HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/19/1988 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
RE: Non-Agenda Informational Items
DATE: April 14, 1988
1. St. Marks Church has applied for a gambling license for
their annual festival on July 30th and 31st. They do meet
the requirements of the Shakopee City Code.
2. Earlier this year the City Council asked staff to research
City Council's response to Planning Commission actions that
were appealed. The attached sheet shows that there were two
appeals in 1985, no appeals in 1986, and six appeals in
1987. If Councilmembers wish further information regarding
this subject they should contact Dennis Kraft. Copies have
been given to the Planning Commission.
3. The Code Enforcement Officer memo from staff will be on the
May 3rd Council agenda.
4. Attached is a letter from Don Benson, staff coordinator for
the Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed District. The letter
has been reviewed by Rod Krass and we agree that it
addresses the City' s concerns about taxing Shakopee property
owners in the district for repairs to the Prior Lake outlet
that was constructed in 1981.
5. Attached is a notice regarding the Shakopee Board of Review.
6. Attached is a copy of a letter I have sent to Mr. Joachim E.
Engel regarding their desire to purchase the building
adjacent to Danny's Construction along C.R. 16.
7. Attached is a memorandum from Judy Cox regarding public
officers interest in contracts.
8. Attached is an article from the Minneapolis Star Tribune
which discusses several realistic ethical issues faced by
City Council Members.
9. Attached is Administrative Policy No. 168 regarding a
standardized City follow-up procedure for complaints. The
administrative policy and citizen report form are attached
for your information. - We will be reviewing the procedures
in six months to determine if any changes are required.
10. Attached are the results of an interesting survey done on
City boards and commissions in the Metropolitan area.
11. Attached are the results of a survey done on Public Works
facilities. Shakopee's responses are circled.
12. Attached are the monthly Revenue and Expenditure Reports for
the period ending March 31, 1988.
13. Attached is the Program - Costs by Department report as of
April 8, 1988.
19. Attached is the Building Activity Report for the period
ending March 31, 1988.
15. Attached are the minutes of the April 7, 1988 meeting of the
Shakopee Coalition.
16. Attached are the minutes of the March 9, 1988 meeting of the
Downtown Ad Hoc Committee.
17. Attached are the minutes of the March 10, 1988 meeting of
the Energy and Transportation Committee.
18. Attached are the minutes of the March 7, 1988 meeting of the
Shakopee Public Utilities commission.
19. Attached is the agenda for the April 21, 1988 meeting of the
Planning Commission.
20. Attached is a flyer asking for support for a Community
Center. The flyer is not being circulated by the City or
Community Recreation but rather by some youth organizations.
JKA/jms
Planning Commission - Actions Appealed
To City Council
(1985 to 1988)
985 - Total Actions* - 77
- 3 appealed
- 2 upheld
- 1 withdrawn
1986 - Total Actions* - 59
- 0 appealed
1987 - Total Actions* - 49
- 6 appealed
- 3 overturned
- 3 upheld
3 Year Totals (1985 to 1988)
1985 to 1988
- 9 decisions appealed
- 3 conditional use permits/2 upheld/1 withdrawn
- 6 variances/3 overturned/3 upheld
1985-1988
37.5% overturned
62.5% upheld
*(Actions include variances, conditional use permits, rezonings 6
amendments)
101
y
?CiityjAdministrator
RIOR LAKE-SPRING LAKE WATERSHED DISTRICT
Don O. Benson Scott-Rice Telephone Bltlg.
Staff Coordinator 4690 Colorado SL S.E.
(612) 447-4166 Prior Lake, MN 5537,2
April 12, 1988 APR1 ?l�8g
Anderson CITY > ,
City of Shakopee
129 East 1st Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
RE: Proposed Expansion of
Prior Lake-Spring Lake
Watershed District Boundaries
Dear Mr. Anderson:
This letter is written in response to the Shakopee City
Council' s statement that it would support the proposed change of
the Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed District boundaries if given
certain assurances by the District concerning the effect of the
boundary change on the June, 1981 Joint Powers Agreement (JPA)
relating to the Prior Lake outlet project.
First, it is and always has been the District's intent to
comply with the June, 1981 JPA between the District and the cit-
ies of Shakopee and Prior Lake. Neither the proposed boundary
change nor the recent arbitration between Shakopee and the
District concerning the application of the JPA is viewed as
changing the parties ' obligations to follow the agreement.
Second, with respect to the outlet channel repairs for which
the District is responsible under the JPA, only those properties -
originally assessed for the outlet project may be assessed for
repairs or improvements for which the District is responsible.
Since it was originally determined that no benefit accrued to
Shakopee landowners by construction of the project, no Shakopee
landowners were assessed for the original construction. The
repair and restoration section of the watershed Act (Minnesota
Statutes Section 112 .64) requires a watershed district to assess
the cost of the maintenance fund for routine repairs, and the
cost of restoration projects, on a pro rata basis against the
lands originally assessed for the improvement. Accordingly, the
cost of repairs for which the District is responsible under the
JPA will not be assessed against lands in Shakopee.
if there are any questions, please call me.
rw.
Yo�i6i���lY,
Donald O. ensue a r�=-
DOB:dc �-
cc: Phillip R. Krass , Eso.
J�
-u
�RJ 01988
SHAKOPEE BOARD OF REVIEW C'T Y�,, S1A114
Each year the property owners of Scott County are given the
opportunity to question the market value placed on their
properties for tax purposes by the Scott County Assessor's
Office by appearing before the Board of Review.
Those owners whose property received a substantial increase in
market value over the previous year's assessment are sent notice
of this increase in the mail . This notice also lists the date ,
time and place of each district's Board of Review at which the
property owner may have questions answered by the assessor .
These Boards of Review deal only with the valuation , and not the
tax of the property.
The 1988 Shakopee Board of Review will be held on May 10 , 1988
at 7:00 P.M. in the council chambers of the Shakopee City Hall .
This meeting will deal with the property valuations for the 1988
assessment upon which the taxes payable in 1989 will be based.
Anyone interested in attending this meeting is asked to return
the bottom portion of their Notice of Valuation Increase to the
County Assessor's Office or to call the County Assessor's Office
at 937-6115.
If property owners fail to notify the County Assessor's Office
prior to the meeting, members of the Board of Review will not
have the proper records in hand at the meeting.
,
CITY OF SHAKOPEE •
INCORPORATED 1870
129 EAST FIRST AVENUE,SRAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 553731376 (612)"53650 ,i)
April 7, 1988
Mr. Joachim E. Engel
10348 York Lane
Bloomington, MN 55431
RE: Administrative Waiver for PUD Amendment for PUD
3401 Eagle Creek Blvd. , Shakopee, MN
Dear Mr. Engel:
I am responding to your letter dated March 22, 1988
informing the City that you are currently purchasing the property
at 3401 Eagle Creek Blvd. and wish to utilize the property for a
light industrial business. The above mentioned property is
located within the Racetrack Zoning District which requires
approval of a mandatory planned unit development (PUD) . The
Shakopee City Code Section 11.40, Subd. 7 C gives the City
Administrator the authority to waive the PUD approval process for
properties in a mandatory PUD area when they meet the following
criteria:
A. The changes in the building location or size do not
affect more than 108 of the site area and/or floor
space.
B. The changes in landscaping, parking and drive
arrangement or site improvements do not affect more
than 108 of the site area.
C. The changes comply with all requirements placed on the
zone in which the property is located.
In your letter, you state that you intend to use the
building for a machine shop, the requirements for the RTD
District specifically state that light industrial uses limited to
office, showroom, corporate offices, research and development
laboratories, warehousing and light assembly type maintenance are
permitted within the district. It is the City staff's
interpretation that your proposed use of the building will
conform with the light industrial uses permitted in the district.
The Heart Of Progress 'Valley
AN EOUAL OPP NTUNITY EMPLOYER
f ' v
You have also indicated to City staff that the only changes
you propose to make to the building include the installation of a
loading dock and upgrading of the electrical service.
The City staff has concluded that your proposed use of the
building and minor changes comply with the waiver requirement
guidelines contained in Section 11.40, Subd. 7C of the City Code.
I am therefore granting to you an administrative waiver from the
PUD requirements in the Code.
I would like to draw to your attention to the performance
standards contained in Section 11.36, Subd. 4 of the City Code
which apply to the RTD zone. In particular, these performance
standards indicate that outside storage will not be allowed
within the RTD District. The requirements also place screening
requirements on parking and loading areas (copy enclosed) . If
you have any questions please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Cr
ohn K. Anderson
City Administrator
JKA:trw
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Adz-±nistrator
FROM: Judith S. COX, City Clerk
RE: MSA 471.87 Public Officers Interest in Contracts
DATE: March 14, 1988 1
According to Statutory City Code, no member of a council of
a city may be directly or indirectly interested in any contract
made by the council, unless they meet certain exception
requirements. One exception requirement is for a contract for
which competitive bids are not required by law and where the
amount does not exceed $5,000. In addition the council must by
unanimous vote approve such a contract. *
Mr. Clay is in business for himself. Whenever the city
desires to place an order with his firm, council should take
action authorizing ordering the desired goods. . According to our
standard operating procedures, we should obtain more than one
quote and go with the low bidder.
Whenever it is desireable to place an order with Clay's
.Printing, the following procedure should be followed:
a) obtain a quote from at least two firms
bj if the low quote is from Clay's printing, prepare a memo
for council consideration
c) council must unanimously authorize that the order be
placed with Clay's Printing (can be consent business)
d] after council approval, the department may place order;
attach quotes and staff memo to finance copy of
purchase order, mark on the memo that the purchase was
approved by council and the date, and forward to the
finance department to attach to the final bill
This procedure is required for each order placed with Clay's
Printing.
jc
CONFLICT
* According to the League and Mr. Coller all councilpersons
must vote and in this situation the conflict of interest
., abstention law does not prevail and .the benefitting Council-
,person shall vote !
JULIUS A. COLLEB. II
size Ar oa ey AT Lew
ie sa ie.o wcsr ...c,.oE
SH KOPEE, MIN ESOr
53379
Memo to: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk
From: Julius A. Coller, II, City Attorney
Date: April 6, 1988
Re: Official interest in contract
I have reviewed the excerpts from the latest issue of HANDBOOK FOR MINNESOTA
CITIES that yoH sent me and the new substance is very similar to what the
old handbook had to say on the subject, although, the new one is more
detailed and as a result a little more confusing.
Feeling that the other city officials have probably been vexed with the
same laws and regulations I reviewed the matter with Stan Peskar of the
League.
It is his feeling that the Statutory Law prohibiting Council members from
having a personal financial interest in a contract should be treated as
superceding the common law rule that Council members may not vote on any
matter in which they have a personal interest. This being the case, all
members of the Council would have to vote to authorize such contract after
the various safeguards procedural steps outlined in paragraph 4 under the
heading "Exceptions" on page 370 of the Handbook for Minnesota Cities has
been followed. While I am not too comfortable with Mr. Peskar's solution,
I believe it is the only practical one to follow until such time as we have
either Appellate Court decision on the matter or a ruling of the Attorney
General.
In the meantime, I recommend that we follow Mr. Peskar's recommendation.
me
V
frt o4eF5d633:n- W=9m>:LtlafA -.�
a9Q 3W B�'aai n:��azgmd if4
tO
Lw
e m3m
e3 g3R'�3K Ls v R`� RA_ a
6 3;8 3 a R£R R W
3m= 6F !vq- 33W 9 �
aG n.,�a8�.--_ - iR 93� 3
3q 3s Rcz F3R'33: a' ' �f
�.4 3aat, O '
5 Reif 3.G^'t~ a3 ¢8 <
.ma 2°e:a6R- e£z�3A
p --q¢ 3R mRGame *2��1g2s^'
- 5o_a.S aeRme - MtiacC 3� °. -
' L $'�Sa£mR w naa333 �%$^vn36
CD
°c t�m'n �
3l F65pv EW3nd?xsH.�.^e3 R?�
dad R - ¢°°g-.5HZ3a�_ex$
¢52e3�aaa A^�=.g
3E6S5 R.�e £
mGi mv$ W 3.3G£mim' ^9,ec 53"
£P; ff,£%%'�{ma�$,.a6F;
a33Rs°
`m�9$ 0
a. i^ 3'°.Z 23333-3 •°+33'32 o'^-%�
ar OiW
jos
9a¢a $ $oa ==:e$ N
CD
-%' s853RR'm=k3"�S PzS C R=° 3_s
a?�; gF9YYmta.Ri u"� 2�S3o tP-if .� o
a_M3 M;[
CD
35,33 3�C�R^'43 tl' 3Gn32'a5'==_
:Y o3
�l9m.� in-i mm ma o$E^Pn53e^
a°Et pea - •e¢^¢i_%2_
°�m5 y
F o.W3F _ 3
@Gne."ay=9s _ $n�t9"ay'ya'���mo2 Ap3g3p..� '
.: lii�i'���e s2.. ,S 3�F•:IRS.iA F d� �� /v�V
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY NO. 168
Subject: Complaints - Follow-up Procedure
Date Adopted: March 2, 1988
Source of Authority: Staff Meeting
The City's insurance carrier has recommended that the City adopt
a policy for handling complaints. This recommendation came after
commencement of a law suit by a Shakopee resident who was struck
by a vehicle at the intersection of First Avenue and Lewis Street
in the Spring of 1986. The following procedure will be followed
when a complaint is a health, safety, or of a financial matter.
1. The receptionist receives a call or a walk-in and transfers
the complainant to the proper department.
2. The department fills out a complaint form in duplicate and
sends one copy back to the receptionist. (When financial,
health, or safety related)
3. The receptionist assigns a number to the complaint and
enters the complaint information into the computer.
4. Once each week a written report is generated from the
computer database indicating complaints resolved and
complaints outstanding by department along with the
appropriate code number which has been assigned.
5. A copy of this report is sent to each department.
6. As each complaint is resolved the department codes the
duplicate report Copy with the number assigned on the w-gekly
report then fills in the "Action Taken" portion. -
7. The duplicate is then sent back to the Receptionist where
the new information is added to the data base.
8. The weekly report will show any action taken during the
preceeding week.
COMPLAIN
CITIZEN REPORT FORM
DATE: TIME: COMPLAINT#:
NATURE OF COMPLAINT:
LOCATION OF PROBLEM-
COMPLAINANT: ADDRESS:
CITY: STATE`ZIP: PHONE:
COMPLAINT TAKEN BY: RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT;
COMMENTS:
ACTION TAKEN
DATE: TIME: ACTION TAKEN BY:
ACTION TAKEN:
RECEIVED
City of Rosemount
Commission/Committee Survey WR3 11988
March, 1988
CITY OF SHAKc.ert
Purpose: To seek information from all cities in Dakota County
and also other cities in seven county Metro area with population
up to 14,000 concerning standing city commissions.
1) Number of cities survey set to: 19.
2) Number of cities returning surveys 19. Return 100%.
3) Planning Commission:
Do you have one? 19 yes 0 no
Are they paid? 3 yes 16 no
Paid monthly? 0 yes 3 no
Paid per meeting? $10, $20, $25
Other payment: Continuing Fd., $10/inspection,
Expenses
Meetings, how often? 1/mo. 10 1/2mo. 1 2/w.__§i
2/mo. Apr.-Oct. 2
1/mo. Nov.-Mar. 2
4) Parks and Recreation:
Do you have one? 17 yes 2 no
Are they paid? 2 yes 17 no
Paid monthly? no
Paid per meeting? $10, $20
Other payment: Continuing Ed. , $10/inspection
Expenses
Meetings, how often? 1/mo. 15 1/2mo 1 2/mo. 2
No mtg. Jun-Aug 1
5) Utilities Commission:
Do you have one? 2 yes 17 no
Are they paid? 2 yes
Paid monthly? no
Paid per year. $350 Pres.; $200 Sec. ; $100 member.
$150 Chair; $125 member
Other payment? Registration fee for annual
conference.
Meetings, how often? 1/mo. 2
6) Housing & Redevelopment
Authority (HRA)
Do you have one? 6 yes 12 no
Are they paid? 2 yes
Paid monthly? no
Paid per meeting. $35;2/$25; $15/Chair, $10/member
Meetings, how often? 1/mo. 7 , 2/mo 1 , as needed
7) Cable 'TV Commission/Board
Do you have one? 15 yes 4 no
Are they paid? 1 yes
Paid per meeting. $25
Other payment? Free Basic TV service; Seminars +
Meetings, how often? 1/mo. 5 meals
Quarterly 3 2/yr 1
2/mo. 1 As needed 2
8) List other committees:
Ad Hoc Downtown Commission
Aeronautics Board
Arena Board
Airport Relations Commission
Centennial Commission
Charter Commission - 3
Civil Service/Police & Fire Commission
Community Development Task Force
Civic Arts Commission
Commission of Adjustments
Economic Development - 6
Energy & Transportation Commission
Emergency Medical Service
Historical Commission
Human Rights Commission
Library Commission
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Mechanical Code Commission
Natural Resource Committee
Solid Waste & Hazardous Materials Commission
Solid Waste Abatement Commission
Special Assessments Commissions
Urban Affairs Commission
Water Management Organization
West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board
CITIES SURVEY SENT 1U AND RETURNED
PPoo kation
Apple Valley13 ,006 Little Canada 8,574
Arden Hills 9,014 Mendota Heights 8,384
Burnsville 42,583 Mound 9,680
Chanhassen 9,000 Orono 7,172
Chaska 10,012 Prior lake 10,173
Eagan 43,000 St. Anthony 8,300
Farmington 5,162 Shakopee 11,613
Ham Lake 9,000 So. St. Paul 20,235
Inver Grove Heights 200,E West St. Paul 18,527
Lakeville
lj
i
Minnasota CHALKLINE - page 5
Standards for PW Facilities
At the Fall Conference,
a survey was taken on 20 -
Standards of Public Works
Construction at the IME Con- p
current Session. A brief o
report of the results was
made at the session with a - -
comment that a written re-
port would be made on the /
results. 30 different cities -
responded with the following " -
results:
1. Concrete curb and gutter is require al- treets in
new developments. (30 Yes, 0 No)
2. Allow mountable curb and gutter.
3. Sidewalk required on all residential streets. es
(3 Yes, 25 No) No
4. Street lights required in new subdivisions. (24 Yes,
and 5 No) Y�e
5. Have established storm sewer utility. (Question may
not have been clear.) (9 Yes, 21 No es
6. Allow plastic pipe for sanitary sewer, 25 allow PVC,
3 allow ABS Truss, 2 No) es
7. Allow curvilinear sanitary sewers. (5 Yes, 23 No) 4Go
8. Allow plastic pipe for watermains. (4 Yes, 25 No) No
9. Standard spacing between manyQles on 8" sanitary sewer.
(11-800' , 2-350', 15-400') 00'
10. Standard size ofnitary sewer house service.
(27-4", 2411)
11. Standard minimum size of watermain. (24-61', 5-8") 6"
12. Standard material for watermain. (1 CIP, 27 DIP, p�j
and 1 plastic)
13. What is standard for concrete b and gutter?
(21-B618, 5-B624, 4 Other) -61
14. Standard width of sidewalk (Boulevard type)
(3-4', 16-5' , 6-61) 5'
15. Standard width of boulevard between curb and sidewalk. -
(2-3', 6-5', 1-511' , 2-6', 3-7', 1-7§' , 3-8', 2-91,
2-101 , 2-12' , 1-15') y
16. Standard residential street width. (1-26', 4-28',
" 4-30', 1-31' , 12-32', 5-36') 36
17. Standard minimum grade f rests. (1-.33%, 3-.4%,
17-.5%, 3-.6%, 2-.1%) 0.5%
18. Standard maximum grade for streets. (11-5%, 2-6%, 2-7%, -
1-6k%, 6-8%, 3-10%, 2-122, 1-13%, 1-20%)
19. Standard curb return radius on residentia streets.
(1-13', 8-15', 5-20' , 1-25', 1-30') 78'
20. Standard minimum residential lot size in square feet.
(2-48009 1-52009 2-7000, 1-7500, 1-8000, 1-8125, 4-9000,
1-9600, 7-10000 2-10800 1-11000, 1-12000, 1-13500,
1-22,000) .SA - Rural 9 000 S.F. - Urban
Obviously, not Draw
everyone Y your own conclusions
answered every question. from the survey. -
.uy uu YuuuuW uuuu uu Vy� + u uWu u�T
IN NNNNNNO NO NN yyyy�yyy - D'.0 O
P y@ obWJP =. - oJNAyry �o I iO WJPN A.Y@NAY@ tlWO •I NA+ [Oi ^
-0 W
�„ WD9mT+ D< Dp3W992rW f SO�3W A-WL3'.9W90WWrn .W 9W 4. 0T0 C'
fDWf ZZZOD Z 000400004 O.+ 4fTTTT CO T 9
D' 0
2'.O
=Df D000=r 4 nCWDrr309 W01Na A'Lf O'C+002T9D n ^m X'
4T'm 2' i Z + 4+ + mD4 A OT 'mrS3f r90aCci = m 0O-
'ZW �W Ila Z.T A �KmTOp% rm 2rL moa DWO O OF + +
OaTmSam<b'T O D STTApO m ZpW4rPA �Z ZD4P +�aT r rr 0rm Wm T
'TT mDam 4'.D < 4aSC4WD0a OmC00 a0p0W4 'fa O< 03
I 'T NOZO O'�Za+ T TOOKa40yD 22W W9D'LSD
'T OO4AmZCDa 2 D3 ' DD 2 PmrD+ f99m D2.OZ W W D % a S 1
20' OT4 3 40T3r4 4 Wm' Z 44 'mm r3WT0 NW X91 9D D
IC%99 m D D2m =W 9 WC W9n9TW9aar+WT23 m bm D 4r S
<3mTT Wom 2 XP ++ T 'A 2AD a==i+OfW%�+ W =0 + O
AyaDTmp= m a' Z�` O a 'a pa T_+_ 'mW N% C OT 9
+ ^ = 9 34Pm Wm S m3 4D ZC
0 <OT r ~ O = 9 T ZW Wp T m +a Z T
NS u 4 Awa 4W m Z y2 mm O
= w c D W O W3W3 mWMI . r 4 4 W4
Nm m i ^ y WI
I I I i ml
I � I
I I
N o@o N N 44
000000No 0 00 000 0 0 oONO oo Aoo D'. m
j
z m
1 I I i I i I i I 4
If
m
I D a
m
I I I 4
- 4
_ e t
I YAOAO No N NNOOPW b ( A WNO lNo � O b ~.
eN � oAe ! AtlNONNoo AW No @ 'A a
oA0 No eoo ". e O'NO T
y oNo oW0 ' <
2
C
0l0 to eOle m.K
M
_ I a
' WJtlWNo e y p N W +o+WWW tlP J J J D4 W
bNU p N eNNJPNAN N W 0
oONO@eP0OOOOPNO0o0000 CO 10 !
OAOOONONO OPO O NOOoo00o 00 Poo D
u
Y++W+N +JAOePy y +0A JAb AAO W beb T W
<
-NPe oNroNY00lo �4Ay+ANWPA4+Nb0 AON D
ONP�! WOO+P-@oW0@NO-o NON a
oNyoNO N ONON000W NON4YllNNONo00o
eNOJoye W oNo W Z '.
oe111oNiNi I Ilololleo I IoloollNoololoe o o A Aoo 0 D
alolooli of ollollllololl 1 I11 m O ,
roNtlPm- u Jrc-murmau m
o.Jmmma u P P u m irlm emm m.ome a m r A
!
r N
w 1
w 11 111111e1 ..11l lb 1 P P 1 Ile ell
........... r a a er m
Ono00ePboe000f ONn m om W b
W o0 0o NPOO oo Nn eMe n ' W Ne
6 to -dNN WdoO N- od a
W d b NNPP - a a N ff n bP o �
}
n ^
n
LL mj oN000oe'I d F On n- N .
W fQ d. PN 0e P I
6 Oa NNee oN_We n oml m P . I
ee eo o n n a
I I
W 7 N oN o o N I
26 b m o Y1 0 o d
W iFlN i o m m _ W e e I
a w i
I I
c � '
JW m
WO O
ZY. J2Q mL > O r O
J2 Ww O-F AJ20J 4 O
W LLO KWW OLLW FOOUQ ¢ -
O
<~ W¢W Wltle W6W�6 J J O. O
_ 6 Ym6VW WYIW ¢ mm O O - Z '
W- LL>KY622%WOVWJJOm 9 W Iw J I
W 6' 003w 60WJ�ti2 I = V Q I mF. m LL
WW O .Kamal JJF OU 00 4 f Y
O Vw Y.K V6YUm V ZWw m � 4 WO J LLU 4 " ' '.
O W2W0 KV WL F F K W OI N '. I
1 63JVW-VZWW6rw L'VJ Q WWWFU Z I '
f -I- FOm WKm2� ¢Y 6L�%LL 7. p hJZN Gm JGm '..
v � mLLL%LLuo_ LL mLK v. W —WWL L F I- I
mmm aaannne re N ewemoe. - � !
U4 NNNNNNNNNNNNNNb m^nn P
_ LL nn FlnFlnn Flnnnnnnn ♦ n ♦ Fl ♦ nn ♦ ' '.
- --
as a aaa •aa�a a • a �_a.•_ + 'A
II i m �=1 u...oumJ urooeau�nrorororo = _-----------
c .
a ro r : m- .� N - ePopo uuro im eu•aau -w z m
O.ryryONN N�eON.O n0 0
n m ti '9 n 00 yn 3'-0 9C� NyyTlr 90 mm3w 0''. T CL21'� 99 w OW C =
O O D A Am D9 D C ATCOmy299A09A9TOCOC9 D m9mAATADGD Zo
y y - m 2 3 �+ T� ny'9 A22nw n'.DrW000DGny DZZ Z.ArAr y,� K
n 'OmyrC2< my3D .. r0 9 N 9F r.0w w.>DAD \.
y W N D Y ay YT A2 AOnA Y'AiDOf V 90 Dy O 3Y_.nn n. AF9 O
D D r2D.MA Y > nrxM-
O D m T r nr T ny2 T Sz OT� mb032Tm - D .µ2 Z22 mxm NA m
31 N OW2 An O.p2 O ..n.D DNm r wPmN W wm0 OZ
n .0 W 1 m 9T zc wm T 2wOy � 30 x 1 '
K K m A T OC P Ommow pG 0zD.Y ^Ny D 20�mM� ITT �A Z
m <ti N C CG 9D D
s z m9 mmn o- c'a nrnpipA G Yam�ms m�� r o
Z O 33 a Z 9 0 � n
y2 A y (wf �b mA 9. rD r 10
nrD lY= 2C m I
m C y 0 n3 wm TA m Cr 0 229
w y Aw wwm 2 I"
A 9 W m
m00 'z mn aroc' mm o
nr zm nu z n az
nn I
I z
I I w mm I j
I I i
I C
N V N - ymd O d0u y-0 a 9
li moW. :oro mura ro N m P' msuoo m m
No u Nwm • elanro m.N .Diz z
' o O N oNyON OOPWwN N Na P000 dY1� y'_ �~ m
0 0 0 e b P:W Nb y � - o •000 D
1
I 3
I O y
f
N
ro
� rodN� rorr Nby• WO W JN- PCO Y,N 9
iN ro N J + NrodmWOPNm W yNNrob�N J mN0•Ym� A
N �NNP�e•baJroJJbyOroPy• � N -o00m00�0 9
m N OeOOJN-oNNPO ooe00 0 Yow X000
ro N NNN N N ONN O.m
D
e G O .O o .O o O .......... Z K
dm m o rom a roroe�ma ro -ro =u-e •m m m�=.o as '.9
ro ro N ..o a NN n �_T .Nuaro�d ePyau a -ro auwu�I s
' m mN u -mmmnm=lu�ro m am-•m ea ywa aeo ay W
ea er + N
0 0 0 o T e0yo10oPP��yemONPyaP d Obe oe� �aNN CO r
N N J _ NroomOV0dJ0 J 00 OONyOWy D
W
D 1
b O m y p N e �NyJ•ro�� yT0 � PP N�oJWW m m
N m ro N y rod u -Ne�TrororoNNN� ONO�•0m roNPNO•�I
y b e O P N- y �NNyO�oyOrobroy00e��0mJ �OwO�Pro� <
N N N N N pa eNyNNbW•NJWdW00WYWJ y�uoNNmNO =
P eOYJJPPWeyyo�e0�0NJ oyyy.pry
ro emJ edV0N o e o e N eN P0.NO.Np.N W o.O.NOeo0my.JaNa mZ 9D
n �
p m ymum°�mum�"aww mJeNe a �b mmNmm
N m m N o O N m bwbNNJNNWJ• +Wee• W �O �0-bN '
a r
o a
w
V W
6 R
a i r
a
W
K 6
Q R
>
m
W W 6
i a
� r �
i a
n
o�
< r
W � a
0 or _
b r 6 '.
a
a�l ', ' �
,~a, � 'I ', ',
z r
w
a '. I �
`a ', �i �.
� �. I
F n I,
� � I '..
6 I I
O '"i I �.
a m '', it
w
W 2> j - I '. � I i I
K F I. � � � � it i i i
r I I
W Q � '� I i I I � I
o � � '�. I
LL
O i i I �I
2 I � I � I
'. I � '.
o! a �, ',,
w r r
w oz o
O LLO F j
a �n i I, � I
LL WN � i
O V LI '. i.
p ',
� '. �
�t � � i
O 7 r '. I �.
0 O iU I � i I
Z L I
JQ
LL... I
I I J 'w I N I .� W • I C Z P
I i
t o Im •m m ! I '� h I i vl I Im I s v o
y I r �1z
. r ! I it I I z �; '� o Z. o
I m m m c z
y
?
i z
� I
i
_ tltltltl NNNNN'N
O.Y4LL4LLY tletl�.ON pN
YNV Na-YN - LLN�m4 p�- w
I n v� v>x >rm 'v no'rmn I Iomnb eox
I.. amov.i I of I awmi rcz < c wn mz. I lioci z<
I Izvma wm'. I wm Dom pz-mnm'. i imm �- mo
z-zr yr: 1 zx ryr ra'- vr, cyry P
Inmm I mm - m rv.zx Ia K P
i ox .-rr. I rz �a Pw N3' >la n o
oPa om: y a w a o
oznz zm. m raI ' > o
Az :la
m Izmm-m r me
Pzi m zz
Ix Ol".M a 2 MMM.
=n
Pomp - I NN Y YY 40 s7- 77
VI IVI Ibr yN
NeON 1
m0
Y N oJme otl
O tl ON
N m u
00 a o m
! I o I eeltl � 9, I rm
I 1 I I I I I ! Ivm of
Nm j ONN N N- o IoNN' I N yPf p N 4 r0 my
Wm NNN_b tlN uN W.m pu N
�. -I
NmNo N :ANmN 9� m
atleYP e.-JJ4sytlmym I-�mLL -ueu -61 - =1m Imeiu bm �
i e� mmN--ro00ma '4 iad -INb-ONom NNoaYN jN 'WPP � i
t
Im
I. OI am I Oy -
le Im J tl N> oa N m IN IN IwM
OFFIT . I. . I.
Om N YN �� IWe Y : oo NOON
• �� N r N J !J
I
I I i I I I I
I a J Lbe Naas as P I N N m0
. u O !MNLLmw N�Om e p
y -N N emY m-YOP - Nr
o N Nooe .. NPY m
aN y N -p m 9
Oe a MNoe NNo ooN o oo m
SHOWAzz
2
000 00 ........... O
-wae !nme. aevoeroem-au m000•em a-ma- eeee�m- li
i arr N000m eNm-eeeoo0 Fr
N P�'1e N JJ NJJ NN NNan
o n
z
eeee0000e ooeoeeee oe eo0000ee0000eee eo oeeo
eooeeeoee eo0o 0o00 00. 0000e e0oee0ee0o o0 0000
W NNO No
6 N0
6 O naaN nnFN rF N-NO
6 PO NONm nn PVJ N rF OdN
F6 NN
Y¢.
-N00P00 wNPPb rddnJd Ora JNbrOo NN�
Or NbaPaaJ nnev aNn PdParJNF nn' NFaJ
Jm
PdPPra NON oNN-v OwP 001 r0-nJd0rn0Pno
rmOPr Pm -nFP-ommb Pr1
j 00: - -JnnO
nn Po NNNNP - -PJNdO nPJar- �Noo
- 0aPN0n _ �- n-F 0
NN,
j oN oo - v00 P NN' Omo
eom : rNee mm:
WFi 00O nF - N J : NOrO F I NN - I
N i
1� aNPa - mP.PN nnl nPNnJ NeeeJNJrma eoi a�Fo"
1 r m i mmi NOPrlano arbaF NN ''
z m'
t m ONN pe N - I 1 I Nem n ernm .0 1'. NPS I
2 Os Jr d r n o a nNP- Jr
�w V -m Jnn m rvN mml w--
w 1 _ - N : ONNnNI -nNn=n as Nw?
wx � Woi
m0 I J0 oNN eee O n-oe N J POe N! I
I
V ZOJOPmN on PnJFP en NOP P!I nPrn
I Oi N- aN n ; Pv� ni men0n - OnnNl
=I d N N NPFN I nd 1 I nnl n+N-�
V
o. w 0 i wz I r waaw I '. aw _ x
sw u ( mFrcww o Jx w_ mzJ
I Z V V W »
1 J_¢x JWm 1 V 6_->i� V amLi
F 0 NP0 D my a.n d I �a��N m.. N P I N nnnl
N I nnnnnn mPw n nnRn
m ' m
m
_
m _
m W
m
z� c
W 2 J JG J Ja -
<
OI O I.
2 0
y
C
al bNPPPN NNNNUNNNN Naa bb '
WNNNN ro b NNa NN - - bb
- -YM-NJPN- 0 N-aW -o b.OYPJ Pom - 0 - mWN 0JP
D 2-mrOa T' 2= 3092 -yS C'L <090 3 y
oDOD o 099-y- T ar I I DSD !
' ZOn1ACT2 a9YaC P-Sr 9u9mr2 K>'O ' Yr !
" OC2CT-TTA - 2 Z.9y ST9 -m K-n 1 TKr '
-a^mA r n z-!amaawazam-m i
2m r
M
n zr; ! z< > cOamym
a oPymnmrz.p> m wa-z -a ocn.a 1 o=a a
:< o ii i v9prmnz a+IKr. yN spsz Iv zr-
w- rp > a > mm I i oa v
aa. f°�zm z j r Maya mr rm< ao z-o- � ''
mr mra a'. D
mm aK9K< 2.Cr
-arA r" My9y nz
y F z �m mwc - mvTm mA m
m j m ca aay- m Omaarm xv a Ir 1 z
yxmLm' SKywzaz aaOC m0.. 0 p
as z a mnn wyr-zm zy In y -
c aDw oWz a y- . 9
I ' my I I i - a am Im m i ii I 1 n
ro I P I 'o y
_ o n
romNJN b O O'+-N0 000x0- m4Yb- I Im NY:Op+INY w Kw
NJ+oe ONO' N
ooo N e N 000 o.
oNroe Ne.O I+o Oe O .. Ty
I !N o
i i n zm
uJaroJW mind + ammo- bmerv:m "'v °'gym-P so
NJOe JNJNW 0-obN 4NN WPNP N.0+aN0b Pe NP
NbNro Va IP�m:NYmoP AN T
OOJPNama Jm -by>r>-mNa JroeroPaP bNOP NOPUb oV--N- yy y
NJPOV+a+ JPN roNJMo - ON-NYbP-N PWOa NO W ' w !
0
ma I
+mroo rvee roe
', ro oe eee emee P
O I ;
1
NbOu-4roPb NroNJW N � 4-N IroP NNl- 001
'Np0-Jb+00 aPu-�bo JON0b0Mb wPu -P y
NJbNNb -O UNNIOJNNUPro a ma+NUOPNNP IJ-0D!' yDI
JJ bJaJa PN+yNONPYVbNOPNeNYb I�PeW--N- wr
eNJNONa_a_a J NNNJJe-+PON-eWb+-N YNOW
1
_ 9y
aNamP V V 9p
eONoo-Ja NVNV WN A
-NNJb-J - p9 D
J NJNN0N0 N0
N T
ee.0000eo 00000 Dosses eoeeeeeee Doo Oeeoo0o0 9 O
_ T
am vlm row ob+ N -n+numb '
o-IYbPNJJ Ye0000JJON o e 0 o o 0 e O N O+YONbo O ee Ooee Z Y
z rnm -mNeeea rn PNNm-mtl PNoo OeP mm NN
e w
a dl'INmNn N N- mN- PN NN
W -
O 6.
2
NONe Ne
NNWnI-
< O aN vN onr FP ON Nm
y PII�a N- ON-
N - N NW mbn --Ila- N
tl N bN 1'1n
}6
1'1NON eNm Pmvm Fn aNPm FNn NN rr oo
JW
F mNr ONda PN otlPN NmO VNNtlhPN
m - o --P -Wn mnN_ooOPPFv Pl-tl mm bN
OOH rNa u Nrtl _nnN __ NN _e N PNNr � F
n w e w ea
C � nn0 -No el
N-me - tleoPl-NM1NtleN hYNNa nen
j F I`INOm ' m NP hntl-amrNP NN '
I W m¢�i mmem mNN tlPPb eb aN -NM1NaN SPP 0m '.
W J M1Nr b NFe _M PN NmN hrvNN -
KW J P R n Fl nNb'. N N.. I i
m W m W
' WO i NN- oN Non No N NNNe NI
J
< 6
O WY__
JL h F 202r2i 6 <
6nC _h 1-20Vu< 3
\F \ LmhJ O
W T¢¢¢¢ W ZUQLFZ ~6201 W: W
m
IW
¢ mJS L <6 W
L >mW O J < O
Z¢ 2. Zp3¢YYZ30 Z 2 IG
p I p
v aP ...
i I I P i n om a . i I
I I
LL 2
O
m J
WW J J 6 O
< < < V ¢ F J
o OL
- � O 2 O. I O O
V
I O G S
I
7f
TYPED BY CITY STAFF TO AID IN READING ATTACHED LETTER
Friend Jerry,
I see by our local paper where you said you said Shakopee can't
afford another bond issue on account of our recent huge school
referendum.
This must never be repeated we can' t afford to keep taxing
ourselves at this rate.
Our Minn. Legislature is just as stupid. Adding another 3 cents
a gal. on gas will never get them what they think - Because long
haul truckers will shun our state - our tax was too high the way
it was - we heard some truckers ask how far to Sioux Falls, SD-
when they were told a hundred miles they said we will re-fuel in
SD - So there goes our sales - serves them right - so its only us
poor people that will pay and pay!
Big trucks will wreck our roads and contribute nothing.
Herb Dallmann
P.S. our local paper won't print a letter like this!
Another thing they won't print is that although 80 to 90% of
people now want a dep. on containers or a forced recycle law - a
bill did not even make it out of committee - Shame
Our Governor said so - we have a serious garbage crisis land
fills will all close by 90 - when 80% of the people can't have
their way we have a darn dictatorship and no longer a democracy!
Perpich said a few special interest people blocked this - Shame.
— _ T{.moi......is j..
APR 1
!p 55319 _.
i) fir( C CITY
---------- -
o p �A
A
--
• n
-- - - - -��-ter- h -- ---- -
J
S
Fal
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner
RE: Final Plat of Meadowbrook Run
DATE: April 15, 1988
INTRODUCTION:
At their meeting on April 7, 1988 the Shakopee Planning
Commission passed a motion recommending approval of the final
plat for Meadowbrook Run subject to conditions.
BACKGROUND:
Mr. Darrell E. Gonyea, of Gonyea Land Company submitted a
proposed plat for 56 acres located South of County Road 16 and
East of Pike Lake Trail. The plat contains 8 large lots and is
in the R-1 zoning district. The preliminary plat was approved by
the City Council at their meeting on February 16, 1988.
The plat is bordered on the West by Pike Lake Trail which is
currently a gravel road connecting County Road 16 and County Road
42. In the future, the City may wish to upgrade this roadway.
Development in this area does not warrant upgrading of the
roadway at this time.
A major drainageway (Prior Lake/Spring Lake overflow area)
crosses the proposed plat from the Southern boundary of the
property to the Eastern boundary of the property. Further
improvement to the drainageway will be designed and constructed
according to an arbitration award between the City and the Prior
Lake/Spring Lake Watershed District.
Drainage from the area West of Pike Lake Trail enters the
property through three culverts and flows across the property
through the center of Lot 7 and along the lot lines between Lots
5 & 6 to the drainageway. This drainage flow can be adequately
handled by the utility and drainage easements shown on the final
plat. A 30' drainage and utility easement along the lot line
between Lots 4 & 5 and continuing through the plat to the Eastern
boundary is provided to allow for the possible future location of
a sewer line if the need arises.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the final
plat for 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 CSAR 16 shall be limited to one access each for
Lots 1 and 2 . Accesses shall be a minimum of 300' apart.
Drainageways 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.
ACTION REOUESTED•
Offer and pass Resolution No. 2882 Approving the Final Plat
for Meadowbrook Run.
RESOLUTION NO. 2882
A Resolution Approving the Final Plat of
Meadowbrook Run
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee did
approve the Final Plat of Meadowbrook Run on April 7, 1988 and
has recommended its adoption; and
WHEREAS, all notices of hearing have been duly sent and
posted and all persons appearing at the hearing have been given
an opportunity to be heard thereon; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has been fully advised in all
things.
NOW, - THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the Final Plat of Meadowbrook
Run, described as follows:
That part of the West Half of the Southeast Quarter of
Section 14, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County,
Minnesota lying southerly of the centerline of Scott
County Road No. 16.
be, and the same hereby is approved and adopted with the
requirements that:
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
CSAR 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.
Drainageways shall be constructed so as to allow for a turn
around to prevent backing onto CSAR 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.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Clerk be and
the same are hereby authorized and directed to execute said
approved Plat and Developer's Agreement.
Adopted in session of the City Council of
the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of
1988.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk -
Approved as to form this
day of 1988.
City Attorney
qb -
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner
RE: Recommended Changes to the City Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances
DATE: April 15, 1988
INTRODUCTION•
At their meeting on April 7, 1988 the Shakopee Planning
Commission passed a motion recommending to the City Council that
City Codes Sections 11. 02 - 11.05, 11.27 - 11.34, 11.37, 11.60,
11. 07 and 12. 07 be amended as shown in attachment A.
BACKGROUND:
Last summer the City Planning staff presented to the
Planning Commission a recommendation outlining proposed
amendments to the City Zoning and Subdivision Sections of the
City Code. Changes proposed by the staff were developed
primarily as "housekeeping" changes which would clarify language
and eliminate conflicts in the current code. Since that time the
Planning Commission has been discussing these changes, and has
added some additional changes which they feel are also of a
priority to the City. The Planning Commission has held a public
hearing on the proposed code changes and at their meeting on
April 7th passed a motion recommending the proposed changes as
attached.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission at their meeting on April 7, 1988
recommended the changes as outlined in attachment A. Following
is brief description of the proposed changes. Numbering for the
following descriptions relates to the numbering in attachment A,
you may wish to follow along with attachment A while reading the
descriptions.
1. Section 11.02 Definitions.
13. The definition for building height has been changed to
simplify and clarify interpretation of the definition.
141. A definition has been added for the term opaque.
Questions regarding the definition for opaque - have
arisen in regard to screening requirements for outdoor
storage and parking areas.
2. Section 11.03 Subd. 3 Lot Provisions
Changes are proposed to setback requirements for lots which
front on more than one street. The proposed change would allow
the setback on the side or rear portion of a lot abutting a
street to be reduced by 101 .
3. Section 11.03 Subd. 6 Accessory Buildings
C. The size limitation for accessory buildings in the R-2,
R-3, and R-4 Districts would be changed to prevent the
accessory building from being larger than the principle
dwelling on the property. Presently the code only
requires that the accessory building be less than 108
of the lot area. Presently lots 20, 000 sq. ft. in size
would be allowed an accessory building of 2, 000 sq. ft.
E & F. The proposed changes to the language regarding setback
requirements for accessory buildings will eliminate
confusion regarding existing requirements.
4. Section 11.03 Subd. 7 Required Yards & Open Space
E. This section is being eliminated because of the reduced
requirement for side yard setbacks on lots abutting a
second street. The Commission feels that the new
setback requirement will adequately address the need
previously covered by this provision.
F. Language regarding the required setback for new
structures in previously built areas where the existing
structures are closer to the street than the required
setback has been changed to clarify this provision.
H. This section regarding setbacks from high water lines
is adequately covered in Section 11.35 (Shoreland
District) . This provision should have been removed
from the code at the time Section 11.35 was added.
5. Section 11.03 Subd. 11 Property Abutting Highways
The terminology for street classifications would be changed
to conform to the current terminology used by the
Metropolitan Council.
6. Section 11.04 Subd. 4 Appeals
The appeal period for a staff decision would be reduced from
90 days to 7 days. This change would conform to the current
appeal period for decisions of the Board of Adjustment and
Planning Commission. The staff felt that 90 days was an
excessively long period of time.
7. Section 11.04 Subd. 5 Variances
The current State Planning Enabling Legislation allows for
the placing of conditions on variances that are granted by
the City. The City's current ordinance does not recognize
this, the proposed change would include this provision in
our ordinance.
8. Section 11.04 Subd. 6 Conditional Use Permit
Criteria 11 and 12 for granting Conditional Use Permits
would be eliminated and made requirements for submission of
the application. The staff and Planning Commission feels
that these statements are really requirements and not
criteria.
The code would also be changed to place a limit on the
amount of time the Planning Commission can take in approving
a Conditional Use Permit. This change would conform to the
proposed State Enabling Legislation now before the
legislature.
9. Section 11.05 Subd. 1 Motor Fuel Stations
B. This provision would be changed to require paving of
parking and drive areas for motor fuel stations.
10. Section 11.05 Subd. 3 Off Street Parking and Loading
D. Design and Maintenance of Off-Street Parking Areas
2. Access drives to required parking areas would be
allowed a width of up to 281 , the current code
only allows a access width of 24' . This change is
based on a recommendation of the previous City
Engineer.
7. Screening requirements for parking lots which abut
a R District would be changed to allow the use of
evergreen hedges in addition to fences.
9. This section is eliminated because it is
adequately covered by #7 above.
11. Section 11.27 Subd. 6 Performance Standards
12 . Performance Standards
Performance standards for sections 11.28, Subd. 6; Section
11.29, Subd. 6; Section 11.30, Subd. 6; Section 11.31, Subd.
6; Section 11.32, Subd. 6; and Section 11.33, Subd. 6.
These sections would be removed from the code because they
are duplicates of the requirements found in Section 11.60.
The individual sections would then be crossed referenced to
allow administration of the code by referring to Section
11.60 where these performance requirements are included.
The main purpose for this change is to eliminate bulk from
the existing code. This change would also simplify
administration of the code.
13 . Section 11.29, Subd. 5
M. Screening requirements for B-1 areas across the street
from R Districts would be changed to conform to similar
requirements elsewhere in the code for the purpose of
consistency.
14. Section 11. 30 Subd. 5 Lot Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard
Requirements
C. This section is again changed in order for terminology
regarding street classifications to be consistent with
those of the Metropolitan Council.
15. Section 11. 33 Subd. 2 Permitted Uses (I-2 Zone)
The change as contained in attachment A shows major
commercial recreation uses in the I-2 District being changed
from a permitted use to a conditional use. The Planning
Commission passed a motion outlining two alternatives
regarding this section. Alternative 1 would create a
moratorium on new major commercial recreation development in
the I-2 Zoning District for a period of at least six months
while the City reviewed and approved changes to the code
regarding the use of I-2 property for commercial recreation
purposes. This alternative is preferred by the Planning
Commission but is subject to a ruling by the City Attorney.
If the City Attorney rules against this alternative, the
Planning Commission recommends that the alternative of
making major commercial recreation in the I-2 zone a
conditional use until the City takes further action to
change this section of the code.
16. Section 11.34 Subd. 3 Floodfringe District
Changes to the wording of the City's Floodplain Ordinance
are being made to comply with requirements of the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources. -
17. Section 11.34 Subd. 7 Mobile Homes & Mobile Home Parks
This is also a change to language within the City's
Floodplain Ordinance to conform with requirements of the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
18. Section 11.37 Urban Redevelopment District
The Planning Commission is recommending that the Urban
Redevelopment District be eliminated from the City Code.
This district was set up a little over a year ago for the
purpose of allowing the Fairest Made Foods industry to
expand on their present site. They were previously zoned B-
1 which prohibited expansion of the industry in that
location. The Planning Commission feels that the zoning
district has not accomplished it's purpose and that the area
should be rezoned back to B-1. The Planning Commission held
a public hearing on this proposed rezoning and no opposition
to rezoning the property back to B-1 was expressed at the
public hearing. The two owners of property within the Urban
Redevelopment District which includes Mr. Jongquist, support
it's rezoning back to B-1.
19. Section 11.60 Performance Standards
Subd. 9 Presently the City requires a Conditional Use
Permit for bulk storage tanks. In researching other city
ordinances, staff found that no other cities require a
conditional use permit for tanks. In also discussing this
with the Fire Marshall it was felt that the requirements of
the State Fire Marshall and Department of Agriculture are
sufficient to insure protection of the local community.
Therefore, the Planning Commission has recommended changes
to this section which would not require a conditional use
permit for bulk storage tanks.
20. Section 12.07 Subd. 1 B Design Standards
The following changes are proposed to Design Standards for
subdivisions. Collector streets would be defined as major
and minor collector streets. Major collector streets
requiring a 100' right-of-way, minor collector streets
requiring a 80' right-of-way. This change is proposed at
the request of the County Engineer. The County would like
100' of right-of-way for County Roads which are classified
as collector streets. The change also proposes a change in
right-of-way widths from 55' to 60' and a roadway width
change from 24' to 28' for one-way collector streets.
The Planning Commission has recommended the maximum grade
for arterial streets be changed from 6% to St. The Planning
Commission had considerable discussion on whether to
increase the maximum grade allowed for local and marginal
access streets. The City's Engineer and Planning staff had
recommended to the Planning Commission that the maximum
grade be changed to 7% which is more consistent with other
suburbs in the Metro Area. Staff provided the Planning
Commission with Attachment B showing a survey of maximum
street grades allowed by other cities in the State of
Minnesota. The Planning Commission after discussion felt
that the street grade should remain at the current 5%
maximum grade and has recommended to the City Council that
no change be made to this requirement. Also added to the
street grade requirement is a maximum 1% gradient for the
first 100 feet in all directions from an intersection. This
would provide for a level area adjacent to the intersection.
ALTERNATIVES•
1. If the City Council agrees with the recommendations of the
Planning Commission regarding code changes a motion should
be passed directing the City Attorney to draw up the
appropriate ordinance amending the City Code.
2. Direct staff to either eliminate proposed specific sections
from the recommended code changes or alter the language
within specific sections and bring back the revised draft to
the next meeting for further discussion and action.
3 . The City Council could eliminate proposed code changes from
the recommendation and/or alter language regarding changes
to specific sections and direct the City Attorney to draw up
the appropriate ordinance with these changes.
ACTION REODESTED:
Offer and pass a motion to proceed with the code changes
as outlined in either alternative 1, 2 or 3.
Attachment A
Zoning & Subdivision Code Chance
l. ) Section 11.02 DEFINITIONS
13 . "Building Height" - The vertical distance from: fIr} the
average elevation of the adjoining ground level er-fZ}
tka-eskab}iske& radr,-�tkiehevrr-is-}ewer to the top of
the cornice of a flat roof, to-t+leek-34�- f,--e
mansard-reef; to a point on the roof directly above the
highest wall of a shed roof, te-the-nppermest-pe#nt-en
a-rennd-err-.+a_?a+--arch-type-ree£- to the mean distance
of the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof.
- 141 --Opaque-I - For the purposes of this chanter, the
opaqueness of an obiect shall be measured by the
ability of a vertical surface plane to obstruct light
when viewed from a point perpendicular to that plane
2. ) Section 11. 03 Subd. 3 IAT PROVISIONS
D. On double frontage lots the required front yard setback
- - ball beprovidedon both streets. However, in R-1 and
R-2 districts the setback maybe reduced by 10 feet in
the direction determined to be the rear Yard. The
"front yard-- shall be the shortest of the two
frontages.
E. On corner lots, the required front yard setback shall
be provided on both streets. However. in R-1 and R-2
districts the setback may be reduced by 10 feet in the
direction determined to be the side Yard. The "front
yard" shall be the shortest of the two frontages.
3 . ) Section 11.03 Subd 6 ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
C. In "R-2" through "R-4" Districts no accessory building
shall exceed ten (10) percent of the lot area or exceed
the square footage of the foot print of the habitable
Portion of the principal dwelling, whichever is less.
E. All accessory buildings shall meet the same front
yard setback requirements as the principle
dwelling. Accessory buildings shall not be
located nearer the side or rear lot lines abutting
a street than the principle dwelling or closer
than the required setback for the principle
dwelling whichever is less.
F. A detached accessory building may not be located less
than five (5) feet from the rear or side lot line.
except-when Abere the entrance to a garage is on an
alley or street, in-which-ease, the building shall not
1
be less than twenty (20) feet from the lot line
abutting the street or alley.
4 . ) Section 11. 03 Subd. 7 REQUIRED YARDS & OPEN SPACE
E. Iaet'e-which-eebtrt Per-mare-than-exec--s�ee+r�hatf-provide
the-regaired-€renE-yaxdgs}onq-�veiy _-==-�xeop�-Fee -_-_
Sets--p' --prror-tro---Apri�-3;-'}9a8;--which--Phar}
provide-s--mtrrinxm-bF-9e--iee�-from-nny- ____ -srrfaee
when--tq - et--sine-does--net--make--it-Pi et-i eh}r-iro
preride-mere- For corner and double frontage setback
requirements see Sec. 11.03, Subd. 3 D & E.
F. Where adjoining structures existing on the effective
date of this chapter have a different setback from that
required, the front setback of a new structure shall
conform to the average prevailing setback in--the
rmmediate-viernrhYr___.,gym-�ihY__Adm#nisErairor--sha}}
determine-LllC-fleeessai'Y--£rent--Yard- __"__-- §r--sneh
eases-. The average Prevailing setback shall be the
average of all existing Principal buildings on the _same
block face or if there are less than three - (3)
structures existing on the same block face the
adjoining block face closest to the subject property
shall also be included in the computation
H- Fn-er33-dialriche---prrecipe•�-strnetares--s}satf--be--}gg
feeh-ex--mere-from--the y�arr--kriyhwate�-}ine-t43een--hhe
prepertp-erkxrter-a-iskrt`-ar-st�eanr-ane-so i�.--abserpFien
sewage-dsspose�-syskem--shah--br-}58--feet-€exar-mean
kighwaEer- marle.----He--sEraeikre,--�xceT�-beat--hee:ses;
piers-and-doe3c�--she��-be-p}need-rtzt srr�lere�iotr-sxeh
iha�-{}ee--i�a`r-€3eer;--ri�Hx}itig--besemen!- {loot�--is
fess-Than-3-feet-abeve-ike-highest-]tnerrn-water-�eer}c
1-cH. No building permit shall be used for any lot or parcel
which does not abut a dedicated public street.
5. ) Section 11.03 Subd. 11 PROPERTY ABUTTING HIGHWAYS
Property Abutting Highways. Along streets
designated in the Transportation Plan, the
front yard setback for all principal
structures from planned right-of-way lines
shall be 70 feet for prineip}e--�ttd
intermediate major arterials, 50 feet for
minor arterials and 40 feet for collector
streets.
2
6. ) Section 11.04 Subd 4 APPEALS
B. At any one time within airteiy-o-&B seven (7) days after
the decision of the City Administrator under the
provisions of this chapter, except in connection with
prosecutions for violations thereof, the applicant or
other person or officers of the City thereby may appeal
to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals by filing a
written notice to the City Administrator stating the
action.
7. ) Section 11.04 Subd. 5 VARIANCES
B. Additional conditions
1. In granting a new variance, the Board of
Adjustment and Anneals may impose, in addition to
the standards and requirements expressly specified
by this chapter, additional conditions which the
Commission considers necessary to protect the
interests of the surrounding area and the health
safety and general welfare of the community as a
whole. Additional restrictions may include
matters relating to appearance, lighting, hours of
operation and performance characteristics.
B-C. Procedure
8. ) Section 11.04 Subd. 6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
A. Criteria for Granting Use Permits.
i1- Phe--Developer-shaii-�xi�ri�-a-�t-ime-sebe@rrlr-far
eemp3rtiea-ef-eke-pro}eei-
�� Phe-Beveieper-shed3-p:ovide--IxwF-ofvcrr�ers�rip-ef
the-prapertp�tc-hhe-A3mraistraker-
C. Procedure
1. The person applying for a conditional use permit
shall fill out and submit to the Administrator a
conditional use application form plus fee. At the
time of submission of the permit, the developer
shall supply the City with a time schedule for
completion of the Proiect and proof of ownership
of subiect property, and the Administrator may
request the developer to deposit up to $1,000.00
held in a special developer's escrow account and
shall be credited to the said developer.
Engineering, Planning, Administrative and legal
3
expenses incurred by the City shall be paid by the
developer. The Administration of the escrow
account shall follow section 12. 03, Subd 3, of the
Subdivision Regulations.
6. The Planning Commission must take action on the
application within sixty (60) days after the
public hearing is closed. In all cases the
Planning Commission must act on the request within
120 days of submittal of the annlication unless a
time extension is requested by the aonlicant in
Writing. If it grants the conditional use permit,
the Planning Commission may impose conditions
(including time limits) it considers necessary to
protect the public health, safety and welfare. and
et:eke-eend§tsens-grey-itltH -a-tsme-3imit mor-tke
tele-tc-exi- t-er-eperatr.
9. ) Section 11.05 Subd. 1 MOTOR FUEL STATIONS
B. A fence or wall of acceptable design shall be
constructed along the property line when said use abuts
property residentially used or in an "R" District, and
said fence shall be adequately maintained. Application
of this provision shall not require a fence within the
required front yard. The entire site other than that
taken up by a structure or planting shall be surfaced
with a materia}-E:e-eeaEro}_gttst_.er�d-$�.ay* concrete
or bituminous binder.
10. ) Section 11. 05 Subd. 3 OFF-STREET PARKING 6 LOADING
D. Design and maintenance of off-street parking areas.
2. Access and Location. Parking areas shall be
designed so as to provide an adequate means of
access to a public alley or street. Said driveway
access shall not exceed 24 28 feet in width at the
public walk centerline and shall be so located as
to cause the least interference with traffic
movement.
7. Parking Space Abutting R Districts. When a
required off-street parking space for six or more
vehicles is located abutting an R District, a
compact evergreen hedge or a fence of adequate
design, not over 6 feet in height nor less than 3
1/2 feet shall be erected and maintained along the
R District property line, (except such fence shall
not be located within the front yard) . Said fence
shall not be less than 75% opaque.
4
9. ^xreenzng-__�Ihe*r-a;*P-Te4nsred-z,ii�trrt -park}ng
abxts-an-yip-D_ �--iT-aha��-fie-ter.-rm.��n&-n
p}an-�3xw,i-ng- -axekr-sere ening-93m33-be
&e]bMibied---f,&P___t4�---app�a}__bf___th,__-eyam,
Aelminisiraterr
11. ) Section 11.27 Subd. 6 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
6 A. Exterior Storage (for applicable provisions
see Section 11. 60 Subd. 1)
12. ) PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The following changes will be made to Sec. 11.28, Subd. 6;
Sec. 11.29, Subd. 6; Sec. 11.30, Subd. 6; Sec. 11.31, Subd.
6; Sec. 11.32, Subd. 6; and Sec. 11.33 , Subd. 6.
A. Acceptable Building Materials.
(for applicable provisions see section 11. 60 Subd.
5)
B. Required parking Setback.
(for applicable provisions see Section 11.60 Subd.
6)
C. landscaping Requirements.
(for applicable provisions see Section 11. 60 Subd.
7)
D. Screening.
(for applicable provisions see Section 11. 60 Subd.
3D)
E. Roof Top Facilities.
(for applicable provisions see Section 11. 60 Subd.
3 D (1) )
F. Parking Areas.
(for applicable provisions see Section 11.60 Subd.
3 D (2) )
G. Outdoor Storage and Trash Handling.
(for applicable provisions see Section 11.60 Subd.
3 D (3) )
H. Loading and Service Areas.
(for applicable provisions see Section 11.60 Subd.
3 D (4) )
Source: Ordinance No. 158, 4th Series
Effective Date: 1-31-85
13. ) Section 11.29, Subd. 5
M. Whereas a B-1 use abuts or is across the street from an
R-District, a fence or compact evergreen hedge not less
than &" 75 opaque not less than not over 6 feet high
in height nor less than 3 1/2 feet (except when
adjacent to a street where it shall be not higher than
3 feet in height) , shall be erected and maintained in
5
the front yard portion of the lot and along the side or
rear on the property line that abuts or is across the
street from the R District. Said screening maybe
erected in the frontand f desired it shall not
v but i
exceed 3 feet in height.
14. ) Section 11.30 Subd. 5 LOT AREA, HEIGHT, LOT WIDTH AND YARD
REQUIREMENTS
C. Front yard: the front yard setback for all principal
structures from planned right-of-way lines shall be 70
feet for prinerp}e-arn}-ratarme&saie Maio r arterials, 50
feet for minor arterials, 40 feet for collectors, and
30 feet for all other streets. Rear yard: 30 feet.
Side yard: 15 feet. Lot width: 100 feet.
15. ) Section 11.33 , Subd. 2 PERMITTED USES (I-2 Zone)
N- 2emmereia}-Reereabtetr,--Hajar
Section 11.33, Subd. 3 CONDITIONAL USES
0. Commercial Recreation, Miner
16. ) Section 11.34 Subd. 3 FLOOOFRINGE DISTRICT
B. Conditional Uses
1. Residences. Where existing streets, utilities,
and small lot sizes preclude the use of fill,
other methods of elevating the lowest floor above
the regulatory flood protection elevation may be
authorized.
€}eedpreafed•-}a-aeeerekanee-xibir-blx-Sbatc-Bai}&ing
Fade-
?- Rrsi�3etrbia}-Baxmerrbs--Resirketrbia}-baseneents
be}aer-t3ir`�aoir-plroieei#erc-e3ev8tseit-�fly--be
axEhar#ted-#€-they-sx��iooF}proo-Eec}�o-FP-}
e}ass}fieatricn-irr _._- _....- -w§th-fi}te--Sbate
Bxi}drng-t�o+de:----Ne--fa^o+--ar-lx+rbi o:r-o€--e
residenee---bel ew---fihe---�egiz•} y.___€}eed
preteeiien-el�vat�.vrr�araY-'be--rased-for Kaman
eeerxpanep--
17. ) Section 11. 34 Subd. 7 MOBILE HOMES & MOBILE HOME PARKS
D. The first floor elevation of a manufactured
housing unit must be elevated to at or above
the regulatory flood protection elevation
6
18• ) Section 11.37 F3RBktF-REBES+EEpPt4E}FP-BFSPRE2�
The Commission wishes to repeal Ordinance #215 deleting
this District from the code. This action will cause
the property located within the district to revert back
to its previous zoning classification (B-1) .
19. ) Section 11. 60 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Subd. 9 Bulk Storage (Liquid) . All uses associated
with the bulk storage of oil, gasoline, liquid
fertilizer, chemicals and similar liquids (except
within the Ag i R-1 Districts in which all uses
associated with bulk storage of liquid shall be above
ground) shall re T&jre-aeetx&-trim&}-rx-permtb-ia..crder
hkab-the-goc+erni-reg--bod}•-map-have-gssexrem>r-C}=al--fire;
exg3as#sR,--az-��t�br-se#�-c�cmtaariieatiorr-ltezerds-are
net-prexnt--(-tk:ea-ren}d--be--detr4menta}-to—t9ie--ptrbbze '
kea3-th--se€etY--erd-genera3-w+e}Eernr---B�Hr-skorage-ef
l4gaid-she}1-be-cbone-- t4yund- 'exeeptr-as-etherwise
regaire&-4by--}aw-os tker-ep{rlic rle--Seeticxra-oC--the
_abeve-4renrd-44qu-� t,&rage
tanks-i�ixfg--o--eapaeity--in- -"===r -of`-ten--tkexaand
F}&,-BBB}-qa}}ens-ska}}-secure-e- it-ionatytse-pereit
wrtkrn-trentY—€enz�-(�'+y--�xntka-#e3iersrg-r-------= �€
this,-ehapterr--4VA Clou:R. r-reey-Pegg it -the
-1-1541--Cg-the--tavrk---earparekty
ha3}54 j--og-the-tank--eapaeitp
AnY-ex-is ting-stoic-tank--that,--in-t+A opitri- ter€-the
gagerHing--kody,--cex+stifirxtes--e--kaeard-fio--tAr-pitb}ie
sa€etr- shall
-d£seentirde--operations- it�rrrr-#ive--FS}
Years-]cbiowing�nxtmentbf-tkis�Aapterr Comply with
the requirements of the MN State Fire Marshall and the
MN Dent. of Agriculture and have documents from these
offices stating the use is in conformance. After
installation, in conformance with State Fire Marshall
or MN Dept. of Agriculture, a follow-up inspection of
the tanks shall be made by the City Fire Marshall or
State Fire Marshall.
20. ) Section 12. 07 Subd 1 B DESIGN STANDARDS
(a) Width of Streets
(1. ) Two Way Streets
Classifications Right-Of-Way Roadway
Rural Local Street 60 Feet 28 Feet
Arterials 100 Feet 68 Feet
Collector Streets &&-Feet 44-Feet
Maior 100 Feet 44 Feet
Minor 80 Feet 44 Feet
Local Streets 60 Feet 36 Feet
Marginal Access Street 50 Feet 28 Feet
7
(2 . ) One Way Streets
Classification Right-Of-Way Roadway
Local 45 Feet 24 Feet
Collector Streets 55 60 Feet 24 28 Feet
Arterial Streets 60 Feet 2# 28 Feet
(c) Classifications Gradient Percent
Arterial Streets 6 5
Collector Streets 5
Local Streets 5
Marginal Access Streets 5
Intersection Design. A 1 Percent gradient ver 100 feet
in all directions.
8
Attachment B
STREET GRADES
Survey of 27 communities at the Fall' 1987 Conference of
Minnesota Public Works Association as to maximum street grades.
Y of Cities
54 - 1 (Shakopee)
64 - 2
74 - 2
84 - 17
124 - 4
204 - 1 (Duluth)
LOCAL EXAMPLES OF STREET GRADES
Spencer
Fifth to Sixth - 4 .54
Hauers Trail
CSAR 16 to
Parkridge Drive - 54
Atwood
(Third to Fourth) - 64
Apgar Street
Third to Fourth - 84
Shumway
Third to Fourth - 84
Horizon Drive - 8.24
Dean Lake Road - 104
Jasper Road - 154
CONSENT 9�
MEMO TO: John R. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant
RE: Community Development Commission 1987 Annual Report
DATE: April 14, 1988
INTRODUCTION•
In accordance with City policy, the Shakopee Community
Development Commission has completed their 1987 Report for the
City Council's review and approval.
BACKGROUND:
On April 6, 1988 the Shakopee Community Development
Commission moved to recommend to City Council approval of their
1987 Annual Report. A copy of the report is shown in attachment
#1.
ALTERNATIVES•
1. Move to approve the Community Development Commission's 1987
Annual Report.
2. Do not approve the 1987 Community Development Commission's
Annual Report. -
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative #1.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Move to receive and file the Community Development
Commission's 1987 Annual Report.
1987 ANNUAL REPORT
SHAKOPEE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
COMMISSION ACTION
1. Due to the lack of business, the Community Development
Commission did not meet during the month of January.
2. 2/11/87 - The ICC Day - Agreed to work with the Shakopee
Chamber of Commerce on the Media Day concept. It was agreed
that the Media day would be done in lieu of the semi annual
ICC Day.
3. 2/11/87 - Election of Committee Officers - The following
were nominated and approved for office: Tim Keane-
Chairperson, Al Furrie - Vice Chairperson and Jane DuBois-
Secretary.
4. 3/11/87 Canterbury Downs Resolution of Support for
Parimutuel Law Amendment - The Committee moved to approve
Resolution 86-1 supporting the amendment to the parimutuel
tax law.
5. 3/11/87 - The 1987 Open House - It was the consensus of the
Committee to schedule the 1987 open house in conjunction
with Canterbury Downs annual exhibition day. The Committee
also scheduled a special meeting on March 18 to continue
discussion of the open house. (Council concurred 3/17/88)
6. 3/18/87 - Special Meeting - Open House Shakopee 87 - A
special meeting was held by the Community Development
Commission to discuss the events for Shakopee Open House 87.
The event was scheduled for April 18, 1987 from 1:00 pm to
4 :00 pm. Boards and Commissions representing various
jurisdictions in the community would be invited to attend
this event and share the activities of their board or
commission with the public. Events including an Easter Egg
Hunt and Pony Rides would also be available for children
attending the event.
7. 5/6/87 - Starwood Proposal - The Committee heard a proposal
from Jeff Siegal, Starwood project manager regarding the
proposed Starwood Amphitheater.
8. 5/6/87 - Media Day - The Committee reviewed activities
planned for the Shakopee Media Day scheduled for June 12,
1987. The event was developed to attract news writers from
throughout the Midwest to Shakopee in the hopes that they
would generate a story on both Shakopees area entertainment
attractions and commercial and industrial development
possibilities in the community.
9. 5/6/87 - ICC Open House - The Committee analyized the 1987
ICC open House and agreed that the planning process should
begin earlier year. The Committee also suggested that a
promotional item be provided on behalf of the Community
Development Commission. It was also suggested that the
signs be improved and that a banner indicating the ICC
Sponsorship be made.
10. 7/1/87 - Economic Development Incentive Study - The
Committee suggested that staff proceed in conducting a
survey of several industrial parks in the area to determine
what economic incentives are being offered to attract new
development. _
11. 7/1/87 - ICC Round Table Meetings - It was the consensus of
the Committee to schedule a round table discussion meeting
with business managers in the industrial park. The
Committee suggested that the event be scheduled for August
5, 1987. The purpose of the event was to open up a line of
communication between the firms in the industrial park and
the City in the hope that the needs of the industrial sector
were being met by the City.
12. 7/22/87 - Starwood Amphitheater - The Committee moved to
_approve a resolution in support of the Starwood Amphitheater
proposal.
7/22/87 Economic Development Update - The Committee
suggested that a new item be placed on the agenda entitled
"Economic Development Update". The purpose of this section
would be to inform the Committee of new development projects
when they are initially proposed.
13 . 9/2/87 - Economic Development Incentive Survey - Staff
presented the results of a survey conducted by the City to
determine what methods of assistance are being utilized by
other communities in the metro area to attract developers.
The results indicated that the communities of Chaska and
Chanhassen were aggressively offering financial assistance
in the form of tax increment financing and industrial
revenue bonds. Results also indicated that communities with
accessible transportation systems are not offering as much
financial assistance as those communities that do not have
- good transportation access. It was the consensus of the
committee to direct staff to draft a memo to be sent to the
Shakopee City Council and Planning Commission addressing the
ICC vision and direction.
14. 9/2/87 - ICC Newsletter - It was a consensus of the
committee that the commission should begin an educational
campaign informing the public of the development activities
taking place in our community. It was suggested that a one
page flyer be distributed to the Shakopee Residents via
direct mail on a quarterly basis.
15. 9/2/87 Changed Name of the Commission - It was the
consensus of the commission to recommend to City Council
that the name of the commission be changed from the
Industrial Commercial Commission to the Shakopee Community
Development Commission. (Council concurred 10/6/87) .
16. 9/2/87 - Star City Amoroval - Mr. Stock reported that the
Department of Trade and Economic Development has approved
Star City designation for the City of Shakopee.
17. 10/14/87 - Star City Reception - The committee discussed
the activities for the Star City Reception to be held on
October 22, 1987 at 5:00 p.m. at the Canterbury Inn.
18. 10/14/87 - CDC Newsletter - The Committee discussed the
content of the proposed newsletter and its purpose. It was
the consensus of the committee to schedule a special meeting
on October 28,1987 to review a draft newsletter and make a
recommendation to City Council accordingly.
19 . 10/14/87 Resolution supporting alternative financing
mechanisms to improve the State Highway Transportation
System - The Committee approved a resolution supporting
alternative financing mechanisms to improve the State
Highway Transportation System.
20. 10-28-87 CDC Newsletter - The Committee agreed to
distribute the CDC Newsletter on a quarterly basis. The
Method of distribution would be an insert in the Shakopee
Valley News. The commission moved to recommend to City
Council that the development insight newsletter concept be
approved. (Council concurred 1/4/87) .
21. 14/28/87 - Request to Receive City Council Minutes - The
Committee moved to recommend to City Council that the CDC
members be placed on the City Council minutes mailing list
(Council concurred 11/17/87) .
22 . 11/6/87 Meeting Cancellation - Due to the lack of
business the November meeting of the Community Development
Commission was cancelled.
23. 12/9/87 88 Promotional Activities - The Committee
discussed participating in cooperation with Canterbury Downs
to sponsor Shakopee Open House 1988. It was the consensus
of the Committee to pursue the open house event again in
1988.
24. 12/9/87 - Downtown Committee Representative - The Committee
moved to recommend to City council that the existing
appointment to the Downtown Committee be changed from a
voting member to an ex-officio capacity.
25. 12/9/87 - CDC Newsletter - It was the consensus of the
committee to distribute the first issue of the CDC
Newsletter in the December 16, 1987 issue of the Shakopee
Valley News. The Committee also suggested that the next
issue of the CDC Newsletter focus on the economic
development financial tools being utilized by the City in
attracting development to our community.
26. 12/9/87 - Business Persons Breakfast meetings - It was the
consensus of the committee to survey Shakopee business
persons to determine if they would be interested in
attending a monthly breakfast meeting to share and discuss
their concerns regarding our community.
CONSENT 7j
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant
RE: Downtown Ad Hoc 1987 Annual Report
DATE: April 19, 1988
INTRODUCTION•
In accordance with City policy, the Shakopee Downtown Ad Hoc
Committee has completed their 1987 Report for the City Council's
review and approval.
BACKGROUND: '
On April 13, 1988 the Shakopee Downtown Ad Hoc Committee
moved to recommend to City Council approval of their 1987 Annual
Report. A copy of the report is shown in attachment #1.
ALTERNATIVES•
1. Move to approve the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee's 1987 Annual
Report.
2 . Do not approve the 1987 Downtown Ad Hoc Committee's Annual
Report.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative #1.
ACTION REOUESTED:
Move to approve and file the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee's
1987 Annual Report.
1987 SHAKOPEE DOWNTOWN AD HOC COMMITTEE
1. 1 /14/87 Downtown Redevelopment Proiect and 3rd Avenue -It
was the consensus of the Committee to table action on the
inclusion or exclusion of 3rd Avenue into the Downtown
Redevelopment Project until staff has figures available on
the financial impact of deleting 3rd Avenue.
2. 1 /14/87 Validity of Downtown Feasibility Study Petition-
Staff reported that the City Attorney and League of
Minnesota Cities Attorney have given their opinion and both
believe that the petition for the Downtown Feasibility Study
is valid. (Council concurred 3/17/87) .
3. 2 /4/87 Downtown Redevelopment Proiect - It was the consensus
of the Committee that the Committee should not proceed in
circulating a second petition to satisfy the criticism of
the first petition. The Committee also moved to keep the -
Downtown Redevelopment momentum moving forward and that the
committee continue its support for the downtown street
public improvements and the project assessment policies as
amended and adopted by the City.
4. 2/25/87 - Redevelopment Proiect Public Hearing - A meeting
_ was held by the Downtown Committee to discuss the
presentation for the downtown Redevelopment Project public
hearing scheduled for March 10, 1987. (Council ordered the
Downtown Project 3/17/87) (Council Approved Plans and
Specifications and Ordered Bids 6/22/87) .
5. 4/13/87 - Goals and Obiectives - It was the consensus of the
Committee that the following objectives would be a high
priority of theirs in 1987.
1. Downtown Sign ordinance.
2. Downtown Design Standards.
3. Financial Programs.
4. Develop an Acquisition, Demolition and Rehabilitation
Plan.
5. Downtown Property Inventory and Analysis.
6. Formalization of the Downtown Merchants.
7. Marketing the Downtown and a Study to Determine
Possible Business Needs and a Promotion Plan.
6. 5/13/87 - Lower Level Lighting - The Committee moved to
- recommend that the height of the lower level lighting be
decreased to 12 feet.
7. 6/10/87 - Sign Ordinance - The Committee moved to direct
staff to contact several other communities that have sign
ordinances and a downtown similar to Shakopee's to see what
kind of signage control they have and to get examples of
some of the things we don't want to occur in our downtown.
Rd�
8. 7/1/87 - Sian Ordinance - Moved to recommend to the Shakopee
Planning Commission that the sign ordinance for the B-3 zone
be approved.
9. 7/14/87 - Downtown Liaht Poles - The Committee moved that
the direct embedment method be employed in the downtown
project for the light poles.
10. 7/14/87 - Downtown Planters - The Downtown Committee moved
that the planters to be bid in conjunction with the downtown
project have an exposed aggregate surface.
11. 7/14/87 - 2nd Avenue Parking Lot Plan - The Committee moved
to recommend to City Council that the 2nd Avenue Parking
Lot Plan be amended to create two hour parking in the center
aisle and relocating eight hour parking to the North side of
the lot. (Council Concurred 7/21/87) .
12. 8/12/87 - Design Standards for New Construction - The
Committee moved to recommend to City Council that the
downtown design standards for new construction be approved
and incorporated into all City incentive programs utilized
in the downtown area. (Council concurred 9/1/87) .
13. 8/26/87 - Downtown Market Analysis - The Committee moved to
approve a resolution requesting the City Council to consider
approving, 1. The appropriation of the funds to update the
revitalization plan, 2. To abide by the downtown
revitalization plan and land use plan provided therein until
adoption of and updated revitalization plan and, 3 . To refer
all development requests that occur within the downtown area
and that are seeking City public money or deviation from the
downtown revitalization plan to the Downtown Ad Hoc
Committee for review and comment. (Council denied item #1
and approved #2 and #3 10/6/87) .
14. 10/14/87 - Downtown Assessment Policy - The Committee moved
to adopt the adjusted 70 front foot/30 sq. foot assessment
method to replace the old 70 front foot/30 sq. foot
assessment policy.
15. 10/14/87 - Design Standards for New and Infill Construction
- The Committee moved to recommend to City Council that the
Downtown Design Standards for new and infill construction be
adopted and incorporated into all City incentive programs
that may be developed for use in the downtown area. (Council
concurred 10/20/87) .
16. 11/25/87 - Huber Park Trail Improvement Proiect - The
Committee moved to recommend to City Council that site #4
(Senior Hi-Rise) be selected as the location for the
observation platform and that there be no screening on the
proposed gazebo. (Council concurred 12/1/87) .
17. 11/25/87 - Downtown Snow Removal - The Committee moved to
maintain the current City policy which states that the
property owner is responsible for maintaining the sidewalk
area in front of their business establishment or residence.
The node areas will be the responsibility of the City
regardless of the level of snowfall. However, property
owners are encouraged to maintain the nodes in light
snowfalls. (Council concurred 12/8/87) .
18. 11/25/87 - Downtown Benches - The Committee moved to direct
staff to take the appropriate steps to have the benches
placed in Phase I, Part I of the Downtown Redevelopment
Project stained to match the color of the benches placed
along 2nd Avenue parking lot during the demonstration
project.
19. 11/25/87 - Downtown Survey - The Committee moved to direct
staff to prepare a survey to be distributed to the property
owners and/or renters in Phase I, Part I of the Downtown
Redevelopment Project to gather their comments regarding the
final product and problems that they may have encountered
during the construction period.
20. 12/16/87 - Benches - The Committee moved to recommend to
City Council that benches on Phase I, Part II not be ordered
until Phase I, Part II is complete and an assessment is made
to determine how many benches are needed.
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant
RE: Downtown Project Phase I Part II
DATE: April 14, 1988 -
INTRODUCTION•
Design plans for Phase I Part II of the Downtown
Redevelopment Project have been completed. Since we have several
new members on the Council, Mayor Lebens has suggested that
copies of the final design plans be reviewed by staff for
Council's information and consideration. Detailed plans for one
block of Holmes Street and one block of Second Avenue are
attached. Plans for all streets in the project are available in
the Engineer's office.
BACKGROUND:
On June 22, 1987 the Shakopee City Council approved ordering
the bids for the Downtown Redevelopment Project. Phase I of the
project was split into two parts to reduce the impact on
retailers during the construction period. Part I of the project
included Sommerville and Lewis Streets and Second Avenue between
Sommerville and Holmes Street. Part II of the project which is
scheduled for construction beginning in April will encompass
Holmes, Fuller, and possibly Atwood Street. Second Avenue will
also be reconstructed between Holmes and Atwood Streets.
Staff is presenting this issue to City Council so that they
may review the construction plans of Phase I Part II. This is a
review of the final design not the merits of the project.
Since the completion of Part I, the City Council has taken
informal action on several items including deleting any further
acquisition of benches for Phase I of the project until a survey
can be made to determine if additional benches are needed.
Council also has reserved the right to delete Atwood Street from
the Part II of the project. This was done in an effort to
determine if the railroad spurs on Atwood Street can be
eliminated prior to construction of said street.
Based on the comments and concerns of property owners in the
downtown area, staff has made several other design changes to the
plans to improve traffic flow in the downtown area. For example,
the nodes on the corners of First and Holmes St. and First and
Fuller St. have been eliminated, and would be installed when
First Avenue is done.
If the Council wishes to modify any of the design or
streetscape elements in the final design plan, Council should be
aware of pertinent contract language relating to this issue. Our
current contract with Hardrives Inc. states that any one item can
be varied by 203. However, this section of the contract also
states that the variance must be reasonable. It is unreasonable
to make a 203 across the board cut on all streetscape and design
elements under standard contract practices.
When City Council deleted the benches from the contract in
the fall of 871 , the contractor was not legally required to agree
to the proposed deletion, but did agree. Staff would like to
point out that many of the streetscape amenities included in Part
II of the project have been ordered by the contractor. The
contractor may not be willing to delete items exceeding the 203
provision as stated in the contract.
At the Council meeting on May 5, 1988 the Engineering
Department will be prepared to make a recommendation on the
inclusion or exclusion of Atwood Street. A separate memo will
also be presented to City Council at that time requesting change
orders for additional sanitary sewer on Atwood Street, a
retaining wall. on Holmes St. and adjustments to several itemized
construction quantities.
The engineering consultant for the Downtown Redevelopment
Project will be present at the meeting on April 19, 1988 to
answer any questions regarding the project. If City Council
desires to make modifications to Phase I Part II of the Downtown
Redevelopment Project, staff would recommend that any proposed
modifications be referred to the Downtown Committee for further
review, analysis and final recommendation.
ALTERNATIVES•
1. Refer to the Downtown Committee any items for further review
and consideration.
2. List any modifications to items in the Phase I Part II
Redevelopment Plans without further consideration by the
Downtown Committee.
3 . Make no changes to the Phase I Part II Downtown
Redevelopment detailed design plans as presented.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative #1 or #3 .
ACTION REODESTED:
No official action is necessary assuming Council has no
major modifications to the Phase I Part II Downtown Redevelopment
Plans.
/Oh
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Barry A. Stock, Administrative Assistant
RE: Cities Week
DATE: April 15, 1988
INTRODUCTION:
Governor Rudy Perpich has proclaimed May 1 thru May 7, 1988
as Cities Week. The purpose of Cities Week is to recognize
Cities for the services they provide, to help people learn more
about their Cities and their functions and to have some fun in
the process. The League of Minnesota Cities is asking
communities throughout the State to participate in the week long
celebration as part of the League of Minnesota Cities 75th
Anniversary.
BACKGROUND:
This fall I presented the Cities Week concept to the City
Council for their consideration. At that time, the Council was
supportive of the Cities Week concept and directed staff to
_--
investigatesomeactivities to celebrate Cities Week.
In early January, staff met with several persons
representing the downtown business community to determine if a
joint effort could be utilized to sponsor several activities to
celebrate Cities Week. The meeting yielded great enthusiasm from
the attendees, so much in fact that their ideas have blossomed
into a larger community celebration scheduled for June 25th &
26th "Derby Days".
This year we have again scheduled our Shakopee Open House
for Sunday, April 24, 1988 at Canterbury Downs. This event
accomplishes many of the objectives we would be trying to
accomplish during Cities Week. That is, we recognize our
volunteers serving on many of our community boards and citizens
are encouraged to ask questions regarding the plans and projects
of the various city and County Boards and Commissions. The
annual Open House affords the opportunity for information
exchange between local residents and their elected and appointed
officials.
Taking the activities of Cities Week one step further, staff
has investigated having the City sponsor a race at Canterbury
Downs recognizing Cities Week. The cost to sponsor a race at
Canterbury Downs is $65.00. Canterbury Downs has graciously
agreed to waive this fee and admission fees for those City
Officials interested in attending the event. The Mayor or a
representative of City Council would then present a trophy to the
winning jockey and owner. The race could also be named in honor
of Cities Week such as " Cities Weeks Stakes". If the City
Council wishes to pursue this activity, it would be appropriate
to appoint a designee from City Council to attend the sponsored
race on Sunday, May 1, 1988.
Staff would also like to recommend that the City Council
offer a motion authorizing the Mayor to sign a proclamation
proclaiming May 1 thru May 7, 1988 Cities Week. A copy of the
proposed proclamation is shown in attachment #1.
ALTERNATIVES:
CANTERBURY DOWNS SPONSOR RACE
1. Move 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.
2. Do not authorize the appropriate City officials to sponsor a
race at Canterbury Downs.
PROCLAMATION
1. Move to authorize the Mayor to sign a proclamation
proclaiming May 1 thru May 7, 1988 Cities Week. _ _. -
2. Do nothing.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative #1 in both instances.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Move to direct the appropriate City officials to contact
Canterbury Downs and sponsor a race on May 1, 1988 celebrating
the 75th Anniversary of the League of Minnesota Cities and Cities
Week and authorize the Mayor to sign a proclamation proclaiming
May 1 thru May 7, 1988 as Cities Week.
BAS/tiv
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, Cities are a grass roots governmental system which
represents a close relationship between elected officials and
citizens; and
WHEREAS, Some 80 percent of the people in Minnesota choose
to raise their families and make their homes within our state's
cities; and
WHEREAS, Cities provide the basic services necessary to
insure the health, safety, and well being of the people-
services such as water, streets, and police and fire protection;
and
WHEREAS, Cities exhibit amazing versatility in funding
unique ways to cost effectively provide these services to their
residents; and
WHEREAS, Cities are essential to the future protection and
development of our resources; and
WHEREAS, It is appropriate to recognize the work of city
officials, city employees, and volunteers in providing for the
economic growth and vitality of our community,
NOW, THEREFORE, I Dolores Lebens,Mayor of the City of
Shakopee, do hereby proclaim the first week in May to be
C I T I E S W E E K
in Shakopee and urge citizens to take this opportunity to learn
more about city government and how they can become more involved.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set
my hand and caused the Seal of the City
to be affixed this nineteenth day of
April in the year of our Lord one
thousand nine hundred and eighty-eight,
and of the State the one hundred
thirtieth.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
City Clerk
/Oc,
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Community Development Director
RE: The Community Center Ice Arena at the Minnesota
Valley Mall
DATE: April 15, 1988
INTRODUCTION•
The City Council has spent a significant amount of time
recently dealing with the subject of the possible construction of
a community center/ice arena at the Minnesota Valley Mall. The
Council is being asked to make a decision at the April 19th
meeting relative to the level of City involvement, if any, on
this project.
BACKGROUND:
Numerous meetings have been held over the past six months
with the Essex Corporation (the proposed developer of the
shopping center) , City Council members, various recreational
groups, individual citizens, and City staff relative to the
nature of City involvement in the construction of a community
center at the Minnesota Valley Mall. The following discussion
attempts to focus on certain relevant items which the City
Council should consider in making a decision on this subject.
The memo addresses funding sources which would be available for
the construction of the community center, strategic issues to be
considered in arriving at some decision, and alternative courses
of action which could be taken by the City Council.
Funding Sources
The following items are sources of funding for a community
center/ice arena. The list is not in any order of priority and
the political viability of the sources are not commented on here.
This list only indicates that the following sources are legally
available for the construction of a community center.
1. General Obligation Bonds (this would require a
referendum) .
2 . Surplus Tax Increment Financing
3. The creation of a new tax increment financing district.
4. Fund balance from the City's Capital Improvement Fund.
5. Fund balance from the City's General Fund (A one time
amount of $500,000) .
6. The use of money from the recently discussed increased
park dedication fees.
7. The use of the General Fund Operating Budget (for
reserve purposes only) .
8. Civic Group Competitions, including:
a. One time contributions
b. On going contributions for a period of six
years at $25,000 per year (the six year time
period coincides with the remaining life of
the Canterbury Downs Tax Increment District) .
9. Fund balance from the HRA Budget.
10. A land swap with the Essex Corporation.
11. Locally contributed services (sweat equity) from
Shakopee citizens (a one time amount estimated at
$50, 000) .
12. Developer contributions (amount to be determined) .
13 . A challenge grant from one or a number of local
industries including, possibly, the Lions Club, the
Rahr Corporation, K-Mart Corporation or the Stans
Foundation (a one time amount of $50,000) .
14. Contributions from other governmental entities such as
the Shakopee School District, Jackson Township or
Louisville Township.
15. A voluntary assessment of Minnesota Valley Mall
merchants.
16. The City guarantee of loan payments of commitments made
by other groups such as the Shakopee Hockey Association
(an amount of $25, 000 per year) .
17. Hockey Association one time contribution ($90,000) .
18. Interest write-down on the cost of money by the Essex
Corporation.
Strategic Issues
The following issues addressed by the City Council in making
a decision on the construction of the community center at the
Minnesota Valley Mall. Issues are aggregated in four groups
including those related to the construction of a new city hall,
economic development issues, community center issues and public
fiscal issues. The issues are as follows:
I. City Hall Related Issues
a. When is the best time to construct a new city hall?
b. Should the City explore the option of a rental
alternative until a new city hall is constructed?
C. When is the best time to sell the existing city hall
building, now or after the construction of the mini by-
pass (mini by-pass/169 bridge will be completed in 1991
or 1992)?
d. Has the question of where the city hall is to be
located been determined by the existing City Council?
e. The design and construction of a new city hall will
probably require about two years.
II. Economic Development Issues
a. How significantly will the economic viability of the
Minnesota Valley Mall be affected by the construction
of a community center or the lack of construction of
such a facility?
b. What is the appropriate level of involvement of the
City of Shakopee in a public/private partnership at the
Minnesota Valley Mall?
C. Is it appropriate to use City funds to arrest economic
decline at the Minnesota Valley Mall?
d. What is the desirability of having a three screen movie
theater in Shakopee? Would this benefit youth and
elderly persons in the community?
III. Community Center Issues
a. If a community center is to be constructed where should
it be located?
b. When is the best time to hold a referendum for a
community center if a decision is made to attempt to
construct a facility using this procedure?
C. What is the priority of hockey vs. other community
recreation activities?
d. What is the significance of a community center as a
marketing tool to attract young families to Shakopee?
e. What is the City's role in providing indoor space for
recreation activities?
f. Could school buildings be used on weekends for
community wide recreational purposes?
g. If a community center and/or ice arena is constructed
who will own the facility?
h. What is the life expectancy of the current hockey
bubble?
IV. Public Fiscal Issues
a. Will the Shakopee School District have solved it's high
tax levy problems in the next one or two years?
b. What will the overall public fiscal impact be of the
Canterbury Downs Racetrack Tax Increment District being
terminated and property going on the general tax rolls?
C. If the legislature makes provision for the creation of
a State lottery, what impact will this have upon pull
tab sales and the profitability of the Canterbury Down
Racetrack?
ALTERNATIVES•
The following alternatives represent possible courses of
action that the City Council could take on this subject.
1. The City could conduct a city wide referendum and, if the
referendum were to approve the construction of a community
center general obligation bonds could be issued.
2. The cost of the community center could be lowered to
$1,350, 000 by eliminating the new gymnasium addition to the
facility. If this were to happen it would be possible to
fund the facility with the following sources contributing
thebelow specified amounts for the community center.
Front-end Funding !Sources and Amounts
Amount Source
$500, 000 General Fund - Fund Balance
50,000 One time contribution by
citizens (sweat equity)
50,000 Challenge Grant(s) from local
$690,000 industries/foundations
Total Amount $690,000 = Total funding available at front end
of project.
Sources of Ongoing Debt Service (Annual Amounts)
Amount Source
$25, 000 Ongoing contributions from
civic groups (for six years)
$25,000 Hockey Association
- Contribution for life of debt
$50,000 (City to guarantee)
$50, 000 per year for six years then additional funding would
have to be secured.
3 . The Essex Corporation could enter into an agreement with the
Shakopee Hockey Association to construct only a ice skating
facility. The City would guarantee debt service only if the
Hockey Association or the Mall Merchants Association were
unable to service the debt.
4 . The City would provide technical and financial assistance to
the Minnesota Valley Mall in the form of designing and
relocating the new main entrance to the mall.
5. The City could own the land and building for the ice skating
facility and lease it to the Hockey Association for $1.00.
6. The City would not participate in any way in this project.
RECOMMENDATION•
It is recommended that alternative 41, a city wide
referendum be held to determine if the community wants a
community center constructed at this time.
CONSENT / bj
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, Community Development Director
RE: Vacated Women's Correctional Facility Availability
DATE: April 14, 1988
INTRODUCTION•
The State of Minnesota Department of Administration is once
again notifying the City that the vacated Women's Correctional
Facility on 6th Avenue is available for sale.
BACKGROUND:
With the construction and occupancy of the New Women's
Correctional Facility two years ago the old facility became
surplus property. The Minnesota Department of Administration is
in the process of attempting to sell the building for the
Department of Corrections. About one year ago the Department
made the property available to Scott County, the Shakopee School
District or the City of Shakopee. The former two agencies
immediately declined to purchase the facility and the City of
Shakopee exercised an option to purchase while attempting to find
a developer. At that time the cost of purchase was $145, 000.
After a lengthy period of time during which the City
unsuccessfully attempted to find a suitable redeveloper for the
property the City decided to cancel the option. All developers
who looked at the property declined to purchase the facility
because of the cost and several unknown factors including the
cost related to demolishing or renovating the structures on the
property.
At this time the State of Minnesota is following the
standards which are included in Chapter 94 of the Minnesota
Statutes relating to the deposition of surplus property. The
State is once again offering the property to the City of Shakopee
for an amount of not less than $164,500.
ALTERNATIVES•
1. 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.
2. Direct the City staff to investigate the purchase of the
vacated Women's Prison property.
RECOMMENDATION•
It is recommended that the City Council follow
recommendation #1 and not pursue the acquisition of the vacated
Women's Prison for $164,500.
ACTION RECOMMENDED•
Move to inform Sandra J. Hale, Commission of the Department
of Administration that the City of Shakopee is not interested in
purchasing the site of the vacated Women's Correctional Facility
in Shakopee for an amount of $164,500.
Attachment
NA OFOFMIWNF-40TA March 30, 1988
ID
._-
- . ir0
" John Anderson, City Administrator APRo =:1988
129 East 1st Avenue
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 CITY OFgy;;<0 �.
Department of
Administration
Dear Mr. Anderson:
As you may recall some time ago in the Fall of 1986 the State of
THE COMMISSIONER
OFFICE Minnesota offered the sale of the vacated Women's Correctional
COMMISSIONER
Facility-Shakopee to "local units of government" per Minnesota
Laws 1986 Chapter 367.
Archirecmral Design
Although some interest in the facility was generated and an option
Budding code agreement was signed with the City of Shakopee, the eventual outcome
Bulmmg C"nnruclum was that the property was not sold pursuant to the above referenced
contracting
law.
Dau Pmetices Subsequently the State Departments of Administration and Corrections
have received State Executive Council approval to dispose of the
Data Processing property pursuant to sales provisions of Minnesota Statutes 1986
Employee Assistance Chapter 94. The state must now offer the property for sale once
again to local units of government "for not less than the appraised
Energy Conservation value". If no bids are received from government entities the property
Fleet Management will then be offered for private sale.
lnmrmnum Management The appraised value of the property for bid purposes consists of
Inventory Management $155,000.00 which is the states certified value of the property,
plus $9,500.00 for three independent fee appraisers, for a total
Local e°"emment systema amount of $164,500.00.
Management Analysis
Therefore, in accordance with M.S. Chapter 94, 1986, if there is
Plant Management a desire to acquire the property you are requested to submit a
Printing&Mailing written offer for not less than $164,500.00 to the Commissioner
of Administration no later than two weeks after receipt of this
Public Ductmems notice detailing the reasons for acquisition and intended use of
Purchasing the land.
Real Eamt,Management Enclosed for your information and review are a legal description
Ra"Na Managemem of the property's approximately 10.98 acres and "physical facility
criteria" on its improvements. A site survey was sent to you the
Resource Recycling last time the property was offered, should you wish to receive
State Bookstore another copy, one will be sent to you upon request.
Telecommunications Bid offers or requests for information should be addressed to Steve
volumeerservices Mackenthun, Real Estate Management Division, 50 Sherburne Avenue,
Room G-22, St. Paul , Minnesota 55155. Telephone 612-296-2278.
Sincerely,
y/7
200 Admmistmdnn Buildmg
50Sharhume Avenueandra J. Hale
Saint Paul.Minnesma 55155
(612)296-3862 Commissioner
EXHIBIT 'A'
That part of Lots 1 thru 10, Block 172; that part of Lots 1 thru 10, Block 173; that
part of alley in Block 172; that part of alley in Block 173 and that part of Fifth
Avenue which lies between Block 172 and Block 173, all being in Shakopee City, and
that part of Block 5; that part of Block 6; that part of alley in Block 5; that part
of alley in Block 6 and that part of Fifth Street which lies between said Block 5 and
Block 6, all being in Boeper's Addition to Shakopee City, Minnesota according to the
recorded plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder of
Scott County, Minnesota and that part of the South Half of the Southwest Quarter of
Section 1, Township 115, Range 23, and that part of the Northwest Quarter of Section
12, Township 115, Range 23, and that part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 2,
Township 115, Range 23, Scott County, Minnesota described as follows:
Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Block 172; thence westerly along the
southerly line of said Block 172 and its westerly extension, a distance of 679.76
feet to its intersection with the southerly extension of the westerly line of
Blocks 5 and 6, said Roeper's Addition to the City of Shakopee; thence northerly,
along said westerly line, 678.76 feet to the northwest corner of said Block 5;
thence easterly along the northerly line of said Block 5, a distance of 122.44
feet to the west line of the said Southwest Quarter; thence northerly along said
west line, a distance of 81.10 feet to the southerly line of Block 4, said
Roeper's Addition; thence easterly along said southerly line, a distance of 224.82
feet to the southwest corner of Block 174, said Shakopee City thence southerly
along the northerly extension of the westerly line of Block 173, said Shakopee
City, a distance of 80.00 feet to the northwest corner of said Block 173; thence
easterly, along the northerly line of said Block 173, a distance of 300.00 feet to
the northeast corner of said Block 173; thence southerly along the easterly lines
of Blocks 173 and 174 to the point of beginning.
NOTE:
According to the County Recorder's records, that part of Fifth Street which lies
between Blocks 172 and 173, Shakopee City and Blocks 5 and 6 Roeper's Addition to
City of Shakopee has not been vacated and is still of public record.
The alleys in Blocks 172 and 173, Shakopee City and in Blocks 5 and 6, Roeper's
Addition to the City of Shakopee also has not been vacated and is still of public
record.
The triangular portion of property which lies in Section 2 and 12, Township 115,
Range 23 are not mentioned by description, but is physically being used in the
field.
Shakopee --Physical Facility Criteria: J O
1. SIZE: Consists of five buildings on main campus, four main buildings
completed in 1923, and a maintenance shop/garage built in 1958.
HOUSING:
Anthony Cottage 21 Single rooms plus one 3-bed room
Sanford Cottage 21 Single rooms plus one 3-bed room
Shaw Cottage 11 Single rooms
Higbee 11 Cottage 10 Single rooms in lock unit plus 7-bed
segregation unit.
BUILDINGS:
GROUND NO. OF PHYSICAL UTILITY IN
BUILDING -AGE FLOOR AREA STORIES CONDITION PRESENT CONDITION
Higbee 1920 6,536 Sq. Ft. 3 Fair Fair
Anthony 1925 2,236 Sq. Ft. 3 Poor Poor
Sanford 1922 2,236 Sq. Ft. 3 Poor Poor
Shaw 1920 2,236 Sq. Ft. 3 Poor Poor
Shop/Garage 1958 1,750 Sq. Ft. 1 Good Good
2. CONDITION: In general, the institution is in poor condition. Although
staff has made good use of available space, there is insufficient space for
almost every need including maintenance.
Physical condition is not a reflection on day to day care and maintenance.
Rather, it is age, functional obsolescence, mechanical systems, windows,
energy usage, and structural deferred maintenance. The buildings have had
some updating, particularly as concerns safety and fire code requirements.
Except for the shop/garage, the buildings are steam heated from a central
boiler located in Higbee. The water heater is due for replacement. There are
no underground passageways connecting any of the buildings.
The cottages have a day room, kitchen and eating area, and staff room.
Anthony houses a Head Start Nursery Program in the basement; Shaw houses the
main kitchen and dining room on the first floor; and Higbee houses the
administration, medical/dental plus program space on the first floor, with the
school , library, industry, vocational training, and photography in the
basement.
3: EXTERIOR APPEARANCE: Although the facility is clearly an institution. the
lack of obvious security measures, such as fencing, and open "cottage" layout
in a somewhat wooded residential neighborhood contributes to an attractive
nonprison appearance.
4. NOTICEABLE SECURITY: No obvious security except for security devices used
on windows.
5. SERVICE FACILITIES:
Individual rooms--total of 63 single rooms, plus seven segregation cells.
Kitchen--kitchen of Shaw Cottage converted to serve entire institution.
Dining room--adequate to seat population of about 60.
Commissary/canteen--none.
Library/classrooms--school is in the basement of Higbee, consists of one
large room for library and classes and two very small rooms.
Infirmary (medical/dental]--no infirmary; medical examination and dental
in one room.
Exercise room--none, apart from activities in the cottage day room, such
as pool; recreation space on campus is a fenced area big enough for
volleyball .
Arts/crafts--must use any space not in use, pottery in kitchen of Higbee,
photography in closet in basement, etc. ; arts/crafts are limited as a
result.
Chapel--small room, basement of Sanford.
Visiting rooms--day rooms in cottage only available space.
Industry--vocational training and industry share Higbee basement with the
school.
Counseline--space for counseling and self-help programs consists of four
rooms on first floor of Higbee or borrowed office space.
Staff offices and lounge--office space for administration on first floor
of Higbee very limited and crowded, two or more to an office; cottages
each have a staff office, no lounge area provided.
Security--security area consists of the second floor of Higbee with ten
single rooms that can be locked but are not self-containing; a large day
room and a smaller room; a secure area of seven self-containing cells
separated by double doors and a sally port, three of these cells can be
used as strip cells; no program, visiting or recreational space in this
area. For physical exercise, the women are taken to the fenced
volleyball area.
MEMO TO: John Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: David E. Hutton, City Engineer �''
SUBJECT: 6th Avenue Sanitary Sewer (Project No. 1988-2)
DATE: April 12, 1988
INTRODUCTION:
This memo addresses the amended extension agreement with Orr-
Schelen-Mayeron for the above referenced project.
BACKGROUND:
City Council initially ordered plans and specifications for the
6th Avenue Sanitary Sewer Project in December, 1987 . In March,
1988 , a routine televised inspection of the sewer was done by
Public Works and it was discovered that the sewer line in Adams
Street between 6th Avenue and 2nd Avenue was in an extremely
deteriorated condition and should be replaced. Our consultant
estimated the cost of this additional sewer replacement at
$60 ,000.00.
On April 5 , 1988 the City Council ordered plans and
specifications prepared for the sewer in Adams Street between 6th
Avenue and 2nd Avenue and included in the 6th Avenue Sanitary
Sewer Project (Project No. 1988-2) . The Council also authorized
the appropriate City officials to enter into an amended extension
agreement with Orr-Schelen-Mayeron to provide professional design
services for preparing plans and specifications for the
additional sewer replacement.
At that meeting, I informed the Council that the preliminary
indications from our consultant were that there may be funds
remaining from the 6th Avenue extension agreement to go towards
the Adams Street addition to the project. I indicated that the
new extension agreement may be around $1 , 000.00 - $2,000.00 ,
which along with approximately $2 ,000 .00 remaining in the 6th
Avenue extension agreement would cover the design services for
the Adams Street extension to that project.
Upon further review by our consultant, it was discovered that the
funds for designing the 6th Avenue Sewer are basically depleted.
Therefore, the proposed amended extension agreement calls for a _
$5 ,000 .00 cap on their services.
Attached are two copies of the amended extension agreement that
we received from OSM. As indicated, the fee for their services
shall not exceed $5,000.00.
6th Ave. Sanitary Sewer
April 12 , 1988 - -
Page 2
ALTERNATIVES: -
1 . Approval of the amended extension agreement and authorize
the appropriate City officials to execute the agreement.
2. Deny the extension agreement request.
RECOMMENDATION:
Due to the deteriorated condition of the sewer in Adams Street, '
I recommend that the City Council approve the amended extension
agreement with OSM and authorize the appropriate City officials
to execute the agreement. _ t
REQUESTED ACTION:
' i
Move to authorize the City appropriate City officials to execute
the amended extension agreement with Orr-Schelen-Mayeron &
Assoc . , Inc . for the additional design work of the 1988-2
project. - _1
DH/pmp
SEWER
OrT
Sdiden
A ate%lnc �d
2021 Fast Hennepin Avenue
Minneapolis,MN 55413
612-331-8660
FAx331-3806
Engineers
Surveyors
April 6, 1988 Planners
City of Shakopee
129 East 1st Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
Attn: Mr. David Hutton, P.E.
City Engineer
Re: Contract Extension Agreement
6th Avenue Sewer Reconstruction
(2nd Street to 5th Street)
OSM Comm. No. 4103.10
Dear Mr. Hutton:
As per our Agreement for Professional Services with the City of Shakopee,
Section 1-A - 3-b (Major Projects), this extension agreement is for the
referenced projects.
Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Associates, Inc. agrees to accomplish the attached Scope
of Services for a fee not to exceed $5,000.
The City of Shakopee agrees to reimburse OSM for these services in accordance
with Section IV of the Agreement for Professional Services.
If this proposal meets with your approval , please sign below and return one copy
to our office. We look forward to working with you on this project.
Yours very truly,
Sincerely,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON CITY OF SHAKOPEE
&j ASSOCIATES, INC
Z4m— LD- i
Robert D. Frigaard, P.E. John K. Anderson
PAssociate City Administrator
John P. Badalich, P.E.
Vice President
RDF:mlj
Attachment
ENGINEERING SERVICES
FOR
6TH AVENUE SEWER RECONSTRUCTION
2ND STREET TO STH STREET
FOR THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
SCOPE OF SERVICES
A. DESIGN PHASE
1. Necessary surveying work to prepare final constructions plans
(easement work will be extra)
2. Set up soil testing program and evaluate borings (testing to be paid
for by the City)
3. Final project design
4. Preparation of design plans, specifications and bidding documents
5. Preparation of detailed construction cost estimate
6. Prepare and submit necessary permit applications to regulatory
agencies
7. Assist the City in advertising for bids and provide recommendations
for award of contract
B. CONSTRUCTION PHASE
1. Provide required construction engineering services as follows:
a. Periodic observations of the work in progress (once a week - 4
hours)
b. Preparation of supplementary drawings to clarify working drawings
c. Review of shop drawings to determine compliance with plans and
specifications
d. Review of necessary testing done by testing laboratories
e. Final inspection and report of completed project
f. Completion of as-built plans for City records
CONSENT o�
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Steve Hurley, MIS Coordinator {D
RE: Text Database Software ✓�
DATE: 4/14/88
INTRODUCTION:
The City Clerk's office has asked for a review and recommendation
of existing software packages that allow access to large volumes
of text.
BACKGROUND:
The City Code , Building Code , Administrative Policy, Council
Minutes, Comprehensive Plan and other documents used by the City
are bound or looseleaf, multi-page and are referenced daily by
city staff. The volume of text in these documents has been
roughly estimated at 3000 pages.
Providing an efficient means of accessing and updating this
information by placing it in computer memory will save time and
money.
Two packages have been reviewed , they differ in their solution to
the same problem. One is an indexing system that provides page
location of the desired text when the appropriate key words are
input. These key words need to be determined for each document
when the system is setup. The other package allows access to the
entire document which has been input either manually or
electronically (scanned) .
Scanning is the electronic process of transferring images,
primarily in the form of text, to a computer readable code .
Options available to the City for scanning its existing documents
are three . 1 . Contract with a company that does scanning
( $1 .50/page) . 2 . Purchase a scanner for our own use ($2,000-
$12 ,000) . 3• Share a scanner with a group of cities (LOGIS) .
(Scanner cost would be lower but availability may be a problem) .
LOGIS is in the process of reviewing the indexing system and has
received favorable response to a survey of member cities. Five
cities have indicated an immediate desire and two more a future
need.
After initially seeing the full text software (TextWare) at a
computer vendor show I contacted Rich Sonenblum at LOGIS, he
expressed some interest and has been in contact with the vendor.
LOGIS would like to make a decision on a specific package by the
end of April.
After review of both packages I would highly recommend the
TextWare product since initial review of each document is not
necessary to select key words and because the entire document is
stored in the database.
Pricing of both packages is as follows:
TextWare - $1995 (text and images networked version for
five workstations) .
This price is only good for the City of Shakopee
for the month of April since we had beenin
previous contact with the vendor. The current
price from the manufacturer has beenraisedto
$x+995 .
Clerk' s
Indexing
System - $1500 (first copy of networked version) .
$ 150 (for each workstation) .
$2250 (total for five workstations) .
ALTERNATIVES:
1 . Do nothing.
2 . Purchase text database software without regard for the
position LOGIS might take in acquiring similar software.
3. Wait to see what LOGIS does about software.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Computer Committee has reached a concensus on alternative
number 2 . Based on the pricing available to the City and the
advantages as listed above I would recommend the City purchase
the TextWare software from SNI of Edina at the $1995 price. Even
if LOGIS decides on the TextWare package it is to our advantage
to purchase at the lower price available to us. If the City
waits , the only available Council meeting this month will be
bypassed and the pricing advantage offered to us will be lost.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Move to purchase TextWare software from SMI of Edina for $1995•
Funds to come from 1988 MIS Capital Equipment appropriation.
AGREEMENT
between the
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
and the
SHAKOPEE JAYCEES
The City Of Shakopee, via authorization from the Shakopee
City Council, has directed the construction of a Football
Field at Tahpah Park in accordance with plans and specifications
developed by the City Engineer, who shall oversee the project.
Phase I which will be primarily site preparation and turf
introduction, will occur in 1988.
The Shakopee Jaycees hereby agree to reimburse the City for
the total cost of the Phase I project with the understanding
that perhaps other organizations will also give financial
assistance. Payment shall be made by depositing S 5, 000. 00
upon execution of this agreement, an additional $ 15, 000. 00
by June 30, 1988, and the balance by December 15, 1988 with
no interest charged. The estimated cost of this project is
between $ 20, 000 - $ 25, 000. If additional work is deemed
proper in 1988, this can be accomplished by mutual agreement
between the City Of Shakopee and the Shakopee Jaycees.
Shakopee Jaycees City Of Shakopee
President . Date Mayor Date
Treasurer Date Administrator Date
Clerk Date
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City NSENTnistrator /
FROM: David E. Hutton, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Tahpah Park Football Field
Agreement with Shakopee Jaycees
DATE: April 8, 1988
INTRODUCTION:
Attached is a copy of the proposed agreement for the above
referenced project.
BACKGROUND:
The above referenced project consists of constructing a football
field at Tahpah Park. The 1988 portion (Phase I) of this project
will consist of site preparation and turf establishment. The
Engineering Department has estimated the costs for this portion
of the project to be approximately $24,400 .00. A copy of the
cost estimate is attached for your review.
The Shakopee Jaycees have agreed to reimburse the City for the
entire costs for Phase I of this project, per the payment
schedule outlined in the agreement. A copy of the proposed
agreement is attached.
ALTERNATIVES:
1 . Approve of the proposed agreement between the City of
Shakopee and the Shakopee Jaycees and authorize the
appropriate City officials to execute the agreement
2. Modify the agreement to accommodate specific Council
concerns and authorize the appropriate City officials to
inform the Jaycees of those changes and execute the
agreement.
3• Reject the agreement thereby refusing the financial donation
from the Jaycees and paying for the project totally out of
City funds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Due to the cooperative efforts and the generous donation offered
by the Jaycees, staff recommends Alternative No. 1 , to approve
the agreement and authorize the appropriate City officials to
execute the agreement.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the appropriate City officials to execute the proposed
agreement between the City of Shakopee and the Shakopee Jaycees
regarding the construction of a football field at Tahpah Park.
DH/pmp
AGREEMENT
i,
� 7ABPAB PARK FOOTBALL FIELD
%i
�i
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
1 . Salvage Topsoil $ 8,000 .00
2 . Rough Grading $ 5,765.00
3 . Fine Grading $ 31000 .00
4 . Seed & Mulch $ 5 ,400.00
TOTAL COST $22, 165.00
10$ CONTINGENCY $ 2,216 .50
TOTAL COST $24 ,381 .50
CONSENT
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: David E. Hutton, City Engineer """
SUBJECT: Tahpah Park Football Field - Advertise for Bids
Project No. 1988-4
DATE: April 8 , 1988
INTRODUCTION:
This memo requests authorization to advertise for bids for the
above referenced project.
BACKGROUND:
In February, 1988 the City Council authorized the Engineering
Department to prepare plans and specifications forthe
construction of a football field at Tahpah Park. Funding for the
project will be provided by community donations and Park Reserve
Funds . Attached is the January 28 , 1988 memo requesting
permission to prepare plans and specifications for the project.
The plans and specifications for the football field have been
completed. The 1988 portion of this project consists of site -
preparation and turf establishment. Our cost estimate for this
phase of the project is $24,400 .00. The Shakopee Jaycees have
agreed to reimburse the City for the entire costs of Phase I
construction.
Staff is now requesting Council approval of plans and
specifications and authorization to advertise for bids .
Following is an anticipated timetable for the completion of this
project:
April 21 , 1988 Advertise for bids.
May 2, 1988 Bid opening (10: 00 A.M. )
May 3 , 1988 Council awards contract
May 12, 1988 Contracts signed
May 16 - June 16 Construction period.
Plans and specifications are available in the Engineering
Department and will also be available at the Council meeting.
ALTERNATIVES:
1 . Accept the plans and specifications and order the
Engineering Department to advertise for bids, based on the
proposed timetable listed above.
2. Deny the request for advertising.
Footaball Field
April 8 , 1988
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION:
Due to the critical timing for seeding and establishing grass,
staff recommends Alternative No . 1 , ordering the Engineering
Department to advertise for bids for the Tahpah Park Football
Field.
REQUESTED ACTION:
Move 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.
DH/pmp
BID
lii6tlakaPcr Lammunitg t3eraires
129 levee Drive 1
Shakopee. Minnesota 55379-Phone 445-2742
4452742
Communing Education • Parka Recreation Adult Education
Memo To: John Anderson, City Administrator
From George Muenchow, Community Recreation Director
Subject: Site Planning 6 Construction-Tahpah Park Football Field
Date . January 28, 1988
Introduction
Tahpah Park is a City Of Shakopee Community Park providing facilities for the
Playing of softball, baseball, and football/soccer. A Master Plan was developed
15 years ago. The Shakopee Jaycees have functioned since then as a partner in
the development of the park. All softball and baseball fields are in place and
are being used. The football field is yet to be built.
Background
The current Park Capital Improvement Program Plan indicates that the football
field should be constructed during the years of 1986-1991. Designated funding
sources are the Shakopee Jaycees and the Park Reserve Fund. The Shakopee
Jaycees have allocated approximately $20,000.00 towards this project in 1988.
The Shakopee Youth Football Association also has funds that they are willing
to expend.
At the present time there is an urgent need for this field. The Shakopee
Youth Football Association, an Auxiliary Agency of Shakopee Community Recreation
makes use of football playing space at the Sr High School and in the outfield
of the Tahpah Park Baseball Field. As volunteers they are basically only
available to work with these youngsters after working hours. One more lighted
field is needed.
Shakopee Engineering Department is ready to provide the lead in the preparation
of site plans etc. Authorization is needed from the City Council giving
Permission for them to work on this project. Estimated time - 40 hours.
Alternatives
1. Authorize City Engineering Department to prepare plans and specifications
for the construction of the Tahpah Park Football Field.
2. Deny the request for Engineering Department involvement at this time,
recognizing that the Youth Football Program will continue to suffer for
lack of adequate facilities. _
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Shakopee City Engineering Department be authorized
to develop plans and specifications for the construction of a football field
at Tahpah Park with the cost to be absorbed from funds in the Park Reserve
Fund and community donations.
4 rnnncwe Tivr rxcnor nr+ur �m,n-c�.� �.n-r n.•� .a...,. .....-. . --.,,c.. .-. .,.. .
TAHPAH
PARK W+E
S
r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -� _
I
I
6
1
I
I
1
S 3
1
4
1
I .
I
/�
TOT-
LOTCOn<fSi. 1
I
PARKING LOT
I - EnC r�ncc/Ez1[ V]
I v
8 _E
I r.
I �
I
L
BASEBALL
FIELD
9 p
=0C7Bki.L F=ELD
C � NSe, nrT
i 0-I
TO: Mayor, Councilmembers
FROM: , Tom Brownell, Chief of Police
RE: Narcotics Task Force Grant
DATE: April 5, 1988
INTRODUCTION
Since January 1, 1988, the department has been participating in a
joint narcotics task force. Authorization to disburse the city's
matching funds is requested.
BACRGROU
On September 24, 1987, the department requested and received
council approval to participate in the task force and $5,000. was
budgeted for 1988 as matching funds. The matching funds are due
and the department is requesting council authorization to disburse
the funding.
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize city staff to disburse $5,000. , to the Southwest Metro
Task Force.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Authorize city staff to disburse $5,000. , to the Southwest Metro
Task Force in payment of the city's portion of matching funds for
a Federal narcotics enforcement grant.
SOUTHWEST METRO TASK FORCE
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between Carver County, Scott
County, South Lake Minnetonka, Chaska, Chanhassen and Shakopee
through their respective law enforcement agencies.
WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. 471. 59 provides for the joint exercise
of powers by two or more governmental units and specifically
allows for joint exercise of police power; and
WHEREAS, the Southwest Metro Task Force has been created by
the parties for the interdiction of drug traffickers and street-
level dealers in the named jurisdictions;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises
contained herein., the parties agree as follows:
I.
PURPOSE
The purpose of the Southwest Metro Task Force is to provide
a comprehensive and multi-jurisdictional effort to reduce drug
trafficking and eliminate local street-level dealers through the
coordination of law enforcement activities.
Once established and funded, the Task Force operations are
to be coordinated by the South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety
Department.
Agents will be licensed police officers paid through the
Task Force fund comprised of pooled local and federal monies.
Agents will act as gatherers of information. Offenses taking
place in a specific jurisdiction will involve the arrest of
individuals by that jurisdiction's conventional law enforcement
personnel and prosecution by the local jurisdiction. Agents will
have discretionary powers of arrest in all jurisdictions.
Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 471. 59, Subd. 12, agents licensed as
Minnesota police officers may cross jurisdictional boundaries for
the purpose of gathering information for the successful
completion of their cases.
I I.
FUNDING
The Task Force is to be funded by a combination of federal
and state money. South Lake Minnetonka, on behalf of the
parties , applied for and received a federal grant in the amount
of Seventy-Three Thousand One Hundred Eight and 00/100 Dollars
(73 , 108. 00) . The grant amount, plus a Five Thousand and 00/100
Dollar ($5 , 000. 00) contribution from each municipality shall be
transferred to South Lake Minnetonka for the administration of
the Task Force. Funds may be disbursed by South Lake Minnetonka,
for purposes including, but not limited to, pension payments,
insurance and other costs, according to applicable State law and
with the agreement of the parties. The books, records and
documents relevant to this Agreement shall be subject to audit by
the parties or the State of Minnesota at reasonable times upon
written notice. Strict accountability of all funds, receipts and
disbursements shall be provided for.
III.
TERM
This Agreement shall commence January 1, 1988 , and terminate
December 31, 1988.
IV.
DISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY
All forfeitures of property, money and other assets will be
divided equally among participating agencies at the termination
of the program. All permanent equipment purchased through the
program shall be shared by the participating agencies on a need
basis during and after program termination. Any surplus monies
after the purpose of the agreement has been completed shall be
returned to the parties in proportion to their contributions.
-2-
V.
LIABILITY
All worker 's compensation claims will be handled by the
jurisdiction in which the Agent is employed. All civil liability
claims involving Task Force Agents or Board Members will be
indemnified by the Task Force insurance policy.
VI.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
This program is to be administered under the jurisdiction of
the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. All activities are to be
consistent with and subject to the grant application (attached
and incorporated by reference) , as well as applicable state and
local laws.
Dated this day of 1988.
CARVER COUNTY SCOTT COUNTY
By: By:
Dated: Dated:
SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA CITY OF CHASKA
By: By:
Dated: Dated:
CITY OF CHANHASSEN CITY OF SHAKOPEE
By: By:
Dated: Dated:
-3-
C' �NSe. NT
Memo To: John K. Anderson, City Administrator /
From: Gregg VOXland, Finance Director
Re: Abatement for Hoy Property
Date: April 7, 1988
Introduction
The HRA purchased three parcels from Mrs. Hoy in December 1986 and
therefore those parcels should be tax exempt.
Background
The HRA purchased land on the corner of 1st and Holmes from Mrs. Hoy in
December 1986. County records do not reflect the HRA as the owner,
therefore tax statements were produced for the parcels. County records
are being changed to show the HRA as owner. Council action is required
to abate the taxes for payable 1988.
Action Reauested
Move 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.
GV:mmr
CoNse.N 7—
MEMO
[l
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Add dij22TT���.�55trator " D��
FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk
RE: Termination of Probation of ceptionist
DATE: April 14, 1988
INTRODUCTION•
The receptionist has successfully completed her probationary
period of employment with the City and it is appropriate that she
now be made a permanent employee.
BACKGROUND:
On July 7, 1987, Council appointed Tamara Vidmar to the
position of Receptionist/Typist at Step One of the 1987 pay plan
effective July 13, 1987 with a six month service credit. On
January 26th the probation was extended an additional three
months because Tami was having difficulty with promptness. This
has been corrected.
Upon completion of the probationary employment, Tami will
move to a Step Two of the pay plan.
ALTERNATIVES:
1) Terminate probation
2) Extend probation
3) Terminate Employee
RECOMMENDATION:
Alternative No. 1, terminate probation and appoint Tamara
Vidmar as a permanent Receptionist/Typist.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Terminate probation and appoint Tamara Vidmar as a permanent
Receptionist/Typist.
JSC/tiv
PROBATION
> -,
I
I , oea aa. a o; I. a ao i i I ea m m
WI F w
W W V V V V W :W WI Y W IIJ W Y W W j aS I
0 mom 00 mm 10 0i 0 m '.00 m 0i 0 I 1
m Imm mmmmmm �m ml m m mm m m m m
I j i j I m
I
N I
17'
mm yy == mica aw e' m
00 iNNO ero .Np WW pp Lp�p.0m rye0a WP e!o a NN MN IYIp w
o *p •i o 1
am •Immm�m mlmm m • u, a m Isa is • aa -
a
mmm mmmm im x z Ion 'a o' fO an
A IWmmm j z o ..Imm z aI 9
n m000000
m m m m zy to y m :o
F
COW
OOOC 21 2 I m 'ya m D y
A yyyjc CGC pil Z rr l9 K O
ITT^ MY^^ Oj
'
O yyy�yy'... m ZI w 0m iG _ 2 O
C MM
mm9mmimmlmm j m 9T lZf � A
y AAa Aai.AA r O rr I �
m W00 mmlmm n O KK
m mmw mmmm v y.. m m (a memIaaT CvIcc a r c o r of A
la aI o 9 Ic
T 19991x999199 < < 0 1 �O T i=
m Imm mm mmmm r r = . ;= m .o
im
K 'C C yI y y IA
Im 0r T
p mi
y y i
izo
_ ee I Cleo le la
1 111 1
as is aaa j a a a I+ a !o
N NN Nlmppla
m
I
N W W N N INN N N W C_
N �ryioo a o o
O 1 Ia YY 1 I ' 11 j I 11 I� Wi I P O
I1 W r.
i�.le>la uuuT =
N a-N-uN.-N m N aaN m "wL
I i I iK I I 9 !
I o u
I ( i � I I• m
i a , i•
I
WV 1 I 1 I I• 1 • '-
W 6 It i
6 m t • l
6 W
L
m i
m
I 6 a I
e s I ea I I
a
- m � ^ N �maa � i � mmn min u.adiu ab mlPP
i l i i l i iri 1 I i i l l i 1 n 1 'i
-a-aiM1e-
o_ b n N Itlmeal Imm- m-aa.-na PP
e le O lell e o oo^� Iee 111
innn� - --Ien en nlnn
laaaaW mala Na;aa
O P OPP P P PPPIya P�PPP PP PP
i 1 1 1 I I- 11 I 1 1 1 1 -I1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1
V 1-
< O to O O O ....
i
K C� M1M1Z 0 FFFIF M1Fi�=
V > ( LLw r2i rZn wuZi 22r_ I
p m rr I J L
K JJ J J � 6 W .JJJ- 6dJ
i W LL 66 L 16VV > VOVIV 66661 Or+nd
OWO 6 < OOpp I d16 d6 pOJJ6
~ O a =0 W 000W m F 0000 V'»>JJOIVJ
W 6 i I i Wmm Wi00 WWW
Y W � F mm_0_ 0 22
W Si J
J L 6666
m� I 0 O JjO7 IWWWW
V U d JJ JJJ- WWWWW WW
ofJ W VVUUw 33> 3J 0003
y �� z u d'n � Iwwwxxxx xxx
i °j < < «a< p <a<a m.W Wmm i
W� m 22 J 'V UUU ^ LL ZZ ZZ 2
>! .M1.� - M1M1 po poo pp
61 z ''. J mOWW ¢S¢SSSL.LL
_�'.a
q b'Y U V V W� W dLLLLLL I ,
NN I4 K, mPOi PPI NnaNM1 m'm m0' iP PN bFF !
M1F N PP bnnlNN Nal bN I'1nb wP}h
Nh NN -- a nam NN as -NW YI-
`I S I I I ! I
W m m mm , mm I Immmm I m - mmmm mmm
PI 4 TP �P PPIP I11P111111
100 i O o o o 000o eoeooe
O
V Y as n NNNN PPPO
m W N h NNNNNNNN
a 4. Pee Peo
N NNN NJNN PNmp IyN N I N N! N I ry bb m 0
0 JyJ t Jy Iw
0 11 WYW I . yy.a la bI m yl I S O
� I
I o
I eL O .e
9 T
I I waea a un 'a a a ae a . +
0:0w 6m0 0m0 0m � m 0 0 ml 0 m0 V
1 ! I m
� NI%
mlm woo+ aW.wweW. a a wiPu as wm �'m um w
JIJ O 10VNry o. W ww N ry� y I
y!.yJ IYe Yb +ION ++
ANON wlww is eYp wow waw . p0 mIOJ I i IM I tl
'Ir o:om ! zzz ssic zs W x o x x ix
y mmm :AAA ooa DAA is m a m m as
z.zz immm mmm
.xmxmx xxxm M.mS
: m zZZ w m v m I m oo I<9 w'ww IAAA mm ! 9 $
alas mmm
0
mmlzw i0 v i c m 01 p
%9 A 1999 1 'mm
1� alsa �� mmun
Z 1YJ ! DD9 I C_ 2 I m � 2
'y mm�
9 91D Ir < p F
m
I i I i I A
.Inti mmm mm,m iyc Im n 9 m m Ynm
Iv AIOA o00 00. J v o A of
adz a �c c c talc L... z o d
m..T< Ir^ 9
lY m 999 9919 yY .r.! 4 m 9_ O
'S m !m
Iz_2u_� ! Z A
LIOC y-1-i yyy O 1 -i
wlO
Y0 y I 12
ir
p
I 1 ! I
I II 1 1 III ! a o 1 O 1 (1 1 !O
'IN 4WW Inmm 1
N1V Ni14yN W N N ymy..11N IC
o ALAe 1 >� a l l
WWI 10
WI y W 1 ... 10 .
. Ila l l I 1
b yy aaa uVll = aN, ro bN,a z
_ I<
I im s
I n II 1 I in n � A Ili I Im
x z s z I z z I m lw � III
I I I I I
W 1 y 1 I 1 11 1 .I
V I •
p m I f t • Y i ! • •
a w_
� I
r •.n- - im n n PP n -nnem
1 li 11+ 1111 1 11 II II
o
mrt- ene �a e n O1�aal = f m-aaa
z _ _ n P n -n.Flee
111 i li 1 Ilii 1 11 III II
F le a
Z NPN IF - n _- n F Fr'rrr
7 an'nn n P a WN P VI nnFl nn
m PP4P P P
TIT
P PPaPP
I I le 1 1 1 1 1 P1P I 1 1 1
V P r
I
m �ooW Wol
0_ ^�
Y W nr'.O¢F¢ 15 I1�V¢ ' � 6IKF<F 6F i 3
Fr3F � �FFFF=.i4Fr
O<66 J IFFFFFFF
¢.. O666 iJ 166 16 � W'V VI 0 1 JJ bJiJJ7
o ILL
Y 0 Z m Irrr + I
O ,FF W VV 6. L££ F WWVV VVO 1
i 6 YY
2 7 C ¢n Ir « S All
W2W
< YYI,YY YYY m » 22_2_22 ,
V J WW > JJJJ ¢ y ZZ9.
J JJJJ J J £ Z L
W 'W el lee Imran m m, rn� I
vel m r n ee mFm Pnn w r mmmm '
�.. wn Flnln ON 00 vFO1 mNN 1-PJJ WHO m j
Z rr a--0 nnN (m I NN Irdn� jWH �
J N
I I
w I i. mmmm �m mm I m mmmm m �mm mm mmmm
6m I ',, mmmm mm m '.mm mm mm mm'
'. e o 0O o Po eo
c
o
o s' nnnn m'.mm
m 1n Bell E 1 15
n - - n
-- -----------veva° - - ---
a .: m
'w a A UWWWYW WY WwYYWYYW WYY m m
r1
c N - mmmmmmmmmmmmm m� N : wa n N. I NNNro NJJ�IJJMJYr1J x mP z O
ebe 1
I .w W' W WW UWWWYWW WWYYWWWWW YI W UWWW '' F
m W mmmm r mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm m Im mmmm r 1
ri m mmmm i m i
m) mmmm i
................ I
4NY _
�wY NINro J - NN We. IK
NN PP P�YWm J! Y YNN.-AIJYN pP - - J-
yye O,Wm a!N NP101 w!100yy1ON•L O- ItlN
NmYiYo a: �I +NNW roUrNNJ w
Oe pP01P `IYYN oil°PMi aJ'm PJi V11N 0Wm
Im D) 9a 9199 L .CLEC Z Z OOOO
N x I9i9A Immbm.......WIDmmm O AAO
mmlmm m mm m mmmm.m mm m mm o m a
i
mNm 'rrrr rrrrrrrrrr rr z r z zxrxx jrrr rrrrr rrrrr c r 999
A) III � a c 'apaa
r C DDDD K D NKA9 CO
Z t KK � m WIIO O
- x9199 9 K 0 m
yi PIa a I m m i
s sla a
m mmmm � 9
I y
!s m' Avlvv m y,. mm .mi. 1 W K (mmmm I^
W rl 919a „m11. m .mmmm, 9 9 IO OOr H
O 00100 lrrrlr rrrrrrr m P.w„p Im
i0 O m,lmm 19_9_9_99 m_9T_9m 9m_f99_Vm 9
I99 Z
m
z a«n1'y,«a, O DOA OO:OO zORAz020liR0z0z0 ImFmmm m O ISZ2Z2z �WAm
K Ky
r
OI N YIN+ - ---- -- --- --- --O e e e
e
a 1 ala oI 7777 m N c
ro W V IY W Y W W W W W w W W N W
WO - INNNN NIbN NNN - e N RNW Z
w 1111 I Irll I � 111 I 1 .1 1 1
- PeINA ro Y WIW" w wblW
I PP'N+ Y N�NN N-m JNWN'- ro II i t l i Im-1 1 1 1 1 1 Iu 1 1 1 P
I - aa�aa aauu uuu- Y w N
I
I I I I m
I I I I i i I I N
ii ! e • • ( •I • D m
u •I• m • • m a m m. 'I m I
W I i I 11 I 1
V % i
L � 1
o m I I � • I
o I
o I I
s al
N,
M' P P I n rn�P 0 0_aaa' ddamm a_da_Mlla
r: P P n _ P _nnPV F _q MnIPPe
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I '1 If I I 1 I I 1 1 III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
o n e a v rM_eN m m_uuaa' nalamm�.aNda- w
--nnem� i __Y�InMPPu
1 e I 1 1 I o o 0000e00'� I I 1 I III 11 I I II i
h _ a a a m I N w ene
$ _ _ n n n N.N �N F' r hM1: M1M1M1r FF FIEF
7 N a a d N n n'. nlnnn N nMMPMIMnnY'In
u P P P P P 'PP-P-Fr P� f
n
eIe e o
HUM
m I
M
V W Z 62 H_
N m% Z >mmmm mm mlm '
ills ,
FO
""_a
1 , FW , I =W=w t.- }rJJ6666 ~JrWrJWJr~rWJ.='.JWJ
''.
J3,3J
i m I I
V I J U I I 33333 C- K! I
t; W ^ O mVN%% W.W WWWWW,
O 3
O U F W FFFFr
.11H
WWW
W
7JF3 Y91011O
I
VVIVU UUUU
i 33J JM1'6a3a 63133
3. W ONNO S NN 166
I I I
D i m I I
o M1M1 00o e o 1 Ov of
aaai mf o.W
W maNNn
NN 1'n Ire �_ Q1 vadm -m NNl- W rm% mem
r' P I i N vNa NNmn
6
I I i
i
w m m m m mmmmml mmmm m ..............
mmmm mmm mmmm i mmm m mm
s n ! n Im nI n 1 nnnnn nnnnnnn nnnnnnnnn nnnn
Po : e o 0HS oofoo Poe Pe Pe ePU
eoo= rhhrrr M1rr Frrr
�O N w NNNNNI NNNNNNN NNNNNVNNNNW'NN
m O e M H POOOO000e
t P a t
_ -PPPPPP } -PPP
U. t t t • _ _ __ _
ea ea > iea ea aeaa o e o 0 000000e
aaN NNNNm NNNN W NNNN NN NNNNONN m m
I it o YY! M I
I I
O K
O
I v T
a a�a aeia oa oa �� 1ew eOa�a un ! neau eba P+ea �
I m � mm mmmmm mmm m I m mmmm m mmm mm mm I.
m-m mmmmm mmm m: mm m mm : mmm mmmm II m
I ( m
I � � I
1
1
ai> alp �u N c
WO O P P
-WW Ino- - aAON PP - WNe�a-pW
. ala YNN NYP NRNP PP Wb N .N N aNNNP
i0 MPWWY bONW O•N NN 00� mOm W
e oo mOaNN YWP♦ NN ve ve-
iO rt
IW 9 ml Wm�m m mmYONNNN
Z � CC K �� I DA 21 y14y IY1 19999999 1
D yy 4444 -1 DKK > >DIDD CCC�CCC
9 K K F: AAIAA �T TA nnU
1 00 K O: xFlxx nni K
O Z.2 000 OOOU00 WWImW �mD m
z nm 9TTT y m; nnlnn n^ a
y mP W ( n n
o z . . . . . ..3z m
o: ( mmim s
o ? r s aas xx aaaa AIG
r mm sssx r MYYi i
°' v9vav ago"90 I mam n
n mmm mm mm
>> mmmmmmmmm onoczi oo x
ov i,i !.mm Imm A
9 I loo m
mm dcccccc.. K mwwow 9m cconn c . v o:c K,===K4til 1 A o rrlrr, lac ya Ko oCy FI
-19 r cru.,n, D C 00'00 - 109 17ZZZ� MI
9 9 �':--r rwrrilww :< �+ n.Olnn T9 mm�ITT�Y :Q
mr 91Y 4...K.Z Z!,.!!�K r v xx!xx m.r. vas. 4 IW
2''m -! x �.a s Imm x n'.. P .. m
am mlmmmlm m mlmmaW mox mwWm i1G
minim mlmmmlma zz!zz I< lz nn W In
i m z KtiKK mzm'xxFa' s
M. y aM 000
Imm ( n<oon .
K rrr, H
mWW
W I I I
le d ee WmIY 's
o 1 III a 1 11 1 1111 O
IN NIN W I I NII y WIG OWm INW WWW C
.a IAW N NNmm it Y r Nm m 1 NONN "O
-
II yIIW 1I. � I I LI I I W ul ( 1 III> 1 �P h
IY WW N NN.,.mm - Nm•mm 'rr e�N>i N Z
I I I
i I I 10 W
mII I I n it i i I I; i
. nu . . . .. . . - .. _ .. . _ _ __ T • Yr _ ...:. .. . . � art . Y
u I
W y 1 I
V
e m I I
4 m
w
S j
m i
N
1
M O
1 6
o i N I
u
� 1 I
FlI � h ppb M M MM P O O P M
1� 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 1 I 1 le le 1 1 I 1
Z Fl Y ppb M M MM P O N M
h I O 1 to I I 1 O 1 e 11 1 o O O 1 O I
w �- -
U4 P P PPP P M P PP P P M M P P P P
6 � O e0o O ei W
y O m
K hh n = 2 O O m m
22
S Yi LL = 16 V V I ^ J ' 4_ 6 h m LL LL 6 > LL LL
J mmm � 6 d' mV m Yi 6 6
II h i
V m 6 W 333 V W W W I m' u J Z�
a n u o0o c d xx m w �'
of f i xxx s wW m i � w F i.
w a� o Immm w m w rY. w s w
0 m m m W Z V W
W 6 �T 66 J K W
Vu O i W 21 WI
i 3 i 3 YY m V Y V m 2 m 21 YI
t
Oo dd Ni IMN d 1 m MM'. O NmIW- NN m NN N'.
�N Pp bl IFlmNM1 � o NN MM �P ym PI
M1 d FM1 F FF dN NiN m
Z _
I � I
I
I � I
w
WO m m ( mm mm m - ma m
m m 0 000' 0 . . . I m0 0 n m. 6 m 0 0
M 1� n M Fl T M M M
o o e o o
V Y M1 p N
N M �1t
W N mm 0 m 0
I - x
j I i j T
- m
N
W W J J
J oWo mN cW Ny' NN i N III JJ o m
D "'9 mTTTT�999'999T9 SIS y m Oi
D Z y W 91 y T
vvvvvmavvv vvvv
1 I :' WmV PPINNN o D y
' WNWbPNCmu.,W � Si ZI m 3 T C K: O n
Z T T DW O" Z n W
:0004 0000 y D O y yO C A S T KI C m
DDDIa DDD D9DDDD O 9 A A A F
Irrr� rrrrrrrrr
I I j I I A
my9W OS m n 9 m" v o'
I Komm csic a'az I o oI �� ml rll o ml it
rA SuT 2FTA I TI' O T T m' T
003 ZIT W
I m 9 9 z ml jm j vl I @ IW
C CSTmm:mM
ylm 3 3'_C m yl W '_
Z Z TDI
�+ 90991
Ir vz 2 c
y o c n
W e o o
a J
i a u ro o
I ( of I
I j i I I 1 I m
� I
m m m mmm m o m m O N Y N 00 0 0 O I m m v N O,m 0\ -
-
F F F FFF F CF W F F r W CF F F t r FWF F W W F Y F .f G3
W r O m ut O w '.
NS NS Y FOP
N 0 O O wO �OO 0 �OO WO o 0
0 OY OY Ww YY O
O O O0O0HO wSON00N0Y iY0
A 0 00FS O N Y 0 mY w r oY 0 - 0 0 0 Y 0 000 oY r 0
OOOO OOr W �r HO 0 O00 0 0 N 9�
r Y
m m m mmm m Om m O N r N 00 0 0 0 m 0 N,i m N �i O m O\ 0
r Y Y Y Y r Y Y r F r " Y Y r Y r Y Y I Y r Y W w r Y of W y
r0 0r 0Y 000
Or Yo 0Y r00Y 0Y 0r 0r 0Y 0r r00Y 0Y 0Y 0r 0Y 0r Y00r 0Y r0 r0 0r 0r or Y r YYY Y Y Y r r Y Y r Y r rr
I00 00000
OO 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 000 0 0 00
0 O w
r' m
m
fA N
r
o. o
W Y
Y. 0
ppN0 Y O 1 m O O m� rOO Oo O 00 O W r O O DVI O
000 NNr0O O 00N0 N 0 0 0 m m
3
0 O W O 0 O
0
2
H
!n
w 9 S m w S 0N O 3 = 0 H O (la H (n W 0 S = m 0 H O >
mw (� . mmN l0 CR C & 3Y OHOm yC > Lm mWHM K
b µ 0
✓ Y. N µ µ '+ b b N H O M G M w > b H m O m � m
R m H 9 0
H H Y W K < S S Q H w W 0 �` < h-]
w
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O
mm O. Q\ �D\ D\ D\ m m D\ m X
F F F FtF F FF F X F 'F F FL' F F t' F F FF F F F F F F
F w N rYY o - pow m N rn ut F ww w N r 0 o .o m ,l—1 rnw N r o
Rf r Y = = r 0 = c 0 O 0 Y = µ x r N a
C+J o m m O O O m m S ✓ O O a m
OJ UI rF N 3 Y V H I+ cf Y t+ Y a+ •J �+
V1 3 M m w O •G m K r p w F H m 0' C z 0 6 A
w H d O
O m W O m K d m O H O m yZ y O m S K W r
O
- S m O O .N w w w N 'A r X m m Y m N Y M
Y o S1 ❑ r Y 1 H M w
w N O O m C p m m m O
UJ (n m w m £ X G O S M m n C m S [A
O O
b
O m O ,O X H T' O
• 'C- - 00 H 'w3 N .3 M '0O b0 '3
r X
0
N W N H N O m V 4 W N T i0 N 0 m m Y F �O O.
O O O o Y 0 W �n O O W M
:q O O N w N lim 0 0 0 0 0 F O �0 O O m 0 O w O 0
0 0 0 0 0 m 0 —1 0 N S 0 m
M N O
M > N
N
y � N
U
N
Y
7
N
a a
L u
V 9
t9 >
Z N N
� N
Y N N
U
m� 4r
N o p
� O H N
-
>"
6
N �
E
Z
¢ Y N T, w G W
C M N O Y W
u > N
¢ N b N L G W W N E
N
ti
N iW. C E E c
E
(A
k G No -i 3 Y
a L S Y L O ow
E
W 6 N E .� E [— W L .i FW
G E O..i N 3 >a .+ V >
W V O Op W O
0 0 cJ O W Y m C
C V DU UCS- M = W i
¢ O O
z
v of n1 W O .i N N 1p ti W of cp c0
O O
N O O
L O O
u O O
¢ u O O
M V�
Y N N
m co
Ila,
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer /
ci
SUBJECT: 11th Avenue Feasibility Report
DATE: April 14, 1988
INTRODUCTION:
Staff has received a petition for street and storm sewer
improvements on 11th Avenue from County Road 79 to Minnesota
Street.
BACKGROUND:
Staff has received a petition from the developer of Meadows 1st
Addition for street and storm sewer improvements on 11th Avenue
from County Road 79 to Minnesota Street. The attached petition
was signed by the current property owner but since the
transaction has not been closed yet, the previous property owner
will be submitting a duplicate petition prior to the April 19th
Council meeting. The City Attorney will review the adequacy of
the petition.
The developer has received approval from the Planning Commission
on the preliminary plat for Meadows 1st Addition. The northern
boundary of this subdivision is the centerline of 11th Avenue.
Due to the fact that the street and storm sewer improvements for
11th Avenue would abut existing properties along the north side
of 11th Avenue as well as the lots in the new subdivision, the
developer has petitioned the City to construct the improvements
on 11th Avenue via the 429 assessment process.
On April 13, 1988 you, Judy Cox, Doug Wise, and myself met with
the developer and his consulting engineer to work out the details
of the developer ' s agreement. At that meeting, the developer
indicated that they would install the sewer and watermain in 11th
Avenue, as well as rough grade the road, since the existing homes
along the north side of 11th Avenue currently have sewer and
water service.
All improvements on the remaining streets shown on the
preliminary plat, with the exception of Vierling Drive, will be
constructed by the developer in accordance with a developer' s
agreement. The portion of Vierling Drive as it fronts on the
proposed lots shown on the preliminary plat will also be
constructed by the developer. The remaining portion of Vierling
Drive will not be constructed under this phase of the
development, although the entire street has been dedicated.
11th Ave. Feasibility Report
April 14 , 1988
Page 2
The feasibility study , if ordered , will address stormwater
drainage, proposed street elevations and cross sections ; cost
estimates for street and storm sewer construction and a
preliminary assessment report.
Resolution No . 2881 accepts the adequacy of the petition and
orders a feasibility study of petitioned improvements on 11th
Avenue.
ALTERNATIVES:
1 . Adopt Resolution No. 2881 acting on the submitted petition
and ordering the City Engineer to prepare a feasibility
study of improvements on 11th Avenue, if deemed necessary.
2. Determine that 11th Avenue is not necessary for this
development and deny their petition for improvements.
3. Determine that 11th Avenue is necessary but deny their
petition for improvements on the basis that existing
properties along the north side of 11th Avenue will not
benefit from the construction and therefore should not be
assessed.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 . Staff feels that 11th Avenue
is necessary and should be constructed. As to whether or not the
existing property owners benefit from the new street, the
proposed feasibility study will attempt to address that issue.
REQUESTED ACTION:
Move to adopt 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 move its adoption.
DN/pmp
MEM2881
NEW PROPERTY OWNEFC - TRANSFER HAS NOT YET TAKEN PLACE
PETITlON FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS APRO
CITY
The undersigned ee to '
hereby
y petitions the City of Shakopee to
install the foll0wint imorovenents where noted and to assess them
pursuant to Minn-sot;; Statutes Chapter 429:
P.venue/Ez- -- from
to -,a' A) A) r-- S Q n
by
(improvements requester
The undersigned hereby waives their right to z public hearing
prior t0 Council 0z•dering the inprovements and z.
:valves their
right t0 a public hearing prior to the levying of the assessments
related to said improvements and further waives ail rights to
appeal said Essessments which shall be assessed
pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes Chapter 429 as z result of the installation of the above
Improvements .
la-ed --s day o: Z &,' L_ lg
��• q
STATE 07 MINNESOTA ) - -
) SS (INDIVIDUAL ACKNOWLr G- 71,,T)
COUNTY OF )
On this c2lp c-
2 --
_> - -ore me, 2 lictary
and for sadd County , personally appeared
i
6 and
> being sworn, did say
that said -.nst_ ,. enz ..c_ execiaed as te�r __ ee act and deed.
RESOLUTION NO. 2881
A Resolution Declaring Adequacy Of Petition
And Ordering Preparation Of Report
of Street and Storm Sewer Improvements
to 11th Avenue from County Road 79 to Minnesota Street
Adjacent to Meadows 1st Addition Subdivision
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE,
MINNESOTA:
1 . A certain petition requesting the improvement of Street
and Storm Sewer Improvements to 11th Avenue from County Road 79
to Minnesota Street Adjacent to Meadows 1st Addition Subdivision,
filed with the Council on April 19 , 1988 , is hereby declared to
be signed by the required percentage of owners of property
affected thereby . The declaration is made in conformity to
Minnesota Statutes, Section 429 .035•
2 . The petition is hereby referred to Dave Hutton, City
Engineer, and he is instructed to report to the Council with
convenient speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as to
whether the proposed improvement is feasible and as to whether it
should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other
improvement , and estimated cost of the improvement as
recommended.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the
City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this _ day of ,
19
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Approved as to form this
day of , 19_•
City Attorney
4/.19/88 Current property owner. -
City Attorney has approved petition as fulfilling Chapter 429 requirements.
CITY OF SMAKOPEE e /
PETITION FOR PUBLIC DMFSThe undersigned hereby petitions the City of Shakpee to
install the following improvements where noted and to assess than
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429:
11th Avenue/Sheet from ND 79 -
to Minnesota by Public fund to install
_ city street and at= sewer
(rmpraverents requested)
V
The undersigned herby waives their right to a public hearing
Prior to Council ordering the improvements and also waives their r_
right to a public hearing prior to the levying of the assessments
related to said improvements and further waives all rights to
appeal said assessments which shall be assessed pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes Chanter 529 as a result of the installation of the above
improvements.
Dated this 18th day of Anrim 19 88
B�t/TH9 MI I FRP B CFNNARv MIMADnu
Assistant Treasurer
STATE OF MDQESOTA ) -
) SS (INDIVIDUAL ACNDN'L..D'$T'u-TT)
CCONry OF Ramsey )
On this .a.:,day of n„rs� 19 gS before me, a NW.ary
Public within and for said County, personally appeared
Donald L. Sheldon Assistant Treasurer and
being Sworn, did say
that said instrument was executed as their free act and deed.
- - :,�,.�• - Notary
Dee E. Monson
This instrument was drafted by:
Judith S. Cox
City Clark
City of Shakoose
129 East 1st Avenue
Shakopee, M 55379
O0NSENT A
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Douglas K. Wise, City Planner
RE: Request for a Variance from the Subdivision
Requirements
DATE: April 15, 1988
INTRODUCTION•
The City has received a request from Donald R. Deland to
grant a variance from the platting requirements for dividing one
parcel of property into two, the property is located on Hauer
Trail within the Hauer's Addition.
BACKGROUND:
Attached is a letter from Donald R. Deland explaining the
request. The letter provides sufficient background for the
request.
ALTERNATIVES•
1. The City Council may pass Resolution #2883 granting a
variance from the subdivision requirements as allowed by
Minnesota Statutes Section 462.358 Subd. 4 (b) .
2. The City Council may pass a motion denying the request and
directing the applicant to file a preliminary and final plat
for splitting of the property.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
A conference call was held between the Planning staff, City
Administrator, the City Attorney and the Assistant City Attorney
regarding this matter. It was the recommendation of the City
Attorney and the Assistant City Attorney that the request be
granted by the City Council.
ACTION REOUESTED:
Offer and approve Resolution #2883 approving the filing of a
deed.
3095 Hauer Trail
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
April 14, 1988
Mrs. Delores Lebens, Mayor
and Members of the Shakopee City Council
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
Re: Deland Lot Split
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
In 1967, I purchased my home on approximately a one-acre parcel of land
in what was then Eagle Creek Township in Hauer's Addition. My home is located
at the corner of Hauer Trail and Jasper Road. In addition to the one-acre
parcel, I purchased land between my home and County Road 16 along side of and
westerly of Jasper Road.
My one-acre parcel has approximately 325 feet of frontage on Hauer
Trail.
In 1975, the City of Shakopee instituted a public improvement project
putting in a watermain along Hauer Trail, and bituminous surface and curb and
gutter over Hauer Trail. At that time, the City assessed my one-acre parcel as
though it were two lots. I did not object to this because I knew someday I
would be selling off half of my lot. I have paid those assessments in full.
In 1981, the City adopted a second public improvement project effecting
my property, this one for sanitary sewer. Again my one-acre parcel was assessed
a double assessment, and again I did not object since I knew I would someday
sell off half of my lot.
That time has now come and I wish to sell what is approximately the
west 108 feet of my parcel to a buyer who wishes to construct a new home on it.
You can see the size of the parcel I wish to sell on the attached survey, it
being over 19,000 square feet. In checking with the city staff, I find there is
a problem in utilizing what is referred to as "a simple lot split" under the
.Shakopee Ordinances. Because my original lot was not platted but was approved
to be sold by metes and bounds description by Eagle Creek Township, I do not
qualify for a simple lot split. Consequently, I have been informed by the staff
that it will be necessary for me to plat my one-acre parcel. This makes little
sense since the plat would not involve any dedication to the public since no
dedication is needed. The cost of having to plat to create two lots out of one
parcel is simply prohibitive and I think in these circumstances unnecessary.
Since Eagle Creek Township approved my one-acre parcel and since the
City of Shakopee has twice officially treated it as two separate lots and
Mrs. Delores Lebens, Mayor I/
and Members of the Shakopee City Council
Page -2-
April 14, 1988
assessed it twice as two separate lots, I am requesting that the City Council of
Shakopee utilize the authority in Minnesota Statute Section 462.358, Subd. 4(b).
This statute allows the City to approve the filing of a deed creating a second
unplatted lot in cases in which compliance with the platting requirements will
create an unnecessary hardship and failure to comply with the platting require-
ments does not interfer with the purpose of Subdivision Regulations. In such a
case, by resolution the City Council can approve the conveyance.
I would point out that "unnecessary hardship" is not defined but I
would suggest it is different from the "hardship" requirements of your variance
ordinance which specifically exclude financial hardship. There is no such
exclusion in the state law and I believe that the cost of having to plat does
create a severe hardship for me especially in view of the City's past actions in
treating my property as two lots. Certainly approval of this lot split by me
would not interfer with the purpose of your Subdivision Regulations, since there
is no public need for platting. The City neither needs nor requires any
additional land for street or utility purposes, since all of the utilities and
the street are already in place.
In summary, I am asking you to approve the enclosed Resolution
authorizing my splitting of this lot because due to a "crack" in the simple lot
split ordinance I do not qualify under that ordinance, and due to the fact that
you have in the past treated my lot as two lots not as one, and the cost of
platting would simply be prohibitive for the purpose of creating just one
additional lot.
I would be happy to appear before the City Council and discuss this
further if that would be helpful. I thank you in advance for your
consideration.
Yours very truly,
Donald R. Ueland
Enclosure
RESOLUTION 2883
' RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FILING OF A DEED
WHEREAS, D.E. Ueland and Dorothy L. Ueland, husband and wife, are the
owners of a one-acre parcel of land located in the City of Shakopee, County of
Scott, State of Minnesota, commonly referred to as 3095 Hauer Trail; and
WHEREAS, the parcel owned by the Uelands contains approximately one
acre of land and has approximately 325 feet of frontage on Hauer Trail; and
WHEREAS, bituminous street, curb and gutter, sanitary sewer and city
water are in place and serving the entirety of said frontage on Hauer Trail; and
WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee has twice assessed said parcel as two
lots recognizing said parcel would someday be split into two lots of record; and
WHEREAS, the requirement to plat said parcel would require an
unnecessary hardship in time and money and the failure to plat said parcel into
two lots does not interfer with the purpose of the City of Shakopee Subdivision
Regulations;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of
Shakopee as follows:
1. That the City of Shakopee does hereby approve under the authority
given it by Minnesota Statutes 462.358, Subd. 4(b), the creation of a new parcel
of record legally described on Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference, and does authorize the filing of a deed for
the parcel described on Exhibit A.
Adopted in the session of the Shakopee City Council
on the day of April, 1988.
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Delores Lebens, Mayor
ATTESTED TO BY:
Judith S. Cox, City Clerk
eesr4 �Q�'�
rddy
/( /
DESCRIPTION
That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Q
Section 8, Township 115 , Range 22 , Scott Count
described as follows : Quarter of
said Southwest Commencing at the Y• Minnesota,
bearing Quarter of the Northeast Quarter;
corner of
be ringthe of North along the east thence on a
Northeast Quarter, line of said Southwest Q
North 61 degrees 44 m distance of 575 . 04 feet ; Quarter
28.40 feet ; minutes 00 seconds West a thence
Southwest Q thence South, parallel with distance of
285.20 fee Quarter of the Northeast Q the east line of
thence North 62 Quarter, a Of
of said
a distance of 143. 93 feet degrees
to be described; t° the es 23 minutes 20 seconds West,
20 sec thence con poi of beginning of the land
ones West, a distance tof u8. 5 North 62 degrees 23 minutes
11 minutes East, a distance 57 feet ; thence
23 minutes 20 seconds °f 62. 90 feet; thenceNNort 10 degrees
Soutfeet; 32 degrees 48 minutes OUestance of 74 .48 feet ; thence 62 thence South 65 degrees seconds West, a distance o
distance of 108.00 fee gees 22 minutes 00 seconds f 194 . 91
00 seconds East, t ; thence North 32 de East , a
beginning. a distance of 128 . 96 feet deg
48 minutes
to the point of
EXHIBIT A