HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/22/1987 TENTATIVE AGENDA
ADJ.REG.SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JUNE 22, 1987
Mayor Reinke presiding
1] Roll Call at 7:00 P.M.
2] Continuation of Board of Review:
a] Clete Link - tabled 6/16
b] Bev Koehnen - tabled 6/16
c] Charles Campbell - tabled 6/16
d] Harold Marschall - tabled 6/16
e] Leroy Houser - tabled 6/16
f] Super 8 Motel - tabled 6/16
g]
h] Close Board of Review
31 Move that the findings of the Board of Review be approved and sent
to the County Auditor for certification
4] Liaison Reports from Councilmembers
53 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. )
7] Communications: (items noted for consent will be received and filed)
*a] Gene & Gwen Berg re: sewer backup - refer to Sewer Claim Committee
•b] Bill Weckman re: sewer backup - refer to Sewer Claim Committee
c] Clifford & Kathlene Stafford re: L & D Trucking
d] Carver County Board of Commissioners re: invitation to meeting
*e] Ray Lappegaard, J.L. Shiely Company re : hours of operation
8] Public Hearings: None
9] Boards and Commissions: Planning Commission:
a] Preliminary Plat of Horizon Heights 4th Add-n. - located S of
CR-16, N of CR-42, E of Muhlenhardt Rd. , and W of Hwy 13
tabled 6/16
103 Reports from Staff: [Council will take a 10 minute break around 9:001
a] 1987-2 Downtown Streetscape Project - tabled 6/16 (bring item
no. 13e from 6/16 agenda)
b] Marschall Road Improvements - Res. No. 2738, Ordering Improve-
ment and Preparation of Flans and Specs - bring 13f from 6/16
TENTATIVE AGENDA
June 22, 1987
Page -2-
- 10] Reports from Staff continued:
c] 1987 Pavement Preservation - bring item 13g
d] Railroad Crossing Improvements - bring item 13h
e] 1986-11 Valley Park Drive No. - Partial Estimate No. 2 - bring 13j
f] 1986-1 Holmes St. Basin Laterals - Partial Estimate No. 9- " 13k
g] Nominations to Planning Commission - bring 13p
h] On Shce/Sunday Intoxication Liquor Licenses for R. Hanover Inc.
tabled 6/16
_. .1]_. 1987 Wine Licenses - tabled 6/16 - bring item 13r
j] 1987 3.2 Beer Licenses - tabled 6/16 - bring item 13s
k] 1987 Set-Up Licenses - tabled 6/16 -- bring item 13t
1] Property Liability Insurance Renewal - bring 13v
m] SAC Refunds
113 Resolutions and Ordinances:
a] Res. No. 2737, Appreciation to Gary Hartmann - bringil4a
b] Ord. No. 218, Ragarding Refuse Collection - bring 14b
*c] Res. No. 2742, Approving Service Contract for Public
Transportation Service in Shakopee in 1987
*d] Res. No. 2743, Approving Service Ccntract for Public
Transportation Service in Shakopee in 1988
e] Ord.. No. 219, Amending The City Code Relating to Planned
Unit Developments
12] Other Business:
a] Vierling Drive - Easterly and Westerly termini
b]
c]
d]
' 131. Adjourn . . .
John K. Anderson
City Administrator
;Lt/
MEMO TO: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner
FROM: Tom Goodrum, Intern
RE: Cletus Link Property On Harrison Rd & West 3rd Ave.
DATE: June 22, 1987
A piece of property owned by Cletus L. Link located on
Harrison Road and West .3rd Ave. was brought to my attention due
to a reference of a zoning change recommendation to the Planning
Commission.
In not knowing the specific date of such an action I
reviewed the minutes of all recorded Planning Commission meetings
from the date of February 9, 1984 to October 9, 1986. In this
review I was not able to find any reference to such a
recommendation.
tw
DON D. MARTIN
SCOTT COUNTY ASSESSOR
"" COURT HOUSE 112
SHAKOPEE, MN 55379-1381 (612)-445-7750, Ext .115
MEMORANDUM:
Date: June 12, 1987
To: 1987 Shakopee Board of Review
From: Robert N. Schmitt, Scott County Assessor's Office
Property Owner : Clete Link
Property Address: W. 3rd Ave .
Parcel p: 27 911 018 1 .I
1 . Type & Description Of Property: Vacant lot of 1 . 17 acres
Described as P/O W'j NE'4 section 11 township 115 range 23
Beg. HE Cor. , NW 565 .26 ' to S ROW, SE 594 .6 ' , N 179 .09' , to
Beg.
Main value would appear to be as an additional area for lumber
business at this time.
More information will be given on the value if I can collect
it from sales of this type of property or property which was
purchased to expand an ajoining lot .
2. Deck or Patio: _ - -. -
3. Garage Description:
4. Other :
5. Total Structural Value :
6. Lot Size: 1.. 17 acres
7. Lot Value: $12 ,700 (original value)
B. Total Estimated Market Value of Property:
9. Other Information on Assessment : This lot could receive
acess from Harrsion Street according to Ken Ashfeld the City Eng-
ineer if it were designed according to grades and would not disrupt
traffic on Harrison. No record of request for rezoning has been
found by Shakopee Planning Office for either 1985 or 1986, nor
application for a building permit .
According to Paul Differding of Northwestern Bell Telephone Co . ,
a main toll line runs beneath this property to Granite Falls . It
is not possible to place construction over this line . The line
may be moved at the owner ' s expense.
Therefore, at present the lot is not buildable.
DON D. MARTIN
SCOTT COUNTY ASSESSOR
0 -7 COURT HOUSE 112
SHAKOPEE, MN 55379-1381 (612)-445-7750, Ext .115
MEMORANDUM: Q O��
Date : June 12, 1987 ,l
To: 1987 Shakopee Board of Review
From: Robert N. Schmitt, Scott County Assessor's Office
Property Owner: Cletus Link /
Property Address: 1440 3rd Ave . West
p Parcel p: 27 015 014 0
1 . Type & Description Of Property: Part of Outlet C
Busman Addition.,.,, This parcel is the location of Link Building
Supply. It has a steel storage puilding with 5568 sq. ft . of
storage area, 677 sq . ft . of shp area, and an office insert of
576 sq. ft . The building was onstructed in 1984 . There is also
a 3 sided lumber torage build ng of 2328 sq . ft . which was built
in 1986 . The pav d parking rea is approximately 1440 sq . ft.
2. Deck or Pa 'o:
3. Garage Descri tion:
4. Other :
5. Total Stru total atue: $101 ,800
6. Lot Size : 2 . 98 acre
7. Lot Valu $41 ,300
S. Total Es imated Marke Value of Property: $143, 100
9. Other Information on As essment: This proeprty was
part of a discussion Mr. Link and I had on June 17th and it was
found that I had the incorrect squat footage which were given to
"me by a member of Mr . Link's family . Clete, at thetimeof our
meeting, called the site and had one of his boys remeasure the
buildings to arrive at the correct sizes . The values listed above
reflect these corrections. We had the steel building listed larger
than actual , and the 3 sided lumber storage building smaller than
actual .
The steel building was originally valued ac $80,500 and the correcte
value is $59,300. The lumber etorage building is changed- from
$14 ,400 to $17,500.
DON D. MARTIN
SCOTT COUNTY ASSESSOR
COURT HOUSE 112
SHAKOPEE, MN 55379-1381 (612)-445-7750 , Ext . 115
MEMORANDUM :
Date : June 12, 1987 `1
To: 1987 Shakopee Board of Review
From: Robert N. Schmitt , Scott County Assessor's Office
Property Owner : Cletus Link
Property Address: 1440 3rd Ave . West
Parcel N: 27 015 014 0
1 . Type & Description Of Property: Part of Outlat C
Husman Addition. This parcel is the location of Link Building
Supply . It has a steel storage building with 5568 sq . ft . of
storage area, 672 sq . ft . of shop area , and an office insert of
576 sq . ft . The building was constructed in 1984 . There is also
a 3 sided lumber storage building of 2328 sq . ft . which was built
in 1986 . The paved parking area is approximately 1440 sq . ft .
2. Deck or Patio:
3. Garage Description :
4. Other :
5. Total Structural Value : $101 , 800
6. Lot Size : 2 . 98 acres
' 7. Lot Value : $41 , 300
B. Total Estimated Market Value of Property: $ 143 , 100
9. Other Information on Assessment : This proeprty was
part of a discussion Mr . Link and I had on June 17th and it was
found that I had the incorrect square footage which were given to
' me by a member of Mr . Link 's family . Clete , at the time of our
meeting, called the site and hod one of his boys remeasure the
buildings to arrive at the correct sizes . The values listed above
reflect these corrections . We had the steel building listed larger
than actual , and the 3 sided lumber storage building smaller than
actual .
The steel building was originally valued ,.c $80 ,500 and the correcte
value is $59 , 300 . The lumber storage building is changed. from
$14 , 400 to $17 ,500 .
�J
DON D. MARTIN
SCOTT COUNTY ASSESSOR
COURT HOUSE 112
SHAKOPEE, MN 55379-1381 (612)-445-7750, Ext . 115
MEMORANDUM:
Date: June 22, 1987
To: 1987 Shakopee Board of Review
From: Robert N. Schmitt , Scott County Assessor's Office
Property owner: Beverly Koehnen
Property Address: 600 Blk. E. 2nd Ave.
Parcel N: 27 004 011 0
1 . Type h Description Of Property: S 142 ' of Block 2
Ex. RR Right-of-Way Plat of East Shakopee
This property is a vacant parcel of land which as
of the assessment date, (1/2/87) , was zoned as comm-
ercial land. It is located to the south of Aamco
Transmissions in Shakopee.
After researching this parcel with Ms . Pat Boeckman,
the Deputy County Recorder, I have found that this
parcel contains approximately 32,067 sq . ft . which
is the amount lia.ted on the survey of this property
. which was done by Valley Engineering of Prior Lake.
2. Deck or Patio:
3. Garage Description:
4. Other:
5. Total Structural Value:
6. Lot Size : 32 ,067 sq . ft .
7. Lot Value: $40,083 or $40, 100 (f$11 25SB�1r sq. ft . )
Adjusted from original value o $55 , .
S. Total Estimated Market Value of Property: $40, 100
9. Other Information on Assessment : Bines to Minnesota
Valley Railroad, S 142 'of Block 2 - Book L Page 399 ,
Chicago, St . Paul, Minneapolis , S Omaha Railroad to
Mertz/Boriesh, S 142' of Block 2 - Book 156 Page 488-89 .
Surveyed for Torrens in October, 1963 which resulted
in legal description on Certificate of Title, (which
see) .
I will confer this information to the County Auditor ' s
Office to insure the correction of the Legel Descriptioi
DON D. MARTIN
SCOTT COUNTY ASSESSOR
COURT HOUSE 112
SHAKOPEE, MJ 55379-1381 C612>-445-7750, Ext . 115
MEMORANDUM:
Date: June $2, 1987
To: 1987 Shakopee Board df Review
From: Robert N. Schmitt , Scott County Assessor's Office
Property Owner : Murray Willaimson
Property Address: 581 So . Marschall Road
Parcel #: 27 120 004 0
1 . Type k Description Of Property: Shakopee Super 8
Motel . Valued at $1 ,053 ,000 for the 1987 assessment . Value is
based on a combination of income, cost , sales ratio for Shakopee,
and sales ratio for motels around the State which was provided
by the State Dept . of Revenue.
2. Deck or atio:
3. Garage Des iption:
4. Other :
5. Total Stru tur 1 Value: $848 ,900
6. Lot Size: 70,36 sq . ft .
7. Lot Value: $2 . 90 q . ft . or $204 , 100 -
B. Total Estimated Mar et Value of Property. $1 ,053 ,000
or $15 ,04 per unit .
9. Other Inf rmation on ssessment : Mr . Williamson and I
discussed the valuatio process ov r the phone on Junel7th. At that
time I told Murray tha in comparin his property to Perkins, Mc-
Donalds, Burger King, tc . one has [o capitalize the income which
is attributable to the property only and we cannot used the income
which is attained because of the business . For instance in the
case of McDonalds, we would probably only be able to used the fran-
chise fee because this is the only income which the owners of the
real estate are receiving and not the income from the sale of goods .
I do beleive Mr. Williamson is in line with similar properties in
Shakopee and SaUtt County and I have used all available information
t0 insure this.
14
DON D. MARTIN
SCOTT COUNTY ASSESSOR
COURT HOUSE 112
SHAKOPEE, MN 55379-1381 (612)-445-7750, Ext . 115
MEMORANDUM:
Date : June Z2, 1987
To: 1987 Shakopee Board of Review
From: Robert N. Schmitt, Scott County Assessor's Office
Property Owner : Murray Willaimson
Property Address: 581 So. Marschall Road
Parcel p: 27 120 004 0
1 . Type k Description Of Property: Shakopee Super 8
Motel . Valued at $1 ,053,000 for the 1987 assessment . Value is
based on a combination of income, cost , sales ratio for Shakopee,
and sales ratio for motels around the State which was provided
by the State Dept . of Revenue.
2. Deck or Patio:
3. Garage Description:
4. Other:
5. Total Structural Value: $848 ,900
6. Lot Size : 70,364 sq. ft .
7. Lot Value : $2 .90/sq. ft . or $204 ,100
8. Total Estimated Market Value of Property: $1 ,053,000
or $15 ,043 per unit .
9. Other Information on Assessment: Mr . Williamson and I
discussed the valuation process over the phone on Junel7th. At that
time I told Murray that in comparing his property to Perkins, Mc-
Donalds, Burger Ring, etc . one has to capitalize the income which
is attributable to the property only and we cannot used the income
which is attained because of the business . For instance in the
case of McDonalds , we would probably only be able to used the fran-
chise fee because this is the only income which the owners of the
real estate are receiving and not the income from the sale of goods .
I do beleive Mr . Williamson is in line with similar properties in
Shakopee and Scott Count and
to insure this. y I have used all available information
� 8
DON D. MARTIN
SCOTT COUNTY ASSESSOR
COURT HOUSE 112
SHAKOPEE, MN.55379-1381 (612)4457750,EzL 115
Deputy:
LEROY ARNOLDI
June 22 , 1987
Shakopee Board of Review
Shakopee Super 8 (continued) Shakopee Super 8
PID 27 120 004 0 $15 ,043 per unit
Comparable Motels :
Shakopee Valley $13,923 per unit
Red Carpet Inn $14 ,076 per unit
Bloomington Super 8 $24 ,620 per unit
Eden Prairie Super 8 $18,698 per unit
Chaska Heritage Inn $16 ,673 per unit
An Equal opportunity Employer
Shakopee Boa-. n of Review
Shakopee City Hall
City of 5haiaopee. MN 55379
re: Revaluation cf Super 8 Motel
RID R 271800040
We are once again respectfully requesting that the Shakopee 51--per
8 be devalued and brought into line with other commercial proper --
ties in tl:e city. Also we are askir=g our property be brought into
line t•:itrt competitive and comparafrle motels in the metropolitan
area.
Shakopee Commercial Property Comparison-
----------------------------------------
Estimated
omparisons________________________________________Estimated
Market. Value
-------------
Super 8 Motel s 1 ,053,000
Shakopee Valley 765,SOC
Red Carpet Inn 478,60'-•
Dan Patch Inn Gieseoo
Supm--AM-rica 474.300
Per;::ins 4135,'00
Mc Dona 1 d s 313,400
Burger King E14,000
Rocs:. Springs 2322,500
She; ::gpee Hr—se
c,-,,petjtj,m Metrouolitsn Motel Er.amp'.es
-------------------------------------------
Burnsville Super 9 $ .: , 117,000
Eder. Prairie Super S i , i78.000
Both these hotels are located at ma or intersection anal traffic
area=_ and are doing triple the business. These high profile
props:-ties would realistically be dog-.ble the estimated market
value of the Shakopee property.
Thank you `nl the consideration gi'- ell ibis request to by-irg
Shakopee :per S into reili =_-ii, parity ,+it', other commercial
p:-ope:' t-__ i.n
-_:..cer - .ght. (9i Partner_.:^'.p
.2- 8
DON D. MARTIN
SCOTT COUNTY ASSESSOR
COURT HOUSE 112
SHAKOPEE, MN.55379-1381 (612}4457750,Exi 115
Deputy:
LEROY ARNOLD[
*Revie June 22 , 198
Shakopee BoaShakopee Suped) Shakopee Super 8
PID 27 120 0 $15 ,043 per unit
Comparable MShakopee Val $ 923 per unit
Red Carpet I $14 , 6 per unit
Bloomington $24 ,62 per unit
Eden Prairie $18, 698 r unit
Chaska Herit $16 ,673 pe unit
An Equal Opportunity Employer
7a�
�eo1 E. Sh�paQQ�.
RECEIVED A0 ' IA 5531`
JUN 1507, � 1a.l lom
� CITY OF SHAKOPEE
�v �a .� o•.+a. cis.
ysv.
— l� ivnscY�s wn, c41v.A.
�S00 .9gSi.rci.A3ss!9 0�
lil s 6' oxo. i.4 mt, (S- s ltr,,sAnuxv ti
lust• CA^N _ .fin �- s�4- �-a u+-�-ll
nnVAaNdsv�� � U
La- moo_ rnr\
-bk � AYISLL� W�
WJ
V
f
- Soe 1NUL
3NOMAHa 90 -YTID
W e 9ua:nm S.im Inc
66.10 w. 77m Stmt SW Ia 2I4
Mlnnu6elh.MinnoaO 55413 7
Twcpac„c 6126712666
en,wa Onfc6
s
//f l �` June 70th, 1987
/ Jim KPublic Works Department
of Shako
City of Shakopee
129 E. First Avenue
Shakopee , Minnesota 55379
Insured : City of Shakopee
CLaimant : Gene and Gwen Berg
Date of Claim: 5-23-87
Cl-AB)/ Dear Mr. Karkanen:
PLease be advised that the sewer backup which occurred on
5-23-87 at the Berg residence has been sett Led for the
amount of $1 ,610.00.
r Your poLicy , identified by number MP-824-008-R-7, has a
$250.00 property damage liability deductible . At this
time I am requesting reimbursement for that deductible.
WouLd you pLease turn this over to the proper department
and have them issue a check in that amount to GAB Business
Services and forward it to this office . A copy of the
settlement draft is encLosed for your review. If you
have any questions, please do not hesitate to call .
Sincere Ly yours ,
Thomas M. FeLcyn
Adjuster
TMF/dfb
%Y%D Ott ie. AddreaE _ .wv ■ !rw ■syL..+yas..E�._asW� 28 E618 ppyyh • ` ce"
•ON BEHALF OF L■■5M of IW6 Cities la"raM
a '�TrMt ..;> •Nc. _ 75Vb �6 .
•GAB FLN foo. S6S27-0!757 7 - x �a'Ct." 26/520
•PAy a■ TMw■d ma am&" TMAnd 00!55!-�
D.r ,. 5■r0. O■av aed...Oro.. - I „ ' i�tir-' ?_i0■tMai _ --- _
To
1601 E. SY■k■pu AV MW cril.ln„ 5■rf._0■M:Md OUM
ora.
Of E„.> liyt■My. a■. 55379 For ,. lreMOif-SirM■-_- -- -- — - _
CITIBILNKIO.A—el vow n mat p01Ed -yY�'BfEf!/ET'ADIL
. _ -:_�. .Morin W dan ♦s 67a ■ OV f_ uF•C - _
Sigrtun
r00l5805T21► C03330G2[34G �OOiR5iI '
HE .TIE WOF ,f iC4WIWYEM PUT e*. ], LO6MMA
OECIAL IIMrpIIN-LYIR�taIEML+.
NMY --I011 OPFlfM1bMLL,E OO IqT-%'TIIO EDY e.TNprtl - SR79
x ICLKE01 61II1BIEM:LL �qLY 11VTXp11ZATIW MWINE NAT1001.OMILT:Oif10E. JJ
a155V1x0*aYlLMMO. IICI clA1M Np.IIPI]OLKY NO.. H IN6000E P HTlE N60REOCYLYCORRV MIV•FI1
56527 r 5vazcoose-7
-- - - - -
n z. nmraK NEsmesm+loNc o]K
MENREaSlAl
OpYEN[4TION +.N1loo moM ..au _
Per... +� 7'LooE - v -]s,al,xr a: rnr cooE as ]Ycuxr H r]vcmE as .YpIWT
o15ialw 4M t0 -
uu -
BRANCX"FILE COPY -
••• _ • UT YO. LyaY.L.E.
M'/EEER
.TOL CODE ••
. fEdLl'111Y0EE0a-WIt®YNONLV:"
tMT1.L OP �T1L'E� OOMm']'TMEO]MfNWIO�PRC
IIYL .yEIIN1111yTWy rNy THE NIITIOM.L OrrKF.
IQ OLEDI WILEYEMY - 1OE OZT FIVLE NYONaOWLL[NIIITVMMBI
NYCWF
OONNO WMCMMD 1R�� _ ...
CytUK NBE1110EEOE1011[UK
IYPIFEM t6Y TEIIV
epIEN]LTIOM rMMO{110X' . Nr �� MVNOE Y.dIM
MT
MNl[YT
pR111LOT1px
COMPLETION INSTRUCTIONS -
GAB - - CUSTOMER
i. Complete draft rtWest form in triPlie]te - 1. Gompl.t*box.1. dJ d"Draft Number'
with the ezxptioo of the M.labeled and-lime Date".
"Draft Number"and"Ime Det*": _ 2. Seed the completed nri¢inal to:
2. Diatributioo: GAB Busine.Service[,Inc,
c/o Product Admini]tretion
*) Original and one coD9 to the ro
Llndec P„"
Customer. P Cmp.Drive
b) Gcpy for GAB file. ParaiDPen,NJ 07064
F.—893 (6/86)
TUWAY MtJo. UC- I THIS FORM IS SPACED FOR TYPEWRITER AND FITS A WINDOW ENVELOPE
AECEl" ED
r MAY ?7 1987
�R. e.lOhn f/nde�so-s
TO iei of �ic,Egyee�
CITY OF SHAKOPcE
�/" Efsr {,aCT RI X
twt9AoPE� .y,� �S37S _
L �~ A
SUBJECT: DATE Q
s rt et
o SQAwG Sf`7�/L.[ 'rY
G te
E,
ui
SIGN
DATE: SIGNED
GBaDW0L 74 •+�x•eo„u.. 1
GAS Business Services Inc / b
4640 W. 77th StMeL Suits 214
Minnelooii, Minneata 55435
Telephone 612.631.8444
she.0 office
May 12th , 1987
Mr . BILL Weckman
1922 Davis Court
Shakopee , Minnesota 55379
i
Insured: Albert Rybak and the
City of Shakopee
GAB File No. : 56527-09584
Date of Loss : 12-8-86
Lam/ Dear -Mr . - Weckman:
Please find enclosed a draft in the amount of 856. 50 for the
plumber' s bill which you paid. This is for I-i Sewer Service.
At this point in time I would Like to clarify this entire
matter concerning the City of Shakopee and Albert Rybak . I
see no liability on the part of either party.
The insurer for Albert Rybak and the City of Shakopee .
Generat Casualty Companies is wiLLing to pay towards the
money you have put out but not for your time invested.
Sincere Ly yours .
Thoma
Thomas M. FeIC n
Adjuster
TMF/dfb
Enc.
7o
DRAFT NUMBER
GENERAL CASUALTY COMPANIES teslas
BILL WECKMAN
...R
FOR P O I
PROPERTY DAMAGE LIABILITY PAY 6.Sf
INSUREOIcuIUANT RYBAK ALBERT DATEUMED POUC NUUBFA uo0 OATEOF LOSS
� M N 05/07/97 CCX 0061030 00 12/08/86
UNIT CLAIM NUMBER
BB ❑FP ❑suP X❑w GENERAL OF WIS. n033022P,
P (ILEI ROUOxREST Wk1OOH IIN NATIONAL BANK OF MADISON BIO UR
ACCT.HH 111-IMw•7373791r 1:07S9001.651: 3L1900IN 59 L0
PLEASE DETACH BEFORE DEPOSITING DRAFT
�0
r
MID-CONTINENT 22-0504
AGENT AENCI EST INC.
7 (`SIiAC OAK ROAD
,J
PRAMIF, MN 55544
/ y
r VU V iV
BUREAU
MAIL 4640 tY STREET
TO MINNEAPOLIS} MN 55455
0.00
L 21 3 0 2
THE ATTACHED DRAFT IS IN PAYMENT OF THE LOSS EXPENSE SHOWN ABOVE
Li
u r. 1 1987
/O / �7,
Z p p ,nrj �iPic 4-✓1.T, ' Ti<sy,,o
LdL 70
Art
✓o'c 7b /�s✓a H cam'uC" G'
off- iss�,io 7o A �✓5�....ras Lvcit� o.� kyr£
.Si,✓oc f�^jvaT of /9B'�
51-1v NEAR iIs>y /�csroe...e� �,ESios� l//a LrrT.u.�j
OF 7N,t IS✓5 cas is A Lb rSia7�T/N✓SSA
Z
MS NOrrk g,✓P
-'T71
�L-AI,V TON. ,
MHca An4v" 1of ��O LAt10�r h--,o I'._ �✓ S/HE
A7 ca' �i R� s-> u e LC T.r
Ca.✓sroa«-�e� 7/(OF�inr.E., 7� ���""� of
/!YI fr J.rls7� D� Lf✓w7l
S�✓�o �,,�,�'/�_o �E �la� ?`fl� E Its 7'�j
7U
� B R�T� S�✓R-"�
ywvR+'e- s,'H�� �s /fNs�.ra3S P
J,r o N� //LR�I/icw.5 •(.o l/tS t �
O..w+ 7"bsc S✓ -
Am
5 c. tip °w d,jx
1F T� eaT No
Telt f�zTi a,r � fes"" '"�T ✓ia.rTi-� /
i -v3.t.*� Dp"Lsa w�t�i
�✓�y pss✓ .rte 71� u /! '
uN�(--moo O,s. �N✓�W.ra��. Z sKso r.�
2a,,.�c.�..5 ✓<oG.�.•,.�5 QomTFf�#�T.t�.J
� „✓Qi✓� O✓rPGSOR- �n.N� �
aF
7 �-
Pic. fug` � ��`� �-.
Gli-P��•o--FbG�rNc,w 57n��,�.o
�tLB' r-4-il� �d�+� dLvo.
.o4J`3 y,.s,a.�7 � -P.35 yy��
7d
Office of CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 600 EAST 4TH STREET
Phone 448-3435. Ent 217 CHASKA,MINNESOTA 55318
COUNTY Of CAQVEQ REt
ON BEHALF OF THE SOUTHWEST COMMUNITIES COALITION:
JUN 1 71981
June 18, 1987
To: County Boards, Mayors 6 Council Matters OF Southwest Area CITY OF SHAKOPEE
communities
Fran: Carver County Board Of Commissioners
INVITATION TO A MEETING OF LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS
TIME: 5:00-7:00 P.M.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, JULY 1
PLACE: OCMNISSIOMER'S MEETING ROOM, CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE
The Southwest Communities Coalition was originally formed in response to the Metro
Council 's new Development Framework. The efforts of the organization have achieved
some positive results - modification of the Development Framework to recognize the
interests Of the southwest area and the development of a recognition at the regional
level of the interests and Organization of the commllflities in the southwest area.
Communities in the Metro area are organizing into sub-regional groups to represent
sub-regional interests - the Northwest Mayors group and the East Metro group - in
addition to Our group. The Southwest Communities Coalition is at the present quite
loosely Organized and has a narrow focus - Metro Council planning activities. Given
the past and present focus of the group - Metro Council planning issues - the group
has consisted primarily of planners 8 administrators. Given the wide range of
issues facing our area in the future we (lust consider the future role, function, and
organization of the Coalition.
The future direction of the Coalition must be decided by the elected officials of
the communities in the area. Hopefully this meeting will be the first step is es-
tablishing direction and Organization. While the meeting will be somewhat informal,
there are a nuRber of issues to be discussed. Attached is an informal agenda for
the meeting. This meeting should provide direction regarding:
-Should the Comflunities in the southwest area further organize as a group to repre-
sent the area at the regional and state levels
-What Communities are interested in participating
-If there is to be a more formal Organization, wfiat form should the Organization
take an what might be possible funding and operational mechanisms,
Earl F. Gnan Chairman
Carver County Board of Comnissiopers
A/Grmafuu Action/Equal Olmortunity EmPlayer
SOUTMrEST C044AITIES ODALITION CRGANIZATIONAL MEETING
1 JULY 1987
5:00 pm - Social hour (Snacks will be available)
5:30 Meeting
ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED
1. Summary of previous activities of the Coalition
2. Future issues that will be affecting the Southwest Area
3. Discussion the role that the Coalition could play in addressing the issues
4. Participation by camunities
5. Alternatives for organizational structures
6. Outline future direction(s) for the Coalition
7. Sumnry of meeting & scheduling of further meetings
If you have any questions please contact Dave Drealan at 448-3435 ext. 260.
J. L. SHIELY COMPANY 7e-
EtI
11015NELUNG AVENUE NORTH HNL• SRINT PAUL.MINNESOTA WGB
TELEPHONE:66E-B l
June 17, 1987
Mayor Eldon A. Reinke
2569 Hauer Trail
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Dear Mayor Reinke:
Earlier this year the J. L. Shiely Company proposed a change in its operations at the
limestone quarry that operates in the City of Shakopee. This change was presented to
the Shakopee City Planning Commission originally.
The mining of the limestone in this quarry is done in the usual manner, however, when
the material is crushed to a smaller size it is then stockpiled for processing through a
special kind of mill where it is reduced to a powder-like consistency and then sold to
the manufacturer of roofing shingles as a filler material.
In the past, the mining has been conducted roughly from April through November in each
year. Mining requires that we dewater the mine by pumping. At various times concerns
about the amount of water being pumped have been raised. Even though the concerns
have been answered by a number of costly hydrogeologic studies, the Company has for
some time been seeking a way to reduce the amount of pumping necessary. We
acknowledge also that if we could reduce the amount of pumping it would be less costly
to operate.
As a result, we asked for an extension in the number of hours we might work each day
and employed a contractor to crush material for us which would then be stockpiled and
used throughout the rest of the year to produce the filler material for our customers.
The method described to the Planning Commission was accepted by that Commission and
on their recommendation the City Council of Shakopee did grant us a permit to work
extended hours for a period of four months, March through June.
In evaluating the amount of material we need for the rest of the year, it is clear that
we will not have enough by June 30, 1987. During our presentations to the Planning
Commission we repeatedly explained that we were making some intelligent guesses but
nevertheless, estimates, of how long it might take to produce the required quantity of
material. We explained that there were several factors that could not be foreseen with
precision such as the weather, the quality of the rock being mined, equipment
breakdowns, and the unknown and unpredictable occurrences that seem to happen in any
setting.
In this case we have found that we are encountering too much silica in the mined
material we are processing and as a result our contract crusher has to stop frequently to
build up the parts on the crusher that have been worn excessively by the hard silica
material. As a consequence, we estimate today that we will possibly need another three
and one-half weeks of time to crush material for our stockpile to supply the milling
operation for the rest of the year. Accordingly we would appreciate your approval of
our continuing the mining and crushing operation through July 24, 1987.
7c
Should we be able to stockpile sufficient material for our needs prior to that time we
would, of course, stop operations sooner. As we described earlier, when the mining
ceases we will stop the pumping and the quarry will be allowed to fill with water.
If desired, I will attend your meeting on Monday, June 22, 1987, should you have any
questions regarding this request.
Sincerely,
6
Ray Lappegaard
Vice President
cc John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RL.smk
NOTE: The City Planner, City Clerk, Assistant City Attorney and
I reviewed the original Shiely Conditional Use Permit and the
most recent amendment to the Conditional Use Permit expanding
their hours of operation. It is our interpretation that on July
1st Shiely can restrict their expanded operating hours which are
from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. to the original operating hours of
7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. without seeking a Conditional Use Permit
amendment. Ray Lappegaard has been informed that the City will
need a request for a Conditional Use Permit amendment by June
23rd if they want to operate without the expanded hours after
June 30th.
John K. Anderson
ion
Terry M. Forbord
2103 Bridge Crossing
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
June 18, 1987
RECENED
Mayor Eldon Reinke and JUN 1 81987
Aeffiders or' tr2e c2ey Council
City of Shakopee
129 E. First Avenue Ctrl' OF SHAKOPEE
Shakopee, MN 55379
Dear Mayor Reinke and
Members of the City Council:
The purpose of this letter is to inform you and City staff
of my interest in serving on the Planning Commission of the
City of Shakopee. It is with great interest in the future
growth and preservation of the integrity of our community
that I respectfully seek the Council's appointment of me to
the Planning Commission.
My wife Kathie and I have lived in Shakopee for two years
and I have been employed locally for twelve years. I have
worked in the community in residential real estate
development, construction and sales previously with River
Valley Contractors, Inc. , The Laurent Companies and
currently with The Scottland Companies.
I believe citizen participation is an important aspect of
integrated planning within the community and I would welcome
an opportunity to contribute to the well-planned growth of
Shakopee by an appointment to the Commission.
During the pastthreeyears I have enjoyed serving the City
and its citizens on the following committees: Downtown
Redevelopment Ad Hoc Committee, Highway 169 Bridge Siting
Committee and the Citizens Advisory Committee for the new
City Hall. I am fully aware of the dedication of time and
consideration such an appointment merits and I am willing to
commit whatever time and effort necessary to achieve the
levels of excellence required.
I realize that a question may be asked about my being
employed at The Scottland Companies. It would be my intent
to abstain from any vote concerning The Scottland Companies
or Canterbury Downs. When one reviews all of the land
planning matters in the City each year and on each agenda,the frequency of matters related to those two companies -out
- --- -- - -
16 �
City of Shakopee
June 18, 1987
Page 2
of the hundreds of items reviews , is very limited. I
appreciate the oppo unity to s mit this application for
your consideration a I am wi ing to provide any
information or answey que ions.
Sincerely, /CitAdminis
Terry M. Forbord
c.c. John Anderson, ator
City of Shakopee
June 18, 1987
Page 2
of the hundreds of items reviewed, is very limited. I
appreciate the opportunity to submit this application for
your consideration and I am willing to provide any
information or answer any questions.
Sincerely,
Terry M. Forbord
c.c. John Anderson, City Administrator
/DQ
TO: Lou VanHout, Utilities Manager
FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director
RE: Umbrella Insurance Policy
DATE: June 17, 1987
Council tabled action on the renewal of insurance policies last night due
to the late hour. They will meet on June 22 to act on items tabled last night.
As previously discussed, Council did not budget for renewal of the umbrella
policy. You have indicated that SPUC would like to keep the umbrella policy.
Lee Herman has related to me that the League of Cities reinsurer will not split
off SPUC for a separate umbrella policy due to the interrelationships of the
City and SPDC. He further indicated that he thought it unlikely that SPUC
could find a separate umbrella policy from another company.
Therefore, I see the following options;
1. Cancel the policy due to non funding by Council.
2. SPUC commit to paying the total premium.
3. SPUC provide input/discussion with Council to get Council to change its
position and share the cost of the policy.
Again, Council will act on the policies 6/22 and the present policies
expire 6/30. It appears that Council will follow option 1 above unless SPUC
takes action under options 2 or 3.
/om
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Metropolitan Waste Control (MWCC) Service Availability
Charge (SAC) Refund
DATE: June 19, 1987
Introduction
Since January 1, 1987 SAC charges have been restricted to lots
that will receive sanitary sewer within 12 months. The MWCC also
implemented a policy January 1, 1987 giving cities the option to
refund SAC fees paid by unsewered. buildings. The refund policy
is outlined in the attached letter. The City must decide if it
wishes to institute a SAC refund policy.
-
Background
In anticipation of this policy I asked LeRoy Houser, our Building
Official, to make a recommendation regarding the SAC refund
policy in December of 1986. LeRoy' s memo is attached. It has
been reviewed by Gregg Voxland, our Finance Director, who concurs
with the LeRoy' s recommendation.
The City has done a brief telephone survey of several neighboring
communities to determine whether they have decided to refund
previously collected SAC fees.
SAC REFUND SURVEY
City Policy Position
Prior Lake No refund
Savage No decision
Chanhassen No decision yet, but it looks as if they
will not be refunding SAC charges
Chaska No refund
Burnsville No decision
Eden Prairie No refund
Lakeville No decision, but they are against the
refund
Apple Valley No refund
Eagan No decision, but staff hasn't taken it
to City Council for a decision and
staff states it is unlikely that they
will institute a refunding program
, om
Alternatives
1. The City can make the decision not to institute a refund
program. This will avoid the administrative problems and
the equity problems outlined in LeRoy's memo of December
19th. It appears this alternative will be in harmony with
what adjacent communities are doing. However, there are
some Shakopee residents aware of this 'r and option who may
wish to have Council institute a refund program.
2. Make no decision at . the present ti e. According the the
MWCC letter the refund program is av ilable for three years
from 1987 through 1989. The City co ld procrastinate until
the latter part of 1989 to dete ine what has happened to
other communities that have attemp d to implement a refund
program.
3. The City can decide to Inst' ute a refund program. The
program will require complying with the --forms submitted by
the•. MWCC and tracking down the ,'appropriate recipient of the
refund. As noted141 eRoy's memo of December 19th this will
take two to three eeks and here is no guarantee that the
City can find the ap opriate party.
4. The City could survey \411 p esent owners of housing units
that have paid a SAC fee o see if they want the refund.
Then the City could -follow the survey with a meeting to
determine if the owners eally preferred receiving the
refund if they would pay a mu higher fee sometime in the
future to receive sanitar sewe
Recommendation
I recommend alternative No. 1. I f 1 there are several
implementation options. (1) We could cide not to notify
anyone. (2) We could notif eligible prop rty owners by mail.
This notification process will take time and w may miss someone.
(3) Or we could publish a lega notice in the n spaper. Even if
coupled with a news story-a- otice will probab y go unseen by
those people entitled to a ref d.
I£ we do involve property own rs, we must avoid allowing some
citizens to collect the SAC ref d and others to keep the money
with the MWCC. This would c mpound our problems in trying to
track who has and has not paid or a SAC when existing buildings
are finally served by sanitary ewer. At the present time we can
make this determination simply by the date of the building
permit.
Action Retested
Direct the appropriate City officials to place an article -in-the - - - -
newspaper explaining the policy options for refunding the SAC
charges and the City's decision not to establish a refunding
program.
Alternatives
1. The City can make the decision not to institute a refund
program. This will avoid the administrative problems and
the equity problems outlined in LeRoy's memo of December
19th. It appears this alternative will be in harmony with
what adjacent communities are doing. However, there are
some Shakopee residents aware of this refund option who may
wish to have Council institute a refund program.
2. Make no decision at the present time. According the the
MWCC letter the refund program is available for three years
from 1987 through 1989. The City could procrastinate until
the latter part of 1989 to determine what has happened to
other communities that have attempted to implement a refund
program.
3. The City can decide to institute a refund program. The
program will require complying with the - forms submitted by
the• MWCC and tracking down the appropriate recipient of the
refund. As noted in LeRoy' s memo of December 19th this will
take two to three weeks and there is no guarantee that the
City can find the appropriate party.
4. The City could survey all present owners of housing units
that have paid a SAC fee to see if they want the refund.
Then the City could follow _ the survey with a meeting to
determine if the owners really preferred receiving the
refund if they would pay a much higher fee sometime in the
future to receive sanitary sewer.
Recommendation
I recommend alternative No. 1. I feel there are several
implementation options. (1) we could decide not to notify
anyone. ( 2) We could notify eligible property owners by mail.
This notification process will take time and we may miss someone.
(3) Or we could publish a legal notice in the newspaper. Even if
coupled with a news story a- notice will probably go unseen by
those people entitled to a refund.
If we doinvolveproperty owners, we must avoid allowing some
citizens to collect the SAC refund and others to keep the money
with the MWCC. This would compound our problems in trying to
track who has and has not paid for a SAC when existing buildings
are finally served by sanitary sewer. At the present time we can
make this determination simply by the date of the building
permit.
Action Requested
Direct the appropriate City officials to place an article in the
newspaper explaining the policy options for refunding the SAC
charges and the City's decision not to establish a refunding
program.
r,
fTIETROPQLITRn
WRITE
COnTROL
com'WCC R�r�lon RECEIVED
JUN - 11987
May 29, 1987
CITY O,c SHAKOPEE
Mr. John Anderson
City Manager
City of Shakopee
129 East First Ave.
Shakopee, MN 55379
Dear Mr. Anderson:
There have been a number of inquiries by communities regarding the
implementation of the policy changes regarding the collection of and
refund of Service Availability Charges (SAC) which were initiated on
January 1, 1987. In response to these inquiries the Commission would
like to take the opportunity in this letter to review these policy
changes and their implementation which were described in letters to
your community dated October 24, November 24 and December 10, 1986.
The new policy, initiated in 1987, is to collect SAC only when
building and/or sewer connection permits are issued and when these
facilities have access directly or indirectly to the Metropolitan
Disposal System. The change in policy, (to collect SAC only if sewer
service is available) suggested that a refund program be considered
for SAC previously collected from facilities which as yet do not have
sewer service. The Commission subsequently approved a voluntary SAC
refund program for all or a portion of the eligible units at the
amount equal to that paid. The refund program is available to the
communities during the period of 1987 through 1989. The disposition
of any refund is the responsibility of the community.
To implement this optional SAC refund program it is necessary for the
community to identify the eligible units, if any, for refund. This
process will require information such as: the permit number and date
it was issued; location and type of building; number of SAC units and
amount paid; and the date it was reported to the Commission. We are
enclosing a form which will be helpful in identifying eligible SAC
refund units. It will also be necessary, by City Council Resolution,
to inform the Commission whether all, a portion of, or none of the
eligible units should be refunded. If the city elects to have only a
portion of the eligible SAC units refunded, it will be necessary to
establish an area which encompasses the eligible units requested for
refund. Prior to issuance of refunds it is necessary that you
complete the entire list of eligible permits for which you deserve
SAC refund.
350 Metro Square Bui!dtind. -�'nt Poul, Mlnnesoto 51,101 612-222-6421
Page Two
May 29, 1987
There may be some communities who do not have y eligible units
(on-site systems for which SAC had been previ sly collected) . In
these cases a written communication from the community indicatinc
that no SAC refund is re u sted should be bmitted to the Commission.
For buildings constructed a ter January , 1987 and served by on-site
sewer systems, or for exist g buildin that receive a refund under
this program, SAC will be co lected a the time the buildings are con-
nected to sewer system. For his r son, it is recommended that the
City implement a sewer connect.on ermit ro ram that has sufficient
detailed information on each o t form to allow fpr the deter-
mination and verification of SA units.
The Commission will work with you to answer questions regarding the
implementation of the SAC program t any time. Your cooperation is
appreciated.
Since,
,
Louis J. Breimhurst
Chief Administrator
LJB:RAO:jlw
cc: MWCC Commissioner
J. J. Hiniker
W. K. Johnson
J. M. Erickson
R. L. Berg
M. P. Ferguson
Page Two
May 29, 1987
There may be some communities who do not have any eligible units
(on-site systems for which SAC had been previously collected) . In
these cases a written communication from the community indicating
that no SAC refund is requested should be submitted to the Commission.
For buildings constructed after January 1, 1987 and served by on-site
sewer systems, or for existing buildings that receive a refund under
this program, SAC will be collected at the time the buildings are con-
nected to sewer system. For this reason, it is recommended that the
City implement a sewer connection permit program that has sufficient
detailed information on each permit form to allow for the deter-
mination and verification of SAC units.
The Commission will work with you to answer questions regarding the
implementation of the SAC program at any time. Your cooperation is
appreciated.
Since,
Louis J. Breimhurst
Chief Administrator
LJB:RAO: jlw
CC: MWCC Commissioner
J. J. Riniker
W. K. Johnson
J. M. Erickson
R. L. Berg
M. P. Ferguson
J O tiJ
m3
n rt n
n Ro
NI w up
m w m Iyb
m J R R
vA H ^
H
a
m R
' n
w
x z
X � I
X
X
X
X H
x cK
X RO A
X rn <
% AA
mm
rn
z ca
c ° oa
RO ar
wrn va
•O m
C r
X 'Cm nrn
% wr aH
X n0. HK
X 3 0
x on
x r zx
X a
X o A
00
A C]
x m 3
x
% a a
x R n
x w —
x
x mo
X R �2So
a
0 0
m x on R
m x
O X A
N
% 0
X
% R
x ^
x K
% Rv
x w
x ^
x �"
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: LeRoy Houser, Building Official
RE: SAC Refund
DATE: December 19, 1986
I am of the op'nion the refund of the SAC money is not in the
best interest of the public, i the property owners do not
actually receive a refund themse ves. My thoughts on this are:
1. It is goi to take us least two or three
weeks to g her the inf rmation.
2. If you opt r the ref d and don't give it
back to the p operty o ners, then they not only
do not get the efund but will also be required
to pay an additi nal fee at a much higher rate
to hook up - bad, d pr.
3. Our SAC fees are p 'd now, we are not threatened
with additional char s at hook up time and it is
a selling point when t ing to sell a home.
9. Ninety percent of the p perty owners who are
eligible for t e refund n ver actually paid the
connection fe The devel er/contractor paid
the fee so c sequently the do not miss it.
I recommend we lea well enough a ne and not request the
refund. Let MWCC keep the money.
LH:cah
MEMO TO: John R. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: LeRoy Houser, Building Official
RE: SAC Refund
DATE: December 19, 1986
I am of the opinion the refund of the SAC money is not in the
best interest of the public, if the property owners do not
actually receive the refund themselves. My thoughts on this are:
1. It is going to take us at least two or three
weeks to gather the information.
2. If you opt for the refund and don't give it
back to the property owners, then they not only
do not get the refund, but will also be required
to pay an additional fee at a much higher rate
to hook up - bad, bad pr.
3. Our SAC fees are paid now, we are not threatened
with additional charges at hook up time and it is
a selling point when trying to sell a home.
4. Ninety percent of the property owners who are
eligible for the refund never actually paid the
connection fee. The developer/contractor paid
the fee so consequently they do not miss it.
I recommend we leave well enough alone and not request the �i
refund. Let MWCC keep the money.
LH:cah
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant
RE: 1987 and 1988 RTB Transit Service Contract -
Resolution #2742 and #2743
DATE: June 17, 1987
Introduction•
Each year the City of Shakopee enters into an agreement with
the Regional Transit Board for transit service funding. In order
to continue transit service levels as they presently exist within
our community, the City of Shakopee must enter into an agreement
with the Regional Transit Board for funding in 1987 and 1988.
Background•
In 1986 the City of Shakopee had a transit service agreement
with the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Since that
time, the Regional Transit Board has taken over the
responsibility for transit programs in the Metropolitan Area. In
the fall of 1986, the City of Shakopee submitted an application
for transit service funding in 1987 to the Regional Transit
Board. Our application for funding was approved and we have been
receiving reimbursements from the Regional Transit Board for
costs associated with our transit operations in 1987.
On June 17, 1987 staff received an agreement from the
Regional Transit Board that provides funding for our program in SII
1987. (Better late than never) . The contract agreement simply
establishes the amount of funding for our program in 1987
($154,440) and the process by which these funds will be disbursed
to the City. The City Attorney has reviewed the. agreement which
is very long. Copies are available in my office if you wish to
review one before the meeting.
Resolution #2742 (shown in attachment #1) authorizes the
appropriate City officials to enter into a service contract with
the Regional Transit Board to provide public transportation
service in Shakopee for calendar year 1987. The resolution also
specifies that the City of Shakopee will not be responsible for
any transit deficit that may occur in conjunction with our
transit program.
I am in the process of submitting an application to the
Regional Transit Board for funding in 1988. In an effort to
simplify proceedings with the Regional Transit Board I am
requesting that the City Council approve resolution #2743
(attachment #2) that authorizes the appropriate City officials to
enter into a service contract with the Regional Transit Board to
provide public transportation service in Shakopee for calendar
year 1988 at this time. The only significant difference between
the 1987 and 1988 agreements is the amount of funding requested
by the City of Shakopee. In 1988 the City of Shakopee will be
requesting $189,780.
( � c-'-,P
Alternatives:
1. Move to approve Resolution #2742 and #2743.
2. Move to appro Resolution # 742 and do not approve
Resolution #2743- til we have r eived a copy of the 1988
Transit Service Ag ement.
3. Do nothing.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends altern a #1.
Action Requested:
Move to approve Reso ution 2742 and #2743 Authorizing the
Appropriate City Offici is to E ter Into a Transit Service
-- Agreement with the egional - ansit Board for Public
Transportation Service in Shakopee r Calendar Years 1987 and
1988.
f
! / c4-P
Alternatives:
1. Move to approve Resolution #2742 and #2743 .
2. Move to approve Resolution #2742 and do not approve
Resolution #2743 until we have received a copy of the 1988
Transit Service Agreement.
3. Do nothing.
Recommendation:
staff recommends alternative #1.
Action Requested:
Move to approve Resolution #2742 and #2743 Authorizing the
Appropriate City Officials to Enter Into a Transit Service
Agreement with the Regional Transit Board for Public
Transportation Service in Shakopee for Calendar Years 1987 and
1988.
it
i/ Q- c` a
RESOLUTION NO. 2742
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE
TO ENTER INTO A SERVICE CONTRACT
WITH THE REGIONAL TRANSIT BOARD TO
PROVIDE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICE IN SHAKOPEE
FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1987
Resolved that the City of Shakopee, Mn enter into Contract
with the Regional Transit Board, Department of Transportation, to
provide a public transportation service in Shakopee.
Further resolved that the City of Shakopee, Mn agrees to
provide -0- percent of the total deficit of the transit project
from local funds for State Transit assistance and/or exurban
funding.
Further resolved that authorization to execute the
aforementioned Contract and any amendments thereto is hereby
given to the City Administrator, City Clerk and the Mayor.
Further resolved that the City Administrator or the Mayor is
hereby authorized to execute request for reimbursement from the
Minnesota Department of Transportation. -
Adopted in session of the City Council of the
City of Shakopee, Minnesota held this day of
1987.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this -
day of 1987.
City Attorney
C-
RESOLUTION NO. 2743
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE
TO ENTER INTO A SERVICE CONTRACT
WITH TTHE REGIONAL TRANSIT BO TO
PROVIDE PUB A1C TRANSPORTATION SERV CE IN SHAKOPEE
FOR CALENDAR YEAR 19
Resolved that the City of Shakop , Mn enter into Contract
with the Regional Tr sit Board, Depar ent of Transportation, to
provide a public tran ortation service in Shakopee.
Further resolved t at the Cit of Shakopee, Mn agrees to
provide -0- percent of the otal de£i it of the transit project
from local funds for Sta a Transi assistance and/or exurban
funding.
Further resolved that th ization to execute the
aforementioned Contract and an endments thereto is hereby
given to the City Administrator, Ci Clerk and the Mayor.
Further resolved that the Cit A inistrator or the Mayor is
hereby authorized to execute re est or reimbursement from the
Minnesota Department of Transpor tion.
Adopted in s Sion of th City Council of the
City of Shakopee, Minnesota ld this day of
1987. /
/ Mayor of the City o Shakopee
ATTEST:
/
City Clerk
Approved as to for this
day of 1987.
City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 2743
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE
TO ENTER INTO A SERVICE CONTRACT
WITH THE REGIONAL TRANSIT BOARD TO
PROVIDE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICE IN SHAKOPEE
FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1988
Resolved that the City of Shakopee, Mn enter into Contract
with the Regional Transit Board, Department of Transportation, to
provide a public transportation service in Shakopee.
Further resolved that the City of Shakopee, Mn agrees to
provide -0- percent of the total deficit of the transit project
from local funds for State Transit assistance and/or exurban
funding.
Further resolved that authorization to execute the
aforementioned Contract and any amendments thereto is hereby
given to the City Administrator, City Clerk and the Mayor.
Further resolved that the City Administrator or the Mayor is
hereby authorized to execute request for reimbursement from the
Minnesota Department of Transportation.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the
City of Shakopee, Minnesota held this day of
1987.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of 1997 .
City Attorney
Af,
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner
RE: Amendments to City Code Regarding Planned Unit
Developments
DATE: June 19, 1987
Introduction
On April 7, 1987 the City Council passed a motion directing the
City Attorney to draft an ordinance making amendments to the
City' s PUD requirements. Attached is the ordinance prepared by
the Attorney making the amendments as approved by the City
Council.
Background
On March 26, 1987 the City Planning Commission recommended to the
City Council amendments to the City Code sections regarding
PUD' s. The City Council approved all of the recommended changes
from the Planning Commission with the exception of condition No.
3 of Section 11.40 Subd. 2C. The City Council developed two
alternative wordings for this provision of the ordinance, PUD
ordinance dealing with on site septic system in the R-1 zone.
One was the wording suggested by the Planning Commission, the
second was wording developed by Councilmember Leroux. The City
Council sent the two options- back to the Planning Commission
requesting them to select one of the wordings. The City Planning
--- --— - Commission approved the option containing their- original wording
and recommended back to City Council the wording to be included
in the ordinance. The City Council then passed the approved
wording of the Planning Commission on to the City Attorney for
incorporation in the ordinance.
At the City Planning Commission meeting on June 18, 1987 during
the review of the Stonebrooke Planned Unit Development project
the wording of this provision was again discussed by the Planning
Commission. A motion was offered to reaffirm and identify
specifically the intent of this wording in regards to its
application to PUD plans. This motion was defeated by a vote of
2-3. After further discussion the Planning Commission
reconsidered the motion and approved it with 4 members in favor
and 1 member abstaining.
Under the new ordinance regarding PUDs the first final plat
approval for a PUD plan (Stonebrooke) will come before the
Council on July 7, 1987. Ordinance condition No. 3 will have an
impact on the project coming before the Council, because the
motion approved at the June 18, 1987 Planning Commission meeting
reaffirmed the one acre minimum lot area plus easement,
and identified the intent of that condition as not allowing flag
shaped easements. Easements and lots under that provision must
be shaped in the form of a rectangle, triangle, circle or oblong,
but specifically not in the form of a lot with a flag easement.
If the City Council approves the ordinance as attached, the
Council will have three options regarding approval of the final
PUD plan on July 7th which currently uses severe flag easements.
The options are as follows:
Option 1 - The Council may approve the final PUD plan as
recommended by the Planning Commission as per themotionapproved
by the Planning Commission. This would require the changing of
several lots and easements and result in the/loss of four to
eight lots.
Option 2 - The C\ uncil could approve he final PUD plan as
presented by overridi g the Planning Conn' sion' s recommendation
regarding requiremen that the PUD lfull the intent of
condition No. 3. The lam could then approved as presented
allowing the flag sha Xanother
easements on the basis that they meet
the strict applicationthe ordinan .
Option 3 - The Council grant a variance for specific lots
which do not comply h the quirements of the attached
ordinance allowing thema sural r than allowed by condition
No. 3 of the PUD ordina
The City Council may cto end the language of the attached
ordinance regarding conn o. 3 Monday night. The City
Council could remove tr ent of one acre site area for a
lot and easement. Thisg at this time would allow the City
Council to look at anove a final Stonebrooke PUD plan
July 7th based on the the p n as now drafted. At the
suggestion of the Planniomnissio Thursday night, City staff
has consulted with AssisCity At rney Rod Rrass and it is
his opinion that the CCouncil cc d make this change to the
ordinance without requiranother hearing.
Summary
Staff prefers the amendment alternative and-\ Planning Commission
prefers the current/ language. There are pros and cons to both
positions. The purpose of this memo is to show Couincil how
action on the Ordinance on June 22nd will affect the Stonebrooke
PUD plat coming before Council July 7th.
Recommended Action
Pass Ordinance No. 219.
�2 .
but specifically not in the form of a lot with a flag easement.
If the City Council approves the ordinance as attached, the
Council will have three options regarding approval of the final
PUD plan on July 7th which currently uses severe flag easements.
The options are as follows:
Option 1 - The Council may approve the final PUD plan as
recommended by the Planning Commission as per the motion approved
by the Planning Commission. This would require the changing of
several lots and easements and result in the loss of four to
eight lots.
Option 2 - The Council could approve the final PUD plan as
presented by overriding the Planning Commission's recommendation
regarding requirement that the PUD £ulfull the intent of
-'aa it 'mT Na. J. ZW-- 'Plan - ,d 2re approved as pzesested
allowing the flag shaped easements on the basis that they meet
the strict application of the ordinance.
Option 3 - The Council could grant a variance for specific lots
which do not comply with the requirements of the attached
ordinance allowing them to be smaller than allowed by condition
No. 3 of the PUD ordinance.
The City Council may chose to amend the language of the attached
ordinance regarding condition No. 3 Monday night. The City
Council could remove the requirement of one acre site area for a
lot and easement. This change at this time would allow the City
Council to look at and approve the final Stonebrooke PUD plan
July 7th based on the way the plan as now drafted. At the
suggestion of the Planning Commission Thursday night, City staff
has consulted with Assistant City Attorney Rod Rrass and it is
his opinion that the City Council could make this change to the
ordinance without requiring another hearing.
Summary
Staff prefers the amendment alternative and Planning Commission
prefers the current language. There are pros and cons to both
positions. The purpose of this memo is to show Couincil how
action on the Ordinance on June 22nd will affect the Stonebrooke
' PUD plat coming before Council July 7th.
Recommended Action
Pass Ordinance No. 219.
//S `av
ORDINANCE NO. 219
Fourth Series
An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee , Minnesota ,
Repealing Ordinance 209; Amending S u 75 Subd 11C:
Amending Ordinance No. 206 Entitled "An Ordinance of
the City of Shakopee, Minnesota Amending Shakopee . City
Code Chapter 11 Entitled "Land Use Regulation (Zoning) "
By Repealing Sec 11.40 Subd 2C, Sec 11.40 Subd 4F, Sec
11.40 Subd 3, and the following Language from Sec 11 .40
Subd 7B , to-wit : "The Administrator shall have the
Discretion to Waive Project and Area Information and
Such Other Information as may be Deemed Inappropriate
for Remodeling , Building Expansion and Similar
Projects" and by Adopting New Section 11.40 Subd 2C,
Sec 11.40 Subd 4F, Sec 11.40 Subd 3 and by Amending '
Zoning Map by Showing and Describing a Mandatory PUD
Area by Placing Certain Parcels within the Mandatory
PUD Area and by Adopting by Reference Shakopee City
Code Chapter 1 and Sec 11 . 99 and by Adopting by
Reference Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 and Sec 11.99
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
SECTION 11 Repeal -
All of the following Ordinance, Sections or parts thereof
are repealed, to-wit: SII
Ordinance 209 ; Sec 11.35, Subd 11C; See 11.40 Subd 2C, See
11 .40 Subd 4F, Sec 11 .40 Subd 3 and Subd 7B the last sentence
thereof.
SECTION II, The following amendments are hereby enacted to
said Ordinance No 206 as follows :
r 1. Utilities
Subd 2C The project site shall be sewered Served by
City water and sewer services except in the R-1 and Shoreland
zones. WithintheR-1 and Shoreland Zones, private sewer and
water services may be allowed by the City Council based on - a- --
recommendation by the Planning Commission subject to the
following conditions:
1. Maximum deviation of land density shall not exceed
208 where septic systems will be used.
2. Each lot shall have two septic sites identified.
3. The Planning Commission shall require easements of
abutting/Contiguous open space for sewage
treatment to supply at least one acre of site area
for each residence . Where soil conditions
dictate, the applicant shall be required to use
alternative systems such as mounds , double
tanking, etc.
4 . The PUD Association (or City) shall require annual
inspection of all septic systems and corrective
action when necessary .
2. Density
Sec 11 .40 Subd 4F Residential density shall not be
increased by more than 258 .
3 . Mixed Uses
The. following language shall be added to the City Code �I
Section 11.40 Subd 3 .
Uses Permitted in a PUD may consist of one or a mixture of
land uses clearly designated by type on the approved final
development plan . Mixed uses shall be permittedas specified - .
within the following zones. In no case shall the following
restrictions be exceeded. The City reserves the right to place - - -
more restrictive conditions on - themixture of uses within a PUD
in order to ensure the following: -
2 _ _
/ / -e-
1 . The public health, safety and welfare of the community.
2. The intent of the ordinance and the zone in which the
PUD is located.
3 • The prevention of conflicting land uses occurring
either within the PUD or with the surrounding land
uses.
A. Rural Residential (R-1)
1. Conditional and permitted uses within the R-1 District.
2. Conditional and permitted uses within the R-2 District.
3. Within a residential PUD at least 20% of the area shall
be usable open space. Such space shall not include
land devoted to streets, alleys, parking and private
yards.
B. Urban Residential (R-2)
1 . Conditional and permitted uses within the R-2 District.
2. Conditional and permitted uses within the R-3 District.
3. Within a residential PUD at least 20% of the area shall
be usable open space. Such space shall not include
land devoted to streets, alleys, parking and private
yards.
C. Medium Density Residential (R-3)
1 . Conditional and permitted uses within the R-3 District.
e
2. Conditional and permitted uses within the R-4 District.
3. Within a residential PUD at least 20% of the area shall
be usable open space. Such space shall not include
land devoted to streets, alleys, parking and private -
yards.
D. Multi-Family Residential (R-4)
1 . Conditional and permitted uses in the R-4 District.
2. Commercial uses permitted in the B-1 District which
serves the residential development not to exceed 15% of
the total project area.
3. Within a residential PUD at least 20% of the area shall
be usable open space. Such space shall not include
land devoted to streets, alleys, parking and private
yards.
E. Highway Business (B-1)
1 . Conditional and permitted uses in the B-1 District.
2. Conditional and permitted uses allowed in the R-4
District not to exceed 25% of the total land and floor
space area.
F. Community Business (B-2)
1 . Conditional and permitted uses in the B-2 District.
2. Conditional and permitted uses allowed in the R-4
District not to exceed 25% of the total land and floor
space area.
G. Central Business (B-3)
1 . Conditional and permitted uses in the B-3 District.
H. Light Industry (I-1)
1 . Conditional and permitted uses in the I-1 District.
I. Heavy Industrial (I-2)
1 . Conditional and permitted uses in the 1-2 District. - -
J. Shoreland (S) --- -
1. Conditional and permitted uses in the S District. . - -
- 4 _ -
2 . Conditional and permitted uses in the R-1 and R-2
Districts not to exceed 25% of the land and floor space
area.
3. Within the Shoreland District at least 20% of the area
shall be usable open space . Such space shall not
include land devoted to streets, alleys, parking and
private yards.
K. Agriculture Preservation (Ag)
1 . Conditional and permitted uses in the Ag District.
4 . Administrative Waiver
Subd 7C The Administrator shall have the discretion
to waive the Planning Unit Development ( PUD) approval process or
information required for either adoption of a PUD or amendment of
an approved PUD when the following conditions are met:
1. Properties located within a mandatory PUD area.
Properties which have not previously gone through the
PUD platting process will not be required to submit a
PUD when it functions as an existing Agricultural
operation or when the following conditions are met:
a. The changes in building location or size do not
affect more than 10% of the site area and/or floor
space.
b. The changes in landscaping , parking & drive
arrangement, or site improvements do not affect
more than 10% of the site area.
C. The changes comply with all requirements placed on
the zone in which the property is located.
- 5 - - '
2. Properties for which a PUD has been approved.
a. The changes in building location or size do not
affect more than 10% of the site and/or floor
space, not to exceed 10 ,000 sq. ft.
b. The changes in landscaping , parking & drive
arrangement, or site improvements do not affect
more than 10% of the site area, not to exceed
10,000 sq. ft.
C. The changes comply with all requirements of the -
zoning code and conditions attached to the
approval of the PUD.
d. The changes do not alter the overall design, uses,
or intent of the project.
5 , Open Spaces
Subd 4E No variances shall be negotiated which will
result in less open space than is required by the zoning
district. This includes yard requirements.
Residential PUD' s shall provide at least twenty (20)
percent of the project area as open space. Where private open
space for park or recreation purposes is provided in a proposed
subdivision and euch space is to be privately owned and
maintained by the future residents of the subdivision, a credit
of up to forty (40) percent of the requirements of Section 12.07,
Subdivision 5, Subparagraph A, may be given, provided that the
following conditions are met:
1. That such land area -is -not occupied by nonreereational_ -- -'-"- -
buildings and is available for the use of all the
- 6 -
residents of the proposed subdivision; -
2. That required setbacks shall not be included in the
computation of such private open space ;
3 . That the use of the private open space is restricted
for park and recreational purposes by recorded
covenants which run with the land in favor of the
future owners of the property within the tract and
which cannot be defeated or eliminated without the
consent of the Council ;
4 . That the proposed private open space is of a size,
shape, location, topography and usability for park and
recreational purposes or contains unique natural
features that are important to be preserved;
5 . That the proposed private open space reduces the demand
for public recreational facilities to serve the
development.
SECTION III: Section 11 35 Subd 11C is hereby adopted as
follows :
C. Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Altered zoning standards may be allowed as exceptions
to this section for PUD' s provided tbg preliminary EU
plans are approved by the Commissioner of the
Department of Natural Resources.
SECTION IV: Section .11 is hereby adoo d as follows,
Section 12.11 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
Planned unit developments shall conform to the provisions of
City Code Section 11.40.
7 _
SECTION V: Adopted by Reference
The general provisions and definitions applicable to the
entire City Code including the penalty provisions of Chapter 1
and Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby
adopted in their entirety by reference as though repeated
verbatim herein.
SECTTON VT: When in Force and Effect
After the adoption , signing and attestation of this
Ordinance, it shall be published once in the official newspaper
of the City of Shakopee and shall be in full force and effect on
and after the date following such publication.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the
City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this _ day of
1987 . 4.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Prepared and approved as to form
this 11th day of May, 1987 .
Julius A. Coller, II
Shakopee City Attorney
8 _