HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 03/16/1999 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
Capital Improvement Plan (C.I.P.)
TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 1999 4:00 - 6:55 PM, CITY CENTER
HERITAGE ROOM II
CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Jean Harris, Councilmembers
Sherry Butcher-Younghans, Ronald
Case, Ross Thorfinnson, Jr., and Nancy
Tyra-Lukens
CITY STAFF: City Manager Chris Enger, Division
Commander Gary Therkelsen, Parks &
Recreation Services Director Bob Lambert,
Public Works Services Director Eugene
Dietz, Community Development and
Financial Services Director Don Uram,
Management Services Director Natalie
Swaggert, HRA Manager David Lindahl,
City Planner Mike Franzen, City Attorney
Ric Rosow and Council Recorder Margaret
Rasmussen
OTHER Southwest Metro Transit Staff
I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER - MAYOR JEAN HARRIS
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
III. SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT HUB DEVELOPMENT - 4:00 - 5:00 PM
A. PRESENTATION OF URBAN LAND INSTITUTE CONFERENCE (David
Lindahl & Mike Franzen (March 1-3, 1999)
B. PRESENTATION OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES FOR TRANSIT SITE
(Len Simich of Southwest Metro Transit)
C. DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION
IV. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN - 5:00 - 6:30 PM
Council/ Staff Workshop
March 16, 1999
Page 2
A. OVERVIEW / STRATEGIES
B. 1999 EXPENDITURES
C. YEAR 2000 AND BEYOND (Review of Prioritization Tool)
V. OTHER BUSINESS
VI. COUNCIL FORUM - 6:30 - 6:55 PM
A. JEFF STRATE HAS REQUESTED SEVEN MINUTES TO DISCUSS
FEDERAL / STATE FUNDING FOR LAND PURCHASE IN SOUTHWEST
EDEN PRAIRIE.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
cam.
�r-
10 Required to protect current infrastructure.
10 Required by Mandate(State)
10 Required for Life Health Safety.
CA
CA
10 Supports long-term changing
demographics.
10 Extends existing infrastructure to
underserved areas
10 High level of visibility,potential source of
complaints
5 Transportation enhancement
1-4
-5 Negatively impacts transportation
5 Suuoorts natirral / _ _
AGENDA
HOUSING& REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 1999 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER
COUNCIL CHAMBER
8080 MITCHELL ROAD
HOUSING& REDEVELOPMENT Chair, Jean Harris; Sherry Butcher-
AUTHORITY MEMBERS: Younghans, Ronald Case,Ross
Thorfinnson, Jr., and Nancy Tyra-Lukens
CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Chris Enger, HRA
Attorney Ric Rosow, and HRA Recorder
Margaret Rasmussen
I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
H. ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBORDINATION OF HRA
MORTGAGE AND AMENDMENT TO THE FIRST AMENDED AND
RESTATED PROJECT MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT
III. ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. HRA 99-1
RESOLUTION RELATING TO MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS (STERLING PONDS PROJECT), SENIOR SERIES
1999A,AND MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT REVENUE REFUNDING
BONDS (STERLING PONDS PROJECT), SUBORDINATE SERIES 1999B;
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the
City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota(the "Authority"), as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended(the "Act"), the City
of Eden Prairie (the "City")has agreed to issue and sell its Multifamily Housing Development
Revenue Refunding Bonds (Sterling Ponds Project), Senior Series 1999A, and its Multifamily
Housing Development Revenue Refunding Bonds (Sterling Ponds Project), Subordinate Series
1999B in the aggregate principal amount of$6,665,000 (collectively, the "Bonds"),to provide
funds to refund its Multifamily Housing Development Revenue Bonds (Sterling Ponds Project),
Series 1989A and Series 1989B, dated, as originally issued, as of October 1, 1989, of which
approximately$6,735,000 is now outstanding(the "Refunded Bonds"), the proceeds of which
were used to finance a multifamily housing development described in Section 462C.05 of the Act
comprising the construction and equipping on land within the City of an approximately 112-unit
multifamily rental housing development(the "Project") owned and operated by Prairie Village
Limited Partnership (the "Developer").
1.02. The Developer has granted a mortgage on the Project to the Authority,pursuant to
a mortgage dated November 15, 1985, and by a Subordination Agreement dated October 24,
1989, the Authority has subordinated its mortgage lien on the Project to the lien of the mortgage
securing the Refunded Bonds. The Authority and the Developer have also entered into a First
Amended and Restated Project Management Agreement, dated as of October 1, 1989 (the
"Development Agreement"), relating to the Project. In connection with the issuance of the
Bonds and the refunding and prepayment of the Refunded Bonds, it is necessary for the
Authority to subordinate its mortgage lien on the Project to the mortgage securing the Bonds, and
to amend the Development Agreement.
1.03. Draft forms of the following documents have been prepared and submitted to this
Board and are hereby directed to be filed with the Secretary:
(a) a Subordination Agreement(the "Mortgage Subordination"), to be executed
and delivered by the Authority; and
(b) an Amendment No. 1 to First Amended and Restated Regulatory Agreement
(the "Development Agreement Amendment"),proposed to be entered into between the
Authority and the Company.
Section 2. Authorization and Approval of Documents. The forms of the Mortgage
Subordination and the Development Agreement Amendment referred to in Section 1.03 are
approved, subject to such modifications as are deemed appropriate and approved by the City
Attorney and the Chair. The documents as so approved are directed to be executed in the name
and on behalf of the Authority by the Chair and Secretary. The Chair and the Secretary are also
authorized and directed to execute such other instruments as may be required to give effect to the
transactions herein contemplated.
Section 3. Modifications, Absence of Officers. The approval hereby given to the
various documents referred to above includes an approval of such modifications thereto,
deletions therefrom and additions thereto as may be necessary and appropriate and approved by
the City Attorney and the Chair prior to the execution of the documents. The execution of any
instrument by the appropriate officer or officers of the Authority herein authorized shall be
conclusive evidence of the approval of such documents in accordance with the terms hereof. In
the absence or disability of the Chair, any of the documents authorized by this resolution to be
executed, may be executed by the acting Chair and in the absence or disability of the Secretary
by such officer of the Authority who, in the opinion of the City Attorney,may execute such
documents.
Passed this 16th day of March, 1999.
Chair
Attest:
Secretary
CERTIFICATE AS TO RESOLUTION AND ADOPTING VOTE
I,the undersigned,being the duly qualified and acting recording officer of the Housing
and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota(the "Authority"), hereby
certify that the attached resolution is a true copy of Resolution No. HRA 99-1, entitled:
"RESOLUTION RELATING TO MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT REVENUE
REFUNDING BONDS (STERLING PONDS PROJECT), SENIOR SERIES 1999A, AND
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS
(STERLING PONDS PROJECT), SUBORDINATE SERIES 1999B; AUTHORIZING THE
EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS" (the "Resolution"), on file in the original records of the
Authority in my legal custody; that the Resolution was duly adopted by the Board of the
Authority at a meeting on March 16, 1999, and that the meeting was duly held by the Board and
was attended throughout by a quorum, pursuant to call and notice of such meeting given as
required by law; and that the Resolution has not as of the date hereof been amended or repealed.
I further certify that upon vote being taken on the Resolution at said meeting, the
following Board Members voted in favor thereof:
voted against the same:
abstained from voting thereon: ;
or were absent:
WITNESS my hand officially this 16th day of March, 1999.
Secretary
AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 1999 7:00 PM, CITY CENTER
Council Chamber
8080 Mitchell Road
CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Jean Harris, Sherry Butcher-
Younghans, Ronald Case, Ross
Thorfinnson, Jr., and Nancy Tyra-Lukens
CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Chris Enger, Parks &
Recreation Services Director Bob Lambert,
Public Safety Director Jim Clark,Public
Works Services Director Eugene Dietz,
Community Development and Financial
Services Director Don Uram, Management
Services Director Natalie Swaggert, City
Attorney,Ric Rosow and Council Recorder
Margaret Rasmussen
I. ROLL CALL/CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
IV. MINUTES
A. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF WORKSHOP HELD TUESDAY,
MARCH 2, 1999
B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, TUESDAY,
MARCH 2, 1999
V. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST
B. ADOPT RESOLUTION AWARDING 1999 STREET SWEEPING
CONTRACT TO CLEAN SWEEP, INC.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
March 16, 1999
Page 2
C. ADOPT RESOLUTION AWARDING 1999 STREET STRIPING
CONTRACT TO PRECISION PAVEMENT MARKING
D. APPROVE REQUEST FOR EXCESS RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM MnDOT
E. ADOPT RESOLUTION TO RECEIVE PETITION AND ORDER
FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR FLYING CLOUD DRIVE/WASHINGTON
AVENUE BETWEEN SHADY OAK ROAD AND HAMILTON ROAD
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS
A. 1999 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING
PROPOSALS (CDBG) (RESOLUTION)
B. CLG(CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT) GRANT APPLICATION
(RESOLUTION)
VII. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS
VIII. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
A. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE 2.3
AND 2.32
B. ADOPT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE AND ISSUANCE OF
SENIOR MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS
(STERLING PONDS PROJECT) SERIES 1999A,AND SUBORDINATE
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT REVENUE REFUNDING
BONDS, SERIES 1999B.
IX. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
X. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. REVIEW BOARD OF APPEALS NO. 99-01
XI. APPOINTMENTS
XII. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS
1. City Manger's Evaluation and Merit Pay Recommendations
2. Councilmember Case Will Report On A Proposal For Changing The
Telephone Area Codes By The Suburban Rate Association
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
March 16, 1999
Page 3
B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER
C. REPORT OF PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR
1. Recommendation for 1999 Trails Proiects
2. Request approval for 1999 Projects
D. REPORT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCIAL
SERVICES DIRECTOR
E. REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES DIRECTOR
1. Approve Special Assessment Agreement with Super Valu - Traffic
Signals and HOV Bypass
2. Approve Cooperative Agreement with MnDot-HOV Bypass Lane
(Resolution)
F. REPORT OF PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES DIRECTOR
G. REPORT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR
H. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY
XIII. OTHER BUSINESS
A. COUNCIL FORUM INVITATION
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL/STAFF WORKSHOP
TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 1999 7:00 PM, CITY CENTER
HERITAGE ROOM II
CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Jean Harris, Sherry Butcher-
Younghans, Ronald Case, Ross
Thorfinnson Jr., Nancy Tyra-Lukens
CITY STAFF: City Manager Chris Enger, Public Safety
Services Director Jim Clark, Management
Services Director Natalie Swaggert, Parks
& Recreation Services Director Bob
Lambert, Community Development &
Financial Services Director Don Uram,
Public Works Services Director Gene
Dietz, City Attorney Ric Rosow, City
Clerk Kathleen Porta and Council Recorder
Rita Maiser.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Enger said no one has asked to speak at the Council Forum. Some individuals
contacted the City Manager's office asking to speak on the Perkins Subdivision, but the
Public Hearing on this matter was closed and the item would not be appropriate under
the Council Forum guidelines.
III. OPEN MEETING LAW - DATA PRACTICES ACT
Attorney Rosow presented information on the Open Meeting Law. Performance
evaluations of City Staff and meetings with the City Attorney to discuss potential
litigation are permitted to be closed. The Open Meeting Law applies to any gathering
of a quorum or more of public officials where official business is discussed, decided, or
information is received. Two councilpersons meeting with staff is not a violation of the
Open Meeting Law.
Tyra-Luken discussed how collaborative committees, such as a Councilmember meeting
with school boards members, are affected by the law. Rosow stated the Open Meeting
Law would apply in this situation. Case asked if topics discussed were a factor.
Rosow said the discussion must pertain to official duties. The law does not prohibit
social gatherings. The key is whether City business is being discussed.
I
COUNCIL/STAFF WORKSHOP
March 2, 1999
Page 2
According to the Data Practices Act, "government data" means all data created,
collected, received, maintained, or disseminated by the City regardless of the data's
physical form. Data must be collected somewhere, in some manner. Since
e-mail is recorded, it is government data. E-mail is an emerging area of concern.
Enger asked about data on one's personal computer. Rosow said there have not been
any case decisions on this as yet.
Porta said general correspondence must be retained for three years. Official
correspondence has a permanent retention. E-mail records should be printed with
header information and attachments or filed electronically. Transitory messages are not
considered official records. Swaggert said that whether information is on a personal
computer or a city computer doesn't make any difference.
Another issue for future discussion is the gift law.
Porta said four new recording secretaries, Margaret Rasmussen, Carol Pelzel, Rita
Maiser, and Judy Kunz have been hired.
IV. COMMUNICATION SUPPORT - CLERICAL
Swaggert reported on results of the Council survey regarding clerical support. Dona
Rowland is the person to contact for travel arrangements. Sign-up for professional
workshops, expense claim processing (meals, mileage, etc.), and meeting claim forms
should also be directed to Rowland.
In regard to mail, support staff can open and sort mail upon Councilmember request.
Staff will answer routine mail. Correspondence with the public which should have
legal review should be answered by Staff. Enger said if the Council needs input,
contact him. The staff will also assist with correspondence done on behalf of the City
Council, such as the Mayor's letters.
Tyra-Lukens asked if there is any assistance for speeches or presentations. Enger said
presentations can be time consuming to prepare for a single purpose, but the staff can
help with presentations if they have some future use and are on behalf of the City
Council.
Questions about record retention should be directed to Porta. See Carolyn Monsrud for
copies and reproductions.
V. COMMUNICATIONS SUPPORT - TECHNICAL
Enger discussed ways to extend technical support. The Council office could have a
computer set up for Council use. A City e-mail address could also be used instead of
personal e-mail addresses. Software is available for scheduling and setting up a
meeting calendar.
d�-
COUNCIL/STAFF WORKSHOP
March 2, 1999
Page 3
There was discussion on pager use, and whether pagers are really an asset to the
Council. Councilmembers were split on how useful pagers are for them. For now, the
Council will see if they can better utilize pagers.
VI. COUNCIL COMPENSATION
Rosow said any changes in compensation made now don't take effect until January 1,
after the next election. Only one comparable city besides Eden Prairie uses per diem.
Eden Prairie's base salary is behind other cities. Mayor Harris asked if the per diem
brings salary close to other cities. Thorfmnson said that with per diem, salary is on the
high end, close to Bloomington.
The Mayor saw a need to revisit this issue, and more information will be ready in June.
This issue should be rescheduled for July.
VII. AMERICAN MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE REPORT
Butcher-Younghans and Thorfinnson attended the American Management Conference
November 4-8, 1999. Butcher-Younghans reported they were the only two government
officials attending, which impressed many attendees. The focus of the conference was
on change. One important concept was "what has made you successful in the past will
not make you successful in the future." The conference stressed the need for
flexibility, access to technology, and how use of physical space can encourage
creativity. She gave examples of how access and convenience can be used to involve
the public more.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Harris adjourned the meeting at 6:55 p.m.
5fi
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 1999 7:00 PM, CITY CENTER
Council Chamber
8080 Mitchell Road
CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Jean Harris, Sherry Butcher-
Younghans, Ronald Case, Ross
Thorfinnson Jr., Nancy Tyra-Lukens
CITY STAFF: City Manager Chris Enger, Parks &
Recreation Services Director Bob
Lambert, Public Safety Services Director
Jim Clark, Public Works Services Director
Gene Dietz, Community Development and
Financial Services Director Don Uram,
Management Services Director Natalie
Swaggert, City Attorney Ric Rosow,
Council Recorder Rita Maiser
I. ROLL CALL/CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
Enger deleted item VI.A.3, Public Hearingon Riley Creek Valley Land Acquisition.
MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Case, to approve the agenda as amended.
Motion carried 5-0.
IV. MINUTES
A. CITY COUNCIL /STAFF WORKSHOP HELD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16,
1999
MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Butcher-Younghans, to approve
City Council/Staff Workshop held on Tuesday, February 16, 1999 as published.
Motion carried 5-0.
r
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
March 2, 1999
Page 2
B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1999.
MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to approve the minutes of
the City Council meeting held Tuesday, February 16, 1999 as published.
Motion carried 5-0.
V. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST
B. RESOLUTION 99-30 FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF WATER'S EDGE AT
PURGATORY CREEK
C. RESOLUTION 99-31 APPROVING METRO GREENWAYS ACQUISTION
GRANT - RILEY CREEK VALLEY LAND ACQUISITION
D. RESOLUTION 99-32 METRO GREENWAYS PLANNING GRANT
E. APPROVE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH SRF
CONSULTING GROUP INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT
MITCHELL ROAD AND ANDERSON LAKES PARKWAY/SCENIC
HEIGHTS ROAD
F. APPROVE CHANGE ORDERS FOR FIRE STATION NO. 1
(14800 SCENIC HEIGHTS DRIVE)
MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to approve Items A-
F on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0.
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. OUTDOOR RECREATION GRANT APPLICATIONS
1. RESOLUTION 99-33 NESBITT PRESERVE PARK RENOVATION
Lambert discussed the Nesbitt Park Renovation, which will include a park
shelter, hockey rinks, skating rink, picnic area and playground. The cost
of the renovation is $400,000 with the grant request for $200,000.
2. RESOLUTION 99-34 RILEY LAKE PARK SHELTER
The cost of construction of a 54' diameter park shelter is $221,400 with
the grant request for $110,700.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
March 2, 1999
Page 3
3. RESOLUTION 99-35 MILLER PARK SHELTER
The cost of construction of a 60' diameter park shelter is $336.867 with
the grant request for $168.434.
Thorfinnson asked what the grant applications involve. Enger said
matching funds will be provided if the grant is given. Acceptance of the
grant commits the Council to take and use the money for the intended
purpose; however, the Council can turn down the grant.
There were no members of the public present to speak.
MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Butcher-Younghans, to
close the Public Hearing and approve Resolutions 99-33, 99-34, and
99-35. Motion carried 5-0.
B. VACATION 99-01: DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS OF PART
OF BEARPATH ADDITION (RESOLUTION 99-36)
Enger said the official notice of this Public Hearing was published on February
18, 1999, and mailed to 14 property owners.
There were no comments from the audience.
MOTION: Thorfmnson moved, seconded by Case, to close the Public Hearing
and adopt Resolution 99-36 in support of Vacation 99-01. Motion carried 5-0.
C. VACATION 99-02: EASEMENT FOR SANITARY SEWER - NE
QUARTER OF SE QUARTER OF SECTION 10 (RESOLUTION 99-37)
Enger said the official notice of this Public Hearing was published on February
18, 1999, and mailed to 2 property owners.
There were no comments from the audience.
MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Butcher-Younghans, to close the
Public Hearing and adopt Resolution 99-37 in support of Vacation 99-02.
Motion carried 5-0.
VII. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS
MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Butcher-Younghans, to approve
payment of claims as submitted. Motion carried on a roll-call vote, with
Butcher-Younghans, Case, Thorfinnson, Tyra-Lukens, and Harris voting
"Aye."
j
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
March 2, 1999
Page 4 •
VIII. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
A. PERKINS SUBDIVISION by James Perkins. Request for Preliminary Plat of 3
acres into three lots. Location 7012 Willow Creek Road. (Resolution 99-37)
Perkins proposed changes from the three-lot subdivision granted in 1989. The
Planning Commission approved the revised plan, with modifications by the DNR.
Under the new proposal, setback to the Nolan property would decrease, some
smaller trees would be removed from the Nolan property line increasing tree loss,
and there would be two driveway easements instead of one. Two of the sites
would share one septic system. Shoreline setbacks would increase on lots 1 and
2.
Enger presented the background. He questioned the viability of two homes on one
septic system. Enger received a letter from Mark Wisser, an attorney representing
neighbors of the proponents, addressing the DNR letter and the septic question.
Case ask if the 1989 plan was used, how much could the two new pads vary from
the original pads and would the houses have to be built within the "footprints" of
the original. Rosow said that the key to meeting the building pad requirement is
staying within the confines of the variance. He has not analyzed the footage to see
if allowing some shifting in the build pad would still meet the code.
MOTION: Butcher-Younghans moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to adopt
Resolution 99-37 approving the Preliminary Plat for Perkins Subdivision.
Discussion followed on the motion.
Tyra-Lukens isn't clear how the new plan is an improvement over the old plan,
and believes the new plan is a completely different plan. She said the plan allows
12 variances, which are not minor, but major variances. Tyra-Lukens does not
believe there is a hardship issue here and pointed out that financial reasons are not
considered a hardship. She feels it would have an impact on the neighborhood
and does not believe in the small lot sizes. The variances are substantial, no
hardship exists, and the variances are too many and too lenient.
Mayor Harris said that this issue has been a problem for the Council. The
question is whether the 1989 plan is a better plan. She said that Perkins could not
have submitted a better plan than the proposed plan.
Case said he is uncomfortable with the 1989 action. He said he doesn't believe in
accepting a plan just because it is better than a bad one. He agreed with Tyra-
Lukens that the variances are substantial. He questioned fitting three houses on
this lot. He doesn't like the shared drainfield, even if it can be certified as
acceptable. The variances are too many, and he believes the DNR letter has a
strong negative tone.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
March 2, 1999
Page 5
Butcher-Younghans said although the 1989 plan was approved, and while the new
plan is not the best plan, it is better than the old plan. The recommendation of
the DNR hydrologist has to be factored in. Another factor is that of fairness to
the Perkins family, who have had a plan approved. Butcher-Younghans said she
favors this plan, rather than the previous proposal.
Thorfinnson said the question is can the 1989 plan be built. The drainfield issue
does not bother him because it must be adaptable to the sites in order to build.
He said that while variances are used for small changes, variances also allow the
Council to look at a piece of property in a way that might not otherwise be
thought of. He has no problem with the number of variances or the shared septic
system. If the new plan is not approved, then the 1989 plan can be used. He
favors the new plan over 1989 because it results in a better end product.
Mayor Harris asked Public Works Director Dietz how long it would be before
public utilities could come into the area. Dietz said inspections need to be done
for new sewage systems. In one to two years public improvements will be
available. It may run $6000 to $10,000 to improve each bad septic system.
Since it is unlikely the residents here would petition for public improvements, the
Council would have to vote to put in sewer. The road would then need to be
reconstructed, and road improvement could change the character of the
neighborhood.
Enger asked Attorney Rosow the number of Council votes needed to approve a
variance appeal. Rosow said three votes are required.
Mayor Harris asked for a vote on the motion.
VOTE ON MOTION: Motion carried 3-2, with Case and Tyra-Lukens
opposed.
Enger asked if the vote could be declared a unanimous vote; however, there was
no action taken.
IX. SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT COMMISSION
Tyra-Lukens reported on the development of the HUB site, which is under direction of
the City Council. There is a need to look at cash flow and maintenance issues in regard
to the Southwest Metro Transit Station. There was discussion on when the Council and
the Metro Transit Commission could meet together. Uram said there is one developer
who is interested in a restaurant pad so it is necessary to move on this soon. Deitz said
that the Capital Improvements Projects slated for 1999 need to proceed. Mayor Harris
expressed the need for the Council to get together with Staff.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
March 2, 1999
Page 6
MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Case that Council meet with Staff on
March 16 at 4:00 p.m. for this purpose. Motion carried 5-0.
X. REPORT OF THE CITY MANAGER
Enger discussed the need to review the City's Strategic Plan and possible restructuring of
Boards and Commissions. The City Code, Section 2.30 City Services Area, must be
amended to reflect organizational changes from 1998.
XI. OTHER BUSINESS
A. COUNCIL FORUM.
The Council Forum will be scheduled from 6:30-6:55, following each Council
Workshop.
Enger said some individuals asked to speak regarding the Perkins Subdivision;
however, the Public Hearing has been closed.
B. CLOSED SESSION
The Mayor asked that the Council move to enter a closed session for the purpose
of the City Manager's Performance Review to determine the City Manager's
Merit Pay Award for 1999 and for consultation with City Attorney regarding
potential litigation.
MOTION: Butcher-Younghans moved, seconded by Case, to enter closed
session. Motion carried 5-0.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Butcher-Younghans moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to adjourn the meeting.
Motion carried 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
e13 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE:
ad en SECTION: Consent Calendar March 16, 1999
prairie
SERVICE AREA: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.
Community Development Clerk's License Application List V.A.
& Financial Services -
Gretchen Laven
These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the licensed activity.
COMMERCIAL KENNEL CONTRACTORS CONTINUED
AFFILIATED EMERGENCY VETERINARY RIES HEATING& SHEET METAL
SERVICE PLC ROCHON CORPORATION
ROSENQUIST CONSTRUCTION INC
RAFFLE ROTO-ROOTER SERVICES CO
ROUSE MECHANICAL INC
DUCKS UNLIMITED EP CHAPTER SABRE HEATING&A/C INC
(Bearpath Golf&Country Club,April 5, 1999) SULLIVAN'S UTILITY SERVICES INC
THARALDSON DEVELOPMENT
THERMEX CORPORATION
RENEWAL LICENSES TNC INDUSTRIES INC
TOM MOTZKO PLBG&HTG CO
CONTRACTOR VALLEY AIRE INC
VEIT&COMPANY INC
A-PLUS ROOFING CO VENT-A-HOOD OF THE TWIN CITIES INC
AAAMERICA'S BEST INC VOGEL SHEETMETAL INC
GENERAL PLUMBING&HEATING INC W E NEAL SLATE CO
GITTLEMAN CONSTRUCTION CORP WATSON-FORSBERG COMPANY
JOHN A DALSIN& SON INC WHELAN-DAVIS CO INC
KEL-SY CORP WELTER&BLAYLOCK INC
dba: Radiant Concepts WESTAIR INC
KELLY PLUMBING&HEATING INC YALE INC
LSV METALS INC ZEMAN CONSTRUCTION CO
MCQUILLAN BROS PLBG&HTG CO
MINNEGASCO
NARKIE HTG&A/C INC
NORBLOM PLUMBING CO INC
dba: VENTCO APPLIANCE INSTALLERS
NORTHERN AIR CORPORATION
NORTHLAND MECHANICAL
CONTRACTORS
NORTHWEST SHEETMETAL CO OF ST PAUL
QUALITY REFRIGERATION
RAY N WELTER HEATING CO
March 16, 1999 1
DATE: 03/16/99
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
ITEM NO: , /�
SECTION: Consent Calendar V
SERVICE AREA: rrEM DESCRIPTION:
Public Works I.C. 99-5482
Engineering Division Award Contract for Street Sweeping
Mary Krause
Recommended Action:
Move to award I.C. 99-5482 for 1999 Street Sweeping to Clean Sweep, Inc. in the amount of
$39,300.00.
Overview:
Sealed bids were received Thursday, February 18, 1999 for the 1999 Street Sweeping. Two
bids were received and are tabulated as follows:
Allied Blacktop $41,970.00
Clean Sweep $39,300.00
Financial Issues:
The spring sweeping portion of the project is funded through the storm water utility fund. The
spring 1999 budget amount is $30,000.00. Sweeping for the sealcoat and overlay projects will
be funded through those budget items accordingly.
1
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the following improvement:
I.C. 99-5482 - Street Sweeping
bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law. Those bids received are shown on
the attached Summary of Bids; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer recommends award of Contract to
CLEAN SWEEP, INC.
as the lowest responsible bidder.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter in a Contract
with Clean Sweep. Inc. in the name of the City of Eden Prairie in the amount of
$39,300.00 in accordance with the plans and specifications thereof approved by the
Council and on file in the office of the City Engineer.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on March 16, 1999.
Jean L. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk
DATE: 03/16/99
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
ITEM NO: V
SECTION: Consent Calendar
SERVICE AREA: ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Public Works I.C. 99-5483
Engineering Division Award Contract for Street Striping
Mary Krause
Recommended Action:
Move to award I.C. 99-5483 for 1999 Street Striping to Precision Pavement marking in the
amount of$47,900.00 as the lowest qualified bidder.
Overview:
Three bids were received, however one bid was rejected as non-conforming to the project
specifications. The bid summary for the remaining two bids is:
Precision Pavement Marking $47,900.00
AAA Striping $59,995.00
Financial Issues:
The 1999 budget amount for striping is $48,000.00 under Budget No. 50-585-4440.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the following improvement:
I.C. 99-5483 - Street Striping
bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law. Those bids received are shown on
the attached Summary of Bids; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer recommends award of Contract to
PRECISION PAVEMENT MARKING
as the lowest responsible bidder.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter in a Contract
with Precision Pavement Marking in the name of the City of Eden Prairie in the amount
of $47,900.00 in accordance with the plans and specifications thereof approved by the
Council and on file in the office of the City Engineer.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on March 16, 1999.
Jean L. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk
DATE: 03/16/99
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
ITEM NO: I /
SECTION: Consent Calendar
SERVICE AREA: / ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Public Works Request for Excess Right-of-Way from MnDOT
Eugene A. Dietz e2
Requested Action:
Move to authorize staff to request MnDOT to convey fee title of excess land acquired for TH
212 right-of-way pursuant to an agreement to be entered into between MnDOT and the City of
Eden Prairie.
Background:
A significant amount of right-of-way has been acquired by MnDOT for the construction of TH
212. In the instance relating to this request, MnDOT is in the process of condemnation of land
from Pillsbury (the McGlynn's building site). In a process that would create a settlement with
Pillsbury, the City can play a role by receiving an adjacent parcel of land that MnDOT acquired
for the TH 212 project and reconveying it to Pillsbury to satisfy the issues of the right-of-way
taking from Pillsbury.
The terms of the reconveyance along with other issues such as indemnification for environmental
issues, etc., need to be memorialized in an agreement with MnDOT. However, to begin this
.process, we need to request that the excess land be given to the City of Eden Prairie. Staff
recommends that the Council authorize the Director of Public Works to submit a letter to
MnDOT with this request so that we may both expedite the TH 212 construction as well as
maintain the viability of the Pillsbury utilization of the site.
DATE: 03/16/99
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
ITEM NO: I/
SECTION: Consent Calendar V �-
SERVICE AREA: ITEM DESCRIPTION: I.C. 99-5488
Public Works Receive Petition and Order Feasibility Study
Eugene A. Dietz Flying Cloud Drive/Washington Avenue between Shady Oak Road and
Hamilton Road
Requested Action:
Move to adopt resolution receiving petition and ordering feasibility report for Flying Cloud
Drive/Washington Avenue between Shady Oak Road and Hamilton Road.
Background:
Subsequent to the approval of the office building on Crosstown Circle generally known as
Crosstown Circle Center, the developer has obtained the signatures of over 50% of the property
owners abutting the rural sections of Flying Cloud Drive and Washington Avenue between Shady
Oak Road and Hamilton Road to study the feasibility of reconstructing the roadway to urban
standards. Upgrading Flying Cloud Drive/Washington Avenue is just one element of
transportation improvements necessary for this industrial area of our community. The access
to the regional system for the area bounded by TH 212/CSAH 62/TH 169/I-494 is extremely
congested. In accordance with discussions with Council, staff will pursue implementation of a
TDM plan and also investigate infrastructure improvements in the Major Center Area in 1999.
As a result, the feasibility study for Flying Cloud Drive can proceed with the knowledge that
other improvements may be necessary and will have to coordinated with the project.
Assuming that Council authorizes the feasibility study, staff indicated to the developer that a goal
will be to have the feasibility study complete by year-end 1999 so that there can be an overlap
in the planning process for other improvements that may be identified in the Major Center Area.
If the Flying Cloud Drive/Washington Avenue improvements proceed, it would be for a year
2000 construction project.
Staff recommends that the petition be received and a feasibility study authorized for the project.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RECEIVING PETITION AND
ORDERING FEASIBILITY REPORT
WHEREAS, a petition has been received and it is proposed to make the following
improvements:
I.C. 99-5488: Improvements of Flying Cloud Drive/Washington Avenue north
from Shady Oak Road to Hamilton Road to an Urban Section with
Curb and gutter and Storm Sewer
and assess the benefitted property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvements, pursuant
to M.S.A. 429.011 to 429.111.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL:
That the proposed improvements be referred to the City Engineer for study with the
assistance of SEH-RCM, and that a feasibility report shall be prepared and presented to
the City Council with all convenient speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as
to the scope, cost assessment and feasibility of the proposed improvements.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on March 16, 1999.
Jean L. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
P)r rriTON FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT
To The Eden Prairie City Council:
The undersigned property owners herein petition the Eden Prairie City Council to consider
making the following described improvement(s):
(General Location)
Done Sanitary Sewer (Upgrade Flying Cloud Drive to Urban Section
Done Watermain between Shady Oak Road and Hamilton Road
XX Storm Sewer As Required for Urban Section
XX Street Paving Width and turn Lanes to be Elevated
XX Other Curb and Gutter. Pedestrian Facilities
Street Address of Other
Legal Description of Signatures of Petitioners
Property to be Served (Must Be Property Owners)
PID # 01-116-22-14-0007
Research Inc. a25 Plyain C7d Dr. L� � Q Claude Johnson
en r it e,
PID f 01-116-22-I1-0013
Cont. Prop. Group, Inc. 253 E. Lake St.
Wayzata, MN Bradley A. Hoyt
PID i 01-116-22.-1.3-UU3U
Cont. Prop. Group, Inc. 253 E. Lake St. Bradley A. Hoyt
WayzatA. MN
PID f 01-U6-22-13-0031
William Halverstadt 6500 Flying Cloud
Dr. , Eden Prairie Y William H verstadt
PID f 01-116-22-14-0008 6600 Wash. Ave.
Starkey Laboratories, Eden Prairie, MN Bill Austin
PID t 01-116-22-41-0003 6600 Wash. Ave.
Starkey Laboratories, Eden Prairie, MN Bill Austin
P.D i/ U1-116-LZ-41-UUU5 biU0 wash. Ave.
Starkey Laboratories Eden Prairie, MN Bill Austin
PID f 01-I16-22-13-0UZ9 6534 Flying Cloud
Katsumi Kasama Drive
Eden Prairie, MN Katsumi Kasama
PID if 1 16-ZZ l3- 1 b55U-b5/b r1 in loud rao, ro er cies-
OVID, VUJ 00 oo' y g inn. t ra e Todd Jones
Dr. , Eden Prairie a)n
PID # 01-116-22-13-0022 6470 Flying Cloud l/ D. Anderson
Dr. , Eden Prairie, MN
(For City Use)
Date Received
Project No. I.C. 98-5475
Council Consideration
3
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, wi♦►
Yea-LION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT
To The Eden Prairie City Council:
The undersigned property owners herein petition the Eden Prairie City Council to consider
making the following described improvement(s):
(General Location)
Done Sanitary Sewer SUpgsade flying Cod Drive to Urban Section
Done Watermain between Shady Oak Road and Hamilton Road
XX Storm Sewer As Bsquired for Urban Section
?CC Street Paving Width and turn Lanes to be Elevated
XX Other Curb and Gutter. Pedestrian Facilities
Street Address of Other
Legal Description of Signatures of Petitioners
Property to be Served • (Must be Property Owners
01-116-22-13-0026
01-116-22-12-0007 10100 Crosstown Cirob., James Greenfield
01-116-22-14-0004 6440 Flying Cl'.•.Dr' ,�„. 5� G')
,�"<r !� . r� ry c s
01-116-22-11-0012 6400 Flying Cl. Dr. 6 0. nc ohi
Y g P �: U
01-116-22-13-0005 6574 Flying Cl. Dr. Bruce Brill
01-116-22-13-0021 10200 Crosstown Cir. . JNA Invest Partnership
01-116-22-13-0027 10150 Crosstown Cir. Inv. Real Est. Trust
01-116-22-13-0023 10175 Crosstown Cir. First Industrial Fin.
: = : ::::::::
6533 Flying Ci. Dr.6608 Flying Cl. Dr. Flying Cloud, LL C
(For City Use)
Date Received
Project No. LC, 98-5475
Council Consideration
FEB-16-1999 14:14 CONTINENTAL PROPERTY 6124732700 P.03/03
PETMON FOR LOCAL DAPROVEtvilaNT
To The Eden Prairie City Council:
The undersigned property owners herein petition the Eden Prairie City Council to consider
malting the following described improvement(s):
(General Location)
Done Sanitary Sewer .v
tone Waterniain J cDVeen Shady OaRoad. d Hamilton Road ._._
XX Storm Sewer
Street Paving „Wjdjh and turn Lams to be Fluted
_ Other Curb and Gutter. Pedestrian_Fam7ities
Street Address of Other
Legal Description of Signatures of Petitio
Property to be Served (Iy�ust be Pro rs
6446 Flying Cloud Drive
01-116-22-14-0005 James Davis
.111111111111111111
(For City Use)
Date Received
Project No. LC. 98-5475
•
Council Consideration
•
TOTAL P.03
January 29, 1999
Re: Project No. I.C. 98-5475
We will agree to petition to upgrade road (Flying Cloud Drive) if it includes a
comprehensive solution to the intersection problems at Shady Oak Road and Flying Cloud
Drive.
Thomas W. Grue
Facility Manager
PID # 01-116-22-13-0034
Physical Electronics Inc.
6509 Flying Cloud Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
f
02/04/99 17:14 FAX 6129438778 FIRST INDUSTRIAL a 003
Aw '1�l n yyy 16:es 612-4736813 BENCHMARK COMMERICAL PAGE 03
are OP EOM PRAZPm, beleanKILA
PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT
To The Eden Prairie City Council:
The undersigned property owners herein petition, the Eden Prairie City Council to consider
making the following described improvemeat(s):
•
(General Win)
nog .. Sanitary Sewer RYwadejlivintSlocl.Drive to Urban Sao
.whin be W t$haely saalaaari and Hamiltoit Rod
Storm Sewer m Required for_UrberJeCtIQII .---
XX Street Paving Vy'idt1Lincl1urn Lit i beJ1evatel
7C1C ,Other Curb and Gettig'. Pedegtr F,
Street Address of Other
Legal Description of Signatures of Petitioners
plow*/to be Serve$ 'Must be Property 01.smerg
01-116-22-13-0026
01-116-22-12-0007 10100 Crosstown Ci24. Jsmns Greenfield
01-116-22-14-0004 6440 Flying 017;Dr':
01-116-22-11-0012 6400 Plying CL. Dr. 6400 Partnership
01-116-22-13-0005 6574 Flying Cl. Dr. Bruce still
01-116-22-13-0021 10200 Crosstown Cir: 3NA Invest Partnership
01-116-22-13-0027 10150 Crosstown Cir. Inv. Real Est. Trust ,
4 Pia
71 VP"
01-116-22-13-0023 10175 Crosstown Cir. Firyt lutist/psi Fin
01-116-22-42-0012 6533 Flying Cl. Dr. Aetna Life Ins.
01-116-22731-0001 6608 Filing Cl. Dr. PlyLnt Cloud,` LL C am,
(For City Use)
Date RRcdved
Project No. LC. 98-5d75
Council Cooesidergion
•
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE:
SECTION: Public Hearings March 16, 1999
SERVICE AREA: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.
Community Development 1999 Community Development Block Grant
& Financial Services: Funding Proposals(CDBG)
Don Uram VLA.
David Lindahl
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION:
Move to approve Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding for the following list of activities as
reviewed and recommended by the Housing, Transportation, and Human Services Board(HTSSB) at their February
5 meeting:
Funding % of
Human Service Activities Levels Total
1. Day Care Initiatives $ 22,875 12%
2. Household & Outside Maintenance for Elderly (HOME) $ 10,067 6%
3. Homeline & Mortgage Foreclosure Prevention Program $ 4,000 2%
Sub Total $ 36,942 20%
Housing Related Activities
4. Housing Rehabilitation Deferred Loan Program $ 50,000 27%
5. Affordable Rental Housing Land Acquisition $ 97,770 53%
Sub Total $147,770 80%
Grand Total $184,712 100%
BACKGROUND:
The City's 1999 Community Development Block Grant entitlement is $184,712, and will be available beginning
in July 1999. The national objectives of the CDBG program include the following:
• Developing viable communities by providing decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expanded
economic opportunities for low and moderate-income persons.
• Aiding in the prevention or elimination of slums and blight.
• Meeting other community development needs having particular urgency.
The Board considered priorities prepared by Hennepin County in developing their recommendations for funding.
(Attachment B) The County also suggests that one community undertake no more than three activities. Their
priorities are as follows:
Affordable Housing - High Priority (including rental, ownership, and rehab)
Community Development - Low Priority (unless related to housing)
Public Service - 20% maximum of total entitlement
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:
See Table A on the following page for a complete review of this year's proposal. Additional information submitted
by the human service agencies is attached for your review.
1
Attachment A
1999 Community Development Block Grant Proposals
Activity Agency/Contact Request Purpose Clients Served
Child Care Subsidy Greater MPLS Day Care $22,875 Provide child day care assistance to lower-income families in Eden Prairie GMDCA was not funded in 1998. The
Ass.-Grace Norris who are working/training a minimum of 25 hours per week.The City has City's funding will help keep the waiting
been funding this activity since 1986. list to a minimum in 1999 and 2000.
Household&Outside Senior Community $10,067 Provide maintenance and chore service to persons 60 and older.The City 34 households were served in 1998.
Maintenance for Services-Kitty Engle has been funding this activity since 1982.
Elderly(HOME)
Homeline&Mortgage Community Action for $4,000 Home-line is a housing service that provides tenant information and Home-line received about 148 calls from
Foreclosure Suburban Hennepin- advocacy through a hotline to help resolve tenant-landlord problems.They E.P.tenants,and 29 households
Prevention Programs Charlie Warner also administer a foreclosure prevention program that helps homeowners requested foreclosure prevention
faced with possible foreclosure renegotiate loans,and preserve home assistance in 1998.
ownership.
Housing City of EP HRA -David To provide low-interest deferred loans of up to$15,000 to eligible residents 5 clients were served in 1998-some of
Rehabilitation Lindahl $50,000 for home improvements.The loans are recovered when the recipients sell these applications are still active.
Deferred Loan their homes.Recovered funds are rolled back into the program.
Program
Affordable Rental City of EP HRA-David $97,770 To meet the City's Livable Communities goals for affordable rental housing 32 units were constructed in 1998 for
Housing Lindahl a project similar to Columbine and Purgatory Creek will be pursued in about 90 residents.
Developments-Land 1999. The Board should again consider banking these funds to enable the
Acquisition City to help develop another affordable rental project in Eden Prairie.
Combining the proposed$97,770 with the current budget of$200,742 will
provide a total of$298,512 for rental housing in 1999.
Totals S184,712
gj
AlrAGNtrTENT r3
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY
Five Year Priority Needs Summary
PRIORITY HOUSING NEEDS Priority Need Level
(Households) Percent of Median Household Income
0-30% 31-50% 51-80%
(very-low income) (low.income) (moderate Income)
Cost Burden > 30% High High Medium
Cost Burden > 50% High High Low
Small Substandard High High Medium
Related
Overcrowded Medium Low Low
Cost Burden > 30% High High Medium
Cost Burden > 50% High High Medium
Renter Large Substandard High High Medium
Related
Overcrowded High High Medium
Cost Burden > 30% High Medium Low
Cost Burden > 50% High Medium Low
Elderly Substandard High High Medium
Overcrowded Low Low Low
Cost Burden > 30% Medium Low Low
Cost Burden > 50% High Medium Low
Owner Substandard High High Medium
Overcrowded Low Low Low
PRIORITY HOMELESS Priority Need Level
NEEDS
Families Individuals Persons w/Special Needs
Assessment/Outreach Medium Medium Medium
Emergency Shelter High Medium Medium
Transitional Housing High High High
Permanent Supportive High High High
Housing
Permanent Housing • High High High
3
PRIORITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Priority Need Level
NEEDS
PUBLIC FACILITY NEEDS
Senior Centers High
Youth Centers Medium
Neighborhood Facilities Medium
Child Care Centers Low
Parks and/or Recreation Facilities Medium
Health Facilities Low
Parking Facilities Low
Other Public Facilities Low
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT
Solid Waste Disposal Improvements Low
Flood Drain Improvements Low
Water Improvements Low
Street Improvements Low
Sidewalk Improvements Low
Sewer Improvements Low
Asbestos Removal Low
Other Infrastructure Improvement Needs Low
PUBLIC SERVICE NEEDS
Senior Services High
Handicapped Services High
Youth Services High
Transportation Services High
Substance Abuse Services Low
Employment Training Low
Crime Awareness Medium
Fair Housing Counseling Medium
Tenant/Landlord Counseling Medium
Child Care Services High
PRIORITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Priority Need Level
NEEDS
Health Services Low
Other Public Service Needs Medium
ACCESSIBILITY NEEDS (when related to other eligible High
housing and/or community development activity)
RESIDENTIAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION NEEDS Low • I
NON-RESIDENTIAL HISTORIC,PRESERVATION NEEDS Low
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
Commercial-Industrial Rehabilitation Medium
Commercial-Industrial Infrastructure Medium
Other Commercial-Industrial Improvements Low
Micro-Business Medium
Other Businesses Low
Technical Assistance Low
Other Economic Development Needs Medium
OTHER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
Energy Efficiency Improvements Medium
Lead Based Paint/Hazards . High
Code Enforcement Medium
PLANNING (when related to other eligible housing and/or Medium
community development activity)
Defining Need Levels: •
The level of need is defined as follows:
High priority: Funding for these activities will be heavily pursued during the five-year:period. ,
Medium priority: If funds are available, activities to address this need may be funded by the city
during the five-year period.
Low priority: The city will not fund activities to address this need during the five-year period.
No such need: The city finds there is no need or that this need has already been substantially
addressed.
GREATER MINNEAPOLIS
tiGMDCA.
r Minneapolis,MN 55404-1657
Child Care Leadership and Services TeL(612)341-1177
Fax(612)341-4356
Voice/TDD(612)341-2066
February 1, 1999
Mr. Dave Lindahl
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie,MN 55344
Dear Mr. Lindahl:
The Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association appreciates the opportunity to apply for 1999
CDBG funds from the City of Eden Prairie. We are requesting funds for the purpose of assisting
families from your community with their child care needs.
The families we serve represent lower income families working toward self-sufficiency. The
need for stable,reliable child care while parents pursue their goals is vital to the well-being of
families. Helping families to pay for the cost of that care will add to the strength of your
community.
Much has changed for families seeking assistance in meeting the costs of child care. In January
of 1998 the Sliding Fee Program was fully funded due to the generosity of the State Legislature.
In January of 1999,however,we have over 2,400 families on the waiting list in Hennepin
County alone.
Due to the increase in need,we are requesting that the City of Eden Prairie consider a$15,000
request for 1999. We have attached a report on the CDBG Child Care funding as of January
29 , 1999, as well as a completed 1999 Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program Request for
Funding.
Grace Norris of our staff has retired. I have taken over her responsibilities related to Hennepin
County CDBG funding. I look forward to meeting you at your public hearing. Should you have
any questions before that time,please give me a call at 349-0550.
Sincerely,
Ca,,,,,,_
Carla Jaco n
Community Liaison
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND ADVOCACY
REFERRALS • CAREGIVER TRAINING • FEE SUBSIDIES
1999
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM
REQUEST FOR FUNDING
(Use one form per project)
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Community: City of Eden Prairie
2, Project Name: Parent's Child Care Assistance Fund
3. Contact Person/Phone No: Carla Jacobson,(612) 349-0550
B. PROJECT DATA
l. Funding Request: $22,875
2. Is this request to fund an existing CDBG-FUNDED project? Yes
3. Leveraged Funds: Amount: $4.8 million Source: State of Minnesota
(To what extent does project leverage additional public or private funds/firm
commitment?)
This represents GMDCA's portion of Hennepin County's Basic Sliding Fee
Program dollars. This money is committed by the Federal Government,
State of Minnesota and Hennepin County to help low to moderate income
families meet their child care costs.
4. Project Location: Address: 1628 Elliot Avenue South,Minneapolis,MN 55404
Citywide: Countywide—we serve all of Hennepin County
5. Project Description: (Describe the project in as much detail as possible and identify
which, if any, alternative funding sources have been considered for this project).
GMDCA is requesting$22,875 to serve families who are eligible for Child
Care Assistance through our Parent's Assistance Fund. The Parent's
Assistance Fund is set up to supplement the State Sliding Fee program
also administered by GMDCA but funded through Hennepin County and
State and Federal dollars.
Due to the inadequacy of the State fund to meet the need,we use the
Parent's Assistance Fund to try to fill the gap in cities where CDBG funds
are allocated. The Parent's Assistance Fund is supported by eleven other
communities: Brooklyn Park,Crystal,Edina, Golden Valley,Hopkins,
Maple Grove, Minnetonka,New Hope, Plymouth,Richfield and
Robbinsdale.
1
1999 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM
REQUEST FOR FUNDING Page Two
The steps involved to receive services are:
1. Parents are referred to GMDCA by child care providers,community
agencies and Hennepin County Children and Family Services,or by word
of mouth and the yellow pages.
Z. Callers are screened for eligibility. They must be working,in school,or
have a short-term emergency need (such as a medical crisis)and their
income needs to be below Section S housing guidelines. If eligible,their
name is placed on the joint waiting list that we share with Hennepin
County. MFIP families are immediately referred to Hennepin County
because there is a priority to serve all eligible MFIP families with State
and Federal funds.
3. As city CDBG and/or State Sliding Fee funds become available,parents
on the list are sent an application for services. At this time,they supply
wage and other income documentation to establish eligibility and the level
of subsidy they will receive.
4. If found eligible,a co-payment is assessed based on family size and
income. The average family has 1.6 children, pays a co-payment of
$86.00 per month and receives a subsidy of S550.00 per month,depending
on type of care and age of children.
5. If a child care provider has not already been chosen,the family chooses
any legally operating provider. We can provide them with a referral
listing to assist them in making a good choice for their family.
6. Once a provider is chosen, the family begins on the program and pays
their family co-payment directly to their provider. The provider bills
GMDCA for the balance of the monthly costs.
7. A family who receives CDBG funds remains on the county-wide waiting
list. When their name reaches the top,their funding comes from the
State Sliding Fee fund and the next family from the Plymouth waiting list
is contacted to apply for services.
6. Urban County Priorities: Using the list provided, identify what priority(ies)the project
will meet. (Note: If a proposed project is a low urban county priority,you must
explain why it has a higher priority in your community.)
In the URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY,Five Year Priority Needs Summary Child
Care Services is identified as a HIGH priority.
1999 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM
REQUEST FOR FUNDING Page Three
7. Anticipated results/accomplishments projects will have (i.e., number of
persons/households to be assisted/served, number of housing units to be
rehabilitated/built, etc.)
Drawing upon past experience,we would anticipate that we would be able to
serve twelve to fifteen families with $22,875 in funding. This would mean
providing quality child care services for twelve to twenty children. It is
important to recognize that the current waiting list for families throughout
Hennepin County has over 2,400 names on it. This means that a family will wait
18 to 24 months to become eligible. Thus, more funding is needed to help families
maintain self-sufficiency while they wait to become eligible.
8. If applicable, describe how project will assist community in achieving Metropolitan
Livable Communities Act goals.
We do not believe this project would be applicable to the goals of the
Metropolitan Livable Communities Act.
9. Implementation Schedule: (For the time period 7-1-98 to 6-30-00), identify the major
project tasks to be performed and when they will occur.
Please see the project description for a detailed list of steps in serving families
through the Parent's Child Care Assistance Fund. These steps are ongoing and
implementation for individual families is based on a first-come,first-served basis.
10. Budget: (Specify total project budget by major program component—i.e.,
administration,planning, construction, acquisition, direct grants, public service.)
BUDGET SOURCE OF FUNDS
Comronent CDBG OTHER(identify)
Program direct service funds $20,816.25 $4,368,000
Administration 2,058.75 432,000 *
Project Budget S22,875.00 $4,800,000 **
Total Project Budget Same Same
* This figure represents an average administrative fee. Actual amount is based
upon number of units actually used.
** This represents GMDCA's portion of Hennepin County's Basic Sliding Fee
Program dollars. This money is committed by the Federal Government, State of
Minnesota, and Hennepin County to help low to moderate income families meet their
child care costs.
I
• • 01 0 : a I , 1 , ► ►
# Unduplicated
# Families #Applications Families Served #On County 1997 1998
Currently Served Pending 7/1/98-1/31/99 Waiting List Fund Bal. Fund Bal.
•
Crystal 4 1 5 31 11,420 15,000
Eden Prairie - 6 10 7 30 22,986 20,000
Edina 2 4 4 18 7,813 17,400
Golden Valley 3 1 2 17 2,434 7,780
Hopkins 5 2 6 46 17,252 0
Maple Grove 0 1 1 34 3,758 0
Minnetonka 4 1 8 38 484 7,500
New Hope 7 2 9 39 8,616 15,000 --
Plymouth 3 2 8 60 2,113 4,500
Richfield 2 6 7 64 9,134 5,000
Robbinsdale 1 0 1 27 2,259 0 -
•
Please note: The Hennepin County waiting list was eliminated November 1997 thn�June 1998. During those
months amities from all Hennepin County cities could access child care funding. the waiting list resumed in
June o,/last year, GMDCA began to contact families to access the CDBG dollars. We are currently adding families to all cities
where we have large balances and project we will spend all 1997 dollars by April, 1999 and I998 CDBG dollars by
December, 1999. The State and County predict no Increases this year in their commitments to child care.
Families currently assisted with CDBG dollars will continue to be sensed until their name reaches the top of the county-wide
list, which is 18 - 24 months long. Minding is committed to each family for upcoming months.
compiled by:Laurie Possln,GMOCA
subsidy++oobWodb9rept
46000,` SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES
Wihni10709 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 111, Minnetonka, MN 55305 Phone 541-1019 Fax 541-0841
BOARD of DIRECTORS
January 26, 1999
Dwight Johnson
President
Laurie Lafontaine Mr. David Lindahl, CityPlanner
1st Vice President
Dr.C.(Ike)Njaka City of Eden Prairie
2nd Vice President 8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Francis Hagen
Treasurer
Dear Mr. Lindahi:
Mary Henning
Secretary
Senior Community Services is requesting that the City of Eden
KePast Krueger
Prairie allocate $10,067 from it's share of Community
Peter Coyle Development Block Grant (CDBG) Year XXV funds to support the
Member-at-Large HOME Program. This is the same amount approved for the current
Aiko Higuchl year. Enclosed is a Hennepin County Request for Funding
Member-at-Large application filled out for the City to facilitate our request.
Bob Tim ee gstedt Eden Prairie's CDBG funds will be leveraged from client fees,
John Boeder funding from the Greater Minneapolis Council of Churches
Marty Guritz (GMCC) and from donations. The HOME Program operates on a
Gloria Johnson sliding fee scale. Clients cover approximately one-quarter of the
Peggy
Katthle nelly Miller Programs' cost. GMCC funding, utilizing Federal Title Ill monies,
Senator Gen Olson helps to subsidize chore services. Friends of HOME, an
Curtis Pearsc organization that solicits private donations, helps to fill the
Nell eterson
Mary PTambo nino remaining gap between the City's CDBG funds and the total
Leonard J.Thiel Program expense.
Tom Ticen
Benjamin F.Withhart Please let me know if there are any meetings we should attend
Executive Director &C.E.O. regarding this matter
Sincerely,
PROGRAMS
• Community
Senior Groups&
Multi-purpose Ron Bloch
Senior Centers Program Administrator
• H.O.M.E.
• Senior Outreach
9
Aunikaw,y
1999
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM
REQUEST FOR FUNDING
(Use one form per project)
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Community: Eden Prairie
2. Project Name: HOME (Household & Outside Maintenance for Elderly)
3. Contact Person/Phone No.Ron Bloch/541-1019
B. PROJECT DATA
1. Funding Request $10.067
2. Is this request to fund an existing CDBG Project? .X Yes _ No
3. Leveraged Funds: Amount $ See#9 Source See#9
(To what extent does project leverage additional public or private funds/firm commitment?)
4. Project Location: Address Eden Prairie Citywide Yea
(Attach map)
5. Project Description: (Describe the project in as much detail as possible and identify what,
if any,alternative funding sources have been considered for this project)
See Attachment
6. Urban County Priorities: Using the list provided identify what priority(ies) the project will
meet. (Note: If proposed project is a low Urban County priority you must explain why it has
a higher priority in your community)
Public Service Needs: Senior Services - High Priority
7. Anticipated results/accomplishments project will have. (ie., number of persons/households
to be assisted/served, number of housing units to be rehabbed/built, etc.
In 1998 the project served 34 Eden Prairie residents (26 households). It is anticipated that
approximately the same number will be served in CDBG Year XXV.
8. If applicable, describe how project will assist community in achieving Metropolitan livable
Communities Act goals.
9. Implementation Schedule: (For the time period 7-1-98 to 6-30-00, identify the major
project tasks to be performed and when they will occur)
Date
Task Month/Date
On-going delivery of the following services: CDBG Year XXV
Maintenance - Includes minor repairs in the areas of
carpentry. plumbing. concrete. electrical & painting.
Also includes lawn mowing and snow removal in season
Homemaking - Includes window washing. floor cleaning
vacuuming. dusting. shopping. doing wash. etc. _
10. Budget: (Specify total project budget by major project component-i.e., administration,
planning, construction, acquisition, direct grants, public service.)
BUDGET/SOURCE OF FUNDS
Component CDBG Other(identify)
Public Services/Eden Prairie $ 10.067 $95.000 Client fees
/Edina $ 17.400 $ 8.600 Edina/EEHF
/Richfield $22.700 $42.552 United Way
/Minnetonka $ 14.600 $26.584 GMCC
Brooklyn Center $ 9.000 $ 14.000 Friends of HM
$ 83,754 Hen County
Project Budget $ 73.767 $270.490
Total Project Budget $344.257
NOTE: A copy of the HOME Program Budget is attached showing all anticipated
expenses and revenues for the Program
3
Attachment
H.O.M.E.
(Household & Outside Maintenance for Elderly)
Program Summary
SUMMARY PARAGRAPH - The H.O.M.E. Program is a homemaker, maintenance, and
chore program designed as a cost-effective alternative to long term care for the elderly
currently operating in the cities of Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Edina, Richfield,
Minnetonka, Brooklyn Center and St. Louis Park. Disabled persons are also eligible
for the services. The project maintains a core staff of trained individuals to assure
prompt, quality service and a skills bank component. Clients are asked to contribute
according to their ability to pay, based on a sliding scale.
TARGET POPULATION - Consumers of H.O.M.E. services are elderly residents age
60+ or people with disabilities who live independently and need some affordable in-
home services in order to maintain their residence or property. The H.O.M.E. Program
serves those clients who need assistance but are not financially capable of paying the
full cost of service as well as frail older adults who require services designed to meet
the needs of vulnerable elderly.
SERVICES - The philosophy of the H.O.M.E. Program is to maintain independence for
elderly and avoid premature placement in nursing homes by providing homemaker,
maintenance, and chore services. Clients are asked to contribute based on a sliding-
fee scale. Homemaker services include housecleaning, food preparation, grocery
shopping, non-medical personal care, and laundry. Assessments are made and
services provided according to the specific needs of each client for type of service,
time and frequency. Chore/home maintenance services include snow removal, lawn
care, installation of security features, carpentry, minor plumbing, window washing,
painting, weatherization, minor roof repair and other maintenance jobs needed to
enable elderly residents to remain in their homes, as well as maintaining their homes
in an acceptable manner.
STAFF - Home maintenance and homemaker services are provided by workers who
are trained in the necessary skill areas and techniques for working with older persons.
Skills Bank Workers are also utilized to provide chore services. All staff report to the
Program Director, who is responsible for the management and supervision of H.O.M.E.
Other staff and volunteers provide administrative and clerical support.
FACILITY - Services are provided in the homes of elderly residents. The office is
located at Creekside Community Center, 9801 Penn Ave. South, Bloomington 55431,
and a satellite office is located at the Minnetonka Center.
PLACEMENT PROCEDURE - Clients gain access to the program either by a referral
from an area agency or by calling the H.O.M.E. office and requesting service.
FUNDING SOURCES - Revenues are derived from client Fees, Hennepin County, the
Greater Minneapolis Council of Churches (GMCC), municipalities in which the
program operates, the United Way, and contributions from clients and the community
through an associated organization called Friends of HOME.
HOME Program 1999 Operating Budget w/ Gov't Revenue Detail
REVENUE
Contributions 8,500 United Way 42,552
Government Revenue
Bloomington (CDBG) 20,000
Bloomington (HRA) 17,500
Brooklyn Center 9,000
Eden Prairie 10,067
Edina 17,400
East Edina Housin Foundation 8,600
Greater Mpls Council of Churches 26,584
Hennepin County 83,754
Minnetonka 14,600
Richfield 22,700
Sub-total Gov't Revenue 230,205
Friends of HOME 14,000
Client Fees • 95,000
Total 390,257
EXPENSES
Salaries &Wages 264,620
. w
Benefits & Taxes 69,919
Office Rent 3,022
Equipment Repair/Maint. 1,249
Telephone 3,515
Postage 2,443
Printing & Publications 4,673
Supplies 14,199
.-.
Professional Fees 12,347
Mileage 6,841
Conferences& Meetings 2,723
Insurance 5,864
Memberships & Subscriptions 586
Miscellaneous _ 551
Depreciation 13,509
• -
Allocation of Admin. 23,272
Total 429,333
Net Excess (Deficit) ($39,076)
Community Action
for Suburban Hennepin
Community Education January 27, 1999
Community Services
Emergency Assistance Mr. David Lindahl
Homeless Family Support City of Eden Prairie
Homelessness Prevention 8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Volunteer Services
Energy Assistance
Dear Mr. Lindahl :
HOME
; This letter is to request funding in the amount of$4,000.00 from the
city's Community Development Block Grant program. The funding will
be used to support homeownership programs and tenant information
and education services.
Tenant Hotline
Tenant Organizing I am enclosing data showing use by residents of Eden Prairie. As you
Home Buyer Education can see, we are serving many low-and-moderate income people in your
Homeowner Counseling community.
Home Rehab Counseling
We appreciate your willingness to consider our request for support. If
you have questions or need additional information, please feel free to
contact me at 612-933-9639, extension 203.
Very truly yours,
54-Itiztafr
3 L/0611-\.
Sharon A. Joh son
Executive Director
33-10th Avenue S. Enclosures
Suite 150
Hopkins,MN 55343
Business (612)933-9639
Tenant Hotline 933-0017
Energy Assist.930-3541
Fax 933-8016
TDD 935-4011
Investing In People,
Building Community
EwA.NouS G 1 ($
oWoc,TUMTY
Community Action for Suburban Hennepin
Homeownership Programs
Annual Report
January 1, 1998 - December 31, 1998
Community Action for Suburban Hennepin, known as CASH, is a non-profit agency serving
low-and-moderate income people in suburban Hennepin County through direct services, crisis
intervention, community education and institutional change. CASH is recognized as an expert in
the area of housing issues. In 1998, 791 households utilized homeownship services.
Pre-Purchase Home Buyer Education and Counseling
An eight hour workshop is offered monthly providing information on each step of the home
buying process. The curriculum meets or exceeds FHA, MHFA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac
guidelines. Individual homebuyer counseling is also available to help homebuyers in developing
an action plan to overcome barriers to homeownership.
18 Eden Prairie households have participated in Home Buyer Education and Counseling.
Home Maintenance, Repair and Rehab Programs
Technical assistance is provided to homeowners in identifying needed repairs, writing
specifications, finding qualified contractors, evaluating bids, and working with contractors
through job completion. Information is also provided on loan and grant programs that will
finance the cost of home repairs and rehab. In addition, workshops covering such topics as
weatherization, small plumbing repairs, and basic home repairs are regularly offered.
2 Eden Prairie homeowners have received assistance from the Home Maintenance,
Repair and Rehab Programs.
Foreclosure Prevention Counseling
Technical assistance and emergency loans are available to homeowners facing a distressed
financial situation caused by circumstances beyond their control that may lead to the loss of their
home.
Since 1993, 81 Eden Prairie homeowners have requested foreclosure prevention assistance.
Foreclosure was averted in approximately 78% of the cases. 62 Eden Prairie homes were saved.
A total of$6,742 in financial assistance was obtained for Eden Prairie homeowners.
1 I7
•
Homeownership Programs
Participant Demographics
January 1, 1998 - December 31, 1998
Approximately 80% of the homeowners and home buyers served by CASH's Homeownership
Programs were low to moderate income households.
6%
14% $- HOUSEHOLD INCOME
48%
B Low-50%of Median Income
32% ■Moderate-50%-80%of Median Income
O High-80%of Median Income
D Undisclosed
There were minor children in 57%of the households served by CASH's Homeownership
Programs.
TYPE OF HOUSEHOLD
9%
34% ®Adults Only
23% '' ■Single Parent Families
Ns,. 0Families with Children
4' OSeniors
34%
2 / '�
Homeownership Programs
Participant Demographics
January 1, 1998 - December 31, 1998
(Continued)
The main reasons for default related to the foreclosure program was reduction in income or
unemployment.
Main Reason for Default
El Unemployment or Reduction in Income
•Health or Health Care Costs
160 O Divorce/Separation
140
120 ' O Money Mismanagement
100
80 ■Unexpected Expense
60 $
40 0 Not Affordable
20 ._..,. y�
1 ■Other
3 1 ?.
. Community Action for Suburban Hennepin's
HOME Line Renters' "Hotline"
Eden Prairie
Information on calls during the years 1/1/92-12/31/98
Eden Prairie Over the past seven years, a total of 927
Number of calls by year Eden Prairie (unduplicated) renters have contacted
-- : : 179 HOME Line. This represents service to approximately
42 146 146 155 2,318 residents when all family members are
counted.
- 8.3 Through the help of HOME Line, Eden Prairie
-76 tenants have received $3,843.00 back from
- • : . improperly withheld security deposits and
0 1992 I 1 I � 1 I � 1 1 $7,037.00 in rent abatements (refunds for
1993 1995 1997 substandard conditions.)
Eden Prairie A vast majority (over 85%) of Eden Prairie
Callers' Incomes callers to HOME Line are low and moderate income.
1 /1 /9 2- 1 2/3 1 /9 8 These income categories are those used by the U.S.
ili 1
Department of HUD:
■'� N \ Low 60.0% Low = incomes below 50% of the Metro median
income;
o
Moderate 29.4% Moderate = incomes between 50 and 80% of the Metro
;;; median;
— Higher 10.6°°
g Higher = incomes above 80% of the Metro median.
Community Renters Education Program
HOME Line's Community Renters Education Program provides education to high school students, (primarily seniors)
presentations to tenants/staff of area agencies, information booths at community events and trainings to
volunteers/staff from agencies and managers/property owners.
High School Presentations
Number of students (Number of presentations)
Name of School 1 993 1 994 1 995 1996 1 997 1998
Academy Of Holy Angels 0 0 0 0 85 (3) 30 (1) The high school
Bloomington Jefferson 73 (3) 0 0 22 (1) 28 (1) 0 presentation
Bloomington Kennedy 90 (3) 0 30 (1) 24 (2) 55 (3) 67 (4) covers the rights
Brooklyn Center 46 (2) 38 (2) 44 (2) 0 67 (3) 40 (3) of drenters.nsTheities
Champlin Park 40 (2) 0 82 (4) 219 (8) 246 (8) 276 (10) presentation can
befit
Coon Raids 0 0 5 2 (2) 17 8 (6) 210 (7) 171 (6) an tailored to a
P any class size,any
Crystal 0 0 0 17 (1) 23 (1) 0 class needs,and all
class schedules.
eden Prairie 46 121 ILQ (2) L (21 $1 (3) La I9_,I 1 4 4 L§.1
Edina 38 (2) 0 0 0 0 0
Excelsior 0 0 0 1 0 (1) 5 (1) 8 (1)
Hopkins 156 (6) 26 (2) 82 (3) 110 (7) 111 (5) 86 (4)
Mahtomedi 0 0 30 (1) 0 0 0
Minnetonka 0 47 (2) 0 99 (8) 20 (1) 30 (1)
Orono 0 0 0 0 30 (1) 0
Osseo 0 64 (2) 0 1 0 (1) 0 114 (4)
Osseo-Park Center 35 (3) 0 60 (2) 0 0 0
Richfield 60 (2) 47 (2) 58 (2) 60 (2) 141 (5) 42 (2)
Robbinsdale-Armstrong 62 (2) 0 25 (1) 27 (2) 0 43 (2)
Robbinsdale-Cooper 56 (2) 59 (2) 56 (2) 55 (3) 46 (2) 31 (1)
Rockford 0 0 0 8 (1) 0 0
St. Anthony 0 0 15 (1) 18 (1) 0 0
St. Louis Park 0 12 (1) 15 (1) 86 (4) 55 (2) 0
Wayzata 24 (1 ) 38 (2) 0 0 60 (2) 167 (6)
Westonka 0 0 Q Q 5 Q I21 Q GRAND TOTAL
TOTAL 726 (30) 379 (17) 663 (24) 1,039 (52) 1 ,199 (51) 1 ,318 (56) 5324 (226)
Other Educational Activities
Presentations Community Events Trainings
Association for Rental Crystal Frolics American Indian Housing Pillsbury Neighborhood
Management of Brooklyn Corporation, Services/Waite House,
Center Mall of America, Minneapolis Minneapolis
WCCO Booth Bill Kelly House, Property-owners,
Bloomington Managers and Minneapolis Bloomington, Minneapolis
Owners Coalition Bandana Square, and Minnetonka
St. Paul Bristol Place,
Business and Professional Minneapolis Property Managers,
Women League of St. Louis Richfield Cattail Days Community Action Bloomington,
Park Council, Apple Valley
Brooklyn Center, Edina,
St. Louis Park Minneapolis, Plymouth,
Center for Asians, Knollwood Mall Community Case St. Louis Park, and
Minneapolis "Community Bazaar" Corporation, St. Paul
Minneapolis
Richfield HRA, Richfield
Community Resource Center, St. Louis Park Eden Women's Program, Salvation Army, Project
Brooklyn Park Party in the Park Minneapolis Breakthrough, Minneapolis
Hamline Coalition, St.
Creekside Community Paul Scott/Carver/Dakota
Center, Bloomington Community Action,
Heartland Community Shakopee
Crisis Connection, Action, Wilmar Simpson Housing,
Minneapolis Hope Allianz, Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Crystal Managers Coalition Sojourner Women's
Itasca County Tenant Shelter, Hopkins
Edina Community Center Assistance Program,
Grand Rapids South Eastern MN Housing
Hennepin County Home Kooch-Itasca Action Network, Rochester
School, Bloomington, Council, Inc., Grand South West Minnesota
Crystal, Excelsior, Rapids Housing Partnership,
Minnetonka Slayton
Maryland Park Tenants
Association, St. Paul Southern Minnesota
Minnesota Multihousing Regional Legal Services,
Annual Convention Metropolitan Center for St. Paul
Independent Living,
St. Anne's Shelter,
New Hope, Robbinsdale, Minnetonka Minneapolis
Crystal Managers Coalition
Minnesota Multihousing St. Paul Public Housing
Perspectives Transitional Minnesota Fair Housing St. Paul Tenants Union
Housing, St. Louis Park Center, Minneapolis
NW Communit Support St. Stephen's Shelter,
Richfield Apartment y pp Minneapolis
Program, Crystal
Managers' Association, Thorson Family Resource
Richfield Overcoming Poverty Room, Crystal
Together, Mankato
Senior Linkage, Person to Person, Vail Place, Hopkins
Robbinsdale Minneapolis Vail Place, Minneapolis
Perspectives YWCA of St. Paul
Thorson Family Resource Transitional Housing, St.
Room, Crystal
Louis Park
Womens Resource Network, Pillsbury House,
Minneapolis Minneapolis
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 99-42
RESOLUTION APPROVING USE OF FUNDS FOR 1999 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS
WHEREAS,the City of Eden Prairie, through execution of a Joint Cooperation Agreement with
Hennepin County, is a cooperating unit in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block
Grant Program; and
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has developed a proposal for the use of urban Hennepin
County CDBG funds made available to it,following a public hearing on March 16, 1999 to obtain the views
of citizens on local and Urban Hennepin County housing and community development needs and priorities
the City's proposed use of$184,712 for the 1999 Community Development Block Grant Program; and
BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie approves the following
projects for funding from the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant program and
authorizes submittal of the proposal to Hennepin County for review and inclusion in the 1999 Urban
Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program.
PROJECTS BUDGET
Child Care Initiatives $ 22,875
Household and Outside Maintenance for Elderly(HOME) $ 10,067
HOMELINE suburban advocacy/foreclosure prevention $ 4,000
Rehabilitation $ 50,000
Rental Housing Project $ 97,770
TOTAL $184,712
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 16th day of March, 1999.
Jean L. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Date:
Section: Public Hearing 3/16/99
Service Area: Item Description: Item No.:
Community Development CLG (Certified Local Government) VI.B.
& Finance Services Grant Application
John Gertz
Requested Action:
Move to approve the application for a CLG (Certified Local Government) Grant that will
provide funding assistance for the planning, design, and fabrication of ten (10) Outdoor
Heritage Site interpretive signs.
Background
The Minnesota Historical Society offers funding assistance through the CLG Grant program
to local Heritage Preservation Commissions for preservation planning, local designation, or
public education projects. The CLG Grant uses federal HPF (Historic Preservation Fund)
funds. The federal portion of the grant must be matched by the recipient through cash and/or
in-kind service. The City's grant request seeks $4,000.00 in Federal assistance which will be
matched with existing cash funds and in-kind service provided by City staff.
Attachments
Memorandum from John Gertz, Historic Preservation Specialist, dated March 9, 1999.
Resolution for authorization to apply for a CLG Grant.
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John Gertz, Historic Preservation Specialises
DATE: March 9, 1999
SUBJECT: Council Resolution to Apply for CLG Grant funds to furnish Outdoor Interpretive
Signs.
Project Description
January 25, 1999, the Heritage Preservation Commission met and discussed applying for the
annual CLG(Certified Local Government) Grant offered through the Minnesota Historical
Society. CLG funds are available only to local, certified Heritage Preservation Commissions
and must be used for historic preservation planning, local designations, or public education.
The HPC decided to apply for funds to plan and fabricate ten outdoor heritage site interpretive
signs to be located at five sites (see attached map). The proposed project falls within the grant
category, public education. This project is consistent with the HPC's responsibility to provide
educational information to the public about heritage resources. Sites recommended for
interpretation are as follows:
1. Frederick-Miller Spring (2 signs)
Frederick-Miller Spring. The spring was improved by William Fredrick in 1890 to
accommodate collection of the spring's water. It has remained open to public use to the
present and draws a loyal following from near and far. The spring is located in the
deeply incised Riley Creek valley and retains significant integrity of setting.
Frederick-Miller Spring is City owned parkland and is a locally designated Heritage
Preservation Site.
2. Prairie Bluff Conservation Area(3 signs)
This unique prairie unit is contiguous to Fredrick-Miller spring. The spring will provide
trailhead access to the prairie unit which rises east of the spring and includes rare plants
and spectacular vistas of the Minnesota River Valley. The Conservation Area preserves a
number of important cultural resources and will provide opportunities to interpret natural
history, Native American occupation and utilization of natural resources, river history,
and archaeology.
The Prairie Bluff Conservation Area is City owned openspace and a designated
Conservation Area.
3. J.R. Cummins Homestead (2 signs)
The J.R. Cummins Homestead was built by John and Mattie Cummins in 1879. This is
the City's best known and most often visited historic site. The site interprets the early
life and work of Cummins, a well known farmer and horticulturalist. The site also
includes a vast peony garden established about 1910 by Harriet Phipps, a subsequent
owner of the home.
The J.R. Cummins Homestead is City owned and is a locally designated Heritage
Preservation Site, and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
4. Lookout Park(2 signs)
Lookout Park was built in 1938 as a highway wayside park. The New Deal project
included a large limestone concourse and landscaped picnic area which provides a
panoramic view of the Minnesota River Valley. Many points of interest are observed
from this historic overlook. The overlook itself needs to be interpreted, particularly the
involvement of NYA(National Youth Administration) laborers involved in its
construction.
Overlook Park is owned by the Metropolitan Airports Commission(MAC). Access for
educational purpose is allowed. Access has been granted via a parking area to the north.
Overlook Park is a locally designated Heritage Preservation Site. The Heritage
Preservation Commission has recommended the site be nominated to the National
Register in 1999.
5. Glen Lake Children's Camp (1 sign)
This is a rare type of camp, built in 1925 to serve the needs of children from Hennepin
County who had tested positive for tuberculosis, but had not yet shown evidence of
having contracted the disease. Designed by the Glen Lake Sanitorium architects, Sund
and Dunham, the camp is due south and in view of the big sanitorium (razed). The
camps principal buildings, a dormitory and dining/recreation hall remain intact with good
integrity. A stone monument honoring the work of Mr. and Mrs. George Christian, the
founders of the camp, is nearby the buildings. The camp remained open until the summer
of 1951. Since then it has operated under various programs to provide a camp experience
for children with special needs. In 1983, the property was transferred from Hennepin
County to the City of Eden Prairie. The camp is currently operated by Friendship
Ventures under a lease agreement with the City.
The Glen Lake Children's Camp (operated by Friendship Ventures as Eden Wood •
Center) is City owned. A local Heritage Preservation Site registration has been
completed and will be considered by the City Council in 1999. The City council
approved undertaking a National Register of Historic Places nomination for the camp,
which is now complete and pending state review.
Access for historical interpretation of the camp will be provided via a City public trail
that passes within view of the historic camp and provides a signage/rest area.
A total of ten signs would be fabricated, each 3'-0" x 4'-0", or 12 square feet. The sign type is
the FEG(fiberglass embedded graphic) which are the most durable, cost-effective, and versatile.
They are produced from computer ready layout, using full color, high resolution (600 dpi)
graphics. The FEG sign is also very attractive and popular with state and national parks.
The City's Parks Maintenance Division will provide sign stands, installation, and maintenance
starting at the end of the grant period in August, 2000.
Funding
The CLG Grant is a matching grant. A total of$4,000.00 dollars in federal funds is requested
(see attached project budget). The City will match the federal portion through cash and in-kind
services. In-kind services will be provided by the Historic Preservation Specialist and make up a
significant portion of the City's match. The cash match will come from existing funds as
follows:
Amount Source/Account Designated Use
$2,000.00 E.P. Foundation Miller-Spring Signage
$400.00 Gerald Hoppe Fund Cummins-Grill Signage
$300.00 Historic Preservation/828-4238 Program Equipment
and Supplies
-a CEO
GLEN LAKE CHILDREN S CAMP N
aDtch
_. Q.� Island w
�Q� /
y�i�e Lake m
494
Qa p 4.1 I Bryantng's 6
kke
o is �/ `VL
o Duck
p Lake
60
•
Valley VAe. Road .
Round O
n Lake !
!0 39 /� !
>c'`O 1
�17 0
on i� -
uu!c
�_"� r ,� �. 40
494
Mitchell �� ''
Lake 1
Li-7
' Sce//kc Heights Road , Ago• et.,
Anders•n
• P•r Drive
i Red Rock ' o,� •
I.
Lake r !d i
V
_ P w
a m Lakes
i \' ' -- 6°'* 4 1 0
•
Staring Lake 0
Parkway ,
Lake Staring i •
Rileey -tta� Lake
Pioneer a
�o� * J.R. CUMMINS HOMESTEAD
! °-"' VIP NA . / Pioneer :A.-.
! `'c * PRAIRIE BLUFF CONSERVATION AREA
FREDRICK-MILLER SPRING OVERLOOK PARK
.:./ ,
Rice Lake 4" --.�Rlj
• 14.ero
! •
j\ l ~&'a a v
if \ '.--.. Hennepin County !' \er' '-....,
Y,j . Scott County : _.•_,''• i
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE SELECTED SITES FOR INTERPRETATION
I
Minnesota Historical Society - CLG Grant Application Form
16. Detailed Project Budget:
Federal Applicant Match Total
Grant In-kind Project
Project Expenditure Classification Funds Cash Services Other* Costs
Graphic Arts Specialist: 2,500 2,500
100 hours @ $25.00/hour
FEG Panel Fabricator 4,000 200.00 4,200.00
10 panels @ $420.00 each
Project Director: 360.00 360.00
20 hours @ $18.04/ hour
Writer: 100 hours @ $18.04/hour 1,804.00 1,804.00
Editor: 10 hours @ 17.04/hour 170.00 170.00
Totals: (A) 4,000 (B) 2,700 (C) 2,164.00 (D)170.00 (E) 9,034.00
* Donated services, supplies, or materials.
A+B+C+D must = E
A must not exceed B+C+D
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT
(CLG)GRANT FOR HERITAGE SITE INTERPRETIVE SIGNAGE
BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Eden Prairie act as legal sponsor for the project contained in
the CLG Grant Program Application to be reviewed by the CLG Grants Review Committee on April 15,
1999 and that the Historic Preservation Specialist is hereby authorized to apply to the Minnesota
Historical Society for funding of this project on behalf of the City of Eden Prairie.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Eden Prairie has the legal authority to apply for
financial assistance and the institutional,managerial, and financial capability to ensure completion of
installation and maintenance of SIGNAGE.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Eden Prairie will ensure that SIGNAGE is
located for public use and remain accessible.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Eden Prairie has not violated any Federal, State
or Local laws pertaining to fraud,bribery, graft,kickbacks, collusion, conflict of interest or other
unlawful or corrupt practice.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon approval of its application by the State,that the City
of Eden Prairie may enter into an agreement with the Minnesota Historical Society referenced project,
and that the City of Eden Prairie certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as
stated in the Minnesota Historical Society CLG Grant Agreement.
NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that John Gertz,Historic Preservation Specialist is
hereby authorized to execute such agreements as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the
applicant.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 16th day of March 1999.
Jean L.Harris,Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk
7
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE:
eCI ri SECTION: PAYMENT OF CLAIMS March 16, 1999
prairim
SERVICE AREA: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.
Community Development
and Financial Services Payment of Claims VII.
Don Uram
Requested Action:
Move approval of the Payment of Claims as submitted (Roll Call Vote).
Checks 72866 to 73199
COUNCIL CHECK SUMMARY 09-MAR-1999 (10:14)
DIVISION TOTAL
N/A $1.05
LEGISLATIVE $1,730.24
GENERAL SERVICES $5,124.69
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $9,138.94
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY $28,335.46
CITY MANAGER $36.78
FINANCE $378.34
HUMAN RESOURCES $4,340.06
COMMUNITY SERV $4,924.37
HUMAN SERV $900.00
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION $334.89
ENGINEERING $7,851.64
INSPECTIONS $2,680.02
FACILITIES $8,229.47
ASSESSING $426.34
CIVIL DEFENSE $31.40
POLICE $8,504.70
FIRE $7,790.16
PARK ADMIN $29.00
STREETS/TRAFFIC $9,430.16
PARK MAINTENANCE $2,794.92
STREET LIGHTING $137.77
FLEET SERVICES $21,731.36
ORGANIZED ATHLETICS $3,940.99
COMMUNITY DEV $607.50
COMMUNITY CENTER $20,496.09
YOUTH RECREATION $568.82
SPECIAL EVENTS $21.04
ADULT RECREATION $959.53
RECREATION ADMIN $20.45
ADAPTIVE REC $126.69
OAK POINT POOL $67.13
ARTS $402.59
PARK FACILITIES $788.80
PUBLIC IMPROV PROJ $615,796.95
DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS $1,552.25
EMPLOYEE PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS $177,609.97
CITY CENTER $5,939.70
PRAIRIE VILLAGE $58,867.68
PRAIRIEVIEW $42,950.46
CUB FOODS $93,724.66
WATER DEPT $28,218.82
SEWER DEPT $167,480.68
STORM DRAINAGE $19.79
AGENCY FUNDS $600.00
EQUIPMENT $84,794.38
$1,430,436.73*
a
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 09-MAR-1999 (10
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM
72866 $2,027.95 DAY DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
72867 $2,137.62 EAGLE WINE COMPANY TRANSPORTATION PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
72868 $332.80 GETTMAN COMPANY MISC TAXABLE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
72869 $10,827.24 GRIGGS COOPER & CO MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
72871 $2,069.71 LAKE REGION VENDING TOBACCO PRODUCTS LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
72872 $6,676.80 MARK VII BEER 6/12 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
72873 $3,799.37 PRIOR WINE COMPANY WINE DOMESTIC LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
72874 $7,515.50 THORPE DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
72875 $29.75 COLEMAN, JOHN MILEAGE AND PARKING INSPECTION-ADMIN
72876 $413.00 EDENS ON CAMPUS OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM
72877 $3,031.25 ESBENSEN, GEORGE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POLICE
72878 $7.50 LASLEY, MARILYN SR CITIZENS/ADULT PROG FEES SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM
72879 $19,969.00 LOGIS LOGIS SERVICE INFORMATION SYSTEM
72880 $180.00 MEATH-NELSON, WENDY INSTRUCTOR SERVICE SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM
72881 $75.00 MINNESOTA REAL ESTATE JOURNAL OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ASSESSING-ADMIN
72882 $10,974.02 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO ELECTRIC EPCC MAINTENANCE
72883 $164.50 PAPER DIRECT INC OFFICE SUPPLIES GENERAL
72884 $72.00 PROFESSIONAL DRIVER TRAINING I SCHOOLS SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM
72885 $6.00 STARK, EMMETT SR CITIZENS/ADULT PROG FEES SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM
72886 $37.45 THERKELSEN, GARY MISCELLANEOUS POLICE
72887 $72.09 AMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
72888 $1,009.76 BELLBOY CORPORATION TRANSPORTATION PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
72889 $219.50 GRAND PERE WINES INC TRANSPORTATION LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
72890 $398.14 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO TRANSPORTATION PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
72892 $2,311.35 MARK VII BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
72893 $293.00 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING COM MISC TAXABLE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
72894 $2,375.67 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRTS INC TRANSPORTATION LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
72896 $307.46 QUALITY WINE & SPIRTS CO TRANSPORTATION PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
72897 ' $176.27 RESPOND SYSTEMS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
72898 $420.80 WASTE MANAGEMENT - BLAINE WASTE DISPOSAL PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
72899 $200.00 FRANZEN, MICHAEL D TRAVEL IN SERVICE TRAINING
72900 $601.67 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT TRAFFIC SIGNALS
72901 $201.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY SOFTWARE UTILITY DEBT FUND ARB
72902 $75.46 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS* CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT GENERAL
72903 $200.00 LINDAHL, DAVID TRAVEL IN SERVICE TRAINING
72904 $3,274.78 MED-COMPASS INC. PERSONNEL TESTING FIRE
72905 $60.00 METRO CHIEF OFFICERS ASSOC DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS FIRE
72906 $154.92 PETTY CASH TRAVEL WATER UTILITY-GENERAL
72907 $237.95 US POSTMASTER - HOPKINS POSTAGE SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM
72908 $3,692.27 DAY DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
72909 $1,319.70 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY BEER 6/12 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
72910 $740.00 GRAPE BEGINNINGS WINE IMPORTED LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
72911 $5,656.18 GRIGGS COOPER & CO TRANSPORTATION PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
72912 $15.57 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO TRANSPORTATION PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
72913 $118.00 PEPSI COLA COMPANY MISC TAXABLE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
72914 $3,494.80 THORPE DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
72915 $115.74 HUTTER, MICHAEL OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM
72916 $106.93 KRESS, CARLA MILEAGE AND PARKING ADAPTIVE RECREATION
72917 $4.23 LAVEN, GRETCHEN MILEAGE AND PARKING FINANCE DEPT
72918 $167,238.27 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONME WASTE DISPOSAL SEWER UTILITY-GENERAL
72919 $28.97 PARK JEEP EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
72920 $4,635.34 PRUDENTIAL HEALTHCARE GROUP LIFE INSURANCE EMPLOYERS FD 10 ORG
72921 $2,551.39 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY DISABILITY IN EMPLOYERS FD 10 ORG
72922 $128.40 RICHARDSON, JIM OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM
72923 $30.00 SCHUSTER, MIKE & KATHY ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM
3
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 09-MAR-1999 (10
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM
72924 $45,041.52 SUNRAM CONSTRUCTION DESIGN & CONST STARING LK PLSTUCT K20
72925 $31.53 WEEDMAN, NICOLE MILEAGE AND PARKING PROGRAM SUPERVISOR
72926 $97.15 CONSTRUCTION BULLETIN LEGAL NOTICES PUBLISHING ENGINEERING DEPT
72927 $1,842.18 FLEX COMPENSATION INC SOFTWARE BENEFITS
72928 $11.61 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES ICE ARENA
72929 $785.40 ICBO OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL INSPECTION-ADMIN
72930 $4,385.00 INTERIOR DESIGN FURNISHINGS IN BUILDING CC CAPITAL OUTLAY
72931 $84,794.38 J-CRAFT INC MACHINERY EQUIPMENT P/W REVOLVING FUND
72932 $509.01 MINNCOMM PAGING COMMUNICATIONS INSPECTION-ADMIN
72933 $900.00 SOUTH HENNEPIN REGIONAL PLANNI PROFESSIONAL SERVICES HOUSING, TRANS, & SOC SVC
72934 $2,820.55 VALLEY PAVING INC ASPHALT OVERLAY STREET MAINTENANCE
72935 $144.84 WALMART STORES INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL POLICE
72936 $3,024.38 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO TRANSPORTATION PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
72937 $119.70 NORTH STAR ICE MISC TAXABLE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
72938 $2,313.40 PAUSTIS & SONS COMPANY TRANSPORTATION PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
72939 $4,047.89 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRTS INC TRANSPORTATION PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
72940 $65.17 QUALITY WINE & SPIRTS CO MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
72941 $480.07 WINE MERCHANTS INC TRANSPORTATION LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
72942 $41.28 AMERICAN PHYTOPATHOLOGICAL SOC MISCELLANEOUS TREE DISEASE
72943 $45.00 ASE/ACT EQUIPMENT TESTING & CERT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
72944 $2,200.00 BLATTI, RHONDA R MISCELLANEOUS HUMAN RESOURCES
72945 $1,730.24 CARD SERVICES-BUSINESS CARD TRAVEL COUNCIL
72946 $49.00 CLEANING & MAINTENANCE MGMT DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS COMMUNITY CENTER ADMIN
72947 $30.00 CROTTY, MARTIN & KATHERINE ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM
72948 $5,609.96 DURAND AND ASSOCIATES JANITOR SERVICE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
72949 $26.00 ENDRES, KATHY ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM
72950 $26.00 FEATHERSTONE, BRAD ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM
72951 $36.00 GUSA, KRISTIE ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM
72952 $5.00 HANSON, CINDY ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM
72953 $5.00 HESSIAN, MAGGIE ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM
72954 $42.00 INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ARBOR MISCELLANEOUS TREE DISEASE
72955 $26.00 KURZEKA, JANE ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM
72956 $9,109.28 MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INSU REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
72957 $26.00 MCCARTY, HELEN ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM
72958 $50.00 NELSON, MIKE & MARY ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM
72959 $6,046.36 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO ELECTRIC STORMWATER LIFTSTATION
72960 $25.00 OTTERNESS, VIRGINIA ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM
72961 $26.00 PARTINGTON, MARSHA ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM
72962 $88.81 QUINLAN PUBLISHING CO INC DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS ASSESSING-ADMIN
72963 $5.00 SWANK, PENNY ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM
72964 $26.00 TESKE, DEB ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM
72965 $1,351.25 US BANK PAYING AGENT HRA 2ND SHEET ICE
72966 $64.53 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE FIRE
72967 $1,952.09 US WEST DEX ADVERTISING PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
72968 $860.00 VISIONARY SYSTEMS LTD OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL FIRE
72969 $82.90 AMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
72970 $212.50 DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUTING COMPAN BEER 6/12 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
72971 $9,832.95 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY BEER 6/12 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
72972 $934.91 HARMON FULL SERVICE GROUP CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
72973 $8,341.21 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO WINE DOMESTIC PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
72974 $2,953.15 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRTS INC TRANSPORTATION PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
72975 $254.25 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING TOBACCO PRODUCTS LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
72976 $2,149.35 QUALITY WINE & SPIRTS CO TRANSPORTATION LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
72977 $14.60 STAR TRIBUNE MISC TAXABLE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
72978 $575.40 WINE COMPANY, THE TRANSPORTATION LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
y
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 09-MAR-1999 (10
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM
72979 $295.00 ARCHETONE LTD DEPOSITS ESCROW
72980 $358.00 CAREERTRACK SEMINAR SCHOOLS POLICE
72981 $1,800.00 CARTEGRAPH SYSTEMS INC CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT INFORMATION SYSTEM
72982 $800.00 IACP NET/LOGIN DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS POLICE
72983 $295.00 LAN DE CON LANDSCAPE DEPOSITS ESCROW
72984 $49.99 MANN, TRIA MILEAGE AND PARKING SPECIAL EVENTS ADMINISTRATIVE
72985 $25.85 VWR SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT
72986 $72.00 ALL SAINTS BRANDS DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
72987 $51.71 AMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
72988 $1,453.15 DAY DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
72989 $2,588.93 EAGLE WINE COMPANY WINE DOMESTIC PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
72990 $7,742.68 GRIGGS COOPER & CO MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
72992 $1,470.78 LAKE REGION VENDING TOBACCO PRODUCTS LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
72993 $5,042.66 MARK VII BEER 6/12 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
72994 $111.30 PEPSI COLA COMPANY MISC TAXABLE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
72995 $360.90 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRTS INC TRANSPORTATION LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
72996 $270.10 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING TOBACCO PRODUCTS LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
72997 $1,349.62 PRIOR WINE COMPANY WINE DOMESTIC PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
72999 $4,351.52 QUALITY WINE & SPIRTS CO TRANSPORTATION PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
73000 $6,426.10 THORPE DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
73001 $591.43 WINE COMPANY, THE TRANSPORTATION PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
73002 $70.00 MCDONALDS SPECIAL EVENTS FEES SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS
73003 $39.00 RICHFIELD, CITY OF OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
73004 $74.00 SCIENCE MUSEUM OF MINNESOTA SPECIAL EVENTS FEES SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS
73005 $160.00 SHOWCORE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNITY SERVICES
73006 $105.00 SUNSHINE GOLF CLINIC, THE INSTRUCTOR SERVICE WINTER SKILL DEVELOP
73007 $4,695.79 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE GENERAL
73008 $180.00 WELCH VILLAGE SPECIAL EVENTS FEES SKI TRIPS/WINTER CAMP
73009 $73.87 AMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
73010 $898.59 BELLBOY CORPORATION TRANSPORTATION LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
73011 $7,055.24 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO TRANSPORTATION PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
73013 $2,026.25 MARK VII BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
73014 $306.45 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING COM MISC TAXABLE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
73015 $445.04 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRTS INC TRANSPORTATION PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
73016 $675.63 QUALITY WINE & SPIRTS CO TRANSPORTATION LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
73017 $623.50 WORLD CLASS WINES INC TRANSPORTATION PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
73018 $320.00 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC CONFERENCE IN SERVICE TRAINING
73019 $330.00 MN SOCIETY OF ARBORCULTURE CONFERENCE IN SERVICE TRAINING
73020 $15.28 PORTA, KITTY MILEAGE AND PARKING CITY MANAGER
73021 $100.00 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF MPLS BOND DEDUCTION FD 10 ORG
73022 $6,352.54 GREAT WEST LIFE AND ANNUITY DEFERRED COMP FD 10 ORG
73023 $32,152.70 HEALTHPARTNERS COBRA COSTS/REV BENEFITS
73024 $5,295.27 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 DEFERRED COMP FD 10 ORG
73025 $1,475.65 INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATI UNION DUES WITHHELD FD 10 ORG
73026 $66,536.60 MEDICA CHOICE COBRA COSTS/REV BENEFITS
73027 $8,356.50 MINNESOTA MUTUAL LIFE DEFERRED COMP FD 10 ORG
73028 $1,165.00 MINNESOTA STATE RETIREMENT SYS DEFERRED COMP FD 10 ORG
73029 $40.00 MINNESOTA TEAMSTERS CREDIT UNI CREDIT UNION FD 10 ORG
73030 $261.00 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT PERA LIFE INSURANCE FD 10 ORG
73031 $1,483.90 NETS BUILDING EP CITY CTR OPERATING COSTS
73032 $30,848.33 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO ELECTRIC STORMWATER LIFTSTATION
73035 $54,804.21 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT EMPLOYERS PERA FD 10 ORG
73036 $50.78 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT AS EMPLOYERS PERA FD 10 ORG
73037 $27.30 THIELMAN, MARC MILEAGE AND PARKING GENERAL BUILDING FACILITIES
73038 $1,542.79 DAY DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 09-MAR-1999 (10
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM
73039 $1,270.40 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY BEER 6/12 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
73040 $2,396.89 GRIGGS COOPER & CO TRANSPORTATION PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
73041 $41.55 PEPSI COLA COMPANY MISC TAXABLE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
73042 $102.04 PRIOR WINE COMPANY TRANSPORTATION LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
73043 $2,324.95 THORPE DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
73044 $260.12 DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUTING COMPAN BEER 6/12 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
73045 $3,129.55 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
73046 $19,138.97 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO TRANSPORTATION PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
73048 $911.88 LAKE REGION VENDING TOBACCO PRODUCTS LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
73049 $241.75 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING COM MISC TAXABLE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
73050 $37.80 NORTH STAR ICE MISC TAXABLE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
73051 $136.80 PAUSTIS & SONS COMPANY TRANSPORTATION LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
73052 $3,377.37 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRTS INC WINE DOMESTIC PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
73054 $6,201.84 QUALITY WINE & SPIRTS CO MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
73056 $22.05 ALLIED FIRESIDE BLDG SURCHARGES MECH SURCHARGE
73057 $23.62 AMERICAN TIME & SIGNAL CO REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES EPCC MAINTENANCE
73058 $99.48 ARCH PAGING COMMUNICATIONS WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
73059 $299.28 ARMOR SECURITY INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES ICE ARENA
73060 $61.18 ASPEN REACH EQUIPMENT COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
73061 $49.57 AUTO ELECTRIC SPECIALISTS EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
73062 $82.50 AUTOMATED ENTRANCE PRODUCTS IN CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS SENIOR CENTER
73063 $196,053.17 BARBAROSSA AND SONS INC IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS PIONEER TRAIL SANITARY SEWER
73064 $55.16 BAUER BUILT TIRE AND BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
73065 $175.00 BROWN, PAUL OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES PARK FACILITIES
73066 $380.00 CAMPBELL, JENNIFER OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES BASKETBALL
73067 $235.41 CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNICATIONS WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
73068 $4,809.37 CARIBINER INT'L OTHER EQUIPMENT COMMUNITY SERVICES
73069 $13.50 CENTRAIRE INC CASH OVER/SHORT FD 10 ORG
73070 $1,865.26 CHANHASSEN BUMPER TO BUMPER EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
73073 $36.90 CHANHASSEN LAWN AND SPORTS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL PARK MAINTENANCE
73074 $21.50 CITIZENS LEAGUE OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL CITY MANAGER
73075 $185.45 COM TECH INC CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS EATON BLDG
73076 $39,283.45 COMMERCIAL ROOFING INC BUILDING FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION
73077 $163.89 CONNEY SAFETY PRODUCTS TRAINING SUPPLIES HUMAN RESOURCES
73078 $134.85 CONSTRUCTION BULLETIN LEGAL NOTICES PUBLISHING ENGINEERING DEPT
73079 $25,840.00 CROSSTOWN MASONRY BUILDING FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION
73080 $9.46 CROWN MARKING INC OFFICE SUPPLIES GENERAL
73081 $244.23 CUB FOODS EDEN PRAIRIE OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL FIRE
73082 $421.01 CY'S UNIFORMS CLOTHING & UNIFORMS POLICE
73083 $312.00 DALCO ROOFING & SHEET METAL IN REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES EPCC MAINTENANCE
73084 $239.57 DALCO REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES EPCC MAINTENANCE
73085 $913.12 DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT CO PROTECTIVE CLOTHING FIRE
73086 $447.01 DECORATIVE DESIGNS INC RENTALS EP CITY CTR OPERATING COSTS
73087 $28.63 DELEGARD TOOL CO OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL STREET MAINTENANCE
73088 $536.50 DILLEY, TODD OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES BASKETBALL
73089 $73.85 DON E WILLIAMS CO EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
73090 $215.34 DRISKILLS NEW MARKET OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL FIRE
73091 $239.63 EARL F ANDERSEN INC SIGNS TRAFFIC SIGNS
73092 $47.93 ECOLAB INC CONTRACTED BLDG MAINT POLICE STATION
73093 $637.20 EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINTENANC CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT FIRE
73094 $27,455.00 EMPIREHOUSE INC BUILDING FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION
73095 $25.10 EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS INC POSTAGE GENERAL
73096 $232.43 FERRELLGAS MOTOR FUELS ICE ARENA
73097 $20.45 FRANKLIN COVEY OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL RECREATION ADMIN
73098 $59.80 G & K SERVICES DIRECT PURCHASE
'CI
CLOTHING & UNIFORMS STREET MAINTENANCE
'
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 09-MAR-1999 (10
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM
73099 $51.02 G & K SERVICES-MPLS INDUSTRIAL CLOTHING & UNIFORMS STREET MAINTENANCE
73100 $828.98 GARTNER REFRIGERATION & MFG IN REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES ICE ARENA
73101 $1,876.43 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY CLEANING SUPPLIES WATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
73106 $57,570.00 GEPHART ELECTRIC BUILDING FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION
73107 $5,349.28 GLEWWE DOORS INC BUILDING FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION
73108 $12.92 GRAYBOW COMMUNICATIONS GROUP OTHER EQUIPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION
73109 $7,647.14 HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ENGINEERING DEPT
73110 $431.38 HARMON AUTOGLASS CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
73111 $203.89 HARMS DISTRIBUTING INC OTHER EQUIPMENT STREET MAINTENANCE
73112 $3,737.88 HARTLAND FUEL PRODUCTS LLC MOTOR FUELS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
73113 $212.50 HCMC-EMS EDUCATION SAFETY SUPPLIES FIRE
73114 $150.00 HENDERSON, JOSH OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES ADULT OPEN GYM
73115 $607.50 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
73116 $1,360.17 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER - AC BOARD OF PRISONERS SVC POLICE
73117 $379.25 HIGLEY, STEVE OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES VOLLEYBALL
73118 $701.47 HOFFERS OF MINNEAPOLIS REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES EPCC MAINTENANCE
73119 $240.50 HOLMES, JOHN CARTER OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES VOLLEYBALL
73120 $314.50 HOLMES, TOM OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES VOLLEYBALL
73121 $123.00 ICEMAN/CO2 SERVICES, THE CHEMICALS POOL MAINTENANCE
73122 $2,493.79 IMC SALT SALT SNOW & ICE CONTROL
73123 $74.00 ISAACS, GARY OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES VOLLEYBALL
73124 $118.56 J H LARSON ELECTRICAL COMPANY OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL STREET LIGHTING
73125 $73.90 J&R RADIATOR CORP CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
73126 $2,219.78 JANEX INC CLEANING SUPPLIES EPCC MAINTENANCE
73127 $976.24 JIM CARLSON LEASING COMPANY EQUIPMENT RENTAL POLICE
73128 $1,290.00 KEEP EM ALIVE INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES HUMAN RESOURCES
73129 $443.57 KNOX BUILDING MATERIALS REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES PARK MAINTENANCE
73130 $285.15 KRAEMERS HARDWARE INC REC EQUIP & SUPPLIES VOLLEYBALL
73131 $60,123.73 KRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION CO IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION
73132 $608.70 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY INC SMALL TOOLS GENERAL BUILDING FACILITIES
73133 $18,895.50 LAGERQUIST CORP BUILDING FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION
73134 $100.70 LAKE COUNTRY DOOR CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS FIRE STATION #2
73135 $302.10 LAKESIDE PLUMBING BLDG SURCHARGES PLUMBING SURCHARGE
73136 $49.95 LAND'S END CORPORATE SALES CLOTHING & UNIFORMS POLICE
73137 $4,393.80 LITTLE FALLS MACHINE INC EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
73138 $60.00 LOES OIL COMPANY WASTE DISPOSAL EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
73139 $90.09 LOFFLER BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES GENERAL
73140 $313.11 MASTER CRAFT LABELS INC FIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES FIRE
73141 $47.93 MAXI-PRINT INC PRINTING POLICE
73142 $51.70 MCGLYNN BAKERIES MISCELLANEOUS STREET MAINTENANCE
73143 $797.25 MCNEILUS STEEL INC SIGNS TRAFFIC SIGNS
73144 $48.29 MED-COMPASS INC. PERSONNEL TESTING FIRE
73145 $1,327.15 MENARDS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL STREET MAINTENANCE
73148 $97.26 MERLINS ACE HARDWARE REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES EPCC MAINTENANCE
73149 $350.17 METROPOLITAN FORD EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
73150 $6,456.46 MICROAGE COMPUTERS INFORMATION SYSTEM
73151 $127.00 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORPORATION PATCHING ASPHALT STREET MAINTENANCE
73152 $374.11 MINNESOTA BUSINESS FORMS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL FINANCE DEPT
73153 $113.39 MINNESOTA CONWAY CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT FIRE
73154 $2,182.14 MINNESOTA VIKINGS FOOD SERVICE MISCELLANEOUS GENERAL BUILDING FACILITIES
73155 $26.04 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
73156 $32,569.80 MULCAHY INC BUILDING FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION
73157 $390.54 NETS REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES EP CITY CTR OPERATING COSTS
73158 $489.89 NORTHERN OTHER EQUIPMENT STREET MAINTENANCE
73159 $85,918.00 NORTHLAND MECHANICAL CONTRACTO BUILDING FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION
7
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 09-MAR-1999 (10
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM
73160 $110.00 OPM INFORMATION SYSTEMS CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT INFORMATION SYSTEM
73161 $74.14 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS FIRE STATION #2
73162 $3,705.00 PREMIER CONSTRUCTION SYSTEMS I BUILDING FIRE STATION CONSTRUCTION
73163 $96.00 PRINTERS SERVICE INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES EPCC MAINTENANCE
73164 $308.88 PROEX PHOTO SYSTEMS PHOTO SUPPLIES ASSESSING-ADMIN
73167 $148.00 PURDIE, KRISTY OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES VOLLEYBALL
73168 $526.01 QUALITY WASTE CONTROL INC WASTE DISPOSAL SENIOR CENTER
73169 $43.55 QUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER POSTAGE GENERAL
73170 $880.00 RAY, LEE OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES SOFTBALL
73171 $611.15 RESPOND SYSTEMS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES HUMAN RESOURCES
73172 $11.25 ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION INC CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
73173 $10,195.00 SBS MECHANICAL INC BUILDING COMMUNITY CENTER HVAC
73174 $95.84 SEARS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL GENERAL BUILDING FACILITIES
73175 $25.23 SHERWIN WILLIAMS CO OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL PARK MAINTENANCE
73176 $73.58 SNAP-ON TOOLS SMALL TOOLS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
73177 $521.43 SNELL MECHANICAL INC CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EPCC MAINTENANCE
73178 $57.37 SOUTHWEST CONTRACTORS SUPPLY OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL TRAFFIC SIGNALS
73179 $2,089.98 STANDARD SPRING CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
73180 $205.00 STITCH LAB, THE CLOTHING & UNIFORMS POLICE
73181 $2,455.99 STREICHERS CLOTHING & UNIFORMS POLICE
73182 $20.74 STRINGER BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT GENERAL
73183 $28.49 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET GEO EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
73184 $697.79 SUBURBAN TIRE & AUTO SERVICE I TIRES EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
73185 $7,797.50 SUMMIT ENVIROSOLUTIONS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EDEN PRAIRIE REALFLOW
73186 $620.00 SWANSON, JEFF OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES BROOMBALL
73187 $240.50 TIE COMMUNICATIONS INC CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT POLICE
73188 $25.00 TIM SCHMITZ CONSTRUCTION BLDG & CONTRACTORS LICENSE FD 10 ORG
73189 $61.46 TWIN CITY TIRE CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
73190 $894.32 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED RESERVE EQUIPMENT POLICE
73191 $809.58 UNITED STATE MECHANICAL INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES ICE ARENA
73192 $10.17 UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
73193 $1,355.86 US FILTER/WATERPRO OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL INSPECTION-ADMIN
73194 $16.01 VIKING ELECTRIC SUPPLY OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL FIRE
73195 $1,529.98 W W GRAINGER INC EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
73196 $328.76 WATER SPECIALITY OF MN INC CHEMICALS POOL MAINTENANCE
73197 $185.00 WATERS, PATRICK OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES BASKETBALL
73198 $93.11 ZEP MANUFACTURING CO EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
73199 $2,618.90 ZIEGLER INC CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
$1,430,436.73*
f�
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE:
SECTION: ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS March 16, 1999
Service Area:
FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE ITEM NO.
Administration AMENDING CITY CODE 2.3 AND 2.32 VIII.A.
Chris Enger
Requested Action:
Move to amend City Code Chapter 2 by amending Section 2.30 in its entirety, relating to City
Departments; amending Section 2.32 in its entirety, relating to issuance of citations; providing for
conforming changes throughout the City Code and providing penalties for violation thereof.
Background Information:
The City Code must be amended to reflect the organizational changes made in the last half of 1998.
Five Service Areas were organized to reflect results of the Vision 2001 Strategic Plan. The heads of
these areas are Service Area Directors participating in a Management Team under the City Manager.
The Building Code, Inspections and Zoning Administration functions have been transferred to the Public
Safety Service Area.
The position of City Clerk / Treasurer has been split. The responsibilities of Treasurer rest with the
Director of Community Development and Financial Services. The responsibilities of the City Clerk
(Elections, Record Management and Data Practices) have been transferred to the Management Services
Area.
This new structure and position titles will be reflected properly in the City Code upon the adoption of
this ordinance amendment.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA AMENDING CITY CODE
CHAPTER 2 BY AMENDING SECTION 2.30 IN ITS ENTIRETY, RELATING TO CITY
DEPARTMENTS;AMENDING SECTION 2.32 IN ITS ENTIRETY,RELATING TO ISSUANCE
OF CITATIONS; PROVIDING FOR CONFORMING CHANGES THROUGHOUT THE CITY
CODE AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION THEREOF.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS:
Section 1. The Eden Prairie City Code shall be amended by amending in its entirety Section
2.30 as follows:
.........................................................
........................................................
.........................................................
........................................................
.........................................................
SECTION 2.30. Cl "„$1 ;` II% : .
.........................................................
........................................................
Subd. 1. City Manager. The City Manager shall be appointed by the Council and shall serve at the Council's
pleasure. The Manager shall be the chief administrative officer of the City and allseriarea of the City shall be
...... ............
under the overall control of the City Manager. The City Manager shall have the following general duties and
responsibilities:
A. Plan the organization of City staff and assign appropriate responsibility and authority for the efficient and
effective delivery of City services.
B. Prepare and administer the annual City budget;develop compensation plans and personnel policies for City
staff consistent with good management practices.
C. Prepare Council agendas and information for Council meetings with appropriate staff research and
recommendations.
D. Communicate effectively with council members,City staff,news media,other governmental agencies,and
the public.
° sere >t�e
:::::sue
.. ::.. : ;:;; :': ::::.:.;:.::ri'' :af: i�'':Ciad�c: :ehai�:a: ain:>a:Ci:: :Adt�:::.. ......�...........................�...........
E� Thu;:Ci::'.; a�a.�r;;u�tttt;tl�;: ..send......;t..e..............:.�...::..::::.::PP �.: ::: �: :...�' '�.........:::. ::._:::::::::.::::::::.:::.
leasukof:< ,e:::Councxl:<:I e:::Cit ;<Attornie ;shall::: a 'o :: h::duties::as::axe::required::by:::law or>ref`erre :.
.............................
the eibutteil'
.............................
.............................
::.::::f :::::::: ::':.:::::::::::::: :':: :::i:: ;:, : ::i:::�::::::: :iii:: :::::::: : ., :':�:': :;ii';"": :: : i.:
l i 2 : ement.SS oes ea. A: ana .:ment Services Area is hereby e llshed The:heado 'this service
area:: ::the>Di ctor: Mana ement::Services>::AU atters::rel tin to Human so es> is1 ana emerl Recor
Elections,Facilities::and Coi uaications.shall he>the.responsibility this:service:::area.
This:s zce:: a:sha ::tnc e the office o':lhe,Ci;;> .:.;:.Its . :be;t ie; uty and:.: r of:thls: sitio .:.to:ca
tY
of Police-whersintli-have-everail-responsibility-for-the-BepartmentAli-matterrofiaweement-andTiVil-defense
ler1
e to §4a I51.
shall be under the jurisdiction of this Department.
Sub . .3 :.:community Dev4n: meet.:and:Financ alSer vices; ea. A:.Co a uni,...;: ve o...:.ent:::at d:.Financ al
tad
serc;`eee<A0.4a::ts::10.0knitiished<::<:The::mead:af:thfs:>se0tc:0area::wtbe<btiee.esr:;cif........................ .....:::::::.:.::.pie
1
......... ............. ....................... .... ... : .
redevel merit<:histGneat::> reservatio :::assess uzfo�t cm:::services;:: .d:<:<Th ee:::a <:the>: ..:Q b bt of s
serv�e�s::t �:>::'�`h�s: tvte�:::�tea:>dtr..e�ts:a�d::co4srd: ates:the>:�:� :;�;:de�elopsaet;�e��e�v>proee��::::
" ..A n •ra. • t De0ela1:01ner1t.411d:r10atte1a;.zervtemsha.. .*:::1e0$003r.A e0111Y t0
.........................:....................................................
...............................................................................
A11 satEers;rflcv� s and aiseessts shtl be: respariil�zt7t3 of thu;: iv �on.;
N ;1RT.:::::R:::::!MV.:Tt.::::4.:.:: ���.:�!��.:�::V!R�R::::::::::::::::::Y;.::W:N�:W��a�.y/: ��:f.:�V!W.:RV�: .::.: .:::::.:::.:�::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::.::::::::.::::::•..:.
set ee ar the Trent v1' I�ce ervs... ors cif aw etrfotttety ctvtl delerxse� :...:.: :.::::.;...;::
fire:::m ection:bui di ins ction.:aud:zont ' ::code::enforcement::shall be::the;:re nstb ity of:ttus::servtee<area;;T e
b. :>serutce::area: hll::tatdtt::thd:: oiidi Ipe tioTiis ;:I ::bea ; f tbts<dt .:stan. balbe: e aari
: .;x� : 1":::It.shatl.be:.the.du.:.and:':e: + r.:af tt s
Inspec# ns`:refe�x�d:#p:: :<t tat��dal�i�C�e,as the.;;::B�ztlzlzng Q�t' ;::
ccitsizd`�tid>
..............................
'�'J�� ry�ce area:s�ais�.��Tu,de the:���Frestection.,.IDzvastop: '�he.�ead nfth�s��urn stlall be trio��re,�tue�'
S:ohd:>: ::::Pu c:; oarlts:S s:: r a,:::;A:.:Public. orks;Services> ea.;ts;here. :;:estabiishe ,;;::The::: ad::: f;t s
service:ate :is t ;:D eetor::.of: bli�c Works.Services..::.. l matte :re ing to;eb t rog,;stre sy:: vvate:r..and sew r
art✓'the respo bd fy ofthis seru� area
jarisdictiun of this-Beparti,rei,t.
The-Head-of-this-Department-is-the-Direetor-ofeetnniunitri3teveloptItent—All-matters-retating-ter comprehensive
depai tnie,it,an W.,11 as diiectirig the C ty's-devcivpiamiIt rtview pieces.
:tx:. '.. * 00ea R:t*tOs te . .1 ks"at i :X t4 .ttotr$$er*:f ...aa..s...e b.: s ::s ..:'
»O r
programs and activities,natural�resonrces managements and tctpal:cemetery shall:be the respo ibili of this
...........................
Department is hereby established. The Head of this Bepartment-is the Bircctor-of Parks, Recreation and Natural
hereby established he-Heaci-ofthib n shall bethc Directed of hispv..tiorts,Sic&ty and-faeilitics(refer.ed
tt
to carry out the-provisions of the State Building-Code and the-provisions af-the-City-Ced relating to construction.
2
•
provisions of the City Codc.
•
, ,
"
•
•
•
•
of-the finance , and City Ckrk-Treasurer ale-hereby cc,rnbiucd. All City
filia c,ws shall be Lieda the jurl clictib,r of this Dcparl..itent.
•
•
in the office of the City Clerk-z rea.surer. The duties of the-City-Clerl.-Treasurer may be further
of another officer of the City.
•
•
Services Department is erebg established. The head-of this department is the Director of Human Resources and
• , ,
unity information shall be under the jurisdiction-of this department.
Section 2. The Eden Prairie City Code shall be amended by amending in its entirety Section
2.32 as follows:
•
:SE TIt n.2 32 I SL AN(Z;O1 CITATT O iS 'he`€ollowing employees,of the City of E irie while In
}
tie:eour and trl t pe ormance r rt,dutres as:ez piay e x•xra rss .crtations la hey xr torconimu ±
.....................
1. City Manager.
3. Resvrvc Off crs.
4. Animal Control Officers.
5. Commninity- crvie.,Offic i s.
G. Director offiisp ,
7. Iilsfe.,te1.-
8. Plan Reviewer.
9. Director of Public Works.
10. City Engineer.
11. As„,laid City E„g:r,eer.
12. Design Engiriccr.
13. Staff Engineer.
14. Snperintcndcnt-Streets.
15. Saperintaadent=Water.
18. Sr:Engineering Tc.hnician.
19. Engineering Tedniician.
20. Director of Ce.mmraity Development.
21. Sr.Plaiaier.
22. Planner I.
23. Planner II.
3
4
24. Fire Chicf.
25. fire-Marshal.
26. Fire Inspector.
27. Dir ctor of Parks,Rccrcation and Natural Resources-
28. Supernrtcndcnt-Parks.
29. Lnviroainetital-Sci vitcs Manager.
30. Park Planncr/Landscape Architcct.
31. Trcc Inspcctor.
32. foreina r Parl s.
33. Park Ranger.
nrmnunit.+:C;cnlicrManagrs and Coordinators.
is aiaer.
..............................
.............................
ect r of aoc ear cry ce;
:::: : •::•iiiiii:�i:�::.::.
Mara r o Facilities
I 1 xna�er of lei sk:Services acid Recnrds
ciai:::Services
Director t f(orn unify Developmentt and F acial Sere ices
...............................
Plan'if i
D ector ublic Safe
Policers
...............................
Beer rs
Budd n Inspe ors
.....................
......................
Fire> hief
...........................
..........................
...........................
Fire:€lrs ial
............................
..............................
............................
..............
irrr: I i ctor:::.::
..................................................
Public> orks a vices
..............................
.............................
City«En.� :."eer:.:
Des gn En
Managers! x t;Mai t e
Foreman/Supervisor :::::
Engineering T chi ci n.....:,
....................................................................
.....................................................................
....................................................................
'arks' n i:et reation Se i vices
»gees::
T� arni'i'ar�sa >�ecre�tro�Serc!. �
...........................
...........................
Part
...........................
...............................
.............................
...............................
ree In e or
Parke ::::::
0000u`S crv;x r::::::::::::::::::::
:;.;:.;:.;;:.:.;:.;
4
M14$1011
:.;:.;:.;:.;;:
::: : ' pect:.v..,:::;..:.:.t :.>t. > .h.r.v :t ear maa::::tbe:::rdeen:::Pr e:: i;:::< od ;: ::::.:.:' : :::;::: :a:::a:: p tzm l ::su?�� : ar ;;.wh ev r.:] .:a a . : :.: ::.::::: : :::::: ::: : ::::..................
terrn::li:sted::::to :.r:: :e>lnt n::ll0di.11 >NMWTf.KPri:or::tn::: :;::r ecttiti;;:;:s:nilAtIt'in ::::>
:i :l : : ::::i:::# {ijy
Aiii.
i:::ii::�:•:i::iiii::'::iiisiiiii:::::iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii::y:; :•:
c
c mmnnn.:..;,Development mu velopm ent and
tee.
:: es
Resources Dep ? of i.10
Inspections,�:: of >:iiiii ac lities Building Ins';ect ons ! son
................ .......
............................
ii
:'::o'n
.;;pi:
`�nt..a�l.
`::;>:::.0�r�tp III.
:<:>::».;:.;:.:
Financial ces A ea
....................................................
Ott Are'
..................................................
.l?n.
r s
:::::::.:::.: :.::.:
Director c��Put�ltc' vrl teotorQ
tract
,.:f�ox .tt�€uty�tx��l6pxnt ... �. ..::..:
F ri „ -••••:, rri n
................:::::::::::....... ......
`aFin cial>n
Director:of Pa s :Reereat ton>anal erector:of Pairks;and> :ecreatitt
Natural rc ' rice
DirectorDiteetotptbspectiottsvSafetyAildManager of In ections
alines..............................................
5
Assessing: agent Poi*.ott
Director ofHumanR.eso ices and ector of ana ent. er ces
g
t 000
erever
..............................
which tb .co ihibed p e+ou iy uscd
Section 5• City Cole Chapter 1 entitled`"general Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the
:;::.� 2 99: e itli✓d '" olaa �.s
i eana�r hereby c p d: n::the;r en e y ef+ et ce,,; s the g7 are to er t
.................
h�reiaat
.................
.................
ction: ..:This rdi in a shall become e f` ve from and after its assage: d:publ atfon:
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the
_day of , 1999, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting
of the City Council of said Council on the day of , 1999.
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1999.
6
7
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE:
SECTION: ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS March 12,
1999
DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Resolution authorizing the Sale ITEM NO.
Community Dev. and and Issuance of Senior Multifamily Housing Revenue
Financial Services Refunding Bonds (Sterling Ponds Project) Series 1999A,
and Subordinate Multifamily Housing Development
Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1999B. V1(1, 13.
Requested Action:
Move approval of Resolution authorizing the Sale and Issuance of Senior Multifamily Housing
Revenue Refunding Bonds (Sterling Ponds Project) Series 1999A, and Subordinate Multifamily
Housing Development Revenue Refunding Bonds (Sterling Ponds Project), Series 1999B in the
aggregate principal amount of$6,665,000.
Background
In December 1998, the Council held a public hearing for the purpose of receiving comments on the
proposed issuance of housing revenue bonds to refund bonds issued by the City in 1989 on behalf of
Prairie Village Limited Partnership for the Sterling Ponds development. We received no comments.
To complete this process, the Council is asked to adopt the resolution authorizing the sale and
issuance of the bonds.
I
CERTIFICATE AS TO RESOLUTION AND ADOPTING VOTE
I, the undersigned,being the duly qualified and acting recording officer of the City of
Eden Prairie,Minnesota(the "City"),hereby certify that the attached resolution is a true copy of
Resolution No. 99-43, entitled: "RESOLUTION RELATING TO MULTIFAMILY HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS (STERLING PONDS PROJECT),
SENIOR SERIES 1999A, AND MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT REVENUE
REFUNDING BONDS (STERLING PONDS PROJECT), SUBORDINATE SERIES 1999B;
AUTHORIZING THE SALE AND ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS AND ESTABLISHING THE
SECURITY THEREFOR AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS" (the
"Resolution"), on file in the original records of the City in my legal custody; that the Resolution
was duly adopted by the City Council of the City at a meeting on March 16, 1999, and that the
meeting was duly held by the City Council and was attended throughout by a quorum, pursuant
to call and notice of such meeting given as required by law; and that the Resolution has not as of
the date hereof been amended or repealed.
I further certify that upon vote being taken on the Resolution at said meeting, the
following Councilmembers voted in favor thereof:
voted against the same: •
;
abstained from voting thereon: ;
or were absent: .
WITNESS my hand officially this 16th day of March, 1999.
Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 99-44
RESOLUTION RELATING TO MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT REVENUE
REFUNDING BONDS(STERLING PONDS PROJECT), SENIOR SERIES 1999A,AND
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS
(STERLING PONDS PROJECT), SUBORDINATE SERIES 1999B; AUTHORIZING THE
SALE AND ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS AND ESTABLISHING THE SECURITY
THEREFOR AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota(the
"City"), as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. By the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended(the "Act"),
the City is authorized to issue and sell revenue bonds or obligations to make or purchase loans to
finance multifamily housing developments within its boundaries and to issue its revenue
refunding bonds to provide funds to refund such revenue bonds. Pursuant to the Act, the City
has issued and sold its Multifamily Housing Development Revenue Bonds (Sterling Ponds
Project), Series 1989A and Series 1989B, dated, as originally issued, as of October 1, 1989, of
which approximately$6,735,000 is now outstanding(the "Refunded Bonds")to finance a
multifamily housing development described in Section 462C.05 of the Act comprising the
construction and equipping on land within the City of an approximately 112-unit multifamily
rental housing development (the "Project") owned and operated by Prairie Village Limited
Partnership (the "Developer").
1.02. It has been proposed that the City issue its Multifamily Housing Development
Revenue Refunding Bonds (Sterling Ponds Project), Senior Series 1999A, and its Multifamily
Housing Development Revenue Refunding Bonds (Sterling Ponds Project), Subordinate Series
1999B in the aggregate principal amount of$6,665,000 (collectively,the "Bonds"), to provide
funds for a loan to be made to the Company to provide funds to be used to refund the outstanding
principal of the Refunded Bonds. The City will grant a security interest in certain revenues and
payments to be received by the City under the Loan Agreement(as hereinafter defined)to a
Trustee (as hereinafter defined). The proceeds of the Bonds will be used, together with available
funds of the Company and funds on deposit with the trustee for the Refunded Bonds,to refund
the Refunded Bonds,to establish a debt service reserve fund for the Bonds and to pay certain
costs of issuance of the Bonds and of the refunding. The Project will be subject to the terms and
restrictions contained in the Regulatory Agreement(as hereinafter defined). To secure the
Company's obligations under the Loan Agreement, the Company will deliver to the City, as
mortgagee, a Mortgage (as hereinafter defined)relating to certain real and personal property
comprising the Project and an Assignment of Rents (as hereinafter defined), and the City will
assign its interest in the Mortgage and the Assignment of Rents to the Trustee pursuant to an
Assignment of Mortgage(as hereinafter defined).
The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City(the "Authority") has
entered into a First Amended and Restated Project Management Agreement, dated as of October
1, 1989,with the Company,pursuant to which the Authority, upon certain terms and conditions,
agreed to provide certain interest reduction payments for the benefit of the Project through 2006.
The interest reduction payments were pledged by the Company to the payment of the Refunded
Bonds and will be pledged to the payment of the Bonds as provided in the Indenture(as
hereinafter defined). Pursuant to a Mortgage Subordination(as hereinafter defined), the
Authority will agree to subordinate its existing mortgage on the Project to the lien of the
Mortgage.
1.04. Draft forms of the following documents relating to the Bonds have been prepared
and submitted to this Council and are hereby directed to be filed with the City Clerk:
(a) a Loan Agreement(the "Loan Agreement"),proposed to be entered into by
the City and the Company;
(b) an Indenture of Trust(the "Indenture"),proposed to be entered into by the
City and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as trustee(the "Trustee"), relating to the
Bonds;
(c) a Combination Mortgage, Security Agreement and Fixture Financing
Statement (the "Mortgage"),proposed to be executed by the Company in favor of the
City;
(d) an Assignment of Rents and Leases (the "Assignment of Rents"),proposed
to be executed by the Company in favor of the City;
(e) an Assignment of Mortgage and Assignment of Rents and Leases (the
"Assignment of Mortgage"),proposed to be executed by the City in favor of the
Trustee;
(f) a First Amended and Restated Regulatory Agreement(the "First Amended
and Restated Regulatory Agreement"),proposed to be executed by the Company, the
City and the trustee for the Refunded Bonds, amending, restating and superseding the
Regulatory Agreement, dated as of October 1, 1989, executed by the City, the trustee
and the Company(as so amended, the "Regulatory Agreement");
-2-
(g) an Official Statement (the "Official Statement"), in the form of a
Preliminary Official Statement(the "Preliminary Official Statement"),to be used in
connection with the offer and sale of the Senior Series 1999A Bonds by Damn Rauscher
Incorporated(the "Underwriter");
(h) a Private Placement Memorandum (the "Private Placement Memorandum"),
in the form of a Preliminary Private Placement Memorandum(the "Preliminary Private
Placement Memorandum"), to be used in connection with the offer and sale of the
Subordinate Series 1999B Bonds by the Underwriter;
(i) a Bond Purchase Agreement(the "Bond Purchase Agreement")proposed to
be entered into by the City, the Company and the Underwriter;
(j) a Continuing Disclosure Agreement (the"Continuing Disclosure
Agreement")to be entered into by the Company and the Trustee, as agent;
(k) a Subordination Agreement(the "Mortgage Subordination"), to be executed
and delivered by the Authority; and
(1) an Amendment No. 1 to First Amended and Restated Regulatory Agreement,
proposed to be entered into between the Authority and the Company.
Section 2. Findings.
It is hereby found, determined and declared that:
(a) The refinancing of the Project, the issuance and sale of the Bonds, the execution
and delivery of the Loan Agreement, the Indenture, the Assignment of Mortgage, the First
Amended and Restated Regulatory Agreement and the Bond Purchase Agreement and all other
acts and things required under the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to make the
Loan Agreement, the Indenture,the Assignment of Mortgage,the First Amended and Restated
Regulatory Agreement and the Bond Purchase Agreement and the Bonds valid and binding
special, limited obligations in accordance with their terms, are authorized by the Act.
(b) It is desirable that the Bonds be issued by the City upon the terms set forth in this
resolution and the Indenture,under the provisions of which the City grants to the Trustee under
the Indenture a security interest in certain revenues and payments to be received by the City
under the Loan Agreement as security for the payment of the principal of,premium, if any, and
interest on the Bonds.
(c) The loan payments contained in the Loan Agreement are fixed, and are required to
be revised from time to time as necessary, so as to produce income and revenue sufficient to
-3-
provide for prompt payment of principal of and interest on all Bonds issued under the Indenture
when due; and the Loan Agreement also provides that the Company is required to pay all
expenses of the operation and maintenance of the Project, including but without limitation,
adequate insurance thereon and insurance against all liability for injury to persons or property
arising from the operation thereof, and all taxes and special assessments levied upon or with
respect to the site of the Project and payable during the term of the Loan Agreement.
(d) The execution and delivery of the Loan Agreement, the Indenture, the Assignment
of Mortgage, the First Amended and Restated Regulatory Agreement and the Bond Purchase
Agreement will not conflict with, or constitute on the part of the City a breach of or a default
under, any existing agreement, indenture, mortgage, lease or other instrument to which the City
is subject or is a party or by which it is bound.
(e) No litigation is pending or, to the best knowledge of the members of this Council,
threatened against the City questioning the organization or boundaries of the City or the right of
any officer of the City to hold his or her office, or in any manner questioning the right and power
of the City to execute and deliver the Bonds, or otherwise questioning the validity of the Bonds
or the execution, delivery or validity of the Loan Agreement, the Indenture, the Assignment of
Mortgage, the First Amended and Restated Regulatory Agreement and the Bond Purchase
Agreement or questioning the appropriation of revenues to payment of the Bonds or the right of
the City to loan the proceeds of the Bonds to the Company.
(f) All acts and things required under the Constitution and the laws of the State of
Minnesota to make the Loan Agreement, the Indenture, the Assignment of Mortgage, the First
Amended and Restated Regulatory Agreement, the Bond Purchase Agreement and the Bonds
valid and binding special, limited obligations of the City in accordance with their terms will have
been done upon adoption of this Resolution and execution of the Loan Agreement, the Indenture,
the Assignment of Mortgage, the First Amended and Restated Regulatory Agreement and the
Bond Purchase Agreement.
(g) The execution and delivery by the City of the Bond Purchase Agreement, the
Bonds, the Loan Agreement, the Indenture, the Assignment of Mortgage, the First Amended and
Restated Regulatory Agreement and all other agreements contemplated hereby, and the
compliance by the City with the provisions thereof will not conflict with or result in a material
breach by the City under any court or administrative decree or order or any agreement, indenture,
mortgage, lease or other instrument to which the City is a party; provided, however, that the
representation in this paragraph shall not apply to the qualification of the Bonds under state
securities or Blue Sky laws.
(h) No member of the governing body or other officer or employee of the City is
directly or indirectly interested in the transactions contemplated by the Bond Purchase
Agreement, the Bonds, the Indenture, the Loan Agreement, the Assignment of Mortgage, the
-4-
First Amended and Restated Regulatory Agreement or any related documents or any contract,
agreement or job hereby contemplated to be entered into or undertaken.
Section 3. Authorization and Approval of Documents. The City is hereby authorized
to issue the Bonds to provide funds,to be used, with other available funds, to refund the
Refunded Bonds, to establish a debt service reserve fund for the Bonds and pay costs of issuance
of the Bonds and of the refunding, and to pledge and assign the Loan Agreement and the loan
repayments due thereunder, all as provided in the Loan Agreement and the Indenture. It is
acknowledged that the purchase price of the Bonds,the principal amount of the Bonds,the initial
reoffering prices of the Bonds, the maturity schedule of the Bonds, the provisions for redemption
of the Bonds and the interest rates on the Bonds have not been determined as of the date of
adoption of this resolution and are not reflected in the Indenture, the Loan Agreement or the
Bond Purchase Agreement. The Mayor or, in the event of his absence or disability, the City
Manager is hereby authorized to approve: (1)the purchase price of the Bonds;provided that the
purchase price is not less than 98% of the principal amount of the Bonds and the total
compensation payable to the Underwriter, including any discount, does not exceed 2.50% of the
principal amount of the Bonds; (2) the principal amount of the Bonds (as hereinafter defined);
provided that the principal amount of the Bonds is not in excess of$6,665,000; (3)the initial
reoffering prices of the Bonds; (4)the maturity schedule of the Bonds; provided that the Bonds
mature at any time or times in such amount or amounts no later than December 1, 2029; (5)the
provisions for redemption of the Bonds; and(6)the interest rates on the Bonds; provided that the
weighted average interest rate on the Bonds shall not exceed 7.00%per annum. The approval of
such officer of the terms of the Bonds shall be conclusively presumed by the execution of the
Bond Purchase Agreement by authorized officers of the City.
The forms of the Loan Agreement, the Indenture, the Assignment of Mortgage,the First
Amended and Restated Regulatory Agreement, the Bond Purchase Agreement and the Bonds
referred to in Section 1.04 are approved, subject to such modifications as are deemed appropriate
and approved by the City Attorney and the Mayor,within the limitations provided in the
immediately preceding paragraph,which approval shall be conclusively evidenced by execution
of the Loan Agreement, the Indenture, the Assignment of Mortgage,the First Amended and
Restated Regulatory Agreement and the Bond Purchase Agreement by the Mayor and the City
Manager. The Bond Purchase Agreement as so approved is directed to be executed forthwith in
the name and on behalf of the City by the Mayor and the City Manager following the execution
thereof by the Company and the Underwriter. The Loan Agreement, and the First Amendment
of Regulatory Agreement as so approved are directed to be executed in the name and on behalf of
the City by the Mayor and City Manager upon execution thereof by the Company. The Indenture
and the Assignment of Mortgage as so approved are directed to be executed in the name and on
behalf of the City by the Mayor and the City Manager and delivered to the Trustee. Copies of all
the documents shall be delivered, filed or recorded as provided therein. The Mayor, the City
Manager and the City Clerk are also authorized and directed to execute such other instruments as
may be required to give effect to the transactions herein contemplated.
-5-
Section 4. Official Statement and Private Placement Memorandum. The City hereby
consents to the use of the Preliminary Official Statement and the Preliminary Private Placement
Memorandum by the Underwriter in connection with the offer and sale of the Bonds to potential
investors, and consents to the preparation and use of a final Official Statement and Private
Placement Memorandum, in substantially the form of the Preliminary Official Statement and the
Preliminary Private Placement Memorandum. The City has consented to the distribution of the
Official Statement and the Private Placement Memorandum,but did not prepare the Official
Statement or the Private Placement Memorandum, and has not reviewed the financial disclosures
of the Company or approved any information or statements contained in the Official Statement or
the Private Placement Memorandum or the Appendices thereto and assumes no responsibility for
the sufficiency, completeness or accuracy of the same. The City Manager is authorized to deem
the Preliminary Official Statement and the Preliminary Private Placement Memorandum "final"
as of their respective dates for purposes of SEC Rule 15c2-12.
Section 5. The Bonds.
5.01. In anticipation of the receipt of the loan repayments from the Company, the City
shall proceed forthwith to issue its Bonds in a series to be designated "Multifamily Housing
Development Revenue Refunding Bonds (Sterling Ponds Project), Senior Series 1999A" and
"Multifamily Housing Development Revenue Refunding Bonds (Sterling Ponds Project),
Subordinate Series 1999B", in the form and upon the terms set forth in the Indenture or
established pursuant to this resolution.
5.02. The Mayor and the City Manager are authorized and directed to prepare and
execute the Bonds as prescribed herein and in the Indenture and to deliver them to the Trustee,
together with a certified copy of this resolution, the other documents required in the Indenture,
and such other certificates, documents and instruments as may be appropriate to effect the
transactions herein contemplated.
Section 6. Modifications, Absence of Officers. The approval hereby given to the
various documents referred to above includes an approval of such modifications thereto,
deletions therefrom and additions thereto as may be necessary and appropriate and approved by
the City Attorney and the City Manager prior to the execution of the documents. The execution
of any instrument by the appropriate officer or officers of the City herein authorized shall be
conclusive evidence of the approval of such documents in accordance with the terms hereof. In
the absence or disability of the Mayor, any of the documents authorized by this resolution to be
executed, may be executed by the acting Mayor and in the absence or disability of the City
Manager by such officer of the City who, in the opinion of the City Attorney,may execute such
documents.
-6-
Section 7. Authentication of Proceedings. The Mayor, the City Manager,the City
Clerk and other officers of the City are authorized and directed to furnish to the Underwriter and
bond counsel certified copies of all proceedings and records of the City relating to the Bonds,
and such other affidavits and certificates as may be required to show the facts relating to the
legality and marketability of the Bonds as such facts appear from the books and records in the
officers' custody and control or as otherwise known to them; and all such certified copies,
certificates and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall constitute representations of
the City as to the truth of all statements of fact contained therein.
Section 8. Limitations of the City's Obligations. Notwithstanding anything contained
in the Bonds, the Loan Agreement, the Indenture, the Assignment of Mortgage, the Regulatory
Agreement or the Bond Purchase Agreement, the Bonds shall not constitute a debt of the City
within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation, and shall not be payable from
nor charged upon any funds other than the revenues specifically pledged to the payment thereof,
and no holder of the Bonds shall ever have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power
of the City to pay the Bonds or interest thereon, or to enforce payment thereof against any
property of the City other than those rights and interests of the City under the Loan Agreement
which have been pledged to the payment thereof, and the Bonds shall not constitute a charge, lien
or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the City other than those rights and
interests of the City under the Loan Agreement which have been pledged to the payment thereof.
The agreement of the City to perform the covenants and other provisions contained in this
resolution or the Bonds, the Loan Agreement, the Indenture,the Assignment of Mortgage,the
Regulatory Agreement or the Bond Purchase Agreement shall be subject at all times to the
availability of the revenues furnished by the Company sufficient to pay all costs of such
performance or the enforcement thereof, and the City shall not be subject to any personal or
pecuniary liability thereon other than as stated above.
Passed this 16th day of March, 1999.
Jean L. Harris, Mayor
Attest:
Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk
-7-
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Date: 3/16/99
Section: REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
SERVICE AREA: Item Description: Item No.:
Community Development
and Financial Services REVIEW BOA APPEAL #99-01 X.A.
Michael Franzen
Jean Johnson
Requested Action
Move to uphold the Board's denial of Variance #99-01, and direct staff to prepare findings and return them to
the Council.
Background
On January 14, 1999, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals denied Niosi/Ryan's request to build on a 1.2
acre Rural parcel.
A similar variance was before the Board in 1995 under the ownership of Niosi. The Board denied the
variance due to safety and precedent reasons.
The Council affirmed the decision of the Board in 1995.
The 1999 variance request was submitted by Niosi's. At the Board's January 14, 1999 meeting, Mr. Perry
Ryan introduced himself as the new owner.
The same concerns exist with the 1999 variance as it did in 1995: the degree of variance is large, a hardship
has not been demonstrated, the situation was self created, the driveway will create hazards to the users and to
the public, and granting of the variance will set a precedent contrary to the City's Rural District purpose and
intent.
Supporting Reports:
1-25-99 Applicant's Appeal Letter
1-14-99 Staff Report and Board of Appeals Minutes
1-14-99 Letter from neighborhood
1-11-99 & Application material "Minnesota Riverview"
12-10-98
12-30-98 Engineering memo
1995 Background on previous Variance#95-23
1
!tb0ANGINEERII1JG
January 25, 1999
ci ril
En•,i„ee,•i,,g Ms. Jean Johnson
Community Development Department
City of Eden Prairie- City Center
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230
Land Planning
Re: PID#29-116-22-43-006
Property at the NE corner of
I:,,,irnn,ncnral Eden Prairie Rd. &Hwy 169
Eden Prairie,MN
Dear Ms. Johnson:
Su,•v e,lug Please accept this as our formal appeal to the City Council,review of the Board of
Adjustments and Appeals decision to deny approval for construction of a single family
t' home at the above referenced property at their January 14, 1999 meeting.
Please let me know the earliest meeting we will be put on the City Council Agenda. We
would lilce to be on the agenda on their first meeting in February if possible.
If you have any questions or further information is required,please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
RYAN ENGINEERING, INC.
Carpal ate Office
10400 Vikiii Urice
Suite 1-40
Hen Piaine
Minnesota 55144 Perry M. Ry P.E.
President
(612)947-9100
(612)947-0117 Fax
U'ei,cite
n ancnrinecring net
::>':<:?�::: >:>:::>::>::><:>:>::�.::::z:>>:»: ::>`: .; :>. . . fit�►�`� ...............
.::.::.:::.;;:.;;:::.::.:.:::::::.:.::.::::::.:.;::.:::.::.::::.::::::::..:::.:::.:>:.;:.;:.::.;:::<.::::.;:.::.;:.::.:
ootrewwwwomminammiginiiinsommemene
....... ... ....................................................................................
ii
VARIANCE: #99-01 MEETING DATE: January 14, 1999
APPLICANT: Stephen&Kimberly Niosi
LOCATION: Northeast corner of Eden Prairie Road&Highway 212.PIN 29-116-22-43-
0006
REQUEST: Approval to construct a single family home on 1.2 acres having a side yard
setback of 20 feet (city code requires Rural lots existing as of July 6, 1982 to be a minimum
size of 5 acres for a single family dwelling and the minimum side yard setback is 50 feet)
ZONING DISTRICT: Rural
AREA CHARACTER: Rural parcels ranging in size from 1 to 20 acres.
The purpose of lot size minimums in the Rural District is to prevent premature urban
development of land outside the sewer/water service area, allow agricultural pursuits, and
provide adequate space for each dwelling and facilities for housing animals. The closest R1
District and sewer and water lines are approximately one mile away.
The lot is characterized by steep grades along Eden Prairie Road and US 169/212.
The lot is mainly Salida soils. The soil is characterized as non-cohesive, easily erodible and
difficult to stabilize.
BACKGROUND:
• Attached is 1995 information on Variance 95-23 by Niosi's.
• A new Engineering Department memo is also included.
APPLICANT'S STATED HARDSHIP: See applicants material dated December 10, 1998.
OPTIONS:
-Delay building until after utilities are available and the property is rezoned to a RI
District. This would negate the need for lot size and setback variances.
-Acquire additional land to lessen the degree of variance and improve safety issues
related to the driveway.
-Design a structure, driveway and drain field having less impact on the erodible
soils/slopes and safe use of Eden Prairie Road.
3
1
ACTION: The Board may wish to choose from one of the following actions:
1. Approve Variance Request#99-01 as submitted
2. Approve Variance Request#99-01 with conditions. (See paragraph
below)
3. Continue Variance Request#99-01 if additional information is needed.
4. Deny Variance Request#99-01
(see paragraph below)
If the Board chooses to approve the variance, staff recommends the following conditions be
met prior to building permit issuance:
1. Slope ground review and approval via City Commissions and Council be
received.
2. Required land alterations and tree replacement permit and bonds be submitted.
3. A scenic easement document acceptable to city to be filed upon the steep
slopes of the property.
4. Necessary road right-of-way along Eden Prairie Road be dedicated to the city.
If the Board chooses to deny the variance, the following findings and conclusions may apply:
1. The applicant failed to demonstrate an unnecessary hardship if the variances
were not granted.
2. The property circumstances were self created.
3. The applicants have not demonstrated that denial of the variances will deprive
them of all reasonable uses of the property.
4. The driveway movements created will be hazardous to owner and the publics'
health, welfare and safety, particularly during winter conditions.
5. Granting the requested variances will set precedent contrary to the city's
Rural District purpose and intent.
s.rbvc,\bo.\9901.ffr
I
APPROVED MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS & APPEALS
THURSDAY, JANUARY 14, 1999 7:30 PM, CITY CENTER
Council Chamber
8080 Mitchell Road
BOARD: Kathy Nelson, William Ford, Cliff
Dunham, Louis Giglio, Mary Vasaly,
Michael O'Leary.
STAFF: Jean Johnson,Zoning Administrator
James Merrill, Recorder
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m.
ROLL CALL
The following members were present: William Ford, Cliff Dunham, Kathy Nelson, Louis
Giglio, Mary Vasaly. Michael O'Leary arrived at 7:35 p.m.; Ismail Ismail was absent.
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION/SECOND: Giglio/Vasaly, approval of the Agenda. Motion carried 5-0.
H. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Minutes of December 10, 1998
MOTION/SECOND: Giglio/Vasaly, approval of the minutes. Motion carried 5-0.
III: VARIANCES
A. Request 99-01 by Stephen and Kimberly Niosi for the northeast corner of US
169/212 and Eden Prairie Road for approval to construct a single family home on
1.2 acres having a side yard setback of 20 feet (city code requires Rural lots
existing as of July 6, 1982 to be a minimum size of 5 acres for a single family
dwelling and the minimum side yard setback is 50 feet)
Perry Ryan(Ryan Engineering) home address is 430 Lafayette Avenue,
Excelsior, presenting as the engineer and new owner of the lot.
Mr. Ryan expressed the points that he believes are important about this property.
This property was before the board in the summer of 1995. Mr. Ryan pointed out
some of the changes since then. The land is currently vacant. There are some oak
trees, and pine trees on the site.
A portion of the property is within the MUSA. Percolation tests indicate the area
is suitable for a drain field.
Mr. Ryan requested the Board to approve the variance as is so the property could
develop in a similar fashion as the surrounding properties. He further noted no
additional land was for sale.
To minimize the variance, Mr. Ryan stated one thing to be done was to take the
home and move it 20 feet northerly, and that puts it at 10 percent grade on the
driveway, which is still less than the city maximum allowable, which is 12
percent. If everything shifts 20 feet to the north, we can take a 20-foot
conservation easement which basically goes right at the top of the slope and put a
20-foot conservation easement over the southern 20 feet of the lot.
Erosion control along the city street and HWY 212 would be a combination of silt
and wood fiber blanket where appropriate. Mr. Ryan proposed the hard surface
runoff will be directed north, proposing to catch the runoff from the house via
gutters and direct that to the north, so it does not go down these slopes towards
212.
Mary Vasaly inquired about the properties that were built prior to the time the
five acre minimum land took effect. Mr. Ryan pointed out properties within one-
eighth mile, they were all built before the five acre minimum. Referring to
variance 95-24, Vasaly asked what was the hardship stated at that time, the details
of granting that variance. Mr. Ryan responded there was a structure on that
property, maybe an old structure. Vasaly asked Mr. Ryan to clarify his hardship.
Mr. Ryan stated there are two variances, one is lot size and one is setback. The
adjacent landowner will not sell additional land, which is the hardship.
Jean Johnson gave her report to the Board. The two variances are the lot size 1.2
acres, code minimum of five and the setback, 20 versus the 50 in the code. The
issues are the driveway still remains a dangerous situation on this portion of the
road which has a high number of accidents. The turning movements could cause
difficulties for people entering the property and for those traveling on the road.
Mr. Ryan has reviewed some of the options that were in the report. The first
option was to consider development on this property when there is a rezoning and
when there is city sewer and water available to the property. The second issue
was to attempt to acquire additional land, and then to look at the design features
that would be more conducive to the site which is very steep. The property is
characterized by loose, non-cohesive soil, so all steps that can be taken will have
to be taken when the site is developed because there is a high concern for
erosion. Additional material for this request related to the 1995 request is in the
Board's packet. If the Board chooses to approve the variance or deny the
variance request, there are recommended conditions in the staff report.
Kathy Nelson requested more information on the reference to the Spring Road
variance.
Johnson responded the variance site already contained a structure. The applicant
requested to remove the old house and build a new house. No additional
dwellings in the rural area on a substandard lot was approved.
William Ford asks the status of the MUSA zone.
Jean Johnson stated the MUSA has been extended into southwestern Eden Prairie
and the sewer and water lines are about a mile away.
Mr. Dunham made mention of the property line to the center of the road. Johnson
responded additional background work will need to be done.
Kathy Nelson opened the public hearing.
Dean Edstrom, 10132 Eden Prairie Road, also own the lot that is adjacent to the
variance site. Mr. Edstrom objects to the proposed variance. This request is
similar to the variance request three years ago. That request was denied. It was
appealed to City Council, and the Board's decision was upheld.
Mr. Edstrom believed the variance procedure is inappropriate for what is being
requested here. That five acre minimum was in place before the acquisition of the
property and owners are deemed to take such ordinances that are in place at the
time they do the acquisition. Any hardship that is involved is self-inflicted. It is
inconsistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance to grant a variance of this
nature, on this type of property.
Mr. Edstrom noted the road is a steep and icy in the winter, and has numerous
accidents. He also noted Eden Prairie Road may be a cul-de-sac in the future.
Edstrom stated the MUSA line barely touches this property. In effect, the small
touching of the MUSA line of this property does not justify putting a house on the
steep slope.
Scooter Hill, 10131 Eden Prairie Road. Mr. Hill stated he lives to the east and is
against the variance. Mr. Hill states any development down there is going to
encourage sewer and water, and states there is a perfectly fine well system down
there, and does not want sewer and water. Mr. Hill stated others are prepared to
come forward, depending on if the variance is granted.
Dan-il Peterson, 18700 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie. Mr. Peterson states he
has lived in Eden Prairie his entire life, and is a property owner. Mr. Peterson
believes in property rights and that the City should give Mr. Ryan direct use of his
property as he sees fit.
Being no further comments, the Chair closed the public hearing on this.
Mary Vasaly stated she believes the City's Zoning Ordinance is reasonable. The
Road situation is dangerous, and the large deviation from the code is contrary to
the City Code intent and purpose.
Mr. Giglio stated this is an extreme variance, and it is self- inflicted plight. Mr.
Ryan purchased this land and has been involved in this process for three years and
certainly couldn't have gone into it without knowledge.
Mr. Dunham stated he sat on the Board in 1995 when the issue came up before.
The major issue on this whole thing is the safety issue. Development may be
more appropriate when and if Eden Prairie Road is cul-de-sacd.
Mr. Ford stated he is against granting the degree of variance. There are
surrounding lots with similar acreage but those met code at the time.
Kathy Nelson stated she was on this road a couple years ago in the middle of
winter when it was icy, she, like may drivers, was unaware of the steepness and
degree of curves. This is a dangerous situation to add a driveway. Ms. Nelson
indicated the owner knew the property's limitations. A hardship is something
usually specific to the property, not simply because you bought something
undersized. Ms. Nelson stated she is not in favor of granting this variance.
Michael O'Leary stated he concurs with the previous statements.
MOTION:
Vasaly moved the board deny the variance request No. 99-01 with the following
findings and conclusions: (Seconded by Giglio)
1. The applicant failed to demonstrate an unnecessary hardship if the
variances were not granted.
2. The property circumstances were self created.
3. The applicants have not demonstrated that denial of the variances will
deprive them of all reasonable uses of the property.
4. The driveway movements created will be hazardous to owner and the
publics' health, welfare and safety, particularly during winter conditions.
5. Granting the requested variances will set precedent contrary to the city's
Rural District purpose and intent.
The motion carrried 6:0.
ADJOURNMENT
Dunham moved, Ford seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 9:35PM. Motion carried.
barb\jean\boa\rninutes\99\1-14.99b
0
10133 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie,MN 55347
January 14, 1999
City of Eden Prairie
City Center
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie,MN 55344
Attention: Board of Appeals and Adjustments
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am writing with reference to a pending request for a variance as submitted by Stephen
and Kimberly Niosi with respect to a 1.2 acre parcel located at the intersection of Eden Prairie
Road and Highway 212 in Eden Prairie. The application is scheduled to come before the Board
of Appeals and Adjustments on Thursday,January 14, 1999.
I oppose the variance requested and will oppose any petition for rezoning that the
applicant may submit.
The request in question is substantially identical to a request made and heard by the
Board of Appeals and Adjustments on July 13, 1995. The Board denied the request at that time.
The proponent appealed the decision of the Board to the City Council and the City Council
denied the request on September 5, 1995.
In addition to considerations which I will address orally at your meeting this evening, I
am enclosing for your reference a copy of my letter to the City dated July 13, 1995 which deals
with some of the major legal and policy issues relevant to the request and which the Board and
City Council considered in 1995.
'Thank you for your consideration of our position on this request.
Very trul yours,
i2a/ti"
ean R.Edstrom
cc: Dr. and Mrs. Ralph R. Nielson
Mr. and Mrs. Jack Provo
Mrs. Donna Knight ,r
Mr. and Mrs. James Van Winkle
Mr. and Mrs. Hibbert Hill,Jr.
•
10133 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
July 13, 1995
City of Eden Prairie
City Center
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Attention: Mayor and City Council
Board of Appeals and Adjustments
City Manager
City Attorney
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am writing with reference to a pending request for a variance as submitted by Stephen
and Kimberly Niosi with respect to a 1.2 acre parcel located at the intersection of Eden Prairie
Road and Highway 169/212 in Eden Prairie. The application is scheduled to come before the
Board of Appeals and Adjustments on Thursday, July 13, 1995.
I oppose the variance requested and will oppose any petition for rezoning that the
applicant may submit. Since I am likely to be unable to attend the hearing, I am writing this
letter to set forth my position in the matter.
First, as many of you know, I have strenuously opposed the granting of variances and
rezonings with respect to parcels of less than 5 acres in the rural zone of the City. Similarly,
I have been concerned about the necessity to maintain the effectiveness and enforceability of the
City's ordinances and provisions of the City Code relating to zoning by avoiding actions which
would call into question the standards set forth in the City's ordinances or Code or the City's
application of those standards.
There is no question that the zoning provisions of the Eden Prairie City Code apply to
the property in question and that under the Code the parcel is zoned as a "rural" property.
The purposes of the zoning provisions of the City Code are stated as follows
(emphasis added):
SECTION 11.01. OBJECTIVES. This Chapter is adopted to protect and to
promote the public health, safety, peace, comfort, convenience, prosperity, and general
welfare, and specifically to achieve the rfollowing objectives:
/ 0
City of Eden Prairie
July 13, 1995
Page 2
(1) to assist in the implementation of the City Comprehensive Guide Plan
as amended;
(2) to foster a harmonious, convenient workable relationship among land uses;
(3) to promote the stability of existing land uses that conform with the Guide
Plan and to protect them from inharmonious influences and harmful intrusions;
(4) to insure that public and private lands ultimately are used for the purposes
which are most appropriate and most beneficial from the standpoint of the City as
a whole;
(5) to prevent excessive population densities and over-crowding of the land
with structures;
(6) to promote a safe, effective traffic circulation system;
(7) to foster the provision of adequate off-street parking and off-street truck-
loading facilities;
(8) to facilitate the appropriate location of community facilities and
institutions;
(9) to provide human and physical resources of sufficient quantity and quality
to sustain needed public services and facilities;
(10) to protect and enhance real property values; and,
(11) to safeguard and enhance the appearance of the City, including natural
amenities of hills, woods, lakes, and ponds.
With respect to parcels in the rural zone, the Code establishes particular purposes and uses as
follows (emphasis added):
SEC. 11.10. R - RURAL DISTRICT.
Subd. 1. Purposes. The purposes of the R-Rural District are to:
(1) Prevent premature urban development of certain lands which eventually
will be appropriate for urban uses, until the installation of drainage works, streets.
utilities, and community facilities and the ability to objectively determine and project
appropriate land use patterns makes orderly development possible;
)l
City of Eden Prairie
July 13, 1995
Page 3
(2) Permit the conduct of certain agricultural pursuits on land in the City;
(3) Ensure adequate light, air, and privacy for each dwelling unit, and to
provide adequate separation between dwellings and facilities for housing animals.
Subd. 2. Permitted Uses.
A. Agriculture, accessory and related uses.
B. Public facilities and services.
C. Single family detached dwellings and accessory structures on parcels of
not less than 10 acres.
D. Single family detached dwellings and accessory structures on parcels of
five or more acres, as of July 6, 1982.
E. Commercial stables.
F. Golf courses.
It is also pertinent to note the general purposes for which municipal planning. including
zoning ordinances, are authorized. Minnesota Statutes Section 462.351 provides as follows
(emphasis added):
462.351. Municipal planning and development; statement of policy.
The legislature finds that municipalities are faced with mounting problems in providing
means of guiding future development of land so as to insure a safer, more pleasant and
more economical environment for residential, commercial, industrial and public
activities, to preserve agricultural and other open lands, and to promote the public health,
safety. and general welfare. Municipalities can prepare for anticipated changes and by
such preparations bring about significant savings in both private and public expenditures.
Municipal planning, by providing public guides to future municipal action, enables other
public and private agencies to plan their activities in harmony with the municipality's
plans. Municipal planning will assist in developing lands more wisely to serve citizens
more effectively, will make the provision of public services less costly, and will achieve
a more secure tax base. It is the purpose of sections 462.351 to 462.364 to provide
municipalities, in a single body of law, with the necessary powers and a uniform
procedure for adequately conducting and implementing municipal planning.
I �
City of Eden Prairie
July 13, 1995
Page 4
The grant of a variance or rezoning with respect to the parcel in question would
contravene the basic provisions and purposes of the zoning provisions of the City Code in
several respects. The principal objections are set forth below.
I. INAPPLICABILITY OF THE
VARIANCE PROCEDURE
The parcel in question is 1.2 acres in size. The applicant requests a variance which
would permit the construction of a residential dwelling on the parcel. Under the City Code a
variance is not a proper procedure to permit the construction of a dwelling on a parcel of such
size in the rural zone. This is because the size limitation, whether 5 acres or 10 acres, as the
case may be, is contained in the permitted use description in the provisions of Section 11.10 of
the Code, which use is not subject to change by the variance procedure. The definition of
"variance" in Section 11.02(52) of the Code is as follows (emphasis added):
52. "Variance" - A modification or variation of the provisions of this Chapter
as applied to a specific piece of property, except that modification in the
allowable uses within a district shall not be considered a variance.
Moreover, Section 11.76 of the Code relating to the jurisdiction of the Board of Appeals and
Adjustments states as follows (emphasis added):
SEC. 11.76. VARIANCES.
Subd. 1. Purposes and Authorization.
Variance from the literal provisions of this Chapter may be granted in instances
where the strict enforcement of those provisions would cause undue hardship
because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration,
and such variances may be granted only when it is determined that such action
will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Chapter. "Undue hardship"
as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in
question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the
official controls, the plight of the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will
not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone
shall not -onstitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists
under the terms of this Chapter. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited
to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall
be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined by statute when in harmony
with this Chapter. The Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not
permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's
land is located. The Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a
City of Eden Prairie
July 13, 1995
Page 5
one family dwelling as a two family dwelling. The Council may impose
conditions in the granting of variances to ensure compliance and to protect
adjacent properties.
Section 2.11 of the City Code relating to the organization and duties of the Board of Adjustments
and Appeals contains yet a third statement of this limitation on the power of the Board.
The general statutory authority for a Board of Appeals and Adjustments to make
determinations with respect to variances is provided in Minnesota Statutes Section 462.354,
Subd. 2, and Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357, Subd. 6, as follows (emphasis added):
Subd. 2. Board of adjustments and appeals.
The governing body of any municipality adopting or having in effect a zoning ordinance
or an official map shall provide by ordinance for a board of appeals and adjustments.
The board shall have the powers set forth in section 462.357, subdivision 6 and section
462.359, subdivision 4. Except as otherwise provided by charter, the governing body
may provide alternatively that there be a separate board of appeals and adjustments or
that the governing body or the planning commission or a committee of the planning
commission serve as the board of appeals and adjustments, and it may provide an
appropriate name for the board. The board may be given such other duties as the
governing body may direct.
In any municipality where the council does not serve as the board, the governing body
may, except as otherwise provided by charter, provide that the decisions of the board on
matters within its jurisdiction are final subject to judicial review or are final subject to
appeal to the council and the right of later judicial review or are advisory to the council
.... In any municipality in which the planning agency does not act as the board of
adjustments and appeals, the board shall make no decision on an appeal or petition until
the planning agency, if there is one, or a representative authorized by it has had
reasonable opportunity, not to exceed 60 days, to review and report to the board of
adjustments and appeals upon the appeal or petition.
* * *
Subd. 6. Appeals and adjustments.
Appeals to the board of appeals and adjustments may be taken by any affected person
upon compliance with any reasonable conditions imposed by the zoning ordinance. The
board of appeals and adjustments has the following powers with respect to the
zoning ordinance:
LI
City of Eden Prairie
July 13, 1995
Page 6
(1) To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error
in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative
officer in the enforcement of the zoning ordinance.
(2) To hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of the
ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship
because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration.
and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will
be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship" as
used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question
cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official
controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his
property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter
the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not
constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the
terms of the ordinance .... The board of appeals and adjustments or the
governing body, as the case may be, may not permit as a variance any use that
is not permitted under the ordinance for property in the zone where the affected
person's land is located .... The board or governing body, as the case may be,
may impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to
protect adjacent properties.
Thus, our initial objection to this proceeding is based upon the fact that the requested
variance would constitute a variance in the use regulations for the rural district. The foregoing
provisions clearly state that the power to grant variances does not extend to use regulations, and
it is quite clear that the power of the Board does not extend to permit a variance with respect
to the request made in this instance.
The appropriate procedure which the applicant would be required to pursue in order to
construct a dwelling on the parcel in question is an application for rezoning rather than the
variance procedure. As I have stated earlier, I would oppose a petition for rezoning of the
parcel to any residential zoning classification as well. There are several reasons why no change,
either by way of variance or zoning, should be permitted. These reasons are set forth in the
remaining sections of this letter.
II. APPLICANT HAS NO LEGAL RIGHT
TO A VARIANCE OR REZONING
The owners of the property have no grandfather or other rights which would override the
zoning provisions of the City Code. The present owners acquired the parcel sometime in 1984
or later. Ordinance No. 135 which sets forth the 5 acre minimum requirement for parcels in
the rural zone was adopted in November, 1969. It is settled law that a purchaser is deemed to
1s
City of Eden Prairie
July 13, 1995
Page 7
have knowledge of applicable zoning ordinances in effect at the time that he acquires the
property. The fact that a purchaser may not have known of the ordinance, or misunderstood its
applicability, or was misled with respect thereto, has no bearing on the applicability of the
ordinance or the rights of the municipality or the adjacent owners to enforce the ordinance.
State v. Modern Box Makers. Inc., 217 Minn. 41, 13 N.W.2d 731 (1944); State ex rel.
Howard v. Village of Roseville, 244 Minn. 343, 70 N.W.2d 404 (1955).
The history of the parcel in question also demonstrates the lack of any equitable or
grandfather rights in the purchaser. The parcel was originally attached to the 1.3 acre parcel
immediately to the east and was beneficially owned by one individual. Prior to the division of
the property and transfer of the easterly parcel in 1964, the overall property was large enough
on which to construct a single family residence in a rural district under the zoning ordinance
then in effect which required a minimum of 2.5 acres for residential construction in the rural
zone. The parcel in question has been sold at least three times since the division of the property
and at least twice since the 5 acre minimum was adopted by the City. (The easterly parcel, of
which my wife and I are the present owners, remains vacant land.) Neither the division of the
parcels in 1964 nor the subsequent separate sales of the parcel in question could create any
special rights in the purchaser under the zoning ordinances in effect at the times in question.
Olsen v. City of Hopkins, 288 Minn. 25, 178 N.W.2d 719 (1970). Rather, the fact that a parcel
was in cormon ownership with abutting property at the time of the adoption of a restrictive
zoning ordinance affirmatively defeats any claim of right or hardship with respect to such parcel.
Dedering v. Johnson, 307 Minn. 327, 239 N.W.2d 913 (1976). See also Vetter v. Zoning
Board of Appeal of Attleboro, 116 N.E.2d 277 (Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. 1953); Raia v. Board of
Appeals of North Reading, 347 N.E.2d 694 (App. Ct. Mass. 1976).
Even if the purchaser misunderstood or was misled with respect to the applicability of
Ordinance No. 135 or the City Code or the availability of a building permit, no estoppel or
equitable arguments will overcome the fundamental rights of the City and adjacent owners to
enforce the provisions and purposes of the Ordinance and City Code. Kiges v. City of St. Paul,
24: Minn. 522, 62 N.W.2d 363 (1953); Arcadia Development Corp. v. City of Bloomington,
267 Minn. 221, 125 N.W.2d 846 (1964); Jasaka Company v. City of St. Paul, 309 N.W.2d
40 (1981).
Furthermore, even if the owner had expended significant funds on the property, or paid
more than the property was worth in view of the zoning provisions in effect on the date of
purchase, no relief for the owner is warranted under the law. State ex rel. Howard v. Village
of Roseville, supra; Newcomb v. Teske, 225, 30 N.W.2d 354 (1948); McCavic v. DeLuca, 233
Minn. 372, 46 N.W.2d 873 (1951). See also Kiges v. City of St. Paul, supra; Raia v. Board
of Appeals of North Reading, supra.
City of Eden Prairie
July 13, 1995
Page 8
III. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
The City must also, of course, consider the impact on it and its residents of permitting
growth contrary to the City Code in rural areas. Such growth would (1) be inconsistent with
the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan, (2) contravene the policies of the Metropolitan Council
which discourage development in areas not served by water and sewer facilities, and (3) make
more likely pollution problems as a consequence of the proximity of private septic facilities to
wells in the porous soil that is typical of the area. These are some of the relevant considerations
of health, safety, order, convenience and general welfare which form the basis of the purposes
of the Rural District designation in the City Code and which form the basis for the enforcement
thereof and the denial of non-conforming uses on property covered thereby.
The application must be judged in terms of the specific criteria set forth in the enabling
legislation and City Code in order for any variance to be proper. It is our position that under
these criteria, the grant of the variance would be grossly improper.
Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357, Subd. 6, which sets forth the powers of the Board
of Appeals and Adjustments, specifically provides that variances may be granted only where the
strict enforcement of the literal provisions of the ordinance "would cause undue hardship because
of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration" and "only when it is
demonstrated that such action will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance."
It is appropriate here to refer you again to the purposes of the zoning provisions of our
City Code, contained in Section 11.01 of the Code, to the particular purposes and uses permitted
for parcels in the rural zone, contained in Section 11.10 of the Code, and to the general purposes
for which principal planning is authorized, contained in Minnesota Statutes Section 462.351.
Each of these provisions are set forth on pages 1-3 of this letter. Your attention is particularly
directed to the underlined portions of those provisions.
In effect, there are three principal criteria required to be met under the Code and state
statute in order to grant a variance. The burden is on the applicant to establish the satisfaction
of each of these conditions. We do not believe the applicant can sustain his position with respect
to any of these criteria. The criteria, and pertinent considerations related to each of them, are
as follows:
1. Strict interpretation or enforcement would result in an undue
hardship, and the cost of compliance cannot be the sole reason to grant
a variance.
This test needs to be measured in terms of the intent of the ordinance. Here, refusing
the variance would effectuate the very purposes of the ordinance as set forth in Sections 11.01
and 11.10 of the City Code. Any hardship created to the applicant would be consistent with,
City of Eden Prairie
July 13, 1995
Page 9
rather than inconsistent with, the intents and purposes of the Code and the City's Comprehensive
Guide Plan.
Whatever hardship the applicant may incur is self-created. The 5 acre minimum size
requirement of the ordinance was in effect at the time the applicant purchased the property. It
is well settled that ignorance of an ordinance or its provisions does not create any special right
to relief from those provisions.
In fact, the grant of a variance in this case would very likely create a windfall through
the significant appreciation of the value of the property. To allow a variance in such a case
would completely reverse and debase the variance standards of the Code.
2. There are circumstances unique to the individual property which create a
practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship.
There are no unique circumstances which apply to the property in question. The property
is not of an unusual configuration as in many variance requests, and the nature of the terrain is
not the circumstance which motivates the request. The fact that the parcel falls far short of the
basic minimum requirements of the Code is neither the type of unique circumstance contem-
plated by the ordinance nor is it unique to this property. The hardship, if any, in this case is
a legal impediment under the Code, not a practical difficulty or physical hardship. There are
several other parcels even in the immediate area which would no doubt apply for similar
variances if this one is granted. There is nothing different about this parcel which distinguishes
it from all other surrounding undeveloped land, all of which is being held subject to the same
restrictions in the Code that apply to this parcel.
Enforcement of the Code would not deprive the applicants of the use of their land in any
arbitrary manner. Other developed parcels in the area, at the time they were developed,
complied with the 5 acre standard of Ordinance No. 135 or with the standards imposed by the
ordinances in effect at the time those properties were developed.
In fact, the grant of a variance in this case would constitute a special privilege because
all other owners had to comply with the minimum size requirements under Ordinance No. 135
or prior ordinances. In many cases, this necessitated the acquisition of sufficient acreage to
enable the construction of a home..
It would also constitute a special privilege vis-a-vis holders of large tracts of undeveloped
land in the area who could reasonably argue that based upon the grant of a variance to the
applicant, they should be entitled to divide their properties into parcels of less than 5 acres
as well.
City of Eden Prairie
July 13, 1995
Page 10
3. Any variance granted must be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the
provisions of the Code and consistent with the objectives of the zoning chapter
in the Code.
In this case, the spirit and intent of the zoning provisions of the City Code are set forth
in the objectives of the zoning provisions in Section 11.01 and Section 11.10 of the City Code
quoted above. The proposed variance would do violence to those purposes in the
following manner:
a. It, and similar requests for variances which have been made in the past
and would certainly arise again in the future, would disrupt the orderly
development of the City by increasing growth in an area not suited for present
development under the Comprehensive Guide Plan.
b. It would be inconsistent with and destabilize existing land uses in the area.
c. It would be premature in view of the lack of water, sewer and improved
road services.
d. The location of a private driveway access on the steep curve of Eden
Prairie Road would make even more dangerous that already very accident-prone
roadway. This would be particularly true in the winter when the hill where the
driveway would be located is rendered exceedingly dangerous by the presence of
compacted snow and ice. No sight line distance is enough in such conditions.
The driveway configured on the applicants' site plan, with a grade that appears
to exceed greatly the stated 12% average grade where it meets Eden Prairie Road,
would create a major hazard to both users of the driveway and traffic on the road.
e. It would have a negative impact on existing real property values by an
adverse impact on residences in the vicinity. First, septic facilities established by
the applicants and by potential similar applicants could have a harmful effect on
the well water currently used by all of the residents of the area. Secondly,
development of this and similar acreage could have a generally adverse effect on
groundwater, wells and springs in the porous soil of the area.
f. It would represent an intrusion into a naturally rural, wooded and
grassland bluff area. The parcel is part of sensitive bluff lands which the City
has identified to be of natural and environmental significance. The slope of the
site and nature of the soils on the parcel make it unsuitable for any form of
construction. The positioning of a residence on the site and the provision of
driveway access would require major alteration to the terrain, further exacerbating
the fragility of the slope and soils, particularly in areas downslope from structures
City of Eden Prairie
July 13, 1995
Page 11
and impervious surfaces. Existing residences in the area are, for the most part,
set back from the actual bluff slope and constructed on far more stable soils.
g. It would generate premature urban development prior to the installation
of adequate water, sewer, drainage, streets, utilities and other facilities and be
inconsistent with the orderly development of the community.
h. This type of development would make necessary on a much more
immediate time schedule water and sewer facilities and improved roads, the
availability of which is not presently assured.
i. It, and similar requests, would hasten the demise of agricultural pursuits
in the southwestern area of Eden Prairie.
It is also pertinent in this connection to consider the impact of the policies of the
Metropolitan Council on this matter. The tract in question is outside the metropolitan urban
service area. It remains uncertain whether urban sewage facilities will be extended to this
parcel. The Metropolitan Council has made clear that it expects municipalities to cooperate in
discouraging unwarranted development of areas outside the urban service area. The acts of the
legislature establishing and empowering the Metropolitan Council should be taken into account
by the City in any determination which would have a negative impact on the policies of the
Metropolitan Council.
The City must also be aware that in the event a petition for variance or rezoning is
allowed in this instance, doubt could be cast upon the City's willingness to enforce the zoning
provisions of the Code with respect to other parcels in the rural zone which do not comply with
the City Code. I understand that there may be as many as 10 to 15 such parcels in the City,
including several in the immediate neighborhood of the parcel in question and in the sensitive
bluff area of the southerly portion of the City. While it is our position that no failure on the part
of the City to enforce the provisions of the Code should have any impact on the enforceability
of the Code in other instances, it would certainly not be wise policy to invite attack by failing
to give effect to the Code.
IV. REMEDIES FOR ADJACENT LANDOWNERS
The grant of a variance and issuance of a building permit by the City under these
circumstances would be void and could be contested by adjacent landowners. As stated in
Lowry v. City of Mankato, 231 Minn. 108, 42 N.W.2d 553 (1950):
A building permit issued in violation of a zoning ordinance by an official lacking
power to alter or vary the ordinance is void, and a zoning regulation may be
enforced notwithstanding the fact that the permittee may have commenced
6
City of Eden Prairie
July 13, 1995
Page 12
building operations .... The reason given for the rule by the authorities is that
both the granting of a permit and the varying of a zoning restriction involves the
exercise of governmental power, which cannot be exercised by an officer upon
whom it has not been conferred or set at naught by the action of a property owner
proceeding in defiance thereof .... A private property owner injured by the
violation, as here, is entitled to injunctive relief.
As stated in State ex rel. Howard, supra.:
The principles governing the situation are well established. Generally, it is held
that, where a permit has been issued by an authorized officer under a mistake of
fact and contrary to zoning ordinances, it confers no privilege on the person to
whom it is issued and even though the latter may have taken some action
thereunder with the incurment of expenses, it may, nevertheless, be revoked."
V. POSITION OF THE CITY
In view of the foregoing discussion, we believe that the position the City of Eden Prairie
should take in this matter is one which upholds the validity of the City Code and does not place
a burden of enforcement of the City Code on residents of the City. The burden to contest the
position of the City should be placed on the person who disputes the validity of the City Code,
not on those who seek to enforce it.
The position which the City of Eden Prairie should adopt in this matter is based on the
facts that (1) there is no language in the zoning provisions of the City Code which entitle the
applicant to secure a variance or building permit since the parcel does not comply with the
minimum required by the Code, and (2) nothing in the Code provides for or suggests the
existence of any grandfather rights which would apply to purchasers of a parcel of less than 5
acres in size subsequent to the effectiveness of Ordinance No. 135.
As stated above, there are no grandfather or other equitable rights recognized in the law
which would apply in these circumstances. Moreover, it is our position that no prior action or
statement by the City staff which may have been inconsistent with the Ordinance overrides the
applicability of the Code or the right of the City or its residents to enforce it.
If the City, through some fear of litigation or otherwise, fails to enforce the Code, the
consequences would be both unfortunate and incongruous. First, it would require residents
opposing a variance or building permit to sue the City to enforce their rights. Second, as you
may be aware, an injunction action normally requires the posting of a bond which could be both
sizable and expensive, a burden which should not be placed on residents seeking to enforce the
City Code. Finally, it would leave the'position of the City in the action ambiguous at best.
What would the City do? Remain passive in the action because it had no firm view of the law
City of Eden Prairie
July 13, 1995
Page 13
on the matter? It would seem incongruous for the City to take action and then not defend that
action in court. But, it would be equally incongruous for the City to take an active role in
seeking to defeat the applicability of its own Code when the requirements of the Code are clear.
These incredible results would be due to a failure on the part of the City to determine its course
of action solely on the basis of well supported legal considerations.
Allow me to summarize our views in this matter. First, the variance procedure is
inappropriate under the law for the request being made. A request for rezoning is the only
applicable procedure under the City Code and state law. Second, it is our position that the
zoning provisions of the City Code ought to be enforced by the City in terms of the plain words
and policies contained therein. Third, the grant of a variance or rezoning in this case would do
violence to the policies of health, safety and welfare underlying the zoning provisions of the City
Code and would be improper under the provisions of Minnesota law relating to variances.
Fourth, the practical effects on the City and on nearby residents of a grant of a variance or
rezoning would be harmful. Fifth, as set forth above, under the law no prior inconsistent
activity on the part of the staff of the City can have any bearing on the applicability of the Code.
Sixth, if the applicants for the permit intend to assert some constitutional or other equitable right
which they allege should make the Code inapplicable, they should be required to establish that
right through a mandamus action commenced by themselves. Seventh, perhaps most important,
the City should not put Eden Prairie residents in the position of having to enforce the provisions
of the City Code. Enforcement of the City Code is the business of the City administration, and
it should not abdicate that responsibility or burden to its residents. Finally, we believe it is the
responsibility of the City to make a conclusion with respect to this matter on the basis of the law
applicable, not based on determinations of what its past practices may have been, not in terms
of assertions by the applicant not supported in the law, not due to "trade-offs" with the applicant,
and not in terms of tactical or expense considerations with respect to any litigation which
may ensue.
If you have any questions regarding this letter or our position in the matter, please feel
free to contact me.
Thank you for your consideration of our views on this matter.
Very truly yours,
can R. Edstrom
cc: Dr. and Mrs. Ralph R. Nielson
Mr. and Mrs. Jack Provo
Mr. and Mrs. Richard Knight
Mr. James Van Winkle a
Mr. and Mrs. Hibbert Hill, Jr. DRE:88812:h1
"MINNESOTA RIVERVIEW"
Eden Prairie, Minnesota
PID#29-116-22-43-0006
Proposed by:
RYAN ENGINEERING, INC.
December 10, 1998
REOUEST
Stephen&Kimberly Niosi are requesting approval from the Board of Adjustments&
Appeals to develop their 1.23 Acre Lot for a single family home.
ADJACENT PROPERTIES
The property is bordered on the west and north by Eden Prairie Road and on the south by
Highway No. 212 & 169. The eastern border is a 1.25 acre vacant lot owned by Mr.
Dean Edstrom.
SITE CONDITIONS
Topography is gently sloping with the north and east side of the property at a high
elevation of 820.0 and the south side of the property at the right of way of Highway No.
212 & 169 at an approximate elevation of 774.0.
Soils are considered suitable for the type of development proposed and for the drainfield
proposed. Included as part of the submittal package is the PERC TEST AND SEPTIC
DESIGN performed by Mr. Gary Staber. Per Mr. Staber's design, the soils are suitable to
construct a 1,500 gallon septic tank and a 1,002 square foot drainfield. This design serves
a 4 bedroom home as proposed.
The site is currently vacant land. There are several Oak trees on the site. The proposed
driveway layout and site grading is designed to maximize the sight line safety for ingress
and egress and minimise the loss of these trees. The trees shown as removed on the Tree
Inventory and Replacement plan were necessary due to the revised driveway location for
the sight line safety and also decreasing the driveway slope to 8.9% onto Eden Prairie
Road.
RYAN ENGINEERING,INC. "MINNESOTA RIVERVIEW"
y^1 of 3 3 Eden Prairie.MN
PROPOSAL
The Owner is proposing to develop 1 single family residential lot on the 1.23 acre parcel
The area is currently zoned for minimum 5 acre parceL The proposed home location is
designed to minimize grading on the parcel and also work in conjunction with the
proposed driveway location. The driveway has been designed to maintain a maximum
centerline slope of 8.9% (Eden Prairie max= 12%) and meet perpendicular with Eden
Prairie Road.
SIGHT DISTANCES
The speed limit of Eden Prairie Road at this access point is 30 MPH officially with 15
MPH warning signs on either side of the site. We have revised the site plan and driveway
location from the previous proposal and moved the driveway northerly. Through several
meetings with Mr. Rod Rue (during 1995 proposal),Assistant City Engineer,we were
instructed to maintain a sight distance of 300' south, and 250' north. The reason for these
differences is the different speeds traveled on the roadway in either direction.
Engineering Department staff did complete a traffic study in the area and found that
speeds traveling southerly decreased at the curve east of the site therefore this sight
distance is less to the north. Sight lines are shown on the Grading&Erosion Control Plan
which illustrate that the sight distance requirements are being met. Also note the sight line
profiles illustrating this.
Upon study of the adjacent properties north of this property,we found the following to be
true. At 10129 and 10131 E.P. Rd. the sight vision distance (svd) is about 100' to the
north and 150' south. The next property north has less than 100' svd both ways, 10100
E.P. Rd on the west side of E.P. Rd. has less than 50' south and less than 100' north svd,
and at 10065 E.P. Rd which is outside the 15 MPH speed limit zone,there is
approximately 150' svd both ways.
Based upon these observations and what we are proposing to construct in accordance
with the help from the City's Engineering Department,we feel that this area will be not
only safe for the homeowner,but also much safer for the general traffic through this area.
LANDSCAPING
Landscaping is proposed on both sides of the proposed driveway, around the proposed
home, and near the well location. The proposed landscaping meets all requirements of
tree replacement.
MUSA BOUNDARY
The parcel is now within the MUSA boundary within the City of Eden Prairie. Although
it is proposed that the property will be served by sewer and water through a private well
and septic system, it is anticipated that the property would hook up to pubLic sanitary
sewer which is proposed to be extended down Eden Prairie Rd. in the future. This
connection would take place at the time of sanitary sewer construction at the discretion of
the homeowner. We have shown two drainfield locations on the plan.
RYAN ENGINEERING,INC. "MINNESOTA RIVERVIEW"
Page 2 of 3 a �- Eden Prairie,MN
PRECEDENCE SET
We feel that on the two critical issues, precedence has been set within the City.
LOT SIZE
As stated above,the property contains 1.23 acres more or less. The property is
grandfathered into the 5 acre minimum lot size requirement for rural lots. On this issue,
believe that the City of Eden Prairie has already approved lots in tEs category. In
part:-..iar, a lot at 9900 Sring Road. This lot gained approval through variance#95-24.
The arcel was originally.75 acres(non-conforming) and it was increased to 1.45 acres
and granted approval for development.
Also,this property now falls within the MUSA boundary as set forth by the Met Council
:..id City of Eden Prairie. Based upon this MUSA expansion,the property could
technically be developed as low density residential with density up to 2.5 units per acre.
This equates to 3 units on this parcel This was actually suggested at one point during our
meetings with the Board of Appeals in 1995.
We c feel that the property is more suited for 1 residential unit to be built upon, given the
surrounding properties. Please note the aerial within the submittal package that shows
several surrounding properties that are on 1-2 acre parcels.
;ANTT': &RY SEWER
3n the issue of sanitary sewer connection, again we feel that the City has set precedence.
The City has allowed other properties to be developed with the use of a septic system
prior to sanitary sewer being available. A particular instance is the Springer-Klooster
Addition on Terrey Pine Drive. These homes are on septic systems(near Mitchell Lake)
and they have still not connected to the sanitary sewer that has been recently installed.
VARIANCE REQUEST
As stated, a variance is being requested for lot size. We believe that not only is the
variance warranted but that it does not violate the spirit and intent of the City's Zoning
and Platting Code. Further,the Owner has a real hardship in that they are not able to
obtain additional property.
_FEE OWNER
1..:. Stephen&Kimberly Niosi
5331 Breezy Point Road
Prior Lake, MN 55372
(612) 440-2518
ENGINEER
Ryan Engineering,Inc.
430 Lafayette Avenue
Excelsior, MN 55331
(612)474-7600
RYAN ENGINEERING,INC. "NIINNESOTA RIVERVIEW"
Page 3 of 3 Eden Prairie,MN
0 PA RYAN EINCIMERINCI, INC
/
cc1N7RACTOR SHALL CALL: /
GOPHER STATE ONE CALL —
48 NRS PRIOR TV x1Ys7RUcnQY ——'
MN CITIES -0002 ——'
(.vertu I-acl-z52-1 a �
) ——
052 -
` ` iI
ss,,f..�
.•� az at
`` t`,
i ,IN2 L
%,-, . .0 ,czip,ir,:,:-. , .7.41,* (6.2x
eAl���( w/ ; 1 L•CATION
440/0// ii01IPI a I
77,40YOF
00 ),. . SA SINE-
70 p loi • - .t , Litp.v )4vr —
,; r ,.,ei 44
tit. •
06„, •.
"F.-4*-vvicritii.t .-/ vi
n•Ati/ . I IELD 1%—411k1.111.6, ' .Alliti'
i4 i * '' 44AVIAir :V all
ii0i 1,_
‘i
o , ,_� SAS{; 806
' /� o^o ayes �� , , 8042
,, \`�� g800—
\ . mAAn 798-
796
ail 1 s''N....., ii... .,,_.ir, .., 79°._._____
ftrn•ft
6 �„-p —780———_
S6 /
—
—
. 2y2 'Sp--
LEGEND & 169
wiasmilmiNimi DENOTES SILT FENCE
• --980 DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS
----980- - DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS IIIIIIIMIMMI NORTi
x BOg.O DENOTES PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION
a6
TOPOGRAPHY PROVIDED FROM I TPO BOUNDARY & 0' 30' 60' 90'
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY DATED 6/22/92
Civil Engineering + Land Planning
Environmental + Surveying RYAN
ENGINEERING
January 11, 1999
Ms. Jean Johnson • " �+�V�E#
Community Development Department r , '
City of Eden Prairie- City Center / 7
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230
Re: PID#29-116-22-43-006
Property at the NE corner of
Eden Prairie Rd. &Hwy 169
Eden Prairie, MN
Project No. 98105
Dear Ms. Johnson:
We are in receipt of your letter dated 12/14/98 and appreciate your response to our
submittal dated 12/10/98. Enclosed is our response to your comments along with
appropriate exhibits.
Please include these comments with the packet sent to the Board members. We look
forward to the meeting on 1/14/99.
If you have any questions or further information is required, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
RYAN ENGINEERING, INC.
Perry M. Ryan, P.E.
President
Enclosures
Corporate Offices: 430 Lafayette Avenue, Excelsior, MN 55331 (612) 474-7600 Office 474-1956 Fax
co,', nffiri• 1 ?d0!1 Princetnn Ave. 5o.. Suite A. Savage. MN 55378 (6171 890-6110 Office 890-6029 Fax
"MINNESOTA RIVERVIEW"
Eden Prairie,Minnesota
PUD#29-116-22-43-0006
Proposed by
RYAN ENGINEERING, INC.
January 11, 1999
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION—Response to Ms.Jean Johnson letter 12/14/99
Item #1 —We have enclosed"EXHIBIT A" SITE AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
This is a color copy of the aeriel photo with the half section property lines overlayed upon
it. We feel that this illustrates the location respective of adjoining properties very well. It
also shows very well that this proposed development is in keeping with the adjacent
properties in lot size and setbacks.
Tabulation of Property Sizes within 1/8t1i mile of property:
Property ID # Property Size (Acres+/-)
29-116-22-43-006 1.23 acres (Subject Property)
29-116-22-43-004 0.9 acres
29-116-22-43-014 1.3 acres
29-116-22-43-005 0.7 acres
29-116-22-43-012 0.5 acres
29-116-22-43-016 1.0 acres
29-116-22-43-013 2.3 acres
29-116-22-44-003 4.3 acres
AVERAGE SIZE 1.52 acres
WEIGHTED AVERAGE 1.23 acres(discarding high and low)
AVERAGE EAST OF
EDEN PRAIRIE ROAD 1.13 acres
RYAN ENGINEERING,INC. "MINNESOTA RIVERVIEW"
Page 1 of 3 Eden Prairie,MN
Item#3—Undue Hardships:
As noted in the narrative submitted in the 12/10/98 request,the hardship involved is that
adjacent property is not available to purchase to conform to the 5 acre minimum lot size.
It is our understanding that the Board has authority to grant approvals through this
process to allow an Owner to utilize their property in the same manner as adjacent
property Owners. In keeping with this spirit,this variance should be approved.
Item #6—Alternatives to Lessen Variance:
Lot Size Variance—This cannot be lessened without the purchase of additional property.
The adjacent property Owner has been approached in the past and was unwilling to sell a
portion of their property. This does not appear to be an alternative to increase the lot size.
Setback Variance—We are requesting a variance for a sideyard setback on the east side
of the proposed home. The minimum side yard setback, according to code for rural lots,
is 50', we are proposing 20'. Due to the width limitations, we felt it would be more
appropriate to increase the setback from Eden Prairie Road (proposed at 68')than to
move the proposed home closer to the roadway. In reviewing the aerial photo of the area,
this seems to be in concert with the adjacent parcels. Further, it appeared to be obtrusive
to Eden Prairie Road if the home was moved westerly. We would be open to any
suggestions the Board may have to lessen this variance.
Other information requested:
• We are unsure of the exact location of the adjoining property's wells. Based upon
existing data, however,the minimum horizontal distance would be near 500'.
• The proposed retaining wall would be approximately 8' high at the highest point.
Enclosed is the proposed design for the retaining wall.
• Erosion Control along the City Street and US 212 will be a combination of silt fence
and wood fiber blanket where appropriate. As with all developments which we have
been involved with in the City of Eden Prairie,we will design in accordance with the
MPCA's Best Management Practices (BMP's) and also in accordance with the City of
Eden Prairie's Engineering Department.
• It is proposed that all hardsurface runoff will be directed northerly as shown on the
grading plan. Further,we would propose that the home construction include full
gutters to direct runoff northerly to minimize runoff over the slopes to the south.
• Based upon the proposed Grading Plan, staging should work qutie well to protect the
traveling public's welfare and safety. As with any project, if traffic control seems
appropriate, this would be provided during any grading procedures. Again, as stated
in the narrative,the final grades proposed will greatly increase the traveling public's
safety upon completion with increased sight vision distances.
RYAN ENGINEERING,INC. "MINNESOTA RIVERVIEW"
Page 2 of 3 Eden Prairie,MN
• A Scenic Easement has been suggested in the past and would be an available
consideration.
We are submitting this for the upcoming Board of Adjustments and Appeals meeting on
January 14, 1999.
If you have any questions or further information is required,please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
RYAN ENGINEERING, INC.
Perry M. yan, P. .
President
3 �
RYAN ENGINEERING,INC. "MINNESOTA RIVERVIEW"
Pdge 3 of 3 Eden Prairie,MN
---, ---- ---.. .------,- - ----;_.. -- .il.-
„. ...--,-.7,7- ---.7--7771-7- ,-- -,...„-. •;.,..---- -•,,,ii:-._,,:,.„,..,.,„ -:-„,-...ors,-•.,:e.
mg! '„J-.,-,-;.•,:,=-. ' -Yi--.=,-,- ..-:"2:::::ALI,•-,-Ift-;-- -,lok.s--. .N.t.,,...-T,-:-i-A-7:1-_,.;:.,-.,-,,„
g-, --: 4,.;:-71.-
:....,, _., .f-:-- -L_-:.- ': '' r._-_-'-',-...,.:. -.,.::.:.;:7-4-,,:\:', ": %-".:" '.Y.-21.t, 4,:;:- . '" •..•: , ,;.,.1'.,',;'•':""3";:lir&f:',•;:#1•"?.:'-:"4:-.44,..,"-!.--,•:.-,,,:f•":,-Z•'.,W; ki;'-i_44W 7,.. ;:. itt",-Ak-
t 1r1 r; ::. ::-.] :-:-- "7 - -'3/7' 7,-.• ,- --'- ''' .:-.7'-::.;--77- ,,,: " "":. '•s, ,S:,""•7- ..'''iLii:Ti...01:,R.-,4a.VOli.k%",..=1.,:•;':*;‘,.-• '-•17iflii7 k,77--;14 '' 7;:-.1 .,__,.:.
s'-'1.7.-,'.7 ' .'"•.-.1---"'"-- : s - 7'3:.•'sf-'•: 44e,=.'•'" ,7":".. 4,'Z.,.,,,.':-..31F ,ki.:- .i:JIZZ'X't4t.54.k,•.:11n4:V3 ,!:',,.•••,''7-;, ", :3-f"•;:'k,..,„3•44:,"34: '---"„7,;•t;".:;-fel*.
.'..,,..„...f. -L-:_.!..„,•,-.T..-....„A..t,,,.,.::4%-:;,, t*.---..:4 t.-, STE':-.!,,,,',. .::-.:,:4,,:::,!!`y!,Z ,,,. - i:,.; ,;!,--•,.:':-' .--,--,,„---,,.-74..,-:,,7 4 12:,,,N,v-or,„44,r-.;:-,'"f,, ... .-'-a-1- =:•:.:',4.
i
7+7%'?;-`7 -::':: : - ._-,-...,. '7-,:ks==.--:.,-..• - -#.-ti-,F-,t'',,--=,.,-- ,*,rr- 1-: --kr-A-''...." .',4i-4-;;3A .7-&-`11::4•2"-'Vl...W.,- -...t.&_,.1:,-,. .*•;e37-- -';.-'11.W.7:7-; :z.,..-:-'4;
':'--'-. '''.--'es,'----i';'-t 7t4-7.--'t-'----: -,r15- . .-.-'''--, ---'3--:" ,-7:--t.'--,--t 'kif'Sigt-3,-'.:: 3.' '.-,,,s...",, ,,,,,,.-.-,p4-7'fr::•- ‘5:::,••?;::', - - .:,,,,:_,,,,,7:-..: •',..,1-.:•.:--- :,....- ,-,..!• = ,,..4,-,,,,-_,. .,...._ ,
_,- ..0,,,_- 1-- -J-• 4%,-----._'-=1,-!--_-_ -,,. '.-.''.•••• •,.'--' "=-, •=s -:.•,,•••!,-, ',..-Vkf.,;-. .:.:A,,i-.:,::! +.4. •.'"?'•'-' ---'-
--%,,4 '-,..-- 3 "-----"'-.::-,-..--"---3.- -"-q. ,-;.".: -t-`•,:',-.*•''1'0', :14.7.7: i: .. .--- - ,,,,,,,_:,-,,L, ,,,4„-."4,,,,,34„. ., '
1--34-..--:, -,-_- --- :.s.-,-;::„.,•:,,,:%:.,z.... . ...7r-- :, z,,--,----,,--:--,-.-,4:-....-f-x:---4-.,.4---7-= - -z...--.4----,EA--
__,_- --7 ,.7' -, --"d.......*'--,.:7tt:',_,--.:;1241.3, `..', -,--r:-:;T:-4`4'-'7-.4,0L.-" t---'-r,;7";:::J.,--0,1•••.-4 4,. i',- Ai,,J...4..4 7 P_ ._, .-----.5.7•74,"-4...-it.'' '-,fz,"'....• --'',---; ""f-k-.7-'-'--•:',1.-',--1-'-i4*-",5-•-•- •ri-_,-.• ,--e.r..11,.."' --'' •-'.,''-'2L''''''''
;',,.• :•,,-.-qi--,: ,,::'--4,;;;;;m4ktizit::5,,,J.,;-';','•7- =-.,..,.. .,-,a'.----4ft,,It.'-' ,3.r:-.--li-:-:-*?''''• .. ,. ".._'--r-'17.-,--44';.
-''%-_-,,---fe- - ----it--±-:--;---:-.-- _ ,-- "•,.•• ---. ', f----,iv. --,. .,--.,, .,,,, ,,,,,,,,-4,c.z.,.......,,,vt, ,,,,,,,,t,,,,,
.< -,z,:,....,r ,-,......i..."--,c..,,,..2.,..*,,
-,.-'-•--:---:',-- r-7";---',---.:. --,.-- - 3'33-,-*-^ r.,-- • -..„. I: -,zr-.y.r.!;,,,TV4_-_-_'.1,, ....,.. „-to..744,"'-niat-; '-',-;;'..';',.'' T.I:ii :-'-.1-'4';- y-.7r=------41-14`-t,_
- -- -'-'''.*'•'W'''.--7:--40.:,:-::'i*:'.--4;---''''''...i;."*;'-'';1-;',. -..-"Ii•'-',7;At`'-4::,-:441 -7-.';'''''" 4I4' - -''-..---,„",--:.,7::,;..4- 7;t5,:. 2,. 'f ;,, , .,...: ::-,,...:.,..::_:. ..--,t,-:,•„:,-,'..::„,c..,-=.7, •:i72.-.::,,:;',,,,:./!5-4 -•:,;••;,,---x!,list,-,e,,,.,:,,
'.... ..2__:L.,,t-::-. -,-.: ' ''''-ir#-t-'! „1-7.. -:.-“", :r.-4 -- '''-- '4';••It7•47.-7.3 "--40377'". .)1.S--.-,..:...-.T..---:---;:7i---.;,-,it- -7..---._:,...- ..-,,..,
wiri.,a_Af,-At.e-,m'S:•: ..,..--.'".-- 4,,..,--- ,..7g.-:. -. :_.:„t,,,i,-f,_-,-, ".:i..--,q,T- _-1..„,:-. . ."- -,,,. .,. ,..,:7, -'•.--i-.-.- -ati'' fit-- rt-;:i
...;_!.?.; -,4- -L',.:.. .., _i‘r-_,.._t-Mi,,t47.!:-'V.,.. ..-.$,.;,-V--,--,f- 4:::i!z-i` ',.'.1,4,,,---.??2, -'7.1..-11.„- .!.1.1rViz--t- W.'4.', .'..'_','--',. ,•-':'-;:-,-,i'.V.C_,:1--4-f-- - -...i-;, - .-- ,---*' • "',---;'"i-
1
,,:.---_,=--_,---,k-.:, 'W-',-;$ : .=',-,ijit-±:-,- -. ..-" 1.-.i.',- :7 t..::-,‘,._,,,,,.._''-. .•.-.,,,.•, , 4--.',',,-,.;.,,-..1' , - - 1•74r-S-seAZ .!5"-....A?At..1'3 ,-:_,.-..V.7`..' ---,--t,.' -r- --:-43%.-,,,,,
"----,ye; ..;-..-- -- .i.,-2. .-.7.2-v2, :., ,,,-tV-::,.i:..""'--:-,;.- ,"h3,,rWZ.F,-,yt1 .- '"-,-- . ,,,,:,-,,., ,.,,,*.„t,n.: '..:: ,,, .-:-.--,, ...#:t. ,:t. :A-!..,..44, ',;-,,..- ,,,te,2.r.
:,;•-4!',:,.:_?-:c-_-,f-_1!' .,,.:-?! .:-,c&:-!?:_*:,;,e4;114":34'_-.-.4; 7-:-;.--::- .t.-''M ...,44t-;;;T:ef,-37;-'.';ti,':;4 .-13-.,'- .,.,..-,,r4:=_,--:-.:.i'',37'r..' • -',- ;'.3ik:.-7 7 xf,:=
k7i:::-..-':'-vii4-:'7Aff ...'.;,,,: T '',-,,-,.',;:k.-i-i-0, -'''.. . ' .;:-.‘:. , ,..;'.•'. .--;-7:-.." - -"':',-V*A-,- -'4,---,'-'.:1---.:4•T.. ./..4.;.-
-1,--7.-T-' '.-741 - , ,*.-...-:t.;_: ,. f.z-'kja.-t7Y.::.1--.:-'-',73i,f,
.%....--:-.-, •:.,:•-. *-,..;;_r,-:-i.n1:-..:4-(4.1*-14::AW.---`,,-:: --_,,‘ ,,.::.' rti..k if_17%Pz.: I •_....:11f"-!!-•:,,-,„•::-,, -,--:,--.-- ,ii..4,„ :7.--,,y....,-- t-,•,_4_., .-, .,,-4-.-,.:,:-,4,.,,--4 ....,. '
001 ,.,..._.- , , ---- ,.:,..,„ ‘ ,....,
_:„..H..,,,,,,,,„,,,,f- ..:-.4-,.,:••-z-,-;:„.„-t-,--*----A.,...„:",, .74, '`Iii.,,,, ..--17-, •,? ,•,--,•_.,i --.-- •-•neliEg' --'' .._,...c....-'' " -- ",---n-.-',.',:',--.- -`4--
--.' O-ft-. ; ;:i•Z:_r;•- ,,,:g-n.- ,i,:,:,.„''':::--,'-'--.;;Y:•'. i.: :,:1,:,''..-.,:,-;_- _ ..L•"%•:....t•- ----,:---c----.:-.'!...-',----- W ,,2,'-.-,„1_,,,
:t,-,--•.i't-_:-::-; '.: 2-_'-''r'''''.4.7.'';•-) 14,-*•'-a.* --".7,-.'V s_ ,'W"' ---' ' ',Ii;•t:• ':,,. '":"4',1:.- - ' ,.L-,';'rW,-;e-r.7. 76,7i-.7:X?„';''`V,';-• •-"::..geft...t.,'•7-‘:7--.•:'-'-'i',:-1...-7:47.1-4.;.S-4..i.
a&...„
,f:f'-.'"-;•7-1--.- -'-.1;7, , .f, % 1.-i '''-:,.':::, •-•-',J-,•:-'," .-i::_ ..:.::,' ,,f„.-v-: •4,-.--. -„•-•':' ' &-:.4..z.,-,..5 ' ,, ',,‘,-, - „",.-:•:...„..,.,#',4 ..„-r„. .?-42• nyi3,•;iJ-...,':::;-_-.:-'-'77_,:;„
4'!..-:,.-f,,at,..Ts' i.. .- ,it-, . ].'_k'-,'-'-'*: ,';:L,..,.4":,---*:-,,,----; ' ..- .- .-,' .t.' ,,,,'':' :W7,..1r7t.----'f;:i-t -,'e-r7": '.-'- -.4. '-'i ':4'--f-jVr''','.,.;:!1--z:-?-:
t: -:1:1, „,,, ,,*57, zt:54;--,,,A:',--iy..,.:-,7-. : 4:A.:-,_•,-es. - f-74.-gi-..--_' ,--- •-'---4-4 ,.p1'. ,:-.7!--5--,',-,7.4.x... .. ;,,,,_.::,::::.r..;,,e;;;;t:.4 zi,,,T;:;•,:l:,k.•.,,,
--,f-T.;,,- -.:',::_fi-,.1„- it-fai.,,r,•_ ,ItTrze7-,' .,,,_ ''4,14,-, ;,:- : _,• ''''._:,:,,-,•-' ,...-4- ,' _.:,e";;-,--,,,"-ri,74'."7-440'<ali" 1,Z- -1k- .,-i',:=P`i,t,';',t-,:7M;%'--.-`..-!•'!:;, --'-'•*-,;7.rtail:
,-,:_i*,•-:.Z.,---".:41: ,-)..,:.,,i,' ' '7'.,..:-,-,--'_f!,rf,-..: •,---j•', :,1,1*,---,--; = •-•%-,.---:r-1,-.; ,-4_, L-,-,;,{ z;‘..,•:-. ..,.-•:- 74-,:z... -4. --i...: - ',-.,4p4,'4"i: . . 9:.%.-,7-,:.4',
1
f. --7-14.--e-_- i. ---.:14.-0- --fi-T-,,,,..1.v -:-,'.-",.•iis... .4-4,..--IL'14-. .,-,,,,... ., ,,J,44--!. ..i-e-in -: -...=wz4,::,_,fii.,:-,,,- -!.-e,z,„-:,,, ,,.:-..:!-•7i.,-4...,---..,,,.,,t::,,,..-, ;-i.,.,
4..1r,,-„---7,„,.-.4t- st5„:,. ..7_,--, :- .., -,,,!,-7,, :,T....,wA,--:,- ,-A-.*',...i.zir
.C:-.1.-74•-t.,-,:._.7,2`,,vx.4.Z-74.-",-.Z-a--*wf,---5Z,..5' 17f.S'.-.7,krtz*::;;if:',-4:,.. , ..-;.A t'Artt.::'---7i-rA,'''-.a- .'C.,:k.,-7:,f.,,i Az-.,--;- ,:V:ri-,,,,,•2:..:-,-.;:- ,.,-,,,,',--:-.,.!•-,=, t11.4. 1.2"7:
E _ -1-,#• __
-, --- -,..---_-._.M....4-,,,--f .,.4.=,,,,,-.--- -,_%-.--,..---1,_.---,-7,-,---...:• -. ,---,-1.-,-- -- . - .-.,-..-_,-..,...;,-...,T#44_,-07. rz-A- 4'', ...., - -'1.•1.4--"-•'-'iii4:,-,E-3-",----•''-'-'---"-, '"I't -..,"." •-•,,?'-4,-,
r't..;.,'''..'-i!-'4.-it--':'..:-.'rr'-i-.4.''''":1y-"?..'4"'''."-L.3-.--..,...:-.,...-- -t7"--W7s.,'*%:"I':-it-t;':•'•'-''•'' ••,',A".14-• . „ :,.....tF.. -- ":.:$. "!•4"'., -•,..,, :,:.•.',.,F-,---",:17-4-- ;.-',-,,-,', ...•-,e"*Z-.. t :1 ,.--..r
..•.'",13,..t.;:•-''".".1''34.43-7"-,-,?'...-i -",3F.-'..4'.4,--$Z.;;;;it"'the441.1",4?'"5,...:,* :: ;1,......-.,-..n,- ,? ,-.. .5,„,•,,i- .,,,.,,-',,, ,,,,3a..7,1f".-t,.S.;,:-:,,,,_-:4 ,:,4,V„-A/I _ - -.'',..4
7 ,___., (,___ _,_.__ ....„.„,.__, ,,..„1.„,„„,..:,,,,..._.i.„ ., ,._._ _-
------=-4 --7-,--- --'.7:;-'- '-f4::-.1!,' k•---...-4.., „--N . :1 t ,w.-...-F:;,...;-,.. ,' ,,,,,-iz,.g.1'.. .--4., t.- - - „,..,...„--4.,..,,,,,, ., -', 'V.'-•.'
...,t,k.•- :: hp,
7,":".:""'":".„7-2,''..14.‘,..t..:':.:.2.••••.;.-tr."4: :7- ''`• ,.T::;.1-3A,t,„- :- ...f...r.".•:- 1.4, 2;A:',:-..A'r,-%-. ,..-; i _.W1-.__,i,-,z•..:--7 r!.<1:1-.:.,-,-;:--...-,1--..,--.:,,-,,,4-3. .., ,--,•;-3e., 7,21,--...;-- ,,„.----_-:, -.
- ,•-,A;y., ,;t..,-_;-.t' -'.-.1-71- ''...:4 ,7--k-,:-;4'.7:-"' '--,', • "-..- ,'",-t-;.7.-:' - „..---tft--_-_..,-) ::-,k''..I41'; ':747:14- .411'.V....`2A4
--,,,, ,,-1-.-1---r,„-.41:•.,Ii. -... 4-5,._.-4.---e--- .,__ .,;-&--,-, L-',...---,-..----7-. .---2•-•,--rt., ,r. :„.1.i- ,--:. :_-..- -,,,,,,,..--1-..:,-. ., 4-,---,:r-r,,:lri,t.-„,„-t.- -i.,-_-4,,•_,-i,-„,,,. _-.„ .. ..x.p.,-.,,., .... ,..,,,,,, ,.2.--;,-,
It .e,---,:s....,- , _..m.m..---,:,. -.. ...,lt,K,,;.•....-L.-':,::--t.-. ,..;4,.:-., ,,-...i'47::::: -..- --,,•:.-.4.„,.';'Wi. ".. r.. '.-.:._.-7--.411i,L';..7.-iji-ft -*"...-4---.-1T44-j:,- 2 •-ow-i.f4r.i.,--v.4..,.--.4.0...44,--r
. 1 '--'- '7,.._,,N4-: ;,-;.'.,,,-,, . _1 '4 le ''''''4":„-;
t 1,4
1. .4,p,i4.,-..,.;-.... .i..,,,;,-,:, . - 0 _ , :-, , _w.,-*-,-,;-,7; 1_, . „0 . - ----17-:•s-.;:07
,- .,:,',..,,, , ---.#=-. ,.. .- -?..?,, z it,...--4- ,..
-,-„,.... -:.''--i-t.-;.,•••-,",...:•,..- - ,,- '..•,_ '-•_'..,lkt-.-.-771-4,-,-,.,,,, -,2-- _. ..tv,1-; - --,----,-- --..----2.'„ - ..,. --,,-'. _ ---, -6 - ,. - - - it-F':--lir* -- -- n -,2,-- .,
z
- , •-7,_,,:a ',,,,---,, -.--_ -..---, - ::.4.-i.,. .,4!.-. ....-.,..,:; . -.. ;L. r,,-..,-.77,;,.x.,iel,,..,:-,-.**,. :- ...- .-..;.;-‘ *,--,r:f--,T, - - -„ --.1.‘-, ,.;,...-.f_:.
It„..., 44p 4
,..,, . .,., :::...., : ... tt..;, .:4:- ....,.. ",..::, ,41_ ,_,. Ay,---,4..,,,P2k,ii *r.4:4.,;i740qVO .;44•4 '.4,,":.1.: ;.,:-...:-. .:.-bi,,_
...7,4:'.tit-*f:•::Z:t']-2 ': . .--;•'-:7' -'`,74- ', '_:' -: ?-3-2.,.,;::.fkf*-4-;!.'' . 1r: .:-.;' ..-,:-_,: --,.
it
,- ..,,,;..-!t`--at EA--,- .--ii.-7-, _. --‘,,I...--. -;,*,. .•:-.,-T--,-...f4tit-1- ,,-; .,, . .-2.2'.,- -__;'-'..- ,4.44.14:.: -
...,,,,w
'-'::,-,:g7.--.t...-1=-.;--'i-.-.-7:,-27-7---t-.1. ---:-: -'.2. '"-17-F-•-,VAr--Ifx-,..--'-'--'-`4.-,'. _:,:::,..,.--,.;._:,-.2-_,A•ie_ :-. ,_.._, - ,- _, ' , .-:. -trt,tt. ..--... ==.1,-,-,i,'.---:.--t..!._f-;.--:7-.-?:-.,.4.,- -_,.._,:.-,
-.-",. .- .„,4 :_;::,.,q _ i•::'• "1 . ',:- ';.-t$,, ,,...:i -0,,,i‘7;f:.t..*._.,e..:NW,,e, --A7' 4.=•'7.. ,-,-:Zti;.,_.,''
' -1-:'•-t !;-All---.'''''%-'4'.',---' 4'17:-_ ,--' '-:-',- --Z. i.. "'' '',--i'''L4--1--f•-k:-. 0, , 1,-;f--- •--.1,:--.":--:..•-•,--,e4;i"4-trAf,.7'W, ! t",-.4.-A''--s'. '•,:- ij•-'7..','' ';'.fs-.:t=1,- 4-.-z,
if
:..,,, ,i-"''.?75-:-=- ' "*-- , :-:-1.: 0.:+1,-.4-,:itW_s7;-..-7-=';it-liki":-:',.,'"''',7•:' 4- ;'-:-!t -.A.t-i -Ai i•.. ..:,;"...,17- 2:;-0 )i 7,ety:-, .-,:c.oi..,.
*is
1":„..-ve,.-iTE-, ,,,.y=- ,.i-:.---,, ,-.0---=-grt,.,0:=_7,,,,::T- Wat--yiektr' _t4°." „ . 4acce--,. ...„, +---Iriv,..,•,•:. ;.,c,.4:-r„.5--.... i.,.......:21,,,, ., !-.
.-:,-'•7-; ''''•7;5fir;-?=S-1:4'''Tti: '-:-.-sii?-•-•' ''44,4 ----il.''''''''' ' :,! l,"''.--:''1_,i4„-- 4.4i, -, ;',,-. ft,.7- t•:,-71,*_4..&& ,5''.--•f.".5..----,-1%is ,-Z.7- ' -;,-7%-,• , 34`2',0-.-.-N,-•'',':--,,'-,''':
ii
4.A,,i_f-----, ,:,-;.-_,,, .r._,-._.--:-.1-i---i --- ,r,,-,nzA ii:,. z--.,,--,-.-..•• 0,424-&-4,1-Velk-ft.,, ii-- ,:-"-'42-4-:-7,- '_-..-57.41--4!,.-,12,-';-='''" -' 41:, -. •,',:,.-.--:.: i'''!„ ,,,-;,,,e,::.
47-,,:',..%-;-,..,t&-7.,.-.-_-•:-.:,-,-":5 •FaTTT.,•:*--....,i-,....,4--' .-:,•.=.i.-=:-.-•-:- '--:'.. ', __isr. 72:--=,... -. -r•- :i.;,.•.ci:-744.1-4.20.--;.zrialr'W.1,3$ ;-,..:'",,..- 4.ti-
.7,-..---- .,_ ..------_;-. . : :,,-.4-3:,:.,..';,.,- z ': -4-, ,17-i-.4.---..it_ jn--1--7.a.., .!_:',4`-- _:--it.:4.7;-..‘
L.,.-4-"re., ,,-,--z---;7'..CiF-4----:: .--.-,,:K.ail-- 4: --;....-4. 1i.; . ' '. -1.2.7 .,,.....-:fit...., -4-,:i-
..4400,
'5:414'Z .'-'.V"...k.g..-,..,5!.,(:4i'''' ;,, .-:i..,... .,,:..?:-. -L-;.,--Acci,<Fi. --- : .:-..:,-...-;;;....::,,:;ivr-2.ii-lwi'.:,:: ,: ::::;:.V...:f-4,,, . ':;,:iz..1-:-4;R::,
.te ,71..L.---i.7:,1:'k,': - .-7-x.-=4-,z,*:-.-4(::-' _-,,,,•:.''i-_"f44,,--'::_i-i-r'5-'7/.,-,.-4;,;-i '''-'',.1-j 7.;•:".:1_,;'-`4,-44:1:-:::',;•',„;..:- '::•:::".„3"-:-..::.g;,:ii._,'''-',": , . 7. :,,.,,r.-...,-,..-,--..-=.7.1 ;;;;,,4,n..,_:*--- ';-• ---.
":,t,-- ..-.?!:W....--;:" •-' -.^,-411:fic-Tt--•'-' -'-' .... .;_4;`"t:-.. •:-.. IT S...--4-0,..1;:;'r.- ,.VPft;pii:
,-".2,- --4-=-: -...,..,.;. .--,.,- ,:f ---_-_-_t-,:px _:-.4...:.t. .4,3-1,...*4.31-1 -zi..,x,-7.:3-cif.-.- --'-t.si;--"-,n74...-'-‘,:•-_,:-:':-..mta-s,fi"--4, -:,,--',-%-r-t'...,-
%:' -ri-:--'''--'41-- ' '''.---.- -' '`-','----'''' ''' -V-1,44 `;•-..- ;!;:' ':7-...A:4,-;.:-,7-::;•,:ia.: 2-'.1'-' 4=::',-.1::-...-47„zt-Ii4ve.zr ;-,---..'i-&-':--.....z,le,'-.A.:,--57, -..-.-7-b!- -k,'-_-.--'7.;---: -..,i,••:.-1":,,..;,...''-`:
r
±......,...:47.,.....0.., ''-' `--,..-",,...--'.:;.4,L4-.k;...:.Y. .4.,:''J- 1!!. .*; -.-.-2fr 1,1406,.-..&-i-, _.:'-'• -:-.-••,,,,44e.,.:::'▪,.-',:::- ••,'...1;7-1-i-F;'':,.-_ --',-,; :?•- :41,•,-.;?<'_
i
....-...t4.47-4. '''''''ac-'' ---;:-'-'--1. it ,-V--.:•'-...'' ',-,Cx.IY.• 0 --(:-.;-..e:;7::-''::•.-_tf,"::-g;:,,47.4!:-.05 ,t-=;k,,.* 1,
...2c:7.":3-74.&',;,, f;-_•'"..:, ,.•:1- 1 -;-•7,kt..k.t4,74.-'t-i- -,'-'-r, = ' " . .: .--' -Ti:er-'...i"."' ,-6--4. -"*....::::-.---' t ' - -',.'Vl `:4742•7-t.,.-,22▪ :, -:_ - i- -:.:'-: ?
•...._ -_44,,_-, .r.,-. ,----:2-1;_ :- :-- -,7 4f77 .- ,,,, .-,--,:-...,,:,--.;. - *, _ -.- ::.:,-t ;' --ic-- .-- -,- ."..,-..,7_,I,R,:::-7:,-;:c0Ctrir.-e,,"...:,?:.-, ,,--!..,,f-i 3A.I'f,''.:""--. 2:::7;:.. z.::,-.,:<•':_. ,
'-' ---' - - ''''-.''.-:-*'.---Wtk.'--'- 4n-.:4 ..›3 ' it"- --=, .7p-WC-,t:-,,,-'"*-5".:-,,t....:' i•"-:" " •- ,7,:•.,:,,r,74.W.-2,"-;:,"t"-'7;44.:.-
--'-;:,,,-...4,-- , -,-_-„,i,•-:, If..., ,..,,,.• or-,..f.„3..-•.---,4,--,--,‘,,:.,-.,...,-,._ , _:---,,,r_•!••-_,,,-.•• ,,,, # ,er. ..-.:;,..„.-.- --........„,-....._,....,„...„..,..:;_._.: _.,_ ... ,.,___ ..4.,.....,,.,„ „.v.,
%.t..1, .:- ,. 7, .77f,,,-_:.#,:t1,„:,_:_,,,,,.:,.., i. :,-4.-•,,,,,-,.1. ...-,.,.,,,ir,---0-ip:-.3 , A-r-,. . 4s,.---..-,?t-,.---:-.:: :-.i.:7,44,-,44.,-,..A._„______-.
je ityxr
..N...-ir,..„1-7.,-,..- . :'-;;-";'- 7 'Iti:AI,-fif'.. : - '- --":; -2- :1, tt.!‘"±-,‘1`..-.-:'-;7!77'.:"'.'.. ' .44;:
e " -•,--::!--c-;7'7*-_-1r;- -,-4--..%:',..-y7i...4_ --, ..,%,,,-.,.-,..,•q ...-...":::'_.,,''..'7''''';./-1,:.,.-_--•.'•'-f:i:47sV7.7A.e,:'-4Y1WV,I,'-'-`'-'5.'",-:fir•%. - '--.1..:r.;-%.'4V-'' „,k,.;
71:,77.7-4.-;',t1,-7,`""--- -''.'''-ioji"-,.. - -A:-:.e.c.4.-:::;•-:-1 -'-':''''''''' '-''' :'Z't,-.4.E.7'- _- ' ''''': -'.77:'....:.7-7,,-'.--",.1!"..- --:-....,. ..,.-':',7, •:.4.•':',a',-'7 - ''"'t.'- '7: -.0,-;,-7.i4)i4- . 7-.;,-.4-7,`,.
_ .:_L.,,,,.4:;,-_-- k..,,,,,t51-,,.._•_21.-7-geigi.f.;',..,„,,,..,--wtad4.,,,=, ;:5, . -. :,,.-2:,f`J-,r.„4.: .--4_,, •-r---', "'-c:"'-',,:',- :...:-4'- :'' 4 '.••:-'00:"."4C.:30iii*,x';:".'.--'7;1"';•'`v:••43-. .."-•. • -..•''''''''''''-'1:-....1' --0';'-'
'- 'IS•".4::..i:"!-In:',." -- • -..7.''''..-7-''''''' ',";',:z•••:.-4---f; 7.1.f. -'.• -?7,-*-*--'14,-7"- - -T1'.'' * ''''''.4,--.---' - ‘:*--1-7.--:-. -.2-:.---,,___--- '`-. -",---:-..,-- -'"--..tc.•..-„ .- ' ;;;:.;,,'',7T--,4
4,„..„..0*A-,":3.-- _-„,c4-...:,-...,'--;, ,,,,...,-;-4.--, . -""'---.'-:,'''--n..t- -.0--.. •,.--:,:7, --1:,,---•: , -: ,:--,- - . 77,12'-- .4.1. -r-'-'.....!.`7--iet'l
0.14:..i.?*.- ;.-i-:..-4,4-rf,,,,4--.ti,...,:c.-;,,z--:-...-.1,-.2,,,,,_:;•:::,.7.::.,4----42-.,-,-:----,-,_-;.--...--,..:,---.7...:.,..-...._.• - • 7‘---•--,-';', .,-„=,-;.,..tr-r-..-•,,,,,,,,-;,,:.:,;„„,.,-,-tt !-=-,- ,.. , ..*.---4.7. ,:- --.-- --, , • .-...... ..:AT.,__.;3,,,,,-.;, :-.:5.-,,,,
.., ..,..,-,.s.,,-.,:,,,......---r...7-1;:-..,F;•;,, ..,,,,,,,,,,--,„..!,,,,,...,,,.-L,...,. ,-,.-, .. .. ... --• -, ' --..,...,..:' :,-----,-:.::-.--.,:4.,.,i,...-: •-,,-..-.. -,-...tqi--
7"--r-----.--; ,•,-';.,q4,-,,..'-'..;-.1,in..,_-'1':',.7....__L--^;-
-'--,- '"?::::',.‹.v--74-...:_,-''.7-',"--:' ,,k'ei...;.,:_;;;-'..4:; :,,T-7:-•.:',.'..;r: ' :-.11-1-i...:,' ;';''!'-''-';'--1'.-", .-1.1:,;-::4'..--,:.-=,-:::,-;:i.-V.--.,;',--4-d,`fa--.1-z-IY*-7:r.=.-.•,$:kt, ,4-."4,.;i4i.571-__ ,...Iffo.,..,...,,,,,•-..;_:-,-..,.. ....: .z . " .•-.- i:::,.
• ."- - 5-,e.s•.-- ' . '-
.. .1--„, '.:.,j:__.„.;:: .:"."-'0.: ".t...f.,'"," .,...2,;.-i,,,-".,:,- ":","..3..74•,...k:.;: 4. --.. .,....,-.-.-._ , ,. . ....„,-....,,,,,,,-,2-_,, - - ---- ------,- -. -- -
_ -.-:.,.374%;', t.••.•% ., -."."..,., ;'-1 .',..,";:3- ,,,,,'".=- : ,'-',-,4*.,„ ,,."_ .„,„,-,-S:J.:"-A.. , ,, ,.•,:t:5 "C1,.--.4.t-i,14VAtlitt4-ig•W`:' 7.,:i , •• ', ..,.., "',.. , • ,,_..., -, :',--. -
' ":.,-.;., :',1'•3'7," -;7i,- •-.2 -:. --,-r-:--..-. :.,-,..",-'--,, ,.-0-;4;- ..:1 a,,I_-:.-<:;.-q-,1'4.171-7-'1')-P.44--:-P-kvi.:.-'::-...,-,,4,,-4,4 - 47- ,-,6.-.. ,,...0"-.. , ;.„....,,,,,,,!,
.
..,- "^"-- , :7,-,:•':,--s-,-;"1.-: r'-. .- '-2-;'.-ik--.4,-',1,47.- 5 ,.---p,*1 ,s...,-,-,..k.7.-.-y--.-.:;,". . ''?„-t:-
--;.;•7. ":''':.'72;'.7:.3: '-rf,.---:•••' ," --7_.,,,- tp,N,Fa--f,---:-. 'r,1•.;:,-,.-;-$.-.7,3",,,-,: : -,:-, : .,._i?-:-.1.:‘,1_ ,,, ._ 44_,,i, --,,- ---..4. . .;ka ';', 1-,,•-: ,„...5..},-,,,-„.
, ,y....c.z.L - 4.,...I " iirt:‘, ,"..i,z,,,,s,,,,, ,x,....:: :1,.:„: 47,-:1.:71-•,!/7- 1.:;' , :7,,,e',.. .:,,,,„,,,,Is..i ,,,,IL?*•-•,, ,,„
-. " - . t.,31,4,,,-,
---4- -.). --„ • ,t,,,, ._ ....,-,...
. i
....,____
:0-,, ,' ‘4,-4-•,
tz.....-.,..-, -v.-i:•--1.-•,.4.4.-..-:-•--,,,c,-.7-A,-...,..,-1.te.V.,„- ..,,,-4,-,--,-- ,-;4".:,,,'...",-.- - ,-'1, •
k- . : • . :.- . tf4t-,,7(=::-,---- --- - -:---„..-.14. -•-• 2--
4
,.. . ........ ..:„.„.„.„,..,.............:„....„........,...,...„........ ... -
-2)(
, k
.....
,......
..... ..._
m.m.,4 --Ir 1 175 1 1 A
,) . -1--1--- '---,.. .
-- . . . ,
t- ---.f-----),,F) .'_•6:m-A 1 L. 2-
--
/ ,- --, ,..-^ - ,-, , t---
..),7 L' . , : L..-,, ., , c.._ +. •
- MEMORANDUM -
TO: Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator
-g FROM: Rodney W. Rue, Assistant City Engineer K EA5
DATE: December 30, 1998
SUBJECT: Niosi Variance Request
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an update to the Niosi variance request memorandum dated
August 30, 1995. All of the issues outlined in the previous memorandum are still valid. However, based on the
latest proposal, we are providing the following comments:
• The traffic volume counted on this portion of Eden Prairie Road in 1997 has not changed significantly
from the 1995 traffic volume.
• The driveway location still creates a dangerous situation for anyone trying to access this property, as well
as introduces a driveway conflict for the traveling public in a historically high accident area. In
particular, if a vehicle is trying to turn left into or out of this property, it would be very difficult for a
southbound vehicle to react to that turning vehicle and possible have to stop (due to the sight lines, steep
grades, narrow roadway and the sharp curve).
• Based on recent accident information, this portion of Eden Prairie Road continues to have a high number
of accidents. In 1995,there were seven reported accidents along the first 1,000 feet of Eden Prairie Road
(north of Trunk Highway 212) with the number of accidents dropping to two in 1996 and 1997. Our
opinion remains that the steep grade combined with the horizontal curves and narrow roadway contributes
to many of these accidents.
• This proposal is similar to the 1995 proposal with proposed sight lines in the 250 to 300-foot range. A
sight distance of 300 feet is considered minimum for adequate access to or from a street or driveway
based on vehicles traveling at about 30 miles per hour. Every attempt should be made to improve the
sight line to the east to minimize conflicts (as previous described) for vehicles traveling southerly along
Eden Prairie Road.
If this variance request is approved, we would request the opportunity to review and approve the site plan for
issues such as drainage, grading, erosion control, landscaping, etc.
RR:ssa
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
Engineering Services, Department of Public Works
1995
INFORMATION
ON
VARIANCE 95-23
NIOSI
3 3
•
- MEMORANDUM -
TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers
THROUGH: Jean Johnson, Community &Economic Development Department
FROM: Rodney W. Rue,_Assistant City Engineer
DATE: August 30, 1995
SUBJECT: Stephen and Kimberly Niosi
Variance Request
The purpose of this memo is to provide additional information and clarification regarding the Niosi variance
request for their property along Eden Prairie Road near Trunk Highway 169. We have completed some further
review regarding their proposed driveway location and have the following information/comments:
• This portion of Eden Prairie Road zurrently has ahstit 1,900 vehicles per day (based on a recent count)
traveling on it, with some large trucks observed d visits. We also completed a brief speed
study near this property on Eden Prairie Road and determined that the average speed for northbound
(uphill) 'raffle was about 26 mph, while the southbound (downhill)traffic was traveling at about 27 mph.
• The current alignment of Eden Prairie Road in this area contains a moderately sharp curve with a very
steep (14%) grade down to Trunk Highway 169. In addition, the original driveway location was
proposed to be located near the middle of the curve with a steep (12%) driveway grade intersecting the
14% street grade. This would create a very difficult/dangerous situation for this property owner to access
or leave the property,particularly during inclement conditions. It also introduces a driveway conflict for
the traveling public in an area that has historically been a high accident area. The proponent has
subsequently looked at relocating the driveway access further to the north, which would improve the
driveway grade for this proposed house.
• We have reviewed the 1993 and 1994 annual accident reports that we receive from the Minnesota
Department of Transportation. During this two-year period, there have been a total of 13 accidents at
the intersection of Eden Prairie Road and Trunk Highway 169. In addition,there were 11 more accidents
that occurred during that same two-year period within the first 600 feet of Eden Prairie Road from its
intersection with Trunk Highway 169. In 1993 alone, there were eight accidents that occurred along this
portion of Eden Prairie Road with seven of those accidents being either side-swipes or vehicles that ran
off the road. Our opinion is that the steep grade combined with the horizontal curve and narrow road
csIrr-ido. con ibutes to many of these accidents.
• In addition to the current roadway geometrics, the lack of sight distance also contributes to the unsafe
conditions of this area. The existing sight distance ih this area is very poor due to a steep slope adjacent
to the road, which also contains some thick vegetation. The site plan does propose some grading on the
property to improve the sight lines. Howev,,r; the sight distance for a vehicle accessing Eden Prairie
3y
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
Engineering Division, Department of Public Works
Steven and Kimberly Niosi
Variance Request
August 30, 1995
Page 2 of 2
Road from the proposed driveway (based on the original plan) with the grading improvements is about
140 feet, at best. The proponent recently submitted a new site plan with a different driveway location,
which does improve the sight distance to abour250 feet. Based on the AASHTO (American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials)Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets and
the criteria used to analyze the situation,the sight distance required for this driveway should be about 300
feet in each direction.
In conclusion, this portion of Eden Prairie Road carries a high volume of traffic on a daily basis with pooc
geometrics and a high number of accidents for a city street. By adding a driveway in this area only introduces
another conflict to an already dangerous roadway. However, if dramatic improvements in the sight distance are
accomplished for the proposed driveway,there would likely be some benefits to the traffic on Eden Prairie Road
as well. Therefore, if a house is approved for this site, we would recommend that the driveway be located as
per the revised site plan and the site would be graded to achieve sight distance for the proposed driveway access
as close to 300 feet in each direction as possible. Furthermore, the site plan would need to be reviewed and
approved for issues such as drainage, grading, erosion control, landscaping, etc.
RWR:ssa
Dsk:RR.Niosi
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
Engineering Division, Department of Public Works
Minutes
Board of Adjustments & Appeals
July 13, 1995
•
makes up their mind, and that could be 10 years from now.
MOTION:
Dye moved that the Board approve variance request #95-22, the hardship being
their unusual high need for parking and inadequate parking for the outdoor
seats of the facility. The conditions are: employee parking should occur on
the leased lot, a soft sidewalk with lights be built on the side of the BUCA
building from the back of their building to the Westwood parking lot, and
signage be put on the private driveway noting no parking. Lynch seconded the
motion and it passed 3-1-0 with opposition by Dunham.
F. Request #95-23 by Stephen and Kimberly Niosi for Northeast corner of
U.S. 169/212 and Eden Prairie Road for approval to construct a single
family house on 1.2 acres having a side setback of 40 feet one side and 140
feet total for both sides. (Code requires Rural lots existing as of July 6,
1982 to be a minimum size of 5 acres for a single family dwelling and the
minimum side setbacks are 50 feet one side no less than 150 feet total for
both sides.)
Perry Ryan, Ryan Engineering, reviewed the variance request with the Board.
The request is to develop a single family home on 1.2 acres with the variance
granted. He discussed the issues noted in the Staff Report. There are a few 1
plus acre parcels in the surrounding area, and one with a home. To go to the
5 acre minimum would require purchasing the single one acre parcel to the
east. Regarding the site distance from the driveway, with the proposed
grading and proposed driveway, he believes the site distance is 150 feet in
each direction. The road is a 15 mile an hour road, and 150 feet is the
standard for that. They have accommodated the grading issues and have
resolved those grading issues with the latest plans. The driveway access at
one time was at about 17%, and it's now at 12% which is the maximum by
the City ordinance. It would be a great economic hardship for one family to
have to purchase an additional parcel in order to build their home.
Johnson noted that if the Board does recommend the variance, it would then be
forwarded on to the Planning Commission and City Council because it does
need a steep slope review. Staff believes the driveway proposed is dangerous,
referring to the City Engineering memo of June 29, 1995.
12
3 �
Minutes
Board of Adjustments & Appeals
July 13, 1995
Weeks expressed concern about the dangers of the steep slope off of Eden
Prairie Road on to Highway 169. Johnson noted that it's an over 20% slope.
Dye was concerned about the variance being denied in 1983. Ryan indicated
that the reason it was actually pulled from going through the variance process
at that time is that they did not have complete plans. Johnson noted that the
variance was withdrawn, not denied.
Johnson commented that they have had residents come in and look at the
plans, but have not received any letters todate.
Lynch expressed concern about the safety issue with the road. She is having a
hard time approving this unless someone from the City was convinced that
there weren't any safety issues.
Weeks also was concerned about the safety issues. He feels that there is a
blind corner there. There is a setback issue, a safety issue, and an acreage
issue that he is uncomfortable with.
Weeks opened the public hearing.
Karen Edstrom. residing at 10133 Eden Prairie Road. noted that she and
her husband live in the house referred to as just to the northeast of this parcel,
plus they own the parcel that goes down to Highway 169 just to the east of the
parcel that's in question. They are opposed to granting any kind of variance
or changes in the City Code to allow this building on this parcel because it's
totally unsuitable to the kind of building that's proposed. She handed out a
letter to the Board stating their opposition to the variance, and she summarized
her objections, as stated in the letter, to the Board. She also showed
photographs taken depicting the bluffs and the steepness of the grade. She
expressed concern about the safety regarding the steep slope.
Hibbert Hill. residing at 10131 Eden Prairie Road, noted that they live back
further on the bluffs, northeast of the proposed site. They expressed concern
about the safety issues regarding the steep slope and driveway, and about
constantly pulling cars in and out of the ditch every time it rains or snows
because of accidents. He does not let his children go out and wait for the bus
alone because of the traffic that goes up and down the hill so quickly. He was
13
37
Minutes
Board of Adjustments & Appeals
July 13, 1995
concerned about having a referendum to buy the land, and then a 1/4 mile
down the road they are going to have a high density development. He does
not think that is the intent of the City. He expressed concern about people
parking in his driveway to look at the property in question. He was also
concerned about the safety of children when the construction phase is taking
place, because there is no place for trucks to park on the road or lot. He feels
that the whole concept of this building is ridiculous.
Loren Wuttke, noted that he owns the property directly to the west of the
subject property. He is in favor of granting the variance with the provision
that this house be connected as soon as the City obtains sewer and water for
the area.
Hill commented that all of the lots with homes in that area are grandfathered
in. They were all built before the law went into effect.
Weeks noted that he has a problem granting this request. The site appears too
small for the house, and the driveway is unsafe. If the site were larger, a
house and driveway could be sited better.
Ryan was in disagreement with the photos shown by the resident. From his
best judgement, this is a buildable site. He believes they have met all of the
City ordinances with respect to the driveway grade. They are not looking for
a variance on the side setback, they could withdraw that part. They are only
looking for a variance because of the lot size. This is a remnant parcel.
Weeks asked what the proposed value of the house on this property is. Ryan
replied that the proposed value of the structure will be $200,000 to $300,000.
There are a couple of builders in mind and the price has not been determined
yet. He also apologized to the resident for people parking in his driveway.
MOTION:
Dye moved that based on information submitted, the Board deny variance
request #95-23 because it does not meet the requirements of 5 acres. Dunham
seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
14
3
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
September 5, 1995
Page 7
VL PAYMENT OF CLAIMS
MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve the Payment of
Claims as submitted. Motion carried on a roll call vote, with Case, Pidcock,
Thorfinnson. Tyra-Lukens and Harris voting "aye."
VII. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
A. Resolution Adopting 1996 Proposed Tax Levy & Accenting 1996 Proposed
Budget
Jullie said that, pursuant to the Council's budget meeting on August 31, a
Resolution has been prepared which certifies t!c proposed 1996 net property tax
levy, sets the dates for the Truth In Taxation public hearings, and accepts the
proposed 1996 Budget. The Council must adopt a Resolution establishing the
maximum 1996 property tax levy by September 15, 1995.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Case, to adopt Resolution 95-166
certifying the proposed 1996 property tax levy, setting the dates for Truth In
Taxation hearings, and accepting the proposed 1996 Budget. Motion carried
unanimously.
VIII. PETITIONS. REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
A. Request from Stephen & Kimberly Niosi to approve Variance 95-23 denied
by Board of Adjustments and Appeals
Jullie said the Niosi's have requested that the Council review the decision by the
Board of Adjustments & Appeals to deny variances which would be needed to
construct a house on their property at Eden Prairie Road and Flying Cloud Drive.
He said the Niosi's have prepared a revised plan for the driveway since the
project was reviewed the Board of Appeals; however, the lot is 1.23 acres and
a five-acre minimum is required for single-family dwellings in this area.
Perry Ryan, representing the Niosi's, reviewed the process they went through with
the Board of Appeals and described the revisions they have made to the position
and grading of the driveway since their appeal.
Dietz said Staff has not had time to completely review the revisions to the grading
plans; however, it does appear technically possible to get the sight distances
desired. He said they would want space for a turnaround since they would not
want cars backing out onto the road.
Stephen Niosi said they have owned the property for eleven years and were told
by the City that it would be a buildable property. He said they are willing to
dedicate a portion of property or grant an easement to the City. 3 y
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
September 5, 1995
Page 8
Dean Edstrom, 10133 Eden Prairie Road, said he owns the lot to the east.
Referring to his letter of July 13th to the City, he reviewed his opposition to
granting the variance on the Niosi property. The zoning on the property is rural
and the minimum for building on such property is five acres. He was concerned
about setting precedence if the variance is granted, about the bluffs and the
composition of the soil in the area that poses problems for grading and excavation
for the he use, and the fact that Eden Prairie Road is a dangerous road no matter
what the sight lines are for the driveway. •
Tyra-Lukens asked when the City Code went to the five-acre minimum. Pauly
replied that it was November of 1969. Tyra-Lukens noted that means the code
was in place when the property was purchased by the Niosi's.
Case said he was concerned about the issue of precedence if a variance this
extreme is granted. He asked when we anticipate the MUSA line to be extended
to this point. Enger said we do anticipate that it will be extended to this point;
however, it could be another five to ten years. He said Staff tried to find similar
situations in the City and could find none that were even remotely similar to this
one.
Pidcock said that, while she sympathizes with the Niosi's situation, she had a
problem dealing with the fact that the property was purchased as 1.2 acres when
the zoning required a five-acre parcel to build on. Karen Niosi said they were
told by the City that that is why we have variances.
Harris said it is a difficult situation and she is concerned about the sight lines, the
turnaround and the absence of sufficient space for parking.
Thorfinnson said he was concerned that the MUSA line might never get down to
this area.
Tyra-Lukens said she is concerned about precedence and she didn't want the
message to get out that people can buy substandard parcels and then come to the
Council for a variance.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to affirm the decision by
the Board of Adjustments & Appeals and to direct Staff to prepare findings and
return them to the City Council. Motion carried unanimously.
B. Request from The Trails Association
Robert Kern, representing the Trails Association, reviewed their request that the
City take over ownership of the trail through their association or that they be
given permission to eliminate the trail. He said their development started out as
250 units and the City was intended to get a certain portion of the trail through
the development. Li' 0
• BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS & APPEALS
City of Eden Prairie
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
949-8490
STAFF REPORT
VARIANCE #95-23 MEETING DATE: July 13, 1995
APPLICANT: Stephen and Kimberly Niosi
LOCATION: Northeast corner of U.S. 169/212 d Eden Prairie Road
REQUEST: Approval to construct a single family house on 1.2 acres having a side
setback of 40 feet one side and 140 feet total for both sides. (Code
requires Rural lots existing as of July 6. 1982 to be a minimum size of 5
acres for a single family dwelling and the minimum side setbacks are 50
feet one side no less than 150 feet total for both sides.)
ZONING DISTRICT: Rural
AREA CHARACTER: Rural parcels ranging in size from one acre to 20+ acres; some
lots have dwellings, some are vacant. The area is outside the Metropolitan Urban Service
Area (MUSA), but utilities may be available in 5± years. The purpose of lot size
minimums in the Rural District is to prevent premature urban development of land
outside the sewer/water service area, allow agricultural pursuits, and provide adequate
space for each dwelling and facilities for housing animals.
MISCELLANEOUS: This property was previously before the Board in 1983.
Background information on Variance #83-34 is attached.
This property is north of U.S. 169/212 on the river bluffs facing the Minnesota River
Valley National Wildlife Refuge. If the variance is approved, the development will be
scheduled for sloped ground review before the Parks, Planning Commission and City
Council as required by City Code.
Maps available to the City do not depict recorded burial mounds on this site. Staff will
do further research to access the site's historical significance.
Eden Prairie Road and U.S. 169/212 abut the property. Access to U.S. 169/212 would
.be difficult because of the steep slopes. Access to Eden Prairie Road is dangerous due to
steepness and curves in the road which limits visibility.
The driveway location proposed was reviewed by the City Engineering Department and
their memo is attached.
The drainfield locations were reviewed by the City Building Department.
OPTIONS: 1. Rezone the parcel to a R1 District after sewer and water are available
and build according to the Residential District standards. Until that time the property has
Rural uses.
2. Acquire additional land to minimize the degree of variance or achieve the
10 acre minimum. (This can be done only by purchasing land to the east which is
controlled by 2 landowners.)
3. Construct a smaller dwelling so the side setback variances are eliminated.
ACTION: The Board may wish to choose from one of the following actions:
1. Approve Variance Request #95-23. Conditional upon sloped ground
review and approval. proper perk tests prior to a permit issuance,
and Engineering Department approval on the driveway construction.
2. Approve Variance Request #95-23 with modifications.
3. Continue Variance Request #95-23 if additional information is
needed.
4. Deny Variance Request #95-23.
AARBUEA 'RFPOKCS‘4523
U
- MEMORANDUM -
TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers
THROUGH: Jean Johnson, Community & Economic Development Department
FROM: Rodney W. Rue, Assistant City Engineer .4j
DATE: August 30, 1995
SUBJECT: Stephen and Kimberly Niosi
Variance Request
The purpose of this memo is to provide additional information and clarification regarding the Niosi variance
P rP
request for their property along Eden Prairie Road near Trunk Highway 169. We have completed some further
review regarding their proposed driveway location and have the following information/comments:
• This portion of Eden Prairie Road currently has about 1,900 vehicles per day (based on a recent count)
traveling on it, with some large trucks observed during our field visits. We also completed a brief speed
study near this property on Eden Prairie Road and determined that the average speed for northbound
(uphill)traffic was about 26 mph, while the southbound (downhill) traffic was traveling at about 27 mph.
• The current alignment of Eden Prairie Road in this area contains a moderately sharp curve with a very
steep (14%) grade down to Trunk Highway 169. In addition, the original driveway location was
proposed to be located near the middle of the curve with a steep (12%) driveway grade intersecting the
14% street grade. This would create a very difficult/dangerous situation for this property owner to access
or leave the property, particularly during inclement conditions. It also introduces a driveway conflict for
the traveling public in an area that has historically been a high accident area. The proponent has
subsequently looked at relocating the driveway access further to the north, which would improve the
driveway grade for this proposed house.
• We have reviewed the 1993 and 1994 annual accident reports that we receive from the Minnesota
Department of Transportation. During this two-year period, there have been a total of 13 accidents at
the intersection of Eden Prairie Road and Trunk Highway 169. In addition,there were 11 more accidents
that occurred during that same two-year period within the first 600 feet of Eden Prairie Road from its •
intersection with Trunk Highway 169. In 1993 alone, there were eight accidents that occurred along this
portion of Eden Prairie Road with seven of those accidents being either side-swipes or vehicles that ran
off the road. Our opinion is that the steep grade combined with the horizontal curve and narrow road
corridor contributes to many of these accidents.
• In addition to the current roadway geometrics, the lack of sight distance also contributes to the unsafe
conditions of this area. The existing sight distance in this area is very poor due to a steep slope adjacent
to the road, which also contains some thick vegetation. The site plan does propose some grading on the
property to improve the sight lines. However, the sight distance for a vehicle accessing Eden Prairie
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE 3
Engineering Division, Department of Public Works
Steven and Kimberly Niosi
Variance Request
August 30, 1995
Page 2 of 2
Road from the proposed driveway (based on the original plan) with the grading improvements is about
140 feet, at best. The proponent recently submitted a new site plan with a different driveway location,
which does improve the sight distance to about 250 feet. Based on the AASHTO (American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials)Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets and
the criteria used to analyze the situation,the sight distance required for this driveway should be about 300
feet in each direction.
In conclusion, this portion of Eden Prairie Road carries a high volume of traffic on a daily basis with poor
geometrics and a high number of accidents for a city street. By adding a driveway in this area only introduces
another conflict to an already dangerous roadway. However, if dramatic improvements in the sight distance are
accomplished for the proposed driveway, there would likely be some benefits to the traffic on Eden Prairie Road
as well. Therefore, if a house is approved for this site, we would recommend that the driveway be located as
per the revised site plan and the site would be graded to achieve sight distance for the proposed driveway access
as close to 300 feet in each direction as possible. Furthermore, the site plan would need to be reviewed and
approved for issues such as drainage, grading, erosion control, landscaping, etc.
RWR:ssa
Dsk:RR.Niosi
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE I
Encineerinc Division, Department of Public Works
- MEMORANDUM -
TO: Board of Adjustments and Appeals
THROUGH: Jean Johnson, Community Development
FROM: Jeff Johnson, Senior Engineering Technician
DATE: June 29, 1995
SUBJECT: Steven and Kimberly Niosi Variance Request
This memo is written to apprise the Board of Appeals of engineering concerns regarding a
potential driveway at the northeast corner of Eden Prairie Road and Highway 169. Upon site
visits and preliminary survey information, it was determined that sight distances at the proposed
driveway location on Eden Prairie Road are very poor, less than 100 feet in each direction.
Contributing factors to this poor sight distance are the steep grades on Eden Prairie Road
averaging 14%, a sharp horizontal curve within this driveway area, and a steep hillside with
heavy vegetation adjacent to the roadway. It is staffs opinion that any driveway opening on this
property would be a serious safety consideration both for the future residents of the property and
the motorists.
JJ:ssa
Dsk:JJ.Niosi
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
Engineering Division,Department of Public Works
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE:
SECTION: REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS MARCH 16, 1999
City Council ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.
City Manager's Evaluation and Merit Pay XII.A.1.
Recommendation
Requested Action:
Move to approve the City Manager's 1999 evaluation and merit pay award of 3.5% of his 1998 salary.
Background Information:
Councilmembers Tyra-Lukens and Butcher-Younghans conducted a performance evaluation of the City
Manager and made recommendations for a merit pay award. The recommendations were presented to
the Council in a closed session at the March 2, 1999, Council meeting.
1
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 3/16/99
SECTION: Director of Parks and Recreation Services
SERVICE AREA: SUBJECT: Recommendation for 1999 Trails ITEM NO.
Park&Recreation Services Projects XII. C. 1
Robert A. Lambert, Director
Requested Action:
Move to approve authorization for construction and repair of the following projects in 1999:
1. Extension of the trail on the east side of County Road 4 from Edenwood Drive north to
Hillcrest Lane. The estimated cost $50,000.
2. Extend the eight-foot trail on the south side of Anderson Lakes Parkway from Franlo Road
west to the underpass. The estimated cost is $35,000.
3. Remove and replace the eight-foot trail along Anderson Lakes Parkway west of Eden Lake
Park entrance for approximately 150 feet. Estimated cost $850.
4. Install an overlay on approximately 2,110 feet of trail along Homeward Hills Road from
Anderson Lakes Parkway to the Homeward Hills Fire Station. Estimated cost $12,000.
5. Remove and replace approximately 860 feet of trail along the west side of Round Lake Park.
Estimated cost $5,000.
6. Install an overlay on approximately 700 feet of trail in the Mitchell Lake Marsh. Estimated
cost $4,000.
7. Remove and replace approximately 1,460 feet-of six-foot wide trail with an eight-foot trail
within Preserve Park from Center Way to Basswood Road. Estimated cost $8,200.
The total estimated cost for material$115,050. Total trail construction costs may vary significantly
subject to soil conditions, retaining walls, or other trail requirements that may become known once
construction plans and specifications are completed.
The proposed funding for 1999 is$117,500, in addition there is carry over from previous years which
will be combined to determine the total limit of spending. We will manage these projects to stay
within the total available funds.
1
Background
In the past, the City Council has budgeted $125,000 per year for trail construction and repair in the
general fund. The philosophy for prioritizing trail projects is first to repair or replace existing park
or transportation trails. The second priority is to add new trails to the system each year in an effort
to complete the proposed trail system within the next 15 years. City staff has developed a trail system
evaluation chart that provides a guide for determining which new trail connections should be the
highest priority for consideration. Staff is recommending five repair projects and the addition of two
new trail segments.
New Segments
• Construct a trail along the east side of County Road 4 from Edenwood Drive, north to Alpine
Drive. This will provide safe pedestrian and bicycle access to a controlled intersection crossing
on County Road 4 for all residents north of Valley View Road to the railroad tracks.
• Construct a trail along the south side of Anderson Lakes Parkway from Franlo Road west to the
underpass. This will allow people south of Anderson Lakes Parkway a safe access to the trail
system west of Franlo Road.
City staff also recommends constructing the trail connections within the Richard T. Anderson
Conservation Area in1999. It is recommended that trail accesses, the park access road and
parking lot be developed prior to homes being constructed. Funds for this project will come from
cash park fees.
BL:mdd
A:\1999 trail projects\Bob99
2
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: . /16/99
SECTION: Director of Parks and Recreation Services
SERVICE AREA: SUBJECT: Request Approval for 1999 Projects ITEM NO.
Park&Recreation Services
Robert A. Lambert, Director X/J. C
Requested Action:
Move to approve completion of plans and specifications for the replacement of the playground
equipment and storage building at Round Lake Park and complete plans and specifications for the
following projects:
1. Nesbitt Preserve Park Renovation
2. Riley Lark Park Shelter
3. Miller Park Shelter
Staff further recommends that all projects be reviewed by the Parks, Recreation and Natural
Resources Commission for design and cost estimates prior to completing the plans and specifications.
Also, staff recommends notifying surrounding property owners of the dates on which the Parks,
Recreation and Natural Resources Commission will review all four projects prior to submitting the
final recommendation to the City Council.
Staff further recommends that the City delay a final decision on the timing for Nesbitt Preserve Park,
Riley Lake Park Shelter, and Miller Park Shelter until the City determines whether or not grant
funding assistance will be available for any of these projects.
Background:
Staff has applied for Outdoor Recreation Grants for Nesbitt Preserve Park Renovation, Riley Lake
Park Shelter, and the Miller Park Shelter. Although, Outdoor Recreation Grants currently provide
a matching grant up to a maximum of$50,000,the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources
has recommended increasing the grant amount to a maximum of$250,000.
Under the terms of the grant application, no funds can be spent on these projects prior to final
approval of the project;therefore, staff would recommend delaying the final decision on these three
projects until the City has been informed on whether or not any of these projects will be funded. The
DNR staff have indicated that the City should be informed of the grant status by approximately July
1, 1999. This would allow a sufficient amount of time to complete either of the park shelter projects,
but would require delaying the Nesbitt PreserveTark Renovation to the year 2000.
BL:mdd-A:\1999 ApprovaUBob99
1
DATE: 03/16/99
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
ITEM NO:
SECTION: Director of Public Works
SERVICE AREA: ITEM DESCRIPTION: I.C. 99-5480
Public Works
ll Approve Special Assessment Agreement with Super Valu
Eugene A. Dietz .`` Traffic Signals and HOV Bypass
Requested Action:
Move to approve agreement with Super Valu for construction and funding of traffic signals at
Valley View Road/Market Place Drive/Super Valu east entrance and a High Occupancy Vehicle
(HOV) bypass lane for Valley View Road ramp to I-494.
Background:
Over the past year, City staff and Super Valu staff have negotiated an agreement regarding a
signal at Super Valu's east entrance, participation in a HOV installation with MnDOT, closure
of the median at Super Valu's west entrance and development of a Traffic Demand Management
(TDM)plan. The next agenda item contains an agreement with MnDOT for construction of the
HOV bypass lane that staff has been working on concurrently. The general terms of the Super
Valu agreement are as follows:
• The City will construct a traffic signal at Market Place Drive/Super Valu east
entrance and close the median opening at Super Valu west entrance at an
estimated cost of$200,000.
• The City and MnDOT will enter a cooperative agreement for construction of an
HOV bypass for the northbound ramp from Valley View Road to I-494 at an
estimated cost of$450,000.
• Super Valu will provide easements and/or right-of-way as may be necessary to
construct the HOV bypass.
• Super Valu will contribute $162,500 (or 25% of final cost) towards these
improvements.
• Super Valu will implement a TDM plan for their headquarters facility with a
minimum annual spending of$37,500 for at least three years.
• The estimated cost to the City for the two items is $237,500.
• Super Valu's share of the cost will be specially assessed to property over a 20-
year period.
I.C. 99-5480
Approve Special Assessment Agreement with Super Valu
Traffic Signals and HOV Bypass
Page 2 of 2
March 16, 1999
• Super Valu will be given the opportunity to review the plans for the traffic signal
and has the authority to withdraw from that portion of the project and if the signal
is not constructed their share would be reduced to $81,250 (50%).
• $81,250 (50%) of Super Valu's share is fixed towards the cost of the HOV
bypass, since the City is entering a cooperative agreement for that project in
reliance of this agreement.
In essence, Super Value initially came to the City with a request for improvements to traffic
management in the area of their headquarters. After discussion, Super Valu has taken the
commendable approach of committing resources towards a solution that will not only improve
access in this area of the community, but also implement a TDM plan to help alleviate
congestion in the area as well.
Issues and Financial Considerations:
The City's source of funding for these projects is through the use of Tax Increment Financing
(TIF). Therefore, prior to implementation of these projects, it will be necessary to conduct a
public hearing and modify the TIF budget to include these two projects. There are other
modifications to the TIF budget and staff would expect to bring that information forward to City
Council in April or May.
The other issue concerns the closure of the median opening at the Super Valu west entrance.
We have worked to gain Hennepin County's approval of the signal installation, which is
predicated on the median being closed and that there would be no County funds towards the
project. The City might anticipate concerns being raised by the Land Rover dealership.
Although the median opening does not align with the Land Rover dealership entrance and the
driveway was built specifically to preclude access to the median opening, we do know that some
customers maneuver in a way to use it anyway. The resulting unsafe maneuvers are definitely
a part of the reason for closing it as part of this project.
AGREEMENT REGARDING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND OTHER MATTERS
THIS IS AN AGREEMENT made this day of March, 1999, between the City of Eden
Prairie, a municipal corporation (the "City"), and SUPERVALU INC., a Delaware Corporation
(the "Owner").
A. The Owner holds legal and equitable title to property legally described on Exhibit A
attached hereto, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and hereinafter referred to as the "Property."
B. The City proposes to construct in cooperation with the County of Hennepin and the
State of Minnesota certain public improvements (hereinafter referred to as "Improvements")
which consist of all: design, labor and materials related to the installation of a new traffic signal
system at Market Place Drive and Valley View Road (SUPERVALU east entrance), the closing
of the median on Valley View Road at the SUPERVALU west entrance and modifications to the
northbound ramp to 1-494 at Valley View Road. The traffic signal project includes all new work
and modifications required to existing road geometry, including turn lanes, landscaping,
drainage and signage. The northbound ramp modifications include the widening and
lengthening of the existing ramp and the addition of a high occupancy vehicle (hereinafter
referred to as "HOV") lane in compliance with the Preliminary MnDOT Plan dated September
22, 1998 and current MnDOT standards. The project includes all required modifications to the
existing roadway geometry including turn lanes, landscaping, drainage and signage, and all
work within the required construction easement along the Owner's west property line including
restoration of landscape elements, fence replacement and soil stabilization.
C. The parties hereto desire to enter into an agreement concerning the financing of the
construction of the Improvements and other matters, all of which will inure to the benefit of the
Property.
AGREEMENTS
IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Owner acknowledges that the Property does benefit from the Improvements
and the Owner consents to the levying of assessments against the Property for the construction
of the improvements in amounts set forth below.
2. The total special assessments to be levied against the Property on account of the
improvements are the lesser of$162,500 or 25% of the actual final cost of the Improvements.
Such assessments shall be levied 100% against that portion of the Property described as
"Parcel A" on the attached Exhibit A, and no portion of such assessments shall be levied against
that portion of the Property described as "Parcel 2" on the attached Exhibit A.
3. The Owner waives any requirement that an assessment hearing be held at which
hearing or hearings the assessments described above are to be considered by the City Council
and thereafter approved and levied, so long as such assessments do not exceed the amounts
set forth in paragraph 2 above (as same may be modified by paragraph 9 below). However, if
such a hearing is held, the City shall provide the Owner with at least 5 days' prior notice of such
hearing.
X\GROUP\LEGAL\CLIFTOMPARKS\DOCUMENTedenprtb.doc 3 Page 1 of 4 3/3/99
4. Provided any assessments against the Property with respect to the Improvements
do not exceed the amounts set forth in paragraph 2 above (as same may be modified by
paragraph 9 below), the Owner waives all rights it has by virtue of Minnesota Statute §429.081
or otherwise to object to or challenge the amount or validity of the assessments, or the
procedures used by the City in apportioning the assessments and hereby releases the City, its
officers, agents and employees from any and all liability related to or arising out of the imposition
or levying of the assessments.
5. Special assessments levied against the Property shall be due and payable with the
ad valorem taxes with the first installment due and payable with the ad valorem taxes due and
payable in the last to occur of(i) 2000 and (ii) the year following the year in which construction of
the Improvements has been completed. The special assessment shall be levied for a term of 20
years at the City's then current interest rate applicable to other special assessments but in no
event greater than 8% per annum.
6. The Owner agrees to initiate a traffic demand management plan as outlined in the
attached Exhibit B, including an expenditure of a minimum of$37,500,00 per year for three
years beginning at the completion of the high occupancy vehicle lane on the northbound 1-494
ramp. At any time following three years after the completion of the high occupancy vehicle lane
on the northbound 1-494 ramp, the City agrees to execute, in recordable form, and deliver to the
Owner, within 30 days after request by the Owner, a document confirming whether or not the
Owner has met all the obligations set forth in this paragraph 6.
7. The Owner agrees to grant to the State of Minnesota at no cost (i) a construction
easement over and across any portion of the Property which is depicted as construction
easement on the Preliminary MnDOT Plan dated September 22, 1998 for the 1-494 northbound
ramp project; and (ii) fee simple title to any portion of the Property depicted as being
permanently granted to the State of Minnesota on the Preliminary MnDOT Plan dated
September 22, 1998 for the 1-494 northbound ramp project. The City agrees that MnDOT will
restore the vegetation disturbed by the project on the Property, including all trees, to a level
acceptable to both the City and the Owner. At any time following the granting of such easement
and dedication by the Owner, the City agrees to execute, in recordable form, and deliver to the
Owner, within 30 days after request by the Owner, a document confirming whether or not the
Owner has met all the obligations set forth in this paragraph 7.
8. The Owner hereby concurs that the closure of the median on Valley View Road at
the Owner's west entrance drive is necessary for the safety of vehicular traffic. The Owner
understands and agrees that the closure of a median is not a compensable property right and
that the Owner is not entitled to claim any damages, including damages on account of loss of
access, it has or may have on account of such closure.
9. The City and the Owner agree that the Owner shall have the right to provide input
into the design process for the Improvements and shall be given the opportunity to review all
final designs and plans of the traffic signal project prior to construction. In the event that the
designs related to the traffic signal project are not acceptable to the Owner, those portions of the
agreement pertaining to the traffic signal project may be terminated at the Owner's option and in
such event the Owner's obligation under paragraph 2 hereof would not exceed $81,250. The
Owner understands and acknowledges that the City is contemporaneously entering into an
agreement with MnDOT for construction of the HOV lane and accordingly that portion of the
X:\GROUP\LEGAL\CLIFTON\PARKS\DOCUMENT\edenprlb.doc Li Page 2 of 4 3099
Improvements is not subject to cancellation by the Owner. The City is proceeding with the
MnDOT agreement in reliance upon the Owner's commitments herein
10. This agreement shall be effective immediately.
The undersigned Mayor and City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation,
having read the foregoing Agreement and understanding the terms of the Agreement set forth
therein and being knowledgeable of the facts of this matter and the City's legal rights in regard
thereto, hereby acknowledge the City's consent and acceptance of said Agreement.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
A Minnesota Municipal Corporation
By
Jean L. Harris
Its Mayor
By
Christopher M. Enger
Its City Manager
I, 140 IJAtAO 1rot.1'El.l.f , the 4R. V.Q. *UNA%-) iLeSaff&
SUPERVALU INC., a Delaware Corporation having read the foregoing Agreement and
understanding the terms of the Agreement set forth therein and being knowledgeable of the
facts of this matter and the Owner's legal rights in regard thereto, hereby acknowledge the
Owner's consent and acceptance of said Agreement.
SUPERVALU INC., a Delaware Corporation
1
By / /71---e>
Its J . V,f' Hdr-Pgr' fkft5ouGCS
X:\GROUP\LEGAL\CLIFTON\PARKS\DOCUMENT\edenprlb.doc Page 3 of 4 3/3/99
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this_day of
1999, by Jean L. Harris and Christopher M. Enger the Mayor and City Manager of the City of
Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
Th oregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this Sti-day of MQ,Nrk.. , 1999,
by Hcnaid. T( t,i11. and , the
Sr, V. P.J Numa.K. ReSoujre5 and , respectively of
SUPERVALU INC., a Delaware Corporation, on behalf of the corporation.
`n--
Notary Public
This Document was drafted by a '
Lang, Pauly, Gregerson & Rosow, Ltd. ,. JAMA M. KRIZ
1600 IBM Building CTARY 01Jp.JC.MININESOTA
650 Third Ave. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
X:\GROUP\LEGAL\CLIFTON\PARKS\DOCUMENT\edenprlb.doc Page 4 of 4 3/3/99
EXHIBIT A
(Legal Description of Property)
PARCEL A
Par 1: Government Lot 3 and the accretions thereto, Section 11, Township 116,
Range 22, all described as beginning at the Southwest corner of said Government Lot 3; thence
East along the South line of said Government Lot 3 and its extension to a point 525 feet West
from the East Quarter corner of said Section 11; thence Northwesterly, deflecting to the left 109
degrees, to the shore of Bryants Long Lake; thence Northwesterly along the shore of said lake
to its intersection with the Northerly extension of the West line of said Government Lot 3; thence
South to the point of beginning, the Easterly boundary line of the above described Government
Lot 3 and accretions thereto has been marked by Judicial Landmarks set pursuant to Torrens
Case No. 16893 and the West boundary line of the above described Government Lot 3 and
accretions thereto has been marked by Judicial Landmarks set pursuant to Torrens Case No.
16744.
Par 2: That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 11,
Township 116, Range 22 lying Northerly of the center line of County Road No. 60.
Par 3: That part of Government Lot 4 and the accretions thereto, Section 11,
Township 116, Range 22 lying Northerly of the center line of County Road No. 60 and Westerly
of a line drawn parallel with and distant 600 feet West measured at right angles from the East
line of said Government Lot 4, except that part thereof lying Southerly and Easterly of the
following described line: Commencing at the Northeast corner of the above described part of
Government Lot 4; thence on an assumed bearing of South 00 degrees 10 minutes 58 seconds
East along the East line thereof a distance of 407.70
feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 63 degrees 26 minutes 06
seconds West, a distance of 658.22 feet; thence South 25 degrees 10 minutes 56 seconds
West, a distance of 301.17 feet to the center line of said County Road No. 60, and said line
there terminating, according to the Government Survey thereof.
The West boundary line of the above described part of the Northwest Quarter of the
Southeast Quarter has been marked by Judicial Landmarks set pursuant to Torrens Case No.
16745.
Subject to the rights of the State of Minnesota in its sovereign capacity in the lands
herein which lie between the natural ordinary low watermark and natural ordinary high
watermark of Bryant's Long Lake; (As to pars 1, 2 and 3)
X:\GROUP\LEGAL\CLIFTON\PARKS\DOCUMENT\edenpr1ti.doc Exhibit A— Page 1 of 2 3/3/99
PARCEL B
Par 1: That part of Government Lot 2, including accretions, thereto, Section 11,
Township 116, Range 22, all described as beginning at the Southeast corner of said
Government Lot 2; thence West to the Southwest corner of said Government Lot 2; thence
North along the West line of said Government Lot 2 and its extension to the North line of said
Section 11; thence East along said North line to the shore of Bryant's Long Lake; thence
Southeasterly along said shore to the North and South quarter line of said Section 11; thence
South along said North and South quarter line to the point of beginning, which lies Easterly of
the Easterly right-of-way of U. S. Highway Number 494, as described in document number
3677302, Office of the Register of Deeds, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the
Government Survey thereof; except that part of said Government Lot 2 lying Easterly and
Northeasterly of a line described as commencing at the southeast corner of said Government
Lot 2, thence North along the East line of said Government Lot 2, a distance of 1237.61 feet to
the actual point of beginning of the line to be described; thence Northwesterly deflecting to the
left 44 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 378.00 feet; thence Northerly deflecting to
right 44 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 240.0 feet; thence Northeasterly
deflecting to the right 36 degrees 30 minutes 00 seconds to the shore of Bryant's Long Lake and
there terminating.
The East, West and North boundary lines of the above described land, except the
shore line of Bryant's Long Lake have been marked by Judicial Landmarks set pursuant to
Torrens Case No. 16744.
Subject to a limitation of the right of access to U. S. Highway Number 494 as
contained in Book 2604 of Deeds, page 203, Doc No. 3677302;
Subject to a 45 foot wide easement for sanitary sewer purposes in favor of
Southwest Sanitary Sewer District Board over a portion of the above described Government
Lot 2 as contained in Book 69 of Hennepin County Records, page 3779764;
Par 2: That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, Section 11,
Township 116, Range 22, which lies Northerly of the Northerly right-of-way of County Road
Number 60 and Easterly of the Easterly right-of-way of U. S. Highway Number 494, as
described in document numbers 3677302 and 3723053, Office of the Register of Deeds,
Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the Government Survey thereof.
The East boundary line of the above described land has been marked by Judicial
Landmarks set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 16745.
Subject to a snow fence easement in favor of the State of Minnesota as contained in
Book 68 of Hennepin County Records, page 3723053;
Subject to a limitation of the right of access to U. S. Highway Number 494 as
contained in Book 2604 of Deeds, Page 203, Document No. 3677302 and in Book 68 of
Hennepin County Records, page 3723053;
X:\GROUP\LEGAL\CLIFTON\PARKS\DOCUMENT\edenprtb.doc Exhibit A— Page 2 of 2 3/3/99
Exhibit"B"
Travel Demand Management Plan
for
SUPERVALU Inc. Corporate Headquarters
11840 Valley View Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota
55344
A. INTRODUCTION
Current situation :
Supervalu corporate headquarters in Eden Prairie houses approximately 1200 employees
in three separate facilities. The largest group(650) is housed in the Valley View Road
facility. These workers provide executive leadership, central administrative, legal, financial
and information technology services for the companies 44,000 employees across the
nation. According to a 1997 Metro Commuter Services(MCS)Survey most local
employees live in Eden Prairie, Minnetonka and the suburbs which lie north along
Interstate 494.
The same MCS Survey shows that approximately 85%of employees drive alone taxing
parking areas especially at the Southwest Crossing leased facility.
Mass transit options for employees are minimal as bus routes serving the facilities are
inconvenient for most users.The main building entrance is about.25 miles from the bus
drop off point adding to the difficulty.The following quotes from the MCS Survey
characterize employee attitudes regarding mass transit; "The Twin Cities will never be
world class until metro area has mass transit. Until then,we are simply a third world area
Our present sprawl is obscene." and"Bus Service is unknown entity in the Twin
Cities. They have not figured out that people live in one suburb and work in another
suburb. All life does not revolve around Minneapolis".
Vehicular access to the main facility is off of Valley View Road which has become
increasingly dangerous due to the speed and volume of traffic at the uncontrolled access
points. The waiting queue from the 1-494 north bound ramp meter extends well beyond
SUPERVALU's main west entrance creating dangerous conflicts during peak hour traffic.
Expansion Plans:
It is anticipated that within 5 years all SUPERVALU corporate employees will be
consolidated and located at the Valley View site based on current lease obligations and
other considerations.
The Valley View campus would potentially house approximately 13-1500 people which is
more than double its current population with square footage expanded from 172,000
square feet currently to more than 300,000 square feet. Long range plans include City
approved expansion to 548,000 square feet would potentially house up to 2200
employees.
To accommodate these employees an additional 5-600 ramp parking spaces would be
required.
Future decisions related to expansion will strongly consider transportation issues related to
traffic congestion, ease of access to site location, and total overall costs.
Page 1 of 5 3/3/99
B.PROBLEM STATEMENT
System Constraints:
During the anticipated expansion construction phase there will be additional difficulties with
traffic and parking due to site constraints. The new parking ramps will need to be built
above the existing surface lots necessitating the closure of large segments of parking. To
mitigate this a plan will need to be developed for off-site parking areas with shuttle service
to the main building. A nearby Church with a large parking lot offers one possibility that
has been discussed. Conflicts with construction traffic will only add to the current
problems.
Among the issues identified as a barrier to the use of transit systems is that of unplanned
overtime and the difficulties encountered when trying to use bus service that is not geared
to evening or non peak travel times.
Current Mitigating Programs:
SUPERVALU has instituted several measures to address concerns related to parking and
traffic including:
• Shuttle bus service between the Valley View and Southwest Crossing facilities with
departures every 20 minutes during the workday costing over$100,000 annually. (This
includes vouchers for merchandise to promote the use of this service.)
• An"Alternative Work Schedule Policy"was formally adopted in May 1997 which
includes Flextime(allowing variable core hours),Compressed Workweek(allowing
fewer workdays),Voluntary Reduced Time. To date many employees have taken
advantage of one of these options.
• Telecommuting during some portion of each week is practiced by many employees.
• A commuter fair was held last year to inform employees of transportation options and
promote alternatives to driving alone to work.
• Information packets from Metro Commuter Services which outline transportation
choices including, ridematching, and the guaranteed ride home program, are available
for all employees.
• Bike racks are provided to encourage biking to work.
• Newsletter articles regarding dangerous traffic conditions and available transportation
programs are distributed to all.
These efforts have had little impact on employee behavior relative to driving alone to work.
The reason being that attractive alternatives are simply not available in most cases. The
pain of negotiating increasing traffic volumes, and tight parking is not great enough to
offset the inconvenience and costs associated with current alternatives.
Justification for HOV-Ramp Meter Bypass/Bus Shoulder Lanes and Traffic Signal:
Employee demographics have been documented in two recent surveys. One by MCS the
other done internally by SUPERVALU. Both show the highest concentrations to the north
living in suburbs served by 1-494. Approximately 35%are likely to use the stretch of 1-494
from Valley View Road to Maple Grove. The remaining population is primarily scattered
throughout the western half of the 7 county metro area.
The addition of a HOV-Ramp Meter Bypass at the northbound ramp onto 1-494 at Valley .
View road would provide a needed incentive to help SUPERVALU to convince its
employees of the viability of car or van pooling and foster opportunities for speedy
intersuburb bus service,which is currently not available. Along with this the creation of
HOV freeway lanes on 1-494 would stimulate the development of attractive mass transit
alternatives. As supported by the demographics, many SUPERVALU employees are
potential candidates to use such amenities.
Page 2 of 5 / 3/3/99
The issues of traffic flow, ramp meter queue conflicts and ingress/egress safety concerns
at the SUPERVALU property and other businesses along Valley View Road would be
addressed by the additional stacking space created by the HOV lanes.
Strategically located traffic signals, specifically at the Market Place Drive/Valley View
Road intersection would serve to provide safe access to SUPERVALU and the other
businesses and daycare center to the south. This would also serve to reduce traffic speed
and create gaps in traffic flow, allowing traffic from the other uncontrolled intersections
along this stretch of road the opportunity to safely turn onto Valley View.
C.HOW SUPERVALU WILL ADDRESS CONGESTION AND PARKING ISSUES WITH
NEW FACILITIES
Short Term: (May 1998-Summer 1999):
For the short term SUPERVALU is committed to continuing and expanding the following
initiatives aimed at addressing the transportation issues that have been discussed:
• Provide additional resources for current Employee Transportation Coordinator(ETC)
• Enhance current display of Transportation Options brochures and promotional
material.
• Develop enhanced option/incentive packages for employees including preferred
parking spaces for carpoolers, merchandise vouchers for use of shuttle and car or van
pooling.
• Expand the scope and publicity for the BBOP (Bus, Bike or Pool)event at all
SUPERVALU facilities.
• Improve current communications with employees by creating a central dedicated
bulletin board and additional newsletter articles regarding transportation issues.
• Explore subsidization of transit passes with management as opportunities become
viable.
• Explore creation of vanpools in concert with other local business including subsidies,
etc.
• Promote bicycle use including information about existing bike racks and shower
facilities.
• Promote Guaranteed Ride Home program through bulletin board and newsletter
articles.
• Continue in place"Alternative Work Schedule Policy"to promote staggered start and
finish times.
• Explore and promote the concept of telecommuting to help address transportation
issues.
Mid Term (Fall 1999):
The interim strategy envisions the installation of HOV ramp meter bypass lanes on the
northbound 1-494 ramp from Valley View Road, additional traffic signals at Market Place
Drive and Valley View Road and the development of bus shoulder lanes along 1-494.
Alongside-these developments SUPERVALU would intensify its development of incentives
and promotional efforts to encourage employees to choose alternative transportation
modes.
Incentives including a 10%subsidy for all those using mass transit on 1-494 and a vanpool
contribution of$65 per month for the first two months would be offered by SUPERVALU if
the HOV bypass, traffic signals and bus lanes become reality. All incentives initiated
during the short term period would be continued and refined over time.
Page 3 of 5 I 1 3/3/99
A system of monitoring progress to increase ridesharing and other transportation
alternatives would be developed including the development of baseline information for a
database.
Long Term(Winter 1999 and Beyond):
Ongoing evaluation and monitoring of participation levels for all programs would be a
requirement. Surveys and questionnaires along with a current database of activity will be
used as tools to refine and support growth for successful programs.
All incentives and popular beneficial programs would be continued and expanded as
justified. As plans are developed for additional growth on the Valley View site viable
programs would be accommodated. Bus shelters, additional bike facilities, better bus
access to front door, enlarged preferred parking for car and vanpools, etc.will be worked
into new plans.
The vision of a workable intersuburb bus service is a critical component An attractive bus
system serving business users along 1-494 would go a long way to minimizing interstate
congestion, ramp meter back ups onto local streets, parking concerns, environmental
pollution and overall stress levels. Coordinating this system with an improved metrowide
system is also very important.
D.CONCLUSION:
Impacts to SUPERVALU If Problems Are Not Addressed:
If the outlined issues are not addressed successfully the potential outcome would include
significant difficulties for SUPERVALU. Employee morale related to stress would continue
to increase as traffic congestion increased unabated. According to Metro Commuter
Services,transportation forecasters are predicting that by 2010 much of our metro freeway
system will be classified as heavily congested. Quality of life will be impacted by increased
pollution. It will be more and more difficult for SUPERVALU employees to get to work.
Ongoing concerns regarding the safety of our employees would not be addressed.
In the current market, hiring and retaining good employees is critical. SUPERVALU's
ability to meet staffing demands may be negatively impacted as job candidates choose
other more accessible, convenient locations. Current staff may become frustrated and
search for work elsewhere.
As plans are developed for continued expansion of SUPERVALU's business,
transportation issues and how effectively they have been addressed will become an
increasingly important factor in determining where to best locate facilities.
The successful resolution of these critical transportation issues have a significant
economic impact.
Page 4 of 5 I a 3/3/99
TDM Proposal Exhibit B
Proposed TDM Operations Budget
(Years 1999-2001)
TDM Services 1999 2000 2001
Transit Circulator(shuttle) $72,000 $75,000 $78,000
Voucher Incentives $8,250 $8,250 $8,250
Administration/Labor $12,885 $13,400 $13,936
Executive Supervision/Sponsorship $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
Newsletters $2,000 $2,000 $2,000
Marketing/Promotional $2,500 $3,000 $3,500
Bulletin Boards $500 $500 $500
Office Equipment& Supplies $1,650 $1,800 $2,000
Computer Hardware &Software $6,000 $1,200 $1,200
Sionage $500 I0 �0
Total $111,285 $110,150 $114,388
Notes:
01: Totals are maximum anticipated annual expenditures per category.
02: Minimum expenditure commitment is$37,500 per year over 3 years as defined in agreement between SUPERVALU and City of Eden Prairie.
03: Transit access enhancements will be studied for the existing site and incorporated into site design for any new facility.
Page 5 of 5 3/3/99
DATE: 03/16/99
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
ITEM NO:
SECTION: Director of Public Works X//. ,
SERVICE AREA: ? ITEM DESCRIPTION: I.C. 99-5481
Public Works Approve Cooperative Agreement with MnDOT
Eugene A. Dietz as HOV Bypass Lane
Requested Action:
Move to adopt resolution approving Cooperative Construction Agreement with MnDOT for a
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) bypass lane for the on-ramp from Valley View Road to I-494.
Background:
MnDOT had a plan to add a HOV bypass lane at the Valley View Road ramp to northbound I-
494, but it was in approximately five to six years. During the discussion with Super Valu
regarding overall traffic needs in the area and the desirability of developing a Traffic Demand
Management Plan, we asked MnDOT if they would consider accelerating the project if there
were local participation. The result is that the City will contribute $200,000 toward the
construction of a $450,000 project and MnDOT will accelerate the project to be constructed in
1999. As part of the agreement with Super Valu, Super Valu will contribute $81,500 toward
the construction of the HOV bypass. Please refer to the Super Valu special assessment
agreement item for further details.
Financial Considerations:
The City share of the HOV bypass project is proposed to be paid from Tax Increment Financing
funds. This will require a public hearing as described in the previous agenda item for
modification to the project list for the TIF budget.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
COOPERATIVE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT
HOV BYPASS LANE AND RAMP METER INSTALLATION
I-494 AT VALLEY VIEW ROAD
(LC. 99-5481)
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and the City of Eden
Prairie agree that a High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) bypass lane on the ramp from Valley View
Road to northbound I-494 would be beneficial and would promote multiple occupant vehicles;
WHEREAS, MnDOT is willing to accelerate the construction of the HOV bypass project to 1999
if the community participates in the project; and
WHEREAS, via separate agreement, the City of Eden Prairie and Super Valu have agreed to
jointly participate in the project and the City is willing to commit to MnDOT a sum of$200,000
towards the HOV bypass construction project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie that
said Cooperative Construction Agreement No. 78225-R for State Project No. 2785-320 (T.H.
494=393) is hereby approved and the Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute the
agreement on behalf of the City of Eden Prairie.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on March 16, 1999.
Jean L. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk
a
PRELETTING STATE OF MINNESOTA Mn/DOT
AND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENT NO.
ESTIMATING COOPERATIVE CONSTRUCTION
SECTION AGREEMENT 78225-R
S .P. 2785-320 (T.H. 494=393)
State Funds
The State of Minnesota AMOUNT ENCUMBERED
Department of Transportation, and
The City of Eden Prairie (None)
Re: City lump sum payment for HOV
bypass lane construction and
ramp meter installation by the AMOUNT RECEIVABLE
State on T.H. 494 at Valley
View Road S200 . 000 . 00
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the State of
Minnesota, Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as
the "State" and the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, acting by and
through its City Council, . hereinafter referred to as the "City" .
•
3
78225
WHEREAS, the State is about to perform the construction of a bypass
lane for high occupancy vehicles, hereinafter referred to as "HOV" ,
and the installation of a ramp meter along and adjacent to the Trunk
Highway No. 494 entrance ramp from Valley View Road to northbound
Trunk Highway No. 494 within the corporate City limits in accordance
with State plans, specifications and/or special provisions designated
as State Projects No. 2785-305 (T.H. 494=393) and No. 2785-320
(T.H. 494=393) ; and
WHEREAS, the State has requested participation by the City in the
costs of the HOV bypass lane construction and ramp meter
installation; and
WHEREAS, the City has expressed its willingness to participate in the
costs of the HOV bypass lane construction, ramp meter installation
and associated construction engineering in a lump sum amount equal to
$200, 000 . 00 as hereinafter set forth; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 161 .20, subdivision 2 authorizes
the Commissioner of Transportation to make arrangements with and
cooperate with any governmental authority for the purpose of
constructing, maintaining and improving the trunk highway system.
IT IS, THEREFORE, MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
ARTICLE I - CONSTRUCTION BY THE STATE
Section A. Contract Award
The State shall advertise for bids and award a construction contract
to the lowest responsible bidder for State Projects No. 2785-305
(T.H. 494=393) and No. 2785-320 (T.H. 494=393) in accordance with
State plans, specifications and/or special provisions which are on
file in the office of the Commissioner of Transportation at St . Paul,
Minnesota, and are made a part hereof by reference with the same
force and effect as though fully set forth herein.
2
78225
Section B. Direction and Supervision of Construction
The State shall direct and supervise all construction activities
performed under the construction contract, and perform all
construction engineering and inspection functions in connection with
the contract construction. All contract construction shall be
performed in compliance with the approved plans, specifications
and/or special provisions.
Section C. Plan Changes, Additional Construction, Etc.
The State shall make changes in the plans and/or contract
construction and enter into any necessary addenda, change orders
and/or supplemental agreements with the State ' s contractor which are
necessary to cause the contract construction to be performed and
completed in a satisfactory manner. However, the State ' s
Metropolitan Division Engineer at Roseville or his authorized
representative will inform the appropriate City official of any
proposed addenda, change orders and/or supplemental agreements to the
construction contract .
Section D. Satisfactory Completion of Contract
The State shall perform all other acts and functions necessary to
cause the construction contract to be completed in a satisfactory
manner. Acceptance by the State of the completed contract
construction shall be final, binding and conclusive upon the City as
to the satisfactory completion of the contract construction.
ARTICLE II - INSPECTION BY THE CITY
The contract construction shall be open to inspection by the City.
If the City believes the contract construction has not been properly
performed or that the construction is defective, the City shall
inform the State Metropolitan Division Engineer' s authorized
representative in writing of those concerns. Any recommendations
made by the City are not binding on the .State . The State shall have
the exclusive right to determine whether the contract construction
has been satisfactorily performed by the State ' s contractor.
3
3
78225
ARTICLE III - PAYMENT BY THE CITY
The City shall advance to the State, as the City' s full and complete
share of the costs of the HOV bypass lane construction, ramp meter
installation and associated construction engineering to be performed
along and adjacent to the Trunk Highway No. 494 entrance ramp from
Valley View Road to northbound Trunk Highway No. 494 within the
corporate City limits under State Project No. 2785-320
(T.H. 494=393) , a lump sum in the amount of $200, 000 . 00 .
The City shall advance to the State the lump sum amount after the
following conditions have been met :
A. Execution and approval of this Agreement and the State' s
transmittal of same to the City.
B. Award of the construction contract for the construction to be
performed under this Agreement .
C. Receipt by the City of a written request from the State for the
advancement of funds .
ARTICLE IV - GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section A. Plan Changes
The City may request changes in the plans . If the State determines
that the requested plan changes are necessary and/or desirable, the
State will cause those plan changes to be made.
Section B. Examination of Books, Records, Etc.
As provided by Minnesota Statutes Section 16C. 05, subdivision 5, the
books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of
the State and the City relevant to this Agreement are subject to
examination by the State and the City, and either the legislative
auditor or the State auditor as appropriate, for a minimum of six
years from final payment .
69 4
78225
Section C, Claims
All employees of the State and all other persons employed by the
State in the performance of contract construction and/or construction
engineering covered under this Agreement shall not be considered
employees of the City. All claims that arise under the Worker' s
Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of the employees
while so engaged and all claims made by any third parties as a
consequence of any act or omission on the part of the employees while
so engaged on contract construction and/or construction engineering
covered under this Agreement shall in no way be the obligation or
responsibility of the City.
Section D. Agreement Approval
Before this Agreement shall become binding and effective, it shall be
approved by a City Council resolution and receive approval of State
and City officers as the law may provide in addition to the
Commissioner of Transportation or his authorized representative.
ARTICLE V - AUTHORIZED AGENTS
The State ' s Authorized Agent for the purpose of the administration of
this Agreement is Maryanne Kelly-Sonnek, Municipal/Utility Agreements
Engineer, or her successor. Her current address and phone number are
395 John Ireland Boulevard, Mailstop 682, St . Paul, MN 55155,
(651) 296-0969 .
The City' s Authorized Agent for the purpose of the administration of
this Agreement is Eugene Dietz, City Director of Public Works, or his
successor. His current address and phone number are 8080 Mitchell
Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344-2230, (612) 949-8310 .
7 5
/11!
78225
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement by their
authorized officers.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
Recommended for approval :
By
Mayor
By •
Division Engineer
Date
Approved:
By By
State Design Engineer
Date (Title and Date)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
Approved as to form and execution:
By
By
Assistant Attorney General Date
000000000000000000000000000000000000000
State of Minnesota
County of Hennepin
This Agreement was acknowledged before me this day of
, 1999, by.
and
(Name)
, the Mayor and
(Name) (Title)
of the City of Eden Prairie, and they executed this Agreement on behalf
of the municipality intending to be bound thereby.
Notary Public (S.-
My Commission Expires
6
�b 5
1
1
1I
1
Request of Perry and Michelle Ryan
for Variances to
' Allow Construction of
Single Family Home
' on 1.23 Acres of Property
I'
II
i!
1
Ii
I
1 T.
1t
I JAMES LARKIN
ROBERTL.HOFF1AAN LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
JOHN J.STEFFENHIPOEN
GERALD H.FRIEDELL MICHAEL J.SMITH
EDWARD J.DRISCOLL ATTORNEYS AT LAW ANDREW F.PERRN
GEAR N.FULLER FREDERICK W.NIEBU R
I
JOHN D.FULLMER JOAN M 0.EFtSO TtN
FRANK!.HARVEYC.
C ARLEss.MODELL 1500 NORWEST FINANCIAL CENTER AH++M MEYER
CFfSSTOPHER J.WREN RElEE L JACKSON
UNDAH.FISHER 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH CMYSTOPIER K.LARLM
THOMAS P.STOLTMAN - MARCY K.FROST
JSCHAEL C.JACIVAAM BLOOMINGTON,MINNESOTA 55431-1194 DOUGLASM.PAMLEN
Iis.
JOHN E DeliSTEPHEN J.KAMINSKI
J.FLYNNTELEPHONE(612)835-3800 D MELT.K JON S.
THOMAS F.�
JAMES P.QUINN
TODD I.FREEMAN FAX(612)896-3333 SHARNA�JOK+F.
GERALD L BECK C.ERIK FAXES
JOHN B.LUNCOUIST C.BRE.NT ROBBINS
DAYLE NOLAN* JOHN E YONKER
JOHN A COTTER' JM.ES M.SUSAG
PALL B.COTTER
ANOREWD.RYAN—
ALAN L KILDOW OANIEL J.BALLUNTNE
KATILEEN M.PICOTTE NENMMI USA S.ROBINSON
MICIMEL B.LFBARON ERICA SNIFF GLASSBER°
G EGORY E KORSTAD SONYA K.BRAUNSCR YFJO"'
GARY A VAN CLEVE• JOSEPH J.FITTANTE JR.
OANIELL BOWLES MARK D.C RISTOPARRSON
TMOTIIY J.KFANE !AURA K.GRAF
MAN M.MAERSON M.SHANE SWANSON
DONNA ROBACK NEAL J.BLANC ETT
MICIMEL W.BCILEY TAMARA M.°MULL
RONN&KREPS
TERRENCE E BISHOP OF COUNSEL
GARY A.REN EKE JACK F.DALY
ICIBIIST0PI J.H ANRIBMPAL D.KENNETH LNDEHItEN
Ili KENDE).J.OILROOGE AJLAPE ITISMUU N
JRUCE J.GGUIXAB JOSEPH GIT8
MUMS.C.GRIFFITH.JR.
JOIN R.MU. • ALSO ADMRTED N NISCCNSIN
PETER J.COYLE " ONLY ADMITTED N
LARRY D.MARTN MASSACHUSETTS
• ONLYADMITIED N IOW%
I
March 12 1999
ILDr.Jean Harris,Mayor Councilmember Ron Case
10860 Forestview Circle 9237 LaRivier Court
14 Eden Prairie,MN 55437 Eden Prairie,MN 55437
Councilmember Ross Thonfinson,Jr. Councilmember Nancy Tyra-Lukens
I11852 Waterford Road 14695 Queens Trail
Eden Prairie,MN 55437 Eden Prairie, MN 55437
IIICouncilmember Sherry Butcher-Younghans
9885 Purgatory Road
,, Eden Prairie,MN 55347
Re: Request of Perry and Michelle Ryan for Variances to Allow Construction of a Single Family
' Home on 1.23 Acres of Property in the City of Eden Prairie;
Property Identification No.: 29-116-22-43-0006
City Variance No.: 99-01; Our File No.: 24,535-00
IDear Mayor and City Council:
I This letter is written on behalf of the above applicants to request that the City Council grant two variances
to allow construction of a single family home on approximately 1.23 acres of land as identified in the
above caption(the"Property"). The variances are as follows: (1)variance for 1.23 acre lot in Rural
I
Zoning District which requires a minimum lot size of five acres; (2)reduction in minimum side yard from
50 feet to 20 feet. We have reviewed the record in this matter,Chapter 11 of the City Code(the"Zoning
Ordinance"),and Minnesota cases and statutes regarding municipal review of variances. Based upon this
Ireview,we are of the opinion that approval of the variances is compelled for the following reasons:
1. Denial of the variances will result in no reasonable use of the Property because the Rural District
Iuses are limited to agricultural,public facilities and services, single family detached dwellings and
I
' LARKIN,HOFFMAN, DALY&LINDGREN, LTD.
' Mayor and City Councilmembers
City of Eden Prairie
March 12, 1999
Page 2
accessory structures, commercial stables, and golf courses. Based upon the location and
' configuration of the parcels,the only reasonable use of the land is for a single family detached
dwelling.
2. Approval of the variances will not alter the essential character of the surrounding areas because the
immediately adjacent parcels average 1.52 acres in size. Of these parcels, all but one parcel
contains a single family home. Also, none of the parcels meets the five acre minimum
' requirement for the Rural District.
The basis for our opinion is set forth below.
' DISCUSSION
' A. BACKGROUND
1
Prior to the division of the Property,the Town of Eden Prairie adopted Ordinance No. 6 on June 11, 1957
111 which set a minimum lot size of 22,000 square feet. The 1.23 acre parcel(approximately 53,570 square
feet)was created by a land division which occurred by warranty deed, dated June 11, 1964 (filed of record
as Document No. 3481047 on June 17, 1964). Therefore, at the time of the land division,the Property
Iconformed to the minimum lot size requirements of the applicable Town ordinances.
Thereafter,the City of Eden Prairie established a five acre minimum standard by adoption of Ordinance
No. 135 in November of 1969. (See Notes of City Attorney in Variance Application 95-23.) Stephen and
Kimberly Nisoi made application for a variance in 1995 to construct a single family home. Review of the
record indicates the primary concern of City staff and officials was the driveway configuration and site
line distances on Eden Prairie Road. As discussed more fully in this letter,Ryan Engineering,Inc.has
revised the building and grading plans to improve site distances and comply with required slopes for
' construction of the driveway. (See Exhibit A.)
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals adopted a motion denying Variance Request No. 99-01 with the
' following findings and conclusions:
1. The applicant failed to demonstrate an unnecessary hardship if the variances were not granted.
2. The property circumstances were self-created.
' 3. The applicants have not demonstrated that denial of the variances will deprive them of all reasonable
uses of the property.
4. The driveway movements will be hazardous to owner and the public's health,welfare and safety,
' particularly during winter conditions.
1 .
ILARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY&LINDGREN, LTD.
I Mayor and City Councilmembers
City of Eden Prairie
March 12, 1999
I
Page 3
5. Granting the requested variances will set precedent contrary to the City's Rural District purpose and
Iintent.
B. RESPONSE TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS FINDINGS
I1. The applicants have clearly demonstrated undue hardship in this case.
111 The City's Zoning Ordinance requires a fording of"undue hardship"consistent with authority granted by
Minnesota Statute § 462.357, subd. 6. (See Zoning Ordinance § 11.76, subd. 1.) The Zoning Ordinance
states:I
Undue hardship as used in connection with the granting of a variance means
the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under
I' conditions allowed by the official controls . . . and the variance if granted
will not alter the essential character of the locality.
11 The applicants have demonstrated that denial of the variance results in undue hardship. The Rural District
provides an extremely limited list of permitted uses(cited above). Of these, only a single family home
I can be constructed on the Property. Agricultural use is not a reasonable use of the Property given its size
and its location adjacent to single family homes on similarly sized parcels. Commercial stables are not a
reasonable use of the Property;nor can the City consider a golf course a reasonable use of the Property.
IThe hardship in this case is real and substantial.
2. The Property circumstances were not the making of the applicant.
The Property has been divided as a 1.23 acre parcel since 1964,prior to the City's adoption of the five
acre minimum standard. It was a conforming parcel when it was divided. An adjoining landowner has
I requested that the City deny the variances stating that the landowner knew or should have known that the
parcel did not meet the five acre minimum lot size. It is not unreasonable for a lot purchaser to expect that
a city would grant a variance for a lot created 35 years ago and prior to the current five acre standard.
I Minnesota courts have recently held that"actual or constructive knowledge of a zoning ordinance before a
purchase of land is not a bar to granting a variance." Myron v. City of Plymouth, 562 N.W.2d 21,23
(Minn. App. 1997) (review granted aff d 581 N.W.2d 815 (1998)). The adjoining landowners have
Irejected offers of the applicants to acquire an adjoining vacant parcel so as to increase the size of the
Property.
I 3. The applicants have demonstrated that denial of the variances will deprive them of all
reasonable uses of the Property.
li Reasonable use of the Property must be considered in light of the use of property in the surrounding area.
As stated,Ryan Engineering,Inc.has submitted documentation indicating that the average parcel size for
adjoining properties is approximately 1.52 acres. (See Exhibit B.) Most of the parcels listed in Exhibit B
Icontain single family homes. None of the parcels meets the five acre minimum requirement. The
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY&LINDGREN,LTD.
' Mayor and City Councilmembers
City of Eden Prairie
March 12, 1999
II Page 4
variance is compelled when the property owner demonstrates that he is unable to put his land to any
' beneficial use without the variance. Sun Oil Co. v.Village of New Hope,220 N.W.2d 256 (Minn. 1974);
Zylka v. City of Crystal, 167 N.W.2d 45 (Minn. 1969); Westling v. City of St. Louis Park, 170 N.W.2d
218 (Minn. 1969).
In aprevious application for the Property,Variance No. 95-23, the staff report noted,"The area is outside
PP
the Metropolitan Urban Service Area(MUSA), but utilities may be available in five plus or minus years."
I1 (City Staff Report, dated July 13, 1995.) Four years have elapsed and the Property is no closer to being
served by public utilities. Further,the applicants have demonstrated that the Property can be adequately
I served by private sewer and water in compliance with all applicable state and local standards. To require
the applicants to continue to wait for an indefinite period for the extension of City services when others in
the same locality have been allowed to develop single family homes on private sewer and water, is to
IIdeny the applicants reasonable use of the Property. As stated,none of the other permitted uses is suited to
the Property.
4. Granting the variances provides a public benefit in that development grading will
improve site lines on Eden Prairie Road.
Both in the 1995 application and in the current application, staff has stated concerns regarding site
distances on Eden Prairie Road. The report of Rodney Rue,Assistant City Engineer,dated December 30,
1998 states, "A site distance of 300 feet is considered minimum for adequate access to or from a street or
I driveway based upon vehicles turning at about 30 miles per hour." The grading plan and driveway
location have been revised to provide the minimum site distance of 300 feet in each direction. This
revision not only provides for an appropriate driveway location,but it provides a public benefit by
I improving site distances on this curvilinear portion of Eden Prairie Road. This statement is supported by
an earlier report of the Assistant City Engineer, dated August 30, 1995,in which Mr. Rue states, "If
dramatic improvements in the sight distance are accomplished for the proposed driveway,there would
likely be some benefits to the traffic on Eden Prairie Road as well."
5. Granting the requested variances will not set a precedent contrary to the City's Rural
II District purpose and intent.
I} The purposes of the Rural District are to:
1 Prevent premature urban development of certain lands which eventually will be
appropriate for urban uses,until the installation of drainage works, streets,utilities,
' and community facilities and the ability to objectively determine and project
appropriate land use patterns makes orderly development possible;
' (2) Permit the conduct of certain agricultural pursuits on land in the City; and
(3) Ensure adequate light, air, and privacy for each dwelling unit and to provide
' adequate separation between dwellings and facilities for housing animals.
1
ILARKIN,HOFFMAN, DALY&LINDGREN, LTD.
I Mayor and City Councilmembers
City of Eden Prairie
March 12, 1999
I Page 5
Underlying the purpose statement of the Rural District is the assumption that lands which are not ready
_ for urban development are available for agricultural pursuits. As stated,that is simply not the case with
regard to this Property. If the intent is to "hold"lands for urban development,the die has been cast in this
neighborhood. Similarly sized parcels have been developed for single family uses on private sewer and
Iwater. Finally,there should be little concern about the provision of light, air and privacy, as well as
adequate separation,on parcels that are at least 1.2 acres in size. The City has allowed much closer
IIdevelopment at much higher densities in other single family neighborhoods within the City.
Further, city attorneys routinely advise boards,commissions and councils that variances,by their nature,
I do not establish precedent. The reason for this rule is variances,by their nature,are based on specific
facts and circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration. Therefore, each case is
unique, and does not create precedent for the other. See Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6.)
LCONCLUSION
II The applicants have met all of the technical standards applicable to development of a home site on the
Property. The home site will be developed in areas with slopes of less than 6 to 1 foot in grade. No
construction will be proposed in areas where slope meets or exceeds a 3 to 1 foot ratio. Erosion control
I measures will be employed in the construction process for the home site. A fiber blanket will be used to
L stabilize areas containing slopes. These measures are the same erosion control techniques used by the
Minnesota Department of Transportation along Highway 169 on slopes which exceed a 3 to 1 foot ratio.
1 Site distances of at least 300 feet will be maintained in each direction from the proposed driveway. The
driveway will not exceed the grade requirements contained within the City Code. In fact,the proposed
1, design meets the design standard proposed in two separate reports of Mr. Rue,the Assistant City
Engineer. When looking at the actual"traveled"distance,the separation to the driveway,within line of
sight,is approximately 320 feet, exceeding the City standard. This distance provides a public safety
Iimprovement for the general public traveling in both directions along Eden Prairie Road.
Private sewer and water facilities will meet or exceed applicable codes. Data supporting this finding has
I I been submitted with the application. The 1.23 acre parcel is similar in size to surrounding single family
home sites developed with private sewer and water. Denial of the variance will result in no reasonable use
Iof Property because it is not suitable for agricultural or golf course uses.
We believe the applicants have submitted substantial evidence supporting the variances requested and
have addressed the concerns of both City staff and adjoining landowners. The applicants are simply
Iasking to put the parcel to the same use as their neighbors for development of a single family home. We
strongly urge the City Council to approve the variances requested by the applicants.
1111 We will plan to make a presentation to the City Council at its meeting of Tuesday,November 16, 1999.
We request the City Clerk incorporate this letter and its attachments in the official record of decision in
this matter.
I
I
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY&LINDGREN, LTD.
Mayor and City Councilmembers
City of Eden Prairie
March 12, 1999
Page 6
Thank you for your careful consideration of our position.
_441p ,
'Willi• . Griffith,Jr.,for
,HOFFMAN,DALY&LIND ,Ltd.
Attachments
cc: John Frane, City Clerk
Jean Johnson,Zoning Administrator
IPerry Ryan,Ryan Engineering
I
0474103.01
11.
I •
111,
1
II
I
I
t
MINNESOTA RIVERVIEW
Eden Prairie,Minnesota
PID#29-116-22-43-0006
111 Proposed by:
RYAN ENGINEERING, INC.
IJanuary 11, 1999
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION—Response to Ms.Jean Johnson letter 12/14/99
I
Item#1—We have enclosed"EXHIBIT A" SITE AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
This is a color copy of the aeriel photo with the half section property lines overlayed upon
it. We feel that this illustrates the location respective of adjoining properties very well. It
also shows very well that this proposed development is in keeping with the adjacent
' properties in lot size and setbacks.
Tabulation of Property Sizes within 1/8t mile of property:
Property ID# Property Size(Acres+/-)
29-116-22-43-006 1.23 acres (Subject Property)
111 29-116-22-43-004 0.9 acres
29-116-22-43-014 1.3 acres
29-116-22-43-005 0.7 acres
29-116-22-43-012 0.5 acres
29-116-22-43-016 1.0 acres
29-116-22-43-013 2.3 acres
29-116-22-44-003 4.3 acres
AVERAGE SIZE 1.52 acres
lif WEIGHTED AVERAGE 1.23 acres(discarding high and low)
' AVERAGE EAST OF
EDEN PRAIRIE ROAD 1.13 acres
I
RYAN ENGINEERING,INC. "MINNESOTA RIVERVIEW"
Page 1 of 3 Eden Prairie,MN
r
Item#3—Undue Hardships:
As noted in the narrative submitted in the 12/10/98 request,the hardship involved is that
adjacent property is not available to purchase to conform to the 5 acre minimum lot size.
It is our understanding that the Board has authority to grant approvals through this
process to allow an Owner to utilize their property in the same manner as adjacent
property Owners. In keeping with this spirit,this variance should be approved.
Item#6—Alternatives to Lessen Variance:
Lot Size Variance—This cannot be lessened without the purchase of additional property.
The adjacent property Owner has been approached in the past and was unwilling to sell a
portion of their property. This does not appear to be an alternative to increase the lot size.
' Setback Variance—We are requesting a variance for a sideyard setback on the east side
of the proposed home. The minimum side yard setback, according to code for rural lots,
is 50',we are proposing 20'. Due to the width limitations,we felt it would be more
appropriate to increase the setback from Eden Prairie Road(proposed at 68')than to
move the proposed home closer to the roadway. In reviewing the aerial photo of the area,
this seems to be in concert with the adjacent parcels. Further, it appeared to be obtrusive
to Eden Prairie Road if the home was moved westerly. We would be open to any
suggestions the Board may have to lessen this variance.
Other information requested:
• We are unsure of the exact location of the adjoining property's wells. Based upon
Iexisting data,however,the minimum horizontal distance would be near 500'.
• The proposed retaining wall would be approximately 8' high at the highest point.
Enclosed is the proposed design for the retaining wall.
• Erosion Control along the City Street and US 212 will be a combination of silt fence
' and wood fiber blanket where appropriate. As with all developments which we have
been involved with in the City of Eden Prairie,we will design in accordance with the
MPCA's Best Management Practices(BMP's) and also in accordance with the City of
Eden Prairie's Engineering Department.
IF • It is proposed that all hardsurface runoff will be directed northerly as shown on the
grading plan. Further,we would propose that the home construction include full
gutters to direct runoff northerly to minimize runoff over the slopes to the south.
• Based upon the proposed Grading Plan, staging should work qutie well to protect the
traveling public's welfare and safety. As with any project, if traffic control seems
IP appropriate,this would be provided during any grading procedures. Again, as stated
in the narrative,the final grades proposed will greatly increase the traveling public's
safety upon completion with increased sight vision distances.
RYAN ENGINEERING,INC. "MINNESOTA RIVERVIEW"
' Page 2 of 3 Eden Prairie,MN
I
I
• A Scenic Easement has been suggested in the past and would be an available
consideration.
We are submitting this for the upcoming Board of Adjustments and Appeals meeting on
January 14, 1999.
If you have any questions or further information is required,please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
RYAN ENGINEERING, INC.
111
-,//64V
' Perry MfRyan, P. .
President
I
p
i
I
1
p
RYAN ENGINEERING,INC. "MINNESOTA RIVERVIEW"
' Page 3 of 3 Eden Prairie,MN
IAnchorWall(ver 2.5 May 1998) Page 1
I
LN AB98103593
Licensed to: Ryan Engineering
I430 Lafayette Av
Excelsior, MN 55331
612-474-7600
I
ILicense Number: AB98103593
I
Project Identification:
IProject Name: Minnesota Riverview
Data Sheet
I Owner: PMR Properties
Client PMR Properties
li Prepared by: Perry M. Ryan, P.E.
Date: 1/11/99
Time:
Data file:
II
Structure Summary:
II Wall Type: Reinforced Structure
Number of Panels: 1
Length of Wall (ft): 40.5
Anchor Wall Unit Type: Vertica Pro(8 inch)
I
Cap Unit Yes
Reinforcement Manufacturer: Amoco Fabrics+ Fibers Co.
•
II
Design Summary:
If Design Methodology. NCMA
Hinge Height(ft): 23.3
IFriction
Cohesion Angle Unit Weight
IPSoil Data: Soil Description (psf (degrees) (PO
Reinforced Soil: sand N/A 30.0 120.0
r Retained Soil: sand N/A 30.0 120.0
Leveling Pad Soil: gravel N/A 40.0 125.0
Foundation Soil: sand 0.0 30.0 120.0
I
IAnchorWall(ver 2.5 May 1998) Page 2
I
LN AB98103593
Anchor Wall Unit Name: Vertica Pro(8 inch)
IProperties Standard Units Cap Units
Unit Height(in) 8.0 4.0
Unit Width(in) 20.0 10.0
I Unit Length (in) 18.0 • 14.63
Setback(in) 0.562 WA
Weight(infilled) (lb) 212 42
111 Unit Weight(infilled) (pcf) 127.2 124.0
Center of Gravity(in) 10.0 .5.0
II
Geosvnthetic Reinforcement: NCMA Method
IType Name Polymer Type Index Allowable
, ID No. Tensile Strength (lb/ft)
(lMt)
I1 Amoco 2044 polypropylene 4800.0 106.7
11 Reduction Factors: NCMA Method
I Factor Amoco 2044
Creep 5.0
Durability 2.0
II Installation 3.0
Overall 1.5
V
I .
I
I,
IP
r
It
IAnchorWall(ver 2.5 May 1998) Page 3
ILN AB98103593
Panel 1 of 1
It Summary:
Number of Standard Unit Rows 14
I Cap Layer Yes
Base Elevation(ft) -1.0
Panel Height(ft) 9.67
I Panel Length(ft) 40.5
Crest Elevation(ft) 8.67
Left Station(ft) 0+00.00
Right Station(ft) 0+40.50
I I Minimum Toe Embedment Depth(ft) 1.0
Maximum Toe Embedment Depth(ft) 1.0
Minimum Height of Reinforced Soil(ft) 9.0
I Maximum Height of Reinforced Soil (ft) 9.0
Maximum Toe Slope(degrees) 0.0
Maximum Back Slope(degrees) 0.0
Maximum Live Load(psf) 0
1 Maximum Dead Load(psf) 0
II External Stability Results for Panel 1 of 1
Calculated Design Criteria
I . FOS Base Sliding 1.99 1.50 OK
FOS Overturning 5.05 1.50 OK
FOS Bearing Capacity 6.71 2.00 OK
Base Reinforcement Length (L) (ft) 5.40 5.40 OK
I� Base Eccentricity(e)(ft) 0.34 N/A
Eccentricty Ratio(e/L) 0.06 N/A
Base Reinforcement Ratio(L/H) 0.60 0.60 OK
IfNote: Calculated values MEET ALL design criteria
IResults of Internal Stability Analyses for Panel 1 of 1
Layer Geosyn Height Length Anchor FOS FOS FOS FOS Layer
II No. Type above (It) Length Over- Pullout Pullout Sliding Spacing
Toe (ft) stress (Peak) ( P) (Peak) (ft)
(ft) >1.0 >1.0 >1.5 >1.0 >1.5 <3.0
I I10 1 6.0 6.53 1.0 0.62' 1.68 1.68 13.71 OK
9 1 5.33 6.1 1.0 1.4 4.68 4.68 10.81 OK
8 1 4.67 5.67 1.0 1.19 4.68 4.68 8.58 OK
7 1 4.0 5.4 1.16 1.03 5.42 5.42 6.99 OK
6 1 3.33 5.4 1.59 0.91' 7.43 7.43 5.87 OK
5 1 2.67 Sd 2.02 0.81' 9.44 9.44 5.04 OK
4 1 2.0 5.4 2.45 0.74' 11.44 11.44 4.4 OK
3 1 1.33 5.4 2.88 0.67' 13.45 13.45 3.9 OK
2 1 0.67 5.4 3.3 0.6Y 15.46 15.46 3.5 OK
1111 1 1 0.0 5.4 3.73 1.17 35.59 35.59 1.99 OK
Note:6 values do NOT MEET design criterion(')
F
1
IAnchorWall(ver 2.5 May 1998) Page 4
ILN A898103593
Results of Facino Sta6Edv Analyses for Panel 1 of 1
I Layer Height Geosynthetic FOS FOS FOS FOS FOS
No. above Type Over- Shear Shear Connection Connection
Toe turning (peak) (displacement) (Peak) (disp)
(ft) >1.5 >1.5 >1.0 >1.5 >1.0
I14 8.67 none >99 >99 >99 -
13 8.0 none 46.72 . 42.03 42.03 -
12 7.33 none 15.55 19.8 19.8 - -
11 11 6.67 none 7.76 12.49 12.49 - -
10 6.0 1 4.68 9.0 9.0 5.05 3.61
9 5.33 1 3.43 4026 402612.98 9.33
8 4.67 1 2.79 36.37 36.37 12.25 8.84
7 4.0 1 2.4 32.98 32.98 11.72 8.48
I 6 3.33 1 213 30.42 30r42 11.32 8.21
5 2.67 1 1.93 28A 28.4 11.0 7.99
4 2.0 1 1.77 26.78 26.78 10.74 7.81
3 1.33 1 1.64 25.45 25.45 10.53 7.67
I 2 0.67 1 1.54 24.34 24.34 10.35 7.55
1 0.0 1 1A4• WA NIA 20.77 15.17
Note:•value does NOT MEET design criterion
II
I
IP
I
I
11
I
•
IP.
11 .
111
MIL
I
AnchorWall(ver 2.5 May 1998) Page 5
ILN A1398103593
4.0 degrees II
I9.67 ft
I
III I
Amoco 2044
I Amoco 2044
Amoco 2044
IIAmoco 2044
Amoco 2044
1 . Amoco 2044
Amoco 2044
1;ft Amoco 2044
II ____T Amoco 2044
hill
1.0 ft
5.4 ft BH •
1
I
Panel 1 of 1
Project Name: Minnesota Riverview
Data Sheet:
1 Owner: PMR Properties
Client: PMR Properties
IP Prepared by: Perry M. Ryan, P.E.
Date: 1/11/99
Time:
1' Data file:
I
_ __ ;, `tip.:;;:==- ; -.; rK . ;-;:- 4a2.`:>
•
___.____ _____ __ ___�=__, - �.�-�.." . - - - '- - .F.v-r�:)4i_ ii�i11:S.�.�.�aiR _
z "�
�7h is t4;. - _
' '-- �. .,
_
•
i x
_- - - - _ __ --- .SDI:`.4: - _ __
�� _ _ ___ .
fr
•'-rz...Via.•:=��
i. •
•
•
_= try`°_- � ' -
----='= _ - _ > _fir _- <� _ - , _ .... _ _ •.r:..:..r•
-- __=.. _.- s ram ,,'" " - '''�'
..
_ ..
r"
t
: T F: g` ,- "-��- •
-T ,,: . .,;. - ;�- ' - - - - -
. _ - _ _ �z.:- :te - �t;s .f-2•' zE Yam_ .. -- - _ �, - :._ ss ,i-.._. _._ a.-_
4.
r •
>< __:=i==- _ ram,. :
_ _ . -
_ _ _- - _ - - a 'ram:; �i` J-^.,
•
1
``�11-6-- /1 A D TA C r - T c `� ,
t
I 01999 WAN ENGINEERING, LNG
CAN7RACTCR SHALL CALL:
a
tGOPHER STATE ONE CALLCmoRyll
TTWN LYnES -0002S7RUCnav v/ (out.ta. l-E010-252-n66) 1]�J
% 0 .
i •"" —'�.p� / CNNt?i■inawwawrby•Laid Pta iii g
' —' .'(hi+/ Earro. tat • fwg7My
Edon Pra/r* MN
ROAD DEVELOPMENT DATA IO'�°"°'°°
/
4 / / ZONING: .
�/ i / EXISTING ZONING: RURAL a r.:w►r�.....w.°
;7 ( GUIDED(within MUSA): LOW DENSITY RES. (0-2.5 UN/AC) drect 441441t""", w under Ile th.
/ IPROPOSED ZONING: RURAL W/ VARIANCE REQUEST Stale a1
/ WELL 1
OGLOCATIONiVARIANCE REQUEST.: ••o.rww.�a.
• �` ETNNINGi/ ALL Lot Size Variance — 1.23 Acres
®� �� // SITE AREA:
• $ � �'� TOTALDEVELOPMENT AREA1.23 +/— Ac "MINNESOI°A
MUSH �1NE,�' RIVERVIEW66 O - DENSITY. Eden Prairie, MN00 20' SINGLE FAMILY 1 DU ON 1.23 AC 0.81 DU/AC GROSS
law
4:iii
//i.
DR AINFIELD ` ��
LOCATION � (29-116-22-43-0001) ENGINEER: OWNER: page
•
(See Septic RYAN ENGINEERING, INC. Perry & Michelle Ryon %u
Design)Sec �`.f 10400 WKING DR., SUITE 140 430 LAFAYETTE AVENUE &titd +g Noire.
. EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55334 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 ACRIVIRDWG
. (612) 947-9100 0►a.n 9y
Na
� I
t FRAINFIELD _ r°' Checked jR
/ ()CATION (AL .) o
Dote
R.,(,b,s
e ■ Au WNW DMMwr a Gawks
sa dada My Me
T LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PID NO.: 29-116-22-43-0006
THAT PART OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 Issued Fat•. Data:
OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4, LlING SOUTH OF EDEN HEIGHTS
ROAD AND WEST OF THE EAST 171 FT THOF EX HWY. R„t.w
G`A vAi tis:_l_ Nibs
,.
212 & 16� TOTAL AREA 1.23 AC +/— iiimemlummin
SITE •
I NORTH PLAN
a
j Pape •
mesimeime aimmn
TOPOGRAPHY PROVIDED FROM MTPO BOUNDARY A
0' 30' 60' 90' 1 of 3
1 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY DATED 5/22/92
1 0» > SWIMMING. INC.
I Cav7eAC7Lw&VAIL CALL*
GOPHER STATE ONE CALL RYAN
48 HRS. PRIOR TO CGVSTRUCn ay
1 ii
ii (Ma tot n-800-252 ) FNGIlVFFRING .
1 Cho E. ...rp Pleasing
L..dPleasing1 Eav roner.wtal • surveying
SO
�1'
ExcNaMi, MN
L404 1012I 4744800 .•,
0�__�u Ip lit_
Sava" MN ;S` ���1.``� NW aao-eno
I‘ M"11, ("V.-4W A A ,'11 I Web"as*114 No pis%opediailke.
it apart Ns pripored by me or my*my
'C�y(27`.P1' r,%`1(At .ii_ ,. • •• 0?' ariww.../.M.lam a w.
• .444/ lirti •• • L•CATION ate..
Ileglelreem lb.
4. 780� / • ET NI G ow
,Arii
41'
•
,�� '' "MtNNESOTA
� � ' RIVERVIEW"
ithiAt ‘k‘..‘" 0
Sri, .. .4 ,�� �, ,,
70 ///i �'� �. 4 i:►' rlpi ,. Eden Prairie, MN
4-'4 // PLANT LIST
/ 1
' ,4111! i \ iiii,4 *Ot p4, SIZE
a SYMBOL QTY COMMON NAME
lisi/," 1'II
IE�D �i� sk ` %-�i.ii 6 Black Hills Spruce 8 B&B
r ^ A M �' "� 308 - j 4 Red Oak 8' B&B Project Na
m
E / r• o S �.ti 806- fees Name
�p N ` `���isr n� ^ ^ ►es .n `� + N M 804 ►a�vetDwe
,„
r, 7Z Ie ,� 802 16 Globe Arborvitae 2'-3� Pot Drown B'
q � _ 798 Chocked By
796
•
cAv
wa/sa
lift
— — —790————— a. :
ll ��_ rVwr•WNW o ...,a a.r..
•
agi
(7 -- _ ----780--- •
I
770_ ��
_ Mwad For: Data:
4 -- w= sa
3 �' -76p'
1avvb•r '`
' 212 169 75p i;
TREE `.
• REPLACEMEN ''
1 NORTH PLAN
o' 30' 60' 90' 3 of 3
wwww^
0 1999 RYAN ENGINEERING, D e e9o�
\ X� _ GENERAL SIGHT LINE NOTE, Rv
\ ■
SIGHT LINE DESIGN IS FOR 300', HOWEVER iA�N
CONTRACTOR SHALL CALL: \\ ACTUAL DISTANCE TRAVELED FROM SIGHT LINE POINT
GOPHER STATE ONE CALL — oFit
' TO DRIVEWAY APPROACH EQUALS 320' +/-
4B NRS PR/AR 70 caysIRUCAAN T r� \ \ CM,Ea ..,Na.Lewd Pk wring
WIN CITIES 454-0002 — —
(ovt.toN/�a010-23Z'-Ila6J ` ��\• ' / EOYrOiMI•MfN • aY/YoJM•y
Excelsior, MN
IOW 474-7000
I og •-""'illge VOL
J• , 846.0
Savage, MN
0` ' / real Sao-ano
AIWA*
Pljlr''r" ,qZ / 1 sfwy •Id•Ili pt s.a•w v♦ r' , ,. V a fM `/MfIllyo , : Z 1;. . %''' I *eel alofwrw.w•Id 1 w.My
• 7/'�I`�, • • ►��^• �1� III / 1 I d liwwo war Yr law d the
*�//� "ift a.• I• I . L CL ION / `\ ( , 5�G
higietefisn Ns
4 78s / i r/�/ "
' _ '-' 1 4 om
I • /�7/ �� `\ J EAV77NC PROFRB
N
lietrcti010%
fir/ `, ` MINNESOTARIVERVIEW7 _4\14p __ MUSH UN798.5 '1� ` 795 0 - in
PRO'• a�i p�Q�p DA7VJI98.5 Eden Prairie, MN
44,
•
aA NI /y`�/ Oh.
' \k:, .._
` Ali
'� 1' 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00allimmmmin
rO z0•AoMa ��- ----_ NORTH SIGHT LINE [300'1
Proiset No.
nti o^o ell).
n 804--- .-RIllirDrrtd Drofhg N ,EEDWC
Al
21711030 44
•
Iagara
wan
\ 41 -790----_ eimm ummMa mmoons
W — 796.540
WPM/MOW Der a Ow1r
6 :::::::---
_ 0' 50' 100' 150' r.r•ar•w svo
-........... -780--_____
ii
6 —— _ snNc PROFILE .
I
_' _ _ —770_. `_ PROPOSED •ROFILE \
_- I fac Date
ee4, Deily Development.
- `��0Comptreellen
47.
Nies
LEGEND Ow 212 & 1g 7s0-__
8
illhai
759.1GRADING &
DENOTES SILT FENCEDAEROSION
-�-980 DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS °' ^ °' `O �* CONTROL
—980— - NORTH
DENOTES PROPOSED CO
NTOURS .�,�
^
IT
1 PLAN
IT
o+oo 00 3+00
x gp9.0 DENOTES PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION SOUTH SIGHT LINE I300'I ''s'
INIIIIIIIIMM
TOPOGRAPHY PROVIDED FROM HTPO BOUNDARY & 0' 30' 60' 90' • 2 of 3
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY DATED 5/22/92