Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 17, 2001 ADJ. REGULAR SESSION TENTATIVE AGENDA CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA LOCATION: 129 Holmes Street South Mayor Jon Brekke presiding 1] Roll Call at 7:00 p.m. 21 Pledge of Allegiance 31 Approval of Agenda 4] Mayor's Report APRIL 17, 2001 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: March 6, and March 27, 2001 *8] Approval of Bills in the Amount of $1,003,218.20 plus $238,211.43 for refunds, returns and pass through for a total of $1,241,429.63 9] Public Hearings: A] Proposed vacation of easements within Lot 2, Block 1, Valley Park Sixth, continued from April 3, 2001 — Res. No. 5504 10] Communications: Alley Garbage Pickup 11] Liaison Reports from Council Members 12] Recess for Economic Development Authority Meeting - None 13] Re- convene TENTATIVE AGENDA April 17, 2001 Page —2- 14] Recommendations from Boards and Commissions: A] Preliminary Plat for Shakopee Crossings l Addition, located west of CR 18 and north and south of Southbridge Parkway — Res. No. 5510 B] Preliminary Plat for River Bend Townhomes, located between 4` and 5 Avenues and west of Adams Street — Res. No. 5513 C] Preliminary Plat for 7uergens I" Addition, located southwest of CSAH 16 and east of Sarazin Street - Res. No. 5514 D] Rezoning of property located south of CSAH 69 and north of 10` Avenue to Medium Density (R -2) for Derrick Investment Company — Ord. No. 595 E] Rezoning of property located north of 17' Ave. and east of Brittany Court from Agricultural Preservation (AG) to Multiple Family Residential (R -3) for Tollefson Development - Ord. No. 596 *F]. Amend City Code relating to communication devices as permitted accessory uses — Ord. No. 597 15] General Business A] Public Works and Engineering * 1. Additions to Municipal State Aid Street System — Res. No.'s 5506 and 5507. *2. Benefit and Right -of -Way Appraisal Proposals and Engineering Services for Sarazin Street and Valley View Road Improvements, Project 2001 -5 3. Accept Blue Lake Watershed Outlet Feasibility Report 4. Authorize Feasibility Report for East Shakopee Industrial Area Sanitary Sewer — Res_ 5517 B] Police and Fire *1. Surplus Property C] Parks and Recreation * 1. Design Services for Tahpah Park Parking Lot Project *2. Lions Club Lions Park Improvements D] Community Development *1. Approve Appeal by Robert Olson/Chrysler Realty and Grant a Variance for Signage —Res. 5516 2. Waiver of Minor Subdivision Criteria for property located north of 2 " Avenue and west of Holmes St. *3. Final Plat for Orchard Park West PUD 5 Addition, located south of Vierling Drive and west of Harvest Lane — Res. No. 5511 *4. Final Plat for Savanna Oaks at Southbridge e Addition, located south of Hwy 169 and north of Oxford Road North — Res. No. 5512 TENTATIVE AGENDA April 17, 2001 Page -3- 15] General Business continued E] Personnel * 1. Accept Resignation of Kristin Romeo and Fill Position *2. Authorization to Fill Sergeant Positions F] General Administration: * 1. Premises Permits for Lawful Gambling — Shakopee VFW — Res. No. 5509 *2. Interfund Transfers *3. Amending the Resolution Establishing the Library Study Board — Res. No. 5508 *4. Dean Lake Substation Easement with NSP (Xcel) *5_ Surplus Equipment 16] Council Concerns 17] Other Business 18] Adjourn to Monday, April 23, 2001, at 6:00 p.m. OFFICIAL PROCEED GS OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA MARCH 6, 2001 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. with Council members Link, Amundson, Sweeney and Mayor Brekke present. Absent: Morke, Also present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Bruce Loney, Public Works Director; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director; Jim Thomson, City Attorney; Gregg Voxland, Finance Director; Paul Snook, Economic Development Coordinator; Mary Athmann, Fire Chief; Dan Hughes, Chief of Police and Jerry Poole, Deputy Chief of Police. The pledge of allegiance was recited. The following items were added to the Agenda. 15.A.1 Authorize an Award of HVAC System Contract for Shakopee Youth Building, 15.D.4 Authorize Issuance of a Tobacco License to Walgreen's Drug Store and 15.F.8 Canterbury Card Club Legislation. Sweeney /Amundson moved to approve the Agenda as modified. Motion carried unanimously. Dan Hughes, Police Chief, approached the podium to make a special presentation tonight. The Police Department's Award of Valor was presented this evening to Officer Cody Horner in recognition of his heroic efforts in saving numerous lives of residents living in the apartments at the Fire at Murphy's Landing on January 17, 2001_ This was the first person in the Police Department to receive this honor. Mary Athmann, Fire Chief, wrote a letter to Chief Hughes stating the heroic action of Officer Cody Homer. Mr. Hughes read this letter at the meeting. Ms. Laura Emerson, resident of Murphy's Landing also wrote a letter to Officer Cody Horner expressing her thanks. Chief Hughes also read this letter at the presentation. Sergeant Flynn approached the podium and.along with Chief Hughes presented the Police Department's Medal of Valor to Officer Cody Homer and a plaque inscribed "To Officer Cody S. Horner, Award of Valor for the Discovery, Evacuation and Life Saving Efforts at the Historic Murphy's Landing Fire on January 17, 2001." A recess was taken at 7:10 p.m. The meeting re- convened at 7:15 p.m. Mayor Brekke advised the Council that he would be representing the City of Shakopee on the MnDOT Corridor Policy Advisory Committee to create an inter corridor management plan for Hwy 169. This plan will cover Hwy. 169, from interstate 494 in Bloomington to the south junction of Hwy 60, south of Mankato. Elected officials have been asked from each community along this corridor to serve on this policy advisory committee. There is also a technical advisory review committee that Mr. Loney, Public Works Director is serving on. The following items were added to the Consent Agenda. 15.A.1 Authorize an Award of HVAC System Contract for Shakopee Youth Building; 15.13.5 Final Plat of Valley Park 14 ' Addition (Westpark Business Center); 15.B.8 Heritage Square; Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet; 15.13.9 Request of School District 720 for Waiver of Criteria for Minor Official Proceedings of the Shakopee City Council March 6, 2001 Page 2 Subdivisions; 15.D.4 Authorize issuance of a Tobacco License to Walgreen's Drug Store; and 151.4 Establish Environmental Advisory Committee and Make Appointments Thereto. Link/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. Link/Amundson moved to approve the meeting minutes for December 19, 2000. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Link/Amundson moved to approve the bills in the amount of $132,014.62 plus $ 55,572.38 for refunds, returns, and pass through for a total of $187,587.00. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda.) Mayor Brekke welcomed three boy scouts to the meeting tonight. These boy scouts were at the meeting to learn about City Government. Liaison reports from Council members were asked for. Cncl. Sweeney presented a liaison report from a meeting he attended with Mayor Brekke, Mark McNeill, City Administrator, and Jim Strommen, attorney for the City regarding the Franchise Ordinance. The meeting regarded franchise fees and the Franchise Ordinance. From this meeting, direction was given to Mr. Strommen, to draft a Franchise Ordinance retaining within the Franchise Ordinance the ability to create at a later date, or not at all, franchise fees. The utility providers within the City of Shakopee are using the right -of -way but are not paying any franchise fees. Cncl. Sweeney noted that he made the same report to the Public Utility Commission and pointed out that also in the discussion we had addressed the issue that we can't continue to expect the Public Utility to pay $825,000 a year, taken out of the rate payers bills, while not asking_ other energy providers to contribute. The Public Utility plans to continue to provide a contribution to the City budget in the percentage of the $825,000 that they would have been expected to pay had the City adopted the franchise ordinance as proposed, 19% of gross margin, which was rounded off to be about $225,000, beginning in 2002. For 2001 the City will continue to receive the amount that the Public Utility had set as a ceiling, plus the water contribution, less the energy cost to pump the water. Cncl. Sweeney stated Shakopee Public Utilities is moving forward on some new wells. Cncl. Amundson reported on her tour of the Evergreen Heights Affordable Housing Development. A recess was taken at 7:32 p.m. for the purpose of conducting the Economic Development Authority meeting. The meeting reconvened at 7:43 p.m. Official Proceedings of the Shakopee City Council March 6, 2001 Page 3 Link/Amundson moved to direct staff to accept the quote of Minnesota Plumbing, Inc_, in the amount of $12,750 for HVAC — related work at the Shakopee Community Youth Building. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mr. Leek provided a staff report of the proposed moratorium on Multiple Family Residential Development. At the last meeting, Council directed staff to come back with a six -month interim moratorium Ordinance on Multiple Family Development. Staff has come back with a draft ordinance, which has been drafted, in a very narrow fashion to apply only to new applications. This moratorium would relate only to high- density residential units defined in the draft ordinance as projects with an overall density of 11 -18 units per acre. If the Council approves the Ordinance, Jim Thomson, City Attorney, has proposed a few minor changes to the draft Ordinance that Michael Leek will mention if the Ordinance is approved. There appeared to be two principal areas guiding high- density residential according to the City's adopted 1996 Comprehensive Plan with amendments in 1999, 2000, and 2001. The land use map shows those two areas to be in the location south of Hwy 169 and on either side of Marschall Road and in the area of 4 Avenue to Shakopee Avenue. There was a very significant change in land use that grew out of the 1999 moratorium. No longer is land areas guided specifically for high- density residential. Now the classification is Planned Residential Developments that allows a density of 1 -18 units per acre. The density would be determined by the project that is proposed. Mr. Leek gave a background on the acreage that would be affected by this moratorium. Mr. McNeill, City Administrator, provided some information on the potential impact a moratorium would have on the City's budget for six - months in the year 2001. Mr. Leek explained a map prepared by the City's Engineering staff that depicted what the potential impacts of a moratorium on areas, within MUSA, that would otherwise be available for development would potentially be. Mr. Leek stated there is a potential impact on infrastructure extension, if there is a moratorium, because other areas could possibly develop but MUSA may not be allowed to be extended to those properties. Mr. Leek noted that a revised plan for Garden Lane Apartments had been submitted but comments on this plat were continued to the next City Council meeting, the moratorium issue needed to be decided first. Mayor Brekke had .some concerns with developers. Mayor Brekke stated the developers are making some changes and the City is ending up with some very nice housing developments. The changes the developers are making shows the City has sufficient negotiating authority to see that changes are made. Mayor Brekke stated he was more comfortable with the developments now; he was not ready for a moratorium. Cncl. Sweeney agreed with the Mayor Brekke's basic point, but Mr. Sweeney did not agree with the Mayor's thoughts on the budget impact. However, Mr. Sweeney was not ready to support a moratorium if the changes could be made in the zoning ordinance. Cncl. Sweeney felt if the zoning ordinance changes were made; perhaps the developers would not have to make so many changes to their plans. Mr. Sweeney felt the City Council meetings were not the place to design plats. If more green space was wanted and there were issues with street width, Mr_ Sweeney thought underground parking needed to be looked at. Cncl. Amundson agreed with Mayor Brekke's assessment of the developers. Cncl. Amundson would like to see some tweaking of the City's zoning ordinance. Official Proceedings of the Shakopee City Council March 6, 2001 Page 4 Cncl. Link felt the housing developments should be about quality. The City has to live with the problems; the developers go away when the project is completed. Cncl. Link felt the density needed to be changed. Mayor Brekke felt some of the City's goals went hand in hand with having less density. The Council needed to have a discussion on what changes the Council wants made in relationship with the City's goals. Mr. Leek suggested the changes he was looking at based on the Councils desires were: reduction in R -2 and R -3 density levels, parking, and open space or recreational area. The Council thought Mr. Leek's suggestions were very good. Mr. Leek may incorporate bonuses to developers into the zoning ordinances language also. Mr. Leek will come up with some changes to the zoning ordinances. Mayor Brekke stated that these changes to the zoning ordinances would go before the Planning Commission and the City Council and at those times public comment would be taken on these proposed changes. Link/Amundson moved to approve the request for concurrent review of a preliminary and final plat for Bluff Avenue Urban Village, located north of Bluff Avenue and east of Naumkeag. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Link/Amundson offered Resolution No. 5490, A Resolution Setting The Public Hearing Date To Consider The Vacation Of Easements Within Valley Park 6 Addition (within Lot 2, Block 1). (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mr. Leek reported on the Preliminary and Final Plat of Shenandoah Apartments, located north of CSAH 16 and west of Canterbury Park. Originally a significantly different preliminary and final plat for Shenandoah Apartments was approved. Heritage Development has reviewed the site plan and requested that a revised preliminary and final plat be approved. Heritage Development has gone through the application and the public hearing process at the Planning Commission level on the preliminary plat with the major changes to the site plan of Heritage Development being just three units on three separate lots; the garages are to be included on the first level integrated within the units; and there will be a community center building for recreational facilities for the project. Originally the site plan showed 14 buildings: The density and the number of units remain the same. In the draft conditions of approval the comments from the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District and from Shakopee Public Utilities have been incorporated. At the Planning Commission meeting of February 9, the Stafford's, residents south of this property, came forward with concerns about the management of the site and the proposed location of the buildings. Two specific conditions have been included in draft Resolution No. 5482 because of the Stafford's comments. These two conditions are 1) regarding structure setbacks from the property line and 2) seeding of the entire site. Mr. Leek asked that one further amendment be made regarding park dedication. Mayor Brekke had a question regarding the slope to the pond. Mr. Leek felt the slope of the pond was consistent with the City's requirements on slopes. He deferred to Heritage Development for further comment on the slope. Official Proceedings of the March 6, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page 5 Tom Von Bische representing Heritage Development approached the podium to address the question on the slope to the pond. According to Mr. Von Bische the profiles of the slope were exaggerated. Mr. Von Bische explained to Mayor Brekke why the plat was changed. Originally an architectural firm out of Denver, Colorado was selected but they have since been replaced with another architectural firm_ The plan of the original architectural firm really did not meet the needs of what Heritage Development was trying to achieve. Mr. Von Bische clarified the property line and the right -of -way line. Mr. Von Bische stated the buildings would be back 150 feet from the right -of -way line that is proposed in the new plat and the land in the right -of -way would be dedicated to Scott County. Mr. Von Bische stated Heritage Development agreed to all the conditions brought forward by City staff. Mayor Brekke asked if there were any more public comment. There was no response. Amundson/Sweeney offered Resolution No. 5482, A Resolution Approving the Preliminary and Final Plat Of Shenandoah Apartments and moved its adoption, including requiring park dedication of $1,500 /unit as opposed to per lot. Motion carried unanimously. Link/Amundson offered Resolution No. 5491, a Resolution Of The City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Approving the Final Plat of Valley Park le Addition, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Link/Amundson offered Resolution No. 5492, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Approving the Final Plat of Pheasant Run 7 Addition, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Link/Amundson offered Resolution No_ 5493, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Approving the Final Plat of Dublin Square 2nd Addition, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Andrea Moffatt, WSB & Associates, reported in a memo dated February 28, 2001 to the Mayor, City Council and staff that based on the EAW, the Findings of Fact, and the comments that were received from outside agencies, it was WSB and Associates' belief that an Environmental Impact Statement is not needed for the Heritage Square Residential Development. (This was approved under the Consent Agenda). (Town and Country Homes to be located south of Hwy 169 and west of 17 Avenue extended west of Marschall Road). Link/Amundson moved to approve the request for waiver of the minor subdivision criteria found in City Code 12.05, Subd. 1 and 2 for the combination of parcels the School District is acquiring for a new elementary school site in the Southbridge area. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Link/Amundson offered Resolution No. 5494, a Resolution Declaring The cost to be Assessed and Ordering the Preparation of Proposed Assessments for Gorman Street, from 4"' Avenue to County Road 17, Project No. 2000 -1, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Official Proceedings of the March 6, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page 6 Link/Amundson moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute the project cooperation agreement between the Department of the Army and the City of Shakopee for construction of the Shakopee Emergency Bank Protection from Fuller Street to Holmes Street and for the City attorney to execute an attorney's certificate as to right -of -way for this project. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Mr. Loney, Public Works Director, reported on the 2000 reconstruction project sidewalk analysis. A sidewalk analysis has been prepared for the area located along 3r Avenue, Shumway Street and Harrison Street. Mr. Loney had maps with him for his report. The old downtown area has many sidewalks, as time has progressed sidewalks have mainly been put along collector streets, County Roads, and some recreational trails have been added. Sidewalks for pedestrian traffic to schools have also been looked at in the City's sidewalk planning map. Existing sidewalks were shown in the downtown area. For the project on Adams Street, sidewalks were eliminated from the Adams Street project. When the feasibility report was done for 3r Avenue, sidewalks were not put in the report because this street was not deemed as a collector street and there was no designated school route. The width of 3r Avenue is being made wider. Most of the area is zoned commercial and there is not a high need for sidewalks. A cost estimate for putting a sidewalk in the project area located on 3 Avenue, Shumway Street and Harrison Street is approximately $65,000. A trail in this area would cost approximately $14,000. It was noted that a public hearing and information meeting on the project had been held and the residents of the area did not ask for a sidewalk nor were they informed that no sidewalks were proposed. It was the Engineering Department's recommendation that no sidewalks be put in, however if Council does want sidewalks put in the cost is $65,000 and this is 100% City cost. The public hearing has been held for this project and sidewalks were not brought up at the hearing and therefore, cannot be assessed. If Council wants, there is still time to add the sidewalks to the project. Cncl_ Sweeney was concerned about sidewalks on Adams Street because there is an affordable housing project going in the Adams Street area between 6`" Avenue and 3rd Avenue. These children will be walking to school and Cncl. Sweeney anticipated a fair number of children would be in that area. Cncl_ Sweeney wanted to put a sidewalk on Adams Street, he could live without a sidewalk on 3rd Avenue. Mayor Brekke, Cncls. Amundson and Link also agreed with Cncl_ Sweeney's comments. Mr. Loney stated the sidewalk along Adams Street might need to be an add on project because it would take a while to design this sidewalk area because of the slopes involved and the City needed to work with the Department of Corrections to get needed easements in that area for a sidewalk. There was discussion on putting the sidewalk around the nursing home on 3rd Avenue and Mr. Loney asked the Council their thought on putting a bituminous trail along Harrison Street_ There was a lot in this area that was owned by the Mr. Notermann Estate that Mr_ Loney was contemplating purchasing. This lot could be used for a storm water pond in an area where the City has no storm water ponds. Mr. Leek suggested that it might be worthwhile to look at the trail and sidewalk connection that Mr. Loney was discussing because Mr. Leek was aware of other possible residential Official Proceedings of the Shakopee City Council March 6, 2001 Page 7 developments in the area that may benefit from the trail connection down to the park. Mayor Brekke wanted the City to try and connect the City parks with trails. He stated there is some good trail connections being made to City parks and Mayor Brekke wanted to continue that connection especially among the City parks. Sweeney /Amundson moved to direct Mr. Loney to include 1) a sidewalk along Adams Street, 2) a trail along Harrison to the baseball park, and 3) a discussion with Friendship Manor about putting a sidewalk around their building on a id Avenue. Motion carried unanimously Link/Amundson moved to endorse the request by Shakopee Public School for a variance to the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code for the security gate at the Shakopee Jr. High School. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Link/Amundson moved to authorize the appropriate City staff to enter into a contract with BKV to provide design, construction, inspection and other related architectural services for the new Shakopee Police Facility. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Link/Amundson moved to authorize the appropriate City staff to make application to the U.S. Department of Justice, COPS Office for a COPS More 2001 Technology grant_ (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Link/Amundson moved to approve the application and grant a tobacco license to Walgreen Co_ DBA Walgreen's 406489, 1291 Tasha Boulevard. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Link/Amundson moved to authorize the appropriate City staff to utilize Scott County personnel in the advertising and hiring of a Maintenance Worker for the Public Works Department. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Link/Amundson moved to set a hearing date Tuesday, May 1, 2001, at 7:00 p.m., to review the action of the alcohol licensees: Pizza Huts of the Northwest, Inc., 257 South Marschall Road; Fraternal Order of Eagles 44120, 220 West 2nd Avenue; Apple American Limited Partnership of Minnesota, .dba Applebee's, 1568 Vierling Drive East; Rock Spring Restaurant, Inc., 1561 East 1S Avenue; American Legion Club Post No. 2, 1266 East 1St Avenue; Heyde Hospitality, Inc., dba Arizona's, 1244 Canterbury Road; Veterans of Foreign Wars, Post No. 4046, Inc., 1201 East 3rd Avenue. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Link/Amundson offered Ordinance No. 594, Fourth Series, An Ordinance Amending Section 3.15 of the City Code Pertaining to the Collection of Refuse and Recyclable Materials, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Link/Amundson moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to enter into a labor agreement with Local 320, Police Sergeants, for the period of time commencing January 1, 2001, and ending December 31, 2002_ (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Link/Amundson offered Resolution No. 5495, A Resolution Establishing an Environmental Advisory Committee For the City of Shakopee, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Official Proceedings of the March 6, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page 8 Link/Amundson moved to accept with regret the resignation of Jane DuBois from membership on the Shakopee Library Study Committee and to advertise the availability of this position to interested members of the community. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda). Discussion ensued on the request for proposals received for bank services. Mr. Voxland stated the hours of operation was the largest single factor but it was not the only factor. Sweeney/Link moved to accept the proposal of Marquette Bank for banking services. Motion carried unanimously. Amundson/Link offered Resolution No. 5496, A Resolution Approving Modification of Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 11, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. McNeill gave the Council a synopsis of pending legislation regarding the Canterbury Card Club. Mr_ McNeill received a call from John Choi, with Kennedy and Graven, advising Mr_ McNeill that there was a committee hearing on the gambling status of some of the gambling at Canterbury Park Card Club. Mr. Choi asked if Mr. McNeill or Chief Hughes had a position on the gambling legislation for Canterbury Park Card Club. Staff did not have a position on the gambling issues but Mr. McNeill stated to Mr. Choi that the issue of the gambling legislation would be brought up at the City Council meeting to be held that night. The issues that Mr. McNeill wanted to make the Council aware of are: Canterbury Park Card Club wanted to eliminate the 50 table limit so they would be able to have more tables at times and thus create the opportunity to have demonstrations, instructions and tournaments. Another issue of interest to the City is Canterbury Card Club's request not to limit wagering amounts. Mr. McNeill asked Randy Sampson, President of Canterbury Park, what and why he was looking at a legislative change. Mr. Sampson approached the podium to update Mr_ McNeill and the Council on the bills in the legislature that would affect Canterbury Park Card Club. Mr. Sampson said there are three different bills that are related to Canterbury Park Card Club. He stated that he could provide staff with copies of the proposed legislation. The first bill is being proposed by the Horsemen and is related to licensing by the Minnesota Racing Commission. H.F. 995 relates to felons working where the felony was reduced to a misdemeanor. The second bill proposed came from some original legislation from the State Gambling Enforcement Department, essentially what this bills does is gives Canterbury Park or the Minnesota State Racing Commission the same rights, to detain an individual suspected of an unlawful activity, as a shopkeeper. All of these bills have been discussed with Chief Hughes, who has attended many meetings with Canterbury Park staff and also with the Racing Commission regarding Canterbury Card Club. The third bill deals with Canterbury Card Club issues. This legislation is an effort to clarify some language in the operating plan, as well as, raise some betting limits. The intent of the bill is to allow Canterbury Card Club to have more than fifty tables to conduct large tournaments. Right now Canterbury Card Club cannot do large tournaments. According to Mr. Sampson, there are a couple different issues that Canterbury is dealing with regarding wagering. Many games out at Canterbury are only one wager and therefore, Canterbury Card club would like the $15 initial wager eliminated. Canterbury Card Club would like a variety of betting structures to allow different games to be implemented. Mr. Sampson stated the bill does not change what Canterbury Card Club currently Official Proceedings of the March 6, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page 9 can do; the operating plan tells Canterbury Card Club what they can do. If the bill did pass the legislature, then the Canterbury Card Club would have to go to the Minnesota Racing Commission as ask for an amendment to the Operating Plan to Canterbury Park's Card Club to change the betting structure on some of the games. Mr. Dick Krueger, Executive Director of the Minnesota Racing Commission, assured the legislative committee that if this bill passed a process would be gone thru. The gambling enforcement agency, local police, City Council and other local agencies would be involved in discussions with the Racing Commission involving changes to the Canterbury Card Club's Operating Plan. Regarding the one wagering games, the Racing Commission would certainly put a limit on the amount of that one wager. Mr. Sampson stated a bill was passed out of committee today that would allow the Racing Commission to determine all table and betting limits. Mayor Brekke felt that these changes were sensible changes and appreciated Mr. Sampson explaining the bills to the Council. Cncl. Amundson discussed the non - smoking ban. Mr. McNeill stated that Brian Turtle is very anxious to start working on the non - smoking issue. There are two counties involved (Scott and Carver). Mr. McNeill needed a contact person for the Tobacco Free Futures. Mr. McNeill will follow up on this issue. Cncl. Link again asked about the yard on 3rd Avenue and he stated it is becoming a concern in the City of Shakopee the number of families living in one single- family home. Mr. McNeill will follow -up on this issue. Sweeney /Amundson moved to adjourn to Tuesday, March 20, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:18 p.m. "JA �. G�,_ J dith S. Cox City Clerk Carole Hedlund Recording Secretary ADJ.REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA MARCH 27, 2001 Mayor Brekke called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with Council Members Sweeney, Amundson and Morke present. Council Member Link was absent. Also present were: Mark McNeill, City Administrator; R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Gregg Voxland, Finance Director, Mark McQuillan, Natural Resource Director; Tracy Coenen, Management Assistant; Mark Themig, Facilities and Recreation Director; and Sherry Dvorak, Recreation Supervisor. Amundson/Sweeney moved to appoint Peter Vickerman to the position of Planner I -GIS at Step 1 of the Planner I pay grade, subject to a pre - employment physical and 6 -month probationary period. Motion carried unanimously. Mark McQuillan, Natural Resource Director, approached the podium and reviewed that City Council had previously expressed a need for developing a plan for acquiring land for future community parks, especially in those areas without MUSA where the cost of land is less than in developed areas. Members of the Park and Recreation Advisory Board present were: Jeff Kaley, Chair; John Collins; Kathy Gerlach, and Dave Vosejpka. Mr. McQuillan identified the four recreation service areas contained in the Comprehensive Parks Plan with the aid of a City map. Area 1 is the built up urban area, Area 2 is the St. Francis Hospital area, Area 3 is the Dean Lake area, Area 4 is the upper Bluff area to the southerly boarder of the City, and Area 5 is the townships areas_ He identified the parks within these areas and noted that the next service area needing parkland is in Area 4 located in the southerly portion of the community. He posed six questions for the Council and Advisory Board to consider to aid in discussion on where and how to acquire additional parkland for the future. Discussion followed. Council Members identified a number of possibilities to be looked at by the Park and Recreation Advisory Board for future parkland_ Those included: vacant land north of 4 th Avenue owned by United Properties, vacant land east of Shakopee Public Utilities where the new police station is proposed to be constructed, and land in the townships. Councilor Sweeney also suggested talking with the County about the possibility of cooperating with them on acquisition and park development. For the next discussion about acquisition of parcels for parks, Mayor Brekke suggested that there be additional information and maps available. Mark Themig, Facilities and Recreation Director, spoke regarding the budgeted money for additional fitness equipment for the community center and the need to identify a new location for the fitness equipment. Discussion followed regarding the options identified by Mr. Themig: the Official Proceedings of the March 27, 2001 Shakopee City Council Page -2- gymnastics area located on the lower level and the multi - purpose room located on the upper level. There was concern about the loss of meeting rooms at the community center if the multi- purpose room was used for the fitness equipment. One possibility discussed was the addition of a second floor over one -half of the gymnastics area. There was a consensus to utilize an architect to look at the possibility of installing a second floor above the gymnastics area for an exercise area. Mr. Themig explained that beginning in November the Park and Recreation Board has been talking about clarifying the relationship between the various sports associations and the City. He asked what does the City expect and how does the City see its role with the associations? He pointed out that there are two key issues that are part of this which include: conducting background checks for association volunteers and liability. Mr. Themig explained the role that the City staff currently plays and the tremendous service that the associations provide. The associations are happy with the current arrangement that includes their paying a fee and the Park and Recreation Department handling registrations. Discussion ensued regarding keeping the associations close to the City and developing a plan to oversee the money taken in by the associations and where it is spent. There was a consensus that the relationship is generally a good match for both the associations and the City; however, it would be beneficial to clarify this relationship. The City Council will look to the Park and Recreation Board to make a recommendation regarding background checks. Mr. Themig introduced Ms. Amy Westlund who is the coordinator of the Skate Park Committee_ He identified three potential locations for the skate park: Lions Park, Scenic Park, and the community center. The youth prefer the community center site; however, some nearby'residents have concerns if it is located off of Fuller Street_ It was mentioned that a security camera should be located on the skate park and that some manner of providing an emergency notification be provided in the event of an emergency. Ms. Westlund stated that if there is no lighting provided, the youth will not be present after dark and if there is no place provided for them, they will find a place elsewhere. Members of the Shakopee Fire Relief Association were present: Mary Athmann, Fire Chief; Jon Sinnen, President; Mark Wandersee, Secretary; Scott Theis, Treasurer; and Terry Link, Trustee. Chief Athmann gave an overview of the organization and where the money comes from for the Relief Association. He explained that the purpose of the money is to provide relief in case of an injury and when a firefighter retires. The Relief Association has a plan to propose to the City Council relating to the City's contribution for the next five years. Official Proceedings of the Shakopee City Council March 27, 2001 Page -3- Mr. Theis explained that during the past five years the annual increase in the City's contribution to the Relief Association has been tied to the Stanton Survey and that they would like to propose a different methodology. They would like the City Council to adopt a set amount of increase for each of the next five years. Mr. Theis provided the City Council with a handout showing their proposal. He explained that when a firefighter retires they get a lump sum that they can roll into another plan. Cncl. Sweeney asked for additional information before approving the request. He would like to know the age classes that will be affected by retirement in each of the next five years. He would like to see projections for budgeting purposes before approving the proposed increases. Sweeney/Morke moved to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 6:58 p.m. u th S. Cox ity Clerk Recording Secretary Co�vS� N T CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance director RE: City Bill List DATE: April 12, 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 $238,211.43_ The actual net expense amount is $1,003,218.20. Action Requested Move to approve the bills in the amount of $1,241,429.63. N O r n J m N m R v CL T C O O --: M �q M n V O N n n M m O O O O M M ca d W E w M n co m N w t0 O UD N n M M V O N n R n n co n n d' m N v to n M r Cl) CD N LO O V' m to o n o O v - N o ¢ 0 J_ t- ¢ rn n Cl! rn M m o m M M n v 0 n n D. N O N N ` V Cl) T N M N O N 7 NC-4 �n: N 0 N t0 m N p, N N N N w ° Z � n N n 0 m a O w ° Z n z w N m 0 J W Z W C7 Z t0 O M tM M CO CO O 7 N O N M O O N M U Z o O O7 O O M O n V O m M N O N_ - 4 Z_ Y O M N M M 0, n n M O n V Lb 0) O CO N M N M M n to n U) N N n O rn n V n V (D U W N n Lo n n M Cl) M OO O Ub r (0 Cl) M N W n t0 O F n O m o7 N O W Cl) c0 N O n V m co V �"' O M m U C n M c0 n Cl) IA C 9 w N Cl) t0 N V c0 (1J (0 M t0 n � W (D ca W O N m V V M co V W J to O N CO Z ? W U) co in cc o o O m o T C m M n M m M n V 0) (0 7 cq O O O N N t0 M w O (O 6 n O O O tb M ca d W E U M m R N c0 CO N T W '7 N N cc UO w t_ N m O CO O n O r M M m v! O , T V: O O G O -: N n R V c0 W M r U W p 0. U U p c d' m N v to n M r Cl) CD N LO O V' m to o n o O v - N n m 0 J_ t- m Z t O a Z � n N n 0 m a O O Z n z w N m 0 J W Z W C7 Z Z Z p W O U. Op Z) F- O 0 O Q m Z W LL U Z o c c7 LL , - 4 Z_ Y O w N U � Up n M n aD rn O rn 7 rn V v C m m V [D n o V m N co 0 r? O u) N n c0 W c o W w 0 c0 W O ¢ d X ,C N 0) V W (0 M O M cr� w N M M t0 O M c0 n N CJ C w G w M m cC N O V V M co V W J to O N CO Z ? W U) p w ¢ Z d o o o O m o O M ! O N 1 to LO r M N _ M 7 C V _ V O O O n O C Q U U 7 m C 'O G J Q m ° o O O 0 w m 0 a U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n o co rn o n M 8 co n n m M UO cc tp c0 V: L N N N O o N O co M N m V c0 M M O n N a) M N V n n M M M V N t0 M t0 N M n t0 (o O N 0 0 rn tci LO c0 co co N co OJ N co Lo n N 0 0 0 V N co CR N co C N LO M n N 0 0 C V N M M Cl) co m >- a n n O CO D W ° � n to p t0 t0 N tC� 0 N m N F } m � b Cl! N O O N N oho z Z W a_ a O J w w 0 r � F Z O N N O O of rn L O t0 O l0 U N N m Q U 0 0 0 0 0 0 M c O co co C 'p C � Q m z Z W a_ a O J w w 0 r � F Z O N N O O Un Z J_ t- Z a Z U n 0 m a O O Z n z w N D U D 0 J W Z W C7 Z Z Z p W O U. Op Z) F- 0 0 O Q m Z W LL U Z o c c7 LL , - 4 Z_ Y O w O z Q Q Q O¢ °cS W ul O p W W Q U w O p' Q K v W W O ¢ U Z w U w Z Z (7 > ¢< z w d C7 n m cC O w¢ (D U m w ¢ 0 g (� U z cL W J O U w U` O d rt lL Z ? W U) S U ¢ Z d o o o O m o O O to LO r M N _ M 7 C V _ V O O O n O z Z W a_ a O J w w 0 r � F Z O N N O O Cl) M Cl) N cc N v LL w m w a m O Y m Q Y = U t LL U U C U 0 U 0 O O N N O O J U w of Y U LL' F- z z w w :F 2 w w w w w z w w w w w w w w w CD (D U U U p F U U U U U U U U U d z z d' 0:K LL Z LL' w m K O: w w w Ur w Q Q O 0 0 } w O 0 0 0 0 0 O o O M LL LL LL H 2 LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL J Y Y Y J w Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Un U) U) O m F- m co m m U) U) (1) m r w ¢¢ J ¢ F- F O O F F O z O F w r r F F O H F O t t O H w w F- W H w z r- w C� U C� C� K w Q f7 w w (7 O O` K O` O' U O O Z W Z LL U` w m Z w w Q w w w w w w K w > J K K W w w K Q w w K J z m m W w Q U O w O z LL ¢ w O w w Q ❑ J w J ❑ p J m Z J p z 0 ❑ ❑ J o ❑ J❑ ❑❑ w Z _j - Z m (7 Z p J Z o Z Q O Z O U w ° O O U U O Q¢ O O O U 0 o LL O O J w U z o¢ F- ¢° LL w¢¢ z Q Q w J m U w w J W J w 2 Z C' W K J w w U w m U m J w 2 m F Z � Z 2 z F¢ Z 2 O w 0 w w w O Q Z O w w w w w O w w w O w w w O a w w Z w o O w w w y } K LL } Z O} w w U J 1} p w rL w U U LL 2 w U O w J m d d m w w d w w m w m LL w w w d w w m w U) U) D d d w w m w Q LL m w d CO w m LL 0 N v O c O Z D z ❑ w ~ z Z J w <0 Z w af U Z J Q U0 w 5 Z Z ° -i Z= m w w J w >- J - w o a J w U m U J w a w¢ O m o m o a o w'o of p Z Q z o U) w¢ } o w g w w o m w co s ¢ • w w O w z U a w l w LL U O LL w m T) n. z p LL Z Q LL Q= m p LL w O LL j z O Q¢ W w p w j° O O m w C7 of 3 w� p o W U_' Z w m Z W LL w l)l u) U ° N U U o w z U_` U o J a a p w w w w> U ❑ ¢ w z Q Q w m w D Z¢ O w a¢ w w LL w¢ w D - LL G O w w w >> ¢ ❑ g } 3 o m w❑❑� U F- 3 3 O > O m} w o m m n � w m r§ F- r t- U❑ m ° D z U -i � O K w Z o 2 m Z J Z w w Un U J w U U <() LL ° LL . O w m V Q w W Z w m Q Z Z ° Z F- N LL U LL m Q U W m Z LL w m ¢�... m CL z w . Cl) o z U) ° w o¢ w w 0 w w z m Q z Z °- w O U w _m w Q J W m Z S F w S s w s J LL w LL O ° z O Z O S S LL F J F U LL' m Z 2' F ? W ~} m OF __ w f0 w U O w Q w p m � O p CO p O O i w w j U O Un Y F Q O { 0 Q Z Q w w O ¢ U 0 W Q 0_ g S Z O w w .❑ 2 w O 0 0 0 m° () W Z ¢ Q w t- , a _� w �- �- _= Y O r z a 1 w>> O U c W o W Z m x o a > w z U } m �= a O w -m ° °� oa w O Un > U p S S M w 2 2 2� 2 Z z w w w> O p (D Y w 2 2 z Z w m> 2 0 0 0 co Q Q Q (D _Z z O m O w S U) w a ~ a w > U O Z {- O w Q W o w O LL ¢ J U O w U U Z m w m � d U) rn rri w Z Q ¢ w w m m to m O O O W O I-- O O O W O V' M W m m 1- N l O O O 'T co O M I.- O O N C' W O O O O O O CU N G m C O O O O 0) . t0 O N CC) O O O O W m C N O O O O On O O U� CA O O V � O O O CO O O N M L6 O U` M 6 V Un O co M 6 m N f-- N I-- O N W C3 co CD Lf) V CA <Y co u) W N O V c0 W aD m co O CU O N Cn M to co m M � m N M M M co C r O m W O N O O N co t' r N V u) N v) N N M O W E c O UJ N m r I W N CA M O r r-- r r O �- h O N CO n N N V M r M Q CT c) O V � �- R V uC M � N N co Y m O N M M W 1� M W O N M lfJ W r N (A O N M 7 C0 M 1- M M O N M R C0 W r.- W W O CJ N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M V C m M W m m M M M M M M M M m M M M m M m M N M m M M M M M M M M N M M M M M M M W CO M M M W W M m M W m M M m W m M W m m m M m M m W W W m M m M m m m m m m W CO U W W M M W W W M m M W M W co M W m co W W W M M m co W W W W M W M W M co M W W W W W M M N °a m m `v a W w W y o LL a N O = U � m LL U 0 'v U 0 N v 0 O O N N (7 O J (D W K Y U w z z z z z W w w w w w U Z Z z a Z z z z F J J r W z r r -' Q Z r Z ¢ J Q r r z Q ¢ z z r w Q g w w z z z W W W z Z g w z Z W w w W z w w w w U z w z z w w z m z w 2 2 w w w z z w w w W W w 0 W W `2 `� W W 0 p W U W W w w C7 �" w W W W W 2 0 r a U O W W w W U U a W Z U W 2 U C7 W W U 2 W a W W W O W 0 2 a U w a z z¢ W ¢ (l) U C7 C7 z z z C7 ¢ z C7 W z w¢ 0 0 0 W 0 Z 0 0- z 0 z W j z z¢¢ 2 ¢ z O a LL z J Z z z m ¢ z Z z a z z a z J z z z z z z z Q Q Z w w U a J Q a O a 2 a w a¢ a w a a W ¢ W W m 2 a w r U W (..) W W p < 22 222 2=w W Q W U U m 2 U¢ Q a L g a g g w m J LL 2 U W z U U LL x Y J W 2 LL' W LL 2 ' 2 x M- O O Q J a J U ° J J O M O D U 0 0 w n� 0 W U U J O O J W O Q O O D U O U W O x o O r Z 0? 0 0? x Q O w w r O O r x w> 0 0 0 O x Z O x 0 w O w m m w W m w li D. U N ¢. 0 0 0 a a K w 0 M 2 M M m LL w U a a a a LL U 0 LL Q. W W W a M LL Z Z co z O w Q w z w O w m w z w w F w = J J F J J C z U) N a W a Q (L LL r a w m iD m o m m m¢ m o m z w J m co w z_ a z_ w z_ z m Z m 2 � w W r o r � r Z r o o � 0 :a : =) LL 0 W mwDw - m V) W r CJ ¢ a a O LL i LL w ¢ J 2 O w 2 r 0 W w O m O J O � U O Z LL Fm- U O U O F- o m w z d O O m Z = m d w U U w z Y U j } W 2- Z Q otS W. 0 Q J W (A m S S n a MMMMMMM00000000 z w � 3.¢ 5 0 Z it F - - C f) o - w DM_x z a Z ) = 3 0 Z z F C) 5 U Z w w 00 w w m F- J J x J J M J Z_ U W W EL H a j w j F z m W z W O ~ r to F C7 0 C7 Q U r r r -W r Z Q Z Z z U w (!) tq w Z Z C7 z tq z w O m U w j w W m W z w w W-i w w c W Z)> Z O w w w O na W m o m O w w O LL 5 W D w LL O O w o 0 Q 2 J w W O 2 O a m U J J W O m 2 O J O W } J a r 2 U ? z U U >- - of z z z a w J -6 O z U u- z 0 0 0 z (� g S m O D J m w a w 0 g Z w w a w o o¢ d a a¢ z z O z o w U Y z z v o (? w O W x LL z z a F- W r- LL' Z U 0)= Z w W z 0 z F z O J U w J W O¢ O z Go IL of w_ m m z w Y r m w z C7 N (V C vi Q O W z O LL z 0 0 0 g z O -W W U U� m� O O N O O R' WD W LL K W=)< W W U O O O O O O O w LL LL LL LL LL LL LL 0 0 0 0 U` U` x 2 2 O O M O M O O O m V m n O M O O 0 M O m N M O O O O O n O o W O 0 O O O O M C O M O O O tD O a) d' CO W O co O O O O O N O M O co O O O O O M O N cD O O . O O n Q O O O to O O 6 co M V' q) M O M D) cU O ui N 6 c6 cD N O lD w O N N O O O m co M E n tD cD v O O 01 — N o) N� e- co M N cD M N W N to co N�— M M M co r- N co to V' co N M " of e r r lD N a r M r D O N M V• ID M n w -m O N M V• w O n m W O n N M V m w n w M O N M C tD 0 n N W O U N lD w LD m m UD 1D to tD CO tD to !D w cD cD !D fD (D n n n n n n n n n c0 co O M m M M O M O D) L - W M m M O7 m M M- W m CO N W m N QJ M N m � m W M f0 W m M CO M M W M O M m M C9 N O m CO M M M M M w M m O M M m M O M w O w U fD cD tD c0 c0 co 0 w (D w w w (D w (D w t0 w tD 0 cD tD tD cD lD tD (D (D tD (O (D c0 tD tD c0 cD (O tD (D (D cD M M M Cl) o m N m (9 v 4. z z z z z w w w w w 2 2 2 2 2 w w w w w w w U 2i �Q <JQ�w� w z z �zQ z w w F- Z w= w w O w O Z w w f" F" w W Z Z ¢ Z } Z Z 2 Z W 2 Z w W Z W Z Z W J U 2 w Z W W W ¢ ¢ Z Z w (D w O CW7 a 0 o¢ 0 0 0 w� O O 0 w 0 w z m Q CW7 (� wU` w w w Q 2 H c a Z z O (D z 0 w O Z Z Z w Z z Z W 0 0 0 ¢ O Q U � w z LL z Q O Q Q Q z CD CL Q Q N W ¢ ¢ w ¢ Z ¢ W O W O W U 3' < Q < m Q m m O ~ W ¢ ¢ w z ¢ c J U w z z U) w O W U w W J U U z Z W = J = J F- �' O Q w O W 2 J J d = Z m M w O _, U W C7 U LL U J M J U M O J U O U O D w = J 0 0 0 0 O _' Q w w °' O m O W Z W W W O O m 0 0? 0 t- U O w 0 0 0 z F 0 F w O O 2 Z 0 0 LL o7 N m LL J LL LL W 4' d K d Z m w Z LL m U¢ F w W m w LL} LL. W 0¢¢ m m m m m 0 U w m W 0 N _ Y U O ¢ v ` Z z Cl) = m z m L Z Z O Q Q a Z� 5 ° z 5 = O N W ¢ V1 W J J O ¢ ¢ co (n O J U U w m z W CO co z0 m d CO W Y d F- Z H} O= w z d d CO O d O F 0 W U w a w W ¢ LL Z O Z Q w LL d d W F m H m CL Z F Q H D J m Z w F- W LL ¢ D DP w z z z c U O U m U w U of ¢ of w O U m j rn Q ¢ O 0 F' z Of z ~ z D_ f z z � W z Of z m 0 z z z z U z z w a p;-i m z W U , -j 2 0; U w cn a o Z a U� W Y d w w K W K J� W U ( O w U rn v w D w 0 0 z w D 0 a ILLi W � F w d 0 H C( C � w o w � 0 = U' H F a w d 0 w w w m O � D J Q J m E- ¢ w w f- 0¢ O O r U O J O w Q F- w U J U J m3: w O O O t- O¢ J t- M m U m U W U IL Z U W Z J O m LL W Z } �? O Q O O O U U U> d > j Z I U Z w 0 'D = z w Z w Z m W W W cc W Q 0 W J } O 00 0 0 0 O w W w Q Z~ z W W U U 5 O U z Z Om 1!111 W U ca w F U f- O Z O h 2' W Z Z F O� z 0 O z J Z Vl O � W C7 W Z LL 2 0 (� Q w z O m= w 2 W w Y LL w o g g LL m LL? W af t w 2 � w z Z m Q O U Z w } = O Z U U > wo< O O Y z } m !qqa� W P 7 M 0 O 0 Co � w z F�¢ F Q O g� Q m m W W af w (p w I z tW- (1J Y D w z w O W of Q�Q W w W 7 Q z J O O w O z W �_ D Q 1- W Q W Q Y F DQQ N F U O J O w m C7 Z J f1 O J LL' m� W w Z O U W O a 2> m W of w m m z d W w K 4' O O Q Q ¢ ¢ W W OW Z 2 ¢ ¢ U W W 0 J J Z Z Z Z Z Z Z > _ _ _ = Z Z Z LL - Z Y Y Y Y Y Y - J J J J J J J J J O 0 r O _ R O O M O O O O O W W O to m N O O O N O h O (- O M O O N O O O O C C O V (O O O O O O O h O N O Cl! O M r m O O O V m V O (O O m t0 O O W N N O O O O m N CO (O N (O m N N M M m N N N R m M m V' m O to N O � O 0 O to N m n to V O CO (D CO O O � N M N � CO m <{ N O m (O m (O tb (D m N to m M M M t- r (!� O m N N M O O m V w r.- M E V CCD! N M r - m O N to " N O r M r M N O Q .- N 7 V N N N N O N O N N O O J O W w Y # U Y N M V In (O I'- m m O N M C to 0 f- m m O N M V' (D (O Lb m O N M V tO m (- N m O tp V m m m m m m m m m O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N M M 4) m m m ao m m co co cO m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m L oO m (o m CC) N a0 cO cD OJ CD cO cO m m m m m m cO co 0o m (o to cv m co aO co m co m m co m m 00 w co cu U (O (O (O (O (O m (O (O (O m (O (O (O m m (O (O (O (O (O W m (O m m m m m m m (O (O m (O m (O m m m (O (O Cl) M Cl) o m N p) f0 v a w �5 W d m N Y x Q � U) L LL U O .� c _ 0 U Cj O O O O N N 0 O J O W K Y U w z z z z Z z w w w 2 2 2 w w w (7 (7 (7 Q Q Q g ¢� F- F- z z I-- U` w Z W W z F' w Z F- W w W W F w z O W z - z z W U LLJ W z w z z w z:2 w z z w z O 2 O w Q w W W 2 a c9 2 w �QWg�o�QazWQ�oQ� z�w WzzCL <ZZ ZQD�Q¢wzz¢za S z z U LL LL Z Q z z Q Z Q ¢ Q Z U- Q¢ a¢ j Z O Q W z w m z z Z Q O-1 Q Z y a w> ~~¢ Q '' g w ¢ z F¢ z z W U 2 g C7 z m ¢ F U Q z¢ ¢ O¢ O x o W o w W O W w W U W w w? w x 2 U w m p Q 2 2 z w U � w 2 z >> w w w O w O? O w w O ? O W? F O O w 0= m O w O w O O O? O m O= m m U 2 W W W a W a U a w 2' Q. W U CL U U 0 N C W W N m J co Q W Q w Q w a a `a w > w a m Z ~ Z S m U F U O z U W S F Q C Q W !L Q U m U Q C.) -j 0 Z O F- U m m Z Z S U U F- z Z ? Y O it g O F U ¢ to z D D W m ca W J O O Q d- Q w z c O r 0 0 t > 2 2 2 z z O Ut z Z z z Z Z W Q ¢ m m 0) C9 W J O Z W W W W W Z Z m O w F z z a d a F Y ( F m z F" U) co� co m to z a z Z Z d 7 Q } h S} z Z Z z Z Z co Z S m Z p j m (� m W U m m W W O O W O o m O m W m N U' WOW m z z z z a z� z g x x F F z F z z z=> z z z Q p O m O W m w a m d a a F - w a 0 (� 0 0 0 - p w t w z U m W ¢ S S w w S w w CA m w?> w m m m W x z F LL a ' M J¢ Q J Q O W r F W O O CD 0 m O a� m -j O U � w W m 0�� 0 2 O U } Z Z a O O z EL O U U O U FQ co z ? m > Z m W Z w J W w m O p .K O z m w O Z S a i ? IL U W N U K W U m } } m O w m N O Z m W > w> W x Z¢ U` U` O - ) m Q CO w Z w O W' 2' d' W d 0 0' x S a Z w t+) S Q= w z O W S� o 2 m F � a W W O O O O 5 O W m O z O m od w w w LL O Qs O m > M Z z = w F F O-1 w Z _.o Q o z .w O U m a d a W O Y W to � Y F Z O J¢ Q h Z m m O FW- J Z x O Q Q Q m m m m m S x m Z W w x } ¢¢ J J m } W m F- W - O -i a s ¢ a a w a a Q Of gQ w W w w w > 0 0 D} Q¢ U U W x x x m x W x m of K m m w N m 0 m m m m m m O O V R O O O V O O O t O O O O N O N O v W tD N v m m m f� w O N N O O O O O N to -'r C n O M m O O O O O O n O O C m O O M M ? M N M Lq tD CD m 07 O M N O O W O O O m m tq V O N m O M h O m N M m M M M m O O N N M to N N t` L6 m W 1A t0 M M O N M U) N N O M V r tD M N M N V' O V N of tD N R M M M — m M O M M O to O M E m M M M M co N M M M N 10 -T 1� r CD m M V N Q N N t+] to th m Y N M V tO CO fl- M M O N M 7 to CD r� COO) O N M * 10 to t.- 00 M O N M er m to � co 0) O N (J co M Cl) M M Cl) M M R ? V C V e d V < V to tD to t LO Cn tD tO t0 w M m co to M CD to CD co CD ti N M m m m m m m m m m m M M M M m m M M m m M m m m M m m m m M M M M M M M M M M m L co m M c0 m m M W N m m O M c0 m m M M m M cO co c0 m m co co M m m c0 m co m co m co co co M m C) tD co to to CD m to tD M = tD to M to O tD w c0 m CD to ID O co CD m tD w c0 w m tD O ID w O w M M tD m M M to Cl) t0 O � N m 0 v a F F z z w w w w W U O Z W W W W ¢ ¢ W z � O � O Ur O K O W F L� LL F LL LL W J J J F Z w z F Y Y W Y Y W W W z z w W > w w w Q W U? W W w Z U w C9 C9 2 Q 2 - 0 2 0 > d Q � z_ w 4 Cw9 Q Q Q z ( 0 w 0 0 (w9 Z W Q ai w Q w w w a c Q z Q z Z z w H Q Q w z= z U z U' Z O Z O z Q z Q F m Q O O W U z U o U 0 U 0 W 2 W 2 U w w 2 w w W W U 2 w w O a WW- w w U U y Q U O S a O� J U w J d F � W O Z O O o 2 2 C J O J J O w J O w U W Un J O F >>} O } D w U U o W w J O a W U O 2 2 J z > ¢ (K Y O > 2 of > w CD O O O O W J O °' O F w 0 0 O Q O w w w O F _¢ F? F w ? ¢ o J Q ° p Q� LLJ co d a_ d d U d U d U M 2 > W 2 n. K K K M U U U) U U U() U) U 0 U QJ W (L M N M U w W d of N J O UL' co } co } a (n L z OF a LL U w w O O c o ¢ U Q ¢ ¢ U o U C9 z m O m w z W U Z w (n Z c w Z a W w m (n d J a z U) co (L o a o n F z m 2 a J m w w t= (n z F z a w 2 w W w p U O c) ¢ O w Q S >> Q F F¢ W a R. F O F p W U W g a F U F} ¢ a F F a z Z z x z D z o z w z o z O C9 U C� (n W z z Q U (99 W a w O D U m o w U W U O m W W w O O w o c Z o Z o d Q W W O z a_ F z F Z Q w of w w w W O w W F w W Q' W W O J O F z J tQ J D w o a O 2 a w W w U a w a w W W q w W w v 2 J 2 W? Un m 7 W F S CO J 0¢ U 0 0 0) w O] J O W W S IL O w 5 O S S J LL J J w Q O c0 O J d J o W O 2 O J m W S d Q Q J W W m W w O W Un F O O W-j R O W F O F co w U W 2 U OU F Of z K v I. W Z O Q w co w O Z O ? F y ¢ of� ¢ Q m m m U K U O z F z W O p 3: o as IL Ur U F z Fa- cn z a (Fn =) C/) W W LL- D z>- o w °- r Qf W<- Z � M: rJ � w � 0 0 F w O O o W? w a 0 0 W a p 0 a r> Q d 0 U O= F a z a 0 w w �i W d Z V z� j w U w J¢ 7 0 w w W w m z Z p W 0 0(. W M w J m Q Z j < O E Z o �i w 2 W 0 O (n D � Y F — 2 U d z O z W W O (n W O W F U_` F w O 2 J 0 ¢ F O O d F W Z U W Q z Z W W S Cn J y F F F J S Z _J Cc -� z Q F� U IL Ur z� N N M m z = O O d d d H F F D m M)_ w 2 W Q Q Cl) W ( U Q Q � w F `� j O Z Z W d w W > C/) Un U) co (A U) (n Cl) W U) co w U) (n 0) (n (n F F > �i �i �i X Y N N ¢ U cL U Y J (L c o O > W 0 F c m C9 C O O O C N V O O r t0 O O O o V n O m r O to O O O O O R m m O n N O O O O O O to to R O t0 O O to to w c7 m m w N O r " N w r m O O N t0 O O O a O n O w N m t0 M m c m m to O O V M N M m 1-- M m w n O N w w to C) w to m M m w V' w m N c0 r m O t0 V N I' N w w m V O M w O C M m w R N 6i m O N 0 O N w n r co (D O r to n to to t0 m c') N N O c] r n N N ` "r c7 N W N cc O n cc M O N N M Cl) ? 0 O Q N � CC) r co w c7 w (D cl N N N O J w W w Y c) Ct t0 to r w O O N M 7 t0 w r w m O rn N O') of to 0 r w O O o N M C m t0 r w m c .- N to m t r m w n m w r m w n m w n m w r m w r m w w m w m m w w m w w m w w m w w m w co m w w m w w m w co m co m m w m w m m w m m w m m w m m w m m co m m w m m w m m w O o m 0 m 0 0 m 0 0 m 0 0 o o o O m m m 0 0 m 0 0 m 0 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 m O (o c0 O co p w co O 8 co w w w w t0 0 w 0 w 0 co 0 w w w c0 w co w (D 0 w 0 0 0 w 0 w 0 0 m N p m v d z w m d E o O Es N Y U) = U C L LL U O _ U J O U o N V C N O M m O f� l0 O W r N O O O O C7 O m O N CO O- O N O t N 'C (O m M N O O m U Q? r t0 N (O E Q C, N r R t-- � oc t0 O V' f-- M r V u) N N O (O O N co N N Co O U W U ~ 0 CL OLL LL z Y Z W U W W Z Z , F O W t LL U O Z > > CD L LL K W 2 O Z Z D O Z O LL F w w- w¢ IL LL LL ¢ 2 w O o ow w W Z ¢ a � O LL U C/) w O o W �- W w 0 3 cn Y c c9 LL f w rn¢¢ Q. O m W o w w w m w m O E O O O O Cl) O N a O O O O to O E O O N C O N O N O N O t0 O O O O M C O t0 O fA N O R O O U O N O N O N O O O O V O CD O CD n O O n O r O N O O O W - 1 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Mark Noble, Planner I SUBJECT: Vacation of Easements within Valley Park 6 Addition MEETING DATE: April 17, 2001 INTRODUCTION: 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. This application for vacation of easements was on the City Council agenda for April 3, 2001; however, the public hearing was continued because Xcel Energy had submitted a letter just before that meeting advising that they need to retain their electrical interests in the area of vacation. Staff has contacted Xcel Energy to discuss this issue since they had not provided comments on a previous vacation of an easement adjacent and directly east of this easement, that was approved by the City Council on January 16, 2001 (Resolution No. 5473). Xcel Energy is in the process of reviewing this request in more detail and will be contacting staff once that review is complete. Staff has provided a draft resolution that the Council may consider, or they may table this item until staff has received new comments from Xcel Energy. ALTERNATIVES: 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. Continue the public hearing. 4. Close the public hearing and table the request to allow staff or the applicant time to provide additional information_ g: \cc\2001 \cc0417Wacaindrgrphcs. doc RESOLUTION :E CITY OF SHAKOPEE VACATING EASEMENTS WITHIN VALLEY PARK 6 TH ADDITION, SHAKOPEE, SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, 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 17th day of April, 2001; and WHEREAS, two weeks published notice was given in the SHAKOPEE VALLEY NEWS 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, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 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 further 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, Minnesota, do hereby certify that the attached is a true and correct copy of Resolution No_ 5504, presented to and adopted by the City Council of the City of Shakopee at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the day of , 2001, as shown by the minutes of the meeting in my possession. Dated this day of 1 2001. Judith S. Cox, City Clerk �& Xcel Energy =° March 27, 2001 414 Nicollet Mail Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 -1993 City Council City of Shakopee 129 South Holmes St. Shakopee, MN 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, f � William Bosley Siting & Land Rights w N W E S zoning Parcel Boundary N ' � 1 I S pur Per D cry No E 2 p $� t 4 EQS 1nQ9e 60 O D l - errl Per Plat Scale in Feet 1'=50' n �f -f y 20 1 � L- PROPOSED VACATION The West 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 ar 201 of 1• t 4 .J� `f t wnrs Stated or under my Are supervision and that l an a duly registered Land SurveyQ under y A � As s by us this �� day 20 O 1 - Minnesota L'ncense No 13595 �� IJ %� O -,e 0 C) � � J 0 iV O , �a► O � �+ r I � PROPOSED VACATION The West 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 ar 201 of 1• t 4 .J� `f t wnrs Stated or under my Are supervision and that l an a duly registered Land SurveyQ under y A � As s by us this �� day 20 O 1 - Minnesota L'ncense No 13595 �. TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator I N oble , r Vacati of m Add 'O1 American Color Graphics has submitted an application for vacation oftwo (2) easements within Valley rv�ark 6" Addition. The proposed area for vacation is located within Lot 2, Block 1, Valley Park 6 Addition i has not ►r any adverse • • the proposed vacat Shakopee Pub Utilities has provided written comments, which are attached for the Council's information. P LANNING C SI N 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. ALTERN ATTVES: 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. ACTTON REQUES Approve Resolution No. 5504, a resolution of the City of Shakopee approving the vacation of easements within Valley Park 6' Addition. J;IIC._ ark N obld Pl anner g - \cc \2001 \cc0403 \vacamch- gcphcs.doc r i f C0 5 C T- CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Shakopee Planning Commission OM: Mark Noble, Planner I SUBJECT: Vacation of Easement within Valley Park 6' Addition MEETING DATE: March 22, 2001 Site Information Applicant: Greystone Construction Site Location: 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 (I -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 191 TO: Shakopee Community Development Department FROM: Joseph D. Adams, Plamlinc. and Engineering N r g SLBJECT: STAFF REVIEW RECORD CONB ENTS for: Vacation of Easement CASE NO: 01051 DATE: X/r / Municipal water ser 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 ulrfiry policy, pairing the associated inspection costs, paying the Trunk Water Charge, and paging to Water Connection Charge. Underground electric ser'ice is available subject to our standard terms and conditions. These include, but are not lirnited 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. ,A,pplicant should contact Shakopee Public Utilities directly for specific requirements relating to their project. TO: Shakopee Community Development Departtnent FROM: Joseph D. Adams, Planning and Engineering Manager SUBJECT: WATER SLPPLY 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's working with the i /Imnesota 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. 0 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SUBJECT: Alley Garbage Pickup DATE: April 11, 2001 .11 � The purpose of this memorandum is to explain the practice that the City has had, regarding requiring garbage to be picked up curbside, rather than in alleys during spring thaw months. Several City Council members have contacted me recently regarding the prohibition enacted on April 2nd regarding garbage pickup in alleys. Several residents have expressed to the Council a dissatisfaction with this arrangement. Please be aware that this practice is not something that is new — the city has done it every year in recent memory. The reason for not having garbage trucks go through alleys from (usually) the middle of March until the end of May is to save the alleys from being torn up by large vehicles during the Spring thaw. It coincides with road restrictions placed statewide by MnDOT; the timing decision is made locally by the Public Works Director. Even though the surface may look dry, the subsurface is still wet, and therefore will not have sufficient strength to support large trucks. If garbage trucks were allowed to go into alleys during the spring thaw, they would quickly become nutted, and will require significantly increased amounts of maintenance (grading, placement ofgravel, etc). Again, while this is nothing new this year, for some reason this year especially there has been a problem with compliance. Dick's Sanitation placed notices (see attached) on garbage containers two weeks in a row, but they estimate that perhaps up to 300 residents either have chosen not to cooperate, or have not gotten the word. In future years, the garbage hauler may send a post card to each alley address. Note that Shakopee has struggled with this in the past as well. The former hauler, WMI, had many times asked the City to mandate that there would be curbside service year around. The City chose not to require that. On the other hand, many people who have called City Hall and have indicated their preference for year round curbside pickup. However, there are also many who would be upset if that change were made. Recently, Dick's has offered all alley pickup residents the option of permanent curbside pickup at the front of house. Currently, they indicate about 70% of all their customers have curbside pickup, with 30% pickup in the alleys. The "dual" pickup options will add 2 to 3 hours per route, but Dick's is willing to do that. Again, the decision to prohibit spring time alley pickup is not something unique to Shakopee — New Prague had gone through the same struggle in years past, but a few years ago decided to mandate curbside pickup. It is a policy decision of the City Council as to whether they want to allow alley pickup year round; however, it should be aware that that will significantly increase maintenance on the 10 and 1/2 miles of alley within the City, and would likely strain Public Works maintenance resources. If you have questions about this, please contact me. Mark McNeill City Administrator MM:th Thank you o e Spring thaw. 4 k+'e BRADLEY J. LARSON PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/ COUNTY HIGHWAY ENGINEER April 13, 2001 R. Michael Leek Community Development Director City of Shakopee 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 Subject: Shakopee Crossings 1' Addition — Preliminary Plat CSAH 18 & Southbridge Parkway area 1q, �' Fax: (952) 496 -8365 Dear Michael: I am writing to provide further clarification regarding our position on the current Shakopee Crossings development proposal. We support the approval of the preliminary plat with the following conditions and comments: We will not permit the installation of an ht- in/right -out access as proposed. The Traffic Impact Report (TIR) submitted for the development (dated March 6, 200 1) indicates future excessive delays for traffic that would be entering CSAH 18 from the access during the peak hour. In addition to this, an unsafe condition would exist for traffic entering CSAH 18 from the access and needing to continue south on CSAH 18 once the intersection at Southbridge Parkway is reconfigured as part of future CSAH 21 construction. Under this scenario, traffic attempting to make this movement would need to cross both through lanes of CSAH 18 within a few hundred feet to enter the left turn lanes at the intersection. We would however be willing to consider a right -in only access at the proposed access location with the following conditions: a) A construction plan, showing the geometrics of the right -in only access, is approved by the County and City before an access permit application is submitted to the County. One concern will be how the access can be designed to prevent traffic from entering CSAH 18 via the access. We anticipate the need for concrete channelization, but will work with the City and developer on how this can be accomplished. b) The appropriate internal signing is installed to clarify for motorists that the access may not be used to enter CSAH 18. c) Scott County is not responsible for the maintenance of this access /connection. For example, it will not be possible for a County plow to clear snow from the access without turning off of CSAH 18. d) Once the future design of the CSAH 21 /CSAH 18 /Southbridge Parkway intersection is established, the County reserves the right to remove the right -in access if it is determined that the access poses future safety or operational problems with the reconfigured intersection. e) Scott County reserves the right to remove the right -in access if it is determined that the access poses a safety pro�lem. An Equal ppominity /Safety Aware Employer Michael Leek Shakopee Crossings -2- If the developer is not willing to modify the access proposal to right =in only, or if the above conditions cannot be met, we will not permit any additional access to CSAH 18 from development on the west side of the road. 2. The traffic information provided in the TIR will need to be revised slightly to account for the change in access described above. It may make sense to modify the TIR assuming the access does not carry any traffic in case the conditions for the right -in access cannot be met, or in case future changes to the intersection at Southbridge Parkway affect the right -in access. Aside from the access revision, the basic County Road aligmnent assumptions made for intersection analyses in 2006 and 2020 are appropriate to the best of our knowledge today. Assuming the environmental review process for future CSAH 21 proceeds as planned, CSAH 21 between CSAH 16 and CSAH 18 is currently planned for completion by 2005; and.if funded by the County Board, we anticipate CSAH 21 between CSAH 42 and CSAH 16 to be complete around 2008. 3. The current TIR shows the CSAH 21 & Southbridge Parkway intersection will not have adequate capacity and geometrics to operate at acceptable levels of service in 2006, assuming full development, and assuming CSAH 21 is open from CSAH 16 to CSAH 18. This is an issue that will need to be addressed. We acknowledge that these problems would likely not occur due to traffic generated by Shakopee Crossings I' Addition alone, although traffic analysis based on Shakopee Crossings V Addition traffic only has not been provided. We therefore recommend that at the time each stage of Shakopee Crossings is developed, a traffic impact study be required to more accurately assess the traffic impacts to the County Roads. Traffic impact studies provided to the County should assume County Road improvements consistent with the approved 5 -year Capital Improvement Program at the time of the study. The resolution proposed in the report is to only open new CSAH 21 once it is constructed to CSAH 42. At the City's request, we could review the timing of these projects as part of the 5 -Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) process for 2002; but for specific development proposals such as this, traffic analysis should assume County road improvements consistent with the County's 5 -Year CIP. With future plats part of this development, we would support consideration of reduction in development density if necessary to ensure the City and County roadways can properly support the traffic generated by the development. 4. Based on the turning movements presented for the 2006 Build scenario, existing CSAH 18 and Southbridge Parkway will need to be improved to provide storage room for vehicles, and a temporary signal system will need to be installed at the intersection to move traffic through this intersection without excessive delays. All turn lane improvements shall be designed to accommodate the queue lengths expected for 2006, as shown in the TIR, except that turn lane tapers shall not be used for vehicle storage. All improvement plans will require approval by the County Engineer, will need to be designed to Nh /DOT State Aid for Local Transportation standards, and will need to be submitted to the Metro Division State Aid Office for review. Please plan for sufficient time for the County and 1b1n/DOT to thoroughly review the plans. Michael Leek Shakopee Crossings -3- 5. When CSAH 21 is constructed, the project will include intersection improvements at Southbridge Parkway to accommodate expected development. Under the current cost participation policy, the County provides a standard left turn lane at public street intersections. Any additional improvements necessary will be at the City's expense. We suggest the City secure funding for these improvements as part of the platting process now, if necessary. We have the following additional general comments and concerns: • No berming, landscaping, signing or ponding shall be allowed in the County right -of -way. • Drainage calculations including existing and proposed conditions, and summarizing the change in drainage to CSAH 18 and future CSAH 21 shall be submitted by the developer to the Highway Department as part of the roadway improvement plan submittal. The City has been copied on previous correspondence with the developer's engineer in regard to a drainage proposal for the east side of CSAH 18. We have received nothing from the developer since our response to their proposal in October 2000. • Noise levels will increase as traffic volumes increase on existing and new County Highways in the area. With any new development along County Highways, the responsibility for noise attenuation lies with the City and the developer. If you have any questions, please call me at (952) 496 -8060. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, 6 � Or— Brian K. Sorenson, P.E. Transportation Engineer Email: Brad Larson, County Public Works Director Bruce Loney, City of Shakopee Public Works Director Art Bannerman, County Commissioner, District 3 Chuck Rickart, City Consultant, WSB & Associates C: Steve Soltau, Shakopee Crossings Jim Benshoof, Benshoof & Associates W : \word\review \plats \01 _plats \prelim \Sh_Shxings 1 stAdd #2. doc F , , M011 WHEREAS, Shakopee Crossings Limited Partnership, applicants and property owners have made application for preliminary plat approval of Shakopee Crossings 1st Addition; and WHEREAS, the subject properties are legally described as found on Exhibit A, attached; and WHEREAS, the Shakopee Planning Commission opened the public hearing on the preliminary plat on December 7, 2000; 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 17, 2001. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, SOTA, as follows: That the preliminary plat of SHAKOPEE CROSSINGS 1ST ADDITION is approved subject to the following conditions; I. The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of the final plat: A. Drawings shall be revised to provide all streets with a minimum street width of 36 feet, face to face. B. Drawings shall be revised to show a right -in access only from CSAH 18 as recommended by the Scott County Highway Department by its letter of April 13, 2001 C. The location and configuration of the mid -block access on Street A between Southbridge Parkway and Street B shall be approved by the City and its traffic consultant. D. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) right -of -way must be clearly labeled on the plat, as well as any in -place monuments. E. The location of site driveways should be determined, as well as the queue lengths that would be anticipated with the development. F. Approval of title by the City Attorney. G. Execution of a Developers Agreement with provisions for Plan A and Plan B improvements, as well as payment of engineering review fees, and any other fees as required by the City's adopted fee schedule. H. As part of the Plan A improvements, "No Parking" signs shall be installed along "A" Street and "C" Street, per the sign type and spacing requirements determined by the City Engineer. 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, and construction of streets 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 Trunk Storm Water Charges for the residential portion of the plat, Trunk Sanitary Sewer Charges, security for the public improvements, engineering review fees, and other fees as required by the City's adopted Fee Schedule for the entire plat. 6. No public improvements shall be constructed until the City Engineer and the Shakopee Public Utility Commission approve the Final Construction Plans and Specifications. H. Following approval of the preliminary plat, the following conditions shall apply; A. Prior to development work commencing the developer shall submit drainage calculations including existing and proposed conditions, and summarizing the change in drainage to C S AH 18 and future C S AH 21. B. Subsequent revisions of the preliminary plat or final plat of a portion of the project area will require evaluation of the adequacy, and possible revision of, the Traffic Impact Report filed with the preliminary plat application IV. Following approval and recording of the final plat, the following conditions shall apply; A. Scott County will not be responsible for the removal of snow from the proposed right -in access from CSAH 18. B. Sggnage internal to the project site shall be installed that makes it clear that the right -in access may not be used for purposes of exiting onto CSAH 18. C_ Scott County shall reserve the right to close and remove the right -in access in the future in the event that in the County's estimation it poses a safety problem. D. Building construction, sewer, water service, fire protection and access will be reviewed for code compliance at the time of building permit application(s). E. No berming, ponding, signage, or landscaping shall be located in the Scott County right -of -way. F. Any work within the Scott County right -of -way will require a utility permit from the County. G. Best Management Practices shall be used during the construction of this project to insure against water and wind erosion_ H_ Utilities shall be constructed with seepage collars to prevent improper draining of groundwater from the area. A. Park Dedication fees shall apply to this plat consistent with the fees outlined in the City's adopted fee schedule in place at the time of building permit issuance. B. If any private streets are allowed, the streets shall be designed and constructed per the City's requirements for public streets. C. Receipt of approval of the right -in access from CSAH 18 from Scott County; in the event that such approval is not given, the applicant understands that the entire plat may need to be revised and reviewed to address any traffic issues that result from denial of the access, and that the traffic impact report would be revised. D. A MnDOT drainage permit will be required for this development. E. Outlet structures should be equipped with skimmers to prevent floatables from entering the City's storm sewer system. F_ Should additional noise mitigation be necessary or desirable in the future, the costs of such measures shall be born by the applicants, and their assigns. THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that approval of the preliminary plat of SHAKOPEE CROSSINGS 1ST 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 I:11 w M�YI A City Clerk B CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat of Shakopee Crossings I' Addition MEETING DATE: April 17, 2001 Shakopee Crossings has made application for preliminary plat review for the proposed Shakopee Crossings 1st Addition. The proposed 85 -acre plat is located south of STH 169, west of CSAH 18, and north and south of Southbridge Parkway. The public hearing on this request was originally opened on December 7, 2000, and was continued several times to allow additional analysis of the potential traffic impacts. The public hearing was closed on March 22, 2001, and the Planning Commission recommended approval. A copy of the March 8 report to the Commission is attached for the Council's information. There were a number of conditions precedent to review of this preliminary plat by the City Council. These conditions have been met, or where appropriate, incorporated into the draft resolution of approval. 1 _ Approve Resolution No. 5510, a resolution approving the preliminary plat of Shakopee Crossings 1' Addition subject to the conditions contained therein; 2. Approve Resolution No. 5510 with revised conditions. 3. Deny the requested preliminary plat, and direct staff to prepare a resolution consistent with that action. 4. Table a decision in order to allow time for the applicant and /or staff to provide additional information. 1 , TC1 1 0miliclo 1. 1 The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the preliminary plat subject to conditions as presented in the draft resolution. I Offer a motion consistent with Alternative 1 or 2. R. Michael Leek Community Development Director g: \cc\2001 \0417 \ppshakopeecrossings 1 st_ doc �ffw 1 01 M 102 11 . • WI o IN W • volor M MEN U 1 • WHEREAS, Shakopee Crossings Limited Partnership, applicants and property owners have made application for preliminary plat approval of Shakopee Crossings 1 st Addition; and WHEREAS, the subject properties are legally described as found on Exhibit A, attached; and WHEREAS, the Shakopee Planning Commission opened the public hearing on the preliminary plat on December 7, 2000; 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 17, 2001. N OW , THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVE BY T HE • 1 OF : OF SHAKOPEE 11 • That the preliminary plat of SHAKOPEE CROSSINGS 1 ST ADDITION is approved subject to the following conditions; I. The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of the final plat: A. Drawings shall be revised to provide all streets with a minimum street width of 36 feet, face to face. B. Drawings shall be revised to show a right -in access only from CSAH 18 as recommended by the Scott County Highway Department. C. The location and configuration of the mid -block access on Street A between Southbridge Parkway and Street B shall be approved by the City and its traffic consultant. D. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) right -of -way must be clearly labeled on the plat, as well as any in -place monuments_ E. The location of site driveways should be determined, as well as the queue lengths that would be anticipated with the development. F. Approval of title by the City Attorney. G. Execution of a Developers Agreement with provisions for Plan A and Plan B improvements, as well as payment of engineering review fees, and any other fees as required by the City's adopted fee schedule. H_ As part of the Plan A improvements, "No Parking" signs shall be installed along "A" Street and "C" Street, per the sign type and spacing requirements determined by the City Engineer. 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, and construction of streets 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 Trunk Storm Water Charges for the residential portion of the plat, Trunk Sanitary Sewer Charges, security for the public improvements, engineering review fees, and other fees as required by the City's adopted Fee Schedule for the entire plat. 6. No public improvements shall be constructed until the City Engineer and the Shakopee Public Utility Commission approve the Final Construction Plans and Specifications. H. Following approval of the preliminary plat, the following conditions shall apply; A. Prior to development work commencing the developer shall submit drainage calculations including existing and proposed conditions, and summarizing the change in drainage to CSAH 18 and future CSAH 21. B. Subsequent revisions of the preliminary plat or final plat of a portion of the project area will require evaluation of the adequacy, and possible revision of, the Traffic Impact Report filed with the preliminary plat application IV. 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). F B. No berming, ponding, signage, or landscaping shall be located in the Scott County right -of -way. C. Any work within the Scott County right -of -way will require a utility permit from the County. D. Best Management Practices shall be used during the construction of this project to insure against water and wind erosion. E. Utilities shall be constructed with seepage collars to prevent improper draining of groundwater from the area. A. Park Dedication fees shall apply to this plat consistent with the fees outlined in the City's adopted fee schedule in place at the time of building permit issuance. B. If any private streets are allowed, the streets shall be designed and constructed per the City's requirements for public streets. C. Receipt of approval of the right -in access from CSAH 18 from Scott County' in the event that such approval is not given, the applicant understands that the entire plat may need to be revised and reviewed to address any traffic issues that result from denial of the access, and that the traffic impact report would be revised. D. A MnDOT drainage permit will be required for this development. E. Outlet structures should be equipped with skimmers to prevent floatables from entering the City's storm sewer system. THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that approval of the preliminary plat of SHAKOPEE CROSSINGS 1ST 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. THEREFORE, BE IT FIJRTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute said Plat and Developer's Agreement. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the day of 9 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: 1 R. Mchael Leek, Community Development Director p Plat of Shakopee Crossings I" Additil Shakopee Crossings Limited Partnership (Steve Soltau) Same West of County Road 18 and north and south of Southbridge Parkway Highway Business (B 1); Community Commercial (CC); and Planned Residential District (PRD) Zones North: Highway 169 South: Light Industrial (Ii) Zone East: County Road 18 West: Urban Residential (R -1B) Zone Commercial and Medium Density Residential Commercial and Medium Density Residential 112 Acres The site is within the MUSA boundary. W.- Shakopee Crossings has made application for preliminary plat review for the proposed Shakopee Crossings 1st Addition. The public hearing on this request was opened on January 18, 2001, and has been continued twice to allow additional analysis of the potential traffic impacts. Overview: The properties that are a part of the present plat proposal are a part of a larger set of parcels owned by the applicant. These properties were the subject of a 1998 application (ultimately Il However, review of this plat, as well as subsequent plans for development must take into account other elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Thus, for example, in its review the City must "Protect residential neighborhoods from the effects of unnecessary traffic while providing ample traffic flow and safety across and around the City." (City of Shakopee Comprehensive Plan, April 1995, Volume II; Goals, Objectives and Policies; Transportation; Objective 1.2 at page 100). Similarly, "Development shall be allowed in a pattern which minimiz disruption of prime agricultural soils, wetlands, forests, groundwater and other natural resources." (City of Shakopee Comprehensive Plan, April 1995, Volume II; Goals, Objectives and Policies; Land Use; Objective 1.1 at page 100). In developing draft conditions of approval for this application, staff has attempted to balance the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the concerns and interests of the City's residents, reviewing agencies, and the applicant. Transportation: The revised traffic impact study by the applicant's consultant was provided with the full packet. Accompanying this report is the review of that document completed by the City's consultant, Chuck Rickart of WSB_ Mr. Rickart's recommendations have been included in the draft conditions of approval found later in this document. Specifically, with respect to the right - irdright -out access on CSAH 18, staff has proposed a condition that would allow review of the preliminary plat by the City Council, but should that access ultimately not be approved by Scott County, would require that the plat and traffic impact report be revised and reviewed again. AUAR: An Alternative Urban Area Review (AUAR) for this site was completed. A copy of the mitigation plan from the AUAR is attached to this report for the Commission's information. As specific land use applications and/or site plans are submitted for this area, they will be reviewed to ensure conformance with the AUAR mitigation plan, as well as design and performance standards required by City Code. Park Dedication: A request was made for park dedication fees to be deferred to the issuance of building permits. At the time of issuance of building permits park dedication payments will be due at the rate(s) specified in the then- approved City fee schedule. 2. Comments from Reviewing Departments and Agencies. To recap, the following written comments were received relative to this preliminary plat: • The Engineering Department has provided comments, a copy of which is attached for the Commission's information. Staff has incorporated these comments into the recommended conditions of approval. • The City Clerk has commented that the access for the proposed school site should be considered. Access to the proposed school site is a component of the preliminary plat review. • The Natural Resources Director has provided comment, a copy of which is attached for the Commission's review. Staff has incorporated these comments into the recommended conditions of approval. • Scott County Highway Department has provided comment, a copy of which is attached for the Commission's review. Staff has incorporated these comments into the recommended conditions of approval. A representative of the Scott County Highway Department is expected to be present at the March 8 meeting of the Planning Commission. • Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (11,1PCA) has commented that it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance with MPCA noise rules ch. 7030. • Minnesota Department of Transportation (TNAnD ®T) has provided comment (initial letter December 26, 2000; revised letter February 14, 2001) relative to its right -of -way and required permits. Staff has incorporated these comments into the recommended conditions of approval. • The Lower Minnesota River Watershed District provided comments by letters dated January 3 and 19, 2001. Copies ofthese letters are attached for the Commission's information. approval of the pre`niminary plat of Shakopee Crossings 1st 1. Recommend to the City Council Addition subject to the following proposed conditions; Prior to review of the preliminary plat by the City Council, the following actions shall be taken: A. The applicant shall provide information specifying those trees that will be preserved as a part of this plat for review and approval by the Natural Resources Director. B. Drawings shall be revised to provide all streets with a minimum street width of 36 feet, face to face. C. Information relative to the traffic analysis for the site shall be provided to Scott County Highway Department. Prior to review by the City Council, the City shall receive comment from Scott County Highway Department indicating Scott County's satisfaction with information provided. D. The mid -block access on Street A between Southbridge Parkway and Street B should be eliminated. E. Minnesota Department of Transportation ®T) right -of -way must be clearly labeled on the plat, as well as any inplace monuments. 3 100 F. The developer shall comply with and/or snake provisions for compliance with any requirements outlined by the Watershed District. Cs Soil boring information related to the site shall be provided to the Watershed District for review. The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of the Final Plat: A_ Receipt of approval of the right- in/right -out access from CS 18 from Scott County. In the event that such approval is not given, the applicant understands that the entire plat may need to be revised and reviewed to address any traffic issues that result from denial of the access, and that the traffic impact report would be revised. B. Approval of title by the City Attorney. C. Execution of a Developers Agreement with provisions for Plan A and Plan B improvements, as well as payment of engineering review fees, and any other fees as required by the City's adopted fee schedule. D. As part ofthe Plan A improvements, "No Parking" signs shall be installed along "A" Street and "C" Street, per the sign type and spacing requirements determined by the City Engineer. 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, and construction of streets 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 Trunk Storm Water Charges for the residential portion of the plat, Trunk Sanitary Sewer Charges, security for the public - improvements, engineering review fees,. and other fees as required by the City's adopted Fee Schedule for the entire plat. 6. No public improvements shall be constructed until the City Engineer and the Shakopee Public Utility Commission approve the Final Construction Plans and Specifications. 7. Park Dedication fees shall apply to this plat consistent with the fees outlined in the City's adopted fee schedule in place at the time of building permit issuance. E. If any private streets are allowed, the streets shall be designed and constructed per the City's requirements for public streets. F. Prior to development work commencing the developer shall submit drainage calculations including existing and proposed conditions, and summarizing the change in drainage to CSAH 18 and future CSAH 21. C A NjnDOT drainage permit will be required for this development. 4 FIT FA 3. 4. 5. Recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat of Shakopee Crossings I' Addition subject to revised conditions. Recommend denial of the proposed preliminary plat of Shakopee Crossings I" Addition. Continue the public hearing. Close the public hearing, but table a decision in order to allow time for the applicant and/or staff to provide additional information. Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 or 2. M Offer a motion to recommend approval of the preliminary plat of Shakopee Crossings 1'` Addition subject to conditions. R chael Leek Community Development Director g:\boaa -pc\ 2001\ 0308 \ppshakope.e=ssingslstdoc ., Date.* March 6, 2001 Re. Shakopee Crossings Revised Traffic Study Review WSB Project _No. 1281 -04 A Traffic Impact Report was prepared for the Shakopee Crossings on February 21, 2001 by Benshoof & Associates for Shakopee Crossings Limited Partnership. This traffic study was based on the original traffic study prepared for the Shakopee Crossings area with some additional extensive analysis. WSB reviewed that traffic study and provided comments to the City on February 21, 2001. Based on that review and meetings held with Shakopee Crossing representatives, a revised Traffic Impact Report was prepared and submitted to the City on March 1, 2001. The City of Shakopee Staff requested WSB to review this revised study. Discussed below are the review comments of the revised Traffic Impact Report_ Traffic Generation The Traffic Impact Report, on page 8, indicates that approximately 2,215 net new trips in the AM peak hour, 3,300 net new trips in the PM peak hour, and 30,750 net new trips on an average day would be generated from the Shakopee Crossings development. This is somewhat misleading in that although, these are new trips to the area, there are additional trips that will be diverted from CSAH 18 / CSAH 21 to City streets (i.e. Southbridge Parkway, Street A, Street B, and Street D). The trips that are indicated in the report as passby trips would actually be new to these streets. The additional trips on these streets are 492 trips in the AM peak hour, 891 trips in the PM peak hour, and 9,859 trips on a daily basis. Traffic Analysis The following parameters should be kept in mind in the review of the capacity and level of service analysis, 1. Overall intersection level of service (LOS) should be at LOS D or better. 2. Typically, specific movement level of service should be at LOS E or better, although a LOS D should be strived for. , March r: 2001 Page 2 3. The overall intersection volume to capacity ratio (i.e. the amount of volume in the intersection in relationship to the amount of capacity in the intersection) should be 1.0 or less. 4. The 95% queue lengths (i.e. the amount of storage for a specific movement) should be maintained. Discussed below are comments on the specific intersection street analysis. In some cases, WSB provided additional analysis when necessary. CSAH 21 / CSAH 18 at Southbridge ?arlway • The intersection of CSAH 21 / CSAH 18 at Southbridge Parkway is ultimately in control and approval of Scott County, although the City of Shakopee has jurisdiction over the density of development that accesses through this intersection. With this in mind, the following comments are offered: • The 2006 condition as outlined in the revised traffic study, assuming no CSAH 21 connection, may not be the worst -case scenario for this intersection. It is not known at this time when the final stages of the CSAH 21 project would be completed to CSAH 42. Therefore, it is unrealistic to assume that the 2006 condition with the additional background traffic would be the worst -case scenario. 2010 or 2015 may be a better assumption or concurrence from Scott County on the analysis date. ® Based on the proposed development scenario, we agree with the proposal to not connect CSAH 21 to CSAH 18 until it can be completed to CSAH 42. However, should the County not concur with the phasing of CSAH 21 and the project proceeds as planned, the 2006 full-build condition needs to have adequate capacity and geometrics to handle this traffic flow. Based on the previous traffic study (February 21, 2001), it appears that this will not be the case. Similar to what was proposed for the 2006 condition in the revised traffic study, a reduction in density may be considered for the 2006 condition with CSAH 21 constructed only to CSAH 16. ® The report references that additional storage lengths within taper areas can be used for calculating the maximum storage in a turn lane. This is not the case. The taper lengths are used to move traffic out of the through lanes and into the turn lane. If the tapers are used to store vehicles, through traffic would be blocked and safety of the vehicle would be compromised. •gh i 'ght oast Acces ® Similar to the CSAH 21 /CSAH 18 at Southbridge Parkway intersection, the right - in/right -out access from CSAH 18 will be under the control of Scott County. Scott C_\wiadows \TEMP,03050I bl m16stf i Brjuce Loney March / l r Pag County has indicated that this access should not be provided at this time. The City's position in the past has been that some type of access could or should be considered. ® The right- in/right -out access was assumed as part of the proposed study. As a worst case scenario, the right- in/right -out access should not be assumed in the intersection level of service and capacity calculations. This would increase volumes on Southbridge Parkway and Street A. The right -in portion of the access appears to work adequately and would provide a benefit to this property component, although it component is introduced, greater detail. and the surrounding intersections. However, the right -out works now, once CSAH 21 is extended and a weaving this portion of the access should be eliminated or studied in Two mid -block partial access intersections are provided along Southbridge Parkway. One between CSAH 18 and Street A, and the second between Street A and Street B. The first access between CSAH 18 and Street A is a right -in access only. The second is a right-out/right-out access. Both of these access points would provide good secondary access to the proposed sites. In both cases, a right turn lane and adequate storage should be provided to remove traffic from the through travel lane. In addition, when site plans are reviewed for these specific uses, consideration must be given to the movement of traffic on these access points so that traffic does not back up onto Southbridge Parkway. Southbridgge Parkway at Str A • The intersection of Southbridge Parkway at Street A will be the main access to this portion of the development. A significant amount of traffic will need to enter and exit through this intersection. • The Southbridge Parkway at Street A intersection appears to operate satisfactorily with the proposed development scenario. However, there are few movements that are operating at LOS E. • The queue lengths are significant. Currently, with the proposed development scenario, the required storage for left timing vehicles is at the mid -block proposed access. Street A ® Currently, a mid -block access is proposed approximately 350 feet north of Southbridge Parkway. No analysis of this intersection was performed. Therefore, WSB prepared an analysis to determine the impacts of this intersection on the Street A operation. The C. %wimdows\TE;v PD30501 bl m16.stf March 6,2001 Pa ge 4 Street A at Street B o Street A at Street B intersection would operate at a satisfactory level of service with the proposed development scenarios. However, the additional traffic as a result of potentially eliminating the access between Southbridge Parkway and Street B and eliminating the right- inhight -out to CSAH 18 should be included in the analysis. ® The analysis provided in the revised traffic study did not document queue length for the Street A at Street B intersection. WSB's analysis, based on the current development proposal, indicates that the left turn lanes on all approaches should have 75 to l00 feet of storage and that the nearest driveway should be 150 feet from the intersection on the eastbound and westbound Street B approachs and 450 feet on the southbound Street A approach. Southbridge Parkwav at Street B ® The Southbridge Parkway at Street B intersection would operate at satisfactory levels of service for the anticipated development scenario. ® The queue lengths indicate that the first driveway access on Street B should be a mib - limum of 200 feet from the intersection: The left turn storage on, Southbridge Parkway should be 200 feet in length. C. \windows \TEN00305 bl ml6xT / / I ' / /'. Marc 6 , 2001 Page The mid -block access on Street A between Southbridge Parkway and Street B should be eliminated at this time. The volume of traffic on this portion of the roadway based on the current development proposal is significant. Therefore, introducing a mid -block access will, based on the analysis, create operational deficiencies. However, if it could be demonstrated at a future date that this intersection could operate at satisfactory levels, consideration could be given to a full or partial access. ® The exact location of site driveways should be determined during the preliminary platting process. The developer will be responsible to indicate through the use of traffic studies what locations are being proposed and a determination of what queue lengths would be anticipated with development. The intersections of CSAH 18 at Southbridge Parkway and right- in/right -out access from CSAH 18 are issues that need to be resolved with Scott County. Any revisions to the intersection resulting in impacts to Southbridge Parkway and/or the street system in the development area would require an update of the traffic study. ffs - — C_ \windows \TEMP\0305 bl ml6.ztf City of Shakopee Memorandum TO: Julie Klima, Planner H FROM: Joel Rutherford, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat — Shakopee Crossing First Addition DATE: December 26, 2000 The application indicates a preliminary plat is proposed for the Shakopee Crossings Property. However, it is staff s understanding that two (2) PT-)TD applications will also be applied for; one (1) PUD for the commercial area, and one (1) PUD for the residential area. After reviewing the referenced application, I have the following comments for the applicant, and for the planning department: Transportation Plan /Street Layout Parsons Brinckerhoff prepared a traffic study, dated May 2000, for the purpose of evaluating the traffic needs in this area of Shakopee. Benshoof & Associates, Inc., completed another study for the purpose of designing the road system for the proposed plat of Shakopee Crossings First Addition. Based on these studies, the internal street system was designed as shown on the drawings submitted with the application. The proposed streets include turn lanes for access to the future commercial sites, along with additional turn_ lanes from Southbridge Parkway a County Road 18 into the development. The additional access from County Road IS will need approval from Scott County. City staff has asked the City's engineering consultant to review e their transportation ws to insure and the proposed street layout and turn lanes. The purpos the street design is consistent with the City's Transportation Plan and also to provide an opinion of the findings and recommendations included in the plan. Street `'Widths The development proposes 3 -lane streets for "A" and "C" Streets, with the center lane used for turning. The total width proposed for these street sections is 42'. Attached is a copy of Table 4, "Roadway Design Guidelines ", from the City's Transportation Plan. This plan allows 42' for a 3 -lane road, if parking is restricted on both sides. Based on this table, the desired design of these street sections will depend upon on any parking restrictions the City wishes to place on the streets. Because of the proposed commercial development, staff recommends that no parking be allowed on either side of A' Street and C Street. Staff also recommends that all 3- lane roads within the development use the City's design section for determining lane widths, as shown on the attached Table 4. `B" Street is proposed as a 32' street. The city's standard for the minimum width for a two (2) lane local street is 36' face to face. The City's design criteria do not provide an alternative for roads that restrict parking. If the City considers parking restrictions along both sides of "B" Street, the City may also want to consider allowing a 32' wide local street. However, staff recommends that the minimum width allowed for "B" Street be held to 36' face to face, as required by the City's Design Criteria. Cul s The street layout proposed two (2) public street cul -de -sacs. The length of these cul -de- sacs exceeds the 7�0' ma`�imum allowed per the City's Design Criteria. The purpose for limiting the length of cul -de -sacs is safety. Generally, there are concerns that if a road is not accessible, for whatever reason, it may be difficult, or impossible, to get emergency vehicles to a site near the end of the cul -de -sac. Because of the type of development, however, consideration may be given to the fact that adjacent to these roadways, parking areas will be constructed for the retail businesses. These parking areas would allow a way to get around the roadway, in case of an emergency. The police and fire department should determine whether these parking lot areas would be adequate for providing an alternative access, in case of an emergency. If the City agrees the parking lots would provide an alternati be ve access, a variance may required. "Private" Streets The drawings submitted show a street labeled "Private Street ", as an extension of "A" Street. Per the Zoning Code, a lot that does not have frontage on a public street must have access approved through a planned unit development. Because Lot 3, Block 3 has frontage onto "A" Street, which is public, the street labeled as "Private Street" would actually be considered a driveway, not a street. However, it is staffs understanding will not Block 3 may be t a public str subdivided eet Therefore, there may be future to any future lots that would not have frontage onto a public street would need to have approval for frontage onto a private street, per the Zoning Code. If the City approves the private street, staff recommends that the street be designed and constructed using the City's Standards and Specifications. Water /Sanitary Sewer The Shakopee Public Utility Commission must approve the water system necessary to serve the proposed development. Also, any Trunk Wat Charges shall be paid, as required by the Shakopee Public Utility Commission. To serve this site with sanitary sewer, it is anticipated that a lift station will be required. The engineer for the applicant shall work with the City Engineer in determining the location, design, cost - sharing, and future maintenance of this li ft station. Trunk Sanitary Sewer Charges will apply to this plat, and shall be paid at the time of final plat. Storm Sewer/P®ndigg The applicant's engineer and the City's engineering consultant are working together on the storm sewer plan for this area of the City. No grading or construction shall begim on the project until the final construction plans have been reviewed and approved by the City's consulting engineer. Storm Water Trunk Charges will apply to this plat. Payment for the residential portion shall be paid at the time of final plat. Payment for the commercial properties shall be paid at the time of building permit issuance. Wetland Only one wetland exists on the property, and no impacts are proposed. However, the applicant is responsible for obtaining a Wetland Exemption for this development prior to any grading or construction. Sound 'Iitiaation Lot 2, Block 1 is proposed to be residential. The applicant is currently in the process of preparing a separate PU application for that lot. With the PUD application, information must be provided indicating the plans for insuring the site will meet the sound requirements along the future C.S.A.H. 21 roadway. Recommendation Recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat, subject to the following conditions: 1. The City Council shall not consider the preliminary plat until WSB & Associates provides comments relating to the Transportation Plan prepared by the applicant's engineer. 2. All streets shall have a minimum street width of 36', face to face. 3. As part of the Plan A improvements, "No Parking" signs shall be installed along IIX' Street and "C" Street, per the sign type and spacing requirements determined by the City Engineer. 4. The access from County Road 18 is approved only if Scott County approves this additional access. 5. If any private streets are allowed, the streets shall be designed and constructed per the City's requirements for Public Streets. 6. Prior to recording of the Final Plat, the following actions must be completed: a) Execution of the Developers Agreement, which shall include provisions for security for public improvements within the Final Plat and the engineering review fees. b) Payment of Trunk Storm Water Charges for the residential portion of the plat. c) payment of Trunk Sanitary Sewer Charges, and other fees as required by the City's adopted Fee Schedule for the entire plat. d) No public improvements shall be constructed until the City Engineer and the Shakopee Public Utility Commission approve the Final Construction Plans and Specifications. as T r_ N T.- C co E C O CZ cn C QD na O Y C4 t i N N N O 1 T r N T Z T r v e T N n o N T T ::. O Q CD CO v N Cf] v O Q CO CV In C.. L CD T N N T v d O v T v vT IN e ® p: U Q r T N T Z N CV T N 7 CV v N C co E C O CZ cn C QD na O Y C4 t N O C O CL o Z O r. p: U Q Y Ul n N r _ 7 CV — N m Q CL LU Q Z N N .'._ CD N CD Q C O r CV b "T co r O tC) N d LO U]. m O r O i7, El ,* Z V J LLI r �1 .... N cn v Q U7 Z c� r r 0 Q N t ' N C �. p N (D G. CL S co N� r � T TJ TJ l.! Q] ,,^^ j 1 VJ _ Z C 1 ::D Q 9 C CD m a) m a) a) a� cc C13 (13 C13 ca CIS C13 cc V N Cl) C N Ul O O O O p O O O. � O- O. O O O ed + O O O p � O O Q G O co v N 1 Q O O O O O Q O O. O` O: p: p O v O Cl) O LO 00 O. 04, O. Lo ® IC] T C T r-- T LLJ Z \p Y ..,y V LI J m 0 Z Q U L i 0 O C ci LL = C C co E C O CZ cn C QD na O Y C4 t BRADLEY J. LEON pUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/ COUNTY HIGHWAY ENGINEER January 2, 2001 Michael Leek Community Development Director City of Shakopee 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee, Mi T 55379 Fax: (952) 496 -8365 T JAN J 1 2001 Subject: Preliminary Plat - Shakopee Crossings V Addition CSAH 18 & Southbridge Parkway area Dear Michael: We have reviewed the Preliminary Plat and Traffic Study Report for Shakopee Crossings First Addition. As indicated in the Trip Generation section of the May 1 000 Traffic Report, a total of 66,074 trips per day are predicted for this development (separate from the East Dean's Lake development)- By comparison, this is about twice the amount of trips predicted to be generated by the Valley Green Corporate Center. This will no doubt have a major impact on the roadway system in the area, and we encourage the City to ensure every step reasonable has been taken to minimize this impact before the plat is approved. We have the follow comments and concerns in regard to the Traffic Study Report (nret?ared in part by both Ben shoof & Associates and Parsons B rinckernof : ® The traffic analyses do not at all include future CSAH 21. As we noted in our comments on the AT-TAR for this project, this new alignment of CSAH 21 has been funded by the County for 2004, and we don't feel traffic impacts can adequately be identified and addressed without including. this roadway in the analysis. In regard to the right- in/right -out access to CSAH 18, our current position is that access should not be allowed. We met with Benshoof & Associates earlier this year, at which time Appendix B of the current Traffic Study Report was presented to us. The study has not been modified since then, so our position has not changed, based on the following concerns: a principal arterial, which means that mobility is 1. This county road is currently classified as emphasized over land access. 2. The study (Appendix B) indicates the minimum spacing for this type of access would be us mile according to current County guidelines. This is based on the assumption that this would be a "low volume" access (under 3000 Average Daily Traffic). From the PM peak hour information presented for this access, it is clear the ADT would be well over 3000. The minimum spacing for this type of access therefore is t /4 mile. There is currently less than `/z mile total between the end of the eastbound TH 169 ramp to Southbri dge Parkway. -- An E17Llal Opportunity /Safety Aware Employer . r _ Michael Leek -2- Shakopee Crossings I Addition 3. Although this would be a public street, it in essence would serve as a long shared driveway for commercial development. Our policy has also been that where available, direct access should be gained off of the lower function and/or lower volume roadway. In this case, that is Southbridge Parkway. 4. Right -out traffic intending to go south on CSAH 18 after CSAH Zl is constructed would need to cross 2 lanes of high -speed traffic in less than t /4 mile, while beginning the weave from a stop condition. We feel this movement is more safely made using Southbridge Parkway. 5. The tangible benefits to this type of access have not been analyzed in terms of how this access would improve overall or intersection specific traffic operations. For example, a right -in access could reduce the need for traffic to turn right at Southbridge Parkway and at an internal street, but right turns often do not increase overall delay for signalized intersections. 6. It is our understanding that the interrelation of City streets and County roads, including the location of access. was discussed and agreed upon_ by the City and County prior to any platting of the Southbridge area. This was not one of the locations discussed at that time. Based on the turning movements presented for the 2006 Build scenario, Southbridge Parkway will need to be improved to provide storage room for vehicles waiting at the signal with future CSAH 21, and to move traffic through this intersection without excessive delays. Such improvements will include dual left turn lanes at least 300' in length (plus the taper) in addition to the existing two through lanes. We highly recommend the City secures funding for these improvements as part of the platting process now, so that the intersection can be constructed properly as part of future construction of CSAH 21 between CSAH 16 and CSAH 18. In addition to the left turn lanes mentioned above, (a) left turn lane(s) for the first local street intersection (Streets "A" and "C ") will also need to be developed in the Southbridge parkway median between future CSAH 21 and this intersection. We - recommend the City closely review the queuing needs for this intersection, especially if buses enteng an elementary school south of Southbridge p will be stacked at this future signalized intersection. The Traffic Report includes a section on travel demand management (MM). Considering the volume of traffic expected to be generated by this and adjacent development, combined with the area's proximity to TH 169, the implementation of TDyI strategies will be critical in maintaining a safe and efficient system of roadways. Specifically, we agree that this area would be a highly desirable location for a transit hub. We are willing to work with the City and developer if necessary in further developing and implementing TDM strategies. We have the following additional general comments and concerns: ing, signing or ponding shall be allowed in the County right-of-way. 8 No berming, landscap Drainage calculations including existing and proposed conditions, and summarizing the change in drainabe to CSAH 18 and future CSAH 21 shall be submitted by the developer to the Highway Department prior to development work commencing. The City has been copied on previous correspondence with the developer's engineer in regard to a drainage proposal for the east side of CSAH 18. We have received nothing from the developer since our response to their proposal in October, 2000. Michael Leek -3 Shakopee Crossings 1aAddition ® t Noise levels will increase as volumes increase on existing and new County Highways in the area. With any new development along County Roads, the responsibility for noise attenuation lies with the City and the developer- If you have any questions, please call me at (952) 496 -8060. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Brian K. Sorenson, P.E. Transportation Engineer Email: Brad Larson, County Public Works Director Bruce Loney, City of Shakopee Public Works Director Craig Jenson, Transportation Planner C: Steve Soltau, Shakopee Crossings Jim Benshoof, Benshoof & :associates W:1wOrd� review\ plats \O1�Iats\prelim \Sh_SE - S1st-dd.doc { 4 + Dear Michael Leek: SUBJECT: CSAH 83 / CSAH 16 Improvements — Revised Letter Minnesota Department of Transportation Review #500 -067 (Revision) TH169 & CSAH 83 Shakopee, Scott County C.S. 7005 This letter is a revision of our January 12, 2001 letter. The only change is the reference to WSB in the second bullet item. The Minnesota Department of Transportation has reviewed the CSAH 83 / CSAH 16 Improvements site plan. Please address the following issues prior to further development: After analysis of the SYNCRO disk, we have determined that it is very possible the westbound TH169 ramp will fail during p.m. peak periods as it is currently showing a LOS D. The eastbound ramp from TH169 may also operate at a low LOS during the a.m. peak. As stated in previous correspondence, the increased traffic volume from development in this area will require transportation system improvements. Sitnalization and dual left turn lanes need to be constructed at the westbound TH169 ramp and will be the financial responsibility of the developer, the city, or both. If you have any questions regarding these traffic concerns please contact Jim McBroom in our Traffic section at (551) 634 -2143. We will be in contact with WSB who has requested to meet on this project to discuss these comments. o Vertical and horizontal alignments are not shown for these improvements and must meet State Aid standards. The County will be notified via a copy of this letter, that they will need to change their system desipation for CSAH 16 as it will change their system mileage. Any questions retarding these State Aid issues can be directed to Michele Moser in our State Aid section at (651) 582 -1323. An equal opportunity employer - City of Shakopee February 14, 2001 Page 2 ® A Mn/DOT drainage permit may be required for these improvements. In order to determine the need for a permit, grading and drainage plans should be submitted for review prior to any construction. The plans must include existing and proposed conditions along with hydraulic computations addressing the 10 and 100 -year storm events. Existing drainage patterns and rates of runoff affecting Mn1DOT right of way must be perpetuated. The sites storm water discharge rate must not increase. If you have any questions regarding these drainage concerns please contact Katherine Heinz in our Water Resources section at (651) 634 -2407. Any work within n/DOT right of way must be justified and requires a permit. Any VI questions regarding Nln/DOT's permit process can be directed to Keith VanWagner in our Water Resources section at (651) 582 -1443. If you have any additional questions regarding this review please call me at (651) 582 - 1441. Sincerely, Sharon Anderson Transportation Planner / Local Government Liaison Cc: Jim Hentges / Scott County Surveyor Brad Larson / Scott County Engineer Chuck Rickart / WSB & Associates, Inc. - - - - -- ' O — >, . Es° R � innesota Departmen of Transportation Q Metropolitan Division Waters Edge C 15oo West County Road 82 d Roseville, MN 55113 �� JAN 0 2 2003 December 26, 2000 City of Shakopee Attn.: Michael Leek 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Dear Michael Leek: SUBJECT: Shakopee Crossings 1st Addition Minnesota Department of Transportation Review #P00 -113- S of TH169 / W of CSAH 18 Shakopee, Scott County C.S. 7005 The Minnesota Department of Transportation has reviewed the Shakopee Crossings 1st Addition plat in compliance with State Statute 505.03, subdivision 2, Plats. Prior to the final plat recording please address the following issues: ® Mn/DOT right of way must be clearly labeled on the plat as shown on the enclosed sample map. Also, any inplace monuments should be labeled. If you have any questions regarding this documentation please call Jeff Hoffstrom in our Surveys section at (763) 797-3 108. Please send a final copy of the plat with these corrections to Jeff at 2055 N. Lilac Dr., Golden Valley, 55422. ® A Mn/DOT drainage permit will be required for this development- The permit application must include hydraulic computations and drainage area maps showing existing and proposed conditions and addressing 10 and 100 -year storms. Existing drainage patterns and rates of runoff affecting MrLDOT right of way must be perpetuated_ The sites storm water discharge rate must not increase. Any questions regarding Mn/DOT's drainage concerns can be directed to Katie Heinz in our Water Resources section at (763) 797 -3090. Please contact Keith VanWagner in our Permits section at (651) 582 -1433 for the appropriate permit forms and guidelines. Along with these plat corrections please be advised that any work or access on a Municipal State Aid route or County State Aid Highway must meet State Aid rules and policies. By copy of this letter we will also advise the County that they must review any changes to its County State Aid Highway system so that the County stays within its system limitations. Any questions regarding these State Aid issues can be directed to Tom Leibli in our State Aid section at (651) 582 -1372. An equal opportunity employer -- -- s City of Shakopee December 26, 2000 Page 2 If you have any additional questions regarding this review please call me at (651) 582 -1468. Sincerely, �� &ten r) Sharon Anderson Transportation Planner / Local Government Liaison Cc: Jim Hentges / Scott County Surveyor Brad Larson / Scott County Engineer William R. Engelhardt Associates, Inc. METRO RIGHT OF WAY & SURVEYS INFORMATION NEEDED FOR Mn /DOT PLAT REVIEW LOT 2 BLOCK/ 1 LOT 3 POLE,, MCP 4s co ,2 i � / fit i y y a .�g9 v t �pGVMptti ��a ��v F6F- v �. a 12 " "0J 12�aCP RCP POLE �O 4" STEEL GAS C8 DESCRIa T�H 51� I DESCRIBED POLE o- _ ST CB G4 c Jos o DESCRIBED R/, b I,yp� a Cc 5 ,5 L W � BLOCK 4 LOT 9 Mn /OOT R/W LINE r 'o y LOT 8 SCALE I INCH = 200 FEE 0 200 X00 1) RIGHT OF WAY (R /W) ON ALL HIGHWAYS 2) DOCUMENT NUMBER OF RECORDED R/ W DESCRIPTION 3) RIGHT OF WAY AS OCCUPIED VS. DESCRIBED 4) NOTE WHETHER HIGHWAY TITLE IS EASEMENT OR FEE 5) DATE OF SURVEY B) TRUNK HIGHWAY (T.H.) NUMBER 7) SECTION, TOWNSHIP AND U RA FPINDNUMBER IF AVAILABLE 8) SHOW RIGHT 9) UTILITIES 10) MILE POST REFERENCE EXAMPLE: MILE POST 128.3 11) ACCESS OPENINGS 12) POINT WHERE DESCRIPTION STARTS - TIE TO LAND LINE 13) TOPOGRAPHY NOTE Mn /DOT WILL RDISPUTES PROPERTY Mn�DOT /W RESOLVE BOUNDARY LINE S: \RIGHT OF WAY \PRJ \EXHIBITS &0OCS \PLATSUSMIT.DGN No•0394 P. 2 Scott Courtly Government Center 200 4 West Shakopee, NIN 55379 Tel. (952) 49E -8842, Faz: (,Q52) 496 -8844 January 3, 2001 K Michael Leek Community Development Director Shakopee City Hall 129 Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Mr. Leek: Terry L Sehwalba, Pm Owl Office: (612) 404 -5312, Fax (612) 40 Wallace E. Neal, V&Pr2stdent Office: (952) 884 -t 632. Faz (-kq SM -7126 Glenda Splotta, SiwWy Office (952) 471 -0590, W. 285, Fu: (952) 471 -0682 Edward A. Schlampp, Tmsumr Office: (612) 920 -4398. Fax: (612) 920-0086 Ran Kraemer, Asst Ifelsurer cell: (551) 335 -8905, Fax: (952189 Kevin 0. tlipalke, Admknis&ator Office: (951) 496 -8942, F= (952) 496-8844 Thank you for giving the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District (District) an oppor to review the proposed Shakopee Crossing, First Addition concept plan. We appreciate the City of Shakopee involving the District early in the re view process as this will allow any issues or concerns to be raised and addressed before the plan is near completion. With that being said, the District would like to offer the following comments for your consideration. 1. The plan is for a density of 8.2 units per acre. With this number of townhouses, the area will essentially be completely impervious. However, there is no indication on the plan submitted that there has been any consideration of storm water ponding on the site. if not on site, then a completed regional pond should be designated as a-receiver o` the storm water from this site. 2. Clearing this site preparatory to construction will create a large unprotected sandy soil area that will be subject to both water and wind erosion. Although the plan mentions briefly that it is the owner's intent to provide vegetation after the project is complete, no mention is made about the necessi to use Best Management Practices during the construction phase. 3. Utilities in this sandy soil should be constructed with seepage collars so that the groundwater is not improperly drained for the site area. There is a reasonable proximity to Boiling Springs and therefore any interference « that groundwater occurrence would not be consicered acceptable. 4. Should utilities be set at an elevation that would require excavation into bedrock, that might also have a detrimental effect on groundwater conditions in the area. 5. The District would like to know if soil borings have been taken so that the plan can be adiudged feasible. This should be done before the PUD is finalized so that further work on this project will not be wasted. Mar. 5. 2001 12:49PM LMRWO N0•0394 P. 3 The Lower Minnesota River Watershed District feels that the concern ensed ve need to be addressed and that the plan may need more detail before a PlJD is granted. On behalf of the Board of Managers of the Lower N iinnesota River Watershed District, I review = would like to thank you for involving, the OurDistrict zk o� #he� ®n and�fu p projects. process. e look forward to continuing Very Truly Yours, Kevin D. Bigalke District Administrator Cc: LMRWD Managers Larry Samstad, District Consulting Engineer Bruce Malkerson, District Legal Counsel No•3394 P. 4 Scott County Government Center 200 4' Avenue West Shakopee, MN 55379 Tel: (952) 496 - 8842, Fax: (952) 496 -8844 January 18, 2001 R. Michael Leek Community Development Director Shakopee City Hall 129 Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Mr- Leek: Tony L Sdmlhe, Pre I&I Office: (612) 404 -5312. Fax: (612) 404 -5318 Wallacs E. Neal, YWFfVSidSN Ofllce: (952) 884 -1632. Fax (452) 884 -7726 Glenda Spioda, Saaatw Office: (952) 471- 4590.Od.285. FaX (952) 471 -0682 Edgard A. Schlampp, Trassarsr ouim (61Z) 920-4398, Far, (612) W -0086 Ran Kremer, Asst Thinurer C211: (651) 335 -8305. he (982) 8943235 Kevin ®. W921he, Adminis( ar Office: (952) 496-8842. Fax (952) 496-8844 Thank you for giving the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District (District) an opportunity to review the proposed Shakopee Crossing, First Addition preliminary grading and drainage plan. We appreciate the City of Shakopee involving the District early in the review process, as this will allow any issues or concerns to be raised and addressed before the plan is near completion. With that being said, the District would like to offer the following comments for your consideration. 1. The plans do not include an erosion and sedimentation control plan. This should be included along with the grading plan as there is a significant chance of wind and water erosion as grading of the site occurs. The plan should include construction site Best Management Practices such as silt fence and vegetation seeding to control wind erosion due to the sandy nature of the soils in this area. 2. There has been considerable concern about how this and other projects, and the storm ponds, milt impact the groundwater feeding Boiling Springs and Dean's Lake. I would recommend that the storm water ponds be lined ponds, rather than infiltration ponds to avoid any lowering of the groundwater table. 3. Further, I would suggest that the elevation. of the ponds or the elevation of the outlet structures be equal to or higher than the water elevation of Dean's Lake. This, again, would help minimize any potential for lowering of the groundwater table in the area. 4. Skimmers should also be added to the outlet structures to prevent floatables from entering the City of Shakopee storm sewer system. 5. Utilities in this sandy soil should be constructed with seepage collars so that the groundwater is not improperly drained for the site area. There is a reasonable proximity to Boiling Springs and therefore any interference with that groundwater occurrence would not be considered acceptable. I would like to thank you for giving the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District any - opportunity to review and work with you on this project. Because of the potential -Mar. 5 2001 12 :50PM LMRWD imp acts to significant natural resources in the area it is of utmostportance to take the proper precautions to mis�1mi� any adverse impact to these resources. . ehalf of the Managers of the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District, I would to On b o � � We look forward to working with you on thank you for reviewing this Pr this and future projects. If y ou have any questions concerning the above, please contact me at (952)496 -88 _. Very Truly Yours, Kevin, D. Bigalke District Administrator cc: LMRWD Board of Managers The primary mechanism for mitigation of environmental impacts is the effective use of existing codes, rules, and regulations. The enforcement options available under these codes, rules, and regulations include: ® Execution of a developer(s) agreement(s) that under the City of Shakopee - s subdivision ordinance Approval of a planned unit development TLID), that includes specific requirements • • Enforcement of the Permitting ng requirements of all applicable local, state, and federal a • Require submission of performance bonds • Initiation of civil suits and/or restraining orders This mitigation plan is organized into three levels: I. Goals — At this level the mitigation plan defines broad concepts or purposes to be achieved in the project area. 2. . Strategies - This level identifies strategies that will be used to help achieve the goals. ;. Actions - This level lists key activities that can or will be employed to achieve the associated goal(s). . Ell Fulfill the public's expectations for the character of the City of Shakopee as ress� b the City's com prehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, etc. Strategies: 1. Implementation of City comprehensive plan policies and enforcement of City codes and policies. Actions: A_ Execution of a development agreement(s) between the City of Shakopee and the owners and/or project area, which agreement would incorporate requirements of the City's developers of the pro codes and policies in phase at the time of execution of the agreement Responsible Parties: City of Shakopee and the owner /developer(s) of the Shakopee Crossings project area. B. Execution of pe bonds. or other security, to provide surety to the City that all necessary requirements are met (e.g- criteriafor public l stree as re ui ed bv development t agr n ment(s). c requirements)- The ameunt(s) or . ecu q Responsible Parties: City,• of Shakopee, the o`4•nerldeveloper(s) of the Shakopee Crossings project area. g authorities of their respective rules, regulations. and terms of C. Enforcement by all governin development agreements- Responsible Parties: All appropriate agencies (including, but not limited to. the City of Shakopee, Lower Minnesota River Watershed District, Nfinnesota Department of Transportation) - D A to, or modification of. the relevant comprehensive plans_ ordia races, and/or policies that would affect mitigation on the subject site must be subject to appropriate review and approval by the appropriate governing agencies and authorities. These revie.N°s should include opportunities nt, including public hearings. for the public to comme Responsible Parties: City of Shakopee, Scott County, various State and Federal agencies, and - special districts. GOAL 2: Preserve groundwater quality and surface water quality of Dean's Lake. Protection Strategies: 1_ Consider the establishment of a watershed district for the entire Blue Lake watershed as delineated in the City's Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan- Responsible Parties: All appropriate agencies- 2_ Provide testing of the current water quality to define the background water quality. Page 3 -2 Action Required: he City's Comprehensive Storm water Management Plan including adherence A. Enforcement of to the Best l�lanagement Practices (ByLI' s) for storm water. B. Continue the cooperative relationship ge of all public and private ancies within the Dean's L e watershed (6,900 acres). 3_ Increase public awareness of the effects of residential and agricultural fertilizers on water quality. Action Required: A. Develop and conduct periodic educational programs for residents. Responsible Parties: City of Shakopee and all public agencies with water quality authority _ within the watershed. GOAL 3: Limit the impacts of traffic generated by activities within the project area. Protection Strategy es: —� I • Identify high traffic actz vities to be conducted within the project arm City of Shakopee, individual lot purchasers and building tenants. Responsible Parties: information as a part of the initial development or Action Required: Require the. necessary building permit review process. )Monitor changes in oti�ner /tenant traffic activity level and implement necessary changes to the City's 2• transportation -- system. Responsible Parties: City of Shakopee, individual lot purchasers and building tenants - Page 3 -3 Action Required: Require the necessary i as a par t of the building permit requesl re modeling and alterat process for 4. Continue to develop and complete the proposed improvements of collector and arterial roadways in the surrounding area. Action Required: A.Implement the construction of CR ? 1 Responsible Parties: Scott County, City of Shakopee, Scott County, iVln/)�T, filet Council and other interested agencies. i Monitor and update the City's Comprehensive Transportation Plan, when necessary_ 5 Responsible Parties: City of Shakopee �,L 4: Limit the noise impacts of development and adjacent roadways on adjacent or nearby GO residential properties. Protection Strategies: generat t from I�iv�itvonstruction, noise generation from L'S 169 and 1 Separate the issues of noi se CSAH 13, and noise generation from City -of Shakopee, NLI/DOT, i lot purchasers and building Responsible Parties: - tenants. 2_ Enforcement of the City's ordinances regarding noise generation_ Responsible Parties: City of Shakopee, individual lot purchasers and building tenants. _ Limit hours of construction activity and allowable construction noise. Responsible Parties: City of Shakopee- 4. Encourage tree planting along street boulevards within the project site Responsible Parries: City of Shakopee and the developer. : Page 3-4 i I I ` j _ I ' 1 1 • � I j 9 Z � ad � $�rasq • r- ps a � � W b db as q per- o j �� e r 'r � I r k ®�a ti ev All rr 1 E • � r• a� �E • E 16 9 �I ; a O GL p 1 \ _ - �"��" n rn ° to ms's 01 �-r_ LANES. Wei - W D: \ - W t•. Z - �it� _a'r--_ �if -z ?�� g'9W'c�Sv `) --- _•}�-__�. r Win. }, {: i '•..t';y`II Ilbhi' K r bl h - -__- - _ I �... - �----' -,,.....�• —� - i - -___-- ....... = ' -, ,_ iic.aaaaa:Tf.:cfJ.:f: !ii:':� - ��`: c' `: ^ ',:;:- ��'•;I; 11' II' {'r }•�I � ° �j f� < Z 3 �p x } h rr- =s ,?. _ _ __ _ ___ i� • _ t:.P:: i:.:: • ✓:: - �..i� - : , - -. �tNlill� � 'bjl.:• -.T��' � — �3 � � a ._ vl a O 3f n �3 _ � m to W •. ti- q�ttrr _.. - -_. :F2, -!ff :, - _- _ . i'_;�' _ • PI 1 i••a�. ( -- ::'?� c ': �.;_q a_�_::= �= -'- ___..` _ _,_�iil.• i s,,.� •:hl,�l'II, {•i,•. •: • 1 3 -_ 1 �.�,_. a k - r- - -•- �:_'_ . -�' �; I - _ •. ,Till I ` (y I � � <�� 4 � Y it o W r 8 _ _I4tr)F, ,_,, ,� 1 " ✓+ 7 "y ; r ,�- f >• I �� i ,—= '. -��:_L ��_r:_• __ s _ '� -,_ � y �. -'�' `\ 1'� j' j li '• % Y o w B{ I` o O f: __r � 1 tl {I 'I � '•.� � }tiI'` 111 11 ., t�i= -r�F.,a'(,'i x 1 ',zf�; ( _ 1 )ltli i ' i 'i - a,''I ,� : 5't • -.� i s '' 3 7_ ::, t ij,;'p li f . I %� ! � I I II I II f( . ,I l.- ;'L�;1 \ y : t I I ��� �• �� ; i I , C� Z nom.• q d'v�, «� 75; ab, 6 � y ! II I(� l __ 3;' {I'1 e • ..; -' I , ' 8. i';... � d �' � : ; F ' 6 R � I of 5i x co 11 • j( �II IIr� ,� �• \ / 1 ©_ l,i_, j" ;? '; i'3';); }y. `n1;a 8 {� I , p - >- r a + : I I; � II (� ` � 1•- -- -,-•,�.- t' - -':'� -'�- . -_.. t11 y 1 ` ; t•'� j � _g`° n$ •+ °s9 e9 S � Z Ii yY I .j 1 -! 5 - - - - -, _. a ! J.r ; � :;';• :.3 �ce;: �,� I, � .� J < s., � p �j�\ i '•� I� Ii l ') I f \ • , \: 'q• ''''�'�1!( ^j; � ' mo d' K N LA - - 117 ' •�, �.VV q +• - � 'ai� _ I� •� 1�, • - ---- .�• ? �i'1'� I'I( I -- -- I �_ -- - ,. ` (Il •I _ •} .1. r' li'.�,dl,l iil'�i .-', `'�' .k�Itia ) !� ! I) �-� �� _ �jI � +(:i�- ��-- ---- -�`t`� - •�''' - -- -�' F I ;� `I � ` �i r YW� ���,�� 1 I I j � i '� i I i'" L 1� - 'Sa , n •'� '� ,ry t�>;,,V' �) _ �� (�; j � � II ' ! } � v � 8 � � "' � � � - c .,F�'- '! I) J ' � • ���' ,(. " " N• • �:�' l �, �i ;� � vI���Q$ r 9� :_ U� Ru Mom y '� < � y�� $ z q (1 o 3 H E4 _ m m - - I ` I,��II f - i� • t. �I' /fir � � � a zaaa°y W � ' �' Iii' � � ` "3ri� `.. 1i •`, -' ,. � I' "biY,°'i' ',1 - �� o W a a � B33�� � ° � a. � < g s t S a aaaaa a _ r `l . \ J 1'•� e lL (i r.> I II'' 1 {I {II 'I � ( < a d m 1. • • �` \ - - % iii I I! • J t- -ice . 1 a� ,j; I = ,. _ ��� �J .,••� �-- � � };'' _ r � J ;l •a, I — ?, }3=`` ='ti-- z I1i I ii! ') V !, � � ���� Z � 0 V ;: =• =a.. ,, , 1 / S � " r r 1 •1 �; i R .9 RJR a � ` - • �`;5; �',1' _ 1 ' e. -�- ` I � - � *� � I ,_1- 1 � � .�).i! � �i_ ,. ��' �`��i ' � � � � � � � � � g � ^ F g� D � ■ �` - �• - 1` ' f' ir: ' -•� r,`� ' }I >' /. -,I `•,�, - 1'•• �t', l i- Z * a I o w l w WYn' rt' j in y:' .......... U \apt - -�\'" `_ ^ -- = _'' J• -•1' •./ J� '( e � 9 s ° saiz - :" W �' �'�;; "• • s; =; :;\•.. \• .� ; -- ` - L . ` - fop t��p•-�j�n�5y- -- �..•.', 1 ` 'i , / (p i _ \ Z d aS d f P 0 4 at 0 p ;� f �s� '� - J, •�� ;,�� �• ������'�'�1�'1j, ,I• J'a; J ; it ��� ���� , - Q-2, =o ) (• O rn ;' • -� J /�j� i t l ', 1 , l \1����\ - ��-i,i, %��,'� f !�� L_ y�__J "'•••JJJ �t , � -.,._ ,- ,SHAKOPEd " LID!;ARTNEkS�IP } 'i / ,'!�; f;; 1 tti: Q I I �¢ r Technical & Regulatory Evaluations Group, Inc. H Circle NE Ptior La Voice (612) 496 -0594 Fax (612) 496 -2097 E -Mail - lllehman@aol.com Presentation to the Shakopee City Council ApjIl 17,2001 a ra in charge of this study. This study was just started and a consultant is to be hired to comp14 existing information first. After this, monitoring well placements will be discussed. Issues The Lower Minnesota River Watershed District in their January 18, 2001 letter from Kevin Begalke to R. Michael Leek, regarding their review of the Shakopee Crossings, First addition gradig and drainage plan had several important comments, which have apparently not been considered for Shakopee Crossings and other nearby developments. They are as follows: "There has been considerable concern about how this and other projects and the storm ponds, might impact the groundwater feeding Boiling Springs and Deans' Lake. I would recommend that the storm water ponds be lined ponds, rather than infiltration ponds to avoid any lowering of the groundwater table." "Further I would suggest that the elevation of the ponds or the elevation of the outlet structures be equal to or higher than the water elevation of Dean's Lake. This again, would help minimize any potential for lowering of the groundwater table in the area." "Utilities in this sandy soil should be constructed with seepage collars so that the groundwater is not improperly drained for the site area. There is a reasonable proximity to Boiling Springs and therefore any interference with that groundwater occurrence would not be considered acceptable." 2 considered. Routing an additional 336 cfs into Deans Lake, will undoubtedly cause water -f degradation 'in the Lake. Concerns over water quality in Dean's Lake have been expressed in the past by Mr. Willenbring, PE of WSB & Associates, (See his November 20, 1998 letter to Bruce Loney) regarding the Dean Lake Bypass Project as follows: ill'il,iiiiiiiiiiiii IF ii ME M.m! III I To protect the quality of water 'in Deans Lake from being impacted as a result of - f v� 'ronstrucuon OT a parnal Storm water management activity that has the potential to protect Dean's Lake from accelerated degradation in the future." The feasibility study is inadequate because it does not evaluate the environmental consequencl of any of these options. We also have not heard whether the Sioux Community will grant permission for Option 3. If you have any questions, please feel free /X 3, CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat of River Bend Townhomes MEETING DATE: April 17, 2001 Introduction: Ever Green Real Estate Corp. has made application for preliminary plat review for the proposed River Bend Townhomes. The plat proposes the creation of two (2) lots that would contain 20 town homes. The proposed project would be a tax credit project, and the units would be affordable, rental units. Access for the project would be gained from e Avenue West and future 5'" Avenue West. Alternatives: 1. Approve Resolution No. 5513, a resolution approving the preliminary plat of River Bend Townhomes subject to the following conditions, I. The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of the Final Plat: A. Approval of title by the City Attorney. B. Execution of a Developers Agreement with provisions for Plan A and Plan B improvements, as well as 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, and construction of streets 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 Trunk Storm Water Charges, Trunk Storm Water Ponding Charges, Trunk Sanitary Sewer Charges, security for the public improvements, engineering review fees, and other fees as required by the City's adopted Fee Schedule. 6. Park Dedication fees shall apply to this plat as set forth in the 2001 City Fee Schedule, and shall be paid at the time of recording of the final plat. C. 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. 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). 2. Approve Resolution No. 5513 with revised conditions. 3. Do not approve the preliminary plat, and direct staff to prepare a resolution consistent with that determination 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, and considered the request at its meeting of April 5, 2001, and recommended approval on a vote of 6 -1. A copy of the report presented to the Commission is attached for the Council's information. Action Requested: Offer a motion approving Resolution No. 5513, a resolution approving the preliminary plat of River Bend Townhomes with conditions. R. Michael Leek Community Development Director i Acommdev \Cc\2001 \0417 \ppriverbend. doc 2 10 11 1 N i 1 1 1 WHEREAS, Ever Green Real Estate Corp., applicant and Bert Noterman, Personal Representative for the Noterman Estate, property owners, have made application for preliminary plat approval of River Bend Townhomes; and WHEREAS, the subject properties are legally described as follows; All of Block 8, Koeper's Addition to Shakopee, City of Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the Shakopee Planning Commission held a public hearing on the preliminary plat on April 5, 2000; 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 17, 2001. NOW, THEREFORE, RESOLVED BY THE / UNCIL OF THE / ,F SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, • • That the final plat of River Bend Townhomes is approved subject to the following conditions; I. The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of the Final Plat: A. Approval of title by the City Attorney. B. Execution of a Developers Agreement with provisions for Plan A and Plan B improvements, as well as 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, and construction of streets 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 Trunk Storm Water Charges, Trunk Storm Water Ponding Charges, Trunk Sanitary Sewer Charges, security for the public improvements, 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). THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that approval of the preliminary plat of River Bend Townhomes 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 9 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: 0 SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat of River Bend Townhomes E G DATE: March 22, 2001 a Site Information Applicant: Ever Green Real Estate Development Corp. Properly Owners: Estate of Norma M. Noterman Location: East of Harrison Street, West of Adams Street; South of 3' Avenue West Current Zoning: Medium Density Residential (R-2) Zone Ad, jacent Zoning: North: Old Shakopee Residential (R 1 C) South: Old Shakopee Residential (R 1C) East: Multiple Family Residential (R-3) West: Multiple Family Residential (R-3) Introduction: Ever Green Real Estate Corp. has made application for preliminary plat review for the proposed River Bend Townhomes. Under the subdivision ordinance, only the preliminary plat application is reviewed by the Planning Commission. This plat proposes the creation of two (2) lots containing about 22 town homes. Considerations: The applicant proposes buildings containing up to 6 dwelling units per building, these will require a conditional use permit (CUP) under the R-2 regulations. Park dedication would be due on this plat per the adopted 2001 fee schedule, and is payable at time of final plat, unless the applicant requests deferral in writing to the issuance of building permits. There are wooded areas noted on the existing conditions map, but the applicant has not submitted a specific inventory, and the City's Natural Resources Director in his review has not requested more specific information. The City Engineer/Public Works Director has been working with the applicant to finalize plans for drainage. The proposed ponding on City -owned parkland has been reviewed and approved by the Park and Recreation Advisory Board (P ). 1. Recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat of River Bend Town homes subject to the following proposed conditions; C. 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. F ollowing a and recording of the final plat, the following conditions s haH 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). Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 or 2, approval with conditions. Action Requested: Offer a motion to recommend approval of the proposed preliminary plat with conditions. Z"/��� R. Michael Leek Community Development Director iAcommdev \boaa- pc\2001 \0208 \ppevergreen.doc pwtg SHAKOPEE Con XZffrfPRIDESVCF1B9 Preliminary Plat for River Bend Townhomes Evergreen ea Estate Dev. Corp. Zoning ' • d' Parcel Boundary 'tIfflo EXISTING APARTMENT COMPLEX 8618 , R � It ♦ 6 SAN. \ FOURTH AVENUE a - -- ` - - WOODED AREA / o -------------------- / ,0 I / i° 1 / 1,823 I - - - - - -- I iB9 . 05E 299.7 DRAINA(;E AND UBLffY fASFMEM - - -- ' - --- BUILDING SETBACK 300.00 (PLAT) (MEAS.) r- - -- I IJ NE _= t8J.55 _ _ - - -- I I - - __---- .- -__= -------- L------- - - - -�, l u I I T __--- I --- -- ---- -- --,L__ ` 1 - Ui - u 35 ' � I C C o ',• t PROPOSED BUNTING , / I I I PROPOSED BUR.DING �a m I I I 1 I N W .� ' tmo A 0 ' 0 I 589°48'05E 76.00 I I I I O C ° 0 - - m � I PROPOSED SIDL-wAL I i i o u mz i 918'05E 3 b9 I I - __- SITE' m b o o ° /F7-r-/ 6, f NDRY L , A-, C m O L vi m Lo O U) Z = > 0 m PROPOSED °® PLAY AREA - 0 m rg -- - -- — - - - -- ----- - -__. m j j N N l lA Z M m N O W — — — — — —I ^ I A__ -- I __ - - - -- I -- i m "- I ' O 6 6 a I ' PROPOSED SR)EWALK�(/A' I o M R O O _ _. PROPOSED BURRING L -' I ' I PROPOSED BUIDMG T, / 10 _ I I ------ BUIIDINk SETBACK UNE I I v z z L LOCATION MAP - - -- _ _ ,e , - - - - - -- - - - - - -- ------- - - - - -� T DRNN^DE AND l)I1LtfY (ISEMEN7 - I 29 (MEAS.) e - - - -__ JJ89 300.00 ---F�- =�_I y Y__ _ - _ __ f - - - - - -- -- - -- - ------ - - - ---- -- ------ -- -- -- i -- i / 3 ♦♦ i i Sr SAN. o I Is I (PLATTED AS FIFZH STREET r -- ---------------- ------------------- - - - --� LF71'U BLOCK 7 JOHN & JANE DuBOIS Z z m cn �O I 1 $ y ~ o J I D � �m bi 1 m '~ b o I � Z v1 I a N x Sc m. 1" =20' DATE REVISION 6Y RIVER l:)R Bi�d`I l! 1 ®1 ®lrll ®1�l:iJ I �mr h , ^aL , N• Y^°r •a. o�Pena m q nx « uM« mY AIeR wp..idw aM Uct I FOR EVERGREEN REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION DTwm J.W.D_ g7;��.+� � �{7�� p �p PI AT r� a ma real,L=,a tad sma,« o D6tRl: S REL1�11NAR A PLGSB due �n� d atn l i u PROJECT ND. Re8•W. ILZS D,te 01/1'Al 2000 -19 SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA ALL—METRO DE VIIAPIWI M CONSULTANM, PA SURVEYING a ENGINEERING a SITE PLANNING ]Ill aM Br,ed.e] Yet, (763) 588 -G6] SWte 201 I- I — ) 508 - 833] Brv,k1Yn Pwk. ,IX 55,28 E- W ALJLELR *AOLCOY t m F FO S S o O py S S I C C o ',• t I 1 I o N b � yIIy . .� ' tmo A C ° 0 - - o u mz i S SITE' m b o o ° ii b 6, f fl o L , A-, C ' O O L 0 0 m m j j N N l lA Z Z N N O W W m N i m m � O 6 6 o M R O O _ _. v z z L LOCATION MAP RIVER l:)R Bi�d`I l! 1 ®1 ®lrll ®1�l:iJ I �mr h , ^aL , N• Y^°r •a. o�Pena m q nx « uM« mY AIeR wp..idw aM Uct I FOR EVERGREEN REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION DTwm J.W.D_ g7;��.+� � �{7�� p �p PI AT r� a ma real,L=,a tad sma,« o D6tRl: S REL1�11NAR A PLGSB due �n� d atn l i u PROJECT ND. Re8•W. ILZS D,te 01/1'Al 2000 -19 SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA ALL—METRO DE VIIAPIWI M CONSULTANM, PA SURVEYING a ENGINEERING a SITE PLANNING ]Ill aM Br,ed.e] Yet, (763) 588 -G6] SWte 201 I- I — ) 508 - 833] Brv,k1Yn Pwk. ,IX 55,28 E- W ALJLELR *AOLCOY t i e tt z (� J u u u z .m �LN w i �. . :1 a 9 Oki 04 M 1';11 1 ! LIA5 1 WHEREAS, Ever Green Real Estate Corp., applicant and Bert Noterman, Personal Representative for the Noterman Estate, property owners, have made application for preliminary plat approval of River Bend Townhomes; and WHEREAS, the subject properties are legally described as follows; All of Block 8, Koeper's Addition to Shakopee, City of Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the Shakopee Planning Commission held a public hearing on the preliminary plat on April 5, 2000; 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 17, 2001. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, as follows: That the final plat of River Bend Townhomes is approved subject to the following conditions; I. The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of the Final Plat: A. Approval of title by the City Attorney. B. Execution of a Developers Agreement with provisions for Plan A and Plan B improvements, as well as 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, and construction of streets 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 Trunk Storm Water Charges, Trunk Storm Water Ponding Charges, Trunk Sanitary Sewer Charges, security for the public improvements, engineering review fees, and other fees as required by the City's adopted Fee Schedule. U. 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). THEREFORE, E IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that approval of the preliminary plat of River Bend Townhomes 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. THERFORE, BE IT FURTHER SOLVED, that approval of the preliminary plat of River Bend Townhomes does not constitute an approval of the site plan submitted by the applicant, which site plan is subject to further review. Nor does approval of the preliminary plat of River Bend Townhomes constitute a decision by the City of Shakopee to proceed with the improvement of adjacent 5 Avenue. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the day of , 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat of Juergens First Addition MEETING DATE: April 17, 2001 APPLICATION DATE: Received December 11, 2000 Introduction: G. F. Juergens Construction Inc. (hereinafter Juergens) has made application for preliminary plat review for the proposed Juergens First Addition. This plat proposes the creation of 10 single - family lots ranging in size from .3 8 to .49 acres. A copy of the January 4, 2001 report to the Planning Commission is attached for the Council's information. Alternatives: 1. Approve Resolution No. 5514, a resolution approving the preliminary plat of Juergens First Addition subject to the following proposed conditions; I. The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of the Preliminary plat: A. Approval of title by the City Attorney. B. Execution of a Developers Agreement with provisions for Plan A and Plan B improvements, as well as 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, and construction of streets 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 Trunk Storm Water Charges, Trunk Storm Water Ponding Charges, Trunk Sanitary Sewer Charges, security for the public improvements, engineering review fees, and other fees as required by the City's adopted Fee Schedule. 6_ Park Dedication fees shall apply to this plat in the amount of $1,800.00 per lot, and shall be paid at the time of recording of the preliminary plat. The applicant may request deferral of park dedication payment in writing prior to approval of the preliminary plat. If deferred, the amount due will be per the then - adopted City fee schedule C. 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_ 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. No berming, ponding, signage, or landscaping shall be located in the Scott County right -of -way. C. Any work within the Scott County right -of -way will require a utility permit from the County. 2_ Approve Resolution No. 5514 with revisions. 3. Do not approve the preliminary plat ofJuergens I' Addition, and direct staff to prepare a resolution consistent with its action. 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, and considered the request at its meeting of January 4, 2001, and recommended approval. Action Requested: Offer and pass Resolution No. 5514, a resolution approving the preliminary plat of Juergens I" Addition. R. Michael Leek Community Development Director is \commdev \cpc\2001 \0417 \ppj uergens. doc A RESOLUTTON OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, M]NNESOTA APPROVING T" WHEREAS, Juergen Construction, Inc., applicant and property owners have made application for preliminary plat approval of Juergens 1 st Addition; and i WHEREAS, the subject properties are legally described as found on Exhibit A, attached; and J WHEREAS, the Shakopee Planning Commission held a public hearing on the preliminary plat on January 4, 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 17, 2001. THEREFORE, ` BE IT RESOLVED BY THE 1 :1 CITY OF SHAKOPEE, U 1 as • That the preliminary plat of JUERGENS 1 ST ADDITION is approved subject to the following conditions, I. Prior to commencement of work on the subject site the following conditions shall apply; A. Prior to construction of the public improvements, the City Engineer and the Shakopee Public Utility Commission must approve the Final Construction Plans and Specifications." The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of the final plat: A. Approval of title by the City Attorney. B. Execution of the Developers Agreement, which shall include provisions for security for the public improvements within the Final Plat and 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, and construction of streets 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 Trunk Storm Water Charges, Trunk Storm Water Ponding Charges, Trunk Sanitary Sewer Charges, security for the public improvements, engineering review fees, and other fees as required by the City's adopted Fee Schedule. 6. Park Dedication fees shall apply to this plat in the amount of $1,800.00 per lot, and shall be paid at the time of recording of the preliminary plat. The applicant may request deferral of park dedication payment in writing prior to approval of the preliminary plat. If deferred, the amount due will be per the then - adopted City fee schedule C. 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. 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. No berming, ponding, signage, or landscaping shall be located in the Scott County right -of -way. C. Any work within the Scott County right -of -way will require a utility permit from the County_ THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that approval of the preliminary plat of Juergens 1 St 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 1 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk nat part of the West Half of the Northwest Quarter, Section 8, Township 115, Range 22, described a. I( • . � `1 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum Im Shakopee Planning Commission R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director Preliminary Plat of Juergens First Addition APPLICATION DATE: Received December 11, 2000 Site Information: Applicant. G. F. Juergens Construction Inc. (by Gene Juergens, President) Property Opners: Same Location: Southwest side of Eagle Creek Boulevard; east of Sarazin Street; west of CSAH 8' ) C Zoning. Urban Residential (R-1B) Zone Adjacent Zoning. North: 1-1, Light Industrial South: R - 1B, Urban Residential East: R - 1B, Urban Residential West: R - 1B, Urban Residential 1995 Comp. Plan: Single Family Residential Proposed Comprehensive Plcul: Single Family Residential Area. 5.18 Acres, + MUSA: The site is within the MUSA boundary. Attachments: Exhibit A: Zoning/Location Map Exhibit B: Preliminary Plat and Site Plan G. F. Juergens Construction Inc. (hereinafter Juergens) has made application for preliminary plat review for the proposed Juergens First Addition. Under the subdivision ordinance, only the preliminary plat application is reviewed by the Planning Commission. This plat proposes the creation of 10 single - family lots ranging in size from -- ) 8 to .49 acres. Considerations: The proposed plat is located immediately south of the proposed site of Shenandoah Apartments. The site plan submitted by the applicant depicts 5 shared driveways to serve the proposed plat. These shared driveways require the approval of the Planning Commission as a part of the platting process, not the Board of Adjustments and Appeals as indicated in Assistant City Engineer Rutherford's memo (Copy attached for the Commission's information). Because the driveways would access CSAH 16, a county road, approval by Scott County is also required. In the draft conditions of approval, staff has included a condition that would require evidence of that approval prior to approval of the preliminary plat by the City Council. Park dedication is payable at the rate of $1,500.00 per lot and, because the applicant has not submitted a written request for deferral, would be payable prior to recording of the final plat. The applicant has submitted an inventory of significantly sized trees on the site. The vast majority of these appear to be box elders and elms. The proposed building pads on lots 1 — 7 appear to be located north of these trees, while building pads on lots 8 -10 would require clearing several of the trees on these lots. The city's Natural Resource Director did not comment on the inventory submitted with this plat application. The following written comments have been received: • The Engineering Department has provided comments, a copy of which is attached for the Commission's information. The recommendations are included in the proposed, recommended conditions of approval. • The City Clerk has commented that 1) there should be shared driveway agreements/covenants (these should be provided for review with the final plat application); Z) park dedication should be addressed; and 3) county access permits should be obtained. • Scott County Highway Department has provided the following comments: 1) 10 -year storm water calculations should be submitted to the County Engineer (5 -year calculations have been provided; Z) no berms, ponds, signs, or landscaping may be located in the county right -of -way; 3) any work in the county right -of -way will require a utility permit; 4) access permits will be required for shared driveways, and all accesses are to be installed at the same time by the developer. • Scott County Environmental Health has commented that ponding for this project should be designed to NURP and N1PCA standards, which require a 3 -foot separation from the water table or bedrock, and construction or lining with soils that have less that 5 minutes per inch permeability. Alternatives: 1. Recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat of Juergens First Addition subject to the following proposed conditions; I. Prior to review of the preliminary and final plat by the City Council, the following actions shall be taken: A. The applicant shall provide to, and receive approval of, 10 -year storm water calculations from the City and County Engineer. B. The applicant shall provide the City with evidence of approval of the shared driveways from the Scott County Engineer. C. Proposed shared driveway agreements or covenants shall be provided to the City for review. The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of the Final Plat: A. Approval of title by the City Attorney. B. Execution of a Developers Agreement with provisions for Plan A and Plan B improvements, as well as payment of engineering review fees, and any other fees as required by the City's adopted fee schedule. 1. Street lighting to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 2. Electrical system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission_ ;. Water system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 4. Installation of sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems, and construction of streets in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. 5. The developer shall be responsible for payment of Trunk Storm Water Charges, Trunk Storm Water Ponding Charges, Trunk Sanitary Sewer Charges, security for the public improvements, engineering review fees, and other fees as required by the City's adopted Fee Schedule. 6. Park Dedication fees shall apply to this plat in the amount of $1,500.00 per lot, and shall be paid at the time of recording of the final plat. C. 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 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. No berming, ponding, signage, or landscaping shall be located in the Scott County right -of -way. C. Any work within the Scott County right -of -way will require a utility per from the County. 2. Recommend to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat of Juergens First Addition subject to revised conditions. 3. Recommend denial of the proposed preliminary plat of Juergens First Addition. 4. Continue the public hearing. 5. Close the public hearing, but table a decision in order to allow time for the applicant and/or staff to provide additional information. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, approval with conditions as presented. Action Requested: Offer a motion to recommend approval of the preliminary plat of Juergens First Addition subject to the conditions outlined in Alternative No. 1. R_ Michael Leek Community Development Director iAcommdev\boaa-pc\200 1\0 104\ppjuergens.doc Freiiminary Piat of Juergens I st Addn 12/12/00 f�?cl —tl6lT pwtg - W E S HAK ®PEE CoNo4uNLIYPMESNCE IM7 S -619 City of Shakopee Memorandum TO: Michael Leek, Community Development Director FROM: Joel Rutherford, Assistant City Engineer 4 SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat — Juergen 1' Addition DATE: December 22, 2000 After reviewing the referenced application, I have the following comments for the applicant, and for the planning department: Streets The proposed plat does not propose any additional streets. All lots abut County Road 16, and utilize shared driveways. Because of the size and topography of the parcel, it appears additional streets are not feasible. Utilities Sanitary sewer and watermain will be served from County Road 16. Public Sanitary Sewer will be required with private services hooked up to the public system. The City of Shakopee, prior to recording of the final plat, must approve the proposed watermain and water services layout. The Shakopee Public Utility Commission, prior to recording of the final plat, must approve the proposed watermain and water services layout. Grading Plan/Erosion Control/Storm Sewer The proposed storm sewer plan drains the water from the site onto County Road 16. The applicant has submitted calculations showing the projected flows from a 5 -year storm. The City requires the applicant to show that the downstream system (which is the existing storm sewer in County Road 16) can handle the runoff from a 10 -year storm. Therefore, prior to the City Council review of the preliminary plat, the applicant shall provide information that shows the storm sewer system in County Road 16 will handle the runoff from the site, for a 10 -year storm. Additional catch basin may be required within the plat if the existing system cannot handle the runoff. Both the City and the Scott County Highway Department must approve the storm sewer calculations prior to review of the preliminary plat by the City Council. Trunk Fees This plat is outside the Sanitary Sewer Trunk Charge area. Therefore, there will be no Trunk Sanitary Sewer charges. However, Storm Water Trunk Charges will apply to this parcel. Because there is no ponding, Trunk Storm Water Storage and Treatment Charges will also apply. The rates will be those in place at the time of Final Plat recording. In 2000, the total rate (includes both the trunk storm water and trunk storm water storage charges) was $0.120 per square foot. A credit will be applied for any storm sewer assessments that were levied on the property for the County Road 16 improvements. County Permit Any work within the County Road 16 Right -of -Way will require a permit from the Scott County Highway Department. Recommendation Recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals must approve shared driveways within the plat. 2. Prior to review of the preliminary plat by the City Council, revised storm sewer calculations must be submitted and approved by both the City and the Scott County Highway Department. 3. Prior to recording of the Final Plat, the following actions must be completed: 1. Execution of the Developers Agreement, which shall include provisions for security for the public improvements within the Final Plat and engineering review fees. 2. Payment of Trunk Storm Water Charge and Trunk Storm Water Storage and Treatment Charge, and other fees as required by the City's adopted Fee Schedule; and 3. The City Engineer and the Shakopee Public Utility Commission must approve the Final Construction Plans and Specifications. f E N ins n � tC G� N �y r R•J � � Z L17 GG c� 0 1 , m a�C t Z, o � O la7 g m 3^ s m 4 z o� °o w s,V3o+no- .a22 m.. Uo q� �� - • 3 � asc,z�� N� V 2�,; ; 5, p N v_ 4 z —� I o { a w $ 3•y puc,S ygpp °.a.oa•�c� Q; � 2 0� �°�in m� c.�m $ a °' g u q i �^ ° ..o � I II I / 1 Il \ \ \ \ \�\ q 1 _ I`- ]> 1^ mT�'t��'^�ao3,a o —III - fi' i1\1�Jj –\ % N�34'S0'17/ o �'cna o° „a o •+a' S I 11 II. E / �°?��3.g p �� , �i' S ..�p ° 3 g^ R � ill p M '•�1� 22265 r f R i d `� g m S 2 `'� m S o h w I 1 1 I I i 1 l 1 `kk``,z evt% "T4,�v"$ Q yc]... °a " w so" `� "i I I l I L II 11 �I �J'�. °3 yf' �•" c�5 P n:S �a�a� cy � yy ° _ — 1 1 1 5i 0 10'97'W 220.26 \ oic ° ^Sp ^ q p 0 , - ,+ z I II ,)!\ Iii X1 \mo I \` f c t 0 o I I I I C7y /II; to 1 _ J r 107�W 223.96 A I m UI 0 z "ll X tz1�JZrytp, oo [ Z Z IR n txj m O ob�c� � o b 0 O� i 1--A b m 0 I[ m D (i to m o I Nn C� I I ,i 1 XII {I I II I I clo ./ L, 1 I. amp c'l .. \• 1pl � I / ; aw$ m oYY�i 22s.0 o i / w u III - 1 ` �- = -- � � 1 � o �` �) ; I I ; �,= � 1 h hso 'n•w 276.�a l/! 'n•w saa�a TT / / 1 1f - 7�'7 �-� C'o —— T i I I �i - `� .' \ �° IrQ 1lt I V rI /I In o�,.. 1 I � J °,i 'i � Ih� I �� I i�T I V c N ,o ,. � +.•"��J i " ffp b I/ T 1� n• _ N g /' I I 1 1 1 1 1 /�/ _ •_'E_f �� Nor I ' .50 ' 1, .y, i i(` k/ A w ur ! /1 /// > / ` o1 li! 365. J 1 pz e� I l , I�� I 1 1 �I 4�S 34. 43'17" Uk z; moz Z � DO N L � Z r � 10• � oo GSA u U Z z_ m 10' 10' A Z M �o Kl22 o o Z >�A K v 0 / A n C'1 �i V] r1 r lr C] _ z 3 rn o z p�9i$�7g c N 2i�� 3 >N 34 8E z 0000y00005 2 N . r R 2 N z mY� r NPA T. O mOUJa,U�GN� Z f�4 ,n, y(m�I < �L 8 N m-I�y 1 �Ul �j S`M Jf/1COO ('r�� .0 O �° I rt12 V1 Z] S U 4 N ix �m� a z yt� I •v e o S °Z o to o0 oop0000 yy< 1. 1. Itll N,J M9 9l N A 0 > ` C > » »>DD »> o n = S N 3 p Y U) - _ Z J 4 z N o . CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Mark Noble, Planner I SUBJECT: Amendment to the Zoning Map — Zoning property to Medium Density Residential (R -2) Zone APPLICANT: Derrick Investment Company MEETING DATE: April 17, 2001 Derrick Investment Company has requested that the City amend its land use map to include and guide the subject property for Medium Density Residential Uses, and amend the zoning map to include and zone property to Medium Density Residential (R -2) Zone. The property is located at 2011 10` Avenue West, which is south of CSAH 69 and on the north side of I& Avenue West. The property was not guided on the adopted and draft Comprehensive Plans since it was located in Jackson Township at the time of the Plan's adoption, and drafting. The property directly to the east is guided for medium density residential use. • i I; Rff� I 1 1 • ;f At its April 5, 2001, meeting, the Planning Commission took public testimony and reviewed this request. After review and discussion, a motion to recommend approval of the zoning request and amendment of the land use map was approved by a 7 to 0 vote. Provided for your reference is a copy of the April 5, 2001 memorandum to the Planning Commission. Ordinance No. 595, approving the zoning request and land use amendment, has been drafted for the Council's review and approval. ALTERNATIVES: gAco\2001 \Cc0417\rezdenick.doc x'11 � � � C •'1 WHEREAS, Derrick Investment Company, the applicant and property owner, has requested a revision of the boundaries of land uses on the draft and adopted Comprehensive Plans for Medium Density Residential Uses, and an amendment of the zoning of land to Medium Density Residential (R -2) Zone and; WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as follows: That part of Government Lot 2 and that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, Section 11, Township 115 North, Range 23 West, lying Southeasterly of the Southerly right of way of State Trunk Highway No. 169 and Northwesterly of the Northerly right of way of Legislative Road No. 300; all in Township 115 North, Range 23 West, Scott County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, notices were duly sent and posted, and a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on April 5, 2001, at which time all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council heard the matter at its meeting of April 17, 2001, and found that the proposed zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the area of the City adjacent to this property; and WHEREAS, the City Council have found that amending the boundaries of the land uses on the draft and adopted Comprehensive Plan for Medium Density Residential Uses is consistent with the proposed zoning and the draft and adopted Comprehensive Plans for this area. 1 1 0 I 1 I wMady 1 ORDAINS: Section 1 - That the draft and adopted Comprehensive Plans are hereby amended to guide this property for Medium Density Residential Uses. Section 2 — That the zoning map adopted in City Code Sec. 11.03 is hereby amended by zoning the property referenced herein, from Jackson Township to Medium Density Residential (R -2) Zone. Section 3 - Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of , 2001. - - - - - -- R., ----------- -.. - .. F PEE Memorandum TO Shakopee Planning Commission OM: Mark Noble, Planner I SUBJECT: Amendment to the Zoning Map, zoning property annexed from Jackson Township to Medium Density Residential (R -2) Zone APPLICANT: Derrick Investment Company (River Place) E G DATE: March 22, 2001 Site Information: Applicant: Derrick Investment Company Location: 2011 10` Avenue W. Adjacent Zoning: North: CSAH 69 South: Highway Business (B -1), Old Shakopee Residential (R -1C) East Old Shakopee Residential (R -1C), Highway Business (B -1), Multiple Family Residential (R -3) West CSAH 69 MUSA: The site is not within the current MUSA boundary. Attachments: Exhibit A: Location and Zoning.Map Exhibit B: Site Plan Exhibit C: Medium Density Residential (R -2) Zone Regulations Exhibit D: Letter from Lower Minnesota River Watershed District Exhibit E: Natural Resources Director's Comments Exhibit F: Shakopee Public Utilities' Comments Derrick Investment Company has requested that the City amend its land use map to guide the entirety of the subject property (River Place) for medium density residential use, and amend the zoning map to zone the property to Medium Density Residential (R -2) Zone. The development would consist of five (5), four - plex structures. A copy of the preliminary proposal for the development accompanies this memorandum for the Commission's information (Exhibit B). The property is located at 2011 10 Avenue W., which is south of CSAH 69 and on the north side of 10 Avenue W. The property was not guided on the approved 1995 Comprehensive Plan since it was located in Jackson Township at the time of the Plan's adoption. The property adjacent to the east is guided for medium density residential use. The City's Comprehensive Plan sets basic policies to guide the development of the City. The purpose of designating different areas for residential, commercial, and industrial land uses is to promote the location of compatible land uses, as well as to prevent incompatible land uses from being located in close proximity to one another. The Zoning Ordinance is one of the legal means by which the City implements the Comprehensive Plan. Under Minnesota statute, zoning is to conform to a city's comprehensive plan. Exhibit C provides a listing of the uses, both permitted and conditional, that are allowed in the Medium Density Residential (R -2) Zone. Copies of the land use plans are available for viewing at City Hall and will be made available at the March 22, 2001 meeting. The following are written comments that have been received by City and other review agencies: The Lower Minnesota River Watershed District has submitted a letter, which has been attached for the Commission's information. There main concern was that storm water calculations should be submitted, that the development incorporate skimmers onto the pond outlet structures and that an erosion and sediment control plan should be submitted. The Natural Resources Director has submitted a memorandum, which has been attached for the Commission's information. His concerns included a suggestion that additional landscaping be installed around or near the detention ponds. Shakopee Public Utilities has submitted comments, specifically noting that the proposed utility plan for water service does not meet current SPUC design criteria and will have to be modified to do so before approval of construction plans. Planning staff has researched the significance of the existing structures located on this property. It should be noted that the residential structure is also known as the Roehl— Lenzmeier House, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (listed 4/17/80). Under federal law, owners of private property listed in the National Register are free to maintain, manage, or dispose of their property as they choose provided that no Federal monies are involved. Planning staff has consulted with the Executive Director for Scort.County Historical Society, who has stated that the structure has been left in a state of disrepair for an extended period of time and does not believe the structure can be restored tots period of significance. However, they would like an opportunity to document the structure before its demolition, which the applicant has mentioned should not be a problem. Findings: The criteria required for the granting of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment are listed below with proposed findings for the Commission's consideration. Criteria #1 That the original Zoning Ordinance is in error; Finding #1 The original Zoning Ordinance did not address this property as it was only recently annexed into the City of Shakopee. Criteria #2 That significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place; - - 2 - -- r Finding #Z Significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place relative to the subject property. The City has approved the expansion of the city limits by accepting the annexation of this property into the City of Shakopee. - Criteria #3 That significant changes in City -wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred; or Finding #3 Significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place relative to the subject property. Specifically, the subject property is presently the location of an abandoned farm. Development of the subject property for residential use will be consistent with desired development patterns for this area of the City, and could help spark additional redevelopment. Criteria #4 That the comprehensive plan requires a different provision. Finding #4 The proposed rezoning would require that both the adopted and proposed Comprehensive Plan land use maps would need to be amended, since this property was previously outside the city limits and therefore, was not addressed in eitherplan. Alternatives: 1. Recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to zone the subject property to Medium Density Residential (R -2). 2. Do not recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to zone the subject property to Medium Density Residential (R -2). 3. Continue the public hearing and request additional information from the applicant or staff. 4. Close the public hearing, but table the matter and request additional information. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1; recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to zone the subject property to Medium Density Residential (R -2). Action Requested: Offer and approve a motion to recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to rezone the subject property to Medium Density Residential (R -2). ark Noble Planner I g. \boas- pc\2001 \0322\denick.doc (01031) - 3 FR I�AM Zoning Boundary Parcel Boundary §11.32 SEC. 11.32. MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDE ZONE (R -2). Subd.1. Purpose. The purpose of the medium density residential zone is to provide an area which will allow two and one -half (2.5) to eight (8) residential dwellings per acre and also provide a transitional zone between single family residential areas and other land uses. Subd Permitted Uses. Within the medium density residential zone, no structure or land shall be used except for one (1) or more of the following uses: A. residential structures containing two (2) to four (4) dwelling units; E. C. D. E. F. G. existing single family dwellings; public recreation; utility services; public buildings; day care facilities serving twelve (12) or fewer persons; adult day care centers as permitted uses, subject to the following conditions: The adult day care center shall: 1, serve twelve (12) or fewer persons; 2. provide proof of an adequate water and sewer system if not served by municipal utilities; 3. have outdoor leis urelrecreation areas located and designated to minimize visual and noise impacts on adjacent areas; 4. the total indoor space available for use by participants must equal at -least forty (40) square feet for each day care participant and each day care staff member present at the canter. When a center is located in a multifunctional organization if the required space available for use by participants is maintained while the center is operating. In determining the square footage of usable indoor space available, a center must not count: a. hallways, stairways, closets, offices, restrooms, and utility and storage areas; b. more than 25% of the space occupied by the furniture or equipment used by participants or staff; or 5. page revised in 7997 C. in a multifunctional organization, any space occupied by persons associated with the multifunctional organization while participants are using common space; and comply with all other state licensing requirements; (Ord. 482, May 15, 1997) 1151 H . residential facilities serving six (6) or fewer persons; or L townhouses (Ord. 467, December 19,1996) �ubd 3 Conditional Uses, Within the medium density residential zone, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit A. multiple - family dwellings containing up to sac (6) units; B . (Deleted, Ord. 501, September 18,1997) C. hospitals and clinics; D. cemeteries; E. churches and other places of worship; F. public or private schools having a course of instruction approved by the Minnesota Board of Education for students enrolled in K through grade 12, or any portion thereof; G. nursina homes; H. bed and breakfast inns; 1. utility service structures; J. day care facilities serving from thirteen (13) through sixteen (16) persons; K. adult day care centers as conditional use, subject to the following conditions: The adult day care centers shall: 1, serve thirteen (13) or more persons; 2. provide proof of an adequate water and sewer system if not served by municipal utilities; 3. have outdoor leisuretrecreation areas located and designed to minimize visual and noise impacts on adjacent areas; 4. the total indoor space available for use by participants must equal at least forty (40) square feet for each day care participant and each day care staff member present at the center. When a center is located in a multifunctional organization, the center may share a common space with the multifunctional organization if the required space available for use by participants is- maintained while the enter is operating. In determining the square footage of usable indoor space available, a center must not count: a. hallways, stairways, closets, offices, restrooms and utility and storage areas; page rwAsod in 1997 1152 C. in a multifunctional organization, any space occupied by persons associated with the multifunctional organization while participants are using common space; S. provide proof of state, federal and other governmental licensing agency approval; and 6. comply with all other state licensing requirements; (Ord. 482, May 15, 1997) L residential facilities serving from seven (7) through sixteen (16) persons; M. relocated structures; N. structures over two and one -half (2 -1/2) stories or thirty -five (35) feet in height; 0. developments containing more than one (1) principal structure per lot; or P. other uses similar to those permitted by the subdivision, upon a determination by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, may be allowed upon the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. (Ord. 528, October 29, 1998) Subd. 4. Permitted Accessory Uses. Within the medium density residential zone, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: A. open off - street parking spaces not to exceed three (3) spaces per dwelling unit; B. garages; C. fences; D. gardening and other horticultural uses not involving retail sales; E. communication service apparatus/device(s) as permitted accessory uses, subject to the following conditions: 1, shall be co- located on an existing tower or an existing structure; 2. must not exceed 175 feet in total height (including the extension of any communication service device(s) apparatus); 3. fights and/or flashing equipment shall not be permuted unless required by state or federal agencies; 4_ signage shall not be allowed on the communication service device(s)/apparatus other than danger or warning type signs; pe9e rovised in 19" 1153 §11.32 - �. must provide proof from a professional engineer that the equipment will not interfere with existing communications for public safety purposes; be located and have an exterior finish that minimizes visibility off -site 6, shall to th maximum extent possible; Z. applicable provisions of the City Code, including the provisions of the State Building Code therein adopted, shall be complied with; obsolete or unused towers and accompanying accessory facilities shall S. a n be removed within twelve (12) months of the cessation of operations at the site unless a time extension is approved by the City. After the facilities are removed, the site shall be restored to its original or an approved state. The user of the tower and/or accompanying accessory facilities shall be responsible for the removal of facilities and restoration of the site; 9, the applicant shall submit a plan illustrating all anticipated future location sites for communication towers and/or communication devices(s) /apparatus; 10, wireless telecommunication towers and antennas will only be considered for City parks when the following conditions exist and if these areas are recommended by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and approved by the City Council: City parks of sufficient size and character that are adjacent to an existing commercial or industrial use; ® commercial recreation areas and major playfields used primarily by adults; , 11. all revenue generated through the lease of a City park for wireless antennas should be transferred to the Parr telecommunication towers and Reserve Fund; (Ord. 479, March 13,1997) F. swimming pools; G. tennis courts; H. receive only satellite dish antennas and other antennas; I, home occupations contingent upon approval of a home occupation permit; (Ord. Sol, September 18, 1997) J. solar equipment; or K. other accessory uses, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. Subd 5 ®esign Standards. Within the medium density residential zone, no land shall be used, - onstructed or used, except in conformance with the following and no structure shall be c requirements: page revised in 1997 1154 §11.32 A. Density: a minimum of five (5) and a maximum of elevel (11) dwellings per acre. Streets shall be excluded in calculating acreage. B. Maximum impervious surface percentage: 60% C. Lot specifications: Minimum lot width (single-family detached): 60 feet; (two-family dwelling): 70 feet; (multiple- family dwelrrng):100 feet Minimum lot depth: 100 feet Minimum front yard setback: 35 feet Minimum side yard setback: 10 feet Minimum rear yard setback: 30 feet In the case of townhouse developments which contain both public streets and private streets or driveways, the front yard setback on public streets may be reduced to the average setback from private streets or driveways, so long as the front yard setback from any public street in the development is no less than 20 feet. (Ord. 467, December 19, 1996) D. Maximum height: No structure shall exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height without a conditional use permit. Subd. 6. Additional Requirements. A. All dwellings shall have a depth of at least twenty (20) feet for at least 50% of their width. All dwellings shall have a width of at least twenty (20) feet for at least 50% of their depth. g, All dwellings shall have a permanent foundation in conformance with the Minnesota State Building Code. (Ord. 31, October 25,1979; Ord. 60, May 14, 1981; Ord. 159, February 28, 1985; Ord. 264, May 26, 1989; Ord. 377, July 7, 1994; Ord. 435, November 30, 1995) SEC. 11.33. Reserved. pogo revised in 1997 1155 M �r Scott County Government Center 200 4• Avenue West Shakopee, MN 55379 Tel: (952) 496 -8842. Fax (952) 496 -8844 March 1, 2001 R Michael Leek Community Development Director Shakopee City Hall 129 Holmes Street Shakopee, NIN 55379 Dear NIr. Leek: AR 0 1 2001 61 Ton LSchrralbe,Presfdeut (612) 404 -5312. Fax (612) 404 -5318 Wallace E. Neal, 147*cePresident Office (952) 884 -1632, Fax (952) 884 -7726 Glenda Splatta, S Office: (952) 471-0590, exc 285. Fax (952) 471 -0682 Edward A. Schlampp, Treasurer Office: (612) 9204398, Fax (612) 920-0086 Ron Kraemer, Asst Treasurer Cell: (651) 335 -8305. Fax (952) 8943235 Kevin ®. 81galke, Administrator Office: (952) 496 -8842. Fax: (952) 496 -8844 Thank you for giving the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District (District) an opportunity to review the proposed rezoning of property annexed from Township to City by the Derrick Investment Company. We appreciate the City of Shakopee involving the District early in the review process as this will allow any issues or concerns to be raised and addressed before the plan is near completion. With that being said, the District would like to offer the following comments for your consideration. 1. The proposed project incorporates storm water ponds on site. The plans submitted did not include storm water calculations for pond sizing. This information should be submitted. 2. The District recommends incorporating skimmers onto the pond outlet structures to keep floatables out of the City storm sewer system. 3. An erosion and sediment control plan should be submitted. The plan should include details for a rock construction entrance to the site and location of silt fence. On behalf of the Board of Managers of the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District, I would like to thank you for involving the District at this early stage of the review process. We look forward to continuing our work together on this and future projects. Very Truly Yours, Kevin D. Bigalke District Administrator Cc: LiNIRWD Managers 1 _ CrrY F SHAKOPEE AffMORANDUM To: pl Commission Michael Leek, Community Development Director From J. mcQuillan, Natural Resources Director Subject: Staff Plan Review: River Place Landscape Plan Date: February 6, 2000 The areas around or near the two retention ponds could use a few more trees. It seems fairly bare of vegetation- According the Stormwater Drainage Report the overall run -off for the 100 yr flood HVL is at 779 ft. The report indicates the ponds were sufficiently designed to handle the excess run -off for post development. I defer the technical verification of the report to the City Engineer. ar J. i✓ cQu' Natural Resources Director 10104 i ' • '', ! O t..♦r Community Devel opment 1-r.rru-r FR OM: - • h D. Adams Pl and Engmeering Manag - SU BJECT: RECO CONDAENTS fo CASE NO: 01031 DATE: �5?19 o Municipal water service is available subject to our standard terms and conditions. These include, but are not limited to: ins talling a lateral water main distribution system in accordance with utility policy, paying the associated inspection costs, paying the Trunk Water Charge, and paying 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. x >ta - ON vu atva wKa 'Y100"HIM A 31V15 341 !o S11Y7 34 M30,4n N7#PoN2 'VWW3J0Nd Q'SN3on Ain M I1Y41 aw ms %1Jdls 103910 AM 10043 !O 311 AB 03Wd3Vd SVM 1110d3d W 'NDI1 V011U3d$ 'WW SHl 1V41 AJLLM A e3u3 4 I \ AVG loll q= ( oor�cc ) ms =L—rcz (0m) «maa NEW NW '®lopuouuy aal -Jle NM Vaa 'M Q+lJa ®alol 4L9 •Oul 'o®asr 2 6 du1Js AIII®HA GM M MO g� � 1§ 'r K = S p O 2 X88 z Paz b n 2 _: '4 F4 Nw r d6 \ V'1d AdV 1W113U NVId AJJILLn .� Z do V10S3NNIW'33dOM MS 3 3A1 oy — 1 it I % 08 i � N cx I n I 3 ia i &. / I a I rl \ I I• 1 15 �. \\ I J• lA r t i Ie I r< ` 1 I � Y• v i CT b 79 q h '� `.,;• I (• � �� ,- _ �ri ;�� yes ��C� , �'�,s vF 7 Nor % '\'X 'A i J xp5 N' '16 I 3ft*l is am '61 Q, zv*t I O.'N' v� P S 8 it 4 D 1 Ea 0 inop ch - ?? - .on 77 imr iinw-; it . 01f v3v atva d AUVNIIN113Ud uva iow NV'ld IOUINOO AVRO A355 tut -tits (m) ft-W 'Q1OPu NOISOV3 V `J I® 01 'VIDS3NM 30 RVIS NEW NH 31U A S*" 31d WMA M3W?G 'NNDISSWU 001 Ike wvva •m "m oxwi qZ9 V.LOS3NNIW '33ciOMMS oswn Ainc my I im " I"mais iowa -oul -Doggy V SUPOGUIBU3 A1119H.Cl AM �.M NO 3M All aMd3dd SVAI IWO&IJ 90 'WW 3OV'ld H3AIH :SNOISIACIS _7UY- a I NX�UO3d S311 IVKL AALbM AM GH I I Q70 :a3NOIS30 I E I CT b 79 q h '� `.,;• I (• � �� ,- _ �ri ;�� yes ��C� , �'�,s vF 7 Nor % '\'X 'A i J xp5 N' '16 I 3ft*l is am '61 Q, zv*t I O.'N' v� P S 8 it 4 D 1 Ea 0 inop ch - ?? - .on 77 imr iinw-; 01 CT b 79 q h '� `.,;• I (• � �� ,- _ �ri ;�� yes ��C� , �'�,s vF 7 Nor % '\'X 'A i J xp5 N' '16 I 3ft*l is am '61 Q, zv*t I O.'N' v� P S 8 it 4 D 1 Ea 0 inop ch - ?? - .on 77 imr iinw-; .. vaJll LL V.1. LIJ. .111 /1111 1 n ' Jan 22 09: 15: 40 2001 I r • \ / P :, - I III \ I 1 Y F I • P RIV ER . SHAKOPEE,INNESOTA SrrE PLA PR EUPAINARY PLAN G� d N T> \ t / / r a'j);" A \ \lT. G t 1_ 0 I I . oA A ` V Y T H 4 \ DESIGNED: GI➢ I fIFREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN. SPEWCATIDFL DR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME CA UNDE MY DIRECT SUPERMSIDN AND THAT 1 AM DULY UCENSED D'H®Illy Engineering & A11300- Inc DRAWN BY LCD PROFE59ONAL DIM91R UNDER THE LAWS Or THE 625 Lake Drive W STATE OF WNNESOTA. Annandale, MN 55302 DT+ phone 274-7221 PLOT DATE: Pmt (32D) 274 -2200 DATE; RE 0. N0. 22420 l 1.' I y 1. I i i • ., . I I ' 1 i 9 0% i bra I � I a I o ws u �\ u . i C 1 n \ \ Al O A Him 'A I U i i x • •� r' C 4 / /fAl 11 1 i i I / I / W W I T I I 9 9 RIV ER . SHAKOPEE,INNESOTA SrrE PLA PR EUPAINARY PLAN G� d N T> \ t / / r a'j);" A \ \lT. G t 1_ 0 I I . oA A ` V Y T H 4 \ DESIGNED: GI➢ I fIFREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN. SPEWCATIDFL DR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME CA UNDE MY DIRECT SUPERMSIDN AND THAT 1 AM DULY UCENSED D'H®Illy Engineering & A11300- Inc DRAWN BY LCD PROFE59ONAL DIM91R UNDER THE LAWS Or THE 625 Lake Drive W STATE OF WNNESOTA. Annandale, MN 55302 DT+ phone 274-7221 PLOT DATE: Pmt (32D) 274 -2200 DATE; RE 0. N0. 22420 l 1.' I y 1. I i i • ., . I I ' 1 i 9 0% it 'T -1 V7 at S �J 0 DESIGNED: GLD D'Heffly EngInsering & Assoc. Inc. fT 625 Lake Drive W. DRAM By. LCD Annandale, MN 55302 phmw ( T20 -7221 PLOT DATE Fox 20 ? 274 274-2208 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT T" PLAN. vEanCATIC4 OR REPORT WAS PREPARED By ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 9cry D DATE: REG. NO. 22426 0 A % 0 DESIGNED: GLD D'Heffly EngInsering & Assoc. Inc. fT 625 Lake Drive W. DRAM By. LCD Annandale, MN 55302 phmw ( T20 -7221 PLOT DATE Fox 20 ? 274 274-2208 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT T" PLAN. vEanCATIC4 OR REPORT WAS PREPARED By ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 9cry D DATE: REG. NO. 22426 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Mark Noble, Planner I SUBJECT: Amendment to the Zoning Map — Rezone property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Multiple Family Residential (R -3) Zone APPLICANT: Tollefson Development, Inc. MEETING DATE: April 17, 2001 Tollefson Development, Inc. has requested that the City amend its zoning map to rezone property currently zoned Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Multiple Family Residential (R-3) Zone. The property is located east of Brittany Court, south of Highway 169 and north of Dublin Lane. The adopted Comprehensive Plan guides this area for Medium Density Residential purposes. The draft Comprehensive Plan guides this area for Planned Residential purposes. At its April 5, 2001, meeting, the Planning Commission took public testimony and reviewed this request. After review and discussion, a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning request was approved by a 6 to 1 vote. Provided for your reference is a copy of the April 5, 2001 memorandum to the Planning Commission. Ordinance No. 596 has been drafted for the Council's review and approval. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve Ordinance No_ 596, rezoning property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Multiple Family Residential (R- ) Zone. 2. Do not approve Ordinance No. 596, rezoning property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Multiple Family Residential (R -3) Zone and direct staff to prepare a resolution denying the rezoning request_ Table the decision and request additional information from the applicant and/or staff. Maulflum 13 Offer and approve Ordinance No. 596, rezoning property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Multiple Family Residential (R -3) Zone. rk Noble Planner I g: \cc\20 01 \Cc0417\rezto11efsons. doc(27- 90803 7 -0) ij: E. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Mark Noble, Planner I SUBJECT: Amendment to the Zoning Map — Rezone property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Multiple Family Residential (R -3) Zone APPLICANT: Tollefson Development, Inc. MEETING DATE: April 17, 2001 Tollefson Development, Inc. has requested that the City amend its zoning map to rezone property currently zoned Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Multiple Family Residential (R -3) Zone. The property is located east of Brittany Court, south of Highway 169 and north of Dublin Lane. The adopted Comprehensive Plan guides this area for Medium Density Residential purposes. The draft Comprehensive Plan guides this area for Planned Residential purposes. At its April 5, 2001, meeting, the Planning Commission took public testimony and reviewed this request. After review and discussion, a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning request was approved by a 6 to 1 vote. Provided for your reference is a copy of the April 5, 2001 memorandum to the Planning Commission. Ordinance No. 596 has been drafted for the Council's review and approval. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve Ordinance No. 596, rezoning property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Multiple Family Residential (R -3) Zone. 2. Do not approve Ordinance No. 596, rezoning property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Multiple Family Residential (R -3) Zone and direct staff to prepare a resolution denying the rezoning request. 3. Table the decision and request additional information from the applicant and/or staff. Offer and approve Ordinance No. 596, rezoning property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Multiple Family Residential (R -3) Zone. 4 rk Noble Plann g\cc\ 2001 \Cc0417\reztollefsons.doc(27 - 908037 -0) WHEREAS, Tollefson Development Inc., the applicant and property owner, has requested the rezoning of land from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Multiple Family Residential (R -3) Zone, WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as follows: That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 8, Township 115, Range 22 Scott County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of BRITTANY VILLAGE 3r ADDITION, as platted and of record in the offrce of the County Recorder, said Scott County; thence North 00 degrees 01 minute 29 seconds East, hearing assumed, along the northerly extension of the east line of said BRITTANY VILLAGE 3r Addition, a distance of 137.16 feet; thence North 81 degrees 13 minutes 26 seconds East, a distance of 552.87 feet; thence South 00 degrees 01 minute 29 seconds West, a distance of 916.0 7 feet to the south line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Ouarter ; thence South 89 degrees 30 minutes 38 seconds East, along said south line, a distance of 546.38 feet to the east line of BRITTANY VILLAGE ISt ADDITION, as platted and of record in said County Recorder's Office; thence northerly along said east lines of BRITTANY VILLAGE 1S ADDITIONAND BRITTANY VILLAGE 3r ADDITION to the point of beginning; and WHEREAS, notices were duly sent and posted, and a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on April 5, 2001, at which time all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council heard the matter at its meeting of April 17, 2001, and found that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the area of the City within which it is located. 1 I 1 C k. I' 1 ORDAINS: Section 1 - That the zoning map adopted in City Code Sec_ 11.03 is hereby amended by rezoning the property referenced herein, from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Multiple Family Residential (R -3) Zone. Section 2 - Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed in Minnesota, held this day of Attest: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of 1 2001. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Shakopee Planning Commission FROM: Mark Noble, Planner I SUBJECT: Amendment to the Zoning Map rezoning property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Multiple Family Residential (R -3) Zone APPLICANT: Tollefson Development, Inc. (Brittany Village 4' Addition) MEETING DATE: April 5, 2001 Tollefson Development, Inc. has requested that the City amend its zoning map to rezone property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Multiple Family Residential (R -3) Zone. A copy of the preliminary proposal for development accompanies this memorandum for the Commission's information. The property is located east of Brittany Court, south of Highway 169 and north of Dublin Lane. On the approved 1995 Comprehensive Plan, the subject property is guided for medium density use. Site Information: Applicant and Property Owner: Tollefson Development, Inc. Location: East of Brittany Court, south of Highway 169 and north of Dublin Lane Adjacent Zoning: North: Agricultural Preservation (AG)/Hwy. 169 South: Medium Density Residential (R -2) East: Agricultural Preservation (AG) West: Multiple Family Residential (R -3) MUSA: The site is within the current MUSA boundary. 1995 Comp. Plan: Medium Density Residential Draft Comp. Plan: Planned Residential Attachments: Exhibit A: Zoning/Location Map Exhibit B: Proposal Plan for Development Exhibit C: R -3 Zone Permitted and Conditional Uses Exhibit D: Shakopee Public Utilities Memorandums Exhibit E: Scott County Engineering Letter DISCUSSION: The applicant is requesting that the City amend the Official Zoning Map by rezoning property currently zoned as Agricultural Preservation (AG) to Multiple Family Residential (R -3) Zone. Please see Exhibit A for the location of the subject site. The property is approximately 11 acres in area, and the development would consist of townhouse buildings ranging from two (2) to five (5) units per building, with a total of 62 units proposed (see attached proposal plan). The City's Comprehensive Plan sets basic policies to guide the development of the City. The purpose of designating different areas for residential, commercial, and industrial land uses is to promote the location of compatible land uses, as well as to prevent incompatible land uses from being located in close proximity to one another. The Zoning Ordinance is one of the legal means by which the City implements the Comprehensive Plan. Under Minnesota statute, zoning is to conform with a city's comprehensive plan. The proposed rezoning is not inconsistent with the adopted and draft comprehensive land use plans. Exhibit C provides a listing of the uses, both permitted and conditional, that are allowed in the Multiple Family Residential (R -3) Zone. Copies of the land use plans are available for viewing at City Hall and will be made available at the April 5, 2001 meeting. The Right -of -Way Administrator for Minnegasco has noted that a transmission line easement is located on the northeast corner of the plat. Shakopee Public Utilities has submitted two memorandums addressing service availability for this property, which have been attached to this report (see Exhibit D). Scott County Engineering has submitted a letter requesting the opportunity to review future actions pertaining to this property (see Exhibit E). 121 lei 1 The criteria required for the granting of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment are listed below with proposed findings for the Commission's consideration. Criteria #1 That the original Zoning Ordinance is in error; Finding #1 The original zoning district as depicted on the City's current zoning map is not consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. Criteria #2 That significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place; Finding #2 Significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place relative to the subject property. 2 Criteria #3 That significant changes in City -wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred; or Finding #3 Significant changes in development patterns have occurred. Development of the subject property for residential use will be consistent with desired development patterns for this area of the City. Criteria #4 That the comprehensive plan requires a different provision. Finding #4 The proposed rezoning would be consistent with both the adopted and proposed Comprehensive Plan land use map. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to rezone the subject property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Multiple Family Residential (R -3) Zone. 2. Do not recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to rezone the subject property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Multiple Family Residential (R -3) Zone. 3. Continue the public hearing and request additional information from the applicant or staff. 4. Close the public hearing, but table the matter and request additional information. Staff recommends Alternative No. 1; recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to rezone the subject property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Multiple Family Residential (R -3) Zone. Elmffl Offer and approve a motion to recommend to the City Council the approval of the request to rezone the subject property from Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone to Multiple Family Residential (R- 3) Zone. 6' Mark No e Planner I g:\boaa-pc\2001\0405\tollefson.doc ® Zoning Boundary - Parcel Boundary Sketch Plan for: / FSON D PRESENT ZONING MAP 1" =300 I I ' 1 HWY I _ � i N L�� u SECD I -� I � L J , ! • ! r 1 Dp 3 1.; r�_ J I Iri DFITTANT n t - LJ L YILLADE _ —� �— r - -! lr = JL_.- -! —i_J AD D1Tfr0N — L C O 2 E: � I hereby certify that this plan was under my direct prepared by me or a duly AWN BY:PK supervision and that _I_ am he ;DAT KD BY:GR H ia'ws thenState of Minnesota EVISIONS: of SYO, tTp C1 P� OF IS ' 0 PR P� DO WP Y � 1 � NESR1G t off I M—o ;110 HM 1 , T - ' ! John Oliver & A Inc. Civil Engineering, Land S-- eying, Land Planning 580 Dodge Avenue Elk River, Minnesota (612)441 -2072 (FAX)441 -5665 201 W Travelers Trail, Suite 200 Burnsville, MN 55337 (612)894 -3045 (FAX)894 -3049 DRAWING FILE: FILE NO_ jt ned: 1181.40 03 e L ic. No. 10943 ZONEMAP 1151 -U L7Mrr-FLES KIAKOPEE 13 ' ORANDVVI TO: FROM* SUBJECT: CASE NO: DATE: 01046 - Is av 7ailable subject to o ur standard t and conditions.• These Municipal water semc i a lateral water ma in distribution syste m ited to: install i but are not Tv . t h e asso ciated inspection costs P aymg the Trunk lim accordance with utfi' policy, paymag d pay ing the water Connection Charge- Water Charge-, M ted to: ente and conditions. . . avalable subject to our s t a ndard terms Under} electaic service 's -Underground Distribution limirm9g i nto an Th es e ayir� the associated fees hes, i but are not Agreemerit: granting any necessary easements, and p and conditions- n is available subject to our s t a ndard terms p Applicant Street Li installatiO meant Cit of Shakopee Street Ugbting These are contained in a e curr m ust pay the associateees. f p requiremen Shakopee Public Utilities directlY Applicant should con t a ct Shal, relating to their Project- I The Shakopee Public UtHities Commission is committed to meeting the growth needs of the community in regards to water supply. The Commission is working W i t h the L Ennesota Departments of Health and Natural em to increase our e necessary approvals to construct new wells and to pump water supply capacity to meet projected demand levels. ' r -SCOTT COUNTY WORKS HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT 1 600 COUNTRY TRAIL EAST JORDAN, l 55352-9339. ... BRADLEY J. LARSON PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR! COUNTY HIGHWAY ENGINEER March 8, 2001 Mark Noble City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 Subject: Rezoning, AG to R -3 East of CSAH 17 and North of 17th Avenue Dear Mark: We have reviewed the rezoning request and it does not pose a concern for the department. However, we would like the opportunity to comment on any concept plans or other planning actions for the property. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Cram Jenson Transportation Planner a §11.34 SEC. 11 .34. MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE (R-3). Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose of the multiple - family zone is to provide an area which will allow six (6) to eighteen (18) multiple- family dwelling units per acre, and also provide a transitional zone between single family residential areas and other land uses. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. Within the multiple- family residential zone, no structure or land shall be used except for one (1) or more of the following uses: A, multiple- family dwellings containing three (3) or more units; B. existing single family and two (2) family dwellings; C. public recreation; D. utik services; E. public buildings; F. day care facilities serving twelve (12) or fewer persons; G. residential facilities serving six (6) or fewer persons; H. townhouses; or (Ord. 467, December 19, 1996) 1, single family detached residences previously constructed as accessory uses to a church, where the resulting lot meets the design standards found in Subdivision 5 of Section 11.28. (Ord- 496, August 21, 1997) Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Within the multiple- family residential zone, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: A. nursing homes; B. churches and other places of worship; C. cemeteries; D. hospitals and clinics; E. public or private schools having a course of instruction approved by the Minnesota Department of Education for students enrolled in K through grade 12, or any portion thereof; F. bed and brealdast inns; G. utility service structures; H. day care facilities serving from thirteen (13) through s'acteen (16) persons; I, adult day care center as conditional use, subject to the following conditions: The adult day care centers shall: page revised in 1997 _ 1156 _ — §11.34 1 serve thirteen (13) or more persons; 2- provide proof of an adequate water and sewer system if not served by municipal utilities; 3- have outdoor leisure/recreation areas located and designed to minimize visual and noise impacts on adjacent areas; 4. the total indoor space available for use by participants must equal at least forty (40) square feet for each day care participant and each day care staff member present at the center. When a center is located in a multifunctional organization, the center may share a common space with the multifunctional organization if the required space available for use by participants is maintained while the center is operating. In determining the square footage of usable indoor space available, a center must not count: a, hallways, stairways, closets, offices, restrooms and utility and storage areas; b. more than 25% of the space occupied by the furniture or equipment used by participants or staff; or C. in a multifunctional organization, any space occupied by persons associated with the multifunctional organization while participants are using common space; S. provide proof of state, federal and other governmental licensing agency approval; and 6. comply with all other state licensing requirements. (Ord. 482, May 15, 1997) J. residential facilities serving from seven (7) through sixteen (16) persons; K. relocated structures; L, structures over two and one -half (2 -1/2) stories or thirty-five (35) feet in height; M. developments containing more than one (1) principal structure per lot; or N. other uses similar to those permitted by the subdivision, upon a determination by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, may be allowed upon the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. (Ord. 528, October 29, 1998) S ubd 4 Permitted Acce ssory Uses. Within the multiple- family residential zone, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: A. open off -street parking spaces not to exceed three (3) spaces per dwelling unit; B. garages; page rwAsed in 1998 1157 M CITY OF SHAK Memorandum CONSEN TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Proposed Amendment to City Code Sec. 11.40, Subd. 4 (Permitted Accessory Uses) MEETING DATE: April 17, 2001 1 �1 Recently, a permit was issued for a cellular communications array on the building on the southeast corner of First Avenue and Lewis Street. While the installed array is consistent with the issued permit and, arguably, the existing City Code, it is not consistent with the character of Downtown Shakopee. For that reason, staff is asking that the Commission and City Council consider the following proposed text amendment to avoid similar installations in the future. E. communication service apparatus /device(s) as permitted accessory uses, subject to the following conditions: 1. shall be co- located on an existing tower or an existing structure. co- located gpparatus /device shall not e more than two (2) feet above the fagade parapet roof or other portion of any structure. Such co- located pparatus /device shall be designed and located in such a way that its appearance and surface finish minimizes visibility off -site. 2. must not eyFeed-175 feet In tetal heig udi g the - e)Eten4on- -of:qm- 6. shall be leeated and have an exlefief fip�sh that tRinififfizes visibility Alternatives: 1. Approve Ordinance No. 597 as presented. 2. Approve Ordinance No. 597 with revisions. 3. Do not approve Ordinance No. 597. 4. Table the matter for additional information. Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendment at its April 5, 2001 meeting, and recommended approval unanimously. Action Requested: Offer and approve Ordinance No. 597. j R. Michael Leek Community Development Director g: \Cc\2001 \apr17\ txtantennae.doc 2 ORDINANCE NO. 597, FOURTH SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CHAPTER 11, ZONING, REGARDING COMMUNICATION SERVICE • R T CO :,'. T HE OF • , MIN NES O TA, ORD Section 1 - That City Code Sec. 11.40, Subd. 4 (Permitted Accessory Uses) is hereby amended by adding the language which is underlined, deleting the language which is stfuck thfo gh, and re- numbering accordingly: E. communication service apparatus /device(s) as permitted accessory uses, subject to the following conditions: 1. shall be co- located on an existing tower or an existing structure. Any co located apparatus /device shall not extend more than two (2) feet above the fagade parapet roof or other portion of any structure. Such co- located apparatus /device shall be designed and located in such a way that its appearance and surface finish minimizes visibility off -site. 2. a 175 f i t h ( „ l n t h e ex4e sign of 7. s h a l l be ye a ed an ha-a c an ex efi fhiish th ,ti � } IJ1 V111L off site to the maxinmfn ex4ent pessible-. Section 2 - - Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the day of - 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of - 2001. 3 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Joel Rutherford, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution No.'s 5506 and 5507, Additions to Municipal State Aid Street System DATE: April 17, 2001 . 5. 7 Eiil Occasionally the City makes revisions to the Municipal State Aid Street (MSAS) system. These changes must be approved by the Minnesota Department of Transportation, and the City must adopt resolutions for any changes. Attached are Resolution No.'s 5506 and 5507. BACKGROUND: Attached is a location map for the proposed system additions. Portions of the map are labeled "Existing MSAS Route ". These routes are already on the system. The additions are labeled as "Proposed MSAS Route ". Construction of these routes is not expected for several years. However, the City's MSAS system will obtain "needs" money for these streets from the Office of State Aid. This money is part of the City's allocation of money distributed by the Office of State Aid. The reason for adding these street segments to the City MSAS system is because staff feels they will provide future connections to important streets and County roads within the City limits. These streets are also part of the City's Comprehensive Transportation Plan. They are being added now because the "mileage is currently available. This mileage is determined by taking 20% of the total street miles within the City, and subtracting out the miles that are already designated on the MSAS system. With the growth of the City, additional miles are now available, and staff feels it would be appropriate for the City to add these street segments to the MSAS system. If the City is to receive the needs for this year, the Office of State Aid must receive certified copies of the resolutions by May 1, 2001. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt No. 5506, A Resolution Establishing Municipal State Aid Street for Valley View Road, from McKenna Road to Pike Lake Trail. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 5507, A Resolution Establishing Municipal State Aid Street for Pike Lake Trail, from County State Aid Highway 16 to County State Aid Highway 21. 3. Do not adopt Resolution No.'s 5506 and 5507. 4. Table this item for additional information Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 and No. 2. 1. Offer Resolution No. 5506, A Resolution Establishing Municipal State Aid Street for Valley View Road, from McKenna Road to Pike Lake Trail and move its adoption. 2. Offer Resolution No. 5507, A Resolution Establishing Municipal State Aid Street for Pike Lake Trail, from County State Aid Highway 16 to County State Aid Highway 21 and move its adoption. Joel Rutherford Assistant City Engineer H A � M MONTECITO DR. 21 DEAN LAKE R I). a r 0 Y nmw N r 16 Y 2c - TER ST. - N R22 d 6115 Y ' 122 on xisting MSAS Rou e- Proposed MSASRoute c w w 22nd AVE TR. A— � OTHERDAY mm wo MOD M� VA LLB ` V 1 C- w 2 o c4 cs —�— z JA KSON TR. E » `€..flee.. CIR. T115N R22W Z cz a z 2 +T2 v� 21 DEAN LAKE R I). a r 0 Y nmw N r 16 r OR. J - TER ST. - a� 0 a TR. i CIR. a OTHERDAY tiG CIR. 2 oF�P® » `€..flee.. CIR. T115N R22W n a z 2 +T2 w Y ;E 42 21 DEAN LAKE R I). a r 0 Y nmw N r 16 WHEREAS, it appears to the City Council of Shakopee that the street hereinafter described should be designated a Municipal State Aid Street under the provisions of Minnesota law. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shakopee that the road described as follows, to -wit: Valley View Road, from McKenna Road to Pike Lake Trail be, and hereby is established, located, and designated a Municipal State Aid Street of said City, subject to the approval of the Commissioner of Transportation of the State of Minnesota. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward two certified copies of this resolution to the Commissioner of Transportation for his consideration, and that upon his approval of the designation of said road or portion thereof, that same be constructed, improved and maintained as a Municipal State Aid Street of the City of Shakopee, to be known as Municipal State Aid Street #109. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of 7 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee I City Clerk IM • .�� LT, WHEREAS, it appears to the City Council of Shakopee that the street hereinafter described should be designated a Municipal State Aid Street under the provisions of Minnesota law. N OW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shakopee that the road described as follows, to -wit: Pike Lake Trail, from County State Aid Highway 16 to County State Aid Highway 21 be, and hereby is established, located, and designated a Municipal State Aid Street of said City, subject to the approval of the Commissioner of Transportation of the State of Minnesota. E I'I FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward two certified copies of this resolution to the Commissioner of Transportation for his consideration, and that upon his approval of the designation of said road or portion thereof, that same be constructed, improved and maintained as a Municipal State Aid Street of the City of Shakopee, to be known as Municipal State Aid Street #116. 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 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Authorization of Benefit Appraisal Proposals for Sarazin Street and Valley View Road Improvement, Project No. 2001 -5 DATE: April 17, 2001 INTRODUCTION: At the April 3, 2001 public hearing for the proposed Sarazin Street extension and Valley View Road improvement project, City Council directed staff to prepare benefit appraisals for properties affected by the proposed road improvements. Attached to this memo are more specific proposals from consultants to properly evaluate the benefit to each parcel on the various improvements being considered. 1 At the April 3 rd public hearing, it was decided that benefit appraisals should be done in order to determine what is the benefit associated with the various parcels along Valley View Road, and also for City staff to survey the property owners to determine if they wanted sanitary sewer and water utility service for their property. Attached to this memo are proposals from various consultants in order to properly prepare a thorough benefit appraisal to assist the City in determining what the amount of assessments should be. Patchin Messner Appraisals, a firm that has done many appraisals for the City of Shakopee, will do the appraisal work. Their cost estimate for the appraisal work on the various parcels and the two benefit scenarios as contained in their proposals is estimated to be $10,000.00 to $12,000.00. In their proposal they also include the cost to do the right -of -way appraisal work, if this project moves forward, and this cost is estimated to be $8,000.00. It should be pointed out that by doing the benefit appraisal and right -of- way appraisal work at the same time there are some cost savings associated with that work, and that cost saving is estimated to be approximately $4,000.00. Staff believes that this project will be necessary to be built at some time and determining the value of the right -of -way will necessary. City staff is recommending consulting with an individual sewage treatment system evaluation professional in order to review the history of the on -site systems on the properties. This information will provide a more thorough benefit appraisal in reviewing the before and after conditions and the cost for doing this work is estimated to be $500.00 by Advanced On -Site, Inc. Staff is recommending that Bolton & Menk, Inc. provide engineering services for determining how much property could be utilized for future benefit if sanitary sewer and water is provided to these properties. The cost of these engineering services is estimated to be $3,900.00 with a cost not to exceed of $4,500.00. Staff is bringing these proposals to Council for approval to determine the benefit appraisal and to utilize the various consultants and professionals to complete this work in as thorough and cost effective way as possible. Also attached to this memo is a copy of the letter and survey sent to the residents along Valley View Road for Council information and as per Council direction. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Offer a motion authorizing staff to proceed with obtaining a benefit appraisal as outlined in this memo. 2. Authorize staff to proceed with the benefit appraisals as modified by City Council. 3. Table for additional information. Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, to proceed with a benefit appraisal as outlined in this memo utilizing consultants or professionals. Also, staff would recommend that right - of -way appraisal work be started in order to determine that cost and have that information available to City Council to assist in the future decision on the Valley View Road and Sarazin Street Project. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer a motion authorizing staff to proceed with obtaining a benefit appraisal as outlined in this memo. ruse Loney Public Works Director BL/p-p APPRAISALS April 12, 2001 RE: Sarazin Street and Valley View Road Improvement Project Dear William Schmitz: At the April 3, 2001 City Council meeting, the City Council directed staff to ask the property owners on the south side of Valley View Road if they want sanitary sewer and water available to their property and to bring this information back to City Council. Attached to this letter is a form, which asks the property owner whether or not you want sanitary sewer and water available for your property. Please review this form, check the appropriate box, sign and send it back to the Engineering Department. Staff will compile this information as received from the property owners, and will include this in an informational memo to City Council. City staff will also begin the benefit appraisal process, which will include reviewing your property and dete what benefit would be derived from the improvement of Valley View Road. City staff is recommending contracting with a professional appraiser with assistance from other firms to perform the benefit appraisal. If you wish to meet with City staff, prior to making a determination on whether you will ever use sanitary sewer or water, staff will make themselves available at your convenience. Please feel free to call at (952)233 -3800 to set up an appointment to discuss your particular situation. I appreciate your cooperation and involvement with this project and look forward to assisting you in this matter in order to reach a conclusion on whether or not to proceed with this project. In the meantime, if you have any questions with the proposed improvement project, please contact me at Shakopee City Hall. Sincerely, Bruce Loney, P.E. Public Works Director BUpmp OWNERS Cc: Mark McNeill, City Administrator SURVEY OF PROPERTY OWNERS 4LONG PROPOSED VALLEY VIEW ROAD PLEASE CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX The property owners of Parcel Identification Number (PID) 27- 920006 -0 DO WANT municipal sanitary sewer and watermain utility services available someday to our property. The property owners of Parcel Identification Number (PID) 27- 920006 -0 F DO NOT WANT municipal sanitary sewer and watermain utility services available to our property. Property Owner Signatures Please return to City Engineering Department by April 24, 2001. Thank You. Messner Appraisals, Inc. Valuation Consultants April 11, 2001 City of Shakopee Engineering Department 129 Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 ATTN: Mr. Bruce Loney (952) 895 -1205 FAX (952) 895 -1521 RE: Valuation Consulting and Appraisal Services Patchin Messner Appraisals, Inc. Skyline Square Building, Ste. 220 12940 Harriet Avenue South Burnsville, Minnesota 55337 To whom it may concern: This letter is intended to be a memorandum of understanding concerning the engagement of Patchin Messner Appraisals, Inc. for purpose of rendering valuation consultation and /or appraisal reports. It is understood by both parties that the nature of the assignment is as follows: Type of Property/ Location: Multiple Properties Along Sarazin Street and Valley View Road Shakopee, Minnesota Function of Appraisal/ Consultation: First, estimate the special benefit to each affected property under two scenarios: 1) Assuming the project includes the installation of bituminous streets, sanitary sewer, water main and storm sewer. And 2) Assuming the project includes the installation of bituminous streets and storm sewer only. Function of Appraisal/ Consultation: (Continued) Second, estimate just compensation (damages) to each property owner in which acquisition of additional street right -of -way is needed to construct the project. Type of Services to be Provided: Prepare limited appraisals in a summary report format in compliance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). Estimated Cost of Services Rendered: Special Benefit Appraisals: $10,000.00 to $12,000.00. Right -of -Way Appraisals: $8,000.00 Time after delivery of appraisal report, if necessary, will be invoiced separately at the following professional hourly fees: Pre -Trial Preparation /Meetings Testimony Jason Messner $125.00/Hr. $175.00/Hr. Clay Dodd $100.00 /Hr. $150.00 /Hr. Associate Appraisers $85.00 To $100.00 To $100.00 /Hr. $125.00/Hr. Delivery Date: We will furnish three copies of each Special Benefit appraisal within 12 weeks following return of this authorization to proceed. Subsequently, we will perform the Right -of -Way acquisition appraisals pursuant to your request. We can only complete the appraisals by this date if we receive the necessary data in a timely manner. Terms: Total amount due within 30 days following date of invoice, 1 -1/2% per month interest charges will be added to accounts not paid by that time. Retainer Fee - to be paid in advance: None. Patchin Messner Appraisals, Inc. If you have any questions or comments after reading this proposal, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, PATCHIN MESSNER APPRAISALS. INC. JLM:prj Authorization To Proceed Client Name: Individual Responsible: Signature: Date Accepted: Special Benefit And Right -of -Way Appraisals /Or Appraisals Patchin Messner Appraisals, Inc. 1. )q - D CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Acceptance of the Blue Lake Watershed Outlet Feasibility DATE: April 17, 2001 Attached is a feasibility report on the Blue Lake Watershed Outlet, as prepared by WSB & Associates, Inc. and as authorized by the City Council on November 6, 2000. This agenda item is to accept the feasibility report and to distribute the report for comment by other agencies and groups that are affected by this report. The City of Shakopee has an approved City Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan which shows the Blue Lake Watershed District to eventually have an outlet to the Prior Lake Outlet Channel and ultimately to the Minnesota River. Currently, there is an undefined and unimproved channel in which stormwater could be conveyed to the Prior Lake Outlet Channel. The City of Shakopee currently does have land inside the MUSA boundary that is included in the Blue Lake Watershed District. Also, since much of the proposed Blue Lake District Outlet Channel would be in the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (SMSC) owned property, this report considered other design alternatives for the future permanent drainage system in this area. Within this report there were four alternatives for an outlet for this watershed analyzed and they are as follows: 1. Direct the gravity outlet north along C.R. 83 from an area approximately at the intersection of C.R. 83 and Valley View Road to the K -Mart linear pond along T.H. 169. 2. Construct a gravity outlet north along C.R. 83 similar to Alternative No. 1 and then proceeding along C.R. 16 right -of -way to Dean Lake. 3. Construct an open channel gravity system east of C.R. 83 across the SMSC's property to the Prior Lake — Spring Lake Outlet Channel. 4. Construct a temporary pumping outlet from the area at the intersection of C.R. 83 and Valley View Road north along C.R. 83 utilizing the County's drainage system to the City's drainage system along T.H. 169 and ultimately the K -Mart linear pond. Each alternative has a list of design considerations associated with each alternative as contained on the report. Staff along with representatives from WSB & Associates will make a presentation on the design consideration and design alternatives at the City Council meeting. The conclusion from this report is to recommend Alternative No. 3, as this would provide a drainage outlet for the Blue Lake District and as proposed in the City's Stormwater Management Plan. This alternative would serve the most area in the City of Shakopee and is the way the drainage currently flows in this area. This alternative is preferred over the other alternative if right -of -way can be obtained and cost participation from the SMSC. Staff is requesting City Council consideration on this report, and if acceptable, would recommend this report be sent to the following agencies for their review and comment and are as follows: • Minnesota Department of Natural Resources • Lower Minnesota River Watershed District • Prior Lake — Spring Lake Watershed District • City of Prior Lake • Scott County • Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community Staff would also send a copy to the Shakopee Environmental Protection Association and the newly formed Environmental Advisory Committee for comments as well. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt a motion accepting the feasibility report for the Blue Lake Watershed Outlet and direct staff to distribute this report to various watershed agencies and organizations impacted by this report for their review and comment. 2. Do not accept this feasibility report and direct staff to make changes to the report. 3. Table for additional information. Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, to accept the feasibility report and to distribute this report to the various groups identified for their review and comment. Staff would compile these comments at a later date and bring back for Council review and consideration. City Council should also provide staff direction on a temporary storm drainage system for this area in order to allow property inside the MUSA boundaries to develop. 1. Adopt a motion accepting the feasibility report for the Blue Lake Watershed Outlet and direct staff to distribute this report to various watershed agencies and organizations impacted by this report for their review and comment. 2. Provide staff direction on the temporary storm drainage system. /�W4 Bruce Loney Public Works Director BL/pmp BLUELAKE CITY OF SAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor & City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Authorize Feasibility Report for East Shakopee Industrial Area Sanitary Sewer DATE: April 17, 2001 INTRODUCTION: Attached is Resolution No. 5517, a resolution authorizing a feasibility report to be prepared for the installation of sanitary sewer for the East Shakopee Industrial area. The East Shakopee Industrial area, east of 70 Street and north of T.H. 169, is an area that is served by City water but does not have City sanitary sewer. This area has been excluded from the City's Municipal Urban Service Area (MUSA) as determined by the Metropolitan Council. City staff currently has a Comprehensive Plan that is in review by the Met Council. This is one area in which staff feels that Met Council could grant MUSA and not affect any MUSA allocation due to the circumstances of its development. This area is almost fully developed with large industrial users and is located near the Blue Lake Treatment Facility and is served with public water system. City staff has met with representatives from Ziegler, Inc. to discuss the possibility of sanitary sewer in this area. After these discussions, proposals were requested from the City's consultant, and attached to this memo for Council review are the following: • Engineering proposals from WSB & Associates, Inc. and Bolton & Menk, Inc. • Letter from Ziegler, Inc. requesting a feasibility report to be done and a cashier's check to be placed for security for payment of that feasibility report. From the proposals received from the City's consultants, Bolton & Menk, Inc. has the proposal that staff feels is most acceptable as the total estimated fees not -to- exceed $6,800.00 to prepare the feasibility report. The feasibility report will determine how this area can be served by sanitary sewer, at what cost and determine the assessments based on the City's Assessment Policy to the benefiting property owners. Staff believes that this area should be served with sanitary sewer due to the large industrial buildings that exist in this area and that municipal water also exists for these properties. Recently, the trunk watermain loop was completed from the Southbridge area to this area and the entire area does have two sources of municipal water. The Community Development Director has commented that the Planning Commission and City Council have not adopted a formal position on extending sanitary sewer to this area. If MUSA is applied for it should be done in addition to the MUSA allocation being requested since this area is already developed and is not a new development area. 1. Offer Resolution No.5517, a resolution that orders the preparation of a feasibility report for the East Shakopee Industrial area sanitary sewer project. 2. Deny Resolution No. 5517. 3. Table for additional information. Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, to prepare a feasibility report for the East Shakopee Industrial area sanitary sewer project as staff has received security for payment of this report. Also, this area is almost fully developed and does have City water and they should be considered for sanitary sewer service. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 5517, A Resolution Ordering the Preparation of a Report on the East Shakopee Industrial Area Sanitary Sewer Project, from 70 Street to T.H. 169, and move its adoption. Bruce Loney Public Works irector BL /pmp MEM5517 A Resolution Ordering The Preparation Of A Report On An Improvement To The East Shakopee Industrial Area Sanitary Sewer, From 70 Street To Trunk Highway 169 WHEREAS, it is proposed to improve the East Shakopee Industrial Area, from 70 Street to Trunk Highway 169 by addition of sanitary sewer and any appurtenant work and to assess the benefited property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the proposed improvement be referred to Bruce Loney, Public Works Director, for study and that he is instructed to report to the Council with all convenient speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is feasible and as to whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement, and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended. 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 April 10, 2001 Bruce Loney City Engineer City of Shakopee 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 Re: Feasibility study for sanitary sewer extension Dear Bruce: This letter is to request that the City Council order a study to determine the feasibility of extending sanitary sewer to the Ziegler, Inc. property located at ;, ems` / We believe it makes sense to investigate the feasibility of extending sanitary sewer to the Ziegler property and the surrounding area because this area is entirely industrial, is virtually fully developed, and is already served by city water. If the study indicates that the benefit to properties served by the sewer extension exceeds the cost to be assessed, Ziegler will work with its neighbors to present a petition to the City Council requesting that the project proceed. We understand: • That proceeding with the project will be dependent on obtaining Metropolitan Council approval for including the area to be served within the Metropolitan Urban Services Area. • That the feasibility study will identify the estimated costs and estimated assessments to benefited properties for the project. • That Ziegler, Inc. and other benefited properties will then have an opportunity to determine whether to petition the City Council to proceed with the project. • That the cost of the feasibility study will be $6,800. Enclosed is a cashier's check in this amount to ensure that the feasibility study will be paid for even if the project does not proceed. • That the cost of the feasibility study will be rolled into the overall project costs to be assessed if the project does proceed. • That the City Council will consider whether to order the feasibility study at its regular meeting on April 17, 2001. We will attend this meeting to support the Bruce Loney April 10, 2001 Page 1 request that the feasibility study be ordered. Please call either the undersigned or Peter Beck (612- 343 -5374) if our understanding of this process is incorrect or if you have any questions. Sincerely, David T. Rischmiller DTR:pkb Enclosure cc: Stan K. Erickson Peter K. Beck GP:786443 vl 0 8 0 0 g N 0 I III 0 g cr 0 N 7 -63 Y� 2 N c .. IV I V cc C C C 7 Scrs E c f S U. U. U U_ U. ®® ® o E�c�a a ® ��$ Ez_�LL E ® o cv E oa E ?.?,?-o Z� _ ®c c J ~ ?CCU �i c p s � c o o� U Om WJ �W dC9 QCAfA V)CAfn� a a 4. m 7 -63 i E Consulting i r Surveyors 1515 East Highway 13 ® Burnsville, MN 55337 -6857 arch 16, 2001 Phone (952) 890 -0509 ® FAX (952) 890 -8065 Mr. Bruce Loney, P.E.; Public Works Director City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 -1351 RE: Request for Proposal Preliminary Engineering Report Collection System, Lift Station and Forcemain Dear Nfff. Loney: Bolton & Menk, Inc. is pleased to submit this proposal for the above - referenced project. We acknowledge your RFP letter dated March 13, 2001 and your fax from March 13, 2001 which identifies the project limits. The following describes our understanding of the scope of work and estimated engineering fees. Scope of Work A. Preliminary, Engineering Report Prepare a preliminary engineering report for the wastewater collection system, lift station and forcemain that will benefit properties along County Road 101 and Stagecoach Road. The report shall include conceptual drawings, preliminary cost estimates, preliminary assessment roll, identification of service area, design criteria, description of the improvements and engineering recommendations. Estimated Fee: $4,100.00 B. Soil Borings arid Geotecnnical Report We propose that fourteen (14) soil borings be completed at an average spacing of 500 feet along the sewer alignments. This includes five (5) penetration borings to a depth of 15 feet along the gravity sewer alignment, eight (8) flight auger borings to a depth of 10 feet along the forcemain alignment and one (1) penetration boring to a depth of 20 feet for the lift station. The geotechnical report will include recommendations for pipe and lift station design and installation. We propose to utilize American Engineering and Testing. We have included their estimated fee with no mark -up. Their fee assumes the boring depths listed above or to bedrock, whichever is less. If we would like to complete any rock corings, an adjustment to their estimated fees would be required. Estimated Fee: $2,200.00 MANKATO ® FAIRMONT ® SLEEPY EYE ® BURNSVILLE ® WILLMAR AMES, IA ® LIBERTY, MO An Equal oppoF i unity Lm,oloye; C. Survey Verification We propose to utilize the City's topographic information and have our staff field verify just enough information to help ensure preliminary design accuracy. We have estimated four (4) hours of crew time and two (2) hours of technician time for this work. Estimated Fee: $ 500.00 I propose that we work on an hourly basis, with a fee not -to- exceed $6,800.00. I understand that you and your staff will provide topographic information (electronic if l�l.l,.� /'�•• 1' 1 I:_- I Nom,,. _ �ossibl ^ C opy t, r ,�'< g p r o p e rties � e„ opy of "Re :. ; s asscssm nt Pvy a3iii a I1JL VI C3eileii do TO Cr[leS and descriptions. I will serve as Project Manager for this project. Kelly Yahnke will serve as the Project Engineer. We propose to complete the preliminary engineering report within three (3) weeks of the notice -to- proceed. Thank you for the opportunity to present this proposal. Please call me at (952) 890 -0509 if you have any questions. Sincerely, BOLTON & MENK, INC. C � Mark D. Kasma, P.E. Burnsville Office Manager cc: Kelly Yahnke, P.E.; Project Engineer Denny Honsa, L.S.; Surrey Manager FAProposals \shak \loney 316.wpd March 16, 2001 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC. Mr. Bruce Loney, P.E. Public Works Director /City Engineer City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 -1376 7635411700 P.02i05 Re: Estimate of Costs to Provide Engineering and Surveying Services East Shakopee Industrial Area Sanitary Sewer Study Proposal No. 0035 -010 Dear Mr. Loney: According to our Agreement for professional Services within the City of Shakopee and Section I -C -2 (Major Projects), this extension agreement is written to provide you with an estimate cost for engineering and surveying services for the above - referenced project. We are proposing to complete the work, as detailed on the attached scope of services (Exhibit A). The attached work plan describes the approach and tasks proposed to be completed by WSB. Payment of services would be completed by using our 2001 fee schedule with a not -to- exceed maximum of $8,000. It is proposed that all work under the contract would be considered complete after acceptance of the feasibility report. We are available to begin the work plan as soon as authorized by the City, and we anticipate completing the feasibility report within 6 -8 weeks of receiving the notice to proceed. The City of Shakopee agrees to reimburse WSB & Associates for these services in accordance with Section IV of the Agreement for Professional Services. If this agreement meets with your approval, please sign below and return one copy to our office. Bruce, I understand you are concerned about WSB's ability to complete the project, but I can assure you that we have the personnel, expertise and resources to complete this feasibility study and meet the City's expectations. Please contact me at (763) 287 -7190 if you have any additional comments or questions. P ASHAKOPEE1031401- b1shakopee.doc JC. Minneapolis • St. Cloud - Equal Opportunity Employer 4•. MAR -16 -2001 15:54 Mr. Bruce Loney, P.E. City of Shakopee March 15, 2001 Page 2 Sincerely, WSB & ASSOCIATES INC. WSB & Associates, Inc. David E. Hutton, P.E. Municipal Manager ak 7635411700 City Administrator P. 03/05 City Clerk Mayor Date P.NSHAKOPEE 1031401- bl- 9hakopee.doe MAR -16 -2001 15:54 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC. 7635411700 P.04i05 . 1 1 ]East Shakopee Industrial Area Feasibility Study City of Shakopee, MN SB Proposal No. 035 -010 ►. ► � Task 1— Project Management This task includes planning and coordination of all work tasks, establishment and monitoring of budgets, and correspondence with the City of Shakopee on a periodic basis. The project manager will provide technical direction on all aspects of the project and review all work products. The project manager will serve a primary role in the many design considerations. This task includes meetings with the City Staff to review the preliminary results and attending the Council meeting to present the results. Task 2 — Data Collection Available data will be collected from the City, Scott County, Mn/DOT, MCES, private utility companies, and adjacent property owners as necessary, to complete the feasibility report_ Information on As- Builts, topography, groundwater elevations, depth of bedrock, etc., would be obtained as part of this task. Task 3 — Preliminary Services It is proposed to obtain preliminary survey information to determine elevations for preliminary alignments and profiles of the sanitary sewer facilities. Two full days of a survey crew were included in the proposal. Task 4 — Analysis/Preliminary Design An analysis of the trunk sewer facilities would be completed to determine the feasibility of a gravity system versus a lift station. Based on the drainage area determined, an approximate size of any lift station, forcemain or gravity sewer would be developed. Preliminary invert elevations would be determined, and laterals or service connections would be identified. Task 5 — Cost Estimate/Funding Cost estimates would be developed on the recommended improvements. Funding sources would be identified based on current City policies and procedures. Task 6 — Feasibility Report A final feasibility report would be prepared. Ten (10) copies would be delivered to the City. Task 7 — City Council Meeting We would attend the City Council meeting to present the results of the feasibility report. It is assumed that the City would mail any public hearing notices for this project. PASHAKOPEE1prposat no- 035 -010 East Shakopce EX- A- 03I501.doc MAR -16 -2001 15:55 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC. 7635411700 P.05 /05 Optional Service A. Soil Borings: Soil borings are not included in the define scope of services at this time, but are available as "optional services ". WSB & Associates, Inc. utilizes local geotechnical firms form this type of investigation and the costs are typically passed directly to the owner without any mark -up or adjustment. WSB would work with City staff to determine the exact number of borings needed and the selection of the geotechnical firm. Soil borings in the proposed project area are recommended to provide localized information on the groundwater table and the bedrock elevations. This data will assist in preparing the construction cost opvuon and possibly affect the recommended option to provide sewer service in the area. PASHAKOPP- Sptposat no -035 -010 Essi Shakopee EX- A- 031501.doc TOTAL P.05 / S CITY OF SHAKOPEE Police Department Memorandum TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Sergeant John Flynn�� SUBJECT: Surplus Property DATE: April 5, 2001 INTRODUCTION: Council is asked to declare certain items held by the Police Department as surplus property. The Police Department currently finds itself in possession of numerous items that have been recovered/stored over the last several months. The attached memorandum from Community Service Officer Erin Lundy, lists the bicycles that can now be disposed of. In prior years bicycles in good repair had been taken to the Bicycle Safety Rally and put on silent auction with the proceeds going into the City's General Fund. The bikes in less than good condition were disposed of through Community Corrections. It is our plan to dispose of the bikes in a similar manner this year. The Bicycle Safety Rally is scheduled for a weekend in May. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council declare these items held by the Police Department as surplus property for the purpose of proper disposal. If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, declare these items surplus property and authorize staff to appropriately dispose of these items. JF:pm Attachment (1) City of Shakopee Police Department Memorandum TO: Sgt. John Flynn FROM: Erin Lundy, CSO DATE: 04 -05 -01 RE: Bicycle Inventory John- Here is a copy of the bicycle inventory of all bicycles in the loft of the Shakopee Police Department. All of these bicycles have been in the loft for more than 90 days, and are ready for auction. I will be running the bicycles through a check in the New World System and NCIC to see if I can find any matches with stolen or lost bicycle reports. If you have any further questions, let me know. Erin Lundy, CSO O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O o O O O O o O O O o O O �-A O �--A O o 0 0 o O O O O �-A �-A �-A o o co �-A � w co w cn � --1 rn O O rn No Ul rn m rn rn 00 ,.P o 00 CD C-t- CD GO p r - m CD �+ O rl CD r (D n O N CD � GO Q O CD C CpD O CD m CD r n CD o �r CD GO m m m m m Go o � d d C-4 o o � r LID 00 x z M00 CD GO CD CD CD O� h� LID LD cx( L� Q0 L"D O O O O O O O O LID O LID O ND O LIZ) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 O 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O cn co a� rn co 00 0 C.0 0 00 00 rn 0� 00 0 cn o rn cD rn rn � co CD td CD �' ''�, CD o arm Iq o JS' 0 n C-t- ° `� P CD CD CD CD - m CD td 0 0 td C� CD m td CD CD m td td w td w ° m O m m C co O d o cn 00 co co co 0 - o 0 0 00 0 o W o 0 0 0 o 00 cc w o L-,:) G7 O Cd m GO �, ¢ rn M D N D D C CD 00 00 00 cD cD cfl O O O O O LIZ) OD LIZ) LIO w N) N) 00 O LIZ) bD L� bo O t) O tlD O O L� O L) O N) O bo O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O � z z Z Z 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 00 00 � o � Ul cn 00 w cu o 00 C+ p a ¢ a c + c+ �� CD CD CD �c � O CD ° o O ` n 2' CD C > CD td td �i It Fd td td �i �d O N ¢ n� CD ��" CD CD CD CD CD CD CD b CD CD CD G Go Cn Cn CA Cn UD � CA CO CO CJt d d w 00 o m � CD Ut m co w x �-t Q 00 w � o td 00 0 00 0 o td r• 00 0o rn oo 00 00 0 CD 7S W CD �+ � � '6 CD �C CD CD CD CD CD p CD CD CD PD CD CD CD CD z z z z z o 0 co o 00 0 00 o cz o ( 0 0 CD a bo bz) a cc co 00 00 Q0 00 0 0 N) 0 tl:) 0 N) 0 LIZ) 0 LID 0 N) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 =�j 0 o � 00 0 CD CD c b C . CD N N CD CD a 0 o m o CD CD CD 0 O 4 To: From: Subject Date: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator Mark McQuillan, Natural Resource Director Design Service for Tahpah Park Parking Lot Project April 10, 2001 INTRODUCTION The City Council is being asked to approve a contract extension with Bolton & Menk, Inc. to do the plans and specifications for the Tahpah Park Parking Lot Project. BACKGROUND At its December 5, 2000 meeting, the City Council directed City staff to develop plans and specifications for expanding the parking lots at Tahpah Park and Lions Park. The idea was to have the work done in -house by City engineers. So far, the plans for Lions Park are complete. However, the loss of an Engineering Tech will not allow enough time for existing staff to do the Tahpah Park plans. Thus, staff is recommending a contract extension with Bolton & Menk, Inc. to do the plans and specifications for Tahpah Park. As part of the design work, I have asked Bolton and Menk, Inc. to include grading plans for future ball fields on the newly acquired 10 acres. If we are going to be moving dirt around for the parking lot and roadway into the park, it makes good sense to rough grade the future ball fields at the same time. Therefore, the residents to the west are not inconvenience twice by dust and dirt blowing around during construction. The engineering cost for the plans and specifications at Tahpah Park ranges from $15,000.00 to $16,500.00. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the contract extension with Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2. Solicit proposals from other engineering firms. 3. Table the project to 2002. RECOMMENDATION Alternative #1 ACTION REQUESTED If the City Council concurs with staffs recommendation, it should, by motion, move to approve the contract extension with Bolton & Menk, Inc. to develop the plans and specifications for the Tahpah Park Parking Lot Project and to allocate from the Park Reserve Fund an amount not to exceed $16,500.00. , Mark J. McQuillan Natural Resource Director Attachment A = Agreement w /Bolten & Menk, Inc. 04/10/2001 08:12 FAX 9528908065 BOLTON & MENK T 1 Consulting Engineers & Sufveors " 1515 East Highway .1 50Burnsville, 52j 890-8065 857 Phone (952) 890 Apri19, 2001 Mr. Mark McQuillan Director of Natural Resources City of Shakopee 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 RE_ Contract Extension Tahpah Park City of Shakopee BMI Project No. T12- 20435 Dear Mark, It was very nice meeting with you today and discussing your plans regarding the parking lot expansions, street extension and ballfield improvements. In accordance with Section I-C -2 (Major Project) of our Agreement for Professional Services with the City of Shakopee, Bolton & Menk, Inc. is pleased to submit this contract extension for Professional Services. These services include preliminary design, meetings with residents and special interest groups, final plans and specifications and bidding assistance. We believe that work on the above - referenced improvements will involve a fee in the range of $15,000.00 to $16,500.00. The City of Shakopee agrees to reimburse Bolton & Menk, Inc. for these services in accordance with Section IV of the Agreement for Professional Services. If this agreement meets with your approval, please sign below and return one copy to our office. Sincerely, BOLTON & MENK, INC- .X 4���� Mark D. Kasma, P.E. Burnsville Office Manager City Administrator cc: Dennis M. Honsa, L.S. Survey Manager City Clerk Mayor Date I: \Y2000- 2,0153 \T122043 5 \Cler\contractextwpd MANKATO FAIRMONT ® SLEEPY EYE . BURNSVILLE - WILLMAR AMES, IA LIBERTY, MO An Equal opportunity Employer CITY OF SHAKOPEE MEMORANDUM C . o To: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Mark Themig, Facilities and Recreation Director Mark McQuillan, Natural Resources Director Date: 13 April, 2001 Subject: Expenditure Authorization for Lions Club Lions Park Improvements INTRODUCTION Shakopee Lions Club would like to undertake two improvement projects in Lions Park: (1) planting of approximately 100 trees, and (2) installation of a half -court basketball court. City Council is asked to authorize expenditures from the Lions Park fund for these projects. BACKGROUND The Lions Club Lions Park Improvement Committee has identified two improvement projects for Lions Park, which they would like to undertake in early May. The first project involves planting approximately 100 trees on the south side of the park. Committee representatives have met with Public Works staff to discuss the proposed location, and have developed a plan to water the newly planted trees. The Lions Club anticipates spending $8,500 for the trees; however, they are still soliciting competitive price quotes for the trees. The second project involves the installation of a half -court basketball court where the asphalt volleyball court is located. Based on the committee's observations, this volleyball court is underutilized, and a basketball court would be a more desirable amenity. Installation of this court is not anticipated to exceed $5,000. BUDGET IMPACT The funds for these projects have been donated to the City, and are being held in an escrow account. There are sufficient funds in this account, and these projects will have no City budget impact. REQUESTED ACTION If City Council concurs, move to recommend expenditures not to exceed $13,500 for Lions Park improvements. FROM: Mark Noble, Planner I SUBJECT: Resolution No. 5516, Approving the Appeal of Robert Olson/Chrysler Realty Corporation and Granting a Variance for Signage STING DATE: April 17, 2001 At its April 3 -3, 2001, meeting the City Council directed staff to prepare a resolution reversing the decision of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and granting a variance for signage requested by Robert Olson/Chrysler Realty Corporation for the proposed Dodge /Chrysler Dealership. Attached are plans of the proposed monument sign (Exhibit A) and the proposed pylon sign (Exhibit B). A draft resolution has been prepared (see attached resolution) for approval by the Council. The Council is asked to offer and pass Resolution No. 5516, a resolution of the City of Shakopee overturning the decision of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and granting 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, and to allow the free standing pylon sign proposed adjacent to County Road 17 to be 27 feet in height, where 20 feet is the maximum height allowed_ Mark Noble Planner I , WHEREAS, Robert Olson, applicant, and Chrysler Realty Corporation, property owner, have filed an application for a variance under the provisions of Chapter 11, Land Use Regulation (Zoning), of the City of Shakopee City Code, Section 11.70, Subd. 10. B. for 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, and to allow the free standing pylon sign proposed adjacent to County Road 17 to be 27 feet in height, where 20 feet is the maximum height allowed; and WHEREAS, the subject parcel of land is presently zoned Highway Business (B -1) Zone; and WHEREAS, the legal description for the subject parcel of land for which the request is being made is: Lot 1, Block 3, Shakopee Valley Market Place West, Scott County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, notice was provided and on February 8, 2001, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals conducted a public hearing regarding this application, at which it heard from the Community Development Director or his designee and invited members of the public to comment; and WHEREAS, the applicant timely appealed the determination of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the appeal of the applicant at it's meeting of April 3, 2001; and WHEREAS, the City Council's reached the following findings with respect to the requested variance and applicable ordinance criteria; Finding I.; The ordinance provisions, as applied to the subject property, would cause undue hardship in that the applicant would be unable to effectively sign and identify the property for either passing motorists or persons for whom the proposed dealership is a destination. The inability to effectively sign and identify the property makes it practically difficult for the applicant to successfully operate on the subject site. Finding 2.; The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property. The location of the entrance to the proposed dealership is distant from County Road 17, and the elevation of the land is substantially lower than the elevation of adjacent County Road 17, rendering it difficult to see signage from that roadway. Finding 3.; The problems relate specifically to the characteristics of the site and adjacent County Road 17, and thus extend beyond economic considerations. Finding 4; The variance as requested would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the zoning chapter. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL O THE :; • MINNESOTA, That the decision of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals is hereby overturned, and the applicant's request for 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 and to allow the free standing pylon sign proposed adjacent to County Road 17 to be 27 feet in height, where 20 feet is the maximum height allowed is hereby granted_ Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the day of 1 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk ❑ ! c ILLUMINATED RED LOGCY P ANEL WITH EMBOSSED LOGO D • t; t O y .;C F 8' -1 3/4" 12" 6' -1 3/4" 12" Dwg. No.28751.07 SCALE: 3/8 " =1' -0" 2121/01 JM5 ILLUMINATED DOUBLE FACE 6' MONUMENT 51GN - DODGE CONTROL )5 D. Z, CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Mark Noble, Planner I SUBJECT: Waiver of Minor Subdivision Criteria DATE: April 17, 2001 Jeffrey Monnens own the property known as 128, 132 and 136 Holmes Street South in Shakopee (see attached plot plan). The property presently consists of two (2) lots, with the present buildings divided into three (3) sections. The applicant would like to split the property into three (3) lots consistent with the floor plans for each of the building spaces. For this to occur, he is asking that he be Granted a waiver of the minor subdivision criteria to allow a minor subdivision that would create lots having lot widths and lot areas that would not comply with the minimum requirements established in the Zoning Ordinance. .1, The property in question is zoned Central Business (B -3) Zone. The B -3 Zone requires a lot to have a minimum of 20 feet width and a minimum of 3,000 square feet in area. The lots proposed by Mr. Monnens would be 19.65 feet wide, 17 feet wide and 3 5.3 5 feet wide, and 1,192 square feet, 1,072 square feet and 2,341 square feet in area. The Actin Building Official, City Engineering and Shakopee Public Utilities have noted that 128 and 132 Holmes Street South may have shared services, and that 136 Holmes Street South has a separate water service and its own meter (see attached comments from City Engineering and Shakopee Public Utilities). The applicant has provided a copy of the proposed property descriptions and survey. If the property owner is granted his request, he will then proceed to submit a new legal description, survey and application for a minor subdivision for the City to review. ALTERNATIVES 1) Approve the requested waiver of minor subdivision criteria. 2) Do not approve the requested waiver of minor subdivision criteria. 3 ) Table the matter for additional information_ Review the property owner's request to be granted a waiver of the criteria and approve lots with lot widths and lot areas that do not meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements. Pass a motion consistent with Council's wishes. ark Noble Planner I Attachments G: \Cc\2001 \0417\monnens minsub.doc (27-001150-0) City of Shakopee Memorandum TO: Mark Noble, Planner I FROM: Joel Rutherford, Assistant City Engineer A, SUBJECT: Application From Jeffrey Monnens ` DATE: April 10, 2001 After reviewing the above referenced application, I have the following comments for the applicant, and for the planning department: The Engineering Department agrees with the proposal from the Shakopee Public Utility Commission, that 128 South Holmes and 132 South Holmes shall have shared services. We also agree that both owners shall be equally responsible for the sewer and water services. To insure future owners are aware of this shared responsibility, we recommend to the owner that an agreement be written and recorded at Scott County which will clarify that the properties utilize shared services. This agreement would also be used to clarify any misunderstandings regarding future maintenance of this service, as well as for dete who is responsible for paying for separating the services, if they are separated in the future. MAK OPEE PUBLIC UTILME 1 • M r ONO: S DATE: MATER SERVICE aT 132 S. I�OI1ES S T January 30, 2001 After discussion with 'Nfr. Monnens, it was decided to allow the following arrangement for metering the three buildings at 128, 132 and 136 S. Holmes Street: 136 S. Holmes Street will have a separate water service and its own meter. 128 and 132 S. Holmes Street will have a shared water service with one meter to be located in 132 S. Holmes Street. This is identical to the ar prior to the new building construction. 128 S. Holmes Street cannot have its own meter without having its own service line in from the street. Ideally, this would be all the way back to the water main. However, it would be acceptable if the shared service was separated outside the buildings with two curb stops locate(, downstream from the existing ("master") curb stop. A separate service line would then have to be run into 128 S. Holmes, Street. In this case the owners of 128 and 132 S. TTnisn?s Street world have to acicnowledge,joint responsibility for the shared service line from the water main to the "master" curb stop. vYr. ldonnens does not want to do that at this time. X at some point in the future, he or another owner of 128 S. Holmes Street desires to have a s arate metered service, two optionWistedeabove wM be available. In no case will it be sufficient to simply add a meter in 128 - S. Holmes Street on the portion of the line- from within 132 S. : Holmes Street. So, in conclusion SPUC will have two water customers with separately metered services, 132 and 136 S. Holmes Street. Usage for 128 S. Holmes be included with the metered amounts for 132 S. Holmes Street. 8 H VHVV40 S Sl if 4 i (D (-n ou le O z - --00'92--- 9 m z 2 1 .Si. s IN3N 3SV3 . . ....... -LOi JO A00 H-inoS 3HI AO 3NI1 H18ON Ln Ln 11 C, ZC)l L41noS aL41 o. laujO:) 1,311 LL; al cn 0 N 1 (1 ne 0 H I IS I X 3 A L4 0) 0) t?? tL s 170 09 b-s F20 'I S t7 917 . V J S �44 - bs 7 6 1 '1 v ' jLs OE)VOIH:) C NO!D S, :V 09 .................... 7LI & 0 K: t7 - 0 - ,Lv�j 20 '4Y I X 0 0 0' ,,r Z n co R ' sue` .,, �Z �� ,�� 7 SQL 0 mv (Jo Qa 3 Igo p!s7n -�lo r -lv o P \ V 'L tL X 13 100 13 9t, StL ts C; IPL T3 31 v :3 a '11 00 ql" s ')LAI jo ja�j 0 3r Z . Ln z rn > C) 0 0 O s z rn M - n S6 9t7L r 13 10013 Ln q ;j a) / 0 r O L T' F7 i (D (-n ou le O z - --00'92--- 9 m z 2 1 .Si. s IN3N 3SV3 . . ....... -LOi JO A00 H-inoS 3HI AO 3NI1 H18ON Ln Ln 11 C, ZC)l L41noS aL41 o. laujO:) 1,311 LL; al cn 0 N 1 (1 ne 0 H I IS I X 3 A L4 0) 0) t?? tL s 170 09 b-s F20 'I S t7 917 . V J S �44 - bs 7 6 1 '1 v ' jLs OE)VOIH:) C NO!D S, :V 09 .................... 7LI & 0 K: t7 - 0 - ,Lv�j 20 '4Y I X 0 0 0' ,,r Z n co R ' sue` .,, �Z �� ,�� 7 SQL 0 mv (Jo Qa 3 Igo p!s7n i (D (-n ou le O z - --00'92--- 9 m z 2 1 .Si. s IN3N 3SV3 . . ....... -LOi JO A00 H-inoS 3HI AO 3NI1 H18ON Ln Ln 11 C, ZC)l L41noS aL41 o. laujO:) 1,311 LL; al cn 0 N 1 (1 ne 0 H I IS I X 3 A L4 0) 0) t?? tL s 170 09 b-s F20 'I S t7 917 . V J S �44 - bs 7 6 1 '1 v ' jLs OE)VOIH:) C NO!D S, :V 09 .................... 7LI & 0 K: t7 - 0 - ,Lv�j 20 '4Y I X 0 0 0' ,,r Z n co R ' sue` .,, �Z �� ,�� 3,,tg 01 . N 'SDOW 420-09 H.Lnos 0i'l S 101 30 iACO Z01 H-LnOS 3H-L JO 3NI HldON 13 04 ?01 41noS a44 _/ jo iaujo:) AI aLU 9NI(I11f)9 ONLLS IX3 0 W e 3 3,,tg 01 . N 'SDOW 420-09 H.Lnos 0i'l S 101 30 iACO Z01 H-LnOS 3H-L JO 3NI HldON 13 04 ?01 41noS a44 _/ jo iaujo:) AI aLU 9NI(I11f)9 ONLLS IX3 April 17, 2001 15.D.2 Council Pkt. SURVEY PREPARED FOR: Val ley SUl'VG' 111 CO., P A. . Y 9 MONK EN S CONTRACTING SUITE 120 -C, FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM 2315 WEST 133RD STREET 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL S.E. SHAKOPEE , MN. 55379 PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447 -2570 OF NOR�N '_\NE Minnesota. north 72.00 feet of the south 102.00 feet of Lot 5. Block 22, SHAKOPETE, Scott County., Together with a perpetual easement to construct, maintain and repair a building aver, under and upon that part of the south 30.00 feet of said Lot 5, Block 22, described as tollows: Beginning at the northeast comer of said south 30,00 feet, thence South 15 degrees t12 minutes 28 sends East assumed bearing along the easterly line of said south 30.00 feet a distance of 8,31 fit to the outside wall of the existing building thereon thence South 75 degrees 35 € mutes 22 seconds West along said existing wall a distance of 26.00 feet, thence ?north 14 degrees 24 minutes 38 seconds West a distance of 6.74 feet, thence South 75 degrees 35 minutes 22 seconds Nest a distance of 23.00 feet, thence worth 14 degrees 24 minutes 38 seconds West a distance of 1.' f+ to the north line of said south '10.00 feet thence easterly along said north line 48.91 feet to the point Of Winning. D \N the �' o 1 WIFES. G nch mark el- 744.2 top taut hyd. sw quadrant of Holmes Street &. I ' Ave. NG OT 5 - -- t o s 1 t ae 00 �„ -__ 745.4 lh;notes existing grade elevations. Ot Tt\E SOVSN ?5 \Ot 5 T 6 Cc. X + w ' \y cQ 00 { t OF ' �-- the S O U \02 N ORTH \N E ` 1 7 47.3 Denotes proposed finished grade elevations. 60.03 me °� ,'� �; � �`� �= -�-- Denotes proposed direction of finished surface drainage G c °RN� - LO _ 1 5 O VTN - - �i.'* e12A` nrc3kstt ct #tt,3ii flo at e 747 x \ iL6 N f t. sG' Y t 9 � 1 As w" 1 0 574 4C'' 0 s,. 6O • ` q r g6 1 � O 7qq• 5 0 t 1 J X ,a t \ O� VTO£� \ C wi ` w t4 Q i \ 74 " 2 rJ \ _ N 0 _ ' \ tt. o - '- - w : � 0 32 © W + 5 - 7 4' O 0 0 . 04 u- t Q 7 ►.sz to ' o ° s p r?4, a- 1 Lo 'D 1 1 sq. 3 O F �O - South (. ma c+ + VTN 3�•QO — — 745.77 - + ' T O 0- 6 OQ � qs 9� AREA I 745 S3 Tp 6 ENS E`�A tl I \ T 1qG 11 575'Z6 T. S7 \7 q7 3\ 1 43 t _ w T t ry .r 74G -3 Z _ 3q .q .•yl 0 V 4 \5.70 0 } 1 a EX\SS \NG Q o SLOG. / 0 = — I. 45 OVER N LINE ER t n 1 ' 0. 20. 7 �e `0, �o 60. N y \ NE j S OUT _ J � s ic O AA0 i 00 AH RR 5 S ` (� NEQR REV. 3/8 /01 TO SNOW SPLIT INTO 3-PARCELS S 1 hereby certify that this survey GO , was prepared by me or under my G�,GA a d i rect uy Lic M Sur tt 1 under the laws the tatete of 0 10 20 Min a. SCALE IN FEET Date -5 — 1 - License NO. 1 o Denotes iron monument set. • Denotes Iron monument foul W SHEET GE 2 SHEETS ' N F! i C Nn 8858-x 1p is u. 3. CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Mark Noble, Planner I SUBJECT: Final Plat of Orchard Park West P.U.D. 5th Addition MEETING DATE: April 17, 2001 Site Information Applicant. Laurent Land Development, Inc. Location: Regent Drive, south of Vierling Drive and west of Harvest Lane Current Zoning: Urban Residential (R -1B) Zone/PUD Overlay 913 Adjacent Zoning: North: Urban Residential (R -1B) Zone/PUD Overlay #13 South: Urban Residential (R 1B) Zone/PUD Overlay #13 East: Urban Residential (R -1B) Zone/PUD Overlay #13 West: Urban Residential (R -1B) Zone 1995 Comp. Plan: Single Family Residential Area: Approximately 4.5 Acres MUSA: The site is within the MUSA boundary Attachments. Exhibit A: Zoning/Location Map Exhibit B: Final Plat Plan Exhibit C: Preliminary Plat Plan Introduction Laurent Land Development, Inc. is requesting Final Plat approval of Orchard Park West P.U.D. 5 Addition. This property is presently legally described as Outlot B, Orchard Park West P.U.D. 3rd Addition. The property is located on Regent Drive, south of Vierling Drive and west of Harvest Lane. This Final Plat (Exhibit B) is in substantial conformance with the approved Planned Unit Development (PUD) Resolution No. 4728 and Preliminary Plat (Exhibit Q. Considerations The Final Plat for Orchard Park West P.U.D. 3' Addition was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its April 22, 1999 meeting and was approved by the City Council at its May 18, 1999 meeting. This development will plat twenty (20) lots for twin home residential development in the area that is presently described as Outlot B of the P Addition. The City Clerk and Shakopee Public. Utilities have noted that there is a 20 foot drainage and utility easement which encroached onto Lot 2, Block 3, and Lot 1, Block 4. No structure should be allowed over /inside that easement because there is a water main located there. Alternatives 1. Approve the Final Plat of Orchard Park West P.U.D. 5 Addition, subject to the following conditions: I. The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of the Final Plat: A. Approval of title by the City Attorney. B. Execution of a Developers Agreement which shall include provisions for security for the public improvements within the Final Plat and payment of engineering review fees, trunk storm water charges, trunk sanitary sewer charges, and any other fees as required by the city's adopted fee schedule. i. Street lighting to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. ii. Electrical system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission_ iii. Water system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. iv. Installation of sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems, and construction of streets in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. V. Street signs shall be constructed and installed by the City of Shakopee at a cost to the developer of $270.00 per sign pole. vi. Hydrants shall be placed in accordance with the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code, the policies of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission, and shall be approved by the Shakopee Fire Inspector. vii. Park dedication payments shall be required in amounts consistent with the City's adopted Fee Schedule, which is $1800.00 per lot and shall be payable prior to the recording of the Final Plat. 11. The following conditions shall apply after the recording of the Final Plat: A. Final Construction Plans and Specifications must conform to City requirements and are subject to approval by the City Engineer and Shakopee Public Utilities prior to construction. B. Building construction, sewer, water service, fire protection and access will be reviewed for code compliance at the time of building permit application(s). C. The conditions outlined in the Planned Unit Development approval resolution (Resolution No. 4728) shall be adhered to. 2. Approve the Final Plat of Orchard Park West P.U.D. 5 Addition with revised conditions. 3. Do not approve the Final Plat of Orchard Park West P.U.D. 5 th Addition. 4. Table the item in order to allow time for the applicant and /or staff to submit additional information or make any necessary revisions. 2 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, approval of the Final Plat of Orchard Park West P.U.D. 5th Addition, subject to the conditions. Action Requested Offer Resolution No. 5511, a Resolution Approving the Final Plat of Orchard Park West P.U.D. 5th Addition, subject to conditions. ark Nobl Planner I g: \cc \2001 \cc0417\fporchrdpkw doc 3 1 I are ' : 1, w. "4 513 01AIN 1 11 1' WHEREAS, Laurent Land Development Inc., applicant and property owner, has made application for final plat approval of Orchard Park West P.U.D. 5' Addition; and WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as follows: Outlot B, Orchard Park West P. U.D. 3.d Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Scott County, Minnesota, • and WHEREAS, all required public notices regarding the public hearing for the Final Plat were duly sent and posted and all persons appearing at the hearing have been given an opportunity to be heard thereon; and WHEREAS, the Shakopee City Council reviewed the final plat request at its meeting on April 17, 2001. THEREFORE, RESOLVED BY THE 1 OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, as follows: That the Final Plat of Orchard Park West P.U.D. 5"' Addition is approved subject to the following conditions: I. The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of the Final Plat: A_ Approval of title by the City Attorney. B. Execution of a Developers Agreement which shall include provisions for security for the public improvements within the Final Plat and payment of engineering review fees, trunk storm water charges, trunk sanitary sewer charges, 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, and construction of streets in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. 5. Street signs shall be constructed and installed by the City of Shakopee at a cost to the developer of $270.00 per sign pole. 6. Hydrants shall be placed in accordance with the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code, the policies of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission, and shall be approved by the Shakopee Fire Inspector. 7. Park dedication payments shall be required in amounts consistent with the city's adopted Fee Schedule, which is $1800.00 per lot and shall be payable prior to the recording of the Final Plat. I.I. The following conditions shall apply after the recording of the Final Plat: A. Final Construction Plans and Specifications must conform to City requirements and are subject to approval by the City Engineer and Shakopee Public Utilities prior to construction. B. Building construction, sewer, water service, fire protection and access will be reviewed for code compliance at the time of building permit applications. C. The conditions outlined in the Planned Unit development approval resolution (Resolution No. 4728) shall be adhered to. THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER SOLVED, that approval of the Final Plat of Orchard Park West P.U.D. 5 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- THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER SOLVED, that the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute said Plat and Developer's Agreement. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the day of 1 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee /:rim City Clerk 5 F"'roposed Final Plat of Orchard P," - 1 Addition - Zoning Boundary - Parcel Boundary \I IAL)� ��AL)l! IA /T_ ^T I VI \v�llll \V r rl1 \/\ YYLvl /1L) /lf fAL)T, rte'A L)I� IAlEf hr\ l \ L / rl l \ / \ r IF I o I 1 /l 1L)n A r\ r ITln AI f f !"1 ATf I A r r Al , .V.LJ. v1 \LJ r1LJLJl I /ul v .IJ.L_/. `i I f7 r uul I Il./I v /A V L_ a / o !•"M /ryNECAS /� /� / ' / „`' 20 pOOI- OR S f 1 ` COMa l4 / w o� \�/�` \ Al ANp 077 Y \ ry EASEM ENT 573+ 3 o r O i O/� £ AS EME "T � (/ PE 0.18 _ "o /_ \ R Do c , MENr ° N23 A, /y/ �J\ ` NO. ?377 / A ll 010° 9 c � Cy) k�1 O' -`1 ® 0 O .�\ O ti co <no ZUO1= �� F 1 2 1 cn�OO M �c\ O vir�* > r�* �� - p1 opt oo_ ro z^T ingm;n> r r /, z_ g r \� En rn= C p =20) <� � r1 J Vl O �; W ° m �\ rn +' a D m J \ zp, Z F4, R > < ` O i o M CA ° 1^ n N 0 ° 4 v c 1 > A °Zr N ' i (n A W r� N � W fTl 01 N � W I N m S86'31'15E 227.71 V FIF U � u R EASEMENT PEFt 11 PLAT OE ORCHARD PARK WEST P U.D. 3RD ADDITION z > GE, ' �-' MINNECASCO a /0�' O , ' \/ / COMPANY EASEMENT � = PER DOCUMENT NO. 257677 °u �$ -_ D 8o 9 � - 2 . Q2 � 1 � a = vtn> D Z m - / 33.00 70 .00 SS 33 .00 v r�• a ._,_, �_ o Go w (A 6G 4, F d 4 - -N8617'40 -W 70.00 pi 33.00 33.00 355 O' '31'W 70.00 Cp 4 O I y J 2 v 0 00 ^I 35.00 -' S72 -4$2 35, 00 O f 7 c'; 2 a Fn �G� u u = N .Ol 07 rl il _ z ZI }�• V '� O O 0 30 .70 S7g32 Z E 3 ,6N yy� i S87'22'58'W 75.71 /�,4• ` N.I w a N o o $ Z I Y ." u / �� $ �, a 35.00 35.00 S SSfi77 ]n .Qa_ 35.00 33.00 p O s� a � o N 3 S � ,v, S7 5 p0 fr . m J W 58772S8'W 90.00 '- V •. 93 _ �I �i r - -- N - ]_ DRAINAGE AND UTUTY ASEMENT- = =__-_ N Oi't z I$ N8722'WE 81.17 � 3 j• I / K •35'07 "W 70.00 _ 0 8 r9 N77-,, 4 S86'42'42 EE 700 .0 '--' 35.00 7y 2 - E W I 35.00 N i 3 17 35.00 35.00 35 .00 7 0.00 a ti S CIy" 3 N 5.00 to m ,1 f m S 0o co co T of 7\ I Sq E, J30p N79'S7j1 I 35.02 f g I 35.00 35.00 \ \ 0. 0 0 10 10 I 586'35'07'. 70.00 2'E 75.00 55.00 586'4 a 0.00 >lyq 22 - 35.00 ° I . S 70 .00 `gip 6 O 4 !•"M /ryNECAS /� /� / ' / „`' 20 pOOI- OR S f 1 ` COMa l4 / w o� \�/�` \ Al ANp 077 Y \ ry EASEM ENT 573+ 3 o r O i O/� £ AS EME "T � (/ PE 0.18 _ "o /_ \ R Do c , MENr ° N23 A, /y/ �J\ ` NO. ?377 / A ll 010° 9 c � Cy) k�1 O' -`1 ® 0 O .�\ O ti co <no ZUO1= �� F 1 2 1 cn�OO M �c\ O vir�* > r�* �� - p1 opt oo_ ro z^T ingm;n> r r /, z_ g r \� En rn= C p =20) <� � r1 J Vl O �; W ° m �\ rn +' a D m J \ zp, Z F4, R > < ` O i o M CA ° 1^ n N 0 ° 4 v c 1 > A °Zr N ' i (n A W r� N � W fTl 01 N � W I N Z !a � C �y C� C� Vg w 7 4 �3c i 589'51'59 "W 141.59 N r' _ rl C� , m LOU m V FIF z > m fO�D �r C = vtn> D m 0 > ; m pp ZG Z N �Z Go w (A 6G -4 D O N 2 _ i*1 N _ z i NO 0 Z !a � C �y C� C� Vg w 7 4 �3c i 589'51'59 "W 141.59 N r' _ rl C� , m LOU p � Y A 00A W"-rM 000000 wcbmmal(3) V _0 - a V1 m m m C %v Opmp (A y Z Z 2 z � � rn n it O r m In 0 0 m n z . 1 � ,ll ail f I X11 �O6 i II11I I IM1` 1 �.. ? 1 1 � .1�,•,i 111� Iil;' ';i •r 'I III' I:� 1 � `,,��., �i ►III' > :,• � ^ i � ','•I NI II I • ! 1iI1I � II. ice/ J . •1 ; ; I I .I l• 1 ',I I � i�•� �I I I 'I1 VIERIING DR r r A l i , :;Ai;i I j I , ,,. I I :t. q I I n — - - -- - ' -- --- OU(JD-HKIY�` -,- -- / lI i1V 1 itu - i1 f 1. CtY — T l1CW • /b':15� - I - .F':lY _'If�'.IY '_ tl:;- - YY�Ie - � - � it ClBo _- . - - - -- — - - ---- ---- - - - --- - - -�6 HIY � yy � yyyy � y2 • ssmg-, zz � ° -1 m o � N p oo�ool, < WWW 0 8� p � O o a o N Q N O c 0 v ogooUO $ so c� 0 i���v ° ooh MR s � ➢ m>u >y ij • vS��f�m o hm B O N > a o > 6 o a N > i P ---- . —_I_ _ _ _ 1 SIN m m � ml7t !21 4.0. f °�� a 5d r' I I � �• I _.-� ����P in�� F i �� � $0 116. aEf 1 !• ' ji �I S' , � I I� � qN � I I I .. o� I ®o' � i 1 �• c o I I I I R M i � FI 6 i ly: n I 1 i , q 1 15 o & CITY OF S HAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Mark Noble, Planner I, R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Final Plat of Savanna Oaks at Southbridge 4 Addition MEETING DATE: April 17, 2001 Site Information: Applicant: D.R. Horton Location: North of Dean Lake and south of Highway 169 Current Zoning. Low Density Residential (R 1A) Zone/PUD Adjacent Zoning. North: Highway 169 South: Low Density Residential (R -IA) Zone/PUD East: Low Density Residential (R -1A) Zone/PUD West: Low Density Residential (R -IA) Zone/PUD 1995 Comp. Plan: Single Family Residential Area: 12.76 Acres MUSA: The site is within the MUSA boundary. t Attachments: Exhibit A: Location/Zoning Map Exhibit B: Savanna Oaks at Southbridge 4th Addition Final Plat Exhibit C: City Engineering Comments Exhibit D: Shakopee Public Utilities Comments i 't1 � D.R. Horton has made application for final plat approval of Savanna Oaks at Southbridge 4 Addition. The proposed development is located south of Hwy. 169 and north of Dean Lake (see attached Location/Zoning map), and consists of 26 lots. Savanna Oaks at Southbridge 4th Addition is part of a development that received Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval in 1997 and Preliminary Plat approval from the Planning Commission and City Council in 1998. The submitted final plat is in substantial conformance with both the PUD and Preliminary Plat (see attached final plat). The following written comments have been received: I- The City Clerk has requested that the signature block for the Planning Commission be removed. 2. City Engineering has recommended approval, subject to the conditions noted in their attached memorandum. 3. Shakopee Public Utilities has submitted comments concerning water and electric service, as well as street lighting. A copy of those comments has been attached for the Council's information. 1. Approve Resolution No. 5512, approving the final plat of SAVANNA OAKS AT SOUTHBRIDGE 4TH ADDITION subject to the conditions contained in the attached resolution. 2. Approve the final plat of SAVANNA OAKS AT SOUTHBRIDGE 4TH ADDITION subject to revised conditions. 3. Do not approve the proposed final plat of SAVANNA OAKS AT SOUTHBRIDGE 4TH ADDITION_ 4. Table a decision in order to allow time for the applicant and /or staff to provide additional information. Action Requested: Offer the attached resolution approving the final plat of SAVANNA OAKS AT SOUTHBRIDGE 4 TH ADDITION subject to conditions, and move its approval. G:\ CC\2001 \Cc0320\fpsavoaks4th.doc RESOLUTION OF C'I OF SHAKOPEE, 1L 1APPROVING C11 FINAL PLAT OF SAVANNA OAKS AT SOUTHBRIDGE 4' ADDrnON WHEREAS, D.R. Horton, Inc., applicant and property owner, has made application for final plat approval of Savanna Oaks at Southbridge 4th Addition; and WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as follows: Outlot A, Savanna Oaks at Southbridge 2" Addition, Scott County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the preliminary plat on March 17,1998 and WHEREAS, all required public notices regarding the public hearing were duly sent and posted and all persons appearing at the hearing have been given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the final plat request at its meeting of April 17, 2001. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, NUNNESOTA, as follows: That the final plat of SAVANNA OAKS AT SOUTHBRIDGE 4 TH ADDITION is approved subject to the following conditions: I. The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of the Final 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 security for the public improvements within the Final Plat and payment of engineering review fees, trunk storm water charges, trunk sanitary sewer charges, 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, and construction of streets in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. 5. Hydrants shall be placed in accordance with the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code, the policies of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission, and shall be approved by the Shakopee Fire Inspector. 6. The plat be revised as necessary, and the necessary easements be granted the City, for the proposed trail connection to be constructed between STH 169 and the northerly lots in the subject plat. E 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. Final Construction Plans and Specifications must conform to City requirements and are subject to approval by the City Engineer and the Shakopee Public Utility Commission, prior to construction of the public improvements- THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that approval of the final plat of SAVANNA OAKS AT SOUTHBRIDGE e 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. THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute said Plat and Developer's Agreement. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the day of , 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee I:�1 Ti1Yx.YIW W E SHAKOPEE E Final Plat of Savanna Oaks @ S Zonmig Boundary Parcel Boundary 0 ° 3 c 01--i l o o O p m •�Z N p N -�-O i 1 p O N W p w�= mb m oo y ° L o Ot --1 0mh cam. c cc �, ti � i `°u•c �ti°p Ormn Cl �o o v tiv p s mo 0 10 ti \ NO11/OOV ONZ 3002+8HLROS lV SNVO I I I O v \ \ VN"AYS 'V M1 !o awry yanos - I II I O N \ I I O 1 _ skasr M e 09 69,68 N z " 2 J o Z£'LOZ 11'LSl T �it �, Y 0 Dc it Lu k?\ \ CQ 0 Z1 4) O o V N It vl v 8 W Cc 11 c0 1 / / / ^ 7 / ri d ' �\ t s a� — esrJ of 's ac ben p t om— OZ 'OZ a s \ \ N I L' M..90, 6s ° 9SN g£°£Z o — 8t ry ` Q �\ f 60- s \\ � g \ �/ - �Z• ` ----------- - - --h OSOlsO! \ i / or - - -- — - - -_ W a i�6'*6C Al „L0,69,88 N �� m M .Z 6s °9s N -1 - L"ss L -- ------ - - - - -J ° I — — — — ° yz'6tt ° M LO °88 N o v -- - -- Cr_ r -- - - = —'- 69 =-1 ti o x ^ W O 40 -� ('------ - - - --\ Pz Q OLI FZ'6L1 V `i� I W L-------- - - -�LJ W g Z I q _ 89Y£Z M „50,69,88 N " I I I 9 ° SB 16 0 _yy'68 LZ'9S ° lo` I I r -- ' --- - �'- ZS - 6' L1 v N — I I b'I °� c b f l i NI a7 0 0 I '` - t y57 I. cry ° ! — £s9 �r1 Of i z \ I I o °� ° o o I I o f NI / 1 I r - - / �.. \ y 9 I 0 I I o f I 9 h /� 11 ti/h M ..0[,19°28 A' ti NI L \ �_ dsl, I I r r li z I �/0 0 1 m/� zgt lo•za� D �1 \\ I_ ``t 0 oo — 9227 6277 1 R DI W rP /iy ,a0 , 9 E 79.42 C \ N o — f8 ££! Q J Qr.. o5 i \ vIN O J �h r ' ..Z1,6 ° a y2� K N 1 q \\ ro �c S 18 Iy O b� C� 6 — N N 89 ° 00'44" E — 298.2 � L' � � C1 o Ig 0 ry L 7o.s7 8977 73 y , r ov6 - - -- ° hmN " \\ �.,v 0 �`o� LLJ \ \/o \\ Il�Z it \ °ol I - °I h 01 I o W2 I! �o 2 1 1 2 1 I all // i� / fb I i I I-- -._.�— �. I.-- ..^_.— p I U<no � 2 O 69 M 9kL$p68N o L'OSI - -- -- '68 - -J L — 6C6B — J L — '.06'16-- J VT£`6S —��IJ i__Z wf� II —�— -- — —3 y— £6019 M a - P f1t N — — f i m pd ci n M O ivvrriinnv r ` - -JiJI� 01101 \\ l o v ��II II on Z iiJ� - vi m a U TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator Judith S. Cox, City Clerk Resignation of Kristin Romeo and Filling Position April 13, 2001 INTRODUCTION• The City Council is asked to accept the resignation of Kristin Romeo, part -time receptionist and appoint Lori Hensen to fill the position. BACKGROUND: Ms. Romeo submitted her letter of resignation on March 27, 2001. She has been working one -half time as a receptionist at city hall, j,ob sharing with another person. She accepted another position and asked if it would be possible to leave prior to the customary two week notification. Since we have two additional part -time employees who were willing to put in additional hours, it was possible to grant her request. Because she only worked 20 hours a week, she did not earn any benefits. Staff would ask that City Council ratify the staff approval of her leaving prior to fulfilling the customary two -week notice. Pursuant to the City's personnel policy, notice was posted internally and one employee, Lori Hensen, did submit an application to fill the vacant one -half time position. Ms. Hensen currently works 10 hours per week in the city clerk's office and as receptionist as needed. This would bring her total hours to 30 per week. This will be a part -time status change and will make her eligible for pro -rated benefits. There is money budgeted for benefits because the 2001 budget was put together when the receptionist position was held by a full -time person who also was eligible for benefits. Ms. Hensen will move to Step 2 on her one -year anniversary, April 17, 2001, and will continue at her same pay grade. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Accept the resignation of Kristin Romeo effective March 30, 2001, and ratify the staff decision to permit her to leave prior to giving a full two -week notice. 2. Authorize Lori Hensen to fill the part -time receptionist position, vacated by Ms. Romeo, effective April 18, 2001, at Step 2, Grade AA. CITY OF SHAKOPEE TVTam nrnn diim To: Honorable Mayor, City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Dan Hughes, Chief of Police Date: April 5, 2001 Subject: Authorization to Fill Sergeant Positions The Police Department is requesting Council approval to fill two new Police Sergeant positions. The Police Department has two vacancies in the position of Police Sergeant created by the City Council's approval of the 2001 Police Department Budget. The Police Civil Service Commission conducted the appropriate testing authorized by M.S.A. 419 and established an eligible register for the position of Police Sergeant (see attachment). The following names are currently listed in rank order on the eligible register: Jeff Tate Chris Dellwo Molly Schrot Tom Crocker Greg Tucci Matt Conway Minnesota State Statute Chapter 419 requires the Police Civil Service Commission to submit the top three names listed on the eligible register to the Appointing Authority (City Council) to fill any vacancy. The vacant positions are budgeted for in the 2001 Police Department Budget. I am recommending the top two candidates be appointed to fill the vacant Sergeant positions. If Council concurs, they should, by motion, authorize the appointment of Jeff Tate and Chris Dellwo to probationary Police Sergeant at Step 4 of the current labor agreement effectiApril 18, 2001. Chief of Police CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor, City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Shakopee Police Civil Service Commission Date: April 4, 2001 Subject: Eligible Register The Shakopee Police Civil Service Commission has conducted appropriate testing and as result establishes the following eligible register for the position of police sergeant in accordance with the provisions of M.S.A. 419. 1. Jeff Tate 2. Chris Dellwo 3. Molly Schrot 4. Tom Crocker 5. Gre Tucci 6. Matt Conway Respectfully submitted, r L Shakopee Police Civil Service Commission CITE' OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk SUBJECT: Premises Permit Renewal — VFW Post 4046 DATE: April 10, 2001 The VFW Post 4046 is making application to renew their premises permits for their gambling activities at 1201 East 3r Avenue and at Turtle's Bar & Grill at 132 East 1S Avenue. The permit will ultimately be issued by the State Gambling Control Board. When application is made, the Board requires that the local unit of government pass a resolution specifically approving or denying the application. The VFW Post 4046 is in compliance with the Shakopee City Code. Offer Resolution No. 5509, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Approving Premises Permits for the VFW Post 4046, and move its adoption. Judith S. Cox, City Clerk JSC /j s , . WSW WHEREAS, the 1990 legislature adopted a law which requires municipal approval in order for the Gambling Control Board to issue or renew premises permits; and WHEREAS, the VFW Post 4046 is seeking renewal of their premises permits through July 31, 2003, for the following locations: VFW Post 4046 at 1201 East 3rd Avenue and Turtle's Bar & Grill at 132 East 1st Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS: That the premises permits for the VFW Post 4046, at the following locations are hereby approved: 1201 East 3 1d Avenue and 132 East 1st Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota. Adopted in adj. regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this 17th day of April, 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk /S CITY OF SHAKOPEE.. Memorandum TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: Interfund Transfers DATE: April 10, 2001 Introduction & Background Several interfund transfers were made for fiscal year 2000 that council has not yet given its approval. A transfer in the amount of $1,600,000.00 was made from the General Fund to the Building Fund in accordance with CIP and budget discussions. A transfer in the amount of $126,877.19 was made from the 95A Debt Service fund to the 95/94 Capital Projects fund to cover cash shortage. Action Move to approve of the transfer of $1,600,000.00 from the General fund to the Building Fund and $126,877.19 from the from the 95A Debt Service fund to the 95/94 Capital Projects fund for fiscal year 2000. eregg Voxland Finance Director Is. F. 3. City of Shakopee Memorandum SUBJECT: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator Tracy Coenen, Management Assistant C 1 ) - 0""ENT Amending Resolution No. 5508 Establishing the Library Study Board MEETING DATE: April 17, 2001 Introduction City Council is asked to move the adoption of Resolution No. 5508, establishing the Library Study Board for the City of Shakopee. Background The Library Study Board was established on February 1, 2000. Resolution No. 5311 called for five (5) at -large members, to include residents of Shakopee, or the Shakopee School District 720; however, at the April 3 City Council meeting, City Council appointed two (2) new members to the Library Study Board to fill the resignation of Jane DuBois. The amendment to increase the membership from five (5) to six (6) is needed for purposes of voting and consistency with the City Council's two (2) new appointments. Action Requested Offer Resolution No. 5508, a Resolution of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending Resolution No. 5311, establishing the Library Study Board for the City of Shakopee, and move its adoption. Tracy Coe n Management Assistant RESOLUTION NUMBER 5508 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 5311, ESTABLISHING A LIBRARY STUDY BOARD FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE WHEREAS, on the first day of February, 2000, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5311, establishing the Library Study Board for the City of Shakopee; and WHEREAS, the Library Study Board studies issues and makes recommendation related to a new Shakopee library; and WHEREAS, qualified applicants applied for the one opening on the Library Study Board; however, City Council appointed two new members. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS: That Resolution No. 5311, Establishing the Library Study Board is hereby amended as follows: 1. The Shakopee Library Committee is herby established, composed of ten (10) members, to be appointed by the City Council, and to include representatives from the following: A. Six (6) at -large members, to include residents of Shakopee, or the Shakopee School District 720. B. The Shakopee representative of the Scott County Library Board. C. One member of the Shakopee Friends of the Library. D. Scott County Library Director (ex officio) E. Shakopee Librarian (ex officio) Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of 3 2001. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk 15. F. y, TO: Mark McNeill, Shakopee City Administrator N S E N T FROM: Lou Van Hout, Shakopee Utilities Manager RE: Dean Lake substation, Easement w/NSP (Xcel) The Utilities Commission approved granting of the attached easement to NSP by motion on 4/2/01. Since the property registration on the Dean Lake substation site has not yet been transferred from the City to SPUC, the easements need Council action to be recordable. SPUC's Dean Lake substation was placed in service in Summer 2000. Agreements negotiated with NSP in 1999 provided (among other things) construction, transmission access, and for SPUC and NSP to provide easements for equipment locations and access to the site. The terms of the easement were worked on by SPUC staff, attorney, and engineer, and are now acceptable to both parties, NSP (Xcel) and SPUC. The Utilities Commission approved granting the attached easement to NSP by motion on 4/2/01. The original documents are now being signed by NSP and will be provided to City staff after signature by SPUC. ,dRANN SHEA irnti u Q EASEMENT , 301 by r . f _� —.' .. b and through the ShakopeCft[hhc l:tilities THIS GRANT F RASEbiT.VT „ Easement ° ') !'made a ct y the City of Shakopee, a Minnesota in Scott, St ata0ri ( °'City"), sota (SPUC an Drat on dcri'x, b1siness Commission in the Co unty of Scott, State of Minnesota It co p eta' her mission ( )+ referred to as'°Grantor ") for the benefit Or Northern States Power CompanS'> as Xcel Energy, hereinafter referred w 2 NSP' °). w City holds the title on behalf of SPUC to a certain tract of land itgally described or Exhibit A attached hereto (the "City Parcel" ajt 13 .8 kV substation, know as the Wean Lake Substation (Ue' }�': de w REAS, SPUC has cons<ructed a City i mcnt, as such terms are hereinaftLr finrd Substation "), wt�iet' includes both the SPLS Equipment and the NSP Equ P and as depicted on Exhibit B attached hercta; and , E AS, SPUC has a to own, operate, and : r transformer, the IS.S 1;V sw itehgear arld a- sociateu w-a that purtl ®n o= t11e C ` s Substation ; anststtn�e of the 115 kV transformer disconnccts andcircuttswitcher Po ment (the "SPU Equipment"). as depicted on the site plan attached hereto a5 Fxhibit 13, and equip Traission Tap°! fr'or.i NSP's AS, NSp has constn -cted an in-and-out 115 kV transmission tap (" nsm existng 115 kV transmission 1'[ne nz the City' tion; and s Substa E AS, NSP has agreed to otvn, operate, and maintain that portion o „ [h t' ) s'depic oG the site plan of the 115 kV support structures, sw itch cs an d associated equipment {the "NS>a Eq P attached Hereto as Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, Grantor intends to grant for benefit ofN ow r to ti ceC ' S lic NSp adjn nines w of electric r and across the City parcel to facilitate the deliVCry clech - ic transmission luxe. N��9 FGg�, in .uiasideration Of the easements and itcensas titan led herein, it is agreed as folloevs: is ion Easement L3rantor hereby gFavts to and f ®r the benefit of NSP, and for its use and the use Of Its pareai as tltiz 1 Tran_ sin - --- = =sits, in so farastheir activities relate tothc it[e 3 tte� by SPUC to > use tfte same, authorized em pl oy ees and lac SP of tile l l T a a m City's Substation (the "Perm, ittees' "), in common w t S U and eg ir rep di and associated cquipmant over and across tha a �rpetual, nonex clusiv. casemen in option, a roximately 23, X 15 Tan: the NSP Equipment, NSP's 115 kV bus, icted on 1Nahibet 13 aitachedhereto (thew, {�rn�'� po[eiva of the City Parcel underlying the Transmission Easement Area, containing PP Itrare feet, with dimznsians of 310' x 76.5', as dep L• ;; ;�rnent Area replacement of the T�r'smiss ic;n ' andsolel���- �rzaUir��by�drCrate�t® Nsp °Sdi1'IVCla'67rI�Aw to ua-,smissionthrou ; h flows. and fortheoper operation, and assn iat d e quiPment. Tai;. die NSP Equipment, NSP'$ 115 kV bus, ent Grantor hereby grants to and fur the benefit oa vS= an d f or S IC , Switch a 'Conhol uuildin Ease d othors c nnitted b SFIJC tc a5r the s ame, , 2 d e p icted an rxhi i use bit B us and us nd te of its Perinittees, in common w i t h SPUC art ildin " to allow NSF to operate at�d maintain equ ipment and equment d slely' a ra B and t ve eas4ment to access and enter the SPI.IC switclxgear."control b andto s[ ment ax d s attached hereto (thy $PU Cunu �u g) of ower to the City's Sub"Latl as requi x ment. The Parties harato [red by and ,.fated to N51�'S dLlive p itch ear /control building for NSP and a r ea s o n able urpo es t p n Milvat[of SPUC flows, and for the operation rn ain telanc'e, repa[r, ar replacement and a S a s P agree that upon comptctian of a sw d NSP p g parties that this easement s no longer needed for SPUC or permitteurp this easement to use tnc Si't� Gsanu_ Building shall be released b} NSP flung it recordable pa ial �clease of Easement. use of its tto and t ®rtfie ben ciit ofriSP, a11dfor its use and n= Parcel 3. Ae casc License City and S i ces hereby e p a ofvehicles and s. pedestrians over pt and across t City tcd easement irxce in tile event of permittees, anon erclus iye licenseforthepasssaS 4 ,� W tixnz. solely as required by and related to>oiSP'S exercise of the aforesai;i gran all emcrgzncy, N shall ;'tie established access Points, as the same ma; 'oc relocated from 16EANN SHEA (FRI) 4. 6'01 11; 40 /ST. 11: 37/N0.4260305984 P 4 4. Easements to Ra i with the Laii The easements created by this Placement sha run with the title to th_ land anti shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit ofall present and f urure owners of the City Psrce: arzl their respective successors and assi_,r.s. to the extent such casements benePt or burden the C;it} P?srce:. 5. Duration of Eaisements The easements granted hereby shall notterminate ifthc City's Substation is ne :onger operated by or for the exclusive benefit ofthe City or SPUC or their successor: or assigns; provided, ho-wever. that in such event the easements shall only continue if operational[-, required and used for the txclusiv_ purpose of allowing NSP's imasmisslon through flows, and the eaz ements =.hall not be used for 21ectris connection to or by any other part., except the City or SP1JC or their successors or assigns. 6. Minnesota Law This Easerrent shall be construed in accordance with the is ivs of the State of ?.tinr4;sota. 7. No Amendment This Easement is not intended to a mood the Dcan Lake Construction Agnim-mert dated Jul }• 30, 1999 or the Ownership acid Operation Agreement dated July 30, 1999, entered into benveea the parties. as either of the same may be supplemented, modified or amended. h is intended that this Easemimt ,•rill no: be inconsistent with the foregoing agreements. IN !WITNESS of this Easement, City. SPUD, and NSP have executed it as of the date sct out at its head. CITY; CITY OF SHAKOPEE 13% Its SPUC: SIIAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Its NNSPe NORTHERNSTATES POMIER COMPANY By.. its s its .�.,._ STATE OF MINN ESOTA ; ? �s. COI.JNTY OF The foregoing instn=ent was acknowledged before me this _ da; of 2001, by ac , of the City of Shakopee a Minnesota rnunicipa! corporation, on behalf of the corpor:,rmn. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA s s. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2001, l: as , of the Shakopee Public Litilitics Commission, on behalf of me commission. [votary ruoalc STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of . 2001, by acrd as and of Northern States Power Compan•, a Minnesota corporation. Notary Public BaremeAl ,$ VC r.1� tl7t_S .�'.:�•y:t� 7 DRAFrED BY: MCGRANI4 S F.A ANDERSON C'A RNIVAL STRAUGI-Itl :.cJP) 800 Nieollet Mall, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 -7035 X LEGAL DESCRIPTIO OF P• "L - rasa A, Registered Land Sa:� =e No. 172, files of the Regis of Tales, Scot Count, MinnesW E IT SnT. P TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: Surplus Equipment DATE: April 12, 2001 5 CONSENT Introduction & Background The city has the below listed equipment as surplus property. It is requested that it be declared as surplus so that it may be sold at the Hennepin County auctions this year. Action Move to declare the following property as surplus. Seized Vehicles 1988 Chev Van 1GCEG25KSJ7162271 1988 Honda PSI JHMBA4239JCO37325 1987 Plymouth Van 1P4FH5134HX122710 1990 Lincoln Cont lLNCM9744LY757077 City Vehicles 1992 Ford CVS 1983 Ford 1 Ton 1989 Ford Dump 1989 Chev 5 -10 2FACP72W2NX199831 1FDJF37G3DPA41545 1FDPF82K9KVA49287 1GCCS14E9K2201924 V Gr Voxland Finance Director C: \gregg \memo\ 15F5 Revised Consent CITY OF SHAKOPEE Mem TO: Mayor and Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: Surplus Equipment DATE: April 17, 2001 Introduction & Background The city has the below listed equipment as surplus property. It is requested that it be declared as surplus so that it may be sold at the Hennepin County auctions this year. Action Move to declare the following property as surplus. Seized Vehicles 1988 Chev Van 1GCEG25K5J7162271 1988 Honda PSI JHMDA4239JCO37325 1987 Plymouth Van 1P4FH5134HX122710 1990 Lincoln Cont lLNCM9744LY757077 City Vehicles 1993 Ford Taurus 1FACP5247PA226388 1983 Ford 1 Ton 1FDJF37G3DPA41545 1989 Ford Dump 1FDPF82K9KVA49287 1989 Chev 5 -10 1GCCS14E9K2201924 ;) �) Gregg Voxland Finance Director G \gregg \memo\ /,S7 F. b . Reappointment of Kenneth Scannell to three years terms on 1. Shakopee Cable Access Corporation Board of Dir 2. Shakopee Cable Advisory Commission Mr Scannell's terms expired 2/28/01. He had served three consecutive terms, and in adherance to City Policy, he wa§ not considered eligible for reappointment. However, the first 5 years of his 9 years were at a time when the Access Corporation met quarterly, and the Advisory Comission met annually. An argument could be made that his total time of service is less than had been the maximum intended to be capped by the Council's policy action. As vacancies exist on both groups, and Mr. Scannell has indicated an interest in continuing to serve, we recommend that he be appointed to an additional 3 -year term on each of the following: 1. Shakopee Cable Access Corporation Board of Directors 2. Shakopee Cable Advisory Commission u I i' E 1 i TECHNICAL & REGULA T Y VA VAT' N ZI INC. 13231 Henning Circle, N Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 Telephone (612)496 -0594 Fax (612)496 -2097 mm� /// TECHNICAL & REGULATORYEVALUATIONS GROUP, INC. 13231 Henning Circle, NE Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 Telephone (612)496 -0594 Fax (612)496 -2097 I. COMPANY DESCRIPTION ............ ............................... 1 II. PROJECT RESUMES ................. ............................... 4 III. SELECTED PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS .. ............................... 9 IV. EXTENDED RESUMES .............. ............................... 31 COMPANY DESCRIPTION The Technical & Regulatory Evaluations Group, formerly L. Lehman & Associates, Inc. is an international hydrogeologic consulting firm uniquely qualified in the area of radioactive waste management. Our staff consists of geologists, hydrogeologists, and geological engineers experienced in the evaluation of soil and ground water contamination, waste management and regulatory issues. Our experience ranges from the development of rules to regulate low -level radioactive waste disposal to the evaluation of site suitability for the disposal of high -level radioactive waste. The firm, based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, is a small business and is certified as a Woman's Business Enterprise. Technical & Regulatory Evaluations Group, (T Reg.) Inc. offers technical services regarding performance assessment and hydrologic investigations in addition to its specialization in radiologic issues. Relevant corporate and staff experience includes: Technical review of engineering and scientific reports, providing meaningful comments on technical findings and recommendations related to completeness, accuracy and compliance with federal and state regulations. • Technical evaluation of radionuclide transport and performance assessment at existing and proposed high -level and low -level radioactive waste disposal sites as well as contaminated defense facilities. Development and review of rules regulating high -level and low -level radioactive waste disposal. Ground water and contaminant transport modeling using state -of -the -art computer models and other numerical, analytical, and statistical techniques. Site suitability investigations for waste management facilities including solid, hazardous and radioactive waste. Participation in model validation exercises conducted by the Swedish Nuclear Inspectorate. This study termed INTRAVAL is a joint effort with the European Economic Committees, Nuclear Energy Agency and other countries such as Japan, USA, Canada, and Australia. The goal is to determine measures or conditions whereby models used to predict repository performance can be presumed "valid" Analysis and evaluation of problems related to ground water contamination and recommendations for remedial action at state and federal hazardous waste sites (RCRA and CERCLA/SARA), as well as mixed -waste and uranium mill tailings sites (UMTRAP /UMTRCA). T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications Planning and management of field activities (hydrogeologic testing, chemical sampling, and monitoring well installations). Expert witness testimony. To complement its hydrogeologic expertise, T Reg, Inc. has close working relationships with a diverse portfolio of experts from the supporting earth science disciplines, such as geology, geochemistry and geophysics. In addition, our years of working in the field of radioactive waste management have allowed us to work with a number of engineering firms whose expertise complements our own. Together with T Reg, these experts bring together years of research and practical experience assessing the suitability of sites and designs for the disposal of hazardous and radioactive materials. Many of T Reg's personnel have come from regulatory and government agencies, such as the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and the U.S. Geological Survey. In addition the firm utilizes computer specialists to assist in complex modeling and data processing. T Reg, Inc. has a comprehensive understanding of state and federal regulations applicable to radioactive, hazardous, and solid waste issues. The firm has drafted legislation, provided congressional and expert witness testimony, and developed regulations and standards for state as well as federal agencies charged with waste management responsibilities. An extensive library of environmental laws, regulations, and technical 'documents regarding waste management is maintained by the firm. In addition to this domestic experience, T Reg is a leader in the international technical arena. The company has facilitated international cooperations with the former Soviet Union regarding the technical and regulatory aspects of nuclear and hazardous waste management, and technology transfers. The company president, Ms. Lehman, and our Moscow staff have developed a unique knowledge and expertise in the Soviet nuclear waste management program. Ms. Lehman has personally visited a number of nuclear reactors, storage and disposal sites in the former Soviet Union. As an expert in the Russian nuclear program. Linda Lehman has provided briefings and reports to the European Commission, the National Academy of Sciences, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW), the Central Intelligence Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy. Ms. Lehman is the one of only a few American known to have been appointed to a Russian Interagency Working Group for the development of a Concept Document for the use of sealed radioactive sources in Industry in Russia. This appointment was by Gosatomnadzor of Russia, the State nuclear regulatory Committee. T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 2 Ms. Lehman participated in the review and development of several Russian Laws via the Duma committees. Ms. Lehman conducted extensive meetings on the terms of the laws with involved State Committees,Ministries, local authorities and intervenors. Ms. Lehman has translated into English language numerous Russian Laws and regulatory documents regarding nuclear and environmental permitting reguirements. Ms. Lehman was recently appointed to the Joint US/Russian Special Working Group on Regulatory Matters for the disposition of Russian Weapons grade plutonium. This working group was endorsed by the Undersecretary of Energy and the Ministry of Atomic Energy Deputy Minister at the executive session of the Joint Steering Committee on Plutonium Management in June of 1999. The company maintains contacts in the various ministries dealing with nuclear and hazardous waste disposal as well as many institutes that perform hydrologic and geologic research for these programs. Ms. Lehman and her Moscow staff developed a Guidebook for Oil and Gas Invstors in Russia, which assisted 11 major international oil companies complete applications for envirommntal permits in Russia. Some of these Russian institutes and ministries are as follows: • Ministry of Foreign Affairs • Ministry of Atomic Energy • Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources • Institute of Nuclear Safety • Institute of Water Problems • Khlopin Radium Institute • Leningrad Mining Institute • Ministry of Fuel and Power • Institute of Theoretical Physics - Chelyabinsk • Gosatomnadzor of Russia • Production Association Mayak - Chelyabinsk State Committee on Oil T Reg's predecessor, L. Lehman & Associates opened a representative office in Moscow in 1993, which is still maintained. Extensive effort has been put forth to assure top quality Russian personnel manage this office thus providing trustworthy and capable services. This allows efficient use of contract money at lower Russian labor rates and provides complete international communication capabilities. Ms. Lehman also maintains contacts in Kazakhstan with the Atomic Energy Agency, the National Nuclear Center, the Ministry of Science and the Ministry of Environmental Protection. Ms. Lehman has prepared reports for the European Commission and several large nuclear industry companies seeking to develop business in Kazakhstan. T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 3 L. Lehman & Associates, under the direction of Ms. Lehman, successfully completed some work in Latvia for the Latvian Department of Development and Environmental Protection. This work involved developing a life -cycle cost estimating computer program for the Latvian Radon Site, a low -level nuclear waste disposal site. Ms. Lehman also has lectured in Russian language for a seminar sponsored by the International Atomic Energy Agency on the topic of nuclear waste management in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, in September 1998.. Ms. Lehman speaks, reads and is capable of corresponding in Russian. Due to her unique skills in the former Soviet Union, Ms. Lehman has been used on numerous EU proposals, even though she is not an EU national. T Reg also maintains computer software in the cyrillic alphabet. The company has become skilled in daily communication with the Soviet Union. T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 4 II. PROJECT RESUMES LINDA L. LEAN, P.G. President EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: M.S. Hydrogeology, 1978 - University of South Florida B.S. Geology, 1975 - Florida Atlantic University SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS: Ms. Lehman, with experience as the Technical Director of several large, multi- disciplined nuclear waste management projects, has developed a solid professional base as a scientist, regulatory expert and project manager. She has over twenty years of experience in hydrogeology, with over ten years concentrating on nuclear waste issues. As principal of L. Lehman & Associates, Inc. and T Reg, Inc., Ms. Lehman is responsible for directing the firm's efforts in all aspects of projects undertaken by the firm. A more complete description of a representative sample of these clients is included in the Project Description section of this proposal. Ms. Lehman has directed the firm's efforts for clients including The Midwest Low -Level Radioactive Waste Commission, The Vermont Department of Public Service, the Connecticut Hazardous Waste Management Service, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, the Maine Bureau of Oil and Hazardous Materials, and the Michigan Low -Level Radioactive Waste Authority. Work tasks for these clients have included preparation and review of policy, regulatory, and technical documents such as site characterization plans, computer models, site selection criteria, regulations and facility design requirements. Ms. Lehman was retained by the New Mexico Office of the Attorney General to provide expert witness testimony concerning the Performance Assessment process at the U.S. DOE's Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP). Ms. Lehman was was also selected for an advisory panel to the U.S. EPA (NACEPT Panel) regarding compliance criteria for the technical compliance of the WIPP site. Ms. Lehman has recently been appointed to a USDOE advisory committee on the regulatory basis for plutonium disposition in Russia. Ms. Lehman also directed the firm's evaluation of the low -level and mixed waste disposal facilities at the DOE uranium processing facility in Fernald, Ohio; as well as the disposal and remediation of low- level, mixed. transuranic and high -level DOE defense wastes at the Hanford Reservation. She has also provided expert witness testimony relative to uranium mill processing facilities, and tailings disposal facilities. T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 5 Ms. Lehman has participated in numerous programs related to high -level nuclear waste. She has been a consultant to the State of Nevada's Nuclear Waste Project Office for 16 years, providing hydrogeologic and regulatory analyses to the State's high -level waste program. Ms. Lehman was also the State of Nevada's representative to the INTRAVAL program. This study was a joint effort with the European Economic Committees, Nuclear Energy Agency and other countries such as Japan, USA, Canada, and Australia. The goal was to determine measures or conditions whereby models used to predict repository performance can be presumed "valid ". As a Hydraulic Engineer with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), she provided technical review of the U.S. DOE High -Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Program at the Nevada Test Site and the Hanford Site with respect to hydrology, particularly ground water and solute transport modeling. Ms. Lehman developed the NRC conceptual hydrogeologic model at the Hanford Site in the Pasco Basin, and applied the SWIFT code to evaluate site suitability for a high -level radioactive waste repository. She also originated, implemented, and managed a large private contract for the NRC which provided a comparative analysis of computer codes used to license repositories and their applicability to specific sites. Ms. Lehman's working knowledge of nuclear waste regulations is extensive. She participated in the drafting and development of the NRC's 10 CFR 60 relating to high -level radioactive disposal, and in the development of Minnesota's Radioactive Waste Management Act (MN Statute 116C.71- 1160.74), and the Rules Relating to Exploratory Drilling for the Disposal of High -Level Radioactive Waste (MN Part 4410.7900- 4410.7934). This insight has allowed her to understand how state and federal regulations interact, and how to work within a tightly controlled regulatory environment. T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 6 PATRICIA A. LANG, P.E. Geological Engineer EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: B.S. Geological Engineering, 1978 - University of Minnesota ACTIVE REGISTRATION: Registered Geological Engineer, State of Minnesota, 1982 SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS: Ms. Lang has been associated with L. Lehman & Associates, and now T Reg, Inc. since 1987. She is registered as a Professional Geological Engineer. Her primary responsibilities at L. Lehman & Associates have been to provide review and comment on regulatory and technical documents. Ms. Lang serves as the Project Manager in the firm's work with the Midwest Interstate Low -Level Radioactive Waste Commission and the State of Connecticut and has provided critical review of site selection plans for low -level radioactive waste facilities. Prior to her work at L. Lehman & Associates, and T Reg, Inc., Ms. Lang was employed by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources where she was responsible for investigating the environmental impacts from mining activities. This work included assessment of ground water impacts from inorganic and organic chemical constituents related to mine drainage and reclamation projects. Ms. Lang directed the preparation and review of environmental documents including Environmental Assessment Worksheets and Environmental Impact Statements related to mining. She has also served as public education liaison on several projects such as a state Superfund landfill, waste processing facilities, and uranium exploration programs. In addition, she has served as inter - agency coordinator on several state programs. Ms. Lang has considerable experience implementing and establishing data bases for environmental projects utilizing personal and mainframe computers. She directed the development of a large land -use data base for the Mesabi Iron Range, and was instrumental in the automation of the leasing program for State owned mineral rights. Ms. Lang's field experience includes the supervision of field programs for solid waste management site selection studies. She has participated in logging of soils borings and soil classification of unconsolidated materials according to ASTM standards. T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 7 TIMOTHY P. BROWN Hydrogeologist EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: M.S. Civil Engineering, 1992 - University of Minnesota B.S. Geo- Engineering, 1990 - University of Minnesota B.S. Geophysics, 1990 - University of Minnesota SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS: Mr. Brown has participated in an international model validation group (INTRAVAL) as part of L. Lehman & Associates' project concerning the proposed high -level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. He reviewed and wrote comments concerning conceptual models and available data relating to unsaturated flow through the mountain for the State of Nevada. He implemented the multi -phase flow simulation computer code VTOUGH, which runs on a Cray Computer, to model flow through the unsaturated zone and estimate model output uncertainty as part of the INTRAVAL model validation process. Mr. Brown was principal investigator for the studies performed by the firm on the Sequoyah Fuels Uranium Conversion Plant in Gore, Oklahoma and on the Mound Nuclear Facility in Miamisburg, Ohio. His work involved review and analysis of ground water monitoring plans and compilation and interpretation of ground water data. Mr. Brown was also responsible for preparing reports, briefings and assisting with litigation inquiries and responses. Mr. Brown did his graduate work with Dr. R.J. Barnes incorporating uncertainty into the analytic element model of Dr. O.D.L. Strack. This work consisted of developing innovative techniques to incorporate statistical analysis in the deterministic model of Strack and resulted in a model of aquifer head uncertainty based on model boundary condition uncertainty. T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 8 Larisa S. Kalachova Hydrogeologist EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND M.S. 1982, Groundwater Hydrology - Lomonosov Moscow State University VNII VODGEO Research Institute, 1993, Ph-D, Groundwater Hydrology LANGUAGES Fluent in English and Russian SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS Dr. Kalachova is a hydrogeologist who has over 15 years of experience in computer applications and especially those dealing with modeling of groundwater flows. She has considerable experience with statistical modeling applications for placement and optimization of groundwater monitoring networks. She has conducted investigations for groundwater resources in river valleys for water supplies for cities and industrial enterprises and irrigation in the former USSR republics, the Ukraine and Tajikistan. Dr.. Kalachova is familiar with the Russian environmental regulatory system and has had experience in compliance of facilities drainage systems with the applicable Russian standards. She is familiar with how the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources processes for issuance of permits. Dr. Kalachova is a member of the task group for developmnt of procedures for creation of the Russian Nature Conservation trust fund. She is a member of the task group for organization of NATO Advanced Research Workshop held in Moscow 1996 and works in cooperation with the US Environmental Defense Fund. And the US Environmental Protection Agency. Dr. Kalachova is familiar with the most modern Electronic Mail systems and has facilitated communications with the west via E Mail and America On Line networks. T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 9 III. SELECTED PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS PROJECT: Yucca Mountain 3 -D Non - Isothermal Flow Model CLIENT: Electric Power Research Institute PROJECT DATES: August 1997 - August 1998 CONTACT: John Kessler T -Reg, Inc. was retained to complete a three - dimensional groundwater flow model utilizing heat as a flow path tracer. This involved cooperation with John Bredehoeft in incorporating aspects of his heat flow and permeability ideas. This computer analyses was done to ascertain direction and velocity understanding in a structurally controlled flow field. These values were to be utilized in transport calculations. PROJECT: Radioactive Waste Storage Siting CLIENT: Northern States Power Company PROJECT DATES: July 1994 CONTACT: Jim Alders 612/330 -6732 L. Lehman & Associates was retained to provide expertise and assistance in the siting of a dry cask storage facility for nuclear reactor fuel assemblies. Northern States Power was required by the Minnesota Legislature to site a storage facility off of the generating site at Prairie Island, Minnesota. This site must be approved by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board as well as the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. L. Lehman & Associates provides program management and technical services needed to select and screen potential locations for storing the dry casks. L. Lehman & Associates will also provide oversight of the technical program as a whole and liaison with various citizen groups involved. Once a site and alternative are selected L. Lehman & Associates will provide assistance with the U.S. NRC license application as well as the application to the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board. T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 10 PROJECT: Reports on Technical Policy Developments in Russia CLIENTS: The Commission of European Community, COGEMA, SGN, NUSYS, Nuclear Assurance Corporation, British Nuclear Fuels, Nuclear Protection and Safety Institute (CEA) PROJECT DATES: January 1993 to present L. Lehman & Associates has been retained by various organizations to provide expertise and research relating to developing Russian laws and regulations pertaining to nuclear and environmental issues. Clients are provided briefing reports and ongoing access to information and expert advise accumulated via research done from L. Lehman & Associates Moscow office. The briefing reports provide a roadmap of sorts, through the maize of changing Russian regulation regarding nuclear environmental and policy issues. T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 11 PROJECT: Report on Oil and Gas Environmental Permitting in Russia CLIENTS: Amoco Eurasia, BHP Petroleum, Chevron Overseas Petroleum, Exxon, Neste Exploration & Production, Timan Pechora Company L.L.0 and Shell Internationale Petroleum PROJECT DATES: January 1994 to present L. Lehman & Associates published a guidebook which describes the procedures for joint venture registration, permitting, and licensing for the use of natural resources in Russia. It also describes the requirements for environmental impact assessment and competitive biddings for the oil and gas industry. Appendices of the guidebook contain full translations of Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources' regulations and is current through March 1995. The Guidebook is designed to assist foreign companies, investors, lawyers, environmental and safety managers operating in the Russian market and to overcome the difficulties connected with the evolving nature of Russian legislation. T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 12 PROJECT: Yucca Mountain High -Level Program CLIENT: State of Nevada Nuclear Waste Project Office PROJECT DATES: 1984 to present CONTACT: Carl Johnson - Manager of Technical Programs 702/687 -3744 The State of Nevada was selected by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) as a potential host for a high -level nuclear waste repository. L. Lehman & Associates is retained by the State of Nevada to provide assistance to the State in its review and monitoring of DOE's activities. The firm's primary responsibility is to oversee the hydrologic aspects of the Nevada Nuclear Waste Storage Investigations taking place at Yucca Mountain on the Nevada Test Site. Work performed has included a variety of technical and management tasks. In its technical capacity, L. Lehman & Associates has reviewed numerous documents prepared by the DOE, its contractors, and other federal agencies. The firm is responsible for much of the technical and procedural analyses of regulations as well as scientific investigations. Reviewed technical reports include a series of hydrologic modeling investigations and performance assessments performed by Sandia National Labs, the U.S. Geological Survey, Lawrence Berkeley and Los Alamos National Labs for the DOE. A significant effort undertaken by the firm was to review the Site Characterization Plan prepared by the DOE as a tool in planning the measures needed to fully assess suitability of the Yucca Mountain site as a repository for high -level nuclear waste. The site characterization by DOE will include such activities as developing a network of boreholes to monitor ground water fluctuations and trace contaminants. As an adjunct to this review, L. Lehman & Associates is evaluating water level data to identify the saturated zone response to recharge events. By mathematically defining the behavior of the ground water systems, the hydrologic conditions at the site will be better understood. L. Lehman & Associates has been responsible for covering performance assessment work developing in the international arena under such programs as INTRAVAL, GEOVAL the Nuclear Energy Agency, the IAEA and other countries developing performance capabilities. L. Lehman & Associates has attended a number of international conferences on performance assessment issues and recently participated in a NEA symposium of scenario development for high -level and low -level repositories held in Paris, 1989. In providing project management assistance to the State of Nevada, L. Lehman & Associates aided in the development of Request for Proposals for the state to obtain additional consultants in other areas of technical expertise. In addition, the firm has assisted the state personnel in developing workplans to direct their efforts in evaluating DOE's activities. T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 13 PROJECT: Russian Law Regulatory Analysis CLIENT: European Utility (Confidential) PROJECT DATES: January 1993 to May 1993 L. Lehman & Associates, Inc. has been retained by a European Utility to provide an understanding of the administrative and legal steps involved in the purchase of enriched uranium and the return of spent fuel to Russia for reprocessing (fuel lease option). L. Lehman & Associates' Moscow office is providing this European Utility with a presence in Russia allowing them a realistic picture of the existing political and legal structure. With this information they will determine the best approach to negotiations. Reports on the developing Russian laws and regulations will be prepared. PROJECT: Soviet Union Technology Transfer CLIENT: Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) PROJECT DATES: January 1992 to August 1992 CONTACT: Joe Angelo, 407/676 -5707 L. Lehman & Associates, Inc., serving as a sub - contractor to SAIL, worked for Sandia National Laboratories to provide information on environmental restoration technologies. Staff personnel are responsible for identifying contaminated sites and technologies within the former Soviet Union that are suitable for possible joint US -USSR demonstration projects. The ultimate objective of the project is to cooperatively transfer "high- leverage" Soviet technologies and techniques to support U.S. waste management and environmental restoration objectives. Specific L. Lehman & Associates' tasks have drawn on the firm's professional experience and established interaction capabilities with relevant Soviet institutes and ministries. Following consultations with such bodies, a final report identifying contaminated facilities, their potential as a potential joint restoration project, and a list of various Soviet waste remediation technologies was submitted. T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 14 PROJECT: WIPP Performance Assessment CLIENT: New Mexico Office of the Attorney General PROJECT DATES: September 1991 to November 1992 CONTACT: Lindsay Lovejoy 505/827 -6695 In response to the Administrative Land Withdrawal of 1454 acres of New Mexico land for disposal of trans- uranic waste, the New Mexico Attorney General's office filed suit to prevent the U.S. Department of Energy's bypassing of Congress. L. Lehman & Associates has been retained by the State of New Mexico to provide technical assistance and expert witness testimony concerning the Performance Assessment process at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). Our analysis focuses on review of U.S. DOE contractor documents regarding wet and dry bin tests, alcove tests, solubility tests, and laboratory experiments. L. Lehman & Associates is also providing general technical advice to the Attorney General's office on general concepts and potential issues relating to the Performance Assessment of WIPP. PROJECT: Rare Earths Facility CLIENT: Lord, Bissell & Brook PROJECT DATES: December 1989 CONTACT: John Pfeiffer 312/443 -1770 L. Lehman & Associates was consulted by the law firm of Lord, Bissell & Brook to provide expertise in the evaluation of the Rare Earths Facility in West Chicago, Illinois. The remaining material at the closed plant site has significant amounts of uranium and thorium which can pose a radiological threat both to intruders on the site and to the environment. The primary waste present is the form of tailings generated from the processing of ore for thorium and other rare -earth elements. L. Lehman & Associates conducted a statutory and regulatory review to determine the wastes' classification in terms of applicable legal definitions. This effort included tracing the history of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, as well as the chronological development of relevant regulations promulgated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its predecessor agencies. Of primary concern, was the issue of how the tailings fit into the complex definitions of source, special nuclear and by- product material. T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 15 PROJECT: Sioux High -Level Waste Technical Review CLIENT: Upper and Lower Sioux Communities PROJECT DATES: 1986 CONTACT: John Robertson 507/697 -6185 L. Lehman & Associates, Inc. was retained by the Upper and Lower Sioux Communities to provide expert technical assistance and background information regarding the U.S. DOE high -level waste program in general and the Crystalline Repository Project in Particular. The major focus of the firms work was to evaluate the DOE Draft Area Recommendation Report (DARR), and the impact of the DARR on the Upper and Lower Sioux Communities. The DARR was a milestone document in the DOE Crystalline Rock Project. The DARR was a comprehensive document which presented the geotechnical factors considered by DOE for the selection of rock bodies potentially usable for a mined geologic repository for high -level nuclear waste. A screening process was to be used to reduce the number of candidate sites. The preparation of the Draft Area Recommendation Report was related to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA); and was the basis for identifying States and Tribes which might have been directly affected by the location of a high -level nuclear waste repository. L. Lehman & Associates prepared for the Upper and Lower Sioux Communities, a background report on the NWPA and previous DOE activities. One of the major considerations for the client was whether or not the communities should seek affected Tribe status on the basis of geology and/or hydrology. To support the Upper and Lower Sioux Communities application for affected Tribe status, L. Lehman & Associates prepared a Geology/Hydrology Technical Report. This effort included ground water and surface water flow analyses and interpretations for the two areas and assessed potential adverse impacts on the Tribal Lands. T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 16 PROJECT: Minnesota High -Level Technical Review CLIENT: Minnesota Governor's Nuclear Waste Council PROJECT DATES: 1984 to 1986 CONTACT: Gregg Larson - Previous Director 612/293 -0126 Tom Kalitowski - Previous Chairman; presently on Minnesota State Court of Appeals 612/297 -3530 The Minnesota Governor's Nuclear Waste Council was established to review and monitor the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in its efforts to select potential sites for a high -level nuclear waste repository in Minnesota. L. Lehman & Associates, Inc. was selected as the prime technical consultant to review the U.S. Department of Energy Crystalline Repository Project (CRP) regarding siting of the second repository. Up until postponement of the second round, work under this project involved review and comment on DOE /CRP milestone documents and supporting technical reports; formal review of DOE, NRC, and EPA rulemaking proceedings; monitoring Canadian and International research of crystalline rock for high -level waste disposal including state -of -the -art fracture flow investigations; and attendance at technical meetings on behalf of the State to interact with DOE representatives regarding high -level waste issues. L. Lehman & Associates also coordinated the development of technical workplans for the State. This involved helping to develop strategic plans for the State of Minnesota's overall program ranging from strictly technical matters to policy issues of the Governor's staff. This activity included helping establish a Citizen's Advisory Task Force and the development of public educational materials. The firm also assisted the State in preparing Request for Proposals to obtain consultants in other technical areas. T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 17 PROJECT: State Planning Agency High -Level Technical Review CLIENT: State of Minnesota, State Planning Agency PROJECT DATES: July 1987 to January 1988 CONTACT: Bill Clausen, Director High -Level Waste Program 612/297 -4025 The State of Minnesota was under consideration for a high -level nuclear waste repository under the second round of the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) repository siting process. This effort was suspended by the DOE in May of 1986. The DOE has continued to fund research for their Crystalline Repository Project (CRP) in countries outside the U.S. The State of Minnesota retained L. Lehman & Associates for the purpose of following the progress of the DOE's international activities. Of particular importance to Minnesota was the Canadian program, referred to as the Canadian Nuclear Fuel Waste Management Program. The primary research location is at Pinawa, Manitoba where the Underground Research Laboratory is located. This laboratory extends 835 feet into granite bedrock. These same types of Canadian Shield rocks comprise the bedrock underlying the northern two- thirds of Minnesota. L. Lehman & Associates had several tasks under its agreement with the State of Minnesota. The firm monitored the DOE - funded Canadian and European research and provided briefings to State personnel. The firm was also responsible for reviewing and providing technical comments on other DOE and U.S. Agencies activities under the NWPA. T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 18 PROJECT: Yakima High -Level Waste Technical Support CLIENT: Yakima Indian Nation (YIN) Toppenish, Washington PROJECT DATES: 1983 to 1986 CONTACT: Jack Wittman, Technical Advisor 509/865 -5121 The Yakima Indian Nation (YIN) is located in the Northwest part of the United States with Tribal government headquartered in Toppenish, Washington. L. Lehman & Associates' early association with the YIN provided them with technical evidence to obtain affected Tribe status under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) since their lands adjoin a possible high - level nuclear waste repository site at Hanford, Washington. Under further contract with the YIN, L. Lehman & Associates initiated and provided coordination of the YIN technical program as outlined under the NWPA for review of the U.S. Department of Energy Basalt Waste Isolation Project at Hanford. Technical review activities in this capacity included, but were not limited to, computer modeling using the NWFT/DVM and SWIFT flow and transport models, and statistical analyses on hydrogeochemical parameters to independently assess the DOE's Draft Environment Assessment findings. The firm transferred the SWIFT code to the CRAY computers at the Minnesota Supercomputer Center to accelerate the processing of hydrogeologic data. Interaction with the DOE and the NRC and other relevant agencies in regards to technical and regulatory matters, including attendance at meetings, were also standard activities of the project. In addition, L. Lehman & Associates coordinated various subcontracts for the YIN. Finally, issues related to the defense wastes at Hanford were investigated on behalf of the YIN. This effort required L. Lehman & Associates to extensively review and provide technical comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Disposal of Hanford Defense High- Level. Transuranic and Tank Wastes This document examined the environmental impacts for the selection and implementation of a final disposal strategy for the high -level waste, transuranic waste, and liquid tank radioactive wastes generated during rational defense activities. A great variety of radioactive elements are contained in these wastes including readily transportable (geohydrologically) isotopes 14 C, 99 Tc, and 129 I. Of particular concern was the shallow disposal of high -level liquid tank radioactive wastes in the unsaturated zone of alluvial deposits. L. Lehman & Associates conducted hydrogeologic analyses in parallel with compliance requirements promulgated under the NWPA, SDWA, NEPA, RCRA and applicable Washington State regulations. T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 19 PROJECT: Tatum Dome Nuclear Test Site CLIENT: Hogan & Hartson, Attorneys at Law PROJECT DATES: August 1993 to October 1993 CONTACT: Ken Farber, Attorney 202/637 -5600 Lee Woodruff 601/948 -5711 L. Lehman & Associates was retained by Hogan & Hartson to provide technical review in support of expert witness testimony regarding this former nuclear test site. The case involved determination of the extent of contamination and the impact of such contamination on land values. The case was unusual in that we represented the estate of Mr. Frank Tatum. The estate was being sued over failure to report a gift of land. The land in question contained a salt dome that was used for underground nuclear testing in the 1960s. In addition to determining the extent of contamination from the tests and support activities, the case required evaluating the impact of these activities on land values. Specific work involved review of site geology and analysis of contaminant releases at the site. The findings of our work were used in testimony for the Tatum estate. U.S. Department of Energy Remedial Investigation (RI) Plans were also evaluated for completeness. Comments on the RI work plan were submitted to DOE on behalf of the estate. T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 20 PROJECT: Midwest Low -Level Technical Support CLIENT: Midwest Interstate Low -Level Radioactive Waste Compact Commission PROJECT DATES: July 1988 to present CONTACT: Gregg Larson, Executive Director 612/293 -0126 L. Lehman & Associates was retained by the Midwest Low -Level Radioactive Waste Commission to provide technical assistance to the Commission and to the former Host State, Michigan, in the siting, development and operation of the Midwest Compact's low -level waste disposal facility. This work includes such items as milestone documentation, solicitation of contractors, site selection and characterization, assessment of disposal technologies, and compliance with federal regulations. The firm completed an extensive review of Michigan's Siting Criteria. The goal of the project was to compare the criteria to federal and state requirements to determine if the restrictiveness of the criteria prevented the state from finding a site. Part of L. Lehman & Associates' role as Prime Contractor to the Commission is management of subcontractors in the areas of engineering and health physics. Much of this work involves the review of technical reports produced by technical contractors involved in other aspects of the siting and design of the low -level radioactive waste disposal facility within the current Host State, Ohio. L. Lehman & Associates and its subcontractors work on a Task Order basis with the Commission to provide it with the technical expertise it requires on a number of technical and regulatory issues. PROJECT: Latvia Low -Level Waste Life -Cycle Cost Projection CLIENT: Latvia Low -Level Radioactive Waste Ministry PROJECT DATES: February 1994 to August 1994 CONTACT: Diane Conrad 802/241 -3499 The Latvian government is currently operating a low -level radioactive waste facility near Riga. A number of economic issues are currently hampering operation of this facility. L. Lehman & Associates was asked to provide a methodology for determining expected life - cycle costs to start, operate, and close the site. Work to date includes a site visit. evaluation of the situation, and development of cost - projection computer software. The site visit was critical to establish the present condition of the facility and evaluate operation procedures. T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 21 PROJECT: Vermont Low -Level Waste Technical Support CLIENT: Vermont Department of Public Service PROJECT DATES: July 1991 to September 1993 CONTACT: William K. Sherman, Nuclear Engineer 802/828 -2811 The Vermont Department of Public Service (DPS) represents the public interest for the people of the State of Vermont. Under directive of Vermont law, the DPS must advise the Vermont Public Service Board in matters relating to establishing rates for the disposal of low -level nuclear waste. L. Lehman & Associates has been retained by the DPS to provide on -call technical assistance in their low -level waste activities. Duties to date include review of work contracts awarded by various state agencies, technical review of the state siting program, estimation of costs to implement this plan, and presentation of expert witness testimony for a rate case filing. PROJECT: Connecticut Low -Level Waste Technical Support CLIENT: Connecticut Hazardous Waste Management Service PROJECT DATES: August 1990 to November 1990 CONTACT: Ron Gingerich, Executive Director 203/244 -2007 The Connecticut Hazardous Waste Management Service (HWMS) was given responsibility under Connecticut law to site and develop a low -level radioactive waste disposal facility in Connecticut. As part of this responsibility, the HWMS developed and implemented siting criteria. L. Lehman & Associates was retained by the Connecticut Hazardous Waste Management Service to provide on -call technical assistance to its low -level radioactive waste disposal program. This assistance has primarily consisted of the development of siting criteria for a low -level waste disposal facility. T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 22 PROJECT: Connecticut Low -Level Waste Regulatory Review CLIENT: Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection PROJECT DATES: June 1989 to July 1989 CONTACT: Shepard Linscott, Radiation Physicist 203/566 -5668 Under Connecticut law, the Department of Environmental Protection was designated responsibility for developing rules to regulate the construction, operation, closure, and post - closure monitoring of low -level radioactive waste facilities. L. Lehman & Associates was retained by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection to review its draft regulations for Low -Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities. This review focused on a number of technical, regulatory and procedural matters. These include the fulfillment of State of Connecticut legislation, as well as compliance with rules and guidance of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). L. Lehman & Associates also determined the ramifications regarding the siting and development efforts of the Hazardous Waste Management Service and their relation to the Siting Council. Implications concerning the evolving issues of mixed waste, Below - Regulatory Concern (BRC) wastes, and Naturally- Occurring and Accelerator- Produced Radioactive Materials were assessed, as well as other technical aspects of the legislation. PROJECT: Maine Low -Level Waste Regulatory Development CLIENT: State of Maine, Bureau of Oil and Hazardous Materials Control PROJECT DATES: February 1988 to September 1988 CONTACT: Ms. Mary James, Project Manager 207/289 -2651 L. Lehman & Associates, Inc. was retained by the State of Maine to develop rules for low - level radioactive waste management. This effort required the drafting of state rules that incorporated rules and guidance from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as well as satisfying relevant state regulations regarding solid and hazardous waste management. A necessary component of the work with Maine involved participation in disseminating information and testifying before the public. Formal administrative procedures, regulatory and statutory analyses, public comment response documentation, and technical evaluations and interpretations were integral portions of this project. T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 23 PROJECT: Portsmouth CLIENT: Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., L.P.A. PROJECT DATES: January 1992 to present CONTACT: Louise Roselle 513/621 -0267 L. Lehman, President of T Reg, Inc. is retained by Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley to provide hydrologic review and expert witness testimony services regarding litigation at DOE's Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant. The facility, in southeastern Ohio, is operated by Martin Marietta Energy Systems for the DOE to produce enriched uranium -238. The uranium is used in commercial and defense nuclear reactors. Project tasks comprised a comprehensive hydrogeologic evaluation of the facility as to advise our client on the environmental status of the site and recommend project direction. Beginning with an extensive document review process, T Reg and L. Lehman & Associates analyzed environmental impacts from approximately 40 years of site operation. The site contains four RCRA waste disposal sites in various stages of closure. Each has an independent monitoring system that complements the site -wide monitoring program. As part of our evaluation, the adequacy of this program was evaluated, and recommendations were made on several deficiencies. Key to our site -work was establishing past, present and future contaminant migration patterns. Several ground water and surface water plumes are present at the facility. The nature, extent and potential impact of these plumes to area residents is the heart of testimony provided on behalf of our client. The case is currently awaiting trial. An expert opinion report has been prepared and submitted to the court. Additional work has included deposition of Linda Lehman and technical support to the client in deposing the opponents experts. T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 24 PROJECT: Mound CLIENT: Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., L.P.A. PROJECT DATES: January 1992 to present CONTACT: Louise Roselle 513/621 -0267 L. Lehman & Associates, Inc., now T Reg, Inc. was retained to provide technical review and expert witness testimony in regard to hydrogeologic and related environmental studies performed at the Mound Plant near Miamisburg, Ohio. The Mound Plant is currently operated by EG &G Mound Applied Technologies for the U.S. Department of Energy and performs production, development, and research in support of weapon and energy related programs. The Mound site has been contaminated over time by radioactive plutonium -238, tritium and other hazardous constituents associated with these activities. L. Lehman & Associates and now T Regs' role is to provide technical expertise to a law firm representing a class- action suit against the U.S. DOE and former operators. The purpose of the firms review was to ascertain the adequacy of previous environmental studies and remediation at the site and to offer comment on the effectiveness of these activities as well as the likelihood of significant community exposure to contaminants. Technical review of previous reports and collected data focused on the extent of surface and ground water contaminant migration. Several scenarios analyzing the extent of contamination and possible migration were examined based on existing data. The likelihood of human exposure through drinking water wells, soil contact, and recreational use of the adjacent Great Miami River were then assessed based on the available data, analysis, and field observations. This class - action suit is still pending as the DOE examines clean -up alternatives. PROJECT: Sequoyah Fuels Corporation's Gore Oklahoma Site. CLIENT: Native Americans for a Clean Environment (NACE) PROJECT DATES: March 1991 to present CONTACT: Lance Hughes, Nace Director 918/458 -4322 L. Lehman & Associates provided expertise and expert witness services on hydrologic and regulatory issues for NACE. Sequoyah Fuels Corporation's Gore, Oklahoma Site processed uranium yellowcake to uranium hexaflouride needed for the nuclear fuel cycle. Due to a major accident and a poor safety record. Sequoyah Fuels closed its Gore operation in 1993. L. Lehman & Associates provided NACE with expertise to assist in NACE's successful legal bid for affected party status, as well as providing comments submitted to the U.S. NRC and U.S. EPA regarding nuclear decommissioning and clean -up under RCRA regulation. T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 25 PROJECT: Cotter Mill CLIENT: Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., L.P.A. PROJECT DATES: December 1989 to March 1994 CONTACT: Louise Roselle 513/621 -0267 L. Lehman & Associates was retained to provide technical review and expert witness testimony regarding hydrologic conditions at the Cotter Uranium Mill site, Canon City, Colorado. Cotter Corporation, a wholly -owned subsidiary of Commonwealth Edison Companies, has operated a uranium mill near Canon City in south - central Colorado from 1958 to 1987. Off -site release of mill process materials has been reported. As a result of these materials migrating into the nearby town of Lincoln Park, the Colorado Department of Health established a consent decree with Cotter for clean up under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). L. Lehman & Associates' role was to review existing studies to determine the nature and extent of contamination at the site. Under the consent agreement, a remedial action plan has been developed to reduce further impact form the site. A Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study has been completed for the site. Technical review focused on ground water contamination including potential pathways and maximum probable extent. Several contaminant migration pathways have been proposed. In order to determine maximum probable extent, and thus the size of the class for the lawsuit, all potential pathways were evaluated. PROJECT: Twin Cities Arsenal CLIENT: Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. PROJECT DATES: September 1989 CONTACT: Clarence Stoffel, P.E. Project Manager 800/472 -5881 L. Lehman & Associates, Inc. was retained by SEH to perform radiological screening at a national Superfund site. A construction project SEH was involved with at the Twin Cities Arsenal in New Brighton, MN required a screening for dangerous levels of ionizing radiation as part of the site safety program. Services provided by L. Lehman & Associates included surveying the property as part of a larger survey team and documentation of survey results including description of regional background levels and exposure limits for ionizing radiation. A key factor in the project was our rapid deployment of a field team to meet the clients schedule needs. T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 26 PROJECT: Fernald Ohio CLIENT: Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., L.P.A. PROJECT DATES: July 1987 to August 1989 CONTACT: Louise Roselle 513/621 -0267 L. Lehman & Associates, Inc. was retained to provide technical review and expert witness testimony in regard to hydrogeologic and related environmental studies performed at the Feed Materials Production Center (FMPC) at Fernald, Ohio. The FMPC is currently operated by Westinghouse for the U.S. Department of Energy as part of its defense facilities for the production of high purity uranium metal used in nuclear reactors. The FMPC site has been contaminated over time by radioactive uranium and other hazardous constituents associated with processing. L. Lehman & Associates role was to provide technical expertise to a law firm representing a class- action suit against the U.S. DOE and former operators. The purpose of L. Lehman & Associates review was to ascertain the adequacy of previous environmental studies done at the site and to offer recommendations for further analyses. To establish a foundation for the technical review, L. Lehman & Associates first provided a review and summary of the federal regulations for the DOE's operation of nuclear defense facilities. This required integrating the applicable components of several regulations including those promulgated under RCRA, CERCLA/SARA, SDWA, and the Clean Air Act. Technical review of previous reports focused on the extent of ground water contamination. Several scenarios analyzing the extent of contamination and possible migration were examined based on existing data. These scenarios addressed both airborne and waterborne methods of release, as well as the possibility of naturally occurring elevated levels of uranium. The firm also examined the work proposed pursuant to the preliminary RI/FS work prepared by the DOE to insure that the work plan was complete and adequate. Efforts on this project entailed independent sampling and analysis of DOE's wells that are outside the boundaries of the FMPC to verify the levels of off -site contamination. The class - action suit was settled out of court, and the site is currently under going remediation being conducted by the U.S. DOE. T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 27 PROJECT: Flying Cloud Landfill CLIENT: City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota PROJECT DATES: March 1986 to April 1995 CONTACT: Carl Jullie, City Manager 612/937 -2262 Richard Rosow, City Legal Council 612/338 -0755 The City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota is host for the Flying Cloud Landfill, a regional landfill operated by Browning Ferris Industries (BFI). The landfill is situated on a 200 foot bluff composed of glacial drift and alluvial deposits. This bluff borders the Minnesota River Valley. The landfill, which opened in 1970, is experiencing a continuing release of hazardous contaminants to the ground water and a wildlife refuge in the river valley. The landfill is presently undergoing the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) process under a consent order between BFI and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. L. Lehman & Associates was retained by the City of Eden Prairie to assist them in a two -fold capacity. First, technical review and oversight of the RI/FS process on behalf of the City. Secondly, serving as technical representative for the City when the operator applied for a permit to expand the capacity of the landfill. The tasks performed by L. Lehman & Associates were managed to develop technical information appropriate for these overlapping responsibilities without duplication of effort. RI/FS review performed for the City includes characterization of regional ground water flow system, determination of contaminant migration, and review of proposed remediation processes. The site's ground water flow system is complicated by the variable nature of the glacial drift deposits. Contaminant migration characterization was accomplished with the aid of a database developed and maintained by L. Lehman & Associates. Complete plume characterization involved calculating ground water travel time and analytical modeling of solute transport. Regular sampling events are analyzed and current plume trends are reported to the City. Interaction with on -going remediation projects on behalf of the City has included commenting on the site monitoring program and technical review of remediation technologies selected for the site. Review has focused on a ground water extraction/barrier well system as well as a landfill gas collection system. L. Lehman & Associates has represented the City at meetings between the operator and the regulatory agency to discuss remediation proposals. Regarding the operators application for expansion of the facility, L. Lehman & Associates offered regulatory review of permit requirements for such an expansion, technical review of design plans, expert witness testimony when the City initiated a contested case hearing, and general on -call technical assistance to the City and its legal counsel. Regulatory review involved establishing the need for a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) when the RI/FS investigation brought out concerns not addressed in the original EIS T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 28 Regulatory review was also required to address fitness of the site under changing state and federal landfill siting laws. Expert witness testimony was offered in a successful bid to block expansion of facility. L. Lehman & Associates provided testimony as the City's central witness in a case where the regulatory agency was in favor of the expansion. This case was won by the City after the operator withdrew its expansion application. Remediation efforts are on -going at the landfill. PROJECT: Ponderosa Landfill CLIENT: Mankato Area Environmentalists PROJECT DATES: April 1994 CONTACT: Katy Wortel 507/345 -4494 L. Lehman & Associates performed a review of plans for an expansion at the Ponderosa Landfill. Local citizens, concerned about environmental impacts from the expansion, asked for a review of ground water impacts from the expansion, closure plans for the existing fill area, and any impacts from the flood of 1993. Because the citizens' group had limited funding, review had to quickly identify key issues. Our review considered site geology, design of the existing landfill, plans for the expansion (which included vertical and horizontal components), current ground water contamination, compliance criteria for the existing facility, and a land treatment proposal for leachate generated by the expansion. The review and letter of comment to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency were completed within the group's time and budgetary limitations. PROJECT: Galles Development CLIENT: Glen Galles PROJECT DATES: November 1994 to May 1994 CONTACT: Glen Galles 612/432 -5736 L. Lehman & Associates provided expertise to Glen Galles in determining the applicability of federal and state wetland regulations to wet areas on a proposed residential development. L. Lehman & Associates delineated and defined wet areas on the property and provided information to successfully show that these areas were exempt from regulation. T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 29 PROJECT: Bolshevik Biscuit Factory CLIENT: Dames & Moore International PROJECT DATES: February 1994 CONTACT: Jeff Jeter 44 -81- 891 -6161 Under subcontract to Dames & Moore International, London, L. Lehman & Associates is providing technical assistance for an environmental audit of the Bolshevik Biscuit Factory. The factory is located in Moscow. Our company's work under this subcontract includes evaluation of potential contamination relating to the processing facility and coordination between environmental regulatory bodies. The work was concluded through L. Lehman & Associates' Moscow office. PROJECT: Flying Cloud Airport CLIENT: City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota PROJECT DATES: January 1993 to present CONTACT: Craig Dawson, Assistant City Manager 612/937 -2262 L. Lehman & Associates has been retained by the city of Eden Prairie to provide environmental impact assessment of a proposed expansion to the existing Flying Cloud Airport. The city is concerned about noise and environmental impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods and the adjacent Minnesota River Valley Wildlife Refuge. Draft Environmental Impact Assessment Worksheets have been prepared. Site specific issues of concern include the presence of roadways at both ends of the proposed runway expansion, landing glide planes, surface water impacts and potential ground water contamination. An early task in the project was preparation of an environmental monitoring program to establish the existing surface and ground water condition. T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 30 PROJECT: Peterson/Puritan Manufacturing CLIENT: James V. Tracy PROJECT DATES: March 1991 to May 1991 CONTACT: James V. Tracy 703/448 -0497 L. Lehman & Associates, under subcontract to James Tracy, assisted in data analysis for and writing of the RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) Report for the CCL Manufacturing Facility. Facing tight project timelines, James Tracy sought assistance with preparation of the RFI. The manufacturing facility in Danville, Illinois was undergoing evaluation pursuant to an Administrative Order of Consent between CCL Custom Manufacturing, Inc. (formerly Peterson/Puritan) and the U.S. EPA. The purpose of the study was to determine the nature and extent of the presence of any release or the potential for future release of hazardous constituents from the facility. Our work included data analysis and report writing. Monitoring data from the site was entered into a database, then analyzed. Analysis included spacial distribution of hazardous constituents, concentration changes over time, and evaluation of contaminant transport mechanisms. Report preparation was a major part of the project. L. Lehman & Associates assisted with report formatting and technical writing. The ability to provide rapid turnaround times was a key factor for this project. PROJECT: Las Vegas Water District CLIENT: James Tracy PROJECT DATES: August 1990 to May 1991 CONTACT: James Tracy 703/448 -0497 L. Lehman & Associates was subcontracted by James Tracy to assist in a ground water modeling study. The Las Vegas Water District is conducting a study to determine maximum ground water withdrawal rates for the Nevada regional carbonate aquifer. The Study combines several smaller scale modeling efforts, linking individual ground water basin models into a large regional study. L. Lehman & Associates is providing technical review of the individual basin modeling studies and assisting with the implementation of the regional model. Using the computer code MODFLOW 3 -D, LLA staff compiled input data from various sources and executed the code on in -house computer equipment. Through interaction with Mr. Tracy, the model inputs were refined to match various test case parameters. T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 31 PROJECT: Hennepin County Landfill Siting Program CLIENT: Barr Engineering PROJECT DATES: October 1987 to March 1988 CONTACT: Len Kramer, Principal 612/835 -0554 L. Lehman & Associates was hired by Barr Engineering to provide field inspectors to supervise and evaluate a soils drilling program at four potential landfill sites in Hennepin County. Barr served as the Prime Contractor to Hennepin County for the characterization of the potential sanitary landfill sites. The goal of the project was to provide geologic data for preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement on each site. L. Lehman & Associates' personnel provided field services as well as analysis of geologic data. Field services provided included: supervision of multiple drilling crews; direction of sample collection; analysis of samples according to ASTM classifications; selection of soil boring and monitoring well installation locations; maintaining activity logs; serving as public relations representative to local citizens; and assisting with geophysical investigations. Data interpretation and analysis activities included in -field interpretation of geologic conditions including cross - sections based on real -time sample analysis and water table characteristics based water level measurements in boreholes and piezometers. T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 32 IV. EXTENDED RESUMES Linda L. Lehman, President Technical & Regulatory Evaluations Group, Inc. 13231 Henning Circle NE Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 (612) 496 -0594 University of South Florida, M.S., 1978, Hydrogeology Florida Atlantic University, B.S., 1975, Geology all 1 . 1 10 It t l to]: W President/Principal Hvdrogeologist L. Lehman & Associates, Inc., 1985 - 1996 Technical & Regulatory Evaluations Group, 1996 - Present Private Consultant Hydrogeology, 1983 - 1985 Hydraulic Engineer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1979 - 1982 Hydrogeologist Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Quade & Douglas, Inc., 1977 - 1979 Performance Assessment /Ground Water Modeling Assisted the USEPA in the development of compliance criteria for the WIPP site as part of their NACEPT panel. Developed groundwater models as the representative of the State of Nevada at the international flow and transport model validation effort for nuclear waste repository performance codes (INTRAVAL). T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 33 Resume: Linda L. Lehman continued Directed the development of conceptual flow models at solid and hazardous waste sites contaminated with volatile organic contaminants and other pollutants. Performed ground water flow and contaminant transport modeling of high -level nuclear waste sites (the Hanford Site Washington). Performed time series analyses using computerized data bases to establish baseline ground water conditions at high -level nuclear waste sites. Developed independent alternative conceptual models of saturated zone flow, surface water infiltration, and unsaturated zone flow at the proposed Yucca Mountain high -level nuclear waste repository site. Expert Witness Testimony Served as primary technical expert regarding the ground water contamination at the Flying Cloud Landfill under litigation procedures, public hearings, and formal governmental agency meetings at various levels. Hydrogeologic expert for a class- action suit in Fernald, Ohio regarding ground water contaminants from defense - related nuclear operations. Provided hydrologic evaluation and expert testimony for class - action suit against operators of DOE facility near Portsmouth, Ohio regrading the extent and severity of ground water and surface water contamination at the site. Served as hydrologic expert for legal proceedings against operators of uranium mill in Canon City, Colorado, including testimony on historic and future impact of contaminants released from tailings ponds. Provided the primary expert testimony regarding potential ground water contamination and site suitability for a solid waste landfill in McHenry County, Illinois. Provided expert testimony concerning potential ground water contamination from sewage sludge land application and agricultural runoff. Provided expert witness testimony on groundwater contamination at DOE Rocky Flats facility located in Colorado. T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 34 Resume: Linda L. Lehman continued Provided expert witness testimony on an animal feedlot contamination case. Hydrogeologic Investigations • Provided on -call technical assistance, including hydrologic investigation and regulatory analysis, to Native Americans for a Clean Environment (NACE) regarding contamination at Sequoyah Fuel Corporations uranium processing facility near Gore, Oklahoma. Directed the development of site characterization studies, environmental sampling and analytical program as part of the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for the Union Scrap Superfund Site. • Technical review and analysis of the RI/FS at the Flying Cloud Landfill regarding ground water contamination and design of the ground water pump -out remediation system. Directed staff in hydrogeological studies of potential solid waste disposal sites in Minnesota and Illinois. Directed the evaluation of the RI/FS for the Fernald nuclear defense facility in Ohio with regard to ground water contamination at that site. Conducted initial site assessment and developed monitoring program for Flying Cloud Airport as part of preliminary study for facility expansion. Evaluated hydrologic and geologic suitability of proposed low -level radioactive waste site in Vermont. Technical Program Management • Provided overall project direction to the Yakima Indian Nation regarding the disposal of high -level nuclear waste and defense wastes at the Hanford reservation. including scientific and engineering efforts related to waste disposal design and siting issues. • Served as prime contractor to the Minnesota Governor's Nuclear Waste Council for high -level nuclear waste Crystalline Repository Project and provided T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 35 Resume: Linda L. Lehman continued technical assistance in the areas of hydrology, geology, ground water modeling and regulatory/program analysis. Provided technical management assistance to the Nevada Governor's office in regards to scientific and engineering contractor support regarding the high -level nuclear waste repository at the Nevada Test Site. Regulatory Development and Analysis Directed the development of rules to regulate the siting, design, construction, operation and closure of a low -level radioactive waste storage or disposal facility in the State of Maine. Participated in the development of siting criteria for the Federal Regulation (10 CFR Part 60) for high -level nuclear waste repositories. Provided formal review and comment efforts for various clients in regards to ground water and waste management regulations related to solid waste, hazardous waste, high -level and low -level nuclear waste, U.S. defense wastes, agricultural impacts on ground water and ground water quality standards. Developed site suitability and selection criteria for radioactive waste disposal facilities keyed to various federal and state statutes. Analyses of feedlot runoff and compliance with Federal guidance and Minnesota rules including application of a state compliance code FLEVAL and. National Academy of Science - Committee to Review New York State's Siting and Methodology Selection for Low -Level Radioactive Waste Disposal. Serving as hydrology expert on committee to review and evaluate the scientific, technical and procedural aspects for the State's approach to siting a low -level radioactive waste facility, selecting a disposal technology and projecting the LLRW source term. National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Review Committee. Serving as Performance Assessment expert on committee to advise the Environmental Protection Agency regarding the Department of Energy's Test and Retrieval Plans for WIPP and T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 36 Resume: Linda L. Lehman continued development of compliance criteria for EPA's high -level and transuranic waste disposal rules (40 CFR Part 191). • Subcommittee on Ground Water Protection Strategies - Chairperson. Environmental Quality Board Advisory Committee on Ground Water Protection (1988) • Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Joint Hydrology Task Force .Mel W &1%11 912; Certifications Certified Ground Water Professional, National Ground Water Association Professional Hydrogeologist, American Institute of Hydrology Registered Geologist, State of Indiana Associations American Geophysical Union American Institute of Hydrology International Association of Hydrogeologists Minnesota Ground Water Association (Past President, 1988) Wisconsin Ground Water Association National Ground Water Association. (Association of Ground Water Scientists and Engineers Division) T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 37 Resume: Linda L. Lehman continued 1 i � Upchurch, S.B., M. Dalton and L.L. Lehman; Groundwater Mixing in the Lower Floridan Aquifer in the Southern Peace River Basin Florida Scientist, Volume 41, Supplement 1; 1978. Bennett, R.H., L.L. Lehman, et.al.; Interrelationships of Organic Carbon and Submarine Sediment Geotechnical Properties Marine Geotechnology, Volume 6, Number 1; March 1984. Nguyen, V.V., L.L. Lehman; Interscale Transfer of Information in Nuclear Waste Repository Multibarrier Systems Proceedings of Western Regional Conference Society of Groundwater Scientists and Engineers; January 1985. Lehman, L.L.; Factor Analysis of Groundwater Flow Paths in the Central Columbia Plateau Comments of the Yakima Indian Nation on the Draft Environmental Assessment for the Hanford Site, Washington under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, Volume 2; March 1985. Lehman, L.L.; Model Comparison Comments of the Yakima Indian Nation on the Draft Environmental Assessment for the Hanford Site, Washington under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, Volume 2; March 1985. Lehman, L.L., GeoTrans, Inc.; Preliminary Sensitivity Analysis of Rockwell Flow Path Using SWIFT Comments of the Yakima Indian Nation on the Draft Environmental Assessment for the Hanford Site, Washington under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, Volume 2; March 1985. Nguyen, V.V., G.V. Abi- Ghanem and L.L. Lehman; Fractal Mixing in a Class of Composite Media Preprints of Proceedings of the Stochastic Approach to Subsurface Flow, Montvillargenne, France; June 1985. Lehman, L.L.; The Search for a Nuclear Waste Repository Minnesota Governors Council on Nuclear Waste Meeting, 1986. Lehman, L.L., V.V. Nguyen; Regional Correlation Between Precipitation and Piezometric Potential in Basalts Analysis and Application; March 1988. Lehman, L.L., Eric Hansen; Secondary Concentration of Air - Released Uranium through Watershed Runoff at the Feed Materials Production Center Fernald, Ohio; March 1988. T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 38 Resume: Linda L. Lehman continued Lehman L.L., Uncertainty in Modeling and Performance Assessment Presentation to the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste, Washington D.C., February 1989. Lehman, L.L., Eric J. Hansen; Concentration of Air Released Uranium Through Watershed Runoff at the Feed Materials Production Center Fernald Ohio USA, Ambassador Program, Nuclear Waste Technology Delegation to the Soviet Union, September 1989. Lehman L.L., Rice J., Keen K.L., Cosine Components in Water Levels Yucca Mountain, Nevada Waste Management '90 Symposium, Tucson, February 1990. Lehman L.L., Major Areas of Uncertainty in Performance Assessment: the United States High -Level Waste Program AIH USA/USSR Joint Conference on Environmental Hydrology and Hydrogeology, Leningrad, June 1990. Lehman L.L., Atkins R.G., Analysis of Water Levels in Devil's Hole, Southwestern Nevada L. Lehman & Associates, March 1991. Lehman, L.L.; Nuclear Waste Management and Nuclear Related Accidents in the Soviet Union ACNW Meeting, 1991. Lehman L.L., Alternate Conceptual Model of Ground Water Flow at Yucca Mountain International High -Level Radioactive Waste Management Conference, Las Vegas, April 1992. Lehman L.L., Alternate Conceptual Model of Ground Water Flow at Yucca Mountain Soviet Nuclear Society Third Annual Conference, Moscow, September 1992. Lehman L.L., Brown T.P., Analysis of Water Levels in Devil's Hole Southwestern Nevada L. Lehman & Associates, September 1992. Lehman, L.L.,Joe Angelo; Experiences with Russian Remediation Technology Foreign Technology Evaluation Meeting, September 1992. Lehman L.L., The Effects of Variability in Selected Model Inputs on Modeled Unsaturated Water Content Profiles at Yucca Mountain. Nevada Third INTRAVAL Phase II workshop. San Antonio, November 1992. Lehman, L.L.; Russian Low -Level Waste Disposal Program Fourteenth Annual U.S. Department of Energy Low -Level Radioactive Waste Management Conference, November 1992. T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 39 Resume: Linda L. Lehman continued Lehman L.L., Brown T.P., INTRAVAL Modeling Conclusions Addressing Non - unique Solutions Presented to the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, Reno, April 1993. Brown, T.B., Lehman, L.L.; Testing Conceptual Unsaturated Flow Models Using Numerical Stimulation of Real Data for the Proposed High Level Nuclear Waste Repositou at Yucca Mountain Nye County, Nevada, April 1993. Lehman L.L., Brown T.P., Analyses of Data Bias: A Follow on Report on Presentations at the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board April 21 -22 1993 Reno Nevada L. Lehman & Associates, May 1993. Brown T.P., Lehman L.L., Nieber J.L., Testing Conceptual Unsaturated Flow Models Using Numerical Stimulation of Real Data for the Proposed High Level Nuclear Waste Repository at Yucca Mountain Nye County Nevada 1993 American Geophysical Union Annual Meeting, Baltimore, May 1993. Brown T.P., Lehman L.L., Nieber J.L., Testing Conceptual Unsaturated Zone Flow Models for Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada Third INTRAVAL Phase -2 Workshop, Stockholm, September 1993. Brown T.P., Lehman L.L., Nieber J.L., Testing Conceptual Unsaturated Zone Flow Models for Yucca Mountain, Nye County Nevada Topical Meeting on Site Characterization and Model Validation Focus '93, Las Vegas, September 1993. Lehman, L.L.; Russian High -Level Nuclear Waste Disposal Program - A Status Report Nuclear Plant Journal Vol. l 1, No. 4, Jul -Aug 1993. Lehman, L.L., Kamenskaya, Julia; Status of Russian Nuclear Legislation, Nuclear Waste Disposal Programs and Nuclear Safety Agreements L. Lehman & Associates, Inc., October 1993. Lehman L.L., Brown T.P., Testing Performance Assessment Parameter Sensitivity to Choice of Hydrologic Conceptual Model 15th Annual U.S. DOE LLRW Management Conference, Tucson, December 1993. Lehman, L.L., Tim P. Brown; Validity Conceptual Unsaturated Flow Models using Numerical Simulation of Real Data 15th Annual U.S. DOE LLRW Management Conference, December 1993. Lehman, L.L.; Policy, Reprocessing, and Disposal Costs Nuclear Plant Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1, Jan -Feb 1994. T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 40 Resume: Linda L. Lehman continued Lehman L.L., Brown T.P., Alternate Conceptual Models in the Saturated Zone at Yucca Mountain Presented to the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, Reno, April 1994. Brown, T.P., Barnes R.J., Stochastic Analytic Elements for Ground Water Modeling Analytic Element Modeling of Groundwater Flow Conference, Indianapolis, April 1994. Brown T.P. and Lehman L.L., Updated Analysis of Water Levels in Devil's Hole, Nevada L. Lehman & Associates, April 1994. Lehman, L.L.; Technical Policy Developments Affecting the Nuclear Industry Topical Report on Waste Problems and Disposal in the Russian Arctic and Latvia, Nuclear Regulation and Materials Control and Accounting (Volume II of a Series, L. Lehman & Associates, Inc., April 1994. Brown T.P., Lehman L.L., Nieber J.L., Testing Conceptual Unsaturated Zone Flow Models for Yucca Mountain International High -Level Nuclear Waste Management Conference, Las Vegas, May 1994. Lehman, L.L., Kamenskaya, Julia; Guidebook for Oil and Gas Investors in Russia: Environmental Aspects L. Lehman & Associates, Inc., July 1994. Lehman L.L., Brown T.P., Testing Performance Assessment Parameter Sensitivity to Choice of Hydrologic Conceptual Model ANS Topical Meeting "Spectrum'94: International Nuclear and Hazardous Waste Management ", Atlanta, August 1994. T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 41 PATRICIA A. LANG P.E. Project Manager /Geo- Engineer Technical & Regulatory Evaluations Group, INC. 13231 Henning Circle NE Prior Lake, MN 55372 (612)496-0594 University of Minnesota, B.S. 1978, Geo - Engineering University of Minnesota, B.S. 1978, Geology Staff Engineer/Project Manager L. Lehman & Associates, Inc., 1987 - present Staff Geologist Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 1978 - 1984 Technical Program Management Provided review and comments to the Midwest Interstate Low -Level Radioactive Waste Commission relating to site selection plans for low -level radioactive waste facility site selections. Prepared review of low -level waste facility site selection plans for the State of Connecticut. Prepared and reviewed environmental documents for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Regulatory Development and Analysis Implemented and established data bases for environmental projects utilizing personal and mainframe computers. Directed development of a large land -use data base for Mesabi Iron Range. Automated leasing program for State owned mineral rights. T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 42 Resume: Patricia A. Lang (continued) • Comprehensive review of Michigan low -level siting regulations, including comparison to state and federal radioactive waste disposal regulations and state hazardous waste regulations. Field Experience Supervised field programs for solid waste management site selection studies. • Participated in logging soil borings and soil classification of unconsolidated materials according to ASTM standards. Certifications Registered Professional Engineer, State of Minnesota Associations National Ground Water Association Minnesota Ground Water Association T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 43 TIMOTHY P. BROWN Staff Hydrogeologist Technical & Regulatory Evaluations Group, Inc.. 13231 Henning Circle NE Prior Lake, MN 55372 (612) 496 -0594 M.S. Civil Engineering, 1992 - University of Minnesota B.S. Geo- Engineering, 1990 - University of Minnesota B.S. Geophysics, 1990 - University of Minnesota Staff H, dro eolo iglst L. Lehman & Associates, Inc., 1991 - present Research Assistant University of Minnesota, 1990 - 1991 Ground Water Modeling Masters' thesis quantifying uncertainty in ground water model output utilizing O.D.L. Strack's analytic element model. Developing and reviewing models for the State of Nevada in the international flow and transport model validation effort for nuclear waste repository performance codes (INTRAVAL). Implementation of VTOUGH multi -phase unsaturated zone flow model for test cases relating to the proposed Yucca Mountain high -level radioactive waste project utilizing the Nevada Cray Supercomputer. Hvdrolo6c Investigations Analysis of VOC contaminant trends at the Flying Cloud Landfill. T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 44 Analyses of hydrologic impacts and potential contaminant transport due to expansion of the Flying Cloud Airport. Study of fracture flow effects on unsaturated porous media groundwater flow at Yucca Mountain and development of alternative hydrologic conceptual models for the site. Review and comment regarding hydrologic investigation carried out by Department of Energy contractors at Yucca Mountain. • Analysis of water level trends and cycles at Devil's Hole National Monument using linear regression cosine curve fitting and other statistical techniques. • Identification and delineation of wetlands for a potential developer in Dakota County. Technical Program Management • Principal investigator for firm's project at the Sequoyah Fuels nuclear facility in Gore, Oklahoma. Coordinated research and prepared legal briefings and reports for the clients lawsuit. Coordinated research and hydrologic study for the client's lawsuit involving the DOE's Mound Facility. Certifications Registered Engineer In Training (EIT), State of Minnesota Associations National Ground Water Association Minnesota Ground Water Association T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 45 Lehman, L. L., and T. P. Brown, INTRAVAL Modeling Conclusions Addressing Non - unique Solutions Presented to the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, Reno, April 1993. Brown, T. P., L. L. Lehman, and J. L. Nieber, Testing Conceptual Unsaturated Zone Flow Models for Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada Topical Meeting on Site Characterization and Model Validation Focus '93, Las Vegas, September 1993. Brown, T. P., and R. J. Barnes, Stochastic Analytic Elements for Ground Water Modeling Analytic Element Modeling of Groundwater Flow Conference, Indianapolis, April 1994. Brown, T. P., and L. L. Lehman, Updated Analysis of Water Levels in Devil's Hole, Nevada L. Lehman & Associates, April 1994. Brown T.P., L. L. Lehman, and J. L. Nieber, Testing Conceptual Unsaturated Zone Flow Models for Yucca Mountain International High -Level Nuclear Waste Management Conference, Las Vegas, May 1994. T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 46 Elena Zvereva, Moscow Office Manager Technical & Regulatory Evaluations Group, Inc.. #5 SamedaVerguna 125315, Moscow, Russia 011 7 095 146 -4892 Ph.D., 1987 - Environmental Economics, Moscow State University M.A., 1983 - Economics, Moscow State University Moscow Office Manama L. Lehman & Associates, Inc., 1994 - present Independent Environmental and Economic Consultant, 1994 Senior Consultant EcCon Consulting, 1993 - 1994 Senior Consultant N UNICON - Environmental Center, 1992 - 1993 Senior Researcher All -Union Scientific Research and Information Center "Ecology" under the USSR State Committee for Environmental Protection, 1988 - 1992 1 0 3 9 of tali I Senior Researcher - All -Union Scientific Research and Information Center "ECOLOGY" Developed procedures for leasing natural resources (particularly forest resources). Developed methods for calculating "natural resource payments ". Environmental and Economic Advisor Advised on the economic and environmental issues for the privatization of numerous state - owned enterprises in Ukraine and Russian Federation, including: T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 47 Lisichansk oil reprocessing plant (Ukraine) West Siberian metallurgical plant Kuskovo chemical plant (Moscow) Bratsk aluminium smelter Kuznetsk metallurgical plant Environmental Assessment Conducted an environmental auditing assignment for the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, to assess the compliance status of the Kerch shipbuilding plant "Zaliv" (Ukraine) regarding old and new environmental laws and regulations. Conducted for the World Bank, initial environmental impact assessment studies and ecological review for the Roads and Bridges Rehabilitation Program, involving Belarus and several regions of the Russian Federation. Economic Consultant Consulted on numerous economic aspects for privatizing and privatized enterprises in the former Soviet Union, including: Assessing the financial status and economic potential of enterprises. Estimation and analysis of property and capital assets. Developing privatization plans for state -owned enterprises into joint -stock ventures. Developing options for transforming state -owned enterprises into joint -stock ventures. Developing standards for managing and regulating joint stock companies. Organizing subscriptions for employees to obtain shares in the enterprises. Follow -up management consulting to privatized enterprises to help them compete in market economics. T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 48 Larissa Kolachova Hydrogeologist Technical & Regulatory Evaluations Group, Inc #5 Sameda Verguna 125315 Moscow, Russia M.S. 1982 - Groundwater Hydrology Lomonosov Moscow State University, Ph.D. 1993 - Groundwater Hydrology VNII VODGEO Research Institute, Moscow Interpreter & Secretary_ TEHNO JSC; 1994 -1995 Research Worker.Post- Graduate VNII VODGEO (The RF State Construction Committee), Drainage Laboratory; 1990 -1994 Senior Engineer Lomonosov Moscow State University, Geological Department, Hydrogeology Chair; 1988- 1990 Progamer Kabardinian- Balkarian State University, Mathematical Department, Nalchik; 1987 -1988 Engineer Lomonosov Moscow State University, Geological Department, Hydrogeology Chair; 1982- 1987 9 Commercial correspondence with foreign electronics suppliers Kriging for optimization of monitoring network design Geostatistics. 3 -D flow modeling *Programming (FORIRAN, PL/1) •Pumping test evaluation, flow model calibration. delayed water yield study T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 49 Russian - native speaker English - writes, reads and speakes fluently. Holds the certificate of interpreter T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 50 LINDA M. ULLAND, Sub - Contractor Technical & Regulatory Evaluations Group, Inc. 13231 Henning Circle NE Prior Lake, MN 55372 (612) 496 -0594 M.A. Urban Policy and Administration. 1978 - San Francisco State University B.A. Political Science, 1968 - Luther College Regional Manager Minnesota Pollution Control Agency; 1995 -1999 Principal Section Manager/Regulatory Compliance Manager R. F. Weston; 1992 - 1995 Senior Environmental Project Manager Bechtel Environmental, Inc; 1989 - 1992. Supervisor Economics and Social Sciences Department Environmental Science Associates; 1986 - 1989. Senior Scientist Bechtel National, Inc.; 1978- 1986. Public Information Specialist California Coastal Commission; 1977 - 1978. Assistant Director of Publications University of San Francisco; 1974 - 1976. News Reporter Iowa. Minnesota, Nebraska; 1968 -1974 9. ' w' Environmental Project Management and Regulatory Compliance T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 51 Deputy project manager for State of Nevada Environmental Study Program, providing environmental program support and oversight of Department of Energy (DOE) high level radioactive waste siting and development activities at Yucca Mountain. Services provided to the Nevada Nuclear Waste Projects Office included development of environmental baseline data, evaluation of DOE site characterization plans and impact assessments, identification and analysis of environmental regulatory requirements. Environmental field study plans were prepared for ecological resources, soils, cultural resources, water quality and hydrology, air quality and meteorology, visual aesthetics, and noise. The studies were designed to provide information to verify analyses performed by the DoE in its assessments, and to perform an impact evaluation for comparison to similar DOE evaluations. An environmental regulatory compliance component identified pertinent environmental requirements, and reviewed and evaluated DOE compliance with stateand fedreral enviornmental requirements in the conduct of their activities at Yucca Mountain. Regulatory Compliance Manager for Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action ( UMTRA) program. Managed staff of 10 environmental, regulatory, health and safety, and radiological professionals; provided overall strategic and technical direction to department activities for compliance with applicable federal, state, tribal, and local regulations in planning and conducting surface and ground water remedial actions at 24 abandoned uranium mining and processing sites. Specific activities for which the department was responsible include: research, surveys, and analyses for preparation of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation; health and safety, radiological, and environmental audits and surveillances at project sites to verify compliance with regulatory requirements during remedial action; regulatory review and analysis to identify requirements applicable to the UMTRA project activities and methods for implementing requirements; support to site permitting, land access, and site licensing. Regional Manager for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agenc;, responsible for overall direction of regulatory compliance activities for a 14 county area in North Central Minneosta. Managed staff of 20 environmental professionals involved in compliance activities encompassing, water quality and water resource management, air quality, solid and hazardous waste management, groundwater monitoring, emerency response, remediation. Responsibilities focused on interation and coordination of environmental programs with other state agencies, local units of government. citizen groups, business and industry. T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 52 Resume: Linda M. Ulland (continued) • Environmental Compliance Supervisor for construction of 400 mile natural gas pipeline through Idaho, Washington and Oregon. Directed all environmental compliance activities including supervision of 10 field environmental inspectors, area resource monitor, and restoration specialists; coordination with agency personnel (federal and state) regarding compliance with permit requirements, mitigation plans, and grant stipulations; coordination with construction personnel to track construction progress, the status of environmental compliance, and to resolve construction/environmental issues. • Program manager for field environmental baseline studies associated with selection and evaluation of a preferred site for a low -level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facility for the Central Interstate Compact in Nebraska. Field studies were conducted at three candidate sites and included: terrestrial and aquatic biology, cultural resources, socioeconomics, land use, population, and noise. Project manager of environmental evaluation for a proposed copper -gold mind in Montana. The environmental evaluation issues included: land use, socioeconomics, and sensitive wildlife habitat. Coordinated and managed data collection efforts and report preparation of area environmental characterization reports for potential high level radioactive waste facility sites in Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, and Utah. • Managed statutory compliance activities including identification of state (Utah, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas) statutes and regulations applicable to the DOE HLW salt repository project, preparation of draft statute summaries, and review and comment on statutory compliance plans. Developed and prepared field environmental study plans for evaluation of committed resources for the DOE High Level Waste salt repository project; provided support to development of land use environmental study plans. Socioeconomic Analvsis/Environmental Equity • Managed preparation, provided technical oversight and participated in preparation of a special study on economic impacts of the UMTRA project in Colorado. The study examined direct and secondary employment and economic costs and benefits resulting from remedial action at UMTRA sites in Colorado. T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 53 Resume: Linda M. Ulland (continued) The report served as a basis for Colorado legislative funding approval of the state's 10 percent share of remedial action costs. • Prepared environmental equity /environmentaljustice evaluations for the UMTRA Groundwater Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement; responsible for review of environmental equity issues and assessments for UMTRA project activities. • Participated in developing environmental equity guidelines for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to use in implementing regulatory permitting and enforcement responsibilities. • Served as tribal liaison for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in northerm Minnesota to coordinate regulatory responsibilities between state and tribal governments. • Managed socioeconomic baseline studies and impact assessments for potential LLW facility sites in California and Nebraska. Managed socioeconomic data collection and preparation of baseline data reports for potential HLW repository sites in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Utah. Managed and prepared socioeconomic impact assessment for DOE HLW Statutory EAs for Davis and Lavender Canyon, Utah and Richton and Cypress Creek Domes, Mississippi. Environmental Impact Assessment Provide overall strategic and technical direction for preparation of Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for ground water restoration at 24 UMTRA project sites. The draft PEIS was prepared and submitted to the DOE for review within one year after the Notice of Intent (NOI) was published in the Federal Register. The PEIS identifies and evaluates strategies for selecting appropriate ground water restoration methods at the UMTRA sites, and discusses impacts these strategies and methods may have on environmental resources. Provided technical direction and review of National Environmental Policy Act documents for surface remedial actions at UMTRA project sites in Colorado, New Mexico and North Dakota. Responsible for preparation of the Applicants Environmental Assessment for the Central Interstate Compact Low Level Waste Disposal facility in Nebraska. Provided overall direction and review, managed contractors and staff responsible for the discipline specific technicalanalysis. T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 54 Resume: Linda M. Ulland (continued) • Project manager of a joint EIR/EIS (CEQA/NEPA) for the Port of Oakland, California Airport Master Plan Development Program. Major issues included land use compatibility, wetlands, threatened and endangered species/habitat. • Prepared an environmental assessment for a recycling facility complex at the DOE Savannah River site. Team environmental /socioeconomic specialist for a power plant siting study in Cyprus. Coordinated input and prepared Environmental Assessment for a Beryllium Propellant Facility at Edwards Air Force Base, California. Coordinated revisions to DOE Draft Statutory Environmental Assessments (EAs) for Davis Canyon, Utah and Richton Dome, Mississippi, potential HLW repository sites. Public Information and Participation Designed public participation program for the UMTRA Ground Water PSIS. This included strategic planning, implementation, and participation in public scoping meetings held in 16 UMTRA site communities. The scoping meetings used an interactive format with opportunities for small group discussions with project technical representatives. Comments were recorded on flip charts and presented to the entire group. A similar format is planned for public hearings on the draft PSIS (scheduled for Spring, 1994). • Designed comprehensive public participation program for water resource management in northern Minnesota. The program design used a systematic approach to identify potentially affected interests, issues associated with water resource management and protection, citizen particiation needs and objectives, and appopropriate tools and techniques for participation by affected interests based on design objectives. • Prepared comprehensive public involvement program for major offshore /onshore oil development program in California. • Planned and participated in environmental information meetings associated with the Central Interstate Compact LLW Facility in Nebraska. T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 55 Resume: Linda M. Ulland (continued) Planned and participated in agency briefings and public meetings associated with the DOE HLW salt repository program activities in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Utah. Former public information specialists for the California Coastal Commission. Former journalist for daily newspaper in Iowa, Minnesota and Nebraska. J Ulland, Linda M. 1999. "Environmental Equity: State Implementation of Environmental Justice Requirements," Paper presented at Waste Management `99. Tucson, Arizon, March. Lehman, Linda L. and Linda M. Ulland, 1996. "Developing Nuclear Waste Policy and Regulation within the Context of Changing Political and Social Issues." Paper presented at Waste Management `96. Tucson, Arizona, March. Ulland, Linda M. And Malu Gawthrop Cooper, 1995. "Developing and Implementing Institutional Controls for Groundwater Contamination." Paper presented at American Society of Mechnaical Engineers conference. Berlin, Germany, September. Ulland, Linda M. 1995. "Planning and Implementing Stateholder Involvement for Regulatory Compliance in Decommissioning Projects." Presentation to ANS Executive Conference on Managing Risks in Decommissioning, Decontamination, and Reutilization Projects, May. Burt, Charles, Linda Ulland, andDon Metzler, 1993. "The UMTRA PEIS: A Strategy for Groundwater Remediation." Paper presented at ANS Winter meeting, San Francisco, California, November. Pahl, Kathleen, and Linda M. Ulland, 1991. "Environmental Site Characterization for the Central Interstate Compact Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility." Presentation at Waste Management `91, Tucson, Arizona, March. Ulland, Linda M. and Mark Winsor, 1989. "The Role of the State and Environmental Compliance in NWPA Implementation." Paper presented at Waste Management, `89, Tucson, Arizona, March. Winsor, Mark and Linda M. Ulland. 1989. "An Evaluation of Environmental Effects of the DOE HLW Repository Siting and Characterization Program at Yucca Mountain." Paper presented at Waste Management '89, Tucson, Arizona, March. T Reg, Inc. Statement Of Qualifications 56