HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/11/1984 TENTATIVE AGENDA
Shakopee City Council
First_ National Rank Community Room
Adj .Reg . Session 23 : 00 P.M. September 11 , 1984
Mayor Reinke presiding
i . Roll Call at 8 : 00 P .M.
2 . Recognition by City Counc. tl_ of Interested Citizens
3 . Downtown Revitalization Project
4 . Other Business
a . Request by Prahm/Coll to extend the September 14, 1984
deadline on resolving drainage requirements i0 days for
discussion at September 18 , 1984 Council meeting
b . Hi-Risc Equipment
5 . Adjourn to Tuesday , September 18 , 1984 at 7 : 00 p .m.
John K. Anderson
City Administrator
I
i
i
i
Ii
I
TO : John K. Anderson , City Administrator
FROM : Jeanne Andre , Community Development Director
RE : Downtown Plan
DATE : September 7 , 1984
intIrpoAdunslion
cli—o .*
The Downtown Committee has approved the Downtown Revitalization
Final Report and Addendum No . 1 , and forwarded it to the Industrial
Commercial Commission ( ICC ) , Planning Commission and the City
Council for review . Action on the Plan by the City Council
is now requested .
BackgEound :
The Industrial. Commercial Commission and the Planning- Commission
have reacted positively to the Plan with requests for some additional.
work, to improve and strengthen certain components . The Council
has heard public opinion through informal discussion and comments
made at the public meetings held by the City Council and the
Downtown Committee . A question and answer, sheet was prepared
to address the most common questions and concerns .
1 have enclosed memos of July 13 , -i984 , which detail the
discussion and actions of the ICC and Planning Commission
However I will review here the major concerns raised by these
commissions .
1 . The ! CC recommends further, consideration be given
the mini-by-pass intersection at Sommerville/Spencer
as a point of arrival .
Rem s2ons
e
Ken Anderson ' s geometrics study of the mini-by-pass
has clarified this intersection . The approach to
the intersection will be at a rising elevation , above
the land to the south . Therefore I think the ICUs
concern has been addressed . As long as no tall landscaping
is placed in the island created south of Sommerville
and TH 101 , incoming traffic will easily view the
shopping opportunities which exist on First Avenue .
2 . a . The ICC recommends further study to adopt either a
PUD concept for the Downtown Redevelopment District
and/or a design standards ordinance for the Downtown
Redevelopment District to insure a development theme .
2 . b . The Planning Commission requests the resolution of
zoning and land use issues and incorporation by ordinance
of the requested signage and design criteria .
Relpanse
A number of options exist to deal with the zoning
discrepancies and application of the design and sign
criteria . If the plan is adopted the planning staff
will come forth with options to resolve the zoning
issues and will work, to codify the design and sign
criteria .
Allorwatlyes
—
,j te y e--- :
i . Adopt Downtown Revitalization Final Report and Addendum
Number 1 as presented by the Downtown Committee and
direct staff to follow-up on concerns identified by
the ICC and Planning Commisssion and wort: to identify
projects for implementation .
2 . Adopt Downtown Revitalization Final Report and Addendum
Number 1 as presented by the Downtown Committee and
direct staff to follow up on new concerns raised by
the City Council as well as the ICC and Planning Commission
before identifying projects for implementation .
3 . Request staff to further research certain elements
of the plan and report back to the City Council before
formal action by the Council on the plan .
4 . Adopt the plan with substantive changes .
5 . Don ' t adopt the plan .
InnMalleA AgOon ,
apqjLesL d A c
Adopt the Downtown Revitalization Final Report as presented
by Westwood Planning and Engineering on July 12 , 1984 , and Addendum
Number 1 , dated July 3 , 1984 , as presented by the Downtown Committee ,
directing the staff to work with the Planning Commission to
resolve potential zoning conflicts and develop ordinances to
incorporate the requested sign and design criteria , and further
direct staff and the Downtown Committee to identify projects
to implement the plan .
3
MEMO TO : John K. Anderson, City Admin.
FROM: Jeanne Andre , Community Development Director
RE : -Downtown Revitalization Report
DATE : July 13 , 1984
INTRODUCTION
The Downtown Committee Report was considered by the Planning
Commission at its July 12 , 1984 meeting . The memo is to summarize
their action at that meeting.
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission received the attached staff report
to assist in Choir discussion. The issue was handled very late
on the Agenda and not a lot of discussion took place . However,
the Planning Commission was basically supportive of the report
with the desire to spend more time on the points raised in the
following motion which was adopted unanimously :
Khmitr/Rockne moved that the Planning Commission make
a favorable recommendation to City Council- on the
Downtown Revitalization Report subject to the resolution
of zoning and land use issues and that both design cri--
teria in the development district and signage for develop-
ment district he incorporated into in ordinnnce .
jA/bn
Att .
3
TO: S!wkupee Planniny Coxmi . M'.
F!"O"I: judi Simac, City plann' r
RE: Downtown Revs teal izati "N Final Nwj ,; �
DATE: July 5 , 19H4
The Shakopee DownEown Commi_u"- has rucenily rQjease,d
their final report on tho Downtown TO
report consists of two sections : H Thn analysi ! the
existing downtown care area and 2 ) The Ill pl"m-knorion plan
which describes the process of At the MY l2th
meeting the Planning Commission will VQ asked Lo cumment on the
final report and make a to the city Councli .
-Backqroun-d :
Thoru arc ! hrcu ma jut pinup , din " _d within the
r-:"rt Th-I nru 1 ) Ynnini on" � i "" - 1- z ) k ; oinenr Design
a.
The � Xint i IW4 UI11 ilii n I. t h Ln - 4 WK ? Kul Ad , arca
inclunc5 n0V_ K�I : an! Aa , in- rdiurHy ! �, down-
tCWA & SLA �: Kos with : n the B- ; w� juh pniyit � i��n such
as retail sh-In , OfFic-A ,
wiz" a Conli ! i W Uq- Prinit . p , ( nor movion of the
dow"town n; nj is p.3 %vilich jqjt�aj AcqK : ky : -KWynnial and
nct retail oi professional ofFicon . ( See atvauhn-o of existing
The o:ShVXjy9Jand uscs in t5 CHD inc.lude financial , retail,
office , and auto rnMnd .
On Folon"ry 7 , JqH4 th� ciLy cowN& I approv"d a land concept
plan ( alternativo plan H- 1 revisod ) wjvn thr roanmmendation of
the ICC and Planning Commission . Th" concept ph"n illustrates;
areas for pub 5c land , Mail cor. , W& Autiona ! And housing
development . in some inqtances , tv- lociVinn ni the proposed
land use, cortlicts with the exintiNo zoning . Yor example , an
area proposod for housinq hotwecn Spnrt and Fu l ('1 Areets is
partially zoned B- 1 .
The report recommends the use of the Planned Unit DeV010V
meet Section QX . D. ) for oevelop&ont W thp i "sidential and
copmercial or-as in th- kind Use pl -n . Tho P . H . D. guidelinns
require a cnWilhonal usp perm!L for approval oF " P, U, D.
Accordinaly this procedure would -i do foinklic hear in�.I
MOW the vl •'wninq ComniKsi "r , TO " ! qqcvA0r- will cause a
c(,)nflict whpn i1 "Land Uso Plin " llnq parcel a1',7�
W)v COMPM 11
As an alternative to this sitEmit ion , staff rorommends
that either 1 ) a new zoning distrin is created For the
downtown aroa. or 2 ) An overlay zoo- is dasknud for the
downtown area to bring some confoin., ty hetwe"n tho oxisqng
zoning a6d thy, land use plan .
Should the Planning Commission pruier a now xoning
distrKct to the KUM. concept , the Commission way want to
direct staff to further research ponKihltv shandarcis for such
a zoning district .
DevolopjjTat,P2siqn Review:
The report recommends that a Cies itin tong oNrl standards
he established to guide future development in the downtown .
As stated , all final dens iqn will he subiecr to review and
approval Ny the City of Shakopee so that co-nrdination among
various land use sections can be maintained , D"sisin elements
to he reviewed include : liqhtinq , plant PoLorlol , huildinq
exterior trQalntints , signs , and p-&, Finn nwnpi , lci .
! I K ! . �& armlllud lint tho M�nlrvin Onn� ! ; ; ,— W i I t
develop-
Rnnr nnnU in nw! a in a it t (Un I I I., I pra Lt . 0 , Q(
devalopor ndv move to wikii ( n ) . lwk� tu ywL an
approval of ME plans . An nivernaviv" mom up a pint meeting
W the Plane iIli, Commission nnd fowni "wr Qvi," 00" ittop to slood
up the 1rocosq or Cho kwnt (mn 0MU1 11 (W updir : U- ir review
Function to tkc plannivin UuAyisKica .
Sims :
--- . -
The report provides spuciFic quideliens wr signs within
the Downtown area which :jo not correspond with current code
provisions . Lt suggests that the Downtown Review committee
reviews all sign treatments for compliance .
Since thu issuance of the final report the Downtown Com-
mitt(:e has adopted a motion requesting a ) that the design
recommendations ior signs , to the ext:nNL possiblo , W incur-
porated into til-, city ' s sign card inancn, h ) that UP City
Starr be Lhe review authority wLth app-als to On Downtown
Design Reviuw CommiLtoo and A all sLqns K thn downtown area
be n1jo to comorm to the ordinanve wiMn five Yt -rs -
Again a conilict. of I you wild ; Design
Review-commitoop vs , Board of Adjustmert and Afluals an sign
enforcement and variance" . staVI AdminisCration of tho code
j,,IjEjod by thn dusiqnaLion of a Down-
provisions could he
town zoning district .
In it shupl ,1 be roni that Nllkn�qh A seperate
Downtown commitnow has worked very hard for a 10:. 1 PGriod of
time Lo cn>2 qP with a land u: " PION aAd dev"M" Wde ''ne'
for the dawKWIn area , No j,wntc,wn p,dcvojopu , ` is a key
aspect in the overall plannimq and growth W vh- city of Shakopee .
Y +
d
Action Requested:
Discuss the flC)wntolii; 1?C 'v 1.t: t 1 i.;?<ti: : Ciil I'1 ii,717. 1-i-I Ort i1S l.t
relates to planning issuOS 111d ;
1 . Confirm that the f�i-na]_ r('f)of-t_ Presaflts we11.
planned approach to dowrntov n revitalization , and ;
2 . To comment as to hour ttlr' 1 ^k:ort r(:!camIU,I- lr:,t ions can
be integrated with ex.ist-i.n(a p1. .3nn.i nc; .fnd zoning pro-
vlsio11:3 and 1 oCr(IuLC''s
a w
+
' r I
jf A5i I
I i
Ln
TI
Er
Val
{
,
,
I
I
�,...res.n..�..,. �...P�,I �..w..� .,.-awr1. � � ..•.,e,s.r�4..,•....-«„-w•.. PY•':�6'�V�`#`"�TiL _
_^'"s.�r".� I ( i j i g { I i i I ; I�� f -fCy i ; I � I • . '
I ,
-•-" I ': ; I I I � i i i i +�_ r�'air i i
{
'61, k k !
i
I 1
,
+ 1
, I
,
!
, ; II i� li ' � , { f it � . •`
, i
:V
{
TO: Industrial/Commerical Commission ( ICC)
FROM: Jeanne Andre, Community Development Director
RE: Downtown Revitalization - Final. Renort:.
DATE: July 5 , 198.4
Introduction:
The Downtown Committee ' s € Downt"own Revitalization - Final
Report" was provided to the ICC prior to the public meeting on
that report held June 26 , 1904 . The !CC was tentatively set
to review this report at its July 11, 1984 , meetin•a . This memo
is to focus ICC discussion on those issuns which might he the
most controversial or most pertinenk to the In.
Backx ound :
The revitalization study ( first_ part of report , Sections
I-V) serves to define the downtown , strengths a"d weaknesses ,
which is to be redeveloped . It is hoped that this information
will be valuable to City policy makers in other arUavors , but
the use .in this report is to document the backgrc-,und information
which led the Downtown Committee to mach the props sed solutions .
Comments from the ICC on this informs tion, particularly its ac--
curacy and completeness , would he t.isuft:_l . However more valuable
is the determination that the solutions in the rmplcmentation
portion of: the report are rea sonahle responses to the given set
of circumstances .
The following are issues raisod by the impiamentation portion-
of the report which the ICC wa'y' Wish to reviQw :
i
1 . Can the downtown reasonably absorb the adUt.iona.l
development proposed under the economd c C. avelopment
objectives on Mayes 57 and 58?
2 . Does the ICC support the piklic assistance mechanisms
outlined under financial feasihllizty ohjnct:ives on
pages 58 and 59?
3 . Does the ICC support the construction Cat a mini-by-pass
downtown and vacation of streets as noted .in the plan
packs 59-61 ) ?
4 . Does thr. ICC support developnent thro€ qht. Planned Unit
I:,evelopment (PUD ) in the downtown? (par)n. 63-64 )
5 . Does the !CC support the institution of design standards
3 downtown, objective's on payee; 62 - 63 and standards out:'_
lined in Section I , beginning on page
6 . Does the ICC support a 25spec.ial as osgNunt to benefited
property owners to help finance propos"" puhl-ic improvements?
( pages 76 and addendum No. 1 ) �
7 . Does the ICC support the concept of a Downtown
Development Corporation that would take on functions
similar to shopping center managoment? (Page 77)
8 . Does the ICC consider th(--- expenditures and revenue
sources reasonal,)Ie and prudent? (pa9(-L-- 831-85 )
9 . Does the ICC support the requirement that all, downtown
properties bring their signs into cont-orrnance within
five years of ii-,iplement<ition of new sign provisions?
(Addendum No. 1 )
These questions are- me-ant to prnriiote discussion, but ICC
members should feel free to introduce thei.r owl-i questions and
concerns and focus the discussion on those issues of greatest
concern to the Commissioners .
Requested Action:
Review the report and make a recomiTionclation to the City
Coui,ci 1 . Alternatives are :
1 ) Accept the report (and addendum No. I- ) as presented
by the Downtown Committee and recommend its approval
by the City Council.
2 ) Accept the report (and addendum No. 1. ) as modified
by the ICC, and recommend approval of the report by
the City Council with modifications sug(4ested by the
ICC.
3 ) Recommend that the City Council. not accept the report
or refer it back to the, 'Dowzitown Corn!nittce for further
study and revision.
�r
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Admin .
FROM: Jeanne Andre , Community Development Director
RE : Industrial Commercial Commission Recommendation
on Downtown Revitalization Report .
DATE: July 13 , 1984
INTRODUCTION
The Downtown Committee has spearheaded the development of
the Downtown Revitalization Report which has recently been cir-
culated to the City Council , Planning Commission and the Indus-
trial. Commercial Commission ( ICC ) for review. This memo is to
convey the action on this report by the Industrial Commercial
Commission at its July 11 , 1984, meeting.
BACKGROUND
The ICC received copies of the report and addendum in advance
and the enclosed memo dated July 5th to create a focus for the
discussion. Downtown Committee Chairman Cary Laurent and City
staff were available to answer questions . Al Furrrie , Jim O' Neill ,
Gary Eastland , Jane DuBois , Jake Manahan and laud Berens ( liaison)
attended from the ICC. Karen Lebens was in the audience and
raised certain concerns she has regarding the plan. After much
discussion, the following motion was adopted unanimously :
Eastland./Manahan move to accept the Downtown Revitalization
Plan and Addendum as presented , with the recommendation that
more consideration be given to issue numbers 3 , 4 and 5 of
the July 5 . 1984,. memorandum to the ICC from the Community
Development Director_ as follows : ( See for recommendation) .
31 Does the ICC support the construction of a mini-
by-pass downtown and vacation of streets as noted
in the plan (pages 59-61 ) ?
ICC recommends further consideration should be given
to the mini-by-pass intersection at Sommerville/
Spenser area as a point of arrival .
41 Does the ICC support development through Planned Unit
Development ( PUD) in the downtown? ( Pages 63-64) .
51 Does the ICC support the institution of design stan-
dards downtown, objectives on pages 62-63 and stan-
dards outlined in Section I , beginning on page 68?
}
Industrial Commercial Commission Recommendation
on Downtown Revitalization Report .
Page 2
July 13 , 1,984
a The ICC recommends further study to adopt either
a PUD concept for the Downtown Redevelopment
District and/or a design standards ordinance for
the Downtown Redevelopment District to insure a
development theme .
JA/hn
Enc .
C/
MENK) TO : John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Jeanne Andre , Community Development Director
RE : - Downtown Revitalization Report
DATE : July 13 , 1984
;11
INTRODUCTION
The Downtown Committee has submitted its Downtown Revitali-
zation Report to the City Council for approval . Attached are
comments from the Planning Commission, Industrial Commercial
Commission and the minutes of the Downtown Committee ' s public
meeting on June 26 , 1984 , for Council review prior to taking
action. The Council must determine the additional information
it needs and scheduling in considering this report .
BACKGROUND
The Downtown Revitalization Report has been distributed to
the following individuals , groups , or agencies :
1] City Council
2 ] Planning Commission
31 Industrial Commercial Commission
41 Chamber of Commerce Representative
5 ] News Media (newspaper and radio )
6 ] Shakopee Development Corporation
71 Financial Institutions (4)
81 Shakopee Public Utilities
91 Library
The Downtown Committee held a public meeting on June 26th
for which more than 150 letters of notification were sent to
downtown property owners and businessmen. More than 50 persons
attended the meeting, the minutes (unapproved) of which are
attached .
.The Industrial Commercial Commission reviewed the report at
its July 11 , 1984 , -meeting. A memo summarizing their action is
attached . The Planning Commission reviewed the report at its
July 12 , 1984, meeting. A memo summarizing their action is
attached .
The Council requested a second public meeting be set to
review the report findings . This meeting has been set for Tuesday ,
July 31 , 1984 , at 7 : 00 p .m. in the First National Bank Community
Downtown Revitalization Report
Page 2
July 13 , 1984
znonn. A large front page article on this meeting appeared in the
Shakopee Vallev News on July lI , 1984, The attached tetter will
out to downtown property owners and businesses on Tuesday,
July 17th , to notify them of their meeting.
Council has had the benefit of reviewing the report itself
and reviewing sLa[f reports for and recommendations from two of
its Commissions . On July 31st , the Council will have the benefit
of public comments .
RE
�
The Council should determine if it would like further staff
definition o[ the major policy issues addressed in the report or '
further information or formal presentations from the Downtown
Committee . The Council should also determine when it needs all
information to be assembled for Council to take its formal action
on this report .
JA /hn
AM
-
'Aa. and AZI. _'F-o -'. ,:�-,Vc!oovsTn "
298 'W. lit ogve.
fnn. 55379 `s7 1�'e
l
/31yt-,
r __ I
I I N
,vimAll
IIIL�, tiL
/d o �
t ^-
` a
G S"r.
AUG 17 1984
MEMO TO: City Council
FROM: LeRoy Houser, Building Official
RE: Hi-Rise Equipment
DATE: August 16 , 1984
Introduction:
We need a commercial electric mixer for the Hi-Rise kitchen.
Background:
Due to the lack of a commercial electric mixer , the cooks at
the Hi-Rise have to mix large quantities of meat and food in
small portions by hand. This is not sanitary or efficient .
I have priced 20 quart mixers and they are ab(--,ut $2 ,000 new.
I can get a 20 quart used mixer like new for $1 ,200 .
Action Requested:
Authorize the purchase of a used mixer for $1 ,200.00 from General
Fund Contingencies .
LH: cah