Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/02/1985 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson , City Administrator RE: Non-Agenda Informational Items DATE : June 27 , 1985 1 . On June 21st, Judge Fitsgerald denied Mr. Hanover ' s motion for a temporary restraining order against the suspension of his liquor license . He has ten days to appeal that decision . If he does not appeal , the suspension shall commence July 1st. 2 . Attached is a very nice thank you letter to Officer Russell Lawrence regarding his professional response on May 28th to a 911 call . If you see Russ let him know that you appreciate his good work. 3 . Attached is a memo from Judy Cox regarding the enforcement of our peddling ordinance. 4 . Attached is a emergency phone number checklist for Racetrack roadway maintenance prepared by Fulton Schleisman . Fulton had this idea on his own and provided it to all emergency and track personnel before the Sunday Open House . It is employees with super foresight like Fulton that make the administration and Council look like we are on our toes . If you see Fulton let him know you appreciate his efforts . 5 . Attached is a memo from George Muenchow regarding the Metro- politan Rivers Study. It is on file should Councilmembers want to see a copy . t�ii i.a%LiY$u iS $ letter i tc a concern expressed by Jack Brambilla regarding the former Cactus Jacks building . �'. Zttacd L-d Z;5- a Bob Mayer regardinig the school ' s interest in moving the Cable TV Studio to one of the schools . This request is similar, but not identical , to the request Council considered at its April 5 , 1983 Council meeting (minutes attached) . The key difference in this request is that the business office would not be included with the studio in the school ' s proposal . If you have questions or concerns please contact Barry. 8 . Attached is a opinion from Rod Krass clarifying the City' s authority (ability) to collect assessments after the bonds for the particular project have been retired. If you have any questions regarding this opinion please contact me . The purpose of the request was to clarify our ability to collect deferred assessments under the new storm sewer utility along with other deferred assessment programs. (Note Mayor , I ' m sorry I didn ' t go to Jack with this but I had the request in the mail before you reminded me to use Jack on these routine opinions . ) 9. Attached is a copy of the Scott County Board resolution providing a compromise position regarding the County highway refundment program and the County ' s practice of requiring cities, but not townships , to purchase County highway right- of-way when the County is expanding or constructing new County roads. This agreement represents the work of the Mayors and Administrators Group and Scott County . All cities concurred that it would be the best bargain we could obtain . Note the current construction on County Road 21 in Prior Lake has cost that, City more than $25070�3S3 ir, right-of-way acquisition expenses to date , so right-of-way figures can add up. A final note, and one not mentioned in the resolution but agreed to by the County , is that the County will take over maintenance of county roads or will accept bills from the City if the City does maintain County roads. This will be something we will discuss and analysis during the 186 budget preparation. 10. Attached is our annual tax rate comparison included in our budget appendix . I am including it here so Councilmembers will have it early for comparison purposes when we begin the budget process. 11 . Attached is a letter from Rep. Bill Frenzel ' s office regarding key elements of the President' s tax reform plan affecting cities. 12. Attached is a invitation to Councilmembers from the City of Eagan for their 125th year anniversary. 13 . Attached are the notes regarding the meeting with the Scott County Board to discuss the possibility of a County-wide ice arena . Note , this is the meeting I requested Council allow me to attend on the City' s behalf at a recent Council meeting. If Councilmembers have any suggestions or concerns based on the information in these notes I would appreciate it if they would contact me. 14. Attached are the minutes of the June 6 , 1985 meeting of, the Shakopee Coalition. 15 . Attached are the minutes of the June 12 , 1985 meeting of the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee. 16 . Attached are the minutes of the June 6 , 1985 meeting of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. 17 . Attached are the minutes of the June 6 , 1985 meeting of the Planning Commission. 18 . Attached is a memo from Gregg Voxland re: drainage assessment for Charles Griffin. 19 . Attached is the monthly calendar for July. 20 . Tom and Bo will have a report on the request from the seniors at the Highrise at the July 16th meeting. Tom did increase patrol on 101 as noted on the attached memo dated June 27th. He indicated that we cannot do this much patrolling on a normal basis. 21 . For your information please find attached a copy of the legal opinion Judi Simac has received from Rod Krass regarding several questions raised at the June 6th Planning Commission meeting. 22 . FLASH ! What ' s better than winning the Daily Double or Exacta? Jeanne Andre learned Thursday , June 27th that Shakopee won a lottery for $2 ,000 ,000 . Our name was drawn in the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency ' s annual lottery for Mortgage Revenue -bonds for first time home buyers . We will send something official when we receive it. 23 . The Chamber has opened the tourist information booth at Memorial Park. It will be staffed Wednesday through Sunday from 10: 00 a.m. to 6 : 00 p.m. 24 . Attached is a letter from R. Gehl Tucker advising that the stock of Clair ' s Bar , Inc . has changed hands . The City Code requires that the Council be advised of such a change ; no action is necessary by Council . Staff took the liberty of conducting the routine investigation made with a new application. Because it is in order , there should be no objections to any license renewal . JKA/jms OL p�0Pr r JUN 7 1 r jo r Rua!sa 4Nq _Dw-c R ass i t, P�r,..p�, off.• p�.o�5�ti� o�r,�i,�,�n� m-• Zgzh urhsw� A.s-pcsr� 'Ccs 0, 11 MD9- �P • U�� ��, t1v�� � (�� t s Q:�Q kdw-yf-.1 wva-,,. Po c - a ugc L vv\ z - U 0. totk - • lam. K�� ho5.., n© 4 � �C � k,sIT;i s a 'r . - 3 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: Peddling DATE: June 25 , 1985 The City is receiving numerous requests for peddlers licenses to sell items on the streets into Canterbury Downs. The City Code precludes sales within public right-of-way without having obtained a written permit. Staff is taking the responsibility of advising that no sales are permitted! Should someone decide to pursue further staff ' s answer , the request would come before Council. Because of the traffic nazaard created, staff would recommend that Council not approve a permit for sales within public right-of-way. Rather than bombard Council with numerous requests , staff is comfortable taking this approach. If Council desires to have requests come before them, please advise. JSC/jms l EMERGENCY PHONE NUMBERS FOR RACETRACK ROADWAYS BUSINESS CONTACT PERSON PHONE NO. City of Shakopee Fulton Schleisman 871-1740 Enoineering Inspector Barton Aschman Ken Anderson 5-15-2135 Dave Warzaia 731-1025 Mn/DOT District 5 Good until midnight 545-3761 Signals at Valley Dispatcher on Duty Park Dr. & Cty. Rd. 18 Dieseth Specialties Bob Fletcher, Eagan 452-0967 Signs, (not signals) on Highway 101, Valley Park Dr. , 12th Ave. , & Shenandoah Egan McKay Electric Co. Don Swanson, Owner 674-4145 Electric Contractor Jim Meyer, Foreman 447-8731 Signals at Valley at Valley Park Dr. and Cty. Rd. 18 Chicano Northwestern R. R. Valley Park Depot Call for any trouble (Sunday 7:30 A. M. - 4:00 P.M. ) 445-6266 with railroad signals, St. Paul 221-9306 trains, etc. St. Paul 22-21-9309 Buesing Brothers, Inc. James Beito 479-3290 Roadway Contractor for Snenandoah Drive C. S. McCrossan, Inc. Ron Thompson 507-931-2486 Roadway Contractor for Mark Reich 5.25-21.33 Cty. Rd. 83 & Hwy. 101 NSP 339-0859 Supplies power to signals at Valley Park Drive, Cty. Rd. 83, Shenandoah Dr. , and Cty. Rd. 18 Shakopee Public Utilities Emernencies for Electric 445-6681 (SPUC) or Water City of Shakopee After Hours Emergency 445-6666 Public Works ftakapee TomtnunitU *CrUires 129 Levee Drive Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Phone 445-2742 oto��o Community Education • Parks • Recreation • Adult Education George F. Muenchow, Dir. 6/20/85 John Anderson: Thank you for forwarding this copy of the Metropolitan Rivers Study. No, I had not seen itp although I was aware that it was happening and had supplied some data some time ago for them. I have no problem with their recommendations at all. They're trying to provide some consistency to environmental control of these three rivers. I broughtthis subject up at the County Park Meeting yesterday and a resolution of support was passed. If this committee would be successfu.1_1 in all of their recommendations, among other things, the Fish & Wildlife Service would then be able to purchase land from other governmental agencies. They now cannot. OUV County Committee is very interested because we wish to sell Wilkie Regional Park to Fish & Wildlife. Bloomington also has some property along the river that they would like to sell to them. We probably wouldn't be involved, or interested. G.F.M. A COOPERATIVE EFFORT OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE AND SCHOOL DISTRICT 720 SINCE 1954 f CITY 4F SHAKOF � E ' INCORPORATED 1870 (612j 445-3650 129 E. First Ave. - Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-1376 `^' a J June 25 , 1985 ` Mr . Jack Brambilla P.O. Box 37 Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Jack: I am well aware of the Dilapidated Building Act of 1967. Unfortunately the Cactus Jack building is on the historical register which limits local government power to condem and raze this building. I am sure you are aware the boarding up of this building was done by the City of Shakopee , and paid for by the City. The owner was billed for our cost and has now repaid us for our cost . This was done under the Dilapidated Building Act of 1967 . - I .will continue to attempt to have this property brought into full code compliance before anyone occupies this building. Please try to bear witF us on this matter. Sincerely, LeRoy Houser Building Official LH: cah cc : Councilmembers John K. Anderson 1- 1 of 1 r O (7 Y C c S 1 cZ / / C 1I � tsl - BRAI BILLA S INC* Select (612) 445-2611 Winnebago° Rentals Used Cars 114 NORTH HOLMES • P. O. BOX 37 • SHAKOPEE, MN 55379 June 24 1985 City of Shakopee 129 14t Ave. B. Shakopee, Minneaoxa 55379 Dean City o6 Shakopee, Regarding the pnopenty .located at 101 lzt Ave. B. , Shakopee, M.i.nneaota. The jmmen Cactus Jack ' s in Shakopee. I Jack Btambitta, would tike the city o j Shakopee, to act on the D.itapidated Bu.itd.ing Act o6 1967. Sineenety, Jack Bn.amb.i tta DISTRICT OFFICES INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 720 505 SOUTH HOLMES JAMES STILLMAN, Chairperson SCOTT COUNTY ROBERT MAYER, Ed.D. JERRY LEBENS. Vice-Chairperson SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 Superintendent of Schools GAIL REBECCA KELSO, Clerk TELEPHONE: 445-4884 JOHN GOIHL, Treasurer VIRGIL S. MEARS WARREN HALLGREN, D.D.S., Director Assistant Superintendent JOAN LYNCH, Direcmr JAMES SORENSEN, Director June 19, 1985 Mr. Barry Stock 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Dear Mr. Stock: I spoke to Mr. Jerry Martinson yesterday and he said you would like some indication from the school district as to our interest in locating a cable T.V. studio in one of our buildings. 15e would be interested in investigating the possibility of locating a studio in our senior high school building. We would also be interestec' in investigating the possibility of obtaining some help from, or through, the city to aid in financing the project. When sufficient information has been gathered the matter will be presented to the school board for actior-. Mr. Virgil Mears is on vacation until June 28 but will be the school district's contact for this project. Thank you. Sincerely yours, J 1 Robert Mayer Superintendent of Schools RM:cb AN EQUAL OPPOPTUNITY EA-1 rwc- � ,g�,� acquired. Mr. Huemoeller, attorney for the Watershed District, answered those CCV ''��"5 questions indicating that. ail had been acquired through riegotiation or condem- 7 /qT3 nation. Mr. Y.rass, Ass't City Attorney, questioned the insurance limits. Mr. Shutrop stated he has 30 acres of crop land that was affected by the opening of the outlet, and asked what he can do if the water doesn't go down. He stated the ditch that is in there was put in during the 1950's to drain the fields, not handle this extra water. Mr. Huemoeller stated the Watershed District has taken the responsibility of in- demnifying the city and taking responsibility for any damages to property. There- fore, a landowner should contact the Watershed District if he feels he has damage. Leroux/Wampach moved to direct staff to send a letter to the Watershed District indicating that Shakopee residents within the Watershed District should not have any assessment or general levy against them by the Watershed District for any damage or costs incurred because of the flood on Prior Lake or damage from water let out of the outlet. Motion carried unanimously. The City A dmr. stated the City would want its City Engineer to review the work done for erosion control, and would expect a letter from Mr. Huemoeller specifying the date of completion of the work. T (City Council, at a previous meeting, indicated a willingness to explore City involvement in debt financing for an addition at the high school which could be leased to Zylstra-United (ZU) for cable studio facilities. The two financing mechanisms considered were industrial revenue bonds or a direct loan from a City or HliA fund. ) The Admin. Ass't stated Industrial itevenue Bonds are not available for the proposed addition due to a recent change in the law. Zylstra-United (ZU) has also requested to include an office .with the studio, due to the fact that their whole studio/ office budget would be expended on debt payments for the proposed addition. It appears this is a conflect with the Zoning Ordinance. Interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance is scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting April 7, 1983. She stated that ZU has no problem putting the studio and office elsewhere in the City, it is *ust that the staff and school are aware that based on past experience, the public access is used more when it is connected with an educational facility. Some discussion followed. - Mayor Reinke asked for comments from the audience. John Neely stated he felt it ought not to be a function of the government to com- pete with private business for retail property. He said ZU is already committed to cable communications in Shakopee, and in no way will financing a new structure benefit Shakopee, and in fact the City, could be assuming a substantial liability. He stated it is the City Council's function only to see. that ZU is in compliance with the franchise agreement. He stated ZU is a "for profit" business. He said he believes it is a serious mistake for the City to finance private "for profit" industry. Virgil Mears stated he wanted to clarify that ZU did not approach the school about this studio, -the school approached ZU about the possibility os using the high school., because it wanted to enhance the education of the Shakopee Senior High.. In looking at the history of cable T.V. , he stated the. greatest use of public ac- cess is when it is located in con;;unction with an educational facility. He said in no way did they intend to enter into competition with private'business. ZU would be paying for the entire building (through rent payments) , which would eventually be owned by the school. He stated he has since realized there is an element of competition and the school could not take the bad rress. Therefore the school district and ZU have withdrawn the request for an addition at the high school. Mary Smith authorized h�m to wi t,ndraw for 7-ti. How?.r:r he stated he believes the students of Shakopee will be the losers because of t.liis decision. CI 19 83 Page 3 The City Admr. stated it, was originally City staff that pursued the idea of build- ing an additic:. at the high scho:;1. At that time they believed an It Bond could be used. A financial arrangement involving direct loans for the addition is some- thing the City hnr; rich, do nr- bcfore, and the precedent s( ' ting factor is a tough one. Policy wc_J1 have to be put, in place .for an H}�A lout;. Discussion followed. Mayor Reinke asked if there was anyone else in the audience who wished to comment on this item, and there was -no response. /r Mayor Reinke stated that since the request is withdrawn, there is no action needed. Colligan/Leroux moved to extend the deadlinu, for having a cable studio facility leased, remodeled and fully operational, by two month:,, or no later than June 7, 1983. Motion carried unanimously. Colligan/Lebens moved to direct staff to write national legislators who represent Minnesota or who are actively involved in the proposed National Cable Legislation (Goldwater Bill), to lobby against both Senate File 66 and the National League of Cities compromise legislation, and to specifically state the City is against 1) municipal payment for goodwill; 2) limitation of access channels provided; 3) auto- matic rate increases or limitation of municipal authority to regulate rates; 4) limitation of cities authority to regulate rates or services.; and 5) automatic franchise renewal; and is- in favor of 1) increasing the franchise fee to %; and 2) grandfathering existing franchises from any new legislation until they are renewed. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Colligan/Lebens moved to terminate the probationary status of Marilyn Remer, effective March 9, 1983. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Colligan/Lebens moved to authorize a 90 day leave of absence without pay for Jerry Neisen from April 6, 1983 to July 6, 1983. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Colligan/Lebens moved to appoint Jim Cook to a three year term on the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried Colligan/Lebens -moved to authorize City officials to execute an easement for con- struction, repair, and maintenance of sewer and water lines in Patricia 's First Addition. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Sam Gelt, President of North Star Auto Auction, stated that because of the great amount of snow this year he has lost some parking spaces in his-lot, and more vehicles have had -to park on -the service road on Thursdays. He recognizes this can be a traffic hazard. He stated he examined the road and could not see any damage that was done to the road, and thought the larger trucks do more damage than the 6 or 8 cars that park along- the road.' However, he would like to have parking on one side of the road, preferably the north side, which is better for parking. Dis- cussion followed. Leroux/Lebens moved to direct staff to erect "No Parking" signs on the south side along the service road south of Trunk Highway 101 in Section 1, Townsh_p 115, Range 22, with the north side of that same road to have parking limited to 7000 GVW and under. Motion carried unanimously. The City Engineer explained that City Council has budgeted funds for the improve- ment of the drainage on A baondoned Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Law Offices of FGRASS, MEYER & WALSTEN _ Chartered Suite 300 Marschall Road Business Center Phillip R. Kress Paralegals 327 South Marschall Road Barry K. Meyer Barbara J.Hedstrom P.O. Box 216 Trevor R. Walsten Jolene R.Wagner Shakopee. Minnesota 55379 Elizabeth B. McLaughlin Lori A.Wermenkirchen (612)445-5080 Rochelle M. Anderson Shelly T.Felaing Of Counsel Office Manager Dennis L. Monroe Wanda Braimhorst June 17, 1985 Mr. John Anderson City Administrator City of Shakopee 129 East 1st Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear John: This letter is in response to your question regarding the city's ability to collect assessments after the underlying improvement bonds have been paid off. _. Although there appears to be no case law directly on point, it is clear that the city is able to collect assessments after the bonds are paid off. Minn. Stat. 429.051 provides that "the cost of any improvement, or any part thereof, may be assessed upon property benefited by the improvement, based upon the benefits received. ..". Thus in Minnesota the amount that each land owner is assessed is based upon the amount the land owner benefits from the local improvement. There is no indication that a city's ability to make a special assessment is tied to the amount owing on an underlying obligation such as an improvement bond. The only limitation on an assessment is that it not exceed the benefit the property received from the improvement. So long as the assessments do not exceed the amount of the benefit to the landowner, the city can continue to assess the property. Thus, a city has the ability to assess a land owner for the amount he benefited from a local improvement regardless of whether or not the underlying funding obligation has been paid. I hope this rather general response is sufficient to answer your question, John. If not, or if I can be of further assistance, please contact me. Very truly yours, RUSS, MEYER & WALSTEN CHARTERED �llip&RxKrass - PRK/ln/eg S C O T T C 0 U N T Y , M I N N E S O T A JUN 2 „£ 1985 REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION agenda # / • / Board Date: June 18, 1985 11 :45 A.M. * Originating Dept: Flexibility: Not Flexible * Highway ITEM: (Service/Subject) * Presenter: * Commissioner Worm/ Highways * B J. Larson Refundment Program * Estimated Time: R/W Polices * 15 Minute BOARD ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt Resolution No. 85059 establishing policy on the Refundment Program and the Highway Right-of-Way Cost Participation. BACKGROUND: As directed by the Joint Committee of City, Township and County officials. a subcommittee composed of representatives from each government type has reviewed 12 alternates to the R/W Policy and the Refundment Program. The recommendation of the sub-committee is that Alternate No. 10A be adopted as County policy. Alternate No. 10A provides for all County Highway R/W to be purchased by the County. Refundment Program to be eliminated as follows: Refundment Program 1985 - $170, 148 (15%) (1983 Cost Figures Used) 1986 - 136,118 (12%) 1987 - 102,089 (09%) 1988 - 68,059 (06%) 1989 - 0 .00 (00%) Supporting Documents: None: S' tur /Da e * Distribution/Date * Consent Agenda: err * V A 6-12-85 * * Yes X_ No ADMINIS RATORS COMMENTS: Supporting documents to County Commissioners only. Signature/Date: Distribution/Filing Instructions: B U� D Approved- ) * See Resolution Denied: A Tabled: C Other: •" 0 Rec Sec' s N Date: by Xe 5- RBA RBA NO: C�BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA Date June 18, 1985 Resolution No., 85059 Motion by Commissioner worm Seconded by Commissioner Stromwall RESOLUTION NO. 85059; ESTABLISHING POLICY ON HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY COST PARTICIPATION AND REFUNDMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, The Board of Commissioners identified a need to establish a uniform policy on highway right-of-way acquisition, and WHEREAS, the Road and Bridge Levy Refundment Program is an integral part of the highway right-of-way cost participation plan, and WHEREAS, a joint committee composed of County, City and Township officials was established to evaluate and recommend a policy on highway right-of-way cost participation and the Refundment Program, and WHEREAS, the committee has agreed upon a policy recommendation, now THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Commissioners in and for the County of Scott, Minnesota, that the County hereby establish as policy that effective on this date financing of County Highway right-of-way be the sole responsibility of the County and that the Refundment Program be eliminated under the following timetable and Refundment Schedule: YEAR PERCENT REFUNDMENT 1985 15% 1986 12% 1987 9% 1988 6% 1989 0% BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that copies of this resolution be furnished each City Administrator/Manager and each Township Clerk forthwith by the County Administrator. YES NO Koniarski Koniarski x Worm x Worm Mertz x Mertz Stromwall_ x Stromwall Casey x Casey State of Minnesota SS. County of Scott I,Joseph F.Ries,Duly appointed,qualified and acting County Administrator for the County of Scott,State of Minnesota,do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy of a resolution with the original minutes of the proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners,Scott County,Minnesota,at their session held on the 18th day of June 198.5 now on file in my office,and have found the same to be a true and correct copy thereof. Witness my hand and official seal at Shakopee,Minnesota,this 20th dayof JunQ 1285 County Administtutor SCA Form 1 ey--� Adminl t tor',W�IpnN l PAYABLE 1985 MILL RATE LISTING (Predominant District) County City City County School Rate Rate Rate MISC. Total Scott Shakopee 18 . 508 34 . 865 67 . 193 3 . 327 123 . 893' Savage 26. 772 35. 126 60 . 841 3 . 413 126 . 152 Prior Lake 26. 404 35 . 126 53 . 013 3 . 327 118 . 06C Jordan 28 . 784 35 . 126 54 . 737 1. 392 120 . 0319 Carver Chaska 15 . 312 29 ,958 53 . 997 3 . 147 102 . 414 Chanhassen 27. 293 29 . 958 53 . 997 3 . 667 114 . 915 Hennepin Plymouth 14 . 538 29 . 262 47 . 997 5 . 181 96 . 978 Eden Prairie 19 . 961 29 . 262 52. 600 3 . 965 105 . 788 Minnetonka 16. 826 29 . 262 57 . 417 5 . 181 108 . 686 Brooklyn Center 16 . 506 29 . 262 50. 822 5 . 181 101. 771 Dakota Burnsville 24 . 115 21. 043 60 . 841 3 . 317 109 . 316 Eagan 21. 039 21. 043 54. 307 3 . 260 99 . 649 Apple Valley 26 . 112 21. 043 60 . 228 3 . 210 110 . 593 Lakeville 22 .893 21. 043 61. 876 1. 403 107 . 215 Ramsey New Brighton 11. 001 29.273 50 . 089 4. 350 94 .713 Roseville 13 . 140 29.273 51. 091 4 . 350 97 . 854 Moundsview 13 . 933 29.273 50 . 089 3 . 526 96. 821 Anoka Fridley 14 . 654 27 . 017 59 . 675 4. 739 106 . 085 Columbia Heights 16.613 23 . 868 50 . 487 4 . 625 95 . 593 Washington Lake Elmo 14. 451 27 . 201 49 . 473 3 . 870 94 . 995 Woodbury 18 . 808 27 . 201 59 . 978 3 . 946 109 . 933 Cottage Grove 18. 800 27 . 201 59 . 978 3 . 815 109 . 794 Average 19 . 385 28 . 529 55 . 488 3 . 588 107 . 146 MILL RATE LISTING COMPARISON OF CITY RATES County City 81, 82 83 84 85 Scott Shakopee 15 .631 19. 145 18 .770 17. 465 18 . 508 Savage 22. 973 25 . 471 25.063 25 .436 26 . 772 Prior Lake 21.082 21. 443 23 . 570 22. 020 26 . 404 Jordan 29 . 823 32 . 201 27 .708 28. 536 28 . 784 Carver Chaska 17 . 233 18 . 333 14.650 16 . 234 15 . 312 Chanhassen 18 . 367 17 . 558 17.022 26 . 197 27 . 293 Hennepin Plymouth 10 . 730 12 . 790 12 . 134 13 . 877 14. 538 Eden Prairie 16. 57-9 16. 660 20 .018 20. 885 19 . 961 Minnetonka 15. 463 15. 088 16. 222 17. 109 16. 826 Brooklyn Center 16 . 603 16 . 397 15 . 971 17. 096 16. 506 Dakota Burnsville 19. 516 19. 467 22. 034 25 . 986 24 . 115 Eagan 17 . 325 17 . 669 17. 149 17 . 824 21. 039 Apple Valley 26. 894 25 . 413 24.402 27 .027 26 . 112 Lakeville 22 . 922 22 . 441 22 . 260 22 . 087 22 . 893 Ramsey New Brighton 9 . 985 9 . 625 9. 348 10 . 147 11. 001 Roseville 11. 431 11. 643 11. 357 12 . 548 13 . 140 Moundsview 14. 437 12 . 787 12 .462 13 . 527 13 . 933 Anoka Fridley 15 .722 14. 278 14. 908 14 . 340 14 . 654 Columbia Hgts. 18. 153 17. 303 15.438 16. 610 16 . 613 Washington Lake Elmo 13 . 071 11.135 11. 549 15 . 279 14 . 451 Woodbury 18 .727 19 .180 18 . 326 19 . 565 18 . 808 Cottage Grove 20 .666 22 .061 22.049 22. 762 18 . 800 Average 17 . 879 18 .095 17 .821 19 . 214 19 . 385 ( 22 cities ) ----------------------------------------------- COUNTY MILL RATE COMPARISON Year payable COUNTY 81 82 83 84 85 Dakota 20.182 19 . 951 19 . 594 20 . 656 21. 043 Hennepin 29 . 271 29 .183 28 . 451 29 . 689 29 . 262 Washington 26. 330 24.293 24 .202 27 .818 27 . 201 Scott 36. 252 39 .046 36 . 736 33 . 004 35.126 Carver 33 . 072 32 . 046 29 . 287 31. 254 29 . 958 Anoka 27. 910 26 . 113 26 , 594 28 . 363 27 . 017 Ramsey 25 .751 . 27 . 319 26 . 821 27 . 143 29 . 273 Average 28. 395 28 .279 27. 384 28 . 275 28 . 374 BILL FRENZEL DISTRICT OFFICES:// THIRD DISTRICT.MINNESOTA MAYBETH CHRISTENSEN 180 FEDERAL BUILDING WASHINGTON OFFICE: Q� /(��py . MINNEAPOLIS 55401 102ti LoNGwoRTH 225-2 BUILDING 0Conareol of the niteb OtatO 6'SIAUNDERS 2p2_225-2871 tR13 SAUNDERSON 30AU�C ®f 3Atprt0ttltattbt0 .9801 PARK CENTER BOULEVARD j} ST.Louts PARR 55418 612-925-4540 W"binstan,O.C. 20515 June 20, 1985 JUN 24196 Mr. John K. Anderson CITY OF SHAKOPEE City Administrator City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Mr. Anderson: Because of your interest in tax reform, the following update on the President's tax reform plan is provided. Until the unveiling of the President's Tax Proposals to the Congress for Fairness Growth and Simplicity, I was a skeptic of tax reform. Without real cooperation between the Branches and between the Houses, I thought reform would fail. Now, however, I am impressed by the conciliatory attitudes of President Reagan and Chairmen Rostenkowski and Packwood. If such cooperation continues, I give some sort of tax reform a better than 50 percent chance of passage. It might even happen as early as the end of this year, but more likely in 1986. The President's plan is ambitious, but more politically palatable than Treasury 1 . The personal exemption would be raised to $2,000 and the zero bracket amount increased. The heartburn of certain groups such as small business, charitable organizations and homeowners has been ameliorated. A limited amount of employer- provided fringe benefits would be taxed ($10 per month for single health plans; $25 per month for family) . The plan is less economically pure than the Don Regan original, but it probably is easier to pass. The bill is not without controversy, however. Of particular importance to Minnesota is the loss of deductibility of state and local taxes. Repeal of this deduction would remove the cushion from Minnesotans' relatively high tax burden. As Minne- sota's relative tax burden increases, job opportunities are likely to decrease. The question of the plan's affect on capital growth and business investment is an important one. Some believe that it retards capital formation and may stim- ulate consumption. The loss of private-purpose tax-exempt financing and the invest- ment tax credit would be hard on some localities and businesses. The loss of ITC is said to hurt rust belt industries. It is important to consider all of the sectorial and regional, as well as macro, long term economic effects when considering changes of this magnitude. THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE WITH RECYCLED FIBERS D city of eagan BEA BLOMQUIST 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD,P.O. BOX 21199 ` Mayor EAGAN,MINNESOTA 55121 CITY OF SH KORE R THOMAS EGAN PHONE:(612)454-8100 JAMES A.SMITH JERRY THOMAS THEODORE WACHTER Council Members June 19, 1985 THOMAS HEDGES City Administrator EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS City Clerk CITY OF SHAKOPEE 129 E. 1ST AVE. SHAKOPEE, MN 55379 GREETINGS FROM YOUR NEIGHBOR CITY, EAGAN! You may have heard that our community has reached 125 years of age this year -- 1985. Our citizens are proud of our heritage and thankful to our forefathers for their years of hard work and sacrifice that they willingly gave in order to create our community. As a tribute to these early pioneers, we are planning a huge birthday party on SATURDAY, JULY 6TH! A delicious turkey roast picnic complete with birthday cake will be served, and fireworks _ will cap the evening. Enclosed are flyers describing the events . We would appreciate your posting one or more on your employee or city hall bulletin boards . Please join us in celebrating this happy occasion ! Bring your family and friends , and share the fun in the "good old summertime ! " See you the 6th ! Sincerely, t / jBea lomqui Mayor BB/sl Enclosures ( 5) THE LONE OAK TREE. . .THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY / e 5 3 1860 -1985 nany Don't Miss EAGAN' S BIRTHDAY PARTY ! Saturday, July 6th TURKEY ROAST Serving turkey, baked potatoes, cole slaw, relishes, beverage and BIRTHDAY CAKE ! 3 - 8p.m. Cost: $4.50 for Adults, $2.25 for Children under 10 Entertainment from the ECLECTIC COMPANY AT 8 p.m. Speeches and Awards at 9 p.m. FIREWORKS AT DUSK At Rahn Park / 3 5000 West 39th Street Park N icollet Medical Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 612/927/3123 PARK NFOLLEi M WCAL t; i SHAKOPEE OFFICE l 1335 EAST 10th AVENUE —iI SHAKOPEE, MN 55379 f °Z 9 0 June 18, 1985 } To: All Participating Volunteers for a Permanent Structure for a Scott County Ice Arena Dear Participants, I feel the meeting we attended on June 1.8th ended with a very positive note. I feel several of the commissioners were involving themselves in the process in a positive way, giving great encouragement towards continuing this project. They have specifically asked for several site selections that would be acceptable to all parties involved. There were a couple sites that came out of this discussion, one forwarded by John Anderson that would take the participation of Scott-Hennepin Park RQServe, but would probably fit very well into a year around usage. Other county lands that were positively suggested were the present fairground site and a site at County Rd. 13 and 282. All other possibilities will have to be considered and hopefully will be ironed out by a committee at large representing the Hockey Associations, the schools and city governments involved in Scott County. Careful selection of these members would be paramount to presenting a unified picture to the county board with high interest and support from all communities. The second suggestion was a dollar proposal on what one could get for a certain price of a building, at which locations and what would be included. I feel this would really need some blue sky type work in coming up with a whole bunch of possible variations to suit the various needs and aspirations of the county. I personally can visualize something as simple as a covered, corrugated steel building to a double rink in a brick build- ing. We need to discuss financing and how Scott County and the communities might be involved. All of us with kids in hockey have seen the various arenas throughout the area and have seen funding of these arenas in many ways. We will need specifics and we will need people to voluntarily collect the specifics on how places were funded; most interestingly, those of Owatonna, Alexandria, New Ulm, Windom and others be checked out carefully and correctly. One should check the feasibilities of a Scott- Hennepin Park joint venture using the facility for park purposes as well as an ice arena, giving it a true year around capacity. Other issues would have to be looked into necessitating the formation of a legal group or committee which would look into the interactions of 2. city, school and county government for such a project. These would have to be kept clean and straight at all times, so as not to boggle us down at a later time down the road. By expressing your interest in attending the meeting, I am assuming that you would be willing to work along with me a little bit longer until we can ascertain where we are. If the enthusiasm I felt in the group and with the Board Commissioner could be translated into a real project, I feel it would be of real benefit for the whole area. As I see it, the time table at this time will need some very responsible volunteer help in answering the questions listed above. We will also have to go to the source of the support, the hockey associations of the various communities, and get them behind such a project. Somehow, we will have to transcend provincialism and self interest ourselves, to try to impart this to the various hockey associations we may be associated with in our cities, and move to a desired conclusion. Hopefully., shortly after you receive this letter, you will be contacted and asked to partici- pate as a leader in one of the various sections discussed above. The information can be gathered in two weeks so that we might compile it and move towards a Board of Commissioners meeting again next month. Sincerely, Donald R. Lync , M. tDU. DRL/b is SHAKOPEE COALITION June 6 , 1985 Present : George Muenchow Shakopee Community Services Jim Streefland Shakopee Lions Club Deloris Gorman Shakopee Community Services Sister Jo Lambert St . Francis Regional Medical Center Todd Schwartz Shakopee Rotary Club Pat Ploumen Roman Schneider Shakopee Senior Citizens Ruth Schneider Shakopee Senior Citizens Barry A. Stock City of Shakopee Jackie Kes Scott-Carver Economic Council Kathy Lewis Shakopee Community Services Chairperson Streefland called the Coalition meeting to order at 7:00 a.m. Jackie Kes gave a Food Shelf report. During the month of May the largest number of people ever were served by the Food Shelf: a total of 153 families or 495 individuals. Of those numbers, 97 families/305 individuals were from Scott County with 42 families/112 individuals from Shakopee. A total of 20,790 pounds of food was given out. Jackie stated that three families who were assisted were from out of state (2 from Texas and 1 from Oklahoma) and had come here looking for work. She further stated that a number of families needed help because the male household head had left the family. Both of these situations are new trends in Food Shelf clientele. The Food Shelf is using Food Share money to purchase needed food. Primary purchases are protein foods (tuna, meats, peanut butter, etc) and fruit juice. Continued donations of those items is needed. Jackie further stated that leftovers, if any, from the Commodity Distribution goes to the Food Shelf. Sister Jo Lambert gave a report about the St Francis Crisis Center which opened the second week in May, 1985. The Center is located on second main, St. Francis Regional Medical Center. It is an 8-bed enclosed unit with two locked rooms therein. Co-directors are Judy Justad and Luann Hense; Medical Director is Dr. Jo Gendron, psychiatrist; and local psychologists are used. The Center provides short-term care (48-72 hours); respite may be possible in some instances. Services provided include assessment, short-term counseling and group therapy, and referral. It is not set up as a detox center nor for chronically mentally ill persons. So far, twelve persons in crisis have been served in the Center, in addition to a number of other persons in difficulty of questionable crisis nature. For further information or tours, contact Judy Justad or Luann Hense at 445-2322. The Crisis Center number is 445-CARE. The Coaliton urges support of the Crisis Center. (Brochure enclosed) . Barry Stock, City of Shakopee, presented information about two new services offered by the City: (1) Shakopee Community Recycling and Abatement Program (SCRAP) and (2) Clean-up Campaign. SCRAP is the City coordinated curbside recycling program, combining the collection of glass, newspaper, and beverage cans on the second Saturday of each month. Previously, these items were collected at different times by the three participating groups, Boy -Scouts, Cub Scouts, and SACS. The City received a $9,000 grant from the Minnesota Dept of Energy & Economic Development to coordinate collection by the three groups. Barry explained that they are exper- imenting in target areas with the use of bins and bags to facilitate increased participation rates. These collections are valuable ventures to the three groups. In 1986, cities who have a recycling project will receive a 50a per household rebate from a new state garbage tax. The Clean-up Campaign offers free trash dumping during the week of June 8-15, 1985. Items such as tires, refrigerators, bikes, brush, etc. may be brought to the dumping location between the Utility Building and the Municipal Service Building, as a free service to the Shakopee Community sponsored by the City Council to encourage city beautification. i 0 The next Coalition meeting will be held Thursday, July 11, 1985, at the Citizens State Bank, 6:30 a.m. Coffee, 7:00 meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Patricia Ploumen PROCEEDINGS OF THE DOWNTOWN AD HOC COMMITTEE SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA June 12 , 1985 Chm. Laurent called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 a.m. with the following voting members present: Terry Forbord, Gary Laurent, Don Martin, Mike Sortum, Dan Steil, Jim Stillman, Joe Topic and Bill Wermerskirchen, Jr. Absent: Steve Clay, Dick Stoks , Jerry Wampach, Pete Sames and Tim Keane. Also present: Jeanne Andre , Community Development Director, Bo Spurrier, City Engineer and Tim Erkkila and Dennis Marhula of Westwood Planning and Engineering. Stillman/Wermerskirchen moved to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried. Forbord/Stillman moved to approve the minutes of the May 29 , 1985 meeting. Motion carried. The Community Development Director informed the Committee that the City Council supported the request to seek proposals for parking lot and streetscape on Second Avenue between Holmes and Lewis and tentatively set aside $3 , 000 ,000 from tax increment funds from the race trace for streetscape. This is not a firm amount as changes in interest rates and scheduling could have an effect on the amount. The Council has set up a list of priorities for race track tax increment money as follows: 1) highway improvements , 2 ) storm sewer , 3 ) street- scape and 4 ) street reconstruction. They have directed staff to seek a proposal from the engineering consultants. Council would also _ like to know how the streescape project is going to be assessed. Dennis Marhula was present to explain the proposal submitted. He is Vice President of Westwood Planning and would be principal in charge of the project, with Tim Erkkila, Planning Vice President the planner/ landscape architect. Dick Koppy would be assisting Mr. Marhula. Mr. Marhula covered the proposal step by step. Beginning with the preliminary phase they will give information on fixtures and furnish- ishings and discuss planting of trees. Phase II will include layout aspects , detailed mapping, location survey, elevations, etc. Upon completion of appropriate design they will be bringing back construction documents. The parking lot streetscape will serve as a model for the rest of the downtown area. Timing of the project was discussed. If bids are opened in mid- September , 1985 the improvements probably can be completed this year. Decisions will have to be made promptly or extra meetings will have to be scheduled. By July 3rd the Engineer will try to collect data on specific types of fixtures and improvements to be utilized. If this date is not feasible a meeting will be held July 10th instead of July 3rd. About the 4th or 5th week into the project they would be Page 2 Downtown Minutes 6/12/85 in a position to give costs. Bid documents could be ready in 4-6 weeks. The cost for Westwood Planning & Engineering would be approximately $10, 000 for the construction planning and design. The City Engineer interjected that the City would prefer to use an hourly fee instead of a percentage of the awarded contract cost. He wants the Committee to be sure they get full value out of their dollars. The City Engineer agreed the Committee would feel pressured if they set this time frame as their goal. Should the project be postponed he estimated it would cost about $2 , 000 for re-bidding. The City Council also requests that the amount for construction drawings be established before proceeding with the construction. The Community Development Director inquired as to what extent the Committee wanted to be involved in the assessment policy for streetscape. There are two alternatives for these assessments to be based on. Each business in the area could pay a little or only adjacent property owners could be assessed. Dan Steil left at 8 : 40 a.m. It was the consensus of the Committee that the landscape architecture students plans be reviewed again by the Committee for ideas that may be incorporated in the project rather than reviewal by Westwood Engineering. The Committee will approach the Streetscape Assessment Policy at a meeting to be held June 26 , 1985 at 7 : 30 a.m. in the Council Chambers. Mike Sortum left at 8: 50 a.m. The Committee concurred that each special tax increment area should have a separate hearing. Terry Forbord%Jim Stillman moved to adjourn at 8 : 56 a.m. Darleen Schesso Recording Secretary /6 PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JUNE 6, 1985 Chrm. Czaja called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. with Comm. Pomerenke, VanMaldeghem, Lane, Rockne and Schmitt present. Comm. Stoltzman was ab- sent. Also present were Judi Simac, City Planner; John K. Anderson, City Admr. and Cncl. Lebens. VanMaldeghem/Pomerenke moved to approve the minutes of May 9, 1985 as kept. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - CARNAHAN VARIANCE REQUEST VanMaldeghem/Lane moved to open the public hearing regarding the request by Lon Carnahan for a variance to place more than one principal building on a lot. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner went over the considerations of the request, and stated staff recommends denial of the request, although recognizing the exceptional circumstances of the location of the NSP easement and no constructed ser- vices. She pointed out the owner has the option of removing the existing building and building anew one. She said the easement was there at the time of the purchase of the property. Comm. Schmitt recalled that at the time of subdivision it was pointed out the restrictions because of the easement and no services. Mr. Carnahan said that because of the way the present building is built and its location, it is not feasible to add an office onto it. It would be a lot easier to construct a new building 200 feet away. The Building Inspector indicated he would almost have to start from scratch to put an office into the warehouse building. He said the perk test was submitted and was approved with a 500 foot drain field. Comm. VanMaldeghem expressed her concern with the safety factor for an office building when the access is terrible. She stated that because the owner knew the property's limitations when he purchased it, she wouldn't think his rights are jeopardized by a denial of this request. VanMaldeghem/Lane moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Lane/VanMaldeghem offered Variance Resolution No. 408, and moved to deny the variance on the grounds that it would violate the code by placing two principal buildings on one lot. Discussion followed on the definition of a principal building. The City Planner stated that accessory buildings are not allowed without a principal building, and therefore the warehouse is the principal building. Comm. Schmitt commented it also relates to the order in which they are constructed. Shakopee BORA June 6, 1985 Page 2 _ Motion carried with Comm. Rockne opposed. Chrm. Czaja advised the applicant of the 7 day appeal process. PUBLIC HEARING - GRATZ VARIANCE REQUEST Schmitt/Rockne moved to open the public hearing regarding the request by Scott Gratz for a variance from the side yard setback requirements to construct a new single family dwelling. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner went over the considerations of the request, and stated staff recommends approval of the request. Mr. Gratz said his lot is the only one of that addition that has two 30 foot setbacks. Austin Street only goes back half way on the west side, so he could not front his house on Austin Street. Chrm. Czaja asked for comments from the audience, and there were none. Mr. Gratz said he would settle for a 10 foot variance, as the additional one foot was just to allow room for error. He explained that to set the house back further to gain more width would mean going down a steep slope, so that wouldn't be feasible. Comm. Schmitt commented that he didn't think a hardship has been shown be- cause of the size of the house. The City- Planner said a house has to be at least 24 feet wide for 80% of the house. She said that considering this type of construction, the average length is about 50 feet. Mr. Gratz said he couldn't put the garage in front of the house because to move the house that far back wouldn't put it on sturdy ground because the ground slopes back so fast and would need a lot of fill. He said the house would be 34 feet at the widest and 64 feet long with a 20' x 20' attached garage; the house is close to 1300 square feet. Pomerenke/Schmitt moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unani- mously. Pomerenke/Rockne moved to approve Variance Resolution No. 409 allowing a variance from the sideyard setback requirements to construct a single family dwelling. Comm. Schmitt said it appears the property was subdivided under the present ordinance and therefore the size of the property was known to the developer and the conditions for building were known, and therefore the developer has an inherent responsibility to communicate that to the property owner. Discussion followed regarding the square footage of the home and the pos- sibility of reducing the size of the house to eliminate the need for a variance. Comm. Pomerenke commented that the City approved the subdivision of the lot of this size. Motion failed with Comm. Pomerenke and Rockne in favor and Comm. Lane, Schmitt, VanMaldeghem and Czaja opposed. Chrm. Czaja informed the applicant of the 7 day appeal period. Shakopee BORA June 6, 1985 Page 3 Pomerenke/Schmitt moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Judi Simac City Planner Diane S. Beuch Recording Secretary l7 PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JUNE 6, 1985 Chrm. Czaja called the meeting to order at 8:15 p.m. with Comm. Pomerenke, Lane, Schmitt, VanMaldeghem and Rockne present. Comm. Stoltzman was ab- sent. Also present were Judi Simac, City Planner; John K. Anderson, City Admr. ; H. R. Spurrier, City Engineer and Cncl. Lebens. VanMaldeghem/Schmitt moved to approve the minutes of May 9, 1985 with the following corrections: Page 4; paragraph 7, no. 3. No sale of prepared food stuff and beverages be allowed without proper health inspection and license. Page 5; paragraph 7, Steve Granowski, 2641 11th Avenue North, Anoka, . . . Page 7; paragraph 3, Schmitt/Rockne moved to continue this hearing to May 16, 1985 pending receipt of final drainage plans. . . Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - (CONT.) NOTERMANN PRELIMINARY PLAT VanMaldeghem/Pomerenke moved to continue the public hearing regarding the preliminary plat approval of Notermann's 2nd Addition. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner went over the background, incorporating the alternatives for future transportation routes in the area. At this point the project engineer would like two other alternatives considered in terms of sketch plans with indications given for considerations. Mr. Engelhart went over the original preliminary plat containing three developable lots and two outlots. He said there are no utilities to the two outlots. When utilities become available, those two lots could be re-platted for the new block. He presented Alternative 2 which features 4 lots and eliminatesOutlot A, retaining Outlot B. These 4 lots would front on 4th Street, where there are utilities available, and they would construct 4th Street. For this alternative they would request the vaca- tion of 5th Street and the unnamed street to give a buffer, which the City would pick up as additional park land. Because of the size of the lots,, they would ask for a variance for frontage. The developer is looking at building quads, as it is zoned R-3. Because of the length of utilities and the grade, they would want to keep the dwellings in the northern part of the lots. Putting in a cul-de-sac from the south would entail much more earth moving. The City Engineer pointed out the need to retain an easement for recon- struction of the sanitary sewer. Discussion continued on the various alternatives. Chrm. Czaja asked for comments from the audience, and there was no reply. Shakopee Pianning Commission June 6, 1985 Page 2 VanMaldeghem/Lane moved to continue the public hearing until July 11, 1985 to permit the developer to pursue Alternative 3 as presented for the preliminary plat of Notermann's 2nd addition. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - BARON DEVELOPMENT CORP. REZONING Rockne/Schmitt moved to open the public hearing regarding the request by Baron Development Corp./Cecil Behringer to rezone a 10 acre parcel from I-1 to B-2. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner went over the background and considerations of the request. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request based on significant, unanticipated change in the City-wide development pattern. Cecil Behringer said he is the owner of a 10 acre parcel of property that currently has on it the veladrome and a warehouse facility. This pro- posal is for a $12-$15 million development. He stated that since the Comp Plan was adopted significant change has occurred. At the present time there is no buffer between the heavy industrial area and Canterbury Downs. They estimate 60% of the traffic for Canterbury Downs will pass by their parcel, and the view from the grandstand will overlook it. He thinks the heavy industrial will provide too much interruption adjacent to Canterbury Downs. The hotel would be a Radisson, and they think it would be in the best interests of the City. Dick Heise, architect, went over in more detail the proposal, which would consist of 150 unit Radisson Hotel with retail shops, restaurant and ser- vice oriented types of commercial businesses. It is meant to be a "des- tination resort facility" which would pick up the architecture and char- acter of the racetrack and expand on it. Bob Vanney further outlined the amenities of the development. He explained there would be on-grade park- ing around the perimeter of the retail shops and underground and ramp park- ing also; approximately 240 on surface parking with a three story ramp containing 250-300 stalls. They anticipate 250 to 300 permanent employees, full and part-time. Mr. Heise explained they wanted to make this a campus type interest within the site, with orientation and view lines towards the racetrack. Bruce Malkerson, General Counsel for Scottland and Industrial Park, went over his letter addressed to the Planning Commission, wherein he maintains this development is not in the best interests of the City or the surround- ing- properties in the industrial park. (Letter attached to minutes , also additional comments by Bruce Malkerson-Attachment 1) Mr. Malkerson made reference to the concept development plan for a Can- terbury Business Park by Standard Development Corp. Discussion followed about whether this concept should be allowed in the discussion at this time. Schmitt/Rockne moved to allow the inclusion of the concept development plan for Canterbury Business Park as part of the record, but not as part of the discussion. Motion carried unanimously. Comm. Schmitt stated that at the time of review of the Comp Plan, 15 acres of spin-off development was anticipated. At this time it appears that more than that will develop. He said that businesses who paid special assessments did so on the basis of the zoning in place at the time. He questioned the sewer capacity for the intensity of development proposed. Shakopee Planning Commission June 6, 1985 Page 3 1 The City Engineer said the industrial park is not pushing the limits of that capacity. Comm. Schmitt expressed his concern with only one access for the parking. Mr. Vanney said the possibility exists of another access to the parking area. Mr. Heise said the next step would be to apply for a Planned Unit Development concept. Comm. Schmitt said he would think these two items would have to be dealt with together. Discussion continued regarding the road and storm sewer capacity along CR83 and possibilities for expansion. Bob Behringer stated the project is funded today, with no community fi- nancing sought. Cecil Behringer said the velodrome track will come out. Chrm. Czaja asked for further comments from the audience. David Lay, Valley Haven Park, said he is opposed to this development as there is not enough traffic handling capacity on CR83. He works for Anchor Glass and at this point there is traffic problems from 4:00 p.m. to mid- night, and the racetrack is not even open yet, which will bring more traf- fic. If this facility and its traffic is added it will be worse. He in- vited the Planning Commission to view the area during that time. Frank Reid, Personnel Director for Anchor Glass, said there are very real traffic problems developing in the area. George Mackelvey, of the Kmart Corp. , stated he is opposed to any rezoning of the industrial park area, and presented a letter stating that position. Schmitt/Rockne moved to enter into the record the letter dated June 6, 1985 from the Kmart Corp. opposing rezoning in the industrial park, to make it a part of the minutes hereof. Motion carried unanimously. Schmitt/Pomerenke moved to enter into the record and make a part hereof the letter dated June 6, 1985 from CertainTeed opposing rezoning in the industrial park. Motion carried unanimously. Chrm. Czaja read the letter from Certainteed. David Sharpe, of CertainTeed, said they are in favor of spin-off development from the racetrack, but said he has serious concerns with rezoning. He does not approve of commercial development in the industrial zone. Mr. Vanney said that when the City adopted the Comp Plan they did not an- ticipate a major recreational facility being located in it. He said their site does not have rail access so a heavy industrial use would be a problem. They are asking for B-2 within the I-1 district, but adjacent to a facility that has some of the same facilities on it for eating, sleeping and shopping. He said they are committed to a quality project and are ready to proceed. . Mr. Russ Charring said he is in favor of the plan, as it is a logical ap- pendage of development to the racetrack, rather than just heavy industrial use next to it. He thinks this is a compatible and fine use in a proper location, which will be upgrading the community. Shakopee Planning Commission June 6, 1985 Page 4 Bob Behringer stated that Scottland itself always pictures this piece of land in their maps and brochures of Canterbury Downs. They appear to be more a part of Canterbury Downs than the industrial park. They would be a natural buffer, and it would make sense to make this a complimentary development. Comm. Rockne asked about the property south of this parcel. A response was it is owned by someone else. The City Admr. stated he would be curious about what kind of development would go on the south and west parcel from this proposal, with the racetrack on one side and B-2 on the other. Bob Behringer said the owner of that property would like to de- velop commercially, although they have no plans for the immediate future. Mr. Malkerson said this proposed parcel is surrounded by industrial. He said the racetrack has no problem with industrial use next to it. He added that rail access is not necessary for industrial development. Mr. Charring said a commercial use has- the capability of generating more revenue than industrial. If this 10 acres goes into commercial use, it is logical that others do also, which is a_higher and better use of the land. Schmitt/Rockne moved to continue the public hearing until July 11, 1985 for more information as follows: 1. Direct the City Engineer to come back with a proposal as to how property would be adequately served with sewer; 2. Applicant to come back with report from County Engineer about the traffic problem; 3. Applicant come back with proposal for dealing with this project as a PUD; 4. Staff research the ownership of property on each side of CR83 from Hwy. 101 to the top of hill, z mile south of CR16, to determine flexibility of alternative methods of development. The City Planner informed the Commissioners of the statement in the zoning ordinance that after 60 days of receipt of a request, the Planning Commis- sion must make a written report to the City Council stating its findings and recommendations unless the applicant requests an extension in time. To continue the hearing to July 11 would put it 5 days beyond the 60 days. The Commissioners discussed the implications of a vote at this time without answers to some of the concerns expressed. Bob Behringer asked for a vote at this time. The City Planner further ex- plained that if the Planning Commission fails to make a report within that 60 day period, the City Council shall act within 30 days after the expira- tion of the 60 days. If there is a vote and a denial of the request, this is the recommendation that will go to City Council which will review it automatically. Bob Behringer said he will agree to an extension of the 60 days, with no vote at this time. Motion carried unanimously. Shakopee Planning Commission June 6, 1985 Page 5 Schmitt/Pomerenke moved for a five minute recess at 10:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Chrm. Czaja called the meeting to order at 10:20 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING - STANDARD DEVELOPMENT CORP. REZONING REQUEST VanMaldeghem/Schmitt moved to open the public hearing regarding the request by Standard Development Corp. to rezone a 30 acre parcel from I-2 to B-1. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner went over the considerations of the request. She said staff recommends denial of the request for reasons listed in the staff report. The City Planner informed the Commissioners that the applicant has requested a continuance of the hearing for further research, but that public comment should be taken at this time. Kenneth Green, one of the principals in the application, said they have discovered some problems with the application and they would like to study the proposal further. Therefore, they will not make a presentation tonight. Chrm. Czaja asked for comments from the audience. Stewart Gayle, of Fremont, said they are interested in the development, but would defer their comments to see what develops in the application. Schmitt/Lane moved to attach the letter dated June 6, 1985 from Scottland relative to the Standard Development Corp. rezoning request to make it a part hereof; to make a part of the record the site plan presented earlier noting the potentiality of numerous spot zoning and to make a part of the record the concept development_ plan for Canterbury Business Park. Motion carried unanimously. Comm. Schmitt reminded the Commissioners that the City just rezoned land from B-2 to I-1 just about one mile down the road because they felt B-2 was not marketable at that location. Comm. VanMaldeghem commented against spot zoning and the fact that any significant changes ;have to be presented to Met Council. The City Planner confirmed that when a rezoning has occurred it automatically amends the Comp Plan. If a significant change occurs con- cerning sewer allocation, it would have to go through Met Council. Mr. Green said he doesn't believe this would constitute spot zoning. As a practical matter he said Valleyfair and the racetrack are already around the industrial zone. He said they have paid $150,000 in taxes and special assessments for things that were supposed to be in the industrial park, but aren't, and they would like the opportunity to explore their proposal further with staff. Discussion ensued regarding the definition of spot zoning and whether or not a parcel would be considered to have highway frontage if the railroad track separates the property from the highway. Shakopee Planning Commission June 6, 1985 Page 6 Rockne/Schmitt moved to direct staff to pursue a legal opinion for the definition of spot zoning in relation to over-all land mass, and also seek an opinion regarding highway frontage separated by railroad tracks. Motion carried unanimously. Schmitt/Pomerenke moved to continue the public hearing until July 11, 1985. The City Planner informed Commissioners that the City's ordinance does allow for PUDs in various zoning districts, but does not allow for a mix of uses. All the uses within that development have to be permitted in that zoning. There is nothing in place for mixing commercial and industrial. The Commission might want to consider some type of mixed use PUD for the City and determine where that is appropriate. Chrm. Czaja asked for comments from the audience, and there were none. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - LUREEN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Schmitt/Rockne moved to open the public hearing regarding the request by Wallace Lureen for a conditional use permit to operate a nursery and landscape service as a home occupation. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner went over the background and considerations for the request and recommended approval with conditions. Chrm. Czaja asked if there were any comments from the audience, and there was no reply. Schmitt/VanMaldeghem moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Schmitt/Pomerenke offered Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 410, permitting the operation of a nursery and landscape service, and moved its adoption subject to the following conditions: 1. Signage shall be limited to one nameplate sign not to exceed 2 square feet and not to be placed on CSAH 17 right-of-way. 2. There shall be not more than one employee who is not a member of the family. Motion carried unanimously. Chrm. Czaja informed the applicant of the 7 day appeal period. PUBLIC HEARING - RIES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Schmitt/Rockne moved to open the public hearing regarding the request by John Ries, Jr. for a conditional use permit to construct a dwelling unit on the second floor of a permitted business use upon the property located at 220 South Atwood. Motion carried unanimously. Shakopee Planning Commission June 6, 1985 Page 7 The City Planner went over the considerations and recommended approval with conditions. She added that the garage indicated on the plans is just a lean-to and wouldn't be considered adequate garage area. A large tree also exists right in the middle of the drive-way, with the alley abutting that. She said the only possible areafor providing parking would be on the north where he would have to close off garage doors. Discussion followed regarding the parking area and the need for the garage doors for the business. The applicant was not present. Chrm. Czaja asked for comments from the audience. Ken Valient said he lives two houses down from this property and he doesn't think he has enough parking space for the business, and he also blocks the alley with parking. They have rear parking and usually have to go around the block to get to it. Mr. Ries also owns the house up the street, and they park around the front on the street, plus the four spots in the park- ing area. When the school has a meeting the place is parked full on the street. Schmitt/VanMaldeghem moved to continue to July 11, 1985 the public hearing and direct the City Planner to send a registered letter to the applicant reeardine the parking concerns which would require closing off the garage doors for off street parking and ask for alternative garage area. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - VFW POST 4046 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Schmitt/Rockne moved to open the public hearing regarding the request by the VFW Post 4046 for a conditional use permit to construct a new building. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner went over the background and considerations for the request. Cncl. Lebens left the meeting at 11:00 p.m. The City Planner said she has received comments from the office owner to the south who expressed concern about possible use of its property for evening parking. The City Planner suggested the VFW may need to get an agreement with the adjacent owner for overflow parking. The"City Planner said the legal opinion received from the- Assistant City Attorney is that a fraternal organization is generally accepted by the public and the liquor license could be transferred without conditions. Staff recommendation is for approval with conditions. She said the building is set back far enough to take into consideration the possible additional 10 feet easement for the county road. Comm. Schmitt expressed his concern from a safety and circulation point of view about having only one access. He would think another access on 3rd would be appropriate. The City Engineer replied that the Fire Dept. looks at how far the facility is from the road. He said there is sufficient stacking length on 3rd Ave. , so from the standpoint of circulation, fire and safety it has all the access it needs. Shakopee Planning Commission June 6, 1985 Page 8 Robert Davis, representing the VFW, further explained the setback for parking. He said the maximum number of people at one time in the facility would be 500. Chrm. Czaja asked for comments from the audience. Jim Trupenbach, 1133 East 3rd, said he lives in the first residence to the west of this parcel. He doesn't think a 6 foot barrier will do much good. On the west side there is a 3 foot sod area where the fence will be going. He would rather see some larger plantings, which would need more area. He also doesn't think 88 parking spaces is sufficient for 500 people. He is sure on the week-ends the street will be full of cars. He thinks that cars and parties outside in the parking lot will be a problem. The City Planner responded that the code calls for a 6 foot fence when commercial parking abuts residential areas; however, the Planning Commission can require something different in the conditional use permit. Mr. Trupenbach said the problem is if you need more room for plantings, parking space is lost. He thinks the building is just too big. Sara Cheeverasked how a building that size can be put in a residential area and guarantee the safety of the children in the area. She said that tonight she saw 16 children walking to McDonalds at 9:00 at night. She can't live comfortably with this. She thinks it is dangerous and doesn't benefit the community. Mr. Davis said they think the size of the building is appropriate on the site. They wish to expand to get more parking space. They are willing to do what is reasonable to deal with the neighbors. Ms. Cheeversaid she didn't think the location has been looked at good enough, considering the number of children and elderly on that end of town. She said she has owned her property for 3 years and the realtor guaranteed that as residential. Comm. Schmitt replied this property has been zoned Highway Business since 1980 and is being developed accordingly. Discussion continued regarding the possibility of a mutual parking agree- ment with the adjacent property and parking lot policing if necessary. Chrm. Czaja asked for any other comments and there were none. VanMaldeghem/Pomerenke moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unimously. Rockne/Schmitt offered Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 412, and moved its adoption subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval is based upon submitted site plan dated 5-21-85. 2. Drainage and utility easements between lots must be vacated prior to issuance of building permit. 3. Applicant shall reach and supply to the City written permission from adjacent property owners for overflow parking. 4. Parking must be paved and striped. 5. Parking in the front yard setback must be screened to the height of 3 feetwithat least two types of screening. Shakopee Planning Commission June 6, 1985 Page 9 1 6. Lighting must be directed away from adjacent streets and residential uses. 7. Sidewalks must be constructed along 3rd Avenue. 8. Signage will require additional permit. 9. Landscaping shall be completed prior to issuance of a Cer- tificate of Occupancy or a 100% performance bond will be required to insure compliance. 10. Applicant is allowed to provide alternative natural screening at the option of the adjoining property owner, with approval of the City Engineer. 11. Occupancy is tied to 2.2 times the amount of parking space on site, and for additional occupancy to be accomodated by mutual agreement at the rate of 2.2 per parking space, with enforcement of those additional parking sites to be the res- ponsibility of the applicant when in use because of the occu- pancy of the building. Motion carried unanimously. Chrm. Czaja informed the applicant of the 7 day appeal period. Schmitt/VanMaldeghem moved to direct staff to research parking require- ments in light of the 2.2 persons per parking space idea, to be brought back at a future meeting. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - McKUSH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The City Planner stated the applicant has withdrawn his application. PUBLIC HEARING - FRISARD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT VanMaldeghem/Rockne moved to open the public hearing regarding the request by Steve Frisard and Granny's Restaurant for a conditional. use permit amendment to construct an outdoor patio upon property located at 1135 First Avenue. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner went over the background and considerations of the request. Staff recommends approval with conditions. Comm. Schmitt questioned if the code allows the serving of liquor outdoors. The City Planner didn't know, and the City Admr. suggested acting on the planning issue and making it contingent upon the approval of liquor being served outdoors. Comm. Lane said he doesn't like to limit the indoor seating when the out- door unit is in place, and he would rather see an accessory parking agree- ment. Mr. Frisard agreed that to limit the seating indoors would be difficult, and he would be agreeable to seeking a mutual parking agreement with Superamerica. He said he asked the City Clerk about serving liquor out- doors and was told that as long as the area is enclosed and the only entrance is from inside, it is allowed. Shakopee Planning Commission June 6, 1985 Page 10 Chrm. Czaja asked for comments from the audience, and there were none. VanMaldeghem/Lane moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Lane/Schmitt offered an Amendment to Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 352, which allows for a Class II Restaurant with outdoor patio in a B-1 zone, and moved its adoption, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant will comply with State laws prohibiting the serving of alcoholic beverages to minors. 2. Applicant shall reach agreement for additional parking with adjoining landowner. 3. The applicant shall fully screen the trash container at the rear of the building. 4. Approval of outdoor serving of liquor by City Attorney. Motion carried unanimously. Chrm. Czaja informed the applicant of the 7 day appeal period. PUBLIC HEARING - ROCK SPRING SUPPER CLUB CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT VanMaldeghem/Schmitt moved to open the public hearing regarding the re- quest by the Rock Spring Supper Club for a conditional use permit for a Class II Restaurant upon the property located at 1561 East lst Avenue. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner went over the considerations of the request. She .said that presently parking is allowed in front of the building, but that parking should be allowed only where shown on the site plan. Staff recommends approval with conditions. Discussion followed regarding parking requirements and the required 15 foot setback for parking to allow for a green space. A representative from the Rock Spring said they could look at the site and probably fit in some more parking spaces. They just want to improve the looks of their building with some amenities such as a lobby. Chrm. Czaja asked for comments from the audience, and there were none. VanMaldeghem/Schmitt moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Schmitt/VanMaldeghem offered Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 414, to allow.�a Class II restaurant in a B-1 zone, and moved its adoption subject to the following conditions: 1. Parking area must be striped to delineate spaces. 2. Parking area adequately lighted. 3. Applicant will comply with State law in regard to serving of alcohol to minors. 4. Compliance with performance code requirements regarding land- scaping and screening. 5. Applicant directed to review site plan to maximize parking spaces. Motion carried unanimously. Chrm. Czaja informed the applicant of the 7 day appeal period. Shakopee Planning Commission June 6, 1985 Page 11 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS VanMaldeghem/Schmitt moved to approve the annual review of Conditional Use Permit No. 366. Motion carried unanimously. Pomerenke/Rockne moved to approve the annual review of Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 367. The City Planner explained the City Council action on this item. Chrm. Czaja said that lz months ago there were 3 tractor trucks parked in the vicinity of the house. Motion failed with Comm. Rockne and Lane in favor, and all others. opposed. Schmitt/Lane moved to refer to City Council management of this Conditional Use Permit. Motion carried with Comm. Rockne opposed. The City Planner reminded Commissioners of the June 20, 1985 meeting. It was suggested that the July 11, 1985 meeting be held in bigger quarters. Consensus was to ask at the beginning of meetings and a few times later if there are any additions, deletions or corrections to the agenda; and to place a notice on the back door if any items are withdrawn. Comm. Schmitt commented on how disturbed he was to have the City Council grant a permit for a restaurant in a residential area, which is totally contrary to the code. He is also disturbed by how the City Council over- rided the legal opinion and granted the addition to anon-conforming resi- dence. VanMaldeghem/Schmitt moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meet- ing adjourned at 12:35 a.m. Judi Simac City Planner Diane S. Beuch Recording Secretary Attachment 1 Mr. Malkerson objected to the proposed project on the grounds of the history of the zoning and planning in the Industrial Park, the develop- ment patterns contained in the Comp Plan, the undermining of the indus- trial base for the City, the inappropriate use of sewer capacity alloca- ted to others, the creation of an island of commercial surrounded by industrial uses which would constitute spot zoning, precedent setting action which would enable more rezonings to take place, the adequacy of the present commercial properties and the proposed commercial develop- ment already planned at the intersection of the bypass and CR83. In addition, he stated that once the B-2 zoning is approved there is no guarantee this same development will take place, and any of the permitted or conditional uses could take place on the property; none of which are compatible with the adjacent industrial uses. K MART CORPORA710N SHAKOPEE DISTRIBUTION CENTER 901 COUNTY ROAD 83 SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 June 6, 1985 Shakopee Planning Commission Judi Simac City Planner City of Shakopee Shakopee, MN 55379 Ry: Proposed spot rezoning to Industrial Park Dear Pis. Simac: The Kmart Corporation is opposed to any rezoning or zone changes that would change the Industrial Park to something other than an Industrial Park. Sincerely, Mr. D. Brooks General Manager Kmart Corporation Shakopee Distribution .Center DJB/it cc: Mr. John Schmitt Mr. Dave Rockne Mr. Lee Stoltzman Mr. Dave Czaia Mr. John Lane P'Ir. Dave Pomerenke Pis. Jane DanMaldeghem Pis. Judi Simac Certain7eed Corporation Ce,.rtairTaad Shelter Materials Group Ent 3303 E 4th Avenue P.O. Box 177 Shakopee, MN 55379 16121 445-6450 June 6, 1905 Judi Simac City Planner City of Shal:ohee Shakopee, Mn 55379 Dear Mrs . Simac: CertainTeed Corporation has serious concerns regarding the proposed spot rezoning plan in the Valley Industrial Park. CertainTeed' s relocation to Shakopee over ten years ago was precipitated, in part, by the fact that this area was zoned as heavy industrial; we would be surrounded by similar industry with similar work environments . We did not anticipate , nor do we approve of retail business and its attendant draw of the public and traffic to an industrial area. In Valley Park, we and our neighboring companies share an environment that is in compliance with local and federal laws as they pertain to dust , odor and noise emissions , storage of bulk and liauid chemicals and materials, and the routing of heavy vehicle traffic. It must be maintained as an environment created, controlled and unique to heavy industry. However, this is definitely not the norm to .the public in a retail business environment. We are concerned that future problems may arise in trying to integrate two distinctly different types of commercial concerns . This is in itself a potential pandora ' s box, not withstanding our concern for the safety of the public should an unforeseen industrial emergency occur. CertainTeed is in the belief that this rezoning plan is not in the best interests of the entire community and respectfully requests that the City of Shakopee deny this proposal. Sinc rely, David E. Sharpe Vice President and General Manager DES :mr 7 SC3'TTL.AND INC June 6 , 1985 Chairperson David Czaja and Members of the Planning Commission City of Shakopee 129 E. First Avenue Shakopee , MN 55379 RE: Request by Baron Development and Standard Development Corporation for Rezoning to be Reviewed on Thursday, June 6 , 1985 Dear Chairperson Czaja and Members of the Planning Commission :. 1 . Overview We have recently learned that the owners of 10. acres along County Road 83 , Baron Development Co. (Baron ) and the owners of 30 acres along. the service road known as Valley Industrial Boulevard North, Standard Development Corporation (Standard ) , have applied to rezone their property from I-2 to B-2 , Community Business and from I-2 to B-1 , Highway Commercial respectively. The purpose of this letter is to outline to you the legal , factual and planning reasons why we believe it is in the best interests of the City of Shakopee and all affected property owners to maintain the integrity of the zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations for the Baron property, Standard property, and the surrounding properties. 2 . History of Zoning and Planning in the Industrial Park In the 1950 ' s Northstar Research and Development Co. purchased in excess of 1 ,700 acres south of TH 101 and developed a planned industrial park with the cooperation of the City. The property generally included all of the property presently within Valley Industrial Park (recently renamed to Canterbury Park ) and the property now owned by Certain-Teed Corporation, Shakopee Planning Commission June 6 , 1985 Page 2 Valleyfair Amusement Park , the property to the east of Valley Park Drive and other properties. Included therein is property now owned by Standard for which there is an application for rezoning. The Baron parcel was once owned by the Koskovitch family who still own approximately 75 acres of industrial zoned property to the north thereof. Several other parcels were owned and developed by others for industrial uses . All of the parcels have generally been regarded as part of the industrial park (the Park ) . In 1969 Scottland Inc . purchased the remaining 1 , 450 acres of vacant land and refined the planned industrial park in conjunction with the industrial zoning of the Baron and Standard properties and other properties zoned for industrial uses. The industrial zoning for the entire Park area has been maintained throughout the years both in the zoning code and Comprehensive Plan . The industrial classifications were reaffirmed again when the City reviewed its zoning and development patterns as part of the Comprehensive Plan submitted to and approved by the Metropolitan Council in 1980 pursuant to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. Through the years , people and companies have purchased and developed property in the Park in reliance upon the industrial land designations and policies in the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning regulations . The planning program undertaken between 1977 and 1980 designated and zoned 160 acres around the intersection of County Road 83 and the 101 Bypass for future commercial development . Based on sound planning principles , the City staff, Planning Commission , Council , and affected property owners have always reaffirmed that the commercial development in and around the Park should be located at the intersection of County Road 83 and the 101 Bypass. After the City of Shakopee was selected as the home for Minnesota 's only major racetrack on March 28 , 1984 , the City staff, Planning Commission , Council , and consultants to the City , re-examined the Park to see if there should be any amendment to the Comprehensive Plan or rezoning to reflect the spin-off- commercial development of 15 to 20 acres as anticipated by the Metropolitan Council . Notice was given to affected property owners. Numerous public meetings were held and the staff, Planning Commission and Council again reaffirmed the integrity of the existing industrial zoning and Comprehensive Plan and the fact that commercial uses should be located at the 160 acres zoned and planned for it at the intersections of County Road 83 and the 101 Bypass . Shakopee Planning Commission / June 5 , 1985 Page 3 3 . Public and Private Investment in Reliance upon the Industrial Designations in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code . In addition to the several hundred million dollars already invested in the private development of industrial uses in the Park, the City has invested millions of dollars in the development of the infrastructure necessary to support the present and future industrial park in the form of municipal streets , sewer and water systems. These dollars should not now be placed at risk by spot zoning . 4 . There are Numerous Planning, Factual and Legal Reasons why the Integrity of the Industrial Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Should be Protected from Spot Rezoning A) Planning Thousands of cities around the country and hundred of cities in the State of Minnesota have learned the importance of protecting the integrity of a strong industrial base, with good planning . A page by page review of the City ' s Comprehensive Plan shows that the proposed rezonings would not be in conformance with the Plan. The advisability of locating the new commercial areas along the new Bypass intersections is stated on page 28 of the Comprehensive Plan . The need to promote industrial uses in the Park and insure that there are no incompatible uses adjacent to industrial zoned or used property is stressed on page 28. On page 44 , the Plan stresses the importance of preserving the industrial base: " (a) Preserve industrial park area for present and future development needs. (c ) Make industrial area development compatible with adjacent land uses. " On page 44 , the Plan stresses the importance of minimizing conflicts and incompatibilities and to buffer high and low intensity development . Shakopee Planning Commission .Tune 6 , 1985 Page 4 Map 11 in the Plan shows HI , Heavy Industrial , for the entire Park including the Baron and Standard properties. Map 11 shows that only commercial development in the park will be at the intersection of County Road 83 and the 101 Bypass. Map 26 again shows that the only commercial zoning in the Park will be at the interchange of County Road 83 and the Bypass. . The "Implementation Strategy" in the Plan stresses the importance to the entire City of preserving the Park for industrial uses : Industrial Base A strong local tax base is the cornerstone of future Shakopee community development health. Ongoing and future industrial development activity is greatly influenced by local actions. To positively encourage the expansion of local industrial development , a host of techniques will be applied. Policy Objective (a) maintain, strong base 1 . Zone for future industrial development by designating holding areas into light industrial district (I- 1 ) beyond 10 year industrial land supply needs. 2. Make industrial development areas compatible with community wide land use mix by encouraging large centrally located industrial park buffered by light industrial-commercial from single family residential areas . " B. Zoning Code Compliance An applicant for a rezoning should show that the rezoning is in conformance with the City ' s Comprehensive Plan. The analysis set forth in A above shows that neither application meets that test. Additionally, in order to recommend or grant a rezoning, the Planning Commission and Council must find each of the following as set forth in Section 11 .04 I of the Zoning Code: "Such amendments shall not be issued indiscriminately, but shall be based on findings or criteria including, Shakopee Planning Commission June 6 , 1985 Page 5 but not limited to: 1 ) the original zoning 7 ordinance is in error , 2) significant changes in community goals and policies have taken place , 3) significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development patterns have occurred , 4 ) implementing the Comprehensive Plan 's growth management program. " There is no claim, nor can it be shown that the original I-2 zoning was in error. Surrounding property is similar in nature and is being developed for industrial uses . There is no claim, nor can it be shown that there has been a significant change in community goals and policies . There is no claim, nor can it be shown that there has been significant changes in City-wide or neighborhood development patterns. The City Zoning Code has historically provided a racetrack asa permitted use in the I-2 zoning district . The City , its planning consultant , the Planning Commission and Council undertook a study to address required changes in land use designation and zoning in light of the development of Canterbury Downs. On page 6 of the Shakopee Racetrack Area Planning and Zoning Study , (August , 1984 ) , the City concluded the existing general land use pattern of industrial uses lent itself to a very compatible relationship with racetrack operations . The Report made no recommendations for rezonings from commercial to industrial adjacent to the Racetrack. There is no claim, nor can it be shown that the proposed rezonings are implementing the Comprehensive Plan. In fact as shown in A above , the opposite is true . C. The Courts in Minnesota and in other States have Repeatedly Cautioned Against Spot Rezoning and Recommended Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan The Minnesota Supreme Court in the Case of Amcon Corp. v. City of Eagan , 348 N .W .2d 66 ( 1984 ) , where the City failed to rezone to a zoning district set forth in the Comprehensive Plan for the property , warned that the biggest problem with a planned unit development is the possibility of "spot zoning" which is illegal . The Court defined spot zoning as follows : "Spot zoning is the reclassification of a small area of land in a manner that isnot compatible with the surrounding neighborhood for the benefit of the property owner and to the detrement of others. . . . It is preferential treatment , piecemeal zoning , the antithesis of planned zoning. " We submit the rezoning of one 10 acre parcel to B-2 and a 30 acre parcel to B- 1 , both in the middle of an industrial park of Shakopee Planning Commission June 6 , 1985 Page 6 111400 acres of zoned industrial land is test. "spot zoning" under that The Court went on to say : "Courts have held that "failure of an amendment to conform to the previously existing comprehensive plan results in invalid spot zoning . " Amcon , at 74 "Recent cases have emphasized even more the comprehensive plan aspect as a hedge against "special interest , irrational ad hocery . " Amcon , at 75 Nonetheless , the court ruled that "flexible selective zoning ordinances which rezone on a case-by-case method and which are not enacted in accordance with a comprehensive plan are invalid . " Amcor, , at 75 The Minnesota Appeals Court in the Case of Campion v . County of Wright , 317 N . W . 2d 289 ( 1981 ) stated that "Inconsistency with a comprehensive plan is a ' legally sufficient reason ' for denial . " Campion , at 292. See also Hubbard Broadcastin Inc . v. City of Afton , 323 N .W. 2d 757 Minn . 19 2 . Both rezonings are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan which provides for only industrial zoning in those portions of the Park. In the Case of Rochester Association of Neighborhoods v. Cit of Rochester , 2 W.W. d 5 , the Court stated that : "This Court has frequently noted consistency between a city 's land use plan, or Planning Commission 's recommendation and the zoning ordinance as a factor supporting the reasonableness of the city ' s legislative Shakopee Planning Commission June 6 , 1985 `? Page 7 judgment in passing the zoning ordinance . " Rochester , at 890 "Spot zoning" has also been condemned in well-known treatises on zoning and planning . In McQuillen , Municipal Corporations , we find : "Accordingly, an ordinance cannot create an "island" of more or less restricted use within a district zoned for a diffferent use or uses , when there are no differentiating relevant factors between the "island" and the district" . See Section 25 . 83 In Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning and Planning , the authors state : "Zoning in accordance with a comprehensive plan promotes the public welfare by providing an orderly and integrated development process . By definition , therefore , spot zoning is "the antithesis of planned zoning . " See Section 28 . 02 5. Additional Specific Factual Reasons for Denial Regarding Each Proposed Rezoning a) Standard 1 . The property does not front on a major highway. It is served by a substandard , rural section , 2 lane road as found by City staff. 2. The plan is for a mixed commercial/industrial use not permitted under current B-1 zoning district as found by City staff. 3 . The proposed development would use up sewer capacity allocated to others as found by the City Engineer . 4 . It would be adverse to the Comprehensive Plan as found by City staff. 5 . There is more than enough vacant commercial zoned property in the City , including the nearby intersection at County Road 83 and the Bypass as found by the staff. 6 . Although the applicant proposes certain uses for the property, once it is rezoned to B-1 , any of the permitted or conditional uses listed could be built on the property. If you examine the permitted and conditional uses allowed in a B- 1 district, you will see that those retail , people intensive uses are not compatible with the adjacent industrial uses which by Shakopee Planning Commission June 6 1985 Page 8 their nature create noise , odor , heavy truck traffic and present an appearance not in harmony with retail development. 7. Staff has found that with the construction of the Bypass, the traffic needed to support a retail center will be reduced . b) Baron 1 . The proposed development would use up sewer capacity allocated to others as found by the City Engineer . Until the City knows from whom the sewer capacity would be taken , and the possible legal and planning ramifications thereof, rezoning should not be granted . 2. The rezoning to B-2 would create an island of commercial, surrounded by a 1 ,400 industrially zoned Park. This is spot zoning and is contrary to the Comprehensive Plan . If the City rezones this parcel , then it has set a precedent for all others who want to rezone 10 or more acres in the Park . The floodgates will open and the City legally will not be able to stop more rezonings. The City could see spot rezonings everywhere as shown on Exhibit A enclosed . It would be as adverse to the Comprehensive Plan as found by City staff in the case of the Standard rezoning. 3. There is more -than enough vacant commercial zoned property in the City, including the nearby intersection at County Road 83 and the Bypass as found by the staff. 4 . Although the applicant proposes certain uses for the property, once it is rezoned to B-2, any of the permitted or conditional uses listed could be built on the property. If you examine the permitted and conditional uses allowed in a B-2 district , you will see that those retail , people intensive uses are not compatible with the adjacent industrial uses which by their nature create truck traffic , noise and odor and present -an appearance not in harmony with retail development . 5 . In the case of the Standard property, staff has found that with the construction of the Bypass , the traffic needed to support a retail center will be reduced. As can be seen below, the same is true in regard to the Baron property. If the Planning Commission believes that one or both of the proposed rezonings should be granted , then the Planning Commission should first recommend to the City Council that the Comprehensive Plan be amended to allow these uses , and if the City Council approves the amendment, then the Planning Commission should review the rezoning requests . Shakopee Planning Commission June 6, 1985 Page 9 6 . Proposed Commercial Development of Property Already Planned and Zoned for Commercial Development at the Intersection of the Bypass and County Road 83 As has been stated in this letter and by Planning Commission and Council members in the past , there has been planned and zoned for years 160 acres of commercial property at the intersection of County Road 83 and the Bypass. With the construction of the Bypass , one of the major front doors to the City will be at that intersection. Much of the traffic upon which retail establishments rely will be diverted to the Bypass. Most of the traffic coming to the racetrack will come off the Bypass . Prior to that time , as set forth in the Environmental Impact Statement , most of the traffic coming to the racetrack will arrive from the east on Highway 101 , then turn south on Valley Park Drive, then via new 12th Avenue to the southern entrance of the racetrack or come off of Highway 101 on Shenandoah Avenue, (bypassing both the Standard and Baron properties ) . Retail development needs vehicular traffic to survive. The presently zoned commercial 160 acre parcel is ideally located now and in the future . For years , representatives of Scottland Inc . have discussed and planned with the City and others for the development of this commercial center . For the last 12 months , representatives of Scottland Inc . have been discussing immediate commercial development plans for this area , including but not limited to: (a) Upscale hotel (b ) Economy motel (c ) Gas station (d ) Convenience stores (e) Specialty Shops (f) Office buildings (g) Tack store (h) Feed store (i) Veterinarian clinic (j ) Class I restaurant (k ) Class II restaurant Shakopee Planning Commission June 6 , 1985 Page 10 We have informed the City Council and Planning Commission that we were undertaking these plans. We have met with City staff to review the development requirements of that area . Although we are still 30 to 60 days away from presenting the final plans , we believe it is important for the City to know we are actively pursuing and will develop the presently vacant commercially zoned and planned property to more than meet the needs of the City, the area, the patrons and employees at the racetrack , and the public traveling generally in the area . Our preliminary concept plan is attached for your review. Phase I of Canterbury Business Park involves : - (a) 150 room upscale hotel , with restaurant , night club. (b ) 4 , 000 sq . ft . bank building. (c ) A theater and 40 , 000 sq. ft . of retail space . (d ) 7 office buildings . Phase I plans will be finalized and presented to the City in 30 to 60 days; we anticipate that construction on the hotel and retail center . could commence next fall , or the Spring of 1986 . Phase II of Canterbury Business Park involves : (a ) 30 , 000 sq . ft . of convenience retail space . (b) 2 , 000 sq. ft. service station . (c ) . 120 room economy hotel . (d ) Class I and Class II restaurants . . (e ) 20 , 000 sq . ft . tack store. (f) Tennis/Health Club. (g) 4 office/service buildings . Phase II construction could commence once the appropriate governmental approvals are obtained and the market supports it . These plans of course are subject to change based upon further Shakopee Planning Commission June 6 , 1985 Page 11 input from the City staff, Planning Commission , Council and our consultants. We look forward to working with you to make them a reality. Summary The Park has been planned , zoned and developed for industrial uses for years. Millions of dollars have been invested based upon the integrity of the Park. Much of the City 's future industrial growth and employed base_ tax are tied to the integrity of the development of the Park. There is and will be a need for commercial development in those areas historically and presently planned and zoned for commercial uses at a location which makes sense and does not conflict with the existing and future industrial uses. For the reasons stated herein , we respectfully recommend denial of the two rezoning requests. Very truly yours , SCOTTLAND INC . Bruce D . Malkerson Executive -Vice President Timothy J . eane Vice President BDM: ap Attachment C . C. John Anderson Jeanne Andre Judi Simac Bo Spurrier IU Memo To: John K. Anderson, City Administrator From: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director Re: Drainage Assessment for Charles Griffin (Informational) Date: June 25, 1985 Information & Background Council action in April 1985 was a motion to direct staff to prepare a resolution abating the second assessment for parcel #27-915032-00. The assessment was paid in full years ago. Recommended action is to simply pay Mr. Griffin his money with interest and avoid the unnecessary extra work of a resolution. Accordingly, the refund for Mr. Griffin is shown on the check list for Council approval and no action is required on this memo. GV:mmr f t i ✓1 GJ 9 K N N H 00 C hd .. W .. r. .. p .. rt 1� w t3 0 �t w w h•- tf o � o (D o o � cD N- H- o ro r7 b rt -, �- b (D ( d rt r t In K • C N N F— N I Ul co N fi J U) n J C) 0 J C) 0 C) .• w rt rt or-: rt (D N- o G rt Oo •r F- K 0 � K ((D � o � � p F- (D cD rt, K rt R W n N. N H 0 F - rt w l0 N ¢' `Q (D (D Ln H J C7 t) I-' J d H .. 0 i w � oC0] wE L.) :5- L4 0 �5 o o :� 0 �5 C o 0 W 0 k 'rs Wd W 00 w N C) w K H � J I•-3 M J n r•d J ro C) C) .. sl ::s •. 0 i— 'TJ •• 0 F- t' H Lo W (D w W (D tom- w W O 1-3 y o ::� n o �5 ate 0 � UJ LQ N �:5 (D �l 10 l< '0ui � P)EUbU)i � � Yx' Cn sr OL � 0 F--LQ r t� W �3 CTs W IV H tj K N N F- N CT G� 9 s3 N N s J O w � �S MEMO TO: Mayor, Councilmembers FROM: Thomas Brownell , Chief of Police RE: First Avenue Traffic Violations DATE: June 27 , 1985 I Introduction: Council requested a traffic violation report on First Avenue. Background: Concerned citizens appeared before Council regarding vehicles exceeding the speed limit and violating traffic signals . Since June 19 , 1985 , the following citations have been issued: 6/19 - 3 : 30 p.m. - speed 43 - 30 6/19 - 2 : 30 p.m. - speed 43 - 30 6/21 -12 : 30 a.m. - speed 46 - 30 6/21 - 8 :45 a.m. - speed 43 - 30 6/21 - 7 :40 a.m. - speed 43 - 30 6/21 - 7 : 55 a.m. - speed 47 - 30 6/20 - 6 :42 p.m. - red light - lst & Scott 6/20 - 4: 55 p.m. - red light - 1st & Scott 6/20 - 7 : 38 a.m. - speed 45 - 30 6/21 - 6 : 20 p.m. - speed 40 - 30 6/21 -10 : 54 p.m. - speed 45 - 30 6/21 - 6 : 30 p.m. - speed 40 - 30 6/21 - 8 : 35 p.m. - red light - 1st & Lewis 6/21 - 7 : 20 p.m. - improper lane change 6/21 - 6 :49 p.m. - speed 43 - 30 6/22 - 3 : 00 p.m. - speed 45 - 30 6/20 - - speed 41 - 30 6/22 - 8 : 30 p.m. - improper lane change 6/23 - 5 : 20 a.m. - speed 56 - 30 6/22 - 8 : 09 p.m. - speed 43 - 30 6/24 - 9 :45 p.m. - speed 44 - 30 6/24 -12 :40 p.m. - speed 49 - 30 6/25 -10 : 20 a.m. - speed 46 - 30 6/25 - 5 : 08 a.m. - speed 42 - 30 6/25 - 5 : 25 a.m. - speed 45 - 30 6/25 - 5 : 53 a.m. - speed 41 - 30 TB: cah Law Offices of KRASIS, W—YER & WALSTEN Chartered 13 H E Suite 300 Marschall Road Business Center Phillip R. Krass Parepat: 327 Soutn Marschall Road Barry K. Meyer Barbara J.Heostrom P.O. Box 216 Trevor R. Walsten Jolene R.Wagner Shakopee. Minnesota 55379 Elizabeth B. McLaughlin Lori A.Wermenkirenen (611 2)44 5-5080 Susan L. Estill Shelly T.Felting Of Counsel Office Manaper Dennis L. Monroe Wanda Breimhorat June 24, 1985 Ms. Judy Simac City Planner City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Judy: Enclosed please find the answers to your questions regarding zoning. Question No. 1: What is spot zoning and can a specific number of acres be determined to be acceptable as not a spot zone? (ex. over 40 acres okay, under not). Ordinarily, the term "spot zoning" is used to denote an amendment to a municipal zoning law reclassifying one or more lots or parcels of land for use out of harmony with the classification of the surrounding areas and without regard to the public welfare. McQuillan Minn. Corp. 3 ed. The Minnesota Supreme Court defined "spot zoning" in the case of State, by Rochester Association, Etc. v. The Citv of Rochester, 268 N.W.2d 885 (Minn. 1978) : "Spot zoning" is a label applied to certain zoning amendments invalidated as legislative acts unsupported by any rational basis related to promoting public welfare. The term applies to zoning changes, typically limited to small plats of land, which establish a use classification inconsistent with surrounding uses and create an island of nonconforming use within a larger zoned district, and which dramatically reduce the value for uses specified in the zoning ordinance of either the rezoning plat or abutting property. Rochester at 891. While the term "spot zoning" may not necessarily be confined to small areas or lots, the cases in which the courts have struck down rezoning ordinances as spot zoning have involved single lots or small areas. Singling out one lot or small area for different treatment from that accorded to similar surrounding land indistinguishable from it in character, for the economic benefit of the owner of that lot or to his economic detriment, would constitute invalid spot zoning. However, where the city council or other legislative body based their rezoning on a rational basis designed to further the general welfare of the public, i.e. where the rezoning bears substantial relation to the public safety, health, morals, welfare or other object within the police power, the zoning regulation would not be illegal as spot zoning, regardless of the size of the lot. FIs. Judy Simac Page Two June 24, 1985 Question Number 2: The city code requires a planning commission to make a written recommendation on the rezoning request within 60 days of receipt of the application, unless the applicant requests an extension of time. However, there is no specific time requirement on the decision when an extension is requested. What is an acceptable time period for continuation? Answer: A review of the case law and statutes reveals that an acceptable time period for continuation is a "reasonable" time. Although the term "reasonable" is vague, in this instance to be reasonable the extension would probably have to be less than an additional 60 days. At the time the extension is requested the applicant and the planning commission should decide on the length of the extension, limiting it to a maximum of 60 days. Question Number 3: City code's section 11.32 and 11.33 list as conditional uses, motels and tourist accomodations, automotive service stations, restaurants and supper clubs, drive-in establishments and open sales lots, when abutting a state highway. The question is if the railroad right-of-way or local street right-of-way exists between a subject parcel and a state highway, can subject parcel owner claim that he is abutting the state . highway? Answer: Probably not, no case law could be found which discusses the use of the term "abutting" in a zoning ordinance. However, cases involving public improvement assessment do provide some guidance. The term "abut" literally means an actual coming together. The term "abutting" implies a closer proximity than the term "adjacent". "Abutting property" implies that there is no intervening land between the parcels of property in question. A railroad right-of-way or a local street right-of-way would be intervening land between the subject parcel and the state highway, therefore, the subject parcel would not be abutting property and thus, not eligible for a conditional use permit. Question No. 4: if one so called "spot rezoning" is granted, does this prevent the city from denying any other rezoning request which is also a spot zoning? Answer: As mentioned earlier, any spot zoning is invalid. However, the city would be able to rezone one lot or area of property and deny rezoning for another lot, as long as the legislative bodies' reasoning was rationally related to the general welfare of the public. Question No. 5: The planning commission is interested in options which would guarantee that if a property was rezoned for a specific proposal, that is what the city would get. For example, could the applicant record an agreement if it states zoning could be reversed if it failed to develop .a project that they had presented to the planning commission and council. Also, could the agreement be specific on time, such as within 6 months or one year? F f� Ms. Judy Simac .Page Three June 24, 1985 Answer: One option which gives a planning commission tighter rein over what is developed on a particular parcel of land is called a "Planned Development" designation. Planned Development is a form of zoning. It gives the council or commission the power to review and approve all plans in a certain development. As to whether Planned Development is appropriate for any given rezoning request depends on the circumstances of that particular case. A full discussion of Planned Development zoning is beyond the scope of this memo. I will be happy to provide further information on Planned Development zoning and answer any further questions you may have at your request. I hope this rather brief discussion of your questions is helpful. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me. Yours very truly, rf BRASS, MEYER & WALSTEN CHARTERED Phi lip R. Krass PRK/ln/eg MANAHAN, JOHNSON & TUCKER MARSCHALL ROAD BUSINESS CENTER X 282 277 MAR SCHALL ROAD SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 JOHN. M. MANAHAN DIANE K. JOHNSON 445-7470 R. GEHL TUCKER Area Code 612 June 27, 1985 Ms. Judy Cox Shakopee City Clerk Shakopee City Hall Shakopee, Mn. 55379 Re: Clair's Bar, Inc. Liquor License Dear Judy: As per our previous discussions and pursuant to the Shakopee City Code, we are apprising you that the stock of Clair's Bar, Inc. , has been acquired by Stephen and Dawn Plonski. We have submitted the forms you required and assume that the file is in order. Please call if you have any questions. Yours very truly, MANAHAN, JOHNSON & TUCKER ------------ R. Gehl Tucker Attorney at Law RGT/cs File # A1720-001 TENTATIVE AGENDA REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE , MINNESOTA JULY 2, 1985 Mayor Reinke presiding 1] Roll Call at 7 :00 P.M. 2] Recess for an H.R.A. Meeting 3] Reconvene 4] Liaison Reports from Councilmembers 5] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS 6] 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. ) *71 Approval of the Minutes of June 11 , 1985 8] Communications : a] D.F.Hennen, Plant Manager, Anchor Glass Container re : proposed spot rezoning requests b] David E. Sharpe , Vice Pres. & General Mgr. , CertainTeed re : request by Baron Development and Standard Development Corp . for rezoning . c] Mark Gruss, Pres. , Fremont Industries, Inc . re : proposed spot rezoning request (plus 14 letters of employees which are on file and can be Yiewednat the City Clerk ' s office) 9] Public Hearings : a] 7 :30 P.M. - Appeal by Scott Gratz to the decision of the Board of Adjustment. and Appeals, that does not grant a 15 foot variance from the west lot line on the property described as Lot 5 , B1 , Hauer 2nd Add 'n. b] 7 : 45 P.M. Appeal by Lon Carnahan to the decision of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, that does not permit him to construct a second principal building on the property located at 1725 West 3rd Avenue c] 8 :00 P.M. Request of Jerry Aronson & George Miller for the vacation of Shakopee Avenue West of Adams Street d] 8 : 15 P.M. Request of Shakopee V. F.W. for the vacation of drainage and utility easements lying along the Westerly property line of lots 2&3, and along the Easterly property line of lots 3&4, Block 1 ,Furrie 2nd 101 Boards and Commissions - No recommendations J0gUJ4STUTWPV f4?O uosiapuy •x uuor 4u S96T `6 �Tnr `-kepsanz o4 ujnoCPV [9T auanuoOGE [ST T-etnauag asua0zq jonbz7 [p su0z4UT4o2?aN joq-e7 [o �,jonjj .zapp-eq aJTJ - uoz4UZT4Tq [q J�UTJGAO anuanV u4OT uoz4'efT4Tq [u :uozssaS aAT4noaxg joj ssaoaH [t7T [O lJ �� [q : ssauzsng j au40 [8T Z-S86T `uoz4P4zTzgeuag 4aaj4S pooMaT2�ug joj spzg Joj pv ,duTjapjo puu soadS puu suuTd 2uzno,zddV `tTbZ • ON 'saH [v :saouuuzp.a0 puu suoz4nTosaH [ZT GET wG4T 8T/9 2uz.zq - ueTd quaWGAOj dwl Tu4Td-e0 [u 8T/9 PaTqu4 - 4sTq 4uawdznbg TU4Td-ea [w ptT wa4z t7/9 Zuz,aq - uozsszwwo0 Apn4S 4uawu,zano0 �4uno0 4gooS [T saOu'eTug awns Ajo4usuadwo0 [x# 4uaw4j,edaQ aOTTod JOJ wa4sfiS p,z-00 uoz4UOTJT4uapl Jo asuuoand [ C, T8 ' SVO` 88G$ Jo 4unowV uz sTTzg au4 jo 4uawAud azTjou4ny [T uoz4zsznboV M-O-H ssudAg JOJ L# TaOJud JOJ JaSTUaddV 2?UTJTH J0 Teno,addV [u# A4zungjodd0 2uzdwnG us�ejj aGiZ [$ (T6SZ 'ON • saH) s4PaCOJd ZuzsnOH 2UTODUuz3 JOJ 4uawa.zoul xps jo asn uo 4uawa4�04S AOzTod TTouno0 [j sa40N puu spuog anuanag ZuzsnOH [a 8T/9 PaTge4 - TOT J�UMufzH 4SUH Z2S8 ' ouI `Auudwoa sszaM au1 JO u014U0zTddV TumGUGU asuaoz7 j onbz7 23uz4le0zx04uI aTPS JJO [P aTqu4 asuaTd - sasuaoz7 jonbTq 2UT4-e0tx04Uj `g sseT0 kopunS puu aT'eS-UO JOJ ( ' 03 ase0 • I' r JO 4seg ` TOT AMH) ` ' ouI ` saz4.zadoJd aOPTud �q u014UOTTddV - 'Int'd S8: 8 [0 asuaOTT gL-OzxUq- -C joj • djo0 aOTAJaS Txus mOTTaT, 4,q uoz4L-OzTddv - 'H• d 08: 8 [q 4uawgjudGa sxgjoM OzTgnd JOJ sauzu0uN 4a5long jo asmuoind [u :jju4S wojj s4iodag [TT -Z- a2?Pd S86T `Z �Tnf VGNH-DV HAIZFTINHI TENTATIVE AGENDA Housing Authority in and for the City of Shakopee, Minnesota Special Session July 2 , 1985 Chairperson Vierling Presiding 1. Roll Call at 7 : 00 P.M. 2 . Approval of minutes of June 4 , 1985 . 3. Resolution No. 85-23 , A Resolution Authorizing the Execution of an Administrative Services Cooperative Agreement with the Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority. 4 . Design Assistance for Downtown Development 5 . National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Authority - Commissioner ' s Educational Conference , July 19-20 6 . Other Business 7 . Adjourn to July 16 , 1985 at 7 : 00 P.M. Jeanne Andre Executive Director PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JUNE 4, 1985 Chrm. Vierling called the meeting to order at 9:31 p.m. with Comm. Lebens, Vierling, Leroux, Colligan and Wampach present. Also present were Jeanne Andre, HRA Director; John K. Anderson, City Admr. ; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Julius A. Coller, II, City Attorney and Mayor Reinke. Colligan/Leroux moved to approve the minutes of April 16, 1985 as kept. Motion carried unanimously. The HRA Director explained the background of the request for amendment of the description of the roads on the racetrack site. Leroux/Lebens moved to authorize appropriate officials of the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority to execute an agreement to amend descriptions regarding Minnesota Racetrack "Option Property". The City Engineer said this is the same ownership that created the par- cels originally. Mr. Malkerson, counsel for the racetrack, stated these are the same parties. Motion carried unanimously. The HRA Director reported that the City suggested $139.50 as an adminis- trative cost for each MHFA loan administered jointly between Scott County HRA and Shakopee. Scott County countered with a figure of $150 per loan. Leroux/Colligan offered Resolution No. 85-22, A Resolution Amending the October 28, 1980 Cooperation Agreement with the Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority, and moved its adoption, with the administrative fee set at $150. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Colligan/Leroux moved to approve payment of $1,302.00 to the Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority for administration of loan and grant programs offered through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency in Shakopee between February of 1980 and January of 1985. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. The HRA Director said she is working with Scott County on a multitude of paperwork on a review of the Rental Rehabilitation Grant Program. The HRA Director said there has been interest expressed in the Downtown Rehabilitation Loan program, and they may need to meet again before August. June 4, 1985 Page 2 The HRA Director said a homeowner in the 4th and Minnesota Neighborhood Revitalization Program is interested in re-financing his mortgage, because the market rate now might be more advantageous than the subsidized rate. She said HUD has no requirement that a mortgage must be paid off to re-finance it, and she would assume the City would not require that either. However, a number of banks have indicated they wouldn't want a prior lien ahead of them. Discussion followed. The City Attorney advised that the City could enter into a subjugation agreement for the re-financing. Lebens/Wampach moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:43 p.m. Jeanne Andre HRA Director Diane S. Beuch Recording Secretary A TO : Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority ( HRA) FROM: Jeanne Andre , Executive Director RE: Administrative Services Cooperation Agreement DATE : June 28 , 1985 introduction • As previously discussed , the HRA will be administering a rental rehabilitation grant program, with support from the Scott County HRA . The execution of a cooperation agreement is necessary to affirm this arrangement. Background: The attached Resolution with its attachments outlines the proposed activities by the Scott County HRA staff in operating the program. Assuming the HRA still wishes to involve the County HRA in the administration of the program, the attached resolution providing for the execution of a cooperation agreement should be adopted. Requested Action : Adopt Resolution No . 85-23 , a Resolution Authorizing the Execution of an Administrative Services Cooperation Agreement with the Scott County HRA. RESOLUTION 85-23 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES COOPERATION AGREEMENT WITH THE SCOTT COUNTY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WHEREAS , the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) wishes to enter a cooperation agreement with the Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority ( HRA) for the mutual benefit of both agencies ; and WHEREAS , the Scott County HRA has tentatively agreed to the proposed cooperation ; NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED , by the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority that appropriate officials be authorized to execute the attached . Administrative Services Cooperation Agreement with the Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Adopted in session of the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Shakopee , Minnesota , held this day of , 1985 . Chairperson ATTEST: Executive Director Approved as to form this day of , 1985 City Attorney ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES COOPERATION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of 198 by and between the Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority hereinafter called the County HRA and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Shakopee , hereinafter called the Shakopee HRA. WHEREAS , as provided in MSA 462 .445 Subdivision 5 , two authorities may join or cooperate with one another in the exercise of any or all of their powers with regard to housing projects located within their areas of operation, and WHEREAS , by State of Minnesota Special Law, Chapter 473 , 1974 , creating the County HRA, a municipal housing and redevelopment authority ; and if any housing or redevelopment project is undertaken in Scott County pursuant to this authorization , the location of such project shall be approved by the governing body of such village, city or township ; NOW , THEREFORE , EACH OF THE PARTIES HERETO DO HEREBY AGREE AS FOLLOWS: A. Declaration of Need * The Shakopee HRA has indicated a desire to participate in the HUD Rental Rehabilitation Program, hereinafter known as "The Program" as available through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, - with the understanding that the County HRA would assist in the administration of the program. B. Responsibilities : The County HRA and the Shakopee HRA will jointly administer the Program with cooperation from the City of Shakopee Building Department, certified energy auditors and others as outlined in the attached "List of Activities/Respon- sibilities for Local Administration of MHFA Residential Rental Rehabilitation Grants in Shakopee - 6/28/85" . C. Payment for Services • In consideration of services provided by the County HRA the Shakopee HRA agrees to pay $20 per hour of service, with a maximum fee of $900 for each grant administered. The County HRA agrees to provide monthly statements of outstanding payments d-ue , itemizing- fees for each grant for which administrative services have been provided. D. Limitations on Agreem nt • This Agreement , except as provided herein , in no way limits the exercising of powers of either Authority within its jurisdiction. E. Minnesota Law to Govern • This Agreement shall be effective as of June 1 , 1985 , and shall continue in effect until act-ion by either party is taken to terminate the agreement. The agreement will be terminated 30-days after written notification of such action to the other party. IN WITNESS THEREOF, the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority have executed this Agreement this day of -- - - 1985 . Shakopee Housing and Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority Redevelopment Authority Chairperson Chairperson Executive Director Secretary Subscribed to and sworn before Subscribed to and sworn before me this day of me this day of Notary Public Notary Public List of Activities/Responsibilities for Local Administration of MHFA Residential Rental Rehabilitation Grants in Shakopee ( Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority is SHRA Scott County Housing and Redevelopment Authority is CHRA) 1. Develop cover letter to send to potential applicants to the program - SHRA 2 . Develop addendum to brochure explaining eligibility of buildings with 1-5 units - SHRA 3 . Develop press release - SHRA 4 . Develop application process checklist to use as cover for application. packet, - CHRA 5 . Develop (modify) rental rehabilitation inspection form - CHRA 6. Develop administrative process checklist to place on master file cover - CHRA 7 . Develop form letter to send to applicant after receipt and review of application to inform applicant of steps in process: 1) initial inspection to develop work write-up; 2) bids ( with equal opportunity requirements; 3) closing ; 4) City building permit process ; 5) final inspections ; 6 ) disbursement of funds ; 7) affirmative marketing for minimum of 7 years. CHRA. 8 . Develop energy audit procedure - SHRA 9 . Certify compliance with energy audit requirements - Energy Auditor 10. Conduct initial inspections, work write-up and final inspection to authorize disbursements - CHRA 11 . Review bids received for completeness - CHRA 12 . Administer Voucher Element of Program a. Develop information sheet on vouchers for tenants-SHRA b. Survey tenant income or secure waiver to access existing Section 8 income data - SHRA C . Apply to HUD for vouchers - CHRA d. Ongoing administration of vouchers - CHRA 13 . Develop information sheet on minority contractor compliance- SHRA 14. Develop information sheet on affirmative marketing activities and documentation SHRA 6/28/85-Draft TO: Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Jeanne Andre , Community Development Director RE: Design Assistance for Downtown Development DATE : June 21 , 1985 Introduction: A variety of methods have been used by other Cities to promote Downtown Redevelopment. These include streetscape assess- ments and rehabilitation loan programs , with which the City of Shakopee is already involved . One additional promotional area the City may wish to introduce is design assistance to help developers develop and redevelop parcels in keeping with the historic character of downtown Shakopee . Background: A number of years ago the City submitted a proposal to be involved in the Minnesota Main Street Project. At that time a movie was shown which explained how in the process of updating and remodeling older buildings , often the original character of the buildings is lost . To try and reverse this process , many cities get consulation from persons who have expertise in design and historic restoration. This can be done in a number of ways. One would be for the City to have an architect with experience in historic restoration on retainer and, at the HRA ' s expense , advise on facade design . The second is to identify possible design consultants with relevant experience and offer some sort of grant to encourage owners and developers to take advantage of their expertise. Recommended Action: I recommend that the HRA devote a small amount of money to some sort of design assistance to get new develoment and rehabilitation in the downtown off on the right track. As has been demonstrated in Cities such as Stillwater, once the restoration idea catches on , owners can see the economic benefits of devoting time and money to this detail and they will chose to do it with or without assistance . However , since this has not occurred naturally in Shakopee , the City needs to get active in promoting this concept. I believe the matching grant concept gives the City the most impact with the greatest final control . A program where grants for 50p of design fees up to a maximum of $500 are provided would assist with at least 20 projects if $10 ,000 from the HRA' s fund balance is set aside for the program. Page two Memo Requested Action Direct staff to develop a downtown facade design grant program, with $10 ,000 from the HRA fund balance , whereby assistance would be provided to design facades for new development and rehabilitation projects which are in keeping with historic downtown Shakopee , grants to be for 500V of design fees or $500 , whichever is less. TO: Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Jeanne Andre , Executive Director RE: National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials Commissioner ' s Educational Conference DATE : June 28 , 1985 Introduction. and Background Attached is information on a NAHRO Conference for Commissioners scheduled for July 19-20 , 1985 , in Las Vegas , Nevada . Money has been budgeted for conferences and schools. Commissioners may wish to determine if this conference would be a good place to expend funds , and whether any Commissioner is available to attend this conference. Attachment tw J S? -moons Jo;seoueyo inc wl 01 pup 99l0U96p luawdolanap J woo pup 6ulsnoy(cool ino%uo >` j19141 Pue sanssi G141 10 bulpup �? Jno!aoueyua 01 A1!unLfoddo p, -un up sapinad aouaJa;uoo anbi n = —3, s a ul SOA110algo J181.11 anc a:L Q i 08. 41 B i ItXV 1) 1jay19601)J1OM Aay1 se�Oldws Ueo ._Z¢I T1 i -slwwoo spo1118w pue salbalel1s r:xU)—Lj ! eyl A1RuePl 01 Pup salouabe 1 Vow¢s 1ey1 sonssl Aa�ay1 aJoldxa 01 Pau. —C, 2 - aouaJa;uoo leuol1eonp3 siauols! tnw°-w 9961 S.08HVN'lanai 1pJOPel pl • �■ a• ® ti tn:Lw CL a411p Sj9Auw Aollod pue sJape O •i Zs Luj W Ja410';leis AOU 6e 41W pue < as=LuN= �lioM lsnw sJauolsslwwoo'sa: Z c mJt=l1iL�4N 1 esa41 1oew AIln;ssaoons of-•c ' Fn Imi.piod pup 1pioos pldBi PUP 3 uoo 1a6pnq'swalgoJd xaidw< o a J e doe;MOu SelOU96e pup sJau o a m slwwoo luawdoleAeP 0111.10uc zaL 3 pup�llunwwoo pue 6ulsnoU I' 11 ¢oi ':• • RA31MV 01 on� d <a.< UHH1219OLL ONIX, J S Q W P 0W> aw Z¢ THREE OUTSTANDING GENERAL SESSION SPEAKERS ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSIONS GENERAL SESSIONS outstanding general session speakers will Here is an opportunity for commissioners to ticipate in practical roundtable discussions fc motivate,inform and challenge commissioners on Ingon the importance of working together wi "Working Together Achieve - the major issues in housing.community and (FridaC.JUI)'19.9:31)a.mAlr11:11(1 a..m.) eCOr10R11C development.Among the speakers Other COmrrllsalgner5,pOIICy makers,and Oth leaders to ensure duality housing and comm; commissioners will explore the importance of scheduled for the 1985 Commissioners Educational development programs. - teamwork among executive directors.lepislators, Conference are: the private sector,and others concerned with Do I Need A New Suit:The Future Role Of H housing.community and economic develop- Jack Jackson - And Community Development Commissions ment programs and learn the motivational tools Mr.Jackson.a nationally known public speaker (Frmap.Jul\19.11:15 a.m.-12:30 p.m.) and strategies that will encourage cooperation and conference leader.will keynote the opening This discussion will focus on the emerging r and the sustained effort needed to reach common general session.He has many years of experience ship role of commissioners on boards and ir. goals. - in motivating organizations in the private and munity and political activities.The expantlin: "Housing And Community Development public sectors face new challenges and Chang- critical role of commissioners in planning.ov - Ing environments,deal with problems,and work sight,and lobbying for important housing anc In The New Federalism" together to plan for the future., (Sa0lydac..lul.20.9:1X1 a.m.-100)a.m.) - community and economic development progrr will also be explored. A presentation by a nationally recognized expert William J.Ratzlaff,PHM will examine the impact of critical developments As President of NAHRO and Executive Director of Can I Buy You A Cup Of Coffee:Communis in housing and community development at the ted- the Housing Authority of the City and County of Effectively With Your Executive Director eral level on commissioners and their agencies, Denver,Colo..Mr.Ratzlaff will welcome conference (Fnrla�.Juh 19.11:15 a.m-12:3u p.m.i _ and review the ways in which commissioners can participants and establish the theme for the This practical discussion will deal with core work tooether with other commissioners,policy conference. shiners'interpersonal skills and is dish con- makers.and leaders to achieve qualify housing enhance better working relationships betwe and community development programs.- Jack D.Herrington - - commissioners and executive directors. "Leadership To Meet The Challenges Ahead" Mr.Herrington brings to the closing general ses- sion.luh 10.4:311 p.m-5:1-�p.m.i sign the insights he has gained from nearly 14 ICoTmis;�r Political And rLobbying Strats ve This session will provide an in-depth exploration years of experience .a housing authorities,first luh 19 11.1 i m-12 3i)11 m) - first in Nashville.Tennn.n.,andd since 1979 as Ex- (F of the kind of NAHRO leadership and direction ecutive Director of the Dallas Housing Authority. Ensuring continued community and nation: that Is required to effectively meet the challenges His additional service in both.the Departments of - political support for agency housing and e'. of budget constraints.social and political change, Housing and Urban Development and Agriculture munity and economic development prograr and other complex problems.It will put into prepares him l0 discuss the relationship of - essential.This session focuses on identif'. - perspective the ideas.concerns and issues dis. NAHRO leadership to the policy makers in the Commissioner political and lobbying strati - cussed in earlier conference workshops and offer federal sector. that have been effective in gaining widesp pragmatic and specific guidance on working - - public and legislative support for housing together to achieve common objectives in the'BOs. .Helen L.Sause - community development. NAHRO's vice President for Community Revitaliza. [- - _ _ tion and Development and Project Director for the Shell We Dance:Pulling Tooether Through - San Francisco Redevelopment Agency's Yerba Public And Private� Sector Cooperation Buena Center smce1980.Ms.Sause brings to the (Frxia)..iul� 1!I.I1:1:. -1'1:30 1rMI_ �__ �,_-•1-�� = �Ifi_ closing general session wide experience in housing working together in housing and commw I Il -- I' __�.= and redevelopment programs.Her service as Cor development programs depends on a par! porate Secretary to the Commission of the San - of the public and private sector.A knowle. - Francisco Redevelopment Agency for 13years - commissioner will facilitate discussion of prepares her to discuss future opportunini ties for public-private sector experiences that hav NAHRO leadership. Cesstully overcome obstacles to planning mg.and development. _ V110NAL I10RKSHOPS housing And Community Development Tours HOUSING INFORMA'11ON Of Las Vegas on July 19 �nensive Dr ram of concurrent workshops is iFnun .Jun I'.,.. p mki .w-5:txi p.m.) (Please read carefully.These proceoures are ne'r op comerence.) tat enables commissioners and local policy Working together—learning from each other.Here is your Seifert sessions that provide relevant informs. opportunity to learn from the accomplishments of the All room reservations are beino made through V urrent issues and skills develODment.You can Las Vegas authorities as you tour local housing and com- NAHRO CONFERENCE REGISTRATION CENTE; ',e workshops that meet loom your particular munity development projects on the afternoon Of July 19. order t0 assure trial specially priced rooms are td concerns and those of your agencies. These tours provide practical learning experiences that assigned to NAHRO conterence registrants.NA, will increase your chances for success.Tnere will be on- WILL HONOR ONLY THOSE HOUSING REQUES- And Community site registration lot the tours on a space-available basis. 'MITTED ON THE FORM PROVIDED.YOU MUST ment Legislation Cnack the NAHRO Conference Registration Desk when REGISTERED FOR THE CONFERENCE IN ORDE JUIN 2u.IUA5 a.m-11:45 a.m.) you arrive. 'OBTAIN THESE SPECIALLY PRICED ROOMS.Tri NAHRO Conference Center cannot accept any h. ,rmative session will focus on federal actions, t guarantee deposits in the form of checks,mone. ,s and Policies that affect local housing and com- REGISTRATION INFORMATION - claims,purchase orders ors vouchers.You must no economic development activities and pro- (Please read carefully before Completing the form.Certain deposit to the hotel to ensure your housing rese, ,ommissioners will learn about the most recent procedures have been changed for this conference.) Please READ THE HOUSING DEPOSITS SECTIO' 1e and regulatory developments at the federal - THE REGISTRATION FORM CAREFULLY. - directly impact local programs. Your conference registration tee in full or your request for claim voucher must accompany your registration form. Blocks of specially priced rooms have been reser ,w Do We Pay For It:A Creative Financing Make all checks payable to NAHRO CONFERENCE REG- Ane following hotel: •Sim For Housing And Community Development ISTRATION CENTER..Hegistrations postmarked no later Single Room Rate Double/' Julc 20.10:15 a.m-11:45 a.m.i than May 31 save$25 from the on-site registration tee. IMGM Grand Hotel $48 5- sion provides practical guidance on financing - in a community development program through a CANCELLATION POLICY WIN A FREE TRIP TO HAWAII - -ul case study involving the creative use of Registrants cancelling before June 15 will receive a futl rid private-sector funds,expertise,and technical refund.Registrants cancelling after June 15 but no later 'RePlsteretl delegates to the NAHRO 1985 Comm s than July 15 will receive a refund less S45.To obtain a re •Educational Conference who travel to the confere fund.NAHRO must receive written notice.Refunds can- ,ffckets purchased from the NAHRO Conference T -cased Am 1: not be made after July 15. .Center will be eligible to participate in a special c. rues And Commissioners'Liability 'held by the Travel Center.The winner will receive Julg 20.10:15 a.m-11:45 a.m.) SPECIAL REDUCED AIR FARES :roundtnp airline tickets to Honolulu from their pc ,iuN 20.2:45 p.m-3:45 p.m -.) -residence in the United States.The tickets can br Dlex issues reparding commissioners'personal Special reduced air fares have been negotiated with 'any time within the 12 months following inCom: and exposure as public servants are covered in several major carriers for those attending the NAHRO stoners Educational Conference.The airlinee will t ,mative workshop.An overview of available insur- Commissioners Educational Conference and are available chosen by the NAHRO Conference Travel Center. icies and coverage is also provided. exclusively through the NAHRO CONFERENCE TRAVEL 'information on Special Reduced Air Fares to find CENTER.You may call the Center direchv at toll-free you can take advantage of these savings and be (8D01 3683239 or(703)471-0460.Discounts negotiated for the drawing. . nent Tools For Evaluation And range trom 30 percent off coach to supersaver level i - - :ssment Of Public Housing Operations without the normal restrictions attached to these fares Jul>20,10:15 a.m-11:45 a.m.) under the newest airline pricing policies. 1 ;ion will consider how performance standards - successfully used by housing authorities to objectives and to measure progress accurately. -its will learn how to adopt the performance IOdi- :,riffled by NAHRO's Performance Standards REGISTRATION FORM - - - - ce into their planning process. - COM[ilete and mall this torn to:NAHRO Conterence Registration HOTEL ACCOMMODATIONS _ --- - ving Physical And Social Needs Center,Post Office Box 87710,Chicago,IL606W(312)782.2956 :deny In America Housing requests noaryso after June 12 will be processed on duly 20.1:15 p.m-2:30 p.m.) Please type or print clearly all requested information concerning available basis.Confirmation of a morn reserved in your name w.. July 20.2:45 p.m-3:45 p.m.) - v, registration and housing.A separate forth must be completed for by return ma 1.For rousing requests after June 1Z please cor 4 each registrant.Photo copies of this torn may be used.No reserve. Igei direct,,. 1e most significant challenges facing commis- bons will be accepted by telephone or letter.All reservations and Phasereservethefollowing accommodations attheMGM Gra- s meeting the housing and social needs of an reg lsirdtions must be made on this official forth. I lerican population.DCSlpnetl to provide InfOrtTla Name - - - Dy&ngle Occupancy 0 Double Occupancy-�--' '1e Impact of the expanding elderly population on Occupant rtes of local communities.this session will dis- Title Phone importance of advance planning in oroer t0 Cooccupant essential needs of the elderly. Organization L.. Bad Press:Preventing -Address - tAmvelDate Time_. -raud,Waste And Mismanagement - - Departure Date -- Time ,Iulc 20.1:15 p.m-2:31)p.m.) (. July 20.2:45 p.m-3:45 p.m.) 'G'>� rs�,•� ae: r - Preferred Name on Badge special Housing Needs Sion will focus On the general issues Of fraud, Suite registration is available from the NAHRO Conference E: ntl mismanagement in local agency programs Check tions poste registration category.The tees b iiow apply i, tion Center at(312)782-2958. aliOns.Commissioners will hear from the HUD 1 registrations oostmanketl no later roan May 31.There will be an ado,- � - the Inspector General about common audit find- i tionat late charge of S25 for registrations postmarked after May 31 ..._ - te.and mismanagement issues that may involve and for on-sheregistrations. HOUSING DEPOSITS ator General's office. fWease two Carefully the following new information on hoi guarantees.) ;over Leadership And Teambuilding: _J Delegatewnoisan indivioualmemDerof NAHRO. $270 ONCE YOUR RESERVATION HAS BEEN RECEIVE[ ,e A Good Chairperson i ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE NAHRO CONFERENCE REGIS': Juh'2U.1:15 p.m-2:31)p.m.) D Deiegate who is employed by an agency memberot NAHRO.5270 CENTER,YOU WILL RECEIVER WRITTEN CONFIRMATION' -€ THE MGM GRAND HOTEL THE MGM REQUIRES A ONE I ive chairperson is the master of two skills— DEPOSrr TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE HOTEL L D and teambuilding.This pragmatic session pro- :+ 71 Non-member de,egate. $300 RECEIPT OFTHEIR CONFIRMATION.DO NOT SUBMITTHE DEI _ opportunity t0 improve these essential skills and f WITH THIS REGISTRATION FORM.MAJOR CREDIT CARDS ARE ACCEPTED FOR ROOM GUARANTEES AT THE MGM GRANC aful guidance on how to coordinate and direct '>♦ JAdditional charge for registrations postmarked THEY MAYBE USED AT CHECK-OUT. ,as and abilities of board members and staff after May31 and on-site registrations. S25 �- mmon objectives. HOUSING AND CMIMUNITY :our Agency's Future: DEVELOPMENT 70URS - -18nniOg For Commissioners - FOR OFFICE USE ONLY There will be on-site registration for the July 19 tours of Las Jly 20.1:15 p.m.-2:30 p.m.) - housing and Community oevelopment proiects on a SDac&a';. PSMK Pvmt.Amt.$ basis.Check the NAHRO Conference Registration Desk wher cal aspects of strategic planning in local agen- rive.In order to nelp in planning tnese special tours,please De covered Outing this intensive snort course On Date Rovtl. Pymt.Number below it you are Interested: -oncepts and strategies that are important for 1( Chalk Number ❑Yes,I am interested in the Housing and Community Developm. •.Oners. - _.[ of Las Vegas on the afternoon of Jury 19.1 unoerstand that trier_ IL SESSIONS. brvetterepistratorltor tnisiolrsonatoa vailableDasis. in For New Commissioners: _ TRAVEL ASSIST-WE FORM ioners'Role And Responsibilities 19.2:00 p.m-5-.01 p.m.) ' as an orientation for new commissioners,this ElYes-I would like travel assistance Credit Card Authorization from the NAHRO CONFERENCE - _ - ill focus a the role and responsibilitiesommunypolitical of - TRAVEL CENTER. Passenger Name �ners in dealing with the community,political room environments. Cardholder Name Are Is Where You See" Cardnoldergdoress 19.200 p.m-5:00 p.m.) Reply to: _ NAHRO Conference Travel Center Massey,Internationally known Consultant and P.C. Box 1740-;, Washington Duties tessor at the University of Colorado,looks at International Aimor. Camholder Telephone in this new film from CBS-Fox.The film serves Washington.D.C.20041 is for a croup discussion that will provide in- - Card Name Card Nc. Expiration the perspective from which commissioners Telephone: =nvironment and future roles. (800)368-3239or(703)471-0460 CarohoiderSignature Travel Dates OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ. REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JUNE 11, 1985 Mayor Reinke called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with Cncl. Leroux, Vierling, Colligan, Wampach and Lebens present. Also present were John K. Anderson, City Admr.; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Julius A. Coller, II, City Attorney and Robert Schmitt, County Assessor. Wampach/Vierling -moved to convene the Board of Equalization. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Schmitt said he rechecked the Elmer Halversen property and recom- mended an increase in depreciation from 35% to 40%, which therefore lowers the 1985 value. Colligan/Wampach moved to concur with the County Assessor's 1985 value of $73,500 for the Elmer Halversen property, Parcel No. 27 913 062 0. Motion carried with Cncl. Leroux opposed. Mr. Schmitt went over the background on the Marceline Hickman property and said he increased the depreciation on the home and corrected an error in the legal description. Leroux/Vierling moved to concur with. the County Assessor's 1985 valua- tion of $96,000 for the Marceline Hickman property, Parcel No. 27 002 033 0 and 27 002 036 0. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Schmitt went over the background on the Shakopee Professional Group building. Mr. Manahan spoke on behalf of the owners of the building and explained the background of the agreement entered into whereby they agreed to be taxed based on a sales ratio of 50%, rather than the 75% originally suggested. He said this same argument applies to Valley Health Proper- ties, although with different numbers. Further discussion ensued regard- ing the accuracy and affect of the sales ratio in Shakopee, given the small number of sales over the three year period. The City Admr, added he would be finding out this week the current sales ratio for Shakopee. Discussion continued regarding the affect of "Blue Sky", goodwill and attached machinery when they are included in the sale price of a business and not differentiated from the actual sale price of the building. Mr. Manahan pointed out that the sales ratio only applied to the building, and not the land. Mr. Furrie pointed out that the second level of the building is only about 30% complete, not full as indicated by the Assessor. Leroux/Wampach moved to table discussion of Shakopee Professional Group building and Valley Health Properties until next week to allow further research into the sales ratio agreement. Motion carried unanimously. Shakopee City COuncli June 11, 1985 Page 2 Mr. Schmitt went over the background information on the Steve Hentges property. The reasons for the increase in valuation were the inclusion of air conditioning, a deck, the increase in rates and an error in the number of square feet. He said the concrete slab is part of the real estate and valued very minimally, and the drive-way is included in the lot value. He pointed out that in 1979 Mr. Hentges paid more for the house than it was assessed for. He informed Mr. Hentges that most of the residential properties in Shakopee were at 93% to 95% of the market value. Discussion followed with Mr. Hentges regarding the difference in taxes and mill rates in various cities and townships, and what the mill rates are based on. Mr. Hentges asked how he could get the two fireplaces off the value, as they are covered and not used. Mr. Schmitt replied that as long as they are still usable, they are part of the value of the house and people will pay for them. Mr. Schmitt caught an error in the value for the air con- ditioning, which should be $150 less. He explained that furnaces do not add value to a home because in Minnesota it is necessary, but air condi- tioning is considered an extra. Mr. Hentges asked if the property values went up because of the racetrack. Mr. Schmitt responded that the racetrack was not taken into consideration at all. The traffic, etc. is an unknown factor. Mr. Hentges asked where it will stop; his value doubled in 5 years, will it double again in another 5 years? He asked if anyone knew what the mill levy would be next year. Mayor Reinke responded that no one knew about the mill rate at this time. Further explanation was offered about the school district budget, State mandated increases in the past and differences between township and city mill rates and services. Leroux/Colligan moved to concur with the County Assessor's 1985 valuation of $90,850 for the Steve Hentges property, Parcel No. 27 908 042 0. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Reinke informed Mr. Hentges of the July 8, 1985 County Board appeal hearing. Mr. Schmitt pointed out that the value was not up above what Mr. Hentges paid for the house until 4 years after he bought it. Mr. Schmitt said he needs to get a contour map of the Dean's Lake area to check out the adjustments in usable land for the various property owners affected by the flooding of Dean's Lake. Leroux/Vierling moved to accept the concept of value (based upon the Natural Ordinary High Water Mark established by the D.N.R. ) for usable land with regard to the following property owners on Dean's Lake: 1. Dave Czaja 27 915 030 1 S. Roger Thompson 27 915 019 0 2. Dan Dy11a 27 088 002 0 9 Gordon Granne's 27 915 008 0 3. James Lally 27 915 030 2 .10. Craig Hotzler 27 915 016 0 4- David Bates27 -915 033 1 11. Edward Effertz 27 915 007 0 5. Walter Hesnzeri 27 915 031 0 12. Todd Becken 27 915 011 0 6. Charles Griffin 27 915 032 0 13. Susan Stang 27 915 018 0 7. James Pietrzik 27 915 013 0 14. Gary Sorenson 27 915 010 0 Motion carried unanimously. June 11, 1985 Page 3 Mr. Schmitt went over the background information on the Stephen Strehlow property. Mr. Strehlow admitted he has a large home, but said it doesn't have a lot of amenities expected of a home with this value, such as a master bathroom and fireplaces. it is also 20 years old and needs a new furnace and roof and has only a 2 bath downstairs. His children have to be bused to school and there is no park in walking distance. He said the pool is valued at $9,000 and it cost less than that to put it in and it actually limits the market as far as home buyers are concerned. They are unsure of the effects of the racetrack, but they are directly above it so any noise and traffic will be his problem too. He compared his home to two others in Shakopee that he thought were nicer, with more amenities and less valuation. Mr. Schmitt responded with further facts regarding the two homes compared. He also said on the building permit for the swimming pool, $12,000 was the price indicated for the pool. He was told that swimming pools have about a 25-30 year life and that pool would cost about $16,000 to put in today. Mr. Strehlow indicated that he didn't get that kind of a life estimate on the vinyl pool that he has. Mr. Schmitt said he could check further into that. Mr. Schmitt said it was hard to find a comparable house because of the size. He feels the Strehlow location is much more attractive than the homes mentioned in Shakopee. He said he did drop the home from a 7 to a 62 in an earlier year. He discussed the subjective criteria for grad- ing homes. Mr. Strehlow added the 2 bath in the basement is a stool, sink and a shower that doesn't work. He just wants to stop the increases, or soon the taxes will be more than the house payments. He requested this be continued for a week and he will bring in a couple of letters from appraisers on the market value to be considered. Lebens/Leroux moved to table consideration of the Stephen Strehlow property , for one week. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Schmitt remarked that for the Coiling, Engfer and Vohnoutka properties, he looked for any sales of residential properties adjacent to multi-family dwellings in Shakopee and Prior Lake, and couldn't find any. Therefore he suggests a 5% reduction in value for 1985, with review in the next year to make any adjustments for similar sales. Discussion followed regarding the placement of the Vohnoutka garages. Mr. Leroux said it was an erroneous building permit, which placed his garage 12 feet from the lot line, and his garage and the adjacent one are 5 feet apart. Leroux/Wampach moved to concur with the County Assessor's 1985 valuation for the f-ollowing properties: Jerome Coiling, Parcel No. 27 027 001 0 $70,500 Fred Engfer, Parcel No. 27 027 002 0 $69,400 Francis Vohnoutka, Parcel No. 27 027 003 0 $103,000 Motion carried unanimously. Snakopee City Council June 11, 1985 Page 4 Mr. Schmitt gave further background on his search for comparables for the Cavanaugh-McNearney Funeral Home property. He said he feels the value placed on the property is fair. Mr. McNearney stressed the difference between those structures that were built as funeral homes and those that were converted and the cost it would take to convert his property to a residential home. He showed pictures of various properties and spoke of the similarities and differences and values of each. He said that two years ago his property went through a 76% increase when the City was trying to catch up with inflation and bring commercial property up to market value. He thinks it strange his is the only property in the Central Business District that is again re- ceiving an increase this year. Mr. Schmitt said this property is within the residential standard of 90-95% of market value. Mr. McNearney said he has great difficulty believing he could get $100,000 to $110,000 for his property, given the great amount of remodeling that would have to be done to accomodate a residential home, given people's preconcieved notions of funeral homes and the stigma attached. He added they do not have a usable basement at all-it just has heating and air conditioning equipment in it. Mr. Schmitt defended his use of the residential value for this property, rather than the commercial. He said this is primarily because of its location, type of structure, lack of traffic, more parking space and relative ease of conversion to residential. He believes the property would sell for $110,000 if sold for a funeral home or apartment building, and somewhat less than that for residential. Discussion continued. Leroux/Vierling moved to place a 1985 value on the Cavanaugh-McNearney Funeral Home of $90,000. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Schmitt said he doesn't think he will have the value for partial completion of the racetrack finished by next week, and they want to keep their options open for the County Board of Review on July 8. Vierling/Leroux moved to receive and file the review of the properties of the Minnesota Racetrack, Inc. , Parcel Nos. 27 904 013 0, 27 905 001 0, 27 908 071 0, 27 909 013 0 and 27 909 014 0. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Schmitt went over the background of the Howe, Inc. property, He said he disagrees with Mr. Howe that the truck port structures are to be con- sidered machinery that. isn't taxable. Mayor Reinke asked if there was anyone present from Howe, Inc. , and there was no response. Leroux/Wampach moved to concur with the County Assessor's 1985 valuation of $689,877 for the total building value and $218,833 for the 1984 new construction, Parcel No. 27 105 001 0. Motion carried unanimously. Shakopee City Councii June 11, 1985 Page 5 Mr. Schmitt went over the background of the Leon Schmidt property, 620 Menke Avenue, which is a non-homestead duplex property. He doesn't think they are over-valued, and thinks they are most upset about the taxes, rather than the value. The taxes for non-homestead are two-three times homestead rates. Colligan/Leroux moved to concur with the County Assessor's 1985 valuation of $82,400 for the Leon Schmidt property, 620 Menke Avenue. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Reinke asked if there was anyone else who wished to address the Board of Equalization, and there was no response. Leroux/Vierling moved to continue the Board of Equalization to June 18, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Liaison reports were given by Councilmembers. Mayor Reinke asked if there was anyone interested in addressing the City Council on any item not on the agenda, and there was no response. Vierling/Wampach moved to receive and file the letter dated June 3, 1985 from Brendan L. Suel regarding a code enforcement officer. Motion carried unanimously. The Community Develop. Dir. went over the changes made in the IDB policy and highlighted some of the requirements, as per Council direction. Cncl. Vierling asked about the applicant's fee if the IDB's are not granted. The City Admr. said the fee is mainly administrative, to bring the appli- cation through the procedure, and has nothing to do with whether or not the IDBS are granted. He suggested there could be a clarifying statement about the fee being non-refundable. Discussion followed about the requirement for the racetrack IDBs, where a fee of one-eighth of 1% of the face value of the bonds was charged as the fee. The Assistant City Attorney said that is a way for the City to make money on the bonds, but it had never been indicated to him that the City was interested in this as policy. The City Admr. stated Federal regulations would have to be checked, and this could be researched separ- ately and brought back at a later time. Further discussion continued regarding the requirement of the 15% equity by the applicant. The Assistant City Attorney said the amount of equity is a policy decision that is completely discretionary on the part of the Council. No one has the right to require ,a City issue bonds just because the City is authorized by law to do that. If the position is reasonable, it is unassailable. The key is consistency in application. Vierling/Colligan offered Resolution No. 2393, A Resolution Adopting A Policy, Criteria and Procedures for the Review of Municipal Industrial and Commercial Development Financing Applications, and moved its adoption with the addition of a statement in 3b that the application fee is non- refundable, and incorporating the changes indicated tonight under Section I and Section III h. Roll Call: Ayes; Vierling, Reinke, Wampach, Colligan, Leroux Noes; Lebens Motion carried. snaxopee City Council June 11, 1985 Page 6 The Assistant City Attorney continued that unlike a conditional use per- mit, which is a property right, the issuance of IDBs is a totally dis- cretionary act on the part of the City Council, more similar to a liquor license, which is considered a privilege. Therefore, the action last week to deny the issuance of IDBs for the Bemidji Super 8 Partnership was within the City Council's perogative. He discussed the action with the City's bond counsel, and they both agreed that any action against the City because of the denial would not be successful. Cncl. Colligan explained his negative vote on the application which was based on a lack of proof of the percentage of equity involved, and the lack of a policy in place for approval of IDBs. Colligan/Leroux moved for reconsideration of Resolution No. 2398, granting approval for IDBs for the Bemidji Super 8 Partnership project, which was voted on last week and failed to pass. Motion carried with Mayor Reinke opposed. Clete Link spoke on behalf of the Bemidji Super 8 Partnership, and brought up several questions he felt concerned the City Council and asked for further discussion on those items to determine the facts involved. Otto Byhre, of Capital Decisions Inc. , spoke on behalf of the Bemidji Super 8 Partnership, to.-clarify the equity position of the project. He said the Bemidji Super 8 Partnership will meet or exceed the 15% required equity just adopted in the IDB policy of the City. He said that typically the lender requires 10% to 25% equity. The actual amount of equity can't be determined at this point as it is related to many factors, but the City's requirement will be met and they would be willing to supply the City with any documentation necessary to prove the equity. Discussion ensued regarding the practical application of a requirement of proof of equity from the lending institution. The City -Admr. said a simple follow-up procedure could entail a requirement of a letter from the bank stating that the actual equity commitment has been made. Further discussion ensued regarding the requirement of a statement from the bank that equity would be used first before the mortgage money. The Assistant City Attorney said this would be easiest to obtain when talking about tax exempt mortgages, but it might be more complicated when bonds are involved. Buzz Jonason spoke on behalf of the Partnership to answer further questions about the project. He would estimate about 20-25 employment positions would be available, but that would depend on occupancy. He was not sure of the exact size of the swimming pool, but said it was not intended to be a wading pool, and it would be an adequate size. He would think the em- ployment opportunities for local people would be excellent. Discussion followed regarding the possibility that the granting of IDBs for one project is anti-competitive for other similar businesses in the area. Clete Link said he doesn't believe there are any plans for another hotel/motel in the downtown area, and he believes a motel in this location is good for the City, rather than having all the development on the outskirts. June 11, 1985 Page 7 The City Admr. pointed out that in the past the weight of the impact on other similar businesses has not been looked at in any detail when an application for IDBs has been made. Colligan/Leroux moved to amend Resolution No. 2398 to require a letter from the lending institution stating that equity is being spent before the mortgage money. Motion to amend carried unanimously. The Assistant City Attorney explained that a tax exempt mortgage is the first lien on the mortgage,and banks usually don't lose money. All a City is doing when they authorize IDBs is make them tax exempt. There are no City funds committed; no risk to the City. The only conceivable risk for Shakopee would be if they start having a lot of IDBS go into default it may make it more difficult to market future IDBs and someone might argue the impact could carry over to the ability to sell GO bonds from a psychological point of view. He really feels that is stretching it, as so few go bad. If the loan goes bad, the bank will foreclose and they will be in the motel business, not the City. The City's passage of the resolution simply and only makes the interest on the bonds or mortgage tax exempt. Mr. Byhre explained that if the- project was sold a few years down the line, the financial security would probably be enhanced as the lender would require the same or greater security, but most likely the mortgage would be paid off. Roll Call on Resolution No. 2398 as amended: Ayes; Vierling, Leroux, Colligan, Lebens Noes; Wampach, Reinke Motion carried. The City Admr. went over the identified tax increment financing projects and asked for an indication of the projects the City wishes to undertake in 1986. The .Comm. Develop. Dir. asked for an indication of which pro- ject the Council would like funded and over what time period so that further computer runs can be made to give a better idea of the actual money available. She said the difference in the amount of interest at the time of an actual bond sale can make a lot of difference in the amount of money available. Cncl. Leroux pointed out the impact of the projects as far as who has control of initiating the project, such as the City or the State, because a first priority by the City might not necessarily get something done first if it is controlled by the State, such as the 169/101 junction. Consensus was to direct staff to provide Council with TIF programming alternatives for the listed projects in June. The City Engineer clarified that the requested work on the filter at the swimming pool is unrelated to the water slide. He stressed there is a cost savings to be realized if this work is undertaken at this time when the necessary contractors are on-site already to work on the slide. Lebens/Vierling moved to authorize the City Engineer to make repairs necessary for the proper operation of the swimming pool filter and swim- ming pool chlorinator, as outlined in the memo dated June 6, 1985, for Snaxopee City Council June 11, 1985 Page 8 a cost not to exceed $1,524.00. Roll Call: Ayes; Lebens, Vierling, Leroux, Colligan, Reinke Noes; None Absent: Wampach Motion carried. Leroux/Lebens moved to approve the application and grant a 1985-86 license to Only Allow Consumption and Display of Intoxicating Liquor to Jim & Lucy's, Inc. , 201 West 1st Avenue. Motion carried with Cncl. Wampach absent. Vierling/Lebens moved to approve the application and grant a 1985-86 license to Only Allow Consumption and Display of Intoxicating Liquor. to Knights of Columbus Home Assoc., Inc. , 1760 East 4th Avenue. Motion carried with Cncl. Wampach absent. Vierling/Lebens moved to approve the application and grant a 1985-86 license to Only Allow Consumption and Display of Intoxicating Liquor to Coll-Prahm, Inc. , 2400 East Fourth Avenue. Motion carried with Cncl. Wampach absent and Cncl. Colligan abstaining. Leroux/Vierling moved to take off the table nunct pro tunc the applica- tions for set-up license. Motion carried with Cncl.. Wampach absent. Vierling/Colligan moved to remove from the table the applications for On and/or Off Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License for 1985-86. Motion carried with Cncl. Wampach absent. Colligan/Leroux moved to approve the applications and grant a 1985-86 On and Off Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License to Jim & Lucy's, Inc., 210 West 1st Ave. Motion carried with Cncl. Wampach absent. Leroux/Vierling moved to approve the application and grant_ a�-1985-86 ' Off Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License to Friendly Folks Club, Inc. , 123 East 1st Ave. Motion carried with Cncl. Wampach absent. Lebens/Vierling moved to approve the application and grant a 1985-86 On Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License to Marlene Berg, 222 East lst Ave. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Leroux moved to approve the application and grant a 1985-86 Off Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License to Richard E. Cleveland, 828 East 1st Ave. Motion carried unanimously. Colligan/Vierling moved to approve the application and grant a 1985-86 Off Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License to Art Berens & Sons, Inc., 123 West 2nd Ave. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Colligan moved to approve the application and grant a 1985-86 Off Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License to Juba's Inc. , 1100 Minnesota Valley Mall. Motion carried unanimously. Shakopee City Council June 11, 1985 Page 9 Vierling/Leroux moved to approve the application and grant a 1985-86 Off Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License to Superamerica Stations, Inc. , 1155 East lst Ave. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Colligan moved to approve the application and grant a 1985-86 On Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License to Cedar Fair Ltd. Partner- ship, One Valleyfair Drive. Motion carried unanimously. Wampach/Leroux moved to approve the application and grant a 1985-86 Off Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License to Holiday Stationstores, 444 East lst Ave. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Lebens moved to approve the application and grant a 1985-86 On Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License to Pizza Huts of the Northwest, 257 Marschall Road. Motion carried unanimously. Colligan/Leroux moved to approve the application and grant a 1985-86 Off Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License to Brooks Superette, Inc. , 615 Marschall Road. Motion carried unanimously. Lebens/Colligan moved to approve the application and grant a 1985-86 On Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License to Speedway Concessions, Inc. , 6528 Trunk Highway 101. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Colligan moved to approve the application and grant a 1985-86 Off Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License to Q Petroleum, 235 West lst Avenue. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling moved to approve the application and grant a 1985-86 On Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License to Coll-Prahm Inc. , 2400 East 4th Avenue. Motion carried with Cncl. Colligan abstaining. Vierling/Leroux moved to approve the-application and grant a 1985-86 Off Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License to Tom Thumb Food Markets, 590 South Marschall Road. Motion carried unanimously. Colligan/Vierling moved to approve the application and grant a 1985-86 On Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License to LA & DJ Partnership, 584 Marschall Road. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Colligan moved to approve the application and grant a 1985-86 On Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License to JBF Inc. , 823 East 1st Avenue. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Leroux moved to approve the application and grant a 1985-86 On Sale Wine License to Cedar Fair Limited Partnership, One Valleyfair Drive. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling moved to take off the table applications for wine license nunc pro tunc. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Colligan moved to remove from the table applications for Off Sale, On Sale, Sunday and Club Intoxicating Liquor licenses. Motion carried unanimously. Shakopee City Council June 11, 1985 Page 10 The City Clerk explained that some of the licenses are not in order because of various requirements of tax clearance from the Minn. Department of Revenue and meeting building code requirements, and those applications should be tabled. Vierling/Lebens moved to table the applications for On and Off Sale In- toxicating Liquor license from the Pullman Club, Inc. , 124 West lst Ave. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Colligan moved to table the applications for On and Off Sale and Sunday Intoxicating Liquor licenses from XX Corp. & Wittles, Inc. , 1561 E. lst Ave. Motion carried unanimously. Colligan/Vierling moved to table the applications for On and Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor license from Clair's Bar, Inc. , 124 South Holmes. Motion carried unanimously. Lebens/Vierling moved to approve the application and Brant a P985-86 Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor license to Family Dining, Inc. , 6268 E. Highway 101. Motion carried unanimously. Wampach/Leroux moved to approve the application and grant a 1985-86 Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor license to Riverside Liquors, Inc. , 507 East lst Ave. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Colligan moved to table the application for Off Sale Intoxicat- ing Liquor license from Valley Liquor Inc. , 1104 Minnesota Valley Mall. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Leroux moved to- approve the applications and grant a 1985-86 On Sale, Sunday and Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor license to Friendly Folks Club, Inc. , 122 East lst Ave. , with the stipulation of bringing the building into compliance with the code by June 1, 1986. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Lebens moved to table the application for Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor license from The Weiss Company, Inc., 8522 East Highway 101. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Leroux moved to approve the applications and grant a 1985-86 On Sale and Sunday Intoxicating Liquor license to C.R.E. Restaurant Co. , 1583 East lst Avenue, with the requirement of the installation of double doors for lower level by June 1, 1986. Leroux/Vierling moved to table the applications for On Sale and Sunday Intoxicating Liquor license from R. Hanover, Inc. , 911 East lst Ave. Cncl. Lebens stated she does not think the City should issue a liquor license to R. Hanover, as he doesn't deserve a liquor license, because he can't even take a slight reprimand and is defying the City right now. She feels the City could be at fault if something serious happens in that establishment because of his operation of it. The City Attorney added there are two additional alleged violations at that location that are awaiting trial. Mayor Reinke said he has observed large crowds of people outside the building and no outside patrol. Shakopee City Council June 11, 1985 Page 11 The City Attorney gave his opinion that he didn't believe that any Court would find the City arbitrary or capricious in not granting a liquor license to R. Hanover. He believes the action would be justified, based on the fact that a liquor license is not a right, but a privilege. If the owner went to Court against the City, he would have to get a Court to order the City to give him a liquor license, which he wouldn't think would happen. In order to do that, the Court would substitute its judgment for the discretionary opinion of the City Council. He further advised that before the end of the month this application should be acted on. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Colligan moved to table the applications for On Sale and Sunday Intoxicating Liquor license from Gerald Franklin Smith, 101 East lst Ave. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling moved to table the application for On Sale and Sundav Intoxicating Liquor license from Capone's Food Shops, Inc. , 1145 Minnesota Valley Mall. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling moved to table the applications for On Sale and Sunday Intoxicating Liquor license from S.E.L.F. Inc. , 1135 East lst Ave. Motion carried unanimously. Colligan/Vierling moved to table the applications for Sunday and Club Intoxicating Liquor License from VFW Post 4046, 132 East lst Ave. Motion carried unanimously. Wampach/Colligan moved to table the applications for Sunday and Club Intoxicating Liquor license from American Legion Club, Post No. 2, 1256 E. lst Ave. Motion carried unanimously. Wampach/Vierling moved to table the application for Club Intoxicating Liquor license from Knights of Columbus Home Assoc., Inc. , 1760 E. 4th Ave. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Colligan moved to approve the applications and grant a 1985-86 On Sale, Sunday and Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor license to Minnesota Concessions, Inc. , Canterbury Downs, CR83, with the requirement that the Certificate of Occupancy shall be issue prior to delivery of the license. Motion carried unanimously. Lebens/Colligan moved to authorize the transfer of $21,034.75 from the Capital Improvement Fund to the Other Improvements Fund in order to eliminate the deficit in the latter fund which is a result of old pro- jects. Roll CallAyes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. : The City Engineer explained the impact of the storm water drainage policy on undeveloped land. He said the AG land would pay nothing now, but when it is subdivided and it comes in for a building permit, it will pay assessments from when the building .permit is taken out for 10 years. Shakopee City Council June 11, 1985 Page 12 The City Engineer also clarified that the legal terminology for the creation of the fund for the storm water drainage is a utility. He said the opinion of the Assistant City Attorney was that the City does not advise property owners by encroaching their property of the fact that there is a trunk water charge or other connection fees, and therefore it is not appropriate or expected of a municipality to make known the utility charge for the storm water drainage. The City Admr. suggested when the policy comes back they can address further alternatives for advising potential property owners of the user fee. Vierling/Leroux moved as follows: 1. Direct staff to investigate alternatives for advising future or new .property owners that a potential storm water drainage user fee exists; 2. Direct staff to include an appeals process which names the City Council as the final appeal of storm water drainage user fees in the ordinance that creates the utility; 3. Direct staff to prepare recommendations for programming and com- bining the street rehabilitation program and the storm water drainage program. 4. Direct staff to prepare a list of recommended maintenance functions that should be funded by the storm water drainage utility; 5. Direct staff to include a statement in the storm water drainage policy resolution that specifies that the City shall not collect any "return on the equity investment" in the drainage system that now exists for the water and electric system. Roll Call: Ayes; Vierling, Colligan, Reinke, Wampach, Leroux Noes; Lebens Motion carried. Leroux/Wampach moved to direct staff to prepare a storm water drainage utility policy resolution incorporating the recommendation of City Council. Roll Call: Ayes; Reinke, Colligan, Vierling, Wampach, Leroux Noes; Lebens Motion carried. Wampach/Vierling moved to direct staff to prepare an ordinance establish- ing storm water drainage utility in accordance with the recommendations of City Council. Roll Call: Ayes; Leroux, Wampach, Reinke, Vierling, Colligan Noes; Lebens Motion carried. The City Attorney gave a verbal report of the communications between himself and the attorney for Viking Steel relative to the opening of Viking Steel Road. He is expecting to have the agreement signed by Friday. The City Attorney gave a verbal report on the negotiations with Milwaukee Road relative to the purchase of right-of-way along 4th Avenue between Market and Spencer. The City had offered $8,500, and Milwaukee countered asking $18,000. He also said they do not have an abstract and the descrip- tion is very poor. In order to purchase the property the City would have to have a survey, get an Abstract and then start Torrens Proceedings. Consensus was to instruct the City Attorney to inform Milwaukee Road that was the City's final offer, and to advise the adjacent property owners of the costs involved for the right-of-way. Shakopee City Council June 11, 1985 Page 1.] 7 The City Attorney said he is in receipt of a letter from the Attorney General's Office stating that under the new law, a liquor venture can satisfy the requirement with respect to filing an insurance policy by filing a certificate that the insurance policy or pool is in effect for the period covered. He .said he doesn't like this interpretation and doesn't feel safe with it. Leroux/Vierling moved to receive and file the letter with the Ordinance controlling the requirements for liquor licenses. Motion carried unani- mously. The City Attorney added he would like to require the submission of the insurance policy at the time of the submission of an application for liquor license. This would be a lot more work for the City Clerk and himself, but he feels it is necessary. Leroux/Vierling moved to direct the appropriate City staff to draft an ordinance regulating disorderly conduct at public events based upon Bloomington ordinance Section 12.07, with additional language prohibiting the consumption of alcohol in parking lots, public and private. Motion carried unanimously. The City Attorney additionally requested that a liquor licensee be re- quired to submit an insurance policy for inspection within 90 days, which could be kept on file. Colligan/Wampach moved to direct staff to insert in the liquor ordinance language requiring the submission of an insurance policy within 90 days of the submission of an application for liquor license. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling moved to direct the Mayor or his designee to vote in favor of the 5 proposed amendments to the LMC constitution at the June 1985 LMC Conference; and direct the Mayor or his designee to vote only for the 1986 7.5% increase in annual dues at the Annual LMC Conference in June 1985. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. Vierling/Lebens offered Ordinance No. 171, Fourth Series, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending Shakopee City Code Chapter 9 Entitled "Parking Regulations" by Repealing Subd. 3 of Section III of Ordinance No. .107 Enacting a new Subd. 3 of Section III of Ordinance No. 107 and by Adopting by Reference Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 and Section 9.99, and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes; Unanimous Noes; None Motion carried. The City Admr. informed the Councilmembers of a couple of informational items. Leroux/Vierling moved to authorize the City Engineer to attend the meet- ing with the Prior Lake/Spring Lake Watershed District relative to the over all needs of the watershed district. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Lebens moved to adjourn to June 18, 1985. at 7:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m. Judith S. Cox Diane Beuch City Clerk Recording Secretary Anchor Glass Containers Valley Industrial Park _ P.O. Box 69 JU,N 7 2� Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 T",", ^ �ir June 14 , 1985 SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL - Anchor Glass Container is opposed to and asks you to deny currently proposed spot rezoning requests , We feel that granting this proposed rezoning would be incompatible with current use and would lead to conflicts and problems that are best avoided by denying the request for rezoning. While we do not oppose progress and commercial development, we do not feel that it should be located in an industrial park. The glass container plant owned by Anchor Glass Container is located and has operated in the Industrial Park since 1961, During this period, our plant has been a responsible tax contributor ; and we have attempted to be a positive force in programs which we believe would be beneficial to the citizens of this community. We employ approximately 350 - 400 employees on a year-round basis and have maintained this employment level for the twenty-four years that our plant has been in operation. Our plant located in this area, in part , due to existing zoning ordinances that we hope you will continue . We feel that establishing commercial zoning in such close proximity to our operations would impose noise and other restrictions on our operations which would prove difficult for us to operate under, and are respectfully asking that you deny the proposed rezoning. Respectfully, D. F . HENNEN PLANT MANAGER L) CertainTeed Corporation Shelter Materials Group CertainTeedCll 3303 E. 4th Avenue P.O. Box 177 Shakopee, MN 55379 (612) 445-6450 June 21, 1985 , >E.S 2 "7 " r Mr. John K. Anderson 129 East 1st Ave. CIT Y C Shakopee, Mn 55379 Dear Mr. Anderson: Re: Request by Baron Development and Standard Development Corporation for Rezoning CertainTeed Corporation has for ten years operated our roofing manu- facturing facility which is adjacent to the Canterbury Industrial Park. We located our manufacturing facility here as a result of highway development which resulted in condemnation of our previous facility in Minneapolis . CertainTeed chose our present location over others , due to many factors , but among those were: .Compatible zoning for both our industrial use and that of our neighbors . Promise of continued heavy industrial zoning .Adequate utilities of electricity, water, sewer and natural gas .Transportation facilities for our heavy rail and truck needs We feel today that we made an excellent choice eleven years ago. We do however, have serious concerns for the future, should adjacent properties , including the properties .under review, be rezoned to higher use; such higher use to include commercial, retail, hotel and restaurant establishments . We did not anticipate, nor would we recommend the adjacency of dissimilar business environments . We and our heavy industrial neighbors are able to exist compatibly, and in conformance with local and federal rules and regulations concerning dust , odor, emissions and heavy vehicle traffic. We do not feel this relationship would be possible with the type of businesses under consideration in close proximity. CertainTeed is not opposed to the establishment of commercial retail and restaurant services as an offshoot to the development of Canterbury Downs . Moreover, we feel that this type of business will be good for Shakopee and would also provide closer facilities than those currently available in Bloomington. We would find closer facilities convenient for employees , customers and suppliers visiting our offices . We strongly feel that commercial development should occur in areas currently zoned commercial, as provided by the City of Shakopee ' s comprehensive plan. An area that would be appropriate is the acreage of commercial property located at the intersection of the proposed bypass and County Road 83 . That location, in addition to providing a buffer, would also be more advantageous from a traffic standpoint . Mr. John K. Anderson June 21, 1985 page 2 CertainTeed manufactures asphalt roofing materials and felt paper at our Shakopee location. Our business is extremely competitive, as are many U.S. manufacturing businesses today. The ability to compete may be influenced by the ability to expand or to integrate basic manufac- turing processes . By preserving the existing zoning, future expansion plans can proceed in conformance with present land use assignments . We would not want to see this capability taken away. We recommend that the City of Shakopee uphold the current existing heavy industrial zoning and reaffirm the integrity of the comprehensive plan. We desire to be a part of the Shakopee community and are in support of properly controlled development. You might also note the following: CertainTeed Roofing Plant . Total employees 181 .Employees residing in Shakopee 55 .Sewer and water utilities 1984 $58, 686 . 00 Although we aren 't the largest, we are among the top four year round employers in Shakopee. We would like to grow with the Shakopee Comm- unity. We would appreciate discussing this matter or any other matter with you. Please call me at 445-6450 to more thoroughly discuss this situation. Very truly yours, DaviE. Sharpe Vice President General Manager DES :mr FREMONT INDUSTRIES, INC. PHONE: (612) 445-4121 OFFICE O�"THE PRESIDENT June 1 I , 1985 JUi'ti 1 Mr. John K. Anderson City Administrator City of Shakopee 12.9 East lst Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Anderson: Fremont Industries is against and asks you to deny the proposed spot rezoning request next to our plant on Valley Industrial. Boule- vard N. and in general for the industrial park This request is for a number of reasons included in the following: Representation : Over <0 years ago when we purchased the land and built our p ant , it was represented to us by city officials as evidence in their zoning code and planning documents that it was an industrial park and would stay an industrial park . We moved from Bloomingta-ito Shakopee because the city rezoned our property from heavy industrial. to commercial use . We suddenly be- came quilty of being in business through our normal operation and without hesitation moved our plant . The spot rezoning will nega . tively impact our property values because if you are in heavy- Iri— dustry, you don ' t want to be next to a retail complex . Motels , retail stores , fast food shops , and restaurants serving alcohol are not appropriate in an industrial area . Safety: The proposed development will be surrounded by a plasticsplant an three chemical plants . History dictates that we can manage hazardous chemicals without a problem. However , a fire or chemical. emergency caused by an act of God such as lightning and tornadoes , or by vandalism would put many innocent people in a life threatening situation . Vandalism: In the last three vears we have had a significant in- crease in vandalism. Broken windows , lights , forced doors , fences and locks cut with bolt cutters . We had one instance where a vandal broke into our bulk storage area , cut through locks and drained one of our bulk storage tanks . By zoning a potential party atmosphere next to our plant , vandalism will increase . Commitment to Shako ee : We have _ dortated considerable amounts; of money to. t e_T teary , ice arena, hospiLa1 . . .basicall.y whenever the community has asked for a helping hand . We have asked for nothing other than to do business as it was represented to us , pay our due taxes , and provide employment . O. BOX 67 4400 VALLEY INDUSTRIAL BLVD. N. SHAKOPEE MN 55379-9990 =ICES: -iver Los Angeles Kansas City Chicago Milwaukee Eau Claire Indianapolis Detroit Cleveland Sioux Falls Dallas EI Paso Chp.tten000a June 17 , 1198.5 "age 2 The vast majority of our internal employees live in or near Shakopee and benefit from our $2 , 700 , 000 annual payroll . Property taxes to date, paid to Shakopee have been $312 , $44 with an assessed market value of $463 , 700 . We have paid over $500,000 to Shakopee for utili- ties . These figures do not reflect our extensive patronage of local businesses . In the last three years we have had a 42 sales growth with plans to expand our plant and build an office building. The future of Shakopee is in long term industrial development , not short term, seasonalservice jobs . Long be or-e recent evelopments , our com- pany along with a number of others in our industrial park helped Shakopee carry the burden. We asked for nothing. I am now asking for your help. For us to stay and expand our business , we must be in an industrial environment. We are not against growth. However, growth must be managed with dicipline and integrity. Spot rezoning is contrary to both with its inherent problems . I sincerely and respectfully ask that you deny the proposed rezoning. Res ctfu , rk Gr ss resid t aG; sm FREMONT INDUSTRIES, INC■ PHONE: (612) 445-4121 June 18 , 1985 JUN 51985 Mr. John K. Anderson City Administrator City of Shakopee 129 East lst Av. Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Mr. Anderson: I have been employed by Fremont Industries in Shakopee for 10 years and currently hold the position of Technical Support Specialist. It was recently brought to my attention that the land adjacent to Fremont is being considered for rezoning for retail develop- ment . Several fellow employees and I are quite concerned over the prospect of rezoning for various reasons . 1) Lower Property Values : Rezoning to accomodate the new, development would undoubtably lower our current propety value . 2) Less Safety : Fremont Industries is a responsible member of Shakopee ' s industrial chemical community . Safety is a recognized and shared responsibility of these industries . I cannot conceive how such responsibility could be shared with non- industrial expansion . The added responsibility would probably fall unfairly upon the shoulders of the industries already operating i.n the industrial park, requiring added security and added cost . 3) Vandalism: The proposed development would draw people . It is not unrea- sonable to assume that with this influx an increased rate of willful property damage and theft would occur . P.O. BOX 67 4400 VALLEY INDUSTRIAL BLVD. N. SHAKOPEE MN 55379-9990 OFFICES • Chattanooga • Chicago • Cleveland • Dallas • Denver • Des Moines • Detroit Fargo 9 EI Paso • Indianapolis • Kansas City 9 Los Angeles • Milwaukee • Quad Cities • Sioux Falls June 18 , 1985 Page 2 , 1985 4) Added Traffic & Congestion : Traffic in and around the indusr.rial park is consistent and regular ; mostly people commuting to and from work . I can- not imagine this would be the case of hotels , shops and restaurants were introduced . These business operate under more irregular hours and traffic flow would be hindered . 5) Zoning Law Default : Companies which moved into the industrial park over the years dial so knowing that the area was fully designated for Indus- trial development and that it would remain so for all intents and purposes . Such was the case with Fremont Industries 2.0 years ago when they relocated from Minneapolis . The proposed rezoning will adversely affect the industries which have settled here for the reasons cited above . Please do not allow the status of this area to change by voting against the rezoning. Thank you. Sincerely, William V. Block WVB : sam June 19, 1985 ' Com/ John K. Anderson �� 2 19a5 City Administrator City of Shakopee 129 East 1st Avenue iC,1T1Y ,,OF SHAKOPEE Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Mr. Anderson: I am an em:loyee of Fremont Industries, Inc. located in the Valley Industrial Parr., Shakopee . I have been employed there for two years, first as a receptionist and now as warehouse controller. I do not feel that the land east of Fremont Industries should be rezoned commercial . 'L::-ere are many reasons why I feel this way, but I will attempt to tell you just a few. If this land is rezoned it will create many problems for all of the Industrial Park companies, chief among them. are vandalism and safety for the man;; people this climate would generate. These companies moved into this area with the assurance that the land would remain zoned industrial and not have this to worry about. C Also the tra=`'ic on the ad4acent roads will only worsen . We I have seen on, y a hint of t-__ in the 'Last week whille the in� er- sections have been under construction and traffic was rerouted onto the service drive . I cannot help but feel that tie rezoning will be very detrimental to all Industrial Park companies as well as their employees. I urge you to help vote down this action. Thank you. Sincerely, Sheila Geibe 26790 Natchez Ave. Elko, ter, 55020 s. . g � JUN20M Gottnl K., xwvc LSog June 19 , 1985 Cts► "w%N1S-rRALTO k vat six A,vX-Wv1U 55-brn My name is Jeffrey Nicholls . About one month ago , I was hired. as a chemist by Fremont Industries , Inc . The reason I am writing you concerns your city ' s porposed rezoning of the Industrial Park in which my employer is presently located . To follow through on this , I feel , is to jeopardize the safety of Shakopee residents , visitors to the area, industries within the Park and not to mention , my own _job security . Here is why I feel this way : It is my belief that rezoning Valley Industrial. Park will only benefit those individuals who stand to reap profits by building here, due to the area ' s prime centralized location . For the rest of us , including yourself, a move like this is far from our best interests . Valley Industrial Park In the beginning, was just that . . . an Industrial Park and was represented as such . For that single reason, Fremont chose to relocate here from Bloomington in 1965 . From what 1 have heard, a plan to open the area to retail business endangers my employer ' s desire to stay put , not to mention the future plans they hold regarding growth and expansion . . . plans I would like to include myself in on . To go through with your plan is to gamble with the companies and the people who work there (many , many who hail from the Shakopee area in the first place) . Surely, there must be alternatives to this problem. As you are well aware of , the easiest and simplest solution usually is not the best . Long term consideration , especially in this case are equally as im- portant as short term needs . Hopefully , you can take this through to heart . In addition , there _just has to be better locations for the planned hotels and restaurants hoping to settle there . I know I would think twice visiting such places located within yards of three chemical companies . Hopefully , you will also think twice considering this problem. Thank you very much for your time and consideration in this matter . Sincerely, Jef�i.cholls Y JUN 201985 CITY O ;SHAK'7)itDP1= June 18 , 1985 I am writing in response the the rezoning in the Valley Industrial Park area . I am very much opposed to the proposed plan to build hotels , retail shops and restau- rants in the area . I have been employed by Fremont Industries , Inc . for the past 12 years and enjoy very much working for them . I do believe that there would he additional vandalism and increase the traffic congestion which already exsists . Please help us and other companies in the Industrial Park area by turning down the rezoning plan. Thank you. Maureen Kurvers Advertising Coordinator FREMONT 9 .G- INDUSTRIES9 INC. PH ON E: (612) 445-4121 June 17 , 1985 ;SUN 2 0 1985 CITY OF SHW',10PEE Mr. John K. Anderson City Administrator City of Shakopee 129 East 1st Av. Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Mr . Anderson: I am writing this letter to let you know that in my opinion, it is not in the best interest of Shakopee and its people to rezone the Industrial Park to include retail shopping, hotels , and restaurants . Fremont Industries , where I am employed, is a chemical company located right along side of the proposed rezoning area. As a chemical company, there are many hazards involved and possible potential problems that must be considered. Fremont Industries moved to Shakopee in 1965 . It employs a good share of Shakopee residents and we all patronize the Shakopee businesses . We do not want our jobs jeopardized by the possibility -of being forced out of this area because of a few people who want to change the zoning to suit their wants . I hope you will seriously consider this matter and stop the rezoning of the Industrial Park. Thank you, {� Sheila McFarlane Fremont Industries , Inc . P.O. BOX 67 4400 VALLEY INDUSTRIAL BLVD. N. SHAKOPEE MN 55379-9990 OFFICES • Chattanooga Chicago • Cleveland • Dallas • Denver • Des Moines • Detroit Fargo • EI Paso • Indianapolis Kansas City • Los Angeles 9 Milwaukee • Quad Cities • Sioux Falls JUN 2 1985 C' �oQwiin is�ra'for June 19 , 1985 Zg �a5� 1 s'f /�1,�• _5ha�O p4e, /fid SSS 7 5 Dear— �J_O A n As a life long resident of Shakopee and as an employee of the industry of Shakopee through and following college , I feel compelled to write to you regarding the considered rezoning of the industrial park area to include hotels and shopping stores . Shakopee is very fortunate to have a large number of industries located within its borders . Many of these industries are lo- cated in the valley industrial park. Stich an area of high industrial density encourages other companies to locate in the same area . My present employer , Fremont Industries , moved to Shakopee in 1965 for this and other reasons . To ask these industries of Shakopee Co co-exist with hotels and/or retail stores in the valley industrial park may be asking too much. There appears to be a harmony and acceptance of the Race Track and Valley Fair by businesses in the industrial park but continued encroachment on industry by entertainment and retail industries would in my opinion detract from the attraction of Shakopee as an industrial. site . There is little doubt that the Canterbury Downs Racetrack will change Shakopee . It is also in the best interest of Shakopee to allow the building of hotels necessary to accomodate those attracted to Shakopee ' s entertainment . Please keep fn mind the businesses which have for so long helped Shakopee to thrive in your decision regarding the location of future hotels and retail stores . A co-existence of industry and entertainment/retail is most certainly in the best interest of Shakopee . Yours truly, C?�,t� gw",�� Bruce Busch Chemist at Fremont Industries (8 years) June 16 , 1985 John K. Anderson City Administrator City of Shakopee ; :_. .. 129 East 1st Ave �� O Shakopee, Mn 55379 Dear Sir, My name is Judy Schultz , I have been employed by Fremont Industries , Inc . for 3years . My position here is Procurement Manager. I am writing in regards to the proposed rezoning next to our plant . Twenty years ago Fremont Ind. chose to re- locate in the Shakopee Industrial Park. It was chosen because it was an industrial area, not mixed development with spot zoning. Sa�fett should be a number one concern in our community , and p acing 2 hotels , retail shops , and 2 restaurants in the middle of 3 chemical companies and 1 transformer company is absolutely bizarre ! Keeping safety in mind, there will also be additional traffic and congestion along with increased vandalism for the Industrial Park Companies . Another important factor in my opinon, is that our existing property values will decline . As an employee of Fremont Industries and a resident/ taxpaper of Shakopee , I highly oppose the possible rezoning. Sincerely , y A. Schultz 1944 Davis Court Shakopee , Mn 445-5421 FREMONT INDUSTRIES, INC. P H 0 N E: (612) 445-4121 June 17 , 1985 : . N 19 Mr. John K. Anderson 1985 City Administrator 129 East 1st Av. ?; �T C�k Sfiakopee, MN 55379 Dear Mr. Anderson: I have worked at Fremont Industries for 15 years . Over this period of time , I have felt that Shakopee has done an outstanding jot) as an outlying community to build their city with industry and with the welfare of the people of Shakupee in mind . Currently we ' re faced with the possible rezoning of a heavy industrial area to hotel/restaurant and retail sales zoning. The area of main concern would be the area in the Industrial Park just east of Fremont Industries . At this location , being in the middle the heavy industrial area there would be a real safety problem. Vandalism will increase in the Park, there will be additional traffic congestion, and it will also lower the value of the surrounding industrial areas . I need your help in turning this rezoning down . Thank you. Sincerely, Qck Tomsich Controller JT: sm P.O. BOX 67 4400 VALLEY INDUSTRIAL BLVD. N. SHAKOPEE MN 55379-9990 OFFICES • Chattanooga Chicago • Cleveland • Dallas • Denver • Des Moines • Detroit Fargo • EI Paso • Indianapolis Kansas City 9 Los Angeles 9 Milwaukee • Quad Cities 9 Sioux Falls �U�t 2 �.s 19a5 June 21, 1985 r- PhOPEv Mr. John K. Anderson City Administrator City of Shakopee 129 East 1st Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Mr. Anderson: It is surprising to me that you would even think of re-zoning Valley Industrial Park to include hotels , restaurants and retail shops, This park was represented, and has been developed, as an industrial area. Fremont Industries , Inc. , where I have been employed for the past thirteen years , is already experiencing traffic congestion because of the race track. Adding hotels , etc. , will only increase the problem. There could be a real safety problem with three chemical plants already in the park, and vandalism will certainly increase with an influx of people next door. Also, existing, property values will decrease. It looks to me like you will be opening a real "can of worms" . Sincerely , Ross J. McMahon Synthesis Technician Fremont Industries , Inc. Valley Industrial Park P. O. 67 Shakopee, MN 55379 i June 19 , 1985 :Near Co-;cernec Citizens of Shakopee; My name is Scott Coyer , and I have worked at Fremont Industries for the past six years , startine when I was in high school as a clean up person. When I turned eighteen I started workinc in the factory as a production worker . I am writina this letter to express my concern over the proposed rezoning of land surroundinc our plant . I feel that the rezoning of this property would cause the following problems. 1 ) It would lower our existinc property values. 2 ) There will be a real safety pro.le- , with, three che-,ical plants alrea,-y in the park . 3) Vandalism will increase for Industrial Farr. Companies. 4 ) Additional traffic and concestion will occur. 5) The Industrial Park was represented only as an Industrial area , not mixe-' development with spot zoning. I hope you will seriously consider the problems that coul-3 arise from mixinc commercial property, such as hotels ana restaurants , where families with children w_u1C b,e fre uentinc , an- where tulle restaurants would 1,e situated close to existing industrial plants that use harsh chemicals that can be dangerous if act-ten into the wrong hands and used improperly. Than you for your consideration of this letter . Sincerely , Scott Cover JUN 2 1985 CITE' OF SHAKOPEE ve�m JUN 2 1985 THERESA A. EIDE CfITY � 1091 E. SHAKOPEE AVE. SHAKOPEE, MN 55379 MR. JOHN K. ANDERSON CITY ADMINISTRATOR CITY OF SHAKOPEE 129 EAST 1ST AVENUE SHAKOPEE, MN 55379 DEAR MR. ANDERSON: I AM WRITING YOU IN REGARDS TO THE PROPOSED REZONING OF LAND NEXT TO 5VEMON'T tMnTR15n. I HAVE LEEN EMPLOYED BY 5REMONT INDUSTRIES SINCE FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR AS A RECEPTIONIST. I DO NOT FEEL THE PROPOSED REZONING WOULD BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF ALL THOSE CONCERNED. THIS IS AN INDUSTRIAL AREA WHICH IS NOT REALLY SUITABLE FOR HOTELS, RESTAURANTS AND RETAIL SHOPS. THERE ARE OTHER OPEN AREAS BETTER SUITED FOR SUCH A DEVELOPMENT. I AM CONCERNED THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD INCREASE TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND VANDALISM IN THE INDUSTRIAL AREA. I WOULD APPREICATE YOUR CONSIDERATION OF MY OBJECTIONS TO YOUR REZONING OF THIS AREA. SINCERELY YOURS, THERESA A. EIDE cc'. D-= J � June 20, 1985 " ' • S 4:`'f"'1�S;tea�. John K. Anderson City Administrator City of Shakopee 129 E. 12th Ave . Shakopee, Mil 55379 Sir : I have been employed in the credit department at Fremont Industries since April, 1985 . I feel that the proposed rezoning of the land next to our plant would not be good for several reasons . There would be an increase in the traffic which would make it more difficult to get to and from work . Vandalism would increase and a safety problem would exist due to several chemical plants in the area . It would also lower the property values . I feel the Industrial Park should be zoned only as an ind- ustrial area, not with mixed zoning . Thank you. Jackie Hahn JUNE 19, 1985 COUNCIL MEMBER, I HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED AS A TRUCK DRIVER FOR FREMONT IND. IN THE VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK OF SHAKOPEE FOR 14 YEARS. I AM DEEPLY CONCERNED OVER THE PROPOSED REZONING OF THE LAND NEXT TO OUR PLANT. AS YOU KNOW, A GREAT DEAL OF CAUTION MUST BE TAKEN WITH THE STORAGE,HANDLING AND TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS. FREMONT HAS TAKEN GREAT STRIDES IN THIS ENDEAVOR TO ENSURE THAT THESE PRECAUTIONS HAVE BEEN TAKEN. I AM AFRAID, HOWEVER, THAT BY ALLOWING HOTELS, RESTAURANTS, AND RETAIL SHOPS INTO THE INDUSTIAL PARK THERE WILL BE AN INCREASED POSSIBILITY OF VANDALISM DUE TO THE ADDED INFLUX OF PEOPLE AND THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC AND CONGES'.TION- FOR THE INDUSTRIAL PARK COMPANYS AND ESPECIALLY A SAFTY PROBLEM FOR THE THREE CHEMICAL COMPANIES ALREADY IN THE PARK. THE INDUSTRIAL PARK WAS REPRESENTED AS AN INDUSTRIAL AREA ONLY, NOT AS A MIXED DEVELOPMENT WITH SPOT ZONING. THIS REZONING WILL ALSO HAVE THE ADVERSE EFFECT OF LOWERING OUR EXISTING PROPERTY VALUES. IT IS BECAUSE OF THESE REASONS THAT FREMONT INDUSTRIES MOVED TO SHAKOPEE FROM BLOOMINGTON IN 1965. I WOULD ASK THAT YOU KEEP THESE CONSIDERATIONS IN MIND WHEN YOU CONSIDER THIS PROPOSAL. THANK YOU. SINCERELY, ROBERT DIXON r ROBERT DIXON / 1026 MONROE SHAKOPEE, MN 55379 6�ay/7 na^» ...•.. .. ..:••.>�Q ':': e R'-x'eYr`v..•Y....ati.RiiKA<.M.ALSBRI<1BSYS'S,•' . ..• • ",« '.1'.'.r ...}'aR'°$MSf16 .II.,i-':.4 Y:i- r.'^_!ima�.-v.ers.r<vw,mr exe:..w+mrws.++anrcraw'... JUN 251, 1985 June 24, 1985 CITY OF S„` ` 5r c, John K. Anderson City Administrator City of Shakopee 129 East 1st Ave. Shakopee, PV 55379 I am, writing to ask ycu to help stop the proposed rezoning of the land next to Fremont Industries. I have been an employee at Fremont for thirteen Tears. I started with Fremont trough the office cooperative wcrk release program with Shakopee High School. I nov am Assistant to the Controller. I believe that the rezoning will lower the property values of the existing businesses. The industrial park area should be for just that purpose 'Industrial' businesses. I also beiieve that there could be added safety problem. with three chemical plants and a propane gas plant in the immediate area. Our corpany has already experienced the consequences of vandalism. ly rezoni ng the vandalis.r. would only grow. With the race track in the area you sure can tell the traffic problems we will be having. This would also become a major problem. Please consider this letter, when you :Hake your decision. Sincerely, Patricia Fell Ashland `Qy Ashland Chemical Company CwtS,ON O7=ASHLAND 07L.INC. INOUSTw7AL CHEA4ICALS G SOLVENTS_CNtS7CN.P0. SOX 2219.COLUMBUS. CH:O 4]216.16141 !!9•]]]] • REPLY TO: 4401 vale/ /nausttiat eivo. 57tiaKOOee• Minnesota 55379 June 10, 1985 Pttene: (E I2) 4a5-72:4 Shakopee Planning Commission City of Shakopee 129 1st Avenue East Shakopee, MN 55379 Attn: Judi Simac ' Dear Ms. Simac: As a company doing business in the Shakopee Industrial Park, we are quite concerned over the proposal to change the designated •zaning of two nearby parcels from industrial to cc=ercial use. Specifically, we are concerned that if the request is granted, a precedent will be set and there will be justification for additional spot zoning in the future. By encouraging incompatible land uses in the vicinity of the industrial park, we believe that such actions would adversely affect the ability of companies already in the industrial park to increase employ=ment through the addition of capital investment and perhaps even to conduct'.business. We firmly believe that Shakopee needs a growing and diverse economic base if it is to thrive and prosper. We hope the commercial development that promises to come with the opening •of the race track becomes a reality. But we also hope that you will not react hastily to the . proposal before you. There are many considerations here, not the least of which is your responsibility to take into account the needs of those industries that have already invested in Shakopee's _economic development. We are read,: and willing to work with you as you ccnsider this and other proposals for economic development in our area. Very truly yours, •�Z Z GG. ��- r1! Forrest L. Colston District Manager cc: John Schmitt Dave Rockne Lee Stolzman Dave Czaja John Lane Dave Pomereni:e Jane VanMlaideghem Ashland "44FAMOPW Ashland Chemical Company DIVISION OF ASHLAND OIL,INC. INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS & SOLVENTS DIVISION.P.O. BOX 2219, COLUMBUS, OHIO 43216.(614) 889-3333 REPLY TO: 4401 Valley Industrial Blvd. 'Shakopee fAinnesota 55379 Phone: (612)445-7214 July 1, 1955 John Anderson 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, 11N 55379 Gentlemen: Recently we outlined in the attached letter to the Shakopee Planning Commission, our position regarding the proposed rezoning of certain parcels in the vicinity of the Shakopee Industrial Park, Because this is an item of continuing discussion, we wanted you to be aware of our opposition to the proposal and the reasons for our concern. Should you have questions about our position, please call me. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss it with you. Very truly yours, Forrest L. Colston District ?Manager i MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judi Simac, City Planner RE: Appeal of Board of Adjustment and Appeals decision by Scott Gratz DATE: June 19 , 1985 Introduction• Mr. Scott Gratz has filed an appeal to the decision, of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals , that does not grant a 15 foot variance from the west lot line on the property described as Lot 5 , Bl, Hauer 2nd Addition. Background• The attached information provides a background for the appeal. Included are: 1. Staff report to BAA 2. Letter of Appeal 3 . Minutes of the June 6 , 1985 meeting Action Requested: Offer Variance Resolution of the City Council No. CC-409 and move for approval or denial. tw MEMO TO: Shakopee Board of Adjustment and Appeals C'✓ FROM: Judi Simac , City Planner DATE : May 29 , 1985 APPLICANT: Scott Gratz LOCATION : Lot 5 , Block 1 , Hauer 2nd Addn. (27-114-005) ZONING: R-2 Urban Residential LAND USE: Vacant R-2 platted lot APPLICABLE REGULATIONS : Section 11 . 03 , Subd . 7 , E ; Section 11.26 , Subd. 5 B FINDINGS REQUIRED : Section 11.04 , Subd . 5 PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting an 11 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback requirement on the west lot line. SURROUNDING LAND USES: R-2 development to the west, north and east . Vacant R-2 to the south used for agricultural purposes. UTILITIES: The lot is served with public sanitary sewer, water and storm sewer. CONSIDERATIONS: 1) The final plat of Hauer 2nd Addition was recorded on 9/2/83 . The lot is approx . 11 ,000 sq. ft. in size. The applicant proposes construction of a single family home with attached garage, which fronts Austin Court to the north and has driveway access from Austin Street to the west . The required setbacks are 30 feet to the north, west and south and 10 feet to the east. 2) The lot is characterized with a slope that runs north to south. Austin Street , although platted to the south , along the west lot. line, is constructed only to a mid point along the west lot line. The existing r-o-w of Austin Street is 60 foot with a 6 foot r-o-w dedicated from Lot 5 . 3) The City Engineer recommends approval of the variance for the reasons that the grade of Austin Street is too steep and current plans do not include the extension of the street. If Austin was constructed , the structure will be approximately 32 feet from the street surface. 4) The submitted survey shows the approximate house location with a 20 foot setback on the west , as opposed to the 19 foot setback being requested by the applicant. To date, the stakes have not been set for the house and the applicant is concerned that a variation of inches may create a problem. Sale of the lot to the applicant is contingent upon the variance decision. Although variance criteria require that the variance is a minimum which will alleviate the hardship , a more significant hardship would be created if the 10 foot variance was granted and in the field it was discovered that an additional six inches was necessary . OVER Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of an eleven foot variance from the west property line for the reasons that the lot topography creates a nardship for the applicant in terms of siting the structure and that the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of the zoning ordinance or to property in the same zone. Action--Reguesteds Motion to approve Variance Resolution No. 1409 tw h R B2 4 _..__ R 4 ..'+x y ......... �. �.....� —..� ...._... ._............. ...-_..�3 .... r ___ � ... it r ..... R 2 I . 0 0/,man I -RTIFICATE OF SURVEY _ Zavey Z Caazwu, rccc. LSO- •a � 8713 DUPONT AVENUE SOUTH l', BLOOMINGTON, MINN. 55420 •""�� 886.2084 T c Lr LAND SURVEYORS \ / Survey for : SCOTT GRATZ 1-74 Description : Lot 5 , Block 1 , HAUERS 2ND ADDITION � N \{A w o\ y G Q O \ F) tj Y °; \ L-/T1%71 ,l7ra;r7a6 e Caserrlch7� ✓'�a/e: /"=30 We hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the land above described and of the location of all buildings, if any, thereon and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on said i d. Dated this 14th day of September , 19 84 ,,by Minnesota Re_-istration No. 9018 Gr 0� ctr� ID qW wish -f c Apgcl -�hc Shc, LoP _ T3 oc cl c,�j I� C n cl APa�5 ---La r-, a ��e [���•'�q -Tho dcci3 on 4, r-� CCt G►� `�Uen -tom+ C, (c, k on_ b I iQ-uc cis 6 Cbmmu(licare- 40 -then--) 4k,- hccrciship tnOcJltd , T al Sc, bQ lieUe -� bc: `ra IY,,z nl bo-y-51 pm� ) ► c\c, no-� UiSI �ec� S1u, -� not mein Q - lt� QC1ccCar( c i inn . Schmitt/kockne movec to open the public hearing regarding the request by Scott Gratz for a variance from the side yard setback requirements to construct a new single family dwelling. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner went over the considerations of the request, and stated staff recommends approval of the request. Mr. Gratz said his lot is the only one of that addition that has two 30 foot setbacks. Austin Street only goes back half way on the west side, so he could not front his house on Austin Street. Chrm. Czaja asked for comments from the audience, and there were none. Mr. Gratz said he would settle for a 10 foot variance, as the additional one foot was just to allow room for error. He explained that to set the house back further to gain more width would mean going down a steep slope, so that wouldn't be feasible. Comm. Schmitt commented that he didn't think a hardship has been shown be- cause of the size of the house. The City Planner said a house has to be at least 24 feet wide for 80% of the house. She said that considering this type of construction, the average length is about 50 feet. Mr. Gratz said he couldn't put the garage in front of the house because to move the house that far back wouldn' t put it on sturdy ground because . the ground slopes back so fast and would need a lot of fill. He said the house would be 34 feet at the widest and 64 feet long with a 20' x 20' attached garage; the house is close to 1300 square feet. Pomerenke/Schmitt moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unani- mously. Pomerenke/Rockne moved to approve Variance Resolution No. 409 allowing a variance from the sideyard setback requirements to construct a single family dwelling. . Comm. Schmitt said it appears the property was subdivided under the present ordinance and therefore the size of the property was known to the developer and the conditions for building were known, and therefore the developer has an inherent responsibility to communicate that to the property owner. Discussion followed regarding the square footage of the home and the pos- sibility of reducing the size of the house to eliminate the need for a variance. Comm. Pomerenke commented that the City approved the subdivision of the lot of this size. Motion failed with Comm. Pomerenke and Rockne in favor and Comm. Lane, Schmitt, VanMaldeghem and Czaja opposed. Chrm. Czaja informed the applicant of the 7 day appeal period. MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judi Simac, City Planner RE: Appeal of Board of Adjustment and Appeals decision by L. Carnahan DATE: June 19 , 1985 Introduction- Mr. Lon Carnahan has filed an appeal to the decision, of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals , that does not permit him to construct a second principal building on the property located at 1725 W. Third Avenue. Background: The attached information provides a background for the appeal. Included are the following items : 1. Staff report to BAA 2. Letter of Appeal 3 . Minutes of the June 6th B.A.A. meeting Action Requested: Offer Variance Resolution of the City Council No. CC-408 and move for denial. Attachments tw 9 � 3 MEMO TO: Shakopee Board of Adjustment and Appeals FROM: Judi Simac , City Planner DATE: May 29 , 1985 APPLICANT: Lon Carnahan ( City Wide Insulation) LOCATION: 1725 W. Third Avenue (Part of Tract A, RLS No. 99) ZONING: B-1 Highway Business LAND USE: Existing Insulation Business Warehouse APPLICABLE REGUALTIONS: Section 11.03 , Subd. 3 , C FINDINGS REQUIRED: Section 11 .04 , Subd . 5 PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a variance from the City Code requirement which does not permit more than one principal building on a lot. UTILITIES: The property is not served by public sanitary sewer, water or storm sewer. CONSIDERATIONS: 1) The subject parcel is located within the Urban Service Area , but does not have feasible access to urban services. There is no constructed public road- access and railroad tracks must be traversed for access. 2) In September 1982 a building permit was issued for the construction of a 14 , 992 square foot metal warehouse building on the site. No private sewer or water was installed at that time. In November 1983 , Mr. Carnahan , then a proposed new owner, was advised in writing by the acting City Planner , that the building could be used for office/showroom and storage for the reasons that 1 ) poor accessibility made the building less suitable for high volume retail 2) storage of insulation require a large area for storage and 3) the existing building was designed for cold storage and would need modifications for retail use. 3) The applicant would like to construct 26 x -40 foot two story office building for his business on the site , approximately 200 feet southwest of the existing building . He proposes the instal-lation of a well and septic system. As of this date , installation of the well has begun without an approved permit. 4) NSP holds a 125 foot easement across the parcel which prohibits any building construction within that -area . The proposed office building is prohibited form being constructed as an addition to the storage building by setback requirements and surface features of the property. 5) During a site visit on April 19 , 1985 , Mr. Carnahan informed me that the ex-isting storage building is unsuitable and that he proposes to remove the structure .and construct a storage facility as an addition to the proposed office building. OVER 6 ) The Building Official approves the proposed variance , however the City Engineer recommends denial for the reasons that there are no urban services and the proposed use is a step towards urbanizing the property and that the railroad must be crossed for access. Staff Recommendation Although there are exceptional circumstances which apply to the property, those being the NSP Utility easement and urban service classification with no future urban services proposed, the privilege to construct one principal structure on the lot has been utilized . To intensify the use of the parcel would be materially detrimental to the purposes of the zoning chapter. However , because the severe development limitations exist and the existing building was constructed without foresight of future development of the parcel , the applicant may want to consider removing the existing building and constructing a consolidated office/warehouse building in a suitable location on the property. Unless this alternative is chosen, staff recommends denial of the variance request. Action Requested : Approve a motion to deny Variance Resolution No . 408 . tw sr.i� i i1/'1r. andCc JGHT INDUSTRIA iEAVY INDUSTRIAL ' =LOODPLAIN 4 1. x /!': j y tom„••+--. � .. � f""�..,.�...• } � 'R'- t t....�'i e ` ^ !�- !� / // // / _ _ r Pq�ti t �•.'K� i w•�-_ t i..: 4 �_a.�.�......«•,k '� 3S i x��.L.' i.,,,•.. r• t, s f � x F { __ I F f•— r....�i ------------- wt + �. .._ x - t - _�", .f ax /« s:i; rs:. .' r..;,:. ..: a ;.�-� - � 3 ?_`. � :Pg/.�w6,' •sem �'L.. '-�} z _. r �f _ x .r IL ��f 762 K �w T C" fo �- • -773 FV r1. 9b2 l' 930— too - \ ` - Lr` - / d I 1P 464 1 /.r �►J AA TNR.1up r+ f• �y Q P-.98 6 � w /(✓✓ \ / e `.,r 0� / . Too iron �L<ZZ �'♦ `` \// CCC _ \•o 100 EL 9909r<y �. J � \ ,fir. / Cit �� -p`z, I /^p / X03 9 \ ....••rt Vi • t2P"ION: % That Part of Trac A, Registered Isnd Suzvev No. 99, Scott County, Alinnesota, lYIN southwesterly of the following described line: beginrurr at a point on the southeasterly line of said Trac A, distant ' 970 fee: no:,heasterly las meesured mono said scxrtheasterly line) c. the most southerly corner of :aid Tract A; thence norttnwe-sterly, Parallel with the southwesterly line o`. Tract P., to its intersection with the northwesterly line hereof aryl there tC-minor;. Subject to an easenent for N.S.P. Transnission line. Also shcwirr, the location of the des buil(UN as staxnl this 9th day of Serrttrnr 1982. CI'I YMDE INSULATION INC. 1064 DAKOTA ST. SHAKOPEE, MN 55379 (612) 445-1387 June 10 , 1985 CITY OF SHAKOPEE 129 East First Avenue Shakopee , Minnesota 55379 ATTENTION : MS . JUDY SIMAC , CITY PLANNER RE : APPEAL Dear Ms . Simac: This letter is to inform you of my intent to appeal the Planning Commissions ' decision to deny my request for a building permit , which would have allowed me to construct my office building on my property lo- cated at 1725 West 3rd Avenue , Shakopee , Minnesota. I understand that I have the right to appeal theicommissions ' decision, provided I do so within (7 )- days from the date of their decision , which was June 6 . Please advise me as to my next step , so I can get this underway as quickly as possible . Thank you. SINCEREL , J LON CARNAHAN PRESIDENT LRC/kl PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JUNE 6, 1985 Chrm. Czaja called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. with Comm. Pomerenke, VanMaldeghem, Lane, Rockne and Schmitt present. Comm. Stoltzman was ab- sent. Also present were Judi Simac, City Planner; John K. Anderson, City Admr. and Cncl. Lebens. VanMaldeghem/Pomerenke moved to approve the minutes of May 9, 1985 as - kept. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - CARNAHAN VARIANCE REQUEST VanMaldeghem/Lane moved to open the public hearing regarding the request by Lon Carnahan for a variance to place more than one principal building on a lot. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner went over the considerations of the request, and stated staff recommends denial of the request, although recognizing the exceptional circumstances of the location of the NSP easement and no constructed ser- vices. She pointed out the owner has the option of removing the existing building and building a ..new one. She said the easement was there at the time of the purchase of the property. Comm. Schmitt recalled that at the time of subdivision it was pointed out the restrictions because of the easement and no services. Mr. Carnahan said that because of the way the present building is built and its location, it is not feasible to add an office onto it. It would be a lot easier to construct a new building 200 feet away. The Building Insvector indicated he would almost have to start from scratch to put an office into the warehouse building. He said the perk test was submitted and was approved with a 500 foot drain field. Comm. VanMaldeghem expressed her concern with the safety factor -for an office building when the access is terrible. She stated that because the owner knew the property's limitations when he purchased it, she wouldn't think his rights are jeopardized by a denial of this request.. VanMaldeghem/Lane moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Lane/Vanifald.eghem offered Variance Resolution No. 408, and moved to deny the variance on the grounds that it would violate the code by placing two principal buildings on one lot. Discussion followed on the definition of a principal building. The City Planner stated that accessory buildings are not allowed without a principal building, and therefore the warehouse is the principal building. Comm. Schmitt commented it also relates to the order in which they are constructed. Motion carried with Comm. Rockne opposed. Chrm. Czaja advised the applicant of the 7 day appeal process. RESOLUTION NO. 2412 A RESOLUTION VACATING THAT PART OF SHAKOPEE AVENUE HEREIN DESCRIBED WHEREAS, it has been made to appear to the Shakopee City Council that all that part of Shakopee Avenue lying West of Adams Street between Lot 6, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 3, Replat of Notermann Addition no longer serves any public interest or use save and except for the maintenance of public utilities; and WHEREAS, a public hearing to consider said vacation was held in the Council Chambers of the City Hall in the City of Shakopee at 8:00 p.m. on the 2nd of July, 1985; and WHEREAS, two weeks' published notice has been given in the Shakopee Valley News and posted notice has been given by posting such notice on the bulletin board on the main floor of the Scott County Court House, on the bulletin board in the Shakopee City Hall and on the bulletin board at the Shakopee Public Utilities; and WHEREAS, all persons desiring to be heard on the matter were heard at the public hearing in the Council Chambers in the City of Shakopee. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1. That it finds and determines that the vacation hereinafter described is in the public interest and serves no further public need as a street, 2. That all that part of Shakopee Avenue lying West of Adams Street between Lot 6, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 3, Replat of Notermann Addition be, and the same hereby is vacated; 3. That the City reserves, however, to the City of Shakopee its licensees and franchise holders a perpetual 80 foot wide easement on, under and over the said partial vacated street for utilities with the right to install,- maintain, repair, lay and re-lay the utilities by the City, its licensees and franchise holders. 4. After the adoption of the Resolution, the City Clerk shall file certified copies hereof with the County Auditor and County Recorder of Scott County. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that no grading, excavations, filling nor construction - of any kind shall be permitted within the reserved easement area. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of 1985. ATTEST: Mayor of the City of Shakopee Approved as to form this day of City Clerk 1985. City Attorney G MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk 1 RE: Vacation of Shakopee Avenue West of Adams Street to the Alley DATE June 28 , 1985 Introduction A public hearing is scheduled for 8 :00 p.m. for consideration of the vacation of Shakopee Avenue between Lot 6 , Block l and Lot 1, Block 3 , Replat of Notermann Addition. Background The City has received a petition from the two abutting property owners requesting the vacation of a portion of Shakopee Avenue West of Adams Street. An earlier request was denied because of the uncertainty of the development of State property to the East. With the current development of the women's correctional facility, it is apparent that Shakopee Avenue will not be extended easterly. If the street is vacated, utility easements should be retained. Minnegasco has requested that no grading, excavations , filling nor construction of any kind be permitted with the north one-half and the east one-half of all that portion of Shakopee Avenue to be vacated. Alternatives a) Vacate the street as requested. b) Do not vacate the street as requested. Recommended Action Offer Resolution No. 2412 , A Resolution Vacating That Part of Shakopee Avenue Herein Described, and move its adoption. JSC/jms RESOLUTION NO. 2412 12 �/i S e A RESOLUTION VACATING THAT PART OF SHAKOPEE AVENUE (1 HEREIN DESCRIBED / WHEREAS, it has been made to appear to the Shakopee City Council that all that part of Shakopee Avenue lying West of Adams Street between Lot 6, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 3, Replat of Notermann Addition no longer serves any public interest or use save and except for the maintenance of public utilities; and WHEREAS, a public hearing to consider said vacation was held in the Council Chambers of the City Hall in the City of Shakopee at 8:00 p.m. on the 2nd of July, 1985; and WHEREAS, two weeks' published notice has been given in the Shakopee Valley News and posted notice has been given by posting such notice on the bulletin board on the main floor of the Scott County Court House, on the bulletin board in the Shakopee City Hall and on the bulletin board at the Shakopee Public Utilities; and WHEREAS, all persons desiring to be heard on the matter were heard at the public hearing in the Council Chambers in the City of Shakopee. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1. That it finds and determines that the vacation hereinafter described is in the public interest and serves no further public need as a street, 2. That all that part of Shakopee Avenue lying West of Adams Street . between Lot 6, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 3, Replat of Notermann Addition be, and the same hereby is vacated; 3. That the City reserves, however, to the City of Shakopee its licensees and franchise holders a perpetual 80 foot wide easement on, under and over the said partial vacated street for utilities with the right to install, maintain, repair, lay and re-lay the utilities by the City, its licensees and franchise holders. 4. After the adoption of the Resolution, the City Clerk shall file certified copies hereof with the County Auditor and County Recorder of Scott County. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that no grading, excavations, filling nor construction of any kind shall be permitted within the reserved easement area. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the said vacation is conditioned that 1) the property owners of Lot 6, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 3 deliver an Owners Duplicate Certificate to the City so that the City may place the vacation on record; 2) upon being billed the cost of filing, the property owners will remit to the City. Resolution No. 2412 Page Two Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of 1985. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of 1985. City Attorney � cx MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk , RE: Vacating Part of Easements 'Lving Within the Plat Furrie ' s 2nd Addition DATE: June 28 , 1985 Introduction A public hearing has been set for 8 : 00 p.m. , or thereafter , to consider the request by the VFW to vacate part of the drainage and utility easements lying between lots 2 and 3 and lots 3 and 4 , Block 1 , Furrie ' s 2nd Addition in order that they may construct a new facility. Minnegasco, Northwestern Bell, and the City Engineer have no objection to the vacation. Alternatives 1 . Vacate easements 2 . Do not vacate easements . Recommendation Alternative No. 1 . Action Requested Offer Resolution NO. 2413 , A Resolution Vacating Part of a Drainage and Utility Easement in Lots 2 , 3 and 4, Block 1 , According to the Plat of Furrie ' s 2nd Addition to the City of Shakopee , Scott County, Minnesota, and move its adoption. JSC/jms I � s- 91 91 0 b ov o �- I w o , _—i il�JmvHS e_ I -, LW LO rky ,. SoLn � 91 z II 6 x'01, N O (nrr --� N 0°!8' w - n 17 3,2.3 N Lr) II 1 f 2113 w V) low o rn -0V4 _ I= p OB � t:E I cc 165 p 0 �- LW cn m LA z I - __�- ► — \ Z I � N = I L Il ` oma � � � I 1 off , CDW G. 1 o�.i C7 „` m166,5 Q j r o ` I I o O y. MI IZ �, I 001 oc 01 III o 1 �,m CD z I c C z f m a CD rnLIN w.N ro w O; M1.-�_ I(D m N_ W v 155 m { 1 r os _ IS9SoQ`C-- I r p� l O > Ol ._ a' ISo9cd � I O rN 0 0 ``�� ''ZG a4+ ��- r mI OZ i a, m o -' - Z5 ` �-� o� Op - o ^ r� y ^ RESOLUTION N0, 2413 A RESOLUTION VACATING PART r EASEMENT IN LOTS 2 3 ro FURRIE'S 2ND ADDITION AND 4, BLOCK AIDRAINAGE AND UTILITY TO THE CITY ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF SHAKOPEE, SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA Et 2nd Addition�wase utility and Platted drainage easements and dedicated in Lot 2, 3 and 4 WHEREAS, the ShakoVeterans to the Public use• Block 1 Furrie's Shakopee Ve use; .'and in question and desires to terans of Fore' construct a facility Wars has acquired the WHEREAS, it has Y upon said three lots best interests been made to property; and of the general appear to the Council Public to vacate that it would Part of said easements; and the WHEREAS, the Council has consider said vacation and and scribed b set a date for a public Y law; and notice of the hearing hasaring at which time to due WHEREAS been g en, as pre- public all persons desirin hearing in the g to be Council Chambers heard on the in the on matter were heard at the WHEREAS, the Council has y of Shakopee; and been fully advised NOW, THEREFORE, BE in all things, .MINNESOTA: IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF S 1• That it finds and HAKOPEE, utility easement es determin is in the described in Exhibit that the vacation of public in and serves "A" attached the drai no further herand made nage and 2• That the Public need, a P it art hereof hereto and drainage- and util made a part hereof y easement is hereby vacated,aescribed in Exhibit "A" attached 3• After the ado fied copies hereof ption of the Resolution with the County Auditor and Ctheount City Clerk shall file certi- Adopted in Y Recorder Minnesota, held this session County. of Of Scott � dof the City Councilay of the. Cit 1985. Y of Shakopee, ATTEST: Mayor of the City of Shakopee City Clerk Approved as to form this 1985, day of 3itY Attorney ✓� a113 Exhibit "A" Easements To Be Vacated All that part of the 10 fact drainage and utility easements on the west line of Lot 2, the east line and the west line of Lot 3, and the west line of Lot 4, Black 1, currie' s 2nd Addition, Scott County, Minnesota, except the most northerly and the most southerly 10 feet of said easements. ICF�h�.:," CITY OF SHA OPEE i ,+ 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 MEMO TO: JJohn An rl P r c GL FROMD„}�1 i c TnlnrkG nPrartmerit SUBJECT: c;pwpr Fiinrjpurchase DATE: June 26 , 1 A R 5 Introduction: The 1985 Sewer Department budget provides $5000 for a set of bucket machines for heavy duty cleaning of the sanitary and storm drain sewer systems . A set of these used mechanical bucket machines have just been made available to us by Flexible Pipe Tool Co. of Sauke Centre , Mn. , for $4500 . These bucket machines have been recently inspected, and are considered to be in excellent condition. The purchase price of these bucket machines and accessories in new condition is estimated to be about $20 , 000. These machines were traded in by a smaller community for a new Jet machine , and reported about 40 hours of usage on the machines . , Background: Mechanical bucket cleaning machines are usually considered as the "bottom line : in heavy duty pipe cleaning. They are generally used to remove heavy deposits of sand, silt or foreign material that is somehow introduced into the pipe. They are , at times , also used to remove unusal heavy root clumps , broken pipe or roots . But these clam-type buckets are used only in special situations and not on a daily prevention maintenance basis because , (1) It takes a longer time to set up the equipment , (2) The clam-type bucket is hard on offset joints , protuding taps , etc. These clam type buckets are also used to clean storm sewer culverts , and systems etc. These machines also can pull sand squeegees , or wire porcupines (brushes) through cleaned lines , to inspect how thoroughly they have, been cleaned. Some communities specify that a new sewer line must be squeegeed or porcupined in lieu of T.V. inspection before the city will accept the new sewer line from the contractor. The bucket machines , as illustrated, work in the upstream and down- stream manhole connected by a 2” cable , which is threaded through the pipe by a sewer rodder. The upstream machine generally pulls the bucket toward manhole until the operator car. feel the bucket is loaded, then the down- stream machine will return the bucket, fully loaded to his manhole , up on the loading chute , and then dumped directly into a truck which has been positioned under the chute . After the clam bucket has been emptied into the the truck, the upstrea:. machine then engages his machine and returns the bucket into the pipe for another load. This cycle is repeated until the bucket has been pulled completely clean. A porcupine can then be pulled through the pipe to scour the inside pipe walls . This cleaning method is generally considered to be the last resort in pipe cleaning maintenance and is utilized only for heavy duty type cleaning. There are , to my knowledge , only two pipe cleaning contractors that are active in the state , and they are very expensive. We hired 7Jikirg Pipe Services of Bemidji about 7 years ago to clean a portion of the Lewis St. sanitary sewer, Adams St. near 3rd Ave . , and to clean the two large storm sewer culverts -which are located under the West Entrance road at Hauer Trail. This contract cost us about $10, 000 , and it isn' t always easy to schedule them to come into our community for emergency type work. For this reason, we are recommending that we purchase these machines for our own use so that they are available whenever needed. It is my feeling that the purchase of the machines is needed, and we have been waiting for some time for a good set of the machines to become available. Most communities don' t usually trade them in very often unless they have been completely worn out. This bucket machine set will include the clam type ouckets for 6" 8, 10 , 12 , & 15" pipe , and porcupines from 8" through 12" pipe. The distributor also has a 22" and 18" buckets available which would be used on large storm sewer culverts , and on the interceptor line cleaning projects . He has quoted us a price of $250 . 00 for the pair, and this price is about 2 of the listed price of these buckets . These buckets have also been inspected, and they are in excellent condition. Alternatives : 1. Purchase the bucket machines of $4500 . 00 , 2 . Purchase the extra 18" bucket for $120 . 00 and the 22" bucket for $130. 00 , for a total of $250. 00 , 3. Reject the bucket machine offer from Flexible Pipe Tool Co. , and hire the sewer cleaning contractora for the heavy work. 4. Wait for another set of bucket machines to be made available. bucket machines - cont. Recommendations: Alternatives # 1 and # 2 . Purchase the bucket machines from Flexible Pipe Tool Co. for $4500.00 , and purchase the extra buckets available for an additional $250. 00 . Funding has been provided by the Sewer Fund Capital Equipment budget. r",ction Requested: Authorize the Public Works Department to -purchase a set of used bucket machines and extra buckets from Flexible Pipe Tool Co. for a total of $4500.00 , to be paid for by the Sewer Fund Capital Equipment budget. - n � m I ';tics I - MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: Application for Taxicab License by Yellow Taxi Service Corporation DATE: June 27 , 1985 Introduction The City has received an application from Yellow Taxi Service Corporation to operate within the City of Shakopee. Background The police report on the applicant is attached. The certificate of insurance is in order and has been approved by the City Attorney. The two existing licensed taxicab operations (Shakopee Cab Co. , Inc. and Suburban Taxi Corp. ) have been notified of the application, per City Code requirement. Alternatives 1. Approve application. 2. Deny application. Recommendation Alternative No. 1. Recommended Action Approve the application and grant a Taxicab License to Yellow Taxi Service Corporation, 127 1st Avenue N.E. , Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55413 , beginning July 3 , 1985. JSC/Jm-s TO: Mayor, Council Members FROM: John DuBois, Deputy.Chief of Police SUBJECT: Taxi Cab License Application DATE: June 28, 1985 INTRODUCTION James T. LeTourneau, 127 1st Avenue N.E. , Minneapolis, MN. , Yellow Taxi Service Corporation, has made application for a Shakopee Taxi Cab License. BACKGROUND Appropriate inquiries have been completed on the officers of the corporation. RECOMMENDATION The police department has no basis to recommend denial of a license to Yellow Taxi Service Corp. DBA/Suburban Yellow. Cab. STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE TO: City Hall T A X 129 East 1st Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 CLEARANCE RE: The Weiss Company, Inc. CERTIFICATE dba MGM Liquor Warehouse 8522 East Highway 101 Shakopee, MN 55379 Minnesota Identification Number: 5562143 Type or Name of License: Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License Renewal Date: July 1, 1985 Please be advised that the above named taxpayer has been issued a tax clearance certificate under authority of Minnesota Statute 270.72 Tax Clearance; Issuance of Licenses. Dated this �7/Lday of , 19 041 ARTHUR C. ROEMER Commissioner of Revenue By: Karen B. Swanberg or Minnesota Department of Revenue Special Procedures Group St. Paul, Minnesota 55164 Application is now in order! Recommended Action: 1] Remove from table 2] Approve the application and grant an Off—Sale Intoxicati�Rg, f T j r-jjjr-,� T j Inco I— mho 1,T_4 r T r'7 -- - --,_. .. - TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Jeanne Andre , Community Development Director RE: Housing Revenue Bonds and Notes DATE: June 26 , 1985 Introduction• Recently many residential developers have approached the City regarding the potential use of mortgage revenue bonds or notes to assist in the develoment of multifamily housing in Shakopee. The purpose of this memo is to outline some of the pertinent facts about this type of financing in order to seek City Council direction as to whether it is a viable tool which should be offered to residential developers in Shakopee . Background: Under current federal law, Cities can offer tax free status to bonds sold for multifamily housing if at least 20p of the unitsdeveloped with the bond proceeds are made affordable to low-and moderate-income families . Unlike federal limitations (allocations ) on the amount of bonds which can be issued for industrial development projects and mortgages for single family housing , currently an unlimited amount of multifamily mortgage revenue bonds and notes can be issued in the state . However federal legislation now under consideration would remove cities' authority to issue any bonds with tax-free status , perhaps as early as 1986 or 1987 . To my knowledge , the City has never issued or considered issuing such bonds , and City Council may wish to consider this option while it is still available. -The federal statutory requirements to serve low-and moderate- income families are quite different than any subsidized multifamily housing that has historically been developed in Shakopee. One major difference is that no ongoing federal operating assistance is provided to lower the rents . Therefore any reductions in rents charged must be captured from other sources, such as -reduced project costs or developer profit, or increased rents for units not under the limitation. The end result is that rents under the limitation will be nowhere near subsidized rents in Section 8 projects, where tenants -pay only 30� of their income , which might only be $280 per month for some social security recipients. Under mortgage revenue bonds the "low-income units" might rent for $500 as compared to $600 for other units in the project. The City can chose to place additional controls on developers who utilize mortgage revenue bonds in order to meet local housing: objectives and to obtain greater local benefits from developers to balance the benefits they receive through use of the bonds . Examples of some additional requirements Cities have utilized in their criteria for approving mortgage revenue bonds are as follows: 1. Increase the base 20% of units to be provided for low- or moderate-income families to some other amount such as 30p . 2 . Require the assisted units to be provided for a specified time , and have ongoing City monitoring of performance . Under federal law , the mandate to assist low- and moderate- income families applies only to the initial rental of the units . If the incomes of families wno initially occupy the units increases , or if those units are vacated , federal law does not require that the 20% ratio be maintained. 3 . Require units not to be converted to condominums for a certain period. The assumption is that units created to serve the rental market should be retained on that market rather than converted to ownership units. 4 . Require additional amenities such as garages , improved landscaping , brick construction or swimming pools to be included in proposals funded with IR bonds . This type of requirement will make the developer produce a higher quality project through the public assistance , but does not lead. to more low-cost housing. 5 . Require the developer to contribute to a housing fund, with proceeds to be used to construct or subsidize housing for very-low-income persons. If the- Council elects to proceed to adopt criteria for the issuance of mortgage revenue bonds, it could elect to include criteria as listed above , or other criteria identified by the Council. However since Shakopee currently -has a shortage of rental units and development of rental unit has not occurred in the regular market the past few years , I would recommend against alteratives that significantly drive up rents or project costs. Adoption of those criteria which focus on the intent of providing lower cost rental units accessible to lower income persons are therefore recommended . Attached is a draft copy Of a policy that takes this approach , but is otherwise taken from the City of Bloominton policy . If the Council decides to .proceed with a policy, this draft will be further refined , compared for consistency with the new IDB policy , and brought back for adoption by resolution. Requested Action- Direct staff to develop policy , criteria and procedures for the review of housing revenue bonds which includes criteria to 1 ) require the 20% of the units available to lower income persons be retained for a period of 10 years or one/half the life of the bonds , whichever is greater ; and 2) to require that all units not be converted to condominiums for a similar period. City of Shakopee, Minnesota POLICY, CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES FOR THE REVIEW OF HOUSING REVENUE BONDS AND MORTGAGE SUBSIDY BONDS SECTION is General The City of Shakopee , under Minnesota Statutes , may develop and administer programs to : ( 1 ) Finance the acquisition and rehabilitation of single family homes by low and moderate income families ; and (2) finance multifamily housing development-s or the rehabilitation of multifamily housing developments for low and moderate income families. The City Council also has found that there is a need for housing low and moderate income families and to assist in the rehabilitation and preservation of the City of Shakopee housing stock and neighborhoods. The following policies identify the conditions and circumstances under which the adminsitration and financing of housing related programs should take place in the City of Shakopee. SECTION I : Definitions A. "AUTHORITY" Means Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Shakopee , Minnesota. B. "CITY" Means the City Shakopee , Minnesota. C. "COMPREHENSIVE PLAN." Means the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Shakopee , adopted by the City Council on August 4 , 1981. D. "HOUSING PLAN" Means information required under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 462C.03 . 1 E. "LOWER INCOME" Means a person or family venose income by family size does not exceed 80 percent of the median family income for the Metropolitan Area as determined by United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD) . F. "TARGET AREA" Means a redevelopment project as defined under M. S.A. Chapter 1462 .1421 , Subd. 13 . or a housing development project as defined under M. S.A. Chapter 1462.1421, Subd . 25. G. "VERY LOW INCOME" Means persons or family whose income by family size does not exceed 50 percent of the median income for the Metropolitan Area as determined by HUD. Section III : Policies for the use of Tax-Exempt Financing for Multifamily Ren .2l Housiniz . A. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE The City , as the issurer of tax-exempt housing revenue bonds , confers a significant benefit to the developers andfinanciers of multifamily rental housing . Therefore , the City has the right and, indeed , the obligation to be sure that a commensurate public benefit is realized. The City ' s policies and criteria governing the use of Housing Revenue Bonds goes beyond the minimum public benefit required by the United States internal Revenue Service (IRS) . B. NEW CONSTRUCTION 1. Target 20 percent of the units to lower income families for - 10 years from initial mortgage closing or 112 the term of the bonds, whichever is greater; or, 2. Provide affordable housing to special population segments such as lower income elderly and handicaped ; or 3 . Provide housing within and consistent with the development objectives of designated target areas ; or 2 C. EXISTING HOUSING All Projects Must: 1 . Meet the minimum standards for rehabilitation set forth by the City; 2. Not cause major dislocation of existing tenants ; 3 . Provide relocation assistance as required by State Statutes ; 4 . Maintain a rent structure affordable to current tenants; and 5 . Target 20 percent of the units to lower income families. D. RENT LEVEL , RESTRICTIONS ON OCCUPANCY , CONVERSIONS AND MINIMUM REHABILITATION REQUIREMENTS 1. Rent Levels The City must approve any schedule of rents proposed by the owner for the units targeted to lower income families . A schedule submitted by an owner within the persmissible maximums will be deemed approved unless the City informs the owner within 60 days that it is- disapproved. The maximum rent chargeable for the targeted lower income families is defined as gross rent less the cost for tenant-paid utilities. The maximum rent of the housing units targeted to lower income families shall not exceed 30 percent of the income limits established under these policies for each housing unit type : efficiency, one bedroom, two bedroom, or three bedroom. 2. Income Limits The income limits. for a targeted: a. Efficiency or studio housing unit will be based on the income of a one person lower income household ; b. One bedroom housing unit will be based on the income of a two person lower income household ; 3 c . Two bedroom housing unit will be based on the income of a three person lower income household ; and d . Three bedroom housing unit will be based on the income of a five person lower income household . 3 . Unit Type To the maximum extent it is economically feasible , all of the lower income units must, in terms of size .and bedroom mix , be responsive to special renter group needs as determined by the City. 4 . Over-Income Tenants The owner must reexamine the income of tenants occupying the units targeted to lower income families each year. If a tenant becomes over income, the owner may relocate the tenant in a comparable unit or continue the tenant in place ; however , the owner must target the next vacant comparable unit as a lower income unit. 5 . Restrictions on Conversions The owner cannot , without City approval , convert the targeted units in the project to condominium or cooperative ownership during the 10 year period from the date on which the units are available for occupancy or for a period of 1/2 the term of the bonds , whichever is greater. 6 . Minimum Rehabilitation Requirements An existing rental property must have more than four units which are more than three years old and require substantial rehabilitation. A property will be considered substantially rehabilitated if the cost of the repairs shall exceed 15 percent of the cost of the acquisition of the building. 7 . Equal Opportunity and Non-Discrimination Certifications The owner will certify compliance with all laws and regulations affecting equal opportunity to minorities and the handicapped in their marketing efforts and rental procedures. No project, except those developments specifically designed for the elderly or handicapped , shall exclude the renting of units to families with children. 4 E. FEES 1. A one time non- refundable fee will be required at the time of application. 2. Fees are established in the City of Shakopee Fee Schedule which is revised annually . F. OTHER CONDITIONS 1. Project must not be a burden on existing City services or utilities beyond that which can be, reasonably and economically accommodated. 2 . The applicant must demonstrate a good financial standing by showing a substantial net worth, or equity in the project, or both. Projects are to show in the application a financing commitment -for private placement or owner equity or other collateral ( such as a bank letter of credit, a bankers acceptance , pledge of a certificate of deposit , insurance company guarantee, or similar security) which will provide for an "A" or better bond rating , all determined with reference to total project costs . The applicant is to file with the City , if requested , a final statement of total costs and project equity , certified to by an authorized officer or partner , or the individual applicant . Said statement is to be filed at time of requesting the final resolution. SECTION IV : Policies for the Use of Tax Exempt Single Familv Mortgage Subsidy Bonds (T 0 B E D E V E L 0 P E D) SECTION V: Program Administration and Procedures A. ADMINISTRATION 1. The authority will have full responsibility for the administration of the City ' s housing revenue bond program and will be authorized by ordinance to exercise , on behalf of the City , the powers conferred by Sections 462C . 01 to 1462 . 08 of the Minnesota Statutes subject to: a. City Council approval by resolution of any policies or - procedural guides for the administration of the program; 5 b . The approval of the City Council of the issuance of any housing revenue bond-- ; and C. City Council approval by resol-.ution of any policies for the administration of the City 's Housing Development Fund . 2 . The City Council reserves the right to deny any application for financing at any stage fo the procedings prior to adopting the final resolution authorizing issuance of the housing revenue bond financing. 3 . The City and the Authority are to be reimbursed and held harmless for and from any out-of-pocket costs related to the actual or proposed issuance of the bonds . 4 . All applications and supporting materials and documents shall remain the property of the authority . Note that all such materials may be subject to disclosure and/or public review under applicable provisions of state law . 5 . The Housing and Redevelopment Authority shall monitor all negotiations between the various parties taking part in the program to ensure that the program documents are consistent with the City' s plan, as well as the policies and criteria established in this document. 6 . The Housing and Redevelopment Authority - will have the responsibility to monitor program administration. 7 . The Authority shall , as part of its responsibility , prepare a summary report containing information on all applications submitted for that year , as well as previously approved projects . Such report shall include: a. Total number of applications processed ; b. Total number and dollar volume of projects ; C. Amount of tax base provided ; d. Number of new low - income households provided for; and e. Default information , if any. 6 B. PROCEDURES 1. The applicant must not commence any part of the con- struction of the project until there has been preliminary approval by the authority of the applicant for financing. 2 . The applicant shall make an application for financing on forms available from the City of Shakopee . The completed application is to be returned to the Director of Community Development , accompanied by the processing fee , whereupon the application will be forwarded to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority for review. The Authority shall forward a recommendation . to the City Council . Specific findings shall be made and recited regarding the criteria as well as satisfaction of public purposes of the act. 3 . The application cannot be considered by the Authority unless the proposed project is consistent with the land-use designated in the Comprehensive Plan and current zoning. All publications must include preliminary site and building plans of the proposed project. 4 . The applicant shall submit a timetable for completion of the project as part of the application. Any apparent major deviation (12 months or more) from that timetable will automatically cause the application to be brought back to the Authority for review. 5 . The Authority reserves the right to hire independent bond council to assist in application review at the expense of the developer. 6 . The applicant is to select qualified financial consultants and/or underwriters to prepare all necessary documents and materials . The City may rely on the opinion of such experts and the application shall be accompanied ' by a financial analysis (Pro forma income. statement, debt service coverage , mortgage terms, etc. ) by the underwriter as to the economic feasibility of the project and the underwriter' s ability to market the financing . Financial material submitted is to also include most recent fiscal year-end , financial statements, prepared by a Certified Public Accountant. 7 . Further , in the case of the tax-exempt mortgage placements, the applicant will be required to furnish the Authority , before passage of the preliminary resolution, a comfort letter ( but not necessarily a letter of commitment) from the lending institution, to the effect that said lending institution has reviewed the economic feasibility 7 of the project , including the financial responsibility the guarantors and find that , in their professional judgement , it is an economically viable project. 8 . The applicant shall furnish along with the application , a description of the project , site plan , rendering of proposed building , etc . , and a brief description of the applicant company , all in such form as shall be required at the time of application. 8 u TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Jeanne Andre, Community Development Director RE: Council Policy Statement on Use of Tax Increment for Financing of Housing Projects DATE : June 25 , 1985 Introduction: The issue of use of tax-increment financing in areas with bedrock or other similar development problems has been discussed at a number of goals and objectives sessions held by City Council. It was the consensus of the City Council during those sessions to offer this type of assistance to encourage development in areas which would not otherwise develop under normal market conditions. Existing Council policies on tax-increment financing provide that tax-increment cannot be used for multifamily housing on vacant land . Therefore in areas where bedrock ex'�sts that are also in R-4 (multifamily residential) zoning, the Councils ' goals and objectives statements are in conflict with existing policies. This memo is to initiate discussion on whether to correct this conflict and the best way to do so. Backy-round: Numerous inquires have been received by the staff as to assistance available for the development of multifamily housing in Shakopee . A number of these inquiries have been for land in the vicinity of CR 17 and CR 16 and Fourth Avenue. Therefore in order to respond to these questions, ( in regard to tax-increment financing ) the above-mentioned conflict must be resolved by the City Council . The area of mortgage revenue bonds for multifamily housing will be brought to City Council as a separate issue. . Recommended Action: Assuming the City Council wishes to revise its tax-increment financing (TIF) policy for housing to provide for use of this tool when there are physical limitations to the site such as bedrock at or near to the surface , I recommend the additions and deletions as noted - on the attached policy statement be adopted. These changes provide for use of TIF for multifamily housing, but only when development hardships exist . Alternately, if the Council wishes to keep the h-ousing TIF policy as is, the goals and objectives should be modified to remove references to use of TIF for housing, even in areas with physical limitations. Page two Memo - Tax Increment Financing Recuested Action Adopt Resolution No. 2391 which recinds Resolution No. 2191 , which adopted the previous policy for use of tax-increment financing for housing , and adopts a new policy which allows for use of tax-increment financing when physical hardships to development exist. tw P,ESOLUTiON NC. 2391 A RESOLLT=- ' APPROS'TN - AP'D JD0P7TXC I CEpTATrt "'AX TNCREN^1,7T FTly ANC^11`r P T T CZ7S LF A DAT T`D TO HOtiSINC• Pj C TL'CTS WHEREAS , the City of Shakopee in Resolution No. 2191 , A Resolution Approving and Adopting Certain Tax-Increment Policies Related to the Use of Tax increment Financing for Interest Rate Reduction Programs for Low and Moderate Income Families, established certain policies on the use of tax-increment financing; and WHEREAS , the Shakopee City Council now desires to change those policies to provide for the use of tax-increment financing for housing on vacant land that is subject to severe development hardships , NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED . BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, Scott County, Minnesota , that: 1. . Resolution No. 2191 is hereby recinded ; and .2. The attached Policy Statement on the Use of Tax-increment Financing for Housing is hereby adopted and made a part hereof. Adopted in - - - session of the City Council of the City of -Shakopee , Minnesota , held this ------ -day of 1985 . Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Approv-ed as to form this day of 1985 . City Attorney CITY OF SHAKOPEE APPLICATION TATS INCREMENT FINANCING ASSISTANCE - HOUSING BACKGROUND INFORMATION Legal name of applicant: Address: Telephone number: Name of contact person: DISTRICT INFORMATION Addendums shall be attached hereto addressing in detail: 1. Location - include a location map with exact boundaries of projected develop- ment as proposed. 2. Size - describe the size of the proposed project in terms of acres. Show parcel boundaries, if known. 3. Use - describe the proposed uses for the property, by parcel, if known. 4. Value - list the estimated market value to result from the project by year and by parcel, by building or other appropriate spatial subdivision. 5. Timing - describe the timing of the development improvements. 6. Interest Rate Reduction Program - identify the level of interest rate reduction proposed and how much of it will be financed by the developer and how much by the use of tax increment financing. 7. Impact - to the extent feasible, identify: a. Temporary construction jobs to be created. b. Valuation to be added. C. Impact on current housing market and local developer/builders. d. Impact on the City' s housing stock as it relates to the City' s Housing Assistance Plan. e. Other assets to accrue to the community. 8. Traffic - to the extent feasible, identify: a. Projected vehicle counts caused by development of the district. b. Impact on existing traffic arteries. C. Plan for traffic flow. 9. Need explain why the improvement is not one that would normally be financed by the private developer and why the costs of the improvement cannot be paid by the applicant. 10. Hardship - explain development hardships which exist for this parcel which cause the need for tax-increment financing assistance (must address development hardships if housing wit! be constructed on bare (vacant) ground OTHER INFORMATION Provide any further information you feel may assist the City in assessing the merits of this proposal. COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT CITY OF SHAKOPEE TAF. INCREMENT FINANCING FOR HOUSING !ioderare incuiur Ftousirrg There are three types of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Districts: Redevelopment, _______-_ T-,.M ; Housing and Economic Develop— ment. Shakopee has elected to restrict TIF availability for any type of low and moderate income income or conventional housing unless it meets Redevelopment Project Criteria outlined in a separate Policy Statement or is proposed to be constructed on vacant parcels where unusual development hardships can be demonstrated. (i.e. TIF available will be provided for vacant parcels only where unusual development hardships are demonstrated. ) (i.e. TIF evailabili - r = -- _ t= TIF is available for Economic Development _ o Projects and Redevelopment Projects under separate, but similar, Policy Statements. Minnesota statutes place the responsibility for low and moderate income interest reduction programs with housing and redevelopment authorities. Under Minnesota statutes, however, the interest reduction program and tax increment financing plans of the authority must be approved by the City Council. In addition, the financing of such projects requires the active involvement of the City. As a result, it is necessary that the City have a policy in regard to these projects. The purpose of this policy statement is to establish the City' s restrictions with respect to the processing of requests for, and the creation and implementation of, tax increment financing districts for low and moderate income housing. STATEMENT OF POLICY ADDlicability It is the policy of the City of Shakopee to provide interest rate reduction programs to assist the financing of the construction, rehabilitation, and purchasing of housing units which are primarily for occupancy by individuals of low or moderate income and related or subordinate facilities (MSA 462.445, Subd. 10) in order to protect and increase property values and the tax base Of the City. For those purposes, it may be necessary to create tax increment low and moderate income housing districts in selected portions of the City and to fund interest rate reduction programs for private developments within such districts. It is also the policy of the City of Shakopee to limit (restrict) the use of TIF interest rate reduction programs to programs that 1) provide home ownership on a scattered site basis with the TIF interest rate reduction provided to the homeowner rather than the builder/developer for quality homes compatible with the neighborhood, or 2) provide for the construction of multifamilyor 2) provide for the construction of multifamily housing on parcels where development where develo�ent hardships existhardships exist. Creation of tax increment low and moderate income housing districts may come as the result of City initiative, Housing and Redevelopment Authority action, or a private proposal. It is in the public interest that the creation of tax increment districts and the financing of low and moderate income interest reduction programs with tax increments be made only after the City has been fully informed concerning the proposal and its current and future prospects, and has been able to thoroughly investigate it. Where a company or individual is requesting creation of a tax increment district or the financing of interest rate reduction programs via tax increments, that company or individual will be required to furnish certain information needed for such investigation and will be required to assume the costs of the City's efforts. It shall be the expressed intent of the City to expedite to the greatest extent feasible the processing of all requests for the approval of tax increment projects so that no undue delays are experienced by the applicant. however, nothing herein shall be construed as representing a commitment on the part of the City to create tax increment districts. Policy The following policies will be observed in the Council 's consideration of the approval of tax increment projects: 1. Benefit to the City: For purposes of determining benefit of a proposed tax increment district or project, both its estimated economic and other benefits shall be considered: (1) The economic benefit is the increased tax base that will result, not only in terms of the absolute increase in the tax base, but also with respect to how great an increase will be received from a given public investment; (2) Equally important is the contribution the porposal makes in creating needed housing units in accordance with the City's adopted housing Assistance Program; (3) The level of other public and private investment involved in the project; (4) The overall risk or exposure to loss of City funds included in the project; and (5) The degree to which competition in neighboring communities dictates use of such programs to create competitive housing markets in Shakopee. 2. Character of Program: A viable program should typically include participation by both the applicant(s) and the City in reducing interest rates for low and moderate income individuals. Examples of such participation include: ( 1) A f irm commitment by the applicant(s) to build a specified number of the program's housing units or an equivalent commitment; (2) A firm commitment by the applicant(s) to contribute a stated level of interest rate reduction from non—increment sources; (3) Participation by several experienced developer/builders to insure that the program's success or failure does not depend upon on only one or two developer/builders; and (4) The demonstrated quality of the units proposed and their capability with housing units in the neighborhood. 3. Demonstration of Need: A request for tax increment financing shall demonstrate that feasible alternative financing is not available and that the assistance applied for is needed in the amount requested. The developer(s) will be asked to submit a proforma, an estimate of the costs and revenues of the project, the amount of private capital in the project, and other infor- mation as deemed essential for analysis by the City. Such analvsis will either be made by staff or through the Citv' s financial consultant when considered necessary. An applicant who is not willing to provide this information to the City should not make a formal request for tax increment financing assistance. c 4. Size of the Proiect : Because of the time and cost involved in analyzing a request for tax increment financing, and because tax increment financing should only be used in those instances where the project will have a demon- strable positive impact on the community as a whole, requests for tax increment financing of less than $100,000 will not be considered as a general rule. A request of this minimum size would require a redevelopment to increase the market value of the property by $1,000,000 assuming the 10-to-1 ratio noted above. 5. Project Certainty/Financial Guarantees: In addition to the other factors, favorable consideration for tax increment financing will be based on (1) When the development is expected to occur; (2) The demonstrated capacity of the applicant(s) to successfully complete the development, and (3) The certainty that the tax increments will be received. Tax Increment Revenue Bonds or General Obligation Bonds will not be used to fund low and moderate income interest reduction programs. Increments will be utilized directly to write down interest rates to insure maximum protection for the City. Applicants for tax increment financing for interest reduction programs will be required to sign an acceptable written agreement setting forth the responsibilities of the applicant and the City with respect to the program. The performance of the applicant under such contract shall be supported by presentation of a financial guarantee in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit. Procedure The following procedures will be utilized in reviewing tax increment financing proposals: 1. A written request shall be submitted concurrently to the City Administrator' s office and to the Executive Director of the Shakopee housing and Redevelopment Authority by the person or firm requesting the City and HRA to utilize the City's tax increment financing capacity. The request shall contain, at a minimum, the information in the pre-application form. 2. Upon submission, the request shall be reviewed by a committee chaired by the City Administrator and consisting of the Planner, City Engineer, Public Works Director, Utilities Director, County Assessor, Finance Director, and HRb Executive Director to determine, on a preliminary basis, whether the proposal appears to be feasible. 3. The application and supporting financial data shall be submitted to the City's Financial Consultant for review. 4. The preliminary proposal shall be placed on the next regularly scheduled agendas of the HRA and of a City Council Work Session for their preliminary review. At those times, the applicant(s) may make a presentation, and staff will make preliminary comments concerning the perceived feasibility of the project. 5. Based on the preliminary review, the applicant(s) may elect to file a formal application with the City, accompanied by a fee of $500.00. 6. Upon the filing of a formal application, staff shall proceed to complete a tax increment financing analysis which shall examine in detail the proposal' s financial viability (which may include a full appraisal by staff or K.A.I. ), and benefit to the community as outlined in the policies above. 7. The applicant(s) shall attend at least one (1) meeting with residents and property owners in and within 500 feet of the proposed tax increment district conducted by the City Council and HRA. S. After the meeting noted in Step 7 and upon completion of the tax increment financing analysis, a recommendation will be made to the City Council and HRA. Based upon that recommendation, the Council and HRA may authorize the staff to commence negotiation of a low or moderate income interest reduction program. 9. Negotiation of the interest reduction program contract prepared by the HRA occurs. 10. During the negotiation of the contract, a tax increment financing plan will be prepared by staff with notification being provided to Scott County and the School District, if such plans have not already been adopted. 11. If a redevelopment plan is needed, such plan shall be transmitted to the Planning Commission for review and comment. 12. The HRA will be asked to approve a contract and a tax increment financing plan and redevelopment plan in the event such plans are needed. 13. The City Council will be asked to approve the redevelopment contract and, if necessary and after the appropriate public hearings (noticed via published notice and notice mailed to property owners in and within 500 feet of the proposed district), a tax increment financing plan and redevelopment plan. 14. The adopted plans will be filed with Scott County and the State of Minnesota. 15. Tax increment bonds are issued. V GTT'Y CSF SHJ-kKOF=N aI INCORPORATED 1870 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT } 129 E. 1st Avenue - 57akooee, Minnezota 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Fulton Schleisman, Engineering Inspector- SUBJECT: nspectorSUBJECT: Free Trash Dumping DATE: June 27, 1985 INTRODUCTION: The 8 day long free trash dumping opportunity provided by the City, terminated this past week. BACKGROUND : The last of the trash containers was pulled last week, with clean-up and restoration of the dumping area yet to be accomp- lished. The public response to this offering exceeded expectations. A total of 33 containers were filled versus 20 containers esti- mated. At roughly 3=' C. Y. per load times 33 loads, a total of about 1, 050 C. Y. of trash was hauled to Louisville Landfill. Some notes of interest regarding the 8 day program: 1. Cooperation in following the dumping rules and restric- tions was quite good. Some scavengers were observed, (metal -and miscellaneous) , but caused no problems. E. Public Works Department assistance was invaluable. By loading and compressing material into containers with front-end loaders, "payloads" were increased by perhaps 50 percent . FREE TRASH DUMPING June 1-7, 1985 rage 2 3. Only one party called for assistance in transporting trash to the dump site_ Rather than set a precedent obl - gating the City, we suggested that a private hauler be h fired. 4. Some comments overheard during the program: a. "Residents and Business will have no excuse for harboring gunk, given the dumpinc opportunity provided by the City. " b. " I recognize some of this material as that which has come from back yards and alleys." c. "This is a good gesture on the part of the City, shows they are really concerned about appearance. " d. " It looks like we got every old hire from Shako- pee"--Louisville Landfill. ACTION REDUESTED: A motion to authorize payment of $3, 567. 00 , from General Fund vontingencies, tc-. Waste Management, Inc. for furnishing, haul- ing, and dumping _0 yard roll-off containers at s99-. 00 Ea. , during the period June 8 through June 17, 1585. FS/prop TRASH C S TY OF" :E;HAKC) F" aa —_._-- INCORPORATED 1870 * ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT � 129 E. lat Avenue - Shakopee, Minneaota 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650 MEMO TO: Jahn K. Anderson, City Adm i n i st rat or FROM: Fulton Schleisman, Engineering Inspector SUBJECT: Acquisition of Trunk Highway 101 Bypass Right-of-Way DATE: June 27, 1985 INTRODUCTION: The loan application process for Parcel No. 7, requires Council action to hire appraisal firms. BACKGROUND: On May 9, 1985, the Metropolitan Council approved Shakopee' s preliminary application for a right-of-way reservation loan for Parcel No. 7, 14 acres of land south of Minnesota Valley 5th Addition, Subsequently, Council directed staff to request proposals for the required appraisals of the property. (Two are necessary because the estimated value of the property exceeds $100, 000. 00. ) Two firms have submitted proposals for the work. Both, Shena- h on & Associates, Inc. and Pat ch i n & Associates, Inc. , are Mn/DOT approved and have performed satisfactorily for the City in the past . ACTION REQUESTED : Council authorization to enter into an agreement with Shenehon & Associates to furnish an appraisal report for parcel No. 7, at a cost not to exceed $1, 500. 00, for the Trunk Highway 101 Bypass Right-of-Way Acquisition. Council authorization to enter into an agreement with Patchin & Associates to furnish an appraisal report for Parcel No. 7, at a cost not to exceed $1, 800. 00, f the Trunk Highway 101 Bypass Right-of-Way Acquisition. r• Appt^o ,f'q-r- Submittal H. R. Spurri r, City Engineer FS/pmp APPRAISER r r ► + r r # r r # ► s mc .V+ # j r r r 17 N ► V # v • �l r r ► v'r r V �# W W 2 m w r # # C # [� w C ► C r C^D # O r C m m N �O ► w # v, r N + • C # ut r O: • 10 ► V V r W # 2no X n M Z y o -c • 0 c') :� o m o m n c. m O P P P P P P P D O P P - o P -1 N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ m x N N N N N N N N N N N N N N n P P P P P Cl P P P P P P P C, 7C rn m- ro co cn m m m no rn Oo ro m m 'D v: vl ,n Ln .n ut vi v' of v, v+ v, n vt m rl I C r Z LA W N N .+� N N .o.o .o.o G O O O r W W W N N w ut W W WW JO NN In • • • • . • • • . . • . • . . . • • • . s W 6A v, N N W W J J ✓1 N 13 O i-a Jf✓t .+ci N N G W W r 00 b - In vl !!� ti y 00 UO,. 00 'J13 tl0 OG70 rr 000 - # r �• r 1 O n n n n m a a m n o n n n rl^l a n n m n cn tl z A o ro m 2 rel T z CD z K = n v r zza r rel \ n n K r —H H N N < m r x K n T In C4 o 0 0 l l to a p 6 O : O c A Z z z (n • m n fl) o z cn z n o m m u,m o v s o rr w a ZI o o t C m cn - In z H sa 0 1 i n N .Zl In O N • 'il O Z 2 i f7 m m RI f to m N n rn i t o y ' m rn In m M .. oc c rim -1 ro c N v LI v ' .i m tl : Q cc m t! H ` m 'O w '9 n of TI H H H .: Z r v r ..1 r r "o r v u- m s m r rn T m sm m sx m to a to cn C In W a N W a a In w H n � -� m 2 n n o O o 2 n o n 1 '1 1 n r r r r r r r r r rr r 4- F. o N N W N ut N N W N - N N - N N N C - r IN In ..• N ..a1 1 w W W 7 Cl N VI O + O: N O i N O O N N H i 1 i 1 '.1 1 1 t 1 • I 1 1 1 P r P r W W r r r r W o.0• 2 ry - N V W r 11 W W O 4.4- CN w P H N C,4, t N N 7 C vl co an ut W P V N u 3i O N n m v m 1 N ro 1 r • o 0 • i m a vt 2 rl � cn n # • r rt r r r • ► # (n n r ► r r # r r w a m • J • r r r r ► ''-+r R V M ti R V' ► 'V R V V • Cl .o V • \ • � V • V R V V V W • W ► y, W • W rt N N N • N • N ) N ► '-� • � + rt rl V' A • L. R - h N R C w L -C d 0 Vr It R • 0(: t W W • n c r P R r w R P r 'ter�v R r rt v+ r • v+ r r r ► � (� H U � V O �1 P P P P P P P O P P P P P P -"1 to \ \ \ \ \ \\ - \ \ \ \ \\ rt 2 N N N n: N N nr N N N b P P P P P (r P R P P P P rr. P 7C m ro m .t m m[r ro m m ro m ro m �n 'A v+ 'n yr vn v+ 'A r n P r m A I r J J C + N i VI VI W W VI V1 W W W VI Ln N 00 rr Cl CD NN V LA N N ! W W NrP W r is O N N- A r -+ .O W r-• N N m W m 00 In V1 011 O W W m N W•O r r l..CJ -1 O V W r 00 00 'D 'a 00 'O co.ON W W 00 00 C10 000 r 1 • ♦ ► It rt • • w w ♦ rt i r s s s r rrr C. r rn rrl o , — a v 0 o 0 c m v a n < z r- 21 2 O Ch �i r rOi n O 3 r r r Z n = O V, N rn V) K 3 rl J. r b -n -n - ri c o s a � x c • "' S _ a m A C O m N 0 0 O n r T a rn C z -4 A A O �] r -1 �'I V) l7 b rn m N N rl p pq -n A H (n V, C7 ;D z rl V:N rl m rl r T ! n o b z z r) m 4 n ., c I I O D N C) i 2 m rn - m b m N n S rn 2 r r• �9 O m m ' A O O O - N ro v Eno zzz ro v, c -1-1 i m o r. rn m ., -1 -1-4 • rn .. o o a r -1 ( ro ti h N r -i o v z o rn r n z rn r s TT rn VJ rr n V) n r G Vi M m m In O 2 r r A H H � Zl y O z O r r r r r rrr r r r r rr o N V1 W - N N W W W N Vt W N N N C W W M M nn .4 W N N Z O 6n O (V O 0 0 O - VI N N N -1 P P W P I I- O• P P r s r W W V)V1'11 N N N - V -� m r W N -V 00 D. P.P • - M C V1 V1V1 W AJ, v o r a n • O O • 1 W 3 w rl -o m n R r ) J R • s R • rn m • • r r s ► • ) r b rn R w s r _ r r • ) n s x a x x x x 'il r R J r ♦ R R M • r • • r V ► r • v V R ti V + V • V �/ 4 V r W • r- c • r. ! r R r r r r W R W s W M m (n rn rt n + v v s Ix a + .o • • .n.n r r v r v1 R v! rt 7c n • V (� T P P O P P P Q P P P P P P P -4 (n N % N N n. N N N N M- N N nl N L P P fA P P P P P P P P P P P A m m v m m co m (n m (m00 n, m m T V' In v1 Vt\n Vn n In 1n VI n W p p ..►..► :v.V -•.+ O JO r V�I rr G7: .+r rr tnNN Op 00 ' V J:J +rLJ j NIV J rr OC `ADO C:J 1.1 NN W w '�!N O p C3 r-+O O ry O N N _ O O O-v+(n G O -•r - r r �o+O r G L (n (n N 2 O O p 2 2 Z a CC - C-1 C_- n a TT (n .-� r-• O O - C C n T T 2 T Z c.1 1 m x m o c W -f x = a: s o mm o m 1� a z m m n (n fn z w m xx (A V) (:/ D p m • • -•1 -c n a s • o r o c ti a v v) . fn fn v. c)LD o m vi n c c r cn x ►� 3 3 m'S ►+ n A A 711 b - N w 2 I f) 7< y m COlA ch M in a -i 1 v I 3 -( fn(n !Cf C m V 2 a s „a.,„A,' In n co cv o 014 c f H m r N rim ; -1 -1 f*1 ,•" r-r- r rr lti N -1 p mo•to m m m «. x (re m In w po ! w In(n M m a N T T c fn r-1 T n (n rn r r (n - r m 0- r, mm - c .� m .r m m m (n N fn (n (A - d --1 -• -1 2 G n r p n 6 O (7 22 n _n _U U a N r r _ r (7 r r r r r r w r r r r r r r o N W W W w W m W N N W W N W C V1\n .n W V w n 7 O O. O o. cn O - Cl [7 O O O - N O -4 w - o. - rr Jw. In r rr w r n N - V N W N N fo r r r w r w V r f"l N V N W N N C N V r r mm at o r In n • 1 rn a �n In In T to mR t * r • - • w r - . r rn n • ► r r r . r r • r a m \ x x X w w J J f • ► w i w V V V ► \ w V\\ V \ V ► V rt \ ti R V V R V • V • (7 .(,` \ V \' R V f \V V V V V • V w V V w 11 V ► V f \ ► 2 � m M M w P r p OP U U P O r P w P O w P P • v w v rt rl �n 7 �= C^ w rt W W In W l.. li. ► R l '� w ♦ 10 -• �O ► C) N J C r -' 4 C C C G C r • U r P in w O G rt D r '-' r Z M H J U K O C3 o ci n c:-)r-),--D n n c c. n n r" C; ;�r� o r n O P P P O P O P O O - P P P C, N N N N N N N N N N N N N NJ N N N la O P P P 010, P P Ol P U P P P m P P a m m m 00 m 00 m(b M m 0C M Cr (b M m OD 't7 VI �n VI Vn v+ JI In n J J N J J J..• N r�. W N V1 N)UI N N O W W W t.l r W ' W w41 O O w I r r V I V I W W C]u y O t;;w 0 P P W W - N P P N N •O O :.J • • • • • • • • • • • • ♦ • • U J J G G P P •)t.+0 rJ C C,C] W W d•O •O.O U J,) •V V ' :] J N O PP 00 00 OOdprlGd •+-+ V�I PP .0 00 '.. V V W W O f f rt w i r rt r w i i 0 O n - N r C C it r C Z c C C)C) c c X. In (n a D n D n D D D o n A 511 D D S D (n n UICnNmNU. r 2 2 mm r r r z z x y-4-4-1-(-1 O n B) r r Cl) M rt rl 19 m I'1 19 'U V O O rl Iv a z O 0 < -C rl V) O 2 2 3 3 3 3 O O c c x r s aann as co o ; rn y o D r In 7 2 2 2 7 7 A X X -D m O A H A a a b D D a i.( (A) V) O 0 1 N III m Y Y n n A ri m M rt ri ri . A A Z z - w z n = a -CX 33 c c oo v FI �+ nmrnmrnm r m C= A zz zzzZ C •"( . a y y y y y-•1 3 2 .•. a m n p 2 b fry - rl m O N - - N N -1 m r y m In cccccc m c c ' -4-4 N -1 A C r y A A n O MM MN••(M O rr .. a s - v 0 m rl rl r HHS,...,.. •1 ' .� rlrl r 'O r (-. 3 -•1 y y-/"'1-4 3 "( "'1 r r H N 0 O rt rl rl - rl y w N .� mnlmmmr m m w•e ti In •-a _ 7 rn V)rn fn VI V) 2 N V) c n -1 fn y y r (n rn A W r r M to Q m _ rn(n H H M N N(nco Q .ni O j n00OI")O O r J p p O O n r N r r r 41 J, r r r rr r r. c, W W N N - W W W W W W N W W W W N W C d W J W V V V•J V V W V -.l lM 1N - O O O O Cl 0 0 0 0 0 OJ J - O 0 0 0 O p y v w P r w± j 0 N O I ,• I 1 1 1 1 f 1 1 1 { 1 1 1 1 1 - Li w a o.rwWww o•- O w N J N N N r r 0 0 w w w j w H r r 6.I1 W 11 2 N c N r ~ N a U 1n V N � i O O • 1 C. 3 � Pi v V) L • w r • - ♦ f r • (n O r r r • s r X ► '� V 1 V 1 V V V V V V V \ J � ► oc a � o; o: °` a a no m a m oc rn .n P 2 • O r r7 T P O P U P - U P P P 09 rn .T N N N N N N N N N A P P O U P U P tr P P rH P P P 7S m n` m m m no m m mm m m - m m ti v+ .n U v, yr v' �n vi 1n vt 1.r1 vt ✓t t,i rn a yr .a r N ry - V W W m 00 N N O C W N(A .a 77 NNrr r.+- NN ,. O - N .N N -yO r mm W - m m lal W N 10 00 P N N.v V1�O r.r N N r r m mO O W W vl vl' O O r r v+ O O NN P • • j• • j • • • • J r • • • j • • : • • • • • ♦ j • y ♦ • • • W V r b ' m p l]Uvl VI W!70 ...�� r r r 1-j O '7 O i p W Or-•WN W W OO a,-41 C'70 ; NN .�..� 00 v0 00 00 Go PP rr 00 00'. O It It rl -� Z:) o m r rn N z n m n = v, ., O T T T T T ro rD Cl) '7 z m O rn SI - z; >v n -1 0 -y CCC CC O .� O b �Z 2 C) r'� -I Z - Z x n = r z m C r o`o0 oo A rn r, X v o c s z rn ' Ir_ r*1 n 1 O b 2 3 C rn -1 I'1 Z OD N•+w q - f'1 x H m C O m m O m ;.r 00000 2 2 m -1 h to w T r G7 2 rrrrr In o c m rn rn I � z r, n n -/ En rr -� -� rn i rn . m w N omTrn n : c ! a � ' e� . z c o � aaaz ro vi ro n ! c c O . v c a s c mo. am .. -0FI c w : ' ro «• c c n ! ro s O N -1 r -i rR ro h - - r 0 nl f`I - 'O r ro - t-C M n D .r a r 1 ^'I r r - - .r 0 z m r = =x m m ro z w m rn Q. a n rn n w oo I n rn b a; m T m rn w z rr H w n C, r n n rn z rn i fn rn z z dr 2 G r r 1 r f- r m o .� ., ao m m ro 3 T7 Z7 rn rn m ►r N z rn _ FA rn 0 o - 1 ► i 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 r"f r r r r r r r r r r r r r r o W -N wN N W W N t N N C r r r W W r IN W W W O O N 10 O ry O O N O N -i 1 P P j _ r W j W W r G P w `� N N V N N 00 N m P m -a N N O C N W n a n w ,I U O • 1 m a M 3 ► u� v. ► a m 1 x w w C) 000000000 0 N N N 00 O N 1-' r✓ F-' r✓ H F--' N H �' N F--' H F-' f✓ N N N N H v'i ] -] ] I-' vi M-' F--' !J r r- � , fi w fi fir N r r jr � w al w NwwW N Nw N w O N N N N N N W W N v, N r\) N H N IU r\) O\ O - w F N N O OO OOOOOON O O �,o \,D �'o `O O 00 O O O w n I� O O O O O O O- O O O N F v, N N N w p �p v, N N r O o O O O O O O O O N N F F CD E✓ F✓ F I- p O\ -Q g:- N N f✓ R o O O o O '0 ''0 O O O F N N 0\Cl�N O O O O O O O O O O Nco \-n F✓ F✓ I- w p N F N N N N co co cn 07 C)D OD co CD m O o00000000 O 07 N N N F O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N F' F- � N F N N F✓ N F N F F F F f✓ F F F � ID 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000 O O o 0 0 F 0 0 0o O a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n R N -p- 01\ O\ W O\ N N c N !- N N" w o N N N co ZO F--' O\ o .n O OCoiN 0 iN 0CO O w vi N � a\ P' p H H 0 Ili �n O v, O O O O OC �WO O -- O 0 0 \,D -P- v, O \n `D O R O\ O\ O 0 \-n o N 0 0 o o o O O `D v, O O a\N o tz w R a � (7 _ z x tV �" �" M 0 'V CO '"d �-3 hd U) Co '-d ''d F3 = _ = O 1-0 r r" C] vi (D (D (D (D N N (D CD (D W O Z i ''i o C I✓ O O O Fi c+ It c+ c+ O � F-' r• r• r• r• r• H. H. r• cY c+10 C c+ rJ z3 c+ O c+ (D Fh N N h a c+ c-+ c+ c+ c+ C+ c+ c+ c+ W W 1- c+ (D W N F W 't W m y r. r. !v ►C �] =J CA C7 b b b r m R H. F-R r• r•M 0I1 Ft c+ c+ rt 9 W H H (D tMJ txj W = F-i N N R° (D (D (D N (D (D H Cf) r• r• R° G7 n y R° m y (- = to �h a (D m Cl) N d m (D �i N (D O m `d �i m C7 �i p 00 H 0 O CI1 x ly Fl- F-' 7 (D �+ m C+ W F- w Lrl v, v, Off\ d\ C),\ O'\ ON\ OO'ff\ o O \O W �1 �1 -�—1 O\ vii W N H 0 \O � � z 0 a N C] H Cn d F r Cn Cl = _ _ _ _ - - = C] C N C] C] A CO CO = 3 y C El m . O C7 c+ trJ m cF (D - r. O (D c+ S CO W trJ c+ r• W F- C+ cmt Cla CIS n _ o � � (D 0Z O CD cC C!) 3 c+ C C. Z W c+ W C7 p c+ O y O cc--F �_ y m Ft '-d cW+ R x C] I~-' (D WH _ (D f✓ (D N CO CO ri)c+ FI O O P Z � � m I (D (Wn i 9) COWs x W � m m cc+ ((DD x N } N (CD � FW-' � 0cm-1 P) � W O m a (D cC �i rWS Cl) cam+ (D (D O � c.+ H .0 (D '0 'O 'i N i 10 Uri (OD (D C (D CD (D O\ W O\ F✓ F✓ N r W LI) ON\ o N W OD OD -P O �O OD o I'0 --I � �1 Lo p v~, O �p Imo- O O O 9 OD v, O O O w \.n0 0 F v, N �O o R \ ' �1 v, -P O v, O O N O\ O\ . O OD -9:- o N 0 0 0 m dl 0 O O � O O OD O 000 N F - • �nNN "' r -- � 00 a 00-j �* rn rn rn rn 1-- I✓ F-j -n IZ 000 � n7 I I I I I I Id F w CZj y O O O 9 (DD CSC £ n an ly OOO n C N '=J 11 N I rT IW (D Z� n C+ a x r3 m p \j C+ U WIN W N c+ I O CD -PI O\-p--—I r r C0IN \,Dw to w r a n n n 0 z 1 m ria m N I OD N INSW F-' Z 'h �nINNyOI w 'dOaG10 3 9 fI N O\W �1 c+ N W W Ivi N -✓ 'H- O O W a r > 7 ^� \,D10 0 \n w N ~� CO CD -P-1 O co\n -P- O D\ 7 CDIO \,O O � C) \-n `+ •. 7 r 00 rnrnrn ao w CD z 0 w m C. o 0 b w r• c+ 179- N) }N �- vt I wl� I• CC)�-p- MEMO TO: Mayor, Councilmembers J - FROM: Thomas Brownell , Chief of Police RE: Purchase - Identification Card System DATE: June 26 , 1985 Introduction: The Police Department is responsible for issuing a photograph identification card for City employees and taxi cabdrivers . Background: Presently seventy taxi drivers require an identification card. We do not have sufficient personnel to assign to this task using our present method, as it is too time consuming. We have made inquiries with other departments such as Minneapolis and they are using a similar, although more costly system than we are requesting. We are currently charging the following taxi fees : Company - $250. 00 annually Drivers - $ 25 . 00 annually plus $5 . 00 one time investigative fee. The fees will exceed the cost of equipment and supplies . The department has budgeted $2,000.00 - 1985 Capital Equipment Fund for a paper shredder. I_ am requesting use of the funding for the requested equipment. This request has been discussed and approved by the equipment purchasing committee. Recommendation: Authorize the Police Department to purchase a photo identifica- tion system at a cost of $1 ,495.00 from the General Binding Corporation. Council Action Requested: Authorize the Police Department to purchase a photo identifica- tion system at a cost of $1 ,495 .00 from the General Binding Corporation. TB : cah �►l�t�i t/ Memo To: John K. Anderson, City Administrator From: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director Vl K Re: Compensatory Time Balances Date: June 25, 1985 Introduction & Background Council has seen and acted on some of the effects of the recent ruling on the Fair Labor Standards Act. The League of Minnesota Cities has just issued a notice on effective dates and comp time which advocates paying otf comp balances promptly. Previous information from other sources had proposed letting employees take the time off on time accrued before April 15, 1985 and paying cash for any time banked as comp time earned after April 15th. The Department Heads waisted to have a longer time for the employees to use up their comp balances as it would be less disruptive on budgets and scheduling. Previous Council action allowed employees until late November, 1985 to use up comp balances. It appears that the Department of Labor may take an agressive stance with Cities for investigating and enforcing the law. Also, the City could be exposed to a "pyramid" effect for overtime earned as comp time since April 15th in that an employee who earned and has taken the comp time may also be entitled to cash as well. Therefore, the recommendation is to get on the right track as soon as possible and pay off all comp time balances. It is difficult to determine what part of comp balances is from prior to April 15th and the City should comply promptly with paying off all balances. The amount involved for all employees is around $6,000. A memo has been sent to all employees advising them of this need to comply with the law. If this creates a hardship for any employee who was planning to take a week off, the option is open to them that being they have received the cash for their accumulated comp, they could take that additional time off without pay. Alternatives 1. Direct staff to pay all comp balances as cash within the next payroll period. 2. Do not pay comp balances off. Action Requested Move that the City pay off all comp time balances with the current payroll period in order to comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act. GV:mmr MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Scott County Governmental Study Commission DATE : May 31 , 1985 Introduction The City Council is aware that the Scott County Governmental Study Commission has been meeting since the beginning of 1985 . The Commission has spent all of its initial meetings taking testimony from Scott County officials, but plans to begin taking testimony in the various cities around the County. The Mayor and I have attended the Scott County Mayors and Administrators Meetings which have focused on what type of testimony cities might give. Background Councilmembers who have read articles in the local newspaper regarding the testimony before the Commission by Scott County Officials are aware of the types of topics being discussed. The focus has been on the various types of county government permitted under state law, and how various county elected officials feel each of those governmental forms would work in Scott County. It is anticipated that the Commission will be seeking comments from both citizens and other local units of government as they move their meeting around the County. In anticipation of testifying before the Commission the Scott County Mayors and Administrators Group felt that each city in Scott County should seriously consider passing a resolution that would state the position of that city. In addition, the Mayors and Administrators Group felt that Scott County cities could have the largest impact if their recommendations to the Commission were similar. Council should consider the various alternatives the Study Commission will have before them and then. consider passing a resolution supporting one form or another . Because the County Manager Plan more closely -parallels the organizational structure most Scott County cities have the Mayors and Administrators Group have drafted a sample resolution for each community to consider ( resolution attached) . Alternatives 1 . Approve the proposed draft resolution• The intent of the Mayors and Administrator Group is to provide a draft that might guide each City Council , not one that would be copied by each City Council . 2 . Discuss and add or delete items to the draft resolution to appropriately reflect the individual thinking of each community . This is the approach that the Scott County Mayors and Administrators Group anticipated would be taken by most cities. It allows each community to reflect their unique concerns when drafting a resolution . 3 . Take no formal position at the City Council level supporting any of the alternative forms of county government. Council might wish to consider this approach if it feels it is inappropriate to make recommendations to the Study Commission. This approach would be contrary to the approach members cities of the Scott County Mayors and Administrators Group have used during the last three and one half years as issues have been presented to the Scott County Board . Moreover , it is the desire of the Study Commission to find out precisely how citizens and other governmental units in Scott County feel about the alternative forms of county government . If all the local units are silent on the issue the Commission will not have the assistance it desires in arriving at a recommendation that would truly reflect the needs and concerns of the County, its citizens and local governmental units. Recommend2tion I recommend alternative No . 2 for the reasons listed above. It was the consensus of those attending the last two Mayors and Administrators Group meetings that cities should take a position (not necessarily precisely the one in the draft resolution) and designate a spokesman to represent the community at the Study Commission ' s hearing in each respective community. The Study Commission' s hearing in Shakopee is tentatively scheduled for 7:30 p.m. on August 7 , 1985 . Action Recuested 1 . Discuss the proposed- draft resolution and make changes where appropriate. 2 . Direct the appropriate City staff to draft a formal resolution for City Council action at its June 18 , 1985 meeting estab- lishing a formal recommendation regarding the form of county government the Shakopee City Council wishes to recommend to the Scott County Governmental Study Commission. JKA/jms DRAFT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, tax pavers expect and deserve government that is efficient, as well as responsive to their needs; and WHEREAS, improved productivity resulting from the most efficient governmental form can result in a reduction in taxes necessary to support that level of governe;..nt; and WHEREAS, The Scott County Governmental Stuev Commission under the Statutory provision outlined in Sections 3 5A.01 - .i3 is charged kith studying and anal-zi o the existing form of County government; and WHEREAS, the Scott County Governmental Study Commission encourages public discussion and input into their decision making process. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF MINNESOTA, that: 1. The ..ity supports the work of the Study Commission in a�ialyzing the existing form of Scott County Government. 2. The ;ity believes that the best means to provide effi:.ient, responsive, and productive County Govern- went is through the adoption of the County _"tanager Plan as specified in Minnesota Statutes Section 375A.03. -3. The City encourages the Study Commission to give serious consideration to recommending the County Manager Plan in their Final Report. Adopted by the Mayor and City Council of this day. of Memo To: John K. Anderson, City Administrator From: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director Re: 1986-1990 Capital Equipment List Date: June 27, 1985 Introduction & Background Attached is the 1986-1990 Capital Equipment List. Revisiors from the last Council meeting are incorporated. The League has been contacted regarding the adjustment of the levy limit base or a special levy for the loss of Revenue Sharing. They are researching the question but have not responded as of this writing. Action Requested Move to adopt the 1986-1990 Capital Equipment List dated June 25, 1985. GV:mmr W h•I to M hi ro H m ►r C •d R z w m rD w a m r••< O b m 0 r+ R R n m R. rD tD n 4. fD rD G. C N w O rD rD r• Cd ►i rt C [37 In " M •• •. R rD rD o H to rD G tz d G C m M G w M m rD w cn w r• C to ►i rD R n ► A rt rr !x 6.- 0 O i7 R �D w M rD G 9 " w C tow to G to co r• r• m C m rD I7 " O•• G � O0o C. P: r• rn r n rD m 6 n b w n Ln•d O R m w r• M - ti rD z •J CT O' rD rD R rD fD � .b m IT w r p ►i m rGt z C W r r rDD " m r■ rD n H OG ►Sy ,-t I'D R w o fir• =$ `•' z r, M %.A w IT rT CotnC t7 m' I'D R r rt R G. C - C S• w r1 rD R r• z O- n w w = R try to r [ m R m ,� V) fDD w II I i Ci m A to 11 •• i M L+• I y Mr• G -r-- II O i %D Do I W W "D v, I O H m %O 11 OD 1 V %0 I W W to Oo OD O 160 %C K rD R . II . I . - I . . .. .. .. .. . rD Cr II •P, I O 1 OOOO>` 00 W VOi R R a o 11 o l 0 0 1 oOov+ - 0o .1-: - a w o 11 0 1 o O I 0 0 0 ON o o r M 11 1 1 1-h ►(Di Pt If i 1 N z w 1 ii i W r- I S r• O %c 11 Oo 1 w 1-nt W W v � rD r+.. %D II O I ► ►i r+ O II I . S Co W Vt CO Vt 00 1 000 00 1 0 0 0 O O r• O 0 11 O I o o I 0 00 00 0-1 R m 11 — I I - - � v 91 11 I I .y rr w C W II m I N lr I - OG w M Ln O 1 O W Ln O O ?-' G OD I'.P• 1 � O 1 0 0 0 v R w m O 11 o i o o I o 0 0 O v e O 11 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 r rD II I I K1 IT pi 11 G It I 1 y r' G to r• R ti $-- If n r• ►i W II W �p 0-4.4 ON II t-n 1 O w I In w %o OD C W II I t+ 0 1 0 0 0 Oo ►i �O rD O It O I O o I o O o PV co Pi O 11 O I O O I o 00 to ON 11 I I G II i I .y G II I I tT r• to II � 1 �-- t � �O II V 1 O W I v+ W t_n - OD �-- 00 W II O 1. O 0 1 0 0 0 OD O II O I O 0 1 0 0 0 0` O 11 0 1 0 O 1 0 0 0 1 - II if 1 1 -tn •r/> II � i W II W 1 W I �. W W N 11 %0 OD I W In �p 11 I �O O I O o O O 11 0 f Q 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 n M sx � nyonrs nr3m ►� n cR. naE W, 0 K 'O O w O M b %4 O r• O %4 O r- 5 E G r• R g p 6 G (D 'O d n R 't7 R p d b p p r•b n b f) n (D T1 ►i r• n r• O r• G r• R n G (D G » R E G O p +-� m@ m p. R R (p w R R r• r•s R rn Oo (D ri O R r• rD �t rt � rD rD o r• rfl r• n e• n m pi I ►i ri p R 11 ►- t= K- r• w (D G �- R CY < R K r• O (D r• p R O ►i fD R ri QG r7' p r• r m w m o n n rr (D 9 .n (D G (D G pi r• » p w '0 (D P-- (D O R w pi OD C. m m p m cr c roi Gv v M o• R R R R m R O O O O O R R R R R w w w w w 1 I I 1 I I I I I I t r I t I r t 1 ►� I ►-- r v+ 1 v+ t I t t t 0 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 • 1 I 1 00 I o t o t I I t 1 0 1 1 0 1 O I I I 1 1 0 1 O r I t o t 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 I o 1 o t o t t l I V+ 1 In I Ln 1 4.n I O I O I I 00 I I 1 O 1 O 10 1 C 1 0 1 O 1 I I 1 1 0 1 O 1 O J O I O I O I I 1 0 I 1 0 1 O 1 0 1 0 I C I O 1 0 1 1 I I I 1 I I 1 I 1 1 I t t 1 t I I 1 I N I N I S I 1 f I I 1 0 1 O OD I 1 I t I I 1 1 I - t v 1 0 1 0 I O I O 1 I I I I O I O 1 0 1 0 1 C I 0 I I 1 I 1 0 1 O 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 I O I I O I O 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I - 1 I I I _ I F•-• 1 I ! 1 I N 1 N 1 I 00 1 I I I I I 00 t I I I I 1 V-A 1 v+ 1 1 I 1 I C I O 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 I O I I O I O I O I 1 I 1 I I I t 1 I I - 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I t 1 I I 1 1 I Ln I O I O 1 v+ t Ln I 1 00 I I I I O I O I O 1 0 I O. t I I I I 1 O 1 0 1 O I O I O 1 1 I O I I O I O 1 0 1 O 1 0 1 O t o t t 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I t 1 I I I I 1 I I I �-•' %JD 1 I to I to I I I �•-' I �-' 1 vi 1 v+ � 1 I 1 I I I I I I 1 O 1 I 1 0 1 O I I I •L, 14-1 1 0 1 0 I I I C I O I 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 01 I O I O 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 I I I 1 I I I C) w r• r.. C w O O G G O I-- 0 b A ►{ R - ,v c. t7 '"' m M b r- R O O r•'w r• r ►D p ro n S L- 00 " w p �"� �'• to fD H h+ C' f7 p R fD RC ►y fD fD tO r1 r1 fD r• r• ?✓ ,y ty fD w rI to 1-- 0— p• A to R O ►i G m G po m tD R ,o by m r• a w w m G G O G. C m fD r• r• C) .. Q �,,, p rI R h•'' R w r• [� p' r* fD (p w m n rn w r1 0°0 w H m w ro a m m v m r.f. R ct O p R R R O w w R OD I I I W I ►•-� I i �--� 1 I I lJf I 0 0 O V+ O I 1 O 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 O O 1 0 1 1 t I I I I 1 I 1 1 to II i a- I W I W I yLn I N ON ON Oh I.— ON+ 00 1 0 1 0 I N I In O O O O N Vt 1 0 1 0 I O I O O O O O O O t I 1 0 1 0 I O I O O O O O O O 1 0 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 f I I o+ -1 ►- 1 I �.• I00I N Lo 00C7, I I c I I I 1 t!t O v N O 11 1 i v 1 0 1 I 1 O 0 0 O I I 1 I I I O O O O O 1 0 1 I 1 i 1 It 1 I I 1 1 1 I I I O 1 O O v 00 I I 0 i I I cc=:)) I O n In O I I 00 I O I I O I O O O pC I i O I I I 1 I I I -T-- tra co I O I I O I O O0 O O I O O O i I 1 1 1 1 I tr 1 O O i t I I I 1 O 1 I I O 1 O O O 1 I I O I 1 0 1 Op O O I I I I O O 1 0 1 r� old O r. fad n Pt 9 x '.d H H w ':,' to H V, G c O w M w r• ❑ �o rn E o 0 o r• w w w ►i H m r• m m m r* B 19 a w ►i D w v 9 c w 5 w N N o. G G m " w O O 'd b r• rn m G 1v IK- p b H Co w r• n n m m C) Q B G G O rn m r m pi it ►i " Ow G G O w R R r• M z G7 m c7 w a. R. w i m R m 0- R m m n ►+. tow r• !=7 m to w 1� O O I O r• r• Pi " p %< n rt ". O m O G G H H o- Ia n oo w x m m O 0 - w m H w ►i M r CD d o O R to n H ri O m O G ►i t' ►i O G m yq R R w 0 r+ x n m w C 8 m o o R I w w w m m ;K, od C rn R �n H ri O T ri R R m ►1 w M R G m G W Pi y m m .n fro r r• O M ►i OR 1 r• H H �t G w - 1:5 r• w C m ►i to r• r• r• 0o n r• 0- C w w h w m to 1-3 P7, r r- R r• m I7 'JC to O � r• G w O m m R r• G G R R R o O R R w w r- r- i 1 I I i 1 1 I A I N ►-• 1 1 I rn I P w0% v+ Wtn %o i i I 1 Oo i 1 1 P I N 00 OON Ln I 1 f O I O 0 0 O O O 1 0 1 1 0 1 O O O O O O 1 1 1 i 1 f I I I 1 1 1 1 I N 1 I w 1 � ►-' V to 4W r A -4 O -L- Oo 1 %.n 1 - O •L�- OO I V I NOO O Ln 1 0 1 O O O O O 1 0 1 O O O O O 1 O 1 O O O O O 1 0 1 0 0 0 O O 1 1 i t I i t 1 I I 1 i t 1 I 1 1 �-- I 1 1 �c 1 � W �•• �o I I N 1 OC>\ N N N O I i t .. t •. V I I I In 1 O O In O O I O I 1 0I O O O O O 1 1 I t 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I Ln t t r+ V W Oo 1 1 Oo I 1 1 0 1 O O O 1 i O 7 O O O 1 0 1 1 0 1 O O O 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 t 1 N I W Ln A Oo 1 1 %.n 1 Ln O O O I O O O 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 O O 1 i 1 I I i 1 I 1 1 f 1 I W I W h- O 1 O �G i Ln I- i OD I Ln O W �c t t I 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 I Ln I O O %.n 1 0 1 0 0 I O 1 O O O 1 0 1 0 0 J O I 0 O O 1 I 1 1 w v' cn ►vm � CC ►a .s CC � o ►dc� l:� arnto n> ►Ki r w •� ►i p tD V r• O r1 ►' p R . f0 5 m CL 9C•C a fD 3c fD K R IC w G fD .gyp ". b0 ►t G G tD �t fD C O I-- rt O 00 b •t K p p a ►� .j o w R r• ►fDs ►yi M NG M M R K •J• fD G O' G ►t IV bC w fD • b R M Oi O 0 O O n t' w •t •i M to bC p a .- w w w iD a C a d to M OQ ►i K K K Y Y � i 1 1 I V ; N �-n i %.n i �''� N i O i O O O 1 0 1 O O I i tr O I O I O O O %C.On 0 i O O 1 0 1 0 O 1 0 1 O O O I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 OD 1Ln t� I I i 1 I00 I 'O I O 1 0 1 O O O I O I I � O � 1 0 1 O O I 1 t 1 ' V ' OD I I j 1 I v+ N W I O 1 O 0- 1 0 1 I O I I O I O O I I 10 1 O O 1 I I 1 i I I i 1 1 i 1 In t N 1 N O OD j p I I 0 1 0 O O 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 O I O 1 0 O I ! 1 0 1 O 1 0 1 0 O I 1 t I Y i I i off+ j m OD O I O j j C �O 10 1 O 1 0 1 O I 1 t 1 j I I � I I 1 I 1 I j i C 1 0 1 I O j O 1 (-'t' b 0 bo r f.. m m . rr � Q. y rr 0 0 rt rr w w rr rr n t t n t t u N t t n .o t t ►-� II 1 1 00 n o t o I o n o l o l 0 u 1 I u I t n t 1 n t t u 1 t 11 W ► I �o n ►-� t w I w 00 w o, n o 1 0 1 0 u I 1 II n 1 1 n 1 1 n I t 11 j j 0 II O I 1 it O I O 11 11 1 1 II 1 II i i II I I 11 OD 1 1 O 11 1 I 00 II O I 1 11 O 1 O 1 II I 1 II 1 1 II I 1 11 I i II I 1 11 O 1 I co II It O I 1 II o 11 O I O 1 II 1 II I 1 II 11 1 1 If 1 1 II W I I 11 �0 1 I �C it1 1 � 1 11 0 I O 11 �n a d R p V. p Or OD co %D 00 00 - OD co m 00 00 R �p V O% O %D 00 ON M %D V M _ .. •. .. .. •. .. .. .. P7 .. .. w R f.. O O b R m H b m C r• n m b b m m r n CN yd p p b M W O rh O o-+ O n %D O O m R r• m ID n b O n 0. R C m R w w n :�' OD'o .. -0 - hh r• p m M m < Mr• r• w n m p r+ M rD %D r• O r-+ p G n R K1 R o E r• O g p R R R r 0 a m o w R m m r• n M G. C OQ r• M rr rh m rh G M O n r M w n 0 r• m m n p r• p 0 r• O M r• P- w R ° r• C m OQ p w M r+ m E3 8 M n n C C n mJ ts rn+. ° n b A ~ M m 6 G• r• m CL w A7 m Q R . ° C 'L7 �Or O M rh m p p rn fR.. � " M M m �.. m R R w m O m O C]• M QQ O (D m < b d M p' rM R n r w- O m M G O rr n R R O M M r' • m m �... r. rD by ** n M r• • n O p m ,D m r• r. rlr M • m Ga m O n pi rD to m F' m r. M OQ �C (D f+ m m m p r� m rn m o 0 m rpt G r Wrrr r•b R M, p � � m R O° m `< R m m m ° o f•. m �D m m F •� m • m r. n R w p n C m p m b m M r°r R p O K p m n C P-,. 6 'Y O R mQ. M a p R r. m N m r* r R O a r.. m �• r. • ♦.+ �D r. R O p m f+..b p,. C m R �D o p lzr• rr M m O m p g• ` E p rrDD M rpr R rr m H R Q p R m R n m m ;' p ►d r E r* 0 m m m m O M +- R C O m m ►" n M M M b n m n O b ►� • n rh p.. O to m a M O I-10 • R n m p. O 6 m R m m m t=i c C mPi Q r (D mw H K P. O m n fD M `� .d' ►-+ m m a rh OQ r• r• < a m R n o r• C ►Ri m m p C R m ° 1•j R p m m m - w o m m p R mp 0 .fir ym O n n O E m C rr m RC E O p M m Pi IDr• C �' M p M r• n m p M a O OQQ 0.. m p E a m o ►,, m •O m $ n n O c. m r a• R M wR Cr C R a m r• a n O M m O R ° m m f,• m m p R mx M, w mM G O m r... r•• O O n A R C h, o ° m m O m w O r+ n 'p C ,r., r' M m rr O E r G M n p .D m fD m N a n O C r• ►mi r w M CD Q m M M m m rr R M .d m m M m p m 6 �'' M 0 : m p'M m m m R rr M m m g p VQ m p m O R r. �' K CD M C m r• R G < O m R m r. O OD m o OpQ E b Hm = m m .rn m v' QQ m° ° n m G. m o m m C m M n m m �' rr r. p R m r• Q. ° M m a R R o m c n rn rCD M rti E3 m R m h, R r• '-' n mm M k R bn d R p G• ° •d. w ". toC m ° 'b m r' fp. rD R t�D rr "Im m M p CL O .� p r ° m R C _ n n .- M G• rte-• p n %40 M m rr p O M to m VQ m R T n ED C m �.. m m r• mG p G. p OQ R � �• m R C p m G 4 E fRD m %< E m rp. m m =1 `� O G. O C r• m cr R m SD� m m M w w 0 6 a R w is tr• wp G C ? R p p Cl. r n �• p is �C R d p "� fD pi a 10 O rD s I.-ItD C 00 00 co 00 rt O� d � fD o *t p a to r• p a p o w O o r• h p w n ►s w a p 'o n A. g E a rt o n w a ►i o n o rr M r• tD h r• �- M r• �G R 00 H r M r• a: a < ri w M R p rt p rT p %p M O M w h O M p cr r• p V, r• o r• n p r• oo w o' w m n n r• to o m v� ►i r+ d a rD fD 't7 R p' g 'C rr R H m tD m m m r. m n p w mlb G O w O p C o w rD p 15 a w �• w a m r• r. 'o o m Q' m p d p c ►'• rt a C tD ►i a < G r g W a m w M M CD ►y rr O fD tD _ ►S M r• r p, r M R r• rp tjP', R n • R n •J• fD N rT to O rD •� c n w ►d o n w ►t m to h O M ri ri r• n O r• m „� R K 'o C O a t fD ►t rpr MHam+ m m m ►-' m y w r+ tD ol O 0) lbrt O M �'b, n p. r p. R r. m pp m m b OQ w b a w rr R p n R to fD n m p m rr .d w rT D ►1 rt Ft 0 m m to rr rr m n p r n o rt n R C n w (DD O M w w El p m w c! m E O n n of w M r, o rs n m a m m rn-� a m m rr p n r• r tD cs o 0 O a O ? m p G CS r' M p w rD w n. n m wn . n pi o m � rrr m p m B (D w G p A ~ m ° 00 R p O p• CD h•+ O p• O• r7 r• p a - -. b �J C rr. tD r• r• ►t r r r• m m O R r. rr 't p (D w m rr n rr m R p, pi O O r• m m m H m rr rt '•C TY rt rr w m < m R - tD m ►s o 't7 m ri o a p w o w v, b a n w m n w pr•'d r. p o R G E O rr rr O C 03 p rr M n m N L Mr t�D C 15 m m w fD r• r• O m n rD rRS M �" m �- rr m' fD w R R r. M m rD o H m R m plb p m •c R owo A' �C m- w o (D p. fD r G.p C R rD m n E n a opc a b fl) p 10 rr A• M .. p C M b E G C rD ol np. o C 0 K r p E 0- n 0 r• g m R p p a O p c' w r. ,oy •b M O CDD r• '� m C p w n Qp m w r• m rr fD w p O a ' O •n lD a' to r+ G m R O fD p. r• fD ►-• tD m w a p rt m m r-, p m %D p m r n i R n C p' O O p �• ►i N w fD w a m G G ::rG m y Q G n 'mU CD mEl m m O f.. b pi m .m a A. a a, O H PA. �, R m ri p n m n to m r- w • G w rr w w C a *1 p �O 1-{ • p r• w G - p ID R fD b N M - m r•n - - �, C m m rt - O p tD ~' w rr %4 O ►t 's! rr r• r r O r* m pC G m tD r' r''• A• p ►i p w a m p p r• r. m o rb p Oo p, m m OQ R M w R p w Mm m M p r* rr r1 CD w s, P.A. C) m m o w m0 rr ri O p � � m m C M p p fD fD r• M w r• w �+ on m a Pi a 0D OD OD %0 OD v C n to w m in C C in r• O .n O r• .a p a O O r• o C p G. N .n O r• r• r•••.a m b C O m C A p v M m C r* a E5 n G V, n m 1- G r• r• w r• r• w r• r• rt r• ►•i O r• fD w r• M r• rr to v m G. C G. 1 6 rt p fD f3. r+ O C fn. W ►i m w O r• fD Cr w ic o O r• a m n w m pi . n H n m r K p' cr m n O M w n m w ri w b R Zd m m r• •t7 rtZit I5 n w pi w C ►i pi ►1 w C w m M " O w b m to m G. p m O w A W p m O w O a C m mr• r• . < rt r• w r• • < n r• rt O A . y�y .p •' O rt r• r• O Q. R d r• r• O • O m p fD r• ri fS C O pi m o0 n C m m OC � O O m m I'd C m b w m •O ►i rt ib Zd m r• rt g C C) ci O C n g r+ Zd Cd n G G) m fD m G n r. H p p f.•. O M CD m w m m 'J" M Iwi •G b C M ►i rwi r+ n m p rt O � p n b b w p , I.- rA r m - p • m 17• m rt rt - m ►•-' r• m to I.A. w p' m m w C M g w SE w w m O n pS n r• .. O m 0 C o w m o M < n n C m m n C m r• p- Pi .. m O m m m R m H 6 M F5 m H rt r• m C ri Q' le ri O m m m m pi O rt R C m rt 0 O p b 0 to E M m r• C n %C L' m rt r R m m rt p r V o w b O O Pi o G C r• O m r• m % %D b M n Zd ►-• ,ti 1- pi n R m C OD n O m p m w n C 0.- - C C 'l7 p r• Hn m rt r' m M n '� ON ►i O C r• rt m G p w m r• m p n C -ri R m O R. p rt M n �--• A. n ry O V Do' m a o r• o m .c o g ►r r• r :71 • •d m m w rt C K OD m w O m n C. O m rt m C r m a Lt C N m a C6 m m K 8 Y• r• Mp . F7 m rr O m a r• m n n p r• p rt O r C p r 0.-+ o C ►-� w O p m C rt p O p r m m r• - to "I R r• M ►i r• rt Y• n rL rt M n- C3 m m O M I 'v rt m w I w lb v rt CO C f* rt PI O M "i a, OD a m " M of x pi w m "t m C M m �p v+ r-•• n to I m n p n w , m • r• - OD O rt C m m p' fz O rt ►i m •O m C m r• m R m C rt �- " m m to a fD ►i m H m H b �D w sf 1-- rt ►i A to E O O r OD n m r• r• p m a+ C 1� m m G. p C Y• m r- � pi y m r ►i 04 m p M r 1 i m m m C r• m .�y r• .d O m C i C ►t x �- ►i rr p cr p Ic m w m ko p E w m to m Y• O Y• G. ."" O rt O r• n E rt C w r• O O E R 9D v to r p v m O n p d G. m O m 1..• L•i R G m w r• m r• w 0- r• n 'b R rt 'd p r C 14Op � O Y C rt m ri rt p 1 i V p n m cr m m w Iy w b M f<D OD ►-' w m to p' m m K r• m C p rt C n C a to 9 m r• m CD m m m p' r.. A V� I.A. p a m p rt n n .. OD • n m 1.-- CD m PI m OD ON f+. M M � O O w m ri ri N m R. R < C w m m ►' r•r D, m . P.- fD rt rt m CL OD Oo 00 8 CD w fD r. rt rt 1 ►• r• Ic m O o r• w p p 1•- OR m m r m ►'� Iw n m ••_' r. �D %D %D d %D Cl �p OD 00 OJYQOD m �p Oo T p� rfi O p d m m H O G • ri w m p m m0 ►i O n w w O 0- a .o r C p9 m *i r• v, m N n m m m C E rt n a c n p C m a » rr rr w w n +- n n m n b r• R r• r• H r• w r• r• w p ►i O G C C 9C C O O O O d A O R p O v' r• p CL m G m m . rr O rr m m p "< n m o m n n o %4 mI C r+ o 0-3 ',n rt p M 8 rr w m -0 R M m LT' � �y ►'• p H ►i ry m •p rt ri ryto 0 0 M0 A3 rs pp O. ►r•• M w r• y w - ►1 lb p O m r• m < rr r' r* O w rr m r• ID r• r' 0 o• m a r a 00 b M ~ n :' (D ny b (o m I.A. r.0 ry m w � m C ,. a m m b7 b n n CD M C '�, n m rr n •-� w rd hw- fi r C ►S m .n w f�D ri "J m mw m w m w r. f,y o C R n •o w p M O n m O "0 n r• m m o- m r h p- r m ►i m d m m rr r• m y p' w r• rr m H rr M O Cii p v r M r• p r?- E C � p w m O m �I C ^ • r' m K n Opo rh rDD .d m m .d n b lb0r r r • r, m cr d' ►i r d r G O C w a, o �j r• m n rr m c rt r n •b R p < d w t-h r d' K Q. O :• Q m O w m < r• m m n Si. w o G m o o ;° m m lb rL m t7' p F3 to M m rr n d r• o n r• m a w r• o d p �' m r• G m p R d+ tM w rr G m r t m E n rr cop n m ►i a r'h O �' rr m d• m r, p" OD n to r• m m rr A• R r• 0 o- � m 00 m m g r. w R o roto p✓ 'n rL b b m CD P% m O O m - 6 r• em-r o O. n to M ri R r m m O r• OD G m m b OP rr rpr N m 04 r• G p ~ t m O w ►i rrrr m w . OQ r• m m rp• 'b tD m R w O r• O p 0 m a n m a C m' ,bv w m w a r. 0. C G rr w ri r ►'' rt n •d ri Oo m o m E O n o 0 m E 0 - m m 'b opo �• oto co R Im ►-' m CL .ty m m w p m m m •a R n N p, p rpr r• O m m- rD n r• C H O m rr p d p m d m n O rT m lb N r+ R r• rr 0 co n w r (D n g C OD m 1= p w a' m ►i w 0 .�• a7 h{ R - pRi. n - Ph G r•" o rr o N m d O M w p r• "4 rwr M b O p r. a J.— 6 0o p m K m M rt •Ly m m_ m m O rr G m OQ ti R pi - m r• 10 m p 'Ct w w rr 8 I.A. m r• m p m ►ri D C r 70) r m rt d m OD 00 co OD OD v Q` 9 » w D. ci tC CC R .P w w M ►.. H O L4 r• n rn r+i tx 1-- L1 O *I • O w O Ir . (D CA N m Cn w " (D O m O O O m m (D vl C N m O vl Iz r1+ O a = C rt1 R n 8 (D w m G (D w R to (D (D C J O G x I ►i •v R 8 m �t r p 91 a p M n rn m PC (D ►t m 9 M U p ar• ty C '.n r1, (D g of I to m w n w m b O (D C O r11 (D t r• r• R p • IMI m m E w fa h %4 •d Pi I (D C r n w m r•I m O (D to w o C m m M ►x w C (D O R >? p m ID R O O N to V1 O » b 1"I - G O H (CD rCy oo w w t'D �O O (D v •t7 O (D '� N a w ::r m w w o a w tD ma� w R o a •C7 h m C m m R a w n n C C Cm b a r• G �'' ►t r• •t7 �C r• x m (D 'Y m p ri O o b o ►i '� o w sr •v ►i w o m ►t •. n 00 o b ri O m ►b �G (D ti R ►h r. x b w w CA bw it m C m ID O o p M m n 6 G M w n - ►i R b ftp m n r• 0'x1 - - R (rr 03 R. W m G tD vl ~. m w (D . - R G R m O phi N. R - r• R C b (D C A• O m a' O - r. w O ^' R (D C r'* m Ph M lz .0 O 'w«7' �. d p m N. r• R M ::r, C (MD H G w x (gyp m ((D H '. Q w O M - m •(y R r1 R O O rr r• (CD w 7 r• R to r+ p •d H Ow (D ri m CD H b G rr N C R >O O (D R (D Q' w ~' p w R (D �" n w I.- G w n fD R r, m (D m g n x H mcr r0n d piC F'' m n m f�D fD O M O m 1-n G C n m R C p) O ►i N ' 'i7 to w O r. 1 m "J• (D N ►i 1- ►t O LY C G. O rs ►i •d 1 i-S M m tzr• i Si. w (D rD ((D f, b p m r0r H ( (D gyp w G p n m E R m w wu ►Gt ►ri m ,� n o rD � •wo 0, n rD n 0D (D w R w E3 w 'G tD w PI w (D (D w R C• H O b R r--' @ m ;zw m EI a 1., '� r• oa r n r• (D a m b (D R O m p, (D r• C (D 't7 cs m o � R r. 0 0° o m � oo a K R R �, fD rr -►•- 'd n p, w r. w r M R (D r N w (D r• wC `C ri ►- O O pi p a w N n ►i CL N Lf PT, w O. O. w m G (CD m aC rm11 ?"hR _ r Pi C N• 9 *' R (D G E (p (D 0 (D ►t r'* w m m w n w w w 0 K R R H n E3 1.11 w w •7 O R C' (D "•� M R w O m w ►- n 'J R w m a I- C n r• r• (D m m O w x (D n O . .n r• r-n a• O n fD O p n O C G m O w '•' a n G x r• w n re o w n to re •o w 15 o rn m o a o c n (fD a b ar. C' Cr n C R m R Ic Pi m R w (D N w n w r• rn bCY, m n w n (D • C n 0 C x m a r• x . M m a G ° a n mtz 0°Q - a b a n ri m �, �'v►t • m O MC O (D O R r- rD G M x �' m (D G O R R (D R O P^ m M w P- CD - N w C . G rD rD r (D m m - C � E � �..�. C m � moo•, n O p w m w rD R m r i Dp 1-r (D R rr (D 10 mn E w w w ry n r' (D r a i7 iy O aD ODM �O O ON o � r•b n n w xJ w f-1 H n o h y rt rr H H GT' c'1 0 ►- Cis LC � �f G p ft O O m w p R r• O G w Cr Q p rt fi w p v+ w O (D rtp t r• 0 p a a g M m m rD to w m rt o N m v, m 6 O °rj C M °' O m hE+• O O fmD p f n w fD o to fD G rt O • b r+ m �'* x '+ rr r 0 r f]x. R.04 A. • d n rt m fT fD r (D O r✓ w m r• w rr .R G n rD D '^ G H p w r• ^ C ri n C O f°n frGi 17 w m tKD (pD p ►pi n fD m VQ p w m n O M O" rD C C O C 2 R K 0° O m b O w w M M UQ Cr M CD r, a Ls O VQ OQ p p O p ° p �+ n frD yb CD b N p M R D C r. OQ O f:r' M OQ fD r• 'L7 b r•OQ 0 to to lb D• M rL M m K A !b m rri G y ►'' r, R r M m A m ~ p 15 K OQ m p m r°t n . (D O • OpQ p C N M R O rG R r• ,� M .x CSfs. TD %4 DQ 'D Qw w n o ►wt (M 0 DQ fD CD DD OQ M w f"4 °r°• m K m p m pi rL 05 c co M Q- rt rn`� m r G w 'D M a rt n o roto G � O m C rpt G M w n C G ° I-h r• R 'D m -- o n p m E� m r• f�D fD G •D O O b M 'C7 a' O r~ ° •. fy 1-h =' Oo R :D m tD rt w i O tD p d w m . m 10 ►t f �C ri O rr O m b .D fD r m R fD t f O m f'4 rt G (D q M m fD w ((D ° 'wD p E r• N CD O r+ • cn D (D r• W p p p R p K M r* • w fD (mD pi �' •T N D ri Cr,� m (D � rt p r n w % M M 'D f.. 'D n OQ O rD vi fD fD m n '4 o �D o ° G a.°D m w rt rti r f, fD ft ►i R M1 m M •�+ n Z (D r• R ~ f� 1111 mis H C m W g _ w m m r• (D w `C fD m w •D C R. °' cr m O p 'D � w R R .� n w ►t Cs fT Q, Dto to M '�,05 fD rpr R w G R p m C O m r+ rt 0 m K w °w' p ft o✓ r ° w w p n wm yD O (� (D ? fD p C rt p n R rt a r' g °G fD •OD m m Q rD (D fD m R ° G ty r.. E3 R r+. rt A o prti 0 fr K Pi rt O p r• p b O fD (D f3 D .. ry r, m m ftE C r• O rn f 4 0-1 'D fD ri (D , (D rw+ .L7 f7 n O ° '�' (D m ° p N. d ONQ Cp rDD R n r' Ro r. p p 0o wp4 pi a• m 6 G D D ft G ppm, 1r°T4 tn m p. O r, ND �o w O Z n w G O m n pa �. K rr r• ~' rfl CO w p p m w v rt %0 rr m E4 r• n to r• p (D p I-h *' p C CL w tc ° OQ I U Pr � fir• pR.. fD m rt (D w- On _ V w - 'C7 D m w w d (D G rt r' p G n R w (D p G R K O 9 w ap' n CL CD fD fD n (D CD n to G w p tD ffD < ►i H f.. b rfi b b M rt R w O m m p m p w rn G Mr R m ° rt O m O R p O D' r• r• r• G fy- fD r• N . w tD ri r n p rr R O m C w tT N p rt O fD r• m OQ O =1 p m .O Pi Ci m rn a n ri (D O. (D (D rn im •r7" fR o ►+ m CD /•••• F+ /— 1� 1-+ - Mme• R OD co Co 07 m OD w b H b H H n a to m R M i-- V,•C rn ^ H H r• p " H r• ►t ri h w m p p rD w rr Y• r M O n h CL G C n w G C 0 b O w n O p +- m M — �D G m o rD n a n n (D C p r• PI r oo rD 0 W (D r-+ � n O p ►i 9s t w yr yr c. p n p 0 rD m 9r a w M O rt G m ^\ (D a pj m n Cr p g R V, O R tD R O N b b N " r• r-+ R O 1-•• rD w (D o R iT+ ►� w 0 o 0 8 wp w m Y. psi N r• ••• O r. %< oa C C rD IV a p Y m p rr •C R rpr a m M rp G N p R R C ►i -2 m N to Y• rV M O ht M 'C r r R rD (D w O £ rD r• g w p (D p G w r� C < w a0 •C G N m • G w r* •C Oo rD ,* •C ►s w M p' to ►'' w tD w ►-� a n o . R O rr R ^ w rr . r. ►i p rr p H p n y •,U a (D 0 p' p w n p w r-+ n0' (D O n \ rD v p rD r• ►i C r• n n m p' �t p ►i p C M y " C rD m A M rD IV p w .0 .. p � 0o m rD O 19 ... o < r . C m w p o w R w w Y• m rD w w m ,r o O_ p 7r E Cn n R ^J' ^ w %0 ►i w p p a ►i r.., M rr H w w O C p v N b y R < w 7r w O � a ►i 'tt B m m r m p ci m n n' m v" a ►wt q d b a p � H m m a m rD '^ a m ►' o n �G p w w fD r' p• rt Y• rD p .. 0 n w rt R R (o w p n b, O !� C m r p w a (D p `< ►y r• to �Q, w w a 0. (D Y• r• R R •C rD (D w rD O M m m b n rD r •C w • 0w O . •C C C M m w m N 0 to ~ C Ha P.A.) fD £ ►0i ►mi 0 m � � = C." m w p fDD 0 O w ►r (D m to G (D w H (D p (D r• 0 < (D M rj p - %0 ►i f,, ►-+ fi (D p" R K p m rD ►i m 17 p� a C\ (DC)O r• O ►•� Oo fD p C' O rD w n to a r, p C M m w R � n a 0 O rD C rD p (D n n C Pi 0 rL p C p f.. p ►i . C , rD C tr p M r h O << m w a p a o m g 0 rD r• tD (D w rD x G Imh M p w OG C+ ►-• (D M ►i p o. N° Da G R R ~ w rn ; O w rD "I R p n rD pm- Pt ►t CD m r• 0 a p Cr (D " w M p• w w p - p p M rD Y• 0 p m m c m n c n o �, r• m.- � p w C,i G A W C R p rD a �• a rrr ONa A r... a fD O N °' w 0old n R tD 0 w E Y. R rnr El A D N w w M Y+ i•i Cr• n p w m w p rt < t+. a r• rD p• w M p Y• K b O+ 0' O -►i Y• n w p pi rr o ►i rD CZ. Y� C a < to n ic R a m rD p R 'b w ,< M rD a ►- p .r (D R Y. p C (D w fri° rD p' ��+ z 9L �...OQ rD O w �' rr R n. �• rr O rD m - n K m Cl. rD tD Y• (D C) rD r. •C R rD H (D < p m C ►,y b, ri p rCOD ON °� r' r• n C *' G -4 0 (D a Y. (b a a' �' g rr m p w C . G a a C p *i ::r•Rh<• p R ►Oi (D rD rD C o to •v p r• rD m M O m H m m (D m w rt O w m tl g r• m n g r{ r• W C' C w C: coN M R (D m w ma 04 " 0 rD rD p M G ? (D r C.ID lb 0 ►i a �- r. C (D w n R (D K p ° p ►i OMtr '� c n n Q4 n Pi-06 K a G rr rwp C (D (D w w w w rD Q4 of °° R a w pi 1-1 w p C p r. m n w ri rD rD ri R 0 a (D a `m w m n M H G G Oo G mr R' w r• rD P•-• r• Pi s' a O r• C R p < �O p R p rD C p p ►-• Y• 0Q n m •t (D ch a 00 ,I a R ID !0 ° �m o � co OD °' ODc G7 m o w o n E a M x m ac tt rr E ►t m C y m N. tt •t7 Z Y ami C °r°, � wC m n' n b C M m m m C w w K M °,,' n n to a m m 10 prt C 'b ►b E w FA. lb M F'• m m 19 P.- rno m E ., m V m n m rt Ew rr. m •J ►i m n Gd p w p� r 1•t b R - n M M -03 C O� f~D g m It H 1't o m w - r• m p ~ O p pi g n �~+ fCD v %o I n ►t r• C NO fD CJ m r0 p C I-10 R M m El a p p~i� ' a• m w o m m M z C m g m m .` ►i y C rt pi p n E m m O < m 14 C n w oma+ CD ti G of co G v+ VQm 10 n C ri r• O� '.., o g `< E w H, �q m C I a.M N * w CD r•t �, � ID m n m y m cY rt "I p X - C fri Lt r 6 C) E m � ...m '' r• � G o r• r• p C m E oo w K M C r m m m < E C6 't wm p m m m ti rr r1 rh K O C3• ° m • n O C w- ti M m tr m m M m w rt m to rt �w- m m -V w m O D rr w r• 04 m w n to H m rt H m m m 9c' p m rC-t tr lb m G 0 E v+ C rt r. O m tri m M M m w m I w » ►ws a a� O m m m b mo C S T 'Y CrF S1-1AK0F'FE INCORPORATED 1870 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT # 129 E. 1st Avenue - Shakopee, Xinnesota 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrat r FROM: H. R. Spurrier, City Engineer SUBJECT: Eaglewood Street Rehabilitatio . Public Improvement 1985-2 1' DATE: June 28, 1985 INTRODUCTION: Plans and Specifications for the rehabilitation of roads in Eaglewood subdivisions are completed and on file in the En- gineering Department. BACKGROUND: As a part of final plan preparation, the Engineering Department has Braun Engineering Company determine whether any additional work would be required as a result of additional damage that occurred during the winter of 1984-1985. Braun Engineering will be sending a letter confirming their recommendations, so far as necessary work for the reads in Eaglewood, and a letter reiterating their recommendation will be on the table Tuesday night. During the preparation of detailed plans and specifications, it became evident that alterations to the preliminary plan were necessary in order to make the roadway drainage system function properly. The primary difference was the necessity for additional curb & gutter where the section consisted of a rolled bituminous curb within sufficient flow capacity. This additional work has ars effect of increasing the estimated cost of the project by 18 percent . This increase is still less than the 25 percent increase permitted by State Statute. There would be a cost savings by using the alternative bitu- minous curb, but I personally view that as regressive because few bituminous curb sections are ever successful. Failure of the existing curbs accounted for some of the road failure that is being repaired in this project. Eaglewood Street Rehabilitation June 28, 1985 Frage The additional curb R gutter adds less than $2-0, 000. 00 to the project and is recommended. The action requested is to adapt Reso 1 ut i on No. 2414, A Reso- lution Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Adver- tisement for Bids for Eaglewood Street Rehabilitation, Project No. 1985-2. ACTION REQUESTED : A motion to adapt Resolution No. 2414, A Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids for Eaglewood Street Rehabilitation, Project No. 1985-2. HRS/pmp MEM2414 s,CLI-1 RESOLUTION NO. 2414 A Resolution Approving Plans And Specifications And Ordering Advertisement For Bids Eaglewood Street Rehabilitation Project No. 1985-2 WHERAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 2392 adopted by City Council on April 16 , 1985 , H. R. Spurrier , City Engineer, has prepared plans and specifications for the improvement of Eaglewood Street Rehabilitation , Public Improvement No. 1985-2 , and has presented such plans and specifications to the Council for approval NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1 . Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is on file and of record in the Office of the City Engineer, are hereby approved. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertise- ment for bids upon the making of such improvements under such approved plansand specifications. The Advertisement for Bids shall be published for three weeks (ten days if project cost is under $100 ,000 . ) , shall specify the work to be done , shall state that bids will be received by the City Clerk until 10: 00 A. M. , on August 5 , 1985 , at which time they will be publicly opened in the Council Chambers of the City Hall by the City Clerk and Engineer , or their designated party, will then be tabulated , and will be considered by the Council at 8 : 00 P.M. , or thereafter on August 6 , 1985 , in the Council Chambers , and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed- with the City Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier' s check, bid bond or certified check payable to the order of the City of Shakopee for not less than five ( 5% ) percent of the amount of the Bid. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee , Minnesota, held this day of 19 Mayor of the- City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of , 19 City Attorney MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judi Simac, City Planner RE: Scott County Lumber Co. & Bert Notermann Application for Conditional Use and Mining Permit DATE: July 2 , 1985 Background: At their June 20 , 1985 meeting, the Planning Commission approved a motion to deny the above referenced applicant a Conditional Use Permit to remove aggregate from a parcel located West of County Road 83 . They also approved a motion to recommend to City Council that the mining permit be denied. On July 9 , 1985, the City Council will conduct a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit (Planning Commission decision has been appealed) and Mining Permit. A complete agenda packet will be sent to Council Members on July 5th. The applicant has given me a clear indication that they intend to pursue the application approval through the court system if necessary. I have received a request for copies of all meeting tapes , engineering and planning dept. files and minutes from Tim Thornton, an attorney with the firm of Rider, Bennett, Egan and Arundel. Recommendation: Based upon the nature of the application, the Planning Commis- sion' s actions and the discussion that I had July 1st with Tim Thornton, I would recommend that the City Council assign the Assistant City Attorney, the firm of Krass , Meyer and Walsten to this case .and direct a representative of that firm to attend the July 9 , 1985 public hearing. Action Requested: 1 . Motion to assign the Assistant City Attorney, Krass , Meyer and Walsten to provide legal counsel in regard to the application by Scott County Lumber Co. & Bert Notermann for a Conditional Use and Mining Permit . 2. Motion to direct the Assistant City Attorney to attend the July 9 , 1985 public hearing. JS : cah C -S � G 2 TY OF SHJAKOPLE INCORPORATED 1870 * ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 129 E. 1st Avenue - Shakopee, Hinnesota 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650 To: John! k. Anderson, City Administrator From: H. R. Spurrier, City Engineer Subject : Traffic Control for Fourth Avenue Date: July G, 1985 INTRODUCTION Accidents at Shenandoah Drive and Fourth Avenue resulting from a combination of speed and failure to yield proper right of way prompted the Engineering_ Department to investigate possible alter- natives lter- natives which would correct the problem. BACKGROUND I discussed this matter with Chief Brownell and with the traffic engineers at Parton-Aschmann. The result of that discussion was a compilation of alternatives that consisted of the following measures: 1. Install 4-way stop sighs. c. Reduce speed prior to the reconstruction ion of Fourth Avenue and attach advisesry sign to the stop signs to warn Shenandoah - Drive traffic that "CROSS TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP". S. Install stop sign! on Fourth Avenue. Installation of 4-way stop signs would be unwarranted in a technical sense because Fourth Avenue carries the greatest amount of traffic. the Chief and I had a preference fir this alternative until ' I spoke to Bart!�n-Aschmann. I was convinced that it would not be prudent to install the 4-way stop now but wait and see if the other; less radical methods worked. The City will be signing Fourth Avenue 30 -miles per hour after reconstruction. Signing prior to reconstruction means that the Street .Department would have to be reimbursed by theproject so the Street Department budget would be untouched. Adding the advisory signs to the existing stop signs would do a better -job of stopping Shenandoah Drive traffic. Installing a stop sign on Fourth Avenue only is contrary to the Uniform Traffic Manual and was not preferred by anyone. ACTION REQUESTED Motion authorizing the Street Department to install 30 mile per hour speed limit signs on Fourth Avenue between County Road 83 and County State Aid Highway 17 (Marschall Road) , and funding the gest of the signs and installation from the Racetrack F=und. HRS/pmp SPEED.?0 LABOR RELATIONS ASSOCIATES, INC. J yam, 7501 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427 612/546-1470 June 25, 1985 t_ti �. : t D JUN 2 6, ?985 Mr . Joseph L. Bard Arbitrator 400 Norwest Midland Building Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 RE: MINNESOTA TEAMSTERS PUBLIC AND LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEES ' UNION, LOCAL NO. 320 -and- CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA CASE N0. 85-PN-607-A Dear Mr. Bard: This letter will confirm the scheduling of the interest arbitration hearing in the above captioned matter for the following date, time and location: DATE: Tuesday, August 13 , 1985 TIME: 9: 30 A.M. PLACE: Assembly Room Scott County Courthouse Corner of 4th and Holmes Shakopee, Minnesota, Sincerely, C. F. Smythe Labor Relations Consultant to, the City of Shakopee CFS: hfc cc: Robert Weisenburger � J-6hn Anderson