HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/09/1986 TENTATIVE AGENDA
ADJ .REG.SESSION SHAKOPEE , MINNESOTA DECEMBER 9 , 1986
Mayor Reinke presiding
1] Roll Call at 7 : 00 P.M. - at Citizens State Bank Meeting Room,
1100 East 4th Avenue
21 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. )
31 Communications :
*a] Jerry and Bunni Lebens re : Senior Graduation Party
b]
4] 7 :00 P .M. PUBLIC HEARING - Downtown Streetscape Improvement Project ,
Phase I (Project No. 1987-2)
5] Reports from Staff:
*a] Release of Restrictive Covenants on Property in Prairie
View 3rd Addition
6] Other Business:
a]
b]
7] Adjourn to Tuesday, December 16, 1986 at 7 : 00 P .M.
John K. Anderson
City Administrator
December 5, 1986
Shakopee City Council
Shakopee, Minn. 55379
Dear Council Members,
it ' s time once again for us, The Senior Graduation Party Committee,
to ask for your support and assistance in helping us provide our
graduating seniors a fun-filled night they will never forget.
This will be the ninth consecutive year that this event has been
held and all indications are that each graduating class enjoyed
the evening immensely. We expect this class will be no exeption.
You may recall that in years past we have used the second floor of
the police station to prepare the panels and props for decorating
the school. We ask your permission to use these facilities again.
We have contacted Police Chief Brownell prior to making this request
and he approves of our efforts and approves of our use of the
building.
We thank you for your support in past years and anticipate your
support for the coming year.
Sincerely,
e Senio radu ion Party Committee
Jerry & Bunni Lebens
Senior Chaircouple
Recommended Action
Approve the request of the Senior Graduation Party Committee
to use the second floor of the police station to prepare
decorations for the 1987 Senior Graduation Party.
�y
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant
RE: Downtown Redevelopment Project Public Hearing
DATE: December 5 , 1986
Introduction:
A public hearing has been scheduled for December 9 , 1986 to
hear comments on the Downtown Streetscape Improvement Project.
The meeting is scheduled to begin at 7 : 00 p.m. and will be held
in the Citizens State Bank assembly room.
Background:
On September 16 , 1986 the Shakopee City Council moved to
order a feasibility study report on the downtown redevelopment
project. On November 18 , 1986 the report was received by City
Council and a public hearing was called to be held on December 9 ,
1986 . The layout of the proposed street design for Fuller Street
has been actually painted on that street between First and Second
Ave. for the Council ' s review. I would encourage each of the
Council members to visually inspect the layout in this area prior
to the public hearing. Note the size of the nodes and parking
arrangement. Please be sure to bring your copy of the Downtown
Revitalization Project Engineering Feasibility Report.
Presentation to Council and Audience:
Shown in attachment #1 is a tentative agenda that staff is
recommending as a format for the public hearing. The format will
be very similar to that which was followed at the small group
informational meetings . An introduction explaining the purpose
of the Downtown Redevelopment Project and the goals and
objectives of the project will be given by Gary Laurent, Downtown
Committee Chairman. Kenneth Ashfeld, City Engineer will follow
with a project overview explaining the relationship of the
downtown redevelopment plan to the downtown mini by-pass ,
southerly by-pass and County Road 18 bridge crossing. The
technical planning and engineering elements of the project; which
will include the proposed street designs and streetscape elements
will be given by Westwood Planning and Engineering staff .
Following that portion of the presentation Barry Stock,
Administrative Assistant, will get into the nuts and bolts of the
project' s financial considerations and assessment policies . This
will conclude staff ' s presentation.
It would then be appropriate for the City Council to ask
specific questions about any elements of the proposed project.
Based on the small group meetings , staff believes that it is more
effective to give an overall presentation of the downtown
redevelopment plan prior to any questions from the audience.
This eliminates a lot of confusion and gives staff the
opportunity to present all the issues and recommendations with a
full explanation prior to interjections from the audience. It is
my hope that this same format can be followed at the public
hearing.
Shown in attachment #2 are the current assessment policies
being recommended by the Downtown Committee. During the
presentation, staff will be utilizing an overhead to share this
information with the audience. When Council approved the
feasibility report, several good questions were raised in regard
to the proposed project. Staff has addressed those questions as
well the questions that the Downtown Committee has had to wrestle
with over the past five years in a question and answer format
found in Attachment #3 .
The questions and answers will be available to the public so
that the property owners will be fully informed when they leave
the meeting. Attached to the question and answer handout is a
new copy of the estimated assessments that have been derived
based on the results of the engineering feasibility study report.
Proposed Time Table:
The Downtown Committee fully believes that a redevelopment
plan should be approved and initiated in 1987 . If the hearing is
not completed and the project plans ordered by Jan. 31st it will
become difficult to complete all elements of the phase I project
in 1987. The Committee recognizes that the Council may make
modifications to: ( 1) the assessment policies, ( 2 ) the proposed
project area itself and ( 3 ) the elements proposed in the
redevelopment plan. However, it is the hope of the Downtown
Committee that as much of the proposed project be retained as
possible to ensure the future economic vitality of the downtown
area.
In terms of the assessment policies, the Downtown Committee
is recommending that 250 of the total project cost be assessed to
the abutting property owners. The Committee is recommending that
the assessments for residential properties in the downtown area
be deferred without interest until they are converted to a
commercial use. This is contrary to the standard city street
rehabilitation policy in which 250 of the street rehabilitation
costs are assessed to the property owners regardless of their
use. The Downtown Committee recognizes that City Council will
have to deal with this policy issue and may want to modify the
residential assessment strategy as proposed by the Downtown
Committee.
In terms of reducing the project area itself, the Downtown
Committee has gone on record stating that if necessary, they
would be in favor of removing Third Ave. from the project area.
Since this is a through street abutting more than just four
blocks of the downtown area, the Committee believes that this
street may be more appropriately reconstructed in its entirety at
a future date. The possible location of City Hall along this
street may also have a potential effect on the design proposed
for Third Ave.
Because of the magnitude and complexity of the proposed
project, it may become necessary for the City Council to continue
the public hearing to a later date. However, if it looks like a
consensus can be reached on the elements to be included in the
downtown redevelopment plan and the project area itself, it would
be appropriate for the City Council to adjourn the public hearing
on December 9 , 1986. The next step would be for the City Council
to order the preparation of plans and specifications on phase I
of the downtown redevelopment project. This step could be taken
at the next regular City Council meeting.
Alternatives:
1. Continue the public hearing to a later date, December 16th
if there are minor requests for additional information or
December 30th if the requests for information are more
comprehensive.
2. Decide on the final assessment policies, project elements
and project area and adjourn the public hearing directing
staff to incorporate any changes in a Resolution prepared
for Council action on 12/16/86 to order final design.
Summary & Staff Recommendation_
In July of 1984 , the Shakopee City Council approved
Shakopee' s Revitalization Plan. Since that time, the Downtown
Committee has been working very hard to fine tune the elements
that will positively effect the economic vitality of the Downtown
Core. After a thorough analysis of the factors that are
contributing to the decay of the downtown area and the elements
that will foster rehabilitation and growth, the Downtown
Committee and staff very optimistically, recommend alternative
#1.
Action Requested:
Decide on the project elements to be included into the
downtown redevelopment project, assessment strategy, and size of
the project area and move to adjourn or continue the public
hearing.
Attachment #1
Tentative Agenda
Downtown Revitalization Project
Public Hearing
December 9, 1986
7 : 00 P.M.
Citizens State Bank Assembly Room
5 min. I . Introduction - Downtown Committee Chairman
5 min. II. Overview of Project
A. Project Goals & Objectives -
Downtown Committee Member
B. Project Overview - Ken Ashfeld,
City Engineer
10 min. III . Technical Project Elements - Westwood
Planning and Engineering
10 min. IV. Financial Aspects of the Project - Barry Stock
Administrative Assistant
V. Question and Answer
Dec. 5 , 1986
Attachment #2
Preliminary
Assessment Policies
Downtown Streetscape Project
1. The assessment district should include all parcels bounded
by Atwood (both sides of the street) on the West, the North
side of Third Avenue on the South, Sommerville on the East
including the West side of Spencer abutting First Ave. on
the East and the alley alignment between First Avenue and
Levee Drive on the North. In addition, it includes parcels
on the West side of Atwood that have front footage on said
street.
2. The assessment policy shall use the shortest distance along
a street as the front footage.
3 . Each parcel shall receive a separate assessment.
4. City use and other parcels owned by non-profit entities
will be considered as commercial for assessment purposes
(consistent with other city assessment practices) .
5. Assessments on single family and two family residential
properties shall be deferred with no interest until property
is converted to commercial use. These assessments shall be
paid for initially from tax-increment proceeds or other
funds until the conversion use occurs.
6 . Any city parking lot shall not be assessed but the cost for
those areas shall be distributed over the rest of the
assessed parcels in the district.
7 . The 70% FF/30a square foot formula shall be utilized for
assessment purposes.
8. 250 of project cost will be assessable to the property
owners.
9 . Standard street rehabilitation improvements on vacant lots
and properties declared unfit for human occupancy at the
time of the assessment hearings shall be assessed in a
manner that is consistent with City policy ( 250) . The
streetscape portion of the assessment shall be deferred for
a three year period without interest or until the property
is developed, whichever comes first.
10 . The streetscape portion of the assessment on three and four
family residential properties shall be deferred with no
interest until said property is converted to a commercial
use.
Attachment # 3
Downtown Improvement Project
Questions and Answers
1 . Q. Does the City of Shakopee ' s downtown need
redevelopment?
A. Shakopee ' s downtown has been declining economically and
physically for years. New businessman will not risk a
major investment in this kind of economic environment,
just like a home owner selecting a home will stay away
from a declining, dilapidated neighborhood and select
the well maintained or newer neighborhood as a place
where they would like to live and invest their hard-
earned dollars.
The racetrack has generated new interest in Shakopee
and the Chamber , City and City ' s Businessmen need
something concrete to show potential new developers
and/or retail store operators that the downtown is
ready to turn itself around and provide a new shopping
environment that will be desirable and conducive for
pedestrian movement. An attractive downtown area is
also likely to attract a fair percentage of the
tourists that are currently driving through our
community and downtown.
The City must deal simultaneously with a multitude of
concerns including economic development , street and
sidewalk improvements , park development , highway
improvements , planning design criteria , housing
development and many others . These are all inter-
related and an overall implementation plan for
redevelopment is needed to implement downtown
redevelopment in such a way that these components
compliment each other. The Downtown Committee believes
that the project as proposed meets these objectives.
2. Q. Are we moving into this project to quickly?
A. Since the early 1970 ' s, several attempts have been made
to revitalize the downtown area of Shakopee . In
December, 1973, the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment
Authority ( HRA) retained an architectural/planning
consultant, to conduct a brief preliminary study of the
immediate downtown area and the feasibility or
potential of any related physical improvements .
Because several previous planning efforts had not been
fully realized or implemented , the emphasis of the
report in 1973 was to develop a realistic, incremental
" action program " that would serve as a plan for
achieving an improved economic and physical environment
in downtown Shakopee. No progress was made because of
the lack of continuity due to no permanent alternatives
for financing a project of such magnitude ; a secondary
factor was that no definite design plan could be
universally agreed upon by the business community .
On May 6 , 1980 , the Shakopee Chamber of Commerce
completed a Central Business District Study . This
study identified many of the problems that were
contributing to the decay of the downtown core. The
study also made several recommendations that could
reverse this trend. This study served as a basis for
the future activities of the existing Downtown
Committee.
On April 21 , 1981 the Shakopee City Council approved
Resolution No. 1822 Establishing the Shakopee Downtown
Ad Hoc Committee . The committees has met over 100
times to discuss downtown redevelopment during the past
five and one half years.
On June 12 , 1984 the Downtown Revitalization Report was
completed by Westwood Planning and Engineering Co .
This report included a review and analysis of the
existing downtown core area and it ' s future potential
as well as an implementation plan outlining the process
by which the downtown core area would redevelop ,
including costs and financing methods . Two public
hearings were held with downtown property owners and
businessmen to present the plan and receive comments
(June 26 , 1984 and July 31 , 1984) • The report was also
publicly presented to the Shakopee Industrial
Commercial Commission , Planning Commission and City
Council . On September 11 , 1984 the Shakopee City
Council formally adopted the Downtown Revitalization
Final Report.
On November 30, 1984 the Downtown Committee toured the
following downtown areas to observe their streetscape
programs : White Bear Lake , Edina ( 50th & France) ,
Wayzata (Lake St . Improvement Project ) , Minnetonka
(Olen Lake Station) , and Richfield. On June 18 , 1986
the Downtown Committee again toured several downtown
improvement projects at night to view their lighting
systems and to see how effective their lighting plan
was. The projects reviewed were as follows : Nicollet
Mall, River Place, Hennepin and Lake Street , Hopkins
Main Street, Downtown Wayzata, and 50th and France.
Over the past five years the Downtown Committee has
done a very thorough job in analyzing the various
downtown redevelopment strategies in terms of design
and cost implications. Based on the previous work of
the Downtown Committee as well as the City Council, it
would not be realistic to say that the City is moving
to fast with the proposed project.
3 . Q. Can this redevelopment project be done in stages?
( Performing the street rehabilitation portion of the
project at one time and then doing the streetscape
improvements at a later date . )
A. Yes . Separating the streetscape from the street
rehabilitation would not significantly increase the
overall project cost. However, proceeding with this
strategy would extend the construction period of the
project over several years increasing disruption of
business. There are no real advantages to proceed with
the project in stages.
4 . Q. Is it possible for this project to be scaled back in
terms of size?
A. Yes . The project as currently proposed is to be
completed in two phases . Phase I includes all
properties south of First Ave . between Atwood and
Sommerville including Second and Third Ave. Phase II
of the project includes the rehabilitation of First
Ave. and the installation of streetscape on First Ave.
It is possible to complete the project in smaller
phases. However, those areas that are not completed at
this time will be faced with escalated construction
costs at a future date . Additionally , a larger
downtown redevelopment project will allow for the
project to stand alone and attract additional
businesses to the downtown area.
If the project were to be scaled down , it would be
possible to delete Third Ave . from phase I of the
project. Currently this street is in need of major
rehabilitation in more than just the proposed phase I
area . Completing all of Third Ave . at a later date may
be as practical as completing a four block section as
proposed. Additionally, it may be wise to wait until
the final site for the City Hall is selected by
referendum this spring. Currently one of the proposed
sites abuts Third Ave . within phase I of the proposed
project area.
5 . Q. Why do downtown redevelopment before the bridge and
mini by-pass are complete?
A. Taking no action on downtown redevelopment at this time
will not stop the economic decay that is currently
occurring. At this time we have no assurance that the
mini by-pass and bridge will be built . Playing the
waiting game will only increase project costs over the
long run and doing nothing the interim will not arrest
the decline that is now occurring . Additionally ,
proceeds from tax increment financing are currently
available to assist in financing the downtown
redevelopment project.
6 . Q. Has a final bridge alternative been selected by MnDOT
for the proposed downtown mini by-pass?
A. The environmental assessment (E. A. ) for the T.H. 169
bridge has been completed and is now in it ' s final
draft and being reviewed by the Federal Highway
Administration. The E. A. studied three alternatives ;
1 . No build alternative , 2 . Alternative 7a. ( single
bridge with four lanes) , 3 . Alternative 13 ( two bridges
each with two lanes) . On December 3 , 1986 the Downtown
Committee recommended to City Council that alternative
7a be the preferred choice by the City for a bridge
design . At that time , the Downtown Committee also
recommended a right of way alignment that included both
a west access to the downtown area via Fuller Street
and an east access to the downtown area via Sommerville
Street. At this time, MnDOT is being fairly flexible
in regard to the type of bridge to be built and the
highway realignment . Since this is a partnership
arrangement between the State and the City, we feel
that they will be willing to work with the City
regardless of the bridge design and highway realignment
alternatives selected by the City.
The City of Shakopee is dedicating 1 . 9 million dollars
to the mini by-pass project . These dollars will be
used for highway right-of-way alignment acquisition and
construction. The Federal Highway Administration will
be funding approximately 80% of the bridge construction
with MnDOT picking up the remaining cost of the bridge
design and construction. In January of 1987 a public
hearing will be held on the proposed mini by-pass
project . In the spring of 1987 the location design
study should be complete. The next step would be to
draft a set of plans and specifications for the
proposed project. This process is expected to be
complete in the fall of 1988. Bids will be let for the
proposed project sometime in 1989 with construction
targeted for 1990 and bridge completion planned for
1991 .
At this time there is no firm guarantee that this
project will move ahead as planned. However, based on
the progress already made and the support from MnDOT,
we are confident that the project will proceed as
proposed.
7 . Q. Is the mini by-pass going to be useless when the
Shakopee by pass is built on the southern edge of the
City?
A. No. Traffic studies by two separate engineering firms,
Westwood Planning and Engineering for the Downtown
Project and Barton Aschman for the racetrack, both
conclude that there will be a significant amount of
traffic on T.H. 169 and Hwy 101 after the Shakopee by-
pass is constructed. More over , both reports indicate
that intersections of Hwy 101 and 169 at Holmes Street
needs major reengineering to handle the traffic flow
expected even after the southerly by -pass is
constructed.
8 . Q. What will be the traffic impact if the mini by-pass is
not built?
A. The mini by-pass environmental assessment assumes that
none of the future highway improvements ( County Rd 18
Bridge and/or T.H . 101 By-pass) will be completed prior
to 1991 • This scenario was used to analyze the
capacity deficiency of the existing roadway system.
The most relevant volume data from the standpoint of
both design and impact analysis are the P.M. peak hour
estimates. A capacity analysis was performed using
these volumes. Capacity is a method of evaluating the
quality of traffic flow, in this case through an
intersection. An intersection may be rated from Level
of Service (LOS ) A through F. LOS A represents a
condition with little or no delay to motorists ; LOS F
represents a condition in which an intersection is
carrying more than its maximum load resulting in
significant delays to many motorists.
Currently , during P . M. peak hours, the T.H. 169/101
intersection is operating at LOS D. (Traffic volumes
approach unstable flow. Tolerable average operating
speeds are maintained but are subject to considerable
and sudden variation . ) Assuming the no build
alternative for the mini by-pass, the 1991 LOS for the
T . H . 169/101 intersection is projected to be an F.
Assuming completion of the mini by-pass, the 1991 LOS
for the T.H. 169/101 is projected to be a B. ( Stable
flow of traffic . )
A traffic analysis which depicts the current traffic
conditions and the year 2000 projected traffic
conditions assuming completion of the County Road 18
bridge and the T.H. 101 by-pass is shown on P. A-7 of
the Downtown Feasibility Study Report. One should note
that even with the two aforementioned highway
improvements completed , over 14 , 300 vehicles will be
entering downtown Shakopee via the 169 bridge . This
situation is still undesirable in terms of a conducive
downtown shopping area. Thus the need for the downtown
mini-bypass.
9 . Q. Will there be an over - pass or under- pass for
pedestrians crossing the mini by-pass?
A. When the final design plan is completed for the bridge
and proposed realignment, the possibility of an over-
pass or under-pass for pedestrians will be analyzed
further . Given the location of the senior citizen
highrise and the trail system along the Minnesota
River , staff feels that some type of pedestrian
facility will be necessary to provide access across the
mini by-pass.
10. Q. Where did the assessment strategy come from and how
were the policies derived?
A. The premise on which the downtown assessment policies
are built , are based on our current street
rehabilitation policy in which 25 % of the
rehabilitation improvements are assessed to the
abutting property owners. Since the majority of the
downtown improvement project involves street
rehabilitation , the Downtown Committee felt that it
would be appropriate to utilize this strategy . The
proposed 25% assessment is computed on both front
footage and lot area based on a survey of what other
communities utilized in their downtown improvement
projects. After a lengthy analysis and discussion, the
Downtown Committee moved to adopt a 70% front foot/30%
square foot assessment ratio to be applied to the
properties in the downtown area . This ratio was
selected because it was the most equitable in terms of
spreading the total assessable cost amongst the
downtown property owners.
11 . Q. What is the general time table for accomplishing the
major phases of the downtown redevelopment plan?
A. Phase I of the project which includes properties south
of First Ave. between the north-south streets of Atwood
and Sommerville and the east-west streets of First and
Third Ave. is proposed for construction in 1987 . It is
Possible however that the actual streetscape
improvements will not be made until the spring of 1988 .
Phase II of the proposed project includes street
rehabilitation and streetscape improvements along First
Ave . between Atwood and Spencer. This phase of the
project is expected to commence in conjunction with the
completion of the mini by-pass and T.H. 169 bridge.
This is likely to occur in 1991 .
J
12. Q. What is the overall budget for the downtown
redevelopment plan?
A. Based on the feasibility report completed by Westwood
Planning and Engineering, phase I construction costs
are estimated to be $2, 932, 341 .00. Twenty-five percent
of the phase I construction costs ( $733 , 085 . 00) is
proposed to be assessed amongst the property owners in
the phase I project area . Phase II construction costs
are estimated to be $864 , 020 .00. Once again, 25% of
the total construction costs for phase II ( $216 ,005 .00)
is to be assessed to the property owners lying in the
phase II of the project area.
13 , Q. Don' t we need to remove the railroad tracks to really
solve our downtown problems?
A. No. Although it would be clearly beneficial to remove
the railroad, the Downtown Committee has concluded that
the railroad will have to stay . The railroad company
will simply not participate in the cost of the
improvements and there is no legal way for the City to
force them to either remove or improve their
facilities . However , the City is working with the
railroad to remove the telegraph wires that currently
run along the railroad track within the downtown
project area. Additionally, the railroad semaphores
will be improved when the downtown project commences
and rubberized crossings are constructed.
14 . Q. Wouldn ' t it be simpler to just tear down all the retail
stores north of Hwy. 101?
A. Interesting enough, this was the action considered by
the Downtown Committee to be the most logical when they
started their study in 1981 . Now after five years of
examining what it will take to create an economically
viable downtown, the Committee has unanimously backed
the mini by-pass alternative. This plan was selected
over three other alternatives that were specifically
outlined in the Downtown Revitalization Report
completed in 1984 .
The mini by-pass alternative was selected by the
Downtown Committee because it met the goals and
criteria established by the Committee better than any
other of the alternative plans. If the buildings on
the north side of Hwy . 101 was leveled , the only
remaining retail space would be sandwiched between the
south side of Hwy. 101 and the railroad track. That
means that three blocks of the remaining retail space
would still have traffic problems immediately outside
their door with trucks , noise , vibration , air
pollution , etc . and traffic downtown solely for
shopping purposes would have to circulate out onto Hwy.
101 or use the alleys between 101 and the railroad
tracks.
15 . Q. What will be done to improve the facades and the backs
of buildings in the downtown that will remain visible
to traffic flowing on the mini by-pass?
A. The Committee has discussed the establishment of the
following tools that will be of assistance to the
Downtown property owners in renovating their buildings :
1 . A rental rehab loan program is already available to
assist downtown property owners in remodeling
apartments that they have above their buildings. 2. A
commercial rehabilitation loan program is currently
available to property owners in the form of an interest
write down to assist them in the renovation of their
structures. 3 . Streetscaping along the mini by-pass
has been planned to screen the rear of buildings from
traffic on the mini by-pass and the bridge.
16 . Q. Would decreasing the size of the project area
invalidate the results of the petitioning process?
A. No. A reduction in the size of the project area would
not invalidate petition results . However , if the
project area is expanded a new petition signed by 35%
of the property owners within the new expanded area
would be required to proceed with a petition initiated
project . (Note : Answer from the League of Minnesota
Cities Staff Attorney Stan Peskar) .
17 . Q. Can different elements of a project ( street-
rehab/ streetscape ) be assessed using different
assessment practices in the same overall improvement
project?
A. Yes . Street rehabilitation for example could be
assessed at 25% with the remainder picked up by tax
increment financing and streetscape could be assessed
at a 20% level with the remaining picked up by tax
increment financing and/or ad valorem taxes. (Note :
Answer from the League of Minnesota Cities Staff
Attorney Stan Peskar) .
18 . Q. Will the parking lots behind City Hall and Brambilla ' s
be removed as a result of the mini by-pass alignment?
A. The parking lot behind City Hall will be totally
eliminated as a result of the mini by-pass alignment.
(Loss of 77 parking spaces) Originally , the lot behind
Brambilla ' s was also expected to be removed. However,
recent engineering design and alignment work show that
this lot will remain intact preserving approximately 65
parking spaces.
19 . Q. Why aren ' t property owners who provide parking for
their patrons given a reduction in their assessments?
A. Initially , the Downtown Committee was considering a
reduction in the streetscape portion of the assessments
for those businesses that had a parking lot. After
much debate , the Committee felt that because there are
no parking requirements in the downtown area, it was
the business owners decision on whether or not he/she
wanted to provide parking for their patrons and as such
should be responsible for the assessment costs for
their parking lots.
20 . Q. What is the unit basis of the 25% assessment for this
project?
A. The proposed 70% front foot and 30% sq . ft. assessment
formula equates to the following costs :
$ per front foot
$ per square foot
21 . Q. What is the proposed assessment for a typical lot in
Shakopee?
A. The current estimated assessment for a 60 ' x 142 ' lot
is
This can be broken down accordingly :
Street Rehabilitation (roughly 60%)
Streetscape ( roughly 40% )
22 . Q. How many people are still paying off the parking lot
assessments made in conjunction with the 1967 parking
lot improvements?
A. In 1967 property owners in the downtown area were
assessed for parking lot improvements. Property owners
that had their own parking lots in 1967 were given an
assessment credit. To date all assessments for this
project have been paid except for those that were
delinquent . In 1967 , parking lot assessments on
residential properties were deferred until the property
was converted to a commercial use . To date all
deferred residential assessments have been forgiven.
23 . Q. Can the City remove an improvement that had been
previously assessed?
A. Yes with reservation. The City has obtained a legal
opinion from the League of Minnesota Cities relating to
the condemnation and reuse of assessed public
improvements. (See Feasibility Report pages A-4 - A-
6) .
24 . Q. How much has been spent in conjunction with the
Downtown Revitalization Project?
A. Since 1983 approximately $254 , 000 has been spent in
from the Downtown Redevelopment Fund . Revenue to
support this fund came from dollars generated in
conjunction with the downtown tax increment district
and proceeds from the K-Mart and Racetrack tax
increment districts. Funds were advanced to this Fund
until 1986 when bonds were sold.
The approximate breakdown of the dollars spent since
1983 is as follows :
Administration/Engineering $78 , 300
Second Ave. Parking Lot/
Landscaping $121 ,200
Storm Sewer $54 , 500
25 . Q. Is it legal for a City employee to circulate a petition
for an improvement project?
A. Yes . According to the League of Minnesota Cities '
Attorney and our City Attorney it is not illegal for a
City employee to circulate a petition for a petition
initiated improvement project.
26 . Q. Will the proposed improvements increase property taxes
in the project area?
A. Not directly . According to County Assessor , Bob
Schmidt , the proposed improvements will not have a
direct effect on the assessed values of the properties
in the project area . Assessed values are based on
three key elements ; retail sales , income of the
property owners and property sales in the area . If
these economic factors increase because of
redevelopment, an increase in the assessed values may
follow.
27 . Q. Who will be responsible for removing snow from the
sidewalks and around the proposed planters?
A. The City expects that most of the snow on walks will
still be removed by property owners as in the past .
Snow accumulation around the proposed planters will be
minimal . Snow removed by the City in these areas can
be expedited by the use of efficient snow removal
equipment such as a bobcat and/or a small plow .
Removal of snow from City streets will cost the City
more time and money .
28 . Q. Can the City insure that the assessments and resultant
improvements will mean increased business and not kill
marginal business?
A. No . However , Shakopee' s Downtown Plan is based upon
the best elements of other successful revitalization
projects conducted in communities throughout Minnesota.
While it is possible that several businesses may not
endure the redevelopment process we fully expect a net
improvement in the number of business operating within
the downtown area . For example , the City of Hasting ' s
which embodies many of the same physical
characteristics as Shakopee ; ( i. e. Historic River Town,
County Seat) has experienced a net gain of eight new
stores since the completing of their revitalization
project last fall . Additionally , many of the buildings
in their downtown have been renovated.
29 . Q. What are the estimated assessments for each parcel in
the downtown project area?
A. Based on the Engineers estimates listed in the Downtown
Feasibility Study Report a breakdown of the estimated
assessments per property owner is attached as Exhibit
A.
Exhibit A will be delivered on Monday or handed out at
the Public Hearing.
~ _ ~ Exhibit A
y
Feasibility Study /
` AB[SSAEiE PROJEIT CO3T�
'
0ONN�OWN RED[V[L0PM�KT ASS[SSME��
* Nih Jrd Avenuc *
PlD DLK FF SQFT PROPTYPE PROF[RTY PHA�� l PHASE ll TOTAL
OWNER AREA (1-4) ASSESS ASS[SS ASSESS
27-t0��2B-0 2 60.V0 cul 52V.OV res Koch � $0 $8,222 $G,222
2/'VO029-V 2 60.00 8520.0O res HcReynold� 1 $0 $B`222 $8'222
27-OVNJ0-V 2 6t).VO G520.OV res Thibooeaux � $V $8,222 $8,2l2
27-�O1O3\-O 2
60.Hi D520.00 res Bokern � $V �8,222 �8`222
27-O 0032-V 2 6V.V0 8520.OV res Miller 1 $0 $8'222 $8'222
27-VOlOJ4'v J 73,5V |O437,0V coa 8rambilla � $V $\0,072 $1V`O72
I7-0NV35-V J 42.50 6V3lO0 com Topic l $0 T5,G24 $5,G24
27-VO�O36-O 3 26 ,VV 36Y2.
VV com Mahnnpy l �V $3/563 $3,563
27-00l�37-0 3 52.7V 7�G3.0V com Mahoney 1 $V $7`222 $7`222
27-V0{0JD-O 3 90,VV 7J89.00 com IN,i-SI iog l $V $1O'7O� $10'7V2
�7-VV1H39-V 3 52.00 7592.00 com Kwi-Shing 1 $V $7,169
27-OV1V4i-0 4 55.0V 555 5.00 cm R\K Properties l $V $6,854 4�6`854
27-0VlV�2-V 4 44.VV 2255.0V com " " � $O $4`5J9 $4`539
27-VO1043- VV 29l1.VO cnm $V 762
27-V0|V44-� 4 25.�V 355V.00 com Hera $J,426 $3`426
2�'VO1V45-O 4 2V,V0 2R4V.00 com Namer
27-O0�046-0 4 JV.VV 4260,OV com Hi 1 $V $4,1l1 $4,l11
27-0O047'0 4 J�.V0 4402,O0 com ��hes � $V �4`�� $4;Li�
27-VVN48-V 4 2R.5O 4047.O3 cum VohoouLka � $V $3,9O5 $7 IV
2/ Al ;J 426,0.O0 Ciiy ofShaknpec l $0 $4'|}1 $4'1��
27-00105V-V 4 4V.VV 56GO.0O com Topic 1 $O 15,4BL $5/481
27-V02i.VV 2982.V0 cit City nf Shakopee 1 $V �2,878 $2,878
27-0O1V59-V 5 ��2.0V 19880.OV com �ohnson I $0 $19`373 $19,373
27-VO|V6O-V 5 Ni,00 l7�11.00 com Brambiila 1 $0 $l4'678 $14,676
27-O01V61-V 5 J9.00 2769.0V com Yoyel 1 $O 1-4506 ,5V6
27-0N1062-V 5 0.V0 V.VV cit State of MH Hwy
27-O01V6B-V 6 6V.VV 8520.O0 res Lebens 1 $V $8`222 $8`222
27-0O�O69-V 6 6V.V0 852V.V0 res O'Conner l $0 $8`222 $8`222
27-00lV7;-0 6 6O.VO O52O.N0 res Du8ois 1 $0 $8'222 $8`222
27-VO1V71-V 6 6V.OV 42VV.VV cnm Ha}lgren i $V �6`915 $6,9�5
27-0N072-V 6 42.VO 789V.0V com Johnson \ �0 $6,338 $6,J38
27-VO1O7J-V 6 35.0V 27V0.VV com Rein � $V $4'1V9 $4,109
27-On 1074-O 6 ".0 VV com Reio l $0 $3`032 $3`0J2
27-;Ol0B5-; 7 It.V0 726;.VV res Gerbenier 1 $0 $7'967 $7`967
27-V01V86-V 7 �0.V; 426O.V0 res Fonnier l �V $6,933 $6'93J
$V $V $O
27-VV1�29-V 2O 80.0V 7625.VV res Gil\e� 3 �9'8�2 $O $9.832
27-001l29-� 2V42.05 5O40.OV com Cy's a.r,dard 3 $5`476
27-00113V'10 20 IL 'J. 12VOV.V0 cnm American 8il Co. 2 $6'5l9 $6,51Y $\3'O38
2:7-061 34-6 21 Jl.B3 2D6�.70 com H & U Kailway 3 $3,861 $V
27-0OlO5-V 2� �1O.�7 226Y�.3V cnm Stoks 2 $8`6|5 $8`6l5
27-0V1l36-0 2l 0.0O 0.,ii cip City of Shakopee 2.70 $V $0
27-0O11J7-O 2� 0.0V VV Cip City nf Sh-zknpee $0 $0 $V �
�
27-OV1\38-V 21 V.00 V.OV cip Ci�y a Shakopee $O $0 $V
27-00\i3Y-0 21 0.VV V.VV cip City of Shakopee $V $V $O
27-0V1�40-0 21 6;.VV G52V.OV com Laurent Rea} Estate 2 $4,\11 �4,1l1 $8'222
^
l0U4l-V 2� 60.00 8520.O0 res Ca8ois 2 $4,1U U|
res
)011�3-V 21
(11 0, a com Sermce/�orEar 2 $9`250 $9/�@
�V1{44-O 22
42.Uv 2556V.00 com Beren J �21,V92
)O1\45-O 22 6V.�V 612V.�� cum 8eren 3 $7'4Y6 V $7,496
)V|146-� 22
7L00 !Y2O.0* con Brmm
/01\47-V 22 20.VV 24O0.VV cam Topzc 3 $2,6O8 $0 $2,6V8
/�ll48-V 22 2O.O0 2400.00 com ShofterU,U,
JV.VV L80V.VV com h�rtz-Hureish J $3,36� v0 $J,367
/01l5V-V 22 40.VV 24VO.VV com Uaniels 3 $4/48;
)0l�5l-0 22 20.VV 6VV.V� com G�lla 2 $�'�3� $|.03l $2,Oo3
'^1�52-V 22 51.VO 7Y20,OV com 6oebsi 2 $3,597 �J,597 $7^194
x1--3-V 22 608l.4V com Gostafsnn 2 $2,971 $2`97|
2ifJ8.60 Cm Sha^DO,ee Finance 2 ${'65O $1658 �3,315
�O.VV 8520.VV com Gu:;tafsoo
��15u-� 22 67.VO 0J4V,VV com Heosiog 2 $5`J21642
)V1l57-O 22 75.OV 72VV.VV res Heosiog2 $4`617 »4'6l7 $Y'23J
`01{58'V 2J 1442.00 28620.O0 com lst Nat. Bank 3 $22/O1D $0 $22'01B
'0ll59-O 23 96.00 9Sri.VV com W �
er -r kir
schen J ��1 ,244 $O N1`244
'V1162-V 23 22.0V 14v.VV coEll
" 3 $3'�95 $0 $3 1Y5
)Vl\63-V 23 18,0V N8O.VO com Topic 3 �2,V2V $O $2020
O1|64-0 23 36.0V J12�.A0 com Shak. Post #4V46 2 $2,165 $2'{65 $4/3J0
/0��65-V 23 62,VV 4650.V0 cam Smith 2 �3`6l9 $3,6l� $7'239
66-O 23 24.0V 168O.VV cam 7opic
'O1�67-V 2J 3O.V0 3JVV.00 cum 8arbershop 2 $l,9\V $J'820
01L68-1 l3 70.VO 426O.VV com 0res�eo 2 $2`O56 $2,056 �4111
0l&9-V 23 26,VO J692.VV com Theis 2 $l'781 $il781 $3/563
117V-V 23 J9.V0 55JB.00 com Case C}othing 2 $2`672 $2`672 $5344
/01171-V 23 25,0V 3550.V0 cnm Garnoss 2 $1`713 $1`713 $J'426
.01l72-V . 2J J1.VV Lg02.V0 com King Solomon Ldge 2 $2`�24 $2`124 $4`Z48
0!�73-V 2J 38.50 5467.00 com Latou /
T 2 $2'6J8 �� 6JO $Z`276
V1174-1 2J 2{.5V JO5J.VV com 8oehle 2 $1`47J $147J t2`946
'J1175-O 24 V,VV V.VV cip City of Shakopee $0
J1L76-V 24 V.VO O,0Vcip City o� Shakopee
J1177-V 24 0.VO v cip City of Shakopee $0 $0 $O
�1l7B-V 24 V.VV V.OV cip Ci�y of Shakupee $O $O $0
Ol179-O 24 1210.0O 1704V.V0 -am Seibenaler 3 $\6,444 $V $16 44�
1ll8V-0 24 60.VO 465V.0V com Myem 3 $7,05} $V $7`05�
0�0�-V 24 6V.VV J87V.V0 r,C. McGovem 3
) 24 6V.0V 852O.0V com Pearson 2 $4,1{1 $4 1|l �8'222
01|S3-V 24 27.VV J957.VV cos Clay 2 $1,869 ��`869 �J'737
24 J3.V0 _61C3.VV com Schrneder 2 $2,242 $2'242 $4'485
11l85-O 74 6O.VV 8j20.0V cnm Cavanaogh 2 $�,1l1 $4`1l� $8222
:14O6-O 24 60.V� 852O.VV com Siebenalor 2 $4,111 $4`1|l $�/222
24 26.00 �56V.0V com HennOKI 2 $|`459 $l/459 $2^90
)1189-V 24 2�.VO l260.OV com Perry 2 $l'|78 ��`178 *2`357
}|�90-0 24 J5,45 2l27.VV cam KopP 2 $l 9D9 $1989 �3`978
)ll91-V 24 59.55 3573.VV cam Zweber 2 $3`341 $3'J4l '683
}1l92-O 25 l42.VV 2556V.OV mm Pust Office(8art lnc J �2l/092 ` $O $ 92
/1/95-V 25 60.VV 852O.VV com Novak �4 1�l 4-t Z_
_
i1l96-0 25 60,00 ��0.VO com Nnvok 2 $4'lU $4'U� $8`222
1l97-V 25 6V.00 852V.00 rss Sawve 2 $4`lU $4`11�
�U � 60.00 _f-JZQ.No
1{� v 25 6V,0V �0.VO ramall
�l2l�� 28 90.30 l0836.0* res Mau le4 $11`�3 ' $V $U'773
' '
, -
-/
/
Z7- 1 z � 62V4.OU
27��|226-0 28 60.VV 7O5V.00 �nm Schprer J
27�01227-V 2D 24.50 l470.�V com Cuihaneg� $2,749
O|228-V 29 �20.VV D040.V0 cit Library 4 $�6,444 �0 $\,`444
27-0O|229-V 29 S.V0 0.Ot cip City o� Shakupee $V �� $V \
27-00l2JO-0 29 O,O0 O.V0 c1 o
City t 8h8kuppe $0 $0 $0 \
27-C�123!-0 29 0.V0 0.0V cip Ciiy of Shaknpee
27-0Vl2J2-O 29 0.00 0.O0 cip City of Shaxopep $V $0 �V
27-0*l2JJ'V 29 �2.O0 129�.00 coa NW Bell
27-VV|2J4-� 29 lV8.VV }40401.00 com NW Bel} 3 $i4`4O7 $0 $l4`407
27-V012J5-0 29 92.0O \3O64.VV com NW Beil J �12,6O7 $V `6v7
27-0O�236-0 29 95.O0 l4220.VO cum lopic/Minnegasco 3 N3`Z39 �0 $lJ.2J9
27- , 3VV12JB-V JV 7 .VV 42Ores to0 �9,�32
27-�012J8'� J0 67.OV 8V40.V0 com Moonen J $8,735 $V $8`7J5
27-0V|239-O 3O 50.00 250 r e S Horejsi
27-0012�0-V J0 60,00 O52V,00 com Broxn 3 $8,222 �O $8222
27-OVl24l-0 JV 6V.VO MHO.H com Shak. Iv. One J $9`69J $0 $9`69J
27-VV\242-0 3O 60.0;0 36V0.0O Cm Uoffman J $6,733 $0 $6`733
27-001243-0 300.VV V.0V cip City of Shakopee $0 �0 $V
27-V0l244-0 3VV.VV 0.00 cip City of Shakopee
27-00l245-V 3� 60.0O 852V.OV res Ryan 4 222 $0 $8,222
Z/ V1.7 Jl 6O. VO 8520.VV res Monrens 4 $3`222 $V �8,222
27-00|247-V 31 150.0V 27000.OV com -15 1. Nat. Bank 4 �22`28V $0 $22,280
27'VOl248-V 3 58,5V 882O.V0 cnm [astman Drug 3 $8,172 $O $8`172
27-00!249-0 31 50.0V 72V0.VV res Case 3 $6,88 V $6`882
27-00}25V-V Jl 6O.VV 6,-00 com Eastman 0ruO 3 $7,659
27-0V|25l-V 3! 60.VV 852O.0V com Scott Co. Hist Soc. J $8,222 $V �8,222
27-0O1252-V J� 6V.Of" 8520.V0 coa Stans Rmndutioo 3 $8,222 $0 $8,222
27-V01253-V J2 6V.VV 852V.VV rps Yahnke 4 $8`222 �V $8,222 '
27-001254-V J2 6O.00 852V.0V res NEiwiod 4 �8`222 �V $R,222
27-OV1255-V J2 60.V; 852O.O0 res Heinz 4 $8`222 $0 $8,222
27-VV1256-V J2 \80,V0 2556O.VV coa Wampach 4 �24,666 $0 $24`666
27-OO1257'V J2 O0.VV 8520.VV cam #ampach
27-0N 258-V J2 98.0 16.V0 cna Abeio 3 $O,429 $0 $13,429
27-VV1259-V 32 J7.V0 5254.VV com Wampach J $5,V7V $V $5,07V
27-;0126V-0 J2 �5.00 63YV.VV com Leben� J $6'l67 $V �6/t67
27-O01263-V com Reis 4 $7`99O $V $7'990
27-OV|264-0 33 42.OV �O800.VV res Novibki 3 �7,2\9
It $7/219
7 0 6 3.2 0; S-2l.0C, $5 `3.j DO,7O�
"ar'-L
CJST COSTS C0STS
Nith 3rd Avenue $949O90 $94.O6 $V,��6
W,IT JrJ Ave. $7O4,0JV $77.7O �V.25VV
With Jrd Ave./no park. lnts $872`825 �B6.5V $O.278J
N/O Jrd Ave,/no park. Lots �7O7,765 $70.�4 $0.2257
�
^
Exhibit B
Feasibility Study
Less 3rd Ave.
ASS�SEA9L� F�OJ�3T COS ; $78 `��
0N "nNTS
* N/O Jrb Avenue *
L T 7 DLK FF SQFT PPGPTYPE PRDPER7Y PHAS[ i P���E �T TOTAL
OWhEH AREA (l-4) ASSESS ASSESS ASSBS
27'�0��28'V 2 6O.VO 852V.yV res koch l $0 $6`792 $6`792
I7-0O1O29-V 2 6O.O0 85��.0O res McRepolJs � $"i $6,79� $o,792
27-0V|V38-V 2 6V.O� 8520.OV r Thiondeaux 1 $0 $6,79I $6,792
27-VO1OJ�-V 2 60.OV 852V,V0 res Rnkem $6.792
27'�Vl632-� 2 6V.V0 852O.0O res Miiier 1 $0 $6.792 $6`792
27-0V1VO4-O 3 11 cnm Brashi}}a l $V $8/J20 $8`320
27-V0{V35-V 3 42.50 6O35.0; com Topic
10 6-0 3 26.00 2.00 com Hahooey �V �2`943 $2'Y43
27-0V1VJ7-V 3 52.7O 74G3.00 cnm hahooey l $0 �5'966 $5'966
27-V09O.VV 7789.VV com $D/840 $8,84O '
27-0V1VJ9-V 3 52.VV 7592.O0 com Kwi-Shiog 1 $0 $5,9J9 45`939
27-OO10411-0 4 55.0V 5555.0V com K7.'. Properbes � $V VOL
$5,662
27-;01V42-V 4 4l.0V 2255.OV com 1 $V $3,75O A..3/75V
27-01O/04J-1 4 20.00 291�.VO com 1 �0 $2/2B2 �2,282
27-00lO44-1 4 25.0O 355O.O0 com Hsrgot'
27-VO1O75-0 4 20.OV 2840.0O com Homer � $0 $2`264 $2`264
27-V0l046-V 4 JV.OV 4260.0V com Hi 1 $V $3,396 $3/396
27-0V1047-V 4 31.VV 44O2.0O com Hughes 1 $0 t- 10 $3/509
27-VVlV48-0 4 28,5V 4V47.0O com Yohnoutka l $O $3,226 $3,226
27-VOlO4Y-0 4 J0.O0 426V.VV cit City of Shakope* 1 $O $3'J96 $3/396
27-OVl05O-0 4 40.00 56SCO!.0V com 7opic l $O $4'528 $4,528
27-00lO5V-1 4 2l.O0 W. VV cit City of Shakopee l $V $2,J77 0'377
27-00O59-V 5 l42.VV 19880.OV com ]ohoson l $V $l6,004 �\6/VO4
27-VO�06O-O 5 N1.0O Dl�1.VO cum Br��illa
27-00�O61-V 5 39.VO 2769.OV com Vogel L $0 $3,723
27-VV]V62-0 5 V.VV 0.V0 cit Statp of HN Hwy 1 $0 $V $V
27-00lV6S-V 6 60,VV 852O.VV res Lehens � $O $6`�92 $6792
27-V�1069-V 6 6O.OV 852O.VV res O'Cnnner 1 �O $6`792 $6`792
27-VN;7V-V 6
b!.!.VV G52V.OV rec UuBois 1 $V $6,792 $6.7Y2
27-V0�V71-0 6 60.OV �VO.VV com Hgr en | $V $5`7�2 $5`71Z
27-OV1072'V 6 42.VV789V.00 com Johnsoo 1 $V $5v2J6 $5'236
27-0OlO73-V 6 J5,V0 27V /79� $J,395
27-ON;/4-O 6 25,0V 2250.OV com Rein 1 �V �2`5O5 $2`5V5
27-VOlO85-O 7 71.O0 �260,VO res Gprdenier l $O $6,582 W6`582
27-0VN86-V 7 6V,OV 4260.0V res Fonnier l $V $5,727 �5'727
27-0O1�29-0 20 8O.V0 7625.VV res Gil}es 3 $8,l22 $O $8`l22
27-OV{129-i 2V 42.VO 5O4V.0V com Cy's Staodard J
27-VV113V-0 2O 100.V0 120VV.VV com Am*rican Oil Co. 2 $5,8J7 $4`9J3 �1O,77V
27-O0�D4-V 2� Jl.8J 2864.7V m Hi 8 8ailway 3 co
co
27-VO1|35'V 21 l\0.1226953O. CO.. Stoks 2 $7
7 ,715 $6`5l9 $14'234
27-VV1D6-V2l V.00 V.VO dp City of Shako�ee
27-V01lJ7-V 21 0.V0 V.VV cip City of ShakopE-
V V o� Sbakopee $0 $0 �V
27-V0lD9-V 2l O.VV V.VV cip City of Shaxopee $0
27-VVI{40-0 2l 6V.0A B52O.OV com Laurent Real E�tate 2 $3`681 �3,11l �46`792
^ ~
6ervjce/tic
rmar
4��
$O $6,B2
�-7.
com �mialS
s... .. -am GollE 2 $924 4 t:'�;
`�l15�-0 2Z 5L�| r��.00 com Gue el 2 $3'22� $2,i'L2 $5,7 It.)
com GuI Z afsm 2 $2,�� $2,248 $4.908
cuo e
0 8D2V,V Zi cos 6ustafsuo
JV�l56-0 22 67,0O l4340.00 com �msimg 2 �i` to $4`026 $G,79l
)Ol�57-O 22 75.0�
Will.CW res Mening
v0��5B-V 23 142.f;O 28620.OV com lst Nat. Bank 3 �18`189
301159-0 23 90.OV 9180.;O cum Wermnrskirchen 3 $9,288 $V $9`288
�Oi 162-0 2J 22.VV J72O.�V com re
$2`6J9 �V $2`639
)01i63-O 27 0.00 �VS3.VO cnm Tnpic 3 �1,669 �0 4|'66Y
)V1}64-0 23 36.VO 312V.VV com Shak. Post �4O46 2 $1,939 �|,638 $3,577
)01 65-V 23 62,V0 4650.VO Carl Smiih 2 $J,2�l $2739 $5'9OO
)01�66'0 23 24.VO �68V.0O L Topic 2 $l,23B $1`V46 $2,285
)01�67-0 23 3V.00 33O0.�0
cam Barbershop
|01168-� 2J 3S.V0 4260.OV com Dressen 2 $|`84{ $1`555 $3,396
)01!69-V 23 26.VV 3692.VV cnm Theis 2 $1,595 $�,348 $2,943
�V1�7O-V 2J J9.0O 5538.0V
cam Casp CthinU 2 $2'39J $2,022 $4/4l5
)0\\71-0 23 25.00 355V.OV r1m Garnes 2 $1`534 $1r296 $2,830
�O1�72-0 23 J1.V0 44V2.O0 mm King Sulomon Ldge 2 $1/902 $1,6O7 $3`509
)0�l7J-V 23 38.5V 5467.0V com Latour 2 $2,362 $�`996 �4,35R
)V1l74-i 23 21.50 3O53.0V mm Ko*hLe 2 �l`3l9 $l,l15 $2,434
�0\175-V 24 O,VV 0.VV cip City of Shakopee
�V1176-V 24 V.0O O.O� cip City of S�akop*e $0 $0 $V
'O��77-O 24 V.0O 0.00 cip City nf Shakopee $V $0
0cip City a Shakopee $0 $V $V
)O1179-V 24 12Seibenaier 3 $I3`584 $O $13'584
.Ol180-V 2� 47 , 55B56O $ ,G25
L. 60.0v,` 3O7V.0 cam McGovern 3 $5`6J0
0l{82-0 24 6V.VO 852O.0O com Pear-oo 2 $3681
)0/03-0 24 27.VV J957.V0 cos Clay $3`087
01104-V 24 33.VO 456J.VV cam SchroeJer 2 $2,OO8 ��`697 $3,705
�O1lB5-0 24 60.O0 8520.VV com Cavanaugh 2 �J,68� $3'11l $6`792
01|B6-V 24 60.V0 B52V.O0 com Sieben�lor !'I �6,792
`0|08-0 24 26.VV 156V.0V Com Hennen0�
V|l89-V 24 21,0V 126V.00 com Perry 2 �1/C55 $B92 $|`947
0119O-0 24 35.45 2O7.0V com Kopp 2 �1,78l $|.5O5 $3`236
V1�91-O 24 59co
,�5 3573.0V m L*b*r 2 $2'992 $2,528 $�/52V
O 25 l42,OV 2556O.VO cnm Post Office(Rart lnc 3 $l7,424 �V $l7,424
01{Y5'0 25 6V.VV 8520.OV com Novak 2 $3'681 $3`l1\ $6,792
0�l96-0 25 6V.00 852V.0O com Novok 2 $3`68� $3,1\l �6'792
25 B520.OV -ES Sawvel `6c1
O1l98-O 25 6O.O0 D�2V.VV Corihoorae
)!l99-V 25 60.VV 52O.O0 com E-,:-art 2 �3`6O� $3,11� $6,792
�1218-0 28 Y0.3V 10D36.VV res in,1; 4 $5,27| $O $5,27i
. '
. .
27-VO�2Z�-O 28 60.0O 7�5V.C� cam Schorer 3
27-O01I��-0 2� I4.50 l40.�V com Culhane 3 $2,271 $� �Z,271
!2O.011, DV40.VV cit ubrary 4 /$7,36J $V $7`363
0.00 V.VV cI City of Shakoppe
I7-VO423O-0 2� O.0V �.f3 cip City n� Shakopee *V $� $V
27-O�1231-V 29 V.0O 0.00 cip Ci�y o� Shaknpee $V $V $0
27-00|232-O 2Y 0.0', 0.C� cip City of Shaxoppe $0 $0 $0
1273+0 29 l2.O� 1296.OV com �� Dell J $l,256 �O �j,256
27-VO12J4-0 29 lV8.�� \4V4�.VO com NW Dell J �U`902 $0 W�`Y02
29 92.VO Beli J $10 W
27-0O!236-0 29 95.V0 ��220.V0 com Topic/Minoega��o J 937
27-001%0-0 3V 70.00 B42O.VV res Strunk J �7,544 �� $7,5#
27-VS1��-\ JO 67.0O O040,*) �nm Mnonen J $7`2\6 $0 $7`216
27-001239-V JO 5O,VV ��0.O0 re� Horejsi 3 $4`5lO $V
27-OS|24O-� J0 6h.OV D52O.Vt com 8r�m J $6'792 $V $6`792
27-00124�-V J0 60.00 133B0.V� com Shak. Inv. One3 VV7 $10 $8,VO7
27-VOl242-V J0 60.OV 360V.0* com Hnffman 3 $5,562 �0 $5`562
27-VVl24J'V JV V.0V 0.0V cp City of Shakopee $V $0 $0
27-001244-0 JV 0 V.OV cin City of Shaknpee
27-�V1245'0 31 60,VO8520.OV res Ryan 4 $3`68l $V $3'681
27-V0}246-0 3l 6;.OV R52;.VV res Muorens 4 $3,h8} $0 $3,68i
27-00�247-V J� 15V.VO 27O0O.0V com lst Nat. Rank 4 $9`976 Fq`976
27-001248-V J| 58,5O O82Vn DruO 3 $u`751
27-O01249-V �1 5V.VO 720V.0* res La
J �5`635 $V $5`685
27-00|25V-V J! 6O.OV 666V.VV coa Eastmao Drug 3 $6,J27 $V $6`327
27-O0l25l-V 3l 6V.0O 852O.O0 com Scott Co. Hist Soc. 3 t, �6`792
27-�0�252-V 31 6O.V0 852V.VV com Stans Foundatioo 3 $6,7Y2 w $6`792
27-OVl253-V 32 6V.V0 52O.00 res Yuhnke 4 $3/6Dl �0 $3`6Dl
27-0Ol254-0 J2 6O.00 O521').O0 esNeiwiod $V $3,68i
27-O0�255'V 32 6O.VV 8520.00 res Hein74 $J'68l $V
27-VN256-0 32 0V.00 255�V.VV com Nompach
27-0V1257-V 32 6V.VV �52V.0V com Nampach 3 $6`792
27-001258-0 32 9S.VV |39�6.VO com �bein 3 $�1,V94 $O $11`094
27-OV1259-V 32 37,�V 5254.00 cam #ampach 3 $4`18B $V $4`l88
27-VO126V-0 32 45.VV 6390.0V com Lebe��
27-CV1263-V
73 58.V0 8374.00 com Re�� 4 $J,577 $V $3'577
27-0O1264-0 73 42,V0 !O8VO.VO re� Nnvitzki 3 �5`964
7063.20 94S82|.OV $448`6V2
ASS[SSA8LE FF SQFT
fl T TS U TS
With 3rd Avenue $949.V9O $94.O6 $V.306
W/0 Jrd Ave. $784,V30 $77.7O $O.I5VV
With 3rd Ave./no Park. }nts �D72825 $86.50 �0.2783
W/O 3rd Ave,mo 0ark. Lots $7O7,765 $7V.\4 $V.2257
. -
. . Exhibit [
Feasibility Study T
No Parking Lots
ASS[SSA6 E PRUJECT CO3T� ±27- -n=
DUWNTOWN REDEVi-LOPHENT ASSESSM[NTS
* With 3r� Avenue «
�o Parking Lot�
FlD BLK FF SQFT PR8P��PE PRUPERTYPHASE Il TOTAL
AR[A <�-4) ASSESS ASSESS ASSESS /
|
27-VV102B-0 2 6O.0OV0 rez auh
Z7-VN029-0 2 6O.V0 8520.V0 res MCRR eynoids
27-0NV3V-� 2 60.�0 852O.0� res Thibodeaux � $O $7,56l
�I-VOlOJl-0 2 60,00 852V.VO res Rokern 1 $0 $7,561
27-0M032-0 2 60.V0 852O.00', rec- Mii}er
27-0N0J4-V 3 73.5V ]0437,0V com Brasbiiia \ $V $9'263 $9'26� �
27-0N035-0 3 42.5V6O35.00 com 7opic 1 $V $5,J56 $5.35�
27-0VlOJ6o
-V 3 26.V0 3692.V8 cum hahoney � �0 $3`277 $J`2��H
27-OV1VJ7-V J 52.7V
.0 U, cum Mahoney | $O
27-VOjVJ8-V 3 YV.V0 7JD9.00 com Kwi-Shing 1 $0 $9.O�2 $9,8��
27-0V1839-0 3 5..0
7592.0O com Kwi-Shin� l $O �6,6ll $6`6��
27-�NO4�-V 4 55.OV 5555.VV cnm R&K Properties
27-VNV42-V 2255.VV com " " l $O $4,l74 $4`1��
27-V01��-1 4 2V,OV 29U.00 cmm " " 1 $0 $2`540 $2,-�
4 -.� ��.V c� Heg�t 1 1 �`!
27-OO1045-0 4 20.OV 2D40.VV com Mame { $0 I j LAI
4 7`.� 42ow. V cDO Ell L;4D � � 7,81
mmugh e s /9� �`~~
� UVlM48-0c1; si In n-u t k a 1 � �`5� $3;5::l
27-V0N49-10 4 JV.VV 426O.VO cit Cit*y of Shakoppe
27-OV��5V-0 4 40.VV 5680.00 com Topic { 4O $5`V41 $5`041
L! UM 4 2�,VV 2982.VV cit City of Shakopee | $V $2`646 $2`646
27-O0059-O 5 80.00 com Johnson ! �V $17,816 $17,8l6
27-OO1V6V-0 5 �01,OO �7\}1.0O com Brambilia 1 $V $1349Y $13`499
27-V0N61-V 5 39.V0 2769.O0 com Yogei l $0 �4`144 $4`l44
27-001O62-O 5 V.VO V.00 cit State of MN Hwy | $V $O $0
27-00lV68-V 6 60.V0 852V.00 re� Leben� � $O
27-00O69-V 6 60.VV 852O.00 res O'Cooner
27-OV1O7V-0 6 60.VV 852V.0V res DuBois 1 $O $7,561
27-V0O7�-V 6 6O.;0 42OV.VV com Hu}lgren
27-00�O72-V 6 42.0O 7O9O.�V com Johosoo 1 $0 $5`G29 $5'829
. 27-001O7J-V 6 35.VV 270O.VV �nm Rein `779 $3,779
27-0V1074-0 6 25.00 225v.V0 cam Rein 1 $0 $2`789 $2,7B9
27-O0085-O 7 00 4260.VO res 8erden1er l $V �7327 �7'327
27-O01O86-0 7 6O.I'D
V 426;.VV res Fonnier 1 $O $6,376 $6`J76
27-081\29-0 2O 80.VV 7625.0Vres Gil\ec 3 $9`�42
27-V01l29-1 20 42.00 5O40.0V com Cy's Standard
27-001l30-V 20 NO.0O l2VVV.VV com 'mer-can Oil Cu. 2 $5,9Y5 $5`995 $1!`99O
27-�01134-0 21 J1.8J 2864.70 com H & D Rai]way 3 $J/55l
27-VO1l35-0 2l 7 226Y5.J0 com Stoks 2 $7`Y23 $7`92J $15`846
27-0V�!J6-V 21 V.00 0.0V cip City of Shaknpee
27-V0lO7+0 2l V,0V 0.VV cip City of Shakopee $V $V $0
27-0V1l3G-V 2l 0.V0 O.VV ciy City o: Shakopee
27-VO��39-O 2! V.VV 0.;V cip City of Shakopee
27-V014V-V 2l 60.0V852S.0O -am Laorent Real [state
- - - - ^
�v1i4l'O 2| 6O.03 8�2�.(W res Du�wis I $3,781 $3,7O� ��.56f
N��42-0 2� 45.C� 6390.CW res Mc�wern 2 $2.836
N|�43-� 2l l35,OO 8l7�.VO cme Mohi� Service/Hnraar � $�`��7 $8.507 $J`O13
VV1144-V 22 424.0' 2556O.O0 coa Bereo 3 $\9.J97 $� $19`�97
i010�-V 22 6O.O0 3�3
JV�146-V 2I 32.Vi92V.VV cum Ermw � $3`302 $V �3`3O2
�0i\p-� 22 2�.00 24O0.0W coo Topic 3 $2.398 $0 �2.39O
J01|4G-O 22 20.0O 2�0O.O0 com Sheffer
| JO1N9'V 22 0.00 1'U0.VO coa �ercz-mmreish
-V 2Z 4�.VO 2400.V0 coc �aniels 3 $4,12O
"I_U 22 20.00 6OV.VO com Golla 2 $949 $94Y $.`897
'�V1{52-V 22 5|.VV 772O.VO cns Goebel 3`3O8 $6;v16
�0�153-0 22 43.6V 6V8|.40 cnm Gustafson 2 $2,732 $2`732 $5`464
��1|54-0 22 27.4V 24J8.60 cum Shzkopee Finunce
J0|\55-0 22 6O.00 852V.VV com Gustafsnn 2 +3`78\ $3`78\
�01\56-0 22 67.00 14J4O.0V com Mien sing 2 $4`893 $4`8c�3 $9`787
0O1�57-V 22 75.O0 72VV.VO ro $4`246 t4`246 $8`492
58'0 23 142.0V 28620.00 com a Nat. San k% 3 $2V`249
1O|159-0 2J 90.O0 9180.�0 cnm Wermersk�rchen 3 $\0,340 $0 $10'3�0
�0lL62-V 23 22.0V 372V.O0 cnm
O01i623 � ,VV 08A.VV com 7opic 3 $1,85D $O $Lx858
3-0 O
-'1 1,04 23 36.O0 3l2O.OV com Shok. Post #4046 2 $1`9Yl $i;99i $3`982
VOl�65-V 23 62,0V �65O.VO com Smith 2 $3,329 $3,329 $6,657
24.0O 1�80.OV com Tonic 2 $\,272
�0��67-V 23 30.OV 33VV,VV com Barbcrshop 2 $1,757 $�,757 $3`513
�01168-� 23 30.VV 4260.OV com Dressen, 2 $l,89V $1,8YV
001|69-0 23 26.OV 3692.VO com Theis 2 $1`638 $1,638 $3'277
70-0 23 39.0O 553R.OV cnm Case Clothing 2 $2,457 $2,457
23 25.V0 355V.0V cum Garness 2 $�,575 $�/575
OO1�72-0 23 Jl.VV 4402.VV com King olomnn Ldge Y53`9O7
0Ol�73-O 23 38.505�67.V0 com Latour 2 $2,426 $2'426 $4`852
23 21.5V 305J.0V com KoehLe $1,355 $2,7V9
�0l�75-V 24 V.00 V.VV cip City of Shakopee VV $V $0
iN�76-V 24 -;.00 O.AV c 1 City of Shakoppe 41V $V $V
l01�77-0 24 V.0V 0.VV cip City of Shakopee $V $V $V
701I7B-V 24 0.VV V.OV ciy City of Shakopee $0
�0l�79-0 24 �2O.0V 17040.O0 com Ssiheapr 3 �� �l5`\23
�Ol00'V 24 60.0V4650.Ott com MyorS
)01 81,-O 24 60.O0 3670.00 com McGovern
)01l82-V 24
OV.W. B52V.OV com Pearson 2 $3,78l $3`7O1 $7'56|
)O��BJ-V 24 27.V0 3957.VV com Ciay $�J0 �3,4J7
i01�84'V 24 33,0O 25W" CV com Schroeder 2 $2/062 �2,062 �4,|25
�0l\B5-024 60.00 8520.00 com Cavanaugh
�0106-V 24 �0.VO B52O.V0 com Siebena}er 2 $3/7O1 $3,781 $7/561
V01\88-O 24 26.V0 |560.VO cum Hennen 2 $1,342 $�`342 $2`68J
V 24 2\,VV �26O.OV mm Perry 2 $1`O84 $|,0O4 $2`167
0 com Kopp 2 $1,829 $\/829 $3`658
)V1l91-0 24 59.55 3573.OV mm [webor 2 $3,O7J �3,073 �6`146
)01\92-O 25 �42.00 2556V.00 com Post Office(Dart lnc 3 C; 7C;7 $V $19/397
25 60.0� 852O.0O com Novak 2 $3'78\ 43'7Bl 47,561
)0|\96-O 25 6O.00 852V.V0 com Novak 2 $J17D1 $J`78\ $7`56I
)01l97-0 25 6O.VV 8520.OV ms Sawvel 2 $J`78a $3,78� $7^56l
)Vll98-0 25 6O.00 852V.00 com Nnnme 2 78 \
�01�99-0 25 6V.VV 8520.00 cnm �ckart 2 $3,78| �3,78l $7,56l
�O1218-0 28 YO.3V 1V836.VO res l0,827 0`827
�
2862V4.0A 4v �Pt`B�
27-001226-V 28 60.00 ��O.0O com Scherer 3 $7,l52 1�v
I7-601��-V 28 24.50 �470.OV COM, [uihane 3 $2`52D $� $2�528
27-V01228-O 29 L2O.00 17V40.�V cit Lihrary 4 $�5,123 �0 $|5,\2J
�7-�V|229-V 29 V.0� V,OV cip City of Shakopee
2�-O012J0-0 29 �.00 V.VV cip City uf Shakopee $V $V $0
27-OO|231-0 29 0.VV V.0V cip City uf ShakopeE $O $V $0
27'VO|232-0 29 �,0V 0.0V cip Ci�y o{ Shaknpep $0 $0 $V
27-V012J3-� 29 12.O0 l296.VV com N# Bell
2�-VO�234-V 29 i4V40.VA, com NN Be!l J �|3,25� $� $13,250
27-OO�235-V 3064.0V comNW Bel| 3 $11594 $� �11/594
2�-00\236-V 29 95.00 }422V.VV cum Topic/Kinnega�co 3 $|2`�75 $O $12,175
27-OVl238'� 3V 7;
Ll
842O.0V res Struok $8,399
27-00 3O67.00 8V�0.VV com Moonen 3 $8.V33 $0 -8/033
27-OV12J9-VJV 50.O0 25VV.0V res Horejsi 3 $5,O2{ $V �5.021
27-0V�240-V 3O 6V.VV 852V.0V com 8rnwn 3 �7`561 $O $7,561
27-00!24�-V JV 6;.0O 1J38V.00 com Shak. lnv. One J $8`914 $0 $8`Yl4
2�-VOl242-V 3V 60.0V 36O0.VO com Hcffmao 3 $6`192 $O 6`l92
27-001243-V 30 0,0i� O $V $0
27-0Ol244-O JV V.VV 0.;O cip City of Shaknpee $0 $0 $0
27-OO|245-0 Jl 6V.VV Ryan 4
27-00l2�6-0 31 6O,00 852V.VV res Hnorens 4 $7,5& $0 $7'561
27-O0 1247-V 3\ l5O.VO 27OVO.0V com Ist Na�. 8ank 4 �2V,4;V $0 $2O,490
27-00i248'O , `51. ey $V 4-7`5\5
27-V0�249-V 3l 50,VV 72VO.VV res Case J $6`J2Y �O
27-0O\250-o 3\ 60.0V 6660.VV com Eastman Urug � $7,044 �O $7`044
27'0V125!-0 Jl 60.VV 852V.O0 com Scott Co. Hist Snc, J $7,561 4-V
27-V01252-V 31 6V.VV D52O.0V cnm Stans Fouodatinn 3 $7,56� $0
27-0V1253-V 32 OV 1. O52V.0V res Yahoke $V
27-VOl254-V J2 C". U, 852V.VO res N-4 W4 4 $7,561
27-OV1255-V J2 60,0O B52O.0V res Heioz 4 $7,561 $V $7,56l
27-OO|256-O
32 18V.010 2556V.0-0 cnm Wampach 4 $22,6O4 $V $22,684
27_V01257-0 32 60.0V 852V.�V com Wampach
27-V0l258-V 32 Y8.OV �39�6.VO mm Abein J $12,J50 $V $l2,J5V
2�-0Vl25�-; 32 37.VV 5254,00 com Wampach 3 $4'66J $V $�'663
27-00126�-O J2 45,0O 639V.VO cam Lehpos J $5,67l $V �5,671
27-OV1263-V 33 58.VV 8374.OV . com Reis 4 $7'J48 $O $7,348
27-VV|264-V 73 42,V0 1O8V0.VV res Kovitzki 3 $6'63Y $O �6,63Y
7063.20 94082l.V0 $544'73f �328`0O6 $S72'825
ASSESSABLE FF SQFT
COST COSTS COSTS
0ith Jrd Avenue �949`09O $94,O6 $0.3026
W/O Jrd Ave. $784`03V $77.7O $0.250V
NitIll 31d Ill ve./oo pork. luts $872`825 �[�.50 $0.278J
W/0 3rd Ave./no park. Lots $7O7/765 $7V.�4 $V.2257
Exhibit D
Feasibility Study
iy''' '- �- -•6C Less 3rd Ave.
No Parking Lots
1•'t t`VrLi+rr't�iI tiJLt:• V,tiir
to
4-1?0 7r u Avenue $
is Par%i%ly Lot-
eILK i-r t.i_FT _ i;f: -- f.r,;zr_i._., _ _ -H_ f_
,. , i�i J, ��l 1`t w t:+1t i i;r'�t i i TYHbt !i {i'i^i.
e0.0U 8520.00 re=_ .._=h 1 =.; % .I7i X0,1?1
-ij iii;i -V b'_%.iOO _'5+ii). %'.1 - .-
. __ , •.,_�1 L?s i ZL »u,iv_ YG.iJi
s?-tiff K ir.l:% re- irli ooiieait Y.
c!-4•l'i i i-.'i _ +7%,j•.i is Jiff%.J% - res B3KPr(3 s4j 1131 fist i
GV.VV i:3 ' .VV re tinier i0 40,131 4o
1 ,50 -104_+1.?i!I Com Yr8.mi 1118 i #'I Dl.5ii
V 's 4:.-V 60 .tV0' [am iGait
_h9fL _.•_G.+.%.% 692.00 Cori M.Eholl!ey 1 t`t% ki.vJ� y,L.Gr-Y
•'Cii%i i; iOJ
-0 J .cii.70 1493.00 cOrley i "v c - .;c�^^-
.Ji\% 7��t,4?0 Loc Ilii Jili ilk � 10 ;•I.�GIi: ';`'1,''iyli
c i,Y L4' 072.011 Com wi-shinq li ZJ, i {': J6i
'Viii V4i-dJ 4 ��, %% 5555.00 cam R&E. Properties
iJ UON4 -V '? 4i. %i% 22JJ.U'0 rum a - -
Coll
vi vZ3 V j _53.0' vl? CDn''i IiProCiit � »v + S;J-J +ifJJJ
2 7-V0i!%YJ-ij [Yi:% 0.L 4..
LG Jai ria_..r }�% 4
i4b'.Lit% r4a1
i=ri%i.i?r% _ofTi i�i:v'c'3 j •i t% - t t'•-' ;•'' ".
JV 41'9/,lifi Coir �`a iIai%;8
4 '"•'1 L_..i.%'d tlt i.:ir o' ,�iii8{:urc_ Zv » .VL . ,Viiv
ii u'15.viy-1! A: T+.. ii. .
i -am
JLu . e4vil i •ef•i' +-.1"Jv ♦T�ll�')
i7i. (''' `.t r „
7�i. ii C t ul e o' 3riaKo^ec i i,ii in iii+
1':'J? rf f'i, i +i i b=:- d i 5 7
-I%!' -fi c i4;:.%ii% 1 8860.+ly Gm: _iaiif!san i vli 4's-.-iir . :
iiiii.iii? rriM Yrai=iiia i s?i ;i0�Y4v i!i50146
;iY.i%i? r4Bi Vocel - _•i ?61
L1 .:'i'•�^--;I J �it illl �l,(ll L1L _;GLC of HN Hwy a +V Yr% 4-i:)
. 6 __•,!% uJcv,�V ra_ LE_prc i +v -_� yi,=
3 0,0,10 J i'.i:i•.t+ .m.i-.t,i,VV rRS L•L_inCr i i•li �'`. 'i .Sfi__
res Duhis i 3''t �'+:,� i ;31
-%%i % '-'..i bti,i:%% '424%iJ, i_i [n;T; ticl lrt er i Zit J. J0,
_' ,i :..: n- :. i ?is X'Tf 27 3•i.ii:i
L. V it:'i=-i% Ti.:i i% iuiti.l'C% com ionnson
21-:':iV J'F%
zJ.vit i�i• li?,i
[am heir
21 K?in
-`i ^a,
;LJi +�i,i1i
�?-1%l,ii i� 3-ii 1 !l,ttl% ,_`hi•%,UV res r42iJ.T`ti iJf Y
i -VVii:' -1' uii.!%U -10V,%V res r-ainn er �iJ ;vii?' �iJ�i/l
N +0 {�Y
r
ii "-1i% ti% v.i. ?u�J.l%i rc. i'liiEs J #V 3.1, '[
�:..vv -V-,v V- cam li s b��.iivar.T •? v' ?'li i,�"i
-i% is i1-v Gi? ;l%;.i%i% ._'t!%.V cam neerican �Jii 3.4 4:i•J ���r�J
V%ii?=i-_ ii i ,v Cor'",: F1 _. ii Ral1wr- J €'i=L: e moi• a' dui;
ii-Hi i3'01 V.i I —_••J. CGF :� oi:5 +'ut7•�� �rJ,uu'J i'i L.LJI'
-V 0iiJC- .'v'l% A. C1 �.i=}' rJ �Ilak -:ee
i-il' 111 ii :,i%ii !;': r1= L1L` r,i 1aXJ-=e $0 Z,;, to
_ i
i." 0 i1 i.t: ll.t%.' C.j; uilY v: .'58KOfe_ Fig
q sr. kA
:% :.'% i%,{%' Cir+ ti o' _'��E'v___ i'v i'i+ +•V
ii lii is i-� Li L.Vi 1, „•rry ?
60.!"0 UD—.00' CCtm Lcuren F%.-1 t=1?t1: +••J;?..� a'i.tvt 4-b Ii
/
-
. - .
�N�l4|-V 21 6'V.U0 t52O.00 re- Du6ois 2 $3`�3
�5.00 .V0 res hcG�ver 2 $I`tS-
C* 19447V.OV com Mobil 6ervice!Noruar 2 $7,477
��V.� � 74
�1!4 5-A � 6('s.V V 61Cik cu m cr re ri
�1��� sm �mm �.67*-B
24V0opic 3 $�'945 $6
)O1�48-0 22 20.0� 2�00.00 com6teffer J $\`945 �� $|.945
V 22 3V.V0 1D0,0.0V coo Mer�z-Horei»h 3 $2`5!� $V $�`511
40.O0" 2400.0O coa �an�eis 3 �3'347 $O �3,J47
)01|5l-t ?� ovO.VV car: Goila 2 $G34 $705 $1`5J8
)0'l52-V 22 5\,OO 792I.VV �� Goebel 2 $2/)06
4J.6V 6OBl.4V cam! Gustatmn
)01�54-O 22 27.40 2438.6O cos 6haknpee Finance 2 $|,3u0 ��'��� $2'472
i01155-0 22 60,V0 52v.O0com Gu�taf�nn 2 $J`�23 $I,8OG $6,1J1
�V1|56-V 22 67,V0 14J4V.V0 com Mens�ng 2 $4`J0{ �3'635 $7,936
75.V0 VV re5 Mensing 2 $J/732 $3,l54 $6,B86
)Ol\58-V 23 142.00 28620.VO com lst Nat. Bank 3 $16,419 $V $\6;4l9
";l159-0 23 90.010 lin.VO mm Wermersuircheo 3 $8'385 $V $8`385
�01162-O 23 22.0V 372V.VV com
63-V 23 18.00 l08O.O� com Topic J $1,506 �V $1,506
23 J6.VV 312V.VV com Shak. Post #4V46 2 $|'75V
-01165-V 23 62.00 465O.OV com Smith 2 $2,926 $2,�72 $5'J98
)0l16 6-V 2J Z.OV i68;,VO com Topic 2 ��`1�8 $945 $2,O63
0ll67'U 23 JS.00 3J;V.00 cnm Barbershop 2 $�'544 $1,3O5 $2`G49
`N168-� 23 3O,OV 426V.V0 cnm Uressen 2 $l,662 $i`4V4 $3,066
01l69-V 27 26.V0 3692,C* com Theis 2 $1'44O $l`217 $2,657
'0ll7O-0 23 39.VV 55 50 c�a Case Ciothing 2 $2'|60 $I.D25 $3`9D5
01�7l-V 2J 25,VO 3550.VV com Games 2 $l`385 $1,17V $2`555
'01l7 2-O 23 3�.VV 4402.VV com King So}omon Ldge 2 $l,7l7 $l'45\ �3`i68
'01�73-V 23 38.5V 5467.OV com Latour 2 $2`132 4.1/8O2 $3,934
OlD4-1 23 2L50 305J.V0 com Rnphle 2 $l,1Y1 $f`VV6 �2/lY7
0{175-0 24 V.VO 0.-.00 ciy City of Shakopee $0 $0 $V
'0|176-V 24 0.00 V.V0 dp City of Shoxopee $V $V $0
�l�77-0 24 V.V0 V.OV cip Cy oakupee $0 $O $V
'�ll7O-O 24 V.0V V.V0 cip City nf Shakopee $V $O $0
0\l79-V 24 l20.VV l7V4O.VV cum Seibena}er 3 $12`263
0100-V 24 60,OV 465V.VO com ye
Mrs
J $5,258 $O $5`258
)1lB�-V 24 60.V0 J87O.OV com McGovem J $5`082 $0 $5,OD2
)1l82-V 24 6V.VO 85211.VO com Pearsoo 2 $3,323 �2808 $6,O�
)l03-V 24 27.VV 3957.0V cum C�ay ` 2 $l`51l $l,276 $2/787
31184-V 24 33.OV 4563.V0 com Schrueder532 $3`345
)105-V 24 6V.O0 B52O.0V com Cavaoaugh 2 $3/J2J $2'808 �6,131
�l186-O 24 60.00 8 520.V0 com GiH;ena}e-1 3,J2J $2`8V8
)1i88-V24 26.0O 156O.OV com Hannen 2 $1,�79 �997 $2,176
}1.189-V 24 2�.O0 l260.00 com Perry 2 $952 $805
11190-V 24 35.45 2l27.OV com KoIp 2 $1,608 �1,J59 $2`967
J1�l-O 24 59,55 J573.00 com Zweber 2 $2`701 $2`282 $4'903
/�l92-V 25 142.VV 2556V.00c0Post Utfice(Dart In� 3 $]5`729 $V $|5`729
)1lY5-V 25 6O.VV O52V.VV com Novak 2 $J,323 $2808 $6.13l
/l{96-V 25 6V.V0 852O.V0 com Novak
/l�97-O 25 6O.OV 8520,VV res Sowve} 2 $3`323 $2,8O8 �6`l3i
��98-V 25 6V.V0 B52V.0V com Mnnme 2 $3323 $2.8V8 $6`1Jl
�1|99-V 25 U 852O,VV com Eckart 2 $J,J2J $2'8O8 $6,lJl
!2�B-V 28 90.3V 10OJ6.00 res Houle
27-0O12��� 28 51.7O 62O .00 res Bid -r-4
Z7-V�122�-V 28 6C.V0 7�50.O0 com S,_-herer 3 $5,8VO $C $5`8O0
27-�01227-V 28 I4.50 �47V.VV cnm Culhane 3 $2`�5O $0 $2'��
V 29 |0.ov 4704V.0V cit Liurary 4 $6`64u $0 $6'�46
27-V01229-O 29 0.0V V.V0 cip City of
27-00123V-V 29 t.VV O.VV ci� City of Shokopee
27-V0123!-0 29 O.0� 0.VO cip City uf Shakopee $V $O $V
27-O�12�2'� 29 3.00 V.VV cip City of Shakoppe
27-V0l233-0 29 12.VV \296.00
27-001Z�4-0 29 0D.00 1404cu,.VV com Eel 3 $|O.744 $V $lV'744
27-V�|235-V 29 92.VV 1J064.VV com k� Bell J $9`402 $0 �9`4O2
27-O01236-0 2Y I5.VV 22V.0V mm Topic/Hinnegasco
27-V�12JB'O 3V 7V,00 8420.VV res Strunk 3 $6.8l0 �0 $6`81O
27-0V123G-1 JV 67.VV 8O40.0V com ION en J $6`5|4 $V $�'514
27-0O12J9-; 3O O0 25OV.00 res Horejsi
27-V'�124;-V J0 60.V0 8520.V0 mm Drown
27-VOl2��-; 3V 60.00 |3381�.00 co Shak. }nv. �oe J $7,228 4-V $7'228
27-OVl242-V J0 0V 36V0.O0 com Hoffmao 3 $5/021 $V
2�-VV|24J-V 3O V.0; V,V; cip City of ShakopE
27-0V1244-V JV V,0� �.OV ciy C�ty of Shokooee
27-V0l245-V Jl 60.V0 852V.VV res Ryan 4 $J,323
2/-V0l246-V J1 6O.OV 8520.OV res Monrens 4 $3`72J
27-VVl247-V Jl �50.V0 270O0.V0 com Ist Na�. Bank 4 $Y,V05
27-0Vl248-0 3! 5B.50 G82V.0V Iom EaStman Urug 3 $6`094
27-0N1249-O 3� 5V.mV 72V0.VV res Case 3 $5,132 $0 Z5,�32
27-OVl250-0 J1 6O.0V 6660.00com Eastmao Drug J $5'712
27-00125�-0 J� 60.OV 852V.0V com L
27-OV1252-V J1 6V.V0 85iv.OV com Stfin s Foundabon, 3 $6`l3l $V $6,13|
27-V0125J-O J2 60.VV 852V.V� res Yahnke 4
27-V��Z54-V J2 6V.VV 852O.v0 re- Neiwiod 4 t7 .7 $0 $7,323
27'V0�255-V 32 6O,0O 852V,VV res Heinz 4 $3,323 �O $3`323
27-V01256-0 J2 0O.VA 25560.00 1Wampach 4 $9,970
27-00l257-V
A. 6V.V0 8520,00 mm Wampach J �6,131 $0 �6,O1
27-VV1258-V J2 98.VV l39�6.00 com Abe}n 3 10,Vl5 $V $1V,015
27-V025Y-V J2 37.V0 5254.VO cam, Wampach J $J,78l $0 $3`78i
27-VVl26O-V 32 45.V0 639V.00 com Lphens J $4,599
27-V0�263-V 37 5O,OV 8374.VO coa 8eis 4 $J,229 I* $3,229
27-V0\264-0 3J 42.0O 08VV.00 res Novitzki 3 $5,38J $0 $5`JO3
7O63.20 94O821.VV $�V4,964 $25D`055 $663`0|O
ASSESSA8LE F[ SQFT
COST CITS TS �GTS
With 3rd Avenue $949^VYV $94.06 $0.3O26
W/0 3rd Ave. $784`V3V $77.70 $0.25OV
With Jrd Ay»./no park. lots �872,825 $86.50 1A.2783
W/0 3rd Ave./nn park. Lots $7V7,765 $7O.14 $8.2257
s �
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk
RE: Release of Restrictive Covenants on Property in
Prairie View 3rd Addition
DATE: December 5 , 1986
Introduction
A request has been made to release restrictive covenants from
five lots in Prairie View 3rd Addition.
Background
A condition of the platting process of Prairie View 3rd Addition
was recording restrictive covenants against five lots. The
restrictive covenants deny vehicular access from these lots to
County Road 77 . The restrictive covenants were recorded, but
against the wrong lots. A new document for the correct lots has
been executed by the developers (who still own the five lots)
and sent to the County Recorder for proper recording.
Alternatives
1. Do not release restrictive covenants.
2. Release restrictive covenants.
Recommendation
Alternative No. 2.
Recommended Action
Offer Resolution No. 2662 , A Resolution to Authorize the City
to Release Restrictive Covenants on Certain Property, and move
its adoption.
JSC/jms
PR-AIRIE VIEW
3RD ADD N
r� I /y//L v G,Y L ra C �
i'J
L,j
N89°53'24"W m;L , I f I 7 L'{
---135.00--
I- -- THE (SOUTH LINE OF PRAIRIE VIEW SI COND ADDITION
20 N89°53'24'W L
I 875.77 ;:
W( �!
' ---89.00-- r_89.00 89.00-r 89.00--, 89.00-- r--89.01" ---I -93.94-
O N 1a 66.00 r--9 r--�-�-r 1 i ; ' '
0-
N 8. � 1 1 ; f a p
O° ,
$ 0 7 � - 7 0 II 1 O
-12 -- -�r,-1L_, ; I91!_a �_�4�1 `_ _ !� p, -89 � �-- -- ----�1c--' -
-- 810.91-- L�-
8"m 10 sne
' --- ; N89°53'241V
4 Wli 8 HENNES i AVENUE
�-' __ ...585.45___ N 9°53'24'W
.$ ��m ---1 00 -`' � �--100.00--� 60 i 6166.00---- y
w 125.45--- 90.00-_� 1__//9__0.00-_y --90.00^- --t✓a�,, .-�� g
�. _ 89° ''9 --r 01 r---�9 0 L.CJ SD' I �Q 3 v i 8�.
3°I I'o7•E- $ 8�. .r v° 3 '� 4 8 5 6 �8 LD W ° ° c
02.50---. tib ,�V I �p -gyp `�
NN,__' $ ; ✓ i i -166.00
3 N89°Si'24"W-- C�)O0
m 39 W- z
7� -- . -- . - . . . . °
g
-129 99----� I N86°43'07"W__ N88°430TW �N88°43'0YW: ,NW4S7W, 84�07.".W-_. 843OYW �
O }, O O
89°4449"E--1 ;3 �i Z i J .I i i ! z z
mo V rI�o 'm N ----166.00---- 1 j`
6 O 5 d Nt) 12 ivlv"i 11 CQ OM to c a 7 Otm C .y -N89°53'2d'W---
O;M C
Z.
-�9Rl $ ! trQ1iE I IIZ1_S ? 3 .T
L-- (�' �,:5,i W i (D •a, 1(1 �' t7 ii
S84°5577118"E J 128.62 - _ �•�; IiG-02*13'35" -01°4f11" 1�a __ __, _ __ � -141.71-
g 90 on
CIRCLE - N8457'18"W L=90�006� I1=68.17- N89°50'10"W -N89°53'24"W- 7
S84-57-18-E N
�L-Q}g1.55_.7 9Q00 - N84�MEN KE R- gVENUE Na9°50'lo"W
��- 1 7 ; r--90.Oo - 8428 $ .5 ._
1 �d -- -� 483.77 y L=83.80 q� 48.W L__84,00_.1 58.OG-\, R,60' -
w 1 w w 1 ; I,��t� 6o2°a'd A- 2'0(14
"�A/ I 1 /�'_'_ `�------
>c , 17 { W fy cli
r�n�� W w / m I (F O i I �j� �L=73. .,; L7
.X P� V"'c N 1.L O c_"I in m M�' N W3 ng��3 ( 3 I� p0'pry� =69°4� y ..120.54•- L?_
�n LLI $ 2 O M 11 "I I� D N"�Ja s ro N`� " '`1'�.e�y�. S84°57 E
"- 9 N 7 n v s Q I IB"
IWALKWAI' ESM'T.�} z z -9 $ $
93.00 90.00 I = I O o 1 6 o6
6624
-e3.00 --fia.00-- ' ? ? I 5 M v
"85.00 L-85.19--'J, �)
S84°57'18"E 00.00---i z
THE SOUTH LINE OF OUTLOTS C ANDB u ;
wPon[o� �p1�Sj
'S FEET
r,,sSTKICV �TICoUCNTS
TS
'A��NT
J/,'�
RESOLUTION NO. 2662
A Resolution to Authorize the City to Release. Restrictive Covenants on
Certain Property
WHEREAS, on the 29th day of May, 1979, certain Restrictive Covenants were
entered into by and between Prairie View Devolopers, a partnership, owner of the
land hereinafter described, and the City of Shakopee wherein the property is
situated, which property is. described as- follows:
Lot 9, Block 1 and Lots 1,2,3 and 4 of Block 4, Prairie View 3rd
Addition, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in
the office of the 'Registrar of Titles in and for Scott County,
Minnesota, .and
WHEREAS, the, said restrictions and covenants. were inadvertently imposed
upon the wrong property,and
WHEREAS, new restrictive covenants are being entered into by and between
Prairie View Developers, a partnership, and the. City of Shakopee covering correct
property.
NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Shakopee to hereby release those
certain restrictive covenants- entered into on the 29th day of May, 1979, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proper city officials be authorized and hereby
are directed to execute. a Quit Claim Deed releasing all interests and restrictions
imposed by said instrument of restrictive covenants.
The above Resolution was duly passed by the Shakopee City Council at a
session of the Council held on the day of 198
Mayor
ATTEST:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City Clerk.
Approved and prepared this 4th day of
December, 1986.
ity Attorney