Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council - 06/01/1993
AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL eL/FSDAY, JUNE 1, 1993 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER 7600 Executive Drive COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Douglas Tenpas, Richard Anderson, Jean Harris, H. Martin lessen, and Patricia Pidcock CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Janie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson,City Attorney Roger Pauly,finance Director John D.Franc, Director of Community Development Chris Enger,Director of Parks, Recreation&Natural Resources Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works Gene Dietz, and Council Recorder PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS IL MINUTES A. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD THURSDAY, MAY 18, 1993 Page 1162 • III. CONSENT CALENDAR Page 1170 A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST B. PROCLAMATION HONORING EMMETT STARK FOR 20 YEARS Page 1171 OF SERVICE AS DIRECTOR OF THE EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY BAND C. APPROVAL OF BIDS FOR PIONEER PARK Page 1172 D. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF BELL OAKS ESTATES 3RD(located Page 1177 south of Riverview Road and east of Homeward Hills Road) E. RECEIVE AND APPROVE FIRST OUARTER 1993 GENERAL Page 1180 FUND BUDGET STATUS REPORT F. RECEIVE AND APPROVE UNAUDI'I1 I) 1992 YEAR-END Page 1189 GENERAL FUND BUDGET STATUS REPORT G. AWARD BID FOR DEMOLITION OF HOUSES AT 8034 AND 8042 Page 1204 • EDEN ROAD IL RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF 82,595,000 Page 1205 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS FOR LAKEVIEW BUSINESS CENTER PROJECT City Council Agenda Tuesday, June 1, 1993 Page Two I. 1ST READING OF ORDNANCE AMENDING CITY CODE Page 12411 CHAPTER 8, SECTION 8.07. SUBD. 3.B.. RELATING TO PARKING HOURS AND SIGNAGE J. APPROVAL OF FINAL PLANS FOR ELEVATED WATER TOWER AND AUTHORIZE BIDS TO BE RECEIVED IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS A. FREEBURG/PERKINS/FELTL ADDITION by Page 1212 Freeburg/Perkins/Feltl. Request for Preliminary Plat of three acres into three lots and Zoning Code variances to be reviewed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Location: Willow Creek Road. (Resolution for Preliminary Plat) Continued from May 4, 1993 B. PRAIRIE MEADOWS APARTMENTS Public Hearing For Council Page 1213 Approval Of Formation Of Lease Hold Cooperative (Resolution) C. CENTEX DEERFIELD by Centex Homes/Delegards. Request for Page 1224 Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 21.8 acres and from Low Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial on 3.66 acres. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 94.15 acres. PUD District Review • with waivers on 94.15 acres. Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 on 30.1 acres. Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 7.3 acres. Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on 21.8 acres. Preliminary Plat of 94.15 acres into 323 lots, 7 outlots, and road right-of-way. Location: Dell Road and West 82nd Street. (Resolution for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change; Resolution for PUD Concept Review; Ordinance for PUD District Review and Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5, R1-13.5, and RM-6.5; and Resolution for Preliminary Plat) D. ST.EDWARDS FIELD by The Pemtom Land Company. Request for Page 1263 rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 2.44 acres and Preliminary Plat of 7.07 acres into 11 lots, 1 outlot and road right-of-way. Location: West of Tartan Curve, east of CSAH 101. (Ordinance for Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5; and Resolution for Preliminary Plat) E. VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS OVER Page 1280 PART OF LOTS 15 AND 16. BLOCK 3. BOULDER POINTED VACATION NO. 93-01 V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Page 1282 VI. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS • A. 1ST READING OF TRAPPING ORDINANCE Page 1283 VII. PETITIONS. REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS City Council Agenda Tuesday, June 1, 1993 Page Three • VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS. COMNIISSIONS & COMMITTEES IX. APPOINTMENTS A. APPOINTMENT OF ONE MEMBER TO THE HUMAN RIGHTS CO TO FILL AN UNEXPIRED'TERM TO 10/31/94 X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS 1. Non-Accessory Signs Page 1297 2. Minneapolis Residency Requirement Statute 3. LMC Annual Conference 4. Complaints Regarding Recreation Registration Process 5. Resident Participation at Council Meetings 6. Midwest Asphalt Plant • B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER 1. Organization Mission Statement Page 1311 C. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PARKS,RECREATION&NATURAL RESOURCES D. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT E. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS 1. Resolution Awarding Contract for Riverview Heights Improvements, I.C. 93-5320 F. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY G. REPORT OF FINANCE DIRECTOR XI. OTHER BUSINESS XII. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL • TUESDAY, MAY 18, 1993 8:00 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER 7600 Executive Drive COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Douglas Tenpas, Richard Anderson, Jean Harris, H. Martin Jessen, and Patricia Pidcock CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City Attorney Roger Pauly, Finance Director John D. Frane, Director of Community Development Chris Enger, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works Gene Dietz, and Director of Human Resources and Community Services Natalie Swaggert PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE & ROLL CALL Mayor Tenpas called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. All members were present. PRESENTATION OF AWARD FROM MINNESOTA SAFETY COUNCIL The Minnesota Safety Council honored Eden Prairie with an Outstanding Achievement Award for occupational IIsafety activities during 1992. The City Council accepted the award on behalf of the City and commended staff for their work in this area. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS Jessen added Item X.A.1. Non-Accessory Signs, and X.A.2.. Residency Requirement for City Employees. Pidcock added Item X.A.3.. League of Minnesota Cities Conference of June 8th, and Item X.A.4., Recreation Projram Registration Complaints. Anderson added Item X.A.5.. Citizen Participation at Council Meetings, and Item X.A.6. Midwest Asphalt Plant. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Jessen, to approve the agenda as submitted and amended. Motion carried unanimously. H. MINUTES A. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY. MAY 4. 1993 MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting held Tuesday, May 4, 1993, as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. CONSENT CALENDAR • A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST B. 1ST READING OF ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 5.36 OF CODE RELATING TO REGULATION OF COLLECTION OF RESIDENTIAL REFUSE City Council Minutes 2 May 18, 1993 C. RESOLUTION_t93-97, AWARDING CONTRACT FOR SEAL COAT, I.C. 93-5317 411 D. RESOLUTION #93 98, AWARDING CONTRACT FOR 140HP WHEEL LOADER. I.C. 93- 5324 E. AUTHORIZE STUDY BY BLACK& VEATCH TO UPDATE 1990 WATER WORKS MASTER PLAN F. RESOLUTION #93-99. APPROVING FINAL PLAT FOR TECHNOLOGY CAMPUS 2ND ADDITION aka St. Andrews Church (located north of Technology Drive and west of Purgatory Creek) G. RESOLUTION #93-100. APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF PINEBROOK ACARMODY SUBDIVISION) located north of Anderson Lakes Parkway and west of Purgatory Creek H. RESOLUTION #93-101. AUTHORIZING MODIFICATIONS TO YEAR XIX CDBG PROPOSALS Amending Proposed Use of Year XIX Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Funds I. RESOLUTION#93-102.DENYING ZONING,PLATTING,AND SITE PLAN REQUESTS FOR BLOCK BUSTER VIDEO/LIOUOR STORE by Northco Corporation. Denial of request for Zoning District Amendment within the Community Commercial Zoning District on 10.8 acres, preliminary plat of 10.8 acres and Site Plan Review on 10.8 acres into three lots. Locatior� Northwest corner of County Road 4 and Highway 5. J. APPROVE CHANGE ORDERS FOR STARING LAKE AMPHITHEATER STORAGE BUILDING K. REQUEST BY CENTEX REAL ESTATE FOR GRADING PERMIT TO ALLOW PLACEMENT OF FILL IN NW CORNER OF TH 169 AND FOUNTAIN PLACE L. APPROVAL OF CONSULTANT STUDY FOR WETLAND MITIGATION M. KINGSTON RIDGE 2ND ADDITION by Leland Kottke. 2nd Reading of an Ordinance requesting Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 2.76 acres; Approval of a Developer's Agreement for Kingston Ridge 2nd Addition; Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Summary of an Ordinance and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. Location: South of Kingston Ridge, west of Staring Lake Parkway (Ordinance #16-93, Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5; and Resolution #93-103, Authorizing Summary and Publication) N. R_ESOLUTION #93-104, AWARDING CONTRACT FOR SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS GOLF VIEW DRIVE (between Allen Court and Green View Court) and PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE (between TH 169 and W. 78th Street), I.C. 52-270/I.C. 93-5315 O. GLENSHIRE 2ND ADDITION by Associated Investments. 2nd Reading of an Ordinance requestir PUD District Review on 6.1 acres and Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 on 6.1 acres; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Glenshire 2nd Addition; Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Summary of an Ordinance and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. Location: East of Edenvale Boulevard, 1 City Council Minutes 3 May 18, 1993 north of Valley View Road (Ordinance #17-93-PUD-4-93, PUD District Review and Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5; and Resolution #93-105, Authorizing Summary and Publication) P. RESOLUTION #93-106. FOR THE SALE OF $550.000 IN EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATES Q. AWARD BID FOR LARGE ROTARY MOWER Regarding Item H. of the Consent Calendar, Pidcock asked that Staff make the Metropolitan Council aware of the City's efforts on housing goals. Jullie said he would follow through. Regarding Item K. of the Consent Calendar, Anderson questioned whether it would be possible to request dedication of a trail through the Cherne property as a condition of the grading permit. Lambert explained that the trail would be dedicated at the time the property was developed. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Jessen, to approve items A. - Q. of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS A. FAIRFIELD WEST PHASE 2 by Centex Homes. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 23.5 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 23.5 acres, Rezoning from Rural to R1- 13.5 on 6.76 acres and Preliminary Plat of 6.76 acres into 11 lots. Location: West of Fairfield, south • of Scenic Heights Road #212. (Resolution Approving PUD Concept; Ordinance for PUD District Review and Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5; and Resolution Approving Preliminary Plat) In September, 1992, the Council granted zoning and platting approval for phase one of the Fairfield West PUD. At that time, Centex and Tandem agreed not to proceed with zoning or platting of the remaining 11 lots prior to March 15, 1993, and that no development would start until after May 1, 1993. On split votes, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project and the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission recommended denial of the proposal. Dissenting votes on both commissions recommended awaiting the report of the special Natural Resources Commission and R1-44 zoning for protection of the natural resources. Tom Boyce, President of Centex Homes of the Midwest, presented the development plans for the property, noting that seven (7) lots would be located within the "Big Woods." Betty McMahon, president of the Eden Prairie Land Trust (EPLT), explained the progress of the organization so far. She explained that the EPLT had not been able to raise the money needed to purchase the "Big Woods" from the developer, as planned. On behalf of the organization, McMahon asked the Council to refrain from acting on the developer's request until the report of the specially appointed Natural Resources Commission was completed, on or about July 6th. Councilmembers considered the details of the tree protection plan proposed by the developer, which would allow or protection of more trees on the property. There was concern amongst Councilmembers about the potential impact of the development upon the mature maple and basswood forest which was part of and adjacent to the property. The suggestion was made that R1-44 zoning �I0Lif City Council Minutes 4 May 18, 1993 be considered for the property. It was noted that one of the purposes of the R1-44 district w 0 preservation of such natural resources. There was also concern expressed regarding fair treatme of the developer, especially since Centex and Tandem had proposed to meet, or exceed, all ordinance requirements with the development of the property. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Jessen, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. During continued discussion amongst Councilmembers, it was determined that the City Forester should review the Centex tree protection plan in detail and report back to Council regarding any findings. Further, the Forester was authorized to obtain outside consultation, if necessary. Dick Putnam, Tandem Corporation, owner of the property, explained the amount of investment that had been made in the property. He added that Tandem Corporation had offered EPLT an option for $1.00 on the balance of the wooded area owned by Tandem, if EPLT would allow Tandem to develop the remaining eleven (11) lots. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Jessen, to reconsider the previous motion to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Jessen, to withdraw the previous motion to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Jessen moved, seconded by Pidcock, to continue the public hearing pending receipt be Council of an analysis from the City Forester regarding the Centex Plan for tree preservation. Further, the Forester is hereby authorized to obtain additional consultation, as deemed appropriate. Motion carried on a 4 - 1 - 0 vote with Tenpas voting against. Mayor Tenpas declared a recess called at 9:50; the meeting was called back to order at 10:05 p.m. B. SOWLES PROPERTY by US Homes. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review of 83.55 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 12.06 acres, Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 12.06 acres, Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 on 45.92 acres, Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on 12.06 acres, Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 5 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 83.55 acres into 195 lots, 5 outlots and road right-of-way. Location: East of Dell Road, north of County Road 1. (Resolution Approving PUD Concept;Resolution Approving Comprehensive Guide Plan Change;Ordinance for PUD District Review and Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5, RM-6.5, and R1-13.5; and Resolution Approving Preliminary Plat) Lee Johnson, representing U. S. Homes, presented the development plans to the Council. The Planning Commission and Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission had bo recommended approval of the development proposal. Changes recommended by the Plannin Commission for connection of neighborhood streets had been made by the developer and were represented in Alternate C on the plans. 1111 City Council Minutes 5 May 18, 1993 • Councilmembers discussed trail connections from the neighborhood to the school. It was agreed that the developer would work with staff prior to second reading to provide adequate connection for the safety of kids going to and from school. Brian Venable, 17349 Bainbridge Drive, Rick Bailey, 16835 Hanover Lane, Roy Rosemond, 17220 Bainbridge Drive, Jim Todd, 17018 Hanover Lane, Dallas Erdmann, 17116 Bainbridge Drive, Dennis O'Brien, 8770 Danton Way, Kelly O'Brien, 8770 Danton Way, Lyn Erdmann, 17116 Bainbridge Drive, William Swisher, 17051 Hanover Lane, expressed concerns that the new development would invite many people to use their a traffic route through their neighborhood because of the "straight line" that would be created by the connection of this development to the north. Neighbors were concerned about pedestrian and biker safety, as well. MOTION: Pidcock moved,seconded by Anderson, to: 1) Close the Public Hearing; 2) Adopt Resolution #93-107, approving the PUD Concept Review; 3) Adopt Resolution #93-108, approving the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change; 4) Approve the 1st Reading of the Ordinance for PUD District Review and Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5, RM-6.5, and R1-13.5; • 5) Adopt Resolution #93-109, approving the Preliminary Plat; and 6) Direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations including trail. Further, that developer shall work with staff regarding Alternate C for road alignment as depicted in the plans and before second reading, staff will meet with the neighborhood regarding consensus for alternate. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. C. VICTORY LUTHERAN CHURCH by Victory Lutheran Church. Request for Zoning District Amendment within the Public Zoning District on 6.6 acres. Location: East of County Road 4, north of Berger Drive. (Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment within the Public Zoning District) The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval at its April 26, 1993 meeting. Nancy Nickolai, 16011 Lakeshore Drive, representing herself and her father, raised questions about • drainage in the area as it impacted her home and asked that the family be notified of the timing of construction in the area. Council directed staff to follow through to correct the drainage and notification requests. l I (�� City Council Minutes 6 May 18, 1993 MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Jessen, to: 1) Close the Public Hearing; 2) Approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment within the Public Zoning District; and 3) Direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations, including correction of the problems on the Nickolai property. Motion carried unanimously. D. CENTRAL MIDDLE SCHOOL PHASE II by the Independent School District #272. Request for Zoning District Amendment within the Public, R1-22 and I-2 Zoning Districts on 20.5 acres to allow for the construction of replacement athletic facilities and Site Plan Review on 20.5 acres for review of grading and drainage plans for the outdoor recreational area. Location: Scenic Heights Road. (Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment within the Public, R1-22 and I-2 Zoning Districts) The Planning Commission had recommended approval of the plan at its meeting May 10th. There were no comments from audience. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to: 1) Close the Public Hearing; and • 2) Approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment within the Public, R1-22, and I-2 Zoning District. Motion carried unanimously. E. EDEN PRAIRIE TRANSPORTATION FACILITY by Independent School District#272. Request for Zoning District Amendment within the I-2 Park Zoning District on 8.31 acres and Site Plan Review on 8.31 acres for construction of a 40,000 sq. ft. garage. Location: Technology Drive and Wallace Road. (Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment within the I-2 Park Zoning District) The Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request at its May 10th meeting. There were no comments from members of the audience; however, Council had received a letter from Kleerflo Company regarding screening concerns. The school had agreed to work with Kleerflo to provide for satisfactory screening of the site from the Kleerflo property. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to: 1) Close the Public Hearing; and 2) Approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment within the I-2 Park Zonin. District. Motion carried unanimously. i 1Lfl City Council Minutes 7 May 18, 1993 V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS • MOTION: Jessen moved, seconded by Harris, to approve the Payment of Claims as presented. Motion carried on a roll call vote, with Anderson, Harris, Jessen, Pidcock, and Tenpas voting "aye." VI. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. VICTORY LUTHERAN CHURCH by Victory Lutheran Church. 2nd Reading of an Ordinance requesting Zoning District Amendment within the Public Zoning District on 6.6 acres; Approval of amended Developer's Agreement for Victory Lutheran Church; Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Summary of an Ordinance and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. Location: East of County Road 4, north of Berger Drive. (Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment within the Public Zoning District; and Resolution Authorizing Summary and Publication) MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock, to: 1) Approve 2nd Reading of Ordinance #15-93 for Zoning District Amendment within the Public Zoning District; 2) Adopt Resolution #93-110, Authorizing the Summary of the Ordinance for Publication; and 3) Approval of the Supplement to the Development Agreement. • Motion carried unanimously. B. RESOLUTION #93-111. APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF VICTORY LUTHERAN CHURCH ADDITION (located south Lakeshore Drive and east of CSAH 4) MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to adopt Resolution #93-111, approving the final plat for Victory Lutheran Church Addition. Motion carried unanimously. VII. PETITIONS. REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS. COMMISSIONS & COMMITTEES A. HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE - 1993-1994 Work Plan Bill Jackson, Chair of the Human Rights Committee, presented the Committee's 1993-1994 Work Plan to the Council. Councilmembers asked for the Commission's input about how the City should respond to prejudicial actions on its property, i.e. the ice rinks and fields, and how to encourage adults working with kids, like coaches, to help with education about prejudice. Council and Committee members also discussed the need for a diversity coordinator. Concern was expressed amongst Councilmembers regarding the potential difficulties which may arise • from listing only a specific number of groups within the Manifesto, instead of all groups. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Jessen, to adopt the proposed Eden Prairie Manifesto. Motion carried on a vote of 4 - 0 - 1, with Tenpas abstaining. City Council Minutes 8 May 18, 1993 B. COMMUNITY NEEDS AND RESOURCES COUNCIL - Proposal for Livery Service Program MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock, to support a Livery Service Program for the Ci ty . using Triad Transportation, Inc., and to authorize staff to proceed with development of a such a program. Motion carried unanimously. C. HUMAN RIGHTS & SERVICES COMMISSION - Funding for YMCA Youth Outreach Worker Program Expansion MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Jessen, to approve$7,000 in the evolving Human Services Program in the Community Services Budget to conduct a pilot program for a female outreach counselor for the last half of 1993. Motion carried unanimously. IX. APPOINTMENTS A. Recommendation to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners for Appointment to Riley- Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to recommend to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners that Perry Forester be reappointed to a three-year term on the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District Board of Managers. Motion carried unanimously. X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS • A. Reports of Councilmembers 1. Non-Accessory Signs - Continued to June 1, 1993 2. Residency Requirement for City Employees - Continued to June 1, 1993 3. League of Minnesota Cities Conference of June 8th - Conti nued to June 1, 1993 4. Recreation Program Registration Complaints - Continued to June 1, 1993 5. Citizen Participation at Council Meetings - Continued to June 1, 1993 6. Midwest Asphalt Plant - Continued to June 1, 1993 XI. OTHER BUSINESS XII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION TO ADJOURN: Anderson moved, seconded by Harris, to adjourn the meeting. Mayor Tenpas adjourned the meeting at 12:15 a.m. • t49Cl 4111 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST June 1, 1993 CONTRACTOR ,(MULTI-FAMILY & COMM. ) GAS FITTER Personalized Wood Products Backdahl & Olson Plumbing & Heating Weis Builders, Inc. General Plumbing & Heating Janecky Plumbing Company One Stop Plumbing Shop PLUMBER Unique Air, Inc. Backdahl & Olson Plumbing & Heating Borman Plumbing HEATING & VENTILATING D & R Plumbing 4110 General Plumbing & Heating Citywide A/C Heating & Refrigeration Mike Larson Plumbing Slander Plumbing Merrick Plumbing Unique Air, Inc. One Stop Plumbing Lee Stull Plumbing Robert Wyllie Plumbing These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the licensed activity. 7,3W_ Pat Solie Licensing 4111 irk) Proclamation • HONORING EMMETT STARK FOR TWENTY-YEARS OF SERVICE AS THE DIRECTOR OF THE EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY BAND WHEREAS, having an interest and background in music, and desiring to promote the playing and enjoyment of music, Emmett Stark asked the City of Eden Prairie to sponsor an "All Corners Band" during the summer of 1973; and WHEREAS, the band has grown from a group composed mostly of high school and college students desiring to keep up their musical skills in the summer, to a group today of more than sixty adults who have been able to continue an enjoyable musical experience that started when they were students; and WHEREAS, in 1982 the Eden Prairie Community Band grew from a summer organization to a year-round commitment under "Em's" leadership; O and WHEREAS, the Eden Prairie Community Band has provided an artistic and recreational outlet for community adults where they continue to learn and enhance their ability as a result of"Em's" in-depth knowledge of music from the classics through jazz; and WHEREAS, the Eden Prairie Community Band has brought musical enjoyment to this community and the region through its' nearly twenty per- formances each year. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Eden Prairie recognizes and commends Emmett J. Stark for his twenty-years of service to the community as Director of the Eden Prairie Community Band on this 9th day of June, 1993. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources FROM: Barbara Penning Cross, Landscape Architecf DATE: May 25, 1993 'ff SUBJECT: Recommendation to Award Bid for Pioneer Park Construction Bids for Pioneer Park were received and opened Thursday, May 20, 1993. Four bids were received with the following results: • Bituminous Consulting $198,277.50 • Alber Construction $205,801.70 • Hardrives $218,782.70 • G. L. Contracting $225,041.00 11111 A detailed bid summary has been included for your review. Staff recommends awarding the contract to Bituminous Consulting in the amount of $198,277.50. Construction of Pioneer Park can begin the second week in June, or as soon as the Council approval is complete, contracts are signed and the preconstruction meeting is held. Work is scheduled to completed by July 15, 1993, so City crews can seed the park. The playstructure and improvements to the flower garden will be completed in the fall of 1993. Scheduled use for the park can begin in the spring of 1994. Money from the 1991 bond referendum will be used to pay for the construction of Pioneer Park. BPC:mdd Ppark/6 • f� • • . I _ . -..-------<! /) ..,0.1[;17:••••••:;,•••,.7::::......•,'...:;''...1.:1-----—11,,,' • z., . rri ...,--/ rA=.- --r?* - - • • , . . ,, ri.. e .,:l: .'....4.11......:4.....'....;,* 4.,... \ . Pgr,.• V-•:•;'. 0"1 ,...A. .-:,::. - .•.,% :..,. . -0. \ / .i:,.......„...,,.... .....,.,,,,. t ., / \ ii:,.- ...:,..::::::'c. •,,;_::2: 1?..,-7.:-.77...3J--4 .' 4. -.11.--k ---- - .....1,--- .':-....'' .•-... . ...-..4-,.. .,,.•- , . - -----,,,,,,- :-.-'• --;--...1,. ... ,,...4...-•::.,.. ,.. 4 2...::;) ',.:". .4..'•'. ' ill .. ' . ..•....... • ••' 1 '......'• .Z'S.. ....,.:.'. ttRA' .;:., . A:, ..I:._: _,.. .; ._ . .. • r..,.... i.• ''..•‘,4.....''', ._.:*: •.•,;••;, ....". ... ._ ii ,•i....;-...... ....„ . 4...2*.-.:, :.•t„ kilif.:7 '..4.?.. ..2„. . ....• -,.. - - -- -...,:. :y. .,;*1-?7:--3 -....":4'' ,•-.-7,. ..•..1 2 p4, ..i."-•',..;:,•....-:. 11147,...-- . A ',.: *.': 2: ..-. . e- , . ...P.,• • •• ..,.. A.r.7 • 4 .-1-.' • '•',. •1:4-.",-.: `'.• ...---' lq!.., - - ;',,..-••• 3 ;,.. -• jf- ''' *-:-• • t•i: .- ,,,,•..? IS.1•',4% t-, ..'., -•'• -,o:••••• . 0 -'••' ,•' Ige".. .- • _-11.4: z lii7-.;,„ . -4.'• 0.7.- 1 ':"..: or 2-,7.-,r. i .------------'-' - ,-, ••••••••., 1 -'-';':;; 7'.% • ../lere.4-,;:tt.- .:;7,• ..0.„ 7,-. • u!?..) .'..• -..........:-.,,,..1,,,,i:t,-, :.. /..),- . ...,.. ------< Li. ,.... .- . •• ...., :A:, ...- • •• ...--- ....• / . — . .A.-'-... 1.,.. -• -, ,;,:.--... ... ---1.,.,...,,.. - • .• c. •-,.. - ....t..----..= ' .i, •:.4- •=,--..-.- - , :4 :5;,-;.• ...,,,, .,,e.•4•-•• 0..... ;.'..-.t.•' ,-- . s••••.i.fz_ ii, '.-f •.1-2 A., - 'Q..- ..• • 4 s 2\11111\..... 414...._•... .I .,‘,.;:;...:7• ' • 4ft, ..:-?•.'!'''..r. _..1,1 !',4 -.,. •---IT ,. --. . .,.... ._, --,.•_..-.,,.,.. -.;z, ------ -__ ii..,:-,'"? , • . 3 ,.„....raF.:- - 47:1111111141k 111.1.44 . . • -.A. - pl. 4 ,.. -,•.. 3. _.„. • . .. _t,t_ , I . . •,....t .. .,s 1 1 i ' '' ''.1111V- AP mis 9,,, • •: '-'4-:' ' - - '-' .ain •,• -,,-..,....-,• --, l•-•-, _ . p.e p -:' *...• - -• VIM T. _7... / ---- —E - .-;- g Trr'• ' °ii_..1 op Jill 1.11 c-..,..-7:. ni..-1.,:.'. '..... 2 --•: ° - M -a. 'N. -... . .......,........01:7. „,%,,f, # 1,.. • ii: -- ,j 10.7•• A '7-•i; "TA:."'2,' 1 - -t.IIIMI EMII • 4 ------------ ::/:.'i,% 1..t7m4;•::,:";-.::'":::.3..I I' a_ ,..,11. MEL , i ,-,. , LC: `.. •••••••.' ,-.., .- , •i,:. mi. inimi e. - '...1 popre 00 E.I•.4 -' ._ -_ • • 7••• [.''' • AO% , .•• ,: -,......7,. ..„..., .•.. • .. i :ii:, --.. / -.... ,..:•..:,f 3 i . • .....,....„........ 3.. ..1126..,. .. 1,..,,, . . ..41„1,114. \ • \-1 • , •• 11 i I 1 1 al 0 \-t.„..-• ''<. 1.... 1,67,11 ;. _1 ..../..v4 o- wwwsr... -.A.,,,,,;77,•-•:•.. &;.-:". - .,. • g 'I • .---S"-:'• '.- .711110. ./.' -'' ''......__._ • i Nnit..r. '• . • .- , , .•-, ,... [Li% -,. ...7 . ••:,:nr,W4,14r.., • I •.4. ••-.• :f..; “.....,....:: ..,- .0 ...---• 1 t: • 4 L.:„. -..-....;•i. 9plinuilwio-,...- -4-. ,....,....:_.. ..„,„„,„„......;,..„.„„...,,,...„.....„,....,v...„..„..:,.-. ___-- WEN PRAIRIE ROAD 11/ 1 PIONEER PARK-I.C.NO.52-260 BID TAB-MAY 20,1993 i rI. SANITARY SEWER Bituminous Consulting Alber Consruction Hardrires G.L. Contracting ! NO. ITEM Est.OtT Unit Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Price Total I 1 Standard 48'Diameter Manhole(0-8') 2 Each 1250.00 2.500.00 1015.00 I 2.030.00 1050.00 I 2.?00.00 1130.00 2..760.00 2 _ Extra Depth 48'Manhole I 19 Lin.Ft. 105.00 1.995.00 110.00 I 2.090.00 ' 110.00 I 2.090.00 I 105.40 I 2.002.60 3 8'PVC Sanitary SDR 35(8-101 119 Lin.Ft. 15.50 1.844.50 10.70 1.273.30 I 11.00 1.309.00 16.40 1.951.60 i a _8-PVC Sanitary SDR 35(10-12') 19 Lin.Ft. 18.00 342.00 12.85 244.15 I 13.20 250.80 17.20 326.80 5 8'PVC Sanitary SDR 35(12-14') 19 Lin.Ft. 20.00 380.00 15.00 285.00 15.40 292.60 18.20 345.80 6 8'PVC Sanitary SDR 35(14-16') 18 Lin.Ft. 26.00 468.00 17.10 I 307.80 1-.60 I 3:6.30 I 20.70 372.60 i 7 8'PVC Sanitary SDR 35(16-18') 203 Lin.Ft. 31.00 6.293.03 19.25 I 3,907.75 20.00 4.060.00 24.40 4.953.20 IS 8" PVC Sanitary SDR 35(18-20'1 76 , Lin.Ft. 33.00 2.508.00 21.40 I 1.626.40 I . 22.00 1.672.00 30.70 I 22.333.20 • 9 6"xS" PVC Wve Branches SDR 35 1 Each 55.00 `5.00 37.50 I 37.50 I 39 00 I 39 00 I 65.40 I 65.40 IO 6- PVC Sanitary SDR 35(incl.olug for service) 43 Lin.Ft. 11.00 473.00 9.65 I 414.95 10.00 I 430.00 I 14.00 I 602.00 1 II Binder Stone Pipe Bedding 50 Tons 13.00 650.00 16.00 800.00 16.50 825.00 0.68 34.00 i 12 Sand-Gravel Pine Bedding 50 Tons 9.00 450.00 7.50 375.00 7.70 385.00 0.68 34.00 ! r• [ 13 Connect to existing Manhole 2 Each 425.00, 850.00 160.00 I 320.00 I 165.00 I 330.00 433.10 866.20 I r- ' 14 Remove Existing Septic System 1 Lumo Sum 1000.00 1.000.00 430.00 I 430.00 I 44'0.00 I 440.00 I 373.30 I 378.80 I _ 15 4'x3' PVC Wye Branches SDR35 - I , Each 38.00 , 38.00_ 32.00 I 32.00 I 50.00 I 50.00 62.00 I 62.00 I 7 16 4" PVC Sanitary SDR35(incl.plug for service) 185 Lin.Ft. 26.00 4,810.00 7.50 1.387.50 11.00 7.035.00 12.50 I 2.312.50 I SANITARY SEWER TOTALS 24.656.50 I 15.561.35 I 16.625.20 19.000.70 I I 2. WATERMAIN Engineer's Estimate Bituminous Consulting Alber Construction Hardrives G.L. Contracting , NO. ITEM EST. OTY UNIT Unit Price Total Unit Price Total _ Unit Price Total Unit Price Total l 6' DIP CL.52 Watermain '85 Lin.Ft 13.65 1.160.25 19.25 1.636.25_ 20.00 1.700.00 22.40 1.904.00 2 MJ Fittings(comp.in place.incl.all backings) 100 Lbs. 1.75 175.00 1.60 160.00 _ 1.65_ 165.00 1.90 190.00 3 Plastic Film Wrap 95_ Lin.Ft. 1.20 114.00 1.10 104.50 1.10 104.50 1.10 104.50 4 Binder Stone Pipe Bedding 25 Tons 13.00 325.00 16.00 400.00 ` 16.00 400.00 0.68 17.00 5 Sand-Gravel Pipe Bedding 25 Tons 9.00 225.00_ 7.50, 187.50, 8.00_, 200.00 0.68 17.00 6 Wet Tap Connection to existing Watermain(8-) I Lump Sum 625.00 625.00 1285.00 1.285.00 1320.00 I 1.37.0.00 1611.60 1.611.60 7 Remove&Relocate existing Hydrant&Gate Valve I Lump Sum 775.00 775.00 750.00 750.00 770.00 770.00 1315.50 1.315.50 I WATERMAIN TOTALS 3.399.25 , 4.523.25 I 4,6:9.50 J _.159.60 • • IP • # • 3. STORM SEWER Engineer's Estimate Bituminous Consulting Alber Construction Hardrives G.L. Contracting NO. ITEM Est. Qtv Unit _ Unit Price , Total Unit Price Total Unit Price _ Total Unit Price , Total 1 12" RCP Sewer, C1.4 23 Lin.Ft. 42.00 966.00 19.25 442.75 20.00 460.00 _ 25.10 - 577.30 2 24"RCP Sewer, C1.4 25 Lin.Ft. 52.00 1.300.00 29.00 725.00 30.00 750.00 41.00 1.025.00 3 27" Dia.Catch Basin 1 Each _ 625.00 625.00 750.00 750.00 770.00 770.00 842.90 842.90 4 72" Dia.Catch Basin I , Each 725.00 725.00 3400.00 _ 3,400.00 3520.00 3.520.00, 3630.60 _ 3.630.60 5 Connect to existing 24" Pipe Sewer 1 Each 325.00 325.00 , 160.00 160.00 1 165.00 165.00 308.20 308.20 STORM SEWER TOTALS _ 3,941.00_ 5.477.75 5.6 6.5.00 6384.00 4. PAVEMENTS& GRADING I Engineer's Estimate Bituminous Consulting _ Alber Construction Hardrives G.L. Contracting _ NO. ITEM Est Otv _ Unit _ Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Price I Total Unit Price _ Total 1 Site Grading I Lumo sum 33000.00 33.000.0C I 31800.00 I 31.800.00 22000.00 I 22.000.00 3544.00 32.544.00 2 Remove Bituminous 2650 Sq.Yd 0.95 2.517.50 1.95 I 5.167.50 1.50 I 3.975.00 1.40 I 3.710.00 3 Clear and Grub Trees 1 Lump Sum 4000.00 4,000.00 7250.00 7,250.00 , 9600.00 9.600.00 , 3254.40 3.54.40 4 Remove Concrete Curb and Gutter 135 Lin.Ft, 2.00 270.00 2.40 324.00 3.00 it 405.00 2.00 270.00 R 5 Remove Concrete Sidewalk 20 So.Yd. 2.00 40.00 5.30 106.00 , 7.00 I 140.00 10.20 204.00, 4 6 Imported Granular Fill Placed • 50 Ton 6.50 325.00 6.00 300.00 7.00 I 350.00 I 12.80 640.00 1 7 Aggregate Base C1.5. 100% Crushed. 6"thick 1593 Ton 8.50 13.540.50 8.15 I 12.982.95 I 7.00 I 11.151.00 I 8.70 I 13.859.10 , . '-----. 8 Class 5 surface aggregate.100%crushed.6'thick 352 Ton 9.25 3.256.00 8.45 I 2.974.40 7.25 _ 2.552.00 9.50 3.344.00_ 9 Subgrade Preparation(drive and parking) 5150 Sq.Yd 0.20 1.030.00 I 0.25 1.287.50_ 0.50 2.575.00 . 0.45 2.317.50 10 Bituminous Base MnDOT Type 31 250 Ton 27.00 6.750.00 I 25.00 6.250.00 21.75 5.437.50 26.10 6.525.00 11 Bituminous Wear MnDOT Type 41 I 415 Ton 27.50 11.412.50 28.00 11.620.00 24.00 I 9.960.00 28.00 11.620.00 1 12 Bituminous Tack Coat I 200 Gal 0.80 160.00 1.20 240.00 1.00 200.00 1.80 360.00 13 2-1/2 Bituminous Walk complete in place 18000 Sq.Ft. 0.72 12.960.00 1.10 19.800.00 0.94 16.920.00 1.10 19.800.00 14 B618 Concrete Curb and Gutter 2000 Lin.Ft. 7.00 14,000.00 7.05 14.100.00 I 7.50 15.000.00 6.00 12.000.00 15 5'Thick Concrete Sidewalk 1025 Sq.Ft. 1.75 1,793.75 1.75 1,793.75_ 1.80 _• 1.845.00 2.00 2.050.00 16 Exposed aggregate finish Concrete plaza walk 5-thick 2625 Sq.Ft. 3.30 8.662.50 3.15 8.268.75 3.30 , 8.662.50 3.60 9.450.00 17 Concrete Driveway Apron 17 Sa.Ft. 26.00 442.00 26.50 450.50 30.00 510.00 20.10 341.70 18 Concrete Valley Cross gutter 610_ Lin.Ft. 8.10 4,941.00 8.25 I 5.032.50 10.00 6.100.00 10.10 6.161.00 19 Construct 2 tennis courts as shown on plans and 1 Lump Sum 32500.00 32,500.00 33795.00 I 33,795.00 54000.00 54.000.00 39476.30 39,476.30 as specified,complete and in place(incl.fencing) , 20 Construct 2 horseshoe its as shown on plans I Lump Sum 3100.00 3,100.00 2500.00 I 2,500.00 4000.00 4,000.00 5026.50 5.026.50 and as specified,complete in place _ , L 21 Keystone retaining wall I 50 Sq.Ft. 15.00 750.00 't..^0 I 1.000.00 20.00 . ;.000.00 17.30 _ ?h5.00 4. PAVEMENTS&GRADING continued Engineer's Estimate Bituminous Consulting Alber Construction Hardrives G.L.Contracting NO, t ITEM Est Qtv Unit , Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Price Total 22 Remove and replace retaining wall 50 Sq.Ft. 12.00 600.00 20.00 1.000.00 12.00 600.00 11.50 575.00 23 Timber wall(per 8' timber placed in play areal _ 200 Each 30.00 6.000.00 22.00 4.400.00 33.00 6.600.00 30.00 6.000.00 24 Erosion control 1000 Lin.Ft. I 1.00 1.000.00 2.50 2,500.00 3.00 I 3.000.00 2.10-1 2.100.00 25 Lane markings I Lump Sum 650.00 650.00 775.00 775.00 800.00 800.00 812.10 812.10 26 Sod 1000 Sq.Yd. 2.00 2.000.00 3.00 3.000.00 3.00 3.000.00 2.50 2.500.00 I 27 3'dia. rigid steel conduit 145 i Lin.Ft. 4.00 580.00 1 10.50 1.522.50 10.00 1 1.450.00 20.50 , 2.972.50 , PAVEMENT AND GRADING TOTALS I 166.280.75 I 180.240.35 191.833.00 188.777.70 I SUMMARY OF TOTALS I I I I 198.277.50 I I 205.802.70 I I 218.782;01 I 225,0.41.00 - i- • • ill / CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE • HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF BELL OAKS ESTATES 3RD ADDITION WHEREAS, the plat of Bell Oaks Estates 3rd Addition has been submitted in a manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder, and WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL: A. Plat approval request for Bell Oaks Estates 3rd Addition is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated May 26, 1993. B. Variance is herein granted from City Code 12.20 Subd. 2.A. waiving the six- month maximum time elapse between the approval date of the preliminary plat • and filing of the final plat as described in said engineer's report. C. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this Resolution to the owners and subdivision of the above named plat. D. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on June 1, 1993. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk • i1(Y MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Tenpas and City Councilmembers THROUGH: Alan D. Gray, City Engineer FROM: Jeffrey Johnson, Engineering Technician DATE: May 26, 1993 SUBJECT: Final Plat Approval of Bell Oaks Estate 3rd Addition PROPOSAL: Bell Oaks Company has requested City Council approval of the final plat of Bell Oaks Estate 3rd Addition, a single family residential subdivision located south of Riverview Road in the South Half of Section 36. This proposal is a slight reconfiguration of previous layouts of Bell Oaks Estate, primarily to satisfy and secure a future buyers realty interests in fixing the layout of a new street alignment and utility easements for sanitary sewer and watermain service. Outlots A, B, C, and D contain 0.80, 4.40, 2.73, and 28.51 acres respectively. Outlot A is the corridor in which the private road will be constructed as well as public utilities. The private road layout has been altered slightly, shortening the length of the cul-de-sac on the westerly portion, which lessens the amount of grading required and the impact on trees. The remaining outlots will be subject to further subdivision into single family homesites. HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council November 15, 1988 per Resolution No. 88-258. A second reading of Ordinance No. 50-88-PUD-14-88, changing zoning from Rural to PUD-14-R1-22 and from Rural to PUD-14-R1-44, was finally read and approved at the City Council held April 2, 1991. The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report was executed April 2, 1991. VARIANCES: Variance is necessary from City Code 12.20 Subd. 2.A. waiving the six-month maximum time elapse between the approval date of the preliminary plat and filing of the final plat. All other variances not granted through the Planned Unit Development District Review must be processed through the Board of Appeals. UTILITIES AND STREETS: The street within this development is proposed to be private with controlled access. Sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer are proposed to be publicly owned and maintained and will be installed throughout this project in conformance with City Standards. Currently, work on streets and utilities are underway. 411 l 111 Final Plat of Bell Oaks Estates 3rd Addition May 26, 1993 Page 2 of 2 Because there were drainage and utility easements dedicated over Outlot A in the first two additions, and subsequently Outlot A has been reconfigured, it will be necessary to vacate drainage and utility easements over Outlot A of Bell Oaks Estates 1st and 2nd Additions. Additionally, it will be necessary to dedicate drainage and utility easements over Outlot A with this proposal. PARK DEDICATION: The requirements for park dedication are covered in the Developer's Agreement. As specified in the Developer's Agreement, the Developer is to provide a written scenic/conservation easement over the steep bluff areas of this property. BONDING: Financial security to cover the installation of utilities proposed to be publicly owned and maintained has been provided. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Bell Oaks Estate 3rd Addition subject to the requirements of this report, the Developer's Agreement, and the following: 41110 1. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $250. 2. Vacation of underline drainage and utility easements 3. Dedication of additional drainage and utility easements over Outlot A JJ:ssa cc: Bell Oaks Company Ed Ames, OSM, Inc. S Inc) CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE GENERAL FUND BUDGET STATUS REPORT Year—To—Date Ending March 31, 1993 MEMORANDUM • To: Carl Jullie, City Manager Thru: John Frane, Finance Director Craig Dawson, Assistant City Manager From: Sara Ruth, Accountant Date: 5/26/93 Subject: 1st Quarter 1993 Budget Status Report Attached is the Budget Status Report for year-to-date ending March 31, 1993. • The 1993 Budget as adopted required a $187,100 use of fund balance and projected a year-end unreserved fund balance of $2 .3 million. Several adjustments have been necessary since the adoption of the 1993 Budget last December. Revised estimates indicate that an $843,700 use of fund balance is required to balance the 1993 budget. Year-end unreserved fund balance for 1993 is now projected at $3. 6 million. The major factors responsible for these revised estimates include: * Facilities division expenditures were adjusted $466,700 to include July-October lease & taxes at 7600 Executive Drive and a full year's operating expenses at 8100 Mitchell Road. * All but $200, 000 of the $1, 361,800 in fund balance set aside for "New City Hall" was transferred to "Unreserved Fund Balance" in anticipation of City Center operating expenditures and the need for available fund balance to draw down the 1994 levy, and in response to the additional $1.4 million lease revenue bond issuance. * Year-end 1992 unreserved fund balance came in at $3 million, or $588,000 higher than projections cited during the 1993 budget adoption process. (Please refer to the Budget Status Report for year ending December 31, 1992 for a complete explanation of 1992 budget variances. ) A complete outline of budget adjustments made so far this year is included at the end of this report. The effects of a hiring freeze ($81, 400 possible savings) are not considered in this report. The 3-year budget forecast discussed with Council in April did include a 1993 hiring freeze; the forecast also projected that a $607, 000 use of fund balance and $600, 000 in equipment certificates would be needed to keep budget 1994 spending increases around 6%. Overall expentiures are on-track throught the first quarter of 1993 . 11 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE GENERAL FUND BUDGET STATUS REPORT FOR YEAR—TO—DATE ENDING: March 31,993 * REVENUES '' • 1992 1993 1993 ADOPTED 1992 3/31/92 % ADOPTED REVISED 3/31/93 BUDGET ACTUAL ACTUAL RECEIVED BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL RECEIVED GENERAL FUND: GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 10,402,400 10,176,944 0.00% 10,666,700 10,666,700 0.00% INTERGOVERNMENTL REV 261,800 267,688 0.00% 248,400 248,400 0.00% LICENSES 130,000 123,493 6,383 5.17% 130,000 130,000 12,538 9.64% BUILDING PERMITS 1,000,000 1,182,233 237,468 20.09% 1,000,000 1,000,000 235,618 23.56% OTHER PERMITS&FEES 665,000 603,417 168,790 27.97% 935,900 910,900 177,590 19.50% RECREATION FEES 837,000 841,628 182,389 21.67% 1,037,800 1,037,800 274,018 26.40% COURT FINES 175,000 200,487 46,226 23.06% 210,000 210,000 28,085 13.37% INVESTMENT EARNINGS 150,000 246,242 37,500 15.23% 150,000 200,000 50,000 25.00% TRANSFERS IN 596,200 445,693 149,050 33.44% 417,000 417,000 104,250 25.00% OTHER REVENUE 442,000 910,631 6,416 0.70% 527,500 527,500 5,599 1.06% SUB—TOTAL 14,659,400 14,998,456 834,222 5.56% 15,323,300 15,348,300 887,698 5.78% FUND BALANCE 1,137,600 305,751 0.00% 187,100 843,650 0.00% TOTAL GENERAL FUND 15,797,000 15,304,207 834,222 5.45% 15,510,400 16,191,950 887,698 5.48% EQUIPMENT ACQUISITION FUND: CERTIFICATE PROCEEDS 593,400 598,400 598,400 0.00% OTHER REVENUE 9,650 0.00% TRANSFERS IN 4,000 0.00% UND BALANCE 241,681 0.00% 29,800 0.00% TOTAL EQUIP ACQ FUND 593,400 255,331 0 0.00% 598,400 628,200 0 0.00% GRAND TOTAL 16,390,400 15,559,538 834,222 5.09% 16,108,800 16,820,150 887,698 5.28% Notes: ' Property Tax and Intergovernmental revenues are normally collected in July&December. * The bulk of Licensing activity occurs during the 4th quarter. * The 1992 Other Revenues include$247,600 in prepaid assessments on the Teman/Marketcenter property. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE GENERAL FUND BUDGET STATUS REPORT FOR YEAR-TO-DATE ENDING: March 31, 1993 ** EXPENDITURES • • 1992 1993 1993 • ADOPTED 1992 3/31/92 % ADOPTEDREVISED 3/31/93 BUDGET ACTUAL ACTUAL EXPENDED BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL EXPENDEE OPERATING EXPENSES: LEGISLATIVE 86,600 89,455 41,107 46% 113,400 113,400 31,142 27% ELECTIONS 80,500 100,727 24,578 24% 21,600 21,600 8,884 41% CITY MANAGER 174,300 200,868 42,620 21% 231,900 231,900 58,086 25% ASSESSING DEPT 312,200 304,309 77285 25% 348,400 348,600 86,529 25% I N S P/SAFETY/FAC I L I T I ES BLDG INSPECTION 526,900 526,817 129240 25% 552,000 557,400 142,261 26% SAFETY 58,200 56,433 15,912 28% 62,700 62,700 12,754 20% FACILITIES 612,800 609,367 153,849 25% 531,900 1,003,050 194,373 19% PARKS/RECREATION ADMIN&PARK PLAN 171,700 165,800 36,530 22% 201,600 201,600 37,756 19% PARK MAINTENANCE 804,300 776,051 143,755 19% 874,900 874,900 147,914 17% REC ADMIN&SP EVENTS 203,000 157,231 41,344 26% 186,400 149,800 29,472 20% COMMUNITY CENTER 563,600 640520 157,361 25% 664,800 664,800 214,114 32% BEACH 68,500 60,327 759 1% 84,400 78,200 2,136 3% ORGANIZED ATHLETICS 178,700 165,360 42,420 26% 175,600 175,600 44,692 25% RECREATION-YOUTH 215,000 229,754 48,288 21% 247,600 252,300 46,536 18% RECREATION-ADULT 81,200 88,036 21,444 24% 102,200 132,800 29,147 22% RECREATION-ADAPTIVE 46,000 55,679 8,922 16% 56,900 61,900 10,665 17% HIST&CUL ARTS 45,600 49,967 4,294 9% 47,600 47,600 6,964 15% FINANCE 275,100 271,234 68,507 25% 286,000 286,000 72,471 25% HUMAN RESOURCES 144,300 147,157 42,633 29% 149,100 149,100 30,859 21% COMMUNITY SERVICES 149,300 143,644 22,555 16% 273,400 248,400 40,314 16% COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 354,600 314,107 80,053 25% 364,000 364,000 83,006 23% POLICE DEPT POLICE 2,887,800 2,885,114 730,396 25% 3,104,000 3,104,000 778,227 CIVIL DEFENSE 25,800 9,178 3,962 43% 12,600 12,600 821 ANIMAL CONTROL 78,200 66,372 15,529 23% 80,800 80,800 16,575 go FIRE 473,900 380,624 76,807 20% 438,300 438,300 77,369 18% PUBLIC WORKS DEPT ENGINEERING 641,400 604,289 140,672 23% 611,100 630,600 147,745 23% STREETS AND TRAFFIC 1,163,400 1,143,089 158,494 14% 1,269,700 1,276,400 176,981 14% EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 583,800 546,683 127,013 23% 629,100 629,100 132,028 21% STREET LIGHTING 381,500 393,359 93,707 24% 412,000 430,000 107,467 25% SOLID WASTE MANAGEMT 31,900 26,132 0% 6,200 6,200 93 2% SHARED SERVICES GENERAL 429,800 402,037 85,659 21% 447,900 447,900 120,961 27% DATA PROCESSING 98,500 102,091 30,802 30% 130,000 130,000 26,602 20% PUBLIC INFORMATION 70,700 61,264 18,241 30% LEGAL COUNSEL 105,000 114,949 21,056 18% 160,000 160,000 11,256 7% EMPLOYEE BENEFITS &TRAINING 1,853,500 1,750,297 428,298 24% 1,824,800 1,824,800 481,585 26% RESERVE CONTINGENCY 157,000 102,787 35,353 34% 130,000 130,000 30,032 23% TOTAL PERSONAL SVCS, COMMODITIES,AND CONTRACTED SVCS 14,134,600 13,741,108 3,169,445 23% 14,832,900 15,326,350 3,437,817 22% NOTES: Spending level should be approximately 25%at March month-end. • ii<1 . CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE March 31, 1993 • a a EXPENDITURES * * 1992 1993 1993 ADOPTED 1992 3/31/92 % ADOPTEDREVISED 3/31/93 % BUDGET ACTUAL ACTUAL EXPENDED BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL EXPENDEC CAPITAL OUTLAY: LEGISLATIVE 1,835 537 29% CITY MANAGER 5,700 835 0% 6,300 8,600 2,291 27% ASSESSING 700 829 0% 6,000 5,800 0% INSPECTIONS 3,000 2,061 0% 1,800 11,500 9,971 87% SAFETY 1,400 - 500 500 424 85% FACILITIES 13,000 11,047 782 7% 13,400 13,400 550 4% ADMIN/PARKPLANN 400 843 0% PARKS MAINTENANCE 8,864 0% PARKS CAPITAL OUTLAY 293,100 244,245 2,100 1% 226,400 259,300 18,788 7% RECREATION-SP.EVENTS 500 1,663 0% 500 500 0% COMMUNITY CENTER 16,200 64,506 2,309 4% 180,200 180,200 1,635 1% BEACH 500 500 0% ORGANIZED ATHLETICS 200 1,255 0% 200 200 0% RECREATION-YOUTH 500 180 0% 3,500 3,500 0% RECREATION-ADULT 900 998 0% 8,900 8,900 280 3% RECREATION-ADAPTIVE 3,900 3,900 0% HIST&CULT ARTS 600 -" 600 600 0% FINANCE 889 0% 9,000 9,000 0% HUMAN RESOURCES 2,500 2,022 0% COMMUNITY SERVICES .- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 5,800 3,463 Ow 2,000 4,400 1,845 42% POLICE 852 0% 83,600 83,600 0% CIVIL DEFENSE 13,500 0% 3,500 3,500 0% 0 ANIMAL CONTROL FIRE 1,168 835 71% 36,000 36,000 218 1% ENGINEERING 1,400 1,149 800 70% 6,800 6,800 0% STREETS 173,000 65293 0% 9,300 147,300 702 0% STREET LIGHTING 4,000 4,000 0% EQUIP MAINTENANCE 6,000 5,602 0% 25,000 28,000 6,503 23% GENERAL SHARED SVCS 5,000 5,000 0% DATA PROCESSING 3,000 33,000 33,000 0% PUBLIC INFORMATION 4,500 EMPL BENEFITS&TRAINING 600 600 0% TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 532,400 433,099 7,363 2% 670,500 858,600 43207 5% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 14,667,000 14,174,207 3,176,808 22% 15,503,400 16,184,950 3,481,024 22% RESERVATIONS OF FUND BALANCE: NEW CITY HALL 700,000 700,000 0% CAPITAL FACILITIES 400,000 400,000 0% PW/PARKS STORAGE FACILITY SEVERANCE OBLIGATIONS 30,000 30,000 0% 7,000 7,000 0% TOTAL RESERVATIONS 1,130,000 1,130,000 0 0% 7,000 7,000 0 0% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 15,797,000 15,304,207 3,176,808 21% 15,510,400 16,191,950 3,481,024 21% 0 //VI CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE GENERAL FUND BUDGET STATUS REPORT FOR YEAR-TO-DATE ENDING: March 31, 1993 • ' EXPENDITURES * * • 1992 1993 1993 ADOPTED 1992 3/31/92 % ADOPTEDREVISED 3/31/93 % BUDGET ACTUAL ACTUAL EXPENDED BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL EXPENDEE EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATES: ELECTIONS 37,100 37,771 37,771 100% INSPECTIONS 15,600 15,600 0% PARKS 117,600 118,342 0% 72,000 75,200 0% COMMUNITY CENTER 15,200 8,330 0% 13,000 19,900 0% POLICE 133,700 202,807 78,882 39% 124,800 129,500 0% FIRE 67,500 53,933 16,890 31% ENGINEERING 2,900 2,238 0% 4,500 19,500 14,950 77% STREETS 164,400 175,657 34,948 20% 271,700 271,700 0% EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 55,000 40,133 5,538 14% 53,300 53,300 0% GENERAL SHARED SERVICES _ 43,500 43,500 6873 16% UNALLOCATED 427 0% EQUIP ACQ FUND TOTAL 593,400 639,638 174,029 27% 598,400 628,200 21,823 3% GRAND TOTAL 16,390,400 15,943,845 3,350,837 21% 16,108,800 16,820,150 3,502,847 21% 1 11111 1111 .... Pt; CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE GENERAL FUND BUDGET STATUS REPORT FOR YEAR-TO-DATE ENDING: March 31, 1993 * * FUND BALANCE* * • ACTUAL FUND BALANCE as of March 31, 1993 (Unaudited) RESERVATIONS ******************** BALANCE ACTUAL ACTUAL OF FUND BALANCE 12/31/92 REVENUES EXPENDITURE: BALANCE 3/31/93 RESERVED for Encumbrances 220,800 (220,800) 0 RESERVED for Prepaid Expenses 48,520 (48,520) 0 RESERVED for P.W.Storage Facility 325,000 325,000 RESERVED for Severance Obligations 243,000 7,000 250,000 RESERVED for New City Hall 1,361,800 1,361,800 RESERVED for Capital Facilities 400,000 400,000 UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE 3,052,831 887,698 (3,211,704) (7,000) 721,825 5,651,951 887,698 (3,481,024) 0 3,058,625 PROJECTED FOR YEAR-END 1993 per Originally Adopted Budget Unaudited RESERVATIONS BALANCE ACTUAL ACTUAL OF FUND BALANCE 12/31/92 REVENUES EXPENDITURE: BALANCE 12/31/93 RESERVED for Encumbrances 220,800 220,800 RESERVED for Prepaid Expenses 48,520 48,520 EiSERVED for P.W.Storage Facility 325,000 325,000 ERVED for Severance Obligations 243,000 7,000 250,000 ERVED for New City Hall 1,361,800 1,361,800 RESERVED for Capital Facilities 400,000 400,000 UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE 3,052,831 15,323,300 (15,503,400) (7,000) 2,865,731 5,651,951 15,323,300 (15,503,400) 0 5,471,851 PROJECTED FOR YEAR-END 1993 per 1993 Revised Budget Unaudited RESERVATIONS BALANCE BUDGETED BUDGETED OF FUND BALANCE 12/31/92 REVENUES EXPENDITURE: BALANCE 12/31/93 RESERVED for Encumbrances 220,800 (220,800) 0 RESERVED for Prepaid Expenses 48,520 48,520 RESERVED for P.W.Storage Facility 325,000 325,000 RESERVED for Severance Obligations 243,000 7,000 250,000 RESERVED for New City Hall 1,361,800 (1,161,800)* 200,000 RESERVED for Capital Facilities 400,000 (400,000)* 0 UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE 3,052,831 15,348,300 (15,964,150) 1,154,800 3,591,781 5,651,951 15,348,300 (16,184,950) (400,000) 4,415,301 *Assumes that [all but$200,000 of] the$1.3 million set aside over 1991 and 1992 for New City Hall is unreserved and made available for drawing down future years levies. Also assumes that the$400,000 reserved during 1992 for the City's capital facilities program is transferred out to a new fund set up for that purpose. • 1993 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS This report incorporates the following adjustments which have been I requested and approved since adoption of the 1993 Budget in December 1992: 1. Transfer from Employee Benefits to all divisions for wage adjustments effective 1/1/93 . 2. 1992 Encumbrances - items approved in the 1992 Budget but unspent as of 12/31 and encumbered for expenditure in 1993 : $ 6,700 Streets signal light painting $ 2, 300 City Management 486 computer $ 4, 600 Inspections (2) 486 computers $ 5, 100 Inspections data filing system shelving $ 5,400 Inspections data filing system folders/labels $ 2 ,400 Comm Devel computer network equipment & install $ 900 Facilities carpeting for police basement $138, 000 Streets CSAH#4 Duck Lake Trail/railroad ped bridge $ 3, 000 Equip Maint shop maint system update $ 19,500 Engineering water quality mgmt plan $ 8 ,030 Parks Round Lake drainage project $ 24,870 Parks Staring Lake stage & storage structure $ 6,900 Equip Certifs - Comm Center (3) 486 computers $ 1, 600 Equip Certifs - Police radio equip & install $ 3 , 100 Equip Certifs - Police tower work $ 3,200 Equip Certifs - Parks softball field fencing • 3 . Split Youth Performing Arts budget into two separate programs: Art Camp and Drama Camp. 4. Move $5, 000 from Adult Rec division to Adaptive Rec division 'Accessibility' program, so as to make extra dollars approved for transportation available to youth, seniors, and disabled. 5. Adjust Facilities division appropriations to include $75, 000 for July, August, September lease & taxes at 7600 Executive Drive; $391,700 for full year's operations & maintenance at 8100 Mitchell Road; and $3 ,550 for additional costs at Senior Center due to school move in August. 6. Adjust Street Lighting division appropriations to include $18, 000 for NSP 5. 3% interim rate increase effective February. 7. Increase Equipment Certificates budget to include $15, 000 for an engineering survey package, to be funded with certificate budget remaining unspent at year-end 1992. 8. Reduce estimated lawful gambling revenues and corresponding appropriation within the Community Services division from $32, 000 to $7,000 based on 1992 actual data. 9. Transfer $36, 600 from Rec Admin/Special Events division to • Adult Recreation division for community brochure program - the program was originally budgeted under Rec Admin; however, responsibility actually rests with Adult Rec Supervisor (for year- end reporting purposes the community brochure program will be reflected within rec admin, for budget control and monitoring purposes this program will be reflected within adult recreation) . 10. Transfer $6, 200 from Beaches division to Youth Recreation division for Round Lake concessions operations - this item was originally budgeted under Beaches; however, responsibility actually rests with Youth Recreation Supervisor (for year-end reporting purposes round lake concessions will be reflected within Beaches, for budget control and monitoring purposes this program will be reflected within youth recreation) . • • 12: CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE GENERAL FUND BUDGET STATUS REPORT YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1992 (Unaudited) MEMORANDUM • TO: CARL JULLIE, CITY MANAGER THRU: JOHN FRANE, FINANCE DIRECTOR CRAIG DAWSON, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER FROM: SARA RUTH, SR. ACCOUNTANT • DATE: 5/26/93 SUBJECT: Year End 1992 Budget-to-Actual Report Attached is a preliminary General Fund Budget Status Report for the year ending December 31, 1992 . Final numbers will not be available until the audit is completed (by June 30th) ; the attached report is a close approximation of final amounts. The 1992 Budget, as adopted, projected a year-end unreserved fund balance of $2,235, 100. It now appears that the actual unreserved fund balance as of 12/31/92 will be $3,052,800 or $817,700 higher than originally projected. This increase has resulted from a combination of favorable revenue and expenditure variances and changes in the reserved portion of fund10 balance. Revenues came in $459, 000 (3. 1%) higher than originally adopted estimates and expenditures came in $333,400 (2 . 3%) under original appropriations. Also, that portion of fund balance required to be reserved for prepaid expenses decreased by $25,200. These three factors comprise the total $817, 700 increase. Please refer to the attached three statements - Statement of Fund Balances, Statement of Revenues, Statement of Expenditures - for a more detailed look at 1992 General Fund activity. REVENUES Total actual general fund revenues are expected to be $459, 000 or 3 . 1% higher than original 1992 budget projections. Revenue projections were adjusted during the year from the original estimate of $14, 659,400 to $15,046,000. Total actual revenues were $15, 118,456. Significant deviations from and adjustments to the originally adopted budget are summarized below: Revenues coming in over original estimates include special assessments ($277,295) , building permit revenue ($182, 000) and investment earnings ($96,242) . Youth recreation programs, cable tv, and the street lighting development fee also generated significantly more revenue than originally estimated. • 1 +�J• The special assessments variance is primarily due to the pre-payment 410collected with the purchase of the Teman property. Building permit revenue totaled $1, 182,233 in 1992 , compared with $902, 591 in 1991. This increase can be attributed to an improving economy and the school building construction activity occuring during the year. Insurance refunds received in 1992 also contributed to the favorable revenue budget variance in the General Fund. The City received refunds of $75,978 for property/liability insurance and $100, 364 ($82, 326 in the General Fund) for workers compensation insurance in 1992. Historically not a planned source of revenue, this revenue item was added to budget projections at mid-year. Property tax revenue came in $225, 000 under budget due to the high level of property tax rebates and delinquencies seen over the past few years. The budget allowance for rebates & delinquences was increased at mid- year and carried forward through the 1993 budget process. Other revenue items coming in significantly under budget include the liquor fund transfer, organized athletics program revenue, IDR charges, and lawful gambling revenue. The organized athletics revenue budget was reduced at mid-year to reflect the transfer of softball league fees to the Park Improvements Fund. The fee has been collected and transferred to the Park Improvements Fund since 1984; however, the entire revenue amount had continued to be reflected in General Fund budget estimates. 410tawful gambling revenue for 1992 experienced a sharp decline from that collected in 1991, due to two clubs dropping lawful gambling activity (the Legion and the Optimists) . By policy, lawful gambling receipts are used for human services activities. Community Center revenue came in $24, 000 under budget due to two factors: 1) down time resulting from major repairs needed during the year including the ice rink circulation pump and freon supply and the pool boiler and 2) reduced participation due to rink construction. On a positive note, membership revenues for 1992 returned to the level seen prior to the opening of the Chaska Community Center. Originally budgeted at $282, 600 the actual Liquor Fund transfer for 1992 is $198, 000. Total sales exceeded budget projections; however, to maintain positive cash flows in the Liquor Fund only $198, 000 of the total $287, 000 in profits realized in 1992 may be transferred to the General Fund. Fortunately, the overall greater-than-anticipated revenues more than covered this revenue shortfall and the projects that were to be funded with liquor profits. Liquor Fund cash balances were significantly depleted during the year by opening new store 3 and upgrading equipment at the other stores. By policy, liquor fund profits are used for improvements to park and natural resource systems. EXPENDITURES larotal general fund expenditures are expected to be within 3% of originally budgeted levels, leaving a balance of $333 ,400 unspent. The 1992 general fund budget, as adopted, authorized $14, 667, 000 in expenditures and $1, 130, 000 in reservations of fund balance. Expenditure estimates were adjusted during the year from the original estimate of $14, 667, 000 to $14,440, 000. Total actual expenditures were $14, 174,207. The $14 ,667,000 was supplemented by 1991 encumbrances of $61,410 (expenditures authorized in the 1991 budget requested to be carried over for expenditure in 1992) and reduced by 1992 encumbrances of $220,800 (expenditures authorized in the 1992 budget requested to be carried over for expenditure in 1993) . Encumbrances are items in- progress as of the end of the budget year in which they were authorized; they cannot be shown as an expenditure until the following year because they do not meet governmental accounting/audit expenditure recognition requirements. Total expenditures for fifteen of 37 divisions came in more than 5% under original appropriations. Adjustments were made during the year in anticipation of these changes in most cases. Significant deviations from and adjustments to original spending plans are summarized below: Parks Capital Outlay came in $45, 000 under budget primarily due to the deletion of the bike trails budget during the year. Council voted to eliminate the $60,000 originally approved for bike trails after it became clear that Hennepin County's involvement in that project made the City's appropriation unnecessary. $30,000 of the $60,000 was redirected to stage/storage construction project at Staring Lake, with the remainder goin back to fund balance. Recreation Administration and Special Events came in $44, 600 under budget primarily due the reallocation of duties for existing positions between the Recreation Administration and Community Center divisions. Staff turnover also contributed to the favorable expenditure variance. Planning came in $40,400 under budget due to significant staffing changes. An entire full-time position was eliminated when the Planning Assistant took a new records retention position with the City Management Division in March. Also, a clerical position, unfilled due to a termination the previous year, was left unfilled for several months. Fire division expenditures came in $92,000 under original appropriations. Calls and training expenditures alone came in $62, 000 under budget, with underspending in supplies and fitness testing accounting for the remainder. Over the past few years calls and training appropriations have been adopted to cover a "worst case" scenario. At mid-year the calls and training budget was reduced to reflect an average of the past four years actual expenditures. Employee Benefits and Training came in $103 ,200 under original appropriations. About $41, 000 was distributed to other divisions during the year to cover step and union wage adjustments. Because premiums did not increase to the extent originally estimated, health insurance expenditures came in under budget by $37, 000. Other line items significantly underspen1111 included dental reimbursement and unemployment. i 47 Budget dollars were transferred out of Contingency to other General Fund Odivisions during 1992 for the following purposes: ice resurfacer purchase for Community Center ($49, 100) , increased SW Transportation Coalition dues, purchase of park maintenance trailer tracks, and reinstatement of a recreation program inadvertently omitted from the 1992 budget. Expenditures charged to the budget dollars remaining in the Contingency account included landfill closure costs, park bond referendum and community survey expenses, and an $8, 000 transfer to the Heritage Preservation Grant Fund. Total expenditures for nine of 37 total divisions came in more than 5% over original appropriations. Adjustments were made during the year in anticipation of these changes in most cases. Significant deviations from and adjustments to original spending plans are summarized below: Elections division expenditures exceeded originally adopted amounts by $20, 200 due to the extra park bond referendum and presidential primary elections. Mailing requirements related to redistricting also contributed to the cost overrun. The City received a total of $18, 000 from the state to offset redistricting and presidential primary costs. Expenditures for City Management came in $24,000 over original appropriations for that division due to the addition of a Records Specialist position in March. The position was funded with a transfer from the Planning division. Community Center expenditures came in a total of $125, 000 over originally adopted amounts. A new ice resurfacer ($49, 100) was required to operate the econd rink - this purchase was covered with a transfer from Contingency. Several major repairs needed during the year, including the ice rink circulation pump and freon supply, the pool boiler, and the main boiler, contributed to the cost overrun. Changes in budgeting and accounting for staff time between the Recreation Administration and Community Center divisions, offset by a transfer from Recreation Administration, accounts for $32,000 of the total variance. Youth recreation continues to be one of the City's fastest growing program areas in terms of resident participation. Youth Recreation expenditures exceeded original appropriations by $14, 300 due to increased participation in City programs. Youth program revenues exceeded original estimates by $51,500. Street lighting expenditures came in $11,900 over original estimates primarily due to the sales tax imposed on this and other services in June. Expenditures for Legal Counsel totaled $115, 000 in 1992 , exceeding the originally adopted amount by $10, 000. In comparison, 1991 total expenditures were $157,700. The appropriation for legal counsel was increased to $135,000 at mid-year and $160, 000 was adopted for 1993, to allow for special cases. EQUIPMENT ACQUISITION FUND The 1992 Budget authorized $598,400 in equipment purchases funded with ertificate proceeds. This original amount was supplemented by $98, 800 in encumbrances from 1991 and reduced by $14,800 in encumbrances to be carried l `'ij y into 1993. Certificate expenditures came in $37,700 (5.5%) under originally adopted amounts. • Expenditures came in under budget in the following areas: Police ($20, 000) , Fire ($15,000) and Streets ($14 ,800) . Some smaller projects, such as the furniture/partitions approved for the fire department, were not carried out and other items were completed at a cost lower than originally aniticipated. The Streets street-sign database project for $12 , 000 was deleted from the Certificate budget as that division decided to do the work in-house. Certificate proceeds budgeted for 1992 were reduced by the amount of fund balance remaining in the Equipment Acquisition Fund at year-end 1991 ($241, 000) . For this reason, the issuance of certificates was delayed and structured as a same day issuance and call on May 18, 1993 . This has resulted in interest and bond issuance cost savings. All savings and favorable budget variances will be applied against certificates programmed for 1993 . • S rut 1992 GENERAL FUND STATEMENT OF REVENUES Unaudited Adjustments 1992 made 1992 ADOPTED during ADJUSTED 12/31/92 Adjusted to Actual BUDGET the year BUDGET ACTUAL VARIANCE lioGENERAL PROPERTY TAXES CURRENT 10,527,400 (38,800) 10,488,600 DELINQUENCY ALLOWANCE (325,000) (200,000) (525,000) NET CURRENT 10,202,400 (238,800) 9,963,600 10,007,112 43,512 0.4% DELINQUENT COLLECTIONS 100,000 0 100,000 35,985 (64,015) -64.0% PENALTY& INTEREST 100,000 35,000 135,000 133,847 (1,153) -0.9% TOTAL TAXES 10,402,400 10,198,600 10,176,944 (21,656) -0.2% REVENUE FROM GOVT AGENCY POLICE PENSION AID 196,500 18,700 215,200 215,185 (15) -0.0% RECYCLING GRANT 25,000 0 25,000 12,952 (12,048) -48.2% POLICE TRAINING 18,000 0 18,000 14,504 (3,496) -19.4% CIVIL DEFENSE 12,800 0 12,800 6,675 (6,125) -47.9% REDISTRICTING 9,500 0 9,500 9,828 328 3.5% OTHER 8,500 8,500 8,544 44 0.5% TOTAL OTHER AGENCIES 261,800 289,000 267,688 (21,312) -7.4% LICENSES LIQUOR&BEER 105,000 0 105,000 103,093 (1,907) -1.8% BUILDING CONTRACTORS 2,000 0 2,000 3,705 1,705 85.3% OTHER-CIGAREI-1E& 23,000 0 23,000 16,695 (6,305) -27.4% TOTAL LICENSES 130,000 0 130,000 123,493 (6,507) -5.0% PERMITS &FEES DOG REGISTRATION 8,600 0 8,600 10,319 1,719 20.0% BUILDING 1,000,000 150,000 1,150,000 1,182,233 32,233 2.8% PLANNING&ZONING 40,000 (5,000) 35,000 29,794 (5,206) -14.9% 0 ENGINEERING&ADMIN 300,000 (82,500) 217,500 335,976 118,476 54.5% STREET LIGHTING 20,000 35,000 55,000 62,478 7,478 13.6% LAWFUL GAMBLING 32,000 (24,700) 7,300 6,895 (405) -5.5% IMPOUND FEES 4,400 0 4,400 3,343 (1,057) -24.0% CABLE TV 145,000 (2,300) 142,700 189,211 46,511 32.6% IDR CHARGES 100,000 0 100,000 62,906 (37,094) -37.1% OTHER 15,000 5,000 20,000 22,495 2,495 12.5% TOTAL PERMITS&FEES 1,665,000 75,500 1,740,500 1,905,650 165,150 9.5% RECREATION FEES YOUTH PROGRAMS 99,500 30,500 130,000 150,972 20,972 16.1% ORGANIZED ATHLETICS 185,500 (33,000) 152,500 136,206 (16,294) -10.7% COMMUNITY CENTER 490,000 (20,400) 469,600 466,545 (3,055) -0.7% HISTORICAL 2,000 6,000 8,000 9,111 1,111 13.9% PARK USE FEES 13,000 0 13,000 23,450 10,450 80.4% BEACH/CONCESSIONS 15,300 (1,300) 14,000 12,578 (1,422) -10.2% SPECIAL EVENTS 13,000 0 13,000 15,692 2,692 20.7% ADULT PROGRAMS/ADAPTIVE 18,700 0 18,700 27,074 8,374 44.8% TOTAL RECREATION 837,000 (18,200) 818,800 841,628 22,828 2.8% COURT FINES 175,000 35,000 210,000 200,487 (9,513) -4.5% INVESTMENT EARNINGS 150,000 50,000 200,000 246,242 46,242 23.1% OPERATING TRANSFERS IN (FROM) UTILITY FUND 40,000 0 40,000 40,000 0 0.0% 0 T.I.F. DEVELOPMENT FUND 200,000 0 200,000 207,693 7,693 3.8% LIQUOR FUND 356,200 (61,300) 294,900 198,000 (96,900) -32.9% CDBG FUND 13,600 13,600 (13,600) -100.0% TOTAL TRANSFERS IN 596,200 (61,300) 548,500 445,693 (102,807) -18.7% 1992 GENERAL FUND STATEMENT OF REVENUES Unaudited Adjustments 1992 made 1992 ADOPTED during ADJUSTED 12/31/92 Adjusted to Actual BUDGET the year BUDGET ACTUAL VARIANCE III OTHER REVENUE SCHOOL LIAISON 42,000 4,200 46,200 46,200 0 0.0% SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 360,000 288,400 648,400 637,295 (11,105) -1.7% MISCELLANEOUS 40,000 0 40,000 68,832 28,832 72.1% INSURANCE PREMIUM REFUNDS 176,000 176,000 158,304 (17,696) -10.1% TOTAL OTHER 442,000 292,600 910,600 910,631 31 0.0% TOTAL REVENUES 14,659,400 386,600 15,046,000 15,118,456 72,456 0.5% USE OF FUND BALANCE 1,137,600 (613,600) 524,000 185,751 (338,249) -64.6% TOTAL GENERAL FUND 15,797,000 (227,0001 15,570,000 15,304,207 (265,793) -1.7% EQUIPMENT ACQUISITION FUND EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATES 593,400 (187,400) 406,000 (406,000) -100.0% SALE OF PROPERTY 6,700 6,700 9,650 2,950 44.0% , TRANSrbR FROM GENERAL FUND 4,000 4,000 4,000 0 0.0% USE OF FUND BALANCE 229,700 229,700 241,681 11,981 5.2% TOTAL EQUIP ACQUIS FUND 593,400 53,000 646,400 255,331 (391,069) -60.5% GRAND TOTAL $16,390,400 :I ($174,0001 I$16,216,400: $15,559,538.!' ($656,862) -4.1% 410 1 1 Va `9 i 1992 GENERAL FUND STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES Unaudited • Adjustments 1992 1991 1992 made 1992 ADOPTED Encumb- Encumb- during ADJUSTED 12/31/92 Adjusted to Actual BUDGET rances rances the year BUDGET ACTUAL VARIANCE LEGISLATIVE 86,600 2,700 89,300 91,290 (1,990) -2.23% ELECTIONS 80,500 12,800 93,300 100,727 (7,427) -7.96% CITY MANAGER 180,000 (2,300) 31,000 208,700 201,703 6,997 3.35% ASSESSING DEPT 312,900 1,100 314,000 305,138 8,862 2.82% INSP/SAFETY/FACILITIES BLDG INSPECTION 529,900 3,500 (15,100) 9,000 527,300 528,878 (1,578) -0.30% SAFETY 59,600 1,300 60,900 56,433 4,467 7.33% FACILITIES 625,800 (900) 30,600 655,500 620,414 35,086 5.35% PARKS/RECREATION ADMIN&PARK PLAN 172,100 (5,200) 166,900 166,643 257 0.15% PARK MAINTENANCE 804,300 4,640 13,360 822,300 784,915 37,385 4.55% PARKS CAPITAL OUTLAY 293,100 29,170 (32,900) (38,070) 251,300 244,245 7,055 2.81% REC ADMIN&SP EVENTS 203,500 (27,300) 176,200 158,894 17,306 9.82% COMMUNITY CENTER 579,800 83,300 663,100 705,026 (41,926) -6.32% BEACH 68,500 (1,100) 67,400 60,327 7,073 10.49% ORGANIZED ATHLETICS 178,900 180 1,320 180,400 166,615 13,785 7.64% RECREATION-YOUTH 215,500 170 14,530 230,200 229,934 266 0.12% RECREATION-ADULT 82,100 3,300 85,400 89,034 (3,634) -4.26% RECREATION-ADAPTIVE 46,000 2,000 48,000 55,679 (7,679) -16.00% HIST&CUL ARTS 46,200 46,200 49,967 (3,767) -8.15% FINANCE 275,100 275,100 272,123 2,977 1.08% HUMAN RESOURCES 146,800 3,400 150,200 149,179 1,021 0.68% COMMUNITY SERVICES 149,300 1,000 150,300 143,644 6,656 4.43% ' ING DEPT 360,400 (2,400) (35,900) 322,100 317,570 4,530 1.41% LICE DEPT POLICE 2,887,800 29,700 2,917,500 2,885,966 31,534 1.08% CIVIL DEFENSE 25,800 25,800 22,678 3,122 12.10% ANIMAL CONTROL 78,200 78,200 66,372 11,828 15.13% FIRE 473,900 (68,500) 405,400 381,792 23,608 5.82% PUBLIC WORKS DEPT ENGINEERING 642,800 2,750 (19,500) (9,150) 616,900 605,438 11,462 1.86% STREETS&DRAINAGE 1,336,400 18,000 (144,700) 38,600 1,248,300 1,208,382 39,918 3.20% EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 589,800 3,000 (3,000) (11,400) 578,400 552,285 26,115 4.52% STREET LIGHTING 381,500 381,500 393,359 (11,859) -3.11% SOLID WASTE MANAGEMT 31,900 31,900 26,132 5,768 18.08% SHARED SERVICES GENERAL 429,800 (21,500) 408,300 402,037 6,263 1.53% DATA PROCESSING 101,500 101,500 102,091 (591) -0.58% PUBLIC INFORMATION 75,200 (900) 74,300 61,264 13,036 17.55% LEGAL COUNSEL 105,000 30,000 135,000 114,949 20,051 14.85% EMPLOYEE BENEFITS &TRAINING 1,853,500 (100,000) 1,753,500 1,750,297 3,203 0.18% RESERVE CONTINGENCY 157,000 (57,600) 99,400 102,787 (3,387) -3.41% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 14,667,000 61,410 (220,800) (67,610) 14,440,000 14,174,207 265,793 1.84% • !ii'�i Adjustments 1992 1991 1992 made 1992 ADOPTED Encumb- Encumb- during ADJUSTED 12/31/92 Adjusted toAc BUDGET rances rances the year BUDGET ACTUAL VARIAN RESERVATIONS OF FUND BALANCE: NEW CITY HALL 700,000 700,000 700,000 0 0.00% CAPITAL FACILITIES 400,000 400,000 400,000 0 0.00% PW/PARKS STORAGE FACILITY 0 SEVERANCE OBLIGATIONS 30,000 30,000 30,000 0 0.00% TOTAL RESERVATIONS 1,130,000 0 0 0 1,130,000 1,130,000 0 0.00% TOTAL GENERAL FUND 15,797,000 61,410 (220,800) (67,610)15,570,000 15,304,207 265,793 1.71% EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATES: ELECTIONS 37,100 700 37,800 37,771 29 0.08% PARKS 117,600 (3,200) 7,000 121,400 118,342 3,058 2.52% COMMUNITY CENTER 15,200 (6,900) 8,300 8,330 (30) -036% POLICE 133,700 96,400 (4,700) (20,000) 205,400 202,807 2,593 1.26% FIRE 67,500 2,400 (15,000) 54,900 53,933 967 1.76%' ENGINEERING 2,900 2,900 2,238 662 22.83% STREETS 164,400 8,700 173,100 175,657 (2,557) -1.48% EQUIP MAINT 55,000 (12,400) 42,600 40,133 2,467 5.79% UNALLOCATED 0 427 (427) TOTAL EQUIP ACQ FUND 593,400 98,800 (14,8001 (31,000) 646,400 639,638 6,762 1.05% GRAND TOTAL 16,390,400 160,210 (735,6001 i (98,610)16,216,400 15 943,845 272,555 1 Note-A budget resolution officially amending the 1992 budget will be submitted for Council action prior to June 30. That resolution will encompass all budget adjustments made during the year and the final reallocation of budget dollars between divisions needed to eliminate negative expenditure variances remaining at year-end. • I I q 1992 STATEMENT OF GENERAL FUND FUND BALANCES Unaudited ROJECTED FOR YEAR-END 1992 per Originally Adopted 1992 Budget RESERVATIONS BALANCE BUDGETED BUDGETED OF FUND BALANCE 12/31/91 REVENUES EXPENDITURE: BALANCE 12/31/92 RESERVED for Encumbrances 61,407 61,407 RESERVED for Prepaid Expenses 73,718 73,718 RESERVED for P.W.Storage Facility 325,000 325,000 RESERVED for Severance Obligations 213,000 30,000 243,000 RESERVED for New City Hall 661,800 700,000 1,361,800 RESERVED for Capital Facilities 0 400,000 400,000 UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE 3,372,777 14,659,400 (14,667,000) (1,130,000) 2,235,177 4,707,702 14,659,400 (14,667,000) 0 4,700,102 ACTUAL FUND BALANCE per preliminary year end reports RESERVATIONS BALANCE ACTUAL ACTUAL OF FUND BALANCE 12/31/91 REVENUES EXPENDITURE: BALANCE 12/31/92 RESERVED for Encumbrances 61,407 (61,407) 220,800 220,800 RESERVED for Prepaid Expenses 73,718 (73,718) 48,520 48,520 RESERVED for P.W.Storage Facility 325,000 325,000 SERVED for Severance Obligations 213,000 30,000 243,000 ERVED for New City Hall 661,800 700,000 1,361,800 ERVED for Capital Facilities 0 400,000 400,000 UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE 3,372,777 15,118,456 (14,039,082) (1,399,320) 3,052,831 4,707,702 15,118,456 (14,174,207) 0 5,651,951 PROJECTED FOR YEAR-END 1993 per March 1993 Revised Budget Unaudited RESERVATIONS BALANCE BUDGETED BUDGETED OF FUND BALANCE 12/31/92 REVENUES EXPENDITURE: BALANCE 12/31/93 RESERVED for Encumbrances 220,800 (220,800) 0 RESERVED for Prepaid Expenses 48,520 48,520 RESERVED for P.W.Storage Facility 325,000 325,000 RESERVED for Severance Obligations 243,000 7,000 250,000 RESERVED for New City Hall 1,361,800 (1,161,800)* 200,000 RESERVED for Capital Facilities 400,000 (400,000)* 0 UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE 3,052,831 15,348,300 (15,964,150) 1,154,800 3,591,781 5,651,951 15,348,300 (16,184,950) (400,000) 4,415,301 *Assumes that [all but$200,000 of] the$1.3 million set aside over 1991 and 1992 for New City Hall is unreserved and made available for drawing down future years levies. Also assumes that the$400,000 reserved during 1992 for the City's capital facilities program is transferred out to a new fund set up for that purpose. II I �C! t / CI 1C 1992 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS ***********************************************************************************4*******3 1. Transfer from Employee Benefits to all divisions for wage adjustments effective 1/1/92. (does not include union wage adjustments) 2. 1991 Encumbrances — items approved in the 1991 budget but unspent as of 12/31 and encumbered for expenditure in 1992: •$3,500 Inspections computer equipment $18,000 Streets Roberts Drive Trail project $3,000 Equipment Maintenance plasma cutter $12,000 Parks capital outlay softball fencing $17,000 Parks capital outlay staring lake storage building $96,400 Equip Acq Fund police radio tower $2,400 Equip Acqu Fund fire batteries for portables $4,700 Parks Red Rock Lake aeration power installation $800 Engineering capital outlay — chairs $1,950 Engineering pavement/subgrade testing $180 Organized Athletics color paper $170 Youth Recreation color paper 3. Transfer $14,000 from Equip Maint equip certifs to Streets equip certifs — delete budget for 2 small pickups and add 1 4x4 truck, with revenue from the sale of the old vehicle making up the difference ($1,300). 4. Transfer ($2,100) from Contingency to Parks Capital Outlay for purchase of trailer tracks. 5. Add $61,000 to Water System Maintenance budget for purchase of 3 utility vehicles (Enterprise Funds Budget). 6. Transfer $5,000 from Contingency to Legislative for increase SW • Transportation Coalition dues. 7. Add $23,000 to Parks Certifs for skid steer loader to be funded via deleted equipment repair budget in the General Fund ($4,000), deleted 4x4 truck ($15,000) and revenue from the sale of the old vehicle ($4,000 trade—in value). 8. Transfer $400 from printing to drop off center svcs within Solid Waste. 9. Add $1,400 for youth open gym program to be funded via $500 in program revenues and $900 transfer from contingency. 10. Transfer $1000 from printing to pt wages within Rec Admin community brochure program. 11. Adjust Streets Certifs budget for purchase of 2 new dump trucks rather than the 1 new purchase and 1 refurbish originally budgeted. Total increase from $90,000 to $108,100 to be financed via a trade—in value($7,000), unspent appropriation for snow plow equipment($5,700), and sale of property/auction revenue($5,400). 12. Transfer $840 from Fire training supplies to Fire capital outlay for smoke machine budgeted incorrectly as a supply item. 13. Reinstate $500 aquatics capital outlay budget for item inadvertently omitted from the 1992 budget. 14. Transfer $1900 from Legislative recording secretaries to capital outlay for notebook computer purchase. • 15. Transfer $10,000 of Streets Roberts Drive trail project carried over from 1991 to Streets CSAH Duck Lake trail project. It*j 16. Transfer $360 from Park Ranger supplies to capital outlay for bicycle budgeted incorrectly as a supply item. 16. Transfer $8,000 from Contingency to the Heritage Preservation Grant Fund for city match to federal grant. • 17. Transfer $5,500 from Contingency to the community survey line item within the Contingency budget. 18. Transfer $49,100 from Contingency to the Community Center division for purchase of an ice resurfacer. 19. Transfer $30,000 of the amount appropriated for new bike trails within the Parks Capital Outlay division to the Staring Lake storage bldg line item within that division. Delete the remaining $30,000 new bike trails budget. 20. Increase the awards/scholarships line item within the Youth Recreation budget by$1500, via a transfer from Contingency if necessary. 21. Transfer $19,000 from the seal coat line item within the Streets division to the asphalt overlay line item within that division. 22. Various adjustments as outlined in the 1992 mid—year budget status report to the City Manager. At mid—year the originally adopted 1992 budget was closely compared to actual 1991 data and activity thru June 1992. These comparisons and any necessary adjustments were made to gain a more accurate projection of year—end General Fund fund balance. Adjustments made after distribution of 1993 proposed budget on Sept 4, 1992: 23. Add $20,000 to the Streets division for purchase of 4 additional snow wings and increased contract snow plowing, to be financed via cost savings • due to a mid—yr retirement and elimination of that vacated position. 24. Delete $5,000 of the amount appropriated for Fire office furniture. The dept has determined it can postpone to 1994 the furniture planned for the Chiefs office. 25. Delete $10,000 Franlo improvements budget within the Parks Capital Outlay division. This item can be put off to 1994. 26. Transfer from Employee Benefits division to the Parks, Equipment Maintenance, and Streets divisions to cover union wage settlement retroactive to 1/1/92. 27. Transfer $1,300 from the Streets division to the Facilities division for additional repairs to the Eaton building. 28. Reappropriate $1,000 from contractual service and furniture accounts within the Inspection Division to computer equipment capital outlay account within that division to cover cost overruns on computer purchases. 29. Transfer $6,500 from Park Maintenance tennis court sealcoat budget to Park Maintenance capital outlay account to cover Larkspur and Rustic Hills trails construction expenditures. 30. Transfer $2,200 from Police temporary wages to Community Services temporary wages to cover staff reassignment. S I .J 31. Transfer $1,300 of those dollars earmarked for volleyball capital improvements in the Park Improvement Fund to a capital outlay account within the Organized Athletics Division of the General Fund to pay for league scheduler software. 32. Transfer $9,900 of those dollars earmarked for a records management study within the City Management Division to the Inspections Division for expenditure on equipment and supplies needed to convert inspections records to a new and more • efficient filing system. With a Records Specialist now on staff it was determined an outside records consultant/study will not be necessary. 1992 Encumbrances — items approved in the 1992 budget but unspent as of 12/31/92 and encumbered for expenditure in 1993: 33. Reappropriate for expenditure in 1993 $138,000 remaining in the 1992 Streets trails budget for use in completing the CSAH#4 Duck Lake Trail project. Of the three trail projects approved for 1992, two were completed (CSAH#1 Spoon Ridge & Roberts Drive Trail) and one is still in—progress (CSAH#4 Duck Lake Trail). The Roberts Drive Trail project came in significantly underbudget, while bids received on the CSAH#4 project came in higher than anticipated. 34. Reappropriate for expenditure in 1993 $3,000 remaining in the Equipment Maintenance capital outlay budget for purchase of engine analyzer and shop maintenance system computer upgrades. 35. Reappropriate for expenditure in 1993 $2,400 remaining in the Planning capital outlay budget for purchase of computer networking equipment and installation services. 36. Reappropriate for expenditure in 1993 $19,500 remaining in the Engineering budget for development of a water quality management plan/storm water utility. 37. Reappropriate for expenditure in 1993 $6,700 remaining in the Streets budget for • signal light painting. 38. Reappropriate for expenditure in 1993 $8,030 remaining in the Parks capital outlay budget for Round Lake drainage work. 39. Reappropriate for expenditure in 1993 $24,870 remaining in the Parks capital outlay budget for construction of a stage and storage structure at Staring Lake. 40. Reappropriate for expenditure in 1993 $3,200 remaining in the Parks equipment certificate budget for softball field fencing. Installation of the fencing was delayed due to school construction projects. 41. See attached summary of 1992 encumbrances (includes all those cited above plus those open purchases orders at year—end that qualify as encumbrances). 42. Various adjustments as outlined in the November Budget Status Report which were made after reviewing activity thru November in order to gain a more accurate estimate of year—end fund balances. 43. Final 1992 Budget Amendment Resolution (to be submitted prior to June 1) — officially amends 1992 originally adopted budget according to all adjustments cited above plus final budget reallocation between divisions needed to eliminate remaining negative expenditure variances. • n � l�.J • MEMORANDUM TO: CARL JULLIE,CITY MANAGER THRU: JOHN FRANE, FINANCE DIRECTOR FROM: SARA RUTH, ACCOUNTANT RE: 1992 Encumbrances The following purchases and projects contained in the 1992 Budget were incomplete and unspent as of 12/31/92, and have been requested for carry—over to Budget 1993: PO8369 Aerial Painting Signal light painting $6,675.00 Streets 10-4380-586-50 $6,700 PO8493/CK32147 Zeos (1)486 computer $2,290.92 City Mgmt 10-4551-410-15 $2,300 PO8495/CK10429 Zeos (2)486 computers $4,581.84 Inspections 10-4551-480-35 $4,600 PO8518/CK10425 Wrightline Data filing sys — shelving $5,367.69 Inspections 10-4550-480-35 $5,100 PO8518/CK10425 Wrightline Data filing sys— folders&labels $5,114.33 Inspections 10-4220-480-35 $5,400 PO8557 Cedar Computer Networking equip& install $1,844.58 Planning 10-4551-850-60 $1,900 LOGIS Tech assistance — network install $500.00 Planning 10-4551-850-60 $500 PO8570 Funk—Haney Carpeting for pol basmt remodel $849.78 Facilities 10-4420-740-37 $900 Sunram Const Inc CSAH4 railroad ped bridge $138,000.00 Streets 10-4511-579-50 $138,000 Shop maint system update $3,000.00 Equip Maint 10-4551-605-54 $3,000 SEH Engineers Water quality mgmt plan $19,500.00 Engineering 10-4420-470-30 $19,500 Victor Carlson Round lake drainage project $8,030.00 Parks 10-4520-628-51 $8,030 CO Field Co Staring lake stage& storage struc $24,870.00 Parks 10-4520-628-51 $24,870 • Total General Fund $220,624.14 $220,800 PO8494/CK32147 Zeos (3)486 computers $6,872.76 Comm Center 11-4551—R02-20 $6,900 PO8501 Capital Comm Install radio equip $1,597.50 Police 11-4517-905-20 $1,600 PO8547 Levques Tower Svc Tower work — parts&labor $3,066.82 Police 11-4517-905-20 $3,100 Softball fencing $3,200.00 Parks 11-4553-910-20 $3,200 Total Equip Acq Fund $14,737.08 $14,800 Sufficient budget remain3 in each of the above accounts to accomodate the requested carry—overs. With your approval, 1992 fund balance will be reserved for these encumbrances and the 1993 Budget will be adjusted to provide for these expenditures. • d • MEMORANDUM • TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager FROM: Kevin W Schmieg, Director of Inspections, Safety, & Facilities DATE: May 26, 1993 SUBJECT: Demolition of (2) two houses located at 8034 and 8042 Eden Road. The City of Eden Prairie advertised to solicit bids for the demolition of two city owned houses located at 8034 & 8042 Eden Road in the May 13th edition of the Eden Prairie News. Two bids were received and opened on May 21, 1993 . BIDDER AMOUNT Miller Brothers Excavating $13, 220 Bollig & Sons Inc $20, 450 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to the low bidder Miller Brothers Excavating for the amount of $13, 220 . 41 i 4111 RESOLUTION NO. 93- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $2,595,000 VARIABLE RATE DEMAND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1993 (LAKEVIEW BUSINESS CENTER PROJECT) TO REFINANCE A PROJECT BE rr RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows; • 1. The Council has received a proposal from Gerald A.Portnoy(the"Borrower") that the City undertake to refinance existing tax-exempt bonds and refinance a certain Project as herein described, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 through 469.165 (the "Act"), through issuance by the City of its $2,595,000 Variable Rate Demand Commercial Development Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1993 (Lakeview Business Center Project) (the "Bonds"). 2. It is proposed that, pursuant to a Loan Agreement dated as of June 1, 1993, • between the City and the Borrower (the "Loan Agreement"), the City loan the proceeds of the Bonds to the Borrower to refund the outstanding principal balance of the $2,695,000 Commercial Development Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1989 (Lakeview Business Center Project) issued by the City on June 27, 1989 (the "Prior Bonds") which Prior Bonds were issued to refund a tax-exempt revenue note which was issued to finance the acquisition, construction and equipping of an approximately 50,000 sq. ft. office/showroom located at 10901-10925 Valley View Road, in the City (the "Project"). The basic payments to be made by the Borrower under the Loan Agreement are fixed so as to produce revenue sufficient to pay the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds when due. It is further proposed that the City assign its rights to the basic payments and certain other rights under the Loan Agreement to National City Bank of Minneapolis in Minneapolis, Minnesota (the 'Trustee") as security for payment of the Bonds under an Indenture of Trust dated as of June 1, 1993 (the "Indenture"). Payment of the Bonds is initially secured by an irrevocable Letter of Credit to be issued by American National Bank and Trust Company in favor of the Trustee and confirmed by Harris Bank and Trust Company, Chicago, Illinois in an amount equal to the principal amount of the Bonds plus certain additional interest thereon. The Bonds are intended to be purchased by Piper Jaffray, Inc. (the "Purchaser"), pursuant to a Bond Purchase Agreement dated as of closing among the Purchaser, the Borrower and the City (the "Purchase Agreement") and resold pursuant to an Official Statement(the "Official Statement"). The Purchaser shall also act as remarketing agent for the Bonds pursuant to a Remarketing Agreement dated as of June 1, 1993 among the Borrower, the Trustee and the Purchaser. • 658155.02 .v1Tr --. �`. � �. WED - -' -- - 336. 1y8-vim 9 ., . . _. . . - • 3. Forms of the following documents will be executed by the City in connection with issuance of the Bonds: (a) The Loan Agreement; (b) The Indenture; and (c) The Purchase Agreement. The use of the Official Statement is hereby approved, but the City takes no responsibility for any of the information contained therein. 4. It is hereby found, determined and declared that: (a) it is desirable that the Bonds be issued by the City upon the terms set forth in the Indenture; (b) the basic payments under the Loan Agreement are fixed to produce revenue sufficientt to provide for the prompt payment of principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds issued under the Indenture when due, and the Loan Agreement and Indenture also provide that the Borrower 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 Project Premises and payable during the term of the Loan Agreement and Indenture; and (c) under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.155, and as provided in the Loan Agreement and Indenture, the Bonds are not to be payable from or charged upon any funds other than the revenue pledged to the payment thereof; the City is not subject to any liability thereon; no holder of any Bonds shall ever have the right to compel any exercise by the City of its taxing powers to pay any of the Bonds or the interest or premium thereon, or to enforce payment thereof against any property of the City except the interests of the City in the Loan Agreement which have been assigned to the Trustee under the Indenture; the Bonds shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable upon any property of the City except the interests of the City in the Loan Agreement which have been assigned to the Trustee under the Indenture; the Bonds shall recite that the Bonds are issued without moral obligation on the part of the state or its political subdivisions, and that the Bonds, including interest thereon, are payable solely from the revenues pledged to the payment thereof; and, the Bonds shall not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation. • 658155.02 -- :4 CI.\• - ns \-i • • - . n P • 5. The forms of the Loan Agreement, Indenture, and Purchase Agreement and exhibits thereto shall be subject to the final approval of the City Attorney. The Loan Agreement, Indenture, and Purchase Agreement are directed to be executed in the name and on behalf of the City by the Mayor and the City Manager. Any other documents and certificates necessary to the transaction described above shall be executed and delivered by the appropriate City officers. Copies of all of the documents necessary to the transaction herein described shall be delivered, filed and recorded as provided herein and in the Loan Agreement and Indenture. 6. The City shall proceed forthwith to issue its Bonds, in the form and upon the terms set forth in the Indenture. The offer of the Purchaser to purchase the Bonds for sale as of the date of issuance of the Bonds at par plus accrued interest, if any, to the date of delivery at the interest rate or rates determined by the Purchaser as remarketing agent in accordance with the terms of the Indenture is hereby accepted. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized and directed to prepare and execute the Bonds as prescribed in the Indenture and to deliver them to the Trustee for authentication and delivery to Purchaser. 7. The Mayor and City Manager and other officers of the City are authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to the Purchaser certified copies of all proceedings and records of the City relating to the Bonds, and such other affidavits and certificates as may j • be required to show the facts relating to the legality 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 contained therein. 8. The approval hereby given to the various documents referred to above includes approval of such additional details therein as may be necessary and appropriate and such modifications thereof, deletions therefrom and additions thereto as may be necessary and appropriate and approved by the City Attorney and the City officials authorized herein to execute said documents prior to their execution; and said City officials are hereby authorized to approve said changes on behalf of the City. 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 of the Mayor or City Manager, any of the documents authorized by this resolution to be executed may be executed by the acting Mayor or the designee of the City Manager, respectively. 4110 I ,. ..0.., 658155.1)2 I,V • • Adopted: June 1, 1993 Mayor AT City Clerk (SEAL) • os 65s tss.ca 4 • STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Clerk of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I have compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes with the original thereof on file in my office, and that the same is a full, true and complete transcript of the minutes of a meeting of the City Council of said City duly called and held on the date therein indicated, insofar as such minutes relate to the authorization of the issuance of the $2,595,000 Variable Rate Demand Commercial Development Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1993 (Lakeview Business Center Project). WITNESS my hand and the seal of said City this day of June, 1993. City Clerk (SEAL) • 653155.02 i O9 1 5 C/ti ' I i ✓u LANG, PAULY & GREGERSON, LTD. ATTORNEYS AT LAW • SUBURBAN PLACE BUILDING 250 PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE,SUITE 370 EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA 55344 TELEPHONE: (612)829-7355 FAX:(612)829-0713 MINNEAPOLIS OFFICE ROBERT I.LANG 4400 IDS CENTER ROGER A.PAULY 80 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET DAVID H.GREGERSON' MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55402 RICHARD F.ROSOW (612)338-0755 MARK J.JOHNSON FAX(612)349-6718 JOSEPH A.NILAN JOHN W.LANG,CPA REPLY TO EDEN PRAIRIE OFFICE: JUDITH H.DUTCHER BARBARA M.ROSS WILLIAM R.MILLER May 14 , 1993 TODD A.SATTLER JENNIFER M.INZ 'Also Authorized to Practice Law in Wisconsin Joyce Provo City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: Ordinance Amending City Code Section 8 .07 , Subd . 3 . B. Dear Joyce: Enclosed is the above-referenced ordinance. The ordinance changes the parenthetical words from "name of authorized person issuing order" to "title of person issuing order. " This is for the • purpose of conforming the ordinance language to the signs referred to, and to preclude the need for changing signs in the event of a change of the authorized person. Please place this on the agenda for one of the future meetings of the Council. Sincerely o r 'A,': my RAP:ss G' Enc. • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE • HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. -93 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 8, SECTION 8 . 07 , SUBD. 3 . B. , WHICH RELATES TO PARKING HOURS AND SIGNAGE, SPECIFICALLY "NO PARKING" IN FIRE LANE RESTRICTIONS . THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1 . City Code Section 8 .07 , Subd . 3 . B. , is hereby amended to read as follows: "Subd . 3 . B. Any such sign shall be placed in such a position that it is visible to anyone attempting to use the way, lane, or area for parking and shall state: "No Parking Fire Lane - By Order of (title of person issuing order) . " Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions • and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 8 .99 , entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 3 . This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the th day of , 1993 , and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a meeting of the City Council of said City on the th day of , 1993 . ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of 1993 . .♦ , `. , - -• I I-1•.J - - - L I WINTHROP & WEINSTINE A AnOr[SO.ONAL A:3QCIATION 0 WRMA.WINTMROP JON J.HOOANSON ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW JuuC wiDLCY 3CNNCLL OAVr3 A.KRISTAL ROOCRT R.WEINSTINE SANDRA J.MARTIn' •I OfrAS M.BOYD KANL A.WCDCR RICMARD A.MOLL WRY w,SCMO.NILLCR .:OD P`I C.NAVMAN JONATHAN D.CRAM ROOCR 3.00RDON MOD C.URNCSS =�00 MINNL-:;OTA WORLD TRADE CENTER OANICL C.00CK TOMAS L.STArrORD STCVCN C.TOURCK SCOTT J.OONOOSKC CRIC J.NYSTROM CARLA J.PEOCRSCN STCPNCNJ.ANYOCR PCTC K RJ.OLEGr.L 30 E:A37 SC:VF,NTM STREET KRISTIN 1..PCTCRSON JAMCO W.OICRKINO MART KULLCR COWARD J.DRCNTTCL JOANNC L.MATZCN CATHCRINC A.DOMINO UC2 OAVID P.PEARSON ..CrPRCY R.ANSCI SAINT PALI L.MINNESOTA 'S4i01-4a01 WILLIAM L,WINSON CMRISTOPHCR W.MAOCL THOMAS M.MART IV LAU:IF;A.KNOCKC CYAN D.C000: OVZANMC M.SPCLLACV CAPRON C.KNUTSON LLOYO W.CROONS TF..L:PHONE (C12! •4:�0 6400 THOMAS A.WALKCR JOHN A.K NAP.. JULIC K.WILLIAMSON OINA M.CROTIIC POLLEN JOSCPN 3.rRICOOCRO MICKCLC D.VAILLAN000RT 6CT5Y J.LOUSHIN PAX 10121 202-834' PATRICK W.WCOCP Or COVNSCL DAVID C.MORAN.J", MARK T.JOHNSON CHARLCS A.DURANT DONALD J.DROWN JCNNIrCR wiRICK DRCITINNOCR DIRECT DIAL CRAIO A•OPANOT OANICL W.MAROY OROOK:r.POLCY Or COUNSC. (612) 290-8481 May 27, 1993 VIA FACSIMILE #937-7411 Ms. Joyce Provo City Manager's Office City of Eden Prairie Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Re: John E. and Mary Jo Feltl; 7012 Willow Creek Road • , Dear Joyce: As you know, this firm represents John and Mary Jo Feltl. As I discussed with Donald Uram in a telephone conversation this morning, the Feltls are requesting that the public hearing concerning the above-referenced property currently scheduled to be held during the June 1, 1993 City Council meeting be continued until the August 3, 1993 City Council meeting. Thank you for your help and assistance. Very truly yours, WINTHROP & WEINSTINE, P.A. B Ili � Thom • M. H• • TMH/jj/s92s5 cc: John E. and Mary Jo Felt! 411111 Roger Pauly, Esq. MIL CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE DRAFT HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA DRAFT • RESOLUTION NO. 93- RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CREATION OF A LEASEHOLD COOPERATIVE AT THE PRAIRIE MEADOWS APARTMENT PROJECT IN EDEN PRAIRIE WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie pursuant to Minnesota Statute 273.124, Subd. 6, Par. (j) 1 & 2 , is required to hold a public hearing to make certain findings before a leasehold cooperative can be legally formed at the Prairie Meadows apartment project in Eden Prairie. WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie pursuant to Minnesota Statute 273.124, Subd. 6, Par. (j) 1 & 2 , is required to hold a public hearing to make the following findings before the Prairie Meadows apartment project can be eligible for homestead tax treatment: 1) that the granting of the homestead treatment of the apartment's units will facilitate safe, clean, affordable housing for the cooperative members that would otherwise not be available absent the homestead designation; and Q R, F r 2) that the owner has presented information satisfactory to the governing body showing that the savings garnered from the homestead designation of the units will be used to reduce tenant's rents or provide a level of furnishing or maintenance not possible absent the designation; and 3) and that all other requirements be met relative to Minn. Statute 273.124 Subd. 6. 411110 WHEREAS, in order to assure that the above listed conditions are complied with by the project owners, Community Housing Development Corporation (CHDC), these condition are included in the Master Lease between the Prairie Meadows Cooperative and Community Housing Development Corporation. BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie approves of the formation of a leasehold cooperative and grants homestead treatment at Prairie Meadows apartments project provided all relative conditions per the above cited Minnesota Statutes are followed, specifically that all savings garnered from the homestead treatment is turned over to the Cooperative to facilitate safe, clean, and affordable housing and to provide a level of furnishing and maintenance not possible absent the designation. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 1st day of June, 1993. DRAFT Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST; • John D. Frane, City Clerk D R A F j MEMORANDUM • TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: David Lindahl, Planner DATE: May 27, 1993 SUBJECT: LEASEHOLD COOPERATIVE - PRAIRIE MEADOWS APARTMENTS (FORMERLY WINDSLOPE) Recommendation: The Human Rights and Services Commission at their May 17, 1993 meeting supported the formation of a leasehold cooperative at Prairie Meadows Apartments. The Commission was satisfied that ample evidence was provided by the owner to assure that any saving garnered by homesteading the project will be used to help maintain and improve the project. The Commission recommended that the City Council consider approving the cooperative and making the necessary findings to allow the project to receive a homestead tax classification. Background: • The Community Housing Development Corporation (CHDC), owners of Prairie Meadows Apartments, formed a leasehold cooperative at this project on June 1, 1992. This arrangement allowed the owners to lease the project to its tenants (cooperative members) for twenty-six years. Membership to the cooperative is open to all tenants and as of May 24, 1993, 157 tenants, or 93% of the 168 total units had joined the cooperative. Leasehold cooperative arrangements give tenants more control of property management, maintenance, and general budget matters. Also, significant property tax savings can be realized by the owners since those units belonging to the cooperative are eligible to file for homestead property classifications. However, State Statutes requires that before a leasehold cooperative becomes official, that a public hearing be held by the City in which the cooperative property is located so that the City can make the following finding: 1) That the granting of the homestead treatment of the apartment's units will facilitate safe, clean, affordable housing for the cooperative members that would otherwise not be available absent the homestead designation; and 2) That the owner has presented information satisfactory to the governing body showing that the savings garnered from the homestead designation of the units will be used to reduce tenant's rents or provide a level of furnishing or maintenance not possible absent the designation. • 10 1(i The Hennepin County Assessor will not grant a homestead classification until this hearing is held • and the City feels satisfied that these assurances have been made. The total tax savings to the owners (CHDC) is estimated to be about$75,000 per year. The owners have indicated that these funds will be used entirely to fund various maintenance and rehabilitation projects at the site. The leasehold cooperative members, represented by an elected board of directors, will decide how the funds will be used. Staff Concerns: To assure the homestead saving are turned over to the cooperative and that the funds are used to augment the current maintenance and rehabilitation budget, staff had the project owners incorporate these assurances into the Master Lease between the cooperative and project owners. The owners also will provide an annual audit of the project to show the level of funds provided to the cooperative from the homestead savings and how the funds are utilized. The attached letter from the Prairie Meadows Cooperative includes a preliminary maintenance and rehabilitation budget which outlines how the tax savings will be used and provides more background on the cooperative. A second letter is also attached dated April 27, 1993 which lists all current maintenance and replacements needs at the project. An architect will be retained by the cooperative to provide a more detailed assessment of the maintenance and rehabilitation requirements. • • Community Housing • Development Corporation (612) 332-6264 408 Butler North 510 First Avenue North Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403 May 21 , 1993 City Council City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Dear Council Members: We are writing to provide information in connection with our appearance before the Eden Prairie City Council on June 1 , 1993. Background Prairie Meadows Cooperative (formerly Windslope) is a leased cooperative • formed on June 1, 1992 under Minnesota Statutes. The non-profit owner, Community Housing Development Corporation, purchased the 168 unit housing development on November 1 , 1991 to assure its continued use as housing for low and moderate income households. The entire housing development was then leased to the cooperative for a period of twenty-six years. All the tenant households at Prairie Meadows are eligible to become members of the cooperative. At an annual meeting the members elect a Board of Directors who then operate the housing development for the benefit of the tenants. The Board of Directors is responsible for: -- The Annual Operating Budget -- Operating Policies, including : -- Resident Selection and Grievances -- Maintenance -- Affirmative Action -- Capital Improvements -- Personnel -- Selection and Supervision of Professional Property Management Agent • Equal Housing Opportunity 0 I4IL Eden Prairie City Council May 21 , 1993 Page Two Homestead Classification We are requesting homestead classification for the real estate taxes paid by Prairie Meadows in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Section 273.124, Subdivision 6. Our request is for a homestead real estate tax classification for 1992 taxes payable in 1993. The formal legal documents were submitted before the June 1 , 1992 deadline. We believe we have met the leased cooperative requirements. One of the beneficial results of creating the leased cooperative is the residents of Prairie Meadows have assumed direct control of their housing environment. The leased cooperative provides the residents with many of the benefits of home ownership. The residents are able to establish housing policies oriented to their needs and priorities. They are able to prioritize the operations and capital improvement annual budgets. The result is the empowerment of the rsidents in a very significant and permanent way. Another benefit of the establishment of the leased cooperative is granting of homestead status for Prairie Meadows real estate taxes. The tax savings is estimated to be approximately $75,000 per year. These funds will be used to directly fund additional maintenance and rehabilitation for the development including the following items: • -- Prompt and high quality response to routine maintenance require- ments by residents. -- Apartment upgrading and redecorating. -- Roof replacement. -- Window replacement. -- Exterior work including painting and landscaping upgrades. -- Repair and upgrade the parking lots and garages. Enclosed is a Maintenance and Rehabilitation Analysis that describes in detail the positive benefits of the homestead designation for the residents of Prairie Meadows. In summary, the Prairie Meadows Leased Cooperative, and Community Housing Development Corporation request the City of Eden Prairie make the necessary findings to establish homestead status for Prairie Meadows. We have programmed the savings to increase the level of maintenance and rehabilitation and the result will be a more satisfactory environment for the residents. Sincerely, Pat Byrd President, Prairie Meadows, A Cooperative Association • Richard Brustad Vice Chair, Community Housing Development Corporation cc: Mr. David Lindahl 12. HOMESTEAD DESIGNATION IMPACT • PRAIRIE MEADOWS COOPERATIVE MAY 14.1993 1993 1994 1995 t994 1997 1998 1999 2000 2041 1. MAINTENANCE +LEVEL -WITHOUT HOMESTEAD TAXES 1249.000 $247.004 $253,904 $260,963 $268.184 $275,570 $283.124 $290.847 $293.744 THE EMPHASIS WOULD BE ON MAINTAINING THE PROPERTY 'AS IS.' MAINTENANCE WOULD BE LARGELY LIMITED TO TO REPAIRING THOSE ITEMS WHICH HEED IMMEDIATE ATTENTION. THE CURRENT QUALITY OF MATERIALS AND FINISHES WOULD BE MAINTAINED. -WITH HOMESTEAD TAXES $272.000 $270.004 1276.904 $283,763 $291,184 1278,570 $306,124 $313.847 $321,144 THE EMPHASIS WILL BE ON UPGRADING THE GENERAL CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY. REPAIRS WILL BE MORE THOROUGH AND COMPLETE. HIGHER QUALITY, MORE ATTRACTIVE. AND MORE DURABLE MATERIALS AND FINISHES WILL BE USED. A PROGRAM OF 'DE-SCUFFING' THE PROPERTY WILL BE IMPLEMENTED. 2. REHABILITATION LEVEL -WITHOUT HOMESTEAD TAXES $136.276 $68,000 $72,800 077,192 182,984 $88,383 $93,998 $99,838 $105.912 REHABILITATION WOULD PROCEED MORE SLOWLY, AND THE EXTENT OF THE REHABILITATION WOULD BE MORE LIMITED. THERE WOULD BE PRESSURE TO USE LOWER QUALITY MATERIALS AND BUILDING COMPONENTS. -WITH HOMESTEAD TAXES $188,276 $120.000 $124.800 $129,792 $134.984 S140,383 $145,998 $151.838 $157.912 • REHABILITATION WILL PROCEED MORE QUICKLY. CATEGORIES OF WORK WILL BE ABLE TO BE COMPLETED AT ONE TIME. INSTEAD OF BEING SPREAD OVER SEVERAL YEARS. HIGHER QUALITY MATERIALS AND COMPONENTS WILL BE USED. THERE WILL BE ROOM TO CONSIDER UPGRADES. INSTEAD OF SIMPLY REPLACING WITH 'LIKE KIND.' *TOTALS -WITHOUT HOMESTEAD TAXES $385.276 $315.004 $326.704 $338,755 $351.168 $363.953 $377,122 $390,685 $404,656 -WITH HOMESTEAD TAXES $460,276 $390,004 $401,704 $413,755 $426,168 $438,953 $452,122 $465,685 $479,656 j 3 . 1 . Community • Housing Development Corporation (612) 332-6264 408 Butler North 510 First Avenue North Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403 April 27, 1993 Mr. David Lindahl City Planner City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Dear Mr. Lindahl: Mr. Douglas Strandness and I have consulted with the Prairie Meadows Leased Cooperative Board to develop the following review of maintenance and repair matters at Prairie Meadows. • As we discussed, we plan to work with the Cooperative to employ an architect to develop these plans in more detail and then implement them over the next few months. We would like to emphasize that Prairie Meadows is structurally and funda- mentally sound. The items listed below are more in the category of deferred maintenance by the previous owner. Maintenance Issues 1 . Foundation leaks: correct ground water seepage which occurs in some lower units when there is considerable runoff or a high water table. 2. Window leaks: correct leakage around windows which creates mildew problems in some units. 3. Parking lots: correct asphalt problems by cutting/replacing, overlaying and/or patching as needed. Then sealcoat and restripe. And curbing and speed bumps where needed. 4. Garages: section the stalls with plywood walls, and make repairs and replacements to the exteriors, as needed. Install steel posts or corner guards at each garage entrance. Install new, individually keyed locks. Resolve ground water seepage at the backs of the garages (the Westwind Drive side of the garages) where this is a problem. Redo dumpster/ recycling areas, so that residents and visitors do not have to walk past 410 garbage and trash when entering the property. Equal Housing Opportunity I ✓R, Mr. David Lindahl April 27, 1993 Page Two • 5. Upgrade exterior lighting: add additional lighting around the garages, along the parking lots and along the sidewalks which residents take to the building entrances. 6. Sidewalks and steps: make repairs and replacements where needed. Install railings on all steps. 7. Cosmetic upgrades: make the following repairs and replacements to change the "project look" of the property. a. Signage: eliminate all stenciled signs and all negative signage. Install new, professionally done signage throughout the property using Prairie Meadows' name and logo. New signage will include a new monument at Westwind Drive and Preserve Boulevard, new address signage where the drives entering the property, new directional signage within the property, new office signage, and new signage at the building entrances. The new signage will be comparable to, or better than the signage at surrounding multi- family properties. b. Landscaping: repair and upgrade to give the property greater curb appeal. c. Building entrances, foyers, halls and stairs: upgrade these areas to give them an attractive, inviting look. Specific improvements will include upgrading stair treads, lighting, hardware and notice boards. d. Exterior painting: repaint the exteriors of the buildings using a new, more contemporary color scheme in keeping with the require- ments of the Preserve and the appearance of the other multi-family properties in the area. All of the above work can be completed with the $136,000 which remains from the $168,000 which was set aside for rehabilitation when the property was purchased by Community Housing Development Corporation. Replacement Programs 1 . Roofs: adopt a program over the next three years of replacing/over- laying shingle roofs as they reach the end of their useful lives. The roofs do not currently leak and are not showing signs of wearing out. While the expected life of shingled roofs in Minnesota is twenty years, many shingled roofs last twenty-five years or more. As a result, the property can replace/overlay the roofs on a programmed basis over the next five to eight years. I ff • J Mr. David Lindahl April 27, 1993 Page Three • 2. Siding: repair and maintain. The siding is sound at this point. With a proper repair and maintenance program, this siding should last inde- finitely. 3. Windows: continue programmed replacement. There is an ongoing program to replace a group of windows each year with a better, more energy efficient style of window. This program will continue. The property can handle these programs with its current financial resources and future income stream. Maintenance Service _ Residents have been dissatisfied with the way in which their apartments have been maintained and the responses which they have received to their main- tenance requests. With new management, the Board is confident that the following changes can be made and maintained: 1 . Maintenance requests will be completed by the end of the next business day. Repairs will be done to a high standard, so that quality, durable results are achieved. Replacements will be made when needed. 2. After-hours maintenance emergencies will be handled in a prompt, • responsive, businesslike manner. 3. Annual apartment inspections will be done on a rotating basis throughout the year (fourteen units to be inspected each month) . All needed repairs and replacements which are identified by the inspections will be done within one week of the inspections. 4. On turnover, all apartments will be returned to a like-new condition. 5. A program for redecorating the apartments of long-term residents will be adopted and followed on a consistent basis. All of this can be done within the current financial resources and future income stream of the property. Sincerely, COMMUNITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Richard Brustad RB :Ib • 67\y! Community Housing Development • Corporation (612) 332-6264 408 Butler North 510 First Avenue North Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403 April 28, 1993 Mr. David Lindahl City Planner City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Dear Mr. Lindahl: This letter transmits the information you requested in connection with the public hearing for the Prairie Meadows Leased Cooperative. We have assumed from the beginning that the development would be owned by a non-profit corporation and be leased to a tenant cooperative. Enclosed is an Operating History and Projections printout. As you can see from the report the change to a leased cooperative non-profit status permits us to: • 1 . Reduce administrative expenses; 2. Reduce the property management fee; 3. Reduce real estate taxes, and 4. Reduce insurance costs. At the same time we are able to increase the amount available for maintenance and rehabilitation expenses. Under the previous owner, there was a profit distribution to the owner each year. Under the MHFA redefined equity program that amount was $292,398 in 1990. The new leased cooperative approach retains all cash flow balances for project expenses and reserves. The result is that the savings garnered from the leased cooperative homestead designation, as well as other savings, will result in a significant increase in the level of maintenance and rehabilitation. Sincerely, COMMUNITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Richard Brustad Rnc lb E o • Enclosure Equal Housing Opportunity / 1 VrIn11TT 9011S1NG DEVEIOPR.EN1 CORPORATION PFAIRIE REAMS APARTMENTS PROJECT ANNUAL RENT INCREASE PERCENTAGE: 1.02 PEPAIING HISTORY AND PROJECT10NS A►:NUAL EXPENSE INCREASE PERCENTAGE: 1.03 ROD( 15.1993 1009 Icg0 1991 t 1002 1993 1994 1995 1996 199? 1998 1999 2000 2001 FjPE' ES t tgsTNTSTTPATit'E EXPENSES 1159.876 1196.328 1176.523 t 1144.797 1149.141 1153.615 1158,224 1162.970 1167.859 1172.895 1178.082 1183.425 1188.927 *IA1NTBANCE AND REHA@1I1TA1I0N 1327.225 1314,299 1270.374 t 1339.443 1460,276 1390.004 1401.704 1413.755 $426.168 1438.953 1452,122 1465,685 1479.656 tPPOPFRTY MANAGEMENT FEE 154.415 164.004 $62.496 t 142.000 143.200 $44,496 145,831 147.206 $48.622 150.081 151,583 153,131 154.724 tcEAI ESTATE TAXES 1132.191 1124.986 1163.073 t 184,000 1106.000 3109.180 1112.455 $115.829 1119.304 $122.883 $126.570 $130.367 $134.278 tTNSUP..ANCE 151.352 124,589 128.998 t 115.000 114.700 115,141 $15,595 116,063 116,545 $17,041 $17,553 118,079 118.622 tFEPA1R 1N0 REPLACEMENT RESERVE 128,618 128,618 128.618 t $26.064 126.846 127.651 128,481 129,335 130.215 $31.122 132,055 133.017 134.008 1T9101 EXPENSES 1753.677 1752.824 1730.082 t 1651,304 1800.163 1740,087 1762.290 1785.159 1808,714 $832.975 1857.964 1883.703 $910.214 • • • CENTEX DEERFIELD CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF CENTEX DEERFIELD FOR CENTEX HOMES BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Centex Deerfield for Centex Homes/Delegards dated May 21, 1993, consisting of 94.15 acres, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 1st day of June, 1993. • Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk • R ',�� CENTEX DEERFIELD CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE • HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE MUNICIPAL PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has prepared and adopted the Comprehensive Municipal Plan ("Plan"); and, WHEREAS, the Plan has been submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review and comment; and WHEREAS, the proposal of Centex Deerfield for Centex Homes/Delegards requires the amendment of the Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, hereby proposes the amendment of the Plan as follows: 21.8 acres, from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and 3.66 acres, from Low Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial located at Dell Road and West 82nd Street; • ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 1st of June, 1993. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk • Iaa5 CENTEX DEERFIELD • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, NIINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT OF CENTEX DEERFIELD FOR CENTEX HOMES/DELEGARDS WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code provided for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept of certain areas located within the City; and, WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on the Centex Deerfield PUD Concept by Centex Homes/Delegards and considered their request for approval for development (and waivers) and recommended approval of the requests to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on June 1, 1993; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie, • Minnesota, as follows: 1. Centex Deerfield by Centex Homes/Delegards, being in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described as outlined in Exhibit A, is attached hereto and made a part hereof. 2. That the City Council does grant PUD Concept approval as outlined in the plans dated May 21, 1993. 3. That the PUD Concept meets the recommendations of the Planning Commission dated May 21, 1993. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 1st day of June, 1993. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk • raa � Exhibit A Centex Deerfield LEGAL DESCRIPTION: • That part of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 18, Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, that lies northerly of the following described line: • Commencing at the northecst corner of said East Half of the Southeast Quarter; thence South 01 degrees 49 minutes 29 seconds East, along the east line of said East Half of the Southeast Quarter, a distance of 1653.84 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 89 degrees 34 minutes 29 seconds West, a distance of 1345.25 feet to the west line of said East Half of the Southeast Quarter and said line there terminating, said point on the west line being 1641.77 feet southerly of the northwest corner of said East Half of the Southeast Quarter. Together with that part of the West Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 18, Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying northerly and easterly of the following described line: Commencing at the northeast corner of said West Half of the Southeast Quarter; thence on an assumed bearing of South 01 degrees 09 minutes 29 seconds West, along the east line of said West Half, a distance of 1283.24 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 88 degrees 48 minutes 16 seconds West, a distance of 257.99 feet; thence South 53 degrees 45 minutes 08 seconds West, a distance of 860.80 feet; thence North 07 degrees 55 minutes 58 seconds East, a distance of 272.80 feet; thence North 08 degrees 24 minutes 47 seconds West, a distance of 377.00 feet; thence North 73 degrees 01 minutes 40 seconds West, a distance 101.30 feet; thence South 74 degrees 14 minutes 40 seconds West, a distance of 302.10 feet, more or less, to the west line of said West Half of the Southeast Quarter and said line there terminating. • I31 MEMORANDUM 410 TO: City Council THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager FROM: Chris Enger, Director of Community Development Mike Franzen, Senior Planner DATE: May 28, 1993 SUBJECT: Deerfield Mixed Use Residential and Commercial Project The Planning Commission first reviewed this item at the May 10th meeting. The Commission recommended a continuance and directed the Developer to revise the plans to provide a better transition to the lots on the north side of W. 82nd Street, reduce the tree loss to 30% and provide for better transition in the commercial areas next to the residential areas. At the May 24th meeting, the Developer presented revised plans which met the direction of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the project. There are additional plan changes that will be incorporated as part of the Developer's Agreement including: 1. Remove the N.U.R.P. pond from park property and relocate on private property. 2. Revise the alignment of Cascade Drive to meet a centerline radius of 300 feet at the north boundary of the plat and meet a centerline radius of 200 feet for West 82nd Street at the east end. 3. Provide a tree replacement plan. 4. Provide an architectural diversity plan. 5. Provide additional guest parking. The attached letter from the Department of Natural Resources indicates that the proposal is not in conformance with the new State Shoreland Standards. These standards would limit the number of single and multiple family buildings within 1000 feet of the high water mark of Mitchell Lake to 60 units. The plan as proposed by Centex contains 240 units in this area. In response to this letter, Staff and representatives from Centex Homes met with the Department of Natural Resources to go over their concerns. The DNR indicated that the City could average the densities around Mitchell Lake. We have recently completed a review of the densities and the number of existing and future housing units around Mitchell Lake is less than what new State Shoreland Regulations would permit. We will obtain a letter of approval from the DNR prior to second reading in preparation of the Developer's Agreement. • lad:2 STATE OF IHHEmcpuiz . 1 ► DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 PHONE NO. 772-7910 FILE NO. • April 19, 1993 Mr. Mike Franzen Community Development Department City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 RE: CENTEX HOMES, DEERFIELD PUD CONCEPT PLAN, MITCHELL LAKE (27- 70P) , RICE MARSH LAKE (10-1W) AND UNNAMED PROTECTED WETLAND 27-973W, CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, HENNEPIN COUNTY Dear Mr. Franzen: We have reviewed the site plans dated 3/26/93 (received 3/31/93) for the above-referenced project (SE1/4 S.18, T. 116N, R.22W) . The project as currently proposed does not meet the planned unit development (PUD) standards in the State Shoreland Management regulations. PUD'S (as defined in the shoreland management regulations) in shoreland districts must receive DNR approval if the city does not have a state approved shoreland management ordinance that includes the updated guidelines of July 3, 1989. . • We have the following specific comments to offer: 1. Public wetland #27-973W, Public Waters Mitchell Lake (27-70P) and Public Waters Rice Marsh Lake (10-1W) are on the proposed site. Any activity below the ordinary high water (OHW) elevation, which alters the course, current or cross-section of protected waters or wetlands, is under the jurisdiction of the DNR and may require a DNR protected waters permit. The respective OHW elevations are 871.5 for Mitchell Lake, 877.0 for Rice Marsh Lake and 879. 0 for unnamed wetland 27- 973 . Please note that the OHW for Mitchell Lake is incorrectly shown the plans as 870. 0. The plans indicate that excavation is proposed in connection with a sedimentation pond which appears to extend below the OHW of unnamed wetland 27-973 . This work will require a DNR protected waters permit.2. The DNR public waters and wetlands should be labelled as such in future plans and plats and the correct OHW elevations should be noted. 3 . Portions of the site are within the Mitchell Lake and Rice Marsh Lake Shoreland Districts. The project must be • consistent with the current statewide shoreland standards. ad,C) AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER c Mr. Mike Franzen April 19, 1993 Page 2 3. Mitchell and Rice Marsh Lakes have shoreland classifications of Natural Environment. The shoreland classification extends 1000 feet from the OHW elevations of these lakes or the width of the flood plain whichever is greater. We see several areas which could be in conflict with the current state shoreland standards: a. The proposed dwelling unit density within the Mitchell Lake shoreland _district far exceeds that which is allowable under the current standards. While we have not done an exacting analysis at this point, our rough calculations indicate an allowable density of approximately 60 units, while the project as proposed calls for approximately 200 units for that portion of the project within the shoreland district. The exact methodology for calculating allowable densities is explained in the current shoreland standards and on the enclosed PUD Evaluation sheet. Note that the methodology calls for a tier by tier analysis, and that density increases may be allowed if certain requirements regarding setbacks and/or vegetative management are met. • b. It appears that the structures proposed for several of the lots closest to Mitchell Lake may not meet the required setback of 150 feet from the OHW when calculated from the correct elevation of 871.5. The dimensions of several of the lots in Block 6 adjacent to Rice Marsh Lake suggest that it may be difficult to meet required setbacks for structures on these lots as well. c. It appears that the project as currently proposed does not meet the open space (minimum of 50%) and impervious surface (maximum of 25%) requirements for the portions within the shoreland districts. d. The vegetation and topography should be retained in a natural state in the shore impact zones and in any areas with steep slopes. The minimum shore impact zone is a 75 foot strip landward of the OHW elevations of both lakes. 4. It appears that there are wetlands on the site that are not under DNR jurisdiction. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should be consulted regarding pertinent federal regulations for activities in wetlands. In addition, impacts to these wetlands should be evaluated by • the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, in accordance with the Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Act of 1991. IMO < C Mr. Mike Franzen April 19, 1993 • Page 3 5. There should be some type of easement, covenant or deed restriction for the properties adjacent to the creek and wetland areas. This would help to ensure that property owners are aware that the DNR, the Watershed District, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have jurisdiction over these areas and that they cannot be altered without appropriate permits. 6. Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during the construction period. The Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook (Board of Water & Soil Resources and Association of Metropolitan Soil and Water Conservation Districts) guidelines, or their equivalent, should be followed. 7. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, a DNR appropriations permit is required. You are advised that it typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at 772-7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist Enclosure cc: USCOE, Joe Yanta Centex Homes, Daniel Blake Riley-Purgatory Creek WSD, Bob Obermeyer Wayne Barstad, Ecological Services Mitchell (27-70P) , Rice Marsh (10-1W) & wetland 27-973W files • 121 0\NNESpT. ( nnesota Department of Transpo( lion �,0 2 aMetropolitan Division Transportation Building �2� ° St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 • op 7Rw Oakdale Office,3485 Hadley Avenue North, Oakdale, Minnesota 55128 Golden Valley Office, 2055 North Lilac Drive, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 Reply to Telephone No. 593-8533 May 13, 1993 Mr. Michael Franzen Senior Planner City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Re: Deerfield P.U.D New Dell Road North of New TH 212 Eden Prairie Dear Mr. Franzen: We are in receipt of the above referenced plan for our review in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03 Plats and Surveys. We find this plan acceptable for development • with consideration of the following comments: • The location of Dell Road, as shown on the plan sheet, does not conform with Mn/DOT official mapping. The grades and alignment of Dell Road need to be revised to match current design. The developer should contact either the City or Mn/DOT to coordinate on this issue. If the developer wishes to contact Mn/DOT, please call Evan Green in our Pre-Design Section at 593-8537. • The direct access from the proposed development to Dell Road, just north of the bridge abutment for new TH 212, will not be allowed. This access point is too close to the proposed ramps for TH 212 and would create a safety problem. • Mn/DOT will provide noise abatement from new TH 212 to ensure compliance with State Noise Standards. If you have any questions please feel free to call me at 593-8533. Sincerely, U�attLAS. 1 William A. Sirois Senior Transportation Planner cc: Les Weigelt, Hennepin Co. g P Peter Tulkiki, Hennepin Co. An Equal Opportunity Employer The Minutes for the May 10, 1993 meeting were not complete. Therefore, I requested the Deerfield portion so you can review what actions took place. • CENTEX DEERFIELD Franzen reported that Staff had expected uses other than low density residential. He added that 3.5 units per acre was at the low end of medium density which allows up to 10 units per acre. The commercial area is small with a lower Base Area Ratio than City code permits. Some site plan changes are still needed regarding transition and tree impact. Dan Blake, representing Centex Homes, stated that this proposal was joint development between Centex and the Delegards. Centex will purchase some of the Jacques and Delegard property. Notices of the proposed plan were mailed out to property owners to the north and the developer had also spoken with builders adjacent to the site. Blake stated that 89 acres would be residential development. The plan was to work around the proposed location of Dell Road at this time. The property was flat to the east and more rolling to the west. Six wetlands were located throughout the site. The trees on the site were close to the homestead and along Mitchell Lake with an additional narrow corridor down the center of the property. The proposal was for 15 R1-13.5 lots and 79 single family homes. The southeast area would be developed Multi-family. The multi-family homes would be the same design as developed in the Carmody Development. There would be 232 townhome units all of which would be 8, 10, or 12 units per building. A private loop road would be proposed for the multi-family housing area. Staff had requested a 28 foot road be developed in lieu of a 24 foot road. Blake believed that a narrower road would discourage on-street parking. He added that extra guest parking areas would be provided also to discourage on-street parking. Blake noted that a wider road would require the buildings to be closer to the wetland areas. . Centex was planning a park dedication in lieu of park fees. The park dedication would be approximately 10.5 acres in the southwest area of the property. Blake believed that there would be an opportunity for the City to purchase additional property for a park once Highway 212 was built. Another 4.3 acres along Dell Road would be dedicated for park. A trail corridor proposed through the property to get to Miller Park. Sandstad asked how residents would cross Dell Road safely to get to the park. Blake replied that he did not know at this time. Blake also noted that a statement had been made that Centex would be grading and constructing the trail system; however, it was Centex's intention to work with the City but not to be responsible for construction of the entire trail system. Blake reported that the project would be done in phases. Utilities were readily available. The tree loss. The tree loss can be reduced to 30% by changing grading. Blake believed that the majority of trees in the narrow corridor in the center of the property could be saved. Sandstad asked the price range of the carriage homes. Tom Boise, representing Centex, replied that some units would start at approximately $60,000 and go on up to approximately $100,000. • I ?) Kardell asked where the custom homes would be located. Blake replied the custom homes would • be in the R1-13.5 zoning area. Bob Smith, representing the Delegards, reported that the request was for a change from residential to neighborhood commercial. The commercial area would be approximately 3.66 acres. A gas/convenience station would be located right on the MWCC line. The northend of the commercial site would be a retail food facility and a small retail business would be located on the eastern portion. The commercial building would be the same size or smaller than the multi-home buildings. Smith stated that the proponent had requested access from Dell Road to the site. The green space between the commercial and multi-housing area to the east would be approximately 100 feet. An 8 foot berm with 12 foot trees would be proposed to the east providing an immediate 20 foot buffer. A N.U.R.P. pond would be located in the northwest and northeast corners. Smith proposed to make a better transition to move the gas/convenience to the west, move the retail building further south, and have the N.U.R.P. pond enlarged in the northeast corner. This design would allow for the elimination of the pond in the northwest corner to allow for additional berming. Sandstad asked why Commissioner had not seen any plans for the commercial area. Smith replied that he thought that the Commission had plans for review. Bauer stated that the Commission had not seen commercial plans and now there was a proposal to change the plans. Smith replied that this could be continued for 2 weeks to allow for revisions of the plan. Bauer believed that the Commission should let the developer know if it was in favor • of a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change. Smith believed that the scale of the buildings was important. Clinton asked if this commercial area would be similar to the one located on County Road 62 and Shady Oak Road. Smith replied that it would be similar. Smith added that the restaurant would be a short-term sit down facility with approximately 500 trips during peak hours. The retail space would result in 45 trips. The gas station would have 3 islands with 9 pumps; generating approximately 54 trips during peak evening hours. Schlampp asked where the N.U.R.P. ponds would drain. Smith replied that they would go to the north. Blake added that the designated open space could be developed as a ponding area. Schlampp believed that the restraints would be different if a pond were developed. Blake replied that a complete grading plan had been provided. Smith believed that berming and transition were important on the north and eastern ends of the property. Sandstad asked if the roof would be flat. Smith replied that a pitch roof would be used to blend in with the residential area. Smith recommended that there only be a right-in access from Dell Road. 41. ia3q Schlampp asked if the commercial facilities would be designed to service the residential units in this area only. Smith replied that the facilities would serve the neighborhood but, because of the • location of the major roads it would serve a broader population. Bauer believed that the final plan needed to address internal circulation; traffic would need to be directed. Wissner asked if there would be curbing. Smith replied yes. Sandstad asked where the trucks would drop off material. Smith replied that most of the businesses would not be using large semi-trucks for delivery and that they would use the front door for unloading. Schlampp asked if the trash facilities would be internal. Smith replied yes. Sandstad asked if Staff had looked at the loading issue. Franzen replied that single doors would be used for loading. Smith added that there would be no loading docks. Clish asked if this was truly the right location for this type of commercial development. Franzen replied that regional commercial areas are designated on the guide plan, but neighborhood commercial areas are not. Neighborhood commercial sites are located based on need. Traffic and how well the development will fit in with the surrounding neighborhood or transition. Clish asked if the narrower street needed to be dealt with this evening. Franzen replied that a narrower road would work if it posted a fire lane and if additional parking is provided. • Wissner asked if cars could be given tickets for parking on the street on a private road. Franzen replied yes, if it is a designated fire lane. Franzen noted that the Commission should indicate if they are comfortable with multiple housing and commercial. Bauer stated that he was in favor of the plan. He believed that the compelling reasons for a Guide Plan Change would be Highway 212 and providing affordable housing. Kardell stated that she would like to see more detail on the tree loss. Kardell supported the concept of transition. Clinton supported the Guide Plan change. Clinton believed that projects are not being looked at globally but rather project by project and was concerned about what the total impact to this area would be. Bauer concurred with Clinton that the Commission should be looking at the whole picture. Bauer noted that several plans being reviewed within the last few weeks involved Dell Road. Clinton said that the Southwest Study may have been acceptable at one time, but now plans are coming in which are closer to reality. � a�s The Commission asked to see an overall plan of this area in the near future to see the "big • picture". Blake asked that this item be published for the City Council. The Commission voted 7-0 to continue the item to the May 24th meeting and directed the proponent to make plan changes as indicated in the Staff Report. • 1 a%G C STAFF REPORT • TO: Planning Commission THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Community Development FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner DATE: May 21, 1993 SUBJECT: Centex Deerfield APPLICANT: Centex Homes FEE OWNER: Curt Delegard and Duane Jacques LOCATION: Dell Road and West 82nd Street REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density on 21.8 acres and from Low Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial on 3.66 acres. 2. PUD Concept Review on 94.15 acres. 3. PUD District Review with waivers on 94.15 acres. 4. Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 on 30.1 acres, from Rural to RM-6.5 on 21.8 acres and from Rural to R1-13.5 on 7.3 acres. 5. Preliminary Plat of 94.15 acres into 323 lots, 7 outlots and road right-of-way. 1 • la37) �e �� r�� �- �,,r �' ...:v,..• � wESTGATE:,.LA �1}V'�17 ' C 'J %LIMAS LA 6, O W E ST G AT E 1 iI'= •- " / 321�.00- C urv0 La•E Rw6p f -� / • AO COLBY CT. LUT R 1 11411111. WESTGATE.40 1 9ZJCILAIER AVE. n SHEIDp I Alall el =Rt012)( 7 t! 111 L 61 C HANHASSEN o ' •—. '`M -•-- Q' ( �• ': ` t -` ti " y /.•'ram • •• s . 4-/'"- --- .,.-.'".--T.•.• 1 2- k • 132 • �:,. • n C •'LAN.` - =�j�� ..� y e•L -• _ . Ig C12>i.oAlco d • ��� V _• Q' •j.•...� . hy D I�' ig A1443 . / v• ^ '� / �� CAPRICE Lit ' �! ,�F - /� so Miller Park "�C M14 RSN �C"-+r� LAKE / "ir 44 T7. NECHAS CIR. ..:`....w. An � , i' Moll • • ....3„, i wil 2A2 el \ e.,.4,. ___ ,41( 4 (2- \ 9G • .4. • \ 1 t'. .- C=-k ir--.4 -Apt. • y 1 O �'P�-UVINGSTCAI Q'i ,21 D,la •‘..„ . (\ TUMIbtIT- W. 122 PRES° ' OR i • • 1 .. �'%CEOAR L.A. •4,••! 11.° % ‘ RIDGE 0 Pik�, ELVA Y y ERS RO. Z �OR1; • _......,. ........... •...:�� �� bE____,:7,„L. lAh Eg , _.... ........... 116.Ot1A1EY COURT • v 117 MC GUFFY ROAD 118.GATEWAY LANE -�1 v, 119 ORESSEN CIRCLE LAKE ku o Cilia:OP R[1 / IL Q RILEY • ',�• DI e • • • • • ••o�; .. . A. • < < Staff Report Centex Deerfield • May 21, 1993 BACKGROUND This is a continued item from the May 10, 1993 meeting. The Planning Commission indicated they were comfortable with the Comprehensive Guide Plan change to Medium Density Residential and Neighborhood Commercial, and the PUD Concept in general, but directed the proponent to make the following plan changes: 1. Provide a better transition to the low density areas to the north of W. 82nd Street. 2. --Reduce tree loss. 3. Provide a better relationship between the commercial and multiple family uses. The building architecture should reflect a residential character using similar roof pitches, colors, and exterior building materials. In addition, provide a better transition to the multiple family areas with increased berming and heavier mass plantings of conifer trees. The site plan should also be changed to provide a better relationship between parking and building. TRANSITION _ The Developer has modified the PUD Concept and Preliminary Plat to depict R1-13.5 lot sizes on the south side of W. 82nd Street but will be zoned R1-9.5. This was accomplished by removing three lots. REDUCE TREE LOSS The Developer has submitted a revised tree inventory which includes additional significant Oak Trees outside of the construction limits that were not included in the first inventory. The total number of significant tree inches on the property is 1901 inches. The Developer has modified the grading plan around the significant Oak and Cottonwood trees in the central portion of the property so that only 612 inches of trees are removed. Tree loss on the property is 32% and tree replacement would be 262 caliper inches. Prior to review by the City Council the proponent shall submit a tree replacement plan for 262 inches. REVISED PUD CONCEPT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AREA The proponent has submitted a revised development plan for the commercial area with the following changes: 2 • Staff Report • Centex Deerfield May 21, 1993 1. The NURP pond in the Northwest corner of the project has been eliminated and combined to create a larger NURP pond in the northeast corner. This allows room along Deerfield Court and Dell Road to create a berm and mass plantings of conifers to create a transition to the residential areas to the north. 2. The two retail buildings have been shifted to the south which allows for a larger NURP pond area and room to provide mass plantings of conifers to create a transition to the north and east. 3. The shift in the retail buildings to the south provides a better relationship between parking spaces. 4. The number of pump islands has been reduced from 3 to 2. This reduces the size of the canopy and the area of intense lighting. The Developer has indicated that the gas/convenience store may be a SuperAmerica and that the restaurant may be a Perkins. Since these two commercial uses have their own architectural style, suggests it may be difficult to achieve architectural compatibility with the surrounding residential • structures. Perkins does not have a pitched roof with shingles and the primary building materials are stucco with yellow and green colors. The SuperAmerica store is dark brick and glass but with a brown metal roof and a white canopy with red stripes. Since the architectural compatibility is a primary reason for considering a guide plan change to the neighborhood commercial, it is important that the proponents commit to these architectural standards. The attached letter from the Minnesota Department of Transportation indicates that the direct access off Dell Road north of the bridge abutment for 212 will not be allowed because of the close proximity to the ramps and would create a safety problem. The plan as prepared by the proponent has limited the driveway access to an "in-only" condition as previously suggested by Staff. The proponent and City Staff will meet with MNDOT to discuss the reasons for recommending no access and ask if alternative locations for access off Dell Road are acceptable. OTHER ISSUES The proponent was concerned with the recommended 28 foot wide road and a 30 foot setback in the multi-family area. Staff reevaluated these recommendations and concluded that in order to meet these standards, that units would have to be taken out of the project because of the tight relationship between parking, buildings and the proposed wetland area/park trail corridor. In order to allow for a larger park corridor and provide for maximum protection of the edge of the wetland area, it would be better to have the setbacks to the internal driveway as proposed by the • a a(1J Staff Report Centex Deerfield May 21, 1993 proponent. The Fire Marshal will consider a 24 foot road provided that this lane is posted "No Parking". To minimize parking in the "No Parking" areas, Staff would suggest providing additional guest parking. TRAFFIC GENERATION The Planning Commission expressed concern that the traffic generated by the proposal is greater than if the site was developed according to the Comprehensive Guide Plan. The trip generation rates for commercial as prepared by the proponent are based upon each individual use as if they were located on separate lots in different parts of the City. The Traffic Engineering Manual (1987) of the Institute of Transportation Engineers indicates that the traffic generation characteristics of multi-use projects are different from the traffic generation of the individual components of the project. Multi-use projects would potentially generate less traffic because one trip to a multi-use project could satisfy a number of trip purposes at the same time. For example, a person using the gas pumps may also shop at the retail store or have lunch at the restaurant. The manual indicates (based upon surveys), that multi-use projects could reduce trip generation of the individual uses within the development by 25%. • A reduction for multi-purpose trips for the commercial area (as shown in the proponent's study) P P would reduce traffic from 638 trips in the peak hour to 207 peak hour trips. The total traffic generated by this planned development would be 571 trips. This compares with guide plan peak hour traffic of 230 peak hour trips. The number of trips generated is not the issue, the issue is what impact does the increased traffic have on the road system in the area. Traffic impacts on Dell Road were analyzed in the Southwest Area Traffic Study. Traffic was based on a scenario which considered up to 60,000 square feet of commercial at the interchange. That scenario could generate up to 1100 trips. This traffic was incorporated into the capacity analysis of the Dell Road/212 interchange (which is opposite Deerfield Court) and results in a level of service of B/C which is good considering "F" is the worst condition. To determine if additional improvements are needed at the Deerfield Court intersection, a traffic study should be prepared by a registered professional traffic engineer. This study would determine, for example, the need for right and left turn lanes from Deerfield Court. This should be done before the project is finalized because additional right-of-way may be needed at Deerfield Court. 4 • Staff Report Centex Deerfield May 21, 1993 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Staff would recommend approval of the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and Neighborhood Commercial, Planned Unit Development Concept for 323 housing units and 19,840 sq. ft. of commercial, Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 and R1-13.5 based on plans dated May 21, 1993, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated May 7 and May 21, 1993 and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to review by the Council, the proponent shall: A. Submit a tree replacement plan for 262 caliper inches. B. Submit a architectural diversity plan for the R1-9.5 Zoning District. C. Submit samples of exterior materials and colors with four different schemes. • D. Revise plans to provide additional guest parking. 2. Prior to final plat approval the proponent shall: A. Provide detailed storm water runoff, erosion control and utility plans for review by the City Engineer. B. Provide detailed storm water runoff and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. 3. Prior to Grading Permit issuance, the proponent shall stake the proposed construction limits with the snow fencing and notify the City and Watershed District a minimum of 48 hours in advance of grading. 4. The following Planned Unit Development Waivers are granted: A. Density waiver in the RM-6.5 Zoning District from 6.7 to 10.64 units per acre. B. Use of a private road based on a 24 foot width design with drive areas posted as fire lanes. • 5 • ao C C Staff Report Centex Deerfield • May 21, 1993 5. The Guide Plan Change to Neighborhood Commercial and PUD Concept is granted for a maximum of 19,840 sq. ft. of convenience-gas, restaurant, and general retail. Approval is based on a requirement for a residential character with similar roof pitches and exterior materials and colors as the multiple family portion of the PUD. 6. The proponent is required to return to the Planning Commission for Rezoning of the commercial site from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial. At that time the proponent must provide detail architectural, grading, utility, and landscaping plans. 7. The final design of all NURP ponds must be to current NURP pond standards of the City. 8. The project must use the erosion control practices as outlined in the PCA manual called Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas. 9. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment to the official • map. This must also be supported by the City Council and approved by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. 10. The NURP Pond on City Park property should be relocated on private property. 6 • STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Community Development FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner DATE: May 7, 1993 SUBJECT: Centex Deerfield APPLICANT: Centex Homes FEE OWNER: Duane and Curt Delegard LOCATION: Dell Road and West 82nd Street REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density on 21.8 acres and from Low Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial on • 3.66 acres. 2. PUD Concept Review on 94.15 acres. 3. PUD District Review with waivers on 94.15 acres. 4. Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 on 30.1 acres, from Rural to RM-6.5 on 21.8 acres, from Rural to R1-13.5 on 7.3 acres and from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on 3.66 acres. 5. Preliminary Plat of 94.15 acres into 326 lots, 7 outlots and road right-of-way. • .... IA " V '"tSTGATE :E7 'HAMS LA. y O IWESTGAT; ILf_LCr • J• 82.COLLEEN CIR. I I 80 COLEY CT. LUTh1ER WAY t— / • �P �� WESTGATE 9Q1(II RAVE. 3?. CN _ E. t �Q• gyp .. © IIU MROCK „. , __� i_o C lii . i ..Z.A.a. C HANHASSEN : J i ? -'�``= 9 �' .: .,...''''?......... 7. k ____............__, _ _ __ ___ __ _ . ._......._....... ..V.11) I • it .• .., :al • I I. :I•kg, ••• 7 . l•. ......�,, -• - . I .7......., LANE j I29.OAKOTA 0•• - .� >�/\v~ BELAIR LANE J•. IPI .7.7.7...1.6......, LLAC CEDOLEL - MI .7.s s 9:1111:42; SCHOO(L;E -•� J• C� s j Worir + �' +`� CAPRICE LO of 41 TRICE --r : $$ — Miller Park k. MARSH LAKE - . rl� - . . um • • k b �j .� Or TT. NECHAS CIR. AttS L- g Mop •,.; fie, o . , -- WI 2.14 ji\a .tG I• . : LAKE SHOR.. + • AP s .. 1.-\.I )q.1-_-_ -3, \_ .:1 I \ 111, C;;;;- '( SWAMI T 1 Q• .a.12J.UVIIMG$TON tA4ii • • • 122 PRESCOTT OR i-Il (1) < r4 ER RO Z .---00I2 -= +� EiE7 LAB Eg �...' •. ----3 1- QEINEY 117 MC GU ROAD 118.GATEWAY LANE ^^^ ' 119 ORESSEN CIRCLE • LAKE W ...:. U pcLiLL_TQP Q VALLEY R:: RILEY 1111",... . `VA!� cir, .i • • • • • �' MP = • j )1... - - • • . CP- •---' 1_ .. . • at-6 ,.., Staff Report • Centex Deerfield May 7, 1993 COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE - The Comprehensive Guide Plan depicts this site as low density residential for up to 2.5 units per acre and open space. Most of Eden Prairie has been developed consistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan. The City has approved Guide Plan Changes when there are compelling reasons to change the plan. Although the Comprehensive.Guide Plan does not identify sites for multiple and commercial in the southwest part of Eden Prairie, staff expected there would be requests for multiple family housing and commercial. Staff has directed requests for high density housing and community commercial to areas on the Comprehensive Guide Plan (near Highway 494 and 5) where higher densities are more appropriate. Staff has suggested to developers that lower density multiple family and neighborhood commercial could be acceptable uses based on compatibility with low density (single family) areas guided and built. The overall density of the residential component of the PUD is 3.46 units per acre. Considering that the medium density according to the Comprehensive Guide Plan is a range from 2.5 to 10 units per acre, the overall density is towards the lower end of the range. • The Comprehensive Guide Plan does not predetermine where neighborhood commercial should be located in the City. The Guide Plan suggests between 10 to 15 neighborhood commercial areas would be needed to serve the projected population. Neighborhood Commercial can be characterized as a 1' to 2 acre site with 10 to 20,000 sq. ft. of building, serving an area of 1 to 1' miles and providing daily retail goods and services. This neighborhood commercial site is approximately 31/2 acres in size. The square footage proposed is approximately 20,000 sq. ft. The Commission has previously asked that compelling reasons be identified for considering a Guide Plan change. One reason to consider a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change could be the impact of the Highway 212. The commercial and medium density housing, and noise berm, can provide a transition between the Highway and the lower density areas on site. A second reason could be impact on natural features. The relationship to Mitchell Lake is not impacted because of the existing Miller Park and land dedication in the northeast corner which preserve slopes and natural vegetation providing a buffer to the Lake. There are existing wetland areas on the property which will be preserved. The commercial and multiple family portions of the property do not impact natural features as much as the R1-9.5 zoning proposed in the north central portion of the project. Since tree loss is 62%, raises a question as to the appropriateness of small lot zoning in the area of Blocks 3, 4 and 5. This area has the greatest concentration of Oak and Cottonwood trees. • 2 Iacit49 I Staff Report Centex Deerfield411111 May 7, 1993 A third reason for considering the change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan could be if the projected traffic volumes are less than what was anticipated for this area. The traffic study for the Southwest Area Plan was based on an anticipated land use mix of 230 single family homes and 61,000 sq. ft. of commercial. Although 61,000 sq. ft. of commercial in this area is much larger than neighborhood commercial, it was included in the traffic study, because of expected requests for intense commercial uses at the Dell Road interchange and the worst case scenario needed to be analyzed to see if it would change the design of the interchange. Staff did caution Developer's and owners that traffic projections would not be the only reason to consider up to 61,000 sq. ft. of commercial. As a point of comparison, 230 single family homes and 61,000 sq. ft. of general commercial would generate approximately 1100 trips per day during the peak hours (to and from work). Based upon the concept plan, total traffic expected to be generated from this PUD would be approximately 850 peak hour trips. The Comprehensive Guide Plan density of 21/2 units per acre, would be 235 p.m. peak hour trips. Dell Road and Highway 5 have the capacity to handle the amount of traffic projected for this site. A fourth reason for considering a Comprehensive Guide Plan change could be how well the project provides external and internal transition. The Planning Commission has previously determined where there are similar land uses, (existing homeowners,) there must be an appropriate transition. Due to existing R1-13.5 zoning to the west, the 13.5 zoning along Erin Bay is a logical transition. External transition is more difficult to the 5 acre lots on the north411 side of 82nd Street. The expected land use for these 5 acre lots, due to zoning for Jamestown and Shores of Mitchell Lake would be R1-13.5 zoning. The lots on the south side of 82nd Street should be R1-13.5 zoning. The physical connections between external land uses are roads and storm drainage. The existing drainage patterns will be maintained between adjoining land uses. The distribution of traffic is low traffic volumes where there are connections to other neighborhoods, for example the matching of low density residential to low density residential. It is also to separate commercial and multiple family traffic from single family by directing traffic to Deerfield Court. Internal transition is made by using the existing wetlands and proposed ponding as a setback between the low density residential and multiple family. The question of transition between multiple and commercial is more difficult to achieve because of the closer proximity. A visual mitigation to the east is made with a large berm. The transition is not successful to the north due to a shorter setback and no berming. Staff Report • Centex Deerfield May 7, 1993 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT The PUD is a mixed use residential and commercial development totalling 326 units on 94.5 acres at an overall density of 3.46 dwelling units per acre and 19,670 square feet of neighborhood commercial. The residential component of the PUD depicts 15 R1-13.5 lots, 79 R1-9.5 lots, and 232 multiple family units. The Planned Unit Development Concept can be modified to mitigate Comprehensive Guide Plan impacts. These changes include: 1. To provide a better transition to the land uses to the north, lots on the south side of W. 82nd Street, should be a minimum lot size of R1-13.5 zoning. 2. To reduce the tree loss from 62% to the City's average of 30%, Blocks 3, 4 and 5 should be R1-13.5 lots or greater. 3. To provide a transition between commercial and multiple, restrict 411/ the intensity of the commercial uses proposed to neighborhood uses, create architectural compatibility between the commercial and multiple, and eliminate the proposed ponding along Deerfield Court and replace with the berming. Storm water can be directed towards NURP ponds on the northeast corner of the property. REZONING TO R1-13.5 The proposed R1-13.5 area is Blocks 5 and 6 on either side of Erin Bay. All of these lots meet the minimum dimensional and square footage requirements of the R1-13.5 Zoning District. REZONING TO R1-9.5 The lots proposed to be zoned R1-9.5 are generally north and east of proposed Dell Road. Waivers are requested for street frontage less than 55 feet on a cul-de-sac and for less than 90 feet on a corner lot. Since the R1-9.5 are does not provide an adequate transition to the residential areas to the north, and results in high tree loss, no waivers should be granted as part of the PUD District Review. 4 Staff Report Centex Deerfield • May 7, 1993 REZONING TO RM-6.5 Rezoning to RM-6.5 requires a density waiver from 6.7 units per acre permitted in this district to 10.64 units per acre. The multiple family area is similar to the Carmody proposal. The net density exceeded 10 units per acre but the overall density on the project was 6.7 units per acre considering the open space dedicated to the City. The transfer of density from the single family and open space in this PUD creates a gross density of 3.46 units per acre overall. The buildings as proposed meet the minimum setback for structure from Deerfield Court. Due to a private road (waiver), there is no minimum building setback requirement. The Staff would recommend a 30 foot setback along the private internal loop road. There are parking setback waivers requested from Deerfield court. Since a higher density is requested than allowed per City code, it should not result in other waivers which make parking difficult to screen and reduces land area needed for landscaping adjacent to Deerfield Court. The parking within the front yard setback should be eliminated and relocated on site so that green space can be maintained. The City code requirement for parking is based upon one internal garage space and one free • - standing parking space per unit. A two and one-half space credit is given for double car garages and 1.25 parking space credit for the single car garages. The total parking required according to code is 464 parking spaces. The site plan depicts a total of 532 spaces. The additional spaces are for guests. The rezoning to RM-6.5 should be conditioned upon building architecture. As with the Carmody project, considering the number of units within this project, there should be a minimum of 4 different material and color schemes to provide variety. COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW There is no request to rezone the property to neighborhood commercial. The proponent is asking for a Comprehensive Guide Plan change and concept approval. It will be some time before the proponent is prepared to come back to the Planning Commission with detailed construction plans, architecture, and other site planning details. One reason to consider a change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan to neighborhood commercial is based on performance standards which make the project transition to residential. A way to make this project transition better to the surrounding residential would be to stipulate that future architectural plans be designed to be • CY!Q C C Staff Report • Centex Deerfield May 7, 1993 similar to the residential character of the multiple family areas. This would mean compatibility in terms of roof pitch, roof lines and exterior materials. Another reason to consider the Guide Plan Change and the concept approval is the visual relationship to the adjoining uses. Even though the adjoining residential areas are multiple, they are living quarters and should be afforded the same sort of care as if it were a low density single family area. This means that the site lines into the project should be blocked by berming and heavy landscaping. The use of ponding area on the south side of Deerfield Court does not provide the opportunity for berming and plantings to create a visual transition. Since there is an alternative way to route storm sewer with pretreatment, these areas can be used for berming. The uses proposed are general retail. In most neighborhood commercial areas there is convenience-gas, however, the size of these stores are generally smaller. The use of three gas pump islands relates more to highway traffic than serving the immediate neighborhood area. Reducing the number of pump islands from three to two and the size of the convenience store would be one way of making a commercial use fit in. The alternative to this would be to consider that the proposed gas convenience store is adjacent to 212 and the retail buildings berming, and plantings could provide the necessary visual transition to the north. This would have to be substantial, since pump islands are very bright at night time and lighting could be a • nuisance. The amount of parking provided on site meets City code requirements, however, the relationship to parking is not practical. A large portion of the parking in the southeast corner of the project is away from the retail buildings. While the use of an all-building front is appropriate visually, it may be better to shift the retail buildings to the east adjacent to the berm and provide parking in front in a consolidated manner. The retail buildings could also be shifted slightly to the south, which provides more green area to buffer the multiple areas to the north. The total traffic generated from the commercial development is 621 trips during the peak hour. The restaurant and the convenience gas are the highest generators of traffic accounting for 84% of the trips. Convenience-gas is in a good location adjacent to Highway 212 and Dell Road. The Engineering Department has indicated that the use of two-way traffic at this location will contribute to people making a U-turn on Dell Road to get back out to 212. An "in only" driveway could relieve some of the traffic congestion at the intersection. SHORELAND ORDINANCE The Shoreland Ordinance requires that single family lots within 150 feet of the Lake meet a minimum lot size of 40,000 sq. ft. The Developer is proposing to dedicate additional land in the northeast corner such that these lots would be beyond the 150 setback. The shoreland 110 6 f,SO . C C Staff Report Centex Deerfield May 7, 1993 ordinance requires a minimum 30,000 sq. ft. lot size for multiple family lots within 150 feet of the Lake. None of these lots are within 150 feet of the Lake. OFFICIAL MAP FOR HIGHWAY 212 The location of Highway 212 through Eden Prairie was mapped by the State Highway Department and approved by the City Council based upon a recommendation from the Planning Commission. The commercial site, and portions of the multiple family site are within the 212 right-of-way. The interchange has been more clearly defined as part of the Dell Road Feasibility Study resulting in less area needed and in a different location from the official map. The Developer has requested an amendment to the official map which is being processed by the Engineering Department. It also requires an official action from the City. The City Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission support an amendment to the official map. GRADING AND TREE LOSS The entire site will be graded to accommodate development. No fill is proposed within the wetland areas. The grading impact on this property is tree loss. There are a total of 1509 inches of significant trees on the property, mostly Cottonwood and Oak. The grading plan as proposed removes 62% or 932 inches. If the City accepts a 62% tree loss, tree replacement would be • 768 inches. Due to the concentration of trees in the central portion of the site, larger lots may reduce tree loss to the City average of 30%. LANDSCAPING The amount of landscaping required for this project is a caliper inch requirement based upon building square footage for multiple family, and tree replacement. The caliper inch requirement is 1111 inches. Tree replacement at a 62% tree loss is 768 inches. STORM WATER QUALITY The grading and utility plans depict a storm water quality system of storm sewer pipe and NURP ponds. All water from Dell Road and the adjoining streets will be pretreated before discharge into wetland areas and Mitchell Lake. The proposed NURP pond area on City Park property is not acceptable to the Parks Department because it decreases usable space for the park property being dedicated. NURP ponds should be located on private property. The storm sewer, ponding and drainage plans as proposed will require additional information in order to receive final approval by the City Engineering Department. Pipe sizing, pond sizing, storm sewer and drainage routing needs to be coordinated with the Engineering Department. The general philosophy of storm drainage in this area is to route the western portion of the property through 7 • Staff Report • Centex Deerfield May 7, 1993 a NURP pond into the Rice Marsh Lake and the area north and east of Dell Road should be routed through NURP ponding towards Mitchell Lake. UTILITIES Sewer and water service is immediately available adjacent to this site. Sewer and water issues with this proposed development are providing a utility plan for the commercial area which shows how the site could be connected, and providing a water main looping through the multiple family area to connect with Jacques Curve. SIDEWALKS. TRAILS AND PARKS The Parks Department is accepting land in lieu of cash park fees. The developer is required to grade the park area and construct trails on the north side of Rice Marsh Lake and along the wetlands east of Dell Road. Sidewalks are required on Candlewood, Erin Road, West 82nd Street and Deerfield Court. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET No EAW is required for this project. In 1988 the CE!ty completed a connection actions EAW which for this site, Wynfield, the Shores of Mitchell Lake and Jamestown. The City declared a finding of no significant impact. According to Environmental Quality Board regulations, determining the need for EAW is based upon completing a mathematical formula for the number of units and square footage of project according to the threshold categories. This ratio as previously determined with the original EAW was 3.24. The new ratio calculated is 3.19. Since this is less than the original ratio, no new EAW is required for this project. TRAFFIC GENERATION The Southwest Area Phasing Study shows traffic assignment zones 7, 8A, 11 and 12 as generally within this area of the PUD. The traffic study made a projection of total traffic based upon 230 housing units and 61,000 sq. ft. of commercial. The total amount of traffic generated from this area could be 1100 trips during the peak hour. This was 230 trips for the residential 970 for commercial. The traffic generation from this proposal is 926 p.m. peak hour trips which is less than the original projection for the area but still is higher than the comprehensive guide plan traffic of 230 p.m. peak hour trips. The traffic can be accommodated on Dell Road. Dell Road is a minor arterial that can handle up to 20,000 trips per day. Dell Road and Highway 5 will Staff Report Centex Deerfield • May 7, 1993 operate at level of service D and the interchange at Highway 212 will operate at a level of service C. Traffic generation is concentrated in the multiple family and commercial area off Deerfield Court. There is no direct connection between this area and other residential areas within the PUD or adjoining subdivisions. CONCLUSION Without any changes made to the project, there are reasons to consider the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change and the PUD. The change to medium density residential and commercial is not out of character for what was envisioned for the southwest area and affordable housing is a goal of the community. Based upon the number of housing units envisioned within the southwest area (2500), a small amount of neighborhood commercial could be supported. The City requires compelling reasons for changing the Comprehensive Guide Plan. There are transition and environmental impacts which require mitigating solutions. In order to justify the 40 Guide Plan Change, the project should be modified as follows: 1. To provide a better transition to the low(density areas to the north, there should be R1-13.5 zoning on the south side of W. 82nd Street. 2. To provide a better relationship to natural features on site, there should be larger lots in the central portion of the project to reduce tree loss from 62 to 30%. High tree loss is an indication that densities are too high. 3. To provide a better relationship between the commercial and multiple family uses, the building architecture should reflect a residential character using similar roof pitches, colors and exterior building materials. In addition, to provide a better transition to the multiple family areas, there should be berming and heavier mass plantings of plant materials. It was suggested that convenience gas relates more to 212 than the neighborhood. Fewer gas pumps would be better or improve the site plan. The site plan for the commercial area should also be changed to provide a better relationship between parking and building. 9 • I �S C Staff Report • Centex Deerfield May 7, 1993 4. Eliminate the waivers for setbacks and street frontages. Waivers are an indication the overall plan is too tight. Density contributes to lack of transition and higher tree loss. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Staff presents the following alternative courses for consideration by the Planning Commission: If the Planning Commission believes that compelling reasons exist for changing the Comprehensive Guide Plan, from low density residential to medium density residential and neighborhood commercial, then approval of the PUD, Rezoning, and Preliminary Plat should be predicated upon conditions of the Staff Report dated May 7 and based upon the following conditions: 1. Prior to review by the Council, the proponent shall: A. Modify the rezoning and preliminary plat request to reflect R1-13.5 zoning • on the south side of 82nd Street. B. Modify the preliminary plat and r (zoning request to look at larger lot sizes in the central portion of the project to reduce tree loss to 30%. C. Eliminate all waivers for parking setbacks and street frontage. D. Modify the commercial site plan to provide a better relationship between parking and buildings on site and provide a better transition to the multiple family areas to the north. Modify the drainage and utility plan to provide for sewer and water connections to the commercial site and provide looping of the water main through the site. 2. Prior to final plat approval the proponent shall: A. Provide detailed storm water runoff, erosion utility plans for review by the City Engineer. B. Provide detailed storm water control and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. • • 10 1951 Staff Report Centex Deerfield • May 7, 1993 3. Prior to Grading Permit issuance, the proponent shall stake the proposed construction limits with the snow fencing and notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance of grading. 4. _ The following Planned Unit Development Waivers are granted: A. Use of a private road based on a 28 foot width. B. Density waiver in the RM-6.5 Zoning District from 6.7 to 10.64 units per acre. 5. The Guide Plan Change to Neighborhood Commercial and PUD Concept is granted for a maximum of 19,670 sq. ft. of convenience-gas, restaurant, and general retail. Approval is based on a requirement for a residential character with similar roof pitches and exterior materials and colors to the multiple family portion of the project, and provided there is an adequate visual transition to the multiple family areas to the north which block site lines and minimizes lighting. Changes in the site plan to address these and other site planning issues identified in this report may result in less square footage. 111 II. If the Planning Commission is comfortable in general with the Comprehensive Guide Plan and PUD Concept, but feels there should be changes made in the Planned Unit Development Concept and rezoning request based on transition, and tree loss, then one option would be to continue the item to review plan changt)before passing this item on to the City Council. III. If the Planning Commission feels that compelling reasons for changing the Comprehensive Guide Plan do not exist and that this site is not appropriate for multiple and commercial uses and that the plan as proposed creates impacts on site and surrounding land uses without mitigation, then the appropriate action would be to recommend denial of the request. 11 • 1a3S • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission THROUGH: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources FROM: Barbara Penning Cross, Landscape Architect' DATE: May 14, 1993 SUBJECT: Supplemental Staff Report to May 7, 1993 Planning Staff Report for Centex Deerfield This project was reviewed by the Planning Commission May 10, 1993. The project was continued for two weeks due to several issues that need to be resolved. The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission usually reviews the project after a recommendation has been made at the Planning Commission. To keep the developer on schedule, notices for a public hearing are being published for the June 1st City Council meeting. The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission does not have a regularly scheduled meeting before this, so you • are seeing this project prior to a Planning Commission recommendation. The Planning Commission did not have a problem with the overall land use and will support a Comprehensive Guide Plan change. The issues that still need to be resolved are as follows: 1. Providing a transition in lot sizes along the northern boundary, where 5 acre lots occur. 2. Tree loss calculated at 62% was not acceptable. 3. The commercial plan as proposed did not transition well to the surrounding residential and parking and internal circulation issues exist. Issues of concern for the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission are as follows: SHORELAND ORDINANCE: The developer is dedicating a strip of land averaging 100' adjacent to Miller Park, so that all lots meet the Shoreland Ordinance. The City will construct a trail along the west shore of the lake and will use native plant materials to screen the trail from the houses. CITY PARK: • The City has had plans for a neighborhood park on the east side of Rice Marsh Lake for some time. The developer is dedicating 22 acres of open space to the City. Staff has negotiated to Supplemental Staff Report for Centex Deerfield May 13, 1993 • accept 10.5 of those acres in lieu of cash park fees for a neighborhood park. Conditions for accepting the land include: 1. Removal of a NURP Pond - The city is accepting this land in lieu of cash park fees calculated at roughly $285,000. This number is based on 1992 cash park fees currently $840 per residential unit and $2,960 per acre for commercial property. The dedication is approximately 10.5 acres, or about$27,150 per acre for this land. It is not in the best interest of the City to let the developer treat storm water from the development on the parkland. Alternate sites for NURP ponds are available and storm sewer pipe could be extended to the easterly pond. 2. Park Grading - Rice Marsh Lake Park will be typical of neighborhood parks within the City. The park will include a ballfield, tennis courts, play equipment, a parking lot, walking trails, hockey rink and a warming house. The proposed park plan shows the ballfield overlapping the 212 right-of-way boundary. The developer has stated that these boundaries will be changing because 212 no longer needs that much right-of-way. The excess right-of-way property will become park property. The City will require the developer to rough grade the park and negotiate the boundary changes and grading with MnDot. Park, recreation and natural resources staff will provide a sketch plan showing how the grading should work. • TRAILS: Sidewalks will be required on Erin Bay, West 82nd Street and Cascade Drive. Sidewalks will be built by the developer according to City standards and will be installed concurrent with street construction. Sidewalks proposed are an extension of those required from other developments and are typical of those required throughout the City. An 8' bituminous trail is proposed along the 'park corridor' and will extend to the eastern property line where the City will connect it to the trail system within Miller Park. An 8' trail will also be required along the northeasterly edge of Rice Marsh Lake. This addition will complete a trail system along the entire north shore of Rice Marsh Lake to Chanhassen. Our Comprehensive Park and Open Space Plan shows the trail eventually encircling the entire lake. Both bituminous trails will be constructed by the developer. Locations will be field approved by park, recreation and natural resources staff and will be built to City standards. Trail construction must be concurrent with roadway construction. TREE LOSS: Calculations for tree loss at the Planning Commission were estimated at 62%. The developer has removed one lot and increased the size of the remaining lots. Grading has also been altered, since the Planning Commission reviewed the plan, reducing tree loss to 32%. Supplemental Staff Report for Centex Deerfield • May 13, 1993 Much of the tree loss is a result of connecting existing Cascade Drive to Dell Road. Due to the wetlands no alternative routes are available and this accounts for the slightly higher than average tree loss. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this project following the recommendations of the May 7, 1993 Planning Staff Report and this supplemental memo. BPC:mdd centex/6 • • IaJ� ri 3 r.r..r+•� ', w•-'`�•�ti:,F `C. -' `. 7-r....IT'Yf ;~ ,M��R,,•/ �� `//�, - .'{a0. ; a . • 7.1- ' '''‘'.4 /• ........!-.6 IF 1.1 i as ....._. - , fad.'--1 iru-.i r♦ i l // :R.. •4C'% f, ' •- Prairie View School Park„ ����`, ,� Et'' 1 ..".---f..C..-.-.'-''' t-'r7'!'.,'g";'-r-,__,.._. . ,E117\_,. %ID.' , .'-`A`"!-Alv'''''''N''&'''' 1 ilk) 1 t�i t 1" f Edenvaie Conservation Area ' �' �.. ®' ... Comnwnitrtente • .` =.r s ,h� �j-,� I) �1�' f , icy' .,^ i- --' y ,.' Edenvale Park • - /....` ,� µ H .n . .s Parts ' rLake Park N- -- Round _' h—�'�° —, L „ . rr""c-L-.o :'-c":"..;,', -,-tf.,--..e.l I •riamlimeNor 16 us'4%., • 12:::fttti_ ;__i : , - • -- , / fi-HH-A:e,), -7, , ill . , , , 777.:=1." /-- if,'"' ,A..;/ \j/ ILA j : gVs I 1 e. 11, Lip ,....,.. 1-- , ...„.-7-_-_.„2...7-_:__• „.-....,.. :.;: r I rra •�- Pheasant Woods Park in `` t Miller Park I �`^=�'`\ `�, I '� rTh I . - I �i i l I I I ': r:�il�c?::. � � .ice rr. '' ." iIl !i► IIII' ! ,1I1 , . ,NE -Ai r _ _ 7-_; �- I III �I i I I I'.�a—— �z r`:�"•\ . '-' Red Rock Lake Park �w 1Ii I i I I I I I( I ✓r , �.� 1' 1��I�� III i i Pione r Park' ! _ -7.- �- f Riley LI VIP.' 0II II II _ 1���.�-r4--.. — J 5 ,y, , -�. J,III ."� �� i 1 !r:\_� --?I ..... 1-i }1'+r �- - ce ) ' - a II !�. '...,, i _-Y%, \\ ".� I IIII I, - tr� -�. d, l \. i �-\ .•' I --�, �� Staring Lake Park • \l'i--- , :�� " '� . .. I� 1 �.�� �' Flying Cloud Athletic Fields I' — 1 47: , ). Jo/. _t .:....)_•_ iii .,,. .............. . ,_. .. v. i , ` camp; . 1 , )i // I frir.TMrN � _• i J --IN. ...ii, _ , _ _ I 7, ---- _ • I —4- : 1 ------=1E 7 5\-- _AO • A `It ` 1 aaa Exhibit A Unapproved Minutes • Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Monday, May 17, 1993 2. Rezoning to R1-13.5 district within the lot sizes are too small for the heavily wooded portion of the proposed development. 3. If zoned R1-13.5 it is likely to cause substantial environmental damage by undue destruction of the woods. 4. Under R1-44 it should be possible to preserve at least 75% of the significant trees and tree mass in the R1-44 district(per the City Attorney's memo). 5. Based on what we know, we will not know the damage of the experiment until 3 to 5 years out and that it is inappropriate to design other areas based upon the extension of this experiment. A correction in Pat Richard's last name from Richards to Richard throughout the Minutes. MOTION: Brown moved to approve the minutes of May 3, 1993 meeting. • Motion seconded by Kube-Harderwijk. Motion passed 6-0. IV. PETITIONS. REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS None. V. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. Centex Deerfield Penning-Cross stated this project was reviewed at the Planning Commission on May 10, 1993, and was continued for two weeks due to some issues that needed to be resolved. Through the staff process, the issues have mostly been resolved with the exception of the assessments on Dell Road which will need to be addressed with the Engineering Department. The Parks Commission usually reviews a project after the Planning Commission makes its recommendation; however, to keep the developer on schedule, notices for a public hearing are being published for the June 1, 1993, City Council meeting. Dan Blake, Centex Homes, made a presentation of the proposed site. The proposed plan has four uses -- neighborhood commercial, multi-family residential, single family residential, and a park and trailway system. The • project will be built over a 3-4 year span. Trails and sidewalks will be built as per the City's requirements. 2 � ac�o Unapproved Minutes Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission • Monday, May 17, 1993 Penning-Cross stated although this is one plan that is being proposed, it is two separate projects. The commercial project is separate from the housing project and regarding the removal of the NURP pond and cash park fees, the commercial will pay the cash park fees and the housing will not pay the fees. Brown asked with the tree groupings on lot 5 (21.3 square feet), lot 6 (18.8 square feet) and lot 16 (25,000 square feet)would it be advantageous to make the lots smaller to save the wooded area? Blake explained the lot size is not a factor as much as being able to grade Dell Road to serve the development south of it is. Hilgeman asked Penning Cross to explain why it was recommended in the Comprehensive Guide Plan to change the housing density to a higher density than what was originally shown on the Guide Plan. Penning Cross explained the Guide Plan generally designates unzoned land as low density residential. With 212 and Dell Road going through the area, there are compelling reasons to upgrade the density so that there is multi-family and a small commercial area next to a major highway. Lambert questioned the time frame of the construction of trails as well as the • grading of the park. Blake explained construction of the trails will be tied in with road construction as per the staffs requirements and the grading of the park would be done during the adjacent development. Richard requested Centex inform the buyers of the homes be notified of the trails behind their property. Penning Cross stated that if the trails go in with road construction,the house should be under construction after the trail was constructed. Potential property owners will be aware of the trail prior to home construction. Richard wanted to know what is the City's protection on the park in the trade off of the land with MN-DOT. Lambert explained prior to the second reading on the development, the park, the plans, grading, and boundaries will have to approved by MIN-DOT and to the conditions approved by the Parks Commision and City Council. Bob Smith, representative for the commercial site, addressed the screening issues of the commercial site. The commercial site uses will be general retail, a restaurant and a gas convenience store serving the residential area. Screening of the light from the residential areas will be accomplished by 90' wide by 10' high berming with pine trees along both sides of the residential areas. • 3 t j 1.� 1 Lambert brought up the issue of pedistrian traffic to the site and a need to run a trail along the southern boundary to encourage its use rather than people trespassing through the surrounding properties to get to the site. Richard feels it would be a good idea to put a trail in. The developer will grade for a trail but will not put a trail in until facts show that people are actually walking through the properties to get to the site. The trail construction would then be a City responsibility. MOTION: Brown moved to approve the Centex Deerfield project as per the recommended acceptable changes of the May 7, 1993, staff report and the completion of a trail easement along the southern boundary. Hilgeman seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0. ST. EDWARD'S FIELD • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF ST. EDWARD'S FIELD FOR THE PEMTOM LAND COMPANY • BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of St. Edward's Field for The Pemtom Land Company dated and revised May 27, 1993, consisting of 7.07 acres, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 1st day of June, 1993. • Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk • I LJ • STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission 0 FROM: Donald R. Uram, Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Community Development DATE: May 7, 1993 SUBJECT: St. Edward's Field APPLICANT: Pemtom Land Company FEE OWNER: Catherine Lunzer and Mr. and Mrs. Leo Dorf LOCATION: West of Tartan Curve, East of CSAH 101 REQUEST: 1. Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 2.44 acres 2. Preliminary Plat of 7.07 acres into 11 single family lots, 1 outlot and road right-of-way .11t lot n (17) ; q �r..t __sc i18s��`:►• AIM iiz It1 • - ^ s(77) *5 .3e �Ir. .ww (5,,11• g 11 8 • (36) 4. 1• +. 43 , . •!! ;a P :..• `-- " rues 1 / J g �6�. 19.•1. 1 al - L (37) a (74) (66)I w�, I � ,,, • 1•e A f (82) ! to .7.le ▪ � . OM (27)1 V (39)• .. t . Nv.- I. R 521 8 I In[ `tls.0 ff , ss.2 a , ^ \ �` �� � Ada,.., ,.Is a• is C (40);ry( (70) •�r(``�� ^ ��� f' pt. s•• CAN t1JR 6 g 1 t. 2 79.n "'"'t7 ' (53) a• 1,LB '.44 . 1• Is IOLeS i SITE (29) .. 4 6 a 'a4f(.(:)s (5.) 40,6 if nr 41 c =x o(41); 7." ;- _ tll S ions 573.to ser�.•n•• t SOH -4 11 1 .gip rA g(55) Q: nt sf (t2) (43) ~ (10) (3t) 'b.>\. �s rm.+1 � •(56),�•1 01 0. rr.rlre• i3 n. (32) s s[ (3+) 7 •._4• "Ir.' sr Y / Ile n (I) �•CI �:"(33) -O'I 4 (35).a sl v r. In_n m '8' , c .. f 4) (2) ss[••t•n•, , , . Col( .... n• 1t7 (25) lee..(6s)/ Iwa ;E ISUFIS�T CRE T ? (60) (61) P ' :: Is \ - ooc 00as. �•o..---• (63) (6[)� : (om): a. • J .0 uiy7•• .I0 as. ty. .TI [ �t07t rp.504.�• IIJj a ,1;359 ,•IN •II. 15[.ri •!, 70• 11[.„,. . .r4..,, 1�31 s3 .,,, st in R s ••h 4. s 1 ,S) ' I R(Sr)1.'.a 17.un F It•1 t (55) (66) B71 • (69) S .. 2 Zi. ..... lie y S LOCATION MAP I�,(o1 Staff Report St. Edward's Field May 7, 1993 BACKGROUND This site is guided for low and medium density residential land uses and public open space. Nestlebrook,a 1977 project changed the zoning on the 5 acre Lunzer property from Rural to RM- 6.5 and R1-13.5. The Nestlebrook preliminary plat indicated 10 single family lots and 3 multiple family lots along CSAH 101. The Dorf property was included as part of the overall development plan but was not rezoned (see Attached). Since 1977, one duplex has been constructed on Lot 1, Block 1, of the original plat. The existing homes of the property owners will be located on lots 10 and 11. SITE PLANIPRELIMINARY PLAT The site plan depicts 9 new single family lots and one outlot containing 1.29 acres which will be dedicated to the City. The proposed plat is consistent with the original development plan. Lot sizes within the new subdivision range from a minimum of 13,512 sq. ft. to a maximum of 19,129 sq. ft. The average lot size is 15,943 sq. ft. All of the lots meet the minimum code requirements for the R1-13.5 zoning district with the exception of a front yard setback for Lot 4. Due to the location of the 100 foot building setback to the creek based on the Shoreland Ordinance, the proponent is requesting a 25 foot front yard setback (a variance of 5 feet). Access into the project will be provided by the extension of a roadway from existing Tartan Curve and ending in a cul-de-sac. The platted Tartan Curve right-of-way providing access to this property measures 44 feet. City code requires a 50 foot right-of-way. The proponent is requesting that the 44 foot right-of-way be continued to allow for a greater setback from the wetland area. Staff has determined that a 44 foot right-of-way in this location is not detrimental to either City services or the existing neighborhood. GRADING Elevations on this site range from a high point of 916 located in the southeast corner to a low elevation of 890 along the north property line. The entire site slopes towards the east and the north. To allow for the construction of the road and building pads, the entire site will be graded. The proposed grading plan does not indicate specific building pads. In order for Staff to further review the grading, Staff recommends that building pads be placed on grading plan. The pads must be at least 50 feet in depth to show the impact of grading on the wetland area. 2 IU0S Staff Report St. Edward's Field • May 7, 1993 UTILITIES Water and sanitary sewer service are available to this site through connections made to an existing 6" water line in Tartan Curve and an existing 8" sanitary sewer line along Purgatory Creek. The sanitary sewer connection will be made to an existing manhole between Lots 4 and 5. Storm water runoff will be collecting in a catch basin system and discharged into Purgatory Creek. In consultation with the Watershed District, sedimentation will be controlled by a 72" sump manhole located along the road right-of-way. This will treat runoff prior to discharge (see Attached Engineering Memo). SHORELAND ORDINANCE Purgatory Creek is located within Outlot A and is classified as General Development. All of the lots are within the shoreland area and Lots 3,4 and 5 are considered abutting. These lots are subject to the requirements of the Shoreland Ordinance which are: •Minimum Lot Size .Minimum Width at' '.Minimum>Width at Minimum<Setback the Building Line Ordinary High from Ordinary Water Mark: High Water Mark 13,500 sq. ft. 120 ft. 120 ft. 100 ft. In regards to lot size, all of the lots meet or exceed the minimum of 13,500 sq. ft. The minimum width at the building line has not been met by Lots 3 and 4. The applicant must apply for a variance on these lots. The minimum width at the ordinary high water mark of 120 feet is not applicable because the lots do not abut the ordinary high water mark. All of the buildings meet the 100 foot setback from the.creek. In regards to the setback, the proponent is requesting a 5 foot variance on Lot 4 to allow for the building pad to move further to the east. In addressing the current shoreland regulations, the developer has reduced the number of lots from the preliminary plan submitted in 1977 from 10 to 9. This has helped reduce the impact on the wetland area by reducing the density of the project to 2.3 units per acre and increasing the width of the lots. The developer has also requested a 44 foot right-of-way and a 5 foot variance on Lot 4 so that any home built on that site would meet the 100 foot setback from the creek. The revisions to the plan has resulted in a decrease in the number of potential variances from approximately 10 to 3. 111/ t'1c f Staff Report • St. Edward's Field May 7, 1993 As part of the development of the proposal, the Watershed District has staked the wetland which is located along the rear of the lots. Approximately 95% of the wetland area will be dedicated with the remainder being protected by drainage and utility easements. A small portion of wetland fill will take place between Lots 4 and 5 which will be mitigated along the back of Lot 1 in accordance with State wetland regulations. PURGATORY CREEK STUDY This parcel was identified in 1977 as part of the transition zone of Purgatory Creek. The transition zone allows for development as single family residential. This project is consistent with the transition zone. In order to protect the wetland areas on the site, Outlot A, containing 1.29 acres will be dedicated to the City as part of the final plat. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the request of the Pemtom Land Company for rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 2.44 acres and for Preliminary Plat of 7.07 acres to 11 single family lots, 1 outlot and road right-of-way to be known as St. Edward's Field based upon revised plans dated April • 30, 1993 subject to the Staff Report dated May 7, 1993 and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to Council review, the proponent shall revise the grading plan to indicate specific building pads on each of the lots measuring at least 50 feet in depth. 2. Prior to final plat approval, proponent shall: A. Submit detailed storm water runoff and erosion control plans for review and approval by the Watershed District. B. Submit detailed storm water runoff, utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. C. Provide right-of-way for CSAH 101 as required by the State of Minnesota, Hennepin County and the City of Eden Prairie. D. Apply for and receive variances from the Shoreland Ordinance and setback variance as indicated in the Staff Report. • 4 Staff Report St. Edward's Field May 7, 1993 • 3. Prior to grading permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance of any grading. B. Stake the construction limits with an erosion control fence. 4. Prior to building permit issuance, proponent shall pay the appropriate cash park fee. 5. Concurrent with the final plat, proponent shall dedicate Outlot A to the City for conservation purposes. 6. Proponent shall submit documentation from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the DNR and the Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District indicating that the project meets their approval. 7. Any home constructed on Lot 4 shall meet the 100 foot setback requirement of the Shoreland Ordinance and the 25 foot front yard setback requirement from St. • Edwards Drive. 5 • c ,�II I. . 3A27/0 w F1?Jtr1 _ Fi • o� is irW • I ^-ti.� )\ \----- --1.-- .. \ + .,.N.... , , .. ,,,, ,,, i • v ,.: _Lo-; . \ . .\ -ors _ :rh i\ \ , ''ler/ \ ' \ j_, _ \.�\.\ \_ 7 Al YAM " 8t/ ' "I'mil / I �• 1 ` A �. \ .,Vt A / ‘7..,.\ 0 ',4, tni . ;\\ \\/, .4.. ,t..,1 4,2-71 \ % .,\ '1,\--, s. • ....../...........„......T A th . .?. 4\ . I Q.. . ss 0 r ,% rC4 \ k '• \ \9 �*' I y ly . °CV / a i , \\• , .. \ s, \\. _ 4,- \ \.. „. ., ' ----:-\%. ! . ii).`\ k\\'‘`: toi t. 4 i . .. \ <E1ellik< t‘S'ii No6 `si 44 \ cc\. i i , I 0 k ‘‘.. ; k 2, i \...-- • (A'., : ' VI\ N -: 1..pil I/ 11., \v, ; . .-..- ,, ,,4„-::,.._:...L. ,..,..\e' .. N . . , I 11 Ns .41-44. .. %-A• '.cel '''—\--.. \.‘I"" a' I \ \\IC y .3 y! Prif 1 I ; 0%Iliml 'a ' / -� + � • �, � (h Q V1 ' ' . \� ( �� ,� VN. 9 ; I I f w . ‘\ tl, ) k\l' ‘4' 1 gi ni ;.� 1. ; , ' �-L' / N, .-c.�/ V. III J \Il i 1 to \ • ...- •—-- ./ ....0" ..N. • '......0.• •• . _,-_e_- , ____i ` - - -_::r 1 o�c.__ IT _ Imo ' • _Iv-.-- .. l+l / • y I 0 • • ao I ()) - MEMORANDUM - • TO: Don Uram FROM: Rod Rue fa DATE: May 6, 1993 SUBJECT: St. Edwards Field Our current policy regarding NURP ponds in development projects is that a NURP pond is required for any residential development over 10 acres. This particular development is seven (7) acres, and therefore, does not require a NURP pond under our current policy. However, we have been discussing some modifications to our policy but they were not in affect at the time this project was reviewed. RR:ssa • IalO MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning Commission FROM: Don Uram, Planner DATE: May 14, 1993 SUBJECT: St. Edwards Field In response to your questions regarding the extension of a 44 foot right-of-way for Tartan Curve and the placement of the homes next to it, I have researched the Maple Leaf Acres file to see if there was any explanation. I have also enclosed a copy of the Rezoning Agreement for Maple Leaf Acres which discusses the 44 foot right-of-way and copies of the lot surveys which show house locations. After reviewing the 1976 and 1977 files, I was unable to determine just exactly what happened when the homes were built. As the survey's show, the homes are setback the required frontyard distance of 30 feet from Tartan Curve, but have minimum sideyards equal to 15 feet and 18.63 feet. These setbacks are consistent with sideyard setbacks in the R1-13.5 Zoning District. It appears that when the surveys were submitted and checked, the setback next to the 44 foot right- • of-way was interpreted as a sideyard which only required a 15 foot setback. A 44 foot right-of-way for the extension of Tartan Curve to the west was required as part of the rezoning agreement. There is no explanation for the reduced width in any of the project documentation. MEMSrEF.DRU:bs i IX1l '-L� r a` ti ..r r«y v s i REZONING AGREEMENT 4110 THIS A3P. E• :T, Made and entered into in triplicate this .73 d day of 1•;arch, 1976, by and between LORal R. IRVINE and JOAI'NE M. IRVINE, husband and wife, hereinafter referred to as "Owners", and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corncration of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "City",tytt .*'.T•.`LSSE H MAT, r,r 4S, Owners have requested the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie to change the zoning of a tract of land from Rural to F?.. 6.5 for Lots 1 throuh 9, excepting therefrom Lot 8, Block 1 and from Rural to • RI-:3.5 for the remaining lots in Block 1 and all of the lots in Blocks 2 and 3 of the Preliminary Flat of Maple Leaf Acres, a copy of which is • attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference, Marked Exhibit L; and ::r=P..1:;:3, It is believed that r ozo_ling Of said area to Pi: 6.5 and :Te in the p1 _C interest, welfare and convenience of the people of the City of 1:;.en Prairie; and ,T'.ist:.S, Cwn e_s a-ree to develop the afore:r_entioned property as a residential development in accordance i:: vh the above recluestcd zoning, i•,•'.T' irr'—'-,:.- ^_.;•� n::-1 '.:�'�C. .r-,-.r,.l, ITi LS3L H, That for and in considera- tion of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie adopting en ordinance changing the zoning from Rural to 11M1 6.5 and RI-13.5 as requested and of the mutual benefits to each of the parties hereto, Owners do hereby covenant and agree as follows: 1. To submit preliminary grading plans for Engineering Department review and approval. 2. To conform with all requirements of the Parks and Recreation Commission outlined in their a_D).)roval action of January 19, 1976, and to Ina :e the fo11owin; revisions in the final ma;, or plat of Maple Leaf L cres: --1-- yal \ 411/ (a) shift the southerly line of Lots 21 and 22 and Outlot A of Block 1 northerly approximately 55 feet distant from and parallel with the line shown on EX1- PIT A. The portion of Lots 21, 22 and Outlot A vacated by the shifting of the aforesaid southerly line of said lobs will be added to and combined with the Park Area adjoining said Lots 21, 22 and Cutlet A. (b) combine said Outlot A and Lot 22 as revised, thereby eliminating said Outlot A. (c) create and dedicate for Park purposes a strio of land extending 5C feet on each side of the common boundary line between Lot it on the one side and Lots 1, 2 and 3 on the other side, all in Block 2, and adjust the northerly boundary line C•= 7ot L a d the southerly' boundary line C: Lots 1, 2 and 3 a Cc:rdi: y. (d) to -provide a te.-rDcro'_7 easement for vehicle 'turn-around pu_rpc s es on Lot ?2, Flock 2. to continue until such time ceasesb cn-` street that Tartan Curve to D., a dea.� nd �•�c,..t at � iat • point, or until o he isc rreleased by the City. • :C r'?Ve serr ve _ e sc`__ :or a L`:y foot street andcu. : y forfutureL: s from Tartan :uri 1n ; `c to the west line oflo k obtain needed land for s_ Ach. right of wa y, the south 10 feet of Lot 11, Block 3 will be used in connection with a rc'.'1.si Cn of east-west lot lines of Lots 6 trrouc h 10 of clock 3, and the remainder of Lot 11, _lock 3 will be combined with the Park Area ad j o i_nin it, t-cre-o Lot 11, Flock 3. City and property o;-n_ers agree: 1. That the prorcrty owners shall comely with all applicable rules, regulations, ordinances and laws of the City of hden Prairie. 2. No variances will be allowed to accommodate lots having an area of less than 13,500 square feet. 3. That all sanitary sewer, water main and storm Le:er facilities, S, concrete curb and gutter and bituminous srrfacing, whether to be public or private, shall be designed to City stz,.ndard; by a registered Professional Civil ir,gineer and submitted to the City Engineer for approval. Owners, through their engine.r, shall provide for co!metent daily_y -inspection of nil street and utility construction, both public and viva.e. As-built. la _2- wcFaTiFICATE _ - MEMORANDUM • TO: Mayor and City Council Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission - THROUGH: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources FROM: Barbara Penning Cross, Landscape Architect'" DATE: May 13, 1993 SUBJECT: Supplemental Staff Report to May 7, 1993 Planning Staff Report for St. Edward's Field This project was approved by the Planning Commission at their May 10th meeting. Issues of concern for the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission are as follows: WETLANDS AND PURGATORY CREEK: A small portion of the wetlands will be filled between Lots 4 and 5. In accordance with State Wetland Regulations encroachment into the wetland will be mitigated along the back of Lot 1. The proponent is platting 1.29 acres of land into Outlot A for the purpose of preserving the wetland. This outlot will be dedicated to the City as part of the final plat. • STORM WATER TREATMENT: This site is 7 acres in size and does not require a NURP pond according to our current policy. Sedimentation will be collected by a 72" sump manhole prior to discharge into the creek. All storm water details must be reviewed and approved by the Watershed District. SHORELAND ORDINANCE: All lots meet the 13.500 sq. ft. minimum requirements and the 100' setback from the creek, but two lots do not meet the lot width at building line. The lots which will require variances are on the concave side of a curve, which is the narrow side of the pie shaped lot. The density of this site is 2.3 units per acre, which is under the 2.5 units per acre maximum. TREE LOSS: There are no significant trees on site. RECOMMENDATION: Park, recreation and natural resources staff recommend approval of this project based on recommendations of the May 7, 1993 Planning staff Report and this supplemental memo. • BPC:mdd Edwards/6 1 a 1 q 411 Unapproved Minutes Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Monday, May 17, 1993 B. St. Edward's Field This project is in the northwest section of Eden Prairie. Dan Herbst, Pemtom Land Company, reviewed the St. Edward's Field proposal. The development consists of 9 single family lots, the platting of the balance of the Dorf property, the Lunzer property and outlot A for the purpose of preserving the wetland. The variances that are being requested are a 25' front yard set back from variance on the right of Purgatory Creek. Also because this in a shoreline area, it is being requested there be a 120' front yard set back on two lots. These variances are being requested for the purpose of keeping the houses off the wetland. 11110 Penning Cross stated there are no significant trees on this site. Because this land is less than 10 acres of land the current policy does not require NURP ponds. The storm water will be handled by a 72" sump manhole which collects the sediment prior to it being discharged into the wetland. Popovich Lynch asked if this has already gone to the Watershed District and if they agreed to the filling of lots 4 and 5. Herbst stated it did not go to the district, normally the district does not review this on the basis of City Council back up. Penning Cross stated the wetlands that are being filled are going to be mitigated behind lot one and according to Watershed District standards. MOTION: Hilgeman moved to approve the St. Edward's Field development project based on the conditions of the May 7, 1993, staff report and staff MOTION: Hilgeman moved to approve the St. Edward's Field development 71 project based on the conditions of the May 7, 1993, staff report and staff memorandum dated May 13, 1993. Kracum seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0. 111, as 0NNES07.1 .nnesota Department of Transi Aim 2° Metropolitan Division • -4 cr Transportation Building `01.�. 5� St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 OF LPN Oakdale Office, 3485 Hadley Avenue North, Oakdale, Minnesota 55128 Golden Valley Office, 2055 North Lilac Drive, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 Reply to Telephone No. 593-8533 April 21, 1993 Mr. Michael Franzen Planning Department City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Re: C.S. 2736 St. Edwards Field St. Edwards Ct. off of Tarten Curve Eden Prairie • Dear Mr. Franzen: We are in receipt of the above referenced plat for our review in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03 Plats and Surveys. We find this plat acceptable for development with consideration of the following comments: • Mn/DOT has concerns about parcel of land east of the plated land which abuts TH 101. TH 101 is expected to be turned back to the County sometime in the future. Therefore, Mn/DOT anticipates only committing the financial resources necessary to preserve this highway and will unlikely commit any significant amount of financial resources for future improvements to TH 101. However, we do anticipate future access control and right-of-way problems and recommend the following: • The City, the County should work with the future developer to examine the possibility of dedicating additional right-of-way along TH 101 for future highway improvements. Existing Mn/DOT right-of-way to the east of centerline for TH 101 is only 33 feet. This amount is inadequate if future improvements such as turn-lanes or bypass-pass are to be considered. Traffic along TH 101 is increasing rapidly, and future improvements will likely be necessary to accommodate this growth. 110 ia(0 An Eanal Ovvortunih, F1,,,,L0,,nr Mr. Michael Franzen • April 21, 1993 Page 2 • The City and the County should work with the future developer to try to avoid granting direct access, in most cases, to TH 101 to promote a safer highway environment. If direct access is continually given to TH 101, accidents will rise as the highway will function more as a local street rather than a arterial street or highway. • Current drainage patterns and rates of runoff should be maintained. In addition, this plat will need to be reviewed by the DNR, Corps. of Engineers and the Riley- Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District prior to construction. If you have any questions please feel free to call me at 593-8533. Sincerely, u4,-6 William A. Sirois 40 Senior Transportation Planner cc: Les Weigelt, Hennepin Co. Peter Tulkiki, Hennepin Co. It nn��SnnTATE OF UV s©1TQ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES • METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 PHONE NO. 7 7 2-7 910 FILE NO. April 19, 1993 Mr. Mike Franzen City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 RE: ST. EDWARDS FIELD, THE PEMTOM COMPANY, PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW, PURGATORY CREEK, CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, HENNEPIN COUNTY Dear Mr. Franzen: We have reviewed the site plans dated 3/26/93 (received 3/31/93) for the above-referenced project (SW1/4 SW1/4, S. 6, T. 116N, R.22W) and have the following comments to offer: 1. Public Water Purgatory Creek is on the proposed site. Any activity below the ordinary high water (OHW) elevation, which alters the course, current or cross-section of protected • waters or wetlands, is under the jurisdiction of the DNR and may require a DNR protected waters permit. The OHW for Purgatory Creek is the top of the bank of the channel. 2 . Portions of the site are within the Purgatory Creek Floodplain and Shoreland Districts. The project must be consistent with the city and watershed district floodplain regulations and with the current city and statewide shoreland standards. Purgatory Creek has a shoreland classification of Tributary. The shoreland classification extends 300 feet from the top of the bank of the channel or the width of the flood plain whichever is greater. 3 . It appears that there may be wetlands on the site that are not under DNR jurisdiction. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should be consulted regarding pertinent federal regulations for activities in wetlands. In addition, impacts to these wetlands should be evaluated by the watershed district in accordance with the Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Act of 1991. 4 . There should be some type of easement, covenant or deed restriction for the properties adjacent to the creek and wetland areas. This would help to ensure that property owners11/ are aware that the DNR, city, watershed district, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have jurisdiction over these areas and that they cannot be altered without appropriate permits. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Mr. Mike Franzen April 19, 1993 Page 2 5. It appears that the stormwater will receive some treatment prior to being discharged to Purgatory Creek. We would object to seeing untreated stormwater routed directly to the creek due to its detrimental impacts to water quality. 6. Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during the construction period. The Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook (Board of Water & Soil Resources and Association of Metropolitan Soil and Water Conservation Districts) guidelines, or their equivalent, should be followed. 7. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, a DNR appropriations permit is required. You are advised that it typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at 772-7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist cc: Dan Herbst, The Pemtom Land Company USCOE, Joe Yanta Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Bob Obermeyer Wayne Barstad, Ecological Services Purgatory Creek file • l ar)o) CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE VAC 93-01 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 93- VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS OVER PART OF LOTS 15 AND 16, BLOCK 3 BOULDER POINTE WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has certain right-of-way and drainage and utility easements described as follows: The 5-foot wide drainage and utility easements, dedicated on the record plat of Boulder Pointe as recorded in the Office of the Hennepin County Recorder lying within Lots 15 and 16, Block 3, Boulder Pointe and adjoining the common line between said lots, except that part of said easements being within 10 feet of the northeasterly property lines of said lots. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on June 1, 1993 after due notice was published and posted as required by law; • WHEREAS, it has been determined that the said drainage and utility easements are not necessary and have no interest to the public, therefore, should be vacated. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: 1. Said drainage and utility easements as above described are hereby vacated. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare a notice of completion of proceedings in accordance with M.S.A. 412.851 ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on June 1, 1993. • Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, City Clerk Ia o SURVEY FOR: ROBERT MASON HOME'S •00/Aj,9 S Ply at .. • C-, /Q'43s 2' 1 1.13 oq•6"S9 u E AND D C /NORTH S// o •-• S .p i CO / / , ID in N r' PZ h 10 vi N 1 o ' Crj, D�0%2 / �°/Ge, \9: N o o . , (0 /)..... •-•/....--0 -"e- / J o� /� r �c, p°c' 110° / �� o /I Oa// �: � )7- a /r � 0�� e / / 3 .9 \ N .\.\,,..'F4 (J (scR c//// e'P \•1 ,4\7t \ , .3. • ' // -o 0 u 4, :\,T..• Q / / �-�. o °�� / \ 06\ :7 / v:::,je* QC,..4‘‘e) 13 \ `., f•• . 23q �f J • 1-7,.. ..:\ # • / \ . �-1 io. \' � 6. Nii / eili/ ti 1/41 ( \ 'A' r-7: (<1 / ./e0 \5, T.. .ii,co \ w'' cv //... ° N \\\ \ 0 1 \\ . s: • \ \ / 4. \ \ I2,6i JUNE 1.1993 11491 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER 1ST HALF 93 PROPERTY TAXES-TEMAN PROPERTY 56660.77 1492 PRUDENTIAL GROUP LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUM 2500.00 493 JIM BERGSTROM SCHOOL ADVANCE-POLICE DEPT 750.00 1494 COOKIES BY DEB EXPENSES-CITY COUNCIL 7.99 11495 AT&T SERVICE 540.74 11496 HOPKINS POSTMASTER POSTAGE-COMMUNITY NEWSLETTER 2265.48 11497 CITY OF RICHFIELD MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION & EXCISE TAX 1036.92 11498 U S WEST CELLULAR INC SERVICE 75.00 11499 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 124.32 11500 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR 8420.19 11501 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO LIQUOR & WINE 10075.53 11502 PAUSTIS & SONS CO WINE 223.60 11503 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO LIQUOR & WINE 5562.65 11504 PRIOR WINE CO WINE 657.86 11505 QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS CO LIQUOR & WINE 4401.81 11506 ARDUS & ROBERT MCCARTHY REFUND-MAYO HOUSE & CLINIC TRIP 57.00 11507 VERNETTE FOX REFUND-MAYO HOUSE & CLINIC TRIP 57.00 11508 MARILYN HERTLE REFUND-MAYO HOUSE & CLINIC TRIP 28.50 11509 LUVERNE ANDERSON REFUND-MAYO HOUSE & CLINIC TRIP 28.50 11510 JUNE BECKMAN REFUND-MAYO HOUSE & CLINIC TRIP 28.50 11511 THERESE BENGTSSON REFUND-STANDARD FIRST AID CLASS 22.00 11512 JOY BREKKE REFUND-MAYO HOUSE & CLINIC TRIP 28.50 11513 LOUISE DOUGHTY REFUND-MAYO HOUSE & CLINIC TRIP 28.50 11514 D`t3VENA HAYES REFUND-MAYO HOUSE & CLINIC TRIP 28.50 11515 CAROL KORBEL REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 72.00 11516 OLGA MARENO REFUND-MAYO HOUSE & CLINIC TRIP 28.50 11517 KATHI MARGO REFUND-GYMNASTICS CLASS 21.00 Allg.518 MARGARET MCARTHUR REFUND-MAYO HOUSE & CLINIC TRIP 28.50 519 MELISSA MCMAHON REFUND-SKATING LESSONS 69.00 11520 BERNICE SANDNESS REFU '}-MAYO HOUSE & CLINIC TRIP 28.50 11521 EVELYN TINSLEY REFUND-MAYO HOUSE & CLINIC TRIP 28.50 11522 LOWELL TINSLEY REFUND-MAYO HOUSE & CLINIC TRIP 28.50 11523 MARNA UEBLER REFUND-MAYO HOUSE & CLINIC TRIP 28.50 11524 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE 6013.86 11525 MINNESOTA UC FUND 1ST QUARTER 93 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 1262.83 011526 DEAN OLSON ORCHESTRA SENIOR AWARENESS WEEK/FEES PD 225.00 11527 DAVID STAHL SENIOR AWARENESS WEEK/FEES PD 250.00 11528 LANCE BRACE SCHOOL EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 60.79 11529 CRYSTEEL DIST INC SPINNER AUGER SANDER/DOUBLE DISCHARGE 7595.02 SPREADER-STREET DEPT 11530 HOLMLUND MASONRY REPLACED FIREPLACE FIREBOX/SLAB FOR 550.00 HEARTH/CAPPED CHIMNEY-CUMMINS GRILL HOUSE 11531 MENARDS LUMBER/STAPLES/STAPLE GUNS/DUCT TAPE/ 165.30 PROPANE CYLINDERS/LETTERS/NUMBERS/MAILBOX/ STIMBERS-POLICE DEPT/FIRE DEPT/STREET MAINT/COMMUNITY CENTER 11532 MINNESOTA BAR SUPPLY INC SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES 359.95 11533 TRIARCO ARTS & CRAFTS INC CRAFT SUPPLIES-AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM 97.82 11534 WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SVCS INC SERVICE-MITCHELL RD & TECHNOLOGY DR 2122.50 TRAFFIC SIGNAL DESIGN 11535 AT&T CONSUMER PRODUCTS DIV SERVICE 33.23 11536 AT&T CONSUMER PRODUCTS DIV SERVICE 122.80 11537 AT&T SERVICE 255.00 11538 AT&T CREDIT CORPORATION SERVICE 99.76 11539 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 5092.52 11824924 i,,, gt • JUNE 1,1993 011540 U S WEST CELLULAR INC SERVICE 565.28 541 APPLEBEES GIFT CERTIFICATE-SAFETY INCENTIVE PROGRAM 25.00 542 MN GENERAL CRIME VICTIM COALITION SUBSCRIPTION-POLICE DEPT 50.00 11543 ENTRONIX RADIO REPAIR-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 76.98 11544 PETTY CASH-POLICE DEPT EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 78.35 11545 G & K SERVICES UNIFORMS-FACILITIES DEPT/STREET MAINT/ 16364.55 PARK MAINT/EQUIPMENT MAINT/UTILITIES DIV 11546 SNAP ON TOOLS CONFERENCE-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 220.00 11547 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES CONFERENCE-ADMINISTRATION DEPT 234.00 11548 STATE TREASURER LICENSE-SEWER DEPT 90.00 11549 STATE TREASURER LICENSES-WATER DEPT 75.00 11550 MN STATE TREASURER LICENSE-WATER DEPT 15.00 11551 UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN OSHA STANDARDS CODE BOOK-WATER DEPT 125.00 11552 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK PAYROLL 05-14-93 SAVINGS BONDS 500.00 11553 FIRST BANK EDEN PRAIRIE PAYROLL 05-14-93 74824. 16 11554 GREAT-NaT LIFE & ANNUITY PAYROLL 05-14-93 7645.00 11555 HENN CTY SUPPORT & COLLECTION SVC PAYROLL 05-14-93 280.00 11556 HENN CTY SUPPORT & COLLECTION SVC PAYROLL 05-14-93 225.69 11557 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 PAYROLL 05-14-93 3128.46 11558 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE PAYROLL 05-14-93 32.00 11559 INTL UNION OF OPERATING ENG MAY 93 UNION DUE' 1270.00 11560 MN DEPT OF REVENUE PAYROLL 05-14-93 298.00 11561 MN STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM PAYROLL 05-14-93 50.00 11562 MN TEAMSTERS CREDIT UNION PAYROLL 05-14-93 25.00 11563 NORWEST BANK HOPKINS PAYROLLS 04-30-93 & 05-14-93 1200.00 11564 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-PERA JUNE 93 LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUM 237.00 Aft1565 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-PERA PAYROLL 05-14-93 130.91 111I1566 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-PERA PAYROLL 05-14-93 37352.10. 11567 UNITED WAY PAYROLLS 04-30-93 & 05-14-93 412.00 11568 JULIE ABRAHAM REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 20.00 11569 SHELLY ISENSEE REFUND-FIRST AID CLASS 22.00 11570 DEBORAH JENSEN REFUND-TENNIS LESSONS 13.00 11571 MARY ANN KUKLA REFUND-PRESCHOOL PLAYGROUND PROGRAM 26.00 11572 MARTHA MUELLER REFUND-GYMNASTICS CLASS 24.00 11573 CAROL PIERCE REFUND-SUMMER AFTERNOON.PLAYGROUND PROGRAM 17.00 11574 DIANE PRITCHETT REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 20.00 11575 VANDENBERGH FOOD CO REFUND-STARING LK PARK BLDG RENTAL 69.88 11576 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 11577 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER FILING FEE-COMMUNITY CENTER ADDITION 36.00 11578 DAY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEER & MIX 7141.15 11579 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CO BEER & MIX 15484.80 11580 MARK VII DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEER 13457.60 11581 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO MIX 597.09 �1582 PEPSI COLA COMPANY MIX 370.10 583 POGREBA DISTRIBUTING INC BEER 388.75 11584 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEER 19620.65 11585 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR 6088.82 11586 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO LIQUOR & WINE 11435.88 11587 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO LIQUOR & WINE 5044.76 11588 PRIOR WINE CO WINE 2447.21 11589 QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS CO ' LIQUOR & WINE 3177.66 11590 PETTY CASH EXPENSES-CITY HALL/PARK MAINT/SENIOR CTR/ 52.57 UTILITIES DIV/ADAPTIVE RECREATION PROGRAM 11591 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-PERA PAYROLL 05-14-93 100.00 11592 HOPKINS POSTMASTER POSTAGE-UTILITY BILLING 916.56 23210096 ia8'a 4 JUNE 1,1993 11593 PETTY CASH CHANGE FUND-ROUND LAKE MARINA 25.00 Ami1594 AARP 55 ALIVE MATURE DRIVING DEFENSIVE DRIVING INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 136.00 595 MINNEGASCO SERVICE 8089.67 11596 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE 1510.32 11597 STATE OF MINNESOTA SETTLE UNCLAIMED PROPERTY FROM 07-01-87 2607.50 TO 09-30-92 11598 JOHN K TEMAN & JEAN M TEMAN INTEREST PAYMENT FOR LAND PURCHASED 1875.00 11599 JASON AMBORN FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 1540.00 11600 DOUGLAS ANDREWS FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 1068.00 11601 JOHN BENIK FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 838.00 11602 JAY BOHLEN FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 1158.00 11603 GERALD BOHN FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 1798.00 11604 LANCE BRACE FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 1760.00 11605 RAYMOND F CARLSON FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 376.00 11606 SPENCER L CONRAD FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 3134.00 11607 RICHARD DEATON FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 1758.00 11608 GENE DAHLKE FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 1140.00 11609 TROY DANIELSON FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 1096.00 11610 JOSEPH R DOHENY FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 1034.00 11611 LARRY DOIG FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 1930.00 11612 PATRICIA ENFIELD FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 954.00 11613 GEORGF ESBENSEN FIRE & RESCUE CALLS - 2146.00 11614 CHARLES FERN FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 558.00 11615 MARK GANG III FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 1104.00 11616 DAVID GILMORE FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 928.00 11617 CHUCK GOBLE FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 1166.00 11618 ROBERT GRANT FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 1056.00 4,619 ROBERT L GREENINGER FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 1252.00 620 GREG GUNDERSON FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 798.00 . 11621 RICK HAMMERSCHMIDT FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 1398.00 11622 SCOTT J HANSON FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 384.00 11623 ALAN HANSON FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 648.00 . 11624 DUANE HARRISON FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 2112.00 11625 ROBERT HAUGEN FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 1266.00 11626 JOHN HOBBS FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 2256.00 11627 WALTER JAMES FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 618.00 11628 JAIMS GLENN JOHNSON FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 1038.00 11629 SCOTT JOHNSON FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 1212.00 11630 WILLIAM D KARELS FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 1452.00 11631 KENNETH W KOCH FIRE & RESCUE CALLS '1572.00 11632 STEVE KOERING FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 972.00 11633 MICHAEL LADEN FIRE.& RESCUE CALLS 1414.00 11634 REGAN MASSEE FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 1014.00 11635 BRIAN MCGRAW FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 804.00 6s6 GARY MEYER FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 2134.00 1637 THOMAS MONTGOMERY FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 2746.00 11638 JAMES MROZLA FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 1806.00 11639 CURTIS OBERLANDER FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 3052.00 11640 SCOTT OBERLANDER FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 30.00 11641 KATHLEEN OCONNOR FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 1020.00 11642 KEITH OLSON FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 1146.00 11643 DONALD OVERBEY rIRE & RESCUE CALLS 1844.00 11644 JAMES PELTIER FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 2156.0- 11645 TIMOTHY PELTIER FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 1846.00 11646 DEREK PETERSON FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 1604.00 8037949 JUNE 1,1993 1647 MATTHEW A PHILLIPS FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 906.00 648 BENNIT PITTSLEY FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 204.00 11649 GARY RADTKE FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 1248.00 11650 JOHN RIEGERT FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 1424.00 11651 JOHN ROCHFORD FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 816.00 11652 MICHAEL ROGERS FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 2002.00 11653 ROBERT ROLFZEN FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 1494.00 11654 TIM SATHER FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 2348.00 11655 CHARLES SCHAITBERGER FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 2536.00 11656 KURT W SCHENDEL FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 1178.00 11657 ROGER SCHMIDTKE FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 606.00 11658 LEE SCHNEIDER FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 1038.00 11659 SCOTT SCHRAM FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 1394.00 11660 CHARLES E SIEBERT FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 236.00 11661 TODD SKATRUD FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 1774.00 11662 JOHN SKRANKA FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 1170.00 11663 CHARLES G SMITH FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 714.00 11664 MARK SNETTING FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 1062.00 11665 KIP SPRINGER FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 834.00 11666 JAMES SUNDBERG FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 522.00 • 11667 MICHFLE SUNDBERG FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 606.00 11668 SCOTT G SUNDQUIST FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 196.00 11669 SCOTT TAYLOR FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 1416.00 11670 MARC THIELMAN FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 1116.00 11671 DOUG THIES FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 1504.00 11672 TODD TOMCZIK FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 1672.00 4,673 RODNEY UTING FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 864.00 674 MARK VANDENBERGHE FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 2590.00 11675 FRANK J WEBER FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 696.00 11676 SCOTT WILLIAMSON FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 702.00 11677 THOMAS WILSON FIRE & RESCUE CALLS 2090.00 11678 A TO Z RENTAL CENTER CHIPPING HAMMER & BIT RENTAL-COMMUNITY 113.27 CENTER/TABLEROLL RENTAL-POOL SPECIAL EVENTS PROGRAM 11679 ARDEN AANESTAD BIRD WATCH CLASS INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 35.00 11680 ABBOTT OFFICE SYSTEMS WALL UNIT SHEET ORGANIZER-WATER DEPT 60.00 11681 ABBOTT PAINT & CARPET CO PAINT-WATER DEPT 286.78 11682 ACTION THREADED PRODUCTS NUTS & BOLTS-WATER DEFT 227.74 11683 AIRSIGNAL INC MAY 93 PAGER SERVICE-BLDG INSPECTIONS 96.52 DEPT/COMMUNITY CENTER 11684 AMERICAN FLAGPOLE & FLAG CO FLAGS-PLEASANT HILLS CEMETERY 138.02 11685 AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY CO UNIFORMS-FACILITIES DEPT/MATS & TOWELS- 227.74 LIQUOR STORES 686 AMERICAN RED CROSS WORKBOOKS-POOL LESSONS 100.80 11,1687 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOC PAMPHLETS FOR OPEN HOUSE & TOUR HANDOUTS- 2069.02 WATER DEPT 11688 ANCHOR PAPER COMPANY COPY PAPER-POLICE DEPT 292.60 11689 EARL F ANDERSEN & ASSOC INC SIGNS-STREET MAINTENANCE 207.99 11690 DON ANDERSON HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 283.50 11691 ANDROC PRODUCTS INC TREE & WEED KILLING COMPOUND-PARK MAINT 259.66 11692 ANIMAL & BOARDING KENNEL ' CANINE SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT - 48.44 11693 ARCHITECTS PROFESSIONAL ASSN SERVICE-STARING LAKE AMPHITHEATRE 70.00 11694 PAT ARENT PHOTO MANAGING INSTRUCTOR-SENIOR PROGRAMS/ 20.00 FEES PAID 11695 ARMOR SECURITY INC REKEYED CYLINDER-E P CITY CENTER 96.39 4159147 JUNE 1,1993 1.1696 AUDIO VISUAL WHOLESALERS BATTERIES-POLICE DEFT 41.24 1697 B & S TOOLS WRENCHES/SAW BLADES/SCREW STARTERS-WATER 92.82 DEPT 11698 BACHMANS EXPENSES-CITY HALL 29.49 11699 BACONS ELECTRIC CO INSTALLED TIMERS & STAINLESS STEEL BOXES/ 2177.25 INSTALLED CIRCUIT BREAKERS/LIFT STATION WORK Lh._IT/CONTROL PANEL SWITCH-UTILITIES DIVISION 11700 PATRICIA BARKER EXPENSES-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT 36.04 11701 BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS INC ACRYLIC SHEET/SEALER-ICE ARENA 258.31 11702 JOHN BENSON GOLF INSTRUCTOR-SPRING SKILL DEVELOPMENT 270.00 PROGRAM/FEES PAID 11703 SCOTT BERG EXPENSES/MILEAGE-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 45.00 11704 BEST ELECTRIC REPAIRED BALL FIELD LAMP-PARK MAINTENANCE 65.63 11705 BIFFS INC MAY 93 WASTE DISPOSAL-PARK MAINTENANCE 2575.21 11706 BLEVINS CONCESSION SUPPLY COMPANY CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 30.05 11707 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON APRIL 93 KENNEL COSTS-ANIMAL CONTROL DEPT 886.00 11708 BLOOMINGTON LOCK & SAFE CO KEY CODE/KEYS-POLICE BUILDING 7.60 11709 BLUMBERG COMMUNICATIONS INC PROJECTION MOUNTING FOR APOGEE SYSTEM- 1409.00 POLICE DEPT 11710 LEE M BRANDT HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 147.00 11711 BRYAN J BRAVARD SOI'rBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 64.00 11712 BROADWAY AWARDS TROPHIES-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS PROGRAM 55.38 11713 JIM BROWNS CULTURED SOD FARM SOD-PARK MAINTENANCE 103.84 11714 PAUL J BROWN VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 400.00 11715 BRW INC SERVICE-DELL ROAD CONSTRUCTION 3129.64 '1716 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC GRAVEL-PARK MAINTENANCE 91.55 1717 NATHAN BUCK SOFTBALL & VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 671.00. 11718 BUREAU OF CRIMINAL APPREHENSION SCHOOL-POLICE DEPT 210.00 11719 CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS REPLACED TONE REEDS/REMOVED 2-WAY RADIO- 90.51 POLICE DEPT 11720 CARLSON SYSTEMS TOOL BOX/ANCHORS/BITS-PARK MAINT/WATER 102.27 DEPT 11721 CARTRIDGECARE INC PRINTER CARTRIDGES-CITY HALL 127.80 11722 CENTRAIRE INC REPLACED AIR UNIT BELTS/GREASED BEARINGS- 373.95 EATON BLDG 11723 CHIPPEWA VALLEY TECHNICAL COLLEGE SCHOOL-POLICE DEN 16.15 11724 CITY SIGNS VEHICLE GRAPHICS/STIPES-EQUIPMENT MAINT/ 440.49 WATER DEPT 11725 JAMES CLARK MAY 93 CAR ALLOWANCE-POLICE DEPT 200.00 11726 CLASSIC POOLS PLUS INC CHEMICALS-COMMUNITY CENTER 401.46 11727 CLEAN SWEEP INC SERVICE-1993 CITY STREET SWEEPING 4420.05 11728 CLUTS OBRIEN STROTHER ARCHITECTS SERVICE-REMODELING OF E P CITY CENTER 41485.34 .1729 CO2 SERVICES CARBON DIOXIDE & CYLINDER RENTAL-POOL 64.07 MAINTENANCE 11730 COASTAL VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS CORP CHLORINE EMERGENCY VIDEO & HANDBOOKS- 353.58 UTILITIES DIVISION 11731 CONNEY SAFETY PRODUCTS STROBE LIGHT/LABELS/POSTER/FIRST AID KIT/ 669.20 LEATHER GLOVES-SAFETY DEPT/UTILITIES DIV 11732 CONTINENTAL SAFETY EQUIP INC HAZARD SIGN-SAFETY DEPT 31.93 11733 CINDY CRAWFORD • MILEAGE-AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM 6.50 11734 PAUL CRUGNOLA EQUIPMENT RENTAL-ICE SHOW-COMMUNITY CENTER 157.53 11735 CUB FOODS EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 170.82 11736 CURTIN MATHESON SCIENTIFIC INC LABORATORY BENCHTOP PH CONCENTRATION METER 2586.40 & ACCESSORIES-WATER DEPT 6449410 JUNE 1,1993 41737 CURTIS INDUSTRIES INC KEY BLANKS/DRILL BITS/SILICONE-EQUIPMENT 546.31 MAINTENANCE 11738 CUSHMAN MOTOR CO INC BOLT/BRAKE CABLES/PLATES-EQUIPMENT MAINT 135.64 11739 CUSTOM HEADSETS INC HEADSETS-POLICE DEPT 382.14 11740 CUTLER MAGNER COMPANY QUICKLIME-WATER DEPT 11704.51 11741 WILLIAM D DAGGETT SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES P AID 100.00 11742 DAKOTA COUNTY TECHNICAL COLLEGE ";HOOL-POLICE DEPT 450.00 11743 DALCO CLEANING SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER/WATER 724.54 DEPT 11744 DAVIES WATER EQUIPMENT CO FERROMAGNETIC LOCATOR WITH CASE-WATER DEPT 846.68 11745 CRAIG W DAWSON MILEAGE-ADMINISTRATION DEPT 68.50 11746 DAY-TIMERS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-PARK PLANNING DEPT 23.47 11747 HILLARY C DEPARDE ART WATERCOLOR INSTRUCTOR-SPRING SKILL 140.00 DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM/FEES PAID 11748 DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY - OISM COMPUTER SERVICE-POLICE DEPT 990.00 11749 DONS SOD SERVICE SOD-STREET MAINTENANCE 31.15 11750 DPC INDUSTRIES INC CHEMICALS-WATER DEPT 7283.02 11751 BEV DRAVES SCHOOL-COMMUNITY CENTER 60.00 11752 DUKART GARAGE DOOR SERVICE TRANSMITTERS-EATON BLDG 112.66 11753 DYNA SYSTEMS LOCKS/NUTS & WASHERS-WATER DEPT 283.52 11754 ESR CORPORATION - 6 ALUMINUM GATES INSTALLED-WATER DEPT 3514.50 11755 EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOL DIST 272 CITYS SHARE FOR BROCHURES-$10000/ROOM 10259.41 RENTAL-ADULT PROGRAMS/SENIOR PROGRAMS/ ADAPTIVE RECREATION PROGRAM 11756 EDENBLOOM FLORAL EXPENSES-LIQUOR STORE 63.90 11757 CITY OF EDINA APRIL 93 WATER TESTS-WATER DEPT 210.00 0758 EDINA S W PLUMBING PIPE & FITTINGS-POLICE BUILDING 165.57 759 DEB EDLUND MINUTES-PLANNING COMMISSION 125.00 11760 ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY INC LOCKOUT STATION/-VAPORIZERS/PVC BOOTS/ 75.68 COATS-COMMUNITY CENTER/SEWER DEPT 11761 JEFFREY ELWELL MILEAGE-COMMUNITY CENTER MAINTENANCE 17.50 11762 EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINTENANCE ENGINE REPAIR/PUMP TESTING-FIRE DEPT 887.99 11763 EPR INC WASTE DISPOSAL-PARK MAINTENANCE 315.94 11764 ESI COMMUNICATIONS INC COMPUTER REPAIR-POLICE DEPT 28.00 11765 RON ESS HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 235.00 11766 WAYNE ESTENSON EXPENSES-SAFETY DEPT 15.00 11767 EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS INC POSTAGE-CITY HALL 9.82 11768 FEED RITE CONTROLS INC CHLORINE-WATER DEPT 890.03 11769 FIDELITY PRODUCTS CO GARBAGE BAGS/LETTERING MACHINE-WATER DEPT 635.20 11770 FIRE, INSTRUCTORS ASSN TRAINING BOOKS-FIRE DEPT 212.42 11771 FIRST TRUST NATIONAL ASSN BOND PAYMENTS 2035.50 11772 FLOYD SECURITY WALL SAFE REPAIR-LIQUOR STORE 125.00 11773 JOHN HENRY FOSTER MN INC MOTOR ELEMENT/MUFFLERS/GASKETS-WATER DEPT 316.90 �774 JOHN FRANE MAY 93 CAR ALLOWANCE-FINANCE DEPT 200.00 775 FREUND CAN COMPANY PAILS WATER DEPT 214.60 11776 R E FRITZ INC GATORADE-FIRE DEPT 370.71 11777 FRONT LINE PLUS FIRE & RESCUE WOOD PIKE POLES-FIRE DEPT 191.70 11778 G & K SERVICES COVERALLS/MOP HEADS & MATS-WATER DEPT 612.70 11779 LISA GANNON GOLF INSTRUCTOR-SPRING SKILL DEVELOPMENT 672.00 PROGRAM/FEES PAID 11780 THE GLIDDEN COMPANY PAINT/TAPE/PAINT THINNER-WATER DEPT 100.24 11781 GOLD STAR PRINTING INC PRINTING-SUMMER COMMUNITY PROGRAM BROCHURE 7536.47 11782 GOODYEAR COMMERCIAL TIRE & SVC TIRES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 415.35 11783 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC APRIL 93 SERVICE-UTILITIES DIVISION 193.50 11784 W W GRAINGER INC GLOVES/HOSE-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 55.02 5458279 /a80. c JUNE 1,1993 Ami,1785 THE DALE GREEN CO BLACK DIRT-POLICE BUILDING 51. 12 11 786 GTE DIRECTORIES ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES 217.00 11787 HACH COMPANY LAB SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 49.50 11788 ROBERT HANNON HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 84.00 11789 HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON INC SERVICE-BRAXTON DR/CREEK KNOLLS/PRAIRIE 30870.04 CTR DR/RIVERVIEW RD WATER MAIN/TOPVIEW LIFT STATION/SPOON RIDGE/OLYMPIC HILLS,' MILLER PARK/RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS 11790 LAURIE HELLING MILEAGE-RECREATION ADMINISTRATION 54.50 11791 HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC RECORDS FILING FEES-ENGINEERING DEPT 91.00 11792 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER FILING FEES-COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT 47.50 11793 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER MARCH 93 BOARD OF PRISONERS-POLICE DEPT 4367.48 11794 STEVEN HIGLEY SOFTBALL & VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 474.00 11795 HOFFERS INC FIELD MARKING PAINT-PARK MAINT/ 940.50 POLYURETHANE GLASS-COMMUNITY CENTER 11796 HOLMSTEN ICE RINKS INC RINK FLOOR REPAIR-COMMUNITY CENTER 75.00 11797 TODD HOLZEMER SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER-ADAPTIVE 67.50 RECREATION PROGRAM/FEES PAID 11798 HONEYWELL PROTECTION SERVICES SECURITY MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-LIQUOR STORE 470.00 11799 HONEYWELL INC MAY 93 INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT- 1200.00 WATER DEPT 11800 HORWITZ INC REPAIRED FLUSH VALVE-WATER DEPT 470.97 11801 INSTY-PRINTS PRINTING-FORMS-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT/ 72.32 BUSINESS CARDS-POLICE DEPT 118')2 IALEP TREASURER DUES-POLICE DEPT 20.00 11803 GARY ISAACS SOFTBALL/VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL & OFFICIALS 660.00 COORDINATOR/FEES PAID 4101804 BRENDA JERDE VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 128.00 11805 JOHNSON CONTROLS INSPECTED AIR FLOW/PRESSURES & CONTROLS/ 1292.23 REPAIRED LEAK IN RACQUETBALL COURT UNIT- COMMUNITY CENTER 11806 GARY JOHNSON SERVICE-BOARD OF REVIEW 150.00 11807 SANDY JOHNSON EXPENSES-HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION 5.84 11808 CARL JULLIE EXPENSES/DUES-ADMINISTRATION DEPT 175.50 11809 KAEDING & ASSOCIATES INC SERVICE-REVIEW RELAYING FOR PROTECTION 844.20 OF LARGER MOTOR-WATER TREATMENT PLANT 11810 TOM KOCH HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 84.00 11811 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY WRITE ON LABELS-WATER DEPT 165.26 11812 LAKE REGION VENDING SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES 1909.48 11813 LAKE COUNTRY DOOR DOOR REPAIR/SHAFT/BEARINGS-POLICE DEPT 129.10 11814 LAKELAND FORD TRUCK SALES INC FUEL SOLENOID-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 123.75 11815 LANDSCAPE PRODUCTS CENTER GRASS SEED-PARK MAINTENANCE 122.48 11816 LANG PAULY & GREGERSON LTD FEBRUARY 93 LEGAL SERVICE-$11639/APRIL 93 18987.52 PROSECUTION SERVICE-$7348-POLICE DEPT 4,817 LAW ENFORCEMENT OPPORTUNITIES INC DUES-POLICE DEPT 10.00 11818 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES VIDEOTAPE-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT 25.00 11819 LEES LAWN CARE SERVICE-MOWING CENTER MEDIANS-STREET MAINT 532.50 11820 LEVQUES TOWER CO INSTALLATION OF 2 RADIO TOWER ANTENNAS- 3005.12 POLICE DEPT 11821 LINHOFF CORPORATE COLOR PRINTS-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT 13.58 11822 LOGIS MARCH 93 SERVICE 11678. 11 11823 LONG LAKE FORD TRACTOR INC F :GULATING ROD-PARK MAINTENANCE 29.91 11824 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC CABLE/SWEEPER HOPPER REPAIR/NUTS & BOLTS/ 1550.59 HYDRAULIC CYLINDER-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 11825 MAGELSSEN PIANO TUNING-SENIOR CENTER 47.00 8129160 l�ga r JUNE 1,1993 11826 MAPCO SAND & GRAVEL CO SAND-WATER DEPT 650.50 827 REGAN MASSEE SERVICE-BOARD OF REVIEW 150.00 1828 MATTS AUTO SERVICE INC TOWING SERVICE-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 79.88 11829 MENARDS BATTERIES/NEON TAPE/HAMMER/SCREWS/LAGS/ 54.36 TREATED TIMBERS-ENGINEERING DEPT/STREET MAINT/PARK MAINT 11830 METAL JOINING LAB CO INC CHUTE REPAIR-SEWER DEPT 323.85 11831 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMM APRIL 93 SAC CHARGES 40887.00 11832 MID-AMERICA GOLF SUPPLY RANGE BALLS-SUMMER SKILL DEVELOPMENT 122.25 PROGRAM 11833 MIDLAND EQUIPMENT CO EXPANDED METAL/STEEL PLATE-PARK MAINT/ 110.16 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 11834 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP ASPHALT-STREET MAINTENANCE 5068.69 11835 MIDWEST BANK NOTE COMPANY SERVICE-BOND PAYMENTS 2427.00 11836 MIDWEST BUSINESS PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY HALL/SENIOR CENTER/ 1657.14 POLICE DEPT 11837 MINNCOMM PAGING APRIL & MAY 93 PAGER SERVICE-UTILITIES DIV 73.48 11838 MINNESOTA BAR SUPPLY INC SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES 958.67 11839 MINNESOTA BUSINESS FORMS ENVELOPES-CITY HALL 626.30 11840 MN CONWAY FIRE & SAFETY FIRE EXTINQUISHER RECHARGING-FIRE DEPT/ 70.35 FIRE EXTINQUIShER-PARK MAINTENANCE 11841 MINNESOTA SAFETY COUNCIL CONFERENCE-SAFETY DEPT 250.00 11842 MINNESOTA STATE TREASURER APRIL 93 BUILDING SURCHARGES 4896.52 11843 MINNESOTA VALLEY WHOLESALE INC TREES & SHRUBS-REFORESTATION PROGRAM 192.66 11844 KATHY MOGELSON EXPENSES-HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION 8.72 11845 JAY MONOGUE SCHOOL-FIRE DEPT 450.00 ‘11846 MOODYS INVESTORS SERVICE SERVICE-BOND PAYMENTS 10000.00 W.847 R E MOONEY & ASSOCIATES INC RUST PROTECTION/PAINT-WATER DEPT 650.97 11848 LARRY MOSOW GOLF INSTRUCTOR-SENIOR PROGRAMS/FEES PAID 300.00 11849 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO POWER STEERING/STEERING WHEEL/BELTS/ 1029.84 SPACERS/BLADES/CASTOR WHEELS-PARK MAINT 11850 MUNITECH INC TEST & REPAIR WATER METERS-WATER DEPT 3502.96 11851 NATIONWIDE ADVERTISING SERVICE IN EMPLOYMENT ADS-COMMUNITY CENTER 72.41 11852 NCR CORPORATION CASH REGISTER PRINTER CARTRIDGES- 152.37 COMMUNITY CENTER 11853 JAN NELSON MINUTES-BOARD OF REVIEW 150.00 11854 NEMER FIEGER & ASSOCIATES INC ADVERTISING-COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT 970.50 11855 JOHN NIELSEN SERVICE-BOARD OF REVIEW 150.00 11856 NORTHERN HYDRAULICS INC RATCHET TIE DOWN/SWING AWAY JACK- 55.35 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 11857 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY SERVICE-ROWLAND ROAD 914.00 11858 I )RTHERN WATER WORKS SUPPLY INC SERVICE-TELEVISED PIPELINE-SEWER DEPT 580.00 11859 NOTT COMPANY DUST COLLECTOR BAGS-WATER DEPT 273.66 AIK860 OHLIN SALES INC BATTERIES-FIRE DEPT 50.40 861 OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC TELESCOPING POCKETS/CAPS/NYLON SLINGS/ 248.31 SHACKLES-WATER LiPT 11862 PHIL OLSON SERVICE-BOARD OF REVIEW 150.00 11863 OPM INFORMATION SYSTEMS PRINTER REPAIR-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT 110.00 11864 ORKIN EXTERMINATING CO INC PEST CONTROL SERVICE-FIRE STATIONS 95.85 11865 RON OTTERNESS PURGATORY BIKE TOUR GUIDE-OUTDOOR CENTER 35.00 PROGRAM/FEES PAID 11866 PARAGON CABLE MPLS MAY 93 SERVICE-SENIOR CENTER 3.30 11867 JERRY PARNHAM HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 126.00 11868 PEDERSON SELLS EQUIPMENT CO INC SWIVEL SEAL/KEYED SHAFT/SEAL KIT/MOTOR 178. 14 REPAIR-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 7885659 /a Sa-. JUNE 1,1993 1869 PFC EQUIPMENT INC PUMP/FILTERS-WATER DEPT 520.15 870 PLEHAL BLACKTOPPING INC SERVICE-ASPHALT REPAIR-HOUSING 1200.00 REHABILITATION PROGRAM 11871 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY INC REPLACED BALLAST/REPLACED PHOTOCELL/ 676.50 INSTALLED WASHER CIRCUIT/REPLACED BALLAST & LAMPS/INSTALLED POWER POLE-FACILITIES DEPT/COMMUNITY CENTER/LIQUOR STORE 11872 PRAIRIE EQUIPMENT COMPANY GRAPPLER LID EXTRACTOR/PROBE-SEWER DEPT 315.24 11873 PRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN EDGE TRIMMERS-FACILITIES DEPT/STREET 742.72 DEPT/BLADES/BELTS/MOWER GUARD-EQUIPMENT MAINT/VALVE-WATER DEPT 11874 PRAIRIE OFFSET PRINTING 1ST QTR 93 EMPLOYEE NEWSLETTER-HUMAN 617.34 RESOURCES DEPT 11875 PRESERVE REXALL DRUG EXPENSES-LIQUOR STORE 49.54 11876 J A PRICE AGENCY INC LIABILITY INSURANCE 2133.00 11877 PRINTERS SERVICE INC ZAMBONI BLADES SHARPENED-ICE ARENA 67.50 11878 QUALITY WASTE CONTROL INC APRIL 93 WASTE DISPOSAL-WATER DEPT 282.75 11879 RADIO 'HACK ADAPTERS/PHONE PLUG/BAFFLE WITH SPEAKER/ 117.14 WIRE/CABLE-POLICE DEPT/COMMUNITY CENTER/ UTILITIES DIVISION 11880 RAINBOW FOODS EXPENSES-AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM/OUTDOOR CTR 31.33 11881 REVERE SEALANT/BUCKETS/MIXER-WATER DEPT 445.35 11882 RICHFIELD BUS COMPAIrY BUS SERVICE-ADULT PROGRAMS/FEES PAID 178.00 11883 RIEKE-CARROLL-MULLER ASSOC INC SERVICE-CSAH#4 BRIDGE ABUTMENTS/ROWLAND 60646.65 RD CONST/FLYING CLOUD DR SANITARY SEWER & WATER EXTENSION/TRUNK WATER MAIN/WATER TOWER 41,884 RITZ CAMERA FILM/FILM PROCESSING/CAMERA LENS-POLICE 896.87 DEPT/FIRE DEPT/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT 11885 KRIS ROEGLIN EXPENSES-AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM 21.13 11886 SUZANNE ROELL SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 144.00 11887 SAF-T-LADDERS INC SAFETY LEGS-WATER DEPT 140.84 11888 SAFETY-KLEEN CORPORATION CARBURETOR CLEANER/TOWELS-PARK MAINT/ 380.74 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 11889 DICK SAGER SERVICE-BOARD OF REVIEW 150.00 11890 ST PAUL BOOK & STATIONERY CO OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY HALL/STREET MAINT/ 295.49 POOL LESSONS/RECREATION ADMINISTRATION/ KIDS KORNER PROGRAM 11891 SANCO INC CLEANING SUPPLIES-FACILITIES DEPT/ 409.61 COMMUNITY CENTER 11892 KEVIN SCHMIEG FEBRUARY/MARCH & APRIL CAR ALLOWANCE- 600.00 BLDG INSPECTIONS DEPT 11893 SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS DIVISION LAB SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 205.56 Alli894 SHERWIN WILLIAMS PAINT/MASKING PAPER/TRAY LINERS-WATER DEPT 39.11 gilt895 SIGNATURE CONCEPTS INC UNIFORMS-SWEATERS/RUGBY & POLO SHIRTS- 943.30 POLICE DEPT/FIRE DEPT 11896 LORENE SILCHER EXPENSES-HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMi9ISSION 13.17 11897 STEVEN R SINELL MAY 93 CAR ALLOWANCE-ASSESSING DEPT 200.00 11898 ERIC SIT KARATE INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 230.93 11899 KARY SMITH SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 99.00 11900 PETER N SMITH VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 136.00 11901 RALPH S SMITH SPRINGBOARD DIVING INSTRUCTOR-POOL LESSONS 45.00 11902 SNAP ON TOOLS CORPORATION SOCKET/SCREWDRIVER/WRENCH-STREET DEPT/ 36.85 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 11903 BRAD SNYDER ORIENTEERING INSTRUCTOR-OUTDOOR CENTER 50.00 PROGRAMS/FEES PAID 7306081 /asa kl 11904 SOUTHAM BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS LEGAL PUBLICATIONS-GOLF VIEW DR SIDEWALK 372.96 IMPROVEMENTS/WHEEL TYPE LOADER-STREET DEPTBITUMINOUS SEALCOATING-STREET DEPT •1905 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC LEGAL PUBLICATIONS-CITY HALL/ADVERTISING- 1959.36 PARK MAINT/SENIOR AWARENESS PROGRAM/ LIQUOR STORES 11906 SPECIALTY CONTRACTING INC WATER MAIN REPAIR-AMHERST LANE/SHADY OAK 2747.00 ROAD 11907 MARY F SPILLES VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 368.00 11908 SPS OFFICE PRODUCTS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-FIRE DEPT/WATER DEPT 1306.55 11909 SPRINGSTED SERVICE-BOND PAYMENTS 49938.85 11910 STANDARD SPRING CO BUSHINGS/REAR SPRINGS-EQUIPMENT MAINT 344.02 11911 STAR TRIBUNE SUBSCRIPTION-CITY HALL 78.00 11912 EMMETT J STARK BAND DIRECTOR-ART & MUSIC PROGRAM 780.00 11913 THE STATE CHEMICAL MFG CO LUBRICANT-WATER DEPT 266.80 11914 STOREFRONT/YOUTH ACTION INC 1ST QTR 93 YOUTH COUNSELING & REFERRAL 2758.25 SERVICES-COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPT 11915 STRAND MFG CO INC SHAFT COTTER PIN HOLES DRILLED-WATER DEPT 50.62 11916 STRATEGIES FOR SUCCESS LINE DANCING INSTRUCTOR-SENIOR PROGRAMS 480.00 11917 STREICHERS PROFESSIONAL POLICE EQ BALLISTIC VEST/OUTER SHELL VEST COVERS/ 2706.98 DRUG TESTING KITS/MOUTHPIECES/DASHLASER FILTER/PARTITION/LIGHT BAR SYSTEM/GRILLE & DECK LIGHT/LENS FILTERS-POLICE DEPT/ , EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 11918 STRGAR ROSCOE FAUSCH INC SERVICE-DELL ROAD/SCENIC HEIGHTS ROAD/ 1568.94 SHORES OF MITCHELL LAKE 11919 NATALIE SWAGGERT MAY 93 CAR ALLOWANCE-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT 211.20 11920 TARGET STORES GIFT CERTIIFCATES-SAFETY DEPT 50.00 921 KATHY TEKIELA CRAFT SUPPLIES-AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM 47.43 1922 THANE HAWKINS CHEVROLET 1 TON CAB & CHASSIS-STREET DEPT 15668.00 11923 TIERNEY BROTHERS INC VINYL SIGNAGE/INSERTS-POLICE DEPT 15.25 11924 TKDA SERVICE-CITY FACILITIES RECONSTRUCTION 1498.85 ADJACENT TO MITCHELL RD-TH212 11925 TLC CAFE EXPENSES-SOUTHWEST CABLE COMMISSION 114.50 11926 TOLL COMPANY METAL FOR PROPANE TANK HOLDERS-STREET 52.89 MAINTENANCE 11927 TRAUT WELLS PUMP REPLACEMENT PARTS/MACHINE WORK/PUMP 16370.30 MOTOR REPAIR/REMOVED SAND & REDEVELOPED WELL-WATER DEPT 11928 TRIARCO ARTS & CRAFTS INC CRAFT SUPPLIES-AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM 48.59 11929 TURNQUIST INC PAPER TOWELS-FACILITIES DEPT 405.57 11930 UNITED LABORATORIES INC CLEANING SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 168.90 11931 UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC DRAIN PLUG GA£_:ET-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 26.88 11932 USAQUATICS VENT VALVE/FLANGE GASKET/IMPELLAR/SEAL/ 644.38 0-RINGS-POOL MAINTENANCE AW.933 US WEST MARKETING RESOURCES ADDITIONAL FOR DIRECTORIES-CITY HALL 13.00 gl,934 VAUGHN DISPLAY FLAG REPAIR-POLICE DEPT 34.04 11935 VESSCO INC BELT-WATER DEPT 338.87 11936 VICTOR CARLSON & SONS SERVICE-INSTALLED SIDEWALK-HOUSING 3390.00 REHABILITATION PROGRAM 11937 VISION ENERGY PROPANE CYLINDERS-COMMUNITY CENTER 339.01 11938 VOSS LIGHTING LIGHT BULBS/BALLAST-FACILITIES DEPT/ 175.74 COMMUNITY CENTER/LIQUOR STORE 11939 VWR SCIENTIFIC INC LAB SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 179.80 10451953 /a m, T • JUNE 1, 1993 11940 WALTER WALKER SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 100.00 4101941 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 11942 WATERPRO DRAIN SPADE/SHOVEL/HYDRANT HOSE GATE 2286.32 VALVES/METERS REPAIRED/HYDRANT MARKERS/ GREASE/CROSS ARM/SCREWS/METERS-WATER DEPT 11943 WBCS TYPESETTING FLYER-SENIOR AWARENESS 160.00 WEEK/SLIDE PRESENTATION-HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION PROGRAM 11944 TODD G WEISE SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 160.00 11945 JOEL WESTACOTT SERVICE-SOUND SYSTEM-SOCIAL PROGRAMS/ 120.00 PHOTOGRAPHIC SERVICE-HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION 11946 WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SVCS INC SERVICE-MITCHELL RD & TECHNOLOGY DR 1803.00 TRAFFIC SIGNAL DESIGN 11947 LOIS WILDER MEMOIR WRITING INSTRUCTOR-SENIOR PROGRAMS 337.50 11948 THE WINE SPECTATOR SUBSCRIPTION-LIQUOR STORE 40.00 11949 WRIGHT LINE INC FOLDERS/LABELS-BLDG INSPECTIONS DEPT 136.43 11950 X-ERGON CLEANING SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 388.67 11951 YALE INC BOILER REPAIR-WATER DEPT 459.20 11952 JIM ZAIC EXPENSES-BLDG INSPECTIONS DEPT 15.00 11953 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE 1ST AID SUPPLIES-CITY HALL/COMMUNITY' CTR 85.13 11954 ZEP MANUFACTURING COMPANY CLEANING SUPPLIES-POLICE BUILDING 72.21 11955 BRAD ZIOLA SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES. PAID 99.00 11000 AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK BOND PAYMENT 1475066.74 22000 MN DEPT OF REVENUE PAYROLL 04-30-93 15802.38 22000 MN DEPT OF REVENUE PAYROLL 05-14-93 15207.73 Alip000 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION PAYROLL 04-30-93 6406.00 3000 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION PAYROLL 05-14-93 6406.J0 44000 MN DEPT OF REVENUE APRIL 93 SALES TAX 34628.44 10528 VOID OUT CHECK 20000.00- 11274 VOID OUT CHECK 58.92- 11298 VOID OUT CHECK 7755.62- 11334 VOID OUT CHECK 56841.11- 11384 VOID OUT CHE._K 168.30- 11393 VOID OUT CHECK 355.53- 11465 VOID OUT CHECK 97.82- 11473 VOID OUT CHECK 1114.95- 11486 VOID OUT CHECK 2114.00- 147127350 $2400400.08 • /0 ea, �` MEMORANDUM • TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Bob Lambert,Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources FROM: Stuart A. Fox,Manager of Parks and Natural Resources DATE: May 27, 1993 SUBJECT: Proposed Trapping Ordinance • BACKGROUND: The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission reviewed a City Trapping Ordinance, proposed by the Trapping Committee in December of 1992, and recommended its passage to the City Council on a 7-0 vote. At the January 19, 1993 Council meeting,the City Council approved the proposed trapping ordinance and made a revision to prohibit the use of leg hold traps anywhere in the city limits. At the second reading of the ordinance on March 16, 1993, the City Council after hearing comments from several property owners as well individuals from the DNR and Minnesota Trappers Association sent the Trapping Ordinance back to the committee for further refinement. The co-chairs of the committee, park commissioners Lynch and Bowman, reconvened the Trapping Committee and sought input from the Minnesota • Department of Natural Resources, as well as wildlife biologists. TRAPPING COMMITTEE PROCESS: The Trapping Committee was assembled by the co-chairs on April 12th and the meeting was attended by original Trapping Committee members as well several additional participants from outside public agencies and other organizations. A set of guidelines (see attached) were distributed by the co-chairs which outlined the conduct that would be followed during the process of modifying the Trapping Ordinance. After reviewing the conduct rules the co-chairs stressed that the process would not start at ground zero; however, it was intended to modify the proposed ordinance in the area where the City Council had concerns. In addition, a time line of two meetings with a maximum of three was detailed in order to keep the discussion focused and centered on the specific areas of the ordinance that the City Council wanted the committee to address. The group also decided that since there were several members present who were not part of the original committee that only original committee members would vote to determine if a particular section would be revised or amended. The cochairs discussed the issue of ethics related to trapping with those in attendance at both meetings. It was explained that there were individuals that could represent both sides of the issue equally well and present very persuasive cases. However, since the issue was one of point of view, comments would be limited to the areas of trapping in permitted areas and nuisance • animal control. Proposed Trapping Ordinance May 27, 1993 • Page 2 The committee had two meetings; the first was held on April 12th and the second meeting was held on April 20th. The result of those meetings was that a majority of the committee members were in favor of the changes to the original ordinance. Attached is a copy of the proposed Trapping Ordinance and the changes that were made by the subcommittee are indicated by underlining. The staff would like to highlight several of the proposed changes to the original ordinance. The changes are as follows: 1. Definitions - In the definition's section there are definitions for wild animal, which is defined as a wild mammal and bird only, and definition for wildlife nuisance, which is defined as an animal which causes damage to property or poses and undue threat to safety. The committee felt that these would better define exactly what was being trapped according to this ordinance. 2. Permitted Area - The permitted area for trapping was reduced in size from the area as defined in the Weapons Discharge Ordinance (8 square miles), to the area where the discharge of shotguns firing shotgun slugs is permitted (4 square miles). This area is basically south of Flying Cloud Drive from the City's west border to Riverview Road 4 then easterly along Riverview Road to the east line of Section 34. The area permitted for trapping would be south of that line, which essentially confines permitted trapping to the Minnesota River bottoms. (see map) 3. Permitted Traps Within the Permit Area - Trapping in this area would be restricted to the use of leg hold spring traps no larger than a size 11/2. In addition, any trapping in water sets would be restricted to a number 110 conibear or a 11 leg hold trap. Additional restrictions are outlined in the text of the ordinance which include specific distances from residences, as well as distances from park boundaries or recreational areas. 4. Trapping Outside the Permitted Area - (Nuisance Animals) • If trapping were to occur outside the permitted area it would be allowed only as a last resort and in conjunction with the City's Wildlife Managment Plan. The process would be as follows: a. Complaint would be directed to Animal Control Division of Police Department. b. Non-lethal methods of dealing with the problem would be used by the City or recommended to property owner. c. If problem continues, the property owner could file a wildlife management request form with the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Department. 19 (-1 Proposed Trapping Ordinance • May 27, 1993 Page 3 d. This request would be forwarded to the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission and City Council for action. The petition would detail the type of problem, the methods that had been tried and the proposed solution (type/size of trap). This would be a "last resort" effort in which non-lethal methods have failed or been ineffective. e. If a permit to trap were issued it would have to meet specific distance requirements as outlined in the ordinance. 5. Permitted Traps Outside the Permitted Trapping Area - Language was placed in this section to attempt the use of non lethal methods which would include several options as listed in the ordinance. However, if none of the methods were effective the trapping would be permitted using leg hold traps of a size no larger than a size 1'h. 6. Exceptions - Two changes where made in this area; one that would exempt bird banders from needing a permit, if they are under permit by the DNR and US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the second is to exempt trapping on lands owned or managed by the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge. The committee felt that the US Fish and Wildlife Service should be responsible to manage and regulate the trapping that occurs • on their land. This would be similar to what is done in other communities on property that is owned and managed by the Wildlife Refuge. RECOMMENDATIONS: The staff would recommend that the City Council approve the revised Trapping Ordinance as written. The committee spent seven hours working on the revisions and, although, there was not a complete consensus on all revisions, the committee did endorse all the proposed changes by majority vote. In addition, the members of the committee felt that once this ordinance is in place and used by individuals, especially in the permitted area, that there would come a time, similar to the Weapons Discharge Ordinance, for a review of this ordinance and its operation and enforcement. SAF:mdd trapo/5 • TRAPPING COMMITTEE MEMBERS Bruce Bowman, Co-chair- Member of EP Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission • Diane Lynch, Co-chair - Member of EP Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Charlotte Cozzetto - Eden Prairie (member of FATE) Friends of Animals &Their Environment Desiree Griffith- Eden Prairie Linda Hatfield - Minneapolis(member of FATE) Raymond Rau - Eden Prairie (member of MTA) Minnesota Trappers Association Cindy Reever -Eden Prairie Elaine Sorenson -Eden Prairie (Wildlife Rehabilitator) STAFF LIAISON: SW Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources. Mitch Schneider, Animal Control Officer ADDITIONAL ATTENDEES AT APRIL , 1993 MEETINGS: Jim Brewer - Eden Prairie (Carver-Scott Humane Society) Howard Goldman - St. Paul (Member of FATE) Thomas Kerr - (MN Valley National Wildlife Refuge Richard Layboum- Minneapolis(MN Network for Animal Rights) Jon Parker - (MN DNR- Shakopee Headquarters) Ron Peterson - Edina (Private Consultant-Member of MTA) Jeff Wiles - St. Paul (Member of FATE) members/5 • • t2 /( MEMORANDUM • TO: Trapping Subcommittee Members & Interested Participants FROM: Diane Lynch and Bruce Bowman Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission DATE: March 31, 1993 SUBJECT: Ground Rules for April 12th Meeting & Agenda We suggest the following ground rules be agreed upon at the meeting April 12th: 1. At the request of the Eden Prairie City Council we are meeting to discuss amending the City Council's trapping ordinance. This discussion will include specification of permitted trapping areas; permitted trappers; types of traps and conditions to allow trapping. 2. We will meet and complete our work in two meetings. One additional meeting will be scheduled, only if necessary. 3. No personal attacks will be permitted. 4. One person will speak at a time. 5. All participants will agree to act in good faith in all aspects of the process. An agreement to participate means agreement to limiting the task of this subcommittee, as described in number 1 above. 6. In the interest of promoting candid and cooperative discussions, participants agree not to invite the media to attend any of the meetings. 7. Participants agree that Bowman and Lynch will facilitate completion of the task to submit a redrafted ordinance to the City Council. *************************************************** AGENDA 1. Review and agreement regarding ground rules 2. Overview of City Council Action 3. Discussion permitted trapping areas options 4. Discussion of permitted trap options, including trapping of non-targeted animals • 5. Discussion of permitted trappers 6. Next step and next meeting i ( .iff) '''\_.11140.- 1:4",';',7*./V.1-'i, wv"." - 3 cvneatt,A : ..-.$:i.,: ,,,, V.4. 5",..,...„..../ 1 0—r.44ThLait—km-a( Nt.) .e. ort 1. -tea—, FIREARMS REGULATIONI Qii �1 AREA (9.40) > Ylyly��,( FI "-- l=J� `�7l.J�JCO S'i.rT". �j�., ....;-` pq�t pplN� >•Z el lf+K.77Cn+u►`�y[,_v1 VPErrirr � IW017 (NCO ..-...:��.:: `"�'j•'' L�`�I? INTEN wE0NN. Qyy�� r L221SlSmTT OR. �:. ("� :''l, �� �' ` /CNOp� I�- 4, 4 Q ••0 .. ,,,, ,;••CEDAR ���dddd • 4 LREIOGE O s 4.1.TWRWA v I c '( ► IRS PQ = z IOlYcG07 CT. 1I7 MC Qum/ROAD ` II .- NIhh(rIN CO III I.AT[l Con[ • - VCC�7'I. 4* n �� III WE77EN CIRCLE J• 1 ar.0. u r vy ftl • • .. :.j • VAC „y4CEv NQ� ` J O l� 17QACMOrd UVIE v'' / 177 I.N/TA/1 LAM( �! �' 3:CROCK[LA" . 'z ' - _ € 8. GREY wl0G CC i ,� . 1 Ill s , mit es wired for d scharge firearm \ BOW/A " ; Y �l • , r , •• w • ca.. J•rEl.Aa0 YEW( 9 • • 1:.v /P •C e Y • � O • 1114 F W Q Flying Claud • • a Y • Alum.t • MAC._ - • u : .0.411,-..tk_--0-..4.—.., �.r ' 4iF nit 'tea AI IE • • ...,. 3'Q .er� r f Ceti 'h'\.:: ..• iii.,� �y , ' w _ t Po r Yip. e g ` t P r ,mit r : • uired for isch , _ ,—.' f 1-s a , — ARCHERY I !.. GUN WITH ,. /�• Y � r _,� SLU, ids �` ' 1 },ti :. �. NOTE: Changes to the previously proposed ordinances (made by the trapping subcommittee) are indicated by the underlining. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE • HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 9 BY ADDING SECTION 9.12, A PROVISION REGULATING THE TRAPPING OF ANIMALS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: • Section 1. The Eden Prairie City Code shall be amended by adding thereto a Section 9.12 which reads as follows: SECTION 9.12. TRAPPING OF ANIMALS. Subd. 1. Policy. This Section reflects the City's policy of managing wildlife while maintaining the natural habitat of the area. This policy includes the City's desire to mitigate the exposure of people and domestic animals to traps. Public education concerning the various species living in the area and their habits is the preferred method of minimizing any conflict between humans and wildlife. The city recognizes, however, that even with a knowledgeable and sensitive citizenry, circumstances arise where trapping becomes a necessary method of control. 11111 Subd. 2. Definitions. A. "Trap" means any mechanical device, snare, artificial light, net, bird line, or contrivance used to trap, catch, snare, kill or otherwise restrain the free movement of any wild animal. B. "Trapping" means setting, laying, or otherwise using a trap to catch, snare, kill or otherwise restrain the free movement of any wild animal. C. "Wild animal" is defined as wild mammals and birds only. D. "Wildlife nuisance" is defined as action by an animal which causes damage to property or poses an undue threat to_safetz Subd. 3. Requirements. A. It is unlawful for any person to trap in the City of Eden Prairie unless such persons have in their possession each of the following: 1. A valid Minnesota trapper's license issued by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources; • 2. A certificate demonstrating that the trapper successfully completed a Minnesota Trappers Association (MTA) trapper education course or is a certified MTA trapping instructor; 3. Written permission from the landowner or public agency; 4. A trapping permit from the City of Eden Prairie. B. Application for a City trapping permit shall take place pursuant to the requirements contained in Section 5.02 of this Code and shall be submitted to the City Police Department. Additionally, applicants shall submit proof of a current license for trapping from the Department of Natural Resources and of a passing score on the test administered by the Minnesota Trappers Association. Subd. 4. Permitted Area. Trapping by City permit shall be conducted only in the areas permitted for the discharge of shotguns firing shotgun slugs, as specified in Section 9.40. Subd. 3(A)(2)(a) herein. • Subd. 5. Permitted Traps within Permitted Area. Trapping on defined permitted land is restricted to the use of leghold spring traps no larger than size 1 1/2. Trapping in water in defined permitted areas is restricted to the use of conibear-type traps with a jaw opening no larger than 5 inches by 5 inches (size 110) and drowning set leghold traps. A. All leghold traps set on dry land shall be: • 1. Placed at least 500 feet from a residence, except when the trap placement is authorized or directed by the residence's occupant; 2. Entirely concealed under a layer of soil or other trap covering; 3. Firmly anchored with a stake or heavy dra&; 4. Placed no closer to an exposed bait, fur or feathers than allowed by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resource regulations. B. Trapping is prohibited within 250 feet of the boundaries of any city park or organized recreational area, except as provided under Subcl_ 9. Subd. 6. Trapping Outside of Permitted Area. Trapping outside of the permitted area is allowed only under the following circumstances, • A. If a property owner believes that a wildlife nuisance situation exists, the property • ,owner will contact the City Police Department and file a "wildlife management request form" which describes the nature of the nuisance. The complaint will be handled per Resolution No. 91-260 which adopts a City wildlife management plan. If it is determined by the City Police Department that the nuisance is "bona fide," iaC0 .the property owner will be provided with a list of permitted trappers along with a limited permit to abate the specific wildlife nuisance, subject to any other restrictions. B. Traps shall be placed at lest 500 feet from a residence, except when the trap placement is authorized or directed by the residence's occupant. C. Trapping is prohibited within 250 feet of the boundaries of any city park or organized recreational area. Subd.7. Permitted Traps Outside of Permitted Trapping Area. Every reasonable effort must be made to use non-lethal methods, including but not limited to: cage-type traps, repellants, harrassment and exclusionary devices. If it is determined by the City that none of the above methods are effective, trapping on land is restricted to the use of leghold spring traps no larger than size 11/2. Trapping in water is restricted to the use of conibear-type traps with jaw opening no larger than 5 inches by 5 inches (size 110). Subd. 8. Release of Animals. Animals may be released from captivity only with the express permission of the owner of the property upon which any release shall take place. Subd. 9. Exceptions. This section shall not apply to: • A. Quick-kill trapping if the traps are designed only to kill rats, mice, gophers or moles. B. Persons using cage-type live traps for trapping animals causing damage to property after using other reasonable effort to use other non-lethal methods, including but not limited to: repellants, harrassment and exclusionary devices. C. Employees or duly authorized representatives of the city, county, state or federal government acting within the course and scope of their employment. D. Falconers or bird banders licensed by the Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service permit. E. Persons using a net for trapping and relocating Canadian geese under a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service permit. F. Trapping on lands owned or managed by the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge shall be regulated solely by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 5.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim • herein. 1aP) � Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. • FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the day of , 1993, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said Council on the _. . - -- -- - day of , 1993. ATTEST: ..1 City Clerk -- Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1993. tas'ep\epcode\citycode • • • • Unapproved Minutes Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Monday, May 17, 1993 VI OLD BUSINESS A. Trapping Ordinance 1 Stuart Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources reviewed the proposed trapping ordinance. The ordinance was passed by the Parks Commission by a 7-0 vote in December 1992. At the first reading by the City Council, the Council made a revision to recommend the removal of leg hold traps from the ordinance. At the subsequent second reading, the City Council after hearing comments from several property owners as well as individuals fro the DNR, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service felt it would be best to turn the ordinance back to the subcommittee for further refinement. At which time, the Trapping Committee met twice --once on April 12 and then on April 20, 1993, to iron out the changes. Fox highlighted a few of the changes that were made, all of which are spelled out in the proposed trapping ordinance. The decision was made that only original members would vote on the changes. Each change was reviewed piece by piece and then a vote was taken. It was not a concensus by reaching 100 percent of the unanimity, but • there were majority votes on the proposed changes. Hilgeman asked when somebody requests permission to trap outside the permitted area, does that individual have to prove or provide a record of methods used for elimination of the animal prior to the issuance of the permit. Fox stated it would come through the Wildlife Management Plan. Basically, the animal control officer meets with the homeowners, tries a variety of methods, providing such traps, sets the traps, and checks them. The officer documents the methods used to trap the animal so that Wit were to ever come before the Commission, it would be known exactly what steps were taken. There were spectators at the meeting to speak against the ordinance. Richard Layborn, a non-voting member of the subcommittee strongly recommends the Commission reconsider the ordinance and prior to voting,to be aware and understand the leg hold traps. Elaine Sorenson, an Eden Prairie resident, wanted to bring to the attention of the Committee, subdivision 9B --the use of live traps are to be used only after using other • reasonable efforts to use other non-lethal methods including but not limited to repellents, harassment and exclusionary devices. Linda Hatfield, a • member of Friends of Animals, would like to see the use of leg holds for nuisance trapping only. Brown questioned because of the DNR's stand, the Commission cannot legally outlaw the use of the leg traps. Fox stated the Commission can prohibit trapping within the City and eventually the leg traps could become illegal but the DNR's position is either the City prohibits trapping all together or it allows trapping based on their laws. The City can determine where trapping can occur in the City, or if it can occur in the City ,but the DNR believes that it is their responsiblity to regulate how trapping occurs. Popovich Lynch stated she feels that by taking into consideration the issues and concerns of the diverse groups represented at the meeting,the changes made were the best that the Commission could provide. She feels that it was a mutual compromise among all parties involved and that no one group came out of the meeting as a winner. MOTION: Kube Harderwijk motioned to approved the revised trapping ordinance. Hilgeman seconded the motion. Motion passed with 5 in favor with 1 abstention. Brown abstained, stating that he could not vote for trapping of any kind. VII. NEW BUSINESS • A. Change Orders for Ampitheatre Storage Building Construction Penning Cross explained there were 2 change orders required for the Amphitheater Storage Building. The first one being, to do additional framing to correct a gap to properly align the joints and to seal the moisture out. The second change order, was to put an ADA(Americans with Disabilities Act) acceptable railing on the ADA approved ramp. MOTION: Hilgeman motioned to approve the change orders per the Staff Memorandum dated May 12, 1993. Popovich Lynch seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0. 6 • • Richard Laybourn kt‘‘ Po Box 23305 N A C M a y 22 , 1 Richfield, MN 55423 ph . 835-8305 Douglas Tenpas , Mayor Nneeota City of Eden Prairie Network for Animal City Offices Concerns 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie , MN 53344 Dear Mayor Tenpas ; Pa : City Trapping Ordinance As a citizen working in Eden Prairie , I am writing to express my concern over the intent of the City Council to reconsider its unanimous support for a ban on leghold traps given at a council meeting in January . Over the past fifteen years , I have studied and engaged myself in a variety of animal issues , including in particular trapping . In fact , I was instrumental in getting an ordinance passed in Surns- villa after our own dog was trapped . • For your information , my major animal-oriented activities include initiating the founding of a humane society in Dakota County and becoming its first president ; serving as a member of a state-wide task force to implement humane education in Minnesota schools ; teaching a course on animal issues at Metro State University ; and co-Founding Minnesota Network for Animal Concerns . At your council meeting in January , I testified against the leghold trap . In the meantime , I served as a non-voting member on your trapping sub-committee and testified again against the leghold trap at your Parks , Recreation and Natural Resources Commission meeting on May 17th . I have read a copy of the letter dated Feb . 23 , addressed to you , Mr . Mayor , by ti-e DNR 's Director of the Division of Fish and WildliFe , Roger Holmes . It is this letter , in particular , which seems to have swayed the Council to seriously reconsider its initially sound and humane decision of January 1993 . The "mission" of the Dept . of Natural ResourGes is "to protect and enhance the natural resources of the State of Minnesota for the common good of the greatest number of its citizens" (underlinings mine) .5 Contrary to what the mission statement purports to do , As stated to me in a letter of 10/3/79 by John McKane , then DNR Director of Information-Education . r Rtm FGer r.Cr r.0:4a s-0" Think Globally, Act Locally - 2 - Trapping Ordinance (cont . ) animals are not "protected" or "enhanced" by the use of leghold traps and very few citizens , namely a handful of trappers and , perhaps upon occasion, some landowners would make use of this cruel device. 41111 Charles Darwin, the preeminent naturalist and biologist , wrote in the 1860's about the leghold trap:# "It is scarcely possible to exaggerate the suffering thus endured from fear , from acute pain , maddened by thirst , and by/vain attempts to escape . . . . Some who reflect upon this subject for the first time will wonder how such cruelty can have been permitted to continue in these days of civilisation . " Regarding the "common good of the greatest number of its citizens" , even a few trappers do not need to maim for fun and profit in Eden Prairie . Landowners , whq upon occasion , after exhausting all other possibilities including live traps , need to control nuisance animals , could be permitted to use padded traps . It should be pointed out here that your animal control officer, Mitch Schneider , has said that nuisance trapping can be successfully done with live traps in almost all cases , except maybe for beaver . Returning to Roger Holmes ' letter , it should be stated that the DNR conveniently sidesteps the key issues of cruelty and necessity. In- stead the letter diverts attention to animal rights , the legality of trapping , and even deer populations . Public safety , also mentioned in the letter , does , of course , deserve proper concern . In regard to the Wildlife Management and Welfare Position Statement accompanying Holmes ' letter and dated 11/25/92 , I would like to state just briefly the following : Over the years when implementing its policies , the DNA appears to almost exclusively focus on species to the callous detriment of individual animals . Page two , point four addresses 'humane and ethical . . trapping skills and techniques' ; this statement obviously expresses a contradiction in terms . Finally , in closing , I must remind you of Minnesota Statutes 343.21 (subd . 7) , which states: "No person shall wilfully set on foot, in- stigate , or in any way further any act of cruelty to any animal or animals , or any act tending to produce such cruelty" (underlinings mine) . Is it any wonder that the DNA refuses to address the cruelty issue and continues to rationalize that leghold traps are not inhumane? The Department would be guilty of violating this statute and thus compromising its own emphasis on legal activities . Thank you for your attention to this matter. If further clarification or information is needed , you may reach me at above number . I plan on attending the council meeting on June 1 , at which time , I understand , the trapping ordinance will be reconsidered . # The 'Gardeners ' Chronicle and incerely yours, Agricultural Gazette ' of August 1863 . - 1:7 Richard Laybo' rn c. c . Councilmembers Richard Anderson , Jean Harris , H. Martin Jessen , and Patricia Pidcock ; Pat Richard , Chair Parks , Recreation and Natural Resources Commission; and Mitch Schneider , Animal Control Officer. Enclosure "FUR" IN O City of Eden Prairie P e`ciE Offices pr i ra m600 Executive Drive• Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3677 •Telephone (612) 937-2262 TDD (612) 937-8703 date TO: MLS, To be circulated to real estate offices and agents in the southwest metro area. Residential Development projects, e.g., Centex, Rottlund, Orrin Thompson, etc. Eden Prairie real estate agents, (as listed in Eden Prairie phone book) You may already be aware from the realty community or from recent articles in local papers, off-site real estate signs in Eden Prairie have become a very visible issue. As you probably know, and as published by the Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, Eden Prairie's Sign Regulations do not allow projects, directional or for-sale signs to be placed off- • site. Such signs can be placed on the property they are advertising. We request that all individuals associated with placing for-sale, directional and project signs conform to the City Sign Regulations (attached). If you need clarification of the Code Regulations, feel free to contact the City's Community Development Department. Sincerely, • ?nil v� Recycled Paper MEMORANDUM • TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Carl Jullie, City Manager er g Chris Enger, Director of Community Development FROM: Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator DATE: May 27, 1993 RE: Project Identification/Real Estate Sign Regulations City Code, Sec. 11.70 ATTACHMENTS: Code pp. 11-84 through 11-92 attached for reference Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors Info on For Sale Signs&Arrows "Italics are Excerpts from Code" PROJ ECT IDENTIFICATION Small Development Sites I. One temporary identification sign may be installed upon any construction site in any fp district denoting the name of the project, architect, engineer, contractor, subcontractor and suppliers, provided such sign does not exceed 32 square feet in area and ten feet in height. Such signs shall be removed upon completion of construction, or the occupancy of the building, whichever occurs first. This code regulation permits a 32 sq. ft. sign (usually 4 X 8) upon a site to identify the project name and individuals associated with the project. It can illustrate the lot layout of the project. On individual lots for sale, the code reads: K. Temporary real estate signs for the purpose of selling or leasing individual lots or buildings shall be permitted on the site being sold or leased provided: 1. Such signs shall not exceed six square feet for residential property, 32 square feet for undeveloped non-residential property, or structures with less than 90% occupancy (as measured by floor area). (See Note) 2. One sign per lot, parcel or structure is permitted. 1 • I aC))4 3. Such sign shall be removed within seven days following lease or sale. Source: City Code Effective Date: 9-17-82 4. Such signs shall not exceed ten feet in height. (Note: This regulation is similar to the preceding I.) This regulation allows one sign on the site being offered for sale or lease. • 6 sq. ft. maximum sign size for residential (house, townhouse, etc.) • 32 sq. ft. maximum sign size for non-residential, (commercial, office, individual) Typically the builder or realtor will be noted along with a schematic lay-out of the lots for sale. Large Development Sites J. Temporary real estate signs may be erected on the project site for the purpose of selling or promoting a residential project of 15 or more buildings with a gross floor area in excess of 300,000 square feet provided: • 1. Such signs shall not exceed 100 square feet in area. 2. Only one such sign shall be permitted per street frontage upon which the property abuts. 3. Such signs shall be removed when the project is 80% completed, sold or leased, but not to exceed two years from the date of issuance of a permit, and, 4. Such signs shall be located no closer than 100 feet to any pre-existing residence. This large project site sign (100 sq. ft.) has been used primarily for multiple family sites, i.e. Olympic Place Apartments at Homeward Hills Road and County Road 1 and Tanager Creek at Baker Road and Edenvale Boulevard. It could be used for large single family developments which meet the stated criteria of 15 or more buildings with a gross floor area of more than 300,000 sq. ft. • 2 REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL DISTRICTS Definitions: • 1. "Accessory Sign" -An identification sign relating in its subject matter to or which directs attention to, a business or profession, or to the commodity, service or entertainment sold or offered upon the premises where such sign is located, or to which it is attached. 19. "Non Accessory Sign"or "Advertising Sign" -A sign relating in its subject matter to, or which directs attention to, a business or profession, or to the commodity, service or entertainment not sold or offered upon the premises where such sign is located, or to which it is attached. PROHIBITIONS: A. Prohibitions. 1. Non-accessory signs are prohibited in all districts, except in areas where Section 11.71 permits advertising signs, subject to the conditions imposed by Section 11.71 upon advertising signs, (and except as otherwise expressly permitted in this Section 11.70). Source: Ordinance No. 105-84 • Effective Date: 9-20-84 2. Accessory signs are prohibited in all districts, except as authorized by this Section. D. No sign other than governmental signs shall be erected or temporarily placed within any street right-of-way, or upon any public easement. W. No sign, shall be attached to any tree or vegetation or utility pole. Development, real estate, open house signs etc., placed off the property they refer to, or placed in any right-of-ways are prohibited. One exception would be billboards (Sec.11.71). Project identification and directional signs placed off the property on private lands or right-of-ways are also prohibited. ENFORCEMENT Zoning Administration Staff handle sign violations in various ways: • by a complaint being received from the public 3 • ?0O • by a complaint being received from City Staff • • if a sign is obstructing traffic views, it is removed • If a corner becomes over-crowded with signs, it is handled without a complaint being received. • And if time is available, areas will be driven and violations written up in an attempt to control off site signs. In March and April of this year numerous commercial buildings in our downtown area were using non-permitted banners and temporary signs to highlight locations or special prices/products. Staff did concentrate on this area for 6-7 weeks and there was a noticeable improvement. As per code, Staff is to give an owner 3 days to remove a non-permitted sign on private property. Also, as per code, Staff can immediately remove signs in right-of-ways. A question has been raised if our City Staff has the jurisdiction to remove signs in County or State right-of-ways or from private roads. Many of the individuals placing off-site signs realize it is contrary to code, but believe the week- end traffic is important for sales. • Staff is presently drafting a letter which will go to Developers, realtors, builders, etc. that will remind them of City Sign regulations. Time spent on small off site real estate signs unfortunately takes Staff time away from other issues that impact owners and residents, i.e., buildings without permits, violations on permitted uses, setback violations, refuse, illegal grading and filling, tree cutting, nuisances of noise and odor, etc. Court prosecution of sign violations is costly. The benefit vs. the cost must be weighed when deciding upon this action. • 4 I 3 2. The Council shall base its decision upon these considerations and shall draft a resolution approving or rejecting the application for a Family Care Home for Social Rehabilitation Programs for specified reasons. The resolution must be passed by a majority of the Council. Source: Ordinance No. 18-82 • Effective Date: 9-17-82 (Sections 11.67 through 11.69, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) SECTION 11.70. SIGN PERMITS. 3 Subd. 1. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this Section is to protect and promote the general welfare,health, safety, and order within the City through the establishment of a comprehensive and impartial series of standards, 3 regulations and procedures governing the erection,use and/or display of devices,signs or symbols serving as visual communicative media to persons situated within or upon public right-of-way or private properties. The provisions of this Section are intended to encourage creativity, a reasonable degree of freedom of choice, an opportunity for effective communication, and a sense of concern for the visual amenities on the part of those designing, displaying or otherwise utilizing needed communicative media of the types regulated by this Section; while at the same time assuring that the public is not endangered, annoyed or distracted by the unsafe, disorderly, indiscriminate or unnecessary use of such communicative facilities. Subd. 2. Definitions. The following terms, as used in this Section, shall have the meanings stated: 1. "Accessory Sign" - An identification sign relating in its subject matter to or which directs attention to, a business or profession, or to the commodity, service or entertainment sold or offered upon the premises where such sign is located, or to which it is attached. 2. "Address Sign" - Postal identification numbers and/or name, whether written or in numeric form. • 3. "Area Identification Sign" - A free-standing sign located at an entranceway to a residential development identifying such development having a common identity when said sign is located upon the premises which it identifies. 4. "Banners and "Pennants" - Attention-getting devices which resemble flags. Source: City Code Effective Date: 9-17-82 111 5. "Canopy and Marquee" - A rooflike structure projecting over the entrance to a building. Source: Ordinance No. 18-91 Effective Date: 8-23-91 6. "Directional Sign" - A sign which is erected on private property by the owner of such property for the purpose of guiding vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Such signs bear no advertising information. Source: City Code Effective Date: 9-17-82 11-84 • 7. "Directional Signs for Churches, Schools, or Publicly Owned Land or Buildings"-A sign which bears the address and/or name of a church, school, or publicly owned land or building and a directional arrow • pointing to said location. Source: Ordinance No. 37-83 Effective Date: 9-30-83 8. "Free-standing Sign" - A pylon or monument sign which is placed in the ground and not affixed to any part of any structure. Source: Ordinance No. 18-91 Effective Date: 8-23-91 9. "Height" -The distance between the uppermost portion of the sign and the average natural grade of the ground immediately below the sign. • 10. "Illuminated Sign" - Any sign which is illuminated by an artificial light source. 11. "Institutional Sign" - Any accessory sign which identifies the name and other characteristics of a public or private institution, such as convalescent, nursing, rest, boarding care home or day care center. Source: City Code Effective Date: 9-17-82 12. "Menu Board Sign" - Any sign which has a message related to the site's food service and the copy is manually changed. 13. "Motion Sign" - Any sign which revolves, rotates or has any moving parts or message. • Source: Ordinance No. 18-91 Effective Date: 8-23-91 14. "Multi-tenant" - Structures containing two or more businesses, uses or occupants. 15. "Nameplace or Identification Sign" - An accessory sign which bears only a name and/or address. 16. "Neighborhood/Sector Sign" - A free standing sign which identifies by name, the section of the City designated on the official sector map. 17. "Newspaper Receptacle" - A box or container intended for the temporary storage of newspapers or magazines prior to delivery. 18. "Newspaper Vending Machines" -A coin-operated machine from which newspapers are sold to the general public. 19. "Non-Accessory Sign" or "Advertising Sign" - A sign relating in its subject matter to, or which directs attention to, a business or profession, or to the commodity, service or entertainment not sold or offered upon the premises where such sign is located, or to which it is attached. 20. "Non-conforming Sign" -A sign which lawfully existed immediately prior to the adoption of this Section, but does not conform to the newly enacted requirements of this Section. • 11-85 • I9Y)a I 21. "Parapet Wall" - An architecturally, structurally and aesthetically integral wall extending above the roof level, continuously around the perimeter of the building which has the primary purpose of screening • mechanical equipment. 22. "Permanent Sign" - Any sign which is not a temporary sign. 3 Source: City Code Effective Date: 9-17-82 • 23. "Planned Unit Development Area Identification Sign" -A free-standing sign located at an entrance way to a Planned Unit Development identifying a Planned Unit Development land development having a common identity when said sign is located upon the premises which it identifies. A PUD area identification sign may not identify a tenant or tenants. Source: Ordinance No. 18-91 Effective Date: 8-23-91 (Prey. Ordinance No. 261 Effective Date: 10-25-74) 1 24. "Portable Sign" - A sign so designed as to be movable from one location to another which is not permanently attached to the ground or any structure. 25. "Projecting Sign" -Any sign attached to a building,all or part of which extends more than 12 inches over public property,easements, or private pedestrian space, or which extends more than 12 inches beyond the surface of the portion of the building to which it is attached or beyond the building line. Source: City Code411 Effective Date: 9-17-82 3 26. "Readerboard Sign" - Any sign having a message not permanently affixed to the sign face, and the copy is manually changed. Source: Ordinance No. 18-91 Effective Date: 8-23-91 27. "Religious Symbols" - Pictures, designs, sculptures, or similar objects that stand for or suggest religious faith, ideas, or qualities._ • Source: Ordinance No. 37-83 Effective Date: 9-30-83 I I I 11-86 • lace 28. "Roof Sign" - Any sign erected upon or projecting above the roof of a structure to which it is affixed • except signs erected below the top (the cap) of a parapet wall. Source: Ordinance No. 114-84 Effective Date: 11-1-84 29. "Shielded Light Source" -Means that all light elements will be diffused or directed to eliminate glare and housed to prevent damage or danger. Direct illuminated signs must be shielded with a translucent material of sufficient opacity to prevent the visibility of the light source. Indirect light sources must be equipped with a housing and directional vanes. The lights must not be permitted to interfere with traffic signalization. 30. "Sign" -Any letter, word or symbol, device, poster, picture, statuary, reading matter or representation in the nature of advertisement, announcement, message or visual communication, whether painted, posted, printed, affixed or constructed, including all associated brackets, braces, supports, wires and structures which is displayed for informational or communicative purposes. 31. "Sign Area" -That area which is included in the smallest rectangle which can be made to circumscribe the sign. The stipulated maximum sign area for a free-standing sign refers to a single facing and does not include vertical structural members below the sign face. Source: City Code Effective Date: 9-17-82 32. "Sign Base" -The sign base of a sign shall be any supportive structure below or surrounding the sign area which has location on the ground. The sign base shall not exceed one half the maximum sign size permitted in the zoning district. • Source: Ordinance No. 9-87 Effective Date: 5-7-87 33. "Signage Program" - Any application for approval of construction or display of one or more signs under this Section. 34. "Sitting Facility Sign" -A sign which is affixed to a seating facility or enclosure at a transit facility stop. Source: City Code Effective Date: 9-17-82 35. "Street Frontage" -The abutting of a parcel of land to one or more streets, An interior lot has one street frontage, and a corner lot has two such frontages. Each allowed sign must relate to the street frontage generating the allowance. Source: Ordinance No. 18-91 . Effective Date: 8-23-91 36. "Temporary Sign" -A sign which is erected or displayed for a limited period of time. • 11-87 I 3 37. "Traffic Sign" - A sign which is erected by a governmental unit for the purpose of regulating, directing or guiding traffic. • ? Source: City Code Effective Date: 9-17-82 I 38. "Wall Area" - Is computed by multiplying the distance from the floor to the roof times the visible continuous width including windows and doors of the space occupied by the sign owner. _ .. Source: Ordinance No. 114-84 _: Effective Date: 11-1-84 39. "Wall Sign" - Any sign which is affixed to a wall of any building. Subd. 3. General Provisions Applicable to All Districts. 11 Source: City Code Effective Date: 9-17-82 A. Prohibitions. 11 1. Non-accessory signs are prohibited in all districts, except in areas where Section 11.71 permits advertising signs, subject to the conditions imposed by Section 11.71 upon advertising signs,(and 4 except as otherwise expressly permitted in this Section 11.70). Source: Ordinance No. 105-84 Effective Date: 9-20-84 II 2. Accessory signs are prohibited in all districts, except as authorized by this Section. • 111 B. All signs shall be constructed in such a manager and of such material that they shall be safe and substantial, provided that nothing in this Section shall be interpreted as authorizing the erection or construction of any sign not now permissible under the zoning or building provisions of the City Code. All signs must be 11 maintained in a safe non-deteriorating manner. Cracked,broken or bent, glass, plastic,wood or metal and burnt-out light bulbs and peeling, faded, or cracked paint must be repaired, replaced, or removed. Source: City Code 19 Effective Date: 9-17-82 C. No illuminated sign which changes in either color or intensity of light, flashes,scrolls,or is animated shall 111 be permitted except one giving time,date, temperature,weather or similar public service information. The City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, in granting permits for such signs shall specify the hours during which same may be kept lighted when necessary to prevent the creation of a nuisance. Such signs I shall have a shielded light source and concealed wiring and conduit and shall not interfere with traffic signals. Said signs shall not exceed 50 square feet in size. Only one such sign shall be permitted per lot. Said signs shall conform to the district regulations contained herein. 1 Source: Ordinance No. 1-90 Effective Date: 2-1-90 I D. No sign other than governmental signs shall be erected or temporarily placed within any street right-of- way, or upon any public easement. 11-88 • II JaJIY E. A permit for a sign to be located within 50 feet of any street or highway regulatory or warning sign, or of any traffic sign or signal, or of any crossroad or crosswalk, will be issued only if: 1. The sign will not interfere with the ability of drivers and pedestrians to see any street or highway sign, or any traffic sign or signal, or any crossroad or crosswalk, and, 2. The sign will not distract drivers, nor offer any confusion to any street or highway sign, or any traffic sign or signal, and, 3. The sign will not obstruct the clear visibility for sign of traffic and/or pedestrian movement. F. Roof signs are prohibited in all districts. Source: City Code Effective Date: 9-17-82 G. Air inflated devices, banners, pennants and whirling devices, or any such sign resembling the same, are prohibited from use within the City except when used in conjunction with grand openings (the initial commencement of business). In the case of grand openings,air inflated devices,banners and pennants shall be allowed for the week or part thereof, of said grand openings. Air inflated devices may not be attached to or placed on the building and may not exceed the building height permitted by Code. On the Monday following such opening, all such displays shall be removed. H. Campaign signs posted by a bona fide candidate for political office or by a person or group promoting a political issue, or a political candidate, may be placed in any district provided that only one sign per political issue, political candidate,per housing unit is allowed. Signs may be placed in any district. These signs may be placed from August 1 and shall be removed within ten (10) days after the election. • Source: Ordinance No. 18-91 Effective Date: 8-23-91 One temporary identification sign may be installed upon any construction site in any district denoting the name of the project, architect, engineer, contractor, subcontractor and suppliers, provided such sign does not exceed 32 square feet in area and ten feet in height. Such signs shall be removed upon completion of construction, or the occupancy of the building, whichever occurs first. J. Temporary real estate signs may be erected on the project site for the purpose of selling or promoting a residential project of 15 or more buildings with a gross floor area in excess of 300,000 square feet provided: 1. Such signs shall not exceed 100 square feet in area. 2. Only one such sign shall be permitted per street frontage upon which the property abuts. 3. Such signs shall be removed when the project is 80% completed, sold or leased, but not to exceed two years from the date of issuance of a permit, and, 4. Such signs shall be located no closer than 100 feet to any pre-existing residence. K. Temporary real estate signs for the purpose of selling or leasing individual lots or buildings shall be permitted on the site being sold or leased provided: • 11-89 a31 4 1 1. Such signs shall not exceed six square feet for residential property,32 square feet for undeveloped non-residential property, or structures with less than 90% occupancy(as measured by floor area). 2. One sign per lot, parcel or structure is permitted. - 3. Such sign shall be removed within seven days following lease or sale. ISource: City Code Effective Date: 9-17-82 4. Such signs shall not exceed ten feet in height. L. One United States flag, one Minnesota flag,one educational,civic or religious flag may be displayed upon I a lot. Each flag may not exceed 100 square feet in size. Flagpole height must comply with height regulations contained in Section 11.03, Subdivision 3.F of the City Code. Source: Ordinance No. 18-91 Effective Date: 8-23-91 M. The total sign area of any multi-faced free-standing sign shall not exceed twice the permitted area of a I single faced sign. Source: City Code IEffective Date: 9-17-82 N. A directional sign shall not exceed 6 square feet in area. The total of all directional signs upon a site shall II not exceed 36 square feet. •Source: Ordinance No. 18-91 Effective Date: 8-23-91 O. Motion signs are prohibited in all districts. II Source: City Code Effective Date: 9-17-82 • P. No portable signs shall be permitted. 11 Source: Ordinance No. 18-91 Effective Date: 8-23-91 11 Q. Projecting signs are prohibited in all districts. I Source: City Code Effective Date: 9-17-82 R. Address signs shall not exceed six square feet for residential and forty square feet for non-residential. One II sign shall be required per building. One additional sign is allowed per street frontage in excess of one street frontage. I Source: Ordinance No. 18-91 Effective Date: 8-23-91 11-90 410 l6U1, S. Sitting facility signs noting the transit operator or service shall be permitted only at transit stops. 41111 Source: Ordinance No. 18-91 Effective Date: 8-23-91 (Prey. Ordinance No. 18-82 Effective Date: 9-17-82) T. Directional signs for churches, schools, or publicly owned land or buildings shall be allowed as permitted by Subdivision 4 hereof. Source: Ordinance No. 37-83 Effective Date: 9-30-83 U. Canopies, marquees and parapet walls shall be considered to be an integral part of the structure to which they are accessory. Signs, if accessory, may be attached to a canopy, marquee or parapet wall,but such structures shall not be considered as part of the wall area, and thus shall not warrant additional sign area. V. Signs which are located on the interior of a building and are not visible from outside of said building shall be exempt from the provisions of this Section, and shall not require permits or payment of fees. W. No sign shall be attached to any tree or vegetation or utility pole. Source: City Code Effective Date: 9-17-82 X. Double faced signs shall be placed back to back with not more than 18" between facings. (Ord. 1-90) 411 Source: Ordinance No. 1-90 Effective Date: 2-1-90 Y. One temporary garage sale sign, not to exceed six square feet shall be allowed in the residential district five days prior to the sale, and shall be removed one day after the sale. Source: City Code Effective Date: 9-17-82 Z. Sign Removal. When any sign or the message portion of any sign was or shall be caused to be removed by the City Manager or a designee, sign owner or property owner, all structural and electrical elements, members, including all brackets, braces, supports, wires, etc., shall also be removed. The permittee, or owner of premises, or possessor of premises, or the owner of the sign shall be jointly and severally responsible for sign removal. Source: Ordinance No. 18-91 Effective Date: 8-23-91 AA. Sign permits will not be issued for any sign bearing misleading or false information, or information inconsistent with zoning and/or land use. 410 11-91 1 93V J I BB. Newspaper receptacles shall not display advertising legends or be obtrusive in color. Source: City Code411/ Effective Date: 9-17-82 CC. A Planned Unit Development must be 15 or more acres and contain at least 3 contiguous lots to support an Area Identification Sign. DD. The sign base shall not exceed one half the maximum sign size permitted in the zoning district. Source: Ordinance No. 9-87 Effective Date: 5-7-87 EE. Temporary Help Wanted Sign. One temporary help wanted sign per lot for the purpose of hiring persons to work on the property shall be permitted on the property provided such signs do not exceed 32 square feet and is removed within 14 days. Source: Ordinance No. 1-90 Effective Date: 2-1-90 1 FF. Readerboard Sign. Such signs may be used within a District's permitted sign area. GG. Menu Board Sign. One menu board sign per restaurant use with a drive-thru facility. Such sign shall not exceed 32 square feet in size nor greater than eight feet in height. Such sign is in addition to the free- standing or wall sign in the District. Source: Ordinance No. 18-91 Effective Date: 8-23-91 u . 4. District Regulations. In addition to those signspermitted in all districts, the followingsigns S bd eg gn rgn r permitted in each specific district, and shall be regulated as to size, location and character according to the requirements herein set forth. 3 Source: City Code Effective Date: 9-17-82 A. Residential Districts R, R-1, RM: Source: Ordinance No. 18-91 Effective Date: 8-23-91 (Prey. Ordinance No. 72-84 Effective Date: 4-05-84) 1. Identification Signs. One identification sign or symbol per building not greater than six square feet in area, provided such sign is attached flat against a wall of a building. Source: City Code Effective Date: 9-17-82 111 11-92 • ` IO • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Vision "Our vision is that the City of Eden Prairie will become = known as a truly user-friendly, quality-driven public service organization. " 1 Organization Mission Our purpose is to deliver cost-effective, quality services to our customers. We will accomplish this by: • Knowing our customers wants and needs • Satisfying our customers to the best of our ability with the resources available • Valuing, respecting and recognizing our employees as our most important resource 1 • prepared by Management Staff April 22,1993 . CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE February 1993411 VISION, MISSION AND CORE VALUES OF OUR ORGANIZATION VISION What is the picture of the future we seek to create? What is it we are trying to accomplish? "Our vision is that the City of Eden Prairie will become renowned as a truly user-friendly, quality- driven public service organization. " MISSION Why do we exist? "Our purpose is to deliver quality public services at an affordable cost" Key elements of the mission are: . • knowing what our customers (citizens) have asked for and are willing to pay for; • • satisfying our customers (being accurate, timely and respectful) ; and • • maintaining a responsible spending level and allocation of resources CORE VALUES How do we want to act, consistent with our mission, along the path toward achieving our vision? These core values shall help us with day-to-day decision-making. These are our "guiding stars": • Respect • Employee Compensation • Honest and Open Benefits Communication • Employee Involvement • Professionalism • Service Effectiveness • Employee Safety • Training & Development & Welfare • Continuous Improvement • Customer Satisfaction 41, 1) a (:t)RE VALUES AND INDICATOR Value: Respect Value: Employee Involvement Definition: Consistently demonstrating due regard for the diversity, Definition: Creating opportunities and inviting employees t needs,feelings,and beliefs of all people:acknowledging participate in decisions and improvement activiti ideas and opinions of every employee,citizen,and consumer concerning their work. • Indicators: I. High morale Indicators: 1. Staff demonstrates empowerment through their 2. Increased productivity actions 3. Reduced employee grievances . 2. Decision-making authority is pushed to lowest 4. Open communication possible level S. Improved trust among co-workers 3. Employees receive business information 6. Better working relationships 4. Teams are formed to bring about improvement 7. Better public relations 5. Ideas and recommendations from employees are S. Improved self-esteem implemented Value: Honesty and Open Communication Value: Service Effectiveness Definition: The honest exchange of processing of ideas and information Definition: Determining and providing the'right" services- with:co-workers,the public,other departments, services that are not only necessary,but where the administration and staff City is the best organization to provide them. Indicators: I. Feedback from:co-workers,the public,other Indicators: 1. Customers are asked what is most important to dcpartmenu,administration and staff them 2. Eliminate misinformation,challenge gossip 2. All services provide added value 3. Positive attitudes and morale 3. Low value services are eliminated 4. Informed co-workers,public,departments, administration and staff ' 5. Open and friendly working environment Value: Training and Development Definition: A comprehensive program to equip City staff with the Value: Professionalism knowledge and skills necessary to meet new challenge! Definition: An individual promoting honesty,respect,pride,positive Indicators: 1. Training opportunities support other values self image,and team effort,adhering to a high standard 2. Individual needs are assessed and plans created to of ethical conduct,competence,and innovation,and who address them • acknowledges criticism,accepts responsibility,and strives for occupational growth Value: Continuous Improvement Indicators: 1. High morale 2. Creative atmosphere Definition: A planned,systematic approach to evaluating,challen_ 3. Respect and improving the processes that support our services. 4. Cooperative team effort 5. Positive public image Indicators: 1. Key processes are identified,charted,and evaluate 2. Process performance is measured(accuracy, timeliness,waste,cost,etc.) Value: Safety 3. Kcy processes are understood,up-to-date,and stat has confidence in them Definition: Employee safety and welfare is paramount. Safety 4. Teams are created around process improvement ta. suggestions are encouraged,recognized,and implemented whenever possible. Wellness programs are pursued. Value: Customer Satisfaction Indicators: 1. Number of monthly employee suggestions 2. Cost savings in insurance premiums and rebates Definition: A desire to meet(and exceed if possible)our custome 3. Less employee sick and injury time expectations. Indicators: I. Examples of making extra effort and going beyon. Value: Employee Compensation and Benefits what is normally expected 2. Feedback from customers Definition: Employee compensation and benefits shall be commensurate 3. Overall image and reputation with those of other public agencies and the private sector where comparable. Pay plans shall reward good performance,meeting and exceeding goals,and quality improvement. Indicators: 1. Salary levels arc at or above comparison averages, • but not leading 2. Health benefits for dependents 1/3 employee,2/3 City 3. Annual adjustments provided for market conditions, . • step increases,comparable worth ad merit 4. Better staff morale. No strikes. FINANCE DIRECTOR JOHN FRAME AGENDA CITY COUNCIL/STAFF WORKSHOP TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 1993 6:30 PM, STARING LAKE OUTDOOR CENTER 13765 Staring Lake Parkway COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Douglas Tenpas, Richard Anderson, Jean Harris, H. Martin Jessen, and Patricia Pidcock COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig W. Dawson, Director of Community Development Chris Enger, Director of Human`Resources & Community Services Natalie Swaggert, Finance Operations Manager Maxine Brueck, Senior Accountant Sara Ruth, and Records Specialist Kate Garwood I. CALL TO ORDER II. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO DATA PRACTICES B. BUDGET AMENDMENT PROCESS C. SIGN ORDINANCE D. FOLLOW-UP ON ISSUES RAISED AT MAY 20, 1993 MEETING WITH EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOL BOARD E. OTHER III. ADJOURNMENT NOTE: 1. OUTDOOR CENTER MUST BE CLOSED BY 9:15 PM; AND 2. SANDWICHES WILL BE AVAILABLE AT 6:00 PM. i CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE GENERAL FUND BUDGET STATUS REPORT Year—To--Date Ending March 31, 1993 MEMORANDUM To: Carl Jullie, City Manager Thru: John Frane, Finance Director Craig Dawson, Assistant City Manager From: Sara Ruth, Accountant __ Date: 5/26/93 Subject: 1st Quarter 1993 Budget Status Report 'Attached is the Budget Status Report for year-to-date ending March 31, 1993 . • The 1993 Budget as adopted required a $187, 100 use of fund balance and projected a year-end unreserved fund balance of $2.3 million. Several adjustments have been necessary since the adoption of the 1993 Budget last December. Revised estimates indicate that an $843 ,700 use of fund balance is required to balance the 1993 budget. Year-end unreserved fund balance for 1993 is now projected at $3 . 6 million. The major factors responsible for these revised estimates include: * Facilities division expenditures were adjusted $466,700 to include July-October lease & taxes at 7600 Executive Drive and a full year's operating expenses at 8100 Mitchell Road. * All but $200, 000 of the $1, 361,800 in fund balance set aside for "New City Hall" was transferred to "Unreserved Fund Balance" in anticipation of City Center operating expenditures and the need for available fund balance to draw down the 1994 levy, and in response to the additional $1.4 million lease revenue bond issuance. * Year-end 1992 unreserved fund balance came in at $3 million, or $588, 000 higher than projections cited during the 1993 budget adoption process. (Please refer to the Budget Status Report for • year ending December 31, 1992 for a complete explanation of 1992 budget variances. ) A complete outline of budget adjustments made so far this year is included at the end of this report. The effects of a hiring freeze ($81, 400 possible savings) are not considered in this report. The 3-year budget forecast discussed with Council in April did include a 1993 hiring freeze; the forecast also projected that a $607, 000 use of fund balance and $600, 000 in equipment certificates would be needed to keep budget 1994 spending increases around 6%. Overall expentiures are on-track throught the first quarter of 1993 . CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE • GENERAL FUND BUDGET STATUS REPORT FOR YEAR-TO-DATE ENDING: March 31,993 " REVENUES " 1992 1993 1993 ADOPTED 1992 3/31/92 % ADOPTED REVISED 3/31/93 % BUDGET ACTUAL ACTUAL RECEIVED BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL RECEIVE! GENERAL FUND: GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 10,402,400 10,176,944 0.00% 10,666,700 10,666,700 0.00% INTERGOVERNMENTL REV 261,800 267,688 0.00% 248,400 248,400 0.005 LICENSES 130,000 123,493 6,383 5.17% 130,000 130,000 12,538 9.645 BUILDING PERMITS 1,000,000 1,182,233 237,468 20.09% 1,000,000 1,000,000 235,618 235655 OTHER PERMITS&FEES 665,000 603,417 168,790 27.97% 935,900 910,900 177,590 19509 RECREATION FEES 837,000 841,628 182,389 21.67% 1,037,800 1,037,800 274,018 26.40 COURT FINES 175,000 200,487 46,226 23.06% 210,000 210,000 28,085 -- 1337° INVESTMENT EARNINGS 150,000 246,242 37,500 15.23% 150,000 200,000 50,000 25.009 TRANSFERS IN 596,200 445,693 149,050 33.44% 417,000 417,000 104,250 25.009. OTHER REVENUE 442,000 910,631 6,416 0.70% 527,500 527,500 5,599 1.06° SUB-TOTAL 14,659,400 14,998,456 834,222 5.56% 15,323,300 15,348,300 887,698 5.78° FUND BALANCE 1,137,600 305,751 0.00% 187,100 843,650 0.00° TOTAL GENERAL FUND 15,797,000 15,304,207 834,222 5.45% 15,510,400 16,191,950 887,698 5.48° • EQUIPMENT ACQUISITION FUND: CERTIFICATE PROCEEDS 593,400 598,400 598,400 0.00° OTHER REVENUE 9,650 0.00% • TRANSFERS IN 4,000 0.00% FUND BALANCE 241,681 0.00% 29,800 0.00' TOTAL EQUIP ACQ FUND 593,400 255,331 0 0.00% 598,400 628,200 0 0.00' GRAND TOTAL 16,390,400 15,559,538 834,222 5.09% 16,108,800 16,820,150 887,698 5.28' Notes: ' Property Tax and Intergovernmental revenues are normally collected in July&December. ' The bulk of Licensing activity occurs during the 4th quarter. ' The 1992 Other Revenues include$247,600 in prepaid assessments on the Tetuan/Marketcenter property. • . CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE GENERAL FUND BUDGET STATUS REPORT FOR YEAR-TO-DATE ENDING: March 31, 1993 • • EXPENDITURES ' ' 1992 1993 1993 ADOPTED 1992 3/31/92 % ADOPTEDREVISED 3131/93 % BUDGET ACTUAL ACTUAL EXPENDED BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL EXPENDEC OPERATING EXPENSES: LEGISLATIVE 86,600 89,455 41,107 46% 113,400 113,400 31,142 27% ELECTIONS 80,500 100,727 24,578 24% 21,600 21,600 8,884 41% CITY MANAGER 174,300 200,868 42,620 21% 231,900 231,900 58,086 25% ASSESSING DEPT 312,200 304,309 77,285 25% 348,400 348,600 86,529 25% IN SP/SAFETY/FACILITIES BLDG INSPECTION 526,900 526,817 129,240 25% 552,000 557,400 142,261 26% SAFETY 58,200 56,433 15,912 28% 62,700 62,700 12,754 20% FACILITIES 612,800 609,367 153,849 25% 531,900 1,003,050 194,373 19% PARKS/RECREATION ADMIN&PARK PLAN 171,700 165,800 36,530 22% 201,600 201,600 37,756 19% PARK MAINTENANCE 804,300 776,051 143,755 19% 874,00 874,900 147,914 17% REC ADMIN&SP EVENTS 203,000 157,231 41,344 26% 186,400 149,800 29,472 20% COMMUNITY CENTER 563,600 640,520 157,361 25% 664,800 664,800 214,114 32% BEACH 68,500 60,327 759 1% 84,400 78,200 2,136 3% ORGANIZED ATHLETICS 178,700 165,360 42,420 26% 175,600 175,600 44,692 25% RECREATION-YOUTH 215,000 229,754 48,288 21% 247,600 252,300 46,536 18% RECREATION-ADULT 81,200 88,036 21,444 24% 102,200 132,800 29,147 22% RECREATION-ADAPTIVE 46,000 55,679 8,922 16% 56,900 61,900 10,665 17% HIST&CUL ARTS 45,600 49,967 4,294 9% 47,600 47,600 6,964 15% FINANCE 275,100 271,234 68,507 25% 286,000 286,000 72,471 25% HUMAN RESOURCES 144,300 147,157 42,633 29% 149,100 149,100 30,859 21% COMMUNITY SERVICES 149,300 143,644 22,555 16% 273,400 248,400 40,314 16% COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 354,600 314,107 80,053 25% 364,000 364,000 83,006 23% POLICE DEPT POLICE 2,887,800 2,885,114 730,396 25% 3,104,000 3,104,000 778,227 25% CIVIL DEFENSE 25,800 9,178 3,962 43% 12,600 12,600 821 7% ANIMAL CONTROL 78,200 66,372 15,529 23% 80,800 80,800 16,575 21% FIRE 473,900 380,624 76,807 20% 438,300 438,300 77,369 18% PUBLIC WORKS DEPT ENGINEERING 641,400 604,289 140,672 23% 611,100 630,600 147,745 23% STREETS AND TRAFFIC 1,163,400 1,143,089 158,494 14% 1,269,700 1,276,400 176,981 14% EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 583,800 546,683 127,013 23% 629,100 629,100 132,028 21% STREET LIGHTING 381,500 393,359 93,707 24% 412,000 430,000 107,467 25% SOLID WASTE MANAGEMT 31,900 26,132 0% 6,200 6,200 93 2% SHARED SERVICES GENERAL 429,800 402,037 85,659 21% 447,900 447,900 120,961 27% DATA PROCESSING 98,500 102,091 30,802 30% 130,000 130,000 26,602 20% PUBLIC INFORMATION 70,700 61,264 18,241 30% LEGAL COUNSEL 105,000 114,949 21,056 18% 160,000 160,000 11,256 7% EMPLOYEE BENEFITS &TRAINING 1,853,500 1,750,297 428,298 24% 1,824,800 1,824,800 481,585 26% RESERVE CONTINGENCY 157,000 102,787 35,353 34% 130,000 130,000 30,032 23% TOTAL PERSONAL SVCS, COMMODITIES,AND CONTRACTED SVCS 14134 600 13,741,108 445 3 169 23% 14,832,900 15,326,350 3,437,817 22% NOTES: Spending level should be approximately 25%at March month-end. • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE March 31, 1993 • * EXPENDITURES • • 1992 1993 1993 ADOPTED 1992 3/31/92 % ADOPTEDREVISED 3/31193 % BUDGET ACTUAL ACTUAL EXPENDED BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL EXPENDE CAPITAL OUTLAY: LEGISLATIVE -- 1,835 537 29% CITY MANAGER 5,700 835 0% 6,300 8,600 2,291 27% ASSESSING 700 829 0% 6,000 5,800 0% INSPECTIONS 3,000 2,061 0% 1,800 11,500 9,971 87% SAFETY 1,400 500 500 424 857c FACILITIES 13,000 11,047 782 7% 13,400 13,400 550 4% ADMIN/PARKPLANN 400 843 0% PARKS MAINTENANCE 8,864 0% PARKS CAPITAL OUTLAY 293,100 244,45 2,100 1% 226,400 259,300 18,788 77c RECREATION-SP.EVENTS 500 1,663 0% 500 500 0% COMMUNITY CENTER 16,200 64,506 2,309 4% 180,200 180,200 - 1,635 1% BEACH 500 500 0% ORGANIZED ATHLETICS 200 1,255 0% 200 200 07c RECREATION-YOUTH 500 180 0% 3,500 3,500 0% RECREATION-ADULT 900 998 0% 8,900 8,900 280 3% RECREATION-ADAPTIVE 3,900 3,900 0% HIST&CULT ARTS 600 600 600 0% FINANCE 889 0% 9,000 9,000 0% HUMAN RESOURCES 2,500 2,022 0% COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 5,800 3,463 u'7o 2,000 4,400 1,845 42S POLICE 852 0% 83,600 83,600 05 CIVIL DEFENSE 13,500 0% 3,500 3,500 09 ANIMAL CONTROL FIRE 1,168 835 71% 36,000 36,000 218 19 ENGINEERING 1,400 1,149 800 70% 6,800 6,800 05 STREETS 173,000 65,293 0% 9,300 147,300 702 04 STREET LIGHTING _ . 4,000 4,000 05 EQUIP MAINTENANCE 6,000 5,602 0% 25,000 28,000 6,503 23' GENERAL SHARED SVCS 5,000 5,000 0' DATA PROCESSING 3,000 33,000 33,000 0' PUBLIC INFORMATION 4,500 EMPL BENEFITS&TRAINING _ 600 600 0' TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 532,400 433,099 7,363 2% 670,500 858,600 43207 5' TOTAL EXPENDITURES 14,667,000 14,174,207 3,176,808 22% 15,503,400 16,184,950 3,481,024 22' RESERVATIONS OF FUND BALANCE: NEW CITY HALL 700,000 700,000 0% CAPITAL FACILITIES 400,000 400,000 0% PW/PARKS STORAGE FACILITY SEVERANCE OBLIGATIONS 30,000 30,000 0% 7,000 7,000 0 TOTAL RESERVATIONS 1,130,000 1,130,000 0 0% 7,000 7,000 0 0 GENERAL FUND TOTAL 15,797,000 15,304,207 3,176,808 21% 15,510,400 16,191,950 3,481,024 21 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE GENERAL FUND BUDGET STATUS REPORT FOR YEAR-TO-DATE ENDING: March 31, 1993 • • EXPENDITURES " 1992 1993 1993 ADOPTED 1992 3/31/92 % ADOPTEDREVISED 3/31/93 % BUDGET ACTUAL ACTUAL EXPENDED BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL EXPENDEI EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATES: "- ELECTIONS 37,100 37,771 37,771 100% - INSPECTIONS 15,600 15,600 0% PARKS - -- • -117,600 ' 118,342 0% 72,000 75200 0% COMMUNITY CENTER -- -- --- 15,200" - 8,330 0% 13,000 19,900 0% POLICE _' 133,700 202,807 78,882 39% 124,800 129,500 0% � FIRE - - " 67,500 53,933 16,890 31% _ ENGINEERING 2,900 2,238 0% 4,500 19,500 14,950 77% STREETS - _ - 164,40Q 175,657 34,948 20% 271,700 271,700 0% EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE - 55,000 40,133 -5,538 14% 53,300 53,300 0% GENERAL SHARED SERVICES _ 43,500 43,500 6873 16% UNALLOCATED 427 0% EQUIP ACQ FUND TOTAL 593,400 639,638 174,029 27% 598,400 628,200 21,823 3% GRAND TOTAL 16,390,400 15,943,845 3,350,837 21% 16,108,800 16,820,150 3,502,847 21% CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE GENERAL FUND BUDGET STATUS REPORT FOR YEAR—TO—DATE ENDING: March 31, 1993 * * FUND BALANCE* ' ACTUAL FUND BALANCE as of March 31, 1993 (Unaudited) RESERVATIONS BALANCE ACTUAL ACTUAL OF FUND BALANCE 12/31/92 REVENUES EXPENDITURE! BALANCE 3/31/93 RESERVED for Encumbrances 220,800 (220,800) RESERVED for Prepaid Expenses 48,520 (48,520) RESERVED for P.W.Storage Facility 325,000 325,00( RESERVED for Severance Obligations 243,000 7,000 250,00( RESERVED for New City Hall 1,361,800 1,361,80( RESERVED for Capital Facilities 400,000 400,00( UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE -= 3,052,831 887,698 (3,211,704) (7,000) 721,82.f 5,651,951 887,698 (3,481,024) 0 3,058,62_ PROJECTED FOR YEAR—END 1993 per Originally Adopted Budget Unaudited RESERVATIONS BALANCE ACTUAL ACTUAL OF FUND BALANCE 12/31/92 REVENUES EXPENDITURE! BALANCE 12/31/93 RESERVED for Encumbrances 220,800 220,80( RESERVED for Prepaid Expenses 48,520 48,52( RESERVED for P.W.Storage Facility 325,000 325,00( SERVED for Severance Obligations 243,000 7,000 250,00( .SERVED for New City Hall 1,361,800 1,361,804 RESERVED for Capital Facilities 400,000 400,00 UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE 3,052,831 15,323,300 (15,503,400) (7,000) 2,865,73 5,651,951 15,323,300 (15,503,400) 0 5,471,85 PROJECTED FOR YEAR—END 1993 per 1993 Revised Budget Unaudited RESERVATIONS BALANCE BUDGETED BUDGETED OF FUND BALANCE 12/31/92 REVENUES EXPENDITURE! BALANCE 12/31/93 RESERVED for Encumbrances 220,800 (220,800) RESERVED for Prepaid Expenses 48,520 48,52 RESERVED for P.W.Storage Facility 325,000 325,00 RESERVED for Severance Obligations 243,000 7,000 250,00 RESERVED for New City Hall 1,361,800 (1,161,800)* 200,00 RESERVED for Capital Facilities 400,000 (400,000)* UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE 3,052,831 15,348,300 (15,964,150) 1,154,800 3,591,78 5,651,951 15,348,300 (16,184,950) (400,000) 4,415,30 ' Assumes that [all but S200,000 of] the$1.3 million set aside over 1991 and 1992 for New City Hall is unreserved and made available for drawing down future years levies. Also assumes that the$400,000 reserved during 1992 for the City's capital facilities program is transferred out to a new fund set up for that purpose. 1993 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS This report incorporates the following adjustments which have been requested and approved since adoption of the 1993 Budget in December 1992 : 1. Transfer from Employee Benefits to all divisions for wage adjustments effective 1/1/93. 2 . 1992 Encumbrances - items approved in the 1992 Budget but unspent as of 12/31 and encumbered for expenditure in 1993: $ 6,700 Streets signal light painting $ 2 ,300 City Management 486 computer $ 4, 600 Inspections (2) 486 computers $ 5, 100 Inspections data filing system shelving $ 5,400 Inspections data filing system folders/labels $ 2,400 Comm Devel computer network equipment & install $ 900 Facilities carpeting for police basement $138, 000 Streets CSAH#4 Duck Lake Trail/railroad ped bridge $ 3, 000 Equip Maint shop maint system update $ 19,500 Engineering water quality mgmt plan $ 8, 030 Parks Round Lake drainage project $ 24 , 870 Parks Staring Lake stage & storage structure $ 6,900 Equip Certifs - Comm Center (3) 486 computers $ 1, 600 Equip Certifs - Police radio equip & install $ 3 , 100 Equip Certifs - Police tower work $ 3, 200 Equip Certifs - Parks softball field fencing 3. Split Youth Performing Arts budget into two separate programs: Art Camp and Drama Camp. 4. Move $5,000 from Adult Rec division to Adaptive Rec division 'Accessibility' program, so as to make extra dollars approved for transportation available to youth, seniors, and disabled. 5. Adjust Facilities division appropriations to include $75,000 for July, August, September lease & taxes at 7600 Executive Drive; $391,700 for full year's operations & maintenance at 8100 Mitchell Road; and $3 ,550 for additional costs at Senior Center due to school move in August. 6. Adjust Street Lighting division appropriations to include $18, 000 for NSP 5.3% interim rate increase effective February. 7. Increase Equipment Certificates budget to include $15,000 for an engineering survey package, to be funded with certificate budget remaining unspent at year-end 1992 . 8. Reduce estimated lawful gambling revenues and corresponding appropriation within the Community Services division from $32, 000 to $7 ,000 based on 1992 actual data. 9. Transfer $36, 600 from Rec Admin/Special Events division to Adult Recreation division for community brochure program - the program was originally budgeted under Rec Admin; however, responsibility actually rests with Adult Rec Supervisor (for year- end reporting purposes the community brochure program will be reflecjed within rec admin, for budget control and monitoring purposes this program will be reflected within adult recreation) . 10. Transfer $6,200 from Beaches division to Youth Recreation division for Round Lake concessions operations - this item was originally budgeted under Beaches; however, responsibility actually rests with Youth Recreation Supervisor (for year-end reporting purposes round lake concessions will be reflected within Beaches, for budget control and monitoring purposes this program will be reflected within youth recreation) . MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager DATE: June 18, 1993 SUBJECT: 1993 Budget Guidelines These are 1993 Budget Guidelines which were distributed to all department managers when the 1993 budget was analyzed. CJJ:jdp 1993 BUDGET GUIDELINES * Budgetary control is maintained at the division level. Total expenditures for a division may not exceed the total adjusted appropriation for that division at year-end. The 1993 budget document contains line-item expenditure budgets for 36 separate divisions. * For management and accounting purposes the City Manager and Finance Department must be informed of any change to the line item budgets in any of these 36 divisions. * The following types of budget adjustments require City Manager approval: to move dollars between divisions to move dollars between lines within a division to use contingency dollars to increase the appropriation for any line (overspend) Recreation program overspending due to increased program participation (which is offset by additional revenue) will be addressed during the revised forecast process performed at mid- year. Separate requests are not needed for this type of adjustment. * Adjustment requests must be submitted to the City Manager in writing, must contain the account #'s of all affected accounts and a brief explanation, AND must identify a specific funding source(s) . Possible funding sources include: a reduction in another line item, an increase in revenues, a transfer from contingency or another division, or use of fund balance. If approved the City Manager will sign off on the request and pass a copy on to the Finance Department. The adjustment will then be entered into the LOGIS system so it will appear on the following month's financial operating statements. The adjustment will also be incorporated into the following month's General Fund Budget Status Report to Council. At the City Manager's discretion, some budget adjustment requests may be placed on the Council agenda as a separate item. Otherwise all adjustments receive Council approval upon Council 's acceptance of the Monthly Budget Status Report prepared by the Finance Department. * All line item budgets will be reviewed against May/June data and adjusted, if needed, to bring 1993 estimates in line with actual activity. These revisions will be discussed between the Finance Department and each division supervisor during the 1994 budget process. The revisions will be submitted to the City Manager in a comprehensive mid-year Budget Status Report detailing the revised 1993 budget forecast. The revised forecast becomes a benchmark for 1994 estimates and appears in the 1993 Adjusted Budget column in the 1994 Proposed Budget Document. * Division budgets are reviewed again in December to identify any significant budget variances and to develop an accurate estimate of total general fund budget performance and year-end fund balances. Significant variances will be brought to the City Manager's and Council's attention in a preliminary year-end Budget Status Report. A final budget adjustment resolution developed by the Finance Department will include any adjustments needed to cover division overspending and justifications thereof. (For financial reporting purposes total expenditures MUST NOT exceed total adjusted appropriations at the legal level of control. The legal level of control is maintained at the division level in Eden Prairie. ) * Unspent appropriations lapse at year-end. Encumbrances outstanding at year-end expire (any open purchase orders at year- end will be applied against the new year's budget) . * Encumbrances may be reappropriated into the next year's budget with City Manager approval. Only capital outlay or other large- dollar items specifically contained in the 1993 budget, and that have sufficient budget dollars remaining in the division to cover the encumbrance, may be requested for carry-over. Requests to reappropriate unused budget dollars into the new year must be submitted in writing to the City Manager and must explain whether the purchase/project was in-progress at year-end or whether it was delayed and why. Approved . encumbrance requests will be 'carried over' via reserving fund balance in 1993 and adjusting the 1994 budget by the same amount. * The final adjusted budget and budget performance comparisons are reflected in the year-end Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. This audited financial document is submitted to the City Manager, City Council, and State Auditor by June 30. * Regarding account coding, please keep the following in mind when coding invoices and purchase orders: Object code classes: 4100 's Wages & Benefits 4200 's Commodities/Supplies 4300 's-4400's Professnl/Contractual Svcs 4500 's Capital Outlay Furniture and equipment items having a useful life of more than 1 year AND costing more than $200 must be coded to a capital outlay account.