Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/19/1995 TENTATIVE AGENDA ADJ.REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 • LOCATION: City Hall, 129 Holmes Street South Mayor Gary Laurent presiding 1] Roll Call at 7:00 p.m. 2] Approval of Agenda 3] Liaison Reports from Councilmembers 4] Mayor's Report 5] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS 6] Approval of Consent Business - (All items listed with an asterisk are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no- separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. ) *7] Approve Minutes of August 15, 1995 8] Communications: 9] Public Hearings: None 10] Recommendations from Boards and Commissions: *a] Amendment to The Planned Unit Development for Prairie Bend, Ord. No. 428 and Preliminary Plat Approval for Canterbury Pointe lying South of 4th Avenue and West of Sarazin St. (extended) , Res. No. 4294 b] Hearing on An Appeal of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals' Denial of A 2.5 Foot Variance - Res. No. CC-724 c] Preliminary Plat Approval for Market Place 2nd lying West of Market and North of Fifth Avenue, Res. No. 4296 *d] Amendment to the 1980 Comp Plan and the Draft 1995 Comp Plan to Designate the North 1/2 of Block 169, Shakopee Plat as Single Family Residential, Res. No. 4297 *e] Amending the Final Plat for Parkview 1st Addition, lying North of Vierling Drive and East of CR-17, Res. No. 4298 TENTATIVE AGENDA September 19, 1995 Page -2- 11] Reports from Staff: *a) Unsafe Traffic Condition b] Vacation of a portion of Spencer Street lying North of TH 101, Res. No. 4172 - tabled 9/5 *c] Premises Permit for the MS Society - Res. 4302 *d] Assessment Agreement for 1996 *e) Approve Bills in the Amount of $1,650,638.65 f] Upper Valley Drainageway Trail from CR-79 to Vierling Drive *g] Stop Sign Warrant Study Criteria h] Scott County Criminal Justice Facility - memo on table I] Filling Planner I Vacancies *j] 1994 Clerical, Technical and Custodial Unit Contract Amendment 12] Resolutions and Ordinances: *a] Res. No. 4293 - Initiating the Vacation of Easements In Block 3, Prairie Bend 1st Add'n. b] Res. No. 4300 - Awarding Bids for Vierling Drive from CR-79 to CR-77 - memo on table *c] Res. No. 4301 - Designating Gorman Street from 4th Avenue to CR-17 As A Municipal State Aid Highway 13) Other Business: a) b] c] 14] Recess for an executive session to discuss matters permitted under attorney-client privilege 15) Re-convene 16] Adjourn Dennis R. Kraft City Administrator MEMO TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator RE: Non Agenda Informational Items DATE: September 15, 1995 1. Attached are the August 7th and 21st, 1995 minutes of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission meetings. 2. Attached are the Revenue and Expenditure Reports as of August 31, 1995. 3. Attached are the September 7, 1995 minutes of the Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment&Appeals meetings. 4. Attached is a memorandum from the Police Chief regarding a Safe and Sober Grant applied for and received by the Police Department and the Scott County Sheriff's Office. 5. Attached is the Building Activity Report for August, 1995. 6. Attached is the monthly project report from the Assistant City Administrator. 7. Attached is the Police Newsletter for Council review. MINUTES OF THE SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission convened in regular session on August 7 , 1995 at 4 : 30 P.M. in the Utilities meeting room. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners O'Toole and Vierling. Also Liaison Sweeney, Administrative Assistant Adams , Manager Van Hout and Secretary Menden . Commissioner Unseth was absent . Motion by Vierling, seconded by O' Toole that the minutes of the July 5 , 1995 regular meeting be approved as kept . Motion carried. BILLS READ: City of Shakopee 42 ,000 .00 American Casting Corp. 335. 75 Association of Metro Municipalities 300 . 00 ARAMARK Refreshment Services 126. 00 Aspen Equipment Co. 296 . 60 Marvin Athmann 61 . 49 Bauer Built , Inc . 68 . 42 Bentz Construction, Inc . 6 ,117 . 50 Border States Industries, Inc . 42 , 356 .01 Burmeister Electric Co . 721 . 04 Chicago and NW. Transportation Co. 475 . 00 Champion Auto Stores 21 . 27 City of Shakopee 1 , 512 . 23 City of Shakopee 70 ,081 . 00 Clay' s Printing Service 95 . 32 Communications Auditors 9 . 69 Cooperative Power Co. 39 ,183 . 46 DCA, Inc . 150.00 Dranetz Technologies , Inc . 83 . 36 Davies Water Equipment Co. 206 . 33 Dalum' s Utilities Equipment Co. 384 . 15 Feed-Rite Controls , Inc . 1 , 397 . 26 Glenwood Iglewood 9 . 59 Graybar Electric Co. , Inc . 8, 185 .88 Gopher State One-Call , Inc . 519 .89 Hance Cable Testing and Locat.i_ng, Inc . 1 ,269 . 50 Gene Hauer Farms 198 . 64 Hennens ICO 43 . 43 Hercules Industries, Inc . 748 . 60 Jerry' s Lawn Service 967 .02 Kimball Midwest 98.28 Koch' s Tele-Communications Services 40 . 00 Lathrop Paint Supply Co. 7 . 18 Leef Bros . , Inc . 12 .82 Ray LeMieux 13 . 20 MMUA 1 ,403 .00 Minnesota Conway 369 . 48 Minnesota Valley Testing Labs Inc . 336 . 00 Model. Stone Co. 1 , 713 . 89 Motor Parts Service Co. , Inc. 39 .87 NAPA Auto Parts 2 . 71 Northern States Power Co. 332 . 32 Northern States Power Co. 1 , 988 . 92 Otter Tail Power Co. 440 . 90 Peterson-Wisdorf , Inc . 67 ,042 .82 Plehal Blacktopping, Inc . 2,720 . 00 Ribbon Recyclers , Inc . 111 . 83 RESCO 1 ,137 . 42 Reynolds Welding Supply Co. 9 . 74 Richard Knutson, Inc . 4,874 . 59 Ries Heating and Sheet Metal 213 . 55 Shakopee Postmaster 5,000.00 Shakopee Public Utilities Commission 68. 25 Shakopee Public Utilities Commission 129 . 75 Starks Cleaning Services, Inc . 72 . 42 Dean Struck 224 . 40 Total Tool Supply, Inc . 110 . 35 United Compucred Collections, Inc . 452 . 62 United Electric Co. 27 . 51 Lou Van Hout 47 . 13 Van Paper Co. 158 . 15 Waste Management-Savage 78. 13 Water Pro 7 ,430 . 39 WESCO 15 ,879 .87 Yarusso' s Hardware Co . 374 . 73 A T and T 5 . 30 R.W. Beck 5 ,124 . 63 Berkley Administrators 500. 00 Keys Well Drilling 14, 580 . 50 McGrann, Shea, Franzen,Carnival , Straughn and Lamb Chartered 624 .88 Minnesota Environmentalf Quality Board 205 .15 Schoell and Madson, Inc . 8,026. 07 Southwest Suburban Publishing 416 .10 U. S . West Communications 115 . 96 Northern States Power Co . 1 , 666 . 67 Motion by Vierling, seconded by O'Toole that the bills be allowed and ordered paid with the exception of the Northern States Power Co. bill which needs a recomputed final billing. Motion carried. A communication from Mike McGlone, Divisional Coordinator for the Heatshare program was acknowledged. The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission will take part in the heatshare program for the 95-96 heating season. A request from St . Mary' s of Marystown regarding the one day high demand for their annual church festival was acknowledged. Motion by Vierling, seconded by O'Toole to grant the special exemption for electrical usage for the weekend of August 19-20, 1995 . Motion carried . The results of the routine water testing for synthetic organics from the Minnesota Department of Health was read and placed on file. The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission is in compliance with maximum contaminant levels . A communication from Dan Jobe, Scott County Design Engineer regarding the Co. Rd. 16 from CSAH 17 to CR 83 was read and placed on file. A tentative project schedule for relocation of the distribution line was given . Liaison Sweeney gave his report . The city has moved forward with the attempts of acquisition of bl.ks 3 and 4 . A letter from the EPA gathering information on our PCB disposalwill be handled by staff . Manager Van Hout gave an update on the progress of Well #9 . The temporary pump is in and running. It will be pumping water into the watermain so that it can be tested. An agreement is being drawn up for the contractor to sign to assume responsibility for payment of the water and agree to make sure no one drinks the water along with other points being worked out . The assistant City Attorney will be going over the agreement before getting signatures. The tenative project schedule for the County Road 16 Line relocation was given to the Commission by Joe Adams . Bids will be due by Aug. 16 with the awarding of the bids set for Aug. 21 , 1995 . Manager Van Hout gave the Commission an update on the substation acquisition . We will be meeting with the property owners to define the exact land description. Kevin Favero, R .W. Beck was also present to present a memorandum on approvals needed for the substation project . The next steps to be taken in the acquisition process were defined. Joe Adams updated the Commission on the status of the renovation for the Shakopee Public Utilities Building. A description and budget price on various items scheduled to be renovated was given to the Commission. Greystone Construction presented the budget and would perform as design and construction management . Motion by O'Toole, seconded by Vierling to employ Greystone Construction as construction manager and to authorize the work and to have staff negotiate the work within the Capitol improvement plan and advise the Commission of any change to the schedule. Motion carried. A letter from Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to Manager Van Hout regarding groundwater contamination cleanup by the Anchor Glass site was discussed. Two basic options were presented by the Pollution Control and they had asked for our input on the process . A letter from Barr Engineering regarding the Savage- Shiely water issues was acknowledged. Manager Van Hout informed the Commission that the energy supply from MMPA was started 7/18/95 . A followup on the Investment/Custodial account was given. All stipulations have been satisfied. The material for the Underground electric line for the North Star Auto will be ordered by August 11 . An upcoming legislative alert was given to the Commission and will be held on August 23 , 1995 . There were 5 fire calls for 2 hours and 35 minutes labor time. There were no lost time accidents for July, 1995 . The next regular meeting will be held on September 5 , 1995 in the Utilities meeting room due to the Holiday. Motion by Vierling, seconded by O'Toole that the meeting be adjourned to August 21 , 1995 . Motion carried. 7P2 7S1 /4e)_) / 29ZJ Barbara Menden , Commission Secretary MINUTES OF THE SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission convened in adjourned regular session on August 21 , 1995 at 12 :00 noon in the Utilities meeting room. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Vierling and Unseth. Also Administrative Assistant Adams, Manager Van Hout and Secretary Menden. Commissioner O'Toole was absent . The bid tabulation for the County Road 16 Line Relocation was presented by Pete Malamen, HDR. The low bidder was Northern States Power Co. bidding as construction contractor on the work. Motion by Unseth, seconded by Vierling to award the bid to Northern States Power Co. as low bidder in the amount of $161 ,311 .00. Motion carried. Motion by Unseth, seconded by Vierling to offer Resolution #446 A Resolution Concluding the Power Adjustment Charge. Ayes: Commissioners : Vierling and Unseth. Nayes: none. Resolution passed. Motion carried. Motion by Unseth, seconded by Vierling to approve the bills on the table as corrected. Motion carried. A Communication from Schoell and Madson, Inc. to the Scott County Highway Department regarding the permit to install the Co. Rd. 18 Hwy 101 bypass crossing was acknowledged. The next regular meeting of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission will be held on September 5, 1995 at 4: 30 P.M. in the Utilities meeting room. Motion by Vierling, seconded by Unseth that the meeting be adjourned. Motion carried. Barbara Menden , Codi ission Secretary II O O1 O 41 N O N CO N Ul er dr N 0 OD N O O r- o 01 O ONO er 1D r1 H U) II U1 1D 01 N 41 O 10 N dr N dr ri M 01 01 O O U1 1D O M O O CO O N er M 0- H EA it • • • • • • • • Zr W n ri In rI N N er 4o ri 1D rl M r1 N OD ri O U) N 01 O V) O O 01 O 01 O M d• UI W > I U) fN U) 10 up UI 1D O N ri 10 01 1D O a) 1D co N 0 co in U) N N U) U) 01 C) W 1%4 II H H H H H a a ___IC-; 1 I I` r1 M H 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 r% d' O 1D O O O O N O O 10 O U) O N CO er I r 01 r- N M UI O O O O O 1D Tr o 0 01 0 0 0 O N O O O O r- O M ri 1D 1 1 ri OD UI 00 I` o OD I` 01 O er N 10 U) 1D OD O U1 O1 dr N N N ri O er M U1 N H I dr 1D M M er 01 M d• N rH r•i CO M 01 U) 01 UI N N H M OI N O N r-1 M dr dr E W I U) U) N U) N M M 00 ri N 01 M d' V% 01 U1 d• OO IA cm N N O N d' ri 01 O1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ▪ C) Id• O U) 00'M ri O rl rl elr 0 UI 0 M co U1 HUI E I 01 M M Ul ri I I NrI I b CSN I NrI I N W .'7 1 ri ri I M I I I I I N I M I I BQ I ti I H sn I ah CO > n +a II II I II N I M ri N T O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 M Tr O er O O O O 00 O 0 d• O U) O M N 10 I NO104 N N d400000 TrU100000000 N 00010 N010 00 M 1 • • • • • • • • • • • • • I N Co Cr rA 1D r4 N r- ri O 1D NMN dr ri o U) 01 Tr N M M 00 O U) M d• N CO I U1 1D N 10 UI O 10 dr N 01 0 H 10 01 NM O U1 CN N co M 01 N N H 10 0 U) I 1D UI 00 ri N 10 10 00 O U) 1D U1 N UI 01 UI ri 01 O dr N N d• CO M 0 W 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • a I HN U) dr O1 r4 VD VDM ri Ch M riN NN w 41 CO ri CO Ut 01 er AIS. Z I N r1dr1D 0l N 10 ON NN CO NN Mo d' H • 'J W I N H dr N M N H er EE > I yr • U W I H H I 1 H H 00000 00 00000000 X000000 N 0000000 O O n 000 Cl 01 000000 o dr ri UI OOOOO O 0000000 O N H • • • • • • • • • • • • it 000 N N ON O O O U) U) N ri 0 CU1 O riCD N 0000001 O M CO W II 10 1D 10 V 1001N MU) NUI dr l.0 H H In CIWrE-4 Ln aT Ejx n 01 a1 10 MONCIH 00 U1 in V dr 10 O 0\ W EFG n 00 Co 10 H M er N 0) CO CO N L4H I:. Z :) II H H d' UI O o f':•;.., a � £ n ? v>• ri i\ U Cn CO C) 4 n W 0 n CL, n W O II >r > n E W W HC4ict C) N 0 0 0 0 O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O II 0 0 0 0 O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O II er 0 0 0 dr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O U1 UI 0 0 0 0 0 o O n 010r4 O 0 00000000000000 O ll) OD0 0 0 0 0 In o I ri O 1D N UI O O O O OD Ill O O O U1 UI O O M 10 00 UI 00 O O O O N O A I W W I 0) O O er dr 0 O 10 UI N O UI O N ri M M dr 0 10 N In o ff H O E0 I 10 ri0001 U1 NMril0 MM NN dr UlM 0 01 H N dr PC I dr N CO N dr H d• H o H• > I N N EW I VI- 01 C4 I W I I I II n Z41 Z W u ci) g W u E-4 W > II H C/) W II r cg x A rad m II II Cl) CV a H CO Q cW7 II AA H H H Cl) Z H W Z n Z 43 E4 14 HH W W CI HHE-1 C4 C4C4a Ha Z a C7 HH 41 tn 43 c4 El CI W C) u D Z n P4 HH tl) V) W W HH • H a E4 a a N xx2403 .4mC4c4cLLuW W HO) .) co Z > H E N zO0 0 al co c4 E4ElZCx) co W WH I Z 0 E C4 II E H 15 E ~ P. 5g 2,1 2 21c W OF gE ,H n W WHC- 01 I Ec4 CI WIIUcIC7t7UUvi OCx O IEHHCD al Cd CD w W H E- .ti2 Z H H at C):4 U 4 PIC 4 cs)* •' zwnO Foa W GGaWaa al W .44A E+ W G � O00 E4 CD • W W ) H z A n aCCD .1C.) � aaua2 CWW C) 4HHEEa H C) )4 Q I 41 CD cn aHU II O cC ¢ HO 044. W HH � awwwCDH PC EoaEC .1 UEaaC) 24a) a24 W W Cn V) A : 3M2OEE) 2 2 n O 0 0 W n p O N dr 0 E N UI O el M OI O ri N M d• U1 O O O E-I ri N M 1D 00 ri ri E.4 dr f) n r7�Zi 0. 0 0 d' CQ Hri N N N N dr dr d• d' d' d 01 10 Is 03 d• dr d• dr d• In 1D IA 0 M n rlrirlri J NNNNNNNNNNNNNNN A 01010101 MMM :) er O N M M M M Cl) M MMM 01 01 01 01 01 01 M 01 01 M 01 V) 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 U) M I N O N O 1` O N O N H ao O O O CO cr U1 O a0 t0 CA H O d' aD r-; OD O O a0 U1 co U1 H _ N E-' A I N N tD UI er O1 H O N N H L- d' M rl M M 00 W U1 O U1 O .4' O N r- tD tD M aD 00 O1 UI C) Z W 1 Ln l() U1 N to O1 O O H O O H N N U1 O U1 U1 10 10 01 N O d' r1 H aD 0 0 cr U1 H O1 O1 01 W 2> I 01 O1 U1 00 N H d' 01 O 1- N M L- d' H d' O1 t0 M N co O1 cr L- to 10 CO NM c0 IlS C) h4 I CL W I N H H H HH H H N N W U I a W 1 a I 1 1 N d' O O O O M VD O O d' M O Ul H O O U1 O U1 Ul UI d' O O O N H H CA M O O UI I O1 O1 O O O O N 01 Ul O H CN O U1 H O O O1 O Ul N M 01 O O Ul 1` O O U1 d' 0 0 OD I 01 M O1 O t0 O M V' M O Cs 10 N 10 00 01 01 N VD U1 H H O a' M ar H CO 00 N co N Tr CN I M t0 H r- O to H M H M N Ul H r. co O tO M 01 O 1` cr O H d' dt til H H M M N O M 0W II NNN I CDMHNUlH UiHNNrnOU1Nto01O1t0c' tDcr O N N LflNHc0 o cr UI UI C) I U1 N N N N N M H H 01 HM 0 LCI cr N M H O1 d' O cr a' E1gC7Zy I l i 1 L H N I N l H HN l Ul N N to CDH I H W I I I I I H I I I I AUG: 1 yr GI 9 I I I II CO t0 O O O O M t0 0 O d' 1- O Ln O1 0 O U1 O Ln UI U1 d' O O O a0 O1 O1 CL L- 0 0 U1 II O O O O O O N 01 Ul O H N O Ul CO O O O1 0 T' N t0 O\ O O Ln N 01 O1 U1 UI 0 0 H II O 1.0 H o d' O M cr 1.0 O P M N VD H H O1 N cr cr Co a0 O t0 M cr a0 H H N H 1- to N 11 t0 M 00 M O1 cr H M a0 r N d' H 1` H CA to M O R N Ul O d' Tr Tr 0 CO OD M t0 N O1 H W U N 1- 1` M H H Hr- Tr N 01 O1 to N H N O N N N O 1- t0 N 1/40 01 Ul N 1- UI N Ul H U1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A $4R I d' C- N M M N lD H tr M 1- O H M M 01 H to C- Nr- Tr O CO CO 01 Ill 00 M tD I H N H H ar N M M H O1 M M 01 H N E+ '7 I H N LCI +rt CA H sir I 1 I II 00 U1 CD C) 000 00 0 0 0 0 0H 0 0 0 0 U) 0 00 00 0 01 H H 0000 O 0 H N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C4 0 CD 0 0 C- C N o o 0 0 1• O O 0 0 0 0 O II ONCTC01D0000000Naod' 0T' Nt0U1OOHerTr N N I-- crCOH U1 W 11 01 Ln U1 L- M O1 N O N N ar U1 d' 01 a' M O1 d' C. M H VD t0 H N M WC4O1 'j. .'T'. 11 Md' 1- .0N Ul MCAD I 0NOIHTr U1 cd' U1 In U1 10N OD I --OO\ W Ea04 II Tr C4 U/ 01 HH N U1 In H H CL H C>: Z J II N U1 0 yr Lr .;..4 a\ O Z C) I sir Cl) aD U gC II W o II Cc4 11 O W O II >+ > II E+ W CA HCLQgC U II O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O fl O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O o 0 O II 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 11 0000000 O O 000000000000 lO OO l0 O o OO Ul CD 121 Q III I O O O d' O U1 O 0 d' O1 UI U1 U1 cr N 0 0 U1 CT o N t0 o U1 U1 O 0 o O M 0 M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W W II O CO to M O H O H d' U1 U1 O1 M O M 01 t0 H o N V' M O1 d' d' U1 O co OD H ESD 11 N HH d' H H NN crc' H d' 1.0 1.0 MON er W U H m N Z H ,"> U E+ W II Cl) Cd II W II I II II II z E♦ 24 II Z C) C4 U W H U W E4 a 11 C gz x Cl) U WEW 44 N ~ CdH . O 3W Cl)D Cl) 'IN 00 41 24 C 44 E z41 I OD 224 4El Cl) CdW i C) w Cl) UZ I Cl) w 02 CI) hi Ca 43 44 01 Cu 2D cn WW2HWW ww ° Elz UW 'J zW C OW Cl) HH2EC4 C4 C) FA II O Ug 3C. C7• 7Cl) l C) W H HH C.) EE+ 'c Ci. 0 z C1. I >40E+ G4CAV) 0404HW H ,7 G: HzzLLg1q HHZZW WCL W O W H .7 H U C) AZOZH W .2) Zg4000HHHQ t 6. OOAAC) C7 Cr. CqE. G] Cd M W W W > WCgG: H Wz3C10C4G: x C) 0j 2Cs. 2E W2CHU1 WW W gWWCA 01 'CL¢ v1v1U1UIc g 'v .7on en c3 W H H CI1 M Z) O CA Cn W A D W OD >4 Ck C) CU W W Ck z Cn CA W W �++ 1:411 01 4 cd C) ii W H 444W C) :C E4 1414 c4 c4 e4 . 0 Cl) a. 43Cd0) a z C) as 02 ` a ° wzaWW RI 2 � O ° z ° H el c) o EED .3 24 1/4., so W U t01` a001OHd' OHd' U1oNMN1DOHN1` aD01OHOLO E4 o H OHNM E♦ 4.3 M OOOOHHHNNNNMMMMMr- r- r- ` L- 1- Wapapcm CO 0 QI NNNN Cl CC M crTrerTrv' d' d' v' d' e' TrTrTrTrTrwwd' eraT TrTrTrTrTr :D Ln p to toto '0 p O U MMMMML•leelel0IMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Cl) Cl Cl) MMMM Cl) N 0 0 lA lA O O 11 o II M II O 0 m U1 0 0 7._ d' N o n IT W > N O o CO a0 0 0 Cr, . > n 'r p W 04 DI N (U i N at 0 41 t DI w II 4'W Cl w n OG n N a I N 0 0 co co 0 0 N l0 N n In l[1 r-1 .-I 0 0 11 II TrNN • N co co co o N N II N N II O N Lf N N M M H CO N N N l- 11 to F W II n EI• p�pZ n � O H n II E+ �"� U7y li 0 n B4 n CW7E+ H n C II qq VVVV u N N II pq a > u I II it n N N N N II n n 0 0 0 N N 0 0 N u1 In co co 0 o N 14 u N II U1 N N 0 co N N N N N • N N 111 in ri r-I d' V' N lA N is VT .-I .-I M M N r- N W N VT N 01 N �`�_7.._ N Cl a W II - N •• 0 I4 N U1 N I• RCE N VI N II • UW N N E+ >• w n � N 4 x n >4 PIC W n n II N N N N n N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 • N Li) Z N 0 0 C El In E-1 to p 00's.H OWHICG 4 2 II 1N• q O -al r-i co A CO N MII aco CCiX ;IC n .dam OZ v1sn W o N rn co W 0 N W O al O II O >+ > N O0 H a a >4 D M U N 0 0 0 0 0 0 U �" RC o N N o N N 0 0 e' cr 0 0 • n N VT CO CO V! CO N II M M 0 N n E+ = n N � HE m p H W> I +/f W II . W N E-, OC N E+ >[tl +n p W If Cl) R: N II R7 I II It I II N N N N N CO w II W U E0 ii E4 CODI VI Z z 44 w H a� Cl) H W EI 0 IX A 00 E+ EI • a. 43 ha. �Ct. P O t-4 H 0 IX Cl) C. a Cd Z ad C4 H CC!) H 0 Cu 0 i 0 Ci) EI Ca VIQ U O E O M OE+ Cil O Ln E+ ppE4 U) E-I t 0 O 9 CO rI CO M 111 0 1 II C1 N O t0 O CO N O 00 O V' O H H OD C1 V' N O M C1 H t0 L- M O cm M er CO C7 r- O fn CO V' O H H M O O N O V' O O O O C1 f- OD 01 M N el t0 O r- V' O 01 Irl L- O en H O 01 co M O V' U0 M O 'CA '7. Wq II O t0 O t0 O M O O O O O t0 C1 M N N el O O O el L- r- N V' O M N O W ri CO O N ON N O O w II CO M M W '.D M N ri M M on tO er on d1 Lfl O C1 t0 N L- DD M M t) r- Tr to w ri U z II H H a w u w a u P3 n u L- er O C1 el C1 M O V' M M rl N N CM V' el CO O OO Ls O H C1 L- O M N M 01 V' C% O C1 rl H O O M C7 O M CO l0 00 O M M cr er 00 N L- M 00 N O H O M M N M O M Ls O 00 CO cm O V' ri H O C1 N O O M C1 M LO O H N O L- \O V' CO N N t0 O r4 L- N M t0 L- O er L- L- t0 N 01 V' L- O L- tO V' N ri O C1 T M U1 O V' 4-1 ri 07 V' L- N L- Ls Vr O N en t0 el O1 L- O 01 C1 rs 10 O H co H O N M U) er O L- ri L- O W ri M L- co M N M 01 O1 N O N M N O 00 O M O L- N M Cl V' 01 rl N t0 O W I H U 01 V' M L- O M N V' O1 t0 O 01 C1 N C1 O O t0 N O V' N 01 Ls V' M O N N V' M 40 Lfl N I H Lfl CO NP N N O l0 N ri M l- M I o0 ri H I I N 00 N P9 1 ri 1 00 E4 .7 0 1 H I I 1 H I M IIIIIH H I 1 1 I 1 H I I w H H s I I I I I C) 0 e4 H A 04 H I I • > i!r A M t0 O ri M H r- O tO M Lfl H W M ri CO l• V1 O N M O 01 H M O N W Ls rl CO H O H C1 C1 O O CO CO O er 00 rl H O t0 Lfl Lfl Vr 4-I N N CO ri N Co O 01 M W L- l0 O V' N 4-1 rl el M O M O co O ri . . . • . • • . . • . . . . . . . • • • • . • . • . • • . • . • L- 01 O t0 01 CO M O O N ri L- el N 01 L- L- M O O N N V' M N O M N N Ih Ls O V' N C1 N CO M H OO V' C1 L- V' M H M OD CO M L- L- L- O L- N CO H t0 01 O O N OD N O O CO 01 L- H H O M ri TrH Ul LflMN L- 00 rl elMN NL- NCr1000 Lam er Cl ri er Lfl NONDCO • 1-1 03 A a' N M ri CO C1 O C- er N L- N L- V' ri O er er 01 rl 00 V' O O V' Lfl rl N C1 N el en O • `lZ OIh VI OCA N r- NP M 00 riNM er O HH NNCO ri ri H H V Wa t0 H H H N N H N •>I 04 X H N W cn• 11 N V' O er N co co O el O VI O M er L- CO N M O N CO O er ri M O er 0 t0 N L- O O M fn O O O II L. O O Ls O1 cm t0 O M O co O M Lfl O M Vr N O t0 t0 O rl N H O N O 00 M O1 01 O V' Vr O O O II MLAO UD U1 O1 d1O riOOO N O O ri LO t0 O 00 M Ul N d1 N O OD O 01 Vr O t0 O el NOOO W 11 coO Oer C1UI Ls H CO ML- HCa rl OMM CI MO el OD ri er Tr 01 M rI WE l Ln 01 z .'l'i i. U N O to 1.0O O H fl H W CO N el M M O 00 OD t0 r- O N H TV H03 4-1 O O\ w H A n M M M M ri t0 N w M ri ri N N N M O fn N H • ari aG ZH II 01 M HH H N H H M H N :C04-- Uzgc Cn c0II H W O II 0401 u t wo II >+ a H W 04 I 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 O O O O O O O U 1 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 O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O L- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 V' OO V1 MOOO NU1 M NOMMMOO t0OM t0L- OO O OM el CD COO N A 1 L- M O H N N d1 N N 01 H H Ul 01 M er O M O 00 M C1 L- O H M Ls C1 01 01 CO O OD N W W I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H cI I er U• V• O N O M V' N O M Ls el 41 O V' O O N H 00 C1 N OD t0 O1 co H O1 ri en L- r- 14 14 'Z. I M Ul CO 1/40 M er M O er 01 M V' M N ri en r♦ 01 ri N ri M UI LO M V' N 01 X W I t0 NHHNH N H H ri M H H en H a I H DC I N Pl CnW 1 0} W 1 I 1 I 1 I CO I C9cn m I Z z W El Z H 01 H aHz E. 1 H U cn 1OE. H w .J U 1 Z Hz a w an z4 a C.) H a a an C I 4 W W H p W D a; Z x W D W I on 0) cn a a Ha: co w co w O C) ad as z 1 W Z an a H z w cn H H C) = al W \cn O u a W W 1ti a a 171 2 H U) cn a H O H I. to\ El I a . Ew I-4 .HlwO z `� 1X aucwr� zw aann °za 4141 CIE4H u - H I w E I CO El I C.) E-4 O 0mw H HHp-4ow w .`l. H\WcnC wad H � Z C4 1 41 z C4 2g I Z 41 � CD0101 a Fz-IKgWZW2ZNwWOz\HZZ > W 1) HEE EE CCD 0Ul) I 0 H '.7 H ax aaWW; z w g4 c4 AHq2gw CO002gaHH Ha» a2CA a: 0: z 4 A I W adEwa141a4342gbGa a C4 alC) .7cu.. 03C) [G• HF W > 41zA1H] 41EHxcoEn awF 11OQ > a > Hog 2Oa 03 EA 0402C4ZH0Kg � � Kga wHW zOOO 2Kg41c4r041AC4E-aO W Wa0 El II 30a30aa. wxD3U HOSawaZC4C4aE+ HltQHp0c4AUAmam0 0 W li ii ri NCI O r4HN er ri N r4 CD E-I OUINOONOO COO rIOOOOOOOOHmIfl L- 000 h U O O O ri H N N N M VIM N 41 ri 4-1 N el er cr M H ri N N P1 V• M t0 02 C1 ri 01 CI CI 01 CI M C1 an 11 rIHHrlririHrHrlriHri '.7 NNNNN01N0101onr) rlCn01CIM01 VrcrTr V' V1 V• er V• O U G. 41erw V1 V1 Vier V' er V1 Cr Vr cn arerTrcrTrer V' ererCrCrcr V• VlerererCrerCr V' ererTr V1 II N N N 0 0 N II ri 0 0 0 0 E A 11 • 0 Z WII o 01 01 0 0 ry1 OQ Z n ii Ln M M a Ixwn w 04 N a k It w a II 11 N 0 0 0 0 11 e-I t0 10 O O II • U N 01 01 0 0 II M ri r-I 0 0 II co N N O O O W II E+ 0 11 t` rn 01 0 0 Z II EyD11 Tr w N d' Csi 4/7 al 0H II C7VT D 4 4 II C0 11 I II II II II 1 CO 0 0 0 0 I O W tP O O I • I 01 M M 0 0 I r-I H ri f? 1 Tr CO CO ▪ 4 AUJ I N H ra • DZ 1 to M M E+ H W 101 v1• • U aa n +/z• >44w iI 1 II U II II II t� CO CO 0 0 H LL1 t0 t0 0 0 U . It to to to 0 0 al IIal 14 Z = PC I O1 01 -r:-•q 04 ,-I•I a 2 E II M N Lr .1 a - g Z 04 n „_co co 0 II W O II Cc. co n O W O n >•• ad rn H W u 0 0 0 0 0 U II o o O O O II II N M M 0 0 II 111 el el 0 0 A I1 N in In 0 0 W W 11 E+ CI) II o r+ H 0 6z Il 0 co N N H a I0I 01 I M• E4 D4 II ra Cl) W Ii w u U I 11 1 11 n Er u C� n FcC II t>+ u al n Cl) o H W W if al a 0 N H EEA N OG AH 0 al n M z al II a Cl O n • W QS 0 C.) H II UJ • G0i II H Cl)11 al C C4 II a ZZ H U W U 11 a w 04 w 04 wIICnn a u Z M • • A u H W uof `a a `a O u E-4 al 00 O O I:4 n E I 0 E+ 0 E+ O N Cil d• Cl) rr Cl) U o, It cn q w u H AN a Z neo u 10 O Z u N l xwu u • a u n II •• II U U1 a II • II II (1 II II 0 II U II E• 0 a N U ED • it d• II W E H u . U C00 II N II A Q ✓ II vs II w n u U w II w II u • II II W U II a U 0 U • II AQUI II N n • Dzui-+ u 0 • 04 -n >i >4 u r1 II W U yr U II 0 II U ao n II • u II 1n II u M n warn zxaa a 1O a O O\ pWp�� EDE+ Ua rn W m g 0 u u w u wa• vXQ uuvl• u W o a 1�. VI a O z w u W O a H I u O U U u o U II • U U 0 n n N u A u m u k1 Ca II . u 4 z u rn W 11 w 11 H a n , n En r u vis tnl w 1 11 U u u a O Z a E O u Hu w Ii u w • u O UI a • a q W a x U W E U C7 U a al a o U tx. • OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE SHAKOPEE PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Session Shakopee,Minnesota September 7, 1995 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mars, Joos,Madigan,DuBois, and Christensen MEMBERS ABSENT: Bladow and Link STAFF PRESENT: Terrie A. Thurmer, Assistant City Planner Julie Baumann,Planning Intern Nicole Bennett,Planning Intern Dave Nummer, Staff Engineer Clare Link,Recording Secretary 1. ROLL CALL Chairman Joos called the meeting to order at 9:26 p.m. Roll call was taken as noted above. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was approved as presented. 3. RECOGNITION OF INTERESTED CITIZENS The Chairman recognized anyone in the audience wishing to speak on any item not on the agenda. There was no response. 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA Motion: Comm. Christensen/Madigan to approve the consent agenda: Agenda Item 5: Approval of the August 3, 1995,Meeting Minutes. Agenda Item 9: Vacation: To consider the vacation of the drainage and utility easement between Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Cretex Industrial Park 1st Addition. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 5. APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 3, 1995,MEETING MINUTES This item was approved on the Consent Agenda 6. PRELIMINARY PLAT: TO CONSIDER THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF MARKET PLACE 2ND ADDITION AND NORTH OF FIFTH AVENUE (PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT THE MAY 4, 1995 MEETING. CONTINUED FROM JULY 6, 1995, MEETING. TABLED AT AUGUST 3, 1995,MEETING). The Assistant City Planner stated that Klingelhutz Development Company has submitted a request for approval of a preliminary plat for Market Place 2nd Addition. The developer is proposing to plat 14 lots for single family residential development, and four outlots which are intended to be dedicated to the properties located north of the proposed plat. Shakopee Planning Commission September 7, 1995 Page 2 She stated that the public hearing for this was opened and closed on May 4th, but the recommendation to the City Council was tabled to allow time for staff to review the alley realignment that was proposed at the May meeting. Since that time, the developer has been working on various alternatives for the alley design in an attempt to avoid the relocation of the existing utility poles. With this design, the utility poles will be relocated, and the two existing alleys will be connected. She added that staff is recommending the approval of the Preliminary Plat for Market Place 2nd Addition, subject to the conditions discussed in the staff memo. Dan Hessberg, Klingelhutz Development Company, stated that a dead end alley with a turnaround is not permitted by the City Code. Connecting the existing alleys was the preferred alternative. A 16' alley is proposed. He stated that the alley within the proposed plat would connect the existing alley located west of the proposed plat, with the alley that was dedicated with Market Place 1st Addition. Eight utility poles will need to be relocated. Michael Gappa. 604 E. 4th Avenue, stated that he and his neighbors bought property where the alley is to be located. The Assistant Planner informed the Commission that the City was informed by the applicant that all the alley property within the proposed plat is owned by Klingelhutz. Hessberg stated that when the alley was staked, he was informed that the property deeded to the neighbors north of the plat is not located within the proposed alley, and that there appears to be a dispute. He noted the location of the lots which purchased property from Mr. David Rutt. Comm. DuBois asked how the previous cul-de-sac arrangement affected the three properties. Mr. Hessberg stated that he did not believe it affected these properties at all. Chairman Joos asked how this issue could be resolved. He stated that the conflict appears to be between the individual who sold the property to the three property owners, and the three property owners. He stated that the Planning Commission cannot resolve a property dispute. Tom Ordenthal stated that Mr. Rutt moved the alley when he purchased his lots. He stated that the dispute is that all the utility poles are being moved onto their property. He was concerned about who would pay for moving his fence. Mr. Hessberg stated that the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission will be looking at where the poles will be relocated the following day. He explained why the alley was straightened out. Commissioner Mars questioned how they can proceed when the property lines are in dispute. Commissioner Joos stated that they can only go by what has been legally filed with the County. Shakopee Planning Commission September 7, 1995 Page 3 Commissioner Christensen asked what would happen if the County would show that the developer and the three concerned owners are both shown as owners. The Assistant Planner stated that if it is determined that the developer doesn't own the property, it cannot be recorded. The signatures of all property owners is required to record the plat. Mike Galvin stated that there is a surveyor's pin in his property. Kelly Burhager. Klingelhutz Development Co., stated that surveys of the three properties can be reviewed. Motion: Commissioner DuBois/Madigan offered a motion to recommend to the City Council the approval of the Preliminary Plat for Market Place 2nd Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of the final plat: a) Approval of title opinion by the City Attorney. b) Execution of a Developer's Agreement for the construction of public improvements: i) The alley shall be constructed in accordance with the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications for the City of Shakopee. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of any existing utility poles that are required to be moved due to the construction of the alley. c) The developer shall provide to the City a copy of a signed agreement with Shakopee Public Utilities (SPUC) to relocate the utility poles. This document, along with the proposed relocation site for the utility poles, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and the City Engineer. d) Access Permits for Fourth Avenue (CR 16) must be approved by the Scott County Highway Department. e) The southern 4 feet of the alley dedicated with the original Market Place subdivision shall be vacated at the request of the developer, and included as a portion of Lot 1. 2. The developer shall make the following design changes to the plat drawing: a) If part of the plat is abstract, and part of the plat is torrens, the developer shall submit the Final Plat showing this division. 3. The following must be completed prior to the approval of Building Permits for the site: a) The developer shall provide on-site observation and compaction testing of house pads by a registered professional soils engineer when native soils are displaced or when building sites are filled. Shakopee Planning Commission September 7, 1995 Page 4 b) All buried debris excavated during the construction of any buildings shall be hauled to a landfill. No Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued for a building until all debris is hauled off the lot and to a landfill. Vote: Motion carried. Comm. Mars voted against the motion. 7. FINAL PLAT: TO CONSIDER THE FINAL PLAT OF HORIZON HEIGHTS 5TH ADDITION, LOCATED SOUTH OF RIVERVIEW ESTATES, EAST OF HORIZON HEIGHTS 1ST ADDITION, NORTH AND WEST OF SHAKOPEE CITY LIMITS (TABLED AT AUGUST 3, 1995,MEETING). The Assistant Planner stated that Steven Muhlenhardt is requesting approval of the Final Plat for Horizon Heights 5th Addition. Bob Stransky of Stransky Land Surveyors has submitted a request to table this item to the February 8, 1996, meeting to allow the time needed to resolve issues with Scott County regarding the storm water system and the reconstruction of County Road 18. She stated that the applicant is also proposing to make revisions to the Final Plat which would eliminate the original proposal for two shared driveways with direct access to CSAH 18 (two lots per driveway) and would eliminate one of the street intersections with CSAH 18 (Sunrise Lane). She added that both the Planning and Engineering Departments have reviewed the proposed revisions, and support reducing the number of accesses. She added that, in addition to these revisions, the applicant is also proposing to subdivide Lot 1, Block 2, Horizon Heights 4th Addition into four lots. In 1994, the City increased the minimum lot size of 2.5 acres to a density requirement of one dwelling per ten acres. Since the Preliminary Plat approved this site as one lot,the further subdivision into four lots would not be in conformance with the Preliminary Plat, and would in fact be a use variance. Due to the dramatic increase in traffic projections for CSAH 18, staff is of the opinion that the minor revisions proposed east of CSAH 18 are warranted for safety reasons. The Assistant Planner reviewed the following actions requested: 1. Provide direction to the applicant about whether or not the proposal to revise the street alignment would result in the plat being in substantial conformance with the approved Preliminary Plat; 2. Provide direction about whether or not the proposal to subdivide Lot 1, Block 2, Horizon Heights 4th Addition into four lots would result in the plat being in substantial conformance with the approved Preliminary Plat; and Shakopee Planning Commission September 7, 1995 Page 5 3. Offer a motion to table the recommendation to the City Council to the February 8, 1996, meeting of the Shakopee Planning Commission to allow time for the applicant to resolve the storm water issues with the Scott County Highway Department, and move its adoption. Kate Muhlenhardt was present to answer any questions. Bob Stransky,RE. Stransky Land Surveyors,discussed the background of the preliminary plat and access onto County Road 18. He noted that the final plat was modified to eliminate several access points onto County Road 18 that were approved with the Preliminary Plat. He discussed road realignment within the plat and wetland concerns. He requested that the Planning Commission not deal with the subdivision of Lot 1, Block 2 at this time. He requested that this be reconsidered at the February meeting. Motion: Comm. Christensen/Madigan offered a motion to table the recommendation to the City Council to the February 8, 1996, Planning Commission meeting, and to review the subdivision of Lot 1, Block 2, Horizon Heights 4th Addition at that time. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. Chrmn. Joos added that there was a consensus to make the proposed revisions to the portion of the plat located east of CSAH 18, and stated that he wanted to ensure that this direction to the developer was clear. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE PRAIRIE BEND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AND PRELIMINARY PLAT OF CANTERBURY POINTE PUD FOR ONE LEVEL, OWNER-OCCUPIED CONDOMINIUMS FOR SENIORS 55 AND OLDER, TO BE CALLED CANTERBURY POINTE. THE PORTION OF PUD BEING AMENDED IS LOCATED SOUTH OF 4TH AVENUE AND WEST OF SARAZIN STREET (EXTENDED). (PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT AUGUST 3, 1995 MEETING. TABLED AT AUGUST 3, 1995,MEETING). Planning Intern Julie Baumann stated that Roger Derrick of Derrick Investments is requesting approval of an Amendment to the Prairie Bend Planned Unit Development (PUD) and a Preliminary Plat for Canterbury Pointe. The applicant is proposing to construct ten, one-level, condominium buildings on one lot. She added that the proposed development would result in a density of 4.93 units per acre. Roger Derrick. 6812 Pine Ridge Road.Edina,MN,stated that only one lot is being requested. • Shakopee Planning Commission September 7, 1995 Page 6 Comm. DuBois asked if private sanitary sewer will serve the lots. The Staff Engineer stated that public utilities cannot be installed when there is not a public road. She asked if that is common in other communities. Mr. Derrick replied that often the city will install utilities under a private road,but every city is different. Commissioner DuBois was concerned about not having public utilities. The Staff Engineer stated that public sewer access will be provided from the street to the property line. However, the section of pipe to be located on the lot will be private. Motion: Comm.Madigan/Mars offered a motion to close the public hearing. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. Motion: Comm. Madigan/Christensen offered a motion to recommend to the City Council the approval of Amendment No. 2 to the Prairie Bend Planned Unit Development(PUD), and the Preliminary Plat for Canterbury Pointe. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 9. VACATION: TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF THE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 3, BLOCK 1, CRETEX INDUSTRIAL PARK 1ST ADDITION. This item was approved on the Consent Agenda. 10. PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER AN APPLICATION TO AMEND THE 1980 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE DRAFT 1995 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO DESIGNATE THE NORTH ONE-HALF OF BLOCK 169, SHAKOPEE PLAT AS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. The Assistant City Planner stated that at their meeting on August 15th, the City Council adopted a Resolution Setting a Public Hearing Date to Consider a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Both the 1980 Comprehensive Plan, and the Draft 1995 Comprehensive Plan to Designate the North Half of Block.169, Shakopee Plat, as Single Family Residential. She went on to explain that the 1980 Comprehensive Plan designated the subject site as "Commercial". However,in both the draft 1990 Comprehensive Plan, as well as the draft 1995 Comprehensive Plan that was submitted to the Metropolitan Council, the site is designated as "Park", and the streets located north and west of the site are not provided on the Urban Land Use Plan. It appears that the omission of the north one-half of this block is an error, and that the City did not intend to designate the area as part of Huber Park. • Shakopee Planning Commission September 7, 1995 Page 7 She added that staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council designate this area as Single Family Residential in both the 1980 Comprehensive Plan and the draft 1995 Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Joos asked for clarification of the future zoning. The Assistant Planner stated that the most appropriate zoning for this area would be Old Shakopee Residential(R-1C). In response to concerns raised by Comm. DuBois, the Assistant Planner stated that there was not the likelihood of a commercial application in this area. Commissioner DuBois discussed her concerns about having residential zoning abutting commercial zoning. Commissioner Christensen discussed her concerns about changing this now when it has been an error for 15 years. Patricia Gober, 127 Main Street North,discussed her concerns about not being allowed to add on to her house because this error has never been corrected. In response to a question from Comm. Christensen, the Assistant Planner explained why the change is needed. Commissioners and staff discussed the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plans. Motion: Commissioner Mars/Madigan offered a motion to close the public hearing. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. Motion: Commissioner Mars/Madigan offered a motion to recommend that the City Council designate this area as Single Family Residential in both the 1980 Comprehensive Plan and the draft 1995 Comprehensive Plan. Vote: Motion carried. Comm. DuBois voted against the motion. Shakopee Planning Commission September 7, 1995 Page 8 11. PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE TO SECTION 12.07, SUED. 1.B(2.c) TO DESIGN HAUER'S COURT TO ALLOW AN 8% GRADE RATHER THAN A MAXIMUM 7% GRADE AS ALLOWED BY THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE PROPOSED HAUER'S 5TH ADDITION,SOUTH OF CR 16,AND WEST OF HAUER'S TRAIL. The Assistant City Planner stated that the applicants are requesting a variance to Section 12.07, Subd. 1.B(c), which states that the maximum street grade for local streets is 7%. The applicants would like to construct the street grade for Hauer Court, to be located within the proposed Hauer's 5th Addition, at an 8%grade. She stated that a variance to the provisions of the Subdivision Regulations may be recommended to the City Council if the Planning Commission finds that extraordinary hardships or particular difficulties regarding the physical development of land would result from the strict compliance with the regulations. She reminded the Commission that a variance may be granted only in the event that all of the variance criteria can be met, and stated that this request appears to be in conflict with Criteria 2 3, 4, and 5. Therefore, staff is recommending the denial of the variance. Commissioner Mars asked why this is not being considered by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals (BOAA). The Assistant Planner replied that variances to the Zoning Ordinance are approved by the BOAA. This is a variance to the Subdivision Ordinance, and they are required to be reviewed by the Planning Commission, and a recommendation is to be submitted to the City Council. Gene Hauer, 2088 Hauer Trail(applicant),stated the request is only for one foot difference. He believed that it would help with drainage concerns. He reviewed the grading plan to illustrate elevations. The Staff Engineer explained what the difference in grade would mean. Cliff Stafford, 2328 Eagle Creek Boulevard, stated that he is opposed to the approval of the variance request. He believed that the concentration of homes in the development far exceeds density requirements. He had concerns about drainage problems, noise, and saleability of the existing homes in the neighborhood. Kathy Stafford, 2328 Eagle Creek Boulevard, stated that they will be looking at the backs of four houses. She was concerned about traffic and access for emergency vehicles. Chnnn. Joos stated that the Planning Commission must focus on the variance request, and not the design of the Preliminary Plat. (The public hearing for this Preliminary Plat was held in January of 1995. However, it has not been brought forward to the City Council as yet.) Shakopee Planning Commission September 7, 1995 Page 9 Joan Luhmann. 2350 Eagle Creek Boulevard, was concerned about the variance request and possible drainage issues that may result from its approval. Howard Luhmann. 2350 Eagle Creek Boulevard, also expressed his concerns about drainage, resale values, and safety issues. Motion: Commissioner Madigan/DuBois offered a motion to close the public hearing. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. The Commission reviewed the criteria required for the approval of a variance to the Subdivision Ordinance(City Code Chapter 12): Criterion 1: The granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public safety, health or welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. Finding 1: The Planning Commission finds that staff has insufficient information from the applicant to determine what the impact of the approval of the variance would be upon the safety, health, or welfare of the public, or its impact upon other properties within the neighborhood Criterion 2: The conditions upon which the request for a variation is based are unique to the property for which the variation is sought, and are not applicable, generally, to other property. Finding 2: The Planning Commission finds that the applicant has not provided information regarding special topographical considerations applicable to the subject site that are not applicable to other properties within the area. Criterion 3: Literal interpretation of the provisions of this Chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of this Chapter. Finding 3: The Planning Commission finds that the maximum gradient percent for local streets does not deprive the applicant of the right to develop his property, nor deprive him of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties located within the Urban Residential Zone. Criterion 4: The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Shakopee Planning Commission September 7, 1995 Page 10 Finding 4: The Planning Commission finds that the request for the variance is being created by the applicant's desire to subdivide the site into seven single family lots. As such, it is subject to the provisions of the Subdivisions Regulations (Chapter 12 of the Shakopee City Code). The applicant has not provided sufficient information to show that the development of the site could not be accomplished without the approval of the variance to the Subdivision Regulations. Other design alternatives may exist for constructing the street at the maximum grade allowed or less. (For example, relocating the road to access Park Ridge Drive.) No actions by cm outside party have created a need for this request. Criterion 5: Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific property involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out. A hardship means the following: Criterion 5.A: The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls; Finding S.A. The Planning Commission finds that denial of the variance request would not hinder the property owner's ability to 'put the property to a reasonable use"since the site is currently being used for a private residence. The applicant has not provided sufficient information to show that the site could not be fully developed without the approval of the variance to the Subdivision Regulations. Criterion 5.B: The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property; Finding S.B. The Planning Commission finds that, although the topography of the site is steep, it is similar to that of the surrounding area. The applicant has not provided sufficient information to show that there are any circumstances unique to this property. Other design alternatives may exist for constructing the street at the maximum grade allowed or less. Criterion 5.C: The circumstances were not created by the landowner; Finding S.C. The Planning Commission finds that the request for the variance is being created by the applicant's desire to subdivide the site into seven single family lots without following the City's design criteria: No actions by an outside party have created the need for this request. Shakopee Planning Commission September 7, 1995 Page 11 Criterion 5.D: The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; and Finding S.D. The Planning Commission finds that the approval of this request would not alter the character of the area. Criterion 5.E: The problems extend beyond economic considerations. Economic considerations do not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Finding S.E. The Planning Commission finds that it appears that this request is being made primarily for economic reasons. It appears that the property could be fully developed within the standards of the Subdivision Regulations. Motion: Comm. Christensen/Madigan offered a motion to recommend to the City Council the denial of the variance request,with findings. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 12. PUBLIC HEARING: CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 3, 1995, TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 11. The Assistant City Planner stated that on June 7th of last year, the City Council approved the new Zoning Ordinance text. Since that time, staff has encountered minor problems implementing the Design Standard sections of the new regulations for the Agricultural and Residential zones. Therefore, staff is proposing amendments to Subd. 5, Design Standards, within each of these zones. Commissioners and staff discussed the proposed amendments. Motion: Commissioner Mars/Madigan offered a motion to close the public hearing. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. Motion: Commissioner DuBois/Mars offered a motion to table this item until the October 5, 1995,meeting. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. Shakopee Planning Commission September 7, 1995 Page 12 13. PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 11, THE ZONING CHAPTER, FOR A TEXT AMENDMENT TO ADD SECTIONS THAT WOULD ALLOW OUTDOOR STORAGE AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE INDUSTRY ZONES. Planning Intern Nicole Bennett stated that staff is proposing an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to add exterior storage as a conditional use in industry zones, and to establish Conditional Use Permit Specific Standards for exterior storage in industry zones as a City Code update overwrite. In response to a question from Commissioners, the Planning Intern noted that it has recently come to staffs attention that conditional uses involving exterior storage are not addressed in other sections of the Zoning Ordinance. The Commissioners discussed the proposed language. The Planning Intern suggested that berms be added to Item Gl. The Commissioners discussed exterior storage provisions in other cities. The Planning Intern noted that some cities prohibit exterior storage entirely. John Albinson,Valley Green Business Park, 5240 South Valley Industrial Blvd.,suggested that guidelines be set appropriately for the development community. He believed that they should be made stricter if the Commission wants them to be stricter, instead of making them more strict with the review of each Conditional Use Permit request. He expressed his concerns about when screening would be appropriate when the backs of two buildings abut, the size of exterior storage area allowed, requiring asphalt, and suggested that the Commission consider having different requirements in each of the two industrial zones. Cliff Stafford, 2328 Eagle Creek Blvd.,discussed the need for minimum standards. Eugene Hanson discussed the proposed language for exterior storage and suggested changes. Comm. Christensen expressed her hope that this language won't invite a lot of industries requiring exterior storage into the community. Motion: Commissioner Mars/DuBois offered a motion to close the public hearing. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. Shakopee Planning Commission September 7, 1995 Page 13 Motion: Commissioner Mars/Madigan offered a motion to table this item to the October 7, 1995, meeting and requested staff to review the proposed language and suggestions made for additional language. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 14. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business on the agenda. 15. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Joos adjourned the meeting at 11:45 p.m. OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS Regular Session Shakopee,Minnesota September 7, 1995 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mars,Joos,Madigan,DuBois, Christensen MEMBERS ABSENT: Bladow and Link STAFF PRESENT: Terrie A.Thurmer, Assistant City Planner Julie Baumann,Planning Intern Nicole Bennett,Planning Intern Dave Nummer, Staff Engineer Clare Link,Recording Secretary 1. ROLL CALL Chrmn.Mars called to meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll call was taken as noted above. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as submitted. 3. APPROVAL OF AUGUST 3, 1995,MEETING MINUTES The minutes were approved as submitted. Chrmn. Mars abstained from the vote due to his absence from the August meeting. 4. RECOGNITION OF INTERESTED CITIZENS Chrmn. Mars recognized anyone in the audience wishing to speak on any item not on the agenda. Tom Litenthow asked about the alley between 4th and 5th. Comm. Joos stated that the Final Plat for Market Place 2nd Addition is on the Planning Commission agenda later in the evening, but it could be removed from the Consent Agenda if discussion is requested. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 3, 1995, MEETING. TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR FISCHER AGGREGATES. The Assistant City Planner stated that the applicant is requesting a renewal of Conditional Use Permit No. 376, as well as a number of amendments to the permit. Amendments include: A. To expand the operation to include the five acre Rutt Farmstead. B. To relocate the natural gas pipeline on the site. C. To relocate the central processing area. D. To increase the final development grades from between 800 to 810 feet to between 774 and 814 feet. E. To change the operation from three to five phases. F. To extend the number of years for the mining operation from 17 years to 20 years. Board of Adjustment and Appeals Page 2 September 7, 1995 G. To increase the cubic yards of materials mined from 1,640,000 to 3,750,000 cubic yards. She stated that staff recommends the approval of the six of the amendments to the Conditional Use Permit, but recommends the denial of the amendment request to expand the hours of operation from between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, to 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. She added that since Conditions 16 and 17 of the original permit are not in compliance at this time, but would be resolved with approval of the amendments, staff is recommending the approval of the renewal if the six amendments recommended for approval by staff are approved by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. John Voss,Planning Consultant for Fischer Aggregates stated that they can live with all twenty items listed in the resolution. However, he stated that the limit on the hours of operation are a concern. He added that most mining operations are allowed to operate from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. They could live with restricting the hours of operation from 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., but would prefer 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. He suggested that this expansion of the hours of operation be approved on an interim basis or for the first year. Comm. Christensen asked why staff recommended the 5:00 p.m. ending time. The Assistant City Planner stated that staff is recommending shorter hours because of the proximity of the operation to residential homes. Comm. Mars asked if it has ever been discussed that the mine could operate, but trucks could not leave the site until after 8:00 a.m. The Assistant City Planner stated that she was unsure of whether it had been discussed in the past, but added that this is an option that the Board may want to consider. Comm.DuBois asked how close the nearest residence is to the mining operation. It was noted that the closest residence on the north side is 500 feet to 600 feet from the mine. Dave Czaja, 5262 Eagle Creek Blvd., stated that his property is one mile from the site. He discussed concerns about groundwater in the area and studies that have been done in the past. He discussed wells in the area which have dried up. It was also stated that many of the wells have very little water in them, possibly because of a drawdown effect from the Shiely operation. He stated that pumping large quantities of water creates a "cone" effect which is harmful to water levels. He expressed concern about the Shiely operation's continuous pumping. He added that he believed that there should be at least a 10' confining level between the water table and the bottom of the mine. He expressed concern about contamination of the groundwater. He asked whether groundwater and its protection has been adequately addressed. Board of Adjustment and Appeals Page 3 September 7, 1995 The Assistant City Planner stated that greater than ten feet is being provided for between the operation and the water table. Mr. Czaja noted that the drawdown effect from the Shiely operation is shown to be 23 feet. The Staff Engineer discussed the City of Savage's attempts to gain alternative water sources. He added that the Department of Natural Resources(DNR)has stated that no more wells can be drawn in the area. He stated that there is a water shortage right now. He stated that uses such as Shiely's, will be cut back in order to provide water due to these municipal water shortages. He stated that water tables will not come back. In response to Mr. Czaja's concerns about the cone effect, he stated that future wells will be located more to the south than they currently are. This will tend to draw down water before it gets to the mine site. He noted that Fischer has revised the overall floor of the mine, and they currently have plans for two large and deep storm water ponds. Kirsten Rojina, Sunde Engineering, stated that groundwater issues were reviewed during the Environmental Assessment Worksheet(EAW)process. She pointed out that with the Fischer mine, water is not being proposed to be drawn out and discharged into the river. They plan to recycle it. She noted that the Shiely site has several wells throughout their site which are monitored. Levels returned to normal following the closing of the mine in the fall. She added that she didn't think that there would be a problem with the water tables rising. Groundwater protection will be accomplished, and the Fischer mining operation does not use any chemicals. She noted that the DNR reviews water appropriations on an annual basis. Mr. Czaja noted that Shiely's pumps continue to nun throughout the winter, but at a slower rate than during the mining season. Beverly Koehnen, 2036 Canterbury Road, stated that she agreed with Mr. Czaja's comments. She stated that the groundwater needs to be protected. She stated that the groundwater has gone into the mining operation in the past. She discussed many past violations at this site. She stated that neighbors have a problem with the pit, enforcement, and follow-up by the City. She reviewed the police reports on the Fischer site over a several year period. She stated that there is a need for additional security fencing on the site. She stated that the hours of operation should not be extended,because they are so far beyond their limits already. Ms. Koehnen asked what is meant by increasing the final grades. The Assistant City Planner explained. Ms. Koehnen stated that the grades should be higher. She reiterated that the conditional use permit needs to be enforced. Comm. Mars asked how many of the police reports reflect the current owners of the mine, the Fischer's. Ms. Koehnen responded that nothing has been done on the site to mitigate dust and noise, and added that she believed the operation should be closed down. Board of Adjustment and Appeals Page 4 September 7, 1995 Liza Robson,one of the owners of the site,noted that the site was purchased by the Fischers in November of 1993. She stated that she doesn't have control over truckers coming to the site to buy materials. She stated that from her own experience, she didn't believe that living near a gravel mine is that bothersome. She added that she will immediately address any complaints that are relayed to her in the future. Motion: Comm. Joos/DuBois offered a motion to close the public hearing. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. Comm. Christensen stated that the gravel mine is there, and she didn't believe that it would be unreasonable for them to start their operation earlier in the morning when other construction is taking place. Comm. DuBois stated that 7:00 a.m. is not an unreasonable time to begin operating. She believed it would be unfair to require them to wait until 8:00 a.m. when others are operating at 7:00 a.m. Motion: Comm. Christensen/ DuBois offered Resolution No. 713, approving Amendment No. 3 to the Mineral Extraction and Land Rehabilitation Permit and Conditional Use Permit No. 376,to include a 7:00 a.m. start time, subject to the following conditions: 1. The operators shall comply with the standards and plans outlined in the document submitted by the applicant and tided, 'Fischer Aggregates, Inc., Conditional Use Permit, Shakopee,August 1995", with the following modifications and additions: No. Page Topic Item Comments A. v Definitions 10 Sec. 11.88, Subd.2.S(19)states that the maximum area without ground cover or being mined at one time is limited to 20 acres, not 25 acres,as stated by the applicant. B. 1 Introduction 1.A The Site Location should be T-115 not T-11S C. 10 Overall Desc. A.1 Sec. 11.88,Subd. 2.S(19)states that the maximum area without ground cover or being mined at one time is limited to 20 acres, not 25 acres,as stated by the applicant. D. 11 Access Road A.4 Sec.11.88. Subd.2.S(6)requires the operator to pave or gravel all roads within 450 feet of any other zone to minimize dust conditions. E. 11 Phase I A.5 Sec. 11.88, Subd.2.S(19)states that the maximum area without ground cover or being mined at one time is limited to 20 acres, not 25 acres,as stated by the applicant. Board of Adjustment and Appeals Page 5 September 7, 1995 F. 19 Haul Roads 4.b. Sec.11.88. Subd.2.S(6)requires the operator to pave or gravel all roads within 450 feet of any other zone to minimize dust conditions. G. 26 Setbacks E. Section 11.52, Subd.6.B. states that the minimum setback from any residential zone is 100 feet. The applicant is proposing a 100 foot setback from the property line for processing,but only a 30 foot setback for mining operations. Although a 30 foot setback is allowed from a business or industry zone,the site is adjacent to Agricultural and Rural Residential Zones,and a 100 foot setback is required on all sides(except the side directly adjacent to CR 83),for all activities related to the mining operation. Written consent from the adjacent property owner is not a consideration. The side of the site located directly adjacent to CR 83 requires only a 30 foot setback. H. 30 Proc. Slopes H.1 The applicant states that slopes and stockpiles around the central processing area will vary from 2:1 to 3:1.The site is adjacent to a residential zone. Sec.11.52, Subd. 14,requires that,"where slopes occur that are steeper than(1)foot vertical to three(3)feet horizontal,for a period of one(1) month or more, all access to such slopes shall be barred by a fence or other barrier at least four(4)feet in height". 30 Side slopes H.3 The applicant states that slopes and stockpiles around the central processing area will vary from 2:1 to 3:1.The site is adjacent to a residential zone. Sec.11.52, Subd. 14,requires that, "where slopes occur that are steeper than(1)foot vertical to three(3)feet horizontal,for a period of one(1) month or more, all access to such slopes shall be barred by a fence or other barrier at least four(4)feet in height". J. 31 Maintenance H.5 Sec. 11.52, Subd. 16,requires that the applicant cut or trim weeds and other unsightly or noxious vegetation as may be necessary to preserve a reasonably neat appearance and to prevent seeding on adjoining property. K. 31 Hours J. Although Sec. 11.52, Subd. 18 allows mining between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM,it also states that, "Shorter hours may be established in the Conditional Use Permit". The Board of Adjustment and Appeals have designated that the hours of operation be expanded from the existing hours of between 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM,to 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM,Monday through Friday. No"special permit"shall be issued by the City Council. L. 32 Traffic 2.b A ready-mix operation is not approved for this site,and this type of operation has not been proposed as an amendment to Board of Adjustment and Appeals Page 6 September 7, 1995 this Conditional Use Permit. A ready mix operation is not an accessory use to mining,but is a processing operation that is not appropriate within the Agricultural Zone. M. 32 Traffic 2.e A ready-mix operation is not approved for this site,and this type of operation has not been proposed as an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit. A ready mix operation is not an accessory use to mining,but is a processing operation that is not appropriate within the Agricultural Zone. N. 33 Figure 1 A ready-mix operation is not approved for this site,and this type of operation has not been proposed as an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit. A ready mix operation is not an accessory use to mining,but is a processing operation that is not appropriate within the Agricultural Zone. O. 47 Permits A The City of Shakopee does not require an "annual excavation permit". However,the Board of Adjustment has the authority to require an annual review of the Conditional Use Permit. P. 47 Permits F The City of Shakopee does not have provisions for approval of a"Special Permit"for a request for additional hours of operation. The hours of operation must be approved by the BOAA,and are specified in the Conditional Use Permit as between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM,Monday through Friday. Q. 48 Controls A Sec. 11.88,Subd.2.S(19)states that the maximum area without ground cover or being mined at one time is limited to 20 acres, not 25 acres as stated by the applicant. R. 48 Controls C Sec. 11.52,Subd. 5,referred to by the applicant,is the portion of the City Code which references Permitted Accessory Uses within the Mining Overlay Zone. A ready mix operation is not an accessory use to mining,but is a processing operation that is not appropriate within the Agricultural Zone. S. 49 Coordination C The City of Shakopee does not require an "annual excavation permit". However,the Board of Adjustment has the authority to require an annual review of the Conditional Use Permit. T. 49 Permits/Lic. A The City of Shakopee does not require an "annual excavation permit". However,the Board of Adjustment has the authority to require an annual review of the Conditional Use Permit. U. 49 Permits/Lic. B&C The City of Shakopee has an enforcement process in place and will enforce the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit in accordance with that process. Board of Adjustment and Appeals Page 7 September 7, 1995 Comm. Christensen/DuBois also offered a motion to approve the renewal of Mineral Extraction and Land Rehabilitation Permit and Conditional Use Permit No. 376 and Amendments 1 and 2. Comm. Mars asked if the ending time for the mining operation would then remain at 5:00 p.m. Comm. Christensen stated that the ending time would remain at 5:00 p.m. according to her motion Comm. Joos stated that he agreed with the 5:00 pm ending time. Comm. Mars stated that this mine has been a big problem for the City and the residents. However, with the new ownership, the hope is that they will comply with the conditions of approval. He added that he hoped that they would make good on their promises. Beverly Koehnen stated that neighbors often give up when nothing is done about the complaints that are called in. She believed that whatever is approved will be abused. Comm. Joos asked if any of the other Comm.s had a problem with the final grades. The response was in the negative. Vote: The motions carried unanimously. Comm. Christensen added that she hoped that the City's Enforcement Officer will take this property into consideration and create a scheduled review of the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit and its amendments. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 3, 1995, TO CONSIDER AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM DENSITY REQUIREMENT WITHIN THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE (RR) OF ONE DWELLING PER TEN (10) ACRES FOR A SITE LOCATED AT 9076 BOILING SPRINGS LANE. The Assistant City Planner stated that the applicant is requesting this variance in order to construct a single family residential home on a one acre portion of a 5-1/2 acre site which already contains a residence. She added that since the density requirement in the Rural Residential Zone is one dwelling per ten acres, and this parcel is only 5-1/2 acres in size, the site is already nonconforming. To divide the 5-1/2 acre site into two parcels would further increase this nonconformity. She stated that the public hearing for this request was opened at the August 3rd meeting, but that it was continued to tonight's meeting to allow time for staff to research whether or not there were any other options available for the applicants. She added that staff has discussed this issue with the City Attorney, and determined that there appear to be no alternatives available to develop this site as planned. During these discussions, staff also discovered that a Board of Adjustment and Appeals Page 8 September 7, 1995 variance to residential density is interpreted as a use variance and is prohibited in the State of Minnesota. She stated that a variance may be granted only in the event that all of the variance criteria can be met. She added that this application appears to be in conflict with Criteria 1, 2, and 3, and that staff is recommending denial of the variance request. Comm. DuBois asked the Assistant City Planner if she was involved with the platting of the Eagle Creek Bluff Addition and if this parcel was discussed at that time. The Assistant City Planner responded that, yes, she was involved with the Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Eagle Creek Blufly and added that the developer of this PUD is proposing to dedicate an easement for access to this site when and if it is Final Platted. She also added that since the 5- 1/2 acre site was not owned by the developer for the Eagle Creek Bluff PUD, it could not be required to be included. Comm. DuBois asked if the Planning Department takes parcels like this into consideration when adjoining areas are developed. The Assistant City Planner stated that all properties owned by the developer are taken into consideration. Comm. Joos added that he remembers discussions regarding the public hearing for the PUD for Eagle Creek Blufly and that the developer intends to dedicate an access easement for this site. Steve Larson, 1200 Sapphire Lane, stated that staff has still not talked to them about their proposal. He stated his concerns about not being allowed to build where he wants to and felt that he should be allowed to be close to Eagle Creek. Mrs. Larson stated that they have always maintained their own road and was concerned about emergency vehicles not being able to find them. Comm.Mars stated that the criteria for variances are very difficult to meet. Mr. Larson noted that all of the homes in the area have septic systems, and added that he believed that runoff would go into Eagle Creek. He believed that no one should be allowed to construct in this area. Regarding Variance Criteria No. 1A, "The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls", Mr. Larson stated that he believed that not being able to build a second home on the property is not being able to put it to a reasonable use and is a restriction to his property rights. The Assistant City Planner reminded the Board that the BOAA should review the findings after the public hearing is closed. Comm. DuBois asked for the location of where the house currently on the site is located and where the road is located. Larson noted the locations. She asked if the driveway will be in the Board of Adjustment and Appeals Page 9 September 7, 1995 same location when development occurs. Larson replied that the driveway location would not change, and noted where the proposed house would be located. In response to a question from Comm. Christensen, Larson stated that he has received legal advice that he should have requested a variance to build on 2-1/2 acres rather than 1 acre he requested with this variance. He added that he believed that the property is very unique. Mr. Larson asked why a road to the east of the site was not brought out to Boiling Springs Lane. Discussion regarding the location of the border between the City of Shakopee and the City of Savage took place. The Assistant City Planner stated that the entire 5-1/2 acre parcel is located within the City of Shakopee. Motion: Comm. Joos/DuBois offered a motion to close the public hearing. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. Comm. Christensen asked if the assumption can be made that the request is for a home on 2- 1/2 acres rather than on 1 acre. The Assistant City Planner stated that in order to assume that, a new public hearing would be required, along with renotification of properties within 350 feet. Comm. Christensen suggested that the applicant return with a request for a building on 2-1/2 acres. Comm.s discussed where to go from here. Comm. Joos stated that he believed that all the criteria should be reviewed at this time. Comm. DuBois asked if there was any mention of small parcels like this when the moratorium was in place. The Assistant City Planner responded that this parcel is considered a Lot of Record, and that only one Building Permit for a principal structure may be issued. The Board reviewed the criteria required for a variance, and came to the following findings: Criterion 1: The strict enforcement of the ordinance provisions would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. Undue hardship means the following: 1A. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. Finding 1.A The Board finds that the 5.5 acre parcel is currently being used as a private residence without the approval of a variance. Since the density requirement within this zone is one dwelling per 10 acres, and this parcel is only 5.5 acres in size, the site in already a non- Board of Adjustment and Appeals Page 10 September 7, 1995 conforming parcel. To divide the 5.5 acre site into two parcels, as proposed by the applicant (one parcel at 1 acre in size and the other at 4.5 acres in size), would further increase this non-conformity. Denial of the variance request would not hinder the property owner's ability to 'put the property to a reasonable use" since it is currently being used as a private residence. 1B. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property. Finding 1.B. The Board finds that the lot is not unusually shaped and there are no circumstances unique to the property. 1C. The circumstances were not created by the landowner. Finding 1.C. The Board finds that the request for the variance is being created by the applicant's desire to construct a single family residence on a one acre portion of a 5.5 acre site. In order to accomplish this, the 5.5 acre site would need to be reduced to 4.5 acres in size. Since the density requirement is one dwelling per ten acres, the approval of this variance would increase the nonconformity by creating two non-conforming lots of an even smaller size than the existing nonconforming lot. No actions by an outside party have created the need for this request. 1D. The variance,if granted,will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding 1.D The Board finds that the proposed lot size is substantially smaller than the current 10 acre requirement, as well as the previous 2-1/2 acre minimum lot size requirement. The Department of Natural Resources has expressed concerns regarding the site's proximity to Eagle Creek, they are recommending the denial of this variance request. 1E. The problems extend beyond economic consideration. Economic considerations do not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Finding 1.E. The Board finds that this request is being made primarilyfor economic reasons. Criterion 2: It has been demonstrated that a variance as requested will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Chapter. Finding 2: The Board finds that the variance request is in conflict with the Zoning Chapter's stated purposes of encouraging the planned and orderly development of residential land,- protecting and;protecting water resources and water quality; conserving the natural beauty and environmental assets of the City; and encouraging development in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. Board of Adjustment and Appeals Page 11 September 7, 1995 Criterion 3: The request is not for a use variance. Finding 3: The Board finds that this request for a variance to residential density is a use variance. Therefore, this criterion cannot be satisfied Criterion 4: Conditions to be imposed by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals will ensure compliance and to protect the adjacent properties. Finding 4: The Board is not imposing any conditions as part of this variance request. Motion: Comm. Joos/Madigan offered Variance Resolution No. PC-725, A Resolution Denying a Variance to Section 11.24, Subd. 5.A,with the Board's findings. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER AN APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO RELOCATE A 22' X 24' DETACHED GARAGE ONTO A SITE ZONED "OLD SHAKOPEE RESIDENTIAL". Intern Nicole Bennett stated that Kevin Hermes is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to relocate an existing garage from 201 South Market to his property at 815 4th Avenue East. Kevin Hermes. 815 4th Avenue East. was present to answer questions of the Planning Commission. Motion: Comm. Christensen/DuBois offered a motion to close the public hearing. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. Motion: Comm. DuBois/Madigan offered a motion to offer Conditional Use Permit Resolution PC-729, a Resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit for a relocated structure in the Old Shakopee Residential (R-1C) Zone, subject to the following conditions: 1. Relocated structures shall have a moving permit from the City under City Code, Sec. 4.08; 2. The applicant, prior to moving the relocated structure, shall have given cash, cashier's check, or letter of credit as a financial guarantee to the City to ensure completion of all work. The financial guarantee shall be in an amount equal to the Building Official's estimate of the cost to bring the structure into compliance with the Building Code; 3. Relocated structures shall meet all requirements of the Building Code within six months after moving;and Board of Adjustment and Appeals Page 12 September 7, 1995 4. If the relocated structure is not in full compliance with the Building Code after six(6) months after moving, the City, in its sole discretion, may draw on the financial guarantee and take whatever steps it deems necessary to bring the relocated structure into compliance with the Building Code. In the event the City draws on the financial guarantee, 10%of the total guarantee shall be paid to the City as its administrative fee. Vote: Motion carried unanimously. 8. OTHER BUSINESS No other business was on the agenda for discussion. 9. ADJOURN Chrmn.Mars adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m. y TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Tom Steininger, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Non-agenda Information Item DATE: 09 08 95 The Police Department and the Scott County Sheriff's Office jointly applied for and received a Safe and Sober Grant in the amount of $27, 100 to be used to pay officer overtime for enforcement hours dedicated to highway safety. The grant, written by SCSO Sgt. Wagner and Deputy Chief Poole, will run for four quarters. Media releases will precede each quarter and results of enforcement will be given to the media at the end of each quarter. The first two quarters will focus on alcohol violations. CITY OF SHAKOPEE BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT - AUGUST 1995 August 1995 August 1994 No. No. Valuation No. No. Valuation Month Y.T.D. Y.T.D. Month Y.T.D. Y.T.D. Single Family-Sewered 16 87 8,753,919 12 107 9,854,939 Single Family-Septic 2 16 2,963, 192 - 14 2,827,889 Multiple Dwellings 4 9 4,435,778 - 4 1, 193,504 (# Units) (YTD Units) (56) (88) - (-) (16) - Dwelling Additions 17 133 669,962 8 106 435,275 Other 2 9 308, 032 2 14 1,446,828 New Comm. Bldgs 1 6 17, 114, 000 - 7 937,716 Comm. Bldg. Addns. - 1 35, 000 - 2 250, 000 New Industrial-Sewered - - - 2 2 1,770, 000 Ind. Sewered Addns. 1 1 205,000 - 3 805,000 New Industrial-Septic - - - - 1 175,000 Ind. Septic Addns. - - - - - - Accessory/Garages 4 19 198,036 8 31 288,001 Signs & Fences 7 64 138,897 8 78 126,346 Fireplaces/Wood Stoves - 3 4,200 3 9 16,259 Grading/Foundation - 10 948, 554 2 13 709,970 Moving 1 2 - - 3 - Razing - 10 25,985 - 3 11, 150 Remodeling (Res. ) 5 45 432, 137 6 34 178,767 Remodeling (Comm/Ind. ) 4 29 1, 087,944 3 28 2, 344,019 TOTAL 64 444 37, 320, 636 54 459 23,370, 663 No. YTD. No. YTD. Electrical 78 390 57 386 Plumbing & Heating 107 431 64. 505 Total dwelling units in City after completion of all construction permitted to date 5, 385 CITY OF SHAKOPEE BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED IN AUGUST, 1995 11381 Novak Fleck 264 Bluestem Avenue House 97,070 L 11 B 1, Meadows West 1st 11382 Novak Fleck 229 Foxglove Lane House 105,989 L 18 B 3, Meadows West 1st 11383 Brice Beckman 1246 Prairie Lane Deck 1,960 11384 Menke Construction 575-579 Milwaukee Road Townhomes 146,098 L 1 & 2 B 2, Milwaukee Manor 11385 The Main Event 911 E. 1st Avenue Signs 1,000 11386 Menke Cosntruction 633-637-641-645 Milwaukee Road Townhomes 300,072 L 1-4 B 7, Milwaukee Manor 11387 Greystone Construction 373 So. Canterbury Road Addition 205,000 Tracts C & H RLS # 66 11388 Glenn Cozine 2318 Pike Lake Road Pole Barn 10,800 11389 Ham Mar Construction 8575 McGuire Circle Deck/Windows 5,000 11390 Novak Fleck 1439 Whitney Street House 94,425 L 11 B 2, Meadows West 1st 11391 Home Werk Tahpah Park Ramp 7,532 11392 Stubbs Building Movers 2187 Hwy 101 Moving 11393 Paramount Homes 677 Vista Ridge Lane House 240,000 L 6 B 1, Westridge Lake Estates 11394 Westside Petroleum 804 E. 1st Avenue Canopy 30,000 11395 Joseph Braunshausen 443 So. Market Street Deck 1,500 11396 Universal Signs 630 E. 1st Avenue Signs 3,900 11397 Pinnacle Homes Inc. 621-625 Milwaukee Road Townhomes 146,098 L 1 & 2 B 5, Milwaukee Manor 1st 11398 Kevin Lancaster 1663 Sage Lane Fence 800 11399 Pamela Woodruff 1524 Roundhouse Circle Fence 1,224 11400 Novak Fleck 376 Bluestem Avenue House 88,035 L 1 B 1, Meadows West 1st 11401 Novak Fleck 249 Foxglove Lane House 85,934 L 17 B 3, Meadows West 1st • 11402 Stubbs Building Movers 2187 Hwy 101 Barn 18,000 11403 Severson Homes 1418 Homestead Street House 153,955 L 1 B 2, Homestead Ridge 2nd 11404 Richmar Construction 1804 Sarazin Street Pumphouse 134,000 11405 Dean Jansen 1155 Menke Circle Deck 1,157 11406 Robert Young 1753 C. R. 18 Remodel 5,000 11407 James Development 1207/1217 Taylor Street Apartments 1,650,000 11408 Roger Erjavec 430 E. 3rd Avenue Garage 11,520 11409 Gary Thompson 1714 W. 13th Avenue Remodel 8,059 11410 Loren Mullenix 1608 Thistle Lane Deck 1,400 11411 Jodi Peters 2520 Emerald Lane Deck 1,764 11412 Novak Fleck 356 Bluestem Avenue Remodel/Deck 5,000 11413 John Klingelhutz 478 Market Street House 89,856 L 2 B 1, Market Place 11414 Urban Klein 605 E. 3rd Avenue Addition 5,000 11415 Steve Weckman 1408 E. 10th Avenue Garage 7,680 11416 Larry Anderson 702 Atwood Street Fence 706 11417 AWR, Inc. 911 E. 1st Avenue Reroof 10,000 11418 Novak Fleck 385 Bluestem Avenue House 82,132 L 1 B 3, Meadows West 1st 11419 L & D Contracting 804 E. 1st Avenue Remodel 12,000 11420 Kevin O'Brien 1024 So. Fuller Street Addition 45,000 11421 Novak Fleck 1408 Whitney Street House 85,942 L 4 B 4, Meadows West 1st 11422 Novak Fleck 104 Bluestem Avenue House 88,833 L 21 B 1, Meadows West 1st 11423 Richard Monnens 1285 Miller Street House 90,000 L 16 B 1, Parkview 1st 11424 New Century Const. 109 Foxglove Lane House 125,190 L 24 B 3, Meadows West 1st 11425 New Century Const. 129 Foxglove Lane House 125,190 , L 23 B 3, Meadows West 1st • 11426 C & M Home Bldrs. 1757 Greenway Avenue House 123,707 L 7 B 3, Prairie Bend 1st 11427 William Schultz 1020 Madison Street Deck 504 11428 Stan Pint 1427 E. Shakopee Avenue Decks 2,700 11429 Dick Hennes 1060 Eastview Circle Porch/Deck 18,000 11430 Paul Johnson 1125 Dakota Street Remodel 4,823 11431 Christoff Delzer 514 E. 5th Avenue Deck 800 11432 Jeffrey Sexton 1836 E. 10th Avenue Deck 980 11433 Schmidt Building 2206 Eagle Creek Blvd. Deck 850 11434 Randal Henderson 773 Lupine Court Deck 2,700 11435 King Homes 1458 Homestead Street Deck 900 11436 John Koopmann 1254 Swift Circle Remodel 10,485 11437 Rick Jeurissen 2987 Marschall Road House 90,588 S 29 T 115 R 22 11438 Metro Prairie Const. 2537 Onyx Drive Porch/Deck 21,000 11439 David Sand 1184 Merritt Court Storage Bldg. 1,200 11440 Novak Fleck 1428 Whitney Street House 95,654 L 2 B 4, Meadows West 1st 11441 Equity Construction Shakopee Town Square Sign 4,000 11442 LeRoy Signs 1147 Canterbury Road Sign 750 11443 Deutsch Construction 1724 Greenway Avenue House 118,000 L 3 B 4, Prairie Bend 1st 11444 Berg Drywall 700 Industrial Circle Remodel 8,000 Total: 4,835,462 S-- CITY CITY OF SHAKOPEE BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT - AUGUST 1995 August 1995 August 1994 No. No. Valuation No. No. Valuation Month Y.T.D. Y.T.D. Month Y.T.D. Y.T.D. Single Family-Sewered 16 87 8,753,919 12 107 9,854,939 Single Family-Septic 2 16 2,963, 192 - 14 2,827,889 Multiple Dwellings 4 9 4,435,778 - 4 1, 193,504 (# Units) (YTD Units) (56) (88) - (-) (16) - Dwelling Additions 17 133 669,962 8 106 435,275 Other 2 9 308,032 2 14 1,446,828 New Comm. Bldgs 1 6 17, 114, 000 - 7 937,716 Comm. Bldg. Addns. - 1 35, 000 - 2 250,000 New Industrial-Sewered - - - 2 2 1,770, 000 Ind. Sewered Addns. 1 1 205,000 - 3 805, 000 New Industrial-Septic - - - - 1 175,000 Ind. Septic Addns. - - - - - - Accessory/Garages 4 19 198,036 8 31 288,001 Signs & Fences 7 64 138,897 8 78 126,346 Fireplaces/Wood Stoves - 3 4,200 3 9 16,259 Grading/Foundation - 10 948,554 2 13 709,970 Moving 1 2 - - 3 - Razing - 10 25,985 - 3 11, 150 Remodeling (Res. ) 5 45 432, 137 6 34 178,767 Remodeling (Comm/Ind. ) 4 29 1, 087,944 3 28 2, 344,019 TOTAL 64 444 37, 320, 636 54 459 23,370,663 No. YTD. No. YTD. Electrical 78 390 57 386 Plumbing & Heating 107 431 64 505 Total dwelling units in City after completion of all construction permitted to date 5, 385 CITY OF SHAKOPEE BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED IN AUGUST, 1995 11381 Novak Fleck 264 Bluestem Avenue House 97,070 L 11 B 1, Meadows West 1st 11382 Novak Fleck 229 Foxglove Lane House 105,989 L 18 B 3, Meadows West 1st 11383 Brice Beckman 1246 Prairie Lane Deck 1,960 11384 Menke Construction 575-579 Milwaukee Road Townhomes 146,098 L 1 & 2 B 2, Milwaukee Manor 11385 The Main Event 911 E. 1st Avenue Signs 1,000 11386 Menke Cosntruction 633-637-641-645 Milwaukee Road Townhomes 300,072 L 1-4 B 7, Milwaukee Manor 11387 Greystone Construction 373 So. Canterbury Road Addition 205,000 Tracts C & H RLS # 66 11388 Glenn Cozine 2318 Pike Lake Road Pole Barn 10,800 11389 Ham Mar Construction 8575 McGuire Circle Deck/Windows 5,000 11390 Novak Fleck 1439 Whitney Street House 94,425 L 11 B 2, Meadows West 1st 11391 Home Werk Tahpah Park Ramp 7,532 11392 Stubbs Building Movers 2187 Hwy 101 Moving 11393 Paramount Homes 677 Vista Ridge Lane House 240,000 L 6 B 1, Westridge Lake Estates 11394 Westside Petroleum 804 E. 1st Avenue Canopy 30,000 11395 Joseph Braunshausen 443 So. Market Street Deck 1,500 11396 Universal Signs 630 E. 1st Avenue Signs 3,900 11397 Pinnacle Homes Inc. 621-625 Milwaukee Road Townhomes 146,098 L 1 & 2 B 5, Milwaukee Manor 1st 11398 Kevin Lancaster 1663 Sage Lane Fence 800 11399 Pamela Woodruff 1524 Roundhouse Circle Fence 1,224 11400 Novak Fleck 376 Bluestem Avenue House 88,035 L 1 B 1, Meadows West 1st 11401 Novak Fleck 249 Foxglove Lane House 85,934 L 17 B 3, Meadows West 1st • 11402 Stubbs Building Movers 2187 Hwy 101 Barn 18,000 11403 Severson Homes 1418 Homestead Street House 153,955 L 1 B 2, Homestead Ridge 2nd 11404 Richmar Construction 1804 Sarazin Street Pumphouse 134,000 11405 Dean Jansen 1155 Menke Circle Deck 1,157 11406 Robert Young 1753 C. R. 18 Remodel 5,000 11407 James Development 1207/1217 Taylor Street Apartments 1,650,000 11408 Roger Erjavec 430 E. 3rd Avenue Garage 11,520 11409 Gary Thompson 1714 W. 13th Avenue Remodel 8,059 11410 Loren Mullenix 1608 Thistle Lane Deck 1,400 11411 Jodi Peters 2520 Emerald Lane Deck 1,764 11412 Novak Fleck 356 Bluestem Avenue Remodel/Deck 5,000 11413 John Klingelhutz 478 Market Street House 89,856 L 2 B 1, Market Place 11414 Urban Klein 605 E. 3rd Avenue Addition 5,000 11415 Steve Weckman 1408 E. 10th Avenue Garage 7,680 11416 Larry Anderson 702 Atwood Street Fence 706 11417 AWR, Inc. 911 E. 1st Avenue Reroof 10,000 11418 Novak Fleck 385 Bluestem Avenue House 82,132 L 1 B 3, Meadows West 1st 11419 L & D Contracting 804 E. 1st Avenue Remodel 12,000 11420 Kevin O'Brien 1024 So. Fuller Street Addition 45,000 11421 Novak Fleck 1408 Whitney Street House 85,942 L 4 B 4, Meadows West 1st 11422 Novak Fleck 104 Bluestem Avenue House 88,833 L 21 B 1, Meadows West 1st 11423 Richard Monnens 1285 Miller Street House 90,000 L 16 B 1, Parkview 1st 11424 New Century Const. 109 Foxglove Lane House 125,190 L 24 B 3, Meadows West 1st 11425 New Century Const. 129 Foxglove Lane House 125,190 , L 23 B 3, Meadows West 1st 11426 C & M Home Bldrs. 1757 Greenway Avenue House 123,707 L 7 B 3, Prairie Bend 1st 11427 William Schultz 1020 Madison Street Deck 504 11428 Stan Pint 1427 E. Shakopee Avenue Decks 2,700 11429 Dick Hennes 1060 Eastview Circle Porch/Deck 18,000 11430 Paul Johnson 1125 Dakota Street Remodel 4,823 11431 Christoff Delzer 514 E. 5th Avenue Deck 800 11432 Jeffrey Sexton 1836 E. 10th Avenue Deck 980 11433 Schmidt Building 2206 Eagle Creek Blvd. Deck 850 11434 Randal Henderson 773 Lupine Court Deck 2,700 11435 King Homes 1458 Homestead Street Deck 900 11436 John Koopmann 1254 Swift Circle Remodel 10,485 11437 Rick Jeurissen 2987 Marschall Road House 90,588 S 29 T 115 R 22 11438 Metro Prairie Const. 2537 Onyx Drive Porch/Deck 21,000 11439 David Sand 1184 Merritt Court Storage Bldg. 1,200 11440 Novak Fleck 1428 Whitney Street House 95,654 L 2 B 4, Meadows West 1st 11441 Equity Construction Shakopee Town Square Sign 4,000 11442 LeRoy Signs 1147 Canterbury Road Sign 750 11443 Deutsch Construction 1724 Greenway Avenue House 118,000 L 3 B 4, Prairie Bend 1st 11444 Berg Drywall 700 Industrial Circle Remodel 8,000 Total: 4,835,462 #(0 Monthly Project Report - Submitted by Barry Stock September 15, 1995 Project Start Complete Status Comments 1. Perform Employee 11/1 12/1 50% Rec. Dept. Evaluations Complete 2. City Residents Guide 12/15 12/1 40% 3. Complete Contract Negotiations a. Sergeants 11/9 ? 0% b. Police 2/8 9/15 100% c. City Hall 12/9 9/8 100% 4. 5 Yr. Bdlg. Maint. Plan 7/10 7/30 20% 5. Community Center Process 1993 1995 Bldg. Issues 50% Staffing Plan (Fill Positions) 50% Arena Scheduling 50% Equip. Needs/Purchases 30% User Fee Policies 85% Facility Schedule 75% Family Net Office Agreement 90% Vending Proposal Contracts 95% Arena Ad Sales 50% ISD 720 Facility Use Agreement 75% Ice Time Rental and Schedule 60% Bldg. Operation Proposals 100% Furnishing/Fixture Assistance Proposals 100% 6. Blocks 3 and 4 3/15 6/15 Acquisition/Relocation Agreement 100% Bond Counsel Analysis of TIF 100% Rehab Proposal - Old City Hall 10% Create TIF Redevelopment District 10% 7. City Newsletter 8/4 8/18 100% Issue #2 10/1 10/25 0% Issue #3 8. Neighborhood Meeting 1/17 5/1 25% Concept 9. Admin. Policy RE: Common 12/21 4/15 10% Sewer/Water Line for Condo Units 10. TIF Plan Amendments 6/1 8/5 100% 11. CAP/Hi-Rise Cleaning Agree. 6/1 7/15 90% 12. Bldg. Cleaning RFP's 8/8 9/15 90% NON-AGENDA INFORMATIONAL ITEM , MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Karen Marty, City Attorney DATE: September 19, 1995 RE: Lebens & Link v. City Last winter Messrs . Lebens and Link sued the City, alleging that an old statute known as Chapter 183, Laws of 1965, still applied to Shakopee. They claimed that Chapter 183 had not been repealed by the legislature, and that it controlled how ordinances were adopted, how many councilmembers we had, the powers of the mayor, and various other governmental functions. The trial court granted the City summary judgment, dismissing the claim. The trial judge ruled that Chapter 183 had been repealed. Messrs . Lebens and Link then appealed. In early August the Court of Appeals required both parties to the appeal to answer certain questions regarding what, precisely, was the procedural status of this lawsuit, and whether the case should be dismissed. After reviewing the answers of both parties, the Court ordered that the case proceed to briefing. The Court reasoned that although the appeal was not filed properly, the City would not be harmed if the Court construed it as a proper appeal . Therefore, the appeal is going forward. Messrs. Lebens and Link filed their brief on August 14, 1995 . The City' s brief was filed September 14, 1995 . Messrs . Lebens and Link have another ten days in which they may file a reply brief, if they choose. The Court of Appeals will then either schedule oral argument or deny the request by Messrs . Lebens and Link for oral argument . (I did not request oral argument on behalf of the City, since I believe it is unnecessary. All the issues and arguments are adequately set forth in the written documents before the Court . ) If oral argument is scheduled, a decision will be rendered in the case within 90 days after the argument . If oral argument is denied, a decision will be rendered within 100 days from the date the reply brief of Messrs . Lebens and Link was due. If you would like a copy of any of the briefs, please let me know. The argument portion of the brief of Messrs. Lebens and Link is 10 pages; the argument portion of the City' s brief is 11 pages . Signed A✓i' KEM:bjm Karen Mart , it Pttorney [19MEMO] OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL ADJ. REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA AUGUST 15, 1995 Mayor Laurent called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M. with Cncl. Brekke, Beard, Sweeney and Lynch (arrived late) present. Also present: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator; Karen Marty, City Attorney; Barry Stock, Assistant City Administrator; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Bruce Loney, Public Works Director/City Engineer; and Terrie Thurmer, Assistant City Planner. Items added to the agenda: 15a) Engineering Secretary - Employment Status Change. 15b) COPS Universal Hiring Program. 15c) Budget Amendment Resolution No. 4281. 15d) Possible Warrant Study at 4th Avenue and Apgar Street. Sweeney/Beard moved to approve the agenda as modified. Motion carried unanimously. Liaison reports were given by Councilmembers. Mayor Laurent gave the Mayor's report. Mayor Laurent asked if anyone present wished to speak on any item not on the agenda. There was no response. Items added to Consent: 13b) Amendment to Final Plat of Dominion Hills - Res. 4271. 14b) Awarding Bid for Fuller St. 1995-8, Res. No. 4277 . 14c) Awarding Bids for Crack Sealing and Seal Coating, 1995-10, Res. No.4278 . 15a) Engineering Secretary - Employment Status Change. 15c) Budget Amendment Resolution No. 4281. Items deleted from Consent: 14a) Approving Plans and Ad For Bids on Vierling From CR-79 to CR-77, 1995-6, Res. No. 4276. Beard/Brekke moved to approve the Consent Business as modified. Motion carried unanimously. Beard/Brekke moved to approve the Minutes of July 11th and 18th, 1995. (Motion carried under Consent Business) . Mayor Laurent opened the public hearing on the modification of the Redevelopment Plan for Minnesota River Valley Redevelopment Project No. 1, and the Tax Increment Financing Plans for Districts 2, 3, 4, 7, and 9 . Barry Stock stated that the proposed amendments would make a more accurate determination of the estimated project costs included in the Tax Increment Financing Plan. The Rahr Malting forcemain sewer was also added to the Redevelopment Plan as a project. There is no expansion to the area. The proposed modifications will have no new impact on any of the taxing jurisdictions. Official Proceedings of the August 15, 1995 Shakopee City Council Page -2- Mr. Stock explained that both the Shakopee School District and Scott County have received notification of the public hearing and of the estimated fiscal and economic impact of the proposed modifications. To date, the City has not received any comments from either the School District or Scott County. The Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed modifications and determined that they were consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Laurent asked if anyone present would like to address the Council on the proposed modifications. There was no response. Mayor Laurent closed the public hearing. Lynch/Sweeney offered Resolution No. 4273, A Resolution Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota, Approving Modification Of Redevelopment Plan For Minnesota River Valley Redevelopment Project No. 1, And Approving Modification Of Tax Increment Financing Plans For Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 2 , 3, 4, 7, & 9, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Laurent opened the public hearing on vacating a portion of a drainage and utility easement between Lots 2 and 3 Block 1, Valley Park 6th Addition. Terrie Thurmer stated that the request for vacation of a portion of the drainage and utility easement was made in order to combine the two lots into one lot through the Minor Subdivision Process. Within the easement is an existing power line that will be relocated. Discussion as to how the costs of relocating the utility line will be allocated ensued. Mayor Laurent asked if anyone present in the audience would like to address the Council on the proposed vacation. Jon Albinson, Valley Green Business Park, approached the podium. He explained that when a parcel of land was sold to North Star Auto Auction, to provide power, a line from Valley Industrial Boulevard So. had to be connected. Shakopee Public Utilities later installed permanent underground service to Valley Industrial Boulevard N. They are now in the process of ordering switches that would allow them to remove that line in the next 3-4 months. The line cannot be removed until SPUC has completed their switching systems. The cost of relocating the line is an issue between SPUC and Valley Industrial Park. Mayor Laurent closed the public hearing. Official Proceedings of the August 15, 1995 Shakopee City Council Page -3- Beard/Brekke offered Resolution No. 4270, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee Vacating The Drainage And Utility Easement Located On The East 20 Feet of Lot 3 , Block 1, Valley Park Sixth Addition Except The Southerly 20 Feet And The Northerly 20 Feet Of Said East 20 Feet Of Lot 3, And The Drainage And Utility Easement Located On The West 20 Feet Of Lot 2, Block 1, Valley Park Sixth Addition Except The Southerly 20 Feet And The Northerly 20 Feet Of Said West 20 Feet Of Lot 2 , and moved its adoption. Sweeney/Brekke moved to amend Resolution No. 4270 to include language provided by the City Attorney which makes the effective date of the Resolution contingent upon the complete removal of the electrical line. Jon Albinson approached the podium and asked for the ability to relocate the line, and upon relocation it would be vacated. Karen Marty stated that she had drafted language that the effective date would be upon provision of alternative electric service to property currently served by the electric line. Motion carried unanimously on amendment. Motion carried unanimously on Resolution No. 4270, as amended. Mayor Laurent opened the public hearing on the proposed assessments for the street light at Valley Park Drive and Valley Industrial Park So, Project No. 1995-4 . Bruce Loney stated that the City Council has adopted Resolution No. 4245, a resolution declaring the cost to be assessed and ordering the preparation of the proposed assessments for the project. The total cost of the project, including administrative costs is $1, 098 . 60. There are three parcels proposed to be assessed at $366.20. Mayor Laurent asked if anyone present would like to address the Council. There was no response. Mayor Laurent closed the public hearing. Beard/Brekke offered Resolution No. 4275, A Resolution Adopting Assessments For A Street Light At The Intersection Of Valley Park Drive and Valley Industrial Boulevard South, Project No. 1995-4, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Beard/Brekke moved to direct the appropriate City officials to prepare an amendment to the 1995 Fee Schedule incorporating the fees as recommended by the Shakopee Park and Recreation Advisory Board (Civic Center admission charges) . ( (Motion carried under Consent Business) . Official Proceedings of the August 15, 1995 Shakopee City Council Page -4- Beard/Brekke offered Resolution No. 4274, A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 4143 Adopting The 1995 Fee Schedule (Jackson Township residents) . (Motion carried under Consent Business) . Beard/Brekke moved to approve Administrative Policy No. 238 - Jackson Township Recreation Contribution Policy. (CC DOC No. 227) (Motion carried under Consent Business) . Beard/Brekke offered Resolution No. 4272, A Resolution Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota, Approving Amendment No. 2 To The Final Plat For Dominion Hills 1st Addition, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under Consent Business) . Terrie Thurmer stated that recently City staff had determined that there was a one-half block area that was not included in the draft 1990 Comprehensive Plan, nor the draft 1995 Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Thurmer stated that the 1980 Comprehensive Plan designated the subject site as "Commercial". However, the site was designated as "Park" in both the draft 1990 Comprehensive Plan as well as the draft 1995 Comprehensive Plan when submitted to the Metropolitan Council. The omission of the north one-half of Block 169 is an error, and the City did not intend to designate the area as part of Huber Park. Ms. Thurmer stated that staff recommends that the City Council consider designating this area as Single Family Residential in both the 1980 Comprehensive Plan and draft 1995 Comprehensive Plan. Discussion regarding the site designation ensued. Beard/Sweeney offered Resolution No. 4271, A Resolution Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota, Setting A Public Hearing Date To Consider A Comprehensive Plan Amendment To Both The 1980 Comprehensive Plan, And The Draft 1995 Comprehensive Plan, To Designate The North One- Half of Block 169, Shakopee Plat as Medium Density Residential, and move its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Laurent stated that he would be abstaining on the next agenda item relating to the VIP Connection Charge for Outlots and left his seat at the Council table. Mr. Kraft stated that Gold Nugget Development Inc. is requesting that the VIP connection fee be collected only for the platted area of Meadows West 2nd Addition, and that the fee for the outlot area be collected at the time it is actually replatted. Official Proceedings of the August 15, 1995 Shakopee City Council Page -5- Mr. Kraft stated that it is a policy decision whether the VIP connection fee is collected at the time that the outlot is platted, or at the time it is actually subdivided into buildable lots. He explained that it is easier to collect the whole amount with the original plat. Judy Cox stated that the VIP charge is the result of a public improvement that took place in the 1980 's. At that time it was noted that when the property was annexed connection charges would then be added. Bruce Loney stated that the trunk sanitary sewer charge is also based on developable area. When the area is platted the amount of area that is developed is charged a trunk acreage charge. Discussion as to when to implement the VIP connection fee ensued. It was the consensus of the Councilmembers to delay collecting the VIP connection fee until outlots are subdivided into buildable lots. Beard/Brekke offered Resolution No. 4279, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending Resolution No. 4217 Approving the Final Plat for the Meadows West 2nd Addition, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously with Mayor Laurent abstaining. Mayor Laurent returned to his seat at the Council table. Mayor Laurent recessed the meeting for an Economic Development Authority meeting at 7: 50 P.M. Mayor Laurent re-convened the meeting at 9:20 P.M. Mayor Laurent recessed the meeting at 9:20 P.M. Mayor Laurent re-convened the meeting at 9:34 P.M. with Cncl. Beard absent. Beard/Brekke moved to declare the 1987 Chevrolet Caprice number 1G1BL5160HX200159 surplus property. (Motion carried under Consent Business) . Beard/Brekke moved to approve Bills in the Amount of $1, 105, 174.46. (Motion carried under Consent Business) . Beard/Brekke moved to approve the application and grant a Pawnbroker's Employee to David John Wagner, Charles Spencer and Eric Alton Stubbs, Shakopee Pawn and Cash Co. , 1147 Canterbury Road. (Motion carried under Consent Business) . Official Proceedings of the August 15, 1995 Shakopee City Council Page -6- Beard/Brekke moved to approve the application and grant a Tattoo License to Trevor Robert Collis, at Body/Art 1st in Hair and Tanning, 205 South Lewis Street, conditioned upon the City's receipt of the required certificate of insurance. (Motion carried under Consent Business) . Beard/Brekke moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute the agreement with Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Assoc. , Inc. to assist staff in feasibility report preparation for Sarazin Street and 17th Avenue Street and Storm Sewer and County State Aid Highway Storm Sewer from St. Francis Site to Mn/DOT Linear Pond at a cost not-to-exceed $7, 000. 00. (Motion carried under Consent Business) . Beard/Brekke moved to authorize the appropriate City staff to contact Scott County Personnel Department to advertise for a maintenance worker in the Public Works Department. (Motion carried under Consent Business) . Bruce Loney stated that Enebak Inc. is requesting a variance to the permitted hours of work for the construction of the second segment of the Shakopee Bypass Project. They are requesting a start time of 6:45 A.M. rather than 7:00 A.M. Sweeney/Brekke moved to waive the noise prevention section of the City Code for Construction Activities (Section 10. 60, Subd. 3D) to allow Enebak, Inc. to construct the Shakopee Bypass and to allow construction activities on Monday - Friday between 6:45 A.M. and 10: 00 P.M. and on Saturday between 6:45 A.M. until 9: 00 P.M. conditioned upon: 1) minimizing noise exposure near residential areas, and 2) if excessive residential complaints are received by the City, the variance can be revoked at the discretion of the City Council. Motion carried unanimously. Beard/Brekke moved to approve Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $93,921. 03 for the Downtown Alleys Project No. 1993-9. (Motion carried under Consent Business) . Beard/Brekke moved to terminate Bruce Loney's probationary status and adjust his salary to Step 2 of the 1995 Pay Plan. (Motion carried under Consent Business) . Brekke/Lynch moved to amend the sidewalk plans and specifications for the Vierling Drive Project from CR-79 to CR-77 (1995-6) to include a bituminous surface trail on the south side of Vierling Drive (as opposed to a sidewalk) . Motion carried unanimously. Brekke/Lynch offered Resolution No. 4276, A Resolution Approving Plans ,and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids for Vierling Drive, from County Road 79 to County Road 77, Project No. 1995-6, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Official Proceedings of the August 15, 1995 Shakopee City Council Page -7- Brekke/Sweeney moved to direct staff to prepare the sidewalk plan amendment to indicate a concrete surface sidewalk on one side and a bituminous surface on the other side of collector streets. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Brekke offered Resolution No. 4277, A Resolution Accepting Bids on Fuller Street, From 10th Avenue to Vierling Drive, Project No. 1995-8 and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Lynch moved to approve a contingency in the amount of 10% of the contract for use by the City Engineer in authorizing change orders and quantity adjustments on this project (1995-8) . Motion carried unanimously. Beard/Brekke offered Resolution No. 4278, A Resolution Accepting Bids on the 1995 Crack Sealing and Seal Coating Programs, Project No. 1995-10 and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under Consent Business) . Beard/Brekke moved to approve a contingency in the amount of 10% of the contract for use by the City Engineer in authorizing change orders and quantity adjustments on this project (1995-10) . (Motion carried under Consent Business) . Beard/Brekke offered Resolution No. 4268, A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 4223 A Resolution Adopting Assessments For The V. I.P. Interceptor Extension From County Road 79 To The West Corporate Limits, Rahr Forcemain And The Rahr Malting Service Line Projects No's 1992-9, 1993-1 and 1994-8, and moved is adoption. (Motion carried under Consent Business) . Lynch/Brekke offered Resolution No. 4269, A Resolution of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending Resolution No. 4253 , Approving the Final Plat of Orchard Park First Addition (with paragraph 2k to read "The developer shall pay $6,478.22 for the VIP sewer connection charge of the platted area. The VIP sewer connection charge of $10, 894 . 31 for the outlot area shall be collected at such time as the outlot is replatted. ") , and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously with Mayor Laurent abstaining. Beard/Brekke offered Ordinance No. 424 , Fourth Series, An Ordinance Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending City Code Chapter 11, Zoning, Sec. 11. 03, Zoning Map, And Sec. 11. 50, Planned Unit Development Overlay Zone (PUD) , Subd. 2 , Areas Covered, By Deleting The Mandatory Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay Zone, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under Consent Business) . Beard/prekke offered No. 425, Fourth Series, An Ordinance Of The City Of Shakopee, Minnesota, Renaming Certain Streets Lying Within Homestead Ridge Second Addition, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under Consent Business) . Official Proceedings of the August 15, 1995 Shakopee City Council Page -8- Beard/Brekke moved to authorize the employment status change for the Engineering Secretary position classification from part time to full time retroactive to January 1, 1994. (Motion carried under Consent Business) . Dennis Kraft stated that as a recipient of a COPS FAST Grant, Shakopee has been contacted to see if the City is interested in participating in the COPS Universal Hiring Program. Expressing interest keeps the City in the program, it does not constitute a commitment to accept a grant or hire anyone. Lynch/Sweeney moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to notify the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services that Shakopee is interested in participating in the COPS Universal Hiring Program. Motion carried unanimously. Beard/Brekke offered Resolution No. 4281, A Resolution Amending Resolution 4220 Adopting The 1995 Budget, and moved its adoption. (Motion carried under Consent Business) . Brekke/Lynch moved to direct staff to place the 4th Avenue and Apgar Street intersection on the Warrant Study Traffic Control list of requests. Discussion followed. It was noted that staff is working on establishing criteria for Council to consider on when to order traffic control devices. Brekke/Sweeney moved to table discussion. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Laurent recessed for an executive session for the purpose of discussing matters covered under attorney-client privilege at 9:53 P.M. Mayor Laurent re-convened the meeting at 10:38 P.M. and stated that no action was taken during the executive session. Mayor Laurent adjourned the meeting at 10:38 P.M. 411P 44 (20C �,ith S. Cox y Clerk Esther TenEyck Recording Secretary • RESOLUTION NO. 4294, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA, APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CANTERBURY POINTE. WHEREAS,the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee did review the Preliminary Plat for Canterbury Pointe on September 7, 1995, and have recommended their approval; and WHEREAS, all notices of the public hearing have been duly sent and posted and all persons appearing at the hearing have been given an opportunity to be heard thereon. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA, as follows: That the Preliminary Plat for Canterbury Pointe, described as: Lots 1 through 6,Block 3,Prairie Bend 1st Addition is hereby approved. Passed in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee,Minnesota, held this _day of , 1995. Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney i:\planningk61995\platres.doc /OIL, CONSENT Memo To: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator ie, From: Julie Baumann,Planning Intern Date: September 19, 1995 Re: Preliminary Plat for Canterbury Pointe Amendment No. 2 to Prairie Bend Planned Unit Development Introduction Cottage Homesteads, Inc. and Derrick Investments are requesting approval of the Preliminary Plat for Canterbury Pointe. The applicants are also requesting the approval of Amendment No. 2 to the Prairie Bend Planned Unit Development(PUD). The Prairie Bend PUD is located south of 4th Avenue, east of Marschall Road, and west of Shenandoah Drive. The subject site is located within the Prairie Bend PUD, south of 4th Avenue and west of Sarazin Street. A copy of the September 7, 1995, Planning Commission staff memo has been attached for your reference. Discussion The developer is proposing to plat one lot on the approximate 8 acre site. The lot meets the design standard requirements for the Multiple-Family Residential(R-3)Zoning District. The original Planned Unit Development (PUD) allowed for the construction of assisted living units. The developer associated with those plans is no longer involved in the project. Therefore, an amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) is necessary to allow the applicant to construct single level independent living units for seniors. There are pending estimated assessments on this property of $9255.13 per lot for each of the six lots that are currently platted. The Police Department has expressed concerns about the width of the driveway access areas. The driveway widths provided with this plat are 28 feet. This exceeds the Uniform Fire Code requirement of 20 feet. Alternatives 1. Approve the Preliminary Plat for Canterbury Pointe. 2. Do not approve the Preliminary Plat for Canterbury Pointe, stating the reasons for denial. 3. Approve Amendment No. 2 to the Prairie Bend Planned Unit Development(PUD). 4. Do not approve Amendment No. 2 to the Prairie Bend Planned Unit Development(PUD). 5. Table the decision, and request additional information from the applicant and/or staff Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission has recommended the approval of the Preliminary Plat for Canterbury Pointe (Alternative No. 1) and the approval of Amendment No.2 to the Prairie Bend Planned Unit Development(PUD)(Alternative No. 3). Action Requested Offer Resolution No. 4294, A Resolution Approving the Preliminary Plat for Canterbury Pointe, and move its adoption. Offer Ordinance No. 428, An Ordinance Approving Amendment No. 2 to the Prairie Bend Planned Unit Development(PUD), and move its adoption. Note: Resolution No. 4294 and Ordinance No. 428 will be placed on the table for the September 19, 1995 City Council meeting. i:\planning\cc\1995\cc0919\ppcaoptdoc Memo To: Shakopee Planning Commission From: Julie Baumann, Planning Intern Meeting Date: September 7, 1995 Re: Preliminary Plat of Canterbury Pointe Amendment No. 2 to Prairie Bend Planned Unit Development(Public Hearing Closed and Recommendation tabled at the August 3, 1995 Planning Commission meeting) Site Information: Applicant: Derrick Investments, Edina, MN 55439 Location: South of 4th Avenue and West of Sarazin Street Current Zoning: Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Adjacent Zoning: North: Light Industry (1-1) South: Urban Residential (R-1B) East: Multiple-Family (R-3) West: Multiple-Family (R-3) Comp. Plan: 1980: Commercial Draft 1995: High Density Residential MUSA: The site is within the MUSA and can be served by all municipal utilities Introduction Roger Derrick of Derrick Investments has submitted applications for an Amendment to the Prairie Bend Planned Unit Development (PUD) and a Preliminary Plat for Canterbury Pointe. The Prairie Bend PUD is located south of 4th Avenue, east of Marschall Road, and west of Shenandoah Drive (See Exhibit A) . The subject site is located within the Prairie Bend PUD, south of 4th Avenue and west of Sarazin Street (See Exhibit B). Discussion The Prairie Bend Planned Unit Development (PUD) final development plans were approved by the City Council on July 26, 1994. The original development plan for this portion of the Prairie Bend PUD allowed for six one level assisted living buildings(a total of 24 units)to be constructed on six lots. The density for this part of the project was proposed to be 3.0 units per acre. The applicant is proposing with this request to construct ten one level condominium buildings(a total of 40 units) on one lot. The proposed development would result in a density of 4.93 units per acre. • 1 • r� The developer associated with the original plans for the assisted living units is no longer a participant in the project. An amendment to the PUD is necessary to allow the current applicant to construct the ten one level condominium buildings for senior citizens. These units provide independent living arrangements for individuals 55 and over. The developer is proposing to plat one lot on the 8.115 acre site (See Exhibit C and Exhibit D). This lot meets the design standard requirements for the Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zoning District. The access points for the proposed development do not differ from the access points designed in the original plat. Staff has determined that access to the parking facilities (garages) is in conformance with City standards. Section 11.81, Subd. 5 of the Zoning Ordinance states that only one principal building shall be located on a lot, unless the lot is subject to a planned unit development or has a conditional use permit for a development containing more than one principal structure on a lot. The multiple buildings on this lot are allowable due to the subject site being included in a planned unit development. Section 11.60, Subd. 8 of the Zoning Ordinance provides landscaping requirements for developments. The landscape plan, as proposed, does not appear to meet all of the requirements of this section of the City Code. Because a variance to this requirement has not been requested, it is the assumption of staff that the additional plantings will be provided at the building permit phase of development. The developer is proposing to dedicate a 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement beneath the driveway areas. This easement allows for the provision of water services by Shakopee Public Utilities (SPUC). The ponding area will also be dedicated as a drainage and utility easement. Because the subject site is currently platted as six lots, easements currently exist on the subject site. The applicant has submitted an application to vacate the existing drainage and utility easements on the property. The Planning Commission will be asked to make a recommendation to the City Council on this vacation at a later date. Private sanitary sewer will serve the buildings on this lot. Maintenance of the proposed driveways will be the responsibility of the Homeowners Association of Canterbury Pointe. Special assessments are pending on the subject site. The open space, park dedication, stormwater, and wetland regulation requirements have all been addressed with the original approval of the Prairie Bend Planned Unit Development (PUD). Alternatives 1. Recommend to the City Council approval of the Preliminary Plat of Canterbury Pointe. 2 2. Recommend to the City Council denial of the Preliminary Plat of Canterbury Pointe. 3. Recommend to the City Council approval of Amendment No. 2 to the Prairie Bend Planned Unit Development (PUD). 4. Recommend to the City Council denial of Amendment No.2 to the Prairie Bend Planned Unit Development(PUD). 5. Table the decision to allow staff and/or the applicant to provide additional information. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends Alternatives No. 1 and No. 3. Action Requested Offer a motion to recommend to the City Council the approval of the Preliminary Plat of Canterbury Pointe and Amendment No. 2 to the Prairie Bend Planned Unit Development (PUD), and move its approval. iAplannintpc_boaa\1995\pc0907\pplatcptdoc • 3 EXHIBIT A ' = N° Illa 41r11.1....:..''.= inmi H' ! 11 • id oa = _ 1 ' .,I inn > .r„ lor R ff `\• .�y-... F fr\ rte \.•. �, , s MR . /�\, ` .J ht: s* /,i. � �., e\; \\\l`\ \ \,' : � \ _ a > 1 v1.4:, N ::. `: • •• :. b, kw • 4 . \�/ /h '�f,f�/,/\ fir/ y -•V� ''.�. ' MEI ii, --= '')i,:-- .:L.:4v::::.-"NI -:-. 0,.:::‘ ,'.,,.:‘ ,,:niX.: k.... ... A 4, ....,,,,., if .....k. 14;7,A,".. �� • R f .�, R-1 B f SUBJECT SITE "/ ` . ' R_1 B R S _ 1 bti f li pill pito 41, 4111 ..Na 111 At 111R all Idlose�, N i � , : ` MEM ME I ii,_ . ip o �A 1� Nip �� irli • . LIII • Yf .........., li .• ' , I 1 1 i If I Ii.I� i1 1,� 000 11 , , 1 . MR if likt4 ,,''''' • J al I . E. ,.ve I b4 4fr 4 iv/,+ ift , .--e_—_,4 •1 1 MIMI WW2 gli A, .3 -a lib . , AA= 40. "Fii.edicip, 4 --41-kk„,„ lisr4g. : . ill* *it o . 4001i: Aill • , 9 %* d17F d• R3 ~•' •`��� j '- ,.. - "it ' S �� f . O�i�Wli�3i ■ eo�ss o •- wy�ie,�..,611.41#41,10...O ., �„ ; to I rf I ;- 1 I 1'I ''1 ia4p� aa� un ., 4 - ; p 44l4 a- (�` pip CIER60 �► - ■ • A V �:, �ti� �tti -Pm :i'lleatto ►� a� ��� al I him 611 7,1 :J --I u i �� _i' w 0 00 ---- 1 o= • o mil= o • R 2 EXHIBIT B ,N, ..2N,N B,W _477_,.. ignnI 1 I W . 0a ll i. 7 . ; 1.- y ulna ma > ..,, ; .:?:**:.*:„..V.0.-... .I: 1; kV I r . 3 • SUBJECT SITE ;�V 41 aAbillp ii ' • MR : N R 1 B I • ...I 4, , ,,iii,,,,‘ • _ ii.,. ♦ I. \ R316 • R-1B \ O0. / R 1B • R .� ►�_ ,II; v ' III iiii 611 41P44'./„,/, 7040 ihk,.." ..., ._ 2 \UT— .. '4! .EMIAkfi- c El • I1101 \ J lin ! i 1 tt♦I. ' r• • * / cm e , _ . r t i fir--\ `r i•1 �,._��, i -, r I r. 1 r� * • C C . I ... 6 L';',, 1E\ • - 1 i , I 1 •I 1 5 1? WM , Ilk 1.11•11:11'' • ( • I I i r. \ ii + unt Nr + • r•zl *AYE. I . • I • I :$ s`'_1 • \ Oa i X114 Si w L . 1 i I • ' irI 1 I u �r !' //I '/r ME _ I I ► i II \ • . .. 0\ I,' *.. 44,;:,(<../.,y.) 44k1 wA ,. ,.;..- , ,11-_,..irt*, , - .lila e•. I d 7 • R 1 +'Fri r� ' I .li) (.,rl '•\,, • \ `. . .• ,A ;It ,S 'WV I I 5 r,i i it r iT; * ' V�`@,Drrrt !� B� '�; i7 E M i �• �. �‘, 1. Ii I •� ■ oro ■ A. i� 1 7 4 - 1 ., •ret'1 ..I ,2 ■\i,. ,,-- ^ . r n• - 2 11:. 'I' 1 e I 1 1 I I} ; it seri !I iji(i a ilI r '/ /- 1 I . 141 la iii :>` 11 -I! lit iff 1410 ir.,4„.4- - .1 i r .t -- t 3 . i .t1 I a " 1 rt 1 1111111101i °1111. '' ll - ... --,1..I, • Ilt. .._/./ ti iiiii \... .....i_ i_ .,. .. ic „ so ! :1 it p • „, ..p.. 44, 31 11 ?\ s Il (4 , 1 I r P IVI% 0 .. t . r.- 4 1 ) in t f cc,,, ; 0 \\ __..f -- . , 1 11 ‘ . . • A ‘ 1'4 r t. .�1...... re ;l� I .tea )) I cI ' 1 iI�.r± VW 71Z Ti ri 'l ----1) it i �ij r 1 1 �� \ � — ' ODO !I ;It _ , _. i. " ..... , g... A % t) Z C ,,,t11 ] - i 0 ,G. 1.. 4. z \rt .\ ) v) 7) = 1 I, , . 1 ) wolimiiiC o : a „___ ... • __ r. -.-.--N.- "1 .% :::' , . t ,iii NI, ....,k_ „ma.... 1" --1 z . .. 1N z HI1029.1111111111111"111.11111111.1.1111.1111111"." 1 1 U r-- ipi „ I a a —--- — Ir. _' — -� Z al 133111.S NIZVWS E _ c1.4tern doua ) tx z m i e i 18 ‘4 19 1 " I 0. .. 5 u, 4uda AWN -' C, PII1r rrrr�*I m XI W i•... t4'."' 2 -2 .2 (/) _ = 1MilliAlir: III XI r- > 1 11110111 ran MI I. - C WI 0 -I 0 U ,; : ; ; 1'1* 1r" C) �I h' fU1r I-- 4 a' rilni i 0 idlii & i > z z 23A -sa2cie %1" • WWII ITA 1 I i[ 1411 " ir CANTERBURY POINTE I . . 1 1 r r ,. s0*0. . w I, •1 1 . ¶ / ...--•- / .---- --- — / •1t ,,J r3 . 73 . il .14' tr, t -...• �r 211 1 ` t / • 1 kt 1 MP 1 . ..!4' , J • irrlil . .1 id 4 1 1 c3 `� 1 �_ i 1 _ r i li e - 1 T 1 --- , w r -'a, 1 El -- r 1 1 as p ►',( I •1 • = t 44:0 (,, I r . 3 I r (� �`. J t, I 3 ..t. I I "•-.14,1 ;,... -1' '° _ �' __,ut N rZi 1 i • + t� �w \ \ ,t :\ "9? F 1 \ • C7 c7) 4 , 4. .. ... es yn{ _ 4 I 8 77 _ S .,no%"1.11Y x1146.61 i �^ (— s . • 7 C N p p"� I • 4le 81 IXC 1;1 Ia '' I I -"a is r ir' :fib I 1;! • I I _ I I ii:I1 4 0 ow o f I I A El r A !il 111 '4Q N L _ Qit 1 • N I • N ' • N ' I' 10.13 Memo To: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator From: Terrie A. Thurmer, Assistant City Planner . Date: September 19, 1995 Re: Appeal of the Decision of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals regarding PC-724, Variance: 2.5 Foot Variance to the 20 Foot Side Yard Setback Requirement in the Rural Residential (RR)Zone. The letter of appeal for the City Council item mentioned above was not included in the staff memo. Attached to this memo is a copy of a letter dated August 14, 1995, from Linda Bergherr and Joseph T. Johnson requesting an appeal of the decision by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Also, Alternative No. 3 states that this is a public hearing. Please note that while this is a hearing, it is not a public hearing, and notification of property owners within 350 feet is not required. RECEIVED AUG 1 4 1995 August 14, 1995 Mr. V. Paul Bilotta, Senior Planner City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Mr. Bilotta: This letter is to notify you of our appeal to the decision reached by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals on August 3, 1-995. Please be reminded of our conversation at City Hall on August 8 of my intention to pursue the appeal and your suggestion that we contact Karen Marty regarding the new city ordinance. It is our understanding that this ordinance allows a relatively easy way to make changes in lot surveys for situations like ours. However, we were not able t6 obtain the additional information regarding a potential lot line change until our phone conversation this morning with Ms Marty; we believe that Ms Marty and Jim Larson, our neighbor, are discussing this matter today. We have not yet received the documents which you said you would provide, and I trust that those will be made available to us soon. Please find the enclosed $85 application fee required to appeal the above decision. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely yours, Linda Bergherr Joseph T. Johnson 1316 Blue Heron Trail Shakopee, MN 55379 cc: Karen Marty, Attorney City of Shakopee Enclosure #10 b. HIECIEUWita SEP 1 9 1995 Mr. Paul V. Bilotta, Senior Planner Sept. 19, 1995 City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee , Mn. 55379 Dear Mr. Bilotta: This letter is to notify the City Council of Shakopee that we will not be able to attend the meeting tonight for the following reasons: We were not aware that we needed to state our reasons again in written form concerning how we think that the appeals board errored in their decision to deny our variance application prior to the meeting. James Larson, our neighbor, will not be able to attend tonight's meeting do to a business commitment. Recently Mr. Larson and I determined that we only need a variance of 1.5 feet. We are sorry for the late notification, and we plan to be ready at the next available date. Sincerely, Joseph . ohnson 1316 Blue Heron Trail Shakopee, Mn. 55379 ACTION REQUESTED: Offer a motion to table the decision to the October 3, 1995, meeting of the Shakopee City Council, and move its approval. it- to b. JIM LARSON 1336 Blue Heron Trail - Shakopee. MN 55379 - Phone (612)496-1222 - Fax(6121496-1222 September 18, 1995 TO: The Honorable Mayor Laurent, Members of the Shakopee City Council Re: Appeal of the decision of the Board of Adjustments as it pertains to a request for a 2-1/2'variance. Joseph Johnson&Linda Berger. Unfortunately I am unable to attend the council meeting scheduled for September 19th due to a business commitment which requires that I be out of town. I would however like to express my concerns through this letter. Many new homes are being built today with three season rooms such as Mr. Johnson is proposing for his home. It would increase the value of his property and I believe it would be an enhancement to the neighborhood. I have seen Mr. Johnson's construction plans and believe that they are the best for his home and its overall appearance. His plan would make the addition appear as if it had been part of the original construction. Any other plan would look more like an add on,or an afterthought and I would not like that as well. In 1978 when this home was built a set back of only 15'was required. However, in 1979 that set back was changed to the 20'requirement. I believe his home is positioned slightly under 20'from the lot line right now and I don't think this variance should be denied. My home is located just East of Johnson's property and I have a 42'set back and if this variance is granted there will still be approximately 60'between our homes. Also, I am the only neighbor to whom Mr. Johnson's addition would be directly visible. In the past I have made a couple appearances in city hall to oppose neighborhood plans. I have a very strong desire to keep my neighborhood up to the highest standards and it is my belief, as stated earlier,that Mr. Johnson's proposed addition would be an improve- ment to this 17 year old home. I therefore recommend that this variance be granted to Mr.Johnson. Thank you. Respectfully, 'DiD Memo To: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator From: Terrie A. Thurmer, Assistant City Planner Date: August 31, 1995 Re: Appeal of the Decision of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals regarding PC-724, Variance: 2.5 Foot Variance to the 20 Foot Side Yard Setback Requirement in the Rural Residential (RR)Zone. Introduction Joseph T. Johnson and Linda K Burgher requested a variance to Section 11.24, Subd. 5.C, regarding the 20 foot side yard setback requirement within the Rural Residential (RR) Zone in order to construct a three season porch. At the August 3, 1995, meeting, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals denied the request for the Variance. The applicants have appealed this decision to the City Council. A copy of the August 3, 1995, Board of Adjustment and Appeals staff memo has been attached for your reference. Please refer to this Staff Memo, as well as the August 3, 1995, meeting minutes, for background information regarding this variance request. Discussion The Shakopee Board of Adjustment and Appeals held a public hearing regarding this request at their August 3rd meeting. At this meeting, the variance request was denied. The applicant has submitted the attached letter requesting an appeal of the decision of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Section 11.89, Subd. 6, regarding appeals, states that, "Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals regarding a variance may have such decision reviewed by the City Council if a request for review is submitted to the Zoning Administrator within 10 days of the date of the decision. The appeal shall be in writing and shall include a statement of the alleged errors or omissions of the Board." Alternatives 1) Uphold the decision of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and affirm the denial of the variance request. 2) Overturn the decision of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and approve the variance request, including a list of the errors and omissions of the Board. 3) Continue the public hearing and table the decision to allow the applicant and / or staff to provide additional information. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. Action Requested Offer Resolution No. CC-724, A Resolution Upholding the Denial of a 2.5 foot variance to Section 11.24, Subd. 5.C, and move its adoption. (NOTE: If the City Council concurs with the recommendation of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, the City Council should offer Resolution No. CC-724 which UPHOLDS the decision of the Board TO DENY the variance request, and move its adoption.) i:\planning1cc\1995\cc0919\appeaIjo.919 Applicant: Joseph T. Johnson and Linda K. Burgher Memo To: Shakopee Board of Adjustment and Appeals From: Nicole Bennett, Planning Intern Meeting Date: August 3, 1995 Re: Variance-2.5 Foot Variance to the 20 Foot Side yard Setback Requirement in a Rural Residential(RR)Zone. SITE INFORMATION Applicant Joseph T. Johnson and Linda K. Burgher Location 1316 Blue Heron Trail Current Zoning Rural Residential (RR) Comp. Plan Designation 1980- Shoreland(S) Draft 1995 -Rural Residential(RR) Municipal Utilities Site is not served by municipal utilities. Adjacent Zoning Zone Title North (AG) Agricultural Preservation Zone South (AG) Agricultural Preservation Zone East (RR) Rural Residential Zone West (RR) Rural Residential Zone CASE HISTORY Timber Trails Addition was platted in 1976. The legal description of the subject site is recorded as Lot 6,Block 3, Timber Trails Addition. Please refer to the location map labeled Exhibit A. INTRODUCTION The applicant is requesting a 2.5 foot variance to the 20 foot side yard setback in order to build a three season porch. The applicant requests a variance from the following section of the City Code: Section Subd. Subject Section 11.24 Subd. 5 Design Standards within the Rural Residential Zone, Item C. Lot Specifications. The variance is for an inside yard lot. Section 11.24, Subd. 5C. states that the side yard setback for inside lots in the Rural Residential Zone is 20 feet. FINDINGS Section 11.89, Subd. 2, of the City Code contains provisions for the granting of variances only if all of the following circumstances are found to exist. Staff has provided draft findings on each criterion. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may use.or modify these draft findings as it sees fit: Criterion 1 The strict enforcement of the ordinance provisions would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration. Undue hardship means the following: 1.A. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls; Finding 1.A. The subject site is currently being used as a single family detached residential dwelling. Single family detached dwellings are listed as a Permitted Use within the Rural Residential (RR) Zone. Denial of the 2.5 foot variance to the 20 foot side yard setback would not hinder the applicant's ability to put the property to a "reasonable use" because it is currently being used as a residential dwelling and could continue to be used as such. 1.B. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property; Finding 1.D The lot is not unusually shapecL and there are no circumstances unique to the property that create the plight of the landowner. The site measures 90 feet wide adjacent to the street, 173.43 feet wide in the rear, 282.06 feet deep on the west and 282 feet deep on the east. Please refer to Exhibit B. C. The circumstances were not created by the landowner; Finding 1.C The request for the variance is being created by the applicant's desire to construct a three season porch attached to the main level of the single family home. No actions by an outside party have created the need for this request. D. The variance, if granted,will not alter the essential character of the locality; Finding 1.D. The applicant feels that the "character of the locality" would be maintained with the granting of the variance because the closest structure on the adjoining property to the east would still be approximately 58 feet from the applicant's home. Please refer to the site map labeled Exhibit B. However, the essential character of the area will be altered because the 20 foot side yard setback would be reduced to 17.5 feet. E. The problems extend beyond economic considerations. Economic considerations do not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Finding 1.E This request is being made for economic and aesthetic purposes. The applicant stated that the "appropriate"place to build an attached three season porch is adjacent to the kitchen due to an existing door and deck However, there appear to be other design options for the location of an attached porch that would not require a variance from the 20 foot side yard setback Please refer to Exhibits B and C. Other options seem to be available and physically possible. Criterion 2 It has been demonstrated that a variance as requested will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Chapter. Finding 2 The purposes of the Zoning Chapter are stated in Section 11.01, Subd. 2, as follows: "This Chapter is enacted to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the City of Shakopee through the following: A. Encouraging the planned and orderly development of residential, business, industrial, recreational, and public land; B. Providing adequate light, air, and convenience of access to property; C. Limiting congestion in the public right-of-way; D. Preventing overcrowding of land and undue concentration of population and structures; E. Providing for the compatible integration of land uses and the most appropriate use of land; F. Encouraging development in accordance with the City's comprehensive plan; G. Conserving the natural beauty and environmental assets of the City; H. Protecting water resources and water quality; 1. Facilitating the provision of water, utilities and sewage disposal to property as appropriate; J. Protecting the population from fire and other hazards to public safety; and K Providing for the administration of this Chapter and amendments to it, defining the powers and duties imposed by this Chapter and prescribing penalties for violation of its provisions." This variance request is in conflict with purposes A and D. Criterion 3 The request is not for a use variance. Finding 3 The request is not for a use variance. Criterion 4 Conditions to be imposed by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals will ensure compliance and to protect the adjacent properties. Finding 4 This criterion is not applicable in this situation. There are no conditions being recommended at this time. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve variance request and modify findings accordingly. 2. Deny variance request, with recommended findings. 3. Modify findings and deny variance request. 4. Continue public hearing and request additional information from staff and/or the applicant. STAFF RECOMMENDATION A variance to the provisions of the Zoning Chapter may be issued to provide relief to the landowner in those zones where the Chapter imposes undue hardships or practical difficulties to the property owner in the use of the land. A variance may be granted only in the event that the above criteria can be met. This application appears to be in conflict with Criterion 1 (Sections A-E) and Criterion 2. Therefore, staff recommends the denial of the application for a 2.5 foot variance from the 20 foot side yard setback requirement. ACTION REQUESTED Offer Variance Resolution No. PC-724, A Resolution (Approving or Denying) a 2.5 foot variance to Section 11.24, Subd. 5, Item C and move its adoption,with findings. (NOTE: If the Board of Adjustment and Appeals concurs with the recommendation of Staff, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals should offer a motion TO DENY the variance request with findings and move its adoption.) ._ EX IBIT A B2 44 F floPA AG' <AG • rip.: . 1111111 ; .,.... .. . ' cr_r_ ., .. ,� v.ln vcv Pme80 TS AG RR F* • RR ! i .wyi. RR AG t_'_ . ` �i --�— ras to IT. { "�' RR 1• a L RR • _> E _ gUBJ�• �C SSE '.�.. , AG ^GRAC�'LT •-- '..RR RR . L-2 RR RUA.' R_c.,. RiA LOW D'- N.c:', Y :,:SD"•,- _ '--7 R2 t�_D:L M7):=•.;c7,., ;••••:- RR �� • R3 t.!U_Tiri.E- - .- � --_ = B1 H.GHW.AY ---",'...;c \_cc AG B2 O rmCc RUE _SS SOF CENTRAL B...,,S.%=S5 • -'] I i I !`: 3 !N�• -R'.' 4- ED �y 1.Jv .. r.- ED 12 �VAV 1 !NDL:S a 4 ji .45...,4, —t c_� -..-1.; ` } 1R~ • ..J •J ! , = ., .;,.;; •�r`_ Zoning Map - Uity, of SHAKOPEE s gees \ • EX- --IBIT B , �\ �.5 c \ . \ i' l q' • 4 77 Z-� iia .,),\a�s•1 _�� .'O - N • RS87' -*- . 0 ••r9 ' CD/- z- 9te< cr �h "5:-_,, ow + D. �� .gip 1 D: „ r 1 `�: 6 04.3 pus b ltd--,•or ( •-•, -�" ' • / *0 ....---%.:_ . . / I.) /• \ -iL�.7 - A' c l �c• �'� < ,� H0 �/ RAS .2-1-57- 1 - o (� C p ) LG ' ry / 9' Lo C. J 1 o p J c 6 )— C C:23 • O Y_ '.r. 1 J L. • ' / �—'�- o G = TES ; z. 6/� rr' „......,1r r0 i.'1 -.'4 I/Q A' CO t 9- L&) 3 B�. ARINGS\,R E ASS / £ ME� % o x DENOTES SFOrr - E -f r 61\5 �1 p / �` — -"' DENOTES PROPO sEE T��lis:- / ./c14/‘U' 1Fe C 'e ECJ C• �\ ,klh • E� / ! ) ' , / \ / LOT O T E.; . A • 1 i Ml 8 R i ;Mill ) ^ ) -r-,-.) / SCOTT COUNTY , M ! ?\► ._ ... :1EXHIBIT C . . .... ... I' • • , •i .• • • I : 1 • • .... . I, f _ / r , .: f • 1 . ..! • 1 I . 1 \ •• • • a . •• • . . • • \ .. • 'I . 91 • • . . . \ . •. No. •'I.,' . \ 1... i• •• ..•\....r.•• .• •\•••• ••••\ \ \ .. ... • ... • • \ \ ••.••••••••••••••\ \ .• I \..............\ \.. ..........:\ ••• .. ••\\ . - . • \:-...... ••• I ; . .'. •:"' . t• . . • • ............... .......:1 • -- • \ . air I A. . \f , s. ; alli, •Ik I. • or% ...._.III.. , .•: ... •, i•,...4 • ..... 9... .• 1 ..-- • • • i i •• ' ..• . • . .: tk, ..• t• • •• 1••• ••• • i •••••• - •••• • SIPi \ • • • . 1 s• ••ger•! • ! - i • •1" •Is .! • -. • ,1 • I 4 ? . • .... • P..,. 1111.-111ii. -ial • • ' • ...... , I ....j.,.......,• MAD• • .: ' 4 • I' 17. i • ....T. •f i .". IIIMIL . .....\•gro,- ........:-..,- • .. *.r , .fio,,,=.. .._.....,.......- .i I. :; „. j) •• •s.i N.1 . r•-••••. ••••••-..-.:.-7. - •...1 ..,-. 1. • •i•I •• s• r• 7, , . - . . :; 1 •.. •• •:'• ii i 'j il .i1 1 . i •-..• • 1 • .. •1„. ..i -7 ... ...... • ‘`. '''11Z\ --f2:P---# ---- •,k r, '.... VW% .......- • . •• • --•-- \ •• ' - #.1' •••,•Aorta: • .......N\s\,•// ........V.-....... .-•i . \ 11k, r • • • .. . . 3 i ., . • __. . ., EXHIBIT D.. ' . 1 ,.,:.) . ,..... • • . . 1 . / • . .. . . . . . . . .- i • - .. .r. - ._. ........ ft_ ... .... .__._ _. _. • :.1 a >- , . ., ..../ / . r / e. I i .• 1 i , . . . 1 , • L________ .. t., / _.• . . . . .• . I , Ns 174.4 ..... - • • • • .•••••• • I. i .••'I I-' 1.;.. I ' . II ' , I • . I 1. V. , ..1 - ! fi I. • . . • . pi: I I 1.• • Lb • 'I 4:)% 1 . . I • . P .,.. . ,... . ..„ • . .. I ,. . • 1:0 . . . . . . . "-- I -* .. I 11" I . . . . . I . • . .. 0 1 • X . • . . . . I 4 . 20., ' 6' , • - . . . . ' I . . .. • . . . .,....4'•*:•...J. . r- . . . . • . . . , . . .. . • . L...... . . . ., • . 1.t. I. . . . . • . . . . ... • . . . . . • .. . • iiiii . . .,/ if/ • . . ..4 . . . . •. ./..y7-i...t __ __ _ ___ _ _ • . . /,.//./ I _. !..../ .. *ill / . 1 .• i . . ... . . . . - . .. . • . . • ... 1 -..,... , . . . . . . . .. . --....„ . . . - it .... . , • . . . . • . 1 . . • ! . • . . . . , • . . . 0.: . . 1 t • .,:. N : w . I , • . . . o . • . t. . . . • .. . .. 1, 1 . V a-,...c.ma.--A.•••••••..•••••.-.4•-•-•.ras ...•—•-.. -.4.--r...•••••••••• I ••-• . .• .... . ., EXT7TBIT D 1 ''i' i ._ • •, - . • I • i 1 ...,. . ,t •re _ 1,. L • t — -- — -) , _...... __ ..... _.4, 1 II , LJ 0 ..".'. / „--- -r-----1 r_____3 .- / 1 i . r II., , I , • 1...u. / .._,, • .• . , 1 . I ......„., ... • , .. , •, . „ • • • ... . , • p I / . , I. •.4 ; • •.I I 1. I. • i • . I u I0% • 0% I • • . xib 4 . . 7.• • 0 p. . I . . i • . . / • I ' .• • ••.:, •s . 6..,....•,..1 ....... ; ' . [ . . 1 • I . . .3*. N . . I - .,-.--: -•'-:•--:- hos . • Alilliblik.- 1.,..4• .. 1 •.• / v ... 1 . . JXHIBIT E r June 12, 1995 City of Shakopee Shakopee Planning Department 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 To Whom It May Concern: This letter is written to describe our variance request of allowing the side yard setback of 17.5 feet for this project rather than the present 20 feet. We will address each of the necessary criteria below. The appropriate place to build an attached three season porch is adjacent to our kitchen, which now has a door leading to a deck. It is intended that this porch be an extension of our kitchen. Positioning a three season porch in any other location would not be practical and would detract from the aesthetic appearance both from the exterior and interior perspectives. Our pie shaped lot has a decreasing elevation from front to back; this necessitated locating our home in an area where the side yard setback is near minimum on both sides. Please note that the minimum setback was increased to 20 feet in 1979 after this development was platted, approximately one year after our home was built. In surveying our neighborhood, it appears that several homes have less than 20 foot side setback distances, a condition common in a development like ours. The party for whom this custom home was constructed requested that this structure be turned on the lot toward Lake O'Dowd. The owner wanted to take advantage both of the view of the lake, especially in the winter, and the sun's energy during the winter months through the considerable window area facing south. With the granting of this variance, the closest structure on the adjoining property will still be approximately 58 feet from our home, thus maintaining the character of the locality. This request is not based on economics, since the requested location of the three season porch is based on practicality and enhancing the personal appeal of the home. Ultimately this addition will increase the property's valuation, which is in the best interests of all parties concerned. We appreciate your consideration of this request. Yours truly, � . _.. JUN 10, 1995 Inca K err Joseph T. Johnson EXHIBIT F RECEIVED mil 1 0 1995 City of Shakopee July 10, 1995 Shakopee Planning Department 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee, Mihhesosta 55379 To Whom It MayConcern: This letter is written to express our views regarding the variance request of allowing the side yard serback of 17.5 feet rather than the current 20 feet; this request was submitted by Linda Bergherr and Joseph Johnson and is dated June 12, 1995. Our property is located east of the side yard in question. It is our feeling that the attached porch as planned will look very much like original construction. Other options would look like an addition and would not fit the building as well. We welcome the Idea of the addition and as the family most affected by this improvement we are encouraging the planning department to approve this application for a variance. 9cerely, AL„) James E. Larson • CITY OF SHAKOPEE 0 ECM rE JUL 1 0 1995 :Nc `. _ � ,r, •1.5 y.,per f- =s ,,.�, : ati x ar"4j f�AM{Z', -� =.. r fi�t` .. �, .. .. .. -. 4 t.}i�.et•a✓4v _ t.r?z"t!'1ara.7?+aca•Je. s- 'ri.. '1w. �3t�a � �.,.� -.... .. .. .., .. t r�VT h.'. .:t.•. T4.-�'a Mrs+: t !u' .. r, ",4- il'vF+R �3.G 'Y"y G 4 •,'-Y.. _aC = +ASr `Tr.4 sb}::pf i �'1ip,�p ... /u. Ra +.-_ r I,•a. Y-!v 'Y�-+'�.�6.3w'w"3',k�$` y'�S'P".N.rR1}�MR'E„af4a✓ VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC-724 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, -•-�:iiii�aa avI JTili rN• 2.5 FOOT VARIANCE TO THE 20 FOOT : _ • RD SETBACK REQUIREMENT, SECTION 11.24, SUBD. 5, ITEM C WHEREAS, Joseph T. Johnson and Linda K. Bergherr, applicants and owners, have filed an application dated June 16, 1995, for a variance under the provisions of Chapter 11, Land Use Regulation (Zoning), of the Shakopee City Code, Section 11.89, Subd. 3, for a two-and-a-half(2.5) foot variance to the twenty(20) foot side yard setback requirement (Section 11.24, Subd. 5, Item C); and WHEREAS, this parcel is presently zoned Rural Residential (RR); and WHEREAS,the property upon which the request is being made is legally described as: Lot 6, Block 3, Timber Trails; and WHEREAS, notice was provided and on August 3, 1995, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals conducted a public hearing regarding this application, at which it heard from the Planning Director and invited members of the public to comment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, as follows: That the application for Variance No. PC-724 is hereby _ / DENIED, based on the following finding(s)with respect to City Code Sec. 11.89, Subd. 2, "Criteria for Granting Variances." Criterion 1 The strict enforcement of the ordinance provisions would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration. Undue hardship means the following: l.A. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls; The Board finds that the subject site is currently being used as a single family residential dwelling which appears to be an appropriate use of the property. 5 • 1.B. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property; The Board finds that this lot is not unusually shaped, nor does it have any other unique circumstances. C. The circumstances were not created by the landowner; The Board finds that the circumstances creating this request were created by the landowner's desire to erect a three season porch within the required setback. No actions by an outside party have created the need for this request. D. The variance, if granted,will not alter the essential character of the locality; and The Board finds that the granting of this variance would alter the essential character of the area by reducing the side yard setback to below the minimum allowed within the RR zone. 6 E. The problems extend beyond economic considerations. Economic considerations do not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. The Board finds that the circumstances creating this request do not appear to extend beyond the economic considerations of the applicant. There seems to be sufficient space in the rear yard for expansion. Criterion 2 • It has been demonstrated that a variance as requested will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Chapter. The Board finds that this variance request is in conflict with the Zoning Chapter's stated purposes of encouraging the planned and orderly development of residential land; providing adequate light, air and convenience of access to the property; and preventing overcrowding of land and undue concentration of population and structures. • Criterion 3 The request is not for a use variance. The Board finds that this request is not for a use variance and therefore this criterion is satisfied. 7 Crfterio i 4 the Board of Adjustment and Appeals will insure compliance and Conditions to be imposed by to protect the adjacent properties. The Board does not propose to impose any additional conditions as part of this variance request. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota this 3rd day of August,1995. CL\mck f 1 i N.16 Chair of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals A /5.40 Planning Director • 8 RESOLUTION NO. CC-724 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS TO DENY A REQUEST FORA VARIANCE TO SECTION 11.24, SUBD. 5.C. WHEREAS, Joseph T. Johnson and Linda K. Burgher, the applicants and owners, have filed an application dated June 16, 1995, for a variance under the provisions of Chapter 11, Land Use Regulation (Zoning), of the Shakopee City Code, Section 11.89, Subd. 3, for a variance to the 20 foot side yard setback requirement (Section 11.24, Subd. 5.C); and WHEREAS, this parcel is presently zoned Rural Residential (RR); and WHEREAS, the property upon which the request is being made is legally described as: Lot 6, Block 3, Timber Trails Addition; and WHEREAS, notice was provided and on August 3, 1995, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals conducted a public hearing regarding this application, at which it heard from the Planning Director and invited members of the public to comment; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals voted to deny the application based on the following findings with respect to City Code Section 11.89, Subd. 2, 'Criteria for Granting Variances': Criterion I The strict enforcement of the ordinance provisions would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration. Undue hardship means the following: 1.A. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls; The Board of Adjustment and Appeals finds that the subject site is currently being used as a single family residential dwelling which appears to be an appropriate use of the property. 1.B. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property; The Board of Adjustment and Appeals finds that the lot is not unusually shaped, nor does it have any other unique circumstances. 1.C. The circumstances were not created by the landowner; The Board of Adjustment and Appeals finds that the circumstances creating this request were created by the landowner's desire to erect a three season porch within the required setback. No actions by an outside party have created the need for this request. 1.D. The variance, if granted,will not alter the essential character of the locality; and The Board of Adjustment and Appeals finds that the granting of this variance would alter the essential character of the area by reducing the side yard setback to below the minimum allowed within the RR Zone. 1.E. The problems extend beyond economic considerations. Economic considerations do not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals finds that the circumstances creating this request do not appear to extend beyond the economic considerations of the applicant. There seems to be sufficient space in the rear yard for expansion. Criterion 2 It has been demonstrated that a variance as requested will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Chapter. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals finds that this variance request is in conflict with the Zoning Chapter's stated purposes of encouraging the planned and orderly development of residential land; providing adequate light, air and convenience of access to the property; and preventing overcrowding of land with undue concentrations of population and structures. Criterion 3 The request is not for a use variance. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals finds that this request is not for a use variance and therefore this criterion is satisfied. Criterion 4 Conditions to be imposed by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals will ensure compliance and to protect the adjacent properties. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals did not propose to impose any additional conditions as part of this variance request. WHEREAS, a written appeal was filed with the City Administrator within ten days of the action of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the application, the record before the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, and the Board of Adjustment and Appeal's action, and found no substantial errors or omissions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, as follows: That the City Council hereby upholds the decision by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and denies a 2.5 foot variance to Section 11.24, Subd. 5.C. Passed in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1995. Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney ' oc . Memo To: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator From: Terrie A. Thurmer, Assistant City Plannmik, • Date: September 13, 1995 Re: Preliminary Plat for Market Place 2nd Addition Introduction Klingelhutz Development Company is requesting approval of the Preliminary Plat for Market Place 2nd Addition. A copy of the September 7, 1995, Planning Commission staff memo has been attached for your reference. Discussion At its meeting on September 7th, the Planning Commission heard from residents living north of the proposed plat who stated that the proposed plat may be located partially on their property due to a discrepancy regarding the location of property lines. According to City records, the owners of three properties located north of the proposed plat (Block 208, Leremondis Addition) purchased property located south of their property (Tracts B, C, and D of Registered Land Survey 157) from David Rutt, the developer for Market Place 1st Addition. The property within RLS 157 is not proposed to be included in the proposed plat for Market Place 2nd Addition. This property ownership is described below. Please refer to the map on Exhibit B for a better understanding of the location of these properties. 1. Gappa, Michael and Judith Owners of Lot 12, except the west 15', and Tract B of RLS 157. 2. Gehrke, Paul and Lisa Owners of west 20' Lot 11 /east 15' Lot 12, and Tract C of RLS 157. 3. Odenthal, Thomas and Cathy Owners of Lot 10 and the East 30' Lot 11, and Tract D of RLS 157. Alternatives 1. Approve the Preliminary Plat for Market Place 2nd Addition. 2. Do not approve the Preliminary Plat for Market Place 2nd Addition, stating the reasons for denial. 3. Table the decision, and request additional information from the applicant and/or staff. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission has recommended the approval of the Preliminary Plat for Market Place 2nd Addition (Alternative No. 1), subject to conditions. 1 Action Requested Offer Resolution No. 4296, A Resolution Approving The Preliminary Plat for Market Place 2nd Addition, and move its adoption. i:\planningk61995\cc0919\fpmarket.doc 2 I Ii 10 • . � � • 10 L -I L-----1-. I t EXHIBIT A �r� Being 5 feet in width, unless otherwise indicated. Gv' .:---" and odjoining lot lines. and 10 feet in width and adjoining street lines as shown on the plot. ���r''�_ Pp .,,.. y,) . 40.. dete & \O'• .fir r� �� ray, ______------- ...._ .. , ir:;____________-----------:--:---11 Qa, r��` O • 1 `/ r i C 1/4:1 . Ifs:l Yi c 1Y ' r ` �' is.\- 't�' 1 •- •\ 1 i : \ ...----- 1.9 \ , \ i _) 9 • f RI R rlryf 1�� 111 • Hu li \ \ ait tre I»�y sa+ ?W r c. pore- roe of 1.0 ' S�- s. M roe of ` 19‘0. 8' T•6.34' W 5 ;°15'26P 0"1526 I _ _•. 43_ s 89v6s4' E 907 ` p 1 ' - 262.90 15�,! I5'26• w 1 A1-1-t• ' • - �`r_.- 1 S Bp'1 .. - I r � c = . 40-*30 . E Io 1 1k#JF576 s�. 1 41 � �� �� h a1 •ti# ` adc WO ;4•:. - L x 09136.3.3' w p. OUlLOT A \-.See Detoil • -► ,,-;,c‘ ` ' a r' I54.22 • .itj 3. •SS ,c3 h d.,?� $ cs "I t, = v bb X d9136'S.7' M t• So.02 \ I k N Brom' w . 154 0 7501 - 75.01c .-r --- --� • r--- 1 r 1 1 I 1 `S� ! poi 41,� 1 I t i-4 3 ' w I IBL O CK 1 1 • I I 41 }I I al I zs�. _ e( *o, 1 a ! 1^ . 1 I ..I i0 6. CONSENT Memo To: Shakopee Planning Commission From: Terrie A. Thurmer, Assistant City Planner Meeting Date: Sept. 7, 1995 Re: Preliminary Plat for Market Place 2nd Additio (Public hearing closed, recommendation to the City Council tabled.) Site Information Applicant: Klingelhutz Development Company Location: North of 5th Avenue and West of Market Street Current Zoning: Old Shakopee Residential (R-1C) (See Exhibit A.) Adjacent Zoning: North: Old Shakopee Residential (R-1 C) South: Old Shakopee Residential (R-1 C) East: Old Shakopee Residential (R-1 C) West: Old Shakopee Residential (R-1 C) Comp. Plan: 1980: Residential Draft 1995: Single Family Residential Area: 4.6 Acres MUSA: The site is within the MUSA and can be served by municipal utilities. Introduction Klingelhutz Development Company has submitted an application for approval of the Preliminary Plat for the proposed Market Place 2nd Addition. The developer is proposing to plat 14 lots for single family residential development, and 4 outlots. Exhibits include the following: Exhibit A, Zoning Map; Exhibit B, Final Plat for "Market Place"; and Exhibit C, proposed Preliminary Plat for"Market Place 2nd Addition". The public hearing for this request was opened and closed at the May 4, 1995, meeting of the Planning Commission. However, the recommendation to the City Council was tabled to allow additional time for City staff to review the alley realignment that was proposed at the May meeting. Since that time, the developer has been working on various alternatives for the alley design in an attempt to avoid the relocation of the existing utility poles. With this design, the utility poles will be relocated, and the two existing alleys will be connected. i Background The proposed subdivision would replat the "Market Place" plat, and would also contain unplatted land. The City Council approved the Final Plat for "Market Place" in 1992. This plat contained 3.03 acres of land, and the approval platted 6 residential lots and four outlots. (See Exhibit B.) One single family residential home was constructed in 1993 on Lot 1 Block 1 of both the "Market Place" and the "Market Place 2nd Addition" plats. (The lot and block numbers are the same for both plats.) The proposed replat of this lot is of the same width as the original lot, but it is deeper, extending into Outlot A of the "Market Place" plat. Two residential homes were constructed in the "Market Place" plat in 1994; one on Lot 3, Block 1, and one on Lot 4, Block 1. These two lots are proposed to be the same size and dimensions with the replat of "Market Place 2nd Addition". During 1995, two additional homes have been constructed within the "Market Place" plat; one on Lot 2, Block 1, and one on Lot 5, Block 1. With the proposed replat of Lot 5 and Lot 6, the width will remain the same, but they will be deeper, extending into Outlot A of the "Market Place" plat. Considerations General Considerations: 1. The approved 1995 draft Comprehensive Plan has designated this area for single family residential development. The subject site is currently zoned Old Shakopee Residential (R1-C). The purpose of the Old Shakopee Residential Zone is to provide an area for the continuation of existing residential development, and the development of existing lots within the older residential areas where public sanitary sewer and water are available. The combination of small lots is encouraged. Planning Considerations: 2. A portion of the site was platted as "Market Place" by David Rutt and Merle Volk in 1993. The developer purchased the portion of the site that had been platted as "Market Place", as well as additional adjacent property. Therefore, they have chosen to name the plat"Market Place 2nd Addition", and this name is acceptable to the Scott County Recorder's Office. There are currently five homes on the site (Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, Block 1), and all of these homes will continue to meet the required setbacks within the R-1 C Zone with the replat of the site. 3. A 20 foot wide alley was dedicated with the original Market Place plat. However, Section 12.07, Subd. 2, requires that residential alleys be only 16 feet in width. Therefore, the developer is proposing to vacate the excess 4 feet that was dedicated with the original plat, and the additional property would be dedicated to the adjacent property owner to the south. This will bring the alley width into conformance with this portion of the Subdivision Regulations. The developer has been informed of the 2 vacation process, and has been made aware that this vacation must be approved prior to approval of the Final Plat by the City Council. 4. The alley dedicated with "Market Place" was approximately 300 feet long and was 20 feet wide. With the 2nd Addition, the developer originally proposed that 740 feet of public alley would be dedicated, extending the alley farther to the west, and matching it up with the existing alley located in the western portion of the block. At the May 4th meeting of the Planning Commission, there was discussion regarding the possibility of not connecting the two existing alleys. However, the proposed design did not meet the requirements of Section 12.07, Subd. 2 (a) of the Subdivision Regulations, which states the following: "Except where justified by special conditions, such as the continuation of an existing alley in the same block, alleys will not be approved in residential districts. Dead end alleys shall be avoided, whenever possible, but if unavoidable, such dead end alleys must be approved if adequate turnaround facilities are provided at the closed end." 5. The alley that was dedicated with "Market Place" contains a small jog along the northern right-of-way. Since neither the developer for the original plat nor the owner of the proposed plat own this piece of land, it cannot be included in the Final Plat, and the applicant has been advised of this. However, the City Attorney has verified that it is already dedicated as public alley. 6. There is an existing gravel drive located along the western boundary of the proposed plat which connects 4th and 5th Avenue. This is not a dedicated public alley. The northern half of this private drive is located on property owned by James Jaggars (Lot 6, Block 53, Original Shakopee Plat), and the southern half of the drive is located on property owned by the developer. The developer is proposing to eliminate the portion of the private drive located on the subject site. However, the portion located on the Jaggars' property would remain a private drive for that residence. 7. Since the area is not identified as a future park site in the City's draft Comprehensive Plan, staff is recommending that a park dedication fee be collected in lieu of park land. Using the recent purchase price provided by the developer in the calculation, the park dedication requirement would be approximately $553.57 per residential lot. Cash payments are due prior to the recording of the Final Plat. Engineering and Utility Comments: 8. Staff has been informed that debris may be buried near the proposed Lots 5 and 6, and has recommended a condition requiring that all buried debris excavated during 3 the construction of any buildings be hauled to a landfill. The Building Official has commented that the developer must provide on-site observation and compaction testing of house pads by a registered professional soils engineer when native soils are displaced or when building sites are filled. 9. The developer has informed staff that there are no wetlands on the site, and staff has verified this claim. Staff is in the process of issuing a Certificate of Exemption to the Wetlands Act of 1991 to the property owner. 10. The developer is not required to obtain an NPDES Permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, as the development is less than 5 acres in size. 11. In order to install City services to the lots, a street cut permit is required. Since Market Street and this portion of 5th Avenue are less than 5 years old, the City Council must approve the street cuts. Staff has recommended a condition stating that the City Council approve the necessary permits for work in the right-of-way with their approval of this plat. 12. The proposed plat has access to 4th Avenue (CR 16) on the north, Market Street on the east, and 5th Avenue to the south. Fourth Avenue is designated as a Collector Street in the Transportation Element of the approved 1995 draft Comprehensive Plan. It is also a county road (CR 16) and is under the County Engineer's jurisdiction. Access to 4th Avenue will require the approval of the County Engineer. Since this portion of 4th Avenue is less than 5 years old, the County must also approve any street cuts required for the installation of City services to the lots adjacent to 4th Avenue. Other Considerations: 13. If part of the plat is abstract, and part of the plat is torrens, the developer shall submit the Final Plat showing this division. Alternatives 1. Recommend to the City Council the approval of the Preliminary Plat, subject to the conditions recommended by staff. 2. Modify the conditions recommended by staff and recommend to the City Council the approval of the Preliminary Plat, subject to the revised conditions. 3. Recommend the denial of the Preliminary Plat to the City Council, stating the reasons for the denial. 4. Table the recommendation to the City Council and request additional information from the applicant or staff. • 4 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the approval of the Preliminary Plat for Market Place 2nd Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of the final plat: a) Approval of title opinion by the City Attorney. b) Execution of a Developer's Agreement for the construction of public improvements: i) The alley shall be constructed in accordance with the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications for the City of Shakopee. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of any existing utility poles that are required to be moved due to the construction of the alley. c) The developer shall provide to the City a copy of a signed agreement with Shakopee Public Utilities (SPUC) to relocate the utility poles. This document, along with the proposed relocation site for the utility poles, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and the City Engineer. d) Access Permits for Fourth Avenue (CR 16) must be approved by the Scott County Highway Department. e) The southern 4 feet of the alley dedicated with the original Market Place subdivision shall be vacated at the request of the developer, and included as a portion of Lot 1. 2. The developer shall make the following design changes to the plat drawing: a) If part of the plat is abstract, and part of the plat is torrens, the developer shall submit the Final Plat showing this division. 3. The following must be completed prior to the approval of Building Permits for the site: a) The developer shall provide on-site observation and compaction testing of house pads by a registered professional soils engineer when native soils are displaced or when building sites are filled. b) All buried debris excavated during the construction of any buildings shall be hauled to a landfill. No Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued for a building until all debris is hauled off the lot and to a landfill. Action Requested Offer a motion to recommend to the City Council the approval of the Preliminary Plat for Market Place 2nd Addition, subject to conditions, and move its approval. i:'planning\pc_boaa\1995'pc0907Tppmarket.sep 5 EXIIIBIT A .-4--‘ 40 — __We,_ i ill — el t1 i lit A „door n .0- - -r.- /Ajispit . t•, ant tas .n. i w.. 110 t ; ' ' 1 1 �t i tit0111 al owa 11Fii1 _� *Ma - . 3..0 p4 III' gg. :1110 . 011. .•5 - a ati�e U Baa SUVA VI a �%IV 11114/11t� , SO 111 a111 ��'�� ti ilia a1�10 111 aat�� �Ia _ K ��1 �� �� Sal Silat l Ott! d1././1 111©11 1 �1'l10 ti el .��l� 3c \q ;111 o1it- �� 1�� -\ d111� �11 01 1� mjimi . tii1, a� 0 1 . aaaavollita .. iiit l- ..:::Uric_�A � =v g 1Mato a s.. :.:.�:�.-� � �� . • ��tQ' `� , � SUBJECT SITE >� .: ..:. � �, : - 01 lilt i1i1� • :;>.0��1 : >:: ; _ .1 lan i dial■ s X1110 Es ��,la� � e R=2 - -- :1-5 - Z -- :till_ ./1114 . Ott 'ii1+ s, PAR M-. ” tall .3iiiit 611112kii-v, -. • . 3tVol 0 • • _111 iR F .il .1 AG AGICu_ruRE 111111 11111 tit1 ' N i slim p „�0 tom - >'� t ns --� .. ilai - �.:2 alga RR RURAL R=S!D=^:-!.A� anal. � �v on ��! a,1�1� �' i { 1!111 RIA UR DENSITY R=SIDE!�T;.",- Q119 Fa i� ix 1 ' 1 RIB URBAN P,ESIDE?,;r;4L - I RIC OLD SHAKOPEE RESIDEr:r-..- /Ill 1111 ZU ' i" .. i 1 R2 MEDIUM DENS Y' P,ES1JEti-i.=.L N� �!i ZIP � "` ' 1 R3 MULTIPLE FA!‘..! n! RESIDEh`=.L • i smi�;-. qtimrty ' 61 HIGHWAY BUSINESS..A p is MIMIr111111 ©A vumm " tum l 1 82 OFFICE BUSINESS ! ME- man -- mum mem mom m -- I 83 CENTRAL BUSINESS moms mos moos �,o swum so M� minim us _1_ WI= orisri• Mors sio 1• i•� ttr•t.a tt UIR MUM MINI OM MI • 1 11 LIGHT INDUSTP, AL ; um • -' •3r A�Q.-.+1 a 1111 o 1 � I I2 HEAVY INDusrR:. /I1iii/r? -o ' uurI/;o Alv I MR MAJOR RECREATION "imp nn��s ��' ©1� �••I. a 11r 413+ .,-', p;*M 1 1 S SHORELA`:D 4 ©11li :rt�a sk� ,_, V 1• ; w■ v �I�OM goy ,.. �.. . F FLOODPLA'"� D S7r . � , t-. t • rat phi ,• — ' ;A;.DA r FLD -- N,', t'IN• U•O ^ �ER. AY Zoning a p . [: t ; v of ql-I A 4C (1DDD –U15-94 11 : 55 FROM:HO1.l7t5 at, (4KAVt1V to o+Gaai aav flt , • •• ; O f P ' I ; 1 ; ro , 'i ' c ; • J7 1 if/ • I �1 :.s •f. , l •ff 1 l f. 1 , f ;a 1 • a "` . A. i • 11! a. 7 ; ; /• a jl Y• - r-- 1 111 •, "-.- i /• ,� i iv • { 111 1 I i# _.> I s t �. 1!1 I' I a( , Oi /it; w I ,_ 1 1 1 ......V.Mr.:.• .... / — f... li, ;...1 ' 1 — ....-- All • l a c� a I t l _-�iNL.1J -.wr.•. wIt• �ly T i .�• 1— -�t it ". I • '• t �� • t 21 4 i : / 44 _..........- .. ./1 /ti i -,' L./--ii 11 :- as / i - Jl -- JI. .w 43• �''' ti •� � � 1 -- N 0047'..•f ,•.r K r u�--~��' t : '-Y ~ 1 I / r 1 {L __ 1 Se— 1 - 1 • ;'. st- ; s t �� ets f 3 � e e- r s , e i s-as ,v 'Ii 1 �'_l ,# $ P:tf _ -i e, � ;fit . a si {MI =iti-- 1 Iit _1 !Et� tt 114 rr; - i1[ t= aI. 341siii - p r{ is F1 a =l F ;3 :s 1 1i /ftri ll i:1 /11.441, i i t t- ir • c i �[ t �v. :•it tilcel-illi t it f l i f c • i IIII r a a iia-E•Efrith'f s ; 1 1 I 1 I t�' 1 11 �.E1/11.1441.tt i j [Il E l 1 . 1 rill t . i . IUIEII(! IU1IH f I 1! itt t TS 1iji I I1�ii;i i = rI I! I{ j f -�I ! , r i tjjti = i # If 1111 =ts t �s li fft'�ja�a, I [ 11 ; , I. ji . i ' , 'It jfi 1 Pill g. ti•s?.•.t t = � ' _ 1: i I� 'i g • �3 • {�_� ������ Z ...L ...., K 1. r titiii •�� liii � •'Y:t;-_ 7-;::'4.;, #x$41:-.sf314-eA Si 1 L 4 i. 11 . a- --,......,..a.-:–.:...........1,..-. "..a....i..dt S A._f w s::–f......,.S:'..:7+5'C^ ` ' - - _ - b. 'i , ;t ' I� � • > a : •i., • • i�tE; t • 1..: • a • ' t 11.• £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 1 • e r w • P 1a r P r . • • • • Ml *i Mt Mi l l L —.- ._ --._.-.r. -- �^ .) } s • • • ��•� .YLO I .S I.I .Y�I • gt (* L 13 n• 1bi Y • . i -% ••. ., ,n ,. .. ,,..,,.�.,.. t ..'\ qii SI f I 11. ii`!I- , .•.rill.0•a d I �r . .t . \( "4 \ ...... . . I • 1 \ -..... . k ti; t ..... ._......_ k . f • .,,,,J • . -i . ' ., r- -z— ' .-- -. t t - • I f 1.,:•-...t...1i 1'11 .� a j C w �, t S 00.04••9• . )91.6 • f VJ. • "fae, e/ i, .0.40/ o ' _ _ ._ . ... ... ...»oorm ., N avort!wA2261KSB .= aolit g f RESOLUTION NO. 4296, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MARKET PLACE 2ND ADDITION. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee did review the Preliminary Plat for Market Place 2nd Addition and on September 7, 1995, recommended its approval; and WHEREAS, all notices of the public hearing have been duly sent and posted and all persons appearing at the hearing have been given an opportunity to be heard thereon. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, as follows: That the Preliminary Plat for Market Place 2nd Addition, described on Attachment 1, attached hereto and incorporated herein, is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The following procedural actions must be completed prior to the recording of the final plat: a) Approval of title opinion by the City Attorney. b) Execution of a Developer's Agreement for the construction of public improvements: i) The alley shall be constructed in accordance with the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications for the City of Shakopee. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of any existing utility poles that are required to be moved due to the construction of the alley. c) The developer shall provide to the City a copy of a signed agreement with Shakopee Public Utilities(SPUC)to relocate the utility poles. This document, along with the proposed relocation site for the utility poles, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and the City Engineer. d) Access Permits for Fourth Avenue (CR 16) must be approved by the Scott County Highway Department. e) The southern 4 feet of the alley dedicated with the original Market Place subdivision shall be vacated at the request of the developer, and included as a portion of Lot 1. 2. The developer shall make the following design changes to the plat drawing: a) If part of the plat is abstract, and part of the plat is torrens, the developer shall submit the Final Plat showing this division. 3. The following must be completed prior to the approval of Building Permits for the site: a) The developer shall provide on-site observation and compaction testing of house pads by a registered professional soils engineer when native soils are displaced or when building sites are filled. b) All buried debris excavated during the construction of any buildings shall be hauled to a landfill. No Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued for a building until all debris is hauled off the lot and to a landfill. 3 Passed in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1995. Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney 4 Attachment 1 PARCEL A: A tract of land in the City of Shakopee described as follows: Commencing 389 feet south of the northwest corner of Southwest Quarter (SWi) ; thence south 212.7 feet on Range line between Ranges 22 and 23; thence easterly and parallel with the north line of Fourth Street, produced easterly, 154.3 feet; thence at right angles northerly, 210 feet to north line of Fourth Street, which point is 117 feet easterly of Range line; thence westerly 117 feet along north line of Fourth Street to beginning (Except Railroad) , Section 6, Township 115, Range 22. PARCEL B: Commencing at a point on the Range line between Ranges 22 and 23, 455 3/4 feet north from the southwest corner of the North half of the Southwest Quarter (Ni of SWI) of Section 6, in Township 115 North of Range 22 West; thence running east 26 rods to a point; thence running north on a line parallel with said Range line 20 3/4 rods to a point; thence running in a direct line to a point on the Range line 16 1/4 rods north of the point of beginning; thence running south along the Range line 16 1/4 rods to the place of beginning, EXCEPTING AND RESERVING THEREFROM a piece of land described as follows: All of that part of a tract or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the County of Scott, and State of Minnesota, lying north of a line on the south side of the Hastings and Dakota Railway 33 feet distant from the Centre line of said Railway as the same is located over said tract of land. The description on the premises from which said tract is hereby conveyed being as follows, viz: Commencing at a point on the Range line between Ranges 22 and 23 - 455 3/4 feet north from the southwest corner of the North half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 6, Township 115 North of Range 22 West; thence running east 26 rods to a point; thence north parallel with the Range line 20 3/4 rods to a point; thence in a direct line to a point on the Range line 16 1/4 rods north of the point of beginning; thence 16 1/4 rods due south to the place of beginning. PARCEL C: •All of the plat of Market Place, according to the recorded plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder in and for Scott County, Minnesota. Attachment 1 PARCEL A: A tract of land in the City of Shakopee described as follows: Commencing 389 feet south of the northwest corner of Southwest Quarter (SWi); thence south 212.7 feet on Range line between Ranges 22 and 23; thence easterly and parallel with the north line of Fourth Street, produced easterly, 154.3 feet; thence at right angles northerly, 210 feet to north line of Fourth Street, which point is 117 feet easterly of Range line; thence westerly 117 feet along north line of Fourth Street to beginning (Except Railroad) , Section 6, Township 115, Range 22. PARCEL B: Commencing at a point on the Range line between Ranges 22 and 23, 455 3/4 feet north from the southwest corner of the North half of the Southwest Quarter (Ni of SWi) of Section 6, in Township 115 North of Range 22 West; thence running east 26 rods to a point; thence running north on a line parallel with said Range line 20 3/4 rods to a point; thence running in a direct line to a point on the Range line 16 1/4 rods north of the point of beginning; thence running south along the Range line 16 1/4 rods to the place of beginning, EXCEPTING AND RESERVING THEREFROM a piece of land described as follows: All of that part of a tract or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the County of Scott, and State of Minnesota, lying north of a line on the south side of the Hastings and Dakota Railway 33 feet distant from the Centre line of said Railway as the same is located over said tract of land. The description on the premises from which said tract is hereby conveyed being as follows, viz: Commencing at a point on the Range line between Ranges 22 and 23 - 455 3/4 feet north from the southwest corner of the North half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 6, Township 115 North of Range 22 West; thence running east 26 rods to a point; thence north parallel with the Range line 20 3/4 rods to a point; thence in a direct line to a point on the Range line 16 1/4 rods north of the point of beginning; thence 16 1/4 rods due south to the place of beginning. PARCEL C: •All of the plat of Market Place, according to the recorded plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder in and for Scott County, Minnesota. 11 . .. . I.' 114. . 'I'' , , . r . . ' , .. . . , • 1 ' I , .. ilh ) . .. r 1- it . t • .. . 1. ill t ii 4,1 I —'-( ''---"m"";Mr.. .• t it . I i 11! Ili 1 , • _ • - , 1 Ili 1 it I • . , I 111 t II t I , . 1 I 1 1 .1 1 !tlil ! - . • . . . , . . . , s 0 t • , , , s . •:. . , , . i I , , ••• . , , . • , I e'itrir4214-1 i ' E i i i E ! F. i • • :4 P A r .r. : p ri I ! I r . , a I . ' I • . 0 I • s 0 i . • i .....-. I la • li elni ILI ..,. .....' -': . ''' '“''. " •.' ••-•-•• ' • ''.... .....• ...1'. 'te; 7.....4 %' , 0 • 'SO' $ $ $ $ t . $ $ •' t •• _ • • • \ % •• •••:. -'• .1....-k • _..--- ,.I4.,.;4;te 1 : II Sf C 4 • . • -' ' 1 , . 1 • V ', • ..... i . % . . % ttlfEEEEEE .,t ,t 1 i 1 r• 1 :.• r, . . . p P P 4111 • ' ' i "'le lb • . , 1 I. .1-. 1%.'. ! 1 r r r 1 • , •-. 66 as .6 - . 1*V r•ortir __ , 1 T- '1.-- — \ A I N . - . N‘ 411111111 .,, _ Ilk\ I ‘ 1 , ill k 4X1; $) : : : ! ! 1 L. —. "" ......Cg, • .z.., ,;tet 1 .... , -Pr-iti.". - ......--1 ." lig !Ill 74. 0 . $ I \ Ili* Tt. -..-, . , ._ __I .11 ih 14 • . .. , _ I 1 ' : . , , Lit VI- • \ 11 I • .' L_.. • . N% .17 I ; . . _•,_/ I T') ... t 0 41., i 1 i . r , I • -4- - 11 . i 1 \ ' • .••••1 • . 1 f (...... . • ....ii„ • 7 . _ fif zN • 1 ' 1 l' — -- _I _ k•--- v , , E! ., 11/ t .! 4 ' -4 - 1-- - •••--1 , i,. . ., a ....: k., . i ) ‘ , ,o-, ' „ 0 , , T...„.„.., . ,... , ......, S*4.*ei..?' e ' 'a•e- _ - r.. . I * • • t.% ti, ( 1 I 17— ... .• - _ . A _ . _ _ 1 . • • 1 . ii . . v . ;- -1,-- -- - t 1 - 1 'I • r— — — , 1 :i -- . 1 L __ • --- - t . 1 . ... • r i :i11 .1 . 1 . . _ . _ ii I NJ 1 t , _ •a ..- 1 1 1I,•-• ., 1 I .._ ..;. - • 1 ,..•,.k.0 : it :i _1 I_ '---__1 1‘ ° LIA.mee.3__I ; :. _ .. ___ ..:1\ • 4'x I A4*" - Wag 4 4: • s(X)04'9(X)04'9 . it..46 . •-1" • ------r-, ‘...-------- ...-•• -., ...h. • 0 0 Ma",e*/ II .00-eter• • 0 ... — — _—.........--.1.6- iP 1 4 iMliillriltil 1( 1 IliTilill!ll il!!! i I /1 1 1 - tatIla . I% I qf . ii si 121 t; ialA i1221.12112 2 22 1 Aqrsz: ii I. Pill g41 2 if y 11211v 1 1 Ili: II 101141/ 1'111 ' a a( .0 q 12A :I.0 9 q 4. 1140 Pit '' 11 i glinalg11119 iliiii . 1 ;1 il ii 241t "Ill i 1 1- 41! il la ! I !F!* isfq : -.2 2. 2 • I ) "15 M. it ,1 1411111/1 III- ; 11 1114N:film* :1 111211 illeq§ i i alipIN NI 4;71 .. / . i., rill I w4. 8 q 'R11'101%1104 ? i fill Ig.1,=1? !WI rig Ali itsrliEiai f 1 12214..4.111Z121 k 7' 1 lial qlgitql911' ; ? 1112.10q;115!3 1/4 __ iffill ;Imslisieg 4 g 5110111111 il ad :Ildildletill§ 7. ! !!0Agialglio 'taw % cli 1 fanitmlicisilvi 1 t §10.21,1msli vils '" ET 3 0.1111111111.62511 1 ; q352411111"ife 11111 %=9 I iilal 1 Will '" i HT R1111:;1 II! 5 sagitioLl 4:r If- .1 N g 12 toihi .;111 1 1118/121 482i 1. 1 IN 1 11P11214111/1 All i fifialiiitill I I§ i a lia 3 a $ aliIIIM$19.12124 1 f !Unlit-Ai: lid ..............___. +4**. ..,, +.1•«,..... •^•...,TT'T...•••••••••1•.V.0 T T TIITEMMIP AT...n......••••^Mr a......1*.••••••••••••••••=••••••••••• • --____ A / CONSENT Memo To: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator From: Terrie A. Thurmer,Assistant City Plann Date: September 12, 1995 Re: Amendment to the 1980 Comprehensive Plan and the draft 1995 Comprehensive Plan Introduction At the August 15, 1995, meeting,the City Council adopted Resolution No. 4271, a Resolution Setting a Public Hearing Date to Consider a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Both the 1980 Comprehensive Plan, and the Draft 1995 Comprehensive Plan, to Designate the Nofth One-Half of Block 169, Shakopee Plat, as Single Family Residential. Discussion City Code Section 11.82, Subd. 6, states that the City Council may propose amendments to the Comprehensive Plan by a resolution submitted to the Planning Commission. The public hearing regarding this issue was held at the September 7, 1995,meeting of the Planning Commission. The staff memo from this meeting has been attached for your reference. Alternatives 1. Amend the 1980 Comprehensive Plan and the draft 1995 Comprehensive Plan to designate the site as Single Family Residential. 2. Do not amend the Comprehensive Plans. 3. Table the decision and request additional information from staff. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council Amend the 1980 Comprehensive Plan and the draft 1995 Comprehensive Plan to Designate the North One-Half of Block 169, Shakopee Plat, as Single Family Residential(Alternative No. 1). Action Requested Offer Resolution No. 4297, A Resolution Amending the 1980 Comprehensive Plan and the draft 1995 Comprehensive Plan to Designate the North One-Half of Block 169, Shakopee Plat, as Single Family Residential, and move its adoption. (Note: A two-thirds vote by the City Council is required to amend the Comprehensive Plan.) i:\planning\cc\1995\cc0919\complan.919 RESOLUTION NO. 4297 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING THE 1980 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE DRAFT 1995 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO DESIGNATE THE NORTH ONE-HALF OF BLOCK 169, SHAKOPEE PLAT, AS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. WHEREAS, the Shakopee City Council did approve the 1980 Comprehensive Plan which designated the north half of Block 169, Shakopee Plat as"Commercial"on August 4, 1981; and WHEREAS, the Shakopee City Council did approve the draft 1990 Comprehensive Plan which designated the north half of Block 169, Shakopee Plat as"Park"; and WHEREAS, the Shakopee City Council did approve the draft 1995 Comprehensive Plan which designated the north half of Block 169, Shakopee Plat as"Park"in April of 1995; and WHEREAS, it appears to the Shakopee City Council that the omission of the north one-half of this block from both the draft 1990 and the draft 1995 Comprehensive Plans may have been in error, and the City did not intend to designate the area as a part of Huber Park; and WHEREAS, a public hearing must be held before an action can be taken to amend the 1980 Comprehensive Plan and the draft 1995 Comprehensive Plan, and that ten days notice of the public hearing must be published in the official newspaper of the City; and WHEREAS, notices were duly sent and posted, and a public hearing was held on September 7, 1995, at which all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council amend the 1980 Comprehensive Plan and the draft 1995 Comprehensive Plan to designate the north one- half of Block 169, Shakopee Plat, as Single Family Residential. NOW, 'THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA,as follows: That the 1980 Comprehensive Plan, adopted on August 4, 1981, and the draft 1995 Comprehensive Plan, is hereby amended to designate the north one-half of Block 169, Shakopee Plat, as Single Family Residential. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the day of , 1995. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: • City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney c. Memo To: Shakopee Planning Commission From: Terrie A. Thurmer, Assistant City Planner Meeting Date: September 7, 1995 Re: Amendment to the 1980 Comprehensive Plan and the draft 1995 Comprehensive Plan Introduction Recently, City staff determined that there was a one-half block area of the City that was not included in the draft 1990 Comprehensive Plan, nor the draft 1995 Comprehensive Plan. The site is located north of the alley within Block 169, Shakopee Plat. Block 169 is located west of Main Street and within the 100 block north of 1st Avenue. City Code Section 11.82, Subd. 6, states that the City Council may propose amendments to the Comprehensive Plan by a resolution submitted to the Planning Commission. At the August 15, 1995, meeting of the Shakopee Planning Commission, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 4271, a Resolution Setting a Public Hearing Date to Consider a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Both the 1980 Comprehensive Plan, and the Draft 1995 Comprehensive Plan, to Designate the North One-Half of Block 169, Shakopee Plat, as Single Family Residential. Before the City Council adopts an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission is required to hold a public hearing. Once a recommendation from the Planning Commission is received, the amendment may be brought before the City Council, where a two-thirds vote of all its members may amend the Comprehensive Plan. Exhibits are as follows: Exhibit A, 1980 Comprehensive Plan; Exhibit B, Draft 1995 Comprehensive Plan; Exhibit C, City Code Section 11.91, Nonconformities; Exhibit D, City Code Section 11.36,Highway Business Zone(B-1); and Exhibit E, City Code Section 11.30, Old Shakopee Residential Zone(R-1C). Discussion The 1980 Comprehensive Plan designated the subject site as "Commercial". However, in both the draft 1990 Comprehensive Plan, as well as the draft 1995 Comprehensive Plan that was submitted to the Metropolitan Council, the site is designated as"Park" and the streets located north and west of the site are not provided on the Urban Land Use Plan. It appears that the omission of the north one-half of this block is an error, and the City did not intend to designate the area as a part of Huber Park. The 1995 draft Comprehensive Plan has designated the southern one-half of this block, as well as the block located directly east of this site, as "Commercial". One block east of the site, there is land designated "Medium Density Residential". Although the site is zoned "Highway Business" (B-1), there are no businesses currently located within the northern portion of this block. Only single family residences are located at the site. Since the site is zoned Commercial, the existing residences are considered Type A nonconformities. Type A nonconformities include land and structures which are devoted to a use not permitted within the zone in which they are located. They are regulated by City Code Section 11.91, Subd. 3 (See . This portion of the City Code prohibits Type A nonconformities from being expanded, enlarged to use more land area, intensified, replaced, structurally changed, or relocated, except to make it a permitted use within the zone in which it is located. However, normal maintenance and non-structural repairs are permitted. In addition, the removal or destruction of a nonconformity to the extent of more than 50 percent of its estimated market value (excluding land) terminates the right to continue the nonconformity. In other words, if one of these residences was destroyed by a natural disaster,the owners would not be allowed to rebuild the residence at the same site. If these residents were to request a rezoning from Highway Business (B-1) to residential, City staff would not be able to recommend approval of this request due to its nonconformance with the 1980 Comprehensive Plan that is currently in effect, and nonconformance with the draft 1995 Comprehensive Plan. Amendments to both Comprehensive Plans will be necessary in order to eliminate the nonconformity issue. Staff has discussed this proposal with two of the residents living within the north one-half of this block, and there appears to be support for these amendments within the neighborhood. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council designate this area as Single Family Residential in both the 1980 Comprehensive Plan and the draft 1995 Comprehensive Plan. Alternatives 1. Recommend to the City Council that the 1980 Comprehensive Plan and the draft 1995 Comprehensive Plan be amended to designate the site as Single Family Residential. 2. Recommend that the City Council not amend the Comprehensive Plans. 3. Continue the public hearing, and request additional information. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the 1980 Comprehensive Plan and the draft 1995 Comprehensive Plan be amended to designate the north one- half of Block 169, Shakopee Plat, as Single Family Residential (Alternative No. 1). Action Requested Offer a motion to recommend to the City Council that the 1980 Comprehensive Plan and the draft 1995 Comprehensive Plan be amended to designate the north one-half of Block 169, Shakopee Plat, as Single Family Residential, and move its approval. is\planning\pc_boaa\1995\compplan.sep 2 41'4 i EXHIBIT A =� 1080 COMPREH .....--7--:—..„, , ' ENSIVE PLANioireA° - ' ,.. ,. ----- „---" ‘:. s ..... ., % oar • .,erg _ Subject Site--- 0 -^. 1,,,, -.. ---- .,. t .... •4.\ .. t • t .. .:•4; , '' ',.... ,'' ..„,„ ; *........._ . • t ‘‘ 10 „ •k• , ,,, • ,,,. 1.-,., tiro ,.• • tt ....-- ------. . ..,t 1 • ‘ I r '.11"5.11g I eir t e k ::---------ram''------It, . ...., ...P..*I .9 ' . Al,'..,. 1 ... 'le , ..,, -,..4\ •-••• 01 t t 4 goi,• , .... . . ,.....4, rr.5 ^-4'ittl 1 10." . 41itrsso:, '.._ -l'i.'" ‘,..../ '; , ,, . . % , ,, .. cct .., . -.. • - ... . AI°a . 4. . . \‘ .....„ , , 1**" 141F ,i, . t P..... t ...'. ..... .1 �._r--- .7.72-----,.. .:: ....... t - ,:,.. , ...kv....---- ---- , PQ . It ki,, . 0. vr, . . ....tt , - A 4 \\ \ . • Ilk •lip 4, �. SO_ . .____. t ,‘ . r .----•-• c-----A\ PQ Fill- t-- ,• 1 „,...,...)- %\ \ \ \ _ ---- . . .._;e4.1...;. i 01:11 • k \ IL 1 , . . , i • ........ ,_ „. _ _ ..4..... _ ___ ,..... ._______ „ r--41. '1 . - tt ill . 11 ,‘.. I P Q , ,1 ,, 44•46 ... _ I _' , rya . L.._ t I t \ t 1 lemioniso lit Transporation Townsit i'• EXHIBIT B COMPREHENSIVDRAFT1995E PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION • ��1�. I o a r:17 N �, r q .rs 71911 '�19i. 1 . exr?:a1- „. � 6i � 3ir ���G �Sl'�4D m "`� 7111 711 - _,”--;_ !:-.*' .-'-'1 s.. %trill �d� 71- 7111 0►i1G 01°. ± =- - �Ip711=1p �, � 111110 � stiAl p ;p�� �rilock �tZ Witt .111 Van .{ 1� 1!!�O o1dE till �' . Com merccai 11/1 14- -g 111-1-1 110-14 1-1‘ 0{0t �„ 7\'?1� 11- . 11-11 1111 11 O medium Density Residential AmoA ilagui • 1-1114 � a Park Ce� �nim ae „e • § 11.91 EXHIBIT C SEC. 11.91. NONCONFORMITIES. Subd. 1. Purpose. It is recognized that there are structures and uses of land which were lawful when established but which do not now comply with all applicable provisions of this Chapter. While nonconformities may not be summarily terminated, it is the purpose and intent of this Chapter to discourage the survival of Type A nonconformities and such uses are hereby declared to be incompatible with this Chapter and with the comprehensive plan. It is further the purpose and intent of this Chapter to discourage the enlargement, expansion or extension of any Type A nonconformity or any increase of the impact of such nonconformity on adjoining property. It is also recognized that there are Type B nonconformities in which the uses continue to be permissible but which are operated on sites or in structures which do not fully meet the development standards of this Chapter. It is the intent of this Chapter to distinguish between uses which are not permitted and those in which development standards or other incidents of development are not in full compliance with this Chapter. Type A nonconformities will be discouraged and not allowed to expand while Type B nonconformities will be allowed to continue in existence and expand under carefully regulated conditions. Subd. 2. Types of Nonconformities. This Chapter recognizes the following two types of nonconformities: A. Type A nonconformities shall include land and structures which are devoted to a use not permitted by this Chapter. B. Type B nonconformities shall include developed land which is devoted to a use permitted by this Chapter, but where the site or structure is not in compliance with some other provision of this Chapter, such as the design standards applicable within that zone. r' Subd. 3. Regulation of Type A Nonconformities. Type A nonconformities shall be regulated in accordance with the following: A. No such use shall be expanded,enlarged to use more land area, intensified, replaced, structurally changed, or relocated, except to make it a permitted use. Normal maintenance and non-structural repairs shall be excepted from this prohibition; B. No nonconformity shall be resumed if normal operation of the use has been discontinued for a period of 6 or more months. Time shall be calculated as beginning on the date following the last day in which the use was in normal operation and shall run continuously thereafter, C. Full utilization of the nonconformity shall not be resumed if the amount of land or floor area dedicated to the use is lessened or if the intensity of the use is in any manner diminished for a period of 6 or more months. Time shall be calculated as beginning on the day following the last day in which the nonconformity was in full operation and shall run continuously thereafter. Following the expiration of 6 months, the nonconformity may be used only in the manner or to the extent used during the preceding 6 months. For the purposes of this subdivision, intensity of use shall include, but not be limited to, hours of operation, traffic, noise, exterior storage, signs, exterior lighting, types of goods or services offered, odors and number of employees; • ppe revised in 1995 1536 § 11.91 D. Removal or destruction of a nonconformity to the extent of more than 50 percent of its estimated market value, excluding land, as determined by the assessor, shall terminate the right to continue the nonconformity; E. Notwithstanding the prohibitions contained in the foregoing paragraphs of this subdivision, if approved by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals a nonconformity may be changed to another nonconformity of less intensity. In all instances the applicant has the burden of proof regarding the relative intensities of uses; F. If a nonconformity is superseded or replaced by a permitted use, the nonconforming status of the premises and any rights which arise under the provisions of this section shall terminate. G. In the floodplain overlay zone, the cost of any structural alterations or additions to any nonconforming structure over the life of the structure shall not exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure. The cost of all structural alterations and additions constructed since the adoption of the zoning ordinance must be calculated into today's current cost which will include all costs such as construction, materials, and labor. If the current cost of all previous and proposed alterations and additions exceeds 50 percent of the current market value of the structure, then the structure must be brought into conformity with the provisions of Sec. 11.56, Floodplain Overlay Zone (FP). Subd. 4. Regulation of Tvoe B Nonconformities. Type B nonconformities shall be regulated in accordance with the following: A. Expansion of an existing use or structure, reconstruction of a partially destroyed structure, construction of a new structure, or other intensification of a Type B nonconformity may be permitted upon a finding by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals of the following: 1. the number and extent of nonconformities will be reduced in conjunction with the proposed construction or intensification; 2. the impact of nonconformities upon adjacent property will be reduced in conjunction with the proposed construction or intensification; and 3. the conditions to be imposed by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals will effect the intent of this section. B. A Type B nonconformity which is destroyed to the extent of more than 50 percent of its market value at the time of loss shall be replaced only in compliance with the standards of the applicable zone. A Type B nonconformity destroyed to the extent of less than 50 percent of market value at the time of loss may be rebuilt to previously existing dimensions. In reviewing a permit for any Type B nonconformity which has been partially destroyed, the City shall seek to make the development conform as closely to the requirements of this Chapter as is reasonably practical. C. In the floodplain overlay zone, the cost of any structural alterations or additions to any nonconforming structure over the life of the structure shall not exceed 50 percent of p.p.i.vi..d In 1995 1537 EXHIBIT D SEC. 11.36. HIGHWAY BUSINESS ZONE (B-1). Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose of the highway business zone is to provide an area for business uses fronting on or with immediate access to arterial and collector streets. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. Within the highway business zone, no structure or land shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: A. motels and hotels; B. restaurants, class I; C. retail establishments; D. utility services; E. administrative, executive and professional offices; F. financial institutions; G. medical or dental clinics; or • H. public buildings. Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Within the highway business zone, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit A. taverns; B. churches; C. animal hospitals and veterinary clinics; D. open sales lots or any use having exterior storage of goods for sale; E. gas stations; F. restaurants, class II; G. private lodges and clubs; H. commercial recreation, major or minor I. bed and breakfast inns; J. uses having a drive-up or drive-through window; K. vehicle sales, service, or repair, including general repair, rebuilding or reconditioning of engines or vehicles, including body work, frame work and major painting service, p.go nw.d r 1993 1171 § 11 .36 replacement of any part or repair of any part, incidental body and fender work, painting or upholstering; L. car washes; M. hospitals; N. theaters; 0. funeral homes; P. utility service structures; Q. day care facilities; R. relocated structures; S. structures over 35 feet in height; T. developments containing more than one principal structure per lot; or U. other uses similar to those permitted in this subdivision, as determined by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Subd.4. Permitted Accessory Uses. Within the highway business zone the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: A. any incidental repair or processing necessary to conduct a permitted principal use; B. parking and loading spaces; C. temporary construction buildings; D. decorative landscape features; or E. other accessory uses customarily appurtenant to a permitted use, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. Subd. 5. Design Standards. Within the highway business zone, no land shall be used, and no structure shall be constructed or used, except in conformance with the following minimum requirements: A. Density: minimum lot area: (new lots): one acre (existing lots): 8,000 square feet maximum floor area ratio: .50 B. Maximum impervious surface percentage: 75% p.q.nvisw n 1995 1172 4 11.37 C. Lot specifications: minimum lot width: (new lots): 100 feet (existing lots): 60 feet minimum front yard setback: 30 feet minimum side yard setback: 20 feet minimum rear yard setback: 30 feet minimum side or rear yard setback from residential zones: 75 feet D. Maximum height: 35 feet without a conditional use permit. (Ord. 31, October 25, 1979; Ord. 150, October 4, 1984; Ord. 158, January 31, 1985; Ord. 159, February 28, 1985; Ord. 246, June 17, 1988; Ord. 264, May 26, 1989; Ord. 275, September 22, 1989; Ord. 279. December 1, 1989; Ord. 292, September 7, 1990; Ord. 320, October 31, 1991; Ord. 377, July 7, 1994) SEC. 11.37. Reserved. • • page~rid in 1993 1173 11.30 EXHIBIT E SEC. 11.30. OLD SHAKOPEE RESIDENTIAL ZONE (R-1C). Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose of the Old Shakopee residential zone is to provide an area for the continuation of existing residential development and development of existing lots in the older residential areas where public sanitary sewer and water are available. The combination of small lots is encouraged. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. Within the Old Shakopee residential zone, no structure or land shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: A. single family detached dwellings; B. single family attached dwellings, up to a maximum of two dwellings; C. two family dwellings; D. public recreation; E. utility services; F. public buildings; G. day care facilities serving 12 or fewer persons; H. group family day care facilities serving 14 or fewer children; or I. residential facilities serving six (6) or fewer persons. Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Within the Old Shakopee residential zone, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit A. churches and other places of worship; B. home occupations; C. cemeteries; D. hospitals and clinics; E. public or private schools having a course of instruction approved by the Minnesota Board of Education for students enrolled in K through grade 12, or any portion thereof, F. bed and breakfast inns; G. funeral homes; H. utility service structures; I. day care facilities serving 13 through 16 persons; • pegs ewtsed n 1995 1130 4 11.30 J. residential facilities servicing from 7 through 16 persons; • K. relocated structures; L. structures over 2-1/2 stories or 35 feet in height; M. developments containing more than one principal structure per lot or N. other uses similar to those permitted by this subdivision, as determined by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Subd. 4. Permitted Accessory Uses. Within the Old Shakopee residential zone, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: A. garages; B. fences; C. recreation equipment; D. gardening and other horticultural uses not involving retail sales; E. swimming pools; F. tennis courts; G. solar equipment or N. other accessory uses, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. Subd. 5. Design Standards. Within the Old Shakopee residential zone, no land shall be used, and no structure shall be constructed or used, except in conformance with the following minimum requirements: A. Density: one single family dwelling per 6,000 square feet one two-family dwelling per 11,000 square feet. • B. Maximum impervious surface percentage: 50% C. Lot specifications: Minimum lot width (single-family detached): 50 feet; (two-family dwelling): 70 feet Minimum lot depth: 100 feet Minimum front yard setback: equal to the average setback of other principal structures on the block. If there are fewer than three other existing principal structures on the block, the setback is 30 feet. C•v towel in 1905 1131 4 11 .30 Minimum street side yard setback: equal to the average street side yard setback of. other principal structures on the block. If none exist, the setback is 10 feet. Minimum interior side yard setback: 5 feet; or one side at 3 feet and the other side at 7 feet. Minimum rear yard setback: 30 feet Minimum rear yard setback for accessory structures: 5 feet D. Maximum height No structure shall exceed two and one-half (2-1/2) stories or thirty-five (35) feet in height without a conditional use permit. Subd. 6. Additional Requirements. A. All dwellings shall have a depth of at least 20 feet for at least 50 percent of their width. All dwellings shall have a width of at least 20 feet for at least 50 percent of their depth. B. All dwellings shall have a permanent foundation in conformance with the Minnesota State Building Code. (Ord. 31, October 25, 1979; Ord. 60, May 14, 1981; Ord. 159, February 28, 1985; Ord. 264, May 26, 1989; Ord. 377, July 7, 1994) SEC. 11.31. Reserved. (The next page is 1151.) pogo rovi..a in lugs 1132 1 D.0 CONSENT Memo To: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator From: Terrie A. Thurmer, Assistant City Planne41.d Date: September 13, 1995 Re: Amendment to the Final Plat for Parkview 1st Addition Introduction Dalles Properties has submitted a request for an amendment to the Final Plat for Parkview 1st Addition to allow Lot 1, Block 1 to have direct access onto Vierling Drive. Background and Discussion The City Council approved the Final Plat for Parkview 1st Addition with the adoption of Resolution No. 3810 on June 15, 1993. This approval was subject to 10 conditions, including the following condition related to restricting direct access: Condition No. 4: "The developer shall enter into an access agreement as follows: No direct access from the individual lots onto Marschall Road (CR 17) or Vierling Drive will be permitted Access rights shall be limited by dedicating to the City the access rights in the access agreement." To comply with this condition, the developer signed an Access Agreement dated July 14, 1993. This document was recorded on August 4, 1993, as Document No. 65124. This document will be amended after the approval of this amendment to the Final Plat. The access restriction to Vierling Drive was intended for the individual residential lots within Parkview 1st Addition, and not for the Commercially zoned portion of this plat. However, in order for the City Engineer to allow direct access from Vierling Drive to Lot 1, Block 1, Condition No. 4 of Resolution No. 3810 must be amended to read; "The developer shall enter into an access agreement as follows: No direct access from the individual lots onto Marschall Road (CR 17) shall be permitted, and no direct access from the individual lots onto Vierling Drive, except for Lot 1, Block 1, shall be permitted Access rights shall be limited by dedicating to the City the access rights in the access agreement." Section 11.62, Subd. 3.G, states that, "A maximum of one driveway per 200 feet of frontage shall be allowed for multiple family, business and industrial uses". The portion of Lot 1,Block 1 which is located adjacent to Vierling Drive is 330.64 feet in length. Therefore, if the Final Plat and the Access Agreements are amended, only one direct access from Vierling Drive may be approved by the City Engineer. Alternatives 1. Approve the Amendment to the Final Plat for Parkview 1st Addition. 2. Do not approve the requested amendment. 3. Table the decision, and request additional information from the applicant and/or staff. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the approval of the Amendment to the Final Plat for Parkview 1st Addition. Action Requested Offer Resolution No. 4298, A Resolution Approving Amendment No. 1 to the Final Plat for Parkview 1st Addition, and move its adoption. i:\planning\cc\1995\cc0919\ampla919.doc EXHIBIT A DALLES PROPERTIES 606 BARRINGTON DRIVE SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 Terry Thurmer City of Shakopee Planning Department 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Dear Terry, Dalles Properties hereby requests that an Access Agreement dated July 14, 1993, filed August 4, 1993 as Document No. 65124, be changed or ammended to permit access to Vierling Drive from the Commercial lots, as approved by the City Engineer. We have no objection to not having access from the residential lots. V7truly yours, )Ua-g Dale F. Dahlke Dalles Properties ` I I I I as'e ••71,'I1 L 3IS 1 PAS 1• •n7N I, )Nn lsvl I- L--fru id: i.Li,;::�' I iri M Z 5b 0 NO:)%f I i.1 � ` � I�'I` N� 1 p Nl;:: . 1?:1 L 59'IZL � .3`i�>_ 7::a i-I �,_•o� - ar:_yi_� oo a! Toa[ .32$4.._ °e.M_ �11_� 1s�i�Q ao• I. I �� I I 1i 1 I I I I 1 1 t l I� I Pc4 i I ..I .-a �\\? : „� I N I I in I I v I I I I 40 n 1 „ IN I • SI I I I IN Z ��\ o \\\\ .F. RI Iz it I� :I 1= Iz s 1 1I I =1 1- II I- =I I- S I- I ►'� � .'< `\ �•«>y.,l I I I I I III I I I I I IJ -. W 1 » i �.e..e.' ''''', °''' ki I I I I I I I I I I I .N a 0'v�'.7° . -J L---i L_ J L---J L---J L____i .., +. NISN _ arst ° -oar p ar1L . araa a aro° ---Z__. -- i •e'Itj _ 1_45___,-,4 ,t 133211S 83111W R - geg1 _—v7-1? ! --———— erloa —�Ti'.da.7►,o N a '1__ 4-..e.17... ° _o _o Ism ota•700_NI M�Pisyl• oas94 4,1%4[AN —2 p� I C -ifs!l [—tar-'1 i cow-i r-bra-1 r'-an -i r--woos-i �- I. I1 •� I i o• r .�? I - sl IU N g 1 18 1 1 I L 41 G g L_aooa. -_I c'xu I =I I '; r lila o Ig !I I" " — -T -1- I ...3S.P"' -.i 0 '. -'•r 1 I N-1 I .M-• ....I I „...1 I I In I I - 1 n d W sI los V. _J L_ __J L J L J L_'__J L___ I N ~ 4+•'p°l 12 .V•II° j,gjj- v Zak °oast_ __7Ocru am'q1� — UM=L in 1 a) . 3 \ 11 Na.s►p N --I I 1 r w.Wa os37 r 111.818,117,01-ri i,. 1_.' Li\ d 11_•3,- - `g \nes 0 .1 1 0) 1 1 co i 4,I's N /// I N • 1.- 1 p is � u ,o' _ ,; °0• I M,•Ii�d-fl v Q'+'1\ .'I \(\ ss., .+ AII I It L/ S�..,, I W U , Q of N \c1 i i tia\ e\ . n 1IeR I I °' °i '''►// f0 II 0 C p o�9Y£` i)•lrJ' \\�. ,g•^fie \ 7a IAa J L§/ ./l IJ \t,14. , il lz R . If) 7, \ ° 1.aATx' 310810 - $ L__00'o1__.J In U �.44,1,!x,‘,‘/ $\' $ �,°s�N•Isia IR 131AA�&7►ON • ,8,•° n-u_7•,ow'i O c: 7. 3 \g <,• • $ZI�� 3 b + _ '�° eana___ aro-.. a °i.l N. T,i. I I .r�Z�a-1 r, ,d\\ I. Z (' V/ iii: O. .411", a:80,...-0 - � IN 6-. :,I I. y,,„1)p°t �s r\, I: U 3: o, r I I , el 6,A ., q 0-0 ix a 3. . N g ro I "I ' t1 �;� I OMEN :i 8 — 3 , I :I =I M) it \\ c y y l �_ ee'esa J iI I__N JpL J I� - _, (� S-'3 o N-n.a•,ew ---a o $ ° arbor- arse 00'�r� I. z II 4 I _ =I a a1YI1 /1.ea.11.o N 2 N 9•I e i I 1 ------------I -I c 1� x1 N ►i •' W INI� 0 xi ..1 co ; tW !' 3 I ' 1 Id N e i .s . a� 1 QT f I 414, IIIM .- I<a 77 ? �4I<--_Ja I _ 133211S R Q S-1 .: 1.1 ,, I d �ils.•.0 N a ). *MOWN •L NSI - Z =Iii li r: `�” WV8 a ' L. • I rf � A3S e IIe 'i A : 1oi71 7 .00....„,,.. III S,v I II C: ,a. I .;� : I� I i _! I 1 �_ -' a Direct Access from Vierling Drive• IT 8 S 1. I ;' ILj is being requested for this lot. I t:t 1-1-1----; )g� `'ii 1 1¢ a �- 1 ! i s;•' ....( le . a ; s,�_ :I I II s 11734 I I rs?3I° e I ilsII I o. I a I II I If_• M,,av pO N EI'E5 a ,»aw Nalelaas ao1roN lv,a 1M1 l0 1Na1 Toe N MNEE,bi°ON ZO'165 MNSQIIb°99N 99Ba °. 3N66,bI.69N' r 88'II'111'I,L•371 1• NI 11 M WI IN N Mal 11711 / 96'Sb ar i (aV021 11VHOS2IVW) LI 'ON 'H'V'S'3 ' M 9Z LE.0 N EI'9Z9 ----- RESOLUTION NO. 4298 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE FINAL PLAT FOR PARKVIEW 1ST ADDITION. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee did review the Final Plat for Parkview 1st Addition on June 3, 1993, and recommended its approval; and WHEREAS, the Shakopee City Council did approve the Final Plat for Parkview 1st Addition with the approval of Resolution No. 3810 on June 15, 1993; and WHEREAS, the developer for Parkview 1st Addition is requesting that one access onto Vierling Drive be allowed for Lot 1, Block 1, due to its commercial zoning designation; and WHEREAS, Condition No. 4 of Resolution No. 3810 states that, "The developer shall enter into an access agreement as follows: No direct access from the individual lots onto Marschall Road(CR 17) or Vierling Drive will be permitted Access rights shall be limited by dedicating to the City the access rights in the access agreement"; and WHEREAS, in order for the City to allow direct access from Vierling Drive to Lot 1, Block 1, Condition No. 4 of Resolution No. 3810 must be amended to read; "The developer shall enter into an access agreement as follows: No direct access from the individual lots onto Marschall Road (CR 17) shall be permitted and no direct access from the individual lots onto Vierling Drive, except for Lot 1, Block 1, shall be permitted Access rights shall be limited by dedicating to the City the access rights in the access agreement"; and WHEREAS, at their meeting on September 19, 1995, the Shakopee City Council approved Amendment No. 1 to the Final Plat for Parkview 1st Addition to allow one access to Vierling Drive for Lot 1, Block 1. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the Final Plat for Parkview 1st Addition is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions as amended below: 1. Approval of the title opinion by the City Attorney. 2. Execution of a Developer's Agreement for construction of required improvements: a) Street lighting to be installed in accordance with the requirements of Shakopee Public Utilities. b) Electrical system shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of Shakopee Public Utilities. c) Water system to be installed in accordance with the requirements of Shakopee Public Utilities. d)' Storm sewer and sanitary sewer systems shall be installed in accordance with the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. e) Local streets within the plat shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee. f) Street signs will be constructed and installed by the City of Shakopee ata cost to the developer of$250.00 each per sign pole. g) The Park Dedication Requirement shall be a cash payment in lieu of park land. The Park Dedication fees shall be deferred on a lot by lot basis and are to be paid prior to the release of each principal structure building permit. h) The City Engineer will reapportion the existing special assessments against the lots and the developer shall waive his right to appeal the reapportionment. 3. The developer shall provide a recordable agreement stating that not more than 10%of the plat will be developed into twin homes. Twin homes will require separate utility connections, and sites must be identified prior to the installation of utilities. 4. The developer shall enter into an access agreement as follows: No direct access from the individual lots onto Marschall Road (CR 17) shall be permitted, and no direct access from the individual lots onto Vierling Drive, except for Lot 1, Block 1, shall be permitted. Access rights shall be limited by dedicating to the City the access rights in the access agreement. 5. The developer must provide on-site observation and compaction testing of house pads by a registered professional soils engineer for the areas where native soils are displaced or where the building sites are filled. 6. The final construction plans, stormwater management plans, and the grading and erosion control plan must be approved by the City Engineer. 7. The developer shall be responsible for grading of the plat as shown in the drainage plan. 8. Approval of the Final Plat is contingent upon the applicant receiving a Certificate of Exemption (Wetlands Conservation Act of 1991) or receiving approval by the City with appropriate minimization/Ieplacement measures. 9. The developer must obtain the necessary approvals from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for stormwater facilities. 10. The developer shall dedicate a 20 foot wide pedestrian access easement along the east edge of Lot 1,Block 1 for a future trail connection. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute said Plat and Developer's Agreement. Passed in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1995. Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney � l TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Tom Steininger, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Unsafe Traffic Condition Date: 09 08 95 INTRODUCTION: The 30 MPH speed zones on Adams Street (CSAH 15) and Spencer Street (CSAH 79) should be extended south of the residential development taking place between 10th Avenue and the bypass. BACKGROUND: Traffic on Adams Street moves at a speed which is not safe. The speed limit on Adams Street changes from 30 MPH to 55 MPH about 250 feet south of 12th Avenue. The number of people who use Tapah Park during the summer and fall increases every year. The number of vehicles which enter and exit the residential area south of 12th Avenue and west of Adams Street by means of Vierling Drive is significant and will increase rapidly as development of the area continues. Traffic on Spencer Street also moves at a speed which is unsafe. The speed limit on Spencer Street changes from 30 MPH to 55 MPH about 175 feet south of 11th Avenue. Significant residential development has taken place east of Spencer and is continuing on the west side. Mound Street, Bluestem Avenue, Alexander Court and Mint Circle all feed into Spencer within a few hundred yards. To date, there has not been a significant number of accidents in these areas. A hazardous condition does exist, however, and it is in the best interest of public safety to initiate action to address the problem before someone is seriously injured or killed. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Extend the 30 MPH Speed Zone on Spencer Street south to a point south of Mound Street. is 2 . Extend the 30 MPH Speed Zone on Adams Street south to a Point south of Tapah Park. 3 . Take no action. RECOMMENDATION: Alternatives 1 & 2 . ACTION REQUESTED: Direct the appropriate City Officials to contact the County Engineer and initiate the process necessary to extend the 30 MPH speed zones on Spencer and Adams Streets to points south of Mound Street and Tapah Park. cc: City Engineer fib Memo To: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator / From: Terrie A. Thurmer, Assistant City PlannNiiii. Date: September 14, 1995 • Re: Vacation of the portion of the Spencer Street Right-of-Way, Located North of TH 101 and South of the Southerly Right-of-Way Line of the Alley in Blocks 1 and 2, Original Shakopee Plat. Introduction In January of this year, Mr. Wallace Perry submitted a petition to vacate the portion of the Spencer Street right-of-way located north of TH 101 and south of the southerly right-of-way line of the alley in Blocks 1 and 2, Original Shakopee Plat. The City Council held a public hearing on February 21, 1995, to consider this vacation request. However, it tabled the decision until the September 5, 1995, meeting to allow additional time to evaluate the proposal. At the September 5th meeting, the City Council discussed this issue at length, but tabled its decision to the September 19, 1995, meeting to allow time for staff to gather additional information to assist the City Council in making a determination as to whether or not this right- of-way continues to serve a public purpose. Background This vacation was requested in order to provide an additional 40 feet of property for Wild Iris and the Perry Dental Offices. The applicant would like to provide additional parking stalls and to construct a decorative brick wall within the vacated right-of-way. A copy of the February 9, 1995, Planning Commission staff memo was attached to the September 5, 1995, City Council staff memo to provide background information. Discussion The City currently has projects underway which may benefit from City ownership of this right- of-way. These include the Downtown Riverfront Plan and plans for a major north / south trail by Scott and Hennepin Counties. Due to the uncertainty of these studies, both staff and the Planning Commission felt that it would not be in the best interest of the City to vacate this right- of-way with the possibility of having to purchase additional land in the near future. Therefore, at its February 21, 1995, meeting, the City Council tabled its decision for six months to allow time determine if more was known at that time and a recommendation to approve the vacation could be made. Planning and Engineering staff conducted a more recent inspection of the site at the request of the City Council to determine the City's need for this right-of-way. The Spencer Street right- of-way north of TH 101 includes a paved trail segment which leads into Huber Park from 1st Avenue. If the Spencer Street right-of-way were vacated, this trail segment would no longer be under the control of the City, and the trail would need to be relocated west of its current location. Areas west of the existing trail segment are subject to steeper slopes. In addition, the current trail location is on the exterior of the park area. If the trail were located further westward, the park would be bisected and some of the remaining park area could be less functional. City staff is recommending that this vacation request be denied, and that the entire 80 foot wide right-of-way remain under the control of the City to facilitate connecting the trail segment to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) trail along the Minnesota River. Since this right-of-way continues to serve a public purpose, it not be vacated. The City Engineer has provided the attached memo regarding the parking situation within the area of Huber Park adjacent to this site. Alternatives 1. Do not vacate the portion of the Spencer Street right-of-way located north of TH 101. 2. Vacate the portion of the Spencer Street right-of-way located north of TH 101 and south of the southerly right-of-way line of the alley in Blocks 1 and 2, Original Shakopee Plat, while reserving a drainage and utility easement for the existing utilities and the existing pedestrian trail over the portion of Spencer Street proposed for vacation. 3. Vacate the eastern 40 feet of the Spencer Street right-of-way, located north of TH 101 and south of the southerly right-of-way line of the alley in Blocks 1 and 2, Original Shakopee Plat, while reserving a drainage and utility easement for the existing utilities. 4. Table the decision request that staff and / or the applicant provide additional information. Planning Commission Recommendation Due to the uncertainty of the studies discussed in the Planning Commission staff memo, the Planning Commission recommended Alternative No. 1 (the denial of the vacation request), since the right-of-way is needed to reduce the slope on the existing trail segment, and other design options for the trail appear to be less desirable Staff Recommendation Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 (the denial of the vacation request). No additional information has been provided to allow staff to recommend the approval of this vacation request. Action Requested Offer Resolution No. 4172, A Resolution Approving the Vacation of the Portion of the Spencer Street Right-of-Way Located North of TH 101 and South of the Southerly Right-of-Way Line of the Alley in Blocks 1 and 2, Original Shakopee Plat, and move its adoption. (NOTE: If the City Council concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission to deny the vacation request, the City Council should vote against the adoption of this Resolution.) i:\pianning cc\19951cc0919\vacspene.doc RESOLUTION NO. 4172 A RESOLUTION VACATING THE PORTION OF THE SPENCER STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED NORTH OF TH 101 AND SOUTH OF THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE ALLEY IN BLOCKS 1 AND 2, ORIGINAL SHAKOPEE PLAT WHEREAS, an 80 foot wide by 142 foot long portion of right-of-way for Spencer Street was dedicated north of TH 101 and south of the southerly right-of-way line of the alley in Blocks 1 and 2, Original Shakopee Plat; and WHEREAS, it has been made to appear to the Shakopee City Council that the aforementioned portion of this right-of-way serves no public use or interest; and 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 February, 1995; and WHEREAS, two weeks published notice has been given in the SHAKOPEE VALLEY NEWS and posted notice has been given by posting such notice on the bulletin board on the main floor of the Scott County Courthouse, the bulletin board at the U.S. Post Office, the bulletin board at the Shakopee Public Library, and the bulletin board in the Shakopee City Hall; and WHEREAS, all persons desiring to be heard on the matter were given an opportunity to be heard at the public hearing in the Council Chambers in the City of Shakopee. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1.) That it finds and determines that the vacation hereinafter described is in the public interest; 2.) That the 80 foot wide by 142 foot long portion of right-of-way for Spencer Street located north of TH 101 and south of the southerly right-of-way line of the alley in Blocks 1 and 2, Original Shakopee Plat serves no further public need; 3.) That all that part of the 80 foot wide by 142 foot long portion of right-of- way for Spencer Street located north of TH 101 and south of the southerly right-of-way line of the alley in Blocks 1 and 2, Original Shakopee Plat, Scott County, Minnesota, be, and the same hereby is vacated; 4.) That the approval of this vacation is contingent upon reserving a drainage and utility easement for the existing utilities and the existing pedestrian trail over the portion of Spencer Street proposed for vacation; and 5.) 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 , 1995. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney EXHIBIT A Y r • • , •• a N View of trail, facing north. -Irr. r. r -.I. 1, ---- - _.t •,+tea-;--A14, - - .r -• �. _ ...- 11st 4 — !''-�•se''�y � • ti.� .. ; A- .,1'-••-',�••• ' .7; .' fj� V•41: fro Ir?c y j 4' View of trail facing, north, north-east. View of trail, facing 33n��orth Not• �� Note the location of the the grade in the lower right right-of-way markers along the corner of the photo. This leads west edge of the right-of-way. to the Wild Iris parking lot. / e _.1_ • All • .. •ia _ 4 Y-. -alliallb 2 ar Mia.. if 1-s _ -*M6 ai• ileittor" Ari` *;. 1;e"�" iii View of frail facia south. j View of trail, facing south. Note the existing grade of the trail.. Note the existingg a of-tie trail, , and the location of the west right-of-way marker. , t - i , �- ri f. View of trail, facing west. View of trail, facing north. MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director , SUBJECT: Huber Park Temporary Parking Lot DATE: September 13, 1995 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 19, 1995 INTRODUCTION: This item is to obtain Council direction on whether the temporary parking lot in Huber Park can be removed or not at this time. BACKGROUND: During the construction of the Mini-Bypass Project on 1st Avenue in 1992-1993, a temporary parking lot area was installed in Huber Park to replace the parking lots that could not be utilized along 1st Avenue for businesses between Spencer Street and Fillmore Street. City staff installed a gravel surfaced parking area to accommodate the businesses in Huber Park and north of the alley between Spencer Street and Fillmore Street. Attached is a map showing the general location of the park,parking lot and businesses. • The Public Works Department has been given Council approval to perform minor regrading of Huber Park so that the area can have turf established and to clean up the park from the fill material placed over the years. Staff was planning on resloping the area where the parking area is located,this in effect removing the parking lot. Staff did contact Mr. Wallace Perry, owner of one of the buildings to inform him of regarding work. Mr. Perry is not in favor of removing the parking area at this time, however, his understanding was that the parking lot was temporary. If a public parking lot is necessary for Huber Park at this time, a better location would be off of Bluff Avenue near the rodeo area, which would provide an east entrance to Huber Park. The west entrance would be from Levee Drive and a parking lot exists near the City's east ramp. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Move to direct staff to remove the temporary parking lot in Huber Park. 2. Move to direct staff to leave the temporary parking lot in Huber Park and accept the liability. 3. Move to direct staff to enter into a lease agreement with the property owners for the parking area in Huber Park. 4. Table for more information. RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not have a recommendation as this is a policy decision on whether to use a portion of the park for parking in this area or to remove the parking lot area. BL/pmp HUBERP • _______,, 5i� \\\ . \)\ , ,......„. rir. .'1(/ lila ,.., •'i, Ar -II \- — C'_-- lr ---) \ t--. Ili ri01' v Q 111 1111 D, lei WI Or 0 X libili 1101111 ':.--:;:4 ir ci_ , \8 O 0 0 i.......ilk i .1. 0 lip, Q a.,.n 'II. -20 volV,;c2A 71 m . 1011 Lai 111A ''' SC)-5 '' Nip,.-z. -- • a irfili.dima slit' , c+P< , =k ,k. r ��� WWI . . �.la lig Ira st, °Toxo --I I_, „ "�4 Q'h^ 'AFL C gill 111111 Ira 1 I Sli 11 b W 11 71. /lows i‘ya VIII -4 VI'J'"' "1 llk silo 11110 a 0 c a 11 00 D ll= \O P '11111 \O\ �1 ik r 1�II1, ,� 3 iy_Dt-:Tx\VAg\ SS r lit. \I. i ( 0, CONSENT MEMORANDUM TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk SUBJECT: Premises Permit for the MS Society DATE: September 14, 1995 INTRODUCTION: The attached resolution approving a premises permit for the Minnesota Multiple Sclerosis Society at 1561 East 1st Avenue has been prepared for Council consideration. BACKGROUND: The Minnesota Multiple Sclerosis Society is applying to the State Gambling Control Board for renewal of their premises permits. Although the MS Society has only had a premises permit since last December at the Rock Spring Restaurant, all of their premises permits must be renewed at the same time which is this coming December. As you are aware the city code requires that each licensed organization conducting lawful gambling within the City shall expend 75% of its expenditures for lawful purposes on lawful purposes conducted or located within the city's trade area. (The city's trade area includes those municipalities that are contiguous to the City of Shakopee. ) According to the information provided to me, the MS Society has experienced a net profit of $6, 339. 10 for the period beginning December, 1994 through July, 1995. 75% of the $6, 339. 10 profit equates to $5,204 .33 . This past June the MS Society gave the City a check for $2,000 to help in making the ramp at the stadium grandstand handicap accessible. There remains $3 , 204 . 33 in the Shakopee account for eligible projects. The MS Society's mission statement reads: "The purpose of the Minnesota Multiple Sclerosis Society is to provide programs and services which enhance the quality of life for persons who have MS, to fund research to find the cause of and cure for multiple sclerosis, and to advocate accessibility for all persons. " The MS Society will consider requests for projects that meet the guidelines of its Mission. Based on the information provided, it appears that the MS Society is currently in compliance with the city code relating to the 75% spending requirements. ALTERNATIVES: 1] Approve premises permit 2] Deny premises permit 3] Table for additional information RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative #1, approval of the premises permit. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Offer Resolution No. 4302, A Resolution Approving A Premises Permit For The Minnesota Multiple Sclerosis Society, and move its adoption. RESOLUTION NO. 4302 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA, APPROVING A PREMISES PERMIT FOR THE MINNESOTA MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS SOCIETY WHEREAS, the 1990 legislature adopted a law which requires municipal approval in order for the Gambling Control Board to issue or renew a premises permit; and WHEREAS,the Minnesota Multiple Sclerosis Society is seeking a Premises Permit at the Rock Spring Restaurant, 1561 East 1st Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF Shakopee,MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS: That the premises Permit for the Minnesota Multiple Sclerosis Society, 1561 East 1st Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota, be approved. Adopted in adjourned regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this 19th day of September, 1995. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney 09-05-1995 11:40AM FROM MS Society TO 4456718 P.02 MINNESOTA MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS SOCIETY k 1 v i 612-870-1500 or 1-800-582-5296 (both Voice &TDD) -- FAX 612-870-0265 2344 Nicollet Avenue, Suite 280 -- Minneapolis, MN 55404-3381 • Judy Cox September 5, 19'95 City Clerk . City of Shakopee 129 Hol=== Street South ;.;hai;opci, MN 55379 Deer Judy, Per our conversation today I am sending you a summary of our net profit from our site at Roc Spring Restaurant. See attached. prcifii: this sites is 53,204. .::= unexpended net� 3"_. `• Kcam ! DanI.t ra .wr i F= Hof fma!i are b'tyi contacts on how to get projcct Sur,ued. i . -.-e1 f, V • tteb Aar r Accounting Manager rr:L.,elly D_1nimr5 Lee Hoffman Remember the MS Society in your giving. 09-05-1995 11:41AM FROM MS Society TO 4456718 P. CITY OF SKAKOPEE 751 TRADE ORDINANCE ROCK SF?IN6 RESTAURANT • 1994 1995 1995 1995 1995 1935 1995 1995 DEC JAN FEB MAR APR M i JUN JUL NET RECEIPTS (1itre 100 2,439.04 4,343.00 6,499.00 5,005.04 5,7::.00 5,022.00 3,349.00 3,889.60 ALLOUA8LE'EIPEN5E (line 361 2,269.19 2,171.3! 2,189.90 2,142.25 1,701.77 2,439.60 2,248.35 1,935.41 61 CONDINED RECEIPTS TAX 577.44 1,058.22 1,431.12 1,133.28 1,312.02 1,273.20 977.40 649.94 21 DISTRIBUTOR TAX 180.94 727.56 727.00 496.52 482.44 351.86 608.36 250.43 NET PROFIT (588.57) 385.91 2,090.98 1,232.95 2,291.77 957.32 (455.11) 1,053.35 TOTAL PROFIT FR;ir DEC 94 - JUL 15 6,339.14 751 TRADE ORDINANCE E:FENDITURES: CITY OF w16KOPEE (6/95) 2,000.00 PUIEXT A: 114iTLIT; 3,204.33 SCOTT COUNTY ASSESSO ENT 1 J COURTHOUSE 112 428 HOLMES STREET SOUTH SHAKOPEE, MN 55379-1381 (612) 496-8115 "cow FAX: (612) 496-8257 August 31, 1995 Dennis Kraft, Administrator City of Shakopee 129 S Holmes St Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Dennis; Enclosed you will find the original document of the Agreement for Joint Assessment for the assessment year 1996. Please read and sign in the appropriate area on the second page. Return to the Scott County Assessor's office by October 15, 1995 so that we may pass the agreement on to the County Board for approval. You will receive a copy of this agreement after all signatures have been obtained. Thank you in advance for your prompt action regarding this matter. Sincerely, Leroy T. Arnoldi Scott County Assessor LTA/dh ENC./1 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize the appropriate City officials to execute the agreement for joint assessment between the City of Shakopee and the County of Scott for the assessment year 1996. An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action/Safety Aware Employer AGREEMENT FOR JOINT ASSESSMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE AND THE COUNTY OF SCOTT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the City of Shakopee and the County of Scott, State of Minnesota, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 273.072 and Minnesota Statute 471.59. WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee wishes to enter into an agreement with the County of Scott to provide for the assessment of the property in said City of Shakopee by the County Assessor's office; and WHEREAS, it is the wish of said County to cooperate with said City of Shakopee to provide for a fair and equitable assessment of property; NOW THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL COVENANTS HEREIN CONTAINED, TT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. That the City of Shakopee which lies within the County of Scott and constitutes a separate assessment district, shall have its property assessed by the County Assessor of Scott County, for the assessment year 1996. All work done necessary to the establishment of the estimated market value for each parcel shall be performed by the Scott County Assessor or by one or more of the licensed assessors under his direction and supervision. 2. It is hereby agreed that the City of Shakopee and all of it's officers, agents and employees shall render full cooperation and assistance to said County to facilitate the provision of the services contemplated hereby. 3. In consideration for said assessment services, the City of Shakopee hereby agrees to pay the County of Scott the sum of$38,000.00, such payment to be made to the County Treasurer on or before July 15, 1996. 4. The County agrees that in each year of this Agreement it shall, by it's County Assessor or one or more of his appraisers, view and determine the market value of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the parcels within this taxing jurisdiction. It is further agreed that the County shall have on file documentation of those parcels physically inspected for each year of this agreement. 5. It is understood by the parties that, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 273.072, this Agreement for Joint Assessment must be approved by the Commissioner of Revenue, State of Minnesota. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Shakopee has executed this agreement by its Mayor and City Administrator by the authority of its governing body and the County of Scott has executed this agreement by its Chairperson, County Administrator and County Assessor pursuant to the authority of the Board of Commissioners intending to be bound thereby. City of Shakopee: Mayor Date City Administrator Date County of Scott: Richard Underferth, Chairperson Date County Board of Commissioners Gary L. Cunningham, Date County Administrator Leroy T. Arnoldi, Date County Assessor This agreement is hereby approved by the Commissioner of Revenue, State of Minnesota on this day of , 19_ Commissioner of Revenue, State of Minnesota Approved as to form: Thomas J. Harbinson Scott County Attorney CONSENT I/ al Attached is a print out showing the division budget status for 1995 based on data entered as of 9/13/95 . Legal is running ahead of budget due to the BIA issue and Finance is ahead due to timing of payment to vendors. The civic center capital projects fund has recorded expenditures of $1, 781, 233 to date including an amount in this bill list of $838, 858 . H H 100101AAAA W W W HHHHH -' F' O 0 % 1 N IA N 01 A N N W N N CO 1 01 U1 W N F' O W til hd �q" ro C7 r Ztii0 F3zzH0 til rL'iHHH > -18 H yHy� H '-�3r t' t7r roLZIZLro+7 � n �1i t" z � y�. XI �' r z t" H H z H r z Cl L] t' C7 R1 Cd+] 0 >1H H PZI H 0 0 t4 Z b tilU H 0 F30 z zz 0 z 0 H dtii z z Z OW n v z CD H Cri l7 r HW H C+] H � ro0 z y r 0 0 CI totii H x1 0 0 1 H r H 0 0 H z 0 tfl10 18 0 01 H H Ctil H H A AA 01 N N N N N 1 W N IA IA N pA N W N N b H H 0, 01 10 N W W 1.0 N CO Ul 1.0 F' l0 A 01 N O N N 01 Cii 10 10 11 AA CO 10 01 N N A 1 1 O Ul co .A N W No 10 Z C) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U] H O 0 H H l0 NUI Ill ANHH HAAO W AA10 /A til H co co 01 01 N 1 CO Oo N N Co O co IA 01 N W l0 l0 1 iA 01 o U] K o 0 o O O 000000000000000000 'W 0 HK 'V A -d 0 totil 01 "3 R O 0 X X � yHrzz ti t" xz y H H H H CO H N H A H H H l0 10 N AA 01 CO Ul W CO N 01 F' CO 01 l0 O to AA Ul AA •• a. a. •••. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 00 1 1 01 O 01 01 01 1p 1 O W 1 1 CO Ul W 01 Ul CO 1 O 0 H H W 0 01 CO W N Ui W l0 Ul N 1 0 AA o1 Ul l0 H AA AA CO OD -4 W 1.0 CO O 1 11) W O W 1 01 A 10 Ul Ul 1 N 0 0 FG ' HCii LH O cozl N N W H H W N H H 10 H N H Ul Ul N N 10 N 01 CO to m Ul N N 10 co co Ul 01 H co N IA AA /A 10 l0 10 01 N ..A 1 1 U1 N U1 UI 01 O W 1 01 N W O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 al O O 01 co 1 1 CO A W Ul W N 1 O CO N l0 AA U1 A 00 U1 U1 H H Ul l0 N A N 01 01 1 H 1 CO N W CO U1 CO A A W U1 Ul 10 10 AA A H 1 N W CO H 10 N CO 0 01 O 10 N (11 1 O ill ro 5C W VW WC) 6z Lii 3 II II 11 U II 4. A 11 A A II 01 N 01 01 01 01 IA 01 01 aN 01 Ul Ul 1 1 01 UI Ul II 01 01 11 l0 l0 II 0 H 10 N CO 0 Ul N W CO 01 10 UI 10 N 1 01 co o * * * * * * * * * * * * H 0 * * * H * * * H * * * - 1< * * * * * * CD 0 * * * t1i h] * * * ny * * * U] * * * ' $ II,D SU GN N * LJ * .P * * 0 (D II Z * 0 * * II (D (D (D * H ro * * rt 0 0 m m * ti] * * I-h rt rt rt * t.o t+7 * * 1-3 (D (D * (TI * * Imo- xl d K II * * * rt (D A) * * * I-1 173 rt m m * * * (D 0 (D * ko * * .. n •• C Z * * * it 0 Ai * W * * H0 E c * in * * til Z D) (D * * * N- rt •• * �I * * I-% r• * * * (D O C x * I * * •• CD 0 til * I * * Ch 0 * I * * �G ro * II * * t7 H CO XX n * IA o * * MIP I LIi * .• * * Iv. '=J * H * * 1-3 H H x1 * C .P * * roVn2g tTI * ro� * * • voth [ * zu, * * C] H hi 1:7 CO * H * *H � O * 7 CI * * t-< • 10 * I * * (/) •• * I * * O x Co H * I * * 1-4 ()1 * I * * * H * * f * 0 * * * 0 * * * •• * * ,`i1 * * * 0 * f!) * * KJ H * x 'y * * tzi * 1 * * trI 1-3 * K] 0 * * * H * * t+] * "Z * * * () * * ;U * by x * * * I * * * I 0 * * * I * * * 1 C) * * * u. * * * 0 * * * tr * * * •. ;r1 * * * * * * Ht'] * * * -1 * * * m PM * * * CO * * * IP O * * * * * * xl * * * rn * * * UwH * * * * * * * * * * * * N H 'CI II 0 (Q 1-3 rJ tri0 0 A H Dl N al V 1 1 1 K Co 0 II rt F..- 10. Pi til Irl ro A ow Pi CD H H COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER THU, SEP 14 , 1995, 9 : 24 AM CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTIO 40532 1995/09/13 $240. 00 MN POLLUTION CNTRL AGNCY <*> $240. 00* 49663 1995/09/07 $544 .44 AFLAC CANCER INS. PAYAB <*> $544 .44* 49664 1995/09/07 $17, 209 .78 BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD CM519-WO 0 <*> $17, 209 .78* 49665 1995/09/07 $931. 18 FORTIS BENEFITS HEALTH & LIFE PAY <*> $931. 18* 49666 1995/09/07 $11, 420. 84 MARQUETTE BANK SHAKOPEE FIT PAYABLE 1995/09/07 $10, 743 . 04 MARQUETTE BANK SHAKOPEE FICA/MEDICARE PAY <*> $22 , 163 . 88* 49667 1995/09/07 $112 .85 MBA CANCER INS. PAYAB <*> $112 .85* 49668 1995/09/07 $84, 973 . 00 METRO WASTE CONTROL COMM CURRENT USE CHARG <*> $84, 973 . 00* 49669 1995/09/07 $540. 00 MINNESOTA MUTUAL LIFE HEALTH & LIFE PAY <*> $540. 00* 49670 1995/09/07 $1, 549 . 75 MN TEAMSTERS #320 UNION DUES PAYABL <*> $1, 549 . 75* 49671 1995/09/07 $12 , 213 . 56 PERA 7578-00 <*> $12 , 213 . 56* 49672 1995/09/07 $215. 67 SCOTT CO COLLECTIONS C062936 <*> $215. 67* 49673 1995/09/07 $6, 552 . 36 USCM CLEARING ACCOUNT 23109 <*> $6, 552 . 36* 49674 1995/09/07 $232 . 14 USCM CLEARING ACCOUNT 2344 OBRA <*> $232 . 14* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER THU, SEP 14, 1995, 9: 24 AM CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTIO 49678 1995/09/12 $381. 27 A T & T WIRELESS SERVICES OPERATING SUPPLIE <*> $381. 27* 49679 1995/09/12 $0. 27 A T & T TELEPHONE 1995/09/12 $31. 82 A T & T TELEPHONE 1995/09/12 $1. 05 A T & T TELEPHONE 1995/09/12 $3 . 62 A T & T TELEPHONE 1995/09/12 $4 .81 A T & T TELEPHONE 1995/09/12 $11. 46 A T & T TELEPHONE 1995/09/12 $5.46 A T & T TELEPHONE 1995/09/12 $3 .70 A T & T TELEPHONE 1995/09/12 $99 . 37 A T & T TELEPHONE <*> $161. 56* 49680 1995/09/12 $842 .85 ACT ELECTRONICS INC OPERATING SUPPLIE 1995/09/12 $842 .85 ACT ELECTRONICS INC OPERATING SUPPLIE <*> $1, 685.70* 49681 1995/09/12 $10, 815. 75 ALLIED BLACKTOP CO IMPROVEMENTS <*> $10, 815.75* 49682 1995/09/12 $29 . 95 AM PLANNING ASSN OPERATING SUPPLIE <*> $29 . 95* 49683 1995/09/12 $257 . 50 AMERICAN NAT. BANK FISCAL AGENT FEES 1995/09/12 $75. 00 AMERICAN NAT. BANK FISCAL AGENT FEES <*> $332 .50* 49684 1995/09/12 $57 . 33 APACHE GROUP OPERATING SUPPLIE 1995/09/12 $244 . 76 APACHE GROUP OPERATING SUPPLIE 1995/09/12 $149 . 88 APACHE GROUP OPERATING SUPPLIE 1995/09/12 $149 . 88 APACHE GROUP OPERATING SUPPLIE 1995/09/12 $181.89 APACHE GROUP OPERATING SUPPLIE 1995/09/12 $229 . 32 APACHE GROUP OPERATING SUPPLIE <*> $1, 013 . 06* 49685 1995/09/12 $117 . 42 ASCOM INC RENTALS <*> $117 . 42* 49686 1995/09/12 $120, 704 . 62 B & B SHEET METAL INC BUILDINGS COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER THU, SEP 14 , 1995, 9 : 24 AM CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTIO <*> $120, 704 . 62* 49687 1995/09/12 $10. 60 BAUER BUILT TIRE & BATT I EQUIPMENT MAINTEN 1995/09/12 $83 . 33 BAUER BUILT TIRE & BATT I OPERATING SUPPLIE <*> $93 . 93* 49688 1995/09/12 $410. 34 BERENS DESIGNATED MISCEL 1995/09/12 $189 . 68 BERENS MERCHANDISE 1995/09/12 $50. 60 BERENS OPERATING SUPPLIE 1995/09/12 $59.97 BERENS OPERATING SUPPLIE <*> $710. 59* 49689 1995/09/12 $315. 28 BIFFS INC PROFESSIONAL SERV 1995/09/12 $13 . 49 BIFFS INC PROFESSIONAL SERV <*> $328 . 77* 49690 1995/09/12 $82 . 26 BIG A AUTO PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTEN 1995/09/12 $12 . 11 BIG A AUTO PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTEN 1995/09/12 $12 . 11 BIG A AUTO PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTEN 1995/09/12 $28 . 82 BIG A AUTO PARTS OPERATING SUPPLIE <*> $135. 30* 49691 1995/09/12 $2 , 224 . 38 BITUMINOUS CONTR INC IMPROVEMENTS <*> $2 , 224 . 38* 49692 1995/09/12 $76. 68 C & E AUTO UPHOLSTERY EQUIPMENT MAINTEN <*> $76. 68* 49693 1995/09/12 $300. 00 CAMPBELL LTD,DR L M PROFESSIONAL SERV <*> $300. 00* 49694 1995/09/12 $52 . 19 CARTRIDGECARE INC OPERATING SUPPLIE 1995/09/12 $122 .48 CARTRIDGECARE INC OPERATING SUPPLIE <*> $174 . 67* 49695 1995/09/12 $76. 41 CATCO EQUIPMENT MAINTEN <*> $76. 41* 49696 1995/09/12 $3 , 359 . 07 CDP INC PRINTING/PUBLISHI <*> $3 , 359 . 07* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER THU, SEP 14, 1995, 9: 24 AM CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTIO 49697 1995/09/12 $25. 56 CHASKA BLDG CTR BUILDING MAINT 1995/09/12 $147 . 67 CHASKA BLDG CTR BUILDING MAINT <*> $173 . 23* 49698 1995/09/12 $450. 00 CITYWIDE INSULATION C.O. CHARGE PAYAB <*> $450. 00* 49699 1995/09/12 $919. 32 COMMERCIAL ASPH CO MATERIALS <*> $919. 32* 49700 1995/09/12 $75. 41 COMMUNICATION AUDITORS EQUIPMENT MAINTEN <*> $75. 41* 49701 1995/09/12 $27, 550. 00 DANNY'S CONSTRUCTION CO I BUILDINGS <*> $27 , 550. 00* 49702 1995/09/12 $2 , 163 .90 DRESSEN OIL CO PREPAID CHARGES <*> $2 , 163 . 90* 49703 1995/09/12 $17 . 31 E F ANDERSON & ASOC OPERATING SUPPLIE 1995/09/12 $93 . 08 E F ANDERSON & ASOC OPERATING SUPPLIE <*> $110. 39* 49704 1995/09/12 $81. 45 EARTHSKY SCIENCE PROGS OPERATING SUPPLIE <*> $81. 45* 49705 1995/09/12 $16, 150. 00 ELECTRIC SERVICE CO INC BUILDINGS <*> $16, 150. 00* 49706 1995/09/12 $359 , 717 . 50 FABCON INC BUILDINGS <*> $359, 717 . 50* 49707 1995/09/12 $673 . 99 FICZERI, GEORGE M. BUILDING MAINT <*> $673 . 99* 49708 1995/09/12 $345. 83 G.C. BENTLEY ASSOC INC PROFESSIONAL SERV 1995/09/12 $345. 83 G.C. BENTLEY ASSOC INC PROFESSIONAL SERV 1995/09/12 $345.84 G.C. BENTLEY ASSOC INC PROFESSIONAL SERV <*> $1, 037 . 50* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER THU, SEP 14 , 1995, 9 : 24 AM CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTIO 49709 1995/09/12 $7, 111.70 GEORGE F COOK CONST CO BUILDINGS <*> $7, 111.70* 49710 1995/09/12 $52 ,758 . 07 GREYSTONE CONST INC PROFESSIONAL SERV <*> $52, 758 . 07* 49711 1995/09/12 $201. 35 HARMON GLASS EQUIPMENT MAINTEN <*> $201. 35* 49712 1995/09/12 $221. 30 HEARTLAND TIRE INC EQUIPMENT MAINTEN 1995/09/12 $224 . 00 HEARTLAND TIRE INC EQUIPMENT MAINTEN <*> $445. 30* 49713 1995/09/12 $8 . 50 HENNENS ICO INC EQUIPMENT MAINTEN <*> $8. 50* 49714 1995/09/12 $3 , 622 . 50 HENNESSY CRA, DONALD A PROFESSIONAL SERV <*> $3 , 622 . 50* 49715 1995/09/12 $7 , 532 . 40 HOMEWERK PAVEMENT PRESERVA <*> $7 , 532 . 40* 49716 1995/09/12 $100. 00 HUGE, MARK OPERATING SUPPLIE <*> $100. 00* 49717 1995/09/12 $24, 088 . 00 IMPERIAL DEVELOPERS INC IMPROVEMENTS 1995/09/12 $90, 715. 80 IMPERIAL DEVELOPERS INC BUILDINGS <*> $114 , 803 .80* 49718 1995/09/12 $789 . 48 INST. TESTING INC PROFESSIONAL SERV 1995/09/12 $256. 79 INST. TESTING INC PROFESSIONAL SERV 1995/09/12 $100. 71 INST. TESTING INC PROFESSIONAL SERV 1995/09/12 $19 . 00 INST. TESTING INC PROFESSIONAL SERV 1995/09/12 $13 . 30 INST. TESTING INC PROFESSIONAL SERV <*> $1, 179. 28* 49719 1995/09/12 $68, 613 . 46 JESCO INC BUILDINGS <*> $68, 613 . 46* 49720 1995/09/12 $98 . 00 JOHN E REID & ASSOC CONFERENCE/SCHOOL COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER THU, SEP 14 , 1995, 9 : 24 AM CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTIO <*> $98 . 00* 49721 1995/09/12 $88 , 412 . 01 KILLMER ELECTRIC CO INC IMPROVEMENTS <*> $88, 412 . 01* 49722 1995/09/12 $11. 50 KLIMEK, EILEEN TRAVEL/SUBSISTENC <*> $11. 50* 49723 1995/09/12 $12 .78 KOEHNENS STANDARD EQUIPMENT MAINTEN <*> $12 .78* 49724 1995/09/12 $170. 09 KRAFT, DENNIS TRAVEL/SUBSISTENC <*> $170. 09* 49725 1995/09/12 $1, 124 . 00 KROMINGA, TERRY PROFESSIONAL SERV <*> $1, 124 . 00* 49726 1995/09/12 $217 . 31 LAKELAND ENVELOPE CO INC OPERATING SUPPLIE <*> $217 . 31* 49727 1995/09/12 $382 . 50 LAURENT BLDRS INC C.O. CHARGE PAYAB <*> $382 . 50* 49728 1995/09/12 $34 . 00 LINK BLDG SUPPLY EQUIPMENT MAINTEN 1995/09/12 $2 . 56 LINK BLDG SUPPLY OPERATING SUPPLIE <*> $36. 56* 49729 1995/09/12 $75. 00 LINK, CLARE T PROFESSIONAL SERV <*> $75 . 00* 49730 1995/09/12 $29 . 79 LINK, TERRY OPERATING SUPPLIE <*> $29 .79* 49731 1995/09/12 $244 . 80 LOGIS OPERATING SUPPLIE 1995/09/12 $1, 317 . 17 LOGIS RENTALS 1995/09/12 $953 . 60 LOGIS RENTALS 1995/09/12 -$27 . 76 LOGIS RENTALS <*> $2 , 487 . 81* 49732 1995/09/12 $13 , 152 .75 MACQUEEN EQUIP. EQUIPMENT COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER THU, SEP 14, 1995, 9: 24 AM CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTIO <*> $13 , 152 . 75* 49733 1995/09/12 $285. 00 MAINSTREAM CNSLTG GRP INC PROFESSIONAL SERV 1995/09/12 $3 , 990. 00 MAINSTREAM CNSLTG GRP INC PROFESSIONAL SERV 1995/09/12 $285. 00 MAINSTREAM CNSLTG GRP INC EQUIPMENT MAINTEN 1995/09/12 $296. 07 MAINSTREAM CNSLTG GRP INC OPERATING SUPPLIE <*> $4 , 856. 07* 49734 1995/09/12 $27 . 42 MENARDS OPERATING SUPPLIE 1995/09/12 $27 .41 MENARDS OPERATING SUPPLIE <*> $54 . 83* 49735 1995/09/12 $58, 905. 00 METRO WASTE CONTROL COMM METRO SAC CHARGES <*> $58, 905. 00* 49736 1995/09/12 $161. 02 MIDWEST BUS PRODS PRINTING/PUBLISHI 1995/09/12 $23 . 86 MIDWEST BUS PRODS PRINTING/PUBLISHI 1995/09/12 $35. 11 MIDWEST BUS PRODS PRINTING/PUBLISHI 1995/09/12 $82 . 28 MIDWEST BUS PRODS PRINTING/PUBLISHI 1995/09/12 $413 . 31 MIDWEST BUS PRODS PRINTING/PUBLISHI 1995/09/12 $8 . 85 MIDWEST BUS PRODS OPERATING SUPPLIE 1995/09/12 $128 . 12 MIDWEST BUS PRODS OPERATING SUPPLIE 1995/09/12 $108 . 38 MIDWEST BUS PRODS OPERATING SUPPLIE 1995/09/12 $5. 43 MIDWEST BUS PRODS OPERATING SUPPLIE 1995/09/12 $37 .48 MIDWEST BUS PRODS OPERATING SUPPLIE <*> $1, 003 . 84* 49737 1995/09/12 $16. 20 MINN COMM INC PROFESSIONAL SERV 1995/09/12 $55. 91 MINN COMM INC PROFESSIONAL SERV 1995/09/12 $7 . 72 MINN COMM INC PROFESSIONAL SERV 1995/09/12 $7 .72 MINN COMM INC PROFESSIONAL SERV 1995/09/12 $7 . 72 MINN COMM INC PROFESSIONAL SERV <*> $95. 27* 49738 1995/09/12 $185. 60 MINNESOTA ZOO PROFESSIONAL SERV <*> $185. 60* 49739 1995/09/12 $120.90 MN CONWAY FIRE PROFESSIONAL SERV <*> $120.90* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER THU, SEP 14 , 1995, 9: 24 AM CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTIO 49740 1995/09/12 $110. 00 MN DEPT OF LABOR & IND EQUIPMENT MAINTEN 1995/09/12 $40. 00 MN DEPT OF LABOR & IND EQUIPMENT MAINTEN <*> $150. 00* 49741 1995/09/12 $75. 00 MN ELEVATOR INC BUILDING MAINT <*> $75. 00* 49742 1995/09/12 $13 . 14 MOTOR PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTEN 1995/09/12 $409 . 68 MOTOR PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTEN 1995/09/12 $13 . 14 MOTOR PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTEN 1995/09/12 $40. 74 MOTOR PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTEN 1995/09/12 $44 .98 MOTOR PARTS OPERATING SUPPLIE <*> $521. 68* 49743 1995/09/12 $36. 00 MSSA CONFERENCE/SCHOOL <*> $36. 00* 49744 1995/09/12 $4 , 530. 17 NEXT CENTURY TECH INC PROFESSIONAL SERV <*> $4 , 530. 17* 49745 1995/09/12 $83 , 220. 00 NORTHLAND MECH CONTRS INC BUILDINGS <*> $83 , 220. 00* 49746 1995/09/12 $789. 30 NOVAK-FLECK C.O. CHARGE PAYAB 1995/09/12 $9 .90 NOVAK-FLECK ADMINISTRATIVE CH <*> $799 . 20* 49747 1995/09/12 $270. 21 NSP UTILITY SERVICE <*> $270. 21* 49748 1995/09/12 $2 , 817 . 28 0 S M & ASSOC INC BUILDINGS <*> $2 , 817 . 28* 49749 1995/09/12 $13 . 66 OSTREGREN, WAYNE REFUSE CHARGES <*> $13 . 66* 49750 1995/09/12 $450. 10 OWENS SERV CORP BUILDING MAINT <*> $450. 10* 49751 1995/09/12 $121. 20 PARK-NIC MED CENTER PROFESSIONAL SERV COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER THU, SEP 14 , 1995, 9: 24 AM CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTIO <*> $121. 20* 49752 1995/09/12 $288 . 30 PARKSIDE PRINT INC PRINTING/PUBLISHI 1995/09/12 $425. 51 PARKSIDE PRINT INC PRINTING/PUBLISHI 1995/09/12 $3 , 229 . 50 PARKSIDE PRINT INC PRINTING/PUBLISHI <*> $3 , 943 . 31* 49753 1995/09/12 $3 , 660. 20 PERKINS COIE PROFESSIONAL SERV <*> $3 , 660. 20* 49754 1995/09/12 $9.29 POSITIVE IMAGES OPERATING SUPPLIE 1995/09/12 $13 . 69 POSITIVE IMAGES OPERATING SUPPLIE <*> $22 . 98* 49755 1995/09/12 $716. 00 PRECISION AUTO COLSN CTR EQUIPMENT MAINTEN <*> $716. 00* 49756 1995/09/12 $92 . 02 PRECISION METAL FAB EQUIPMENT MAINTEN <*> $92 . 02* 49757 1995/09/12 $18 . 49 REYNOLDS WELDING OPERATING SUPPLIE <*> $18 . 49* 49758 1995/09/12 $99, 683 . 66 RICHARD KNUTSON INC IMPROVEMENTS 1995/09/12 $19 , 054 . 81 RICHARD KNUTSON INC IMPROVEMENTS <*> $118 , 738 . 47* 49759 1995/09/12 $240. 59 RUFFRIDGE JOHNSON CO EQUIPMENT MAINTEN <*> $240. 59* 49760 1995/09/12 $168,794 . 02 RYAN CONTRACTNG INC IMPROVEMENTS <*> $168, 794 . 02* 49761 1995/09/12 $20. 00 SALT INSTITUTE CONFERENCE/SCHOOL <*> $20. 00* 49762 1995/09/12 $25. 56 SCHILZ ORN IRON EQUIPMENT MAINTEN <*> $25. 56* 49763 1995/09/12 $1, 324 . 25 SCHOELL & MADSON INC PROFESSIONAL SERV COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER THU, SEP 14 , 1995, 9: 24 AM CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTIO <*> $1, 324 . 25* 49764 1995/09/12 $1, 000. 00 SCOTT CO TRANS COALITION DESIGNATED MISCEL <*> $1, 000. 00* 49765 1995/09/12 $260. 00 SCOTT-CARVER-DAKOTA PROFESSIONAL SERV <*> $260. 00* 49766 1995/09/12 $209 . 25 SHAKOPEE FORD EQUIPMENT MAINTEN 1995/09/12 -$63 . 20 SHAKOPEE FORD EQUIPMENT MAINTEN 1995/09/12 $41.95 SHAKOPEE FORD EQUIPMENT MAINTEN <*> $188 . 00* 49767 1995/09/12 $32 , 550. 00 SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTL COMM WATER CONNECTS 1995/09/12 $6, 528 . 00 SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTL COMM WATER METERS 1995/09/12 $575. 00 SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTL COMM IMPROVEMENTS 1995/09/12 $32 . 59 SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTL COMM UTILITY SERVICE 1995/09/12 $412 . 53 SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTL COMM UTILITY SERVICE 1995/09/12 $2 , 496. 31 SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTL COMM UTILITY SERVICE 1995/09/12 $583 . 43 SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTL COMM UTILITY SERVICE 1995/09/12 $538 . 54 SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTL COMM UTILITY SERVICE 1995/09/12 $596. 10 SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTL COMM UTILITY SERVICE 1995/09/12 $324 . 91 SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTL COMM UTILITY SERVICE 1995/09/12 $122 .83 SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTL COMM UTILITY SERVICE 1995/09/12 $153 . 68 SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTL COMM UTILITY SERVICE 1995/09/12 $998 . 47 SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTL COMM UTILITY SERVICE 1995/09/12 $912 . 13 SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTL COMM UTILITY SERVICE <*> $46, 824 . 52* 49768 1995/09/12 $35. 95 SHAKOPEE TOWING EQUIPMENT MAINTEN 1995/09/12 $35. 00 SHAKOPEE TOWING PROFESSIONAL SERV <*> $70. 95* 49769 1995/09/12 $12 . 13 SHAKOPEE TRUE VALUE BUILDING MAINT 1995/09/12 $10. 17 SHAKOPEE TRUE VALUE OPERATING SUPPLIE 1995/09/12 $9 . 31 SHAKOPEE TRUE VALUE OPERATING SUPPLIE 1995/09/12 $5. 22 SHAKOPEE TRUE VALUE OPERATING SUPPLIE 1995/09/12 $24 .42 SHAKOPEE TRUE VALUE OPERATING SUPPLIE <*> $61. 25* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER THU, SEP 14 , 1995, 9 : 24 AM CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTIO 49770 1995/09/12 $5, 782 . 01 SHAKOPEE, CITY OF PROFESSIONAL SERV <*> $5,782 . 01* 49771 1995/09/12 $276. 85 SNAP-ON TOOLS CORP OPERATING SUPPLIE <*> $276.85* 49772 1995/09/12 $30. 27 SNYDER DRUG - SHAKOPEE OPERATING SUPPLIE 1995/09/12 $5. 40 SNYDER DRUG - SHAKOPEE OPERATING SUPPLIE 1995/09/12 $18 . 52 SNYDER DRUG - SHAKOPEE OPERATING SUPPLIE 1995/09/12 $19. 18 SNYDER DRUG - SHAKOPEE OPERATING SUPPLIE 1995/09/12 $8 . 50 SNYDER DRUG - SHAKOPEE OPERATING SUPPLIE <*> $81. 87* 49773 1995/09/12 $175. 00 SOUTHAM BUSINESS COMM INC PRINTING/PUBLISHI <*> $175. 00* 49774 1995/09/12 $15, 734 . 75 SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT UTILITY SERVICE 1995/09/12 $2 , 550. 01 SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT UTILITY SERVICE <*> $18, 284 .76* 49775 1995/09/12 $54 . 75 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN INC PRINTING/PUBLISHI 1995/09/12 $94 . 13 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN INC PRINTING/PUBLISHI 1995/09/12 $1, 178.95 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN INC PRINTING/PUBLISHI <*> $1, 327 . 83* 49776 1995/09/12 $149 . 53 STARKS CLEANING INC BUILDING MAINT 1995/09/12 $112 . 88 STARKS CLEANING INC BUILDING MAINT 1995/09/12 $19 . 49 STARKS CLEANING INC BUILDING MAINT 1995/09/12 $13 . 42 STARKS CLEANING INC BUILDING MAINT 1995/09/12 $19 . 17 STARKS CLEANING INC BUILDING MAINT <*> $314 . 49* 49777 1995/09/12 $92 . 66 STEVE TUPYS TIRE SERV INC EQUIPMENT MAINTEN <*> $92 . 66* 49778 1995/09/12 $4 . 77 STOCK, BARRY TRAVEL/SUBSISTENC 1995/09/12 $11. 40 STOCK, BARRY TRAVEL/SUBSISTENC <*> $16. 17* 49779 1995/09/12 $46. 46 STREICHERS OPERATING SUPPLIE COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER THU, SEP 14 , 1995, 9:24 AM CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTIO <*> $46. 46* 49780 1995/09/12 $9, 500. 00 TWIN CITY WIRE-MFI INC BUILDINGS <*> $9, 500. 00* 49781 1995/09/12 $233 . 19 U S WEST COMM TELEPHONE 1995/09/12 $105.78 U S WEST COMM TELEPHONE 1995/09/12 $35.26 U S WEST COMM TELEPHONE 1995/09/12 $17 . 63 U S WEST COMM TELEPHONE 1995/09/12 $70.97 U S WEST COMM TELEPHONE 1995/09/12 $70. 52 U S WEST COMM TELEPHONE 1995/09/12 $186. 24 U S WEST COMM TELEPHONE 1995/09/12 $52 . 89 U S WEST COMM TELEPHONE 1995/09/12 $70. 52 U S WEST COMM TELEPHONE 1995/09/12 $70. 52 U S WEST COMM TELEPHONE 1995/09/12 $73 . 51 U S WEST COMM TELEPHONE 1995/09/12 $119 . 78 U S WEST COMM TELEPHONE 1995/09/12 $29. 83 U S WEST COMM TELEPHONE 1995/09/12 $762 .47 U S WEST COMM TELEPHONE 1995/09/12 $113 . 63 U S WEST COMM TELEPHONE 1995/09/12 $57 .72 U S WEST COMM TELEPHONE <*> $2 , 070. 46* 49782 1995/09/12 $109 . 13 U S WEST COMMUCATIONS TELEPHONE <*> $109. 13* 49783 1995/09/12 $7 . 00 VALLEY SPORTS OPERATING SUPPLIE <*> $7 . 00* 49784 1995/09/12 $269.87 WASTE MANAGEMENT INC UTILITY SERVICE 1995/09/12 $48.87 WASTE MANAGEMENT INC UTILITY SERVICE 1995/09/12 $193 . 27 WASTE MANAGEMENT INC UTILITY SERVICE 1995/09/12 $53 . 25 WASTE MANAGEMENT INC UTILITY SERVICE 1995/09/12 $34 . 55 WASTE MANAGEMENT INC UTILITY SERVICE 1995/09/12 $61. 18 WASTE MANAGEMENT INC UTILITY SERVICE 1995/09/12 $15. 98 WASTE MANAGEMENT INC UTILITY SERVICE 1995/09/12 $273 . 95 WASTE MANAGEMENT INC UTILITY SERVICE 1995/09/12 $312 . 59 WASTE MANAGEMENT INC UTILITY SERVICE <*> $1, 263 . 51* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER THU, SEP 14 , 1995, 9:24 AM CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTIO 49785 1995/09/12 $43 , 098.89 WASTE MANAGEMENT INC UTILITY SERVICE 1995/09/12 $1, 335. 25 WASTE MANAGEMENT INC UTILITY SERVICE <*> $44 , 434 . 14* 49786 1995/09/12 $132 . 81 WEBER & TROSETH INC EQUIPMENT MAINTEN <*> $132 . 81* 49787 1995/09/12 $37.45 WESTREX INTERNATIONAL OPERATING SUPPLIE <*> $37 . 45* 49788 1995/09/12 $378 . 20 WM MUELLER & SONS MATERIALS <*> $378. 20* 49789 1995/09/12 $7 . 54 YARUSSOS HDW CO BUILDING MAINT 1995/09/12 $77 . 16 YARUSSOS HDW CO OPERATING SUPPLIE 1995/09/12 $40. 62 YARUSSOS HDW CO OPERATING SUPPLIE 1995/09/12 $16.96 YARUSSOS HDW CO OPERATING SUPPLIE 1995/09/12 $17 . 83 YARUSSOS HDW CO OPERATING SUPPLIE 1995/09/12 $3 . 00 YARUSSOS HDW CO OPERATING SUPPLIE 1995/09/12 $28 .73 YARUSSOS HDW CO OPERATING SUPPLIE <*> $191. 84* $1, 650, 638 . 65* COUNCIL CHECK SUMMARY THU, SEP 14 , 1995, 9: 26 AM FUND # 001 $173 ,471. 27 FUND # 114 $19, 610. 56 FUND # 312 $75. 00 FUND # 313 $257 . 50 FUND # 421 $188, 461. 67 FUND # 437 $217 , 372 . 37 FUND # 438 $844 , 695. 19 FUND # 439 $3 , 622 . 50 FUND # 710 $143 , 878 . 00 FUND # 730 -$27 . 76 FUND # 740 $44 , 447 . 80 FUND # 780 $13 , 152 . 75 FUND # 840 $1, 621.80 $1, 650, 638. 65* IIS MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director , SUBJECT: Approval of Plans for Upper Valley Drainageway Trail from C.R. 79 to Vierling Drive DATE: September 13, 1995 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 19, 1995 INTRODUCTION: On August 1, 1995, City Council authorized Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Assoc. (OSM) to design the Upper Valley Drainageway (U.V.D.) Trail corrections from County Road (C.R. 79)to Vierling Drive. Attached is a plan sheet for Council review and approval on the proposed design. BACKGROUND: A bituminous trail along the U.V.D. was installed in 1994 with the construction of the U.V.D. Project No. 1993-3. Portions of the trail have been under water for most of the year as the adjacent pond normal water elevation has exceeded the trail elevation. The trail was designed in the field and no water was in the pond at the time of construction of the trail. To correct this situation, the redesign by OSM is proposing to raise the trail approximately two feet above the normal water level of the pond so that the trail is usable for much of the year. Two areas of the trail have been under water and are located between Mint Circle and Vierling Drive. Other areas considered with the redesign of the trail is ADA compliance of the trail and the trail crossing of the U.V.D. to Mint Circle where drainage from the drainageway flows over the trail. In regard to ADA compliance, the trail slopes from C.R. 79 to Minnesota Street, the trail connection to Mint Circle, and the trail at Vierling Drive, exceeds the recommended maximum slope of 8.3% for bicycle trails. An 8.3% maximum slope is recommended by MnDOT and is considered an access level 2 under State Council on Disability guidelines. Along the U.V.D. Trail from CSAH 15 to CSAH 16, portions of the trail exceed 10% grade usually at County Road crossings or trail connections across the U.V.D. channel to local streets and neighborhoods. Thus the trail would be considered an access level four accessibility trail under the State Council on Disability ADA guidelines for outdoor facilities. The maximum slope of any area of the trail route determines the level of accessibility for the trail. In Shakopee, bituminous trails are multi-use facilities used by bicycles, roller bladers, and pedestrians. The U.V.D. trail follows the drainage channel and basic design was to fit the existing topography and not to do extensive regrading to meet a maximum slope requirement. For instance, in order to provide a flatter slope at C.R. 79, the following options are available: 1. Construct a trail underpass under C.R. 79 similar to the crossing under C.R. 17 at an estimated cost of$90,000.00. 2. Reconstruct the trail with a switchback or zigzag alignment with considerable regrading of the C.R. 79 slope and retaining walls to obtain a flatter slope to a recommended 8%grade at an estimated cost of $10,000.00. Additional easements are needed as well from residential property and regrading of property. Since the trail slope along the U.V.D. exceeds 8.3% grade in other areas of the trail, staff would propose to sign the trail with appropriate signage to alert the public of a steeper than normal slope on the trail as a more practical cost effective solution at this time. C.R. 79 is not in the County's 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan for improvement, however, when C.R. 79 is improved, at that time the City should consider an underpass or reconstruction of the trail to a flatter slope. Staff is recommending that handicap ramps with curb cuts at the trail connections to City streets be constructed at this time which is recommended by the State Council on Disability ADA guidelines. The other design consideration was in regard to the trail connection of the U.V.D. trail from Mint Circle, which has slopes that exceed the recommended maximum of 8.3%, and has had water flowing over the trail for most of the year. Attached to this memo is correspondence from Pete Willenbring of OSM who designed the U.V.D. hydraulic design on the trail crossing and recommendations on alternatives of providing a trail above the drainage flow of the U.V.D. Staff is reconsidering this design due to the fact that water has been flowing over a trail for most of the year and staff believes this is an increased liability to the City. From Pete Willenbring's memo, the preferred recommendation would be for a pedestrian bridge as this alternative does not reduce the channel's hydraulic capacity as would raising the trail and low flow pipes. Any raising of the trail in the U.V.D. would act as a small dam and cause flood water elevation to increase upstream of that location. The design of the channel, MnDOT 169 Bypass Project and adjacent residential development has been based without any restriction in the channel cross section such as raising the trail. Initially, staff was considering placing a small pipe or pipes to handle the low flow and raising of the trail connection, however, this option is a detriment to the U.V.D. overall hydraulic performance and would require a new flood profile of the U.V.D. The City does have other locations and potential locations of trail connections which need to cross the U.V.D. channel such as in Meadows West Additions and future developments west of CR 77. Attached is a map showing the locations of existing trail connections which need to cross the U.V.D. channel. The City could potentially have four trail connection crossings of the U.V.D. with future development. The Meadows West 1st Addition trail connection has not been paved as yet and would require a bridge of approximately 100 feet. The U.V.D. project currently has approximately $207,000.00 left in the project account per the Finance Director. The City has $64,000.00 in retainage due to the Contractor and has approximately $30,000.00 of work left on the project. The estimated cost of the trail corrections as shown on the attached plan sheet is $20,000.00. Staff would recommend the trail reconstruction cost be paid from the Project 1993-3 account. This project was funded with TIF, Storm Drainage, and MnDOT funds. Staff has included in the 1996 CIP, an U.V.D. trail improvement project from Vierling Drive to CSAH 17 to remove the trail from the bottom of the U.V.D. as well as other drainage improvements in this area. A pedestrian bridge or other design at the Mint Circle trail connection could be added to this project area. Although the City has a contract with Ryan Contracting, Inc. for the U.V.D. and trail along the U.V.D., staff believes this work can be done more cost effectively by obtaining quotes from contractors who specialize in this work and are in the area working on other city projects. In summary, staff has the following recommendations: 1. Construct the trail reconstruction work as shown on the attached plan sheet so that the U.V.D. trail is usable from C.R. 79 to Vierling Drive. 2. Direct staff to investigate further the options in constructing trail connections across the U.V.D. channel. 3. Council to discuss the policy of providing trail connections from local streets and neighborhoods across the U.V.D. channel. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Move to direct staff to obtain quotes for the Bituminous Path Reconstruction from C.R. 79 to Vierling Drive as deemed appropriate by the Public Works Director, and to construct the work as outlined on the attached plan. 2. Move to direct staff to investigate further the options in constructing trail connections from local streets and neighborhoods across the U.V.D. channel to the U.V.D. trail. 3. Table for more information. 4. Do not authorize reconstruction work at this time. 5. Move to direct staff to pave the trail connection in Meadows West 1st Addition to the U.V.D. 6. Move to direct staff to not pave the trail connection in Meadows West 1st Addition to the U.V.D. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 so that reconstruction work can be done this year on the U.V.D. trail from C.R. 79 to Vierling Drive. Staff would also recommend Alternative No. 2 which allows staff time to investigate the options and costs for constructing trail connections across the U.V.D. channel. Staff would ask Council to provide direction on the policy of trail connections from local streets and neighborhoods across the U.V.D. channel or not paving the trail connection in Meadows West 1st Addition depending on Council direction and discussion. ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Move to direct staff to obtain quotes for the Bituminous Path Reconstruction from C.R. 79 to Vierling Drive and to construct the work as outlined on the attached plan. 2. Move to direct staff to investigate further the options in constructing trail connections from local streets and neighborhoods across the U.V.D. channel to the U.V.D. trail. 3. Move to direct staff to install or not the bituminous trail connection in Meadows West 1st Addition to the U.V.D. channel. BL/pmp UVDT ONSMA Oa Schelen 300 Park Place East 612-595-5775 Memorandum Mayerin& 5775 Wayzata Boulevard 1-800-753-5775 Associates,Inc. Minneapolis,MN 55416-1228 FAX 595-5774 To: Mr. Bruce Loney, City of Shakopee, MN Bret A. Weiss, OSM Date: August 21, 1995 • --?4j; From: Peter R. Willenbring, P.E., Manager-- Water Resources Department, OSM Re: Recommendation for Path Crossing of Upper Valley Drainageway in the Vicinity of Vierling Drive OSM Project No. 1775.30 As requested, we have completed a hydrologic and hydraulic investigation of the Upper Valley Drainage System for the purpose of providing direction relative to the placement of a trail and/or trail crossing in this drainageway. Survey information indicates the ditch bottom in this location is approximately 20 feet wide and side slopes are at approximately 4 to 1. Our hydrologic and hydraulic analysis indicates that in a one-year storm, water in the ditch would have a depth of approximately two feet. Our review into utilizing culverts to convey this low-flow discharge through the ditch bottom with a trail over the top indicates this would not be advisable. The reasons this is not recommended include: 1. The construction of a trail crossing the ditch would require installation of at least five 15- inch equivalent RCP arch culverts, and extensive erosion control measures to assure that the trail crossing with culverts underneath would not wash out during significant events. 2. The crossing would impose a significant hydraulic restriction in the system during high flows, and create turbulence and considerable headloss in the system, and headloss impacts would be translated upstream of this system a considerable distance. 3. The cost for installation of such a trail crossing which would need to have a top-of-trail profile approximately 2-1/2 feet above the ditch bottom would likely exceed $10,000. To address these deficiencies, it is recommended that a bridge having a span of 36 feet and a path width of eight feet be installed as a pedestrian crossing for this ditch section. Cost for a bridge having steel construction and wood plank decking, along with abutments, is estimated at $24,000. The low cord of the bridge would be above the 100-year flood profile for this section of the Upper Valley Drainageway, and the placement of the bridge would reduce the grade changes required to cross this ditch when you're utilizing the existing bituminous trail. H:\177530\WATER\CORRES\950822.BL Engineers • Architects • Planners • Surveyors /2 ID fn` 4 1II 44 TS9 CO r ' �`� maxim j h Tq � �, POLK ST. Mill \tiliba ..- PPM ..4 imam= ft\ ‘ 7 1.1.1 ty N ., rri 0 �' . .. .to„ ( S* N._. ion ct PI4„p . , fill PPM 1 1 all PPM l El Elii -- Tom* 7 '4111111D s ■1t1IMIN a 111.11 ; A.H. Na t3 / ADAMS , _ ill II .03t 111 !II.. If � , �.133 m rl114' A I ) E i tz Om ,, . ; Icc0 ._ ii, . .„,,,,,,.,.,03ww,„„, ,, ,. cu-i,c.r, i#0 S x i la ,,,„ 1 .. . . il 7C1)--,14 gym®%%I Elam s 0,'�"�' �0411111 %ltAT �� • "ill %�t�� n o n MIMI COVUU-Qmoja0,..... , a\ caT• ):) c ki is.i...4114i1 mu cx-sdnriElicniv-dco,,,,rnmi imir'\, oppi 010 uta illw 0--- :,,, (c) .... ,,. .7." . --m- Es in so ,... ill ...V; II tlr--\ ;.') 0 0 luaaft a:1m i W � � i� i 1 t . 0111.1P -- {te R, . I P.9 !IM 7.11 SAGE �� . ,. 4%II® Q SAGE .(tocoli ii L.L.Lin'nST. GORNAN ST. id c_1-L" • ii Wtr N3 ' ROUNDHOUSE ' ' rn ali ..ITTS MI .y - `� til ill ' • VIKING STEEL 0 4-r • �®C > ROAD \ :,, AI 411s,.. niiTI +r a 40 1 1131 ' 1 ' 7:44:///( .y 'tq FNOaNVN31�S ANON, . a& " JASPER I i ) ' -IL_ /111111111111116,.. -ii? UON6E-NT MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator //a FROM: David M.Nummer, Staff Engineer SUBJECT: Stop Sign Warrant Study Criteria DATE: September 5, 1995 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 19, 1995 INTRODUCTION: On June 20, 1995, the City Council directed staff to develop criteria for determining when a stop sign warrant study would be performed. The Council also instituted a moratorium on requests for stop signs until a policy had been adopted. The current policy is for a resident to write a letter to the City Council requesting a study, and for the Council to generally approve the study. Due to time and financial constraints, the City Council directed staff to develop criteria that the Council could use in determining if the study should be ordered. Staff has researched this issue, and presents the following recommendation to the City Council for consideration. BACKGROUND: The stop sign warrant study is based on traffic counts and accident reports at a particular intersection. This study is designed to be very quantitative in order to produce consistent results. Staff attempted to come up with some objective criteria for determining when a warrant study would be performed, however, due to the objective nature of the study, it was difficult to identify meaningful objective criteria that did not approximate or replace portions of the warrant study. In an attempt to resolve this issue, staff has surveyed several neighboring Cities regarding their procedures for warrant studies. This survey produced two results. 1. The Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD) was used by all cities for determining if a stop sign or other traffic control was warranted. This is the same method that the City of Shakopee currently uses. 2. Most cities polled would require a request for traffic control to be addressed to the City Engineer or Public Works Director. That person would then review the site, taking special note of the intersection geometrics, traffic volumes, pedestrian traffic and adjacent land uses. The staff would then make a determination, based on the site review and their experience and judgment, if the warrant study should be performed. If it was determined that the study was not warranted,the resident could then appeal that decision to the City Council. h:\council\traffic.mo Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt a similar policy to the one used in neighboring cities. This will give staff a chance to work directly with the residents to address their traffic control concerns. Staff has found in the past that the problem is often times not a result of missing or substandard traffic control, but rather another issue that is better solved by means other than installation of additional signage. This could also help to avoid costly warrant studies that may not be needed. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Move to adopt a policy on traffic control as follows: a) Requests for traffic control are directed to the City Engineer b) The City Engineer will review the request, and determine if the study is warranted. If so, a recommendation to the City Council to order the study would be made. c) If it was determined that the study was not warranted, the resident could then appeal that decision to the City Council. 2. Direct staff to develop a different policy of traffic control requests. 3. Lift the moratorium on stop sign requests 4. Continue the moratorium on stop sign requests RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternatives#1 and #3. ACTION REQUESTED 1. Move to adopt a policy on traffic control as follows: a) Requests for traffic control are directed to the City Engineer b) The City Engineer will review the request, and determine if the study is warranted. If so, a recommendation to the City Council to order the study would be made. c) If it was determined that the study was not warranted, the resident could then appeal that decision to the City Council. 2. Move to lift the moratorium on stop sign requests h:\council\traffic.mo // MEMO TO: Honorable Mayor and Council FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator RE: Scott County Criminal Justice Facility Project DATE: September 15, 1995 INTRODUCTION: The Scott County Board is scheduled to discuss the location of a new criminal justice facility at their meeting of September 26, 1995. Earlier correspondence from the Scott County Administrator addressed several areas of interest which will affect the location of this facility. It is recommended that the City Council consider the following subjects and attempt to arrive at a position on each of them. DISCUSSION - QUESTIONS: 1. Will the City Council agree to take the necessary steps to adopt a Planned Unit Development for the courthouse campus so that the County Board would have, not only at the present,but also future assurance of how the development pattern around the courthouse could occur? 2. Will the City Council agree to assemble parcels of land for courthouse expansion and sell them to Scott County? 3. Will the City Council consider funding the location of utilities around the site as to allow for the development of a county campus which will not be intruded into by streets? 4. Does the City Council still agree that the City will not charge that part of the building permit fee which represents City employee labor, but will charge fees for those costs which are passed through such as the sewer access charge, water access charge, and the building permit surcharge? 5. Will the City Council agree to reevaluate the zoning ordinance requirements relative to parking and determine if a realistic reduction in parking spaces could be achieved? Specifically,there is some question as to the number of spaces required by the ordinance relative to the jail vs. the actual number of spaces needed for this facility. 6. Will the City Council agree to acquire additional properties around the periphery of the courthouse to be used for joint parking for the City and the County? 7. The City Council should also discuss other relevant issues relating to this project. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council discuss these issues and provide direction for the Mayor and staff so that a presentation can be made to the County Board of Commissioners at their September 26th meeting. It is also envisioned that once these decisions are made the City staff will formulate a written response and this information will be submitted to the County Administrator's Office for distribution to the Scott County Board of Commissioners no later than Thursday, September 21st. ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council should take the necessary steps to provide direction to the staff in order to formulate a position for the Scott County Board meeting on September 26th. �1 • MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator,- FROM: V. Paul Bilotta, Planning Director (j 1- DATE: DATE: September 19, 1995 RE: Filling Planner I Vacancies DISCUSSION: The Planning Director and the Assistant City Administrator interviewed three internal candidates for the two vacant Planner I positions. Julie Baumann and Nicole Bennett have been identified as the preferred candidates for these positions. Ms. Baumann and Ms. Bennett are currently serving as interns in the Planning Department. The City's 1995 Non-Union Pay Plan identifies the Planner I pay range of($31,942 - $39,928). Staff recommends that Ms. Baumann and Ms. Bennett be hired at Step 1 of the Pay Plan ($31,942). ALTERNATIVES: 1. Appoint Julie Baumann and Nicole Bennett to fill the vacant Planner I positions at Step 1 of the Pay Plan, following successful completion of all pre-employment procedures, with a starting date of October 2, 1995. 2. Do not appoint Julie Baumann and Nicole Bennett to fill the vacant Planner I positions. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative 1. ACTION REOUESTED: Move to appoint Julie Baumann and Nicole Bennett to fill the vacant Planner I positions at Step 1 of the Pay Plan, following successful completion of all pre-employment procedures with a starting date of October 2, 1995. h:ladmin\hirel.doe /14 MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: V. Paul Bilotta, Planning Director � DATE: September 14, 1995 RE: Filling Planner I vacancies On September 19, 1995, the Planning Director and Assistant City Administrator will be interviewing candidates for the vacant Planner I positions. If qualified applicants are identified, a recommendation will be provided on the table for City Council action. h:\admin\plan .doc CONSENT • I1 MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft. City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock,Assistant City Administrator RE: 1994 Clerical, Technical and Custodial Unit Contract Amendment DATE: September 14, 1995 INTRODUCTION: In 1994 the Shakopee City Council approved a reorganization plan which precipitated the creation a Customer Service Representative position. Now that the 1995 contract negotiations have been completed, it would be appropriate to amend the 1994 union contract accordingly to establish a wage rate for the Customer Service Representative position. BACKGROUND: On September 20, 1994 the Shakopee City Council moved to appoint Tamara Vidmar to the Customer Service Representative at Step 4 of the 1994 Wage Schedule. Since this was a new position classification,the 1994 contract did not include a wage rate for the position. It was intention of staff to establish a wage rate for the position in conjunction with the 1995 contract negotiations. In negotiating the 1995 contract, a wage rate has been established for the Customer Service Representative position. However, staff has not officially received Council authorization to amend the 1994 contract consistent with the 1995 wage rate established for the Customer Service Representative position. Staff is therefore seeking Council authorization to amend the 1994 Clerical, Technical and Custodial Unit Contract establishing a wage schedule for the Customer Service Representative position. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1. Authorize the appropriate City officials to execute a contract amendment to the 1994 Clerical, Technical and Custodial Unit Contract establishing a pay schedule for the Customer Service Representative position with a 1994 top step that is 3.1% less than the 1995 top step established for the position. 2. Do not establish a 1994 wage rate for the Customer Service Representative position. 3. Table action pending further information from staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative#1. ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the appropriate City officials to execute a contract amendment to the 1994 Clerical, Technical and Custodial Unit Contract establishing a pay schedule for the Customer Service Representative position with a 1994 top step that is 3.1% less than the 1995 top step established for the position. I.& MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator I� FROM: Julie Baumann,Planning Intern RE: Initiating the Vacation of a Drainage and Utility Easement DATE PREPARED: September 8, 1995 MEETING DATE: September 19, 1995 INTRODUCTION The attached Resolution No. 4293 sets a public hearing date to consider the vacation of the drainage and utility easement located under, over, and across Lots 1 through 6, Block 3, Prairie Bend 1st Addition. DISCUSSION The City has received a petition for the vacation of the drainage and utility easement located under, over, and across Lots 1 through 6,Block 3,Prairie Bend 1st Addition from Mr. Jim Johnston of Sienna Corporation. The attached resolution sets a public hearing for October 17, 1995. On that date, comments from staff members and utilities, as well as a recommendation from the Planning Commission, will be presented to the City Council for their consideration. ACTION REQUESTED Offer Resolution No. 4293, A Resolution Setting the Public Hearing Date to Consider the Vacation of the Drainage and Utility Easement Located Under, Over, and Across Lots 1 through 6, Block 3, Prairie Bend 1st Addition, and move its adoption. is\pluming\oc\1995\cc0919\vacselphdoc RESOLUTION NO. 4293 A RESOLUTION SETTING THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF A DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED UNDER, OVER,AND ACROSS LOTS 1 THROUGH 6,BLOCK 3,PRAIRIE BEND 1ST ADDITION WHEREAS, it has been made to appear to the Shakopee City Council that a portion of the drainage and utility easement located over, under, and across Lots 1 through 6, Block 3, Prairie Bend 1st Addition serves no public use or interest; and WHEREAS, a public hearing must be held before an action to vacate can be taken and two weeks published and posted notice thereof must be given. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA,that a hearing be held in the Council Chambers on the 17th day of October, 1995, at 7:00 P.M. or thereafter, on the matter of vacating that portion of the drainage and utility easement located over, under, and across Lots 1 through 6, in Block 3, Prairie Bend 1st Addition. WHEREAS,two weeks published notice will be given in the SHAKOPEE VALLEY NEWS and posted notice will be given by posting such notice on the bulletin board on the main floor of the Scott County Courthouse, the bulletin board at the U.S. Post Office,the bulletin board at the Shakopee Public Library, and the bulletin board in the Shakopee City Hall. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the day of , 1995. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director N. SUBJECT: Vierling Drive, from C.R. 79 to C.R. 77 Project No. 1995-6 DATE: September 19, 1995 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 19, 1995 INTRODUCTION: Attached is Resolution No. 4300, which accepts the bids and awards the contract for Project No. 1995-6, Vierling Drive, from County Road(C.R.) 79 to C.R. 77. BACKGROUND: On August 15, 1995, the City Council of Shakopee ordered the advertisement for bids on the Vierling Drive Project No. 1995-6. This project consists of constructing a State Aid street from C.R. 79 to C.R. 77 and is adjacent to the Meadows West plat and School District property. Funding of the project is a combination of Special Assessments and State Aid Funds. On September 19, 1995, sealed bids were received and publicly opened for this project. A total of two bids were received and are summarized in the attached resolution. The low bid was submitted by Richard Knutson, Inc. with a total bid of$594,887.50. The Engineer's estimate for this project was approximately $480,000.00. Feasibility cost estimate for the construction of Vierling Drive improvements was $416,101.37 with a total project cost estimate including Engineering and Administration costs of$520,126.71. Staff is of the opinion due to the lateness of the construction season and the short completion time to construct the improvement,the bid is higher than anticipated. In the feasibility study, the local 36' street equivalent was proposed to be assessed, with the box culvert, sidewalks, and storm sewer within Meadows West to be assessed 100% to the developer. Two properties are in the project assessment area which are the School District and Meadows West. The major extra costs from the feasibility study to the bid are in the storm sewer, concrete curb& gutter,box culvert headwalls and seeding. The bid amount of $594,887.50 is 43% over the feasibility study estimate. In the feasibility study,the assessments were proposed as follows: Property Owner Total Assessment Meadows West $363,092.51 School District $ 39,542.35 The assessments did include $31,495.00 of right-of-way acquisition costs. Council did approve at the September 5, 1995 meeting, the right-of-way acquisition cost of $56,700.00 for the project. From the bid, the estimated assessments for street, sidewalks, storm sewer and box culvert using a 5% contingency and 25% Engineering/Administration costs are as follows: Box Property Street/Sidewalk Storm Sewer Culvert Owner Footage Assessment * Assessment Assessment Meadows 4465.63 $259,463.98 $170,392.46 $126,918.75 West School Dist. 1265.98 $ 73,556.52 $ -0- $ -0- TOTAL 5731.61 $333,020.50 $170,392.46 $126,918.75 * Does not include right-of-way acquisition costs. The City's oversizing costs would be the total project cost minus the assessments or $150.458.13. The estimated total assessments for each property is as follows: Property Total Assessment * Meadows West $556,775.19 School District $ 73,556.52 * Does not include the right-of-way acquisition costs. From the amended feasibility study, the estimated assessments for the project is as follows: Box Property Street/Sidewalk Storm Sewer Culvert Owner Footage Assessment Assessment Assessment Meadows 4465.63 $176,324.24 $ 93,790.83 $ 92,977.50 West School Dist. 1265.98 $ 39,542.55 $ -0-_ $ -0- TOTAL 5731.61 $215,866.79 $ 93,790.83 $ 92,977.50 Subdivision Total Assessment Meadows West $363,092.57 School District $ 39,542.55 TOTAL $402,635.12 The City's oversizing costs in the amended feasibility study was approximately $150,000.00. The Meadows West developer did sign a waiver of public hearing notice for assessment appeal. The developer has tentatively requested that City Council consider rejecting the bids and rebid over the winter months for a spring completion. The downside of not building Vierling Drive at this time is the limitation of building permits for Meadows West 2nd Addition and Orchard Park. Also the southerly and easterly access to the Civic Center will not be ready until next June or July, 1996. Rebidding of the project will not guarantee a lower bid, however, historically lower bids are received in the earlier months than later. Vierling Drive is the City's main east-west collector north of the Bypass. The City's oversizing cost is essentially the same with the bid cost as compared to the feasibility study. The extra costs are being recovered by assessments from Meadows West and the School District. Whether to proceed or not with the project at this time, is a Council policy decision to construct the improvements above the project petitioner's objection. Staff is recommending rejection of the bids since the developer is the petitioner of the project and paying the majority of project costs and is asking for the City to rebid the project. If Council awards the project, staff is also requesting that the City Council authorize a contingency amount equal to 5% of the contract to cover minor change orders or quantity adjustment that may occur on this project. Prior to awarding the bid, the City of Shakopee is required to receive Mn/Dot State Aid approval of the plans in order to utilize State Aid Funds on the project. The resolution includes a provision that the award of bids is contingent upon Mn/DOT State Aid approval of the plans. Mn/DOT State Aid approval is expected within a few days. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Accept the low bid and adopt Resolution No. 4300, awarding the contract to Richard Knutson, Inc. contingent upon Mn/DOT State Aid plan approval. 2. Reject the low bid and award the bid to another bidder. 3. Reject all bids and rebid. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 3, as the petitioner of the project has asked the City to rebid the project this winter. ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Make a motion to reject the bids received for Project No. 1995-6, Vierling Drive, from County Road 79 to County Road 77 and rebid at a later date. RESOLUTION NO. 4300 A Resolution Accepting Bids On Vierling Drive, From County Road 79 To County Road 77 Project No. 1995-6 WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Vierling Drive, from County Road 79 to County Road 77, bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law, and the following bids were received complying with the advertisement: Richard Knutson,Inc. $594,887.50 Hardrives,Inc. $655,217.60 AND WHEREAS, it appears that Richard Knutson, Inc., 12585 Rhode Island Ave. S., Savage,MN 55378 is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,MINNESOTA: 1. The appropriate City officials are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Richard Knutson, Inc. in the name of the City of Shakopee for the construction of Vierling Drive, from County Road 79 to County Road 77 according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota,held this day of , 1995. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney CONSENT MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator /_` C' FROM: David M.Nummer, Staff Engineer P oto SUBJECT: Gorman Street State Aid Designation DATE: September 13, 1995 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 19, 1995 INTRODUCTION: Attached is Resolution No. 4301, a resolution designating Gorman Street from 4th Avenue to County Road 17 as a State Aid Highway. BACKGROUND: The reconstruction of Gorman Street has been included in the draft 1996 Capital Improvement Program. In order to offset City assessments on this project, staff is recommending that Gorman Street be designated as a Municipal State Aid(MSA)highway. Designating Gorman Street as a MSA highway will allow the City to utilize funds from the State Aid construction fund to build the roadway. Staff has contacted the Metro Division State Aid office, and has received preliminary approval for designating Gorman Street as an MSA Highway. The next step in the process is for the City Council to adopt a resolution making the designation. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 4301, a resolution designating Gorman Street from 4th Avenue to County Road 17 as a State Aid Highway. 2. Deny Resolution No. 4301. 3. Table for additional information from staff. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. c:\dos\gormansa.doc ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 4301,A Resolution Establishing As A Municipal State Aid Highway, Gorman Street, from 4th Avenue to County Road 17 and move its adoption. c:\dos\gormansa.doc RESOLUTION NO. 4301 A Resolution Establishing As A • Municipal State Aid Highway Gorman Street, From 4th Avenue to County Road 17 WHEREAS, it appears to the City Council of Shakopee that Gorman Street, from 4th Avenue to County Road 17 hereinafter described should be designated a State Aid Street under the provisions of Minnesota law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shakopee that the road described as follows,to-wit: Gorman Street, from 4th Avenue to County Road 17 be, and hereby is established, located, and designated a Municipal State Aid Street of said City, subject to the approval of the Commissioner of Transportation of the State of Minnesota. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward two certified copies of this Resolution to the Commissioner of Transportation for his consideration, and that upon his approval of the designation of said road or portion thereof, that same be constructed, improved and maintained as a Municipal State Aid Street of the City of Shakopee, to be numbered and known as Municipal State Aid Street 166-118. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota,held this day of , 1995. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form City Attorney (:) D A 17 c-411 'O CD 17 -0 N r. -0 w 'r1 -13 0 • -IO m CD xi Om Xi Nco A w23 70 -i EL- x Cm) 0 r0- 0 CO N C0) N > Cm) �' f*1 CC)) oC Z _Im Z r °° Z wm z � N Z D oz Z C) zit,. c .n) D. A O -< A m-i C) m • 073> f*1 -i -I V) > -1 -0-I-‹ (71 Am A AT. W m N O • '• ‘ .� 7C0 F � > >Z N vZ ‘1§4,_ -� �,`\ c = 0 r A + V '. ...wig --� X a1 m x cn D ► ,r-9 lull.� 1 7 v ` r, `S 11 1 .. O 2��L I:'111 N Z � � ,;111�.1 j� "W.__IRJ. ...__1;i11111.1111 {11 C o _v;',,%ii ni„i11 rr*1 r _ EE Cpl^ , :..77,..:,.::%''..;:o',..,., ',,`I�w 0 �f C.R. 7 9 I '4! -.7., 1i,�It'.”"..11'1l `. -I lat ill I i ♦ � [ � � �i �144.1 a ��1�111.1 WZ.1�"\1'� frl C.R C.R. 17 i :.,J1 / al • Ir. ,'41:: // ill 1 I , ra ,,...,.- 1, ..." 1114, . 0 ,,,.), i„, -if • A4, ,, // ___ , t ln /< In ,i/_l_ 0_.<r Om < O CQ '3 !". --1-1 c lit At 4 . If- < v , O /4 lin 1 ifri , u3 0 o D ill -o ...... liCi S ''`i•••CD .p, co r , • .0 ..v '-0 'V 'V 7:, 44,17 ! 1 iAwN �-' i i,to ~ -, f — 1..) 1..) — — � 0 4Nia 73 0 0 1 0 to 0- L O - o N -PC 1 ti VD --.1 ---1N O g