HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/02/1993 TENTATIVE AGENDA
ADJ.REG. SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 2 , 1993
Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 129 Holmes Street South
Mayor Gary Laurent presiding.
1] Roll Call at 8 : 30 A.M.
23 Resolution No. 3853 , A Resolution Setting Proposed Maximum
1993 Tax Levy, Collectible in 1994
3 ] Other Business:
4] Adjourn
Dennis R. Kraft
City Administrator
TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director
RE: 1994 Proposed Budget Resolution
DATE: August 27, 1993
Introduction
Attached is Resolution Number 3853 which sets the maximum proposed 1993/94
tax levy.
Background
Time frames
The existing law requires that Shakopee certify a proposed budget, budget
hearing date and proposed maximum tax levy to the county by September 15. The City
has to publish notice and hold a public hearing, adopt the final tax levy and adopt
the budget a later hearing, and then certify the final levy to the county by
December 29, 1993.
Tax Levy
The proposed maximum tax levy for 1993/94 as determined by Council is a total
levy of $2,805,925. This is based on a levy of $3,255,764 including the full debt
service levy and then subtracting the HACA aid of $449,839. The levy last year was
$3,114,951 before reduction for HACA. The increase in the gross levy is $140,813
or 4.5%. This amount includes $68,006 in debt service levies and $72,807 in
general levy based on estimated new tax base.
The memo for the 8/25/93 Council meeting on which bond issues to call was
correct, I erred at the meeting on which issues to call. The reason for bringing
this up at this time is that by proceeding with the calling of the 1986A and the
1987A improvement bonds and the full scheduled debt service tax levy for 1993/94,
Council will be levying taxes which will be collected in 1994 after the bonds are
paid off. Council may want to reconsider levying for these bonds or the calling
of those bonds. The interest rate for the 1986A bonds is 7.4 - 7.6% and the 1987A
bonds rate is 6.3 - 7.0%. Current investment rates for new money is less than 6%.
The levy in 1993/94 is $36,114 and $779 respectively for a total of $36,893.
The decision to reduce the levy or not call the bonds can be made at a later
date because it is the maximum proposed levy being adopted now and the action for
calling the bonds is not scheduled for the 9/2/93 meeting.
General Fund Budget
The Council is supposed to certify a proposed budget to the County Auditor by
September 15th. Council may change the amount up or down for the final budget.
The resolution includes the following;
General Fund Budget total draft amount $5,419,980
City Hall carpet cleaning 1,000
Portalets 3,600
Rink phones 600
Rink personnel services 1,700
Newsletter 10,000
Clerk personnel services 2,500
Park tractor sweeper (7,000)
Fire aerial truck 548.000
Total $5,980,380
Action
Offer Resolution Number 3853, A Resolution Setting Proposed Maximum 1993 Tax
Levy, Collectable In 1994, and move its adoption.
RESOLUTION NO. 3853
A RESOLUTION SETTING PROPOSED MAXIMUM 1993 TAX LEVY, COLLECTIBLE IN 1994
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, COUNTY OF SCOTT,
MINNESOTA, that $2,805,925 be levied as the proposed maximum tax levy in accordance
with existing law for the current year upon the taxable property in the City of
Shakopee.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the proposed appropriations for the General Fund
Budget for 1994 is $5,980,380.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the public hearing for the tax levy is December
8, 1993 with the continuation date of December 15, 1993.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is hereby instructed to transmit
a certified copy to this resolution to the County Auditor of Scott County,
Minnesota.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee,
Minnesota, held this day of , 1993.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST: City Clerk
Approved as to form City Attorney
MEMO TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator
RE: Non-Agenda Informational Items
DATE: September 3, 1993
1 . Attached is a BULLETIN from the Association of Metropolitan
Municipalities regarding a TAB Vacancy - Membership Policy
Adoption Meeting Date . If you are interested in the vacancy,
please contact Toni or Dennis by Monday, August 30th.
2 . Attached is a memorandum from the City Planner regarding
Naegele Billboard sign West Hwy. 169 .
3 . Attached is a memorandum from the City Planner regarding
follow-up on revised conditions for Meadows 9th Addition.
4 . Attached is CertainTeed' s monthly progress report regarding
the odor issue at the Shakopee facility.
5 . Attached is a memorandum from the Assistant City Planner
regarding the cost of minor subdivisions .
6 . Attached is correspondence from Amzak Cable regarding the
F.C.C. September 1, 1993 enforcement date for the rate
regulation provisions of the Cable Act of 1992 .
7 . Attached is correspondence from the Assistant City Planner to
Bruce and Julianne Diehl responding to their concerns
regarding Stonebrooke 2nd Addition.
8 . Attached is the September calendar of Upcoming Meetings .
9 . Attached is the September Business Update from City Hall .
10 . Attached are the August 18, 1993 minutes of the Community
Development Commission.
11 . Attached is a second draft of the business plan for Murphy' s
Landing. Staff is in the process of analyzing the plan.
BULLETIN
as ociation of
metro olitan
munictpalities
p
August 25, 1993
TO: Mayors, Managers/Administrators
FROM: Vern Peterson
RE: TAB VACANCY - MEMBERSHIP POLICY ADOPTION MEETING DATE
1. NOMINATIONS WANTED FOR TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD (TAB)
VACANCY:
There is a city official vacancy on the TAB due to the
recent resignation from TAB of Brooklyn Park Councilmember
ioug Pearson. The official selected to replace Mr. Pearson
will serve the balance of his term ending in September of
1994 . Metropolitan area cities are allocated 10 positions
on this very important advisory body and the AMM makes the
nominations. To be eligible for nomination, you must be a
Mayor or Councilmember. The TAB is a very important
transportation related advisory board and provides input to
the Metropolitan Council, MNDOT and the RTB. The role of
TAB has been significantly enhanced under the provisions of
the Federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
(ISTEA) of 1991.
The TAB;s regular meeting is the third Wednesday of each
month (starting at 2 : 00 P.M. ) in the Chambers of the
Metropolitan Council .
THE BOARD IS SOLICITING NOMINATIONS FOR THIS VACANCY FROM
ALL PARTS OF THE METROPOLITAN AREA BUT WOULD ESPECIALLY
ENCOURAGE NOMINATIONS FROM WASHINGTON AND SCOTT COUNTIES TO
HELP PROVIDE BETTER GEOGRAPHIC BALANCE ON TAB. WRITTEN
NOMINATIONS WITH A SHORT RESUME SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO THE
AMM OFFICE, ATTENTION OF VERN PETERSON, BY NO LATER THAN
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1993.
3490 Lexington avenue north,st.paul,minnesota 5 126(612)490-3301
2 . AMM MEMBERSHIP POLICY ADOPTION MEETING SET FOR THURSDAY
EVENING, NOVEMBER 4.
The AMM Board has set Thursday evening, November 4 , 1993 as
the date for the membership to discuss and adopt AMM
Legislative Policy for the 1994 session. The exact time and
location have not beeen determined as yet but it would be a
late afternoon starting time with a social hour and dinner
included. Please mark your calendars now for this special
important meeting and a detailed meeting notice will be
mailed in October.
DISTRIBUTION NOTE: This bulletin has been mailed to Mayors
and Managers/Administrators only. Please distribute to City
Councilmembers and other staff members as you deem
appropriate.
MEMO TO: Shakopee City Council
FROM: Lindberg S. Ekola, City Planner
RE: Naegele Billboard Sign
West Hwy. 169
DATE: August 20, 1993
NON-AGENDA INFORMATIONAL ITEM:
At the August 17 , 1993 meeting, the City Council requested
additional information on the Naegele billboard west of the Dairy
Queen.
In 1992 , representatives from the Naegele Sign Co. requested
direction from City staff on what improvements to the existing
billboard sign could be made, if any. Since the sign is a legal
nonconforming structure only non-structural repairs can be made to
the sign. The Sign Ordinance presently does not permit off site
signage such as this billboard. Since the sign is a nonconforming
structure, the ordinance prohibits repairs which would extend or
intensify the nonconforming use. A letter was sent on July 27,
1992 to Naegele identifying the City Code limitations.
In June of 1993 , MnDOT sent a notice of violation to Naegele,
noting that the sign was in disrepair. The notice of violation
required the sign to be removed or brought into a "satisfactory"
condition by August 8, 1993 . After this date, MnDOT has the
authority to remove the billboard sign.
Questions have been raised as to the location of the billboard
sign. Based on information supplied by Naegele, the billboard is
located on Lot 2 of Block 13 , Original Shakopee Plat. Based on
City records, this property is owned by Rahr Malting Co.
Attached is a letter dated July 30, 1993 from Rahr's legal counsel
to Naegele. This letter identifies agreements between a private
party and Naegele in the lease of property owned by Rahr Malting
for the billboard. Rahr Malting has also requested that this sign
be removed.
Staff will continue to follow through with the issues facing this
billboard sign and report to the City Council as appropriate.
@PJL RDYMSG DISPLAY = ""
as —.1
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
`3N-
r--
INCORPORATED
1870 , i3
KO-
129 EAST FIRST AVENUE. SHAKOPEE. MINNESOTA 55379-1376 (612)445.3650
t
i
�i
July 27 , 1992
Mr. Michael Cronin
Director of Government Relations
Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company
1700 West 78th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55423-3899
Dear Mr. Cronin:
This letter is in reference to the Naegele sign located on West
First Avenue near the . NSP substation in Shakopee. This sign is a
legal nonconforming structure. City Code Section 11. 03 , Subd. 2,
Paragraph B allows the sign to be placed in a safe condition when
the structure is declared unsafe by the Building Official. The
Building Official has not made a finding that the sign is in an
unsafe condition at this time. This sign is subject to other
provisions of the Shakopee City Code including Section 11. 03 , Subd.
2 , Paragraph H, which states the following:
"H. Normal maintenance of a building or other structure
containing or related to a lawful nonconforming use
is permitted, including necessary, nonstructural
repairs and incidental alterations which do not
extend or intensify the nonconforming use. "
If you have any questions, please call me at 445-3650. Thank you.
Si erely .
STI7------
Lin berg S. Ekola
City Planner
The Heart Of Progress Valley
4N EOLJAL 0000.^'.%:' EMPLO,_.'
Mn/Dot TP-17206 (10-80) MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT
ON4o OF TRANSPORTATION
Q
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
;�--r eMinnesota Outdoor Advertising Control Act
OF TRP T Date IOW C;\---
TO: 1�EC�� L'rc �vT 0oTt_ DvE.12T
ADDRESS: \1QQ EVt ,6p•
ST \ 1r.r. s ► 1 1\N-1
Minnesota Statutes 173.13, subd. I, provides that no advertising device may be erected or allowed to exist adjacent
to any primary or interstate highway unless a valid permit for such device has been obtained from the Commissioner
of Transportation.
This notice is to inform you that, since _________ a device located on Highway No. \ C=P\
\ �� 3� �--, Control Section No. —\ 00\ 11-4
ty s "t".4q, o \s -
71:Z .-T\ire w.4 Tt-kk ' \TS 02\C>tNI;\._ rc.."p
The following action is necessary: pTZ TO A SFrAcTOTi-1 CoR
2.* Remove this device within 60 days. c,0.4 Oz-z O�-cortF„ % .cb . A3
3. In the event that the permittee fails to comply with the notice and fails to remove the device pursuant to para-
graphs 1 and 2 above, then the State may remove the device and dispose of it as it sees fit. The perm ittee will
then be required to pay the costs incurred by the State for the removal and disposition of the device.
If no compliance is noted within 60 days the Commissioner may *remove the device under authority of Minn. Stat.
173.13, subd. 11 . You may also be liable for the penalties of Minn. Stat. 173.21. If, within 60 days, a completed
application for such a permit is submitted to this office in accordance with Minn. Stat. 173.13, removal of this device
shall be required only upon final rejection of said application or within 60 days of this notice whichever is later.
YOU WILL RECEIVE NO FURTHER NOTICE FROM THIS OFFICE. If you desire further information
you may contact
\EQc2Eev cmc 1� �p,►.,►a — t�ov�tZr�s�tiG Jtc�^a - \1�1� C k�A�i
* Removal means to completely disassemble to ground level.
DEPARTM T OF TRANSPORTATION
\S1 \+.j. Cc .TZo 73"Z -\-?...OSENIt lel SSN >3
.�� •' ter• ADDRESS
• �3 ��
PHONE
�AM12�fjLTt�J V
Orig. - Owner FVTT'nt �AvL �Rf�mETL
Copy 1 - Landowner X 1%0 0 W EST
Copy 2 - Dist. Ott.
�oQ-t3- �,z�r �ra><oe� ,mtyT2e 6, `04J
_ - -_ I G '4456718 tom.liG
AUG-e3-1993 12:e5 FROM
COPY EAEGRE & BENSON
COPY
2200 NOAWEST CENTER
y0 pO%JTH SEVENTH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA M W -2201
612ra383000
July 30, 1993
Mr. Paul Rademacher
Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company
1700 West 78th Street
Richfield, MN 55423
Re: Signed Lease in Shakopee, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Rademacher:
Thank you for your assistance in forwarding to me a
dated
of the Lease Agreement July 25, 1991, by and between
Outdoor Advertising,
RaymondInc. , Siebenaler, a s Lessor,wthis Lease Agreement (identified
Inc. , as Lessee. As you
as Lease No. 08478) relates to a sign on property along Highway
169 at the
west end of Shakopee.
We have had a chance to discuss this�poer tiwith Mr.
eraion. In
TerryMcCann of the Minnesota Department of Ttate reviewed
on-site personnel of Rahr Malting
Company addition, _t a pears that this sign is located
the sign and its location. p_
on a lot which is owned by�Rahr aMalting Company. Northern States
Power Company owns adjacent property on This block.s this
Siebenaler apparet?e does not
coVeeCnyng $600 . 00 per year rent
property, although
for some period of time. .
the •
Cityof Shakopee desires
as you know, the
In addition, the apparent owners of
As
Rehr
that the sign be remove and the State have turned to R� .
underlying property, the City edcoo-Rehly,
Malting Company to assist in resolving this matter. whethern in
we would like some assistance from you in determiningyou.
fact Mr. Siebtnaler has any right to lease this property
to If -he does not , then Naegele would have no rightto
„-� s to continue consent.
maintain the sign in its
present location without Rah
Thank you in advance for your assistance on this
:nproperty is owned by we
atter. If you discover that this you remove the sign at
the earliest
possible convenience. We hope t
request that
respect_u_lywe can resolve this matter asthat
quickly and amicably as possible.
141.G-03-19E3 1206 FROM TO 94456718 P.03
Mr. Paul Rademacher
July 30, 1993
Page 2
Should you have any additional questions, please call
me. ..
Sincerely,
Paul S. MOe
PSMi dmc
cc: Paul Kramer
Terrence M. McCann
MVVO2E92.WP5
•
•
•
•
La.
Y'tQTAL P.03
Y. �
*.!5
MEMO TO: Shakopee City Council
FROM: Lindberg S. Ekola, City Planner
RE: Follow-up on revised Conditions for Meadows 9th Addition
DATE: August 23 , 1993
NON-AGENDA INFORMATION ITEM:
Attached is a copy of the revised resolution for the Meadows 9th
Addition final plat. The revised resolution is being provided as
requested by the City Council. Please note that Conditions 3 and
4 have been revised as approved by the City Council.
Also attached is a recently received letter from MnDOT. It is
MnDOT's policy to not spend highway funds for noise mitigation
measures for new developments where the highway has been officially
mapped. The Shakopee Bypass was officially mapped in the early
1980s.
RESOLUTION NO. 3843
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA,
APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF THE MEADOWS 9TH ADDITION.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee did
review the Final Plat of The Meadows, 9th Addition on August 5,
1993, and has recommended its approval; and
WHEREAS, all notices of the public hearing have been duly
sent and posted and all persons appearing at the hearing have
been given an opportunity to be heard thereon.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, as follows:
That the Final Plat of The Meadows, 9th Addition, described
as:
Outlot A, The Meadows 8th Addition; and
That part of Outlot A, The Meadows 1st Addition,
Scott County, Minnesota, lying westerly of a line parallel
with and distant 30. 00 feet easterly of the westerly line,
subject to easement.
is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Approval of title opinion by the City Attorney.
2 . Execution of a Developer's Agreement for construction of
required improvements:
a. Street lighting to be installed in accordance with the
requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities
Commission.
b. Electrical system to be installed in accordance with
the requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities
Commission.
c. Water system to be installed in accordance with the
requirements of the Shakopee Public Utilities
Commission.
d. Installation of sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems,
and construction of streets in accordance with the
requirements of the Design Criteria and Standard
specifications of the City of Shakopee.
e. Street signs will be constructed and installed by the
City of Shakopee at a cost to the developer of $250. 00
each per sign pole. A total of three (3) street signs
will be required.
f. The City Engineer will reapportion the existing special
assessments against the lots and the developer shall
waive his right to appeal the reapportionment.
g. The applicant shall dedicate Outlot A to the City for
parkland dedication, as per the Preliminary Plat. The
park dedication requirement for The Meadows 9th
Addition is 2 . 85 acres (10%) . This amount, less the
dedication of Outlot A for parkland (4 .7 acres) , less
the parkland dedication credit of 1. 2054 acres which
resulted from the 8th Addition, results in a park
dedication requirement credit of 3 . 0554 acres. This
land dedication shall be credited to the parkland
dedication requirements for future developments of the
plat.
h. The applicant shall construct an 8' bituminous trail
within Outlot A between Lot 13 , Block 4 , The Meadows
8th Addition, and the proposed Lot 1, Block 4 , The
Meadows 9th Addition, to provide a connection between
the proposed parkland and the proposed intersection of
Primrose Lane and Lupine Court, as designated in the
preliminary plat.
i. The developer is granted permission to delay the
setting of the iron monuments for the plat for one year
from the date of the recording of the final plat, and
shall post a bond or letter of credit to ensure
compliance within the one year time frame.
3 . The developer shall submit verification that the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency has reviewed and favorably
commented on the proposed noise mitigation plan prior to the
recording of the Final Plat.
4 . Noise mitigation features shall be incorporated into the
design of the homes within this addition prior to issuance
of the building permit. Homes located in the two tiers of
lots adjacent to the TH 101 corridor, will be constructed
according to the standards of the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) to reduce ambient noise within the
homes to levels acceptable by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency.
5. The developer shall construct a continuous noise mitigation
barrier along the south side of the plat to reduce the noise
impact from the TH 101 Bypass upon the development in
accordance with the MNPCA noise standards.
6. The developer shall sign and record an agreement identifying
the possible noise impacts created by the TH 101 Bypass for
each property within the plat.
7 . If part of the plat is abstract, and part of the plat is
torrens, the applicant shall provide a revised final plat
which shows this division.
8 . The developer shall provide a recordable agreement stating
that not more than 10% of the plat will be developed into
twin homes (6 lots) . Twin homes will require separate
utility connections, and sites must be identified prior to
installation of utilities.
9 . Prior to the recording of the Final Plat, all repairs
required by the City shall be made to the Upper Valley
Drainageway, and the City shall formally accept the ditch
and ponds.
10. Prior to the recording of the final plat, final construction
plans for all public improvements must be approved by the
City Engineer.
11 . The developer shall be responsible for grading of the plat
as shown in the grading, drainage and erosion control plans.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Clerk are
hereby authorized and directed to execute said Plat and
Developer's Agreement.
Passed in session of the City Council of the City of
Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of
1993 .
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
Attest: City Clerk
Approved as to form: City Attorney
#‘N so7 Minnesota Department of Transportation
IC
zo Metropolitan Division
F Waters Edge Building
,�, 1500 West County Road B2
of Roseville,Minnesota 55113
Reply to
Telephone No. 5X2-11X7
August 20, 1993
Lindberg Ekola
Planning Department
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee MN 55379
Dear Lindberg Ekola:
SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat Review
The Meadows Ninth Addition
North of proposed TH 101, East of CR 79
Shakopee, Scott County
CS 7005
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the final plat of The
Meadows Ninth Addition in compliance with Minnesota Statute 505.03, subd. 2, Plats. We find
the plat acceptable for further development with consideration of the following comments.
• Mn/DOT supports the developer's efforts to provide noise attenuation features to the
proposed homes. We believe that additional noise abatement, such as a wall or berm,
may be necessary. Mn/DOT policy regarding new developments adjacent to highways
that have been officially mapped prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise
mitigation measures.
• As you may be aware a portion of the stormwater drainage system for new TH 101
follows part of Sage Lane west then north on Primrose Lane. A retention pond will also
be built adjacent to the proposed development. It is my understanding that the city is
overseeing the construction of that system in this area.
If you have any questions regarding this review please contact me.
Sincerely,
Pin
Cyrus Knutson
Transportation Planner
cc: Charles Kennedy, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
An Equal Opportunity Employer
CertainTeed Corporation
3303 E. 4th Ave.
CertainTeed C-1
Box 506
Shakopee. MN 55379
August 2, 1993
Mr. James M. McCann
Enforcement Unit
Compliance and Enforcement Section
Air Quality Division
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette
St. Paul, Minn 55155
Re : Shakopee Facility, Odor
Dear Mr. McCann
This letter is submitted as a monthly progress report
required by your letter of September 5 , 1991 . It outlines
activities concerning the odor issue at our facility in
Shakopee since the last report dated July 2 , 1993.
During the month of July, Huntington Energy Systems
completed fine tuning of the thermal oxidizer equipment
and conducted operator and maintenance training for
CertainTeed personnel . The thermal oxidizer has been on
line since July 2nd with only minor problems so far.
There are no detectable odors present.
During the month of August, MMT Environmental will be
conducting odor, particulate and opacity emission tests
on this source . CertainTeed will send a copy of the
results to the MPCA.
Our next progress report will be submitted in early
September, 1993 .
Sincerely,
z J'
Gary A. Swenson, CPE
Principal Plant Engineer
cc: C . Carfrey K. Everhart T. Arnold N. Robinson
J. Quaranta L. Hawk M. Noone R. Wagner
B. Stock, City of Shakopee
MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator
FROM: Terrie Sandbeck, Assistant City Planner
RE: Non-Agenda Informational Item Regarding the Cost of Minor Subdivisions
DATE: August 2, 1993
INTRODUCTION:
Attached is a copy of information submitted by Mr. Allan R. Hastings of Allan's Land
Surveying (Exhibit A). In response to the comments of Mr. Hastings, staff has addressed
each of the costs for the Minor Subdivision process within the City of Shakopee in Exhibit
B.
The property in which Mr. Hastings is referring to is shown on Exhibit C (Lots 5 and 6,
Block A, East Shakopee Plat). Based on a field inspection, the two lots are functioning as
one parcel. A specific site plan has not been submitted regarding this site, but staff
assumes that the proposed detached garage would either be affected by the interior
property line setbacks, or would be an accessory structure on a separate lot without being
accompanied by the required principal structure. Without a specific site plan, only
assumptions can be made, however.
BACKGROUND:
Section 12.08 of the Shakopee City Code allows the City Planner to approve Minor
Subdivisions without a public hearing where (1) a platted, recorded lot is being split into
a maximum of 5 lots, or (2) a maximum of five lots are being combined into 4 or fewer
lots. However, this process is not allowed in the following situations:
1. The proposed Minor Subdivision is within an approved Planned Unit Development
(PUD);
2. The proposed Minor Subdivision requires the dedication of additional right-of-way
or easements, or requires a change in the existing streets, alleys, easements, water,
sewer, or other public improvements;
3. The proposed Minor Subdivision requires new streets or other public improvements
other than those which directly serve the lots; and/or
4. The proposed minor subdivision involves any unplatted property.
In these instances, the regular Preliminary and Final Platting procedures must be followed.
However, the City Planner may require the normal Preliminary and Final Platting
procedures for any reason, such as complexity or special circumstances.
There is a $100.00 application fee for the Minor Subdivision process. The process involves
an administrative review by the City's Planning, Utilities, and Public Works Departments.
Section 12.08 of the City Code requires the applicant to submit a Certified Land Survey
of the existing and proposed lots for the administrative review. All resulting lots must meet
the minimum lot size and/or area requirements listed in the Zoning Ordinance. This
section of the City Code also requires that an abstract brought up-to-date be furnished for
a review by the City Attorney.
When staff has determined that an Application for a Minor Subdivision meets all City Code
requirements, the Planning Department notifies the applicant of the approval. Although
the ordinance requires the recording of the survey by Scott County, the Recorder's Office
does not recognize approval by the City and will not record them. This ordinance was
adopted by the City Council on November 20, 1990.
DISCUSSION:
Staff encounters a wide variety of property line configurations with the numerous building
permit applications. In the older sections of the community, the 60' by 150' lot pattern was
created for the residential development that took place over 100 years ago. Today, many
of these properties are redeveloping. The redevelopment trends range from the new
Kentucky Fried Chicken project, to the construction of small accessory buildings.
Staff will be addressing these concerns with the update of the Subdivision Regulations. If
the City Council wishes to address this situation prior to the completion of the update of
the Subdivision Regulations, they should provide direction for staff.
(1\FOMI\O.893)
Aug.13,1993
7r6,4:tz0 AstAe'l) r
_ _ EXHIBIT A -- 411tr4 ‘4.: 11
(C)-(iM9,t) wrttimLf?
irpocu36..
. -
5opt's- - • it
a00 - ilAB ST lacK,7 *BQ.oua.
ssDD p.-reo
5‘ocia (P12-026g7M OYEZ Oiifitti03D Ffz1=.._
eOcr?— 1_,P\013 c)L1. (RLR
- II
c..D904 PER outrrai-Tv
1 (acc--1 EL Tcp,(2_44.
•
aDC:12 'RL[cc, Fee N-t-(71z-w1/4-) --( k)R-Ld
2., 0451f- ''(PR. ik)k 0 (PLA4-1-
0063 AT QA-E-FA K LOC/ Clie7C300"-1
2-3 u.
_10676. VIA-Loa a)ge PLA-c)0ER-)
IPA-FP; `• 7-D
1 0 -471:71 AL -- ac-
EXHIBIT B
COMMENT BY MR. HASTINGS ACTUAL COST OR REQUIREMENT
1. $100 Filing Fee at City. $100 Application Fee,as per 1993 Fee Schedule.
2. $500 Possible Attorney. An attorney is usually not required.
3. $200 Abstract Brought up-to-date. Attorney fees are not controlled by the City.
4. $300 New Abstract After Platting. Not required.
5. $250 list of Property Owners Not required.
within 350 feet.
6. $1,300 Land Surveyor's Fees. Surveyor's fees are unknown and not
controlled by the City.
7. $140 Building Permit at City. $121 for permit for a 2 stall garage.
8. $16 Electric Permit. $16 for Electrical Permit.
9. $50 Filing Fee at County for This requirement is currently under review.
New Plat.
10. $250 Printing of Plat. Printing fees are unknown and not controlled
by the City. However, only six (6) copies of
the Certified Land Survey are required to be
submitted.
11. $200 Plat Checking Fee Not required.
(County Surveyor).
12. $6,370 Regular Park Dedication for Not required. Since the process cannot
Plat at City (10% of value per Planner) involve unplatted property, Park Dedication
Requirements will already have been
addressed when the land was platted.
13. $800 Pay Taxes up for Current Year Property taxes are unknown and not
(at County). controlled by the City.
Total Cost Before Garage: $10,476.00 Total Cost: $237 Plus Surveyor Fees.
{INFOMINO.893)
Aug.2.1993
r- \ --
'
0 1‘
0 1 rn
tfl vO --
c° \-------:
11
Z 011040111 7-•
.•
...---
4.
MI t
0 —'
MI
\ —
' t...;
=I 5
. 0 • . t-------------
. F--
C .
•
Ln
111111111111.
r.-----: \\ c
\ .. \,,:, ----
' •
\\\ .
— _—
N4) TOPP°51 i\ el i ,
4- \\\''' 1
43.. \.,
' K1 41
0 \ • .
tc -
. C.) \la o i .---
.
çiiii
44 ,
IS o •
•\ \or,* \'\ •J I 11111
-.
\\
• ‘
\\
/ \\
GI
t •
#0.%
•..1
0 r—
cc
, tf,
VI3 Cta • \‘,. N 0
- - 1-_
El* ,
\, .
0.111 ... , -
\
ul
Smit .\\•
— •
\\
\ ..
Olio cr
:....
w .
_____
,
,... co
_
, ....
.
.„‘. (11 0°.
...,7
cr \
, —I I
( I
• \ \ 0
CC.
0
.1s
\ \
C
\ 0 \\
, \ \
- <,.
\
\ iimimiz
___-.•••011111111111111111111 opow601"---
.•
, . • .
- \ -
\\ .
•
•
AMZAK CABLE, MIDWEST, INC. (612) 571 9333
" � 350 63rd Avenue N.E.•Fridley, MN 55432
August 18, 1993
Mr. Barry Stock
Assistant City Manager
City of Shakopee
129 Holmes Street South
Shakopee, Mn. 55379
Dear Barry;
As you may be aware, the Federal Communications Commission (F.C.C.)has pushed the
enforcement date for the rate regulation provisions of the Cable Act of 1992 forward to
September 1, 1993.
To recap the main points of the new law, the F.C.C., at the direction of Congress, has now
established so-called rate "benchmarks" above which a cable operator may not charge. If
certain of our charges do not conform to the "benchmarks" we must adjust them to be in
compliance by September 1, 1993.
The act establishes essentially three levels of rate authority: the local City or franchising
authority, the F.C.C., and the cable operator. If a City elects to file for certification to do
so, they may regulate the rate we charge for the level of service the F.C.C. refers to as
"basic cable service"--our "basic service"—and other associated charges, such as installation
charges, equipment charges and additional outlet fees. The F.C.C. will regulate the level of
service they call "cable services tier"—our "satellite tier." Until the City is certified, the
F.C.C. is the rate authority for regulated services. Premium services (HBO, Showtime,
The Movie Channel, Cinemax, and The Disney Channel) continue to be priced at the
discretion of the cable operator, along with pay-per-view and any other pay per program
or per channel services (such as Prime Sports Network).
The new law is complex, and the calculations necessary to determine the maximum
allowable rates are detailed. Our goal is to insure that our Company fully complies with
federal law. So that we can make sure that we are in compliance, the F.C.C. has waived
the normal notification requirements contained in federal law and the cable franchise. The
F.C.C. has also allowed us to reconfigure many of our charges to meet the "benchmarks"
before September 1 as long as we remain "revenue neutral"—that is, our revenue remains
the same as it was prior to that date. For your reference, attached please find a rate sheet
which illustrates the changes our customers will see on September 1. The rates as they are
listed are reflective of compliance with federal law.
We realize that any time changes are made some confusion may result. In fact, while many
of our customers will see a rate decrease, others will actually see an increase due to the way
the F.C.0 has structured its benchmark calculations. Even though the F.C.0 has released
us from the standard notification requirements, in order to reduce to a minimum the
questions our customers may have, a billstuffer will be included in the September
statements (mailed out in late August) describing the changes in rates. Additionally, we
will be introducing regular Saturday customer service phone hours from 9A.M. to Noon,
and on a temporary basis increasing our phone hours until 8 P.M. Monday through Friday
to handle the additional phone traffic. Once our phone traffic returns to normal, we will
return to our regular phone hours of 8A.M. to 7P.M., although Saturday hours will
remain until further notice. Repair service phone hours will continue to be 24 hours per
day.
Some of the highlights customers will see in the brochure, and that you will see on the
attached rate card, are:
* Charges for additional outlets have been eliminated.
* Charges for remote controls have been reduced by 93%.
* A charge has been established for converter boxes of$2.60 per month (plus
taxes).
* Basic service will decrease by $.90 per month(plus taxes).
* The Satellite Tier will increase by $1.05 per month (plus taxes).
* All installation services and trip charges will now be uniformly established at
$17.86% hour.
In addition to the changes in rates, we will also be adding one new channel to our
satellite tier. The new channel is:
-The Travel Channel, which will be placed on channel 51.
In addition to the above information, the billstuffer will contain an update regarding our
progress in negotiations with local broadcasters in order to gain retransmission consent for
their signals if they have selected that carriage option.
To recap, the new law now gives local broadcasters (WCCO, KARE, KSTP and so on)
the right to select one of two carriage options, "must cavy," or "retransmission consent."
If they elect "must carry", we must carry them and on the channel they designate, although
no other compensation is required of the operator. If they elect "retransmisson consent"
the station can basically name their price for carriage (including cash compensation), and if
the parties cannot agree on terms the cable operator must drop the channel effective
midnight October 5, 1993.
While we have secured must carry agreements with some channels, others have elected
retransmission consent and we are in the process of negotiating carriage terms. One point
of contention is cash compensation. It is Amzak's policy that we will not pay cash for
carriage rights. We feel that it is unfair to require payment from one set of viewers (cable
customers) while another set receives a service for free (those with antennas of their own).
Potentially this could mean we would be forced to drop some broadcast channels on
October 5. We are making this known to our customers at this time to give them adequate
notice of potential changes to our service offerings. We will keep you apprised of changes
as they occur. Here is a current summary of carriage status to date:
MUST UNDER
CARRY NEGOTIATION
KTCA-PB S-2 WCCO-CBS-4
KMSP-IND-9 KARE-NBC-11*
KTCI-PB S-17 KITH-FOX-29
KLGT-IND-23 KSTP-ABC-5*
*(While we are still in negotiations with these channels, progress has been made and we
expect agreements to be signed before we are forced to drop them. We are less optimistic
about talks with WCCO and KITN).
Keep in mind that "must carry" means we will continue to carry the channel after October
5, and "under negotiation" means that there is the potential that we may be forced to drop
the channel. If we are forced to drop channels, customers can continue to receive them for
free by installing an A/B switch between their cable service and their off-air antenna. We
will be happy to help them if they require assistance.
We understand that this is a lot to digest. No doubt there will be some confusion caused
by all of the changes which will or may occur over the next 60 days. Realizing that some
of the confusion will inevitably drift to the City in the form of customer calls, if we can
help minimize the impact of the new law we will do our best to implement any suggestions
you may have.
Please feel free to call on me at any time if you have any suggestions, questions, or I may
be of further assistance in any way.
erstrom
-.eral Manager
p.c. Gerry Kazma
Mike Kama
CHASKA / SHAKOPEE
NEW RATES EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1. 1993*
SERVICE OLD RATE NEW RATE CHANGE+/-
BASIC CABLE $7.95 $7.05 -$.90
SATELLITE TIER $13.05 $14.10 $1.05
FULL BASIC $21.00 $21.15 -$.15
ADDITIONAL OUTLET $3.75 $0.00 -$3.75
REMOTE CONTROL $2.95 $0.22 -$2.73
CONVERTER RENTAL $0.00 $2.60 $2.60
CONNECTION CHARGES
BASIC CABLE(1st&2nd OUTLETS) $99.95 $17.86/hr.**
FULL BASIC(1st&2nd OUTLETS) $49.95 $17.86/hr.**
TRIP CHARGE $15.00 $17.86/hr.**
PROCESSING FEE $5.00 $2.00 -$3.00
*(PRICES DO NOT INCLUDE $.40 / MO / CUSTOMER ACCESS FEE, 6 1/2% STATE SALES TAX
AND 5% CITY FRANCHISE FEE. STATE TAX IS ALSO APPLIED TO FRANCHISE FEE. OTHER
CHARGES NOT LIS FED, SUCH AS PREMIUM SERVICES, PAY-PER VIEW, AND COMMERCIAL
RATES,HAVE NOT CHANGED).
**Connection charges and trip charges will now be calculated on an hourly basis,minimum 1 hour charge.
g
SHAKOPEE
August 23, 1993
Bruce Diehl and Julianne Diehl
6640 Countryside Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55346
Dear Bruce Diehl and Julianne Diehl:
This letter is in response to the questions in your letter dated August 20, 1993, regarding Stonebrooke
2nd Addition. This subdivision received approval from the Shakopee City Council on July 20, 1993.
On April 20, 1993, the City Council had approved an amendment to the Stonebrooke Planned Unit
Development (PUD) which allowed Outlot A to be developed with two single family lots instead of with
commercial development, as proposed with the original PUD in 1987. Lot 1, Block 4 measures
22,108.36 square feet (.51 acre) in size, and Lot 2, Block 4, measures 24,000 square feet (.55 acre) in
size. Two drainfield sites have been identified for each lot.
Condition No. 4 of Resolution No. 3831, A Resolution Approving the Final Plat of Stonebrooke 2nd
Addition, requires that the private water system comply with the requirements established by Shakopee
Public Utilities Commission, and that it serve only the properties within the PUD. Shakopee Public
Utilities will be inspecting the private water system to ensure compliance with this condition.
As with other lots within the development, the two new lots on Londonderry Cove were also required
to have additional easements in case of septic system failures or location limitations. This requirement
was required by Condition No. 5 of Resolution No. 3831, A Resolution Approving the Final Plat of
Stonebrooke 2nd Addition. I have enclosed a copy of Resolution No. 3831 for your reference.
Preliminary soil borings and percolation tests were performed with the approval of the original PUD in
1987. Additional percolation testing for each lot is required to be submitted prior to the approval of a
Building Permit for each lot. In addition, sewage treatment systems are required to be designed and
installed by individuals licensed through Scott County.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (612) 445-3650.
Sincerely,
WjA411.
Terrie Sandbeck
Assistant City Planner
c: Gary Laurent
Dennis Kraft, City Administrator
COIvt vIUNITY PRIDE SINCE 1857
129 Holmes Street South• Shakopee,Minnesota 55379-1351 • 612-445-3650 • FAX 612-445.6718
August 20, 1993
Lindberg Ekola
Shakopee City Planning Office
129 South Holmes Street
Shakopee,MN 55379
Dear Mr. Ekola,
We are writing to express our opposition to the proposed addition of two lots to Stonebrooke 1st Addition on Londonderry Cove.
We purchased our lot at Stcnebrooke in the Spring of 1992.Prior to purchasing,we had several conversations with Robyn Wolfe,
Sales and Real Estate Representative for Laurent Developers/Builders.This section of property was described as Exclusive Home
Sites,only 5 lots on a cul-de-sac.The property value was of great appeal,as we were are planning an executive home,and are
concerned about our investment being protected.The property at the end of the street was legally described as one Out-lot A.
Subsequently we have been informed that Laurent Developers/Builders was proposing two additional lots from Out-lot A.The
prices and subsequent home values placed on these two proposed lots is substantially less than the value of other properties in
this development,which would significantly impact the value of our property.
We are also concerned that the existing well at Stonebrooke 1st Addition cannot support two additional home sites.Would it be
appriopriate to ask the developer to submit design data to a city agency to support this?Another area of concern is the location
and feasibility of additional septic system sites as they relate to city park lands and existing lots.Other lots in the PUD
agreement located on Londonderry Cove were required to have supplemental septic system sites into the golf course area.
Where will the supplemental septic site area for these two lots be located? Do the random soil borings and perk tests support
two additional separate systems with alternate sites?Are the proposed lot sizes designed to meet the average size(24,239 sq.
ft.)as stated in the PUD agreement submitted to the city in 1989?
We would like to know why,that although these lots have not been approved by the Shakopee City Council or Planning
Commission,the developer has already stubbed in water for two additional lots? Please respond by writing us at 6640
Countryside Drive, Eden Prairie,MN 55346,or by faxing a memo to 949-9220. Please keep us informed as of future Council and
Planning Commission meeting dates that this issue will be discussed.Thanking you in advance for your responsiveness in this
matter.
Sincerely,
-14;:n / -4td6)\ (;-gi
Bruce Diehl ' Julianne Diehl
cc.Shakopee City Council
Dennis Kraft,City Administrator
Stcnebrooke Homeowners Association
8
September 1993
Upcoming Meetings
SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT
1 2 3 4
City Council
8:30 a.m.
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
City Hall Closed 7:00pm City 7:30pm Planning
Council Commission
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
4:30pm Public 5:00pm ZORC 5:30pm CDC
Utilities 7:00pm Energy
and
Transportation
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
7:00pm City
Council
26 27 28 29 30
7:00pm Park &
Recreation
August October
SMTW TF S SMTW T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
29 30 31 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
• =I
BUSINESS UPDATE FROM CITY HALL
Vol. 7 No. 9
Dear Chamber Member: September 1, 1993
Administration Community Development
On Monday, August 23, 1993 the Shakopee Housing On Thursday, August 12, 1993 the City of Shakopee
and Redevelopment Authority sold approximately 3 acquired approximately 63 acres of property south of
acres of property to Mr. David Rutt north of 5th the Senior High School. Half of the property was
Avenue and West of Market Street. Mr. Rutt has subsequently sold to the Shakopee School District.
submitted a preliminary development plan for single Work is currently underway on the school's portion of
family housing on the subject property. the property for the new athletic complex. The City of
Shakopee's portion of the property will remain
City staff has been requested to perform a feasibility undeveloped for an undetermined period of time.
study for improving the sanitary sewer lift station at
Murphy's Landing. The study is expected to be
complete by September 7th. At that time, City Council
Park and Recreation
will discuss whether or not the improvement should be
made and possible funding scenarios.
On August 3, 1993 the Shakopee City Council awarded
On Tuesday, August 17th the Shakopee City Council the Memorial Park playground bid to Earl F.
authorized the appropriate City officials to execute Anderson in the amount of $45,685. The playground
labor agreements by and between the Police Officers equipment project is expected to be installed yet this
and Sergeants Unions for calendar years 1993 and 1994. summer. The project will be handicapped accessible.
The agreements provide a 3% wage adjustment for 1993 Funding for the project is being allocated from the
and a 3% wage adjustment in 1994 for both bargaining Park Reserve Fund.
units. The City's contribution towards Health and Life
Insurance was also slightly increased.
Planning
At their regular meeting on August 5, 1993, the
City Clerk Shakopee Planning Commission recommended to the
City Council the approval of the Final Development
Plan for the Planned Unit Development, and the
Filings for City Council open Tuesday, August 24th Preliminary Plat, for Westridge Bay Estates II, subject
and close Tuesday, September 7th for the office of: to 25 conditions. The proposed Planned Unit
Mayor (two year term), and two Council seats (four Development will contain 59 single family lots within
year terms). Affidavits of candidacy may be filed with the Rural Residential (R-1) and Shoreline (S) Zoning
the City Clerk during regular business hours: 8:00 Districts. The Planning Commission also recommended
a.m. until 4:30 p.m. The City election will be held on approval of the Final Plat for The Meadows 9th
Tuesday, November 2nd. Addition to the City Council, subject to 11 conditions.
The proposed plat contains 66 residential lots, and is
located within the Urban Residential (R-2) Zoning
District. Council subsequently approved both plats on
August 17th with minor amendments.
At this same meeting, the Planning Commission also Police
recommended to the City Council the approval of a
request from Jeffrey and Becky Boldt to vacate a 17 Renaissance traffic is back. The construction of Hwy.
foot wide portion of the 10th Avenue right-of-way 101 will certainly exacerbate this problem. Currently,
located south of their residence at 971 Miller Street. we are trying to discourage the Department of
The City Council held a public hearing regarding this Transportation from using 10th Avenue as an alternate
request at their meeting on August 17, 1993. Council route for westbound Renaissance traffic.
subsequently approved the vacation.
The Planning Commission reopened the public hearing MN State Law, Section 171.07, requires the Department
of Driver and Vehicle Services to replace the current
that had been continued from the July 8th meeting.
drivers license with a card which is more secure and
This public hearing was regarding a request for a more resistant to alteration. The conversion will begin
Conditional Use Permit for structures in excess of 35
feet within the Rural Residential (R-1) and Shoreline in January of 1994.
(S) Zoning Districts. Cooperative Power requested the
permit to allow 65 foot high poles for an electrical Public Works\Engineering
transmission line. The Planning Commission deniedg
the approval of permit. However, this decision has
been appealed to the City Council, which will hold The 1993 Street Reconstruction Program is underway
another public hearing regarding this request on with the contractor beginning work on Naumkeag and
September 7, 1993. 4th Avenue. Traffic is bei g detoured onto Third Ave.
At this same meeting, the Planning Commission also The 1993 Sidewalk Reconstruction Program is under
held the annual review for the Mineral Extraction and construction and should be completed by September
Land Rehabilitation Permit for the Shiely Co. and 1st.
found the operation in compliance with the conditions
of Permit No. 375, and its subsequent amendments, Bids were received for the remainder of the Upper
subject to the replacement of the missing portions of Valley Drainage Project (from C.R. 79 to Tahpah
the fence on the north side of the site, the application Park) and at their Aug. 17th meeting the City Council
of dust control measures when necessary, and that the awarded the bid to Ryan Contracting, Burnsville, MN,
applicant include a review of the accessory wash plant contingent on MnDOT approval. MnDOT is
in its application for renewal of the permit in 1994. participating in :he cost of the project as the new 101
bypass will utilize the Upper Valley Drainage way for
The Planning Commission also recommended approval their stormwater run-off. Construction is expected to
of the 1994- 1998 Capital Improvement Program to the begin the first week of September.
City Council. In addition, the Planning Commission
received an update on the Chaska Interceptor, and The Minnesota/Dakota/Alley Project north of 7th Ave.
discussed the future use of a Consent Agenda for their is completed except for some minor clean-up items.
meetings.
Other projects underway are Valley Park 11th
Addition, Meadows 9th Addition, Dominion Hills,
Maple Trails and, Parkview 1st Addition.
SHAKOPEE The City is presently advertising for bids to complete
the remainder of the V.I.P. Sanitary Sewer Interceptor
(C.R. 79 to Tahpah Park). The Engineering Dept.
designed the sew er to be installed within the Upper
Valley Drainage way, thereby eliminating the need to
acquire any easements which should amount to a
129 Holmes Street South substantial cost savings to the City.
Shakopee,Minnesota 55379
612-445-3650
FAX 612-445-6718
CON/LMUNTTY PRIDE
SLNCE 1857
'c
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA AUGUST 18, 1993
Meeting was called to order at 5 :30 p.m. with the following members
present : VanHorn, Unseth, Dirks, Albinson, Brandmire and Miller.
Commission Phillips was absent . Barry Stock, Assistant City
Administrator and Steve Cross, Architect were also present .
Brandmire/Miller moved to approve the minutes of the June 16 , 1993
meeting as kept . Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Stock gave a brief update on the Shakopee 500 development . Mr.
Stock stated that the Met Council is reviewing two staged
development scenarios in terms of MUSA line expansion to determine
the cost impact on the City. Mr. Stock noted that the Chamber of
Commerce is also working with Ms . Liz Templin who is completing her
doctorate work studying the impact of discount retailers on
communities . Ms . Templin will be evaluating retail sales in
Shakopee over the last 10 year period to determine what percent of
the market Shakopee captures . This data will be compared to the
retail sales data in three other communities that have a Wal-mart .
The analysis will indicate how retail sales have shifted in those
communities and what Shakopee might expect . The study should be
complete by September. The final report will be presented to the
Chamber general membership at their meeting in September or
October. The findings of the report might be useful in evaluating
the impact of a major development on the East end of Shakopee on
the rest of the community.
The three communities that Shakopee will be compared to are
Hutchinson, Buffalo and Hastings. Comm. Dirks stated that she has
also been in contact with representatives from Carol, Iowa who have
successfully attracted a Wal-mart to their downtown historic area.
Comm. Miller questioned if the facilities Comm. Dirks was referring
to were free standing or if they anchored other buildings . Ms .
Dirks stated that she has not had time to question them in regard
to that point .
Discussion ensued on the architectural process being completed by
Mr. Steve Cross . Mr. Cross stated that he incorporated the
comments that were made by the Commission at their last meeting in
regard to the two key blocks North of 1st Avenue. The redesign
that he has developed eliminated the gable roof and third level of
the facility. Mr. Cross stated that after meeting with the
contractors on the Mini Bypass Project he determined that only one
level of underground parking would be feasible given the rock
conditions . The one level of underground parking would provide
adequate parking for 400 vehicles . Mr. Cross stated that he felt
the North view as you enter into downtown Shakopee was critical . He
felt the design that he has come up with will certainly be
inviting. He also stated that on the downtown side of the project
the building would serve as a consistent massing and sound barrier.
Official Proceedings of the August 18, 1993
Community Development Commission Page -2-
Mr. Cross stated that he feels this building will serve as the
anchor for the historic district .
Comm. Albinson questioned whether or not the clock tower would be
aligned on the center of the bridge . Mr. Cross stated that he has
designed the project so that the clock tower would be centered with
Lewis Street . Mr. Cross stated that the height of the building is
32 feet which is comparable to all the other buildings on the
downtown side of the project . Mr. Cross then reviewed the
components of the Plaza (downtown) side of the project . Mr. Cross
stated that the awnings on the Plaza side of the project help
control signage . He stated that it is also a very economical way
to go in that many different manufacturers would have the
opportunity to provide them. Mr. Cross stated that this is the key
block and that something needs to be done like this to make the
rest of the district feasible.
Comm. Albinson questioned how deep the building was . Mr. Cross
stated that the building is 70 feet deep and 450 long. Mr. Cross
stated that office area above on the 2nd floor would provide about
40, 000 square feet of office and there would be approximately
30 , 000 square feet of retail on the 1st floor. Mr. Cross stated
that there would also be about 90 feet of depth to the Plaza green
space area. Comm. Dirks questioned the elevation of the walkway on
the North part of the building in comparison to the bypass . Mr.
Cross stated that the walkway elevation would be slightly higher
than the road surface .
Comm. Unseth questioned the parking standard for this type of
structure. Mr. Cross stated that the parking requirements varied
depending on the occupancy of the structure. Mr. Stock stated that
within the downtown district there are no parking requirements .
Mr. Stock stated that the parking lot North of the bypass on the
former Brambilla block would serve as overflow for this type of
facility.
Discussion ensued on the other blocks in the downtown area. Mr.
Cross stated that he felt Lewis Street would be a major North-South
Street into this historic area. He would like to see the railroad
depot be relocated to the parking lot on the corner of 2nd Avenue
and Lewis Street . He stated that this would strengthen up the
Lewis Street corridor. He stated that he felt the depot would be
a catalyst for development in this area. Mr. Cross then went
through each block face indicating those structures that were in
good conditions and some of the minor improvements that would be
needed. Mr. Cross also stated that there are several holes in the
downtown area in terms of vacant lots that need to be filled. He
suggested that perhaps some of the buildings that would have to be
removed on the North side of 1st Avenue could be picked up and
moved to infill the area with historic structures .
Official Proceedings of the August 18 , 1993
Community Development Commission Page -3-
Comm. VanHorn stated that one of the buildings on the North side of
1st Avenue is on the historical register. He stated that the
livery stable that presently houses the antique shop should be
salvaged if possible.
Mr. Cross stated that he expected to have the rest of the drawings
completed by our next meeting and perhaps could have some of it
submitted by the end of the month. Mr. Stock stated that once the
information is submitted he could contact the members of the CDC to
review them prior to the meeting on September 15th.
Mr. Stock stated that he felt the work being done by Mr. Cross was
leading us to an overall comprehensive plan for the downtown area.
Obviously parking, financial development costs, market feasibility,
etc . were issues that needed much more analysis .
Discussion ensued as to whether or not the downtown business owners
should be invited to the meeting on September 15th to comment on
the plans . Mr. VanHorn stated that he felt the CDC should put
together an overall comprehensive plan first . He stated that the
overall plan should be sold to the downtown businesses and Council
at one time with consensus achieved beforehand by all CDC members.
Comm. Brandmire stated that many of the improvements to the
individual properties that Mr. Cross is proposing will be
relatively inexpensive for the property owners . He felt that the
property owners would be very supportive of Mr. Cross' plan in
terms of minor improvements to their buildings .
Comm. Albinson stated that he is trying to balance the creativity
and beauty of Mr. Cross' concepts with a realistic viewpoint that
conceptually developers may not be interested. Comm. Albinson
stated that it is critical to determine whether or not the market
can support 40, 000 sq. ft . of office and 30 , 000 sq. ft . of retail .
Comm. VanHorn suggested that perhaps a portion of the 2nd floor of
the facility could be utilized by the Library. Mr. Stock stated
that perhaps a portion of the 2nd flbor could be occupied by a
small specialized hotel .
Discussion ensued on other potential business options that could be
incorporated into the project .
Comm. Brandmire stated that he felt the design submitted by Mr.
Cross was workable. Comm. Brandmire also stated that he liked the
idea of moving any buildings that were historical and worth moving.
Comm. VanHorn stated that he also liked Mr. Cross' concept . He
stated that it was important for the overall plan to address as
many concerns as we can identify. He stated that when we start
talking about bulldozing buildings many different groups will want
to have their say. Comm. VanHorn also liked the idea of centering
Official Proceedings of the August 18, 1993
Community Development Commission Page -4-
the building on Lewis Street . Comm. Dirks questioned whether or
not figures were available on traffic following the completion of
the mini bypass and southerly bypass . Comm. Albinson stated that
there were presently 24, 000 vehicles per day and that when the
highway projects are completed it would drop to approximately
17, 000 per day. Mr. Stock stated that he felt the vast majority of
the drop would be in the area of truck traffic. Comm. Albinson
stated that he did have these figures and he would provide them to
Mr. Stock.
Comm. Miller stated that he thought we were getting a great deal of
work from Mr. Cross for a very small amount of pay. Comm. Miller
stated that he was a little bit concerned about parking in the
downtown area. Comm. Miller also stated that he did not think the
CDC was qualified to determine how large this project should be.
He stated that the size of the project would ultimately be up to
the developers who would take on the project . Comm. Unseth stated
that conceptually he felt the work submitted by Mr. Cross was
outstanding. He also stated that he felt the downtown would be in
need of an anchor such as the concept submitted by Mr. Cross .
Comm. Unseth questioned whether or not we would gather developer
input prior to completing the overall comprehensive plan or if we
would simply submit the comprehensive plan without developer input .
Mr. Stock stated that typically City' s develop a conceptual plan
and then solicit proposals from developers . Mr. Stock stated that
he felt that this was the way to proceed with this project as well .
Mr. Stock stated that he felt it would be difficult to obtain
developer comment without the overall financial incentive plan
available for their analysis . The financial incentive plan would
not be solid until such time that City Council or the HRA were to
act on it .
Comm. VanHorn stated that he realizes that this project would be
expensive but not in order for the downtown to become viable a
major step like this needs to take place . Comm. VanHorn stated
that he felt one of the major problems in the downtown area is how
to fill those small vacant parcels so that a consistent mass of
buildings can be established. Comm. Miller stated that he felt
that if the large anchor building could be filled that the small
pockets might fill on their own.
Discussion ensued on the need for an acquisition plan. Comm.
Albinson stated that if the City is to acquire the property North
of 1st Avenue that now might be the appropriate time to proceed
with some of the parcels . He noted that several property owners
have received relatively large damage awards and theoretically the
value of their buildings should have been reduced by that value .
Thus making some of the buildings a very attractive buy. Comm.
Albinson stated that the process that the City has to go through to
acquire property is very public and that it will be very expensive
to acquire the property through condemnation. If there are willing
Official Proceedings of the August 18, 1993
Community Development Commission Page -5-
sellers at this time perhaps the City could save significant
dollars in moving ahead with friendly acquisition. It was the
consensus of the Commission to have staff develop a preliminary
acquisition plan including the property North of 1st Avenue and
also several of the other vacant parcels in the downtown area that
are presently vacant . It was also the consensus of the Commission
to identify those buildings on the North side of 1st Avenue that
could perhaps be moved. Cost estimates for moving would also be
beneficial .
Chairman Albinson adjourned the meeting at 7 : 15 p.m.
zed = aovnoNvi uaiHa 'IrdJ
009 = NOLIMOSa 1 32S 'Irda
11aor goajtadp.zoMu = AVZdSIQ 9SwAQI Zrda
HISTORIC
NUS LANIII! G
•A LIVING HISTORY MUSEUM'
-P1840-1890
2187 EAST HIGHWAY 101
SHAKOPEE, MN 55379
(612) 445-6901
SECOND DRAFT
BUSINESS PLAN
AUGUST 24, 1993
Second Draft Business Plan
August 24, 1993
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Discussion of Murphy's Landing
1. Murphy's Landing is a living history park that interprets life in the
Minnesota River Valley from its earliest settlement, 1800 BC to 1890 AD. The
corporation is a 501 c (3) non-profit organization. The site is unique in its ability to
bring the lives and culture of the early residents of the Valley into focus. No where else
in the United States can visitors be so close to the actual activities of frontier living.
Visitors are in the middle of the construction of a sod cabin, they are ten feet away from
a field when it is plowed and walk into a log cabin that is being lived in as if the year
were 1856.
2. The site welcomes visitors through two gates,most often as part of a
group or school tour that has been paid in advance. \Valk-in visitors buy tickets at the
ticket offices at either end of the site. From that ope en to, visitors the publcioceed at their Be Because of the
speed through approximately twenty sitesP
length of the site, transportation is provided by two horse-drawn trolleys that travel up
and down the main road of the site continuously, visitors can get on and off at will.
3. The primary focus of the Landing has always been education. The
landing may be the most curriculum directed museum in the United States. For example,
of the Model Learner Goals and Outcomes published by the Minnesota Department of
Education, all but two are addressed at Murphy's Landing. The site teaches local history
more effectively than most teachers can in the classroom.
B. Problems
Murphy's Landing is neither fish nor fowl, it is an educational institution that
relies on tourist dollars for support. We make too much money from tourists to qualify
for many of the philanthropic foundations support, there is not enough local support to
convince the large foundations that we are a viable local asset, and we have never had the
money to advertise for the tourist numbers that would be needed to survive.
1. Expenses exceed income, this has been the long term problem at the
site. An educational site is difficult to make show a profit.
2. Flood'construction: Events of 1993 have made a difficult situation
impossible. This year should have seen increased revenues due to program changes and
advertising, flood related problems have cut admissions by 48%. In a site dependant on
admissions income, this is a disaster of first magnitude.
C. Mission/Goals For the Minnesota Valley Restoration Project, Inc. •
(Reviewed and approved by a committee of the Board of Trustees of the Minnesota
Valley Restoration Project,Inc. on June 17, 1992.)
I. Restoration and preservation of records, artifacts, and historic buildings of the
Minnesota River Valley located at Historic Murphy's Landing.
II. Provide a research program to support the interpretive theme of Murphy's Landing
for both internal requirements and students of the history of the Minnesota River Valley.
1
Second Draft Business Plan
August 24, 199.3
III. Promote quality educational programs and historic interpretation depicting life by
the early settlers of the Valley from 1800 BC-1890 AD.
IV. Continue to develop and operate under a long range master plan consistent with the
original concept; with amendments only upon sound approval by a certified historical
consultant(s).
V. To be fiscally responsible and to strive to become financially independent through
programs, exhibitions, and activities that do not compromise the historical integrity of
the interpretation of Historic Murphy's Landing.
D. Immediate Courses Of Action
1. Restructure Board of Trustees
2. Survive 1993
3. Close site from December 1993 to May 1994 to reorganize
4. Reopen May 1, 1994 with a new format.
a. Emphasis on education to make the site more attractive to
foundations.
b. Site more open to the public
(1) DNR Trail
(2) Open areas
(3) Fence individual buildings
c. Younger format
E. Intermediate and Long Range Plans
1. Establish a Development Committee that would make a serious search
for foundation support.
2. Seek grants that would have an emphasis on the educational aspects of
Murphy's Landing.
3. Develop a long term marketing strategy and program that would make
the Landing accessible to more vistors to achieve the potential described in the 1981
study.
F. Conclusions
In the past year(1992-3) Murphy's Landing has made considerable
advances in a number of areas. The Landing has developed and implemented a credible
• interpretive program, found help to restore buildings, come to an agreement with DNR
over the Minnesota River Trail,received a grat nt weat t�ou d not have qualified for a year
e Minnesota Humanities
Commission, applied for an IMS (GO ) gr
ago,begun the restructuring of the Board Of Trustees, doubled volunteer hours,
increased admissions by 16% and made major inroads in cataloging and storing artifacts.
Both 1992 and 1993 were poor years for the tourist industry. Flooding and construction
in 1993 have created an extremely difficult situationduring
ever periodefore of gro th If Te
flooding has , however brought new offers support
f
resources can be found to implement current plans,
format.
Murphy's Landing can use the Winter
months of 1994 to restructure into a more survivable
2
Second Draft Business Plan
August 24. 1993
II. FINANCIAL STRATEGY
A. Find immediate monies to provide for most pressing needs.
1. Pay off IRS $43,000 including penalties (This is not continuing to
grow, the problem was corrected in Mar 1993.)
2. Pay off Creditors $40,000
3. Fund a Business Manager$25,000
4. Advertise site for Folkways of Christmas
B. How It Would Help
1. Stop the Acute Hemorrhage
2. Give Us Time to Develop Other Sources of Incom?that are Immediate
&Long Term
C. How Much Do We Need? •
1. Long term "in-kind" assistance
a. From City- $40,000 In Kind
(1) Sewer
(2) Plumbing
(3) Garbage Pick up
(4) Utilities
(5) Liability, Comprehensive Insurance on Structures,
Contents& Artifacts
(6) Workers' Compensation Premium
(7) Pay for Annual Audit
2. $150,000 in cash
a. County - $50,000 one time grant
(1) Develop and implement a marketing plan with donated
media.
-Naegle has donated up to 53 bill boards for late
•
• October/November($25,000 value)
-Brochures with donated design work and paper
- Television ad with production costs donated
(2) Mailing and production costs for a fund drive and
membership drive•
b. Minnesota Non-Profit Assistance Fund - $100,000 loan
(1) Pay Creditors - $80,000
(2) Fund Business Manager for six months- $12,000
D. How to Pay Money Back
1. Increase Income
a. Membership Drive Goal $10,000 & 350 new members in Dec 93
b. Fund Drive Goal $50,000 in Dec 93
c. Increase Admissions- Ad campaign aimed at Folkways, Dec 93
3
- Second Draft Business Plan
August 24, 1993
d. Additional Grants -these take a minimum of 3 months to
develop and would not appear before 94
e. Foundation Support an effective foundation search takes about
one year, we need the resources and time to mount such a campaign.
•
2. Decrease Overhead
a. Adopt House Program would save $21,000
b. Use Boy Scout for Maintenance Purposes an estimated $5,000
c. Increase Volunteer Support of professional services ( Contact
Chairmen of Retirement Committees of Large Corporations like Honeywell, Cargill,
Multifood, Unisys, IBM, Pilsbury 3M and Large Banks.) This could save $35,000.
d. Negotiate with DNR to provide fencing and restrooms, $25,000
e. Pursue current relationship with SCORE and SBDC for financial
advice/assistance, $25,000.
D. Repayment Schedule
Increased revenues and decrease in expenses total approximately $200,000.
Approximately $150,000 of this would be required for operations based on expanded
number of visitors and to make up the annual shortfall experienced since 1990. This
• would leave $50,000 to service debts annually. Thus we would expect to repay all debts
within three years.
•
•
•
•
•
•
4 -