HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 21, 2001 TENTATIVE AGENDA
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
ADJ. REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA AUGUST 21, 2001
LOCATION: 129 Holmes Street South
Mayor Jon Brekke presiding
1] Roll Call at 7:00 p.m.
21 Pledge of Allegiance
3] Approval of Agenda
4] Mayor's Report
51 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: July 10 and July 24th, 2001
*8] Approval of Bills in the Amount of $1,006,983.85 plus $182,055.87 for refunds, returns and
pass through for a total of $1,189,039.72
9] Public Hearing on proposed vacation of 4 th Ave. between Cass and Webster Streets - Res. 5569
10] Recognitions:
A] Presentation of MRPA Award of Excellence for Park Projects in Year 2000 :' Joe Schleper
Baseball Stadium
B] Recognition of Shakopee Aquatic Park Lifeguards — Res. No. 5572
11] Liaison Reports from Council Members
12] Recess for Economic Development Authority Meeting
13] Re- convene
14] Recommendations from Boards and Commissions:
A] Preliminary Plat for Prairie Village 7 1h Addition — Res. No. 5552
TENTATIVE AGENDA
August 21, 2001
Page -2-
15] General Business
A] Community Development
* 1. Authorize WSB to Prepare EAW for Historic Structure (Roehl- Lenzmeier House)
2. Authorize Distribution of AUAR for Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota
Valley West (United/OPUS properties)
*3. Text Amendment to City Code regarding Minor Subdivisions — Ord. No. 608
*4. Text Amendment to City Code regarding Use of Sales Trailers Ord. No_ 609
5. Request of RLK Kuuisto, Ltd. (RLK) and the Ryan Companies for Consolidated
Review of Development Issues
6. Authorize Issuance of Building Permit Prior to Approval of PUD Amendment
B] Public Works and Engineering
1. Off Site Improvements for Proposed Greenfield Plat
*2. 2002 Single Axle Truck Acquisition
3. Transportation Equity Act Applications for Pedestrian Bridges, Railroad
Crossings, and Improvements on CR 17 Intersections
*4. Budget Division Transfer of Funds
C] Police and Fire
* 1. Participation Agreement with Multi - Jurisdictional Network Orl
*2. Authority to Issue Citations — Ord. No. 610
3. Downtown Fire Station Reroofing
[ization (MJNO)
D] Parks and Recreation
*I. Renewal of Concession Stand Agreements
*2. Holmes Park Shelter Reconstruction
E] Personnel
* 1. Appointment of Richard Sames to Regular Employment as a Building
*2. Accept Resignation of Police Department Records Technician
F] General Administration
* 1. Changing the November 6, 2001 Meeting Date — Res. No. 5568
*2. Application for On -Sale Liquor License — Great Lakes, Inc.
3. Institutional Network Partnership with ISD 720
16] Council Concerns
17] Other Business
ector
18] Adjourn
TENTATIVE AGENDA
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
ADJ. REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA AUGUST 21, 2001
LOCATION: 129 Holmes Street South
Mayor Jon Brekke presiding
1] Roll Call at 7:00 p.m.
2] Pledge of Allegiance
3] Approval of Agenda
4] Mayor's Report
5] Approval of Consent Business — (All items noted by an * are anticipated to be routine. After a
discussion by the Mayor, there will be an opportunity for members of the City Council to
remove items from the consent agenda for individual discussion. Those items removed will be
considered in their normal sequence on the agenda. Those items remaining on the consent
agenda will otherwise not be individually discussed and will be enacted in one motion.)
6] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS — (Limited to five
minutes per person/subject. Longer presentations must be scheduled through the City Clerk.
As this meeting is cablecast, speakers must approach the microphone at the podium for the
benefit of viewers and other attendees.)
*7] Approval of Minutes: July 10 and July 24th, 2001
*8] Approval of Bills in the Amount of $1,006,983.85 plus $182,055.87 for refu
pass through for a total of $1,189,039.72
9] Public Hearing on proposed vacation of 4 th Ave. between Cass and Webster
10] Recognitions:
A] Presentation of MRPA Award of Excellence for Park Projects in Year 2000:
Baseball Stadium
B] Recognition of Shakopee Aquatic Park Lifeguards — Res. No. 5572
11] Liaison Reports from Council Members
12] Recess for Economic Development Authority Meeting
13 ] Re- convene
returns and
-Res. 5569
Joe Schleper
14] Recommendations from Boards and Commissions:
A] Preliminary Plat for Prairie Village 7 th Addition — Res. No. 5552
TENTATIVE AGENDA
August 21, 2001
Page —2-
15] General Business
A]
Community Development
*1. Authorize WSB to Prepare EAW for Historic Structure (Roehl- Lenzmeiei
*2. Authorize Distribution of AUAR for Shenandoah Business Park and Min;
Valley West (United/OPUS properties)
*3. Text Amendment to City Code regarding Minor Subdivisions — Ord. No.
*4. Text Amendment to City Code regarding Use of Sales Trailers — Ord. No
5. Request of RLK Kuuisto, Ltd. (RLK) and the Ryan Companies for Consc
Review of Development Issues
6. Authorize Issuance of Building Permit Prior to Approval of PUD Amend
B] Public Works and Engineering
1. Off Site Improvements for Proposed Greenfield Plat
*2. 2002 Single Axle Truck Acquisition
3. Transportation Equity Act Applications for Pedestrian Bridges, Railroad
Crossings, and Improvements on CR 17 Intersections
*4. Budget Division Transfer of Funds
C] Police and Fire
*1. Participation Agreement with Multi - Jurisdictional Network
*2. Authority to Issue Citations — Ord. No. 610
3. Downtown Fire Station Reroofing
D] Parks and Recreation
* 1. Renewal of Concession Stand Agreements
*2. Holmes Park Shelter Reconstruction
E] Personnel
* 1. Appointment of Richard Sames to Regular Employment as a F
*2. Accept Resignation of Police Department Records Technician
F] General Administration
*1. Changing the November 6, 2001 Meeting Date — Res. No. 5568
*2. Application for On -Sale Liquor License — Great Lakes, Inc.
3. Institutional Network Partnership with ISD 720
House)
-
W
RM
Inspector
16] Council Concerns
17] Other Business
18] Adjourn
TENTATIVE AGENDA
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
Special Meeting August 21,
1. Roll Call at 7:00 p.m.
2. Approval of the Agenda
3. 2002 Budget
4. Other Business:
5. Adjourn
edagenda.doc
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Economic Development Authority
Mark McNeill, Executive Director
Gregg Voxland, Finance Director
FROM: Paul Snook, Economic Development Coordinator
SUBJECT: 2002 EDA Budget
MEETING DATE: August 21, 2002
At the August 16 budget meeting, EDA President Morke had a question regarding the
line item amount of $154,500 for "supplies and services" in the 2002 budget summary.
This figure represents general operating supplies /services along with $124,000 of Small
Cities Development Program (SCDP) grant funds the City paid (as a pass - through from
MN Department of Trade & Economic Development [DTED]) for property owner rehab
work and Carver County HRA administrative expenses.
As you recall, as rehab work is done on homes and commercial properties throug]
program, the Carver HRA pays those rehab costs with their funds and then submi
documentation to the City for reimbursement of rehab and administrative costs. T
documentation is then forwarded to DIED. The funds are then advanced from D'
the City and then the City reimburses the HRA. The reason the funds have to be r
by the City (a "pass- through ") and not paid directly from DTED to the HRA is be
the grant is to the City (not the HRA), and the City has to show that it has receive
funds from DIED.
The $124,000 figure is derived from the amount that was used in the SCDP grog]
year, three advances from DTED totaling $123,772. This is represented on the re�
side of the budget summary under the line item entitled "state aid ". This was not
in the 2001 budget because at budget time last year the release of funds had not y
approved by DTED and it was undetermined as to what amount of the rehab func
be used in 2001. However, as the program progressed through the year and paym
were made by DTED, a line item was created in the EDA account to administer t
through.
this
Le
ED to
ceived
ause
the
m this
,nue
icluded
t been
would
ats
e pass-
02budgetmemo2.doc
EDA FUND
2002 BUDGET
ACTIVITY:
Activity includes the operation of the Shakopee Economic Development A
The EDA's mission is to enhance the quality of life in Shakopee by exr
strengthening the local economy; broadening the city's job base and ir
its revenue base through facilitating the preservation, expansion, crc
attraction of quality businesses and related jobs. Implement strategic
administer various programs (grants, loans, etc.) to accomplish above
activities. Staff must maintain EDA records and prepare materials fox
decisions by Commissioners. The Commission is comprised of the Mayor
Council.
Section 469.107 of the Minnesota Statutes states that the governing
the request of the authority, levy a tax in any year for the benefit
authority. The tax must be not more than 0.01813 percent of taxable
value.
OBJECT DESCRIPTION: Description of lines items:
Wages & Benefits:
EDA Director, EDA Coordinator, share of City Staff including Planning
Professional Services:
Legal and other consulting costs. Small
included in supplies & services
ithority.
ending and
greasing
ition and
E; and
policy
d City
dy may, at
f the
arket
Director.
4.000
Dues /Training /Travel:
Membership dues for professional economic development associations such as the
International Economic Development Council, Economic Development Association of
Minnesota, and Mid - America Economic Development Council. Various conferences and
training courses sponsored by professional economic development associations as
outlined above.
Miscellaneous:
$ 92,750 for ADC Telecommunications, Inc., local effort assistance.
ADC II does not affect 2002 budget.
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
2002 BUDGET .
EDA FUND BUDGET SUMMARY
Revenue
Taxes
Intergovern mental
State Aid
Charges for Service
Interest
Miscellaneous
Total Revenue
Transfers
Total Revenue and Transfers
16,323 35,344 8,000 13,000
1,000
222,429 121,490 182,520 284,180
45,000 50,000 33,000
267,429 121,490 232,520 317,180
Expenditures
Personal Services
55,133
56,354
69,520
69.930
Supplies & Services
174,829
183,930
32,500
154 500
ADC Payment
132,500
92,750
Contingency
Total Expenditures
317,180
229,962
240,284,
234,520
Excess (Deficiency) Of Revenues
over Expenditures & Transfer
37,467
(118,794)
(2,000)
-
Fund Balance December 31
$417,186
$298,392
$296,392
$296,392
Note: 2001 ADC pmt city @$50,000 & county @$82,500.
Note: 2002 ADC pmt city @$33,000 & county @$66,000.
Note: State Aid is from the Small Cities Development Program this is a pass
through grant and is included in supplies & services on the expense side.
EDA 2002 Budget
Business Unit
Business Unit
6215 Materials
55,040
2190
2191
126,000
Object # Description
Benefits
Management
Total
6002 Wages FT - Reg.
300
56,850
56,850
6005 Wages OT - Reg.
100
6334 Telephone
-
6122 PERA
6336 Printing/Publishing
2,950
2,950
6124 FICA
200
4,350
4,350
6135 Health & Life
4,280
6354 Property Insurance
4,280
6145 Dental
300
300
6170 Workers Comp
200
-
200
6180 Compensated Absences
1,000
6435 Other
1,000
6190 Retirement Benefit
6472 Conf / School / Training
1,000
-
Total Personnel
5,780
64,150
69,930
6210 Operating Supplies
400
400
6215 Materials
55,040
-
6240 Equipment Maintenance
6300 Professional Services
126,000
-
126 000
6310 Attorney
20,000
20,000
6327 Other
300
-
6332 Postage
100
100
6334 Telephone
300
300
6336 Printing/Publishing
500
500
6338 Advertising
200
200
6350 Insurance
2,400
2,400
6354 Property Insurance
-
6400 Rentals
-
6420 Equipment Rent
-
6430 Building Rent (IS FUND)
1,500
1,500
6435 Other
-
6472 Conf / School / Training
1,000
1,000
6475 Travel /Subsistence
500
500
6480 Dues
1,000
.1,000
6490 Subscriptions/Publications
600
600
6640 Designated Miscellaneous
92,750
92,750
Total Supplies & Services
- 247,250
247,250
6740 Capital Expenditures -
6498 Expenses Charged Back
Total $ 5,780 $ 311,400 $ 317,180
Budget
2001
Diff
55,040
1,810
2,860
90
4,220
130
6,000
(1,720)
300
400
(200)
1,000
-
69,520
410
1,000
23,000
100
300
500
200
2,400
1.500
1,500
500
1,000
500
132,500
165,000
$234,520
(600)
126,000
(3,000)
(1,500)
1,500
(500)
100
82,250
82.660 3525%
.. , I I .
Mayor Brekke called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with Council Members Link, M
Amundson, and Sweeney present. Also present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator; B
Public Works Director /City Engineer; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; R. Michael Leek, Con
Development Director; Jim Thomson, City Attorney; Paul Snook, Economic DeveIopn
Coordinator, Tracy Coenen, Management Assistant; Mark Themig, Facilities and Recn
Director, and Mark McQuillan, Natural Resources Director.
The pledge of allegiance was recited.
The following items were added to the Agenda. 15.C.8 Waiver of Minor Subdivision
Jeurissen Property, 15_ D. 5 Friendship Manor Curb Cuts and 151.9 Accepting Lions
for use in Lion's Park.
Amundson/Link moved to approve the Agenda as modified. Motion carried unani
10, 2001
Loney,
ion
riteria for the
'lub Donation
Mayor Brekke had two items for the Mayor's report tonight. The Scott County Fair is erecting a
Town Square representing the eight cities in Scott County; the County has requested each ('I
provide a City flag and a donation of $500 for a flagpole. The City of Shakopee does r
and Mayor Brekke would like the City to budget for a City flag in the next round of bu
As of now, there is nothing budgeted for this purpose_ The second item dealt with me(
negotiations with the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux. These meetings include four sep
these entities being the City of Prior Lake, the City of Shakopee, Scott County and the
Mdewakanton Sioux. It is extremely hard to come to consensus with four different en1
different thoughts, but the meetings are still continuing.
The following items were removed from the Consent Agenda. 14_ B. Rezoning from
for property located north of Valley View Road, east of Pheasant Run and west of CS
requested by Tollefson Development and 15.C. 4 Final Plat of Savannah Oaks at Sou
located south of Hwy 169 and north of Dean Lake.
dd d to the Consent Agenda 15_C. l Final Plat for South
ty
:)t have a flag
[get meetings.
sings and
Lrate entities;
Shakopee
ties all with
,G to R -1B
H 83
bridge 4�',
Crossings
The following items were a e
2n located north of Southbridge Parkway and west of CR 18; 15.C.2 Final Plat for Brittany Village
4` located south of Hwy 169, east of Brittany Court and north of Dublin Lane; 15. F_4 Approve Plans
and Specification for Reroofing City Hall and Public Services Building; 151.9 Accepting Lions Club
Donation for use in Lion's Park.
Link/Amundson moved to approve the Consent Agenda as modified. Motion carried unanimously.
Link/Amundson moved to approve the meeting minutes for May 15, 2001. (Motion carried under the
Consent Agenda).
Official Proceedings of the July 10, 2001 Page —2-
Shakopee City Council
Link/Amundson moved to approve the bills in the amount of $948,478.43 plus $138,7122.59 for
refunds, returns, and pass through for a total of $1,087,191.02. (Motion carried under the Consent
Agenda). (The list of bills is posted on the bulletin board at City Hall for four weeks.)
Mayor Brekke opened the public hearing on the proposed vacation of a portion of an easement within
Lot 4, Block 2, Minnesota Valley 2 Addition.
Mr. Leek, Community Development Director, reported on the request for a drainage and utility
easement on a residential lot_ Mr. Leek oriented the location of the propose d- vacation of te
drainage and utility easement on the lot that was being requested for City staff has
received no objections to this vacation in writing or at the Planning Commission meeting. The
Planning Commission reviewed the request on June 21,
2001 and the Planning Commission
recommended approval of the vacation of the westerly drainage and utility easement.
Mayor Brekke asked for audience participation.
H.R. Spurrier, 1717 Presidential Lane, approached the podium and addressed the Council. He
stated that he was requesting the vacation of 5 feet of a 10 -foot easement. Mr. Spurrier stated the
utility and drainage easement is no longer needed and this is the only place he could put a shed.
The other areas had a gas line easement.
Mayor Brekke declared the public hearing closed. '
Morke/Link offered Resolution No. 5549, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee Vacating
Easement Within Minnesota Valley 2 nd Addition, City of Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota and
moved its adoption. 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.
Councilor Sweeney reported that the City of Shakopee is having no water usage problems but water
sprinkling restrictions are in effect; the City of Prior Lake is at maximum pumping at this time and a
total watering ban is in effect in Prior Lake.
A recess was taken at 7:20 p.m. for the purpose of conducting the Economic Development Authority
meeting.
The meeting re- convened at 7.30 p.m.
Mr. Leek reported on the Text Amendment to City Code regarding Multiple - Family Residential (R -3)
Zone. A few months ago staff was directed to prepare some alternatives for revision of the R -3
Zoning District, with respect to density, open space and parking. A deduction of density was
Official Proceedings of the
Shakopee City Council
July 10, 2001
Page —3-
proposed to the Planning Commission from a density of 5 -8 units per acre in the R -2 Zone and a
density level of 8 -12 units per acre in the R -3 Zone with the potential of up to two unit density bonus
in a planned unit development_ Two other alternatives were proposed. It was proposed that open
space be required as in the PUD Ordinance or that the City of Shakopee look at their standard for
parklands. This text amendment had several reviews at the Planning Commission level_ The Planning
Commission noted that they were very uncomfortable limiting the density levels in the City of
Shakopee to twelve units per acre for the long term. The Planning Commission felt a need to provide
some higher density to provide a mix of housing. After much discussion, the Planning Commission
directed staff to reserve the R -3 zoning district for some future text and to combine the proposed
density levels into the R -2 Zoning district. Mr. Leek brought forward a couple more suggestions.
The Planning Commission, on a split vote recommended to City Council that no change to the density
levels should be made at this time but rather the R -2 and R -3 zoning districts should be revised with a
complete revision to the Zoning Chapter. Mr. Leek was hoping to bring a revision of the Zoning
Chapter before the Council, at least in outline form, in August or September. Right now the City of
Shakopee has very little R -3 left to develop in the adopted Land Use Plan. The land that is zoned
PRD in the proposed Land Use Plan would allow up to R -3 density. Mr. Leek stated that there was
some potential for redevelopment, including R -3 on the west -end of Shakopee. Cncl. Morke was
disappointed in what the Planning Commission brought forward. What the Planning Commission
really wanted was to revise the Zoning Ordinance because it was quite old. Cncl. Sweeney stated
there were really only two options. Either go along with the Planning Commission or say no to the
Planning Commission and go along with the text amendment regardless of the Planning Commission
vote. Cncl. Sweeney felt it made more sense to wait until the Zoning Ordinance was revised. Mayor
Brekke thought the City Council was pretty clear what they wanted done and the City Council had a
pretty clear consensus. He too was disappointed that the Planning Commission did not come up with
a text amendment regarding the density in the R -3 Zone. Mayor Brekke was of the opinion that
revising the Zoning Ordinance would just take to long. Five months ago the Council came up with
some principle changes to the R -3 Zoning and Mayor Brekke felt these changes should be included in
the zoning changes. Cncl. Morke wanted Mr. Leek to take back to the Planning Commission the
conviction that the City Council wanted this Zoning Ordinance changed with the numbers the City
Council agreed too and Cncl. Morke wanted the Zoning Ordinance revised soon. Mayor Brekke was
not convinced that a revision to the zoning ordinance was needed. M the City Council wanted was a
few changes to the R -2 and R -3 zoning regarding density, open space and parking. Mr......... Leek noted
that the main difference between the memo dated March 22, 2001 and the memo dated June 7, 2001
was in the June 7, 2001 memo the Planning Commission gave direction for the section on R -3 zoning
to been reserved for future language and the density requirements for R -2 and R -3 zoning districts be
combined into the R -2 District.
Morke/Link moved to direct staff to prepare an ordinance consistent with the specific action in the
memo dated March 22, 2001 to the Planning Commission with the specific directions to be; 1) A
decrease in the density allowed in the Multiple Family Residential Zone; 2) an implementation of an
open space requirement for the R -3 zone; 3) an increase in parking requirements for the R -3 zone.
Official Proceedings of the
Shakopee City Council
July 10, 2001
Page —4-
Motion carried unanimously_
Councilor Sweeney encouraged Mr. Leek to continue with the review of the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Leek reported on the rezoning from AG Preservation to Urban Residential (R- 113) for property
located north of Valley View Road, east of Pheasant Run and west of CSAH 83 requested by
Tollefson Development. Mr. Leek oriented the properties that are subject to this request along with
the current MUSA line for the subject properties. The request is consistent with the adopted
Comprehensive Plan guiding as well as the Plan Update guiding. A copy of the concept plan for the
proposed development was enclosed in the Council agenda packets for tonight but Mr! Leek stated
the Rezoning of this property to R -1B is the subject for tonight, not the concept plan_ The Council
did not like the concept plan at all. The Planning Commission by a unanimous vote did recommend
approval of the rezoning as outlined in Ordinance No 602 before the Council tonight.
Mayor Brekke did not really have problems with the rezoning issue but he felt the concept plan
needed a lot of work i.e. no sidewalks were shown, the traffic movements were poor and there were
concerns about the green space, etc. If the Council were to approve the rezoning, they wanted it
understood that in no way did this rezoning reflect their approval of the concept plan. Mr. Leek
stated that the entire eastern portion of the existing MUSA area is a drainage challenge. WSB and
the City Engineering Department are working on alternatives for a temporary and a permanent
resolution to the drainage problems in this area. Mr. Loney commented on the drainage resolutions.
How to best build an adequate drainage channel for this area is one of the issues being discussed with
the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux. Some of the lots in the concept plan could not be built on right
now because these lots would be needed for the temporary holding pond in this area. After the main
drainage channel is built, then the lots would be buildable.
AmundsonfLink offered Ordinance No_ 602, Fourth Series, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee,
Minnesota, Amending the Zoning Map Adopted in City Code Sec. 11.03 By Rezoning Land
Generally Located North of Valley View Road, East Of Pheasant Run and West Of County Road 83
From Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone To Urban Residential (R -1B) Zone, and moved its
adoption.
Mayor Brekke asked for audience participation.
Gary Wollschlager, representing Tollefson Development, approached the podium and 'stated .the plat
in front of the Council tonight is a general idea. Tonight Tollefson development is asking foa
rezoning of the property. If the rezoning is approved then Tollefson can address the platti r ng issues.
Mr. Leek stated this rezoning is incompliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and is in
compliance with the Updated Comprehensive Plan.
official Proceedings of the
Shakopee City Council
July 10, 2001
Prize —5-
Councilor Sweeney wanted the record to show that the concept plan seen tonight was not what the
Council would like to see platted for this area. There was consensus on this statement.
Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Leek reported on the rezoning from AG to R2 for property located north of 17` Avenue
extended, east of CSAH 17 and west of CSAH 83 requested by Tollefson Development- Mr. Leek
oriented the property including the MUSA boundary. Mr. Leek stated the request tonight is to
rezone the subject property to R -2. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff recommended
approval of the rezoning based on the location of the property and a pending policy shift to high and
medium density. This is zoned PRD in the pending Land Use Plan Update and would allow densities
from single- family thru high density. The Planning Commission after taking public testimony and
much discussion on the zoning recommended denial of the rezoning with a unanimous vote. This
vote of the Planning Commission meeting was based on the request to rezone to R -2 being
inconsistent with the 1996 Land Use Plan_
Gary Wollschlager, representative of Tollefson Development, approached the podium and said
Tollefson Development is asking for a rezoning to R -2. The present zoning is agricultural, in the
adopted Comprehensive Plan zoning is R -IB, and the pending Land Use Plan' s showing this are for
PRD that includes medium density. Mr. Wollschlager was looking for direction from the Council on
what this land should be zoned. He would like R -2 zone, kut if not approved he would come back
with a request to rezone to R -1 _
Mayor Brekke asked for audience participation.
There was discussion as to whether this land should /could be rezoned to PRD at this time and the
status of the pending Comprehensive Plan with the Met Council.
Councilor Sweeney felt perhaps the appropriate motion would be to table this matter until there is a
decision from the Metropolitan Council regarding the pending Comprehensive Plan_ This tabling
action would need Tollefson Development's consent and according to Mr. Gary Wollschlager this
tabling action would pose contractual problems with the land seller and may not allow the contractor
to accomplish his objectives for this development yet this year.
Morke/Link moved to deny the request of Tollefson Development to rezone property located north of
17`'' Avenue extended, east of CSAH 17 and west of CSAH 83 from Agricultural Preservation (AG)
Zone to Medium Density Residential (R2) Zone and directed staff to prepare a resolution denying the
rezoning request consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation.
Councilor Sweeney called the question.
Official Proceedings of the
Shakopee City Council
July 10, 2001
Page —6-
Motion carried unanimously.
Link/Amundson offered Resolution No. 5556, A Resolution Of The Shakopee d ober and moved its
Authorizing Execution Of An Agreement For The Project Entitled Safe a ,
adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
Mr_ McNeill, City Administrator reported on the possible Park Dave Brown, South
of O'Dowd
Lake. He explained that Mayor Brekke was contacted by realto , regarding some ]and
around a portion of O'Dowd Lake being for sale. Mr. McNeill oriented the 43.85 acres for sale that tored the site. The
has a listing price of $35.000 per acre_ City Staff along with Mr. Dave e The current CIP
accessibility at this time is from County Rd. 17 and is not to a very good loca ston
does identify a $1 million project that would consist of 50 acres outside the urban service area with an
acquisition date of 2003. However, the Park Board looked at that date earlier this year and
recommended that the date be moved back to 2006 because of other pressing issues. There are no
immediate funds available for this purchase. Mark McQuillan has prepared a memo regarding this
land acquisition for the Council with options, if this land purchase is something the Council is
interested in at this time. If this land is purchased at this time, it
t act as
the City's d the
r for
project would be completed at a future date. Mr. Brown has o
this piece of property and has offered to give back to the City Yz of his commission. Cncl. Sweeny
was in agreement to purchase this land now because it was future p k wrtCncl. Council
Morke wanted t see
purchase a large piece of property outside of MUSA for future park
independent appraisahe property done as the property is currently zoned becau
an se he felt the
I of t
price was way out pra line. There did appear to be some serious issues with this piece of land. Cncls.
Amundson and Link concurred with Cncl. Morke and Sweeney. Mayor Brekke was in favor of
looking into the land purchase because it was consistent with the goals of the Council to buy up some
land outside of MUSA for park area and he also felt that the citizens of Shakopee would get viable
access to a recreational lake.
Mr. Jeff Kaley, 754 Madison Street South, Park and Recreation Advisory Board member, was funding
the podium and stated that he thought this was a good opportunity and his only concern
the proposed acquisition. Mr. Kaley asked that the funding be creative d at not want the land t urc l hase
mon would be reimbursed from the Park Reserve Fund. Mr. Ka ley d
to be at the expense of other park projects that truly needed to be done within the City. There was
discussion on the creative funding_ It was pointed out that in the memo from Jason Bullard the water
and electric funds belonged to the Shakopee Public Utilities.
Sweene Y /Morke moved to direct staff to get an independent appraisal for the 43.85 acres that is for
sale on Lake O'Dowd. Motion earned unanimously.
Sweeney/Morke moved to direct staff through Mr. Loney to get an engineering Motion evaluation
unanimously.
potential for the beach to be used by residents of the City of Shakopee. M
Official Proceedings of the July 10, 2001
Shakopee City Council Page —7-
The broker issue was discussed.
Dave Brown, Dave Brown Realtors, 287 Pioneer Lane, approached the podium and stated that he
thought he should call Mayor Brekke regarding the land that was for sale on Lake O'Dowd. He
remembered hearing the City say they were interested in property around Lake O'Dowd. He stated
he was informed that the City did like to go directly to the property owner, however, the sign for this
sale of property was very inconspicuous. He did feel he knew the land in Shakopee.
Link/Amundson offered Resolution No_ 5550, a Resolution of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota,
Approving The Final Plat of Southbridge Crossings Second Addition, and moved its adoption.
(Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
Link/Amundson moved to authorize the transfer of the 66 foot strip to Tollefson Development, Inc.
for inclusion in the Final Plat of Brittany Village 4 and offered Resolution No 5551, A
Resolution Of The City of Shakopee, Minnesota Approving the Final Plat of Brittany Village 4`
Addition, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
Link/Amundson offered Resolution No. 5555, A Resolution Setting The Public Hearing Date To
Consider The Vacation Of Street Right -Of -Way for 4�' Avenue Between Cass and Webster Streets,
and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
A recess was taken at 8 :52 p.m.
The meeting re- convened at 9:04 p.m.
Mr. Leek gave a clarification on the trail connection within the final plat for Savannah Oaks at
Southbridge 4`', located south of Hwy 169 and north of Dean Lake. There has been some discussion
with the Natural Resources Director and Brauer & Associates regarding trails in this area. There was
a specific change to the trail that Mr_ Leek oriented along with a material change to the plat that will
need to be made prior to the recording. Mr. Leek requested if the final plat were adopted tonight,
that a specific revision be included in Resolution No. 5553. The trail would run across Lot 17, Block
2 in Savannah Oaks at Southbridge 4 and the developer would propose to split off this lot and
dedicate it to the City for trail purposes. The final plat drawing would need to be revised to reflect
this dedication to the City. This would be an amendment to Resolution No 5553 that would state this
revision would need to be done before the recording of the final plat_ Other than this change the Final
Plat is consistent with the Preliminary Plat.
Mayor Brekke asked about the noise abatement requirement in this plat. Mr. Leek addressed his
question.
Official Proceedings of the July 10, 2 00I Page —8-
Shakopee City Council
Mr. Leek asked that a condition I.D. needed to be added to amend the dedication page to show that
portion of lot 17, block 2, which would be dedicated for trail purposes, and amend the plat drawings
to reflect that additional dedication.
Sweeney /Amundson offered Resolution No. 5553, A Resolution Of The City of Shakopee, Minnesota
Approving The Final Plat of Savanna Oaks At Southbridge 4 Addition and moved its adoption with
the intent of amending the Resolution.
Sweeney /Amundson moved to amend Resolution No. 5553 as needed to reflect the dedication of a
portion of Lot 17, Block 2 for trail purposes, and amend the plat drawings to reflect that trail
dedication.
The amended motion carried unanimously.
The amended main motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Leek reported on the Prairie Village 6` Addition Final Plat Grading Plan. A memorandum from
the City Engineer was included in the Cncls. packets and Mr. Loney deferred to Mr. Bruce Loney,
Public Works /City Engineer Director, to address the issue specifically-
Amundson/Link moved to remove the Prairie Village 6" Addition Final Plat Grading Plan from the
table. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Loney approached the podium and reported on the final plat of Prairie Village 6
d ition with
respect to the grading. The lots in question are Lot 8, Block 2 and Lot 9, Block . p
has proposed a change i
Block 2.' The
preliminary plat showed the homes for 9 as rambler lot on a basically ally flat lot. What the
developer is proposing is actually adding fill to raise lots 8 & 9 approximately 2'/i feet. This does
meet the City design criteria. The final plat is in conformance with the preliminary plat but the
grading plan was changed in the final plat. There was discussion with the Council on the new grading
plan and the housing type. There was a change made from the preliminary plat to the final plat and
Jim Thomson, City Attorney thought there was enough of a change that Council approval was
needed. Mr. Thomson did not feel this final plat was in substantial compliance with the preliminary
plat.
Cory Lepper, representing Orrin Thompson Homes, approached the podium and stated that he did
agree with Mr. Phil Isaak that there was a grading differential between the preliminary and the final
plat_ Mr. Lepper stated Orrin Thompson Homes was fine with changing back to the preliminary plat
grading if that is what the Council desired. Orrin Thompson Homes will put in a retaining wall to
retain the grade and see that the drainage swales stay the same.
Official Proceedings of the
Shakopee City Council
July 10, 2001
PaQe —9-
Mr. Lepper would like to start building from the western set back thus maximizing the eastern set
back for the neighbors and depending on what home was purchased there could possibly be a 19 foot
set -back on the easterly side.
Councilor Sweeney would like to see in writing what Orrin Thompson Homes and Mr_ Phil Isaak
agreed to.
Phil Isaak, 2022 Chester Street, approached the podium and stated the house size had been discussed
many times. Orrin Thompson Homes would not agree to house restrictions. In reality the grading
difference would be smaller in the preliminary plat than the grading difference in the final plat. Mr.
Isaak also pointed out that the cul -de -sac has increased in height so the lights coming into his back
yard are coming from a higher point.
Cory Lepper approached the podium and stated his concern was that Orrin Thompson could get to a
point with restrictions that they did not have a home to put on the lot.
Sweeney /Amundson moved to approve Resolution No. 5543, Final Plat of Prairie Village 6`
Addition, with the condition that the final grading plan for Lot 8, Block 2 and Lot 9, Block 2 be the
same as the preliminary plat grading plan for Lot 8, Block 2 and Lot 9, Block 2. Motion carried
unanimously.
Councilor Link addressed the Extension of Final Plat Approval for Stonebrooke 4` Addition. Mr.
Link stated there was a letter for a 6 -month extension when a 12 -month extension is really what the
developer wanted.
Link/Sweeney moved that a one -year extension be granted for the approval period for Stonebrooke
4` Addition, making the plat valid until July 10, 2002. Motion carried unanimously.
Link/Amundson moved to authorize an extension agreement with WSB, Inc_ for prepa
EAW for a single- family development by ToIlefson Development, Inc. (Motion carried
Consent Agenda).
Cncl. Link represented Mr. Jeurissen in his request for a waiver of Minor Subdivision C
Jeurissen Property; Cncl. Lank will be abstaining from voting on this issue_ Mr. Link stz
waiver of Minor Subdivision Criteria is a request that the Council waive the provision o
Sec. 12.2 1, Subd. 2, E. The reason for the waiver at this time is if the future trunk sew
down County Road 42 then the 400 foot wide strip (12 acres) would be able to be subd
lots for sale if the sewer and water lines are needed to be extended up into the 70 acres.
acres is a landlocked parcel. This proposed development will not be built at this time bi
County Road 42 is needed to make this proposed development work. Mr. Leek stated
needed because in order to do a minor subdivision the property needs to have been prey
on of the
der the
iteria for the
ted that this
City Code
r main comes
vided into
The seventy
t access to
he waiver is
iously platted.
001
2
,
Official Proceedings of the Page July 10 0, 2
Shakopee City Council
This is not previously platted land. The waiver is for the 12 acres that will be divided off the
homestead. Even if the waiver was granted, but the development did not happen, the lots created
would still meet the rural residential lot standards of ten acres. Cncl. Sweeney had mixed emotions
about the waiver. The Council has done metes and bounds lots before but not in the rural residential
district. Cncl. Sweeney's concern was if the Council did this waiver of minor subdivision now would
this put the Council in a precedent setting situation. Mayor Bre not see any
should have problem a too be
doing this waiver of minor subdivision. There was discussion on hel
platted before a subdivision is allowed.
Morke /Sweeney moved to table the waiver of minor subdivision criteria for the Jeurissen property.
Motion carried unanimously with Cncl. Link abstaining from the vote.
Sweeney/Morke moved to direct staff to prepare an amendment to City Code Sec. 12.21, Subd. 2, E
to eliminate the requirement that a parcel being subdivided needs to be platted before the subdivision
can occur. Motion carried unanimously with Cncl. Link abstaining from the voting_
Mr. Loney gave the staff report on the request for the installation of a second driveway. A letter was
received from Dale Haupt, 406 2 Avenue East. Mr. Haupt has a corner lot and would like to put up
a garage. According to policy, Mr_ Haupt is allowed only one curb cut on 2 "d Avenue and there is
d
one existing curb cut on to 2 Avenue now. Mr. Haupt applied for a variance to the setback to the
Planning Commission so this garage could be built using the current driveway but the Planning
Commission denied the variance.
Morke /Sweeney moved to approve the curb cuts in two locations on Second Avenue for Mr. Dale
Haupt, 406 2 " Avenue_ Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Loney addressed the Friendship Manor curb cuts. Additional work is being requested by
Friendship Manor to be added to the project costs that are being done in that area now. Some of
these needs are being brought forward now because these needs have become necessary because of
the reconstruction project that is taking place now at Friendship Manor. Mr. Loney oriented the
improvements that are being requested. These improvements include sidewalks and driveway
relocation. A price was received from Northwest Asphalt,
Inc. to do the requested work for $39,925.
Friendship Manor has asked that these costs be put on a change order. This request is made so the
improvements become part of the project costs and therefore is a budget item with the State. If
Friendship Manor had to pay for these improvements themselves, even with the cost reductions, they
just could not afford it. Mr. Loney had a second alternative available to lower the cost. A letter was
received from Friendship Manor in which they agree to be assessed for these costs and they agree not
to appeals the assessments.
Sweeney/Morke moved to authorize the additional work to be done for Friendship Manor with the
costs being added to the 2000 Reconstruction Project as outlined in the memo at July 10, 2001
Official Proceedings of the
Shakopee City Council
July 10, 2001
Pate —11-
from Mr. Loney and Friendship Manor agreeing to be assessed for these costs and their agreement
not to appeal the assessments. Motion carried unanimously. (CC Document No. 307)
Mr. Loney reported on the T.H. 169 Corridor Plan. MnDOT is going thru several studies of inter-
regional corridors throughout the State of Minnesota. One of the inter - regional corridor study
pertains to T.H. 169 that serves southwestern Minnesota. There is a timeline that has been set for the
corridor studies. Mr. Loney is a member of the Technical Advisory Committee and Mayor Brekke is
a member of the Policy Advisory Committee. The corridor of 169 from East Bloomington to
Mankato is being studied. Based on the traffic trends observed and the growth of traffic on T.H. 169,
MnDOT feels an extension of the freeway system that was built through Shakopee should at least be
built down to the City of Jordan. One of the draft ideas is to keep the corridor viable as far as moving
traffic is concerned by creating more access points vs. signals. A concept drawing is before the
Council to look at a possible freeway interchange with T.H. 41 and T.H. 169. One of the charges to
the Technical Advisory Committee is to prioritize improvements to the corridor. This possible
interchange at T.H. 169 and T.H. 41 is about the third in line as far as priority is concerned. The
major change proposed at this date is a freeway ramp scenario at T.H. 41 and T.H. 169 to help move
traffic without coming through a signal. Because of access spacing for freeways, CR 69 access to T.
H. 169 will no longer be there. There will be an overpass over CR 69 but there will be no direct
access. Frontage roads will have to provide the access (CR 15 and CR 78). Mr. Loney was looking
for discussion and comments on the corridor study. Council members felt something other than what
was now being discussed for CR 69 access needed to be done. Council members thought that what
was being discussed now would not be good for the western end of Shakopee or the commercial area
in downtown Shakopee. The Council wanted it pointed out to MnDOT that they wanted two access
points to remain at T.H. 169 and CR 69 into Shakopee. There was discussion on the corridor study
regarding T.H. 169 and CR. 69. It was felt that the signage was critical and the Council wanted this
looked at and possibly correction of the current signage on the east end of T.H. 169 coming into
Shakopee. At one time there was an interchange planned for T.H. 169 and CR 69. It was taken out
previously in order to make the project financially viable. Why is it not an issue now to put that
interchange back in? The Council also wanted the Committee to at least discuss why the interchange
at CR 69 and T.H. 169 is not included this time in the corridor study plan. What is the rationale; if
the interchange was good 15 years ago why is not good now. There was discussion of the 17`
Avenue extension alignment with the frontage road. The Council would like this discussed. Mr.
Loney will draft a letter to MnDOT regarding the corridor study discussion.
Link/Amundson moved to authorize the purchase of a hooklift, flatbed and box from
ABM Equipment & Supply, Inc. for the purchase price of $44,824 and a plow form J -1
using the State bid price of $8,912.24. These equipment purchases will be funded fron
Service Equipment Fund. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
,raft, Inc.
the Internal
Official Proceedings of the July 10, 2001
Shakopee City Council Pale —IZ-
Link/Amundson moved to authorize the purchase of one new Tenco model TC- 172 -LM snow blower
from ABM Equipment & Supply Inc. for the purchase price of $57,510 with payment to be expended
from the Internal Equipment Fund. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
Link/Amundson moved to accept the resignation from Scott Smith, Project Engineer, effective July 9,
2001 with regrets. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
Link/Amundson moved to authorize the Engineering Department to continue advertising for vacant
Engineering positions in the Engineering Department. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
Link/Amundson moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute the Joint Powers
Agreement For Assessment Of The City Of Shakopee agreement with Scott County for the 2002
assessment year in the amount of $74 (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
Link/Amundson moved to approve the following listed parking and traffic related issues relating to
Derby Da s, August 1` -5`''. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
1. Parking lot and Second Avenue north of the railroad tracks between Sommerville Street and
Lewis Street on Wednesday, August 1 at 5:00 P.M. until noon on Sunda , August 5'.
2_ Parking lot between Lewis and Holmes Street August 2 -4 Carnival Rides)_
3. Lewis Street, and Homes Street north of 2" Ai enue, and Holmes Street north of alley, leaving
access to parking lot via Holmes Street, and 1 Street from Holmes to Sommerville Streets on
Thursday August 2 "d through Saturday August 4 from 8:00 AM until 8:00 PM_ (Sidewalk
Sales.
4. 3 Avenue from Sommerville to Lewis Streets on Saturday August 4`� from noon until 3 :00
PM. Water Fights
5. Lewis Street fr om 4` Avenue to 2 "d Avenue on Saturday August 4`�, from 2 PM. (Soap Box
Derby)
6. Exit from County Road 69 onto Holmes Street and I" Avenue from Holmes Street to Lewis
Street on Thursda , Au st 2 nd from 2 PM_ Taste of Shakopee)
7. 3` Avenue and 4' Avenue from Naumkeag Street to Holmes Street from 8:00 AM. until 1:00
PM. on Saturday, August 4'. (Parade Route
8. Alleys between Sommerville Street to Holmes Street up to the parking area behind Real Gem
Jewelers and Art Gallery — August 2 -5.
9. Authorize sidewalk sales by downtown merchants — Thursday through Saturday.
10. Authorize the assistance of Public Works for set up of picnic tables, benches, and clean up as
needed.
Link/Amundson moved to direct that "Fire Parking Only" signage be erected on the north side of
Second Avenue east of Scott Street, for a distance of 160 feet, across 2 "d Avenue from the
Downtown Fire Station. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
Official Proceedings of the July 10, 2001
Shakopee City Council Page —13-
Link/Amundson moved to adopt the plans and specifications for the City Hall and Public Services
building reproofing project as prepared by JEA Architects, and direct that advertisement for bids be
made. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
Mayor Brekke asked for a Council member volunteer to help him in performing the City
Administrator's annual performance evaluation. Mayor Brekke and Cncl. Morke will perform the
City Administrator's annual performance evaluation. The review process will consist of written
comments from all Council members and discussion of the continents with Mayor Brekke and Cncl.
Morke along with goal setting.
Sweeney /Sweeney offered Resolution No_ 5557, A Resolution Authorizing Expansion Of The Target
Area and Extension Of Grant Period For The Small Cities Development Program, and moved its
adoption. Motion carried unanimously.
Link/Amundson offered Resolution No. 5558, A Resolution Of Special Commendation to Jerry
Poole, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
Link/Amundson moved to authorize the appropriate officials to sign the "Recycling Pro
Agreement" by and between Scott County and the City of Shakopee. (Motion carried c
Consent Agenda).
Link/Amundson moved to authorize the acceptance of $5,500 from the Lions Club and
funds to be place in the Escrow Fund for use in Lions Park. (Motion carried under the
Agenda).
Morke Sweeney moved to adjourn to Tuesday, July 24, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. Motion
unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:17 p.m.
Judith S. Cox
City Clerk
the
ize the
Carole Hedlund
Recording Secretary
OFFICIAL • D OF • L
ADJ. REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, M11 OTA 0
Mayor Brekke called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with Council Members Link, Mo
Sweeney, and Amundson present. Also present: Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Bn
Public Works Director /City Engineer; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; R. Michael Leek, Coma
Development Director; Jim Thomson, City Attorney; Gregg Voxland, Finance Director;
The pledge of allegiance was recited.
Loney,
The following item was removed from the Agenda. 15.B.3 Extension Agreement with WSB Inc. for
EAW for Removal of Historic Structure.
Amundson/Link moved to approve the Agenda as modified. Motion carried
Mayor Brekke reported that there was a meeting scheduled tomorrow between the Sh,
Mdewakanton Sioux Community, Scott County and the City of Shakopee to discuss tl
application. Mayor Brekke stated also the City of Shakopee received today the Shako
Mdewakanton Sioux's response to the BIA deficiency letter. In March the BIA sent a
explaining to the tribal government that the Land Trust application was deficient. The
Mdewakanton Sioux responded then to the BIA and the response from the BIA regarc
deficiency was just received today by the City of Shakopee. Staff will look at the lette
with a response.
Sweeney/Morke moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Brekke asked if there were any citizens present in the audience who wished to
item not on the agenda.
Bruce Theis, High Five Erectors, approached the podium and discussed the time itamc
applications. He wanted to know if the timing for the permit process could be hurried
Bruce Theis was hoping to be done around the time the building permit would probabl
for his addition. Mr. Leek commented on the process. Mr. Bruce Theis' property is 1(
Major Recreation District and that is why the PUD is required. The review schedule r
amended for Scott County review because the property is adjacent to County Road so
longer than usual. This is a County requirement and the City of Shakopee can't waive
requirement. Mr. Leek offered an alternative of perhaps allowing a footing and found
with a Hold Harmless Agreement pending review of the PUD amendment for the addi
controversial to the amendment to the PUD is foreseen. This alternative would requir
City Council to staff. Mr. Theis was not acceptable to this alternative. The alternativ
provide much of a time saving in his estimation. Rezoning was discussed. There was
how this issue for timing could be resolved.
Land Trust
ig this
and follow -up
any
for building
along. Mr.
y be granted
)cated in the
as been
the time is
the County's
tion permit
, ,ion. Nothing
direction from
did not
discussion on
Official Proceedings of the
Shakopee City Council
July 24, 2001
Page —2-
Sweeney/Morke moved to direct staff along with the City Attorney to prepare a footing and
foundation permit along with limited other structural changes that are acceptable to staff and
applicant for an addition at High Five Erectors, with a Hold Harmless Agreement. Motion carried
unanimously.
Sweeney/Morke moved to approve the meeting minutes for June 5, 2001. (Motion carried under the
Consent Agenda).
Sweeney/Morke moved to approve the bills in the amount of $324,495.13 plus $72,191.92 for
refunds, returns, and pass through for a total of $396,687.05. (Motion carried under the Consent
Agenda).
Cncl. Sweeney reported on some Shakopee Public Utilities issues. The Levee Drive substation was
discussed by the Shakopee Public Utilities. Shakopee Public Utilities was directed 'to remove the
equipment from the substation, move the poles, and underground what utilities need be
undergrounded with the intent to turn the building over to the City. He noted that the building is
located on a State Trail and could possibly have a potential use. There was discussion by the Council
on the condition of the building. Mr_ Loney, Public Works Director /City Engineer, suggested that an
inspection of the building be done to see what costs would be involved to bring this building to code.
Cncl. Sweeney also reported on water fee issues. The connection fees and the meter fees were the
issues. The City transferred the collection of these fees over to Shakopee Public Utilities beginning
July l but Shakopee Public Utilities felt this date was too soon and it was suggested that the transfer
date of the fees collection be January 1, 2002. There was also an issue regarding a third fee. This fee
was the inspection fee and this fee issue was discussed. It was recommended by the Shakopee Public
Utilities Commission (SPUC) that the inspection fee be given to SPUC because they do the
inspection. It was pointed out that SPUC does not do all of the inspection. Some of the inspection
falls to the City of Shakopee. SPUC will contact Mr. McNeill, City Administrator. Mr. Van Hout
was also directed by SPUC to address a letter to the City Council asking the Council's support of the
increase of SPUC members to five (5). The discussion of the additional members should be the
length of terms.
Sweeney/Morke offered Resolution No. 5561, A Resolution Of The City of Shakopee, Minnesota,
Amending Resolution No. 5495, Establishing An Environmental Advisory Committee For the City Of
Shakopee, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
Sweeney/Morke offered Ordinance-No. 603, Fourth Series, An Ordinance Of The City of Shakopee,
Minnesota, Amending Chapter 11, Zoning, Regarding The Medium Density Residential Zone, (R -2)
And The Multiple Family Residential Zone (R -3), and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the
Consent Agenda).
Official Proceedings of the July 24, 2001
Shakopee City Council Page —3-
Sweeney/Morke offered Resolution No. 5560, A Resolution Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota,
Denying A Request To Rezone Property From Agricultural Preservation (AG) To Medium Density
Residential (R2), and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
Cncl Sweeney addressed the letter to the City Council members to rezone property from Agricultural
- -. _ .. 1 1 n -- T - - - --
representing Orrin Thompson Homes. In his letter of May 9, 2001, Mr. Lepper stated that Orrin
Thomson endorses the Valley View project and agrees to pay the lateral benefits per the Assessment
Policy. He also stated that they expect consideration for the +/- one acre of right -of -way taking along
Valley View; and, if for any reason the project did not proceed as scheduled that they would expect
the Sarazin Street improvements to commence this summer. Cncl. Sweeney took issue with the
letter.
Sweeney/Morke directed staff to write a letter to Cory Lepper, of Orrin Thompson Homes in
response to his letter dated May 9, 2001 regarding the Valley View Road and the Sarazin Street
improvements. Motion carried unanimously.
Sweeney /Amundson offered Ordinance No. 604, Fourth Series, An Ordinance Of The City of
Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending The Zoning Map Adopted in City Code Sec. 11.03 By Rezoning
Land Generally Located North of Valley View Road, and East of County Road 17 From Agricultural
Preservation (AG) Zone to Urban Residential (R -1B) Zone, and moved its adoption. Motion carried
unanimously.
Mayor Brekke asked Mr. Cory Lepper if he had anything to add. Mr. Lepper did not'.
Motion carried unanimously.
Sweeney/Morke offered Resolution No. 5559, A Resolution Of The City of Shakopee, Minnesota,
Approving The Registered Land Survey Submitted By Render Bank Limited Partnership, and moved
its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
Sweeney/Morke moved to approve the expenditure of MIS funds to upgrade the domain server for
the Community Center building as recommended by LOGIS in the amount of $5,880. (Motion
carried under the Consent Agenda).
Mr. Loney, Public Works Director /City Engineer, introduced the Blue Lake Watershed Outlet issue
and Ms. Andrea Moffitt addressed the proposed EAW for the Blue Lake Watershed Outlet Channel_
Mr. Loney oriented the area of the Blue Lake Watershed Outlet where the feasibility study was done_
He reported that this feasibility study was sent to various agencies i.e. DNR, Shakopee Mdewakanton
Sioux Community (SMSC), PLSL Watershed District, Lower Minnesota Watershed District, Scott
County and the Shakopee Environmental Protection Agency.
Official Proceedings of the July 24, 2001
Shakopee City Council Page -4
Comments were received back from the DNR, Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, and the
Lower Minnesota River Watershed District (LMRWD). A letter was received from Linda Lehman,
hydrogeologist representing SEPA. These comments were heard by the City's Environmental
Advisory Committee and this committee recommended that an EAW be done for the Blue Lake
Watershed Outlet site. This would be a discretionary EAW ordered by the City that would answer
many questions regarding this watershed. This discretionary EAW will be needed for discussions
with the SMSC and for the County Road 83 project. The estimated costs for this EAW is $26,300
with costs not to exceed $31,000. This would be funded out of the Storm Water Trunk Fund. Mr.
Loney stated that he has had conversations with Kevin Bigalke of the LMRWD, and Pat Lynch of the
DNR, and these people are very supportive of doing the EAW.
Ms. Andrea Moitt, of WSB & Associates Inc., presented the proposal of the EAW. She stated that
tonight's purpose was to authorize the preparation of an EAW for the Blue Lake Watershed Outlet.
Ms. Moffitt with the aid of a graphic showed the drainage pattern of the water in the area. The EAW
will analyze the three alternatives that were presented in the feasibility study. Ms. Moffitt stated that
the potential is there for this EAW to be a mandatory EAW because of the wetlands in the area rather
than the discretionary EAW it is at this time. The scope of the EAW will analyze the functions,
values and the health of Dean Lake. The impact of routing water to Dean Lake or diverting this
water from Dean Lake will be looked at. There will be a detailed analysis of the water quality and
water quantity impacts of Dean Lake and the down stream areas. The EAW will seek comments
from the public as well as agencies and will provide guidance as whether an EIS is needed. There
was discussion as to which alternative(s) should be included in the
Sweeney /Amundson moved to authorize an extension agreement with WSB & Associates, Inc. for
the preparation of an EAW for the Blue Lake Watershed Outlet.
The EAW would be funded by the Storm Water Trunk Fund.
Motion carried unanimously.
Sweeney/Morke offered Resolution No. 5563, A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 5459 Which
Adopted The 2001 Part-Time Pay Plan For The Part-Time Non -Union Employees Of The City of
Shakopee, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
Sweeney/Morke moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute modification to
Appendix A by authorizing a Cost of Living Adjustment of 3.49% for the year 2001 for the Police
Sergeants Bargaining Unit of Law Enforcement Labor Services Local 279. (Motion carried under the
Consent Agenda).
Official Proceedings of the July 24, 2001
Shakopee City Council Page —5-
Sweeney/Morke offered Resolution No. 5562, A Resolution Of The City of Shakopee, Minnesota,
Approving Premises Permit (Pull -tabs) For Shako - Valley Amateur Hockey Association, and moved
its adoption. (Motion carried under the Consent Agenda).
Sweeney/Morke moved to accept the property/liability insurance renewals from the League of
Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust with a deposit premium of $222,695 and not waive the monetary
limits on tort liability established by Minnesota Statutes 466.04. (Motion carried under the Consent
Agenda).
Mr. McNeill, City Administrator, suggested alternative meeting dates for the special meetings that
were needed. Mr. McNeill was advised that the dates of August 22 nd , and 23 would not work. Mr.
McNeill suggested Monday August 13 Tuesday August 14 and Thursday August 16 The State
is not required to give the City the levy information until September 1, 2001. There will still need to
be a workshop meeting on September 6 th and if necessary Sept. 11, 2001. Some of these dates were
unacceptable to the Councilors. The special meetings dates are: July 26, and July 31, August 9, 13,
14, 16, and September 6 and possibly September 10. Last year no joint meeting was held with
Jackson and Louisville Townships for budget purposes. Last year these Townships were sent the
information and asked to comment. It was decided that every few years a joint meeting should be
held with the Townships; every year was not necessary. Cncl. Sweeney liked to have discussion on
the Fire Department budget with the Townships because the City's Fire Department impacts the
budget of the Townships. The orderly annexation agreement with Jackson Township will be the topic
for the July 31 special meeting.
Sweeney/Morke moved to approve the application and grant a tobacco license to Twin Cities Avanti
Stores, LLC dba Food n Fuel, 234 West 1' Avenue, effective July 25, 2001 through December 31,
2001, upon the surrender of the license to Avanti Holdings, Inc. (Motion carried under the Consent
Agenda).
Mr. Morke noted that he had a letter on the table indicating that he will be resigning from the City
Council effective December 31, 2001. He will be getting married and moving out of town next
spring. A resolution will be forthcoming regarding Cncl. Morke's resignation.
A recess was taken at 8:07 p.m. for an executive session.
Mayor Brekke re- convened the meeting at 8:18 p.m.
Mayor Brekke stated that the City Council is coming out of an executive session during which there
was discussion regarding the condemnation proceedings involving Wampach property in down town
Shakopee.
Official Proceedings of the July 24, 2001
Shakopee City Council Page —6-
Sweeney/Morke moved to direct staff to prepare a resolution considering whether or not to terminate
condemnation proceedings for the potential acquisition of the Wampach property to be considered at
the next City Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
Sweeney /Amundson moved to adjourn to Thursday July 26, 2001 at 5:00 P.M. Motion carried
unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
dith S. Cox
City Clerk
Carole Hedlund
Recording Secretary
g
CITY OF SHAKOPEE CoN NT
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance director
RE: Citv Bill List
DATE: August 16, 2001
Introduction and Background
Attached is a print out showing the division budget status for
2001 based on data entered as of 8/16/2001.
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 $182,055.87. The actual net expense
amount is $1,006,983.85.
Action Requested
Move to approve the bills in the amount of $1,189,039.72
N
O
_co m
N
co a
_ O O _ _
Q o a m V o m m C9 O M m
V R V C c) n
W ° M o m of O N c , r�
I M uJ y� 0 N b Iq
N O N O O M N O ll7 N V N
U7
lj N M M O n O O ! � L . co
m N M O M N M M O M
V
C
CL
O O
N
V
co
M
^
O O O
N
a0-
O
c2
V
U
V
Iq
M
t9
co
Q
W
M
M
07
to
00 M
0
m M
�
V
O
co VV
.p
m
n
N
r0
VJ
Cl)
V
0
N N .-
U7 co
C6
CO
O
n
o
7
U
r V
M
M
b O W
N
�V
�0�.
t
_ co
O ° 00 ° p o o ° ° o o
C O OJ V N h M N V n M N N O V7 V
j M N M I m t N O
C
Q m N O O e O
co
1 �
I
I Co
CD
z
0
I
W 0
. m
im
l- U
y O a w W
in Z U W Z W a Z W
LL _E2 CO W W r 0 W Z 0
X< O Z j_ }0 O Q m C7 Z
W 6� W O O W Z _Z W W
LL
I Z d' O U U Z ,--� 0 O (r Z F' J
C7 >- } Q Q W U U W LU
F- Q U W
o Q - Z CD z Z W Z W O
o
0
> o
Q
a I
U
R
N
m
^I
n�^
MI M
�
M M
CO CIJ i 0
co I c o
V
NI V
N
U7 h
CO V.
V
I.
b V
u1
UJ
Q G O O
[T ^ G co
m
CO �p
L O C5
O V V
c
U
O p
O p
_O p
O p
_ V
7 N M
C
C - 8 3)
Q m I
f
I
o c cc
a
.� � Z 0
A - (� Z
0 Z � LOt
0 a o
Q Q F
W F W
, w C-)
of ir LL,
z
o X o
Ln 0
N CD
0
> o
Q
4
W
U
N
W
m
N
} N
0
m
I 07 C
� o
U
N N
CD Cp
M Cl)
n �
M M
N �
M m
I O
M C)
M co
� O
O LO
N
H
I
Uj
N N
N
uVj V
O
C W m
o O
M M
U
O p
O p
O p
LO
O O
M Cl)
CV
C U) CO
C
Q m
H
W
i a
> O
LU
J
1
W
65 }D
t- } t
Z z
O ~
U o
N r N
o p
O O
N
m V
O
O
c2
V
Iq
cq
LO
co
N
O
07
'
n 0)
b N
N O
UJ
N
n
N m
co
Q
m
7
U
N
CO
O ° 00 ° p o o ° ° o o
C O OJ V N h M N V n M N N O V7 V
j M N M I m t N O
C
Q m N O O e O
co
1 �
I
I Co
CD
z
0
I
W 0
. m
im
l- U
y O a w W
in Z U W Z W a Z W
LL _E2 CO W W r 0 W Z 0
X< O Z j_ }0 O Q m C7 Z
W 6� W O O W Z _Z W W
LL
I Z d' O U U Z ,--� 0 O (r Z F' J
C7 >- } Q Q W U U W LU
F- Q U W
o Q - Z CD z Z W Z W O
o
0
> o
Q
a I
U
R
N
m
^I
n�^
MI M
�
M M
CO CIJ i 0
co I c o
V
NI V
N
U7 h
CO V.
V
I.
b V
u1
UJ
Q G O O
[T ^ G co
m
CO �p
L O C5
O V V
c
U
O p
O p
_O p
O p
_ V
7 N M
C
C - 8 3)
Q m I
f
I
o c cc
a
.� � Z 0
A - (� Z
0 Z � LOt
0 a o
Q Q F
W F W
, w C-)
of ir LL,
z
o X o
Ln 0
N CD
0
> o
Q
4
W
U
N
W
m
N
} N
0
m
I 07 C
� o
U
N N
CD Cp
M Cl)
n �
M M
N �
M m
I O
M C)
M co
� O
O LO
N
H
I
Uj
N N
N
uVj V
O
C W m
o O
M M
U
O p
O p
O p
LO
O O
M Cl)
CV
C U) CO
C
Q m
H
W
i a
> O
LU
J
1
W
65 }D
t- } t
Z z
O ~
U o
N r N
o p
r
O N
m
m a
W
W o
LL rn
o
¢ U
= m
LL U
O 'o
} O
F 0 o
U V m
m
F F
z z
w w
2 2
w w
W w w w Z W w w w w w C7 w C7
U U U U p U U U U U U U U¢ U ¢
2' R' K m LL W W lY of W= w 2' z x z w
O O O O 0 0 O of O o o¢ O ¢
LL LL LL LL LL LL LL O LL LL LL LL 2 Z
Y Y Y Y F F F Q Z Q F
U) U U U F w U U U¢ U O Z
z LL a a ¢ LL ¢ ¢ a m a z z m Z
w O F F N F O F W F F W F W w W Q F W Z
U' 00 O' w w z LL U` 00 U' LL C7 LL Z (D C7 W 0 w W W< z w w
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ W ¢ ¢ a ❑ ❑ z ❑ ¢ ❑ - ¢ ❑ ❑ Z ❑ z z Z Z W F Z W O
r- 0 0 0 O m a � y O O O U O z 0 0 0 0¢¢ O g z z Z¢ z Z
= m m m m 2 U LL w Q of LL = w U w w }= m 2 2 a❑ w¢ w 2 W ¢ >.
y F F F~ F Q W}} F.. F F F F � F�}} F F F W w a U 2 2 w U 2 0f
c w w Lu z g= U F- ❑ W� U ❑ d I- U U� Y U Y °- U U a.
Z J J w 5 J U J J q= af 5 J O 1
3 3 3 a O 3 3 0 3 w 3 o o w¢ ?¢ c� O? x m
F
z
w
LU
w
C
J F
z F Z
W W W LL
2 CD O O Y W vi
LU 0 Z z m Z< Q F
E O o ¢
z } LL ¢ W
m m v < d
w o ¢ 0 0 a
tq w J CL F a. W
O
Z co cn CO E
CD C/3 O
O Ow z z W W W F F
W
Z 0z W zZ UJ
Q Q J m m a W_ ¢ ¢ m U W
J CO w U m J J m m W O J W W W W J N N
W❑ c7 p w U w> > F= LL F F- J a z z
U J w = m J U m F U J J Z U LL m z z a a LL O U O
o ( n e5 ¢ U F �2 t: U L otS ot5 U F W Q Q j W 2 2 CL D U W U Z
w W ¢ w g w w w W O E- z w
Z O Z w w w� Z Z Z 0� a �� U U¢¢ m z Z a Z¢ F
Q Q 7 F LL F Q F O F Z O F O Z Z Z O Q'. 2 z
LL LL LL Cry O a - LL LL O Q �' LL W U¢ S z 5 z LL O LL w w F" O` N W W W U W O w
¢ C� U'
p w` W O� a w �O m o m w a w 2 m O m p m w� o U w a �a U o a� w w z V z o LL
O U F C7 Z U J p W C7 F J
w U W U j F F J F O Z U J LL LL F x O O W LL J J W x F U C7 LL C7 O
0¢ ¢ w W J z¢ O W W z a 0 a w O w 0 O O w= O O W >> M w Z LL Z p O
a❑ 3 F 3 0 F m IL 3 2 F LL 3 3 ❑ r L F - M W U LL m 0 0 W w O 2 m m O O m W O W m w
U
U_ W W W U w U z
m > v U m J❑ U z z m
¢ c O z O o U J r ct z w U z w CL
U U w
CO 0 LL _ � r w w C o C-) } U U o w z w w
a� O z d ¢ W m m LL U m U ? U U aS a a F O Z U O U z_
J a w ❑ p w U C. z>> O m y w Z 4 Z z w rn V v=i z a ¢ O U? m
U) 2 }}- U J Q U Q W w 0¢¢ U m ❑ w F O m w m� a C)¢ g w p z Y
O z W U W W U a C� w W' 7 W R J Z U w O 0 z O ¢ a W a, U
0 0 0 m 0= J J O O a w to > m 0 O U❑ Q C7 p = = W m U of 0 2>>
Q O W z U 0 O Q Z Z Q of m
m 2 Z O U F F LL= j 0 0 0 a a z Z D ¢ a U w U w LL 2 = t4 ¢ <¢ U Z
W W W x O O F� Z a W F- r F O O❑ N O = m z❑ O U J O Y W o Y= W O OF w
m >> F t4 U p a X m o 0 0¢ Q w m U m O Q> J w U¢ m U U� m ¢ U F}
Q p Q O p w W Z z O Q w O D U U x x m w¢ °� F m❑❑ J 2 z n. a U w w w �? 0 0 0 0 0
> m m U❑ x 2 2 m 2 z z a U U U m U m> 3 ¢¢¢ a a a a¢¢¢¢ m m m m m m m m m
p M N m O Cl
r P m 'J Om') N w O N
V V O m c m
N N N N N N CD N N
N N N N N N N N
0 0 0 0 o 0 C o
N
m O
m
m
O
N
r-
N
O
C O
to
O
m
N
O l0
O
V
N
m
N
M
cl
N
O
u') N
O
O
M
V
m
O
O O
V
O
O
m tD
cq
M rr
V
N
m
M
N
O
N
N
r- N
O
m
O
m
m
O
M
m
m
m
u
w
m
ui
O 0
O
m
m N
m
V
m
r
O
O
N
m M
C7
M m
0i m
m
m
LL7
O
r
r`
N
w
N m
V'
N
N
"p
N
o
r-
N
0 m
O O
"r M
E
O
r
M
N N
r
N
m
c
r-
O
Q
O
W
V m
m
r-
m
r
N
O
N
r
N
O
O
J
O
W
to
r
m
01
O
r N
M
E
m
m
r
m O
,p U m
N
m
W
m m
m
01
W
W
O
Ol
O
O
O
o O
o
O
o
o
O
N
N N
N
N
N
N
N
N N
Q1
=i o
O
O
O
0 o
o
o
o
0
o
o
N
O
N
o
N
o
N N
o O
N
O
N
O
N
o
N
o
N
o
o
O o
o
o
o
o
o
O o
0 r-
r-
r
n
r- r
r
r
r
r_
r•
r`
r-
r-
r
r r
r-
ti
r`
r-
r
r-
r rr
r
r`
r
r•
r
r- n
p M N m O Cl
r P m 'J Om') N w O N
V V O m c m
N N N N N N CD N N
N N N N N N N N
0 0 0 0 o 0 C o
r
� N
(D
O �
� O)
z
Z
W
2
W
O
Q
}- z
z
LLI z z w
W W w z z z Z F-. N
F - ~ F - Z I - z Z w Z- W Z W z g Z z w O w Z Q w Z
w w w Z Z Q Z W Q Q w Q w w w w w W 2 LL Q w W
W Y w W y I C7 W Z Z F- F- U Q Q rc W Q W Q Z W W S w w 4 Q� o O w 2 w Q w w Z
E Q¢ 0 0 0¢ a Q Q LL Q Q LL Q Q Z Z Q J z 2 J z Z z z z 2 2 Q O z ❑ Q V O
N a < S < a ~ Q S¢ 2 W F- w W W O 2 m 2 2 W `L 2 0 0 0 U V Q m K w U Z J W
a w a a a J Y J W F w Z w W Z U? Q U J Q}} IL w W J w U U U J J w O F w> o }- W
-65 Y °¢ O Q Q F zU` p w �i.l F U o z w -> UO W F - ° w p > >> O O¢ S Q Z
w y ° m m to I - a n U v1 cn LL> C7 m rn m m w �? U a �? m m O a U U U a a a m U z U h LL
CL m
O 0
Y = m
¢ I
2
C/1 L
/ LL ` U U U U
F- U Z _ _
Z W W U W W w w w w W w w W w
_ J {- E- Z J J w
U C d S a d w d a z w d ?- d d Z F- F - w z '.. z O d a_
.2 a. J a. a_ o. a a >> w z o Q Z z :5 Q III w ~ w>
W m W W W U) y 2 cow z Q v1 Q to ¢ z ¢ d W CD F>---
w N (D 0 U' w U U' co z J Z Z z Z Z w w O W Z Z cD ❑ Z Z Z Z
d J Z Z Z J Z Z O w w W U' w f' z z W O U' Q w LL F FQ- Q
Z IQ' 1Q � = + K w' z w a Q a¢ d O o U w O Q 2' a o w o U d W U w w w °- CO 2' 2'
z W �,{ w W W O N❑ w w W lA 7 J N W J S cD W 7 J> J LL w w D
S J LL' S= S S
¢ a a LL Q a o W C7 Q d a 0 0 D W d° w r¢ M 0 =❑ IL O w w F H H c7 a a 0
¢ 2 O a 0 0 F- 2 0 0 m O w� 0 0 a W m J O m 2 0 0 O W m Q m O W F O O O W F O O>
U z
J —
U Z Z z Z y W to z o Z Z U
Z U J F" Z z D. z
m O S U U ° CO Z Q� O Z O :3 V D U
U 2
w F- J � Z z z w w U O T? U O w of z w w Z
7 ¢ = Z z w U Z a. Z R m z a O o J p p z¢ H w LL U
z m z U >- Q CL w z 0 Z (wn z ❑ w~ W w W x a Z w O O w- w l z O m Q
Y? M v� Q oO n Y p J z o U 2 Q w,?= d F- 0� F Z O O U S¢= o Q F m
O LL v1 W r~ z❑ w O Z c¢ Q Q w J O K z U W K Z cn z 0 U d Lij w w❑ Z w Z ¢ W w
U Z O I w w O w Y O w w d w N w w W z a z z J W CS'J O LLwF, 06 w w z O } z w Z Q
z ¢� O w 7 0 2 x w
m = Q 2 O O QQ 0 O a w O Q Q w O>
m U U U) U U U❑❑❑❑ °❑ W W W LL LL LL LL LL C7 (7 S S S S S 2 2 Y?
to r co to o a° to o m o w m to m o M r v o u� m tD ro o t o rn tD o m tD o M 0
d' M M tD .- r O t M 'CD C tD N tD tD r r tD (O tD Q1 N r M M M 0 r R N r V — O
W
C to r Ir rn n N m M M r t r c r LO CO (DD N LO C r '..� M r v N V In CD
m N r v r--
n N
O 0 V CO V' w M W r O O N tD M M N N M co (P V M tD N M w D1 M tD M N tIJ Q) V
O Q E - N c0 M tD a W N M N
co M N M V
O
O
N
N
O
O
J
w
W
U N M a' M to r CO O O N M a' to ID r N D)
Y i D1 O N M `? W O r N D) O N M V tD tD r W m O
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N L. N N N N N N N N N N
LL OI o 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 o n o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.. '� n o o r- o 0 0 0
n
L co
m
z z
z z
w w
2 2
w w
(9 0
¢ ¢
z z
¢ q4
J J
h
¢ w w w w W w
� ZZw¢ 0 Qa
w O O G Q Z G Q
z a� Z 2 Q 2 0
¢ w w ?
w w w m 0 0 0:5
a. R m u m o m m
C9
Z
Z
Q
W O W W
Co CL
EL a a
z co rn
Z >
F- 2
Q Z z
(C W Q W Z Q
I- O
w m J L- w
U)
O af Q 9 O-j 0 0
z_
co
Lu
W
F
ca ¢
Y w w
U
w Z m
uj
F a - Q a
w' O 0 Y w
LLJ
z
O U 4
❑ co F- Z O 2 i
w S S O J ¢ W
co IT O Lo O O N cq
to r. cD O - O cD O
U N n
m m O c) c7
N r
m V to o n O m O
0 0 o o 0 0 o o
co
m
o
z
O
v
n
0
CO Q
z
z
cD
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
cri
m
U-5
n
m
�D
n
m
z
to
O
O N
O
n
z
z
t N
O
f
cD
O
O
to
O
O
O
O cD
O
O
n
W
m
r
w
m
co
c0
cD
m
w
w
cD
n
w
cD
cD
O
o
n
O
O
co
m
m
2
co
n
O E c')
to
Q'
r
2
2
to
co N
O
m
M
N
c0
O
V
to n
r
O
N
co
(")
c7
to
f7
�
m
m
O c+)
n c7
to
w
O
r
N
to
c
tD
w
w
r
c7
�—
C7
c,
(7
C9
�—
O
c')
¢
Q
a
N
N
0
O
w
Z r
w
F-
F-
F-
~
W
W
w
F-
!-
w
J
CC)
Q
¢
O
w
w
2
2
O
W
F
C9
J
(7
z
W W
Z
z
w
w
W
w
w
of
0
<
Z
W
z
¢
¢
¢ m
m
CL
z
z
z
c
C
w ¢
w
a
❑
O
O
O
O
Q
�"
d¢
z
W
W
S
m
.
w=
m
Q Q
w 2 2
Z
0, Cf
W
W=
Q
Q
Q
Ln Y O
Q
w w�
W
w
U,
Z
Q
2
Q
2
m
Z C9
O z
N
c
Lo
a
W
U
Z
W
r
Z
¢
w a. a.
a 0 0
Q °
=
U
0:
U
J
O
J
O
y
m
J
J
O
h U
QQ J
O
U
¢
d
O
J
O
U
Y
¢❑
J
W m
n
N
Z❑
w m
N N
cm
N
w
Q
l- r
2
F- 2 2
w O
w
W
O
O¢?
m
N
m
N
O
Y O
O?
o
O)
w
S
O
z
w
W
m
Q
Q
Z
W
a_
C/3 U
P
cn cn 0
U N
D:
m U
a_
a
a_
U
a.
m a
0 a_
U
l
m
a_
m
C? m
m
y of
C9
_
_Z
co m
e
Z
LL
O U
U
5
U U
U
W
W
Z co
W
-
W
W
c
O
w
�--
F-
a
a_ to
C/)
W
m
w F
a
a_
U)
CO
a
co a_
Cl)
a
a.
a
a_
p,
D
Z
w w
❑ H
F-
J z
CO
S
F- Z)
iD
W>
>
'c
y
cn
w
w
Q
� cn
U z
w
5-
Q
a
O_
U
C9
O
z U
W C9
U
W
C7
Z❑
U
U
C9
Cf)
C9
j
g
❑❑
0
F.
2
S
Q
JQ2>
2z
m Z
z
❑
S
S
Z
R' Q Q
P j
Q
Z
z
4'
}Q-
z
!-
¢ a_
=
=
w>
W
W O
cn
V U U
2
J
U❑
m
2
Q
W
�2
w w
W
w
U
Of
W
W
W
2 -
O U
Q
O
t
F
O
O m❑
w 2 2
O
Q
O m-j
2
0¢
C9
O
2
F
Q
Z
0
0
0 O
O
Z
a.
O
a
O
Z
U Z
?
U
Z
w
O
U
U z
J
(7
w
J
Q
w
CO
M
F
C!) ti
Z
W
0_
J
U
W Q
T
Y
U ?
Z
z
U OF
=¢
0
O
-1
W
m
U
O J
z
C9
K O
?
cn
m
W
to
w F v�
U F
J
F-
O>
O
O
W
U-
Q z
O
cn
w
w
w
J
U
z
z W
0
W w
S
Z
cJi
m
y
g
Y O
W
w Of
U
Z
Z
U
0
IL
>
J
Q
j 0 w
J
Q❑
U
i
o
(n
O
cQ
m U ¢
U
❑
W
Z
h
h o
co
w
m
-� 0 S
S S�
w U
w
m
0
Z
Q
W
w w
~~
S
a
Q
Z
Z
Z
j w
d
7
w
w
�¢
2 Q
W
O w0
W
W
O
Q
Q
c
O
O
w
Z
Z
M Z
Z
Z O O
O O
O
lL
LL�
Q
Q
W
w
g
J
J O
a'
3.�¢
U
W
_!
W
J cn
W W
>
2
2
2
2 2
2
2 2 z
z z
O
o O
a.
a.
a
a
a
m m
m a.
O
Of
m
m w
z z
z z
w w
2 2
w w
(9 0
¢ ¢
z z
¢ q4
J J
h
¢ w w w w W w
� ZZw¢ 0 Qa
w O O G Q Z G Q
z a� Z 2 Q 2 0
¢ w w ?
w w w m 0 0 0:5
a. R m u m o m m
C9
Z
Z
Q
W O W W
Co CL
EL a a
z co rn
Z >
F- 2
Q Z z
(C W Q W Z Q
I- O
w m J L- w
U)
O af Q 9 O-j 0 0
z_
co
Lu
W
F
ca ¢
Y w w
U
w Z m
uj
F a - Q a
w' O 0 Y w
LLJ
z
O U 4
❑ co F- Z O 2 i
w S S O J ¢ W
co IT O Lo O O N cq
to r. cD O - O cD O
U N n
m m O c) c7
N r
m V to o n O m O
0 0 o o 0 0 o o
co
m
o
o
O
v
n
0
CO Q
o
co
cD
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
cri
m
U-5
n
m
�D
n
m
N
to
O
O N
O
n
O
cD
t N
O
f
cD
O
O
to
O
O
O
O cD
O
O
n
W
m
r
�o
m
co
c0
cD
m
O V
O
cD
n
w
cD
cD
O
o
n
O
O
co
m
m
O
co
n
O E c')
to
Q'
r
Lo
to
co N
O
m
M
N
c0
O
V
to n
r
O
N
co
(")
c7
to
f7
�
m
m
O c+)
n c7
to
c)
lA
O
r
N
to
c
tD
O
r
00 Q. r
r
c7
�—
O
c,
�—
O
c')
N
N
0
O
J
(7
W
Ln Y O
N
Cl)
7
to cD
n
co
m
O
N
c)
Lo
co
n
c0
O
O
N c7
v
Ln
cD
n
W
a)
O
0
io O n
x m N
n
N
n
N
n
N
n
N
n n
N N
n
N
n
N
n
N
co
N
w m
N N
cm
N
co
N
co
N
co
N
co
N
co
N
co
N
m
N
rn
N
m m
N N
m
N
m
N
m
N
m
N
m
N
m
N
o
O)
cJ
L I O
U
O
O
O
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
z z
z z
w w
2 2
w w
(9 0
¢ ¢
z z
¢ q4
J J
h
¢ w w w w W w
� ZZw¢ 0 Qa
w O O G Q Z G Q
z a� Z 2 Q 2 0
¢ w w ?
w w w m 0 0 0:5
a. R m u m o m m
C9
Z
Z
Q
W O W W
Co CL
EL a a
z co rn
Z >
F- 2
Q Z z
(C W Q W Z Q
I- O
w m J L- w
U)
O af Q 9 O-j 0 0
z_
co
Lu
W
F
ca ¢
Y w w
U
w Z m
uj
F a - Q a
w' O 0 Y w
LLJ
z
O U 4
❑ co F- Z O 2 i
w S S O J ¢ W
co IT O Lo O O N cq
to r. cD O - O cD O
U N n
m m O c) c7
N r
m V to o n O m O
0 0 o o 0 0 o o
n
� V
c0
O m
m
M
co a
w
U
z
W
U
r
W
r
Z
a
w
W
z
O
Z
z
r
r
Z
r
r
C�
O
U
U
a
r
of
UllLjw
Z
Q z
O
o W Z Q'
Z
W W
Z
Z
Z w�
Z
U U
a
d
W
F-
W z
M
W'
w
2 K o
w
w
m r
< <
Z
Z
C
Z
<
Z
Z
U
Q
W r ¢
z V` Z
a
r
Z
Z w<
Q
w
ug z
a
w
Z
"'
-�
(9
Z>
Y
Y W
F, Q
zoo
J
-1
F -J Q
Z
0
ap
S
w
z
W
w Z
p
W
S
Q
w
a w
w
r Q z
w W
w
a — a
J
J
U J W
U
2
W¢
Z
W m
w
w
U
w
U
a
w
U U
w
U
Z
Q
Y
J
r
U
r U
in
z J w Q
V
m
w
Y 2 0-
U
a
U_5
S
0
J a z
U
m U
J
J
S
a' J
J
w
a'
O ¢¢¢¢
o S
0
O
K
w O O
S
}
}¢}
Q
Z Q z
J
O�
w
w J
Q O
o
d m 8
0
m a.
0
a.
a
W
w O
a a
O
a
Z�
W LL
Q
a
O
a
Y
w
Y��
w U
r �W
r a U
U
r
to
a r
a cn CO
Q�
a
7 M LL
M
LL
O M
0 0 z
W- c
a
o
c
U CD
a
Z
U
LL U
O =
W
U
FU-
Z
r
Z
w
U
o
z
c
z
CO
D
Z
�
IL
)
U U
w
Z
U
J
CO
CO
J
U
w
w
CO
z
FW
o
z
p
Z
o
J F
a.
z=
0
OU
2
CO
a CO
¢
❑
J z
w z
U
O
Z) a w
J
O
u7
w
Q
O
m
S Q
Q
0 0
m
U
U
d y
Z
Z
�
Z
Z
R'
J U �
U
z Z z
Q
W
}}
z¢
c w
w
W
U
0
LL
¢
z W W 0 ?
a
U
W
W
'L
�
'
W
°_
7
w
2
o
J
w
Z
U`
w
a
5 J
Z F-
O
U�
w
U
w S =
g
LL
a LL
O x Z
w
S
n
CJ
w i
0
¢
S
r
O
2
r a
O o
r
0
LL
LL S
0 m
w
a
z
W
a
O
Cl M
w m
m
Z W a w
r C7 z- J
Z
w
J
w
M U W
o w 2
LL
Q❑
w
m. r O
a g U
r
0
O
w
M �-
U
o
w
U
a
U
W
w
U
S
O
U
r
S
j
z
w
U
z
v
w
a
U
rn
o
aa j
w
S
a
U
a
r w
Of
Z
2
D
z
O O
r
J
j
W Z
O
rn
Z
a
Z
U
J
U
O cn
Z
U M
r
w
Of
O
U
U¢
w
=
w=
a
U
F-
0
CD
z
Z >s
W
U O
w
rn EL
w
w
CD ❑
z
J
0
O
w
� W
S S U
S
J
F
Z
❑
a
o
o
o O
o
F-
W
7:
-j ; g
w
W
o m z
��
o¢
o 0 0 2 <
O
J
r
z
Q
W
W C�
U W
Q
Z
f/J r IZ
W
0 J
a
o
o
Q o
Z
w
o
Q
LL
Y
�_
w
g
Q
U O LL
w
c
U
U
v"'i
O O
m
a O
m
m
U
Q w
LL
U
z z¢
U
Q¢
m�
> U
z
U
r
U
r r
U U
5
U
w=
r r
Y
r >
>
> >>
3
x}
n� N
¢
v
J 2
a
U
3 z
o
r
c7
C M
U l m
O
Ln
O
O O
O O
O
O
n O
M m
0
O
O
CO
w
m
O m
O n
N O m O
M O O O
m
O
'r
m
V M m
m n CO
m
Lo
N
O O O
O Up O
O O
O
m
M
U)
m
CO m
O?
O
N
n
O)
M
n
N
ltJ O)
N M
O
!n
m N
m '-
6
<
O
n
w
� M
L °
m O M O
Q) In M Q
O
n
M M
CV
n
N
a C C
N
M
O)
m W
r
M
O
O
O
O
Q N
r
C
co
U)
m
�
T
O
co
N
co
N
N
O
0
J
O
W
Of
U
tf)
;b
Y r
N
M
C' M
CO
n m
O)
O
N M
C' Ln m n
N N N
m
N
M
N
O N
M M co
M
M
?
M
M m n
M () M
m
M
0
M
O
O' V
LO
U
L O
O
O
O O
O
O O
O
N
O
N
O
N N
O O
N
O O O O
O
O
O O O
O
O
O O O
O
O
O O
0
c '-
io
o �
(n m
m a
c�
w E
a E o
O M m
d Co 7z
= U Co
3
LL U
O _
U
C
U o 0
U io
ao
�
W
r
M N
n n
01
o
(O
co
c0
m
r
c7
m (O
rn in
(O m
m cn
�
N
r
o
c6
r
cri
m co
0
of
E
m
r
�
N w
(D
O
(7
O
O]
O
Q (O
N n
m CO
(O (O
N
M
O
Q
N
co
co
(n
o n
r (n
O
O
N
M
N
n
m V
N N
N
N
R
O
W
F
Z
Q
:D
O
m
LL
LL
K
F
ye
Z
W
❑
U
W
❑ �
❑ F
Z LL
Z C7
p
LLI
❑
Z
LL CO
LL
Z
F
U? ❑❑
CD LL
LL W
Z
O
O J Q ! � ;
F
Z W
J
LL
LL
Q W
U
W
w
Z
MY
F
W
(r
2 LL❑
0f
J
(n W
9❑
Q
Q
W
�
W O�
(/l
Y C O''
F
W m
U
(!J
w
R W
m o
ld
tD p_ o
o
o 0
o
O
o o
O (O
o
tq E O
M O , o
7
O N
o
N
O
O
O
m
o O
m c0
N
N O
O
U l 0
0
0 0
O
O
O
0 0
0 o
0
a
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
CASE NO.:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MEETING DATE:
INTRODUCTION
BUI-361
Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
Mark Noble, Planner I
Vacation of Street Right -of -Way for 4 Avenue between Cass and Webster Streets
August 21, 2001
Darren Giese, 408 Cass Street, has submitted an application for vacation of street right -of -way
between Cass and Webster Streets.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed vacation at its meeting on August
recommended denial of the vacation by a 5 -0 vote. A copy of staff's memorandum
Commission is attached for the Council's information. Additionally, a memorandum fr
Resources Director is attached, which addresses his opposition to the vacation request. It is
trail could be established from Cass Street to Adams Street in this 4 Avenue right -of -way
effect connect Holmes Park and Riverview Park. This proposed trail would be consistent
Comprehensive Plan objectives, which is to create trail connections between parks throughout
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve Resolution No. 5569, a resolution of the City of Shakopee denying the
right -of -way for 4' Avenue between Cass and Webster Streets.
2. Approve the proposed vacation.
3. Table the decision to allow staff or the applicant time to provide additional infor
ACTION REQUESTED
4 Avenue
9, 2001, and
the Planning
n the Natural
is belief that a
hich would in
ith one of the
ie city.
of street
Offer a motion to approve Resolution No. 5569, a resolution of the City of Shakopee denying the vacation of
street right -of -way for 4 Avenue between Cass and Webster Streets, and move its adoption.
1 ark Noble
Planner I
gAcc\2001 \0821 \vacgiese.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 5569
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE
VACATING STREET RIGHT -OF -WAY FOR 4' AVENUE BETWEEN
WEBSTER STREETS, CITY OF SHAKOPEE, SCOTT COUNTY, NII?
.SS AND
;SOTA
WHEREAS, it has been made to appear to the Shakopee City Council that the right -of -way
for e Avenue between Cass and Webster Streets as described below, serves no public use or interest;
4ch Avenue East, located between Cass Street and Webster Street and between Lots 1 through S,
Block 40, and Lots 6 through 10, Block 64, City of Shakopee, 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 21st day of August, 2001; and
WHEREAS, two weeks published notice was given in the SHAKOPEE VALLEYNEWS
and by posting such notice on the bulletin boards on the main floor of the Scott County
Courthouse, at the U.S. Post Office, at the Shakopee Public Library, and in the Shakopee City Hall;
and
WHEREAS, all persons desiring to be heard on the matter were given an opportunity to be
heard at the public hearing in the Council Chambers in the City of Shakopee.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SHAKOPEE, SOTA:
1. That it finds and determines that the vacation hereinafter described is not in the public
interest;
2. That the street right -of -way described above does serve further public purpose; and
3. That the street right -of -way described above is hereby retained.
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. 5569, presented to
adopted by the City Council of the City of Shakopee at a duly authorized meeting thereof
held on the 21 day of August, 2001, as shown by the minutes of the meeting in my
possession.
Dated this day of , 2001
Judith S. Cox, City Clerk
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
1 1 1 is
TO: Shakopee Planning Commission
FROM: Mark Noble, Planner I
SUBJECT: Vacation of Street Right -of -Way for 4' Avenue between
Webster Streets
MEETING DATE: August 9, 2001
Site Information
Applicant: Darren Giese
Site Location: e Avenue between Cass and Webster Streets
Adjacent Zoning: North: Light Industry (I -1) Zone
South: Old Shakopee Residential (R 1C) Zone
West: Light Industry (I -1) Zone
East: Old Shakopee Residential (R 1 C) Zone
Attachments: Exhibit A: Zoning/Location Map
Exhibit B: Site Plan
Exhibit C: Natural Resources Director
Introduction
The City Council has received a request from Darren Giese to consider the v
right -of -way for 0 Avenue between Cass and Webster Streets (see Exhibit A).
Discussion
The City Council will hold a public hearing on August 21, 2001, to consider
request. A recommendation from the Planning Commission is needed for the vac,
and
of street
vacation
process.
The applicant has stated that he presently maintains this property and would like to continue to
utilize it as additional open space/yard 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 proposes
Staff has received comments from the City Engineering Department, City Cler
Natural Resources Director. City Engineering has recommended that the Cit
permanent easement over the entire parcel. The City Clerk has also recommende
any needed easements for utilities. The Natural Resources Director has recommer
of the vacation as he sees it as a potential connection for a trail from Adams Strf
Street. If the City does vacate the right -of -way, he recommends that the City hold a
vacation_
and the
retain a
retaining
.ed denial
t to Cass
trail easement over the entire right -of -way. Please refer to the attached memo (Exhibit C) from
the Natural Resources Director for additional information.
Alternatives
1. Recommend to the City Council approval of the right -of -way vacation, subject to the
following proposed conditions:
a) Provide the City with a permanent trail easement over the entire right -of -way.
b) Provide the City and Utility Companies with a permanent easement over the
entire right -of -way for utilities.
2. Recommend to the City Council denial of the right -of -way vacation-
3. Table the decision to allow staff or the applicant time to provide additional information_
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends Alternative No. 2, recommending denial of the right -of -way vacation to
the City Council.
Action Requested
Offer and pass a motion recommending to the City Council denial of the right -of -way
M9rk Noble
Planner I
g: \boaa pc\2001 \0809 \vacgiese.doc
rte _.
ee.Ai�e
loth Ave W =_ � - __
s
LM Z onin g B ounda ry
Parce Bounda
T
1 �
s
LM Z onin g B ounda ry
Parce Bounda
1 �97�A
�e� X70 6 ! 050
To: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill. City Administrator
From: Mark McQuillan, Natural Resource Director
Subject: MRPA Award of Excellence
Date: August 21, 2001
it :•i •r[I I
Tonight, Marci Padget, representing the Minnesota recreation and Paj
Association, will be presenting to the City of Shakopee, the Award of
Excellence for the Joe Schleper Baseball Stadium Project.
The Award of Excellence Program is designed to honor agencies,
organizations or businesses (not individuals) in the public and private
sectors, for outstanding achievements in parks, recreation and leisure
services.
Award of Excellence categories include:
Ms. Padget will briefly explain the selection process for receiving the
The last time the community received the Award of Excellence was in
for the Shakopee Showcase.
vate
ID. f3.
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
From: Mark Themig, Facilities and Recreation Director
Date: 16 August, 2001
Subject: Recognition of Shakopee Aquatic Park Lifeguards
INTRODUCTION
City Council is asked to recognize the performance of the lifeguards involved in the July
26, 2001 Aquatic Park incident. Kim Elverum, Boat and Water Safety Coordinator for the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, will also be present to recognize these
individuals for their work in saving a life.
BACKGROUND
On July 26, 2001, Dianna Mollenhauer, Tracey Demulling, and Jake Barlass were directly
involved in a rescue at the Shakopee Aquatic Park. Ms. Mollenhauer's attentiveness and
training, assisted by Ms. Demulling and Mr. Barlass, resulted in saving the life of six-
year-old Mary Hainey.
These lifeguards, as well as the rest of the Aquatic Park staff on duty that day, should
be commended for their work.
REQUESTED ACTION
Offer Resolution No. 5572, A Resolution of Commendation to Dianna Mollenhauer,
Tracey Demulling, and Jake Barlass for Exceptional Performance, and move its adoption.
Mark Themig
Facilities and Recreation Director
RESOLUTION NO. 5572
A RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION TO
DIANNA MOLLENHAUER
TRACY DEMULLING
JAKE BARLASS
WHEREAS, On July 26, 2001, Dianna Mollenhauer, Tracey Demullin
and Jake Barlass were lifeguarding at the Shakopee Aquatic Park; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Mollenhauer recognized that an emergency was
occurring; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Mollenhauer, assisted by Ms. Demulling and Mr. B
rescued and resuscitated Mary Hainey; and
91
S,
WHEREAS, If not for the quick actions of these lifeguards, assisted by the
other staff on duty, a successful recovery of Ms. Hainey may have been more
difficult;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Shakopee City Council
hereby recognizes and commends Dianna Mollenhauer, Tracey Demulling, and
Jake Barlass for their exceptional performance on July 26, 2001 in saving the life
of Mary Hainey.
Adopted in adjourned regular session of City Council of the City of Sha
Minnesota, held this 21 day of August, 2001.
ATTEST:
Judy Cox
City Clerk
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
T: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Julie Klima, Planner H
SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat of Prairie Village 7 Addition
MEETING DATE: August 21, 2001
I, 1 I P
DISCUSSION
US Homes Corporation has made application for preliminary plat review for the proposed
Prairie Village 7 Addition. The proposed plat is located north of Valley View Road and
east of CSAH 17.
The public hearing on this request was held by the Planning Commission on August 9
2001. A copy of the August 9 report to the Commission is attached for the Council
information. At its meeting, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended ap
of the Preliminary Plat to the City Council with the addition of Condition No. I.B.8.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve Resolution No. 5552, a resolution approving the preliminary plat c
Village 7 Addition subject to the conditions contained therein;
2. Approve Resolution No. 5552 with revised conditions.
3. Deny the requested preliminary plat, and direct staff to prepare a resolution
with that action.
4. Table a decision in order to allow time for the applicant and /or staff to pro
additional information.
ACTION REQUESTED
Offer a motion consistent with Alternative 1 or 2, and move its adoption.
ILI
1
on a W ld 11 / a WIMA I' I 1 1 1
WHEREAS, US Homes Corporation, applicant, and Joan Schultz, property
have made application for preliminary plat approval of Prairie Village 7 Addition; ar
WHEREAS, the subject properties are legally described as found on Exhibit
attached; and
WHEREAS, the Shakopee Planning Commission opened the public hearing on the
preliminary plat on August 9, 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
of August 21, 2001.
11
.I 1 1 1 walah3l I / I&M.Ml • •
That the preliminary plat of Prairie Village 7`" 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 pr(
for security for the public improvements and engineering revie
and any other fees as required by the City's adopted fee sched
1. Street lighting to be installed in accordance with the
requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commis,
sions
fees,
ON
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 Storm Water
Trunk Charges, Storm Water Ponding Charges, and Trunk
Sanitary Sewer Charges, and other fees as required by the
City's adopted Fee Schedule.
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 in the amount of
$1,800.00 per unit, (total fees of $43,200.) and shall be paid at
the time of recording of the final plat.
8. The developer shall dedicate 80 feet of right -of -way for Valley
View Road and shall pay the required assessment(s) for
roadway improvements to Valley View Road.
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. Prior to construction of the public improvements, the Shakopee Public
Utility Commission and the City Engineer must approve the Final
Construction Plans and Specifications.
THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that approval of the
preliminary plat of Prairie Village 7 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,
held this day of 1 2001.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
I:YI &W
City Clerk
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION PROVIDED BY CLIENT
(from Document- No. 21,� 765)
That part of the south fifty acres of the West Half of the S
Quarter of Section 17, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County,
lying northerly of County Aid Road 79 (Valley View Road), EX
therefrom the following described tracts:
A strip one rod wide along the westerly boundary of the We
the Southwest Quarter starting at the Northwest corner of t
Half of the Southwest Quarter and extending in a southerly
a point where said one rod strip intersects the public high
and
Beginning at the southwest corner of said Section 17 and rt
thence North on the Section line 1395 feet to the center lir
Aid Road No. 79; thence South 73 °23' East along the center
road or at an angle of 106 °37' to the right 714 feet to the
corner of the land herein described; thence North parallel t
Section line 125 feet; thence East to an angle of 90 '35' to t
686.7 feet to the 1 /16th line; thence South on the sixteenth
feet to the center line of County Aid Road Number 79; they
northwesterly along the center line of said road about 960
of beginning.
DUthwest
Minnesota
CEPT
;t Half of
Ze West
direction to
a y,
nning
e of County
line of said
Southwest
o the
he right
line 433
ce
eet to place
mAY 06 '01 09 =01 9526 906244 PAGc.05
w oo
CITY OF SRAXOPEE
TO Shakopee Planning Commission
FROM: Julie Klima, Planner H
SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat of Prairie Village 7 Addition
1 1 1 a 11 N
REVIEW PERIOD: June 21 — October 19, 2001
CASELOG NO.: 01 -100
Applicant: US Home Corporation
Location: South of Valley View Road, east of CSAH 17
Current Zoning: Urban Residential (R -1B)
Adjacent Zoning: North: Urban Residential (R -1B) Zone
South: Rural Residential (RR) /Agricultural Preserve (AG) Zone
East: Urban Residential (R -1B) Zone
West: Agricultural Preserve (AG) Zone
1995 Comp. Plan: Single Family Residential
Draft Comp. Plan: Single Family Residential
MUSA: This site is within the MUSA boundary-
CONSIDERATIONS:
US Homes Corporation has made application for preliminary plat approval of Prairie Village 7`
Addition.
The subject property was recently rezoned to Urban Residential (R -1B) Zone by the City G
preliminary plat submitted by the applicant provides for the development of 24 on 9.8 acres.
provides a net density of 3.6 units per acre.
The proposed plat provides a continuation of the existing Prairie Village neighborhoods.
the north wild be provided into the proposed plat via Mathias Road, which will further cc
Valley View Road.
The
ss from
to
Park dedication payments in lieu of land will be required. The current fee is $1,800.00 1
for a total park dedication payment of 543,200.00 to be paid at the time of recording of
plat.
ALTF A S:
1. Recommend approval of the preliminary plat of Prairie Village 7th Addition, subject
conditions as outlined below:
. The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the record
Final Plat:
A. Approval of title by the City Attorney.
B. Execution of a Developers Agreement, which shall include provisiow
security for the public improvements and engineering review fees, an(
other fees as required by the City's adopted fee schedule_
1. Street lighting to be installed in accordance with the requirem
the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission.
2. Electrical system to be installed in accordance with the requir
the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission.
3. Water system to be installed in accordance with the requirem(
Shakopee Public Utilities Commission_
4_ Installation of sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems, and
construction of streets in accordance with the requirements of
Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Sh,
5. The developer shall be responsible for payment of Storm Wat
Charges, Storm Water Ponding Charges, and Trunk Sanitary
Charges, and other fees as required by the City's adopted Fee
Schedule.
6. No public improvements shall be constructed until the City Ei
and the Shakopee Public Utility Commission approve the Fins
Construction Plans and Specifications.
7. Park dedication fees shall apply to this plat in the amount of g
per unit, (total fees of $43,200) and shall be paid at the time
recording of the final plat.
H. Following approval and recording of the final plat, the following condi
apply;
A. Building construction, sewer, water service, fire protection and acci
reviewed for code compliance at the time of building permit applica
B. Prior to construction of the public improvements, the Shakopee Pul
Commission and the City Engineer must approve the Final Constru(
and Specifications_
2. Recommend approval of the preliminary plat of Prairie Village 7th Addition, subje
conditions.
3. Deny the Preliminary Plat.
4. Continue the public hearing to allow time for additional information to be brought
er unit,
the final
to
in- of the
for
l any
ants of
;ments of
nts of the
'the
kopee.
°r Trunk
shall
s will be
)n(s).
c Utility
on Plans
to revised
5. Close the public hearing, but table action and request additional information from
the applicant.
RECOMMENDATION:
Planning staff recommends alternative 1, 2 or 3.
g_lboaa- pc12oO nppprairie village 7_doc
and/or
ss•
4
v
y
L AG
_� Salle le
� v
1 �
l
Z Bo un da ry
Parcel Bounda
r
1
_ � 1
I
1
J / I
/ 1
1
I
Un
- I
N_ O N_ V!
•i to -1 H / ��. ! - - _ l
T O T O
Pl C M C
rn
I
,o t0 b to -
U
I
,
1 i
/ I
7 � '
N '
I I
I
I I I I I i /-n
1
I _
' I
/ �- - -- rn
I � I
, � I
I ,
I •� i
I I
co
1 I 1 I
1
1 V.
YuOXwyl .0y jc " PQ�o "I
of
n
/ Msn. a� $
-CTm -®
00
n�
D
Z N
M D
—i
D
rn Q7
(,a f
"<
<
C,() U)
CO
Z
m O
0
O
D 0
0 O
Z
<
D
Ln r
F
M
C)
m
al z
Ut
-A�
n�
c7l
Fn N
S S z /n 2
z
CD cn c n v Cl
Y m -3 z
m =3
� iC
v •9
n
0
-n z
,= z
m
cn
_ V
D
In
x
0
V 1
0
fwd
cn
M
m
c�'-'
m
O
n,
'Ti m
m
N
A
77r
y rl
L
V r1
p D
u O
o
D
j
n
O
y
M H
W
o
u
�' Z
O
Ap
;gym
1
O
Z
m
-
n
Z
O
N
m
<
V
YuOXwyl .0y jc " PQ�o "I
of
n
/ Msn. a� $
-CTm -®
00
n�
D
Z N
M D
—i
D
rn Q7
(,a f
"<
<
C,() U)
CO
Z
m O
0
O
D 0
0 O
Z
<
D
Ln r
F
M
C)
m
al z
Ut
-A�
n�
c7l
Fn N
S S z /n 2
z
CD cn c n v Cl
Y m -3 z
m =3
� iC
v •9
n
0
-n z
,= z
m
cn
_ V
D
r .71
I
0
V 1
0
fwd
cn
D
'Ti m
�
N
Z
rn
o
D
j
M H
W
1
r .71
I
CITY OF SHAKOPEE °
Memorandum
T: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Extension Agreement with WSB. Inc. for Removal of Hi
Structure
MEETING DATE: August 21, 2001
Is
In April of this year, the City annexed a triangular- shaped parcel of land on old highway
300 from Jackson Township. Roger Derrick, purchaser of the property sought, and was
granted zoning and CUP approval for a townhouse project on that site. At the time of
those reviews the Scott County Historical Society had commented that 1) the house (i.e.
the Roehl-Lenzmeier House) on the site is on the National Register of Historic Places, 2)
that the house is so degraded as to be likely beyond economic restoration, and 3) that the
Society wished to document the house before its removal. Subsequent to the approvals,
the Society informed Mr. Derrick and the City that EQB rules require an EAW before the
structure can be removed.
The total cost of the EAW is not to exceed $12,882, and under EQB rules is to be borne
by the developer.
Alternatives:
1. Offer and pass a motion authorizing an extension agreement with WSB, Inc. for
preparation of the EAW for the removal of Roehl - Lenzmeier House
2. Do not authorize the extension agreement.
3. Table the matter for additional information or other reasons.
Action Requested:
Offer and pass a motion authorizing an extension agreement with WSB, Inc. for
preparation of the EAW for the removal of Roehl- Lenzmeier House
R. Michael Leek
Community Development
At1ARnotieeshenamn —iW
1
In WN",
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
CASE LOG N.: 01104
T: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Amendment to City Code Sec. 12.05, Minor Subdivisions, Subd.
Prohibited
MEETING DATE: August 21, 2001
REVIEW PERIOD: Not Applicable
Based on direction from City Council, staff has proposed a text amendment that would
prohibition of minor subdivisions for property that has not been previously platted.
1. Approve Ordinance No. 608, approving the proposed text amendment to City
Minor Subdivisions, Subd. 2, When Prohibited.
2. Approve Ordinance No. 608, approving the proposed text amendment to City
Minor Subdivisions, Subd. 2, When Prohibited, with revisions.
3. Do not approve the proposed amendment.
4. Table the matter for additional information.
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendment at its August 9 meeting,
recommended approval of the proposed amendment as presented.
[Tffw 1 1
When
the
Sec. 12.05,
Sec. 12.05,
Offer and pass a motion to approve Ordinance Number 608, amending City Code Sec. 12.05, Minor
Subdivisions, Subd. 2, When Prohibited as presented. 1--7
R. Michael Leek
Community Development
g: \cc\2001 \0821 \txtndnorsubd. doc
1
03 ORtil
Section 1 - That City Code Chapter 12, Subdivision Regulations (Plattng),
Minor Subdivisions, Subd. 2, When Prohibited, is hereby amended by deleting the
Subd. 2. When Prohibited. The Planner may not approve a minor subdivision in the
situations:
A. Where the subdivision includes a change in existing streets, alleys, water, s
storm sewer, or other public improvements.
B. Where additional right -of -way needs to be dedicated, and the right -of -way
previously been deeded to the City.
C. Where easements need to be changed for the subdivision, and the appropri
have not been made through vacation and/or deeding of easements to the
D. Where new streets, utilities, or other public improvements will be needed c
directly serve the lots created and to provide a direct connection to an exis
approved system.
(Re -letter as appropriate)
12.05,
which is
ary or
not
changes
r than to
and
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 1 2001.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of - 2001.
1 1'
T: Shakopee Planning Commission
FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Amendment to City Code Sec. 12.05, Minor Subdivisions, Subd
Prohibited
MEETTNG DATE: August 9, 2001
REVIEW PERIOD: Not Applicable
Recently, after reviewing a request for waiver of the criteria for minor subdivisions, the Cot
staff to prepare an amendment that would do away with the requirement that in order to usi
subdivision procedure, property must be previously platted. During that discussion, the aut
report noted that the requirement is unique in his experience. The City Attorney noted that
nothing in state law that requires such a provision. The only rationale the author can come
the requirement is intended to avert complex, resulting legal descriptions that may not be re
that is the case, staff believes that this concern is dealt with by the fact that minor subdivisic
reviewed by the County Recorder's office before they are approved.
The proposed amendment is as follows;
Subd. 2. When Prohibited. The Planner may not approve a minor subdivision in the
situations:
When
directed
minor
of this
,re is
with is that
rdable. If
will be
F. Where the subdivision includes a change in existing streets, alleys, water, sanitary or
storm sewer, or other public improvements.
G. Where additional right -of -way needs to be dedicated, and the right -of -way has not
previously been deeded to the City.
H. Where easements need to be changed for the subdivision, and the appropriate changes
have not been made through vacation and/or deeding of easements to the City.
I. Where new streets, utilities, or other public improvements will be needed other than to
directly serve the lots created and to provide a direct connection to an existing and
approved system.
j. NVher-e the proposed miner- subdivision involves any unplatted property.
(Re- letter as appropriate)
5. Recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed text amendment to City
12.05, Subd. 2 as presented.
6. Recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed text amendment to City
12.05, Subd. 2 with revisions.
7. Do not recommend to the City Council the approval of the proposed amendment.
8. Continue the public hearing and request additional information from staff.
9. Close the public hearing, but table the matter and request additional information.
• �,
Recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed text amendment to City Code
Subd. 2 as presented.
Sec.
Sec.
12.05,
Offer and pass a motion to recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed text amendment to
City Code Sec. 12.05, Subd. 2 as presented.
R. Michael Leek
Community Development Director
4
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
CASE LOG NO.: 01106
TO: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Amendment to City Code Sec. 11.61, Parking, Subd. 2, General
Regarding the Use of Sales Trailers
ME ETING DATE: August 9, 2001
REVIEW PERIOD: Not Applicable
1 '11 1
Staff has proposed a text amendment that would clearly state that "sales trailers" would not 1
the City of Shakopee. Sales trailers are typically used as a sales site until residential models
The City's policy in the past has been to prohibit sales trailers on the theory that they are not
aesthetically. A copy of the report provided to the Planning Commission on August 9, 2001
for the Commission's information.
1. Approve Ordinance No. 609, approving the proposed text amendment to City
Subd. 2 as presented.
2. Approve Ordinance No. 609, approving the proposed text amendment to City
Subd. 2 with revisions.
3. Do not approve the proposed amendment.
4. Table the matter for additional information.
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendment at its August 9 meeting,
approval of the proposed amendment as presented.
1 1 1
S �.y
f.
)e allowed in
re completed.
acceptable
is attached
Sec. 11.61,
Sec. 11.61,
Offer and pass a motion to approve Ordinance Number 609, amending City Code Sec. 11'..61, Subd. 2 as
presented.
R. Michael Leek
Community Development Di
ORDINANCE NO. 609, FOURTH SERIES
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA,
�XfFUICAXWAWAPTER 11. ZONING REGULATION& REGARDING THE USE OF
SALES TRAILERS
THE CITE' COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1 - That City Code Chapter 11, Zoning Regulations, Section 11.61, Subdivision 2, is
hereby amended by adding the language which is underlined and deleting the language which is
Subd 2. General Provisions, G., Residential Parldng Facilities.
Shakopee.
Section 2 — That City Code Sec. 11.02, Definitions, is amending by adding the following new
language, and re- number accordingly;
119. "Sales Trailers." A recreational vehicle, modular structure, or other
similar structure used for the purpose of marketing homes, commercial, or
industrial space.
Section 3 - - Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and
publication.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held
the day of . 2001.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Published in the Shakopee Valley News on the day of 1 2001.
c
Mem
CASE LOG NO.: 01106
TO: Shakopee Planning Commission
FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Amendment to City Code Sec. 11.61, Parking, Subd. 2, General Provisi
Regarding the Use of Sales Trailers
MEETING DATE: August 9, 2001
REVIEW PERIOD: Not Applicable
K ��
Recently, staff has received a number of inquiries about the placement of trailers at project sites for sales
purposes pending the construction of models. For several years staff has construed Chapter 11 to prohibit
such trailers. Staff seeks to clarify this prohibition with the proposed language below. The general
principle underlying the prohibition is that sales trailers are not desirable, and add to the clutter of new
project sites.
The proposed amendment is as follows;
Subd 2 General Provisions, G., Residential Parking Facilities.
Add a new number 5 as follows;
Shakopee.
m
In addition, staff would suggest the addition of a definition of "sales trailers" as follows;
Add a new 119. "Sales Trailers." A recreational vehicle, modular structure, or other
similar structure used for the purpose of marketing homes, commercial, or
industrial space.
(Re- number accordingly)
5. Recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed text amendment to City
11.61, Subd. 2 as presented.
6. Recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed text amendment to City
11.61, Subd. 2 with revisions.
Sec.
Sec.
4
7. Do not recommend to the City Council the approval of the proposed amendment.
8. Continue the public hearing and request additional information from staff.
9. Close the public hearing, but table the matter and request additional information.
STAFF RECOMAMNDATION:
Recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed text amendment to City Code Sec. 11.61,
Subd. 2 as presented or with revisions.
ACTION QUESTED:
Offer and pass a motion to recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed text amendment to
City Code Sec. 11.61, Subd. 2 as presented or with revisions.
R. Michael Leek
Community Development
� Aboaa- pc\2001 \080 9 \Wsalestrailers. doc
1
4 ° e
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Request of RLK Kuuisto, Ltd. (RLK) And the Ryan
(Ryan) for Consolidated Review
MEETING DATE: August 21, 2001
Ryan Companies is the contract purchaser and developer of the Valley Green Corporate
Center site. Steven Schwanke of RLK has submitted the attached letter dated August 1,
2001, requesting that the City Council allow Ryan and RLK to submit a package of land
use applications for consideration simultaneously. This package would likely include; 1)
an application for land use amendment to allow reguiding a portion of the site for
residential use; 2) a rezoning application to allow use of a portion of the site for
residential purposes; 3) a revised preliminary plat; 4) final plat; and 5) conditional use
permit(s) application(s). As Council is aware, planning staff has consistently tried to
follow a staged approach to these review and approval processes in an attempt to better
manage issues of possible concern to the City, especially for larger, more complex
projects. RLK/Ryan's concern, as outlined in their letter, is that this staged approach
would result in a long (9- month) process.
1. Approve the request of RLK/Ryan to allow simultaneous submission and review of
land use applications for the Valley Green Corporate Center site, with the caveat that
such approval does not constitute an agreement on behalf of the Planning
Commission or by the City Council to act simultaneously on any applications
submitted by RLK/Ryan.
2. Do not approve the request.
3. Table the matter for additional information.
1 1
Offer and pass a motion giving staff and RLK/Ryan direction consistent with the
Council's wishes.
R. Michael Leek
Community Development Director
Engineering - Planning - Surveying - Landscape Architecture
Michael Leek
Community Development Director
City of Shakopee
129 Holmes Street So.
Shakopee, MN 55379 -1328
Valley Green Corporate Center
Development Application Process and Schedule
City of Shakopee, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Leek:
RLK- Kuusisto, Ltd. is Ryan Companies' designer and planner for the Valley Gree
Corporate Center (VGCC). In recent weeks we have met with you and Julie Klim;
discuss issues associated with possible land uses, design standards, site design, an(
development application review process. We have learned that the City prefers the
development application process to be divided into independent parts. For examp]
proposed development requires a comprehensive plan amendment, rezoning, cond
use permit, preliminary plat and final plat, the City prefers these applications be ac
upon by the City independently. The process might look something like this:
to
the
e, if a
tional
1. comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning (time to submit and for City
to review and act approximately 75 days, not including time for
Metropolitan Council review);
2. upon completion of step 1, conditional use permit (time to submit and for
City to review and act approximately 75 to 90 days);
3. upon completion of step 2, preliminary plat (time to submit and for City to
review and act approximately 90 days); and
4. upon completion of step 3, final plat (time to submit and for City to review
and act approximately 90 days).
This process could easily take 260 days to complete.
We continue to refine the VGCC land use and development proposal and as a result are
not certain as to the number and type of applications that will be needed to process this
development. However, we believe the development review process outlined above is
unnecessary, specifically with respect to VGCC, because a staged approval process may
result in a delay in the project and an inability to approach the development approval
process from a truly comprehensive perspective. For these reasons and others described
below, we respectfully request an alternative development application process.
Offices. Hibbing - Minnetonka • St. Paul - Twin Ports
(952) 933 -0972 6110 Blue Circle Drive • Suite 100 • Minnetonka, MN 55343 • FAX (952) 933 -1153
Equal Opportunity Employer
We request that any applications required to process the VGCC development proposal be
reviewed by staff and acted on by Planning Commission and City Council as a complete
package and at one time. We understand that procedurally the Planning Commission and
City Council will act on the applications in a certain order, but, we believe that a number
of benefits exist for the City by reviewing the VGCC development applications together.
i. Comprehensive vs. piecemeal approach.
Experience shows that Planning Commission and City Council members often prefer to
make development decisions on a comprehensive versus a piecemeal basis. Even when
faced with a policy question such as a comprehensive plan or rezoning application)
policymakers ask questions regarding site plan issues because they want to know all of
the facts associated with a development proposal whether they are related to the
application at hand or not. The comprehensive approach we suggest enables fully
informed City decisions.
2. Inclusive and proactive design process.
The City of Shakopee has taken a leadership role in the VGCC design process. The City
has retained Jeff Schoenbauer of Brauer and Associates to facilitate a design process
involving all of the major stakeholders including Ryan Companies, Valley Green
Business Park, City of Shakopee, and adjacent neighborhood groups. It is our
understanding that Mr. Schoenbauer will facilitate one or more charettes, the first
currently scheduled for August l We understand that Mr. Schoenbauer's design'
framework is based on the concepts of "conservation development ", creating a "sense of
place ", "establishing natural environments" that creates a "permanent part" of the City's
"character ". We hope an outcome from Mr. Schoenbauer's process will be a consensus
on the part of all stakeholders on what the site design standards should be and on the site
plan.
Because of this collaborative and inclusive design process we see no need for the review
process to be segmented and separate. We anticipate that much of the site design work
that at times takes place in the public before Planning Commission and City Council, will
instead take place in the charettes facilitated by Mr. Schoenbauer. Because of the
inclusive and proactive design process we believe it is reasonable for the City to review
VGCC's development applications as a complete package.
3. 'Timing of development review.
As with any development proposal, timing is of the essence and is one reason for
requesting all necessary applications be reviewed concurrently (except final plat).
have completed a timetable for acting on the development application separately
complete package. To consider applications separately may take up to 260 days,
depending on the type of applications necessary and timing of Planning Commiss
City Council meeting dates. If reviewed as a complete package, however, the sap
We
idas a
$1
number of applications could be completed within 150 days. It is unlikely and unrealistic
to expect the seller of the VGCC property to wait 9 to 10 months in order to have a buyer
complete the development review process. It is equally unrealistic for a buyer to close on
a piece of property before the development review process has concluded.
Another time related issue arises out of the City and County plans to upgrade County
Roads 83 and 16. VGCC abuts both of these county roads where significant roadway
improvements are planned. Estimated assessments to VGCC are approximately $3.4
million and these assessments are expected to commence in 2003. Ryan Companies will
need to complete a timely development review schedule in order to generate sufficient
building activities to support these significant special assessments.
Compelling reasons exist to justify a coordinated and consolidated development review
process for VGCC_ The City has engaged design consultants to facilitate an inclusive
and proactive site design process. The Planning Commission and City Council will be in
the best position to review and act on this work if it is presented comprehensively
one development package. We look forward to discussing this matter with you fu
as
CC. Kent Carlson, Ryan Companies
Jon Albinson, Valley Green Business Park
Jeff Schoenbauer, Brauer & Associates
Julie Klima, City of Shakopee
is f}.�.
Mem
T: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director
5 JECT: Request of St. Francis Regional Medical Center (St. Fra
Allow the Issuance of a Building Permit(s) for Certain
Improvements Prior to Completion of Review of a PUD
Amendment
ME ET IN G DATE: August 21, 2001
1 1
to
Attached to this memorandum is a letter from Venetia Kudrle, President of St. Francis
Regional Medical Center, requesting that the Council allow certain improvements be
allowed to proceed prior to completion of a review of a PUD amendment. Specifically,
St. Francis requests that first floor work on a 10,000 square feet containing a fixed MRI,
medical records area, and physicians' lounge be allowed to proceed prior to completion
of a PUD amendment review.
Alternatives:
1. Offer and pass a motion directing staff to work with St. Francis and the City Attorney
to draft a hold harmless agreement that, once executed, will allow work to proceed on
the first floor improvements prior to completion of the PUD amendment review
process.
2. Do not approve the request of St. Francis.
3. Table the matter for additional information or other reasons.
Action Requested:
Offer and approve a motion consistent with the Council's wishes.
R. Michael Leek
Community Development Di:
St r i. at�C15 ('gIL?i�ce
o
August 3, 2001
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
City of Shakopee
129 So Holmes Street
Shakopee MN 55379
Dear Mr. McNeill,
We are planning an expansion to the western edge of our facilities on the SouthValley Health
Campus. While our plans are consistent with our 1998 PUD Amendment, they do increase the
"scope" to require our amending the PUD Plan approved in 1998.
• First Floor— Fixed MRI, Medical Records, Physician Lounge 10,000 square feet
(Was 1,000 square feet in 1998 PUD)
2nd and 3rd Floor — Future Patient Beds or Medical Office/Clinic 9,000 square feet
(not shown in 1998 PUD)
• Roof - Future Heliport (Not shown in 1998 PUD)
We would like to proceed with construction of the First Floor portion of the project im
in order to bring these services to campus, as soon as possible. Therefore we are requf
City to allow us to proceed with. construction of the First Floor expansion, prior to our
through the PUD Amendment process. We would also work with the City to draft a "]
harmless" agreement protecting the City, in the event the PUD Amendment runs into l
Please contact me at 952 403 -2400 to review our request and the steps we may need to
would like to start construction next week if possible.
Sincerely,
Venetia Kudrle, President
St. Francis Regional Medical Center
;diately,
ng the
ld-
)blems.
�1.ila
cc: Michael Leek
AD r
t
Memorandum
TO: Mayor & City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Discussion of Off -Site Improvements for Greenfield Plat
DATE: August 21, 2001
INTRODUCTION:
With the proposed Greenfield Plat, Tollefson Development Company has proposed to
construct 3/4 mile of street collector with this development. The purpose of this agenda
item is to discuss these off -site improvements and whether or not Council wishes to
proceed with these off -site improvements at this time.
BACKGROUND:
Tollefson Development Company has submitted a plat for 120 acres of single family
residential in the area east of Pheasant Run and north of Valley View Road. In order to
serve this plat, staff is recommending that the north -south collector from 17 Avenue to
Valley View Road be constructed and a 1 /4 mile of 17 Avenue be constructed to provide
adequate transportation facilities for this development. Valley View Road is currently a
gravel surface road. Staff does not believe that the additional 300+ homes that would be
developed in this area should be allowed to use the existing local streets in Pheasant Run
and Prairie Village for access.
Currently an EAW is being done for the Greenfield Plat. The preliminary plat of
Greenfield is being processed, although no approvals can be given until the EAW has
been completed and accepted by the City. Tollefson Development Company desires to
proceed with the engineering of 1 /4 mile of 17 Avenue and %2 mile of the north -south
collector, from 17 Avenue to Valley View Road in order to serve this development.
Associated with this project would be the extension of sanitary sewer and a storm
drainage system, as well as extension of watermain to serve this site and adjacent sites
leading to it. The developer has proposed to construct this roadway with no assessments
to adjacent property owners as long as the adjacent property owners provide the
easements necessary to construct the improvements. The developer would pay for the
local street equivalent and would be asking the City for the oversizing of the collector
street, as per City policy.
Staff is requesting Council direction on whether or not to proceed with the design and
ultimate construction of these improvements at this time since the EAW and preliminary
plat have not been completed. Also, for Council consideration staff would recommend if
the design of these roadways were approved, the design be done by a City consultant with
the developer reimbursing the City for the cost of this design. The reasons being for this
recommendation is as follows:
• These roadways are on the City's State Aid System and these streets would
need State Aid compliance review for any future use of State Aid Funds on
these roadways.
• The County will need to review 17 Avenue plans and this roadway must be
designed to State Aid Standards.
• There are significant transportation, storm drainage, and sanitary sewer issues
which needs to be in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. These
plans have been done by WSB & Associates, Inc. and the design should be in
compliance with these plans.
If a City consultant is used to design these roadways, it would be done under a contract
issued by the City of Shakopee and an agreement with Tollefson Development to
reimburse the City for this design work It is the recommendation by the City Attorney to
have a Letter of Credit or cash escrow set up for the payment of design fees associated
with these roadways. Attached to this memo is a letter from WSB & Associates, Inc. on
the proposed plat, scenarios with design of roadways and issues associated with this
proj ect.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Provide staff direction on whether or not to proceed with the design of off -site
improvements that are necessary for the Greenfield Plat.
2. Authorize the appropriate City officials to enter into an extension agreement with
WSB & Associates for the design of these collector street roadways and for an
agreement to be entered into with the developer for the reimbursement of design
fees associated with these collectors.
3. Table for additional information.
4. Do not proceed with the design improvements until the EAW and preliminary plat
have been completed.
Staff has no recommendation on whether or not these roadways should be designed at
this time. However, it is staff's recommendation that the City consultant should do the
design due to State Aid compliance review for these collector streets, Scott County's
review and to ensure that the City's Comprehensive Plans are being met for the
surrounding area that is being affected by these roadways.
ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Provide staff direction on whether or not to proceed with the design of off -site
improvements that are necessary for the Greenfield Plat.
2. Authorize the appropriate City officials to enter into an extension agreement with
WSB & Associates for the design of these collector street roadways and for an
agreement to be entered into with the developer for the reimbursement of design
fees associated with these collectors.
f �
t
Bruce Loney_
Public Works Director
BUpmp
GREENFIELDPLAT
AUG -15 -2001 10 =16 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC. 7635411700 P.02iO4
S
& &a,=iares, Inc.
August 15, 2001
Mr. Bruce Loney, P.E.
Public Works Director
City of Shakopee
129 Holmes Street South
Shakopee, MN 55379
Re: Tollefson Development / Greenfield Preliminary Plat
WSB Project No. 1281 -23
Dear Mr. Loney:
As you requested, WSB. has conducted a cursory review of the Greenfield 1
documents you transmitted. Based on that review, we have the following comments:
2.
Main Street is the north -south collector street through this area of the Cit3
currently shows a development street to the east and to the west of Main St
"double loaded" lots. By creating side street intersections this close to Main
operation problems will occur at these intersections.
City policy currently states that the development must be serviced by a paved ro
can be accomplished by either paving Valley View Road or extending the
collector and 17` Avenue. The developer's current plan indicates that they wou
north -south collector to the 17` Avenue extension. Preliminary plans for the i
included as part of the preliminary plat submission.
3. The 17' Avenue extension plan does indicate a 100 -foot right - of- -way, which matches the
existing right -of -way corridor. The plans, however, do not indicate any turn lane
configurations at the intersection of the north -south collector and 17' Avenue. Left turn
lanes, including raised concrete median, will need to be included at this intersection.
4. The north -south collector street plan indicates an 80 -foot right -of -way corridor, which would
be sufficient for a two -lane urban collector street. However, at the intersection of 17�'
Avenue, the cross section will need to expand to a three -lane roadway with left and right turn
. lanes approaching 17 Avenue. It would be recommended that 100 -foot right- o#=way be
secured for a distance of approximately 500 feet south of 17" Avenue.
plat
The plat
creating
:et traffic
dway. This
north -south
i extend the
►adways are
f-
4150 01SOA,
Memor%P Highway
^ , suite 300,
�nnaapolfs
t ` innikota
s� .G 5422
763.541 4800
763.541170Q SAX
5. The 17` Avenue and north -south collector street plans show future sanitary sewer and water
systems through its corridor. These utilities also provide service to the majority of the new
plat; however, the plans do not indicate how the systems will be connected to the existing
utility systems. This will require extensive coordination with adjacent plats,' and property
owners, as well as the City in determining exact size and location of these connections. It
does not appear that this plat can develop until these downstream developments are
constructed and utilities available.
6. The proposed plat and collector streets show storm drainage facilities, which are also
dependent on connections to adjacent developments. Also, ponding areas need to be
identified, sized, and located for this new development.
7. City policy currently indicates that a paved bicycle / pedestrian be located on one side of the
roadway and a concrete sidewalk be located on the other side of the roadway. The current
roadway plans show only a concrete sidewalk on one side of the roadway through o only the
development site plan. The north -south collector street extension and the 17 Avenue
extension plan show no trail or walk. These will need to be included as part of the plan.
Mlnneapoli5 • St. Cloud • Equal opportunity Employer
RUG -15 -2001 10.16
Mr. Bruce Loney
City of Shakopee
August 13, 2001
Page 2
WSB & ASSOCIATES INC.
7635411'
Based on the above preliminary comments, you requested that WSB provide you with
scenario in the development of plans and specifications for the north -south collector ro
Avenue extension in order to construct these projects yet this year (2001). It is our feelin
scenarios would exist for development of the plans and specifications.
Scenario 1: WSB design with City bidding process.
Scenario 2: WSB design for developer bidding.
Scenario 3: Developer design with extensive City review.
In all cases, these plans and specifications will require a Mn/DOT State Aid compliance
to the beginning of construction. Based on these three scenarios, the following time lit
expected.
Scenario 1
P. 03/04
best case
1 and 17'
that three
, iew prior
would be
Notice to Proceed (City Council) .................... ............................... .........................August 21, 2001
Design .................................................... ...............................
August 21 through September 14, 2001
State Aid Submittal ..............................................................
............................... September 14, 2001
State Aid Review ............ ............................... ......................September
14 through October 12, 2001
Approve Plans (City Council) .............................................
............................... September 18, 2001
Adfor Bid ......................... ............................... ......................September
21, 28, and October 5, 2001
OpenBids .................................................................................
............................... October 10, 2001
Award Contract (City Council) ................................................
............................... October lb, 2001
ConstructionBegin ...................................................................
............................... October 22, 2001
Scenabo 2
N otice to Proceed (City Council) ..................... ...............................
.........................August 21, 2001
Design .............................. ...............................
August 21 through September 14, 2001
StateAid Submittal ..............................................................
............................... September 14, 2001
State Aid Review .................................. ...............................
September 14 through October 12, 2001
Approve Plans (City Council) ............................................
............................... September 18, 2001
Construction Begin (Following State Aid Approval) ...............
............................... October 12, 2001
Scenario 3
Notice to Proceed (City Council)...... ...........................................................................................
N/A
Design(Underway) ........................................... ...............................
.........................August 31, 2001
StateAid Submittal ...................................................................
............................... .August 31, 2001
CitySubmittal .................................................... ...............................
.........................August 31, 2001
State Aid Review .... ............................... ..............
August 31, through September 28, 2001
City Review .......................................... ............................... August 31, through September 14, 2001
Approve Plans (City Council) ...................................................
............................... October 2, 2001
ConstructionBegin .....................................................................
............................... October 3, 2001
The scenario 3- schedule assumes that the developer has significant portions of the project already
completed and that he would have the staff available to
complete the design in a timely manner (by
August 31, 2001) if this date is not met, an additional two weeks would be required for approval of
plans.
FAW M\1281- 231081301 bl.doc
RUG -15 -2001 10:17
Mr. Bruce Loney
City of Shakopee
August 13, 2001
Page 3
WSB & ASSOCIATES INC.
7635411'
In all three scenarios, there are several other issues that would need to be
construction. These included:
95. r.
prior to
1. Right -of -way easements and concurrence from adjacent properties. 17'' Avenue extension,
the north -south collector and all utilities require additional right -of -way or easements off the
plat. The developer has agreed to obtain all the off -site easements. Proof of easements
should be submitted to the City before any improvements are considered.
2. Soil boring information. Currently, there is only soil boring information available for the
developer's site. Additional soil borings would need to be provided, along the new
alignment of the north--south collector and the 17 Avenue extension.
3. Plat approvals: The developer has not submitted the preliminary plat for formal approval.
Preliminary and final plat approvals will be required prior to construction.
4. Weather: The weather will play a significant role in completing this project yet this fall.
With even an early October start, weather will have to be on the developer's side' in order to
have paved streets by early November.
Based on the above discussion and the there scenarios for construction yet this fall, it would be our
recommendation that this project not be "pushed". A fourth scenario could be implemented that
would provide the developer access to his site and begin the process for an early spring construction
completion. This would involve proceeding with the design of the project so that grading can be
completed yet this fall and the underground utility work commencing this winter, thereby providing
an early spring start for the final grading and paving of these roadways. This scenario would give
the City, in our opinion, the best project. In other words, all the design and platting issues can be
resolved and the City can feel confident in proceeding with the project.
If you have any other questions or need additional information on this project, please feel free to
contact Charles Rickart at (763) 287 -7183, or Dave Hutton at (763) 287 -7195.
Sincerely,
F.NWPwiM1281- 23`081301 bl.doc
TOTAL P.04
T'
' l
I
—
— N
I ,
I —
I
,I
I
Ln
v • �+
.,�
---------- 1. i vE
op
cp
- - - - --
-- _
,I i i I �I -- �1; � � 'i � l � I • 1 ���� 11 I I � 1 1 � m � � � I r-- t I __ - -��
s I ! �/! • 1 I I j. I I� 1H
I N
-
,
1
,
i
I
�l -
J
ri
I I
-----------
Ln
N
I
I
1
_ � I
�-
-- - - - - --
N
� - - --
t
• I I 1 I --
I
I
--- --- - -- l v � ! I j� � � � i �! I �� .• � 'jam; •_� a + -o '- �t j',;�1 .A �0 LC r �__� � I _ ,�_�. __ I
'- - - ---- � • I Q � I I _ I �i 1 r _ i r —� r r _ _ i � f f
I
- --
J L W -• r
I, L
-- _- -' -_- '------ -
I
-- - -- — -- — r
. Ili I
I I
_— —-
_. _ _..__— ______ ` _ _ _ _
I I
II
,
II ,
J L _IL JIL III
'V
I _JIL_ _JIL_
J __ _JIL_ ___,1
i�
_----------------
I '
i l
I
I
����000000�
N
� - - --
t
• I I 1 I --
I
I
--- --- - -- l v � ! I j� � � � i �! I �� .• � 'jam; •_� a + -o '- �t j',;�1 .A �0 LC r �__� � I _ ,�_�. __ I
'- - - ---- � • I Q � I I _ I �i 1 r _ i r —� r r _ _ i � f f
I
- --
J L W -• r
I, L
-- _- -' -_- '------ -
I
-- - -- — -- — r
. Ili I
I I
_— —-
_. _ _..__— ______ ` _ _ _ _
I I
II
,
II ,
J L _IL JIL III
'V
I _JIL_ _JIL_
J __ _JIL_ ___,1
i�
_----------------
I '
i l
I
I
CITY OF SHAKOPEE Gr
14 T
Memorandums
TO: Mayor & City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Michael Hullander, Public Works Supervisor
SUBJECT: 2002 single axle truck acquisition
DATE: August 21, 2001
INTRODUCTION:
The Street Division of the Public Works Department has identified in the 2002 Internal
Service Fund Budget a need to replace 1991 plow truck #101. Truck #101 has previously
been replaced, but do to the growth of the city the vehicle was retained and an additional
plow route created. The Public Works Department is requesting to eliminate retired
vehicles from its permanent plow route fleet. Staff is requesting the 2002 -truck
acquisition be considered an addition to the fleet with truck #101 to be sold on auction.
BACKGROUND:
The Public Works Department has been in contact with Boyer Sterling Trucks, Inc. to
inquire about ordering a new 2002 single axle dump truck on the 2001 State Contract.
Boyer Sterling Trucks, Inc. has stated there will be an increase in the 2002 State Contract
purchase price. The Public Works Department will need to order the truck before August
31, 2001, when the existing contract is set to expire, in order to save money under the
2001 contract versus the 2002 contract.
This memo is for Council to consider ordering the 2002 single axle truck acquisition on
the 2001 State Contract. The 2001 State Contract purchase price to replace plow truck
#101 would be $51,200.00.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Direct staff to proceed with the 2002 single axle dump truck acquisition using the
2001 State Contract price of $51,200.00.
2. Do not proceed with the 2002 single axle dump truck acquisition at this ti
If Council agrees to go ahead with the 2002 acquisition of a single axle dump truck, staff
recommends alternative #1.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Move to direct staff to proceed with the 2002 acquisition of a single axle dump truck
using the 2001 State Contract price of $51,200.00. The purchase will be paid from the
Internal Service Equipment Fund.
Michael Hullander
Public Works Supervisor
) 5 8. �
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Mayor & City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Transportation Equity Act (TEA -21) Application
for Pedestrian Bridge, Rail Crossings, and Improvements
on C.R. 17 Intersections
DATE: August 21, 2001
MU EURRUM
This agenda item is intended to request City Council approval to proceed with submittal
of projects for Federal Funding in the Transportation Equity Act for the Twenty -First
Century (TEA -21). City staff has identified in the Capital Improvements Program for a
pedestrian bridge over T.H. 169 east of C.R. 83, rail crossing improvements at Spencer
Street and Sommerville Street, and County Road (C.R.) 17 intersection improvements at
4 Avenue and 10 Avenue for possible projects that could be funded by this program.
BACKGROUND:
The TEA -21 bill has been approved by the Federal Government and Metropolitan
Council and MN/DOT are now receiving project submittals for possible funding within
this program. The TEA -21 program has three areas primarily with funds allocated to it
and they are as follows:
• Surface Transportation Program (STP)
• Congestion, Mitigation/Air Quality Program (CMAQ)
• Transportation Enhancement Program (TEP)
Approximately $46.5 million dollars is anticipated to be available for STP proj
years 2005 through 2006. The TEP will have almost $8.6 million for the same
the CMAQ projects will may have as much as $20.5 million available but, ov
from 2005 through 2006.
s for the
riod and
a period
Mn/DOT Metropolitan Division also has a program that is separate from these three
programs that are handled by the Metropolitan Council and these programs are for
bridges, safety and hazard elimination projects. This particular program is where rail
crossing improvement programs and safety improvements such as C.R. 17 intersection
improvements can be applied for. As mentioned previously, the City has three
that could potentially quality for Federal Funds under the TEA -21 and the3
follows:
1. Pedestrian bridge crossing over T.H. 169 east of C.R. 83
2. Rail crossing safety improvements at Sommerville and Spencer Street
3. C.R. 17 intersection improvements at 4 th Avenue and 10 Avenue
Under the TEP, projects will be grouped into three categories as well and
follows:
1. Pedestrian and Bicycles
2. Historic
3. Scenic and Environmental
roj ects
are as
are as
The pedestrian bridge over T.H. 169 east of C.R. 83 could qualify under the TEP as
pedestrian and bicycle improvements. It is proposed by staff to apply this bridge over
T.H. 169 under the TEP category, which Mn/DOT staff recommends for the highest
ranking. In the Capital Improvements Program, staff identified three areas in which there
are no pedestrian walkways and they are at C.R. 15, C.R. 77 and C.R. 83. Staff has
reviewed the priority of each pedestrian/bicycle crossing and feels the priority order is
T.H. 169 to the east of C.R. 83. The other two pedestrian crossings would not rank high
in a submittal at this time, in staff s opinion.
Under this program, the City could obtain 80% funding from the Federal Government in
order to construct separate pedestrian bridges, bridge approaches and connecting trails
across T.H. 169 to connect to each area of the Community on either side of T.H. 169 with
the pedestrian/bicycle facility. Currently, the bridge crossing exists over T.H. 169 and
this bridge would connect the Southbridge area with the Industrial Park.
The second project area is rail crossing safety improvements at Spencer Street and
Sommerville Street. Staff is intending on applying for funds to construct signal warning
lights at these locations, as none exist at these crossings currently. It should be pointed
out that there are signal warning lights at Fuller Street, Holmes Street and Lewis Street
and not at Sommerville and Spencer Street, where there is more traffic crossing the
railroad tracks than at the other three street locations. Funding would be a 50% Federal
and 50% Local.
The third project area is a hazard elimination safety project for C.R. 17
improvements at 4 th Avenue and/or 10 Avenue. Due to the high ac(
intersection improvements such as turn lanes would improve the safety.
would require additional right -of -way and widening of C.R. 17. Funding of
projects is 90% Federal and 10% Local.
count,
proj ect
type of
Submittal deadline of these applicants is August 31, 2001. Also staff will need assistance
from WSB & Associates, Inc. to complete the application. Estimated cost of professional
service is $2,500.00 from the Engineering Professional Service account.
The action being requested is for Council to direct staff to proceed with
projects for the TEA -21 program for the three projects as mentioned. The
deadline for TEA -21 projects is August 31, 2001.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve a motion directing staff to proceed on submitting the T.H. 169 pedestrian
bridge east of C.R. 83, the rail crossing safety improvements at Sommerville Street
and Spencer Street and C.R. 17 intersection improvements for TEA -21 funding to the
Metropolitan Council and Mn/DOT.
2. Do not submit any projects for possible Federal funding.
3. Table for additional information.
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, in order to receive Federal funding
projects, which staff believes is needed for the City of Shakopee's infrastructure.
pml me 1
Approve a motion directing staff to proceed on submitting the T.H. 169 pedestriai
east of C.R. 83, the rail crossing safety improvements at Sommerville Street and
Street and C.R. 17 intersection improvements for TEA -21 funding to the Meta
Council and Mn/DOT.
�$ruce Loney/,,`
Public Woris Director
these
bridge
BL /pmp
TEA21
Transportation Advisory Board
of the Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities
Mears Park Centre 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55101 (651) 602 -1728
Donn R. Wiski
Chair
County Commissioners
Dennis Berg
Anoka County
July 13, 2001 '...
Tracy Swanson
Carver County
Paul Krause
Dakota County
Gail Dorfman
'..
Hennepin County
To Whom It May Concern:
Victoria Reinhardt
Ramsey County
'..
Jon
RE: SOLICITATION PROCESS TO OBTAIN FEDERAL FUNDING FROM THE
t County tt
ScoCounty
M Peterson
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM, CONGESTION MITIGATION AIR
Washington County
QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, OR THE TRANSPORTATION'
Municipal Officials
Dick Allendorf
ENHANCEMENTS PROGRAM.
Minnetonka City Council
'..
Charlie Crichton
'..
Burnsville City Council
Dear Interested Transportation Partner:
Chuck DeVore
'..
White Bear Lake City Council
Sharon F eess
Park City Council
The p urpose of this letter is to request the submittal of projects or programs to
p lP q p J p �'
Brooklyn
William Hargis
be funded by the Surface Transportation Program (STP), the Congestion
Mayor of Woodbury
Johnson
Mitigation/Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ), and the Transportation
Barbara
Minneapolis City Council
Enhancements Program (TEP) of Title I of the Transportation Equity Act for the
David Luick
Lakeville City Council
21St Century (TEA -21). Funds would be available for projects in 2005 and
Joy Tierney
2006.
Mayor of Plymouth
Julie Wasiluk
Maplewood City Council
The Twin Cities region has been allocated STP funds and is eligible to receive a
John Weaver
Anoka City Council
portion of CMAQ and TEP funds from the federal program. Approximately
Citizen Members
$46.5 Million is anticipated to be available for STP projects, $8.6 Million for
John Johnson
Len E
TEP and $20.5 Million for CMAQ.
n
Steve a Elki s
Michael Krause
Elliott Perovich
Mary Hauser
Thoman
The selected projects will be included in the Region's Transportation
Barbara
Jill Smith
improvement Program (TIP) for 2003 -2006, which will be prepared in March
Aaencv Representatives
Swanson
2002 with an anticipated September 2002 adoption. Also for your information,
Jim
Minnesota DOT
the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), Metropolitan Division,
Richard Long
M.A.C.
is in,the process of requesting submittals for Bridge, Safety, and Hazard
Kr legate
Elimination projects. MnDOT is mailing information on this process to all
Modal Representatives
potential applicants. These projects will also be included in the 2003 -2006 TIP.
John Byrd
Transit
Lisa McDonald
The solicitation package describes projects and programs that are eligible for
Transit
Fred Corrigan
funding under the three program areas. The solicitation package can be accessed
Freight
through the Council web site www.metrocouncil.or Hard copies are available
John Herman
Non - motorized
through the Council data center (651.) 602 -1140. The categories within each of
Metropolitan Council Liaison the program areas and the criteria that have been developed to evaluate
Carolyn Rodriguez
applications are supportive of the Metropolitan Council's Regional Blueprint
and Transportation Policy Plan.
SolicitationLtrJul.doc 1 of 2
Under the STP, projects can be submitted in one of three major categories:
1) non - freeway, principal arterial highways;
2) projects on the "A: Minor Arterial Highway System as defined by the
Transportation Advisory Board (TAB); and
3) bike and walk projects.
Under the CMAQ category, there are two subcategories: 1) transit expansion, and 2) non-transit
expansion, other. In Appendix Q of the Solicitation package, a memorandum from the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) describes how CMAQ funds can be used. All projects
described in that memorandum are eligible for funding under the Region's process. Emphasis is
given to the air quality benefit of the project or program. The TAB will determine if CMAQ
transit expansion projects will also be funded with STP funds at the conclusion of the solicitation
process.
Under the TEP, there are no subcategories. Projects may be submitted for any of the twelve
eligible activities identified on page 68.
Each category includes criteria, which evaluate the efforts of cities and counties to provide
affordable and lifecycle housing. The scores for the criteria are determined through a separate
process. The information survey to evaluate the performance was due to the Council on June 22,
2001. Metropolitan Council staff will assign points, based on what agency or agencies are the
project sponsors and the location of the project. If your city or county has not submitted the
survey you should contact Guy Peterson at (651) 601 -1418.
A forum will be held on Friday, July 27, 2001 in the Metropolitan Council Chambers, 230 East
Stn Street, St. Paul, Mn to review the solicitation package, describe what an application should
contain, and answer your questions. The agenda follows:
8:15 - 8:30 am Introduction
8:30 — 9:15 am State and Federal Requirements
9:15 —10:00 am CMAQ
10:00 — 10:45 am Transportation Enhancements
10:45 — 11:30 am Surface Transportation Program
cr more information, contact Don KosIL (651) 602-1721 or Kevin Roggenbuck (651) 602 -1728.
All submittals must be received no later than 4:00 pm on Friday, August 31, 2001 at the
Metropolitan Council offices, or be postmarked with an official postal service postmark by that
date to be considered. Please address your submittals to Kevin Roggenbuck, Transportation
Advisory Board, Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul MN 55101.
Sincerely,
TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD
- D d�r_/a .
Donn R. Wiski
Chair
DRW:CEO:ejm
Solicitationl,Wul.doc 2 of 2
Office tel.: 651 -582 -1359
Fax: 582 -1368
Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Transportation
Commissioner, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Chair, Metropolitan Council
Indian Tribal Governments
County Board Chairs
County /City Park Commission Chairs
Chairs, Special Park Districts
Mayors and Town Board Chairs
Chairs, School District Boards
The Metropolitan Division of Mn/DOT, on behalf of the seven - county metropolitan area, has been
requested to solicit candidate projects in three project categories for federal funding for the years 2005 and
2006. The three project categories included in this solicitation are Hazard Elimination Safety,'' Bridge
Improvement Replacement, and Rail Crossing Safety. The Transportation Advisory Board to the
Metropolitan Council is directly soliciting candidate projects in eight other project categories. You should
receive that solicitation at about the same time you receive this one. Approximately $2.4 million per year
is available for the Hazard Elimination Safety category, $5 million per year for the Bridge Improvement
category, and $1.75 million per year for the Rail Crossing Safety Program.
The materials available on the following Mn/DOT web site,
http: / /www.dot.state.mn.us /metro /federalfunding /, describe the project categories and the qualifying and
priority criteria which will be used to prioritize the candidate projects submitted. Please read the materials
from the web site carefully and supply the required information as completely as possible so that your
project can be fully understood by the groups evaluating and ranking the projects. If you do not have web
access, please request a copy of the material from BrianVollum, at (651) 582 -1408, or (651) 602 -1748.
General questions regarding this process should also be directed to Brian Vollum. Questions regarding
specific project categories should be directed to the individual(s) as identified in the solicitation. Address
submittals to Brian Vollum, brian.vollum2dot.state.m Metro Division, MnDOT, 1500 West
County Road B -2, Roseville, MN 55113. Submittals must be received or U.S. Postmarked by 5:00 PM,
August 31, 2
Successful applicants will be notified during the winter of 2001/2002
Sincerely,
Ri and A. Stehr, P.E.
Metro Division Engineer
Attachments
An equal opportunity employer
C4
F-- O M
rf
.
H
Z —�
F D
Z7
c� <
F F9
C z
H I I
� I I
z D
C4 z
tj
-I o
Z
n
D
= IT]
z
C
co
C Si �
T
ST.
ST. CD
C-9
T ST,
� Z
- <
<
S T.
ST. .a
ST.
ROUNDHOUSE ST,
C
J ST. SAR N
I� L D
m
ST
D -
< D
� z
D �
1 � D
ITl <
it7 H F9
5
RI
Tn
INS
0 �0 ' �
�C_
P'A
I
SHAW NEE
TR,
VIKING STEI
POI
n
0
`CD
0
cn
N
O
0
N
N
O
0
t
0
a,
�tntncncncnDCno��— tc�L�m
"Q'��
m — nom
W`CD
COO��= °'og�0cQ-q
o :max
2.n.
x
° r3 3 m m n� `v ` °'' "m
a
o a
m
n
CD
0 n cn m m 3
N Ill (!� UT (n (D y - 0 (D 3 -5 C
N y (D (D
° §
Cn
0
X
(D p' < O
<
n'
C
m
o m
3 to
m tD
4'
..n
n
m C
Qc
(�D ® m CD <
O
Dv,
d
0
��� 0--
c 3
-n C C C CD
m
3
3
< I
Q
aaaQ.a n
0
OCKV Ll�.
O
e
WICI
(D N
l_1
T
Y
tD 0 a �
CD m'
lA
-
_
N
CD
(T�
➢
co
v
CD
o
0
O m o o- CD 0 c CD o- (D- m
n S
2 0
p CD (1 :3 (1 t1 U)
?. LZ CD Cn CD — In CD
'..
n
CD
pi
O
r
CD
-n p _. 0 CD
3
0
( CD = -0 �,. 07 � a��
A
am
CD ,- 3 0 n CL aa
N
0 0 (o
N ° N 0 CD O (D v
N
O CD
C � �' - `< p- C O Cn LU
cn
m.
�
(n
CD En - n :E
CZ CD (B O CD 5: N
O
(A
5' CD CZ CD Z N Ol
O n CD = 7 - 0
Qf cri
O
Ln
(D - CD a)
CL S En N m Q CD
O O O
O O O
O O O
O O '.. O
�. -{ R -�. 7 c O
O 0 0 O O
O O ..., O O
O
°�
CD CL C.0
? 0-
o O O
o 0
CD
Ca CD
Q D 0 0 a 0- - m
n
m
CD O �° to CD o
CD �' o° c
CD -n
N 3 O
-�
N
O
0
m
CD Q- p 0. 0 0 ?
�°
N p N
O
N N o
0
Cn < � C. CD
C) tD a N O
O O O
OO' O
C7
' C O ° CD =) .... (,
00 O O
O O O
O
0 CD CL)
o O O
O O, O
c
o (� CD
v OD
c
� m
N
�
o
o
�+
�
o
o
e
O
�
O
O
n
0
`CD
0
cn
N
O
0
N
N
O
0
t
R
O
m
(7
N
O
O
N
O
O
O
p�
D
�cnCncnCnCnDCnflG�� [C�G�
°'
m form
�'
x
0
mm
<
— 1 X o o 2 m m 5 X v >
>
'�'
C
m m 3 3 ni m v N D �'�—, o m 3
m m <'' '
c
m m
—< pp;R ° C D —
m m U) cn co CD _0 ccDD 3 v c(
rn
— m co'
`° CD o O
n
r�
m
m
m
11i
CD
m m 0 m F o ° m o a
c
D �,
m
m
C7
co
- 2� c -n 3
T c c c (D
m
3
m
3
CA
a a a a n
I I _i - n W c
CD x CD CL
1,
CD
O
0
CD
CD
"
m
c
U
O
O
O O 0
0 0 O
C) 0
0 0 O
p - rt p
o c o
(n
-t
CD a C1 m n - w N �' d?
�
CD
W 0
C
CD 0 N ^. a CD ...
O
N
O
Q '
O — O o O
N
O
to
O O O
n 3 0 (D (n o
�3
m N n n
v
�'
c i
y M
d O
O N Q
B7
O O
CD (D N
0 CD n 1D
!n
7
C1 CD O
O Cn f2 N
'.,.
CD O
O
0
m cn cn
p N. O
CA O
O N v
CD
m ca om 3
o- 0 3
°0 0 0
0
C. cn Ln
0 0 o
o v cn CD
O o
o 0 o
Oo', 0
n
o 0 0
0 0 0
o o
CD c c
c
co s m n- 3 cn
m
m
—
v a CD m CD
m
0 m 3 M
o
0
m a
w
0
m cn
7 to o O CD
O 0 3 5 CD
a
O
O N m En O O
O
',.
U)
_
O O 7 7 Cn CD
(n o
3
O (n ,
.� CD O
CD
r 7 w
CD
C
Hl
CD
O
J
(�
0
O
0
R
O
m
(7
N
O
O
N
O
O
O
CITY OF SAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Mayor & City Council CONSENT
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Budget Division Transfer of Funds
DATE: August 14, 2001
The Public Works Department would like to transfer funds from Capital Expenditures of
$28,000.00 which was to be used for Scenic Heights playground equipment but has been
determined not to be necessary by the Natural Resources Director and Public Works
Supervisor. The Public Works Department would like to use this transfer of funds in the
Park Division as follows:
$3,000.00 Materials for additional ag lime for ballfields
$6,000.00 Pumps replacements in Memorial Park
$4,000.00 Playground repairs
The remaining $15,000.00 will be for pavement preservation for trails in Memorial Park.
Please review this request for transfer of funds and let us know as soon as possible if this
is acceptable or not.
r
Bruce Lone
Public Works Director
BL/pmp
BUDGET
Cc: Michael Hullander, Public Works Supervisor
TO: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Dan Hughes, Chief of Police /)/V'LZ
SUBJECT: Participation Agreement
Multi- Jurisdiction Network Organization (MJNO)
DATE: August 14, 2001
Council is asked to consider allowing appropriate City staff to sign the participation
agreement for the Multiple Jurisdiction Network Organization (MJNO).
BACKGROUND:
The original MJNO project has been around since 1992. The MJNO is the only available
service of this type for the State of Minnesota. In 1997, several agencies sought and
received grant funds for the sharing of information between law enforcement agencies
within the state, and now share over two million records. Participating agencies provide
data to a server that is managed by the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association.
MJNO is a quick and efficient link to locating and gaining updated, valuable shared
information. For example, if we were looking for information on a suspect or individual,
we could do an electronic check through MJNO and immediately find out which other
Minnesota agencies have had contact and access updated information.
In order to gain access, members must be able to provide data and have the availability to
retrieve data. Scott County is unique because of their Central Records System, which is
shared by all local and county law enforcement agencies. Because of this situation and
the fact that our records are centralized, we receive a substantial discount in the MJNO
participation fee. The fees provide the cost of supporting an MJNO site administrator,
physical maintenance of the server, off -site data backups, MNJO interface software
improvements, etc. The usual price is $2,500 annually. The cost for Shakopee will be
$1,000 annually.
Pg. 2-
Memo To Council
Participation Agreement/MJNO
BUDGET IMPACT
Funds currently exist within our professional services line item to pay for this service.
ACTION REQUESTED:
The City Council, if they concur, should authorize the appropriate city officials to enter
into the participation agreement with the Multi- Jurisdictional Network Organization and
moves it's adoption.
DH:pm
Attachments:
1. MJNO Participation Agreement (2 copies)
2. The Exchange, Vol. 2, Issue 2, 6/15/2001
3. Letter From Minnesota Chief's of Police Association
2
Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association
1220 South Concord Street
South St. Paul, MN 55075
(Hereinafter referred to as "MJNO ")
Hereby grants to:
Agency Name
Address
Administrator
Administrator's Phone
E -Mail Address
(Hereinafter referred to as "Participant")
The Participant is hereby granted the right to use the service according to the terms and
conditions of this agreement. No title to or ownership of the contributed information or
any of its parts is hereby transferred.
Both Participant and MJNO agree that this agreement constitutes the entire contract by
and between them. Any oral or written documents between parties which are
inconsistent with the terms of this agreement or are in addition to the terms of this
agreement are superseded by this document and are of no further validity or force of
effect. Proposed Amendments to this agreement may only be made in writing and by a
document specifically indicating that it is intended to be an amendment to this
agreement.
A. DEFINITION OF TERMS
For the purpose of this agreement, the terms defined in this article shall have the
meaning given them.
• "Multiple Jurisdiction Network Organization" means the organization created
pursuant to this agreement, which organization is hereafter referred to as "MTNO ".
6/27/01
0
® "Vendor" means the duly contracted company or companies that provide the services
described in this agreement.
• "Participant" means the individual agency, which enters into this agreement and is, at
the time involved, a party in good standing.
• "Administrator" means the duly appointed individual from each participant agency
who has certain rights and responsibilities pursuant to this agreement.
® "Service" means the following described goods and services in accordance with the
terms and conditions set forth herein.
• "Participant Software" means the proprietary software and database system that is
owned by the Participant and serves as the basis of the information that is provided
to MJNO.
• "Information" means any records provided to MJNO by the individual 'participant
agency.
• "IP (Internet Protocol) Address" means a valid electronic identifier registered with
the Internet.
B. PIULOSOPHY OF ORGANIZATION
MJNO is a cooperative effort to facilitate the sharing of investigative law enforcement
contact information among law enforcement agencies throughout the State of Minnesota.
MJNO provides four essential functions.
1. Provide a central repository for storing Public Safety Name data.
2. Provide an interface for participating agencies to view that data.
3. All costs associated with MJNO are shared by the participating agencies.
4. To receive data you must be willing and able to share data. To that end participants
who receive data from MJNO are required to have a completed participation
agreement.
The service provided by MJNO is designed to improve data sharing across Participant
agencies that that are disparate. and normally not linked. The Service provides a name
search to the Participant Agencies, but is not intended to replace direct contact between
Participant agencies. Instead, the Service will help Participant agencies know which
other Participant agencies to contact during the course of an investigation. Ultimately, it
is the goal of MJNO to recruit Participants throughout the State of Minnesota.'
6/27/01 2
L �
The use of the Service by the Participant is based on the compliance of the Participant to
the following obligations:
1. The Participant will provide MJNO law enforcement contact data in the prescribed
format. See Appendix A for a listing of the format specifications.
2. The Participant will provide the first and last names of all personnel to be granted
access.
3. The Participant will be required to provide MJNO Information for the current year
and the previous two years within 90 days of execution of this agreement via the
Service or via another agreed upon media. MJNO will grant up to 20 User Names and
Passwords for access into the Service on a temporary basis until the Participant can
provide the initial Information upon execution of this agreement.
4. The Participant will be required to provide MJNO Information on a weekly basis as
minimum standard of participation. All Information will be added to the Service via
the agreed upon FTP (File Transfer Protocol). MJNO recommends and prefers that
the Participant provide MJNO Information on a daily basis whenever possible via the
Service. MJNO retains the right to temporarily suspend passwords if a Participant
agency does not provide Information within the minimum parameters. MJNO
reserves the right to change the minimum standard for data updates as necessary.
5. The participant is solely responsible for the extraction of Information from their own
Participant Software package and database. MJNO is in no way responsible for those
extraction services or the costs associated with them.
6. The Participant is solely responsible for the quality of the Information extracted.
MJNO is not responsible for any errors in the Information. The Participant
Information that resides in the Service is the full responsibility of and is owned by the
Participant.
7. The Participant is solely responsible for the connectivity required for access to MNET
(Minnesota Network, which is the state's backbone network).
8. The Participant is solely responsible for internal policies and restrictions' on the use
of the Internet. MJNO is not responsible for the misconduct of Participants who
utilize the Service. The Participant will also maintain a permanent file of End User
Waivers for each User Password that is requested. MJNO retains the right to audit
these files for completeness upon written notification to the Participant by MJNO.
8.1 The Participant will also maintain a permanent file of assigned "Acceptable Use"
Waivers for each User Password that is requested. MJNO retains the right to
audit these files for completeness upon written notification to the Participant by
MJNO.
6/27/01 3
9. The Participant will designate an individual who will be herein referred to as
"Administrator". The Administrator will be responsible for the following at each
Participant agency:
9.1 The Administrator will be the first line of contact within a Participant agency.
All end -user questions and requests must be filtered through the Administrator
before they are referred to Vendor or MTNO.
9.2 The Administrator is responsible for training all staff, except the core group at
each Participant agency.
9.3 The Administrator is responsible for training all staff. MJNO will provide a
manual to facilitate the training process.
9.4 The Administrator is responsible for Password requests and distribution to staff
at the Participant agency. Only the Administrator can request User Passwords
from MJNO.
10. It is the sole responsibility of the Participant agency to make sure passwords are
reasonably secured and not shared.
D. MJNQ OBLIGATIONS
MJNO will provide the following services:
1. MJNO will provide the Participant full access to all of the Information that is
available in the Service. '
2. MJNO will provide the Participant with User Names and Passwords into the Service.
It is solely the responsibility of the Participant to distribute those passwords once
received from the Vendor. It is also solely the responsibility of the Participant to
notify the Vendor when an individual will be removed and his/her password revoked.
2.1 MJNO will create new user name /password sets within 3 working days of receipt
of the request from an authorized Administrator. All request must be made to
XLJNO@state.mn.us.
2.2 MJNO will remove existing passwords within one (1) working day after
receiving notification from an authorized Administrator.
3. MJNO will be required to maintain the service.
4. MJNO will separate all data into juvenile and adult records based on date of birth.
Adults and Juveniles will be stored in separate data tables in the Service.
5. MJNO will maintain the integrity of the Information for each Participant agency.
6/27/01 4
6. Access to the Service will be limited to active User ID's and Passwords and
workstations on defined paths.
7. The Service will provide security so that Participant Information cannot be tampered
with.
8. MJNO shall provide initial training to a core group of Participants within 30 days of
execution of this agreement. The training will include:
8.1 MJNO will train the Participant on the use of the system so that the core group
can then train the rest of the Participant staff.
8.2 MJNO will train the Administrator on the use of the special Administrator
functions.
8.3 MJNO will provide the Administrator with the appropriate file layouts and
requirements.
E. Manner of Payment
The participant shall pay a fee of $2,500 per year for the use of the service. Payments
shall be made in January of each calendar year. Services that begin in a month other
than January may be prorated in order to keep all memberships to a January to
December calendar -year basis. Payments shall be made payable to the Minnesota Chiefs
of Police Association.
F. DISCLAJMER
MJNO shall not be liable to the Participant for any loss of or injury to productivity or
goodwill suffered by the Participant, caused directly or indirectly by the use of the
Service pursuant to this agreement, or any interruption or loss of use thereof, or for any
incidental or consequential damages even if MJNO has been advised of the passibility of
such damages. MJNO will not be responsible for any additional costs of reloading
Participant Information in cases of a catastrophic event.
n o - lei
1. The agreement shall commence on , 20_, and shall continue
for a period of one (1) year from the date of execution. This agreement shall be
automatically renewable each year thereafter or until either party provides 30 days
written notice of cancellation to the other party.
2. Prior to the final acceptance of the Service and initial Information load of the
Participant, either party shall have the right, at its option to terminate this agreement.
The agreement can be cancelled upon written notice to the other party if such other
6/27/01 5
party, whether by default or circumstances beyond its control, fails to perform any of
its obligations under this agreement, which failure has not been corrected within
thirty (30) days after receipt of written notice thereof. Upon any such termination:
2.1 The Participant agrees to terminate use of the MJNO Service and return to
MJNO all related documentation and to not make further use thereof.
2.2 MJNO agrees to refund the Participant the full annual fee.
3. Final acceptance will occur when the Participant sends their initial Information load
to MJNO for inclusion in the Service. Termination after final acceptance will include
the following terms:
3.1 MJNO will retain all annual fees collected and as agreed upon in Schedule A.
There will be no pro -ration of funds based on a percentage of annual
membership not used for the months or days remaining in the term.
3.2 The Participant shall discontinue use of the MJNO Service immediately.
3.3 MJNO shall remove all User Names and Passwords 30 days after termination.
3.4 MJNO shall remove and provide written notice that all Participant agency data
has been removed from the Service.
The following documents and the agreements of MJNO and. the Participant contained
herein are hereby incorporated into this agreement by reference and/or attachment:
1. MJNO Data File Definition as listed in Appendix A of this Agreement.
2. Minnesota State Statute Chapter 1382.
appropriate law enforcement purposes.
The MJNO Service will only be used for
3. MJNO Acceptable Use Policy.
I. GOVERNING LAW
This contract will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State
of Minnesota.
J. GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. Neither MJNO nor the Participant shall be liable or deemed in default for any delay or
failure in performance of this agreement resulting directly or indirectly from any
cause beyond the reasonable control of MJNO or the Participant.
6/27/01 6
2. Any failure of a MJNO or the Participant to assert any provision under this agreement
shall not constitute a waiver or termination of that provision.
3. Unless exempt under the rules and regulations of the Secretary of Labor or other
proper authority, this agreement is subject to all applicable executive, federal, state
and municipal regulations, laws, orders, or ordinances relating to equal opportunity
and nondiscrimination in employment.
4. Upon mutual agreement between MJNO and the participant agency, certain terms
outlined in the above participation agreement may be modified, when that
modification is in the mutual interests of MJNO and the Participant
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE AGREEMENT
Participant Agency Authorized/Executive Signature
Dated: By:
Printed Name:
Title:
MJNO Authorized/Executive Signature
Dated: By:
Dennis J. Delmont, Executive Director
Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association
1220 South Concord Street
South St. Paul, MN 55075
6/27/01 7
VNIUNO DATA i' DEFINITION
Comments
Must be a 4 -digit year. Must also be the
current year or the previous year.
If supplied it must be a valid date. If not
Supplied, 01/01/1900 will be inserted so
the record can be indexed.
This field can include any additional
information that the agency wants to
supply. Examples: physical
characteristics, aliases, vehicle license
plates, etc.
Records that are missing a required data element will not be loaded. It is up to the supplying agency to
insert a default value (i.e. "UNK" for unknown) into the field.
All codes utilized in the host system should be expanded into English phrases whenever possible. This is
not a requirement but since every agency may have different codes, the data will be much more useful if
the codes are expanded.
Data elements that exceed the size limitation will be truncated. The record will be loaded.
6/27/01 8
Size
Data Element
Required?
Limitation
Agency
Yes
50
Sub Agency
Yes
50
Case Year
Yes
4
Case Number
Yes
50
Last Name
Yes
50
First Name
Yes
50
Middle Name
Yes
50
Date of Birth
No
10
Gender
No
50
Race
No
50
Role
No
50
Incident Type
No
50
Street Address
No
50
City
No
50
State
No
50
Zip
No
50
Phone Number
No
50
Contact Name
No
50
Contact Number
No
50
Additional Notes
No
250
Comments
Must be a 4 -digit year. Must also be the
current year or the previous year.
If supplied it must be a valid date. If not
Supplied, 01/01/1900 will be inserted so
the record can be indexed.
This field can include any additional
information that the agency wants to
supply. Examples: physical
characteristics, aliases, vehicle license
plates, etc.
Records that are missing a required data element will not be loaded. It is up to the supplying agency to
insert a default value (i.e. "UNK" for unknown) into the field.
All codes utilized in the host system should be expanded into English phrases whenever possible. This is
not a requirement but since every agency may have different codes, the data will be much more useful if
the codes are expanded.
Data elements that exceed the size limitation will be truncated. The record will be loaded.
6/27/01 8
C ie s Conference a Success
The 2001 Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association / Educational Foundation Executive Training
Institute was a great success. The Training Institute was held in St. Cloud April 23rd to April
26th. The conference included several very educational seminars and breakout sessions as well
as an impressive vendor showcase.
MJNO took center stage on Wednesday afternoon, as several members of the executive commit-
tee gave two ninety minute presentations to numerous law enforcement executives. The presenta-
tion centered primarily on the basics of MJNO and how new agencies could join.
Gary Ritari from the State of Minnesota, Department of Administration opened the presentations
with a discussion of how MJNO has changed the nature of an investigation from when he served
in Minneapolis. He went on to discuss the technical components of MJNO including the web -
based approach that makes MJNO so successful. Gary also discussed the role that MNET and
CJDN play in transporting the MJNO data.
Chris Londgren from Local Government Information Systems (LOGIS)
was the next speaker and concentrated primarily on the MJNO file struc-
ture and on extractions. Extractions are the method that an agency uses
to take data from their own Records Management System (RMS) and
prepare it into a file that can be loaded to the MJNO warehouse. Chris
pointed out that the number of extractions available for the various ven-
J
Inside this issue:
2 Million Record Milestone
Achieved
New Extract Routines Avail-
able
Presentation made to MaSys
PC ENFORS User Group
MJNO Takes Roots in non-
metro area agencies
Spotlight on Chaska Police
Department
Appropriate Protocol for Ad-
dressing MJNO Questions
Brooklyn Park joins MJNO
New Agencies Working To-
ward Joining MJNO
dors is continually growing.
2 Dotty Veldey- Jones, a lieutenant from the Minneapolis Police Department, discussed the current
success stories with MJNO and also the basic philosophy and history of the project which began
in 1992. The driving philosophy behind MJNO is that you have to give data in order to get data.
3 The data is the most important element.
3 Lieutenant James Rugal of the Minneapolis Police Department and Sergeant Bob Hernz from the
Golden Valley Police Department demonstrated the ease and power of MJNO. The officers dem-
o onstrated 211 of the basic functionality of the system and ran several examples that spanned multi-
ple jurisdictions using disparate systems. They also took several requests from the audience, and
were able to provide hits in almost all cases; most of the requests came from agencies in non-
4 metro Minnesota!
5 Dotty Veldey -Jones reviewed the responsibilities of agencies that want to participate in MJNO.
These include how and when data needs to be added to the warehouse, historical data require-
s ments, extraction routines, agency data integrity and security of data and passwords. She also
described the responsibilities of each agency local administrator which include filtering of user
questions, training and submission of passwords to the MJNO site administrator. Dotty also de-
s scribed the current fee structure which is $2,500 per year.
How To Join 6 Gary Ritari described what that fee is used for. MJNO is a self -
supporting organization that maintains its budget based on the contribu-
Schedule of Events 7 tions of its membership. The fee goes to cover the costs of supporting
an MJNO Site Administrator, physical maintenance of the server, off -
MJNO Executive Committee 8
(Continued on page 2)
i'd's �`.
This spring MJNO has reached another major milestone with over 2 million records in warehouse. MJNO has
added several new agencies late this spring including Blue Earth County, Brooklyn Park, Chaska, Mankato and
Northfield. The future also looks bright as a number of agencies are working on solutions to add data to the ware-
house. Currently extractions are being completed for CIS NT, MaSys ENFORS and New World Aegis, which
should further increase the base of agencies that participate in MJNO.
Important Facts as of May 31, 2001
• 1, 941,820 adult and 184,600 juvenile records added to MJNO by 28 participating agencies.
• 1,257 users in 32 agencies
• 26,483 Web hits on the MJNO site
The following agencies have contributed data to the MJNO warehouse
• Agencies with a star ( *) are the original grant signing agencies:
M P a`
IN
Apple Valley( *) Bloomington ( *)
Blue Earth County
Brooklyn Center ( *)
Brooklyn Park
Burnsville Champlin
Chaska
Crystal ( *)
Eagan ( *)
Farmington Golden Valley ( *)
Hennepin County ( *)
Hutchinson ( *)
Lakeville
Mankato Maple Grove ( *)
Minneapolis ( *)
Minnetonka ( *)
New Hope
Northfield Orono
Plymouth ( *)
Probations (MN Dept of
Richfield ( *)
Corrections)
Robbinsdale ( *) Rosemount
St Louis Park ( *)
St Paul ( *)
• Agencies preparing to join MJNO.
Dakota County Savage
• Agencies reviewing MJNO.
Alexandria Austin
Benson
Biwabik
Fairibault Hibbing
Hoyt Lakes
Isanti
Kasota
Marshall Mounds View
North St. Paul
Shakopee
Woodbury
Worthington
Chiefs Conference a Success (Continued from page I)
site data back -ups, MJNO interface software improvements /maintenance, supporting software (system, database, security, etc.)
and capital improvement (processors, additional disk space, redundant servers, etc.).
The presentation concluded with a panel discussion on topics from the audience. The main topics were budgetary and fee struc-
ture questions. Another topic that was discussed was the handling of groups of agencies.
Overall the presentation was a success with over 40 executives exposed to MJNO, many for the first time. We are pleased that
15 agencies asked for an evaluation password and 1 agency signed up for MJNO on the spot.
If you have suggestions or questions regarding the financial considerations of MJNO or your ability to participate, please feel
free to call Dennis Delmont at the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association. His number is 651- 457 -0677.
I . . 1 1 I
Most agencies agree that MJNO is a valuable tool and are very interested in joining. One of the major stum-
bling blocks for many agencies has been the cre=ation of an extract routine. The extract routine is an auto-
mated process which goes out to an agencies Records Management System (RMS) and pulls that data into a
file that can be read by MJNO. This process is dhow an agency shares data with the rest of the MJNO agen-
cies.
The problem is that many agencies do not have the technical resources to create those extracts on their own.
They have to rely on their vendors or other agencies that utilize the same RMS to obtain an extract. In the
beginning, this stopped many agencies from participating. However, the efforts of some agencies and their
vendors has begun to open the doors for other agencies in the state.
Apple Valley developed an extract routine which works with the Visionaire RMS package. Apple Valley
has shared that program with Burnsville Police Department. Burnsville was the second agency that uses
Visionaire Software to join MJNO. For more information on obtaining the Visionaire extract, please contact
Merle Lohse at Apple Valley Police Department.
More recently, MaSys Corporation stepped to the plate and delivered an extraction for their PC ENFORS
clients. Their efforts have been a success. Chaska Police Department is already a fully participating mem-
ber while Northfield Police Department is in the process of their initial extract and set -up. Several other PC
ENFORS agencies are either evaluating MJNO or have indicated an interest. For more information on ob-
taining the PC ENFORS extract, contact Craig tinter at MaSys.
The most recent successful extract was built by the Mankato/Blue Earth County Joint Law Enforcement
Center. This extract has opened the door for Mankato and Blue Earth County Sheriff who are now fully
functional. This also opens the door for other Computer Information Systems (CIS) users. This is very
important since five CIS agencies are currently in the trial evaluation process. For more information on ob-
taining the CIS extract contact, Jerry Heuttl at the Mankato/Blue Earth County Joint Law Enforcement Cen-
ter.
These three extracts join the list from the original grant process that already have extracts available. The
other vendors /agencies that have extracts available are: GEAC, Hennepin County, LOGIS, Minneapolis,
Minnesota Department of Corrections and St. Paul.
Different agencies are also developing additional extracts for other RMS. Currently extracts for MaSys EN-
FORS and New World Aegis are in varying degrees of development. MJNO will keep you updated as addi-
tional extracts are available.
The goal is to make MJNO as inclusive as possible. We believe that as technical barriers are removed and
more extracts are available, more agencies will be able to Join MJNO. If your RMS is not listed, perhaps
now is the time to ask you vendor if it could be done.
MaSys Corporation invited representatives from MJNO to make a presentation to their PC ENFORS User
group_ Gary Ritari from the Department of Administration and Chris Londgren from LOGIS represented
MJNO. The presentation covered the basics of MMJNO and how it is being utilized today. During the course
of the presentation, a number of questions were answered.
MaSys has an enhancement available to the users of PC ENFORS that allows those agencies to extract data
from their Records Management System and participate in the MJNO process. Shortly after the presentation,
Chaska was the first PC ENFORS agency to join MJNO and start contributing data.
Northfield Police Department will be the second. They have already agreed to join and are in the process of
having their account set up, users added and initial data extracted.
"We have tracked down two people with Northfield addresses that have been caught shoplifting at the Mall of
America. Investigators are reporting that it's a big help for them in the process of tracking where some of our
'clients' have been traveling around." - Gary Smith —Chief of Police, Northfield Police Department.
M
Blue Earth County is the second sheriff
department to join MJNO. They along
with Mankato are the first to join
MIND that use CIS for their records
management system
Apple Valley is the first agency using
Visionaire software to extract and
upload data to the MJNO warehouse.
Burnsville also uses this extraction to
process records.
Northfield Police Department is the
latest MaSys PC ENFORS agency to
join MJNO'.
11 1 1 , 1 •''
The notion that MJNO is only for agencies that are large and are situated in the Twin Cities metropolitan
area is simply not true. From the beginning, MJNO has always had the goal of being inclusive to all agen-
cies no matter from what point of the map they carne from. In fact, one of the originating grant agencies
was Hutchinson Police Department. It is true that many of the originating agencies were larger metro -
agencies but as time passes a working partnership between metro and non -metro agencies is beginning to
form.
In all of its forms, MJNO has always viewed itself as a state -wide initiative. The core truth of the matter is
that criminals move. They move among neighboring communities as well as across the state. The members
of MJNO have always recognized this fact. Simply put, metro agencies benefit when non -metro agencies
join. It is also true that non -metro agencies benefit from the core of data that already exists in the metro_
Hutchinson was the first non -metro agency to participate in MJNO. Recently, Mankato, Blue Earth County
and Northfield have also joined MJNO. MJNO hopes that these will only be the first of many agencies that
will participate and provide a complete coverage of critical contact data across the state of Minnesota and
beyond.
MJNO benefits a non -metro agency in two significant ways. First, a new non -metro MJNO agency gains
instant access to over 2 million name contacts. Since criminals are mobile, this data gives you a tactical
advantage. At your fingertips is data that would not be available anywhere else. This data includes all types
of contacts and will help to supplement or in some cases give you leads beyond the standard Criminal His-
tory available from the BCA. Remember, the Criminal history only includes information for arrests at a
certain level. MJNO includes that information plus lower level crimes. It also includes information on
other types of contacts such as owner, victim, witness, etc.
The other benefit that a non -metro agency will receive is one that will come over time. As more agencies
join MJNO, the availability of data in your immediate vicinity will also increase. When Hutchinson first
joined MJNO, most of the information that was pertinent to that agency came from Minneapolis or the west
Metro area. With the addition of Mankato, a whole new source of names helps them with the daily execu-
tion of law enforcement in their community.
So Far, MJNO has grown in the west Metro and in Southern Minnesota. We hope to add agencies in North -
em Minnesota very soon. Are you the agency that is going to get the ball rolling in your region? MJNO is
looking for agencies who are willing to take the leadership position in their regions.
III IIII I
9 1=1 1 1
Chief Scott Knight has been a supporter of MJNO for some time. In fact it was a deciding factor
in determining which software vendor that he would select when Chaska just recently change
RMS systems.
Chaska has been pleased with MJNO so far. MJNO has given Chaska access not only to
neighboring suburban communities but also access to the majority of the records in the urban
core. However, the benefit didn't stop there. Chaska also has access to data from nearby com-
munities like Mankato and Hutchinson. In total, this gives Chaska a rich source of data that they
can use to help identify and locate individuals.
Chaska saw immediate benefits from the use of MJNO in their community, even during the initial
training of their officers. At the first training session, they decided to look up some current cases
and found a hit on a predator they were looking for. MJNO had useful hits from other jurisdic-
tions that eventually led to the subjects apprehension. Chaska had local records on the subject,
but the address was incorrect. The hit in another jurisdiction had an address that was correct.
Later that afternoon, the subject in question was brought in for questioning.
Hutchinson, Blue Earth County and
Mankato are the first agencies from
outside the metro area to have access to
the MJNO tool.
Chaska joined MJNO in April of 2001
and already have had immediate results.
M C P A July 26, 2001
Khnu esota Chiefs
of 11oliceAssocialtion
Chief Daniel Hughes
1220 South Concord street
Shakopee Police Department
South Saint Paul, MN 55075
476 Gorman street
800 - 377 -4058 toll free
Shakopee, MN 55379
651 -457 -0677 tel
vv w.safenet.org
Dear Chief IJughes,
I was very pleased to hear of the Scott County records management!
consortium's decision to join MJN®. You will be invoiced at a
considerable discount based on the tier system. This is a result of savings
for the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association being passed to your
individual subscribers. Those savings are a result of a single source for
data uploads, technical assistance and billing.
Enclosed you will find an MJN® "Starter Kif' along with contracts that
must be signed and returned to us. We will countersign and return one
original to your agency. At that point you will receive your passwords.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to call us at (651)
457 -0677.
Yours truly,
Dennis J. Delmont, Executive Director
MINNESOTA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION
I IN
enclosures
Dedicated to the ideals of professional policing
FROM: Sergeant Jeff Tate
SUBJECT: Authority to Issue Citations
DATE: August 15, 2001
Council is asked to consider Ordinance No. 610, amending Chapter 1 of the City Code by
adding Section 1.13 pertaining to the authority to issue citations for code violations.
BACKGROUND:
Under present City Code, the position of Community Service Officer (CSO), does not
have the authority to issue citations for City Code violations. One of the essential duties
of our CSO's is to enforce City Code. Currently, CSO's only document City Code
violations. The CSO will then pass the information onto a police officer so a citation
may be issued. This creates a great deal of redundancy.
This Ordinance will give CSO's the authority to issue a citation immediately for City
Code violations. This will reduce redundancy along with enhancing our ability to enforce
the City Code. Furthermore, the Ordiance recognized the Fire Marshal, Fire Chief,
Animal Control Official and the Building Official with the same authority.
Many communities such as Burnsville, Golden Valley, St. Louis Park and Apple Valley
have similar "authority" language in their City Code, which has proven effective.'
ACTION REOUESTE
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, adopt City Ordinance 610, amending
Section 1, Chapter 1, of the City Code pertaining to the authority to issue citations.
JT:pm
Attachment: City Ordinance 610
ORDINANCE NO. 610, FOURTH SERIES
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING
ENFORCEMENT OF THE CITY CODE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA. ORDAINS:
Section 1 — Chapter 1 of the City Code is amended by adding a new Section to read:
Sec. 1.13. Authority to Issue Citations
Licensed Peace Officers, Community Service Officers, the Fire Marshal, Fire
Chief, Animal Control Official and Building Official are expressly authorized to issue
citations against a person, firm, or corporation who violates any provision of this Code.
Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its
Passage and publication.
Adopted
Shakopee, Minnesota, d the day of 1 1
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
C - Yr
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Downtown Fire Station Reroofing
DATE: August 16, 2001
The Council is asked to give direction as to how it prefers that the design of
specifications for the reroofing of the Downtown Fire Station be done.
BACKGROUND:
The Downtown Fire Station is in need of some major reroofing. If the entire reroofing
cannot be done this year, some remedial "patchwork" should be done before winter. We
also assume that even though the Fire Station has a limited life for use by the Fire
Department, the building will either be retained by the City for other purposes (perhaps
Public Works storage), or sold for use by another. Therefore, having a weather tight roof
is a necessity.
The existing roof is ballasted rubber roofing. In many places, the roofing has broken
loose from the edge. Therefore, very preliminary estimates indicate it will be in the
$100,000 range to replace.
The Council has used an architect to do plans and specifications for the City Hall and
Public Services roofs, both of which are under contract for this fall. Because of public
law bidding requirements, it is important to have an equal comparison when seeking bids
for authorized repairs. Otherwise, leaving it to individual contractors will mean that they
will come back with some widely disparate ideas as to what will and won't work. It is
especially important to have verified existing conditions (including checking for
asbestos) done prior to this time. In the case of both Public Services and City Hall
buildings, portions of the work are correcting previous unsuccessful attempts at solutions.
The City has used JEA Architects for the previous design of existing conditions, plans
and specification preparation, bidding, and now construction administration. I believe
there may be some cost efficiencies by utilizing JEA for the Fire Station design.
However, it is also possible that another architect might be able to do the work for less
cost, or better. The way to find that would be to do a Request For Proposals (RFP),
describing the station, the size of the station, and asking how firms would respond.'
Complete reroofing of the Fire Station, should Council direct it, will not be able to take
place until next year. We will need to seek "patchwork" work to be done before winter.
We will contact various firms for that, including the company currently under contract for
the City Hall and Public Services reroofing.
RECO NDATION:
If Council wishes to seek RFD's, it should so direct. I recommend this method if there is
any question on the part of the Council that a better method of providing reroofing'
architectural services is available.
On the other hand, if the Council is comfortable with JEA, it should direct that a proposal
from JEA be requested.
1 1
If the Council concurs, it should direct that RFP's for Fire Station roofing services be
solicited from a variety of firms.
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
MM:th
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
From: Mark Themig, Facilities and Recreation Director
Date: 15 August, 2001
Subject: Renewal of Concession Stand Agreements
IS.rJ 1,
CONSENT
INTRODUCTION
City Council is asked to renew the concession stand agreements for Joe Schleper
Stadium and the Shakopee Ice Arena.
BACKGROUND
The City has a joint agreement with the Coyotes and Indians baseball teams to operate
Joe Schleper Stadium concession stand, and an agreement with Shakopee Youth
Hockey Association to operate the Shakopee Ice Arena concession stand. Both'
agreements expire this year.
Terms of the agreement specify that the organizations are responsible for the overall
operation of the concession stands, including staffing, inventory, food preparation, and
day -to day cleaning and upkeep. The City's primary responsibility is to obtain the food
license for each operation, since the City owns the stands.
Each agreement specifies that the organizations pay the City 15% of net sales. Recent
commissions paid to the City are as follows:
Location
2000
As of July 31, 2001
Joe Schleper Stadium
$408.84
$81.39
(Dedicated to the Park Reserve Fund for future stadium
improvements.)
Shakopee Ice Arena
$2,191
$912.78
(Recreation Fund)
Changes in agreements being presented for your consideration include the following:
Joe Schleper Stadium Concession Agreement with the Shakopee Indians and Shakopee
Coyotes Baseball Teams
• Change from monthly to annual commission payment, due on August 31S of each
year.
• Requirement for each organization to obtain a certificate of insurance naming the
City as additionally insured in the amounts specified.
• Requirement for each organization to provide and maintain all equipment used in the
storage, preparation, and sales of concession items. The City would still retain
responsibility for maintenance of the building.
Shakopee Ice Arena Agreement with Shakopee Youth Hockey Association
■ No changes proposed; requirements proposed to be added to Joe Schleper Stadium
agreements were integrated in the Ice Arena concession agreement last year.
RECOMMENDATION
Having experience operating concession stands for another employer, I have found that
the salary and supply costs typically exceed the revenue produced, unless you have
consistently high volume. Both of these operations have significant low- volume periods.
The advantage these organizations have is the ability to staff the operation with
volunteers, eliminating a significant cost.
The agreements with these organizations are working well, and I recommend renewing
each of them for a two -year period with the changes noted above (included in the
agreements being presented). All three organizations have been presented with the
agreements and support renewal.
REQUESTED ACTION
If City Council concurs, move to authorize:
1. Renewal of the agreements with Shakopee Coyotes Baseball Team and Shakopee
Indians Baseball Team to operate Joe Schleper Baseball Stadium concession stand
through August 31, 2003.
2. Renewal of the agreement with Shakopee Youth Hockey Association to operate the
Shakopee Ice Arena concession stand through August 31, 2003.
. "
Mark Themig
Facilities and Recreation Director
SH AKOPEE YOUTH • • •
CONCESSION
2001-2003
This agreement made and entered into this day of , 2001,
by and between the City of Shakopee, a Minnesota municipal corporation, located at 129
Holmes Street, Shakopee, in the County, of Scott, State of Minnesota (hereinafter'
referred to as "CITY") and Shakopee Youth Hockey Association, a nonprofit corporation
in the County of Scott, State of Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as "SYHA").
WITNESSETH:
Whereas, the CITY of Shakopee is desirous of providing efficient concession services to
Shakopee Ice Arena patrons, and generate revenue; and
Whereas, SYHA wishes to provide concession services at the Shakopee Ice Arena in
order to raise funds for the ongoing support of youth hockey in the community; and
Whereas, SYHA uses concession earnings to rent ice time at the Shakopee Ice Arena,
which is beneficial to the CITY.
Now, therefore, in consideration of the promises, terms and conditions stated herein, the
parties agree as follows:
1. DUTIES AND RIGHTS OF SYHA
A. SYHA agrees to provide full and complete services for the sales of food
concessions at the Shakopee Ice Arena concession stand between the hours of
6:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.
Saturday and Sunday, excluding holidays. The CITY may request SYHA to
provide these services at additional times and SYHA shall meet these requests, if
given two weeks notice.
B. SYHA agrees to pay the CITY an amount equal to Fifteen Percent (15 %) of the
net receipts from concessions at the Shakopee Ice Arena for the use of Arena
concession stand facilities and equipment. Net profits shall be defined as gross
sales less the cost of products, materials, and sales taxes to be paid.
C. Payments shall be made monthly, on or before the fifteenth (15 day of the
month.
D. SYHA agrees to purchase and maintain all food goods, materials and supplies
necessary for the Ice Arena concession stand. SYHA may sell souvenirs and
other hard goods not sold by the Ice Arena, as approved be the CITY in writing.
SYHA souvenirs and other hard good sales shall not be subject to the
commission specified in I.B., above.
E. SYHA agrees to provide, maintain and repair facilities and equipment as
necessary for the sale of concessions. SYHA will be responsible for the cost of
any losses resulting from spoilage of frozen or refrigerated foods due to a'power
outage or equipment failure. SYHA shall thoroughly document such losses_ If
equipment is needed, either in replacement of or addition to the existing
equipment, the equipment must meet appropriate NSF standards.
F. SYHA agrees to provide all manager(s), supervisor(s), attendant(s), and other
personnel for its Ice Arena concession operations, and train those personnel in
food preparation and handling procedures as required by any and all government
agencies_ SYHA also agrees and understands that nothing contained herein
creates or establishes the relationship of copartners between itself and the CITY
and that it is an independent contractor and its officers, managers, supervisors,
volunteers, attendants and other employees are not employees, agents or
representatives of the CITY with respect to any services performed under this
agreement. Such personnel or other personnel associated with SYHA shall not
be entitled to any compensation, rights or benefits of any kind whatsoever from
the CITY, including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care,
sick and vacation leave, Worker's Compensation, Unemployment Compensation,
disability or severance pay and PERA.
G. SYHA agrees to maintain an internal control system which includes Cash
Demand System and a Cash Report, on forms approved the CITY. Such reports
shall be submitted along with each monthly remittance of the CITY's share of the
net receipts. In accordance with Minnesota Statutes 16B.06, Subdivision 4,
SYHA further agrees to allow the CITY or the State Auditor or their agents to
review, upon request, all records associated with the performance of the
agreement, including invoices for concession goods and supplies, all canceled
checks for payment of such invoices, all inventory records, and to be present at
the taking of inventories, and to verify inventory shrinkage records. Gross',
receipts shall be agreed upon by the CITY Finance Director. SYHA will maintain
a separate checking account for concessions operations.
H. On or before April 1, of each year, SYHA shall provide the CITY with a copy of
the year -end Ice Arena Concession financial report prepared by SYHA for its
Board of Directors.
I. SYHA shall conduct its activities upon the premises so as not to endanger any
person lawfully thereon; and shall indemnify, save and hold harmless the CITY
and all of its officers, agents and employees from any and all claims, losses,
injured, damages and liabilities to persons or property occasioned wholly or in
part by the acts or omissions of SYHA, its agents, officers, employees,
volunteers, patrons, or any persons associated with or served by SYHA
concessions operations_
J. SYHA agrees to carry a certificate of insurance for comprehensive general
liability in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence, $1,000,000'
general aggregate, $1,000,000 food product liability per occurrence, and
fire /property damage in the amount of $100,000 per occurrence. The required
insurance certificate must name the City of Shakopee, its officials, agents,'
employees, and volunteers as additional insured's. A copy of the certificate must
be submitted to the City Clerk, and all policies shall provide and the certificates
issued evidence that the CITY will be notified at least 30 days prior to
cancellation or modifications of coverage. Renewal certificates shall be provided
2
to the CITY 30 days prior to the expiration date of coverage. All insurance must
be provided at SYHA expense and at no costs to the CITY.
K. SYHA or the CITY may terminate this agreement upon thirty (30) days written
notice to the other party, except as outlined in II.B. In the event of such
termination by either party, SYHA agrees to pay the CITY the full remittance
owed as of the date of termination.
L. SYHA agrees to comply with Minnesota Statutes 181.59 and other related state
and federal laws prohibiting discrimination in performance of this agreement on
the basis of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status,'
disability and status with regard to public assistance, age or familial status..
SYHA agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the CITY from costs including but
not limited to damages, attorney fees and staff time in any action or proceeding
alleging illegal discrimination.
M. SYHA agrees to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act and not to
discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or treatment
of employment in its services, programs, or activities. Upon request,
accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate
in all services, programs, and activities. The CITY has designated coordinators
to facilitate compliance with the Americans Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), as
required by Section 35.107 of the U.S. Department of Justice regulations, and to
coordinate compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
mandated by Section 8.53 of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development regulations. SYHA agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the
CITY from costs including but not limited to damages, attorney fees and staff
time in any action or proceeding alleging a violation of the ADA.
II. DUTIES AND RIGHTS OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE
A. The CITY agrees to obtain and maintain all licenses and permits necessary to
operate a concession stand as required by any and all governmental agencies.
B. The CITY agrees to provide storage for SYHA inventories, subject to the
limitations of available space at the Ice Arena.
C. The CITY may immediately terminate this agreement in the event that SYHA fails
to provide concession services or dasher board advertising in accordance with
Shakopee Ice Arena schedule of events or otherwise fails to perform its duties
under this agreement.
III. JOINT DUTIES AND RIGHTS
A. SYHA and the CITY agree to work to develop a security plan for controlling
access to the concession area. This plan will designate which SYHA personnel
will be issued keys to the concession stand. Individuals on this list may not
transfer their keys to other individuals without prior approval by the CITY. The
plan will also designate which CITY staff have access to the concession area for
conducting building maintenance, inspections, etc.
B. SYHA and the CITY agree that the types, serving sizes, prices and packaging of
concession items sold by SYHA shall be mutually agreed upon by the Shakopee
Facilities and Recreation Director and SYHA.
C. SYHA and the CITY agree that in the event a tournament sponsored by a local
sports association is held in the Community Center during the terms of this
agreement, that SYHA will pass on a share of its concession revenue generated
during the tournament to the CITY if it operates the concession stand_ The
amount of share shall be mutually agreed by SYHA and the CITY.
D. SYHA agrees to receive and account for cash received for skate sharpening, if
so requested by the CITY. The CITY will provide the skate sharpening services.
All revenue received by SYHA for skate sharpening shall be transferred monthly
to the CITY, in conjunction with payment required for use of the concession stand
as identified in I.C. above.
E. It is mutually understood and agreed that this Agreement represents the entire
agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior agreements or
proposals, written or oral, and that no alternation, modification or addenda ''to the
terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the
parties hereto.
F. This Agreement shall commence upon execution by both parties, and shall
terminate on August 31 st, 2003, unless otherwise provided for as in Section (H).
G. This Agreement shall not be assignable except by the written consent of the
CITY.
H. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by
their proper officers, thereunto duly authorized, as of the day and year first above',
written.
CITY OF SHAKOPEE SHAKOPEE YOUTH HOCKEY
ASSOCIATION
Mayor
City Administrator
President
City Clerk
4
' 0 0 :, A s 1
0 0
1TI i
This agreement, made and entered into this day of , 2001, by
and between the City of Shakopee, a Minnesota municipal corporation, located at 129
Holmes Street, Shakopee, in the County of Scott, State of Minnesota (hereinafter
referred to as CITY ") and the Shakopee Coyotes Baseball Team, (hereinafter referred
to as "TEAM").
WITNESSETH:
Whereas the CITY is desirous of providing efficient concession services to patrons of the
Joe Schleper Baseball Stadium; and
Whereas the TEAM wishes to provide concession services the Joe Schleper Baseball
Stadium in order to raise funds for the ongoing support of TEAM expenses; and
Whereas the CITY desires to designate at least a portion of the concessions earnings to
go into the Park Reserve fund, which is used in part to fund improvements at the Joe
Schleper Baseball Stadium, which is a benefit to the CITY;
Now, therefore, in consideration of the promises, terms and conditions stated herein, the
parties agree as follows:
rJ
A. The TEAM agrees to provide full and complete services for the sales of food
concessions at the Joe Schleper Baseball Stadium concession stand on the
dates that it plays its home games. The CITY may request to provide these
services at additional times and the TEAM may meet those requests, if given two
weeks notice.
B. The TEAM agrees to pay the CITY an amount equal to Fifteen Percent (15 %) of
the net profits from concessions at the Joe Schleper Baseball Stadium.
C. Payment shall be made annually, on or before August 31' of each year. Net
profits shall be defined as gross sales less the cost of products, materials', and
sales taxes to be paid.
D. The TEAM agrees to purchase and maintain all food goods, materials and
supplies necessary for the concession stand. The TEAM may sell souvenirs and
other hard goods not sold by the CITY, as approved by the CITY in writing.
TEAM souvenirs and other hard good sales and beer sold in the concession
stand under the licenses of a separate organization, shall not be subject to the
commission specified in I.B., above.
E. The TEAM agrees to provide, maintain and repair facilities and equipment as
necessary for the sale of concessions. The TEAM will be responsible for the cost
of any losses resulting from spoilage of frozen or refrigerated foods due to a
power outage or equipment failure. The TEAM shall thoroughly document such
losses. If equipment is needed, either in replacement of or addition to the existing
equipment, the equipment must meet appropriate NSF standards.
F. The TEAM agrees to provide all manager(s), supervisor(s) and attendant(s) and
other personnel for its concession operations. The TEAM also agrees and
understands that nothing contained herein creates or establishes the relationship
of copartners between itself and the CITY and that it is an independent contractor
and its officers, managers, supervisors, volunteers, attendants and other
employees are not employees, agents or representatives of the CITY with
respect to any services performed under this agreement. Such personnel or
other personal associated with the TEAM shall not require nor be entitled to any
compensation, rights or benefits of any kind whatsoever from the CITY, including,
without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation
leave, Worker's Compensation, Unemployment Compensation, disability or
severance pay and PERA.
G. The TEAM agrees to maintain in internal control system, which includes a Cash
Report, on forms approved by the CITY. Such reports shall be submitted along
with each annual remittance of the CITY's share of the net receipts. In
accordance with Minnesota Statutes 1613.06, Subdivision 4, the TEAM further
agrees to allow the CITY or the State Auditor or their agents to review, upon
request, all records associated with the performance of the agreement, including
invoices for concession goods and supplies, all canceled checks for payment of
such invoices, all inventory records, and to be present at the taking of
inventories, and to verify inventory shrinkage records.
H. On or before August 31 st of each year, the TEAM shall provide the CITY with a
copy of the season's concession financial report prepared by the TEAM.
I. The TEAM shall conduct its activities upon the premises so as not to endanger
any person lawfully thereon; and shall indemnify, save and hold harmless the
CITY and all of its officers, agents and employees from any and all claims,'
losses, injured, damages and liabilities to persons or property occasioned wholly
or in part by the acts or omissions of the TEAM, it agents, officers, employees,
volunteers, patrons, or any persons associated with or served by the TEAM's
concessions operations.
J. The TEAM agrees to carry a certificate of insurance for comprehensive general
liability in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence, $1,000,000'
general aggregate, $1,000,000 food product liability per occurrence, and
fire /property damage in the amount of $100,000 per occurrence. The required
insurance certificate must name City of Shakopee its officials, agents,
employees, and volunteers as additional insured's. A copy of the certificate must
be submitted to the City Clerk, and all policies shall provide and the certificates
issued evidence that the CITY will be notified at least 30 days prior to
cancellation or modifications of coverage. Renewal certificates shall be provided
to the CITY 30 days prior to the expiration date of coverage. All insurance must
be provided at the TEAM's expense and at no costs to the CITY.
K. The TEAM or the CITY may terminate this agreement upon thirty (30) days
written notice to the other party. In the event of such termination by either party,
the TEAM agrees to pay the CITY the full remittance owed as of the date of
termination.
L. The TEAM, agrees to comply with Minnesota Statutes 181.59 and other related
state and federal laws prohibiting discrimination in performance of this agreement
on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, martial status,
disability and status with regard to public assistance, age or familial status! The
TEAM agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the CITY from costs including but
not limited to damages, attorney fees and staff time in any action or proceeding
alleging illegal discrimination.
M. The TEAM agrees to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act and not to
discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or treatment
of employment in its services, programs, or activities. Upon request,
accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate
in all services, programs, and activities. The CITY has designated coordinators
to facilitate compliance with the Americans Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA),'as
required by Section 35.107 of the U.S. Department of Justice regulations, and to
coordinate compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
mandated by Section 8.53 of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development regulations. The TEAM agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the
CITY from costs including but not limited to damages, attorney fees and staff
time in any action or proceeding alleging a violation of the ADA.
L. The TEAM agrees to abide by all applicable State laws and requirements,
including but not limited those of the Minnesota Department of Health.
II. DUTIES AND RIGHTS OF THE CITY
A. The CITY agrees to obtain and maintain all licenses and permits necessary to
operate a concession stand as required by any and all governmental agencies.
B. The CITY agrees to provide, maintain and repair facilities as necessary for the
sale of concessions for use by the TEAM. The CITY further agrees to provide
storage for TEAM inventories, subject to the limitations of available space at the
Concession Stand. The CITY assumes no liability for lost, stolen or damaged
merchandise or equipment left or stored in the Concession Stand.
C. The CITY may immediately terminate this agreement in the event that the TEAM
fails to perform its duties under this agreement.
D. The CITY may terminate this agreement upon thirty (30) days written notice to
the TEAM for any reason other than stated in II.B.
III. JOINT DUTIES AND RIGHTS
A. The TEAM and the CITY agree to work to develop a security plan for controlling
access to the concession area. This plan will designate which TEAM personnel
will be issued keys to the concession stand. Individuals on this list may not
transfer their keys to other individuals without prior approval by the CITY. The
plan will also designate which CITY staff have access to the concession area for
conducting building maintenance, inspections, etc.
B. The TEAM and the CITY agree that the types, serving sizes, prices and
packaging of concession items sold by the TEAM shall be mutually agreed upon
by the Shakopee Facilities and Recreation Director and the TEAM.
C. The TEAM and the CITY agree that in the event a tournament sponsored by a
local sports association is held in at the facility during the terms of this
agreement, that the TEAM will pass on a share of its concession revenue
generated during the tournament to the CITY if it operates the concession stand.
The amount of share shall be mutually agreed by the TEAM and the CITY.
D. It is mutually understood and agreed that this Agreement represents the entire
agreement between the parties and supersedes and all prior agreements or
proposals, written or oral, and that no alternation, modification or addenda to the
terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the
parties hereto.
E. This Agreement shall commence upon execution by both parties, and shall'
terminate on August 31st, 2003, unless otherwise provided for as in Section (H).
F. This Agreement shall not be assignable except by the written consent of the
CITY.
G. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by
their proper officers, thereunto duly authorized, as of the day and year first above
written.
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Mayor
City Administrator
City Clerk
SHAKOPEE COYOTES BASEBALL TEAM
President
• , • : . .
�A r, 1191 9. .4 a I = 0 1
11 11
This agreement, made and entered into this day of , 2001, 1 by
and between the City of Shakopee, a Minnesota municipal corporation, located at 129
Holmes Street, Shakopee, in the County of Scott, State of Minnesota (hereinafter
referred to as "CITY ") and the Shakopee Indians Baseball Team, (hereinafter referred to
as "TEAM ").
WITNESSETH:
Whereas the CITY is desirous of providing efficient concession services to patrons of the
Joe Schleper Baseball Stadium; and
Whereas the TEAM wishes to provide concession services the Joe Schleper Baseball
Stadium in order to raise funds for the ongoing support of TEAM expenses; and
Whereas the CITY desires to designate at least a portion of the concessions earnings to
go into the Park Reserve fund, which is used in part to fund improvements at the Joe
Schleper Baseball Stadium, which is a benefit to the CITY;
Now, therefore, in consideration of the promises, terms and conditions stated herein, the
parties agree as follows:
I. DUTIES AND RIGHTS OF TEA
A. The TEAM agrees to provide full and complete services for the sales of food
concessions at the Joe Schleper Baseball Stadium concession stand on the
dates that it plays its home games. The CITY may request to provide these
services at additional times and the TEAM may meet those requests, if given two
weeks notice.
B. The TEAM agrees to pay the CITY an amount equal to Fifteen Percent (15 %) of
the net profits from concessions at the Joe Schleper Baseball Stadium.
C. Payment shall be made annually, on or before August 31 st of each year. Net
profits shall be defined as gross sales less the cost of products, materials,', and
sales taxes to be paid.
D. The TEAM agrees to purchase and maintain all food goods, materials and
supplies necessary for the concession stand. The TEAM may sell souvenirs and
other hard goods not sold by the CITY, as approved by the CITY in writing'.
TEAM souvenirs and other hard good sales and beer sold in the concession
stand under the licenses of a separate organization, shall not be subject to the
commission specified in I.B., above.
E. The TEAM agrees to provide, maintain and repair facilities and equipment as
necessary for the sale of concessions. The TEAM will be responsible for the cost
of any losses resulting from spoilage of frozen or refrigerated foods due to a
power outage or equipment failure. The TEAM shall thoroughly document such
losses. If equipment is needed, either in replacement of or addition to the existing
equipment, the equipment must meet appropriate NSF standards.
F. The TEAM agrees to provide all manager(s), supervisor(s) and attendant(s) and
other personnel for its concession operations. The TEAM also agrees and
understands that nothing contained herein creates or establishes the relationship
of copartners between itself and the CITY and that it is an independent contractor
and its officers, managers, supervisors, volunteers, attendants and other
employees are not employees, agents or representatives of the CITY with
respect to any services performed under this agreement. Such personnel or
other personal associated with the TEAM shall not require nor be entitled to any
compensation, rights or benefits of any kind whatsoever from the CITY, including,
without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation
leave, Worker's Compensation, Unemployment Compensation, disability or
severance pay and PERA.
G. The TEAM agrees to maintain in internal control system, which includes a Cash
Report, on forms approved by the CITY. Such reports shall be submitted along
with each annual remittance of the CITY's share of the net receipts. In
accordance with Minnesota Statutes 16B.06, Subdivision 4, the TEAM further
agrees to allow the CITY or the State Auditor or their agents to review, upon
request, all records associated with the performance of the agreement, including
invoices for concession goods and supplies, all canceled checks for payment of
such invoices, all inventory records, and to be present at the taking of
inventories, and to verify inventory shrinkage records.
H. On or before August 31S of each year, the TEAM shall provide the CITY with a
copy of the season's concession financial report prepared by the TEAM.
I. The TEAM shall conduct its activities upon the premises so as not to endanger
any person lawfully thereon; and shall indemnify, save and hold harmless the
CITY and all of its officers, agents and employees from any and all claims,'
losses, injured, damages and liabilities to persons or property occasioned wholly
or in part by the acts or omissions of the TEAM, it agents, officers, employees,
volunteers, patrons, or any persons associated with or served by the TEAM's
concessions operations.
J. The TEAM agrees to carry a certificate of insurance for comprehensive general
liability in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence, $1,000,000'
general aggregate, $1,000,000 food product liability per occurrence, and
fire /property damage in the amount of $100,000 per occurrence. The required
insurance certificate must name City of Shakopee, its officials, agents,
employees, and volunteers as additional insured's. A copy of the certificate must
be submitted to the City Clerk, and all policies shall provide and the certificates
issued evidence that the CITY will be notified at least 30 days prior to
cancellation or modifications of coverage. Renewal certificates shall be provided
to the CITY 30 days prior to the expiration date of coverage. All insurance must
be provided at the TEAM's expense and at no costs to the CITY.
K. The TEAM or the CITY may terminate this agreement upon thirty (30) days'
written notice to the other party. In the event of such termination by either party,
the TEAM agrees to pay the CITY the full remittance owed as of the date of
termination.
L. The TEAM, agrees to comply with Minnesota Statutes 181.59 and other related
state and federal laws prohibiting discrimination in performance of this agreement
on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, martial status,
disability and status with regard to public assistance, age or familial status. The
TEAM agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the CITY from costs including but
not limited to damages, attorney fees and staff time in any action or proceeding
alleging illegal discrimination.
M. The TEAM agrees to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act and not to
discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or treatment
of employment in its services, programs, or activities. Upon request,
accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate
in all services, programs, and activities. The CITY has designated coordinators
to facilitate compliance with the Americans Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), as
required by Section 35.107 of the U.S. Department of Justice regulations, and to
coordinate compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
mandated by Section 8.53 of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development regulations. The TEAM agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the
CITY from costs including but not limited to damages, attorney fees and staff
time in any action or proceeding alleging a violation of the ADA.
L. The TEAM agrees to abide by all applicable State laws and requirements,
including but not limited those of the Minnesota Department of Health.
II. DUTIES AND RIGHTS OF THE CITY
A. The CITY agrees to obtain and maintain all licenses and permits necessary to
operate a concession stand as required by any and all governmental agencies.
B. The CITY agrees to provide, maintain and repair facilities as necessary for the
sale of concessions for use by the TEAM. The CITY further agrees to provide
storage for TEAM inventories, subject to the limitations of available space at the
Concession Stand. The CITY assumes no liability for lost, stolen or damaged
merchandise or equipment left or stored in the Concession Stand.
C. The CITY may immediately terminate this agreement in the event that the TEAM
fails to perform its duties under this agreement.
D. The CITY may terminate this agreement upon thirty (30) days written notice to
the TEAM for any reason other than stated in IL B.
III. JOINT DUTIES AND RIGHTS
A. The TEAM and the CITY agree to work to develop a security plan for controlling
access to the concession area. This plan will designate which TEAM personnel
will be issued keys to the concession stand. Individuals on this list may not
transfer their keys to other individuals without prior approval by the CITY. The
plan will also designate which CITY staff have access to the concession area for
conducting building maintenance, inspections, etc.
B. The TEAM and the CITY agree that the types, serving sizes, prices and
packaging of concession items sold by the TEAM shall be mutually agreed upon
by the Shakopee Facilities and Recreation Director and the TEAM.
C. The TEAM and the CITY agree that in the event a tournament sponsored by a
local sports association is held in at the facility during the terms of this
agreement, that the TEAM will pass on a share of its concession revenue
generated during the tournament to the CITY if it operates the concession stand.
The amount of share shall be mutually agreed by the TEAM and the CITY.
D. It is mutually understood and agreed that this Agreement represents the entire
agreement between the parties and supersedes and all prior agreements or
proposals, written or oral, and that no alternation, modification or addenda to the
terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the
parties hereto.
E. This Agreement shall commence upon execution by both parties, and shall'
terminate on August 31 st, 2003, unless otherwise provided for as in Section (H).
F. This Agreement shall not be assignable except by the written consent of the
CITY.
G. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by
their proper officers, thereunto duly authorized, as of the day and year first above
written.
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Mayor
City Administrator
City Clerk
SHAKOPEE INDIANS BASEBALL TEAM
President
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Holmes Park Shelter Reconstruction
DATE: August 16, 2001
�'l @a
The Council is asked to award a contract for reconstruction of the fire- damaged Holmes
Park shelter to Tri-Star Builders of Wayzata, Inc., in the amount of $31,993.49.
Earlier this summer, an arson fire badly damaged the picric shelter at Holmes Park'. The
City's insurance carrier, the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust ( LMCIT),'
reviewed the damage, and provided the City with the names of two companies who do
repair work of this type. Those companies were asked to submit quotes for the work.
The results of the quotes were as follows:
Tri-Star Builders of Wayzata $31,933.49
Christians, Inc. (Chanhassen) $46,227.36
Public Works Supervisor Mike Hullander noted that the quote provided by Tri-Star also
included electrical work; the quote from Christians, Inc. did not. Therefore, an "apples to
apples" comparison between the two would actually show the disparity being evert
greater.
Once the work is completed, the LMCIT will send the City a check for the entire amount,
less a $2500 deductible. However, the agreement for the work should be between the
City and contractor.
Recently, the State changed its mandatory bidding requirements, to allow for quotes to be
taken if the amount of work to be done is less than $50,000 (this is double from the
previous allowable amount of $25,000). City policy normally dictates that three quotes
are taken for projects of this size; however, a third quote could not be readily obtained.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The "out of pocket" expense to the City will be the $2500 deductible, plus any future
increase in premium as a result of this claim.
RECD NDATION:
I recommend that City staff be directed to enter into an agreement with Tri-Star Builders
of Wayzata, for the repair of the picnic shelter at Holmes Park.
It is my understanding that the insurance adjustor for the LMCIT has had experience with
Tri-Star Builders, and indicates that they do quality work.
FETGQV ' 1 '
If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, direct that the City enter into an agreement
with Tri-Star Builders of Wayzata, to repair the picnic shelter at Holmes Park, in the
amount of $31,933.49.
e
r
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
MM:th
FROM : i "I CONZET FA*.> NO. 76, ZLAi. 30 2 0 7-
I, C,
im T*% 7 T - r - % - ri '119r A X;rr7 A te'` A - TN,Tf -1 FA
Re: Nklazming hOU-3e 4th & Q* S � U A W kl'
TF
, pj()R & ROOF ARSA
R&R shingles
I &67SQ
3,643.65
R&R d=mged abeathing
768SF
1,344.00
R&—v, d-waged rafters
51 6BM
1,866.00
R&R dama joist
454R-M
1,598m
g
Truss a� new framing
1,550,10
R&R 2 windows
900,24
R&P, door
650.00
R&R damaged g an cameTs
1,560.00
R&R 1- 16' s�c of b d l�=
212.00
R&k C( PIYWOOd C4
2.,215.50
R&R fascia
sLib 268.00
R&R alum fascia =d soffit
2,375.00
P&P posts
280.00
1,488.00
Prep and �fa� b-mId*
210.00
R&R gable vent
86.40
Clean conorcte
1162.00
Back -Tray op m fl=ing
ac
P&p windows and doors
240.00
FR : J CCNZET FAX r• '. 763494S4712 Tu. l. 30 2001 09:10qN P'-
Clem W&C
Clean floor
Clean fixtures
FURNACE ROOM
Cie= seal, and pLnt - w&c
Clean, seal, and. paint shelv*
Clean and paint floor
Clean "Urn=e
ffwj� . ,M
R&R wwdow tnm
R&.R base
Remove and reset bench stat
R&R coiling insubtion
R&R wall iwWaflon
P&P W&C
P&P vw-indows and tdra
Clem. and paint floor
Clean and paint bench seats
The toW of the above e5limte is $3 1 ,933.49
Sincerely,
11 NMI
250.00
1 10.00
58.80
110.00
1,872.80
240.00
300-00
200.00
1,008.00
380.00
786.00
160.00
288.00
132.00
420.00
650,00
2,597.00
200.00
11
250.00
08/02/2001 12:19 '35227e89@3 CHRIST T�tiS, Jr4C, PAGE 02
�m
Christians Inc
1480 park koad
Ch MN 55317
952-476-2001
952-470 4 -202
0810212001
Lo
Claim 0 Oc'
p 00-00-U -0
lnsure'i: city of sha cause of Loss: File
p erty jj @i 4th Aveaue
P S)aakopee KIN Deductible:
Home: (952) 233-3820 Pxicc List: NPQv A I
Date of Loss:
Date Inspected:
summary for Fire 37,833.85
Lime Item Tot2l 10,59916 699-95
Material Sales -fax @ 6.500% x
39,522,80
Replacement Cost Value (0,00)
Less Depredation
Actual Cash Value (ACV) 10.0% x 38,522.80 3,852.28
Overhead
Profit 38,522.80 3,852,28
Actual Cash Value (Including Overhead and P10fit) 46,227,36
Loss Deductible (000)
Net Actual Cas) Value Payment S46,22736
w a n fil.6 a
(952) 470-2001
ALL AMOUNTS PAYABLE ARE SUBJECT TO THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND
LIMITS OF YOUR POLICY.
08/02 2- -1 12: 9 522 7 8 89 0 3
PAGE 0-
Christians, lue
City of Shakopee
00-I'000-0000
F Li I-evation 24 1 X ... x 8'4"
00M - N or th Elevation
25160 3F WA & C
252.60 SF Walls
24.25 LFFJo-orPerj=.ter
232,60 SF Long Wall
252.60
SF Short Wall
25.64 LF Ceil. Ptrllnetcr
QU,6
UNIT COSI
RCN
DEPRE(,'. ACV
DE CRIMON
,S
R,&R Soffit & fascia - n - 4)
32,00 LF
13.14
420.48
420.49
overhang
�
I<emavc'�o ffi t--ood
129,00 SF
0.is
23J34
23JA.
clea floor OT Toofjoist System
128,00 SF
OA9
62,72
62,72
Expwd Soffit frAMIR9
Seal floor or mof joist sYsteTn
129-00 SF
0,62
104.96
104,96
Exposed soffit fralning
R&R Attic vent -- gablt end - wOOd
1,00 F-A
I06,21
106,21
1.06.21
R&R Siding - bevelod - Ceda 54
76-00 3F
5.58
424.08
424.08
inch stuck
Seal stud wal.), For odor control
65,00 SF
0,49
31.85
31,85
Clean with pressurc/ch=ical sPlaY
252.60 SF
0.19
41,99
411,99
Ciearl door ( side)
1.00 EA
3-73
7�73
3,73
C;ean door I window oPeX"ng (Per
1.00 EA
4.79
4.79
4.79
Side)
,Seal & paint; finish wood siding
252,60 SF
0.93
209-66
209.66
1,439.51
Room Totals. North Elevation
1,439.51
Room-. East Elevation
Formula Elevation 52'5" y ... x &V
Missing W211 1 24
X 9'4
Opens Into E
Goes to Moor/Ceffing
236.81 SF Walls
236,81 SP Walls & Cleilbg
2B.42 LF Floor Perimeter
436.81 Si' Long Wall
4 36.91 SF Short Warl
28,42 LF Ceil, Perimeter
DF,SCRIPTION
QUAINTITY
- UNIT COST
RCV
ACV
MR Soffit & fascia - metai - 2'
52.50 LF
8.43
442.58
442-58
o
Page: 2
08/02/2001 12:1 9522 0HPIST7At,j1, -ft-4C.
Christian, Inc
City of Shakopee
CONTINUED - Fast Elevation.
T trlr-17 Trx rn.; RC
UESCR3STION
1830
SIA5
86.10
319,06
129.12
96.48
44-99
3 6. 62
2-340
98,80
'1
4.79
1',6.35
Renjoyc Soffit • wood
105.00 SF
Clean floor of roof joist s7stem
105,00 SF
NOTE-. CLEAN EXPOSED SOFFIT
Seal. floor or voof joist sYstem
105.00 SF
0.82
NOTE: SEAL E�POSED SOFFIT
R&R Siding - bcv cltd - Cd dar, 514
57.00 SF
5.58
inch stoc.)c
R&R Tfira board - 1 10" -
24.00 LF
5.39
installed
Side of Beam
R&R Trj n board - I x 6" - installed
24.00 LF
4.02
Under Beam
Clean with prcssure1c�,t!mical spray
2 .81 EY
'
0. I9
Seal & paint wood bearn
316D SF
1.09
cle=' Post's
MO EA
7,80
* Scrape. Seal wid Paint, Support
24.00 U
Post
Clean Nvindow unit (Ter Side) 10 - 20
1,00 EA
7.67
SF
Clean door I window opt (per
1.00 EA
4.79
side!)
Seal & paintlftish wood siding
236,81 SF
0.831
Room Totals: East Eleyation
DEPREC-
P"'GE 04
08j'0212001
1,545.51
18,90
51,45
86.10
318,06
129.
96.48
44.99
36.62
23.40
98-80
7.67
4.79
196.55
1,545.51
004-000-0000 ?age: 3
03/02/2@01 12:19 9522
Cit,( of ShakoPec
Room: SGUtb Elevation
77.80 Sr Wall$
77.80 SF Long Weill
D'ESCWTION
R&R Soffit& fascia - metal -
o verhu ng
Soffit - wood
Clean floor or roof joist system
NOTE; CLEAN EXPOSED SOFM
Seal floor or roof joist SYsteni
NOTE: swAL EXPOSED SOFFIT
R&P, Attic vent - gabie end - wood
R&R Siding - beveled - cc-der. 4/4
inch stock
Seal stud wall for odor control
Clean with pressare"chernical �ra;y
s & paintifinish wood siding
Clean Post's
,' Scrape, Seat =..d Paint, Support
Post
Room Totah SO)Ufll EleV2M)n
t3HRISTIAI[ lS, T
Christians, Ine
128.00 SF
1.00 EA
77.80 SF
7 SF
77.90 SF
77.80 SF
4,00 EA
3100 LF
Room; West Elevation
Missing Wall: 24 X 9'4
236,81 SF Walls
0,82
106.2i
5-58
0.49
0. ?. 9
0, $3
7.801
3.71;
436.81 SF Long Wall 436,81 SF Short'Kall
DESCRIPTION QT, AJN'T I TV UNIT COST
R&R Soffit & fascia - metal - 4' 2,00 LF :3
overhang
Soffit - wood 128.00 SF M6
00-L0OO-0000
42048
391-68
62.72
104.96
106,21
434.13
3E.12
14.78
64-57
31.20
11 8.40
1.787. ."S
Formula Elevation 52 x ... x 8W'
Goes to Floor/Cefl Ing
236 81 SF Walls & Ceiling
28,42 LT Floor Perimeter
28.42 LF Ceil, Perkneter
,RC,V DEPREC. ACV
42048
39
PAGE 05
08/02/2001
Ffirmall ElevatiOn 24'a" x — X 10"
77,80 SF Walls & Ce:ling
74,25 LF Floor FebrneteT
26.04 LF Ceil- Perimeter
DEPREC- ACV
420,49
3 ,91.68
62-72
104.96
106,21
434.
38.12
14,78
64.57
31.20
118,40
1,787.25
420,48
39 -605'
Page. 4
77. 80 SF Short Wall
QUANTITY
VNIT COST
32.017 LF
13,14
128.00 SF
3,06
123,00 SF
0.49
128.00 SF
1.00 EA
77.80 SF
7 SF
77.90 SF
77.80 SF
4,00 EA
3100 LF
Room; West Elevation
Missing Wall: 24 X 9'4
236,81 SF Walls
0,82
106.2i
5-58
0.49
0. ?. 9
0, $3
7.801
3.71;
436.81 SF Long Wall 436,81 SF Short'Kall
DESCRIPTION QT, AJN'T I TV UNIT COST
R&R Soffit & fascia - metal - 4' 2,00 LF :3
overhang
Soffit - wood 128.00 SF M6
00-L0OO-0000
42048
391-68
62.72
104.96
106,21
434.13
3E.12
14.78
64-57
31.20
11 8.40
1.787. ."S
Formula Elevation 52 x ... x 8W'
Goes to Floor/Cefl Ing
236 81 SF Walls & Ceiling
28,42 LT Floor Perimeter
28.42 LF Ceil, Perkneter
,RC,V DEPREC. ACV
42048
39
PAGE 05
08/02/2001
Ffirmall ElevatiOn 24'a" x — X 10"
77,80 SF Walls & Ce:ling
74,25 LF Floor FebrneteT
26.04 LF Ceil- Perimeter
DEPREC- ACV
420,49
3 ,91.68
62-72
104.96
106,21
434.
38.12
14,78
64.57
31.20
118,40
1,787.25
420,48
39 -605'
Page. 4
FJ 3 / C 12!220 ID 1 12' 13 _ 952 % 7 86903
city of Shikopee
CHRIST 1 4"INIS, 1NO.
Christians, Inc
C(DINTINUED -- - YVest E
Q UNIT COST RC's' DESCRIPTION
Clean floor Ox roof JoisT S�Iste=
105.00 SF
0.49
51 .45
NOTE CLEAN FXrOSED SOM'I
dal floor or Toof joist syst-'M
105-00
0,82
96.10
NOTY. SE Eyv()SF,]D SOVFIT
- R&R - 1 lim board - 1 10" -
24b 00 U
5.38
'129.12
installed
Side of Beam
R&R Trim board - 1" x 6" - installed
- LF
4,02
9&49
Under Ream
R& 1jeader - dou"ble 2" 7 10"
16.00 LF
11,59
18 i.28
NOTF,-, No LINE ITEM FOR TRIPLE HEADE.R****'N**
Cleala beams - expased
24,00 LF
0.63
12
Staia & fm;!;h wood bean
33,60 SF
1-44
48.
R&1� Attic vent - gable end - wood
1-00 EA
106,21
3 0 6.2 1
R&R Siding - bc - v !dar, 5/4
45.{10 SF
5.58
5 l .1d3
inch stock
Seal stud wall for odor control
45,00 SF
0.4
22.05
Clean w it� j press-am)cheim-cal spray
236,81 SF
0.19
44.99
Seal & paintfflnish wood siding
236.91 SF
0,83
196,35
Clean window unit side) 10 - 20
1.00 EA
7.67
7 1,67
SF
Clean dour / windOw 0.1,MlitIg (}der
1.00 EA
4.79
475
side)
Clean Posts
3,00 EA
7.80 1,
23.40
* Scrape, Seal ani puint SUPPOTt
24.00 LF
3. 714
SUO
Post
Room Totals. West ElevAfiOn 2.169-65
00-L,000-0000
PAGE 06
0MV2001
DFPRFX :ac
51.45
8610
129-17-
96.49
185.28
13,12
48,38
106.21
251.10
22,05
44.99
196.
7,67
4.79
23.40
88,30
2
Page: 5
,98/02/2001 12:19 3522788903
Cit of Shakopee
Room Roof & Attic,
C HF.ISTIANG, Tr•IC, P',GE 07
Christians, , Ise
1,421,33 SF WO-lis
1.604.35
SF Ceiling
1,271,10 SF Floor
141.23
SY Flooring
436,81. SF 1-011OVall
27186
SF Short Wall
11151 FT
QUANTrly UNIT COST
, 3 tab - 25 YT_ , (hvy.wt)
p
16.33 SQ
35.24
comp. shingle rf-e - in& felt
175,50
175,59
R&p, Sheathing - I" x 6"
640,00 SF
2.59
R&R Roof vent - Wde 'YPe
5.00 EA
35,10
&R �. 9 - Pipe Jack
R F)w I
2 00 FA
24,57
R&R Roof vel3t - turbine type
1 1.00 EA
66.00
NO LLNE ITEM; For b2th,k'tehen ex haust roof veatts
R &R Drip edge
169.7 I LF
1,24
RMZ Top plate - T'x 4"
16.00 LF
1,51
F,&- P, Raf - M - stick. framt
448m LF
2.55
roo (using rafter lengdO
ice & water S)4eld
210.00 LF
3,11
3 tab - 25 yr. - composition shingle
17.66 SQ
13
I..Oofir - incl. fell
R&R 2" x, 4" lumber (.667 BF Per
140,00 LF
1,55
LF)
Roof Bracing
R&R I" x 6" li=ber (.5 BF per LF)
280-00 LF
2.5
312gonal Rafter Bracing
R &R 2" x 4" lumber (.667 BF per
20.00 LF
1.55
LF)
tat Ralf of Strong BIcIdnj_Z in Attic
R&R 2" x 6" lumber (I BF per LF)
11 0.00 LF
1.81
2nd H21fof Strong Backing in Attic
Clean floor or roof joist system
3,929.45 SF
0-49
Seat Door or .roof ipist system
3,029-45 SF
( 0.82
Remove Blown-in insulation - 10"
1,604-35 SF
0,62
depth - R30
Blown ontop of batt insulations
Remove Bart insulatiot - 6" -.R.19
1.60435 SF
0.26
00
210.44
08/02/200 J
Formull 'Gable'Roof 24'3" x 9'4"
24.16
2, SF Walls & Ceiling
1,142,40
153.33 LFFloorPerimeter
653.10
169.71 LF Ceil Peximetel
)R C'%"
DEPR"M ACV
575-47
575.47
1,657.60
,657.60
1
175,50
175,59
49.14
49,14
66.00
66,00
210.44
210.44
24.16
24.16
1,142.40
1,142,40
653.10
653.10
1,9044,90
1,944M
217.70 217,00
71
711.20
31.00
31,00
36,20
3610
1,484.43
1,484,43
2A84,15
2,484-15
994,70
994.70
417,13
417.13
Page- 6
08/02, 12:19 9522
City of Shakopee
to
Ist Layer with blown 01 1 toP
Blown-in inSWat"'On - 12 " dcPtll
R38
R&R Baffle vent
Venting of Bath Exhaust Vents
Room Totals: Roof& Attie
!,251,39
223,20
190,00
Room: Under Canopy
CHRIST T t•IS,
Christiam, Inc
CONTINUED - Roof & - ktt*AC
QUANnTy - UNIT COST
1,604.35 SF
0,78
240.00 LF
0,93
2.00 EA
95.00
14,.5
MissipgWall. i - 24'3" X 9'0" Opens into E
missing Wull 2 - 24'0" X 9'0" Opens into E
218.25 SF W&IL 582.00 SP Ceiling
582.00 SP Floor 64 67 SY Flooring
218.25 SF Long Wa]3 216.00 SF Short Wall
DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST
C. PAGE 08
MO2/2001
DEPREC, ACV
1
1,251,39
223.20
190.00
39-11 14,539,11
L%WzH 241" X 24'0" X 9'0
Gees to Floor/Ceiling
Goes to Floor/Ceiling
800-25 SF Walls & Ceiling
24.25 LF Floor Perimeter
24.25 LF Ceil. Perimeter
RCV DEPREC. ACV
Remove Soffit - wood
582.00 SF
0.18
104,76
104.76
This has two (2) layers of plywood soffit
(this is to remove the 1st Layer)
R&R Soffit - wood
382.00 SF
3.24
1,885.68
1,885.68
Thig has two 12) layersof plwood soffit (this is to remove and replace top layer)
Prime & paint exterior soffit - vrood
582.00 SF
1,90
1, 1 D5,80
i'105M
R&R Sidirg - beveled - cedar, 514
292.27 SF
3.58
1,630.87
1,630,8
inch stock
Includes the inside of Nupport beams
Scal & paint/finish wood siding
292.27 SF
0.33
242.55
242,58
Includes the inside of support beams
Remove Recessed light fixture -
1.00 EA
6.72
6.72
6,72
High grade
R&P, Sheathing - plywood - 1/2"
128,00 SF
1.39
177,92
177,9-,
CDX
Clean Stud wall
218.25 SF
0.39
85,12
85,12
00-L000 -0000 Page; 1
n, �f'
u L/ 2CJ01 12.1. 9522
r
� R` T � .
-�f'{r � 1 w� i i i- S(''�;:
�. i`� Iv
r
{ChristiaDsj
l c
08102/2001
City of Shakopee
C0 \ - "Under Cal3opy
QU
UNIT COST
RCS% Il'1s'.FRIEC.
A-Cv
DESCRIPTION[
Seal shad wall for odor coAt ml
218.25 SF
0.49 .49
106.9�b
�y
10b.94
&1$ mist - floor Or ceilixzg - 2N6 _
165.170 LF
1.89
317.52
31.7.52
«;'blctoking
103.96
M ask roorn (40 - 701f) & prep
?.00 LA
i 1.98
103,96
70.08
LF )
Mask wall (per LF t
96,00 LF
0.73
70.08
R&R 2" x 6" lumbcr - redwood (1
56.00 LF
3.R3
Z 14,49
214,48
Biro per LF)
Cedar tt`1nt btBaT'd5
R &R Vinyl window - doable hung,
2.001~;A
318.75
73 7.50
13 -19 sf - High grade
Clean with pressUre /cheraica.I spray -
592,(jO SF
0.39
22639
226.95
Very heavy
Conc rete Slab
Soda.Blast - Mounted Trash Batt,
1,00 MN
iOO.00
500.00
500.00
InC111des 'Misc blasting of rafters �.
joist's as needed
NO LINE, ITEM; SOD LAS'd' NG
Seal and Paint mounted trash bill
1.00 EIA
195.0 *
195.00
195.00
metal'"
NO LINE ITEM TRASIJ BENT "
Paint doctr trim & jamb (per side)
1.00 EA
19.00
19.00
19,00
Prime & paint door slab only -
1.00 FA
26-26
26.26
26.26
exterior (per side)
Roost Totals- Under Canopy
7,757 °17
7,757.17
Room. G athering Area
LxWxH 23'3
'x 15'4 x syt
? DSS Aig Wall. - S "1
°` X g'9"
fDp�ns inter 1
Goes to Floo °iceillrig
00- LOCO -0000
Page: 8
19 9' 5.2 2 7 8 8 9'D 3 CNRISTIANS,
Christians, Inc
City of slrakwcc
S I
ubroom 1. Offset
1%1158ing Wall: I . 8' 1 , X $ T 9 11 Opeas into 0
671,56 SF Walls 397-49 SF Ceiling
387,49 SF Floor 43-05 SY Flooring
274,17 SY T-0119 Wall SF' SlaortUdall
DESCRIFTION QUANTITy 'LINIT COST
R&R Cove molding - 3/4" -
76.75 LF
hardwood
0-49
Clean floor or roof joist systern
572,49 SF
i 1853f of wall area
469,44
-z�,eal floor or roof joist SYMM
572,49 SF
Includes 185sf of wall area
67.54
Paint crown, molding - two coats
76.75 LF
Remove 5, & - hung Qn1Y
3 87,49 Sf
(no tape ;Dr finish)
1 185,00 SF
Ist Layer
148.52
z;Q1f -1 . 11 h- t 'ari
387.49 SF
r%Q&A. r" . 59 - r
with sinooth wall finish
2nd Layer
Visqueen vapor barrier
5 SF
Includes wall ares (21 x 8'9")
0-49
.,&p, joist - floor or ceiling - 1 x6 -
p -
96,00 LF
w,blocking
469,44
Reinove Recessed light fixture -
6.00 EA
High grade
67.54
Seal then paint the ceding twice (3
387,49 SF
coats)
140
R&RT & 0 paneling - bu'axiose
1 185,00 SF
(rounded joints)
148.52
Seal & paint paneling
671.56 SF
Clears paneling
4M56 SF
Remaining wall area
40.32
R&k Window trim set (casing &
32.00 U
stogy)
313.87
Paint door or window opening (per
3.00 EA
side)
0.70
Cleat). window unit (per side) 10 - 20'
2.00 FA
SF
97,31
00- 51000-0000
P A (3 E 10
09/02/2001
LI 8'1" x 3`10" x
�Ges to Fi0or"CoMag
1,059.05 - SF W:dlS & Ctib
/6,75 LF F11003-'Perilllcter
76.75 LF Ccil, Perimeter
i.Cv DEPREC. ACV
1.32
i41.31
0-49
280.52
280.52
0,82
469,44
469.44
0.88
67.54
67.54
0,19
73,62
73-62
140
929.97
929,97
0,26
148.52
148,52
1.89
181.44
19144
6.72
40.32
40.32
0.81
?13.87
313.87
4.49
830.65
830,65
0.70
470.09
470,09
0,20
97,31
97-31
3,34
106,88
10638
MOO
152.00
152.00
7.67
15.34
15,34
Page: 9
08/02/2001 12:1 9522 -1
CHRISTT"NS, Ir
Christians, Inc
City of Shakopee
CC)NTTNUED - Gathering Area
QUAINT= UNIT COST
DESCRIPTION
Clean door) window opening (?el
8,00 EA
4.79
38.32
side!
Clean door yper side}
300 EA
3.73
11.119
Paint door slab only (Pcr sidc)
4.D0 EA
16,63
66,52
R&P, Exterior d00T - metal -
M EA
536,06
536.06
insulated / wood - High grade
Commercial door w/nietal frame
x 84")
R&P, Door lockset & deadbolt -
1.00 EA
152,62
152.62
exterior - Premium grade
Door closer - pternijun grade
1.00 EA
r�3-45
9,145
R&F, Door threshold, aluminum
3.00 LF
13.23
39-69
Door wrath-,r stripping
Loo F-Al
28,42
28.42
Clean register - heat / AC
3,00 FA
3.35
10.05
Detach & Reset Heal;AC register
3.00 EA
5.52
111.56
Clean bench seat's
40.00 LF
2. 1 5 *
96.00
NO LINE ITEM
Seal and Paint bench seat's
40,00 LF
3,21 *
128,40
NO LINE ITEM
Clean floor
387,49 SF
O.20
77-50
loor & prep for paint
Scrape the f
387.49 SF
0,38
147-25
Paint concrete the floor
38749 SF
0.49
199.87
Room Totals: Gathering Area 5
PAGE 11
OV02,
ACV
38.32
11,19
6652
53&06
15162
83.45
39.69
28,42
10,05
16,56
8b.00
INT-M
7
147,25
189,87
5,890.72
00-'- rage: 14
08/02/' 2 IO 1 . 12: '-9 9522 - 7 38903 -' I[.j�, TPaj- PACE il�
Christians, Inc
City of Shakopee
Room: ?d .ens BItthroom
301,8, SF Walls
69,13 SF Floor
X32.7 SF Lori Wall
69, IS SP Ceiling
7,( ),s SY Flooring
5&15 SF Short Wall
QX UNIT COST
6"7" X
37 0.93 SF WaII5 CeiliII9
34.17 LF Floor PCIi.Mtter
34.17 LF Ccil. P-rimetr-
DEPRYX. A017
Cl tile surface area
Upper walls &- ceiling
S t paint the s urface, , area (2
Coats)
Upper walls & ceiling
cleati ceramic the
Wall Tile
Clean s.tt* and fav-cet
Clean toilet
1 = Urinal
Clear, bath accessory
(:lean Hand Dryex
NO LINE I'MM
Clean door (per side)
Pai�st door or window opening (per
side)
Clean door / window opening (per
side)
Paitt door slab or*,�y (per side)
Clc% register - heat 1 AC
Detach & Reset HoatiAC register
Clear. exhaust; fan
Detach & R?,sct Fluorosctnt - one
tube - 4'- fixture wlew
Clean light fixture - fluorescent
Clears. floor - tile
231.42 SF 017 39,34 39.34
231.42 SF 0,61 141,17 141
162.29 SF
(:.
1.00 EA
8,2)
2,00 EA
9.03
3.00 EA
3,60
1.00 EA
7.95
1,00 FA
3.73
1, DO EA
19.00
1-00 EA
4.79
1,00 BA
16J63
1.00 EA
3.y5
1.00 EA
5.52
1.00 EA
4.09
1,00 EA
42,45
1.00 EA
7.18
69-13 5F
0.35
X0.84
8.23
18.06
10.80
19.00
4.79
i 6.63
3,15
5.")2
4.09
4145
7.18
24
Room Totals: Mens BathrGom
38
30,84
8,23
18.06
10.80
?,95
3,73
19.00
4.79
16.63
34
5.32
4,09
42.45
7.18
28,
00-LO% 0000 Page: 11
08/02/'2001 12: 1-9 9522x88903
City of Shakopee
Room: Wom0nsUALtbrQ
301-81 SF Walls
69.13 SF Flooi:
92.75 SF Long Wall
IC3. PAGE 13
09/02/2001
LxWxH 10'6" A 67' X 8'1
370,93 SF Walls & Ceiling
34.17 LF Floor Periffieter
34,17 LF CeI PerillICUT
DEPREC. ACV
Clean the surface area
upper Wy'lls & ceiling
S theta p the surface area (2
coats)
upper walls & cetling
Cleats ceramic We
Will Tale
Clean sink and faucet
Clean toilet
Clean badi accessory
Clean Hand Dryer
NO LINE ITEM
Clean door (per sidc'j
Paint door or window opening (per
side)
Clean door / window openiI4 (per
side)
Paint door slab only (per side)
Clean register - heat / AC
Detach & Reset Heat,AC register
Clean exhaust fan
Detach & Reset Fluorescent - one
rube - 4'- fixture wilens
Clean 4hi ftrize - fluoresce
Clean floor - the
OHF.ISTIANS, D
Christians, Inc
1.00 EA
69.13 ST Ceiling
1,00 EA
7-69 SYFlooling
3'00 EA
58-15 SF Short Wall
QUANTITY
UNIT' COST
231,42 SE
0,17
231.42 SF
0.61
162.29 SF
0.19
1.00 EA
8-23
1,00 EA
9,03
3'00 EA
3.60
1.00 EA
7.95
1,00 EA
3.73
1.00 EA
19,00
1.00 EA
4.79
1.010 EA
16.63
1 SA
3.35
1.00 FA.
3,52
1,00 EA
4.09
1.00 FA
42,45
1.00 EA
1 1 .18
69.13 SF
0,35
Room Totals: Womens Bathroom
,34
.17
39,34
141.17
30.84
8-23
9.03
10.80
7.95
3.73
19 1 1 00
4,79
16,63
3.35
5.52
4.09
42.45
1.18
24,20
30,94
8.23
9.03
10.80
7.95
3.73
19.00
4.79
16.63
3.35
$'52
4.09
42.45
7.18
2410
378.30
378.30
00-L000 -0000 Page, 12
2 r .1 �• 9522-7GG
2w�� 1'...19 .�L _� �u'a�
S , -
CHRI�,TI�ttt�,
INC.
PP GE
F�,GE
L4
Christians, Inc!
08/0212001
City o f Skrzkopee
I,xWa1 '7 ° °, 7 °� °` x
W11"
Room: Utility RoOmn
"-
57.48
SF Ceili
32,7,95 SF e�%all: r Ceiling
270.47 S Walls
6. 35
5' Fiocaring
30.3'3 1 F FIUO: Perimeter
57.4$ Sk Fiooz
"Wall
fi6,13
SF Short'f'all
30.33 LF Gail. I'exirreeter
69.10 SF Long
1 A1 TITY UNIT
COS`P
RC
DEPR]EC,
ACV
DESC TION
-
Cleaxz. the walls and ceiling
3?7.9fi SF
0,17
55.75
55.75
Seal then paint the walls and ceiling
327.95 SF
0.61
'� �
2 0.05
200.05
(2 coats)
Clean lauud -j tub
1.00 F A
7.33
7.33
7.33
Clean tcailet
2.00 EA
3.0+3
1 &06
18.06
1 = urinal
Clean bath. accesaoz;r
3.00 EA
3.60
10.30
10,8
Clean Hand D -,,,eT
i .00 1EA
7.95
7.95
7.95
NO LINE IT lei
Clean door (Per side)
2.00 EA
3.73
7.46
7.46
Clean door / wandow ops: mg (per
2.00 EA
4.79
9,58
9.58
side)
Clean furnace - forced air
1.00 EA
26.94
26.94
26,94
Clears water heater
Lilo F A
12,05
17.06
12.06
Clean ductwozl; - Exterior (per LF)
2$.0, L F
2.15
60 - 20
60,20
Clear: sheaving - woad
21.00 LF
0.39
3.19
8.19
Clean recessed light_ 1iAtura
1.00 EA
5.42
5.42
5.42
Clean floor
57.48 SF
0.20
11.50
11.50
Scrape the floor & prep fb paint
57.48 SF
0.38
21.84
21.84
Paint concrete the floor
57,48 SF
0.49
28.17
28.17
Room Totals: utility Room
491.30
491.30
00 -LOOO -0000
1'sge: 13
0 8 /0 2, E 0 1 12: 19 9 bay o8 9 D 3
City of Shakopee
Room. SPECTA-1, SERVICES
DESCRIPTION
Remove Durripstcr lead - Large
Remove liand Load Dumpstet - 5
cubic yards each
ELEC—T,RJCAL `****
ITEM*-**' Soath Side Ele=k,
13,Ajding. Permit
= M********
2.00 EA
394.00
10,00 EA
66,00
1.00 EA
0.00
1 J30 EA
0,00
I
188.00
0,00
0.00
1 1 , 99.00
660,00
0.00
0M
Room Totals. SPECIAL
SERVICES
Li Item Totals; 00-LOOO-0000
Grand Total kregls:
3,98915 SF Walls
2,436-32 SF floor
2,387.94 SF Long Wall
T 11NQ,
Christians., Inc
QUANTITY UNIT COST
�4c% PAGE 15
09/02/2001
R DEPREC, ACV
2,769.56 SF Ceiling
270.70 SY 1 loori
2,044.02 SF Short'A'ail
37,1
3315
6,759.81 SF Walls & Ceiling
458,33 LF Floor Perinit=
477.89 LF Ceil, Perimetcr
37,833-85
00-L000-0000 Page: 14
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum CONSENT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director
S JECT: Appointment of Richard Sames to Regular Employment as a
Building Inspector
MEETING DATE: August 21, 2001
INTRODUCTION:
Because of the extended absence of the Building Official, applicants were sought for, and
Richard Sames was hired to a 6 -month position as Building Inspector with the City. The
posting for this position indicated that it might become a regular, full -time position, and
this possibility was discussed with Mr. Sames at the time of his hiring.
During the period of his temporary employment with the City, Mr. Sames has proven to
be a very competent and collaborative addition to the inspection staff. Because the
department continues to operate with Jim Grampre as acting building official, rather than
with a full complement of inspectors, and because Shakopee continues to be among the
leaders in the Metropolitan Area in construction activity, I am requesting Mr. Sames be
appointed to regular, full -time status as a Building Inspector at the end of his temporary
employment. Because of Mr. Sames experience and on-the-job performance, I request
that his appointment be approved at Step 2 of the pay grade.
Because of the extended leave of the Building Official, funds
to pay for the position for the balance of this year. The depa
incorporate this position for next year.
1. Approve the appointment of Richard Sames to regular, f
building inspector effective Monday, October 1, 2001 at
2. Do not approve the appointment.
3- Table the matter for additional information.
PTAFF D.
Staff recommends alternative 1.
gist in the current budget
nental budget request does
-time employment as a
.ep 2 of the pay grade.
Offer and pass a motion approving the appointment of Richard Sames to regular, full -
time employment as a building inspector effective Monday, October 1, 2001 at Step 2 of
the pay grade_
R. Michael Leek
Community Development Director
a
CITY OF SHAKOPEE N F 7
Memorandum Co '
To: Honorable Mayor, City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
From: Dan Hughes, Chief of Police
Date: August 6, 2001
Subj ect: Accept Resignation
Introduction
The City Council is asked to accept the resignation of Ms. Kim Hartman, Records
Technician.
Background
Ms. Kim Hartman began her employment with the Police Department on June 5th, 2000.
She decided to return to teaching and offered a letter of resignation July 18', 2001 with
an effective date of September 3, 2001.
Action Requested
The Council should, if they concur, by motion, accept the resignation of Kim Hartman
effective September 3, 2001, with regret.
Dan Hughes
Chief of Police
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Changing the November 6, 2001 Meeting Date
DATE: August 13, 2001
INTRODUCTION:
The Council is asked to change the date in which the first regular City Council meeting in
November is held.
BACKGROUND:
The first regular meeting in November would normally be Tuesday, November 6 However,
that is also the day of the City election, and, by State law, Council would be prohibited from
meeting prior to 8:00 p.m. on that day.
In addition, by State law, the Council must meet within seven days of the election to canvass the
results. At the regular meeting on August 7, 2001, City Council set a special election to fill the
unexpired term of Gary Morke and designated November 7, 2001,',at 7:00 p.m. to canvass the
ballots. Therefore, it is recommended that the first meeting in November be delayed to
Wednesday, November 7, 2001.
ACTION REQUIRED:
If Council concurs, it should, by motion adopted Resolution No. 5568, Changing the November
6, 2001 Council meeting to Wednesday, November 7, 2001, and move its adoption.
City Clerk
,f
WHEREAS, the Shakopee City Code has set the first Tuesday of each month as the
regular meeting date for the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Shakopee City Code allows the City Council to change the meeting date
by adopting a resolution at least one week prior to the regularly scheduled meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the November 6, 2001 regularly scheduled City Council
meeting be changed to November 7, 2001, at 7:00 p.m.
Adopted in adjourned regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee,
Minnesota, held this 21 day of August, 2001.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
CITE' OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk
SUBJECT: On -Sale Liquor License — Great Lakes, Inc.
DATE: August 16, 2001
INTRODUCTION
City Council is asked to table the application from Great Lakes, Inc. for an on -sale liquor license.
The City has received application from Great Lakes, Inc. for an on -sale liquor license for 2400
East e Avenue. Great Lakes, Inc. is acquiring the Shakopee Ballroom and Banquet Center from
Shakopee Ballroom and Banquet Center, Inc.
The application is not in order at this time.
RECOMMENDATION
Since the application was advertised for Council consideration on August 21, 2001, it would be
appropriate that it be tabled at this time.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Move to table the on -sale intoxicating liquor license application from Great Lakes, Inc., 2400
East e Avenue, until September 4, 2001.
JSC /js
15. F. 3.
City of Shakopee
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Tracy Coenen, Management Assistant
SUBJECT: INET Partnership with Shakopee School District 720
MEETING DATE: August 21, 2001
Introduction
The Council is asked to consider an agreement with the ISD 720, for the joint
construction of an Institutional Network.
Background
City staff was directed by the Cable Commission to continue pursuing negotiations with
Time Warner to construct a fiber optic network, Institutional Network (I -Net), for city
facilities (library, public works, police, city hall, and community center). An institutional
network is a general - purpose communications network that will provide high -speed
transmission of two -way data, video, and voice services for the city, school district, and
potentially some Scott County facilities.
To date, negotiations with Time Warner to provide the expanded I -Net have been
unsuccessful, although discussions will continue. During the August joint meeting of the
Cable Access Corporation and the Cable Commission, staff was directed to pursue the
opportunity to be an add -on alternative to construct a city facility I -Net as part of the
school district RFP that will be going out for proposal on September 20, 2001.
With up front capital costs to construct the I -Net, the building of new city facilities, and
current and future needs of the City of Shakopee and the community as a whole, it is
necessary to evaluate the full scope of entering into a partnership to construct, maintain,
and use an I -Net with the Shakopee School District and potentially Scott County.'
City staff and the school district have extended the partnership to Scott County as well.
Due to the tight timeframe of the project, Scott County staff are working with their board
members and also doing a similar evaluation of the partnership.
Budget Impact
Due to the complex nature of the I -Net, engineers and other technical staff are needed to
assist in the drafting of the RFP, which should not exceed more than $5,000. This will be
presented as a cost to the Cable Access Corporation, not City Council. The cable'
committees would also plan to pay for the construction of the I -Net (roughly $180,000);
however, the city depending on how it chooses to use the I -Net in the future may incur
operational and maintenance costs in the future.
The first capital cost of the I -Net would be the construction and installation, which would
be completed in roughly the Fall of 2002 and be paid for by cable franchise fees. The
school district RFP is proposing an INET that would consist of 12 strands of dark fiber
(carrying capacity). Until city staff can see the results of a RFP, we can only estimate the
costs to construct and run fiber into each of the city facilities, which would be
approximately $180,000.
Police Station -- $90,000
City Hall/Library -- $50,000 to $53,000 (the County Library System may pay for
some of the library costs)
Scott County Courthouse -415,000 (to be paid for by the County)
Community Center -- $36,000
The City is also talking to Scott County about costs related to the Shakopee
Library and the Scott County Courthouse.
After the construction and installation is completed, equipment would need to be
purchased for each building in order to connect each building and perform the necessary
functions needed by each city facility. Equipment costs can be spread over a couple
years. The timing of the new library, police station and remodeling of the public works
facility fits well into an equipment purchasing plan.
Discussion
The I -Net is merely a tool that the City of Shakopee can use, and the only limitations the
I -Net currently have are the limitations we place on it. An I -Net can meet the City's
business needs including: cost containment for telecommunications expenses,
instructional tool for training (two -v7ay interactive video), telephony (running phone lines
"through" the I -Net), improved ability to share information and resources among public
and educational institutions, enhanced participation and video quality in public meetings,
centralization of services, and expandable and up- gradable communications network to
support future requirements.
The new library and police station should be completed by spring of 2003, and with or
without the I -Net there will a need to purchase new equipment and cabling services.
These two buildings could be connected to the I -Net once they are completed, so some of
these costs could be budgeted as part of the new building costs. The Public Works
facilities upgrade would create the same situation. Although the new City Hall is ''a few
years off, it would be the council and cable committees decision to connect the current
city hall. For your information, most of the equipment can be easily transferred to a new
building.
After the I -Net is constructed, it will have as many or as few options for services as the
City Council and Cable Commission chooses. According to current industry standards,
fiber has a lifespan of approximately 30 years. For our purposes, the types of services
that would be proposed are for at least the next ten years. With the rapid speed of
technology, I do not feel it would be proper to spread costs over 30 years for justification.
Without the benefit of the final I -Net design and layout, which will be completed after the
RFP is sent out, exact dollar amounts cannot always be attached to each item/service.
Generally speaking, the city uses T1 lines (carrying capacity that is less than fiber, but
more than a dial -up modem someone would use at home), which it leases from Qwest
and a 440 MHz I -Net that was built by Time Warner in 1981 for its telecommunication
needs. The 440 MHz I -Net can only be used for video to broadcast public meetings. On
average, each TI line costs $350 /month to lease ($4,200 /TI line per year). Multiple lines
are needed for each city facility and as the city continues to grow and expand services,
the number of lines will only continue to increase. The I -Net could replace the need for
leasing multiple TI lines from Qwest.
Entering into a joint agreement with ISD 720, for the joint construction of an I -Net could
allow for many types of future services and cost savings in areas like video services,
telephony, internet connection, web based applications, security and centralization of the
City's technology network, and technology maintenance agreements. Attached is a
reference packet that provides more detail on these subjects.
Action Required
1. Enter into an agreement with the ISD 720, for the joint construction of an
Institutional Network and accept the funding for the 1) RFP to construct the I -Net
and 2) cost of the I -Net fiber construction from the Cable Access Corporation and
the Cable Commission.
2. Do not enter into an agreement with the ISD 720, for the joint construction of an
Institutional Network.
Tracy Coenen'
Management Assistant
Issues that a fiber I -Net could address...
Video Services
One of the main concerns the Cable Access Corporation and Cable Commission have is
the reliability of the current 440MHz I -Net. Most of the equipment for video production
and telecommunications is being upgraded to digital; however, with the current coax
cable network, the city cannot take advantage of the benefits of digital technologies, and
will continue to patch and repair the I -Net until it is no longer usable. Time Warner
currently maintains the 440 MHz coax I -Net; however, they are not required to
purchase /update equipment or provide a new I -Net as part of their current franchise with
the city.
The city has two options when either the current equipment becomes completely obsolete
(which is coming nearer everyday due to the age of the city's current equipment) or the
coax cable I -Net dies 1) build its own fiber network that connects each site that needs
video capabilities, which would include City Hall, Community Center, Central
Elementary and the High School 2) lease multiple Tl lines that are slower and have
difficulties transmitting video signals 3) no longer offer broadcasting of public meetings
and other government and public access services. Even if the city chooses not to
purchase all new equipment and transfer all video services to the fiber I -Net right away,
the system would be ready as soon as it is needed at a much cheaper rate over the long
run than the cost of alternatives 1 or 2 above. Fiber would also increase the quality of the
access channels. Time Warner has upgraded most residential cable packages to digital,
but has not upgraded and will not upgrade the PEG (public, educational, government)
channels to digital quality.
Centralization and Security
Each city facility has numerous network servers (the system that connects and helps the
city wide computer system to operate) to run software applications like finance and
building permit software, email and internet services, and general technology systems.
For the most part, these systems are not secured and do not have good locations. For
example, the Police Department server is in the patrol officer workroom. These servers
could all be centralized into one system at one location. The school district, during
discussions, has offered space and its technology staff to assist the city in securing and
centralizing our technology systems. All HUBS of the I -Net would be located inside a
secure limited access school district facility at the High School, providing a high level of
physical security. The circuit - oriented nature the network inherently provides a high
level of data integrity for departments like the police department. With the increased
number of hackers (individuals who could illegally access city records to either destroy
or use the documents improperly) and virus' from computer applications, increased
computer network security can never be enough.
In the long run, the city would also see cost savings since it could purchase larger' servers
instead of duplicating the same servers at each location, which would result in decreased
cost for software, staff time, firewalls (computer hardware that serves as a barrier to help
prevent hackers and technology problems) maintenance costs and increased reliability
11
and integrity of the system. Due to changing technologies and the growth of the
community, many of the city's hardware products are already out of date or need to be
replaced in the relatively near future. For example, the Community Center cannot offer
online web based recreation program applications because its server is too old and it only
has a 56K (less capacity than a TI line) dedicated line that ties into City Hall. As with the
equipment cost, centralization and security of the City's technology equipment can also
be phased in as part of a technology improvement plan.
Telephony
Telephony, in general terms, is the ability to run phone lines through a fiber like the I -Net
instead over normal phone lines. C =ently, the City has two trunk phone lines that have
a combination of a bank of phone numbers, DID lines (internal only), and individual
lines. The City pays for the library, city hall, public works, police, and community center
phone lines. The current cost savings are not known, but it would give the city another
option if Qwest or another phone line provider continues to increase rates or discontinue
service(s).
Internet Connections — Sharing of a Pipeline
Currently, the city receives its internet service from LOGIS, the school district through a
similar school consortium, and Scott County through the State. Another possible feature
of the I -Net would be to have all the partners use the same internet provider and split the
costs. Internet providers are attracted to larger customers, and are more willing to'',offer
more capacity (pipeline) and cheaper rates than if just the City of Shakopee tried to
contract services on its own. As the city continues to grow, the need for better, faster and
more internet services will only continue to escalate.
Web Based Applications
As the internet expands into more areas of our customers lives, it is vital that government
keep up with their needs. Residents are already requesting services like online building
permits and recreation programs; however, the city does not have enough bandwidth
( "electronic" capacity) to meet those needs. The city, under our current circumstances
would need to purchase more T1 lines to offer many services.
More software applications like internal financial and human resources software offer
web based features to make it easier for employees and department heads to access
information, again requiring large amounts of bandwidth for such software applications
to utilize the web based applications. Looking to the future, the I -Net would also open
doors to telecommuting, remote location access, digital imagining, video streaming
(broadcasting public meetings like City Council on the City's web site, so people without
cable or not in Shakopee can view the meeting anywhere in the world), and as many
ideas as you can imagine.
IT Maintenance Agreement with School District
A maintenance agreement between the city and the school district would need to be
established. Currently, the city has engineering staff that could help defray the permitting
costs and the school district has in -house technology staff that would reduce maintenance
issues and costs. At present time, this figure is unknown. A cooperative maintenance
agreement with the school district may also reduce some of the current IT staffing
challenges of the city.
M
rs, F, L4 V
City of Shakopee
Awn vw nvnvi�v ivw
TO: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Tattoo License for Scot Neverdahl
DATE: August 21, 2001
City Council is asked to consider the application of Scot Neverdahl for a Tattoo License.
Mr. Neverdahl has applied for a Tattoo License to work for Linda Malone at her business known
as Body Art located at 205 South Lewis Street. Since her initial Tattoo License was issued in
1994, Ms. Malone has hired additional employees to also practice tattooing at her establishment.
A background investigation was conducted by the Police Department. Nothing in the applicant's
background was found to preclude him from being licensed. The certificate of insurance does
cover Mr. Neverdahl.
1. Approve the application for a tattoo license for Scot Neverdahl.
2. Deny the application for a tattoo license for Scot Neverdahl.
3. Table the application for additional information.
Approve the application and grant a Tattoo License to Scot Neverdahl, Body Art, 205 South
Lewis Street.
JSC /js
[i:Uicens6tattoo.mem]
Responsible Governmental Unit:
City of Shakopee
129 Holmes Street South
Shakopee, MN 55379
(952) 233 -3800
Project Proposers:
United Land LLC
3500 West 80th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55431
(952) 893 -8836
Opus Northwest, L.L.C.
10350 Bren Road West
Minnetonka, MN 55343
(952) 656 -4611
15 August 2001
Abstract: This Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review (Final AUAR) studies the expected
environmental impacts associated with the development of Shenandoah Business Park and
Minnesota Valley West in Shakopee, Minnesota. Each of the two office /warehouse projects is
proposed to include 1.1 million square feet of floor space. Each of the sites will contain access
roadways, automobile parking and loading docks for trucks. This Final AUAR supplements the
information presented in the Draft AUAR and responds to comments received on the Draft AUAR
during the public comment period.
Public Comments: The public comment period for the Draft AUAR closed on July 11, 2001. Appendix
C includes copies of the comment letters received on the Draft AUAR. Responses to these comments are
contained in Appendix D of this Final AUAR.
Preparers: The following organizations are responsible foir preparing this Final AUAR: the City of
Shakopee; David Braslau Associates, Inc.; Faergre & Benson LLP; Howard R. Green Company;
Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc., Archeological Research Services, and WSB Associates for the
City of Shakopee.
Availability of the Final AUAR: Copies of the Final AUAR are available from the City of Shakopee at
129 Holmes Street South, Shakopee, MN 55379. The Final AUAR will also be available in the Shakopee
Public Library.
Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota TVallev West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review
Table of Contents
1.0 SUMMARY OF TBE PROJECT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL
1 '•
2.0 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ................... ............................... 8
2 .1.
QUESTION 9: LAND USE ............................................................. ............................... 8
2.2.
QUESTION 10: COVER TYPES ..................................................... .......•............•••.....12
2.3.
QUESTION 11: FISH, WILDLIFE AND ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE
RESOURCES................................................................................................
....................•.......
2.4.
QUESTION 19: GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND SOIL CONDITIONS ..............,........13
2.5.
QUESTION 20: SOLID WASTES, HAZARDOUS WASTES, STORAGE TANKS..
13
2.6.
QUESTION 21: TRAFFIC ............................................................... ............................14
2.7.
QUESTION 24: DUST, ODORS AND NOISE ............................... ............................15
2.8.
QUESTION 25: NEARBY RESOURCES ....................................... ............................16
2.9.
QUESTION 26: VISUAL IMPACTS .............................................. .............................18
2.10.
QUESTION 29: CUMULATIVE IMP ACT ...................................... ..................,.........19
APPENDIX A Section 8.01 of Scott County Solid Waste Ordinance
APPENDIX B Report on Archaeological Survey for Proposed Shenandoah Business Park;
Archaeological Research Services
APPENDIX C Comments Letters Received on the Draft AUAR
APPENDIX D Responses to Comments
APPENDIX E Mitigation Plan
United Properties /Opus AUAR - Shakopee, Minnesota
Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc.
Shenandoah Business ParklMinnesota Vallev West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Project Location in Shakopee ..................................................... ..............................2
Figure 1.2 Proposed Site Plan for Shenandoah Business Park ................. ..............................3
Figure 1.3 Proposed Site Plan for Minnesota Valley West ........................ ..............................4
Figure 2.1 Project Location and Surrounding Land Uses .......................... ..............................9
Figure2.2 Shakopee Land Use Plan ........................................................... .............................10
Figure2.3 Shakopee Urban Zoning ............................................................. .............................11
United Properties/Opus AUAR - Shakopee, Minnesota
Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc.
Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Vallev West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review
Information in this Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review has been provided by the following
organizations:
Organization
EAW Responsibility/Information Provided
United Land LLC
Project proposer /project information
Opus Northwest, L.L.C.
Project proposer /project information
City of Shakopee
Responsible Governmental Unit/project review
David Braslau Associates, Inc.
AUAR preparation, air quality and noise
Howard R. Green Company
Combined traffic analysis; civil engineering for
Shenandoah Business Park
Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc.
Natural resources, wetlands, water impacts
Faegre & Benson LLP
Legal counsel
Archaeological Research Services
Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Survey
United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C.
Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc.
Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Vallev West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review
1.0 SUMMARY OF .E PROJECT AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMIENTAL
Project Description
This Final AUAR covers two projects (see Figure 1.1):
(1) Shenandoah Business Park (United Land LLC)
The project site is located within the corporate limits of Shakopee, Minnesota in Scott County.
The site is bordered on the north by County Highway (CH 101), on the south by 4th Avenue (Old
Highway 82), on the east by Scherer Brothers Lumber and CertainTeed Corporation further east,
and on the west by Steel Road and undeveloped land. Shenandoah Drive passes through the
westerly portion of the site, connecting TH 101 on the north and 4` Avenue on the south.
United Land LLC is proposing construction of a 1,161,000 gross square foot office /warehouse
development in the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, on a 112 -acre site that is currently undeveloped
and brush/grassland. The proposed site plan is shown in Figure 1.2.
With full build -out of the site, it is projected that there will be a maximum of 2,220 passenger
vehicle parking spaces on the site.
Construction on the project is scheduled to begin in the Fall of 2001. The project will be phased in
over a 10 -year period, with occupancy of the initial 10% increment anticipated in 2002..
(2) Minnesota Valley West (Opus Northwest, L.L.C.)
The project site is located within the corporate limits of Shakopee, Minnesota in Scott County.
The site is bordered on the north by 4th Avenue (Old Highway 82) and by Kosovich Valley Park
First Addition, on the south by Canterbury Park Racetrack, on the east by Canterbury', Road
(County Road 83), and on the west by a Canterbury Park access roadway.
Opus Northwest, L.L.C. is proposing construction of a 1,160,000 gross square foot office/
warehouse development in the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, on a 75 -acre site which includes 2.5
acres of undeveloped land that is not currently under the ownership of Opus Northwest, L.L.C.
Except for the undeveloped 2.5 acres and 6.5 acres of the existing site, the remainder of the site has
been graded and contains two buildings evaluated in a previous Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW) for this project site. Prior to grading and construction, the site formerly
included a farmstead with a two -story home and several out buildings, a grass airstrip and taxi
area, several rye grass fields, pine plantations, and some small deciduous woodlots. The proposed
site plan is shown in Figure 1.3.
With full build -out of the site, it is projected that there will be maximum of 976 passenger vehicle
parking spaces on the site.
Construction on the project is scheduled to begin in the Fall of 2001 and be completed in 2002.
United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.0
Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page I
3
_U
U
U
Y\7 4 7 C7
cz
to
as
.� t.' -"'� v' ,{ t . �; .: st��<� , i t q t � , -:� � � r 1 // � � 1 � r `�,• �] V1
✓'�' yam•' r 1 •U,�.�r ! ¢ � � / a;"� � ,3 3 i �` � _. ":�, i
r
c
` t r �' r . : •1 #•�^� � -{-�; � k, i�{ r � � ` 1 l # , � / s�- ..�_• '" H y 1
&�F ;M 'sC, `� 6 r t '� t. � "�`"�' +� S � 7 §� / 1 r w.,x `. i cC � � ¢ - ]•,
;i _ r _.. ^'•� .f� Lam/]
E - to �� �; � p J ,�' k• $ N"�i�a � s »
� s..
� owl
'3wI-I a , t A R •e t t .�So� «<.,. -�i.-
t T +
. - ./s /z3� � �` ,,,,`rt. fq # t ^J i z �y '`J { F • cj CO
0 a 'a �{ 8 t a y f; dip a „ Day p t-a -a cj U U
+V :.'wa `�� � '.` {.,/'�l a f 3 Z ;' \� , � / C ' 8. ' � P k � � 3 $ •� '� vJ vI L"+ '_�
O �. al •�,`Q+ 1 a 3 t t. f ii
' A l t. \ II )f t D f 6 °.d x c 8 ''C fi zy s srua•.,.R.. ' z i ° a �"" (7 U
_,Ws
rn z u s J'"` - •` � t � � ZC 3 3 f G"%` t� .... ro >� �- �3 t +' � :{ - c � � � O
oo
� Y
c a
Cc
0
b
:~
U
a
a
N
t..
O
O
0
U
a
a
b
a�
3.
-`
I �t V J L: �a
as w
jj N c4 N
1}
�-+ s Y a 4 e t tt
hk
c
-��
C/1
s
e
, f l
Y r Lt s'r t Y
j a i A iy g �
3
t tr a`q 3l ,Y �t t; I
pia �*t } . Y t t
gi
v"go' y
? & �Y' � 1 4 Fsi V
s 1 RY O R °
i f } tlt� v a 1" ,c -t` e y 2' Y 2 1 Y
ca
"
2, y
a & Y a a
r ,
s Y u
sYY��
78 3 u,
O
b m �G�
S i-1
r
o
rxg
a t
A� 0
o
7fl �l
3
°
°
a
d
D
d
�
Q
g
"0 N a v 0 b
_
a
J 1 N
2
o
J
m
fl 0 0
M >,
w o°
CL
a �
J
g
a
Z
O
V
z
z
W
w r xD
>
Q
W
°o �, w3
Al
�
w
3
ON/0706 J&n.LR3 7VnJd33NOS
�
a
//l 2131N30 1S /O .(3771�ii 'tJN/LY 9NL1SLX3
>
a
L) L)
� cc
• ONOd �
Q x �
�
v
�
�
a
0
b
cl
cl
°
0
U
3
0
0
U
a
c�
-o
a�
w
Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Vallev West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review
Potential Environmental Impacts
Fish, Wildlife and Ecologically Sensitive Resources:
Shenandoah Business Park
The database information provided by the DNR indicate that most of the species with the exception
of loggerhead shrike were observed prior to 1951 or were species associated with the Minnesota
River and its floodplain. No use of the Shenandoah Business Park site by loggerhead shrikes has
been documented to date. A final inspection of the Shenandoah Business Park site has been
conducted and no evidence of loggerhead shrikes has been found.
Minnesota Valley West
The site has been graded for construction following completion of previous EAW and no additional
impacts are anticipated. Prior to grading of the site, no evidence of any threatened, endangered, or
rare plant or wildlife species was observed on the site during a field review on July 9, 1997. The
1997 search by the Minnesota DNR Natural Heritage Program also indicated that no known
occurrences of rare species or natural features exist within approximately one mile of the project
site.
Erosion and Sedimentation:
Shenandoah Business Park
The proposed development will involve grading and additional fill on the site. Ultimately 112 acres
of the site will be graded and as much as 332,000 cubic yards of material could be moved. Most of
this material will be brought onto the site as fill.
Minnesota Valley West
The proposed development will involve grading of an additional 9 acres and movement of
approximately 30,000 cubic yards of material.
Water Quality: Surface Water Runoff:
Shenandoah Business Park
No increase in the rate of runoff from the site is anticipated as a result of this project. Runoff from
the site will be mitigated by two stormwater retention ponds with a total of 12.6 acres constructed
on the site. A list of possible Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be employed during
construction to help reduce erosion and sediment loading of stormwater runoff is included in
Section 2.4 of this Final AUAR. Both basins will discharge to the north for ultimate discharge to
the Minnesota River via existing channels and culverts.
Minnesota Valley West
No increase in the rate of runoff from the site is anticipated as a result of this project due to the
stormwater ponds that are now in place. These ponds will accommodate the increase in runoff
from an additional 32 acres of impervious surface resulting from building and parking '',lot
development. A list of possible BMPs to be employed during new construction to help reduce
erosion and sediment loading of stormwater runoff is included in Section 2.4 of this Final AU AR.
United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.0
Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 5
Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Vallev West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review
Traff c:
The Draft AUAR analyzed six critical intersections through which project traffic is likely to flow.
The following conclusions are based upon this traffic analysis and the Mitigation Plan contained in
Appendix E of this Final AUAR.
• In 2003, the intersection of CH 83/4 1h Avenue is expected to operate at Level of Service (LOS) F
under the "build" scenario without intersection improvements.
• In 2003, the addition of an eastbound right turn lane on 4` Avenue, a southbound right turn
lane on CH 83 and a northbound left turn lane on CH 83, with the addition of signalization,
will improve the Level of Service to LOS B.
• In 2003, the intersection of 4` Avenue /Shenandoah Drive is expected to operate at LOS A as an
All -Way STOP condition,
• Prior 2020, traffic on 4th Avenue is expected to exceed the capacity of this roadway.'
Improvement to a three -lane urban section with additional lanes at major intersections will
provide the needed additional capacity.
• In 2020, the intersection of CH 83/4 Avenue, with the improvements noted above, is estimated
to operate at LOS C.
• In 2020, the intersection of 4 th Avenue /Shenandoah Drive will likely operate at acceptable (i.e.
uncongested) levels during the PM peak hour as an All -way STOP condition.
Vehicle Related Air Emissions:
Increased vehicle emissions will be associated with traffic traveling to and from the combined
projects. Vehicle carbon monoxide concentrations, estimated at three intersections indicated levels
well below the Minnesota 1 -hour and 8 -hour ambient air quality standards. Based upon the air
quality analysis of traffic on roadways providing access to the project, no significant adverse
impacts on air quality are expected.
Odors, Noise and Dust:
Dust, noise and vibration may be associated with grading of the two sites and possible blasting on
the Shenandoah Business Park site, as well as construction of the buildings, drives, and parking
areas. These impacts will be controlled by state regulations and guidelines to minimize off -site
impacts. Some noise will be associated with traffic traveling on roadways to and from the site and
while these roadways are exempt from state noise standards, noise levels at most receptor sites are
predicted to be below state noise standards. Levels are predicted to be slightly above the standard
at the only residence on 4 th Avenue potentially impacted by traffic from the combined projects.
Nearby Resources
Shenandoah Business Park
Murphy's Landing, a living history village of the 1800s with more than forty buildings, is located
United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L. C.
Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 6
Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Vallev West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review
north of TH 101 across from the proposed development. Recreational trail corridors are identified
in the Comprehensive Plan along 4th Avenue and CH 83 corridors. Two burial mound groups have
been identified in the vicinity of the project. The Pond Mound Group (21 SC 22) is located entirely
north of T.H.101, in what is now referred to as Memorial Park, the eastern end of which lies
directly north of the project area but is separated from it by the highway and the CSMO railroad
grade. The Steele Mound Group (21 SC 24) is partially preserved north of T.H. 101 but also, to a
large extent, was damaged or destroyed by the highway and, in the case of one mound, the
construction of the CSMO railroad embankment. Evidence of tools and debris that appears to
represent the southern edge of a stone tool production area and possibly of a larger habitation site
that continued towards the river has been identified along the northern boundary of Shenandoah
Business Park approximately 120 meters east of Shenandoah Drive. This evidence has been
partially or largely destroyed by highway and railroad construction. If this area cannot be avoided
and protected as a green space in the final development plan, further study and more intensive
testing will be needed in order to evaluate the significance of the site. Visual shielding of those
portions of Shenandoah Business Park adjacent to Murphy's Landing will be provided in
landscape plans for these parcels.
Minnesota Valley West
A cultural review of this property was requested from the State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) in advance of the EAW publication of the SuperValu proposal for the site in 1997
concluded that the project was unlikely to affect any historic properties and did not request a
cultural resources investi
Impact on Infrastructure and Public Services:
The maximum wastewater flow of the combined projects (146,586 gallons per day) can be
accommodated by with appropriate connections to the public sanitary sewer system.
The maximum demand for water by the combined projects (151,245 gallons per day) can be
accommodated by the Shakopee Water Utility with appropriate connections to the municipal
water supply system.
The following roadway improvements will be needed to ensure adequate traffic flow with the
combined projects:
• By 2003, an additional eastbound right turn lane on 4th Avenue at its intersection with CH 83.
• Prior to 2020, the intersection of 4 th Avenue and CH 83 will require major reconstruction
including the installation of a traffic signal.
• Prior to 2020, increased traffic demand on 4 th Avenue east of CH 83 will require additional
capacity, which could be accommodated by a three -lane section along this roadway segment.
Development of Shenandoah Business Park and further development of Minnesota Valley West
will require additional police and fire protection for these two sites.
United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C.
Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 7
Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review
2.0 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
2.1. QUESTION 9: LAND USE
Quesiton 9 of the Draft AUAR includes a description of land uses on and around the projects. Two
residential areas abutting 4` Avenue in the vicinity of the proposed Shenandoah Business Park
were not identified in the Draft AUAR. The Goemer residential property, located on the north side
of 4` Avenue, is bounded on the east, north and west by the proposed Shenandoah Business Park
and on the south by 4` Avenue. A residential area is located south of 0 h Avenue and west of
Shenandoah Drive. These areas are identified in Figure 2.1.
Adjoining Land Use Compatibility
Goemer Property
The Goemer property and residence is located 300 feet east of Shenandoah Drive on the north side
of 4` Avenue. The property will be surrounded on the west, north and east by Shenandoah
Business Park, and on the south by 4` Avenue.
The property falls within the area north of 4` Avenue that is guided Light Industrial in the
Shakopee Land Use Plan and zoned I1 (Light Industrial). See Figure 2.2 and 2.3 in the Final
AUAR. This makes the property a legal non - conforming use. Since the Land Use Plan guides the
property for Light Industrial, the residential use may eventually be replaced by a Light' Industrial
use.
Residential Area south of 4` Avenue
The residential area, shown in Figure 9.1 of the Draft AUAR, is approximately 200 feet south of 4`
Avenue and buffered by trees. The area is also buffered by land uses based upon zoning developed
by the City of Shakopee - from west to east these are an area zoned B1 west of the cemetery, the
cemetery (zoned AG), the small buffer zoning of outlots north of the residential area, and the
Knights of Columbus (zoned B1). See Figure 2.3.
United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C.
Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 8
Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West
Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review
United Land LLC
Shenandoah Business Park
Opus Northwest, L.L.0
Minnesota Valley West FIGURE 2.1
Shakopee, Minnesota
David Braslau Associates, Inc.
FINAL ALTERNATIVE URBAN Project Location and
Howard R. Green Company
AREAWIDE REVIEW Surrounding Land Uses
Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc.
United
I
fy
0
G
0
H (-4
u
b
L)
�4 �-4
1.4 -
al
q
00
o uy
as 72
P.
�z
V4
ER
5
7a
is,
P,4
I
fy
0
G
0
H (-4
u
b
L)
�4 �-4
1.4 -
al
q
00
o uy
as 72
P.
�z
Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Vallev West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review
2.2. QUESTION 10: COVER TYPES
Questton 10 of the Draft AUAR includes tables of site cover types by acres. The table below for
Shenandoah Business Park has been revised to show the area of Stormwater detention ponds and
road right -of -way.
Shenandoah Business Park
Before After
Type 1- 8 wetlands 0 0
Wooded/Forest 0 0
Brush/Grassland 112.0 0
Cropland 0 0
Minnesota Vallev West
2.3. QUESTION 11: FISH, WILDLIFE AND ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE RESOURCES
Shenandoah Business Park
In Question 11 of the Draft AUAR, it was stated that the database information provided by the
DNR indicated that most of the threatened, endangered, and special concern species with the
exception of loggerhead shrike were observed prior to 1951 or were species associated with the
Minnesota River and its floodplain. In May 2001, following distribution of the Draft AUAR,
Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. (PEC) conducted a survey of Shenandoah Busines Park
to assess the presence or absence of loggerhead shrikes at the Shakopee AUAR site during May of
2001. A PEC biologist conducted a search of potential loggerhead shrike habitat for active nests
and for adult birds by scanning power lines, barbed wire fences and other perches used by adult
loggerhead shrikes during hunting forays. The habitat is generally unsuitable for breeding
United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C.
Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc_ Page 12
Before
After
Type 1- 8 wetlands
0
0
Wooded/Forest
0
0
Brush/Grassland
0
0
Cropland
0
0
Total area
112.0
112.0
2.3. QUESTION 11: FISH, WILDLIFE AND ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE RESOURCES
Shenandoah Business Park
In Question 11 of the Draft AUAR, it was stated that the database information provided by the
DNR indicated that most of the threatened, endangered, and special concern species with the
exception of loggerhead shrike were observed prior to 1951 or were species associated with the
Minnesota River and its floodplain. In May 2001, following distribution of the Draft AUAR,
Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. (PEC) conducted a survey of Shenandoah Busines Park
to assess the presence or absence of loggerhead shrikes at the Shakopee AUAR site during May of
2001. A PEC biologist conducted a search of potential loggerhead shrike habitat for active nests
and for adult birds by scanning power lines, barbed wire fences and other perches used by adult
loggerhead shrikes during hunting forays. The habitat is generally unsuitable for breeding
United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C.
Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc_ Page 12
Before
After
Lawn/Landscaping LawnALandscaping
0
30.1
Impervious surfaces
0
68.5
Road Right-of-Way
0
0.8
Stormwater Ponds
0
12.6
Total area
112.0
112.0
2.3. QUESTION 11: FISH, WILDLIFE AND ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE RESOURCES
Shenandoah Business Park
In Question 11 of the Draft AUAR, it was stated that the database information provided by the
DNR indicated that most of the threatened, endangered, and special concern species with the
exception of loggerhead shrike were observed prior to 1951 or were species associated with the
Minnesota River and its floodplain. In May 2001, following distribution of the Draft AUAR,
Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. (PEC) conducted a survey of Shenandoah Busines Park
to assess the presence or absence of loggerhead shrikes at the Shakopee AUAR site during May of
2001. A PEC biologist conducted a search of potential loggerhead shrike habitat for active nests
and for adult birds by scanning power lines, barbed wire fences and other perches used by adult
loggerhead shrikes during hunting forays. The habitat is generally unsuitable for breeding
United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C.
Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc_ Page 12
Before
After
Lawn/Landscaping Lawn/Landscaping
48.0
16.0
Impervious surfaces
18.0
50.0
Road Right-of-Way
1.9
1.9
Stormwater Ponds
7.1
7.1
Total area
75.0
75.0
2.3. QUESTION 11: FISH, WILDLIFE AND ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE RESOURCES
Shenandoah Business Park
In Question 11 of the Draft AUAR, it was stated that the database information provided by the
DNR indicated that most of the threatened, endangered, and special concern species with the
exception of loggerhead shrike were observed prior to 1951 or were species associated with the
Minnesota River and its floodplain. In May 2001, following distribution of the Draft AUAR,
Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. (PEC) conducted a survey of Shenandoah Busines Park
to assess the presence or absence of loggerhead shrikes at the Shakopee AUAR site during May of
2001. A PEC biologist conducted a search of potential loggerhead shrike habitat for active nests
and for adult birds by scanning power lines, barbed wire fences and other perches used by adult
loggerhead shrikes during hunting forays. The habitat is generally unsuitable for breeding
United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C.
Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc_ Page 12
Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Vallev West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review
loggerhead shrikes with the exception of the eastern half of the site. Several eastern red cedar
trees were checked for active nests and special attention was paid to perches on this portion of the
site. No loggerhead shrikes or active nests were observed during the survey.
Minnesota Vallev West
In Question 11 of the Draft AUAR, it was noted that no evidence of any threatened, endangered, or
rare plant or wildlife species were identified prior to grading of the site subsequent to the
completion of the previous EAW for the site.
2.4. QUESTION 19: GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND SOIL CONDITIONS
In Question 19 of the Draft AUAR it was noted that, on the Shenandoah Business Park Site,
shallow bedrock coupled with overlying coarse textured sediment suggests the presence of shallow,
perched water tables with a high potential for groundwater contamination. Water movement
through the overlying coarse - textured sediments would be fast and the flow path to the restrictive
bedrock layer is short.
The following Best Management Practices (BMPs) are proposed for prevention of contamination
of groundwater:
1. Construction of temporary sediment basins in the locations proposed for storm water
ponding, and development of these basins for permanent use following construction.
2. For each stage of construction, erection of a silt fence installed at the construction limits
prior to the initiation of earthwork and maintained until all exposed soil is stabilized.
3. Periodic cleaning of adjacent city streets.
4. Energy dissipation, such as riprap, installed at storm sewer outfalls.
5. Use of cover crops, sod, and landscaping to stabilize exposed surface soils after final
grading.
6. Under stormwater ponds and in areas where enhanced infiltration practices are employed,
a minimum of 2 feet of soil will be provided as required in the City of Shakopee
Stormwater Management Plan, or alternatives including the use of a clay liner will be
considered.
The same BMPs will be used where appropriate on the Minnesota Valley West site for
development of the approximately 32 additional acres of that site.
2.5. QUESTION 20: SOLID WASTES, HAZARDOUS WASTES, STORAGE TANKS
Question 20 of the Draft AUAR indicated that the City of Shakopee has no recycling program or
applicable recycling ordinance in place for businesses. However, Scott County has pointed out that
the Scott County Solid Waste Ordinance (Section 8.01) requires haulers to provide recycling
services to their customers. A copy of this section of the ordinance is included in Appendix A of
this Final AUAR. Recycling of solid waste will be the responsibility of individual facilities on each
of the project sites and will be coordinated through the chosen solid waste contractors.'
United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C.
Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 13
Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review
2.6. QUESTION 21: TRAFFIC
Question 21 of the Draft AUAR indicated the potential for capacity constraints at the 4`b Avenue
and CH 83 intersection following Phase 1 of the project in 2003 and on 4` Avenue by the year
2020. The conclusions from the traffic study related to these issues are noted below:
• In 2003, the intersection of CH 83 / 4` Avenue is expected to operate at LOS F under the Phase
1 "build" scenario. However, the addition of an eastbound right turn lane would improve
operations to LOS D.
• When Shenandoah Business Park development reaches 20% of the total plan (assuming 100%
build -out of Minnesota Valley West), the CH 83 / 4 Avenue intersection is estimated to
operate at LOS E, suggesting that a traffic signal would be a reasonable mitigation strategy.
However, a traffic signal should not be installed at this intersection unless left turn lanes are
added to CH 83.
In 2020 with full build -out of both developments, the intersection of CH 83 / 4` Avenue will
likely require significant reconstruction, including the addition of turn lanes on CH 83 and 4 1 '
Avenue.
• In 2020 with full build -out of both developments, 4 Avenue is not expected to meet
transportation needs. Expansion to a three -lane urban section with additional lanes at major
intersections appears to be a likely mitigation strategy.
In response to these potential capacity problems, the Mitigation Plan (Appendix E of this Final
AUAR), includes the following roadway improvements:
Improvements required to support development - related impacts in 2003 will be
implemented in conjunction with Phase I and be completed prior to occupancy of new
buildings in 2003.
• Addition of an eastbound right turn lane on 4th Avenue at the intersection of 4th
Avenue with CH 83.
• Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of 4th Avenue with CH 83.
• Addition of a northbound left turn lane on CH 83 at the intersection of CH 83 with 4th
Avenue.
• Addition of a southbound right turn lane on CH 83 at the intersection of CH 83 with
4th Avenue.
Improvements required to support development - related impacts in 2020 will be
implemented when the demand for these improvements are warranted which will likely
occur before 2020.
Improvement of 4` Avenue from CH 17 to CH 83 to a three -lane urban section with
center turning lane.
Responsibilities for funding these improvements are included in the Mitigation Plan.
United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C.
Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 14
Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Vallev West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review
Potential traffic impacts associated with the Goemer property were not included in the Draft
AUAR. These are discussed below.
The driveway to the Goemer residence is located on 4 th Avenue over 400 feet from Shenandoah
Drive. As noted on Page 47 and 52 of the Draft AUAR, the intersection of 4 th Avenue with
Shenandoah Drive is expected to operate at an acceptable level of service in 2003 and in 2020.
Therefore, the Goemer driveway is not likely to be blocked by westbound vehicles queuing at
Shenandoah Drive.
Based upon the current site layout as shown in Figure 53, there may be a driveway into
Shenandoah Business Park immediately east of the Goemer property. However, access driveways
to the Shenandoah Business Park may be combined to minimize potential curb cuts along 4th
Avenue.
As noted in the Draft AUAR, 4 Avenue between Shenandoah Drive and CH 83 is predicted to
exceed its current two -lane daily capacity in 2020. It is anticipated that 4 th Avenue will have to be
upgraded before 2020, possibly to a three -lane urban section. Until design of the roadway is
completed, it cannot be determined what if any additional right -of -way will be needed. Moreover,
appropriate environmental studies will have to be completed as part of the design process. The
potential environmental impacts from the improvement of 4 th Avenue are not addressed in this
AUAR.
2.7. QUESTION 24: DUST, ODORS AND NOISE
Question 24 of the Draft AUAR identifies the potential for dust and noise associated with grading
of both project sites and construction of buildings, drives, and parking areas. The potential from
vibration from blasting of bedrock will also exist, although this will be limited to areas where
blasting is required.
The following measures to minimize noise and dust emissions from construction are identified in
the Draft AUAR:
All internal combustion motors will be fitted with mufflers and other noise control' equipment
as specified by the manufacturer.
® Minnesota Rules 7005.0050 on the control of fugitive particulate matter from construction and
hauling activities will be complied with so as to minimize adverse air quality impacts.
Potential impacts from construction dust, noise and vibration and from traffic noise on Goemer
property were not included in the Draft AUAR. These are addressed below.
Project construction and operation
Procedures to be followed to minimize noise and air quality impacts from construction are
identified in Question 24 in the Draft AUAR. Individual buildings and associated parking will be
constructed based upon market conditions and potential tenants. While construction will be
carried out over a 10 -year development period, it will be done in discrete phases. Those
construction phases immediately adjacent to the Goemer property will have the greatest potential
United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C.
Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 15
Shenandoah Business ParklMinnesota Vallev West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review
Project construction and operation
Procedures to be followed to minimize noise and air quality impacts from construction are
identified in Question 24 in the Draft AUAR. Individual buildings and associated parking will be
constructed based upon market conditions and potential tenants. While construction will be
carried out over a 10 -year development period, it will be done in discrete phases. Those
construction phases immediately adjacent to the Goemer property will have the greatest potential
for impact and will require well under 10 years for completion. Appropriate temporary screening
will be provided as needed to minimize construction impacts on the Goemer property. Any graded
area will be planted to minimize runoff and erosion on the site.
Where needed, blasting will be performed so as to comply with Minnesota DNR guidelines on
blasting as well as appropriate measures to minimize impacts and prevent any damage at adjacent
properties, including the Goemer property.
Traffic and truck noise
As noted on Page 61 of the Draft AUAR, the Minnesota noise standards do not apply to roadways
such as 4` Avenue.
The current layout of Shenandoah Business Park as shown in Figure 5.3 of the Draft AUAR
indicates an access roadway to one of the warehouse areas that passes approximately 75 feet north
of the Goemer residence. Based upon data from previous studies, it is estimated that the sound
level at the Goemer residence for one truck traveling at 10 mph along this roadway will exceed 65
dBA for 20 seconds and 55 dBA for 50 seconds . Thus, more than 18 trucks per hour at 20 seconds
above 65 dBA will be needed to exceed the L10 65 dBA daytime limit (65 dBA for 10% of an hour
or 360 seconds), and more than 7 trucks per hour at 50 seconds above 55 dBA will be needed to
exceed the L10 55 dBA nighttime limit (55 dBA for 10% or an hour or 360 seconds).
Until specific tenants in the nearby building are identified, it is not possible to make an accurate
estimate of truck traffic along this access roadway. However, if hourly truck traffic causes
exceedances of the Minnesota noise standards, then mitigation will be necessary. Potential
mitigation measures include limits on the number of trucks per hour, a noise berm, or redesign of
the roadway and building layout to move truck traffic away from the Goemer residence. A berm
would probably have to extend the length of the Goemer property on the north, although the exact
location and height of the berm cannot be determined without an accurate truck traffic estimate.
2.8. QUESTION 25: NEARBY RESOURCES
Question 25 of the Draft AUAR identifies Murphy's Landing as a historic resource located north of
TH 101 across from the proposed development. "Murphy's Landin is a living history village of
the 1800s. More than forty period buildings that were once in danger of being destroyed, have
been moved to the Landing's 88 acre site for their preservation and restoration, and the enjoyment
and education of more than 40,000 visitor's a year."
United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C.
Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 16
Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Vallev West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review
In a letter from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), which is included in Appendix B of
the Draft AUAR, the following additional information was requested for the Shenandoah Business
Park project:
(1) A survey of the area be completed that will meet the requirements of the Secretary
of the Interior's Standards for Identification and Evaluation that should include, an
evaluation of National Register eligibility for any identified properties.
An archeological survey for the Shenandoah Business Park has been prepared by
Archaeological Research Services and is included in Appendix B of this Final AUAR.
Findings and conclusions of the survey are summarized below.
(2) The design of the project take into account effects of the historic district, both from
a visual/ aesthetic standpoint, and from an operational (circulation, use, noise, etc.)
standpoint.
Shenandoah Business Park will be accessed from Shenandoah Drive and from 4t Avenue
and will not provide any additional access to CH 101. Therefore, no impacts from traffic
or traffic noise are anticipated. Truck activity on the site will occur south of the railroad
tracks. Noise from trucks on the site will be well below that from trucks on CH 101, which
is north of the Shenandoah Business Park and the intervening railroad tracks. Visual
screening of the project will be provided as part of landscaping plans to be prepared for
each parcel on the site prior to its development.
(3) The requirements of the Minnesota Private Cemeteries Act be addressed because of
the location of burials in the vicinity.
These requirements are addressed in the archaeological survey which is included in
Appendix B of this Final AUAR
Summary of the Archaeological Survey of Shenandoah Business P ark
The survey identified the following two sites in the vicinity of Shenandoah Business Park:
21 SC 22 (the Pond Mound Group), which is located entirely north of CH 101, in what is now
referred to as Memorial Park, the eastern end of which lies directly north of the project area
but is separated from it by the highway and the CSMO railroad grade.
• 21 SC 24 (the Steele Mound Group) which is partially preserved north of CH 101 but also, to a
large extent, was damaged or destroyed by the highway and, in the case of one mound, the
construction of the CSMO railroad embankment.
While the latter mound was recorded well east of the project area and it now seems well
documented that the other mounds are /were located well to its north, there is no record of any
previous efforts to identify other archaeological evidence south of the burial grounds, in what is
now the Shenandoah Business Park project area.
One precontact period Native American archaeological site was identified just within the northern
edge of the project area, approximately 120 meters east of Shenandoah Drive. This evidence
United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C.
Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 17
Shenandoah Business ParklMinnesota Vallev West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review
included some cobble tools and a small scatter of Prairie du Chien chert flaking debris that
appears to represent the southern edge of a lithic reduction (stone tool production) area and
possibly also of a larger habitation site that continued towards the river but now has been partially
or largely destroyed by highway and railroad construction. The site has been recorded as
Shenandoah Park Similar evidence has been found on a number of archaeological sites', that are
situated along the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers and near local sources of Prairie du Chien
chert. Some appear to have been just quarry and primary reduction sites; others are associated
with evidence of seasonal habitation and other activities. None have as yet produced any ceramic
evidence - a fact which suggests that they are early and predate the mound groups that also are
found along these rivers.
Conclusions and Recommendations
This cultural resource survey did not identify any archaeological evidence that would appear to be
associated with the two mound groups, the Mdewakanton village of Shakopee, the post -1850s
community by the same name or activities at the historic Murphy's Landing.
Rather, the Shenandoah Park evidence is very similar to the lithics found on a number of other
archaeological sites that are situated along the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers and near local
sources of Prairie du Chien chert from the Shakopee and Oneota Dolomite Formations. Some
appear to have been just quarry and primary reduction sites, while others are associated with
evidence of seasonal habitation and other activities. None have as yet produced any ceramic
evidence - a fact which suggests that they are early and predate the mound groups that also are
found along these rivers.
Until archaeological sites of this type have been better documented through formal excavation and
intersite comparison, even a fairly small cultural deposit or a sizeable remnant of a larger,
partially destroyed site is still likely to yield significant information, especially from a context like
the Shenandoah Park site that has not been disturbed by cultivation.
As the Shenandoah Business Park portion of this locality appears confined to a small area along
the northern edge of the project area, it could probably easily be avoided and protected as a green
space in the final development plan. Should this not be feasible, further study and more intensive
testing would be needed in order to evaluate the significance of the site and determine whether or
not it meets the criteria of eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places.
2.9. QUESTION 26: VISUAL IMPACTS
The potential for lighting impacts on the Goemer property may occur from dock areas', or trucks,
depending upon the location and orientation of these activities and whether or not there will be any
nighttime activity at these locations. The current site plan shows a dock area approximately 150
feet north of the Goemer residence. Lighting of buildings and dock areas throughout the project
will be based upon current design standards and will comply with provisions of the Shakopee
zoning ordinance. regarding light levels on adjacent properties. Visual screening and landscaping
will be provided, if needed, to minimize impacts on the Goemer property from truck lights as they
depart the dock area if nighttime activities are expected at this location. Mitigation of truck
lighting can be provided by berms if built to mitigate noise from trucks. Redesign of the roadway
United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C.
Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 18
Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Vallev West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review
and building layout to move truck traffic away from the Goemer residence can also minimize
lighting impacts on the Goemer property.
2.10. QUESTION 29: CUMULATIVE IMPACT
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has noted in their letter commenting on the
Draft AUAR that "a full discussion of cumulative impacts of projects, including those in the
surrounding area, is important to assure the discussion of significant environmental effects in the
Draft AUAR is complete and not limited to those species and habitats that are already seriously
and significantly affected. "
The Draft AUAR has investigated the impacts of the two projects and their individual and
cumulative impacts on the environment in the areas expected to be impacted by these projects.
These projects combined with others in the region may have a significant overall impact on
habitat. However, this loss of habitat is partially offset by the large areas along the Minnesota
River that is permanently retained as wildlife habitat.
As defined in the MEQB Environmental Review Rules, "cumulative impact" means the impact on
the environment that results from incremental effects of the project in addition to other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects regardless of what person undertakes the other
projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant
projects taking place over a period of time.
The cumulative impact of regional land use conversion from open space /agricultural land to
developed space that has taken and is taking place in the metropolitan area is difficult to miti
The two proposed office /warehouse projects are consistent with the light industrial classification of
the Shakopee land use plan and zoning for the project sites. Individually, the proposed projects
will include stormwater ponds, limited open space and landscaping.
The City has chosen to mitigate the cumulative impacts of urbanization by placing goals and
policies to protect and enhance wildlife habitat are included in several chapters of the City of
Shakopee Comprehensive Plan (1999 update). Some of these are listed below.
Section 1: Land Use and Staging
This section includes as its first goal the identification and preservation of the City's natural
resources. The objective and policies under this goal are presented below.
Objective 1.1 Allow development in a pattern that minimizes the disruption of identified prime
agricultural soils, wetlands, forests, groundwater and other natural resources.
Policies:
a. Development proposals that preserve existing wetland shall be preferred over proposals
that create replacement wetlands.
b. Protection of farmland will be promoted through the use of the Agricultural Preserves Act,
which provides tax benefits and additional protection for areas identified for long -term
agricultural use.
United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C.
Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 19
Shenandoah Business ParklMinnesota Vallev West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review
C. Provisions will be adopted on the siting, design, construction and maintenance of on -site
sewage disposal systems that are consistent with the applicable requirements set forth in
the Met Council's Water Resource Management, Part 1, Wastewater Treatment and
Handling Policy Plan.
d. The City will develop a forestry plan to identify significant resources for protection and
promote practices that enhance the City's forests.
e. The City will adopt a stormwater ordinance that addresses City -wide stormwater issues,
including assessing the need for regional stormwater facilities and wetland preservation.
L The city will continue development and maintenance of a geographic information system
(GIS) to monitor development and identify important natural resources.
Section H: Stormw Management Plan
The goals and policies have been developed to preserve and use natural water storage and
retention systems in order to:
A, Limit public capital expenditures that re necessary to control excessive volumes] and rates
of runoff
B. Improve water quality.
C. Prevent flooding and erosion from surface flows.
D. Prevent ground water recharge.
E. Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities.
F. Secure the other benefits associated with the proper management of surface water.
Construction of these two projects, along with other development in the City such as street and
highway construction, residential development and commercial and industrial development, has
already impacted or will impact the wildlife abundance in the City and surrounding areas. While
mitigation of these impacts is difficult at a project level, it is anticipated that land use conversion
following the goals and policies outlined above will minimize the cumulative impact of
development on wildlife resources.
United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C.
Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. Page 20
Shenandoah Business ParklMinnesota Vallev West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review
. • •
The certification below must be SIGNED for Environmental Quality Board acceptance of the Final
Alternative Urban Areawide Review for publication of notice in the EQB Monitor.
I hereby certify that:
• The information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my
knowledge.
• This Final AUAR describes the complete project; there are no other projects, stages or
components other than those described in this document, which are related to the project as
connected actions or phased actions, as defined at Minnesota Rules, parts 4410.0200, subparts
9b and 60, respectively.
• Copies of this Final AUAR are being sent to the entire EQB distribution list.
Signature
Title
Date
y: \jobs\ 200091\ FinalAUAR\FinalAUAR- rev0809.doc
United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C.
Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc.
Page 21
Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Vallev West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review
Section 8.00 of Scott County Solid Waste Ordinance
United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C.
Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc.
8.00 RECYCLING. The following provisions are applicable to the collection and
transportation of mixed municipal solid waste (msw) generated in Scott County.
8.01 Recyclable Material Collection. The hauler must provide a service (either
directly or through written subcontract with a person or company approved by the
Department as a condition to the license) to collect four broad categories of recyclable
materials and yard wastes from all single - family residential, and all multiple- family
residential, commercial and industrial customers in Scott County. Paper and
corrugated fiberboard must be collected from commercial, industrial and institutional
customers when requested by the customer. Additional recyclable materials may be
added to this by Resolution of the County Board after the effective date of this Section.
All licensed haulers shall be given 120 days advance notice in writing of the proposed
additional recyclable material(s) and shall be notified in writing 15 calendar days in
advance of the time and date of the County Board meeting at which time a decision
will be rendered. Notice shall be deemed given by mail via general delivery, to the
mailing address identified on the most recent license application or renewal form on
file in the Department.
A. The hauler may specify the type of container their customer must place the
recyclables in. The containers must be provided by the hauler or already
available to a customer at the time this Ordinance provision becomes
effective.
B. The hauler must specify the time and day of collection that their customers
are to place their recyclables out on their property for pickup. The hauler
must collect the recyclables within 12 hours of the designated time. The
collection location must be on the customer's property in a location at or
near the regular solid waste collection site or such other location mutually
agreeable to the hauler and the customer.
C. The hauler may specify how a customer is to place their recyclables out
for collection and how the recyclables are to be prepared. The County
Environmental Health Manager reserves the right to review and modify the
amount of preparation required by the hauler in consideration of local
recyclable market requirements.
D. The hauler must collect recyclables from each customer at least once a
month unless normal solid waste collection service is provided less
frequently than monthly, in which case the frequency of recyclable collection
shall be the same as refuse collection.
E. The hauler is assumed to own the recyclables they have collected and
may market them as they see fit. However, a hauler may not dispose of any
recyclables in or on the land, nor through incineration unless given prior
written approval to do so by the Environmental Health Manager
F. The hauler must submit an annual report to the Department, on or before
January 31 of each year for the previous calendar year, identifying the
weight in tons of all recyclables and all other disposable solid wastes
collected from Scott County customers (if tonnage is unavailable for
disposable solid waste, cubic yards shall be reported). The annual report
must identify the weight of each type of recyclable collected.
G. The hauler must demonstrate to the Department at the time of license
application and at time of annual license renewal how they will provide
both an incentive to their customers to reduce the amount of waste generated
and an incentive to recycle the materials designated by the County Board.
Examples of compliance with this provision include, but are not limited to,
volume based collection fees and/or credit equal to the reduction in tip fee
realized through removal of the amount a customer is recycling.
H. Municipalities or Townships within Scott County that contract with
haulers must contract only with a hauler who is licensed by Scott County.
Contracts must also be consistent with the provisions in this Subsection.
8.02 Opportunity to Recycle.
A. Single - family residential recycling. For all residential generators where
the hauler contracts for services directly with the generator, the hauler shall
provide to the generator the opportunity to recycle (as described in section
8.01 of this Ordinance).
B. Multi - family residential recycling. The owner /manager of multi - family
residential units shall offer recycling services to their tenants including a
convenient location to store recycled material.
C. Recycling Fee. No mixed municipal solid waste collector shall impose a
greater fee on a resident who recycles than on a resident who does not
recycle.
8.03 Anti- Scavenging Provision. Ownership of the separated recyclable materials set
out by a customer for collection by the hauler shall be vested in the hauler servicing
the Person who is recycling. It shall be unlawful and an offense against this Ordinance
for any person other than the hauler or the owner, lessee, or occupant of a residential
dwelling or commercial/industrial business, to pick up said separated recyclable
materials set out for collection. Said person shall obtain written permission from the
Department and from the hauler servicing the accounts where the recyclables are set
out for collection.
Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Vallev West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review
Report on Archaeological Survey for Proposed Shenandoah Business Park
Archaeological Research Services
United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C.
Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc.
Prepared for:
David Braslau Associates, Inc.
1313 5th Street S.E., Suite 322
Minneapolis, MN 55414
By:
Christina Harrison, Principal Investigator
Archaeological Research Services
1812 15th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55404
(612) 870 -9775
II
SHPO File Number: 2001 -2004
Le is) y 4 ,y
1.0
INTRODUCTION /MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
1.1 Description of Project and
ProjectArea ....................
1
1.2 Archaeological Review --
Summary of Results ..............
1
2.0
ENVIRONMENTAL AND HISTORIC CONTEXT
2.1 Environmental Setting ...........
9
2.2 Archaeological Contexts Applicable
to Study Area ...................
11
3.0
SURVEY METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
3.1 Results of Records and Literature
Search: Cultural Resources Near
ProjectArea .....................
14
3.2 Field Investigation: Methodology
and Results .....................
16
4.0
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......
18
5.0
REFERENCES ............................
20
Appendix A: SHPO Correspondence
Appendix B: Test Records
FIGURES
1. General Location Map ................. 2
2. U.S. Geological Survey Quad .......... 3
3. Project Location and Surrounding
LandUses ............................ 4
4. Plat Map of Shenandoah Business Park
ProjectArea ......................... 5
5. Proposed Site Plan for Shenandoah
BusinessPark ........................ 6
6. Aerial View of Shenandoah Business
Park Project Area ..................... 7
1.0 INTRODUCTION /MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
1.1 Description of Project and Project Area
United Land LLC is planning to develop an 112 -acre parcel as the
Shenandoah Business Park (SBP) in the City of Shakopee, Scott
County, Minnesota. Asked to comment, the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) recommended an archaeological survey of
the area as well as consultation with the Office of the State
Archaeologist (OSA) regarding the close proximity of the project
area to two recorded Native American cemetery sites (Appendix A).
The setting and character of the SBP project area is shown in
Figures 1 to 4. It falls within the northern half of Section 5,
T115N, R22W (Eagle Creek Township). The site is bordered on the
north by the Chicago -St. Paul - Minneapolis -Omaha (CSMO) Railroad
(in NE /4 and NE /4 NW /4 Section 5) and by undeveloped land under
different ownership (in SW /4 NW /4 Section 5). The western edge
abuts the same undeveloped land as well as a stretch of gravel
road, and the southern edge follows Fourth Avenue (old County
Road 82). To the immediate east are two parcels that already have
been developed for industrial use.
The land within the project boundaries is bisected by Shenandoah
Drive (a curving, paved two -lane street) but is otherwise
undeveloped. Only the southeast and southwest corners of the
property have been cultivated. The rest of the land has remained
non - agricultural due to shallow bedrock formation and supports a
vegetation cover of pasture grasses, various forb species, fairly
dense clusters of prickly ash, hawthorn and juniper as well as
scattered mature oak and elm trees (Figure 6).
The parcel is quite level, with elevations ranging between 752
feet in the southwest to 732 feet in the north. There' are no
wetlands.
Preliminary development plans propose the constructiuon' of ten
office /warehouse complexes with access roads and parking
facilities (Figure 5).
The SBP parcel is one of two areas that presently are being
studied through the same Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR)
process. The other parcel -- Minnesota Valley West, developed by
Opus Northwest L.L.C. -- was reviewed for cultural resources in
1997, with negative results (Appendix A).
1.2 Archaeological Review -- Summary of Results
During May of 2001, David Braslau Associates, Inc., as preparer of
the GUAR, retained Archaeological Research Services (ARS) to
conduct the recommended archaeological survey and the consultation
with OSA.
-2-
/
2
w
2
3
2
2
_
%
2
�
2
�
k
Q
a
Z
�±(
�
tea/
/2
�
®
■
Q@
k\
�
/ §
O
/
a
k �2
UU
§ke
= Z
2S/
a
2
cd
ZD .2
0
_0
vi
O
ti
co
7:3
O
a
CA
o
UUU
vi r-
15
E
7E
>
0
ox 0
Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota V alley West -4- Alternative Urban Areawide Review
United Land LLC Shenandoah Business Park I FIGURE 3
Opus Northwest, L.L.0 I Minnesota Valley West
Shakopee, Minnesota
David Braslau Associates, Inc.
Howard R. Green Company
Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc.
United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C.
ALTERNATIVE URBAN
AREAWIDE REVIEW
Project Location and
Surrounding Land Uses
a o
1 -
t:n r.°eyc+O At - . 1
-- — --
is
' 900
L
.
tN3rv35r3 . U
3a /u ✓: a+ ].0 ,ur. tm ,o rn tsa. --� ttvtn •oE
.._
1 :
';Laic £
:OLU - 'ON --0O S3SOdtl'1
S Na s O35r_
MOM Onarid bo! II
h
�
n
$iC
sffcc9�lf
Mp
00'L9:
I �• W
IQ
3d= �
♦i'a O. _
-
oc - L9
'ice
2 U
/ G492C IG tOLZC 'ONI
W
70O Al r d0o
ONV Atf1I1Z
u R Az
C �•
1
1
r t
iy
ac • �
.
ax�a�
1
ir
W
a'bb n-
.2 ..- _: -�' 633ANl IIMA Lt�yp Jl11M�� I
3 T
g 5 ` • ` €
; '° ' . */i r su
_
s
a
- � .N '
'•SF�=
-
U
3.CL.tZ.00N nc
�� no
4Z'90?
na. _ gy.. rv�
zr >m zl:.v r 375 .o La w p 7'n ta=
3_rs.czeooN �
Y'6fS
-6-
P-
U
c
v
a
� I
i�
t j
i
i
1 -
t
1� 1'
i
I t
l
J _
r. p
U � o
c� n.
0
V]
U
L
�3
as
=80
�UU
~ o.
72 3 w
0
>
U
L
as
=80
�UU
~ o.
72 3 w
0
>
o
a�
c,
Lr )
M
0
E
I
I
N
U
:!1
N
W
0
C
0
.1-i
b
0
a
v
+1
ro
X
0
4
y
IU
I �
N
U
.H
x
sa
tc3
a
0
tt
c
C)
CJ
U
U
n
0
w
a
x
W
m
a
N
N
C
N
z
m
b
0
Tj
a
ro
c
w
0
3
ra
W
CJ
LLF•,
W
a
u
H
w
At OSA, Christina Harrison, as principal investigator, personally
reviewed the files for the two Native American cemetery sites 21
SC 22 and 21 SC 24). The results of past studies indicate that:
. 21 SC 22 (the Pond Mound Group), is located entirely north of
T.H.101, in what is now referred to as Memorial Park, the
eastern end of which lies directly north of the project area but
is separated from it by the highway and the CSMO railroad grade.
21 SC 24 (the Steele Mound Group) is partially preserved north
of T.H. 101 but also, to a large extent, was damaged or
destroyed by the highway and, in the case of one mound, the
construction of the CSMO railroad embankment.
While the latter mound was recorded well east of the project area
and it now seems well documented that the other mounds 'are /were
located well to its north, there is no record of any previous
efforts to identify other archaeological evidence south of the
burial grounds, in what is now the SBP project area.
On May 29, 2001, Harrison also sent information about the project
to James Warren, Cultural Resources Director for the Shakopee
Mdewakanton Dakota Community (SMDC), asking for comments regarding
any concerns the SMDC may have about the project area. As of July
23, 2001, ARS had not received a response.
Although the SHPO comment letter regarding the SBP parcel does not
address the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and 36CFR800 (procedures of the ,Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation for the protection of historic
properties), the letter states that the recommended archaeological
survey must meet the requirements of the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for Identification and Evaluation.
Following a records and literature search that included 'a review
of SHPO files for the general project area, ARS staff completed
the field investigation during the months of June and early July.
It involved visual inspection of numerous subsoil exposures that
had been caused by bioturbation, deep ruts made by four -wheel
drive vehicles_ and, in the southwest and southeast, by
cultivation. The northern portion of the area, considered to have
higher archaeological potential due to its proximity to the
Minnesota River as well as 21 SC 22 and 24, was also subjected to
systematic shovel testing. The results of ARS investigations are
discussed below in Section 2.0 Environmental and Cultural Context
and in Section 3.0: Survey Methodology and Results.
One precontact period Native American archaeological site was
identified just within the northern edge of the project area,
approximately 120 meters east of Shenandoah Drive: some cobble
mom
tools and a small scatter of Prairie du Chien chert flaking
debris that appears to represent the southern edge of a lithic
reduction (stone tool production) area and possibly also of a
larger habitation site that continued towards the river' but now
has been partially or largely destroyed by highway and railroad
construction.
The site has been recorded as Shenandoah Park. Similar evidence
has been found on a number of archaeological sites that are
situated along the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers and near local
sources of Prairie du Chien chert. Some appear to have been just
quarry and primary reduction sites, others are associated with
evidence of seasonal habitation and other activities. None have as
yet produced any ceramic evidence -- a fact which suggests that
they are early and predate the mound groups that also are found
along these rivers.
As the Shenandoah Park evidence appears confined to a small area
along the northern edge of the SBP parcel, it could 'probably
easily be avoided and protected as a green space in the final
development plan. Should this not be feasible, further study and
more intensive testing would be needed in order to evaluate the
significance of the site and determine whether or not it meets
National Register criteria of eligibility (Appendix A).
Unless the property owner decides to keep the evidence, it will be
curated at the Minnesota Historical Society.
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND HISTORIC CONTEXT
2.1 Environmental Setting
The SBP project is located within the Minnesota River valley at a
point where the latter cuts through the rolling uplands of the
Prior Lake Moraine -- distinctly different landscapes who still
both owe their character to the advancing and receeding' of the
Des Moines Lobe during the Late Wisconsin glaciation
(approximately 18,000 to 13,000 B.P.). The massive valley -- once
carved by Glacial River Warren but now an oversized basin for the
Minnesota River -- encompasses the Minnesota Valley Outwash Area:
frequently flooded bottomlands, marsh, several lakes and the
winding river flanked by intermediate terraces. The latter feature
fairly shallow deposits of silt loam or sandy loam over sand and
gravel deposits or structural benches of bedrock (AES 1973; Wright
1972:564 and 572).
The uplands that flank the valley beyond the steep bluffs are
characterized by irregular loam mantled moraines and numerous ice
disintegration features. Embedded within the glacial till, deposits
are cobbles of lithic raw materials that are suitable' for the
manufacturing of stone tools. Good quality materials, primarily
-10-
cherts from the Prairie du Chien formation, have also been exposed
along the major tributary river valleys and ravines that dissect
the bluff lands.
At the time of the original land survey, i.e. prior to more
extensive impact by Euroamerican settlement, most of the uplands
supported "Big Woods" hardwood forests (dominated by oak, elm,
basswood, ash and maple) and stands of aspen /oak as well as oak
barrens (Marschner 1974). In the vicinity of the river, south -
facing river bluffs and other exposed uplands were covered by open
prairie. Down in the main valley, river bottom forest (primarily
elm, ash, cottonwood, boxelder, basswood, maple, willow and
hackberry) alternated with wet prairie, marsh and slough
grasslands.
Easy access to a range of habitats would have provided early
inhabitants with a rich variety of plant and animal resources. At
the time of Euroamerican settlement, the forest areas supported
species such as white - tailed deer, cottontail rabbit, woodchuck,
raccoon and bear. The prairie and prairie /woodland border would
have sustained large mammals such as bison and elk, as well as
numerous small species. The rivers, lakes, sloughs, and marshes
contained muskrat and beaver, numerous types of waterfowl, and
many species of fish and turtle ( Anfinson 1990).
Reaching farther back in time, pollen cores and macrobotanic
evidence attest to quite dramatic changes in the regional
environment throughout the postglacial period:
A periglacial parkland of spruce and larch followed the retreat
of the Wisconsin glaciers and the tundra vegetation associated
with their margins. By 11,500 B.P., rapid climatic change had
caused the spruce to be succeeded by pine forest (by
approximately 10,000 B.P.) and then by a deciduous forest
composed primarily of oak and elm.
• A warming and drying trend, which characterized the early to
middle Holocene, peaked at 7000 to 6000 B.P., causing the
prairie and its transitional prairie- woodland margin to expand
some 75 miles north and east of their normal limits. Linked with
these climatic warming trends were an increase in the frequency
of prairie fires and a marked decline of the water table which
causied many small lakes to dry up completely (Wright 1972b,
1974; Anfinson and Wright 1990). However, pollen cores from
across the river, in Hennepin County, suggest that woodlands
in this area actually prevailed throughout the Holocene (Grimm
1983). This is perhaps best explained by local infrequency of
fire due to a rolling topography with numerous deep lakes which
would have retained water even during the middle Holocene and
therefore, along with many rivers, would have acted as natural
firebreaks.
now
-For subsequent periods, pollen data indicate a balanced mixture
of woodland and prairie from 6330 to 3810 B.P., followed by
oak - dominated woodlands from 3810 to 280 B.P. The onset of
cooler and wetter climatic conditions encouraged the development
of the Big Woods from 280 B.P to the beginning of Euroamerican
settlement.
2.2 Archaeological Contexts Applicable to Study Area
The following summary is based on research contexts developed by
SHPO as well as on background data compiled for previous cultural
resource investigations in Scott, Carver and southwestern Hennepin
Counties as recently summarized in a study of the Flying Cloud
Airport across the river from the study area (Harrison 1999x).
That information, in turn, was culled from a variety of sources
including the Minnesota Historical Society reference library,
local historical societies, and the survey and inventory files
maintained by the State Historic Preservation Office and the
Office of the State Archaeologist.
2.2.1 Precontact Period
The Paleoindian Tradition (ca. 12,000 to 7,000 B.P.) provides the
earliest known evidence for human settlement in the Upper
Midwest. Following the retreating glaciers into previously
inaccessible areas, the Paleoindians were nomadic hunters that
preyed on big game such as the now extinct giant bison and
mastodon, but also took advantage of available small game and
wild plant resources. Like historically known nomads, they are
believed to have traveled in small, kinship based groups. Within
this longlasting tradition, temporal and geographic variations
have been defined largely on the basis of technological criteria,
primarily the morphological changes in such diagnostic artifacts
as large, well made lanceolate projectile points.
Lanceolate points, primarily Late Paleoindian varieties such as
Dalton and Agate Basin but also a few earlier fluted points
(Clovis and Folsom) have reportedly been found in Hennepin and
and Carver Counties. Like the majority of known Paleoindian sites
in Minnesota, they were all either isolated surface finds or
parts of disturbed lithic scatters.
The Archaic Tradition (ca. 7,000 to 3,000 B.P.) represents a
continuation of seasonally patterned, seminomadic hunting and
gathering but now focussed on a wider range of resources made
available by a milder climate and an increasingly rich and varied
environment. The archaeological record indicates a marked tendency
towards regional variation in tool technology and other aspects
of material culture -- changes linked to greater utilization of
local, often more marginal resources. Diagnostic artifacts include
large stemmed and side - notched projectile points and a variety of
ground stone tools. A distinctive aspect of the Eastern' Archaic
-12-
(Lake- Forest) Tradition in the Upper Midwest is the intensive use
of native copper.
Archaic projectile points are known from various private
collections in Hennepin and Carver Counties. Burials associated
with such points have been reported in Carver County. Archaic
evidence has also been found in excavated and surface collected
site contexts along or close to the Minnesota River valley. Copper
points have been found north of the valley. In addition to these
diagnostic finds, many of the aceramic artifact scatters found
throughout the western metro region can be presumed to be
preceramic, i.e. Archaic (or possibly even Paleoindian).
With the Woodland Tradition (ca 3,000 to 250 B.P.) began the
construction of earthen mounds -- usually for burial purposes --
and the use of ceramic vessels. Economic patterns established
during the Archaic Tradition are thought to have continued largely
unchanged until new subsistence practices emerged with the
introduction of horticulture (primarily along the major river
valleys in the south) and the increasing reliance of wild rice
exploitation in the north. The use of the bow and arrow was
another significant technological breakthrough associated with
the development of smaller types of corner- and side - notched
projectile points. While an Early Woodland stage is evident in
many parts of the Upper Midwest, the earliest Woodland sites in
Minnesota compare more closely with what elsewhere is known as the
Middle Woodland stage.
Middle and Late Woodland sites are common throughout central
Minnesota. Mounds -- found singly or in groups -- were
constructed on heights of land overlooking many of the larger
lakes and most of the major rivers, including the lower reaches of
their tributaries. A majority of them were mapped in the late
1800s (Winchell 1911). Many are associated with large habitation
sites. Smaller camps and special activity sites associated with
resource procurement are also common and often found at a
considerable distance from the major waterways and habitation
centers. Again, however, they are usually found in association
with some water feature.
Numerous large mound groups have been recorded along the bluffs
and intermediate terraces of the Minnesota River as well as the
shores of most larger lakes in the metro region. Like a' majority
of Middle and Late Woodland sites in central Minnesota, those of
the metro region feature ceramics that are particularly
distinctive for -- and often named after -- major archaeological
localities in the Mille Lacs area or along the St. Croix River
drainage and nearby segments of the Mississippi River valley.
In addition to the mound groups, a number of Woodland period
habitation sites have also been identified along the Minnesota
River and its tributaries as well as most of the area lakes.
-13-
The Mississippian Tradition (approximately 650 to 250 B.P.)
introduced cultural influences from the central and southern
Mississippi region to the Upper Midwest. Local expressions of
this tradition are reflected in archaeological evidence from
major burial and habitation sites along the Minnesota Diver and
its confluence with the Mississippi. Numerous new traits --
intensification of the agricultural subsistence base, different
kinds of ceramics, morphological changes in projectile points and
other tool types, new methods of house and mound construction --
all reflect a fundamental shift in resource procurement, in trade
and other forms of exchange patterns, as well as in the emergence
of an increasingly complex and stratified social structure'.
In spite of the documented presence of Oneota sites further up the
Minnesota River, no Mississippian sites have as yet been
identified in the immediate vicinity of the study area.
2.2.2 Contact and Post Contact Periods (1650 - 1837; 1837- 1940s)
Following nearly two centuries of fairly frequent contact between
Dakota Indian groups and European or Euroamerican- traders,
explorers and missionaries, interaction intensified, particularly
along the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers, after the
establishment of the military post at Fort Snelling during the
early 1820s.
During the early decades of Native American /Euroamerican' contact,
Eastern Dakota camps were still common throughout the area, most
of them associated with waterways and well established overland
trails that still crisscrossed the area (Trygg 1969).' Several
larger Dakota settlements were located along the Minnesota River,
among them the Mdewakanton villages of Shakopee, in the immediate
vicinity of the project area, and Eagle Creek somewhat to the
east.
As a major waterway, the Minnesota River valley with adjacent
uplands also attracted some of the earliest Euroamerican
settlements in the state and systematic filing of claims began
immediately after the Mendota and Traverse des Sioux Treaties of
1851, stimulated, at first, by the availability of good farmland
and the economic value of local timber and then by the rapid
growth of the metro region with its diverse work opportunities.
In 1847, a mission was established at Shakopee by Samuel Pond.
Four years later, Thomas Holmes built a trading post nearby and
also platted the townsite of Shakopee in Section 6.', A short
distance to the east, Richard Murphy settled in Section '5 where,
within a few years, he had established an inn, a ferry service and
a wharf for steamboats (Roberts 1993).
While steam boat traffic continued to be commercially important,
aided by channel improvements made by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the construction of several railroads was a major
-14-
impetus to farming in the township of Eagle Creek and surrounding
areas. With easier access to new markets, the growing of cash
crops began to replace subsistence -level farming -- at first with
a focus on wheat, then on a more diverse range of crops as well as
dairy farming and the raising of livestock. The Minnesota Valley
Railroad was built along the south side of the river, reaching
Shakopee in 1855. Later bought out, it continued as the CSMO
Railroad along the line that now abuts the northern boundary of
the SBP project area.
Early applications of historic archaeology in this region tended
to focus on United States military history and the study of forts
and agencies. In recent years, archaeological studies have
contributed significantly to the interpretation and documentation
of contact period American Indian habitations, early Euroamerican
homesteads and sites of commerce, and, in the metro area,, on major
sites of 18th century industrial development. Among historic
research contexts developed for the general study area, the
following are likely to be further clarified by a combination of
archaeological and archival research: Eastern Dakota 1650 -1837;
French, British and Initial United States Presence before 1837;
Early Agriculture and River Settlement 1840 -1870; and ;Railroads
and Agricultural Development 1870 -1940.
3.0 SURVEY METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
3.1 Results of Records and Literature Search: Cultural Resources
Near Project Area
Field work was preceded by a records and literature search that
included a review of the SHPO files for the general project area
as well as earlier survey reports for relevant portions of Scott
and Hennepin Counties and various literary references to the
early history of the Shakopee area.
Christina Harrison, as principal investigator, also personally
reviewed the OSA files for the two Native American cemetery sites
that are located due northwest /north /northeast of the SBP 'project.
Near the City of Shakopee, burial mounds, mostly in larger groups,
have been recorded on the bluffs north of the Minnesota River ( 21
HE 20, 21, 24 and 104) as well as on the intermediate terrace to
its immediate south (21 SC 22 and 24). The latter two were
mentioned briefly in Section 1.0 and will be discussed again below
as both are in close proximity to the SBP project area.
While a number of smaller non - burial sites have been identified on
lakes and along smaller streams away from the main river, both in
Hennepin and Scott Counties (Lyon et al. 2000; Harrison, 1994 and
1999), little is known about such precontact period use of the
terraces immediately along the main river.
=Ws
There are several historic descriptions of the Mdewakanton village
of Shakopee (the Six) but none are detailed enough to identify
precisely where it was located. Keatings narrative of the 1823
Stephen Long expedition up the St. Peter (Minnesota) River, as
well as Long's own journal, place the village on the northern side
of the river (Kane et al. 1978:157; Keating 1824 [1959]:342). The
village was later moved to a location within present -day Shakopee
(Babcock 1945; Pond 1908 [1986]: 12). If any traces have survived
the last 150 years of urban and industrial development, they may
cover a fairly large area. Although Long's 1823 description of
Shakopee's village refers to the earlier location north of the
river, it may well be a fairly accurate description also of the
later version:
" -- and arrived at the village of -the Six, situated on the
north side. It was now vacated, its inhabitants having
recently gone on a hunting expedition.
During this delay, we had an opportunity of visiting the
Indn. corn fields, which were extensive, as also several
scaffolds erected for the use of the dead....
The village consisted of 14 large wigwams constructed of
bark and poles, each large enough to accomodate from 30 to
50 inhabitants (Kane et al. 1978:157).
Due north of the SBP project area is Murphy's Landing, a portion
of which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places as
the Shakopee Historic District. Murphy's Landing also encompasses
a portion of 21 SC 24, the Steele Mound Group.
According to the OSA files for the two mound groups, results of
past studies indicate that:
• 21 SC 22 (the Pond Mound Group), is located entirely north of
T.H.101, in what is now referred to as Memorial Park, the
eastern end of which lies directly north of the project area but
is separated from it by the highway and the CSMO railroad grade.
• 21 SC 24 (the Steele Mound Group) is partially preserved north
of TH 101 but also, to a large extent, has been damaged or
destroyed by the highway and, in the case of one mound, the
construction of the CSMO railroad embankment.
The 21 SC 24 group, originally, as recorded by T.H. Lewis, an
elongated cluster of 111 mounds, was remapped in 1984 by Les
Peterson, State Highway Archaeologist. Rescaled by Peterson from
T.H. Lewis field notes (Lewis 1885) , the map was used to identify
surviving mounds as well as the locations of partially or
completely destroyed ones -- locations then tied in to existing
structures north of T.H.101 and to Milepost 26 along the CSMO
railroad. Peterson's reconstruction was later verified by Grant
Goltz, soils consultant, in connection with a 1993 cultural
resource survey for a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
-16-
trail development at Murphy's Landing and Memorial Park (Goltz
1993).
These reconstructions indicate that all but one of the Steele
Mounds are /were located either within or north of the ',T.H. 101
corridor. Only Mound 35 was far enough to the south to fall
within the CSMO corridor where it appears to have partially
obliterated by the railroad embankment. According to Peterson's
map, Mound 35 is located approximately 700 feet /210 meters east of
the railroads 26 -mile post which also places it roughly 250
feet /75 meters east of the northeastern corner of the project
area.
While it seemed well documented that all the mounds 'are /were
located well to the northwest /north /northeast of the SBP' project,
the record search did not indicate that any previous efforts had
been made to identify other archaeological evidence south of the
burial grounds and the highway and railroad corridors.
3.2 Field Investigation: Methodology and Results
The field investigation was completed during the months' of June
and early July.
The northern third of the study area was considered to have the
highest archaeological potential due to its proximity to the
Minnesota River and the two mound groups. Within approximately a
hundred meters of the railroad corridor, visual inspection was
conducted along transects spaced at five -meter intervals which
allowed for very complete coverage of numerous subsoil exposures
that had been caused by bioturbation and by deep ruts' made by
four -wheel drive vehicles and ail- terrain motorcycles. Although
existing subsoil exposure seemed very adequate and more than equal
to what would be provided by standard shovel testing, ARS staff
still placed a series of such tests parallel to and 5 to 15 meters
south of the southern edge of the railroad corridor, in part to
gain a better understanding of soil conditions, depth to bedrock
and the degree of disturbance caused by bioturbation and other
factors.
Tests measured 35 -40 cm in diameter and were taken down, by 10 cm
increments, into sterile mineral soil (glacial alluvium)', or, most
commonly, bedrock. Soil profiles were noted prior to backfilling.
Selected test records can be found in Appendix B.
One precontact period Native American archaeological site was
identified just within the northern edge of the project area,
approximately 120 meters east of Shenandoah Drive: a hammerstone,
a small scatter of Prairie du Chien chert flaking debris and a
fire - damaged granite cobble. The evidence appears to represent the
southern edge of a lithic reduction (stone tool production) area
and possibly also of a larger habitation site that continued
-17-
towards the river but now has been partially or largely destroyed
by highway and railroad construction.
The site has been recorded as Shenandoah Park. The find area is
very limited in size. Shovel Test (ST) 17 in the original series
and three out four supplementary tests placed to either side
produced the following evidence (cmbs = centimeters below surface):
ST 17 (120 m due east of the center of Shenandoah Drive
and 15 m south of northern property line)
10 -20 cmbs 6 primary flakes grey, variegated, slightly
oolitic Prairie du Chien (PDC)
chert -- three primary and
three secondary decortication
flakes, all but two with
distinct striking platforms
and bulbs of percussion
secondary flake same material; smaller, again
with distinct bulb & platform
ST 17 W :1 (2.5 m west of ST 17)
5 -15 cmbs graver secondary decortication flake
of dark grey oolitic PDC chert
-- burinated along lateral
edges to form sharp, 8 mm wide
chisel -like point that appears
slightly damaged from use;
45/30/14 mm in maximum length/
width /thickness
core & primary flke split cobble of greyish white
orthoquartzite -like PDC chert;
fracture features a secondary
flake scar; small primary
decortication flake of same
material
ST 17 W:2 (5 m west of ST 17)
5 -15 cmbs primary flake unidentified dull- textured,
grey chert
hammerstone granitic river cobble with
good "grip" and deep
percussion scars on base;
ca. 80x40 mm at base and
50 mm tall
afflZ
ST 17 E:1 decortic. shatter greyish brown orthoquartzite
fire - cracked rock granite cobble remnant', with
partially friable exterior
Along the original test transect, results had been negative west
and east of ST 17 W:2 - ST 17 E:1. Shovel tests placed 'five and
ten meters south of this series also proved negative. North of it,
a dense- stand of large junipers prevented meaningful testing due
to dense roots but a few bioturbated areas west and north of the
stand yielded a scatter of cracked, very flawed dolomite
fragments, probably discarded during the initial search for
useable PDC chert. This would suggest that the lithic reduction
area continues towards the north and into the CSMO railroad
corridor.
Soil profiles in the find area are very typical of the northern
portion of the project area, with quite shallow deposits of
Copaston series loam over bedrock. The soils are mixed with
varying amounts of rounded cobble to pebble size glacial . outwash
debris and gravel as well as, in the lower levels, numerous
fragments of decomposing dolomite (Appendix B).
Once results had proven largely negative in the northern portion
of the project area and the vicinity of the archaeological and
historic sites along the Minnesota River, the central and 'southern
portions were deemed to have even lower cultural potential. The
area was still walked at 15 meter intervals but survey coverage
was limited to visual inspection. Subsoil disturbances were still
more than adequate to indicate whether buried archaeological
evidence might be present -- bioturbation, vehicle tracks', and, in
the southwest, new hay in the southeast. Again, results were
negative.
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This cultural resource survey did not identify any archaeological
evidence that would appear associated either with the two mound
groups, the Mdewakanton village of Shakopee, the post -1850s
community by the same name or activities at the historic Murphy's
Landing.
Rather, the Shenandoah Park evidence is very similar' to the
lithics found on a number of other archaeological sites that are
situated along the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers and near local
sources of Prairie du Chien chert from the Shakopee and Oneota
Dolomite Formations (Bakken 1992; Ojakangas and Matsch', 1982:63
ff.) Some appear to have been just quarry and primary reduction
sites, while others are associated with evidence of ',seasonal
MWOM
habitation and other activities (Harrison 1997, 1999b, 19999c and
2000; Roetzel and Strachan 1992;). None have as yet produced any
ceramic evidence -- a fact which suggests that they are early and
predate the mound groups that also are found along these rivers.
Until archaeological sites of this type have been better
documented through formal excavation and intersite comparison,
even a fairly small cultural deposit or a sizeable remnant of a
larger, partially destroyed site is still likely to yield
significant information, especially from a context like the
Shenandoah Park site that has not been disturbed by cultivation.
As the SBP portion of this locality appears confined to a small
area along the northern edge of the project area, it could
probably easily be avoided and protected as a green space in the
final development plan. Should this not be feasible, further study
and more intensive testing would be needed in order to ,evaluate
the significance of the site and determine whether or not it
meets the criteria of eligibility for the National Register of
Historic Places.
-20-
5.0 REFERENCES
Agricultural Experiment Station (AES), University of Minnesota
1973 Minnesota Soil Atlas: St. Paul Sheet. AES Miscellaneous
Reports 120. St. Paul, Minnesota.
Anfinson, S. F.
1990 Archaeological Regions in Minnesota and the Woodland
Period. In The Woodland Tradition in the Western Great
Lakes: Papers presented to Elden Johnson, edited, by
G. Gibbon, pp. 135 -166. University of Minnesota
Publications in Anthropology Number 4, Minneapolis.
Anfinson, S. F. and H. E. Wright, Jr.
1990 Climatic Changes and Culture in Prehistoric Minnesota.
In The Woodland Tradition in the Western Great Lakes:
Papers presented to Elden Johnson, edited by G. Gibbon,
pp. 213 -232. University of Minnesota Publications in
Anthropology Number 4, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Bakken, K.
1992 Lithic Raw Material Resources in Minnesota. Paper
presented at a workshop on lithic raw materials, held at
the Institute for Minnesota Archaeology, Minneapolis,
Minnesota.
Grimm, E.
1983 Chronology and Dynamics of Vegetation Change in the
Prairie - Woodland Region of Southern Minnesota, U.S.A.
New Phytologist 93:311 -350.
Harrison, C.
1997 Report on Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Survey
Within Proposed UNIMIN Corporation Mining Site
(Hayes Mine), Le Sueur County, Minnesota.
Minnesota. Archaeological Research Services,
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
1999a Expansion of Flying Cloud Airport: Review of Cultural
Resources. Archaeological Research Services and 'Hess
Roise and Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
1999b Report on Cultural Resource Reconnaissance /Intensive
Survey Conducted for Proposed County Road 45 Bridge
Replacement /Roadway Realignment, Goodhue County,
Minnesota. Archaeological Research Services,
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
1999c Report on Data Recovery at 21 LE 59 -- The Hayes Site,
Le Sueur County, Minnesota. Archaeological Research
Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
-21-
Harrison, C. (cont'd)
2000 Report on Phase II Archaeological Investigations'
Conducted at the "Jewel Golf Course Terrace" and "Jewel
South" Sites, Lake City, Wabasha County, Minnesota.
Archaeological Research Services, Minneapolis,
Minnesota.
Lyon, M., N. Donaldson and A. Schmidt
2000 Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Shakopee
Mdewakanton Dakota Community, Scott County, Minnesota.
The 106 Group Ltd., St. Paul, Minnesota.
Kane, L.M., J.D. Holmquist and C. Gilman (editors)
1978 The Northern Expeditions of Stephen H. Long: The
Journals of 1817 and 1823 and Related Documents.',
Minnesota Historical Society Press, St. Paul.
Keating, W.H.
1824 Narrative of an Expedition to the Source of the St.
Peter's River. Reprinted in 1959 by Ross and Haines,
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Marschner, F.
1974 The Original Vegetation of Minnesota: Compiled from U.S.
General Land Office Survey Notes. North Central Forest
Experiment Station. St. Paul, Minnesota. (Map reprinted
from original published in 1930.)
Ojakangas R.W. and C.L. Matsch
1982 Minnesota's Geology.
Minneapolis.
University of Minnesota Press,
Pond, S.
1908 The Dakota or Sioux
As reissued in 1986
Anderson. Minnesota
St. Paul.
in Minnesota As They Were in 1834.
with an introduction by Gary C.
Historical Society Press,
Roberts, N.
1993 A Lower Minnesota River Valley Cultural Resource Study
and Interpretive Plan for the Minnesota Valley Trail.
Historical Research, Inc., St. Paul, Minnesota.
Roetzel, K.A. and R.A. Strachan
1992 A Phase III Mitigation of an Archaeological Site Within
the Proposed Wastewater Treatment Facility at Le Sueur,
Le Sueur County, Minnesota. Impact services, Inc.,
Mankato, Minnesota.
Trygg, J.W.
1969 Composite Map of United States Land Surveyor's Original
Plats and Field Notes. Minnesota Series, Sheet 7,.
J.W. Trygg, Ely, Minnesota.
-22-
Winchell, N.H.
1911 The Aborigines of Minnesota. Minnesota Historical
Society, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Wright, H.E. Jr.
1972a Physiography of Minnesota. In Geology of Minnesota: A
Centennial Volume, edited by P.K. Sims and G.B. 'Morey,
pp. 559 -580. Minnesota Geological Survey, St. Paul,
Minnesota.
1972b Quaternary History of Minnesota. In Geology of
Minnesota: A Centennial Volume, edited by P.K. Sims and
G.B. Morey, pp. 515 -547. Minnesota Geological Survey,
St. Paul, Minnesota.
1974 The Environment of Early Man in the Great Lakes 'Region.
In Aspects of Upper Great Lakes Anthropology: Papers in
Honor of Lloyd A. Wilford, edited by E. Johnson,
pp. 8 -14. Minnesota Prehistoric Archaeology Series
Number 11. Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul,
Minnesota.
r
SHPO Correspondence
1II\ \F.SOT" HIST011W \I. SOCIET)
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
April 30, 2001
Mr. David Braslau
David Braslau Associates, Inc.
1313 5 Street SE, Suite 322
Minneapolis, MN 55414
RE: AUAR —Shenandoah Business Park
T115 R22 S5, Shakopee, Scott County
SHPO Number: 2001 -2004
Dear Mr_ Braslau:
Thank you for consulting with our office during the planning phase for the above referenced project.
This property is located across the highway from Murphy's Landing, a portion of which is listed on the National Register of
Historic Places as the Shakopee Historic District_ The area north of the highway also includes archaeological properties
and burial areas. Therefore, we recommend the following:
1.We believe that there is a good probability that unreported archaeological properties maybe present in the
Shenandoah project area. Therefore, we recommend that a survey of the area be completed. The survey must
meet the requirements of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Identification and Evaluation, and should
include an evaluation of National Register eligibility for any properties that are identified. For your information, we
have enclosed a list of consultants who have expressed an interest in undertaking such surveys.
2. The design of the project should take into account effects on the historic district, both from a visual /aesthetic
standpoint, and from an operational (circulation, use, noise, etc.) standpoint.
3. Because of the location of burials in the vicinity, the requirements of the Minnesota Private Cemeteries Act
should be addressed.
Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and 36CFR800, procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for the protection of
historic properties_ If this project is considered for federal assistance, or requires a federal license or permit, it should be
submitted to our office with reference to the appropriate federal agency.
If you have any questions on our review of this project, please contact me at (651) 296 -5462.
Sincerely,
Dennis A. Gimmestad
Government Programs and Compliance Officer
Enclosure: List of Consultants
cc: Mark Dudzik, OSA
Jim Jones, MIAC
Dennis Kelly, Murphy's Landing
I 1\! I� it i . li \\ I I'. ! \II \ \ I \ " In�t�. 1 1 , I' It* ' .I_
MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY
August 8, 1997
Ms. Kathryn Fernholz
Associate Environmental Scientist
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
14180 West Highway 5
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
RE: SuperValu Distribution Center Development
Shakopee, Scott County
SHPO Number: 97 -3393
Dear Ms. Fernholz:
Thank you for consulting with our office during the preparation of an Environmental Assessment
Worksheet for the above referenced project.
Based on available information, xve conclude that the project is unliikely to affect any historic properties
Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36CFR800, procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation for the protection of historic properties. If this project is considered for federal assistance, or
requires a federal license or permit, it should be submitted to our office with reference to the appropriate
federal agency.
Please contact our office at 612- 296 -5462 if you have any questions regarding our review of this project.
Sires:PT•.
v:
Dennis A. Gimmestad
Government Programs and Compliance Officer
�1 / \( \( 1' \1 i.. i i .,In' ; rnr, i I "
APPENDIX B
Test Records
I
Project k State site
Location
County
Sc �-
Crew \A, o-v
Date
5 � 3 0 -o ,
SEST !I Nl1:
`{ .r. C c F ►.t �J Q c �o C e e wG,
TEST uNrr: C
l O .. L= t Q c 4 - 7 B
} p Q+e be..dca,,
CULTURAL MAT6Rt�L
,
SOIL PROFILE
soli PR oF3LL
CvLTvgAL MAtT,%R1A6
4 -.y
_ V/ Nf Y yi
�
ry
V �Cl It �.lOVy
G
20
zo
(V F— C
Niel-,
,o
S
S.1.1 l o � �.►
c,r V— Sa
ccleblc, � i j l � r
Yo� � TO TO
do
90
70
ra0 rx Ica cwt.
, Msr UN R: U 1 C:, o
301L PROFiLF CV=FtAL MA7MAL SOIL MOFILIr CVLTtJZAL MATEXAL
G wC V\, C to
L-A-G
s , re m Zo
30 NE(,
8o
90
too CAt.
rz
Project Sv. �wd �. 13,,,. Ps. , State site
Location County S' c cA-.�
Crew a r. Date 5 -'I o- O
"ms, UNIT:
G l � cc t w o d It
sate PIWILE LuLTumAL MATERIAL ' soft PROF"Ll C VLTUR" MA1tR1A6
Sv b r .+•-�
i aC,-
Q
br o. 3
• S4r. -� C 1- L
i
I
Ttsr um rr: G
SOIL PRORLE
GK
CVMFZAL MA7ERrAL
TEST UNIT': C g p •
50 r L MZ;I LE C U LTURAL MATE -JAL
Project �SK'o �. I�►.� - t�l% State site #
- Location County "-, o A-.I
Crew Date 6.- � S— o
-Z).. k, to �-, —+-
TEST UNff:
N.
SOIL ?AOJrIL9 CV1.TVFA.L MATERIAL Solt PA ®FILL CULTURM. MRTERl 6
k
ap
• Ca {fJCe1 r • v�� 20 ` —
30 ` 10
I
1 Uw b
o� 0 o $•C ° SO
S C . �-•-c S 1 c 1 0 -- t .: G 6C
I go !o
140 eK Ica
1p� b
5 L N
1 O t d FrS
T=ST U1V tT. G 5 TEST UN I ?: {3
SOIL PROFILE C%IMKAL MATERIAL SOIL M*FTLLr CUL'rUXAL MIITcRiAL
w1..,
E)
!0
S �-•
ao
3a
v Vje.drwc.t -c
�
so
�j tC� v e CA�•
60
Bo
go
to® Of.
�o
30
1 40
rjG 1 Vr- 4 -C.
74
So
90
100 CAf.
J c c t-, lea► t C
Project �-e »�e�� (�,,.,. ��k State site Cd• -�---
Location Couz:;y c (-
Crew Date 6 - 3 - o
- Ms'!' OMIT : i 4 1 0 ` "�• t t lss " TEST uNcr: 16 t t - �' i S' ° ! �� •
t, N ' ,/Yr `" r ��l ! j � S • � fy • t�'Y — i w
SOIL F90 rILE WvrvRAL MATERIAL SOIL PROFILZ CwL799AL MATCAJAL
Vf X i
ro
I
4`
t
L A-z $a
C/y t 4
F5
m - - h DC NGtc<
Tt9T UNIT
SOIL PiROFSLE CULTURAL MATERIAL
G
to
fix U v o „c— 20
30
40
n ✓K �d
so
l�:cc2
t�S l�S�
80
� SJ Sw t� S /Sc
90
too CM.
40
70
go
19
N% G .
90
too CM.
Project
Location
C
State site county < '-- , c e
Cress 1-4 Date -? 3 - a �
�LST uNtT - 1 r m� 270 ° TEST vmrr I ? u : 2 Z s v ' 1- 4 r.1= r
Solt PADFILE CtJtT�J>tj►L JvtATIrRtAL SOFL.PROFIL1 CULTURAL MPeZPJAL
yr yr •• v.
CA P-WA > o c _ n 0 C
.1.
Cualolr> c�c c�.F_ �rto. pvc
�pQ r . t/liL
I
kl4> +(4 L(�
4— (} U:1 ze
;a
44)
so
ro
70
do
90
go
Sao rx [
roa CA(.
I� B 1 � L 2
TtST UtV
-i TEST UNIT:
r~ F - 3C)
301L MFILE
CUMIZAL MATERIAL SO(L MoMf
CUL ruXAL MA77RIAL
20
l 1
30
30
64
co
bc, V S-C -- 1 S w, 11-7- S y 1 S c
70
80 (n Lk , - �n1n . () u ..Q.t s I
go
A-L c---- -0 c Y m "
90
[ lad ` J �`�"}
CM. ` ,
100 Cxf.
ST 20 - 32
Beteen ST 19, at 144 meters east of the center of Shenandoah
Drive, and ST 20, at 254 meters east of the same, an open area
that had been extensively disturbed through bioturbation was
visually inspected at 2 -3 meter intervals but did not require any
shovel testing.
For the same reasons, visual inspection was considered sufficient
between , .the 277 to 295 meter and the 370 to 400 meter marks. The
last hundred meter segment before the northeastern corner did also
offer ample subsoil disturbance.
Otherwise, shovel tests continued to be placed approximately 10 -15
meters south of the northern property line and at 10 meter
intervals. All were negative. Soil profiles continued to be
variable, in most cases with bedrock emerging between 20 and 40
cmbs. To minimize repetion, the records for these tests were not
included in this appendix but they are all kept on file by ARS and
are available for review.
Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Valley West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review
APPENDIX C
Comment Letters Received on the Draft AUAR
United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C.
Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc.
AN � LOWER Jl,'t_ 0 y 2001 IJ
MINNESOTA RIVER J
WATERSHED DISTRICT Bv—
Scott '.ounty Government Center
200 4 "Avenue West
Shakopee, MN 55379
Tel: (952) 496 -8842, pax; (952) 496 -8844
July 5, 2001
- Michael Leek
City of Shakopee
129 Holmes Street
Shakopee, MN 55379
Dear Mr. Leek:
Tarry L. Schwalbe, Pies;ounl
Gelce. (612) 404 -5312. Fax. (612) 404 -5318
W:Ilaee E. Neal, Vice PresiOent
Xca (952) 884 -1632. Fax: (952) 884 -7726
Glenda Splotta, Ssve'ary
GtlicA. (952) 471 -0590, "- 285, Fax- (952) 471 -0582
Eeward A. Schlampp, Treasurs
VIX (612)920- 4 - 398. Fax (612) 920.0086
Ron Kr98rner, A,1;at Trsesurer
Dell. (651) 33: -8505 Fax (952) 894 -3235
Kevin D. Bipal Aomm,lraa
Offtc2 (952) 496.8842, Fax. (952) 496 -86644
The Lower Minnesota River Watershed District Board of Managers ( LMRWD) thanks
you for giving the LMRWD an opportunity to review the AUAR for Shenandoah
Business Park and Minnesota Valley West development projects located in Shakopee.
The LMRWD would like to commend the City of Shakopee for conducting a thorough
AUAR for these two development projects. We offer the following comments for you
consideration:
1. Both the Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West propose a'
significant number of parking spaces. Arc the number of spaces being proposed
actually needed? If parking spaces can be reduced, this will result in a reduced
amount of impervious surface, thereby reducing the volume of runoff from the
development sites.
2. On Page 11, the adjoining land use compatibility is analyzed for the Shenandoah
Business Park. The analysis failed to mention the residential area south of 4`
Avenue between the cemetery and the Canterbury Park Racetrack. Will the
proposed Business Park be compatible with the existing residential land use in the
area?
3. Both projects result in a significant increase in the amount of impervious cover.
The LMRWD recommends and encourages low impact development concepts
such as swales, no curb and gutter, rain gardens, etc. be incorporated into the
development design. These practices will reduce the amount of impervious cover,
also reducing the amount of stonn water runoff.
4. The LMRWD recommends that infiltration be incorporated into the site designs to
the extent possible. Again, this will result in a reduced volume of stone water
runoff from the project sites.
.TUL 12 20e1 1c:14 952 445 6718 PAGE.06
On behalf of the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District Board of Managers, I, would
like to thank you for giving the LMRWD an opportunity to review and comment on the
AUAR. If you have any questions, please contact me at (952) 496 -8842.
Very truly yours,
Kevin D. Bigalke
District Administrator'
JUL 12 2001 16 :14 952 445 671e °AGE. 07
Minnesota ]department of Natural Resources
500 "fiytoe Ro2d
Sr, Paul, Minncruta 55155.40
July 10, 2001
Mr. Michael Leek
Community Development Director
City of Shakopee
129 Holmes Street South
Shakopee, MN 55371-
RE: Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West
Draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review (Draft AUAR)
Dear Mr. Leek:
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the Draft AUAR for the
proposed Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West developments in the City of
Shakopee in Scott County. We offer the following comments for your consideration -
The proposals covered by this Draft AUAR are two office and warehouse', projects of
which each involve 1.1 million square feet of floor space, and each site will contain access
roadways, automobile parking and loading docks fez trucks. This Draft A�CJAR is camplete and
accurate in most respects.
Item 11 of the Draft AUAR addresses fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources.
There are 19 known occurrences of rare species or natural communities in the project vicinity.
The DNR does not have further comments or concerns regarding the information already
presented in the Draft AUAR.
Both project sites have been altered over the years. The Draft AUAR correctly notes in
Item 12 that there are no DNR protected waters or wetlands, and the property is not within a
shoreland or floodplain area.
The DNR has some concerns that the document does not as effectively as is desirable,
discuss surrounding cumulative impacts of many other activities. For example, the Minnesota
Environmental Quality Board's Guide to Minnesota ,Environmental Review Rules states that the
AUAR "is an excellent tool for review of cumulative impacts of multiple projects in a given
area."
For example, the Draft AUAR suggests, in reference to Minnesota Valley', West, that
while some local decline in wildlife was expected to result from grading and construction, there
was not "a regionally significant decline in wildlife abundance or species diversity." Our
concern is that too large a scale (such as on a regional level) may be being used to evaluate the
DNR Infarmation: 651- 296 -6157 • 1 -888 -646 -6367 ° TTY: 651- 296-5484 • 1- 800.657 -3929
An Egaal Oppottutttty Empla)w PArnod on Pecyciod Paper Containing a
Who valucs Dimsity M1�mum of 10X Post Conlvmc► Wasrm
?0'8 ZT :9I TOOZ OT In[
JUL 12 2-021 16:15 952 445 6718 PAGc.09
Mr. M. Leek
July 10, 2001
Page 2
significance of impacts. The wildlife abundance in the City of Shakopee (or of the surrounding
area) will be greatly and significantly dim= by these two projects in conjunction with other
activities affecting the same wildlife resources, such as street and highway construction,
residential developments, and commercial or industrial developments. At some point along a
continuum of development proposals, a significant environmental effect occurs. A full
discussion of cumulative impacts of projects, including those in the surrounding area, is
important to assure the discussion of significant environmental effects in the Draft AUAR is
complete and not limited to those spccics and habitats that are already seriously and significantly
affected_
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project and the Draft GUAR. The DNR
looks forward to receiving and reviewing your Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan at a future date.
If you have questions regarding this letter or these comments, please contact Charlotte
Cohn of my staff at (651) 296 -4790.
Sincerely,
Thomas W. Balcorn, SupeM o�
Environmental Review Section
Office of Management and Budget Services
c: Kathleen Wallace
Steve Colvin
Wayne Barstad
Joe Oschwald
Pat Lynch
Sarah HoEman
Jon Larsen, EQB
George I_ Burkards, United Land LLC
Craig H. Patterson, Opus Northwest LLC
#20010701 -0002
SHENANDOAM BUSINESS PARK AND MROMSOTAvALLZY VY
_
20 *8 zi:9: TOOZ OT ,nf
JUL 12 20e1 16:15 952 445 671e pAGE.1�
n 1 Gene and Nancy Goemer
JUL 1 1 20 01 2525 4 Avenue East
Shakopee, MN 55379
�L-_ __._ (952) 445 -7078
July 9, 2001
Michael Leek
City of Shakopee
129 Holmes Street South
Shakopee, MN 55379
Dear Mr_ Leek:
As property owners adjoining the proposed development of Shenandoah Business Park,
we have concerns regarding the accuracy and completeness of' nformation and potential
impacts of the Alternative Urban Areawide Review, as presented by United Land.LLC
and Opus Northwest LLC, that we feel warrant further investigation.
The accuracy and completeness of information contained within this AUAR concerns us
because our residence is never mentioned in response to any question. For instance,
Question 9 LAND USE asks for descriptions of current land use on adjacent lands. We
feel that our residence should also be on a list of adjoining properties that includes'
Knights of Columbus Hall, a cemetery, Shakopee Ballroom, Canterbury Park Racetrack,
Sherer Brothers Lumber, CertainTeed Corporation, and Murphy's Landing Historic Site.
Our residence should also be included in the response to Question 24 ODORS, NOISE
AND DUST. There is mention of a residence situated 100 feet from 4` Avenue between
CH83 and Shenandoah and we assume this is the house located on the east side of
CertainTeed. Our house is approximately 50 feet from 4 h Avenue and is located within
the drawn boundaries of Shenandoah Business Park on FIGURE 9. L Our proximity to
this project is best illustrated in FIGURE 5.3 and identifiable by the indentation on 4`
Avenue.
We also have concerns for the potential impact this project will have on our lives and
property. Specifically, we would appreciate further investigation on the issues of traffic,
land use, odors, noise and dust. We have briefly explained our perspective on these'
issues below.
The review states that 4' Avenue will be at 165% capacity at completion of Shenandoah
Business Park. Because our residence is located near the All -Way STOP intersection at
Shenandoah, the increased amount of traffic may affect entering and exiting our property.
Although the review projects that the intersection should remain at acceptable levels (i.e.
uncongested), the current operating level of LOS A could fall to LOS D and still be
JUL 12 2021 1G:14 952 445 6719 PAGE.04
accurately stated. The offered solution to the overcapacity of 4` Avenue is to expand to a
three -lane urban section, If widening the road involves our property it would result in a
loss of our land and bring our residence closer to the traffic noise.
Our proximity to the Shenandoah Business Park directly impacts our residence and our
quality of life. The Proposed Site Plan (FIGURE 5.3) illustrates a number of our
concerns regarding our adjoining land. Located on two sides of our property are
driveways and parking, and to the front is 4 Avenue, which means vehicle noise and
lights will nearly surround our property. The driveway to the truck bay in LOT 8 routes
the noise and headlights of diesel engine trucks past our backyard. We anticipate that
trucks will be running longer in cold months and the warning beeps of trucks backing
into the loading docks will be ongoing.
The use of burros and landscaping may alleviate the noise and lights, but it raises
concerns as to the grading of the site. Because our residence already sits well below 4`
Avenue, the elevation of the adjoining land may create drainage problems on our
property and possibly result in water entering our basement.
Finally, the construction of Shenandoah Business Park will be phased in over a I0'•year
period. The air borne dirt and dust generated from grading and construction will limit
days that we can open the windows in our home. The review states that the approximate
soil depth to bedrock is only an average of 3 feet, with some areas as shallow as 1 foot;
and will require dynamite blasting. We are concerned as to how much and how long the
blasting will continue as this poses potential problems of both noise and property
damage.
The greatest concern we have is that within all of the AUAR our property is never
specified and, hence, never given any consideration as to the potential impact that these
developments will have on our residence.
Both your time and attention given to our comments is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
�. �A U
Gene G. Goe er
Nancy L. Goemer
JUL 12 2021 16:14 952 445 6716 PPGE.05
11T NrsOT� H1STOKICAT, SOC I E TI
July 11, 2001
City of Shakopee
Attn: Michael Leek
129 Holmes Street
Shakopee, MN 55379
Re: AUAR — Shenandoah Business Park
T115 R22 S5, Shakopee, Scatt_C.ounty.
SHPO Number: 2001 -2004
Dear Mr, Leek:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the above referenced AUAR.
We have a number of concerns regarding this project. We have outlined those .
concerns in a 30 April 2001 letter to Mr. David Braslau of Braslau Associates; a copy of
the letter is enclosed.
Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36CFR800, procedures of the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for the protection of historic properties. If this
project is considered for federal assistance, or requires a federal license or permit, it
should be submitted to our office by the federal agency.
Contact us at 651- 296 -5462 with questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
U G ennis A. Gimmestad
overnment Programs & Compliance Officer
cc: Mark Dudzik, OSA
Jim Jones, MIAC
Murphy's Landing
Jim Warren, Shakopee
Scott County Historical Society
�:In_- I'1in.lTI'l F:I'illlNP: (--,1.j96 bl'._n
JJL 12 2021 16:15 952 445 6718 ?AGE. 11
MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
April 30, 2001
Mr. David Braslau
David Braslau Associates, Inc.
13135 th Street SE, Suite 322
Minneapolis, MN 55414
RE: AUAR— Shenandoah Business Park
T115 R22 S5, Shakopee, Scott County
SHPO Number: 2001 -2004
Dear Mr. Braslau:
Thank you for consulting with our office during the planning phase for the above referenced project.
This property is located across the highway from Murphy's Landing, a portion of which is listed on the National Register of
Historic Places as the Shakopee Historic District. The area north of the highway also includes archaeological properties
and burial areas. Therefore, we recommend the following:
1.We believe that there is a good probability that unreported archaeological properties may be present in the
Shenandoah project area. Therefore, we recommend that a survey of the area be completed. The survey must
meet the requirements of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Identification and Evaluation, and should
include an evaluation of National Register eligibility for any properties that are identified. For your information, we
have enclosed a list of consultants who have expressed an interest in undertaking such surveys.
2. The design of the project should take into account effects on the historic district, both from a'visual /aesthetic
standpoint, and from an operational (circulation, use, noise, etc.) standpoint.
3. Because of the location of burials in the vicinity, the requirements of the Minnesota Private Cemeteries Act
should be addressed.
- Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and 36CFR800, procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for the protection of
historic properties. If this project is considered for federal assistance, or requires a federal license or permit, it should be
submitted to our office with reference to the appropriate federal agency.
If you have any questions on our review of this project, please contact me at (651) 296 -5462.
Sincerely,
Dennis A. Gimmestad
Government Programs and Compliance Officer
Enclosure: List of Consultants
cc: Mark Dudzik, OSA
Jim Jones, MIAC
Dennis Kelly, Murphy's Landing
TOTAL P.12
JLL 12 %001 15:16 952 445 671E PAC-E.12
July 12, 2001
City of Shakopee
Attn: Michael Leek
129 Holmes Street
Shakopee MN 55379
Re: AUAR for Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West WSB Project No. 1281 -05
Dear Mr. Leek:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the AUAR_ We would like to provide the following
comments for consideration in determining the adequacy of this AUAR and for consideration of
appropriate conditions should this proposal move forward. We are listing the applicable AUAR
item number with our respective comment:
Item #6b & #13: The comments made concerning whether or not dewatering will be required
states that it currently "appears" that it will not be necessary to dewater at this time, which
implies it may be deemed necessary once construction begins_ It is also mentioned that it "may"
be necessary to blast to remove shallow bedrock from the site. It is recommended that the
potential need for dewatering and blasting to remove bedrock both be definitively known and
specifically addressed as a necessary part of this AUAR.
Item #10: No stormwater ponds are proposed for the Shenandoah Business Park? Item #16
implies there is to be stormwater retention within the 112 acres of the Shenandoah' Business
Park and Item #17 states there is a total of 10 acres of stormwater ponds proposed, whereas
only 7.1 acres are indicated within the before and after tables. These apparent inconsistencies
should be clarified.
An Equal Opportunity /Safety Aware Employer
J 11 L 12 2221 16 :13 952 445 6715 z1AGE.02
Item #16:
• Will excavated soil be reused on site or hauled to another location? If so, where?
• It is stated there will be construction of a temporary sediment basin in the location proposed
for storm water, yet no reference is made as to where or how large this /these (pre and post)
pond /s will be. A detailed map would be very helpful
Item #17a &b: The exact number, locations, and sizes of all pre and post stormwater retention
ponds should be included. The exact drainage route's of runoff within and exiting the site (until
reaching a DNR regulated water body) should also be referenced within a detailed map.
Item #19: It is noted that the entire project is located within an area identified as highly
susceptible to ground water contamination. Signification risks to contaminating underlying
ground water exists, especially when considering over 360,000 yd of soil is to be excavated and
the underlying bedrock may likely be blasted. Practices to reduce potential contamination
should be identified.
Item #20: The AUAR states, "The City of Shakopee has no recycling program or applicable
ordinance in place for businesses." Scott County has recycling programs that apply to
Shakopee. This should be noted.
Item #28: The AUAR states, "Due to the shallow bedrock formation throughout the site, the
watermain and sanitary sewer will share a common trench where feasible." Due to the entire
project location being within an area highly susceptible to ground water contamination and the
likely intent to blast into the shallow bedrock, the specifics of issues such as "Due to grade
restraints, lots west of Shenandoah may require individual grinder pumps and a centralized
publicly owned lift station or a significant amount of fill to elevate the building pads,' should be
addressed with a great deal more detail and explanation as part of this AUAR.
Item #29: Items #12, 17 & 28 require further detail as referred to above.
If you have any questions regarding the enclosed AUAR review comments please give me a call
at (952) 496 -8366.
Sincerely,
Michael Sobota
Community Development Director
cc: Art Bannerman, Commissioner
Dave Unmacht, County Administrator
Bradley Larson, Public Works Director
AI Frechette, Environmental Health Manager
Brian Sorenson, Public Works
An Equal Opportunity/Safety Aware Employer
JUL 12 2221 1G:13 952 445 6718
?AGE.G3
Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Vallev West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review
Responses to Comments
United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C.
Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc.
r' i'•
Responses to comments received on the Draft AUAR are presented below. The order in which
the comments are addressed is based upon the date of the letter submitted to the City of
Shakopee.
1. Both the Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West propose a significant
number of parking spaces. Are the number of [parking] spaces being proposed actually needed?
If parking spaces can be reduced, this will result in a reduced amount of impervious surface,
thereby reducing the volume of runoff from the development sites.
The larger number of spaces will only be needed if the maximum amount of office is
constructed. The number of parking spaces shown is based upon City of Shakopee' zoning
requirements. The City of Shakopee requires one space per 250 SF of leasable space for
office and one space per 2000 SF of warehouse space. Thus, the following parking will be
required by zoning requirements for the range of land uses expected on the two project
sites:
The City of Shakopee zoning ordinance provides for joint, shared, or cooperative parking
plans, which are reviewed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Also, while the
zoning ordinance does not, per se, have provisions for "proof of parking" that could reduce
parking below code based upon sufficient evidence by the developer, the principle was
recently applied in the case of an R -3 plat. Therefore, some approaches are available for
reducing parking below the values shown in the table above.
2. On Page 11 [of the AUAR], the adjoining land use compatibility is analyzed for the
Shenandoah Business Park. The analysis failed to mention the residential area south of 4"'
Avenue between the cemetery and the Canterbury Park Racetrack. Will the proposed Business
Park be compatible with the existing residential land use in the area?
The residential area, shown in Figure 9.1 of the Draft AUAR is clearly designated in
Figure 2.1 of the Final AUAR. This residential area was not mentioned since it is
Responses to Comments Page 1
Low Office Alternative
High Office Alternative
Office
Warehouse
Total
Office
Warehouse
Total
Minnesota Valley West
Percent
10
90
100
14
86
100
Office space (GSF)
116,000
1,044,000
1,160,000
162,400
997,600
1,160,000
Office space (net)
98,600
887,400
986,000
138,040
847,960
986,000
Parking required
394
444
838
552
424
976
Office
Warehouse
Total
Office
Warehouse
'Total
Shenandoah Business Park
Percent office
14
86
100
50
50
100
Office space (GSF)
162,540
998,460
1,161,000
580,500
580,500
1,161,000
Office space (net)
138,159
848,691
986,850
493,425
493,425
986,850
Parking required
553
424
977
1,974
247
2,220
The City of Shakopee zoning ordinance provides for joint, shared, or cooperative parking
plans, which are reviewed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Also, while the
zoning ordinance does not, per se, have provisions for "proof of parking" that could reduce
parking below code based upon sufficient evidence by the developer, the principle was
recently applied in the case of an R -3 plat. Therefore, some approaches are available for
reducing parking below the values shown in the table above.
2. On Page 11 [of the AUAR], the adjoining land use compatibility is analyzed for the
Shenandoah Business Park. The analysis failed to mention the residential area south of 4"'
Avenue between the cemetery and the Canterbury Park Racetrack. Will the proposed Business
Park be compatible with the existing residential land use in the area?
The residential area, shown in Figure 9.1 of the Draft AUAR is clearly designated in
Figure 2.1 of the Final AUAR. This residential area was not mentioned since it is
Responses to Comments Page 1
approximately 200 feet south of 4` Avenue and buffered by trees. The area is also buffered
by land uses based upon zoning developed by the City of Shakopee - from west to east these
are an area zoned B1 west of the cemetery, the cemetery (Zoned AG), the small buffer
zoning of outlots north of the residential area, and the Knights of Columbus (zoned B1).
The proposed office /warehouse land use may be less intensive or have less impact than
other possible industrial uses, including manufacturing, that could occupy this site. No
noise or air emissions, except those associated with motor vehicles and trucks on the site
and heating/ventilating equipment, are anticipated from the Business Park.
The traffic noise analysis in the Draft AUAR indicated that noise levels along 4th Avenue
are expected to exceed the daytime residential noise standard for a home within 100 feet of
the roadway. Homes in the residential area to the south of 4th Avenue are approximately
200 feet from 4th Avenue, so daytime noise levels are expected to be below the state noise
standards.
3. Both projects result in a significant increase in the amount of impervious cover. The
LMRWD recommends and encourages low impact development concepts such as swales, no curb
and gutter, rain gardens, etc. be incorporated into the development design. These practices will
reduce the amount of impervious cover, also reducing the amount of storm water runoff.
The low impact concepts recommended will be considered in the development design. The
City of Shakopee zoning ordinance does not specifically address the question of low impact
development concepts but only includes requirements for surfacing. Design criteria review
by the City may be sufficiently flexible to permit this type of low impact design.
4. The LMRWD recommends that infiltration be incorporated into the site designs to the
extent possible. Again, this will result in a reduced volume of storm water runoff from the
project sites.
The City of Shakopee Stormwater Management Plan, Policy IV.A.10 states the following:
"The development of enhanced infiltration practices should be implemented wherever it is
practical and reasonable to do so, provided that past and existing land use practices do not
have a significant potential to contaminate the stormwater runoff. In addition in areas
where enhanced infiltration practices are employed, a minimum of 2 feet of soil must be
present between the pond bottom and bedrock to treat infiltrating stormwater." Any
potential infiltration areas and stormwater ponds will comply with these requirements or
alternatives, such as clay liners will be considered.
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
The DNR has some concerns that the document does not as effectively as is desirable, discuss
surrounding cumulative impacts of many other activities. For example, the Minnesota
Environmental Quality Boards' Guide to Minnesota Environmental Review Rules states that the
AUAR "is an excellent tool for review of cumulative impacts of multiple projects in a given
area ".
For example, the Draft AUAR suggests, in reference to Minnesota Valley West, that while some
local decline in wildlife was expected to result from grading and construction there was not "a
regionally significant decline in wildlife abundance or species diversity." Our concern is that too
Responses to Comments Page 2
large a scale (such as on a regional level) may be being used to evaluate the significance of
impacts. The wildlife abundance in the City of Shakopee (or of the surrounding area) will be
greatly and significantly diminished by these two projects in conjunction with other activities
affecting the same wildlife resources, such as street and highway construction, residential
development and commercial or industrial developments. At some point along a continuum of
development proposals, a significant environmental effect occurs. A full discussion of
cumulative impacts of projects, including those in the surrounding area, is important to assure the
discussion of significant environmental effects in the Draft AUAR is complete and not limited to
those species and habitats that are already seriously and significantly affected.
The Draft AUAR has investigated the impacts of the two projects and their individual and
cumulative impacts on the environment in the areas expected to be impacted by these
projects. These projects combined with others in the region may have a significant overall
impact on habitat. However, this loss of habitat is partially offset by the large areas along
the Minnesota River that is permanently retained as wildlife habitat. As defined in the
QB Environmental Review Rules, "cumulative impact" means the impact on the
environment that results from incremental effects of the project in addition to other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects regardless of what person undertakes
the other projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively
significant projects taking place over a period of time.
The cumulative impact of regional land use conversion from open space /agricultural land to
developed space that has taken and is taking place in the metropolitan area is difficult to
In
mitigate. The two proposed office /warehouse projects are consistent with the light'
industrial classification of the Shakopee land use plan and zoning for the project sites.
Individually, the proposed projects will include stormwater ponds, limited open space and
landscaping.
The City has chosen to mitigate the cumulative impacts of urbanization by placing goals
and policies to protect and enhance wildlife habitat are included in several chapters of the
City of Shakopee Comprehensive Plan (1999 update). Some of these are listed below.
Section 1: Land Use and StaLrin�
This section includes as its first goal the identification and preservation of the City's natural
resources. The objective and policies under this goal are presented below.
Objective 1.1 Allow development in a pattern that minimizes the disruption of identified
prime agricultural soils, wetlands, forests, groundwater and other natural resources.
Policies:
a. Development proposals that preserve existing wetland shall be preferred over
proposals that create replacement wetlands.
b. Protection of farmland will be promoted through the use of the Agricultural
Preserves Act, which provides tax benefits and additional protection for areas
identified for long -term agricultural use.
C. Provisions will be adopted on the siting, design, construction and maintenance of
on -site sewage disposal systems that are consistent with the applicable requirements
set forth in the Met Council's Water Resource Management, Part 1, Wastewater
Treatment and Handling Policy Plan.
Responses to Comments Page 3
d. The City will develop a forestry plan to identify significant resources for protection
and promote practices that enhance the City's forests.
e. The City will adopt a stormwater ordinance that addresses City -wide stormwater
issues, including assessing the need for regional stormwater facilities and wetland
preservation.
f. The city will continue development and maintenance of a geographic information
system (GIS) to monitor development and identify important natural resources.
Section II: Stormwat Management Plan
The goals and policies have been developed to preserve and use natural water storage and
retention systems in order to:
A, Limit public capital expenditures that re necessary to control excessive volumes and
rates of runoff
B. Improve water quality.
C. Prevent flooding and erosion from surface flows.
D. Prevent ground water recharge.
E. Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities.
F. Secure the other benefits associated with the proper management of surface water.
Construction of these two projects, along with other development in the City such as street
and highway construction, residential development and commercial and industrial'
development, has already impacted or will impact the wildlife abundance in the City and
surrounding areas. While mitigation of these impacts is difficult at a project level, it is
anticipated that land use conversion following the goals and policies outlined above will
minimize the cumulative impact of development on wildlife resources.
iI •
The accuracy and completeness of information contained within this AUAR concerns us because
our residence is never mentioned in response to any questions. For instance, Question 9 LAND
USE asks for descriptions of current land use on adjacent lands. We feel that our residence should
also be on a list of adjoining properties that includes Knights of Columbus Hall, a cemetery,
Shakopee Ballroom, Canterbury Park Racetrack, Sherer Brothers Lumber, CertainTeed',
Corporation, and Murphy's Landing Historic Site. Our residence should also be included in the
response to Question 24 ODORS, NOISE, AND DUST. There is mention of a residence situation
100 feet form 4"' Avenue between CH 83 and Shenandoah and we assume this is the house
located on the east side of CertainTeed. Our house is approximately 50 feet from 4"' Avenue and
is located within the drawn boundaries of Shenandoah Business Park on Figure 9.1. Our
proximity to this project is best illustrated in Figure 5.3 and identifiable by the indentation on 4"'
Avenue.
This residence was unfortunately omitted from the list of adjacent properties and not
analyzed in the Draft AUAR. In the Final AUAR, the property is identified in Section 2.1
(Question 9: Land Use) and potential impacts on the property are discussed in Section 2.6
(Question 21: Traffic), Section 2.7 (Question 24: Dust, Odors, and Noise) and Section 2.9
(Question 26: Visual Impacts). Possible measures to mitigate these impacts are discussed in
the Mitigation Plan contained in Appendix E of the Final AUAR. The property also
delineated in the figures contained in the Final AUAR.
Responses to Comments Page 4
The review states that 4` Avenue will be at 165% of capacity at completion of Shenandoah
Business Park. Because our residence is located near the All -Way STOP intersection at
Shenandoah, the increased amount of traffic may affect entering and exiting our property.
Although the review projects that the intersection should remain at acceptable levels (i.e!.
uncongested), the current operating level of LOS A could fall to LOS D and still be accurately
stated. The offered solution to the overcapacity of 4"' Avenue is to expand to a three -lane urban
section. If widening the road involves our property it would result in a loss of our land and bring
our residence closer to the traffic noise.
Widening of 4 1 Avenue will likely occur in the future either because of the proposed
developments or other developments in the area. Impacts associated with improvements of
the roadway will be evaluated as part of the roadway improvement process and are not an
appropriate issue to be addressed in this AUAR.
Our proximity to the Shenandoah Business Park directly impacts our residence and our quality of
life. The Proposed Site Plan (FIGURE 5.3) illustrates a number of our concerns regarding our
adjoining land. Located on two sides of our property are driveways and parking, and the front is
4"' Avenue, which means vehicle noise and lights will nearly surround our property. The
driveway to the truck bay in LOT 8 routes the noise and headlights of diesel engine trucks past
our backyard. We anticipate that trucks will be running longer in cold months and the warning
beeps of trucks backing into the loading docks will be ongoing.
The potential for truck noise impacts on the Goemer residence is discussed in Section 2.7
(Question 24: Dust, Odors and Noise) of the Final AUAR. Potential impacts from lighting
are discussed in Section 2.9 (Question 26: Visual Impacts). Construction of a berm and
landscaping are effective means of shielding adjacent properties from noise and lights and is
identified in the Mitigation Plan. Details on such mitigation measures will depend upon the
future location of roadways and parking areas.
The use of berms and landscaping may alleviate the noise and lights, but it raises concerns as to
the grading of the site. Because our residence already sits well below 4` Avenue, the elevation of
the adj oining land may create drainage problems on our property and possibly result in water
entering our basement.
Drainage plans for Shenandoah Business Park will require approval from the City of
Shakopee. The potential for impacting adjacent land uses will be considered in the
development of grading and drainage plans for the site.
Finally, the construction of Shenandoah Business Park will be phased in over a 10-year period.
The airborne dirt and dust generated from grading and construction will limit days that we can
open the windows in our home. The review states that the approximate soil depth to bedrock is
only an average of 3 feet, with some areas as shallow as 1 foot, and will require dynamite
blasting. We are concerned as to how much and how long the blasting will continue as this poses
potential problems of both noise and property damage.
The site plan contained in the Draft AUAR is preliminary, and the exact location of
buildings, roadways, and parking areas has not been determined for the site. Any grading
and blasting on individual parcels will be reviewed by the City of Shakopee and measures to
mitigate dust, noise and vibration will be required. While construction will be carried out
over a 10 -year development period, it will be done in discrete phases. Those construction
Responses to Comments Page 5
phases immediately adjacent to the Goemer property will have the greatest potential for
impact and will require well under 10 years for completion.
The greatest concern we have is that within all of the AUAR our property is never specified and,
hence, never given any consideration as to the potential impact that these developments will have
on our residence.
The property is clearly noted and addressed in the Final AUAR. The property is identified
in Section 2.1 (Question 9: Land Use) and potential impacts on the property are discussed in
Section 2.6 (Question 21: Traffic), Section 2.7 (Question 24: Dust, Odors, and Noise) and
Section 2.9 (Question 26: Visual Impacts). Possible measures to mitigate these impacts are
discussed in the Mitigation Plan contained in Appendix E of the Final AUAR.
We have a number of concerns regarding this project. We have outlined those concerns in a 30
April 2001 letter to Mr. David Braslau of David Braslau Associates; a copy of the letter is
enclosed. [see list of concerns below].
Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36CFR800, procedures for the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation for the protection of historic properties. If this project is considered for
federal assistance, or requires a federal license or permit, it should be submitted to our office by
the federal agency.
[Specific recommendations from the letter dated 30 April 2001 are noted below.]
1. We believe that there is a good probability that unreported archaeological properties may be
present in the Shenandoah project area. Therefore, we recommend that a survey of the area be
completed. The survey must meet the requirements of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Identification and Evaluation, and should include an evaluation of National Register eligibility for
any properties that are identified. For your information, we have enclosed a list of consultants
who have expressed an interest in undertaking such surveys.
An Archaeological Survey for the Shenandoah Business Park has been prepared by
Archaeological Research Services and is included in the Final AUAR as Appendix B. The
survey identified one locality along the northern boundary of the Shenandoah Business
Park site where evidence of tools and a small scatter of Prairie du Chien chert flaking
debris that appears to represent the southern edge of a lithic reduction (stone tool
production) area and possibly also of a larger habitation site that continued towards the
river. This evidence has been partially or largely destroyed by highway and railroad
construction. The site has been recorded as Shenandoah Parr
As the Shenandoah Business Park portion of this locality appears confined to a small area
along the northern edge of the project area, it could probably easily be avoided and
protected as a green space in the final development plan. Should this not be feasible, further
study and more intensive testing would be needed in order to evaluate the significance of the
site and determine whether or not it meets the criteria of eligibility for the National Register
of Historic Places.
Responses to Comments Page 6
2. The design of the project should take into account effects on the historic district, both from a
visual/aesthetic standpoint, and from an operational (circulation, use, noise, etc), standpoint.
Shenandoah Business Park will be accessed from Shenandoah Drive and from 4 th Avenue
and will not provide any additional access to CH 101. Therefore, no impacts from traffic
or traffic noise are anticipated. Truck activity on the site will occur south of the railroad
tracks. Noise from trucks on the site will be well below that from trucks on CH 101, which
is north of the Shenandoah Business Park and the intervening railroad tracks. Visual
screening of the project will be provided as part of landscaping plans to be prepared for
each parcel on the site prior to its development.
3. Because of the location of burials in the vicinity, the requirements of the Minnesota Private
Cemeteries Act should be addressed.
These requirements are addressed in the Archaeological Survey discussed in Item 1 above.
SCOTT COUNTY - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
Item #6b & #13: The comments made concerning whether or not dewatering will be required
states that it currently "appears" that it will not be necessary to dewater at this time, which implies
that it may be deemed necessary once construction begins. It is also mentioned that it "may" be
necessary to blast to remove shallow bedrock from the site. It is recommend that the potential
need for dewatering and blasting to remove bedrock both be definitively known and specifically
addressed as part of this AUAR.
The AUAR has examined a maximum probable development scenario on each of the sites.
With a 10 -year development scenario for Shenandoah Business Park, it is not possible to
provide detailed design and grading plans for the entire site. The final determination on
dewatering and on the need for blasting will be made during the site investigation and
design process for each of the sub - parcels on the site. This level of detail will be required
for City site plan approval, preliminary and final plat approval, and City building permits,
as well as the MPCA NPDES General Storm Water Permit for Construction Activity for
Shenandoah Business Park.
Item #10: No stormwater ponds are proposed for the Shenandoah Business Park? Item's #16
implies there is to be stormwater retention within the 112 acres of the Shenandoah Business Park
and Item #17 states that there is a total of 10 acres of stormwater ponds proposed, whereas only
7.1 acres are indicated within the before and after tables. These apparent inconsistencies should
be clarified.
Two stormwater basis on shown on the site plan for Shenandoah Business Park (Figure 5.3
of the Draft AUAR). There is a large pond in the easterly portion of the site and a',smaller
pond just east of Shenandoah Drive.
The statement in Item #17 referring to 10 acres of stormwater ponding was based upon the
original site plan for Shenandoah Business Park. The table of before and after land uses
under Item #10 for Shenandoah Business Park has been revised and is included in this Final
AUAR. The revised table indicates that stormwater ponding will require 12.6 acres of the
112 acre site. The value of 7.1 acres in the table of land uses in Item #10 refers to Minnesota
Valley West, for which the stormwater detention ponds have been completed.
Responses to Comments Page 7
Item #16:
• Will excavated soil be reused on the site of hauled to another location? If so, where?
It is estimated that approximately 332,000 cubic yards of soil will be moved within the site.
Of this amount, it is estimated that over 90% will be hauled in from off site and the on -site
soils will remain on the site for reuse. Excavation and redistribution of soil and blasting of
bedrock will be carried out, where needed, to provide for stormwater ponds and gravity
flow of water and sewer on the site. Some blasting debris may have to be removed from the
site. This debris will be disposed of in accordance with provisions of Section 8.00 of the
Scott County Solid Waste Ordinance.
• It is stated there will be construction of temporary sediment basin[s] in the location proposed
for stormwater, yet no reference is made as to where or how large this /these (pre and post)
pond/s will be. A detailed map would be very helpful.
Please see the response to Item #10
Item #17a &b: The exact number, locations, and sizes of all pre and post stormwater retention
ponds should be included. The exact drainage routes of runoff within and exiting the site (until
reaching a DNR regulated water body) should also be referenced within a detailed map.
Please see the response to Item #10. The exact drainage routes from these ponds is
unknown at the present time, although this information will be required for City site plan
approval, preliminary and final plat approval, City building permits, as well as the'',MPCA
NPDES General Storm Water Permit for Construction Activity.
Item #19: It is noted that the entire project is located within an area identified as highly
susceptible to ground water contamination. Significant risks to contaminating underlying ground
water exists, especially when considering over 360,000 yd of soils is to be excavated and the
underlying bedrock may likely be blasted. Practices to reduce potential contamination should be
identified.
A list of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented to minimize contamination
of groundwater is included in Section 2.4 of the Final AUAR.
Item #20: The AUAR states "The City of Shakopee has no recycling program or applicable
ordinance in place for businesses: Scott County has recycling programs that apply to Shakopee.
This should be noted.
The recycling of solid wastes are covered in Section 8.01 of the Scott County Solid Waste
Ordinance. That section of the ordinance, included in Appendix A of this Final AUAR,
requires haulers to provide recycling services to their customers.
Item #28: The AUAR states "due to the shallow bedrock formation throughout the site,', the
watermain and sanitary sewer will share a common trench where feasible." Due to the entire
project location being within an area highly susceptible to groundwater contamination and the
likely intent to blast into the shallow bedrock the specifics of issues such as "Due to grade
restraints, lots west of Shenandoah may require individual grinder pumps and a centralize
publicly owned lift station or a significant amount of fill to elevate the building pads" should be
addressed with a great deal more detail and explanation as part of this AUAR.
Responses to Comments Page 8
See the response to Item #6b & #13. This information will be based upon designs of
individual sub - parcels within Shenandoah Business Park that are not known at this time.
This information will be required for permits and approvals needed prior to construction.
All sanitary sewer improvements will need approval from the MPCA. All water supply
improvements will need approval from the Department of Health. Detailed information
will also be provided to the City of Shakopee for preliminary and final plat approval.
Therefore, it is anticipated that this item could be mitigated through existing regulatory
controls.
Item #29: Items #17 and #28 require further detail as referred to above. [Reference to Item #12
was omitted per a telephone conversation with Scott County on 2 August 2001.]
See responses to Items #17 and #28.
comments &responses- FINAL.doc 200091\AuarComments
Responses to Comments Page 9
Shenandoah Business Park/Minnesota Vallev West Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review
1 1 1
Mitigation Plan
United Land LLC /Opus Northwest, L.L.C.
Prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc.
SHEN B USINESS P ARK
.� 2
FINAL ALTERNATIVE URBANAREAWIDE REVIEW
(FINAL AUAR)
MITIGATION PLAN
Page
INTRODUCTION.................................................................... ............................... .................1
RESPONSIBLEPARTIES ........................................................................ .......................... . . . .. I
IDENTIFIED IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION PLAN ........ ..............................2
1.0
TRAFFIC ......................................................................................... .................... ..........
1.1 Summary of Impacts .............................................................
............!..•.•............2
1.2 Mitigation Measures .............................................................
..............................3
1.3 Implementation Information .................................................
..............................4
2.0
SURFACE WATER .......................................................................
............................... 5
2.1 Summary of Impacts .............................................................
.............................. 5
2.2 Mitigation Measures ..............................................................
............•••........... - - -5
2.3 Implementation Information .................................................
..............................6
3.0
WASTEWATER ...............................................................................
...........'..................
3.1 Summary of Impacts ..............................................................
.............................7
3.2 Mitigation Measures .............................................................
.............................. 8
3.3 Implementation Information ..................................................
.............................9
4.0
soils ...................................................................................................
........................ - - - - -
4.1 Summary of Impacts ..............................................................
........... ..................9
4.2 Mitigation Measures .............................................................
................---- ........
4.3 Implementation Information .................................................
............................10
5.0
NOISE AND VIBRATION .............................................................
............•.•.......... - -.
5.1 Summary of Impacts ............................................................
........ .............--- .....1 I
5.2 Mitigation Measures .............................................................
.............................
5.3 Implementation Information ................................................
.............................
6.0
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES
......... .............................12
6.1 Summary of Impacts ............................................................
.............................
6.2 Mitigation Measures .............................................................
................--- ..........
6.3 Implementation Information .................................................
.............................13
7.0
VISUAL IMPACTS ........................................................................
......................... - - -.
7.1 Summary of Impacts ............................................................
............J................
7.2 Mitigation Measures ...........................................................
.............................
7.3 Implementation Information ................................................
.............................1
Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West AUAR Mitigation Plan
August 3, 2001
Page i
8.0 FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS OR IMPACTS NOT ANTICIPATED
IN THE AUAR AND MITIGATION PLAN ................................. .............................15
Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West AUAR Mitigation Plan August 3, 2001
Page ii
This mitigation plan is a component of the Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley
West Alternative Urban Areawide Review ( "AUAR ") prepared by the City of Shakopee,
Minnesota. The AUAR identifies the impacts anticipated to result from the development
planned for the geographic area covered by the AUAR. This mitigation plan identifies the
mitigation measures that will be followed by the City of Shakopee and/or other responsible
parties to avoid or mitigate potential environmental impacts resulting from the development.
The mitigation plan was prepared in accordance with Minnesota Environmental Quality Board
( "MEQB ") Environmental Review Program Rules and the MEQB memorandum entitled,
"Recommended Content and Format - Alternative Urban Areawide Review Documents," dated
June 1995.
The AUAR has identified the following development- related impacts which require
implementation of mitigation measures to avoid or mitigate potential environmental impacts:
traffic, surface water, wastewater, soils, and noise. Each section below summarizes the potential
environmental impacts and describes the mitigation measures proposed to avoid, minimize, or
compensate for these impacts. Each section also includes information concerning the agency or
agencies involved in review, approval or implementation of specific mitigation measures; the
time frames for implementing mitigation measures; and the party or parties with financial
responsibility for implementing mitigation measures.
�'
The City of Shakopee ( "City ") is the Responsible Governmental Unit ( "RGU") for preparing and
adopting the AUAR and the mitigation plan. The City is also the governmental unit with the
greatest responsibility for supervising or approving development within the geographic area of
the AUAR. The City's review and approval of developer(s)' master plans, site plans,
preliminary and final plats, building permits and grading permits are the primary local
government mechanism for ensuring compliance with the mitigation measures identified in this
mitigation plan. City approval of the individual development plans for Shenandoah Business
Park and Minnesota Valley West also involves reaching agreement with each developer
regarding plan elements to avoid or minimize potential environmental impacts and financial and
regulatory assurances that the mitigation plan will be implemented. In addition, the City will
inspect each project as it is constructed, or will, through other means, ascertain that the
prescribed mitigation measures are implemented. However, in most cases, the developers are
ultimately responsible for implementing mitigation measures in accordance with plan review and
permit requirements.
Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West AUAR Mitigation Plan Augus 15, 2001
Page 1
l l` I I •
United Land LLC ( "United Land ") will be the developer of Shenandoah Business Park. Opus
Northwest, L.L.C. ( "Opus Northwest ") has been and will develop Minnesota Valley West. In
most cases, responsibility for obtaining required permits and approvals and for implementing
mitigation measures specified as conditions to such permits and approvals will lie with United
Land for Shenandoah Business Park and with Opus Northwest for Minnesota Valley! West.
The AUAR also identifies other units of government that are likely to have plan review or permit
authority over the development proposed for the study area. These agencies include:. Lower
Minnesota Watershed District; Minnesota Pollution Control Agency; Metropolitan Council;
Scott County; and the State Historic Preservation Office.
� , A glum
Based on applicable MEQB guidelines for preparation of an AUAR mitigation plan, this section
provides the following information for each area of potential environmental impact identified in
the AUAR: (1) summary of potential impacts; (2) planned mitigation measures;
(3) governmental programs that regulate mitigation plan preparation and compliance; (4) time
frames for implementing mitigation measures; and (5) identification of party or parties with
financial responsibility for implementing mitigation measures.
1.1 Summary of Impacts
A traffic study was completed as part of the AUAR to determine the traffic impacts to adjacent
roadways in the study area resulting from traffic generated by the proposed combined
office /warehouse developments. The study included an analysis of 2003 and 2020 build and no-
build conditions. The following conclusions were reached in the traffic study.
1.1.1 Conclusions For 2003
• The proposed developments at the levels of build -out expected in 2003 would
generate approximately 6,750 vehicle -trips per day in 2003, with 860 of those trips
occurring during the PM peak hour.
• Only minimal impact is expected on the surrounding signalized intersections as a
result of the combined development, when compared to background (i.e. "no- build"
conditions in 2003).
Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West AUAR Mitigation Plan August 15, 2001
Page 2
• The intersection of CH 83 / 4th Avenue is expected to operate at LOS F under the
"build" scenario in 2003. However, the addition of an eastbound right turn lane
would improve operations to LOS D.
When Shenandoah Business Park development reaches 20% of the total plan
(assuming 100% build -out of Minnesota Valley West), this intersection is estimated
to operate at LOS E, suggesting that a traffic signal would be a reasonable mitigation
strategy. However, a traffic signal should not be installed at this intersection unless
left turn lanes are added to CH 83.
The intersection of 4 Avenue East / Shenandoah Road is expected to operate at
LOS A in 2003 as an All -Way STOP condition, indicating that development
generated traffic will have little adverse impact on the operation of this intersection.
1.1.2 Conclusions For 2020
• In 2020 with full build -out of both developments, the intersection of CH 83 / 4th
Avenue will likely require significant reconstruction, including the addition of turn
lanes on CH 83 and 4 Avenue.
• 4 Avenue is not expected to meet transportation needs in 2020. Expansion to a
three -lane urban section with additional lanes at major intersections appears to be a
likely mitigation strategy.
The intersection of 4 Avenue / Shenandoah Road would likely operate at acceptable
(i.e. uncongested) levels during the PM peak hour in 2020 as an All -way STOP
condition.
1.2 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation of impacts to area roadways resulting from increased trips generated by the proposed
development in conjunction with increased background will include changes to roadway
geometrics and intersections. Modifications are listed below by project phase for the 2003 Build,
and 2020 Build alternatives.
1.2.1 Phase 1- 2003 Build
• Addition of an eastbound right turn lane on 4th Avenue at the intersection of 4th
Avenue with CH 83.
• Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of 4th Avenue with CH 83.
• Addition of a northbound left turn lane on CH 83 at the intersection of CH 83 with
4th Avenue.
• Addition of a southbound right turn lane on CH 83 at the intersection of CH 83 with
4th Avenue.
• Addition of raised concrete medians on CH 83.
Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West AUAR Mitigation Plan August 15, 2001
Page 3
1.2.2 Phase II - 2020 Build
Improvement of 4 th Avenue from CH 17 to CH 83 to a three -lane urban section with
center turning lane.
1.3 Implementation Information
1.3.1 Regulatory Programs Related to Mitigation Plan Approval and Mitigation Plan
Compliance Monitoring
• City project plan/master plan approvals.
• City site plan approvals.
• City preliminary and final plat approvals.
• City building permits.
• Scott County project plan review.
1.3.2 Time Frame for Implementation of Mitigation
Improvements required to support development - related impacts in 2003 will be
implemented in conjunction with Phase I and be completed prior to occupancy of new
buildings in 2003.
Improvements required to support development- related impacts in 2020 will be
implemented when the demand for these improvements are warranted which will likely
occur before 2020.
1.3.3 Financially Responsible Party/Parties
2003 Improvements
Funding for the installation of the traffic signal at 4 th Avenue and CH 83 will be the
shared between Scott County and the City of Shakopee in accordance with participation
guidelines contained in the Scott County Transportation Plan.
Funding of the eastbound right turn lane on 4 th Avenue, the northbound left turn lane on
CH 83 and the southbound right turn lane on CH 83, along with other geometric
improvements to accommodate signalization at this intersection, including right -of -way
costs if required, will be derived from assessments to benefited property owners
including United Land LLC and Opus Northwest, L.L.C. distributed over a 10 -year
period.
2020 Improvem
Funding for the improvement of 4 th Avenue to a three -lane urban section from
Shenandoah Drive to CH 83 will be the responsibility of properties abutting 4 th Avenue
along this segment, based upon standard City assessment policy.
Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West AUAR Mitigation Plan August 15, 2001
Page 4
1 '
2.1 Summary of Impacts
The proposed developments will increase storm water runoff due to an increase in the amount of
impervious surface. Storm water runoff from the proposed developments will most likely
include pollutants typically associated with commercial land use and roadways. These pollutants
include suspended solids, nutrients, trace metals, petroleum- derived hydrocarbons, chloride, and
litter. Increased runoff resulting from additional impervious surface generally results in
increased annual pollutant loadings.
2.2 Mitigation Measures
2.2.1 Shenandoah Business Park
United Land will implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to mitigate water
quality impacts, including construction of two storm water basins with permanent pools
that will cover 12.6 acres. This proposed project includes provisions for permanent storm
water basins that meet the design guidelines identified in the MPCA manual entitled
Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas, Best Management Practices. A list of
potential best management practices (Table 2.10 -1 of the MPCA manual) is included on
the following page. The proposed storm water basins must also comply with the
requirements of the MPCA General Storm Water Permit for Construction Activity and
the criteria of the Lower Minnesota Watershed District.
The basins will be designed consistent with Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP)
guidelines and will conform to storm drainage design criteria developed by the City. City
storm drainage design criteria include pond sizing and design to accommodate both a
10 -year initial storm event and a 100 -year major storm event.
Erosion and sediment control will be provided during construction in accordance with
MPCA, and City requirements. The runoff from roadways will be accommodated by a
storm sewer system to be constructed with the roadways. Construction of sedimentation
basins is proposed for primary treatment of runoff prior to discharging into a drainage
ditch. Design of these facilities will be in accordance with local City requirements.
Specific BMPs to be implemented during construction included the following:
1. Construction of temporary sediment basins in the locations proposed for storm
water ponding, and development of these basins for permanent use following
cons_ truction.
2. For each stage of construction, erection of a silt fence installed at the construction
limits prior to the initiation of earthwork and maintained until all exposed soil is
stabilized.
3. Periodic cleaning of adjacent city streets.
4. Energy dissipation, such as riprap, installed at storm sewer outfalls.
Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West AUAR Mitigation Plan August 15, 2001
Page 5
5. Use of cover crops, - sod, and landscaping to stabilize exposed surface soils after
final grading.
6. Under stormwater ponds and in areas where enhanced infiltration practices are
employed, a minimum of 2 feet of soil will be provided as required in the City of
Shakopee Stormwater Management Plan or alternatives, including the use of a
clay liner will be considered.
2.2.2 Minnesota Valley West
Two storm water detention basins covering 7.1 acres have been constructed on the project
site to accommodate runoff from existing impervious surfaces and those projected in the
AUAR for the site.
Opus Northwest will implement Best Management Practices as outlined above to
mitigate water quality impacts during construction.
2.3 Implementation Information
2.3.1 Regulatory Programs Related to Mitigation Plan Approval and Mitigation Plan
Compliance Monitoring
Shenandoah Business Park
• City project master plan approval.
• City site plan approval.
• City of Shakopee preliminary and final plat approval.
• City building permit.
• Minnesota Pollution Control Agency NPDES General Storm Water Permit for
Construction Activity (Shenandoah Business Park).
• Lower Minnesota Watershed District Grading and Storm Water Review.
Minnesota Valley West
• All necessary approvals have been obtained.
2.3.2 Time Frame for Implementation of Mitigation
Shenandoah Business Park
Storm water ponds required to detain and pre -treat storm water runoff from the
proposed development will be constructed as needed to accommodate each phase
of development. The sizing and location of on -site storm water ponds will be
finalized as site plans for each development phase are prepared. Sedimentation
basins during construction will be provided for primary treatment of runoff prior
to discharging into a drainage ditch.
Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West AUAR Mitigation Plan August 15, 2001
Page 6
Minnesota Valley West
Storm water ponds for the site have already been constructed.
2.3.3 Financially Responsible Party/Parties
Shenandoah Business Park
United Land is the responsible party for funding construction of storm water
ponds and other related infrastructure required to meet applicable standards for
post - development peak discharge rate and water quality treatment. United Land
will also be required to execute a storm water pond maintenance agreement.
Minnesota Valley West
Storm water ponds have been constructed. Opus Northwest is the responsible
parry for funding construction of other related storm water runoff infrastructure.
3.0 WASTEWATER
3.1 Summary of Impacts
3. 1.1 Shenandoah Business Park
Wastewater generated by the proposed development will be typical domestic sewage.
Based on the anticipated maximum development size and typical values for average
wastewater flows expected from the type of development proposed, the average daily
flow from the project is estimated to be 88,996 gallons per day.
Wastewater will be routed to the trunk sanitary sewer line via connecting sanitary sewer
pipes sized and constructed to appropriate specifications. The eastern portion of the
subject site lies within the VIP Sanitary Sewer District and the western portion lies within
the East District of the City. The City 2000 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update estimates
future average sanitary sewer flow rates at 1,500 gallons per day per acre (gpri/ac) for
commercial and 1,300 gallons per day per acre (gpd/ac) for office uses within both sewer
districts. The estimated 88,996 gallons per day for this 112 -acre site is well below the
156,800 gallons per day that would be predicted based on the projected flow rates
contained in the Comprehensive Sewer Plan.
Wastewater will eventually flow to the Blue Lake Treatment Facility operated by the
Metropolitan Council. The treatment facility has a design capacity of 32 million gallons
per day and currently receives about 23 million gallons per day. The estimated 88,996
gallons per day maximum potential daily wastewater flow volume is well within the 11
million gallons per day of excess flow capacity of the Blue Lake Treatment Facility.
3.1.2 Minnesota Valley West
Wastewater generated by the proposed development will be typical domestic sewage.
Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West AUARMitigation Plan August 15, 2001
Page 7
Based on the anticipated maximum development size and typical values for average
wastewater flows expected from the type of development proposed, the average daily
flow from the project is estimated to be 57,590 gallons per day.
Wastewater will be routed as noted above. The estimated 57,590 gallons per day for this
75 -acre site is well below the 112,500 gallons per day that would be predicted based on
the projected flow rates contained in the Comprehensive Sewer Plan. The estimated
57,590 gallons per day maximum potential daily wastewater flow volume is well within
the 11 million gallons per day of excess flow capacity of the Blue Lake Treatment
Facility.
3.2 Mitigation Measures
3.2.1 Shenandoah Business Park
Watermains, sanitary sewers, storm sewers and streets will be constructed as part of this
project. The infrastructure shall be designed in accordance with applicable design
standards. Upon completion, the ownership of these utilities will be transferred to the
City or other public utility agency. Private utilities to be installed will include telephone,
electric and gas.
Watermains will be sized in accordance with Shakopee Water Utility design standards.
Due to the size of the development, 12 -inch watermain will be required. Shakopee Water
Utility also requires installation of a minimum of at least one trunk line in the east -west
direction and two trunk lines in the north -south direction across the proposed
development site.
Due to the shallow bedrock formation throughout the site, the watermain and sanitary
sewer will share a common trench where feasible. The City requires installation of DR18
(C900 PVC) or CL52 (DIP) for the sanitary sewer pipe in common trench situations.
Approximately half of the site's lots will drain via gravity sanitary sewer to an existing
sanitary sewer located in 4 th Avenue and along the eastern property line. Due to grade
restraints, lots west of Shenandoah may require individual grinder pumps and a
centralized publicly owned lift station or will require a significant amount of fill to
elevate the building pads. Maintenance of any grinder pumps installed will be the
responsibility of the individual property owner(s).
3.2.2 Minnesota Valley West
Storm and sanitary sewer and water supply infrastructure is already in place to serve the
existing and future buildings on the site.
Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West AUAR Mitigation Plan August 15, 2001
Page 8
3.3 Implementation Information
3.3.1 Regulatory Programs Related to Mitigation Plan Approval and Mitigation Plan
Compliance Monitoring
Shenandoah Business Park
• City project plan/master plan approval.
• City site plan approval.
• City preliminary and final plat approval.
• City building permit.
• Minnesota Pollution Control Agency sanitary sewer extension/change permit.
• Metropolitan Council review of sanitary sewer extension/change.
Minnesota Valley West
• All necessary approvals have been obtained.
3.3.2 Time Frame for Implementation of Mitigation
Shenandoah Business Park
The sewer extension will be constructed during Phase 1 of project development.
Minnesota Valley West
The improvements have been completed.
3.3.3 Financially Responsible Party/Parties
Shenandoah Business Park
A combination of funding sources will be considered including, but not limited to,
state funds, tax increment financing, City capital improvement funds, or
developer(s) contribution within the AUAR study area.
Minnesota Valley West
No additional funding is required.
4.1 Summary of Impacts
4.1.1 Shenandoah Business Park
The most restrictive geologic characteristic is bedrock appearing at shallow depths
coupled with coarse - textured overlying sediments. The presence of shallow bedrock
needs to be considered in construction design, site grading, landscaping, and sewer siting
and design. Shallow bedrock coupled with overlying coarse textured sediment suggests
the presence of shallow perched water tables with a high potential for groundwater
Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West AUAR Mitigation Plan August 15, 2001
Page 9
contamination. Water movement through the overlying coarse - textured sediments would
be fast and the flow path to the restrictive bedrock layer is short.
4.1.2 Minnesota Valley West
The development of approximately an additional 45 acres of impervious surface on the
site and the routing of storm water to detention basins is expected to limit the potential
for contaminated surface water infiltration and minimize the potential for groundwater
contamination. Because the geologic data for the site shows that the Prairie du Chien
dolomite is known to occur within 50 feet of the land surface, the pumping level for any
wells must be below the top of this unit within the project site.
4.2 Mitigation Measures
4.2.1 Shenandoah Business Park
Under stormwater ponds and in areas where enhanced infiltration practices are employed,
a minimum of 2 feet of soil will be provided as required in the City of Shakopee
Stormwater Management Plan or alternatives, including the use of a clay liner will be
considered.
4.2.2 Minnesota Valley West
Storm water ponds have already been constructed on the site. According to the Geologic
Atlas, "wells must be drilled deeper to tap a lower aquifer" under the geologic conditions
described above. This safeguard, and the observation that most established wells within
one mile of the project site record the inclusion of cement grout in their design, limit the
potential for project development to affect adversely domestic or municipal wells.
4.3 Implementation Information
4.3.1 Regulatory Programs Related to Mitigation Plan Approval and Mitigation Plan
Compliance Monitoring
Shenandoah Business Park
• City project plan/master plan approval.
• City site plan approval.
• City preliminary and final plat approval.
• City building permit.
ZD
Minnesota Valley West
• All necessary approvals have been obtained.
Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West AUAR Mitigation Plan August 15, 2001
Page 10
4.3.2 Time Frame for Implementation of Mitigation
Shenandoah Business Park
Construction of stormwater ponds will be completed during Phase I of project
development.
Minnesota Valley West
Storm water detention basins have already been constructed on the site.
4.3.3 Financially Responsible Parry/Parties
Shenandoah Business Park
United Land is the responsible party for the construction of a stormwater ponds
and providing adequate soil cover to minimize infiltration.
Minnesota Valley West
No additional funding is required.
5.1 Summary of Impacts
Noise associated with construction of both projects will occur during development of the project
sites. Vibration associated with blasting of bedrock will occur near those areas requiring
blasting. Noise from truck operations on the site will occur along drives and truck dock areas.
There is a potential for exceeding noise standards at the Goemer residence due to the proximity
of truck activity on the site. Noise generated by project site traffic is exempt from state noise
standards. However, no exceedances of state noise standards are anticipated along access
roadways because of the project.
5.2 Mitigation Measures
To control construction noise, construction equipment will be fitted with mufflers and other
noise control equipment as specified by the manufacturer. Shakopee City Ordinance (10.60,
subd.3 (D) limits construction activity to the hours of 7:00 am to 10 pm on weekdays and 9:00
am to 9:00 pm on weekends and holidays.
To control vibrations from blasting in the vicinity of any existing structures, the blasting
contractor will be required to perform preliminary tests as necessary and monitor vibrations and
air blast overpressure from blasting at the nearest structure to the blast to ensure that Department
of Natural Resource guidelines are not exceeded.
To control noise from truck activity at the Goemer residence, potential mitigation measures
include limits on the number of trucks per hour, a noise berm, or redesign of the roadway and
building layout to move truck traffic away from the Goemer residence. A berm would probably
Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West AUAR Mitigation Plan August 15, 2001
Page 11
have to extend the length of the Goemer property on the north, although the exact location and
height of the berm cannot be determined without an accurate truck traffic estimate.
5.3 Implementation Information
5.3.1 Regulatory Programs Related to Mitigation Plan Approval and Mitigation
Compliance Monitoring
Shenandoah Business Park
• City project plan/master plan approval.
• City site plan approval.
• City preliminary and final plat approval.
• City building permit.
• Minnesota Pollution Control Agency noise standards compliance.
• Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Blast Vibration Limit
compliance
Minnesota Valley West
• All necessary approvals have been obtained.
5.3.2 Time Frame for Implementation of Mitigation
Construction noise mitigation will occur with each phase of project construction.
5.3.3 Financially Responsible PargvParties
United Land and Opus Northwest are the responsible parties for ensuring that
construction procedures will comply with City ordinances.
United Land is the responsible party for construction a noise berm or project redesign
where needed to ensure compliance of noise standards at the Goemer residence.
6.1 Summary of Impacts
Evidence of tools and a small scatter of Prairie du Chien chert flaking debris that appears to
represent the southern edge of a lithic reduction (stone tool production) area and possibly also of
a larger habitation site that continued towards the river has been identified along the northern
boundary of Shenandoah Business Park approximately 120 meters east of Shenandoah Drive.
This evidence has been partially or largely destroyed by highway and railroad construction. The
site has been recorded as Shenandoah Park. Similar evidence has been found on a number of
archaeological sites that are situated along the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers and near local
Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West AUAR Mitigation Plan August 15, 2001
Page 12
sources of Prairie du Chien chert. Some appear to have been just quarry and primary reduction
sites, others are associated with evidence of seasonal habitation and other activities. None have
as yet produced any ceramic evidence - a fact which suggests that they are early and predate the
mound groups that also are found along these rivers. This evidence could be further destroyed
by grading and construction at this location on the site.
The potential exists for visual impacts from buildings and lighting on the adjacent Murphy's
Landing historic site north of CH 101.
6.2 Mitigation Measures
As the Shenandoah Business Park portion of this locality appears confined to a small area along
the northern edge of the project site, it could probably easily be avoided and protected as a
green space in the final development plan. Should this not be feasible, further study and more
intensive testing will be needed in order to evaluate the significance of the site and determine
whether or not it meets the criteria of eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places.
To control visual impacts on Murphy's Landing north of the site, visual screening through
appropriate landscaping and appropriate design of lighting on the site will be provided through
landscape plans for parcels along the north boundary of the site and site and plan review by the
City of Shakopee.
6.3 Implementation Information
6.3.1 Regulatory Programs Related to Mitigation Plan Approval and Mitigation
Compliance Monitoring
Shenandoah Business Park
• City project plan/master plan approval.
• City site plan approval.
• City preliminary and final plat approval.
• City building permit.
• Site plan review by the State Historic Preservation Office
6.3.2 Time Frame for Implementation of Mitigation
Avoidance of the archaeologically sensitive area will be determined as part of the site
plan and preliminary and final plat approval.
Appropriate landscaping and lighting design will be prepared prior to development of the
plats along the north boundary of the Shenandoah Business Park site.
Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West AUAR Mitigation Plan August 15, 2001
Page 13
6.3.3 FinanciallyResponsiblePart)/ artier
United Land is the responsible parry for ensuring that the archaeologically sensitive area will be
avoided or that further study be made to determine whether or not it meets the criteria of
eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places.
7.0 VISUAL IMPACTS
7.1 Summary of Impacts
The potential for lighting impacts on the Goemer property may occur from dock areas or trucks,
depending upon the location and orientation of these activities and whether or not there will be
any nighttime activity at these locations. The current site plan shows a dock area approximately
150 feet north of the Goemer residence. Lights from trucks departing the dock area could also
impact the Goemer property.
7.2 Mitigation Measures
Lighting of buildings and dock areas throughout the project will be based upon current design
standards and will comply with provisions of the Shakopee zoning ordinance. regarding light
levels on adjacent properties. Visual screening and landscaping will be provided, if needed, to
minimize impacts on the Goemer property from truck lights as they depart the dock area if
nighttime activities are expected at this location. Redesign of the roadway and building layout to
move truck traffic away from the Goemer residence can also minimize lighting impacts on the
Goemer property.
7.3 Implementation Information
7.3.1 Regulatory Programs Related to Mitigation Plan Approval and Mitigation
Compliance Monitoring
Shenandoah Business Park
• City project plan/master plan approval.
• City site plan approval.
• City preliminary and final plat approval.
• City building permit.
• City of Shakopee zoning ordinance
Minnesota Valley West
• All necessary approvals have been obtained.
7.3.2 Time Frame for Implementation of Mitigation
Mitigation measures will be incorporated into each phase of construction as appropriate.
Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West AUAR Mitigation Plan August 15, 2001
Page 14
7.3.3 Financially Responsible Party/Parties
United Land and Opus Northwest are the responsible parties for ensuring that lighting
will comply with City ordinances.
Assuming that nighttime truck activity can be expected on the site, United Land is the
responsible party for the provision of screening or landscaping to minimize potential
impacts of truck lights on the Goemer property or to design the site so as to avoid such
impacts.
8.0 FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL OR IMPACTS ANTICIPATED
IN THE AUAR D MITIGATION PLAN
The AUAR and mitigation plan identify potential environmental impacts and mitigation
measures to avoid or mitigate identified impacts based on the best information currently
available concerning planned development in the study area. However, as specific development
plans are completed and more information becomes available, or as regulatory requirements
change, environmental concerns or issues that differ from those addressed in the AUAR or
mitigation plan may be identified. Also, new information concerning feasible and .practicable
mitigation measures may be developed after adoption of this mitigation plan. In these instances,
development plans will be reviewed to identify measures to avoid or mitigate potential
environmental impacts consistent with the new information, while maintaining the basic intent
and process identified in this mitigation plan. As required by MEQB regulations (Minn. Rules
4410.3 610, subp. 7), the AUAR and the mitigation plan will be revised if any of the specific
circumstances enumerated in state regulation apply.
y: \job\ 200091\ mitigation \MitigationPlan- rev0811.doc
Shenandoah Business Park and Minnesota Valley West AUAR Mitigation Plan August 15, 2001
Page 15