing and from Council discussion, two additional items were directed to have further engineering analysis as follows: 1. Realignment of C.R. 16 to 17 Avenue being alternatives labeled 2A and 5A which would connect existing C.R. 16 to the new realigned C.R. 16 2. Investigate the amount of right -of -way that would be needed to provide a new C.R. 16 with a frontage road to existing residents west of McKenna Road. WSB & Associates, Inc. was commissioned to provide additional analysis in the form of an amendment to the feasibility report. Attached to this memo are those amendments showing the analysis for the additional alternatives for realigning C.R. 16, and the additional right -of -way that would be required to provide a frontage road along C.R. 16, from C.R. 83 to McKenna Road. Item No. 1 From this analysis, the realigned C.R. 16 with 17' Avenue and a public street connection from new C.R. 16 to the existing C.R. 16 was shown previously through Valley Green Corporate Center. From this analysis and from previous correspondence, the alternative of future 17 Avenue connecting into a realigned C.R. 16 through the Valley Green Corporate Center was not acceptable to Scott County Highway Department, as this does not provide the east -west continuous movement which will be the main movement in the future. This east -west arterial will be a reliever of traffic south of TH 169 in this area. Alternative 2A, was evaluated to see what would be the best connection of new C.R. 16 to existing C.R. 16 through the Valley Green Corporate Center. The analysis from WSB & Associates shows that in order to meet City Design Standards for percent of grade, the street connection shown in the proposed Valley Green Corporate Center is the best connection. The difference in grade from new C.R. 16 to old C.R. 16 is approximately 45 feet. The connection between new CSAH 16 and existing CSAH 16 west of CSAH 83 in a straight line configuration requires a 11% grade which exceeds the city standard of 7 %. With this steep elevation differential, the connection from new C.R. 16 to old C.R. 16, as shown in the Valley Green Corporate Center site, does appear to be the best alternative for that connection. It should be pointed out that the connection would be a public street and would allow residents to drive through this street to the Valley Green Corporate Center entrance to a controlled traffic control signal, and proceed on existing C.R. 16 as they have done previously. One other item of note is that the proposed signal at new C.R. 16 and C.R. 83 and existing C.R. 16 and C.R. 83 would have emergency vehicle preemption units installed so that emergency vehicle traffic would be able to get through these intersections as quickly as possible. Item No 2 The additional engineering study shows that in order to build a four lane undivided roadway section, with rural ditches as recommended by Scott County, an additional 150 feet of right -of -way would need to be obtained from the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community. The amount of right -of -way is shown on the plan amendment map and this right -of -way is estimated to be approximately 12.93 acres. Staff would like to point out that this would be the designed section that would be preferred in the Scott County Transportation Plan. Meetings and negotiations would need to take place between the County, SMSC and the City in order to facilitate this acquisition. The current feasibility report does show approximately 1/3 of an acre needed to construct the realignment of C.R. 16 to 17 Avenue. The additional right -of -way acquisition that is being shown by this additional analysis is beyond the scope of this project. Staff would recommend that the City Council urge Scott County to begin right -of -way negotiations or proceedings in order to obtain the right -of -way for future reconstruction of C.R. 16 in this area. The right of way acquisition needed for the CSAH 83 /CSAH 16 project should be acquired separately since these areas have different timelines for when the right of way is needed and would be the preferred approach of the County Engineer. The City Attorney will address the right of way acquisition process with the SMSC property at the meeting. Since the public hearing other items from residents have been brought to staff's attention as follows: • Should the public improvement project for C.R. 83 /C.R. 16 be ordered without having the drainage system fully identified and approved? • Should the city order the improvement project without having all of the right of way for CSAH 16 from CSAH 83 to McKenna Road? Within the feasibility report, there were three alternatives to provide a storm drainage system for the area south of C.R. 83. In the city's Stormwater Management Plan, the drainage channel was proposed to the east of C.R. 83 and Valley View Road through the SMSC property using an existing drainage channel to the Prior Lake outlet channel. However, this channel is mostly on SMSC's land and there is a fair amount of difficulty and uncertainty in constructing this improved channel and whether or not the SMSC would participate in the cost of improving this drainage system. Staff did show two other alternatives, with either being a large pipe that would be routed to the K -Mart linear pond and the other alternative would be a large pipe routing the stormwater to the west side of Dean Lake. At this time staff would propose that the larger pipe of Alternative No.l, which is a large pipe to the K -Mart linear pond, be constructed along C.R. 83 in order to provide the flexibility for the City in determining the final route of storm water drainage in this area. The cost of providing this Storm Water Trunk pipe along C.R. 83 in the project limits is approximately $892,000 and would be paid out of the Storm Drainage Trunk Funds. It should be noted that by proceeding in this fashion, this allows the City time to resolve the issue of stormwater drainage and the final routing of this system. Staff will make a presentation of the alternatives at the meeting. On the right of way issue, the preferred approach from the County in obtaining right of way beyond the project limits of the proposed CSAH 83 /CSAH 16 project is for the County to begin right of way acquisition negotiations with the SMSC and finalizing the ultimate design and right of way needs in this segment. The County would assist the City in obtaining right of way for the CSAH 83 /CSAH 16 project. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 5501, a resolution ordering the improvement and the preparation of plans and specifications of County State Aid Highway 83, from 12' Avenue to 1870 feet south of the existing intersection of County State Aid Highway 16; and for County State Aid Highway 16, from 850 feet west of County State Aid Highway 83 to 1500 feet east of County State Aid Highway 83. 2. Deny Resolution No. 5502. This action will halt the project until such time as the City Council reconsiders the resolution. 3. Table Resolution No. 5502, to allow time for staff to prepare additional information and/or revise the feasibility report as directed by City Council. 4. Authorize staff to obtain appraisals for right -of -way acquisition. 5. Authorize staff to execute an extension agreement with WSB & Associates, Inc. for survey, preparation of easements and design engineering services as necessary for this prof ect. 6. Provide staff direction on further right of way acquisition on CSAH 16 and preparation of a Memo of Understanding with Scott County. RECOMMENDATION: If Council desires to proceed with this project at this time, then Resolution No. 5502 needs to be adopted, a resolution ordering the improvement and preparing plans and specifications of County State Aid Highway 83, from 12 Avenue to 1870 feet south of the existing intersection of County State Aid Highway 16; and for County State Aid Highway 16, from 850 feet west of County State Aid Highway 83 to 1500 feet east of County State Aid Highway 83, Project No. 2001 -4. If the City Council does not wish to pursue this project, then the appropriate action would be to move the approval of Resolution No. 5502 and vote against the motion. If Council wants more information on the project and/or amends the feasibility report or assessment procedures, then Alternative No. 3 is recommended. If a project were ordered, staff would also then recommend Alternatives No. 4 and 5 for obtaining appraisals on the proposed right of way acquisition. Also for the city to execute an extension agreement with WSB & Associates, Inc for design engineering services as necessary for this project. Also, Council should provide staff direction on obtaining further right of way east of the project area on CSAH 16 to McKenna Road and preparation of a Memo of Understanding with the County on Jurisdictional transfer of CSAH 16 west of CSAH 83 and 17 Avenue from CR 79 to CSAH 83. ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Offer Resolution No. 5502, A Resolution Ordering an Improvement and the Preparation of Plans and Specifications of County State Aid Highway 83, from 12 Avenue to 1870 feet south of the existing intersection of County State Aid Highway 16; and for County State Aid Highway 16, from 850 feet west of County State Aid Highway 83 to 1500 feet east of County State Aid Highway 83, Project No. 2001 -4, and move its adoption. 2. Authorize staff to obtain appraisals for right -of -way acquisition. 3. Authorize staff to execute an extension agreement with WSB & Associates, Inc. for survey, preparation of easements and design engineering services as necessary for this proj ect. 4. Provide staff direction on further right of way acquisition on CSAH 16 from the east project limit to McKenna Road and the preparation of a Memo of Understanding with Scott County on the jurisdictional transfer of CSAH 16 and 17 Avenue. Bruce Lone Public Works Director BI/p-p MEM5501 Res olutio n WHEREAS, Resolution No. 5474 adopted on February 20, 2001, fixed a date for Council hearing on the proposed improvement of 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 by 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 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 March, 2001, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKO PEE, MINNESO 1. That the improvement is necessary, cost effective and feasible and is ordered as hereinafter described: Improvement of County State Aid Highway 83, from 12 Avenue to Y2 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 by installation of sanitary sewer, watermam, storm sewer, street reconstruction, turn lanes, concrete median, concrete curb & gutter, traffic control signals, concrete sidewalk, bituminous trail and any 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 -4 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 three years from the date of adoption of this resolution. 5. The City and 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 WSB & Associates, Inc. 4150 Olson Memorial Highway Suite 300 Minneapolis` Minnesota 55422 763.541.4800 763.541.1700 FAX To: Bruce Loney, P E., Public Works Director City of Shakopee From: Charles Rickart, P.E. Transportation Engineer Date: April 3, 2001 Re: CSAH 16 Future Right -of -Way Needs Introduction The City Council at their March 20, 2001 meeting directed staff to review the future right -of- way needs for the proposed frontage road concept plan on CSAH 16 between Corporate Center Drive and McKenna Road. The purpose of this memorandum is to address the preliminary right -of -way needs for this section CSAH 16. Alternatives Several alternatives could be constructed through this section to accommodate future traffic needs. The County has indicated that, with the projected traffic volumes for this section of roadway, a four -lane facility of some type will be required. The alternatives could range from the following: 1. Four lane, undivided rural section, without turn lanes 2. Four lane, undivided urban section, without turn lanes 3. Four lane, undivided rural section, with turn lanes 4. Four lane, undivided urban section, with turn lanes 5. Four lane, divided rural section, without turn lanes 6. Four lane, divided urban section, without turn lanes 7. Four lane, divided rural section, with turn lanes 8. Four lane, divided urban section, with turn lanes The amount of right -of -way required for each of these alternatives would range from a minimum of the existing 66 feet (four lane, undivided urban section without turn lanes) to 150 feet (four lane, divided rural section with turn lanes). These alternatives were discussed with Scott County and it was determined that the worst case scenario should be assumed at this time. The attached Figure 1 illustrates the typical section for a frontage road with a four lane, divided rural section with turn lanes. Also attached as Figure 2 is a concept plan showing the proposed frontage road and CSAH 16 layout. In addition to the roadway cross section alternatives discussed above, alternatives without the proposed frontage road could be constructed. This could include: Minneapolis - St. Cloud Equal Opportunity Employer Bruce Loney, P.E. City of Shakopee April 3, 2001 Page 2 1) Acquiring the property on the north side of CSAH 16 and widening the roadway to the north, holding the existing south right -of -way line; 2) Constructing a four lane, undivided urban roadway without turn lanes within the existing 66 -foot right -of -way. The above alternatives should be studied in greater detail as part of a corridor study proposed by Scott County. This corridor study would be completed in cooperation with the City of Shakopee and should include input from the local residents along the corridor. R&ht - -of -Way Requirements Based on the assumption of a 150 -foot additional right -of -way, the following right -of -way needs are required. Right -of -Way PED Number Owner Required (Acres) 27- 916001 -0 Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux 2.44 27- 915005 -0 Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux 9.36 Total Area 11.80 Assuming right -of -way acquisition costs of $25,000 per acre for permanent right -of -way, the total estimated right -of -way costs would be approximately $295,000. Figure 3 illustrates the right -of -way requirements. Conclusion The future CSAH 16 right -of -way needs between Corporate Center Drive and McKenna Road would be 11.80 acres to accommodate a future four lane, divided facility with a rural section. As part of the CSAH 83 and CSAH 16 improvement project, .33 acres will be acquired from the Mdewakanton Sioux property. Based on these conclusions, the following recommendations are made. 1. Begin acquiring additional right -of -way to accommodate the future roadway needs, not just the short-term needs. 2. Work with Scott County and adjacent property owners in the short term to determine what the ultimate roadway cross section should be for this corridor. 3. Work with Scott County on a corridor study of CSAH 16 from CSAH 69 to CSAH 18. 4. Work with Scott County in the long term to develop a schedule and cost participation agreement for the future improvements to CSAH 16. nm FAWPWIN\1281 -00 \040301 bl.doc U . LL 0 O m N Q z � rII V ill V S L N Qi o N ci Z d �o d m O U � N � � ramie s O1 /L) 1 Q LL �/l {�Q N U N O y O N c � O O O �n L LLI ��. O O O ID c O U N ' ^ ® U Q� M t C N N en LL � 3 � N M Q p N W 7 OO Q >ON N O N 0 0 ¢ TIZ Ch IA U) W n n h x O Q d LL N m C G � N Q O N O O Q U Z � 3 N � y X O W h U . LL 0 O m 1 Ill I( _ V J Legend f ;\'� 7 0:7 _ _ I I Roadway S ' ' Raised Medians, Curbs . iox ii �� ■� I I Ponding Areas & Channel Changes 11 a f°b `� \N NQVil p \ Vi\ �' �i\�l �■ zoo 400 4 r9tv, G g ° I s /,, 0 \ G3 \\ °i N 1 _ ---- -- - - -- - _ - --_ - SCOTT 1 e 1 • COUNTY ROAD NO.16 16 - _ . coon \ \ REALIGNMENT � ' J P •. � . 1 LI fi . �� j .,.... g I . . , ; N, \ \ N ( ! ■ 5 rm. it I ii�` \c +1 1 r 0 um 'N ' ' N s i I N AIN, t . .. 0 I N.,,,,,. ' - -A , N - 'N )0 Or • : t.4/. ,=-1.-4 i t. • I I \ N. 1411 . !I �' SAC i 11 ....,....,.:-. , . ii , 4 . I *k. L o iss fill i Eff / -,,,. "-.... , .-, .....„‘. ---„, 4 ort 1. iv, „rpra 1 arg - ------, "It. it 1 ,14:roncomi r ,... P- . - -, .. --- , .._ ■•• 4 114 : , a . 1 it .4* ... 1 0 .. COUNTY .I \�j CUL DE SAC - 4150 Olson Memo al Highway F EA S I B 1 L 1 T V R E PORT WSB Project No. 1281 -002 Date. March 2001 Suite 300 S 'S Minneapolis, MN 55422 763-541 -4800 CSAH 83 / CSAH 16 Improvements & Associates, Inc. FAX 763-541-1700 Figure 2 I NFRASTRUCTURE • ENGINEERS • PLANNERS City of Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota t \1281 002 \Feos \ Alternates \csah16 -roll.dgn • X I 11 (C �P II I I I d� 1 ° �A / // po�� / ! i / o _- � \ — // _ _ o zoo 400 scoci �. \, 4 COUNTY _ _■■- - ....' _ II I COUNTY ROAD NO.16 REALIGNMENT ~ � H 62' from SB c, ‘N,:,, . N N N , pir N. N ,,, N ,,,,,,_ ...„.„ .,.,..., z ,,, ,_„....., , __,..,___,_„,_, _,1/4,.. _ \ Nikli --..„_ _� x44 EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY 407,506 sq ft - RIGHT OF WAY TO BE ACQUIRED /DEDICATED 150' ADDITIONAL ROW TO � ----...„ TEMPORARY EASE TO BE ACQUIRED /DEDICATED BE ACQUIRED CSAH 83 / CSAH 16 RIGHT OF WAY MAP WSB Project No. 1281 -002 Date: March 2001 - 4150 Olson Memorial Highway F EA S I Ell L I T Y R E P O R T Suite 3D0 WSB Minneapolis, MN 55422 763-541 -4800 CSAH 83 / CSAH 16 Improvements & Associates, Inc . FAX 763 - 541 -1700 Figure 3 INFRASTRUCTURE • ENGINEERS • PLANNERS City of Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota U \1281-002 \Fens \ Alternates \ fig - 03 .dgn h C P . 200 CITY OF ;,I' .Iiff� l l City of Shakopee Feasibility Report Amendment CSAH 83 / CSAH 16 Reconstruction WSB Project No. 1281 -00 WSB C/1i' � llii�C4/fI�CI)�I Charles T. Rickart, P.E. Date: April 3, 2001 Reg. No. 26082 I7VVT RO DU CT IO N ..................................................................... ............................... Page 1 II BACKGRO UAD .......................................................................... ............................... Page 1 III PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS .............................................. ............................... Page 2 IVASSESSMENTS ........................................................................ ............................... Page 3 VPROJECT COST ....................................................................... ............................... Page 3 VISCHEDULE ............................................................................... ............................... Page S VII CONCLUSIONS AND RECO"EADA TIONS :.................... ............................... Page S City of Shakopee Feasibility Report Amendment CSAH 83 / CSAH 16 Reconstruction WSB Project No. 1281 -00 WSB The City Council, at their March 20, 2001 meeting, directed Staff to amend the Feasibility Report for the CSAH 83 /CSAH 16 improvements, dated February 20, 2001, the amendment includes an analysis of two additional roadway alignment concepts. In addition, this amended feasibility report will update the total project cost associated with the trunk storm sewer for the project. The February 20, 2001 Feasibility Report evaluated five alternatives for the realignment of CSAH 16. Those alternatives were: a Alternative 1: Leave CSAH 16 as is. ® Alternative 2: Realignment of CSAH 16 with future 17"' Avenue, north of the mine. ® Alternative 3: Realign 17`' Avenue south of the mine and realign CSAH 16 from approximately McKenna Road to CSAH 83. ® Alternative 4: Realign 17 Avenue through - the existing mine area and realign CSAH 16. ® Alternative 5: Realign CSAH 16 through the Valley Green Corporate Center site. Following discussions at the public hearing on March 20, 2001, City Council requested that two additional alternative variations be analyzed. Each is discussed below: Alternative 2A : Realignment of CSAH 16 with future Ir Avenue north of the mine with a revised Corporate Center Drive connection between CSAII 16 and CSAH 83. The CSAH 16 realignment portion of this alternative would not change from the original Alternative 2. The current configuration of the Corporate Center Drive roadway between CSAH 16 and CSAH 83 is a curvaliner route. However, it does meet a 30 MPH design speed. Alternative 2A would reconfigure Corporate Center Drive to be more "user friendly" between CSAH 16 and CSAH 83. This would require shifting the alignment of Corporate Center Drive to the east, creating a straighter, less curvaliner route. The design of such an alternative created both excessive grades and excessive fill sections through the Corporate Center site. The attached Figure 1 illustrates this alternative. The pros and cons for this alternative include: Pros Cons ® Provides a more direct route to downtown e Greater than 11 % grade on the Shakopee. roadway. • Creates more of a city street feel for the • Requires significant fill for the roadway. roadway. e Restricts potential developable land. e Limits access from the roadway.. City of Shakopee Page 1 Feasibility Report Amendment CSAH 83 / CSAH 16 Reconstruction WSB Project No. I28I -00 WSB ���.� Alternative 5A : R ealigning CSAH 16 through the Valley Green Corporate Center site with a collector road connection from the proposed 17 Avenue extension to CS 16. This alternative would follow the same realignment as Alternative 5 in the feasibility report. This would include realigning CSAH 16 through the Valley Green Corporate Center site. The revision is to add a connecting collector road to the proposed 17' Avenue extension. The proposed realignment would require the taking of additional right -of -way east of Valley Green Corporate Center on the north side of CSAH 16. In addition, the grade on this roadway would be greater than 5% to traverse the bluff line. This is an acceptable slope, but not desirable. In order to meet this grade, significant fill sections would be required. This will limit access to the adjacent property. As discussed in the original Feasibility Report, the fixture primary movement of traffic will be east -west along the 17` Avenue extension. This alternative would require vehicles to make a turn to follow that primary movement. Scott County has indicated that they are not in favor of an alternative that would create the need for a turn of the primary movement of traffic. The attached Figure 2 shows a proposed alternative. The pros and cons for this alternative include: Pros • Provides a direct route for traffic to downtown Shakopee Cons • Requires extensive grading for the new alignment • Limits access to adjacent property • Additional right -of -way requirements • Requires a turn to follow the primary traffic movement • County does not support alternative. 1. Realignment Alternatives Based on the analysis of the additional alternative discussed above, it is recommended that the improvements (Alternative 2) as outlined in the original feasibility report be implemented. 2. Storm Sewer The original feasibility report outlined three alternatives for trunk storm sewer service to the southwestern portion of the City of Shakopee. These alternatives included the following: 1. Trunk storm sewer conveyance along CSAH 83 to the Kmart Linear Pond. 2. Trunk storm sewer conveyance along CSAH 83 to Dean's Lake. 3. Trunk storm sewer conveyance through an open channel system east of CSAH 83 through the Shakopee- Mdewakanton Sioux property. City of Shakopee Page 2 Feasibility Report Amendment CSAH 83 / CSAH 16 Reconstruction WSB Project No. 1281 -00 WSB The oversizing cost for each of these systems was over - estimated in the original feasibility report. The original cost included double counting of the trunk storm sewer system and the right -of -way (roadway) storm sewer system in the project corridor. In addition, the estimate under- estimated the cost for the rock excavation for these alternatives. As a result, the total oversizing cost for each alternative is as follows: CSAH 831CSAH 16 Costs VGCC & Trunk Roadway Mine Trunk Outside Total Drainage Oversizing Oversizing Project Project Alternative 1 $585,000 $201,000 $892,000 $1,255,000 $2,933,000 Altemative2 $585,000 $201,000 $1,043,000 $1,804,000 $3,633,000 Alternative 3 $585,000 $201,000 $0 $2,369,991 $3,155,991 The tables outlining the total project costs for each alternative, as well as the increment of the proj ect costs within the CSAH 83 / CSAH 16 project are attached as Exhibits E -1 through E -3. The recommendation in the original feasibility report was to proceed with Alternative 3. This is still the best alternative for the conveyance of storm water. No additional oversizing for Alternative 3 would be required as part of the CSAH 16 /CSAH 83 project. However, should an agreement with the Mdewakanton Sioux not be reached, Alternative 1 will provide the trunk storm sewer system needed to serve the southern portion of Shakopee. The costs in the feasibility report assume a worst case by using the Alternative 1 costs. UI L The assessments, as outlined in the original feasibility report, were updated to include the revisions to the trunk storm sewer costs. The attached table H -1 illustrates the revised assessments. The total project costs for the City, as outlined in the original feasibility report will not change as a result of this amendment. However, the trunk storm sewer oversizing costs in the original feasibility report included double counting of some quantities and an under- estimation of rock excavation costs. The revised tables below summarize the new total project costs and City cost breakdown. City of Shakopee Page 3 Feasibility Report Amendment CSAH 83 / CSAH 16 Reconstruction WSB Project No. 1281 -00 WSB Project Cost Summary (1) 25% Indirect Costs (2) 8% of Signal Cost for Engineering (3) 25% Indirect Costs of Assessable Cost plus Remaining Portion of County's Indirect Costs (4) Includes 10% Contingencies and 25% Indirect Costs. City Cost Breakdown (including 10% contingencies and 25% indirect costs) Storm Sewer Cost $292,648.00 Traffic Signal Costs $51,563.00 Trail Costs $117,562.00 Curb & Gutter Costs $40,700.00 Trunk Sanitary Sewer Oversizing $358,763.00 Trunk Storm Sewer Oversizing $892,000.00 Total City Cost $1,753,236.00 City of Shakopee Page 4 Feasibility Report Amendment CSAH 83 / CSAH 16 Reconstruction WSB Project No. 1281 -00 City Cost SPUC Cost County Cost Assessable Co Total Cost Construction Cost $365,435.00 $898,280.00 $2,091,407.60 $3,355,122.60 10% Contingency $36,543.50 $89,828.00 $209,140.80 $335,512.30 Subtotal $401,978.50 $988,108.00 $2,300,548.40 $3,690,634.90 25% Indirect Costs c1 $100,494.50 cz) $9,000.00 (3) $813,164.10 $922,658.60 Total Construction Cost $502,473.00 $997,108.00 $3,113,712.50 $4,613,293.50 Trunk Sanitary Sewer (4) $358,763.00 $358,763.00 Oversizing Trunk Storm Sewer (4) $892,000.00 $892,000.00 Oversizing Right -of -Way $62,550.00 $62,550.00 Valley Green Storm (4) $60,000.00 $60,000.00 Sewer Oversizing Mine Storm Sewer Extra (4) $141,000.00 $141,000.00 Depth Watermain (4) $72,336.00 (4) $336,369.00 $408,705.00 Total Project Costs $1,753,236.00 $72,336.50 $1,059,658.00 $3,651,081.50 $6,536,312.00 (1) 25% Indirect Costs (2) 8% of Signal Cost for Engineering (3) 25% Indirect Costs of Assessable Cost plus Remaining Portion of County's Indirect Costs (4) Includes 10% Contingencies and 25% Indirect Costs. City Cost Breakdown (including 10% contingencies and 25% indirect costs) Storm Sewer Cost $292,648.00 Traffic Signal Costs $51,563.00 Trail Costs $117,562.00 Curb & Gutter Costs $40,700.00 Trunk Sanitary Sewer Oversizing $358,763.00 Trunk Storm Sewer Oversizing $892,000.00 Total City Cost $1,753,236.00 City of Shakopee Page 4 Feasibility Report Amendment CSAH 83 / CSAH 16 Reconstruction WSB Project No. 1281 -00 The project schedule, as outlined in the original feasibility report, will not change as a result of this amendment. This amendment to the feasibility report discusses additional alternatives for the proposed CSAH 83 /CSAH 16 improvements and revisions to the trunk storm sewer costs and assessments. Based on this additional analysis, no changes in the original recommendations are proposed. It is the recommendation of WSB & Associates, Inc. that the project, as outlined in the original feasibility report and as amended in this document, is feasible, necessary, and cost effective from an engineering standpoint. We recommend construction of the proposed improvements as detailed in this report. City of Shakopee Page 5 Feasibility Report Amendment CSAH 83 / CSAH 16 Reconstruction WSB Project No. 1281 -00 WSB Table H -1 Proposed Assessments (Revised 04/03/01) CSAH 83 / CSAH 16 Improvements Assessment Costs Owner P.I.D. # Roadway Storm Sewer Watermain Total William B. & Jeanette Otting 11640 275 St E 27- 909006 -0 $1,992.00 $0.00 $11,907.00 $13,899.00 Lakeville MN 55044 Myron C. Webster 3950 Eagle Creek Blvd 27- 90905 -0 $6,972.00 $0.00 $41,674.00 $48,646.00 Shakopee MN 55379 Shakopee Area Catholic Schools 305 Scott St. S 27- 916002 -0 $13,446.00 $0.00 $80,371.00 $93,817.00 Shakopee MN 55379 Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Finance Dept 2 7- 916001 -0 $5,976.00 $0.00 $35,721.00 $41,697.00 2330 Sioux-Trail NW Prior Lake MN 55372 NBZ Enterprizes c/o Shakopee Gravel 27- 916010 -0 $0.00 $141,000.00 $0.00 $141,000.00 1650 CR 83 PO Box 690 Shakopee MN 55379 Valley Green Industrial Park 5240 Industrial Blvd 27- 264002 -0 $86,389.00 $0.00 $0.00 $86,389.00 Shakopee MN 55379 Valley Green Industrial Park 5240 Industrial Blvd 27- 042001 -0 $209,802.20 $0.00 $0.00 $209,802.20 Shakopee MN 55379 Valley Green Industrial Park 5240 Industrial Blvd 27- 909011 -0 $364,068.60 $60,000.00 $154,789.00 $578,857.60 Shakopee MN 55379 Valley Green Industrial Park 5240 Industrial Blvd 27- 909008 -0 $296,191.40 $0.00 $0.00 $296,191.40 Shakopee MN 55379 Valley Green Industrial Park 5240 Industrial Blvd 27- 909010 -0 $9,256.00 $0.00 $11,907.00 $21,163.00 Shakopee MN 55379 Valley Green Industrial Park 5240 Industrial Blvd 27- 909009 -0 $376,409.80 $0.00 $0.00 $376,409.80 Shakopee MN 55379 Valley Green Industrial Park 5240 Industrial Blvd 27- 909060 -0 $1,743,209.50 $0.00 $0.00 $1,743,209.50 Shakopee MN 55379 Total Costs $3,113,712.50 $201,000.00 $336,369.00 $3,651,081.50 City of Shakopee Page 6 Feasibility Report Amendment CSAH 83 / CSAH 16 Reconstruction WSB Project No. 1281 -00 W &.,—da-.h� TABLE E -1 City of Shakopee, MN C.S.A.H. 83/16 Feasibility *Cost Within Study Limits (From Hwy 169 to 17th Ave.) 51,220,112.00 +10% Contingencies: $122,011.20 CSAH 83 Storm Sewer $1,342,123.20 +25% Indirect Costs: $335,530.80 CY Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost 1 Remove RC Sewer Pipe (All Sizes) 580 LF $7.00 $4,060.00 2 Remove CM Sewer Pipe (All Sizes) 146 LF $5.00 $730.00 3 Remove RC Pipe Apron (All Sizes) 10 EA $75.00 $750.00 4 Remove CM Pipe Apron (All Sizes) 6 EA $50.00 $300.00 5 36" RC Pipe Apron w/ Trash Guard 6 EA $2,000.00 $12,000.00 6 72" RC Pipe Apron w/ Trash Guard 1 EA $4,500.00 $4,500.00 7 4'X 8' Concrete Box Culvert 40 LF $380.00 $15,200.00 8 4' X 8' Concrete Box Apron 2 EA $3,000.00 $6,000.00 9 12" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 3006 Cl. V 1,520 LF $20.00 $30,400.00 10 15" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 3006 Cl. V 814 LF $22.00 $17,908.00 11 18" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 3006 Cl. II 222 LF $25.00 $5,550.00 12 21" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 3006 C1.11 200 LF $28.00 $5,600.00 13 21" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 3006 Cl. III 160 LF $30.00 $4,800.00 14 24" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 3006 Cl. II 380 LF $32.00 $12,160.00 15 24" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 3006 Cl. III 290 LF $35.00 $10,150.00 16 24" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 3006 Cl. IV 236 LF $40.00 $9,440.00 17 60" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 3006 Cl. II 706 LF $140.00 $98,840.00 18 60" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 3006 Cl. IV 767 LF $180.00 $138,060.00 19 60" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 3006 Cl. IV ( >10') 464 LF $188.50 $87,464.00 20 60" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 3006 Cl. V ( >10') 260 LF $237.50 $61,750.00 21 60" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 3006 Cl. 4000D ( >10') 172 LF $272.50 $46,870.00 22 72" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 3006 Cl. II 735 LF $190.00 $139,650.00 23 Const, Drain. Struct. Des. 72 -4020 108.00 LF $350.00 $37,800.00 24 Const. Drain. Struct. Des. 90 -4020 110.91 LF $550.00 $61,000.50 25 Const. Drain. Struct. Des. 96 -4020 7.00 LF $630.00 $4,410.00 26 Const. Drain. Struct. Des. 108 -4020 40.31 LF $750.00 $30,232.50 27 Const. Drain. Struct. Des. 120 -4020 8.22 LF $850.00 $6,987.00 28 Const. Drain. Struct. Des. Spec_ (2'x3') 26 EA $900.00 $23,400.00 29 Casting Assembly 22 EA $300.00 $6,600.00 30 Random Rip Rap Cl. IV 100 CY $75.00 $7,500.00 31 Rock Excavation 5,500 CY $60.00 $330,000.00 Subtotal: 51,220,112.00 +10% Contingencies: $122,011.20 Subtotal: $1,342,123.20 +25% Indirect Costs: $335,530.80 CSAH 83 Storm Sewer $1,678,000.00 *Cost For Additional Area Outside Project Limits (South of Valley View Rd. to South of Study Limits) CSAH 83 Storm Sewer Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost 32 Granular Bedding 500.00 CY $15.00 $7,500.00 33 48" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 3006 Cl. III 3,125.00 LF $98.00 $306,250.00 34 54" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 3006 Cl. (III to IV) 2,625.00 LF $155.00 $406,875.00 35 Const. Drain. Struct. Des. 72 -4020 360.00 LF $350.00 $126,000.00 36 Casting Assembly 20.00 EA $300.00 $6,000.00 37 Rock Excavation 1,000.00 CY $60.00 $60,000.00 Subtotal: $912,625.00 +10% Contingencies: $91,262.50 Subtotal: $1,003,887.50 +25% Indirect Costs: $250,971.88 CSAH 83 Storm Sewer $1,255,000.00 Summary Total Alternate Number 1 Cost $2,933,000.00 Note: This estimate includes a cost for rock excavation that is only approximate as no soil borings are available at this time. The estimate for the additional area outside the study limits does not include easement cost, street reconstruction or trenching/subcut costs. These costs are reflected in the cost estimate for the sanitary sewer project. Page 1 of 1 3/30/01 TABLE E -2 City of Shakopee, MN C.S.A.H. 83/16 Feasibility *Cost Within Study Limits (From Hwy 169 to 17th Ave.) Quantity Unit Unit Cost CSAH 83 Storm Sewer 36 Granular Bedding 1,000.00 CY Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost 1 Remove RC Sewer Pipe (All Sizes) 580 LF $7.00 $4,060.00 2 Remove CM Sewer Pipe (All Sizes) 145 LF $5.00 $725.00 3 Remove RC Pipe Apron (All Sizes) 10 EA $75.00 $750.00 4 Remove CM Pipe Apron (All Sizes) 6 EA $50.00 $300.00 5 36" RC Pipe Apron w/ Trash Guard 6 EA $2,000.00 $12,000.00 6 42" RC Pipe Apron w/ Trash Guard I EA $2,500.00 $2,500.00 7 4'X 8' Concrete Box Culvert 40 LF $380.00 $15,200.00 8 4'X 8' Concrete Box Apron 2 EA $3,000.00 $6,000.00 9 12" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 3006 Cl. V 1,520 LF $20.00 $30,400.00 10 15" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 3006 Cl. V 814 LF $22.00 $17,908.00 11 18" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 3006 Cl. II 222 LF $25.00 $5,550.00 12 21" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 3006 Cl. II 200 LF $28.00 $5,600.00 13 21" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 3006 Cl. lII 160 LF $30.00 $4,800.00 14 24" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 3006 Cl. II 380 LF $32.00 $12,160.00 15 24" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 3006 Cl. III 290 LF $35.00 $10,150.00 16 24" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 3006 Cl. IV 236 LF $40.00 $9,440.00 17 33" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 3006 Cl. II 600 LF $49.00 $29,400.00 18 36" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 3006 Cl. II 650 LF $60.00 $39,000.00 19 42" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 3006 Cl. II 1,000 LF $90.00 $90,000.00 20 60" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 3006 Cl. IV 867 LF $180.00 $156,060.00 21 60" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 3006 Cl. IV ( >10') 329 LF $188.50 $62,016.50 22 60" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 3006 Cl. V ( >10') 1.259 LF $237.50 $299,012.50 23 Const. Drain. Struct. Des. 48 -4020 19.91 LF $180.00 $3,583.80 24 Const. Drain. Struct Des. 544020 11.15 LF $200.00 $2,230.00 25 Const. Drain. Struct Des. 60 -4020 9.61 LF $220.00 $2,114.20 26 Const. Drain. Struct. Des. 664020 15.27 LF $240.00 $3,664.80 27 Const Drain. Struct. Des. 72 -4020 114.40 LF $350.00 $40,040.00 28 Const Drain. Struct Des. 90 -4020 121.60 LF $550.00 $66,880.00 29 Const Drain. Struct. Des. 96 -4020 7.00 LF $630.00 $4,410.00 30 Const Drain. Struct Des. 108 -4020 40.31 LF $750.00 530,232.50 31 Const Drain. Struct. Des. 120 -4020 24.70 LF $60.00 $1,482.00 32 Const Drain. Struct. Des. Spec. (2'x3') 26 EA $900.00 $23,400.00 33 Casting Assembly 22 EA $300.00 $6,600.00 34 Random Rip Rap Cl. IV 30 CY $75.00 $2,250.00 35 Rock Excavation 5 CY $60.00 $330,000.00 Subtotal: $1,329,919.30 +10% Contingencies: $132,991.93 Subtotal: $1,462,911.23 +25% Indirect Costs: $365,727.81 CSAH 83 Storm Sewer $1,829,000.00 *Cost For Additional Area Outside Project Limits (South of Valley View Rd. to South of Study Limits & From Dean's Lake Outlet to East of Study Limits CSAH 83 Storm Sewer Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost 36 Granular Bedding 1,000.00 CY $15.00 515,000.00 37 60" RC Pipe Apron w/ Trash Guard 1.00 EA $4,000.00 $4,000.00 38 48" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 3006 Cl. III 3,125.00 LF $98.00 $306,250.00 39 54" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 3006 Cl. (III to IV) 2,625.00 LF $155.00 $406,875.00 40 60" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 3006 Cl. II 1,930.00 LF $140.00 $270,200.00 41 Const. Drain. Struct Des. 72 -4020 360.00 LF $350.00 $126,000.00 42 Const. Drain. Struct Des. 90 -4020 144.70 LF $550.00 $79,585.00 43 Const. Drain. Struct Des. 120 -4020 43.00 LF $850.00 $36,550.00 42 Casting Assembly 26.00 EA $300.00 $7,800.00 43 Rock Excavation 1,000.00 CY $60.00 $60,000.00 Subtotal: $1,312,260.00 +10% Contingencies: $131,226.00 Subtotal: $1,443,486.00 +25% Indirect Costs: $360,871.50 CSAH 83 Storm Sewer $1,804,000.00 Summary Total Alternate Number 2 Cost $3,633,000.00 Note: This estimate includes a cost for rock excavation that is only approximate as no soil borings are available at this time. The estimate for the additional area outside the study limits does not include easement cost, street reconstruction or trenching/subcut costs. These costs are reflected in the cost estimate for the sanitary sewer project. Page 1 of 1 3/30/01 TABLE E -3 City of Shakopee, NIN CSAH 83/16 Feasibility Report *Cost Within Study Limits (From Hwy 169 to 17th Ave. - Includes Valley Green Ind. Park & The Mine Site) CSAH 83 Storm Sewer Blue Lake Watershed Outlet Channel Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost 1 Remove RC Sewer Pipe (All Sizes) 580 LF $7.00 $4,060.00 2 Remove CM Sewer Pipe (All Sizes) 146 LF $5.00 $730.00 3 Remove RC Pipe Apron (All Sizes) 10 EA $75.00 $750.00 4 Remove CM Pipe Apron (All Sizes) 6 EA $50.00 5300.00 5 36" RC Pipe Apron w/ Trash Guard 6 EA $2,000.00 $12,000.00 6 60" RC Pipe Apron w/ Trash Guard 1 EA $4,000.00 $4,000.00 7 4' X 8' Concrete Box Culvert 40 LF $380.00 $15,200.00 8 4' X 8' Concrete Box Apron 2 EA $3,000.00 $6,000.00 9 12" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 3006 Cl. V 1,520 LF $20.00 $30,400.00 10 15" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 3006 Cl. V 814 LF $22.00 $17,908.00 11 18" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 3006 Cl. V 222 LF $25.00 $5,550.00 11 21" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 4000D CL 1I 200 LF $28.00 $5,600.00 12 21" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 4000D CL III 160 LF $30.00 $4,800.00 13 24" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 4000D CLII 380 LF $32.00 $12,160.00 14 24" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 4000D CLIII 290 LF $35.00 $10,150.00 15 24" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 4000D CLIV 236 LF 540.00 $9,440.00 15 30" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 3006 Cl. II I,006 LF $47.00 $47,282.00 16 30" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 4000D ( >10') 170 LF $100.50 $17,085.00 17 36" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 3006 C1.11 351 LF $60.00 $21,060.00 18 36" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 3006 Cl. III ( >10') 155 LF $67.00 $10,385.00 19 36" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 3006 Cl. IV ( >10') 200 LF $81.00 $16,200.00 20 36" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 3006 Cl. V ( >10') 486 LF $104.00 $50,544.00 21 60" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 3006 Cl. II 455 LF $140.00 $63,700.00 22 60" RC Pipe Sewer Des. 3006 Cl. II ( >10') 281 LF $150.00 $42,150.00 23 Coast Drain. Stmet Des. 48-4020 53.32 LF $180.00 59,597.60 24 Const Drain. Stmct Des. 544020 28.12 LF 5200.00 55,624.00 25 Const Drain. Struct. Des. 60 -4020 92.20 LF $220.00 $20,284.00 26 Const Drain. Stmct Des. 664020 5.91 LF $240.00 $1,418.40 27 Const Drain. Struct Des. 96 -4020 30.51 LF $630.00 $19,221.30 28 Const Drain. Struct. Des. 1204020 7.32 LF $850.00 $6,222.00 29 Const Drain. Snuct. Des. Spec. (2'x3') 26 EA $60.00 $1,560.00 30 Casting Assembly 22 EA $300.00 $6,600.00 31 Random Rip Rap Cl. IV 45 CY 575.00 $3,375.00 32 Rock Excavation 1,500 CY $60.00 590,000.00 Subtotal: $571,356.30 +10% Contingencies: $57,135.63 Subtotal: $623,491.93 +25% Indirect Costs: 5157,122.98 CSAH 83 Storm Sewer $786,000.00 *Cost For Additional Area Outside Blue Lake Outlet Channel (Typical Section 1) Blue Lake Watershed Outlet Channel Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost 33 Mobilization LS 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 34 Clear / Grub AC 1 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 35 Remove Culverts EA 4 $1,000.00 $4,000.00 36 Channel Excavation CY 232,100 $5.00 $1,160,500.00 37 Rock Excavation CY 5,000 $60.00 $300,000.00 38 Construct Drainage Stmct (484020) Special Grate EA 1 $4,000.00 54,000.00 39 Construct Drainage Struct (964020) Special Grate EA 4 $6,500.00 $26,000.00 40 Rip Rap CL IV @ Apron Wets/Outlets CY 165 $60.00 $9,900.00 41 Geotextile Filter Fabric Type IV SY 260 $3.00 $780.00 42 Seeding /Mulch AC 55 $2,000.00 $110,000.00 43 24" RC Pipe LF 30 $35.00 $1,050.00 44 30" RC Pipe LF 160 $45.00 $7,200.00 45 36" RC Pipe LF 60 $55.00 $3,300.00 46 48" RC Pipe LF 150 $98.00 $14,700.00 47 60" RC Pipe LF 150 $140.00 $21,000.00 48 24" RC Apron W/Trash Guard EA 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 49 30" RC Apron W/Trash Guard EA 3 $1,300.00 $3,900.00 50 36" RC Apron W/Trash Guard EA 2 $1,650.00 53,300.00 51 48" RC Apron W/Trash Guard EA 2 52,500.00 $5,000.00 52 60" RC Apron W/Trash Guard EA 2 $4,500.00 $9,000.00 53 Street Reconstruction EA 2 57,500.00 $15,000.00 Subtotal: $1,723,630.00 +10% Contingencies: $172,363.00 Subtotal: $1,895,993.00 +25% Indirect Costs: $473,998.25 Blue Lake Watershed Outlet Channel $2,369,991.00 Total Alternate Number 3 Cost 53,155,991.00 Note: This cost estimate assumes a quantity for rock excavation due to no soil borings being available. Rock Excavation is assumed to be 9' i vide x depth s 5000' at various locations along the under channel alignment This cost could vary based on the depth and quantity required for rock excavation to constrict the final channel apical section. The cost estimate assumes minimal clear and grub Page 1 of 1 based on existing agicultural land- Easement costs are not inlcuded. 3/30101 p © 1 1 4fi --': ! HII Legend 1 ®, it 1_ ! _ _ _ - - I I Roadway 4 1, - -_ =- Raised Medians, Curbs 0 1� tr o a O 6 G� t) \ ..\ Ponding Areas & Channel Changes , � \ \� p a c, g x `11\, _. .. kii illi ( . • ",,,,,,,n N I I I // o zoo 400 t G3 I - 41' 0 0 . off _ _BYO o 0 0 fib` -- -- - -- -- --- -- < 1 ' ` -` � .74 u aagn3 anuanV 41L1 — — — — - `� •� : - .n. - ��,:•� score � y I - • �. COUNTY ROAD NO.16 1 - ' "T- \ , .,. ,.. , .... ., , _ aiime I REALIGNMENT "'"''.4 "....... 4 , 0 * ' 4 I 11 °I L , ij II - - - - - - . ____ 2 ■ 91.1 II ... . ismo ri I II I I 1 117 , , iiii , 4 . g i ,‘,1 6 7 lk rr .. sa J lititt4 limai �) k� Ems° .f mi Y, co. 1 1 t l , � \ �� ' • 7 I 4 L ib 11 oTr r ` ��� LIP � I!. t it f T T [ 1 7 1 1 Iii lit Mil '' ' 'L , , 1 1 I H I - •• 11 � Alternative 2A 1 I n • I I., WSB Project No. 1281 -002 Date: March 2001 A 4150 Olson Memorial Highway FEASIBILITY REPO WSB Suite 422 - Minneapolis, MN 55422 763- 541 -4800 CSAH 83 / CSAH 16 Improvements & Associ /nc. FAX 763 -541 -1700 Figure 1 INFRASTRUCTURE • ENGINEERS • PLANNERS City of Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota / t \1281 002 \Fens \ Alternates \alt2- roll.dgn e 1 - Legend X - - - _ • �! = I I Roadway , 1.% a Raised Medians, Curbs D , • C I I P n in Areas & Channel Changes 111 0 p 0 N. -i o d g eas a g ^ b \\\ \\ u G . ( � SC OTT = - '; . \ o \ oft G. 1b 16 6 0 200 400 V N co uNTY , ,,, \ a a p 4 `, \ `— \ off o Q , , I A� © © G3 G°3 \ 1 "N G 4 '\�. l L s \ \ . II isik 1 I 9.0 Y) _ •i 4.0 0 A , / " V ` _ ft -... -ate • �, ----,—„, ‘0, . - vk —amid I. t an 4zL1 ,.,,. ( — ` �� �� • 0 j COUNTY ROAD NO.16 REALIGNMENT ""��, ���, ` • e , . i , Qii ,: , � A, s , • 8 �� �__� lar , '` ° . ■ 4 4 7 2 4 , ,,, vit,-Br,tt—h , ,_. t a... tow s ., l 9 . t N oah .4 . r" \ ot ' i ii ° , 111PrZille 1 :IN Li- • . , .___, , , i ' : 1.47411,4,. p v, olio , , 1 P ' .. * ' ,V II . ME air i ll. H ' 4 ti4 ' • 1 41L..r. II v. . • . SCOTT • • ,� II: Y 83 . — ____rim,,, 1 in0 cauNTV 4 ` I 1. I ,, - 'I' 11 // , II l 4i .) 11 • Alternative 5A WSB Project No. 1281 -002 Date: March 2001 - 4150 Olson Memorial Highway F E A S I B I L I TV R E POI T ® Suite 300 WSB Minneapolis, MN 55422 INEM■ 763 - 541 -4800 CSAH 83 / CSAH 16 Improvements & Associates, Inc. FAX 763 - 541 -1700 Figure 2 INFRASTRUCTURE • ENGINEERS • PLANNERS City of Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota // t :\ 1281- 002 \Fens \Alternates \alt3- roll.dgn )5" A i CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Consider Feasibility Report Amendment and Consider Ordering Plans and Specifications for C.R. 83 /C.R. 16 Improvement, Project No. 2001 -4 DATE: April 3, 2001 This revised memorandum is to provide additional information since the writing of the initial memo on the above referenced improvement project for the April 3, 2001 City Council meeting. :: • . •111►`I1�1 Additional information for City Council to consider with this proposed improvement project is that an additional meeting has been scheduled with the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community on April 5, 2001, and a meeting is being scheduled with Scott County and the County Board for either April 10 or April 17 Staff is bringing this information forth as it may factor into the decision on whether to proceed on ordering a projector not for this improvement project. In staff's opinion it maybe best to wait until the April 17, 2001 Council meeting to hear and provide a final response to the proposed improvement project from the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community and Scott County before making a final decision. If Council agrees with this analysis it is recommended to go with Alternative No. 3, which is to table action on Resolution No. 5501 to the April 17, 2001 City Council meeting. Aw Bruce Lone. Public Works Director BUpmp INFORM J r CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Consider Feasibility Report Amendment and Consider Ordering Plans and Specifications for C.R. 83 /C.R. 16 Improvement, Project No. 2001 -4 DATE: April 3, 2001 The public hearing for this project was held on March 20, 2001 with City Council providing direction to staff on additional alternatives and proposed additional right -of- way for C.R. 16. These items have been completed and will be presented to the City Council at the April 3, 2001 meeting. Attached is Resolution No. 5501, ordering plans and specifications for C.R. 83 /C.R. 16 improvements, Project No. 2001 -4. The public hearing for the above referenced improvement project was held on March 20, 2001 and from this hearing and from Council discussion, two additional items were directed to have further engineering analysis as follows: 1. Realignment of C.R. 16 to 17 Avenue being alternatives labeled 2A and 5A which would connect existing C.R. 16 to the new realigned C.R. 16 2. Investigate the amount of right -of -way that would be needed to provide a new C.R. 16 with a frontage road to existing residents west of McKenna Road. WSB & Associates, Inc. was commissioned to provide additional analysis in the form of an amendment to the feasibility report. Attached to this memo are those amendments showing the analysis for the additional alternatives for realigning C.R. 16, and the additional right -of -way that would be required to provide a frontage road along C.R. 16, from C.R. 83 to McKenna Road. Item No. 1 From this analysis, the realigned C.R. 16 with 17 Avenue and a public street connection from new C.R. 16 to the existing C.R. 16 was shown previously through Valley Green Corporate Center. From this analysis and from previous correspondence, the alternative of future 17 Avenue connecting into a realigned C.R. 16 through the Valley Green Corporate Center was not acceptable to Scott County Highway Department, as this does not provide the east -west continuous movement which will be the main movement in the future. This east -west arterial will be a reliever of traffic south of TH 169 in this area. Alternative 2A, was evaluated to see what would be the best connection of new C.R. 16 to existing C.R. 16 through the Valley Green Corporate Center. The analysis from WSB & Associates shows that in order to meet City Design Standards for percent of grade, the street connection shown in the proposed Valley Green Corporate Center is the best connection. The difference in grade from new C.R. 16 to old C.R. 16 is approximately 45 feet. The connection between new CSAH 16 and existing CSAH 16 west of CSAH 83 in a straight line configuration requires a 11% grade which exceeds the city standard of 7 %. With this steep elevation differential, the connection from new C.R. 16 to old C.R. 16, as shown in the Valley Green Corporate Center site, does appear to be the best alternative for that connection. It should be pointed out that the connection would be a public street and would allow residents to drive through this street to the Valley Green Corporate Center entrance to a controlled traffic control signal, and proceed on existing C.R. 16 as they have done previously. One other item of note is that the proposed signal at new C.R. 16 and C.R. 83 and existing C.R. 16 and C.R. 83 would have emergency vehicle preemption units installed so that emergency vehicle traffic would be able to get through these intersections as quickly as possible. Item No. 2 I The additional engineering study shows that in order to build a four lane undivided roadway section, with rural ditches as recommended by Scott County, an additional 150 feet of right -of -way would need to be obtained from the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community. The amount of right -of -way is shown on the plan amendment map and this right -of -way is estimated to be approximately 12.93 acres. Staff would like to point out that this would be the designed section that would be preferred in the Scott County Transportation Plan. Meetings and negotiations would need to take place between the County, SMSC and the City in order to facilitate this acquisition. The current feasibility report does show approximately 1/3 of an acre needed to construct the realignment of C.R. 16 to 17 Avenue. The additional right -of -way acquisition that is being shown by this additional analysis is beyond the scope of this project. Staff would recommend that the City Council urge Scott County to begin right -of -way negotiations or proceedings in order to obtain the right -of -way for future reconstruction of C.R. 16 in this area. The right of way acquisition needed for the CSAH 83 /CSAH 16 project should be acquired separately since these areas have different timelines for when the right of way is needed and would be the preferred approach of the County Engineer. The City Attorney will address the right of way acquisition process with the SMSC property at the meeting. Since the public hearing other items from residents have been brought to staff's attention as follows: • Should the public improvement project for C.R. 83 /C.R. 16 be ordered without having the drainage system fully identified and approved? • Should the city order the improvement project without having all of the right of way for CSAH 16 from CSAH 83 to McKenna Road? Within the feasibility report, there were three alternatives to provide a storm drainage system for the area south of C.R. 83. In the city's Stormwater Management Plan, the drainage channel was proposed to the east of C.R. 83 and Valley View Road through the SMSC property using an existing drainage channel to the Prior Lake outlet channel. However, this channel is mostly on SMSC's land and there is a fair amount of difficulty and uncertainty in constructing this improved channel and whether or not the SMSC would participate in the cost of improving this drainage system. Staff did show two other alternatives, with either being a large pipe that would be routed to the K -Mart linear pond and the other alternative would be a large pipe routing the stormwater to the west side of Dean Lake. At this time staff would propose that the larger pipe of Alternative No_ .1, which is a large pipe to the K -Mart linear pond, be constructed along C.R. 83 in order to provide the flexibility for the City in determining the final route of storm water drainage in this area. The cost of providing this Storm Water Trunk pipe along C.R. 83 in the project limits is approximately $892,000 and would be paid out of the Storm Drainage Trunk Funds. It should be noted that by proceeding in this fashion, this allows the City time to resolve the issue of stormwater drainage and the final routing of this system. Staff will make a presentation of the alternatives at the meeting. On the right of way issue, the preferred approach from the County in obtaining right of way beyond the project limits of the proposed CSAH 83 /CSAH 16 project is for the County to begin right of way acquisition negotiations with the SMSC and finalizing the ultimate design and right of way needs in this segment. The County would assist the City in obtaining right of way for the CSAH 83 /CSAH 16 project. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 5501, a resolution ordering the improvement and the preparation of plans and specifications of County State Aid Highway 83, from 12 Avenue to 1870 feet south of the existing intersection of County State Aid Highway 16; and for County State Aid Highway 16, from 850 feet west of County State Aid Highway 83 to 1500 feet east of County State Aid Highway 83. 2. Deny Resolution No. 5501. This action will halt the project until such time as the City Council reconsiders the resolution. 3. Table Resolution No. 5501, to allow time for staff to prepare additional information and/or revise the feasibility report as directed by City Council. 4. Authorize staff to obtain appraisals for right -of -way acquisition. 5. Authorize staff to execute an extension agreement with WSB & Associates, Inc. for survey, preparation of easements and design engineering services as necessary for this proj ect. 6. Provide staff direction on further right of way acquisition on CSAH 16 and preparation of a Memo of Understanding with Scott County. 1 1 If Council desires to proceed with this project at this time, then Resolution No. 5501 needs to be adopted, a resolution ordering the improvement and preparing plans and specifications of County State Aid Highway 83, from 12 Avenue to 1870 feet south of the existing intersection of County State Aid Highway 16; and for County State Aid Highway 16, from 850 feet west of County State Aid Highway 83 to 1500 feet east of County State Aid Highway 83, Project No. 2001 -4. If the City Council does not wish to pursue this project, then the appropriate action would be to move the approval of Resolution No. 5501 and vote against the motion. If Council wants more information on the project and/or amends the feasibility report or assessment procedures, then Alternative No. 3 is recommended. If a project were ordered, staff would also then recommend Alternatives No. 4 and 5 for obtaining appraisals on the proposed right of way acquisition. Also for the city to execute an extension agreement with WSB & Associates, Inc for design engineering services as necessary for this project. Also, Council should provide staff direction on obtaining further right of way east of the project area on CSAH 16 to McKenna Road and preparation of a Memo of Understanding with the County on Jurisdictional transfer of CSAH 16 west of CSAH 83 and 17 Avenue from CR 79 to CSAH 83. ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Offer Resolution No. 5501, A Resolution Ordering an Improvement and the Preparation of Plans and Specifications for County State Aid Highway 83, from 12 11 ' Avenue to 1870 feet south of the existing intersection of County State Aid Highway 16; and for County State Aid Highway 16, from 850 feet west of County State Aid Highway 83 to 1500 feet east of County State Aid Highway 83, Project No. 2001 -4, and move its adoption. 2. Authorize staff to obtain appraisals for right -of -way acquisition. 3. Authorize staff to execute an extension agreement with WSB & Associates, Inc. for survey, preparation of easements and design engineering services as necessary for this proj ect. 4. Provide staff direction on further right of way acquisition on CSAH 16 from the east project limit to McKenna Road and the preparation of a Memo of Understanding with Scott County on the jurisdictional transfer of CSAH 16 and 17 Avenue. ruce Lone Public Works Director BL/pmp MEM5501 I Resolution Ordering c Improvement And Preparation Of Plans a Specifications o County ., From 12 Avenue To 1870 Feet South Of The Existing Intersectio WHEREAS, Resolution No. 5474 adopted on February 20, 2001, fixed a date for Council hearing on the proposed improvement of County State Aid Highway 83, from 12 Avenue to 1870 Feet South of the Existing Intersection of County State Aid Highway 16; and for County State Aid Highway 16, from 850 Feet West of County State Aid Highway 83 to 1500 Feet East of County State Aid Highway 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 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 March, 2001, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard. NOW, THEREFORE, E CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1. That the improvement is necessary, cost effective and feasible and is ordered as hereinafter described: Improvement of County State Aid Highway 83, from 12 Avenue to 1870 Feet South of the Existing Intersection of County State Aid Highway 16; and for County State Aid Highway 16, from 850 Feet West of County State Aid Highway 83 to 1500 Feet East of County State Aid Highway 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. 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 -4 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 three years from the date of adoption of this resolution. Adopted in Minnesota, held this ATTEST: session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, day of 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee City Clerk M1 � CITY OF SAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: 2000 Reconstruction Project, Project No. 2000 -4 DATE: April 3, 2001 INTRODUCTION: Attached is Resolution No. 5505, which accepts the bids and awards the contract for the 2000 Reconstruction Project — 3 Avenue, from County Road 69 to Shumway Street; Harrison Street, from 6 Avenue to 3 Avenue; and Shumway Street, from 3 Avenue to 2 Avenue, Project No. 2000 -4. On February 20, 2001, Resolution No. 5486 was adopted approving the plans and ordering the advertisement for bids on 3 Avenue, from County Road 69 to Shumway Street; Harrison Street, from 6 Avenue to 3 Avenue; and Shumway Street, from 3rd Avenue to 2 Avenue. The plans have been prepared by City Engineering staff to reconstruct 3 Avenue, from County Road 69 to Shumway Street; Harrison Street, from 6 Avenue to 3 Avenue; and Shumway Street, from 3 Avenue to 2 Avenue to an urban roadway with the reconstruction of watermain and addition and reconstruction of sanitary sewer and storm sewer utilities. On March 27, 2001, sealed bids were received and publicly opened for this project. A total of seven bids were received and are summarized in the attached resolution. The low bid was submitted by Northwest Asphalt, Inc. of Shakopee, MN in the amount of $1,063,846.94. The Engineer's estimate for this project was approximately $1,150,000.00. The low bid is in line with the feasibility report, thus the recommendation from staff is to proceed with the project. In addition to awarding the contract to the low bidder, Northwest Asphalt, Inc., City staff will need to authorize consultant engineering services to provide construction surveying and administration services as necessary for this project. Attached to this memo is an extension agreement with WSB & Associates, Inc., to perform the surveying services, inspection and administration services as needed to complete this project. If the Council awards this project, staff is also requesting that City Council authorize a contingency amount equal to 5% of the contract to cover minor change orders or quantity adjustments that may occur on the project ALTERNATIVES: 1. Accept the low bid of $1,063,846.94 and adopt Resolution No. 5505, awarding the contract to Northwest Asphalt, Inc. 2. Reject the low bid and award the bid to another bidder. 3. Reject all bids and rebid. 4. Authorize the appropriate City officials to execute an extension agreement with WSB & Associates, Inc. to provide consultant services on this project for the City of Shakopee. 5. Authorize a 5% contingency amount for use by the City Engineer in authorizing change orders or quantity adjustments on this project. Staff recommends Alternative No.'s 1, 4 and 5. ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Offer Resolution No. 5505, A Resolution Accepting Bids on the 2000 Reconstruction Project — 3 rd Avenue, from County Road 69 to Shumway Street; Harrison Street, from 6 th Avenue to 3 rd Avenue; and Shumway Street, from 3 rd Avenue to 2 nd Avenue, Project No. 2000 -4. 2. Authorize the appropriate City officials to execute an extension agreement with WSB & Associates, Inc., to provide consultant services for the City of Shakopee. 3. Authorize a 5% contingency amount for use by the City Engineer in authorizing change orders or quantity adjustments on this project. Bruce Loney Public Works erector BL /pmp MEM5505 WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the 2000 Reconstruction Project — 3rd Avenue, from County Road 69 to Shumway Street; Harrison Street, from 6 th Avenue to 3rd Avenue; and Shumway Street, from 3 Avenue to 2nd Avenue, Project No. 2000 -4, bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law, and the following bids were received complying with the advertisement: Northwest Asphalt, Inc. $1,063,846.94 Midwest, Inc. $1,068,581.00 Barbarossa & Sons, Inc. $1,086,741.20 S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. $1,102,354.01 Heselton Construction, Inc. $1,184,390.00 Ryan Contracting, Inc. $1,363,420.75 Northdale Construction, Inc. $1,394,451.30 AND WHEREAS, it appears that Northwest Asphalt, Inc., 1451 Stagecoach Road, Shakopee, MN 55379 is the lowest responsible bidder. THEREFORE, O D BY THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1. The appropriate City officials are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Northwest Asphalt, Inc. in the name of the City of Shakopee for the 2000 Reconstruction Project No. 2000 -4, according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minn esota, held this day of , 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee Ey0 N- IA City Clerk 1'-iiz March 28, 2001 RE: 2000 Reconstruction, Project No. 2000 -4 Dear Property Owner: On March 27, 2001, the City of Shakopee opened bids for the 2000 Reconstruction Project - 3 Avenue, from C.R. 69 to Shumway Street; Harrison Street, from 6 th Avenue to 3 Avenue; and Shumway Street, from 3rd Avenue to 2nd Avenue. The low bidder for the project is Northwest Asphalt, Inc. of Shakopee with a bid of $1,063,846.94. The City Engineering Department will be recommending to City Council at their April 3, 2001 meeting to award to Northwest Asphalt. We will also be requesting that City Council approve a 5% contingency amount for unforeseen changes. This along with an estimated 20% cost for Engineering/Administration brings the projected final project cost to be approximately $1,341,000.00. For comparison, the feasibility report estimate for this project is $1,389,000.00. Staff estimates that the assessments will be approximately as estimated in the feasibility report. However, individual assessments may be higher and some lower at this time. If City Council does award this contract on April 3, 2001, staff is anticipating a construction start some time in May, 2001, dependent upon weather. Should you have any questions or comments, please contact meat (952)233 -3800. Sincerely, Bruce Loney, P. Public Works Director COMMUN= P=E SINCE 1857 129 Holmes S'treec South - Shakopee, IUffimesdt a - 55379 -1351 - 952 -'45 -3&50 - FAX 952 - 445 -6718 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC. 7635411700 P.02i06 /5 0, cP� & AY" aces. ` r April 3, 2001 E. Mr. Bruce Loney, P.E. Public Works Director /City Engineer ' City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 -1376 Re: Extension Agreement to Provide Construction Surveys, Observation Administration Services 2000 Downtown Reconstruction Shakopee, MN WSB Project No. 1014 -71 F . Dear Mr. Loney. - `` • - �' °'' According to our Agreement for Professional Services within the City of Shakopee and Section I- - (Major Projects), this extension agreement is written to provide for construction surveying, observation, G • and administration services for the above- referenced projects. The surveying needs for this project will include construction staking for all project items as part of the contractors responsibility. The construction observation needs will involve one observer to work in conjunction with the allocated _,... " City Inspector as requested by the City. The construction administration phase will involve completing all contract- related work, including N at construction meetings, approval of all pay vouchers and change orders, and day - 0 day attendance dealings with field personnel. -_ We are proposing to complete this work on a cost - reimbursable basis according to our fee schedule. As is variable depending on the contractor and the actual field you are aware, construction work somewhat costs for the construction phase will be determined according conditions. Consequently, the engineering to the actual hours necessary to complete the project; however, we have estimated a fee of approximately 4% to 8% of the construction cost. The City of Shakopee agrees to reimburse WSB for these services in accordance with Section N of the _ Agreement for Professional Services. If this agreement meets with your approval, please sign below and return one copy to our office. i::.. r •; : Sincerely, - WSB c& Associates, Inc. Cl Admini 4,5o:41so' "'' City Clerk -' Memorial • cghway Bret A. Weiss, P.E. - suite,-4,06 .•. +" �'k4 . President Mayor innea s4 _. ,I rf iinnr ` „+.. :: . .•�� • - =. `. 55422 Bate tc• , ' 763.141 4 ©Q F1\W?WTN1101471\040301 bl.wDd • :. 763 ,�� '•¢qX Minneapolis St. Cloud Equal Opportunity Employer CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Valley View Road Memo of Understanding with Scott County DATE: February 20, 2001 Vii►` I�YZI] 111L�Y Cox Attached is a Memo of Understanding between Scott County and the City of Shakopee in regard to future connections to CSAH 17 and Valley View Road. :• �1 l Previously, a traffic study was prepared by WSB & Associates, Inc. for the Valley View Road area and this report was accepted by Council. Another action from the November 6, 2000 meeting was for staff to meet with the County on future connections to CSAH 17. Staff, with assistance from WSB & Associates, has met with the County on the future connections to CSAH 17 from St. Francis Avenue to existing Valley View Road connection. From these meetings and review of letters received from property owners, a Memo of Understanding outlining the future requirements as this area develops was agreed upon. The Memo of Understanding indicates an additional access south of St. Francis Avenue will be allowed with the removal of the existing Valley View Road connection and modification of the St. Francis Avenue connection to CSAH 17. The Memo of Understanding also addresses under what conditions and when the future road connection should be built. Staff believes this Memo of Understanding addresses the transportation changes necessary for future traffic growth in this area and as recommended by the traffic study. Also, the property owners in this area are in agreement of the future connection south of St. Francis Avenue. 0I ICI a] 1 V11►IV 1. Approve a motion to have the appropriate City officials execute the Memorandum of Understanding. 2. Do not approve the Memorandum of Understanding at this time and provide staff with direction on changes of the conditions for connections to CSAH 17. 3. Table for additional information. Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, based on the previous Council action on November, 2000 and that the County, City staff and adjacent property owners agree on the future connections to CSAH 17. t 11MURI 1 Make a motion to have the appropriate City officials execute the Memorandum of Understanding on connections to County State Aid Highway 17, from St. Francis Avenue to Valley View Road. r Bruce Loney n Public Works erector BL /pmp mou This memorandum of understanding is entered into by the City of Shakopee (City) and Scott County (County) on April , 2001. WHEREAS, the City has prepared a traffic study for the Valley View Road area between CR 79 and CSAH 83, dated October 5, 2000; and WHEREAS, the traffic study reviewed several alternatives for access to CSAH 17 from the new east -west collector road; and WHEREAS, the City and County have had public meetings with the residents and businesses adjacent to CSAH 17 and Valley View Road; and WHEREAS, the City and County have agreed that the alignment extending the new east -west collector road along the Betaseed/hospital property line would provide the best operational characteristics for CSAH 17 and the new collector road; and WHEREAS, the City and County have agreed that the construction of this east -west collector will be completed in two phases. The first phase to include the extension of existing Valley View Road curving north along the Sarazin Street alignment as currently being developed by the City. The second phase would be the extension of the east -west collector road along the Betaseed/hospital property line to a point approximately 500 feet south of St. Francis Avenue; as shown on the attached drawings, and WHEREAS, the City and County desire to document their respective understandings regarding certain aspects of the proposed alignment, and the timing of the access to CSAH 17. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HERBY UNDERSTOOD THAT: 1. East -West Collector Street The East -West Collector Street from Sarazin Street to CSAH 17 will be constructed at such time that one or more of the following occur: A. Development of the Betaseed property or the St. Francis Hospital property east of CSAH 17. B. Development of property in the area on the west side of CSAH 17 requires additional access to CSAH 17, or requires a change in the existing access serving Betaseed. C. The City and County agree that traffic conditions indicate a safety problem exists or is imminent at the CSAH 17 and St. Francis intersection, or they agree on the need for possible changes in traffic control at St. Francis Avenue. Such problems may be apparent through excessive delays to St. Francis Avenue traffic at CSAH 17 or through crash problems at the intersection. 2. St. Francis at CSAH 17: The St. Francis Avenue at CSAH 17 intersection will be studied in detail once the new intersection of the east -west collector street and CSAH 17 is planned for construction. This will potentially include restricting this intersection to 3 /4 access or to a right - in/right -out only. The CAWINDOWS \TEW\Memo of understanding revisedldoc City and County acknowledge that such access restrictions will also directly impact any access to CSAH 17 from the west (existing Betaseed property). CSAH 17 at Existing Valley View Road The existing intersection of Valley View Road and CSAH 17 will be closed as part of the construction of the new east -west collector street, and traffic will be redirected to the collector street. This will be 100% City cost to close this access. Such work shall be included in the access permit application requested by the City of the County as part of the new collector street connection (See #6). 4. Jurisdiction The City and County acknowledge that, as the jurisdictional authority for CSAH 17, the County retains the right to make any and all determinations on traffic controls along the CSAH 17 corridor. 5. Develq_pment of Plans and Specifications The City will be responsible for development of all plans and specifications for the east -west collector road extension to CSAH 17. The County will review and approve such plans. 6. Permits The City will request a County access permit for a street connection to CSAH 17. The County will be responsible for review and approval of the permit application. Mayor Chair, County Board Dated: April , 2001 ' Dated: April , 2001 C:\WINDOWSUENQWemo of understanding revisea.doc i N A V O N d O CITY OF SAKOPEE CONSENT Police Department Memorandum Honorable Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator Dan Hughes, Chief of Police —/)V 2001 Southwest Metro Drug Task Force Joint Powers Agreement March 22, 2001 The Police Department is seeking approval of the 2001 Joint Powers Agreement between Southwest Metro Drug Task Force and the City of Shakopee Police Department. The purpose of the agreement is to provide a comprehensive effort to reduce drug trafficking in the City of Shakopee through the coordination of the multi jurisdictional law enforcement agencies listed in the agreement. The Shakopee Police Department has participated in this Joint Powers Agreement for several years. BUDGET IMPACT: The agreement identifies a cash contribution not to exceed $8,400.00 per year from each named jurisdiction. The funds exist in the 2001 Police Department budget. If the Council concurs, they should, pass a motion authorizing the appropriate city officials to enter into the 2001 Joint Powers Agreement between Southwest Metro Drug Task Force and the City of Shakopee Police Department. DH:pm Attachments: (1) SWMDTF Joint Powers Agreement 2001 THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between Belle Plaine Police Department, Chaska Police Department, Hutchinson Police Services, Minnetrista Police Department, Mound Police Department, Shakopee Police Department, South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department, West Hennepin Public Safety Department, Carver County, McLeod County, and Scott County through their respective law enforcement agencies. WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. Sec. 471.59 provides for the joint exercise of power by two or more governmental units and specifically allows for the joint exercise of police power; WHEREAS, The Southwest Metro Drug Task Force has been created by the parties for the interdiction of drug traffickers and street -level dealers in the named jurisdictions; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: The purpose of the Southwest Metro Drug Task Force is to provide a comprehensive and multi jurisdictional effort to reduce drug trafficking and eliminate local street -level dealers through the coordination of the law enforcement agencies above. Once established, the Task Force operations are to be coordinated by the Southwest Metro Drug Task Force Executive Committee, which is comprised of one designated official from each named agency. For the 2001 year, the Task Force will be located in Chaska with the assistance of the Carver County Sheriff s Office. Agents will be licensed peace officers paid through the Task Force fund comprised of pooled local and federal moneys. Agents will act as gatherers of information and investigators of specific cases. Offenses taking place in a specific jurisdiction will involve the prosecution of those individuals by that jurisdiction's attorney. Agents will have discretionary powers of arrest in all jurisdictions. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 471.59, Subd. 12, agents licensed as Minnesota Peace Officers may cross jurisdictional boundaries for the purpose of gathering information for the successful completion of their case. The Task Force is to be funded by a combination of Federal money, State money, local contributions, donations and forfeited money. The Southwest Metro Drug Task Force has applied for and anticipates receiving a Federal grant in an amount yet to be determined. The grant amount, plus a cash contribution not to exceed $8,400.00 from each named jurisdiction, shall be transferred to the Southwest Metro Drug Task Force under the auspice of the assigned Task Force Coordinator for the administration of the Task Force. The Southwest Metro Drug Task Force may disperse funds for purposes including, but not limited to, pension payments, insurance and other costs, according to applicable State Law and with the agreement of the parties. The books, records and documents relevant to this agreement shall be subject to audit by the parties or the State of Minnesota at reasonable times upon written notice. Strict accountability of all funds, receipts and disbursements shall be provided for. For the term January 1, 2001 - December 31, 2001, the City of Shakopee agrees to be responsible for the keeping of all financial records, preparing and filing all necessary forms and reports in connection with grant funding, and any audits required. I. Term This agreement shall commence January 1, 2001 and will terminate on December 31, 2001. IV. Liability With respect to civil liability claims, each named party to this agreement shall be liable for its own acts to the extent provided for by law and hereby agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend other named parties to this agreement, its officers and employees against any and all liability, loss, costs, damages, expenses, claims or actions, including reasonable attorney's fees which the other, its officers and employees may hereinafter sustain, incur or be required to pay, arising out of or by reason of any act or omission of the party, its agents, servants, or employees, in the execution, performance, or failure to adequately perform its obligations. This provision to indemnify and hold harmless does not constitute a waiver by any named party to limitations on liability provided by Minn. Stat. Sec. 466. Further, all worker's compensation claims shall be handled in the jurisdiction in which the agent is employed. Distribution of Property All forfeitures of property, money and other assets will be divided equally among participating agencies at the termination of the program. All permitted equipment purchased through the program shall be shared by participating agencies on a need basis during and after program termination. �'t When- the Task Force is disbanded, after any outstanding financial obligations are met, the Executive Committee will establish a plan for disbursement of operating and forfeiture funds and equipment among participating agencies based on their level of participation. If an agency leaves the Task Force and it is not disbanded, they relinquish all funds contributed to the Task Force. V. General Provisions This program is to be administered under the jurisdiction of the MN Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. All activities are to be consistent with and subject to the grant application (attached and incorporated), as well as applicable State and local laws. Overall governance of the Task Force operations, including the setting of investigative priorities and general operative procedures, will be vested in the Executive Committee. All persons assigned to the Task Force shall work under the direct supervision of the Task Force Coordinator. The members of the Executive Committee will assign the Task Force Coordinator. For the term of this agreement, the Executive Committee recognizes the City of Belle Plain as an associate member of the Southwest Metro Drug Task Force. An associate membership allows for a contribution less that the amount required of full members, but does not allow for voting powers with the Executive Committee, or the sharing of forfeited funds upon termination. Dated this _ day of C) By: �' �z Peter 14, Assis nt Carver County Attorney By: Dated: Shakopee Police Department: By: Dated: ;: th e Mi t ka DPS: ;t Hennepin PS: ;d: ver C nty: P y cod County: By: Dated: Scott County: By: Dated: O ♦. / YS, z - To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members City Administrator From: Marvin Athmann, Fire Chief if Date: 3/24/2001 Re: Replacement Fire Fighting Turn Out Gear Introduction The 2001 Fire Department budget has a line item under capital expenditures 4210 for replacement of fire fighter protective clothing for 15,000 dollars. We have identified 11 sets of firefighting gear which are required. Discussion The Fire Dept has received two quotation for fire fighting turn out gear. They are: Fire Equipment Specialties $1,295.00 per set of gear and Lion Apparel $1,362.00 per set of gear. Recommendation The Shakopee Fire Dept recommends the order of 11 sets of fire fighting at $1,295 per set from Fire Equipment Specialties for a total of $14,245.00. Action Required City council to approve the order of 11 sets of fire fighting gear from Fire Equipment Specialties for $14,245.00. 03- -2001 02 ;i5P(ll FROM Fire cauin_ Seecialties 7D 952 - 445 -0443 P -02 j db Z al"Nopee age vep. . ' ent. � erlii�g e i � ( ,S ogee; lianeS�tal55379 t i s ® �3ave Ua f. f P. i : i SIFA�h 2i 2001 � �� i ; ! Q uotation � I - .I Ij I ' •44 � IT TM1C'C1.a AI.f .9 •.- I {' 4 KfM7 Co mmand o 'burn -Out Coats,.29" InLengt�. i '7.0 oz. I IS System 1 111 (P er. ®ime k ' Fm €. Sueci l Cmo_nsl i . I S6 $E0 e�� / 6 ( J O fw:; a� a - f : uper" Lumbar Turn - Canis: f 7 >0 oz. IsO - ste f ' ! . (Per. Shakopee Fire Dept. Spec ifications) i 75. 0. ! 17SO.00 !. i . -l9d1� V� iw7:R7JJ®".['� CBB33 A� � � I SUPI° AO K 7 Qt � @ @e Y71d✓i6.i� 1•�iaiacea .a CS3 Bi. a k, 'RD.�dd d 6_`.... �F .5.. - -- i ♦7¢18 �e Jna8��.7 iaa_ r. c+d a,m _n Fi De ape n. _ __r_ � t cre opee .tc io s, I w r' l 00 i. ThAnk vine, 1 I I IVIiKe ],arson j Fire' quipmmmeamt Specialties, me. j j 651.730.46:36 7 � i f i ! I j• �S�v.� a ;�roodbl� a® N SP_ 125 - �aks� � � � t 51t � _ _ gi M� sd 0121 4$-97 �. Pa (E 121 2052 1 V 1 f1L 1 YJG Mar 21 01 04:18p Mike Kucharski 913- 764 -7279 P - March 21, 2001 Shakopee Fire Department 2700 Vierling Drive Shakopee MN 55379 Attention: Dave Judd Quote for Janesville Turnout Clothing 10 Commando Coats Isodri system (CMDM2K /C2K7) Per Shakopee Spec $725.00 each /extended $7250.00 10 Super Lumbar Pants(PSLM2K /P2K7) Per Shakopee Spec $6 10.00each/ extended $6,100.00 10 H -Sack suspenders $27.00each/ extended $270.00 All Currency in US dollars Freight is not paid Delivery is 75 days Terms are NFT30 If you have any questions or comments, please call me at (913) 764 -1493 6 4 5 0 POE AVE P.O. BOX 13576 C A Y T 0 N 0 H 1 0 45413.0576 800.4 21.2926 TEL 937898.19-19 FAX 937898.9204 PROTECTIVE SYSTEMS G R O U P 18598 -1998 A CENTURY OF SERVICE Michael S. Kucharski Regional Manager, Lion Apparel mikel crc honapparel.com Is L e i I To: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Mark Themig, Facilities and Recreation Director Date: 29 March, 2001 Subject: Approval of Skate Park, Project 2001 -6 INTRODUCTION City Council is asked to formally approve the concept plans for the skate park, authorize Public Works to serve as general contractor for construction of the skate park pad, and authorize staff to solicit bids for the skate park equipment. BACKGROUND A youth skate park committee approached the Park and Recreation Advisory Board in 1999 to ask for the construction of a skate park in Shakopee. The Advisory Board discussed and included an $80,000 request in the 2001 Capital Improvement Program (CIP), which was approved by City Council in the fall of 2000. The skate park committee continued to meet to identify potential locations for the skate park, as well as the skate park design and operating policies. Three potential locations were identified, including Lions Park, Scenic Heights Park, and the Community Center. After reviewing the three potential sites, the committee recommended the Community Center site as the ideal location, due to its proximity in the community, accessibility by bike trails, availability of parking, and resources of the Community Center complex (restrooms, vending machines, staff, etc.). The proposed site for the skate park is an open area adjacent to the parking lot along Fuller Street. This site has adequate space and good terrain for constructing the skating surface (pad). It also has good visibility from the Community Center and Fuller Street. Proposed Design (see attached plans) The League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust, the City's insurance provider, has two classifications for skate parks: Tier 1 and Tier 2. Tier 1 skate parks limit skating surfaces to three foot or less in height. The League considers these parks similar to park play equipment in terms of risks, and therefore does not require fencing, constant supervision, or additional insurance premiums. Tier 2 skate parks have ramps that are over three feet, and require fencing, supervision, and additional insurance premiums. The proposed design for the City of Shakopee is a Tier 1 park, mounted on a 130' X 100' asphalt pad, with a four -foot high berm along Fuller Street. The Youth Skate Park Committee has also developed a concept design for the type of ramps. The actual ramps selected will depend on the construction cost of the pad, and the equipment manufacturer that is selected. Neighborhood Input Zoning for the proposed location (R1 B), allows for recreational facilities such as the skate park. However, residents along the Fuller Street side of Atwood Court, Atwood Street, and Hennes Avenue (16 households) were mailed an informational letter on February 21 on the proposed site to make them aware of the project. These residents were also invited to attend the February 26 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting to comment on the plan. Three residents attended the meeting and another called with questions. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and Youth Skate Park Committee held a follow -up open house on Monday, March 12. Six residents attended the open- house. The residents raised several questions and concerns: 1. What would be the hours of operation? 2. Would there be nighttime use (lighted)? 3. What kind of supervision would be provided? 4. Could the park be located at an alternative park location, like Lions Park? 5. Is it possible to locate the skate park closer to the building? 6. Could the pad be lowered to "below grade "? 7. What type of trees would be planted on the proposed berm. 8. Could a security camera be mounted on the Community Center to increase surveillance? The following are the responses to the concerns that have been raised: Hours of Operation The intent of the park is to have it used during daylight hours only. Current park ordinance permits park use from 6:00 a.m. -10:00 p.m. It maybe appropriate to consider hours that reflect daylight hours (sunrise to sunset). Nighttime Use Nighttime use would not be permitted. Supervision Constant on -site supervision is not planned. General supervision would be provided by Parks and Recreation and Community Center staff. Alternative Park Location /Alternative Community Center Site In discussing skate parks with staff from other communities (Chanhassen, Northfield, Maple Grove, Shorewood, Chaska), a regular suggestion is to locate skate parks in a visible area. Neighbors have suggested an alternative location, such as Lions Park, or moving the park closer to the Community Center. We believe that proposed site at the Community Center is the best location because if its visibility, proximity in the community, accessibility by bike trails, availability of parking, and resources of the Community Center complex (restrooms, vending machines, staff, etc.). Lower the Pad Below Grade In order to ensure adequate drainage, the pad must remain at grade. Type of Trees on Berm We are proposing primarily coniferous trees for the berm. Security Camera Neighbors asked about the possibility of installing a security camera on the Community Center to monitor activity. The vendor who installed the Community Center system indicates that we have the capacity for additional cameras, and that cost would be approximately $800 - $1,000. However, he cautioned that we need to test a camera and various lenses to determine if we can achieve adequate resolution at that distance. Funding for the project was identified in the CIP portion of the budget ($80,000). Estimated costs are as follows: Site Pad Construction and Site Improvements $27,500 Skate Park Equipment $50,000 Miscellaneous (signage, security camera, etc.) $ 2,500 Total $80,000 In addition, the Youth Skate Park Committee has undertaken a fundraising effort. Their goal is to raise $5,000 - $10,000, which would be applied toward the project for additional equipment and /or site amenities, such as benches or tables. RECOMMENDATION Project Construction We are recommending that Public Works construct the skate park pad and conduct the site improvements. Mike Hullander, Public Works Supervisor, has indicated that this project can fit into their current workload. Furthermore, we believe that Public Works will deliver a superior product over a contractor, at a lower price. If City Council concurs, we would also ask that the single expenditure per supplier be increased to $15,000 for this project. This will allow Public Works to coordinate installation of the asphalt surface by obtaining competitive price quotes for this work, without further authorization from City Council. Finally, the skate park equipment manufacturer would be responsible for assembly and installation of the skate park equipment. Solicitation of Bids for Equipment Since the equipment is estimated to be $50,000, we would need to solicit bids. We have identified at least six manufacturers that are likely to bid on the equipment. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Recommendation The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board moved 6 -0 (one member absent) at their March 26 2001 meeting to support the skate park project as proposed. REQUESTED ACTION If City Council concurs, it should, by motion, authorize the following: 1. Approval of the Skate Park, Project 2001 -6. 2. Public Works to construct the skate park pad and conduct site improvements. 3. An increase in the per supplier expenditure from $5,000 to $15,000 for this project 4. Staff to solicit bids for the equipment. Mark Themig Facilities and Recreation Director !�. ' '.. ,.. '; i Y Ramp List ITEM # ITEM NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION 1 Mini ramp s fined to Mini ramp 3'H x 16'W x Approx 44 2 Piano 3'H x 8'W x Approx 81 3 Piano 3'H x 8'W x Approx 81 4 Bank Ramp 3'H x 8'W x 91 5 Bank Ramp 3'H x 8'W x 91 6 BanK Ramp 3'H x 8'W x 91 7 f9 ox w /Led e 2 x 4'W fl boxes w /led e= 2'H 3'H w /led e x 8'W x 22L 8 Short Fly w/ planter 18 "H 307H w /led e x 8'W_.x 221 9 Half Pyramid w/ ledge ends only 2'H 3'H w /led e x 11'W x 22 10 Sine 2'H x 8'W x 10 11 Kink Rail 2'H x 2'W w/legs x 20 round rail 12 Quarter Pie 3'H x 8'W x 91 13 Bank Ramp 3'H x 12'W x 91 14 Quarter Pie 3'H x 8'W x 91 15 Bank Ramp 3 x 8'W x 91 16 Quarter Pie 3'H x 8'W x 91 17 Quarter Pie 3'H x 8'W x 91 18 Bank Ramp 3'H x 8'W x 91 19 Wed e 18 "H x 8'W x 71 20 Straight Rail 18 "H x 4'W w le s x 20 21 Lowbox 1'H x 4'W x 81 22 uarter Pie 3'H x 8'W x 91 23 uarter Pie 3'H x 8'W x 91 24 uarter Pie 3'H x 8'W x 91 FILE: G:\2001 PROJECTS\2001 Skate Park \[2001 skate park engineering estimate.XLS]Eng_Est 2001 SKATE PARK ENGINEERS ESTIMATE COMMUNITY CENTER SITE ( FULLER STREET) ITEM UNIT TOTAL NO. DESCRIPTION UNITS QTY. PRICE PRICE 1 Mobilization LUMP SUM 1 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 2 8' Bituminous Path (Includes 2" Type 41 Bituminous SQ. YD. 150 $ 9.00 $ 1,350.00 Wear Course & 4" Class 5 Aggregate 100% Crushed Limestone) 3 Connect to Existing Storm Structure (Core Drill) EACH 1 $ 250.00 $ 250.00 4 Sodding Lawn Type (Includes 4" Topsoil) SQ. YD. 220 $ 2.75 $ 605.00 5 Common Excavation (P) CU. YD. 422.31 $ 1.00 $ 422.31 6 Class 5 Aggregate Base (100% Crushed Limestone, 8" SQ. YD. 1490 $ 4.50 $ 6,705.00 Thick) 7 Type 31 Bituminous Base Course Mix, 1 1/2" Thick SQ. YD. 1450 $ 3.25 $ 4,712.50 8 Type 41 Bituminous Wear Course Mix, 1 1/2" Thick SQ. YD. 1450 $ 3.50 $ 5,075.00 9 Bituminous Material for Tack Coat GALLON 73 $ 2.00 $ 146.00 10 6" Draintile w/ Filter Sock LIN. FT. 405 $ 15.00 $ 6,075.00 11 Seeding ACRE 0.6 $ 1,100.00 $ 660.00 SUBTOTAL $ 26,001.81 5% CONTINGENCIES $ 1,300.09 SUBTOTAL W15% CONTINGENCIES $ 27,301.90 TOTAL $ 27,301.90 3/23/01 2001 skate park engineering estimate.XLS Page 1 of 1 - o n DO Z C c� z_ r o� m z t =mm 5- � D N 3 N 3 3 3 Q �ro N td � 4 chi- M C+ Q c O N W N rD �X ,O - 5 W W - 5 MTV 7` N G 3 P y� o Pro N -0 C��WNr Cl) P p p �P P 3 Q —P P ^Qro OWN OD� NO '3 U Q P ro ^ N Q Q r0 rD N N Q N � r' J % M ark Themig From: Tammy Abrahamson Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 20014:17 PM To: Mark Themig Subject: FW: skate park - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Chris Goodman [mailto:CGoodman @chaska.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 4:16 PM To: Tabrahamson @ci.shakopee.mn.us Subject: skate park Tami, You and others in your fine community have inquired about our skateboard park. Our park is considered Tier 1, which means that is open to the public, unsupervised, and no fees are charged. The philosophy of having the park available for everyone and all ages is on line with the City of Chaska Mission Statement. Because the original intent is to be what I stated above the city will not charge, supervise or make any drastic changes to the park. In my opinion the park has been good for the kids and the community. Skateboarders use to bother people in the downtown area, destruct property with the actions of their boards, and cause an overall disruption with their urge to skate. Now they are in one place -away from causing many headaches for businesses and residents of Chaska. Anytime you have a large gathering of people the potential for problems is there. It may be a softball tournament, street dance, football game or skateboard park. We knew that when we built it and will deal with problems at the park as long as it exists. Some of the problems that we have had are: kids not wearing helmets, swearing, vandalism, fights, loud music, speeding, and destruction of property. We have the police in regular patrols and city officials stop by every day. We have about 100 kids a day stop by. We have a problem about every 3 days. Most are minor like loud music or speeding. We only had 4 fights and 5 vandalism /destruction of property instances. That may seem like a lot but considering our location and it being unsupervised that pretty good. We have had a lot of support from our skateboarders and their parents. It has been an asset to Chaska. The good has outweighed the bad. Chris Goodman Assistant Director, Chaksa Parks and Recreation Department 690 Cite CenterD7ive, PO Box 147 C1Jl171imen, Minnesota 55317 P11one 612937.1900 Gr7lenl F[LC 6119375739 Filgincernl� Far 612.937.9152 PuG1ir S,Ireg F, I. 61.2 934.2524 11eG IL 'ID11?fl.C1 17111 LSP71.77171.11 May 31, 2000 Company» «Address I» «City» Dear Sir or Madam: The City of Chanhassen opened Phase I of our skate park in September of 1999. Response to the facility has been overwhelming. This being the case, the city council has elected to postpone construction of a set of hockey boards. In lieu of this, they have elected to seek proposals for the construction and installation of a second phase for the skate park. If you are interested in submitting a proposal for this work, please review the enclosed materials and reply by June 20. Sincerely, Todd Hoffman Park and Recreation Director TH:gmb c: File Ra -559 g: \p arlc \th\RFP SkateParkPhaseII i. Cl F MEMORANDUM V SEN TO: Park and Recreation Commission 690 , Center D've,PO Box 147 FROM: Todd Hoffman, Director of Parks and Recreation Cban1jassen, Alinnesov 55317 None 611937.1900 DATE: June 22, 2000 Grlural Fax 612.9375739 SUBJ: Skate Park Phase II Acquisition E77, ar 612 93 7.9152 PI(GGc Sq f tl F2r 61? 934. 2524 On May 31, 2000, the attached request for proposals was mailed to four skate park CG711111 !f1.CGanGlItIPT1.17111.7U manufacturers. Three of those companies;. Ramp Tech, Spohn Ranch, and True Ride chose to submit proposals. Spohn Ranch did not meet our pricing limitations and as such, was eliminated from consideration. The proposals from Ramp Tech and True Ride are similar in design, but differ in their specifications. A comparison of Ramp Tech's proposal and True Ride's Option III (preferred option) clearly identifies True Ride as the superior performer. Their half pipe is 18' wide versus Ramp Tech's 16' width. The length of the half differs from True Ride's 41' to Ramp Tech's 22'. Ramp Tech proposes two "boxes," but they are only 8' long. The small size would lead to constant reconfiguration by users and they could easily be stolen from the site. True Ride only offers one "box," but at a dimension of 6' x 17' provides more aggregate material and a sturdier product. Ramp Tech's rail is straight and 20' long. True Ride's is kinked and 24' Iona— True True Ride specifies 2 x 6 construction on 8" centers. Ramp Tech also specifies 8" centers but does not identify if the construction members are 2 x 6 or 2 x 4. Ramp Tech offers a 5 -year warranty versus True Rides 2 year warranty. The- Ramp Tech warranty is more restrictive than that of True Ride. RECOMMENDATION Both proposals demonstrate a quality effort to meet the request of the City. However, True Ride's proposal is superior to that of Ramp Tech and it is staff s recommendation to accept the True Ride Option III proposal at a cost of $14,996.66. G:\park\thZkaicParkRFPRecommendation Shakopee Skate Park Proposed a a: April 3 Request City Council Approval For: • Concept Plan • Authorize Bidding • Authorize Public Works to Construct Skate Park Pad April 12 Bid Advertisement Published May 3 Bids Close May 15 City Council Award Bid May -June . Public Works Construct Pad Mid -Late June Equipment Delivered and Installed Shakopee Skate Par Proposed Rules Hours: O•_ during pa • 11 1t1• Helmet, knee pads, elbow pads, and wrist guards are strongly recommended. Know your ability and skate with The park is designed for all skill levels. Be courteous to skaters with different abilities. Skateboards . • in skating only. No bicycles, . • motorized vehicles, or other wheeled devices allowed on - pad • equipment. o equipment may be brought int• the facility. No skating when raining, or when the equipment or skating surface is wet. No pets park. Don't litter. Help keep the park clean. No food or drink in the skating area. No use of tobacco products. No amplified Competitive or demonstration events are only allowed with permission from Shakopee Parks and Recreation Department. ■ This facility is not supervised. Shakopee Parks and Recreation assumes no liability for loss, damage or any kind of injury or accident to people or property. 1 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Mark Noble, Planner I SUBJECT: Robert Olson/Chrysler Reality Corp. Appeal of Sign Variance Denial by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals ME ETING DATE: April 3, 2001 IN WCO Robert Olson/Chrysler Reality Corp. has submitted an appeal of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals denial of the following variance to sign area for the Chrysler Dealership proposed on property located adjacent to the southwest comer of CSAH 17 and STH 169: ® A variance to allow a second free standing sign (49.5 square foot monument sign adjacent to Weston Court), where only one free standing sign is allowed. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals held a public hearing on the variance request at its February 8, 2001 meeting, and denied the request, having concluded that it did not meet all of the criteria for granting a variance. The Board's action was consistent with stafFs recommendation. A copy of the report to the Board is attached for the Council's information. In its discussion, the Board felt that it was the Board's job to uphold the ordinances of the City of Shakopee and that there was no hardship presented. The applicant had asked that the Board reconsider their determination at the March 8, 2001 meeting. The request was based on modifications to the original variance request, with the applicant asking for reconsideration to allow a second free standing sign as noted above. The request for reconsideration was denied. The applicant has appealed the Board's determination. AL TERNATIVES: 1. Uphold the determination of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, and direct staff prepare a resolution for the Council's consent agenda that is consistent with that decision. 2. Uphold the appeal of the applicant, thereby granting the requested (or some other) variance, and direct staff to prepare a resolution for the Council's consent agenda that is consistent with that decision. 3. Table the appeal for additional information. I . I �, March 11, 2001 Dear Board of Adjustment and Appeals to the Shakopee City Council. In regards to Shakopee Valley Market Place, PID# 304 -003 -0 lot 1 block 3. / Chrysler Dealership. Do to the changes in our proposed sign variance application we are asking the ladies and gentlemen on the Board of Adjustment and Appeals to the Shakopee city council to reconsider the application due to the changes we have made from our previous request. As to our previous request we have changed all of our signs to fall in to your code. We dropped the letter set we were requesting for the south side of the building approx. 98 Sq. ft, we made the Freestanding sign to the 20' in high 96 Sq. Ft. We were requesting 30' and 150 Sq. Ft. As for the sign we are requesting a approval for is a monument sign on West Court Road which the original request was for a 96 Sq. Ft. sign, but now we are asking for only one sign at 49.5 Sq. Ft. as per drawing_ 1. We request this monument sign to avoid any confusion on the part of our customers looking down West Court Rd. from 17th Ave_ there is no indication that this is the road to turn on to get to the Chrysler Dealer ship. 2. This is the only entrance to our dealer ship with no indication to our customers were to enter our dealer ship or to tell them that it is a Chrysler dealer ship not a park and ride or some other facility with lots of employees. 3. After going through the City of Shakopee we have noticed that our competitors have any ware from 3 to 5 free standing signs and several other business have more then one freestanding signs we believe this is not a unreasonable request. considering we are only asking for a 49.5 Sq. Ft. sign do to our location. 4. We are asking the board to consider for our free standing sign that we are allowed to use Marschall road as grade do to the elevation of our property_ Thank you . Sincerely, Ifrl 4=1006TONICOR I •' 1 : Board of Adjustment and Appeals Mark Noble, Planner I SUBJECT: Reconsideration of Sign Variance — Chrysler Corp. D ATE: March 8, 2001 la V: 1 1 1 On the Board of Adjustment and Appeal's March 8, 2001 agenda is a request for reconsideration of a sign variance for Chrysler Corporation. The applicant has modified the original request and is asking that the Board review the variance application taking into consideration the revisions and reconsider the request for a sign variance. The applicant had provided two letters which have addressed several changes to the original request for a sign variance which was reviewed at the Board's February 8, 2001 meeting. That request included a wall sign on the south side of the building where no signage was allowed, the installation of a 35 foot high and 150 square foot pylon free standing sign, where 20 feet and 100 square feet were the maximums, respectively, and a second free standing monument sign which was proposed at 14 feet tall and 96 square feet. The modifications show that the only variance of the sign regulations would pertain to allowing a second free standing sign, where only one free standing sign is allowed. They would like to install a pylon sign along County Road 17 near the intersection with Hwy. 169. This sign would be 20 feet in height and 96 square feet in area. This sign would comply with the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. They also would like to install a monument sign along their Weston Court frontage. This sign would be 49.5 square feet in area and 10 feet in height. I have attached the original staff memorandum, which outlines the criteria and findings for granting a variance. 1 1 � Proposed Sign Variance - Chrysler Zoning Boundary - Parcel Boundary N W E SHAK ®PEE caNDAUr,M F=ESDXM Ui9 S Feb -15 -01 11:23A BooDoo Signs 6124448302 P_01 "B00" D00 SIGNS 29021 Feldspar St. NW ♦ Princeton, MN 55371 Phone 612-444-0212 • Fax 612- 444-0212 February 15, 2001 Dear Board of Adjustment and Appeals In regards to Shakopee Valley Market Place, PID# 304 -003 -0 lot I block 3. / Chrysler Dealership. As to our previous request we have changed all of our signs to fall in to your code, We dropped the letter set we were requesting for the south side of the huilding we made the freestanding sign to the 20' in high 96 Sq, Ft, As for the sign we are requesting a approval ror is a monument sign on West Court Road which the original request was Ibr a 96 Sq. Ft. sign, but now we are asking for only one sign at 49,5 Sq. Ft, as per drawing. We request this monument sign to avoid any confusion on the part of our customers looking down West Court Rd. from 17th Ave. there is no indication that this is the road to Tarn on to get to the Chrysler rx-zlcrship. We also think it could be a safety issue for customers and general public_ Customers coming from Marschall Rd. turning on 17th Ave. and slowing down to take the first right which is Greenwood Court seeing that this street wont let them to the dealership could swerve back on to 17th Ave. or come up to West Court Rd. slowing almost to a complete stop looking to see if this road lets them to the dealership. Either of these could potentially cruse an accident or disrupt trairic pattern. Having the sign there they would look down the road sec the sign and turn with less of a potential traffic lituard, Thank you . Sincerely, s, Robert `BOO" Olson CONTINUE FROM PREUIOUS PAGE 001 Dear Board of Adlustment and Appeals In regards to Shakopee Valley Markct Place, PLDit 304- 003-0 lot 1 block 3. I Chrysler Dealership. As to our previous request the placement of the monument sign will remain the same place. As for the free standing sign the placement of this sign will be one of the l.vo locations # 1 is our [first choice being the sign is lower then our first requested sight the Ycel cnerg has not let us know if we can put the sign there yet if we can not location 42 is ware the sign will go. Thank you . Sincerely, Robert "BOO" Olsen 1 1' VIgIlLuej . .' I III FROM TO: Board of Adjustment and Appeal,: Mark Noble, Planner I SUBJEC Signage Variance — Automobile Dealership IJA 134 Dy I 1 • �� 1' 1 Applicant: Robert Olson/Chrysler Realty Corp. Location: Lot 1, Block 3, Shakopee Valley Market Place West (off Weston Court, and abutting U.S. Hwy. 169 and County Rd. 17) Current Zoning: Highway Business (B -1) Zone Comp. Commercial Attachments: Exhibit A: Location Map Exhibit B: Applicant Correspondence Exhibit C: Signage Plans ' 1 1 Robert Olson, representing Chrysler Realty Corporation, has made application for a signage variance in connection with an automobile dealership proposed within Shakopee Valley Marketplace West (see Exhibit A). Attached as Exhibit B is a copy of the applicant's correspondence explaining the request. Exhibit C illustrates the design and location of the proposed signage. The City Code allows up to 200 square feet of wall signage on the front of the building. The City Code also allows up to 100 square feet of wall signage on the sides of the building that either faces a street or has a public entrance on that side of the building. The applicant is proposing signage on the north, west (building front) and east walls of the building, all which is allowed. The applicant is also proposing 83.5 square feet of signage on the south side of the building, where no wall signage is allowed. The Building Official noted that if approved, footings would e• to be installed as required by Building Code. 110 1 Section 11.89, Subd. 2, of the City Code contains provisions for the granting of variances only if _ of the following circumstances are found to exist. Staff has provided draft findings on each criterion. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may use or modify these draft findings as it sees fit: T he problems exte1 /'d. beyond 1 1 I I I 1 1 Ilf. ' A l :I s. Economic c1 h's 1 1 1 do no) -1 c onst i tute an undue hardship if reasonable f or 1property exists uI d t he terms of 1 ordinance ,..I. ; ... Criteri It has been demonstrated ':1 varian 1 re quested 1 be :I keeping with the spirit 11. i n t ent of this 1'!: , 1 ' F inaiing The proposed variance would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of Chapter 11 (Zonb� in th at there is no hardship or ''/ to vwyftom the ordbuow Criterion 3 The request is not for a use variance. F in4fing 3 The request for a signage variance is not a use variance. Criterion Conditions to be imposed by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals will insure compliance to protect the adjacent properties. rum 111 Criterion 5 Variances in the flood plain overlay zone also shall meet the following criteria:...... Nam ALTERN ATIVES Staff finds that this request does not comply with Criterion 1.A., 1.B., 1.C., LE. and 2.; therefore, staff is recommending Alternative 2, direct staff to prepare a resolution denying the variance with findings as proposed by the Board. 1 1 / /Jr l CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Mark Noble, Planner I SUBJECT: Robert Olson/Chrysler Reality Corp. Appeal of Sign Variance Denial by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals MEETING DATE: April 3, 2001 IICVVII $ Robert Olson/Chrysler Reality Corp. has submitted an appeal of Board of Adjustment and Appeals denial of the following variance to sign area for the Chrysler Dealership proposed on property located adjacent to the southwest comer of CSAH 17 and STH 169: ♦ A variance to allow a second free standing sign (49.5 square foot monument sign adjacent to Weston Court), where only one free standing sign is allowed. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals held a public hearing on the variance request at its February 8, 2001 meeting, and denied the request, having concluded that it did not meet all of the criteria for granting a variance. The Board's action was consistent with staffs recommendation. A copy of the report to the Board is attached for the Council's information. In its discussion, the Board felt that it was the Board's job to uphold the ordinances of the City of Shakopee and that there was no hardship presented. The applicant had asked that the Board reconsider their determination at the March 8, 2001 meeting. The request was based on modifications to the original variance request, with the applicant asking for reconsideration to allow a second free standing sign as noted above. The request for reconsideration was denied. The applicant has appealed the Board's determination. F41 IN V DI Lien I U 1. Uphold the determination of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, and direct staff prepare a resolution for the Council's consent agenda that is consistent with that decision. 2. Uphold the appeal of the applicant, thereby granting the requested (or some other) variance, and direct staff to prepare a resolution for the Council's consent agenda that is consistent with that decision. 3. Table the appeal for additional information. 1 1 � Offer and pass a motion consistent with the Council's determination. k Noble Planner I APPchryslr.DOC e ee SIGNS D� 29021 Feldspar St. NW 1 Princeton, MN 55:171 B Phone 612 -0212 � Fax 612 - 444 -0212 �- -�_ March 11, 2001 Dear Board of Adjustment and Appeals to the Shakopee City Council. In regards to Shakopee Valley Market Place, PID# 304 - 003 -0 lot 1 block 3. / Chrysler Dealership_ Do to the changes in our proposed sign variance application we are asking the ladies and gentlemen on the Board of Adjustment and Appeals to the Shakopee city council to reconsider the application due to the changes we have made from our previous request. As to our previous request we have changed all of our signs to fall in to your code. We dropped the letter set we were requesting for the south side of the building approx. 98 Sq. ft, we made the Freestanding sign to the 20' in high 96 Sq. Ft. We were requesting 30' and 150 Sq. Ft. As for the sign we are requesting a approval for is a monument sign on West Court Road which the original request was for a 96 Sq. Ft_ sign, but now we are asking for only one sign at 49.5 Sq. Ft. as per drawing. 1. We request this monument sign to avoid any confusion on the part of our customers looking down West Court Rd. from 17th Ave. there is no indication that this is the road to turn on to get to the Chrysler Dealer ship. 2. This is the only entrance to our dealer ship with no indication to our customers were to enter our dealer ship or to tell them that it is a Chrysler dealer ship not a park and ride or some other facility with lots of employees. 3. After going through the City of Shakopee we have noticed that our competitors have any ware from 3 to 5 free standing signs and several other business have more then one freestanding signs we believe this is not a unreasonable request. considering we are only asking for a 49.5 Sq. Ft. sign do to our location. 4. We are asking the board to consider for our free standing sign that we are allowed to use Marschall road as grade do to the elevation of our property. Thank you. Sincerely, tf Robert "BOO" Olson Uff Memorandum TO: Board of Adjustment and Appeals FROM: Mark Noble, Planner I rr SUBJECT: Reconsideration of Sign Variance — Chrysler Corp. DATE: March 8, 2001 WIN '/1 V / On the Board of Adjustment and Appeal's March 8, 2001 agenda is a request for reconsideration of a sign variance for Chrysler Corporation. The applicant has modified the original request and is asking that the Board review the variance application taking into consideration the revisions and reconsider the request for a sign variance. ImIxei •1 1 The applicant had provided two letters which have addressed several changes to the original request for a sign variance which was reviewed at the Board's February 8, 2001 meeting. That request included a wall sign on the south side of the building where no signage was allowed, the installation of a 35 foot high and 150 square foot pylon free standing sign, where 20 feet and 100 square feet were the maximums, respectively, and a second free standing monument sign which was proposed at 14 feet tall and 96 square feet. The modifications show that the only variance of the sign regulations would pertain to allowing a second free standing sign, where only one free standing sign is allowed. They would like to install a pylon sign along County Road 17 near the intersection with Hwy. 169. This sign would be 20 feet in height and 96 square feet in area. This sign would comply with the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. They also would like to install a monument sign along their Weston Court frontage. This sign would be 49.5 square feet in area and 10 feet in height. I have attached the original staff memorandum, which outlines the criteria and findings for granting a variance. / 1 M If the Board wishes to consider the amended request, is should first offer and pass a motion suspending its rules. If that passes, it should offer and pass a motion allowing reconsideration of the request. If the reconsideration were granted, staff would ask that the Board offer a motion directing staff to draft a resolution consistent with the Board's determination and proposed findings. Proposed Sign Variance - Chrysler =,'Zoning Boundary M Parcel Boundary 11 1 1V W E SHAK ®PEE ca%svullmPPmeSDIICEmv S February 15, 2001 Dear Board of Adjustnimit and Appeals In regards to Shakopee Valley Ma.rkct Place, P1D# 304 -003 -0 lot 1 block 3. / Chrysler Dealership. As to our previous request we have changed all of our signs to fall in to your code. We dropped the let.tcr sct we were requesting For the south side of the building we made the Freestanding sign to the 20' in high 96 Sq, Ft. As for the sign we are requesting a approval for is a monument sign on West Court Road which the original request was for a 96 Sq. Ft. sign, but now we are asking for only one sign at 49.5 Sq. FL as per drawing. We request this monument sign to avoid any confusion on the pert of our customers looking down West Court Rd. froiti 17th Ave. there is no indication that this is the road to turn on to get to the Chrysler ikralcrship. We also think it could be a safety issue for customers and general public. Customers coming from Marschall Rd. turning on 17th Ave. and slowing down to take the first right which is Greenwood Court seeing that this street wont let them to the dealership could swerve back on to 17th Ave. or come up to West Court Rd. slowing almost to a complete stop looking to see if this road lets them to the dealership. Lither of these could potentially cause an accident or disrupt trs1T`ac pattern. Having the sign there they would look down the road see the sign and turn with less of a potential traffic hazard. Thank you , Sincerely. f L' Robert `BOO' _ Olson CONTINUE FROM PREUIOUS PAGE 001 Dear Board of Adiustment and Appeals In regards to Shakopee Valley Markct Place, PLDit 304 -003-0 lot 1 block 3. / Chrysler Dealership. As to our Previous request the placement of the monument sign will remain the same place. As for the free standing sign the placement of this sign will be one of the lwo locations 01 is our first choice being 111c sign is lower then our first requested sight the Xcel merg has not Ict us know if we can put the sign there vet if we can not location 42 is ware the sign will go. Thank you . Sincerely, Robert "R(?O" Olson 1 1� i 014 . TO: Board of Adjustment and Appeals FR O M : Mark Noble, Planner I SUBJECT: Signage Variance — Automobile Dealership ME ETING DATE: February 8, 2001 1 / ' L I Applicant: Robert Olson/Chrysler Realty Corp. Location: Lot 1, Block 3, Shakopee Valley Market Place West (off Weston Court, and abutting U. S. Hwy. 169 and County Rd. 17) Current Zoning: Highway Business (B -1) Zone Adjacent Zoning: North: U.S. Highway 169 South: Highway Business (B -1) Zone East: Highway Business (B -1) Zone West: Highway Business (B -1) Zone Comp. Plan: Commercial Attachments: Exhibit A: Location Map Exhibit B: Applicant Correspondence Exhibit C: Signage Plans 1 191 Cill II If 1 Robert Olson, representing Chrysler Realty Corporation, has made application for a signage variance in connection with an automobile dealership proposed within Shakopee Valley Marketplace West (see Exhibit A). Attached as Exhibit B is a copy of the applicant's correspondence explaining the request. Exhibit C illustrates the design and location of the proposed signage. 1 111 DI mm I le The City Code allows up to 200 square feet of wall signage on the front of the building. The City Code also allows up to 100 square feet of wall signage on the sides of the building that either faces a street or has a public entrance on that side of the building. The applicant is proposing signage on the north, west (building front) and east walls of the building, all which is allowed. The applicant is also proposing 83.5 square feet of signage on the south side of the building, where no wall signage is allowed. Pertaining to free standing signs, the applicant is proposing a pylon and a monument sign, both which are considered free standing signs. The City Code allows one free standing sign per lot, with that sign not to exceed twenty (20) feet in height and 125 square feet in area. The proposed pylon sign would be thirty five (35) feet high, and 150 square feet in area, which exceeds the criteria for both area and height and would require variance approval. The monument sign requires approval of a variance as it is considered a second free standing sign, where only one is allowed. Additionally, they would like two (2) directional signs, where only one is allowed. The Building Official noted that if approved, footings would need to be installed as required by the Building Code. Section 11. 89, Subd. 2, of the City Code contains provisions for the granting of variances only if _ all of the following circumstances are found to exist. Staff has provided draft findings on each criterion. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may use or modify these draft findings as it sees fit: I.D. a variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; and Finding I.D. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. 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. Finding LF- The problems do not extend beyond economic considerations Criterion 2 It has been demonstrated that a variance as requested will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Chapter. Finding 2 The proposed variance would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of Chapter 11 (Zoning) in that there is no hardship or need to vary from the ordinance. Criterion 3 The request is not for a use variance. Finding 3 The request for a signage variance is not a use variance. Criterion 4 Conditions to be imposed by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals will insure compliance to protect the adjacent properties. Finding 4 (Not applicable if the application does not meet all the criteria for granting a variance) Criterion 5 Variances in the flood plain overlay zone also shall meet the following criteria:...... Finding S (Not applicable since the front of the property is not within the flood plain overlay zone) ALTERNATIVES 1. Direct staff to prepare a resolution approving the variance with findings as proposed by the Board. 2. Direct staff to prepare a resolution denying the variance with findings as proposed by the Board. 3. Continue the Public Hearing for additional information. 4. Table the decision for additional information. ! 1 0115 1 . I Staff finds that this request does not comply with Criterion 1.A, 1.B., 1.C., 1.E. and 2.; therefore, staff is recommending Alternative 2, direct staff to prepare a resolution denying the variance with findings as proposed by the Board. Offer a motion directing staff to draft a resolution consistent with the Board's determination and proposed findings. M9rk Nob Planner I CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memoran&m CONSENT O: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Request by Julie Klima for Conversion from Full-time Exempt to Part -time Employment 1 i, 1 1, F il 1 • •; 11 0. 1 , 11111111149 1 1 Planner II Julie Klima is scheduled to return to work on April 23, 2001 from a 12 -week FMLA leave. Ms. Klima has requested that she be allowed to return to work on a part - time (i.e. 32 hours per week basis). If the Council approves the request, effective April 23, 2001 Ms. Klima would go from a full-time, exempt employee entitled to full benefits to a part-time, non - exempt employee entitled to pro rata benefits based on actual hours worked. Ms. Klima would go from being paid on a salary basis to an hourly basis. Because of her knowledge, experience, and professional judgment, Ms. Klima has been a valued and valuable employee of the City. As a result, I am recommending that the Council affirmatively consider Ms. Klima's request. ALTE A S: 1. Approve the request of Julie Klima to return to work as Planner II on a part-time, non- exempt basis effective April 23, 2001. 2. Do not approve Ms. Klima's request. 3. Table the request for additional information. I am recommending Alternative No. 1. Offer a motion approving the request of Julie Klima to return to work as Planner Ill on a part-time, non - exempt basis effective April 23, 2001. R. Michael Leek Community Development Director CONSENT CM OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum : Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Successful Completion of Probationary Period for Planner I, Mark Noble IWNI R 1 1 M 1 Mark Noble's probationary period ended March 11, 2001. Mr. Noble is a conscientious and welcome addition to the City's planning staff For that reason Council is asked to declare that he has successfully completed the probationary period, and appoint him to full -time regular employment in the position of Planner I. Rol e) 16 1 It is recommended that the Council find that Mark Noble has successfully completed his 6- month probationary period, and award him regular, full-time employment as Planner I. 1 1 1 The Council is asked to offer and pass a motion declaring that Mark Noble has successfully completed his 6 -month probationary period, and award him regular, full-time employment as Planner I. R. Michael Leek y Community Development Director CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Extended Leaves of Absence DATE: March 28, 2001 C 0 1 S The City Council is asked to authorize a one year unpaid leave of absence for a City employee. REXRX' "al-1091 We have had a request from a City employee for an unpaid leave of absence of one year due to a medical disability. (Confidentiality issues dictate that the employee's name not be released at this time). Section V. — J (2) of the City's personnel policy states:.. . "The City Council may extend such (unpaid) leave to a maximum of one year if the employee is disabled or where the City Council fords extraordinary circumstances warrants such extension. Benefits including vacation leave, sick leave, holidays or other form of indirect compensation will not accrue during an unpaid leave of absence." In view of the circumstances, I recommend that a one year unpaid leave of absence be granted. KTO l ► : 1 1 9 1111 If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, authorize a one -year leave of absence for the employee in question, due to medical disability. Such leave would be effective as of the date of the exhaustion of the employee's available sick leave and vacation leave. ¢ r � q I . Mark McNeill City Administrator IN= CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Accept Resignation of John Delacey and Authorize the Advertisement for Engineering II, III and IV Positions DATE: April 3, 2001 Attached is a letter of resignation from John DeLacey, Engineering Tech. IV, effective April 15, 2001. Also staff would like to request authorization again to advertise the various Engineering Technician positions, which are currently vacant in the Engineering Department. John DeLacey has submitted a letter of resignation effective on March 28, 2001, with his last day of employment being April 13, 2001. Mr. DeLacey has a been an Engineering Technician for the City of Shakopee for a number of years and currently his position is an Engineering Tech. IV. Recently, City staff did interview candidates for an Engineering Tech. IT and Engineering Tech. III positions that are vacant and were unsuccessful in obtaining candidates for the position. With this resignation, there will be an Engineering Technician II, III and IV positions that are vacant in the Engineering Department. Staff is recommending to advertise for all three positions and again requesting Council, as done previously, to utilize consultants to supplement the Engineering Department for its department needs as necessary during this hiring period. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Move to accept the resignation of John DeLacey with regrets. 2. Authorize the advertising for an Engineering H, III and IV positions in the Engineering Department. 3. Table action pending further information from staff. 4. Authorize staff to utilize consultants as necessary for Engineering Department staffing. i t J ul Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, No. 2 and No. 4. ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Move to accept the resignation of John DeLacey. 2. Authorize the advertising for an Engineering Technician II, Engineering Technician III and Engineering Technician IV positions in the Engineering Department. 3. Authorize staff to utilize consultants as necessary for Engineering Department staffing. � ruce Lon y Public Wor s Director BI/pmp DELACEY March 28, 2001 Mr. Bruce Loney, P.E. Director of Public Works City of Shakopee Dear Mr. Loney: Please accept this letter as my notice of resignation from employment with the City of Shakopee. I anticipate my final day to be April 13, 2001. I appreciate the opportunity to have been able to work with such a wonderful engineering department and I apologize for any inconvenience that I may be causing. Sincerely, John H. DeLacey --- -° �5. E. 57, CITY OF SHAKOPE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Classification/Compensation Study Award DATE: March 30, 2001 The Council is asked to award a contract to perform a compensation and classification study for City employee positions. In February, the City Council authorized a classification/compensation study to be performed for City employee positions. This action recognized that the existing pay plan has some shortfalls; changes are needed to assure equity, consideration for market factors, and other issues. Six responses were received to the Request for Proposals. A panel made up of the Deputy Police Chief, Public Works Director, Community Development Director, Payroll Benefits Coordinator, Management Assistant, and myself reviewed them, and reached a consensus of two consultants to bring in for an interview. Interviews for those two were held Friday, March 30''. As a result of those interviews, the consensus is to recommend Riley, Dettmann and Kelsey of Minnetonka. This company is well versed in performing studies for other metropolitan area cities, which had issues similar to those facing Shakopee. The principal contact, Rod Kelsey, has over 30 years of experience in the field of compensation studies. The amount of money budgeted for this study was $12,000, based upon what a similar study had cost in another community. The proposal of RDK is for a total cost not to exceed $18,850. This is above the amount budgeted, but most of this difference can be made up in line items elsewhere in the "professional services" line item of the budget. There are a couple of opportunities to reduce that amount by City staff being more involved in some of the housekeeping aspects of the study. In checking references, RDK is highly recommended. We recommend that RDK be authorized to provide consulting services to conduct a classification and compensation study for the City of Shakopee. If approved, the anticipated time of completion will be approximately 8 weeks, which will provide enough time in which to build in any financial considerations into the FY 2002 budget. If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, authorize the award of a consulting services contract to RDK, for the purpose of conducting a job classification and compensation study for the City of Shakopee. Mark McNeill City Administrator Muluv n TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 Background / Objectives / Scope ........................................... ............................... 1 SECTION 2 Approach.................................................................................. ............................... 2 SECTION 3 Qualifications........................................................................... ............................... 3 SECTION 4 ProjectStaffing / Timing .......................................................... ............................... SECTION 5 Professional Arrangements .................................................... ............................... 5 SECTION 6 RDK Job Evaluation Methodology Summary ........................ ............................... 6 SECTION 7 RDK Job Description Questionnaire ...................................... ............................... 7 RILEY, DETTMANN & KELSEY LLc C A • . •' ® • V The City of Shakopee, Minnesota intends to retain outside pay equity consulting expertise to plan, conduct, document and report on a classification / compensation study of approximately 43 separate, distinct City positions, currently held by approximately 88 full time employees. We understand the following considerations and expectations as primary reasons the City believes the proposed study is necessary: 1. A formal, comprehensive classification / compensation study has not been performed since 1996, although the plan has had periodic updatings. 2. About 28% of the City classifications have no accurate match to the Metropolitan Areas Salary Survey that has for many years served as the benchmark pay information resource for cities in the greater Twin Cities metropolitan area. 3. There is concern that the existing 8 -step pay plan is excessively long. Therefore, the City is interested in alternatives that either shorten the timeframe of pay progression and /or accelerate the progression through the existing plan. (There is also a 5 -step pay plan covering the Recreation Center classifications.) 4. The City intends to be, and needs to be, competitive when it comes to the "hot" jobs in the general marketplace, whether public or private. The potential challenge is to stay competitive and also in compliance with the State's Pay Equity law. 5. There is a need to investigate, and confirm, the FLSA status of City classifications and thereafter determine the adequacy of pay practices covering legitimate exempt positions. 6. There is a need to evaluate selected classifications held by long- service employees whose actual job content duties may have changed, but without any perceptible change in job title, classification or pay. 7. There is a need to explore the feasibility of performance pay. 8. The resulting pay system must be easily updated, kept current, and be in compliance with Pay Equity. The study will include using current job descriptions that must be up -to -date; application of an alternative job evaluation methodology on all positions included in the study; collection of benchmark survey data from the public and private sectors; review of study results with a representative advisory committee of City employees; preparation of a final report; presentation of findings and recommendations as directed by the City; and follow up to help facilitate implementation and administration of the revised pay plan. RILEY, D=MANN & KELSEY LLc 1 APPROACH Initial Meeting Covering the Proposed Classification / Compensation Study 1. The consultant will meet with the Payroll /Benefits Coordinator, City Administrator and department heads to review each phase of the proposed work plan, decide the manner and timing of announcing the study to employees, and protocol to select an advisory team of employees to work with the consultant throughout the study. 2. All job descriptions will be collected and thoroughly reviewed by the consultant. The 'consultant, Payroll / Benefits Coordinator, and management team will decide where it is necessary to distribute our job description questionnaire. A copy of the questionnaire, which can be tailored to specific City needs, is included in the Section 7 of this proposal. 3. In those cases when our job description questionnaire is distributed, the consultant will interview the employees completing the questionnaire in the most efficient manner hat may be a combination of telephone, on -site and in groups. 4. The consultant will schedule meeting time with the project advisory team once it is established by the City to define its role and involvement in the study, emphasizing that the consultant is expected to and will be accountable for the findings and recommendations in a final report to the City. 5. The consultant will evaluate all positions included in the study using the RDK proprietary job evaluation methodology. A copy of the evaluation methodology narrative is also included in this proposal. 6. The consultant will meet with the management team and advisory committee to review results of the job evaluation process for comment and input. 7. The consultant will select, collect and compile, and project benchmark survey data from our extensive pay data library for the purpose of determining the City's competitive position to comparable jurisdictions. The City and consultant will decide which jurisdictions have been, and are to be, used as benchmarks. Recommendations for revised base pay guidelines are part of this step. 8. The consultant will again meet with the management team and advisory committee to review results of the survey benchmarking process for comment and input. 9. The consultant will develop a new pay structure for non - contract positions. Contract classifications will continue to be bargained as before. 10. Pay Equity testing will be done by the consultant to determine the effects and impact of revisions to internal job relationships and application of survey data. 11. A final report will be prepared including all findings, observations and recommendations of the consultant. 12. Presentation of the final report will be done as directed by the City. 2 RILEY, DETTMANN & KELSEY LLc QUALIFICATIONS Riley, Dettmann & Kelsey «c is a Twin Cities based regional compensation consulting firm. Our assignments cover all types of compensation plan development for organizations that are for - profit, not - for- profit, public sector, or private sector. Roderick M. Kelsey, Vice President and co -owner of the firm, has extensive experience in developing, auditing, and updating pay equity programs (covering the last fifteen years since the State mandate of 1985). A representative listing of city public sector clients for which we have conducted some type of classification and /or compensation consulting includes: City of Bloomington City of Burnsville City of Eagan City of Hastings City of Inver Grove Heights City of Kasson City of Lakeville City of Maple Grove City of Mound City of Oakdale City of Richfield City of St. Cloud City of St. Louis Park City of Woodbury We would be happy to provide specific reference names and telephone numbers as requested. RILEY, DETTMANN & KELSEY LLc 3 ; : Rod Kelsey, Principal, Vice President and co -owner of the firm, will serve as consultant for this proposed classification / compensation study. Mr. Kelsey has been heavily involved in public sector classification and compensation consulting throughout the Upper Midwest since 1972 including many assignments connected with Pay Equity since 1985. His resume appears below. Roderick M. Kelsey is a Principal, Vice President and co -owner of Riley, Dettmann & Kelsey LLC (RDK) and has been a compensation consultant throughout the Upper Midwest since 1972, assuming responsibility for a broad scope of consulting engagements in industry, education and government. He earned his Master's degree in educational psychology at the University of Minnesota, following undergraduate studies in political science and sociology at Illinois Wesleyan University. Rod has served several leadership roles for the Twin Cities Human Resources Association and holds memberships in the American Compensation Association (ACA) and the Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM). Mr. Kelsey has also been an instructor in Public Sector Compensation for the University of Minnesota Employer Education Services (EES) for over ten years. Based on the scope of work to be done and the work plan outlined in this proposal, we would estimate a study completion date approximately four to eight weeks from the date the study is begun following formal approval by the City Council. This estimate assumes that employees will be available as needed to work with the consultant. M RILEY, DETTMANN & KELSEY LLc Based on the scope and content of the proposed study as outlined in this proposal, our consulting fees will be in a range from $14,300 to $17,850. These professional fees are based on an assumption of required time allocation for each of the approximately 43 classifications including two or three additional days of consulting for extended or unforeseen time demands related to the study. Riley, Dettmann & Kelsey will separately invoice the City a flat rate of $800 for Pay Equity testing. Mileage charges related to the study will be invoiced at the rate of $.345 /mile. We will invoice a flat $200 for materials covering process exhibits and final reporting. This proposal remains in effect for 120 days. After that time, we respectfully reserve the right to modify or withdraw the proposal. Thank you for considering Riley, Dettmann & Kelsey for this important consulting work J RILEY, DETTMANN & KELSEY LLc 5 Summary of Job Evaluation Factors from the RDK Proprietary System Formal Preparation and Experience This job evaluation factor is applied to determine the most representative combination of formal preparation (schooling at whatever level) and relevant (job- linked) experience typically required to qualify for the position being evaluated. It is important in this factor to verify the minimum acceptable qualifications for the position being evaluated. [There are two decisions made on this factor - one related to formal preparation and one made related to relevant experience.] Decision Making (Impact) This job evaluation factor is applied to determine the regular and ongoing freedom to act; the extent of the organization affected by those actions; and the best characterization of decision - making typical of the position being evaluated. [There are three decisions made on this factor - one related to the degree of freedom to act; one related to the extent of such judgments; and one related to the nature of decision making.] Thinking Challenges and Problem Solving This job evaluation factor is applied to determine the representative thinking challenges and problem solving required on an ongoing basis and thereafter the depth of intellectual response to those challenges and creativity involved in solving problems. [There are two decisions made on this factor - one related to the context and complexity of challenges I problems and one related to the depth of response required to address and resolve such challenges and problems.] Interactions and Communications This job evaluation factor is applied to determine the context of business - related interactions and communications, which are an ongoing part of performing the position being evaluated. [There are two decisions made on this factor - one related to the type and context of business interactions and one related to the impact of the outcomes and effects on information content and flow throughout the organization.] Work Environment This job evaluation factor is applied to determine the potential for injury in performing the position being evaluated and also determine what recognized health hazards regularly exist in the typical work environment of the position being evaluated. [There are two decisions made on this factor - one related to potential for injury and one covering the recognized health hazards in the work environment.] T?TT.r.V T)F.TTMANN Rs TCr.T.Rr.V fsr ..J Basic Template Example JOB DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE (JDQ) IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR'S TITLE: DEPARTMENT: EMPLOYEE REVIEW (initials): SUPERVISOR REVIEW (initials): Briefly state why your position exists and what you consider its most important impact on the organization. II. - ESSENTIAL ACCOUNTABILITIES Please identify the essential accountabilities of your position, which should be the most important responsibilities of the job. Then explain the expected outcomes of performing those duties, and how the outcomes are measured. % OF TIME SPENT ESSENTIAL ACCOUNTABILITIES EXPECTED OUTCOMES (RESULTS) HOW ARE OUTCOMES EVALUATED 100% Forms 2000 RDK uc 7 Please answer the following based on the most representative combination of formal preparation and relevant experience to qualify for position. 1. Formal preparation (or equivalent) to qualify for the position. 2. Relevant experience required to qualify for the position. 3. Note any other training which is desirable for the position. IV DECISION MAKING Please identify what you believe are the most important judgments you make in performing your job. EXAMPLE OF JUDGEMENTS WHO, IF ANYONE, REVIEWS THESE JUDGEMENTS WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF THESE JUDGEMENTS Please identify the typical types of problems you solve on a regular basis in performing your job. Also include information on who else may be involved in helping with problem resolution. Forms 2000 RDK uc 8 VI. WORK RELATIONSHIPS Please identify the most typical work relationships of your position with other persons, functions or organizations, inside or outside of your own organization. TYPICAL WORK RELATIONSHIPS PURPOSE OF THE RELATIONSHIP IVIL :: WORK ENVIRONMENT ~ Please complete the following: F7 Inside (oheban»d ) `% F1 Noise% F1 Outside work % [1 Fumes, odors _% F Temperature extremes % E] Hozonds% Are there any unusual physical requirements for your position? F� Yes E]No If yes, please explain: [] Travel required% Forms uouunoa 8 '— — VIII. SUPERVISION I MANAGEMENT Where it applies answer the following. Otherwise, put "Not Applicable" or "Don't Know ". Responsibility for others: a. Number of People: b. Their Position Titles: C. Do you: YES NO 1. Directly Supervise? ❑ ❑ 2. Train / Instruct? ❑ ❑ 3. Give Work Direction? ❑ ❑ 4. Do Project Management? ❑ ❑ 5. Conduct Performance Reviews? ❑ ❑ Note assets, facilities, equipment or funds, if any, for which you have some degree of accountability: IX. UNUSUAL / UNIQUE MENTAL REQUIREMENTS Does your position require any unusual or unique mental requirements? X. ADDITIONAL DATA / NOTABLE INFORMATION Please identify any other information which would help someone else understand your position more clearly: Forms 2000 RDK uc 10 I �11 I " CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum _ ;kF. TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: Volunteer Firefighter Insurance DATE: March 28, 2001 Introduction & Background The City has carried a volunteer firefighter insurance policy from Hartford Life for decades. This is a three year policy that expires on May 10 It is an accidental death and dismemberment policy with a principal benefit of $25,000. This is in addition to workers compensation coverage. The renewal premium for three years is $2,602.00. Action requested Move to approve of the renewal of the volunteer firefighters insurance policy with a three year premium of $2,602.00. regg Voxland Finance Director c : \gregg \memo\ /5 F Z CITY OF SHAKOP Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: SMSC Economic Impact Presentation DATE: March 29, 2001 At its meeting of April 4'', there will be a presentation by SMSC Tribal Administrator Bill Rudnicki on the results of an economic impact study that was performed for the Tribe, on the effects of the Little Six and other SMSC operations on Scott County. It is expected that the presentation will take approximately 20 minutes. Mr. Rudnicki has been advised that his presentation will be after the 16/83 and Valley View Road discussions. la 1L � 9 Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:th rs F. t3 City of Shakopee Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Tracy Coenen, Management Assistant SUBJECT: Appointment to Library Committee MEETING DATE: April 3, 2001 Introduction Due to the resignation of Jane DuBois from the Library Committee, City Council directed staff to reopen applications to fill the open position on the library committee. Background The City Clerk's Office has received, before the closing date of April 1, 2001, two applicants for the open position. Julie McNearney and Allen Bartyzol, both residents of Shakopee, have applied. City Council needs to establish a date and interview panel to interview the two candidates. Recommendation The City Council is asked to designate 2 members of the City Council to interview the two Library Committee candidates during the week of April 9 h . Action Required Designate 2 members of the City Council to interview the two Library Committee candidates and establish a meeting time for the week of April 9. _// Tracy Coenen Management Assistant