Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/22/1985 TENTATIVE AGENDA ADJ .REG.SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 22, 1985 Mayor Reinke presiding 1] Roll Call at 8 :00 P .M. 2] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS 31 Approval of Consent Business - (All items listed with an asterick are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There .will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. ) *41 Approval of Minutes of October 1 , 1985 5] Res. No . 2461 , Adopting A Housing Program for the Issuance of Multi- family Mortgage Revenue Bonds for Canterbury Apartments I 6] Racetrack District Land Use Study - Discussion with members of the Planning Commission 71 Other Business : � . a] �A&A� b] Juditlh :�; -r au c, r, 1. Suggested Procedures for October 22 , 1985 Meeting a. Discussed by Eldon and Gloria with staff b. Offered to Council as suggested format C. Proposed time frame (outlined on tablet) 2 . Deal with Major Issues One-by-One a. Nine Issues Defining Scope of Study b. Hiring of Planning Consultant C. Comments from Public d. Adoption of Formal Statement of Position on Land Use Study 3 . Discussion of Issues as follows: a. polling of each Planning Commissioner on issue b. polling of each Council Member on issue C. motion and action by Council to take a _preliminary policy position on each issue d. after preliminary position taken on all items , invite public comment e. allow Council to reconsider any individual preliminary position already taken 4. Comments from Public a. limited to 30 minutes total, 3 minutes per speaker b. request only one speaker for each property owner or special interest (consolidation of comments) C. speaker should limit self to new ideas and not be repetitious 5. Does Council want any additions or changes to proposed format? Agenda Summary - Racetrack Land Use Study A. Review Procedures B. Defining Scope of Study 1. Restrict heavy industrial type uses near the racetrack a. Planning Commission comments b. Council comments C. Council vote on preliminary policy position 2. Emphasize buffer uses between racetrack and heavy industry to the east/north of racetrack. a. Planning Commission comments b. Council comments C. Council vote on preliminary policy position 3 . Allow more "retail oriented" and/or commercial recreational activities near the racetrack. a. Planning Commission comments b. Council comments C. Council vote on preliminary policy position 4. Develop a zone which is more restrictive or specific in retail uses than current Bl, B2 and B3 zones. a. Planning Commission comments b. Council comments C. Council vote on preliminary policy position 5. Include desired items in numbers 1 , 2, 3 and/or 4 as part of a "Racetrack Zone" ( alternative would be B-4 or I-3 generic zone which could exist in other parts of the City) . a. Planning Commission comments b. Council comments C. Council vote on preliminary policy position 6 . Use a mechanism such as PUD to provide greater City control of uses, set backs, height, etc. in the area near the track. a. Planning Commission comments b. Council comments C. Council vote on preliminary policy position 7. Research how the amount and location of existing vacant land zoned for commercial/industrial development serves the city' s future needs in a comprehensive planning sense given the impact of the racetrack. a. Planning Commission comments b. Council comments C. Council vote on preliminary policy position 8 . Consider revising permitted uses in other existing districts after setting up permitted uses in new district. a. Planning Commission comments b. Council comments C. Council vote on preliminary policy position 9. Set boundaries for study areas as follows: Refer to map Get consensus on smallest, tier I , at first and expand outward. Tier I a. East - West of CR 83 1. Planning Commission comments 2 . Council comments 3 . Council vote on preliminary policy position b. North - South of Fourth Avenue 1. Planning Commission comments 2 . Council comments 3 . Council vote on preliminary policy position C. South - North of CR 16 1. Planning Commission comments 2 . Council comments 3 . Council vote on preliminary policy position d. West - East of Shenandoah Drive 1. Planning Commission comments 2 . Council comments 3 . Council vote on preliminary policy position Tier 2 e. East - West of Valley Park Drive 1. Planning Commission comments 2. Council comments 3 . Council vote on preliminary policy position f. North - South of TH 101 1. Planning Commission comments 2 . Council comments 3 . Council vote on preliminary policy position g. South - North of TH 101 by-pass 1. Planning Commission comments 2 . Council comments 3 . Council vote on preliminary policy position h. West - West line of Section 5 1. Planning Commission comments 2. Council comments 3 . Council vote on preliminary policy position Tier 3 i. North - South of River 1. Planning Commission comments 2 . Council comments 3 . Council vote on preliminary policy position j . East of CR 17 1. Planning Commission comments 2 . Council comments 3 . Council vote on preliminary policy position 10. Other: a. Planning Commission comments b. Council comments C. Council vote on preliminary policy position C. Selection of Planning Consultant 1. Determine whether planning consultant should be sought a. Planning Commission comments b. Council comments C. Council vote on preliminary policy position 2. Determine selection process a. Planning Commission comments b. Council comments C. Council vote on preliminary policy position 3 . Direct staff to prepare RFP a. Planning Commission comments b. Council comments C. Council vote on preliminary policy position 4. Direct staff on need for moratorium a. Planning Commission comments b. Council comments C. Council vote on preliminary policy position D. Comments from public a. 30 minutes alloted for public testimony. b. Maximum of 3 minutes for each speaker. C. Each property or interest should have only one speaker - consolidate comments. d. Avoid repeating comments already made. E. Adopt Position Statement a. Allow Council to request reconsideration of any individual preliminary position issue. b. Adopt motion directing staff to proceed with established position statements on proposed land use study. OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 1, 1985 Mayor Reinke called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. with Cncl. Vierling, Wampach, Lebens, Colligan and Leroux present. Also present were John K. Anderson, City Admr. ; Jeanne Andre, Community Develop. Director; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk and Julius A. Coller, II, City Attorney. Lebens/Wampach moved to recess for an HRA meeting. Motion carried unani- mously. Leroux/Vierling moved to reconvene at 7:25 p.m. Motion carried unanimously, Liaison reports were given by Councilmembers. Mayor Reinke asked if there was anyone present who wishea to aaaress the Council on any item not on the agenda. Howard Voigt, Valley News, introduced the new reporter who will be cover- ing the City Council meetings. Leroux/Wampach moved to amend the minutes of September 3, 1985, page 4, Ordinance No. 184 to change the rezoning to R-1, rather than R-2. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Leroux moved to approve the minutes of September 3, 1985 as cor- rected and the minutes of September 10, 1985 and September 17, 1985 as printed. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Colligan/Vierling moved to place on file the letter dated September 18, 1985 from the Chairman of the ICC regarding the ICC Industrial and Com- mercial Day. Motion carried unanimously. Dorolyn Sohner, Vice President of Patient Services, responded to the con- cerns expressed in the letter from Ilse Welter regarding the helicopter landing at St. Francis Hospital. She explained the difficulty in project- ing the number of times a helicopter will be used, but said that the cost and availability of other transport are factors that are considered. She also said that landing on the hospital roof is not a viable option at this time because a helicopter pad would have to be created, and the elevators don't go all the way to the top of the building at this time. Colligan/Vierling moved to receive and place on file the letters from Ms. Ilse Welter and the response from St. Francis Hospital, dated September 25, 1985. Leroux/Wampach moved to amend the motion to direct staff to inform Ms. Welter that her letter was received, inform her of the hospital's response, and that the City feels the hospital is doing all it can. Motion to amend carried unanimously. m,gin tnnri nn ac PTnPnrl-rl rarri arl nnanimnncly. Shakopee cit" Councli October 1, 1985 Page 2 Leroux/Wampach moved to direct staff to contact Senator Durenberger and Representatives Oberstar and Stangeland in support of the League of Minnesota Cities position relative to possible Congressional action to regulate storm water discharges. Motion carried unanimously. Lt)-aLC`E,Tru a- P`ecepcibn for Bill Schreiber, funded by the Chamber of Commerce, relative to tax issues affecting the City. Motion carried unanimously. Wampach/Vierling moved .to accept and file the letter dated September 25, 1985 from Charles Hudrlik, District Signal Engineer for Mn/DOT, regarding changing the walk times at Lewis Street, and to pass on this information to the people who initiated this request. The City Admr, will check in January to see if this is resolving the problems. Motion carried unani- mously. Colligan/Leroux moved to open the public hearing regarding Eaglewood Additions Street rehabilitation 1985-2. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Reinke asked for comments from the audience. Don Bisek, a resident of Eaglewood Addition, asked if there was a projected completion date for the project. Ray Ruuska, Engineering Technician, re- plied that if we would have had decent weather, they would have paved this week--the only thing holding them back is the moisture. They won't pave while the materials are so wet. He read from the contract regarding temperature requirements for interior wearing mixture and the bituminous. The City Attorney confirmed that this hearing is the proper time for entering any appeals, if desired. Mr. Bisek contended that as long as there is no completed project, they don't know if they want to appeal their assessment or not. The City Attorney responded that- appeals have to be filed now, or get action following the public hearing deferred. The City Admr. informed the audience that City Council often holds assess- ment hearings even before a project is started. Appeals are usually based on benefit to the homeowner, rather than whether or not they like the fin- ished project. He went over the standard guarantees and specifications agreed to by the contractor, which protect the City and insure that a pro- ject is done correctly. The City Admr. also pointed out that if the assessments are not certified to be included in the October taxes, another full year's interest is added onto the project, whether or not it is completed. Therefore, the City usually tries to get the assessments certified in a timely manner to save money for everyone involved. He said the property owners who want to pre- serve their perogative to appeal, should enter their appeals tonight. The Nayar- ucn-ifrrmed tnat if the weather does not cooperate, there is a possi- bility that the final wearing coat will not be applied until next year. The City Admr. added that if that happened, the property owners will just be making one of 20 payments (with the May tax payment) before having a completed project. Snakopee I'liLy Coul -d October 1, 1985 Page 3 Gerald Hackett, Eaglewooi, asked about the specs for the project. He also complained of how messy the job was, and asked about clean-up. He added that gouges were made in his yard from the culverts, and his mailbox was broken off. Mayor Reinke replied that the contractor has a bonded insurance policy with the City to insure that if the contractor doesn't properly take care of such items, the City will, to be funded by the insurance policy. The City Admr. added anyone can get a copy of the resolution and the specs from the Engineering Dept. He said there is an inspection list at the com- pletion of the project, and anyone with any concerns should pass on that information to the Engineering Dept. to check. The City Admr. stated the assessment will be $1,354.19 per lot, which is slightly less than was talked about at the feasibility hearing, because it is being computed with one more lot. Jim Klemenhagen said the construction bids came in 19% less than estimated, and wondered why the assessments aren't 19% less. The City Admr. answered that because of the uncertainties of the project, with the base in the swamp, it was decided to assess based on the feasibility report, and then if there weren't any change orders or unexpected expenses, a supplemental resolution could be later passed to give the credit to the homeowners. He added there was already one change order for extra granular material. Mr. Ruuska said that change order was for about 10% increase of the original figures and added $17,000. The City Admr. said if anyone was interested in more detail about how the savings would be passed on, that information would be available from him in City Hall. Mayor Reinke asked if there were any further comments, and there were none. Colligan/Vierling moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Colligan/Wampach offered Resolution No. 2452, A Resolution Adopting Assess- ments for the Improvement of Roadway Serving Lots of Record in Eaglewood 1st, 2nd and 3rd Additions and Certain Unplatted Property in Section 31 and Section 32, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, Project No. 1985-2, and moved its adoption. The City Admr. summarized the resolu- tion. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Wampach/Vierling moved to open the public hearing regarding Shenandoah Drive Roadway construction 1984-4. ?lotion carried unanimously. The City Admr. addressed the letter from Christian & Gross, dated Septem- ber 27, 1985 objecting to the proposed assessment based on the construc- tion of a 4 lane, rather than 2 lane, road. The City Admr. explained that it is the City's policy to assess only for 75% of the road costs to make that adjustment for oversizing, with the City picking up the full cost of the 25% oversizing. Bruce Malkerson, of Minnesota Racetrack, Inc. , explained that there were previous discussions about them paying the $88,000 in one lump sum or having it assessed. They prefer to have it assessed over 10 years at 11% interest, which frees them up to spend that money on racetrack improvements now. He pointed out at 11% the City is not losing any dollars. Shakopee City Council October 1, 1985 Page 4 Mayor Reinke disputed any indications of spreading the $88,000 over 10 years. It was his recollection that it was to be paid directly in one lump sum, which the City was going to use for some other projects in town. Mr. Malkerson replied that he couldn't find the letter in which it was discussed, and if it was better for the City to have it paid at one time, they would do that. Discussion followed regarding the pros and cons of each proposal. Cncl. Colligan spoke on behalf of Prahm-Coll, stating they don't feel $48,000 worth of benefit exists for Outlot A. He submitted a letter op- posing the assessment. Mayor Reinke asked for other comments from the audience. Ed Christian explained the location of his property and stated he is oppos- ing the amount they are being assessed. He said they have owned the pro- perty for about 15 years and have given the City several easements and have paid sewer and water assessments. He said originally Shenandoah Drive was to extend from 4th Avenue to CR16. If that were done, there would be some benefit to their property because of the access to CR16. That is why they agreed to give an additional 17 feet to widen the road. But now the 4 lane road goes to the entrance of Canterbury Downs and dead-ends there, which does not benefit his property at all over and above the 2 lane road. He therefore asks for a reduction in the assessment. The City Admr. said that road was to be a north/south collector, designed to turn and go to CR83. The City didn't want to put in a bridge structure over the drain-way in order to continue the road to CR16. The road is not going to remain a dead-end. There is some discussion now about turn- ing the road back west to benefit another property. He pointed out there are other places in the City where a road temporarily dead-ends until development continues. Mr. Christian said the road was put in a couple years ahead of schedule because of the racetrack. If it continued somewhere in the future, it might be of more benefit at that time. He asked if the assessment could be deferred until such time as the benefit is realized. The City Admr. replied the assessment resolution defers the assessment pending the application for a building permit. He suggested filing the letter of appeal tonight and then discussing some items further to resolve them. Robert Hibbs submitted a letter dated October 1, 1985 on behalf of Silver- hawk N.V. , objecting to the assessment. He asked for consideration on the assessment. Mayor Reinke asked if there were any other comments, and there were none. Wampach/Vierling moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unani- mously. Vierling/Wampach offered Resolution No. 2450, A Resolution Adopting Assess- ments 1984-4, Public Improvement Program, Shenandoah Drive Roadway Con- struction, and moved its adoption. This resolution does not include assessing M.R.I. their $88,000 to be paid over ten years at 11%, as requested. Shakopee City Council October 1, 1985 Page 5 Cncl. Leroux remembered the previous discussion as using the tax incre- ment funds not only for the City, but to alleviate some of the direct assessments. Cncl. Colligan also thought the tax increment funds were to be used for off-site improvements. The City Admr. replied they re- searched the minutes and tape from the feasibility hearing, and couldn't find any commitments of that sort. He explained that this was consistent with the City's standard procedure with the use of alternate funds for a project, such as Minnesota State Aid, because those funds are not spread to reduce the cost to the property owners. Discussion continued. Roll Call on Resolution 2450: Ayes; Wampach, Vierling, Reinke Noes; Colligan, Leroux, Lebens Motion failed. Cncl. Lebens explained that she is against using any tax increment money for streets that all the City people are paying for. She also questions why people are not being assessed for storm sewer under 2nd Avenue, and that is inconsistent. The City Admr. answered that one block of storm. . sewer was packaged with the '2nd Avenue parking lot project costs, which costs will be included in the new storm water utility project cost and is therefore consistent. Cncl. Colligan explained he voted no because he didn't believe the benefit for Prahm-Coll was shown, and to abstain would not do anything. Vierling/Leroux moved for a five minute recess at 8:35 p.m. to allow for further research by the Engineering Dept. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling moved to reconvene at 8:48 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling moved to reconsider Resolution No. 2450. Motion carried unanimously. Cncl. Leroux suggested having the staff procure for the next meeting the project costs for a two-lane street, and if the costs are less than con- tained in the resolution, a supplemental resolution could be passed to reduce assessments accordingly. Roll Call on Resolution 2450: Ayes; Leroux, Reinke, Vierling, Wampach Noes; Colligan, Lebens Motion carried. Leroux/Vierling moved to direct staff to bring back to the October 15, 1985 Council meeting the project costs for a two-lane road for Shenandoah Drive. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Lebens moved to open the public hearing regarding Valley Park Drive and 12th Avenue Roadway construction 1984-5. Motion carried unanimously. The City Admr. went over some of the background of this project. He read a letter objecting to the assessments from Scottland, submitted by Bruce Malkerson, dated October 1, 1985, in which Mr. Malkerson indicated he just has some questions and wants to meet with the Engineering Dept. He was sure the objections would be withdrawn after the meeting, but he just wants to preserve his right to appeal. Mayor Reinke asked if there were any other comments from the audience, and there were none. Shakopee City Council October 1, 1985 Page 6 Leroux/Vierling moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling offered Resolution No. 2451, A Resolution Adopting Assess- ments 1984-5 Public Improvement Program, Valley Park Drive and 12th Ave- nue by Roadway Construction, and moved its adoption. The City Admr. summarized the resolution. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. The City Planner went over the background of the request from Planning Commission to proceed with a Planning Study for the area surrounding Canterbury Downs. Mayor Reinke asked for comments from the audience. Thorton Anderson, of Meriden Corp. , explained they had an interest in developing a hotel across from the racetrack. He said that a develop- ment such as they wanted was not possible in Shakopee with the present zoning. They couldn't find a piece of property at the right location with the right size and amenities in the correct zone. He believes from an over-all standpoint nothing will happen around the racetrack unless something is done with zoning and planning. They were hoping to go ahead with their development and open in the spring, but with this delay that will not be possible, so they will not develop. The longer the delay, the more opportunities will be missed, he believes. Their project would have been worth 62 million dollars, with more for expansion. At this time a change will not benefit him in the forseeable future, but there is an opportunity waiting for Shakopee. He thinks there is ample oppor- tunity for industrial, but nothing for commercial. Walter Rockenstein, of Baron Development, said they are in favor of this proposal for a study in this area. He thinks it is a good opportunity for the City to look at a new zone, have some controls and express its concerns. Bruce Malkerson, of Scottland, Inc. , stated they don't believe there is a need for more study and no more need for additional commercial land. There is adequate commercial land for years to come. He refers to the record which is full of references and reasons why they and others don't believe there needs to be more study and more commercial zoning. Frank Reid, of Anchor Glass Container, stated they are opposed to anything that would reduce the buffer zone between heavy and light industrial and commercial. Albert Envie, on behalf of Silverhawk, which owns acres north of 4th Avenue to Hwy. 101, stated there has been such change in the racetrack area that it is imperative some study take place. Mayor Reinke asked if there was anyone else in the audience who wished to comment on this issue, and there was no response. Considerable discussion took place regarding the need for a study, what types of development should be allowed, what type of zoning would be ap- propriate, protection for businesses in existence, value of the Comp Plan and need for a consultant. Shakopee City Council October 1, 1985 Page 7 Leroux/Wampach moved to invite the Planning Commission to meet with the City Council on October 22, 1985 for the purpose of a worksession regard- ing the land zoning and uses around Canterbury Downs. Cncl. Colligan complained of the direction given by staff to developers regarding zoning for projects. Discussion followed with clarification given that staff is following the direction and motions of City Council and Planning Commission. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner went over the background and considerations of the re- quest for preliminary and final plat approval of Canterbury Park 1st Addition. She is asking for a decision on whether to have the developer petition the City for Valley Industrial Blvd. North rehabilitation or require the developer to complete the street where it abuts its plat. She is also asking that the developer provide an agreement to guarantee the looping of the water system when Outlot A is replatted. Bruce Malkerson, for the developer, said they have discussed the need for some rehabilitation of Valley Industrial Blvd. North in the future, and they have no problem with petitioning the City for it, and letting the City °decide when it will be done. He thinks it would be a waste for them to build the section of road just in front of their plat. They also have no problem with the recommendation from SPUC for looping the water system. Consensus was to have the developer petition the City for the rehabilita- tion of the street. Discussion continued regarding the continuation of Citation Drive in the future. Mr. Malkerson had no . objection to adding language concerning completion of Citation Drive before the lot was subdivided or a building permit issued. Mayor Reinke initiated discussion regarding the adequacy of a 32 foot street width where trucks will be driving, and asked for no parking along the street. Mr. Malkerson said they intend to put in curb and intend to make it as nice as possible. He doesn't forsee any parking along the street. Leroux/Vier-ling approved the preliminary plat and offered Resolution No. 2440, A Resolution Approving the Final Plat of Canterbury Park 1st Addition, and moved its adoption, with the amendments to the requirements as follows: 2.G. No building permit shall be issued for Outlot A until it is replatted, and Citation Drive is completed as may be required by the City. 4. The developer shall be required to petition for the rehabili- tation of Valley Industrial Blvd. North. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carrried. Colligan/Leroux moved to direct staff to research the adequacy of a 32 foot street in this plat. Motion carried unanimously. Shakopee City Council October 1, 1985 Page 8 Rod Krass and Paulette Rislund reported on the results of the Scott County Government Study Commission, and further explained some of the positions and lack of consensus on various issues. Discussion followed. Vierling/Leroux moved to recommend the consolidation of the auditor and treasurer, and the appointment of the same. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Krass and Ms. Rislund both stated they were not in favor of continu- ing the Study Commission. They have met twice a month for one year now, and don't think much more will be accomplished in a couple of months. Mayor Reinke thanked Mr. Krass and Ms. Rislund for serving on the Scott County Government Study Commission. Leroux/Vierling moved to contribute $15,000 to the Scott County Historical Society for Murphy's Landing. Cncl. Lebens suggested asking for the deeding back to the City of that portion of land that goes over to the road, to allow access for fishermen. She believes that now Murphy's Landing has a gate and fence there and it is a lot of hassle for anyone to gain access back there to fish. Gary Eastlund, for Murphy's Landing, said that property is owned by the Scott County Historical Society and leased to Scott County. Discussion followed. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Lebens/Leroux moved to direct staff to contact the Scott County Historical Society and Scott County to request they deed back to the City the pro- perty including the road right-of-way to the fishing grounds. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion ensued regarding the hunting violations occurring in the City. Cncl. Leroux objected to eliminating firearms, because he thinks the vio- lations are few and far between. He would rather see better enforcement. He thinks it will be just as hard to apprehend those who violate the law of no hunting. Colligan/Vierling moved to continue to enforce the hunting regulations within the Police Dept's capability, and specifically assign a unit to the problem areas when the violations are most prevalent and a unit is available. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Leroux moved to contact Lester Robert Koehnen to inquire if he has any legal objection to the City terminating the maintenance of the alley in Block 2, East Shakopee; to discontinue maintenance of the alley or driveway after 30 days public and posted notice and to erect a barrier at each end of the drive after the 30 days, which the property owner should maintain for a reasonable period. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Vierling/Leroux moved to deny the request to allow bow hunting on property owned by Valleyfair and the Peavey Company. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. October 1, 1.985 Page 9 !.(' Leroux/Vierling moved to clarify the sewer refund policy by adopting the revised administrative policy no. 39 as amended. (Doc. No. CC-97) Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Vierling/Lebens moved to authorize the staff to work with Cooper-Rutter, Zylstra-United and the City of Chaska in completing an analysis of Zylstra- United's existing and projected financial condition, for which Zylstra- United will accept all responsibility for funding and will make payment directly to Cooper-Rutter; said study to commence on or before October 14, 1985. Motion carried with Cncl. Colligan and Wampach opposed. Wampach/Vierling moved to direct the appropriate City officials to contact Mn/DOT staff indicating that .the proposed "State of Minnesota Department of Transportation and City of Shakopee Memorandum of Understanding" for joint construction of a bridge replacing the TH 169 Minnesota River bridge and changing roadway geometric alignments of TH 101 in the Shakopee cen- tral business district, dated September 23, 1985, is acceptable to the City. Roll Call: Ayes; Reinke, Leroux, Vierling, Wampach, Colligan Noes; Lebens Motion carried. Vierling/Leroux moved to affirm the Downtown Committee's decision to remove Dick Stoks from the Committee until such time as he can regularly attend meetings, and direct staff to send Mr. Stoks a letter explaining this decision. Motion carried. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Vierling/Leroux moved to adopt the guidelines for Councilmembers serving on City boards and commissions as outlined in the memo from the City A1mr. dated September 23, 1985. (Doc. No. CC-98) Motion carried. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes;None Vierling/Leroux moved to appoint Jim Kephart to the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Randy Gorman, effective October 16, 1985 until April 1, 1987. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Vierling/Leroux moved to nominate Debbie Allen to the SShakopee Community Access Corporation Board of Directors, to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Gary Morke, until January 31, 1987. Motion carried. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Vierling/Leroux moved to authorize proper City officials to execute a Loan Agreement between the Metropolitan Council and the City of Shakopee for Highway Right-of-Way Acquisition for Parcel No. 7 in the amount of $387,050; and to submit the Loan Agreement as Final Loan Application for loan funds to acquire Parcel No. 7 in the TH 101 Bypass right-of-way.Motion carried. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None The City Admr. said the screening committee is recommending offering the position of City Engineer to Ken Ashfeld, and he detailed the offer that he recommended be made. I Shakopee City Council October 1, 1985 Page 10 Vierling/Wampach moved to offer the position of City Engineer to Ken Ashfeld with the provision of the use of a City car and moving expenses if he moves to Shakopee within one year. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous I Noes; None Motion carried. Leroux/Vierling moved to hire Timm Nelson at an hourly rate of $6.50 per hour for a period not to exceed two and' one-half months as temporary help for the Engineering Dept. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Colligan/Wampach moved that the bills in the amount of $139,983.20 be allowed and ordered paid. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Vierling/Colligan offered Resolution No. 2448, A Resolution Amending Reso- lution No. 2340 Adopting the 1985 Budget, and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes; Vierling, Reinke, Leroux, Wampach, Colligan Noes; Lebens Motion carried. Leroux/Vierling offered Resolution No. 2442, A Resolution Giving Pre- liminary Approval to a Project Under the Municipal Industrial Develop- ment Act, Referring the Proposal to the Minnesota Energy and Economic Development Authority for Approval, and Authorizing Preparation of Necessary Documents, and moved its adoption. (Scottland Inc. $850,000 IR Bonds) Roll Call: Ayes; Reinke, Colligan, Vierling, Wampach, Leroux Noes; Lebens Motion carried. Leroux/Vierling offered Resolution No. 2443, A Resolution Consenting to the Levy of a Special Tax by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority In and For the City of Shakopee, and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Vierling/Wampach offered Resolution No. 2444, A Resolution Directing the County Auditor Not to Levy a Tax for Debt Service for Selected Bond Issues, and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Colligan/Wampach offered Resolution No. 2445, A Resolution Approving 1985 Tax Levy, Collectible in 1986, and moved its adoption. The City Admr. read a notice from the League regarding the possible effect of state revenue shortfalls on Local Government Aid and said staff didn't feel a need to modify the proposed budget strategy because available fund balances would cover losses in Local Government Aid Roll Call: Ayes; Wampach, Leroux, Reinke, Colligan, Vierling Noes; Lebens Motion carried. Vierling/Leroux offered Resolution No. 2449, A Resolution Accepting Work on Shenandoah Drive Street Construction, Contract No. 1984-4, and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes; Leroux, Vierling, Wampach, Reinke, Colligan Noes; Lebens Motion carried. Shakopee City Council October 1, 1985 Page 11 Vierling/Lero'ux offered Resolution No. 2447, A Resolution Requesting that the Minnesota Department of Transportation Conduct an Engineering and Traffic Investigation to Determine Reasonable and Safe Speed Limits on 4th Avenue Between CR17 and CR83, and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Vierling/Leroux offered Resolution No. 2424, A Resolution Appointing Judges of Election, and Establishing Compensation, and moved its adop- tion. Motion carried unanimously. Lebens/Vierling moved to adjourn to October 15, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Judith S. Cox City Clerk Diane S. Beuch Recording Secretary TO: Judith S. Cox, Acting City Administrator FROM: Jeanne Andre, Community Development Director RE: Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bonds Canterbury Apartments I DATE: October 21 , 1985 Introduction- On October 15 , 1985 , the City Council held a public hearing on the above-listed project. After hearing testimony on the project the Council agreed it would consider adoption of Resolution No. 2461, A Resolution Adopting a Housing Program for the Issuance of Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bonds for Canterbury Apartments I and Authorizing Submission of Same to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency on October 22 , 1985 , if all necessary documentation had been submitted to and reviewed by staff prior to that time. Background• The applicant has submitted all necessary documentation except a letter from bond counsel giving a preliminary opinion. The applicant' s attorney has explained that this letter should be prepared after adoption of the housing program, and will be submitted on Wednesday, October 23rd. The project architect has submitted the attached letter outlining the specifications and warrenty of the aluminum lap siding to be included in the project. Assuming the information provided is satisfactory to the Council, a motion should be adopted approving the exterior materials. Requested Action: 1. Approve exterior materials for Canterbury Apartments I consisting of stucco, Reynolds or Alcoa horizontal aluminum lap ( 8" in width with a double 4" exposure) siding with a 50 year warrenty, and cedar or redwood trim. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 2461, A Resolution Adopting a Housing Program for the Issuance of Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bonds for Canterbury Apartments I and Authorizing Submission of the Same to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. tw Architects 1)t__ Mr. Tim Keane 16 October 1985 Scottland, Inc. 5244 Valley Industrial Boulevard South Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 RE: CANTEBURY APARTMENTS rr Dear Mr. Keane: SCGTTLAND INC. It was requested that the warranty and life expectancy data be supplied on the exterior siding for the Cantebury Apartments. The siding will be horizontal aluminum lap, 8" in width, with a double 4" exposure. The siding is manufactured by either Reynolds or Alcoa and will have a textured face of country of western oak graining. The siding, including finish, carries a lifetime warranty which is equal to 50 years. The life expectancy of aluminum siding is indefinite, which means as long as the building exists. If damage should occur to the finish of the product, it can be either replaced or repainted. Repainting would have to be done by a professional painting contractor understanding the cleaning and surface preparation requirements of the manufacturer to maintain product integrity and warranty. Aluminum siding continues to be, as it has been for the past 20 years, a maintenance free exterior finish product. I trust this addresses the issues of the council. Thank you. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, n LaVerne Hanson, Jr. , AIA Vice President vjl cc: Bruce Malkerson I3.nI,,rNot'ih BaiRiin .Stilt(,L'i)o First Av—,u,,North \;ill lw,ll'olis.Minne�4ot,t )54 W; CITY OF SHAKOPEE RESOLUTION NO. 2461 ADOPTING A HOUSING PROGRAM FOR THE ISSUANCE OF MULTIFAMILY MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS FOR CANTERBURY APARTMENTS I AND AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF SANE TO THE MINNESOTA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY. WHEREAS, pursuant to the Minnesota Municipal Housing Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C (the "Act" ) , the City of Shakopee (the "City") is authorized to adopt a housing plan and carry out programs for the financing of multifamily housing which is affordable to persons of low and moderate income; and WHEREAS, the Act requires adoption of the housing plan after a public hearing held thereon after publication of notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least thirty days in advance of the hearing and such plan was adopted on November 15, 1983 with notice published in the Shakopee Valley News on October 5, 1983 ; and WHEREAS, the Act requires adoption of a program after a public hearing held thereon after publication of notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least fifteen days in advance of the hearing; and WHEREAS, the City conducted a public hearing on a housing program (the "Program" ) on October 15, 1985, after publication of notice as required by the Act in the Minneapolis Star and Tribune on September 10, 1985 and the Shakopee Valley News on September 25 , 1985; and WHEREAS, the Program provides for the issuance of multifamily housing revenue bonds to finance the acquisition of land and construction of a' 92-unit rental housing development; and WHEREAS, the Act further requires submission of the Program to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (the "MHFA" ) for its approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shakopee: 1. That the Housing Program of the City for Canterbury Apartments I as attached hereto and made a part hereof is hereby in, all respects adopted. 2. That the City Administrator is hereby authorized to submit the Program to the MHFA, and to do all other things and take all other actions as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the Program in accordance with the Act and any other applicable laws and regulations. 3 . The adoption of this Resolution shall not be deemed to establish any legal obligation on the part of the City or its Council to issue or cause the issuance of the Bonds. The City retains the right in its sole discretion to withdraw from participation and accordingly not issue the Bonds, or issue the Bonds in an amount less than the amount referred to herein. 4. If the final resolution for the Bonds does not occur prior to twelve months from the date of this resolution, or any subsequent resolution providing any extension thereof, this Resolution shall expire and be of no further effect. Adopted in 4A" Rx/� - session of the City Council of the City of Shi'kopeej, Minnesota held this day of 1985 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: ► .4c- Ci .. 4 City C erk C Approved a to form this /.sr day of 6La ,, 1985. City Attorne Housing Program Canterbury Apartments I Multifamily Housing Development October _22, 1985 bor—'s is"ucd the C;ty. Tille City has received a prc,.--,si111 from ScottlMnd, Inc., a , 4 cor-oration, tlmt, pur.-tiant L LIC authority found in the Act', the City a-t)rc\,e a prod am provicin,:r for th-c acquisition of land Ln'.' constructiC;n of appro:,inlatcly .021 units of rc,ident:al rental housing ("Housing Units") located on a site at County Road 17 and Shakopee Avenue in the C"'Itv (the "Project"). The Project will be undertaken by a Minnesota general partnership to be formed of which Scottland, Lnc. will be a general partner (the "Developer"). The acquisition of land and construction of the Project is to be fun6--d through the issuance of up to $3,500,000 in revenue bonds issued by the City (the "Bonds"). Following construction of the Project, the Developer, or a related entity, will own and operate the Project as a multifamily residential rental project. The 92 units will be both one and two bedroom apartments, of which twenty percent (20%) of the units will be specifically reserved for tenants whose incomes are not greater than eighty percent (8096) of the area median income. It is estimated that rents for the Housing Units will range from $450 per month to $600 per month. One building is currently proposed. Anticipated date of initial occupancy is expected to be May 1, 1986. The. City, in establishing this multifamily housing program (the "Program"), has considered the information contained in the City's 462C Housing Plan (the "Housing Plan"), including particularly (i) the availability and affordability of other 0 government housing programs; (ii) the availability and affordability of private 0 marketing financing for the construction of multifamily housing. units; (iii) an analysis of population, unemployment trends and projections of future population trends and future employment needs; (iv) the recent housing trends and future housing needs of the City; and (v) an analysis of how the Program will meet the needs of persons and families residing and expected to reside in the City. The City,. in adopting the Program, has further considered (i) the amount, timing and sale of Bonds to finance the estimated costs of the housing, units, to fund the appropriate reserves and to pay the cost of issuance; (ii) the method of monitoring and implementation of the Program to insure compliance with the City's housing plan and its objectives; (Iii) the method of administering, servicing and supervising, the Program; (iv) the cost of the City, including future administrative expenses; (v) the restrictions on the multifamily development to be financing under the Program; and (vi) certain other limitations. -'Me City, in adopting the Program, considered the potential financing impact of a bond issuance on affected public agencies. In addition, the City reviewed the method of marketing the Program. Such review examined the equal opportunity for participation by (i) minorities; (ii) households with incomes at the lower end of the range that can be served by the Program; (iii) households displaced by public or private actions; (iv) families with children; and (v) accessibility to the handicapped. no Project will be constructed and financed pursuant to Subdivisions 1 and 2 of Section 462'C.05 of the Act. Subsection A. Definitions. ae following terms used in this Progra;n slaiil have the following meanings, respectively: (1) "Act" shell mean Minnesota Statutes, Section 462C.01, ct seq., as currently in effect and as the same may be from time to time amended. (2) "Adjusted Gross Income" shall mean gross family income less $750 for each adult and less $500 for each other dependent in the family. (3) "Bonds" shall mean the revenue bonds to be issued by the City to finance the Program. (4) "City" shall mean the City of Shakopee, State of Minnesota. (5) "Developer" shall mean a Minnesota general partnership to be formed of which Scottland, Inc. will be a general partner. (6) "Housing Plan" shall mean the City of Shakopee 462C Housing Plan, as amended, setting forth certain information required by the Act. (7) "Housing Unit" shall mean any one of the market rate apartment units located in: the Project, occupied by one person or family, and containing complete living facilities. (8) "Land" shall mean the real property upon. which the Project is situated. (9) "Program" shall mean the program for the financing of the Project pursuant to the Act. (10) "Project" shall mean the residential rental housing development consisting of approximately 92 market rate Housing Units to be constructed by the Developer on the Land. Subsection B. Program For Financing the Project. It is proposed that the City establish this Program to provide financing for acquisition and construction of 92 Housing Units to be owned by the Developer, or a related entity, at a cost and upon such other terms and conditions as are set forth herein and as may be agreed upon in writing between the City, the initial purchaser of the Bonds and the Developer. To do this, the City expects to issue the Bonds as soon as the terms of the Bonds have been agreed upon by the City, the _Developer and the initial purchaser of the Bonds. The proceeds of the Bonds will be loaned to the Developer for construction and financing of the Project, the funding of any appropriate reserves and for paying the costs of issuing the Bonds. It is expected that a trustee will be appointed by the City to monitor the construction of the Project in accordance with the Plan and Program and the payments of principal and interest on the Bonds. The cost of any additional security devices for the Bonds will be borne by the Developer and payable in addition to the principal and interest on the Bonds. -2- It is contemplated that the Bonds shall contain a maturity of at IeLst ten (10) years and will be priced to the market at the time of issuance. Tile City will hire no additional staff for the administration of the Progrrinn. The City intends to select and contract with a financial institution or trus.ec, experienced in trust matters to administrate the Bonds. No Ex)rtion of the state ceiling for qualified Mortgage bonds shall be used for the Program. Insofar as the City will be contracting with underwriters, legal counsel, bond counsel, the trustee, and others, all of whom will be reimbursed from bond proceeds and revenues generated by the Program, no administrative costs will be paid from the City's budget with respect to this Program. The Bonds will not be general obligation bonds of the City, but are to be paid only from properties pledged to the payment thereof, which may include additional security such as additional collateral, insurance ora letter of credit. Subsection C. Local Contributions To The Program. It is not contemplated that the City will use other financial initiatives in conjunction with the project. Subsection D. Standards rind Reouirements Relating to the Financing of the Proiect Pursuant to the Program. The following standards and requirements shall apply with respect to.the operation of the Project by the Developer pursuant to this Program: (1) Substantially all of the proceeds of the sale of the Bonds will be used to provide funds for the acquisition and construction of the Project, which will provide approximately 92 market rate residential Housing Units. The funds will be made available to the Developer pursuant to the terms of the Bond offering, which may include certain covenants to be entered into between the City and the Developer. (2) The Developer or subsequent owner of the Project, will not arbitrarily reject an application from a proposes tenant because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, or status with regard to public assistance or disability. (3) 'No Housing Unit may be in violation of applicable zoning ordinances or other applicable land use regulations, including any urban renewal plan or development district plan, and including the state building code as set forth under Minnesota Statutes, Section 16.83, et seq. (4) Pursuant to Section 462C.05, Subdivision- 2 of the Act, at least twenty percent (2096) of the Housing Units will be held for occupancy by families or individuals with Adjusted Gross Income not in excess of eighty percent (80%) of the median family income as estimated by the United States Department of Housing and.Urban. Development for the Minneapolis- St. Paul metropolitan area. (5) Pursuant to Section 462C.05, Suodivision 2 of the Act, the Project shall be designed to be affordable by persons and families with ac;usted gross income not yin excess of the greater of (a) 110 percent of the median family income as estimated by the United States department of housing and urban development for the Minneapolis-St. Paul standard metropolitan -atistical area or 100 percent of the income limits crtilt)!ished by the Minncsotb Hou-.ino Finance A�?enCy in which the Cit`,' is located and by other persons 871d ff_mil;es to the extent dctcrniined to be necessary by the Minnesota Iijusin�- Finance A-ency in furtherance of the policy of economic inter tit ion. Subsection E. Evidence of Comolinnec. 'Ilse City may require from the Developer or such other person acemed necessary nt or before the issuance of the Bonds, evidence satisfactory to the City of the ability and intention of the Developer to complete the Project, and evidence satisfactory to the City of compliance with the standards and requirements for the making of the financing established by the City, as set forth herein; and in connection therewith, the City. or its representatives may inspect the relevant books and records of the Developer in order to confirm such ability, intention and compliance. In addition, the City may periodically require certification from either the Developer or such other person deemed necessary concerning compliance with various aspects of the Program. Subsection F. Issuance of Bonds. To finance the Program authorized by this, Section, the City may be resolution authorize, issue and sell its Revenue Bonds in an aggregate principal amount estimated to be up to $3,500,000. The Bonds shall be issued pursuant to Section 462C.07, Subdivision 1 of the Act, and shall be payable primarily from the revenues of the Program authorized by this Section. Subsection G. Severability. The provisions of this Program are severable and if any' of its provisions, sentences, clauses or paragraphs shall be held unconstitutional, contrary to statute, exceeding the authority of the City or otherwise illegal or inoperative by any court of competent jurisdiction, the decision of such court shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions. Subsection H. Amendment. The City shall not amend this Program while Bonds authorized hereby are outstanding, to the detriment of the holders of such Bonds. Subsection I. State Ceilinc. No portion of the state ceiling for qualified mortgage bonds allocated pursuant to Section 103A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, and Section 462C.09, SUM. 2a, of Minnesota Statutes will be needed for this Program. Subsection J. Revenue Bo-ds. The City expects to issue revenue bonds in , an amount not to exceed $3,500,000 to finance the Program. This principal amount of bonds is presently expected to to be.applied as follows: $3,440,000 Construction and Acquisition Costs 250,000 Debt Service Reserve Fund 280,000 Underwriter's Discount + Legal, Fiscal 105,000 Design & Engineering, 250,000 Construction Financing The costs of the Program may change between the date of preparation of this Program and and the date of issue of the above-referenced bonds. The bonds are expected to be issued on or about November 1, 1985. -4- Y ! i TO: Shakopee Planning Commission Shakopee City Council FROM: Jeanne Andre, Community Development Director Judi Simac, City Planner RE: Racetrack District Land Use Study DATE: October 18 , 1985 Introduction• The Planning Commission has recommended and the City Council has concurred that a new look at permitted land uses near the racetrack should be explored, with the assistance of an outside planning consultant. Because consensus to this point is very general, a meeting has been set for the Council and Planning Commission to further define those issues to be explored, and how outside planning assistance should be solicited. Background: The two major issues to be addressed before initiating the study are: 1) defining the scope of the study and 2 ) determining the approach to use in hiring consulting services. These two issues are interrelated because a completely open-ended study would give little background to a consultant and not provide direction as to those areas policy-makers want to address. In addition, if definition of the issues is left to the consultant the study will probably take longer, cost more and possibly not hit all areas the City needs to address. Therefore it is a worthwhile exercise for policy-makers to provide up-front direction, while not precluding a consultant from including additional areas of concern which in his or her professional judgement should be considered by the City in the final analysis. The remainder of this memo will be broken into the major issues to be addressed by the Planning Commission and Council at the October 22nd meeting. I .Defining the Scope of Study Staff has sought to outline the major areas of concern as discussed over the past one year and list them in an order from more general to more specific. The list may not be compre- hensive and all participants are invited to add other issues ( see number 10 ) which should be discussed. Members may also wish to include other details or alternatives to the major points already listed. It is recommended that only those areas where consensus exists be referred to the consultant for further study in order to keep the study more manageable and tied to changes in the zoning ordinance which have a reasonable chance of being implemented by majority vote. However Council may wish to include items where there is not consensus and the majority does not favor inclusion, but there is strong minority opinion which warrents further study. ACTION REQUESTED: Discuss the following list of major issues (objectives ) which could be addressed in the study. It is recommended that they be discussed one-by-one in the order presented. The objectives of the study should be to: .� 1. Restrict heavy industrial type uses near the racetrack. 2 . Emphasize buffer uses between racetrack and heavy industry to the east/north of racetrack. 3 . Allow more "retail oriented" and/qr commercial recreational activities near the racetrack. 4 . Develop a zone which is more restrictive or specific in retail uses than current B1, B2 and B3 zones. 5 . Include desired items in numbers 1, 2 , 3 and/or 4 as part of a "Racetrack Zone" (alternative would be B-4 or I-3 generic zone which could exist in other parts of the City) . 6 . Use a mechanism such as PUD to provide greater City control of uses , set backs, height, etc. in the area near the track. 7 . Research how the amount and location of existing vacant land zoned for commercial/industrial development serves the city' s future needs in a comprehensive planning sense given the impact of the racetrack. 8. Consider revising permitted uses in other existing districts after setting up permitted uses in new district. 9 . Set boundaries for the study area as follows: ( see attached map) . [Get consensus on the smallest area first (tier 1) and then consider broader areas (eg. 2 and 3 ) ] Tier 1 E - West of CR 83 N - South of Fourth Avenue S - North of CR 16 W - East of Shenandoah Drive Tier 2 E - West of Valley Park Drive N - South of TH 101 S - North of TH 101 by-pass W - West line of Section 5 Tier 3 N - South of River W - East of CR 17 10 . Other a. b. II . Selection of a Planning Consultant Staff has taken the initial steps to contact various metro- politan land use consultants to see if they are interested and qualified to perform the study. Firms have also been asked as to whether a conflict of interest may exist. For example, have they done any work for Scottland, Minnesota Racetrack, Inc. , Baron Development, or any other land owner near the racetrack, or are they involved in any projects which are being prepared for submittal. The proposed time frame, scope of study and implementation process has been discussed. Most firms request three weeks to respond to the RFP. Preliminary cost estimates for the study range between $20 ,000 to $50 , 000 . However, as indicated earlier, if the scope of the project is well defined the costs may be better contained. Standard Procedure for issuing an RFP: *1. Issue a request for qualifications (RFQ) to firms thought to be qualified or interested in the work. *2. Based upon response to the RFQ compile a list of qualified firms . 3 . Announcement of the availability of the RFP to interested firms. 4. Establish budget for the project. 5 . Outline objectives of the study: A. Product B. Time Frame C. Implementation 6 . Acknowledge the receipt of RFP response. If the number of responsives is extensive , and two or three firms seem equally qualified, interview no more than 3 firms. 7 . After making final selection, negotiate a mutually satisfactory fee for completion of work. *Steps 1 and 2 can be completed by staff through preliminary screening, as described above. Uniform Evaluation: Each firm responding to the RFP must be treated equally during the evaluation process. The following steps can be taken to provide a uniform evaluation: 1. Require proposal to be submitted in two parts: I . Content and creativity II . Analysis of cost 2 . Require each part to be submitted in its own envelope. 3 . Number each proposal as received, with no premature inspection. 4. Evaluate only Part I (content & creativity) to narrow down the choice to two or three. 5 . Identify the finalists and interview. The attached Tentative Time Line for the Racetract District Land Use Study indicates a period of four to six weeks for selection process, with actual study beginning approximately December 3 , 1985 . The following alternatives may be considered for the selection fo the planning consultant: 1. Committee Review with Staff support ( staff review and recommendation) a) Planning Commission as Committee b) Joint Planning Commission/Council Committee of two to five members 2 . Committee of Policy Makers which would either: a) Screen all RFP ' s b) Interview final 3 as reviewed by Staff 3 . Other Action Requested 1. Determine whether a planning consultant should be sought to assist in a Racetrack District Land Use Study. 2 . Determine the selection process for consultant: A. Advertise generally or from a selected list B. Direct staff to screen RFP' s or have committee review all submittals. 3 . Direct staff to prepare RFP: A. To be reviewed by selection committee before advertisement. B. Immediately released by staff. 4 . Determine whether moratorium on any planning processes ( such as rezoning, platting, building permits) should be considered, directing staff to bring back for Council action November 6th appropriate ordinances. o I0 IH ib IC] IC 'H IM �-3 3 Ind I� IAD 10 1r= it a 1� vlIt 10 Ib to b 0 CO ri CO I 0 0 0, o w p 0�I C Advertise Iv, - — (D Receive Proposals o C� M Select Proposals r ��-3 N ro > I I a 0 CO y I Begin Work I ¢' I N O F- O IJ H t� y_ y I N io ,IPreliminary Report H H I ~ (D Ft y x o' Final Report m a I W O N O N d 3:t3i OD I N r C M N O O\ O a t(Z) Public Hearings PC 69o F1 LO a Council Review o OD I �y Draft Ordinance w OZ) N � W � N IE ct N O p x H Adopt Ordinance � O oro Is i v~i ~ I Publish (Effective I v, O -P:- o -p- i l \ F1 \ F1 \ W lr� i I i 1 I I 1 1 Q s V mak+- � _ �, li \, � •_ i 1 a + TO: Rod Krass , Assistant City Attorney FROM: Jeanne Andre, Community Development Director RE: Acquisition of Downtown Site for Housing Alliance Project DATE: October 22 , 1985 Introduction• The City has previously reviewed and agreed in principal to support the Housing Alliance project for housing in the downtown on Block 32 . To facilitate this process the Council requested the HRA to hire an appraiser to establish reasonable sales prices on the identified parcels. The appraisals are in and now Council action is necessary to proceed with land control and the tax increment project. Background: Appraisals have been received for two parcels which constitute the site of the proposed project. Site control is necessary to proceed with the project, so Council may wish to make offers to acquire the parcels for the appraised prices in order to move the project along. Since the project still must go through a number of additional steps before it is assured, the offers should be made contingent on: 1) securing necessary planning and zoning approvals and 2 ) successful negotiation of a redevelopment contract between the HRA and the developer. The Housing Alliance has been waiting for the appraisals in order to proceed and needs resolution of the site issue to go forward. Staff therefore recommends that the Council approve the making of contingent offers requesting response from the property owners by Friday, October 25th, with Council to hold a special meeting, Tuesday, October 29 , 1985 , to review the project with the Housing Alliance. Requested Action: 1) Direct staff to offer to purchase the following properties at the appraised value as on file with the City Clerk, said offers to be contingent on the developer securing necessary planning and zoning approvals and successful negotiation of a redevelopment contract between the HRA and the developer; and requesting a response to the offer to be provided by Friday, October 29, 1985 . 1. Lots 4 , 5 , 6 & 7 , Block 32 , Original Shakopee Plat 2 . Lots 8 and the east 38 feet of Lot 9 , Block 32 , Original Shakopee Plat. 2 ) Direct staff to call a special meeting of the Council for October 29 , 1985 , to consider the response from the property owners.