HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/18/1985 TENTATIVE AGENDA
ADJ.REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA DECEMBER 18, 1985
-- WEDNESDAY --
Mayor Reinke presiding
11 Roll Call at 7:30 P.M.
21 7 :30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - Appeal by Melvin P. and Dolores M. Lebens and Daniel J.
and Karen M. Lebens of Planning Commission approval of
a conditional use permit to construct 44 units of
multi-family housing for senior citizens upon property
located on Lots 4,5,6,7,8 and the east 38 feet of Lot 9,
Block 32, Shakopee City (between 2nd and 3rd and West
of Fuller St.)
31 Other Business:
a]
b]
c]
4] Adjourn to Monday, December 23, 1985 at 6:00 P.M.
John K. Anderson
City Administrator
MEMO TO: John R. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judi Simac , City Planner
RE: Appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 439
DATE: December 13 , 1985
Introduction:
At their December 5 , 1985 meeting the Planning Commission
approved a motion to adopt Conditional Use Permit Resolution
No. 439 , which allows the Housing Alliance , Inc. to construct
44 units of multi-family housing for seniors on lots 4, 53 6 ,
7 , 8 and the east 38 feet of lot 9 , block 32, subject to the
following conditions :
1 . Vacation of the portion of the alley which lies beneath
the structure, prior to issuance of a building permit.
2. If required, relocation of any utility easements located
in the existing alley.
3. Approval of the building plans by the Building Official
and the Fire Chief.
4. Any changes to the landscape or site plan to be submitted
for review by the Planning Commission.
Background:
The granting of the Conditional Use Permit has been appealed by
Melvin P. , Dolores M. , Daniel J. and Karen M. Lebens , thus a
public hearing has been set for 7 : 30 p.m. on December 18, 1985.
In addition to approving the Conditional Use Permit Resolution,
the Planning Commission also approved a motion to request the
City Council to take steps to indemnify the adjoining property
owners within Block 32 from the tax impact of the sale of lots
4, 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 and the east 38 feet of lot 9 only, within Block 32.
(Note: the motion had referred to the property as lots 1-5 ,
B 32 , however the previously listed lots are the correct
description of the property the Housing Alliance, Inc. is
proposing .to develop) . .
Attached for your information are the minutes of the December
2nd and December 5th meeting of the Planning Commission, a copy
of the staff report prepared for the Planning Commission, and a
proposed resolution for Council consideration.
Action Requested:
Offer Conditional Use Permit Resolution of the- City Council No.
CC-439 , and move for its adoption.
JS: cah
Attachments
RESOLUTION NO. CC-439
A Resolution Approving An Application For Conditional
Use Permit by the Housing Alliance, Inc. to
construct 44 units of multi-family housing
for seniors .
Whereas , The Housing Alliance , Inc . has applied for a
conditional use permit to construct 44 units of multi-family
housing for seniors on lots 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 and the east 38 feet
of lot 9 . Block 32 , City of Shakopee , Minnesota ; and
Whereas , said application received public hearing before
the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee on December 2 ,
1985 ; and
Whereas , the Planning Commission did on December 5 , 1985 vote
to approve the application for conditional use permit ; and
Whereas , the Shakopee City Council on December 18 , 1985 held
a public hearing on the appeal from the decision of the Planning
Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Shakopee, Minnesota, that upon hearing the advice and
recommendations of the Shakopee Planning Commission and con-
sidering the suggestions and objections raised by the affected
property owners , within a radius of 350 feet thereof, in public
hearings duly held by the Shakopee Planning Commission and the
Shakopee City Council , that the aforementioned Conditional Use
Permit be and is hereby approved pursuant to the following
conditions :
1 . Vacation of the portion of the alley which lies beneath
the structure, prior to issuance of a building permit.
2. If required, relocation of any utility easements located
in the existing alley.
3. Approval of the building plans by the Building Official
and the Fire Chief.
4. Any changes to the landscape or site plan to be sub-
mitted for review by the Planning Commission.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to Shakopee City Code, `
Sec. 11 . 04, Subd. 6C-12, if an approved Conditional Use Permit is
not utilized within one year from date herein approved or by
December 18, 1986 it shall be null and void.
v .
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City
of Shakopee , Minnesota Meld this day of 1985 .
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this day
City Attorney
I�
�I
I
I Ei;O TO: S:�akopee Plar.nr-a Cc=J ss�cn
�ROTM : Judo Semac , Cry,' Planner
emoer 2 198.5
IC'?;'r : T.,eance , enc .
LOCA^ION. Lots 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 and E. 38 ft. of Lot 9 ,
7-lock 32 , Shakopee
_-ONING: _D-3 Central Business
`,ti!:D USE. Existing Tavern and Vacant ( 1. 03 acres )
r.PPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Section 11. 31 , Subd. 3E
NDINGS REQUIRED: Section 11. 04 , Subd. 6 , A
PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit
to construct 44 units of multi -family housing for
seniors in the B-3 zoning district. The project name
is Depot Place Apartments.
SURROUNDING LAND USES: North - Public Parking Lot
East - Residential (non-conforming)
South - Residential
West - Commercial and residential
PUBLIC UTILITIES: Sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water available.
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The proposed project is a redevelopment effort within the
Downtown ' Redevelopment District. On February 7 , 1984 the
City Council approved a Redevelopment Land Use Plan for
the downtown which proposes housing for Block 32 , the site
for Depot Place Apartments. The redevelopment requires
the demolition of Jack' s Bar.
The project consists of 44 units of market rate housing
for housing for seniors. A service/care program is being
structured for the project with St. Francis Regional Hospital
to provide immediate and long range care and management
needs of the residents 55 years and older. The project
also includes 5000 sq. ft. of ground floor retail area
for a restaurant and beauty shop, which will be open to
the public. Should the commercial use not be approved
by Council ( redevelopment financing conditions ) , the applicant
will construct eight additional rental units.
2. The structure will include 26 one bedroom uits at 625 sq. ft.
and 18 two bedroom units at 800 sq. ft. , there will be
3 floors with total building height at 44 feet. The structure
will have a gabled roof , an exterior of lapped aluminum
siding and a porch along the entire east side and a portion
of the west side (north end along restaurant) . The archi-
tectural theme is victorian and there will be no units
in the roof .
3. There will be pedestrian access to the structure at street
level. Parking will be provided below grade at one space
per unit ( 44 spaces) . The ordinance does not require any
off-street parking in the B-3 District, however, upon staff
recommendation, the developer has provided the parking
spaces. The parking level also includes storage area for
the Cons_tonal Use Permit
based upon the following timings .
T; e oondit onaI use will not be _njm
ur�ous to the enjovent
. and use of propert-' :.n the immediate vi _nity for the purposes
already permitted ( commercial and residential } , nor substan-
tially diminish and impar property values within the immediate
vicinity.
2 . The conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly
development and improvement of vacant property in the area.
The proposed project is in conformance with the existing
B-3 District, the Redevelopment Land Use Plan for Downtown
and the Comprehensive Plan.
3 . Adequate utilities, access , and drainage are provided for
the project.
4 . Adequate off-street parking, loading area and pedestrian
access is being provided for the project.
5 . Outdoor lighting of parking area and sidewalks will be
provided for safety and in a manner not offensive to neighboring
properties.
6 . The use (housing for seniors ) is reasonably related to
the overall needs of the City.
7 . The use will not create traffic hazards or congestion.
8. Existing businesses nearby will not be adversely affected
because of curtailment of customer trate brought on by
the project. In fact, the proposed use will increase business
for the local retailers, as they will be within walking
distance for the tenants.
Action Requested:
Offer Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 439 and move
for its adoption subject to the following conditions:
1. Vacation of the portion of the alley which lies beneath
the structure, prior to issuance of a building permit.
2. If required, relocation of any utility easements located
in the existing alley.
3 . Approval of the Building Plans by the Building Official
and the Fire Chief.
the tenants , enclosed trash storage area and mechanical
area.
Assess to the underground parking w� l_ be ....rcu ch the e::istina
16 foot alley, from Atwood Street. `File portion of the
alley under the building must be vacated prior to bui"king.
Access Will also be available through the propose: public
parking lot , northwest cf the structure . The applicant
is requesting the City to construct the parking lot in
conjunction with the redevelopment plans. The parking
lot would serve patrons of the restaurant and visitors,
26 spaces are provided.
The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed alley access
and recommends approval. Due to existing slopes and site
distance this access is preferred rather than grade access
at the southeast corner of the block.
4. The B-3 District does not have any density requirements.
Setback requirements of the B-3 do not apply to the .project
for the reason that.,the north, east and south side is considered
front yard (corner lots) and the west lot line does not
abut a residential district.
5 . The site shall be landscaped in accordance with the submitted
plan. An outdoor patio area will be screened with shrubs
and trees, as well as the outdoor mechanical equipment.
Garden plots will be provided for the tenants.
Two parking lot lights will be installed. Low intensity
pedestrian lights will be installed at entrances and along
the sidewalk.
6. The entire structure will be served with an internal sprinkler
system. The Building official has reviewed the project
and will require submittal of plans for approval.
The Fire Chief recommends approval subject to final review
of the mechanical plans and the submittal of an 8 1/2 x
11 in. print of each floor and site for the Fire Preplan
Book.
7 . The City Engineer has indicated that the storm water which
collects at the base of the ramp must be disposed to existing
storm sewer. A pump may be required if gravity flow is
inadequate. The curb and gutter, street reconstruction
and traffic control measures on Fuller Street Ave. to be
completed in conjunction with the Downtown improvements.
The design on Fuller will be _dependent upon the bridge
and connector street alignments.
The applicant has retained a traffic engineer who is preparing
an analysis which determines that no downtown traffic schemes
are affected by the project.
4 . Payment of park dedication fee prior to issuance of Building
permit.
5 . Any changes to landscape or site plan to be submitted for
review by the Planning Commission.
cc: The Housing Alliance, Inc.
tw
PROCEE DIi�CS OF THENC CO`1: ISSIO:
SPECIAL SESSIONSPAFOPEE, MINNESOTADECE..F,+rr
IEK 2, 1955
Chrr.. Czaja called the meeting to order at 7:00pm. with Comm.
Schmi
Lane and Stoltzman present. Comm. VanMaldeghem, Pomerenke and Rocknett,
were absent. Also present were Jeanne Andre, Community Development Dir-
ector; John K. Anderson, City Admr, and Cncl. Lebens.
Lane/Stoltzman moved to approve the agenda as printed. Motion carried
unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING - HOUSING ALLIANCE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Schmitt/Lane moved to open the public hearing regarding the request by
the Housing Alliance, Inc. to consider a conditional use permit to con-
struct 44 units of multi-family housing for senior citizens. Motion car-
ried unanimously.
The Comm. Develop. Dir, stated this conditional use permit application
will be appealed to City Council and heard tomorrow night, no matter what
the decision is by the Planning Commission. Because the planning issues
need to be resolved before the consideration of the tax increment finan-
cing by the City Council, this will be heard tomorrow night rather than
waiting the 7 days for an appeal.
Rosemary Dineen, of the Housing Alliance, showed some slides depicting
various other projects they have been involved in in other communities,
some for seniors and some subsidized. She showed the style of building
they are proposing for Shakopee.
Mr. Larry Smith, of the Housing Alliance, showed on a slide the location
of the proposed project and pointed out the architecture proposed which
is a combination farmhouse, with Victorian detailing, which they feel will
fit into this City and neighborhood. He showed the landscape plan with
plenty of buffering planned and pointed out the location of the proposed
restaurant, hair dresser shop and accesses. He highlighted the amenities
such as garden plots, patios and porches, at-grade and under-ground park-
ing, and proximity to retail areas, churches and hospital.
The Comm. Develop. Dir, went over the staff recommendation for approval
with four conditions. Because the proposal is on previously platted land,
no park dedication fee is required.
Chrm. Czaja asked for comments from the audience in favor of this proposal.
Sister Agnes Otting, Executive Director of St. Francis Medical Center,
stated she is in favor of this project because she believes this community
needs a facility of this type--for those seniors who do not need nursing
live The applicant
a
ho-mc care, blit x : 0 can' t liii
rias demonstrated t0 her this is possible in this kind Of building tllc'j
are proposing. negotiations are under way .or
Francis to prOvlae ser-
2 -n011r inform atiC^.
vices td the St niOTS SUCK 3s CG SnSciin�, .i' 1inC.
e} ercise programs, Social programs, wellness Programs, etc. , On a COP.trdCt
basis. She passed out a possible list of services with the appro:.imate
will Maintain the independenc of
costs. She thinks this type of program general service
seniors as long as possible. Thee will have available a o
package and a customized package for those who need more help. She com-
f�h 4� �,p,np nay; think the cast is high, but it is a lot less than
Tull hursino-nit te^�c3�z T r
Doris Dunlap, 620 Bluff Avenue, addressed the petition she circulated which
showed interest in senior citizen housing. She said she got a
great
variety of names and occupations who signed the petition, agreeing there
is a great need for this project. She feels strongly that their signatures
are just as good as them personally attending this hearing in support.
Lane/Stoltzm
an moved to enter into the record the petition circulated by
Doris Dunlap in support of senior citizen housing in Shakopee, attached
and made a part hereof. ' Motion carried unanimously.
Chrm. Czaja asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak SII
in opposition to this project.
Mel Lebens, 538 West 4th Avenue, said he believes his wifeg, Cncl. Lebewas ns,
made their position clear at the last City Council meeting,
whichub-
sequently reported in the Shakopee Valley News. He said he is ligation cernthe
with the procedure used, and asked who had signed the app
permit. The Comm. Develop. Dir. responded that Larry Smith, Vice-President
of Housing Alliance, signed it.
Mr. Lebens read the definition of a conditional use from the City
ode
and quoted from Local and Environmental Planning
in Minnesota, by Gunner
Isberg stating that conditional uses must be compatible with the uses
generally already allowed in the district, and that conditional uses may
lead to spot zoning if issued indiscriminately without sufficient standards.
He also read his definition of spot zoning. Mr. Lebens thinks a conditional
use is skirting the issue of rezoning.
Mr. Lebens said he was on the City Council iMe�ro3establishedhen he
olitan PlanningCommis-
Planning Commission. He also served on thep
Sion for 6 years and served on the Shakopee Planning Commission. Chrm.
Czaja asked if Mr. Lebens had seen the listed criteria for issuing a con-
ditional use permit. Mr. Lebens responded that he is familiar with them,
but those are only general and he wants to deal with the specific zone.
Mr. Lebens read the City Code which lists Multiple Dwelling Structures as
a conditional use in a Central Business District (CBD),
but does not list
any standards. Mr. Isberg's book states a conditional use must list the
standards. Mr. Lebens said a unit of thissize
should
o ldbe the put on ements 176,000
square feet, which is a block and a half according _
for multiple dwelling units. He thinks it sharddbe rezoned setback alsotdoesn'to
allow it in this space. He added the front y
December 2, 1985
Page 3
meet code. he is concerned with putting possible 58 pecple in that unit
without anything to do or any place to go. He things the codifiers over-
looked this listing of multiple dwelling structures because it is not
defined and is an inconsistency. He said this was adopted when he was
City Admr. and allowed because of the second store dwellings in the down-
town area, and only when in conjunction with a business. A multiple
dwelling structure is not the same as a multi-family unit.
Mr. Lebens said the Code specifies the developer must provide proof of
ownership of the property. Therefore, Mr. Smith cannot make application
on Mr. Wampach and *:r. Gestach's property. He believes this is an illegal
action which is out of order and he will take it to court.
The Comm. Develop. Dir. stated the existing senior highrise was in a B-3
zone and was considered under this same Code for multi-family housing.
She added it was the opinion of the Asst City Attorney that because the
property was in a redevelopment area and the City Council has expressed
a willingness to look at condemnation so the applicant could acquire the
property, it was acceptable for the applicant to make the application.
Chrm. Czaja asked for opinions around the table regarding the procedure.
Comm. Lane said he is in favor of the project as it conforms to the Comp
Plan of the City and would serve as an excellent buffer between the resi-
dential and businesses.
Mr. Lebens said he is in favor of the project too, but only if zoned pro-
perly. He said it would be beautiful in the right place and under the
right circumstances. He added the other highrise didn't concern him so
he didn't speak up, but this one concerns his pocketbook so it is a dif-
ferent story.
Comm. Lane added he is comfortable with the procedure used. Comm. Schmitt,
Stoltzman and Chrm. Czaja all expressed they are comfortable with the hold-
ing of this public hearing.
Mr. Lebens agreed it was reasonable to lean on the City Council's motion
to consider condemnation for the property. He read from information that
was included in the City Council agenda packet which states this project
is a draft copy only and developer reserves the right to change and modify
as they deem necessary. Then this must be just a trial balloon, and why
hold a hearing.
Mr. Lebens asked about the costs listed for streetscape .improvements and
the extent of the improvements. The Comm. Develop. Dir. responded that
issue is not before the Planning Commission, but she explained that in the
development process the applicant proposes to the City the improvements
they would like and the estimated costs, which have been included in the
development district. However, negotiations are under way and have not
been finalized. The costs are an estimate provided by herself based on
the concept plan with 25% assessment to the property owners, estimated at
$10,000 per lot. This does not mean the streetscape improvements would
December 2, 19S5
Page G
3�
occur at any specific tine. There is a separate process involved fer tine
streetscapes with public hearings before any assessments would be levied.
She further CiariflEd this hear4ng tonight -; s Cnly to the planning and
conin_ issues of .:hcther or notya c3nditicna1 use permit_ should be granter:.
Chr::,.CCcaja e:.plained tonight's hearing was a special call primarily be-
cause of the need of the apr,lica^,t to meet bonding deadlines and other
issues to be dealt with by City Council following the resolution of the
planning issues.
Mr. Lebens read the motion from the minutes of the City Council, November
6, 1985 to pay up to S250,000 for the property for this proposal. That
would amount to $7.40 per square foot for the land. He said in 1980 in
a Court action of adjacent properties the land was valued at $1.75 for
his property and $1.25 for the larger parcels. According to State law
property value must be based on sales ratio in the area. He was told
if there were no other sales in the area in 2 years, this sale would af-
fect their property materially. The difference in land value from $1.372
average to $7.40 is 5 times. If his property value goes up even 3 times
it would cost over $1,000 per year. He clarified he and his wife are the
fee title owners, with their sons having a contract for the property.
Mr. Lebens thinks the business that is there is a real asset to the com-
munity, but it is not a high profit operation. In addition to this is
the Housing Alliance's demand to do something about the storm sewer,
which will be another assessment. He stated there hasn't been any prob-
lem with the storm water.
Mr. Lebens continued there is also the streetscape issue, which he is sure
is going to go in all around the block, and which will be $70 a foot and
doesn't belong around a humble upholstery shop. He doesn't think he will
even be able to sell the business if the taxes go so high. When taxes
go up, the value of the property goes down. Mr. Lebens continued speak-
ing regarding the country's lack of honesty and obsession with greed.
Schmitt/Stoltzman moved to limit this presentation to 5 more minutes.
Chrm. Czaja said he wanted to give everyone a chance to speak to the issue
of the conditional use permit. Mr. Lebens objected to his freedom of
speech being limited. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Lebens stated this is an illegal motion and can't be done in a pub-
lic hearing and the Commissioners were leaving themselves open to risk.
Schmitt/Lane moved for a five minute recess. at 8:14,. p.m. Motion carried
unanimously.
Chrm. Czaja called the meeting back to order at 8:20 p.m'. Chrm. Czaja -
asked if there were any other comments in opposition to the project.
Lorraine Ries, 220 West 3rd, stated she is not against the project, but
she would like it done according to City codes and laws. She has pro-
perty across the street and on Atwood. She was told the taxes wouldn't
go up, but she knows better. She thinks the property naturally will go
up if a new expensive building goes in. All the people in the block
across from there are older retired people who can't afford to go into
this building because of the high rent. She said they can't even sell
valc�hv i CLL ic�...a.� aC vv�....�5� iva
December 2, 1915
Page 5
� L
2
their homes because they are old homes with high taxes. She doesn`t be-
lieve the City should buy the property and give it to the developers--
no one gave her a lot to build or..
Joan Gagner, of Minnetonka, is representing her mother who lives on the
block. She believes the taxes on her mother's home would increase once
this big building is built. The Commaission's response is they didn't
know that--this hearing is just for the planning issue and they have no
background in the tax and financing for the project.
The Comm. Develop. Dir. further explained that the streetscape project
is planned for all of downtown whether or not this project goes in. She
will potentially be dealing with that in the future. The new sewer sys-
tem is for the whole City also. However, the City Engineer advised them
it would not be prudent to build without the construction of the sewer
system. The applicant did not come in and request this sewer system.
She is afraid with increased taxes they will not be able to sell her
mother's house. She located the house for the Commissioners.
Comm. Schmitt referenced. the memo received from the Scott County Assessor's
office dated November 25, 1985 which states a sale of this nature would
not be considered in the sales ratio. He added that from his knowledge
in working with the school referendum, the property across the street
from this proposal is in a different zone, and therefore would not be
affected by this project in the CBD. The house would only be affected
by sales in its own zone. He would suggest a more definitive answer from
legal counsel and the assessor.
Ms. Wagner asked who is going to manage this building. Mr. Smith replied
they are negotiating the terms of a management contract with St. Francis
Medical Center so if that is successfully completed, it would be the
manager.
Cncl. Lebens said Mr. Wampach made it clear what he wanted for his pro-
perty, and the City Council motion was to seek another appraisal, as the
one appraisal did not please Mr. Wampach. The motion is to use the up-
coming Peter Patchin appraisal or $250,000, whichever is lower. She said
the only way she would try to convince. the City Council to proceed would
be through condemnation proceedings, where the Court would set the cost.
She thinks the Commissioners are not following the laws.
Karen Lebens, 207 Atwood; which is above 205 Atwood, said she is not:-aware
of the criteria for issuing a conditional use permit, so doesn't feel she
can address. it. She said she is not against senior housing, but she does
have a few objections. She does know it is illegal to limit public com-
ment at a public hearing. She is a Court Reporter for Hennepin County
and has sat in meetings for hours to allow everyone to have their say.
Chrm. Czaja gave her a copy of the criteria and said he would come back
to her for comments later in the evening.
Ms. Wagner asked if there would be another public hearing if this project
goes though and the developer wants to do Phase 2. Comm. Schmitt responded
that would require a conditional use permit and another public hearing.
She said Phase 2 contemplates condemning and taking her mother's home.
She said that is her home and she has lived on that block only for her en-
tire life. This whole process is creating quite a turmoil.
December 2, ,9r,;`
Pa-e 6
N%..- v
The Cc=. Devcicp. Dir. recalled that several months azu when she t<.lkeC'
4:ith Ms. Wagner's mother, she was in favor of selling icer property ane
would lime to ro into the home. Siie added the staff report and criteria
are contained in Line public f . e for the in:ormation cf the audicncc.
Ms. Karen Lebens addressed criteria no. 1 which has to find the proposed
use is not injurious and will not impair the property value in the imme-
diate vicinity. She differs with the memo from the County Assessor. She
understands the land is not yet condemned and it is possible to come to
a mutually agreed upon sale price before condemnation takes place. This
would be different than what is addressed in the memo from the County
Assessor and that sale would be taken into consideration in establishing
the sales ratio.
Ms. Lebens said they were first told the streetscapes will not necessarily
go in, but the Downtown Committee does hope these streetscapes will go
in with the project, which means the assessment throughout the block.
Even if the sewer project was planned before, if this project wasn't going
in the sewer might not go in for some time. She said these taxes are her
main concern, which are injurious to their property, so it has to be looked
at in conjunction with the conditional use permit. If it injures them so
much they have to leave and can't sell, or have to take a loss, what good
does that do the City?
Chrm. Czaja asked if there was anyone else who wanted to speak for the
project.
Virgil Mears stated he has served on the committee to work with the Hous-
ing Alliance when they were making the study. At that time they asked
for input from the public and they had many meetings to which people didn't
come. Overall, as a community the City needs to be advancing and meeting
the changing needs of the people. This is an item whose time has come,
and its a project the City needs. The location is desirable because of
the proximity of amenities within walking distance. The pluses have to
be weighed against the minuses and he thinks from that standpoint it
would be a good project that the City needs and wants.
Chrm. Czaja asked if there was anyone else in the audience who wished to
speak to this issue, and there was no response.
Comm. Schmitt suggested the criteria be dealt with as part of the public
hearing. He said the City is dealing with a conditional use permit for
multiple family housing under a environment for which the City has already
set precedent; and therefore, the issue is primarily whether or not the
conditional use itself, not the sale of property, will be injurious to
the use and enjoyment of other property owners or impair property values.
He said he has heard nothing from the audience that tells him this use
will injure this property or the adjoining property. He asked if anyone
disagreed with that.
Mel Lebens said that up to 88 older persons will be housed in that unit.
He doesn't know why the size of the land changes from R-4 when it is placed
downtown. He thinks the old men with nothing to do will come over and
pester his sons working in the business. Therefore the use of that pro-
perty will create a nuisance in the neighborhood. He asked again why it
DeCember 2, 1985
?'age
requires less land area when it is nut downtown than the ordiance requires
out in the country in R-4. The orcinance requires 176,000 square feet for
that structure. Com;. Schmitt responded it is the same basis for approv-
ing the Levee Drive highrise. *:r. Lebens doesn' t think anyone is happy at
Levee Drive either.
The Comm. Develop. Dir, clarified that there is no density requirement
in the B-3 zone.
Doris Dunlap said she knows a lot of people who live at Levee Drive and
they have learned the best way to cross the street and no one has been
hurt and they are very happy there.
Comm. Schmitt clarified that this application is for 44 units, and if the
restaurant didn't go and they wanted to convert that area to housing, it
would have to come back for an amendment.
Chrm. Czaja asked if there were any other comments.
Karen Lebens asked about emergency procedures in case of fire. Chrm.
Czaja pointed out the review and approval of the fire chief, with condi-
tions.
Anthony Berens, 911 Lewis, asked about the size of the restaurant and the
adequacy of the parking. He said when the St. Paul House existed they
had a parking problem and most of the customers parked in his lot. He
also asked if there would be a change in parking to parallel on Fuller.
He asked if they would be issued a liquor license. He stated he is for
the project, but he just has these questions.
Mr. Smith responded they have employed Barton-Aschman to do a traffic and
parking study, which he passed around to the Commissioners. This summar-
izes the adequacy of the parking. They asked for the parking lot to accomo-
date the restaurant.
Schmitt/Stoltzman moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried
unanimously.
Schmitt/Stoltzman offered Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 439 for
the construction of 44 units of multi-family housing for seniors, named
Depot Place Apartments, and moved it be forwarded to City Council for
reconsideration without comment on the part of the Planning Commission.
Motion carried unanimously.
Schmitt/Stoltzman moved that the Planning Commission finds that a project R
of this nature is not in conflict.with the Comp Plan. Motion carried
unanimously.
The Comm. Develop. Dir. informed the audience this issue will be taken up
by City Council tomorrow night at 8:00 p.m.
December 2, 1910�i
Pace 8
C.IHEER BUSTNESS
Comm. Schmitt showed a newspaper ad for a retail business being conducted
in a building recently rezoned to industrial.
Schmitt/Lane moved to direct staff to be-in an immediate investigation
of the retail business being conducted in the Bankers Life building in
an I-1 zone, in violation of the ordinance. He would recommend both
the current renter and Bankers Life be notified. Motion carried unani-
mously.
Lane/Schmitt moved to adjourn. notion carried unanimously. Meeting ad-
journed at 9:17 p.m.
Jeanne Andre
Community Development Director
Diane S. Beuch
Recording Secretary
PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING CO'2.:ISSIOI
i EGUL,"iR SESSION SHAKOPEE, ? !-N IESOTA DECE'_,EER 5,1 985
Chrm. Czaja called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. with Comm. Lane,
VanMaldeghem and Schmitt present. Comm. Stoltzman arrived later, and
Comm. Rockne and Pomerenke were absent. Also present were Judi Simac,
City Planner, John K. Anderson, City Admr. and Cncl. Lebens.
Lane/VanMaldeghem moved to approve the agenda with additions of items
c through e to the Informational Items. Motion carried unanimously.
Schmitt/Lane moved to approve the minutes of November 7, 1985. Motion
carried with Comm. VanMaldeghem abstaining because of her absence.
PUBLIC HEARING - CHERNE .CONTRACTING CORP. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Schmitt/VanMaldeghem moved to open the public hearing regarding the're-
quest by Cherne Contracting Corp. for a conditional use permit to con-
struct a shop/warehouse and conduct outside storage of equipment.
Motion carried unanimously.
The City Planner went over the background and considerations of this
application. Staff recommendation is for approval with conditions.
Dan Johnson, Vice-President of Cherne Contracting Corp. , said they are
in agreement with the conditions as outlined by staff, with the possible
exception of the required screening along the north property line. He
said they are also very sensitive to the aesthetics of their proposal.
Mr. Johnson said they have increased the size of the area required for
holding ponds along CR89, leaving the area natural, which has created
_ a very dense woods for screening. They will submit a berming plan with
the required plantings on the south side.
Mr. Johnson showed sketch plans of the building and explained the changes
they have made to the building to give it more depth and interest, and
to break up the length. The planned berming will also cover up some
of the long wall.
Mr. Johnson said they would be willing to bring the plantings around
the northwest corner to screen the railroad building. The area they
are objecting to is the plantings along the rest of the north boundary
line. He said their property is 2-5 feet below the elevation of the
railroad bed and across that is just the back yards of other industries,
which are not screened and are not offensive to them. The plantings
as proposed by staff in this location would greatly cut back on their
storage space for van trailers and other equipment. Because of the NSP
easement there is a large area that can only be used for storage.
Page 2
The City Planner explained that this lot is a little lesE than. 20 acres,
but it was platted before the current ordinance was in effect.
%iSCllS 1Ci, continued TecaTdi:.c the water and septic syste . "r. lohnson
said he Gould like to put in Cir" water, but it is an economic _Lctor
that has to be looked at. fie saic the drainfield area is 5 times �:-h2t
is required. he pointed out the low areas, but said there are no actual
wetlands on the property.
The City Planner said if the applicant is willing to come around the
northwest corner with his plantings, across from the railroad building,
that would be satisfactory as long as it was supported with additional
landscape submittals.
Mr. Johnson identified the items to be stored outside as being van
trailers, rough terrain cranes, pettibones, crawler cranes, job site
mobile home trailers and some equipment such as scaffolding. He said
the cranes are not assemembled in the yard. He said there might be
some garage solvents for normal garage maintenance and possibly a 50
gallon drum of oil.
Chrm. Czaja asked if there were any other comments, and there were none.
VanMaldeghem/Lane moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried.
unanimously.
Schmitt/Lane offered Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 440, allow-
ing the construction of a shop-warehouse with outside storage, and
moved its adoption subject to the following conditions:
1. Equipment in the storage area shall not exceed the 45 foot
height limitation of the I-1 district, without Planning Com-
mission approval.
2. The applicant shall submit an 82 x 11 inch building plan which
indicates the electric and gas shut off, prior to issuance of
a certificate of occupancy.
3. A fire lane must be constructed around the entire building
in accordance with the fire code.
4. The Building Official must approve the type and location of
the underground fuel tanks.
5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a landscape plan
must be submitted for approval. The plan shall indicate:
a. Screening of outdoor refuse area;
b. One major deciduous tree planted every fifty feet along
CR89; _
c. Additional screening of fenced storage area no
of
the building.
6. Exterior storage be limited to that equipment and normal
materials associated with this business conducted by the appli-
cant.
Motion carried unanimously.
December 5, 191'5
Page 3
P�" LIC HE I\:• - L.%ASn COND ITIO L USE PEP�'IT
VanTlaldeghem/Lane moved to open the public hearing regarding the request
by Gregory c:aasa for a conditional use permit, to construct a horse
boarding and training facility. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Planner passed out pictures and plans of the structure and
indoor layout, along with awards won by the applicant. She went over
the background and considerations of this request. Staff recommenda-
tion is for approval with conditions.
Greg Kaasa, currently living at 3104 Humboldt Avenue South, said he will
be moving to this property. He said they will be building this struc-
ture to house 50 horses, because he feels this will be a cost savings
in the future if the ordinance is changed to allow that many horses on
the property. He plans to plant evergreens to screen the parking and
dumpster areas.
Comm. Stoltzman arrived and took his seat at 8:40 p.m.
Mr. Kaasa pointed out these horses are show horses, not racing horses.
He also said they have changed the plans and will be constructing an
all-steel structure, which will decrease the height to probably 20-25
feet.
Chrm. Czaja asked if there were any comments from the audience, and there
were none.
Lane/VanMaldeghem moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried
with Stoltzman abstaining because of arriving late.
Lane/Schmitt offered Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 441, allow-
ing the construction of a horse boarding and training facility, and
moved its adoption subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant must obtain a Building Permit to construct the
stable and riding arena.
2. The applicant shall keep no more than 35 horses.
3. A copy of the Minnesota Pollution Control Feedlot Permit must
be submitted prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
4. The applicant must identify and detail the plant material which
will be used to screen the.parking, trailer storage and dumpster
- from the right-of-way.
5. A fire lane will be provided around the structure and posted
"No Parking". An 81-2" x 11" site plan and final building plan _
showing electric and gas shut off shall be submitted prior to
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
6. Applicant must obtain a driveway entrance permit from the
County Engineer.
Motion carried with Comm. Stoltzman abstaining.
Chrm. -Czaja informed the applicant of the 7 day appeal period.
Dcce�ber5 1.
DIS CUS`'T0_ - D1v.T:.IE HO'_SE 1ST ADD T 10N FIT" �T
i-ile Citi' Planner informed the Commissioners of tllr ts' i.UllnCii'S aCtlORS
regarding ce;.demnation proceedings for a cess to 11a11evfair Drive
for this development. She also added the recommendation b,.• the Cite
Ln-4ineer that Outlot D also be dedicated as rirht-of-way, in the event
it needed for the access.
Comm. Schmitt expressed his belief that Outlot B should be included in
the condemnatior proceedings because that is what is rendering that area
unbuildable. He thinks Outlot A and B should be one piece. Com-- Lane
thinks the condemnation proceedings will include that unusable remnant
of land as a natural consequence. The City Planner clarified that this
land is not subject to condemnation--only the Valleyfair property that
abuts it.
Tom Lyons, for the developer, said this was drawn up in response to the
City Engineer's request. It doesn't matter to them if it is one or two
lots. The City Admr. suggested a separate motion to City Council if
the Planning Commission wants to see one outlot.
Chrm. Czaja asked if there were any comments from the audience and there
were none.
Lane/Stoltzman moved to recommend to City Council final plat approval
of Prairie House lst Addition, subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval of a Title Opinion by the City Attorney.
2. The City Engineer must receive and approve final plans and
specifications for all public facilities including, but not
limited to, roads, sanitary sewer, storm sewer and grading.
3. The developer shall provide a recordable agreement which guar-
antees the looping of the water system when Outlot A is re-
platted.
4. The developer shall provide a recordable agreement which des-
cribes the shared maintenance, by the lot owners, of the private
lift station.
5. The developer shall provide a recordable easement which allows
for the continuation of the Minnesota River Valley Trail
through the property.
6. The developer shall obtain the necessary permits from the
Minnesota Dept. of Transportation.
7. Execution of a Developer's Agreement for the construction of,
the required improvements:
A. Water- installation of a water system in accordance with
the requirements of the SPUC Manager.
B. Sanitary Sewer and Storm Water System - to be installed
in accordance with the requirements of the Design Criteria
and Standard Specifications of the City of Shakopee.
C. Outlot - Outlot A must be replatted prior to any further
development. The City Engineer is requested to inform City
Council as to why a separate legal identity is required for
Outlots A and B.
D. Park Dedication - in lieu of land dedication, cash payment
should be made to the park fund at the time building per-
mits are issued.
December 5, 1985
Page 5 v
E. Streets and Street Signs - to he constructed in accordance
with the requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard
Snecifications of the Citi- of Shakoaee.
?Motion carried with Co7z.. Van.Maldeghem abstaining.
DISCI'S SI O: - PROPOSED FORKLIFT REP'SIR AND SILES IN £-1 DISTRICT
The City Planner said she initially felt confused about this request
and was looking for direction. However, she is now of the feeling that
the majority of the business is sales and service, with the exterior
storage being under a conditional use. She originally was wondering
if it was more industrially-oriented.
Don Reed, 1833 10th Avenue East, said he wants to find out if his busi-
ness would be allowed at Naumkeag and Bluff before he purchases the
property. He said the outside storage would be very minimal.
The City Planner said Bluff Avenue at this location is unimproved, but
even if it is improved, it wouldn't affect this property size. Comm.
Schmitt suggested screening for the exterior storage because of the
adjacent residential with a conditional use permit. -
The City Planner said she has worked with two other parties trying to
fit a building onto that parcel, but because of it being a corner lot,
and the front yard setbacks required, it is difficult. She suggested
trying to situate a building on the lot meeting the setbacks before he
purchases the property.
Schmitt/VanMaldeghem moved to accept the staff interpretation of this
business as retail, with a conditional use permit being required for
the exterior storage. Motion carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION- LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE
The City Planner said that Comm. Pomerenke has submitted to her a pro-
posed landscape plan check-list and examples of landscape ordinances
from some other communities, in an effort to require more detailed
submittals from developers. The City Admr. has suggested getting con-
cerns from the ICC before drafting a more restrictive landscape ordi-
nance, especially since the present one isn't more than a year old.
Comm. Schmitt commented the check-list just requires further documenta-
tion by a developer, rather than increased landscaping requirements.
The City Planner said the current language is rather vague, and she
thinks it would be helpful to have something like this that would be
easier to administer. Comm. Pomerenke has volunteered to participate
in some type of landscape requirement review.. She suggests drawing
up something that involves more documentation but doesn't increase the
landscape requirements. She also suggested having Comm. Pomerenke ap-
pear at the ICC meeting to present this.
Comm. Stoltzman suggested some type of requirement about maintaining
the plantings. The City Admr. thought if the landscape plantings and
maintenance were part of the conditional use permit, then not maintain-
ing them would be a violation of the permit and would affect renewal.
A one-year warranty could also be explored.
December 5 19S5 n/
Page 6
Schmitt/-ane moved to direct staff to drat: up a draft ordinance
reeuirinc, more detailing and submittal informction to meet the land-
scape requirements of tiie ordinance and see': ICC comments. Motion
carried unanimous]\ .
Schmitt/Lane moved for L five minute recess at 9:35 p-r_ Motion
carried unanimously.
Comm. VanMaldeohem left the meeting.
Chrm. Czaja called the meeting back to order at 9: 35 p.m.
T%,'FORMATIONAL - HOHENSTEIN REVIEW
Lane/Schmitt moved to approve the annual staff review of Conditional
Use Permit No. 384, to allow the construction of stables and a riding
arena to raise and breed horses. Motion carried unanimously.
BUCHOLZ/VOGEL REVIEW
Schmitt/Lane moved to approve the annual staff review of Conditional
Use Permit No. 383, to keep horses_ on the property. Motion carried
unanimously.
SUPERAMERICA ACCESS
The City Planner presented the memo from the City Engineer regarding
the request for an egress route from Bluff Avenue, in which he states
it would take a lot of fill to improve Bluff at this location, and the
right turn lane would be very costly.
The City Planner informed Commissioners of the City Council's actions
to request research into the improvement of Bluff Avenue as a part of
a possible tax increment district incorporating the Shakopee Valley
Motel development. The City Engineer will look at costs and construc-
tion feasibility for Bluff Avenue. .
Comm. Schmitt explained his intention was not to construct Bluff Avenue
to the back of SuperAmerica, but merely to encourage the developer to
do whatever grading is necessary to to provide a usable surface for the
trucks to get to the signalized intersection. He wants the developer
to encourage trucks to use that intersection.
RECONSIDERATION OF HOUSING ALLIANCE PROPOSAL _
The City Planner explained this item is back on the agenda because the
code requires the Planning Commission to make a recommendation within
60 days of a request. She said there is no language requiring a public
hearing upon appeal, but it has been standard practice to re-advertise
for another public hearing to the City Council and send out notices to
the affected property owners. The City Council did establish December
18, 1985 as a appeal public hearing. To follow the rules, action should
he taken by the Planning Commission. The public hearing is closed and
no more public testimony needs to be heard.
Shakopee Piann4 ng Commission �/
December 5, 19F,5
Page 7
Comm. Schmitt said it appeared from the public hearing that the use of
the property is not the issue, and the key- issue is ta.:es and protection
of the surrounding property from the impact of the sale of the land.
He refers to the first criteria fer the granting of a conditional use
permit in which the use should not substantially diminish or impair
property values. He thinks consideration should be given to the build-
ings with commercial and residential uses in them. If the tax issue
can be resolved to the property owners' satisfaction, he would have no
problem with the project.
The City Admr. reported on the City Council's actions of requesting
further information regarding a negotiated sale vs. a full condemnation
sale and information from the state as to what constitutes an "arms
length" sale. He passed out a letter received from the State of Minne-
sota Property Equalization Division, which states that a sale that is
not an "arms length" sale would not be considered in the sales ratio
study. He said he talked to 3 people in this department, and they all
gave him this same answer. This letter also states that sales to
governmental units would not be considered in the sales ratio study,
and it would not make a. difference if the sale was the result of con-
demnation or under the threat of condemnation. The City Admr. said
he explained at length that the property was for a redevelopment pro-
ject for re-sale.
The City Admr. said one of the criteria for rejecting sales would be
if it is out-of-line, so that would be an additional factor for not
considering this sale. Discussion continued. The City Admr. said
the City will also be signing a binding contract with the developer
in which the developer will agree to the assessed value.
Chrm. Czaja said it is _his understanding that dealing with money issues
is outside the criteria for granting conditional use permits, either
taxes or property valuations. He would like a legal opinion about
whether or not the Planning Commission should even be considering this
type of issue.
Cncl. Lebens stated her husband, Mel, feels that assurances from the
State are not enough, and to really rule out consideration of this sale,
you have to go to the Legislature. The City Admr_. said staff could be
directed to formally go to- the State and request this sale be rejected
from sales ratio consideration.
Larry Smith of the Housing Alliance stated it is his belief that all -
the work with the Downtown Committee is to bring in business and increase
the value of the downtown and increase the tax base of the City. In-
creased value will increase buying and borrowing powers also. If this
is rejected you will be sending a message to developers that you don't
want anything downtown that will increase values.
Mr. Smith continued that this area is designated for multi-family hous-
ing, and the existing homes in that district are non-conforming uses
and the only way they exist is by grandfather rights. No one could
C-1.'fie:
La e S'
v
^ll1lG a nein single fami_v home in that district. According to the Comp
Plan this is a conforming use and an established need. He thinks the
chances of taxes going up because of this building are slim to nil.
Comm. Stoltzman said the Dov town Committee has spent -,=ears looking
for just this very type of development. Comm. Sch�i' Lt expressed his
probleias with the Citv Council motion setting the upper limits of the
price to be paid for the land.
The Cite Admr. said that condemnation proceedings have been started,
but it is still possible to negotiate a price before condemnation is
completed. He suggested the Planning Commission can act on the plan-
ning issues and make a separate motion, if it desires, regarding its
feelings about condemnation vs. a negotiated price.
Cncl. Lebens explained that the project is going forward and the bonds
are being written. However, the bids will not be opened until an
answer is received regarding the property values. The City Council
still has the authority to not open the bids or not close the issue.
They can also go to Court and get an injunction to stop these proceed-
ings. They plan to make an appearance on the 18th, and if everything is
satisfactory, the project will go ahead. She added if the $85,000
value had remained, they wouldn't have argued at all.
The City Planner explained the public hearing on the 18th can't be
legally set until the Planning Commission has taken action and there
is something to appeal.
Lane/Stoltzman moved that since they don't believe taxes are an issue
to be dealt with by the Planning Commission, moved to offer Conditional
Use Permit Resolution No. 439, for the construction of 44 units of
multi-family housing for seniors in a B-3 zone, subject to the follow-
ing conditions, and moved its adoption:
1. Vacation of the portion of the alley which lies beneath the
structure, prior to issuance of a building permit.
2. If required, relocation of any utility easements located in
the existing alley.
3. Approval of the Building plans by the. Building Official and the
Fire Chief.
4. Any changes to landscape or site plan to be submitted for
review by the Planning Commission.
Motion carried with Comm. Schmitt opposed.
Schmitt/Lane moved to request that City Council take steps to indemnify
adjoining property owners within Block 32 from the tax impact of the
sale of Lots l through 5 only, within Block 32. Motion carried unani-
mously.
Lane/Stoltzman moved to direct staff to seek a legal opinion on whether
or not financial impacts can be considered in granting a conditional
use permit. Motion carried unanimously.
December 3,
Page 9 ^ l
MEETING CE-ANCE o
Consensus was to change the February meeting to February 13, 1955 be-
cause of the vacation of the Citi- Planner.
OTHER BI'SI \ESS
Comm. Lane requested an opinion from legal staff regarding the ability
to restrict testimony of the public at a public hearing in order to
expedite meetings . Comm. Stoltzman said the Ass't City Attorney wrote
a letter detailing how testimony could be restricted, which was read
at the public hearing for the application of a gravel pit.
The City Planner reported that apparently a sale was in progress at the
Banker's Life building, and it was stopped as of yesterday.
The City Planner informed the Commissioners that the Recording Secretary
has submitted her resignation, and this is her last meeting with the
Planning Commission.
Schmitt/Lane moved to direct staff to prepare a letter of commendation
to the Recording Secretary, specifically addressing her patience in
dealing with the long and tedius meetings, for the Chairman's signature.
Motion carried unanimously.
Schmitt/Lane moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting ad-
journed at 10:44 p.m.
Judi Simac
City Planner
Diane S. Beuch
Recording Secretary
r�
RESOLUTION NO. 2496
A Resolution Rescinding Resolution No. 2486 , Providing
for the issuance and Sale of 5660 , 000 Generai
Obligation Tax Increment bonds , Series 198�A
Whereas, the Housing Aliiance , Inc . rias withdrawn its request
for a conditional use permit to constuct 44
nousing for senior citizens upon propert i unit of multi-family
7 , 8 and the east 38 feet of Lot 9 , block 32caShakopeeted on oCity and 6
also its request for Tax increment assistance.
NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Shakopee , Minnesota , that Resolution No. 2485 A Resolution
Providing for the Issuance and Sale of So'60 , 000 General Obligation
Tax Increment Bonds , Series 1983 A,
entirety. is nerebv rescinded �.n its
Adopted in adjourned regular session of the City Council of
the City of Shakopee , Minnesota ,held this 18th day of December , _985 ,
Iviayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST;
Ca-ty Clerk
Approved as to form this day
of -
, i985 .
City ttrornev