Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/03/1988 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Non-Agenda Informational Items DATE: April 27, 1988 1. The Baseball/Softball Shakopee Youth Assn. has applied for renewal of its gambling license at Richard' s In Shakopee. They meet the requirements of the City Code. 2. Jerry Schmitz, a homeowner on Legion Street between 10th and 11th Avenue, called to express his distress over the construction of a twin home by Joe Link on the lot between his home and 11th Avenue. Both Doug Wise and I explained to him that twin homes are permitted in the R-2 zone as long as they meet normal setback requirements. I am passing this along because we periodically have property owners who are "surprised" by the construction of a twin home (rental- duplex) adjacent to their single family home in our current R-2 zone. 3. Dennis Kraft has sent the request for proposals (RFP) for Bond Counsel to four bond counsels located in the Twin Cities area. One the level of interest has been determined the next step of this process will be taken. Dennis will keep you apprised of the progress. 4. Attached is a memo from Dennis Kraft regarding an update on the Murphy' s Landing Project. 5. Attached is a letter from Micheal Everist, Loss Control Consultant for North Star Risk Services, Inc. regarding a recent inspection of the City Swimming Pool. He has listed three items which the City Staff will be following up on prior to the opening of the pool. 6 . Attached is a thank you letter from Roger Parkinson, Chairman of the Bid Committee for the XXVIth Olympiad for Minneapolis-St. Paul. 7. Attached is a copy of the Legislative Week In Review published by the League of Minnesota Cities. Please note the supplemental wastewater treatment grant section in which Minneapolis and St. Paul walked away with $32 million. This item is going to be discussed at the next Municipal Causus meeting. We will be discussing the status of the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities to determine if the organization would better serve suburbs if Minneapolis and St. Paul were excluded. S. Attached is the monthly calendar for May. 9. Attached is a letter from Kurt Strom, Community Program Specialist for the Minnesota State Council on Disability. Mr. Strom his indicated that Canterbury Downs has made the accessibility improvements requested by their agency. 10. Attached is an insert from this month' s Scott County Transportation Coalition summarizing the activities of the Coalition. 11. Attached is a copy of the monthly labor force estimates for the Metropolitan area. Please note that unemployment in Scott County exceeds that of the Metro area as a whole and that of Minneapolis and St. Paul. They do not have specific statistics on the City of Shakopee. 12. Attached is a graph illustrating historical trends in major state and local revenue sources. It will be interesting to see how this graph will be changed in 1989 to reflect the recent "tax reform package" approved by the legislature this year. 13 . Attached is our monthly "Business Update from City Hall. " 14. Attached is a copy of the Billing Summary from Krass & Monroe for January through March of 1988. 15. Attached is the agenda for the May 4, 1988 meeting of the Community Development Commission and their April 6, 1988 minutes. 16. Attached are the agendas for the May 5, 1988 meetings of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and Planning Commission and their April 7, 1988 minutes. JKA/jms MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Community Development Director RE: Update on Murphy's Landing Project DATE: April 26, 1988 I have finally made contact with Mr. Ron Nelson the museum consultant that the City would like to hire to do an evaluation of the operation of Murphy's Landing. Mr. Nelson has indicated that he would be quite willing to work on the Murphy's Landing Project but that it would have to be. done after he completes a high priority project he is presently working on. The project he is now working on will be completed on May 28th so we can assume that some time during the first half of June Mr. Nelson will be available to work on the Murphy's Landing Project. I have sent him an appreciable amount of background information on the project so that he can be up to speed at such time as he comes to Shakopee. Mr. . John Anderson - -- - - - City of Shakopee _ " - April 18, 1988 Page Two PLEASE RESPOND WITHIN 60 DAYS OF YOUR RECEIPT OF THIS LETTER REGARDING THE STATUS OF YOUR HANDLING OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS. For your convenience, enclosed is a self-addressed envelope. Feel free to make your reply on a copy of this letter and return it in this envelope. - - Thank you for your continued effortsinthe .interest of loss -.: - control. We lookforwardto working with you. Sincerely, --" W.' Michael Everist :-.-Loss Control Consultant North: Star..Risk. Services, . Inc. - - WME/cp cc: - Capesius Agency, Inc. These recommendations are made for risk improvement purposes only. They were not madeforthepurpose of complying with the requirements of any .law,, rule or regulation. : We do not infer or - imply in the making of :these recommendations that there are no - other hazards and exposures in existence.- The purpose of the recommendations is to assist in improving the risk exposure and to assist you with your loss control program. - Z, 511D/ North Star Risk Services, Inc. April 18, 1988 APR2 11988 CITyOFS!-( Mr. John Anderson - Administ ator City of Shakopee - - - - " 129 East 1st Avenue - - - - : Shakopee; MN_ 55379. - - Dear Mr. : Anderson: _. _ . . _.. . On April 8, ' 1988 I had--the- opportunity -to meet with yourCommunity -- Service Director, Mr.- George- F.. Muenchow. _ At that time, we -- - - -_..- reviewed his policies -.and procedures with respect to safety- -- - - - -- ` - pertaining to the City's water.. slide. .During my visit I had the -- opportunity to viewthe--water zslide - and review these. policies and ;.-procedures with him. As- a-+result. of my review, prompt attention ---- should-be-given to these: loss control recommendations., -which will _ minimize'.thepotentialfor. loss.-- __ - - -- - <- R-1-88 During my visit it was pointed out to me that there is a - - --. --. municipal pool daily log. A review of this log shows that it currently not being initialed or signed by the people doing the testing and/or inspections. . All persons doing any testing and/or inspections should - initial or sign the log. In the case of an incident _. - and/or- claim, it is important to be able to find out who. - _ . was responsible for any inspections and/or testing on the particular day of the incident/claim. - -:_ R-2-88 At the timeof`my -visit it was unknown whether the City . of Shakopee obtained a product liability certificate of _- insurance from the pool slide manufacturer, Technetic Industries,' Inc. If the City of Shakopee has not - _ obtained a product liability certificate from Technetic . Industries, Inc. it should do so. R-3-88 Any changes pertaining to the water slide maintenance -. should first be reviewed and okayed by the manufacturer. It is my understanding that the sealing of the joints has been changed to include fiberglassing all joints. - -- - It is important that the manufacturer okay this type of - - maintenance to make sure the City has not altered the slide and absolved the manufacturer of any liability. 1401 West 76th Street Suite 550 ■ Minneapolis. Alinnmu 55423 0 (612) 861-8600 0 TELEX 9102401598 Bid Committee fort he XXVI th Olympiad 6 Minneapolis-Saint Paul APR2 51988 CITY Cr- Stir N. OPCS March 30, 1988 MAYOR DOLORES LEBENS SHAKOPEE CITY HALL 129 E IST AVE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 Dear Mayor Lebens: On behalf of the Bid Committee for the XXVIth Olympiad Minneapolis-Saint Paul I want to thank you for all the support you have given to this bid effort. I am sure you have heard by now that the United States Olympic Committee's Site Selection Committee selected our area as a "finalist". We are in the process of preparing for the next step -- a formal presentation in Washington, D. C. The support demonstrated by the Mayors of the metropolitan community was an important element of our presentation during the site visit. We were pleased to show them the many letters of support we have received as well as the signatures on our resolutions of support. Thank you again for being a part of this successful bid effort. We look forward to working with you as we continue in the bid process. Since y, Roger Par inson Chairman 88-142 Week in Review W-2 7 p.m. deadline for their agreement so that legislative staff and the revenue department 1 can have the weekend to draft language and do computer analyses of the proposal's im- pacts on various communities. Tax conferees have been trying to wrestle with these issues: Amount of Property Tax Relief. Both House and Senate bills would provide ap- proximately $100 million in additional property tax relief for Pay 1989. Projections indicate, however, that property taxes could increase $200-$250 million in Pay 1989 due mainly to school levy increases. Lawmakers are fearful that the public will be skeptical of "reform" efforts if their property tax bill rise. This is one of the main reasons that legislators are likely to impose tight levy limits on cities and counties. • Homestead Credit. Conferees have agreed to retain the credit for Pay 1989, but retention in the second year is still in doubt. The House wants to keep the credit, while the Senate wants to eliminate the credit and redirect funds to aid formulae. • Homestead Credit Maximum. If conferees retain the homestead credit, they must reach agreement on the maximum level of the credit. The current maximum is $700; House conferees would like to eliminate the cap or increase that maximum. ' Structural Reform. House members are still not convinced that the Senate plan, which calls for major structural reform, would point our property tax structure in the right direction. The Senate would eliminate all credits and replace them with aid --� programs aimed at equalizing the tax rate disparities between high-wealth and low- wealth communities. The Senate plan would scrap classification ratios and replace them with a system that bases taxes on a fixed percentage of market value. ' Where to Direct Relief. House conferees are most concerned about lowering taxes for homes in the metro area, while Senate conferees are worried about higher com- mercial/industrial taxes, particularly in Greater Minnesota. /SUduPPLEMENTAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT GRANTS Fifty-four cities will receive five percent supplemental grants for their wastewater treat- ment facilities under legislation lawmakers passed in the final days of the session. Those cities had to use local funds to finance facilities during a two-year period of reduced financial assistance from state and federal sources. The additional funds were part of an appropriations bill which also forgave loan re a - ment of$32 au or combined sewer overflow projects ($8 million for Minneapolis/$24 million for St. au . It is unfortunate that the money for these communities will come from the water pollution control fund which has been the source of wastewater grants for Minnesota's cities. In short, legislators didn't use "new" money--tbey merely redirected past and future funds. This will have little immediate effect but will ultimately reduce the water pollution con- trol fund by $38 million. } Week in Review W-3 The following table indicates approximately what the additional five percent grant will mean for those cities which got caught in the two-year notch. LMC staff will provide - - additional information to each of the recipients after the session. Five Percent Adjustments on Wastewater Treatment Plants Ashby S 40,245 Menahga S 53,235 Barnum 80,645 Milaca 45,825 Biwabik 38,610 Minneota 94,540 Blackduck 90,295 Motley -71,640 - Blue Earth 183,185 Nasbwauk 173,605 Brandon 43,169 New Prague 312,555 Brown Valley 704 Osakis 112,305 Cambridge 71,200 Owatonna 858,285 Chisago Lakes 195,140 Park Rapids 174,870 Cleveland 43,925 Parkers Prairie 19,338 Cook 40,655 Pequot Lakes 47,310 Crookston 89,035 Perham 157,385 Delano 97,320 Red Lake Falls 23,590 Elko-New Market 37,730 Rice 43,165 Ely 38,210 Richmond 29,900 Erskine 17,025 Round Lake 32,360 Frazee 115,280 St. Cloud/Sauk Rapids 62,739 - - Grand Marais 131,900 Sl. Cloud/Waite Park 48,107 - - Granite Falls 97,150 St. Joseph 58,690 Hayfield 109,465 - Sandstone 198,155 - - Hibbing 645,695 Sartell 68,581 - - - � - - Hinckley 33,270 Stewart 23,950- Howard Lake 123,565 Taylors Falls 79,700 Hutchinson 554,120 Tower-Breitung 71,479 ' Lake Park 45,635 Virginia 64,290 Maple Lake 63,675 Waterville 55,640 Mazeppa 46,010 Winton 28,430 TRANSPORTATION FINANCING PASSES The Legislature finally adopted a transportation financing package. The package includes a three-cent gas tax increase, a transfer of 30 percent of the motor vehicle excise tax in each of the next three years, and an appropriation of $12 million from the general fund for 1989 projects. - Somewhat troubling in the law is a provision that eliminates the transfer of MVET funds to county and city governments after July 1991. After that date, the law proposes to direct -all MVET dollars to the state trunk highway fund. - E Overall, city officials should find the financing plan acceptable. It appears to provide- - sufficient funding for highway and transit programs for at least two to three years. Representative Henry Kalis and Senator Clarence Purfeerst deserve special thanks for their tireless efforts On an issue that got caught up in the process with the lottery, the environment and natural resource trust fund, and the Greater Minnesota Corporation. May 1988 g UPCOMING MEETINGS SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SRT 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 4:30pm 7:00pm City 5:00pm CDC 7:30pm Public Council Planning Utilities Commission 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 7:00pm City 7:45am 7:00pm Council Downtown Energy & Committe Transp. 15 15 18 19 20 21 7:00pm 8:00Pm City Community Council Recreation 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 MEMORIAL DRY - City Hall Closed April June S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 1 2 1 2 3 4 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 26 27 28 29 30 none 04/25/1988 -� MINNESOTA STATE COUNCIL ON DISABILITY 208 Metro Square Building 7th and Robert Streets Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 (612) 296-6785 or Toll-free 1-800-652-9747, Statewide, (Both are Voice and TDD) April 15, 1985 Pete H. Huber Director, Physical Plant Canterbury Downs 1100 Canterbury Road P.D. Box 508 Shakopee, MN 5579 Dear Mr. Huber: This letter is in response to your letter of March 2— 1988 detailing the accessibility improvements you have made at Canterbury Downs. The changes you describe in your letter appear to resolve the problems which our Accessibility Specialist brought to your attention, and I appreciate your willingness to work on improving the accessibility to Canterbury Downs. As I mentioned to you on the phone, we have been contracting with Susan Lasoff to do some accessibility work for us, and I have asked her to arrange a time with you to come over and inspect the changes to make certain that nothing has been inadvertently overlooked. She will let you know if she sees anything else needing attention and will report back to me an what she finds. Judging from your letter, I would expect anything she finds to be minor and easy to fix. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 296-1742. i 9911 ..ali st cc: Leroy Houser Susan Lasoff Barry Schade n Io Scott County Transportation Coalition P.O. BOX 153 SHA OPEE,MN 553N WHAT CAN THE SCOTT COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COALITION DO FOR YOU? In answer to the headline,that's a good question and here's the answer. The Scott County Transportation Coalition was created in 1985 as a partnership of local units of government and local businesses to improve the transportation situation in Scott County. The necessary improvements included not only solutions to existing safety and congestion problems,but also the longer- term creation of a transportation network in Scott County and the surrounding area that will assure the continued economic vitality of this area for years to come. The founders articulated three immediate goals atthe timethe Coalition wasfounded:Construction of a Shakopee Bypass on Highway 101 and two major Minnesota River crossings—one at the Bloomington Ferry Bridge on County Road 18 and the other at Highway 169. How The Coalifion Works The Coalition's strategies for achieving these goals include a mufti-pronged approach, including the following tactics. 1. Lobbyists are retained to represent the Coalition's interests at both the state and federal level. 2. The Coalition joins with other organizations,e.g.Minnesota Good Roads,the Southern Minnesota Highway Improvement Assoc.,Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition and others in direct lobbying activities. (See story on Washington, D.C.fly-in elsewhere in newsletter.) 3. Coalition members maintain close contact with federal and state lawmakers representing Scott County and the neighboring area;with the Minnesota Department of Transportation;with city councils and other local elected officials in and around Scott County;with area businesses both large and small;and with virtually everyone interested in improving the inadequate highways in Scott County in the belief that by mobilizing support, area transportation solutions have a better chance of being addressed. 4. Conducting and participating in public hearings is another major activity of the Coalition. 5. Communicating with residents and employees south of the Minnesota River so they are informed on the latest develop- ments concerning area highways is another mission of the Coalition. This newsletter is one example.A videotape about the Coalition's three goals was produced last year and is available at no charge to any group wishing to show IL The Coalition's major expenditures go toward those ac-tivities.A parttime executive administrator,Marilyn Hagerman,is paid a monthly salarywhich is the Coalition's only fixed expense.In the Coalition'sfirsttwo years of operation,the budget was approximately$70,000 per year. What The Coalition Has Accomplished In a little more than two years,the Coalition has earned high marks for its performance record.In 1987,the Coalition was instrumental in securing $26 million in federal funds for the construction of the desperately needed Bloomington Ferry Bridge.The Coalition has helped develop and support a state transportation funding package to enable completion of the Shakopee Bypass by 1992.And through the activities cited above,the Coalition has helped focus attention on the area's transportation needs and communicated those needs to elected officials and decision makers at all levels of government. The Scott County Transportation Coalition has been so successful that ft has served as a model for other similar coalitions created throughout the state in the last year. - - Join The Scott County Transportation Coalition Todayl So what's in ft for you? Very simply, safer, less congested roads and long-term, an upgraded transportation system for the area. The southwest quadrant of the Twin Cities metro area has the dubious distinction of having no major entry into or egress from the urban area.One area community retains two police officers just to handle accidents on one of the worst two-lane highways in the state.Around four million people visited the recreational facilities south of the Minnesota River in 1987,and that number isn't expected to decrease.The Shakopee area is the terminus for agrain industry that is one of the largest inland grain terminals in the country.Residential growth for the entire metro area is heaviest south of the Minnesota River.The situa- tion won't get better unless many are loud and firm in expressing the area's problems and needs.That takes money and people,and the Coalition needs both.Join todayl Membership categories are explained on the back of the newsletter.Fill out the blank and send h in now. Minneapolis-St. Paul MSA By Kevin Alaspa The Unemployment Rate Drops Unexpectedly In February declined somewhat. The government sector ex- - A decline of 0.4 percent in the unemployment rate perienced employment gains, and these occurred took place this month, which was uncharacteristic primarily in local school districts. for this time of the year. Generally, the unemploy- ment rate either rises or stays the same between Another positive sign was the downward trend in January and February, and such a dramatic departure unemployment claims. The average weekly number of from this trend has not occurred since 1980. Growth initial claims was down 21 percent from January's in employment exceeded growth in the labor force, level, a greater than usual decrease. Also, average causing the number and percentage of unemployment to hours worked and average hourly wages in manufac- fall. Luring increased slightly. Total Wage And Salary Employment Changes Only Even though employment growth slowed down in the Slightly winter months, wage and salary employment in the In contrast to the labor force data, the non- major industrial categories was at higher levels agricultural wage and salary figures showed no than a year ago. This clearly reflected the strong overall change. Shifts occurred within particular economic picture of the Twin Cities metropolitan industries, but no overall growth was evident in area. Year-to-year employment gains of between February. Manufacturing employment increased by three and four percent have occurred in manufactur- 500, almost entirely in the nondurable sector. ing. wholesale and retail trade. finance and Retail trade employment was down by 3.000, while services, which represent the majority of the construction declined by approximately 2,000 jobs. metropolitan area's key businesses. The diversity Seasonal factors were responsible for these de- of industries in the Twin Cities metropolitan area clines, in that work in these two categories usually contributes to steady overall employment growth, and reaches a low point at this time of the year. The ensures that temporary setbacks in any one industry services sector as a whole increased slightly, do not adversely affect the total employment although employment in health services firms situation. Labor Force Estimates EMPLOYIEMI IIIEYALDYMEM UNEtP. RATE AREA Feb. Jan. Fee. Feb. Jen. Feb. Feb. Jan. Feb. 1988 1996 1987 1988 1989 1967 1986 1989 1987 Ibis.-St Aaul MSA 1.285.571 1 274 516 1 256 Z72 57 400 62,413 fib 4 4.1 t REGION 11 1.207.743 1.197,218 1.180.005 50.598 54,8.55 59.432 4.0 4.4 4.7 hada 12I,013 119.959 118.234 6.220 6,622 6.739 4.9 52 5.4 Carver 22.195 22.DO2 21.45 L113 1.176 1.350 4.8 5.1 5.9 Dakota 127.276 126,165 124,353 6,062 6,473 7,004 4.5 4.9 5.3 Memnon. in 581.061 575.999 567,718 21.560 73.225 25,119 3.6 3.9 4.2 262,618 24,329 256.557 10,626 IL823 12.861 3.9 4.3 4.8 Washington 67.468 EG,M 65,918 =.132' 3,41 .159 4.4 4.9 4.6 Chicago 13.231 13.115 12.927 1,417 1,513 1,40 9.7 10.3 10.8 1., 11.410 11.311 11.148 94 LII I OB7 7.8 8.9 8.9 Wright 30.210 29.945 79.515 21618 3.090 3,OD 8.6 9.4 9.3 St Croix, W1 22,977 22.927 22.676 1.677 1.847 2,166 6.8 7.5 8.7 Blaoninvt. 51.766 54,288 53.501 1,948 2.091 2.150 3.4 3.7 3.9 r. s St Paul 139.4 G .0 -. Chicago, Isa2i and Wright counties are a part of tie Mimeapolis-St. Paul M54, and are also Included in Regi. 7. Mote. Add o,loyimrt and ureryloynnt to calculate civilian lair. force. 3 5 / MAJOR STATE AND LOCAL REVENUE SOURCES The chart below shows the major state and local revenue sources and how the balance between those has changed in the last few years. The chart shows that since 1985 more of the total costs for state and local government have been shifted onto the local property tax. In fact, one of the ways the state has been able to restrain the growth in its income tax revenues is by holding down expenditures for property tax relief. In 1986 and again in 1988 the property tax is the largest single revenue source financing state and local government. It is time to restore the balance to the state local fiscal system. The additional funding for property tax relief in Senate File 1957 would begin to restore that balance. Historical Trends in Major Revenue Sources 980-1988 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2 LB co u 1.6 1.4 12 ¢ I 0.8 0.6 0.4 02 , 0 1980 1981 1982 1983 - 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988' ® Sales Tax M Net ProP'Ay Tax = Income Tax •. Net properltaxes for 1988 were based on a Department of Revenue printout do ed 2/16/g8. Soles and Income taxrevenueestimates - were provided by the Deportment of �inonce. DRD:cm/E48 - - - Prepared by Briggs and Morgan for the Property Tax Reform Coordinating Committee March 10, 1988 A )3 BUSINESS UPDATE FROM CITY HALL Vol. 2 No. 5 Dear Chamber Member: May 1, 1988 ADMINISTRATION The '88 State Legislative session is now history! The successful transportation funding billand the Dari-mutual tax bill should go a long way in insuring solid economic growth for Shakopee in coming years. The City again was unable to modify the Metropolitan Fiscal Disparities law that shares 30% of all of our post 1971 commercial and industrial tax base with other "needy" metro area cities. With Minneapolis now a loser we had realistically hoped to make progress this year. The Property Tax Reform proposals should benefit homeowners and small (under $100,000) businesses. Large businesses will be lucky to see the affect of and reductions. BUILDING The Building Department recently completed a two day checkout of the fire protection system at the Racetrack. Various fire system components such as alarms, tamper switches and water flows are verified prior to issuance of the annual occupancy permit. CITY CLERK The Citv Council has renewed its agreement with Scott County to continue their prosecution of gross misdemeanors. The City Council has authorized the purchase of a software package which will allow access to large volumes of text which are referenced daily by the city staff, is. minutes, City Code, Building Code, Comprehensive Plan. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To protect the life, health, safety and welfare of building occupants, the Shakopee City Council is proposing the adoption of a systematic code enforcement program. The program as proposed will utilize the Uniform Housing Code and the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. If approved, the program will focus on commercial buildings in the downtown area and multi-family rental units. Single family detached units will be excluded from the code enforcement program at this time. The Shakopee Community Development Commission and Downtown Committee will be reviewing the program at their upcoming meetings in May. COMMUNITY RECREATION (SCR) Over 4,000 area residents attended the SRC's annual Shakopee Showcase on April 18th at the Shakopee Senior High School. 70 exhibitors representing area organizations and special interest groups were available displaying what they have to offer. The Shakopee Chamber of Commerce, Scott County Transportation Coalition and many others that are important non-profit proponents in the community were there. This was also the first opportunity for many to register for various local summer program activities. The 16th Annual Showcase is scheduled for April 17, 1989. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Our new City Engineer, David Hutton, started on April 4, 1988. Construction of Part 2, Phase I of the Downtown Streetscape Project began on April 25, 1988 by the contractor Hardrives, Inc. Red Hawk Rubber Company, Inc. will install the rubberized railroad crossing at Holmes, Fuller, and Atwood (optional) as a part of the Downtown Project. The crossing materials are purchased by the City and the railroad installs them. Part 2, Phase I planters were reduced 10%. trash recepticals 25% and benches 100% (some benches will be relocated from last vears project). Bids are being solicited for the Valley Industrial Park Sanitary Sewer Project, with the bid opening scheduled for April 29, 1988, and the Tahpah Park Football Field, with the bid opening scheduled for May 2, 1988. KRASS & MONROE CHARTERED 327 South Marscnall Road _ Shakopee. MN 55379 FES l 61S-$ CiTy 0;3i-i;160i CF City or Shakopee BILLING DATE 01-29-88 129 15t Ave. E. Shakopee, MN 55379 C L I E N T S U M M A R Y Account Number RE Line(s) Previous New Payment Current Balance Billings Received Balance -------- -------- -------- ------- 16-11373002-1 General $374.50 $145.96 $0.00 x520.46 18-11373117-1 Prior Lake Spring Lk Watershed Dist $252.50 x899.50 $0.00 $1 , 152.00 1B-11373137-1 Downtown Redevelopment $0.00 $0.00 x0,00 $0.00 18-11373157-1 Racetrack Tax Increment District $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 I6-11373156-1 Racetrack bond issue $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 50.00 1B-11373;61-1 Shakopee Recreation TIF , $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 - $0.00 I6-11373164-1 101 Frontaoe Acquisition $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 16-11373177-1 Mining CUP $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 18-11373183-1 Toro Bonds $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 x0.00 %*%k��%:*M%t*tW*Y:kt:k%N&�*Y*XRT*�%%tkk#*MtWM:Xk�M:YM�tk W,&YYM:kYM%*IktM TO MAKE YOUR TAX PREPARATION APPOINTMENT CALL i PAGE = City of Shakopee BILLING DATE 01-29-66 129 Ist Ave. E. Shakopee. MN 55379 C L I E N T S U M M A R Y Account Number RE Line(s ) Previous New Payment Current Balance Billings Received Balance -------- -------- -------- ------- 18-11373194-1 condemn 'or rd to PH Adon (BILL RPP) $40.25 $0.00 $0. 00 s40.25 18-11373185-1 Alltech Engineering Corp. $0.00 $0.00 50.00 $0.00 ia-11373197-1 101 Bypass $0. 00 $0.00 50.00 $0.00 1B-11373198-1 NSP Dispute over poles $0.00 50.00 $0.00 $0.00 16-11373189-1 Merchants Hotel Renovation $0.00 50. 00 $0.00 $0.00 18-11373192-1 Meyer Suit $0. 00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 IB-11373145-1 City Hall Bonds x0.00 50.00 50.00 $0.00 IS-11373196-1 Sewer Capacity Issues $0.00 $0. 00 x0.00 $0.00 18-11373197-1 Annexation - Vierling $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 18-11373198-1 Downtown Redevelopment 50.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 18-11373199-1 City Hall Bond I=_sue - $15.50 $0.00 $0.00 $15.50 18-11373200-1 Eminent Domain (Perry - BILL PROJECT) $39. 17 $0.00 $0.00 $39. 17 i LY PAGE 3 City of Shakopee BILLING DATE 01-29-BB 129 1st Ave. E. Shakopee, MN 55379 C L I E N T S U M M A R Y Account Number RE Linets) Previous New Payment Current Balance Billings Received Balance 18-11373201-1 Minnesota Valley Restoration Project $0.00 s0.00 $0.00 $0.00 18-11373202-1 Brambilla Purchase $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 18-11373203-1 Schesso Boat Complaint $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 18-11373204-1 Starwood $0.00 - $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 18-11373205-1 L&D Trucking $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 18-11373206-1 Ferguson Torrens - $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 18-11373207-1 Fiscal Disparities Tax Increment $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 18-11373208-1 Fire Dept. Fox Dismissal $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 B-11373209-3 Stonebrook $1 ,625.00 $123.75 $0.00 $1 ,748.75 18-1373177A-1- Scott Cty. Lumber $0.00 $77.50 s0.00 $77.50 18-1373177B-1 Shakopee Lumber Co. Appeal $0.00 $68.50 $0.00 $68.50 PAGE 4 City of Shakopee 129 1st Ave. E. BILLING DATE 01-29-88 Snakooee, MN 55379 C L I E N T S U M M A R Y Account Numoer RE Line(,) - Previous New Payment Balance Billings Received Current -------- Balance 18-51373144-I Chard $O.Ou $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 18-51373153-1 Hardrives Suit $0. 00 $0.00 $0.00 $0. 00 19-81373011-1 Prosecutions _ $513.50 $1 , 796:00 s0.00 $2,309.50 ---------- -------- TOTAL $2,860.42 - 63, 111 .21 $O.OU-_-----55, 971 .63 ; nnrr5o c� MUNKUt CHARTERED 327 SOUTH MARSCHALL ROAD P O BOX 216 SHAKOPEE, MN 55379 WAR 2 11988 City of Shakopee BILLING DATE 02-29-88 129 1st Ave. E. _ Shakopee, MN 55379 C L I E N T S U M M A R Y Account Number RE Line(s) Previous New Payment Current Balance Billings Received Balance 18-11373002-1 General _ 8520.46 6263.44 $374.50 8409.40 18-11373117-1 Prior Lake Spring Lk Watershed Dist 61 , 152.00 8324.00 6252.50 61 ,223.50 18-11373184-1 condemn for rd to PH Addn(BILL APP) 840.25 - 80.00 640.25 80.00 18-11373199-1 ... City Hall Bond Issue - $15.50 80.00 815.50 60.00 18-11373200-1 Eminent Domain (Perry - BILL PROJECT) - . . . 639.17 80.00 639. 17 60.00 18-11373201-1 . - Minnesota Valley Restoration _ Project $0.00 873.60 60.00 873.60 B-11373209-3 Stonebrook " . 61 ,748.75 847.30 61 ,625.00 8171 .05 TO MAKE YOUR TAX PREPARATION APPOINTMENT CALL 445-5080 YHUt Y City of Shakopee BILLING DATE 02-29-88 129 1st Ave. E. Shakopee, MN 55379 - C L I E N T S U M M A R Y Account Number RE Line(s) Previous New Payment Current Balance Billings Received Balance 18-11373210-1 Storm Drainage Easements. $0.00 $85.00 $0.00 $85.00 18-1373177A-1 Scott Cty. Lumber $77.50 $598.00 $77.50 $598.00 18-1373177B-1 Shakopee Lumber Co. Appeal $68.50 $725.00 $0.00 $793.50 19-81373011-1 Prosecutions $2,309_50-_---_--$4,238.00 $513.50 - - 56,034.00 TOTAL __________________ $5,971 .63 $6,354.34 $2,937.92 $9,388.05 KRASS & MONROE CHARTERED 327 South Marschall Road Shakopee, MN 55379 City of Shakopee _ BILLING DATE 03-31-88 129 1st Ave. E. Shakopee, MN 55379 C L I E N T S U M M A R Y Account Number RE Line(s) Previous New Payment Current Balance Billings Received Balance -------- -------- -------- ------- 18-11373002-1 General $409.40 $837.00 $145.96 $1, 100.44 18-11373117-1 Prior Lake Spring Lk Watershed Dist $1,223.50 $132.00 $899. 50 $456.00 18-11373137-1 Downtown Redevelopment $0. 00 $0.00 $0. 00 $0. 00 18-11373157-1 Racetrack Tax Increment District $0.00 $0. 00 $0.00 $0. 00 18-11373158-1 Racetrack bond issue Bill Applicant $0. 00 $270.00 $0.00 $270.00 18-11373161-1 Shakopee Recreation TIF $0.00 $0. 00 $0.00 $0. 00 18-11373164-1 101 Frontage Acquisition $0. 00 $0.00 $0. 00 $0.00 *****PLEASE INCLUDE ACCOUNT NUMBER FOR PROPER CREDIT. ***** PAYMENTS RECEIVED AFTER MARCH 31ST CREDITED THE FOLLOWING MONTH. City of Shakopee BILLING DATE 03-31-88 129 1st Ave. E. Shakopee, MN 55379 C L I E N T S U M M A R Y Account Number RE Line(s) Previous New Payment Current Balance Billings Received Balance -------- -------- -------- ------- 18-11373177-1 Mining CUP $0. 00 $0.00 $0.00 $0. 00 18-11373183-1 Toro Bonds $0. 00 $0. 00 $0.00 $0. 00 18-11373189-1 condemn for rd to PH Addn(BILL APP) $0. 00 $0. 00 $0.00 $0. 00 18-11373185-1 Alltech Engineering Corp. $0. 00 $0.00 $0.00 $0. 00 18-11373187-1 101 Bypass $0. 00 $0.00 $0.00 $0. 00 18-11373188-1 NSP Dispute over poles $0. 00 $0. 00 $0. 00 $0. 00 18-11373189-1 Merchants Hotel Renovation $0. 00 $0. 00 $0. 00 $0.00 18-11373192-1 Meyer Suit $0.00 $0.00 $0. 00 $0. 00 _8-11373195-1 City Hall Bonds $0. 00 $0.00 $0. 00 $0. 00 -8-11373196-1 Sewer Capacity Issues $0. 00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 City of Shakopee (ILLING DATE 03-31-88 129 1st Ave. E. Shakopee, MN 55379 C L I E N T S U M M A R Y Account Number RE Line(s) Previous New Payment Current Balance Billings Received Balance -------- -------- -------- ------- 18-11373197-1 Annexation - Vierling - $0.00 $0. 00 _ $0.00 $0. 00 18-11373198-1 Downtown Redevelopment $0. 00 $0.00 $0. 00 $0. 00 18-11373199-1 City Hall Bond Issue - $0.00 $0.00 $0. 00 $0.00 18-11373200-1 Eminent Domain (Perry - BILL PROJECT) $0.00 $1. 67 $0.00 $1.67 18-11373202-1 Brambilla Purchase $0. 00 $0.00 $0. 00 $0.00 18-11373203-1 Schesso Boat Complaint $0.00 $0. 00 $0. 00 $0.00 18-11373204-1 Starwood $0. 00 $0. 00 $0.00 $0.00 18-11373205-1 L&D Trucking $0.00 $0.00 $0. 00 $0. 00 18-11373206-1 Ferguson Torrens $0. 00 $0. 00 $0.00 $0.00 City of Shakopee BILLING DATE 03-31-88 129 1st Ave. E. Shakopee, MN 55379 C L I E N T S U M M A R Y Account Number RE Line(s) Previous New Payment Current Balance Billings Received Balance -------- -------- -------- ------- 18-11373207-1 Fiscal Disparities Tax Increment $0 . 00 $0. 00 $0.00 $0. 00 18-11373208-1 Fire Dept. Fox Dismissal $0. 00 $0. 00 $0.00 $0. 00 8-11373209-3 Stonebrook $171. 05 $0. 00 $123.75 $47.30 18-11373210-1 Storm Drainage Easements. Bill Project. $85.00 $945.70 $0. 00 $1, 030.70 18-11373211-1 DNR Sweeny Contract $0. 00 $192.44 $0. 00 $192. 44 18-1373177A-1 Scott Cty. Lumber $598. 00 $0. 00 $77.50 $520.50 18-1373177B-1 Shakopee Lumber Co. Appeal $793 .50 $0. 00 $68.50 $725. 00 18-137321OA-1 Scherber Storm Drainage Easements Bill Project $0. 00 $120. 00 $0. 00 $120.00 City of Shakopee BILLING DATE 03-31-88 129 1st Ave. E. Shakopee, MN 55379 CL I E N T S U M M A R Y Account Number RE Line(s) Previous New Payment Current Balance Billings Received Balance -------- -------- -------- 18-51373144-1 Chard $0. 00 $39.00 $0. 00 $39. 00 18-51373153-1 Hardrives Suit $0. 00 $0. 00 $0. 00 $0.00 18-51373201-1 Minnesota Valley Restoration Project $73. 60 $841. 00 $0. 00 $919 . 60 19-81373011-1 Prosecutions $6, 034. 00 $5,178. 40 $1,796. 00 ___________________________ $9,416.40 TOTAL _______________________________ $9,388.05 $8,557.21 $3,111.21 $14,834 . 05 Note Meeting Time: 5:00 P.M. TENTATIVE AGENDA Community Development Commission City Hall Council Chambers May 4, 1988 Chrmn. Keane Presiding 1. Call to order at 5:00 P.M. 2. Approval of the minutes - April 6, 1988 3. Systematic Code Enforcement Program 4. Park Land Dedication Fees 5. Real Estate Journal - Market Focus 6. Economic Development Update: (Verbal) a. Mn Valley Mall Project b. C. 7. Informational Items: a. Comprehensive Plan Update (Verbal) b. City Sign Ordinance (Verbal) C. Business Update from City Hall d. CDC Newsletter (Verbal) 8. Other Business a. Next Meeting - Wednesday, June 1, 1988 - 5:00 PM b. 9. Adjourn Barry A. Stock Administrative Assistant CITY OF SHAKOPEE Please call Barry or Toni at 445-3650 if you cannot make the meeting. /5 Minutes of the Community Development Commission City Council Chambers Shakopee, Mn April 6, 1988 Chairman Keane called the meeting to order at 5:25 P.M. with the following members present: Tim Keane, Terry Joos, Don Koopman and Jim Plekkenpol. Members absent: Al Furrie, Jane DuBois and Bud Berens (Ex-officio Member) . Also present were: Barry Stock, Administrative Assistant; Dennis Kraft, Community Development Director; and Doug Wise, City Planner. Joos/Plekkenpol moved to approve the minutes of the March 2, 1988 meeting as kept. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stock asked if there were any nominations for the Chairperson position. Tim Keane nominated Terry Joos for the Chairperson position. Terry Joos nominated Tim Keane for the Chairperson position with Don Koopman seconding the nomination. Barry Stock asked if there were any other nominations for the Chairperson position. Joos/Koopman moved to nominate Tim Keane to serve as the Chairperson for the Community Development Commission. Motion carried unanimously. Chairman Keane called for nominations for the Vice Chair position. Jim Plekkenpol moved to nominate Don Koopman for the Vice Chair position. Chairman Keane asked if there were any other nominations. Plekkenpol/Joos moved to appoint Don Koopman as the Vice Chair for the Community Development Commission. Motion carried unanimously. Chairman Keane asked for nominations for the Secretary position. Terry Joos' name was placed in nomination for the Secretary position. Plekkenpol/Koopman moved to nominate Terry Joos for the Secretary position. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stock noted that the Planning Commission has been working on a major amendment to the sign ordinance for quite some time. At their meeting on March 17, 1988 the Planning Commission passed a motion requesting the Downtown Committee to review the use of banners within the B-3 zoning district. Mr. Stock stated that he felt that this issue should also be presented to the Community Development Commission for their review and comment. Mr. Stock went on to state that the existing sign ordinance and proposed revisions allow temporary banners and pennants for grand openings of business establishments, special events and holidays only. The current definition excludes private business sales. Mr. Stock noted that at the present time, banners are allowed only for grand openings and special events. Banners are also allowed for a temporary period of time not to exceed 14 days. Mr. Stock noted that in his review of several sign ordinances from other communities in our area he has discovered that communities are generally split on whether or not banners and pennant should be permitted for special business sales. Mr. Stock also noted that it was his personal opinion that banners and pennants should be allowed for private business sales so long _ as certain conditions are met. Mr. Stock then reviewed several proposed amendments to the sign ordinance specifying the definition of a banner and pennant, the number of temporary sign permits allowed per year per establishment andseveralconditions pertaining to the size and method of securement for temporary banners and pennants. Mr. Stock also pointed out that he was proposing a new section that would allow for the continued placement of the Chamber of Commerce signs and Christmas decorations within the public right- o£-way so long as the applicants apply for a conditional use permit. Mr. Wise suggested that Christmas decorations be included under the exemption section of the sign ordinance. It was the consensus of the Committee that this was a good idea rather than permitting them by conditional use. Mr. Stock then noted that the Planning Commission has adopted a five year amortization provision for signs within the B-3 District. This provision provides that all signs within the B-3 District must be brought into conformance with the sign ordinance within five years of the adoption of the ordinance. Mr. Stock stated that he felt this was a good concept but that the five year period maybe a bit restrictive and impose an undue hardship on several persons who have recently constructed very expensive signs that would not comply with the proposed ordinance and therefore would have to be eliminated upon the completion of the five year amortization period. He therefore recommended that the five year amortization period be extended to seven years. Discussion ensued. Commissioner Joos questioned the normal life expectancy of a wood sign. Melanie Kahleck stated that a wood sign could last anywhere from three to five years. She went on to state that a plastic sign could last anywhere from 20 - 30 years. Ms. Kahleck then stated that she thought that banners should be allowed in other areas besides the B-3 zone. She cited McDonalds and Hardees as examples of businesses who have the need for temporary banners periodically through the year to advertise specials. Commissioner Joos questioned whether or not the Planning Commission had considered the banners proposed by the Jaycees for Tahpah Park. Mr. Wise stated that the Planning Commission has addressed that issue in another section of the sign ordinance. Discussion ensued on the question of how many temporary banner and pennant permits should be issued to an establishment in l� during the year. Chairman Keane stated that he felt there should be some type of reasonable control placed upon banners and _ pennants so that they are not abused by the few. He also suggested that as an alternative to regulating the number of temporary signs permitted per year that the Committee focus on the total days per year that temporary banners are utilized by an establishment. Discussion ensued on how this type of program would be administered. It was the consensus of the Committee that with the computer technology available in City Hall it would be fairly easy to administer a program based on this concept. Under Mr. Keane's scenario, a business establishment could apply for any number of temporary sign permits so long as the aggregate period of time in which they are displayed does not exceed 30 days per calendar year. It was the consensus of the Committee to direct staff to incorporate this concept into the new sign ordinance. It was also suggested by the Commission that no more than one temporary banner and pennant permit be issued to an applicant at a time. Discussion ensued on the materials to be used in constructing a temporary banner or pennant. It was the consensus of the Committee that paper banners and pennants should not be permitted. It was also the consensus of the Committee to have the method of securement for all banners- and pennants be approved by the City Building official and that no temporary banner or pennant exceed 32 sq. ft. in size. Discussion ensued on the current policy pertaining to non conforming signs. Mr. Wise stated that non-conforming signs are allowed until such time that 50% of the surface is materially altered. At that time, the sign would have to meet the regulations setforth in the new sign ordinance. Mr. Keane stated that he did not think this provision had much teeth in it and that there were many non-conforming signs in the community. It was the consensus of the Committee to extend the five year amortization provision applied to the B-3 zone to all zoning districts within the community. Mr. Keane also suggested that upon approval of the sign ordinance all businesses in the community be notified of the five year amortization clause. Discussion then ensued on the issue of off premise advertising signs. Mr. Keane stated that he felt it was important for businesses located off the major thoroughfares to be able to have directional signs indicating there whereabouts. Mr. Stock stated that he did not feel this was appropriate because we could have a proliferation of directional signs at the major intersections along the major thoroughfares. He went on to state that the business owner knew at the time of site selection that off premise directional signs were not allowed. This was a business decision made by the individual and they should therefore have to follow the regulations as setforth. The Committee directed staff to investigate possible alternatives for off premise directional signage to be located at major intersections in the community. The Commission felt that if these types of sign were done in a professional manner they would not deter from the physical appearance of the community. The Commission thought that this could also be a potential revenue source for the City if the City were to proceed in constructing the off premise directional signage in a group format and be responsible for the leasing of space on the sign. Mr. Stock stated that the City is considering the construction of kiosks in the downtown area which would essentially be a very small scale directory indicating the location of several businesses in the downtown area. What the Committee is suggesting is simply a larger version of that at several of the key intersections in the community. Joos/Plekkenpol moved to recommend to the Shakopee Planning Commission that the sign ordinance changes as presented to the Community Development Commission and amended be approved. Motion carried unanimously. Chairman Keane questioned the timetable for approving the sign >' ordinance. Mr. Wise stated that he was hopeful that the sign ordinance would be approved and submitted to City Council for final approval within the next two months. Chairman Keane stated that in the event the Planning Commission does not adopt the recommendation as proposed by the Community Development Commission regarding the sign ordinance that the City Council be forwarded a memo outlining and proposing the recommendations as discussed today. Mr. Stock stated that if the Planning Commission does decide to amend the Community Development Commission's recommendations it would be a fairly simple task to do another memo to the City Council advising them of the Community Development Commission's recommendations regarding the sign ordinance. Mr. Stock reported that the activities planned for Open House 188 were moving ahead smoothly. Mr. Stock noted that over 14 boards and commissions have responded to our requests for attendance. This year's event will also include a tug-of-war contest, dunk tank, prize drawings every 15 minutes and performances by the Shakopee High School Band. Other events include pony rides for the kids, blacksmith demonstrations, interviews with jockeys and tours of the backstretch area. Chairman Keane questioned how many people had signed up for the tug-of-war contest. Mr. Stock stated that at this time he has - not received any applications. He went on to state that he will be mailing an application form to all the community organizations prior to April 12, 1988. It was the consensus of the Committee that a trophy should be purchased to award to the winning tug-of- war team. Chairman Keane inquired whether any of the Commission members had some time to solicit prizes from local merchants to be raffled off during the Open House. Commissioner Joos stated that he would assist in this endeavor. � 5 Mr. Stock stated that he has not had time to put together a Community Development Newsletter. Chairman Keane stated that he would work with Mr. Stock to have a draft ready for the Commission's review at their May 4, 1988 meeting. Mr. Kraft reported on the Fairest Made Foods Project. He stated that a negotiating team has met with Mr. Jonquist and that he was expecting to hear from Fairest Made Foods within the week. Chairman Keane questioned why no members of the Community Development Commission were asked to serve on the negotiating team meeting with Mr. Jonquist. Mr. Kraft stated that the action to form a team to meet with Mr. Jonquist was initiated by the Planning Commission. Mr. Keane suggested that the Planning Commission be advised of the role of the Community Development Commission. Mr. Keane stated that he was somewhat upset that the Community Development Commission did not have the opportunity to work with Mr. Jonquist on this project. He felt that one of the major goals of the Committee and it's primary purpose was to meet with potential developers and inform them of the opportunities available in our community. It was the consensus of the Committee to send written correspondence to the Planning Commission outlining the purpose of the Community Development Commission so that this situation does not occur again in the future. Chairman Keane then gave a brief report on the status of Heavy Duty Air. He stated that the deal has been finalized and that they will be breaking ground some time this month. Mr. Stock then briefly reviewed several informational items for the Committee's information including: SWAT Development Teams, Hutchinson Technology and the Business Update from City Hall. Plekkenpol/Joos moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:10 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. Barry A. Stock Recording Secretary Other Business a. b. Adjourn Douglas K. Wise City Planner NOTE TO THE B.O.A.A. MEMBERS' 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. If you are unable to attend the meeting, please call the Planning Department prior to the meeting. TENTATIVE AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION - Regular Session Shakopee, MN May 5, 1988 Chairman Rockne Presiding 1. Roll Call at 7:30 P.M. 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Approval of April 7, 1988 Meeting Minutes 4. 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED: To consider a Conditional Use Permit to operate a teen club upon the property located at 8576 Hwy. 101. Applicant: Linda Smith and Kelly Herman Action: Conditional Use Permit Resolution #522 5. 8:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED: To consider the preliminary plat approval of Hentges First Addition located .upon the property North and West of Highway 169 on both sides of Third Avenue. Applicant: Steve Hentges and Lon Carnahan Action, Recommendation to City Council 6. 8:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider the preliminary and final plat approval of Hukriede's First Addition located upon the property located at 2384 Marschall Road. Applicant: Wes Hukriede Action: Recommendation to City Council 7. 8:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider a Conditional Use Permit for an underground storage tank upon the property located at 373 Canterbury Road. Applicant: Earl Weikle & Sons (Air Products) Action, Conditional Use Permit Resolution #527 8. 8:40 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING• To consider a Conditional Use Permit to move -in a single family dwelling upon the property located at 2000 Marschall Road. Applicant: Robert Mintz Action: Conditional Use Permit Resolution #528 9. 8:50 P.M- PUBLIC HEARING• To consider a Conditional Use Permit for a fast food restaurant and storage building and trash enclosure upon the property located at 1107 E. First Avenue. Applicant: Hardees Action: Conditional Use Permit Resolution #529 10. Discussion a. Retail in the I-1 Zoning District b. 11. Other Business a. b. 12. 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. /49 PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA APRIL 7, 1988 Acting Chairman Foudray called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M. with Comm. Allen, Stafford, Schmitt and Czaja present. Comm. Forbord and Rockne were absent. Also present were Douglas Wise, City Planner; John K. Anderson, City Administrator; Joe Zak, Council Liaison and Jon Glennie, Planning Intern. Schmitt/Czaja moved to approve the agenda as written. Motion carried unanimously. Schmitt/Czaja moved to approve the minutes of February 4, 1988 as presented. Motion carried unanimously. Schmitt/Stafford moved to approve the minutes of March 3, 1988 as presented. Czaja abstained. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - ROBERT SCHILZ JR VARIANCE Allen/Czaja moved to open the public hearing to consider a variance request to permit 16 parking spaces instead of the required 25, to allow a 3' front yard setback for parking instead of the required 151, to allow a 2' rear yard set back for parking instead of the required 3', and to allow the use of metal siding to match the existing structure for the property located at 931 Bluff Avenue. The City Planner went over the consideration of the variance request and staff's recommendation of approval. Mr. Schilz was present for comments. Schmitt/Czaja moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Czaja/Allen moved to approve Variance Resolution #525 allowing for the following variances: 1. A variance allowing 16 parking spaces instead of the required 25.- 2. A variance allowing a 3 foot front yard setback for the parking lot. 3. A variance allowing a 2 foot rear yard setback for the parking lot. 4. Limit the variance to the present owner, occupancyand use. Motion carried unanimously. Page two Planning Commission April 7, 1988 PUBLIC HEARING STEVE HENTGES VARIANCE The City Planner went over the variance request and the staff's recommendation. The recommendation was that the Board of Adjustment and Appeals take public comment and pass a motion continuing the public hearing until final action has been taken on the proposed plat. Dennis Sarry, a representing Steve Hentges was present and commented to the board regarding the request. Schmitt/Allen to table/continue the public hearing until May 5, 1988 pending the receipt of the plans and specifications. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - MARY DIXON VARIANCE Schmitt/Czaja moved to open the public hearing to consider a variance request to allow a 5' side yard set back and a 7' front yard set back to construct an attached double garage upon the property located at 314 E. 8th Avenue. The City Planner reviewed the request. Ms. Mary Dixon commented on her request. Charles Lipke commented against the building of the garage in front of the house. Steve Schmitz also stated that there was not enough room for the garage to be placed in the front yard. Val Pink also made comments against the building of the double garage in the front of the house. Allen/Stafford moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Schmitt/Czaja moved to table action on the request until May 5, 1988 and directed staff to work with the applicant on a accurate site plan and the different alternatives on the placement of the garage. Motion carried unanimously. Czaja/Stafford moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Douglas Wise City Planner Jakki K. Menk Recording Secretary /C PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA APRIL 7, 1988 Acting Chairman Foudray called the meeting to order at 8:50 p.m. with Comm. Allen, Stafford, Schmitt and Czaja present. Comm. Forbord and Rockne were absent. Also present were Douglas _Wise, City Planner; John K. Anderson, City Administrator; Joe Zak, Council Liaison and Jon Glennie, Planning Intern. Schmitt/Stafford moved to approve the agenda as written. Motion carried unanimously. Schmitt/Czaja moved to approve the minutes of February 4, 1988 as presented. Motion carried unanimously. Schmitt/Stafford moved to approve the minutes of March 3, 1988 as presented. Czaja abstained. Motion carried. Schmitt/Allen moved to approve the minutes of March 17, 1988 as presented. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - VALLEYFAIR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Schmitt/Allen moved to open the public hearing to consider a Conditional Use Permit to approve a 990 square foot addition to a merchandise building and other similar building additions within the Floodplain upon the property located at One Valleyfair Drive. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner commented on this. He reviewed a letter from the DNR and staff's recommendations. Mr. Larry Griffith and Ken Felburg representatives of Valleyfair were present to comment. After a lengthy discussion by the Commission, Staff and the representatives from Valleyfair the following motion was made. Schmitt/Allen moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Schmitt/Czaja moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit Resolution #521 allowing additions to merchandise buildings subject to the following conditions: 1. The permit is for the 990 square foot addition to the merchandising building only. 2. Applicant shall complete the required diking improvements as agreed to in the DNR plan within 3 years. 3. The building must be wet flood proof. 4. Elevation of the proposed addition shall be 721.5 feet or higher. Motion carried unanimously. Shakopee Planning Commission Page two - April 7, 1988 PUBLIC HEARING - LINDA SMITH/KELLY HERMAN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Czaja/Schmitt moved to open the public hearing to consider a Conditional Use Permit to operate a teen club upon the property located at 8576 Hwy 101. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner stated that Linda Smith and Kelly Herman have submitted an application for a conditional use permit to operate a teen club (minor commercial recreation) at the old MGM Liquor Warehouse. The facility will be attracting those persons between the ages of 16 and 21. The present site contains approximately 7.5 acres and is zoned B-1 Highway Business. He then reviewed the considerations. Kelly Herman and Linda Smith both commented on their request. Cheryl Hotsler, present owner of the property adjacent to the concerned site stated that she was against the opening of a teen club. There was further discussion by the Commission and Staff. Czaja/Schmitt moved to continue the public hearing until May 5, 1988 at which time concerns such as security plan for both the requested site plus the adjoining properties, operating plan, rules for alcohol/other, parking/more specifically a shared easement for parking be brought before the Commission and that an additional condition be added that there would be a semi annual review of the operation. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - STEVE HENTGES & LON CARNAHAN PRELIMINARY PLAT Czaja/Schmitt moved to open the public hearing to consider the preliminary plat approval of Hentges First Addition located upon the property North and West of Highway 169 on both sides of Third Avenue. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner reviewed the request for the Commission. He stated that Mr. Hentges and Mr. Carnahan have submitted a preliminary plat for the area located north and west of Trunk Highway 169. The proposed preliminary plat includes property located on both sides of the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad & Third Avenue. The proposed plat consists of six lots on 6.72 acres. The City Planner stated that there are several unresolved issues. These include relocation of 3rd St., moving of the railroad crossing and approval of the railroad, and vacation of the former Shakopee/Chaska Road. The staff is recommending that action be tabled until these issues can be resolved. Shakopee Planning Commission Page three - April 7, 1988 Schmitt/Allen moved to continue the public hearing item until the _May 5, 1988 meeting at which time the identified concerns be addressed and resolved by the applicant. Also that staff be directed to check the file on the alternative crossing for the trailer park to the east. Motion carried unanimously. Schmitt/Czaja moved for a 5 minute recess. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was called back to order at 10:30 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED - AMENDMENT TO SHAKOPEE CITY CODE. Schmitt/Czaja moved to reopen the public hearing to consider the amending of Shakopee City Code, Sections 11.02 - 11.05, 11.27- 11.34, 11.37, 11.60 and 12.07. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner updated the Commission on the recommended amendments. Mr. Griffith, representing Valleyfair, stated that Valleyfair is opposed to the recommended change making Valleyfair a conditional use, and opposed to the proposed planned unit development requirement suggested by staff, they request that major commercial recreation stay as a permitted use. He made further comments in regards to the proposed changes directly effecting Valleyfair. The City Planner made note of the letter received from Terry Forbord commenting on his thoughts on the issue regarding maximum grades for roadways in his absence. Schmitt/Stafford moved to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Schmidt suggested that major commercial recreation be deleted from the I-2 zone. There was concern about Valleyfair becoming a non -conforming use. The City Administrator stated that the Commission can go ahead and move to delete the Commercial/Recreational as a permitted use in the I-2 zone, this would then go before the Council and the legalities would be worked out prior to the Council making a final decision. Schmitt/Allen moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the changes to the City Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances as drafted with the exception of parking surfaces and include the deletion of the Commercial/Recreational as a permitted use in the I-2 zone to be handled under Option A: Major Commercial/Recreational Development minimum 6 month moratorium, Shakopee Planning Commission Page four - April 7, 1988 if ruled legal by the City Attorney, or Option B: making Major Commercial/Recreational Developments a Conditional Use in an I-2 Zone. Motion carried unanimously. Meadowbrook Run Final Plat The City Planner commented on the Final Plat of Meadowbrook Run. He stated that Darrell E Gonyea of Gonyea Land Development has submitted final plat for Meadowbrook Run, a proposed 56 acre rural residential development. The plat is located south and east- of the intersection of County State Aid Highway 16 and Pike Lake Trail. The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council at their regular meeting of February 16. Czaja/Stafford moved to approve the Final Plat of Meadowbrook Run subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of the title opinion by the City Attorney. 2. Execution of a developers agreement for the required improvements. a. A cash payment shall be made in lieu of land dedication for park purposes. b. Installation of street lighting at the intersection of CSAH 16 and Pike Lake Trail in accordance with the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities Manager. 3. Access to CSAH 16 shall be limited to one access each for Lots 1 and 2. Accesses shall be a minimum of 300' apart. Driveways shall be constructed so as to allow for a turn around to prevent backing onto CSAH 16. Access permits to CSAH 16 shall be secured from the County Highway Department. 4. Lots 3-8 will each be allowed one access onto Pike Lake Trail. Each access must be a minimum of 300' apart. Motion carried unanimously. The Planning Intern then commented on the Precision Auto Body Conditional Use Permit. This item was brought about because of a request of the Commission at a previous meeting. Jeff Thomas, owner of Precision Auto Body was in violation of Condition #1 of the conditional use permit. Upon informing Mr. Thomas of the violation he asked to have this condition removed from the permit. The City Attorney stated that this can be done without a public hearing and with unanimous vote of the Planning Commission. Mr. Jeff Thomas was present for comments. Czaja/Schmitt directed staff to look into the feasibility of including some retailing in the I-1 Zone. Motion carried unanimously. Shakopee Planning Commission Page five - April 7, 1988 Czaja/Schmitt moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 12:00 a.m. Douglas Wise City Planner Jakki K. Menk Recording Secretary TENTATIVE AGENDA REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA MAY 3, 1988 Mayor Dolores Lebens presiding 1] Roll call at 7:00 P.M. 2] Recess for H.R.A. Meeting 3] Re -convene 4] Liaison Reports from Councilmembers 51 RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS 6] 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 April 5, 12, and 19, 1988 8] Communications: a] League of Mn. Cities re: Legislative Wrap -Up Sessions *b] Roger Sween, Mn. Dept. of Education re: accessability to the public library by every child (Res. No. 2885) c] Herb Dallmann re: youth center d] Gary Willemsen re: Scout Building in Lions Park e] Paulette Rislund, Chmn., Shakopee Community Recreation Board re: Shakopee Community Center Proposal £] James Rein re: curb cut onto 10th Avenue 9] Public Hearings: None 10] Boards and Commissions: a] Rezoning of Lots 8-12, Koeper's Add'n. from I-1 (Light Industrial) to I-2 (Heavy Industrial) - property lying South of 2nd Avenue and East of Adams St. (Ord. 243) b] Revision of the City's Sign Ordinance 11] Reports from Staff: (Council will take a 10 minute break around 9:00 P.M.) a] Consultant for Comp Plan b] Canterbury Downs Request to Use Gate 5 c] Huber Park Trail Project *d] Systematic Code Enforcement Program TENTATIVE AGENDA May 3, 1988 Page -2- 11] Reports from Staff continued: e] Application for A Taxicab License - Town Taxi f] Downtown Streetscape - Planters and Trash Receptacles g] Downtown Streetscape - Atwood Street -- memo coming Mon. *h] Post Office Alley i] DELETE j] Engineering Department Vehicles k] Approval of Bills in Amount of $79,158.59 1] Boards and Commissions Annual Picnic M) Assessor's Position *n] Abatement of Taxes on City Property 121 Resolutions and Ordinances: *a] Res. No. 2884, Amending the Personnel Policy - regarding: group insurance, sick leave, and parental leave *b] Res. No. 2886, Authorizing Conveyance of A Deed c] Res. No. 2887, Accepting Bid on Tahpah Football Field Project 1988-4 - memo coming Monday d] Res. No. 2888, Accepting Bid on the VIP Sanitary Sewer Extension Project 1987-13 131 Other Business: a] b] c] 14] Adjourn to Tuesday, May 12, 1988 at 7:00 P.M. for Board of Review John K. Anderson City Administrator TENTATIVE AGENDA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting May 3, 1988 Chairman Steven Clay presiding 1. Roll Call at 7:00 P.M. 2. Residential Rental Rehabilitation Grants 3. Other Business 4. Adjourn Dennis R. Kraft Executive Director M MEMO TO: Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant RE: Residential Rental Rehabilitation Grants DATE: April 26, 1988 In 1985 the BRA agreed to participate in a rental rehab grant program available through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA). At that time, the City had an agreement with the Scott County BRA to perform certain elements of the program. It has come to my attention that the Scott County BRA is no longer interested in participating in this program. It therefore becomes necessary for the HRA to determine if they would like to continue participation in the program. BACKGROUND: The rental rehabilitation grant program is a Federally funded program established to provide grants to rehabilitate privately owned residential rental property and to supply affordable, decent, safe and energy efficient housing for lower income families. Grant funds for rehabilitation are provided in the form of an assumable, deferred payment, interest free loan. 10% of the loan is forgiven each year for ten years until the loan is totally forgiven. Grants may not exceed 50% of the total rehabilitation costs and must be matched by the property owner. Owners may receive a maximum of $5,000 per unit in grant dollars. In conjunction with the rehabilitation of the property, the program may provide rent subsidies to tenants residing in the property or assistance to tenants who may be displaced due to the rehabilitation. To qualify for the program, the property must meet several minimum requirements including the following: 1. The property must be rental, for residential use and contain primarily two bedroom or larger units. 2. The property must have one or more substandard conditions as defined by the local or State Building Code or not meet Section 8 Housing Quality Standards. 3. The property must be located in a neighborhood where the medium income does not exceed 80% of the medium income for the area. 4. Generally only buildings with five or more units are eligible. Since the City Council may be proceeding with a systematic code enforcement program in the downtown area, staff believes that it would be prudent for the HRA to continue participating in the rental rehab grant program. This program could provide financial assistance to property owners who may be cited for building code infractions as a result of our code enforcement program. Due to the limited amount of staff time available, we are recommending that the HRA limit the program to the area defined for the systematic code enforcement program. Following is a list of the tasks to be undertaken by staff and the approximate time allocation for a typical building: 1. Initial contact - 2 hours 2. Certify that the property meets MHFA minimum requirements - 2 hours 3. Assist applicant in completing application form - 2 hours 4. Site inspection report - 8 hours 4. Tenant interviews - 16 hours 5. Review of bids - 2 hours 6. Execution of legal documents - 3 hours 7. Construction monitoring - 3 hours 8. Final inspection - 2 hours It is estimated that the City staff time consumed in an average project will be approximately 40 hours at an estimated cost of $600 (direct costs only). The MHFA program does not provide any funds for local administration. Therefore, administrative functions must be paid for locally. As an alternative, the City could cover a portion of the cost through application fees. (In previous years there has been a $200.00 application fee collected by the City.) This alternative is not being recommended by staff since the MHFA also requires a $200.00 application fee with no guarantee that your project will be funded. There is adequate funds within the HRA general fund to cover the City's participation in this program. Since 1985 there have been several persons who have expressed interest in the rental rehab program but to date, no one has actually completed the entire application process. I expect that if the systematic code enforcement program is adopted later this year, we may have more property owners interested in the program. -Id Z - ALTERNATIVES• 1. Participate in the program and limit it to the area designated for the systematic code enforcement program. 2. Do not participate in the MHFA rental rehab grant program. 3. Participate in the program and do not limit the area for participation. Additionally, charge a $200.00 administrative fee for eligible participants. 4. Participate in the program and limit participation to the area designated for the code enforcement program and charge a $200.00 administrative fee for eligible participants. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative #1. ACTION REODESTED: Move to direct the appropriate City officials to inform the MHFA that the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority is interested in participating in the rental rehab grant program. Additionally, limit participation to the area designated for the systematic code enforcement program with no administration fee to be collected for City administrative costs. OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA APRIL 5, 1988 Mayor Lebens called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with Councilmembers Wampach, Clay, Scott, Vierling and Zak present. Also present were John K. Anderson, City Administrator; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; David Hutton, City Engineer; Douglas Wise, City Planner; Dennis Kraft, Community Development Director; and Julius -- Coller, II, City Attorney. Clay/Vierling moved to recess to HRA meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Clay/Wampach moved to reconvene to City Council. Motion carried unanimously. Liaison reports were given by Councilmembers. Clay/Wampach moved to approve the consent business. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried. Wampach/Clay moved to approve the minutes of March 22, 1988. Motion carried with Cncl. Vierling abstaining. Clay/Wampach moved to receive and file the letter from Gary L. Englund of the Minnesota Department of Health dated March 21, 1988, regarding the City's water supply. (Approved under consent business). - The City Administrator reviewed the Legislative Update - Annual Meeting Information from the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Bulletin. Zak/Vierling moved to draft a letter to the Senators to urge their support and suggest they contact Sen. Doug Johnson to urge a full tax committee hearing and insertion of the fiscal disparities bill into the Senate Omnibus tax bill. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Zak moved to contact Senator Schmitz to support the original concept of 35% Motor Vehicle Excise Tax transfer along with the cent gas tax. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion ensued on recommendations for Managers of the Prior Lake/Spring Lake Watershed District. Cncl. Zak said he knows of some that may be interested and will get back to the City Administrator on that issue. The City Administrator reviewed the Action Alert regarding Tax Increment Financing. City Council April 5, 1988 Page 2 Scott/Lebens moved to support the five provisions of the House Bill and Senator Berglin's amendment regarding Tax Increment Financing as outlined in the League of Minnesota Cities Action Alert dated March 30, 1988. (DOC NO CC -155). Clay/Wampach moved to amend the motion to support only items 1-3, deleting 4, 5 and Senator Berglin's amendment. Motion failed with Cncl. Scott, Wampach and Mayor Lebens opposed. Roll Call on Main Motion: Ayes: Cncl. Wampach, Scott and Mayor Lebens Noes: Cncl. Zak, Vierling and Clay Motion failed The City Administrator reviewed the House Tax Bill's "Truth in Taxation" Section unfair to Cities. This has been laid over. Clay/Wampach moved to approve Dial -A -Ride Contract Amendment #6. (Approved under consent business). Clay/Wampach move to accept the Year End Report for the Planning Commission. (Approved under consent business). Clay/Wampach moved to accept the Year End Report for the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. (Approved under consent business). Wampach/Clay moved to contour with the Planning Commission recommendation and direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance rezoning Lots 8-12, Block 3, Koeper's Addition and the area immediately East of Lot 8 extending to the Western line of Lot 10, Block 175, Original Shakopee Plat from I- 1 to I-2. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner reviewed the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Proposed Annexation Area. The property is a 150 acre parcel located south of the Senior High School and West of County Road 79. The Jackson Township Board has appealed the annexation to District Court. In order for development to proceed on this parcel of property, the City must amend it's Comprehensive Plan to identify the proposed land use for this area and alter the Municipal Urban Service Area (MUSA) boundary to include this area for sewer service. Scott/Zak moved to table action on the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and direct staff to provide additional information in order for a more through analysis of the options to take place. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner reviewed the Preliminary Plat for Prairie Estates. He said the proposal consists of 80 acres urban I City Council April 5, 1988 Page 3 residential development that will include 67 single family lots ranging in size from 12,750 sq. ft. to 22,800 sq. ft. and 5 out lots to be replatted - in the future. Staff recommended elimination of Street A. The developer would like to keep Street A as a buffer between multi residential to the North and business to the South. Bill Englehardt, Chaska, addressed the development saying that Street A can be worked out in the future as it is not final; the developer will construct 11th Avenue. Mayor Lebens asked if there was anyone from the audience who wished to address this issue. There was no response. Wampach/Clay moved to approve the preliminary plat of Prairie Estates subject to the ten conditions outlined in the Planning Commission minutes of March -3, 1988. Motion carried with Cncl. Vierling abstaining. The Community Development Director reviewed Murphy's Landing Operations Contract. He reviewed the three alternatives left to the City Council. He said there is some question as to who actually owns the land at Murphy's Landing. Cncl.'Scott said he proposes to let the present people continue to operate this through December of this year so that legal problems can be solved by that time. There was discussion on Mr.. Ron Nelson being hired as a consultant and doing an independent internal audit. Scott/Zak moved that Minnesota Valley Restoration Project continue to run Murphy's Landing through December 1988 and to hire an independent person or firm to conduct an internal independent audit and inventory of the Murphy's Landing facility and all the various artifacts that are out there, and to hire Mr. Ron Nelson to conduct a critique of the present operation and to make a report to the City Council of what he finds and make recommendations on how he thinks the facility should be operated and to follow his recommendation. Both Dr. Pistulka,Scott County Historical Society and Marge Henderson, Minnesota Valley Restoration Project were in agreement with hiring Mr. Nelson as he was the original consultant. Vierling/Clay moved to table the main motion. Motion carried unanimously. Zak/Vierling moved to extend the contract out through December using the MVRP as the sole operator of Murphy's Landing. Motion carried unanimously. Wampach/Clay moved to remove the main motion from the table. City Council - April 5, 1988 Page 4 Roll Call on the Main Motion: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried. Scott/Wampach moved for a 10 minute recess. Motion carried unanimously. Clay/vierling moved to reconvene at 8:50 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. The Community Development Director reviewed the Proposed Community Center at Minnesota Valley Mall. Essex Corporation from Omaha, Nebraska, is in the process of purchasing the mall. George Muenchow, Community Recreation Director addressed the issue of the various other activities that could take place in this facility. - Gary Rifkin, Essex Corporation showed a brief slide show on what is proposed in this facility, and how their Corporation would handle this. The facility would have a hockey rink also to be used for free skating as well. There would be exercise areas and community rooms used for meetings, senior citizens area, etc. There will be two gymnasiums built next to the ice rinks and a running track around the ice rink. George Muenchow addressed the operating costs proposed for this facility. The Community Recreation Department would be involved in the operation of this facility. The estimated cost of the community center, including an equipped ice arena would be $1,550,000. Based upon the prevailing residential share of the property tax base, this would represent approximately $73 per community resident. Cncl. Scott said on a priority standpoint the City cannot afford it at this time. He feels the facility would be nice to have for the City but not at this time. Cncl. Vierling feels that the City could benefit from this and would be interested in pursuing it further. Cncl. Zak feels that it would be a strong community attraction for the people of this town and will not be .sustained only by hockey. Cncl. Wampach feels that. maybe down the line in thefuturethe City will need this but not at this time. He also expressed concern on the City being in partnership with a private industry, he does not feel that is a good idea for the City. Cncl. Clay asked if there was any way they could do this in conjunction with Essex Corporation and wind up so that the City will own this space free and clear so there would be no partnership involved. Essex Corporation replied that it was never their intent other than the City owning the facility. The only participation in partnership would be maintenance of parking lot, etc. Discussion ensued on the financing of this project and City Council April 5, 1988 Page 6 Wampach/Vierling moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to enter into an amended extension agreement with Orr- Schelen-Mayerson for the 1988-2 project. Motion carried unanimously. Wampach/vierling offered Resolution No, 2878, A Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids for the VIP Sanitary sewer Extension Project No. 1987-13, and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried. Clay/Vierling moved to purchase video system from National Camera Exchange for $2,000, funds to come from Engineering Department Capital Equipment Budget for 1988. Roll Call: Ayes: Cncl. Wampach, Vierling, Scott, Zak, Clay Noes: Mayor Lebens Motion carried. Clay/Wampach moved to purchase computer and printer, Arcnet card, booster, cabling and installation from Quest Information Systems for a total price of $2,083. Funds to come from MIS Capital Equipment in the amount of $1,264 and Storm Drainage Utility funds in the amount of $819. (Approved under consent business). Wampach/Vierling moved to rescind the city Council action of July 9, 1985 denying the Conditional Use Permit for the Scott County Lumber Company and further move to approve Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 376 with 20 conditions. Roll Call: Ayes: Cncl. Wampach. Vierling, Clay, Mayor Lebens Noes: Cncl. Zak, Scott Motion carried. Zak/Wampach offered Resolution No. 2879, A Resolution Accepting Bid on Railroad Crossing Improvements Project No. 1988-3, and moved its adoption. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried. Clay/Wampach moved to appoint David Hutton, Shakopee City Engineer, to the Board of Commissioners of the Shakopee Water Management Organization. (Approved under consent business). Clay/Wampach offered Resolution No. 2880, A Resolution of the Shakopee City Council Authorizing the Execution of the Proposed Agreement Tendered by the Chicago and Northwestern Transportation company and authorizing the proper parties to execute the same in behalf of the City, and moved its adoption. (Approved under consent business). City Council April 5, 1988 Page 5 consensus was to further investigate any financing alternatives that may be available. Mayor Lebens said the only way she would go along with it would be if a referendum was voted on. She said if the people are interested than let them decide if they want it. Consensus was to let the City investigate further alternatives for financing and bring it back to Council. Vierling/Zak moved to remove the Huber Park Trail Project from the table. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Wampach moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to advertise for bids for the Huber Park Trail Improvement Project. Roll Call: Ayes: Cncl. Wampach, Vierling, Zak, Scott, Clay Noes: Mayor Lebens Motion carried. Discussion ensued on the hiring of a part-time code enforcement officer for a trail basis. Scott/Wampach moved to authorize the City officials to advertise for, screen, and hire a seasonal part-time Code Enforcement Officer for the Community Development Department for the period from April through October of 1988 at a maximum expense of $5,000 on a trial basis only to be reviewed in July of 1988 to determine of we need the services for the whole summer. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried. Vierling/Zak moved to approve the request of Heritage Development to construct the public improvements for Phase II of Heritage Place, conditioned upon compliance with the Plan A requirements as outlined inthe developers agreement dated July 14, 1987. Motion carried unanimously. Jon Glennie, Planning Intern reviewed the Park Dedication Fee Schedule. Cncl. Vierling said she would like to see some of the local developers have some input into this. Vierling/Wampach moved to refer the Park Dedication Fee Schedule to the Community Development Commission and the Planning Commission for review and comment. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Clay moved to include plans and specifications for sanitary sewer replacement on Adams Street between 6th and 2nd Avenues with the 6th Avenue sanitary sewer project no. 1988-2. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried. City Council April 5, 1988 Page 7 V? Scott/Zak moved to authorize the Finance Department to process police officers off-duty employment funding through the payroll system upon approval of the Chief of Police. Motion carried unanimously. Scott/Vierling moved to appoint officer Gerald Poole to the position of probationary Police Sergeant effective April 6, 1988. Motion carried unanimously. Clay/Wampach move to authorize $1,000 using contingency funding to supplement the 1988 .three day city-wide clean-up program. (Approved under consent business). Zak/Clay move to approve the payment of bills in the amount of $87,820.52. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried. Clay/Wampach moved to waive the 30 day waiting period for a gambling license from the Charitable Gambling Control Board for Shakopee Valley Amateur Hockey Association Inc. (Approved under consent business). Clay/Wampach moved to authorize the proper city officials to execute an agreement with the County of Scott for the prosecution of gross misdemeanors. (Approved under consent business). Wampach/Clay moved to approve Items 1 through 18 in the City Administrator's memo of March 15, 1988, representing the City Council's 1988 review of its 1987 Strategic Plan and reaffirming the elements of the 1987 Strategic Plan. Motion carried unanimously. Clay/Wampach moved to drop the deferred charges for 8" watermain connecting Hauer trail and C.R. 16 as part of Project 74-1 in the amount of $431.06 for parcel 27-908067-0 and refund $431.06 for parcel 27-908065-0. (Approved under consent business). Clay/Wampach offered Resolution No. 2874, A Resolution Relating to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission's Service Availability Charge Refund, and moved its adoption. (Approved underconsentbusiness). Clay/Wampach offered Resolution No. 2876, A Resolution Amending the City of Shakopee Personnel Policy Adopted by Resolution No,. 1571, and moved its adoption. (Approved under consent business). City Council April 5, 1988 Page 8 Vierling/Clay offered Resolution No, 1877, A Resolution Supporting the Concept of Minneapolis -St Paul Hosting the 1996 Summer Olympics, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Wampach/Vierling moved to re -affirm Council action of May 19, 1987, approving the "Revised Memorandum of Understanding" between the City of Shakopee and Minnesota Department of Transportation, dated April 27, 1987, outlining commitments to the T.H. 169 Minnesota River Crossing/Downtown Shakopee Approach. Motion carried with Mayor Lebens opposed. Wampach/Vierling moved to adjourn to April 12, 1988 at 7:00 p.m.- ---- Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Judith S. Cox City Clerk Carol Schultz Recording Secretary OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ. REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA APRIL 12, 1988 Mayor Lebens called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. with Cncl. Clay, Scott, Vierling, and Wampach were present. Zak arrived late. Also present were John K. Anderson, City Administrator; Dennis Kraft, Community Development Director; Barry Stock, Administrative Assistant; LeRoy Houser, Building Official. The City Administrator commented on the Assessors position. He stated that staff was directed to investigate the cost of retrieving the Assessor's position and placing it back in City Hall to enable Council to deal more effectively with taxpayer complaints. The city is currently contracting with Scott County for the Assessor's services for the sum of $4.95 per parcel. The City has over 4100 parcels so the cost would be approximately $21,755.00. He made further comments regarding this item. Mr. Don Martin and Mr. Bob Schmidt were present and commented to the Council regarding the County doing the City's assessing. There were several people in the audience including John and Jane DuBois, Clete Link, Murray Williamson, and Butch Notermann who commented on the high taxes and assessments levied on them and the attitudes of the Assessors that are currently working with the City's taxpayers. Bob Turek, a resident of Shakopee and an Assessor for Hennepin County, commented about assessing procedures, sales ratios, etc. Murray Williamson commented on the various assessments for businesses within the City. Clete Link commented on how developed and undeveloped parcels within the City had varied assessments. Jane and John DuBois commented on the attitudes of the Assessors and the legal matters that they had to go through in order to get a favorable decision that the Assessors could have given themselves. Butch Notermann commented to the Council on assessments/taxes. There was a lengthy discussion by Council, Staff, Assessors and the audience regarding the scheduled item. It was the consensus of the Council that this be investigated in more detail with the intent of leaving City assessing with the County, but that we review better personnel qualifications and information to help evaluate performance and that it be brought back before the Council. Zak/Clay moved for a 10 minute recess. Motion carried unanimously. Wampach/vierling moved to reconvene. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was reconvened at 9:20 p.m. City Council April 12, 1988 Page 2 The next item on the agenda was the discussion of the proposed Systematic Code Enforcement Program. The Administrative Assistant commented on this. The Council felt that a systematic code enforcement program should start with the downtown area, where there is a greater Possibility of personal/business injuries due to fire because of the construction (space between buildings) in the downtown area. There was discussion by Council and Staff regarding how the inspections should be handled. Mr. Terry Mennen asked how many other cities have this systematic code enforcement program in effect. The Administrative Assistant said he only knew of three cities in the State. Mr. Hennen also stated that the City of Shakopee was a struggling town and that enforcing code violations could cause downtown businesses to shut down because they could not afford to continue after bringing their business up to code. After a lengthy discussion by Council, Staff and the audience the following decision was made. Scott/Zak moved to direct staff to come back with a graduated work plan (extract from the code), a systematic code enforcement program in the downtown area, that the Building Inspector continue with inspections and enforcing the current code, and that staff investigate contracting for the inspections for systematic code enforcement downtown. Motion carried unanimously. There was then a discussion regarding the costs for the Assistant City Attorney. Scott/Zak moved to go out for bids for an assistant City Attorney. Roll Call: Ayes: Wampach, Zak and Scott Noes: Vierling, Clay, Mayor Lebens Motion failed. It was the consensus of the Council that this be an item discussed during the budget discussion meetings. Vierling/Zak moved to adjourn to Tuesday, April 19, 1988 at 7:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. qth S. " J t0. C S. Cox C / Clerk Jakki K. Menk Recording Secretary 7 OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL -ADJ REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA APRIL 19, 1988 Mayor Lebens called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with Cncl. Clay, Scott, Vierling, Wampach and Zak present. Also present were John K. Anderson, City Administrator; Dennis Kraft, Community Development Director; Judith S. Cox, City Clerk; Douglas Wise, City Planner, David Hutton; City Engineer and Julius Collar; City Attorney. Mayor Lebens read the City's Non -Discrimination Policy for the record. Liaison Reports were given by Councilmembers. Mayor Lebens asked if there was anyone from the audience who wished to address anything not on the agenda. There was no response. Vierling/Clay moved to approve the consent business. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion Carried. Vierling/Clay moved to approve the minutes of April 4, 1988. (Approved under consent business). Vierling/Clay moved to acknowledge receipt of the Shakopee Convention and Visitors Bureau 1988 budget. (Approved under consent business). The City Administrator commented on a letter from Henry Todd, Director of Minnesota Office of Tourism congratulating the Shakopee Area Convention & Visitors Bureau for being selected as one of the 1987 Travel Marketing Award winners. Ms. Linnea Stromberg-Wise, past president of the Chamber of Commerce commented to the Council. Clay/Vierling moved to receive and file the letter from Mr. Henry Todd, MN Office of Tourism regarding Shakopee Area Convention & Visitors Bureau as a 1987 Travel Marketing Award Winner. Motion carried unanimously. Clay/Vierling moved to receive and file the letter from Anita Delbow regarding the contest for a new logo for Shakopee. Motion carried with Cncl. Scott opposed. There was a general discussion by Council and Staff regarding the Indian being included within the logo. City Council April 19, 1988 Page 2 Clay/Vierling moved to table further discussion on the Indian being kept on the logo until after the contest. Motion carried unanimously. The City Administrator and City Clerk then commented on the request to put pull tabs in the Pullman Club. Mr. Jerry Knight, Coach for the Softball Association commented to the Council on the Softball Associations position on the pull tabs. He stated that the Association was trying to raise money for lighting of the ball fields at Tahpah Park. The request was to put pull tabs in the Pullman Club. It was the consensus of the Council that it was too soon to put pull tabs in after the Pullman Club's last violation. The City Clerk stated that the City has 30 days after the submittal of the application from the Softball Association to either approve or deny, if the City did not make any kind of a decision the State would automatically make a ruling. Vierling/Zak moved to allow the Softball Association to submit their application to the State and that the City would not do anything at this time. Roll Call: Ayes: Vierling, Clay, and Mayor Lebens Noes: Wampach, Zak, and Scott. Motion failed. Councilman Zak felt that the Council should wait at least 6 months. He did not have anything against the Softball Association it was against the site. Mr. Pete Tousignant and Mr. Tomczik commented to the Council regarding the Pullman Club. The City Attorney stated that the City could only approve or deny the application at this time. The City Administrator then commented on a letter received from Mike Manning, Vice President & General Manager of Canterbury Downs expressing thanks for the City's support in the reduction of the pari-mutual tax. They also sent complementary tickets along with the letter and it was staffs recommendation that these tickets be given to Police Officers, Public Works Department people and other City staff. Scott/Vierling moved to make the complimentary tickets from Canterbury Downs available to City staff. Motion carried unanimously. City Council a April 19, 1988 Page 3 Clay/Vierling moved to acknowledge receipt of the letter from Herb Dallmann regarding Taxes and Garbage. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner then commented on the Final Plat of Meadowbrook Run 1st Addition, lying south of County Road 16 and East of Pike Lake Trail. He stated that this was brought before and approved by the Planning Commission on April 7, 1988. Wampach/Vierling moved to adopt Resolution No. 2882, A Resolution Approving the Final Plat of Meadowbrook Run. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried. - - — The--Community-Development _Director then commented on the proposed Community Center at Minnesota Val -ley Mall. He stated that the Council was being asked to make a decision tonight relative to the level of City involvement, if any on this project. He then reviewed the funding sources and other issues related to this item. There was a general discussion by Council and Staff regarding the proposal from Essex Corporation. There was also a discussion regarding the City looking into the possibility of an Armory locating within the City limits. After further discussion Mayor Lebens asked if the audience had any comments. Mr. Bart Votava, from Essex Corporation commented on the Ice Arena/Community Center proposed to be located in the mall. ---- _ Joe Drager, Manager of K -Mart, stated that the mall is very much alive and that K -Mart was going to be adding on an additional 27,000 square feet to the present store whether or not the Ice Arena was placed within the mall. Donna Hyatt, President of the Hockey Association commented on how this is the right time and the right price for such a structure. Randy Williamson, Manager of the Super 8 Motel stated that there is a lack of facilities like this and that the City of Shakopee needs it to promote Shakopee. James M. Corbit, New Hope Ice Arena gave some general information of the type of facilities and the area that the New Hope's arena covers. Bob Tomczik also stated that the time is now. City Council April 19, 1988 Page 4 Karen Martin, Mall Merchant stated that the mall is struggling and that something like this would help the mall. Dick Ries, resident, stated that the City should help the citizens and try to find a different location, with the option of having the ice arena underground with a new City Hall above it. Bob Kesselman, Developer from Essex also commented. Pete Tousignant, resident, stated that this should be kept separate to not get involved with large corporations, that the City should own/run the entire thing. After a lengthy discussion regarding looking at other sites, options, referendums by Council, Staff and the people in the audience the following motion was made. Zak/Scott moved to have the civic center at the Minnesota Valley Mall. Roll Call: Ayes: Zak, Scott and Clay Noes: Wampach, Vierling and Lebens Motion failed. Scott/Clay moved to recess. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Zak moved to reconvene. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting was called back to order at 9:45 P.M. Vierling/Zak moved to pursue the option of locating an armory in Shakopee. [The facility is available to the community when not in use.] Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried. Zak/Vierling moved to explore the costs of a permanent structure over the current bubble including heat and the possibilities of expansion. Motion carried unanimously. The City Planner then commented on the amendments to the City Code Sections 11.02-11.05, 11.27-11.34, 11.37, 11.60 and 12.07. He stated that the Planning Commission has worked on this for -the past several months and briefly went over the recommended amendments. Mr. Larry Griffith was also present to comment on the items specifically related to Valleyfair. M City Council April 19, 1988 Page 5 Vierling/Clay moved to proceed with the recommendations of the Planning Commission regarding code changes and to direct the City Attorney to draw up the appropriate ordinance amending the City Code. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Clay moved to approve and file the 1987 Community Development Commission's Annual Report. (Approved under consent business). Vierling/Clay moved to approve and file the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee's 1987 Annual Report. (Approved under consent business). The Community Development Director then commented on the Downtown Project Phase 1 Part II. There was discussion regarding the cutting back of garbage recepticals, benches and planters. Mr. Dick Koppy, Project Engineer, also commented to the Council. He stated that he could talk to the contractors tomorrow regarding the number of garbage recepticals, benches and planters. He also stated that the prices in the agreement were based on quantity and that may vary the cost if items are cut back. Vierling/Wampach to proceed with Phase 1, Part 2 with the option of reducing the number of planters and trash recepticals up to 25% if they have not been ordered. Roll Call: Ayes: Wampach, Zak, Vierling, Scott, and Clay Noes: Lebens Motion carried. Scott/vierling moved to direct the appropriate City Officials to inform Canterbury Downs that the City is interested in sponsoring a race in honor of Cities Week and the 75th Anniversary of the League of Minnesota Cities. Motion carried unanimously. Scott/Wampach moved to authorize the Mayor to sign a proclamation proclaiming May 1 thur May 7, 1988 Cities Week. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Clay moved to inform the State of Minnesota Department of Administration that the City of Shakopee is not interested in purchasing the vacated Women's Prison Site for $164,500. (Approved under consent business). The City Engineer then commented on the 6th Avenue Sanitary Sewer Project 1988-2. He stated that after reviewing with the consultant, it was discovered that the funds for designing the City Council April 19, 1988 Page 6 6th Avenue sewer are basically depleted so the proposed amended extension agreement calls for additional funds with a $5000.00 cap on OSM's services. Clay/Vierling moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute the amended extension agreement with Orr-Schelen- Mayeron & Associates, Inc for the additional design work of the 1988-2 project. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous - Noes: None Motion carried. Vierling/Clay moved to purchase TextWare software from SMI of Edina for $1995.00, and that the funds would come from the 1988 MIS Capital Equipment appropriation. (Approved under consent business). Vierling/Clay moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute the proposed agreement between the City of Shakopee an the Shakopee Jaycees regarding the construction of a football field at Tahpah Park. (Approved under consent business). Vierling/Clay moved to approve the plans and specifications and order the Engineering Department to advertise for bids for the Tahpah Park Football Field, Project No. 1988-4. (Approved under consent business). Vierling/Clay moved to authorize city staff to disburse $5000.00 to the Southwest Metro Task Force in payment 6f the City's Portion of matching funds for a Federal narcotics enforcement grant. (Approved under consent business). Vierling/Clay moved to approve the abatement of payable 1988 taxes for parcels 27-001041-0, 27-001042-0, and 27-001043-0. The parcels were bought by a tax exempt entity (HRA) in 1986 and therefore should be tax exempt for 1988. (Approved under consent business). Vierling/Clay moved to terminate probation and appoint Tamara Vidmar as a permanent Receptionist/Typist. (Approved under consent business). Vierling/Scott moved to approve bills in the amount of $1,866,556.39. Roll Call: Ayes: Unanimous Noes: None Motion carried. City Council April 19, 1988 Page 7 The City Engineer then commented on the 11th Avenue Feasibility Report. He stated that staff received a petition for street and storm sewer improvements on 11th Avenue from County Road 79 to Minnesota Street. He stated that Resolution No. 2881 accepts the adequacy of the petition and orders a feasibility study of petitioned improvements on 11th Avenue. Wampach/Vierling offered Resolution No 2881, A Resolution Declaring Adequacy of the Petition and Ordering Preparation of a Report for Street and Storm Sewer Improvements to 11th Avenue, from County Road 79 to Minnesota Street, Adjacent to Meadows 1st Addition Subdivision, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Clay offered Resolution 2883, A Resolution Approving the Filing of a Deed, and moved its adoption. (Approved under consent business). Scott/Vierling moved to recess for Executive Session to discuss Police Labor Negotiations. Motion carried unanimously. Clay/Vierling moved to reconvene. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was called to order at 11:28 p.m. Clay/Vierling moved to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting Iwas adjourned at 11:30 p.m. �ox t Clerk i R. Menk Recording Secretary 11nE League of Minnesota Cities April 26, 1988 183 University Ave. East St. Paul, MN 55101-2526 (612) 227.5600 (FAX: 221-0986) Rl �'. a�D gQ y APR2 7191# To: Mayors, Managers and Clerks (please r' to a attention of your councilmembers) From: Donald A. Slater, Executive Direc LEAGUE TO HOLD LEGISLATIVE WRAP-UP SESSIONS The League of Minnesota Cities will be conducting four legislative wrap-up sessions around the state. The legislature has had an especially busy year with respect to city issues. Some of their decisions will have far reaching consequences for cities and municipal officials. The League board and staff feel cities can benefit from an immediate, comprehensive presentation summarizing the most significant decisions of the 1988 Legislature. Please take advantage of these regional meetings. The sessions will be held at Date City Location May 17 Mankato Holiday Inn, Downtown 2:45 - 3:00 pm Break 101 E. Main St. May 24 Bemidji Holiday Inn hazardous waste legislation Highway 2 West May 25 St. Cloud City Hall Council Chambers 400 Second Street South May 26 Bloomington Hotel Sofitel 5601 West 78th St. To reserve your space at the Legislative Wrap-up Session, please return the registration form to: LMC Finance Department, League of Minnesota Cities, 183 University Avenue East, St. Paul, MN 55101. The registration form is printed on the back of this memo. Don't miss your opportunity to learn how 1988 legislation affects your city. AGENDA 1:30 - 1:45 pm 1:45 - 2:30 pm Introduction Property lax reform, truth -in -taxation, levy limits, LGA, and other revenue legislation 2:30 - 2:45 pm Elections legislation 2:45 - 3:00 pm Break 3:00 - 3:45 pm Pay equity, transportation, lottery, safe drinking water, solid and hazardous waste legislation 3:45 - 4:15 pm Tax increment finance legislation 4:15 - 4:30 per Pension legislation over - LMC Legislative Wrap-up Sessions Registration Form Attending session at: Mankato Persons attending: Name, Name, Title City: St. Cloud Phone: Bemidji Bloomington Name, Title Name, Title The registration fee is $10 per person. Please enclose a check made payable to the League of Minnesota Cities with your registration form and return to: LMC Finance Department, League of Minnesota Cities, 183 University Ave. E., St. Paul, MN 55101. CONSENT sb Capda $glare 550 Cedar Sleet Sail P.W. Mmrtaspm 55101 Pttpr,e: Dear Friend of Library Services in Minnesota: We are engaged in a long term effort that by the end of 1989 every child in Minnesota will have library service, including access to the public libraries that serve their community. In these efforts we are integrating our interests with two other promotions, which we trust you share. These are the "Best Gift," campaign of the American Library Association and the Year of the Young Reader, declared by the Center for the Book at the Library of Congress. "Best Gift" is ALA's response to the challenge given by U.S. Secretary of Education William Bennett that the best gift every child could receive is a library card. We recognize that not every library issues "cards" to children, but we promote that every child should have the services of a public library and should use these services. It is the services given by libraries that is our real aim, and by the end of 1989, we expect that all counties in Minnesota will be providing for library services to their residents as members of regional public library systems. For the first time in its history, all Minnesotans will have access to public library services. 1990 will dawn with great cause for celebration! 1989 has been declared the Year of the Young Reader. We see no reason to wait. The 'Year" starts now, as we prepare and relate our activities to the Year of the Young Reader. Just as with the Year of the Reader - PLUS, we see that this emphasis on the positive values of reading will bring together the host of educators, librarians, literacy providers, parents, booksellers, reading teachers, publishers, and others. Once more we have the assistance of the media. Both KTCA (Ch.2) Twin Cities Public Television (Minnesota Public Television Association) and KARE (Ch -11) the NBC and Gannett affiliate have given early support to our common endeavors. We expect other broadcast and press backing. Both the Minnesota Twins and the Minnesota Strikers are volunteering their endorsements in promoting reading and library services to children. We ask for your endorsement and membersbip participation as well. Copies of the Governor's Proclamation with a corresponding Resolution are enclosed. We solicit your organization's adoption of the Resolution. Should you so choose, please return one signed copy to me. 1 �M1 Call upon me for any questions you might have. Thank you for your consideration. Rogr) ury, Rog een for the ad hoc committee on the "Best Gift" in Minnesota- L _ r AM EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER r a r r r = r Proclamation WHEREAS: Informalimaeekinp skint are a rcRbrement of Igelonp bammp in the info matbn age; had WHEREAS: A whty of materials which foster be I l of reading as an m,,cWng mtMty are mailable (n public ItbmK s; am, WHEREAS: Such skills are best dewlopea in chMhaN Jmm m -IIY ape and with tnnmalency acroo a Mild's IeamiW esperiences; am WHEREAS; Public librades serve pre-selmol and sNwolage WMren wito hma r k maltiarml IN dross le"aMl a by schools and at times when school ls rant to session; and WHEREAS: Mimemta Hbrarians are participating MN the Amencan LIbmN Asnctatton to pom1mg through 1989 Met Unitetl States SecnataN of Eaacatam William Hammett has called Ne -Heat Gift- - Met is, a IfbmN card for ewN chtW; oral WHEREAS: Ata pomotton oc urs ammo, the nme pnatl that all Mimemta nontim, MH he POrltctpaHng in mgiaml Pubim IlbmN systems No 'het by the mul of 1989 all chime of the stale M11 far Me /int time to NrtaN Mw access b Wblicly supported Sam, Berme s; artl WHEREAS: The Center for ON Bank at be Ubma of Comgreu Has dedamd 1989 b be, 1'he Vear of the Young Readen am WHEREAS: Liamnaru am mrb-ng bg.Mer with a band pvrtnerydP of NoWabm, rymntq cn, protiders, Me media, OM Others to promote libmN services to Mumma; rvtl WHEREAS: PubM, Ibramm am corking iamrds Met, goals of serving ewN person; anal WHEREAS; Apil 10-I6, 1988 is Me Week of the Young Child. anal Apel 1]-2], 1888 Is National Liam, Week; NOW, THEREFORE. I, Rely Perplm, Gowmmr of the Stale of Mirmenlo, do homey proclaim April 10-23, 1988 to N THE KICKOFF OF REGISTRATION O F P U B L I C L I B R A R Y S B R Y I C E to awry child in Minnesota. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I tate immuno set my hOW and amaned the Great Seal of um Slate Of Memebly to be affixed at the state Captloi this Imnty-fi/N dsy of March in the ysvr of ver Lora ane Opuwrtl vine Nutlred and sightYaighl, and of the Stale the one I-Wrecl Ntrtie[h. -1�4 � �-' { '1O,A88r RESOLUTION ON PUBLIC LIBRARY SERVICE FOR EVERY CHILD: WHEREAS Information -seeking skills are a requirement of lifelong learning in the information age; and WHEREAS A variety of materials which foster the habits of reading as an enriching activity are available in public libraries; and WHEREAS Such skills are best developed in children from an early age and with consistency across a child's learning experiences; and WHEREAS Public libraries serve pre-school and school-age those by children with resources additional to provided schools and at times when school is not in session; and WHEREAS Minnesota librarians are participating with the through 1989 American Library Association in promoting what United States Secretary of Education William Bennett has called the "Best Gift" - that is, a library card for every child; and WHEREAS This promotion occurs during the same period that all in regional Minnesota counties will be participating 1989 all public library systems so that by the end of citizens of the state will for the first tie history have access to publicly supported lmbr any services; and WHEREAS the o ngress he Center for Reader; hasdeclared 1989Lto beo ThetYea r ofb th eyYo ung and WHEREAS Librarians are working together with a broad the partnership of educators, parents, care providers, media, and others to promote library services to children; and WHEREAS Public libraries are workin owards their ooals of serve'�very person and WHEREAS Aplri to -16, 1988 jw the Week of- a Child; and ril 17-23, 1988 +a National Library W>rek;-a �. WHEREAS Governor Perpich pr aimed April 10-23, 19 including the Week of t Young Child and National Library Week, as the ki Koff of registration fo public library service t ver child 1aa s Ia � T'H-EIRREEFO,R�Elne BEIT RESOLVED THAT Tfl­f­S-_01ZbXN 1 ZA:Fi ON � W "Endorses that every child has readily available access to public library service and materials (whether by walkin or library card/registration) and that this �EcFµss be a ddi�ti o_ 1tpro°ided by sch ols; and Encourages its to work ith public libraries 'A ies to ensure �pthat �� eLac(h������� child has library service. YHA6REY M *)M .rz � � A➢�-^^- "U GrvI Ike. -o1 Ti . Passed by: j ,,Dat e: dicer: RESOLUTION ON PUBLIC LIBRARY SERVICE FOR EVERY CHILD: WHEREAS Information -seeking skills are a requirement of lifelong learning in the information age; and WHEREAS A variety of materials which foster the habits of reading as an enriching activity are available in public libraries; and WHEREAS Such skills are best developed in children from an early age and with consistency across a child's learning experiences; and WHEREAS Public libraries serve pre-school and school-age children with resources additional to those provided by schools and at times when school is not in session; and WHEREAS Minnesota librarians are participating with the American Library Association in promoting through 1989 what United States Secretary of Education William Bennett has called the "Best Gift" - that is, alibrary card for every child; and WHEREAS This promotion occurs during the same period that all Minnesota counties will be participating in regional public library systems so that by the end of 1989 all citizens of the state will for the first time in history have access to publicly supported library services; and WHEREAS The Center for the Book at the Library of Congress has declared 1989 to be The Year of the Young Reader; and WHEREAS Librarians are working together with a broad partnership of educators, parents, care providers, the media, and others to promote library services to children; and WHEREAS Public libraries are working towards their goals of serving every person; and WHEREAS April 30-16, 1968 is the Week of the Young Child; and April 17-23, 1988 is National Library Week; and WHEREAS Governor Perpich has proclaimed April 30-23, 1988, including the Week of the Young Child and National Library Week, as the kickoff of registration for public library service to every child in Minnesota; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THIS ORGANIZATION Endorses that every child has readily available le access to public library service an materials (whether by walkin or library card/registration) and that this access be additional to that provided by schools; and Encourages its membership to work with public braries in their communities to ensure that each libraries GY+ child has library service. 1Tµ0 DEYNC um c... me cin ortm. Passed by: Date: Officer: TYPED BY CITY STAFF TO AID IN READING ATTACHED LETTER V^ t� 4-23-88 Shakopee Council Sirs: Since I am crippled it would have been hard to get to your meeting where you wanted some input so will write. We need a youth center and should have had one the last 20 years. There would be less delinquent kids and fewer P.G. girls too! And the place to put one is up by the mall - not down town. The chief reason there is no parking! The downtown died 20 years ago when we said no to the Highway Dept plans`to_-take_ 169 out of town - we would have had our 2nd river crossing and all! -Shakopee had a booming down town then but has went down hill since keeping the blasted highway in town, and for the same reason no parking. If a youth center was built where would you nut it? A parking ramp would be a must. But would have been better than all those benches no one will ever sit on and those narrow corners. Had we got a lot of snow the snow plow might have made those corners larger! This worked out in Chaska where they have wide streets, but not in Shakopee! The Court house should never have been built in town! Just try and park by it once when court is held! The little parking by it is only big enough for the Hospital not for both. The Senior building also should not be on the north side of the highway and by the way where is the walkway promised us? I see none! The bank took the only parking place we had in this end of town. This also should be in the mall where there would have been room for it! Making the large corner on the river crossing was perfect! We may as well keep the highway where it is. There is no parking and few business Places. Buy out a few more old buildings on 1st Avenue and let the highway where it is. Going south of town will be another mistake we will regret in 20 years from now! Because by then the highway will be again in the center of town! And look at all the cloverleaf corners that will cost a fortune! Think about it! I heard women talk about Shakopee over in a Chaska store, they said Shakopee always does things a_ backwards and I must agree! Other towns wish they had a mall - Bloomington even wants to build a mega mall! We are lucky we have one and should support it! F Look at Juba he has a land office business more than any store in town. Most business never have the same! Parking is the answer they get business from all surrounding towns not our down town! Think it over! Sincerely, Herb Dallmann 4 RECEIVED C 9204 20 E. 7ll A. APR2 51988 1 3 1 555)S— �� CI TY OF SHAKOPcE e�'�---��_� iTl�e'�'~• USC-LGi I'� C� _ a1.��4-4'li .. ,. / - 1 / �ir / ..,�a�/ Z7 1� 2_ _ �`�`l n� ,,.. /, - - � ,��- —. // "'".\_ �"-�...`�"L�-,.--�.t. _ �= �i't.,-. _ �� si t .lig [a..-,. — —_ • -moi . _ � ,, i -�- =� - c ��r.� '�---1/'-�..-r ��,.x_ = -, � t ' mac_ �-,�.-zL+„� _, f -- � cz _.l � —z `-�—.-�`.-.,--r by-�lc�_ ./�'� � - .� 1---�c"„_'_ /Arm"'"I--�---�� f —_—_— _ —.__. e _�rh tT-Lzr•-1 n�p.-�-�f-G< !"%'�.`� .L�'L GL V``=-T'�'��2-iL_ a MEMO TO: City Council FROM: Gary Willemsen RE: Scout Building - Lions Park DATE: April 25, 1988 INTRODUCTION The Lions request permission from the Shakopee City Council to construct a scout building in Lions Park. A scout building is not currently in the comprehensive development plan for the park. The proposed building will be of log and constructed in a manner that will be campatible to the park. It will be located in an area approved by George Muenchow. BACKGROUND The buildings use will be to provide a permanent home for all scouting needs in the City; cub scouts, girl scouts etc. At the present time, the present boy scout master does not want to relocate his troop from the Shakopee Womens Reformatory barn. However, considering the fact that they are on a one year at a time lease, with a possible 24 hour vacation order, the proposed building will be available to them upon request. LOCATION OF SITE The Lions intent to have the building erected with volunteer labor and involve other civic groups in a fund raiser to pay for the project. At this time, the Lions are not requesting any funding from the City for this project and do not expect to in the future. SUMMARY The Lions believe good scouts make good citizens. Therefore, they believe it is in the best interest of the community as a whole to approve their request for permission to construct a scout building in Lions Park. At the present time a 36' x 60' log building is under consideration. We will keep the City Council informed as to final design for their approval. ACTION REQUESTED Authorize the construction of no cost to the City. a scout building at Lions Park at Ga Willemsen SCOUT BUILDING Footing $ 1,288.00 Slab 3,800.00 Electrical 3,000.00 Plumbing 10,000.00 Roof Section 8,896.00 Heating 6,000.00 SAC Charge 550.00 WAC Charge 381.00 Logs 15,000.00 Log labor 9,000.00 Roofing 3,200.00 Sheetrock ceiling 2,150.00 Hollow metal doors/windows 2,000.00 $65,265.00 , Furn yi Bat Bat \(' . CIO gd Floor Plan OR #4aknppr (dnmmunitg Nwration 129 Levee Drive Shakopee, MN 55379 Phone: 612-445.2742 Memo To: Shakopee City Council From Paulette Rielund, Chan., Shakopee Community Recreati�go--Bgard ' Subject: Shakopee Community Center Proposal �•e� \� Date . April 27, 1988 The Shakopee Community Recreation Board at its Meeting April 25 spent a good share of time discussing the issue of the City owning and operating a Community Center. The Board has perceived that an extensive amount of interest has surfaced on this subject during the recent study of a Community Center Proposal in conjunction with the upgrading of the Minnesota Valley Hall. The Board further agrees that a multi-purpose facility is needed that will theoretically accommodate the needs of all of the community. Previous study has shown that there are immediate needs that must be faced: 1. The "Bubble" could fall down any day. The new structure is needed. The leadership of the Hockey Association has indicated that they are not excited about continuefng their operating of an Arena. 2. An indoor walking/jogging track is needed for Sr Citizens and others. 3. Special facilities for gymnastics instruction, youth wrestling programs, youth and adult basketball and volleyball games, social center for youth etc. The community is growing. Facilities for the near future must be planned now. Beacuse of this apparent deep seated community interest the Board strongly recommends that the City Council initiates a thorough review of a Community Center Proposal. It further is our recommendation that a diversified representation Of the community be appointed to give input to the study while actively working with Council and Staff. The Shakopee Recreation Board is available and ready to work with you if so desired. It is the Board's feeling that the study should include all or part of the following: 1. Ascertainment of the wants and needs of the community. 2. Determination of pros and cons of various locations. 3. Acquiring information whether Shakopee could be designated for the location of an Armory. 4. Compilation of number and size of activity areas to be included. 5. Recommendation on how to manage this facility. 6. Re -study the financing issue. The Study Committee should be directed to report back to the City Council with its findings at an appropriate time. A COOPERATIVE EFFORT OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE AND SCHOOL DISTRICT 720 SINCE 1954 i, k a Ci 4 /° T� 191F- �cPos0��E � P `a co how s r L�7 �r5 �� ���• f Ery I > 7• r W9 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer SUBJECT: James Rein Curb Cut Request DATE: April 28, 1988 INTRODUCTION: Attached is a letter and plan from Mr. James Rein of 1005 Sibley Street requesting the City Council approval of a curb cut on 10th Avenue. BACKGROUND: Mr. Rein is proposing to construct a garage for storage in the northeast corner of his lot. The garage will satisfy the necessary setback requirements. Mr. Rein is requesting a 16 foot curb cut on 10th for the proposed garage. The existing house and garage face Sibley Street and there is an existing curb cut and driveway on Sibley Street for the garage. 10th Avenue, from County Road 77 west, is a state aid street and is classified as an arterial street. The City denied past curb cut requests on this portion of 10th Avenue. The portion of 10th Avenue for this curb cut request is east of County Road 17 and 10th Avenue and is classified as a local street through this area. There are several other curb openings on this portion of 10th, but most of those are located at duplexes where they face 10th Avenue and there is no other location for a curb out. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Pass a motion denying Mr. Rein's request for a curb cut on 10th Avenue. 2. Approve Mr. Rein's request for a curb cut and direct the Engineering Department to issue a permit. Curb Cut April 28, 1988 Page 2 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: q -F While it is true that 10th Avenue is not an arterial street through this area, my opinion is that single family homes should be allowed one curb cut access for a driveway and for corner lots the curb cut should on the least busy street of the two streets for safety purposes. In this case, Sibley Street is the least busy of the two and they already have a curb cut on that street. I don't believe the City should take the position of allowing multiple curb cuts for single family homes. For this reason, I recommend Alternative No. 1, denying the curb cut request. ACTION REQUESTED: Pass a motion denying Mr. Rein's request for a curb cut on 10th Avenue at 1005 Sibley Street. DH/pmp CURBCUT \FIRST PRESB. CHURCH 3 1 4 � Q -7 V I9 2 1 14 I 14 T A E. g Xf TAM /Dd; MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner RE: Ordinance Rezoning the N 1/2 of Block 3, Koeper's Addn. from I-1 to I-2 DATE: April 29, 1988 INTRODUCTION• At their meeting on April 5, 1988 the City Council passed a motion directing the City Attorney to draft an ordinance rezoning the Northern 1/2 of Block 3, Koeper's Addition and the area immediately to the East of Lot 8 extending to the Western line of Lot 10, Block 175 of the Original Shakopee Plat from I-1 to I-2. Attached is the Ordinance drafted by the City Attorney. BACKGROUND: Fred Toole and Karen Dupont owners of the subject property applied to the City for rezoning of the property from I-1 Light Industry to I-2 Heavy Industry. The applicants are in the process of selling the property to Rahr Malting which has requested the property be rezoned to I-2 which would enable them to expand their plant facilities onto this property. Rahr Malting does not have plans at this time to expand into this property, but would like to have the opportunity in the future. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the rezoning request at their meeting on March 3, 1988 and recommended to the City Council rezoning of the property as requested by the applicant. At the City Council meeting on April 5, 1988 the City Council approved the recommendation of the Planning Commission and directed the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. ALTERNATIVES: The City Council could vote to approve Ordinance #243 rezoning the Northern 1/2 of Block 3, Koeper's Addn. and the area immediately to the East of Lot 8 extending to the Western line of Lot 10, Block 175 Original Shakopee Plat from I-1 to I-2 as drafted. The City Council could amend the ordinance as drafted then offer and pass a motion approving Ordinance #243 as amended. The City Council could vote to not approve Ordinance #243 and leave the property as it is presently zoned (I-1). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative #1. ACTION REOUESTED• Offer and pass a motion approving Ordinance #243 as drafted. ORDINANCE. # 243 Fourth Series An Ordinance of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota Amending the Shakopee City Code, Chapter 11 Entitled "Land Use Regulation" (Zoning) By Amending Sections 11.32 Light Industrial (I-1) and Section 11.33 Heavy Industrial (I-2) and Adopting By Reference Shakopee City Code Chapter 1 and Section 11.99 which Among Other Things Contain Penalty Provisions. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: SECTION I: Reducing Area of Light Industrial Zone The light industrial zone is hereby reduced by removing therefrom the following described areas, to -wit: Lots 8 to 12, Block 3, Koeper's Addition to the City of Shakopee, and the area immediately East of said Lot 8 extending to the Western line of Lot 10, Block 175, original plat of Sbakapee City. SECTION II: Increasing the Area of Heavy Industrial Zone The heavy industrial zone is hereby increased by including therein the area described in Section I immediately above. SECTION III: Adoption by Reference The general provisions and definitions applicable to the entire City Code including penalty provisions of Chapter 1 and Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference as though repeated verbatim herein. SECTION IV: When in Force and Effect After the adoption and attestation of this ordinance, it. -shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City of Shakopee and shall be infull force and effect on and after the date following such publication. Passed in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota / 6 CL-� held this day of , 1988. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Prepared and approved as to form this 29th day of April, 1988 City Attorney Y /bb` MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner RE: Revision of the City's Sign ordinance DATE: April 27, 1988 INTRODUCTION: At their meeting on April 21, 1988 the Shakopee Planning Commission passed a motion recommending to the City Council that City Code Section 4.30 entitled Signs - Construction, Maintenance and Permits be amended as shown in attachment A. BACKGROUND: After receiving several requests for variances from the City's Sign Ordinance, the Planning Commission and City staff — -- decided in the Spring of 1987 that the City's current Sign Ordinance --was in need of revision. Staff researched sign ordinances from a number of other cities as well as analyzing the provisions of the City's current code and prepared a draft ordinance which was presented to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission discussed the draft ordinance for a period of several months, and on January 7, 1988 the Planning Commission opened a public hearing on the proposed ordinance. The public hearing on the draft sign ordinance was continued several months and closed at the meeting on April 21, 1988. The Planning Commission at that meeting passed a motion recommending the proposed changes to the City Council. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission at their meeting on April 21, 1988 recommended the proposed changes to the Section 4.30 of the City Code as outlined in attachment A. Following is a brief description of the major changes being recommended. 1. The proposed sign ordinance contains sign regulations for the Ag, Shoreland, RTD, and URD Districts. The current sign ordinance does not contain any sign regulations for these zoning districts. 2. The proposed sign ordinance consolidates and reorganizes information contained in the current code to allow for easier understanding and administration of the provisions. As an example regulations applying to temporary signage is grouped together in one section. 3. Sign regulations for the B-1 and B-2 District have been combined. These requirements have been changed to provide for separate size requirements for free-standing signs and wall signs. Under the current code a maximum sign area is allowed and can be distributed in any way. The new regulations prohibit the property from loading all the signage in one particular area. The new sign regulations also limit the number of free-standing signs to one per street frontage, the current ordinance does not contain this limitation. 4. Sign regulations for the B-3 District have been changed primarily on recommendation from the City's Downtown Committee. The new regulations attempt to present an image for the downtown which is consistent with the proposed revitalization plan for the area. The new sign regulations will not allow free-standing signs in the B-3 District. 5. Sign regulations for the I-1 and I-2 Districts have been liberalized somewhat. The current City Sign Ordinance is extremely restrictive in the Industrial Zoning Districts and as a result the City has received a number of requests for sign variances. The new sign regulations for the I-1 and I- 2 Districts are more consistent with the sign regulations for the other districts. 6. Sign regulations for complex centers have been incorporated into the individual zoning districts and made more consistent with sign regulations for those districts. In the current sign ordinance signage for these centers has been treated separately. 7. Within the individual districts special signage is allowed for commercial recreation facilities of a major magnitude (those attracting over 200,000 customers per year) with the addition of landscaping around the signs. 8. The proposed sign ordinance places a five year amortization period on all non -conforming signs with the exception of public informational signs. This requirement will require signs which do not conform to the new ordinance to be replaced or brought into conformance with the ordinance within a five year period of time. ALTERNATIVES• 1. If the City Council agrees with the recommendations of the Planning Commission regarding the proposed sign ordinance a motion should be passed directing the City Attorney to draw up the appropriate ordinance amending the City Code. 2. The City Council could alter the language within particular provisions of the sign ordinance and direct the City Attorney to draw up the appropriate ordinance with these changes. 3. The City Council could direct staff to redraft sections of the sign ordinance and bring it back for further consideration at the next meeting. /ab ACTION REODESTED: Offer and pass a motion to proceed with amending the City Code Section 4.30 entitled Signs - Construction, Maintenance and Permits as outlined in either alternative 1, 2 or 3. 4/21/88 UPDATED DRAFT SECTION 4.30. SIGNS - CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND PERMITS Subd. 1. Purpose and Intent. A. The purpose of this section is to protect and promote the general welfare, health, safety, and order through the establishment of a comprehensive series of standards, regulations, and procedures governing the erection, use and display of devices, signs and symbols serving as a visual communicative media to the general Public. B. The provisions of this section are to encourage creativity, a reasonable degree of freedom of choice, an opportunity for effective communication, and a sense of concern for the visual amenities on the part of those designing, displaying or otherwise utilizing communicative media of the types regulated by this section, while at the same time, assuring that the public is not endangered, annoyed, or distracted by unsafe, disorderly, indiscriminate or unnecessary use of such communicative facilities. Subd. 2. Definitions. For the purpose of this section, the following terms, as used herein, shall have the meanings stated: A. "Address Sign". A sign for postal identification numbers only, whether written or in number form. B. "Advertising Sian". A sign advertising a business, commodity, or service which is not located or performed on the premises on which the sign is situated. C. "Area Identification Sign". A freestanding sign, en located at the entrance to or within the identified premises, which identifies the name of a neighborhood, a residential subdivision, a multiple residential complex, a shopping center or area, an industrial area, an office complex, planned unit development or any combination of the above and does not advertise any business within the area. 3. /a b Free -Standing Ground Sign: A bxaine sign erected on free-standing shafts, posts or walls which are solidly affixed to the ground, and cemp3ele�p-sndepeadent-bf app-i�ri3ding--or-ether-sCruc.Mrre 9an<IYnQ-KJ30ui1(}-3ilJi1 which projects 7 feet or less above ground level.ra�ensidcre3-a�}raxm}-sigh P. "Government Sign". A sign which is erected by or upon the order of a governmental unit. R. "Group Sion". A combination of two or more signs contained in a single sign area. S. "Illuminated Sign". A sign which has an artificial light source directed upon it or one which has an interior light source. T. "Institutional Sign". A sign or bulletin board which identifies the name and other characteristics of a public or private institution on the site where the sign is located. "Marquee". or glass. V. "Motion Sign". A sign which revolves, rotates or moves in any way by mechanical means or gives the illusion of movement. W. "Nameplates--. Signs indicating the names of buildings. building occupants developments projects or signs which serve as a directory. G X. "Non -Conforming Sign". Signs and their structures which idextrfp--ndvertisr�rr-previ8e-elirer.�tiorrtc+-a kse,--basrxesa,--rndaskrp-er-service-�rkiek-kgs-eeaseei-existcaee-€ar E. "Banners and Pennants". Any attention -getting devices which resemble flags and are Printed or displayed upon a€-a-nea- permaneab paper, cloth or plastic -like material with or without frames. F. "Business Sian". A sign which identifies a business or profession, commodity or service sold or offered upon the premises where such a sign is located. G. "Canopy and Marone Awning". A reef—like structure projecting over the entrance to a building made of cloth. metal. J. "complex center". A building in which two or more businesses ar sharing the same principal building space. K. "Directional Sign". A sign erected on private property for the purpose of directing vehicular and pedestrian traffic to Public facilities or functions. 1 "Display Item". An article designed to catch the eve. M. "District". A specific zoning district as defined in the Zoning Chapter of the City Code. O. "Free Standing Sian:. A sign which is placed in the ground and not affixed to any part of any structure. 1. Free -Standing Pylon Sign: Ar -business Sign erected on free-standing shafts, posts or walls which are solidly affixed to the ground, and which projects more than 7 feet above ground level. 2 /o b Pr Y. "Portable Sign". A sign so designed as to be movable from one location to another and is not permanently attached to the ground or any structure. Q* Z. "Proiecting Sian". A sign, any portion of which, projects ever--pab3ie--preperty from a building wall or a structure. _ AA. BB. CC. "Removal Letter Sian". A sign on which different messages can be displayed by the use of removable letters. DD. "Roof Sign". Any sign erected upon or projecting above the roof line of a structure to which it is affixed. EE. "Sian". Any letter, work, symbol, device, poster, picture, statuary, reading matter or representation in the nature of an advertisement, announcement, message or visual communication whether painted, pasted, printed, affixed or constructed which is displayed outdoors for informational or communicative purpose. e€-eeeh-s4gr�-and--teotr�o-rnring--an-integre �-paw-off �k� �iq+r--�fbe stipzt}abed-maSrimxm-sign -area-€er-a-£ree-star�kireg-sie}a-re€ers-ta-e FF. "Sign "Sian Area". The following computations shall be used to determine the area of any sign as defined herein: GG. "Special Event". An occurrence designed for a Particular purpose which does not occur on a reaular basis. HH. "Street Frontage". That portion of a parcel of land abutting ene-er-mere a street. ka-§nterser-iot -hes--e -street frcntagc-ate-a �^arncr-lci 7-twro-sneb-freataeter. II. JJ. "Wall Sign". Any sign which is painted, attached or affixed to the wall of a any building. BxE-she}}-rel-.it�cla3e-a sign-palate&-elsreet�y-sn-bbe-wad}bf-tbc-bur}3ing- Subd. 3. General Provisions Applicable To All Districts The following shall pertain to all districts unless specifically prohibited within the districts. A) Free-standing signs B U Off-site free-standing advertising signs are prohibited in all districts. 2 No free-standing sign shall encroach upon or vroiect over public richt-of-way. T IL No free-standing sign lower than 10 ft. to the bottom of the sign shall be located within 10 ft. of any the front lot line abutting public r -o -w. B) Temporary Signs H-11 Temporary banners and pennants employed for grand openings of business establishments, special events and holidays shall be permitted upon issuance of a temporary sign permit. fer-£earteen--{34j-cronsecrrtive elays--afier-�reeiien- Business establishments and 16b T. 1 One temporary identification sign setting forth the name of the project, architect, engineers, contractors and financing agencies may be installed at a construction site in any district for the period of construction only. Prier-appreaaibf-a-majeriipbf-the M 3) Temporary real estate signs may be placed in any district for the purpose of advertising the lease or sale of property upon which it is placed. Only one such sign is permitted per street frontage. The }= Stxeh-s#gt+-sha}3 �-remeved•-within-r-(-7-j--daps f ailewi�-bke-i-ease-ar-saie- P- The -maximum- i -x ff-e k-sigxr-far-each-.iiairiet-is as-fal}axs-c I-a.Resideaiiai-Bistriebs--6-sgcrare-€eek P-bc tixibipie-Biatriebs--}B-sel�rare-feet- 9-ec 2arrmereia}--erwE-Fm2xsbriai-i}ist�icts-¢e€€ice bkr2,4ix+gs}--32-seprare-f iF: ExeepE-as-aeey--be-speei£4ea}}p-�y{}��ed--by--Ekis srrb3iviaiea--partab2r-sxgna-are-prakrbrteb- Al A portable sign used for the purpose of directing the public may be permitted upon issuance of a temporary sign permit under the following conditions. }_ a) Said sign is coincidental to, or used in conjunction with, a--pab}ie--£tinetsan- traffic control. 2: b) The period of use of said sign shall not exceed fourteen (14) days. 3---i�rior-approval--ofi--a-majority--ef-t��axnerl akap}-be-regxrred-fer-Ahe-nsebf-app-seek-siger- c) The sign shall be no larger than 32 scuare feet. 3 6) Campaign signs posted by bona fide candidates for political office or by a person or group promoting a political issue or a candidate may be placed in any zoning district. Signs must be no larger than 20 sq. ft. nor higher than 5 ft. and may be posted for a period not to exceed 60 days and shall be removed within seven (7) days following the date of the election. Signs must be erected at least 2 ft. back from the curb line of any street and at least 30 ft. away from any street corner and should not in any way obstruct traffic. Signs placed on private residential property or on the right-of-way in front of any private property, must have the approval of the property owner. Campaign signs may not be placed on any other publicly - owned property. -elher-thea-E�ity-eiwr�eer�tree��igitl-o-f- crap: Signs located in conflict with this section shall be removed by the City at the expense of the candidate ecrner or property owner. C) Directional signs S 1) One directional sign for each separately owned tract of land is permitted in all districts. (Except Directional signs shall bear no advertising and shall not exceed 4 sq. ft. in area. (except as allowed by Subdivision 5). P 2) One address sign shall be required per building or facility in all districts. (except as allowed by Subdivision 5). I Q D) Awnings, Canopies and marquees shall be considered an integral part of the structure to which they are attached. One sign may be permitted on each side and front of a marquee or canopy but such structure shall not be considered as part of the wall area and thus shall not warrant additional sign area. E-sitJns-she}}-xot--)xro��r.�overpttbbic--FroflcrtY'-mere than-i5-ineh . A, E) No signs signs shall be erected or placed with in or over a public right-of-way er--u -any--peb}3e--easement with the exception of e F) No sign shall contain any indecent or offensive material. B G) Illuminated flashing signs, motion signs, revolving signs, illuminated revolving. beacons, zip flashers or similar devices shall not be permitted in any district. All illuminated signs shall have a shielded light source. P 1) Signs shall not be painted, attached, or in any manner affixed to trees, rocks, or similar natural surfaces, nor shall signs of any type be painted directly on the wall or roof of a building. with the zone. G JZ Signs which interfere with the abi1-itp vision of vehicle operators or pedestrians to see traffic signs, or signals, or `thieh-4mpede-t-he--v-ircxr-o£ traffic. by vehic}e-eperatrorsbr-pedestrians are prohibited. R K) Roof signs shall not be permitted. in-eemmere-ial drsiriet�r 8 I 1 Signs shall not obstruct any windows, doors, fire escapes or openings intended to provide ingress or egress to any structure or buildings. Srrbdr-S-Tr-. N Exemptions. blre-#oi3enriflg--aigerar-P��"ldee�--harreverr-tfiathrresn exempted-�rozr-thr-parncttr-'recgxi-rement's--ahaii-�o�rform-w itt--aim ether-regeriremerrts-ef-tkss-seeti-& r. The following are exceptions from one or more of the requirements of this ordinance: is iirr�dax-Signs-p}aced-�ritkia-a-btr4i�rng: Signs-kavtng-aa-area-ef-2-sq--ft--er-leas- 3- Signs-citititirir-�>y--a-�avarameat-�xzri�--ixib}se--er pareehraf-aekca�,-br�k�rrelr. 4c Sigera-as�exribed-rn-Subdivision-},'_Subparagraphs N,--P-axed-S-af-tkis-seetiarr. S: Signs-wkick-are-ezrLire}p-Ktkiir-a-bu#ieing-and-net visible-from-autsidc-ef-sail-bui}d}ng- R 1) Signs facing the interior of a building are exempt from the provisions of this section. All 2 sq. ft. 3 Sign 4 9 14J property -mere -than -i5-inehes. (S. Now C.1) NO sia Fac Ha-sign-ska}}-ke-2eeated-it#tkin-96-€eetb€-tlre-grcperty }ire-at-tkK-rnterseeticn-of-teas-streets: V Ne, -sti -storage--ska}}- -}ee eed--at-the--base--o€-€ree- stamding -signs--irit4xirr-the--€rant-yasd--setbae3c--area-�cr-as--ta ebstrxet-visienbf- itiei-ebperatars-at-Frjr a ar-entranees: W, Signs --f x -mum 4eipa}- rri fes•-skn}}--br-�xempt -from sine-restrieticmr. Subd. 4. District Regulations. 10 In addition to those signs permitted in all districts, signs herein designated shall be permitted in each specified district and shall conform as to size, location and character according to the requirements herein set forth: A. The following shall be permitted in the AG. R1, R2, R3, R4, and Shoreland Zoning districts._ 1) Nameplate Sign: One sign not to exceed 2 sq. ft. in area for each dwelling unit, indicating only name and address. One nameplate sign for each dwelling group of 6 to 12 dwelling units which shall not exceed 6 sq. ft. in area per surface. One nameplate sign for each dwelling group of 8 or more dwelling units shall not exceed 12 sq. ft. in area per surface, and no sign shall have more than two display surfaces. Said signs may indicate the names of the buildings, project, or be serves as a directory. Fer-oceupent�-er-otatr-any eembrttaliaa-ef�sermille&-rafarmatietr. 3} 2) Area Identification Signs: One sign, not to exceed 24 sq. ft. in area, for each development district or project entrance. 3) Free-standing Signs: Free-standing pylon signs as defined in Subd. 2-M shall not be permitted (exception for commercial recreation of a maior magnitude). tke-abnll#ng-preperlp-is-�riel}�{�kxarr t-he-tirirtrrtrne•-ef bkr--ec}josrriYx3--ieadwe9 ;--fhe-iiesghtr'-e€-'anY'-sdeh--si gn akaFp-nal-exeeed-fr#get-ets--,�.n.�..:r�ram-LYxe•-e3r�tabion ef�aid-abxlliag-proper1p-al-the-srle-ef-artek-sigtr: 2'3, 4) Governmental, Institutional, and Recreational Signs: One sign or message board per Street-frentage entrance uv to a maximum of four per structure for a church, public building, institution or recreational facility. Such sign or message board shall not exceed 50 sq. ft. in area and shall not be placed closer than 10 ft. to any street right-of-way. line. a 11 a) no individual sign shall exceed 40 square feet. b) Such signs will only be allowed for specific sports seasons. C) signs must be attached to a permanent structure (wall or fence) and cannot exceed 50% of the surface area of the structure. d) Scoreboard advertising signs shall be Permitted when the advertising area does not exceed 25% of the sign area. e) All sianaae must face toward the interior of the facilit 7) Home occupation business signs shall be no larger than two square feet. 1 21 Commercial recreation directional signs as allowed by Section 4.30, Subd. 3.P. a) bl The bottom of the message portion of the sign shall be not more than 10 feet above the top of the landscaping. cL The pilons or support structure of the sign shall be screened with evergreen trees or shrubs. 12 Al Other durable Plantings at least 2 feet in beight shall be designed to occuvv a minimum of Sot of the required landscape area. e) The required landscape area shall not encroach on the public right of way. fL The sign and landscape area shall be maintained in a neat, clean and orderly manor. gl The facility shall have at least 2 feet of street frontage for each square foot of signage 1 The signage shall not create a health or safety hazard. B. The following shall be permitted with in the B-1 and B- 2 zoning district. Besiness-signs-ere-permitted-aairjeet-te tke-fe}}owing- }: Pke-aggregate-square-ieatagc-af-sign-spaee-per-iof ska}}-not--P±K�eed--Ehe-srmr-af-�--scgt�rr-€eet-per-frau! feet-e£--bu-i3t}itig ;--p}zts-3-�cgxare--feet-€ar-ceclt--}irrear er nate-ix-wi.�tk- 11 Wall Signs: Wall mounted business signs shall be Permitted subject to the following conditions: 13 b) Such signs shall not prosect out from the building more than 3619 and shall not project over Public property. Pke-3cast--width-c£--a--to-t-fe>x�-pxrpexs-erg-this seetien-ska��-be-tke-front: S} 2) Free-standing Signs: Free-standing business or complex center signs shall be permitted subiect to the following conditions: 2P -feet rtr-lxeit -as-measured--£rom--tke-e3evatian-ro£--the eeaterki-nc-o€-fi3xe-adjeir�ing-readweY;-r-tkat at--t?�+se--sites--at--irkiak-tfxe--pies ativre--e£--tke abettrng-propertp-is-kigker-tkan-tke�eater�ine�f tke-ad}aiaing-roadstap--the-height �f-axp-srxek-sietn skab}-Yx - ,mr-6--feet--as-aeftse:,eel--frem--tke e}evatiea-ef -said-abxtti�-Propertp-at�ke-siteb£ sttek-sigttc b---mor-propertp-adj seer!-fi.<r-roads-with--e--speed i-unit-ef-3eas-thaiarea f-- free-stazx2ing-�ic�r-skaii--pat-,amr-399--square feet: e.---�br-propertp-adj aeea!-fi<r-roads-aitk--e--speed limit-af�reater-tkarr-35 mrprlx-,-�he�rass-area-af a-4�ee-stardir4-sie}�r-skai�-ael-�.�� iFi(�-sgaare feet. a) Such signs sball not exceed 1 so. ft. per linear foot of street frontage. not to exceed 150 sq. ft. in area. b) No free-standing sign shall exceed 20 ft. in beight. - c) Setback requirements shall confirm to Subd. 3- A. d) One sign structure Per street frontage shall be permitted. e) Commercial recreation of a maior magnitude shall be allowed additional size and height subiect to Provision 9) below. 3- Na-iadi�idetai-sigtr-sxrfaee-skab}-exeee&-s"9B-sgrxare feet--sir--a�.�--;wx--ska33--twe--er-�eoi�-sigtrs--be--se arranged--etxr-itrt�qretQd--ns--te-cat__ -an--advertising sxrfaee ever-366-sgaare-feet- 14 4) Area Identification Sign: One sign per development not to exceed Ir" 50 sq. ft. in area for each development or at each project entrance. 5) Public Information Sign: One wall or free- standing sign showing weather time, temperature, and similar public service announcements for each building may be granted. Such sign shall be operated automatically and shall furnish accurate and current information which shall occupy not less than 25% of the sign area. The-ba�anee-ef-the-s§gtf-shnii-ePi�pi�y-vtrly ]4r-Tetai-wraft-sieaase--iwr-eaek-tennht--`-" -ae! exceed-26e-sc�-fb.--fer-bhe-freatr-ef-bhe-bvr}drsa- 7L Temporary and Directional Signs: Complying with Subd. 3. H and C shall be permitted L, commercial recreation directional signs as allowed by Section 4.30, Subd. 3.P. AL signs less than 20 feet in height shall include a landscaped area at the base of the sign at least 10 feet in width at the narrowest Point and extending at least 5 feet bevond the end of the sign. Signs greater than 20 feet in height shall increase the area to be landscaped by an 15 �6 6 additional one foot in both length and width for each 2 feet of height in excess of 20 feet. 1 The bottom of the message portion of the sign shall be not more than 10 feet above the top of the landscaping. 1 The pilons or support structure of the sign shall be screened with evergreen trees or shrubs. d) Other durable plantings at least 2 feet in height shall be designed to occupy a minimum of 50% of the required landscape area. e) The required landscape area shall not encroach on the public right of way. f) The sign and landscape area shall be maintained in a neat, clean and orderly manor. g1 The facility shall have at least 2 feet of street frontage for each square foot of signage. 1 The signage shall not create a health or safety bazard. E aB-8a�smmrraiby--Bnsinesa-Bi-slrieb---fSer-sxb�--4: &} 4}€tkirr--bke--B-2--Bi:�kricts--6he--fai}errn4' _ y�+ts' __are permitted-- Tke-attx�ber-ef-sgaare-€get-in�rsss-serfage-areab€ a}}-business-sigtra-ea-a-}st-ska}}-aetr-emeeed the- -ef 3-sgeare-€get-per-€teat-feetbf-beiielrng� -pis-}-square feet �aek-frontage-ef-bxi}&i�-siKiiag �s-a-street: 2- 1Fa-i-ndi+rirk�i--sigxr-ar--rnt�grefieh-4renp-o£--signs ska}}-exessr}-&gg-sgrzare-€get-ia-area-per-s�rr€nee- }; }}}amiaate3-signs-ska}}-be-permittee2-prosi�e�-tkat tke-sc�rxx�-ef-3ig3rt �a}}-t+et--beast-aspen--err�xisting residenee--e>r�-into-err-'�R'�-$ist�iet-rot-into--e- gab}ie street- 4- h-�koppi-ng-wester-ty=-ef-devele�pmeret--operating ef-srap-nar-bB-feet-from-a-si3e-}et-}rase- Sc deve}epment-net-ts-exeee�-}99-sgrxare-€get: 16 6- Free-Starx}ing-�iejrr�s�-- ^--r^-�—a.==.'^=rn<3'-sigtcs--nkat-� netr-� ___�-B9--fectr-err-krigkt--as--me+.s+_•,•e•�-frear-bke c}cvabien-e€-fibs--cenierFine-e£-ti��Yjo-iYriY�g--road�rap; cxeept-tkat-�t--tkese-sstes--et-�k4eh-tke- � vctzvir-ef of -sai d-abetti� �ropertY-at-t-he -site bf-snek-czg�r rnEarmatian-whisk-skabk-aeeitpY-net-}ess-bhan-&S-pereenh e€-tke-sign ,---ike -b e3 ens e-e4'-tie--s-i g:r-area-yka}} &i sP�Y-�-Y--tiie--nnme-vF--tke-v�rnex--o-r-}eases-of--bhe sign- 10) Governmental, Institutional, and Recreational Signs: One sign or message board per Street frontage entrance up to a maximum of four Per structure for a church, public building, institution or recreational facility. Such sign or message board shall not exceed 50 sq. ft. in area and shall not be placed closer than 10 ft. to any street right-of-way. line. B: C. The following shall be permitted in the B3 EenErai-Bxs.tr�ess-zoning district. Wibhin-bhe-aB-}LL_Brstrieb--namep}ate-sietns-ank-bxsineas rega}ahiensr 2- Pke-aggregate-sefeare-feebage-e€-sign-spaec-per-}e! akab}-7#--cxeee&-t-sxar-erf--}-'e--feetr-ferx�-eaeh fronb--fwt--ef-3xrrld-rng-p}t:s- t-sguef�-feaE-ferx�-eaeh frani-feeb-ef-bxr}�ing-sidi�bn-a-sbree� 11 Wall Signs: Wall mounted business signs shall be Permitted subiect to the following conditions: 17 lob way or serving as a building entrance may have 1 square foot for each linear foot of the building surface on which the sign is mounted up to a Maximum of 100 square feet (except complex centers). Complex centers shall be allowed 1 square foot per linear foot of building surface on which the sign is mounted up to a maximum of 100 square feet per tenant. In the case of corner lots, the building surface facing the least length of street frontage shall be the front of the building per purposes of this subdivision. C. The total area of a three dimensional sign shall be determined by enclosing the largest cross section of the sign in an easily recognizable geometric shape and computing it's area which shall not exceed 9 square feet. d. Removable letter signs shall be Permitted in the B-3 district and shall not exceed a total area of 24 square feet Per sign face. 2. No individual sign shall exceed 150 square feet of area per surface. Signs: Free-standing business is 3r---6lc�rr-}eenked-�tiriir�he-"$-3" i--•_,}-Bxainean District,--meY-be-vermitLed-to- -extend- -t�te,- treek rigkt-ef-waY-aP-ty� �krstanee-e£-36-�nclxes;--lxtk--skai3 net-be-permitted-te-se�xte�,--at�an-e2cvatiea-bs}air-t2 feet-above-melte-eskairlished--gi cieuei-]r-grade--itox--sbai-i anY-s igrrs--Prejeet—i7rCo--ar-�x+ar-areY--aiieY,--err-ether pxbiic-propertYr__ F� _}}gam 4) Area Identification Sign: one sign per development not to exceed I66 So sq. ft. in area for each development or at each proiect entrance 6- SZ Public Information Sign: Shall not be permitted One---aai}---er---freestamting---siga---shewing---time; temperature,--arid--si-mrl-er-pxb}ie- ___ . ___-anneuneemcnts anarr-axspxaY-orny--tt�-name-e£-tile-enx�ex�irr--_=____ -o€ the -sign - 7) Temporary and Directional Signs: Complying with Subd. 3. H and C Shall be permitted 19 M .b 11) For shops or businesses sharing the same facade, the same or a similar method of signing must be used for all parties desiring to place a sign on said facade. message. Private or Public nuisance. 20 industry), 15) A sign shall not obscure architectural features of a building to which the sign is attached I-1 (light 1) Wall Signs: Wall mounted business signs shall be Permitted subject to the following conditions• Fns€r€aiiana€--eticF-�mgi�-vz�-Mx}tip} e--0eettpaaey Bxsmess-�;.i�:rzlisr-idetiEs£iefltion--Srgns r ___i'Ae--ie€aF sign-area-fvr-bkte-sa§jeeE-property--may-ret- � .___= _K pereent-o£-�}te•-£renC-ixri#rng--€aea}e-{beE.h- �,�,t -and 2) Free -Standing Sions• Free-standing business signs shall be Permitted subject to the following conditions $ _ _ __Free-stan&rng _--Ho-b-jnere-their-ene-si*Jrr-per sabgeet-irropert�----�igtr-area-�Y--net'- _-_--- -'i5 sgttare-f-ee��rittt-a max#mttm-kezgkt-a€-FS-€eek 21 /6 b a) Said sien shall not exceed 1 se ft per linear foot of the street frontage not to exceed 150 sg. ft. y _ _ _ �3—t'ettopy-grid-Nargaee---Not-�-e-their brre si4a-'pex`-exbjeeb-P�P�'ti' ;--er-twer-sigers_'(3__Per bTtr}drneJ-32dCj--MillTa--f`reC-3 8tidYlri�-52CJSl'-ie--1ME xti}reed---ind#viddai-sign wee--mey--not- -7-5 egtraxr-feet-Mint-tie-}teig}r�-mexir�et-�t--tupbf parapet-er�avoa.---fSee-B}}}} b) No free-standing sign shall exceed 20 ft in height. c) Setback requirements shall conform to subd 3- A. d) One sign Per street frontage shall be Permitted. e) Commercial recreation of a major magnitude shall be allowed additional size and height subject to provision 9) below. 3) Nameplate: One sign per occupant, not to exceed 2 ft., indicating only name and address. One .nameplate sign for each building containing multiple tenants, not to exceed 12 sq. ft. in area per surface, and no sign shall have more than two display surfaces. Said sign may indicate the name of the buildings, project, or serve as a directory. }r4)Area Identification Sign: 6n}y One fle tending 22 7) Temporary and Directional Signs: Complying with Subd. 3, H and C shall be permitted - 8) Commercial recreation directional signs as followed by Section 4.30• SUM. 3.P a) bl The bottom of the message portion of the sign.-� shall be not more than 10 feet above the topof Cl the landscaping. - The pilons or support structure of the sian shall-` # be screened with evergreen trees or shrubs - dl Other durable plantings at least 2 feet in height shall be designed to occupy a minimum of 50% of el the required landscape area The required landscape area shall not encroach on jL the public right of way, The sign and landscape area shall be maintained in } 7 g.1 a neat, clean and orderly manor. The facility shall have at least 2 feet of street` -. _� frontage for each square foot of signage The signage shall not create a health or safety - hazard. lo) Governmental, Institutional, and Recreational Signs: one sign or message board per Street frontage entrance un to a maximum of four per structure for a- - church, public building, institution or recreational facility. Such sign or message board shall not exceed 50 sq. ft. in area and shall not be placed closer than 10 ft. to any street right-of-way. line. 23 le b F. u�.�,u_ayy,_}rekria}_Bratrieh: (See Subd. 4 D) }- hrea-fdenkifieek§en-Siefrrs-:---pn}p-ene-sigtryrtey--be ereeked-an-khe-sub�eet-properi}� a: Free-Stamding--Ha4-mare-khan-}@@-sefaare-feet Tear-higher-than-}S-feet- p-}nststxtiana}--at�h-�rng;Q--ex--He3tip}e--Oeeripaney Business-�+�+��.:+_+___-3denti€#eatien--Signsr---Y'he--tabs} sign-are-for-the-subjeeb-Preperbp-may-net-exeeed-}Sa-e€ the- fro nt-}Dei}d4.rg--fae.-sde--({ok}r-front -an&} ld�-facades may-be-eeented-when-on-a-ceerleei-3rotr�.--�,i�ns-.c :__--,=-te eemprise-the-tota3--s-igrr-area-shah-}>�-crotr�_-__:=-urith bhe-fa}}ewrng-provisrensc a- Free-staffing_--Not-mere-t{ien--ene-sign-per sabjeet-t�p�Y---$igrr-arez-3re�-net- _--__`. -}5 square-€eet-errtk-a-maximum-height-e€-}S-feet- YFa}},--8anepY-and-£faregxee--3Qctyno-rrkha3r roue sign-gee`-setbjeat-'FrroPez'ti� --ar-tiro--sigres-'(3--Per beti3dir:g--s-ider-where--free-stamiing-sigir-sa--net ubiiieed---3ndiridna3-sign ej.-ee-nay--noh �xeeec}-7.g sgaare-£eek-with-t-kre--he-fight-mex�mmrse�-at �c�y-of parapet-ar-eae•es- G. eomr}ex-,-Lenter— (See Subd. 4 S 6), C.6), D.6) Fm-the-ease-of-mx}tip}e-eeeupaney-eammereia}-bui}�ings; the-signs-she}}-be-sabjeet-ba-the-fa}}.awing-sbaredards- �: A-�-igit-�sl-an--herr-ma3tspie--eeeupanep-�ommereiai eenters-ska}}-be-approved-bp-tkte-P}arming-2emmissian- 2- Area-£dent#€ieetiem-Signs:---on2-y-ene-sigrr�ney--be erected-an-the-sub}eet-property- a---free-staadir9---Hot �nof.�-their-2{io--scgtare-feet rear -higher-tkran-3@-f eet- 3- Hu}bipie-----6eeapanep----- nus-ilecss------Struebare identif ieatien-SicJrer:---�Fhe-{o-ta}-sigm-area--€o-r--the subj-eet--Propertp--Eine}ming--free-stamding}--may--mek exeeed-3�--perc-ertt-ef-{}>�-frartt-�xti3dixfg--far.�ir-Ebabh front-and-side-€eeades-aeay--be-.=..+_,t.t= }-whetr-oir�-Berner }otfr-bkt-na-sireg}e-sign-map-exeeed-}@@-sgxare-feet- Im Subd. 5. Administration and Enforcement A'Permit Required Except as herein exempted in Subd. 3N, it is unlawful for any person to maintain, install, erect, relocate or modify any sign without first obtaining a permit. B. Aonlication and Fee Applications for Sign Permits shall be made in writing upon forms furnished by the City, each application for a permit shall set forth the correct legal description of the tract of land upon which the sign presently exists or is proposed to be located, the location of the sign on said tract of the land, the manner of construction, dimensions, and materials used in the sign, a complete description and sketch of the sign or Photoaraoh. At the time oplication, the £ application, applicant shall pay a fee based on the size of the sign; such fees to be set by resolution. If a sign authorized by permit has not been installed within 120 days from date of issuance of the permit, said permit shall become void. No fee shall be refunded. C. Maintenance. All signs shall be constructed in such a manner and of such material as to be safe and substantial The exposed backs of all signs and sign structures shall be painted a neutral color. Signs determined by the Building Official to be in a state of disrepair shall be restored to good repair by the sign owner, or property owner on which the sign is situated, within thirty (30) days after the mailing of written notice to repair from the Building Official. In the event of non- compliance with said notice, the City shall be authorized to remove said sign at the expense of the sign or property owner. (Exemptions moved to Subdivision 3N) F. D. Variance. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may grant a variance from the requirements of this section as to specific signs where it is shown that by reason of topography or other conditions strict compliance with the requirements of this section would cause a hardship. aeticr.. 25 /66 Subd. 6. Existing Non -Conforming Signs. Any sign existing at the time of the adoption of this section, excluding those authorized by variance, which does not conform to the provisions hereof shall not be replaced or repaired if damaged beyond 50 percent of its value. All signs //a MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner RE: Hiring of a Consultant to Update the City's Comprehensive Plan DATE: April 29, 1988 At their meeting on March 1, 1988 the City Council passed a motion directing the staff to distribute and accept proposals from qualified consultants to update the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Council at the same meeting also authorized the staff to interview and recommend a consultant to the City Council. The City received four proposals and a committee consisting of staff, two City Council members, two Planning Commission members and a member of the Community Development Commission interviewed all four of the consultants. At a meeting on April 28, 1988 the interview committee unanimously recommended to the City Council that the firm of BRW be retained to update the City's Comprehensive Plan. BACKGROUND: In May of 1977 the City awarded a contract to the firm of Sovik, Mathre, Sathrum & Quanbeck for preparation of a Comprehensive Plan for the City at a cost of $29,275. The plan was completed in 1981. At their meeting on February 16, 1988 the City Council received a recommendation from both the Planning Commission and Community Development Commission recommending that the City do a complete update of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The memo dated February 11, 1988 outlined the reasons for updating the Comprehensive Plan. The City Council at the February 16, 1988 meeting authorized City staff to prepare an RFP to be distributed to consultants. At their meeting on March 1, 1988 the City Council reviewed a draft RFP and authorized the distribution of the RFP and interviewing of consultants. The staff distributed the RFP's and received four proposals. All four firms submitting a proposal were interviewed by an interview committee consisting of John Anderson, Dennis Kraft, Douglas Wise, Mayor Lebens, Councilman Scott, Planning Commissioners Forbord and Schmidt and Community Development Commissioner Tim Keane. After conducting the interviews on April 26, 1988 the Committee discussed the four applicants and narrowed the decision to two firms. The Committee met again on April 28, 1988 and after discussion unanimously recommended the firm of BRW. Prior to the April 28, 1988 meeting staff also checked references for the two firms selected for consideration after the interviews. Please find attached a summary sheet which lists basic information concerning the four firms. The summary sheet includes cost estimates. In order for the Committee to evaluate the firms on an equal basis adjustments had to be made to the costs submitted with the proposals. The cost to conduct the proposed study are greater than originally anticipated but in the range discussed at the April 19th Council meeting. Because the Comprehensive Plan will establish development patterns over the next ten years, the Committee feels that this will be money well spent. The cost of correcting a mistake caused by improper planning can be many times the initial cost of doing the planning right in the first place (eg. land use lawsuit such as the gravel pit lawsuit). In comparison to the City's overall budget over the next ten years the cost of the Comprehensive Plan is very minimal. The City's 1988 General Fund Budget is $3.76 million. If this cost is projected out over the next ten years it is $37.6 million. Plus, when the cost of inflation and growth of the community are added in, the budget will be in excess of $50 million. The cost can also be compared to other types of routine expenditures made by the City. It is equal to one additional police officer for three years or about 1/3 the cost of a new fire truck. ALTERNATIVES: 1. The City Council could offer and pass a motion to select the firm of BRW to update the City's Comprehensive Plan. 2. The City Council could offer and select one of the other firms to update the City's Comprehensive Plan. 3. The City Council could develop a new revised Request for Proposals (RFP). 4. The City Council could offer and pass a motion to not move ahead with the updating of our Comprehensive Plan at this time. RECOMMENDATION• At a meeting on April 28, 1988 the interview committee unanimously recommended that BRW be retained for the updating of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The reasons for recommending BRW for the work included the following: 1. BRW has the most extensive staff and greatest depth of expertise in-house. 2. The committee felt that the BRW proposal contained the strongest economic development element. 3. The BRW firm project manager has had day-to-day experience in not only preparing plans, but also preparing ordinances and administering ordinances on a day to day basis. 4. The quality of the proposal, presentation and follow-up by BRW was exceptional. 5. The references that were checked on the BRW firm were extremely strong. The committee also recommends that the project include the community survey, floppy disk of the plan and digitizing of the city base maps as part of the work program. The community survey will provide reliable information for the planning process in terms of the attitude, perceptions and desires of the citizens of Shakopee. The digitizing of the base maps will provide a valuable tool to the City for future information and reproduction of information relating to development, zoning, parcel ownership, etc. The floppy disk will allow City staff to keep the plan documents up to date which is very important in attracting development proposals. ACTION REOUESTED: 1. Pass a motion selecting BRW and authorizing the Mayor and City Administrator to negotiate a contract for Council approval for the updating of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 2. Pass a motion authorizing submission of a loan application to the Metropolitan Council for 75% of the total cost of the project and designating the remainder of the cost to come from the 1988 fund balance. CONSULTANTS MAJOR PLAN ELEMENTS (X denotes strongest firm) Economic BRW HOtSINGTON NW ITEMS X Resource Depth X Base 69,944 63,255 32,000 MWCC-Deduct - 1,000(est) - 1,180 -1,000(est) Econ/Mktg 0 15,000 17,000 Landuse Inv. 750 0 0 Digitize Maps 3,000 0 3,000(est) Comm. Survey 4,400 0 500(est) 100 Final Plans 0 0 2,100 TOTAL COST $77,094 $77,075 $53,600 MAJOR PLAN ELEMENTS (X denotes strongest firm) Economic X Transportation X X Resource Depth X Survey/Targeting X X Facilation Skills (1) X References (2) X X WUORNOS 45,000 -1,600 15,000(est) 0 0 0 3,000 $61,400 (1) Public Meeting Skills (2) Community Development Director's reference check not other committee members. //b MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner RE: Canterbury Downs Request to Utilize Gate #5 DATE: April 29, 1988 Canterbury Downs has requested of the City permission to use Gate #5 (the gate exiting onto C.R. 16) on a regular basis for exiting traffic during the 1988 racing season. BACKGROUND: When Canterbury Downs was initially constructed and received a conditional use permit and later a planned unit development approval from the City it proposed five gates entering and exiting the property. The environmental impact statement completed for the facility indicated that Gate #5, the gate exiting onto C.R. 16, would be only used for overflow traffic. Attached you will find a page excerpt from the Environmental Impact Statement which reads "Five entrances to the racetrack site are assumed two are off C.R. 83, one is off 4th Avenue, one is off the proposed North-South collector on the Western boundary of the site, and one is off CSAH 16. This last gate will be the least utilized. It will remain closed for all events, except occasionally when it will be used during peak day time events to provide some relief for the remaining gates." Canterbury Downs has complied with this requirement with the exception of a short period during the summer of 1987. At that time new management took over the track and was unaware of the restriction applied to the use of this gate. After being made aware of the provision Canterbury Downs ceased utilization of the gate on a regular basis. Attached you will find communication and backup information submitted to the City by Canterbury Downs. It is their conclusion based on the information included that use of this gate on a regular basis for exiting of traffic will improve the traffic circulation both within the track property and on the adjacent roadways at the end of the races. City staff conferred with the Assistant City Attorney and concluded that this is a traffic management issue and not a land use change, therefore action can be taken by the City Council without recommendation of the Planning Commission. Because it would be considered a traffic management issue there is no clear procedure for reviewing and approving or disapproving the request. It is the option of the Council to act on the request as they deem appropriate. If the Council feels it necessary they could set a public hearing to allow for public input into the decision making process. it i ALTERNATIVES: 1. The City Council could offer and pass a motion approving the request of Canterbury Downs. 2. The City Council could offer and pass a motion denying the request of Canterbury Downs. 3. The City Council could request additional information be provided as well as provide an opportunity for citizen input concerning this matter. The Council could offer and pass a motion setting a public hearing for the June 7, 1988 meeting. If the Council so desired it could also consider allowing Canterbury Downs to utilize the gate during the interim period for exiting of traffic and monitoring traffic flow to determine the impact on traffic circulation around the track. The Council could then take action at the June 7, 1988 meeting after weighing the evidence from the track and input from citizens within the community. Staff recommends alternative #3. The issue of the use of gate #5 for exiting of traffic from Canterbury Downs has caused concern within the community in the past. A major reason for the City not wanting Canterbury Downs to utilize this gate on a regular basis in the past was the concern that traffic exiting this gate would proceed in a westerly direction and creating additional traffic in the residential areas of the community. Due to this previous concern, staff recommends that the Council hold a public hearing giving citizens the opportunity to address Council regarding the request from Canterbury Downs. ACTION REODESTED: Offer and pass a motion directing City staff to schedule a public hearing on the use of gate #5 by Canterbury Downs for the June 7, 1988 meeting. Offer and pass a motion authorizing Canterbury Downs to use Gate #5 on a trail basis prior to the June 7th public meeting with the option of closing Gate #5 prior to June 7th if major problems arise. FA Percent Direction of Approach 3 TH 41 Bridge TH 169 Bridge CSAH 18 North TH 101 East CR 42 East - - CR 83 South TH 169 South 6 15 53 12 1 Figure 4.2.4 indicates the direction of approach on the existing highway system which would be used until future roadway improvements are completed. Direction of approach for d.sign day events as well as for peak events are shown. Due to the magnitude of the crowd during peak events, approach directions were modified somewhat. The majority of these modifications were minor except for traffic approaching on County Road 42 from the east. During peak events, it is anticipated that larger crowds would be attending from outside the metropolitan area and that people living to the east (primarily Dakota County) would use this route to reach the racetrack. . Figure 4.2.5 shows the direction of approach once the proposed future highway system in the area is completed. Major differences between Figure 4.2.4 and Figure 4.2.5 are due to the construction of the proposed' Shakopee Bypass and the reconstruction of County State Aid Highway 18. Once inside the study area, -trips are distributed in a logical manner to access the site. For arriving traffic, approximately one-half of the westbound site traffic on TH 101 access the site at Valley Park Drive. Of the remaining half, two-thirds use CR 83 and one-third uses the north -south collector street. For traffic leaving the site, parking lot controls will be used to insure that eastbound traffic on TH 101 is as nearly as possible distributed equally among the three exits that lead to TH 101 (North-South collector street, CR 83 and Valley. Park Drive). Eastbound traffic arriving on TH 101 will use the North-South collector primarily. Likewise for westbound traffic leaving the site via TH 101. Five entrances to the racetrack site are assumed: two are off CR 83, one is off 4th Avenue, one is off the proposed North-South collector on the western boundary of the site, and one is off CSAH 16. This last gate will be the least utilized. It will remain closed for all events, except occasionally when it will be used during peak daytime events to provide some relief for the remaining gates 4.2.3.3 Non -Site Traffic _ In order to determine background traffic in the vicinity of the site, traffic counts were taken along Trunk Highway 101 at Valley Park Drive and County Road 83, on Friday, August 26, and Saturday, August 27, 1983. During these periods, Valleyf air as well as the Renaissance Festival and State Fair were operating. In addition, traffic counts conducted on the above days for use in determining racetrack background traffic were taken on days (Friday and Saturday) when the Liitle Six Bingo Parlor was in session.. Consequently, it is felt that these counts represent worst case background traffic conditions. To preserve this "worst case" quality, no _ // h C/ L B Q �%rte _ TUURY RECEIVED D O W N 5 N.PP,2 AN CITY OF `;ur,><;.^rpwE't , April 21, 1988 Mr. John Anderson City Administrator -City of Shakopee 129 First Avenue East Shakopee, MN 55379 RE: Use of Gate #5 Dear Mr. Anderson: I believe that any question concerning the use of Gate #5 is a traffic management question which if it is to be reviewed by anyone other than City staff, then it should be reviewed by the City Council. The racetrack is not asking for an amendment to any conditional use permit or planned unit development. The extent of the use of its entrance gates was never part of the conditional use permit approval process. When the racetrack submitted its various materials to the City in 1983 for approval, it showed that Gate #5 would be used for 108 of the traffic. See Exhibit A which is the submission to the Metropolitan Council and the City of Shakopee in the fall of 1983 that shows Gate #5 to handle 108 of the traffic. In our final EIS approved by the City, after the conditional use permit was approved, the only limitation on Gate #5 was a statement that the southerly gate would be closed after 10 P.M. See Exhibit B. In any event, in the past we have limited the use of Gate #5 to peak event use. For the reasons noted in the enclosed memorandum from Barton-Aschman Associates and letter from Canterbury Downs, we want to use it more frequently to facilitate exiting traffic. Canterbury Downs/1100 Canterbury Road/P.O. Boz 508/Shakopee, Minnesota 55379/(612) 445-7223 City of Shakopee Page 2 April 21, 1988 I£ you would like further input from us on this subject or if you want us to appear at a council meeting to review this, please let me know and as always we would be glad to attend and answer any questions. In any event, we expect opening weekend to be a peak event when we would use Gate #5 under our old policy and perhaps it would be helpful for city staff to review its use on those days so you can see how it works to facilitate existing traffic. Please let me know what you would like to do or any comments you may have. ery ly yours, Mike Manning General Manager Tom Brock Operations Manager EXHIBIT A / / h .......,, .- , , 0,..,...,- .. .- . ez. , . . . ... ,.., . , ... ' .0V' , '# , •• •... . . •. —. - - _ . .e. • • .., ., 4.1 r —, ,. .„... ,• . . . _ ,..,z; .,,,,,.......,_, ,..., . . ..,,.:,...-. ...........:::.a... ..,.....,...,.....„„,t,„ ..,........... „,_.... , , . ,.. . .,.„.. , ,_ . ....,....• 'e•-• _,./tes.- ..:, ._-,c, -.N.,1.:.-4••i.0.41t,i,..1.-,..V.A„!.,•-•,140.1 i.z.,•...k..1,..,._ . .' Y ' , ,..,_, -,•;.-,, , ri 1 • , a.rx., +-To,?*,.':-k-, iiiiir: --/- i.v.: ..,„..."! ,„..,, -. • - .. 9t .,-,f• Atti-%-„vnt...44.,,,:fiT 4.1 ,-*i",i) i-' 7` : ' .-. % ' 1,41,-A''.!4‘ „/ ' 7 •,,' -.4:-..,_!..til - ' '-'.'Y' ' . . : '3:0-• 1,-A,"Dt. -"S•••!;,,,--,;••-,•.'1 - ',,c , :,-.,...i, -, k ., „ ,• •-,..111,f.4.• , ,- :, -;, - - iiiit vs..., “ • • --• - ' ' . - • k• 7.--1.6...-... ..-,--> -'../-1.-^6 .-••"••'''17 4,'"*.V...VI• , : : ,-,- . .. 'tie,' .s.- _ t7•04,•• • •i. • ' , . • ,,• ' -, - ' • , ,. • ' ' ' • ''A'. ', '' •i•;.si ,_1'. '__ . ', ' ' ' ' ; ':- '-1.-4'41.:•::1:-' . . ''- - ''' '''''' "-J:, -.: , 4•:. .,..;,:. ''.., - ,' ,••t..-.1:1474,.':;;•,,,,,is::•F;1:‘•.4,"........-4.,,,:ii.,---,-,..7.•.'7.....:-`-'7,...,.;,-,-2,.-\...4.0,2s.'.7.•Th—tr.....;1;..:;:jr,,,,.v, N INFORMATION ,.m, • _RN - - -MU. = - i';'•,',111I - ‘ ' -- ;,1::: ''t ' , ... ,:,•mp --.)111.7 , ap • . sip . .0 :ffiri: 0 ',; . mr, =...: . - . s , . _ '. . ,...-:. - _ . . _- , - . . - .. '''. kt-':.:5-Y• t*:::';',`-t -. -.- • •• • ' 111 • , 41 ., . . 4 4. . ., -4 ,41 ' 4 a . ,• . . . 0 ,, • • , -1.— • e:, , •, 1,' . •, _ '' •'- ,,7-2:,' , •, ''' -+ ' , ,;::-,- ',',.. ' ''• -,' ,',.47t+•‘.. Z.I.,.:,.-• ' - ., • ' • , • ••-.^-' - ' • .- , : ' .'I'''vl' ip.,. ...:..f. ,...,...ip.. .:. 4.4 :-.14).A 1.;: :•.:. , .,•,1.-i.2-31.• . .• ..• t .• - • „ , , • . jail'''. •> ' 14. -•-• :a n,,•-•-, ,.,•1'. -- ,-,- :-•-•.•••• - - - • • •-:-- ,-•.. :.)... is i:,-.•-, • ...-•. .1.A ...41- „ _•:-::•,•i,,...r.i.„• ,4. •*,`,441.,rsg.,,:i• ,,, .,...,,,.. ,,,,s-.,41„,,il . >,An-,t,.•44:1411.2,10,-5,,,7.:.c.,,-;•'•,1 - '."'•41:- ',e-r5-7 /4/-40ii,'Or.'is.."' ''';'''"8,.--' 4`„41i. 71.tiz,iiw•88 -.-8*.;.A.• 1.4.z,;.,.44:•;r00,,,i...,... .;•;:iy, 41;1144-ii,,..)rot‘r11410,447:14711t.V itra,,'..?..i•re ietFyIttirtti Si!. 1. 4,,loti..60„,:. IS ,_ 4.-3.AFJ,,, .A, ,,f2,1, 4,,..4.,.....r.j.,.-1,1,egt,t.,•,;:•',.‘„,„0,...!eg„' , -1,:. ..... •.. ,, .N.s.-•.,,, -' -• • .,.••••0-- y. - •• ' ri....c.s %.5,/,'.• r• ,-, -si.p..,f40-IV^4,4*(c.):117RX:iv.,117-4'.-2.4%1_40.,••:!!'•*47-41.1 ;', ....`.1:::;ft '-‘P.JY-',. -.-NP•,1.:.e.•:,-!:re„Ti•" iiii x_tc.tvi.: ....: 1P-1•,:- 1"-`7., ‘.,.--c. '' n'4.14.' • 3'.'•''' ,,,-.)4.t.{04-4','i•Itk ..- ,. . ."..,,....-.. . .....:, ,..,„., . ,-..,.... ....-,::: ..- r, A "\ ''•-•••-:;..,s,...'r••.:1 4 `" '---,-:-.i.•.--7 ., I -s, --.!. -II ere. • ,,t• - L ' . . t•-7.-•,,•,t,. .•, :. .. . .. .• --s , _ . • - . • ..• ,iii- ‘ , . . .., ,• (-,\• .-.-1 li•I-'W;g1'•1:3.7,-1-:4.4-.-- e.2•.u‹,.. • l'-'. 3 , *-• i.:' :•,-.."‘•Z• -:silt.' *II'?- " N-3‘.....:'-,::..-,•• •:,, - ' '• ' . . " •-' -' --'•-- 7•- ,,, • .......-V`r — ' - • -•- •-• _ . .,,,..... . ..- Nto- ...•••• ..- • NA,.,.". -...**.%%.*%•,,,,.. It 4 •••. ./NN\ .. , • 14'1....•,,_......•••pat ..f. st I ;'..q5.,..`..' ••. . 7.' -"..*. ..... ''. i..:•, .•- • l' / tr... • '.,.,,, .. ... . • WO"; •*%.....-- .'Ye i / ... e'iC s. . , . :- '..,,•'''''''''' '- . '%., -,., -,....;• .. fl. r , . ....-' -.' if/ ;14, r-. • ''''•• :,W . -1 ,.. cr • . ...••-- , .,/ 4Ie _ ,,-- ,,..• • -.-* „''' , ;4.-t- ,4,,e''' --'- ,N1 ,-• .,- %as.: 0-. •,,•::. 'fie „...r-,;,..:. •ir r ., . --7.4, - 4-;•• ,:. k., ....r• . . 1.4:; • .....,, ..44KA, 'NM... i ...... ...,?1,-...r.,.,,.„ . I :1--' ''' ;:, ... ...7. ..„,..,....„.•;,..,„ P 'V -.3 .. cs ••••., %.• „,.• - ''.: . *..v... ..- t 4., „ • \ , -,....--,-.;01... . - ' . '1,-.I., .-,...- 'alp-- ,--; 1--., .....-' .r... 4,) . — - "‘'' - ;:e / ,,.,... - ..,--iir_:".c—>",., N.... .:.,,. . t P ..- Ar „.... Apr - .., ,-34. 110, • •-., ....., w •-4,, +AO .... ''.. . • *\‘.-• -.. — 1 % •45. .. 7 „.......,-,.. • • -- ,, ,14.•• . --..., I y# -. --'''--- ' • . 44"..,_-, A,Elitg-4, -, ' t 's. .. • . .-7 .,,..,...rilily‘i: • • MI 4. • .,' sli - • , . :•IP . '‘• , •• • • , . .: -;., -,- 4.1/4 • I-4 - --, " Sp • ..i. •A • .././' : .-. ••..• •• - , I - . - . 'W... ' i ..''..- -.; s'.'''•-.. ; '3:1%.,.....::.. ' -.•\ • • 1 ..• . ,..,.. ,•-.......-., . -. ........:1‘......,:m..n4.,, -..--1-• ,i-. 1-- ''----'1 --- ; ' -- , . . ,i-i-i.-:-..,,, - , -. - - -: ...-, - , .,. , , , -, v,- - _,,..., .... --. . -4,. ..,.•..L..._0' .:-‘..--111111' •-......'''' .. i , ‘2, .., _.. 1 _'y _ U.B. I t '•� _ % - �a .< � `�.� �'" � _ ' r tel\ �" ' ' � � ����? 1•:- 4th Avenue �k T.H. 101 - _ i f 0 y �V toss m a — gT > x V.LP. n 2599E —I — f Eeat-West Road s+.+Duct o m 1 C.R. 42' 00%- Per Cent of Entering Traffic by Gate -uf Figure 10 Site Access Existing Roadways —� Proposed Roadways * Proposed Intersection Improvements NON -SITE TRAFFIC- 3 Existing traffic counts were taken along Trunk Highway 101 at Valley Park Drive and County Road 83 on Friday, September 2, 1983, and Saturday, September 3, 1983. During this period, Valley Fair as well as the Renaissance Festival were operating. Conse- quently, it is felt that these counts will represent worst traffic conditions for the peak arrival and departure times at the track and were used for all existing intersection analysis. For future conditions (implementation of County Road 18 river crossing, Shakopee Bypass, etc.), the year 2000 traffic volume assignment in the recently completed Draft Environmental Impact Statement for County Road 18 west arterial alternate (recom- mended alternative) was used. Figure D-6, Current and Future ADTs, shows average daily traffic projections. The existing ADT is based on MnDOT's 1982 traffic volume maps. SITE ACCESS Once inside the study area, trips were distributed in a logical manner to arrive at the site. Of special note is the use of Valley Park Drive to access the site. Approximately one-half of westbound Trunk Highway 101 site traffic will use Valley Park Drive. This is approximately the split which balances the level of service at County Road 83 and at Valley Park Drive. Valley Park Drive will be extended southerly to intersect with the proposed east -west street that intersects, to the west, with County Road 83. Five entrances to the racetrack site are assumed: two off of County Road 83, one off of D-7 County Road 16, one off of Fourth Street, and one along the western edge of the site (see Figure D-2) off of the proposed collector street. Distribution of traffic at intersections adjacent to the site under all alternatives studied are attached. INTERSECTION ANALYSIS Based on the data and assumptions indicated earlier in this report, the level of service analysis for critical intersections was performed. Detailed analyses for each intersection at various peak hours are attached along with a description of the capacity analysis parameters. Tables 4 and 5 show the resulting levels of service for the overall intersection (weighted average of all movements) and for the most congested intersection movement. Table 4 addresses level of service for the existing highway system. The design event can be easily accommodated. Exiting special event traffic (25,000) will encounter congestion at the Trunk Highway 101 and Valley Park Drive intersection, and at the CR 18 and TH 101 intersection. Special events are anticipated to occur four or five. times peryear at a maximum. Consequently, rather than designing a system to accommodate these crowds prior to implementation of the ultimate highway system, transportation system management (TSM) techniques will be initiated. Maximum crowds that can be handled without intersection congestion, on the existing roadway system, on special event days range between 19,000 and 20,000. Traffic patrol supervision similar to that provided at past Viking games at the Metropolitan Stadium go _ EXHIBIT B �( h 4th Avenue T.H. 101 _\ V.I.P. j m — I a f E88[—neer nvo" stuep>EE T .\ C.R. 42 rr 7 rij -. S 544/6 AZe Figure 4.2.2 R4ccr=cz Proposed Access Improvements Existing Roadways Proposed Roadways Proposed Intersection Improvements T IU yNmAu WN^ 4KKi�1�41rK. 1� 7. Treating the track with water or dust controlling chemicals. 8. Covering the loads of trucks hauling dust -producing materials from the site. 9. Ceasing dust producing activities during periods of high winds. 5.3 Noise _ The following are measures to minimize noise effects attributed to the operation of racetrack development. 5.3.1 Building Design The grandstand will be an enclosed structure comprised of the following materials, which may be subject to possible design changes. (a) Front (track side) will consist of 1 -inch thick insulating glass, non -opening. (b) Back of structure will be primarily windows. (c) Ends will consist of pre -fabricated steel with 6 -inch thick batt insulation. (d) Roof will consist of pre -fabricated steel with 4 -inch urethane insulation. (e) Decking will consist of metal with 214 -inch concrete overlayment. Sound levels inside an enclosed grandstand of this type will be inaudible in the neighboring residential areas. 5.3.2 Public Address System Noise levels created by the PA system at Tampa Downs racetrack in Oldsmar, Florida, were measured to determine the volume. The sound created by this system was measured to be within the range of 75-78 dBA at ear level. This system was designed for calling of races, so its volume is controlled to overcome masking created by the cheering crowd. it is anticipated that the volume requirements for the Shakopee racetrack would be similar. Accordingly, to meet nighttime noise standards and to achieve the required 75-78 dBA volume at ear level, the Shakopee PA system will need to consist of 10 or less speakers at a height less than 31 feet from ear level. 5.3.3 Traffic Routing _ The south entrance gate to the proposed racetrack site will be closed after 10p.m. to prevent site traffic from entering the residential area along CSAH 16. Traffic will be routed through industrial areas. Additional measures should be outlined in the Special Provisions of all construction contracts, which designate specific haul routes located outside noise sensitive areas. 110 llb Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 1610 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55454 612-332-0421 MEMORAFDb M TO: Tan Brock - Canterbury Downs FROM: Deane Wenger - Barton-Asdmian Associates, Inc. Holly Hassett - Barton-Asclmian Associates, Inc. ATE: March 31, 1988 S0117FX,T: South Gate Fhtrmroe/Exit at Canterbury Dorms Canterbury Downs is considering additional use of the south gate #5 which exits mto CR 16 during the peak departure time at the track to eliminate congestion on and off site. You have asked us to analyze the existing traffic management plan and to inform you if such additional use of gate #5 world help to eliminate congestion on and off site. For the reasons stated herein, we conclude that such use world be beneficial to overall traffic management - Figure 1 indicates gate locations at Canterbury Downs. Rhe peak departa e is anticipated to last from one-half hour to one hour depending on attendance levels. Due to the more sporadic nature of arriving racetrack patrons, it is not anticipated that the south gate will be used for vehicles entering the racetrack. Allowing additional exiting from Canterixnry Downs to CR 15 will primarily ingpmve local access and reduce delays currently occurring at gate #1. Most of the trips that would use this exit to tread west are already using CR 16. It is estimated that this is approximately four percent of the racetrack traffic. The difference is that volumes that now exit via CSAR 83 turn right to go west on CR 16. If they are allowed to exit to CR 16 directly, the volumes on CSAH 83 north of CR 16 are reduced, the CR 16 - CSAR 83 intersection is relieved and the described exiting traffic does not have to wait in long lines to exit onto CSAH 83. The question then arises whether the CR 16 exit to go west would be so convenient that trips from other routes world begin using it. The answer is no. men the track was first opening, the diversion might have been expected. Row, however, a signal has been installed on Fourth Street and CR 17 in Shakopee so the egress from north of the track parking is the most convenient. Since westbound CR 16 traffic must still wait for gaps in the CR 17 traffic to proceed onto CR 17, it will not be so attractive a routing as to divert large volumes. // - Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. March 31, 1988 Page 2 The CR 16 exit would also be used to permit a left -turn exiting movement to eastbound CR 16. This will increase the CR 16 volumes for a short distanoe to CSAR 83. A time advantage for drivers would occur due to more balanced traffic volumes approaching the CR 16 - (SAH 83 intersection. In addition, a significant number of these exiting drivers from gate #5 would turn left on CR 16 and then would turn riot from (R 16 to soathbocmd CSAR 83 thence south to CSAR 42. We do not anticipate the exit will cause any additional traffic problems, potential hazard or diversion of trips except for the muting to CSAR 83 via CR 16 from gate #5. In addition, it should not cause any significant rerouting of trips beyond the (SAH 83 - CR 16 intersection. It is not anticipated that exiting from the south gate will significantly increase traffic on CR 16 east of (SAH 83. This is because it is easier to make a riot turn onto CSAR 83 and south onto (SAF{ 42 than it will be to wait for gaps in CSAH 83 traffic to head east on CR 16. Gate receipts inrdicate that 41 percent of racetrack traffic use gate 41 ((SAH 83 at 12th Avenue). Of that traffic, 33 percent exit to the south on (SAH 42. If the south gate #5 was open, it is estimated that ore -third to one-half of the southbound traffic would utilize the south gate #5 instead of gate #1. This would provide for a reduction of cars queuing to turn right out of gate #1 and Provide additional capacity for northbound and eastbound traffic at gates #1 and #2. Figure 2 shows estimated south gate exiting distribution during the peak departure time. Through the additional use of gate #5, the intersection at (SAH 83 and gate #1 will be safer for use by patrons and other motorists using that intersection. 7kc y E U. l 1 "c 4th Avenue v 0 F s' - i. ` OATE2 ` 12th Avenue � I W4' - i East-West Road �J Canterbury Downs Access Dates 1IS I IlArt .._Afte4 wv. A, afw-w _ Inc. Flaure 1 t / MW 31 'B8 11:38 CWITERB-RY DOWNS 1! b P.5 •�1 ��— Distribution of Traffic Exiting via South Gate ® 6a.ton-A+chman Associates, Yic. Figure 2 -.I CANTUBURY D 0 W April 4, 1986 Mr. Doug Wise City Planner City of Shakopee 129 First Avenue East Shakopee, MH 55379 Dear Mr. Wise: RE: Additional use of Gate #5 In the past, Canterbury Downs has primarily used Gates #1, #2, 43 and #4 for vehicular entrance and exit. For the reasons stated herein, we are now considering the limited use of Gate #5 on County Road 16 for exiting traffic from the racetrack. However, since we told the City Council we would review with them any changes in the use of Gate #5, before doing so we would like to bring this matter before the City Council for preliminary briefing and feedback. We would request to be put on the agenda under "Other Business." Our internal traffic management policy in the past has been that Gate #5 will remain closed for all events, except occasionally when it will be used during peak daytime events to provide some relief for the remaining gates. Canterbury Downs is proposing to change its internal traffic management plan to provide that, Gate #5 will remain closed during incoming traffic for all events except emergencies but be regularly open daily for peak exiting traffic to provide some relief for the remaining gates. lie are proposing this modification for two reasons. First and most importantly, we believe it will improve the safety of the intersection of Gate #1 and County Road 83 and the intersection of County Road 83 and County Road 16. Second, we believe it will decrease the period of time that exiting traffic moves through Shakopee as a result of Canterbury Downs. We have reached this conclusion based upon Canterbury Downs' three years of operation experience and the enclosed report from Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., our traffic consultants. Canterbury Downs/1100 Canterbury Road/P.O. Box 508/Shakopee, Minnesota 55379/(612) 445-7223 J/ b Page Two 1. Canterbury Downs has used Gate #5 for exiting on peak days per our original traffic management plan for three seasons with no resulting problems. During August of the 1987 season, Canterbury Downs used Gate #5 for peak exiting daily on a trial basis with no resulting problems. We should have reviewed this with the City staff prior to the additional use of Gate #5 but the new General Manager was not aware of the prior traffic management plan when he directed staff to use Gate #5 more frequently. Once he was informed of the plan, he instructed staff not to use Gate #5 for daily use until we reviewed this with the City. General traffic patterns for the 1985, 1986 and 1987 seasons support the use of Gate #5 as proposed. Customer feedback from these three seasons in which customers have complained about not being able to exit efficiently enough and customers have specifically asked to use Gate #5. During our three years of experience, we have learned that less than 4% of the cars leaving Gate #1 turn south on County Road 83 and then turn west on County Road 16 in order to return to downtown Shakopee. Many of our local patrons use this route to return to their homes in Shakopee. However, each of these cars presently must exit Gate #1 and take a right turn, and then they must turn right again at the intersection of County Road 83 and County Road 16 adding unnecessarily to congestion at the intersection of Gate #1 and County Road 83 and the intersection of County Road 83 and County Road 16 and thereby slowing up southbound traffic on County road 83. By opening Gate #5 for exiting traffic, these patrons can achieve the same result but without slowing up other cars leaving Gate #1 who wish to go north or south on County road 83 or east on 12th Avenue and then to Highway 101. Also by opening Gate #5, a higher percentage of the patrons who drive south on County Road 83 to County Road 42, can accomplish that without adding to the traffic at Gate #1 and County Road 83. More of the remaining cars at Gate #1 will then be able more efficiently to drive straight ahead east on 12th Avenue to Highway 101 or drive north on County Road 83 to Highway 101. Some cars will continue to turn right at Gate #1 and drive south on County Road 42. 1/b Page Three We sincerely believe this proposal would improve traffic flow for both Canterbury Downs and Shakopee. We ask the City Council for its reaction and ideas and look forward to meeting with them. Sincerely, Tom Brock Director of Operations TB/jh cc: Mike Manning Tim Thompson Tom Brownell MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant RE: Huber Park Trail Bids DATE: April 28, 1988 INTRODUCTION: On April 28, 1988 bids were received and publicly opened for the Huber Park Trail Project. BACKGROUND: on April 5, 1988 City Council authorized the appropriate City officials to advertise for bids for the Huber Park Trail Project. On April 28, 1988 bids were received and publicly opened for said project. The following bids were received: Edman Builders, Inc. - $107,653.65 Lakeland Inc. - $118,586.05 David Folkman Constr. - $121,115.00 M.G.Asselford Co., Inc. - $134,402.75 Upon review of the bids staff discovered that the two low bidders placed qualifiers on their bid. Each of these two bidders stated that their bid was only good if the power lines in the Huber Park Trail were cut during construction. Shakopee Public Utilities has stated that due to the fact that these are major feeder lines to the community it is impossible to have them down for any period of time. Additionally, the bid specifications clearly state in Section 9 d., "Bidders may not stipulate in the proposal any additional conditions regarding the construction or award of the contract." The City Attorney has therefore advised us that the two low bidders should be disqualified at this time. Staff is recommending that the remaining bids also be rejected because of a major irregularity in the bid specifications. The irregularity related to the type of materials specified for the construction of the observation platform and the ability to install said materials. Prior to preparing the bid specifications for the Huber Park Trail Project, the consultants contacted a concrete fabrication company to determine if fabcon panels could be used for the observation platform. The concrete fabrication company then inspected the site to determine if the platform could be constructed using pre- fabricated concrete panels. Based upon written confirmation from the concrete fabrication company that the project could be constructed using pre -cast concrete panels, the consultants drafted the plan specifications accordingly. However, prior to the bid opening, the concrete fabrication firm notified several bidders that they could not install the precast panels as specified unless the power lines were taken down. For this reason, two of the bidders placed qualifiers on their bids. Because of the unforeseeable flaw in the bid specifications, the bid specifications as drafted could not be bid. The appropriate course of action would have been for the City to send out an addendum to the specifications defining an alternative to the precast fabcon panels. However, due to the fact that we were not aware of the problem until the day of the bid opening, this course of action was not possible. Staff is therefore recommending that all the bids be rejected at this time and that City Council authorize the appropriate City officials to readvertise for bids and modify the bid specifications to provide for an alternative method to be utilized in the construction of the platform decking. The cost for bidding the project will be approximately $2,000 and delay the project approximately 4 weeks. If the Council decides not to reject the bids at this time, we may be subjecting the City to potential litigation from the other bidders and plan holders. A lawsuit could delay the project for several months and perhaps kill the project altogether. If the project is not complete by 12/31/88 we will lose our Lawcon/LCMR funding committments. ALTERNATIVES: Move to reject all bids and authorize the appropriate City officials to rebid the Huber Park Trail Project and amend the bid specifications to provide for an alternative method to be utilized in the construction of the platform decking. Accept the low bid and authorize the appropriate City officials to execute the appropriate contract documents. Accept the third lowest bid and authorize the appropriate City officials to execute the appropriate contract documents. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative #1. ACTION REQUESTED: Move to reject all bids and direct the appropriate City officials to rebid the Huber Park Trail Project and amend the plan specifications to provide for an alternative method to be utilized in the construction of the platform decking. CONSENT //d MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant RE: Systematic Code Enforcement Program DATE: April 25, 1988 - INTRODUCTION: On April 12, 1988 the Shakopee City Council discussed establishing a systematic code enforcement program in the downtown area. Staff has prepared a brief outline of the program for City Council's review prior to forwarding it to the Downtown Committee and Community Development Commission for further consideration. I:3.Ph(H;ioLi3iOp At the City Council meeting on April 12, 1988 staff informed City Council that the City has already adopted the necessary codes to be used in establishing a systematic code enforcement program. The Uniform Housing Code clearly defines what constitutes an unsafe building and the process to be followed by the local building official to bring the property into compliance. Shown in attachment „1 is Chapter 10 of the Uniform Housing Code. Please note the sections that are -used to determine if a building is endangering the life, health, safety or welfare of the occupants. Because the Uniform Housing Code does not apply to commercial buildings, staff is proposing that the uniform code for the abatement of dangerous buildings be utilized in determining whether or not commercial buildings are up to code. Like the uniform housing code, the uniform code for the abatement of dangerous buildings defines what constitutes a dangerous building and the process to be followed by the local building official. (See attachment R2.) Staff believes that the enforcement of these two codes will meet the concerns expressed by the City Council. (Protecting the health, safety and welfare of building occupants.) The program as proposed will focus on commercial buildings in the downtown area and multi -family rental units. Single family detached units will be excluded from the code enforcement program at this time. Shown in attachment k3 is a map identifying the downtown area. Staff is proposing that the area be expanded to include the entire B-3 zone. Staff projects that the typical inspection for a building will take approximately 10 hours. Staff is proposing that the City contract with a private individual to conduct the inspections and be responsible for administering the code enforcement program under the Building Officials supervision. We project that the contracted rate will be approximately $15.00 per hour. Assuming an average of 10 buildings per block and taking into consideration the projected time spent per inspection and the estimated contract rate, we estimate that the total costs for completing the systematic code enforcement program in the B-3 zone will be approximately $21,150. In addition to these costs, the City can expect to incur an additional $2,500 per year in legal fees and $500 in start up costs. The City Building Inspector estimates that there are approximately two buildings in the downtown area that can not be brought up to code. He also estimated that 20% of the buildings to be inspected will cost in excess of $2500 to be brought up to code. Finally, Mr. Houser has pointed out that there are several accessory structures and non -conforming uses currently in existence that will have to be removed as a result of the enforcement of this procram. If City Council concurs with the program as proposed herein, it would be appropriate to direct staff to forward the code enforcement program to the Downtown Committee and Community Development Commission for further review and refinement. ALTERNATIVES• Move to forward the code enforcement program to the Downtown Committee and the Community Development Commission for further review and refinement. Make additions or changes to the information presented herein and direct staff to proceed in forwarding the code enforcement program to the Downtown Committee and the Community Development Commission for further review and refinement. Do not proceed in developing a code enforcement program at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommends alternative '.l. ACTION REODESTED• Move to direct staff to forward the code enforcement program to the Downtown Committee and Community Development Commission for further review and refinement. 0 i m E M o�2___,O—v>LV P_ vEv _ e, oec ___❑e�ESc_o rfta{; E '_^:-•z %' F=;oma_ //� L7 Xx 302 ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS 16. Whenever any building or structure. because of obsolescence, dilapidated condition, detetiontime, damage, inadequate exits, lack of sufficient fire-resis- five construction, faulty electric wiring, gas connections or heating apparatus, or other cause, is determined by the fire marshal to be a fire hazard. 17. Whenever any building or structure is in such a condition as to consimte a public nuisance known to me common law or in equity jurisprudence. IS. Whenever any portion of a building or swcmm remains on a site after the } demoGdon or dtsauction of me build;. or soucture orwhencverany building or _ stnv:mre is abandoned for a.vcd d in excess of it. monmsso as to constitute such building or portion thereof an rtnactive nuisance or hazard in the public. - 14 II I b w S 9 S 9 $ 5 D I OI •J�, 01 � w 1 J Ma ml MEMO M- smin -r7 u -no Fw S� 9 =yam p— _ ; 4 I =4 I G I rn, //6� MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerkr�v RE: Application for a Taxicab License - Town Taxi DATE: April 29, 1988 INTRODUCTION: Application has been received for a taxicab license from Town Taxi. BACKGROUND: Town Taxi, 2812 University Avenue S.E., Minneapolis has submitted an application for a taxicab license for Shakopee. They plan on operating only one vehicle at this time. They were licensed last year. I have checked with the Chief of Police and he recommends approval. The certificate showing insurance coverage is not in order. The applicant plans on submitting a corrected copy prior to the Council meeting. If it is in order, it would be appropriate for Council to act on the application. ALTERNATIVES: 11 Approve application 21 Deny application 31 Table application RECOMMENDATION: Alternative No. 1, approve application, if certificate of insurance is in order. Alternative No. 3, table application, if certificate of insurance is not in order. ACTION REQUESTED: Approve the application and grant a Taxicab License to Town Taxi, 2812 University Avenue S.E., Minneapolis, Minn. 55414. OR Table the application for a Taxicab License from Town Taxi, 2812 University Avenue S.E., Minneapolis, Minn. 55414. jc TOWNTAXI 113 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer':��> a,-&/ SUBJECT: Downtown Streetscape Project — Atwood Street DATE: May 2, 1988 INTRODUCTION: For several months now, the inclusion of Atwood Street as part of the Downtown Streetscape Project has been put on hold while negotiations with the Soo Line Railroad for the removal of the spur tracks have been in progress. I would like to update the Council on this issue and hopefully reach a decision on Atwood Street at this time. BACKGROUND: Since the inception of the Downtown Redevelopment Project, Atwood Street has been included intheproject area. In December, 1987 several property owners abutting Atwood Street expressed a desire to delete Atwood Street from the project. One of the key elements affecting the decision on Atwood Street is whether or not the Soo Line removes the spur track thru Atwood Street. Update on Sour Track Vacation The previous City Engineer, Ken Ashfeld, along with our consultant have been trying to get the Soo Line to vacate the spur track thru Atwood Street since last fall. The preliminary discussions with the railroad indicted that if the City would close Apgar, the railroad would remove the spur track thru Atwood and relocate the spur tracks west of Scott. On December 15, 1987, the Council went on record for supporting the idea of closing Apgar depending on the final details of the Soo Line proposal. Earlier this year, Dave Nelson from the Soo Line, sent a letter to the City indicating that they are negotiating with the Chicago & Northwestern Railroad for trackage rights into Shakopee. He also indicated that their negotiations with the CSNW were dependent on an ICC decision regarding the CSNW's request to abandon a section of track west of Shakopee (between Hopkins & Merriam). The Soo Line is reluctant to abandon the spur track until their negotiations with the C & NW are resolved. The ICC was supposed to make a decision on the main line abandonment by March 23, 1988 but they have delayed their decision until the two railroads reach a settlement on their negotiations. The Soo Line cannot say when the ICC will reach a decision. /11 Atwood Street May 2, 1988 Page 2 Due to the delays and "run -a -round" we are getting from the Soo Line, I contacted the Assistant Vice President of Operations, Mr. Jerry Pinkepank, to try and expedite the matter. Mr. Pinkepank was fairly upset that his people have dragged this on as long as they have. It appears that our discussions with them have "wandered off course" due to the ICC/C&NW problem, when the removal of the spur track at Atwood Street is a completely independent issue. - Mr. Pinkepank has assured me that they will give us a decision on the spur track by Tuesday's Council meeting and also provide us with drawings on their proposed track modifications at Apgar and Scott. According to Mr. Pinkepank, if the City is still agreeable to closing Apgar Street, there is an excellent chance that the spur track thru Atwood will be removed. Project Ramifications In addition to the spur track issue, there are several other items that should be brought out for your consideration regarding the deletion of Atwood Street. A. Reasons to Delete Atwood Street from the Project Currently, there are few retail establishments along Atwood Street, although it is zoned central business district. Several property owners abutting Atwood Street have previously expressed a desire to remove Atwood from the project. To reduce the project costs. In January, 1988, our consultant estimated that the construction costs for the two blocks of Atwood and one block of 2nd Avenue would be around $380,000.00, based on estimated quantities and exact unit prices in the contract. B. Reasons to Include Atwood Street in the Proiect 1. A high percentage of the improvement costs are being paid for by tax increment financing. If Atwood is delayed until a later date, the construction costs will be higher and assessment costs will also be higher. //Y Atwood Street May 2, 1988 Page 3 2. Eliminating Atwood Street from the project area would increase the assessments for the remaining property owners in the Downtown Project. This is mainly due to the assessment costs for the City parking lots being spread out over all the parcels in the project area. 3. The consultant has already designed Atwood into the project and therefore those design fees will have to be paid whether Atwood is done or not. The design fees for Atwood Street are estimated at $30,000.00. 4. Street improvements, such as new sanitary sewers, storm sewers, roadway improvements and railroad crossing improvements are needed on Atwood anyways. The streetscape items add approximately 30% to the project costs and about one-half of this increase is for street lights. To delay Atwood, would result in higher costs in the future. 5. Atwood Street is the western border of the Central Business District Zoning (B-3) as is Sommerville on the east. 6. While it is true that our current contract allows the City to increase or decrease quantities with no'effect on unit prices, completely eliminating Atwood Street from the project may result in litigation by the contractor based on state statutes for maximum allowed decreases in contracts. Even though we may be covered by the language in the contract, there may be legal costs incurred to prove it in court. Downtown Committee's Action On April 13, 1988 the Downtown Committee unanimously approved of Part 2, of Phase I of the Downtown Streetscape Project, as proposed and designed (which included Atwood Street). ALTERNATIVES: Move to officially include Atwood Street as part of the Downtown Streetscape Project, as designed. Move to delete the entire two blocks of Atwood Street from the project. �� r Atwood Street May 2, 1988 Page 4 3. Move to delete part of Atwood Street and/or 2nd Avenue from the project. - 4. Move to delete certain items from Atwood Street, such as streetscape related items, but include the roadway, sewer and railroad crossing improvements. RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUMMARY: If the railroad does agree to remove the spur tracks thru Atwood Street, based on the total project ramifications I recommend Alternative $1, to include Atwood Street as part of the Downtown Streetscape Project. In addition, if the closing of Apgar Street is still acceptable to the City, the Council should officially go on record as supporting that proposal to assure the railroad of the fact as part of their agreement to remove the spur tracks. RECOMMEND ACTION: 1. If the Council agrees with the inclusion of Atwood Street, they do not have to do anything since the Atwood portion is already included in the contract. The Council may want to officially go on record as supporting Atwood Street though. 2. Move to officially go on record as supporting the closure of Apgar Street on the condition that the railroad will remove the spur tracks thru Atwood and Scott Streets. DH/pmp ATWOOD 1 Soo Line Railroad F.O. Box 530 Mpls., MN 55440 February 22, 1988 File: 8457 Mr. John K. Anderson City Administrator City of Shakopee Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Mr. Anderson, I have had several conversations with Mr. Keith Nelson of Westwood Planning and Engineering relative to proposed trackage and street - changes on and adjacent to the Soo Line's property in Shakopee. The following is an update as to where the Soo is relative to this project. The Soo cannot release the property east of Atwood Street without certain trackage changes being made west of Apgar Street. The Soo has requested that the city consider closing Apgar as part of the project. As of this date, the Soo and CNW Railroad are in negotiations over trackage rights into the City of Shakopee. The Soo currently enters Shakopee via trackage rights on the CNW via Hopkins and Merriam_ The CNW is seeking to abandon this trackage. The Soo is reluctant to make any written proposals to the City of Shakopee for changes in Soo trackage and/or city streets until the issue with the CNW is resolved. The CNW's request for abandonment of the Hopkins to Merriam route is currently before the ICG. Earlier this month, the Soo asked for a 30 day delay in the ICCs decision to afford the two carriers time to negotiate a settlement of the issues at hand. I had advised Mr. Nelson a week and a half ago that I expected the matter to be resolved in three weeks. It now appears that the issues between the Soo and CNW will not be resolved until sometime in March. I am sorry for the delay as I know how anxious the City of Shakopee is to resolve this matter. As soon as I know the outcome of the CNW—Soo negotiations I will advise. Respectfully yours, - L d) 5z/ 33 D. H_ Nelson Asst_ Genl. Manager Northern District DHN:bmm cc: T. M. Parsons M. S. Bernhardson K. Nelson, Westwood Planning a Engr. O,TO:'-' John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM:�1. Ked. Ashfeld, City Engineer -`SUBJECT:_ Soo Line Railroad Proposal _ DATE: December 10, 1987 INTRODUCTION: over the course of the last year or so, I have pursued modifications to the numberofrailroad tracks in some of our street crossings. Attached is a proposal from Soo Line Railroad that would clean up the Atwood and Scott crossings. - BACKGROUND: At different occasions, Council has been asked to consider closing several downtown railroad crossings, including Apgar Street, to accommodate a corridor improvement project. To this date, there has not been sufficient interest on the part of Council to close any crossings. Attached is a proposal .from Soo Line Railroad that would result in the removal of two tracks in the Atwood crossing and two tracks in the Scott crossing. In return, Soo Line wants a committment on the part of the City to close Apgar and participate in the cost of some track work that would facilitate their operations. It appears from their letter that the purchase of the property that their tracks currently occupy would be considered cost participation. Also attached is a December 12, 1986 memo that addresses the Apgar/Scott street corridor and traffic movements if Apgar was closed. As indicated in the Soo Line letter, they wish to have an indication from the City if the proposal is workable. RECOMMENDATION: It ismyopinion that the removal of tracks .from Atwood and Scott would be a.big benefit. With traffic signals at Scott & 1st Avenue, Scott could function as the major corridor route and also connect to CSAH 77• REQUESTED ACTION: Direction to staff is requested as to whether Council would entertain the details of a proposal from Soo Line Railroad which includes the closure of Apgar Street through the railroad tracks. KA/pmp RAILROAD Mr. Ken Ashford City Engineer City of Shakopee 129 E. 1st Avenue Shakopee, MN 55.379 Dear Mr_ Ashford: • n St. Paul, MN December 7, 1987 Q File: 8437 This letter will ack:nowledoe the meeting held in Shakopee with yourself, Mr. Tom Parsons from the SOO's Engineering Department and myself in regards to the City of Shakopee's request of the Soo Line Railroad to vacate trackage through Atwood Street. My understanding is that the city has made some street alignment chanties east of the 500 right-of-way and would like to continue this project westward towards Atwood Street. The SOO's intersection at Atwood creates design problems that could be overcome with the SOO vacating Atwood. During our meeting I explained the SOO's operation and how the current track configuration makes it impossible to vacate the trackage throuqh Atwood. To vacate Atwood would severely affect the SOO's ability to adequately serve Rahr Malting and provide occasional service to the local feed mill. Atwood Street could be vacated, however, if specific changes were made with track configuration, and one street closed to vehicle traffic. Certain track chanties could be made near the SOO's connection track with the CNW Railroad. These chanties would allow the SOO to vacate not only Atwood Street, but also Scott. The SOO would propose that as part of the changes that Apgar Street be closed to vehicular traffic. Closing Apgar Street would give the 500 added trackage necessary to adequately serve Rahr. Malting. Mr. Parsons and myself explained that the SOO does not have money available that could be used for making any proposed trackage changes at Shakopee. We discussed the fact that there may be some value in rail salvage and also funds generated from potential property sale by the SOO of the land where the present trackage is. We briefly discussed some joint benefit to the City and the SOO should the track changes be made and Apgar Street be closed. Mr. Parsons is going to provideanestimate of the cost to realign the necessary trackage. He also is going to figure the salvage value of the rail. I have contacted Mr. M. S. Bernhardson of our Marketing Department to provide a value of the property that would be made available if the proposed changes were made. As soon as Mr. Parsons and Mr. Bernhardson have estimates to work with, we should meet again to further discuss the feasability and economics of the project. De•7ember 7, 1987 Page 2 At this time I would like to know what the City's thoughts are in regard to removing SOD's trackage through the city streets of Atwood and Scott, and the closing of Apgar street to vehicular traffic. If the city is receptive to the SOO's proposal, we then should arrange to meet with those concerned to work out the details and finances of the proposed project. Yours1 lTruly, , D. H. Nelson Asst. General Manager DHN:bmm cc: T. M_ Parsons M. S. Bernhardson R. a. Seeley .icy council December 15, 1987 Page 5 oil] Mayeron for the final design of the 1988-2 project. carried unanimously. Motion Lebens/Clay moved to approve payment of invoice numbers 557, 573, and 574 in the amount of $22,764.98 to William Engelhardt & Associates for design costs on the 1987-12 Improvement Project- Vierling Drive through Hauer's 4th Addition. (Approved under consent business). Lebens/Clay moved to authorize payment of Semi -Final Estimate No. 4 for Project No. 1987-11 Pavement Preservation - Overlay, in the amount of $754.94, to Plehal Blacktopping, Inc. 3460 West 130th Street, Shakopee, MN 55379. (Approved under consent business). Lebens/Clay moved to authorize payment of Estimate No. 3 for Project No. 1987-14 Heritage Place Improvements, in the amount of $33,448.51, to Widmer, Inc., Box 219, St. Bonifacius, MN 55375. (Approved under consent business). Lebens/Clay moved to authorize payment of Estimate No. 2 for Project No. 1987-12 Vierling Drive Street Improvements in the amount of $172,467.02, to S.M. Hentges & Sons Inc., P.O. Box 212, Shakopee, MN 55379. (Approved under consent business). Lebens/Clay moved to amend previous Council action of June 10, 1986 whereby the appropriate City officials are directed to enter into a developers agreement with Inca Development in lieu of Laurent Builders, Inc. (Approved under consent business). Lebens/Clay moved to appoint Orr-Schelen-Mayeron as acting City Engineer effective January 1, 1988. (Approved under consent business). The City Engineer reviewed the Soo Line Railroad Proposal. There are multiple crossings on several streets. Drawings were shown indicating the streets and the locations of the crossings. The key element in Soo Line's proposal would be the closing of Apgar. The traffic diverted from Apgar would pass by the hospital and school areas. Discussion was held regarding the acquisition of the depot and land. Electronic signals were brought up. Several concerns were addressed by Councilmembers and consensus was that they would look at a proposal if their concerns were addressed. Vierling/Lebens moved to direct staff that Council would entertain the details of a proposal from Soo Line Railroad which includes the closure of Apgar Street through the railroad tracks. Motion carried unanimously. *Y OF SHAKOPEE ZING Zo di,✓,S &&e �+' I- • �A //T AG AGRICULTURE R1 RURAL RESIDENTIAL R2 URBAN RESIDENTIAL R3 MID -DENSITY RES. R4 MULTI FAMILY RES. B1 HIGHWAY BUSINESS B2 COMMUNITY BUSINESS B3 CENTRAL BUSINESS 11 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL 12 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL S SHORELAND FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT -•-•• MANDATORY PUD RTD RACETRACK DISTRICT rt lY ••VV 4 ,R1 VER �----------� L --------yam /srAAE �fVERS II) PARK IT Gov,. i OF Gov,. jo'AYE ST. MARKS -CHU RCH A SCHOOL twill � 119 Id N7 jo'AYE ST. MARKS -CHU RCH A SCHOOL rave 17urrovj '< ,,: �i of ctMV' 11€rdFf1l LY s� 1t�r 7-r1� tocol-Yroe/ w ltt�c }�ohve �v�rcx/ YJ�L�Ds 1}I5 C{2o5SoJc't2 IS NcAI"' P1 Si4ttPCE I°�=`"N�RaMl�c�lNw�r 11�V3 ! �c N CA61ti2��°�J o2 C'3i7tI(A- J i�«S Tc vq t , sr You Pvvn o 5 our Cv- p c cwzizo clvcc(�(� i�thYJ',� tuE coM! 00 W Z Tit P�o�t c LY y+� rn�- 'qtr siva T7i rL h?�� i� bOCM-)-TCA/ On1.tleYKI Scam �1 J /�77+2TrXJj (5 i�jbutor6 Tif TVYiZk6z �37 l (S U-6uLn INCLUeE (; (/✓C CcTu�V� 6cT t02lA�rw55 dh+n0F3 h yi�3 Tb sT(L( �W3�Czr `rp R Ql �Z'rcM (c�.tA'rz�r✓ C7au�m(e� J� X W67) 'l:'.✓��oYJ4?l- TT w 0'r (34(5 r� A t+ c Piwl7c�d Soo Line Railroad Company Sao Line aandIN IP am 530 nneaaolis.Minnesota!i X40 2)34)-3077 I Jerry A. Plnkepank Assistani vice Pacident- Operations Analysis Planter/Receptacles April 26, 1988 Page 2 ALTERNATIVES: Install all 8 trash receptacles and 28 of each size planter (for a total of 56 planters) as shown on the plans. 2. Reduce the number of each to be installed by an additional 25� and store the excess for future replacement of damaged ones. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Since we will have to pay for the planters and receptacles, I recommend that they be installed as shown on the plans. If after the project has been completed the Council feels there is excess of each; we can then remove some of them, and store them for future replacement. The total receptacles and planters for that portion of the project were reduced 25% and 10% respectively from what was installed last year, so a "wait and see" action would seem to be appropriate at this time. If the Council agrees, no formal motion or action is needed at this time. DH/pmp REDUCE MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer SUBJECT: Downtown Streetscape - Planters and Trash Receptacles DATE: April 26, 1988 INTRODUCTION: This memo address the number of planters and trash receptacles for the Downtown Streetscape Project - Part 2 of Phase I. BACKGROUND: On April 19, 1988 the City Council expressed a desire to reduce the number of trash receptacles and planters from Part 2 of Phase I of Downtown Streetscape Project and authorized the City Engineer to investigate that possibility. The original plans approved by Council prior to the start of construction of the project last year indicated that 31 of each size planter and 12 trash receptacles were proposed for Part 2 of Phase I. After the completion of construction on Part I, the consultant along with Engineering staff reviewed the work earlier this year and as a result made some changes to the plans for Part 2. The revised plans reduced the trash receptacles by 25% (from 12 to 8) and the planters by 10% (from 31 to 28 of each size) for Part 2. The contractor was given the revised plans to follow for this year's construction and ordered his materials accordingly several weeks ago in anticipation of an April 25, 1988 start date. I spoke with the contractor about the possibility of reducing the planters and trash receptacles an additional 25%, but upon checking with his supplier, he found that the planters and receptacles have already been special ordered and are being shipped and are soon to arrive at the contractor's yard. Therefore, the contractor is committed to pay for them. In lieu of that fact, the contractor feels he should not be held responsible for them since he is following the revised plans given to him by the City of Shakopee. � Vt��snr� � _ Gi2--DSSOVe� ..; RFhRkN'N6� I hUtc45C HMD cq.�st2�cr \ y >raa i �-; cfio SSoVaYC Y, p o 6 `• Sc/a'!o IN. k - ` Me. QCRDA MG E' 60. { ✓ C E *E� p I �A §,Y T'Wit S f� �.. .K Y N 5202 t' _ 61w(56mF MNY N"o -n 3z'rSL ' is - ,Btt(�o . e v ala No n .�No.i ff cp. fF-45"f "C >W SZ n 1 p�\.. 9, IK �AjfE 8 o �"' i' _ids. � ��i-•�• - y � - CONSENT 11h r MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer.-Dp,.ti SUBJECT: Alley by Post Office DATE: April 29, 1988 INTRODUCTION: On April 15, 1988 the Shakopee City Council directed staff to investigate the possibility of making the alley by the Post Office (Block 25) a one-way alley going east to west. Staff was also directed to investigate the alleys in Blocks 24 and 23 for the same purpose. BACKGROUND: The alley by the Post Office (Block 25) has a pavement width of 9 feet for approximately the east one-half of the alley and a pavement width of 11 feet over the west one-half of the alley. There are utility poles along the south edge of the pavement and structures along parts of the north side, making it difficult to widen the pavement. A mailbox drop is located on the south side by the Post Office. The alleys in Blocks 24 and 23 have a pavement width of 14 feet. Again, utility poles and structures on both sides of the alleys make it difficult to widen the pavement. The alley in Block 22 was also added to the investigation and has similar physical characteristics as the alleys in Blocks 24 and 23• Traffic counts were obtained over a five day period on the alley by the Post Office and also the alley in Block 23• These counts are summarized as follows: Post Office Alley Maximum Hourly Peak = 74 (4:00 to 5:00 on Friday) Maximum 24 Hour Peak = 527 (Friday) Alley in Block 23 (between Lewis & Holmes) Maximum Hourly Peak = 16 (4:00 - 5:00 on Friday) Maximum 24 -Hour Peak = 131 (Saturday) Hourly counts for all days are available in the Engineering Department. The manager of the Post Office was contacted regarding the proposed one-way alley and she did not have any objections or comments either way. Alleys April 29, 1988 Page 2 RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUMMARY: Due to the extreme narrow pavement width and high traffic counts in the alley by the post office, there is justification for making this a one-way alley. The location of the mail box drop also supports the idea of a one-way alley going from east to west. Alleys are the preferred location for mailbox drops rather than on a street or in the Post Office parking lot, from a traffic engineering standpoint. I recommend that this alley be made a one-way alley from east to west and the appropriate signs be installed (do not enter signs, one-way arrows and a stop sign for exiting traffic). The other 3 alleys investigated (Blocks 24, 23, and 22) have wider pavements and -lower traffic volumes. I also feel that the majority of the traffic on these alleys are people trying to avoid the 169/101 intersection. Most of this traffic should be alleviated by the minibypass and by improvements to the 169/101 intersection. One additional item is that due to the construction starting on the downtown project, the alleys near the construction areas may experience more traffic due to street closures. As a result, members of the Council may start receiving more citizen requests for improved traffic flow in the alleys, but once the streets are re -opened the traffic should subside. ALTERNATIVES: Pass a motion declaring that (Block 25) be made a one-way authorize the appropriate City and notify the public. the alley by the Post Office alley going east to west and staff to accomplish this task Decide that one or more alleys in Blocks 24, 23, or 22 also be made one-way alleys from east to west and include those alleys in the motion listed in Alternative 61 above. Do nothing and leave the alleys as they are. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends Alternative 01, to pass a motion declaring that the alley in Block 25 be made a one-way alley going east to west and authorize the appropriate City staff to accomplish this task. DH/pmp ALLEY I t54 i i t8j { a ' a iY A i CL � 1 IF. 0 a in W I--c� Z <Vff LL a a ,0 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer__T�� SUBJECT: Engineering Department Vehicles DATE: April 25, 1988 INTRODUCTION: This memo addresses the current status of the Engineering Department vehicles (both permanent and seasonal) as well as future concerns. BACKGROUND: The Engineering Department's current vehicle status is as follows: Permanent Vehicles A 1982 Chevrolet 5-10 truck A 1983 Ford Ranger truck Seasonal Vehicle (permanent) A 1975 Dodge van used during the inspection season but otherwise stored in the Public Works yard. Temoorary Vehicles A 1981 Oldsmobile Cutlass scheduled for auction in August. A 1982 Chrysler Reliant scheduled for auction in August. The current Engineering Department staff consists of a City Engineer, 2 112 Engineering Technicians, 2 Seasonal Inspectors and a Part-time Secretary. During the construction season (May thru November), it is quite common to have 6-8 construction projects going on simultaneously, consisting of both City contracts as well as private subdivision projects, all of which require inspection to ensure conformance to our specifications. Quite often the inspector's are required to cover more than one project at a time thereby making a vehicle a necessity to adequately perform their duties. Of the current Engineering staff, two full-time technicians and two seasonal inspectors normally handle all the inspection of public works projects. Therefore, during the construction season four vehicles are needed to maintain our current level of inspection standards. In addition, I feel it is imperative that the City Engineer have a vehicle at his disposal to attend meetings, handle citizen requests, resolve problems on Engineering Vehicles April 25, 1988 Page 2 construction sites, etc. I would also like to mention that a vehicle for commuting purposes was part of my employment offer from the City. In summary, the total number of vehicles required by the Engineering Department during the construction season is five. During the remainder of the year, the two seasonal employees do not work for the City. The normal duties required of staff for work outside of City Hall such as continuing inspections, measurements, surveying, citizen requests, getting easements, etc. would still justify the need for two permanent vehicles for all of the technicians to have at their disposal. Including a full-time vehicle assigned to the City Engineer, the total permanent vehicles needed by the Engineering Department is three. RECOMMENDATIONS: I recommend that the permanent vehicles assigned to the Engineering Department be increased by one to a total of 3 and consist of the current two pick-up trucks and adding a permanent car assigned to the City Engineer. This could be accomplished by withholding one of the vehicles back from the scheduled auction in August at no expense to the existing Engineering Department budget. I also recommend that the permanent seasonal vehicles be increased by one to a total of 2 and would consist of the existing van and also another vehicle withheld from the scheduled auction. This second vehicle could either be one of the cars or else a truck from Public Works that is proposed for the auction. Again, there would be no expense in keeping this vehicle, outside of normal maintenance and insurance costs. These two vehicles would only be used during the construction season and otherwise would be stored. Alternatives 1. Authorize the Finance Director to withhold two vehicles from the scheduled auction for assignment to the Engineering Department. One vehicle would be permanent (for the City Engineer) and the other would be seasonal. This would increase the Engineering Department vehicles to a total of five (three permanent and two seasonal). 2. Authorize the Finance Director to withhold one vehicle from the scheduled auction for assignment to the City Engineer, thereby increasing the Engineering Department vehicles to four (three permanent and one seasonal). U3 Engineering Vehicles April 25, 1988 Page 3 Do Nothing, thereby leaving the number of Engineering Department vehicles at three (two permanent and one seasonal). _ RECOMMENDED ACTION: I recommend Alternative No. 1, to authorize the Finance Director to withhold two vehicles from the upcoming auction for assignment to the Engineering Department, increasing the number of vehicles to a total of five (three permanent and two seasonal). DH/pmp VEHICLES ........�lh- N N I N u.l I m m NN n u. m m a u n a JJ e F a or m z v o< 'u w c m I O T iau u o D d oI u m r m IW W mry Ime c NI N I s \ m m �.1 � mml, p m log I I I -roi II .roi -roi -roi \ II ! \ 0 m I mm u m I ml Fm ........�lh- N N I N mm m m I n u. m m a u n a JJ e F a or z v o< 'u w c m O T iau u o D d oI u m r ........�lh- N I N mm m m I n m m a u n a d e F n wit z v o< 'u w c m O T iau u o D d w� u y n m IW W mry Ime c NI N I s \ m m mml, p m log I I I II i 1� II 0 u u z m Ntl IJmI Pe i I a Iro J :W I Y' A x m `I viI s N A c I N T o z z'I a m T n I DDI, A e m i yy p S b N I , � j ! mm ' A 9rl m W N m m 1 ........�lh- I e mm m m m n m m a u n a d e F n wit z v o< roroI w c m O T 00 o D d me y � m i mry c Jy N I s \ m m mml, I m D 0 z Ntl IJmI Pe i I m m nal A x m m viI s N D c I N T o z z'I a m T n DDI, A m yy p S b N ! mm ' A 9rl m _ j I e n 1 a o wit �� roroI w c m d me y c roroI i I m m x m T N D I N T i a m n � m b N I di i2 V b O J I V 1 Y .biro z uuu oom J JJJ I WNN 000 000 u1 oeo NNNN n N NNF r _ Irl r dn- P NNn P V O J I d i Y .biro z uuu oom J JJJ I + i NNNN A Irvn I r _ N0o o P mm NN NNN o0 INFn m0 Fnn a I nn 'I Pi _ lm Ln i . li i'.i II. p b o0 nn ' NN nn NNNN I � 4 w WLr I + i NNNN I _ N0o o P mm NN NNN o0 INFn m0 Fnn pP nn _ lm Ln . b o0 nn ' NN nn NNNN N j Im I mmI '.. � 4U i 0 m0m0 0 m mmW mm b;.. i m P,o � e ooe o j YP 4 O I oo p N � mm P FF F 0 pc o N - PP pp b m 2 ON m 00m m nn n = 00m 0 i t _. �. • e t a a i _5E lzzz I° A I N roi m V SIS \A m➢ N ryyy l � I AA ti � ! � 4 m DI t I u It I 41m NP x i PAI I cmaa y m I eNPW W YYY •� I o Irorom WiW W N N S� � N s a 1 WWm yN � Ia u = l u I iro 1 0 mm mm la u Iro it I u i°�O I I 999 aLm u I ro JJ ro o m rvix ai am y u.0 roP. A crow I J II Im W ww AA n o s i a o PPm m zz 00 F I n 1 4 00 00 r W Ili 11 G"x'1. mm D I K. n K ' SA Q S K K I mm 9n i p IW A) 1 I I am y -1 A mm m a m rr cc ' J m mi m I Ys mm lzzz A N roi m V x \A I ryyy K � I ti � I 0mm 4 m n »ym I 41m NP n PAI cmaa y m I eNPW W YYY •� I o Irorom WiW W S� � I s a 1 WWm Ia u = l u I iro 1 la u Iro it I u 000 I 999 aLm u I ro I M1al A crow I J II s qp s i PPm m m 9 m n A v roi m V x \A ryyy � ti 0mm 4 m n »ym I 41m NP n cmaa I m I eNPW tA�J •� eoo WiW W S� j Z s a WWm .emo O nzn I A99 000 I 999 aLm I mmm ti j Z I II qp b0 PPm p 9 r W 11 11 I± N 1A ' I Q I p IW 1 I I am 0m Lr o Z ' J Imm i r- I ro � LI I m I I a I y I.. ymi J m I I x m 9 m a m u 000 N00 N 'NN W W0 N NN NN W 00 Frl W y W V V V Y Y Y V i nnn alar - la nn� � nn I n no _� 00o I el ell o o e II olc I nnn IV a nV w as <v nI c N f 1 'P ff I e'o"v P I. I II LP O 1 I YY �J WyW I Nyy U WL LL I t__6 � Y } Iw J 4LLLL 1 LL C O » V V J^ ' C KOO y Jbb dUV N 2 FF 00 J" i 6 I V j WWW a WW ez u lsuu ro = � 14 0 00 I Wp J 0 0!0 Z W W W b W b z WWW W WW 00 JJ 3 N 0'00 V �NP-I 00 o NN PN 100 I n0f mWe _ NNI 0 � W F boF P W bW ROfN y I 1'I N oNNe _ ary_ ro0 RFl I I I I I r I I X66 wow W mm WW m m mmm m W @ W \\ M1 \M1 FFF NNN N NN ` NN N N N N \ 000 0 0 oo I o o, I le 000 N00 N 'NN W W0 N NN 000 N NN NN W 00 00 W y W 000 o•I ! ve 1 iI I I I I 1'1 aj ��� I IIS I.L. oI a = SII a +I C� - I' I z `Lm in m ml mli m m m -- mI ml o 0 I I I as ro Fl �-.abNma eo PPI o o e e' as a I roro .ar P N a W rol rl P� m Y PI N aI m ee y ! I I 1 iI I O T I I 1'1 aj o I a, all o oI a I n of a Z I I z `Lm in -- uw I I I as ro Fl �-.abNma eo PPI r+ I as a NN roro - JJ as ee o y ! I I 1 iI I I I 1'1 C WNNN i I Z I z `Lm in -- uw NNl I as ro Fl �-.abNma eo PPI r+ %% as a NN roro - JJ as ee ee 00 NN bN Ww P ee! P Nb -.a NN N0 00 NN PP NN NN I ww wW b as wW "" J Oalw Nob+ O as o NN I o NN .N'Nro O of I OU YOeO Nro O, I `o ` am +e a i m N I I I I u I I I r Z O D zzzZOZZ r r O T a r O N < 000 00 D 4 O m A. 2 b C S O = = 2 Z W uIN mar F m 2' D + m n JJ m N y. y 3. _ O O D m F O D m 4• T m. w n ^. aDD DnDm O m m Y 9 C m O r r r rrrr c a '^ i. < zI A N c a m 01 a Iap2Mn ail 9 O m m m� OSI Or A m 9 A C': m H D99m 'A C C r A O m C r m amaaz a o m o o) a ( m o) o m o r zm <I m m ,ve n x � m m < n T zm �9 m rl o v m m m A a n r m o- m a a �� x o- o-1 o- r x! m n a..o rJr mom o- m 91 m m m P .I A m- m z n omn ( < I> z c I 9 A y ! I I 1 iI I I yl 1'1 y i 1 Z I I I I I m N I I I u I I I n O D m n m N i o i I II I I I I i I o I i I t W a I i i I i �N,mw � I I I I I I I JJJJ i W FFFH I 1 i u 0000 I 0000 IJa JJ77 Y Y.LLLLLL O i i I I I I I n e I i 2 W i I m 1 I 4 0 W 0 M C ro 'o r. n m mmmlo(�4 m -1 m 0000000 ===__= - < m m o o r w N w w m m r m r m r r r r Y r W r Y r r r r r Y I r H W F r H a O z W r3i D r y N p W F F W W W F F F F F FFF F w F W F.. FFFW n (n a N . n Z Z [[w@ 0 m O S W O 3 N N N H H ry at Y. r r. M w. R G r mN0 Y r O\ r rn r r r r r r O O H e< S O N . W 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 . 0 0 000 r 0 0 0 0 W W F Y r r D 0 r 0 O 00 rNNmN N r r 0 O OHN000000000OO F a 0 000 Oppoor N H r h 1 ON < W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r O 0 o O w w F r r Y 0 H O N r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 O O O O r N N m N 0 Ui _N fn W X mmNNOro m o 0 N N m m m m m mmm O m m N m 0000000 m F r w r r c F r r w w w r r r r r r r r r w r r r r r r r r r r n I I 1 1 b r r r r r r r r r r r Y r r r r r r r r r r r r r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 [J ro N yy r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r D a m m W N N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 A 0 n K O E 7 H �. pp O O 3 K n 0 � ^ml CD" r E r Wrn 0 W r r 1O O H µ a C N w O 0 m 0 Q\ N O O O w 0 D\ 0 Y N W a fA D a m cni F O WW O r M O F01 WM' r rO 3K O OO\ OW W W H r O vrmF rF WrFO+ �N FrW O O O ON O W 0Fmr - ,nO N r r w N W O OO 0 0 0mV Z ro to n ro 3 = = Ul 9 9 ro a S n O =____ H a W r - I+ N N 0 N N N N a N N N W a N a N N a I N V i•D< D N r O O 0 m £ 3 3 3 3, µ Y Y 3 ro£ 3 £ 0 µ r m , 3 d ` O M O N I+ Y. Y• Y� N F` N N m N U� O ro d 3 M M r U) n (➢ n O m O N ro N 0 m H N r r a 5 H N [] '00 H p 0 �n O�OW F s < H M 'C M H a 0H p 0 0� 0 O < D O H 0 Y 9 A< O < O r H O H m N. -_ r b S S N O O N O4 r 00 N v+ o � Im N N N N N N N N N N N N N NN N N N N NNNNNNN 0 D\ D\ O\ Ol D\ 0\ Ol M Q M MM M T D\ D\ Q\ Ol Q\ x VI. VI V� VI V1 N ViVI VI N V� �N0 F F F F' FF FFFFF mF M H O� m� M N F w N r0 000 N rm o �O 4 0 W 0 M C ro 'o r. n == r N M 9 3 ===__= D < m O O O N M [1 m d O m a a H W 3 £ H a O z W r3i D r a p 3W D 3 O L R a n (n a N . n Z Z [[w@ 0 m O S W O 3 H H ry at c+ c* M R G C m S N µ 0 C 0 r a N F h 1 < N - - - O M W > H O W m Ui _N fn W X m W m m p m p m 3 -] 0 0 H N N N n � s r 0 W r r 1O O N w O 0 m 0 Q\ N O O O w 0 D\ 0 Y W MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City A istrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: Boards and Commissions Annu4 Picnic DATE: April 22, 1988 INTRODUCTION: It is appropriate for Council to select a date for holding the Annual Boards and Commissions Picnic. BACKGROUND: On March 5th 1988 City Council adopted a resolution which provides for the Council annually conducting a festivity as an expression of appreciation to members of the Boards and Commissions and their families. For the past three years the Council has hosted a picnic at Tahpah Park. Guests were also able to use the swimming pool and water slide at no cost. It is appropriate to select a date for the 4th Annual Picnic for Boards and Commissions in order to give adequate notice so that people can mark their calenders before their summer evenings fill up. Beginning with the last week of June and through July, the following dates will not interfere with scheduled meetings: Monday Wednesday Thursday June 27th June 29th July 11th July 13th July 14th July 20th July 25th July 27th July 28th If it is Council's desire to include the use of the pool and water slide again, Council should so move. ALTERNATIVES: 1) Select a date for the annual picnic 2) Select another festivity 3) Discontinue holding an annual festivity Alternative No. 1, select a date for the annual picnic. ACTION REQUESTED: Direct Staff to make plans for the Annual Boards & Commissions Picnic for , and authorize the Community Recreation Director, upon proper reservation of the swimming pool under the Community Recreation Group Rental Policy, to include free use of the pool, water slide and picnic shelter for the 1988 Boards and Commissions Picnic. P. fO C� O •`:NO a Ri = N N O N T (D Y b 10 Z G O v N _ u a Z R Z C V C C ~ p m m r0 ry h � Y p 0 N N O p — N V O 41 � i B 0 C d V , p 4I pf tp N N O Ri p 0 N Z T (D N Z G O v V Z R � C ~ r0 O p — i B C C h C N �^ ml u o u a C Z 0 u z Z �.-#F Z (� p N Jr O y d Z` V Z N u V i H °' v O p p c N � O a A O u A fT m a A q N N ke a �y C F> f p v o v p a - v c O N a • RESOLUTION NO. 2375 (- A RESOLUTION. PROVIDING FOR THE RECOGNITION OF MANY WHEREAS, through the years countless fine citizens of the City of Shakopee have performed gratitious services for the City with no expectations of compensation of any kind, and WHEREAS, these countless hours of service so generously rendered have been of great and inestimable benefit to our City and its citizens, and WHEREAS, it has long been desired bytheShakopee City Council to show the City's gratitude to all these public spirited citizens in some visible way. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That 'the Shakopee City Council in regular meeting assembled, that the Shakopee City Council each year on a date selected by it, put on a picnic, dinner or other festivity as an expression of the City's appreciation to all the public spirited citizens, who would be invited to be guests of honor of the grateful City and to take part in an afternoon or evening of merriment, conviviality and relaxation. l„ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the entire cost of the said festivity be born by the City and that the proper City officials be and hereby are authorized to do all things necessary and proper to make the arrangements for whatever festivities and on whatever date the Council decides. Passed in session of .the Shakopee City Council held this S day of 1985. yor of the City of Sti ope ATTEST: and approved as to form this of Februarv. 1985. A. Coller, I1, City Attorney //M CERTIFICATE OF REAL ESTATE VALUE (CRV) 1988 ASSESSORS CRV PID # DATE SOLD FOR MARKET VALUE RATIO 88-511 27-004052-0 2-29-88 45,000 52,800 1.173 88-459 27-004025-0 3-31-88 30,000 40,900 1.36 88-592 27-031002-0 2-29-88- 79,900 63,900 .799 88-585 27-004080-0 2-88 67,000 50,300 .79 88-395 27-102019-0 2-5-88 57,500 68,100 .844 88-408 27-092005-1 2-14-88 54,000 49,900 .924 88-321 27-001348-0 2-1-88 30,000 40,800 1.36 1987 87-699 27-906064-0 1-27-87 51,000 47,300 .927 87-501 27-001526-0 1-12-87 45,000 46,800 1.040 87-535 27-001671-0 1-17-87 63,000 56,900 .903 87-714 27-024044-0 1-26-87 87,000 77,000 .885 87-772 27-021035-0 1-16-87 83,900 76,200 1.101 87-611 27-001221-0 12-4-86 47,500 46,400 .976 87-1244 27-001721-0 2-26-87 66,500 47,900 .720 87-725 27-901029-0 2-1-87 73,000 62,500 .856 87-857 27-024107-0 2-25-87 78,000 63,400 .812 87-511 27-064004-0 3-2-87 75,000 58,300 .777 87-1224 27-092030-0 3-25-87 53,000 36,700 .692 87-1246 27-102003-0 3-24-87 68,000 62,000 .911 87-1181 27-002028-0 3-25-87 79,500 62,900 .791 87-1243 27-001212-0 3-22-87 65,500 56,600 .864 87-954 27-041029-0 3-27-87 93,000 86,100 .925 ASSESSOR'S CRV # PID DATE PAID MARKET VALUE RATIO 87-919 27-001750-0 3-13-87 71,000 _ 55,800 .785 87-1205 27-040019-0 3-23-87 100,000 93,500 .935 87-1323 27-932005-0 3-1-87 89,000 82,600 .928 87-1108 27-001211-0 4-9-87 80,000 77,300 .966 87-1638 27-040035-0 4-26-87 110,000 84,500 .768 87-1659 27-908044-0 4-24-87 108,000 91,200 .844 87-1456 27-001223-0 4-16-87 63,000 46,000 .730 87-1125 27-908010-0 4-17-87 93,000 76,200 .819 87-1343 27-001656-0 5-4-87 73,000 54,300 .743 87-504 27-046007-0 5-16-87 89,000 79,900 .897 87-1624 27-913033-0 5-23-87 103,000 79,200 .768 87-1842 27-906074-0 5-11-87 89,500 96,000 1.072 87-1893 27-024109-0 5-20-87 81,500 64,700 .793 87-1869 27-004028-0 5-21-87 57,000 42,600 .747 87-1355 27-918011-2 5-13-87 102,900 105,700 1.027 88-258 27-065027-0 6-8-87 80,400 9,800 .121 87-1808 27-012059-0 6-3-87 78,500 67,100 .854 87-1295 27-001575-0 6-4-87 68,000 59,200 .870 87-2504 27-050001-0 8-28-87 134,500 116,300 .862 87-1307 27-091002-0 10-13-86 71,500 69,600 .973 r- 87-1450 27-029013-0 4-24-87 79,407 70,500 .887 87-1392 27-001587-0 4-8-87 70,900 61,300 .864 87-1692 27-001720-0 5-20-87 62,900 43,800 .696 87-2009 27-001595-0 8-16-87 74,000 54,200 .732 87-2516 27-013022-0 9-15-87 80,000 60,500 .756 87-1494 27-012046-0 2-24-87 76,900 65,100 .846 ASSESSOR'S CRV # PID # DATE PAID MARKET VALUE RATIO 87-1473 27-012050-0 5-1-87 79,500 66,600 .837 87-1386 27-029012-0 4-1-87 64,350 68,500 1.064 87-1922 27-023006-0 8-12-87 87,000 81,700 .939 87-1624 27-913033-0 5-23-87 103,000 79,200 .768 87-2795 27-913059-0 8-27-87 109,500 87,600 .800 87-950 27-040054-0 2-24-87 90,000 83,500 .927 87-1614 27-059005-0 6-12-87 95,500 67,000 .701 87-1402 27-040047-0 5-87 91,900 73,800 .803 87-1218 27-041072-0 3-13-87 81,000 67,500 .833 87-1922 27-023006-0 8-12-87 87,000 81,700 .939 87-1470 27-034014-0 4-25-87 84,900 72,000 .848 87-2572 27-912040-0 9-23-87 57,000 48,700 .854 87-2583 27-001563-0 11-4-87 85,000 86,500 1.017 87-2565 27-001141-0 9-3-87 40,000 47,000 1.175 87-2242 27-915033-1 7-9-87 92,650 89,300 .963 87-2424 27-001699-0 7-25-87 77,500 72,900 .940 27-912043-0 87-2369 27-001749-0 8-7-87 63,580 56,500 .888 87-2219 27-001408-0 5-5-87 87,000 84,300 .968 87-2206 27-001349-0 8-87 70,000 62,200 .888 87-2307 27-001803-0 8-28-87 94,900 82,000 .864 87-2319 27-001817-0 8-87 55,000 46,400 .843 87-2251 27-004034-0 9-24-87 61,100 49,100 .803 87-2246 27-004134-0 8-8-87 41,900 30,700 .732 87-2244 27-013018-0 7-7-87 87,500 66,000 .754 87-2346 27-024004-0 6-30-87 76,000 78,000 1.026 CRV # PID DATE PAID ASSESSOR'S MARKET VALUE RATIO 87-2215 27-911019-0 7-31-87 79,000 59,200 .749 87-2064 27-001526-0 7-9-87 68,500 46,800 .683 87-1957 27-907038-0 6-12-87 71,000 59,300 .792 87-2071 27-915011-0 5-25-87 76,000 58,500 .769 87-2104 27-001391-0 7-15-87 44,000 26,000 .590 87-2101 27-008033-0 7-7-87 71,500 53,800 ,752 87-2058 27-012014-0 7-12-87 73,900 60,500 .818 87-1942 27-024039-0 5-4-87 93,000 89,400 .961 87-2100 27-038011-1 6-3-87 88,500 80,500 .909 87-1699 27-041086-0 8-5-87 79,700 68,300 .856 87-1660 27-034039-0 4-27-87 76,000 62,100 .817 87-1514 27-012020-0 4-6-87 77,700 79,700 1.025 87-1510 27-002006-0 4-14-87 85,000 62,900 .740 87-1562 27-012018-0 5-2-87 83,900 65,700 .783 87-1629 27-001527-0 6-2-87 75,000 48,400 .645 87-1617 27-001202-0 4-24-87 69,500 38,600 .555 87-1517 27-001028-0 5-29-87 73,000 71,200 .975 87-1492 27-074003-0 4-11-87 91,000 72,200 .793 87-1472 27-001467-0 4-11-87 69,000 57,700 .836 HMO MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator RE: Review of County Assessor's Assessing for the city of Shakopee DATE: April 28, 1988 Introduction The Shakopee City Council held a public meeting on April 12th to give the public an opportunity to comment on the quality of the assessing services the City of Shakopee is receiving from the Scott County Assessor's office. At the meeting Council heard from several citizens who expressed concerns about one or more aspects of the service currently being provided. Staff was asked to review the results of the meeting and report back with some recommendations. Review of Public Comments The public comments and the questions asked by City Council touched upon the following areas: 1. The implied quality of the assessments. The State mandated two increases in assessed value one in 1985 and one in 1987 so just how accurate is the assessing. 2. The level of accreditation required for the person doing Shakopee assessments. 3. The use of sales ratio study information to "get a handle on" the quality of assessments done in Shakopee. 4. The affect of assessment methodology used by the County in Shakopee assessments for various types of property (one type discussed at the meeting was motel property), and its affect on the economic competitiveness of Shakopee businesses. 5. The inequity in the assessment of bare ground when adjacent commercial properties with buildings that are assessed on the income approach. 6. The potential for a trend in single family homes being sold for prices that are more than the Assessor's market value. 7. The lack of a "customer service" approach used in dealing with all citizens who stop in to talk to the Assessor with questions about their parcel. Methods for Addressing these Concerns Staff did not spend any time further analyzing retrevial of the assessment function from the County Assessor's office based upon City Council's reaction at the public meeting on April 12th. Rather, we have looked at methods that would allow us to monitor more closely the performance of the assessments done for the City of Shakopee by the County Assessor's office. The methods available seem to fall into two catagories that, combined, should do a good job in covering the concerns listed above. The first method is to establish a set of selected statistical reports that can be reviewed by City Council prior to the Board of Review each year. These reports would give the City Council, sitting as the Board of Review, a better understanding of the quality of the Shakopee assessments. The State currently provides 9 month and 12 month analysis of assessments. These statistics provide the aggregate sales ratio and the coefficient of dispersion. The sales ratio is the average value of the home or property that is selling compared to the value the Assessor has it listed for. The closer this number approaches 100% the more accurate the assessments. The coefficient of dispersion measures the distance individual sales fall away from (above or below) the average sales ratio. This statistic would tell Council if there are sales that swing widely from the norm. In addition, the City can list sales information as the Certificates of Real Estate Value (CRVs) are received at City Hall (a listing Of 1988 sale to date is attached). The second approach would be to employ expertise from outside the City and the County to review the methodology used by the County Assessor's Office in computing City assessments. To investigate the possibility of this approach I contacted Larry Johanson from the Hennepin County Assessor's Office. Mr. Johanson specializes in reviewing the assessing done by cities in Hennepin County to determine whether the cities are meeting county -wide performance standards. Mr. Johanson would be available to provide a review of County assessing methodologies at the rate of $50.00 per hour. He would also be willing to meet with City and County officials to determine the scope of the review requested by the City. The City need not examine all methodologies used for various assessments in the first year. Alternatives Develop the statistical tools to evaluate the quality of assessing done by the Scott County Assessor's Office and review them annually as the Board of Review. This alternative will require very little staff time and should be very helpful. CERTIFICATE OF REAL ESTATE VALUE (CRV) ASSESSORS CRV PID DATE SOLD FOR MARKET VALUE RATIO 88-511 27-004052-0 - 2-29-88 45,000 52,800 1.173 88-459 27-004025-0 3-31-88 30,000 40,900 1.36 88-592 27-031002-0 2-29-88 79,900 63,900 .799 88-585 27-004080-0 2-88 67,000 50,300 .79 88-395 27-102019-0 2-5-88 57,500 68,100 .844 88-408 27-092005-1 2-14-88 54,000 49,900 .924 88-321 27-001348-0 2-1-88 30,000 40,800 1.36 / ( -YR- 2. Contract with a non -Scott County resident with professional credentials to review assessing methodologies employed by Scott County. This alternative can be done, but will require the expenditure of $1,000-2,500 for consulting services. 3. Combine alternatives 1 and 2. 4. Establish a task force of local citizens or people on appropriate Shakopee committees to do a technical review. This may be somewhat tricky unless we can find the expertise to fully understand assessing methodologies and standards used by other assessors. It will cost less than alternative No. 2, but will probably take longer. Recommendation I recommend alternative No. 3 for the reasons discussed above. I have reviewed this alternative with the Scott County Assessor's Office and they will be glad to cooperate with us. Action Requested Contact the State to obtain sales ratio data and Larry Johanson to obtain a firm estimate for the cost of his services for a review in 1988. JKA/jms C0N6ENT 11N Memo To: John K. Anderson, City Administrator From: Gregg M. Voxland, Finance Director Re: Abatement of Taxes on City Property Date: April 27, 1988 Introduction The City owns four parcels of land out by the mall and has received tax statements on those parcels. Back round The City has acquired four parcels by the mall for the future bypass right-of-way. The land used to be rented to a farmer. Because of that we paid property tax on that land. Since 1986, high taxes make renting the land for farming uneconomical. Scott County did not change the classification of these parcels to tax exempt for payable 1988 taxes, therefore we have received tax statements. Council action is required to start the abatement process. Action Reouested Move to approve the abatement of all taxes for payable 1988 for parcels 27-093003-0, 27-911026-0, 27-911010-2 and 27-911010-3. CONSENT z� Memo To; Sohn K. Anderson, City Administrator From: Marilyn M. Remer, Personnel Coordinator Re: Personnel Policy Revisions Date: April 19, 1988 Introduction The Personnel Policy must be updated to remain in compliance with several recently mandated Federal and State laws. Background The Consolidated Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA), the Tax Reform Act of 1986 and Minnesota SF 478 (Omnibus Bill) requires employers with 20 or more employees to allow qualified persons to continue group health h life coverage after it would otherwise end. SECTION 9. GROUP INSURANCE is amended to remove the sentence that did not allow for retires to continue coverage and further clarifications noted in bold. 1987 Minnesota Stat. Sec. 181.940-181.943 establishes mandatory unpaid Parenting Leaves. Language changes in SECTION 10 SICK LEAVE clarify the employee's request for accumulated sick leave and substitutes the term 'childbirth' with 'pregnancy disability'. This is the same terminology used in the League of Cities' Personnel Policy. SECTION 12. MATERNITY LEAVE is replaced by SECTION 12. PARENTING LEAVE. Attached are pages 10-11 from the current Personnel Policy. The deleted Maternity Leave allowed for a leave not to exceed 5 months, the Parenting Leave allows leaves not exceeding 6 weeks. Note that SECTION 13. LEAVES WITHOUT PAY allows for extended leaves and SECTION 10 SICK LEAVE allows for leaves due to pregnancy disability. The Personnel Policy should be amended as follows: SECTION 9. GROUP INSURANCE: Hospitalization, major medical, life and long-term disability insurance shall be provided to all qualified permanent and probationary employees after thirty (30) days of continuous service, with the City paying no more than a maximum contribution per month as specified by the resolution adopting the annual pay schedule. Such contribution is toward the total cost of these coverages whether they be individual or family coverages. The Gity-sbe33- -not -extend--group- insurance- -pl a-n-bene€its-to--retires beyond--the--month- bfr- their - -retirement- -as--provided --in--Minnesota Statute-62..17,--Subd.-3B ,--exeept-that Police Officers who retire at age 55 or thereafter with 15 years of service with the City of Shakopee shall be able to participate to age 65 with the Police Officer paying the actual premium for continuation of group health hospitalization; and-major-medieal and life insurance coverage. The City shall extend group insurance plan benefits to employees while under suspension. Employees are required to pay the cost of insurance while the employee is on any unpaid leave of absence. SECTION 10. SICK LEAVE, Subdivision 2 Purpose Upon an employee's request, sick leave may be granted to employees who accumulated pay sick time when the employee is unable to perform work duties due to illness , disability, the necessity of medical, dental or chiropractic care, ehildbirvhT pregnancy disability, or exposure to contagious disease where such exposure may endanger the health of others with whom the employee would come in contact in the course of performing work duties. Sick leave may also be granted for a maximum of three days for death or serious illness of an employee's immediate family. These three days may also be used for the care of dependents who are ill. SBGTION-12---MATERNITY-LEAVE Any -permanent; -full-time-or-part—; ime- 1� maternityanted lc -a-+ _- a-- --approval ---th ---Gita ___ without___Pay-_�t__aPPreval___of---the___Gity Administrator .___A-maternity-leave-o€-absenee-shall-not-exeeed-€ive months -duration; SECTION 12. PARENTAL LEAVE Any Employee who works an average of 20 hours or more per week, has been employed by the City of Shakopee for at least 12 months and who is a natural or adoptive parent shall be granted an unpaid leave of absence in conjunction with the birth or adoption of a child. The leave may begin not more than six weeks after the birth or adoption of the child. Employees may, by agreement with the City Administrator, return to work part-time during the leave period without forfeiting the right to return to employment at the end of the leave period. Employees returning from parental leave shall be entitled to return to their former position or one of comparable duties, pay and number of hours. The length of parental leave shall be reduced by any paid sick leave or vacation leave taken in conjunction with the birth or adoption of a child. The length of parental leave req uested may employee but shall not exceed sixweeks, y be determined by the Group health and life insurance is available to the employee while on leave with the employee paying the actual cost of the premium. Acton Reauested Move to adopt Resolution No. 2884, A Resolution Amending the City of Shakopee Personnel Policy Adopted by Resolution No. 1571. f SECTION 10. SICK LEAVE: Subdivision 1 Amount All part-time and full-time employees shall be entitled to sick leave with pay at the rate of one day for each month of full-time service. For part-time employees, this shall be computed on the basis of time actually worked. Sick leave may be accumulated to a maximum of 100 days. If an employee is suspended without pay in excess of one pay period, pursuant to Section 20, Subd. 2, he shall not accumulate sick leave during suspension. Subdivision 2 Purpose Sick leave may be granted when the employee is unable to perform work duties due to illness, disability, the necessity for medical, dental, or chiropractic care, childbirth, or exposure to contagious disease where such exposure may endanger the health of others with whom the employee would come in contact in the course of performing work duties. Sick leave may also be granted for a maximum of three days for death or serious illness of an employee's immediate family. These three days may also be used for the care of dependents who are ill. Subdivision 3. Proof To be eligible for sick leave with pay, an employee shall: 1. Report as soon as possible to his department head the reason for his absence. 2. Keep his department head informed of his condition if the absence is of more than three days duration. 3. Submit a medical certificate for any absence if required by the City Administrator. Subdivision G Penalty Using or claiming sick leave for a purpose not authorized by Sub- division 2 may be -cause for disciplinary action under Section 20. Subdivision 5 Accrual During L e For the purpose of accumulating additional vacation or sick leave, an employee using earned vacation leave or sick leave is considered to be working. 10 °YP6�Pvt yCC� is-Oc �G>NF.CO wPOrvo<'-• `O Frvu G n G .n. C ❑ ail. G ZZ F � > <m _✓yG^XZ w<>.v �GO"c chi �>C OHO ry [.� OC =�°o^ EL PcEtDm tzc. �c0 n<j OO=ff6£C SP �C CCO n9T�-nJ �•� C9L= iO�a== _�] -Cc's U - o°.�1. AFF F— _- :mr Fi '9 93 o r. ..°'o_ m m - _'= a F Z E3_•' ❑ �3.rn.c__=5 = N_;�3e`:n -__QN` GC.0 � Gn_�=����.=yGOP >N �Ep•JC e>.0 %.i�4 _VpDPP iN w_ n_o�u$=°_ vo-o'Cc -•' Z -___ - Z __ Fo'c[ = Y _- 6'.P "�n M Z >O_D - =>- - w Pc 63,< °n?=_ory Ipck--/ RESOLUTION NO. 2884 A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE PERSONNEL POLICY ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO. 1571 WHEREAS, Resolution No. 1571 was adopted by the City to provide reasonable and clear expectations of the conditions of employment for it's employees; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend certain sections of Resolution No. 1571 from time to time to maintain reasonable and clear conditions of employment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that SECTION 9. GROUP INSURANCE of the City of Shakopee Personnel Policy is hereby amended to read: Hospitalization, major medical, life and long-term disability insurance shall be provided to all qualified permanent and probationary employees after thirty (30) days of continuous service, with the City paying no more than a maximum contribution per month as specified by the resolution adopting the annual pay schedule. Such contribution is toward the total cost of these coverages whether they be individual or family coverages. Police Officers who retire at age 55 or thereafter with 15 years of service with the City of Shakopee shall be able to participate to age 65 with the Police Officer paying the actual premium for continuation of group health and life insurance coverage. The City shall extend group insurance plan benefits to employees while under suspension. Employees are required to pay the cost of insurance while the employee is on any unpaid leave of absence. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that SECTION 10. SICK LEAVE of the City of Shakopee Personnel Policy is hereby amended to read: Upon an employee's request, sick leave may be granted to employees who accumulated pay sick time when the employee is unable to perform work duties due to illness, disability, the necessity of medical, dental or chiropractic care, pregnancy disability, or exposure to contagious disease where such exposure may endanger the health of other with whom the employees would .come in contact in the course of performing work duties. Sick leave may also be granted for a maximum of three days for death or serious illness of an employee's immediate family. These three days may also be used for the care of dependents who are ill. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that SECTION 12. MATERNITY LEAVE is hereby deleted and replaced with SECTION 12. PARENTAL LEAVE to read as follows: Any employee who works an average of 20 hours or more per week, has been employed by the City of Shakopee for at least 12 months and who is a natural or adoptive parent shall be granted an unpai leave of absence in conjunction with the birth or adoption of a child. The leave may begin not more than six weeks after the birth or adoption of the child. Employees may, by agreement with the City Administrator, return to work part-time during the leave period without forfeiting the right to return to employment at the end of the leave period. Employees returning from parental leave shall be entitled to return to. their former position or one of comparable duties, pay and number of hours. The length of parental leave shall be reduced by any paid sick leave or vacation leave taken in conjunction with the birth of adoption of a child. The length of parental leave requested may be determined by the employee but shall not exceed six weeks. Group health and life insurance is available to the employee while on leave with the employee paying the actual cost of the premium. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this , of 1988. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Approved as to form this day of 1988. Attorney CONSENT )z6 MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: Conveyance of A Deed DATE: April 28, 1988 INTRODUCTION: The City has received a request to convey a parcel to its rightful owner. BACKGROUND: The subdivision of DLCO 1st Addition was platted and recorded in 1979. In 1985 a deed was given to the City of Shakopee for adjoining land by Prestige Parks Inc. The conveyance was by a long metes and bounds description. As it turns out a small portion of this metes and bounds description actually overlapped into DCCO 1st Addition. Although the city has no legal right to this overlapping parcel, the fact that it was conveyed puts a cloud on the title to the DCCO 1st Addition property. Distribution Construction Co., the current property owner of DCCO 1st Addition, is requesting the City to convey back, by quit claim deed, its rightful property. This will enable Distribution Construction Co. to continue with the sale of their property. The City Engineer has reviewed the request and recommends approval. The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the attached deed. ALTERNATIVES: 11 Convey property 21 Do not convey property Alternative Number 1, convey property to rightful owner. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 2886, A Resolution Authorizing the Conveyance of A Deed, and move its adoption. jc DCCO RESOLUTION NO. 2886 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF A DEED WHEREAS; when Prestige Park Inc. conveyed property to the City of Shakopee on September 11, 1985, a small portion of the legal description contained land that should not have been conveyed, and WHEREAS; a request has been received by the rightful owner of the erroneously conveyed property to re -convey the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the proper City officials are hereby directed and authorized to execute a Quit Claim Deed to Distribution Construction Co. for Lot 11 Block 1, DCCO 1st Addition, except the 20' utility and drainage easement as shown on the plat of DCCO 1st Addition. Adopted in Regular Session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this 3rd day of May, 1988. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form this 3rd day of May, 1988. City Attorney MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator / PC FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer-r>-� SUBJECT: Tahpah Park Football Field Project No. 1988-4 DATE: May 2, 1988 INTRODUCTION: On April 19, 1988 the Shakopee City Council ordered the advertisement for bids for the Tahpah Park Football Field, Project No. 1988-4. BACKGROUND: On May 2, 1988 at 10:00 A.M., bids were received and publicly opened for Project No. 1988-4, Tahpah Park Football Field. A total of 6 bids were received and summarized in the attached resolution. The low bidder on this project is S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. with a bid of $10,900.00. We have reviewed all the bids that were received and found no errors or omissions. We have also reviewed the qualifications of S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc., the apparentlow bidder and find that they are able to perform the work as described by the plans and specifications for the project. The engineer's estimate for this project is approximately $24,500.00. The agreement between the Shakopee Jaycees and the City regarding the funding for this project has been executed. ALTERNATIVES: Accept the lowest bid and adopt Resolution No. 2887. 2. Reject all bids. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, to accept the lowest bid. REQUESTED ACTION: Offer Resolution No. 2887, A Resolution Accepting Bid on Tahpah Park Football Field, Project No. 1988-4 and move its adoption. DH/pmp FOOTBALL RESOLUTION NO. 2887 A Resolution Accepting Bid On Tahpah Park Football Field Project No. 1988-4 WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the Tahpah Park Football Field, bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law, and the following bids were received complying with the advertisement: S.M. Hengtes & Sons, Inc W.J. Ebertz Company W. Suburban Contractors Central Landscaping, Inc Busse Construction, Inc. Hardrives, Inc. $10,900.00 $11,625.00 $13,125.00 513,550.00 - $13,742.00 $15,200.00 AND WHEREAS, it appears that S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc., P.O. Box 212, Shakopee, MN 55379 is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: I. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized—and directed to enter into a contract with S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc., in the name of the City of Shakopee fortheimprovement of Tahpah Park Football Field, according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council and on file in the ofyice of the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk ishereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. 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_. ty Attorney MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer SUBJECT: VIP Sanitary Sewer Extension Project No. 1987-13 DATE: April 29, 1988 INTRODUCTION: on April 5, 1988 the Shakopee City Council passed Resolution No. 2878 ordering the advertisement for bids for the VIP Sanitary Sewer Extension Project Mo. 1987-13• BACKGROUND: on April 29, 1988 at 10:00 A.M., bids were received and publicly opened for Project No. 1987-13, VIP Sanitary Sewer Extension. A total of twenty bids were received and are summarized in the attached resolution. The three low bids are tabulated below: Contractor City Total Bid Austin P. Keller Co., Inc. St. Paul, MN $128,940.00 F.F. Jedlicki, Inc. Eden Prairie, MN $132,024.00 S.J. Louis Const., Inc. St. Cloud, MN $139,278.00 We have reviewed all the bids that were received and found no errors or omissions. We have also reviewed the qualifications of Austin P. Keller Co., Inc., the apparent low bidder, and find that they are able to perform the work as described by the plans and specifications for the project. The engineers estimate for this project was approximately $225,000.00. The Engineering Department was extremely pleased with the large number of bids received and the high interest shown in our project and believe that we received a very competitive bid. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Accept the lowest bid and adopt Resolution No. 2888. 2. Reject the low bid and award the contract to the second low bidder. I caution Council that legally, this cannot be done unless there is an extremely valid reason. 3• Reject all bids and rebid. VIP Sanitary Sewer April 29, 1988 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Since there is no basis for Alternatives 2 and 3, staff recommends that Council pass Resolution No. 2888, A Resolution accepting bids on the VIP Sanitary Sewer Project No. 1987-13 and award the contract to Austin P. Keller Co., Inc. of St. Paul, MN, REQUESTED ACTION: Offer Resolution No. 2888, A Resolution Accepting Bid on VIP Sanitary Sewer Extension, Project No. 1987-13 and move its adoption. DH/pmp MEM2888 RESOLUTION NO. 2888 A Resolution Accepting Bid On VIP Sanitary Sewer Extension Project No. 1987-13 WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the VIP Sanitary Sewer Extension Project, bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law, and the following bids were received complying with the advertisement: Austin P. Keller Co., Inc. $128,940.00 F.F. Jedlicki, Inc. $132,024.00 S.J. Louis Const., Inc. $139,278.00 S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. $147,102.88 Progressive Cont., Inc. $152,810.00 Richard Knutson, Inc. $154,237.13 Orfei Cont., Inc. $159,563.76 J.P. Norex $160,001.00 LaTour Const. $163,137.60 Brown & Cris, Inc. $166,257.35 Kenko, Inc. $171,434.06 Northdale Const. $172,484.00 Arcon Const. $175,651.55 Widmer, Inc. $180,928.00 0&P Contracting, Inc. $181,258.00 Channel Const. Co., Inc. $184,059.22 Landwehr Heavy Moving, Inc. $185,316.20 Barbarossa & Sons, Inc. $197,082.00 Lametti & Sons $198,913.00 Johnson Bros. Corp. $198,926.00 AND WHEREAS, it appears that Austin P. Keller Co., Inc., 481 Front Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55117 is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Austin P. Keller Co., Inc. in the name of the City of Shakopee for the improvement of VIP Sanitary Sewer Extension, according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. Adopted in the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held of the City Council of 7g_, day of Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: ty Clerk Approved as to form this day of 19-. City Attorney