Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04/02/1991
MEMO TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator RE: Non-Agenda Informational Items DATE: March 28, 1991 1 . Attached is the Police Newsletter for City Council review. 2 . Attached is a correspondence from the State of Minnesota Department of Revenue regarding estimated aid reduction for our taxing district. 3 . Attached is the April calendar of Upcoming Meetings. 4 . Attached is the agenda for the April 4 , 1991 Planning Commission meeting. 5 . Attached is the agenda for the April 4 , 1991 Board of Adjustment and Appeals meeting. 6. Attached are the March 7 , 1991 minutes of the Planning Commission. 7 . Attached are the March 7 , 1991 minutes of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. 8 . N.S .P. has filed for an electric rate increase with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission and the Commission has referred the filing to the Office of Administrative Hearings for evidentiary and public hearings. The proposed rates were suspended and interim rates will become effective March 29th; copy attached. 9 . Attached is a memorandum from Judith Cox regarding regulating parades. 10 . Attached are the unapproved minutes of the March 20, 1991 Downtown Ad Hoc Committee meeting. 11 . Attached are the unapproved minutes of the March 20, 1991 Community Development Commission meeting. /'' City of Shakopee / iii�'� „- 01 - • '^� \ POLICE DEPARTMENT ` ��s IiO. OI�� 476 South Gorman Street l O � J 1�� SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 �� Q OL? let Tel. 612/445-6666 .1:► , ��� Fax. 612/445-2313 f OWN .� +�'P4' 5� ' E '�N E SOS•.' W i : -1 :fi The Police Report An inside look at police activity. March 26, 1991 We are 173 calls ahead of 1990. USE OF FORCE ISSUES SELF-DEFENSE Officer John Flynn and Chief A free self- defense class for Steininger attended this course adult women was conducted by on March 15. They received Officer Ron Carlson . information on topics such as Participants received six hours the legal standards for the use of hands-on training with of force, civil liability which instruction in prevention and results from use of force developing defensive awareness. situations, rights of police A similar class will be officers who have been involved conducted later this spring for in the use of force and the adolescents. critical first interview with the employee who has been involved in the use of force. DARE The DARE program is in it's INVESTIGATORS MEETING HELD AT 11th week and the students are SHAKOPEE POLICE DEPARTMENT learning about risk taking and the media's influence on drug On March 21 Shakopee Police use , specifically beer Department hosted the monthly commercials. The students investigators meeting. This performed their own anti-drug meeting is open to commercials for each other. investigators of neighboring departments and created to facilitate the flow of DRUG ARREST information between departments. Investigators On March 25 Shakopee Police and from Scott County, Shakopee, Hennepin County Sheriff's Savage, Prior Lake, New Prague, Investigators arrested an adult Burnsville and Lakeville male following a six week attended. Because crime knows narcotics investigation which no boundaries this exchange of included the purchase of information is an excellent marijuana. More arrests are tool for solving cases. expected in this case. g 0 C EWE aJ J ZwtE^_t -14 4„4,4 L .y '; . .l$68_;. STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Mail Station 3340 St. Paul, Minnesota 55146-3340 (612) 296-5141 March 15, 1991 TO: All Special Taxing District Treasurers Recently, 1991 Laws, Chapter 2 was enacted to reduce 1991 state expenditures by approximately $200,000,000. Aid payments to local units of government ccmpriss a significant portion of state expenditures. As a result, Article 8 of this new law provides for a $50,000,000 reduction in the July 20, 1991 aid payments to counties, cities, towns and special taxing districts. The enclosed aid estimates have been developed for your information. The July 20, 1991 estimated aid payment reduction shown in the first column on the enclosed aid notice is your district's share of the$50,000,000 aid payment reduction.The July 20, 1991 estimated aid payment for your district after this reduction is shown in the second column. The enclosed aid estimates are based on preliminary 1991 property tax information. Final 1991 property tax information is not currently available but will be used in determining the actual July 20, 1991 aid payments. For this reason, the actual July 20, 1991 payment may be different than the enclosed estimate. Any differences between the enclosed estimates and the actual payment should not be significant. The December 15, 1991 estimated payment shown in the third column reflects the provisions of current law. Additional aid payment reductions will be enacted into law in 1991. These additional aid reductions will probably result in the December payment being reduced the same as the July payment and will also result in dell eca in 1992 aid payments. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me in the Local Government Services Division of the Department of Revenue. My telephone number is (612) 296-5141. Sincerely, I / 41' / / / LARRY L. BEWLEY, Research Analysis Specialist Local Government Services Division LLB/glh AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES DIVISION MAIL STATION 3340 SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55146-3340 PHONE: (612) 296-5141 MARCH 15, 1991 HOUSING REDEVEL AUTHORITY TREASURER HRA SHAKOPEE CITY 129 E 1ST AVE SHAKOPEE MN 55379 ESTIMATED JULY 20, 1991 AID REDUCTION FOR YOUR SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT UNDER LAWS 1991 , CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 8 AND THE RESULTING ESTIMATED 1991 AID AMOUNTS AFTER REDUCTION JULY 20, 1991 DEC. 15, 1991 ESTIMATED ESTIMATED AID ESTIMATED AID JULY 20, 1991 PAYMENT AFTER PAYMENT UNDER AID REDUCTION * REDUCTION * CURRENT LAW ** HSTD & AG CREDIT AID $ 622 $ 1,967 $ 2,589 DISPARITY REDUCT AID $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 TOTAL $ 622 $ 1,967 $ 2,589 * THE JULY 20, 1991 AID REDUCTION AND PAYMENT ESTIMATES ARE BASED ON PRELIMINARY 1991 PROPERTY TAX INFORMATION. FINAL 1991 PROPERTY TAX INFORMATION IS NOT CURRENTLY AVAILABLE BUT WILL BE USED IN DETERMINING THE ACTUAL JULY 20, 1991 AID PAYMENTS. FOR THIS REASON, THE ACTUAL JULY 20, 1991 PAYMENT MAY BE DIFFERENT THAN THE ABOVE ESTIMATE. ANY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE ESTIMATE AND THE ACTUAL PAYMENT SHOULD NOT BE SIGNIFICANT. ** THE DECEMBER 15, 1991 ESTIMATED PAYMENT REFLECTS THE PROVISIONS OF CURRENT LAW. MORE THAN LIKELY THERE WILL BE ADDITIONAL AID PAYMENT REDUCTIONS ENACTED INTO LAW IN 1991 . THESE ADDITIONAL AID REDUCTIONS WILL PROBABLY RESULT IN THE DECEMBER PAYMENT BEING REDUCED THE SAME AS THE JULY PAYMENT. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE, PLEASE CONTACT LARRY BEWLEY IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES DIVISION IN THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE. LARRY'S TELEPHONE NUMBER IS (612) 296-5141 . Ap r l 1 9 9 1 Upcoming Meetings SUN MON • 3 TUE WED THU FRI SAT 1:3©pm 2:00pm City 7:30pm 5 6 Public Council Planning Utilities Meeting Commission 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 7:00pm CC? 7:45am Township Downtown Joint Committee Meeting - Jackson Hall 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 6:00pm CC? 5:30pm CDC SPUC 7:00pm Meeting Energy & 7:00pm City Transport- Council ation Meeting 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 7:00pm Park & Rec. Board 28 29 30 7:00pm Cable Commission March May SMTWTFS SMTWTFS 1 2 1 2 3 4 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 26 27 28 29 30 31 31 03/26/1991 TENTATIVE AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Session Shakopee, MN April 4 , 1991 Chairperson Melanie Kahleck Presiding 1. Roll Call at 7 : 30 P.M. 2 . Approval of Agenda 3 . Approval of March 7 , 1991 Meeting Minutes 4 . Recognition by Planning Commission of Interested Citizens. 5 . Presentation: Athletic Committee Report 6 . 7 : 40 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED: To consider an application for a conditional use permit to operate a business on Maras Street requiring outdoor storage of salvage and stock piling of street sweepings. Applicant: One Way Sweeping, Inc. Action: Resolution No. 608 7 . 7 : 45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider an application for a Preliminary Plat for Weinandt 2nd Addition. Applicant: Harry Weinandt Action: Approve Preliminary Plat 8 . 7 : 50 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider the renewal and review the mining operation on County Rd. 83 . Applicant: Scott County Lumber Co. Action: Renew Conditional Use Permit No. 376 9 . 7 : 55 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider the renewal of and review the mining operation permit at 6896 Hwy. 101. Applicant: J. L. Shiely Co. Action: Renew Conditional Use Permit No. 375 10. McKenna Conditional Use Permit No. 604 - Request for continuation by applicant. 11. DISCUSSION: Wood Storage 12 . Other Business a. City Code Books b. 13 . Non-agenda Informational Items 14 . Adjourn Lindberg S. Ekola City Planner NOTE TO PLANNING MEMBERS: 1. If you have any questions or need additional information on any of the above items, please call Lindberg or Aggie on the Monday or Tuesday prior to the meeting at 445-3650 . 2 . If you are unable to attend the meeting, please call the Planning Department prior to the meeting. TENTATIVE AGENDA BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS Regular Session Shakopee, MN April 4 , 1991 Chairperson Melanie Kahleck Presiding 1. Roll Call at 7 : 30 P.M. 2 . Approval of Agenda 3 . Approval of March 7, 1991 Meeting Minutes 4 . Recognition by Board of Adjustments and Appeals of Interested Citizens. 5 . Other Business a. b. c. 6. Adjourn Lindberg S. Ekola City Planner NOTE TO THE B.O.A.A. MEMBERS: 1. If you have any questions or need additional information on any of the above items, please call Lindberg or Aggie on the Monday or Tuesday prior to the meeting. 2 . If you are unable to attend the meeting, please call the Planning Department prior to the meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION March 7, 1991 MEMBERS PRESENT: Kahleck, Spurrier, Mars, Lynch, Joos, Allen and Christensen MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Lindberg Ekola, City Planner; Dave Hutton, Public Works Superintendent; Karen Marty, City Attorney; Sharon Storholm, Recording Secretary I. ROLL CALL Chairperson Kahleck called the meeting to order and roll call was taken as noted above. II . ELECTION OF OFFICERS MOTION: Commissioner Lynch moved that the Commission move the election of officers to the end of the agenda. The motion passed. III . APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as amended. IV. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 7 , 1991 MEETING The Minutes of the February 7, 1991 meeting were approved as submitted. V. RECOGNITION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF INTERESTED CITIZENS Chairperson Kahleck stated that anyone present in the audience wishing to speak on any issue not on the agenda should speak up at this time. There was no response. VI . PUBLIC HEARING ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 604 - DAVID MCKENNA Chairperson Kahleck opened the public hearing from the February 7 , 1991 meeting. Ekola stated at the February 7, 1991 meeting, the Planning Commission had continued the public hearing for Resolution No. 604 to allow for legal notification of area residents and property owners within 1000 feet of the site. Continuing the public hearing also provided the City of Prior Lake additional Minutes of the Page - 2 Shakopee Planning Commission March 7 , 1991 time to further review the proposal . He said that additional information has been submitted since last month and noted the maps displayed on the walls. The applicant, Dave McKenna of 8221 Horizon Drive, came forward and presented a video tape of the proposed gravel pit area. He showed different views and explained where the mining access roads would go. He identified the proposed phasing of mining operations in three phases. Phase one would be mined from the south to north. He stated that reclamation of the previous phase would be completed before the next phase was started. There is a proposed turn-around for trucks on the site. He explained the depths of the mining operation. Chairperson Kahleck asked if there would be additional truck traffic in Shakopee. Mr. McKenna said at the present time, all proposals for gravel have been for construction projects to the south of the site. The proposed truck route would use the south mining access road to County Road 42 . Chairperson Kahleck asked about the mining operation/history in Prior Lake. Mr. Victor McKenna, operator of the pit, stated that the mining in Prior Lake had been done under a grading permit for the City of Prior Lake. The gravel was used for a road construction project on Prior Lake. Commissioner Spurrier asked if a mature tree inventory had been done for the site. Mr. McKenna referred to the existing conditions map. There are some maple trees on the site but most of the elms are dead. Commissioner Mars asked about the proposed truck traffic. Leroy Nyhus, the applicant's consulting engineer came forward to answer the engineering related questions of the project. In reference to the truck traffic he stated that the proposal would generate a maximum of 200 trucks per day. He noted that there are approximately 200 operation days in a year for a gravel pit and that the average daily traffic generated would be 30 - 40 trucks per day. He described the stormwater management aspects of the proposal . A sedimentation pond is being constructed on the northwest side of the site. Both nutrient and sediment water quality control measures will be implemented. He reviewed the erosion control measures proposed for the site. He noted that dust will be controlled through water and chemical methods. He reviewed the water Minutes of the Page - 3 Shakopee Planning Commission March 7, 1991 table levels in the area of the proposed mine. He stated that the lowest elevation of the mine would be 830 feet and the nearest well would be approximately 100 feet lower in elevation. Commissioner Spurrier asked about the phosphorous removal. Mr. Nyhus answered that it would be removed by the growth of plants in the sedimentation pond. Commissioner Spurrier questioned the sizing of the sedimentation pond. Mr. Nyhus reviewed the two pond shapes (rectangular and triangular) in which the sedimentation pond could be constructed. The triangular pond is more effective in controlling water quality. He will work with staff to get the proper sizing determined. Commissioner Spurrier had questions on bench slopes and side slopes. The City Engineer said that staff has requested that the pond be modified and the applicant will resubmit drawings. He said he would look at Spurrier' s method for sizing the pond. Commissioner Spurrier asked how sanitary waste waters would be treated. Mr. Nyhus said that waste water from washing will be held in a separate area and treated separately. The City Planner reviewed the recommended conditions from the staff report. Conditions 1-7 are administrative in nature. He noted that recommendations 8-12 deal with traffic to the area and items 13-25 deal with the operation of the mining operation. Item 20 was added, which deals with erosion control measures. He then reviewed the 11 recommended conditions proposed by the City of Prior Lake. Discussion on the two possible truck routes, north to County Road 16 and south to County Road 42 took place. Commissioner Christensen questioned if a decision needed to be made on whether or not the northern access route to County Road 16 should be allowed in the future. Hutton said that the conditions listed in the February staff report were based upon the fact that County Road 16 was not built to handle that truck traffic. There would also be dust and maintenance problems. It has since been determined that Minutes of the Page - 4 Shakopee Planning Commission March 7, 1991 County Road 16 is adequate for this traffic except in the spring weight restriction period. He had not been aware of that the first time he made the recommendation. Commissioner Spurrier noted that in the Staff report of February 7th, it states that State law taxes aggregate produced in this County. There is a charge per cubic yard or per ton. He did not believe that a City had the right to require an additional escrow account for restoration. Is the applicant responsible for damage to the road? Ekola noted that the information referred to came from an earlier staff report regarding a previous operation. It had stated that 60% of the tax was for County Roads, 30% towards municipal streets, and 10% towards abandoned quarry restoration. The City Planner gave an overview on the environmental review process. He noted a chart illustrating the EAW process. He stated that the purpose of an EAW was to identify potential environmental impacts of the project and ways to mitigate its effect. He noted condition #2 states an Environmental Assessment has been submitted and will be processed in accordance with the State of Minnesota' s review program. No action shall commence on the property until a negative declaration has been filed and the required 30 day review period has elapsed. If an Environmental Impact Statement is required, no action shall commence on the property until it is completed and all modifications have been made in the proposed operation. Commissioner Spurrier said that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet needed to be done to identify potential problems. He questioned how the Planning Commission could require conditions without the EAW. He would like to see the process carried through to a negative declaration. Other permit applications have been given the same treatment. He cited the race track as an example. The information gathered needs to be incorporated into the conditions for the CUP. He felt that final approval/acceptance was not wholly within the City. Outside agencies need to review the proposal also. Chairperson Kahleck suggested the vote take place after the EAW process is completed. Commissioner Christensen stated that if the Commission favors the completion of the EAW before their decision on this CUP it should be a requirement for all future applications. Minutes of the Page - 5 Shakopee Planning Commission March 7, 1991 Chuck McDonald came forward and said he felt that the Commission was trying to create layers of bureaucracy. Chairperson Kahleck said that the Commission will not vote on this application this evening. The 9 : 30 discussion deadline set by the Planning Commission before the public hearing is approaching and this will need to be continued to a later date. Mr. Jerry Stoick, a representative of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, came forward. He felt that a decision should not be made until the Environmental Assessment Worksheet has been completed. Chairperson Kahleck noted that staff should check to see if the next meeting could be held at the Courthouse. She asked if the Commission should consider a special meeting on the 20th or the 21st. Commissioner Christensen felt the meeting should be postponed until the EAW is completed. Chairperson Kahleck felt that testimony could still be taken. Marty said the Commission could either set a date now for the next meeting or send out notices and republish the information. MOTION: Commissioner Spurrier moved that the Commission continue the request for Conditional Use Permit No. 604 until after the EAW is completed. Commissioner Christensen seconded the motion. A recess was taken from 9 :40 until 9 : 50 P.M. VII. PUBLIC HEARING ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 608 - ONE WAY SWEEPING Chairperson Kahleck opened the public hearing. Ekola noted that the applicant has requested a continuance and staff was recommending the same. MOTION: Commissioner Christensen moved that the Commission continue Resolution No. 608 until the next meeting. Commissioner Lynch seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Minutes of the Page - 6 Shakopee Planning Commission March 7, 1991 Ekola noted that this is not an active operation at this time. He has received complaints and notices from the Scott County Health Dept. on this operation. VIII.PUBLIC HEARING ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 610 - FLOOD BROTHERS AUTO BODY Chairperson Kahleck opened the public hearing. The City Planner presented the highlights from the staff report. He noted that an earlier conditional use permit (CUP No. 448) had been approved for this site for a truck maintenance facility. He stated that the landscaping and screening requirements were never completed. He reported that there had been numerous neighborhood complaints on the operation by the various tenants of this site. Ekola noted that this area is zoned I-1, light industrial . Retail sales are not allowed except for 15% of the floor area. Ekola referred to the Staff Recommendations included in the packet and summarized them as follows: 1. All conditions from CUP Resolution 448 must be met by May 15 , 1991. 2 . Applicant must comply with requirements of Section 11. 05, Subd. 5 by May 15, 1991. 3 . Applicant must obtain the necessary license. 4 . Area for outdoor storage cannot be expanded beyond that shown on site plan without amendment of CUP. 5. No additional filling or grading of site allowed without prior approval of City Engineer. 6 . Future filling and grading on site must be approved by Scott County. 7 . Entire business operation must be contained within the principal building. Exterior storage must be located within an opaque 8 ' high screened fence to be located as shown on site plan. 8 . Fire lanes as required by Fire Chief must be provided. 9 . Spray booth construction must be approved by City Fire Chief. 10 . All safety codes/life codes must be complied with that pertain to ventilation and storage of paint and lacquer products. 11. Road weight restrictions must be complied with. 12 . No additional accesses off Co. Rd. 18 will be allowed. 13 . If complaints warrant a review of this CUP, the City Administrator shall have the authority to require such a review. Minutes of the Page - 7 Shakopee Planning Commission March 7, 1991 Ekola said the staff recommendation should also include another condition, item 14 as requested by Scott County Environmental Health staff. 14 . All wastes shall be managed per Scott County ordinance. Commissioner Christensen asked what would happen if the Commission approves this request and the conditions are still not met. Ekola said that enforcement is difficult, but through CUP reviewal, renewal, or revocation, enforcement mechanisms are available to the City. The applicant, Mr. Jeff Flood, came forward to present the request. He gave an overview to the history of his business. He presented photographs of the types of vehicles that are bought and sold. He stated that the business had grown substantially and the number of vehicles had increased. They now rent the east portion of the building. They have made several improvements to the property. He noted theft has been a problem for their business. He stated that a fence would help protect their property. He added that their intention is to remove the dismantled vehicles and avoid parting cars out on the site in the future. Eventually they would like to purchase their own property and build on it. Chairperson Kahleck asked what the impact would be if they were limited to having 25 - 30 cars on the site. Flood answered that the limit would put a barrier on the prospering of their business. They have plans to grow and that would be a problem. Commissioner Joos cited magazine ads on retail sales by Flood Bros. Auto. Mr. Flood said that their vehicles were all wrecked, damaged, or salvaged. Chairperson Kahleck stated that retail sales are not permitted in the I-1 district except with a conditional use permit. Mr. Flood asked what the definition of retail and wholesale was. Over 80% of his vehicles were sold to licensed body shops and dealers. Commissioner Christensen asked if the owner or the tenant was responsible for compliance with the ordinance requirements. Minutes of the Page - 8 Shakopee Planning Commission March 7, 1991 Marty answered that it was the owner, but if there is a lease, the tenant is responsible also. Commissioner Mars asked Flood if he were to call Flood Brothers, could he but a car. Mr. Flood answered yes, he could. Commissioner Lynch asked how the business got started without the approval of the City. Ekola answered the City does not regulate the renting of buildings. The original CUP was for a trucking business and the use of the building has changed since that approval . Mr. Flood restated that they had been contacted about vehicles visible from the road and they had then moved them farther away from the road. He would like to show they have good intentions. Commissioner Spurrier asked what the applicant intended to do about the problem of leaking fluids. Ekola noted the Scott County Environmental Health Dept. review. Mr. Flood said that Scott County had brought this to their attention. Most vehicles are carried over 1, 000 miles on a transport and the fluid is gone by the time they reach Floods. For most vehicles are 90 - 120 days have passed since the accident date. The area is very clean where they are stored. Ekola noted the added recommendation concerning this issue. Mr. Howard Larson of 8785 Boiling Springs Lane came forward with photos of the area. He said he had a copy of the March letter from the City to the owner of the property. All that has been done since that time was that the cars were moved to the east end. Now, it is three times worse. There is a total lack of compliance. There has not been one tree planted. Mr. Glenn Zacharius of 2300 Horizon Circle, Burnsville, came forward and said he owns the property next to the site. (He owns 2 1/2 acres. ) He said he has owned the property for 12 years. Ten years ago, he was called in by the City and told that his heavy industrial property was a major problem. This is not a wholesale damaged car business - it is a junk yard. He showed photos. If this is allowed to go on, will he be allowed to put in a junk yard too? He would like immediate revocation within 30 days. 4 Minutes of the Page - 9 Shakopee Planning Commission March 7, 1991 Mr. Duane Ferguson (owner) of Bloomington, came forward to speak. He said on the first permit, there was no requirement for a fence, although he has told Ekola he would do it now. Ekola said that the area was zoned I-i. He explained the zoning of surrounding property and stated that zoning required a 6 ' high fence that is 80% opaque. Chairperson Kahleck noted that Floods will have to install an 8 ' fence that is 100% opaque also. Mr. Ferguson said that Dave' s Collision repairs cars for the general public and the Marble Company manufacturers marble counter tops for builders. Ms. Barbara Booth of 1746 Co. Rd. 18 came forward and said she objected on the grounds that she would like to keep the integrity of the neighborhood. The City was asked one year ago to clean up the site and it only has gotten worse. Marty said that the City has not been asked to date to enforce a CUP. A complaint could be filed and the matter taken to court. Only a minor fine would result. If the CUP were revoked, Floods could not continue in business. Mr. Flood said there was an obvious problem and he did not dispute that. The only time he has been asked to comply is now. They had done what was asked one year ago. They had cooperated with the City. Commissioner Lynch asked Mr. Flood about selling parts. Mr. Flood said that vehicles for parts were removed when no longer usable. Mr. Chris Anderson, owner of property at 1430 Maras Street came forward. The Floods are hard working kids and if properly screened he felt the business could be compatible. They are trying to grow and bring business to the community. They employ people. The area should be screened and landscaped. Mr. Joe Kelly of County Road 18 came forward and said the operation should have been kept out of Shakopee. An eight foot fence was specified three years ago. He noted that a good portion of the business is retail. Chairman Kahleck closed the public hearing. Minutes of the Page -10 Shakopee Planning Commission March 7 , 1991 Commissioner Christensen said that there is a huge problem with enforcement. Action should be taken by the Planning Commission and the site needs to be cleaned up. MOTION: Commissioner Spurrier moved that the Commission deny CUP No. 610 on the grounds that the applicant proposes to conduct retail business on the site, a use not permitted in this zone. Approval should not be considered until the applicant can be in compliance. Commissioner Allen seconded the motion. Chairperson Kahleck said that approval is for a wholesale damaged car business. The applicant can have that and conditions can be stated. The applicant will need to operate within these parameters. Commissioner Spurrier said he would be reluctant to form all these conditions into a motion this evening. Motion defeated by a 5 - 2 vote with Commissioner Spurrier and Commissioner Allen in favor. MOTION: Commissioner Joos moved that the Commissioner approve CUP Resolution No. 610 with the conditions 1 - 13 as included in the packet and to include additional items as follows: 14 . All wastes must be managed in accordance with the Scott County Solid Hazardous Waste Management Ordinance. 15. No retail sales will be allowed from this site. 16 . No parts sales are allowed on this site. 17 . No outside storage allowed except complete cars. 18 The conditional use permit will be reviewed at the June, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. Marty noted that the action says that Flood needs to comply with Resolution for CUP No. 448 . Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Flood asked for a description of wholesale and retail. Chairperson Kahleck answered that a business does not sell to individual people if it is wholesale. 4 Minutes of the Page -11 Shakopee Planning Commission March 7, 1991 IX. PUBLIC HEARING ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 6 - PAUL SCHWAESDALL Chairperson Kahleck opened the public hearing. Ekola said that the applicant is asking for a conditional use permit to serve liquor at his existing restaurant in the central business district. A conditional use permit is required. Expansion of the restaurant is proposed to seat an additional 40 people. Parking is provided in the City Parking Lot to the north of the building. Staff has received no opposition to the request and recommends approval. Paul Schwaesdall came forward and said he would answer any questions from the Commission. There were no questions and the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Commissioner Christensen moved that the Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 609 to allow the serving of liquor in a restaurant subject to the condition that if complaints to staff in the future on this use warrant a review by the Planning Commission, the City Administrator shall have the authority to require such a review. Commissioner Allen seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. X. PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - WOOD STORAGE Chairperson Kahleck opened the public hearing. Ekola noted that staff had been requested to research issues relating to the storage of firewood in Shakopee. This was based on numerous complaints from the community. There are many problems associated with wood storage, but the most complaints have been on properties in residential zoning districts. The problems include location, closeness to neighboring homes, fire hazards, and rodent infestation. The commercial zoning district also received complaints on this issue, but not as many as the residential district. Lack of screening, child safety, fire hazards, unsightly appearance and rodent infestation were the complaints received for the commercial district. There have been few complaints in the industrial district. There are two sections in the zoning ordinance that relate to wood storage. The first (Section 11. 60 - performance standards) establishes standards for outdoor storage for all districts. Second, each individual Minutes of the Page -12 Shakopee Planning Commission March 7, 1991 zoning district is to have regulations controlling permitted, conditional and accessory uses. These provisions are too general to regulate wood storage. Options available include: 1. Attempt to apply the existing codes on screening to wood storage. 2 . Update the code to provide better defined standards to wood storage. 3 . Retain the status as is at present. Ekola suggested the following standards to be considered in residential districts: 1. No wood pile storage in any front yard setback. 2 . On corner lots, no wood pile any closer to the street side property line than the principal structure. 3 . No wood storage closer than 5 ' to any interior property line. 4 . Wood must be stored in neat and secure stacks and cut in uniform lengths. Stacks to be no more than 5 ' high and 6 ' wide from end to end. Stack to be elevated at least 4" above ground. This would limit storage to about two cords of wood. 5 . Wood stacks are not to block access roads. 6 . Wood stacks are not to be located near emission sources. Commissioner Spurrier asked about storage of wood in public easement areas. Ekola said it had not been a problem so far. Commissioner Mars suggested the addition of compliance required within two weeks or a fine is imposed. Marty said that there were two problems: Present ordinances are inadequate and the only way to impose a fine is to go to court. Joos asked about the size limitation of two cords. Ekola said that the two cord size was set as a discussion point. Mr. John Lindmeyer of 1017 Shawmut came forward and showed photos of wood piles near his property. He said ordinances were needed on this matter. His neighbor heats his home with wood and does not care what Lindmeyer thinks. The wood storage devalues his property. .‘ Minutes of the Page -13 Shakopee Planning Commission March 7, 1991 Mr. Joe Perusich of 1098 Monroe came forward and said he has been burning wood for fifteen years. He burns five cords a winter. It takes lots of lead time to get the wood dry enough for burning - two years. He only has his yard for storage and has it in the back yard - about 6 - 12 cords. He asked how many fires had occurred in wood piles. He has never had rodents in his home or garage. His wood is stored on concrete slabs. He agrees that wood should be kept out of front yards and not stacked too close to other homes. Chairperson Kahleck closed the public hearing. MOTION: Commissioner Lynch moved the Commission direct staff to develop new standards to regulate wood storage. Commissioner Christensen seconded the motion. Commissioner Mars felt that two cords was too limiting. There should be no front yard storage allowed and side yard storage should have screening. Commissioner Joos said he would like to drive around the City and look at wood piles to have a better idea of what is needed. Commissioner Christensen suggested that a vote be taken on the motion to develop new standards and then it can be reconsidered if it is too limiting. Commissioner Allen felt any new ordinance should be fairly liberal . Commissioner Lynch said large lots in residential areas need to be considered also. Motion passed unanimously. XI. J. L. SHIELY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. 375 MOTION: Commissioner Spurrier moved that the Commission direct staff to set a public hearing to consider the renewal of CUP Resolution No. 375. Commissioner Allen seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. March 27th was chosen for the Commission' s field trip of the J. L. Shiely site. XII . QUARTERLY UPDATE - INTERIM ORDINANCE Ekola noted that there are three alternatives being developed for both proposed collector streets. Staff has been in contact with the School District and the City is taking the lead role on the public street projects. Minutes of the Page -14 Shakopee Planning Commission March 7 , 1991 Mr. Jim Stillman of Shakopee came forward representing a citizens committee. He said that one year ago some citizens had expressed interest in rebuilding the high school track. It was determined that a larger site was needed for athletic facilities for the high school . He explained the maps that he had distributed. Chairperson Kahleck thanked Mr. Stillman and noted that the Committee has come a long ways on the proposal . Commissioner Spurrier noted that there is multi-jurisdictional use of this property. He commended the hard work of the Committee. Commissioner Mars said that this is very important, this prime piece of land. The City should find a way to move on this opportunity. Commissioner Lynch said that the Committee can work within the parameters set by the City. MOTION: Lynch moved that the Commission accept the quarterly update. Commissioner Joos seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. XIII. 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM Ekola reviewed the list of objectives in the packet in the order of priority for the Planning Commission for 1991. He suggested three alternatives and said he was recommending alternative 1: Move to recommend Council approval of the 1991 Planning Commissioner Work Program as proposed. MOTION: Commissioner Lynch moved that the Commission recommend to Council approval of the 1991 Planning Commission Work Program as proposed. Commissioner Joos seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. XIV. ASSISTANT PLANNER POSITION Ekola said that he felt strongly about the need for this position. Many tasks need to be undertaken. The Planning Dept. is understaffed. He identified a number of long term projects that need to be done, but the budget has been reduced in recent years. He has researched surrounding communities and is recommending the Commission recommend to City Council to authorize advertisement for the position. Minutes of the Page -15 Shakopee Planning Commission March 7, 1991 MOTION: Commissioner Joos moved that the Commission recommend to the Council that they authorize the advertisement for the position of Assistant Planner for the City of Shakopee. Commissioner Lynch seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. XV. ELECTION OF OFFICERS A. PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRPERSON - KAHLECK MOTION: Commissioner Joos moved that Kahleck be elected Chairperson of the Planning Commission. There were no other nominations. Kahleck was elected unanimously. B. PLANNING COMMISSION - VICE-CHAIRPERSON - JOOS MOTION: Commissioner Allen moved that Joos be elected Vice- Chairperson of the Planning Commission. There were no other nominations. Joos was elected unanimously. C. PLANNING COMMISSION 2ND VICE-CHAIRPERSON - ALLEN MOTION: Commissioner Joos moved that Allen be elected second Vice-chairperson of the Planning Commission. There were no other nominations. Allen was elected unanimously. XVI . ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission adjourned at 12 : 35 A.M. r7 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION March 7 , 1991 MEMBERS PRESENT: Kahleck, Spurrier, Mars, Lynch, Joos, Allen and Christensen MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Lindberg Ekola, City Planner; Karen Marty, City Attorney; Dave Hutton, Public Works Superintendent and Sharon Storholm, Recording Secretary I. ROLL CALL Chairperson Kahleck called the meeting of the Shakopee Board of Adjustment and Appeals to order at 7 : 30 P.M. Roll call was taken as noted above. II . APPROVAL OF AGENDA Agenda approved as submitted. III . ELECTION OF OFFICERS Ekola noted that the election of officers is usually held at the end of the meeting. It was his recommendation that this be moved to the end of the agenda. Chairperson Kahleck suggested that the Board consider separate chairpersons for the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and the Planning Commission. MOTION: Commissioner Lynch moved that the election of officers be moved to the end of the Planning Commission agenda. Commissioner Spurrier seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. IV. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 7 , 1991 MEETING MINUTES The minutes for the February 7th meeting were approved as submitted. V. RECOGNITION BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS OF INTERESTED CITIZENS. Chairperson Kahleck stated that anyone present in the audience wishing to speak on any issue not on the agenda should speak up at this time. There was no response. Minutes of the Page - 2 Board of Adjustment and Appeals March 7, 1991 VI. PUBLIC HEARING ON VARIANCE NO. 611 - DAVID BROWN AND KINGA KOCSIS-BROWN. Chairperson Kahleck opened the public hearing. Ekola noted that the applicants are requesting a variance to allow a building permit to be issued for a parcel which does not abut a public dedicated street. Section 11. 03 , Subdivision 7.H requires that building permits for principal structures be released for lots or parcels that abut dedicated streets only. He noted the two exceptions to the ordinance. He said that the property consisted of 20 acres. This property does not meet either description for an exception. Requiring parcels to have frontage on a public street is the only way, other than a PUD process, that the City can ensure that properties get proper and perpetual access. He stated that the applicants are creating a hardship for themselves by seeking to split off this specific land locked parcel. He noted other options available to the applicant. He cited where private easements have resulted in a variety of maintenance problems for both property owners and the City. He noted that the applicants were requesting a variance for five years since they intend to build within that time frame. A variance is only good for a one year period by ordinance. Commissioner Lynch asked how the Scott County Engineer felt about additional driveways on County Road 17. Ekola said the County Engineer limits the number of driveways onto County roads for safety reasons. A public street would be preferred to individual driveways. The applicant, Mr. David Brown, of 9830 Cromwell Drive, came forward to present the request. He referred the Board members to the map in the packet and explained the history of the property. In 1975 his father had bought 120 acres from Alex Schmidt. The 40 acres on the west side were sold off in 10 acre lots. Five acres on the east side were also sold off. On the south edge, a 66' wide parcel was reserved to gain future access to the property. In November of 1990, Ms. Bergquist bought property and he had taken an equitable position with Ms. Bergquist. He reviewed the criteria to grant variances and gave his explanation as follows: 1. Extraordinary circumstances: The 66 ' reservation was done before 1981. 2. Topography: There is no other location for a driveway because of the topography on the remaining areas of the site. 7 Minutes of the Page - 3 Board of Adjustment and Appeals March 7, 1991 3 . Literal interpretation: A literal interpretation would deprive him of rights enjoyed by others. 4 . Specific circumstances not caused by applicant: There are no roads in the area available to him. 5 . Special privileges: Others in the area are served by private easements. 6 . It is not detrimental to the ordinance or surrounding properties. He stated that he felt the easement will grant proper and perpetual access. A variance is the least destructive solution to the problem - an easement can be abandoned. If a street were dedicated, problems could result. He felt the ordinance was vague and broad. The Bergquists were being denied their freedom and he would be denied his freedom under the constitution. Mr. Gary Bergquist of 8325 Upper 138th Court, Apple Valley, came forward to speak in favor of the request. Commissioner Joos asked how they intended to access the site. Mr. Brown answered that it would be accessed off of County Road 17 . He has consulted an engineer. Chairperson Kahleck asked if the variance were to be granted, it could still be in effect 50 years from now and the City could be stuck with the decision to allow for a land locked parcel for a long time. Mr. Brown said the property would be subdivided in the future. The nicer area including the woods near the back of the property is the location where he and his wife would like to build their home. Mr. Al Fisher of 2155 Hillside Drive came forward and said he has no problem with the building of the home, but if more homes come to the area, there may be a traffic problem. Chairperson Kahleck said that traffic issues could be addressed at the time of platting the property. Mr. Brown said that there is a couple of hundred feet on Hillside Drive that abut the Bergquist property to the north. A cul-de-sac could be brought in from this street. Chairperson Kahleck closed the public hearing. Minutes of the Page - 4 Board of Adjustment and Appeals March 7, 1991 MOTION: Commissioner Spurrier moved that the Board deny Resolution No. 611 allowing a building permit to be issued for a parcel which does not abut a dedicated public street. The reasons for this recommendation are as follows: 1. The applicants are creating the hardship themselves. 2 . The creation of land locked parcels has resulted in considerable problems in the past. 3 . Requiring frontage to a dedicated public street ensures proper and perpetual access to the property. Commissioner Joos seconded the motion. Commissioner Joos said that these situations exist all over the City. He did not wish to create another one. Shakopee is urbanizing. Platting of land in the City is needed to promote orderly development. Motion passed unanimously. Chairperson Kahleck told Mr. Brown that he had seven days to appeal the decision. The meeting was adjourned to the end of the Planning Commission. (8 : 10) Meeting reconvened at 12 : 36 A.M. VII . ELECTION OF OFFICERS A. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS CHAIRPERSON - JOOS MOTION: Commissioner Christensen nominated Commissioner Joos for the position of Chairperson of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. There were no other nominations. Joos elected unanimously. B. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS VICE-CHAIRPERSON - SPURRIER MOTION: Commissioner Lynch nominated Spurrier for the position of Vice-Chairperson for the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Minutes of the Page - 5 Board of Adjustment and Appeals March 7, 1991 There were no other nominations. Spurrier elected unanimously. C. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS 2ND VICE-CHAIRPERSON - CHRISTENSEN MOTION: Commissioner Lynch nominated Christensen for the position of second Vice-Chairperson for the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. There were no other nominations. Christensen elected unanimously. VIII .ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 12 : 45 A.M. Northern States Power Company Law Department Gary R. nson 414 Nicollet Mall Attorneys Vice President—taw Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Gene R.Sommers Telephone le (612)330-6600 Raba s Towler Nobles M.Winston Tep Joseph 0.Buzano.Jr. Secretary Fax No. (612)330-7558 swpnen clot Harold J.Bagley David A.Lawrence Jock F.*holm James L.Altman Director—Law Director—law DonnNba L Rice Chen L.Bits Winery Direct Dial Number Michael .Manson 330-6648 MichaelC Cor March 18, 1991 TO MUNICIPALITIES AND COUNTIES IN NSP'S ELECTRIC SERVICE TERRITORY: Re: Minnesota Public Utilities Commission Docket No. E-002/GR-91-1 On January 28 , 1991 , Northern States Power Company ( "NSP" ) filed for an electric rate increase with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission ( "PUC" ) . The Commission has referred this filing to the Office of Administrative Hearings for evidentiary and public hearings. A prehearing conference was held at 9 : 30 a.m. on March 15 , 1991 , before Judge Richard C. Luis , at the American Center Building, 780 Kellogg Boulevard, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 . Other procedural matters are discussed in the PUC' s Notice and Order for Hearing which is enclosed . Also enclosed is NSP ' s Notice of Application for Rate Increase. If there are questions , feel free to call the undersigned . DAVID A. LAWRENCE Director - Law Notice to Counties and Municipalities Under Minn. Stat. § 2166.16(1) BEFORE THE MINNESOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION STATE OF MINNESOTA In the Matter of the Application ) of NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, ) Minneapolis, Minnesota, for ) NOTICE OF APPLICATION Authority to Change Its Schedule ) FOR RATE INCREASE of Electric Rates for Retail Customers ) Within the State of Minnesota ) Docket No. E-002/GR-91-001 On January 28, 1991, Northern States Power Company (NSP) filed notice of an incrEase in its electric rates with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §2166.16. The Company proposed a schedule of new rates to take effect on March 29, 1991. The Commission has suspended the proposed rates so they do not go into effect and has set the matter for formal hearing. Pursuant to state law, the Commission will permit the Company to put interim rates into effect on March 29, 1991, until a final rate level is determined. NSP has filed a schedule of interim rates based on the Commission Order in the preceding NSP electric rate case. The Commission will determine the amount of increase in rates it will allow on or before December 2, 1991, and final rates reflecting that determination will be implemented thereafter. If the final rates level is less than the interim rate level , the amount collected during the interim period attributable to that difference will be refunded to customers with interest. Examples of the effect of these increases on typical bills are as follows: e/ Average Monthly Bills Residential Service Use Present* Interim Proposed 250 KWH $ 16.10 $ 17.06 $ 18.34 500 KWH $ 34.70 $ 36.76 $ 37.18 750 KWH $ 49.80 $ 52.76 $ 53.53 1000 KWH $ 64.90 $ 68.76 $ 69.87 Small General Service 500 KWH $ 36.80 $ 38.99 $ 39.28 1000 KWH $ 67.00 $ 70.98 $ 71.97 2000 KWH $127.40 $134.97 $137.33 The Department of Public Service is conducting an investigation of NSP' s books and records. Individual customers will be notified when public hearings are scheduled. The proposed rate schedules and a comparison of present and proposed rates may be examined by the public during normal business hours at the Department of Public Service, 790 American Center Building, 160 East Kellogg Boulevard, St. Paul and at Northern States Power Company offices located at 414 Nicollet Mall , Minneapolis; 2302 Great Northern Drive, Fargo; 421 Wabasha St. , St. Paul ; 825 Rice St. , St. Paul ; 1700 E. County Road E, White Bear Lake; 3000 Maxwell Ave. , Newport; 2763 First Ave. N.W. , Faribault; 3930 Pepin Ave. , Red Wing; 3515 Third St. N. , St. Cloud; 5050 Service Drive, Winona; 500 W. Russell St. , Sioux Falls; 4501 68th Ave. N. , Brooklyn Center; 5309 W. 70th St. , Edina; 210 Lime St. , Mankato; 5505 County Road 19, Shorewood; 1505 Washington Ave. , Montevideo; and 3115 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville. If you wish to intervene or testify in this case, contact the Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings, Fifth Floor, Flour Exchange Building, 310 South Fourth Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55415. * The present rate levels identified in this application represent the rates authorized by the Commission in 1988, in Docket E002/GR-87-670. -2- Cl MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: Regulating Parades DATE: March 26, 1991 At their regular meeting on March 19th, City Council directed staff to research whether or not the City should license parades and charge a fee. The Chief of Police has indicated that he would like Council to consider adopting an ordinance regulating conducting parades. He plans on researching ordinances from other communities and prepare a draft for a future council meeting. We have contacted the League of Minnesota Cities to find out what other cities charge for a parade. We learned that in 1982 only two cities were charging a fee for a parade and that in 1985 and 1987 no cities listed a fee for parades in the fee schedule put together by the League. This will also be addressed in the memo to go to council at a later date regarding licensing parades. Die Minutes of the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee City Council Chambers March 20, 1991 Chairperson Keen called the meeting to order at 7 : 50 A.M. with Commissioners D. Wermerskirchen, Kahleck, Keen, VanHorn, B. Wermerskirchen and Phillips present. Commissioner Fonder was absent. Barry Stock, Assistant City Administrator and Lindberg Ekola, City Planner were also present. B. Wermerskirchen/D. Wermerskirchen moved to approve the minutes of the February 13 , 1991 meeting as kept. Motion carried unanimously. Chairman Keen asked if there were any nominations for the chairperson position. Commissioner B. Wermerskirchen questioned if anyone objected to having the same officers hold their positions for another year. There were no objections. Chairperson Keen asked if there were any other nominations other than the existing officers. Nominations included with Mary Keen as Chair, Bill Wermerskirchen as Vice-chair and Duane Wermerskirchen as 2nd Vice- chair. There were no other nominations. B. Wermerskirchen/Phillips moved a white ballot for Mary Keen to serve as Chairperson, Bill Wermerskirchen to serve as Vice-chairperson and Duane Wermerskirchen to serve as 2nd Vice-chairperson. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stock stated that at the last meeting the Downtown Committee discussed updating the Revitalization Plan. The discussion came up in conjunction with an evaluation of the need for additional parking in the downtown as a result of the two parking lots that will be occupied during the mini bypass construction. Mr. Stock stated that the Downtown Revitalization Plan was completed in 1984 . He also stated that the unapproved Comprehensive Plan establishes updating the Revitalization Plan as a objective to be completed in either 1991 or 1992 . Mr. Stock then reviewed a list of work tasks that he developed based on the comments received from the Commissioners at their last meeting. Mr. B. Wermerskirchen stated that in the 1984 Revitalization Plan the railroad bisecting the downtown area was identified as a constraint. He stated that he has heard nothing but positive comments on how the railroad has been cleaned up in conjunction with the Phase I Redevelopment Project. Mr. Stock noted that the main difference between the 1984 mini bypass design and the final design is that the current design provides for a new bridge at Lewis Street. The 1984 plan included redeveloping the existing bridge. Discussion ensued on the three critical entry points that will be created when the downtown mini bypass is completed. Mr. D. Wermerskirchen stated that he felt that a clock tower would certainly improve the entrance into the downtown area. Minutes of the Page - 2 Downtown Ad Hoc Committee March 20, 1991 Commissioner VanHorn stated that the development of a bell tower or clock tower would focus people ' s attention away from the rear sides of the buildings on First Ave. Chairman Keen questioned what the cost estimate for the study was. Mr. Stock stated that the cost estimate to complete the study ranged between $25, 000 and $30, 000. Discussion ensued on the funding source for the study. It was the consensus of the Committee that the funds generated from the sale of the City parking lots should be allocated toward improving the downtown area. It was the consensus of the Committee that this would be a viable source for the funding for the study. Discussion ensued on the rear sides of the buildings located on First Ave. Mr. Stock noted that the Herrgott building on the west side of the City Hall block would be demolished in conjunction with the mini bypass. Mr. B. Wermerskirchen stated that this would certainly improve the rear sides of the buildings on First Ave. Mr. Wermerskirchen went on to state that he felt the rear sides of the buildings on First Ave. that will remain do have some historic and visual integrity. Commissioner VanHorn concurred and stated that if the stairways and railings were repaired, the buildings wouldn't be that bad. Discussion ensued on other methods to shield the rear sides of the buildings from the mini bypass. Commissioner D. Wermerskirchen questioned whether or not trees or shrubs could be planted between the alleyway and the mini bypass to serve as a screen. Mr. Stock stated that he did not know if there was enough room between the alley and the roadway for planting. Discussion ensued on the improvement of Huber Park. Mr. B. Wermerskirchen stated that this area is in the flood plain and that minimal amounts of improvements could be made to the property. Mr. Stock stated that the boat landing could probably be enhanced in such a fashion to protect it from flood damage. Commissioner VanHorn questioned what the City' s plans were in terms of filling Huber Park. Mr. Stock stated that at one point in time it was the intention of the City to extend Levy Dr. to connect with Bluff Ave. He felt that this was the rational for filling the park over the past five years. Mr. Stock stated that he did not know if that was indeed the City' s desired course of action in the future. It was the consensus of the Committee that the work tasks identified are important and should be evaluated by an outside consultant in an effort to develop a work program for improving the downtown area. Mr. B. Wermerskirchen stated that if a plan is completed within the next year, it will be likely another two years before any specific improvements are made as a result of the Downtown Revitalization Plan update. Mr. B. Wermerskirchen stated that he did feel it was important to proceed at this time in order to have a plan that coincides with the completion of the mini bypass. , O Minutes of the Page - 3 Downtown Ad Hoc Committee March 20, 1991 Kahleck/B. Wermerskirchen moved to recommend to the Community Development Commission that the appropriate City officials be authorized to solicit proposals for updating the Downtown Revitalization Plan. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stock noted that in conjunction with the completion of the downtown mini bypass MN DOT will be working in cooperation with Shakopee Public Utility Commission to relocate and underground overhead utilities within the bypass construction area. Mr. Stock stated that the City has received a correspondence from Mr. Lou VanHout questioning whether or not it would be appropriate at this time to discuss other undergrounding of overhead utility lines in the downtown area. Mr. Stock noted that when Phase I of the Downtown Revitalization Plan was completed that conduit was installed in Sommerville St. , from First Ave. to Third Ave. and in each of the streets/alley intersections. It was the intention of the Downtown Committee and City Council at that time that it would be in the best interest of the community to underground the utility lines in the downtown area from both an aesthetic and operation standpoint. The underground conduit installed in Phase I also made it possible for the City to pursue future undergrounding without having to upset the newly constructed streets. Mr. Stock noted that the City absorbed the entire cost of the conduit that was installed in the Phase I project area. The cost equated to approximately $80, 000. Mr. Stock noted that if indeed the undergrounding of overhead utility lines occurs, it will also be necessary to upgrade certain alleys. Mr. Stock stated that the alleys are in terrible shape at this time. The approximate cost to reconstruct an alley has been estimated at $6, 000. If the assessment is applied to all properties within a block for the alley improvement it would equate to approximately 6. 60 per square foot. Mr. Stock stated that property owners would also be responsible for the utility service line connection to their business establishment if undergrounding occurs. The cost estimate for undergrounding the service line would vary depending on the distance of the business from the utility manhole. Staff estimates for service line costs range between $1, 500 and $3 , 000 per business. Commissioner B. Wermerskirchen stated that he felt that the overhead utility lines in the downtown area were a tremendous eyesore and that it would seem appropriate to pursue undergrounding if the Shakopee Public Utility Commission is interested in a cost share arrangement. Commissioner B. Wermerskirchen questioned whether or not the railroad telegraph lines could also be removed. Mr. Stock stated that City staff has been in contact with the railroad officials in the past and that they have expressed interest in removing the telegraph lines at some point in time. If the City pursues undergrounding of the overhead utility lines in // o Minutes of the Page - 4 Downtown Ad Hoc Committee March 20, 1991 the downtown area, Mr. Stock stated that he felt additional pressure could be placed on the railroad to urge them to pursue undergrounding at this time. Commissioner D. Wermerskirchen stated that he felt the property owners along First Ave. might object to the cost of undergrounding the utility lines since they will also be hit with an assessment when Phase I of the Downtown Redevelopment Project is completed. He did personally however see a benefit to having the overhead utility lines undergrounded and the alleys reconstructed. Commissioner VanHorn stated that he thought the decision was fairly obvious. He felt that undergrounding of the lines and reconstruction of the alleys went without saying. Commissioner Wermerskirchen stated that before a decision could be made on this issue, he would like to see more information in terms of the cost projections for undergrounding the overhead lines in the alleys, as well as the individual service line cost estimates. D. Wermerskirchen/Kahleck moved to recommend to the Community Development Commission that the appropriate City officials be directed to meet with the Shakopee Public Utility Commission officials to generate further cost estimates on undergrounding the overhead utility lines in the downtown area, reconstruction the alleys and potential cost share arrangements. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stock stated that he has completed an inventory of those businesses that will be relocated as a result of the mini bypass. It was the consensus of the Commission to approach the businesses that will be relocated, offering any technical assistance that we can in terms of helping them find alternative retail space in the downtown area. Mr. Stock noted that the majority of the property owners have been notified that their property will be acquired for right-of-way purposes. Commissioner Keen adjourned the meeting at 9 : 00 A.M. Barry A. Stock, Recording Secretary 11 Minutes of the Shakopee Community Development Commission City Council Chambers Wednesday, March 20, 1991 Chairman Miller called the meeting to order at 5 : 35 P.M. with the following members present: Mike Pennington, Charles Brandmire, Mike Beard, Bill Mars, Jane DuBois, Jon Albinson and Mark Miller present. Barry Stock, Assistant City Administrator, Jim Stillman and Jim Fehring were also present. Pennington/Beard moved to approve the minutes of the February 20, 1991 meeting as kept. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stock gave the Committee a brief economic development update. He noted that DelMac Petroleum was still considering Shakopee in their site development plans. In regard to the Jasper proposal, Mr. Stock noted that on March 4 , 1991 he appeared with Mr. Jasper at the Shakopee Public Utility Commission meeting to request that the Utility Commission ' s policy on watermain looping be waived in this case. Mr. Stock stated that the Shakopee Public Utility Commission did vote in favor of Mr. Jasper' s request. Therefore, Mr. Jasper is not requesting City financial assistance to loop the watermain at this time. Mr. Stock went on to state that he expected Mr. Jasper to submit another request for financing assistance for his proposed residential project due to the extraordinary costs with installing individual service lines for each of the proposed residential units. Mr. Stock noted that rock is at or near the surface in the proposed project area. Chairman Miller introduced Mr. Jim Stillman. Mr. Stillman stated that he is serving as co-chairperson for the School District ' s Athletic Facility Committee. He stated that the Committee was created in conjunction with the School District ' s Strategic Planning process. Mr. Stillman then gave a brief bit of history on the School District ' s land use planning process that has occurred over the past twenty years. Mr. Stillman noted that the subcommittee' s original task was to determine an appropriate spot for the athletic field. When this issue was analyzed, it became apparent that the School District was in need of additional land to facilitate expansion at their existing site. This is what prompted the School District to request the moratorium on development within the 160 acre quadrant. Mr. Stillman stated that the subcommittee had the School District ' s consultants complete a conceptual design of the area located within the moratorium area. He noted that when the subcommittee began to evaluate the school ' s needs in conjunction with the community' s needs, it became that this was an ideal site with great development 1/ potential in terms of the community needs for park, recreation, municipal and school district needs. Mr. Stillman noted that the Committee would like to request the Community Development Commission to go on record in support of the formation of a subcommittee comprised of both school and municipal officials to evaluate the potential acquisition of the entire 160 acre parcel. Mr. Stillman also stated that one of the objectives of the subcommittee would be to identify possible funding alternatives for acquiring said property. Discussion ensued on whether or not the entire 160 acre parcel was needed for school and/or community needs. Discussion also ensued on the alternative funding sources. Commissioner Mars questioned how many acres the Committee identified for school needs. Mr. Stillman stated that 32 acres has been identified by the school for their future growth needs. Mr. Stock noted that the present school district site occupies approximately 26 acres. Chairman Miller stated that numerous questions were asked regarding the site. The Commissioners have stated good questions but that he felt that they could best be answered by the Committee that the Athletic Facility group is requesting to have created. Beard/Mars moved to recommend to City Council that a subcommittee of CDC be established with representation from the CDC, Park Advisory Board, Planning Commission, School District and City Council to analyze the potential for acquiring the entire parcel occupied by the moratorium area. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stock reported that the City has received correspondence from the Shakopee Public Utility Commission manager regarding undergrounding of overhead utility lines within the downtown area. Mr. Stock noted that when the downtown project was initiated, it was the intention of the City officials that it would be beneficial to have the overhead utility lines within the downtown area relocated underground. Mr. Stock noted that when Phase I of the Downtown Redevelopment Project area was completed, conduit was installed under the newly constructed streets when future undergrounding might be practical. There was also conduit installed in each of the alley intersections. The cost for installing the conduit for the future undergrounding was absorbed by the City as a project cost. The approximate cost for the undergrounding was $80, 000. Mr. Stock noted that in conjunction with the mini bypass, MN DOT in cooperation with the Shakopee Public Utility Commission will be undergrounding the overhead utility lines located North of 1st Ave. within the mini bypass right-of-way area. Mr. VanHout is now requesting whether or not the City is interested in some sort of cost sharing arrangement between the City and Shakopee Public Utility Commission to underground additional overhead lines in the downtown area. Mr. Stock noted that if undergrounding does occur, the abutting property owners would be responsible for costs associated with relocating their service connection from overhead to underground. Mr. Stock noted that there would also be costs for reconstructing I/ Minutes of the Page - 3 Community Development Commission March 20, 1991 the alleys in which undergrounding occurs. Chairman Miller questioned if the alley improvements would be assessed. Mr. Stock responded in the affirmative. Mr. Stock stated that the assessment of an alley would probably be applied on a zonal basis to all property owners within the block. Commissioner Brandmire questioned whether or not the Shakopee Public Utility Commission would be responsible for covering a cost of the individual service line. Mr. Stock stated that he was not aware of the Shakopee Public Utility Commission' s policy on this issue. Mr. Stock noted that the Downtown Committee was concerned about the various costs and how they would be assessed. Mr. Stock noted that the Downtown Committee is recommending to the Community Development Commission that the appropriate City officials be directed to meet with the Shakopee Public Utility Commission officials to generate cost estimates, potential cost share arrangements and assessment alternatives for undergrounding the overhead utility lines in the downtown area and improving the alleys and report the findings back to the Downtown Committee and Community Development Commission for further consideration. Commissioner Brandmire stated that the alleys are a mess right now and that if the only benefit from all this is that the alleys get improved, he felt it was an accomplishment. Chairman Miller questioned the condition of the overhead utility lines in the downtown area. Commissioner Brandmire stated that the overhead lines are in poor condition. He noted that the insulation is peeling off in may cases and that the lines have been spliced in many areas. Commissioner Pennington concurred that the alleys were in atrocious condition. Mars/Brandmire moved to recommend to the City Council that the appropriate City officials be directed to meet with the Shakopee Public Utility Commission officials to generate cost estimates, potential cost share arrangements and assessment alternatives regarding the undergrounding of overhead utility lines in the downtown area and improving the alleys and report the findings back for further review and analysis. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stock reported that on February 20 the Community Development Commission requested staff to draft a Residential Development Incentive Policy for the Commission' s review and consideration. Mr. Stock noted that the proposed Residential Development Incentive Policy is drafted in a format similar to the existing Industrial Development Incentive Program and Commercial/Retail Development Incentive Program. Mr. Stock stated that the funding sources for the Residential Incentive Policy were somewhat precarious. Mr. Minutes of the Page - 4 Community Development Commission March 20, 1991 Stock noted that the only viable source that he could think of was the HRA fund balance. He noted that this fund has been discussed on many occasions as a funding source for various projects. To date, Mr. Stock stated that there is approximately $175, 000 of un- allocated proceeds at this time. To give the Commission a better grasp of the magnitude of assistance for a typical residential project, Mr. Stock used the Jasper proposal that was presented at the last meeting. Mr. Stock noted that the Jasper proposal would have been eligible for approximately $45, 000 in assistance. This would assume a three year tax increment collection. If the policy was amended to simply capture the City portion of the taxes payable during a three year period, the amount of taxes collected over a three year period would have equated to $7 , 500. Discussion ensued on the proposed policy. Commissioner DuBois questioned why a potential project had to have a minimum size of two acres. Mr. Stock stated that he did not have any firm rationale for two acres. Commissioner DuBois questioned what other cities do for residential development assistance. Mr. Stock stated that he is not aware of any other cities that have specific residential development policies for new development. Commissioner DuBois questioned whether or not the program could be amended at a later date if it was necessary. Mr. Stock responded in the affirmative. Chairman Miller questioned whether the City would see an increased need for residential assistance after the mini bypass, County Rd. 18 and southerly bypass are completed. Mr. Stock stated that he did not believe that it was the intent of the proposed program to assist developers who are building houses in the newer subdivisions where there are few development restraints. Mr. Stock stated that he felt the program was for projects where there are extraordinary development costs due to blight of unusual soil conditions. Commissioner Mars stated that in order to be eligible for this program you would have to present a hardship situation. He went on to state that if those types of criteria are not included in the program at this time, they should be added. Commissioner Albinson concurred. Commissioner Beard stated that when he made the motion last month to have staff develop a policy, he expected to have guidelines and program criteria developed which would actually set forth when City assistance would be available. Commissioner Beard stated that it was his understanding that the money available in this program would be issued as a grant. Mr. Stock stated that a grant is one option of disbursing the money. Other options might include a revolving loan program or an interest write-down program. Commissioner Beard stated that if we are going to have this program 1/ Minutes of the Page - 5 Community Development Commission March 20, 1991 established on a grant basis, we should have some pretty tight guidelines. Commissioner DuBois questioned whether or not the proposed program would cover a single family homeowner who had some major improvements that were necessary in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the occupants. Mr. Stock stated that this program would not be available to single family homeowners for rehabilitation purposes. Commissioner DuBois questioned whether or not that type of a program could be incorporated into this program. She went on to state that there were many older homes in the community in need of rehabilitation. Mr. Stock stated that he felt that a rehab program for residential purposes was totally separate in terms of scope from what the intention of the currently proposed program was. He stated that he felt the Community Development Commission should establish what objectives they are trying to accomplish in order of priority. Mr. Stock stated that the improvement of blighted areas or areas where development would not occur without the infusion of City assistance, is one area to look at. A second area might be to evaluate the need for a program to assist property owners in need of rehabilitating their property. Mr. Stock stated that he felt these were two distinct, separate objectives and that a separate program should be developed for each one of them. However, given the limited financial resources available, he felt it was important for the Committee to identify what they feel is of utmost importance and draft a program that would accomplish their desired objective. Mr. Stock stated that he felt a housing subcommittee should be created to evaluate and list in order of priority the housing needs in our community. Discussion ensued on the primary housing objective in our community. Commissioner Albinson stated that he felt that the primary objective of the Committee, in terms of a housing program, should be to stimulate the development of property that would not otherwise develop without the infusion of City assistance. Mr. Albinson stated that he felt the private sector would take care of the older housing stock in the community. He noted that when older residents move out, younger families will move in and renovate the property. Commissioner DuBois stated that she felt at some point in time the community has to recognize the problem with the older housing stock in Shakopee. She felt that, in her opinion, a program should be developed at some point in time to assist property owners in rehabilitating the residential housing stock. Commissioner Beard stated that the original intent with his motion made at the last meeting was to have a program that would not simply be a handout to everyone who applied. He concurred with // Minutes of the Page - 6 Community Development Commission March 20, 1991 Commissioner Albinson and stated that it was his intention that a program should be developed to assist developers or property owners when a true hardship exists that would make it otherwise impossible for the property to become developed. It was the consensus of the Committee that the program guidelines should be redrafted and tightened up in order to address the "but for" test. Mars/DuBois moved to table the Housing Assistance Policy. Motion carried unanimously. Albinson/Beard moved to table the evaluation of the Business Appreciation Program, City Map Layout and Subcommittee Reports until the next meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Miller asked if there were any nominations for the officers positions. Commissioner Brandmire offered the following slate of officers: Jon Albinson, Chairperson Bill Mars, Vice-chairperson Mike Beard, 2nd Vice-chairperson There were no other nominations. Pennington/DuBois moved for the appointment of the slate of officers. Motion carried unanimously. Mars/DuBois moved to adjourn the meeting at 6: 50 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. Barry A. Stock, Recording Secretary TENTATIVE AGENDA REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA APRIL 2 , 1991 Mayor Gary Laurent presiding 1] Roll Call at 7 : 00 P.M. 2] Approval of Agenda 3 ] Recess for H.R.A. Meeting 4] Re-convene 5] Liaison Reports from Councilmembers 6] Mayor' s Report 7 ] RECOGNITION BY CITY COUNCIL OF INTERESTED CITIZENS 8] Approval of Consent Business - (All items listed with an asterisk are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. ) *9] Approve Minutes of March 19, 1991 10] Communications: a] Mrs. Mary Jo Eakle, Student Council Advisor, Sweeney School - thanks for proclamation b] Donald Fraser, Mayor of Minneapolis, - Urban CO2 Reduction Project 11] 7 : 00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - Appeal by David Brown from the Board of Adjustment and Appeals ' denial of a request for a variance to allow a building permit for a parcel which does not abut a dedicated public street 12] Boards and Commissions: Planning Commission: a] Appeal of Denial of Variance From Sign Ordinance by Leroy Signs, Inc. on Behalf of Norwest Bank - tabled 3/19 TENTATIVE AGENDA APRIL 2 , 1991 Page -2- 13 ] Reports from Staff: a] Application for Liquor Licenses - Pablo ' s Mexican Restaurant b] Underground Electric Utilities in The Downtown Area c] 1991 Board of Review *d] Surplus Equipment *e] Shakopee Basin WMO Delete *f] Administrative Policy No. 23 - Service Wyes g] Approve Bills in Amount of $613 , 790. 03 (which includes transfers in the amount of $524 , 805. 00) *h] Organization and Staffing of Park and Recreation Dept. 14] Resolutions and Ordinances: *a] Res. No. 3377 - Repealing Resolution No. 1298 Delete b] Res. No. 3379 - Supporting The Naming of The South Bypass The "Walt Harbeck Memorial Highway" *c] Res . No. 3378 - Declaring Adequacy of Petition and Order- ing Report for Alley Improvements to Block 1, Mary Mark Addition *d] Res. No. 3376 - Declaring Cost to be Assessed and Setting Public Hearing for Proposed Assessments for Adams Street Between 6th and 3rd and for 4th Avenue Between Adams and Harrison, Project No. 1990-3 15] Other Business: a] Re Yom✓ S� at, u..' .i aw 475. 37* V73 . 301 b] c] 16] Recess for an executive session to discuss the sale of property 17] Re-convene 18 ] Adjourn to Tuesday, April 9, at 7 : 00 P.M. Dennis R. Kraft City Administrator REMINDER OF UP COMING MEETINGS: April 9th at 7 : 00 P.M. with the Jackson & Louisville Township Boards - at Jackson Town Hall April 16th at 6 : 00__ P.M. with the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission TENTATIVE AGENDA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting April 2 , 1991 1. Roll Call at 7 : 00 P.M. 2 . Approval of the March 5, 1991 Meeting Minutes 3 . 5th Avenue Residential Development Project 4 . Other Business a) b) 5 . Recess to Executive Session following City Council meeting to discuss the potential sale of property. SEE EXECUTIVE SESSION AGENDA. 6 . Reconvene 7 . Adjourn Dennis R. Kraft Executive Director HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Regular Session Shakopee, MN March 5, 1991 Chairman Zak called the meeting to order at 7 : 05 p.m. with Comm. Vierling, Clay, Sweeney and Wampach present. Also present were Mayor Laurent, Dennis Kraft, City Administrator; Barry Stock, Asst. City Administrator; Dave Hutton, City Engineer; Karen Marty, City Attorney; and Judith S . Cox, City Clerk. Clay/Vierling moved to approve the minutes of February 5, 1991. Motion carried unanimously. There was no other business to be conducted at this time. Sweeney/Clay moved to recess to executive session following the City Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Chairman Zak reconvenened the meeting at 11: 50 p.m. Vierling /Wampach moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to advertise the property identified as Outlot A, macey' s 2nd Addition for sale with the City reserving the right to reject and and all bids. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Sweeney moved to authorize the appropriate HRA Officials to make a counter offer to MnDOT in the amount of $5. 52 per square foot for the property identified as Parcel 10 , Block 4 , Original Shakopee Plat. Motion carried unanimously. Chairman Zak adjourned the meeting at 11: 52 p.m. Dennis Kraft City Administrator Carol Schultz Recording Secretary 3. MEMO TO: Dennis R.Kraft, Executive Director FROM: Barry A. Stock, Assistant City Administrator RE: 5th Avenue Residential Development Project DATE: March 27, 1991 INTRODUCTION: On November 6, 1990, the Shakopee City Council authorized the appropriate City officials to commence eminent domain proceedings on the Gelhaye/Railroad property located North of the proposed 5th Avenue project. (See Attachment #1) . This action was taken in order for the City to assess the street improvement costs associated with the 5th Avenue Street Improvement Project. The property in question was comprised of irregularly shaped parcels that where not assessable. Now that the condemnation process is complete, staff would like the HRA to consider whether or not the HRA should become involved in acquiring the property from the City for development purposes. BACKGROUND: The property that has been acquired by the City through condemnation equates to approximately 3 . 20 acres. The condemnation award for the aforementioned property has been set at approximately $54, 000. 00. The pending assessments for the entire property will be approximately $95, 000. 00. Staff would like to suggest that the HRA acquire the property from the City for development purposes. The initial acquisition by the City Council will be funded from the City's construction funds. The reason why the City had to initially acquire the property is because they are the one body that initiated condemnation. The proposed HRA acquisition from the City of Shakopee would be funded from the HRA fund balance. The HRA fund balance presently has over $175, 000 of un-allocated proceeds available for this type of project. Upon acquisition of the property by the HRA, there are several courses of action available in terms of developing the aforementioned property. First, the HRA could select to plat the property and sell the lots on an individual lot basis. Shown in Attachment #2 is a proposed platting arrangement for the property to be acquired. Under this scenario, the shakopee HRA would also be responsible for covering the assessments costs associated with the 5th Avenue Project, and Market Street Project. The cost of the assessments for the property to be developed would be recaptured via the sale of the property. Staff has completed a financial analysis of this alternative. (See Attachment #3) . If this course of action is pursued and the City of Shakopee is successful in selling each of the platted lots for approximately $20, 000. 00, the project would end up costing the HRA $17, 680. 00. The second alternative for the HRA to consider if they acquire the property would be to plat the property into three outlots (see attachment #4) and sell Outlot C to a private developer. The property would again be sold on a closed bid basis. If this option is pursued, staff projects that property might generate a sale 3 price in the amount of $14,200. 00 with another $80, 000. 00 in assessments to be paid by the developer. Based on the financial analysis, staff does not believe that a private developer would be interested in developing the property outlined in Option #2 due to the high assessment figure. Therefore, staff believes that it would be appropriate for the HRA to pursue platting of the aforementioned property. While the HRA does not gain anything from a financial standpoint from pursuing staffs recommendation, in the long run the HRA, City and other taxing jurisdictions will benefit by having this property developed and placed on the tax rolls. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Authorize the appropriate HRA officials to negotiate with the City of Shakopee to acquire the subject property and initiate platting procedures following the execution of the purchase agreement. 2 . Do not acquire the property from the City of Shakopee. 3 . Direct the appropriate HRA officials to negotiate a purchase agreement with the City of Shakopee for the subject property and authorize the appropriate HRA officials to sell the property as three outlots. (Option #2) . 4 . Table action pending further information from staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative #1. ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the appropriate HRA officials to negotiate with the City of Shakopee to acquire the subject property and initiate platting procedures following the execution of the purchase agreement. BAS/tiv TAMI\ADMIN\5THPROPERTY ATTACHMENT #1 1111 t L MAIN = n 0 k1 1 i -,. ,,, MARKET ATTACHMENT #2 3 V 0 ZD yrk _\ . Li --_-1 Ole-I- I I iiii i -1111600 1 . MARKET I 0 01 Ili i Cr 0 -I > i WI 1 1 3 ATTACHMENT #3 PLATTING AND DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS Expenditures: Option 1 Option 2 Linear Lump Development Sale 1. Acquisition 54 , 000 . 00 54 , 000. 00 2 . Pending Assessments 95, 000 . 00 95, 000. 00 3 . Park Dedication Fees 4 , 100. 00 -- 4 . Platting Cost 5, 000. 00 -- 5. Contingency (5%) 7 , 800. 00 -- TOTAL 165, 900. 00 149 , 000. 00 Revenues: 1 . Sale of Platted Lots 120, 000. 00 (A) 94 , 280. 00 (C) 2 . Sale of Outlot A (approx . 16 acre) 2 , 720. 00 (B) 2 , 720 . 00 (B) 3 . Sale of Outlot B (approx 1. 50 acre) 25 , 500. 00 (B) 17 , 680 . 00 (B) TOTAL 148 , 220. 00 114 , 680. 00 Total Project Deficit ($17 , 680. 00) ($34 , 320 . 00) A. $20, 000 Sale Per Lot B. Based on $17 , 000 Acre Rate Assessments Paid by Seller C. Outlot C (2 . 04 acres @ $7 , 000 + Pending Assessments @ $80, 000) ATTACHMENT #4 ? 0 V c rl r lJ ' o D T i vu � 0--\ I III1 i oc N r- o i C o C M r MARKET 11110 i C 0 I ---1 i D 1 OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL ADJ. REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA MARCH 19, 1991 Mayor Laurent called the meeting to order at 7 : 00 p.m. with Cncl . Vierling, Zak, Clay, Sweeney and Wampach present. Also present were Dennis Kraft, City Administrator; Barry Stock, Asst. City Administrator; Lindberg Ekola, City Planner; Dave Hutton, City Engineer; Karen Marty, City Attorney; and Judith S . Cox, City Clerk. Sweeney/Zak moved to approve the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Laurent asked if any Councilmembers had any liaison reports to give. There were none. Mayor Laurent gave the Mayor' s report. Mayor Laurent asked if there was anyone from the audience who wished to address anything not on the agenda. There was no response. Sweeney/Clay moved to approve the consent business. Motion carried unanimously. Clay/Vierling moved to approve the minutes of March 5, 1991, along with a correction to read Dean Walden in paragraph 3 , page 7 , instead of Paul Walden. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney Elementary Student Council was present to make a presentation asking the City to declare a "Shakopee Earth Week" . They presented the City with a petition signed by all teachers and students of Sweeney Elementary supporting the Shakopee Earth Week. Mayor Laurent read a proclamation proclaiming the whole month of April, 1991, as "Shakopee Earth Month" in the City of Shakopee. Wampach/Vierling moved to retain the petition (signed by all teachers and students of Sweeney Elementary School supporting the "Shakopee Earth Week") for display at City Hall for a couple of weeks. Motion carried unanimously. Wampach/Zak moved to direct the appropriate City officials to work with Back America 's Courageous Military members to facilitate a parade to be held on May 18th at 10 : 00 a.m. along Tenth Avenue between Shakopee Senior High and Lion' s Park. Motion carried unanimously. Dave Kaufenberg, representing Shakopee/Prior Lake Youth Hockey Association as well as Shakopee Ice Arena, was present to say they have formed a small task force between the Ice Arena commission and the youth program. They are currently working to put together a detailed package and plan for a new ice arena. He has gone before Proceedings of the March 19 , 1991 Shakopee City Council Page 2 the park development board and the Community Development Commission. He said he would like to come back sometime in May to present their new package to the council. Dick Stoks, Shakopee Lions, was present stating their support in the proposal of naming the new southerly bypass the Walt Harbeck Memorial Highway. He said he is urging citizens to get involved with them supporting this proposal . Walt Harbeck, a past Mayor and Councilmember, was very instrumental in originating the idea to begin this bypass. Wampach/Vierling moved to direct staff to prepare a resolution designating the southerly bypass be named after Walt Harbeck. Motion carried unanimously. John Manahan, Murphy' s Landing, was present to discuss the issue of the proposed DNR trail . He said he feels the time limit of June that the City Council put on for determining where the trail will go through Murphy' s Landing is unrealistic and he is asking to have that time limit lifted. He said they feel at the moment there is no reason to rush into any agreement with DNR at this time. He said there is controversy over where this trail should be located and what is the best solution for everyone. They also ask prior to any final decision being made that the Council hold a public hearing on the location of the proposed trail . He said he understands that the negotiations with Valley Fair are not yet complete, and until they are there is no need to rush into a decision regarding the location of the trail through Murphy' s Landing. Mr. Rose, from the DNR, was present and stated that they will continue to listen to the concerns raised by Murphy' s Landing. He said they are very close to reaching an agreement with Valleyfair and Peavey for an easement for the trail through their property. Consensus of Council was to not have a time to resolve where the DNR trail will go through Murphy' s Landing until the DNR reaches an agreement with Valleyfair and Peavey. Mayor Laurent reviewed the ratings of the City Administrator' s performance evaluation. Mayor Laurent opened the public hearing on an Appeal from the Board of Adjustments and Appeals denial of a variance from the sign ordinance to replace non-conforming signs with new signage. Lindberg Ekola reviewed the appeal from Leroy Signs, Inc. to allow Norwest Bank to install signage which would exceed the area permitted by the Sign Ordinance. Since the February meeting the applicant has proposed to transfer signage from the south elevation to the west elevation where no wall signage is allowed. The total signage would be 239 square feet. Cncl. Sweeney said he does not see a hardship being demonstrated at this time. Cncl. Wampach said Proceedings of the March 19, 1991 Shakopee City Council Page 3 he feels it would be an injustice to not allow the signage on the west of the building. He feels it would be to the best interest of the businesses in Shakopee to allow them signage within the total allowed maximum. Chris Clark, Leroy Signs, Inc. representing Norwest Bank said they would like to put signage on all four sides reducing the square footage. He said they feel they would get more visibility on the west side where there is none allowed at this time. Melanie Kahleck, former Chairman of Board of Adjustments and Appeals, said the action they took was that they could not put the signage on the west side. She said it was her opinion there was no hardship demonstrated. She said the City's responsibility is to see that fair identification of businesses is allowed not necessarily advertising businesses. The ordinance clearly prohibits signage on the west side. She does feel that the ordinance could be amended to some extent. Hearing no other comments the Mayor closed the public hearing. Sweeney/Wampach moved to table the variance request by Leroy Signs, Inc. on behalf of Norwest Bank for a variance from the sign ordinance until the next meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Laurent opened the public hearing on proposed assessments for the 1990-8 Valley Industrial Blvd. North Roadway Construction. Dave Hutton said the project has been completed and the costs have been identified. 100% of the project costs were assessed to the abutting property owners. The actual assessment rate is $60. 88 per front foot. Mayor Laurent asked if there were any comments from the audience. There being no comments, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Wampach/Clay offered Resolution No. 3375, A Resolution Adopting Assessments for the Valley Industrial Boulevard North Project, Between County Road 83 and Valley Park Drive, Project No. 1990-8 and moved for its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Laurent called a 10 minute recess. Mayor Laurent reconvened the City Council at 8 : 55 p.m. Lindberg Ekola presented the Interim Ordinance Quarterly Update for the 150 acres located south and west of the Shakopee Senior High School for information purposes only. Lindberg Ekola reviewed the proposed ordinance amendment regarding mineral extraction. (The proposed amendment would preclude issuance of conditional use permits for mineral extraction in the Ag and Ri districts. ) He explained that the ordinance was tabled Proceedings of the March 19 , 1991 Shakopee City Council Page 4 to allow for the Planning Commission public hearing on March 7th on an application for a conditional use permit for mineral extraction in an Ag zone. He explained that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet has been requested by the Planning Commission to assist them in making their decision. It will take two to three months to complete. Melanie Kahleck said she does not feel that the City should table the proposed ordinance amendment. She feels that these types of operations do not belong anywhere near where residents are. Discussion ensued. Vierling/Sweeney moved to table the ordinance amendment on mineral extraction. Motion carried unanimously. Clay/Wampach moved to approve the 1991 Planning Commission Work Program as proposed. (DOC NO. CC-183) Motion carried unanimously. Clay/Vierling moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to advertise for the budgeted Assistant Planner position. Lindberg Ekola reviewed the request for an Assistant Planner position. Discussion ensued on the current and future financial constraints the City will be under. Dennis Kraft said the incumbent will be told that due to the possibility of there being insufficient funds next year there may not be a position. Cncl. Zak said he feels that the City should look into the possibility of hiring for a six month position, possibly an intern. Dennis Kraft said he feels that would reduce the number of people who might apply, especially someone from out of state. Cncl . Vierling suggested hiring a consultant. Zak/Sweeney moved to amend the motion to a six month stay position. Motion fails with Cncl. Vierling, Clay and Mayor Laurent opposed. Motion carried unanimously on original motion. Vierling/Clay moved to remove from table the employee tuition reimbursement request. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Wampach moved to approve Ms. Van Cleve' s request for reimbursement and charge $751. 60 against the 1990 police budget. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Vierling moved to remove from table the Committee of the Whole issue. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion ensued on the purpose of the Committee of the Whole meetings. Mayor Laurent said he feels there is a purpose served in setting another meeting to allow councilmembers to simply discuss an issue without having to make a decision right away. Cncl . Sweeney said he felt it worked well and would like to see it go for another six months. Cncl. Zak said he does not feel that there has r Proceedings of the March 19, 1991 Shakopee City Council Page 5 been a lot of value in these meetings because decisions still have to be made by the council. Sweeney/Zak moved to extend the trial period and continue to meet as a Committee of the Whole for an additional 6 months. Motion carried with Cncl. Zak opposed. Sweeney/Clay moved to direct staff to submit payment to the Sand Creek Water Management Organization in the amount of $90 . 40 for the City of Shakopee' s annual contribution. (Motion approved under consent business) . Sweeney/Clay moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute the revised Joint Powers Agreement for the Sand Creek Water Management Organization. (Motion approved under consent business) . Sweeney/Clay moved to authorize the purchase of a 12 foot one way reversible Falls plow from Little Falls Machine, Inc. for a cost of $10, 000 and a gear box driven sander from Crysteel of Fridley, MN for a cost of $1, 685 . 00 . (Motion approved under consent business) . The City Engineer reviewed the research that was done on the double sanitary sewer assessments for commercial uses on the 2nd Avenue project. He said there were four commercial property owners that did receive the double assessment rate. He said if the double assessments were eliminated and distributed among all the property owners it would increase their assessments from approximately $3 , 600 to $4 , 800. Another option would be to have the City pay for it out of the Sanitary Sewer Enterprise fund. Greg Voxland said he feels that would be a very good source to pay for any nonassessable sewer costs. The double assessment policy was initiated during the West Side Storm Sewer project. The policy addresses subsurface improvements and sanitary sewer is considered a subsurface improvement. There is rationale for assessing commercial and industrial properties more for storm sewer than residential properties. We have since that time adopted a storm water utility for storm sewers thereby eliminating the need for the double assessment policy. Clay/Vierling moved to eliminate the double sanitary sewer assessment rates for commercial properties on the 2nd Avenue Project and direct staff to use the Sanitary Sewer Enterprise fund to pay for those additional costs. Motion carried unanimously. Clay/Vierling moved to direct staff to prepare a Resolution rescinding Resolution No. 1298 . Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Zak moved to approve the bills in the amount of $333 , 533 . 47 . Motion carried unanimously. Proceedings of the March 19, 1991 Shakopee City Council Page 6 Cncl . Clay brought up the issue of whether or not the City should require a permit for parades being held in the city. Consensus was to have staff research that option and bring back to Council . Mayor Laurent adjourned the meeting at 10: 15 p.m. Judith S . Cox City Clerk Carol L. Schultz Recording Secretary oiSE1T c 0 R. r_, sG 0 Proceedings of the March 19, 1991 Shakopee City Council Page 5 been a lot of value in these meetings because decisions still have to be made by the council. Sweeney/Zak moved to extend the trial period and continue to meet as a Committee of the Whole for an additional 6 months. Motion carried with Cncl. Zak opposed. Sweeney/Clay moved to direct staff to submit payment to the Sand Creek Water Management Organization in the amount of $90.40 for the City of Shakopee' s annual contribution. (Motion approved under consent business) . Sweeney/Clay moved to authorize the appropriate City officials to execute the revised Joint Powers Agreement for the Sand Creek Water Management Organization. (Motion approved under consent business) . Sweeney/Clay moved to authorize the purchase of a 12 foot one way reversible Falls plow from Little Falls Machine, Inc. for a cost of $10, 000 and a gear box driven sander from Crysteel of Fridley, MN for a cost of $1, 685. 00. (Motion approved under consent business) . The City Engineer reviewed the research that was done on the double sanitary sewer assessments for commercial uses on the 2nd Avenue project. He said there were four commercial property owners that did receive the double assessment rate. He said if the double assessments were eliminated and distributed among all the property owners it would increase their assessments from approximately $3, 600 to $4, 800. Another option would be to have the City pay for it out of the Sanitary Sewer Enterprise fund. The City Engineer &2tG explained that the Finance Director stated that he feels that would O0)(LONO be a very good source to pay for any nonassessable sewer costs. sf,'oj The double assessment policy was initiated during the West Side Storm Sewer project. The policy addresses subsurface improvements and sanitary sewer is considered a subsurface improvement. There is rationale for assessing commercial and industrial properties more for storm sewer than residential properties. We have since that time adopted a storm water utility for storm sewers thereby eliminating the need for the double assessment policy. Clay/Vierling moved to eliminate the double sanitary sewer assessment rates for commercial properties on the 2nd Avenue Project and direct staff to use the Sanitary Sewer Enterprise fund to pay for those additional costs. Motion carried unanimously. Clay/Vierling moved to direct staff to prepare a Resolution rescinding Resolution No. 1298. Motion carried unanimously. Vierling/Zak moved to approve the bills in the amount of $333, 533 .47. Motion carried unanimously. UNpZiaC/ n! /� = Vj a f��W�k is ►�� L r£ �� Sweeney Elementary School Shakopee School Board Shakopee Public Schools Janet Wendt,Chair 1001 S. Adams Street James Sorensen,Vice Chair Suzanne Van Hout,Clerk Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Jane Carlson,Treasurer (612) 445-4884 Bob Techam,Director Jessica Geis,Director Aggie Unze,Director Acting Superintendent Principal Ronald E.Ward Richard G.Nordstrom March 22, 1991 The Honorable Gary Laurent Mayor of the City of Shakopee Members of the Shakopee City Council 129 First Avenue East Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Mayor and Members of Council: The Student Council students were astonished. They hoped their Petition would be considered. But to have your Proclamation so promptly made the students feel very special. I do really believe that your actions created a sense that elected officials will listen, even to "kids." They felt an unexpressed sense of fulfillment, satisfaction and awe. On Wednesday morning your Proclamation was presented to all our students at an assembly. The hearty applause expressed their appreciation. We will proudly hang it with our special pictures. Thank you from all of us. I hope all the students and their parents will indeed improve our environment for the City of Shakopee. When I became involved with the Student Council at Sweeney, my primary goal was to demonstrate how representative government functions. The members represent their class, not just their own opinions, and that actions and decisions are the choices of the majority. This was seen by the students when Mr. Wampach made a motion, it was seconded and passed. This brought many wide eyes among the Student Council repre- sentatives. This was also their first experience with an example of how a meeting is conducted. Personally, I can only say WOW. I expected you might consider our Peti- tion. But to have your response immediately, and for the Proclamation for a full month, not just the week, was beyond my expectations. Mayor Laurent, the concerns and goals you expressed in the Proclamation were excellent. I hope we can live up to your challenge. Shakopee Public Schools: Forward Together For Our Future ALL SCHOOLS ACCREDITED BY THE NORTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATION AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER lo `.- Thank you seems so modest, but it comes from all of us. You have achieved so much with your actions: responding to students' concerns, establishing their faith in the representative process and furthering our mutual goal to protect our environment for the City of Shakopee. Thank you from all of us to all of you. Sincerely Yours, h10,144 &A& Mrs. nary Jo Eakle Student Council Advisor cc: Barry Stock P.S. We will reserve places for you and your guests at our Spring Concert on April 18 at 7:00 P.M. at the Senior High. Your presence will be acknowledged. We will read our Petition and your Proclamation. MY ft 57, i♦ IIIIffi 4•♦ wt Q Q CITY OF SAINT PAUL Mani _U gaff Oo f H March 11, 1991 Dear Friend of the Environment: The cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul are submitting a joint application to participate in an exciting international initiative called the Urban CO2 Reduction Project. The project is designed to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) throughout the world's cities over the next ten years. We are requesting that you write a letter in support of our joint application. Your letter will enhance our prospects for selection. A prompt response would be greatly appreciated since application materials are due by the end of this month. We are among 22 cities from around the world under consideration for this United Nations sponsored project. Only 12 cities will be selected to participate. The attached sheet provides additional information regarding this project. We believe that Minneapolis-Saint Paul has an excellent chance of being chosen primarily because of the enlightened leadership displayed by Minnesota's corporate executives, government officials and private individuals. Public and private talent and resources will be needed to further this project and to help establish Minneapolis- Saint Paul as a world leader in preserving and improving the environment. By supporting our application neither you nor your organization incur any obligation or liability whatsoever. Attached is a sample letter of support for your reference. Should you desire additional information, please contact Jim Orange of the Minneapolis Planning Department (673-2347). Thank you for your support in this exciting initiative! Sincerely, Dona raser, Mayo '�0s�4- l Jas Mayor :-./77/ City of Minneapolis City of Saint Paul "41' imp Carol Johnson, Chair Robert Long, Chair Health, Environment and Intergovernmental elations Human Development Committee Committee Minneapolis City Council Saint Paul City Council L41 Printed on Recycled Paper / O -- MINNEAPOLIS SAINT PAUL URBAN CO2 REDUCTION PROJECT in Cooperation With the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives The Twin Cities have benefitted from a reputation as a good place to live and work. We're known as -- * having a healthy economy based on a well-educated work force; * being a corporate headquarters town; * being a leader in forging public-private partnerships for the benefit of the community; * having progressive governments; These characteristics will be essential to maintaining our quality of life in the future. An additional feature of the Twin Cities will become increasingly important -- our healthy environment and lifestyle. The 1990's have been termed "the decade of the environment". It is becoming increasingly clear that a healthy environment is essential to a healthy economy. Urban areas are the major source of human-generated carbon dioxide (CO2), a major greenhouse gas, and thus a significant contributor to global warming. Carbon dioxide is a primary cause of global warming and attendant climate changes. Although the rate of climate change is still in dispute, there is scientific consensus regarding the overall warming trend. The Urban CO2 Reduction Project is a ten-year effort to design and implement carbon dioxide reduction programs in major urban areas around the world. The Urban CO2 Reduction Project will: * Provide an information exchange among cities around the world which are pursuing policies and initiatives designed to reduce emissions of CO2. * Provide a comprehensive framework for action to reduce CO2 emissions that considers the interdependence of all urban management practices. A primary CO2 reduction strategy is to use energy more efficiently. Energy efficiency improvements often pay for themselves through direct reduction in energy costs. The Minneapolis-Saint Paul Urban CO2 Reduction Project will provide the Twin Cities a focus for coordinating our ongoing efforts that promote energy efficient initiatives. The Urban CO2 Reduction Project is sponsored by the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), a new international agency of local governments established by the United Nations Environmental Programme, International Union of Local Authorities (IULA), and the Center for Innovative Diplomacy (CID). (SOLLEI MO) �4, Printed or Recycled Paper SAMPLE LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR THE MINNEAPOLIS-SAINT PAUL URBAN CO2 REDUCTION PROJECT The Honorable Donald Fraser, Mayor of Minneapolis The Honorable James Scheibel, Mayor of Saint Paul c/o Room 200 City Hall 350 South Fifth Street Minneapolis, MN 55415-1314 Dear Mayors Fraser and Scheibel: Thank you for the invitation to participate in the Minneapolis-Saint Paul Urban CO2 Reduction Project. ( company/organization) has a long record of environmental awareness and involvement with public projects which benefit the entire community. (Elaborate on some of the many positive initiatives that your company/organization does for the environment and for the community). As ( 's CEO/director/chair), I am happy to express my general support for the project. The mission of reducing the cities' CO2 emissions as a means of addressing the problem of global warming is a laudable one; one that ( company/organization) can support. If our cities are selected to participate in this international project, we stand ready to assist wherever we can. We can provide (please choose one or more of the following if possible) financial?, technical?, administrative? help. On behalf of ( company/organization), I hope that your application efforts are successful. Sincerely, (head of the company or organization) (SAAPLSUPT;JAMO) MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator --- FROM: Lindberg S. Ekola, City Planner RE: Appeal of the Denial of Variance Resolution No. 611 David and Kinga Kocsis-Brown DATE: March 27 , 1991 INTRODUCTION: On March 7 , 1991 the Shakopee Board of Adjustment and Appeals denied the variance request by David and Kinga Kocsis-Brown to allow a building permit to be issued for a parcel which does not abut a dedicated public street. BACKGROUND: Attached is a copy of the appeal letter from the applicants, the staff report on the variance and the meeting minutes. The proposed parcel is located east of County Road 17 , south of Hillside Drive in Section 20, Township 115, Range 22 . Please refer to the maps in the staff reports. DISCUSSION: The Board of Adjustment and Appeals gave three reasons for their decision to deny the applicants the variance, which would allow a building permit to be issued for a parcel which does not abut a dedicated public street. The reasons given include: 1. The applicants are creating the hardship themselves. 2 . The creation of land-locked parcels has resulted in considerable problems in the City. 3 . Requiring frontage to a dedicated public street ensures proper and perpetual access to the property. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Uphold the Board of Adjustment and Appeals decision to deny the request for a variance. 2 . Reverse the Board of Adjustment and Appeals decision by approving the request for a variance which would allow a building permit to be issued for a parcel which does not abut a dedicated public street. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer and pass a motion to approve variance Resolution No. CC-611 which denies the request to allow a building permit to be issued for a parcel which does not abut a dedicated public street. 1/ CITY OF SHAKOPEE VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. CC - 611 WHEREAS, David Brown and Kinga Kocsis-Brown the applicants and the owners have duly filed an application for a Variance dated February 19, 1991 under the provisions of the Shakopee Zoning Ordinance, Section 11. 04 , Subdivision 5, for: a variance to allow a building permit to be issued for a parcel which does not abut a dedicated public street; and WHEREAS, the present zoning for the parcel on which the Variance is being requested is designated as R-1 (Rural Residential) ; and WHEREAS, the property upon which the request is being made is legally described as set forth in Attachment A; and WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment and Appeal heard the advice and recommendation of the City Planner, and considered the suggestions and objections raised by the affected property owners within a radius of 350 feet thereof in a public hearing duly held thereon; and WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals reviewed this request on March 7 , 1991, to allow a building permit to be issued for a parcel which does not abut a dedicated public street, and denied said request; and WHEREAS, the application has appealed the decision of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals to the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE as follows: That the applicant for a variance to allow a building permit to be issued for a parcel which does not abut a dedicated public street be Denied for the following reasons: 1. The applicants are creating the hardship themselves. 2 . The creation of land-locked parcels has resulted in considerable problems in the City. 3 . Requiring frontage to a dedicated public street ensures property and perpetual access to the property. /1 Adopted in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota held this 2nd day of April, 1991. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form. City Attorney // STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. OFFICE OF CITY CLERK I, Judith S. Cox, City Clerk for the City of Shakopee with and in for said City, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing resolution with the original record thereof preserved in my office, and have found the same to be a correct and true copy. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my hand at City of Shakopee, Minnesota, in the County of Scott on the day of 19 . Judith S. Cox, City Clerk Prepared by: THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 ATTACEMENT A LEGAL DES.IPTICR Thar part of the NWY of NW1 o= 20-115-22 describe_ as follows: 3e cening at the SE corner of the said Nw7; of M , thence west along the easz i -:e of said NWy of NWS; a distance of 1344.00 Leet to the NE corner thereof; thence west along the north line of said NA of NW;i a 47 .00thence south, pari i al o the said east line Cist_.^.ce of 1 feet; `-. n� e angle 404.00 feet; a distance of 754.00 feet; thence west at a rightg thence south , parallel to the said east line 590 .00 feet to the south line of the said NW; of NWi; thence east of said south line to the point of beginning. Together with an easement for ingress and egress over the south 66 .00 feet of that part of said NW; of the NW; lying westerly of the above described parcel and aver the south 66.00 feet of the NE; of the N. 1/4 of 19-115-22. S. . .. . _ . V. • 13 RO NA/N . . . : cit" . abhe RCs • Aik • ............• .,- --— ...........--..../••••. . ............... I : • " . I, i . •l'..s. : '..--- ... ...............—.......: II . h. -.: .• • 0. . '.' : . ....- .- • 1:: i ar,i I 1 1.01,40.110:2 .• 0 -, crt - :Atr.44.4.“1 -' .•; : ; 1 .---7 '3 S. • z . •,q • !• .. , 1...'""".'.. .....--................ ...U.ai!. ..i. . . .' [ ; . .. ....:... ........“: 1,!,; ; ; :7 •': ! i . i ............. .... .... '• : • . ..“•="';•ftlEA.*4"....•;•=2L• .. .... ,.. ..,...1 f 4. • ' , :,..004`•:....•3 A i • 1 .4... ..1 ' VS) • : 1 - i; •I • 1 i i 1. . s. I 'MEP 1 r •,, ii ; i ., •,._—. i : .• i I e.-, • ,. •... j : a': : .• . 4• •0 C., ._ . • A00.,1•;‘e s.-..., .i. \ , it•f _ -‘. i i I . . ...--..--'s . 3. • iiCA: • i • ELl______I .______.-, -- : .. ...- ....... ! . . • 1 , ..• 4 1 \ • i \ , %14....7. 2 .•: • . cc „.., ...z ; ___ __ -- .,, ..._•,...,_ .." 'ks 0 :,-- 4'71- 4 b • AG AGRICULTURE ,,/..e, ,,: :cur; • N i - ,• , i var:=Z . • i A .•• C Iii'',•4"•• R 1 RURAL RESIDENTIAL i i ......, R2 URBAN RESIDENTIAL c--. i .1 , ,, .... - , ........ ... „., ...-- ,---- t-• ------ . .. . ,.. . R3 MID—DENSITY RES. c`-' -I i... ...-- \ , i . / . .... : ,. . R4 MULTI FAMILY RES. :r- ,-. , ...,.. . . •. N : 1 ,.. . • •,,,. . . •....... ...........:..:1. . ..:. '''."*.• , •: B 1 HIGHWAY BUSINESS B2 COMMUNITY BUSINESS . . "".:•1' --'" •, .,:::•:a0I0 B3 CENTRAL BUSINESS ..._ .,.•-• . ............±....::- . A s . ••••• ?-- S ....—- ... -- I 1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL --.. • 12 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL , .• • . „ , L \ • / „• • S SHORELAND ,....-... : .-.,-4 . , . 5,,, •- . • . , . . : f:. .„......,, • ; n...fiks •$. . NEM FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT -. ..„._-„. :-,...• .,. -..• . --. • •• •\-, . . ...... MANDATORY PUD I .. %. • --./.' .._ ,.. . : • • —.. ....: • l_ • •.-- RTD RACETRACK DISTRICT \ : i- . .. -p- Ai -=';..,---, .. . -....,-.,z oning Map City of SHAKOPEE 1/ JASPERS, M ORIAR'IY AND WALBURG, P.A. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW 206 SCOT.STREET Si AKO?E .MLNNESOTA 56379 (6i2)443-2S.7 JERO 4E JASPERS (o i? 3'3 294+3 s-DENNIS?A WALL RG �' March 8, 1991 FAQ NO.; S.,�812 STE?fiEN W.WALBURG LEE<ICK:ER.MAAN DAVID G.BRONX Mr. Dennis Kraft City Administrator City of Shakopee 129 1st Avenue E. Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Dear Mr. Kraft : I am writing this letter to give you formal notice of our appeal of the denial of the variance regarding the easement to the property we are purchasing . The denial occurred on March 7, 1991 and was considered, and I use that term loosely, by the Shakopee Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Enclosed is the filing fee of $85 .00. My wife and I are very disappointed in the treatment we received from the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. It is a mystery how I could talk as long as I did and raise as many issues I did and not be questioned regarding those issues. We fully expect a more intelligent discussion of our situation at the City Council level . Thank you. Very truly yours, JASPERS, MORIARTY AND WALBURG, P.A. =_ David G. Brown Attorney at Law DGB:dl Enclosure (Certified mail ) et CITY OF SHAKOPEE INCORPORATED 1870 AGENDA NO. z STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: March 7, 1991 RESOLUTION NO. : 611 PREPARED BY: Lindberg S. Ekola, City Planner APPLICANT APPLICABLE PROVISIONS: Section 11. 04, Subd. 5 and Section 11.03, Subd. 7.H. PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a building permit to be issued for a parcel which does not abut a dedicated public street LOCATION: East 20 acres of the 40 acres located in the NW quarter of the NW quarter in Section 20 Township 115 Range 22 APPLICANT: David Brown and Kinga Kocsis-Brown SITE DATA ZONING: R-1 {Rural Residential) ACREAGE: 20 acres (Proposed) MUNICIPAL UTILITIES: No ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- R-1 Agricultural S- R-1 Agricultural E- R-1 Agricultural W- R-1 Agricultural • 1/ CONSIDERATIONS : 1. The applicants are requesting a variance to allow a building permit to be issued for a parcel which dces not abut a dedicated public street. 2 . Section 11. 03 , Subd. 7 .H. regulates the issuing of building permits for principal structures . The Zoning Ordinance requires that building permits for principal structures be released only for lots or parcels which abut dedicated public streets . The ordinance does allow two exceptions to this requirement as follows: i. Properties in a Planned Unit Development (PUD) where streets are constructed and maintained by the PUD association. 2 . Parcels being accessed by a private road or private driveway easement when the individual parcels being served were of record prior to the enactment of Chapter 12 of the City Code, Subdivision Regulations on May 7 , 1981. 3 . The proposed property covers 20 acres and is described as the east 20 acres of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter in Section 20 Township 115 Range 22 . 4 . The proposed 20 acre parcel does not meet either exception listed in Section 11. 03 Subd. 7 .H. The applicant' s parcel is not located in a PUD. It also was not a parcel of record being served by a private road prior to May 7 , 1981 since the 20 acre parcel was not created before that date. 5 . The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations is to establish standards for controlling the division and use of land so as to protect the public health, safety and welfare. Because piecemeal subdivision of land can result in undesirable, disconnected settlement patterns and poor circulation of traffic, the City has developed these regulations. Requiring properties to abut a dedicated public street is one of the basic principles established in the City Codes . A public street is the only way, other than the PUD process, that the City can ensure that properties get proper and perpetual access . 6 . This area is rural and beyond any comprehensive street planning effort at this time. The proposed 66 foot easement is located on the quarter section line of Section 20. 7. The future development of this general area as proposed in the draft Comprehensive Plan is for low density rural residential land use. Valley View Road is identified as the collector street for this area. Local residential streets need to connect with other streets to ensure that a safe transportation network can be developed. 8 . The applicants are creating the hardship themselves by seeking to split off this specific parcel of land, which would result in a land-locked parcel. 9 . The applicants do have other options available. Most of these require the approval of the current owner of the tract the applicants are seeking to acquire, Ms. Diana Bergquist. These options include: 1. Submit for approval a subdivision plat which dedicateS a public street that provides adequate access to the desired 20 acre site. This will be necessary if the applicant proposes any further development. The City could consider timing of the improvement of the dedicated street if adequate protections are put in place to guarantee appropriate future development to City standards . 2 . Submit for approval a PUD plan for the Bergquist property which creates a private street system. 3 . Dedicate a 1000 ' cul-de-sac along the quarter section line and request a variance from the cul-de-sac length to extend that cul-de-sac to the proposed property. This would a lesser variance because it grants a public street and only varies the length. 4 . Purchase the entire 40 acres which includes this 20 acre parcel and construct a driveway to their selected building site. If they meet the second exception in Section 11. 03 Subd. 3 .H. they could apply for a building permit. 10. The use of private easement agreements results in much less control by the City. The Building Official cited several cases in the City where the application of private easements has resulted in a wide variety of maintenance and legal problems for the property owners involved as well as the City. 'z Se attached memo from the Building Official. 11. The applicants can also pursue the purchase of other properties which have adequate frontage to a dedicated public street and apply for appropriate building permits. 12 . The applicants state in their cover letter that it is their intention to build a home on the property within three to five years. Since a variance must be used within one year, they are requesting that the variance be granted for a period of five years. They have not indicated why the variance is being sought now instead of at that time. FINDINGS: Criteria #1 Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properti-ps=in the same zone or vicinity, and result from lor- maize or shape, togography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property, 1/ since enactment of this Chapter, have had no control. In fact, applicant seeks to create. Finding #1 The applicants have not identified any circumstances relating to the lot size or shape, togography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property, have had no control. In fact, applicant seeks to create an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance by splitting off a land- locked parcel with a long private driveway easement. Criteria #2 The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Chapter. Finding #2 Applicants enjoy all the rights enjoyed by other properties in this district without frontage to dedicated public streets . No properties are granted building permits (unless they meet one of the two specified exceptions) . Criteria #3 That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Finding #3 Applicants have not identified any special conditions or circumstances other than these he proposes to create by purchasing a land-locked parcel of land. Criteria #4 That granting of the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Chapter to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Finding #4 The granting of the variance would confer upon the applicants a special privilege by granting them a building permit when their property does not front one dedicated public street. Criteria #5 The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Finding #5 As stated in the considerations, these are alternatives available to the applicant which need a lesser variance or no variance at all. Criteria #6 The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Chapter, or to the property in the same zone. Finding #6 The variance would set precedence for future building permit requests for parcels not abutting dedicated public streets. The precedence would be detrimental to the intent and purpose of the Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of Variance Resolution No. 5-$9 allowing a building permit to be issued for a parcel which does not abut a dedicated public street. The reasons for this recommendation are as follows: 1. The applicants are creating the hardship themselves. 2 . The creation of land-locked parcels has resulted in considerable problems in the City. 3 . Requiring frontage to a dedicated public street ensures proper and perpetual access to the property. ACTION REQUESTED: f Offer and move approval or denial of Variance Resolution No. 4.8-9- and stating the conditions or reasons for said action. LSE/jms brown Minutes of the Page - 2 Board of Adjustment and Appeals March 7, 1991 VI. PUBLIC HEARING ON VARIANCE NO. 611 - DAVID BROWN AND KINC-A KOCS IS-BROWN. Chairperson Kahleck opened the public hearing. Ekola noted that the applicants are requesting a variance to allow a building permit to be issued for a parcel which does not abut a public dedicated street. Section 11. 03 , Subdivision 7 .H requires that building permits for principal structures be released for lots or parcels that abut dedicated streets only. He noted the two exceptions to the ordinance. He said that the property consisted of 20 acres. This property does not meet either description for an exception. Requiring parcels to have frontage on a public street is the only way, other than a PUD process, that the City can ensure that properties get proper and perpetual access . He stated that the applicants are creating a hardship for themselves by seeking to split off this specific land locked parcel. He noted other options available to the applicant. He cited where private easements have resulted in a variety of maintenance problems for both property owners and the City. He noted that the applicants were requesting a variance for five years since they intend to build within that time frame. A variance is only good for a one year period by ordinance. Commissioner Lynch asked how the Scott County Engineer felt about additional driveways on County Road 17 . Ekola said the County Engineer limits the number of driveways onto County roads for safety reasons. A public street would be preferred to individual driveways. The applicant, Mr. David Brown, of 9830 Cromwell Drive, came forward to present the request. He referred the Board members to the map in the packet and explained the history of the property. In 1975 his father had bought 120 acres from Alex Schmidt. The 40 acres on the west side were sold off in 10 acre lots. Five acres on the east side were also sold off. On the south edge, a 66 ' wide parcel was reserved to gain future access to the property. In November of 1990, Ms . Bergquist bought property and he had taken an equitable position with Ms. Bergquist. He reviewed the criteria to grant variances and gave his explanation as follows: 1. Extraordinary circumstances: The 66 ' reservation was done before 1981. 2 . Topography: There is no other location for a driveway �...... because of the topography on the remaining areas of the site. Minutes of the Page - 3 Board of Adjustment and Appeals March 7, 1991 3 . Literal interpretation: A literal interpretation would deprive him of rights enjoyed by others. 4 . Specific circumstances not caused by applicant: There are no roads in the area available to him. 5 . Special privileges: Others in the area are served by private easements. 6 . It is not detrimental to the ordinance or surrounding properties. He stated that he felt the easement will grant proper and perpetual access. A variance is the least destructive solution to the problem - an easement can be abandoned. If a street were dedicated, problems could result. He felt the ordinance was vague and broad. The Bergquists were being denied their freedom and he would be denied his freedom under the constitution. Mr. Gary Bergquist of 8325 Upper 138th Court, Apple Valley, came forward to speak in favor of the request. Commissioner Joos asked how they intended to access the site. Mr. Brown answered that it would be accessed off of County Road 17 . He has consulted an engineer. Chairperson Kahleck asked if the variance were to be granted, it could still be in effect 50 years from now and the City could be stuck with the decision to allow for a land locked parcel for a long time. Mr. Brown said the property would be subdivided in the future. The nicer area including the woods near the back of the property is the location where he and his wife would like to build their home. Mr. Al Fisher of 2155 Hillside Drive came forward and said he has no problem with the building of the home, but if more homes come to the area, there may be a traffic problem. Chairperson Kahleck said that traffic issues could be addressed at the time of platting the property. Mr. Brown said that there is a couple of hundred feet on Hillside Drive that abut the Bergquist property to the north. A cul-de-sac could be brought in from this street. Chairperson Kahleck closed the public hearing. 1/ Minutes of the Page - 4 Board of Adjustment and Appeals March 7, 1991 MOTION: Commissioner Spurrier moved that the Board deny Resolution No. 611 allowing a building permit to be issued for a parcel which does not abut a dedicated public street. The reasons for this recommendation are as follows: 1. The applicants are creating the hardship themselves. 2 . The creation of land locked parcels has resulted in considerable problems in the past. 3 . Requiring frontage to a dedicated public street ensures proper and perpetual access to the property. Commissioner Joos seconded the motion. Commissioner Joos said that these situations exist all over the City. He did not wish to create another one. Shakopee is urbanizing. Platting of land in the City is needed to promote orderly development. Motion passed unanimously. Chairperson Kahleck told Mr. Brown that he had seven days to ( appeal the decision. The meeting was adjourned to the end of the Planning Commission. (8 : 10) Meeting reconvened at 12: 36 A.M. VII. ELECTION OF OFFICERS A. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS CHAIRPERSON - JOOS MOTION: Commissioner Christensen nominated Commissioner Joos for the position of Chairperson of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. There were no other nominations . Joos elected unanimously. B. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS VICE-CHAIRPERSON - SPURRIER MOTION: Commissioner Lynch nominated Spurrier for the position of Vice-Chairperson for the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. s _ ._ // MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Lindberg S . Ekola, City Planner RE: Additional Information Submitted March 28th, 1991 Appeal of Variance Denial - Daved and Kinga Brown DATE: March 28 , 1991 The applicants have submitted the attached information for Council review. 11 ,.7,8:P R 19,1 March 26, 1991 Re: Supplement to Variance Request of Dave and Kinga Brown Although a fairly detailed explanation was sent with our variance request, apparently it was not detailed enough as regards properties that have similar accesses as the one we propose. We feel it is important to point this out in order to establish a clearly defined precedent. The first property which can be pointed out to establish precedent is the Braatland property right across Marschall Road from the subject property. Wes Hukriede owned a 10 acre lot which he split into two five acre lots. (See Map #1 ) . The 10 acres had approximately 330 feet of frontage on Marschall Road. In 1989 the Braatlands purchased the back five acres along with 66 feet along the northerly edge of the property which gave them access. Without this access, the Braatlands would not have purchased the property. According to the City Planner, 150 feet is needed in order to comply with the proper regulations. The Braatlands only had 66 feet but they were still given a building permit. The next property is much more dispositive of this case. In 1986, Fritz and Bonnie Menden purchased some acreage from Gary and Sara Laurent . (See Map #2 ) . The Laurents also granted an easement over their property to the Mendens so the Mendens could access their i1 March 26, 1991 Page -2- property. The Mendens were issued a building permit by the City of Shakopee although it was in violation of a clearly defined City ordinance. The Mendens would not have purchased the property without that building permit. In 1986, the ordinance governing accesses was even more restrictive than the current ordinance in that there were no exceptions. The issuance of the permit was clearly in violation of the ordinance. The facts surrounding the Menden property are virtually the same as our property. It may be asserted that the Laurents had two accesses, one off of Timber Trail and one on to Cty. Rd. 79. First, this makes no difference because the Mendens still had to cross the Laurents property to get to their property. Second, the Bergquist property also has two accesses, one off of Cty. Rd. 17 and one on to Hillside Drive. (See Map #3) . It may also be asserted that the ordinance was less restrictive in 1986 than it is now. The fact is that the ordinance was more restrictive in 1986 in that there were no exceptions to the need for a property to abut a public road. It may also be asserted that the Laurent property can be distinguished from ours because all or part of it is now a planned unit development. That argument is baseless because at the time the building permit was issued in 1986, there was not a P.U.D. exception in the ordinance nor was there any public contemplation of a P .U.D. 1/ March 26, 1991 Page -3- In any event, the Mendens did the very thing that we wish to do and were not stopped from doing so by City staff. Another example of a building permit being issued without the property abutting a public road is the John Bjorklund residence. The property is a 20 acre tract which is accessed by an easement over the David Graffunder property which abuts Pike Lake Road. (See Map #4) . According to Mr. Bjorklund, he purchased the property in 1983 but the 20 acres was not a parcel of record prior to that. Although the City tried to prevent Mr. Bjorklund from building on the property because it was in a 40 acre minimum density area, City staff did not raise the issue of the property' s lack of frontage on a public road. In any event, Mr. Bjorklund was issued a building permit even though the property did not conform to the ordinance in existence at that time. Once again, Mr. Bjorklund did what we wish to do, nothing more and nothing less . The City Planner also pointed out an example of a precedent setting property which supports our argument, the Logeais-Novotny property. Although we are not familiar with the details, the Logeais property was purchased and the house was built in the recent past. The property is located south of the subject property off of Cty. Rd. 17. It should be abundantly evident at this point that the precedent has been set in the recent past. All the cases mentioned were after 1I March 26, 1991 Page -4- the 1979 ordinance which prohibited issuance of building permits when the property does not abut a public road. We discovered these properties in the limited time we have had to research the subject. We have every reason to believe that there are other post-1979 examples that can be found. Pre-1979 examples of non-abutting properties are numerous. Some of these examples are in the immediate area of the subject property. They include the J. Patrick Leavitt property and the Harley Hohenstein property. Other properties close by with shared driveways include those on Cty. Rd. 42 . Several properties on the eastern edge of Shakopee, including the entire Boiling Springs development, are examples of shared private driveways. By examining a plat map of Shakopee, it appears as if other non-abutting properties are just east of the Idella Shutrop property. Once again, if the issue is scrutinized very closely, we are certain that other excellent examples would be found. In any event, we feel that the City staff is selectively enforcing ordinances to our detriment. We feel that there is no question that precedent has been established even in the very recent past when the very ordinance which is being used against us was on the books. Finally, we feel that we have documented appropriate reasons for granting the variances we are requesting. We respectfully request said variances and want to thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration. 1/ March 26, 1991 Page -5- Dave Brown Kinga `Kocsis-Brown mie 1 ( „\.> \o, qc;c1 fkl c > Ako_v-5c1, ,,Ak 1 ) s � I CGG-vwY J Sc Y - I-C..l.1/n0 I X 14DvSe- 1 X�ousc° l tfo, t 1s ve. I. j auveC I I! 1 f � MQ 19 44 /1 ) J 1Va S (J:a:o..v% G Sck.,.-,!1-z ,40D xi .c nJ(. /q 20-ii s. -,,a 1)iC..r..L._ EQ-/%,jf +0 _),,.,, 5.,1,, (-}z. �iuf,rr.( h;.S:itxj. ?)_+e; ,L, LL:w;l` Nr IibrdQ E. _+,_, PiGtl 11.. S ..n1; iS-f- +. V :f, t' ..) L!.li.cC L✓CC." P 7 II `1 CL CO v .,.4..,/ •,c cj l � MQv cG�a i /\J0.C1 LU :4 ---/--1 i-„, 3 LI. L 1/ j yM .C. -A P.AKee-fol . s .p. e D. GvaSfuwaex 5. I. CA- 2-0 as..ve.s 20 EC••- •11,Z 1A-4. o • 4-1-1Z14)4 ;k4.7 C1,4 90 o-cves Dt tarj 1 rN\ 1zGL, MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Lindberg S. Ekola, City Planner RE: Appeal of the Denial of Variance Resolution No. 606 Leroy Signs, Inc. DATE: March 25, 1991 INTRODUCTION: On February 7, 1991 the Shakopee Board of Adjustment and Appeals denied the variance request by Leroy Sings, Inc. to allow Norwest Bank to install signage which would exceed the area permitted by the Sign Ordinance. The proposed signage would be placed on the former First Minnesota Bank building at 738 First Avenue East. At the March 19, 1991 meeting, the City Council tabled their decision on the variance appeal to allow staff to draft a second resolution which would approve the variance. BACKGROUND: Since the City Council meeting on March 19 , 1991, the applicant has applied for and received a sign permit for 70 square feet of wall signage for the south elevation. Attached is a letter from the applicant, Mr. Chris Clark, dated March 25, 1991. The applicant is appealing the denial of the variance which would allow signage on the west elevation. DISCUSSION: Attached are two resolutions for Council consideration. The first resolution, Variance Resolution No. CC-606, would uphold the Board of Adjustment and Appeals decision to deny the variance. The second resolution, Substitute Variance Resolution No. CC-606, would approve the variance allowing wall signage to be placed on the west elevation, including conditions. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Deny the request for a variance. 2 . Approve the request for a variance allowing a transfer of the allowable wall signage from the south elevation to the west elevation. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS ACTION: The Board of Adjustment and Appeals denied the request for 99 square feet on each side of the building for the reason that the applicant had the ability to change the design of the sign area to comply with the ordinance. JzC;L-'- ACTION REQUESTED: Offer and pass a motion to approve Variance Resolution No. CC-606, which denies the request to allow 70 square feet of wall signage to be placed on the west elevation and stating the reasons for said action. or Offer and pass a motion to approve substitute Variance Resolution No. CC-606 which approves the request to allow 70 square feet of wall signage to be placed on the west elevation and stating the conditions of approval. izdil, CITY OF SHAKOPEE VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. CC-606 WHEREAS, Leroy Signs, Inc. has filed an application on behalf of Norwest Bank, for a variance, dated January 17, 1991, from the strict application of the provisions on the Shakopee Sign Ordinance, Section 4 . 30; and WHEREAS, the property upon which the request is being made is legally described as Lots 6, 7 and 8, Block 7, East Shakopee; and WHEREAS, said proposed variance is for property presently zoned as B-1; and WHEREAS, upon hearing the advice and recommendation of the City Planner and upon considering the suggestions and objections raised by the affected property owners within a radius of 350 feet thereof in a public hearing duly held thereon; and WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals reviewed the variance request to place 99 square feet of signage on each elevation and denied the said request; and WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals discussed with the applicant reducing the signage area and possibly transferring signage from the south to the west elevation; and WHEREAS, the applicant has appealed the decision of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals to the City Council and changed the variance request to allow one wall sign (70 square feet in area) to be placed on the west elevation; and WHEREAS, the variance now being requested of the City Council would allow a transfer of the allowed signage from the south elevation to the west elevation; and WHEREAS, the City Council has been advised in all things; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the aforementioned variance be hereby DENIED for the following reasons: 1. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that apply to this property over which the owners have no control . 2 . Approval of the variance would confer on the applicants a special privilege not enjoyed by owners of similar lots within the zoning district. L aL- Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota held this 19th day of March, 1991. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form. City Attorney JLC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. OFFICE OF CITY CLERK ) I, Judith S. Cox, City Clerk for the City of Shakopee with and in for said City, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy and Order (granting or denying) a variance with the original record thereof preserved in my office, and have found the same to be a correct and true transcript of the whole thereof. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my hand at City of Shakopee, Minnesota, in the County of Scott on the day of , 19 Judith S. Cox, City Clerk Prepared by: THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 FIE e 6325 "Welcome" Ave. North LEROY SIGNS INC. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55429 Quality has no substitute. 612-535-0080 FAX: 612-533-2593 4.0L 0 c 0 Li IP o March 25, 1991 0 m 1 0 City of Shakopee o 129 East First Avenue u_ Shakopee, MN 55379-1376 T1 Attn: City Administrator m RE: Variance Resolution No. 606 `0 a Dear Sir: 0 a) oDue to time restraints for the signage changeover at Norwest Banks, c ,� I have enclosed a permit application for a 70 Sq. Ft. sign to be U o 0 installed on the south elevation at 738 1st Avenue East. o L- m c Therefore, our appeal to the City Council would be for them to • mgrant a variance for one single face wall sign 3'4"h x 21'7"w -o (70 S.F) to be installed on the west elevation. The total sign- m age would be as follows: c m a) a North Elevation: 99 S.F. Sign (140 S.F. allowed) c E East Elevation: 70 S.F. Sign Z0 South Elevation: 70 S.F. Sign v West Elevation: 70 S.F. Sign(Not allowed per City sign ordinance) T °' j C As mentioned earlier, Norwest Bank feels that a hardship does exist 1o and signage should be allowed on the west elevation for the traffic c traveling east on Highway #13 to have sufficient time to slow down o g and exit safely. The proposed signage on the west elevation would o Z also cover up the scarring of the previous letters that were re- I moved and give the bank building a quality, aesthetically pleasing o appearance. For the bank to be a viable and prospering business, m exposure is extremely important and good quality signage done in m a tactful manner is essential for proper identification. 0 The Petitioner submits that the variance sought will, if granted, I 0 a) c 0) N 8 c as N L 0 m m L 0 � vav City of Shakopee - Page 2 not result in a detriment to the health, welfare or safety of the general public, nor will it derogate from the intent of the ordinance. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any further questions. Sincerely, LEROY SIGNS, INC. Chris Clark 0.3.:::i.:71.; '1' .i C , 1 a ` r la410 ,......_ :�a ; i • M4 SO: i yCD -ii .. C T_ / o + 1 orn , ac Orn r LA rt ,#s rn ' 1--- 0 1 0 q.4 - oe . 1 p Dl, I i 1 ' Z : 3 r it I I• i i 1- . 9 lg • --, e 1 is .e A ---ip tp 4:0 1 CI iP.\1 t ::.ii.ff . ` e IIIc _ _ 4. F § • / .be R -1 4 IAar F opt • 1 C) .11 I ' I 1 I IS'O 31,.4 c 1:-.. ;...--, E ,': o f 01 I. 1,..i...;* s IA AD 0i _ .., . . ...... . .., _. . : , ... ..,,-,,::;.:,, .) _, ,,.: .,..... : . ..... cs • i ii \ •.j. {tlt t•rt � �., •:y •t' \ •,'' '• . 1A d4i. t r , -I ' • r - • , e •'Wi • GO MGTAL WAIL PAPet••S ,. ,y., r'' 1.� ' -tit-,:• T I ,.•:...;.1.1.4):4...,`;• tt.-;:.,.::..1 v.'.:!,,:t •.rte :«11.... w 7y. :37: .n ifr V I• : .k 1 ' , 1 ' : Ott _ i F.; 1 r � ' 4a CITY OF SHAKOPEE SUBSTITUTE VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. CC-606 WHEREAS, Leroy Signs, Inc. has filed an application on behalf of Norwest Bank, for a variance, dated January 17 , 1991, from the strict application of the provisions on the Shakopee Sign Ordinance, Section 4 . 30 ; and WHEREAS, the property upon which the request is being made is legally described as Lots 6, 7 and 8 , Block 7 , East Shakopee; and WHEREAS, said proposed variance is for property presently zoned as B-i; and WHEREAS, upon hearing the advice and recommendation of the City Planner and upon considering the suggestions and objections raised by the affected property owners within a radius of 350 feet thereof in a public hearing duly held thereon; and WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals reviewed the variance request to place 99 square feet of signage on each elevation and denied the said request; and WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals discussed with the applicant reducing the signage area and possibly transferring signage from the south to the west elevation; and WHEREAS, the applicant has appealed the decision of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals to the City Council and changed the variance request; and WHEREAS, the variance now being requested of the City Council would allow 70 square feet of wall signage on the west elevation; and WHEREAS, the City Council has been advised in all things; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that the aforementioned variance be hereby APPROVED subject to the following conditions: 1. No more than 70 square feet of wall signage shall be placed on the west elevation. 2 . No direct lighting from the wall signage shall be visible from the adjacent properties or the public right-of-way. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota held this 19th day of March, 1991. Mayor of the City of Shakopee iz4...... ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form. City Attorney / : STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. OFFICE OF CITY CLERK I, Judith S. Cox, City Clerk for the City of Shakopee with and in for said City, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy and Order (granting or denying) a variance with the original record thereof preserved in my office, and have found the same to be a correct and true transcript of the whole thereof. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my hand at City of Shakopee, Minnesota, in the County of Scott on the day of , 19 . Judith S. Cox, City Clerk Prepared by: THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 /3 &i MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: Application for Liquor Licenses - Pablo's Mexican Restaurant, Inc. DATE: March 27, 1991 INTRODUCTION: The city has received applications for on-sale and Sunday intoxicating liquor licenses from Pablo's Mexican Restaurant, Inc. for the period beginning May 1, 1991 and ending June 30, 1991. BACKGROUND: Mr. Paul Schwaesdall, President, Pablo's Mexican Restaurant, Inc. has submitted applications for both an on-sale and Sunday intoxicating liquor licenses. Mr. Schwaesdall has made a committment to expand his restaurant and will soon begin construction. He hopes to be done with the expansion and begin serving intoxicating liquors the first part of May. The liquor license applications are in order. City code requires that there be no delinquent property taxes when the applicant owns the premises. Mr. Schwaesdall does not own the property. The city code also provides that no initial on-sale license issued for premises not previously licensed shall be granted unless the licensee has a minimum investment in the fixtures and structures exclusive of land. In the case of rental premises, the licensee is allowed to include in the investment the fair market value of the premises being rented. The Building Official has determined that the applicant meets the $200, 000 investment requirement for a Class A license (establishment under 4, 000 sq. ft. of customer floor area) . The dram shop insurance is not in place and a certificate of occupancy has not been issued for the expansion. The city code does allow council to grant liquor licenses and to refrain from issuing them until the applicant has fully complied with all of the requirements of the city code. This insures the applicant of a license and holds it in reserve for him until he completes construction, obtains and certificate of occupancy and the statutory liquor liability insurance. The liquor licenses are not delivered until compliance with the city code. (If the applicant is not in compliance within 12 months, re-application is required. ) The police department has received a copy of the application and has done the customary background investigation. The chief of police is recommending approval, subject to compliance with the insurance requirements, memo attached. / 3 4 Pablo' s Mexican Restaurant, Inc. March 27 , 1991 Page -2- The restaurant is located in a B-3 Central Business zone. Restaurants serving liquor in the B-3 zone are required to have a conditional use permit. Mr. Schwaesdall has applied for and has been granted a conditional use permit, in compliance with the city code. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approval applications 2 . Deny applications 3 . Table applications RECOMMENDATION: Alternative No. 1, approve applications. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the applications and grant on-sale and Sunday intoxicating liquor licenses to Pablo' s Mexican Restaurant, Inc. , 230 South Lewis; and direct staff to issue the licenses upon applicant' s compliance with the city code. TO: Judy Cox, City Clerk FROM: Tom Steininger, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Liquor License Application DATE: 03 25 91 INTRODUCTION: Pursuant to your request, this department has conducted a background investigation into the liquor license application from Pablo ' s Mexican Restaurant. BACKGROUND: Detective Nosbusch checked into the parts of the application that it seems logical to verify and they all seem to be in order. His investigation disclosed nothing to warrant denial of the application once the details regarding liability insurance have been worked out. ALTERNATIVES : 1. Approve the application. 2 . Deny the application. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the application subject to proof of necessary liability coverage by applicant. r V JO MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Dave Hutton, City Engineer and Barry Stock, Assistant City Administrator RE: Undergrounding Electric Utilities in the Downtown Area DATE: March 27 , 1991 INTRODUCTION: In conjunction with the completion of the downtown mini by-pass, MnDOT in cooperation with the Shakopee Public Utility Commission (SPUC) will be relocating and undergrounding overhead utilities within the mini by-pass construction area. This discussion has prompted the Shakopee Public Utility Commission Manager to bring up the discussion regarding the City' s position in regard to undergrounding of overhead utilities within the downtown area. BACKGROUND: Several years ago when the Downtown Project was initiated, it was the intention of City officials that it would be beneficial to have the overhead utility lines within the downtown area relocated underground. In fact, when Phase I of the Downtown Redevelopment Project was constructed, conduit was installed under the newly constructed streets where future undergrounding might be practical . This included installing conduit in Sommerville Street from First Avenue to Third Avenue as well as beneath the street at each alley intersection. The cost for installing the conduit for the future undergrounding was absorbed by the City as a Phase I Project cost. (Approximately $80, 000) Shown in attachment #1 is a correspondence from Mr. Lou VanHout, Shakopee Public Utility Manager that provides a general discussion of the issues as they relate to undergrounding the electric lines within the downtown area. Shown in attachment #2 is a map which illustrates the existing overhead lines within the downtown area as well as the location of existing underground conduit that was installed in conjunction with Phase I of the Downtown Redevelopment Project. The attached map also illustrates the undergrounding that will occur in conjunction with the completion of the mini by-pass. Mr. VanHout' s correspondence points out that costs for complete undergrounding within the downtown area have not been determined. Mr. VanHout points out that he believes it would be SPUC' s responsibility to pay for work done to SPUC' s benefit. It' s Mr. VanHout ' s position that conduit and manholes are items that really don't replace anything equivalent in overhead construction and therefore some sort of cost sharing arrangement should be developed between the City and SPUC. it3 b On March 20, 1991 staff presented this issue to the Downtown Committee and Community Development Commission for their review and comment. At that time, staff pointed out that if undergrounding of overhead utilities in the downtown area occurs, the property owners who are receiving service from said overhead lines would be expected to absorb the costs for undergrounding their service connection from the new underground line to their building. Staff estimates that the approximate cost for undergrounding a service line would be between $1, 500. 00 and $3 , 000. 00. The majority of the proposed undergrounding would occur in the alleys. Since the majority of the alleys are in dyer need of repair, staff believes that the property owners would receive a benefit from having them improved in conjunction with the undergrounding. The issue of assessing the improvement of the alleys was also discussed by the Downtown Committee and CDC. The approximate cost for reconstructing the alley is $10 . 00 per front foot. If the City Council were to treat this as a reconstruction project it might be appropriate to assess 25% of the alley reconstruction costs. If on the other hand, the City Council believes that the rehabilitation of the alley should not be treated as a reconstruction project, it may be appropriate to assess 100% of the reconstruction costs to the abutting property owners. It may also be appropriate for the zonal assessment to be applied in the case of spreading the cost of the alley reconstruction. The approximate cost to reconstruct a 300 ft. alley has been estimated at $6, 000 . If the zonal assessment strategy were applied, it would equate to a cost for the average property owner of approximately 6. 6 c per square foot. This is based on assessing 100% of the alley reconstruction costs. Using this assessment method the cost for a typical lot would be approximately $562 . 00 . In accordance with the policy direction as set forth by the action of the Downtown Committee and the City Council in the past, both the Downtown Committee and CDC believe that from an aesthetic standpoint it would be beneficial to pursue the undergrounding of all overhead utility lines within the downtown area. Both Committees also believe that the reconstruction of the alleys would have a positive impact on the downtown image from an aesthetic standpoint. However, both groups are concerned about costs. Therefore, prior to taking a formal position in regard to undergrounding utilities within the downtown in conjunction with the downtown mini by-pass, both Committees moved to recommend to City Council that the appropriate City officials be authorized to meet with the Shakopee Public Utility Commission officials to generate cost estimates, potential cost share arrangements and assessment alternatives for underground overhead utility lines in the downtown area and the reconstruction of the alleys and report findings back for further review and comment. >.31b ALTERNATIVES: 1 . Move to direct the appropriate City officials to meet with the Shakopee Public Utility Commission officials to generate cost estimates, potential cost share arrangements and assessment alternatives to facilitate the underground overhead utility lines in the downtown area and the reconstruction of the alleys and report findings back for further review and comment. 2 . Recommend that the appropriate City officials be directed to meet with the Shakopee Public Utility Commission officials in an attempt to facilitate the undergrounding of the downtown utilities with cost for said undergrounding to be totally absorbed by the Shakopee Public Utility Commission and the cost of reconstructing the alleys passed on to the benefitting properties. 3 . Recommend to the Community Development Commission that the appropriate City officials be authorized to meet with the Shakopee Public Utility Commission officials to facilitate the undergrounding of the overhead utility lines with the cost for said undergrounding to be based on a cost sharing arrangement and 25% of the cost of reconstructing the alleys passed on to benefiting properties. 4 . Table action pending further information from staff. 5 . Do not proceed with investigating undergrounding overhead utilities in the downtown area at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative #1 . ACTION REQUESTED: Move to direct the appropriate City officials to meet with the Shakopee Public Utility Commission officials to generate cost estimates, potential cost share arrangements and assessment alternatives to facilitate the underground overhead utility lines in the downtown area and the reconstruction of the alleys and report findings back for further review and comment. tw:undergro /31 Attachment # 1 TO: Dennis Kraft , City Administrator FROM: Lou Van Hout , Utilities Manager RE : Electric Line Relocation for Mini Bypass and Minnesota River Bridge; General discussion of Undergrounding in the Downtown Area DATE : 3/7/91 Enclosed is a copy of an agreement between Mn/DOT and SPUC for reimbursement of part of the costs of relocating electric lines for the bypass/bridge projects . Since there are other agreements between the City of Shakopee and the State of Minnesota already in existence , I felt it best to send a copy for your reference in having a comprehensive overview of things . The figures in the agreement were determined by our consulting engineer and Mn/DOT based on estimates; we are now about to start the design phase of the electric line relocation. Some of the lines will be relocated underground, specifically along the alley North of City Hall and the next Block East . But the State can only pay for undergrounding where it is the more economical way to go , as they are legally unable to pay for betterment of a system. I expect the SPUC is going approve of a certain amount of undergrounding beyond what the state can pay for, with the added expense at SPUC ' s cost . Now that this relocation is imminent , it might bring the general idea of undergrounding once again to the fore . The scope of the relocation work will not be near the amount needed to achieve full electric undergrounding in the downtown area , and the relocation can proceed without having any discussion of the full undergrounding issue . If however, there is an expectation that the undergrounding in the rest of the downtown will soon follow, this might be a good time to review that issue . The city has taken steps toward the undergrounding of the electric lines when the opportunity presented itself. When the downtown streets were repaved, the city tried to put in place some of the facilities to avoid digging-up those streets again when undergrounding in the future . Much of that construction will be of use when the lines are undergrounded. Other than some preliminary estimates done several years ago , the costs for complete undergrounding of the downtown area are still indeterminate at this point , but are significant . If full /3t25 Attachment # 1 TO: Dennis Kraft , City Administrator FROM: Lou Van Hout , Utilities Manager RE : Electric Line Relocation for Mini Bypass and Minnesota River Bridge; General discussion of Undergrounding in the Downtown Area DATE : 3/7/91 Enclosed is a copy of an agreement between Mn/DOT and SPUC for reimbursement of part of the costs of relocating electric lines for the bypass/bridge projects . Since there are other agreements between the City of Shakopee and the State of Minnesota already in existence , I felt it best to send a copy for your reference in having a comprehensive overview of things . The figures in the agreement were determined by our consulting engineer and Mn/DOT based on estimates; we are now about to start the design phase of the electric line relocation . Some of the lines will be relocated underground, specifically along the alley North of City Hall and the next Block East . But the State can only pay for undergrounding where it is the more economical way to go, as they are legally unable to pay for betterment of a system. I expect the SPUC is going approve of a certain amount of undergrounding beyond what the state can pay for, with the added expense at SPUC ' s cost . Now that this relocation is imminent , it might bring the general idea of undergrounding once again to the fore . The scope of the relocation work will not be near the amount needed to achieve full electric undergrounding in the downtown area, and the relocation can proceed without having any discussion of the full undergrounding issue . If however, there is an expectation that the undergrounding in the rest of the downtown will soon follow, this might be a good time to review that issue . The city has taken steps toward the undergrounding of the electric lines when the opportunity presented itself . When the downtown streets were repaved, the city tried to put in place some of the facilities to avoid digging-up those streets again when undergrounding in the future . Much of that construction will be of use when the lines are undergrounded. Other than some preliminary estimates done several years ago , the costs for complete undergrounding of the downtown area are still indeterminate at this point , but are significant . If full undergrounding were to be accomplished, there will be costs for easements and costs for customer-owned wiring (not owned by SPDC ) , in addition to equipment costs and the conduit costs . To understand things from the SPUC viewpoint , I believe a comparison could be made between the position of the State with respect to relocation and the SPUC position with respect to undergrounding: for undergrounding, SPUC will pay for work done to SPUC ' s benefit . As an example of costs SPUC would pay, I would expect that the replacement of SPUC overhead equipment , with new underground equipment , would be SPUC cost even though underground equipment is more expensive. On the other hand, conduits and manholes are examples of things necessary for achieving the aesthetics of getting the lines out of sight , but they really don ' t replace anything equivalent in overhead construction. I believe some sort of cost sharing is appropriate in the case of conduits and manholes . Streetlighting is not SPUC owned, even though SPUC absorbs the cost to power and maintain the lighting. If there is serious consideration for complete undergrounding at this time I believe the SPUC would look for cost sharing, especially if the undergrounding were to scheduled to occur before major redevelopment . I don ' t know if this is a good time to bring up the matter for general discussion or not . Please let me know what you think. Attachment # 2 eh I i \NN.. .) I ...a...■ s r..........,....III M 1 IMMI III.1 1111 =MI ME 1 6:WM3 I r- ir I I ! ' „, _,__A;:_, „., ; HI III itilninnnnnnv • • • --- c --- ----T--''n------r---- .--'--..a 11111 � ' I o 11 ir;-7<tamer.ziti".1.....1.les ,.1..,;,... ...._____... ..............mix - - . J' : 1 oLii 'I L! 1 < I , -i 1 I ■ r I II I1 • 1 i -- EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER "- EXISTING UNDERGROUN CONDUIT PROPOSED UNDERGROUND CONDUIT I ■ ■ lriivi 1 r�- � I I . .. L s J ■o • . . . : ,J . . . 2ND Cr I i lac MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk RE: 1991 Board of Review DATE: March 15, 1991 INTRODUCTION: 1991 Board of Review for the City of Shakopee is set for Tuesday, May 14, 1991. City Council has previously decided to appoint a special board of review to handle the powers and duties of the board of review for the City of Shakopee for 1991. Additional appointments are needed if City Council wants a five member board. BACKGROUND: In 1990, the City Council first appointed a board of review to consider concerns of propety owners regarding the market value placed on their property by the Scott County assesor's office for taxation purposes. Prior to 1990, City Council sat as the City's board of review. In 1990, the board of review consisted of two councilpersons and three citizens. City Council was pleased with how things went this first year and decided to appoint a board of review again for 1991. When staff advertised for openings on all city boards and commissions last November, the board of review was included. One application was received and an appointment made. The Mayor has also appointed Councilwoman Vierling and Councilman Sweeney to serve on the board of review. In response to a request from staff, the Shakopee Valley News recently ran another notice inviting applications for the board of review - see attached. To date I have received no applications. In January I talked to Mr. Turek and Mr. Marks (who were on the board last year) asking if they would be interested in serving on the board this year. Mr. Marks, who is a real estate appraiser, said that he would be willing to serve; however, he pointed out that he is a resident of Jackson Township and that Council may wish to appoint a Shakopee resident. Mr. Turek said that he did not wish to be appointed this year. The state law provides that at least one member of the board of review be an appraiser, realtor or other person familiar with property valuations in the assessment district. The closest that we can come to this requirement the better, or anyone who buys and sells real estate would qualify. 1-3 1991 Board of Review March 15, 1991 Page -2- ALTERNATIVES: 1] City Council sit as board of review 2] Appoint Mr. Marks = 4 member board 3] Appoint Mr. Marks and Cncl.Vierling or Cncl.Sweeney resign = 3 member board 4] Appoint Mr. Marks + an additional councilmember = 5 member board 5] Go with current make up of Mr. Reinke, Cncl .Vierling and Cncl .Sweeney = 3 member board (Cncl .Vierling sells real estate) 6] Go with Mr. Reinke and Cncl .Vierling or Cncl . Sweeney resign with Cncl. Clay taking their place (Mr. Clay is a realtor) = 3 member board 7] Other RECOMMENDATION: Alternative No. 4 or 5 . I J In brief _yr __ , _ , s :-, ,,,..,---- '7'.- - - . - . City seeks Board of Review applicants . ; V The city of Shakopee is seeking applicants for two positions on its ' :01:4•. s,, x : Board of Review for 1991. N _ The five-member board considers concerns of property owners regard - £ f in, the market value placed on their property by the Scott County -.A' C, / >1 assessor's office for taxation purposes.The board does not hear complaints ,^ `" about property taxes. '� ''�.. " Most consideration will be given to applicants who have experience as a property appraiser or in real estate. �„ ,fir .,, .- For an application.call City Hall at 445-3650. • . '� Carver County imposes hiring freeze CHASh A—The Carver County Board.anticipating significant budget = f ;, _� ^�. cuts due to a reduction in state aids, imposed a 45-day hiring freeze ' 1 '.,..t,--;, `` \"\�..– effective Feb.5. .:'a i� In discussing the action,commissioners agreed that the ban will not be `.:' L lifted even during unusual circumstances. Man found guilty of rape, kidnapping Jason Cordes Gretchen J NEW PRAGUE—A 38-year-old New Prague man has been found guilty of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, kidnapping and making terroristic threats related to an incident involving his former girlfriend that Cordes, Jenkins n an began ata Prior Lake bar in November. Robert Michael Williams was acquitted of a second count of first- degree criminal sexual conduct following a two-week trial in Le Sueur Award w County District Court that ended Feb.8. 1991 AAAi According to the complaint filed against him,Williams forced the 27- vear-old woman from the bar and held her overnight in a stable south of Jason Cordes and Gretchen Jen- man, grades 10-12;j - New Prague where she was beaten and sexually assaulted. kins, seniors at Shakopee High ber, grades 10-12. The court ordered a pre-sentence investigation. School,have been named winners of (saxophone ensemble the school's 1991 AAA(Academics, pit orchestra,grade 1 Education financing is meeting topic Arts and Athletics)Award.They will erning board (repres now compete against winners from 10-12; board presi: The League of Women Voters of Scott County will sponsor an informa- other schools for regional honors. Class of 1991 presi: tional meeting on the issue of financing education on Saturday at 9:30 a.m. On March 23 during the Boys' 12; and National at the Shakopee Public Library. State Basketball Tournament, 32 grades 11-12). Guest speakers will be Jody Hauer,researcher for the Citizens League: regional winners will be honored and Cordes' commu- Les Sonnabend, school superintendent in Prior Lake, and Bob Martin, four state winners will be chosen to volvement includes director of business services for the Shakopee School District. re resent the AAA Class of 1991. ball, basketball and Discussion will focus on school finance studies recently completed by The ni •gh school of each state winner for youth leagues; • the League of Women Voters of Minnesota and the Citizens League.More will receive a S500 award as well. the youth basketball information on the meeting can be obtained by calling Joan Lynch at 445- Cordes, son of Ken and Barb unteering for Dolla 5585. Cordes, has been on the "A" Honor and serving as a schc • Roll during all three of his high school .sentative to a drug years.Academically,he has received shop.He has also se awards in English and science through taut basketball coa the Shakopee Academic Recognition high school. Program (SHARP)in 10th grade, in Cordes plans to a science and Spanish in 11th grade; college. He has nc and all-academic awards in grades 10 major. Authorities get more options and 11. He was a Rotary Student of Gretchen Jerk the Month for September 1990, and Steve and Paula Jen WCCO Radio Student Athlete of the Roll student and m- in domestic violence cases Week in December 1988. tional Honor Soc.c: _ __L...., r..-.•�...n ,Pam- Jenkins has be CONSENTot MEMO TO: DENNIS KRAFT, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: DAVE HUTTON, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR SUBJECT: SURPLUS EQUIPMENT DATE: MARCH 25 , 1991 INTRODUCTION Staff is requesting that City Council declare several items as surplus in order for them to be sold. BACKGROUND There are two items staff would like to be declared as surplus . 1 . Cutting Edge for front end loader bucket The Public Works Department has a brand new cutting edge for a loader bucket that is not the right size and does not fit on our buckets. This cutting edge was purchased in 1986-87 for $350 , but has never been used. Staff has found a buyer for this equipment and he has offered us $350 for it. 2 . Spare Tires/Rims There are 5 used military tires and 1 used rim that were for the military jeeps. These jeeps were sold in 1990 at the Hennepin County Vehicle Auction. The spare tires and rim should be declared surplus in order for staff to try and sell them or dispose of them. Staff has received at least one request to buy them. ACTION REQUESTED Move to declare the cutting edge for the front end loader bucket and the spare tires/rims for the military jeeps as surplus equipment and authorize the City Administrator to sell them. CONSENT 13 v MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Dave Hutton, Public Works Director 1L SUBJECT: Shakopee Basin WMO DATE: March 25, 1991 INTRODUCTION: The City of Shakopee' s portion of the 1991 Annual Budget of the Shakopee Basin Water Management Organization is due. BACKGROUND: The City of Shakopee belongs to the Shakopee Basin Water Management Organization (WMO) . In addition to Shakopee, representatives from the City of Prior Lake, Louisville Township and Jackson Township belong to this WMO. A joint powers agreement was executed by all entities several years ago forming the WMO. The joint powers agreement allows the WMO to adopt an annual budget. The 4 governmental units that belong to this WMO would share in funding this budget based on 50% tax capacity and 50% area. The 1991 Budget as adopted by the Shakopee Basin WMO is $1, 500 . 00 . Based on the above formula, the City of Shakopee' s portion would be $546. 75. Attached is correspondence from the chairman of the Shakopee Basin WMO requesting payment. According to the Finance Director, the Storm Sewer Utility Fund would pay for this item. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the request. 2 . Deny the request. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Move to authorize payment to the Shakopee Basin Water Management Organization in the amount of $546. 75 representing the City of Shakopee ' s portion of their 1991 Budget, the funds to come out of the Storm Sewer Utility Fund. DH/pmp WMO 13 March 21 , 1991 Dave Hutton City of Shakopee 129 East 1st Ave. Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Mr . Hutton: Enclosed are the calculations used to determine each local unit of government ' s contribution to the budget for the Shakopee Basin WMO. Please send checks to : Dave Hutton Engineering Department 129 East 1st Ave. Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 If you have any questions, feel free to call . Sincerely, 94j4-7 Darrell Jahn /-91,4 Shakopee Basin WMO 1 ~~� ~E~— GENERAL INVOICE S|!AKOPEE BASIN WATER MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION Charge: City of Shakopee Dave Hutton 129 East 1st Ave Shakopee, MN 55379 Pot Services and/or materials: Based on area $283.50 Based on tax capacity 263.25 ^ TOTAL DUE $546.75 / 3 J''' • 4r -7$V•O j>ireir6 BASEL) ON TAX CAPACITY TAX CAPACITY OF TAX $AMOUNT BASED OF TWP i C I TY CAPACITY 5O OF ON 50% OF IN WMO IN WHO BUDGET TAX CAPACITY Jackson Township 223,075 21 . X $750.00 _ $161 .25 Louisville Township 408.,684 ' 37.7 X $750.00 _ $282.75 City Of Prier Lake 61 ,62P 5.7 X $750.00 = $42.75 City of Shakopee 380,491. 35. 1 X $750.00 = $263.25 TOTALS 1 ,083,872 100.0 $750.00 t , , ~ /2 '- $7O .00 BASED ON AREA ACRES IN % IN 50% Of $ BASED ON WHO WHO BUDGET LAND AREA Jackson Township 3,021 23.6 X $750.00 = $177.00 Lousville Township 3,738 29.2 X $750.00 = $219.00 City of Shakopee 4,826 37.8 X $750.00 = $283.50 City of Prior Lake 1 ,200 ^ 9.4 X $750.00 = $70.50 10TALS 12,785 100.0 $750.00 / . ' . CONSENT 3 MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Dave Hutton, Public Works Director(Dow-- SUBJECT: Administrative Policy No. 23 Service Wyes DATE: March 25, 1991 INTRODUCTION: Attached is the revised Administrative Policy No. 23 regarding service wyes for City Council review and approval. BACKGROUND: On March 5, 1991 the City Council reaffirmed their position on Administrative Policy No. 23, which allows twin homes to share sewer and water services via service wyes. The Council also directed staff to revise the policy in order to clarify it. Staff has revised Administrative Policy No. 23 and the revised one is attached for City Council consideration. The proposal policy has been reviewed and approved by the City Administrator, City Clerk, City Attorney, Public Works Director, Building Official and Utilities Manager. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve of the revised policy. 2 . Do not approve it. 3 . Approve it with changes. 4 . Table it for additional staff corrections. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. The policy still allows for shared services, which was clearly Council 's position on March 9, 1991. But the revised policy provides for language and clarification which will enable staff to administer this policy much easier and alleviate conflicts similar to what happened on the Roundhouse Circle development. ACTION REQUESTED: Move to approve of the revised Administrative Policy No. 23 and direct the appropriate City officials to formally sign the policy. DH/pmp / 3 ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY NO. 23 Subject: Sewer/Water Service Wyes Date Adopted: March 17, 1981 Date Revised: April 2 , 1991 Source of Authority: City Council This policy allows for the use of wyes to provide shared sewer and water services for twin homes, with the following stipulations: 1. A twin home is defined as two units on separate lots with a shared party wall. 2 . Each unit must have separate sewer and water services from the building to the property line. The "wye" must occur in the street boulevard, which is defined as that area between the curb and gutter and the street right-of-way line (property line) . Please refer to the attached diagram for a typical wye arrangement. 3 . The sewer/water services from each unit must be separated by at least 15 feet. 4 . The portion of the services from the wyes to the mains must be the following sizes Water Service - 1 1/2" minimum Sewer Service - 4" minimum If there are unusual uses whereby these size services are not large enough, wyes will not be allowed. In all cases, the capacity of the services dictate whether or not wyes will be allowed. 5. Even if the capacity of the services is adequate, shared services may be denied if the friction loss is too great due to the building being set back from the street extremely far. 6. The maximum number of lots that will be allowed on a shared service (via a wye) is 2 , no matter what the capacity of that shared services area. 7 . Since it is the property owner' s responsibility for maintenance of their sewer and water services from the building to the mains, the maintenance of the shared services from the wye to the mains shall be included in the "party wall" agreements for 11 twin homes. A copy of said party wall agreement shall be submitted to the City and placed in the property file prior to issuing a Certificate of Occupancy for the twin home. This agreement shall include the County Recorder's document number verifying that it has been recorded. 8. The installation of the shared service/wyes shall, of course, meet all applicable building and plumbing codes. 9. At no time should a street be cut open without first obtaining a street cut permit by the City Engineer. 10. This policy only applies to twin homes when there is existing, single sewer and water services from the mains to the property line to avoid a street cut. This policy does not apply to proposed twin homes in new developments or subdivisions where the sewer/water mains have not been installed yet. In that case, separate services can be installed to each unit from the building to the main prior to the street being constructed. This policy has been reviewed and is acceptable to the Public Works Director, Building Official, Utility Manager and City Attorney. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1991. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney /3C, * 00 * 0 * O * 0000 * O * O * 0 * 00 * 00 * 0 1-- * CO CO * Co * CO * 00 CO 03 CO * Co * CO * CO * CO 00 * CO Co * Co C) co * CA V1 * V1 * Ui * VI(T V)N * 1.47 * cn * tr * cn U) * V)VI * (A 2 CO * NN * N * N * rrl--I- * r * I.- * 0 * 00 * 00 * 0 m b-- * V V * C-) * I.- * CO CO CO(O * N * C- * CO * CO CO * 1..I-. * 0 0 * 0) * A * r r r-I-- * Co * N * 0) * W C-) * (0 CO * VI T. C) M 2 -1 O -C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D W CO W W W W W W W W (n) CO W CO W CO -..I 4) - . -. , �� �� m x NN N NJ N N N N N NJ N NN NN N D 0)0) 0) 0) 0)0)C)0) 0) O 0) O CA 0)0) 0) X \\ \ \ \\\\ \ - - \\ \\ - 0 CO CO CO (0 CO(O CO(O CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO v ►-►- r r r I•-r l-. r r r r r 1-h- r m M D 3 0 C 2 woo N N I--1- f0 -1 NVA WW NN O)rrrr NN NN 1.+/... 0)NW CO 433 C.) CO 0)� W000l WW AA OV)U)VIV) 0000 00 (l)(t) I•-)-(o 000 NN rI-0 V1 V) NN 00000 NN NN 0000 A V V VIf-A AA A A 0 AA 00 00000 00 AA 0)0) CO(n A 000(0 0)0) * * * * * * * * * * XX C-C V) 0000 0 C.• C) AC) DD D Mz z -I 0000 0 c r mm v-0 rn D D 0 m <<<< A 0 C r r D> I— CO N v C) I•-I -I r r C)C) D N N Cm 73737373) 2 -1-173-3 0 2 2 r r- m m n < RI 2.2• S 2 DDDD . DD 2 0 /-I MMN M C) C XI 73 OO 0 33 0 S ZZZZ Z 0 I XI33 00 r C •- - C-4rr 0 x c-I 00 00 Zi aXI 0 I- C))OG3CC)) 0 mm 13-0 2 00 r m Z m mm N -< NNtiN -I C) -I mmmrn 00X)73 r).73 1-1 7C 'v73 «« 2 =II �I C) In N 0 0 '-4 CO In a vv v -I 0C)0C) m -I In -I-I C/)(/) XI 1-I az a 33 0000 0 33 0 mm CC m -I 0 0 � D ZZZZ C D C r r v- 3 m < -II1"11-11-11 1-C < ►-I m m v v 1-I X mm 2. 4- 2*2.21 Qs r 2S N14 0 23 v 2° CO CO N CO D 2b D Z Z CA Cl)D3. CA << v 0000 rr I-C m m Z C) C CO 5222 Z Cl) Z C) W C 0000 -I C m I•-I 00 0000 CO Ai v In rrrr N -I I-4 N N N Cn I-C C-C 1-1 rn CI) 2 0 --1 -4 N 2 W0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 00 00 CO D i-t-• r r I-rrr r I- r I-•I-. I-./... r C) 1 I 1 1 I L I I 1 1 I I I I I I C) A A A A AAAA A A A A A A A A O W W W CO WWWW N W NJ W W N NJ CO C 1-./-. V) co (O COCO(O W CO CO NN I--1-- NJ 2 00 0 0 0000 N O N r1- 00 CA -4 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I (.0 i•-• 0) r Ar►-I-. W r A CO W 0)A 0 2 V0) A N r 03 0)N r C.,) A Nr AN 0 0 NW r 0) rrI-.0o r r r F.1... 4-.1-. 0 - I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 A I- O) r Ai-.r r- CO r A W W CAA 0 I--1 i-<7) A N r 00 CA N r CO A N r A N 0 2 r A r r CO - V) N 0 0 CO r co 0 0 N 30 0 N N 00 N A W 1.../-... V) of 1 CO 03 W 0 0 •- I CO at r 3 m v Cl) D * * * * x- * * * * * H C) * * * * * * * * * * D m * * * * _ _ * * * * * * O 1 I ) I ' 1 1 1 I 1 1 m A C) C) (") A C) C) A C) C) Cn CO CO CO CO (n CO CO Cl) CO r Oil * 0 * 0 * 0 * 0 * 00 * 00000 000 * 0 * O * 0 r * Co * 00 * 00 * 0o * cow * 0000000000 000000 * 00 * 00 * CO C) 0 * 0 * Ul * UI * 0 * 0U1 * 00000 000 * N * 0 * N X (0 * W * W * W * W * WW * NNNNN NNN * N * N * N m r * Ut * 0 * A * W * 00 * (0(0(0(0(0 (0(0(0 * (0 * 00 * V C) * 0) * N * r * V * 0000 * 0003030000 V V V * UI * C) * U1 X C) H 2 V O -< 0 0 -n 0 0 0 0 00 00000 000 0 0 0 D W W W W WW (4(4(4(4(4 WWW W W W -4 N \ \ \ \ \\ \\\\\ \\\ \ \ \ rn 2 N N N N NN NNNNN N N N N N N D C) C) C) C) MCI MO/M005 C)0)0) C) 01 C) X \ \ \ \ \\ \\\\\ \\\ \ \ \ 0 (0 (O W W WW (0(0(0(0(0 (0(0(O (0 (O (O v r r r r rr rrr r r r m RI D 2 0 N N r N r 4:..p. C - - - - - Z NN VWW NNNNNN 0)(00)0 00 -4 VV C)0) 00 VV WVC) U10VAVA AM0r rr AA VV 00 00 rr 030V rW(OVAV AA(0(0 CC) CC) U)U1 WW 0000 00 0000 U)(O V) (O A 0 U1 U)U1 007-0 0 0 AA MM NN rr 00 00 rC)0 000000 0)00000 0000 00 00 * * * * * * * * * * 3 v 3 3 33 rrr-rr rrr 0 r -I I-( D 0 t-1 00000 000 D D I'(i 0 -4 -4 z RIM G)G)L')OG) 000 z 2 73 m m m rn rn r,t-I ( 0 Co 73 Z 0 m 33 DDDDD 000r Cl) -< < N0 0 C) 4-41-41-41-1M V) m --I S r D DD 000U)0 1-- 3 7 0 >D D 0 00 D C) C) 22252 < m 0 0 N D H 0 00 00000 n1 C) H xs Ci v 2 Z 00 mmmmm N z 2 2 2 C) D m CO CO CO N Cl) Z0 D 0 r 73 m M 0 0-4 -4 rn a Cn 0 0 C vv 00000 73,373 3 m v 1-4 C C D -4 23711 mrtm 0 0 71 -1 a v v i-( 00 00000 ZZZ -1 C 0 r m v 1-4 r 33 -I'4'•'1 0 1•4 m X D r -4 1-4 00 00000 000 = -0 O r-( 3* -1 --4--1 2 2 2 2 S m 3 m 0 m m r 1-I HN 00000 (n m 00 C D 72 U) 3 m N zz mxiAAm m 1-9 < A D 0 U)C -nvmrnv r Z ZI -1 C 00000 -( F•• 4-4 m H 0 Z 0 0 0 0 r0 0000000003 V00 r 0 0 3* ✓ r r r Ar A A A A A (47-.r A r r C) I 1 I I I t 1 1 1 1 I I 1 II I I n A A A A AA NNNNN AAA A A A 0 N N 0 W WW WWWWW WWW N N W C ✓ r r V rr 00000 000000 N G) r Z N 0 r 0 (0(0 NNNNN 000 N N 0 -4 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 A W W C) P.-6r 00000 Vrr r A W Z N r r W AV 00000 W00 A A W 0 ✓ r r 0 N00 00000 rWN W r r 1I I I 1 I I 11 1 1 I A W W 0) rr 00000 Vrr r A W /•-4 N r r N AV 00000 WU1 U1 A A W Z ✓ Ut W 0303030303 NNN r N C) A VrA0A (0(0(0 W 00 (O (O 0)(0 A N(0 rrr C) S 0 (...1 A A (0V Or 0) rrr U7 A W -.4-4-4 O o -0 1 N 0 0 I-- 1 1 CO SC Na.r 3 RI v C!) D * * * * * * * )1. * CO 0 * * * * * * * * * 3* (Ti * * * * . * * * * * 0 I I I I -��. I I I1 1 C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) N CO CO Cl) Cn N N V) CA N -II 0 * 0 * 0 * 0 * 0 * 0 * 00000 0 0 * 0 * 0 00 * oo * oo * oo * oo * oo * 00 0o co co 00 * Co 00 * oo * oo o Coo U1 * UI * U1 * Ui * N * VI * VI UI UI VI UI * UI N * UI * (it = CO V1 * UI * A * A * A * A * AAAAA * W CJ * (..) * W m i.- 1- * 1- * 0) * UI * A * NJ N. * CO CO * C) * VI C) CA V * UI N. (0 * CO * N * 0) * N NJ N NJ NJ A. C) UI * CO * CO 7C C) 1-4 Z -1 0 -< O 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 0 0 0 0 D m CJ W W W (J W (4(4(4(4(4 W W W G) -4 N ,,���,, . m x N N N NJ N NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ N N NJ NJ N D CO 0) O 0) 0) C) Co C)C)O)Of 0 0) Of 0) 7C \ \ \ \ \ \ \\\\\ . \ \ \ 0 Co CO CO Co (C CD CO(C CO CO CO (0 CO CD (O r 1.. r I-- /-- h- /-• I— 1-. 1— m CTI > 3 (V --•A W 0 I-1 G AA CO 41 A(O CO VCJA NN 1-1•- —1 I-.1- AA NN I-1- UI UI NJCOCO0N0 (J CJ CO CO AA AA NN 00 CO 0000 VV (0(0 CO CO VI UI UTA rV 1--r VV r1-- 0000 CO(O 4.63 CO 00 VV NN CO CO C.)--I VV N CO 00 AA C...)L.) 00 r1-- AA 00 UI UI C)0) AA CO00coCOr 0)C) 00 4....)C..1 CO CO * * * * * * * * * * * 0 Cl) 73 z v -0 00000 Z Z 3 I - v 0 m m D in (n Z CO C N v 0 0 PO NN(nNV) - v D 0 D m m C) C) 1-I A 11111 0 < 0 7C m N c-, I r- 2 2 0 m °2. .2.2• E Z -0 m v Z m D Z v >>>>3> -< 0 Z —1 m N Cl)(n(n(n(1) 7:1 1--I m r m 1-I V)N co(n N - C) m73 m r (n v C) I- 0 00000 z 1-4 m 73 -1 m c) M .'a M M MN M N X N I-( Z ZZZZZ Cl, C) 0 00000 77 (J) m 0 I-I (/) RI 73 a CO CO CO m Cl, -0 v a C C as A 1--1 m r r r 0 0 za77zz —1 —4 r m —I -rI 0 0 0 C C 00000 1-4 1--I v C C) C) 0 1-I I-( m-11'I-*I-11 r r C) 13-I 3 (n -V a H M —I m I I I CO(n(n(n(n —I —I 1 v D > D I 3 mmmmm H N D Cl m v 1-I I-( /-I D Y. .A3-O 71 A.'O m m I-I D Cr) 1-1 Z Z Z H ►-I <<<<< Cn N Z Z C) (n -1 -I -I Z Z -1 C) 73 13 -1 -4 m I-( a z II M 0 Z 0 (n Z 0 O O O O O WWWN0 0 0 0 03 > 1- I-- 1-6 /- I- r 1-.1,-.I--(J 1- I-- I-- 1-- 1-- C) 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I n C-) A A A A A AAAA.fa A A A A 0 0) N NJ N N N CO CO CO CO W (-J W NJ CO C VI W (w) C.) W W V V W NJ Z 0 0 0 0 N NJ 00000 0 0 0 o) -I 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 0 0) 1-• CJ A A UI UI UI UI A A . r 0 Z 0 W 00 1-. N A CO 00 V V 1- N N ao 0 0 0 0 I- 1- O) r A CO N 0 1-6 V V N 0 I I I I I I 1 1 I I I 1 I I 1 0 C) 1-6 CJ A A AAlb.AA A A r 0 M 0 N CO 1-- N A N NJ Co 0 Z UI N r 0 V Co UI NJ r I- CO (D at 0 V 0 CD r A C) UI -o I 0o • O 0 1— I Co xe r 3 m N D * * * * * * * * * CO C) * * * * * * * * * > m * * * • '* * * * * .6 C) I 1 I �"' -_• I I I 1 1 m C) C) A C) C) C) C) C) C) (n CO Cn N CO cn 0 Cn (n W 0 00 0 0 0 0 * o * 000 * o * o * 0 * o * I-' 00 0o co 00 Co co * 00 * 00 * CO CO CO * CO * CO * CO * CO * C) CO U) N(n CIf 0 0 * U) * U) * Nf()f(Jf * cn * CA * 0 * 0 * = CO Co cow CO 00 00 * CO * 0) * ()f Uf U * U) * U) * U) * U * m o- 0 0 0 0 O O O * W * 0 * 000000 * V * (4 * W * N * C) A W W NJ r O * O * CO * 0 0 0 * O) * CO * IN * V * 7C A N Z -1 0 -< 0 0 'n 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 O D W W W W W W W (4 WWW W W W W -4 N \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \\\ \ \ \ - In = NJ NN N) N NJ NJ N NNN NJ N) N N D 01 0)0) 0) 0) CO 0) O) 0)0)0) CO Of Of 0) 7C \ \\ \ \ \ - \ \\\ \ - - \ 0 CO CO CO CO CO CO CD CD CO CD(0 CO CD CO CD I- rr IN IN IN r r rrr r IN r r m P1 D. 3 0 A A C Z AA r rr rr 0)O) AW -I NN CO CD CD WW WW rr CO CO 00 0A W N 0000 WW rr (JlU) 000 0)0) NN 00 0000 AA 0(l10A 00 WW 00 CO C.0 NN 000 04/f 00 00 NN 00 C4(0(Jr 00 0000 00 D)0) 00 000 00 00 00 00 00 ANrr 00 00 00 WW * * * * * * * * * * * * 0 00 0) CO D £ < CCC C V) N N) M >> r m -1 D V Z Z Z Z -I = C Z 7373 D N 0 N N MMM M A D - m m C) -4 3 -4 M -(-4-f < 73 7C m 000 m 0 73 < D =z 12 m M 000 73 -4 V D m 73 = 3 Z v) 73 m 3 Z T. -4--I M 'f > A 737373 M M in In 0 7373 r- r z mmm -i W X >> r D > Z•ZZ -< Z 0 n 73 n 00 00 N 2 G7 -I m DDA 0 m r D m I � �D 0 I rrr -11 RI 0 0 .I mmm z 737377 73 <<< m 0 M N -4PI 73 C) 00 Cl) -0 0 C C 73W W 0 0 1 M 00 C 73 0 -4 -i m r r 0 C 0 0 -1 0 2 2 -0 0 Z M r( 10 0 2 m --i C IN 3 C) r Ni '11-11 73 M ) r r M C)C) -n N 0 73 M M = 9•12'. M Cl) R. -1 -1 XX f?* 9* m 3 0 G )m m M M CDD N N N 73 N m m 2M1-4 V) U) C D V) 73 0 0 < 0 Cl) 0 M Z Z C•) C m M C) m =_ _ -11-41 = W r Z 73 0 00 0 a 0 00 - r r r I r 73 -I N(/) 0 `� M 73 0 Cr -1 Z _ Z -I 00 00 O 0 0 0 r 0000 0 0 0 0 D A rr r r r r A rrr r r r r C) I I ) I I I I I ( f I I I I I C) NJ AA A A A A A AAA A A A A 0 W W W NJ W W W W CO N N W Co.) NJ NJ C 0 (D CO r r CD V V WWW CD CD N Cl) Z N 00 O 0 0 0 0 N00 0 r N NJ -I f I , I I I I 1 f I I I I ( 1 O Wr W r (w) V r 0AW A r Cl) Cl) Z 0 i-•NJ r 01 r NJ A 0Nr r NJ N I- 0 0 rr r r N r Cl) Orr r r r N f ( I I I I I I f I I I I I 1 0 Wr CO r W -4 I- OAW A r W W M 0 I--N) i- 0) r NJ A 0 N r r N NJ r < 00 A I- rr 0 N ✓ W CO 0 0 r r CO 0) CO A A NJ 0 it 0 ✓ CO V 0 0 0 Cl) A V 00 NJ 0) -0 C CO N • O 0 I- I) OD S r 3 M 73 V) > * * * * * * * * (n 0 )1. * * * * * * * D m s * * * * * * * G) f _ 1 I I f ( I I m O 0 C) 0 0 0 0 A X 7: 7; S 7 7 X 7: N 0 N N N 0 N N A .z / jo o 0 0 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r Vo oo Co Co ........ Co 00 CO Co CO 00 00 00 00 CO CO C) CO 9 If 0) 07 0) 07 171 070 U'01 07 0) 01 01 0) N N N 0) 0) 0 0) N m (0 `//1�' CO CO 00 00 Co 00 000000000000 00 Co CO CO 00 00 03 co Co Co 00 rn r N r r r r r r r r r 0 0 0 0 0 C) 0 (0 00 v W0)W Q)0)O)O)p) 6.11 A W N r 0 (0 CO V 0) U) 7C A H Z -4 0 < 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 00000000 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a W W W w W W W W W w W W W W W w W W w W W w W -4 N \ \ \ \ \\\\\\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ m = N NJ N N NNNNNNNN N N N N N N N N N N N D Co 0) 0) 0) 0)0 0)O)O)O)0)0) 0) 0) O) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) Co 0) 7 \ \ \ \ \\\\\\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 0 CO W (0 CO CO(0(0(0(0(0(D(D (0 CO CO (0 W (0 (D (0 (0 (0 W M r r r r rrrrrrr•-r r r r r r r r r r r r m M a 3 0 C z WW r rr NN -{ NN rr (0(0 00 WNrWr WNNN NN NN 00 O)0) rr VV rr 0000 NN W0 00 00 00 A0070001 00000 (0(D (O(0 00 AA 0)(71 AA 0o0o 00 W0) AA rr AA 00 AA 00 N000O0(00)Com 0O VV (0(D 00 0000 00 00 00 0)0) WW (7(0 00 0)01 00 00 00 A0ONON000 WW 010) 00 rr 00 u)(n AA 0000 rr rr 00 )F * )t * * >F * * * * * * * * * * -I N N M aaavvzMv v Z 3 7C r r m 7C Z G) m = C > m 00000000 D D > m 0 ra D H M W Z 11 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z -4 -4 C) -4 co 7o r v z v m m 0 r U)0000000 1-4 = m H m > H -4 m RI m -I-4-4-4-1-4-4-4 v 0 m r Z m 7C m to 0) r 0 0 >>>>>>>> > Z m N r Z D m M D z --4 00000000 0) D 0 m m 0 = I- v Z < Z 0 m MHNMH 1-11-1 0-1 V) r Z W a 7C 0 M D v 0 > m 7C '9 ZZZZZZZZ 0) D r 0 Fr-4 0 r C. z Z z 00000000 m m N -4 3 m m 0 A "7) E 0 C) 3 0 00000000 1-44 H 1-1 0 m m AI Z C = r D 0 0) CCCCCCCC z N z z 0 M U) vv•vvvvvv a -4 A > x < N 0 v 73 0 r- m Z 0 M H 1.41-1I-1 MI-IH C/) MI ZZZZzZZZ m 00000)0)0)0) G) 0 H N -4 M M M 0 0 N W W W W W W W W 0 v C) 0 v M -4 0) m 0 0 H 70 C C C rrrrrrrr C M 0 C z m v C .0 C C -4 1.4 m m v 00000000 v H Z v 0 m > v C v m m Z N N •0 G)C)G)L)G)C)C)G) v Z m v T C < •v H v 0) 3 2. Q" 1-4 33333333 1-11-- r-1 2'e 1-1I- r-I (n m r 1-4 v rI 2. 0 fA m DDDDDDDD m Q. m m m 3 m m N U) 0) H1-4H1-4HH1-11-I N 0 U) m 0 Pe N > 0 N N a C C ZZZZZZZZ v 0 < rI H C C) C W CO C X N N Z CO M CO V) N W 0 v C -I N H O C) 0 W C) v v v r 71 (n v -I H H U) -7) H H H M M 0 N v 0 V -4 -4 -4 Z 0 0 �I 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 -4 0 0 0 o a r r C.) r r r r r 1- r W r r r r C) 1 ) 1 I I I I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 i I O A A A A AAAAAAAA A A A A A W A A A A A 0 W W W N NNNNNNNN N C.) W NJ W CO („) NJ N N W C 07 (O (0 r WWWWWWWW I- U) (0 r r (T (.) - C.) r CO Z 0 r r 0 00000000 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 r -4 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I W W V C.) 0)0)AWWrrr Co CO r CO W Co V W 0) W W Z r r W N AWNNr0o0o0o A r C.) A r 0 W r N r N 0 r r r r I-0rrr ANr r r r r r 0 I-. r W N r I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 W W V W 0)oA W W r r r 0) W r 0) C.) 0 V C.) Co C.) C) H I- r CO N ANNNr000000 A r W A r 0 W I- N r N Z < r AAAAAAAA N 0) N Co W W W W W W W W co A V A WWWWWWWC A N r !t 0 r AAAAAAAA Co V A A W W CO 'v I V • 0 0 I... . 1 CO at r I m v N D N C) > m G) m 0 0 r * 00 C) (D * tT = CD : ao m r » r 7C C) Z —1 0 -< 0 0 T) 0 D w -c V) \ m = N D 0) \ 0 CD - r m m 3 W r 0 N rrr COWAN - - - - V) C)A 0 C)CJ)CJ 0000 C)0) -1 ✓ V0VNVN00 NN C) VC)WNArrV 00 00 rA(OAN00) 00 0o 01VN00CDAr 00 x O mmmm nmTt -i -4 CCCCCCCC m > zzzzzzzz I- 00000000 m - Z WW.JVWNrO A 0 A r W r r W A r 0 0 -•i-4- -4-1-1 1 V) C) 00000000 = >>>>>>>> 0 C) rrrrrrrr m C) Fr N m mvNNrN-i G) C) rr cnD—cmcDOzm D —1 0-G0 (0C23.Z m 7,73amr-4zm r+ z 003m =0z —c Zr- rcmc-4> > 0 r0m3A—cr r m MCvr V) -4DZ73< 01 m C•) 711.400 C .o CZ <CO Z C .+ N D r71-‹ 0 r - -4 C) 1 -0 -i M 0-0 rr • D 0 C N Z -4 • in < � D ✓ 0 i C) A 0 Cl) C ✓ Z r —4 V Z ✓ 0 r V M ✓ Z ✓ - 0 C) YC 0 CO ✓ i w • 0 0 r co * r 1 3 M - V) D : V) G) : D m s C7 c m 0 7 co 0) a) co c0‘o CO a) cx) co OD CD i OD (Co 0 o t-F 1-' C3. p H H H I-' • 1-' H H I-' H H v, I-' I-' H a' , .0 (.) 0 \c) \D VD 0 \0 W W c+ = N N NN N I—' N N.) W NNIU H R) \O \,-, w H N O co O 1 H H (b N O O \n 0 0 3- () 0 0 0 0 O H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O W 4- () X 0 0 0 0 O -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H N c+ p) 0 0 0 0 O O\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H H 'i 0 0 0 0 0 OH 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 w :s 0 0 0 0 0 -I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I-' N • •OOCoO '=1 v, H H C I 1 I t7 CO 0) Co OD Co 0 CD OD co 0o co co cr 0 0 0 C] H H H H H H H H H H H H vi H H H 'Y � (D 1-3 HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH < `< F-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a (D I (D )> H H H I-' H H H I--' I-' H H H I--' H H H () Co N N r c O O O O O O 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0+ a(D 10 n c+ 0 H CO fa. 9 c+ s✓ EA- \-11l N N 1 N H c+ Op \O .-.- --- W H OD OD - H a 3 N H 4-- 0\ iN 0\ `r, (A) w o 1 OD N -J 0 --J 0\ N 0 \n (,i \O 0) CO t,) 0 -J (X) 0 \-n ul N s✓ IN 0 H W 4- .N- I-' (-) \O v, 0) CT c_) `n - - I--' \'I X) Cf 1 H \O co H vi H (A) ., 0 0 co`n 0 v, 0\ O v, (r -r- CO co N \o I-� -4 0 0\(x)v, 0 H 0 0 IF U C) 1N �v, o 03 j xi 1 7tf X1 'b zi t •.0 �J .n H W = C) w C N CO W H (D (D (D (D (D 'i (1) (D (D (D (D (D 'I lD 0 (D Z 1 0 0 0\ 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 W 3 a to Lo v'F 0 1 r. r• H. r• H. '-s r. F'. r• r• r• r. r• ") W c+ ct c+ c+ cf c+ cf c+ c+ (+ c+ () c+ ►s ,.b vH, o rn\O 'v Co 'j '1 '-d (D t7 Co '-d . '� '-1 (D :c cn 7: A t=1 H 1-i F--I tzj '1 (D H p) (D I--I 1-1 'i (D co K xs 1-3 c) '-3 t c '-h H '< a c) H W () 3> T. a 3> Cl) '1 H. 3> H CO 1 O 0 c+ O t" H co 0 C) H I H 0 CD ' H Cr)0 tx.1 .d W Cl) CD C trl W W W W W W W W W W W(,,) W W W W C) H v, \.n v, \n vl vt v, \.n v, v, v'i vt v, vl vl v, 7; 0 1 1 11 1 1 ] 1 -J 111 1 1 1 1 • N N N N N R) N N N) H H H I-' H H H H -4 0\ vt v, � w N H 0 \O \O \0 OD 1 0\ \n Z 0 b C) _ 3 b O '0 C) = _ = .70., 3 01 y 3 W 3 '-1 0 pa W Z tOO tri 3 ' '1 H (D 3> 3 .0 a < CO 0) 3 .0 '0 .i I(1) '- A O W W 0 0 Uf til 0 Cl) I-' O .-i) N ;.5 p) CO (D H Z < X) N C U x r U x x < c+ (D co (D to p) r• CD X cr+ N H N 0 (D C 0 0 I-••'•es (HD 0 '0 'rs ':( m < CDD cD (p H 'moi 9 0 H c- 75- v, vl N) H --' 0\ W 0\ vi w H OO N 1 1 Q\ N) \n w \O CO (U w 0\ 0 \n \n R) w O H —I - H 0 \f) v, \ii v, - HQS v, H \O CO 1 1 F-' W 1 O -P-- O O O v) O\ O\ N \O H 1 0 \O 0 H CONSENT • MEMO TO: Shakopee City Council FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator RE: Organization and Staffing - Recreation Department DATE: March 18, 1991 INTRODUCTION: In early January, City Council directed the City Administrator to evaluate the organization and staffing levels at the newly created Recreation Department and report the findings back to the City Council at their first meeting in April. BACKGROUND: Since the winter months are generally the slower period for the Recreation Department, I do not believe that I have had the opportunity to fully analyze the staffing needs and organizational structure of the Recreation Department. Therefore, I would like to request City Council to consider tabling this item to the June 4, 1991 City Council meeting. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Move to table the City Administrator's report on the Organization and staffing structure of the Recreation Department until the June 4, 1991 meeting. 2 . Do nothing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Move to table the City Administrator's report on the Organization and staffing structure of the Recreation Department until the June 4, 1991 meeting. BAS/tiv UOi\IUENT / yev MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk. RE: Repealing A Storm Sewer Ass sment Policy DATE: March 26, 1991 INTRODUCTION: At their regular meeting on March 19th, City Council directed staff to prepare a resolution rescinding a double assessment policy. The attached Resolution No. 3377 repeals Resolution No. 1298 which was adopted August 15, 1978. BACKGROUND: During the public hearing on the proposed improvements for Second Avenue, the City Engineer explained that the assessment to commercial and industrial properties for sanitary sewer improvements would be double that assessed to residential properties. This proposed assessment was pursuant to an assessment policy adopted by City Council in 1978. City Council directed staff to investigate the rationale for the double assessment. Upon investigating the matter, staff concluded that the double assessment was instituted during the West Side Storm Sewer Project. The resolution adopting the double assessment policy used the phrase "subsurface improvements" and did not specifically mention sanitary sewers, storm sewer or watermain. There was reason to assess commercial and industrial properties, for storm sewer, twice that assessed for residential properties because run-off from commercial and industrial properties is greater. The city has since adopted a storm water utility, which in fact charges higher intensity uses a higher bill. Based on this, city council directed staff to prepare the appropriate resolution repealing the current double assessment policy. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Offer Resolution No. 3377, A Resolution Repealing Resolution No. 1298 Which Amended The Improvement Assessment Policy, and move its adoption. �.A• ��,��iu^�. ' �i •: : • / . � ` ` y/. •' � i •• �iIM1.M' ` 1 �4F•: I.ri? � • t y r,11 • . • " • , 4,',L4":;-. ,i ••1 1,1;!, Jz1i: •. , i •! L`',vf 'y r.Z%. ;.. ' 9.- ,sr)ri • }.�•" . RESOLUTION NO. 1298 f C� A RESOLUTION AMENDING RES. NO. 1282 , ADOPTING A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENT POLICY BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA THAT RESOLUTION NO. 44.9.8 be and the same is hereby amended as follows : Section IX. Policies and Procedures for Assessing Subsurface Improvements ; Specific Provisions : "C" "Property zoned or used as other than single and double family residential land and park land Will be assessed at twice the rate of single and double family residential land and park land; Except that all that property zoned as other than single and double family resiclenClal land, but used for single or double family residepC1 $1 , and adjoining homesteaded property not in excess of tWO acres , will be assessed the normal rate ." Adopted in adjourned regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee , Minnesota , held this 15th day of Auust , 1978. Mayor of Chgcity of S akopee ATTEST: it ' Cit err' Approved as to form this /4' day of August , 1978. • City ttorne • 11C4 EXCERPT FROM RES . NO. 1282 IX. POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR ASSESSING SUBSURFACE IMPROVEMENTS Storm sewer assessments shall normally be by the "area" method . Storm sewers shall be assessed at a rate of a 50% policy as herein described . A. Storm sewer benefits will be assessed separately for trunk benefits and lateral benefits . B . Platted and/or Developed Land as of 8-10-76 Cost of trunk and lateral : 1 . 50% of the cost will be raised from General Obligation Taxes . 2 . 50% of the cost will be raised from Special Assessments C . Unplatted and/or Undeveloped Land Cost of laterals : 100% of the cost will be assessed to private or public property (but not public right-of-way) . Cost of trunk 1 . 50 of the cost will be raised from General Obligation Taxes . 2 . 50% of the cost will be raised from Special Assessments . Specific Provisions A. Any publicly owned off street , non right-of-way property will be assessed as private property and included as part of the 50 assessed portion. B . Any revenue received from other governmental units for public right-of-way will be used as general obligation revenue . C . Property zoned or used as other than single and double family residential land and park land will be assessed at twice the rate of single and double family residential land and park land . D. = Credit will be given for any previous storm sewer assessments less than 25 years old at the date of assessments in both the platted and newly developed areas . ( 15) - - 1fie IX. Continued Assessments for walermain and sanitary sewer shall be based upon the cost of construction of 6-inch and 8-inch mains respectively, which is the smallest now normally installed in a residential area of the City . Assessments for water and sewer in commercial and industrial areas will be based upon 8-inch mains . When watermain looping benefits have been approved by the City ' s Public Utility Commission , a portion of the cost of completing said work will be paid by said utility . Costs due to larger mains and appurtenances may be paid for by a combination of availability charges , user charges and general obligation funds . Services installed to individual properties shall be fully assessed to the benefiting property. The various methods of assessments are as follows : A. Adjusted Front Footage Method (Water and Sanitary Sewer) When assessment is to be determined by the adjusted front footage method , each parcel shall be assessed for improve- ments as hereinafter stated . 1 . Rectangular Interior Lots The rectangular lot is defined as having no more than 2 .0 feet difference between the front and back lot lines . The adjusted front footage is the actual front footage of the lot . For rectangular lots whose frontage is greater than its depth , the "odd shaped lot" method as explained below shall be used . 2 . Odd Shaped Lots (Unit Bases) For odd shaped lots , such as exist on cul-de-sacs , curved streets , etc . ; and where there is more than 2 .0 feet of difference between the front and back lot lines , the "odd shaped lot" method of determining the adjusted front foot- age shall be used . The adjusted front footage shall be computed by dividing the area of the lot by 9 ,000 to determine the equivalent number of front footage units in the parcel . The number of units multiplied by 60 feet will give the adjusted front footage . The area shall be computed to a maximum depth of 150 feet only . (16) • 1,4 A.-- IX. Continued 3 . Corner Lot (Odd lot ) a . Corner lots will only be assessed at a rate of 5O7 of the unit rate for the lot in question for the short side for each street improved . If both streets are improved simultaneously, 100% assess- ment rate per unit will be used . b. Alternate method #1 All lots within the block in question will be assessed equally for long side street improvements . Short side street improvement will be as shown in (a) above . c . Alternate method #2 100% of the adjusted footage cost for all utilities on the short side of the lot . 257 of the adjusted footage cost on the long side of the lot . This will not exceed 100 feet of credit for the lot in question .. B . Per Lot Method When it is determined to assess by the "per lot" method, the following procedures shall be used : 1 . All lots shall be assessed equally . C. Area Method When it is determined to assess by the "area" method , the following procedure shall be used : 1 . Each parcel shall be assessed based on the number of square feet of area within its boundary. CJH/klk (17) RESOLUTION NO. 3377 A RESOLUTION REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 1298 WHICH AMENDED THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENT POLICY WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a special assessment policy for assessing the cost for public improvements; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 1298 amended the Public Improvement Assessment Policy to charge a double assessment for subsurface improvements; and WHEREAS, no reason remains for the double assessment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, That Resolution No. 1298 , A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 1282, Adopting A Public Improvement Assessment Policy, is hereby repealed in its entirety. Adopted in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this 2nd day of April, 1991. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney lob EXPLANATION TO RESOLUTION 3379 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Law Department PURPOSE: To support the proposal to name the southerly bypass the "Walt Harbeck Memorial Highway" . REMARKS: At the March 19, 1991 City Council meeting Mr. Ed Hopps, Lions Club Member presented a letter from Richard J. Stoks, President of the Shakopee Lions Club supporting a proposal from a citizens' group to name the southerly bypass the "Walt Harbeck Memorial Highway" . The City Council agreed this is a fine idea and requested staff to prepare the attached Resolution. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 3379 , a resolution supporting naming of the south bypass the "Walt Harbeck Memorial Highway", and move its adoption. Submitted by: Approved by: City Attorney City Administrator 144?6 RESOLUTION NO. 3379 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, SUPPORTING THE NAMING OF THE SOUTH BYPASS THE "WALT HARBECK MEMORIAL HIGHWAY" . WHEREAS, Walt Harbeck was instrumental in originating the ideal to begin the new southerly bypass around urban Shakopee; and WHEREAS, Mr. Harbeck put forth much time and effort during his tenure as mayor of Shakopee to help lay the ground work that has brought this project to reality; and WHEREAS, Mr. Harbeck was an outstanding Shakopee citizen. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS: That the Shakopee City Council desires to go on record as supporting the naming of the southerly bypass around urban Shakopee the "Walt Harbeck Memorial Highway" . Passed in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1991. Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney CONSENT fq MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Dave Hutton, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Alley in Block 1, Mary Mark Addition DATE: March 26, 1991 INTRODUCTION: Attached is Resolution No. 3378, a resolution declaring the adequacy of petition and ordering the preparation of the feasibility report for improvements to the alley in Block 1, Mary Mark Addition. BACKGROUND: Staff has received a petition from a neighborhood requesting that the City prepare a feasibility report for upgrading the alley in Block 1, Mary Mark Addition. The alley in question is between Pierce Street and St. Mark' s Street and is located just south of 7th Avenue. The petition has been signed by 50% of the abutting property owners. Currently the alley is gravel and has some severe drainage problems. The City Council has taken a position in the past that improvements to alleys would only be done upon petition by the neighborhood. State law requires that at least 50% of the abutting property owners sign the petition for alley improvements and that condition has been met. Due to the problems associated with this alley and the high maintenance costs associated with it, staff recommends completing a feasibility report on this project to consider the requested improvements. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 3378. 2 . Deny Resolution NO. 3378 . RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, to adopt Resolution No. 3378 . ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 3378 , A Resolution Declaring Adequacy of Petition and Ordering the Preparation of a Report for Alley Improvements to Block 1, Mary Mark Addition and move its adoption. DH/pmp RESOLUTION NO. 3378 A Resolution Declaring Adequacy of Petition And Ordering The Preparation Of A Report For Alley Improvements to Block 1, Mary Mark Addition BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA: 1. A certain petition requesting the improvement of Block 1, Mary Mark Addition by alley improvements, filed with the Council on March 26, 1991, 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 David Hutton, Public Works Director 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, an estimated cost of the improvement as recommended. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of , 1991. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney j fe Date - 5 Y� We , the undersigned , owners of the following described real property , abutting on the proposed improvement and benefitted thereby, hereby petition the City Council of the City of Shakopee , for the following public improvements : 4/4 /if ./?% /(]tem X / /� � �5 �' ���� ) 1'//� on 4i ,j,j Street/Avenue , between` 6'4,7 4-,/: Street/Avenue and -7 -if.-1,(4/ (,' j Steet/Avenue , and request that the same . / be made during the year (Sj/ . In making this petition the undersigned understands that the City of Shakopee, its agents or employee cannot guarantee the amount of an assessment until a feasibility study of the improve- ments has been prepared and accepted by City Council in accordance with MSA Chapter 429 . PETITIONER LOT BLOCK 17 f, LG r 7 F ( •��=Y �-,� �c r,"fir a elikiv99A I)y LU i S 73 L fc lvc yi, C. '14i. Z-07- 6 ?«< / ,'7 ° l "8-14--/z_ (� �(,1 • ( - -f e l /ii /fes�2f S c t i /14- 1" �,-! �;'`�s �� r %� �7, � � �'��-/sa� 7���/ 7% ym � .,00A.; R E rc 1-r i R, 4.4./ • I , hereby, verify tfiat~I circulated the above petition and that the above signatures of the property owners and petitioners were affixed in my presence. - - 7 . 'b UC,) 11i1- Ho/ MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator (01°16' FROM: Dave Hutton, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Adams Street/4th Avenue DATE: March 25, 1991 INTRODUCTION: Attached is Resolution No. 3376, a resolution declaring the cost to be assessed and setting a public hearing on the proposed assessments for Adams Street/4th Avenue, Project No. 1990-3 . BACKGROUND: The Adams Street/4th Avenue Project has been completed and all project costs identified. As presented at the public hearing ordering this project, 100% of the total project costs will be assessed to the abutting property owners. The final project costs are $208 , 305. 26 and can be summarized below: Total Construction Costs $158 , 415 . 30 Total Admin./Engr. Costs 49 , 889 . 96 Total Project Costs $208,305.26 The total project costs had been estimated at $226, 300. 00 in the feasibility report. The final project costs are 8% below the estimated costs. The final assessment rate for Adams Street is $74 . 61 per front foot as compared to the estimated assessment rate of $79 . 07 per front foot. For 4th Avenue, the final assessment rate is $57 . 94 per front foot as compared to the estimated assessment rate of $57 . 06 per front foot. All corner lot adjustments were applied as recommended in the feasibility report. The following table summarizes the assessed/non-assessed portions of each project. Assessed Non-Assessed Total Cost 4th Avenue $ 24 , 591. 79 $42 , 925. 68 $ 67,517.57 Adams Street $101, 505. 99 $39, 281. 80 $140,787.79 Totals $126,097 .78 $82,207 .48 $208,305.26 Prior to levying any assessments on this project, the City Council must first hold a public hearing on the proposed assessments. iL1c Attached is Resolution No. 3376 which declares the cost to be assessed and sets the date for the public hearing for May 7, 1991. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 3376, which sets the date for the public hearing for May 7, 1991. 2 . Adopt Resolution No. 3376, but set a different date for the public hearing. 3 . Deny Resolution No. 3376. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 3376, A Resolution Declaring the Cost to be Assessed and Ordering the Preparation of Proposed Assessments for Adams Street, Between 6th Avenue and 3rd Avenue and 4th Avenue, Between Adams Street and Harrison Street, Project No. 1990-3 and move its adoption. DH/pmp MEM3376 C/a RESOLUTION NO. 3376 A Resolution Declaring The Cost To Be Assessed And Ordering The Preparation Of Proposed Assessments Project No. 1990-3 Adams Street, Between 6th Avenue And 3rd Avenue And 4th Avenue, Between Adams Street and Harrison Street WHEREAS, a contract has been let for the improvement of: Adams Street, Between 6th Avenue and 3rd Avenue and 4th Avenue, Between Adams Street and Harrison Street by pavement and curb & gutter construction and the contract price for such improvements is $154 , 359 . 38 , the construction contingency amounts to $4, 055 . 92 and the expenses incurred or to be incurred in the making of such improvements amounts to $49 , 889 . 96 so that the total cost of the improvements will be $208 , 305. 26 and of this cost the City of Shakopee will pay $82 , 207 . 48 as its share of the cost. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAROPEE, MINNESOTA: 1. The cost of such improvement to be specially assessed is hereby declared to be $126, 097 .78 . 2 . The City Clerk, with the assistance of the City Engineer shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such improvement against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the district affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and she shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in her office for public inspection. 3 . That the City Clerk shall, upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the City Council thereof. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. That a hearing shall be held on the 7th day of May, 1991, in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 7 : 30 P.M. to pass upon such proposed assessments and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by such improvements and proposed assessments will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessment. 2 . That the City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper of the City of Shakopee at least two weeks prior to the hearing and she shall state in the notice the total cost of the improvements. She shall also cause mailed notice of such hearing to be given the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. 1C'd 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: City Attorney VISa . RESOLUTION NO. 3380 A RESOLUTION ENCOURAGING THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE TO CONSIDER AMENDING MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION 473 . 375 AND 473 . 388 CLARIFYING THE MANAGEMENT AND FINANCIAL AUTHORITY OF OPT-OUT TRANSIT SYSTEMS IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee exercised it's authority granted under the Metropolitan Transit Service Demonstration Program provided under State Statute 174 .265 to create it's own transit system; and WHEREAS, opt-out transit systems are now governed under State Statute Section 473 . 375 and 473 . 388 ; and WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee pursued participation in the Opt-Out Program to gain greater management control and authority of transit operations within the City of Shakopee; and WHEREAS, prior to the adoption of the Minnesota Transit Service Demonstration Program, the City of Shakopee was adversely impacted from a financial standpoint in terms of the level of transit service provided in relation to actual costs incurred via local property taxes for said transit service; and WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee believes that it was the intent of the original Minnesota Transit Service Demonstration Program to allow metropolitan communities who were previously provided with peak a.m. and peak p.m. service to manage, direct and financially control the day to day operations of the transit programs within their communities providing said service was within the level of available transit funds equivalent to 90% of the property taxes levied for transit in said communities; and WHEREAS, the Regional Transit Board was created to provide regional oversight of transit systems in the metropolitan area and provided the Authority to establish, in cooperation with transit systems, policies and standards that insure efficient and effective transit service in the metro area; and WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee believes that the Regional Transit Board has taken a liberal view of their role and level of authority towards the management and funding of opt-out transit systems; and WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee believes that opt-out programs should be able to maintain their management and funding autonomy as the legislation which created the replacement service program originally intended; A5.d NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Shakopee hereby endorses House File No. 1021 and pending companion Senate Legislation amending Minnesota Statutes Sections 473 .375 and 473 . 388 clarifying the management and financial authority of the opt-out communities in relation to the Regional Transit Board; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Shakopee respectfully requests the legislators in both the House and Senate to approve said legislation as setforth in House File No. 1021 and the companion Senate File which has yet to be introduced. Adopted in the regular session of the Shakopee City Council held this day of , 1991. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney tw:optout AGENDA SHAKOPEE CITY COUNCIL AND SHAKOPEE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY EXECUTIVE SESSIONS APRIL 2 , 1991 1 . Call City Council Executive Session to order 2 . Sale of Lots 3 & 4 , Blk 52 , OSP 3 . Adjourn Executive Session 4 . Reconvene City Council 5 . Action: Authorization to advertise the sale of Lots 3 & 4 , Blk 52 , OSP 6 . Adjourn to Tuesday, April 9th at 7 : 00 P.M. 7 . Call to order Shakopee Housing & Redevelopment Authority Executive Session 8 . Parcel 10 (House of Hoy Property) 9 . Outlot A, Macey' s Second Addition 10 . Adjourn Executive Session 11. Reconvene H.R.A. 12 . Action: House of Hoy Property 13 . Action: Outlot A, Macey's Second Addition 14 . Adjourn Dennis R. Kraft City Administrator IP mit" ty, ,-, .„1/1i/J (0-07gt . 4* EXECUTIVE SESSION MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Assistant City Administrator RE: Sale of Property - Lots 3 & 4, Blk 52, OSP DATE: March 22, 1991 INTRODUCTION: On February 19, 1991 the Shakopee City Council authorized the appropriate City officials to order an appraisal of the property identified as Lots 3 & 4, Blk 52, OSP. The appraisal report has been completed and staff is requesting Council authorization to advertise the property for sale. BACKGROUND: The aforementioned lots are located on the north side of Fourth Avenue between Spencer and Fillmore Streets. Both lots are presently vacant. (See attachment #1) . The appraisal of the property has been completed by Bowler Appraisals. It is the appraisers opinion that the estimated market value of the property is $17, 000 per lot. In keeping with the City Council 's desire to purge our inventory of excess property, staff would like to recommend that the appropriate City officials be authorized to advertise the property for sale on a closed bid basis. Staff would be recommending that interested parties submit a separate bid on each lot and that the lots be sold independently from each other. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Authorize the appropriate City officials to adverti s,,the two parcels identified as Lots 3 & 4, Blk 52, OSP for sale specifying that the City reserves to reject any and all bids. 2 . Table action pending further information from staff. 3 . Do not proceed in selling Lots 3 & 4, Block 52, OSP at this time. 4 . Solicit the assistance from a real estate firm to market the property on behalf of the City. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative #1. ACTION REQUESTED: Move to authorize the appropriate City officials to advertise the property identified as Lots 3 & 4, Block 52, OSP for sale with the City reserving the right to reject any and all bids. SOMMERVILLE 0 0 SPENCER o N �D bVIA &‘- ‘101 FILLMORE AO . o � d7 _ o / zCu MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Assistant City Administrator RE: Sale of Property - Lots 3 & 4 , Block 52 , OSP DATE: February 12 , 1991 INTRODUCTION: The City of Shakopee owns two lots on the north side of 4th Avenue between Spencer and Fillmore Streets. Both lots are presently vacant. (See attachment #1) BACKGROUND: The City of Shakopee was granted the subject property when the railroad line to Prior Lake was abandoned. The City has owned the property for several years. The property was not sold prior to this time because of an encumbrance on the deed. This issue has now been resolved and the property is owned free and clear by the City. In keeping with City Council ' s desire to purge our inventory of excess property, staff would like to recommend that the appropriate City officials be authorized to obtain an appraisal of the subject property. Once the appraisal is completed, staff would encourage the City Council to advertise the property for sale. Staff does not see any benefit to having the City retain the subject property for future City purposes. The cost estimate for the appraisal ranges between $750 and $1, 000. The proposed appraisal was not included in the 1991 budget and there is not excess funding available within any particular program budgets. Therefore, staff is recommending that the cost for said appraisal be allocated from the contingency fund. ALTERNATIVES: 1 . Direct the appropriate City officials to order an appraisal of the property identified as Lots 3 & 4 , Block 52 , OSP at a cost not to exceed $1, 000. 2 . Do not order an appraisal of the subject property. 3 . Table action pending further information from staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative #1 . ACTION REQUESTED: Move to direct the appropriate City officials to order an appraisal of the property identified as Lots 3 & 4 , Block 52 , OSP at a cost not to exceed $1,430-0, • • •- • - ti.1111L.i Tlg._n� . ,a/ T . • 6t„,),:( Z .� TW:Lots EXECUTIVE SESSION MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, Executive Director FROM: Barry A. Stock, Assistant City Administrator RE: Outlot A, Macey' s Second Addition DATE: March 27 , 1991 INTRODUCTION: On March 5, 1991 the Shakopee HRA authorized the appropriate officials to advertise the property identified as Outlot A, Macey' s Second Addition for sale with the Shakopee HRA reserving the right to reject any or all bids, to waive irregularities and to award the bid in the best interest of the Authority. Bids were received and publicly opened on Wednesday, March 27 , 1991 . BACKGROUND: Shown in attachment #1 is a map indicating the location of the subject property. The Shakopee HRA was deeded the subject property in 1980 as part of the platting process for Macey' s Second Addition. The resolution approving the final plat of Macey' s Second Addition included a condition which specified that the proceeds from the future sale of Outlot A were to be dedicated for park purposes. In attachment #2 is a list of the bidders, and accompanying bids. Two bids were received. Both are more than 30% below the appraisal value. The appraisal received by the City of Shakopee prior to solicitation of bids estimated the market value of the subject property at $26, 200. Upon opening the bids staff contacted each of the bidders with the results. At that time one of the bidders stated that they would be willing to amend their bid. I informed the bidder that I did not have the authority to accept an amended bid. With this in mind, an alternative might include authorizing staff to negotiate with the two bidders in an attempt to receive a bid that is an outright cash purchase. (No terms) Upon reviewing and evaluating the bids and specified terms as setforth by several bidders, staff is recommending that the bids be rejected and that Outlot A be packaged for development or sale in conjunction with the Gelhaye property that the City of Shakopee acquired in conjunction with the 5th Ave. project. If the Authority believes that it would be beneficial at this time to accept one of the two bids, it would be appropriate at this time to authorize the appropriate City officials to develop and execute a purchase agreement by and between one of the bidders and the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority for the acquisition of the property identified as Outlot A, Macey' s Second Addition. A second motion would also be in order directing that the proceeds lr from the sale of Outlot A, Macey' s Second Addition less advertising and appraisal costs be allocated to the City of Shakopee ' s Park Reserve Fund. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Authorize the appropriate HRA officials to develop and execute a purchase agreement by and between one of the bidders and the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority for the sale of the property identified as Outlot A, Macey' s Second Addition. 2 . Move to reject all the bids and readvertise the property for sale. 3 . Move to reject all bids and direct the appropriate officials to list the property for sale with a local real estate firm. 4 . Do not proceed with the sale of Outlot A, Macey's Second Addition at this time. 5. Direct the appropriate HRA officials to negotiate with the two bidders in an attempt to secure an outright cash purchase deal. 6. Direct staff to package Outlot A, Macey' s Second Addition for sale or development in conjunction with the Gelhaye\Railroad property adjacent to the 5th Avenue Improvement Project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative #6. ACTION REQUESTED: Direct staff to package Outlot A, Macey' s Second Addition for sale or development in conjunction with the Gelhaye\Railroad property adjacent to the 5th Avenue Improvement Project. Qo ° a 'rlp~ . ^� f) ;, � N 7,•,c'o 'T � t ,„- IN 7-1\-_\- \ I? \ I t 2:, ,, °\ 2 -%%.,:.-..--,I.-. o L ---5:;(------- � • E N C -1 S 207I2� � 4 5 i5os .. r MI 40 H 161. 5 lite .t..., `43 NI _!so NORAiENAEE EM N h 1 • RA\ Z%/Nr , nni 31Ik \ ' L4. _ B1'4trE • 11] W :A 4z=i sNa 6O r- u �' - - �____•__ � �2 o 40 �O _ -.- ,'N`----------/-3977---- -,-,3 . z, I OUTL OT N 66°421/4"E ,a �h p A h /39.7/ p 11 a jog '1- .3‘) AI — ck;vGO ,) M 3 s 4 I SOI of L.:1?.5i ..`..i 165.47 ,® _ -- . N89°/‘'43-"E- • 89°/6'45"E • 4 7// S/ /82.99 - - N 87°34'38"'E I �� 6 el 1_•11 I N 89'/6"4S"1W `-1 /175/ 1 111NI 1 to N 89°/6 45'E — //7.S/ z� 8 N % t"1N89°16'45"E ts' tii // .. S/ 40 'Zi e N i 1 N.L___ _____ ' �I 9 N89'// '45 ' I PHOTO LOCATION MAP lr Attachment #2 Bidders List Name of Bidder Amount of Bid Terms Jane DuBois $18 , 000. 00 Buyer agrees to assume all special assessments, cash with a closing no later than July 1, 1991 and that subject property be rezoned to R-3 prior to June 1, 1991. Rich Logeais $20, 000. 00 Buyer agrees to assume all special assessments, with 10o down and remainder at time of final C.O. or Jan. 1, 1992 whichever comes first. 148 EXECUTIVE SESSION MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, HRA Executive Director FROM: Barry A. Stock, Assistant City Administrator RE: Parcel 10 (House of Hoy Property) DATE: March 22, 1991 INTRODUCTION: On March 5, 1991 the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) directed staff to make a counter offer to MnDOT in the amount of $5.52 per square foot for the property identified as Parcel 10, Block 4, OSP. Shown in attachment #1 is a correspondence from the Minnesota Department of Transportation declining the HRA's counter offer. BACKGROUND: MnDOT's proposed acquisition price for the subject property has been set at $5. 00 per square foot. They have stated in their correspondence that they do not believe the current market situation in Shakopee supports any thing over $5. 00 per square foot for the subject property. They further state that the City' s acquisition of the Marquette Bank at a value of $5. 25 per square foot can not be considered as a arm's length comparable sale in determining the value for the subject property. There are three courses of action for the HRA to consider. First, the HRA could consider to accept MnDOT's proposed acquisition price of $5. 00 per square foot. Second, the HRA may wish to consider ordering an independent appraisal of the property. If the HRA selects to order an appraisal of the property, MnDOT will pay up to $500 for the counter appraisal. If this course of action is considered, staff would recommend that a certified MAI appraiser be hired to complete the appraisal. The cost for the appraisal would range between $500 and $1000. The third option for the HRA to consider is to simply take a wait and see approach and observe how the sales of other properties within the mini by-pass right-of-way proceed. Staff does not believe it would be in the best interest of the HRA or the City of Shakopee to have this matter settled in a condemnation court. However, staff does not believe that taking a wait and see approach would adversely impact the project. On the other hand, staff does believe that there may be some benefit in obtaining an appraisal of the property. The appraisal may also be beneficial in supporting a value for the City owned parking lots which are adjacent to the subject property. Staff would like to remind the HRA of the recent appraisal completed by Patchin Appraisers for the Marquette Bank building property. The appraisal completed on October 11, 1990 valued the Marquette Bank property at $3 .90 per square foot. If the Housing and Redevelopment Authority believes that Parcel 10 has a value higher than the amount being offered by MnDOT, it may be appropriate to solicit an appraisal. In the opinion of staff, there are relatively few comparables available to justify an amount higher then $5. 00 per square foot. Therefore, staff is recommending that the HRA take a wait-and-see approach and continue to monitor sales in Shakopee that might support a higher asking price from MnDOT. ALTERNATIVES: 1 . Do not make a counter offer to MnDOT at this time. 2 . Authorize the appropriate HRA officials to obtain an appraisal of the subject property and inform MnDOT accordingly. 3 . Authorize the appropriate HRA officials to develop and execute a purchase agreement for the sale of Parcel 10 to MnDOT at a price of $5. 00 per square foot. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative #1 . ACTION REQUESTED: No official action is necessary if the HRA selects to take a wait- and-see approach. r ‘.1NNESOTq O Z D ° Minnesota Deartment of Transportation 33 . .............. .............. ..... ...u S . Paul, MN 55155 ~T OF MO MAR 2 11991 March 20, 1991 • - - 612-296-1133 CITY OF —' .1'K(�pr Mr. Barry A. Stock Assistant City Administrator City of Shakopee 129 East First Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379-1376 RE: S.P. 7009 (169=5) 902 Scott County Parcel 10 - Housing and Redevelopment Authority of City of Shakopee Dear Mr. Stock: This will be in reply to your March 6, 1991, correspondence to Ms. LaNay Ryan Sanford. I do not agree that a pending acquisition by the Shakopee Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) of an improved property and allocating a certain amount of the purchase price to the land constitutes an arms length comparable that supports paying more tahn $5. 00 per square foot for the subject. Furthermore, I am not aware as to whether the HRA had obtained fair market value appraisals of the Marquette Bank property or simply met the owner's asking price. At any rate, a purchase by the City is not an arms length comparable sale any more than are some of the recent State acquisitions along this project for unit prices well below $5. 00 per square foot. Mr. Dick Marks, one of our fee appraisers on the Shakopee project, is aware of this pending HRA acquisition but he does not feel the market supports anything over $5.00 per square foot for vacant land. In light of the above, I cannot give favorable consideration to your counter offer of $5.52 per square foot or even $5.25 per square foot. An Equal Opportunity Employer Mr. Barry A. Stock Page two March 20, 1991 If, on the other hand, you have an independent appraisal of the subject property that is in excess of our appraised value of $5. 00 per square foot, I would appreciate being so advised. _Sinc -rely, R. J. Dinneen, Director Office of Right of Way and Surveys