HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/09/1981 421
TENTATIVE AGENDA
ADJ. REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JUNE 9 , 1981
Mayor Harbeck presiding
1 ] Roll Call at 7 : 30 P.M.
2 ] Approval of Minutes of May 12 , 1981 , May 19 , 1981 and May 26 , 1981
3 ] 7 : 30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - Application for $1 ,100,000 Industrial
Revenue Bonds by Valley Industrial Center II - Direct staff to
prepare resolution of approval or denial .
4] 7 :40 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - 113 of Sec . 8-115-22 (Hauer Laterals)
Sanitary Sewer 80-1, Res . No. 1854 Ordering Improvement (bring revision)
5 ] 8 :00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - Bluff Avenue Watermain and Sanitary
Sewer from Dakota Street to Halo 1st Addition, Resolution
No. 1855 Ordering Improvement (bring report and revision)
6 ] 8 : 30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING Request for a five foot variance from
the side yard setback requirements to construct an attached
single-car garage to an existing home.
Applicant : Dennis Welter, 815 West 4th Avenue
Appeal : Neighbor is appealing approval by the Board of Adjustments
and appeals
Action: Approve Variance Res . No. CC-273 , or adopt Res . No . 1853
Denying Variance Request
7 ] Authorize Payment of the Bills
8 ] Appointment of Acting City Clerk, Resolution No. 1856
9 ] Discussion of Diseased Tree Program Policy
10] Res . No. 1857 , Adopting the City of Shakopee Diseased Tree Program
Policy
11 ] Codification of Ordinances passed since April , 1978 Codification
(bring item 6f of June 2nd)
12 ] Evaluation of City Administrator - Change to Permanent Employment
Status
13 ] Other Business :
a] Quorum for June 16 , 1981 Council Meeting
b ] Discussion of Proposed Concept Plan for Spring Lake Regional
Park (Plan at City Hall - George Muenchow will discuss)
c]
14] Adjourn to Tuesday, June 16 , 1981 at 7 : 30 P.M.
John K. Anderson
City Administrator
11
,o, -�— if
W60.
7920 CEDAR AVENUE
SUITE 135
BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55420
(612) 854-7178
June 8, 1981
Mr. John K. Anderson
City Administrator
City of Shakopee
Shakopee, MN 55379
Re: Application for Industrial
Revenue Bonds
Valley Industrial Center #2
Dear Mr. Anderson:
The proposed financing on which we have made application contemplates the use
of a single mortgage note.
North American Life and Casualty (NALAC) will purchase said mortgage note
upon completion of the base building. Base building is defined as everything
being completed with the exception of interior tenant improvements. NALAC
has the option and will endeavor to assign their commitment to another
institution prior to their required funding date. However, if they are not
successful in this placement due to the existing conditions in the money
market, they will then be required to fund direct. NALAC will not be involved
in the interim financing and we are looking toward another financial institution
to provide the construction financing, which has been promised.
As additional security for the mortgage note, there will be a general lease
assignment as well as specific lease assignment to the lending institution.
Respectfully,
Stev__41471;4<;;*M dor
President
SM:lcs
3
/ / � W621/A.
7920 CEDAR AVENUE
SUITE 135
BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55420
(612) 854-7178
June 8, 1981
Mr. John K. Anderson
City Administrator
City of Shakopee
Shakopee, MN 55379
Re: Application for Industrial
Revenue Bonds
Valley Industrial Center #2
Dear Mr. Anderson:
I hereby certify that in my opinion upon completion of the
proposed improvements in accordance with the plans and specifi- •
cations provided to me, that the $1,100,000.00 required mortgage
will represent less than 90% of the Fair Market Value of the
property.
Respectfully submitted,
.
teve 3 r
M.A.I. , S.R.A. , C.R.A.
SM:lcs
SPRINGSTED
INCORPORATED
PUBLIC FINANCE
ADVISORS
2 June 1981
Mr. John K. Anderson
City Administrator
City of Shakopee
Shakopee, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Anderson:
We have reviewed the application for issuance of $1,100,000 of Industrial
Development Revenue Bonds for the Volley Industrial Center II office-
warehouse project.
Based on our review, we have the following comments:
I. The application does not clearly state the security for the
obligations. Your policies would require the issuance of mortgage
revenue notes which normally would have both a mortgage
security and net revenues of the facility pledged to payment. In
our opinion you should resolve this matter prior to adoption of the
resolution authorizing this program, and if you require the
issuance of mortgage revenue notes, the resolution should be
conditioned to require that form of obligation. •
2. Your policies require a certification that the completed value of
the project will be equal to at least 90% of the total value of
obligations issued. No such certification was included in the
application file.
3. The application does not indicate the eventual purchaser of the
obligations. It is our understanding the North American Life and
Casualty Company will provide guaranteed construction financing
and will be responsible for arranging permanent financing at or
prior to completion of the project. You may wish to have this
relationship confirmed at or prior to the hearing. Your policies
require that mortgage revenue notes be sold only to institutional
investors.
Our review was limited to the adherence of the application( to your issuance
policies and was not designed to evaluate the feasibility of the project.
Accordingly, this review is not to be considered as a finding of feasibility of the
project, or a finding that, if completed, revenues will be available on a timely -
basis to pay debt service requirements.
Very sincerely yours,
Robert D. Pulscher
President
Enclosure
800 Osborn Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 (612) 222-4241
3
MEMO TO: John Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Don Steger, City Planner
RE: Site Plan Review of Valley Industrial Center II
DATE: June 2 , 1981
When reviewing the site plan for Valley Industrial Center II ,
the following items were noted :
1 . The proposed office/warehouse building is a Permitted Use
in the I-2 (Heavy Industrial ) Zone.
2 . All setback requirements are met .
3. Proposed access off of Valley Industrial Boulevard South
is acceptable.
4. Although no parking standard for the proposed use exists in
the Zoning Ordinance, a general parking standard based on
the number of employees may be applied in this situation.
Based on employee projections , approximately 15 parking
stalls would be required. The site plan indicates 50
parking stalls , thereby providing a surplus of parking.
5 . The overall parking lot layout , including stall size ,
circulation, access , etc . , is acceptable.
6 . Loading and unloading activities are proposed to be handled
by both a rail spur and truck. Truck loading berths are
proposed to be located along the south side of the building,
adjacent to the parking lot . This design is acceptable .
7 . Other than two small grass areas shown along the south side
of the proposed building, no other landscaping is indicated.
It may be desirable to require additional plantin gswithin
the two grass areas and along both sides of the driveway.
8. The use of Tract B has not been indicated. If a building ,
unrelated to Tract A, is proposed for Tract B in the future ,
a replat of the property into two lots is necessary so as
to avoid having two principal buildings on one lot. If
subdivision does occur, however, Tract A will only have
frontage onto Valley Industrial Boulevard South via the
driveway.
DS/jiw
" r 3
INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS OUTSTANDING
Preliminary Date Of
Firm Approval Issuance Amount
Valley Park, Inc .
(Valleyfair) Series 1976 $ 925 ,000
Toro Series 1975 $ 2 ,100,000
Certain Teed Series 1973 $ 1 ,000,000
• Perkins Steak & Cake Feb. of 1980 $ 600,000
* Ziegler , Inc . Dec . of 1979 $ 2 ,300,000
* Scottland Warehouse Feb. of 1980 $ 1 ,000,000
* K-Mart Store Dec . of 1979 $ 1 ,000,000
Ashland Oil Feb. 5 , 1980 $ 1 ,000,000
• J & B Enterprises Aug. 26 , 1980 $ 490 ,000
* Citizens Bank Building July 29, 1980 $ 1 ,300,000
Progress Valley Park Dec . 2 , 1980 $ 2 ,400,000
(4 warehouses)
St . Francis Hospital Jan. 6, 1981 $ 9 ,120 ,000
S & W Realty - Shakopee Jan. 6, 1981 $ 600,000
Shops
Shakopee Professional Group 3/17/81 $ 1 ,000,000
Valley Health Properties 3/17/81 $ 850,000
Valley Industrial Center-II 1 , 100,000
$26 , 785 , 000
Note : Current policy states the total aggregate amount of industrial
development bonds outstanding at any one time shall not exceed 507
of the total assessed valuation of the City.
1981 payable = $76 , 816 , 153.00.
* Closin2 Documents Executed
SPRINGSTED 3
INCORPORATED
PUBLIC FINANCE
ADVISORS
2 June 1981
Mr. John K. Anderson
City Administrator
City of Shakopee
Shakopee, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Anderson:
We have reviewed the application for issuance of $1,100,000 of Industrial
Development Revenue Bonds for the Valley Industrial Center II office-
warehouse project.
Based on our review, we have the following comments:
I. The application does not clearly state the security for the
obligations. Your policies would require the issuance of mortgage
revenue notes which normally would have both a mortgage
security and net revenues of the facility pledged to payment. In
our opinion you should resolve this matter prior to adoption of the
resolution authorizing this program, and if you require the
issuance of mortgage revenue notes, the resolution should be
conditioned to require that form of obligation.
2. Your policies require a certification that the completed value of
the project will be equal to at least 90% of the total value of
obligations issued. No such certification was included in the
application file.
3. The application does not indicate the eventual purchaser of the
obligations. It is our understanding the North American Life and
Casualty Company will provide guaranteed construction financing
and will be responsible for arranging permanent financing at or
prior to completion of the project. You may wish to have this
relationship confirmed at or prior to the hearing. Your policies
require that mortgage revenue notes be sold only to institutional
investors.
Our review was limited to the adherence of the application to your issuance
policies and was not designed to evaluate the feasibility of the project.
Accordingly, this review is not to be considered as a finding of feasibility of the
project, or a finding that, if completed, revenues will be available on a timely
basis to pay debt service requirements.
Very sincerely yours,
/e,
Robert D. Pulscher
President
Enclosure
800 Osborn Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 (612) 222-4241
' _ T
3
HAUER TRAIL SANITARY SEWER LATERALS
NORTH ONE-HALF OF SECTION 8-115-22
Introduction:
The Hauer Trail Laterals were ordered by Resolution No. 1585, March 25,
1980, a contract was not awarded for construction of that project due to delays
for right-of-way acquisition.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429, the project must be
reinitiated.
Background:
The original feasibility report was received by Council January 25, 1980.
The report judged the project feasible.
The report estimated the cost of the project to be $144,000.00. That
original estimate has been revised to reflect an approximate 4.6 percent
inflatid'nary increase since the preparation of the original report. The
revised estimate also reflects an additional $13,100.00 in right-of-way costs.
The revised cost of the project is $163,200.00.
The estimated assessments would be $4,644.76 per lot which is approximately
$42.2251 per front foot.
The assessable area is shown on the opposite side.
� Y
0 -. of Sec . 8-115-22 (Hauer Laterals ) Sanitary
Sewer 80-1
|
' +��
/ -`
I *..,
\ `
z.,1 \
w
/ /Y'
•
.1:.:1.1..............ii. .. ....'..........:11..:..........:•..1...:.::::.......::%.*::....:::::11:....••::::.:. ....:.......1:. ........:,•:: •.•. .
......:::. it..::..:.....:........„... '....V.:.•••••••••••••. .
........i::::•:!"............."..........:...............t.....:.....1:::::::... .• 1.:::::.::::. ...........:::::.:::•::::.:::•:...................... ..........::::.::::::::::::.::::::...11
v
.. ... ... :. ... :: ... ... :: ..:...... .......•... .......... .. .......%' �[ �AR�
CEM- '
` -' ' ' -' '``'` '',
%wf � ^ /�
� ��r |
| '
/ ^ |
/ |
/ ^ | . '
| / ` |
| ^
|
� `
I
�
| • r-
, |/
----------'
~~-
|
.~. _| ! _/ _~�
! � | ~ --
_/
_~ _�.
/ �'�
_� ~~ � � R| �~ ' -� -~ V�� � �
�~ �~ ~_
~ ~~ f~ -~ | _~ ~~~ ~~
-- --
- -__ ^ \ _~, ~~ ~~~ ~ �
| � --- --�- -~� - - -
. _~ ~+
| __~ ~� -~ /
_~ _~ ~~ -- |
/~~ _~ -_
_- -
\ // |
/ ' ! `
/ {
. .
\\\
`^|
/ |
` . \
MEMO TO: John Anderson
City Administrator
FROM: H. R. Spurrier
City Engineer
RE: Sanitary Sewer Lateral - North half of Section 8
Hauer Trail Lateral Project 80-1
DATE: June 5, 1981
Resolution No. 1854 is attached for consideration by Council, should it
be the decision of City Council to order the improvement of Hauer Trail by
Sanitary Sewer.
I also attached a memorandum from Larry Martin, City Assessor, testifying to
the amount the proposed project will increase the value of benefitted property.
Action Requested
Council, after hearing input at public hearing, offer Resolution No. 1854, A
Resolution Ordering An Improvment; Sanitary Sewer Laterals in North One-half of
Section 8; Hauer Trail Laterals Project No. 80-1, and move for its adoption.
HRS/jiw
Attachments
•
RESOLUTION NO. 1854
A Resolution Ordering An Improvement
Sanitary Sewer Laterals in North One-half of Section 8
Hauer Trail Laterals Project No. 80-1
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 1835 of the City Council adopted the 19th
day of May 1981 fixed a date for Council hearing on the proposed improvement
of the North one-half of Section 8-115-22 by Sanitary Sewer Laterals; and
WHEREAS, ten days published notice of the hearing through two
weekly publications of the required notice was given and the hearing was held
thereon on the 9th day of June 1981, at which all persons desiring to be heard
were given an opportunity to be heard thereon.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA:
1. That the improvement is ordered as hereinafter described:
Lateral "B" of Alternate "A" as defined in the Report
of North One-half of Section 8 Sanitary Sewer Lateral
System Study prepared by William E. Price, P.E. ,
Suburban Engineering, Inc. , dated January 25, 1980.
Adopted in session' of the City Council of the
City of Shakopee, Minnesota held this day of , 1981.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this day
of , 1981.
City Attorney
•• CITY OF SHAKOPEE
IMA:4471 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55398
MEMO
TO: H.R. Spurrier, City Engineer
FROM. Larry Martin, City Assessor
SUBJECT: HAUER TRATL SANTTARY SEWER
DATE: June 2 . 1981
Introduction:
As requested, I have conducted a preliminary appraisal analysis
to determine if the properties fronting Hauer Trail will benefit
from the proposed installation of Sanitary Sewer. The effective
date of this preliminary appraisal is June 1 , 1981 .
1
1
Background:
The proper procedure for this type of appraisal is to determine
the market value of the subject before the installation of the
improvement, then to value the property after the improvement .
For benefit to the property to occur, the after improvement value
must meet or exceed the before improvement value inclusive of the
cost to improve .
In conducting this preliminary appraisal the City Assessor has
considered two different size properties, one being . 6 acres, to
represent the typical lot fronting on the north side of Hauer Trail ;
the other being . 35 acres to represent those properties fronting ,
on the south side of Hauer Trail .
My value conclusions are as follows:
VALUATION AFTER IMPROVEMENT
. 6 acre tract .35 acre tract
27, 400 22 ,000
VALUATION BEFORE IMPROVEMENT
. 6 acre tract .35 acre tract
20, 900 15 , 700
INDICATED BENEFIT
. 6 acre tract .35 acre tract
6, 500 6, 300
The per lot improvement cost to be assessed is estimated at $4,600,
therefore, based upon this preliminary analysis, I am of the opinion
that those properties fronting on Hauer Trail will benefit from the
installation of sanitary sewer.
Mr. Spurrier
Page 2
June 2, 1981
Recommendation:
The indicated range of surplus benefit is roughly 7% to 8%, which
is a fairly narrow margin. 1 would therefore recommend that
caution be taken when recognizing support for the project.
LDM:pik
•
.
HAUER TRAIL BEFORE
SANITARY SEWER
SALE #1 #2 #3
Parcel 24 in 62 25 in 62 31 in 62
Zoning R-1 R-1 R-1
Date of Sale 7-79 6-79 9-79
Type of Transfer W.D. W.D. W.D.
Amount 16, 500 15,000 14, 500
# of acres .9 1 . 75
Price per acre 18,333 15,000 19,333
Time Adjustment 1 . 2875 1 .3 1 . 2625
Adjusted Price 23, 603 19 , 500 24,408
Size Adjustment
. 35 acres 1 . 2571 1 . 28571 1 . 21428
Adjusted Price 29 , 671 25,075 29,638
. 6 acres 1 . 1 1 . 13 1 .05
Adjusted Price 25 , 963 22,035 25,628
Weight given to Sale #3
. 35 acres @ 29, 638 = 10,373 Add Improvemer.ts1 $5,300
Indicated Value 15,673 SAY $15, 700
. 6 acres @ 25 , 628 = 15,377 Add Improvements1 $5, 500
Indicated Value 20, 877 SAY $20, 900
1 = Adjustment for Waterline , curb , gutter & septic
w
t t t = 5 t t.w =': '
s t =itt •i '}t 4t,xi: � F ;i t st.' a : ti v;ritkittY. ;t s .1 t004a t;`
•4:
.t `< ;el., <st{.s$ ? ; 41-4;t4+' f ` c# 1..t{;:'..1- . '4"
t , #M4 # { St , t:IOW
;ih
:4 #44.bitisl?4'.++s.3 etab+ia4460+a,d+r'KHaa.xs. r.4.;o 1i44). it;I. , .+.404..tstM ,.ati4w ;:x{4144q,Lowsfi.••!4,
a .
a
i
•.,.-,••2•2!:.&-.2.-.2-1...22...-...•-.2.-2 Q . ..life:-. at
Sof
A
`3h
10 4 h
0
.?' pphC?-C-
IS'
J
S 0aJS
S
-�P qG '1' .
o, e..as69 •
06 0
0
/
W+ F1tJG ' •1 917
'
Tttttli:1 ,...,::-.;.6.,;• ss )' tt .; : , Y
1..t;; t' tt : 1L -,jt i} i ttl�h '�
-,2,_,:.,,,,,,:. , • , •-•,.4 . •=, • , ` v 4
�1' 1'n .1'0 1
' � t_.�� 1cOs . j�'
• 6 Qoh eo 8
'r 4 C- `�q1 1 .SS
Ce/) ,S
93 Co 1
, t n° .1. '176
0.t •OS
P '9
1.8c1
.05
`) J
$ am
.. ?
i
S7 4C3-•
4(
_ . 2:71
MEMO TO: John Anderson
City Administrator
r'HOM: H. R. Spurrier .
City Engineer 0► r
RE: Hauer Trail Lateral ImprrN ent No. 8o-4
DATE: June 5, 1981
Introduction:
Pursuant to the request of City Council, I have investigated the feasibility
of installing service lines to the houses and incorporating that work in the
special improvement district assessment.
Background:
I have referred the matter to the City Attorney, Julius A. Coller, II and
attached please find his opinion regarding the legality of the City performing
that work.
Conclusion:
Pursuant to the recommendation of the City Attorney, construction of private
service lines should not be a part of the special improvement district
contract.
HRS/jiw
Attachment
Julius A.GoLLER, I
JULIUS A.COLLER ATTORNEY AT LAW 612-445-1244
1859-1940
2 1 1 WEST FIRST AVENUE
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
532RECEIVED
June 3, 1981
JUN 4 13I
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Mr. H. R. Spurrier
City Engineer
Shakopee City Hall
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Dear Mr. Spurrier:
From your memo of May 14, it is my understanding that the question of
feasibility and legalityof the City performing certain work has been
raised. The work to be performed would be performed on private property
and consist really of filling septic tanks and constructing service lines
from the sewer main to the house or to the abandoned septic tank.
The City would have no authority to construct this type of work. This
is outside of the City mains and is strictly a private nder aking which
the City could not furnish labor , equipment or pumps.
If there are any further questions about this please contact me.
Very trul yours,
Julius . oller, II
JAC/nh
FEASIBILITY REPORT
IMPROVEMENT OF BLUFF AVENUE
DAKOTA STREET TO HALO 1ST ADDITION
•
INTRODUCTION
The City Council of the City of Shakopee has received a petition for
improvement of Bluff Avenue between Naumkeag Street and Dakota Street by
water and sewer. Council ordered a preparation of a feasibility report
by Resolution No. 1781 on January 20, 1981.
BACKGROUND
Bluff Avenue is situated in one of the oldest plats in Shakopee. The
area has had little development pressure. The delomite bedrock, very near
the surface, makes the construction of utilities or even construction of on-
site facilities too expensive.
SCOPE
This report has investigated the feasibility of constructing watermain
and sanitary sewer between Dakota Street and the west line of Halo 1st Addition.
This report also investiaged whether it was feasible to make the improvement
as proposed in the petition or whether to make the improvement in connection
with some other improvement. The other improvements identified in the report
included watermain, roadway and storm sewer. These elements were analyzed
and included herein.
4.1 BLUFF AVENUE IMPROVEMENT
ASSESSMENTS1
Sanitary Storm2
Description Watermain Sewer Sewer Roadway Total
Lateral or Front
Foot Cost •
50 Foot Lot $1,819.95 $1,620.55 $409.15 $1;356.80 $5,206.45
60 Foot Lot 2,183.94 1,944.66 490.98 1,628.16 6,247.74
Service Line
Cost
Any Lot, 1,471.00 1,890.00 None None 3,361.00
Total Cost
50 Foot Lot 3,290.95 3,510.44 409.15 1,356.80 8,567.45
60 Foot Lot 3,654.94 3,834.66 490.98 1,628.16 9,608.74
1Watermain assessments are shown for commercial lots. Deduct $183.33 for 50 foot
residential lot and deduct $220.00 for 60 foot residential lot.
2These projects were judged not feasible and were not proposed for construction.
T
_z_
ElE3 11111 \ \
NY Vs'
1004°"
. op 0 , VW i'-'
isor„,"0._t
NO .0 `/
•�
a jai Il I I III‘ v
\ 011/"
\co^►ci c I
T /
° ' PRAIR16 *II '/t,5V-Pvit1
I O immillN
® 1111111
$w ok-. oIA D
Zco °g.lt-t'.c 1- iti ° WI 7:.0
1NEc►‘ v °1 5C- 7-E`-4. ""1 (a,
r O` / D !
0 • NAUr'IKEA" 71
0 1 11111 7-1
1V)A1 , , ,
D
LJ/ t (n
gin;;: .r �
co
ic
r
. -?' ;N , 5'11Xr
,�zp-AE\-- A
11 _ Q
L
$1
3
.....\ lc",
MAR ScNALL
RoA P
•
MEMO TO: John Anderson
City Administrator
FROM: H. R. Spurrier
City Engineer
RE: Improvement of Bluff Avenue - Dakota Street to the West Line of
Halo 1st Addition
DATE: June 5, 1981
Attached is Resolution No. 1855, A resolution orderingthe improvement of
Bluff Avenue, as described in the amended feasibility report.
I also attach an appraisal by City Assessor, Larry Martin, testifying to
the increasedvalue of the property as a result of the proposed improvements.
Action Requested:
Council, after considering public input, offer Resolution No. 1855, A Resolution
Ordering An Improvement And The Preparation Of Plans; Bluff Avenue - Dakota
to West Line of Halo 1st Addition; Project No. 81-2, and move for its adoption.
HRS/jiw
Attachments
4r
t i e�
129 East First "%venue, Shakopee, Minnta 55379 `.
•
MEMO
TO: H .R . Spurrier, City Engineer
mom. Larry Martin, City Assessor
SUBJECT: BLUFF..
AVENUE SANITARY SEWER AND WATER LINE
DATE June 2. 1981
Introduction :
As requested I have conducted a preliminary appraisal analysis
to determine if the properties fronting Bluff Avenue will benefit
from the proposed installation of Sanitary Sewer & Water line.
The effective date of this preliminary appraisal is June 1 , 1981
Background:
The proper procedure for this type of appraisal is to determine the
market value of the subject before the installation of the
improvement, then to value the property after the improvement. For
benefit to the property to occur , the after improvement value must
meet or exceed the before improvement value inclusive of the cost
to improve .
In conducting this preliminary appraisal the City Assessor has
considered two different size properties, one being 50 x 110 to
represent the typical lot fronting on the north side of Bluff Ave; ,
the other being 40 x 142 to represent those properties fronting on
the south side of Bluff Ave.
My value conclusions are as follows:
VALUATION AFTER IMPROVEMENT
5C 'x 110' lot 60 ' x 142 ' lot
$10, 500 $15,000
1
VALUATION BEFORE IMPROVEMENT
50 'x 110 ' lot 60 ' x 142 ' lot
$ 6, 600 $ 9 , 200
INDICATED BENEFIT
50 'x 110' lot 60 ' x 142 ' lot
$ 3 , 900 $ 5, 800
Mr. Spurrier
Page 2
June 2, 1981
The per lot improvement cost to be assessed is estimated at
$3 ,440 for 50 ' lots and $4, 130 for 60 ' lots, therefore, based
upon this preliminary analysis, I am of the opinion that those
properties fronting Bluff Avenue will benefit from the installation
of Sanitary Sewer and Water Main.
Recommendation:
The indicated range of surplus benefit is roughly 4% to 11%, which
is a fairly narrow margin. I would therefore recommend that
caution be taken when recognizing support for the project .
LDM:plk
I
1
.
,c.---
VALUATION OF BLUFF AVENUE BEFORE
SANITARY SEWER & WATER LINE . '
SALE #1 #2 #3 #4
147-2 in 906
Parcel # 115-02 in 4 111-1 in 4 111 in 4 47-3 in 4
Zoning R-3 R-3 R-3 R-3
Date of Sale 6-78 5-78 1-79 5-78
Type of Transfer W.D. W.D. W.D. W.D.
Amount $10,000 $4, 500 $9,000 $5, 500
Sq. Ft. 10,000 5, 500 7, 700 8, 520
Price per Sq. Ft. 1 .00 .82 1 .16 . 65
Time Adjustment 1 .45 1 .4625 1 .36 1 . 4625
Adjusted Price 1 .45 1 . 20 1 .58 . 95
Location Adjustment N/A N/A N/A +10%
Adjusted Price 1 .45 1 . 20 1 . 58 1 .04
Road Improvement N/A N/A N/A -10%
Adjusted Price 1 .45 1 . 20 1 . 58 . 95
Sewer Availability - .35 N/A - .35 N/A
Adjusted Price 1 . 10 1 . 2.0 1 . 23 . 95
Size Adjustment
50 x 110 lot 1 . 16 N/A 1 .08 1 . 11
Adjusted Price 1 . 28 1 . 20 1 .33 1 .05
60 x 142 lot 1 .03 T 1 .11 1 .02 N/A
Adjusted Price 1 . 13 1 .08 1 . 2 . 95
Weight given to Sale #2
5 , 500 sq. ft. @ 1 . 20 = $6,600 Indicated Value
8, 520 sq. ft. @ 1 .08 = $9, 201 SAY $9,200 Indicated Value
.VALUATION OF BLUFF AVENUE AFTER
. SANITARY SEWER & WATER LINE
SALE #1 #2 #3
Parcel 63 in 4 4 & 5-1 in 100 223 in 1
Zoning B-1 B-1 R-3
Date of Sale 12-79 9-80 5-80
Type of Transfer C.D. C .D. W.D.
Amount $35,000 $104,000 $12,000
Less Financing 2,000 4 ,000
Adjusted Price $33,000 $100,000 12,000
Sq. Ft. 25, 560 61 , 450 8, 520
Price Per Sq. Ft. 1 . 29 1 . 63 1 .41
Time Adjustment 1 . 23750 1 . 1125 1 . 1625
Adjusted Price 1 . 59 1 . 81 1 .64
Location Adjustment N/A - 40% + 10%
Adjusted Price 1 . 59 1 . 29 1 . 80
Road Improvement - 10% _ N/A - 10%
Adjusted Price 1 .45 1 . 29 1 . 64
Size Adjustment
50 x 100 lot 1 . 32 1 . 51 1 . 10
Adjusted Price 1 . 90 1 . 95 1 . 80
60 x 142 lot 1 . 23 1 . 42 N/A
Adjusted Price 1 .77 1 .83 1 . 64
Weight given to Sale #1
5, 500 sq. ft. @ 1 . 90 = $10,450 SAY $10, 500
8, 520 sq. ft . @ 1 . 77 = $15 ,080 SAY $15,000
•
RESOLUTION NO. 1855
A Resolution Ordering An Improvement And The
Preparation Of Plans
Bluff Avenue - Dakota to West Line of Halo 1st Addition
Project No. 81-2
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 1830 of the City Council adopted May 19, 1981,
fixed a date for Council hearing on the proposed improvement of Bluff Avenue -
Dakota Street to the West line of Halo 1st Addition by watermain and sanitary
sewer; and
WHEREAS, ten days published notice of the hearing through two weekly
publications of the required notice was given and the hearing was held thereon
on the 9th day of June 1981, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given
an opportunity to be heard thereon; and
WHEREAS, this project has been review by Shakopee Public Utilities
Commission in accordance with the requirements of City of Shakopee Resolution
No. 1665.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA:
1. That the improvement is ordered as hereinafter. described:
2. That H. R. Spurrier, City Engineer, is hereby designated as the
engineer for this improvement. He shall prepare plans and specifications for
the making of such improvement.
Adopted in session of the City Council of
the City of Shakopee, Minnesota held this day of , 1981.
•
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of , 1981.
City Attorney
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Don Steger
City Planner
RE: Welter Variance - Additional Information_
DATE: June 9, 1981
Additional information, concerning the Welter Variance request, has
been brought to our attention. This information was not known at the
time the Planning Commission heard and approved the Variance.
Additional information indicates that Mr. Welter and adjoining property
owners have access easements to the rear portion of their lots. This
information was not previously known. Such easements would then make it
possible to build a garage in the rear yard as an alternative to requesting
the sideyard variance.
Two problems are evident with a rear yard garage:
1) The garage would have to be built into the steep hillside to the rear of
the house and access between the garage and house would be inconvenient;
2) A driveway across the rear yard of an adjoining property owner would
have to be built to provide access to Mr. Welter's property. Such an
arrangement may be cumbersome.
Even with the additional easement information, the staff does not feel that
a reasonable alternative to the sideyard attached garage has been presented.
Therefore, the staff still recommends approval of the sideyard variance.
DS/jiw
MEMO TO : John Anderson
City Administrator
FROM: Don Steger
City Planner
RE : Appeal of Planning Commission Decision on Side
Yard Variance
DATE: June 1, 1981
Introduction:
Richard Maki, 825 West 4th Avenue, is appealing the Planning
Commission decision granting a 5 foot sideyard variance to
Dennis Welter, 815 W. 4th Avenue .
Background :
The Planning Commission granted the 5 foot sideyard variance
for an attached garage by a unanimous vote at their May 14, 1981
meeting. The staff report to the Planning Commission and the
Planning Commission minutes concerning this matter are attached
for your review.
Mr. Maki, the applicant ' s neighbor to the west , objected to
the variance because of general closeness , air circulation and
fire safety . He simply thinks that the garage should not be
Alternatives :
City Council to do one of the following:
1) Approve Variance Resolution No . CC-273, A Variance Resolution
which would grant (and concur with Planning Commission
decision) a 5 foot sideyard setback variance for the
construction of an attached single-car garage;
2) Adopt Resolution No. 1853, A Resolution Denying Variance
Request - Dennis Welter, 815 W. 4th Avenue .
DS/j iw
Attachments
DATE: May 14, 1981
CASE: PC 81-10V
ITEM: Sideyard Variance
APPLICANT: Dennis Welter
LOCATION: 815 West 4th Avenue
ZONING/LAND USE: R-2, Urban Residential/Single Family Residential
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Section 11.04, Subd. 5; Section 11.36, Subd. 5B
FINDINGS REQUIRED: Section 11.04, Subd. 5A
PUBLIC HEARING HELD : 5/W9/
CASE HEARD BY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND
APPEALS
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL: 41/Val
Proposal:
The applicant is requesting approval of a 5' sideyard setback variance in order
to construct an attached garage to the side of his existing house at the
above location.
Considerations:
1. The proposed attached single car garage is intended to match with the
applicant's existing house. The 10 foot wide garage would align with
both the front and rear of the house and would occupy 5 feet of the
required 10 foot sideyard setback of the R-2 zone.
2. The lot was platted as part of the Original Shakopee Plat, with the
house being constructed 5 feet from the east property line and 15 feet
from the west property line. The houses adjoining this property were
constructed with identical setbacks.
3. The existing house immediately west of the proposed garage is only 5
feet from the common side property line, thereby establishing a 5 foot
sideyard precedence.
4. The proposed garage could not be detached and placed to the rear of the
house due to a lack of access to the rear of the property. In addition,
topographic variations at the rear of the house make construction
difficult.
5. Access to the proposed garage would be from an existng curb cut along
4th Avenue.
6. Staff feels that exceptional restrictions exist with the property due to
narrowness of the existing sideyards and the rear hillside. Such
circumstances suggest that the proposed placement of the garage on the
property would be the most practical.
PC 81-10V . May 14, 1981 /
Welter Variance Page -2- !�
Staff Recommendations
Staff recommends approval of Variance Resolution No. 274, granting of a 5
foot sideyard setback variance in order to add on a single car garage to
existing house.
Board of Adjustments and Appeals Action:
Resolution No. 274 adopted (approving 5' variance).
Appeal to City Council on June 9, 1981.
City Council Action:
DS/j iw
PROCEEDINGS OF THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA MAY 14, 1981
Chrm. Schmitt called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. with Comm. Stoltzman,
Koehnen and Vierling present. Comm. Rockne arrived later. Absent were Comm.
Coller and Perusich. Also present were Cncl. Colligan and City Planner Don
Steger.
Koehnen/Vierling moved to approve the minutes of November 13, 1980 as kept. Motion
carried unanimously.
Election of Officers
The City Planner conducted the election of officers by opening the nominations for
Chairman of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals.
Stoltzman/Schmitt moved to nominate Comm. Koehnen for Chairman.
Koehnen/Vierling moved to nominate Chrm. Schmitt for Chairman.
Stoltzman/Vierling moved to cease nominations for Chairman. Motion carried unanimously.
Discussion was held on the advisability of having the same officers for the Board of
Adjustments and Appeals as serve on the Planning Commission.
Verbal vote was in favor of Chrm. Schmitt.
The City Planner then opened nominations for Vice-Chairman for Board of Adjustments
and Appeals.
Koehnen/Vierling moved that in the interests of continuity, the same Vice-Chrm.
serve the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and the Planning Commission; to wit,
Comm. Perusich. Motion carried unanimously.
Schmitt/Vierling moved that nominations cease and a unanimous ballot be cast for
Joe Perusich to serve as Vice Chairman of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals.
Motion carried unanimously.
Comm. Rockne arrived at 7:35 PM and took his place.
Public Hearing - Welter Variance (PC 81-10V) :
Koehnen/Vierling moved to open the public hearing on the request for a 5 foot vari-
ance from the side yard setback requirements to construct an attached single-car
garage to existing home. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Planner stated the applicant is Dennis Welter of 815 West 4th Avenue and
explained that the variance was being requested because it was the only place to put
a garage due to topography and lack of access to the rear of his property.
Dennis Welter addressed the Board and stated he is only asking for what most property
owners already have. He has looked at many homes in Shakopee that only have a 5 foot
side yard setback.
The City Planner stated that there is a provision to have a detached garage 5 feet
from a side yard, but the variance is needed because it is an attached garage.
. - tsoara or Aa justments & Appeals
May 14, 1981
Page 2
Rick Maki identified himself as Welter's neighbor to the west, and stated his ob-
jections to granting the variance. He objected on the basis of general closeness,
air circulation and fire safety to having a garage that close to his house.
A discussion was initiated by Chrm. Schmitt with Mr. Maki about whether he has a
garage, to which he answered "no"; and his intentions of constructing one in the
future. The discussion centered on the lack of access to his lot from the rear,
and the possibility that he will probably have to ask for a variance also.
Mrs. Welter stated that they put into the bid for the garage firewalls on both sides
of the garage and they will install a fire extinguisher in the garage.
Mr. Maki stated he still feels it might be detrimental to his property, and would
like to stay with the present code.
Rockne/Koehnen moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Rockne/Vierling offered Variance Resolution No. 274, 5 foot sideyard variance from
setback requirements, and moved for its adoption. Motion carried unanimously.
Koehnen/Rockne moved to adjourn the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Motion carried
unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
John Schmitt
Chairman
Diane S. Reuch
Recording Secretary
Member of the City Council,
I am appealing the application by Dennis Welter for a five (5)
foot variance from the side yard setback requirements for construction
of a single-car attached garage to the existing house at 815 West 4th
Avenue on May 14, 1981.
5/15 /gle
Richard Maki
VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. CC- 274
WHEREAS, Dennis Welter , having first
filed an application for an appeal to the Board of Adjustments and
Appeals dated _April 20, 1981 , for a variance from the strict
application of the provisions of the Shakopee Zoning Ordinance , to wit:
for a 5 foot variance from sideyard setback requirements to build on an
attached single car garage
and;
WHEREAS, the property upon which the request, is being made is
described as follows : Lot 4, Block 41, Original Shakopee Plat
(815 West 4th Avenue) and;
WHEREAS, said proposed variance request was approved by the
Board of Adjustments & Appeals at their meeting of May 14, 1981 and this
decision has been appealed_to the City Council.
NOW THEREFORE, upon hearing the advice and recommendation of the
City Planner, and upon considering the suggestions and objections
raised by the affected property owners within a radius of 350 feet
thereof in public hearing duly held thereon, and upon determining
that the granting of this variance is necessary for the said applicant,
and is necessary because of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
which apply to the property which do not apply generally to other
properties in the same zone or vicinity, or that it is relief from
the general provisions of the Zoning Ordinance which would tend to
deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by properties in the
same district , that the granting of the variance does not confer on
the applicant any special privileges denied to owners of similar
property, that the request is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate
the hardship, that the special conditions or circumstances necessitating
the variance are not the result of actions by the applicant, and will
not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property,
or unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets , or
increase any public hazard nor diminish property values in the surround-
ing area, nor is it in any other respect contrary to the intent, purpose,
or objectives of the Shakopee Zoning Ordinance or the Comprehensive
Guide Plan;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the aforementioned variance be and is
hereby approved , subject to the following special conditions :
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City
of Shakopee, Minnesota held this day of , 19
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
`
City Clerk
RESOLUTION No. 1853
A Resolution Denying A Request For A Variance
Dennis Welter
WHEREAS, Mr. Dennis Welter made application to the City of Shakopee for
a five (5) foot variance from the side yard setback requirements in order to build
an attached single car garage; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals held a public hearing on
May 14, 1981 and all persons in attendance were given the opportunity to speak; and
WHEREAS, the Shakopee Board of Adjustments and Appeals adopted Variance
Resolution No. 274, granting a five foot sideyard setback variance; and
WHEREAS, the applicant's neighbor appealed the decision of the Board of
Adjustments and Appeals; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a public hearing on June 9, 1981, where
all persons in attendance were given an opportunity to speak; and
WHEREAS, the City Council after having heard and considered the appeal
made by the applicant's neighbor, took action to deny the variance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,
MINNESOTA, that the variance request of Dennis Welter for property located at
815 West 4th Avenue, legal description on record, is hereby denied for lack of
the following findings pursuant to Shakopee City Code, Section 11.04, Subd. 5A,
which states in:
Item No. 1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property
which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and
result from lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the
owners of property since enactment of this Chapter have had no control.
Item No. 2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Chapter
would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in
the same district under the terms of this Chapter.
Item No. 4. That granting of the variance requested will not confer on the
applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Chapter to owners of other
lands, structures or buildings in the same district.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of
Shakopee, Minnesota held this day of , 1981•
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
Approved as to form this day of
, 1981.
City Clerk
City AL Lui ney
N co 7 III '.0 r. CO 01 p .--i N 01 ul 'o r- CO
V) irl u'1 In ul Ery in u1 ' VD
o o 01 01 o' C\ 01 CT C1 CT cT C CT
U Q1 01 CA 0"
N. r, r� N. N. r r. r, N. r` N- N. r, N. N N. N
•
H,
1-.
•• in 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 N 0 ul .-1 � 1/40 0 CO
CO O O u'1 in O O O O u'1 O va 7 in .-i p u•1
U cNr1 O In N O O O i- - rn CA r• p N. 0
0 N 0 '.O O i1 Lf) r-- r- N %.0 N co Oti u•1 ul
01 "'1 •-+ N M .-i 01 u•1 10 N. 01
w
'••r •-4 .-1 N N N 10 sir.).l
a
)4 G
a) 11 tU
7 a 60
x• ro w 0
x cn
a) w G co
G cd 0) , C) a) a)
a P ti a ro a __) a 0 0 >a 0
ce 0 c0 "� r1 0 $.4 G �C v .-
0 CO a u bo a -� a, v a) ca ►. cci
0 w .1 H
• a) H >•i u .a u I.+ 0 = = v �1 COocn
W 'o b )a a > CI CO a) -i fes+ C4 I td I
¢5 H 0 0 '0 Cl) CO •4 c(0 0 w 0.- r. 0 4-4 H � r-i
CO �, a�• x x ) Iz Cl) :� _ = 0 .J H y1
g a) c0 CO
rH•4 0 a) Cl) bv0 Cl CO G W C = r. 6 ro 1J g
Cl) ro u CO (0 o co H a) w • - _ •r., 0 cn 1.1 m Cl)
A > t/) ''D in Cl) '7 < x 0 x 0 .--i Cl) •-r Pi
•. a
a .
a
t11 to a • O = = to
a) ND
H a) a) a) a) a) v 0.) a) H z cin G `�
• .Z -0 ..G .G .4 .G .a .0 0. • 0G) U q
Cl) 1.1 u 1-1 1.1 L1 1-1 u 1..' a .1 a. a) >
c4 1 o 0 0 0 0 o o 0 o G x 6 H H 0 cr)
to I I I 1 1 I 1 1 cr 4-4 W T H H H Cl)
a) r-i r-4 r-4 r-4 H ri H r-I to O Cl) f-4 L*i r-1 Pi
71 ct1 rd CI CO CI 0 cd ct, a) H H r-4 I I I H 1
$1 1.1 u u ..r 1.1 1.) u 4.1 U a) 0 a= 1.1 1.1 .1.1 0 4-1
X CO •4-1 •r1 •r9 •r4 •r4 •r4 4-1 •r4 •rt • > 0
•
0 H a a a a a, a a a Vi -C a3 .0 ani a 6 F �, a
H cl ct cl ro ca ca ca ca (a +-1 a) P (.1 G a) a a) CO a)
Cl) U U 0 U C.) U U U 0 > H to J C4 (y, a1 P4
to
H
:a ul 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 H -1 113 0 CO
O
CO 0 0 t1) LI') 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VD 0 0 -.1' in .--r 0 u'1
.f N 0 N 0 N 00 00 0 n -Zr C" ) --1- N u') 0 -7 r- 0 N. 0 �
0 in N N c"1 .-I N CO 01 u'l L l
01 ri ri N (") r-1 CO r-i u1 10 r- '.o C"
'"•-0 -i ri N N N 1/40 10 U')
•
H
U O 0 O 0 O 0 0 o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U .-i r-1 ri .-i •-- r-1 r-1 .-i .-1 - .-1 ri •-1 r-1 .-i 1-1 r-1 1-1 ri r I .-I
f O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.--1 .-i r-1 _4 - •--1 r-1 .••4 r-4 •--1 .-1 .-i .-i .-4 -4 r•i .-1 .-i .-1 .--I
r4 •-', 1/40 1/40 10 10 10 1/40 10 •--( . .1 -: .-i .--1 ri r-1 .--� .-1 '''l - .--1
il VP
o 0 tI 4/11 � t l u'1 v1 in 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO CO CO CO CO
H .-i .- r•
1 1 .--r .-1 ri .-1 --1 ri .-I •---1 .-1 .-i M N •"1 •--I •--4 .--1 .--1 •--4
ll C") 7 . �t ..t .7 �7 -t ..1. til Zr- Zr. r) 10 ....7 CT O, 01 01 O\
d0 r-1 \O 1/40 10 1/401/40 '.o •--4 ---1r-1 .-i -4 r-1 .-1 '-' .-i .-1
U •-• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . " i - M N
'i 1 - -1 .--1 .--I .--i .--1 .-i .--1
� U M r!1 u1 ul r!1 v1 if) u1 U1 C") � -.7 C•l 10 .t a 01 01 01 C"
O N O1 01 01 01 O\ 01 O, 0' 0 C•100 N C"I N r-1 0 N .-• M
H -i 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 -i M M C' Lr) v1 u1 N N N M N
p....1 .••i u'1 in ul V1 Lc) u•1 ii-1 In N N M M .-i .-i .-1 01 C' 01 01 01
>I M �7 �7 -7 -.7 �t �7 -4* -7 - -7 -Zr -Zr 1T �7 -T 7 d' -Zr -Zr
W
A "4 V0 '.0 10 10 10 '.0 1/40 1/40 r•i .ti r-i ri r-1 .-i ri .-1 .--1 --4 .--1 "-I
0 u1 U1 r/1 u1 u1 Lr1 Lf) U') O 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO CO CO CO CO
■`
$
0 ON o r-I N C) cr
Z ' N N t,- N .
n N. Q) 01 O) O)
N N t-
H (O 0 (0 U)
O 0) I\ r-1 7r N op
O O
F' • 4f) N N 0 cr L)
in .t H a 0) co H
in co co c
U rH-1 H
q
•
a.
U
14
rt
3 a
pq 0
FD O =
•r1 to U
a) — Sti
a c! ,rte
o
,--1
U a)
R >J C r--1 =
O w iii >) 0 W U)
Q O 4 0 cd
a)
> m p r-I a a)
a)
of C4 b0 H
1.,, •r1 .r1 a) H =
a) U) = f 4 C cd a)
4.1 +-1 fti C > y
Q a) •r1 M
Z Z z = - -
X U) .
a
Cl) •H
ai
•r1 Q•
U) r-1 W U)
a
va
o ac) C • H (1.)
x G cn 0 N 1J o b0
c1 al
W -I cd
C U) U) .1-) _ .0
Cl a! •H U U
U) N
co p• _
C CZ _ _ _ _ _ _ H
.z c 7 U H L W U)
x
U
H
ca
H d' H0) it) N71- (f) 00 (DCO NOG) (OH CO
OO' O f-- HV' rNcrin0 d' 0 (\.1 co c00coNN co
O 0 O
H
O u1 O N H N Cr 1-1 O In H U.C) Un Cr Un co in Q) d• N Un
O in in C, r-1 (0 na -4coH co <O
cJ U 0 co cocO 0 CO H H
4.4
in H r-1 (V CO 7r LC) 0) 0 CO Un d•
-y .--i' .. .,
r-i COCr (0 N ,-♦ r--1 LL)
H Cr N r-i V'
ff? ff3
• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O r-I r-1 H r•i 1-1 r-1 ,-1 r-I r-I r-I r-I
U o 0 r-I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
i H rI r� H 11 -1 r-I H rI H r-I
• • • • U)
r--I H r-I In r-I r� r-I r-1 H r-I r-•I H H CO 75 l.> .0
a 0 00 CO 0000000 00 C C C (i)
V a)
!30C) 00 N o0 N H r-1 N Un N H >1 > H
ca 0 r-1cn -4 (0 (000cr CO 0) 0 O 1)
04 r1
H -..7
16 r I ...1" �• 0 H r-1 N N r-•1 r•1 r-1 H t, ,-I H H S".
-+ + - 0 00 N oo N I ,--I N In N H r-1 HE r.-1 >, E
O H ,-4 r•a 0 HC7r-I cOcOCO [r co1- T c>i mH H 4-, +-) .
U
'r CT . 0 H r-I ,--1 H H 4-1 r-I 0 0 0) 0 a) Q •-i r-1 a
0, c-a r-•H H N t� N. N N N. N t- tN N H C I >,•r•I >
H t - Nin CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 0) N O (16 4-) C
H -4- ,.1 CO � Cr Ctrtd IP 'I- � 1r V
CD 120 a5H
ca . • • • , • , , • lullI
W ,•-1 r--! ,-1 In r•i H ,-I r-1 r� r-I ,-1 H r1 CO H9 H rCO U)
co 0 00 CO 0000000 00 00 OUn0000CO .
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk
RE: Appointment of Acting Clerk
DATE: June 5 , 1981
Introduction
Because of the absence of both the City Clerk and Deputy City
Clerk simultaneously, it is necessary to appoint a City Clerk
for a short time .
Background
The City Clerk, beginning June 15th, will be on a four to six
week sick leave. The Deputy City Clerk will be at the Finance
Officer' s annual conference in Boston the week of June 15th
and on vacation part of the week following.
Recommended Action
Adopt Resolution No. 1856 , Appointing An Acting City Clerk.
JSC/jms
q
RESOLUTION NO. 1856
A RESOLUTION APPOINTING AN ACTING CITY CLERK
WHEREAS, the City Clerk will be on a four to six week leave
of absence beginning June 15, 1981 , for medical reasons .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the City Administrator is hereby
appointed Acting City Clerk beginning June 15 , 1981 for a six week
period or until the City Clerk returns to the office.
Adopted in adj . reg. session of the City Council of the City
of Shakopee , Minnesota held this 9th day of June , 1981 .
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of , 1981.
City Attorney
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Jeanne Andre, Administrative Assistant
RE: Diseased Tree Removal Policy
DATE: June 5, 1981
Introduction
In 1977 the City Council adopted a Dutch Elm Disease program which
was submitted to the State Commissioner of Agriculture to comply
with legislation requiring shade tree disease control . The City
has followed the same program each year since 1977 , although a
formal adoption procedure has not been undertaken each year.
Enclosed is an outline of a general "Shade Tree Disease Control
Program" which outlines the program that has been followed. This
issue should now be presented to Council for review 1) to reconsider
the program given the current State and City budget situation, and
2) to adopt a general policy to be followed each year unless formally
amended or discontinued by Council action.
Background
The shade tree disease control legislation which became effective
in 1977 requires marking and removal of trees as provided in the
City Code (1978) . The City has no choice in providing these
services if it plans to abide by the law. The code calls for the
City to remove trees from private property if not removed by the
property owner upon notification of the existance of diseased trees ,
and if determined to be a public nuisance . The City must also
assure that diseased wood is properly disposed to avoid spread of
the disease.
The attached policy allows the property owner to request trees to
be removed under City contract , thereby providing state subsidy
for the cost of removal , which is not otherwise available to pri-
vate property owners . In a sense the City could reduce administra-
tive costs by contracting for tree removal only for non-complying
residents . However this appears to be assisting only non-cooperative
property owners , which conflicts with a common-sense approach to the
problem. In addition the City could stop collecting diseased wood
from private property. However this approach would probably lead to
more hording of wood and less successful disease control . Costs for
patroling property to enforce laws against storage of diseased wood
would probably increase , providing no net gain. Other discretionary
aspects of the City program not required by law include reforestation
and provision of tree removal to low-income families .
The City has budgeted $19 ,490 for forestry in 1981 . This amount
included $17 ,490 for sanitation (diseased tree removal) and $2 ,000
for reforestation. The April budget revisions reduced the budget
by $1 ,000 to $18 ,490, reducing reforestation to $1 ,000.
Diseased Tree Removal Policy 9
Page Two
June 5, 1981
Based on a recent newsletter to tree inspectors , it appears that
the state subsidy for shade tree disease control in 1981 will be
at a 21% level . This means the state will reimburse the City up
to 217 of the cost of removing diseased trees on public or private
land (if removed underublic contract) and either 21% or $50/per
tree (whichever is less for reforestation of areas where trees
have been removed. In 1980 the subsidy was 50%. Unfortunately,
the mild winter is likely to bring a higher incidence of disease ,
just at a time the state subsidy is decreasing. The current budget
estimated revenue of $10, 500 from the State for diseased tree con-
trol and reforestation whereas now $4,410 is a more likely figure.
As explained before , most of this program is mandatory. Besides
the fact that participation is required by law, many state-grants
in-aid are dependent on participation. The Public Works Department
plans to do as much of the work as possible in-house instead of
with outside contractors to reduce costs . The only other areas for
savings would be to reduce or eliminate reforestation and low-income
subsidies for tree removal . Rather than eliminating these aspects
completely now, the decision could be delayed until more complete
information is available. Reforestation is generally undertaken
in the fall after all trees have been removed. An explanation of
the subsidy program is usually distributed with the notices requiring
tree removal , which commits the City to provide the subsidy. As an
alternative the City could provide notice that subsidies may be
provided if funds are available and act on the actual provision of
subsidies when all applications are in, costs determined and the
final determination of the state contribution has been made . The
subsidies are a variable which have not involved large sums in
the past , but have the potential to vary significantly depending
on the number of low-income families affected, and with the percent
of State assistance. It is estimated that the total subsidy cost
in 1980 was approximately $529 with approximately $265 paid by
the City. In 1979 total costs were $1189 with approximately $595
paid by the City.
Alternatives
1 . Adopt ongoing Diseased Tree Removal Policy or leave on year-to-
year basis as in past.
2 . Decide how to handle current budget problem
a. eliminate reforestation and low-income subsidies
b. delay decisions on reforestation and low-income subsidies
c. reduce or modify provisions for reforestation and low-income
subsidies
Requested Action
1 . Discuss attached Diseased Tree Policy with particular considera-
tion of a) Reforestation and b) Subsidy for low-income families.
2 . Adopt Resolution No. 1857 , A Resolution Adopting A Diseased Tree
Removal Policy.
Diseased Tree Removal Policy Cf
Page Three
June 5 , 1981
3. Delay decision on cutbacks to reforestation and subsidy program,
but provide for possible cutback of these programs later in 1981 .
JA/jms
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
DISEASED TREE REMOVAL POLICY
CONTROL AREAS
In accordance with state law, the City of Shakopee has desig-
nated the populated areas of the City as the areas where diseased
tree program will be enforced. A map is available in City Hall
designating the control areas . Basically the control area is all
of the built up area of Shakopee including all of the scattered
subdivisions .
In non-residential areas the control program will apply only
to those areas within mile of four non-farm homesteads . Final
determination of whether any area is included or not will be made
by the City Administrator if a question arises .
PUBLIC TREES
1 . The City of Shakopee will remove as quickly as possible all
diseased trees located on public property. This includes trees
located on street boulevards and in city park areas . Anyone find-
ing a tree on public property which appears to be diseased but
which has not been marked , should report the tree to the City.
2 . The City will not remove boulevard trees which are not infected
with Dutch Elm or Oak Wilt Disease. Other trees which die or need
the removal of dead branches are the responsibility of the property
owner.
PRIVATE TREES
The removal of diseased trees from private property is the
responsibility of the property owner; however the City has now
provided several methods by which the trees can be removed and
the removal paid for.
A. Private Removal
1 . A private property owner may remove a diseased tree him-
self or hire a private contractor and dispose of the tree and
branches in an appropriate manner within the allowed 20 day
period after the tree has been marked and the owner notified.
2 . A private property owner may remove a diseased tree him-
self or hire a private contractor to take the tree down and
place it along the curb (not in the street) and the City will
pick up the tree and remove it. For this service the follow-
ing requirements must be met.
a. Only trees with Dutch Elm or Oak Wilt will be picked
up by the City. Other types of trees will not be removed.
b. The Public Works Department (445-2211 ) must be notified
one day in advance to allow them to schedule the tree pick-
up on a timely basis .
f
•
-2- 7
c. Large tree pieces must be cut to 6 feet lengths or
less .
d. Branches must be piled uniformly with stems at one end.
e. Trees must be placed next to the curb, or edge of street ,
not in the street and if possible not on the sidewalk. The
City crews will not go on private property to pick up trees .
B. City Removal of Private Trees
A property owner may request the City of Shakopee to remove a
diseased tree if he wishes . To do this the property owner must
complete the appropriate forms requesting removal and waiving their
right to a public hearing for assessing purposes. These forms must
be returned to the City as soon as possible and in no case after
the 20 day removal period has elapsed. The City can remove trees
from private property only if the property is zoned residential or
used for residential purposes and only if the property is less than
5 acres .
CITY TREE REMOVAL
The City of Shakopee does not have the manpower or the equipment
to remove all of the diseased trees in Shakopee. To remove trees on
private property, the City will enter into contracts with private tree
removal` companies . The awarding of the contracts will be on a compet-
itive basis to assure the lowest possible cost to the City and the
property owners .
The private contractor will be required to have the appropriate
insurance coverage to cover himself in case of damage to private
property. The contractor will also have to demonstrate to the City
their ability to remove trees in a timely and workman-like manner
with the least possible inconvenience to the property owner.
In order to receive the state subsidy the contractors must be
hired by the City rather than the property owner. The City expects
to have several contractors working at a time and the assignment of
a contractor to a property will be solely at the discretion of the
City. The City Tree Inspector will inspect each property after the
tree has been removed to insure the quality of the work done . Pay-
ment to the contractor will not be made until the job is completed
to the satisfaction of the City Tree Inspector.
PAYMENT OF COSTS FOR CITY REMOVAL OF PRIVATE TREES
If the private property owner requests the City to remove the
trees the costs will be paid in one of the following ways .
A. Assessment
If the City removes a tree from private property the property
owner will be assessed the cost of the removal ; however, the
state subsidy program will pay a portion of this cost. There-
fore if a tree is removed the property owner will receive an
assessment on his next tax statement in the amount of the cost
of removing the tree minus the state subsidy.
-3-
The assessment will be totally assessed in one year unless
the property owner has more than four trees removed. If more
than four trees are removed the assessment may be spread over
five years .
The property owner will receive notice of a public hearing on
the proposed amount of the special assessment . This public
hearing will be in September. The property owner will have
thirty (30) days to pay the assessment in full . If not paid,
the assessment will be certified to the County Auditor and
included on the property owner' s current year Tax Statement ,
payable the following year
B. Low Income Subsidy Program
If a property owner' s annual income falls within the current
very-low income limits established by the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development for the Section 8 , Rental Assistance Program,
the cost of removing the trees will be paid by the State of Minnesota
and the City of Shakopee and there will be no cost to the property
owner.
To qualify for free tree removal the property owner must request
that the City remove the trees and must complete an application and
provide proof of their income and assets to the City. Once their
income is certified, the City and State will pay the cost of removal .
Note : Income limits established as of July 1 , 1980 are as
follows :
Number of Persons Annual Family Income
1 $ 8 ,250
2 $ 9,450
3 $10,600
4 $11 ,800
5 $12 ,750
6 $13 ,700
7 $14,650
8 $15,600
REFORESTATION
The City will , to the extent possible under the current budget ,
attempt to replace boulevard and park trees removed because of disease.
•
6/5/81
/O.
RESOLUTION NO. 1857
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A DISEASED TREE REMOVAL POLICY
WHEREAS, Minnesota State law provides for municipalities to
adopt and carry forth policies relating to the identification and
removal of diseased trees , and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Shakopee recognizes
an ongoing policy will assist in an effective and efficient response
to the mandates of the State law and City Code relating to removal
of diseased trees and provide a worthwhile community service .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SHAKOPEE that the attached Diseased Tree Removal Policy is hereby
approved and adopted and City officials are hereby directed to follow
said policy in the provision of diseased tree control .
Adopted in adjourned regular session of the City Council of the
City of Shakopee , Minnesota held this day of June , 1981 .
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of June, 1981 .
City Attorney
J1
drimi Hennepin County Park Reserve District
3800 County Road 24 • Maple Plain, Minnesota 55359 • Telephone 612-473-4693
P
RECEIVED
PARK RESERVES
BAKER
CARVER JUN 3 1981
CROW-HASSAN
ELM CREEK
HYLAND LAKE CITY OF sHAKOPEE
LAKE REBECCA
MURPHY-HANAEHAN•
REGIONAL PARKS
CLEARY LAKE-
COONRAPIDSDAM June 2, 1981
EAGLE LAKE
FISH LAKE
JAMES W.WILKIE•
MEDICINE LAKE
SPRINGLAKE• Mr. John Anderson, Administrator
SPECIAL USE AREAS City of Shakopee
BAKER PARK GOLF COURSE 129 E First Avenue
CLEARY LAKE GOLF COURSE' Shakopee, MN 55379
HYLAND HILLS SKI AREA
NOERENBERG MEMORIAL
Dear Mr. Anderson:
TRAIL CORRIDORS
NORTH HENNEPIN TRAIL Enclosed is the proposed Development Concept Plan for Spring
OTHER PARKS Lake Regional Park. A public hearing has been scheduled by the
WAWATASSOISLAND Scott County Board of Commissioners on June 16, 1981 ( 1 1 :00 a.m. ,
WILD GOOSE CHASE ISLAND Scott County Courthouse) .
'SCOTT-HENNEPIN
PARK AUTHORITY
If you have any questions regarding the plan, please give me a
call at 447-2171 .
Sincerely,
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS ru %; k-
DONALD C.RINGHAM
CHAIRMAN Gregl///y(,!
y"A. Mack
MINNEAPOLIS
WILLIAM BARBEAU Division Manager
VICE CHAIRMAN
ST LOUIS PARK GAM:s k
JUDITH S.ANDERSON
BLOOMINGTON
SHIRLEY A.BONINE enc.
MAPLE PLAIN
PHYLLIS CRIMMINS
MINNEAPOLIS
AMELIA M.DeMUSE
MINNEAPOLIS
WILLIAM E.GENTRY
NEW HOPE
JOHN D.HANNAH
ORONO
CHARLES R.PIHL
ORONO
RAYMOND N.SEAGREN
MINNEAPOLIS
ANNE-MARIE SOLENSKY
MINNEAPOLIS
CLIFTON E.FRENCH
SUPERINTENDENT&
SECRETARY TO THE BOARD
Main Office 571 6066
ank‘
UBURBAN 6875 Highway No. 65 N. E.
NOINEERING Minneapolis, Minnesota 55432
INC.
,;„0
a South Office 890-6510
Civil, Municipal & Environmental Engineering 1101 Cliff Road
Land Surveying • Land Planning • Soil Testing Burnsville, Minnesota 55337
1-1
June 9,1981
File # 578085
Honorable Mayor & City Council
City of Shakopee
129 1st Ave. East
Shakopee, MN 55379
Attn: Mr. John K. Anderson, City Administrator
Re: T.H. 101 Trunk Watermain-Project 80-11
Dear Mr. Anderson:
Enclosed are 6 copies of Change Order No. 1 , for the above referenced project.
The change has been requested by the Contractor because of unforseen conditions
as described in Article 5 of the Contract General Specifications. An existing
high pressure gas main had been indicated by the Gas Company to be located 15-18
feet from the edge of the right of way. When actually field located it was found
to vary from 5-18 feet from the right of way. Due to this variation in some areas
it is in direct conflict with the proposed watermain.
We have reviewed the matter with the Contractor and with Mr. McKennon from MnDOT
and it is our recommendation that the location of the watermain be changed to
avoid the conflict as shown on the attached drawing. We feel the claim for extra
compensation is reasonable and justifiable as to amount and need.
We therefore recommend the City Council approve the Change Order as prepared.
Respectfully ubm'ttted, )
l
William E. Price, P.E.
SUBURBAN ENGINEERING, INC.
cc: Lou VanHout, Shakopee Public Utilities Commission
WEP/lh
enc
Robert Minder, Reg. Eng. E.A. Rathbun, Reg. Surv. Wm. E. Price, Reg. Eng. Gary R. Harris, Reg. Suru. Peter J. Molinaro, Reg. Eng.
Wm. E. Jensen, Reg. Eng. William J. Brezinsky, Reg. Eng. H. William Rogers, Reg. Surv. Bruce A Paterson, Reg. Eng. Daniel P. Johnson, Reg. Eng.
Kim W. Waldof, Reg. Eng.
:;:.:::i!!;:'''''.:1'''.'i''':11:i!'::!.' :':::&:::..:
201 TRAVELERS TRAIL
..,.;:M.,.::,.....:ii:: ::::,.....:: :::-.. . Sanitary Sewer BURNSVILLE, MINNESOTA 55337
Water Main
TELEPHONE:ONE•
mmmownan $ ormSs Q
89088 11
t
w �r
':'''''Cl' ..
r in
+a a
d
9
:::mo�ww'' a. r'< -
# .:.#.:.;::: ;:;.;:::>. Municipal
& P 'n
vesi000$11.N: te
Work
June 8 , 1981
Suburban Engineering, Inc.
1101 Cliff Road
Burnsville, MN 55337
ATTN: Dan Johnson
RE: Watermain Project #80-11
Shakopee, Minnesota
Dear Sir:
At this time we would request a change order on the above
referenced project that would allow us to move the 12" water-
main in order to avoid direct conflict with the existing 8"
steel hi-pressure gas main.
Re-aligning the watermain approximately 5-8 ' North from
Station 5+50 to 8+00 would avoid reconstruction of the gas
main saving much expense and loss time on the project.
Moving said line this distance North would necessitate
restoration of portions of the existing frontage road. There
is not a pay item in our contract to cover work of this kind
so we submit the following for your acceptance:
Labor and material to remove and replace existing service
road for approximately 250 ' at the location in front of the
North Star Auto Auction.
Total Lump Sum Price of Change Order $4, 500 . OQ
We hope this request for a change order is acceptable to
you and if you have any question, please feel free to call.
Thank you.
Respectfully submitted,
F,r..
D Cei., f 1�; • dr14 Richard Knutson, Inc.
il
77---Aft--•-•21- /;÷------,
JSP! P91
Thomas J. Ryan
ZUGURBAN
!O NEERJMO
>4 8 I co.
i== r I a w ~ o
W3DE
r
CC O nW Ir tV NiL21- a, Cr 03 _ Q M W — — O
W . a in � �� Il 1M
W W O u g w i!1 N M a.
dZ4J1.. Ve w .�0. x U Q
J 3—ia Hix a• l9 d o0
OtDts7� D •; T
Dor<G� i N =
NuOu
is.i L.L. U- 3 iniA •9
Z
o I °- ac
1 2 a OC 7
o z " Q d
I
mi N
H- w c• l > , I w ,
I ,' ;
1&/ I I D 1 1-
(i'S t+Il N r- a I ' 0 CO
U) m
�ow o
3 6 > a
I:11 . wo w
tL' J
O elle
+ w = >-
w ' n N
= O
-
E-= d O 2 1103 `°
cD .. to x • J
W •—I I Z J , I 70 2 N = N
-� Q - pC
4 = 0 I q h
IX I J IJ - j DZQ w
4
a. I z0 D� II u40 . i
z` z m > o o Ifs O
_O wpm d 1 - `7 -
17. 10 > Xw •• ;�� 7
hgA � w ( ® 1 z �i . 5
J
� N ; 3
I al
z = QX ' � w
u
a in
W N •• W
0 4141.
33 ��
• +
Q > Q I
1 �
4 0 1
Xin1
o
w co 1-- I IL,
IP 1 . •
.....____ .•
J . II I I--Wa.
aN w 1 e M
� I I .-1 a
0 4 z
Fw
- H Si 0 Ivy
> -1 2
01
Z ' -4 Cc 03 U o
Lr w 0> I + F- O = o
F'' (a I 0 i ' t0 3 ■ 1n
Cr 1 . t0 N
U1
z N » I . '` Q _ N
� � I ~ N -- i N (0
Z m .1' o
m
3H- II a. nw N w Q
N.6.--4-4 a =
L---t----------;--k-ivgo--,§1 --
o; O I
WI • ...iof
c�
1.1
z d
Q 0 LC
W a—
' 3
0 9 7.0
,._. ....... cr , c,
= CD.
0
_i Ow u_Cc D LI i m
F-' W ,'Z I L 2
4`
® ._IL D ' NN 1...:
Q 3 ` '
41 0
c� - LL . '-; Z m 4
Q ' W , m �W
= h''
tic
z � I Ay cr �� 0 .,‹
au214-o„F-• 3 1” & 7 Z
WOJJW~ 1etiii i. OZt :I' O
V
m3WJa Z a� I J 7 0 7 �"
W �� = Ili
in W"' I7 � Q J r
o3Noo 0 ��/ r'i • w! 0 Q o ,
mA
WZNV C t� GD` V Q �f W �/
JW7, O Q- 3 a. a �zcr
ao "' WHW /
ii) ..s* I � o`-^ � /
r'---�3Ja ,dao n WO
OOMQO } /
•Z .,k I :Ji: fr. „„! ("1 irlar, 1 se .
p
I
a' �JG 2�\\ 11:6>: 04:j.
„��• E- x o u.
V ��� \I \ N N = J Z
N Z \ \ rn a 0 Q
m +'4.. "• N 0
� 4:N ' pO
D Q $ 1 \\ \ �\ NCC LL,J
U_ H'..N ,.
N
11(9\ \ -A)
\\ : o \ F