Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/15/1987 MEMO To: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Non-Agenda Informational Items DATE: September 10, 1987 1. Jackson Township has appealed the 150 acre annexation ruling by the Municipal Board to District Court. We will keep you informed as things develop. - 2. Our effort to obtain an immediate injunction against L & D Trucking was not granted. A hearing date has been moved up to October 1, 1987. 3. Attached is a copy of the letter I asked Rod Krass to send to Tom Hennen regarding our interest in straightening out the County' s management of tax increment financing districts. 4. Attached is a follow up letter from Robert F. Vierling to Tom Brownell regarding what Mr. Vierling has stated was a false report placed in the newspaper. Tom has attached a copy of the standard police report section from the 8-26-87 Valley News. No soecific address has been included. Mr. Vierling also alleges that the City has not followed up on his building permit. On 6-30-87 Robert vierling applied for a building permit for a 30' by 40' garage. The garage exceeds the 10% of lot area allowed by code. Mr. vierling then picked up a variance application form. The variance application form has not been submitted by him. Therefore, the City is not "ignoring" his application as alleged. If you have any questions regarding this matter please contact me. 5. Attached is the AMM announcement for the First Annual AMM "Shank and Tummy" Golf Social. Please note that you can skip the golfing portion in the afternoon and attend the evening steak fryto hear Senator Duane Benson, Senate Minority Leader. Please contact Jeanette if you plan to attend. 6. Attached is an invitation from the Metropolitan Council to attend their 20th Anniversary Party in Minneapolis. Please contact Jeanette to make reservations. 7. Attached is an article from the September issue of "Corporate Report Minnesota" discussing how municipalities are dealing with development. Shakopee is cited in this article for the building moratorium we established around Canterbury Downs in 1984. From the article it is apparent that Shakopee is included in a small group Of communities that is not "given away the store" to attract any and all development. I found the portion of the article discussing the Golden Valley development problem very interesting. 8. Attached is a memo from Eileen explaining what the bills were for that John Leroux asked about at the last Council meeting. 9. Attached is a thank you letter from Tim O'Laughlin, Emergency Management Director for Scott County, thanking Jim Karkanen for his assistance in the recent Federal and State Disaster Declaration efforts. 10. Attached is the Building Activity Report for the month ending August 31, 1987. Please note that our total number of single family permits and total valuation through August 1987 is considerably less than for the same period in 1986. 11. Attached are the minutes of the September 3, 1987 meeting of the Shakopee Coalition. 12. Attached are the minutes of the August 26, 1987 meeting of the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee. 13. Attached are the minutes of the August 3, 1987 meeting of the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. 14. Attached are the agendas for the September 17, 1987 meetings of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and Planning Commission. 15. Attached are the Revenue and Expenditure report as of August 31, 1987. 16. Attached is a memorandum from Dennis Kraft regarding the continuation of the LAWCON/LCMR Grant. 17. The Volunteer Fire Department has dismissed one of its members, Jim Fox. Mr. Fox has appealed the dismissal. Rod Krass is handling the case for the Fire Department. 18. Attached is a letter from Marge Henderson regarding roof repair at Murphy' s Landing. 19. Attached is a memorandum from Barry Stock regarding Dial-A- Ride performance based agreement corking effectively. JKA/jms v r_ 3 Rs. PD LAW OFMCES SEPp j KRASS & MONROE 1987 CHARTERED CITY OF SHAKOpEE Phillip R. Kmss h"8 Rtaii.%,Xaa Center Dennis L.Monroe 327 Marschall Road ._- Barry K.Meyer Trevor R.Wauten P.O.Box 21fi Ehuiheth B.McLaughlin Shakopee,mainevis 55379 Susan L.Estill Telephone 4455080 Dune M.Carlson Lyndon P.Nelson August 31, 1987 Kent A.Carbon,CPA Mr. Thomas Mennen Scott County Auditor Scott County Courthouse Shakopee, !Ili 55379 Re: Tax Increment Financing Districts Our File No. 1-1373-_ Dear Mr. Mennen: I have reviewed with Shakopee Administrator John Anderson and Shakopee Treasurer Greg Voxland information relating to the County's remittance to the City of Shakopee of the amounts due to the City in its various tax increment financing districts. Our review included this year, 1987, as well as past years. It appears to us that there may be some significant difference in the amounts which have been paid and the amounts to which the City of Shakopee, under the law, is entitled. We understand you believe the second half settlement may rectify this problem. It is our conclusion that an independent audit in whatever offices or programs are involved made by someone knowledgeable in the tax increment financing area will be necessary to satisfy all parties that the intended purposes of the districts and the law are being carried out. We would therefore propose a meeting which would include you and your staff, the County Administrator, the County Attorney, as well as Mr. Anderson, Mr. Voxland and myself to review this situation and make those arrangements. Would you please contact me at your early convenience to arrange this matter. Very truly yours, KRASS d MONROE CHARTERED Phillip R. Kress PRK:mlw cc: Shakopee City Administrator Shakopee City Treasurer Scott County Attorney Scott County Board c/o County Administrator Belle Plaine City Administrator Savage City Administrator Prior Lake City Administrator New Prague City Administrator Mr. Robert Vierling 221 E. Fourth Avenue Shakopee, Mn. 55379 Chief Tom Brownell Ret False Police Re- Police Department port in newspaper. 129 First Avenue East CCs To City Council Shakopee, Mn. 55379 Dear Mr. Brownell: August 2g, 1987 I'm writing in regard to the false report that you placed in the Shakopee paper. First of all, if I were you, I would consult a diction- ary as to the meaning of "garbage" and "junk". There is no "garbage" in the houses nor is there any "junk" there. I can also readily see why the dogs were so upset and barking when your Officers were prowling- around my property. In the house there are antique tables,, bureaus, etc. , plus antiques and other collectibles packed in boxes, plus a large amount of fishing tackle and equipment, considerable and valuable radio and recordingequipment, numerous tools, and too many other valuable and/ sentimental articles too numerous to mention. There is a large antique gun collection, a large and valuable library of books, an extensive stamp col- lection, and valuable paintings housed there. I know how police departments are; information is like a sieve, leaking out as soon as it's poured in. In the previous letter, to you (as yet unanswered) , you forced me to divulge my time schedule as to when I'm home and when I'm not; now you - force me to divulge the possessions that. I have in my home, which now everyone will know about. Seeing that you've caused me to divulge these things, I'm holding you personally, the Police Department in general, and P Y the City of Shakopee responsible if anything disappears from my property. The reason I have to store the things in my house is be- cause of the fact that since 1963 1 have tried to build a gar- age (for which I have documented plans) , and for which a permit has been constantly refused. The last stupid denial what that I supposedly didn't have enough property (21 lots, now 3) . A permit to enclose my porch was also denied at the time. I have again applied this summer and, of course, I haven't received an answer from the City of Shakopee and don't expect one since the City has been trying to steal my property. RECEIVED AUG 2 81987 2. Rei False Report in Newspaper - August 29, 1987 The city has been involved in harrassment and dirty tricks (of which I have written proof) and now you're be- coming involved in their tactics to force me from My prop- erty also. As to your statement that it's a "fire hazard", if that is the case, that statement in the paper could cause some nut to set my home on fire when I'm not there. Also, if storing possessions is a fire hazard, most of the residents of Shakopee would be in violation of this "so .called city ordinance. If a fire should occur in my home after that article ap- peared in the Police Reports, it would look very, very suspi- cious. You must remember that many of the valuable collectors items cannot be replaced. I strongly suggest that in the next Shakopee paper, you print a retraction and correct your definitions of "junk", "garbage" and "fire hazard". You can also inform your alleged code officer, Jones, that when we go to Court the 13th of October, he's going to have quite a few questions to answer. I hope you answer this letter, along with the previous let- ter sent you, becuase I like to keep things neat and orderly when it comes to paperwork, because no oral agreement or con- versation holds water in this town. Sincerely Ro� F. vierling CC, City Council Police report YvUry yews t-z4 -F These are selected items from the from a resident of an apartment in the wearing a greasy jeans jacket initial incident reports of the Shakopee stable area of Canterbury Downs. jeans.A rangerfrem the Department Police Department for the week Aug. Aug.18 Natural Resources was notified. 17-24. •A burglary suspect was spotted in -Police found an intoxicated male Aug,17 the area of Fourth Avenue and Memorial Park bleeding fr " -Police received a report of vehicles Shenandoah.The police canine unit was numerous cuts and bruises on his is drag racing on County Road 14 between called and the suspect was app The man was taken to Sl. Fran" County Roads 17 and 79. Police were prehended in the woods.- He was where he was treated for the facial unable to locate. charged with third degree burglary, and a broken nose and released.He •A resident on Polk Street reported a obstructing the legal process and theft. then transported to detox. juvenile sneaking around in his •A resident reported the theft of a -Police advised a loud group backyard. The complainant knew the bike from Hardees. people at the Shakopee Senior boy and returned him home to his -Police received a report of a man in School parking lot to leave the area. mother. a yellow station wagon who threw a -Police advised a loud group -Police received a report of a tree fear foot green box in the weeks along people at 10th Avenue and Naumk house on state property. The come the road. The box appeared to be for Street to leave the area. P plaimant was concerned that the rdelive Aug.20 ' structure was an eyesore and that the ug. •A resident on Holmes St state would be liable if someone were to •Two dogs were reportedly bark-Tho reported the theft of a motorcycle. eC� he injured. a residence on east Fourth Street. The -Bluff Auto Sales reported the then -The Shakopee Rest Hay and Feed dogs were said to be loud and violent a carburetor from a vehicle. 0 710") Company reported a theft by check. A looking.Police attempted to contact the Police received a report of a vehi check, written out to the company, for owner but no me was home. In speeding on Market Street. Dv�L $4,000 was returned by the bank far am- checking out the residence,police tried -Police were asked to check sufficientfmds. to look through the windows but were welfare of a person sleeping in•A two-year-old girl, wearing a unable to because of large amounts of automobile in the McDonald's par O diaper and a t-shirt, was reported junk and garbage piled against the lot.Upon investigation,police found heading north on Tyler Street. windows, causing a fire hazard. Police intoxicated male and transported •A boy's Schwinn bicycle was found notified the city code enforcement to his cousin,who said he would see at the Park Nicollet Center. officer. I the roan got home safely. -Police received a report of the o e rem y intoxicate es -Police received a report of apossi mistreatment of a horse. were reported at Berens'Market. traffic hazard at Second Avenue •A resident on west 12th Avenue •A bike was reported stolen from a Holmes Street. The hole in reported the theft of a graphics residence on east Second Avenue. pavement was marked and barn equalizer from his car. The item was •A woman reported to police that put into place. valued at$250. while she was riding on the trail system - •A woman called police from a ph •A leather prose containing some between Shakopee and Chaska, a man booth at the SuperAmerica. Accu money was found near the Happy Chef pointed a gun at her.He was described to the ICR,it may have been sn restaurant as a white male in his late 20s or early dose with the caller sounding deer -Police received a burglary report 30s,medium build,long brown hair and and possibly suicidal. She refused Sheriff's report The following are selected items from responded to a fire call at Glendale and garage fire at 1:10 a.m. at 634 Scott County SberiH's Departmmt logs. County Highway 42 at 10:12 a.m. Seventh Ave. Aug,17 Prior lake police and firefighters Shakopee firefighters responded Prior lake firefighters responded to responded to a personal-injury accident woodpile fire in Marystown at 2:30 p. a fire call at 18077 Murphy lake Blvd. and fire at 11:25 a.m.at Highway 13 and Jordan police received a complain at 10:25 a.m. 150t vandalism tantrailer at 3:50 p.m. At 4:03 p.m., sheriff's deputies Sheriff's deputies received a theft Shakopee firefighters were call received a complaint concerning the complaint at 11:35 pm. from 2915 W. the Riva Ridge Apartments, theft of tools from 956 W. 150th St., 133th in Louisville Township. Shakopee Ave.E.,at 10:32 p.m. Louisville Township. Prior lake firefighters responded to Aug.22 The State Patrol and Prior lake a grass fire at 15420 Eagle Creek Drive Prior Dake police received a v police responded to a personal-injury at 4:05 p.m. vandalism complaint at l:10 a.m. accident at Highway 13 and Fish Point The State Patrol and Shakopee police Savage police investigated Road at 9:14 p.m. responded to a personal-injury accident burglary at 3:44 a.m. Aug,18 at First and Spencer in Shakopee at Prior Dake police received a Savage police received a vandalism 4:26 p.m. complaint from 19591 Mushtown complaint at 6:23 a.m. from Savage Prior Lake police received a van- at 9:02 a.m. Ready Mix. dalism complaint from 16062 Cam- Sheriff's deputies received a hit Savage police responded to a minor bridge Circle at 7:17 p.m. run complaint at County Rand 69,n personal-injury accident at 4:35 p.m.on Savage police received a vandali,-., _f Comgy Highway 14,at 11:26 a.m. Wood Street. complaint at 9:09 p.m. from 13298 V Prior Lake police received a Shakopee firefighters were celled at Webster Ave. dalism complaint at 2:03 p.m. at 7:02 p.m. to a fire at railroad tracks Aug.20 Cedmwood St. near Minnesota Valley Wholesale. Jordan police investigated vandalism Prior take police received a hit- ..,.m,_.,, u..n•.,.,,,uro.•,.oa.,ons of fhe.mman school at 7:12 a.m. run complaint at 2:56 p.m. at A ` City of Shakopee „ K 0 �� POLICE DEPARTMENT f; K p p KNhFspt , �� 476 South Gorman Street 444 SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 ` Tel. "5-6666 - t;;�i�o t t ct S August 25, 1987 5S379 f Mr. Robert Vierling 221 East 4th Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Mister Vierling, I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated August 24, 1987, outlining the measures you have taken to eliminate the barking dog complaints received by the Police Department during the night time hours. I am sure your efforts will be greatly appreciated by the residents in your area. Sincerely, Thomas Brownell Chief of Police E7. -fP.otaet y, apEE £x S ri m O m � � m m � 00I a z ' 4 V N a AAA ao `s °0 aaa 1 d� CL. m > `. a6 LD 3 p `zco v II a 0.N A Shakopee Police Department 476 Gorman Street Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Chief Brownelli August 24, 1987 Regarding the complaint concerning my animals, I have now permanently soundproofed my living room window, upstairs front, with soundproofing I use when I am home recordings thus muffling any noise they may make toward the street side. I am rather surprised to discover that a noise com- plaint would be treated with such urgency that you should swing over on the wrong side of the road to deliver the com- plaint yourself, with your visit being followed less than ten minutes later by another office delivering the same complaint. You must also realize that now that the dogs cannot see out the front, they are less protection to my home than they have been in the past, so my home will need additional police surveillance to prevent thefts from the porch and ground floor. I myself will be more vigilant and more often in my back yard at night, so please be sure to caution your officers that because there is not always a car there doesn't mean that I'm not home. I sometimes park my car down another street and walk because there's been a few prowlers lately. I sometimes keep odd hours, and from time to time I've heardthatthe police and others assume I no longer reside there at all and I wish to dispel that rumor. Though I'm often away at nights, I don't ordinarily like to divulge this be- cause that knowledge makes my home more vulnerable to yard theft, break ins, etc. . This winter, the inside of the house is going to be re- modeled so if you see lights on and movement within, it's probably me, and the outside will be done next summer. As to the two dogs, they are the best trained, gentlest and well mannered dogs in the City of Shakopee. They've just had their shots renewed and their tag numbers are 1813 and 1814 respectively. The kids in the neighborhood all play with them and it's hard to get them outside without them dropping by. RECEIVED AUG 2 5 1987 2. Rei Noise Complaint August 24, 1987 r), These dogs have their own bedroom and bed. They have the 7 best of food consisting of chicken, turkey, beef, and gravy, and, in fact, Dr. Kelso, the Vet, cautioned me that I was feeding them too well. They now have their own Arrow travel trailer in which they have a large double bed, gas and electric lights, two fans, their own sink and water, gas stove, and even a TV set and am-fm radio, so you can dispel any concerns for their treatment. These dogs are never outside unless I'm with them, which is more than you can say for the other dogs in the neighbor- hood who are tied outside (or running loose) 24 hours a day. My dogs are never ignored, and certainly they have better care than most of the kids in this town; they're bet- ter trained and more obedient. As for the dogs barking, I know that you're acquainted with Gordon Gelhaye very well and I strongly suggest that you ask him what he said a couple days before your complaint was registered about my dogs. This should enlighten you as to the other dogs in the neighborhood that are barking. In my many years of raising animals (I'm 65 and have al- ways had animals there) , it seems strange that only since the City has shown interest in my property, that I am suddenly being harrassed with complaints concerning them. Just to mention a few of the animals I've raised there; lion, apes, monkeys, wolves, skunkes, snakes, and others to numerous to mention. It does seem strange that there are suddenly ;so many" complaints concerning two garden variety dogs such as a Great Dane and a Lab. As for the mortuary next door, more than once my drive- way has been blocked off, therefore I could not use mV boat to go fishing or use my driveway for other activities. They also put up signs on my property that state "no parking"when- ever there is a funeral up around the corner. I had friends from South Dakota who told me they had intended to stop and see me but were deterred by the signs and they didn't wish to park two blocks away and walk back, so they went on. It also seems very odd to me that a man running a busi- ness on the same half block as my property has 120' of frontage on 4th Avenue should pay only $1700 for assessments when I, with my 180' (only 60 feet more) should be forced to $4365.65 for mine. So, my additional 60 feet cost me over M00 more. 3. i REt Noise Complaint August 24, 1987 These are things I think the City of Shakopee should really take care of. McNearney's business disturbs all the animals on the block with loud voices and slamming car doors, as well as the entire neighborhood, and why isn't the city concerned about enforcing off-street parking for the funeral home instead of allowing businesses like his to cream a disturbance up and down the street? I would like a written reply from you regarding this letter to show that I've complied with your instructions= this letter to be filed with my Attorney (and in my files) to show my cooperation with the City. Sincerely, Robert F. Vierling P.S. And as far as service goes to this community, there isn't a person in Shakopee that can even come close to the volunteer work that I've done. Instructorships in Mn. Firearms Safety, Mn. Snowmobile Safety, Mn. Recreational Vehicle, American Red Cross, DCPA Radioactive Training, Tennis Classes, Aid to Senior Citizens, and others too numerous to mention; these hours total more than 150 years of service to the community and the State of Mn. and others. It seems to me the more you've done for your community, the bigger the fool they try to make of one. The expenses incur- red all came out of my own pocket, so maybe I really was a fool to devote so much time and effort to a communitysue as Shakopee has turned into. CCS City of Shakopee /� I City Council 1 Robert V. Vierling 221 E. 4th Avenue Shakopee, Mn. 55379 a Board of Directors association of President metropolitan Neil W. Paterson Bloomington municipalities Viu President Gary W. Bastian moplawooa September 4, 1987 Past President Robert Oipkls a Coon t 0.Thi Dear City Official: Directors As President of the Association of Metropolitan Mentor Nddicks'Jr. Minneapolis Municipalities (AMM) , it is my pleasure to invite you to join us for a time of relaxation, fellowship and a Karena,Eerson chance to renew old friendships. In addition, Senator Duane Minnetonka Benson, Senate Minority Leader, will be joining us for LarryBakken dinner to provide us with his perspective as we look to the Golden Vooey next Legislative Session. Mark Bernhardson Grano As you will note from the enclosed brochure, tee times for the 18 hole scramble begin at 1 :00 P .M. and for the 9 hole 'lohn Drew scramble at 3: 30 P .M. If you cannot make it for golfing, st. Paul join us for the steak fry and Senator Benson' s Legislative Waiter Fehst update at 6:00 P.M. ibbbinsdale Edward FRpzhiok The AMM Board is very appreciative of the City of Edina for Fridley hosting this "get together" which provides us a great Kevin Frazeil opportunity to better working relationships within our Menaota Heights metropolitan area municipal family. Caml Johnson I hope to see all of you at Braemer in Edina on Thursday, Minneapolis October 1st. ! Sharon Klumpp St. Louis Park Sincerely, Gerald Marshall Brooklyn Park Craig Mattson Oakdale Donald Ramstatl Maple or. Neil Peterson, AMM President VMiam seed Bloomington Councilmember Inver Grove Heights Benno Salewski St. Paul Leslie C.Tumor Edina Esecutive nirestor Vern Peterson First Annual AMM "SHANK AND TUMMY" GOLF SOCIAL Thursday, October 1 , 1987 Braemar Golf Course Edina (Just east of Hwy. 18 and Valley View Road) GOLF: 18 Hole Scramble*—Regulation Course Tee Times: 1 :00 to 2:00 p.m. OR 9 Hole Scramble*—Executive Course Tee Times: 3:30 to 4:30 p.m. *We'll arrange a foursome for you DINNER: Steak Fry 6:00 p.m. Braemar Clubhouse Speaker: Senate IR Minority Leader Duane Benson has been invited. JOIN THE FUN—GOLF AND/OR STEAK FRY RSVP by Monday, September 21 st, using the form below Questions: call Leslie Turner 938-0912 Golf entries limited to first 60 (18 holes), first 30 (9 holes) • Steak Fry limit—first 200 - - -- - - - - -- ------ ---- -- -- - --- ----- - -- Please - -- - - - - -- ------ ---- -- -- - --- ----- - -- Please complete form, make check payable to "City of Edina'; and mail to Susan Wohlrabe, City of Edina, 4801 W. 50th Street, Edina 55424. ❑ Yes, I will play 18 Hole Scramble . . . $13.00 ❑ Yes, I will play 9 Hole Scramble . . . $ 7.00 ❑ Yes, I will join you for Steak Fry . . . $12.50 (includes dinner and beverages) Pull carts($1.50) and golf carts ($17.00) available at pro-shop. Name: Handicap: Address: Phone No. �Et : .� s . µ }LY'k y�' � � 3 • AF CP r ' _ • - • • 4 _ _ • .� L • 47 __ bVI_ _ o � Allp 00 AF ccR C � � G S G dd µ S Ile 47 o Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square 7th and Robert Sts. +<;4 „_•' St. Paul, MN 55101 r . UOHN ANDERSON CITY OF SHAKOPEE 129 1ST AV E AKOPEE MN 5537S I � L 0 Q c A Z w^ Q Cqu Q.. - CNz V 'C'L:Ndq neai r.state Jenfieru Development Bliss Abyss Municipalities tire of being left at the altar THE MESSAGE FROM the city of Gold- thenor[hwu rpadnnt was fart becom- lightenis load and felt[hatmemrrgevrnOf en Valley was umnlsnkable:Don't corse mg a striated office market—vacancy the Golden Valley agreem inro our was plightingywrtroch ifyou rates hover inthemid-20 percent range only tempanrilv—waz the easiest wav don[imendroderheknoc We arm —ary officials refused to sake"lam"az to do so. Ona'Zuesdampmertght in March not going to let you get a way with Sunk- an answer without some sure-fire 1986,of5tis. uthe 5rmptactmase de- ing grand promises and then watch you guarantees.A lot of city tittle and mon- velopmmr proposal that increased its walk away from the aim. ey had gone into this,not to mention the 220.000-solum -foot commitment So a it was a mintage that brought to the S5 million bond issued to acquire the 14 whopping 400,000 equate feet ofsPec Of- forefront the uquiesant-turSrcd-scrappy acres the developer wanted. fire space Lou ultimately would do in Apart- commercial development attitudes that From the United Properties penpec- with its adjacent proposal. hGold= some prime development andrdevelop- tive, the courtship most have seemed mens complex proposal. The Golden men[areas(a.k.a up-and-coming cities) doomed when the Bloorningron-based V [fie ty Crouett.cil overwhehnungly ap- have taken onin recent years.And it was development firm had ro come m temp p project. heard loud and dear by developer,par- with time fact that it was not onudpotmc Then admorningBoyUni, wered e in Ren tiniluly United Propezties, which had IS was mid-1986 and the 73-year-old S[ensby and Boyd Srofer were in City taken on the role of the reluctruc bride- firm was in the throes of redefining its Manager Bill Joyner' ' office Cetseeking the m the groom when it wanted to postpone by corporate Strategy-it was facing m in- then-y on rue az e key factor be- about three years what Golden Valley erasing uray of problems leasing in rising ry surely thought to be a marriage made in newly built Northland Plaza and South- hndthe =ormake[henry according heaven pointe office building, while trying promised the Through a series oflawsuies Rod futile keep leasing activity healthy at to flag- extension were granted.Because ofwhat discussions that spanned more than a ship Nocrhland Exemtivc Center,it was became a two-prong issue,political and year, Golden Valley said that it was not openlngnew offices in phoenix Rs well az financial. Joynes said that the city's going to le[United Properties break in exploring other Cities:in Plymouths[had Housing and Redeveloprrtm[Authority, signed contract to build a 525 million just purchased 20-plus acres ofland that agreed on the extension with financial spemlative office building in the 200- needed immediate development um- Penalties soothed ifUnited failed to live acre Valley Squarerax-inuement duaitt tion:it was reassessing in long-held poi- up to in vow after the three year were north of Highway 55.Despite signs that cy of holding on to property in light of up. the pending tax reform:Rod mtwas in the The farm apparently nixed thou terms This fs fens fer Waters debut u our red beat of a battCarlson le ro win the prestigious and refused dC­ land ro flow chrothughnN to JuVc enure cohnun r. Watt is the mnnoging edi- veto mens bid in MMinnetonka,a ontest a 60-day notice that ice[would file a suit for of Finance and Commerce andfiner P that would ultimately durntitie Umord's aroo,tre Editor ofthe Mirmeson Real Estate it would eventually lose Journal. Observer say that United needed to development rights.Less tban 24 hour �;�,.r�,.,.+✓,,.-a-e ^�,��c,.G J�.�su.V I.lGOW�e N✓+'.%G,4 yr/-�^'�' CORPORATE REPORT MINNESOTA 47 Illo,.m:m er perc Bauein,n later, United—in an effort to preserve wherewithal tojump through costly le- those rights—beat Golden Valley to the gal hoops necessary to keep a developer litigation punch.The cry was served a erne to the letter of the contract. lawsuit Claiming breach offiith in a pact- Preventive action then becomes the nership name of the game.Some cities that fear A summary judgment dismissing developers who will push dtemmm pmj- United's suit,a Golden Valley-initiated ects that might not beim whatJoynes calls suit,and a United Property appeal, co- "the public good:' take breather from getherwids back and forth haggling that the development game to reassess what it took up the better part of the year,ensued is they want. before United and Golden Valley finally Roseville is a prime example of that. agreed upon something:They were not This year Roseville cloaked itself with a going n see eye TO eye on anything. development moratorium that gave it In what surely will be noted as time to rethink its land-we policies and precedem -setting,they hired a mediator timingrong classifications on high-density who ultimately brought the two warring developmenr in certain parts oftown.In factions figuratively together and settled thinking:The moratorium would offer the dispute out ofcourt.Faegre and Ben- the city precious time to reprioritize it son attorney Gary Gandmd found iliac growth objectives, while redefining in happy 51 million median that gave Unit- guidelines to make it more aggressive in ed an out ofits contract,while allowing pursuing quality development. Golden Valley to recoup some money, That, mo, was the plan in Shakopm keep its hands out of city coffers to pry the city that expected a building explo- offbonds,and reassign the development sion after it won The development right rights as soon as possible.Over a three- for Canterbury Downs in 1984.It placed year period,United will fork overfour a moratorium on my new development $250,000 payments to the city,until rhe around the nick until it could think out Practically aoy Cities that can afford developer rewrites the niles to are no longer letting of thegame before a developers cad the shots project is completed. —they'reflexing their own muscle city finds another developer or until the 51 million is paid off,whichever comes andrezonetheproperty,fortnck-related first.The agreement also allows United commercial space The plan has backfired to mss its bar back into the ring if the somewhat because it put potential devel- marka loosens up,although the acv has open at bay,and those developer might stated it will not even look at a United by now have had something completed. proposal thatisv't atleast25 percent pre- In cities like Minneapolis,where devd- leased. open are clamoring for downtown space The Golden Valley/United Properties and city subsidies. the city council has incident is not an isolated one;practical- formally and informally adopted policies ly every developer rewrites the rules of that attemor to keep the less-than-honest The game before a project ri completed. or less-than-ficouciaily secure at home. Most times, they have to.But The am', What haw become such harriswingexpe- respome to what it perceived as the big iiences a The Harry Wirch/Milwaukee bad developer Floung its muscle—par- Road Depot on-again/off-again plans, titularly its financial brawn—is unique. and the Boisdair Corpontion/Rivecplace Says City Manager Joynes: "I would 11 maybdmaybe-not proposals have lot chancrerize this as the Citysaying it will the city with more than its fair share of not put up wish developer who don't ]a .mbelearned.Tobesum.its sub- IiveuptoTheir aid ofthe hargain.We ex- sidy recapture policy and housing pea when you sign a contract that you replacement fund prognms send off will follow it.It doesn't give a developer flares—big red ones—that developer a chance to keep negotinring:' not interested in complying need not Indeed,it legally doesn't.But because apply of the allure of what's often promised to Whai s apparent is that aties That can be prodigious developments that will afford to are no longerlesting developer spin offmore confounding development call the shot—they're flexing their own mat will build tax increment that will cal- muscle.Yet,as one observes Domes out, tintately roll back Tom the community, mere will always be new lands to unearth most cities become somewhat submsssive and cities char will welcome any and ev- with developers.And few cities have the m developer with open arms. C i ' MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Eileen Klimek, Accounting Clerk DATE: September 10, 1987 Re: Checks issued to: #23866 Walter Malinski $450. 00 #23867 Joe Sand 450. 00 #23872 Randy Quiring 450. 00 #23873 David Mckenna 450.00 #23874 LeRoy Menke 346.50 These checks were issued as refunds for the Certificate of occupancy charge on building permits. Please see attached copy of Resolution No. 2604. RESOLUTION NO. 2604 d A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTIO NO. 2479 ADOPTING THE 1986 FEE SCHEDULE WhyREAS, the City of Shakopee has adopted a fee schedule for licenses, permits, services and documents; and WHEREAS, a change in conditions warrant modifying the fee schedule. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, that the 1986 Fee Schedule is hereby amended by adding the following to the building permit fees: 1. Certificate of Occuvancv a. Commercial/Industrial. - . 005 times the value of the project, or $500.00, whichever is greater b. Residential - . 005 times the value of the project with a $500.00 maximum (90% of the fee shall be refunded when a final certificate ffi occupancy is issued. ) 2. Fast Trackina Issuance of Buildinc Permits Fast tracking building City expenses un to 100% of permit process building permit fee with a 30% deposit. Adopted in IJ , w .-_ session of the City Council c-- the fthe City of Shakopee, held ,this day cf 1986. Q Mayor of the City of Shakdnee ATTEST.: City 1 Irk J Approved as to form this day of 2.���- '_986. d/�tw�eJ City SCOTT COUNTY REr'.••�U 9 OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Sit) 4JW COURT HOUSE S-11 07y Fr SHAKOPEE, MN. 55379-1378 UF$ KOP - -- - (612)4457750, E#.181 FE TIM O'LAUGHUN BELLE PLAINE Director 8738815,Ext.181 GORDON GELHAYE NEW PRAGUE Deputy Dheclor 7588283.Ext.181 August 31 , 1987 Memo To: Jim Karkanen , Shakopee Public Works Director From: Tim O'Laughlin , Emergency Management Director Subject : Appreciation Dear Jim, I want to take this opportunity to thank you and your staff for your outstanding cooperation in the recent Federal and State Disaster Declaration efforts. As you are probably well aware by now we won assistance qualification for private assistance . However , we failed to sustain enough damage to meet the Federal threshold for public assistance . For Your information , to date , there have been 32 applications received for Individual Financial Assistance , in the form of law interest loans or grants. Again , THANKS! Sincerely, Tim O'Lau gh in cc : John Anderson , City Administrator TOLIIc An Equal Opportunity Employer /b CITY OF SHAKOPEE BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT PERMITS ISSUED August, 1987 Yr. to Date Previous Year Number Number Valuation Number Valuation Mo. Ytd. Single Fam-Sewered 5 23 1,989,500 4 35 2,779, 974 Single Fam-Septic - 10 1, 293, 300 3 15 1, 443, 400 Multiple Dwellings - 7 645,500 - 4 2, 890,000 (# Units) (YTD Units) (-) (16) - (-) (100) - Dwelling Additions 5 51 246,891 5 41 245, 334 Other 1 14 353, 200 2 6 78,300 Comm New Bldgs - 4 1,045,000 - 4 8,500,000 Comm Bldg. Addns - 4 162,000 - 3 887,267 Industrial-Sewered - 1 600,000 - - - Ind-Sewered Addns - - - - 2 4, 290,000 Industrial-Septic - - - - - - Ind-Septic Addns - 2 167,475 - - - Accessory/Garages 5 23 144, 217 2 16 84,250 Signs & Fences 5 41 75,345 14 65 117, 170 Fireplaces/Wood Stove - 6 15,100 - 2 2, 677 Grading/Foundation - 5 56,400 - 11 322,800 Remodeling (Res) 3 24 163, 505 8 21 65,350 Remodeling (Inst) - - - - - - Remodeling (Comm/Ind) 3 24 306,850 5 35 5,456,225 TOTAL TAXABLE 27 239 7, 264, 283 43 260 27,162,747 TOTAL INSTITUTIONAL - - - - - - GRAND TOTAL 27 239 7,264,283 43 260 27, 162, 747 No. Ytd. No. Ytd. Variances 1 13 - 9 Conditional Use - 15 1 23 Rezoning - 1 - 2 Moving - - - 2 Electric 22 159 42 225 Plbg & Htg 34 196 19 238 Razing Permits Residential - - - - Commercial - - - - Total dwelling units in City after completion of all construction permitted to date. . . . . . . 4, 044 Cora Hullander Bldg. Dept. Secretary CITY OF SHAKOPEE BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED IN AUGUST, 1987 7555 Thelen Builders 1025 E. 3rd Alt. $ 10,000 7556 Leo Katzner 2460 Eme ald Lane House 110, 000 7557 Duane Dahl 1134 Monroe Pool 800 7558 Mn Valley Fence 2693 Marschall Rd. Fence 1,500 7559 Southview Sign 630 E. 1st Ave. Sign 600 7560 Virgil VanHeel 1109 Quincy St. Stg. Bldg . 2, 449 7561 Larry Paul 528 W. 3rd Garage 4, 000 7562 Void 7563 Signs of Quality 126 S. Holmes Sign 500 7564 Stan Pint 1282 Limestone Dr. Alt. 5, 000 7565 Signs of Quality 1420 W. 3rd Sign 215 7566 Robert Snell 915 S. Scott Garage 7,200 7567 Don Dahl 918 Minnesota Deck 1,000 7566 Robert Hein 913 E. 3rd Addn. 6, 000 7569 Pat O'Neill 612 E. 7th Addn. 3,500 7570 Void 7571 Gerald Schesso 1199 Quincy Stg. Bldg. 700 7572 James Hauer .S /Austin i �� House 55, 000 7573 Mark Gilbertson 630 E. lst�Ave. Alt. 20, 000 7574 Bruce Doyle 512 E. 6th Ave. Addn. 425 7575 Matt Storm 1100 E. 4th Ave. Alt. 2, 000 7576 Menke Const. 140 `iey7ce St. House 79,300 7577 Damile, Inc. 2400 E. 4th Ave. Alt. 900 7578 Edward Gilles 126 S. Atwood Garage 9,240 7579 Lawrence Signs 232 Marschall Rd Sign 3, 000 1580 Stan Pint 2641 Emera1,a Lane /Y/ House 70, 000 7581 Joseph Rlehr 2400 Emerald Lane 105,000 �.ku : 4,,,<, '582 Charlie Ries 1028 Minnesota Addn 10, 000 7583 Timothy Platt 8615 Boiling Sp. Ln. Alt. 4, 850 SHAKOPEE COALITION - MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 3, 1987 The Meeting was called to order at 7:00 AM in the Citizens State Bank Community Room by Chairman Brian Norris. Members Present: Lisa Walker (St Francis Regional Medical Center), Joan Salter (Food Shelf), Barry Stock (City Of Shakopee), Brian Norris (Citizens State Bank), Karen Martin (Chamber Of Commerce), Claude Kolb (Knights Of Columbus), John K. Anderson (City Of Shakopee), Jerry Knutson (Minn. Correctional Facility/ Shakopee), Kay Louis (Scott County Extension Service), George Muenchow (Shakopee Community Recreation). Members introduced themselves. Barry Stock shared that Dial A Ride Vans hours have been extended to 6:00 - 9:00 weekdays. Starting in January the hours probably will be extended to Saturdays. Lisa Walker replaces Sr Jo Lambert who is leaving the community. Joan Salter reported that Food Shelf usage was down in summer. 187 familys served in the two counties in August. 419 individuals served in Scott County. There was a good response in fresh vegetables donations. They have now moved to the agency headquarters on County Road $17. A major benefit is the capability now to receive donations during all office hours rather than just when the Food Shelf is open. Jerry Knutson informed the group that news items for the Helping Hands newspaper column have been slim. Inmates in the prison that were to work on this project have been paroled. There is a lack of continuity. The group agreed that the staff people from the Scott/Carver/Dakota Community Action Agency, in a sense, are performing this function already, and that perhaps this outreach could be expanded. John Anderson brought the group up-to-date on a number of capital improvements occuring around town: 13th Avenue construction, Downtown Re-Development, Hauers 4th Addition (90 Lots), Heritage Addition (70 Lots), three major Highway Projects, E. 3rd Avenue Re-Surfacing, Starwood (appeals in process), 100 Unit Apartment Development by Jr High School, Right Turn Lane (temporary) to be constructed by State at First Avenue and Holmes Street, new Chamber Of Commerce Office, City Hall Referendum Question on ballot November 3, old prison structures still available (problem with asbestos particles). Other items briefly discussed: a. No report on Crisis Number Newspaper Director. b. The group was reminded to be thinking of officers selection the end of the year. C. A memorandum was received from'Maxine Kruschke announcing that the Minnesota Valley Alliance For Battered Women is having an Open House on October 14 from 11:00 - 1:00 and also 4:00 - 7:00. Volunteers also are needed for handling telephone calls and providing Safe Homes. d. A Volunteer Of The Month presentation will be made in October. e. It was announced that Waste Management Company is looking to help with a community project. Contact Mike Berkopec at 890-1100. Kay Louis reported that County Extension again is doing a study on an overview of the County, something similar that was done 4-5 years ago. She will report on some of the findings at the next meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 AM. Respectfully submitted, George F. Muenchow, Secty. PROCEEDINGS OF THE DOWNTOWN AD HOC COMMITTEE Special Meeting City Council Chambers August 26, 1987 Chairman Laurent called the meeting to order at 7:35 a.m. with the following members present: Gary Laurent, Jim Stillman, Joe Topic, Bill Wermerskirchen, Terry Forbord and Tim Keane. Members absent: Harry Koehler, Pete Sames and Melanie Kahleck. Also present were: Barry Stock, Administrative Assistant and John Anderson, City Administrator. Forbord/Topic moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. Wermerskirchen/Forbord moved to approve the minutes of the August 12, 1987 meeting as kept. Motion carried.unanimously. Mr. Stock reported that at the last meeting several members of the Downtown Committee expressed a concern regarding the role of the Downtown Committee in encouraging appropriate development in the downtown area. The purpose of todays meeting is to discuss in detail what actions the Downtown Committee wishes to take if any in addressing this issue. Mr. Wermerskirchen stated that he felt that the Downtown Committee should play a role in encouraging development in the downtown area and at the same time discourage smaller development that are not consistent with the goals of the Downtown Committee. Mr. Topic agreed stating that it is great to see local developers considering investment in the downtown area but that the Downtown Committee should attempt to secure major developments in several of the key blocks in the downtown area. Mr. Forbord stated that he felt the Downtown Committee should send City Council a memo outlining their short and long term goals. He went on to state that he felt it would be difficult to attract any major developments in the downtown area if we do not take a pro-active approach to development. This may include condemnation and acquisition of entire blocks in the downtown area and the solicitation of developers through a request for proposal process. Mr. Laurent stated that he felt the Downtown Committee should take the following three steps before making a recommendation to City Council: 1. Identify key sites 2. Select a method for reserving the sites 3. Select a method for promoting these sites Mr. Forbord stated that it might be appropriate for the City Council to post a moratorium on development on certain blocks in the Downtown area until the City can analyze in greater detail what are the appropriate types of development to encourage in the downtown area. Mr. Keane then discussed several methods for seeking requests for proposals. His main concern was that the City needed planning and marketing guidance. He felt that the Downtown Committee should consider requesting City Council to fund a new market analysis for the downtown area. He felt that the market analysis completed with the Downtown Revitalization Plan was purely an inventory analysis. Mr. Keane stated that he felt it was important to get an expert to analyze which areas in the downtown are key sites for development and what are the appropriate types of development that we should consider. Mr. Forbord stated his concern about requesting the City Council to fund a new market analysis on downtown area. Mr. Topic stated that he felt that the most important thing is to get new development in the downtown area. He went on to state that the new streets and streetscape elements are great but we haven' t accomplished any thing if we don't get new development into the downtown area. Mr. Wermerskirchen stated that he concurred with Mr. Keane and that the next step for the Downtown Committee should be to recommend to City Council that a market analysis be completed for the downtown area. Mr. Stillman stated that he felt the original market analysis that was completed with the Downtown Revitalization Report was a good one but that many things have changed in the past four years that have had a great impact on the downtown area. He went on to state that he felt that the most important thing for the Downtown Committee to consider was to identify the one or two major blocks in the downtown area that will play a key role in determining the course of development. Mr. Anderson stated that if the Downtown Committee would like to play a role with what they have today, the Committee should utilize the Downtown Revitalization Plan that was adopted by the Downtown Committee and City Council. For example, if a developer proposes first floor office space in the core downtown area, according to the Downtown Revitalization Plan that type of development should occur near the institutional area. A developer could of course proceed with office space on the first floor in the downtown area on his own accord. But if a developer wishes to pursue this option and request City financial assistance, then the Downtown Committee may want to consider interjecting their concern about the incapability of this use and the adopted Downtown Revitalization Plan. Mr. Forbord stated that he would like to see Mr. Kraft involved in the process of formulating a recommendation to City Council. He also stated that he felt it was appropriate for the Downtown Committee to make a recommendation to City Council or the HRA regarding the proposed Brown development and the projects consistency with the Downtown Revitalization Plan. He believed that the Committee should identify one or two sites that will be able to attract major developments to the downtown area for the betterment of the community. Mr. Forbord also felt that the Committee should request an update of the Downtown Revitalization Marketing Analysis since it is now five years old and many new developments have taken place in the last five years that will have an impact on that study. Mr. Forbord felt it was important for the Downtown Committee to put the City Council on notice that the Downtown Committee is considering these issues at this time. Discussion ensued on what the definition of appropriate development in the downtown area. Since everyone has their own opinion on this issue, Mr. Anderson suggested that the Committee purely follow the original Downtown Revitalization Plan and the goals and needs as set forth in that plan until such time that it is updated. Discussion ensued on how to attract development to the downtown area. Discussion ensued on how to proceed in making a recommendation to City Council regarding the aforementioned issues as discussed by the Downtown Committee. Mr. Forbord suggested that the Downtown Committee express in detail to City Council the objective of the Downtown Committee regarding appropriate development- in the downtown area. Mr. Keane suggested that the Downtown Committee consider a resolution format in making their recommendation to City Council. The resolution could specify those things that have happened in the last five years that have had an impact on the downtown area. Discussion ensued on the content of the resolution to be submitted to City Council. Keane/Stillman moved to approve and submit the resolution as shown in attachment 41 to City Council for their consideration. Motion carried unanimously. Forbord/Stillman moved to adjourn the meeting at 9: 10 a.m. Motion carried unanimously. Barry A. Stock Recording Secretary Attachment #1 Resolution #87-1 A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER TAKING THE APPROPRIATE MEASURES TO ENSURE THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA WILL ENHANCE THE ECONOMIC VITALITY OF THE DOWNTOWN AND BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE GOALS OF THE DOWNTOWN COMMITTEE. WHEREAS, the original Downtown Ad Hoc Committee was established in 1981 and a subsequent Downtown Revitalization Plan was adopted by the Downtown Committee and the City Council in June of 1984, and WHEREAS, since the initiation and adoption of the Downtown Revitalization Plan the following activities have taken place in the City of Shakopee: 1. The number of hotel rooms in Shakopee has increased from 29 to 350 rooms. 2. Tourist traffic has doubled. 3 . Downtown street and streetscape improvements are now under construction. 4. The downtown bridge alignment has been established. 5. Funding for the mini by-pass appears to be secured. 6. The Planning Commission and City Council have approved 600+ single family lots. 7. Two historic buildings have been removed in the downtown area. 8. City Hall siting may soon become a reality. 9. The Stans Foundation is currently in the process of completing the renovation and development of the Stans house and park. 10. The Second Avenue narking lot has been completed. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee request the Shakopee City Council to: 1. Consider approving the appropriation of funds to update the Downtown Revitalization Plan. 2. Abide by the Downtown Revitalization Plan and Land Use Plan provided therein until adoption of an updated Downtown Revitalization Plan. 3. Refer all development requests that occur within the downtown area and that are seeking public money or deviation from the Downtown Revitalization Plan to the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee for review and recommendation. Adopted in special session of the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee of the City of Shakopee, MN held this 26th day of August, 1987. Chairman of the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee ATTEST: City Clerk MINUTES OF THE SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION The Shakopee Public Utilities Commission convened in regular session on August 3, 1987 at 4:30 P.M. in the Utilities meeting room. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Kirchmeier, Cook and Kephart. Also Manager Van Bout, Liaison Wampach and Secretary Menden. Motion by Cook, seconded by Kirchmeier that the minutes of the July 6, 1987 regular meeting be approved as kept. Motion carried. BILLS READ: City of Shakopee 20,032.00 ABM Equipment Supply, Inc. 39.73 Lanae K. Anderson 75.00 A T and T 18.57 Bentz Construction, Inc. 252.00 Border States Electric Supply Co. 840.20 Burmeister Electric Company - 1,313.56 Carlson Hardware 107.33 Chicago and NW Transportation Co. 180.00 City of Shakopee 195.72 City of Shakopee 747.83 City of Shakopee 21.70 City of Shakopee 329.52 Clay's Printing 39.85 Davies Water Equipment 296.24 Feed-Rite Controls 1,518.31 Fresco 132.44 City of Shakopee 280.00 General Tire Service 684.00 Glenwood Inglewood 17.55 Graybar Electric Company 1,603.57 H & C Electric Supply 1,798.34 Harmons Hardware 9.89 Hennens ICO 24.00 S.M. Hentges and Sons, Inc. 1,252.50 Krass and Monroe Chartered Law Office 107.50 Leef Bros. , Inc. 20.00 Minnesota Valley Testing, Inc. 27.20 Minn. Environmental puality Board 295.94 Motor Parts Service 9.90 - Neco Hammond 261.00 Ted Neisen 354.00 Northern Sanitary Supply 180.42 Northern States Power Co. 415,605.77 Northern States Power Co. 1,285.10 Northern States Power Co. 332.32 Northland Electric Supply Co. 31.14 Northwestern Bell Telephone 219.81 Otter Tail Power Company 66.00 Reynolds Welding Supply Co. 6.60 / 3 Ries Beating and Sheet Metal 74.25 Schnell and Madson, Inc. 1,745.29 William J. Nevin, Scott Co. Sheriff 11.96 Shakopee Floral 50.00 Shakopee Public Utilities Commission 182.89 Shakopee Services, Inc. 30.00 Starks Cleaning Services 80.10 Steamier Farm and Garden 49.50 Suel Business Equipment 148.63 T 5 R Service 40.00 Total Tool 348.55 Uniforms Unlimited 62.10 Unisys 266.40 United Compucred Collections, Inc. 158.40 Valley Industrial Propane- 11.03 Lou Van Bout 51.36 Water Products Company 1,015.36 Wesco 1,609.56 Midwest Protective Coatings and Currie St. Bank 19,190.00 Northland Electric Supply Co. 47.46 Travel Designs, Inc. 966.00 Motion by Kirchmeier, seconded by Cook that the bills be allowed and ordered paid. Motion carried. A communication from Jaspers, Streefland and Company regarding engaging their company for the 1987 annual audit was acknowledged. Motion by Kirchmeier, seconded by Cook to engage the firm of Jaspers, Streefland Co. for the 1987 annual audit in the amount of $6,600.00. Motion carried. A communication from Edman Builders, Inc. regarding installation of a fire hydrant on the property owned by Mount Olivet Lutheran Church was acknowledged. Liason Wampach questioned the Commission as to the degree of participation they feel the Liaison should have during the Commission meetings. He also updated the Commission on the Starwood Project and the Downtown revitalization. Manager Van Rout questioned Liason Wampach as to the status of the lighting for Memorial Park. Manager Van Bout informed the Commission of a meeting with Ken Ashfield, City Engineer to go over the costs for the downtown water project. The Utilities Coammission costs will include valve replacement and some maintenance work. The first phase of the Downtown Water PrDject cost estimate will be $4,700.00 with the second phase to be $3,200.00. Total cost estimate to the Shakopee Public Utilities estimate to be $7,900.00. A report regarding treatment of refunds on electric purchases was given. Motion by Cook, seconded by Kirchmeier that the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission refund $78,000.00 which was refunded to us from N.S.P. in the past year to all of our customers across the board as outlined in Manager Van Bout co®unication of July 31, 1987. Motion carried. An analysis of the power adjustment charge was given to the Commission by Manager Van Bout. A discussion followed. i3 Motion by Kirchmeier, seconded by Cook to direct staff to draw up a Resolution to express that the power adjustment is to be calculated on a basis that would reflect as accurate as possible that our collections should match our expenses. Motion carried. There were no new plats for the month of July, 1987. There were four fire calls for a total man hours of 1 hour and 45 minutes for the month of July, 1987. There were no lost time accidents for the month of July, 1987. The next regular meeting will be held in the Shakopee Public Utilities Cosunission meeting room at 4:30 P.M. on August 31, 1987. Motion by Cook, seconded by Kirchmeier that the meeting be adjourned. Motion carried. Barbara Menden, Commission Secretary �y TENTATIVE AGENDA BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS Adjourned Regular Session Shakopee, MN September 17, 1987 Chairwoman VanMaldeghem Presiding 1. Roll Call at 7:30 P.M. 2. Approval of Agenda 3 . Approval of August 6, and September 3, 1987 Meeting Minutes. 4. 7:30 P.M. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: To consider an application for variances to allow a 40 foot front yard setback instead of the required 50 foot setback and a 5 foot parking lot setback instead of the required 15 foot setback for the proposed addition to the existing Aamco Transmission Shop at 630 First Avenue East. Applicant: Breckenridge Development Action: Variance Resolution #504 5. 7:40 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider an application for a variance to allow a 6 foot setback instead of the required 100 foot setback for an accessory farm building at 3374 S. Marschall Road. Applicant: Robert Novotny Action: Variance Resolution #506 6. 7: 50 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider an application for variances to allow a 75 foot setback from the lakeshore (which exists on three sides of the property) instead of the required 100 foot setback to construct a dwelling on Block , 1, Lot 10, Weinandt 1st Addition. Applicant: H.L. Weinandt Action: Variance Resolution 4507 7. Other Business 8. Adjourn Douglas K. Wise City Planner NOTE TO THE B.O.A.A. MEMBERS: 1. If you have any questions or need additional information on any of the above items, please call Doug Wise on the Monday or Tuesday prior to the meeting. - 2. I£ you are unable to attend the meeting, please call the Planning Department prior to the meeting. TENTATIVE AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION Adjourned Regular Session Shakopee, MN September 17, 1987 Chairwoman VanMaldeghem Presiding 1. Roll Call at 7:30 P.M. 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Approval of July 30, August 6, August 20, and September 3 , 1987 Meeting Minutes 4. 8: 00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider an application for a Conditional Use Permit for a home occupation to continue auto body work upon the property located at 706 East 4th Avenue. Applicant: Donald R. Plekkenpol Action: Conditional Use Permit Resolution #505 5. 8:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: To 'consider an amendment to Shakopee City Code, Section 11. 25, Subd. 3; Section 11.26, Subd. 3; Section 11.27, Subd. 3; Section 11.28 Subd. 3 and by adopting by reference Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 and Section 11.99 to permit Temporary Sales Offices as a Conditional Use in the R-1, R-2, R-3 or R-4 District. Action: Recommendation to City Council 6. Final Plat of Eagle Creek Junction 2nd Addition Applicant: Inca Development Company Action: Recommendation to City Council 7. Legal Opinion: C.U.P. for Starwood Music Center 8. Discussion: Revised Sign Ordinance 9. Discussion: Amendments to Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance. 10. Other Business 11. Adjourn Douglas Wise City Planner NOTE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS: 1. If you have any questions or need additional information on any of the above items, please call Doug Wise on the Monday or Tuesday prior to the meeting. 2. If you are unable to attend the meeting, please call the Planning Department prior to the meeting. W4W4NYMYY ; MYY4YYYYYY YYYYtlYYYYYVVYVYY ee oee DC NNNmNO0e0 YYYYYYYYYV r � tl JOyYUNpANN PQYYUYWYY + O Va NNr p20 W PUpotlOJ PI • PNJYNre OMPNJ4AWJMN+ mA J 90D9mmn>< >D3AP993fW ' 3030mWC39W9AA0 f K ' .W f>Wf2220D 3 nOOnK0000y + + O+KfmmmfCO+rA+a 9 DO^ A ye yfNDDPO„f K CWSDffSDD nOW >ACfOC+Op2A0D n „A % ' pNZ `r mP2 . + fA 9ZrwyrrrADK ml DAAAf23ffDP9C0 M m Op' K W ZaZm a mKfrADpWfm Z ^' mKa D00 aO OF IOWOOmm+KIP y PKm mmK 0.' K9 92 ++ KA fA > » Zff mW O AT22Am <N TIO OS mDP V' SAW nom ^22 >Ktrn T fD f f P <m WA T m Am>DmKD '. < 92mLK0D09 OmC00 apOPOK pZ NOZOO^2arIA AOOTKDKO <D SZW9DLSD fAPmw> D D0D J K mm 0 OOKFm^mDa ' 2 >Sm' > D y2 tr IW mf y+f 99m DZP2 0 0 D0 a S Sfl 3 yOA22+y y Wm S K mA fSNmP N WN X91 9D D JCNTT m > ODZm ^W TCW9+9A09A0fw0m22 m mom Da Kf F K3mmm0p< 2 %o mwn A U M.M. A �wnmfPNw W P O >m>mAAOm 2ZD D a moa m + AN N 0 0 ^C OT T 0 KP W = w T w0KA22 0A S m3 Ka ZC A =0T if Y O f 9+m W20P m _ m a t m PW21 m KmKa K 0m mm p 2 WI mm0 P r ' W'. WyN6 N mp^ W nK 1 0y p m A p y W P 2 W 0 r J m j I I m c 111 ONYJJNI � O N O-Wlm PYA NI N � V N P < N1 NI I O eI 00eI e I oc eO P m00 >fSyD SmC z m i I I I y I I >. T I z ' a I I I y I I li i II YYmmAVNJ ,r N 0J1 N 'AWN NO JNN 0 NY . OON 0 oN N ej,'. AbNeNNO u0eeo0 m '. oN m N oN < m z I. eee ee eeeoe e e e e e b0 m m N N D rNNJN J: Oo. J J b0r V rNr V0e 04b N ' NbY a ' NJONb YmeY 0N0 K�NOWOJeNP yVP PNN >y 0 JK N JYeOPMWJJ J J4 O 0 ^PJON O. Ne N 0e4N o bYJ O NN a NJJ y0 O Kpe^oN00 .Oe N .POO NNNIOb o. r e N 4JP D T eYo00Ye� 000 M NNotlM00 oN0 fp K O J NNP ^+ O+ N' JPtl YrN Y NNb < K bN tl PON N Op r00 r NY�rP NJYJP+tl Y tl N PPP D y � 0 Nbu J N OOYNPNN00NJNP j rai +4 JN o N O N NP •. P N NJOOetlPN Nm NNJ eJ P JOe N oNe ee Pe JNNPo00oPb OO N 40J 2 9 N YOo10, D 1 1 I I e I o 1 1 m m Pb '. JOWJMtlNNP OtlJ N N PNOJJo NO J N o w NNJNJNW b 0JJ 4 NN T iNN00V NOJ J O', NNOJJKNOY N Jeb K NK y r Ob ---------------- ''.. jY mUYY W OY Y U Y U Y U Y Y U YYYYYYY T + ' I '. m00_ NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNm DC _ Ne aJro�OVYYyPJrororoN + + n2 m i I a 00 f O+ O Y YN Wb+OY n0 -1 0 0y 3 S1m- nn 'J3mDmLTTnTm3L1N9T C O Ts mir>y c z moc i nwcmm>-oo -ywmczm - zo s Tu-3s-� aczaAummorr z nun nymn A. y a cn . mmmmzo -mnowL > - c+ i m m A y y n oA mNzm n• r r om u n � wuz n oyennmin mn o ' n on r r Tm T'. T T �- Tu me m um T 2 .1 > D w m OyrrmwAAyC30T 2 . T a ym z m n z T = o z --rmaamLyao aA u c A m - m m o urmunmmuzzNs - m< Tm z zm cu N -� uu A cwmmmmp 'Qm �mzsam va a nmrmm yr s ' y y T m anoom mT No 'mnm oT v i o - o A rozr y- o axm zc m y o au a azr < 9z o m H z v n m o om maa m r m mmr i i y m m m m m' 0 O o ,+ V y •V V 'Y 'o ro N ,N+' ' ' lY `'J R 00 R R O tl 0PV0 rJ N+ + n.f m e i roeyNJeorooee. . yn.N . .o s r3 z y y V r � 0 + NP Y bl 0 J00N++ N ' JI -� YO., N ON JNy00eo Ne OV 9 M1' s m m _ = r e o ee a eeoe e m o eeooee000eeee000e c m y + m j y Y y j N JJ 0 J � N + YNo+Pm A y M1 N y110 , ro b m ry JNO+NyJ P y e J a 0 VNYY ro P YmtlJmnY py m y e 00 b OJO o e V ooeNtl epy000ene0o Cm T � _ N r0 ! 0 ry > I =i u ere ro ro m uye m m a; ma m y u y ren ro am y N YNYP 4 oV00NYPP A 0 Nery 0 eyppNNV O O N o o e e O 2 T o0Y0ooeoee0 m D O N N � � q Ory popVmp _ m N ro e - N Y0 J o o P J -yUJNyO O ti N I V II I • r ' • a • a a aJ • aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa • aa�a�a� ai >c v ' • a y • 9 + N_A_ • V+ur.YYYYMYYWYY= NNNroro i - m OYPNYNN 4YN ++ NUUaJJW+O OZ y V p b+ +U +aO000O+oYPONNoryNO N+OY+OONO OO n n y ' On p, �nxO0I0C- 9yy11r9pTm3mw 9 , CLI999mOm C ' O O T > 9 , m 9 yD i' CnCOTy2AATOAADmOCOC C T20mmAm> <> Zo yZ Y Y > ' x SV wS9n22 -W -DrW000aC- yAV 9 AmD22mrTr y y b S 3 p^ lnAnU9yrC2<myx99r-rOTT 3ArW0DDAD > y Ay . ='. AnS mN- AyT9DOrT 9^Ani 093y-- - ^w'A O Z Z J 9Z D > rSaPA 1D�+r2 ^y NO ZrTSOOI Tn O z > nm r r n � yz m zz om- 9woxz9mm a ' mz zz � m ^ z y 9 m mWz mnnP zo --aDnc m rywPmw � mma nz 9 W m m zc- cn Wm m'. z ^oy- mx s 11 11 mm m ' n m v Ao w mummm W z - zxra w. Anrx9 . 199 ro x i .� m y me onTw m. Pc W� azy^ Wy m.. zo-m- �c 9s > a z ma a. un Aw cm szPP r mea mrr om a z m xx W mm .<. S z 9w �W mm ars n o-..s yy zc m T H zz =n y ma cr N iZZA - z m m C yy n n S Wm O 9wmm mm x3 0 n . mo xz i s � mci j , ar m n W y nn mm I w I 1 I I O I o,. + i zn ..A - m m ro m i _ I f M1 p e � nf0mrop ' uiYre ul 0�' m amu+e T 9 P u u a WSPro+- Pum ro m u' tlyauJPm m Ulry UPOY NNYNN NNPW Ve4M >2 j j P" M1baeaNPamProN0Vp0 . . . . . . . yy 2 1 mOY YPeY00Y+oNNNmNOJ+O+ + ae Oy�4PYNa C O 00 a 00e+N1ro+P00e0Jel - wP NYYYb �_ - i I y A a A m m y y P P. p N J . J + y paY N WQY p Y'. Pi P+yN 91 +J Y O+ VbMY Y n Y O - WOONro O N N' N N d UmOO V0V yNYmOPN00J y' eP+mpO 9. ' o e e O O O U ONOOONNONNa0eo00e00 No000eoON - ^. o O O 00 a OOO00000eo0eo0ee00eo e o aPeeoeeeoee N, ooeem z9 1 a b m mOMbON+MVY+ NYV N J Y NN OPJrob m N N P p J +Y e. Y pPmProNNNNNO +W-+b0N0 P YyVpmN+NN a p p � Otl e pY0NN00byONONJOYPW m Ya0Yo0 >y 0 m N N y YoaJYNNN+4tlYamNNNYO a OWyMJNOM4 y0 O P 0 m U YO+n00+pYY+VNeNYPNN+N N'. OPpPYPOY C 9 P p N m 0 e Oe Y OOJaVPbNVp-O+oOYdYOam Y. oONryONPYb rm m 9 1 Y p J N y 1 UpJp-bY+N Y N NJPYY T 0 N N J a m m U + O�VYONYN n + N N0 NYN4Y <. Y y y y y + 0 a ywaro �dmNNaNN�+ NmJPeNN O YPP+oMbmO D P N y 0 m 0 e0 U YaP+bdNYNJNWJ y ON+YMP+ bP w p 0 - J J M VOYaNNNYNaW+OYNYJJaPV N OYNYNaVN+ > ' e V0roPP00M00PWaWWy M eYNaNYbP Z 9 V� l d m m NN a ie yae1P +J+N+OtlNVoOYWYOPN Y IOmNONJYY �I T P T P p a N N P J NbOyY4+1NNPJN 000 o J d a OYNOo+,O+ 9 ry p J J Y W O O a P WMaYYV0ab0�+NVPJPPO Y 00YNNY y + tl - OZ O mo 0 I 9 ! it Ili ' jl I � I I I li i A m II j I. I I I i I li ro A x r 3 r - - - - - - - - - -- -- -- -- - -- I i i I I I i n m T n A A 0 > 1 y y < "1 > a D Z 9 m n m u y ro MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Community Development Director RE: Continuation of LAWCON/LCMR Grant DATE: September 9, 1987 Introduction• Several years ago the City received a grant from the LAWCON/LCMR programs for the construction of an overlook on the Minnesota River adjacent to the State Trail and near the termination of Lewis Street. Since the time of the receipt of this grant the "mini by-pass" project has been formulated. Because of a potential conflict between a new bridge crossing and the proposed site of the LAWCON funded project action was held up on the project in 1986 and a one year extension was obtained which ran until December 31, 1987. At this time it is apparent that the proposed location for the project does not appear feasible because of the likely location of the new bridge across the Minnesota River. Therefore the Community Development Department staff sought and has subsequently obtained a continuation of the grant until December 31, 1988. No action is required on this subject by the City Council at this time. This is only sent to the City Council for information purposes. Murphy's Landing am....`.vwer a..ra.m.mo. waa.e..nseo-iseo RECEIVFD 2187 E. Highway 101 Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 (e12) ' 6" SEP 1 C 1981 September 9, 1987 71P CITY OF SHAKOPFE John Anderson, City Administrator City of Shakopee 129 East 1st Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: New roof - Administration Building Dear John: This letter will act as a follow-up to our telephone conversation of Friday, August 27, 1987, regarding the above stated matter. As I advised you at that time, the roof on the building that houses the apartments, Print Shop, Restaurant, and offices, was in an extremely deteriorated condition. The Board of Trustees has been aware of this for the past three years, but the bids on reroofing were prohibitive and each contractor has advised that there was no possibility of minor corrective measures. At the time of the "super storm" this summer we were inundated by water, both in the upstairs apartments and throughout the downstairs. Hoping for the possibility of some recompense, I filed a claim with our insurance carrier. As you will note by the attached letter, they rejected our claim, due to the condition of the roof. Therefore, the Board has authorized a contract with Allweather Roof, Inc., for a Firstone membrane roofing system, in the negotiated amount of $18,850.00. This expenditure will be a line item budget request from the County of Scott. r If you have any additional questions, please contact me. Regards, .ZMar . enderson President and Director AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY AUTO-OWNERS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY HOME-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY e/�fltO-OwflerS Insurance OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY PROPERTY-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY ylr. �"ICfT1E Sql pLpll 1p7 BRANCH CLAIM OFFICE 2539 Eee, Counry Bone E P.O. Be. 54358 51. Paul, MN 551860355 Phone: 16121 777-9317 August 19, 1987 Minnesota Valley Restoration Project, Inc. 2187 Highway 101 Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Attention: Marge Henderson RE: Our Claim No. : F18-6906-87 Date of Loss: 7/23/87 Dear Marge: As I discussed with you, this letter is to advise you that due to the fact there is no exterior damage to the building/s which I looked at, there is no coverage for the damage to the interior of the building and contents. As we discussed, the roof (flat) is in dire need of maintenance and this writer is denying your claim for damages due to wear and tear on the roof. As we discussed, there has to be exterior damage prior to any coverage for interior damage. Regarding the photos that I took, I am in the process of obtaining additional photos and these will be forwarded to your attention when received. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention fox consideration. Respectfully, I v AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE INSURANCE CO. Bruce Peterson, Adjuster BP:lf cc: file Schmid Agency, Inc. /9 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant RE: Dial-A-Ride Performance Based Agreement Working Effectively DATE: September 10, 1987 Introduction• In 1986, the City of Shakopee awarded it's Dial-A-Ride contract to Kare Kabs Inc. The contractor entered into a performance based agreement. The contractor is paid a base price of $17. 90 per hour - per vehicle. When ridership falls below the minimum and maximum thresholds the rates change. The maximum threshold amount is based on an average ridership of 4.17 passenger trips for each hour of contracted service. The minimum threshold amount is based on an average ridership of 2.38 passenger trips for each hour of contracted service. Given our current level of service, the minimum threshold is 1600 passenger trips per month and the maximum threshold level if 2802 passengers. During the month of August our Dial-A-Ride ridership fell below the contracted minimum threshold. Therefore, during the month of August the contracted hourly bid amount of $17.90 per hour per vehicle was reduced to $15. 90 per hour per vehicle. The enforcement of this provision resulted in a savings to the City of $1, 340. During the last 16 months of our contract with Kare Kabs, the provider has exceeded the maximum threshold amount on four occasions. On each of these occasions ridership levels exceeded 3, 000 passenger trips. When this situation occurs the bid amount is increased to $19.90 per hour per vehicle. The performance based contract that we have with Rare Kabs has been very successful. The performance measures and maximum and minimum thresholds are an excellent method of stabilizing average subsidies per passenger trips. Shakopee' s subsidy passenger trip on the Dial-A-Ride program is less than $4.50 per passenger This is a very respectable level of subsidy when compared to-other Dial-A-Ride systems in the State and the Metro area. TENTATIVE AGENDA ADJ .REG.SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 15, 1987 Mayor Reinkt presiding 11 Roll Call at 7 :00 P.M. 21 Recess for H.R.A. Meeting 31 Re-convene 41 Liaison Reports from Councilmembers 51 RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS 61 Approval of Consent Business - (All items listed with an asterisk are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. ) *71 Approval of minutes of August 18th and September 1st, 1987 81 Communications: (Items noted for consent will be received and filed) a] League of Mn. Cities re: Vacancies in Multi-Member State Agencies b] Tim Keane, Chrm. ICC re : goals of the City 9] 8:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - 1988 Budget 101 Boards and Commissions: None 11] Reports from Staff: [Council will take a 10 minute break around 9:003 a] Star City Recognition Banquet *b] Action on Probationary Period of Douglas Wise c] Ord. No. 230, Licensing of Entertainment Centers - tabled 8/18 d] Approve bills in amount of $680,550.75 e] Change Orders 1 and 2 for Downtown Streetscape Project 1987-2 -f] Change Order No. 2 for TH-101/83 Project No. 1987-1 g] Payment for Repairs to Betti Lu' s h] 'iet Council Proposal to Amend Comp Plan Amendme^`_ Procedures 12] Resolutions and ordinances: - *a] Res. To. 2801, Adopting Assessments for 1.986 Sidewalk Replace- ment Project No. 1986-2 *b] Res. No. 2800, Reducing Assessments for VIP Interceptor c] Res. No. 2799, Congratulating the Shakopee Lions on Their 25.._ = _. _ _vee_ r-y *d Res. Do. 2790, =t_tiat'ing the 'v'acation c; a<_emer.ts 1»] Recess for Executive Session regarding right-of-way negotiations 15] Re-convene 161 Adjourn to Tuesday, September 22, 1057 a7 - .10 P.M. a7 Ccu_thou=_., - R-.31? __. - __�y TENTATIVE AGENDA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA Regular Adjourned Session September 15, 1987 Chairperson Leroux presiding 1. Roll Call at 7: 00 P.M. 2. Approval of August 18, 1987 Meeting Minutes 3. Recognition Event for the Minnesota Street Housing Program 4. Shakopee Valley Motel Tax Increment Financing Project 5. Other Business 6 . Adjourn Dennis R. Kraft Executive Director PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v IN AND FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA SPECIAL SESSION AUGUST 18, 1987 Chairman Leroux called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. with Comm. Wampach, Lebens, Vierling and Clay present. Also present were Mayor REinke; Dennis R. Kraft, Executive Director; John K. Anderson, City Administrator; Judith S. Cox, CEty Clerk; and Julius A. Coller, II, City Attorney. Lebens/Vierling m oved to accept the special call . Motion carried unanimously. Clay/Vierling moved approval of the minutes of the August 4, 1987, meeting. Motion carried with Comm. Lebens abstaining from the vote. Mr. Kraft noted that at the regular July HRA meeting Mr, Wallace Bakken, doing business as the Shakopee Valley Motel , requested permission from the HRA to construct a campgrounds as a part of the improvements for the entier tax increment project. The original project included three improvements (1) motel expansion in the amount of $1,200,000; (2) a restaurant with a minimum value of $440,000 and (3) a recreational facility with a value of $500,00 or more, Once all improvements were completed the HRA would convey to Mr, Bakken $330,000 as partial reimbursement for property improvements, The .parcel in question has bedrock near the surface and this is one of the reasons stated in the statutes which allow the creation of a tax increment project, The bonds were sold July,- 1986, in the amount of $500,000 and the project , was scheduled to begin sonstruction September 38, 1986, and this did not happen as Mr, Bakken was unable to obtain necessary financing for the project, although he did try on different occasions. Subsequent to that, Mr, Bakken approached the HRA and requested permission to construct onjy the campground portion of the project and had requested partial reimbursement for that portion of the project. After discussion at the July meeting, the HRA had asked the Executive Director to determine whether this was economically feasible, Mr, Kraft noted that since that time he had met with the County Assessor, as had Mr, Bakken, and it was determined that the campground would have a value of $855,600. Subsequent to that, Mr. Kraft had talked with the City financial consultant, and it was determined that the total tax increment coming from the project could be as much as $23,000, They determined there would be a need to have $18,000 in capitalized interest representing the amount of bond payments that would have to be made prior to the time that any of the improvements came on line. It was also recommended that the bond issuance cost in the amount of $13,000 be covered at this time. In reviewing the calculations, Mr, Bakken could probably be given about $100,000 as a partial reimburse- ment for property tax improvement if he were to complete the campground with an estimated market value of $855,000, Mr, Kraft noted his recommendation would be that the developer's agreement be amended. He pointed out that the NRA is holding a $50,000 letter of credit from Mr. Bakken and this could be used to pay the debt service on the bonds in the interim. Also, that an agreement with the assessor be entered into prior to the disbursement of any funds. This is a requirement of the original agreement and it appears Mr. Bakken may have some problem with the title of the land. The alternatives were explored and discussed by the HRA. Comm. Wampach questioned if Mr, Krass had been consulted on this matter, as he was involved with initial discussions of this project. Comm, Wampach felt it would be beneficial to consult him. Mr. Kraft stated he would be happy bo bring Mr, Krass in on this matter. In discussign it was noted.that there have been 'a considerable amount of changes made since the time of the original proposa . HRA August 18, 1987 Page 2 Chairman Leroux suggested that this matter be referred back to Staff to report back with more development information, exactly what the development is to look like, the project uses (the ranger station, etc), and all items that are involved. This additional information could be brought back at the September 1, 1987, meeting. It was also requested that a redrafting of the development agreement be done. Wampach/Vierling moved to authorize Staff to meet with Mr. Bakken and formulate a new developers agreement and come back September 1, 1987, with that agreement, a memo from Mr. Krass, and supporting documentation for the develpment. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Clay moved to adjourn to September 1, 1987, Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:24 p.m, Dennis R. Kraft Executive Director Betty Brume Recording Secretary ARTICLE III site Acquisition and Improvement Assistance; onstruction Plans, Cerficate of Com lotion Section 3.1 . Assistance for Site Acquisition and Improvement Costs. The Developer shall acquire all of the Development Property and, following the submission to and approval by the Authority of Construction Plans for the Minimum Improvements pursuant to Section 3. 2, the Developer shall undertake and complete the Project. Upon completion of the Project, provided that no Event of Default has occurred and is continuing or will with the passage of time occur hereunder, and provided further that the Authority shall have issued the Certificate of Completion to the Developer pursuant to Section 3. 4 hereof, the Authority shall pay to the Developer the sum of $330, 000, which shall constitute a reimbursement and writedown of the costs of the Development Property and the Site Improvements. Section 3. 2. Construction Plans. y(a) Prior Prior to the commen ent of the construction of the Minimum Improvements, the Developer shall have submitted to the Authority, and the Authority shall have approved pursuant to this Agreement, Construction Plans therefor. The Construction Plans shall provide m„f(K-m construction of the Minimum Improvements shall be in ,,,.a,�,_ conformity with the Redevelopment Program and this Agreement, and all applicable state, federal and local laws and regulations. The Authority shall approve the Construction Plans in writing if: (a) the Construction Plans conform to the terms and conditions of this Acree- ment; (b) the Construction Plans conform to the terns and conditions of the Redevelopment Proeram; (c) the Construction Plans are adequate to providee f struction of the Minimum Improvements, nd (d d) no Event of Default has occurred; provided, however, that anv such apnrova'_ of the Ccnstrcc`icn Plans pursuant to this section 3.2 shall constitute approval for the purposes cf this Acreenent only and shall not be deemed to cq::_ _=z acprova_ or waiver by the A_t.-,ccity or the City w respect to any building, zonine or other ordinances c. rece:-tions Of the City, and sh111 -tbe de.,-..=f - pe s_f=:==eat -_-=s serve as the b-=E s _ r thess_- ance of a buildi.^.c permit Censtructicn Plans,are rct as detailed or como ete`las the mlan_ 0,-;er;;_sa reccired for the issuance r' a building permit Such Construction Plans must be reiected in writing by the Authority within 30 daps of 5_Z--fission or shall be deemed to have been at_pcoved by tne =uthority. If the Authority rejects the Construction Plans in whole cr _n part, the Developer shall submit new or corrected Con- struction Plans within 30 days after receipt by the Developer of written notification of the rejection, accompanied by a written statement of the Authority specifying the respects in which the Construction Plans submitted by the Developer fail to conform to the re- quirements of this Agreement. The provisions of this Section relating to approval, rejection and resubmission of corrected Construction Plans shall continue to apply until the Construction Plans have been approved by the Authority. Approval of the Construction Plans by the Authority shall not relieve the Developer of any obli- gation to comply, and such approval shall not constitute or be deemed to constitute a determination by the Authority that the Construction Plans do comply, with the terms and provisions of this Agreement, the provi- sions of the Redevelopment Program, or the provisions of applicable federal , State and local laws, ordinances and regulations, nor shall approval of the Construction Plans by the Authority be deemed to constitute a waiver of any Event of Default. (b) If the Developer desires to make any material change in the Construction Plans after their approval by the Authority, the Developer shall submit the proposed change to the Authority for its approval. If the Con- struction Plans, as modified by the proposed change, conform to the approval criteria listed in Section 3.2(a) with respect to the original Construction Plans, the Authority shall approve the proposed change. Such change in the Construction Plans shall be deemed ap- proved by the Authority unless rejected in writing with- in 30 days by the Authcrity with a statement of the Authority' s reasons for such rejection. Section 3. 3 . Commencement and Comoletion of Construc- tion. (a) Subject to Unavoidable Delays, the Developer scall co-mmence construe=ion of the minimum Improvements (p) Su- __- ^le De_-vs, the Develop=_- -` '_- _---" Z=_,-: --e -- f prior o,{.Dece b - . 3' ..z.espeso, �(c) _ c,,✓. K e.._ to the Project to be constructec cr prcvice'_ by the Developer or. the Develop- t Prop=_rcy sna -_ t r ty `= Const - ticn Plans as sub. ited _.._ Deve'_ooe. and the Authority. _ _ __ _ Section 3.4 . Certificate of Completion. Promptly after completion of the Project by the Developer in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, upon the written request of the Developer to the Authority, the Authority shall furnish to the Developer the Certificate of Comple- tion, in substantially the form set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto. If upon request by the Developer the Authority shall refuse to furnish a Certificate of Comple- tion, the Authority shall furnish the reasons for such refusal . Such Certificate of Completion shall be a conclu- sive determination of satisfaction and termination of the agreements and covenants in this Agreement with respect to the obligations of the Developer to construct and complete the Project. Section 3. 5 . Letter of Credit. The Developer shall furnish, or cause to be furnished, to the Authority, on or before the date on which the City authorizes the sale of its bonds to assist the Authority in financing the Authority' s obligations hereunder , an irrevocable letter of credit (the "Letter of Credit" ) acceptable in form and substance to the Authority from a financial institution acceptable to the Authority in the amount of $50,000, effective until the date on which the Authority issues the Certificate of Completion and September 1 , 1988, whichever shall occur earlier, which provides that if the Minimum Improvements have not been substantially completed by September 1, 1988, such that a Certificate of Completion cannot be issued by the Authority, or if there occurs an Event of Default which remains uncured for 90 days, then the Authority may draw the entire amount of the Letter of Credit, which funds the Authority shall forever retain as partial liquidated damages or reimburse- m- of expenses; provided that a Letter c` Credit expiring prior to September 1 , 1988, shall be acceptable to he Authority if such Letter of Credit provides that the Author- ity may draw thereon in the event that the Developer fails to furnish a replacement Letter of Credit in form and sub- stance acceptable to the Authority at least `n_.-ty (30) days prior to the expiration of the Letter of Credit then in No draw z^ _ Lets - __ Credo , _. -__ in and of itself, cDnS:itl1_ a_ _ -.-_�._n__ _ _f _-is _ _eemen- o. a_ ^lve `he _eve'_Cperof any of _its obligations hereunder . _he tnc;rlzy ZrIts --sere _ .ay reg" _.._ __ Cct ^__- ^_.. s-_ _sc " the ^_ergc` CCc?- - The Partiesacree `hat he Letter of '� t furr_sh�c b± De - - P' Acreement shall continue G Section3. ce_ _c'ticr reepent. except as modified by 1ItI `^is :+gree==_nt the Prior Agree':=_nt s_a-_ re-a_n ir. r_ ll __ I force and effect . 3 ARTICLE IV Assessment Agreement Section 4.1. Execution of Assessment Agreement. At the time of execution and delivery of this Agreement, or at the time at which the Developer shall have acquired the Develop- ment Property, whichever is later , the Developer shall enter into the Assessment Agreement with the Authority, pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.76, Subd. 8, specifying the Assessor 's Minimum Market Value which shall be established with respect to the Assessed Property, for calculation of real estate taxes. Specifi- cally, the Developer shall agree that the Assessor 's Minimum Market Values of the Assessed Property, beginning January 2, 1987 , and thereafter shall be not less than the amount or respective amounts set forth in the attached form of Assess- ment Agreement. Nothing in the Assessment Agreement shall limit the discretion of the assessor to assign market values to the property in excess of such Assessor ' s Minimum Market Values or prohibit the Developer from seeking _through the- exercise of legal or administrative remedies a reduction in such market values for property tax purposes, provided how- ever , that the Developer shall not seek a reduction of such market values below such Assessor 's Minimum Market Values in any year so long as the Assessment Agreement shall remain in effect . The Assessment Agreement shall remain in effect through December 31, 2000 ( the "Termination Date") , to the effect that the 2000 payable 2001 property taxes shall be the last taxes subject thereto. Pursuant to Minnesota Stat- utes, Section 273.76, Subd. 8, the Assessment Agreement shall be filed for record in the office of the county recorder or reeistrar of titles of Scott County, Minnesota, and such filing shall constitute notice to any subsequent encumbrancer or purchaser of the Development Property, whether voluntary or involuntary, and such Assessment Agree- ment shall be bincing and enforceable in its entirety against any such s.osecuenc purchaser or encur,.hrancer. Section 4 .2. Real P-cperty Tares. (a) The Developer shall pay all real - taxes parable witr, respect to the Devel^-ae.-. be Davabie or accrueV following the Deveioper',s, accuisi- ti:a thereof Pursuant to this Acreemen_ Drovic -' t^is Acreeme shall not it:pc5e Persc.al, l iab_11 _} n the Developer for rear DroDerty taxes. (b) The Developer agrees that prior to the Termi- nation Date: ( i ). It will not seek administrative review or judicial review of the applicability of any tax statute relating to the taxation of real property contained within the Development Property deter- mined by any Tax Official to be applicable to the Redevelopment District or the Developer or raise the inapplicability of any such tax statute as a defense in any proceedings, including delinquent tax proceedings. ( ii ) It will not seek administrative review or judicial review of the constitutionality of any tax statute relating to the taxation of real property contained within the Development Property deter- mined by any Tax Official to be applicable to the Redevelopment District or the Developer or raise the unconstitutionality of any such tax statute as a defense in any proceedings, including delinquent tax proceedings. _ ( iii ) It will not seek any tax deferral or abatement, either presently or prospectively autho- rized under Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.86, or any other State or federal law, of the taxation of real property contained in the Development Property between the date of execution of this Agreement and the Termination Date; provided that the Developer may challenge a valuation in excess of the Asses- sor 's Minimum Market Values, but may not seek a lower valuation than the Assessor 's Minimum Market Values. - 2 ARTICLE V Events of Default Section 5.1. Events of Default Defined. The following shall be "Events of Default" under this Agreement, and the term "Event of Default" shall mean whenever it is used in this Agreement any one or more of the following events: (a) Failure by the Developer to acquire the Devel- opment Property and to commence and complete the Minimum Improvements pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. (b) Failure by the Developer to substantially observe or perform any material covenant, condition, obligation or agreement on its part to be observed or performed under this Agreement . Section 5 .2. Remedies on Default . Whenever any Event of Default referred to in Section 5.1 of this Agreement occurs or with the passage of time or giving of notice, or both, will occur , the Authority maytakeany one or more of the following actions after giving 30 days ' written notice to the Developer of the Event of Default, but only if the Event of Default has not been cured within said 30 days: (a) The Authority may suspend its performance under the Agreement until it receives assurances from the Developer , deemed adequate by the Authority, that the Developer will cure its default and continue its performance under the Agreement. (b) The Authority may cancel and rescind this Agreement. (c) The Authority nay take whatever action, including legal or aaministrative action, which may app=ear necessary cr to the Authcr_ty to col- leet. any payments due^ u..der this Agreement or to enforce performance and en=_erszr:ce of a7v _ cr cave:aa- - - - =c-s Ag-_e-.- . Sectzcs 5 - - .3. Nt RcCc=': No r2'aa z ___n conferred upon. or _eservec - _ n_-..c_; .:v be exclusive of any otner available - -' is idies he r able remedy or remedies here- under , but eac^ and every such rsme=y -_.a-- be cu, e snali be in addition to =very _ ____ - _ _ c:-__ Agreement . No delay or caission to exercise -- _ -_ cru_=owe_ accrcir:g h=_re:;.*.cec ur:: a.;y c z_l: --��1 - - cn- zny s_--h ri era ..r power or sia'_1 be CC_gct rL`ed to be a carve: thereof, but any such right and power may be exercised from tine to t,me and as often as may be g__.___ expe.^.Lent . Section 5.4 . No Additional Waiver Implied b One Wai- ver . In the event any agreement containe in this Agreement should be breached by any Party and thereafter waived by any other Party, such waiver shall be limited to the particular breach so waived and shall not be deemed to waive any other concurrent , previous or subsequent breach hereunder . Section 5 . 5 Agreement to Pav Attorney's Fees and Exoenses. Whenever an Event of Default occurs and has not been cured during the applicable cure period and the Author- ity shall employ attorneys or incur other expenses payable to any third party for the collection of payments due or to become due or for the enforcement or performance or obser- vance of any obligation or agreement on the part of the Developer herein contained, the Developer agrees that it shall, on demand therefor, pay to the Authority the reason- able fees of such attorneys and such other expenses so incurred by the Authority. ARTICLE VI Additional Provisions Section 6. 1. Restrictions on Use. The Developer agrees for itself , its successors and assigns and every successor in interest to the Development Property, . or any part thereof , that the Developer and such successors and assigns shall devote the Development Property to, and only to, and in accordance with, the uses specified in the City Code of Ordinances and in this Agreement. Section 6. 2. Notices and Demands. Except as may be otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, a notice, demand or other communication under the Agreement by either Party to the other shall be sufficiently given or delivered if sent by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered personally, (a) in the case of the Developer is addressed or delivered personally to Shakopee Valley Square Prop- erties, c/o Shakopee Valley Motel, 1251 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379, Attention: Wallace Bakken; ( b) in the case of the Authority, is addressed or delivered personally to the Authority at the Shakopee City Hall, 129 East lst Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379, Attention: Executive Director ; or at such other address of a Party as may be designated in writing and forwarded to the other Party as provided in this Section. Section 6. 3 . Counterparts . This Agreement may be exe- cuted in any number of counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. Section 6. 5 . Law Governine. This Acreement shall be governed and construed :. accordance with. the laws cf the State of Y.-nnesc" . Sect_on 6. 5 . Terzinatcc- - `tiscreeme:.t. This ' Acreement shall _-__m.inate _.. ., _____e_ c_ _.,e Date Date and the date on which- this Acreement shall havebeen cancelled and rescind by he uthot` ty pursuant to Section 5 .2 (b) or ( c) hereof . Tne Assess =_. t ee e:_ s`a.. 'so terminate upon termination of this Agreenent pursuant to this Section. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority has caused this Agree- ment to be duly executed in its name and behalf by its duly authorized representatives, and the Developer has caused this Agreement to be duly executed in its name and behalf by its duly authorized representatives on or as of the date first above written. THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA By Chairman And Executive Director 6 - 2 SHAKOPEE VALLEY SQUARE PROPERTIES By Its And Its n _ Devci ^? v .t E.. cn� '_J CG�:.aJ n..... tract 'cr Private Deva-o==n: oe:veer. tn? noszne wand Redevelopment Authority in anc for tne. City of Shakopee, u_nnesota, -_ _ _ P. 'vertiesj EXHIBIT A (Development Property) Lot 1 , Block 1 , Halo Second Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof , Scott County, Minnesota. That part of Lots 2 and 3 , Block 1 , Halo Second Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Scott County, Minnesota described as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of said Lot 2 ; thence northeasterly along the northerly line of said Lot 2 and 3 a distance of 196 . 00 feet ; thence southeasterly parallel with the easterly line of said Lot 2 to the southerly line of said Lot 3 ; thence southwesterly along said southerly line a distance of 150. 00 feet; thence deflecting at an angle of 48 degrees 54 minutes to the right to the westerly line of said Lot 2 ; thence northerly along said westerly line to the point of beginning. That part of Lot 3 , Block 1 , Halo Second Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Scott County, Minnesota , lying easterly of the following described line : Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 3 ; thence southwesterly along the southerly line of said Lot 3 a distance of 150 .00 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence northwesterly at right angles a distance of 150. 00 feet to the northerly line of said Lot 3 and there terminating. That Dart of Lot 2, Block 1 , Halo Second Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Scott County, Minnesota , lying southwesterly of the following described line: Co=..encing at the southeast corner of said Let 2 ; thence southwesterly along the southerly line of said Lot 2 a distance of 126 . 00 feet to the Vein_ _ beginn-4no of the line t� be descrlDed ; t.nence dEf!e—_n= a- a-. a--=1e 0- 46 degrees -54 minutes to the ricat to the westerly line of said Lot 2 and there terminatinc. Lot 4 , Block 1 , Halo Second Addition., according to the recorded Dlat thereof , Scott County, Finnesoza Together with that pan of Government Lots 4 and 5, Section C , _-..-SC __ r Kang_ 22, ....___ ....- e M_n..____-, as ____Ows . L. - 1 Beginning at the northeast corner of Lot 4 , Block 1 , Halo Second Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof , Scott County, Minnesota ; thence southeasterly along tht easterly line of said Lot 4 to a point 310 . 00 feet north- westerly of the north right of way line of First Street and parallel with Naumkaeg Street ; thence North 79 degrees 17 minutes 51 seconds East parallel with said First Street to a line 73. 00 feet westerly of and parallel with the east line of said Government Lot 5 : thence North 0 degrees 10 minutes 51 seconds East parallel with said east line a distance of 63.30 feet; thence North 71 degrees 57 minutes 51 seconds East to the east line of said Government Lot 5 ; thence North 0 degrees 10 minutes 51 seconds East along said east line to the waters edge of the Minnesota River ; thence westerly along said waters edge to the intersection with a line described as follows: Commencing at a point on the east line of previously men- tioned Naumkaeg Street 889 . 00 feet northerly of the southwest corner of Block 31 , East Shakopee, Minnesota , according to the recorded plat thereof ; thence North 79 degrees 17 minutes 51 seconds East, parallel with the previously mentioned First Street 601 .20 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence Ndrth 11 degrees 03 minutes 07 seconds west, parallel with said Naumkaeg Street to the waters edge of said Minnesota River and there terminating. Thence South 11 degrees 03 minutes 07 seconds East along the last described line to the point of beginning of said line ; thence South 51 degrees 41 minutes 07 seconds East to the intersection with a line 100.00 feet westerly of and parallel with the east line of said Government Lot 4 ; thence South 0 degrees 04 minutes 06 seconds West along said parallel line to the northwest corner of Halo First Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof; thence South 66 decrees 20 ranute=_ 4E seconds East along the nertheasteri_c line of said Halo First Addition to the irters<_cticn with a line ceS-7_' _ed as fc__ows : Commencing a. the northeast ccrner of saic __t 4 , Block 1 , Halo Seccnd Addati=; tae.-.ce S x to 79 decrees 17 minutes 51 second=_ west along t..e northerly line of said -7ot 4 a distance of 366 .35 feet ; thence North 9 decrees 36 minute=- 05 secc.nds west a distance c. feet ; 241 .75 - tner,ce South 61 degrees 45 minutes 03 seconds west acistance of 365. OD feet to the -t of beginning of the line -c be described; thence South 6 degrees __ minutes 2a seccncs west to the northeasterly line of said 'halo First Addition and there Thence North 6 degrees 35 minutes 19 seconds East along the last described line to the point of beginning of said line; thence North 81 degrees 45 minutes 03 seconds East a distance of 365 . 00 feet; thence South 9 degrees 36 minutes 05 seconds East to the northerly line of said Lot 4 , Block 1 , Halo Second Addition; thence easterly along said northerly line to the point of beginning. Together with that part of Outlot A, Halo First Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof , Scott County, Minnesota, lying easterly of the following described line: Commencing at the east corner of said Outlot A; thence westerly along the southerly line of said Outlot A a distance of 66 . 00 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence northwesterly to a point on the northeasterly line of said Outlot A lying 120 feet (as measured along the northeasterly line of said Outlot A) northwesterly of the east corner of said Outlot A. Conmencing at the northeast corner of Lot 4 , Block 1 , Halo Second Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof , Scott County, Minnesota; thence southwesterly along the northerly line of said Lot 4 a distance of .366.35 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described ; thence North 9 degrees 36 minutes 05 seconds West a distance of 241 .75 feet ; thence South 81 degrees 45 minutes 03 seconds West a distance of 365 .00 feet; thence South 6 degrees 35 minutes 19 seconds West to the northeasterly line of Outlot A, Halo First Addition according to the recorded plat thereof , Scott County, Minnesota; thence southeasterly along said northeasterly line to the east corner of said Outiot A; thence northeasterly along the northerly line of said Lot 4 to the point of beginning . Except that part of said Government Lot 5, described as follows : Co,=.encing at the northeast corner of said Lot 4 , Block � halSecc_ - _ _.. the_nce __.,..__--r_ - one tn= northerly line ei sand Lot 4 a distance�of c40 feet t..^.once North 10 decrees -_ minutes 24 seconds- »est distance Of 189.87 feet ; thence South 79 decrees 17�rinutes 35 seconas crest a distance of 117 .28 feet ; thence So_th 10 decrees 33 minutes 02 sece^.ds --,--St z distance Of _77. 60 feet ; thence South, 18 decrees 56 minutes 02 seconds West to t.e _ --.._rly _lna c- _a-_ _ct -nence -. r nsastersy al'\cno _a__ northerly __.= to the point OF EXHIBIT B ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT and ASSESSOR' S CERTIFICATION By and between THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA and SHAKOPEE VALLEY SQUARE PROPERTIES This coc,,e.-a cra`tec by: 0'CO:::OR a AINNAUN 3803 =D5 :owe= Minnea;o'is , Minnesota 55402 ( 63.2) 341-38G, THIS AGREEMENT, dated as of this day of 1987, by and between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, a municipal cor- poration and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota (the "Authority" ) , and Shakopee Valley Square Properties, a Minnesota partnership ( the "Developer" ) ; WITNESSETH, that WHEREAS, on or before the date hereof the Authority and the Developer have entered into a Contract for Private Development dated as of June, 1986, as amended b that cer- tain Amended and Restated Contract Private Deve o men , date as o the eve opmenc greemenc ) , regarding certain ' rty located in the Authority's Minnesota River Valley Housing and Redevelopment Project No. 1, pursuant to which the Developer is to .acquire certain property, hereinafter referred to as the Development Prop- erty and legally described in Attachment A hereto; and WHEREAS, it is contemplated that pursuant to said Devel- opment Agreement the Developer will construct on the Devel- opment Property certain improvements; and WHEREAS, the Authority and the Developer desire to establish minimum market values for the Develooment Property and the improvements to be constructed thereon pursuant to the Development Agreement (as such Development Property and such improvements may exist from time to time, the "Assessed Property" ) , for the calculation of real property taxes, or taxes in lieu thereof pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sec- tion 272 . 01, or any successor statute, pursuant to the pro- visions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.76, Subdivision 8: NOW, THEREFORE, the parties to this Agreement, in con- sideration of the promises, covenants and agreements made by each to the other , do hereby agree as follows: The ini . mzrket values which shall be estab- lished for the Assessed Property as of January 2, of the following years shay_ nzt be less than the following mounts, respectively: Year „Mounts =3Er a-d t_.erea'ter 3,000,000 2. This Agreement shall terminate if the Development Agreement is terminated pursuant to Section 6.5 thereof . 3. The minimum market values herein established shall be of no further force and effect and this Agreement shall terminate on December 31 , 2000, to the effect that the 2000 payable 2001 property taxes shall be the last taxes subject to this Agreement . G . Nothing in this Assessment Agreement (a) shall limit the discretion of the Assessor for Scott County to assign market values to the Assessed Property in excess of the minimum market values set out in paragraph 1 of this Agreement or (b) prohibit the Developer from seeking through the exercise of legal or administrative remedies a reduction in such market values for property tax purposes; provided, however, that the Developer shall not seek a reduction of the market values of the Assessed Property below the minimum market values set out in paragraph 1 of this Agreement so long as this Agreement shall remain in effect. 5. Neither the preambles nor provisions of this Agree- ment are intended to, nor shall they be construed as, mod- ifying the terms of the Development Agreement. 6 . This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the successors and assigns of the parties. HOUSING REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA BV Cna.r.,,an By Execctive Directcr SHAKOPEE VALLEY SQUARE PROPERTIES By Its And Its [Execution page of Developer to Assessa=_nt Acreement between Snakcoee .`a_le Soazr= '-- =-z _ Ec..s _ G eceve_c_-=ant Ant =rity in and for t.^.e C tv of Minnesota. j --' B 4 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) _ ) SS COUNTY OF SCOTT ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 1987, by and Ithe Chairman and Executive Director , respectively, of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, on behalf of said Authority. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) 7 ) SS COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1987 , by and the and respectively, Of Shakopee Valley Square Properties ,­­aMinnesota partnership, on behalf of said Notary Public ATTACHMENT A TO ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT )Development Property) The Development Property is located in the City of Shakopee, county of Scott, State of Minnesota, and is legally described as follows : Lot 1 , Block 1 , Halo Second Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof , Scott County, Minnesota. That part of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 , Halo Second Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof , Scott County, Minnesota described as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of said Lot 2; thence northeasterly along the northerly line of said Lot 2 and 3 a distance of 198 . 00 feet ; thence southeasterly parallel with the easterly line of said Lot 2 to the southerly line of said Lot 3 ; thence southwesterly along said southerly line a distance of 150. 00 feet; thence deflecting at an angle of 48 degrees 54 minutes to the right to the westerly line of said Lot 2 ; thence northerly along said westerly line to the point of beginning . That part of Lot 3, Block 1 , Halo Second Addition , according to the recorded plat thereof , Scott County , Minnesota, lying easterly of the following described line: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 3 ; thence southwesterly along the southerly line of said Lot 3 a distance of 150. 00 feet to the point of begin..^.ing of the line to be described; thence northwesterly at right angles a distance of 150.0D feet to the northerly line of said Lot 3 and there terminating . That part Of Lot 2, Block 1 , Halo Second Adoitier., according_ to the =eccrZe_ z:_- hereof , Scott Cc'_n', , X: n.escta lyine _o-.Lh-e_t__ _y of the follo:rinc de__r:__g line: Co.--en zing at the so::theast corner of said Lot 2 ; thence southwesterly along the southerly line of said Lot 2 a distance of 126 . 00 feet to the point Of begi^^ing of the 1'- -- -----e - �:.- - - ...-,c- -1lecunc at an angle Of 46 •degrees 54�-,-.nutes totheright to the westerly line Of Sa_C - _-C there tcr'_nat -- Lot 4 , Block 1 , Halo Second Addition, according to the Ieccrded plat thereof , Scott COQ.^.t)', M neset2 . Together wit`, that par, cf ...ercr._rt Lot_ 4 an' 5 , Section 6 , TOwnship 115, Range 22 , Scott County, Mznn.e_c•a , described a f' I ! 'ws : .. _ I Beginning at the northeast corner of Lot 4 , Block 1 , Halo Second Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof , Scott County, Minnesota ; thence southeasterly along the easterly line of said Lot 4 to a point 310 . D0 feet north- westerly of the north right of way line of First Street and parallel with Naumkaeg Street; thence North 79 degrees 17 minutes 51 seconds East parallel with said First Street to a line 73 . DD feet westerly of and parallel with the east line of said Government Lot 5; thence North 0 degrees 10 minutes 51 seconds East parallel with said east line a distance of 63.30 feet ; thence North 71 degrees 57 minutes _ 51 seconds East to the east line of said Government Lot 5; thence North 0 degrees 10 minutes 51 seconds East along said east line to the waters edge of the Minnesota River ; thence westerly along said waters edge to the intersection with a line described as follows: Corr.encing at a point on the east line of previously men- tioned Naumkaeg Street 889 .00 feet northerly of the southwest corner of Plock 31 , East Shakopee, Minnesota , according to the recorded plat thereof ; thence North 79 degrees 17 minutes 51 seconds East, parallel with the previously mentioned First Street 601 .20 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 11 degrees 03 minutes 07 seconds Nest, parallel with said Naumkaeg Street to the waters edge of said Minnesota River and there terminating . Thence South 11 degrees 03 minutes 07 seconds East along the last described line to the point of beginning of said line ; thence South 51 degrees 41 minutes 07 seconds East to the intersection with a line 100.00 feet westerly of and parallel with the east line of said Government Lot 4 ; thence South 0 degrees 04 minutes 06 seconds West alone said parallel line to the northwest corner of Halo First Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof; thence Seth 66 degrees 20 minutes 48 seconds East along the ncrtheasterly line of said Halo First Addition to the intersection with a line described as follows. Co==_nc_,ne at the northeast carne: of said Lot 4 , Block. - 1 , Halo Second Addition; thence South 79 decrees 17 ;mutes 51 seconds rest alone the northerly line o£ said Lot A a distance of 366. 35 feet; thence North 9 degrees 36 minutes 05- =seconds West a distance of 241 .75 feet ; thence South cl decrees 45 minutes G3 seconds west a distance of 365.00 feet to the point of be71nninc of the line tc be described; thence So=-n 6 __-r_e- _= _. :9 sero'=a West tc the ..__the____ray _=ne ez _c__ _a__ . ___? h_c_=__.. _.._ there ter71 natino c _ c Thence North 6 degrees 35 minutes 19 seconds East along the last described line to the point of beginning of said line; thence North 81 degrees 45 minutes 03 seconds East a distance of 365 . 00 feet ; thence South 9 degrees 36 minutes 05 seconds East to the northerly line of said Lot 4, Block 1 , Halo Second Addition; thence easterly along said northerly line to the point of beginning . Together with that partofOutlot A, Halo First Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Scott County, Minnesota , lying easterly of the following described line; Commencing at the east corner of said Outlot A; thence westerly along the southerly line of said Outlot A a distance of 66 .00 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence northwesterly to a point on the northeasterly line of said Outlot A lying 120 feet (as measured along the northeasterly line of said Outlot A ) northwesterly of the east corner of said Outlot A. Commencing at the northeast corner of Lot 4 , Block 1 , Halo Second Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Scott County, Minnesota ; thence southwesterly along the northerly line of said Lot 4 a distance of 366. 35 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described ; thence North 9 degrees 36 minutes 05 seconds West a distance or 241 .75 feet ; thence South B1 degrees 45 minutes 03 seconds West a distance of 365. 00 feet ; thence South 6 degrees 35 minutes 19 seconds West to the northeasterly line of Outlot A, Halo First Addition according to the recorded plat thereof , Scott County, Minnesota ; thence southeasterly along said northeasterly line to the east corner of said Outlot A; thence northeasterly along the northerly line of said Lot 4 to the point of beginning . £xce nt that part of said Government Lot o , described as follows ; Cor,-_.cine at the northeast corner of said ___ 4 , block 1 , Halo Second Addition; thence southwesterly along the northerly line of said Lot 4 a distance of 421 .40 ieet to the poin _ of be-an +nc of the land_ to be described ; thence North 10 degrees 39 minutes 24 seconds West a distance of 169 . 67 feet ; thence South 79 decrees 17 r_.._"___ 35 seconds i:c__ aaria _-1_c o 17 .26 Zest ; '_ then_e So -` ..p 10 degrees 33 arr_ 02^seconds _ adistance of 171 .61 feet ; _..arra_ __ __ ❑iiia_ Sc ._ iiia 02 s=__Cads w___ the n=rther2v line _o_ ^ _ _ along said northerlyline tothe _____^cf b nn4nc . ATTACHMENT S TO ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.76, Subdivision 8: An authority may, upon entering into a development or redevelopment agreement pursuant to section 273.75, subdivi- sion 5, enter into a written assessment agreement in record- able form with the developer or redeveloper of property within the tax increment financing district which estab- lishes a minimum market value of the land and completed improvements to be constructed thereon until a specified termination date, which date shall be not later than the date upon which tax increment will no longer be remitted to the authority pursuant to section 273.75, subdivision 1. The assessment agreement shall be presented to the county assessor, or city assessor having the powers of the county assessor , of the jurisdiction in which the tax increment financing district is located. The assessor shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements to be con- structed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be constructed and, so long as the minimum market .value contained in the assess- ment agreement appears, in the judgment of the assessor , to be a reasonable estimate, shall execute the following certi- fication upon such agreement: The undersigned assessor , being legally responsible for the assessment of the above described property upon completion of the improvements to be constructed thereon, hereby certifies that the market value assigned to such land and improvements upon completion shall not be less than $_- Upon transfer of title of the land to be developed or redeveloped from the authority to the developer or redevel- oper, such assessment agreement, together with a copy of this subdivision, shall be filed for record and recorded in the office of the county recorder or filed in the office of the registrar of Cities of the county where the real estate Cr anv =r . there-_ _ _sated. - . -pletlon of the improvements by the deve' aDer or redeveloper , the assessor sha'_1 v=alue the prcperty pursuant to seztlon 273 . 11 , except .`,at t..= aarket value assigned .her - not be le-s t-',an c_-e =i-._4m= market value ccnra ne: - the assessme— a^yreem�ent. ' Nothing herein, shalli .- t - - -creticn of the __ ___ r=rket Value tc Ihe __ -_ _c exCESS - _ _-.._mua. mar Ket -_ue containec the assessment -_n- nor prc-ihit the leve'_ . .=_r _ _develcper from '- tae eY. __:Se and Se-=l re- ales, n ..i2dcCt. . "rket :a'- _ ape v =J=_...r_zperty trax pu - _ d . _ __ y+v . r_ �. :de� , :JweVe� f •• � shall not seek, nor shall the city assessor , the county assessor, the county auditor, any board of review, any board of equalization, the commissioner of revenue or any court of this state grant a reduction of the market value below the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement during the term of the agreement filed of record regardless of actual market values which may result from incomplete construction of improvements, destruction or diminution by any cause, insured or uninsured, except in the case of acquisition or reacquisition of the property by a public entity. Recording or filing of an assessment agreement complying with the terms of this subdivision shall consti- tute notice of the agreement to any subsequent purchaser or encumbrancer of the land or any part thereof, whether volun- tary or involuntary, and shall be binding upon them. CERTIFICATION BY SCOTT COUNTY ASSESSOR The undersigned, having reviewed a certain Assessment Agreement between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, and Shakopee Valley Square Properties, a Minnesota partnership (the "Assessment Agreement" ) , and being of the opinion that the minimum mar- ket values contained in the Assessment Agreement appear reasonable, hereby certifies as follows: The undersigned Assessor , being legally responsible for the assessment of the above described property, hereby certifies that the market values assigned to such land and facilities thereon _ shall , as of January 2 5 not be less than $1 -590, 000 , and as of Januar 2, ` and therea ter sna not a less tna ( until suc time as the Assessment Agreement sha 1 be its terms terminate) . Assessor for Scott County, Minnesota Dated: 1987. B - _2 OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL ADJ. REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA AUGUST 18, 1987 Mayor Reinke called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. with Cncl. Wampach, Lebens, Vierling, Leroux and Clay present. Also present were John K. Anderson, City Administrator, Dennis Kraft, Community Development Director, Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer, Judith S. Cox, City Clerk, and Julius A. Coller, II, City Attorney. Wampach/Lebens moved to recess for HRA. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling moved to reconvene to City Council at 7:25 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Cncl. Leroux reported on a meeting of the Shakopee Community Recreation Board held last evening. They appreciated that Council had acted expeditiously on the additional funds necessary for comparable work implementation. There were concerns as to when the City would be formulating its budget and they were informed that the City does not approve its budget until the first October meeting. Cncl. Wampach reported on the recent trip to Cincinnati to see Riverbend, noting it was a nice trip and a good experience. At this point he would like to see another attraction, possibly in the Cities area and would like more input from the opposition. He noted that at this point he has made no decision on this matter. An item on the agenda later concerned a conference call being recommended by Mr. Zak and Cncl. Wampach felt this would provide input and should be considered. Mayor Reinke asked if it would be possible to tape the conference call if held. It was noted that the possibility of a conference call at the time proposed did not appear to be very encouraging as those people suggested by Mr. Zak to participate were not available at that time. Mr. Zak addressed Council noting that there were more people that could be contacted to participate in the conference call. Further discussion of this matter was tabled until the particular item was reached on the agenda. Cncl. Clay stated he had requested copies of the Canterbury Downs tax statement and cancelled checks for payment of those taxes, which he noted were in response to several people who explained to him that Canterbury Downs does not pay taxes. He had requested that information so he had proof to the contrary. Cncl. Wampach noted a sign was down on Fuller and Third Street. Mayor Reinke noted that he had met with our state Senator and Representative and discussed items coming up in the near future concerning hearings on fiscal disparities. He felt it important to discuss the position of the City of Shakopee in this regard, because the C_tv is not in total agreement with the AM position be_.g ._=s_ c.. ..___ ______c_"e. City Council August 18, 1987 Page 2 Mayor Reinke recognized anyone in the audience that wished to address the Council on items not on the agenda. There were no responses from the audience. Leroux/Clay moved to approve the consent business. Cncl. Leroux asked that item 11A (Resolution No. 2775) be held from the consent business. Cncl. Lebens asked that item lln and llp be held from consent business. Cncl Wampach asked that item llm be held from the consent business. Roll Call: Ayes: Cncl. Wampach, Lebens. Vierling, Leroux, Clay, Mayor Reinke. Noes: None Motion carried. Vierling/Clay moved approval of the minutes of the July 21, 1987, meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Wampach/Vierling moved approval of the minutes of the July 28, 1987, meeting. Motion carried with Cncl. Lebens abstaining from the vote. Leroux/Clay moved to receive and file correspondence received from Walter F. Yeager, Jr. , regarding operation of Murphy's landing. (Approved under consent business) . Leroux/Clay moved to receive and file correspondence received from Delaine Yeager regarding operation of Murphy' s Landing. (Approved under consent business) . Leroux/Clay moved to receive and file correspondence received from Arthur Gorgen regarding operation of Murphy's Landing. (Approved under consent business) . Leroux/Clay moved to receive and file correspondence received from Mrs. Earl Hofmaster regarding Sta.-wood Amphitheater. (Approved under consent business) . A letter was reviewed from Fred J. Corrigan notifying the City of his intent to have Canterbury Downs use the driveway connecting to County Road 16 for approximately 30 minutes per day during the exiting period each race day evening. It is his understanding this use complies with the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit and the PCA !..direct Source Permit. The City Administrator noted a statement contained in the Indirect Source Permit is "The Minnesota Racetrack shall (c) close the south entrance gate to the proposed racetrack site after 10: 00 p.m. to prevent all motor vehicles from exiting to the residential area along CSAE 16" The Cc.=unity Development Director noted discussion in the minutes of the November 3 , 1983, public hearing on the Conditional use Permit, indicated traffic concerns in the 7 City Council August 18, 1987 Page 3 area were discussed and the transportation consultant representing Scottland at that time had indicated there would be five access points to the site and that on a normal day, three of these would be used. He stated he could find nothing in writing that would substantiate the fact that this access should be closed. The City Administrator noted representatives from Canterbury Downs could possibly be invited to a meeting to discuss this with Council. He noted Staff has not as yet explored all the alternatives. Cncl. Leroux noted that in addition, he would like to explore what could be done from a legal standpoint as to controlling access to Canterbury Downs. Mayor Reinke stated he had contacted Mr. Malkerson today and expressed concern about the fact that this letter was sent to the City stating, not requesting, that they would be using this access. Mr. Malkerson had informed him he would be contacting Mr. Corrigan along with Mr. Fields and Mr. Hauser to see what could be resolved. Leroux/Lebens moved to direct staff to follow-up on comments made by Mayor Reinke and Cncl. Leroux and bring back for discussion at a subsequent meeting. Motion carried unanimously. The City Administrator reviewed correspondence from the Mayors of St. Paul and Minneapolis regarding the Twin Cities bid for the 1996 Summer Olympics. The proposed sites for the events were noted to include an event at Canterbury Downs. Vierling/Leroux moved Council's support and that it be indicated that Shakopee would like to be involved. Motion carried unanimously. Two communications were received referring to the League of Minnesota Cities Annual Regional meetings, the first being a general invitation and an outlined agenda. The second letter was specifically inviting us to attend the meeting at Red Wing on Tuesday, September 1, 1987. It wasnotedthat Sept. 1, 1987, is the date of the next regular Council meeting, therefore, members could not attend. Cncl. Leroux suggested that the City Administrator attend the meeting to be held in Owatonna on September 3, 1987. It was noted that was the date of the Planning Commission meeting, of which the City Administrator was scheduled zo attend. Lebens/vierling moved to receive and file the two above mentioned communications. Leroux/Vierling moved to amend the motion to only include the League of Minnesota Cities schedule listing. Motion on the City Council August 18, 1987 Page 4 amendment to the motion carried unanimously. Motion on the main motion, as amended, carried unanimously. Leroux/Clay moved that a letter be sent to Ms. Joanell M. Dyrstad, Mayor of Red Wing, extending our regrets that we cannot make that meeting and to extend our appreciation of her invitation. Motion carried unanimously. An invitation was received from Rep. Becky Kelso strongly urging attendance at an upcoming presentation on transportation to be held August 27, 1987, at Prior Lake. The speaker will be the Commission of Transportation. Cncl Clay, Vierling and Leroux indicated they would make efforts to attend this meeting. Leroux/Vierling moved to receive and file the above mentioned letter from Rep. Kelso. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Clay moved to receive and file communication from Bill Frenzel, Member of Congress, regarding the City's flood damage and related clean-up efforts. (Approved under consent business) . A request was received from the Shakopee Chamber of Commerce for assistance from the City by furnishing manpower and a truck to help them move from their present offices to the new building. Leroux/Vierling moved that City Staff aid the Chamber of Commerce in their move to their new building. Motion carried unanimously. Council received a letter from Glenda Spiotta, President of the League of Women Voters of Shakopee along with the results of a study regarding the process of appointment to advisory boards and committees not only of the City of Shakopee, but of the school district and the County as well. Glenda Spiotta addressed Council, noting the study committee report contained their consensus results, position statement and action plan. Copies of the report have been distributed to all elected officials and adni-ist_atcrs of the City, the school district and the County. The study was an evaluation of the process used by local governments to make citizen appcintments to the boards and committees_ that serve them. The League believes citizens need to be involved in public policy determinations at all levels of government. Their particular concerns of that process of appointment are (1) openness of the process, ( 2) the increasing use of non-elected boards and committees to which citizens are appointed, and ( 3) the information available to the public about which boards and committees exist and their functions. It is the League' s hope that any changes made in the process resulting from, y he study -1. - ea: increased opportunities for citizen involvementin the governmental system. City Council August 18, 1987 Page 5 The summary of findings for the City of Shakopee were noted and the League's position statement was specifically pointed out, as well as a listing of alternatives. The League suggests that the alternatives and the position statement be used to form the foundation of a systematic open appointment process. Ms. Spiotta stated that as President of the League of Women Voters of Shakopee and Co-Chair of the study, she could speak for the members and say that without the mutual cooperation of the City' s elected officials, their Staff, and its appointees, the research for this report would not have been possible or complete. She thanked Council for its time and noted they are available for questions. Mayor Reinke thanked Ms. Spiotta and the League of Women Voters for taking the time and effort to compile the extensive report. He felt it was of tremendous value for Council to have the document for reference in working to improve the process of appointments to the City's variousBoardsand Commissions. Leroux/Vierling moved that the League of Women Voters of Shakopee report on The Process of Appointments to Citizen Advisory Boards and Commissions be directed to Staff for research and to return to this Body within the next couple of months with some answers as to how we can best implement study recommendations and how we can try to get more applicants for positions. Motion carried unanimously. A request hadbeen received from Doris Ann and Ron Solseth requesting Council to consider extending the Municipal pool season beyond August 23 (for an additional week) . There was discussion. Leroux/clay moved to table the request of Doris Ann and Ron Salseth to extend the municipal pool season until the Community Recreation Board Director can be contacted. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling moved to reopen public hearing on an appeal of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals denial of an 1S foot front yard setback variance to build an attached garage at 1015 East Shakopee Avenue. Mr. Kraft noted that subseque...t to the last hearing, Staff was directed to reviewed similar variances that had been granted. Three were reviewed by Staff, plus additional information was found. He reviewed the information with Council, noting the first variance was that of Mr. Cletus Link for property located at the N.E. Corner of 10th Avenue and County Road 17. This was for an it foot and an 8 -foot variance. This was on property zoned R-4 and the subject property is zoned R-2. The Staff City Council August 18, 1987 Page 6 report indicated the Link property was irregular in shape and the functional use of the property would be difficult without the issuance of a variance. Mr. Kraft felt the circumstances surrounding this variance were different than the one being considered at the time. Mayor Reinke noted that subsequent to that particular variance there was a petition by the property owners abutting the property to the east because their property values were reduced by the Board of Review because of devaluation of their property due to that variance. Mr. Kraft noted that the second variance was requested by Mr. Joseph Link for property on 6th Avenue and Harrison Street. This property was zoned R-2, similar to that of the subject property. The request was for a 10 foot front yard variance rather than a 14 or 18 foot as contained in the Plonski request. This was for a duplex rather than a single dwelling. The staff report indicated this particular lot was triangular in shape and the applicant had proposed to construct a triangular shaped building on the parcel. In looking at the ordinance, one of the things to be considered is the shape of the lot. The third variance request reviewed was requested by Gary Laurent and Renden Development for a 15 foot front yard and a 5 foot rear yard variance. In this instance the property was in an R-4 Zone rather than an R-2 Zone. Staff also looked at R-2 zoned properties on corner lots and found a variance issued in 1978 for a 1.5 foot variance from the 30 foot setback for construction of a garage and breezeway. the request was for a handicapped entrance because a member of the family was handicapped. Another variance found was when the Shakopee HRA requested a 4 foot side yard variance to allow a house to be 25 feet from a lot line. Cncl. Leroux stated there was a variance granted on 13th and Polk which was an R-2 zone. The variance was for approximately 2 feet and was recuested in order that a three versus a two car garage could be b,—,,' It. The criteria that must be met Drior to granting a variance were noted. The City Administrator noted that if Council moves to overrule the =lanning Commission' s denial of the variance, there would need to be a statement made indicating the hardship that would be basisthe basis of the approval. The City Engineer has reviewed information on the lot and in looking at the lot did not notice any specific "washing" . There is some settlement around the house, which he felt would not be a big problem to correct, nor constitute an economic hardship. In response to the question about water coming down the street and going into that yard, the City Council August 18, 1987 Page 7 City Engineer noted that by having an non-erodible driveway surface installed at a slope to maintain the flow of water in the street it would solve the problem. He felt it advisable that that situation be corrected irregardless of whether or not a garage is built. Dawn Plonski, 1015 . East Shakopee Avenue, indicated she felt Council could consider in making an exception because of the amount of buildable area of their lot. She indicated that with the Dress house, a subdivision was made and Council made a variance for that house for the same footage they are requesting. Their lot was made shorter in order to get another desired access to Shakopee Avenue in that area and she felt they are being penalized because of what the developer did in that area. She felt they were deprived of the use of 20 feet of their property because of what the developer did. She noted that other houses in their area have the same plan as the one they desired. They felt a detached garage would devaluate the rest of the area. Steve Plonski, 1015 East Shakopee Avenue, noted the topographics, indicating buildable and non-buildable area on his lot. He said . he has already replaced dirt around the house twice that keeps settling down the hill. Below the hill alot of fill has been hauled in to bring it to its current level. He felt from the discussion, that a complete redoing of the lot was being discussed rather than just construction of a garage. He asked that Council consider the buildable area on their lot. Mrs. Plonski stated she was told there was not supposed to be an access going to Shakopee Avenue, but Council had insisted on a street there, which cut into their lot. Mayor Reinke noted Council requested Prairie Street to continue to Shakopee Avenue because the only other access to that plat was strictly off 7th and 8th Street and left no through traffic areas for snow removal and emergency vehicles. Mr. Plonski noted the Dress house had been granted a variance and that they have a corner lot and the sane circumstances should hold inasmuch as their house had already been constructed. He felt they should be given the sane consideration. Leroux/Lebens moved to close the public hearing at 8:40 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Leroux moved to uphold the decision of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and deny the application of Steve Plonski for a 18 ' variance from the front yard setback requirements to build an attached garage based on the fact that there is no criteria -- ch to arprove the rezUest (c_-497) . Fct-,'un carried with•Cool. Wampach voting in opposition. City Council August 18, 1987 Page 8 At the last meeting Mr. Terrance Joos was nominated by Council for filling an unexpired term on the industrial Commercial Commission. Bill Preiss and Laura Wermerskirchen were nominated to fill an unexpired term on the Community Recreation Board. A ballot vote was taken for the opening on the Community Recreation Board. Laura Wermerskirchen: Cncl. Lebens, Wampach, Vierling, and Clay. Bill Preiss: Cncl. Leroux and Mayor Reinke. Leroux/Vierling moved to appoint Laura Wermerskirchen to fill the unexpired term on the Community Recreation Board, expiring January 1988. Motion carried unanimously. Clay/Vierling moved to appoint Terrance Joos to fill the unexpired term on the Industrial Commercial Commission, expiring January, 1990. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Lebens offered Resolution No. 2775, A resolution to terminate Violation by the Scott County Historical Society of the Terms of the Transfer of Certain Property and Determining the said Property shall Revert in Title to the City of Shakopee, and moved its adoption. The City Administrator summarized this Resolution for audience information. Roll Call: Ayes: Cncl. Wampach, Lebens, Vierling, Clay, Mayor Reinke. Noes: None Motion carried. The City Administrator noted Council had received a memo for review containing Mr. Krass ' s proposals for alternative management for Murphy's Landing, plus additional alternatives offered by City Staff. The alternatives were read for audience -nfor"na`-cm. Staff' s recon nendaticn was to direct City Officials to draft Requests For Proposals (R^P' s) to various organizations including MVRP arc the Scett Ccunty Historical Society (SCHS) to obtain competitive management proposals from any group =-terested in managing the facility. Mr. Caller, City Attorney, noted it is not the intent to 'limit this to just the two groups (MVRP and SCHS) , but rather an invitation to the general public. Cncl. Leroux felt that alternative ( #6) pertaining to creating a Heritage Preservation Commission or Historical Preservation Commission in an advisory committee role should also be considered. He believed it would behoove Council to have a body with more direct control over the day-to-day operations of whomever is operating the site verses the Council having to cc:stant_y monitor w:=.omever is operating City Council August 18, 1987 Page 9 There was discussion, after which it was suggested that possibly a combination of the two alternatives (#6 & #9) could be created. How members of a Heritage Preservation Commission would be chosen and whether the membership would be limited to citizens of Shakopee and the County was discussed. Cncl. Leroux indicated he was not certain whether the City had the expertise available for this and requested that some recommendations be brought back to Council as to membership for such a Commission. Cncl. Lebens related that the actions taken could as yet be appealed and felt that until that time period is up, Council should not jump at any particular recommendation. The City Administrator felt that at this point there would be no merit in waiting to make a decision on this and that if there was a consensus about which alternative or combination thereof Council was interested in, Staff could be requested to further develop those for future discussion. It was noted that the information being discussed had been mailed to the Chairman of the SCHS and MVRP. Mayor Reinke encouraged input from the audience on this matter. Jake Manahan, Vice-Chairman of the MVRP, spoke on his own behalf, noting that after reviewing the alternatives, he preferred 42. (lease the property to MVRP with conditions) . He also felt alternative #9 was good, primarily because it focuses on Council establishing criteria as to how the site would be operated and also on obtaining an operating entity. He suggested that if a Commission were established, that it not be restricted to membership of citizens of Shakopee or Scott County. Mr. Manahan stated that in light of the resolution passed at this meeting, he would like it to be made clear as to who the operating entity is at the present time, and he requested that until some alternative is worked out, something be given to the present corporation operating it authorizing them to operate in their normal, usual course of business. He indicated that the staff planned on being at the site tomorrow morning and whether by resolution, motion or consensus, hoped it was acceptable with Council for them to be there operating the - facility, writing checks, etc. Shirley Clausen stated she was curator and program developer at one time at Murphy' s Landing. She wished - endorse one thing said by Mr. Manahan regarding the scope Of the site. She expressed her concern when hearing talk ci_ things that could narrow that scope. She stated the site is a wonderful resource and thought there were two factors that have a bearing: (1) when you develop standard for a proposal, the people that will do that have a great deal of power to limit or expand the scope of the site; ( 2) how standards for the financial basis of the site are set out could affect the scope. She related she heard comments made several times about the site being self-supporting City Council August 18, 1987 Page 10 and not being a burden, etc. , which is well and good; however, she would like someone to point out a major historic site that functions without the aid of major grants from foundations. She felt that had to be kept in mind. Roland Pistulka, Vice President of SCHS, stated he wished to reiterate what the last speaker said relative to operation of the site. He was uneasy when discussing a Commission to be picked only from among the citizens of Shakopee and Scott County. He felt this project was too large to have that limitation. He stated there was a need for leadership in this project and that although he was aware that financial and commercial items enter the picture, felt commercialism could not be allowed to the point where this site exists only for commercialism. He stated he would like to see SCHS have a chance at operating the program. They are for having a strong directorship and someone qualified in museum management. As far as the two groups, SCHS and MVRP, he felt that at some point they should put aside the bad things and work together because it is a good site, it has good buildings, plus it is in a populated area. Mayor Reinke noted that if this site is to be successful, the level of historical preservation has to be maintained. Cncl. Leroux felt that developing criteria for qualifications for membership on a Heritage Commission will be as important as developing criteria for the RFPs. He felt Council would have to ask for feedback from SCHS and MvRP to help in development of criteria for both items and hoped both bodies would be willing to put forth that information. Mayor Reinke stated that from the comments received from MVR9 and SCHS members, some major decisions would have to be made as far as having a Committee outside the community with expertise and advise to make this successful. Cncl. Leroux noted that there was also the matter of who will run Murphy' s Landing in the interim. This was discussed. Leroux/Lebens moved -=- __`__ be directed to craft an interim agreement wit:. MVRP for the operation of Murphy' s Landing for the next two weeks and to come back on September l 1987 with a document for continued operation for a .period which would allow - Council to draft RFP' s and select anoperatingentity. The City Attorney thought it would not be possible to come up with a written agreement between now and the next Council meeting and suggested that because MVRP is there and running the site now, they continue to do so and that some written agreement be prepared for submission to the next Council meeting. Cncl. Leroux clarified the meaning of his motion in that the agreement would be written by the next Council meeting to establish a contractual relationship with MVRP until the RF'P' s are developed. city Council August 18, 1987 Page 11 The City Administrator stated this motion would authorize MVRP to run the site for this two week period until there is something in writing, which would be from September 1 until the date the RFP' s are completed. Cncl. Leroux stated this was correct. The City Administrator indicated they could send MVRP a letter to this effect based upon the motion made at this time. Vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously. Cncl. Clay related that if other organizations will be asked to make proposals, they would need data on which to base them. He questioned if a motion were necessary to request that MVRP begin collecting all pertinent operational data such as financial records, inventory, maintenance, personnel data, etc. , as he felt it would take some time for this to be compiled. It was felt that this information should be readily available. Following discussion, it was agreed that a letter be sent to the MVRP pertinent to the gathering of the above mentioned information. Leroux/Vierling moved to direct the appropriate City Officials to draft an RFP for the purpose of competitively seeking a lease to manage Murphy' s Landing, and to draft qualification criteria for membership on a Heritage Preservation Commission. Cncl. Leroux noted that insofar as the Commission is concerned, the membership should virtually be open nationwide, with logistic restrictions. The motion carried unanimously. Mayor Reinke thanked those present with an interest in Murphy' s landing, noting Council appreciated the input it received in order to make this a successful site. Leroux/Vierling moved to return from the table correspondence from Doris Ann and Ron Solseth regarding extending the pool season. Motion carried unanimously. The Recreation Director was present at --his time. He noted at this time of year the pool loses moneystaying open; use of the pool is entirely dependent upon the weather conditions. He stated that if the pool season were extended, they could have a skeleton crew there, but that the entire pool would not be open. There was discussion by Council. Wampach/Leroux moved to keen the pool open for one additional week. The motion was qualified in that this would be for afternoon operating hours and possibly the slide would not be open, depending upon the availability of Staff. city Council August 18, 1987 Page 12 Roll Call: Ayes: Cncl. Wampach, Leroux Noes: Cool. Lebens, Vierling, Clay, Mayor Reinke. Motion failed. Leroux/Clay moved to award the bid for refurbishment of the 1973 Mack Pumper to Smeal Fire Equipment in the amount of $27,962.00. (Approved under consent business) . Leroux/Clay offered Resolution No. 2779, A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 2635 Adopting the 1987 Budget, and moved its adoption. (Approved under consent business) . Leroux/Vierling offered ordinance No. 230, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota Amending Shakopee City Code Chapter 6 Entitled "Other Business Regulations and Licensing" By Adding a New Section 6.428 Providing for the Licensing of Outdoor Performances Centers and By Adopting By Reference Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 and Adopting By Reference Section 6.99, Which Among Other Things Contain Penalty Provisions, and moved its adoption. The City Attorney pointed out the ordinance had been revised since the agenda mailing and the revised ordinance was available as a hand-out at this time. He noted there were two additions, one made at the request of Mr. Leroux. Because he had some questions of the constitutionality of that addition. He stated that the ordinance on the table at this time was prepared by him, but not approved by him. The additions were pointed out: Section VI, #2 "The City may withhold or revoke a license for any booking which is unacceptable because of previous performances" (This was the addition the City Attorney was concerned about) ; and Section I, 43 " . . .for viewing by more than 1,000 patrons at one time. . . " . The City Attorney stated that although he appreciated what Mr. Leroux had in mind when he requested the first addition noted above, he felt it his obligation to point out that it may lead ccunci_ into problems. One other change made was concerning license and applicaticn fees and those would be set by Resolution. Cncl. Leroux addressed Section IV, #2. He indicated that considering the past perfc--mance, 41 would be his = -pretatipn under t.-ds ordinance that if condition #1, the descrit-ion c£ the upcoming bookings, included a group with proven disruptive past performances, it would be cause for revocation under section IX, condition #2 "that the licensee is operating so as to constitute a nuisance by reason of immoral activity on the premises or for any other reason constituting a nuisance" He felt this would allow proscription rather than prescription. in discussion, it was asked if there would need to be further clarification m=ade of City Council / August 18, 1987 Page 13 bookings considered "unacceptable because of previous performances" . Bruce Malkerson, with Scottland Companies, addressed Council and distributed suggested changes to the proposed ordinance. He reviewed his suggested changes with Council. He stated he was generally in agreement with the ordinance and the intent of Section VI, 42 as discussed above. He wished Council to know that he was not present to debate the ordinance, but to ask for some clarification. Joe Zak, Shakopee, asked how he might obtain a copy of the proposed ordinance and he was provided with a copy. He related some things he has heard about certain groups that have a bad reputation and expressed the need for there to be some type of control on them. He stated he felt there would be a need to have something in an ordinance to keep from getting performers who are undesirable if there is to be an arena like the proposed Starwood. Cncl. Leroux indicated what he was seeking in the ordinance was something that would give Council a "hold" in the event the operation were approved, constructed, and sold to someone else. Mayor Reinke suggested that provisions could be made that upon a sale, a complete new application would need to be completed. Cncl. Leroux asked if the proposed ordinance was not in effect and voted upon tonight, would there still be the ability to institute the ordinance later. The City Attorney stated this was correct because this is licensing of a performance, show, etc. , and was something occurring in the future. The City Administrator summarized that from the discussion held there were the following suggestions to be incorporated in the proposed ordinance: (1) covering the situation of sale; ( 2) drafting acceptable specifics for Article VI, s2; and (3) to incorporate Mr. Malkerson' s clarifications. Cncl. Leroux pointed out another issue in this ordinance dealing with Mr. Malkerson's suggestions for Section I, Definitions, which states "for which an admission charge is made solely for that activity" , in which case would preclude licensing cf Valley Fair, The Racetrack and•Murphy' s Landing. He questioned if it was desired to preclude V=_lley'_air and questioned what would 'happen if it were sold at some time in the future. Walt Wittmer, Vice President and General Manager of Valleyfair, addressed Council. He agreed with the definition offered by Mr. Malkerson as it stands and hoped Council would adopt that language. He stated that in their plans, they do not intend to City Council August 18, 1987 Page 14 ever charge for the amphitheater over and above their park admission charge. There was further discussion. The City Attorney requested clarification from Council concerning the suggestions made by Mr. Malkerson for this ordinance and the following items from Mr. Malkerson- s communication were noted: Section I, Paragraph 3: Suggestion was to strike the words "as its primary activity" . Council agreed with this suggestion. Section II: Suggestion was to delete word "construct" . Council did not agree with this suggestion. Section IV: It was pointed out that this would be taken care of separately via resolution. Section V: This section pertained to liability insurance bond. The ordinance will be drawn as it was originally with this left blank and the amounts will be determined later. Section VIII : The suggestion regarding expiration of license seemed reasonable. Leroux/Vierling moved to table the ordinance and refer it back to Staff to amend it as per the discussion and bring it before Council again September 1, 1987. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Clay offered Resolution No. 2781, A Resolution Authorizing the Amendment of the Lease Agreement of April 21, 1987 between the City of Shakopee and the Shakopee Chamber of Commerce, and moved its adoption. (Approved under consent business) . Leroux/Lebens moved not to purchase an umbrella insurance liability policy after careful consideration of various factors including liability limits and statutory immunity, possible unconstitutionality of said immunity, moral obligation, broadened coverage, legal defense zrovided, the cost of the policy, and that the purchase of an umbrella liability policy is. a discretionary act, that the City Council exercises its discreticn and judgment and not purchase the umbrella policy due to the high cost. Motion carried with Cncl. Vier-ling voting in opposition. Vierling/Lebens moved approval of the bills in the amount of 5797,990.87. Roll Call: Ayes: Cncl. Wampach, Vierling, Leroux, Clay, Mayor Reinke. Noes: Cncl. Lebens Motion carried. City Council 7 August 18, 1987 Page 15 Leroux/Clay moved to authorize Staff to enter into an employment agreement with Peggy Swagger, at the hourly pay rate of $7.00 effective August 20, 1987. (Approved under consent business) . Leroux/Clay moved to authorize the reduction of the letter of credit guaranteeing construction of public improvements for Hauer' s 4th Addition, Plan A improvements, to $425. 00 upon filing of the maintenance bond with the City and its approval by the City Attorney. (Approved under consent business) . ___-- T oux/elay--moved. to approve the application and grant a temporary 3.2 beer license to St. Mary's Catholic Church of Shakopee, 535 South Lewis Street, for August 23 , 1987. (Approved under consent business) . Vierling/Leroux moved to authorize payment of $1,000 to S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. for the Holmes Street Laterals Project No. 1986-1 and moved to authorize Jack Collarto petition the court to place the remaining $12,000 into an escrow account for the damage claim. It was noted that the $12,000 was being withheld because there was property damage. Cncl. Lebens noted the insurance carrier has contacted them and is coming on Tuesday to try and settle this matter. Richard Caviney, Attorney representing S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. , related to Council his understanding of this matter. He wished Council to know that this type of intentional interfering with this type of undertaking may subject members to litigation. Cncl. Lebens noted the reason they requested to have the City look into this matter was because it was a City initiated project. They would not have put the adjoining sewer in at this time if the street had not been opened and it was open only because the storm sewer was going through at that particular time; this was the only time a curb cut would be allowed there. She noted they bad tried to settle this, but the blasting company has been very arbitrary on the whole matter. The attorney noted that this is still a personal undertaking between the property owner and the contractor, and the City, if it chooses to become involved, is opening itself up to liability. There was considerable discussion of this matter. Cncl. Leroux felt this was not the appropriate forum for this matter and did not know is it was proper for Council to hold back money from any contractor if construction is completed. Cncl. Lebens stated that if Council wishes to make total payment to the contractor that is its decision to make, however, that if City Council August 18, 1987 Page 16 at a later date settlement on this is not made, the City will be sued because it was the City's opening of the street that allowed this to happen. Roll Call: Ayes: Cncl. Wampach Noes: Cncl. Vierling, Leroux, Clay, Mayor Reinke Abstain: Cncl. Lebens Motion failed. Further discussion of this matter was held. - Leroux/Vierling moved to authorize payment of $13,000 to S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. , for completion of Project No. 1986-1. Roll Call: Ayes: Cncl. Wampach, Vierling, Leroux, Clay, Mayor Reinke Noes: Cncl. Lebens Motion carried. Leroux/Vierling moved to approve expenditure of $1,375.00 from contingency funds for purchase of a traffic counter from ACT Electronics of Eden Prairie. Roll Call: Ayes: Cncl. Wampach, Vierling, Leroux, Clay, Mayor Reinke. Noes: Cncl. Lebens Motion carried. Vierling/Leroux moved to recommend that Council approve a donation in the amount of $10,500.00 to the Scott County Transportation Coalition. Cncl. Vierling noted it was her understanding that these funds were budgeted from the general funds. Roll Call: Ayes: Cncl. Wampach, Vierling, Leroux, Clay, Mayor Reinke. Noes: Cncl. Lebens. Motion carried. Leroux/Clap moved to authorize purchase of Hewlett Packard laser jet II printer from LOGIS at 52,441.40 and signal booster and installation on the network from Quannon Computer Products at $350.00 for a total cost of 52,791.40, with funds to come from capital eT;_p-ert for network computer equipment purchases. (Approved under consent business) . A memo concerning the quotes for the gate and lights at Memorial Park was noted and Cncl. Vierling asked which type of lights the bid was for. It was point out that these were to be overhead security lights. City Council 7 August 18, 1987 Page 17 vierling/Wampach moved to authorize Staff to enter into a contract with Edman Builders for the lights at a price not to exceed $4,765.00 and Elmer Prahm for the gate at a price not to exceed $5,970.00 for Memorial Park. Roll Call: Ayes: Cncl. Wampach, Vierling, Leroux, Clay, Mayor Reinke. Noes: Cncl. Lebens. Motion carried. Vierling/Wampach moved to direct Finance to make funds available for this payment from the park fund. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Clay moved to direct the appropriate City Staff to send a letter to the Board of Scott County Commissioners encouraging them to include in their 1988 budget funding for a consultant study or a Staff study of the causes of the 13 mill differential between Scott County and the average mill rate of the other metropolitan counties. (Approved under consent business) . Leroux/Clay moved to pass a motion concluding that the City' s present ordinances regarding the management of refuse collection are adequate and not in conflict. (Approved under consent business) . Leroux/Clay offered Resolution No. 2776, A Resolution Designating Public Power Week, and moved its adoption. (Approved under consent business) . Leroux/Clay offered Resolution No. 2777, A Resolution Apportioning Assessments Among New Parcels Created as a Result of the Subdivision of Hauer's 4th Addition, and moved its adoption. (Approved under consent business) . Leroux/Clay offered Resolution No. 2778, Amending Resolution No. 2665 Amending the 1987 Pay Plan and moved its adoption. (Approved under consent business) . Leroux/Vierling offered Ordinance No. 224, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending Shakopee ^City Code Chapter 1 Entitled "General Provisions and Def i^-ticas At=1_4 ==able to the Entire City Code including Penalty for Violation" by Changing a Provision Relating to Public Officials; and by making this ordinance Applicable to Every Chapter, Section or Other Provision of the Shakopee City Code, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Leroux offered Ordinance no. 225, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending Shakopee City Code Chapter 4 Entitled "Construction Licensing, Permits and Regulations" by Changing Provisions relating to Adoption of the State Building City Council August 18, 1987 Page 18 Code, the Uniform Housing Code, and Certificates of Occupancy; and, by Adopting by Reference, Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 and Section 4.99 which, among other things, Contain Penalty Provisions, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Leroux offered Ordinance No. 227, An Ordinance of the City Code of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending Shakopee City Code Chapter 8 Entitled "Traffic Regulations" by changing a Provision Relating to Adoption of the Traffic Regulation Act by Reference; and by Adopting by Reference, Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 and Section 8.99 which, among other things, Contain Penalty Provisions, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/wampach offered Ordinance No. 228, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Changing the name of 13th Avenue in the City of Shakopee to Vierling Drive and Providing for Additions thereto, and move its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling offered Ordinance No. 229, An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Amending Shakopee City Code Chapter 5 Entitled "Ligour, Beer and Wine Licensing and Regulation" By Permitting Sale of Non-Intoxicating Malt Liqour without an Additional License Under Certain Circumstances and By Adopting By Reference Shakopee City Code Chapter I and Section 5.99 Which Among Other Things Contain Penalty Provisions, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Wampach/Leroux moved that steps be taken to set a public hearing date for the violations by the Pullman Club, Inc. Mr. Coller noted that will require a resolution, which will be prepared for the next meeting. He will set the time for the hearing. Motion carried unanimously. The City Administrator reviewed a memo Council had from Barry Stock in which he indicates that Council will receive a complete report from Staff on the trip to Cincinnati. Also, late last week two communicaucns were received from Mr. Zak regarding that trio and the fact that he felt there might be more appropriate groups for Council members, Planning Commission members, and the tizens to hear. Mr. Zak also felt that some o. the Decile who live adjacent to the Blossum Theater should be contacted first- hand. Staff has recommended to follow-up on arranging a conference call to contact residents 'living near the Blossum Music Center, but not to fo'_low-up on arranging attendance of an additional concert, the reason being that the type of facility has a significant effect on the impact with a particuiar type c_ concert and that one reason for the trip to Cincinnati, to experience an outdoor facility. As mentioned earlier in the 7 City Council August 18, 1987 Page 19 meeting, it appeared there may be some difficulties reaching the various people Mr. Zak had mentioned for a Wednesday night conference call. Mr. Zak addressed Council regarding the trip to Cincinnati. He was contacted by Barry Stock about the trip and was told a Planning Commission member, a Council member and two unbiased individuals would be sent. He was also told that the concert was a Kenny Loggins concert. He had no option to choose any of the -- - - unbiased people, no option to say anything about the concert being a Kenny Loggins concert, nor did he have any voice in choosing the amphitheater. He noted he was asked to go to this concert as a representative of the opposition' s side and was told he would have to pay to go there. He chose not to attend, but suggested that Mrs. Hyatt go as an unbiased observer representing the opposition' s side. At this point, anyone that . was there is now biased because they saw a class outfit with a class rock and roll singer in a class situation. He felt they had lent credibility to the trip to Cincinnati by sending someone like Mrs. Hyatt, . and he had some reservations about paying for it. He .felt it was discriminatory and prejudicial to say that the opposition has to pay for attending that concert because it has expressed a view and is not really a part of the group; that they are different. He resented that and felt it was wrong. He requested that there be an evaluation on those dollars to see whether indeed this was a trip to influence people to a positive side. He noted the money involved was airfare, etc. , for Mrs. Hyatt. There was discussion of the possibility of a conference call as suggested by Mr. Zak. Mr. Zak reiterated that his main concerns regarding Starwood are traffic, sound, real estate values and crime. The City Administrator summarized that in terms of the staff memo, it was his understanding from discussion this evening that Ccunci'_ members would like to participate in a conference call. He asked which members could attend a 6:30 P.M. conference call tomorrow evening in Mr. Krass' s c£fice and Cncl. Vier--1 -4-g and Clay indicated they may be able to attend at that time. The City Administrator questioned whether there was an interest in attending the concert of the other group suggested. Cncl. Wampach indicated he would like to see another group perform in the Metro area to see the other side of this matter. Mr. Kraft stated a rock video of the trip to Riverbend is available for interested members to view. This video will also be shown on Channel 3 at 7:00 p.m. tomorrow and Thursday evening. City Council August 18, 1987 Page 20 He stated he was informed there will be an article in the newspaper about the trip as well. Leroux/Wampach moved that the expense for Mrs. Donna Hyatt to go to the Cincinnati Riverbend concert be added to the costs that were previously approved for the trip. Roll Call: Ayes: Cncl. Wampach, Lebens, Vierling, Leroux, Clay, Mayor Reinke. Noes: None Motion carried. Clay/Leroux moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 12:15 a.m. Judith S. Cox City Clerk Betty Brumm Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL 7 REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 1, 1987 Mayor Reinke called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. with Cncl. Vierling, Clay, Lebens, Wampach and Leroux present. Also present were Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer; Douglas Wise, City Planner; John K. Anderson, City Administrator; Julius A. C011er, II, City Attorney; Dennis Kraft, Community Development Director, and Judith S. Cox, City Clerk. Wampach/Vierling moved to recess for HRA. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Clay moved to reconvene City Council at 7:10 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Cncl. Wampach commented the City Engineer and City Administrator for their cooperative efforts, especially in regard to the Downtown Streetscape Project, with the Shakopee Public Utilities Manager. Cncl. Vierling gave a liaison report on the AMM Metropolitan Services meeting. Cncl. Lebens reported on a meeting which addressed traffic and other situations in Shakopee where Senator Durenburger was present. Mayor Reinke recognized anyone in the audience that wished to address Council. Mr. Cal TenEyck asked for clarification of the wording "Auxiliary Vehicle" of a variance issued in 1982. Discussion was held regarding the interpretation of this. Leroux/Lebens moved that the Assistant City Attorney be advised not to enforce any ticketing or penalties until after the meeting of September 8, 1987 (relative to the TenEyck property and the variance issued in 1982) . Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Vierling moved to include the 1982 variance granted to the TenEyck's on the agenda for the September 8, 1987 meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Leroux moved the consent business. Roll Call: Ayes: Wampach, Lebens, Leroux, Vierling, Clay, Mayor Reinke. Noes: None. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Leroux moved to approve the minutes of August 17, 1987 (Approved under consent business) . city council September 1, 1987 Page 2 wampach/Vierling moved to approve the minutes of August 4, 1987. Motion carried with Cncl. Lebens abstaining. John Anderson referred to a letter from Judy Glasford regarding the poor condition of the flags in downtown Shakopee. The flags get very dirty because of diesel fuel and contact with the aluminum flag poles which will not come clean with laundering or dry cleaning. These flags will be changed more often in the future. Clay/Leroux moved to receive and file the letter from Judy Gladford regarding the flags in downtown Shakopee. Motion carried unanimously. John Anderson referred to Leo Mc Govern's letter which objected to a storm sewer bill. He is generally against the storm sewer policy and also brought up an issue of construction in 1980. Cncl. Wampach and Ken Ashfeld added that they had inspected the property earlier. Leroux/Vierling moved that staff contact Mr. McGovern and ask if he would meet with the City Council and discuss damages incurred during the 1980 construction season. Motion carried unanimously. Robert Vierling wrote a letter to the Police Department outlining his resolution of complaints on his property. The Police Chief has acknowledged this letter in written response. Leroux/Clay moved to receive and file the letter from Robert Vierling. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Leroux moved to receive and file the letter from George Kehoe regarding meeting of the League of Minnesota Cities in Owatonna on September 3, 1987. (Approved under consent business) . Vierling/Leroux moved to receive and file the letter from Steve Keefe, Chair, Metropolitan Council regarding programs available for older people. (Approved under consent business) . An invitation for the City of Shakopee has been made to participate in the Cities Week promotion of the League of Minnesota Cities. This will take place the first week of May, 1988. There are many different levels of participation available. Clay/Leroux moved to direct Barry Stock to investigate further and report back to Council on the feasibility of participating in the Cities Week promotion the first week in May, 1988. Motion carried unanimously. City Council September 1, 1987 Page 3 Discussion was held on how this could tie in with street projects, new City Hall or other projects. Mr. Anderson addressed the future participation of Shakopee in the, Southwest Communities Coalition. Discussion was held regarding the possible future conflict of interest on the highway situation. Leroux/Lebens moved that Cncl. Wampach be named as a representative of Shakopee to the Southwest Communities Coalition with Cncl. Vierling as a back-up. Motion carried unanimously. Possible participation in a tax forfeiture sale of property was discussed. Leroux/Vierling moved not to file a bid for that parcel of land involved in a tax forfeiture sale (Parcel #27-915033-0) and to receive and file the letter from the Deputy County Auditor, Motion carried unanimously. A parking problem along Sommerville Street during school hours was addressed in a letter from Kenneth Brushoff and Donald Trutnau. Discussion ensued on signs posted along streets restricting parking during school hours. Other parking problems were discussed. Leroux/Lebens moved to direct staff to look into restricting parking on Sommerville Street, extending it on 10th Avenue East and West and on Spencer Street North and South. Motion carried unanimously. Dennis Kraft offered information on the Downtown Design Standards for building improvements which basically are to preserve and restore the original appearance of the buildings as they were built. These standards are offered not only to those businesses who wish to receive financial assistance from the City, but also those businesses who do not participate in the incentive program. Some of the financial incentives mentioned included .revolving _ _loan programs, tax increment financing, HRA reserve funds, pending assessment pool, and interest reduction programs. The Council members had concerns regarding the elements involved in these standards. Discussion was held on Building Element B.4 which relates to resolution of energy conservation problems by completely closing a deeply recessed panel. Rehabilitation Element C.3 was also discussed, which relates to cleaning of brick surfaces. City Council September 1, 1987 Page 4 Leroux/Vierling moved that the Council's concerns be forwarded to the Downtown Committee and offer Resolution No. 2874, A Resolution Adopting Downtown Design Standards for Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings in the Downtown Area With the Help of Incentive Programs, and moved its adoption. Motion carried with one dissenting vote by Cncl. Lebens. Lebens/Vierling moved to open the public hearing on an appeal of Board of Adjustment and Appeals denial of a variance from front yard setback requirements for property located at 620 West 5th Avenue. Motion carried unanimously. Doug Wise, City Planner, stated that Mr. and Mrs. Ron Schmitt have applied for a four foot variance from the average prevailing front yard setback which, upon physically measuring additional surrounding homes, was found to be 17 '4" . This allows the Schmitt' s to construct a 6' addition to the front of the house. Cncl. Leroux asked how the 6 ' setback was arrived at. Mr. Wise responded that if the houses on the block were used it would allow 4 ' , but additional homes were included after the Schmitt's submitted other information. Measuring from the back of the sidewalk to the front of the house and averaging these is the formula used. The width of the street was also discussed. Rosemary Schmitt pointed out the problems with the alternatives of adding on to the back of the home as it would interfere with the pitch of the roof; that this is not a 2-story home and also that there is no headroom in the basement. She listed homes in the immediate vicinity that have front yard setbacks of less than what they are requesting. Other remodeling options are not reasonable for living space. She also addressed concerns of the neighbors sightline complaints. Ron Schmitt explained the dormer situation at the back of their house. The pitch of the roof is such that it would nearly have to be replaced which would be very costly and very difficult to do. Regarding the problem with the neighbors being able to see out their windows, just by moving 5' -10' to another window in their home this problem would not exist. Fred Lebens, 604 West 5th Avenue lives 2 houses East of the Schmitt' s, stated that the house on the corner which the Schmitt' s are using in their figures is 100 years old. If the Schmitt' s are allowed this variance their house will stick out and detract from the appearance of the neighborhood. He is concerned about how this may hinder any future efforts to sell his home should he decide to do so. He questioned why there was a House for Rent sign in front of the Schmitt' s. Families have lived comfortably in this house before without seeming to have complaints. 7 city Council September 1, 1987 Page 5 Harvey Tesch, 610 5th Avenue West, had a question of whether it was true that the Schmitt' s are going to rent out their home as a duplex. Mr. Schmitt responded that after the Board of Adjustments and Appeals meeting they erected a For Rent sign as a neighborhood strategy. He pointed out that it would be unreasonable for them to rent their house out after investing the money to add on. They would not apply for a variance if they were not going to live there. Also in response to the fact that families have lived their before, lifestyles of the 1980' s are very different than those in earlier decades. Margaret Stans thinks that the Schmitt' s should be permitted the variance. Tim Lindgren has lived at 635 West 4th Avenue for approximately 20 years and has a setback from his neighbor of 6 ' 8" . He stated he has had no problem with sightlines. Jerome Steinhoff, 605 West 4th said his home is 5 ' from the sidewalk and he has no problem with the neighbors complaining about their sightline and is in favor of the Schmitt' s receiving their variance for a 10' addition. Dave Hahn lives in the 100 year old house on the corner and does not believe that the Schmitt' s house would protrude farther than his and believes that they should receive the variance. David Rutt, 600 block of East 4th Avenue, lives on the other end of town and has been in the Schmitt house many times and believes that they do need the living area. His house is only a few feet from the sidewalk and he has experienced no problems with the neighbors sightlines being affected. He also stated that improving a single house in a neighborhood does improve the looks of the whole neighborhood. Kim Bohn, 627 West 6th Avenue, stated that he feels the Schmitt's should have the much needed room to live comfortably and does not see where this would hurt anyone else. Bernice Ring, 636 West 6th Avenue, is not against the Schmitt' s addition. Discussion was held on Cncl. Lebens abstaining from the vote due to the fact that she lives within 300' of this property. Legal counsel was obtained to determine if this constitutes a conflict of interest. City Council September 1, 1987 Page 6 Cncl. Wampach was concerned for the immediate neighbors. Discussion was held on possible compromises and other building options available to the Schmitt' s. It was pointed out that financial considerations are not to be considered as a hardship according to the Planning Code for variance criteria. The City Administrator stated that staff has to have some guidelines for determining the average setback and some common guidelines must be adhered to in this. Mr. Wise has made one compromise by expanding that area which was measured and averaged to determine the front yard setbacks. Mrs. Schmitt stated that the hardship is not only financial but a structural hardship in adding on the back. Discussion was held regarding pre-existing setbacks on older homes in the City. Lebens/Wampach moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Wampach/Lebens moved to deny Variance Resolution No. 504 requesting a four foot variance from the average front yard setback as required by Section 11.03 , Subd. 7 (F) for the property located at 620 West 5th Avenue. Roll Call: Ayes: Leroux, Lebens, Vierling, Wampach, Mayor Reinke. Noes: Clay Motion carried. Discussion was held on the excluding of property which is applying for a variance. Computations for determining average .setbacks were reviewed and possible variations were discussed. Vierling/Clay moved to direct staff to obtain a definition of immediate vicinity for the purpose of measuring surrounding homes for determination of average setbacks and to arrive at an administrative policy to establish a firm and consistent criteria for doing so. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Leroux moved to continue the public hearing on the Proposed improvements to Vierling Drive between CR-16 to CR-17 by streets, storm sewer, watermains and sanitary sewer. Motion carried unanimously. Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer, gave background and staff' s recommendation on this matter. The recommendation being that construction of the street and storm sewer be constructed in the 1988 season with the first year of payments on the assessments due in 1990. There will be a one-year lag in the assessment City Council September 1, 1987 Page 7 payment. Most of this street will be state aid eligible, so we will not be floating a bond to finance the project. Thus, we will not be wrestling with the problem of having to make a bond payment without assessment income for the first year. The watermain loop system with regard to potential development to the west of County Road 17 was discussed. Lou Van Hout, Utilities Manager has recommended against looping until there is development to the West. Mr. Malkerson, representing Scottland Companies, the sole abutting property owner, noted for the record that this proposed development being constructed through the property is premature and that they are opposed to the project. - Leroux/Vierling moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Lebens moved to construct the street and storm sewer for Vierling Drive from County Road 16 to County Road 17 but postpone water and sewer utilities until such time as the abutting property is developed and to instruct staff to prepare a resolution. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion was held on any possible proceedings for condemnation which might be considered necessary. Mr. Malkerson stated that the property owner, by opposing the project, does not mean to imply in any way that the City will be forced into a position of condemning for right-of-way. Vierling/Leroux moved to direct the appropriate City officials to submit a budget amendment request to the Regional Transit Board to amend the 1987 Transit Assistance Agreement between the Regional Transit Board and the City of Shakopee in the amount Of $20,519.20. (Approved under consent business) . Vierling/Leroux moved to approve Dial-A-Ride Contract Amendment #3 extending the Dial-A-Ride summer service hours through the remainder of this year. (Approved under consent business) . Vierling/Leroux moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to amend the existing Home Energy Check-up Program Agreement with Minnegasco and extend it a second year. (Approved under consent business) . Vierling/Leroux offered Resolution No. 2790 Approving The Registered Land Survey for parts of Block 29, Original Plat, City of Shakopee,and moved its adoption. (Approved under consent business) . city Council September 1, 1987 Page 8 Leroux/Wampach moved for a five minute recess. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting recessed at 9:05 P.M. Vierling/wampach moved to reconvene the meeting at 9:17 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. City Planner, Doug Wise, indicated that at the August 20, 1987 Planning Commission meeting a motion was passed recommending a special study be initiated to evaluate and recommend solutions to the problems created by our changing environment, namely, but not limited to the recreation/entertainment facilities within and surrounding our City. This study should be focused on, but not limited to, issues such as increased traffic, noise, crime, etc. Discussion was held on when this should be done and how it would work in with studying the City' s Comprehensive Plan. Also the hiring of a consultant was discussed. Leroux/Lebens moved to direct staff to prepare RFP' s for a study as recommended and requested by the Planning Commission to study the changing environment within the City as relating to, but not limited to, the recreation and entertainment facilities within the City. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Leroux moved to authorize the appropriate City official to pay $738.42 . to Wayne Burnsville Plumbing for 75% of the installation costs of a sanitary sewer back-flow preventer at 1601 Shakopee Avenue. (Approved under consent business) . Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer, reviewed the matter of Vierling Drive through Hauer' s 4th Addition, whereas the original plans were that the developer would do the construction and the City would reimburse him the City' s share of the cost. State aid would require the City to be the contracting agency for the project and the developer has requested that this be changed to a normal 429 assessment procedure. Leroux/Vierling moved to offer Resolution no. 2780, A Resolution Receiving aReport, Ordering an improvement and Approval of Plans and Specifications, and Ordering Advertisement for Bids for 13th Avenue, Jasper Road, and Limestone Drive, Project No. 1987-12, and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes: Clay, Lebens, Vierling, wampach, Leroux, Mayor Reinke. Noes: None. Motion carried. City Engineer, Ken Ashfeld, reviewed the Downtown Streetscape Project prospective charge orders. An additional change cider No. 4 addresses Fuller Street. There is currently not a need for City Council 7 September 1, 1987 Page 9 undergrounding the primary line on Fuller Street for the next 4-5 years. No recommendation is being made for conduit at the present time on that street. Timing and expense distribution of the project was discussed. Leroux/Wampach moved to direct the City Engineer to cause the installation of changed conduit installations and the addition of conduit on Sommerville Street between 1st Avenue and 3rd Avenue as addressed in the City Engineer' s August 26, 1987 memorandum. Roll Call: Ayes: Clay, Wampach, Leroux, Vierling, Mayor Reinke Noes: Lebens Motion carried. Vierling/Leroux moved to authorize staff to purchase from North Star Auto Auction a 1985 Ford LTD at a cost of $5,035.00. Declare 1984 Oldsmobile four-door sedan surplus property. (Approved under consent business) . Vierling/Leroux moved to approve the purchase of a Frink Model 4511 Polymar hydraulic reversible truck plow from Boyum Equipment Co. for the quoted price of $5,785.00. (Approved under consent business) . Vierling/Leroux moved to approve the purchase of a Fox Model 237 spinner sander from Ruffridge-Johnson Equipment Co. of Mpls. , for the quoted price of $1,350.00. (Approved under consent business) . Vierling/Leroux moved to approve the purchase of a Monroe Model 10 underbody blade from Boyum Equipment Co. for the quoted price of $2,415.00. (Approved under consent business) . Vierling/Leroux moved to approve the purchase of a propane conversion kit from Propane Carb & Turbo of Shakopee, MN for the quoted price of $700.00. (Approved under consent business) . Vierling/Leroux moved to approve the purchase of a Maxar Mobil Motorola radio from the Motorola Corp. of Minnetonka for the quoted price of 5745. 00. (Approved under consent business) . Vierling/Lebens moved to approve bills in the amount of $83,365.07. Cncl. Leroux asked for explanation of the C.O. Chg items on the back page. This will be followed up by John Anderson, City Administrator. Roll Call: Ayes: Clay, Leroux, Lebens, Wampach, Vierling, Mayor Reinke Noes: None Motion carried. City Council September 1, 1987 Page 10 Mr. Coller, City Attorney, discussed Vierling annexation has been appealed. Mr. Coller also reviewed the matter of a public hearing regarding the Pullman Club. Procedures were discussed regarding the hearing which is to determine if disciplinary action is requested. Vierling/Leroux moved that the proper officials sign the document with the State of Minnesota as to the public hearing of the Pullman Club. Roll Call: Ayes: Vierling, Clay, Wampach, Lebens, Leroux, Mayor Reinke Noes: None Motion carried. Leroux/Vierling moved to hold a public hearing per the City Attorney' s memo of August 28, 1987 for October 20, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. on the proposal of the authorization to sell intoxicating liquor on Sundays between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight limited to Class C license holders. Motion carried unanimously. Judith Cox, City Clerk, addressed the issue of pool table licensing. Discussion was held regarding the charges, what types of equipment should be licensed, i.e. video games, vending machines, etc. Leroux/Lebens moved that staff be directed to bring an ordinance back to the Council that would address licenses for gaming machines such as pool tables, video games, and pinball machines. License fee to be established by resolution with one license covering the establishment. Motion carried unanimously. Leroux/Wampach offered Resolution No. 2789, A Resolution setting a Time and Place for a Public hearing Pursuant to Law on Whether the Liquor Licenses of THE PULLMAN CLUB, INC. should be Revoked or Suspended and Whether Its Surety Bonds Should Be Forfeited, and moved its. adaption. Motion carried unanimously: _ Vierling/Leroux moved to authorize the proper City officials to sign agreements and restrictive covenants with the Metropolitan Council for parcels 3-6 and for parcel No. 7 acquired with Metropolitan Right-of-Way Acquisition Loan Funds. (Approved under consent business) . Discussion was held regarding the Strategic Planning Process. Vierling/Clay moved to pass a motion establishing 1988 as a strategic plan review year requiring one joint City Council and department head meeting to review the status of goals and objectives established in the 1988 plan, and adopting procedures City Council September 1, 1987 Page 11 to shorten regular year goal setting process by completing certain written materials in advance of the first meeting. Motion failed with Cncl. Leroux, Vierling, Clay, and Lebens opposed. After additional discussion and clarification, Leroux/Vierling moved to reconsider the motion. Motion carried with Cncl. Lebens and Clay dissenting. A Roll Call vote was taken on the issue. Roll Call: Ayes: Wampach, Vierling, Leroux, Clay, Mayor Reinke Noes: Lebens Motion carried. Vierling/Leroux moved to Offer Resolution No. 2783, A Resolution Restricting Parking on Vierling Drive (MSAS 112) , and moved its adoption. (Approved under consent business) . Leroux/Clay offered Resolution No. 2785, A Resolution Accepting Work on the Holmes Street Basin Storm Sewer Laterals, Project No. 1986-1, and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes: Leroux, Clay, Vierling, Wampach, Mayor Reinke Noes: Lebens Motion carried. Vierling/Leroux offered Resolution No. 2786, A Resolution Accepting Bid on Marschall Road Watermain, Project No. 1987-4 to G.L. Contracting, Inc. , 11421 West 47th Street, Minnetonka, MN 55343 in the amount of $50,595.26, and moved its adoption. (Approved under consent business) . The bidding process was discussed on the Heritage Place, Project No. 1987-14. Specifically the cost effectiveness of resubmission of bids was discussed. Leroux/Clay offered Resolution No. 2787, A Resolution Accepting Bid on Heritage Place Improvements, Project No. 1987-14 to Widmer, Inc. , P.O. Box 219, St. Bonifacius, MN 55375 in the amount of $252,097 .50, and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes: Clay, Vierling, Wampach, Leroux, Lebens, Mayor Reinke Noes: None Motion carried. Vierling/Leroux offered Resolution No. 2788, A Resolution Authorizing the Correction of an Error in that Certain Lease Agreement Dated April 21, 1987 Between the City of Shakopee and City Council September 1, 1987 Page 12 the Shakopee Area Chamber of Commerce, and moved its adoption. (Approved under consent business) . Judith Cox, City Clerk, reviewed the resolution for setting a special election for funds to construct a new City Hall. Leroux/Vierling offered Resolution No. 2782, A Resolution Determining the Need for the Issuance of general Obligation Bonds and Calling a Special Election thereon, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. City Administrator, John Anderson, stated that the budget discussion will be held on September 8, 1987 meeting and stated that more detailed information is available if desired. Discussion was held on a capital equipment item requested by the Police Chief used to enter a home where one of the occupants is armed. The Committee was of the opinion that this was not needed at this time. These items will be brought up at the September 8th budget discussion meeting. Leroux/Vierling moved to adjourn to Tuesday, September 8, 1987 at 7:00 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Judith S. Cox City Clerk Peggy Swagger Recording Secretary PO-) RECEIVED ,(111 SEP0 3JW U league of minnesota citFSHAKOP.EE August 28, 1987 TO: City Clerks FROM: Joel Jamnik, Legislative Counsel RE: Notice of Vacancies in Multi-Member State Agencies The League has received notice from the state of several available positions in state agencies. Many of these agencies play very important roles in local government. Application forms may be obtained at the office of the Secretary of State, Joan Anderson Growe, 180 State Office Building, St. Paul, MN 55155-1299; (612)296-2805. Application deadline is September , 14, 1987. The League strongly encourages interested city officials to submit their applications. Please pass this information on to your mayors and counc ilmembers and employees For further information, please contact me at the League. We would be happy to assist in any way possible. Minnesota Public Facilities Authority has 3 vacancies open for pubic members. The authority has the responibility for managing grant andloan programs for assisting state or local jurisdictions in financing water and wastewater treatment systems. Also assists local units of government in administering the Municipal Energy Grant and Loan Program, the school energy loan program, and the health care equipment - program. Members are appointed by the Governor with advice and consent of the senate. Members receive authorized expenses. For specific information contact the Minnesota Public Facilities Authority, Dep't of Trade and Economic Development, 9th Floor American Center Building, 150 E. Kellogg Blvd. , St. Paul, MN 55101; (612) 296-5005 Rural Development Board has 6 vacancies open for public members (one from each region established by the board) representing 2 local elected officials, 2 members of farm organizations, 1 business representative and 1 labor representative. The board is responsible for investigating and evaluating new methods to be used as a guide for the legislature and state agencies to allocate state resources and 1 33 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 55101 1612) 227-5600 funds to rural Minnesota; and administration of the Challenge Grant Program and Rural Rehab Pilot Project Program. Members are appointed by the Governor . Members receive authorized expenses. For specific information contact the Rural ' t of Trade cono Flooropment AmericanardCenterpBuilding, 150nE.EKellogg Blvd., St. Paul , MN 55101; (612) 296-5005. i CITY OF SHAKOPEE i INCORPORATED 1670 129 EAST FIRST AVENUE, SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650 iL .k, September 10, 1987 Dear Mayor Reinke and City Council Members: This letter is offered by the Industrial Commercial commission (ICC) based on discussion and concerns expressed at recent ICC meetings. The ICC believes that the City of Shakopee has worked hard to establish a positive climate for quality development that should be continued. The City should continue to encourage the development of the commercial, recreational, industrial and residential opportunities within our community. Resent developments have produced many jobs and have made a significant contribution to the City' s tax base. During the City Council's 1987 strategic planning work sessions, much discussion took place regarding the message that is being sent to the development community via the City' s development review process. It was the consensus of the Council that the City should work to improve the planning review process focusing on efficient decision-making based on sound planning issues. In the past few months the ICC has observed and discussed the process employed in development reviews that may have an adverse affect on the development community' s view of Shakopee' s business climate. The recent plan review process has been characterized by delays and protracted meetings. The ICC recently completed and obtained Star City designation. In completing the Minnesota Star City Program Application, the ICC analyzed various factors that are necessary in maintaining and/or developing an economically viable community. Through this process, the ICC offered a Five Year and One Year plan for the City Council's review and approval. The plans which were approved by the City Council included seven primary objectives for the next five year period. These primary objectives included the following: 1. Improved highway access into the community. 2. Development of a downtown retail area. 3. The development of additional residential properties. The Heart of Progress Valley AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 8 -fir 4. Support and encourage community focus on tourism. 5. Encourage existing and new industrial development in the community. 6. Encourage the development of support services. 7. Develop organization and staffing to promote economic development. The Planning Commission in its recent consideration of the Starwoods proposal recommended "a study to evaluate and recommend solutions to the problems created by our changing environment, namely, but not limited to the recreation/entertainment facilities within and surrounding our City". We believe that this action is again sending mixed signals to the development community. By the Council's approval of this course of action, the Council has participated in sending out these mixed signals. If it is the City's intent to reevaluate the City's goals and objectives that have been established and to curtail the proposed commercal recreational development industry in our community, the ICC would welcome the opportunity to become involved in the process to preserve the continuance of the commercial recreational industry within our community. Additionally, the ICC encourages the City Council to take an agressive development position and continue to offer incentives to quality industries considering Shakopee in their business location plans. Until highways are improved in our area, the ICC believes that it is necessary for the City Council to utilize financial development tools in attracting new industry to our community. When highway access has been improved, the ICC believes that industries will consider Shakopee in their locational plans without the need for financial assistance. We would appreciate your consideration in discussing the issues presented herein. The ICC looks forward to the opportunity to meet with the City Council to seek solutions to meet the goals of the City. The ICC continues to support the City Council in its pursuit of the betterment and growth of our community. Sincerely, The Shakopee Industrial Commercial Commission by: Tim K ane Its C air TK:tw 7C_ toas ociation of BULLETIN metropolitan RECEIVED muniapal ities SEP 15 V September 14, 1987 ll7';Y F TO: Mayors and Managers/Administrators §k! KOPEE (Carver, Scott and Southwestern Hennepin County - AMM Member Cities) RE: Municipal Vacancy on the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) There is one city vacancy on the Metropolitan Area TAB due to the recent resignation from TAB of Eden Prairie Councilmember, George Bentley. Cities within the 7-County area are allocated 10 positions on this very important advisory board and the AMM has the responsibility for making the nominations. With the resignation of Mr. Bentley, there are no city officials from the Southwest part of the Metropolitan area remaining on TAB and the AMM Board would like to give preference to cities in your area in replacing him. (There are several nominations on file from other parts of the Metropolitan Area. ) To be eligible to serve, you must be either a Mayor or Councilmember. ACTION REQUESTED: The Board is soliciting nominations via this Bulletin. Please submit written nominations to the attention of Vern Peterson in the AMM Office by October 1 , 1987. The nominating letter should include a brief resume of the candidate's governmental experience and involvement in community affairs. Please call me at 227-5600 should you desire more information. Thank you. Sincerely, Vern Peterson, Executive Director Association of Metropolitan Municipalities 183 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 55101 (612) 227-5600 l 1988 Budget Hearing The City of Shakopee will hold a public hearing at 8:30 P.M. on September 15, 1987, in the Council Chambers of City urHall, 129 East First Avenue, Shakopee, Minnesota, for the purpose of hearing written and oral comment from the public concerning the proposed annual budget for fiscal year 1988. All interested citizens, groups, senior citizens and organizations representing the interest of senior citizens are encouraged to attend and to submit comments. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED 1988 BUDGET City of Shakopee General Fund Revenues. Source Property Taxes Licenses & Permits $ 1,360,563 Intergovernmental 309,450 Service Char es 829,443 Charges/User User Fees Fines and Penalties 577,950 Other Revenue - 62,000 Total 656.384 $ 3,795,790 Expenditures Activity Total General Government Public Safety $ 832,090 Public Works 1,171,675 Recreation 1,255,130 Miscellaneous 347,495 Total 184 400 $3,795,790 A copy of this information, the entire proposed budget and additional background materials are available for public inspection from 8:00 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. weekdays at Shakopee City Hall, 129 East First Avenue. Dated this 28tb day of August, 1987. John R. Anderson City Administrator City of Shakopee lla MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant RE: Star City Recognition Banquet/Reception DATE: September 11, 1987 Introduction: On September 10, 1987 the City of Shakopee received written conformation of Star City approval. (See attachment 91) The Department of Trade and Economic Development strongly encourages communities who receive Star City designation to schedule a banquet or reception so that the city can be formally presented with the Star City Award. I have investigated several potential alternatives for the City Council to consider regarding the banquet/reception. Background; In an effort to proceed with the Star City recognition banquet in a timely manner, I have been investigating several alternatives for the Council ' s consideration. Upon selection of one of the alternatives, the Industrial Commercial Commission will be responsible for coordinating the final details of the event. It is likely that the Commissioner of the Department of Trade and Economic Development will be making the formal presentation of the Star City Award to Shakopee. The invitation list for this event will include both State and local elected and appointed officials. We are also considering an open invitation to all the residents of Shakopee. The formal invitation list will include approximately 150 guests. At this time, I would like to suggest the following alternatives for City Council' s consideration. 1. Formal dinner and awards ceremony at either the Canterbury Inn on October 19th or at the Shakopee House on October 22nd. The approximate cost per person for is alternative will range between $15 to $18 per person. _. _ y c _. _l_..__ =_ R„_ _ . ar. S-= Citie_ Award' - CeremonyeonOctober 20, 1987�ateither the Canterbury or the Shakopee House. Cost estimates for this alserna-ive ranee ce-wear. SS - .13 per person. s. Wine and cheese recension and awards ceremony at the -_terbcr- In - _ =eJ ­_w= - 5 p.-. ' - 7 p.7.. Cos' estimz-es for this alternative range between 55- S10 Der person. Currently there is approximately $2, 000 remaining in the ICC in-'aget fcr prcmoticnal - activities such as the Star recognition ba.^.q'_et. City Council should consider whether or not we want to pick up the tab for all invited guests or make the guest list smaller and expect other persons attending to pick up the cost of their own meal. Based on the amount of dollars remaining in the ICC budget, and an average meal price of $15, we could pay for approximately 130 meals. Additional guests beyond the 130 person mark would have to be paid for personally by the attendees or out of the City' s contingency fund. In an effort to avoid the headaches associated with determining who the City will pay for as a guest and who will have to pay their own meal, I am recommending that the City pursue alternative $3 as listed above. This alternative can be done within our $2, 000 budget. Additionally, I believe that we will have a much better turn out from individuals and representatives from the Shakopee community. Alternatives: 1. Direct staff and the ICC to coordinate dinner/banquet at either the Canterbury Inn or Shakopee Rouse on October 19, . 1987. 2. Direct staff and the ICC to coordinate a luncheon reception with the Shakopee Rotatory on October 20, 1987. 3. Direct staff and the ICC to coordinate a Star City Recognition Wine and Cheese Reception at the Canterbury Inn - Pool Side between 5 p.m. and 7 p.m, on October 22, 1987. 4. Suggest some other location and date. Scar' Recommendation: Staff recommends alternative =3 . Action Reouested: Move to direct staff and the ICC to coordinate a Star City Rec=nitior Wine and Cheese Recertion a. the Ca:.cerb,---s _.-_._- _ Pool Side on Oc�cber22, 1987. business Promotion and Marketing Division 900 American Center 150 East Kellogg boulevard St. Paul,MN 55101-1421 611/2963977 September 4, 1987 Fax: 612/2961290 RECEIVED Mr. Barry Stock Administrative Assistant SEP 1 01987 129 E. First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Dear Mr. Stock: Please congratulate all of the members of the Shakopee's Star City Committee on their successful completion of the program. Shakopee is the sixty-first community to complete the program and will soon be among an elite group of cities which distinguish themselves by having a professional capacity to undertake an aggressive economic development program. The Star City Program is a concentrated group effort and all members of the committee deserve support for their efforts from both the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development and your .city for their ' investment of time to expand the economic base of the community. Please contact me at your convenience to suggest a date when Commissioner Speer can make the formal presentation of the Star City award. This is an important event and the Department desires to assist in every possible way to make the presentation a significant event in Shakopee. Your committee has done a commendable job and the Department looks forward to your continued success. I ampleasedto present to you camera-ready artwork for the "Star City" logo. Feel free to include it in your marketing program. Use of the logo is reserved for cities you have been officially designated as a Minnesota Star City for Economic Development. At this time, if you desire to have highway signs manufactured with the star city logo for entrances and exits to your city, contact your district traffic engineer or Ken Schroefer of the Department of Transportation at (612) 296-6164. Five Star City Pins will be sent to you complimentary as soon as the order is in. Additional pins are $2.50 and can be obtained by contacting Colleen Kuchenmeister at (612) 297-1179. We intend to provide continued expansion of the benefits available through the Star City Program. Your conounity's participation and that of other Minnesota cities is extremely encouraging and exciting. On behalf of the Economic Development Division staff, we look forward to working with you toward the coal of building a healthy economic future for your coy-unity. 7 rlcerel y Ha� Ros 'elt, Direc�o�_ Deveio ment Resources HR:ck Enclosures CowmKf Ilb MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Community Development Director RE: Action on Probationary Period of Douglas Wise DATE: September 9 , 1987 Introduction: Douglas Wise was hired on February 17, 1987. It is now time for the City Council to consider the termination of Mr. Wise' s probationary period. Background: According to City personnel policy the evaluation of employees should be conducted after they have been employed for a period of six months. It is now time to evaluate Mr. Wise' s performance. There are many things that he does well but there is some additional improvement desired in a couple of areas. Therefore I think it is desirable to recommend to the City Council that Mr. Wise' s probationary period be extended. Alternatives: 1. Continue Douglas Wise' s probationary period to December 15, 1987 and reevaluate his performance at that time. 2. Terminate Mr. Wise' s probationary period at this time. Recommendation: It is recommended that alternative „1 be followed. Action Requested: Continue the probationary period of Douglas Wise to December 15, 1987. RECEIVED SEPI 41987 TO: PHILIP KRASS , CITY ATTORNEY OITY OF SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL, SHAKOPEE, MINN. PLANNING COMMISSION, SHAKOPEE, MINN FROM: JOSEPH F. ZAK, CITIZENS AGAINST STARWOOD AMPHITHEATER SUBJ: YOUR MEMO OF SEPTEMBER 8, 1987 RE: STARWOOD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: SEPTEMBER 13, 1987 MR. KRASS, THIS LETTER IS DIRECTED TO YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESTRICTIONS AS SUBMITTED BY THE SHAKOPEE PLANNING COMMISSION AS PART OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITY IN THE GRANTING OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO SCOTTLAND INC.THIS PERMIT WOULD ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A COMMERCIAL RECREATION USE (MUSIC AMPHITHEATERY IN A HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ZONE OF CANTERBURY INDUSTRIAL PARK. I WAS NOT SUPRISED TO SEE THAT YOU HAVE FOUND A NUMBER OF SEEMINGLY UNENFORCEABLE RESTRICTIONS ON THIS DEVELOPMENT. IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS I HAVE ADDRESSED YOUR REVIEW AND WOULD HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT WITHOUT THE PROTECTION AGAINST LOITERING,- LITTER, NOISE, TRAFFIC AND THE CITIZEN REVIEW .STARWOOD IS A TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE PROJECT FOR SHAKOPEE. THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE SUBSEQUENT CONCERNS OF THE CITIZENS OF SHAKOPEE WERE PLACED ON THIS PROJECT TO PROTECT THE CITIZENS FROM THE "DOWNSIDE" OF A CONTROVERSIAL AND SEEMINGLY DETRIMENTAL PROJECT.THE UTTER LACK. OF ANY CONTROL IN THE FOLLOWING AREAS SHOULD BE ENOUGH TO GUARANTEE A "NO" VOTE FROM THE CITY COUNCIL. YOUR EVALUATION HAS PUT STARWOOD IN ITS PROPER PROSPECTIVE AND HAS REALLY POINTED OUT THE MANY NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT. BECAUSE THIS PROJECT CANNOT BE CONTROLLED AND ALL OF THE RELEVANT RESTRICTIONS APPEAR UNENFORCABLE, APPROVAL WILL PROVE HIGHLY DETRIMENTAL TO THIS TOWN . ITS POLICE FORCE AND ITS CITIZENS. WE APPRECIATE YOUR EVALUATION. OVERVIEW OF MR. PHILLIP KRASS COMMENTS ON STARWOOD CONDITIONAL USE: i. VAGUENESS OF THE ATTEMPT TO INCORPORATE EAW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT THIS WOULD HAVE TO BE REVIEWED STEP BY STEP TO BE AS FAIR AND PROTECTIVE OF THE CITIZENS RIGHTS AS POSSIBLE. 2. "LOITERING" IS UNENFORCEABLE THEREFORE WE CAN HAVE CROWDS OF PEOPLE GATHERING ANYWHERE OUTSIDE THE COMPLEX BEFORE AND AFTER CONCERTS. PEOPLE CAN NOW CAMP OUTSIDE THE COMPLEX ON NON-STARWOOD ACREAGE WHILE AWAITING PERFORMANCES OR THE PURCHASE OF TICKETS. NO ATTEMPT WOULD BE MADE TO CONTROL THIS// CAMPING ON THE GROUNDS OF ETARWOOD, HOWEVER, WOULD BE PROHIBITED. NO ATTEMPT WOULD BE MADE TO CONTROL THIS// EXAMINE "TAILGATING" ORDINANCE AT BLOOMINGTON FOR DEFINITION. NOTE: THE CITIZENS GROUP FEELS THAT THIS IS P. TOTALLY DIFFERENT ISSUE DIRECTED TO ON-SITE DRINKING AND UNRELATED TO THE PROTECTION OF THE RESIDENTS RIGHTS OUTSIDE THE COMPLEX. QUOTE: IT IS SOMETIMES HARD TO DETERMINE WHETHER A GROUP IS GOING TO BE "ROWDY" OR NOT. SOME OF THEM YOU CAN- THE HARD ROCK AND ROLLERS. THE GROUP ------- ---- WAS HIGHLY REQUESTED BY THE PUBLIC. HAD "GROUPIES " CAMP OUT AT BLOSSOM; SENT THEM TO NEARBY CAMPGROUNDS, BUT THEY WEREN'T WANTED THERE EITHER BECAUSE THE CAMPGROUNDS CONSISTED OF FAMILIES" . BLOSSOM COMMITTEE MEETING BLOSSOM MUSIC CENTER NOVEMBER 12. 1966 3. CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD TO SCREEN OUT PROBLEMS ALTHOUGH I AM NOT A LAWYER, I TEND TO DISAGREE WITH YOUR ANALOGY ABOUT BOOK. CENSORSHIP. A MERCHANT OR A BARKEEP HAS THE RIGHT TO KEEP TROUBLE OUT OF HIS ESTABLISHMENT. CERTAINLY AS AN ESTABLISHED TOWN WITH TAXPAYING CITIZENS, WE HAVE THE SAME RIGHT. IF IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO MAINTAIN THE CONTROL OF OUR TOWN AND THE BURDEN ON OUR POLICE FORCE THEN IT WOULD BE INSANE TO ACTUALLY INVITE POTENTIAL PROBLEM CAUSERS INTO THE TOWN. THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CITY DOES NOT UNDERTAKE ANY EFFORT TO REVIEW,APPROVE OR REJECT EVENTS AT STARWOOD PUTS US IN A TREMENDOUSLY VULNERABLE POSITION AND LEAVES US TO ACCEPT THE 'PROMISE OF SCOTTLAND IN A RISKY ENDEAVOR. THIS LIABILITY WOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE TO YOU AS A LAWYER LET ALONE AN ENTIRE TOWN. ALTHOUGH SCOTTLAND MAY ATTEMPT TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR. THE CITIZENS SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO ACCEPT A LESSENING OF CONTROL. PROTECTION. OR JEOPARDIZE THEIR QUALITY OF LIFE BECAUSE OF A COMMERICIAL ENDEAVOR. I AM SURE YOU WOULD AGREE THAT THIS IS TOO IMPORTANT AND TOO RISKY OF AN ISSUE TO BE LEFT TO ANY PROFIT-MINDED BUSINESS VENTURE. NOTE: LAST WEEK THE STAR TRIBUNE REPORTED A POPULAR CONCERT IN PROVIDENCE RHODE ISLAND WHERE 60 PEOPLE WERE ARRESTED. TWO POLICEMEN WITH FACIAL CUTS, ONE EMPLOYEE WITH A BROKEN ARM AND ONE FAN WITH BROKEN LEG, THE LACI: OF CONTROL COULD BRING THOSE PROBLEMS TO THE TOWN OF SHAKOPEE, ITS POLICE FORCE, STARWOOD EMPLOYEES , AND THE FANS. IT PRESENTS PROBLEMS, WHICH ARE NOT CURRENTLY IN THIS TOWN. 4. CONDITION 1i WAS SET UP AS A SPECIFIC CONDITION TO ADDRESS THE ADDITIONAL NOISE POLLUTION EXPECTED BY THE COMPLEX.WITH THE EXCEPTION OF VALLEY FAIR'S OCCASIONAL CONCERTS OR MUSICAL ENTERTA I NMENT,THERE IS NO OTHER OUTDOOR. MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT TO BE CONCERNED WITH AT THIS TIME. SINCE THE OTHER NOISE GENERATORS ARE GRANDFATHERED, THIS CONDITION WOULD EFFECTIVELY SET THE STAGE FOR ALL "NEW" ENTERTAINMENT CORRIDOR TYPE FACILITIES. STARWOOD IS THE FIRST "AMPHITHEATER" AND THEREFORE MUST BE JUDGED ON ITS OWN. (SINCE THE BOUND TEAM IS PREDICTING ONLY 35 DECIBELS AT DEAN'S LAKE, IT SHOULD PROVIDE LITTLE CHALLENGE TO SUSTAIN THE 100 DECIBELS AT THE STAGE TO THE LAWN/FESTIVAL SEATING ON THE GRASS. ) 5. ADDITIONALt COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ZONE. WITHIN 3400 FEET FOR A PERIOD OF 7 YEARS. I AGREE THAT THE AREA SHOULD BE KEPT FROM THE CARNIVAL ATMOSPHERE CREATED BY BLATANTLY "COMMERCIAL" ENDEAVORS AND LEFT TO ITS PROPER "HEAVY INDUSTRIAL" USE. IT WILL INSURE THAT THE AREA BE RETAINED TO SOMEDAY ALLOW REAL INDUSTRY, JOBS AND TAXES. THIS WILL CERTAINLY NOT DISCIMINATE AGAINST PROPER DEVELOPMENT. 6. CLEAN UP LITTER, - THE HISTORY OF THESE CENTERS IS ONE OF LARGE VOLUMES OF INDISCRIMINATE TRASH. TO IGNORE THAT. IS TO INVITE FUTURE CONFRONTATIONS WITH SCOTTLAND AND THE CITIZENS OVER THIS ISSUE.SINCE THE K-MART DOES NOT GENERATE STREET TRASH AND THE SHOPPING CENTER ONLY HAS A COUPLE OF TENANTS, IT WOULD SEEM LIKELY THAT THE TRASH WOULD BE GENERATED BY A SCOTTLAND COMPANY. 1 BELIEVE THAT VALLEY FAIR HAS ALREADY TAKEN CARE OF THEIR OWN TRASH PROBLEMS SO THEY WOULD NOT APPLY. 7. CONDITION 16 - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT MUST BE SUBMITTED AND APPROVED PRIOR. TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. ONCE AGAIN IT APPEARS THAT WE HAVE DISREGARDED THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND ASSUMED THAT THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS HISTORICALLY CORRECT. I DO NOT KNOW OF ANY OTHER SUCH USAGE PERMITTED IN THIS CITY.SO THERE IS NO PRECEDENT SET AGAINST THIS CONDITION. THE RACE TRACE: AREA IS ITS OWN ZONE AND DOES NOT APPLY. B. THE TRAFFIC ISSUE - YOU REQUESTED A DEFINITION OF TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND TRAFFIC HAZARD. IT WOULD BE FLIPPANT TO SAY LOOK OUT ANY WINDOW ONTO 1ST AVE. BUT WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT THE TRAFFIC IS EITHER NO PROBLEM OR WOULD BE NO GREATER PROBLEM WITH STARWOOD. IF A DEFINITION IS TO BE MADE, I WOULD PREFER. IT TO COME FROM A LOCAL TRAFFIC EXPERT (SUCH AS BRAD LARSON OF THE SCOTT COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPT) THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS BASED ON THIS COMPLEX NOT CAUSING UNDUE TRAFFIC HAZARD AND CONGESTION. THIS CONDITION HAS NOT BEEN SATISFIED AND WE WOULD BE REMISS AS CITIZENS TO THINK THAT 7444 CARS IN A PRIME PERIOD OF THE DAY WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE A "TRAFFIC CONGESTION OR HAZARD" PROBLEM.THE FACT REMAINS THAT WE CANNOT HANDLE THE CURRENT LOAD. THAT PROBLEM WILL CERTAINLY NOT BE SATISFIED BY A "DEFINITION" . WE NEED PHYSICAL CHANGES SUCH AS NEW ROADS, NOT LEGAL DEFINITIONS TO DELAY THE OBVIOUS. (SEE CITIZENS RECOMMENDATION) **w CITIZENS RECOMMENDATION IF TRAFFIC IS A PROBLEM WE SUBMIT THREE RECOMMENDATIONS: A. THAT ALL CONCERTS BE LIMITED TO 5404 PATRONS UNTIL THE BLOOMINGTON FERRY BRIDGE AND SHAK.OPEE BYPASS CAN ALLEVIATE OUR TRAFFIC PATTERN. AS SCOTTLAND IS A GOOD NEIGHBOR, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO ESTABLISH THEMSELVES IN THE COMMUNITY WITH THE ENTERTAINERS AND CLASSICAL MUSIC THAT WOULD COMMAND THE SMALLER AND MORE EASILY CON-AINED CROWDS. THIS WOULD CEMENT THEIR RELATIONSHIP IN THE TOWN AND ENABLE THEM TO BETTER PREPARE FOR THE MUCH LARGER CROWDS IN THE FUTURE. MOST IMPORTANTLY, IT WILL CAUSE A LESSER BURDEN TO A CURRENTLY TREMENDOUS TRAFFIC PROBLEM. B. SINCE THE TRAFFIC WILL CONTINUE IN SPITE OF THE NEW ROADS IN 1993, IT WOULD BE QUITE NECESSARY TO BUILD TEMPORARY (OR PERMANENT) ROADWAYS TO HANDLE THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC GENERATED BY STARWOOD. SCOTTLAND SHOULD EVALUATE AND FUND OR SHARE FUNDING WITH OTHER CONCERNS TO BUILD A 6-B LANE ACCESS ROADS INTO AND OUT OF THE STARWOOD COMPLEX AND ADDITIONAL TURNING RAMPS AND OR OTHER TRAFFIC EQUIPMENT AS NEEDED. C. SINCETHE EGRESS FROM THE CEN-ER IS QUIT= SLOW. _T WOUL^ "-:STiTUTE A HAZARD TO THE PATRONS IN THE EVENT 0F WEATHER OR OTHER PROBLEMS. RECOMMEND OBVIOUSLY. I DO NOT FEEL THAT THE TAXPAYER WILL BENEFIT FROM STAP.WOOD SO ANY HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS SHOULD BE FUNDED BY THOSE WHO WOULD BENEFIT FROM THE DEVELOPEMENT. I HOPE THIS HELPS AND I WILL ATTEMPT TO PROVIDE SOME WORKTABLE SOLUTIONS TO THIS DILEMMA SO THAT SCOTTLAND CAN OPERATE THEIR BUSINESS 4STTHOUT HAMPERING OR CAUSING UNDUE PROBLEMS TO THEIR CITIZENS AND NEIGHBORS. OSE.' F. Z CITIZENS AGAINST STARWOOD AMPHITHEATER MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Community Development Director RE: Outdoor Performance Center License Ordinance DATE: September 11, 1987 Introduction: An amended draft ordinance which provides for the licensing of outdoor performance centers will be put on the table for council discussion on September 15. Background: At the City Council meeting of August 4, 1987 the Council _ requested the preparation of an ordinance which would provide for -- - the licensing of outdoor performance centers. The Council motion was specifically intended to regulate those facilities which served more than 1,000 persons at any one time. A draft ordinance was prepared and discussed by the City Council. The Council then directed the City Attorney to prepare a revised draft ordinance. Attached please find two letters from Ass't City Attorney Rod Krass which related to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) action which was taken by the Planning Commission on August 20, 1987. While Mr. Krass' letters relate specifically to the City Council appeal hearing on the Starwood CUP scheduled on September 22, 1987, this information also has a tangential impact upon the subject licensing ordinance. Alternatives: 1. Adopt Ordinance #230. 2. Do Not Adopt Ordinance #230. Staff Recommendation: It is recommended that if the City Council wants to enact a licensing ordinance to control the activities of outdoor performance centers that the Council adopt Ordinance #230. Action Requested: Move to adopt (or deny) Ordinance =230 which provides for the licensing of outdoor performances centers. • LAW OFMCES ` - KRASS & MONROE CHARTERED Phillip R. Kraal Dennis L.Monrce Marschall Road Business Center Barry K.Meyer Tremor R.Walsten 327 Marschall Road Elisabeth B.McLaughlin P.O. Box 216 Susan L. Estill Shakopee.Minnesota 55379 Dlace M. Carlson Lyndon P. Nelson Telephone 445-5080 Kent A. Carlson,CPA September 8, 1987 The Honorable Chairperson and Members of the Shakopee Planning Commission 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Re: Starwood Our File No. 1-1373-204 Dear Chairperson I have reviewed the August 21 Conditional Resolution No. 492 and in particular Paragraph 26 which requests a review of the legal staff of the conditions in this Resolution and reserves the right of the Planning Commission to amend their Resolution. I am also informed that within the seven days subsequent to the adoption of this Resolution both opponents and the applicant have appealed the granting of the conditional use permit to the City Council. It is, of course, the right of any aggrieved party to make that appeal aid so now the issue staff asked me address is the affect of the appeal on Paragraph 26. It is my , belief that once properly appealedthe issues involved is the applied for conditional use peiit are taken "de novo," that is as a new issue, to the City Council and are removed legally from the Planning Commission's hands. Thus, the Planning Commission will not have an opportunity to amend or change its Resolution. Indeed, any such change would be a legally futile action since the City Council is required by la* to consider this app L_e_'on as [Sough noaction had 'peen taken by the P-laniiag Co�ssion. it is certainly acceptable for the ?fanning C0=—;ssi0n to consider vhateve- comments you wish to make o. a:. advisory acture, but the actual conditional use permit _s now out pf yocr hands. . have asked staff to inward to you when it arrives a copy c_ __ =rys_s we_ ___ __ __ hrou;h ..r Cn'.0 o'.a_ Cce Esu t---s :d.he: Cp p'1C2*ed ___ _ ___ ___ ___ _c�_..E ,—_ss_M.. ___ _n_? _- ___..a__Mn. Very trul our T.2 S d __ : C'aaos-RED P3u::=c ✓:__ — c. E:ass LAW OFFICES KRASS & MONROE /� G CHARTERED Phillip R.Knast Dennis L Monroe Marschall Road Business Center Barry K. Meyer 327 Marschall Road Trevor R. Walston Eleabeth B. McLaughlin P.O. Box 216 Susan L. Estill Shakopee.Minnesota 55379 Diane M. Carlson Telephone 4455080 Lvndon P. Nelson Kent A. Carlson, CPA September 8, 1987 The Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Re: Starwood Conditional Use Permit Application Our File No. 1-1373-204 Dear Mayor and Council Members: -Staff met on Friday, September 4, 1987, relative to the issues raised by the various conditions included in Planning Commission Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 492. Specifically, our office was asked to review those conditions and comment on the legal propriety and enforcement of those conditions. To begin with, you must keep in mind that it is not our function to deal with the many policy issues raised by the various conditions in that resolution. Those are for your consideration alone. We do have comments of a legal nature with respect to some of the conditions and they are as follows: 1. The very first condition of Resolution 492 attempts to incarporate the EAW and all the mitigating measures as a condition. In reviewing the RAW, it is difficult, if not impossible, tc deter- ,e with Drecisica what is me— by such an a.-encompassing condition. is, - therefore, our reco—endation that if there are some specific "mitigating measures" is the EAW which are intended to become a part of r=e conditional ase permit, they be specifically stared in the Resolution. Incorporation of "statements" is too vague and iadefinite to be ea=orceable c_ 2. The 9th ccnd_t_on cf the Resolution z.c°=_ _s t_ -_a_ c__`. con.__ns several =ries r-_ t;:e immediate vicinirv" and "loitering" which provide -.o clear standard regarding the place or conduct. These ter_s are too The Honorable Mayor and City Council Page -2- September 8, 1987 subjective and indefinite. We would recommend that if you choose to address this issue with a condition such as No. 9, that you do so as follows: (a) Prohibit overnight camping on any part of the property itself and do not attempt to control conduct off the site. (b) Require that no parking be allowed outside designated parking areas on the site. Again, do not attempt to control conduct outside the site. (c) We simply have not come up with a good way to deal with "loitering." Loitering statutes have generally been struck down as unconstitutionally vague and indefinite. At this point we are recommending no attempt to deal with that issue be placed in the conditional use permit. We will obtain the Bloomington City Ordinance on "tailgating" to see if that is helpful. 3. The 12th condition of the Planning Commission Resolution is one fraught with considerable liability. It procludes any event which displays "a history of causing a disturbance." Once again there is simply no definition for this term. Is the history intended to be at any facility or just at Starwood? Is a disturbance one directly related to the performance or floes an unrelated altercation in the parking lot count? Does history mean more than one disturbance and _f so, how many and over -hat period of time? In addition to the vagueness making such a condition virtually impossible to enforce, liability questions arise. If the City determines that an event cannot be held due to this condition and either Starwood or the attraction itself commences an action against the City, wo;;ld -a b __able __ _ _ c=_.er=vEs _tat ao such 'history exists cr can be connected to t,a evert _tse L'. __ -.._ City approves an even. aad scmeone is - ure•d az - dsturbance, has _--_ 7y beccme a guaraatcr cf tae s_ety c, rhe Event by -l:o-ing it? „ reasonable analogy ro this Proposal would Gbe the type o` school board sensorship that oC tE __ __Y _Ol7a. tp c ea c_ .._ r l.. ..a r _ _ag zc aCAJDi zoaras rezmvig .—_ausnooas tro£ a script_ Cr zLblic libraries .._Ly _v nave _______ ____ __--_IlE _t r'ost _-teE . ].._ - r_ r.c a_.0 r ca-Cages, pCt it a sltuatln3 where the C1ty recn es^tie cancellation cf ez event which would have drawn 15,000 people at 515.00 to .20.00 a piece, i ' The Honorable Mayor and City Council Page -3- September 8, 1987 to say nothing of the detrimental effect such publicity would have on the event and on Starwood, the potential for liability is significant. It is therefore our strong recommendation that the City does not undertake any effort to review, approve or reject events at Starwood. If Starwood chooses to establish a citizens committee and give that committee some input in the events to be scheduled, that would be an action unrelated to this conditional use permit and one which would not involve the City in potential liability. To require the formation and input of such a group as a condition for this permit may, however, subject the City to such liability. 4. Paragraph 13 sets sound levels to be allowed and that is for the City Council to determine. The second sentence of the proposed condition 13, however, sets fines for such sound _ levels and our ordinance and state law already provide for penalties for the failure to adhere to required sound levels. If, therefore, condition 13 is adopted in any form, we would recommend the deletion of any reference to the establishment of fines. 5. Condition 14 requires as a granting of the permit that the applicant agree to refrain from any rezoning or conditional use requests on its property located within 3,000 feet of this site Or a period of seven years. This condition presents several significant problems. First of all, the condition singles out this applicant and the land owned by this applicant for such treatment. No other applicant having received such rezoning or a conditional use permit in the I-2 zone was procluded from a similar use of other land it owned or right acquire. The reason why the City ought to discriminate th=17 against Scot--' -Md is unzlea= b-- is highly questionable. Secondly, it appears tact this effort to restrict "conciercial recreational" uses in the 1-2 zone ought be ad. ressed by a zoning amendment, not by a condition q'_ a CDP. ,He_berso- tae Planning Cocission, many citizens, and perhaps some Council members rer believe the City has enough recrea-ivnal _e_t_1___es. — that is the case_, ^his issue SngL`1C JB heal[ CCt : as a zC]ling a-_--- e-ut. _ -s __e C_v---pe_ to c7eam a_- litter .._ adla_ __ -_ _�rzisz -:d ] -.'.Rays ' - __ - - __ - _h a czeeds significantly the siteitself. Itis difi+Cult to find a rationale for requiring this property owner to undertake such The Honorable Mayor and City Council Page -4- September S. 1987 inactivity as opposed to any other property owner in the area in question. This provision is too overly broad and is discriminatory and cannot be enforced. If there is some evidence that this or other property users in Shakopee are creating significant problems with respect to litter, then perhaps we ought to consider some ordinance which requires all, not just one, property user to deal with this issue. 7. Condition 16 requires a comprehensive plan amendment be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit for Starwood. Apparently there is some belief that the comprehensive plan does not allow for this particular use. However, this use is specifically a conditional use in the I-2 zone and as you are aware under state law if there is , . a conflict between the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance prevails. We are unaware of the use of provisions such as this for any other conditional use permit granted by the City and can devise no legal rationale supporting such a provision and therefore recommend its deletion. S. Condition 25 of Resolution 492 deals with traffic and indicates that if traffic levels exceed the criteria set forth in the application, all activities must be curtailed until resolutions are found. Ihis traffic issue is extremely difficult. What is a traffic hazard and what is -traffic congestion? Certainly Starwood or any use o£ this 86 acres with parking facilities for almost 6,700 cars will cause an increase in traffic. A reasonable reading of our crdipance therefore cannot, in act opinion, proclude a conditional use permit from being granted simply because tra`__-ic is going to be increased. Rowever, we believe __t_ _ust be some we, to bawdl_e this vet=' _ccttant itemand consequently, the City engineering staf: Ss -Jorking on --_ aicb will literally identify what we consider ,ro- be " ongestion" and to set forth spedfic actions rich mast be unaerta4ea should such congestion occur. Simply telling the applicant that activities must be "curtailed" is not 'v;e ex-e__ __ ._c- short -t carto Zave c__.r. _c_blcbv a:aCiat__ _.t ya. ____uss'_au a.__ :. We have ae-_ _._ _ _e__--- ____ ` _ c=-._"_Z equ :.b e`2c_ :e'aew JI 0.aa _..L...0 432 and racer J. he 0. the �­- uE Resalu_`_at is ineffective since the issue of this conditional use per::t The Honorable Mayor and City Council %� V Page -5- September 8, 1987 has been appealed to the City Council. It is now in the Council's hands and while additional input from the Planning Commission may be helpful and certainly may be considered by the Council, the Planning Commission no longer has any statutory authority over this conditional use permit and it is the Council that must consider this matter from the ground up. Very trulyour , BRASS THRED i Up R. Brass PRR:mlw MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator Rod Krass, Assistant City Attorney Dennis Kraft, Community Development Dir. FROM: Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer/ SUBJECT: Starwood Conditional Use Permit Modification of Condition 25 DATE: September 10, 1987 I recommend that Condition No. 25 as proposed in Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 492 be modified as follows. 25a. If queuing of facility incoming traffic occurs on public roadways, the facility will be required to correct their traffic management program to eliminate queuing. Rationale: If a traffic management breakdown occurs on the local streets adjacent to the site ( 12th Avenue and Valley Park Drive) , traffic backed up on these roads will affect intersection operations on the state highway system . Corrective action can consist of one or more of the following: 1 . Additional stacking lanes on the site. 2. Free parking. 3. Prepaid parking with ticket price. 25b. If it becomes apparent that intersection operation is not at the level of service projected in the Environmental Assessment Worksheet, the facility will be responsible for the cost of a joint City/MnDCT study to identify problems and solutions and the facility will be responsible for the cost of implementing solutions. For the purpose of future traffic growth and management, actual level of service o-zera _ions shall be based upon facility traffic and EAW background traffic only. KA/pmp TRAFFIC THE Or-,V SCOTTLAND COMPANIES Mayor Eldon Reinke September 11, 1987 and City Council Members City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: Proposed Licensing ordinance Dear Mayor and Council Members: We understand that the City Council may be reviewing another draft of the proposed licensing ordinance at the next Council meeting. In regard thereto, we are attaching the following; A copy of our letter to you on August 18th with some suggestions which were discussed at the Council meeting of August 18th. A copy of a letter which we sent to the City Attorney on August 26th with further suggestions based on information we received from the Council and others during the meeting of August 18th. We understand that such an ordinance may be of assistance to the City in reviewing the conditional use permit application for the proposed Starwood Music Center. The letters enclosed herewith clearly define the small number of recommendations we have made. We would like to draw your attention to a recommendation in our letter of August 26th which states that "In regard to Section VI, 1. There were discussions that there are many performers or groups of performers who are not controversial and many of those groups will be booked to perform each year, but decisions as to their availability cannot be made by November or any specific date. We ask, therefore, that as part of the application for a license each year, that the ordinance allows us to submit a list of those performers we are considering to book, for review by the City, although their exact date of performance may not be known at that time. We do not want to try to finalize negotiations with a group of performers unless we know that the City has reviewed them as part of such list. Thereafter, as the dates are set, we will inform the City. In regard to any performers who are not on that list, we must receive specific approval from the City for that performer(s) . This procedure will also expedite the review for the City each year. " We understand that there is some question whether or not the City wants to specifically approve or not approve a performer. We do not object to such a procedure. However, if you decide not to approve or disapprove, but instead want to comment up the P.O. Box 509 1244 Canterbury Road Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 [612]445-3242 11 C�' desireablility of such a performer, the ordinance could provide for such a review and comment by the City. In the event we book a performer which the City had commented unfavorably upon (which we do not intend to do) , and if that performer caused problems, and the City thereafter conducted a hearing to consider revocation of our license or fine us, the fact that the City had commented unfavorably upon the performer would be clearly part of the record. If this procedure makes sense to you, we suggest the following ordinance language in lieu of prior drafts: SECTION VI: Special Conditions 1. Prior to the granting of any license, the licensee must supply the City for review and comment, a list and description of performers, that will be considered for booking into the facility during the upcoming license period. Thereafter, when the performer is booked from that list and the dates are set, the licensee will inform the City. The booking of any performer(s) not on the list must receive specific prior review and comment from the City. 2. The City may withhold or revoke a license for any booking which is not on the list submitted prior to granting of a license, or reviewed by the City during the license period. Sincerely, THE SCOTTLAND COMPANIES AA Bruce D. Malkerson Executive Vice President General Counsel �i JeffrSiegel Project Manager STARWOOD MUSIC CENTER JLS:lb Attachment c.c. John Anderson Doug Wise Dennis Kraft Julius Coller THE 7 SCOTTLAND COMPANIES August 18, 1987 Mayor Reinke and City Councilmembers City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 RE: Proposed Licensing Ordinance Dear Mayor and Councilmembers, I have been out of town until yesterday so I have just had an opportunity to review the proposed licensing ordinance. Set forth hereinafter are some suggested changes which hopefully will clarify and make more workable the provisions of the ordinance. The suggested deletions are shown as strikes and the suggested substitute language is shown with underlinings: Section I: Definitions 3 . "Outdoor Performance Center" is any outdoor premises in or on which as its priynary activity shows, theatrical performances, concerts, exhibits or events are performed or put on from a stage or similar location for viewing by more than 1,000 patrons at any one time and for which an admission charge is made solely for that activity. Rationale: Without this language, the ordinance would apply to activities at Valley Fair, Canterbury Downs, Auto Racetrack and Murphy's Landing which I do not believe was your intent. Section II: License Reouired No person shall-ooastr-eetr operate or maintain . . . Rationale: -Since anyone must first obtain a conditional use permit or in the case of a permitted use, no one would build a facility without obtaining a license, there is no reason to have the word "construct" in the ordinance. Section IV: Application Fee Any application fee should be designed to reimburse the City for its cost of review of the license application, similar to the fees charged for other uses such as: P.O. Box 509 1244 Canterbury Road Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 [612]445-3242 i � C/ - beer license $ 5.00 wine license $ 330. 00 variance $ 100.00 conditional use permit $ 150.00 rezoning $ 250.00. Section V• Bond or Liability Insurance Required The bond amount or insurance amount should be reasonably related to that charged similar facilities such as the Auto Racetrack, Murphy's Landing or Valley Fair. For example, the City requires the following: Beer - Bond: $ 3,000.00 Insurance: $50,000.00 per person, $100,00, per incident for loss of means of support; liability, $50,000 per person, $100, 000 per incident; $10, 000 property damage Liquor: Bond: $ 3, 000. 00 Insurance: Same as above for beer. Section VI: Special Conditions 1. Prior to the granting of any license, the licensee must supply the City with a list and a description of its upcoming bookings and; if the bookings come in after the application, this information must be supplied to the council within 20 days of the booking and in any event prior . to 7 days before the event. Rationale: At least once a year a performer or performing - group must cancel a scheduled show or the operator of the facility wishes tocancelthe group, and replace the group. Moreover, because of a change in performance routings or late decision of a performing group to perform in Minnesota, a group may be available to perform on short notice. We would like to be able to still book such a group in such a case and provide notice thereof to the City. Page 2 Section VII: Licensee The fee should be designed to reimburse the City for its special and extraordinary costs in monitoring the facility. The costs of on site and off site security will be paid by the owner. The owner will already be paying substantial real estate taxes and wine and beer license fees and pursuant to a special state statute, the possibility of an admission tax. As an example of fees, the City charges the following: Beer $ 312 . 00 Wine $ 2, 000.00. Section VIII: Expiration Of License We believe that the expiration date for the license should be on November 1st each year so that the licensee can apply for next year' s license in the fall and be licensed then so the licensee can thereafter plan its business activities for the following summer accordingly. Summary 1 Although we do not believe that a licensing ordinance is necessary, we thank you for this opportunity to comment upon the licensing ordinance. Very truly yours, Bruce D. Malkerson Executive Vice President and General Counsel The Scottland Companies BDM:jhl cc: John Anderson Julius Collar Dennis Kraft Doug Wise Ken Ashfield Page 3 THE C-� . , SPSCOTTLAND COMPANIES August 26, 2_987 Julius Collar City Attorney, City of Shakopee 211 First Avenue West Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 RE: Licensing Ordinance Dear Mr. Collar, The draft of the licensing ordinance was reviewed by the City Council on August 18, 1987. We submitted a letter suggesting several changes attached hereto. We understood at that meeting that Section I, 3 will be amended by adding language "solely for that activity". You did not want to delete the word "construct" in Section II. We ask you to reconsider on the basis that in the fall of 1987, if a conditional use permit is issued, it will be --} unlikely that we will have all or substantially all of our performers lined up because of the delays to date in acting upon the conditional use permit. We know we can not operate without a license which is what the City seeks to achieve. Similarly, a building can be built with a building perm-t, but it can not be used to sell 3 .2% beer unless the operator receives a license in due course after the building is constructed. In regard to Section VI, 1. There were discussions that there are many performers or groups of performers who are not controversial and many of those groups will be booked to perform each year, but decisions as to their availability can not be made by November or any specific date. We ask therefore that as part of the application for a license each year that the ordinance allows us to submit a list of those performers we are considering to book for review by the City although their exact date of performance may not be known at that time. We do not want to try to finalize negotiations with a group of performers unless we know that the City has reviewed them as part of such list. Thereafter, as the dates are set, we will inform the City. In regard to any performers who are not on that list, we must receive specific approval from the City for that performer(s) . This procedure will also expedite the review for the City each year. P.O. Box 509 1244 Canterbury Road Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 [612)445-3242 11 ci We suggest language as follows: "l. Prior to the granting of any license, the licensee must supply the City with a list and a description of all performers or groups of performers proposed to be booked depending upon their ultimate availability (hereafter Group A Performers) . If specific bookings for performers or group of performers come in after the application (Group B Performers) , this information must be supplied to the Council within 20 days of the performance" . We understand that you may be drafting other changes to the ordinances which we would appreciate reviewing with you as soon as possible if you would allow us to do so, so that you would have the benefit of our analysis of that language. Thank you. Very truly y[o-u�rs, ` ',rlfb �� l Bruce D. Malkerson Executive Vice President and General Counsel The Scottland Companies �ayig�el Project Manager Starwood Music Center BDM:JS:jhl cc: John Anderson Dennis Kraft Doug wise Option 1 G ORDINANCE 0 Fourth Series An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota Amending Shakopee City Code Chapter 6 Entitled "Other Business Regulations And Licensing" By Adding a New Section 6.42B Providing for the Licensing of Outdoor Performance Centers and By Adopting By Reference Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 and Adopting By Reference Section 6.99, Which Among Other Things Contain Penalty Provisions THE CITY COUNCIL OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: SECTION I: Definitions 1. For the purpose of this ordinance the following terms, phrases, words and their derivations shall have the meaning given herein. When not-inconsistent with the context, words used in the present tense include the future; words in plural number include singular number; and words in the singular number include the plural number. The word "shall" is always mandatory and not merely directory. 2. The ".City" is the City of Shakopee, Minnesota. 3. "Outdoor Performance Center" is any outdoor premises in or on which shows, theatrical performances, concerhs, exhibits or events are performed or put on from a stage or similar location for viewing by patrons and for which an admission charge is made. 4. "Licensee" is a person having a license issued by the City in full force and effect issued hereunder. 5. "Person" is any person, firm, partnership, association, corporation or organ- ization of any kind, either inthe singular or plural. SECTION II: 'License Required No person shall construct, operate or maintain an outdoor performance center within the City without first having obtained a license as hereinafter provided, from the City. SECTION III: Application Procedure 1. Applications for licenses issued hereunder shall be made in writing and in duplicate and shall state: A. Name, home address and proposed business address of the applicant. B. (1) Number of automobiles or other vehicles which the facility is designed to accommodate (2) The number of persons the facility is designed to accommodate. C. The hours of operation of the facility. D. The number of employess and attendants to be employed E. Such other information as the City shall find reasonably necessary to effectuate the purposes of this ordinance and to arrive at a fair determination of whether the terms of the ordinance have been complied with. F. Theapplication hereunder shall be accompanied by a plat or drawing of the facility which plat or drawing shall show the following: Cl) Location, size and capacity (2) Location and size of entrances and exits (3) Parking plan and and type of ground surfacing (4) Location, size and construction of all proposed structures (5) Location, size and design of all signs, marquees and billboards (b) Location, size and construction of all walls, fences and barriers surrounding the premises (7) Location and description of all artificial lighting to be used onthe premises. (8) Location and description of all drives connected to public highways (9) Plan of traffic control and number and description of persons used in controlling traffic, all of which must receive the written approval of the City's Chief of Police. (10) Certificate of approval in writing from the Fire Chief of the City as to fire lanes and other public safeguards C� SECTION IV: Application Fee An application hereunder shall be accompanied by an application fee of $ to be paid and is not refundable. SECTION V:. Bond or Liability Insurance Required Every application for a license hereunder shall be accompanied by a bond, approved as to form by 'the City Attorney and then approved by the City Council, executed by a bonding or surety company authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota in the penal sum of '$ conditioned upon the payment by the-licensee of any and all final judgments for injuries or damages resulting to persons or property arising out of the operation or maintenance of the facility. Such bond shall run to the City of Shakopee for the benefit of any person who may receive injuries and for the benefit of any person who may claim redress for property damages resulting from the operation or maintenance of such facility. Such bond shall remain in full force and effect for the full period of the time for which the license is effective. A liability insurance policy issued by an insurance company authorized to do business inthe State of Minnesota conforming to the requirements of this section may be permitted in lieu of the bond, but before becoming effective, must be approved as to form by the City Attorney and by the Council. SECTION-:VI: Special Conditions 1. Prior to the granting of any license, the licensee must supply the City with a list and a description of its upcoming bookings and, if the bookings come in after the application, this information must be supplied to the council sixty (60) days prior to the date of the engagement. 2—Performance standards as to noise emitting from and on the facility must be measured according to PCA standards of sound level and the measurement must prove con- formance at the property line of the facility and at the property line of the nearest residence or residences, and under no circumstances, may the sound level exceed- the PCA standards asthey are set from time to time. SECTION VII: -Licensee Whenever the City Council has authorized the issuance of a license under the provisions of this ordinance, such license shall be issued upon the payment by the applicant to the City of a fee of $ for a period from the payment to expiration, SECTION VIII.: 'Exp iration of License _ All licenses issued under this ordinance shall expire on the first day of March-neat following the issuance thereof. SECTION 1X: Revocation The City Council shall have the authority to revoke or suspend the license issued hereunder-when it finds: 1. That the licensee is operating in violation of this ordinace or any other governing law, ordinance, rule or regulation 2, That thelicensee is operating so as to constitute a nuisance by reason of immoral activity on the premises or for any other reason constituting a nuisance 3. That the premises are used as a campground, place of residence or other occupancy after the usual closing hours of any entertainment on the facility SECTION X: Adopted by Reference The general provisions and definitions applicable to the entire City Code including the penaltyprovisionsof Chapter 1 and Section 6.99 entitled "Violations a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference as though repeated verbatim herein. SECTION XI: When in Force and Effect After the adoption, signing and attestation of this ordinance, it shall be 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. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk _ Prepared and approved as to form this 14th day of August, 1987 City Attorney a Option 2' ORDINANCE U Fourth Series An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota Amending Shakopee City Code Chapter 6 Entitled "Other Business Regulations and Licensing" By Additing a New Section 6.42B Providing forthe Licensing of Outdoor Performance Centers and By Adopting By Reference Shakopee City Code Chanter 1 and Adopting By Reference Section 6.99, Which Among Other Things Contain Penalty Provisions THE CITY COUNCIL OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: SECTION I: Definitions 1. For the purpose of this ordinance the following terms, phrases, words and h their derivations shall have the meaning given herein. When not inconsistent with the context, words used in the present tense include thefuture; words in plural number, include singular number; and words in the singular number include the plural number. The word "shall" is always mandatory and not merely directory. 2. The "City" is the City of Shakopee, Minnesota. 3. "Outdoor Performance Center" is any outdoor premises in or on which shows, theatrical performances, concerts, exhibits or events are performed or put on from a stage or similar location for viewing by more than 1000 patrons at any one time and for which an admission charge is made. 4. "Licensee" is a person having a license issued by the City in full force and effect issued hereunder. - 5. "Person" is any person, firm, partnership, association, corporation or organization of any kind, either in the singular or plural. SECTION II: License Required No person shall construct, operate or maintain an outdoor performance center within the City without first having obtained a license as hereinafter provided from the City. SECTION III: Application Procedure 1. Applications for licneses issued hereunder shall be made in Muting and in ii C- duplicate and shall state: A. Name, home address and proposed business address of the applicant. B. (1) Number of automobiles or other vehicles which the facility is designed to accommodate (2) Thenumber of persons the facility is designed to accommodate. C. The hours of operation of the facility. D. The number of employess and attendants to be employed E. Such. other information as the City shall find reasonably necessary to effectuate the purposes of this ordinance and to arrive at a fair determination of whether the terms of the ordinance have been complied with. F. The application hereunder shall be accompanied by a plat or drawing of thefacility which plat or drawing shall show the following: (1) Location, size and capacity (21 Location and size of entrances and exits (3) Parking plan and and type of ground surfacing ` (4) Location, size and construction of all proposed structures (5) Location, size and design of all signs, marquees and billboards CO Location, size and construction of all walls, fences and barriers surrounding the premises (7) Location and description of all artificial lighting to be used onthe premises. (8) Location and description of all drives connected to public highways (9) Plan of traffic control and number and description of persons used in controlling traffic, all of which must receive the written approval of the City's Chief of Police. (10) Certificate of approval in writing from the Fire Chief of the City as to fire lanes and other public safeguards SECTION IV: Application Fee An application hereunder shall be accompanied by an application fee set by resolution_ and is not refundable. SECTION V: Bond or Liability Insurance Required Every application for a license hereunder shall be accompanied by a bond, approved as to form by the City Attorney and then approved by the City Council, executed by a bonding or surety company authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota in the penal sum of $3,000,000 conditioned upon the payment by the licensee of any and all final judgments for injuries or damages resulting to persons or property arising out of the operation or maintenance of the facility. Such bond shall run to the City of Shakopee for the benefit of any person who may receive injuries and for the benefit of any person who may claim redress for property damages resulting from the operation or maintenance of such facility. Such bond shall remain in full force and effect for the full period of the time for which the license is effective. A liability insurance policy issued by an insurance company authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota conforming to the requirements of this section may be permitted in lieu of the bond, but before becoming effective, must be approved as to form by the City Attorney and by the Council,- SECTION VI: Special Conditions 1. Prior to the granting of any license, the licensee must supply the City with a list and a description of its upcoming bookings and, if the bookings come in after the application, , this information must be supplied to the Council sixty (60) days prior to the date of the engagement. 2. This City may withhold or revoke a license for any booking which is unaccep- table because of previous performances. 3. Performance standards as to noise emitting from and on the facility must be measured according to PCA standards of sound level and the measurement must prove con- formance at the property lire of the facility and at the property line of the nearest residence or residences, and under no circumstances, may the sound level exceed the PCA standards as they are set from time to time. SECTION VII: Licneses Whenever the City Council has authorized the issuance of a license under the provisions of this ordinance, such license shall be issued upon the payment by the applicant to the City of a fee, as provided by resolution. SECTION VIII: Expiration of Licenses All licenses issued under this ordinance shall expire on the first day of March next following the issuance thereof. SECTION IX: Revocation 1 The City Council shall have the authority to revoke or suspend the license issued hereunder when it finds: 1. That the licensee is operating in violation of this ordinance or any other governing law, rule or regulation. 2. That the licensee is operating so as to constitute a nuisance by reason of immoral activity on the premises or for any other reason constituting a nuisance. 3. That the premises are used as a campground, place of residence or other occupancy after the usual closing hours of any entertainment on the facility. SECTION X: Adopted by Reference The general provisions and definitions applicable to the entire City Code including the penalty provisions of Chapter 1 and Section 6.99 entitled "Violations a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference as though repeated verbatim herein. SECTION XI: When in Force and Effect After the adoption, signing and attestation of this ordinacne, 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. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk P' Option 3 / Ci ORDINACNE A Fourth Series An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota Amending Shakopee City Code Chapter 6 Entitled 'Other Business Regulations and Licensing" By Adding a New Section 6.42E Providing for the Licensing of Outdoor Performance Centers and By Adopting by Reference Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 and Adopting by Reference Section 6.00, Which Among Other Things Contain Penalty Provisions SECTION I: Definitions 1. For the purpose of this ordinance the following terms, phrases, words and their derivations shall have the meaning given herein. When not inconsistent with the context, words used inthe present tense include the future; words in plural number include singular number; andwords in the singular number include the plural number. The word "'shall" is always mandatory and not merely directory. 2. The 'City" is the City of Shakopee, Minnesota. 3. 'Outdoor Performance Center" is any outdoor premises in or on which shows, theatrical performances, concerts, exhibits or events are performed or put on from a stage or similar location for viewing by more than 1000 patrons at any one time and for which an admission charge is made solely for that activity. 4. "Licensee" is a person having a license issued by the City in full force and effect issued hereunder. 5. "Person" is any person, firm, partnership, association, corporation or organization of any kind, either in the singular or plural. - SECTION II: Licnese Reouired No person shall construct, operate or maintain an outdoor performance center within the City without first having obtained a license as hereinafter provided from the City. SECTION III: Application Procedure 1. Applications for licenses issued hereunder shall be made in writing and in duplicate and shall state: A. Name, home address and proposed business address of the applicant. B. (1) Number of automobiles or other vehicles which the facilitv is designed to accommodate (2) The number of persons the facility is designed to accommodate. C. The hours of operation of the facility. D. The number of employess and attendants to be employed E. Suchother information as the City shall find reasonably necessary to effectuate the purposes of this ordinance and to arrive at a fair determination of - whether the terms of the ordinance have been complied with. F. The application hereunder shall be accompanied by a plat or drawing of the facility which platordrawing shall show the following: (1) Location, size andcapacity (2) Location and size of entrances and exits (3) Parking plan and and type of ground surfacing (4) Location, size and construction of all proposed structures (5) Location, size and design of all signs, marquees and billboards (6) Location, size and construction of all walls, fences and barriers surrounding the premises (7) Location and description of all artificial lighting to be used onthe premises. (8) Location and description of all drives connected to public highways (9) Plan of traffic control and number and description of persons used in controlling traffic, all of which must receive the written approval of the City's Chief of Police. (10) Certificate of approval in writing from the Fire Chief of the City as to fire lanes and other public safeguards SECTION IV: Application Fee An application hereunder shall be accompanied by an application fee of $ to be paid and is not refundable. SECTION V: Bond or Liability Insurance Required Every application for a license hereunder shall be accompanied by a bond, approved as to form by the City Attorney and then approved by the City Council, executed by a bonding or surety company authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota in the penal sum of $ conditioned. upon the payment by the licensee of any and all final judgments for injuries or damages resulting to persons or property arising out of the operation or maintenace of the facility. Such bond shall run to the City of Shakopee for the benefit of any person who may receive injuries and for the benefit of any person who may claim redress for property damages resulting from the operation or maintenance of such facility. Such bond shall remain in full force and effect for the full period of the time for which the license is effective. A liability insurance policy issued by an insurance company authorized to do business inthe State of Minnesota conforming to the requirements of this section may be permitted in lieu of the bond, but before becoming effective, must be approved as to form by the City Attorney and by the Council. SECTION VI: Special Conditions 1. Prior to the granting of any license, the licensee must supply the City with a list and a description of its upcoming bookings and, if the bookings come in after the app lication, this information must be supplied to the Council sixty (60) days prior to the date ofthe engeagement. In an emergency situation and not more than once in any calendar year, the time of such notice could be cut to twenty (20) days and in no event less than seven (7) days before the event. 2. Perforamce standards as to noise emitting from and on the facility must be measured according to PCS standards of sound level and the measurement must prove con- formance at the property line of the facility and at the property line of the nearest residence or residences, and under no circumstances, may the sound level exceed the PCA standards as they are set from time to time. SECTION VII: Licensee Whenever the City Council has authorized the issuance of a license under the provisions of this ordinance, such license shall be issued upon the payment by the applicant to the City of a fee to be set by resolution. SECTION VIII: Expiration of License All licenses issued under this ordinance except for beverages shall expire on the first day of November nextfollowing the issuance thereof. No license issued . hereunder shall be transferable. SECTION IX: Revocation The City Council shall have the authority to revoke or suspend the license issued hereunder when it finds: 1. That the licensee is operating in violation of this ordinance or any other governing law, ordinance, rule or regulation. 2. That the licensee is operating so as to constitute a nuisance by reason of immoral activity on the premises or for any otherreason constituting a nuisance 3. That the premises are used as a campground, place of residence or other occupancy after the usual closing hours of any entertainment on the facility. SECTION X: Adopted By Reference The general provisions and definitions applicable to the entire City Code including the penalty provisions of Chapter 1 and Section 6.99 entitled "Violations a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference as though repeated verbatim herein. SECTION XI: When in Force and Effect After the adoption, signing and attestation of this ordinance, it shall be Puvlished 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. Adoptec 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 i roN ro ' ro ro roNroro • N NNNNrv . M. Nro • w • ro y NNI N'. N 'N mNNN = NNNN NN . NN i w • N pp' NO ro N oNNm N N0000 NN NN • Po Iro p y NN N N P 4U WY • J NPPmN prof roro + � n 0 NNNN as WI'1 2 0 iP. ^ I 2 < 0 I O T JJ b b 10 Jbbb J JJUOJ JJ Pb Y y W_ J 0O NJ N J S 0011 0 0 m 000m 0 00d0m 00 00 0 0 yy y y N Nyyy y yyNyy yy yN J I p � y �NaYro YW NP+ a F.IMJ +W0 P j 00 NN NN NNNO NN NOOYYa YNd bNr {Nw JJI p0 Nw ro0 by wN bOaPpO PNN Dom e+ PO I• I I• b •b P" Ipp rL I mm • m m • •salla im aa�>a sa . • s > > k ccccc mm mm z r mm ac a i mmmm 9 yy mm zz m z 0000 00000 y^ ai. .w. m c ii n < nnnn i nn�nnn mm n o m imm, m xxx'3 m mmmmp as sS > 2 mN c T mmmm m zzzzz iy 9m z y m T D_ n_nn_O_ A NZ., wm 'mm m O 00 y 0 DDDDD O0 00 a K w y.C-I a m nuns) z rrrrr s> y z mm a n Z M 00V100 99 S yy O apHY y9999rr D n 9A. O Z AA pj 99199 rr Z O n O rrrrr tiK S I I i m I mm m n w mmmm 0 .nmmmm mm cc 0 > a rrrr c 9o0oc me oA a A y 991 u r9n K pp00 -y ���w9 >2 ZD K O m 9 r9 T< T 3 yy 9 y m rDrm zm no0 � trr n 0 m > r xz2a m m mm. z r ��a m xam m m• .a. P w m.D..D..a..°' .y.z n P 'o < n m zzzz A y C C yyyy Cy44 I Oy OC 2 0 + Ow y n 9 n T y i my m 2 I Iii as r a la aa' a aaaaa c roPo ro N Y mrvroro ro wrorororo laov uau _ z ++ Y n Dose + -IWnrvme "o o y I p cy W-1 wl P N m NN m Y aroroa ry __ N o y�� a Ir �iuwll y YAW W� a a� o +w. ro < m NN-m I rol -arororo 'mry �. Zs I G J i m 9 m • a m , U V V U U W U U 6 W I L O I d N O i N 0 I N - a e• 2 MND N P N N I N rl I PP1'1 P n - b O nN� .NMN N N YI F O^e N e o^OI � oo N O io 1 N ' 9 M Nn n W o M M ej wwa a n iawa a r. M la n a. N 19i eP'e e e Iev e v e P. e d I i i i F F 1 mm m mmN 6 106 6 I 0 ¢ 6 6 W ^^^ W W W WL I L W W L L O U 0 rr tltl' tl it m L 666 LL LL 66r =y r „ � LL mom m 6 mbW W 0 W W V00 mmm ¢ 1-FF 3 WWW rM r V Y to t; O m¢¢ > W ¢ O ( 2 'QQ6 SS 0 V iJ J W O W LL1YLL 6 t 1333 W0 � 13 J \ F V »p d Z mom ¢ ZSO d O W WWW 000 m 0 U V U U 7 U U 1 aII F I ', I • • :I I cmPP _ O i bb I em Ne wN oe el as mN as mo •.n0 NN mNNn mNe 00 �� 100 uu =N Nemp m - N M NMb Nw Iwa NN J Nw O L I I d 06 0 0 000 o O o o p Z V Y NNN O NNN - N - 0 S NNN O N NNN NN N o N N ry V NNN N N Nmm NN N N N N N NNN t N a N ♦ NNN a NN N • • N • N N t N • T - - . � - R •� nbro n Y ro • I b'; I rorom a roro ..roro. ro....... N •I NNN U • N ♦ NI NNN • NN NNNNN NW0NNNN0 a p •I pMp b • p ro roNp • roN NNroNm rororvroNNNN 2 0 m ♦ ronN n I! ro ro Brom •• • m J N • PPP P N 0 NN liana TI uww.WWWW O Y�M • P W ii+P 'roro..,, JNyyN o S M epe e.ee. > K O K O O T NtlmN n N INN I etlm uin NNNYm INNIIIem 0 0 O m 0 0mm 0 44 0 OOmPO 0mW00mm wm 9 I y y y N J MJr•1 JM yNMJ4 MMJM4yJN , m !0:0 I +a _ z ro m amm uu ue rro roum a-ro +_ +- m YMN NN roltl mP mm1 mNm- Je al mrob Ye�Jo JJ I JJ mroPu Oro. auNm+I NN� +Pee W11 W7 NN YN mromm a.P JePOP Wp JNa �y R ♦ FFF � F ♦ 2'. S2S m ♦mMMM m • O 000000 A 000 I > C Dy >D> rr D>DDD CCCCCCCC m_ 9 W 9_AA_ Mw WWN0 ZZZZZ2z2 O m W O y•9KK K_ ZZEE m 22Z = 000 D A mmm S Zz2 ' DDD ZZZZZZ22 m p � m2Z > 0 m'.. WNW WW 22 OWWWOOOm Z I WW m CS D9 WbWW O f[ W W. 222 TT 00000 O O WWW i mn 1000 mm 99999 22522222 A Z 1 K u NN Tn6inn 00000000 O 9 DDD 2 mmm KK LLLLCCLC S m I zzz < I 00000000 m I sas I I S 9eO m rr IAn y I I KK ^ m mmm c a m Wmlm mm W'vWm WmmmmWmW .- A 00 y C -1 GCC OG C9CCC yrCCCCCC 4 0 CC= 1 2 99S O9 9099A SnT9bT91 m m „ '0 m L9n - 9T9Tp 99199V S TmT r 9 mrr 9^ r. rrr 9 : rrrrrf q ^ Wrrr Sr r rr ww 0 m 323 A �• mmm 3m mmmmm ->mmmmmm m WAWOO WWWWW01 ^ c m e 9 ZZ2 I I 9 I 2, O I I I i e eee - :. o I oee ee aaa a aa aaaaal O u rorom u j m N � io inry i 1'n I'n I'vu Nam mly N�Nrorororvry i min In J o e o0o mo 00 _Woeee K.1 II 11 11 1 1 lylll ww- ', a N PWW Ya NWWW� N�PPaaYY 2 VYwW� VNeroN�W� O - Wu- - I a uw ua auuu- a-PPiauu .• I r I , roro m S A T W s W m m e m P N im m b tl • •m �' tln� tlnn : I i m I I e a I I O_ NN Nn O '. NnN N n I Ittl 't t! n _d OWW 1 oA o lee oWN 1 3 nnA NP P A N IAn rNNN P AP O PVt P t PP P ft IPtP m rcarc az. z mm w .z. lae Naa i o Iii o w www ya p a wLE I p I l p NNm ' J F JJJ L JJ 6M1 166 L LLLLLL 6V � 66LL „ V » 6 �� I W 1WW W 000 10 L p '66 JJ I J IJJ F, KKC 3J W NNN F m 1K5 JOO W IWW 6N6 b0 C I J. 1FF rbWW F FF • I I ( W V FFf I ( C U V I : rJi 6 V I VUV wy i LL i W Y N O < I W V WwW n ( J = I F W 000 Ff U ZZZ .Z.„ 2 I �' j ItlmO K i KI _00__O 66 � FFF W h m_N_ iFFF < i p 16 2=2 J ' 6 :666 J 2 VV< N6 p ' 6WK ' .J. 1666 I. J IJJ > mmm �y J 666 a 2 66 :C 66 � W WW ' Nmm SS 6 YYY w ¢ 000 I V '.mm I Q6Q fF 1 V 9=2 J WW FFF , K¢C 66 O O t 000 2 '33I YYY JJ J JJJ J 'a'v LLE L ZZ ' mNoo NPP • oN f NN f NN PNEP NN 'Nm mma ma NmmP NN mm MNaa MI'1 Vm aF�F Om nM MN mm N N 'n- f tNPP Mn as - � nn ' Z W Fmm mm m mmm Fmm m Fm Q o00 O e o u z mm nnn F M N FF FFF00 Mn PP N mm W NNN NN n n MM MMA MM m S NNN N N N NN NNN N NN U NNN NN N NNN N N NN NNw N NN NNN ! NN ! N f NNN ! N ! N f WN ! NNN -- - '. NN ry u ro N N ro rorory rororororvrorobrorororo u INN N � n N N N NNN NNNNNNNNmNNN n b iNN yyNNNbNNroNNN S 0 a'.. as UUYwYwYwUU m J Oo N • N Y' I � O0JOOOOmmOOO n NN + o N o e N + _ + .0 U ro bN .; JJ JJJNJJNJ iC y D K O O T > mr I s •m w m 0 0 0 w wOO OOmmOOwmmOOO 9 JJ J J J J JJ JJJJJ4JJJJ m I 'e mw ltl loam e-�iw-wmumuou w'Y pwp �{ w.e u i� mm ►mau JummaaJJamaa Wm rr :1-�-roaeroarumpro I WWm a a m eo zzzzzzzzzzzz zz x m c m m aam CCccccCCCccc j » > a T K v o amm mx z o 9 z T z Ila mmmmmmmmmmmm eo e r .m. o m mWW mmmmmmmmmmmm e -99 9 Ir m m non rrrrrrrrrrrr m lmm m n o n a xsx rrrrrrrrrrrr c x � 9T w c z Yn > »> n Oo r •, m r z KKK x am m K o r m c amm : m e e m b m .v. Ini n e w z H of x mm� m m i n n m O m 9 mm n 10 m W W W 9910 yMJJyJ NI'IKJHJ I CC 0 D C 9 O 9 000 rrrrrrrrrmrrr T 'T r m 9 W 9T I0 mmmmmmmmmmm 3 99 1 ^ 9999T99.999L9 mWW xxxxxxxxxxxx D xa a m z m m m mmm DDDD.DDDO0DD m ^^ m < y W ¢ w ama zzzzzzzzzzzz n «p mmmmmmmmmmmm ^ JN) O JJi F W I D i I j z i I I I uiu WN n >Y O y T > a aaa aaaaaaaaaaaa o NN 1J W IY 10 m ro wYV uwww-Ywuu-Yu c i ,e I � rororvrorororororobNro � amm ro-eauwYu- z ro m ro, rowN aero muro-mJNV o w ro' e� � � I � a iia i ii aalu 1 Yury 1 NY. ry y p � m to ___ YwN�muN-mJmu m I I ro I i J ! W t e O 1 t J m s m n i i i m W w m • m Y u u I Y iY i Y W 1 1 j V IU {I rU 6 W • i t I i i z omm-Na-a mm-.Nary-iaddeo im mmN r L1iI7 au P- IIrn . n I nIn1 n o_ m_m_m-ry P 00 rv-.d N mm-dNrvd-laawee _ '.m00N -- _nnN nnnPP Ooo n - Fl ob eee000 p Ip1011001 llO0ol1 O IPI '�n nnlo'. to Io. 2 FFFFFM1FM1 J FrhFM1F 'M1 M1h Fl1N�l _ -nnnn r_ .- J nnnnnnnn n nnnnnnnnnnnmm n ePra ad n O TTTTTTpT P TTTT TPPppnn P P PP p U j I•. 1 1 I'. 1 I 111 Ij 11 I L 1 111 I 1 1 � I 1 II 1 1; I I R nn 6 O m 000 � O e O O n i i �um V NYb%mm%m > I NmNNNmNNNNNZY > �.z..z.z. Y% W W UL W I<_ R �� W 0 FFhFF=F= m ! EPEP„�PE�EY i % ���rJi rJnrti� I LL r r rWW ' q !r IYYUU 66 LL'FFFFFFFF C FFFFFFFFFF1 ¢ .0.1005 1J C01 3.0000000 L ( JJJ3JJJJ:,J 03.3.3 6 1m0Y0 %b q ¢ I F Y z 6 NObNmmmN ( 0 ZW tW.+�twi twiuuuu 1' L W s ' o YVUY � : cc¢c¢c¢¢ a i c ii zzz ca a O �WWWWWWW tl ti IW WWW -- W NNbNmmm .J YYY ¢¢ m wWWWWWWW Z j 2 WWWWWWWW O I T I S O ZZ r > 00000000 YYYYYYYY Z VVVVUVUVVVVUV LL 'i 6¢66 WW � Y I 6« « 666 W JJ33J3J3JJJJJ ' 16«a 6 22222222 2 6666666666664 ' '.,EPEE JJ 6 NbmOmNmN N N%%bmmmmNNmmm Nli Im%mm %b 6 I I, X11 Illi P OO00000 : '_dNepnNn-Noep oe0 PMo I ONO000No pmNNOPONNPOPM1 oNnm NF o ONPP NN M1IN N-P%NbONbOPN PP NPP00i - N - ddPNNNFl-PI NN m_b_Od NO�Oo Mn M- - w 1 W FFM1FFFFF FFFFFFFNFFM1F M1 '.F FFF FM1 0000000000000000 m 10000 i 00 m Y i P PPPP PPPPPPPPP p PP P a oe N F O Q I Ooo o I.\\ U Y PPPPPPPP - F0P- VW2V t NNNNNNadNaNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNdNN f F---------- NN 1 1111111111H NNN mNN NNoNeNNNoNdNN0NN aNNFNNN NNInNtl N f NNNd i a • N roro' '' ro N • ro N ro rory ro ro '• b � rol - NN N N } N N N N N N N N N n tl roroi b N ro i N N NN ry N M W • ro I 0 ' 00 W ' P N � wp '. d.. l� 1 M \ ♦ '. Y n P �• a 0i N U F ^ I s JJ M tl J J "1 W \h � m x OOI J I Y Illi JI J J JJ N J 0 b ''. F I wwj w w I 0 I w w ww I m I w w w . j Y IiJ JO YYY 'i -NJ NNN eN roro .Iaw It0 O roro NO 1- a bN JJ b -lYY PP Y 1a VM aN wy �I yV y; .PIP ^eN roro �Y eQ I a s rrj -I r >s m l K N:. .K cc a o z K m ne i > Y '. H R 'mm 60 -1 o o 0 mzl > r m a zz cmm mj o x n ro n o zm l ^ o r (° .zr. ILII zl W I n ool y. mm ti� o a F <K o + z m M. _ mw c o a c mm w w n r ci "I i a'' = o ee a * z ws mu v� a M' r o mm m v ^ n m as I m mzz io a a z w a c x ti ti j I c .+ III y G P y O y r -0 A n o NN W N L N Y Nro i N N W YI 2 o b 1 Aj '1 I1 1 I I 1 aU N j N V 1• I , YI I y a it I 1. l i • y a m m w v w ¢ V m Q N 6 W L 0 I 6 N 0 J N IN N NN n 'n N N IN '.n N 'Fl "I V P P IP P P IP P IP O '.P P IP b R Ib 1., I. p w O > > 10 0 LN O 10 I W % ,O IN IF 0 0 J V W6 O U 2 6 b Q Z 6 J J IL N O -0 J 6 ¢ Y U J 6 Y Y IL 6 6 K O 2 W W 6 N Fl NN nYl '.nFl 000 w INry� NN n PP 00 PI ee p0 NN h O NN o p F � Oo O NN n 00 FlP N nFl NN hF .. 2 W NN NN ¢ W Q P c o P P N W \ \ \ \ \ ¢0 0 o O O o e o o o o O o o O o o a I N N 0 N N 0 N N N ry 0 N N 0 0 U N N 0 N N w ry 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N u • i ' F ry NNm N N N N _ r j I O K b O O T > YJ J H m a ! 1 i ml mm m m m m A m m j j a Pro Jam u blil 2 b PPaPm+JN mP ++� N++ i mm H ro tltl Or WOrW rrrJ mm NNO. YY +r WY Ja m mP+Ktl YMYN mm NN MK + m ONro JnIrJNr rNO mNm eO aJ♦ II > WW+POJY+r r Y+1P "1'A I j ie K C 4 • W • � m y OO. m m x m O TTTTTTTT TTmT C� f' TT D O ^ C Y CCC_C_C_CCCCC __CC_Z___ 'D 2 O A9 K m Z G r OOOOOOOOOOOO y O KK mP m m 2 mm JP PPNNrr rO m -i m C 6 x O Y�4lY+MPPm>r K . 9 M. m A a r titiK KKti1 KIK KKH m nm m 0. S F n 00000 0000000 n o a m - m x yHK 1Ky Hy YKiy O r r Z 9 K n »aD»DV»aD I rrrrrrrrrf r z� � I 1 F Ir I' m - y M. CTmrrr9�Om2%10 m 'm =JK� JJJ>OD99m O O 99 A 9 m A H comm mnzms azaA P..IPmzr zm « c T x mm rr r m Kr 1 Ao > .- m m o Krama-ac Kr S s a m m m ' i ArN3aZ ti � 4P N ^ A n 1tiD 9TF ( T < C Ccz.A 9 C Z 2 m m <O O 9 titiO m C_Sm_ m m K II ' ozm m KK r i i. K o ti I I I. N OII P D iO O O O y n OI Ibi N y p NO P e C Y� Y WW m y u • K s n m 0 0 0000000 0 o m r lwlm om m m m mmm m � o to 0 0 F W FFFFFFt F F F F r F FF F F F FFF F F W F w F W W � � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O Y N O OW O N r N N m N 0 Y W W W r 0 O N O r 0 Y W F O1 W H mW W O Y O O F O O 0 0 0 0 O -1 *0 O w 0 0 A N O m r N r N m N N N O �O O O F O O S 0 0 0 0 g Y O r O r 0 0 n W H O N Y r r r r N r r O r 0 0 Y 0 0 0 0 000 r O r O W O O n m N 0 M r N H N M N N N 0 b 0 0 - €S 0 0 0 SSS 0 Y 0 N 0 1 0 0 3 Y 0 0 0000000 O O m N Nm m O m m rm m m m m m N N V 0 0 0 0 r Y r Y r r r Y r r r r Y r r Y r r Y Y Y Y Y Y Y r r r Y r r 0 0 0000000 O H O. O 0 0 00 0 0 0 000 O O 00 O O O O D W Y r r r r r r r r r r r Y Y Y Y Y r r Y r r r r r r r r r r n 0 0 0 0000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 000 0 0 00 0 0 0 o r w m r o rn r o 3 O N Y W N,1 W NN N r N w r rn o m N ZNo N w�O O r rO NO mN e N WNo o o mO O W 0O O ON C O N m N r m F N O O r 0 O m r 0 O O O F m N F Y W SNm N n O O HOIO� W� 0 0 Y 0 OHO 00 0 0 0 m N W N Nw N O O N O 0 O 0 O H h1 fly 7J 9 S 5J O.1 Sl XI D tll O Rl O 8 3 'a �9 �'�, n 0 0 �'. O Y cF w+ Y M O D 'O r� ILL ✓ ILL K h C r+ A O m M 00 O O O O Y m V N 3 Y 0 0 K N O m b O O N W N N m 'O b ILL M N m m N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NNN N N N N N N N N O m m WmmmmmWmm m m Mw W wW m m m Wm Wmm Wm Wmm Wm Wmm wm Wm m m F MR mF m Nm Nm Nm m p N F W W W W w W W N r O O O W O O m 0 µ O 10 n 3 3 n 3 d D m N F A Y Z 9 O Z n Z N O n S O WZ O O W O K b K n r 0 r M m W O n M Y 01 S M N < n N '1 N I N O s K M M 3 N Y W z O O N F N K 3 CW W b n rm NC O m n r m F O O\ r O r oW W N Y D\ O 0 W r r r m N O O N N N 0 F O Y 0 S0m 0 0 0eo 0SSS wN � � SImN w M N O S H N O M N In N E Nw N N H O N E M N H N C H H M Y N U bJ b O c O w 3 w L 0 4 a ° T H W w N W C 7k 6 0 w m � b d UO Y 1 c H 3 6 c W 0 O U} Y O w O c G 3 P W b 0 E O 1p Z wO�iN,O�0�i 99 m m O O NNNWNOJO N N N d\ 0` Y MMMMMMM M M M M M U N N N N N N N N N N N N Qti w O O M�0 N O N O O H W m H OHO MONO M MIl�00� L O > L c J O O 0 1M . NM- 00 N NM C m P U} L it O H N O N J 00 a W W =U Ul E N N H MN N O m d7 H L H H H O�O O M �I 4 O O 0 Y > ❑ E 0 .0i > W m M O Y CI L W c c c c e U o E U 0 LI 9 I �+ c ji 1 O�0 MSO MN w� 0 0 0 H m ❑ C I N N H O\X D\N M 1 O O MD E ❑ c N0\M� m O M H N N 0w0 0 O Q\�1.7 O\ N N H N MN ,°y as ..0i y O N M N H N m C O m 6 H M 0 E z 4� N M N c N > c x 02 .0 F Y 0 G H a 0 (R HN OlNI w N 3l 00 m ++ E C ¢ 3 O\OO 3 >a > ,.y 0 0000000 O O O O O O ox 0 MQ 09 m c " ¢ 0000000 0 0 0 0 0 FF 0' ' Q '~ 'i �° Oi M , H H H H H H H H H H H H ❑ � � � � � � � I 1 U 0001010100 O N O O N wOHN�D�D I�OOO M m L E H y rl rl.Y>X..Y H M O .. . W y ON. H O X H M O H H m H O N N N (ll V H H wl Vl Yl tll H M O H H Un C 0000000 H H O O O� H �NNtnN� H M M Q� MMMMMMM N H M M � ❑ 0 O.D 1010 10 0 0 O 0 0 N / lam MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City -Administrator FROM: John H. DeLacey, Engineering Tech. III SUBJECT: Downtown Streetscape Change Orders No. 1 and 2, Project No. 1987-2 DATE: September 10, 1987 INTRODUCTION: Two Change Orders are ready for Council approval on the above referenced project. BACKGROUND: Attached is a previous memo from Ken Ashfeld that provides background information for Change Orders No . 1 and No . 2 . Engineering has now determined the increase in cost for Change Order No. 2. As Ken had mentioned in his August 26, 1987 memo there is no cost increase to the project in Change Order No. 1 . RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve Change Orders No . 1 and No . 2 for the Downtown Streetscape Project. REQUESTED ACTION: Approve Change Order No. 1 with no increase to the project cost and approve Change Order No. 2 with an increase to the project of $1 ,666.00 for Downtown Streetscape, Project No. 1987-2. KA/pmp -, CBANGE ORDER Change Order No.: 1 Project Name: Downtown Streetsccaoe Improvement Date: July 23, 1987 Contract No.: 1987-2 Original Contract Amount $ 2.186.457.65 Change Order(s) No. 0 thru No. 0 $ -0- Total Funds Encumbered Prior to Change Order $ 2,186.457.65 Description of Work to be (Added/Deleted) : See Attachment I The above described work shall be incorporated in the Contract, referenced above, under the same conditions specified in the original Contract as amended unless otherwise specified herein. Any work not so specified shall be performed in accordance with the Standard Specifications adopted by the City of Shakopee, Minnesota. The amount of the Contract shall be increased/decreased by -0- The number of calendar days for completion shall be increased by Original Contract Amount $ 2.186 457.65 Change Order(s) No. 0 thru 1 4 -� Total Funds Encumbered $ 2.186 457.65 Completion Date: No Change to Interim or Final Completion The undersigned Contractor hereby agrees to perform the work specified in this Change Order in accordance with the specifications, conditions and prices specified herein. Contractor: HAhO/? .✓r=s .S.0 c. � By: � c � Date: 7I APP 7R GOl9 � ED• " ' ,_ -3/ C' y Engineer Date APPROVED: City of Shakopee By: Approved as to form this Mayor Date day of 19 City Administrator Date City Attorney City Clerk Date ATTACHMENT N0. I The original contract amount of $2, 186,457 .65 includes all the base bid items with the exception of the substitution of the following alternates to their respective base bid items. Phase I Section 500 (Alternate Lighting Bases) replaces Section 400 of Street Lighting Items. This alternate provides for the direct embedded standards with the same finish (exposed aggregate) as the base bid. The Alternate for Fluted Poles shall substitute the Section 500 poles for type B and C lighting units. Therefore, fluted poles will be supplied for the type B & C units. The Alternate Streetscape items consisting of trash receptacles and planters shall substitute their respective base bids such that the exposed aggregate finish shall match that of the light poles. Phase II Section 500 (Alternate Lighting Bases) replaces Section 400 of Street Lighting Items. This alternate provides for the direct embedded standards with the same finish (exposed aggregate) as the base bid. The Alternate for Fluted Poles shall substitute the Section 500 poles for type B and C lighting units. Therefore, fluted poles will- be supplied for the type B & C units. The Alternate Streetscape items consisting of trash receptacles and planters shall substitute their respective base bids such that the exposed aggregate finish shall match that of the light poles. It is hereby agreed that the light poles for Phase 'II will not be ordered, fabricated, or delivered until the City and Contractor concur on an order date. This change will provide for the option of installing Section 400 Street Lighting Items on Phase II is desired by the City of Shakopee. CHANGE ORDER Change Order No.: 2 Project Name: Downtown Streetawaoe Date: Snnt=ler 10; 1987 _ Contract No.: 1987 Original Contract Amount $ P-186 457.65 Change Order(s) No. I thru No. $ 4�- Total Funds Encumbered Prior to Change Order $ 2-186,457.6r, Description of York to be (Added/Deleted): Grading and placing of Cl. 5 (gravel) to the 'old" Pelham Hotel lot to provide a temporary parking area. The above described work shall be incorporated in the Contract, referenced above, under the same conditions specified in the original Contract as amended unless otherwise specified herein. Any work not so specified shall be performed in accordance with the Standard Specifications adopted by the City of Shakopee, Minnesota. The amount of the Contract shall be increased by 5_7.,666.00 The comber of calendar days for completion shall be (increased/decreased) by 4�- . Original Contract Amount $.2,1B6-456.65 Change Order(s) No. 1 thru 2 _ $ 1.666.00 Total Funds Encumbered $3,188.111.65 Completion Date: No-Change to Inter.m or Final gampletion. The undersigned Contractor hereby agrees to perform the work specified in this Change Order in accordance with the specifications, conditions and prices specified herein. Contractor: Title Late: APPAND RECOMQ:R7DF�,: City Engineer Date APPROVED: City of Shakopee 8y: Approved as to form this Mayor Date day of 19 City Administrator Date City Attorney ciry Clerk Dale `i 2� MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer SUBJECT: Downtown Streetscape Project Prospective Change Orders DATE: August 26 , 1987 INTRODUCTION: There are currently three change orders that are in the process of administration by the Engineering Department for the Downtown Streetscape Project . Change Order No . 1 consists of a clarification of selected alternative bids and provides for a review of the alternate bids on Phase I before proceeding with Phase II. There is no change in contract amount due to Change Order No. 1 . Change Order No. 2 consists of the work done to the old Pelham Hotel site to provide for a temporary parking area . The cost of this work has not been finalized as of yet but should be a relatively small cost . Change Order No . - 3 consists of _ proposed revisions to underground conduit work included in the contract. Change Order No. 3 is the focus of this memorandum. BACKGROUND: The existing electrical system in the downtown area includes a substation located next to Community Services and primary routes along the alley north of City Hall and along Fuller and Sommerville . The distribution lines run along the alley alignments and connect to the various users. Attached is a rough sketch indicating the primary routes. . The contracts for the downtown project include installing conduit to accommodate the future undergounding of distribution lines within the alleys. Conduits will be installed across the streets at the alley locations. The purpose of these installations are to prevent future street cuts when actually undergroundirg the wiring. This protection is relatively inexpensive because the conduit _ s for crossing the street only . Although access structures are contracted for these conduit crossings ,, it is desireableto increase the size of these structures to adequately handle the wiring and personnel . The main purpose of this memo is to discuss the merits of providing conduit for the future underg ounding o` the prirar runs on Sommerville and Fuller . Unlike the alley crossings, putting in the conduit is not inexpensive due to the following. • Borings under the railroad tracks Size of conduit to accommodate the primary runs • Much longer runs which are longitudinal with the street versus crossing the street Downtown Streetscape August 26 , 1987 Page 2 The estimated cost for installing the conduit on Sommerville and Fuller from the south side of 1st Avenue to the north side of 3rd Avenue (existing project limits) is $40,000 .00 per street. I - see three main issues when considering the merits of installing the conduit with this project ; 1 . The cost effectiveness of installing the conduit now versus a future street out; and, 2. If installed, how long before the conduit is actually used; and, 3. Aesthetics of the in-place primary facilities. 1 . Cost Effectiveness It is the posture of the City to plan for the future as much as possible to avoid added costs and avoid cutting into new streets. This is evidenced by the conduit installed in the Second Avenue parking lot, alley crossings and the City ' s five-year no street cut policy. In the case of the proposed conduit, trench settlement is not a problem as with deeper utilities. A narrow trench is dug to a 3 ' -2" depth, conduit set and then poured with concrete . The remaining backfill is road base and surfacing. The main problem is the aesthetics of a patch. The patch could be obliterated by a seal coat across the entire street at a cost of approximately $1 ,000 per block. Since we seal coat a street about every .seven years, the cost of trench restoration would depend on the place in time of the seal coat life-cycle. 2. Conduit Use There are no plans for undergrounding the primary line on Fuller. There are no firm proposals for the undergrounding cf the primary line on Sommers^ale, but it =ears this work would be logical due to the bypass work proposed in 1990 . Also, the primary line along the alley north of City Hail w4-'-- need relocating due to the bypass project. 3. Aesthetics The primary line on Fuller is not too bad aesthetically because it is quite high and not so obtrusive. The line on Sommerville is on older poles and closer to the ground making it much more visible. Downtown Streetscape August 26 , 1987 Page 3 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS: As mentioned previously, when the minibypass is constructed, the primary line on Sommerville will be affected but most notably , about four blocks of primary in the alley north of City Hall will need to be removed. It seems logical to underground this line but the problem is location. Traffic will be maintained on 1st Avenue until the bypass is complete so this is not an option. This memo suggests that the alley between 1st and 2nd is a good location . This proposed location would provide for the undergrounding of the primary line, the distribution line within these alleys and possibly the restoration/reconstruction of these alleys as part of the bypass project. To provide for this proposal, the conduit crossings between 1st and 2nd should be increased in size to accommodate primary lines. Much of the information contained in this memo is the result of consultation with Lou Vanflout, Shakopee Public Utilities Manager. His assistance has been very helpful and much appreciated. RECOMMENDATIONS: - 1 . As a minimum, I recommend that the access structures that were contracted for be increased in size to adequately handle future undergrounding of distribution &n.d primary runs. The estimated cost of this change is $15, 172.00. 2. It is also recommended that the conduit crossings between 1st and 2nd be increased in size to accommodate primary line installation when the bypass is constructed at an estimated cost of $4 ,500 .00. 3 . It is alos recommended that conduit o` size to accommodate a primary line be installed on Sommerville between 1st and 3rd. The estimated cost of ^-:s installation is 5401000.00. The actual cost has yet to be = _ermined 'because Engineering is still exploring the possibility of using an abandoned storm sewer line under the tracks as a conduit run versus boring a casing pipe. If ':is can be done, we estimate a savings cf approximately $5,000.00. 4 . It is also recommended that if Council wishes to have conduit installed on Fuller to (accommodate that primary line , direction be given to staff. Due to the cost and uncertainty of when this installation would be used, staff is not recommending this installation with this project. Downtown Streetscape August 26, 1987 Page 4 SUMMARY: Change Order No . 1 is a result of Council action awarding the project with certain alternate bids and will be coming to Council for final approval . There is no increase in contract cost as a result of this Change Order. Change Order No. 2 is a result of previous Council action which leases the old Pelham Hotel site for parking. The increase in contract cost is not determined at this time. Engineering is using contract items where appropriate and "time and material" items in an effort to minimize cost. It is anticipated that the costs will be modest. Change Order No. 3 provides for added conduit improvements to accommodate future electrical undergrounding . Based upon the aforestated recommendations , the increase in contract cost would be approximately $59 ,672.00. It should be noted that Change Orders No. 1 , 2, 3 are not the result of unforeseen site conditions but would result in increased project assets. REQUESTED ACTION: No Council action is necessary at this time regarding Change Order No. 1 and No. 2 but will come to Council at a later date for final approval . Since final costs are not determined on Change Order No. 3, final approval is not being requested at this time . The following action is being requested: Move to direct the City Engineer to cause the installation of changed conduit installations and the addition of conduit on Sommerville Street between 1st Avenue and 3rd Avenue as addressed in the City Engineer' s August 26 , 1987 memorandum. KA/pmp STREETS - ° / Cl) 2 / 2 « ® - � \ \ / ) CD ; !; } . : z m $ 2 = e 7) o — , 2 § / 0e r-) (D ` \ \ \ / LLJI IL Co (D s £ J � r Atwood ) } � 0 Lo (D . 0Q / § 2 50 / Fa%r -- - --- — — k 2 § \ / 00 Ll CD T/ � / QCD ED Homes ). CD —D C) ` § ■ /\ \ / ƒ � C/) _ Lewis = \ / _ 3 730 Sommerville- --�� . --- 0 \ \ / ƒ11- \ \° co — \ \ � ED \ \ \ C \ \ ! It .. . \ | | ; f 2 ,; ' k \ / � MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: John H. DeLacey, Engineering Tech. III SUBJECT: T.H. 101/C.R. 83 Intersection Improvements Project No. 1987-1 DATE: September 10, 1987 INTRODUCTION: A Change Order is needed for the above referenced project. BACKGROUND: During the inspection of the signals at 101/83 intersection the state determined that additional pavement marking is needed. The additional pavement marking consists of one stop bar on C. R. 83, one stop par on Peavey Road and approximately 200 L.F. of double yellow line. REQUESTED ACTION: Approve Change Order No. 2 in the additional amount of $266.00 increasing the total funds encumbered to $96 , 740 . 17 for T .H . 101/C.R. 83 Intersection, Project No. 1987-1 . JHD/pmp CBOR2 _ CHS1:GE ORDER Intersection Improvements Change Order No. : 2' Project Name: STN 101 and CR 83 (87-1) Date: ' August 4, 1987 Contract N,�. : Original Contract Amuunt 7__92,210.39 Change Order(s) No. 1 thru No. $ 4,263.78 Total Funds Encumbered Prior to Chungc Ordw $_ 96,474.17 - Description of Work to be (Added/pxkxxx)3): Additional pavement markings on CR 83 consisting of two stop bars and approximately 200 L.F. of double yellow line. The above described work shall be incorporated in the Contract, referenced above, under the same conditions specified in the. original Contract as amended unle:n otherwise specified herein. Any work not so :specified :hall be performed in accordance with the Standard Specifications adopted by the City of Shakopee, Minnesota. The amount of the Contract shall be (increased/olxxxxxxxg) by $ 266.00 The number of calendar days for completion shall be (increased/iexxexxzd) by 2 Original Contract Amount $ 92.210.39 Change Order(s) No. I thru 2 $ 4,529.78 Total Funds Encumbered $ 96.740.17 Completion Date: 32 working days The undersigned Contractor hereoy agrees to perforin the work specified in this Change Order in accordance with the specifications, conditions and prices specified herein. Contractor: Egan, McKay Title- Date: itl Date: �4/c-�:- 7 Da Le AFFRO4ED: City of Snakopee A-: Maycr Date Approved as to form this day of C;,.. ra�or '-9 City •aeric Date �i'_7 i.ttc.-ney MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer, SUBJECT: Payment for Repairs to Betti Lo's DATE: September 11 , 1987 INTRODUCTION: During the installation of a sanitary sewer service on the Downtown Project, damage occurred to the building occupied by Betti Lu ' s. This memo addresses payment for repairing the damage. BACKGROUND: The damage that occurred was the under-mining of the floor of the building as trenching operations occurred. The undermining occurred because the building has no foundation and the floor was constructed on unstable soil and other debris (rusted metal cans, etc. were exposed under the floor) . The damage did not occur as the result of erroneous actions or judgments on the part of the contractor. Because of the undermining, the building facia was very unstable and repairs had to be made immediately . Lee Houser was successful in mobilizing Edman Builders, Inc. on very short notice to the site and repaired the damage by constructing a foundation in the area of the undermining. Attached is a bill for the work and the amount is reasonable . Based upon Edman Builders excellent response time, I would prefer to pay their bill on a timely basis. The one question that needs to be answered is who is responsible for the cost of the repairs, the project or the property owner. This question in being referred to the City Attorney. RECOMMENDATION : I recommend paying the bill from Edman Builders in the amount of $1 ,233.33, funds to be taken from the project fund until a legal opinion is made to determine cost responsibility . REQUESTED ACTION: Move to approve payment in the amount of $1 , 233.33 to Edman Builders, Inc. for work completed on the Downtown Streetscape Project ( 1987-2) , funds to be taken from the project fund. KA/pmp BETTILU Lu 'S y` A` o � INTEFUoi2 FLo fL A 2EA wflL" I COrJ ST 2LLCT Efl Iv u�2-HriJ STD AQ£A t i � V EDMAN BUILDERS, INC. ti= General Contractor F."..6. 17C 1APEE, MINNESOTA 5 SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 IWVOSCE 1 086 wre (612) 445-8307 8-24-87 TO CITY OF SHAKOPEE s�a13E HEFTY LN'S 129 1st Ave E POOR NEW FOUNDATION MALL Shakopee, Mi 55379 PER LEROY JOB 4 87-46 INVOICE T&M WORK: �A Labor 7 hrs a 26,25 183.75 23 hrs IN 26,25 x 1,5 overtime 630.00 2 51987 5/8" plywood 2 shts s 20.50 41.00 OF 811AKnpZ 05 rebar 60 if a .17 - 10.20 "-"^ .. �' Concrete 30001 ftg 1 yd 45.40 -Shortload chargreyd0.0 Sh rt load charge 4 yd Concrete 30001 wall 4 yd a 50.40 (Saturday) 201.60 Sales tax 68 on materials 20.65 Over�iff 54.73 TOTAL INVOICE AMOUNT = 9 1,233.33 PLEASE REPLY F-1 NO REPLY NECESSARY sbwm NET 10 days //h MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Community Development Director RE: Proposed Metropolitan Council Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Procedure DATE: September 11, 1987 Introduction: The Metropolitan Council will be holding a public hearing on October 1, 1987 for the purpose of considering possible amendments to the procedures for amendments to local governmental units comprehensive plans. The City may wish to comment on these proposed procedures. Background: The 1976 Metropolitan Land Planning Act authorized the Metropolitan Council to prepare and adopt guidelines to govern it' s review of comprehensive plans and comprehensive plan amendments prepared by local governmental enities. In 1981 the Council adopted a set of guidelines for reviewing plan amendments after receiving substantial input from local officials and others in the Metropolitan Area. The 1981 guidelines were designed to address minor amendments to comprehensive plans in that virtually all comprehensive plans had been submitted within the past 12 - 18 months. A period of six years has elapsed since the 1981 guidelines were prepared, and at this point many communities, including Shakopee, are contemplating major amendments to their comprehensive plans. The proposed revisions now being considered by the. Metropolitan Council establish two categories of amendments: Major Plan Amendments and Minor Plan Amendments. It is the opinion of Metropolitan Council staff that the existing plan amendment procedures do not adequately address the major plan amendment procedures nor do they adequately define what constitutes a major amendment. The attached proposed amendments attempt to address this subject in greater detail. This memo will make general comments about the proposed amendments. This will be followed up by a more detailed discussion at the City Council on September 15th. Essentially a major amendment involves a . complete revision of an existing comprehensive plan or a major revision of a chapter or element of the plan. A major amendment is also one which involves an-amendment that is triggered by the preparation of either an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) • The proposed Starwood Music Center was deemed to be a project which requires a .comprehensive plan amendment. Under this proposed definition the Starwood Project would require a major amendment. The other major category to trigger the major amendment process is that involving a change in the Urban Service Area boundary. In the case of Shakopee this would be anything which is greater 2.58 of the year 2000 land supply or 50 acres. Minor amendments are also defined and the procedures between - the two are relatively similar but somewhat more lax in the case of minor amendments. All major amendments are subject to a maximum 90 day review period by the Metropolitan Council and adjacent affected governmental units. The primary focus of the reviews would be the amendments impact on the four Metropolitan systems (sewers, parks, airports and transportation) . According to the proposed major amendment process the City of Shakopee could not adopt or place any amendment into effect until after the Metropolitan Council had completed it's review and made it's review and made it' s final decision pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 473. 866 (1978) . In the case of minor amendments the process is the same as major amendments except in those situations where the minor amendment was determined to not have potential impact upon a Metropolitan system. In the latter mentioned case the review period would be sixty (60) days rather than 90 (ninety) days. Also with those minor amendments without potential system impact the City could adopt or put the amendments into effect before the Metropolitan Council completed it's review. In oeneral the process would have the potential to provide some element of delay for major projects which either change the MUSA line boundaries or affect one of the major metropolitan systems. If the City were in competition with an adjacent community it would give that community an opportunity to comment on the proposal for the City. This could potentially result in some degree of delay for a particular project. Alternatives- 1. Take a definitive action on the proposed guidelines and transmit this to the Council for the October 1, 1987 hearing. 2. Take no action on the proposed amendment. Staff Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council discuss this item in greater detail at the September 15th meeting and provide direction to the staff so that a communication can be sent to the Metropolitan Council reflecting the City' s concerns and comments on the proposed comp plan amendment procedures. Action Requested: Move to send a letter to the Metropolitan Council reflecting the City's concerns on the proposed revisions to the comprehensive plan amendment procedures. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWING LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS I. PURPOSE, OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE The Metropolitan Land Planning Act of 1976 requires that amendments to comprehensive plans of local governmental units be prepared, submitted to the Metropolitan Council and adopted in the same manner as the original plans. Minn. Stat. 473.864, subd. 2 (1978). The purpose of these guidelines is to establish a procedure for Council review of proposed amendments. Council authority to prepare and adopt these guidelines appears in Minn. Stat. 473.854 (1978). The guidelines establish separate procedures for the submission and review of minor and major amendments. The primary reason for distinguishing between the two is to require more explanatory information for mayor amendments. A major amendment is defined as: 1. a complete revision, update or rewrite of an existing comprehensive plan in its entirety, 2. a major revision, update or rewrite of a chapter or element of an existing comprehensive plan, 3. an amendment triggered by a proposed development that requires an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) , as defined in Minnesota Rules 1985 Parts 4410.4300. .4400, and is inconsistent with the existing comprehensive plan, or 4. a change in the urban service area boundary where a land trade or addition is proposed involving: a. an area that is greater than 10 percent of the 2000 land supply for communities with a land supply of 500 acres or less, or b. an area that is greater than 2.5 percent of the 2000 land supply ' for communities with a land supply of mom than 500 acres. A minor amendment is any amendment other than a major amendment. Minor plan amendments include but are not limited to: 1. changes to the future land use plan where the affected area is small or where the proposed future land use will result in minor changes in metropolitan service demand, 2. changes in the urban service area boundary where a land trade or addition is proposed involving: a. an area that is 10 percent or less of the 2000 land supply for communities with a land supply of 500 acres or less, or b. an area that is 2.5 percent or less of the 2000 land supply for communities with a land supply of more than 500 acres, -2- 3. minor changes to plan goals and policies that do not change the overall thrust of the comprehensive plan. In general, minor plan amendments are the more routine, incremental changes for which a great deal of information is not required in order for the Council to conduct its review and which do not signal a major departure from the local governmental unit's existing comprehensive planning policies. The guidelines lay out separate procedures for submission and review of plan amendments, depending on whether the proposed amendments are major or minor. Major Amendments All major amendments will be subject to a maximum 90-day review by the Council. The primary focus of this review will be the amendment's impact on the four metropolitan systems (sewers, parks, airports and transportation), but the amendment's consistency with other chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide will also be reviewed. The Council will require a local governmental unit to modify the amendment if it is found to have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure from metropolitan system plans. The local unit may not adopt or place such amendments into effect until the Council has completed its review and made its final decision pursuant to Minn. Stat. 473.866 (1978). Minor Amendments For minor amendments, the most exhaustive Council review is limited to proposed amendments that potentially affect one or more of the metropolitan systems. If the Council finds that the amendment will have a substantial impact on or represents a substantial departure from metropolitan system plans, the local governmental unit will be required to modify the amendment. Council review of such amendments will take place within 90 days of receipt of the proposed amendment, and the local unit may not adopt or place the amendment into effect until the Council has completed its review and made its final decision pursuant to Minn. Stat. 473.866 (1978). Minor amendments without potential system impact are subject to a 60-day review and comment period for consistency with the Metropolitan Development Guide. The local unit may adopt or put these amendments into effect before the Council completes its review. II. DEFINITIONS A. Capital Improvement Program - an itemized program for a five-year period setting forth the schedule, timing and details of capital improvements by year, including cost, need for improvement, financial sources and financial impact on the local governmental unit. B. Chair - the chair of the Metropolitan Council. C. Comprehensive Plan - the comprehensive plan of a local governmental unit as required by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act (Minn. Stat. 473.851- 473.872, 1978). D. Comprehensive Sewer Plan - a plan required by the Metropolitan Waste -3- 1V_�7 Control Commission which describes the collection, treatment and disposal of all sanitary sewage, including the installation, operation and maintenance of on-site sewage disposal facilities. E. Council, - the Metropolitan Council. F. Local Governmental Unit - all cities, counties and townships within the seven-county metropolitan area. G. Housekeeping Amendment - a proposed amendment to a comprehensive plan that consists of editorial changes to correct typographical errors or changes to clarify the meaning of and relationship between plan components, or proposed amendments to elements of the comprehensive plan not required by the Land Planning Act. H. Metropolitan Development Guide - the comprehensive development guide prepared by the Council to achieve the orderly and economic development of the metropolitan area. I. Metropolitan System Plans - the aviation and transportation chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide and the policy plans, development programs and capital budgets for metropolitan waste control and regional recreation open space. J. Official Controls - ordinances and regulations which control the physical development of a local governmental unit and implement its comprehensive plan. R. Sewer Policy Plan - a component of the local comprehensive plan which describes the areas to be sewered with public facilities and a schedule for providing service to them, existing flows and flow projections for the public sewer system, standards and conditions for the installation of private systems and areas not suitable for public or private systems. L. 2000 Land Supply - the amount of net developable land within the urban service area to the year 2000, as calculated by the Council, excluding water, wetlands, floodplains, bedrock, parks and covenanted agricultural preserve lands. M. Urban Service Area - the area planned for either metropolitan or municipal sewer service. III. PROCEDURES FOR ALL AMENDMENTS A. Submission. All proposed amendments to comprehensive plans, except housekeeping amendments and amendments to capital improvements programs, must be submitted by the governing body of the local governmental unit to the Metropolitan Council, following action by the planning commission, where appropriate, but: 1. prior to final approval by the governing body of the local governmental unit, or 2. after conditional approval by the governing body, contingent upon an initial determination by the chair of no system impact in the case of minor amendments or upon completion of Council review in'the case of major amendments. -4- B. Method of Submission. All proposed amendments to comprehensive plans must be accompanied by an "Information Submission," attached hereto, and a map. Them is one form for major amendments and a separate form for minor amendments. C. Initial Determination of Completeness of Submission. Within 10 working days of receipt by the Council of a proposed comprehensive plan amendment and an "Information Submission" form, Council staff shall determine whether the "Information Submission" form is complete, whether the plan amendment as proposed contains adequate information for the Council to conduct its review, and whether the appropriate adjacent governmental units have been notified of the amendment. The chair shall notify the governmental unit of staff's determination. Failure of the chair to do so within 10 working days of receipt of the proposed amendment shall constitute a finding of completeness. In notifying the governmental unit that the "Information Submission" is incomplete or that them is not enough information in the proposed amendment to conduct a review, the chair shall note what additional information is needed. If the amendment must be resubmitted to the Council, the governmental unit proposing the amendment must also resubmit the amendment to the appropriate adjacent governmental unit(s) . D. Extension of Review Period. Requests for extension of the review period shall be made in writing to the Council by the local governmental unit submitting a plan amendment. The local governmental unit shall request a specific time period for the extension. IV. PROCEDURES FOR MAJOR AMENDMENTS A. Informal Comment Prior to Formal Submission. Due to the potentially complex nature of major plan amendments, local governmental units may submit such amendments to the Council for informal review prior to formal submission. The purpose of informal review is to advise local governments on the consistency of the amendment with Council policies and on any other issues which may surface during formal review. Informal reviews shall be conducted exclusively by Council staff upon the request of the local governmental unit preparing the plan amendment, and shall be advisory in nature only. B. Submission to Adjacent Governmental Units. In addition to being submitted to the Council, all proposed major plan amendments shall be submitted simultaneously by the governing body of the local gbvernmental unit to adjacent governmental units likely to be affected by the proposed amendment. Those communities wishing to comment on the proposed amendment shall submit their comments both to the governmental unit proposing the amendment and to the Council within 45 days of receiving the amendment. An adjacent governmental unit's comments shall be considered by the Council as advisory only. C. Commencement of Council Review. If the proposed amendment is found to be complete upon first submission, the 90-day review period shall commence on the day the amendment was received. If the amendment is found to be incomplete, the review period shall commence at such time as a complete amendment is submitted to the Council. D. Council Review. Because of their scope, major plan amendments are presumed to have a potential impact on one or more of the metropolitan systems and thus shall be subject to a maximum 90-day review. A modification to the proposed amendment may be required, and the amendment may not be put into effect until the Council has made its final determination pursuant to Minn. Stat. 473.866 (1978). Failure of the Council to act within 90 days of receipt of a complete comprehensive plan amendment shall constitute a finding of no substantial impact on or substantial departure from metropolitan system plans. The Council shall mail notice of its action to the governmental unit within three working days of the action. E. Criteria for Determining Potential System Impact. The chair shall utilize the following criteria in determining whether a major plan amendment will impact the metropolitan systems: 1. whether the proposed amendment may result in a significant change in the timing, staging, capacity or service area of the local facilities approved in the sewer policy plan or comprehensive sewer plan; 2. whether the proposed amendment may result in a wastewater flow(s) that exceeds the 2000 flow projection for the community as indicated in the Water Resources Management Guide Chapter/Policy Plan; 3• whether the proposed amendment may require a new National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit or State Disposal System permit or a change to an existing permit; 4. whether the proposed amendment may result in less restrictive standards and conditions to be adopted for the installation or management of private on-site sewer facilities than those described in the original plan; 5. whether the proposed amendment may have an impact on the use of regional recreation and open space facilities or natural resources within the system. Impacts on the use of recreation and open space facilities include but are not limited to traffic, safety, noise, visual obstructions (e.g. to scenic overlooks), impaired use of the facilities or interference with the operation or maintenance of the facilities. Impacts on natural resources include but are not limited to the impact on the level, flow or quality of a facility's water resources (lakes, streams, wetlands) and impact on a facility's wildlife populations or habitats (migration routes, breeding sites, plant communities) ; 6. whether the proposed amendment may preclude or limit the future acquisition of land in an area identified in the capital improvement program of the Council's Recreation Open Space Development Guide/ Policy Plan; 7. whether the proposed amendment may affect either the function of a metropolitan airport identified in the Council's Aviation Development Guide/Policy Plan or the land use within an airport search area; 8. whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the "Guidelines for Land Use Compatibility with Aircraft Noise" contained in the Aviation Guide/Policy Plan; 6 9. whether the proposed amendment may result in a change to existing or proposed metropolitan highways, highway interchanges or intersections with metropolitan highways, or to local facilities that have interchanges with the metropolitan highway system. Changes to mainline highways, interchanges and intersections include an increase in volume that will overload the facility, or timing, design or location different from that indicated in the Transportation Guide Chapter/Policy Plan. Changes to local facilities include changes in timing, staging, volume, capacity, design, location or functional classification; 10. whether the proposed amendment my result in a change in transit service or facilities inconsistent with the Transportation Guide Chapter/Policy Plan. F. Acceptance of Written Comments. The Council will accept written comments on a proposed major amendment from adjacent communities or other interested parties during a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a complete plan amendment. These comments shall be considered bytheCouncil as advisory only. V. PROCEDURES FOR MINOR AMENDMENTS A. Submission to Adjacent Governmental Units. Proposed minor plan amendments may be submitted to adjacent governmental units at the discretion of the governmental unit proposing the amendment. B. Initial Determination of Level of Review to be Conducted. Within 10 working days of receipt by the Council of a proposed minor comprehensive plan amendment and a completed "Information Submission" form, the chair, on behalf of the Council and with input from staff, shall notify the governmental unit whether the proposed amendment has a potential impact upon any of the metropolitan systems. Failure of the chair to do so within 10 working days shall constitute a finding of no potential impact. Within this 10-day period, the proposedamendment will also be reviewed for its consistency with the definition of "minor amendment." If Council staff determine that the amendment should be reviewed as a major amendment, the chair shall notify the local governmental unit within 10 working days of receipt of the amendment that it must be resubmitted as a major amendment. The chair shall also note what additional information, if any, is required to make the "Information Submission" form complete and to allow the Council to review the proposed amendment as a major amendment. C. Council Review and Comment When No System Impact. If the chair initially determines that a proposed minor plan amendment has no potential impact upon any of the system plans, the chair shall notify the local governmental unit that the Council will comment within 60 days regarding the consistency of the proposed amendment with the other chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide, but that the governmental unit may place the amendment into effect at any time. The Council may waive review and comment of a minor amendment subsequent to the chair's initial determination. D. Council Review and Comment When Potential System Impact. If the chair i� - -7- initially determines that a proposed minor plan amendment has a potential impact on any of the metropolitan system plans, the chair shall notify the local governmental unit within 10 working days of receipt of the amendment that the amendment has a potential system impact and that it may not be put into effect until Council review is completed. The Council shall have 90 days from receipt of the proposed amendment in which to complete its review. If the Council requires a modification to the proposed amendment, the amendment may not be put into effect until the Council has made its final determination. Failure of the Council to act within 90 days of receipt of the proposed minor plan amendment shall constitute a finding of no substantial impact on or substantial departure from metropolitan system plans. The Council shall mail notice of its action to the local governmental unit within three working days of the action. E. Criteria for Determining Potential System Impact. The chair shall utilize the criteria in IV.E. above to determine whether a minor plan amendment will impact the metropolitan systems. F. Acceptance of Written Comments. The Council will accept written comments on a proposed minor plan amendment from adjacent communities (where the governmental unit proposing the amendment determined it appropriate to notify adjacent communities) or other interested parties from the date of receipt of the proposed amendment until the completion of Council review. These comments shall be considered by the Council as advisory only. LT03A ll � INFORMATION SUBMISSION FOR MINOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS This summary worksheet must be filled out and submitted to the Metropolitan Council with a copy of each proposed minor comprehensive plan amendment. Minor amendments include but are not limited to: 1 . changes to the future land use plan where the affected area is small or where the proposed future land use will result in minor changes in metropolitan service demand, 2. changes in the urban service area boundary where a land trade or addition is proposed involving: a. an area that is 10 percent or less of the 2000 land supply for communities with a land supply of 500 acres or less, or b. an area that is 2.5 percent or less of the 2000 land supply for communities with a land supply of more than 500 acres, - 3. minor changes to plan goals and policies that do not change the overall thrust of the comprehensive plan. Please be as specific as possible; attach additional explanatory materials if necessary. If a staff report was prepared for the Plan Commission or City Council, please attach it as well. Communities submitting regular plan amendments may wish to enter this form or a reasonable facsimile into their word processing menu for ease in preparation of the form. I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Sponsoring governmental unit Name of local contact person Address Telephone B. Name of amendment Description/Summary C. Please attach the following: 1. a copy of the proposed amendment 2. a city-wide map showing the location of the proposed change 3. the current plan map(s), indicating area(s) affected by amendment (see sample attached) A. the proposed plan map(s), indicating area(s) affected by amendment (see sample attached) D. What is the official local status of the proposed amendment? (Check one or more as apprODriate.) _2_ Acted upon by planning commission (if applicable) on Approved by governing body, contingent upon Metropolitan Council review, on Considered but not approved by governing body on Other E. Indicate what adjacent local governmental units and other ,jurisdictions (school districts, watershed districts, etc.) affected by the change have been sent copies of the plan amendment, if any, and the date(s) copies were sent to them. II. LAND USE A. Describe the following, as appropriate: 1. Size of affected area in acres 2. Existing land use(s) 3• Proposed land use(s) 4. Number of residential dwelling units involved 5. Proposed density 6. Proposed square footage of commercial, industrial or public buildings III.METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE A. Population, Household and Employment Forecasts Will the proposed amendment affect the city's population, household or employment forecasts for 2000, or any additional local staging contained in the original plan? _ No/Not Applicable. Yes. Describe effect. B. Changes to Urban Service Area Boundary Will the proposed amendment require a change to the boundary of the community's urban service area? _ No/Not Applicable. _ Yes. Under I.C., a map should be attached to show the proposed change. C. Changes to Timing and Staging of Urban Service Area Will the proposed amendment require a change to the timing and staging of development within the urban service area? _ No/Not Applicable. _ Yes. Under I.C., a map should be attached to show the proposed change. D. Sewer Flows 1. Will the proposed amendment result in a change in the projected sewer flows for the community? _ No/Not Applicable. Yes. Indicate the expected change. Total Year 2000 flow for community based on existing plan _ million gallons/day Total 2000 flow for community based on plan amendment _ million gallons/day 2. If your community discharges to more than one metropolitan interceptor, indicate which interceptor will be affected by the amendment. E. Transportation Will the proposed amendment result in an increase in the trip generation rate(s) for the affected area? No/Not Applicable. Yes. Describe effect. F. Aviation Will the proposed amendment affect the function of a metropolitan airport or the compatibility of land uses with aircraft noise? _ No/Not Applicable. Yes. Describe effect. G. Housing Will the proposed amendment affect the community's ability or intent to achieve the long-term goals for low- and moderate-income and modest-cost housing opportunities contained in the existing plan? _ No/Not Applicable. Yes. Describe effect. -4- III. IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM A. Official Controls Will the proposed amendment require a change to zoning, subdivision, on-site sewer ordinances or other official controls? _ No/Not Applicable. Yes. Describe effect. LT012A MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Ken Ashfeld, City Engineer*- SUBJECT: Resolution No. 2801 DATE: September 11 , 1987 INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND: Engineering received very few responses for work associated with the 1986 sidewalk and curb & gutter replacement program and all but one elected to pay the cost immediately and not put the cost on assessments. Attached is Resolution 2801 adopting the assessments for the 1986 program. The person being assessed signed waivers of hearing and appeal rights. Engineering did not receive any responses to the notifications of the 1987 program, therefore , a contract for work was not solicited. RECOMMENDATION : Adoot Resolution No. 2801 . REQUESTED ACTION: Offer Resolution No. 2801 , A Resolution Adopting Assessments for the 1986 Curb & Gutter, Sidewalk, and Driveway Apron Replacement Program, Project No. 1986-2, and move its adoption. KA/pmp MEM2801 RESOLUTION NO. 2801 A Resolution Adopting Assessments for the 1986 Curb h Gutter, Sidewalk, and Driveway Apron Replacement Program Project No. 1986-2 WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the City Council of the City of Shakopee met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessments of : Sidewalk and Related Restoration NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1 . That such proposed assessment together with any amendments thereof, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named herein and each tract therein included is hereby found to be benefitted by the proposed improvements in the amount of the assessments levied against it. 2 . Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of ten (10) years, the first installment to be payable on or before the first Monday in January , 1988, and shall bear interest at the rate of 8.0 percent per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added the interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31 , 1987, and to each subsequent installment when due shall be added the interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may , at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within thirty (30) days from the adoption of this resolution ; he may thereafter pay to the County Treasurer the installment and interest in process. of collection cn the current tax list, and he may pay the remaining .principal balance of the assessment to the City Treasurer. 4. The Clerk shall file the assessment rolls pertaining to this assessment in his office and shall certify annually to the County Auditor on or before October 10th of each year the total amount of installments and interest which are to become due in the following year on the assessment on each parcel of land included in the assessment roll . Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this _ day of , 19 Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day of , 19 City Attorney 1986 CURB AND GUTTER SIDEWALK AND DRIVEWAT APRON REPLACEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT NO. 1986-2 SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA OWNER UD LOT/BLOCK ASSESSMENT Thomas J . Gits 27-0041416-0 Lot 2, $590 . 50 & Bermetta M. Block 56 Memo To: John K. Anderson, City Administrator From: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director Re: Resolution No. 2800, Reducing Assessments for VIP Interceptor Date: September 11, 1987 Introduction The attached Resolution reduces assessments for the 1981 VIP Interceptor due to monies received from the connection of the two lots formerly owned by John Nelson. Backeround Council has directed that VIP assessments be reduced for the payment by John Nelson. Resolution No. 2800 implements that reduction including simple interest on the amount of reduction. Action Requested Offer .Resolution No. 2800, Reducing Special Assessments for the 1981-1 VIP Interceptor and move to adopt. GV:mmr RESOLUTION NO. 2800 A RESOLUTION REDUCING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR THE 1981-1 VIP INTERCEPTOR WHEREAS, Shakopee City Council did adopt Resolution No. 1891, a Resolution adopting Assessments 1981-1 Public Improvement Program VIP Interceptor, and; WHEREAS, City Council wishes to reduce said assessments due to monies collected from the connection of two lots formerly owned by John Nelson. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the special assessments for the VIP Interceptor be reduced by the amount listed below; Parcel Principal Interest Total 27-908025-0 $ 115.97 $ 61.52 -$ 177.49 27-905021-0 1,051.42 557.79 1,609.21 27-905021-1 929.87 493.31 1,423.18 27-905014-0 85.90 45.57 131.47 27-905012-0 47.25 25.07 72.32 27-905013-0 1,009.75 535.69 1,545.44 27-908022-0 145.17 77.01 222.18 27-908040-0 458.71 245.35 702.06 27-908068-0 63.57 33.72 97.29 27-908041-0 47.25 25.07 72.32 27-908006-0 105.23 55.83 161.06 27-907009-0 259.42 137.63 397.05 27-905023-0 561.36 297.81 859.17 27-905001-0 555.77 294.84 850.61 27-907011-0 317.40 168.39 485.79 27-908027-0 578.54 306.92 885.46 27-908011-0 47.25 25.07 72.32 Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of 1987. Mayor of the Citv of Shakopee =ST: City Clerk Approved as to form this day C- city storey MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk Ip� c, RE: Lions Club 25th Anniversary DATE: September 11, 1987 Introduction The Shakopee Lions are celebrating their 25th Anniversary this year. The attached resolution has been drafted for Council' s consideration. Action Regested Offer Resolution No. 2799, A Resolution Congratulating the Shakopee Lions Club on its 25th Anniversary, and move its adoption. JSC/jms RESOLUTION NO. 2799 A RESOLUTION CONGRATULATING THE SHAKOPEE LIONS CLUB ON ITS 25TH ANNIVERSARY WHEREAS, the Shakopee Lions Club has had a deep involvement in and strong commitment to the City of Shakopee and its residents; and WHEREAS, the Shakopee Lions Club has had continuous and dedicated membership and substantial growth since 1962; and WHEREAS, they have continuously supported Humanitarian Programs and related community contributions; and WHEREAS, the Shakopee Lions Club has been an asset and friend to Shakopee and will continue to commit resources and finances toward community improvement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Shakopee City Council hereby commends and thanks the Shakopee Lions Club for its hard work and profound presence in the Shakopee community and congratulates themon their 25th Anniversary celebration. 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 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk Cy— RE: RE: Vacation of Easements DATE: September 10, 1987 Introduction The scottland Companies have requested the vacation of two utility and drainage easements in Valley Park Sixth Addition abutting the common property line of lots 1 and 2 of block one. Background The vacation will permit the planned construction of a connecting loading area between Valley Industrial Centers 1 and 2. Shakopee Valley Printing occupies all of Lot 1 and wishes to expand into Lot 2 by moving their storage area. They need an enclosed dock so they can move pallets back and forth. The City Engineer has reviewed the request and has determined that there is no need for a public easement in this area. The drainage needed within the lots will be reviewed and addressed when a building permit application is submitted for the connecting loading area. Prior to the public hearing, Shakopee Public Utilities will be asked to review the request. Alternatives 1. set public hearing for vacation. 2. Do not set public hearing for vacation. Recommendation Alternative No. 1, set public hearing. Ac--ion Requested Offer Resolution No. 2798, A Resolution to Initiate Vacation of Utility and Dra -a=e Easement Herein Described and Fixing a Time and Place for a P'_*1ic Hearing on the Proposed Vacation„ and move its adoption. JSC/jms RESOLUTION NO. 2798 A RESOLUTION TO INITIATE VACATION OF UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT HEREIN DESCRIBED FOR FIXING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED VACATION WHEREAS, there exists a 20 foot utility and drainage easement .along the westerly portion of Lot 1, Block 1, Valley Park 6th Addition and along the easterly portion of Lot 2, Block 1, Valley Park 6th Addition; and WHEREAS, a request has been made to vacate the said easements; and WHEREAS, it has been made to appear to the Shakopee City Council that the said easements serve no public use or interest; and WHEREAS, a public hearing must be had before such action can be taken and two weeks published and posted notice thereof must be given. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA that a hearing be held in the Council Chambers on the 6th day of October, 1987 at 7: 30 p.m, or thereafter, on the matter of vacating the utility and drainage easements lying along the westerly portion of Lot 1, Block 1, Valley Park 6th Addition and along the easterly portion of Lot 2, Block 1, Valley Park 6th Addition according to the plat thereof. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that two weeks published notice be given by publication in the SHAKOPEE VALLEY NEWS and posted notice be given by two weeks posting a copy of such notice on the bulletin board in the main floor of the Scott County Courthouse, on the bulletin board in the Shakopee City Hall and on the bulletin board in the First National Bank of Shakopee. Adopted in session of the Shakopee City Council held this day of 1987• Mayor of the City of Shakop=_e ATTEST: c__y i-.pproved as p.. r.,.... L1ic day of 1987. AWN " REGM47MNMB0IRD 270Mahn Sq.. BUBtirp St Poul.W toss+o+ RECEIven SEP a 41987 CITY OF SHAKOPEE September 2, 1987 Mayor Eldon Reinke City of Shakopee 129 1st Avenue E. Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Dear Mayor Reinke: I want to take this opportunity to invite you to a breakfast meeting of local officials and legislators from your area to discuss transit issues. Our annual series of regional meetings will take place on Tuesday, September 22, 1987 at 7:30 a.m. The meeting will be held at the Best Western Drovers Inn, Concord Room, 701 South Concord Street, South St. Paul, Minnesota. This meeting will give us the opportunity to talk about several issues the Regional Transit Board is currently addressing. These include light rail transit, Metro Mobility and the future of transit funding. The other primary reason for these meetings is to give local officials and legislators a chance to discuss issues of concern to them on transit. I hope you will be able to find time in your busy schedule to attend this meeting. I would appreciate your participation and look forward to visiting with you on September 22nd. Sincerely Elliott Perovich Chairman M Equal Opportunity Employer 4W LIONS CLUB )� Post Office Box A Shakopee, Minnesota �) mp o 42987 September 3, 1987 E,ITy OF S84KOPCE Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council 129 let Ave. E. Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Mayor and Council Members: You are invited to the Shakopee Lions Club 25th Anniversary Charter Banquet to be held at the Knights of Columbus Hall on October 16th, 1987, starting at 6:00 p.m. with a social hour, followed with a prime rib dinner at $10 per person, with a program to follow. RSVP by October 5th to: Shakopee Lions Club, P.O. Box 254, Shakopee, MN 55379. We look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, � .Tim Streefland, Jr. Pres. Shakopee Lions Club