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 - 05/01/1990
• AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, MAY 1, 1990 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7:30 PM 7600 Executive Drive ' COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock and Douglas Tenpas 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 Planning Chris Enger, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works Gene Dietz, and Recording Secretary Roberta Wick • PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS II. MINUTES A. City Council Meeting held Tuesday, April ILL 1990 Page 1011 III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Clerk's License List Page 1031 B. TREE ORDINANCE. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 17-90, Amending Page 1032 City Code Chapter 11 entitled "Land Use Regulations (Zoning)" by adding an Environmental Preservation Regulations Section which will regulate tree removal, damage, or destruction in all districts, among other things. • C. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 19-90 Changing Name of Grantee from Page 906 Viers Cablesystems of thi7outhwest, Inc. to KBL-AbTesystems of the Southwest, Inc., D/L Paragon Cable D. Arbor Month Proclamation (Resolution No. g0-128) Page 1044 E. Award 8ids for Rotary Mowers Page 1045 F. Award Bids for Tennis Court Construction and Repair Page 1046 G. Final Plat Approval of Eden Prairie Center 7th Addition (located Page 1047 at the—Fa. Corner of TN169 and Prairie enter Drive) Resolution No.90-122 H. Final Plat Approval of Red Rock View (located north of Summit Drive Page 1049 and west of Meadowvate Driveff—Re ution No. 0-73 • City Council Agenda - 2 - Tuesday, May 1, 1990 I. Receive 100% Petition for Sanitary Sewer Watermain, Storm Sewer, Page 1052 and treet Tmprovements within the andy Pointe Development and t)r3er Preparation of Plans and Specifications, IC. 52-201 Resolution No. 9071217— J. Approve Agreement No. PW 64-49-89 with Hennepin County for Page 1054 Construction of Traffic Control Signal Systems at the Intersection of CSAH 1 witWFran o oalc and Homeward Hills Road-TResolution No. 3U-125) K. Resolution No. 90-129 Approving Amendments to the Loan Agreement Page 1061 for Parkway Apartments and Giving Preliminary Approval to the Tssuance of Refunding Bonds L. Final Plat Approval of the International School (located south of Page 1064 the-Crosstown Freeway airEast of 1-494) Resolution No. 9 Tfl M. Award Bid for Upgrading Police Department Phone System Page 1066 N. Approve Amendment No. 2 for Contract with Barton-Aschman for Page 1070 T.H.. 5 0. RED ROCK VIEW ADDITION by Mark Olsen. Approval of Developer's Page 1077 Agreements Red Rock View. 3.2 acres into 7 single family lots and road right-of-way. Location: West of Meadowvale Drive, east of County Road 4, north of Blue Sky First Addition P. NEW HORIZON CHILD CARE by G. P. Bajr, Inc. 2nd Reading of Page 1081 trdinance No.IB-Bg7Rezoning from Rural and Public Districts to C-Reg-Ser District; Approval of Developer's Agreement for New Horizon Child Care; Adoption of Resolution No. 90-130, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 38-89 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary; and Adoption of Resolution No. 90-131, Site Plan Review. (Ordinance No. 38-90 - Rezoning; Resolution No. 90-130 - Authorizing Summary and Publication; Resolution No. 90-131 - Site Plan Review) IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ISSUANCE OF $2,740,000.00 IN REFUNDING BONDS FOR EDEN INVESTMENTS PARTNERSHTV (Continued from April 17, 1990) V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Page 1094 VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS IX. APPOINTMENTS A. Appointment of Seven Members to the T.I.F. Advisory Committee City Council Agenda - 3 - Tuesday, May 1, 1990 X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOAROS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Councilmembers B. Report of City Manager 1. Liquor Store Options Page 1095 C. Report of City Attorney D. Report of Director of Planninq E. Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources 1. Staring Lake Park Acquisition Page 1096 2. Purgatory Creek Recreation Area Update F. Report of Director of Public Works G. Report of Finance Director XI. NEW BUSINESS XII. ADJOURNMENT MEMORANOUM FINANCE DIRECTOR TO: Mayor and City Council JOHN FRANE FROM: City Manager Carl J. Jullie 1 UBJECT: City Council Meeting for May 1, 1990 OATE: April 27, 1990 II.A. MINUTES Recommend approval of the Minutes of the April 17, 1990 Council meeting as submitted (and may be amended). III. CONSENT CALENDAR Recommend approval of items A - P on the Consent Calendar. IV.A. REFUNDING BONOS FOR EOEN INVESTMENTS PARTNERSHIP Eden Investments Partnership wishes to consider refunding of its Housing Revenue Bonds for $2,740,000 for the Eden Glen Apartment Project. Refunding the HRBs is part of its refinancing plan in order to lower its financing costs. The market has been fluctuating recently and the partnership wishes to wait for a little more time to determine if the new interest rates would make economic sense. Therefore, Eden Investments Partnership has requested that this Public Hearing be continued to May 15, 1990. V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Recommend approval of the Payment of Claims as submitted. IX.A. APPOINTMENTS TO TIF ADVISORY COMMITTEE At the April 17, 1990 Council meeting, the City Council determined that it would appoint a seven-member committee to review and make recommendations about the priority of projects to be financed with receipts from the Tax Increment Oistricts over the next three years. Each Councilmember was to nominate a committee member, and the Council as a whole would choose the sixth and seventh members. Please refer to Chamber letter in "FYI" packet. X.B.1. LIQUOR STORE OPTIONS The management of Preserve Village Shopping Center has stated that the minimum time period for a lease renewal is one year. This offer is made at no increase in rent. Staff recommends that the lease be renewed for one year, and further that a consultant be retained to make recommendations about the location and number of liquor stores the City should have. X.E.1. STARING LAKE PARK ACQUISITION Staff has been negotiating with Mr. Boyce regarding acquisition of his property between Staring Lake and Pioneer Trail. The staff memorandum outlines terms of purchase for this property. It is recommended that Council authorize acquisition of this property for addition to Staring Lake Park. '.E.2. PURGATORY CREEK RECREATION AREA UPOATE • The Oirector has prepared a memorandum with recommendations for development of several elements of the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area. EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL UNAPPROVED MINUTES TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 1990 7:30 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 8500 Executive Drive COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock and Douglas Tenpas 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 Planning Chris Enger, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Robert Lambert, Director • of Public Works Gene Dietz, and Recording Secretary Roberta Wick PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS Tenpas moved to approve the agenda as published and amended. Seconded by Pidcock. Harris added two items to the agenda: 1) Watering restrictions;and 2) a letter about extending the MUSA line. Pidcock added under Councilmembers Report on: 3) changing address numbers on Cedar Ridge Road; 4) Letter from Bill Frenzel re: Highway 212;and, 5) letter to Shirley Kratochvil thanking her for the third graders' video. Jullie added the following: To Page 3 of the Agenda, VI, A, Ordinances and Resolutions, a Resolution 90-117 regarding Sale of the Parkway Apartments Project; To Page 4, Item 10, B, 1, Report on Liquor Store Building Program; To Report of Director of Public Works, Item X, F, 5, Concern Regarding the I-494 Corridor Study. Anderson added (6) Special Projects under Councilmembers Reports. Motion to approve the agenda as amended carried 5-0. II. MINUTES A. City Council Meeting held Tuesday.October 3. 1989 Pidcock moved, seconded by Tenpas to approve minutes of October 3. Approved 5-0. lJ:�f City Council Minutes 2 April 17, 1990 B. City Council Meeting held Tuesday, March 13. 1990 Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve minutes of March 13. Mr. Lambert said page 23 the third paragraph should read "40-acre park" instead of "30-acre park," and on page 25 the fourth paragraph, 11th sentence, should read "boat launch from the northern location" instead of "docks from the northern location." Peterson said on Page 9 the fourth paragraph should read "trail be placed on the property", and on Page 11 of the minutes, fourth paragraph should read "from the Eden Hills Homeowners Association to the City which outlined its concerns." Minutes approved as amended 5-0. C. City Council Meeting held Tuesday. March 20. 1990 Pidcock moved to approve minutes of March 20, seconded by Harris. Approved 5-0. D. City Council Meeting held Tuesday, April 3, 1990 Pidcock moved to accept minutes of April 3, seconded by Tenpas. Approved 5-0. III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Clerk's License List B. Overnight Policy for Outdoor Center C. Resolution No. 90-114. Giving Approval to a Change of Name of Grantee from Rogers Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc. to KBL Cablesystems of the Southwest. Inc. D/B/A Paragon Cable and 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 19-90 Changing Name of Grantee • D. Approve Plans and Specifications for East/West Frontage Road (south of T.H. 5 and East of Dell Road) I.C. 52-177 (Resolution No. 90-107) E. Approve Supplement No. 2 to Agreement No. 64918 for Final Design Services (S.P. 1002-44 and 2701-28 (T.H. 5), I.C. 52-135 (Resolution No. 90-109) F. Receive 100% Petition for Streets and Utilities in the Burnett and Nelson Additions and Order Preparation of Plans and Specifications, I.C. 52-199 (Resolution No. 90-110) G. Approval of Final Plat of Alpine Two, the future site of a proposed Chi-Chi's Restaurant (located at the N.W. corner of Commonwealth Drive and Prairie Center Drive) (Resolution No. 90-105) H. Consider reduction of Special Assessment at 6268 Chatham Way )i Y, City Council Minutes 3 April 17, 1990 I. COUNTRY GLEN 2ND ADDITION by Coffman Development. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 48-89, Rezoning from the Rural District to the R1- 13.5 District; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Country Glen 2nd Addition; Adoption of Resolution No. 90-94, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 48-89, and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. Location: East of Duck Lake Road, west of Claycross Way and Country Road (Ordinance No. 48-89- Rezoning; Resolution No. 90-94 - Authorizing Summary and Publication) J. CENTURY BANK BUILDING by KKE Architects, Inc. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 8-90-PUD-3-90, Rezoning from the C-Reg District to the PUD-3-90 C-Reg-Ser District and PUD District Review; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Century Bank Building; Adoption of Resolution No. 90-95, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 8-90- PUD-3-90, and Ordering Publication of Said Summary; Adoption of Resolution No. 90-96, Site Plan Review. Location: Southeast corner of Viking Drive West and Highway #169. (Ordinance No. 8-90-PUD-3-90- Rezoning and PUD District Review; Resolution No. 90-95 - Authorizing Summary and Publication; Resolution No. 90-96 - Site Plan Review) K. EDEN SQUARE (TOWER SQUARE BANK)by Robert Larsen Partnership, Inc. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 9-90-PUD-4-90, Rezoning within the C-Reg-Ser District and PUD District Review;Approval of Developer's Agreement for Tower Square Bank; Adoption of Resolution No. 90-97,Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 9-90-PUD-4-90, and Ordering Publication of Said Summary; Adoption of Resolution No. 90- 98, Site Plan Review. Location: Highway #169 and Prairie Center Drive (Ordinance No. 9-90-PUD-4-90 - Rezoning and PUP District Review; Resolution No. 90-97 - Authorizing Summary and Publication; Resolution No. 90-98 - Site Plan Review) L. Proclamation Proclaiming April 30. 1990 as Gene Schurman Day in Eden Prairie (Resolution No. 90-116) M. BLUFFS EAST 7TH ADDITION by Hustad Development. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 10-90-PUD-5-90, Rezoning from the Rural District to the RM-6.5 District and PUD District Review; Approval of Resolution No. 90-99, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 10-90-PUD-5-90,and Ordering Publication of Said Summary;Adoption of Resolution No. 90- 100, Site Plan Review. Location: Northwest corner of County Road 18 and Bluff Road. (Ordinance No. 10-90-PUD-5-90- Rezoning and PUD District Review, Resolution No. 90-99- Authorizing Summary and Publication; Resolution No. 90-100- Site Plan Review) N. McDONALDS by McDonald's Corporation. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 13-90-PUD-7-90, Rezoning within the C-Reg-Ser Zoning District and PUD District Review; Approval of Developer's Agreement for McDonalds; Adoption of Resolution No. 90-101, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 13-90-PUD-7-90, and Ordering Publication of Said Summary; Adoption of Resolution No. 90-102, Site Plan Review. Location: East of Highway #169, north of Prairie Center Drive. 1 r City Council Minutes 4 April 17, 1990 (Ordinance No. 13-90-PUD-7-90- Rezoning and PUD District; Resolution No. 90-101 - Authorizing Summary and Publication; Resolution No. 90-102 - Site Plan Review) O. BOULDER POINT TOWNHOMES by David Carlson Companies, Inc. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 14-90, Rezoning from the Rural District to the RM-6.5 District; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Boulder Point Townhomes; Adoption of Resolution No. 90-103, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 14-90,and Ordering Publication of Said Summary; Adoption of Resolution No. 90-104,Site Plan Review. Location: South and west of Twin Lakes Crossing, northwest of Staring Lake Parkway. (ordinance No. 14-90 - Rezoning; Resolution No. 90-103 - Authorizing Summary and Publication; Resolution No. 90- 104 - Site Plan Review) • NOTION Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to approve the Consent Calendar. Approved 5-0. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 1990 AMENDMENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 AND AMENDMENT TO TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT DISTRICTS 2, 3, 4, 5,6 AND 7 (Resolution No. 90-115) Jullie stated that notice for this public hearing was property published. The proposal is for an amendment to the Tax Increment Program for the Major Center Area. The City was able to complete the original construction projects that were identified several years ago for upgrading the road system in the Major Center Area at lower- than-expected cost, and the tax increments generated exceeded expectations. As a result the City was in a very positive cash flow situation. All of the bonded debt for the original program has been retired and $3.3 million in tax increment funds were on hand. If the Council chose to continue the program the City would be gaining an additional $6 million over the next four years, yielding a total of about $9.3 million in tax increments. State laws provide that the Council could choose to use this money for additional public works projects provided public hearings were held to accomplish the desired amendments. The total estimated cost of doing the improvements contained in the Notice of Hearing was about$12.5 million. The difference between the $12.5 and the $9.3 million in increments could be made up in the area of special assessments to the benefiting properties and/or additional City participation. Jullie said he would anticipate that as a project was considered and authorized, the City would go through a public hearing process for individual projects in order to levy any special assessments for improvements. Jullie further stated that if the Council chose not to go ahead with the program, it would mean that property taxes could be lowered by r-: /:.j..7 City Council Minutes 5 April 17, 1990 about 5% in 1991. That would drop to 1X in 1992 and less than 1/2% in 1993. The impact in 1991 for a$125,000 home would be about$100; for 1992, that would drop to only$20; and in 1993, $S. The impact would be minimal and a reasonable price to continue expanding and improving the road system in the community. It is recommended that the Council adopt the amendments. Pauly said there was a slight revision of Resolution No. 115. The primary change was that the draft in the packet recited that the program had been reviewed by the Planning Commission to comment whether the amended project complied generally with the comprehensive plan. The Planning Commission had not reviewed the amended program at this point, so the resolution deleted the reference to that review having been made and at Section 2.02, specifically provided that the program would be conditioned upon the submission of the program amendment to the Planning Commission and upon the Planning Commission's finding that the amendment conformed to the general plan of the development of the City as a whole. Pauly also spoke regarding the document prepared by the Dorsey firm, Exhibit A to the Resolution No. 90-115. Some corrections in Exhibit A had also been made by Mr. Frane in reference to PIN numbers and he has corrected those. All of Exhibit A and the various memoranda cited were given to all Council members. Mr. Jullie said that the Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce had also reviewed this proposal and adopted a resolution in support of the amendments. It recommended, however, that the Council appoint a committee to assist in reviewing the list of projects and the priorities that could be assigned to that listing. Harris asked if there would be another public hearing if the list of proposed projects changes. Pauly replied that would be the appropriate procedure. However, there were amendments being proposed to the Tax Increment Financing law and included in those are some restrictions on the uses of tax increment funds for various projects. Some of the projects that were eligible now may not be eligible under the laws being proposed. Dick Feerick, 7103 Interlachen Court, addressed the Council for the Chamber of Commerce. He stated that the Chamber took a very strong position in support of the amended Tax Increment District. The Chamber also saw the opportunity to work with the City in innovative uses for the funding including additional street systems that might contribute more to the downtown and the Prairie Center Drive area. It also looked at using public funding for park improvements, sewer and water, parking lots, or for amenities within f a park area. The Chamber would welcome the opportunity to work I). a City Council Minutes 6 April 17, 1990 with the City to maximize the benefit of this desirable source of funding. The Council discussed the procedure for appointing an advisory committee. Each council member is to nominate one member, plus two or three at-large. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION Harris moved that the public hearing be closed and that Resolution No. 90-115 be adopted amending the development program and tax increment financing plans. Seconded by Pidcock. Anderson said he was very much in favor of this form of financing for the City. Tenpas also said he believed this to be a good vehicle to keep tax dollars in Eden Prairie to go to Eden Prairie projects. Motion approved 5-0. MOTION Harris moved that the Council appoint a task force of seven members to make recommendations and consult with the City staff on implementation of the public improvements, with names submitted for appointment at the next Council meeting. Seconded by Pidcock. Approved 5-0. B. TREE ORDINANCE. 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 17-90, Amending City Code Chapter 11 entitled "Land Use Regulations (Zoning)" by adding an Environmental Preservation Regulations Section which will regulate tree removal, damage,or destruction in all districts, among other things. Jullie said notice of this public hearing was published in the April 4 issue of Eden Prairie News. Enger stated that this Ordinance had been developed in a three-year process. The policy was brought to the Developers Form in March 1988 and there was a period of time that the City worked with the Developer's Forum. Suggestions were made for changes in the policy and changes were made. One change was a reduction in the bonding requirement which was originally 250%, another was an increase in the threshold and a decrease in the tree multiplier from 60%to 75%, resulting in a decrease in the multiplier for determining tree replacement. At that time there was a 10% reduction in the number of trees that were estimated within the building pad area of a subdivision. Because of concerns and suggestions made by the development community that no credit was given in the policy to allow for cuatom building, a 10% reduction was given in that policy. The k I City Council Minutes 7 April 17, 1990 policy had been endorsed by 16 local developers individually and the by the Developer's Forum. As the Council had directed the policy to be brought to it in an Ordinance form, the staff had worked with representatives of the Developer's Forum review the Ordinance in its current form. Constructive criticism had been made on the Ordinance. Information had been assembled on the average amount of tree replacement, the average cost per lot, the impact that the tree policy has had, and what was expected from implementation of the Ordinance. In residential projects, there was an average cost for replacement of $623 per residential lot. For the commercial properties,there was approximately 184 caliper inches replacement per project. Developers suggested that a tree inventory be done and that construction limits be drawn. Any trees removed within the construction limits would not be subject to the tree policy, but trees within a road right-of-way would be subject to the policy or one 3- inch tree would be required for every lot platted, whichever was greater. In looking back on the history of 50 projects, the one 3- inch tree per lot would be a greater requirement. On the 41 residential projects where the City has administered the policy, 12,551 caliper inches of trees would be planted. Under the Developers Forum proposal of January, if every one of the single family subdivisions platted during the time the tree policy was being administered had a 3-inch tree planted, there would have been 5,334 caliper inches planted. Before the tree policy was utilized, there was close to a 50% tree loss in residential subdivisions. Now there was about a 26% tree loss. Tree replacement was a tool allowed to the development community as a substitute cases for different types of approaches to a project. For example, the City Code contemplated the use of the R-144 Single Family District as the district to be utilized when natural features are involved, such as steep slopes, woods, wetlands. Developers have chosen to use the R-144 District only once since it has been adopted- on the Timber Bluffs project. Smaller lots have been pursued, the R- 122, and most predominately the R1-13.5, the 1/3-acre lot size. In some cases there was a substantial amount of tree loss, but given the alternative of one-acre lots as a method of saving many more trees, the development community has chosen to enlist the tree policy as a tool for mitigation and to go forward with the smaller lots and higher tree replacement. The Planning Commission reviewed this proposed ordinance at a public meeting April 19, 1990 and recommended approval unanimously. The Park and Recreation and Natural Resources Commission met on this April 16, 1990 and recommended it unanimously. Members also indicated that if there were changes between the first and second reading, they wished to see the changed form of the Ordinance. 1 1 City Council Minutes 8 April 17, 1990 Pauly said that this Ordinance was in the form of an amendment to the Land Alteration portion of the Code. Land alteration included any grading, filling, removal of earth of more than 100 cubic yards,or any alteration of land more than one foot from the natural contour of the ground over a contiguous 200 square feet of ground, or any cutting, removal or destruction of 10%of trees on any land within a period of five years or any disruption of vegetation on an area which was equal to or greater than any parcel of land. This trigger for requirement of a Land Alteration Permit then triggered the need for a tree inventory and the tree replacement portion of the Code. Pauly also pointed out that the criteria on which the Council can base a decision as to whether or not to grant a permit for a land alteration had been expanded. In addition to the amendment to the Land Alteration portion of the Code, which was part of the Zoning Ordinances in Chapter 11, there was an amendment to the subdivision ordinances in Chapter 12 of the Code which incorporated those same criteria. Stuart Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources, introduced Lisa Burban, who presented her paper on the value of trees. She discussed the physical and ecological benefits, the aesthetic values, the economic and social benefits of trees. A copy of her paper was distributed to all Council members. Jim Ostenson of James Development Company spoke on behalf of the Eden Prairie Developer's Forum. He said it had met several times as its own developer's group as well as with the City staff. Six or seven areas in which they have reached agreement or proposed changes had been identified. Regarding the tree inventory, Mr. Ostenson said he thought this field work had done a lot to reduce the loss of trees and they supported the need for this measure. They have a question regarding the timing of the Land Alteration Permit. According to the proposed ordinance it would take a separate Council action for that to be approved. He would proposed that this permit be granted at the same time as the preliminary plat. The reason for this is that with the preliminary plat, will have been submitted a tree inventory and a grading plan and the tree loss could be calculated at that point. It would be best to know if the tree loss would be a problem at this point. The third concern was bonding which could work well for the developer and the City in getting trees replaced. The current bonding requirements were 150%of the cost of tree replacement. He proposed that it be reduced to 125% because that is what the rest of the bonds are on any other subdivision improvements. Once the new trees were planted, he proposed that the bond be reduced to 40% As it now stands, a 150% bond is placed and a developer will replace all the trees that died. At that point the developers have paid for the ):7 City Council Minutes 9 April 17, 1990 replacement trees 2-1/2 times--150%on bonds and 100% in replacement cost. Because it was difficult for developers to get bonds today, they were providing letters-of-credit or cash escrows which are taken out of the operating capital of a company. The 40% suggestion was based on discussions with nursery people who said that the average tree loss of nursery stock is 5-10%. Mr. Enger has indicated that the City's experience during the last two years was a higher rate of failure than and staff was open to further discussions. Whatever number is used, he suggested that the bond be reduced at the time of the replacement planting and that the bond be removed entirely one year later. This was how the proposed ordinance reads. Concerning "wilding" trees, if there were trees on a site that might be suitable for moving and leaving on the site, he suggests the landowner or developer be given credit for moving those trees. Since there was a risk in so doing, he proposed that the same 125% bond be required, and that it remain in place for a full year and not reduced at the time of planting. At the end of one year, any trees that are dead would be replaced with nursery stock. The bond could be removed at that time. In the existing Ordinance it's requested that replacement trees be put at entrance monuments,outlets, common areas or steep slopes. No mention is given to front yards. He proposed replacement trees also be allowed to go in front yards. Developers thought this greatly improved the streetscape of a neighborhood. He also said that there are certain situations where the tree policy became a hardship for a landowner. If a small project with a small number of lots has a lot of trees are taken down, it can be a financial burden. His proposal was that language be incorporated in the ordinance that would allow for leniency in certain hardship situations. It should be a percentage over the average. Measures that could be included would be moving roads, reducing lots, increasing lots sizes, etc. It's possible for a land owner to do all of those and still have a large amount of tree loss. In 28 projects this would have come into play in about four or five. Regarding commercial, industrial or multi-family property, landscaping requirement already exists for these projects. It was their opinion it would be desirable to have a blending of the tree replacement requirements and the landscaping requirements. This would not a factor very often as most industrial land is open land. But sometimes this would not be the case and the tree ordinance could become very difficult to work with both from a practical standpoint and a financial one. Developers ask further that everyone work together on saving trees. They asked that landowners or developers receive additional consideration when proposing cul-de-sacs, for instance, in order to save trees or when proposing steeper grades on short sections of roads, or using a differently-shaped lots,in order to save trees. He ,_i City Council Minutes 10 April 17, 1990 asked that everyone recommit themselves to greater flexibility in site planning. Enger commented that all parties agreed on the importance of the tree inventory. On Item 2, timing of the Land Alteration Permit, it was the staff's desire not to duplicate efforts, here so there was agreement on this point. On wilding trees, it was a change in the ordinance when the staff suggested that wilding trees not be allowed. Both the developers and the City have had very bad luck with moving wilding trees especially during the drought. Mr. Fox developed some criteria which made the wilding trees much more comparable to nursery stock. If those criteria were to be used, they would be a self-policing because it would be rare to find 100%of the trees in the wild that could be moved according to those criteria. Staff's suggestion was to limit this type of tree to 25% and if they died, they would be replaced with nursery stock. The final form of the ordinance did not differentiate between wilding trees and nursery stock. Enger continued with discussion of location of replacement trees. It was not the intention to preclude replacement trees from being allowed on individual lots. However, staff wanted first to emphasize areas other than individual lots, mostly because if the trees were planted in an entrance portion of a subdivision, they could be consolidated as an early part of the project and be maintained more easily. Quite often buffers were required as transitional land uses. As a part of slope or restoration area it made a lot of sense also. From the developers' perspective, they wanted the option of seeing the trees as part of the amenity of the lot and the City didm't disagree with that. On bonding, Enger stated that staff understood the concern of the development community. Staff much preferred the letter-of-credit, cashier's check, or cash escrow. It was much easier to get to the money if necessary to cause the planting or replacement of the trees. The difficulty with bonds was the same for each party. It was difficult for developers to get them because the bond would not be removed until all trees had survived one year. This put a bond company in liability possibly for several years until all trees survived. Due to the high risk associated with these bonds, very few companies provided them. The City also had trouble cashing in on the bond for non-performance because court action was usually needed to get the bonding company to pay the money. This was time-consuming and expensive for the City. As an alternative, the City tried to work with the bonding company and the contractor or developer, but held the bonds until there was performance on them. One alternative would be to eliminate performance bonds as a method to guarantee plant material; the letter-of-credit or cash escrow could • perhaps then be less than 150%. However, it would be difficult to eliminate performance bonds because some companies still prefer them because they cost less. Mr. Pauly said the City shouldn't City Council Minutes 11 April 17, 1990 differentiate between methods of surety, i.e., asking for a bigger performance bond. Enger continued that staff did not see much sense in reducing the 150% to 125% when the industry standard was 150X. Reducing the bond after planting made sense, but the experience of the City that the 5-10X suggested as normal for nursery stock was not what the City had seen in tree replacement. A number of projects had 50% loss, and even 100X. A concession would be to release the bond after the replacement trees had been planted. Enger discussed hardship cases. The developers' proposal was that the ordinance should allow leniency for certain hardship cases in which the developer had taken all measures to sensitively develop a site and yet a large amount of tree loss still would occur. Perhaps there should be a top cap. However, "taken all measures" should be clearly defined. This should include utilization of the R1-44 District in treed areas. Density transfers should be considered as well as variances on the City's part from setbacks,lot sizes, different architectural types, and special forestry practices. Lastly, he discussed eliminating or blending tree preservation for the commercial and industrial and multiple family projects. Before the adoption of the tree policy, the City was finding that on projects that had larger buildings, the amount of landscaping required by the City to screen the parking and loading areas didn't do anything to address the size of the building in terms of the buffering of it or providing scale. So the City adopted an addition to the landscape code which proportioned the amount and size of tree material to the height and mass of the building. The City has not yet had the situation where the landscaping and tree preservation had been onerous and where the site is too small for the amount of plant material required. The average amount of tree replacement required in these types of projects was 184 caliper inches per project. Peterson asked Enger if the first reading were approved, would some modifications be recommended prior to second reading. Enger stated that he would recommend the tree inventory, the timing and land alteration, the wilding trees,and location of replacement trees as modifications. Pidcock asked what the average cost of bonding was to the developer in each development. Enger replied that it is $26,000 for bonding. The average cost of the trees would be $17,600. Jim Ostenson responded to a couple of points. He said that it was difficult for a developer to receive performance bonds just on landscape material. Contractors can be tied to performance, and therefore they are the ones that can get the bonds. The developer has to get a letter-of-credit or cash escrow. He said that they would prefer a differential between bonds or letters-of-credit. Tenpas asked Pauly if this could or should be done. Pauly said he would !'J�,I City Council Minutes 12 April 17, 1990 find it difficult to determine what the basis of the difference should be. Peterson asked if the City could eliminate bonds. Pauly said he thought so. Harris asked if it wss possible to have alternatives. Pauly replied that at the current time, all forms of security including bonds, letters-of-credit, escrow arrangements, are all provided for so it's the choice of the developer. Tenpas asked for clarification on the 150%. Was that tied to the difficulty of collecting or from a historical perspective on what the losses were. Enger replied it was for both reasons. It may be three years until a decision that performance had not been done on the plant material. If there was a low estimate on the amount needed for the bond, and with three years of appreciation, the cost of the material with a 100% bond could not be recovered. Enger further clarified that if at the end of the year 30%of the trees had been replaced, the City would release 70%of the bond and would retain 30%. The City could release it entirely at that point. Pauly clarified that this Ordinance had had many revisions, and the current form with reference to the security said that the security would be maintained for one year after the date that the last replacement tree has been planted. Then upon a showing by the developer and such inspection as may be made by the City, that portion of the security may be released by the City equal to the estimated cost of the trees replaced and are alive and healthy at the end of such year. Any portion of the security not entitled to be released at the end of such year shall be maintained and secure the developer's obligation to remove and replant replacement trees which are not alive or unhealthy at the end of such year. Upon completion of the planting of those trees, then the entire security may be released. The current form of the ordinance did provide for release of the security after the one-year period and after the dead or missing trees had been replanted. Peterson asked if there was a condition that replanting/replacement be guaranteed nursery stock. Pauly replied that the trees to be replanted have to be certified nursery stock. This was only the "replanted" trees that were planted after "replacement" trees have died. Replacement trees can be either wild or nursery stock. Pauly said he thought it would be helpful to put in parenthesis or quotes "removed tree." A new healthy tree of the same size and species shall be planted in place of the "removed tree." A new healthy tree of the same size and species shall be planted in place of any replacement tree missing one year after such date, and be referred to as the "replanted tree." Tenpas said if the developer has guaranteed nursery trees, maybe some consideration should be given on the amount of the surety. Enger said that it was often difficult to collect on a nursery City Council Minutes 13 April 17, 1990 guarantee. That's why when the City has trees planted it requires the nursery to provide a performance bond. Peterson said that it seemed the only item subject to some debate is Mr. Ostenson's suggestion to reduce the bonding to 40%when in fact it's eliminated after the first year. For that reason he would stay with the 150%. Tenpas asked when the last time was that the City went through the Developer's Forum. Enger replied that it first spoke with it in March 1988. Recently he was instructed not to go to the Developer's Forum with the ordinance. The Developer's Forum had a subcommittee working on the Ordinance recently, however, he had responded to its concerns during that process. Peterson suggested that there be more discussion prior to second reading. Fnger emphasized that he recommended the 150% surety requirement. There were no further comments from the audience. MOTION Anderson moved that the public hearing be closed and adopted the first reading of Ordinance No. 17-90 which would add to the Environmental Preservation Regulations Section of the City Code and with the recommendations made by staff and by the City Attorney. The motion specifically included the 150%surety requirement. Harris seconded. Pauly noted that the material which the Council has had for consideration in this matter included Pages 1002 through 1002ii of the agenda materials as well as Minnesota's Community and Urban Forests Opportunities and Recommendations, a report to the Legislature by the Minnesota Shade Tree Advisory Committee, and a letter from Lisa L. Burban. Peterson expressed appreciation to Mr. Ostenson, staff and others who have brought this to fruition. Motion approved 5-0. C. ISSUANCE OF $2,740.000.00 IN REFUNDING BONDS FOR EDEN INVESTMENTS PARTNERSHIP. MOTION Pidcock moved continuation of the Refunding Bonds to May 1. Seconded by Tenpas. Approved 5-0. City Council Minutes 14 April 17, 1990 D. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Pidcock moved the payment of claims, seconded by Tenpas. Peterson requested clarification on Page 1003E, Item 59026, Northern States Power,asking if that was an unrecoverable City expense. Jullie replied that it was for burying some power lines. Peterson also requested clarification on Item No. 59072, the Stars Restaurant Expenses. Jullie replied that it was meeting expenses at Flagship for the Landfill Advisory Committee. Roll Call vote: Anderson, Harris, Pidcock, Tenpas, and Peterson all voting "AYE". VI. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. Parkway Apartments Project. Resolution No. 90-117 Jullie said that the present owner of the Parkway Apartment Project, which was the First Bank System, had asked to change the assumption agreement by which the First Bank System assumed ownership of that project and allowed the sale of the project to Equity Financial Group. The Bank was now asking the City's permission to change the buyer to Welsh Companies, Inc. The City Attorney's office had reviewed and approved the document. Adoption of this resolution was recommended to effect this change. MOTION It was moved by Anderson, seconded by Harris, that Resolution No. 90-117 be adopted. Approved 5-0. VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS. A. Human Rights & Services Commission - Report on Child Care Center Siting Criteria. Jullie introduced Peter Iverson and Bette Anderson from the Human Rights and Services Commission. Ms. Anderson said there was nothing wrong with the relative concentration of daycare centers up to this point. She stressed the importance of having daycare centers in convenient locations and having safe access. Mr. Iverson spoke to the need to reduce child care costs. They would like to look at employer-sponsored and corporate-sponsored child care centers, centers sponsored by consortiums, as well as City funds and church- sponsored programs. He stressed how this need touched the whole community, and they wanted support and encouragement from the Council. • City Council Minutes 15 April 17, 1990 MOTION Pidcock moved that the Human Rights & Services Commission continue to study the affordability of daycare and other issues that need to be addressed by that commission. Seconded by Harris. Approved 5-0. IX. AOINTMENTS X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS. BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Councilmemberg 1. Watering Restrictions Harris brought up the issue of alternate-day watering. Although the ban on watering had not been lifted from last year, she believed that some reinforcement of that ban was needed. She suggested something on the water bill, for example. Dietz suggested that this be discussed with Mr. Frane. 2. The MUSA Line Change. Harris said she received a communication relating to the acreage currently excluded from the MUSA and would like to have it brought up for reconsideration. MOTION Harris moved that the Council have a re-examination of the MUSA Line issue. Seconded by Pidcock. Enger said he had information on it. Council decided it was best that the Council receive the information in a packet. Mr. Feerick spoke to the issue and said that he appreciated working with the Council and staff on this project and thanked the Council for its consideration. Motion approved 5-0. 3. Address Changes on Cedar Ridge Road Pidcock said she received communication from a number of ,. residents on Cedar Ridge Road about their address numbers being changed. A lot of them did not like this. Jullie said some of the residents claimed there was confusion with the street numbering so emergency vehicles going in have trouble finding an address. The City thought that there was a consensus in the neighborhood that it should be changed but City Council Minutes 16 April 17, 1990 heard from others when the changes began to be implemented. He had asked the Inspections Director to hold a neighborhood meeting before anything was implemented. The best system for drivers of emergency vehicles was a sequence of numbers that they were accustomed to seeing. 4. Communication from Congressman Frenzel. Pidcock said she had received a letter from Bill Frenzel saying that he supported the City's request for $12 million demonstration money for Highway 212 and that he requested Congress to fund the project to facilitate the design and construction of remaining segments not yet completed by MnDOT. She said the City should know by October if the funds will be appropriated. 5. Neighborhood Concern. Pidcock had also received communication from residents of Williamsburg Court and Coachman's Lane that there were vehicles parked there all the time, making it impossible for emergency vehicles to get in. There was apparently one house that had all the cars. This house also had a boy with a BB gun that upset some of the neighbors. 6. Special Projects. On the item on special projects,Anderson said he realized the extra burden put on staff when extra projects are requested. He suggested hiring outside people for these special projects. He cited how other cities do this and he would like to have this budgeted for next year. The current Earth Day project is a good example. Harris asked if the City Manager had discretionary fund for this. Jullie said this could be allocated out of the reserve fund, but it is best to have a line item. Julie was instructed to keep this in mind for the next budget cycle. B. Report of City Manager 1. Liquor Store Building Program. Jullie reported on the options on the Municipal Liquor Store and at this point. He recommended that the Council direct staff to proceed with some bids on the Prairie Village Mall facility and also that staff be directed to renew the lease at Preserve Village Mall for three more years. He also said that the City should be looking for a site to own over in that area. Pidcock asked when the lease expired. Frane replied that the Preserve Village Mall store expired at the end of May and the Prairie Village Mall lease expires the first of September. Pidcock suggested getting a study committee to see if the City should stay in the liquor business. r City Council Minutes 17 April 17, 1990 There was then discussion on whether or not this matter should go to a referendum. Frane said that the Council could choose to get out of the liquor business if it wanted to without a referendum. In fact, the City must get out of the liquor business if a license is given to a private individual. Anderson said before anything was changed, it was his opinion that a referendum should be held on the subject. Tenpaa suggested moving out of The Preserve location because of the competition from MGM Liquors. Harris said she agreed. Discussion was held on the possibility of negotiating a shorter lease. Frane suggested that the City could get a one-year lease. Pauly suggested going to a lease with 90 or 120 day notice. The length of time the lease would run could be indefinite. Tenpas suggested a month-to-month lease because it would give the City more flexibility in considering options. Tenpas said it would be good to get the issue resolved by January for budgeting purposes. He also suggested that the Council consider if it wished to remain in the liquor business and have a study session on this subject or put it on the Agenda as a separate item. MOTION Anderson moved that Mr. Frane be directed to negotiate a lease on the Preserve location for not longer than a year,or the shortest possible time. Seconded by Pidcock. Approved 5-0. C. Report of City Attorney D. Report of Director of Planning E. Report of Director of Parks.Recreation and Natural Resources 1. Minnesota Department of Health Letter Regarding Riverview Spring. MOTION Harris moved that this spring be sealed. Seconded by Tenpas. Anderson objected on the grounds that it was a historic landmark. Pidcock asked why Lambert was suggesting improvement of the Miller spring and not this one. Lambert said the City owned about a half-tacre of land on Miller Spring. The Riverview spring was different in that it was in an 18-inch pipe • in a ditch that was below the road level; fluctuated up into the nine parts per million nitrate level and, with runoff, it was subject to other contaminants; and the City did not own any land by the spring. When the State sent a letter like the one the city has received now, there was not a lot of choice about keeping it n) ;OC City Council Minutes 18 April 17, 1990 open. A sign telling people not to drink the water would not stay in place, judging from past experience. The City was liable right now. Pidcock asked if it were possible to get a strip of land from someone around there and develop it. Lambert said this is a possibility but it has to be made so it is not accessible for drinking water. Anderson said he would like this brought before the Historical Commission before it was shut down. Tenpas identified the two separate issues: One of the drinking water and one of the historical site. Lambert suggested that staff come back in a couple of weeks with some design alternatives along with costs. Harris withdrew her motion and staff was requested to come back with proposals. F. Report of Director of Public Works 4. Peterson requested that Item 4 be handled first, Discussion of Alternatives -Graffiti Bridge. Bob McCluskey spoke for the Historical Cultural Commission. He said it had asked for a deferment of the decision until the first Council meeting in May, because there were a couple of alternatives that members would like to be considered. MOTION Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock, to defer decision on alternatives for Graffiti Bridge until May. Peterson asked Dietz if this decision would hold up progress on Valley View Road. Dietz said there would be no problem. Dietz added that he has spoken with Hennepin County and it was "adamantly opposed" to having anything that would interfere with light rail transit sometime in the future. Motion approved 5-0. 1. Award Contract for 1990-91 Materials Bid (Maintenance Materials and Water Treatment Chemicals). I.E. 52-191 (Resolution No. 90- 111) Dietz pointed out two things on the bids for various chemicals for the coming year. On the Class 5 aggregate, the City received a bid that met specification from Midwest Asphalt but it was for recycled asphalt material. This material was to be used for r JcT o City Council Minutes 19 April 17, 1990 resurfacing gravel roads and the expectation was for virgin material, not recycled material. In the interest of using what is needed for the project, he recommended awarding the contract to the J. L. Shiely Company. The price difference is 57 cents a ton. Dietz said the recycled asphalt met the particle gradation size and is useful in some places, but it is not good for gravel roads. The ferric sulfate bid from the low bidder had a contingency. Its low bid was $211.30 a ton. The second bid was $213.73 a ton, but the low bidder had a contingency of adding $7.50 for a pallet charge per ton. Dietz recommended the various contracts as shown on Resolution No. 90-111 be approved. MOTION Pidcock moved Resolution No. 90-111. Anderson seconded. Motion approved 5-0 2. Award Contact for 1990 Bituminous Seal Coating. I. C. 52-192 (Resolution No. 90-112) Dietz said the low bid on this project was from Asphalt Surface Technologies Corporation of St. Cloud. Its bid was $187,002.92. This company was recommended by other communities and he recommends them. MOTION Pidcock moved Resolution No. 90-112. Anderson seconded. Motion approved 5-0. 3. Award Contract for 1990 Street Striving. I. C. 62-193 (Resolution No. 90-113) The bid was expected to be over $15,000 and that is why it was bid. He recommended that the award be given to AAA Striping Service in the amount of$14,458.80. MOTION Pidcock Moved Resolution No. 90-113. Seconded by Anderson. Motion Approved 5-0. 5. I-494 Corridor Study Dietz said the City was a party to an agreement with several, Hennepin County,and State agencies, to do the Environmental Impact Statement for the I-494 improvements. One of the things done early in the study, in the scoping part, was to determine that light-rail transit in a circumferential configuration following 1 City Council Minutes 20 April 17, 1990 ir I-494 was not viable. It would not take enough traffic off of I- 494 to be cost effective. The project management organization of the I-494 study group determined not to study LRT in the EIS process. As a result, the County Board,acting as the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority, had taken the step to recommend that Hennepin County pull out of the EIS agreement and remove its financial support for that process. The City had been requested by members of the PMO to try to get some political support from the County Board members and ask them to stay in the EIS process. Tenpas asked about the costs of this action. Dietz said Hennepin County's portion was over$100,000,the City's was about$45,000. Tenpas asked how much more it would cost to include light rail study as part of the EIS. Dietz replied around $120,000. Dietz requested that the Council contact the County Commissioners and try to get support for the EIS. MOTION Pidcock moved that the Council send a resolution to the County Board supporting Dietz's position. Seconded by Tenpas. Motion approved 5-0. XI. ADJOURNMENT l_ MOTION Pidcock motioned to adjourn at 10:41 p.m. Seconded by Anderson. Motion approved 5-0. /U50 • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CLERK'S LICENSEE APPLICATION LIST May 1, 1990 CONTRACTOR (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM.) GAS FITTER A B J Enterprises, Inc. Blizzard Air, Inc. • Dolphin Pool & Patio Metro Air Rusty Lawrence Homes, Inc. Metro Gas Installers, Inc. R. J. Ryan Construction, Inc. O'Brien Sheet Metal, Inc. Space Control Pioer Plumbing, Inc. Earl Weikle & Sons, Inc. Precise Heating & Air Conditioning Preferred Mechanical Services, Inc. Dale Sorensen Company CONTRACTOR ( 1 & 2 FAMILY) HEATING & VENTILATING Rob Alderman Construction Buzzell Masonry, Inc. Jim Koopman Heating & Air Conditioning Colson Construction, Inc. Metro Air Corrigan Custom Homes Precise Heating & Air Conditioning L. Cramer Company, Inc. Preferred Mechanical Services, Inc. Eiden Construction, Inc. Exterior Design Studio Herbert & Associates, Inc. PLUMBING Richard Marple Builders, Inc. Metro Prairie Construction Co. Affordable Plumbing C. J. Miller Construction Central Plumbing George Monson Development Co. Denny's Plumbing T. P. Shillock Construction Galazy Mechanical Contractors, Inc. T. J. Miller Plumbing PEDDLER Michael Hetzler (coupon books) REFUSE HAULER Jay Mc Namara (coupon books) Stephen Fabian (seafood at PDQ) Westonka Sanitation Terrance Godfrey (seafood at PDQ) These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the licensed activity. Pat Solie Licensing /V✓I MEMORANDUM II To: Mayor and Members of City Council Through: Carl Jullie, City Manager From: Roger A. Pauly, City Attorney Subject: Tree Ordinance Date: April 26, 1990 The following revisions have been made to the above- referenced ordinance subsequent to the first reading: 1. At page 2, Subd. 2. A. the words "in inches" has been added in the first line. 2. At page 7, (b) 5. has been added. 3. At page 8, there has been added to the caption in sub- section (e) the word "Missing" 4 A new sub-section (f) has been added. This section sets out standards for the use of wild trees as replacement trees. Trees planted in place of missing, dead or unhealthy replacement trees at the end of one year must consist of certified nursery stock. 4. At page 9, sub-section (g) has been revised to provide for the recovery of attorneys' fees and costs incurred in enforcing the terms of the Tree Replacement Agreement and pro- viding security for payment of those costs. It also has been revised to make it clear that the portion of the security relating to trees which have survived for one year shall be returned at the rate of 150% of the estimated cost of •the replacement trees. 5. At page 10, a new sub-section (h) has been added. The planning department received a call from a citizen expressing concern that this provision would make it virtually impossible to harvest trees from his tree farm which he planted in the 1960's. This appears to be the only such situation in the City. New sub- section (h) would exempt the owner from the requirement of tree replacement in the case of harvesting the trees. The revised ordinance has been marked to indicate where changes have occurred. • /o ,d ORDINANCE NO. 17-90 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 11.55 BY AMENDING THE TITLE THEREOF AND SUBDS. 1, 2, 3 AND 5 THEREOF RELATING TO LAND ALTERATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION REGULATIONS; AND AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 12.04, SUBD. 5. C. RELATING TO APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISIONS; AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTIONS 11.99 and 12.99, WHICH AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS: THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. City Code Section 11.55, Subd. 1. is amended by amending the title thereof and amending Subd. 1 to read as follows: • "SEC. 11.55. MINING OPERATION, LAND ALTERATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION REGULATIONS. Subd. 1. Declaration of Policy and Purpose. A. Commercial mining and land alterations are now being and for some time have been conducted in certain places in the City. Such acts are inherently accompanied by noise and dust, often create hazardous conditions and result in lasting disfigurement of the places where they are carried on and thus tend to inter- { fere with the existing land uses in nearby areas, to discourage further permanent development of the surrounding properties, to impair adequate planning or municipal development, and to dimi- nish the public health, safety and general welfare. It is, therefore, desirable to regulate both existing operations and any further extension of such mining operations and land alterations in the City. B. It is hereby found that tree removal, damage, and destruction are now, and for some time have been, occurring in certain areas within the City. Such acts tend to endanger the natural character of the land from which the trees have been removed and surrounding lands, and to diminish and impair the public health, safety, and general welfare. The Council desires to protect the integrity of the natural environment and finds that trees do so by providing for better air quality, scenic beauty, protection against wind and water erosion, and natural insulation for energy preservation. Further, the Council finds that trees protect privacy and provide enhancement of property values. It is therefore the further purpose of this Section to provide regulations relating to the cutting, removal or killing of trees, with the consequent damage and destruction of the wooded and forested areas of the the City, to promote the orderly development of such areas and thereby minimize public and private losses; to insure maintenance of the natural vegetation and 1 topography; to encourage protection and preservation of the natural environment and beauty of the City; to encourage a resourceful and prudent approach to urban development of wooded areas which provides for minimal tree loss and mitigation of tree removal resulting from development; to provide an objective method to evaluate a development's impact on trees and wooded areas and identify whether and how the impact may be reduced; to provide incentive for creative land use and good site design which preserves trees while allowing development in wooded areas with mitigation of tree removal and destruction; and to provide for enforcement and administration thereby promoting and pro- tecting the public health, safety and welfare." Section 2. City Code Section 11.55, Subd. 2. is amended to read as follows: "Subd. 2. Definitions. The following terms, as used in this Section, shall have the meanings stated: A. "Caliper Inches" - The length, in inch., of a straight line measured through the trunk of a tree 12 inches above the ground. B. "Canopy of a Tree" - The horizontal extension of a tree's branches in all directions from its trunk. C. "Drip Line of a Tree" - An imaginary vertical line which extends from the outermost branches of a tree's canopy to the ground. D. "Developer" - The owner of the land or person who is the applicant for alteration of the land. E. "Diameter" - Wherever this term is used in reference to the measurement of a tree it shall mean a tree's trunk as measured 4.5 feet above the ground. F. "impounded Waters" - Any water kept on public or private property within the City in such a manner that more than 500 gallons of water are above the natural surface of the surrounding ground. The word "water" or "waters" as used in the preceding sentence shall be deemed to include any and all liquid substances. G. "Land" or "Parcel of Land" shall mean and include an entire lot as defined in Section 11.02 of the Code on or within the boundaries of which land alteration has occurred, or is to occur. H. "Land Alteration" - Any excavating, grading, clearing, filling or other earth change which may result in the movement of more than 100 cubic yards of earth, or any alteration of land of 2 Io3q more than one foot from the natural contour of the ground on any contiguous 200 square feet of ground, any cutting, removal or killing of more than 10% of the significant trees on any land within a period of five years, or any destruction or disruption of vegetation covering an area equal to or greater than 10% of any parcel of land, or any other significant change in the natural character of the land. I. "Mining Operations" - Any artificial excavation of the earth within the limits of the City operated for the commercial exploitation of earthly deposits removed therefrom and creating a depression or depressions exceeding in any one place 200 square feet of surface area, the bottom or lowest point of which shall be 2 feet or more below or lower than the level of the adjoining unexcavated land. • J. "Root Zone of a Tree" - The area under a tree which is at and within the drip line of a tree's canopy. K. "Significant Tree" - Any deciduous hardwood tree (except Elm, Willow, Boxelder, and Aspen) measuring 12 inches in diameter or greater, or a coniferous tree measuring 8 inches in diameter or greater. L. "Tree Trunk" - The stem portion of a tree from the ground to the first branch thereof. Any term used in this Section and not defined in this Section shall have the meaning as otherwise defined in the Code." Section 3. City Code Section 11.55, Subd. 3 is amended to read as follows: "Subd. 3. Permit Required. It is unlawful for any person to use land for, or to engage directly or indirectly in, land alteration or mining operations unless such person shall first have applied to and obtained from the Council, in the manner hereinafter provided, a permit authorizing the same, provided, however, that no permit shall be required by any person making any excavation in conjunction with a building (i) for which there has been issued an appropriate building permit, and (ii) which is to be constructed (a) upon land for which a permit for land alteration under this Section has previously been issued, and (b) in accordance with such permit." Section 4. City Code Section 11.55, Subd. 5 is amended to read as follows: "Subd. 5. Application For Land Alteration Permit, Fees, Council Action, Bond A. Form of Application. Application for a permit for land alteration shall be made in writing to the Council. The applica- 3 tion shall set forth the location and plan for the proposed land IIalteration. The application shall also include: 1. The name and address of the person applying for the permit. 2. The name and address of the owner of the land subject to the land alteration. 3. The estimated period of time within which the land alteration will be conducted. 4. A topographic map of the land on which the proposed land alteration is to occur having a scale of one inch equals 50 feet and showing ground elevation contours at 2 foot intervals. The map shall show: (a) The land as it exists prior to the proposed land alteration and a minimum of 100 feet of land abutting the land. (b) The proposed ground elevation contours at 2 foot intervals of the land when the land alteration is completed. (c) A regrading, drainage, and planting plan, if appropriate for the land. (d) The location and size of building pads. 5. A statement relating to the proposed use of the land including the type of building or structure situated thereon or contemplated to be built thereon. 6. A tree inventory certified by a registered land surveyor, landscape architect or forester depicting: (a) The size, species, condition, and location on the land of all significant trees. On large wooded sites, forest mensuration methods may be used to determine the total diameter inches of trees outside the area of the proposed land alteration. (b) Significant trees which will be lost due to the proposed land alteration. Significant trees shall be considered lost as a result of: (i) grade change or land alteration, whether temporary or permanent, of greater than one (1) foot measured vertically, affecting 60% (as measured on a horizontal plane) or more of the tree's root zone; (ii) utility construction (i.e. sewer, water, storm sewer, gas, electric, telephone and cable TV) resulting in the cutting of 60% or more of the tree's roots within the root zone; (iii) mechanical injury to the trunk C 4 IJ �o J of a significant tree causing loss of more than 40% of the bark; ur, (iv) compaction to a depth of 6 inches or more of 60% or more of the surface of the soil within a significant tree's root zone. (c) The number, type and size of trees required to be replaced pursuant to this Section. (d) The location of the replacement trees. B. Permit Fees for Land Alterations. A fee in an amount determined by the Council and fixed by resolution must be paid at the time of making the application. In the event the application for a permit is denied, the fee shall be returned to the appli- cant. C. Council Action on a Land Alteration Permit Application. Within a reasonable time after receipt of an application that • conforms with the requirements of this Subdivision and payment of the application fee, the Council shall approve or deny issuance of a permit. The Council may approve the permit subject to con- ditions stated on the face of the permit, and in all cases, the time period within which the land alterations are to be completed shall be stated on the face of the permit. Approval, denial, or approval subject to conditions of a permit shall 'be based upon the following factors: 1. Whether, and the extent to which, the land alterations may create any safety risks to surrounding persons or property or exacerbate any existing risk. 2. Whether, and the extent to which, the land alterations may cause any harm to the environment including, but not limited to, noise, dust, erosion, undue destruction of vegetation, and accumulation of waste materials and pollutants. 3. Whether the physical characteristics of the land, including but not limited to topography, vegetation, suscep- tibility to erosion or siltation, susceptibility to flooding, water storage or retention, are such that the land is not suitable for alteration or the use contemplated. 4. Whether the land alteration or proposed use is likely to cause substantial environmental damage. 5. Whether the land alteration or the proposed use will be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public. 6. Whether adequate plans have been made for restoring the land upon completion of the land alteration. 5 1(2'1 7. Whether there is a substantial likelihood that the 11 applicant will be able to comply with the rules and regulations of Subd. 7 of this Section. 8. Whether the land proposed for the land alteration is zoned for the use to which the land shall be put after the land alteration is completed. 9. Approval or the issuance of a permit for land alteration shall be further subject to and conditioned upon compliance by the Developer with the following: (a) Developer Required to Replace Lost Trees. A Developer shall replace significant live trees lost or reasonably anticipated to be lost as a result of grading, building upon, or any other land alteration of, the land immediately or in the future, by the Developer, his agent, successor in interest, or any other person to whom or by whom all or any part of the land may be sold, graded, built upon, or altered by planting that number of trees ("replacement trees") determined in accordance with the following formula: A = Total Diameter Inches of Significant Trees Lost as a Result of the Land Alteration B = Total Diameter Inches of Significant Trees Situated on the Land. C = Tree Replacement Constant (1.33) D = Replacement Trees (Number of Caliper Inches) ( (A/B) x C ) x A = D EXAMPLE A = 337 B = 943 C = 1.33 D = 160 • ( (337/943) x 1.33 ) x 337 = 160 The trees required to be replaced pursuant to this Section --,------ shall be in addition to any other trees required to be planted pursuant to any other provision of the Code. (b) Location of Replacement Trees. Replacement trees shall be planted in one or more of the following areas on the land: , 1. Restoration areas including steep slopes. 6 /032 2. Outlots or common areas. lir3. Buffer zones between different land uses and/or activities. 4. Project entrance areas. 5. Any other part of the land except any thereof f dedicated or conveyed to the City, unless the City consents I thereto. t (c) Sizes and Types of Replacement Trees. Replacement trees must be no less than the following sizes: 1. Deciduous Trees - No less than three caliper inches. 2. Coniferous Trees - No less than 7' high. On steep slopes (i.e. greater than 3:1) deciduous trees may be 2i caliper inches and coniferous trees may be 6 feet in height. Replacement trees shall be of a species similar to the trees which are lost or removed and shall include those species shown on the following table: Deciduous Trees Norway Maple - Acer platanoides cultivars - 'Cleveland' Red Maple - Acer rubrum cultivars - 'Northwood', 'Firedance' Silver Queen Maple (seedless) - Acer saccharinum 'Silver Queen' Sugar Maple - Acer saccharum cultivars - 'Green Mountain' River Birch - Betula nigra Hackberry - Celtis occidentalis Green Ash - Fraximus pennsylvanica cultivars - 'Kindred', 'Newport' , 'Bergeson', 'Marshall's Seedless' , 'Patmore', 'Summit' Ginkgo - Ginkgo biloba (male only) Honeylocust - Glenditsia tricanthos inermis Kentucky Coffeetree - Gymnocladus dioicus Ironwood - Ostrya virginiana Robusta Poplar - Poplus x Robusta Siouxland Cottonwood - Poplus detoides x Siouxland White Oak - Quercus alba Swamp White Oak - Quercus bicolor Pin Oak - Quereus palustris Northern Red Oak - Quercus rubra ( American Linden - Tilia americana { 7 105q Littleleaf Linden - Tilia cordata111 cultivars - 'Glenleven', 'Greenspire' Redmond Linden - Tilia americana 'Redmond' Coniferous Trees Balsam Fir - Abies balsamea White Fir - Abies concolor European Larch - Larix decidua Black Hills Spruce - Picea glauca 'Densata' Austrian Pine - Pinus nigra Ponderosa Pine - Pinus ponderosa Norway Pine - Pinus resinosa Scotch Pine - Pinus sylvestris White Pine - Pinus strohus . Douglas Fir - Pseudotsuga menziesii Canadian Hemlock - Tsuga canadensis Colorado Spruce - Picea pungens (d) Time to Perform. Replacement trees shall be planted not less than 18 months from the date of issuance of the permit. (e) Missin , Dead or Unhealthy Trees. Any replacement tree which is not alive or healthy one (1) year after the date that the last replacement tree has been planted shall be removed and a new healthy tree of the same size and species shall be planted in place of the removed tree. A new healthy tree of the same size and species shall be planted in place of any replace- ment tree missing one (1) year after such date. Planting shall occur not later than the first fall or spring following such year. ! - (f) Sources of Trees. Replacement trees shall consist of "certified nursery stock" as defined by Minnesota Statutes ! §18.46 or other trees ("wilding trees") so long as such wilding trees comply with the following standards. A wilding tree measured in caliper inches shall not exceed the maximum height as { shown in the table below: Caliper Inches Maximum Height (feet) ' 2 18 2 } 18 3 20 3 )! 20 4 24 5 28 The lowest branch of a wilding tree shall not be at a height above the surface of the ground more than one-half of the total i 8 OW height of the tree. (Example: a 16 foot tree must have a branch within 8 feet of the surface of the surrounding ground. Trees planted in place of missing, dead, or unhealthy_ replacement trees shall consist only of "certified nursery stock" as defined by Minnesota Statutes, S18.46. (q) Agreement to Replace Trees-Security. A Developer, prior to the approval of, or issuance of a permit for, any land alteration in connection with which trees are required to be replaced by the provisions of this Section (i) shall enter into such written agreement or agreements with theCity in such form and substance as shall be approved by the City Manager whereby the Developer shall undertake to comply with the provisions and conditions imposed by this Section and in connection with any such approval or issuance of a permit and shall further provide that the Developer shall indemnify the City against any loss, cost or expense, including an amount as and for reasonable attor- neys' fees incurred in enforcing the terms of such agreement or agreements and (ii) shall provide security for the performance of its obligations pursuant to such agreement or agreements. The security may consist of a bond, letter of credit, cash, or escrow deposit, all in such form and substance as shall be approved by the City Manager. ( The amount of security shall be 150% of the estimated cost to furnish and plant the replacement trees ("estimated cost"). The estimated cost shall be at least as much as the reasonable amount charged by nurseries for the furnishing and planting of the replacement trees. The estimated cost shall be subject to approval by the City. In the event the estimated cost submitted by the Developer to the City is not approved by the City the City shall have the right in its sole discretion to determine the estimated cost. The security shall be maintained at least for one (1) year . after the date that the last replacement tree has been planted. Upon a showing by the Developer and such inspection as may be made by the City, that portion of the security may be released by the City equal to 150% of the estimated cost of the replacement trees which are alive and healthy at the end of such year: Any portion of the security not entitled to be released at the end of such year shall be maintained and shall secure the Developer's obligation to remove and replant replacement trees which are not alive or are unhealthy at the end of such year and to replant_ missing trees_ Upon completion of the replanting of such trees the entire security may be released. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no portion of the security shall be released while there is unsatisfied Developer's obliga- tions to indemnify the City for any expenses incurred in T 9 tu4 enforcing the terms of the agreement provided for in this subsec-, tion (g). (h) The provisions of this Subd. 5. C. 9. shall not apply to the cutting of trees planted and grown by the owner or S owner's predecessor on real estate which on April 17, 1990 was classified as Class 2b property according to Minnesota Statutes . 1989 Supplement, Section 273.13, Subd. 23(b) because it was as of such date real estate, rural in character, and used exclusively for growing trees for timber, lumber, and wood and wood products as described in clause (1) of said Subd. 23(b). D. Duty to Obtain Bond or Letter of Credit Prior to Issuance of Land Alteration Permit. The Council may make its approval of the issuance of a land alteration permit contingent upon applicant posting a bond or letter of credit in addition to the security for replacement trees of not less than $25,000.00 in such form and amount as the Council shall determine within ten (10) days of said approval and prior to commencement of any land 1 alteration." Section 5. City Code Section 12.04, Subd. 5. C. is amended to read as follows: "C. No plan will be approved for a subdivision - (i) which covers an area subject to soil erosion or periodic flooding, or which has poor drainage, unless the subdivider agrees to make improvements which will, in the opinion of the City Engineer, make the area safe for occupancy, and provide ade- quate street and lot drainage, (ii) unless there has been compliance with Section 11.55 of the Code, or (iii) if the Council makes any of the following findings: (1) That the proposed subdivision is in conflict with applicable general and specific plans, including but not limited to the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan and zoning regulations. (2) That the design or improvement of the pro- posed subdivision is in conflict with applicable development plans. (3) That the physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, water storage, and retention, are such that the site is not suitable for the type of development or use contemplated. (4) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. (5) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmen- tal damage. 10 (6) That the design of the subdivision or the 1111 type of improvements will be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the public. (7) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements on record or to easements established by judgment of a court." Section 6. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Sections 11.99 and 12.99 are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated ver- batim herein. Section 7. 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 , 1990, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the day of , 1990. ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1990. 11 10YJ,��/Iaa CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 90-128 RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING MAY 12, 1990 AS ARBOR DAY • WHEREAS, in 1872 J. Sterling Morton proposed to the Nebraska Board of Agriculture that a special day be set aside for the plant- ing of trees, and WHEREAS, this holiday, called Arbor Day, was first observed with the planting of more than a million trees in Nebraska, and WHEREAS, Arbor Day is now observed throughout the nation and the world, and • WHEREAS, trees can reduce the erosion of our precious topsoil by wind and water, cut heating and cooling costs, moderate the temperature, clean the air, produce oxygen and provide habitat for wildlife, and WHEREAS, trees are a renewable resource giving us paper, wood for our homes, fuel for our fires and countless other wood pro- .ducts, and WHEREAS, trees in our city increase property values, enhance the economic vitality of business areas, and beautify our commu- nity, and WHEREAS, trees, whenever they are planted, are a source of joy and spiritual renewal, and WHEREAS, Eden Prairie has been recognized as a Tree City USA by the National Arbor Day Foundation and desires to continue its tree planting ways, NOW, THEREFORE, I, Gary D. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Eden Prairie, do hereby proclaim May 12, 1990 as ARBOR DAY in the City of Eden Prairie, and I urge all citizens to support efforts to protect our trees and woodlands and to support our city's urban forestry program, and FURTHER, I urge all citizens to plant trees to gladden the hearts and promote the well-being of present and future gener- ations. ADOPTED, this 1st day of May 1990. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, Clerk SEAL iJ�� MEMORANDUM 41 TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Carl Jullie, City pager FROM: Stuart A. Fox,( Manager of Parks and Natural • Resources DATE: April 25, 1990 SUBJECT: Bid Summary for Two Rotary Mowers In March the staff advertised and received two bids for the purchase of two 72" rotary mowers. These'bids were brought to the City Council, and because of some unknowns with a piece of equipment, which the City was not able to review, the staff recommended the bids be rejected and the mowers be rebid. The purchase of these two mowers was budgeted in the 1990 park maintenance budget under capital improvements. After the bids were rejected by the Council on April 3rd, the staff readvertised for the mowers with the anticipation that the mower bid, by MacQueen Equipment, would be available for a field demonstration. This would enable us to evaluate whether the mower met our needs and bid specifications. The same bid specifications were used for this rebidding process and the bid summary is as follows: MTI Distributing 72" mower with accessories $14,366 mower without accessories $ 9,862 trade-in allowance $ 7,900 Total bid for two mowers $16,328 This is the only bid that the City received for this mowing equip- ment. The staff gave MacQueen Equipment the opportunity to rebid on this equipment; however, we did not receive a bid from them. RECOMMENDATION: The staff would recommend the City Council approve the bid from MTI Distributing for two rotary mowers with a total bid of $16,328. SAF:mdd 646 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural ResourcesFROM: Barbara Penning Cross, Landscape Architect DATE: April 23, 1990 SUBJECT: Contract Award for 1990 Tennis Court Improvements The parks, recreation and natural resources staff has solicited bids for 1990 tennis court improvements. Included in the project is the construction of tennis courts at Willow Park, Carmel Park, and Red Rock Lake Park and resurfacing of tennis courts at Forest Hills School/Park, Staring Lake Park and Hidden Ponds Park. Plans and specifications were completed, advertised and bids were publicly opened. Four bids were received ranging in price from $66,139 to $86,963. A detailed breakdown is as follows: Finley Bros. Enterprise $66,139.00 Midwest Asphalt 68,139.25 GMH Asphalt Corporation 71,580.00 Barber Construction 86,963.00 Staff recommends awarding the contract to Finley Bros Enterprise in the amount of $66,139. Money for the construction projects will come from cash park fees. Money for the resurfacing projects will come out of the 1990 budget. • BPC:mdd award/9 • 046 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 90-122 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF EDEN PRAIRIE CENTER 7TH ADDITION WHEREAS, the plat of EDEN PRAIRIE CENTER 7TH 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 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: A. Plat approval request for EDEN PRAIRIE CENTER 7TH ADDITION is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated APRIL 26, 1990. B. 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. C. 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 City Council on MAY 1, 1990. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk /:s1 / CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager Alan D. Gray, City Engineer FRDM: Jeffrey Johnson, Engineering Technician 1_ 1 c2 DATE: April 26, 1990 SUBJECT: Eden Prairie Center 7th Addition PROPOSAL: The Developers, Eden Square Shopping Center Partnership, have requested City Council approval of the final plat of Eden Prairie Center 7th Addition. Located in the Northeast Quadrant of Prairie Center Drive and Trunk Highway 169, the plat contains 11.72 acres to be divided into three parcels. Lot 1 is the proposed site for a McDonalds Restaurant, Lot 2 is the existing site of Eden Square Shopping Center, Lot 3 is the proposed site for Tower Square Bank. HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council May 2, 1989 per Resolution No. B9-84. The second reading of Ordinance No. 5-89-PUD-3-89, Zoning Code Amendment within the Regional Service Commercial District was finally read and approved at the City Council meeting held August 1, 1989. A separate Developer's Agreement exists for each of the three parcels and land uses: McDonalds, Tower Square Bank, and Eden Square Shopping Center. VARIANCES: All variance requests must be processed through the Board of p{�peals. UTILITIES AND STREETS: All municipal utilities and walkways will be installed throughout the plat in conformance with City Standards and the require- ments of the Developer's Agreement. All roadways necessary to service this property are currently in place. PARK DEDICATION: The requirements for park dedication are covered in the • Developer's Agreement. BONDING: Bonding must conform to the City Code and the Developer's Agreement. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Eden Prairie Center 7th Addition subject to the requirements of this report, the Developer's Agreement and the following: 1. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $25D.OD. cc: Eden Square Shopping Center Partnership Westwood Planning and Engineering CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 90-123 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF RED ROCK VIEW WHEREAS, the plat of REO ROCK VIEW 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 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: A. Plat approval request for REO ROCK VIEW is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated APRIL 26, 1990. 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 subdividers of the above named plat. 0. 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 City Council on MAY 1, 1990. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John 0. Frane, Clerk Ogg ( CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager Alan D. Gray, City Engineer //77�JJ� FROM: Jeffrey Johnson, Engineering Technician t v/ltl/— DATE: April 26, 1990 SUBJECT: Red Rock View PROPOSAL: The Developer, Mark Olson, has requested City Council approval of the final plat of Red Rock View Addition. A residential subdivision located in the Northwest Quadrant of Meadowvale Road and Summit Drive, the plat contains 7.5 acres to be divided into 9 single family lots. HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council May 2, 1989 per Resolution No. 89-85. This property was zoned R1-22 in I969. t, The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report is scheduled • for execution May I, 1990. VARIANCES: A variance from City Code 12.20 Subd. 2.A waiving the six-month maximum time elapse between the approval date from the preliminary plat and filing of the final plat will be necessary. All other variance requests must be processed through the Board of Appeals. UTILITIES AND STREETS: A11 municipal utilities, streets and walkways will be installed throughout the plat in conformance with City Standards and the requirements of the Developer's Agreement. Currently there is a public improvement contract underway for the improvement of Summit, Red Oak and Meadowvale Drives. This project abutts two of those streets and will receive benefit from this improvement project. As stated in the Developer's Agreement, prior to release of the final plan, the Developer shall enter into a special assessment agreement with the City that outlines the developer's portion of construction costs with regards to this public improvement. ( 1U5o Page 2 of 2 FINAL PLAT - RED ROCK VIEW April 26, 1990 Prior to release of the final plat the developer shall provide the City with an agreement that stipulates specific routes for all construction traffic associated with the development of this project. PARK DEDICATION: The requirements for park dedication are covered in the Developer's Agreement. BONDING: As required by City Code, the developer must bond for private installation of public utilities, in this case, located within Berger Drive. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Red Rock View Addition subject to the requirements of this report, the Developer's Agreement and the following: 1. Receipt of street sign fee in the amount of $215.00 2. Receipt of street lighting fee in the amount of $1,512.00 3. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $360.00 4. Execution of special assessment agreement 5. Receipt of agreement regarding construction vehicle access 6. Satisfaction of bonding requirements JJ:ssa cc: Mark Olson Cardarelle & Associates ��51 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 90-I24 RESOLUTION RECEIVING 100% PETITION, ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS & PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR I.C. 52-201 SANDY POINTE BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council: 1. The owners of 100% of the real property abutting upon and to be benefitted from the proposed improvements have petitioned the City Council to construct said improvements and to assess the entire cost against their property. 2. Pursuant to M.S.A. 429.031, Subd. 3, and upon recommendation of the City Engineer, said improvements are hereby ordered and the City Engineer shall prepare plans and specifications for said improvements in accordance with City Standards and advertise for bids thereon, with the assistance of RCM, Inc. 3. Pursuant to M.S.A. 429.031, Subd. 3, the City Clerk is hereby directed to publish a copy of this resolution once in the official newspaper, and further a contract for construction of said improve- ments shall not be approved by the City Council prior to 30 days following publication of this Resolution in the City's official newspaper. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on May 1, 1990. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk 0 1USa 1 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 100% PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL: The undersigned are all the fee owners of the real property described below and herein petition for the Eden Prairie City Council to proceed with making the following described improvements: / (General� Location) ✓ Sanitary Sewer ,-An1�/c•� r,`',.a r //'v �i7Cr ` , Watermain v Storm.Sewer i 1" Street Paving 4/ f,dCW4" Other 4 Pursuant to M.S.A. 429.031, SuEd. 3, the undersigned hereby waive any public hearing to be held on said improvements, and further state and agree that the total cost of said improvements shall be specially as- sessed against the property described below in accordance'with the • City's special assessment policies. We further understand that the �c preliminary, estimated total cost for the said improvements is /C7gt)C Street Address or other Legal Names and addresses of Petitioners Description of Property_to be Served (Must be owners of record) . �ix t /7,1 (1_' E'r (For City Use)Date Received //g/?l1/� Project No. Council Consideration CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 90-125 RESOLUTION APPROVING Agreement with Hennepin County for Signal Systems at CSAH 1 and Franlo Road and CSAH 1 and Homeward Hills Road. WHEREAS, Hennepin County has prepared plans for the installation of temporary traffic control signal systems for the intersections of Franlo Road and Homeward Hills Road with CSAH No. 1; and WHEREAS, the City desires Hennepin County to proceed with signal system installation utilizing County forces. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Agreement No. PW64-49-89 between Hennepin County and the City of Eden Prairie is hereby approved; and BE 'IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Manager are authorized to sign said Agreement No. PW64-49-89 on behalf of the City. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on May 1, 1990. • Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk /064/ Agreement No. PW 64-49-89 County Project No. 8875 and 8876 County State Aid Highway No. 1 City of Eden Prairie County of Hennepin AGREEMENT FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEMS AGREEMENT, Made and entered into this day of , 19 _, by and between the County of Hennepin, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "County" and the City of Eden.. Prairie, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "City". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, It is considered mutually desirable to install temporary traffic control signal systems at the intersections of County State Aid Highway 1 with Homeward Hills Road and County State Aid Highway 1 with Franlo Road within the City limits; and WHEREAS, The City has expressed willingness to participate in the construction and operating cost of said signals; and WHEREAS, It is contemplated that said work be carried out by the parties hereto under the provisions of M.S. SEC. 162.17, Subd. 1 and SEC. 471.59. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREEO: I The County shall prepare the necessary plans; shall perform the required engineering and inspection; shall perform the necessary grading and surfacing; and shall install temporary traffic control signals using County forces at the intersections of County State Aid Highway No. 1 with Homeward Hills Road and County State Aid Highway No. 1 with Franlo Road. Such installation, as described immediately above, shall be identified and accomplished under Hennepin County Project Nos. 8875 and 8876 hereinafter referred to as the "project", all in accordance with said project plans which plans are by this reference made a part hereof. -1- • Agreement No. PW 64-49-89 II The City agrees that any City license required to perform electrical work within the City shall be issued at no cost. Electrical inspection fees shall be not more than those established by the State Board of Electricity in the most recently recorded Electrical Inspection Fee Schedule. III The City shall install, or cause the installation of adequate three wire, 120/240 volt, single phase, alternating current electrical power connection to each controller cabinet at its sole cost and expense. The City shall also provide the electrical energy for the operation of the traffic control signals to be installed at its sole cost and expense. Iy The construction cost of the project shall be the cost of all work including without limitation, necessary equipment rental and County supplied materials required to complete the project. The total estimated construction cost of this project is $79,000.00, including County supplied materials. The estimated cost breakdown is as follows: CSAH 1 at Homeward Hills Road Grading and Surfacing $13,000.00 Temporary Signal System 27,500.00 CSAH 1 at Franlo Road Grading and Surfacing $11,000.00 Temporary Signal System 27,500.00 It is understood that this estimate is for informational purposes only. V The City shall reimburse the County for one hundred percent (100%) of the total construction cost of the project. In addition to payment of the City's construction cost, the City also agrees to pay to the County a sum equal to fourteen percent (14%) of the construction cost, it being understood that said additional payment by the City is its share of all engineering costs incurred by the County in connection with the -2- ctklLr ��to Agreement No. PW 64-49-89 itwork performed under this agreement. The City shall remit the total payment in full to the County within thirty (30) days after receipt of the County's final, itemized statement of the project cost. Such amount shall be payable to the Hennepin County Treasurer. VI It is further agreed that the construction cost expended by the City for these temporary signals is directly applicable as credit toward the City's share in permanent signals when such devices are installed at these intersections. VII The City shall not revise by addition or deletion, nor alter or adjust any component, part, sequence, or timing of the aforesaid traffic control signal; however, nothing herein shall be construed as restraint of prompt, prudent action by properly constituted authorities in situations where a part of such traffic control signal may be directly involved in an emergency. VIII Upon completion of the work, the County shall maintain and repair said traffic control signal at the sole cost and expense of the County. • IX The construction of this project shall be under the supervision and direction of the County. However, the City Engineer shall cooperate with the County Engineer and his staff at their request to the extent necessary, but will have no responsibility for the supervision of the work. X It is further agreed that the County shall not be responsible or liable to the City or to any other person or persons whomsoever for claims, damages, action, or cause of action of any kind or character arising out of or by reason of the performance of any work or part hereof by the City as provided for herein; and the City further agrees to defend at its sole cost and expense any action or proceeding commenced for the purpose of asserting any claim of whatsoever character arising in jr connection with or by virtue of performance hereunder by the City. -3- /0 Agreement No. PW 64-49-89 It is further agreed that the City shall not be responsible or liable to the 11 County or to any other person or persons whomsoever for claims, damages, action, or cause of action of any kind or character arising out of or by reason of the performance of any work or part hereof by the County as provided for herein; and the County further agrees to defend at its sole cost and expense any action or proceeding commenced for the purpose of asserting any claim of whatsoever character arising in connection with or by virtue of performance hereunder by the County. XI It is further agreed that any and all employees of the City and all other persons engaged by the City in the performance of any work or services required or provided herein to be performed by the City shall not be considered employees of the County, and that any and all claims that may or might arise under the Worker's Compensation Act or the Unemployment Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the County. Also, any and all employees of the County and all other persons engaged by the County in the performance of any work or services required or provided for herein to be performed by the County shall not be considered employees of the City, and that any and all claims that may or might arise under the Worker's Compensation Act or the .Unemployment Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the City. XII In accordance with Hennepin County Affirmative Action Policy and the County Commissioners' policies against discrimination, no person shall be excluded from full employment rights or participation in or the benefits of any program, service or activity on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status, affectional/sexual preference,public assistance status, ex-offender status, or national origin; and no person who is protected by applicable Federal or State laws against discrimination shall be otherwise subjected to discrimination. -4 .44 ��d • Agreement No. PW 64-49-89 Jr- %III The provisions of M. S. 181.59 and of any applicable local ordinance relating to civil rights and discrimination and the affirmative action policy statement of Hennepin County shall be considered a part of this agreement as though fully set forth herein. 1059 I • Agreement No. PW 64-49-89 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, The parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed by their respective duly authorized officers as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE • (Seal) By: Mayor Date: And: Manager Date: • COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ATTEST: {; By: By: Clerk of the County Board Chairman of its County Board Date: Date:_ And: Upon proper execution, this agreement Associate County Administrator will a legally valid and b1 ing. and County Engineer By: /Y Assistant County Attorney Date: Date: N U- �/ a RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL Approved as to execution By: By: Director, Department of Public Works Assistant County Attorney Date: Date: /060 RESOLUTION NO. Q D 1 / RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT TO LOAN AGREE- MENT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS RELATED TO PROJECT FINANCED BY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT REVENUE NOTE (PARKWAY APARTMENTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP PROJECT) SERIES 1985 AND GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO ISSUANCE OF REFUNDING BONDS. WHEREAS, the City previously issued its Housing Development Revenue Note (Parkway Apartments Limited Partnership Project) Series 1985 in the original principal amount of $17,000,000 (the "Note") and loaned the proceeds thereof to Parkway Apartments Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership ("Original Borrower") pursuant to a Loan Agreement, dated October 8, 1985 (the "Loan Agreement"), to finance the acquisition and construction of a multifamily rental project (the "Project") to be owned by Original Borrower; and WHEREAS, to assure the exclusion of interest on the Note from federal income taxes, a Declaration of Restrictive Covenants, dated October 8, 1985, as amended, from the Original Borrower (the "Declaration") was filed of record against the Project and a certain Regulatory Agreement, dated October 8, 1985, was entered into related hereto (the "Regulatory Agreement"); and WHEREAS, on March 29, 1990 Parkway Properties of Eden Prairie, Inc., a Minnesota corporation ("Parkway"), assumed all Original Borrower's duties and obligations under the Loan Agreement, Declaration, Regulatory Agreement and related documents, and, with the consent of the City, purchased the Project from the Original Borrower; and WHEREAS, by resolution adopted by this City Council on March 13, 1990, the City approved the future transfer of the Project to certain transferees upon the conditions set forth in such resolu- tion; and WHEREAS, by resolution adopted by this City Council on April 17, 1990, the transferees to whom the Project was authorized to be transferred was stated to include an entity affiliated with Welsh Companies, Inc. or a partnership, the general partner of which is an affiliate or subsidiary of Welsh Companies, Inc.; and WHEREAS, it is proposed that Welsh Parkway Apartments Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership of which the general partner is an affiliate of Welsh Companies, Inc. (the "Partner- ship") purchase the Project from Parkway and assume Parkway's obligations under the Loan Agreement, Declaration and Regulatory Agreement; and WHEREAS, Piper, Jaffray & Hopwood Incorporated or its assigns (the "Holder") proposes to purchase the Note from the present registered owner of the Note; and WHEREAS, to reflect the foregoing events, the Partnership and Holder have requested an amendment to the Declaration upon the terms set forth in an Amendment to Declaration of Restrictive Covenants, a form of which has been presented to the City Council (the "Declaration Amendment") and an amendment to the Regulatory Agreement upon the form set forth in a First Amendment to Regulatory Agreement, a form of which has been presented to the City Council (the "Regulatory Agreement Amendment"); and WHEREAS, because of insufficient Project revenues, the Holder and Partnership propose a deferral, but not a forgiveness, of certain amounts payable pursuant to the Loan Agreement in accor- dance with a First Amendment to Loan Agreement, a form of which has been presented to the City Council (the "Loan Agreement Amend- ment"); and WHEREAS, the City has received an opinion of Bond Counsel that transfer of the Project to the Partnership and execution and delivery of the Loan Agreement Amendment, Declaration Amendment and Regulatory Agreement Amendment will not adversely affect the exclusion of interest on the Note from gross income for federal income tax purposes; and WHEREAS, the Partnership proposes that the City issue its revenue bonds or notes in an amount not to exceed the outstanding principal amount of the Note (the "Refunding Bonds") for the purpose of refunding the Note in whole or in part; and WHEREAS, the City shall not be liable on the Refunding Bonds, and the Refunding Bonds shall not be a debt of the City within the meaning of any state constitutional provision or statutory limita- tion, and will not constitute or give rise to a charge against the general credit or taxing power of the City or a pecuniary liability of the City, nor shall the Bonds be payable out of any funds or properties other those than provided as security therefor; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, as follows: 1. Each of the Loan Agreement Amendment, Declaration Amendment and Regulatory Agreement Amendment is hereby approved, and the Mayor and City Manager, or officials of the City duly acting in their stead, are hereby authorized to execute each, with such amendments or modifications thereof as are approved by legal counsel for the City and the persons executing such instrument, the execution of each being conclusive evidence of such approval. 2 2. The City hereby gives preliminary approval to the issuance of the Refunding Bonds. Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, the adoption of this resolution shall not be deemed to establish a legal obligation on the part of the City or its council to issue or cause the issuance of the Refunding Bonds, and the City and its Council retain the right not to issue such bonds or to issue the bonds in an amount less than referred to above, should the City or its Council, at any time prior to the issuance thereof, determine that it is in the best interests of the City not to issue the-bonds or to issue the bonds in an amount less than set'forth above. 3. The Partnership has agreed to pay directly or through the City any and all costs incurred by the City in connection with the Refunding Bonds whether or not the bonds are approved by the City. 4. All commitments of the City expressed herein are subject to the condition that the City and the Partnership shall have agreed to mutually acceptable terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement, the Refunding Bonds, and of the other instruments and proceedings relating to the Refunding Bonds and that the closing of the issuance and sale of the Refunding Bonds shall have occurred by no later than July 1, 1991. If the events set forth herein do not take place within the time set forth above, or any extension thereof, and the Refunding Bonds are not sold within such time, the preliminary approval herein of the Refunding Bonds shall expire and be of no further effect. 5. The Mayor, City Manager and other officials of the City are hereby authorized to execute and deliver such other agreements, certificates or instruments, approved by legal counsel to the City, as may be reasonably necessary or desirable to implement the matters approved hereby, the execution of such agreements, certifi- cates or instruments being conclusive evidence of such approval. Adopted: May 2, 1990. Mayor ATTEST: Clerk 3 l3 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE 111 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 90-121 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL WHEREAS, the plat of INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL 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 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: A. Plat approval request for INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated APRIL 25, 1990. 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 subdividers 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 City Council on MAY 1, 1990. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL / John D. Frane, Clerk 4, iU6y CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members • THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager Man D. Gray, City Engineer � ���j FROM: Jeffrey Johnson, Engineering Technician/ DATE: April 26, 1990 SUBJECT: International School PROPOSAL: The International School of Minnesota has requested City Council approval of the final plat of International School. Located south of the Crosstown Highway and west of Interstate 494, the plat contains 55.6 acres consisting of one lot. The platting of this property was a requirement of a Developer's Agreement entered into April 30, 1987. HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council March 17, 1987 per Resolution No. 87-61. Second reading of Ordinance No. 10-87, changing zoning from Rural to Public was finally read and approved at the City Council meeting held April 30, 1987. ! The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report was executed April 30, I987. VARIANCES: A variance 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 will be necessary. All other variance requests must be processed through the Board of Appeals. UTILITIES AND STREETS: All municipal utilities and streets necessary to serve this site are currently in place and in use. No further extension of utilities are proposed at this time. The final plat shall be revised to include standard drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of the lot as well as a drainage easement at the 100-year flood level of Bryant Lake. PARK DEDICATIDN: The requirements for park dedication are covered in the Developer's Agreement. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of International School subject to the requirements of this report, the Developer's Agreement and the following: 1. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $5,560.00. JJ:ssa cc: Tracey Whitehead, International School Walter Gregory, Merila and Associates / /SUS • 4/26/90 TO: CARL JULLIE FROM: JIM CLARK THRU: KEITH WALL SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN 1990 CERTIFICATE BUDGET As a result of the development of our 9-1-1 communications system we have reviewed our existing phone system and found that it is necessary to upgrade the system. The current system was installed by AT & T six years ago. The original five year lease expired last year and was extended for only one year in the event that we would become a become a public safety answering point (PSAP). The current extension expires on 6/1/90. We recently contracted with Mr. Jim Bell of Epic USA to examine our phone system and make appropriate recommendations. Epic USA was selected after they submitted the low quote for consulting service. They also demonstrated that they were familiar with PSAP operations as well as the City communications needs. Mr. Bell designed a system that will meet our needs and is expandable. He drafted an "RFB" and bids were accepted, in accordance with City procedures. On 4/16/90 six bids were opened with the low bidder being Communications World (the only Eden Prairie company to submit a bid). Mr. Bell reviewed the bid information and found their proposal to be in the best interests of the City. Police staff also were present for a demonstration by Communications World. I would recommend that the City purchase the phone system for the Police Department for the following reasons; * The current system would require modification to interface with the 9-1-1 system. * The paging system is inadequate in the building and as a result customer service has suffered. * The emergency operations system is in need of improvements to enhance emergency operations during disasters. * The cost of maintaining the current system has increased in the past few years. * AT & T does not provide satisfactory service, both in response time and quality. * Expansion of the current system is more costly than the system proposed by Communications World. * The new system will allow emergency dispatchers more efficient options in routing administrative calls and direct in dial will relieve switch board stress. I would further recommend that we purchase rather than continue to lease, as we have done in the past. This will result in a significant savings to the City. The Communications World bid, for the base system, is 29,831.00. The best lease agreement that we could find was $647.00 per month on a five year lease. Purchasing the system would translate into approximately a $9,000.00 savings to the City over the life of the lease. We would request that the City Council adjust the 1990 certificate budget to accommodate the purchase of this phone system. t It would not be our intention to recommend the voice mail option, at this time. We intend to study this application further as we get more experience with the PSAP and determine if there would be any potential personnel savings by adding voice mail. See attachment for phone bid summary. MEMORANDUM DATE: April 18, 1990 TO: Chief Wall Captain Clark FROM: Gary J. Therkelsen SUBJECT: Telephone System Bids Bids were opened at 1000 hours today in the classroom. Mr. James Bell was present along with Annette Beach. One bid was disqualified, Fujitsu, since it was not sealed when presented as required by specification. The results of the bid opening are listed below. EDEN PRAIRIE POLICE DEPARTMENT PHONE BID SUMMARY VAMP_ VENOOR NAME VOICE MAIL CALL ACCOUNT GRAND TOTAL 29,831.00 COMMUNICATIONS WORLD 12,700.00 4,200.00 46,731.00 32,000.00 TSI MN 21,945.00 5,915.00 59,860.00 34,459.00 EXECUTQNE 14,300.00 3,893.00 52,652.00 42,514.00 TELEPHONE SPECIALISTS 11,455.00 9,725.00 63,694.00 43,066.00 MEMOREX 25,406.00 4,840.00 73,312.00 48,368.00 NORSTAN 12,264.00 60,632.00 I J Average: 38,373.00 16,345.00 5,714.60 59,400.17 ADJUSTED TOTAL FEE $730,495.00 CONSULTANT AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR FINAL DESIGN SERVICES k Supplement No. 2 to Agreement between The City of Eden Prairie and Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. S.P. 2701, S.P. I002 TH 5 In Eden Prairie and Chanhassen • • /1)0 ( SUBJECT PAGE NO. Parties to the Agreement 1 Explanation and Justification 1 Revision 1.0 - Services to be provided by the City 1 Revision 2.0 - Time Schedule 2 Revision 3.0 - Payment to the Consultant 3 Statue of Original Agreement 4 Approvals 4 Signatures 5 J O/ This Supplemental Agreement made and entered into by and between the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "City" and Barton- Aschman Associates, Inc. hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS the State of Minnesota Department of Transportation hereinafter referred to as the "State" and the City entered into Agreement No. 64918 for final design services, and WHEREAS the State and City has agreed that additional work is required to complete said services, and WHEREAS the City desires to amend the agreement between the City and Barton- Aschman Associates, Inc. to accomplish this additional work. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: REVISION 1.0 - SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY THE CITY Section 2.0 of the original agreement between the City and the Consultant is hereby amended and modified to read as follows: 2.212 Conduct an archaeological field investigation of parcel 208 (Hennepin County) and report findings. 2.33.2 Complete 18 partial-take appraisals in Carver County and provide second appraisals as required to date. 1 /02 2.5122 Package and administrate landscaping plan for separate 9 P 9bid 1 letting. 2.513 Prepare plans for concrete pavement jointing layout as per pavement type determination. Provide concrete pavement design on approaches to existing bridge #10009. 2.514 Prepare wetland mitigation grading plan in parcel 208 north of Mitchell Lake. 2.515 Prepare subgrade drain tile plans as per soils letter. 2.516 Design and prepare grading plans for surcharge of approaches to proposed bridge #10010 in Carver County. Relative to the scope of services as listed above, a more defined description of said work is contained in Attachment A of the Consultant's Financial Proposal dated January 16, 1990. Said proposal is made a part hereof by reference with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. REVISION 2.0 - TIME SCHEDULE Section 5.0 of the original agreement is hereby amended and modified to read as follows: 5.21 The Consultant shall complete all work and services required under the terms of this agreement by March 31, 1990. 2 073 • REVISION 3.0 - PAYMENT TO THE CONSULTANT Section 6.0 of the original agreement is hereby amended and modified to read as follows: 6.11 The City shall pay to the Consultant, from monies received from the State for the services performed under this agreement the lump sum amount of $476,100.00. In addition, the following entities shall pay the following amounts as compensation for the services performed by the Consultant: I. Southwest Coalition $75,000.00 2. City of Chanhassen $74,395.00 4. 3. City of Eden Prairie $50,000.00 4. City of Chaska $20,000.00 5. City of Waconia $15,000.00 6. County of Hennepin $10,000.00 7. County of Carver $10,000.00 The total compensation to be paid to the Consultant shall be $730,495.00. Not withstanding any term or condition contained in this agreement to the contrary, the City shall have no obligation to do anything or perform any act until and unless the State and all of the other entities make the payments as required by this paragraph. In the event that either the State or any of the entities fail to make the payments set forth above, then the City's obligations under this agreement shall be rendered void and unenforceable. 3 6.21 If it appears at any time that the Consultant will exceed a total estimated payment of S730,495.00 the Consultant agrees not to perform any services that would cause that amount to be exceeded unless the City's Consultant has been advised by the City that additional funds have been encumbered, a supplemental • agreement has been issued and that work may proceed. It shall be the resoonsibility of the Consultant to originate all requests for additional encumbrances. compensations and for supolemental agreements. STATUS OF ORIGINAL AGREEMENT Except as amended and modified herein, the terms and conditions of the . original agreement shall remain in full force and effect. � APPROVALS Before this supplemental agreement shall become binding and effective it shall be approved by resolution of the City Council of Eden Prairie. 4 trnW . • i IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this contract to be duly • executed intending to be bound thereby. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. By BY 4n Gary D. Peterson, Mayor . DATE DATE `//- y' -1d By By Carl Jullie, City Manager DATE DATE ATTEST ATTE ,��A-c%*_a > -i • 5 Red Rock View DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1990, by Mark and Dawn Olsen, husband and wife, hereinafter jointly referred to as "Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City:" WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for preliminary plat of nine (9) single family homes on 5.7 acres, situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and said acreage hereinafter referred to as "the Property;" NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Resolution #90- _, approving the final plat for said Property, Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of said Property as follows: 1. Developer shall develop the Property in conformance with the materials revised and dated , 1990, reviewed and approved by the City Council on October 3, 1989, and attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein and further subject to and modified by the provisions of a land alteration permit relating to the Property. Developer shall not develop, construct upon, or maintain the Property in any other respect or manner than provided herein. 2. Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 3. Prior to release by the City of any final plat for the Property, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and obtain the City Engineer's approval of: A. Plans for streets, sanitary sewer, watermain, interim irrigation systems, storm sewer, and erosion control for the Property. Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer shall construct, or cause to be constructed, those improvements listed above in said plans, as approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto. B. An executed special assessment agreement with the City which establishes that the Developer agrees that the property shall be assessed for sufficient costs to cover construction of /+ .J • public streets and utilities to service the Property within Ar the existing portions of Meadowvale Drive and Red Oak Drive abutting the Property, as depicted in Exhibit S, attached hereto. 4. Prior to release by the City of the final plat for the property and prior to issuance of any permit for construction, or other development activity on the property, Developer agrees to submit to _,...� the City Engineer, and to-obtain the City Engineer's approval of an - - „-agreement which provides for the following: - A. A stipulation that all construction vehicles employed by Developer and others shall utilize the access route depicted in Exhibit D, attached hereto and made a part hereof, including, but not limited to, any vehicle utilized by contractors for utilities, contractors for streets,' any vehicle utilized for delivery of materials or supplies, and any vehicle utilized by home builders. Said vehicles shall not utilize Lake Shore Drive, nor Summit Drive. The only portion of Red Oak Drive to be utilized by such vehicles shall be that as depicted in Exhibit D, attached hereto. The only portion of Meadowvale Drive to be utilized by such vehicles shall be that as depicted in Exhibit D, attached hereto. B. A stipulation that all sales agreements for all lots on the Property shall contain a provision requiring that all future owners of any portion of the Property shall also abide by item A., above regarding access for any construction vehicles. 5. Prior to release by the City of the final plat for the Property and prior to issuance of any permit for construction, or other development activity on the Property, Developer agrees to submit to the City Engineer and to obtain the City Engineer's approval of a cooperative construction agreement with the owner of the Red Rock Shores development, located north and west of the Property, for construction of streets, grading, and utilities within the Red Rock Shores development and providing that the construction of streets, grading, and utilities for development of both projects may be coordinated and completed at the same time. Legal Description Exhibit A The Easterly 300 feet, as measured along the North line thereof, of that part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 20, Township 116, Range 22, described as follows; Beginning at the Northeast corner of Section 20; thence South along the East line 828.3 feet; thence Vest and parallel to the North line 300 feet; thence North and parallel to the East line 498.3 feet; thence on a bearing South 80 degrees and no minutes Vest to the centerline of the Edon Prairie Road; thence Northwesterly along said centerline to the North line of Section 20; thence East along the North line 777 feet to point of beginning. • • • • /U?R • i1i:M1i:i:i:i:i ALLOWABLE CONSTRUCTION ROUTE EXHIBIT D kti \ 11 , , / . . • I l . ‘\4,0,..4. mi. -0 , "axv-./ii 'Is •03:1- • Al ''' ; '7 ';'. :'"' ":''. .T. i b.'\ s\ '. .:::.; j • ....:\•:::.•;:h ....R I i4:11..'''' "it \ 1 4; li • / t 1 11' '''.,.'4:..!..%':::*:••: . 1(,, 1 -.43\:........ .7,7.,...,.„ . .::•' , -7- IR •i ...p / .„, ,,,/ ) r_.-- ::7,... ....... ...* 1 t eleaszlerkik.., ki I li VO AL \ii. l' ,p. \ ;;„ ' tA. As•- 11,4_ 4.1r, t, .. , ,.V.1 —...,., '7Ft: %.. ,:t \A \l, inf.yz I . c, ti4W / I I 1 t• , .: 1 . ,(1 , i ,:.-1" . .. 14; -‘:-. • '' '. ' q • -'• ,7.'.11,V. ; Jr:‘,,.. iii \ .•, \ i--- , • ..1', 3,\.-5-4•:'• - Vi,k\'' ',0.- 1 4 F. 's s... VI . '. 'A 1:4"."'":'.1"i'll 1 \ --.A.P.781 .-- p, __1R•:::: .) ;0.- I \ \\‘.' or „.....„..„... ,,•. , _,__, 151 °I.' ''.' la: E .. .V1 i.‘NOP L_'•-':••":-Z-.. '-. ,-1?•.-, ..;:' rillAttaleil -' , ,,, „,, , ,. c.,,,,i, • 7_,,,, _ ,, ,A4r ,, -r..---:,- ...... t„,,,,„ 'I Is, \ .10.,), ,.•.f,ktl,w‘ i. , , /. . ,.. . ,...... . __ „.._ .. toik, - i... t • ... 1, ) „,.., . .\•, _ : , " : , , 4.1 , z 4 , i ,..„...40111 .w..uzioxi... ..,... ,. / • .v) r • It-A.;.:: ,..allik,- -. s... , 1 :, ; 4 . i 3 \ 2 .- •7ftiriit--,1 MAW'. 1117.yr......... Y ,„,. ....4 4 I, et-• ‘14.V I -'4714 l .p r . 4X.:\I,1‘:1/4‘,1 ,1 p I I.0,r...iml\:•VeltZa:2 rif6,.''.. g. .A, ,4 Ihr itri it it el 4 . i ;: .._ 00a, „4„ , -,\ 7.„. ..:410, ...i. -18`7749,43:0T4i f 410-., • o I)1 4 A - Oleire .4 eil,\\4, I badiZU,,,.._ 4...1.,. ,.. ,.. i'- \ ',` *Li".1411111Pfirtfor"474 " ;%.';' li ... • -‘:•• 1. VI, \'..`" .. • i ‘ 34 t : )14 ` _ ',' „ 4 i ,•' • 11 0- ,..,.... 7 At' , . _ ,. :. ‘...'- . i ib, i , k ,', k• ----------__ •I it 1 -.:,:,1„ . .4 . )4* N t i - ' i0,-....ste--• .:, -- I , C:/_._._ ! ' 2.i .T" , I r„ RI(1-'q'EA ) : ' , t.4 • , .. '•' / li i.. Ii2•1 • I ijD •...- . ---- • NEW HORIZON DAY CARE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE #38-90 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance (hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. SECTION 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be removed from the Rural and Public Districts and be placed in the C-Reg-Ser District. SECTION 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is removed from the Rural and Public Districts and shall be included hereafter in the C-Reg-Ser District, and the legal descriptions of land in each District referred to in City Code Section 11.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph B, shall be, and are amended accordingly. SECTION 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and efinitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99, "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. SECTION 5. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of May 1, 1990, entered into between G. P. Bajr, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, and the City of Eden Prairie, which Agreement is hereby made a part hereof. SECTION 6. 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 3rd day of October, 1989, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 1st day of May, 1990. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of EXHIBIT A 4 Lot 2, Block 1, EDEN PRAIRIE CENTER 5TH ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota. IL • f€ n • New Horizon Day Care DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1989, by G. P. BAJR, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City:" WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for Zoning District Change from Rural and Public to C-Reg-Ser and Site Plan Review, all on approximatley two acres, for construction of a 5,800 sq. ft. day care center, situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and said acreage hereinafter referred to as "the property;" NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance #38-89, Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of said property as follows: 1. Developer shall develop the property in conformance with the materials revised and dated November 3, 1989, reviewed and approved by the City Council on October 3, 1989, and attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. Developer shall not develop, construct upon, or maintain the property in any other respect or manner than provided herein. 2. Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 3. Prior to issuance of any building permit upon the property, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and to obtain the City Engineer's approval of plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer, and erosion control for the property. Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer shall construct, or cause to be constructed, those improvements listed above in said plans, as approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto. 10y3 4. Developer shall notify the City and the Watershed District 48 hours prior to any grading, tree removal, or tree cutting on the property. 5. Prior to issuance of any grading permit upon the property, Developer agrees to submit to the Director of Community Services, and to obtain the Director's approval of plans for five-foot wide, five- inch thick concrete sidewalk along Prairie Center Drive and between Prairie Center Drive and the structure on the property. Developer agrees that said sidewalk shall be constructed, or caused to be constructed, concurrent with street construction on the property and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 6. Prior to issuance of any building permit upon the property, Developer agrees to submit to the Director of Planning and to obtain the Director's approval of an irrigation plan for the property due to the heavy reliance of the development on plant materials for screening and buffering. Upon approval by the Director of said irrigation plan, Developer agrees to implement, or cause to be implemented, said irrigation plan, as approved by the Director of Planning, in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 7. Developer has submitted to the City, and obtained City's approval of a plan for screening of mechanical equipment on the property. Security to guarantee said screening shall be included with that provided for the landscaping on the property, per City Code requirements. • If, after completion of construction of said mechanical equipment screening, it is determined by City, in its sole discretion, that a. the proposed screening does not meet the intent of the City Code requirements to screen said equipment from public streets and differing, adjacent uses, then City shall notify Developer and Developer shall take corrective action to revise the mechanical equipment screening to meet Code requirements. Developer acknowledges that City will not release the security provided until any such corrective measures are satisfactorily completed by Developer. • /04 • • Ir EXHIBIT A Lot 2, Block 1, EDEN PRAIRIE CENTER 5TH ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota. i 1`(. 7 DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT EXHIBIT C (_ I. Developer shall submit detailed construction and storm sewer plans to the Watershed District for review and approval. Developer shall follow all rules and recommendations of said Watershed District. II. Developer shall pay cash park fees as to all of the property required by City Code in effect as of the date of the issuance of each building permit for construction on the property. Presently, the amount of cash park fee applicable to the property is $2,560.OD per acre. The amount to be paid by Developer shall be increased or decreased to the extent that the City Code is amended or supplemented to require a greater or lesser amount as of the date of the issuance of any building permit for construction on the property. III. If Developer fails to proceed in accordance with this Agreement within twenty-four (24) months of the date hereof, Developer, for itself, its successors, and assigns, shall not oppose rezoning of said property to Rural. IV. Provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against owners, their successors, and their assigns of the property herein described. V. Developer represents and warrants that they own fee title to the property free and clear of mortgages, liens, and other encumbrances, except: Homart Development Co. VI. Developer acknowledges that Developer is familiar with the requirements of Chapter 11, Zoning, and Chapter 12, Subdivision Regulations, of the City Code and other applicable City'ordinances affecting the development of the property. Developer agrees to develop the property in accordance with the requirements of all applicable City Code requirements and City Ordinances. VII. Prior to release of the final plat, Developer shall pay to City fees for the first three (3) years' street lighting on the public streets (including installation costs, if any, as determined by electrical power provider), engineering review, and street signs. VIII. City shall not issue any building permit for the construction of any building, structure, or improvement on any land required to be subdivided until all requirements listed above have been satisfactorily addressed by Developer. IX. Developer shall submit detailed watermain, fire protection, and emergency vehicle access plans to the Fire Marshall for review and approval. Developer shall follow all the recommendations of the Fire Marshall. X. Developer acknowledges that the rights of City to performance of obligations of Developer contemplated in this agreement are special, unique, and of an I extraordinary character, and that, in the event that Developer violates, or fails, or refuses to perform any covenant, condition, or provision made herein, City may be without an adequate remedy at law. Developer agrees, therefore, that in the event Developer violates, fails, or refuses to i perform any covenant, condition, or provision made herein, City may, at its option, institute and prosecute an action to specifically enforce performance of such covenant. No remedy conferred in this agreement is intended to be exclusive and each shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy. The election of any one or more remedies shall not constitute a waiver of any other remedy. XI. Any term of this Agreement that is illegal or unenforceable at law or in equity shall be deemed to be void and of no force or effect to the extent necessary to bring such term within the provisions of any such applicable law or laws, and such terms as so modified and the balance of the terms of this agreement shall be enforceable. • XII. Developer shall, prior to the commencement of any improvements, provide written notice to Rogers Cablesystems Southwest, a Minnesota Limited Partnership, the franchisee under the City's Cable Communication Ordinance (80-33) of the development contemplated by this Developer's Agreement. Notice shall be sent to Rogers Cablesystems Southwest, 801 Plymouth Avenue North, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55411. t /6S7 NEW HORIZON DAY CARE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 90-130 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE 38-89 AND ORDERING THE PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 38-89 was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on 1st day of May, 1990. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance No. 38-89, which is attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that said text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of said ordinance. B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a body type no smaller than non-pareil or six-point type, as defined in Minn. State. sec. 331.07. C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance shall be posted in the City Hall. D. That Ordinance No.. 38-89 shall be recorded in the ordinance book, along with proof of publication required by paragraph B herein, within 20 days after said publication. ADOPTED by the City Council on May 1, 1990. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: I John D. Frane, City Clerk NEW HORIZON DAY CARE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 38-89 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: ,Summary: This Ordinance allows rezoning of land located north of Prairie Center Drive, east of Joiner Way (extended), from the Rural and Public Districts to the C-Reg-Ser District, subject to the terms and conditions of a Developer's Agreement, Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property. $ffective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. (J ATTEST: /s/John D. Frane /s/Gary D. Peterson City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of 1990. • (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.) CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE irHENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION #90-131 A RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR G.P. BAJR, INC. FOR NEW HORIZON DAY CARE WHEREAS, G.P. Bajr, Inc. has applied for site plan approval of a New Horizon Day Care on two acres for construction of a 5,800 square foot day care facility on property located north of Prairie Center Drive, east of Joiner Way (extended) to zoned C-Reg-Ser by Ordinance #38-89 adopted by the City Council on May 1, 1990; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed said application at a public hearing at its September 11, 1989 Planning Commission meeting and recommended approval of said site plans; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed said application at a public hearing at its October 3, 1989 meeting; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, that site plan approval be granted to G.P. Bajr, Inc. for New Horizon Day Care for construction of a 5,800 square foot day care facility building, based on plans dated Ar 4 November 3, 1989, subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement between G.P. Bajr, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, and the City of Eden Prairie, dated May 1, 1990, for said day care facility. ADOPTED by the City Council on May 1, 1990. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor • ' ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk /O -_IJ 3 • MAY 1.1990 59098 STATE OF MINNESOTA BIKE REGISTRATIONS 45.00 59099 CITY-COUNTY CREDIT UNION PAYROLL 4/6/90 2557.00 59100 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE PAYROLL 4/6/90 11465.04 (01 CROW WING COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES CHILD SUPPORT DEDUCTION 186.00 02 FIRST BANK EDEN PRAIRIE PAYROLL 4/6/90 56052.80 03 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO PAYROLL 4/6/90 4904.00 1 59104 HENN CTY SUPPORT & COLLECTION SER CHILD SUPPORT DEDUCTION 194.76 59105 ICMA RETIREMENT CORPORATION PAYROLL 4/6/90 2004.04 1 59106 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE PAYROLL 4/6/90 32.00 1 59107 INTL UNION OF OPERATING ENG APRIL '90 UNION DUES 1033.00 59108 MEDCENTERS HEALTH PLAN INC APRIL '90 HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM 13809.95 59109 MN TEAMSTERS CREDIT UNION PAYROLL 4/6/90 25.00 59110 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-PERA MAY '90 LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUM 171.00 59111 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-PERA PAYROLL 4/6/90 29616.64 59112 PHYSICIANS HEALTH PLAN APRIL '90 HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM 24188.20 59113 UNITED WAY PAYROLL 4/6/90 217.50 59114 AT&T SERVICE 540.91 59115 WOLCYN TREE FARMS & NURSERY TREES-REFORESTRATION DEPT 468.95 59116 AT&T CONSUMER PRODUCTS DIV SERVICE 24.80 59117 J L SHIELY COMPANY GRAVEL-STREET MAINTENANCE 1287.75 59118 STATE OF MINNESOTA LICENSE-WATER DEPT 20.00 59119 MINNESOTA FORESTRY FAIR EXPENSES-FORESTRY DEPT 30.00 59120 GOVERMENT TRAINING•SERVICE CONFERENCE-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT 180.00 59121 CENTER FOR DESIGN TECHNOLOG1.S CONFERENCE-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT 365.00 59122 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 11.12 59123 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY SERVICE 31791.31 59124 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 59125 PEPSI COLA COMPANY EXPENSES-E P LOVES ITS KIDS MONTH 112.00 59126 CIATTI'S EXPENSES-CITY COUNCIL 86.86 '27 GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE CONFERENCE-SAFETY DEPT 15.00 \ .28 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE MARCH '90 FUEL TAX 232.20 59129 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE 4470.52 59130 EDWARD BEDORE REFUND-SPECIAL TRIPS/EVENTS 30.00 59131 MARY BERGER REFUND-EXERCISE CLASS 9.00 59132 CAROL BOMBEN REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 32.50 59133 CINDY CHRISTENSEN REFUND-SPECIAL TRIPS/EVENTS 15.00 59134 NICHOLAS FALENCZYKOWSKI REFUND-KARATE CLASS ' 23.00 59135 RICHARD FILUT REFUND-TENNIS LESSONS 16.00 59136 LINDA HERZOG REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 14.50 59137 JOHN HUMPHREY REFUND-TENNIS LESSONS 20.00 59138 CECILIA JOHNSTONE REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 19.00 59139 MARY JUNGE REFUND-SPECIAL TRIPS/EVENTS 15.00 59140 ALEXANDER FALENCZY KOUSKI REFUND-KARATE CLASS 26.00 59141 JUSTIN MATASOVSKY REFUND-SPECIAL TRIPS/EVENTS 15.00 59142 SALLY MATTKE REFUND-SPECIAL TRIPS/EVENTS 30.00 59143 BECKY MATTS REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 20.00 59144 PAT MICHAELSON REFUND-SPECIAL TRIPS/EVENTS 30.00 59145 JANE MOSMAN REFUND-SPECIAL TRIPS/EVENTS 15.00 59146 ROBIN NEISEN REFUND-MEMBERSHIP FEE 83.74 59147 MARY PARSONS REFUND-SPECIAL TRIPS/EVENTS 15.00 59148 MARILYN SCHMIDT REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 16.50 59149 BARBARA SCHNEIDER REFUND-SPECIAL TRIPS/EVENTS 15.00 59150 KATHY SHEEHAN REFUND-RACQUETBALL LEAGUE FEE 5.00 59151 RAO VELLANKI REFUND-TENNIS LESSONS 16.00 a152 JANET WAGNER REFUND-SPECIAL TRIPS/EVENTS 15.00 18663459 • MAY 1.1990 59153 PATRICIA M BARKER CASH ADVANCE FOR RECOGNITION GIFT 75.00 c9154 BELL ATLANTIC COPIER LEASE PAYMENT 717.36 155 SCOTT R SCHMIDT -TEMPORARY EASEMENT-RED ROCK LAKE STORM 430.40 SEWER 59156 VIRGINIA L GUNNARSON -EASEMENT-PUBLIC WALKWAY & BIKEWAY-CSAH 1 525.00 BY-PASS 59157 AKE N AND MARIE GUSTAFSON -EASEMENT-PUBLIC WALKWAY & BIKEWAY-CSAH 1 243.75 BY-PASS 59158 JOHN R AND JANET M HALLETT -EASEMENT-PUBLIC WALKWAY & BIKEWAY-CSAH 1 177.50 BY-PASS 59159 AT&T CONSUMER PRODUCTS DIV SERVICE 12.40 1 59160 AT&T SERVICE 762.25 i 59161 MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC CO-OP SERVICE 55.25 59162 PETTY CASH -CHANGE FUND-PERFORMING ARTS PROGRAM- 75.00 HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION 59163 JACK PEARSON -ENTERTAINMENT-PERFORMING ARTS PROGRAM- 181.00 HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION 59164 HOLIDAY INN DOWNTOWN CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT 196.00 59165 NATALIE SWAGGERT -ADVANCE FOR CONFERENCE EXPENSES-HUMAN 200.00 ' RESOURCES DEPT 59166 SAN FRANCISCO HILTON CONFERENCE-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT 382.95 59167 ROBERT OLSON -ADVANCE FOR CONFERENCE EXPENSES-POLICE 68.00 DEPT 59168 DATA AGE SOLUTIONS INC -COMPUTER SOFTWARE & MAINTENANCE CONTRACT- 5985.00 FIRE DEPT 59169 E P PHOTO FILM/FILM PROCESSING-POLICE DEPT 185.44 59170 E&S INSULATION CO ADHESIVE/WALL COVERING-FIRE DEPT 55.80 t71 PATRICIA'S FRAME SHOP FRAM/BRASS PLATE-POLICE DEPT 69.63 j 172 PATRICIA PIDCOCK EXPENSES-COUNCILMEMBER 422.37 59173 TARGET STORES TOYS-KIDS KORNER 87.91 59174 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE MARCH 90 SALES TAX 19314.44 59175 HOPKINS POSTMASTER POSTAGE-CITY HALL POSTAGE METER 5000.00 59176 PETTY CASH CHANGE FUND-PROGRAM SUPERVISOR 49.21 59177 TROUT AIR SPECIAL TRIPS/EVENTS/FEES PAID 124.00 59178 AT&T CONSUMER PRODUCTS DIV SERVICE 145.D5 59179 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 3405.87 59180 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY SERVICE 7605.80 59181 U S WEST COMIIUNICATIONS SERVICE 1446.30 59182 BEST & FLANAGAN -REFUND DEPOSIT FOR STERLING PONDS BOND 114838.29 ALLOCATION 59183 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY SERVICE 5582.19 59184 PERFORMANCE COMPUTER FORMS COPY PAPER-CITY HALL 514.80 1 59185 J L SHIELY COMPANY GRAVEL-STREET MAINTENANCE 622.25 59186 MN DEPT OF P/S MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS & EXCISE TAX 1581.10 59187 JIMMY ALLEN ARTIST M(MT LTD ENTERTAINMENT-JULY 4TH CELEBRATION 600.00 59188 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 737.62 59189 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR 11914.51 59190 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO LIQUOR 20195.46 59191 PAUSTIS & SONS CO WINE 306.36 1, 59192 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO LIQUOR 4134.92 Bi 59193 PRIOR WINE CO WINE 1571.83 59194 QUALITY WINE CO WINE 4984.25 1°0195 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 96 A TO Z RENTAL CENTER LOG SPLITTER RENTAL-PARK MAINTENANCE 137.80 )9197 ACE CHEMICAL PRODUCTS INC CLEANING SUPPLIES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 185.70 21577006 MAY 1.1990 59198 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY HALL/POLICE DEPT 829.32 59199 ACCUDATA INC COMPUTER & ACCESSORIES-EQUIPMENT MAINT 1990.00 '00 AIRSIGNAL INC PAGER SERVICE-POLICE DEPT 124.00 01 AMERICAN APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES INC BOOKS-ASSESSING DEPT I01.25 9202 AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY CO UNIFORMS-SEWER DEPT/WATER DEPT 550.66 59203 AMERICAN MANAGEMENT ASSN DUES-FINANCE DEPT 140.00 59204 AMERICAN SPEEDY PRINTING CTR PRINTING-INVITATIONS & RSVP-CITY COUNCIL 60.95 59205 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOC BOOKS-WATER DEPT 98.69 59206 EARL F ANDERSEN & ASSOC INC STREET SIGNS-STREET DEPT 9327.85 59207 DON ANDERSON HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 86.00 59208 ANDON INC HELIUM TANK RENTAL-SOCIAL EVENTS 49.87 59209 AURORA PICTURES BOOKS-SAFETY DEPT 12.00 59210 8 & S TOOLS -COUPLINGS/CONNECTORS/FITTINGS/WRENCHES/ 855.45 -PLIERS/SCRAPERS/DRILL BIT/BATTERY/PRY BAR/ -CUTTERS/CHISEL/DRILL BITS/ORGANIZER/CAN -HOLDER/SCREWDRIVER/TUBING-WATER DEPT/ EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 59211 BARRY & SEWALL RUST REMOVER-WATER DEPT 187.54 59212 BARTLEY SALES COMPANY INC SCREEN BRACKETS-PARK MAINTENANCE 29.00 59213 BARTON ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES INC SERVICE-HIGHWAY 5 TO COUNTY RD 4 23431.44 59214 BATTERY & TIRE WAREHOUSE INC -BRAKE FLUID/POWER STEERING FLUID/HEADLAMP 637.09 -BULBS/SIGNALS/SIGNAL FLASHER/CONDUIT/ -WINDSHIELD WASHER FLUID/BATTERIES/WIRE- EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 59215 BAUER BUILT INC VALVE STEMS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 50.00 59216 BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES INC SERVICE-TRAFFIC STUDY 320.00 59217 BFI MEDICAL WASTE SYSTEMS SERVICE-ANIMAL CONTROL 39.00 59218 LOIS BOETTCHER MINUTES-HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION 61.88 ( '19 GERALD BOHN 800K-FIRE DEPT 15.00 _ 220 DONNA BOLLER SERVICE-TRAFFIC CONTROL-POLICE DEPT 55.00 59221 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC GRAVEL-STREET MAINTENANCE/PARK MAINTENANCE 257.69 59222 BSN CORP FITTINGS FOR SOCCER GOALS-PARK MAINTENANCE 41.80 59223 C&H DISTRIBUTORS INC 2 FLAMMABLE SAFETY CABINETS-SEWER DEPT 1141.68 59224 CARLSON AUTOMATIC FIRE PROTECTION REFUND-MECHANICAL PERMIT 30.50 59225 CARLSON & CARLSON ASSOC -MARCH 90 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE/RETAINER FEE 1160.00 HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT 59226 CENTRAIRE INC -REPLACED WATER HEATER VENT DAMPER/HEATER 1065.13 -AIR BAFFLE KIT/REPAIRED GAS VALVE/ -REPLACED BLOWER MOTOR & THERMOSTAT- POLICE BUILDING/FIRE STATION 59227 CERTIFIED LABORATORIES RUST REMOVER-WATER DEPT 144.89 59228 JAMES G CLARK APRIL '90 EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 200.00 59229 COLOR TILE INC -CUTTER BLADE/ADHESIVE DISSOLVER/GROUT & 74.46 -TILE CLEANER/GROUT SEALER/GROUT/SAW BLADE/ ADHESIVE-PARK MAINTENANCE 59230 COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICE-I-494 TRAFFIC STUDY 15000.00 59231 COMPUTER BUYING SERVICE -COMPUTER-51190.00/5 PRINTERS-$945.00/ 2170.00 CABLES-POLICE FORFEITURE-DRUGS 59232 CONCEPT MICROFILM INC -CAMERA RENTAL/FILM-HISTORICAL & CULTURAL 467.00 COMMISSION 59233 SPENCER L CONRAD CONFERENCE-FIRE DEPT 1060.43 59234 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS INC JOINT SEALER-STREET MAINTENANCE 2160.00 59235 CONTACT MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS INC RADIO REPAIR-FIRE DEPT 61.00 236 CONTECH CONST PRODUCTS INC CULVERTS/CULBERT BANDS-DRAINAGE CONTROL 361.90 37 CORPORATE RISK MANAGERS INC APRIL '90 SERVICE-INSURANCE CONSULTANT 1540.00 6598847 /M E, MAY 1.1990 59238 COUNTS MEDICAL EQUIPMENT FIRST AID RESCUE EQUIPMENT-FIRE DEPT 224.99 59239 CROWN MARKING INC -DESK NAME PLATES-PLANNING DEPT/HUMAN 21.75 RESOURCES DEPT 9240 CULLIGAN SERVICE 56.60 241 CURTIN MATHESON SCIENTIFIC INC EROSION CONTROL MATS-WATER DEPT 111.10 59242 CURTIS INDUSTRIES INC -KEY BLANKS/NUTS & BOLTS/CONNECTORS/DRILL 221.62 BITS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 59243 CUSTOM AUTOBODY REPAIR & REFINISH TRUCK DOOR-WATER DEPT 284.00 59244 CUTLER MAGNER COMPANY QUICKLIME-WATER DEPT 10074.53 59245 DALCO CLEANING SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 323.79 59246 DAN & DAN'S MINUTEMAN PRESS PRINTING FORMS-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT 117.15 59247 LARRY DOIG CONFERENCE-FIRE DEPT 72.00 59248 DPC INDUSTRIES INC CHLORINE-WATER DEPT 1293.00 59249 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 22.43 59250 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 496.67 59251 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU -EXPENSES-SENIOR CENTER/NEIGHBORHOOD 40.66 OUTREACH PROGRAM/CITY HALL 59252 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU -EXPENSES-COMMUNITY CENTER/NEIGHBORHOOD 57.83 OUTREACH PROGRAM 59253 DYNA SYSTEMS -SCREWS/CONNECTIONS/HOSE CLAMPS/DRILL BITS/ 371.66 WASHERS/NUTS & BOLTS-WATER DEPT 59254 DYNEX INDUSTRIES INC MOTORS-WATER DEPT 206.96 59255 EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY MARCH 90 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-CITY HALL 600.94 59256 ECOLAB PEST ELIMINATION DIVISION APRIL 90 SERVICE-FIRE STATIONS 121.50 59257 CITY OF EDINA MARCH '90 WATER TESTS-WATER DEPT 132.00 59258 DEB EDLUND MINUTES-CITY COUNCIL 350.00 59259 JOHN EKLUND WASTE DISPOSAL-FORESTRY DEPT 415.00 59260 ELECTRICAL MECHANICAL SERVICES IN MOTOR-WATER DEPT 460.41 59261 ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY INC -SAFETY GLOVES/BODY HARNESS/FILTERS/PVC 444.61 -BOOTS/JACKET/HIP BOOTS/OVERSHOE BOOTS- WATER DEPT 59262 CHRIS ENGER APRIL '90 EXPENSES-PLANNING DEPT 200.00 59263 RAY ENZ VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 54.00 59264 EPIC USA INC SERVICE-TELEPHONE SYSTEM CONSULTATION 1950.00 59265 JEFF ESS HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 240.00 59266 FAIRVIEW BLOOD TESTS-POLICE DEPT 54.88 59267 KEITH FARNIOK CONFERENCE-FIRE DEPT 158.04 59268 FINLEY BROS ENTERPRISES WINDSCREEN TY-WRAPS-PARK MAINTENANCE 199.00 59269 FLEX COMPENSATION INC SERVICE-FLEXIBLE BENEFIT ONGOING SUPPORT 195.00 59270 FOUR STAR BAR & RESTAURANT SUPPLY SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES 565.53 59271 LYNDELL F FREY VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 94.50 59272 G & K SERVICES -COVERALLS/MOP HEADS-WATER DEPT/TOWELS- 689.54 PARK MAINTENANCE/LIQUOR STORE 59273 LARRY GESSLER BASKETBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 240.00 59274 GETTING TO KNOW YOU ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES 136.95 59275 GE SUPPLY 2 MOTORS-WATER DEPT 223.80 59276 JOSEPH GLEASON HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 500.00 59277 CHARLES A GOBLE ATTACHE CASE-POLICE DEPT 40.00 59278 GOODYEAR COMMERCIAL TIRE & SERVIC TIRES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 1142.52 . 59279 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC SERVICE 97.50 59280 GOV'T FINANCE OFFICERS ASSN SUBSCRIPTION-FINANCE DEPT 24.93 59281 GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT 1420.00 59282 W W GRAINGER INC -BATTERY/STEP STAND-FACILITIES DEPT/WATER 263.79 DEPT '°283 GRANT MERRITT & ASSOCIATES LTD -MARCH '90 LEGAL SERVICE-FLYING CLOUD 8146.72 LANDFILL 3315790 10)0C 59284 GROSSMAN CHEVROLET CO INC 1/2 TON PICKUP TRUCK-PARK MAINTENANCE 10169.00 59285 HACH CO LAB SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 51.02 59286 ROBERT HANNON HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 570.00 59287 MARK E HANSEN SERVICE-TRAFFIC CONTROL-POLICE DEPT 55.00 Air288 .HAZARD CONTROL INC SAFETY GLASSES/GLOVES-SAFETY DEPT 169.20 89 HCI CONNECTIONING POINT DUSTCOVERS-FIRE DEPT 63.80 79290 LAURIE HEELING MILEAGE-RECREATION ADMINISTRATION 68.25 59291 HENN CTY DEPT OF PROPERTY TAX POSTAGE-VOTER REGISTRATION VERIFICATIONS 41.70 59292 HENN CTY-SHERIFFS.DEPT MARCH '90 BOOKING FEE-POLICE DEPT 387.81 59293 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER -CITY'S SHARE FOR SIGNAL ON SHADY OAK RD 60568.12 , AT CITY WEST PARKWAY 59294 HERZOG PETROLEUM MOTOR OIL-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 2453.10 ' 59295 HONEYWELL INC -SECURITY SYSTEM MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS- 16564.91 WATER DEPT 59296 HONEYWELL INC CHARTS-WATER DEPT 165.65 59297 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST #272 -BUS SERVICE-NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH PROGRAM 22296.05 -& SPECIAL TRIPS/EVENTS/ROOM RENTALS- -ORGANIZED ATHLETICS/JANITORIAL SERVICE- WATER PLANT & SENIOR CENTER 59298 INNDVATION GROUPS BOOK-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT 33.70 59299 INSTY-PRINTS -RUBBER STAMP/PRINTING-NEWSLETTER-POLICE 99.95 DEPT 59300 INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGIN SHIPPING CHARGES-MANUAL-SIGNS DEPT 5.40 59301 INTL SOC OF FIRE SVC INSTRUCTORS DUES-FIRE DEPT 60.00 59302 INTL OFFICE SYSTEMS INC -APRII '90 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-CITY HALL/ 358.80 POLICE DEPT 59303 GARY ISAACS SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 368.00 59304 MICHAEL W JACQUES MILEAGE-LIQUOR STORE 10.00 59305 JEMS SUBSCRIPTIONS-FIRE DEPT 59.91 59306 JERRY'S NEWMARKET EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 163.2O 107 JM OFFICE PRODUCTS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT/FIRE DEPT 462.04 S08 DAN N KANTAR -DRIVER SET/DRILL PRESS SET/HOOK & PICK/ 278.74 -U-JOINT ADAPTER/GREASE GUN-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE/WATER DEPT 59309 KURT KLINGELHUTZ -2ND HALF OF WINTER STORAGE LEASE-STREET 525.00 DEPT/PARK DEPT 59310 MARY KOTTKE BASKETBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 66.00 59311 KRAEMER'S HOME CENTER -VARNISH/LOCKSETS/HINGES/BGLTS/BATTERIES/ 562.95 -TAPE MEASURE/DRILL BITS/PAINT/CAULKING ` -GUN/RUST REMOVER/PAINT BRUSHES/EXTENSION -CORDS/PADLOCK/BOLT CUTTER/SOCKET SET/ -HANDLES/ROLLER FRAME/PULLEYS/U-CLAMPS/ -CABLE-FIRE DEPT/WATER DEPT/STREET MAINT/ PARK MAINTENANCE 59312 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY -SAFETY CORDS/SAFETY CAPS/GLOVES/LAB COATS/ 917.04 -LAB APRONS/SHIELDS/HAND CLEANER/COVERALLS/ RESPIRATOR-WATER DEPT 59313 LANG PAULY & GREGERSON LTD -DECEMBER 89 LEGAL SERVICE-MARCH '90 25B12.58 FLYING CLOUD LANDFILL 59314 BOB LANZI MILEAGE-ATHLETIC COORDINATOR 186.50 59315 LEEF BROS INC UNIFORMS-EQUIPMENT MA'NTENANCE 193.53 59316 L LEHMAN & ASSOCIATES INC -MARCH '90 LEGAL SERVICE-FLYING CLOUD 4825.76 LANDFILL 59317 LINHOFF CORPORATE COLOR PRINTS-FORESTRY DEPT 9.76 (14862247 IU40 MAY 1.1990 59318 LOGIS MARCH '90 SERVICE 18051.40 59319 LOUISVILLE LANDFILL INC MARCH '90 WASTE DISPOSAL-STREET MAINT 136.92 320 LYMAN LUMBER CO -PLYWOOD/TREATED LUMBER/FIBERGLASS/SCREWS/ 471.83 TIMBERS-POLICE DEPT/FIRE DEPT/PARK MAINT 932I M-V GAS CO GAS-OUTDOOR CENTER 234.00 59322 MACOUEEN EQUIPMENT INC -WATER PUMP-$992.22-SEWER DEPT/SPLICE 1309.59 -PLATE/ROLLERS/WATER STRAINER ASSEMBLY/ -SPROCKETS/CONVEYOR BELT DRIVE CHAINS/ 0-RINGS/GASKETS/HYDROSTAT-EQUIPMENT MAINT 59323 MARTIN-MCALLISTER STREET TEST-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT 225.00 59324 LCDR NAT MARTINO -USE OF SOFTWARE COMPUTER PROGRAM- 15.00 ENGINEERING DEPT 59325 JAMES MATSON CANINE SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 28.99 59326 MATTS AUTO SERVICE INC TOWING-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 175.00 59327 MCNEILUS STEEL INC STEEL PLATE & TUBING-PARK MAINTENANCE 306.31 59328 MEDICAL OXYGEN & EQUIP CO OXYGEN-FIRE DEPT 65.10 59329 MENARDS RUST REMOVER-WATER DEPT • 59.80 59330 JOSEPH T MENGEL PH D MARCH 90 SERVICE-FLYING CLOUD LANDFILL 1025.00 59331 MESSERLI & KRAMER APRIL '90 SERVICE 13500.00 j 59332 METRO PRINTING INC ENVELOPES-POLICE DEPT 183.00 59333 METRO SYSTEMS CASTERS-LIQUOR STORE 46.80 59334 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMIS MAY '90 SEWER SERVICE CHARGES 161364.88 59335 MID AMERICA GOLF SUPPLY GOLF BALLS-SPRING SKILL DEVELOPMENT 263.00 59336 MIDLAND EQUIPMENT CO -CYLINDER REPAIR/DUMP BOX REPAIR-EQUIPMENT 726.95 MAINTENANCE 59337 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP BLACKTOP-STREET MAINTENANCE 934.25 59338 MINNCOMM PAGING -APRIL '90 PAGER SERVICE-SEWER DEPT/WATER 197.81 DEPT/POLICE DEPT/STREET DEPT 339 MN CONWAY FIRE & SAFETY -EXTINGUISHERS-SAFETY DEPT/UNIFORMS/ 3550.00 CLEANING SUPPLIES-FIRE DEPT 59340 MN DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES FIREARMS SAFETY INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 70.00 59341 MINNETONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS -CITY'S SHARE OF MINNETONKA COMMUNITY 100.00 SERVICES PROGRAM 59342 MOTOROLA INC RADIO REPAIR-POLICE DEPT/FIRE DEPT 304.10 59343 MSP AIRPORT NEWS ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES 49.00 59344 MN SUBURBAN PUBLICATIONS -ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES/SOLID WASTE 562.80 MANAGEMENT 59345 WM MUELLER & SONS INC SAND-PARK MAINTENANCE 868.41 59346 NATIONAL SCREENPRINT T-SHIRTS-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS 491.22 59347 NOBLE & ASSOCIATES INC -MARCH '90 LEGAL SERVICE-FLYING CLOUD 1192.94 LANDFILL 59348 NORSTAN COMMUNICATIONS INC PHONE SYSTEM-STREET MAINTENANCE 4715.00 59349 NORTHWOOD GAS CO GAS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 22.22 59350 CURTI.S OBERLANDER CONFERENCE-FIRE DEPT 57.23 59351 OFFICE PRODUCTS OF MN INC PRINTER-$1854.00-ASSESSING DEPT 1949.00 59352 OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC -CANVAS BUCKET/CHAIN CABLE/CLIPS-SIGNS 104.95 DEPT/PARK MAINTENANCE 59353 JANE OBRIEN -CREATIVE CRAFTS INSTRUCTOR-SPRING SKILL 138.00 DEVELOPMENT/FEES PAID 59354 PAPER WAREHOUSE PAPER CUPS/NAME TAGS/NAPKINS-SENIOR CENTER 27.35 59355 PEDERSON SELLS EQUIPMENT CO INC MOTOR/LIQUID GAUGE-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 173.22 59356 PEPSI COLA COMPANY CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 182.50 59357 PERSONNEL POOL -SERVICE-FINANCE DEPT/PARK & RECREATION 235.20 DEPT 358 THE PINK COMPANIES -DESK-$645.50/2 OVERDESKS-5806.50/2 1745.50 -TACKBOARDS-5132.00/2 TASKLIGHTS-$160.00- 21585927 i POLICE DEPT i 59359 STEVE PITKANEN LICENSE-WATER DEPT 26.00 I 59360 PITNEY BOWES INC MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-COMMUNITY CENTER 107.96 59361 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -SCREWS/DRILL BITS/ANCHORS/HARDWARE/HAND 79.38 -CLEANER/HOOKS/WATER TREATMENT PELLETS/ COVER PLATES-FACILITIES DEPT 4;9362 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -ANCHOR/BOLTS/PAINT/DETERGENT/BUNGEE CORD/ 311.77 I -RUST REMOVER/PLASTIC/DEGREASER/BLADES/ 3 POCKET SAW/TOOL BOX/DRILL BITS-WATER DEPT 59363 PRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN PLUGS/BLADE SHARPENED-EQUIPMENT MAINT 11.50 jj 59364 PRAIRIE OFFSET PRINTING EMPLOYEE NEWSLETTER-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT 205.25 1 59365 PSQ BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS INC TELEPHONE SERVICE 270.00 j 59366 PUMP & METERS SERVICE INC -CHAIN/REBUILT NOZZLE/REPLACED SWITCH- 100.06 1 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE fi 59367 R & R MARINE INC GAS TANK/LUBRICANT-PARK MAINTENANCE 74.14 59368 RADIO SHACK AUTO ACCESS-POLICE DEPT 9.88 59369 RIVIERA FINANCIAL SERVICES BATTERIES-WATER DEPT 49.50 59370 ROGER'S SERVICE -STARTERS & SOLENOID/ALTERNATOR-EQUIPMENT 278.85 MAINTENANCE 59371 ROLLINS OIL CO GAS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 9093.30 59372 ROSS INDUSTRIES INC -2500 WOODEN RULERS-FIRE PREVENTION 600.00 /. SUPPLIES-FIRE DEPT 59373 JOE RUZIC REFUND-HYDRANT METER DEPOSIT 3D0.00 1 59374 SALLY DISTRIBUTORS INC TOYS/GAMES-SOCIAL EVENTS 440.60 59375 THE SANDWICH FACTORY INC EXPENSES-HISTORICLA & CULTURAL COMMISSION 30.44 j 59376 SANCO INC CLEANING SUPPLIES-FACILITIES DEPT 19.65 59377 SAVOIE SUPPLY CO INC -MOP WRINGERS-WATER DEPT/CLEANING SUPPLIES 324.90 STREET MAINTENANCE 59378 KEVIN SCHMIEG -FEBRUARY & MARCH 90 EXPENSES-BUILDING 400.00 INSPECTIONS DEPT 79 SCOTT G SCHRAM CONFERENCE-FIRE DEPT 174.37 _380 SEARS -SOLDERING GUNS/ALLEN WRENCH SETS/PLIERS- 206.76 FIRE DEPT 5938I SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES -SERVICE-1990 SENIOR OUTREACH PROGRAM- 2132.00 HUMAN SERVICES DEPT 59382 SETON NAME PLATE COMPANY SIGNS/TAPE/KEYS-FACILITIES DEPT/WATER DEPT 160.56 59383 SIGN-TIFIC SIGNS-POLICE DEPT 5.50 59384 W GORDON SMITH CO HYDRAULIC OIL-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 117.80 59385 SNAP ON TOOLS CORP -EXTRACTOR SET/AIR DRILL/DRILL BITS- 159.94 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 59386 SNYDER DRUG STORES INC EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 9.95 59387 SOLV OIL SERVICE & SUPPLY INC WASTE DISPOSAL-PARK MAINTENANCE 100.00 59388 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC EMPLOYMENT ADS-ENGINEERING DEPT 61.50 59389 SPS COMPANIES -WATER CLOSET REPAIR KITS/VALVE UNITS/ 199.22 -FAUCET STEM/TEMPERATURE CONTROL-PARK MAINTENANCE 59390 STAR TRIBUNE SUBSCRIPTIONS-CITY HALL 140.40 59391 STARS RESTAURANT EXPENSES-COUNCILMEMBERS 104.45 59392 STATE OF MINNESOTA UNCLAIMED PROPERTY 4208.75 59393 STATE TREASURER MARCH '90 BUILDING SURCHARGES 3383.60 59394 STAT-MEDICAL INC FIRST AID RESCUE EQUIPMENT-FIRE DEPT 230.70 59395 STRAND MANUFACTURING CO INC TUBING/COVER & BACK PANEL-SEWER DEPT 247.5I 59396 STREICHERS PROFESSIONAL POLICE EQ -ARROWSTICKS/BATTERIES/STROBE LAMP/ 8150.50 -SPEAKERS/LIGHTBARS/DIRECTIONAL STROBE -KITS/SAFETY PARTITIONS/SEAT PROTECTORS/ :52669 aS{ -FLASHLIGHTS/PUSH BUMPERS/GRILL LIGHT KITS/ -MAP LIGHT-POLICE DEPT/EQUIPMENT MAINT/ -SHOTGUN STOCKS/SHOTGUN SLINGS-POLICE FORFEITURE-DRUGS 9397 SULLIVANS SERVICES INC WASTE DISPOSAL-OUTDOOR CENTER 86.23 7398 SUPRA COLOR LABS INC FILM DEVELOPING-POLICE DEPT 5.18 59399 NATALIE SWAGGERT APRIL '90 EXPENSES-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT 200.00 59400 SYSTEM CONTROL SERVICES EQUIPMENT REPAIR-WATER DEPT 107.50 59401 TARGET STORES -OFFICE SUPPLIES-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT/FILM 109.54 POLICE DEPT/KITES-SPECIAL EVENTS 59402 TNEMEC COMPANY INC PROTECTIVE COATING-WATER DEPT 478.67 59403 TRIARCO ARTS & CRAFTS INC PRIZES-SPECIAL EVENTS 26.60 59404 SHAUN TRUAX -SOFTBALL/VOLLEYBALL & BASKETBALL OFFICIAL/ 288.00 FEES PAID 59405 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO ACETYLENE/OXYGEN-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 73.10 59406 U S ENGRAVERS INC PLAQUES-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS/SPECIAL EVENTS 381.50 59407 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORMS-POLICE DEPT 14.50 59408 UNITED LABORATORIES INC CLEANING SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 353.04 59409 UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC TAP & DIE SET/FILE SET-EQUIPMENT MAINT 413.50 59410 UPPER MIDWEST SALES CO CLEANING SUPPLIES-FACILITIES DEPT 142.87 59411 THE URBAN LAND INSTITUTE BOOK-PLANNING DEPT 37.50 59412 VESSCO INC -PAINT/CHEMICAL FEEDER PARTS/SPROCKET- 747.65 WATER DEPT 59413 VF INDUSTRIAL FINISHING -SANDBLASTING & PAINTING TRUCK BOX- 550.00 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 59414 VICOM INC -APRIL '90 WIRE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT- 7.00 COMMUNITY CENTER 59415 VOSS ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY LIGHT BULBS-FACILITIES DEPT 10.48 59416 VWR SCIENTIFIC INC BENCH LINER/UTILITY CARRIER-WATER DEPT 175.10 59417 CLARK WALKER -SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH 31.00 f PROGRAM/FEES PAID ,9418 KEITH WALL APRIL '90 EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 200.00 594I9 WATER PRODUCTS CO -EROSION CONTROL MAT/CURB BOX KEYS/4 1505.85 -DEFUSERS-$740.O0/GASKETS/SCREWS/FLUSHING -ELBDWS/REMOTE READERS-WATER DEPT/SPANNER WRENCHES-FIRE DEPT 59420 WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMP -RAPID MIX MOTOR-$288.0O/SPARE PARTS FOR I906.19 -RAPID MIX GEAR REDUCER/PUMP ADAPTOR-WATER DEPT 59421 WENCK ASSOCIATES INC MARCH '90 SERVICE-FLYING CLOUD LANDFILL 17046.31 59422 ROBERTA WICK MINUTES-CITY COUNCIL 150.00 59423 X-ERGON LUBRICANT/ADHESIVE-WATER DEPT 173.98 59424 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE FIRST AID SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT/PARK MAINT 73.45 59425 ZEP MANUFACTURING COMPANY -LUBRICANTS/CHOKE & CARBURETOR CLEANER/ 434.40 EXTENSION TUBES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 58795 VOID OUT CHECK 10.00 58866 VPOD VOID OUT CHECK 75.00- 58931 VOID OUT CHECK 5485.00- 58938 VOID OUT CHECK 185.76- ! 58941 VOID OUT CHECK 59.15- 59034 VOID OUT CHECK 72.61 1984162 $918536.77 DISTRIBUTION BY FUNDS 10 GENERAL 376870.42 11 CERTIFICATE OF INDEBT 10238.90 15 LIQUOR STORE-P V M 35430.54 17 LIQUOR STORE-PRESERVE 26918.35 • 21 POLICE DRUG FORFEITURE 2602.25 22 STATE AID CONST 38431.44 51 IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 61944.77 73 WATER FUND 65585.39 77 SEWER FUND 165222.13 79 RALF 735.00 81 TRUST & ESCROW FUND 119667.04 85 HISTORICAL CULTURAL FD 467.00 86 PARK PROG-CONTRIBJTIONS 143.54 87 CDBG FUND 780.00 MUNICIPAL LEGISLATIVE 13500.00 $918536.77 TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: JOHN FRANE DATE: APRIL 27,1990 RE: LIQUOR STORES WE CONTACTED THE OWNER OF THE PRESERVE CENTER SHOPPING MALL ABOUT THE EXTENSION OF THE LEASE FOR 6 MONTHS; HIS OFFER IS ONE YEAR AT NO INCREASE IN RENT. I BELIEVE ONE YEAR IS A REASONABLE TIME FROM THE CITY$ STANDPOINT BECAUSE IF WE ARE GOING TO STAY IN BUSINESS AND BUILD A STORE IT WILL TAKE TIME TO SECURE A SITE AND BUILD THE BUILDING, IF NOT WE WILL WANT TO TAKE OUR TIME IN SELLING IT TO SECURE THE BEST PRICE. WE SUGGEST THAT THE CITY RETAIN A CONSULTANT, AT A COST NOT TO EXC) I) $5,000, TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO WHERE AND HOW MANY STORES WE SHOULD HAVE. 11I (/ I /(75 MEMORANDUM irTO: Mayor and City Council Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources/a0i DATE: April 27, 1990 SUBJECT: Staring Lake Park Acquisition The final piece to the Staring Lake Park acquisition puzzle that was initiated in 1968 is the James Boyce property located at 14350 Pioneer Trail. This parcel has been designated as a part of Staring Lake Park since the 1968 Guide Plan and the original Park and Open Space Plan approved in that same year. This property includes approximately 11.77 acres and a single family rambler consisting of over 6000 sq. ft. of finished space, a three car garage, an in-ground heated swimming pool and separate whirlpool. The lot is heavily wooded on the north half with large oak trees and is located across the street from Flying Cloud Airport. Staring Lake Park is located immediately east and north of this property. A small parcel of land that will be acquired by the Metropolitan Airports Commission is located immediately east of this site. If this parcel is acquired for park purposes all of the property north of County Road 1 between Staring Lake Parkway and the Cummins-Grill site would be publicly owned property, the majority owned by the City of Eden Prairie and a portion owned by the Metropolitan Airports Commission. The Metropolitan Airports Commission has agreed to allow limited public use of their existing property for park purposes. The planned use of this parcel of property and homesite would be for picnicking and as a future cultural arts center. The real value of obtaining this property for park purposes is to protect the character of the surrounding parkland and maintain the natural beauty of the entire north facing wooded slope. Attached to this memo is a November 3, 1989 letter to the Mayor and City Council from Jim Boyce that describes his position regarding the value of this property six months ago. Staff have been negotiating with Mr. Boyce in the interim and Mr. Boyce has now agreed to sell his property for $675,000 on the condition that he is able to live in the home until May 1, 1995. Although it is difficult to estimate the true value of this property, because it has been guided as parkland, (Mr. Boyce sees �1ii!' the highest and best use as office) staff have reviewed the sales of property surrounding Staring Lake over the last two years. it SELLER DATE OF PRICE # ACRES COMMENTS SALE Flescher 12/28/87 $25,714/acre 29.19 Mason 3/89 $72,293/acre 13.65 After rezoning to multi family Bauer 5/9/89 $31,227/lot Raw land after rezoning Waleswood 12/15/89 $21,008/acre 9.52 Staff estimated that if this property was subdivided into single family residential (in order to compare with adjacent property sales) this site could accommodate approximately 20 lots. If these lots were valued at approximately $30,000 per lot for the raw land after zoning, the value of the raw land would be approximately $600,000. Assuming the existing single family residence is worth an additional $200,000, the value of the property could be in the area of $800,000, if it were zoned for single family residential. City staff believes the offer of $675,000, plus the right to live on the site for five years is a relatively fair offer for the property. Staff further believes that this parcel of property is a key to preserving the integrity of Staring Lake Park and recommends the City Council acquire this property at this time. It should be noted that in order to acquire this property the development program for the park system will have to be put on hold , to a certain extent over the next few years, but this opportunity to invest in the future of the park system will not likely be available again, while development of existing property can occur anytime in the future. There is not sufficient funds remaining in the cash park fee fund to acquire this property at this time; therefore, staff would recommend borrowing from other City funds and reimbursing those funds over a five year period. Staff will also be recommending the City Council commit up to $200,000 per year over the next five years, to a park acquisition fund, out of the general fund, and rely on cash park fees to fund development of the park system. Development of major projects such as Miller Park will still require a future referendum, or other source of funding. Some of the projects that will have to be delayed due to this acquisition are as follows: 1. Delay acquisition of Minnesota River Valley property in 1991 and 1992. ( 2. Delay improvements to Riley Lake Park in 1992 and 1993. I4jab 3. Other smaller park improvement projects may also have to be delayed between 1990 and 1995 depending on the amount of cash park fee revenue that actually is generated. Staff will provide a revised capital improvement program once the terms of the acquisition of this parcel are developed and approved. BL:mdd ( November 3, 1989 L Mayor and City Council City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 RE: Jim Boyce Property 14350 Pioneer Trail Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: In 1967, I purchased this property with the intent of living here for a number of years and eventually developing this site. At the time I purchased the property the property was zoned commercial. Soon after I purchased the property the City decided to rezone the property to rural. Although, I recognized the potential loss of value to the property, I did not complain. In 1973 the City came to me and wanted to buy my lakeshore property for park purposes. Although, I did not wish to sell my lakeshore, I recognized the City's need for park and agreed to sell. In 1982 the City again came to me requesting a bike trail easement. I recognized the City's need for trails and granted the easement without charge. I've held this property for 22 years expecting someday to be able to develop this property; however, I have also been aware that the property is guided for parkland. At this time, I am ready to request a rezoning for office use, but prior to submitting a formal application, I wish to offer the City an opportunity to acquire my remaining property for park purposes. If the City is not interested, or is unable to acquire my property at this time, please advise me as soon as possible so I'm able to proceed with my rezoning request. The property I own at 14350 Pioneer Trail contains approximately 11.9 acres and a large ramble home. This home has over 6000 sq. ft. It has 5 bedrooms, 5 bathrooms, and an attached three car garage. The home is quality built with 2 fireplaces, one marble and one brick. It has a cedar shingle roof, and in-ground swimming pool and whirl pool with a stone retaining wall and 2 large redwood decks. It has two kitchens, a large family room with sliding glass doors leading to the swimming pool. As you can see, this home on nearly 12 wooded acres overlooking Staring Lake certainly compares favorably to the large homes presently being constructed on the north and west side of Staring Lake, which are selling for over $400,000. These homes are gener- ally one quarter acre to half acre lots; many without any trees. Mayor and City Council -2- November 3, 1989 irAt this time, I am willing to sell my home and property to the City of Eden Prairie for $990,000 with $500,000 down and the balance over 5 years at 10%. During the term of this contract my family and I wish to reside in this home, rent free, but would pay our own utilities. I believe these conditions are fair in relation to the value of this property, and request a decision from the City Council within 30 days. I appreciate your consideration of this offer. Sincerely, es F. Boyce { /�GiD MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources/1(V DATE: April 27, 1990 SUBJECT: Purgatory Creek Recreation Area Update Attached to this memo is an October 30, 1989 letter from Bob Obermeyer of Barr Engineering indicating the feasibility of constructing a control structure for the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area to raise the normal water elevation in the floodplain from 817.6 to 820. Also, attached is a December 12th memo from Bob Lambert describing the cooperative agreement with the Watershed District to determine the impact of this proposed project on Staring Lake, as well as the reasons to consider this project. A March 15, 1990 letter from Obermeyer indicates that a control structure could be established at the outlet of the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area for the purpose of establishing a normal elevation of 820, if the outlet to Staring Lake were improved to convey an "outflow discharge of 300 CFS" to maintain an 817 flood elevation of Staring Lake. Without the improvements to the outlet of Staring Lake a flood elevation of 820 would result. The 820 flood elevation would cause significant damage to some of the oak woods ' on the south shore of Staring Lake and would cause flooding of the Outdoor Center, as well as much of the trail system during flood conditions. The March 15th letter also indicates that the District's overall/509 plan proposes that a control structure be constructed at the outlet of Staring Lake; therefore, this project would be eligible for 100% financing by the Watershed District. A plan which will be reviewed with the Council on May 1st depicts the realigned Technology Drive and the revised site plan for the entry, as well as the impact on the water level in the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area if a control structure is installed and maintains an 820 contour for the normal ordinary high water mark. Staff has been working with representatives from Ducks Unlimited, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Corp of Engineers, and the Watershed District regarding a joint project for the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area. As a part of this joint effort, the Fish and Wildlife Service have funded $20,000 for the construction of the water control structure for Purgatory Creek for 1990. The Fish and Wildlife Service need to have a confirmation prior to the end / A?') of May as to whether or not the City will authorize installation of this water control structure and approve a management plan for this recreation area. If the City cannot commit. to using these funds for this purpose, the Fish and Wildlife Service will designate these "one-time" funds for another project. The Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Watershed District has been a partner with the City on the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area from its inception. Staff would recommend that the City request the Watershed District to consider joining the City in a joint development process of the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area. The first request would be the design and construction of the water control structure at the Recreation Area outlet. Staff would suggest that perhaps the Watershed District could provide the design for the structure and, hopefully, the structure could be constructed with the $20,000 committed by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Staff recommends the following steps for development of the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area: 1. City Council petition the Watershed District to consider some assistance in the design and construction of the outlet structure at the Recreation Area. 2. City Council authorize approving the acceptance of the $20,000 for the water control structure from the Fish and Wildlife Service contingent upon review of the management plan and any other requirements the Fish and Wildlife Service may have of the City for use of these funds. 3. The City Council petition the Watershed District for a feasibility study on the improvement of the outlet to Staring Lake to maintain the current flood control elevation of Staring Lake at 817. 4. Staff to review the revised plan with each of the individuals or corporations that own floodplain property in the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area and request a commitment for transfer of ownership of floodplain property to the City of Eden Prairie. 5. City Council petition the Watershed District to enter into a joint project for design and development of the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area first phase development including: dredging of ponds adjacent to and as a part of the entry, construction of the entry, and construction of the trail system. 6. Staff to initiate final design drawings for the first phase of development of the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area entry, pond dredging and trail construction anticipating TIF funding and Watershed District matching funds. 7. Secure development approvals from Corp of Engineers, Depart- ment of Natural Resources, and the Watershed District. 8. Coordinate the development of the first phase of the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area entry with the realignment of Technology Drive. Staff proposes to take the revised site plan for the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area to the Planning Commission and Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission prior to requesting Council approval of the plan. At this time, staff requests City Council approval of the tentative schedule for development of the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area, and specific authorization to request the Watershed District to initiate a feasibility study on the outlet to Staring Lake, as well as authorization to secure agreement from the Fish and Wildlife Service for funding the water control structure to the recreation area. BL:mdd 1f - Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District rh `} o q.�_ _ Engineering Advisor:Barr Engineering Co. ' t:. - ';- ) ti...r.. ,,,,.,,, 7803 Glenroy Road -,. Minneapolis,MN 55435 f -,_ 830-0555 Legal Advisor:Popham,Hails,Schnobrich&Kaufman 3303 Piper Jaffrey Tower Minneapolis,MN 55402 333-4800 March 15, 1990 Mr. Bob Lambert Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Re: Purgatory Recreation Area - Flood Analysis Dear Mr. Lambert: This correspondence will summarize the additional hydrologic and if hydraulic analysis completed for the creek system downstream of the Purgatory - Creek Recreation area. Our correspondence dated October 30, 1989 summarized the hydraulic impacts within the Recreation Area with a control structure establishing a normal elevation of 820.0 and maintaining a maximum 100-year frequency flood elevation of 824.5 (this elevation assumes the allowable 11.6 percent flood plain encroachment will be used). To accomplish this, we have calculated that the peak outflow discharge from the Recreation Area requires to be increased by 22 cfs, from the original floodplain calculations, and routed downstream to Staring Lake. Our preliminary calculations indicate that a structure with a weir length of 10 feet will provide the required outflow capacity from the Recreation Area. The Districts Overall/509 Plan proposes that a control structure be constructed at the outlet of Staring Lake. The normal elevation of the lake is currently being controlled by the thalweg of Purgatory Creek. A reach of the creek immediately downstream of Staring Lake, approximately 800 feet in length, currently controls (restricts) the outflow discharge from the lake. The management elevation for the lake of 817 and for the creek system downstream of Staring Lake assumed that improvements downstream of the lake ' would be made enabling the outflow capacity from the lake to be increased. A flood elevation of 820.0 for Staring Lake would result if the existing outlet conditions are not improved. If, however, the channel downstream of the lake is improved to convey an outflow discharge of 300 cfs, the 817 flood elevation of Staring Lake is maintained. With these proposed improvements ( the additional runoff being directed from the Recreation Area to Staring Lake Mr. Bob Lambert March 15, 1990 Page 2 will not affect the required flood storage and resultant flood elevation of Staring Lake. If you have any questions or request additional information, please give me a call. Sincerely, Ro ert C. Obermeyer rr Engineering Company Engineers for the District RCO/pls c: Board of Managers Mr. Ray Haik A:\RECREATI k MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources,,,._ DATE: December 12, 1989 SUBJECT: Proposed Cooperative Agreement with the Watershed District for Additional Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis of the Creek System Downstream of the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area Since 1983 the City has been reviewing various possibilities to develop the Purgatory Creek floodplain south of Highway 5 and west of Prairie Center Drive, known 'as the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area. The majority of the plans to date depict dredging five to six large ponding areas within that floodplain to create open water that would not only provide an improved wildlife habitat in the area, but would also create an amenity for the adjacent properties. The dredging of these ponding areas would be an expensive project that could easily cost in excess of $2,000,000. In an attempt to determine if there was any feasible way to create a cooperative project between several governmental agencies and/or private organizations, City staff have been discussing a possible joint development project with the Fish and Wildlife Service, Ducks Unlimited, the Corp of Engineers, Department of Natural Resources, and the Watershed District. Representatives from each of these groups have met on several occasions to determine what type of project would be feasible and supported by all interested parties. All representatives indicated that it would be much more feasible to create the open water through the construction of a water control structure raising the water elevation rather than dredging ponding areas, that would not only be expensive to construct but also expensive to maintain. The first step to determine whether or not it is feasible to develop a water control structure and raise the water elevation is to determine the impact on flood storage to the creek system. Obviously, adjacent property owners would not want the 100 year flood elevation raised around the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area; therefore, the increased flood storage would have to be accommodated either upstream or downstream. The most obvious location would be to handle the additional storage in Staring Lake. In order to determine the impact on Staring Lake and Staring Lake Park, it is necessary to calculate 50 year or 100 year flood occurrences downstream and determine to what elevation Staring Lake would rise. Attached to this memo is correspondence between City staff and the Watershed District requesting the Watershed District Board of • Nne Directors to consider authorization to determine this impact. The Watershed District Board met on December 6th and agreed to enter C into a cooperative agreement with the City of Eden Prairie on a fifty-fifty match for an analysis that would cost approximately $3000. City staff requests authorization from the City Council to approve this analysis and to incur costs up to but not to exceed $1500. Upon review of this information staff will then recommend whether or not the City should consider proceeding with a joint project for a water control structure that would raise the elevation of the water in the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area. BL:mdd • tocoF °•°" r r Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District J- o �. - Engineering Advisor:Barr Engineering Co. 7803 Glenroy Road :,` Minneapolis.MN 55435 :" 830.0555 L_,1 Legal Advisor:Popham.Hails.Schnobrich&Kaufman °"- 3300 Piper Jaffrey Tower Minneapolis,MN 55402 333-4800 i October 30, 1989 Mr. Bob Lambert Director of Parks, Recreation 6 Natural Resources City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Dear Mr. Lambert: In response to your correspondence of October 3, 1989, we have reviewed j the possibility of the construction of a control structure for the Purgatory Creek Recreation area. The City has requested the Watershed District to review the potential impacts that the construction of a structure that would establish a normal elevation of 820 for this area would have on the flood envelope of Purgatory Creek. The District has established a 100-year flood elevation of 824 for this area. The actual flood elevation is 823.4 but for management purposes the elevation has been raised to the 824 elevation. The existing control for this area is the 60-inch corrugated metal pipe located upstream of Anderson Lakes Parkway. The flood storage available between this culvert and the major floodplain area is minimal, however within the major floodplain area by establishing the normal elevation at 820 results in a reduction of approximately 320 acre-feet of flood storage that is currently available. Our calculations indicate that with the normal water elevation established • at 820 and to provide the required 990 acre-feet of flood storage with the 11.6% reduction of the flood storage capacity that the District is allowing, i the resultant flood elevation would rise to 825.0. This is 0.5 feet above 4 the elevation that the District has been managing for with the allowable encroachment. If however, the normal elevation is set at approximately 819, the resultant flood elevation is 824.5 which is the elevation that the ) District is managing tor with the allowable encroachment. If the normal elevation is set at 819, additional upstream storage is not necessary. S 1 I i 1 WC. i y 1 Mr. Bob Lambert October 30, 1989 Page 2 At the 820 elevation, the surface area is approximately 134 acres. The surface area at the 819 elevation is 104 acres. The diking of the creek channel to create this open water area appears to be the most cost effective method of creating an open water setting. The outlet structure could also be designed to allow the area to drain down to the thalweg elevation of the creek for future maintenance of the area. If you have any further questions or we maybe of further assistance, please call us at 830-0555. Sincerely, ber C. Obermeyer BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY Engineers for the District RCO/tvo c: All Managers Mr. Ray Haik A:/LAMBERTA NTH 1"f - AGENDA SPECIAL EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, MAY 8, 1990 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 6:00 PM 7600 Executive Drive COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock and Douglas Tenpas CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City Attorney Roger Pauly, Zoning Administrator Jean Johnson, and Recording Secretary Jan Nelson CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS • II. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Response to MPCA re: Proposal for Permit for BFI Medical Waste Incinerator III. OTHER BUSINESS IV. ADJOURNMENT. kfr. • May - 1990 Ms. Anne Jackson. P.E. Division of Air Quality Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155 RE: AIR EMISSION PERMIT NO. 2209A-90-OT-1 BFI MEDICAL WASTE SYSTEMS OF MINNESOTA 6280 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55346 Dear Ms. Jackson: The City of Eden Prairie has concerns related to the above noted permit and herein requests the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to hold a public information meeting. The public information meeting is needed in order to gather information on the following issues: 1. The impact the incinerator use will have on Nine Mile Creek which is approximately 120 feet to the south. No information is given on how spills, leaks or wind blown ash will be prevented from reaching the creek or its associated 3 flood plain. } 2. The proposed outside processing of infectious, pathological and medical wastes in a Shoreland designated area may produce a health hazard to people and wildlife. ( Review and comments by the Nine Mile Watershed District and `\ Department of Natural Resources should be required prior to any permit issuance. This is imperative because the site is governed by Flood Plain and Shoreland regulations. 3. We believe health risk analyses need to be done for the following nearby uses: the Edenwood Camp which has outside camping activities 1,500 feet southwest of the incinerator, the Hennepin County Home School which is 800 feet north of the incinerator, the parkland contained in Birch Island Park 1,600 feet southwest of the incinerator, the residents within 1/2 mile of the incinerator, and the office/industrial workers� in the area surrounding the incinerator site. i- }aa p �.�oa� 4. How will the spent washwater be discharged and metered to the sanitary sewer. Can this be accomplished safely upon a previous site with antiquated sanitary sewer lines. 5. This narrow undersized lot does not have adequate vehicle access around the L.CtrFA-ce. sign building to allow OO � 1 fire and emergency equipment to reach the incinerator use. Due to the gravity of the above stated concerns, a public information meeting is necessary to further evaluate this site's suitability for an air emission facility permit. It is our belief this use if contained within a building is more s suitable upon industrial land not in proximity to campgrounds, parks, residential, and schools as this site is. If additional information is needed from Eden Prairie in order to set a public information meeting, please inform us. Sincerely, City of Eden Prairie Jean Johnson Zoning Administrator JACKSON.JJ:bs I i i f 11 b_ Medical a sy 'S Infectious Waste Specialists Wa for theHealth Care Indust .wNING.FERRISINDUS�AT N` HOC PT IONS e Industry ■CURRENTOPF _.. • t\-\-1'..\... ...„: # ' • o3ara, • •?,;,..ie^d`i,\\)\. . . A' 1 „ .1 t. t{lt \ t..14\,.' -.'.' • '''''-,T:...S.S . Setting ISSt(U111t(C(11►11 l �ys e►1L1t• °A • ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT FOR THE BFI MEDICAL WASTE PLANT IN EDEN PRAIRIE Listed below are deficiencies in the BFI design which can cause many environmentally and life threatening problems to Eden Prairie and to the people of Eden Prairie. - A dump stack is permitted to release uncontrolled emissions to the atmosphere during the start-up of the facility and up to 72 hours during plant upsets. A good designed system would not:allow the use of a dump-stack. - This BFI facility does not allow for any refrigeration of stored waste, nor does it have any criteria pertaining to storage of waste. This could cause a fatal disease epidemic. - There is no energy recovery associated with the BFI facility. Therefore, their facility is a pure incineration disposal type plant, whereas, a good designed • system would generate a socio-economic benefit by recovering energy. - The BFI permit calls for 850 lbs./hr. (10.2 TpD) of medical waste disposal, whereas,the nameplate capacity is listed as 1300 lbs./hr. (15.6 TpD)with an 8500 BTU/lb. heating valve. Is the de-rating from 1300lbs./hr.to 850 lbs./hr. due to the heating valve limitation on the size of the manufacturers model for equipment, or is BR going to burn 15.6 TpD, which may require a different permit? - BFI's permit notes that waste will be packaged in cardboard containers-not a safe system. - BFI's permit notes a wet scrubbing system will be used in which exhausted gases will be reheated prior to discharge to the atmosphere and spend wash water not recirculated will be discharged to the sanitary sewer. No mention is made on how reheating is to be performed or if the spent wash water will be treated (or is it contaminated)before being discharged to the sanitary sewer. It should also be noted that normally reheating systems will at times provide a visible plume from the facility. This is not the case with a dry type system which you will find in a properly designed waste plant. - The permit mentions that ash will be taken to a sanitary landfill(maybe the BFI landfill in Eden Prairie?). Good environmental practice would have the ash taken to a special landfill which is licensed to accept hazardous ash. - The permit does not address sanitizing medical waste carrying vehicles. - The permit allows a stack 37.6 feet high with an inside diameter of 36 inches. The stack height may not be in accn=dance with good engineering practice. Stack height will not allow good dispersion in conjunction with its low exit velocity of 22 feet/second. - No ambient air quality impact modeling study was performed. This is a must for environmental impact! - The continuous emission monitoring to be performed is not extensive enough. What about SO,and NO.analyzers. - The emissions criteria are no; stringent enough for particulate, dioxin and opacity. - Permit addresses 1800°for at least 1 second,should be at least 2 or 3 seconds. - Permit does not adequately address operator continuous emissions monitoring training. It only addresses equipment for analysis, but does not address the training required for operations and maintenance. - Permit mentions an acid gas monitoring plan,but no real direction on how it may be implemented,since there are no gas continuous emission monitors required. There should be an SO,monitor which can be related to HCI and HF monitoring. - No discussion is made concerning operator training or practices pertaining to the hauling of waste or disposal of ash. - Safety requirements are not mentioned for the handling of waste within the facility. Some general questions regarding this BFI Waste Plant: 1. Is the existing BFI Waste Plant operating under a conditional use permit from the City or the State now? 2. Does the City of Eden Prairie have an Incinerator ordinance now? If not, they should have one. 3. What about the traffic problems associated with this plant expansion? 4. Why is BFI building this new waste plant with the idea of moving it in two years? 5. BFI is now only burning DOGS from the University of Minnesota research department, but will soon be burning anatomical human parts. • C eQ C Co 5/2/4/0 April 27, 1990 Enclosed is my letter to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency regarding a situation which is of import to you, your employees, and those entrusted to your care, in the very near future. The MPCA will be accepting public comment and requests for a contested case hearing until May 11, 1990 on the issue of the permit for BFI to build a medical waste incinerator on Industrial Drive in Eden Prairie. Please refer to the front-page article in the April 25 issue of the Eden Prairie News for further details. Please contact Anne Jackson at the MPCA as soon as possible. The address is: Anne Jackson ( MPCA 520 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN 55155 phone: 296-6300 A contested case hearing must be requested to ensure that all environmental, health, and safety issues have been properly and completely regarded. Thank you. Sincerely, 1 ; w,.. V11 . 1111A.�: . Dawn M. McGovern 6519 Leesborough Avenue Eden Prairie, MN 555346 937-2341 L. rr p . C t E L Cc4C,vL Y LL- �G_ 1"1'1 1 u..e_�la 12, �tic_e it April 27, 1990 Anne Jackson Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN 55155 RE: Five year state permit for BFI Medical Waste to build an incinerator at 6280 Industrial Drive, Eden Prairie, MN Dear Ms Jackson: The issue of permitting a medical waste incinerator to be built in a residential area is certain to raise public concern and questions which must be addressed. As very close neighbors of the site under consideration for the proposed BFI incinerator, we ask that you please take the following issues into account. We ask that the MPCA provide a public forum for understanding, debate, further study, and resolution of these questions: ** The state limit for airborne dioxin levels. o Will the amounts of PCBs from this incinerator set the state levels and standards, or will the MPCA take the lead and set levels for BFI? ° What is a safe dioxin level in the air? ** Prevailing wind direction and watershed. o Have the wind direction and areas of watershed been carefully studied for this site? Have areas of dense population and high public use been taken into account (Camp Eden Wood, Forest Hills Elementary School and Park, St. John's Wood and Tanager Creek Townhomes, Glen Lake Nursing Home, Nexus Home School, Birch Island Lake and Park and surrounding wetlands, and completely developed areas of private homes)? ** EFI's contention that the incinerator, once built, will be moved in about two years. o Is it safe to move a structure of this type? o Why is it not being built at the permanent site? ° When will it be moved? o Are there assurances that it is not permanent? What would be the advantage for BFI to move the incinerator, once it has been given the permit, has the land, and has been built? ** The past record of BFI requires serious consideration. o Why is this incinerator being built to burn 15.6 tons and seeking a 10.2 ton permit (which does not require an environmental review)? • C ** Access to the incinerator. ° This exact area was refused several years ago as a hazardous 'waste transfer station for numerous reasons, including poor road access, via County Road 60--why is it now, without any road improvements, any safer? These issues are of great concern to those of us living "under the plume" of the current smaller burner. We ask that you consider each of the above points extremely carefully. We appreciate your watchfulness in closing one of the current incinerators as of December, 1989. We rely upon the MPCA to protect the people you serve. Please do not allow the construction of a new burner on this site simply because a small one exists there now. We request that a contested case hearing be held to address these issues, and to allow valuable public input from those directly affected by this permit. Please include my name on the MPCA mailing list regarding the BFI Medical Waste incinerator permit. Sincerely, Dawn M. McGovern 6519 Leesborough Avenue Eden Prairie, MN 55346 (612) 937-2341 cc: Forest Hills School Camp Eden Wood St. John's Wood Townhome Association Glen Lake Nursing Home Nexus Home School City of Eden Prairie I� . tr ^ia.nE.1';fc.r1 r' MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY PUBLIC NOTICE ON PROPOSED AIR EMISSION FACILITY PERMIT' NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency proposes to issue Air Emission Facility Permit No. 2209A-90-OT-1 to BFI Medical Waste Systems of Minnesota [mailing address: 14201 Vest 62nd Street, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55346] for its medical waste incinerator located at 6280 Industrial Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55346. The draft permit applies to the entire facility and authorizes the construction, installation and operation of a medical vaste incinerator. The proposed incinerator vill replace tvo existing medical vaste incinerators already located at this site, and will be authorized to incinerate 850 pounds an hour of medical waste. The proposed duration of the permit is five years. The preliminary determination to issue the permit is tentative. There are three formal procedures for public participation in the Agency's consideration of the permit application. These procedures are set forth in Minn. Rules part 7001.0100 to 7001.0130. First, interested persons may submit vritten comments on the proposed permit. Second, interested persons may request the Agency to hold a public information meeting. Third, interested persons nay request the Agency to hold a contested case hearing, vhich is conducted by the Office of Administrative Hearings pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act. Interested persons vho submit comments or requests to the Agency shall set forth: 1. a statement of the person's interest in the permit application or the draft permit; 2. a statement of the action the person wishes the Agency to take, including specific references to the section of the draft permit that the person believes should be changed; and 3. the reasons supporting the person's position, stated with sufficient specificity as to allow the Director of the Division of Air Quality to investigate the merits of the person's positions. The public comment period commences April 11, 1990 and terminates May 11, 1990. Comments and requests should be mailed to: ir 1 AIR EMISSION PERMIT NO. 2209A-90-0T-1 FOR AN EMISSION FACILITY AND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT Accordinga Statues 7005Candters 115 and 116 and 7010 BFI MEDICAL WASTE SYSTEMS OF MINNESOTA 14201 West 62nd Street Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55346 (hereinafter Permittee) is issued an Air Emission Permit by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (hereinafter Agency) for its facility located at 6280 Industrial Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55346 The permit authorizes construction and operation of the stationary source and air pollution control equipment under the conditions set forth herein. The permittee is hereby notified that the Agency is revising its rules governing the combustion of solid wastes, and is developing rules governing ed rtthe r mtanagement of infectious waste. This permit may be aexpiration to be consistant with any new rules or rule changes. This permit is effective for a term of 5 years starting on the date issued by the Commissioner. DATED: J. Michael Valentine Director Division of Air Quality for Gerald L. Willet Commissioner Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Page 2 of 18 Permit No. 2209A- 90-OT-1 DRAFT 4/5/90 FACILITY DESCRIPTION _ 1.1 Overview This permit is for a commercially operated medical waste incinerator located in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The facility is operated for the destruction by incineration of infectious, pathological and other medical wastes. Service is available on a contract basis. wastes are packaged by the waste generators in cardboard containers with polyethylene liners, as well as 44 gallon "Rubbermaid" barrels. The wastes will be delivered by both BFI-owned vehicles and other contract or self-haulers. Process equipment includes a double-chambered controlled air incinerator with hydraulic loading of the waste and hydraulic ash removal. The primary chamber of the incinerator will be provided with a natural gas burner for start-up and shut-down. The primary chamber will be equipped with an internal ash transfer ram. The secondary combustion chamber will assure complete combustion of flue gas providing at least a one second retention period of the flue gas at 1800 degrees Fahrenheit. An auxiliary fuel system will provide natural gas to the secondary chamber as necessary to maintain proper temperatures. A wet scrubber process will be used for air pollution control. The scrubbing system consists of basically three components: a quench chamber, a scrubber through which the uncleaned combustion gases pass and water is sprayed, and an impingement device to collect the droplets of water and particulate matter which have formed as a result of the spraying. Flue gases from the incinerator will enter a quench chamber where water is injected to bring the gas to below its saturation temperature. The flue gas stream then passes through an arrangement of venturi scrubbers, where the flue gas is injected with a water spray containing a caustic solution. The wet scrubbing process will control acid gas emissions through the use of this chemical neutralization process. The flue gases pass to a structured media impinger, and mist eliminator. The flue gas impinges on the media, where further cooling of the gas stream occurs, thus particles and water are removed. A mist eliminator is placed after the media to accomplish final removal of the smallest water droplets. The cleaned gases then are reheated and discharged to the atmosphere. Spent washwater not recirculated is discharged to the sanitary sewer. Ash generated from the incinerator will be discharged to an ash quench basin, and then loaded into roll-off containers for shipment to a sanitary landfill. Page 3 of 18 Permit No. 2209A- 90-0T-1 DRAFT 4/5/90 1.2 Emission Sources and Pollution Control Equipment The emission sources and associated process equipment, air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment at the stationary source described above include the following: 1.2.1 Emission Point No. 1 Emission Unit - Type: Medical Waste Incinerator Manufacturer: Simonds, Inc. Model: AY-4X Date of Installation: 1990 Rated Capacity: 1300 lbs/hr at 8500 BTU/lb -- .- Charging System: Hydraulic ram Hearth Area: 100 square feet Auxiliary Burners: One in Primary chamber, 4.0 MBtu/hr each _ One in Secondary chamber, 4.0 MBtu/hr Control Equipment - Type: Wet Scrubber Manufacturer: Calvert Environmental Model: CCS-24 Rated Capacity (acfm): 19309 at 1800°F inlet <> at <>°F exit Pressure Drop at Rated Capacity (inches of H20): 40 { Removal Efficiency (Design): <901> 1 Stack Parameters - Height: 37.6 feet Inside Diameter, exit: 36 inches Average Flow Rate, acfm: 9400 at 178°F Dumpstack Parameters - Height: 43' 8" Inside Diameter, exit: 42 inches Exit Temperature: 1850°F Monitoring Equipment - Type: 1. opacity Manufacturer: <> Type: 2. oxygen Manufacturer: <> Type: 3. Carbon Monoxide Manufacturer: <> Type: 4. Primary and Secondary Combustion Chamber Temperature Manufacturer: <> Page 4 of 18 Permit No. 2209A- 90-OT-1 DRAFT 4/5/90 1.3 Definitions and Abbreviations Definitions of terms and abbreviations used in the permit may be found in Minn. Rules part 7005.0100 and 7005.0110 respectively, except as provided below: Emission Point: The stack, chimney, vent or other functionally equivalent opening whereby emissions are exhausted to the atmosphere. acfm: actual cubic feet per minute Btu: British thermal unit CEM: Continuous Emission Monitor CFR: Code of Federal Regulations gr/dscf: grains per dry standard cubic foot: MMBtu: million British thermal units Director: Air Quality Division Director "Medical Waste" means all segregated, non-recycled wastes other than kitchen and office wastes produced by hospitals, clinics, doctors' and dentists' offices, funeral homes, veteranary clinics and other medical and research facilites. Medical waste contains infectious and pathological wastes as defined by the Infectious Waste Control Act of 1989. "Cold Start-up" means startup of the process from a shutdown condition. "Dumpstack" means a stack, chimney, vent or other functionally equivalent opening by which uncontrolled emissions are vented to the ambient air. "Operator" is a person responsible for controlling and monitoring facility operation. This does not include administrative or maintenance personnel. "Toxic Equivalents" means the sum of the product of the individual isomer concentration of chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and chlorinated dibenzofurans, corrected to seven percent oxygen, and multiplied by the toxicity equivalence factor established by "Interim Procedures for Estimating Risks Associated with Exposure to Mixtures of Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins and -Dibenzofurans (CDD's and CDF's) and 1989 Update" (EPA/625/3-89/016), US EPA, Risk Assessment Forum. 2.0 CONDITIONS RELATED TO AIR QUALITY The Permittee shall comply with the following special conditions in order to attain, maintain and demonstrate compliance with applicable Minnesota and federal statutes, federal regulations and Minnesota rules. • Page 5 of 18 Permit No. 2209A- 90-0T-1 DRAFT 4/5/90 2.1 Ambient Standards The Permittee shall comply with Minnesota Rules part 7005.0010-7005.0080, State Ambient Air Quality Standards, and with national Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards, 40 CFR Part 50. 2.2 Emission Limits The Permittee shall not discharge into the atmosphere pollutants in excess of the limits listed below: 2.2.1 Particulates 2.2.1.1 Particulate Matter (PM) Emission Limitation Basis Point No. Emission Limit 1 .04 gr/dscf corrected to As required by the 7% 02. Director 2.2.1.2 Opacity Emission Limitation Basis Point No. Emission Limit 1 Not greater that 20 percent Minn. Rules pt. 7005.0620 Subpart 5 2.2.2 Carbon Monoxide (CO) Emission Point No. Emission Limit Limitation Basis 1 50 ppm, corrected to 7% As required by O2, based on a discrete 8 the Director • hour average 2.2.3 Hydrogen Chloride (HC1) Emission Point No. Emission Limit Limitation Basis 1 90% removal, or 50 ppm As required by corrected to 7% 0 , dry, the Director whichever is least stringent based on an 8 hour average i Page 6 of 18 • Permit No. 2209A- 90-OT-1 DRAFT 4/5/90 2.2.4 Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins/Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans (PCDD/PCDF) Emission Limitation Basis Point No. Emission Limit 1 3 ng/dscm toxic equivalents As required by corrected to 7% 02. the Director 2.2.5 Stack Gas Exit Temperature The ing the stack temperaturetofenof the gas less than<>tdegrees Fahrenheit have a .l 2.2.6 Noise The Permittee shall comply with the noise standards set forth in Minn. Rules parts 7010.0010 to 7010.0080 at all times during the operation of the facility. 2.2.7 Odor The Permittee shall not discharge into the atmosphere from any source or combination of sources within the facility any gases which contain odors in excess of the amount allowed by Minn. Rules part 7005.0920. 2.2.8 Fugitive Emissions 2.2.8.1 Avoidable Emissions The Permittee shall not cause or permit avoidable amounts of particulate matter to be airborne from operations conducted at the facility. The Permittee shall apply all such reasonable measures as may be necessary to prevent particulate matter from becoming airborne, as set forth in Minn. Rules part 7005.0550. 2.2.8.2 Ash/Residue Emissions The Permittee shall control all fugitive ash/residue emissions in a manner which will prevent avoidable amounts of particulate matter from becoming airborne. Ash containers used for storage at the facility and for transport from the facility shall be covered. 2.3 Operational Requirements The Permittee shall meet the following operational requirements. Records of any operational parameters that are recorded as directed below shall be retained for at least three years, after which time this period may be extended as advised in writing by the Director. Page 7 of 18 Permit No. 2209A- 90-0T-1 DRAFT 4/5/90 2.3.1 Fuel and Usage Limitations it The Permittee shall incinerate only medical waste in Emission Point No.1, and shall burn natural gas during cold start-up, burn down and as required to meet the temperature requirements of 2.3.2. 2.3.2 Combustion Chamber Temperature The Permittee shall maintain combustion gases at a minimum temeratur least onep second einf the 0secondary chamber 0 degrees ewhen it oburnrp erl atod of ingmedicalwaste. Auxiliary fuel shall be used to preheat the secondary chamber to 1600 degrees Fahrenheit prior to charging the primary chamber with medical waste. Auxiliary fuel shall be used to maintain 1800 degrees Fahrenheit in the secondary chamber during shutdown activities after waste charging has ceased until combustion of the waste and combustion gases is completed. 2.3.3 Shutdowns and Breakdowns Minnesota Statute 116.81 applies to this emission facility, therefore any monitored exceedance of permit requirements where the exceedance is determined to be accurate and valid must immedicately be reported to the Commissioner. The emission facility must also immediately either commence appropriate modification to attain compliance with permit emission limitations or commence shutdown of the incinerator if the modifications cannot be completed within 72 hours. 1. Shutdown. The owner or operator of an emission facility shall notify the Director at least 24 hours in advance of shutdown of any control equipment and, if the shutdown would cause an increase in the emission of air contaminants, of a shutdown of any process equipment. At the time of notification, the owner or operator shall also notify the Director of the cause of the shutdown and the estimated duration. The owner or operator shall notify the Director when the shutdown is over. 2. Breakdown. The owner or operator of an emission facility shall notify the Director immediately of a breakdown of more than one hour duration or any control equipment and, if the breakdown causes an increase in the emission of air contaminants, of a breakdown of any process equipment. At the time of notification or as soon thereafter as possible, the owner or operator shall also notify the Director of the cause of the breakdown and the estimated duration. The owner or operator shall notify the Director when the breakdown is over. Page 8 of 18 Permit No. 2209A- 90-OT-1 DRAFT 4/5/90 3. Operation Changes. In any shutdown or breakdown covered by part 1 or 2 of section 2.3.1, the owner or operator shall immediately take all practical steps to modify operations to reduce the emission of air contaminants. The Director may require feasible and practical modifications in the operation to reduce emissions of air contaminants. No affected facility which has an unreasonable breakdown frequency of control equipment shall be permitted to operate. Nothing in this part shall permit the operation of an affected facility which may cause an immediate public health hazard. 4. Monitoring equipment. •The owner or operator of a continuous monitoring system or monitoring device shall notify the Director of any breakdown or malfunction of such system or device. 2.3.4 Dumpstack Use The Permittee shall not use the dumpstack for conducting routine insecthe controlldevicesawithoutce of priortapprovalstion from thetem or Director.pollution The dumpstack shall only be used when: 1. Starting the facility from complete shutdown to attainment of a combustion chamber temperature of 1000 OF. 2. Plant or worker safety would be in jeopardy without its use. A log of the use of the dumpstack shall be maintained at the facility for inspection. 2.3.5 Equipment Operation and Maintenance Plan The Permittee shall prepare and submit to the Director within 90 days after startup, an Equipment Operation and Maintenance Plan. The plan shall include at a minimum, the following information: 1. A preventative maintenance program for avoidance of excess emissions, including: identification of the individuals responsible for inspecting, maintaining, and repairing equipment; a schedule showing the frequency of inspection or repairs; and name, function and quantity of the replacement parts that will be maintained in inventory, which shall include replacement parts recommended by the manfacturers of the combustion system and emission control equipment. 2. A program for the calibration of the combustion system and pollution control device temperature monitors, and other monitors and gauges used to control the operating parameters of the incinerator. Page 9 of 18 Permit No. 2209A- 90-OT-i DRAFT 4/5/90 3. A list of the operating conditions and outlet variables for the combustion system and emission control equipment that will be monitored in order to detect malfunction of breakdown; the normal operating range of each of these variables; and a description of the method of detecting and informing operating personnel of a malfunction or breakdown, including a description of the nature, location and sensitivity of alarm systems, lights, and other indicators of malfunction of breakdown. 4. A description of corrective procedures that will be taken in the event of-a malfunction or breakdown of the combustion system, monitoring equipment, emission control equipment and associated equipment to restore compliance with applicable emission limitations and permit conditions as expeditiously as possible, including, but not limited to, reducing the production rate or stopping the waste feed. The procedures shall include a description of the actions that the operator should take to minimize or prevent injury, release of air contaminants, or further equipment damage as a result of a malfunction or breakdown. The procedures shall also describe the steps the operator should take after a breakdown or unscheduled shutdown to get the combustion system or emissions control equipment back into operation. 5. A statement of the time period required to safely shut down the waste combustor or portion thereof causing excess emissions. 6. A description of the record that will be kept to show that the plan is implemented. 7. A contingency disposal plan which outlines the actions that will be taken to assure proper disposal of waste if the incinerator cannot maintain scheduled acceptance of waste due to mechanical failure, incinerator overflow, and other unplanned shutdowns of the incinerator. The plan shall provide a procedure for notification to waste haulers or waste gnerators of the closing of the facility and of an alternate disposal site. The owner or operator shall notify the Director of a modification of the plan 30 days prior to implementing modified procedures and shall implement the modification after receiving the approval of the Director. Upon approval by the Director, the owner or operator of the incinerator shall comply with the operation and maintenance plan. 2.3.6 Operator Training The Permittee shall arrange and implement operator training in the following subject areas: C Page 10 of 18 Permit No. 2209A- 90-0T-1 DRAFT 4/5/90 1. Incinerator combustion control systems 2. Continuous emissions monitoring significance and analyses as an operating guide 3. Optimum combustion conditions for incinerator operation 4. Emission control equipment operation and performance. An operator with training in these areas shall be on duty for all shifts when an incinerator is operated. Operator training is subject to prior Director approval. The Permittee shall submit an operator training plan to the Director prior to startup. 2.4 Compliance Demonstration 2.4.1 Schedule and Methods The Permittee shall demonstrate compliance with applicable permit conditions, Minnesota and federal statutes federal regulations and Minnesota rules and by the following methods, in accordance with the applicable exhibits: Emission Compliance Point No. Determination Frequency EPA Method/Exhibit 1 Opacity Continuous Performance Spec. 1*/B Oxygen Performance Spec. 3/B Carbon Monoxide Performance Spec. 4 Combustion Chamber " To be approved by the Temperatures Director 1 Criteria Pollutants 90 days Exhibit C Acid Gases after Metals initial Semivolatiles startup 1 PCDD/PCDF 90 days Exhibit C after initial startup * 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix B, Performance Specification 1. 2.4.2 Compliance Testing Requirements The Permittee shall conduct the compliance tests listed above to provide evidence of compliance with applicable state and federal rules and regulations and conditions of this permit. The Permittee shall develop a test plan, and submit it to the Agency at least 45 days prior to the planned test date. Compliance testing shall be conducted within 90 days after Page 11 of 18 • Permit No. 2209A- 90-0T-1 DRAFT 4/5/90 startup. Additional emissions testing may be required by the Director if continuous monitoring indicates unstable combustion conditions or pollution control device operations. The compliance demonstration shall also be repeated within 24 months of completion of the initial compliance test. 2.4.3. Continuous Emission Monitoring 2.4.3.1 Opacity The Permitteee shall install, maintain, calibrate and operate a CEM for opacity in accordance with Exhibit B attached to this permit and shall complete the certification as required in Exhibit. B Section II.B. 2.4.3.2 Oxygen (02 ) Monitor Operation. The Permittee shall install, maintain, calibrate and operate an 02 monitor on Emission Point No. 1 to continuously measure and record the oxygen in the flue gases in a mutually agreed upon location when burning medical waste to determine compliance with the limitation as specified in this permit. Reporting. The Permittee shall submit to the Director on a quarterly basis no later than 180 days after startup a report of average monitored 02 values for each eight hours of operation and all time periods when the monitored 02 value was below or above optimum range of 7% 0 to 11% 02 , respectively, for flue gas ( analysis. This report shall include periods of start-up, shut-down and malfunction. If no periods of inadequate or excessive excess combustion air analyses were experienced, the report shall state that there were none during the reporting period. Quality Assurance. The Permittee shall maintain and calibrate the 02 monitor in accordance with equipment manufacturer's recommendations and instructions. The permittee shall calibrate the monitor prior to compliance testing and at the request of the Director should any data evaluation or inspections indicate the need for further quality assurance. Continuous Operation. The Permittee shall operate the oxygen monitor and associated equipment so as to maintain a 90% minimum up-time based on quarterly operating periods and excluding outages due to the four causes specified in Section IX of Exhibit B attached to this permit. 2.4.3.3 Carbon Monoxide (CO) Monitor Operation. The Permittee shall install, maintain, calibrate, and operate a CO monitor on Emission Point No. 1 to continuously measure and record the CO in the flue gases in a mutually agreed upon location when burning medical waste to determine compliance Page 12 of 18 Permit No. 2209A- 90-OT-1 DRAFT 4/5/90 with the limitations as specified in Section 2.2.2 in this permit. Reporting. The Permittee shall submit to the Director on a quarterly basis no later than 180 days after startup a report of average monitored CO values for each eight hours of operation and at all time periods when the monitored CO values were above the CO limitation shown in Section 2.2.2 of this permit. This report shall include periods of start-up, shut-down and malfunction. If no period of excess CO values are recorded, the report should state that there were no excess CO periods. Certification. The Permittee shall obtain certification in accordance with EPA Performance Specification 4 pursuant to 40 CFR 60, Appendix B. The CEM Certification Report shall be submitted 90 days after commencement of commercial operation. Quality Assurance. The Permittee shall maintain and calibrate the CO monitors in accordance with equipment manufacturers' recommendations and instructions. The Permittee shall calibrate the monitor prior to compliance testing and at the request of the Director should any data evaluation or inspections indicated the need for further quality assurance. Continuous Operation. The Permittee shall operate the CO monitors and associated equipment so as to maintain a 90% minimum up-time based on quarterly operating periods and excluding outages due to the four causes specified in Section IX of Exhibit B attached to this permit. 2.4.3.4 Acid Gas Monitoring Plan The Permittee shall submit a plan prior to startup for continuously monitoring acid gas emission and/or removal rates as limited by Section 2.2.3 of this permit. Such plan may incorporate a continuous emission monitor or develop a correlation between acid gas emission/removal and selected process variables which can be continuously monitored. The plan shall be evaluated for approval by the Director. The Permittee shall implement the approved plan. 2.4.3.5 Combustion Chamber(s) Temperature Monitoring Operation. Pursuant to Section 2.3.2 of this permit, the Permittee shall install, maintain, calibrate and operate equipment to continuously measure and record each combustion chamber temperature. Reporting. The Permittee shall submit to the Director on a quarterly basis no later than 180 days after startup, a report of all time periods when burning medical waste of inadequate combustion chamber temperatures as determined by the existing temperature sensing measurements. This report shall include �4 Page 13 of 18 Permit No. 2209A- 90-OT-1 DRAFT 4/5/90 period of start-up, shut-down and malfunction. If no periods of inadequate combustion chamber temperatures are experienced, the report shall state that there were none during the reporting period. Quality Assurance. The Permittee shall maintain and calibrate the combustion chamber temperature sensing devices specified in this section of this permit in accordance with equipment manufacturers' recommendations and instructions, and as contained in the operation and maintenance plan. The Permittee shall calibrate the combustion chamber temperature sensing devices prior to compliance testing and at the request of the Director should any data evaluations or inspections indicate the need for further quality assurance. Continuous Operation. The Permittee shall operate the combustion chamber temperature sensing devices and associated equipment so as to maintain a 90% minimum up-time based on quarterly operating periods and excluding outages due to the four causes specified in Section IX of Exhibit B attached to this permit. 2.5 Construction Schedule Authorization to install the incinerator and air pollution control equipment shall expire 12 months after the date of issuance of this permit if construction has not begun. The Permittee shall notify the Director of the commencement of construction at the start of any sitework. 2.6 Notification of Exceedances The Permittee shall notify the Agency within 24 hours after an exceedance of an emission as recorded by the continuous emissions monitoring system or the temperature sensing device. If the exceedance occurs on a Saturday, Sunday or Holiday the Permittee will notify the Agency on the next working day. Within 5 days after the exceedance the Permittee will submit to the Agency a written report which shall specify the following: 1. Date and time period of exceedance(s). 2. Pollutant(s) affected. 3. Highest emission rate(s) of pollutant(s) emitted during period of exceedance. 4. Cause of exceedance(s). 5. Corrective action(s) taken to correct the situation. 6. Operating conditions during the period of exceedance(s) (feed rate etc.) 2.7 Annual Report Summarizing Shutdowns, Breakdowns, Dumpstack Use and Exceedances A yearly summary report of the shutdowns and breakdowns that occurred during that year and were reported pursuant to part Page 14 of 18 Permit No. 2209A- 90-OT-1 DRAFT 4/5/90 2.3.1 above, dumpstack use that occurred prusuant to part 2.3.4 of this permit, and of the emission exceedances that occurred during that year and were reported pursuant to part 2.6 above, shall be submitted by the Permittee to the Director on January 30 of each year commencing January 30, 1990. 3.0 CONDITIONS RELATED TO SOLID WASTE 3.1 Operating Conditions 3.1.1 Allowable Charging Rates This permit authorizes the Permittee to incinerate medical waste in the incinerator unit up to 10.2 tons per day. The Permittee shall operate the incinerator such that the charging rate to the incinerator is no greater than 850 pounds per hour on an hourly basis. The Permittee shall record the hourly charging rate of medical wastes to the incinerator, and shall describe the type of wastes charged (ie. medical wastes, confidential paper, pharmaceuticals, medical devices). 3.1.2 Prohibited Wastes This permit does not authorize the Permittee to receive or process waste determined to be hazardous in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) hazardous waste regulations and MPCA hazardous waste rules. In the event a hazardous waste is received at the facility, the Permittee shall handle the waste in accordance with USEPA and MPCA hazardous waste regulations and rules. The facility shall not accept any of the wastes listed below, except in amounts normal to medical waste: a. liquids b. lead-acid batteries and used oil as prohibited by Minn. Statute Section 115A.915-.916; c. other substances that may be deemed unacceptable by the Director. 3.1.4 Approved Wastes 3.1.4.1 The permit does not authorize the Permittee to accept nonhazardous solid wastes other than the following specific wastes: a. Medical wastes as defined in section 1.3 of this permit; Page 15 of 18 Permit No. 2209A- 90-OT-1 DRAFT 4/5/90 b. Confidential wastes, consisting of paper, ledgers, medical records, and computer printouts. This waste consists entirely of printed matter. c. Out-of-date pharmaceuticals, provided the pharmaceuticals are not classified as a hazardous waste, pursuant to Minnesota Rules Chapter 7045 (Hazardous Waste). d. Medical devices, due to the device's contamination or need to be positively destroyed. 3.1.4.2 Other wastes may be considered by the Director, provided the conditions below are met: a. The Permittee shall submit to the Director a written request for accepting the waste. b. The written request shall include an evaluation of the waste characteristics, and statements of the quantity, the frequency and the proposed method of accepting the waste. c. The Permittee shall obtain the Director's approval prior to accepting the waste at the facility. 3.2 Infectious and Pathological Waste Management Plan Minnesota Laws, Chapter 337 (1989) establishes the "Infectious Waste Control Act". The act became effective on January 1, 1990. The act requires that a waste management plan be developed for the management of infectious and pathological waste. The Permittee shall draft and submit a management plan to the Director, Division of Ground Water and Solid Waste, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, within 45 days of the adoption of rules by the MPCA. 3.3 Ash Management Program 3.3.1 Ash Evaluation Workplan The Permittee shall develop an ash evaluation workplan, and submit the plan to the Director, Division of Ground Water and Solid Waste for review and approval. The workplan shall contain sampling protocol specific to the facility. The workplan must contain an ash evaluation plan to determine disposal of the generated ash per the industrial waste disposal plan of the sanitary landfill in which the ash is to be disposed of. 3.3.2 Ash Evaluation Report and Management Plan With 120 days after implementation of the Agency approved ash evaluation workplan, the Permittee shall submit to the Director, Ground Water and Solid Waste an ash evaluation report, and an ash management plan. The management plan shall consider the results { t Page 16 of 18 Permit No. 2209A- 90-OT-1 DRAFT 4/5/90 of the ash evaluation report, and propose disposal options and sites, and a sampling and monitoring program. 3.4 Operations Report The Permittee shall submit quarterly reports on the operation of the facility to the Director, 180 days after startup, by January 30, April 30, July 30, and October 30 of each year. The report shall include the total volume of medical waste received, volume of each specific approved special wastes received, volumes of waste diverted from the facility and its disposal, and volumes of ash requiring disposal and the landfill to which it was sent. 3.5 Special Operating Requirements The Permittee shall make no discharge of industrial wastewater from within the facility to the sanitary sewer system, storm sewer system or surface water unless necessary permits and approvals are received from the Agency, the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, and/or the City of Eden Prairie. The Permittee shall employ measures to control or restrict public access. A sign shall be posted at the entry with the name of the company clearly displayed. The Permittee shall control odors, insects and litter in accordance with Minn. Rules part 7035.1700. The Permittee shall monitor the access road to the facility daily to remove debris caused by this facility's operation. 4.0 Submittals Summary The Permittee is required by rule or the Special Conditions of the permit to submit to the MPCA the following reports according to the schedules identified below. Report Pollutant Schedule Required by: Compliance Air Emissions 90 days after Special Condition Test startup 2.4 CEM Certi- Opacity, 02 , Prior to Special Condition fication CO compliance 2.4.3 testing Acid Gas AC1 Once, prior Special Condition Monitoring to startup 2.4.3. Plan Certifi- Combustion Prior to Special Condition cation of chamber compliance 2.4.3 temperature testing devices . Page 17 of 18 Permit No. 2209A- 90-OT-1 DRAFT 4/5/90 Report Schedule Required by: Initiation of Construction At the start Special Condition . of sitework 2.5 Air Emissions test plan 45 days prior Special Condition to compliance 2.4.2 testing Air Emissions Compliance within 120 days Special Condition Test report of test, or 2.4.2 within 15 days of receiving report Equipment Operation and Once, within Special Condition Maintenance Plan 90 days of 2.3.5 startup Operator Training Plan Once, prior to Special Condition startup 2.3.6 Ash Evaluation Workplan Once, 180 days Special Condition after permit 3.3 issuance Ash Evaluation Report and 120 days after Special Condition Monitoring Program Proposal Director's ap- 3.3 proval of workplan CEMs Report Quarterly, on Special Condition January 30, 2.4.3 April 30, July 30, and October 30 Infectious Waste Management Within 45 days Special Condition Plan of rule 3.2 adoption Operations Report Quarterly, on Special Condition January 30, 3.4 April 30, July 30, and October 30 Annual Report of Shutdowns Annually, on Special Condition Breakdowns, Dumpstack Use January 30 2.7 and Exceedances . Page 18 of 18 • Permit No. 2209A- 90-OT-1 DRAFT 4/5/90 5.0 GENERAL CONDITIONS Alt The Permittee shall comply with the attached general conditions, attached as Exhibit A, in order to attain, maintain and demonstrate compliance with applicable Minnesota or federal statutes, federal regulations and Minnesota rules. 6.0 ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A General Conditions Exhibit B Continuous Emission Monitor Exhibit C Performance Test Procedures Exhibit G Quality Assurance Program for Continuous Emissions Monitors m1p27:15 6912 Rosemary :load 2den Prairie, MN 55346 ' April 29, 1990 Mr. J. Michael Valentine Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN 55155 Dear Mr. Valentines I have written this letter to voice my opposition to the approval of a state permit which would allow Browing-Ferris Industries (BFI) to burn up to 10.2 tons of medical wastes per day in the city of Eden Prairie. I request that the Minnesota Polluction Control Agency hold a public information hearing on the proposed permit, hold a contested case hear- ing, and conduct an environmental impact statement. I oppose the permit for the following reasons: 1. The new incinerator is capable of burning up to 15.6 tons of medical waste per day, yet the permit is for 10.2 tons per day. Obviously, it is in the best interest of 25'I to burn as much waste as possible. Due to the fact that no one can guarantee that 3FI will not use the full capa- city of the incinerator, an environmental impact study should be conducted. • 2. Any incinerator emissions containing dioxi.Zs are unacceptable in populated areas. The incinerator will be located very close to schools in the area (across the street). That happens to chbldren when they are exposed to the most toxic substance known to man? 3. My home is approximately mile from the current burner. On many occasions during the summer when my windows were open, the stench from the burner has at times been unbearable. There is no doubt that this will lead to lower property values. 4. Having lived in the area for over twenty years I am well aware of what 3FI has done to our environment. They have contaminated the ground in uden Prairie and now they want permission to continue to pollute the air. Again, I'd like to make my opposition known to the granting of a permit to BPI to burn medical wastes in Eden Prairie. I` Additionally, I request a public information hearing on the ''��ll matter, a contested case hearing, and an environmental impact statement. Sincerely, George H. Pearson Jr. cc: Anne Jackson, ?'PCA Staff engineer Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator Eden Prairie i CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF REVIEW AGENDA TUESDAY, MAY B, 1990 7:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 EXECUTIVE DRIVE BOARD OF REVIEW MEMBERS: Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, , Jean Harris, Douglas Tenpas, and Patricia Pidcock BOARD OF REVIEW STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City Assessor Steve Sinell, and Recording Secretary Jan Nelson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL I. RECONVENE BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING II. APPROVAL OF BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES OF MEETING HELD THURSDAY APRIL 19, 1990 III. REVIEW OF ITEMS CONTINUED FROM APRIL 19, 199D IV. OTHER BUSINESS V. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 90-133, ACCEPTING THE 1990 ASSESSMENT VI. ADJOURNMENT Memorandum To: Board of Review Staff From: Steve Sinell, City Assessor Date: May 8, 1990 Attached are the appraisals for appeal numbers # 123, 124 and 125. • These were not attached with the packet of information that you received on Friday May 4th. SRS/akn encl. ire,c-I .1F/3 -,5 fa.,‹ ( ' • • • - - r j WI y $' 1 O n Q: I �' A €i IF i`lr Fi Il F' it i a wail ,..I \ gi 'I ;• • I Ni N1-Id N N N LJ v '‘\ ‘ 1�1po k n �i l 1 1 _ 1 � �C 1 _l ;_ iI i 1 EI i i 44f ii N ♦ Y N - ! N ♦ Y N + N ,.. INfai 'A` r Y1 N l I II x�x xi x tit _. I 1 9 D 3. z1c T S T m V V N L1 I;I NI ram/10-f) mjD alit ... 1g 010 1 "'- i � I i � i = al ; 1I 14i Q � * lliw I I z511 1,1 miip_ x c fir:, .II 1 ag 1 E _.a1 W N II 1 134744---"_tta �t-� . . . 41 NLi t WIN - V .. N1. 4fFi. - . Ill ♦IY N -� ' --J �.�� 4461 I 1 I a i I 1 .i. 1 rl xlx '` i5< 1 ° j —5 i 6 i i Its I'D Ui ll1�Ili Ili! Ili D II 01iD ,i,— kilt! , , j$I 1P —'rr } 'G i .kii to .t R ! 1 � N - Y N.- IJ NI-i ' I c I _______1_, 4— tg. zI .1 ..S• ›% n � I x 3 �t` i ' i 0 x c g m r m c,rr,R; Y� m j Z ,� �i ! V 1 � la iiI \:.!\:!' —f-- r T .� =z vo v �I sloe � '13 =� " j 1 jm m 1 m �'m' I I�'.if i�' �I I l'1D i i 1 I I �� � 1 I T i i �'m I :. ' i j :1 I j II it • 11 1 I 1 ! IIj i 1 1 I57 I ,f 1 � I 1 lI I 1m 1 1 1 1 IS ! 1 i 1 1 I I I l • 1 111 j i I I I i I 1 kl le: - _i- -..-_._� •• • • MARKET APPROACH •• •• •••• •..• •• .• . Sales PID/Address Bldg. Land Price r Date Size Age Area Pr' a Terms Per Sq_F „La 4,1/6; 3! ' 0 2,Square Foot ��i -��� ',,t�`!Av _zapxy�/�.- - 9)s _b'ce _ �iC..-_53,ST--_ .7J4% X Per Sq.Ft (44/`0 Gross Income X GRM VALUE BY THE MARKET APPROACH $,9>ev ,35 COST APPROACH: Source: ///S Replacement Cost s- #a (r:71- • Less:Depreciation ' �r5 so, . Depreciated Value of Building $6 SI,Z��- Land Value (Site Value) + a / ODD - _ VALUE BY THE COST APPROACH E>f}1 O �' ,33 NET INCOME CAPITALIZATION APPROACH gl{-7 6-1AT:6, 6 Lv2yf, 4, t 0%Potential Gross Income (Actual Economic $ p i�-3� %.V' 0)�l Less: Vacancy 8 Credit Loss A,____._% — S-'j�V y//4 �fective Gross Income C ;/Icv- /51/ Less: Expenses IJ' s��/�S/ Management �X. •/j= 51-_)1'i 30° Utilities.Repairs.Reserves,etc.before taxes �3"")6 (4,L I l-t Total Expenses ,�7 .0. j Net Income Before Taxes ,0j 1.'y✓ s)7t/c1 Capitalization Rate(a1 %( + Tax Rate ( %)(.mow% 1 9,p 5 1b r. VALUE BY THE CAPITALIZATION PROCESS $ u'r! 3 gin V r 3V CORRELATED ESTIMATE7� OF VALUE: n Gam,,,,/� Land 0-31 Bldg./Date Appraisalof !/ Appraiser:__ t�prL� Piri-411 I 10 iv i N N N N + \ 4'. i . gis: 1. m g,i'irgmil:Fili(i_ : : : c 11 i 6 k-tk -4\i ' s N N N fJ • � � •/� iI tom. �' �-V\ ' 11 N N tIN 1:11 11 11 11 111 s4 411111 > � 3 ii U ihh I i1 11;11 I i 11, . - • i P . _ I !ill ! ` J 1io, S o ...... 4., ,,4 „0 _ 7 1 '' O ;m i m Al!" . 1" 1 ti' 1Ir • _ II 111 � Ih �. m� s �" o Nfigi I � 3 m ll . a Ill ,1 _ _ •, • iii N .s • N t ) 2 ♦ I I I I � I N _ ( � I ... lit::. ...' MARKET APPROACH ---Bldg. Land Price 6ep- I PIO/Address atQ iz Age AM Price Terms Per_Sq ES Fkte ¢- ?_D3�/� . yBa_gfc ,AP �—y� 3 - J2 Loa1��%N,- +4�,���,,3 ��`�5�/�� -oog�ooa �`S3-,�.3 ���, 9. ------ Square Foot 0 t.J_=t- _X Y.•..0- Per Sq.Ft. . _431/9YD_3h Gross Income ..— X_ _ .._.__....GRM _— - VALUE BY THE MARKET APPROACH COST APPROACH: Source: /l Replacement Cost $__*'i ,c°, Less:Depreciation •5 l_1:0_2Y;2— _..._._... Depreciated Value of Building sQ - --__. Land Value (Site Value) + IP sl`� f VALUE BY THE COST APPROACH • NET INCOME CAPITALIZATION APPROACH /u'l/519 a( i �� /r G� 100%Potential Gross Income (Actu:,r Economic) $ ,E O Less: Vacancy 8 Credit Loss J".4- - --- ,j SAC Effective Gross Income / $ L/J'i"'J'4 c� l_6 Less: Expenses //,/5 S t. b'tcs ty mach, 1-�cu /P Management r 3 Q-I Utilities,Repairs,Reserves,etc.before taxes '�Y,X/r ')e ITotal Expenses ���/�+2r� _ y3k Y'a 4./Aet Income Before Taxes 0/'f• • L. Capitalization Rate( r 7•) + Tax Rate ( %) 14.4."( +$ . � y f- �"s! j(+�S�r2 V UE BY THE CAPITALIZATION PROCESS 9 �JJIr'� o CORRELATED ESTIMATE�, OF VALUE: ', y��Q ' Land J� - Bldg. .7r�f�, - TOTAL s • ��Jy— , EMV January 2,19 90_ Dale of Appraisal._ 9U ___ Appraiser: ..e�J�.I �----- � \I ite.i $ a i °-t'ta « � Eli' I ' G�p� 2 N I.3A N + N + N _IN + 1( I tvo k , m.w F. p I 1^�1 i. 0 N ♦ WN + (J�'' ] NJO WIN + h + NN NW WI♦I44 r."-- �I 1 s L_.I ^S � ,I i 1.i V 4 m g v i `°is mlr g a.z.' i ' .. g l i g x 4 Tlin. FI gig" *IV ?I ' L. of a`,. *Ili g m E .1> 2 i z � g II �, : 'ig ,i ' ', sti' xi N ! -��� I I 1 1I am jII ► I iel . , x I rI 1 ! y O� N ♦ W yt i N D a i 1 a D '' 51 gi: t IA !' til li It r.3.Z.'L, ,� C N + Y N + Y N + r, .�,, Ic_ o ��, x : i s @ e)i._ 1 ram_ }'` at k LI N O S Y 11 a 1 .-' i W i , ki F ('7 C r... i is a iy \ \ N W N ' I W N O ; - r In i Z 1Im v g P � � n 0� 2 z < 4f r m : � 1 0 3 o !, ' 4%,% 5II,\ I_ „ NI' -I ill I :1 I 4 I 3 W N 1 N ' m ' �, 1 1 1 1. ,`l_ 21 i Y m 1+ *1 o _� �I�, ( to a� l � � Im jlil I IN I I > .kr_ i 1 1—-,— L_e__I j.I_...I -1111 ...................................... ... MARKET APPROACH Bldg. Land Price Cap--- $gles P1D/Address �pDa(e Size Age Area Price Terms Per o F1 21a r-t . a,_s�a- Y 7SI_/e.44., ,-_ _.STs1 f'— r__3. ga_� 40 36 s� _ 3 o= _ lcoazJ /v Atiuk N- to 35S,.. _g� g.. _ :?.e0cjrko-.-G 33_._ d ei Square Fool /0 r x_47/ I( Per Sp.Ft. .a Jj70_:tu0_ Gross Income ._.. x -___-__—GRM VALUE eV THE MARKET APPROACH SJ.7eq Be0 r33 COST APPROACH: Source: x3 G Replacement Cost t $c>. % �p_._ Less:Depreciation 3.0 2, - ,'L 12 Depreciated Value ot Building $S 'Z6 ( __- land Value (Site Value) + / _ VALUE BY THE COST APPROACH s [/ `lr// .S� NET %Cr INCOME CAPITALIZATION APPROACH3 4,T_AI f fi f lt)- 100%Potential Gross Income (Attu. s g / 46 X Y - Less: Vacancy&Credit Loss ...��. % - -3,1� /V • Effective Gross Income si573.z.7 Less: Expenses ,93'ti t(...5"- 99 V/ Management Is' In Utilities,Repairs,Reserves,etc.before taxes p 490 Total Expenses - D Net Income Before Taxes 1 (,i- / a a9 Capitalization Rate( 9rI%) . Tax Rate (' %)�'nl�w + 9, O6% '/ VALUE BY THE CAPITALIZATION PROCESS s !?•;j tPtz'9 '-S`/ CORRELATED ESTIMATE OF VALUE: �J wry) 2 p Land 1#%ar0 Bldg. -r1ZW PT TOTAL $c�/v O O EMV January 2,19 PO Date ot Appraisal ��id Appraiser„ May 2,1990 Mayor Gary Peterson,Chairman Board of Appeals City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie,Minnesota 55344 Dear Mayor Peterson: On May 1,1990 Earl Zent informed me of his intent to submit a recommendation to the Board of Appeals that the appraised market value on my home at 8972 Knoble Court be lowered to$185,000. Mr.Zent established this value using the mass appraisal technique. I indicated to Mr. Zent that I was in full concurrence with his recommendation. Ae such,I understand there is no need for me to appear at the meeting on May 8,1990 to which consideration of my appeal was deferred. . ga o Gulden cc: -.Jullie-City Manager E.Zent-Assessing Department 1 • CITY OF EOEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 90-133 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING 1990 ASSESSMENT WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statute No. 274.01 the Board of Review met; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the 1990 assessment be accepted. ADOPTED by the City Council on May 8, 1990. Gary 0. Peterson, President Board of Review ATTEST: John 0. Frane, City Clerk UNAPPROVED MINUTES CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF REVIEW MONDAY, APRIL 19, 1990 7:30 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive BOARD OF REVIEW MEMBERS: Chairman Gary D. Peterson, Richard Anderson, Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock and Douglas Tenpas BOARD OF REVIEW STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City Assessor Steve Sinell, Hennepin County Representative Larry Miller and Recording Secretary Jan Nelson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: All members were present. I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Peterson. City Manager Jullie stated notice of this meeting had been properly published in the Eden Prairie News and had been included with each valuation notice sent to homeowners. He explained the purpose of the meeting and reviewed the procedures for appeal by property owners and the procedures to be followed during the meeting. Jullie said that the Board of Review will reconvene at a later date to hear any appeals continued from tonight's meeting. II. ORDER OF BUSINESS A. personal Appeals 1. JOHN JENKINS - Appeal cancelled. 2. RICHARD HENDRICKSON - Mr. Hendrickson distributed a handout summarizing his appeal. He said he thought his valuation should be closer to the actual purchase price of $64,625. He said his property had required a large amount of repair and there was a comparable property that sold for $63,000. Board of Review 2 April 19, 1990 City Assessor Sinell asked that this be referred back to staff for review. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to refer the Hendrickson property, PID 15-116-22 33 0021, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 3. LEONARD KODET - Sinell said that Mr. Kodet had requested that this be handled as a written appeal. He said he would like to have this appeal referred back to staff. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to refer the Kodet property, PID 04-116-22 23 0039, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 4. C. 0. THOMPSON - Appeal cancelled. 5. CARL & GLORIA MOSER - Appeal cancelled. 6. DAVID HOWARD - Appeal cancelled. 7. RICHARD BIANSKI - Appeal cancelled. 8. CHERYL & MARK HARELSTAD - Appeal cancelled. 9. ROBERT DUNCAN - Mr. Duncan was not present. 10. MICHAEL MCNAMARA - Appeal cancelled. 11. ROBERT MORGAL - Mrs. Morgal Showed pictures of comparable properties in their neighborhood. She said their valuation was raised over $36,000, and there are several other comparable properties in their neighborhood that are valued less than their property. Peterson noted that there are variations within homes. He said mistakes can be made on those that are estimated and not reviewed, and that is one purpose of this meeting. Sinell said a review was done and an estimated value of $180,900 was suggested. He said they would be willing to review the valuation and prepare market comparisons. Board of Review 3 April 19, 1990 MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to refer the Morgal property, PID 24-116-22 31 0107, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 12. MARTIN WHEELER - Appeal cancelled. 13. EARL INGRAM - Mr. Ingram was not present. 14. JANICE PATTERSON - Sinell said this was a written appeal and that the appraiser has an appointment scheduled with her. He asked that the appeal be referred to staff. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to refer the Patterson property, PID 24-116-22 43 0010, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 15. STEPHEN BIRKE - Appeal cancelled. 16. DOUGLAS SWANSON - Appeal cancelled. 17. GEORGE SICHENEDER - Appeal cancelled. 18. RICK NORELL - Appeal cancelled. 19. JOHN BERGH, JR. - Mr. Bergh said he was the general contractor for the property so he knew the actual cost incurred. He said he thought the valuation should be set at $245,000 or less. Sinell said they haven't seen the construction documents and they are confused about the actual purchase price. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to refer the Bergh property, PID 25-116-22 33 0038, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 20. DANIEL JOHNSON - Appeal cancelled. 21. PATRICK SAHLI - Appeal cancelled. 22. ROBERT BLUNT - Appeal cancelled. Board of Review 4 April 19, 1990 23. ROBERT RASCHKE - Mr. Raschke said his house is the second one from Cty. Rd. 4 and he felt the value has not increased because of the traffic on that road. He said homes in his neighborhood have not sold during the past year. He said he thought the market value should be $126,000. Sinell said that resales in this neighborhood showed an upward trend. He said an adjustment had been made for the location of the house. MOTION: Tenpas moved, seconded by Harris, to refer the Raschke property, PID 05-116-22 14 0012, to staff for further review with special attention to its proximity to County Road 4. Motion carried unanimously. 24. RAVI KACKER - Appeal cancelled. 25. CAROLYN REICHOW - Appeal cancelled. 26. BARB & BILL CADOGAN - Mrs. Cadogan said they purchased their property at the peak of the market. She said they have noticed that homes on their street have been on the market for a very long time and that the two-story colonial type of home like theirs do not seem to sell as well as other styles. She said no improvements have been made to their home since they moved in. She said she thought the market value of their home should be $345,000 or less. Sinell said that the market is not going down in that area. He said he would like an oppportunity to share comparables with the Cadogans. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to refer the Cadogan property, PID 23-116-22 44-0023, to staff for further review and, further, to analyze all properties in this area in general and to provide additional information to the Council on values. Motion carried unanimously. 27. FRED SAXE - Mr. Saxe said his property is the lowest in his neighborhood and the house is 22 years old. He passed out photographs of the property. He said his market value increased 25% over last year. Board of Review 5 April 19, 1990 Sinell said it is a basic home on an exceptional lot located on Bryant Lake. He said this was part of the revaluation area for 1990. He said they would like it referred back to staff. Peterson asked what portion of the $250,600 valuation is the land value. Sinell said the land is valued at $160,000. MOTION: Tenpas moved, seconded by Pidcock, to refer the Saxe property, PID 02-116-22 32 0007, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 28. FAYE ULRICH - Appeal cancelled. 29. KEVIN TOMKA - Appeal cancelled. 30. FRANK REKER - Appeal cancelled. 31. STEPHEN CLARK - Appeal cancelled. 32. CAROL HOEFT - Ms Hoeft said the valuation of her home went up 12% this year and she didn't understand why. She said her house was built in 1976 and she has done no improvements to the property. She said she has had three property appraisals done in the last year and they were all in the mid-140's. She said she felt the assessor is not comparing apples to apples. Sinell said the assessor reviewed this property and found three comparables in the neighborhood that sold in 1989 for $180,000-184,000. He asked that it be referred to staff. Harris asked about the purpose of the three appraisals and suggested that Ms Hoeft share those with the assessor. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to refer the Hoeft property, PID 24-116-22 21 0005, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 33. VAN ANDERSEN - Appeal cancelled. 34. GERALD MCGRAW - The McGraws said they had to go outside their immediate neighborhood for comparables because they have a two-story house. Mrs. McGraw said they live behind the landfill. She said they had their house appraised, and the highest price was $118,000 and the lowest, $114,000. Board of Review 6 April 19, 1990 Sinell said they like to compare sales as close to the property as possible. He said the assessor has not done a market comparison, so he asked that it be referred to staff. MOTION: Tenpas moved, seconded by Harris, to refer the McGraw property, PID 26-116-22 31 0008, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 35. RAY STILES - Mr. Stiles said he is a real estate appraiser. He said he had a 21% increase this year. He said they had an appraisal for a refinance of their property that came out at $115,000. He said he performed an appraisal and had it reviewed by his staff. That appraisal came out at $112,000. He said he has spent hours discussing this with the staff assessor and so referral back to staff would be a waste of time. Sinell said the assessor and Mr. Stiles had discussed this at length; however, he suggested it be referred back so that the assessor could complete his appraisal. Stiles said he thought there were two valid appraisals in front of the Board and that a decision could be made from that information. Sinell said perhaps the appraisal done for the refinance would be the most impartial. MOTION: Tenpas moved, seconded by Harris, to adjust the valuation of the Stiles property, PID 25-116-22 41 0027, to $115,000. Motion carried unanimously. 36. KEVIN & JONI STRATHY - The Strathy's were not present. 37. ROBB GILMAN - Mr. Gilman was not present. 38. DAVID STEWART - Mr. Stewart said he is a real estate broker. He said his house was on the market for 7-8 months before he purchased it for $505,000 in January of 1990. Board of Review 7 April 19, 1990 Sinell said this was a relocation sale with an original sale price of $555,000. He said he would like this referred back so that staff could complete a market comparison. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to refer the Stewart property, PID 26-116-22 11 0008, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 39. LLOYD WARTMAN - Appeal cancelled. 40. AMERICAN LEGION - A representative of the American Legion was not present. 41. 18 PARK BUSINESS CTR. - A representative of the 18 Park Business Ctr. was not present. 42. FRED & MARCIA LEVOIR - Appeal cancelled. 43. CRAIG GONTAREK - Appeal cancelled. 44. GREG WILKES - Appeal cancelled. 45. CLARENCE SCHAFER - Mr. Schafer said he does not have City water and sewer. He said he had a fantastic view from the front of his house until they put in a church and a parking lot. He said his house is the oldest one in the neighborhood and he could not understand why the valuation was increased by 25% this year. Sinell said this neighborhood was one of those revalued this year. He said the appraiser has not completed the comparablea and he would like this referred to staff. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock, to refer the Schafer property, PID 01-116-22 32 0012, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 46. BRUCE HAVERLY - Mr. Haverly was not present. 47. TERRY JORGENSON - Appeal cancelled. 48. RAYMOND MURRAY - Appeal cancelled. 4 Board of Review 8 April 19, 1990 49. KENT CARLSON - Mr. Carlson said the average assessed value of the homes in his development is $117,000, while his valuation jumped to $139,300. He said it is a very difficult area in which to sell a home. He said his home has the highest valuation in the development. Sinell asked if he thought it would sell at $139,000. Carlson said he did not believe it would sell at that price. Sinell said they did not have enough information on comparables and he would like to have it referred. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to refer the Carlson property, PID 05-116-22 42 0023, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 50- DIXON JONES - Appeals cancelled. 53. 54. STEVEN JENKINS - Mr. Jenkins said he lives within Tier 2 of the landfill and the powerlines go right over his house. He said those factors should be considered in the appraisal. Sinell said such factors are considered in an appraisal when comparables in the neighborhood are considered. He said he would like to have it referred to staff. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to refer the Jenkins property, PID 26-116-22 24 0066, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 55. JOHNSON, JOHNSON, JOHNSON - Appeal cancelled. 56. THOMAS CAREY - Appeal cancelled. 57. MARK DREW - Appeal cancelled. 58. JERRY REINHARDT - Appeal cancelled. 59. DOUGLAS REUTER - Appeal cancelled. 9 April 19, 1990 Hoard of Review 60. FRANK DIXON - Sinell said this should be considered as a written appeal. They are working with the appraiser and would like to have it referred. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to refer the Dixon property, PID 23-116-22 44 0003, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 61. DEAN fi KATHY JOHNSON - Appear cancelled. 62. DONALD 0. SMITH - Appeal cancelled. 63. MARVIN SEGAL - Mrs. Segal said her home is over-assessed. She said there have been 20 homes for sale out of 74 homes on Mount Curve and only seven of the 20 have sold. She said that the appraiser should average out all sales versus their market value to obtain a fair valuation. Sinell said their research shows that the trend has not been down. He asked that it be referred to share the information on comparables with Mrs. Segal. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to refer the Segal property, PID 24-116-22 33 0005, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 64. JAMES KAUFMAN - Mr. Kaufman said he has had his house appraised by an approved appraiser. The value from that appraisal was $137,500. He asked for a compromise between that amount and the City's valuation of $143,000. Sinell said the preliminary appraisal used three sales in the neighborhood to arrive at the valuation. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to refer the Kaufman property, PID 09-116-22 23 0036, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 65. DONALD POUPARD - Appeal cancelled. 1 Board of Review 10 April 19, 1990 66- NORTHWOOD GAS, CO. - 68. A representative of Northwood Gas, Co. was not present. 69- LECY CONST., INC. - Appeals cancelled. 71. 72. ROY & RUTH LECY - Mrs. Lecy said she is a realtor and a broker. She said she feels the value of her land has not increased from $78,000 in 1987 to the assessed value of $105,000 in 1990. She said the homes sold on the street have not sold for more than they were purchased for. Sinell said they have not had an opportunity to work up comparables on the property. Tenpas asked how long her house has been listed. She said it has been listed for 270 days. She said it is listed at $359,900 and she has not had one offer. Tenpas said he would like to see market information on homes for sale in the neighborhood since June of 1988 so that information on length of time on the market and other pertinent information would be available. Sinell said they do not have information available other than the current listing price. Mrs. Lecy said she would help to provide that information. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to refer the Lecy property, PID 23-116-22 43 0017, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 73- LECY CONST., INC. - Appeals cancelled. 76. 77. BOYD JONES/T. SCHWARTZ - Mr. Schwartz presented Mr. Jones' appeal. He said they did not believe the lot values were equalized with the neighborhood. He said they are requesting a $4,000 decrease in the valuation because of the land value. Peterson asked if the property is still listed at $179,900. Schwartz said the price has been dropped Board of Review 11 April 19, 1990 to $149,900, and they have not even had anyone look at the property. Sinell said the 1990 value of $133,900 is the same as that set by the 1989 Board of Review. He said there are comparables that support that value. MOTION: Pidcock moved to refer the Jones property, PID 25-116-22 21 0019, to staff for further review. Notion died for lack of a second. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Tenpas, to sustain the estimated market value on the Jones property, PID 25-116-22 21 0019, at $133,900. Motion carried unanimously. 78. BOYD JONES/T. SCHWARTZ - Mr. Schwartz said this is the same situation; they believe that the land is not valued appropriately. He said the sale price of this property has been reduced to $195,000. Peterson noted that this year's valuation is the same as last year's. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Tenpas, to sustain the estimated market value on the Jones property, PID 25-116-22 21 0018, at $165,000. Motion carried unanimously. 79. R.BJELLAND/T. SCHWARTZ - Mr. Schwartz said they did a market analysis on the property with both a market approach and an equity approach. He said, based on their market analysis, they are requesting an adjustment to $396,000. Sinell said they would like to have this referred. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to refer the Sjelland property, PID 02-116-22 34 0003, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 80- ORLO JOHNSON - 82. Sinell said he and Mr. Johnson have been discussing this and he would like to have it referred. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to refer the Johnson properties, PID's 14-116-22 31 0032, 14-116-22 31 0033, and 14-116-22 31 0041, to Board of Review 12 April 19, 1990 staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 83. JOHN & CAROL NELSON - Appeal cancelled. 84. MARK MATASOVSKY - Appeal cancelled. 85. EMILY CHENG - Appeal cancelled. 86. JACK STEINMETZ - Appeal cancelled. 87. RICHARD WATERBURY - Mr. Waterbury was not present. 88. STANLEY NESBITT - Appeal cancelled. 89. MARTA LEWIS - Appeal cancelled. 90. STEVEN HALL - Appeal cancelled. 91. BIHARI DESAI - Mr. Desai said he believes his valuation should remain at the 1989 value of $72,900. He said this was a HUD property and had been on the market for 1- 1/2 years. He said the property is not in good shape. He said the rental income from the property is $725 per month. Sinell said this property was part of the revaluation area this year. He said the appraiser found several comparables to support the valuation. He said they would like this referred so that the appraiser can see the defects Mr. Desai referred to. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to refer the Desai property, PID 17-116-22 12 0058, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 92. ANDRZEJ PECZALSKI - Appeal cancelled. 93. JERRY NELSON - Appeal cancelled. 94. DATASERV - Appeal cancelled. 95. DONALD SORENSON - Mr. Sorenson said the major disagreement is with the land value of his home. He said the comparable lots have sewer and water and his does not. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to refer the Sorenson property, PID 11-116-22 11 0020, to Board of Review 13 ApriI 19, 1990 staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 96. WILLIAM & KAREN GOON - Mr. Goon said his land was valued at $65,000 at the time he purchased it in 1986. He said he had found out that every lot on Mount Curve has a value of $115,000 for this year. He said he thought the value of lots on the south side of Mount Curve should be less than those on the north side because there is no possibility of having a walk-out on the south side lots. He said the lots on the south should not be assessed as much as those on the north. Pidcock asked why all the lots are valued at the same price. Sinell said that sales do not show differences from one side to another, even though it is generally not possible to have a rear walkout on the south side. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to refer the Goon property, PID 25-116-22 22 0028, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 97. JOHN & MARY LOU SMYTHE - Appeal cancelled. 98. JAMES & NANCY STOKES - Appeal cancelled. 99. STEPHEN JACOBS - Appeal cancelled. 100. HERB & KATHY CANTRILL - Appeal cancelled. 101. LONNY GULDEN - Mr. Gulden said he had tried to mediate his appeal with the City staff prior to coming to the meeting. He said he had reviewed the homes in his neighborhood and determined that they vary greatly in size and assessed valuation. He said he thought his lot is valued $7,000 too much because it adjoins R-6.5 property. He said his house is only 2496 square feet and the valuation on it is $18,000 too high. He said a recent sale in the neighborhood was $11,000 less than the assessed valuation. Sinell said they would like to have this referred to do research on comparables. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to refer the Gulden property, PID 23-116-22 13 0018, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. Board of Review 14 April 19, 1990 102. PAUL SCHEE - Sinell said this was a written appeal, appealing the classification of residential non-homestead. He said the house is rented out. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to sustain the 1990 classification on the Schee property, PID 10-116-22 24 0012, of residential non- homestead. Motion carried unanimously. 103. HELEN FOWLER - Sinell said Mrs. Fowler had asked them to present her appeal. He said her appeal is that the taxes are too high for someone who does not want to sell the property. He said the value of $311,300 is the same as that set by the 1989 Board of Review. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Anderson, to sustain the 1990 estimated market value of the Fowler property, PID 36-116-22 43 0003, at $311,300. Motion carried unanimously. 104. JAMES & LORI OLSON - Sinell said this is a written appeal. He said they have started a market comparison and would like it referred back to staff so that can be completed. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock, to refer the Olson property, PID 05-116-22 12 0040, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 105. LEXINGTON CABRIOLE LTD. - A representative of Lexington Cabriole Ltd. was not present. 106. KENNETH SHANNON - Mr. Shannon said an Edina Realty survey of similar homes showed a value of $118,000. He said he thought his home is $21,000 overvalued but is requesting that the valuation be dropped to $125,000. Sinell said a preliminary appraisal showed five comparables with a range of S129,900 to S140,000. He said they would like to have it referred to staff. . Board of Review 15 April 19, 1990 MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to refer the Shannon property, PID 07-116-22 32 0037, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 107. JONATHAN MOREN - Appeal cancelled. 108. DOUGLAS MAC LEAN - Sinell said this is a written appeal as Mr. Mac Lean is out of town and that he will present a written appraisal when he gets back. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Harris, to refer the Mac Lean property, PID 24-116-22 24 0104, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 109. SHIRLEY MOYER KNUTSON - Sinell said this is a written appeal and asked that it be referred back. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Anderson, to refer the Knutson property, PID 26-116-22 22 0051, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 110. GARY RADTKE - Mr. Radtke was not present. 111. ANN & GERALD KALIN - Mrs. Kalin said the appraiser reassessed their property to $183,000 after the initial value of $188,800 was determined. She said the value should be somewhere in the $170,000's as a fair market value. She said two homes in the neighborhood that were newer, with larger lots, sold in the low $180,000's. She said she did not want this referred back to staff as they have discussed this at length. Sinell said the appraiser needs to complete the appraisal so they would like it referred to staff. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to refer the Kalin property, PID 24-116-22 21 0006, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 112. DONALD & DIANA LUCKER - Appeal cancelled. 113. LOU & NOREEN DESOTEL - Appeal cancelled. Board of Review 16 April 19, 1990 114. LAWRENCE KITTS - Mr. Kitts was not present. Sinell said this was a late appeal and they haven't had a chance to review it. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to refer the Kitts property, PID 25-116-22 22 0023, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 115. JOHN & TERRI CAIN - The Cains were not present. Sinell said this was also a late appeal. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to refer the Cain property, PID 23-116-22 44 0012, tp staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 116. CYNTHIA CHADWICK - Ms Chadwick said she bought her house as a HUD property. It is located on the corner near SuperAmerica and the physician's office building. She said she thought the value should be less. Sinell said a review has been completed and, adjusting for the variables Ms Chadwick mentioned, it indicates a value of $72,000 to $81,000. He said the current value is $75,500. He said they would like it referred to staff. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to refer the Chadwick property, PID 17-116-22 12 0073, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 117. DENNIS SCHEPPMANN - Sinell said this is a written appeal. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to refer the Scheppmann property, PID 05-116-22 13 0023, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 118. GREGORY BROWN - Appeal cancelled. 119. SEXTON & HEIM RLTY. - Appeals cancelled. 120. ALVIN & MILDRED BREN - Appeal cancelled. Board of Review 17 April 19, 1990 121. MARY BOULAY - Appeal cancelled. 122. R. BOUVIN/T. SCHWARTZ - Mr. Schwartz, representing Mr. Bouvin, said this is a commercial/industrial property with three major tenants. He said an appraisal they did on the building shows a maximum income value of $1,660,000. He said that market conditions in that area have been down so the income approach should be given the most weight. Sinell said they asked for rental information. He said he needs terms of leases on the property in order to perform a re-evaluation. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to refer the Bouvin property, PID 01-116-22 44 0012, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 123- KYLE FELDMAN, AGENT - 125. Mr. Feldman said he represents the properties known as Shadyview II and Technology Park I, II and III. Sinell said they would like to have the terms of the leases involved. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to refer the properties, PID's 12-116-22 41 0007, 12-116-22 12 0004, and 12-116-22 42 0013, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 126. THOMAS KRUEGER - Mr. Krueger was not present. 127. MICHAEL CASANOVA - Appeal cancelled. 128. BLAKE OEHME - Appeal cancelled. 129- HUSTAD DEV. - 132. 133- CREEK KNOLLS PRTNSHP. - 134. Sinell said they have not yet reviewed these values and would like them referred. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock, to refer the Hustad Dev. and Creek Knolls Prtnshp. properties, PID's 11-116-22 42 0020, 11-116-22 42 0032, 11-116-22 42 0035, 11-116-22 44 0011, 36-116- 22 21 0037, 36-116-22 21 0038, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. Board of Review 18 April 19, 1990 135. JOEL GARDNER - Appeal cancelled. 136. ROGER & MARCIA TURNER - Mr. Turner said he purchased the house in November 1989 for $139,500 and he felt a recent purchase price reflects the true market value. He said the appraiser is recommending $150,000. He said there are very few recent sales in the neighborhood for comparables. Sinell said the appraiser has reviewed this appeal and that there was some need for expediency for the sale of this property. Because of those unusual circumstances, he would suggest a compromise between the purchase price and $147,000, the final value recommended by the appraiser. MOTION: Tenpas moved, seconded by Pidcock, to adjust the 1990 estimated market value of the Turner property, PID 16-116-22 31 0030, to $139,500. Motion carried with Peterson and Anderson opposed. 137. THOMAS KOLBO - Mr. Kolbo said he paid $62,000 for the lot in 1986. He said he thought there was a need for equity within the community and that they should compare comparable sales and values. Sinell said the appraiser reviewed the property today and would like to have it referred to staff. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to refer the Kolbo property, PID 23-116-22 43 0016, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 138. COLEMAN GRIFFING - Appeal cancelled. 139. JEFFREY & ROBIN COLEMAN - The Colemans were not present. 140. GARY & PATRICIA HAMMER - The Hammers were not present. 141- BRIAN ROSENBERGER - 142. Sinell said these are written appeals. Board of Review 19 April 19, 1990 MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock, to refer the Rosenberger properties, PID's 09-116-22 31 0007 and 09-116-22 31 0006, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 143. WILLIAM LINDNER - Sinell said this is a written appeal. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to refer the Lindner property, PID 26-116-22 12 0024, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 144. JOHN BURKLUND - Sinell said this appeal was just received. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to refer the Burklund property, PID 04-116-22 43 0093, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 145. DALE 6 MARCIA LAFRENZ - Sinell said this appeal was just received. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to refer the LaFrenz property, PID 04-116-22 43 0104, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 146- M. THOMPSON/T. SCHWARTZ - 147. Mr. Schwartz said these properties are a double bungalow on 192nd Ave. West and a single family home on Burr Ridge Lane. Sinell said these appeals were just received. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to refer the Thompson properties, PID's 06-116-22 32 0039 and 36-116-22 22 0003, to staff for furthr review. Motion carried unanimously. The Board then considered three written appeals received during the meeting. 148. ESTELLE KNUDSEN - 149. LAWRENCE BISTODEAU - 150. JEFF SELL - Board of Review 20 April 19, 1990 MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Harris, to refer the Knudsen property, PID 11-116-22 11 0012, the Bistodeau property, PID 23-116-22 43 0039, and the Sell property, PID 22-116-22 24 0119, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. The Board then recalled the names of those property owners who were not present when called the first time. 9. ROBERT DUNCAN - Sinell said this neighborhood was revalued for the 1990 assessment, the average value in the neighborhood is $172,500, and the $212,000 reflects the over-improvement claimed by Mr. Duncan. He said it would have a higher valuation in another neighborhood. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Tenpas, to sustain the 1990 estimated market value on the Duncan property, PID 24-116-22 31 0104, at $212,000. Motion carried unanimously. 13. EARL INGRAM - Sinell said Mr. Ingram's concern has been that Mitchell Lake is quite low and he cannot use his boat. He said the resales in the neighborhood are up. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to sustain the 1990 estimated market value on the Ingram property, PID 17-116-22 24 0030 at $249,700. Anderson said he had recently checked the level in the lake and it is almost back to normal. VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried unanimously. 36. KEVIN & JONI STRATHY - MOTION: Tenpas moved, seconded by Harris, to sustain the 1990 estimated market value on the Strathy property, PID 26-116-22 12 0026, at $483,000. Motion carried unanimously. 37. ROBB GILMAN - Sinell said this value is the same as that set by the 1989 Board of Review. Board of Review 21 April 19, 1990 MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to sustain the 1990 estimated market value on the Gilman property, PID 25-116-22 22 0032, at $350,000. Motion carried unanimously. Tenpas said he had some concern about the value of all the lots on Mount Curve set at the same price since there are some that are better than others. Anderson said he was also concerned about it when there are so many people appealing and talking about land values. Anderson said he would like to come up with some way of getting a handle on the problem and some additional information on properties in that area. 40. AMERICAN LEGION - Sinell said they need more information on this and asked that it be referred. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to refer the American Legion property, PID 17-116-22 14 0087, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 41. 18 PARK BUSINESS CTR. - Sinell said this is listed for sale at $2,500,000 and the valuation is $1,702,000. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to sustain the 1990 estimated market value on the 18 Park Business Ctr. property, PID 01-116-22 41 0003, at $1,702,000. Motion carried unanimously. 46. BRUCE HAVERLY - Sinell said he has not been able to talk to Mr. Haverly yet. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to refer the Haverly property, PID 27-116-22 14 0023, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 66- NORTHWOOD GAS, CO. - 68. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to sustain the 1990 estimated market value on the Northwood Gas, Co. properties, PID's 03-116-22 22 0022, 03-116-22 22 0019, 03-116-22 22 0021, at $85,000, $800, $107,100, respectively. Motion carried unanimously. Board of Review 22 April 19, 1990 87. RICHARD WATERBURY - Sinell said the land value is $160,00 of the total value of $330,400. He said lakeshore property is very valuable. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Harris, to sustain the 1990 estimated market value on the Waterbury property, PID 02-116-22 32 0004, at $330,400. Anderson asked what caused a 25% increase in many of the properties around Bryant Lake. Sinell said they have very few sales in one year so they have to determine the trends in the neighborhood. Tenpas asked if there had ever been any discussion of taking a ten-year average of the land values sold for cases such as this. Sinell said with such an approach, decisions would have to be made by judging an individual's ability to pay. VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried with Pidcock opposed. 105. LEXINGTON CABRIOLE LTD. - MOTION: Tenpas moved, seconded by Pidcock, to sustain the 1990 estimated market value on the Lexington Cabriole Ltd. property, PID 13-116-22 14 0017, at $939,000. Motion carried unanimously. 110. GARY RADTKE - Sinell said the appraiser and Mr. Radtke have reviewed this in depth. He said the appraiser recommended an adjustment to 878,000. MOTION: Tenpas moved, seconded by Pidcock, to adjust the 1990 estimated market value on the Radtke property, PID 27-116-22 11 0023, to $78,000. Motion carried unanimously. 126. THOMAS KRUEGER - Sinell said this is the same as the 1989 valuation. MOTION: Tenpas moved, seconded by Anderson, to sustain the 1990 estimated market value on the Krueger property, PID 24-116-22 43 0029, at $177,000. Motion carried unanimously. Board of Review 23 April 19, 1990 139. JEFFREY & ROBIN COLEMAN - Sinell said this appeal just came in and they would like to take a look at it. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to refer the Coleman property, PID 35-116-22 11 0072, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 140. GARY & PATRICIA HAMMER - MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to refer the Hammer property, PID 26-116-22 42 0009, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. B. Written Communicatiogg Written appeals were processed with the Personal Appeals. C. Schedule Reconvene MOTION: Tenpas moved, seconded by Harris, to reconvene the Board of Review at 7:30 PM on Tuesday, May 8, 1990. Motion carried unanimously. Harris asked Sinell to convey congratulations to staff for a job well done. III. CLOSE MEETINQ MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to close the meeting at 11:00 PM. Motion carried unanimously. Memorandum To: Eden Prairie Board of Review from: Steue Sinell, City Assessor-- Subject: May 8, 1990 reconvene of the Board of Review Meeting Date: May 4, 199D The assessing staff has prepared reports on the properties that were referred to staff for review at the Rpril 19th meeting of the Board of Reuiew. I haue listed our recommendations on each property reviewed and haue attached copies of the reports on the properties that we have not reached agreement with the taxpayer. Appeal 1$ Owner/PIO Assessor's Recommendations 2. Richard Hendrickson Original value $72000 15-116-22-33-0021 Review appraisal $75000 Recommend no change in value. 3. Leonard Kodet Original value $90700 04-116-22-23-0039 Reuiew appraisal $95000 Recommend no change in value. 11. Robert Morgel Original ualue $205500 24-116-22-31-0107 Review appraisal $195000 Mass appraisal 8180900 Recommend the value be reduced to $180900. Owner disagrees. 14. Janice Patterson Original value $147400 24-116-22-43-0010 Review appraisal $141300 Recommend reduction to $141300 Owner agrees 19. John Bergh, Jr. Original value $268000 25-116-22-33-0038 Reuiew appraisal $249000 Recommend reduce to $249000 Owner agrees 23. Robert Raschke Original value $136900 05-116-22-14-0012 Review appraisal $151000 Recommend no change in value. The review appraisal has addressed the County Road 4 influence. 26. Barb S Bill Cadogan Original value $397200 23-116-22-44-0023 Review appraisal $390000 Recommend reduce to $390000 Owner disagrees 27. Fred Saxe Original value $250600 02-116-22-32-0007 Review appraisal $295000 Recommend no change in value 32. Carol Hoeft Original value $152000 24-116-22-21-000S Review appraisal $152000 Recommend no change. Owner Agrees 34. Gerald McGraw Original value $12000 26-116-22-31-0008 Reuiew appraisal $120000 Recommend reduce to $120000 Owner Agrees 38. David Stewart Original value $575000 26-116-22-11-0008 Reuiew appraisal $547000 Recommend reduce to $547000 Owner disagrees 40. American Legion Original value $1604000 17-116-22-14•-00B7 Review appraisal $1400000 Recommend reduce to $1100000 Owner Agrees 4S. Clarence Schafer Original ualue $112000 01-116-22-32-0012 Reuiew appraisal $117600 Recommend no change. owner disagrees. Review appraisal addressed location issues. 46. Bruce Hauerly Original value $146000 27-116-22-14-0023 Reuiew appraisal $122000 Recommend reduce to $122000 Owner Agrees 49. Kent Carlson Original ualue $139300 OS-1.16-22-42-0023 Review appraisal $130000 Recommend reduce to $130000 Owner Agrees Si. Steven Jenkins Original value $112000 26-116-22-24-0066 Review appraisal $110000 Recommend reduce to $110000 Owner Agrees 60. Frank Dixon Original value $400000 23-116-22-44-0003 Review appraisal $375000 Recommend reduce to *375000 Owner Rgrees 63. Marvin Segal Original value *411000 24-116-22-33-0005 Review appraisal $379000 Recommend reduce to $379000 Owner Agrees 64. James Kaufman Original value *143600 09-116-22-23-0036 Review appraisal $152000 Recommend no change, Owner Agrees 72. Roy & Ruth Lecy Original value *347500 23-116-22-43-0017 Review appraisal $340000 Recommend reduce to *340000 Owner disagrees, feels $330000 is correct value. Property is listed for sale • at $359900. 79. R. Bjelland/T. Schwartz Original value *449300 02-116-22-34-0003 Review appraisal $495000 Recommend $449300, Owner Rgrees 80. Orlo Johnson Original value $130000 14-116-22-31-0032 Review appraisal $87300 Recommend $87300, Owner Horses 81. TJH Limited Partnership Original value $301000 14-116-22-31-0033 Review appraisal $202700 Recommend *202700, Owner Agrees 82. TJH Limited Partnership Original value $456000 14-116-22-31-0041 Review appraisal $306000 Recommend $306000, Owner Agrees 91. Bihari Oesai Original value $77200 17-116-22-12-0058 Review appraisal $80400 Recommend no change, owner disagrees. There are S sales in the neighborhood that support the $77200 value as assigned. 95. Donald Sorenson Original value *226700 11-116-22-11-0020 Review appraisal $245000 Recommend no change. 96. Uilliam & Karen Goon Original value *287700 25-116-22-22-0028 Review appraisal *305000 Recommend no change. 101. Lonny Gulden Original value $214700 23-116-22-13-0018 Review appraisal $185000 Recommend reduce to $185000 Owner Rgrees 104. Janes & Lori Olson Original value $231000 05-116-22-12-0040 Review appraisal $250000 Recommend no change. 106. Kenneth Shannon Original value $137000 07-116-22-32-0037 Review appraisal $133000 Recommend reduce to $133000. Owner disagrees, feels $125000 is the correct value. 108. Oouglas MacLean Original value $324000 29-116-22-24-0104 Review appraisal $300000 Recommend reduce to $300000 Owner Rgrees 109. Shirley Moyer Knutson Original value $159300 26-116-22-21-0006 Review appraisal $146000 Recommend reduce to $196000 Owner disagrees. There are minor things left to complete on this house. Market comparison would support a value in excess of $160000 if the building was complete. 111. Finn & Gerald Kalin Original value $188800 24-116-22-21-0006 Review appraisal $183000 Recommend reduce to $183000 Owner disagrees, feels the value should be in the $170000's. The owners have • presented no evidence of market value. 114. Lawrence Kitts Original value $373000 25-116-22-22-0023 Review appraisal $378000 Recommend no change. 115. John & Terri Cain Original value $366900 23-116-22-44-0012 Review appraisal $348000 j. Recommend reduce to $348000 Owner Rgrees 116. Cynthia Chadwick Original value $75500 ' 17-116-22-12-0073 Review appraisal $75500 Recommend no change. 117. Dennis Scheppnan Original value $165500 DS-116-22-13-0023 Review appraisal $172000 Recommend no change. 122. R. 8ouvin/T. Schwartz Original value $1868000 01-116-22-44-0012 Review appraisal $1868000 Recommend no change. Owner Agrees • 123- Kyle Feldman/Agent Review appraisals in process. • 124 will be ready May 8th, rental 125 information just received. 129 Hustad Development Original value $431200 11-116-22-42-0020 Review appraisal $431200 Recommend no change. Owner Agrees • 130. Hustad Development Original value $169400 11-116-22-42-0032 Review appraisal $108700 Recommend reduce to $108700 Owner Agrees 131. Hustad Development Original value $62000 11-116-22-42-0035 Reuiew appraisal $62000 Recommend no change, Owner Agrees 132. Hustad Oeuelopnent Original value $187000 11-116-22-44-0011 Reuiew appraisal $132000 Recommend reduce to $132000, Owner Agrees 133. Creek Knolls Partn. Original value $100000 36-116-22-21-0037 Review appraisal $100000 Recommend no change. Owner Agrees 134. Creek Knolls Partn. Original value $105000 36-116-22-21-0038 Review appraisal $105000 Recommend no change, Owner Agrees 137. Ton Kolbo Original value $323000 23-116-22-43-0016 Review appraisal $316000 Recommend reduce to $316000 Owner disagrees, feels value should be $290000. Owner has presented no information regarding market value. 139. Jeffrey Coleman Original value $173000 • 35-116-22-11-0072 Reuiew appraisal $167000 Recommend $167000, Owner Agrees • 140. Gary Hammer Original value $140900 26-116-22-42-0009 Review appraisal $133000 Recommend reduce to $133000 Owner Agrees • 141. Brian Rosenberger Original value $133400 09-116-22-31-0007 Review appraisal $127400 • Recommend $127400, Owner Agrees 142. Brian Rosenberger Original value $131800 • 09-116-22-31-0006 Review appraisal $125800 Recommend $125800, Owner Agrees 143. Uillian Lindner Original value $281000 26-116-22-12-0024 Review appraisal $242200 Recommend $242200, Owner Agrees 144. John 8urkland Original value $129200 04-116-22-43-0093 Review appraisal $113300 Recommend $113300, Owner Agrees 145. Oale 6 Marcia Lafrenz Original value $209900 04-116-22-43-0104 Review appraisal $224000 Recommend no change, owner disagrees but has not presented any euidence about the property ualue. 146. M. Thompson/T. Schwartz Original value $163400 06-116-22-32-0039 Reuiew appraisal $128000 Recommend $128000, Owner Agrees 147. M. Thompson/T. Schwartz Original ualue $257500 • 36-116-22-22-0003 Reuiew appraisal $245000 Recommend $245000. Owner Agrees 148. Estelle Knudson Original value $201000 11-116-22-11-0012 Review appraisal $182100 Recommend reduce to $182100. Owner Agrees 149. Lawrence 8istodeau Original value $325400 23-116-22-43-0039 Reuiew appraisal $298000 Recommend $298000, Owner Agrees • 150. Jeff Sell Original value $80000 22-116-22-24-0019 Review appraisal $85000 Recommend no change. Mr. Sell representing the property owner, Mr. Jenkins, indicates he is interested in buying this lot but has not provided any information regarding the value. { appeal No. P1D # 15-116-22 33 0021 Date Received _3/15L1990 c ly,* Appraiser Lorna Lise11 • APPLICATION FORM 1990 EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF REVIEW (To be completed by owner - please print) Telephone Home: 4/7•/-/5 73 , Work: %I•/ ,3 Name: /tic il�r;•�/ //:rh/re LiLCe sit old,l,rve dddrCsl / 5 i,. ynt/ a .bri✓a rat A- m-i Address of Property: �",/3.z f's v /_�-//6 - 33--oo.t.l January 2, 199D valuation as it appears on the notice: $ 7z ov C Date property was acquired: tf/:i`,/ Purchase Price: $ id/6,2 5" Terms of Purchase: F'//, Mew re-Act-(n/tw Aux:.7c,ue Additions and alterations since purchase: Cost of additions and alterations: Is property listed for sale? /✓'O If yes, at what price $ — (attach copy of listing agreement Owners estimated market value as of January 2, 1990 is: $ 1p y, 6 What are your reasons or documentation supporting the above stated value? (Please attach supporting information): 4.,,e,6,vv471p4 7//es To AATS�j��S '(''Tc'p 8`8 If CZ ed.7/,s-ov c•c..hc�2. 1"7S ctfyAsS-s v t-9L4iTro.J 7 n 1os�fo /'//t fev4-R 1)/40 /✓O Sti L A SreLi- t)io Not S[_zL Jt'c 7,9 JrS INJu/T/nd 4o✓e_7e/o2ec,.JCr, OK2 orFeR. /eee.--P rLD fly hf It.D -..zev J�"U"� e j E -E T N iJ HogE 2'�rM14 /yc-�P#U 0/O,000 ZovJ-42 TN.s.•J T//E,g K T. ,1S /46 ,c c 49e ucvr ny.e oFF o 1.6,4 as- MoRe cTS 7,f/E 09Ld/47-icill TNc ftO"7(61414D AS .�T \,, is 6FA Fi) Bcy Pia). -A119eT Og OFFt7e '-' &( (�.S W�4S THE ,�,[f/c+T c cA'(< (-jj 7-Hes <Uqb qN/T A-Ref WNtc W V✓E'Cnn7CLuoc THAT 4 V44-44 r,ays) 01 1'/4 62S /11Ay GSE Too ///6//. Sig ure o ner Please note: This form requests private or confidential data of applicant which is being collected for purposes of review by the City Assessor and the Eden Prairie Board of Review to assist in preparing for any appeals/objections herein. The submission of this data is not mandatory, however, in order to get an accurate assessment of the property prior to the hearing, such data is helpful. (To be completed by the Assessing Department) Prior year values: Land Building Total Property Class. 1/2/89 iv on S6 qq 72f1 Tnwnhnuce 1/2/88 16000 56000 72000 Townhouse 1/2/87 16300 56000 72000 Townhouse Last Inspection: 1b1/rsc Appraiser: cow. L,S�1I Building Permits/Appraiser Comments: 1 rt I A-.4,. (.:'._ "tL . Ar-� f-.l' ...1✓,rr- �WtC .M.,.''-'.,-t f, ti.i .L t'W'G ,ycttci«.: .)).1.74- �--. nt:-!'./C-r .":.i.+,"ti-+-�, ;Uukr .:_y;.- ..44K1-ft•C• Sale History Date Source Sale Price Terms of Sale Comments 76925 $ 79000 WO WD 13% 7 7 89 CRV 64625 WD 9% HUD Sale Board of Review Action: 1) Referred to Assessor for review: 2) Assessor's value adjusted to: 3) Assessor's value sustained: • JAN. 2, 1990 REAL PROPERTY AS!�E BMENT VALUATION NOTICE �, • CITY OFiE EN PRAIRIE EDEN PRAIRIE ASSESSING OFFICE • �' 7600 EXECUTIVE DRIVE PROPERTY EDEN PRAIRIE MN 85344 I 15-116-22-33-opsl TELEPHONE: 612137-226E 15-116-22-33-0021 1990 MARKET VALUE 72,000 CLASSIFICATION 48 �' v' r. RICHARD 'HENDRICKSON 17818 CYNTHIA DRIVE • MTKA., MN. 5534S it; PROPERTY TYPE' RESIDENTIAL NON-HOMESTEAD } The Eden Prairie-Board of Review will +meet Thursday, April 19,1990 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers. 7600 Executive Drive; Eden Prairie to review the 1590 market values and dlasslfications. If you intend to • appeal, please call the Eden Prairie Ai my Dept. at? 937-7415 for an appointment end application form•[ be returned by April 2. For an appointment to the Hennepin County 8oa�rd of Equalization, which meets i g June 18, 1990, call 348-5076 before dune 11, 1990. .j . .11111111.11 11.1.10,- . ...k.S/Somiss Jun*le 196. .Ami 1111 0111'El I In ...••• ‘.kti.i ti ....a. 311'I,-3 WO 9.16 s., , .-r- . 1".6 Ft.,1, .-:.^;r•A `li.0.1111 - ,-- e' ,;- i4r.".. 1141,E _i.-, :1-.4.',ittrir . J....6P rt ,..v,,,,..„1141t , "'It •,, L,',,!.i.l• . jt_ _ ......,••,• .,;., ....,...,, _„...s. ......___,,,,_•....ine....-.1._ !.-....,.....j2.._.^.• e - -• liERE/s A HUD HOME .., ,,,,. r ,4„) ,..4,, EVERY BUYER, 10 DAY LISTINGS . 'IR FHA FINANCING • tt.......::::.. 7.7: ..... ......- .........- .L........z.....- = „.„ ,........ ,,....,_ . Goan ANA. A VI Mi.362 WA IF...en A.A. 3 1 MAIMS •.•a 3ti F I Ca.. MOM a c pi 2...1,1,Pal i ns•11,011, 2 AA. :14,.3011 A mS ,,,,, A.,0,,,......A.A A,„,. O.W. ...... A J 443 Fp,.A.•MN 2• A..••.• '-••.• .....•.C „I MAO..1 1,J,....•5.1Ar r 111•Ale VI 212.23-21•1 00010.Ana At 1.13 ill 1.1 N.. ty nen..3,,,,,, ,?..f a .23... 0 271.1.01•3•1 t5e3.3.1.0.•n•We 7 ss...., 2,1.3103311.301 3303.116..A.A., 3.t• 11143.0110 A ,•tI2.2 1 C.0,-. 3.....SC ,. ...,,r,.,,,, „„„„, , 73.410 2/1433,1M MI..*Cy. I I la.. St.SOS A On.••••• W.131 IFNI 1.......10,:,..„•3 F,..11••••Nro 7 Pr. MO. A r„,........,,,,,,,r. 2 1 ti,2•17 3.0,11021 • ty 3 2 town 211.990 es.. HP* ,2,Nr.j..)a,L.......or A.r/p3 0.3 1• UNA WOW 2r1 ow.=ts•ao•••••• s , 2 al, wood P.1/.1•310.1 44"C.,•••••...In..3. ••••• ....• 2,3010303 0.1 Olore.13.4. I F 1.ISO 11.000 A -.SINE 2 I .64 ..906 M.,.gr.,•••••Cm+•1•03193130 3 13 ' WM NOT ELIGIBLE FOR FHA FINANCING .1),072/.734 1..4.0 mt.Aa•INS P I GAY 'SASS 11 0 . c..... •••••• .1.••• lart0•1••• •.. 03.000 • 22,340 A ".--,...rn=„,:..........!....I., .-- "•••• • ,-”,-",ff.:,...:,::=:-- '• • , ,, 2,22•021R13 13.„01•:::::ar,,,,,„„ I 1 17,660 • 011.900 7.1.22”2,25.)•••12•10,3•%1•••• .I•116 °Wel 14,110 Atate•M•100m •F•• F ‘••• “,... • 2,,roc.r...4,2,c2,....2 0. r 1 a.. Tv** r,,Ms.;1015•1.455Cory••3 3 t C.•••• 3S.K10 C "”"". . 04000 • ''''''' .1.000•r w 22oa , c.ea sa.tes s c ,.,..4,0;:...r,,,,,,,,..,,,..., . ,- 21,taverna 3.12.13.8.Ar• 2 1 ,.............. '.'" ' '''"' "...*'' 1.,•..•,r,„.,T.tf;:=,,rrrr. „ , ,,.. ...... 21t,132.3,11,2 ma,2,....ne 2 , 0.2.. ..011., 3.2an•ale v.•33. 2 t Coral 0.000 III 1... "tr-•.• 2713191320 L.2...?„=0.,„!: 3 1 1.00 • yr.•„2,,,,3 2 73 CPO f3,900 2,ISOM in,•0•14n,A.*0 . II•.000 . 311.o2203 R..00 73.Agit N '''..'. "'. 14.6110. 41.nrosnt.• ,.,,,,,,, . 2;t 1 P101 VD.1.1.Amor Ar3 N ur 3 31., 31,900 • I/1 MST PI 20•11.14..•A.* , ,S. 36.900•G -N 2 I T.. 'NNW 2,,Parr Mt..kns Se...F..In St A 2.• ' IV,. A 3,F 2‘,..7 A.A./•F•••••••. . ..... • ....1.1 .3 t Come .10.600 s it.MN 203 A11231.06•ArAN t F 4 PA, WIN • Sc- . NAM • ESULTS HOTLINE: 333-SOLD (7653) AFTER 4 P.M. ON BID OPENING DAY INSTRUCTIONS- • on T...d.Y,HUD will "'inn'questions sales agents or th•gonoral public may ss•••m•,..'•t,''imm'om•mm.'"''..' CODES&INCENTIVES I. about HUD Homes A ................«.........., , `,70:=T.".......114.17741;.r.'`"'"••01°Noe Mo. . Ay parregirms ram A.-ea N-So.tneeFcla•••,•••••4•111,8.1..8 •2r 2•••13.h,3•3.f.0-2..2.2,...,2,, 8 2....,.....,....•,........,..,............2.2.2.0.22 a*.......2.242.2m,sl.....2 4.3.•••••••43 Ns..No. •••••.'•••••••••...'•••••••'••••••••.•• '•• !....':::::•...1;:r.•=10:•••===•••••••••="Sall •••••••••••••••"••••••••PVLITZ:n11,==:= ..'lr..f..Ztt'aref:::•:.;7":3:4:V...:Z.V. V't:Tort'a.a.ort•c• ''''''''•.•••••••'‘'•'•••'...•••••". •••••••••","••••..............••••.•••••.• , Non 03.1,amostet 0..4 NO..too.on....•in 1.....•••oF AN..... mines...Wm al wry/romp...um.cso*so,22a saw EXTENDED BID LIST 2,,„,, f 77,t;lit i. r•o•.3 rfy•••••.•••• .1:00• a . 53 t f•••DY MI .3•011•••••••••3 el KO In. a,t .3 :7 f Ala 36 f I.7 :1•73::•"7r3.1. •2 lee • 13.• t f I.13••••. :,,...-yor,.......--.4. •t•••• Ow..w I F,t ....co•••.:.F-S.A V we rra*to • 21.n,O,N.• 7.....,,,,,'''''' uns I. ,t. ,,,....X. ;ft:1..7'f..... .'....• f' . ....,........'. VI,•t Orr t11.3 1..541.•••••••••41, SONO MY 13 13. . .."4.'."....4 ...."..''''' ' f 7,/,,,,,. 1:3:1=7;.17.••••••3 Af lea IP*1*.I , r„„r„„f.. Ly•}fp,1••••••••X•.q• az am••••.•••••• . ..V.::::,....,.. 'sew o....,...... , .......7..... .ice 1.. ••, ."'''''"' r.:i.'......'"..." ,..... zamao• • 7 7:27.r."' ,e22• "'••.""a .."...'". f ' 2,.tre.•ras :rum.sNo tar.tr.101 .are n.c... % ";:•".7.7,,""" •r2.2 2..2 , ,"•2`,..' rr SOUP." ..,..., • •••• f , ,........... .........=-..............,.......... , ,••••••••'^,, ...-.,=••f..“.. ..K.' • ......f''' 4I.P.VIa•PS ....-..r....T.,...... ....,-,....- , "4„:"...:r."-,;-:.:;;4:4:7„.:-,.,-, : I 7.,••••1 lin ,--"7,,:7'7.7--.,..• ,.. ,,,,....., L...........•.... er irre no tux , . ''',.....;:,-7.,.:;,,,,,gr.;rr'..:!:rrr.r... '"'""'' :".:2"4;:"`"'''' ""''''' 2 , 2,•mon PM •••••••••.,•••••. •••••"N. ':":'7=..'I".:1;'''''"'.".t''''• • „..•„„MI 4ni nu........ imes . : • is:min m :::•11:grms... nen• ism • Luca . • - 1990 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: 7 Page 1 Sales Comparison Approach PID: - . • Owner: Address: -r._ /_ . /,-/ -%,, ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE N0.1 COMPARABLE NO 2 COMPARABLE NO.3 Address fl/p= //•...,.,.. / J t' t _fz f Proximity to Subject [lllii?I Il, I Sales Price s -: 1TI!!Ijlllll?Illt 111111111$ •1. 1- IiT111 ill[L!IIllll ll$ 1:, illllilllhIIIt'1i 1[I S 78.sec Price/Gross Soo s Liv.Area S �,�'�l�•?S ? 9t �� R71(([�II�] tli 'ILs Nc MIl11111iil!I Illlhllll111ts 'i 'Z1iIV�j Ilill VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION I ••r-IS aaus,ment DESCRIPTION 1 ••tds eawsrmeni DESCRIPTIDN ••t-If wNsrmem Sales or Financing _ Concessions 1111h �- - f — — ;`'i-'ti:J.cr -/9c,^ Date of Sale/Time 11 7./If0 :^/?Q — — — Location - _,..-en --- >,.::,.. _ Site/View /,;, .; -- --- -s, '-7•. — Design and Appeal r%_t.a�. — :b•,',is -- lire..:-a.,t- — Quality of Construction ;;rr� •t;;; .i ife.' — 't_ — Jr /Y=. — Age 19P= 19P4 -loch /9an. —,- /-7v1 4-icon Condition -:- .,-,-. — — -- Above Grade Torar :&vms: Barns bid! :Brims. Bams Total(.Roans? Batas Total ;Balms Baths Room Count - / / / Gross Living Area /e/.2 Sq Ft. /e Sq.Ft. /s/...' Sp Ft. tr,~r Sq.Ft. Basement&Finished y,,.e'-,t,er<.•1... 4 i/•`II 41es4F,d 'i3n'",,,,,,w-+4f, y a, 1.•-•....t41• Rooms Below Grade rF,es.e 'yr Tr,'. ;e,e.F '•"ytw, - rr, ;;c ''-/P*.+I ra rt.31.yCaz(„ — Functional Utility Heating/Cooling •''h 6/1 ;c' //`. --- F< F;; — _.,.c q;r• — Garage/Carport di t. 7,,, , -r-. ,g. — .-U..' —.t — _ Porches.Patio, da..lc..ic,:-:� d•<.<_- ioo '-- ae<_._ ice... — ---e .Z.-wk. -,,P0 o I Pools,etc. _• Special Energy Efficient Items Fueprace(s) n; r:., -- r,.,•, E — i:,..._ — Other(e.g kitchen equip.remodeling) Net ABI(total) 1111i VI li 1I 1!1I I1i4 lli L+ 7-'S 11 1��hh /oon 7+ yr-S /a _:S o r ") i*l v� r ( Indicated Vakre 1 r 1 1 I I I I.111• 1 i . Of Subject -t l h I II 11,, H ,t.r , I � $ P•r•9^-� II I I �lt I I S Pc' Vic" �, $ i-soo Comments on Sales Comparison: .r_. ;;;,f,rr.. ,a 142e•/ir'-..,{-. 7/19. W,-r,o.c%4.,r�:1/:,_•(.., 9/..;7r"./ ,'7••1 p,r;.,.i 11 ;.ru,r,aZ.G{• ^-,-2`tf.-/,.rr'c,_•• /7 S.z.:t•?•i i/.Y✓..7:-1.i.II. I-J•=11"J-us/L F 'A ' ,i- J/2i l J a:' yr.,/,. i Llll' ?. Hilt .=.r:-;U, c'1..ti0 0--7?)41,1 s'a. .-t.i a4 .' 93 m Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach: 75,f504., as of January 2, 1990 Value Review Assessor's Being Appealed Appraisal Recommendation Land Value //oo-n 4::c. /4.•- Building Value ... .•ce =-7_cc : . _ Total EMV /.r nc." _e, - n," .- , Appraiser Appeal No: - Page 2 Photo of Subject i / ,1 -G I . Building Sketch 34, to as ro / \ / /o DELK I 1 Iin\` / . Ifs / \ JP i 1 .a \ j 2,ram'e.m. 1 1 1 I • I } 1 i i Appeal No. 3 PID # D4-116-22 23 OD39 Date Received Vjs/f v Appraiser Rarb Cook APPLICATION FDRM 1990 EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD DF REVIEW (To be ::ompleted by owner - please print) Telephone Home: 3 S/—5i Y' / Work: Name: �r,�a /3• l(cr A:e / r1de 7) Address of Property: L^S`3k „ � January 2, 1990 valuation as it appea s on the notice: $ f�i Date property was acquire d: l q 6 A- Purchase Price: $ .,Z 4, c-r c> Terms of Purchase: Additions and alterations since purchase: ;Izrr..e Cost of additions and alterations: Is property listed for sale? ,cc If yes, at what price $ 80,arro (attach copy of listing agreement) Owners estimated market value as of January 2, 1990 is: $ 75 err) What are your reasons or documentation supporting the above stated value? (Please attach supporting information): ignature of wner Please note: This form requests private or confidential data of applicant which is being collected for purposes of review by the City Assessor and the Eden Prairie Board of Review to assist in preparing for any appeals/objections herein. The submission of this data is not mandatory, however, in order to get an accurate assessment of the property prior to the hearing, such data is helpful. (To be completed by the Assessing Department) Prior year values: Land Building Total Property Class. 1/2/89 ,1:.rX: icon 1/2/88 - '✓= �� 1/2/87 Z. "a^o i K Last Inspection: 1c/_/g7 Appraiser: Park CO'L Building Permits/Appraiser Comments: Sale History Date Source Sale Price Terms of Sale Garments _/ / $ 1 1 $ ******************************************************************************* Board of Review Action: 1) Referred to Assessor for review: 2) Assessor's value adjusted to: 3) Assessor's value sustained: f � :1 �• 1990 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: Page 1 Sales Comparison Approach PID: Oil— l/co-.'1A 23 OC)39 Owner: o.,,.taj. -ccd.A.1-, Address: (53L, ".1,,, Pt\a.ah-.1, .ct, ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO.1 COMPARABLE NO.2 COMPARABLE NO.3 Address N-a3--1 g-/a._3 33-,17-On V3 0045 /o--y4-/8 3 VRd 7 O .pole.. A1a,...c ed 6,a5 ',.. Ala.,..L.a-d.. /793/ al..,A nI...Lm..O Proximity to Subject s in-,,r:,, • M,-(_,.. /'/.t >,...G..., Sales Price $ 1ItIIII Ili ill II OH$ r ')Coo I s SSoc>a s 9y0oo Price/Gross Liv Area $ 0$ 75.Cr')Cr m�jIIIIIIIID 111111llll,$ 74./a mlllliil111I0101@4RI1111$ -/.a 7 mltPl!lllllll!IIIII 111 Data Source cAv "s-MLs MI$ak,t:-,.v VALUE AOJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION I .(-is Adwsimem OESCRIPTION •I-1S Adwsln,n DESCRIPTION I.1-IS AdwstnaM • Sales or Financing Concessions — — Na t-aa, t -(Zoo PFa 0 oast* -3Roo Dale of Sale/Time c,189 - 3190 - /Z /S Location G4,.,Ala, : ad - esi,.,e.I - Ely.....-1 - 5,.,can.sn, -5coo Site/View Good lc),CAxaIS '1 .p - .O.lia, I •-7oao/ ,--./ 1:../.,,,.. /+Sane Design and Appeal A.r v - 4, Av - Quality of Construction p v-A A -A8 A,-A 3 - A,-Fl 8 Age . 19tny , ,9t,9 -a..coo 19 51, +5004, /9to c ,./Coon Condition gre Au cr ,.,.,,a,-Aire.d - 4 - Cl.4„ — Above Grade Total . ov Bdmn. Barna ;Mal .Una. Barns Total.Bdrms Bath a0ocn Total 'Bans, Baer t r2 DPO Room Count to :3 :I'/z to '-3 : 1'1 z to : 3 : I 7 :3 : / Gross Living Area /380 Sq.Ft. i 0 Sq.Ft. — /00 Sq.Ft. +8400 ,4 72 Sq.Ft. -3oon Basement 8Finished rwo ulo F.,.uA wAwh .,7M s-,.,,-p wit? F,.,-i Flo•.,10 ti5.00 Rooms Below Glade Fe se m.,BA Neely„d A... .Ca000 L R Fe n A e• -300o GR 3/y6A F ace() Functional Utility I Healing/Cooling Fa Ica rA .,Soo FR Ica - pa)cA Garage/Carport cCat,to n 01,.ATa' - " -p[00 oWa.ar+ Porches.Patio. 41u, 1,z5.F NodLa,�K - a000 aka aN ago N Pools,etc. - d.o .ele,d �v — , r pn..1r -.j000 Ai,cs,-....w cL . - No 4 p .., - Special Energy J Efficient hems Fireolace(s) a 4 ap;,L, 0 +,9000 ' 0 .#3oc>o Other(e.g kitchen equip..remodeling) Net Ad.Dotal) I�I II . + --'s o00$ + "--$ /ciao0 I�7+ — _;$ 7oa Indicated Value I I ` of Subject �_- I I (I Is //2000 $ /dHaoo ,,.; $ 94700 • Coninents on Sales Comparison: sub1.�.} u 1oca-t..0 ad tau, to, °Ss,,,-in4,.,4., �A ai 2 ;' ot.... Cns.pA,d -n- IyJ�a.,d a. Caw.Pacn.ARL, A ;a Qoea 1. v;.,M\1.4)e1•ovtica. bc{A+ t;l,i_'.•_' UN\ QJ)C.,� NY1 " AA P.p C -CL4ta... l� W �,c W�P.lJy1,l :.: Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach: 500Uc"/ as of January 2, 199 4I;, Value Review - Assessor's Being Appealed Appraisal - Recommendation Land Value a9Soo 3n000• 1VoCAA.rc,J.� q1`r Building Value tot aO o U Ia5on J Total EMV 9 LY1OO 95000 Appraiser 6ra_p &WV • Appeal No: 3 Page 2 Photo of Subject • f:+ 1 • 11:1 .11JW11111.., 1111.1.,. • Building Sketch • ,v I \ ,y ae; \/ • e / / r a- at . . V d .D .' )r 1 e 7 .ni � 1-%+'. !"t 9fi,.. Ill 0f i° l' 1, ,c9 4'Atilt , x i „a ,s r Pw ��`' � rr-," . del F7 T 6 ♦ 9Ititt y { .4. , , . .. ...:_\,.., ..,1 el,/--#„(,;••..4,,.‘ 1,..410(,i: - t., ; ., ,' ., -,t,,... ,,,,,v,• , r, wig a l t tr yr t Nit .1 * J �� ..�i. �wM .��� 7➢ { t .. gam,. ` • !°YTS!•.PA {b'�14 1 .I1! ,. = { r 1 10'''a'* 1 y • ST. �. ♦1t! ylwar• t;a • ! .w: � •... ,. ate .: + y ._.' 7 i ' /fir "..-, f ,_ t a• P t= �i y a .tea f'+_ ' �.ve,, mot'• -` . * , 71 ''tI ."..11T ,.'c•4 .M itZW{ry., a^ 'gym a ��y ;���� � 'd' ss r N5- !"„+.-;k`m^ -1, ^4 ',y+r-.•` ,k.,h * ''rk-ate.: „: .:y ,,, cam f {ra;.,a: a ) 1 `fie` f ; F•\ A tw qn ^+`s,§^��` Ii < aT' y .•e€ ` • ` • 1.s �' R ' �'' �. ti} ae y „ ` . Appeal No. II PID # 24-116-22 31 D1D7 Date Received ;.,- Appraiser John Sams APPLICATION FORM 1990 EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF REVIEW C/ (To be completed by owner - please print) Telephone Home: girl 1 a" Work: Sn.«:G Name: «1c 1Y,: I (h. Ne( — Address of Property: (j 1 c(.�, 7 x w ''.c .1 - _ . i>i'1)1I'' .. .';j.3j-7 January 2, 199D valuation as it appears on he notice: ` ._L:. e Date property was acquired: i(ik l Purcha a Price: $ /c c., , c. Terms of Purchase: 6,,ij�!?;rT i.,: -.).,,( l�f.tu c `fi bi /ni '- ( .., C1c.<77,7e. Additions and alterations since purchase: ,7jn, Jc Y ciec'i i J 4'cscj2 rep )e mi I ;L 1 v/�`,c,l :AAter.SI? -✓1 Cost of addition and alterations: t oao , 44 Is property listed for sale? /yp If yes, at what price $ (attach copy of listing agreement) ,.,e., Owners estimated market value as of January 2, 1990 is: $ /7 6 96//. What are your reasons or documentation supporting the above stated )aTTue? (Please attach supporting information): /9 99 0 Jl fit ads m-erk Pi6 .46-.-14-- //t.-,2,2 - ?I-v/o3 �UifcGoc` qI sG '' �39-- //G- 22- ?/- O/0 k �/7e 3rra, `'e.� i 9/37 v v -1/(, -.7.2-3/- e/4 7`/sj' /(t6.f•!. - 6-Po ignature of wn r Please note: This form requests private or confidential data of applicant which is being collected for purposes of review by the City Assessor and the Eden Prairie Board of Review to assist in preparing for any appeals/objections herein. The submission of this data is not mandatory, however, in order to get an accurate assessment of the property prior to the hearing, such data is helpful. (To be completed by the Assessing Department) Prior year values: Land Building Total Property Class. 1/2/89 4430C Pcf-7c'O 11,1000 i4c.>. 1/2/88 Yacioo lassaO 1t-F-10:3 _ r=a• 1/2/87 4+.)cr, , cSc- li-;1CD 7:.....1. Last Inspection: 3/ 1/p Appraiser: -Zo1nh Snvv,s Building Permits/Appraiser Comments: Sale History Date Source Sale Price Terms of Sale Comments !l /53 I UCV $ ;es c.c c-f. 1 / $ Board of Review Action: 1) Referred to Assessor for review: 2) Assessor's value adjusted to: 3) Assessor's value sustained: A 1990 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: // Page 1 Sales Comparison Approach • PID: .7.7,-//G-aa- /- n,n7 Owner:P6«f t -/x,- 41. ,,••/ Address: cm/4 Fnx if„ C,:,/ • ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO.1 COMPARABLE NO.2 COMPARABLE NO.3 Address ,R9y3 /i-„f i l.... irhatji /AAar 4o. �r.,a 86 99 et:dive 17n.4s .fir • Proximity to Subject IIIIBiII II fill(login Cp�� �� TIIIII!��{ ll��ll{Ilrs y (ffihi 111I1ll1 T lls-.7� oo Sales Price $ /L S aOo an C r-o Price/Gross LW.Area $ g�g CC$ 7S as 1Z1��,j''$ T2 mllllllll{ IIIt u1ll$ s G $3 m III II MEE Data Source Gfj F/ Jam, F.•e s. r.aS ' e c, F./e ; CiPV VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION OESCRIPTION •Hs Aapsmenr DESCRIPTION •r-IS Ada.tment DESCRIPTION •t-Is Apusrmem CSalesoncessions 111111 or Financing 1I II1I III'IIIII N.c ti r Date of Sale/Time /9 F23 /- cQ 3-90 7-,a9 • Location V.A ,x/ Epvn/ Ey.,e/ Fy,.o Site/View G;;If E:.7,'.- 2 ffr.d,- +Agee , 4,7..0/ S./ver,.r- -/Scwo Design and Appeal God Fj..a/ ,C7f..o/ S�ei-.cr- -Tnnnr2 Duality of Construction Lao a Ey.,e / ..c,...e/ F7 / Age /9f33 /ss� ,98$ /9R/ r ae00 Condition 4.,n ci .A-,,,....,,,„( ff i'1/ F5... / Above Grade total Baas. Barns trial Bans I Baas , s-0n tom edrms, Barns TONBorne• : Sara ' Room Count ;3 : ? 1; 9 : 3 ;a-,c y G : 3 : / ,o: 3 :a X. Gross Living Area /99e, Sq.Ft. as¢o Sq.Ft. -900o a/9G Sq.Ft. - 7000 3,90 Sc.Ft.: - 34.o0r Basement 6 Finished 43'1'5 : . „ao* �'r /'�[.`'` d.-v . r o98fe d*^t , ror 7 r F. ..a .sre ea-r f-•iv .o,�.e G,.,i,6 • . Rooms Below Grade I a.6_ tistep rie;,._,r Fs./r. t 9Gan rio,on ,-A i 4v, ru61$ - 9000 Functional Utility 40..d E',.e/ f1..41/ rp1-0e/ Neating/Cooling FA/9 F.A/Ae F.A/4 d_ FA,IYL Garage/Carport -7-c-i- .y{ xV-Lx.- ntf 3-e..-a{t -?0oa ,V•eoi o•/f i Porches.Patio, ^'o'e 3-bey AOo'f- 0P a•o5" clerk 7.75,- op Pools.etc. &Pe" d.. &oe" dry 1..isae .1`.1s� si 9fe drrk Special Energy , Efficient Items T,7p.e_. / Er.,,,/ Er.en./ A.,-- ./ Fireplace(s) /-FF' /-FP /-t o =-vio - y000 Other(e.g.kitchen S"'^" • a..r l.va• $,0...:.r.+ A.n t s�....+-d h,�,C G...t A,/rA 5*..76 A.'ic4 •wo •,,/o C 5 .••,' •Vo $..n a epuip.,remodeling) ,� -r/so0 _ .ire 0 .s,.. '° - • Net Atli(total) IIIIIIIUHI r + s /ar0o ` + ^-;s ,3noe + x-5 t3,000 Inof Subject 1 IIIIII lillI - . �$ /f380oe I $ /97srn $ /Skeoo of Comments on Sales Comparison: 5. ,,e oo',‘./As,A ;• ,,, ,9Ar ratr0,- /9E3 ,,A\_ • le .n..4 ..., c�_ip Afr/ c....s sfs „P /f,s e!.., 'Cie f...reel. 4....e/ i. c/<_.f ._ g e 6,f /s <---,4. o...9, r,? 113 Alewe Y!e sq.e/o.e..s' as s.6..S s,C-/,G.,aw ►;-i,'a Z-#e7'4 �z` f r•. C.•• • e serf.� F-t f .seY / ar.r,...1 olr.gJ.ii•... °Indicated Value Cy Sales LomparTs�n Approachi: „ as of January 2, 1990- .e 9s-aesc Value Review - Assessor's Being Appealed Appraisal . Recommendation Land Value SS000 Ss-oeo e'eee,_) Building Value /sv s-on /VOC.oa /ssw GIG,6 Total EMV e70=sco ..9�000 i9 -nnn Appraiser �e4.e e-,,y111 . Page 2 Appeal No: II Photo of Subject • --, PPP! 1111 • 1 Building Sketch is • . ' . . 10. • . /8 3' ip .......`g : ' 3 /y 10 Appeal No. eP 3 PID # 05-116-22 14 0012 Date Received 3/29/1990 Appraiser ♦ APPLICATION FORM !eo/\, 1990 EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF REVIEW (To be completed by owner - please print) Telephone Home: q 34-5 7 C 3 Work: 1•“1-10G3-/"a"`.,.1 Name: E06,-t �> $ i\I 0, 1 � e 1, I�c. �,c ek Address of Property: /,5 c1`i Mere. Or, Cc(e,., fJY41fl e, January 2, 1990 valuation as it appears on the notice: $ 13t; ,Sao, Date property was acquired: 3/3c/87 Purchase Price: $ 1�5 5c0, Terms of Purchase: A, 1 1 Additions and alterations since purchase: Sociclect 0-41—'11r5 c`cc,j. Cost of additions and alterations: s 5°0, Is property listed for sale? no If yes, at what price $ (attach copy of listing agreement Owners estimated market value as of January 2, 1990 is: $ /a6,COO What are your reasons or documentation supporting the above stated value? (Please attach supporting information): 7a �lu 1.a. *-cJ, G{.•f, `f_Z.c,�. vuhl --1LI7... ;te—te,(02.4. '/LL AL'�4a k*iLcc.2 u'L jl2.c 'kemLia au C nx.l'le /Pd G42tG2 !L rt.it) .y.Q-t'.Ll, / C=.CJ/ et ONE 0 7lx uc .ail an�ffpekk� Please note: This form requests private or confidential data of applicant which is being collected for purposes of review by the City Assessor and the Eden Prairie Board of Review to assist in preparing for any appeals/objections herein. The submission of this data is not mandatory, however, in order to get an accurate assessment of the property prior to the hearing, such data is helpful. (To be completed by the Assessing Department) Prior year values: Land Building Total Property Class. 1/2/89 31aoo i3c'SO 1/2/88 31.)00 00 DO 13z5C2 1/2/87 Scoop 45 1.;530>0 Last Inspection: 2_/1/81 Appraiser: soh, Saw,S Building Permits/Appraiser Comments: Sale History Date Source Sale Price Terms of Sale Comments i/_/8 1 c KJ $ / / $ Board of Review Action: 1) Referred to Assessor for review: 2) Assessor's value adjusted to: 3) Assessor's value sustained: -• - - 1990 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: 41 Page 1 Sales Comparison Approach • PIO: OS - 11(o- as ly Oo la , . Owner: Fob a'td 101,,,'. Fge4J,0_,, Address: 10599 9Yu4, b,A,, ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO.1 COMPARABLE NO. COMPARABLE NO. .5-i4-i7 5-ry-33 5-rv -i.l 5-yt-a5 Address L•$99/+tc..,M a.;99 e�na.d..... C.w,.-t _1o59a MA.tka 4o-.-._. /(,ywy S. Ma,..oti. Ral luml Proximity to Subject m n I 1 'IR re.--1,e. '14w9_.� -14 rr...94, Sales Price s �IIllllll!{Illllllls wsvoo Illllilllll@111111lllllllls tss000 jlI1IIIlIl1110lIlB[niIs 14e.soo Price/Gross Liv.Area s m$ g1.s1 Pi MI 11I111111 IIIIIII s 7Lo.1$ 0III1IIIIIIIIDIIiillllllUll s 11.41 PillfllllllllllllllllllIIII. Data Source Ch..1 C.J./ 0.4 VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION_ DESCRIPTION •I l s aonrsimmr DESCRIPTION I•I-15 Adesonem DESCRIPTION •t-js,aunmmr Sales or Financing 1 Concessions Pa,.-6.,o.1S..,u -1500 Na..,- - nor...- • - Date of Sale/Time 31'iq - 4189 - ,Igo Location A me,,..µ. S, „.&urn. -5000 � -5000 S..ps>.'d.! -Sooc SitelView 's/6owJ a,,.F /deal - _z I xod r Torn I- e,a,dr Good •'boo/- Design and Appeal Avoawse- qv-I,.- — Qvua.sa" - Ands(.,. -- Duality of Construction Av{, qb+ A. it,Ag r - Av 1. Ab+ - RV -fo Pa. - Age 1944 1921. - I°I9,S - fill —. Condition Good - Good - Goad - Above Grade Total ;Berms, Bams bias'Bd,e : Dabs Total ;Wm, Batts ' Tonal 'Bs' BathsRoom Count 1 3 I.1'I:. 13 :sit S :'4 : .'1 mm 3 :.0la Gross Living Area 1814, SgFt. 14go Sq.Ft. -4000 Zotto Sq.Ft. -50oc, tg i So.Ft. — Basement&Finished F.0 'la F,.1.L .+tlo F„ift Oct F,..t,Q No wio +i-5oa.. Rooms Below Grade — -sr- Functional Utility - .. .Heating/Cooling FR IC4 KR Ica - FAIcA - FR(cA - -" Garage/Carport ic pw Alf/e ,u .:cu p+t actied , . - AR.s ATr5 c1..3 — te.04+ tca..to r a000 Porches,Patio, jug '5(.Sr 3 do- iio 5,F - dk.r-t 13o C3 - dart- r ad Sv Pools,etc. Special Energy Efficient Items - Rreplace(s) I I - t — I - Other(e.g.kitchen W P+Og -row �1-A9.0°a -iooco' equip.,remodeling) _- Net Adi.(total) ',,r,, r+ i:s //S40 r+ 73=4 Nooa F.+ -'s Vso - Indicated Value •. ..... . of SubjectI. [I • _ US /52.'1OO „ $ /51000 ,-,I _ Io. $ is/eroc Comments on Sales Comparison e JLLsv a r<a,JLnc'e:L,el. M;.r/.a, a,, ,j,k4 un,. (4 w.l.,.4t/.4.... ,. ,e.i. A.a .14.a- 4a a o..d Qo i.try.-F�...pnnw.;.,Rd o...A a.,ad�.r+t d tofu,,.,..C.-toD tcl.A.e>o», 4,,,, p -boo yocar,t,.., A- Ces*waia.lMQ.aw B s pc nt +1..- I 1 .I4o uo-.-... d� i jla,400. Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach: /S/000 as of January 2, 1990 Value Review Assessor's Being Appealed Appraisal Recommendation Land Value 3, 7oo 3y'000 No eAa- j Building Value /O1-f.boo //to oDb Total EMV /310900 /5-/06p Appraiser Aciaa.b /',en_ti Appeal No: .23 Page 2 Photo of Subject � I .eQr of J cum Building Sketch iS ,a O..4 do ig g • a. gp 4 1� 3o. . - 8 SY • 54 SV ov Y 15 . u ay : Appeal No. a F;, 23-116-22-44-0023 Date Received 3/29/1990 - .. lulue 9 tY!,, Appraiser cS. APPLICATION FORM 199D EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF REVIEW (To be completed by owner - please print) Telephone Home: (+lq J / q LI Work: Name:,Uc « ������- � cj-.11 <,z,4k ��,.,.. Address of Property: if ; ' i ‘'l( c,,,;} (i<• �. V �� January 2, 1990 valuation as it appears on the notice: g 5,i 7 lcr Date property was acquired: <1/ c.-1 Purchase Price: $ 4 Terms of Purchase: Additions and alterations since purchase: & INI> 0 Cost of additions and alterations: Is property listed for sale? 5 .() If yes, at what price $ (attach copy of listing agreement) Owners estimated market value as of January 2, 1990 is: $ '3-1�' What are your reasons or documentation supporting the above stated value? (Please attach supporting information): 77 j- ..1( 1i::'v - ii`, r{i1,)(-'NA) '44ct°cc 4,)c $', ) L1 33,000 Q P n‘aCr• ('1\c-a �. ) 3/a?_)4o Signature of Owner Please note: This form requests private or confidential data of applicant which is being collected for purposes of review by the City Assessor and the Eden Prairie Board of Review to assist in preparing for any appeals/objections herein. The submission of this data is not mandatory, however, in order to get an accurate assessment of the property prior to the hearing, such data is helpful. (To be completed by the Assessing Department) Prior year values: Land Building Total Property Class. 1/2/89 115CW asaoo 347a00 k 1/2/88 gccc ogCO 3SOt)c,) 1/2/87 cc oc — 55000 L Last Inspection: ior'/1$ Appraiser: S6tiw Sctv"s Building Permits/Appraiser Comments: Sale History Date Source Sale Price Terms of Sale Comments ZIIb/23 1kkl $ s a.a' wD &.s`io / / Board of Review Action: 1) Referred to Assessor for review: 2) Assessor's value adjusted to: 3) Assessor's value sustained: -- c p �; S (A0 lfi 1 cr 9....) A) ju - r r, r - W (� sc R _ oO _ G bo F D 1 O i`l' y so 9..3 v` Q. 0 Ls) i c `�›. ir_ i" 1 SU Z.) .1. I asp 0 1 8 o 1 S` LR c f ..S. 4 j U Cu• NI 4, a � i c q" f �t -mac 1 • 1990 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: aC, Page 1 Sales Comparison Approach . PIO: .73-//4-a.7-yy- 73 • Owner: 4.-„,doya-, Address: /rs37 .0,,,/ G.„e "Pc/ ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO.1 _ COMPARABLE NO.2 COMPARABLE N0.3 „11> a...♦ .73-a.w-a w S-e"r-Sc Address I! 11hiJIIj fr3-Y9-vsProximityto Subect $ Minn I I it III Its a o �l�lpl(ll(II�I�IIlllllllsd......4.......' PriCelGross Liv.Area $/a/ m$ /�?; m MINIM Illllllllll Is A11'—" Zfll[Il1111 JIIII4 s was "..$1 m I I I 1111111 I I i Data Source 4414 Ale!.A..,,<,- eAv. F,/e t re .nI_ F.Ye �G•Pv VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION i- r F.%ts*eminent DESCRIPTION 41•t-IS**wow DESCRIPTION •I-IS ed.sIn nl Sales or Financing III Concessions II __-- ,,/,...e N.:.a Date of Sale/Time 7_g 7 /- a-qp a-S 9 Location Site/View o e......3 .rf. E9.o/ E�e.a/ Ejro/ Design and Appeal E...!/A S de.-.e:e * .3334e S r/.1000 4544,.a/ OuaBty oI Construction y yx,,,„" E,aQ/ E / -- Age 1987 /99.3 t 9ro+, _�Q 2. ' r Ssbo /9p0. - r.•,m." Condition v. a..d F',.o/ Above Grade Tow ,Minn: Baths torah Baths Tow •/ Baths but ern%; Baths Room Count /c; 4 : % 9 :s/ :aJi 9 ,3 :a sty P, :a ;,a% Gross Living Area 34,9a Sq Ft. 34744 Sq.Ft. t/r000 e37+-3 S.Fl. Basement BFmished rBSb" e•-+ ,.w�. a,-• "Pi',es«r .e.>•. ae_♦ Rooms Below Grade .e7r"ek-rF: Mew e...0 - /ype•.F•;,;• rosa a. ".:.is e.v/s h - d. 4.1 f t sme, rN C�,u..e)** t Stain s.r.4,44.)4Phq * //aco Functional Utility _ _ Feat./ Ef.a / fJ.e/ Heating/Cooling .9& a F.9�At �,q�,q0 Garage/Carport 3- 0.2E . . .. d,AE 3-co.- of i Porches,Patio, q-0 u e. 3-.eat /NV.' 3-sa .793,4' ,.- SA,dec.4 ' S st 3''' eP - dsaa.dc..k Pools,etc. Special Energy ,A..r., dn.� t +� ,v /83" de'-4I r./me Efficient Items / Fireplacels) a-Aio /o -a o se. �Fi7 l -amo e:? Ff.' Other(e.g kitchen .F....."/ F.!e A ue.d k,r.-C e..tv •*.44 Er•r/i 4,44 equip.,remodeling) of,. '"k' e,..ar .yi - Net Adl.(total) II I I I 'Q' +G --.-4 3s oo + at �y/4 �� R. ._,. I Il��ll 1�1�� I :$ I .. !-'S fieo o + -'S Jae,*c ' Indicated Value • of Subject _ $ .3. O-o S - _- Comments on Sales Comparison: C,,,,„ •/ f.2 ,„-, c/nvaf ,:, e.rse A.,' a.e ..-Inner .: - e/w1Sgn ,5,Qpm/, 412,003 ..i er..e,/ .: y,..3./ f y',.v.j. . La.f r s..a/.f>- ,:4 s,i. . C /'-ram.. 47 3'''.3 no, .As., ve A// e..y ar are m 1.413.0 a s..6A1 nP" ok p:#,A l.,Ix'Ca e;i;; Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach: s as of January 2, 1990, ` Value Review - Assessor's Being Appealed Appraisal ` , Recommendation -o o e //SOO p' ` Land Value // i/S-poo Building Value .ND.}'00 0.77s00C, ,.R>COO L) Total EMV 797aoo 394)o00 39ocoe - Appraiser -774, S.dc+s Appeal No: c:24:) Page 2 Photo of Subject �� . I #� • • Building Sketch ea 3 Sent y 'L 43 zs 'I% v F 34 a. �q L'41 MIMIC r do • Appraiser ,lnhn Sam PID 0 02-116-22 32 0007 APPLICATION FORM 1990 EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF REVIEW Received March 29, 1990 (To be completed by owner - please print) Telephone Home: 941 3693 Appeal f c7 7 Work: 5111,35e1 • Name: Frederick L Saxe Address of Property: 6761 Beach Rd . January 2, 1990 valuation as it appears on the notice: $ 250,600 Date property was acquired: 7/1/68 Purchase Price: $ 43.900 • Terms of Purchase: Mortgage & cash • Additions and alterations since purchase: None . . .Cost of additions and alterations: Is property listed for sale? No If yes, at what price $ ..(attach copy of listing agreement Owners estimated market value as of January 2, 199D is: S 194,300 What are your reasons or documentation supporting the above stated value? (Please attach supporting information): Market Value estimate: 1990 up 29% aver Drier year 1989 250,000 vs 194,300 1969 " 10% " " " 1988 194,300 vs 176,,700 1988 " 4% " " " 1987 176.700 vs 169,700• 1987 " 30 " " " 1986 169,700 vs 164,000 Market value 1970 -- 1990 up 605% • 1970 *' 1989 UT) 470% Taxes 1970--1989 up 306% e;t My earnings up 22 years_ 50% igna ure o ner Please note: This form requests private or confidential data of applicant which is being collected for purposes of review by the City Assessor and the Eden Prairie Board of Review to assist in preparing for any appeals/objections herein. The submission of this data is not mandatory, however, in order to get an accurate assessment of the property prior to the hearing, such data is . helpful. (To be completed by the Assessing Department) Prior year values: ' Land • Building Total Property Class. • 1/2/89 h=tKcO `79Soo 7�1• ' Q 1/2/BB gr.P'Jj qOSOO i71.,70Ci k. . 1/2/87 F%6oC S_1100 ;r97CO k Last Inspection: / /_ Appra seer: Building Permits/Appraiser Comments: ' • Sale History • Date Source Sale Price Terms of Sale Comments • ....,r r,r,tit r r r,r r,r t+e,r r,r,t"...,r,r........r....*,r,r,r....,►,r r,r,r r,t r....r......,t..,.*"., Board of Review Action: 1) Referred to Assessor for review: 2) Assessor's value adjusted to: • . 3) Assessor's value sustained: ' • 1990 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: R 7 Page 1 Sales Compariso.-n Approach PIO: oa-do-tea- v.V-0007 • Owner: F.-,d ,5..e Address:G7//4_,,,,1 A?,,,( REM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO.1 COMPARABLE NO.2 COMPARABLE NO.3 .4..-.-$% 0. 3 A-.o I,-//-i.{y Address 7 - ! 7/Lv y/,l/aw, Lire/ And .11 s!i ,Ge.r-A C..-�/. 7c1Ho Gr,lln..,l'.we�r I� Proximity to Subject n 111111 III 1111111ll -sz L.•A. A rs s ._A/. A����he Sales Price $ Jflfl 111 , 11111111$ Ill l IIl if s .R= oo ))Ill l l�1.111l1ll{1s - Price/Gross Liv.Area $ m$ /y/_ o� s ./AI 9.1 U6IIIITUI I I III 111111111[s /oa B" mIIII IIIIJOIIIIIIIII'' , Data Source ,,/e fa.,,,,,, /74 {4/1.v F.7e fF Rv .cl.. L v_fzt.,.,..r VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION 1 .r-IS noexmmi DESCRIPTION .I-IS ressmwx DESCRIPTION .b1S ttpietmea • Sales oi Financing Concessions I P P. -.V•J00 Pl,.•>4 -/raso .ve e Date of Sale/Time S-EIS r m sbo 3-inc. ' I+ ss Roo 7-IRS t 115oi 0 • Location V 6caod v Good v,G.ed v. 6...41 : Site/View a�•„*Gni4L a.Gxa,f GoAra ♦as 000 o.iv./Aa4e,i :V....�::` 4.1 y +7seeao • Design and Appeal /a.,el-R b f..n/- it 5.4. Sys.•., •zosloo ../- .f 4; • • Duality of Construction r ce d 1p.-../ 5,..r.-s,. I-— Age /94 A i 96 9 - ...Eta.%«, /97/ asou K.,exo I •- FSoe Condition Ps� G.e d 4.^4 y..� Above Grade bias.Bdons. Baths Total .toms t BM' Taal .Boos. cane TUN .Bttnm 4 Bate Room Count S : aR :/Y G ; a :/,y - r o0 G : i : /' e : I, ;/3'Y! Soo Gross Living Area /y7s SOL Ft. /666 30.Ft. - 7 Zoo /sn,s Sq.Ft. an< Se.Ft.I' -. .s/7s:r t-,f /cs/.. .a acsnc Basement&Finished /s. "as-� »+.. e.-r Rooms Below Grade Ott: Fr /o Ao N �„ s ev Sa -,:•54. . L,c..•n A;m'• .y:., sat as1..x 71. fif a /-u. #Y6 t a:,00 RAl. /-Li. 44. >70o :--.A-ak.l A t� +3s+x Functional Utility f/va. t A.e A e Ave , Heating/Cooling f-,q,qG i7a.AA G A-4/.9G .�o�AG Garage/Carport erect- a+t a-.cei - K . aStK, a-car ,"4-tit er-c..- Tau • t3sno • Porches.Patio, ,e oo .4rou pe44 .14o La. dr.*s' 1-sans. LYY .eV. . i o;/6 St 1erk Pools,etc. 95.. dr..l 1.osm -/ode -' 1 r/roc Special Energy Efficient Items None Ne"a w.1e..a .v w c . - Ftreplace(s) .Ve a -rP - 7/00o .7-Fie - daoo .? - et-esne- Other(e.g kitchen a..1 A.....l/ Geed ..a/0 Good ..a/o wee ../e equip.,remodeling) . el ood .1b1 - .Dee net ,4 � -.Doe G� 4 Sea • I II II Net AOl.(total) III III�I1111I�IIII�III IIII +j, $ eaAG/9GC + s ?n � X,+ Il S ?So Indicated Value of Subject erS • Comments on Sales Comparison:j,„,,,,y/ 1 '',a ,4,r ,,,, R..;,„L. 4..4e- I .„.. ,%.e,,,, - i, 237 / - t e r 4'8 /.. w.sf --...1 sa t A-4 i «::-' c. /btee Jars /ryr:K ¢l /!2e s i b.,e,:thiS ....a fn/►etd... a..Q s 1e/ rJ Y.? Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach: 29S con of January 2, 1990::... Value Review Assessor's - Being Appealed Appraisal Recommendation Land Value /e.o oat /Ga.ooa icQ ovo Building Value Sb,Gao /.3s-aoo 'r. Loo Total ENV QsxZGno a9c ,,-)no .a5-o Toe, . Appraiser , '".7.h* .54..•4 Appeal No: 07 7 Page 2 Photo of Subject • II 1 5 Building Sketch • e,4 S SP Y3 X3 i7 of. i Jo 3 .2 03,30.'1540 16,53 FROM PARAGON TO 0377411 P.02 • MAP 39 '9.9 03:43 TO:9-9229102 FROM:CITY OF i5BEN PRAIRIE T-128 P.03 PID # 26-116-22 11 0008 Date Received 3/30/1990 Appraiser John Sams APPLICATION FORM Appeal # 1990 EDER PRAIRIE BOARD OF REVIEW (To be completed by owner - please print) Telephone Home: 943-2436 Work: 927-4403 Name: D.AVID P. STEWART Address of Property: 9427 OLYMPIA DRIVE January 2, 1990 valuation as it appears on the notice: $ 575,200 Date property was acquired: January 12,11Wdhase Price: $ 520.000 (NET 1505,00Q) Terms of Purchase: Caai, Additions and alterations since purchase: Paint and decorating Cost of additions and alterations: $2500.01) Is property listed for sale? No If yes, at what price $ N/A (attach copy of listing agreement) Owners estimated market value as of January 2, 1990 is: 1 505,000 What are your reasons or documentation supporting the above stated value? (Please attach supporting information): $15,000 of purchase price paid to buyer (Stewart) as excess down payment. This was a corporate sale and seller felt it important to show • price of $520,000. Actual selling price was $505,000. i9 nature oOWrler Please note: This form requests private or confidential data of applicant which is being collected for purposes of review by the City Assessor and the Eden Prairie Board of Review to assist in preparing for any appeals/objections herein. The submission of this data is not mandatory, however, in order to get an accurate assessment of the property prior to the hearing, such data is helpful. (To be completed by the Assessing Department) Prior year values: Land Building Total Property Class. 1/2/89 ice' 2,13(30 535500 (jy)a.4:A 1/2/88 ����o ua�, ; 5'vtb%> 1/2/87 •�:,F, — 05'4o r- Last Inspection: 1 /i5/K9, Appraiser: 1c!,:v Building Permits/Appraiser Comments: Sale '-'istory Date Source Sale Price Terms of Sale Comments l l8k v 7)CCc C' r>.t Sc- ,L,1 LI C r ) $ 555 CVO LSO Board of Review Action: 11 Rafarrpd to 0eeoeen.. Fn.. ..aviaw• . . . , . . • -. • s 1990 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: _nR Page 1 Sales Comparison Approach PID: • Owner: Address: ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO.1 COMPARABLE NO.2 COMPARABLE ND.3 xec.-//..7 -a 4-.7,- G. .P V-.7.'/-St... Address 1..-- 4vfilii6,..1.7 ,4;., / tV,h-r /1".1 /o4.4„7 m•C,...... if., Proximity to Subject 11 1111111$1111 .0. .. . „/. - ' g l S.l WIiaeSales Price $ s 111161111 I0e - S3 jtliuhlllllll IN'Ims 3 7 110a2.. Price/Gross Lv.Area $ $ oilli s /15 I nill0i11tir$ z1HIM1llIIIIHIliii Data Source ,C/fy AZe hi..../- ete,":ie oft, C", ,47,2‘.. i'41..4.14,1-.. F.Ye *"ls • VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION _ DESCRIPTION Iris Adsaiment DESCRIPTION •r•is adlustrnent DESCRIPTION •it shimmy,* Sales or Financing Concessions i I . 1 --vt.w,••w.._ el.,.•e Dale of Sale/Time //1-_13 9 3-E39 ...;- 90 -,7- 9•:, Location V. 4.nd 4,,,..,./ 41 ,../ . ...-•/ Sire/View °L'••fb"L1L *,... / 94,74.*LxA A•p..../.ge • Design and Appeal F .// ,A 5......_, L5lhe•/ -7:4 g.,-..r. 1."420C4 Duality of Construction .,, ,,,, -5,.....I .Fy...w./ .z,r.--,-,:.- - - Age ..,9e3 7 .lia • - scloca .,'9813 - Condition V,6.0FI %c, V. Above Grade Total .Bdtms t Baths Total .Bdrms. Botha but ,licimts 4 BalrtS TOlal t&Ions t Baths It- ?Caen Room Count /a 1 V 1.11:1:11./.;/ _/..7 :V t= /013 ttQlQ ,: 3 Irz. * SP0 co Gross Living Area 117 S./ Sq.Ft sr/.7,3 Sq.Ft. --webact V.F9w SQ.Ft. +-V-petio e,sa SQ.Ft it000 Basement 8 Finished t5s,sv,,, :r,„44f,;,11 f,tfi.4.:ftf,7..,' .7 tP ICC t'ar ..a....4 /WO' e•-.B. Rooms Below Grade EA.ald..A/w.A.•4_ex.% 4- 11600 p.e-.EAs.i...);‘,h.f .• r.... rd.(J./...e._144,05 -.470r11. Functional Utility V.4.ra_ci .9....../ Ai,./ ...,5.../ . Healing/Cooling F.4794- .. Garage/Carpeet ••Ge7r. n 44 =-,:..- .V..e' R•-e ar- Porches,Patio, 43.1.-3-se o..•,•.,E4.1" 3-•e.7.3 9c... a'...As "....A ...•n„,sat OP o tt- ,.., z... oP .. sec. .11 S.,.A Re.tat.' dev....4 4. .....•-•.n 1- -,:roc,,. Special Energy , Efficient Items „,..„, ../...4..-e- Feeplace(s) V-...e.....1 V-Fro 2-.+-"/=2 •,.-Zettx,w .3-.4-.011' 7...atinira . Other(e.g kitchen 6,...."// .4.4.4 26' i 4,1.4 Eice,/ A.4.4 V Gsoci k,:ck •••.• equip,remodeling) fps,' 404,44,2414,444.1S....14.1.• 14-....4. Net Adj.(total) .III 11 + x -..$ ...7 - , ix,1,+ —'S s/.7,1 t 0 e, er 1+ —'S i 7 japp Indicated Value I of Subject 1 I I $ s-aRagn $ L7s000 II 1 ....,, .4 z_..44te30 ' Comments on Sales Comparison: _5;, /•,.,.4 ,41. ,,,41 ;, n./e . i'" ''', ... , .6... /le taaart.-e Zaa...Zasearo-•, ..4:1 e2.A.1..,7' ...... .9r 14.7,, A**--.0.A f.ary,...•Ie.04,4••• I 4(cts ./..ms IA al rii Levols4.4.•A .--1 ..ria..0I. i e•Ale .....: 4,Ali-.1....4....'s ...re,..: so... -s,...Q.i.fori.sei. "42/....4 oil A;roii ... T 1:rdti caTectlig1.4 tyi-Stie';Mnilacis'On'Approach: as of January 2, 1990:,!.::.: s'i0000 Value Review . Assessor's Being Appealed Appraisal Recommendation Land Value 9sidoo //sed,c,9 ' ..e./S-G7C3 r-. Building Value +177L,ao ii.e.Ve..vio 4/AC/no n -•' .. ... Total EMV :7 75-.:•6 0 <-5/76:0 0 Appraiser , s S.-, • 4r , .. )1(4 5 a 74 ar,...7,:n/1.7 s p Id 1..%. /4"-97 Flo- Ts-5760c, ,-( ' . . • - Appeal No: 3S Page 2 Photo of Subject 1 ' -...,.. 1111 �._ INI i , i. . ,.' • t . • Building Sketch ,9 / /it-si.. t-t 4 a ro ar /y jhtFie . . 7 /B j ' •it eta. '''' .?v 1 f hel. .. Ya :.� ,I•at.. . .Naaf. • i a,.FI, . ot''Pr 1. 1 i ..ems f I Appeal No. +-/S PID # 01-116-22 32 0012 Date Received '11a/gp APPLICATION FORM Appraiser John Sams- 1990 EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF REVIEW Lot, (To be completed by owner - please print) Telephone Home: 9 59/-/f'f'i Name: /.%efre-74 c i� c 11�!{e L Work: rPP y�ss— 1/ I, j'rofe rt y•Address of Property: ‘6/,i Cp /dF^h or,O�LJt o/-ut_�- --CO 1.."'" January 2, 1990 valuation as it appears on the-hotice: $ Date property was acquired: ,Ye..5 Purchase Price: $ _„24's-- Terms of Purchase: Additions and alterations since purchase: /in�,4,..J /fin •-r n o hor err -f r Crc•-t% - Cost of additions and alterations: - po 0 Is property listed for sale? 2r, If yes, at what price $ (attach copy of listing agreement) Owners estimated market value as of January 2, 1990 is: $ What are your reasons or documentation supporting the above stated value? (Pleassec attach supporting information): �1s J7 e ic.) U ✓�1L/ a/-�..cicTirest[L/h� the. y'Glhct C fine) /P Asokore fsri7 an Pala/n/et? Wit / is to"C7�n�� the, fron�dears-76cc- c1//r ahe� /o2 /k 7-4e- Gvinoloa ?peeks i.e.'t'O tZ/ q- ilk' t3 c AO C� (/Ua G/ o r—Oezee* 7 feel / doa/SMoAO eAOR 1 CI0u. g ure o O caner�7 ' - c//My/l.at !'o f u .7.A ea c.,X evis7 ve t-era/av Please note: This form requests private or confidential data of applicant which is being collected for purposes of review by the City Assessor and the Eden Prairie Board of Review to assist in preparing for any appeals/objections herein. The submission of this data is not mandatory, however, in order to get an accurate assessment of the property prior to the hearing, such data is helpful. (Tn bP completed 1w rho A�cAaejnn Dpnartmpn*) :-- Prior year values: Land Building Total Property Class. 1/2/89 311a0-0 buro0 7700 1/2/88 30100 F7900 _ 1/2/87 a-.)ngoo 5N o0 $3700 Last Inspection: 1/;e.1/ j Appraiser: 30140. Building Permits/Appraiser Comments: Sale History Date Source Sale Price Terms of Sale Comments %% $ r**********************************r**r***************r*r***k************* **** Board of Review Action: 1) Referred to Assessor for review: 2) Assessor's value adjusted to: 3) Assessor's value sustained: • 1990 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: 4zS Page 1 Sales Comparison Approach PIO: o/- //.-,74 -IA 4)0L2 Owner: C'Qaech,rr. . ��1�7J�.,J Address: G,L/p f46/.64� 1-L Aciet. ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO.1 COMPARABLE NO.2 COMPARABLE NO.3 0.7-//4-.7.1 `' 'f/ 000 e.7-//4-4.2 •// Geo6 0/-//6-22 ,90 0004 Address Sa-rr.� 66y .�/sL�E 2 +✓Aa,9t 4.. 4430 idal.Lta. i4 e..60,..t.t.t.....44c,at. Proximity to Subject PI 1I II II11111111 3.rx,t4.CLu.a r 2.liA 47.4. "'>' Sales Price $ II '!�III{Is111111Is as o 0 1111111111111111111s /2P oae I IIIII Hulls' {I s/39.eoo Price/Gross Liv.Area $ m$ 7Z83 0I11 I II s/09.'Io a3I III III II Ill II1111 s S'a.7,3 ZlIil hI1111JIIIII1111. Data Source CKI/ Gar) 8•y/_5 • VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION .Tots Aduen,enl DESCRIPTION I .1.1s aaasrmon DESCRIPTION .r-1s ApmlmMt Concessioons nc ng I I II1II1II)IHIIII I II - - - l - - _ Date of Sale/Time ///88 - 9/gq — //qo — Location - _ Designs and Appeal ark { ) p-saun;ur1 ' - �F"(pa'l) - "-Al,. 1 t/o 000 • Duality of Construction Av-Rel AL A✓-A Bb — Jd-A eb I - Av-Rg 'BS -.leeo Age 195f /962 -ssoo /94/ --Aoo /96a -.5.500 Condition o4nu41p r2vet ate-- — ay¢a — — Above Grade bill 'Um, Bars Taxi ,Banns', Baits Total.Bdtmss, Barns Val ;Banns Barns Room Count 6 ', 3 ; / i ; 3 ; /r/a —/700 6; ,3 • /// -/700 7: 4 :/4/st -.2ao0 , Gross Living Area /af2/ Sq.Ft. /606 Sp.Ft. -I.roo //70 Sq.Ft. •'-a/oO /G 80 Sp.Ft. -Silo 0 Basement&Finished I'yi d.x+,.h /e»%6044,..J- /op rlo 64.4..+..A /a-o Co.4.u...A Rooms Below Grade -7i0'li...A/40&a :�,so1,;,,0,,..3a,rA, al70O F77e¢.:a,{d,;-34l8 4Geo /2609*.i,.4o44 `6Geo Functional Utility JJ J Healing/Cooling a.cZ 4/ a.G 1;/0 1 - 4e4 ,'- //70 ph.Alw.t8aa 44.! -- Garage/Carport 2e.u.rail u...Ju. .7d.o.t,-h,ekA,Glw - adsa.ant sob III. -4/00 a¢e.u+t..2,01 -4/300 Porches.Patio, pate D L/s0 ..,pane -0-/200 Pa.teo 5000 - paZu sae v Pools,etc. d«, ; -/9os Special Energy ^^ rjI-S 7A`e Efficient Items - Fireplace(s) .2 a — .a — a — . Other(e.g.kitchen . ss!a.L equip..remodeling) `c�^'+1'�" _ -• a .. Net Adi.(total) -_ + -is 7400 + --1-4 30 `r+ -i$ A4 ao0 Iol ndiattedVakn II_. l�1 $//7.Goo f S /21,300 __,_._ _ .$l/.,600 Comments on Sales Comparison:___&1242,0/ a,,,,/WA a•kt t..,u, e _ ,A;r 6;,,,yay,hz.'fx a e>.w 4.4h sgcd a--- .4tk... 4.a c :.d.z.. .au I4i ,z ,M 4*tb.040,--ti_A pcu-,l, s1Lie..4-.r1 AtAs4,4l Seivee,c.ahtteL a.04:1,14LE,di ieeeL,(/990:- . Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach: /l7,400. as of lanuary 2, 1990:: Value Review - Assessor's Being Appealed Appraisal - Recommendation Land Value .50,400 SO,ono -50,000 - Building Value 6.?,000 47t,o0 L.7,000 - Total EMV //2,400 /i7,60a /iQ,vo/7 Appraiser o ile., A/ BLDG.SKETCH-MASTER COPY PID - /-/- .///-.....-......- .‘•,-GC.,.. : ...... . ,. •ADDRESS - a,• //- LEGAL DESC.-,42, ,,,i- .,- i/--Ai :...- ..e.//'Z ) 'WS. IL'' 'IS• '• ' ''a'. a e>fa.,• A.a.,-- A.,,,z "- . 'I s 4.. d'a ..b Or ''t f: DATE APP MEAS. ALTERATIONS , •• . sp,,r, Iv— A - . — 7 - 'f,' f'.-•c,;., _•-"-< v.,... ./`', ..., !,,,. .1,1',...6,-,,:, ,,.1.1..e.J.,:1' ,_,,,• .114.'^ .' •. .•7 '' -' ' ' '" ' l' hambisaim. . - ......-,om MN :. r'..-- '''t''''''Ar' ',401, ..Alql ',.,,E.r,...5."::;1.::•,- . .._ ---, SKETCH • r,"-- ....: I - , / / , ,...., Ig3 I 7 \ .?•2 VT-- -----.'' --A • ' 1; .2±i----r , e r ,, 9 I ftri.fo 2 • /9 t I 1 Appeal No. 7� Date Received N I a 140 • PID # 23-116-22 43 0017 Appraiser John Sams APPLICATION FORM 1990 EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF REVIEW(To be completed by owner - please print) Telephone Home: C n ry LI b ay.°i Work: LlLl,-1 `i 1`'1 Name: �,,( (1,04 I- i( — Address of Property: I Led, Y>- Cu4.0)-- Q-0#Q January 2, 1990 valuation as it appears on the notice: S 2,47 SOO Date property was acquired: °1i9)1 Purchase Price: $ aet ,c)00 Terms of Purchase: 1-T r\o T GA C1= Additions and alterations since purchase: tklei,r-l4Tf1v\ Loop InOthofr Q Cost of additions and alterations: ) Is property listed for sale? 41=5 If'yes, at what price $ �S`1�yQ1 (attach copy of listing agreement) Owners estimated market value as of January 2, 1990 is: $ 3a%ctU What are your reasons or documentation supporting the above stated value? (Please attach supporting information): Signature of Owner Please note: This form requests private or confidential data of applicant which is being collected for purposes of review by the City Assessor and the Eden Prairie Board of Review to assist in preparing for any appeals/objections herein. The submission of this data is not mandatory, however, in order to get an accurate assessment of the property prior to the hearing, such data is helpful. (To be completed by the Assessing Department) Prior year values: Land Building Total Property Class. 1/2/89 f°FC Co 3'17sco 1/2/88 "74150 a31'4O i) a)beco R. 1/2/87 '75000 an44CO.1' g000 Last Inspection: j/L/j Appraiser: 30:1,., �a.=•= Building Permits/Appraiser Comments: Sale History Date Source Sale Price Terms of Sale Comments • j/—/9 c:K.v $3aU:1;;.;, c. .. ' / / $ Board of Review Action: 1) Referred to Assessor for review: 2) Assessor's value adjusted to: 3) Assessor's value sustained: . 1990 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: 7.2 Page 1 J .-f' - Sales Comparison Approach • PID: ,-13-//4-. .7-4/3-eo/7 • Owner: /9e,, f A d 1„ Address: //4.11,2 ,,,r G,,,, ,ed ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO.I COMPARABLE NO.2 COMPARABLE NO 3 Address d3-v.,-/o >'d-33-D as-vJ-al /,via ,nt/- .4,./ „,,,,.2nrw,.,f e,., .4d 934's n/ . L!. Proximity to Subject i llnIIIIMM MIINiNH III - ' � Sales Price $ II IIIIIIIII111111 llN1111 s IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIltIIIIIIIIIIs -- o IIIIIIIIIllI11IIIoo1No coo Price/Gross Liv.Area S m$ /ay eA Zr loll 111111►1111111 s /a j9 III 11111111111111111 s -.9_7 m Illliillo L 11111111 Ills Data Source F,%a F./e C'n' L6., F.Yi F.2 ••e- 4 C V i u VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION f.1-IS Memmem DESCRIPTION J I-IS Ad,mmmt DESCRIPTION•I-IS M,ntmem Caorlcessionso ortng 1 II 11111111111 ll ,/w 4 ..4..,e ,./...c . Date of SalelTime /n-it 9 g-R q S-g f Location 4 .5...e./• E / Site/View oG/�..,7ew a f%..,, e ..i.%/l..tY ..�,y/ �.kagre -3s... jN Lure."... -4nM.n ,t., Girt i" ' Design and Appeal E.a.v/ ff.../ 5...•/ - .c9..a/ Quality of Construction ���./ *Ade/ Age /A13/ /ASS .9AR /4B 9 Condition V. K 6.w¢ v f _ a. Y.4-9-1Above Grade Total ,Beats. Bath bur edrms. Baths Twat Bans, Bairn we•Barns. Bsms . Room Count - ' - •;,Y c ' - 1,.. I ts'' 9:_e :a%a vs'' s : a :�yz Gross Living Area saps Sq.Ft. .oas9 Sp.Ff.; r LCO0 s3S/ Sq•Ft.•:rot, !G 029 a76 Sp.Ft.; t/s40e Basement BFinished ,13so•: d•-+ ,srs•^ •4r-alai. 8o7r` ss...,sr ,sear' es-f Rooms Below Grade ae•` �-••a" ,✓reo°" F.:.;,aak4 �,ic ,o✓,,r^ A:..,i• ' ,.a...jb Ara 0A....0./A ( - 302p ,v As.A f:,:kr'y./oeeae .,......fl. rely - gram Functional Utility e.,,,,„ef E-./ E e, E,we/ i' Healing/Cooling ,e-A/,qG ,a-,yyeyr.- ,t Be.- fa/Are GaregelCarport 3-ear a fF m-e..r.Jf I 4.a..s,cr."1 3_ Porches.Patio, /cs Sar AD CC/"^Ce.4 /YY•. sP .44 3e a vse^ oft ar p4,. ' i7.^ eP /vr^ cal •Pools,etc. 44 7.` d A /� .,a fi- t 4600 751 a..t/ran•^'•^t! 44 aa`i..t Aac P.J.: - t Special Energy Efficient Items ,�„C ,, „ w,w• ....Lea.a Fireplace(s) _ - Other e..kitchen V.Gnu ,AL c.c. a-. .4, +-.-bet. V. GP >•seat 1 g V6s.d k,h/ 6..r,/ A,kA V.G../ A.ia.4 equip..remodeling) E.,/ W ,K, /, . ,rov .G..J - j Net Adi.total) 111 + v-'s or-.- + --'S --a El+ Indicated of s Illll�I-` III I II.$ ss=�o I1 . 11 IIS .�, o II > >_.I $ .? of Subject ! Comments on Sales Comparison: Caw./., '. f "3 oni ../_,..s,>< ,,, 5. wraa,, •/f•a a,e --/----0 .:. .34/.e 6—/--P.J, ,c r4.>'. ! .../...r 4'.3 f d'st ,fo..c s.;+.../a- s.'.k._ p fataepe Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach: v s,ogre:-`-- • as of January 2, 1990 .... • Value Review Assessor's- Being Appealed Appraisal Recommendation ;' Land Value /os000 /O gib 0• /osood Building Value sy,�see - ,23500 o aas000 "-' Total EMV 3V7soo 35/Oo06 „ ,pop Appraiser .....i.,L., So,.as 1990 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: 7,1 Page Sales Comparison Approach PIO: a,3—i./a:—a.a- r3-DO/7 Owner: eery s Pk-J-4 L e.c Address: //6g,) Ail ( u r._ el ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE N0.} COMPARABLE N0.2 COMPARABLE NO.3 %+3-Ya—y/ Address 9n v P..-��..x .ems d SalProes Priceity to sub,ect Inllp➢IUll➢101 �nnnm Is ' ,JI<III 11111111111lllls IIllllllll111lli1111111l1Is Sales S ��u'I'�D(Ipllll'IIIIIIIh111lldllllS �a oe�l1 Price/Gross Liv.Area S Ip$ py.R ¢tl`IIIIIIIIICII h1I1I� $ MIIII 1111llllllllflll s ZluIllh111111111Illljfl Data Source e,fv;s;ie VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION •Hs Aepsrmem DESCRIPTION •I-IS aeoslm,nl DESCRIPTION r r-IC aepst.ant Sales or Financingis I 11111 ` ,ear„Concessions Dale of Sale/Time • /_-A 9 ' Location Ge.,d SiteNiew ow.•rna .Aran M.d + xoae Design and Appeal -r„C,.,..- - r�aaoa Duality of Construction F), .. / Aile i90t 3 Condition _ v Goon! Above Grade Total:Berms: Baths Iota!:Sams. Bathe Total ;Berms: Bath Total t Baths: Baths Room Count ,.V. ; y ;..7% , ' Gross Living Area yoa Sg.Ft s6 dL Sq.Ft.1• - same Sq Ft. Sq.Ft. ' Basement A.Finished "L)., : # • Rooms Below Grade a s. 4. s �.,�., ivy. 1 - Re,,,.. Functional Utility .tc- a/ • Heating/Cooling a/.A4 ' Garage/Carport .?z...ear} I Porches.Patio, .•.o.• v.,- Po,,.r Pools,etc. ygsr die' Special Energy • Efficient hems µ„e Fireplacefsl 3-•‘70.. r.2Soe . Other(e.g.kitchen 6.+r, R•4.4 .. equip.remodeling) ✓.a.od ....le ' Net Adl.(total) I I'II 1 ITI Fs + _:s ,coo i+ • -_;$ I .+ —:$ Indicated Value f r Il _ of Subieel _Ili I I , I , $ 33sSaco . ,II d' S s Comments on Sales Comparison: Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach: as of January 2, 1990 . Value Review - Assessor's = -- Being Appealed Appraisal Recommendation Land Value /o s 000 Building Value dyrSoc • Total EMV 3y7 soo - . Appraiser i Appeal No: 7\ Paget/ Photo of Subject • ,, . '''''.:.' .77-" -1 illirlIT 't '' - % �, _ " Y ,,,,71.E Building Sketch .r i .,. I., b.,c gyp s '743 IIII ._Gent. moo a .. AS aex ac a ay w /, r -sue s , :Ws Appeal No. c?( Date Received 4/4/1990 PID # 17-116-22 12 0058 Appraiser APPLICATION FORM Lat,04,-1 1990 EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF REVIEW (To be completed by owner - please print) Telephone Home: (642)432-9022 Work: (64 a) 388-6758*4I28 Name: i3lhnr Desrai Address of Property: i5607 Teaay pity ltialve.i Edam Paa.a.e- January 2, 1990 valuation as it appears on the notice: $ 771200 Date property was acquired: Sopr 186 Purchase Price: $ 65,000 Terms of Purchase: Additions and alterations since purchase: Wood761 deck Was k,a'ool-aCa. 6xpeaisive. San poper6, froofesslanly .rms1n1IQd, a)ers¢ Iseznated -6251 bosearsamt due4o 2moist,raeFood Cost of additions and alterations: jnnagat:ve two thausnmd do►kr6s) Is property listed for sale? No If yes, at what price $ (attach copy of listing agreement Owners estimated market value as of January 2, 1990 is: $ 7a,400 What are your reasons or documentation supporting the above stated value? (Please attach supporting information): (t) Faoam the aorta.of p.ranhns¢ -Una pavbzerd Shaos 5.4efo O.ppaeciafisol.each yQWC• It l8 Lartl.o.kaa •tmIXaxet NatL . Cz) 7hQ, brrobmst' Is im detealo+L-ens ocand\+irsn card hvmro otameeb reels That 9eanesai cara-aKai- Volt aides does mot applj10 this Piope"J• (3) Tho Qccocse c nfcccO. (nrl b',nc nprmlrnn abaci prmpvatys. (th'is cOas Hop propeaty)• Th&s pmopr ty a)as can caicrakei- 4o6 a yeaX amvi Imo one bau pt .it. Zhe ouxsair bailav2 that This was 'mot a bo,L Lis as tlao. assessa6 obttr_¢ ttntaHess.cik (noei Q.CI¢2 - Signature of Owner 313I1c10 Please note: This form requests private or confidential data of applicant which is being collected for purposes of review by the City Assessor and the Eden Prairie Board of Review to assist in preparing for any appeals/objections herein. The submission of this data is not mandatory, however, in order to get an accurate assessment of the property prior to the hearing, such data is helpful. (To be completed by the Assessing Department) Prior year values: Land Building Total Property Class. 1/2/89 IS&CC c-7?: R,P4oC kZ 1/2/88 47�Y`� 1/2/87 is:- Last Inspection: �yle 'Y.e Appraiser: Ael Le�+- Building Permits/Appraiser Comments: Sale History Date Source Sale Price Terms of Sale Comments 'i l I n/1 _ti _ $ bSDco w(; y r; w,A U 0/_/F,,', ► $ '770CC' L' ****************************************************************************** Board of Review Action: 1) Referred to Assessor for review: 2) Assessor's value adjusted to: 3) Assessor's value sustained: - 1990 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: 91 Page 1 . Sales Comparison Approach • P ID: /7-//6-aa /a C641 Owner: A 4i L X f:.laL Address: <�,/70 Any GLC. 111. OARI4 gie,,,.,ss/ad/ ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO.1 COMPARABLE NO.2 COMPARABLE N0.3 Address /1-//4-AR /:. tiL5.4( o8-//4•:i{ s�3 G7.7a /7-//4-2A /4�1�o0.Sf . 1t587 ' 1¢ /6so�w-fewi,,fixer /6799�,•_#4.„;Le. 165.5/ 4.44.1..r.4:0., Proximity to Sublecl IIIIDIII]ID➢IDli IDIIC�. .�anxe -1 't e,v _T Sales Price IIIIIIIIIIIID 1111111111s 77,600 a,r,v 11111 1111111111s-7'h 00 Price/GrossLiv.Area s Ws 77.// (Z] $ 74./ W aL8.N0 0 Data Source L'k✓ cev VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION _ DESCRIPTION 1 •I-Is:4:me*ni DESCRIPTION •I-IS egwrnrm DESCRIPTION •I-IS Mwmrm Sales or Financing II 7 Concessions j I - - — Dale of Sale/Time /,/8d - /0/'y - 4/8:9 - Location QUk r-n- awe...rti. - ,,,cam _ n._ . ` - SitelView !c4 a. t/a 0 at1rt224y - Qiti Design and Appeal / to q� Qr.,r at I _ Oualdy of Construction (J4/n 14_4_ aowt�- � L _• a4h 4 & — � L B, .Age — 199m !'�8l — lq l —• /91i't 'Condition G�ea� Q +a -t_ -/000 _ ` Move Grade tore .Bons. gains tool Mon. Berm Tm,i BOmp; earns Total ' Room Count *:? : / ti/;•2 : / - ,,!: A : / — •f : 1g : / Gross Living Area /074, Sq.Ft /074 Sq.Ft. -- /0 76 Sq.Ft. - BasementdFinished 7as ;,,,,taL •/aqo,�„1,.�, - ,,.s7Qt.;,,,,,1,E,�, - _ I tb Rooms Below Grade F.k, 0 346rr•L F,0. JJs/✓-r�-"& - F, 1 4. l/ Aut. - 900 Functional Utility I Healing/Cooling GFR R/e GP,t- vd: — GF9 - A/c_ — er4 RM. 1 . Garage/Carport - jd4da,tt.. .'ew--att .2:Lay) atL_ - A.at� Q. _ i Porches,Patio, vac sea' -Ise c e.k 7-7V0 6e,..L:30,,ar —/oz'a0 7 lca.,.h .aaaaka e...,l, f/. 5 i,coIURPLa.r.J '�desk. r700 Pools.etc. ldat Special Energy t/se.• nr0 ula<J n../ f/soo Elticient Items Freplace(s) / / - .7 -/oop / Other(e.g.kitchen _ equip,remodeling) Net Adi. 12112, of Suo ectotaq MOH I1III IIM II II II�II+ I si�s 79,860 I + I I 'a 80 a�Op + •a 9/00.,:. Indicated Value At ^ I , , s71,700..- Comments on Sales Comparison: 7j 1, ujj42, > do,„10,1,444. ._ na.2/eJ,.., - .Ci /YLL.f,[.1.Lt 1.m/ . DI nar- tulle/ ',Ned? lt.�Li, # 1Gth1.O 2,�r,�/7{„r - L/-en,..�a,,,,it�. A/ ,s a a*.2sa. ,a..-y, #'M.e- //z./ao uf,_g_e a'-7Z„;00, Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach: 17,4e0 as of January 2, 1990 Value Review " • - Assessor's Being Appealed Appraisal Recofmfendation - - Land Value /L,000 /tone, /Servo Building Value 6/w'oo 61,thier, `/1oet - Total ENV 77aoo Pos/oo 7725113 Appraiser _,per • Appeal fio:___?/. Page 2 Photo of Subject . . • - . -„ • - .`"?',• - - Building Sketch • .1 • . .. . . . .. ... I ' ...... .. : . . , ...... „ . .... - . • •• . . . . - " „ . . 2/8 ;41 . . . . . . - . " . 0//0/1.5 14 20 " - • . . ..... — . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . • . . ,. . • „ . . . , . . . „ ... . . . ' -• 1i Appeal No. 4S Date Received 4 1 ! 11 PID N 11-116-22 11 0020 Appraiser ,lnhn Sams APPLICATION FORM 1990 EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF REVIEW (To be completed by owner - please print) Telephone Home: 941-4078 Work: 339-5300 Name: Donald J. Sorensen Address of Property: 7121 Willow Creek Road, Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3225 January 2, 1990 valuation as it appears on the notice: S 226,700.00 Date property was acquired: 1967 Purchase Price: $ 7,750.00-raw land Terms of Purchase: Cash Additions and alterations since purchase: Original construction of house, 1967/1968, $35,945.43, including personal property; finished basement, 1981, less than $4,000.00; replaced rotted deck, added gazebo, add two skylights in family room, installed lower Cost of additions and alterations: See above and attachment. /patio, 1988 Is property listed for sale? No If yes, at what price $ N/A (attach copy of listing agreement Owners estimated market value as of January 2, 1990 is: $ 166,900.00 What are your reasons or documentation supporting the above stated value? (Please attach supporting information): See attachment. Signature of er Please note: This form requests private or confidential data of applicant which is being collected for purposes of review by the City Assessor and the Eden Prairie Board of Review to assist in preparing for any appeals/objections herein. The submission of this data is not mandatory, however, in order to get an accurate assessment of the property prior to the hearing, such data is helpful. (To be completed by the Assessing Department) Prior year values: Land Building Total Property Class. 1/2/89 59,100 148,100 207,200 1/2/88 53,800 134,700 188,500 1/2/87 51,700 129,300 181,000 Last Inspection: cl/wH/$j Appraiser—'`ohy\. Sw*s Building Permits/Appraiser Comments: Sale History Date Source Sale Price Terms of Sale Comments / S / / $ ******************************************************************************* Board of Review Action: 1) Referred to Assessor for review: 2) Assessor's value adjusted to: 3) Assessor's value sustained: April 2, 1990 Dear Board of Review Members: I have had serious reservations and objections to the assessed valuation of my home for a number of years. My concerns have been heightened during the past two years. The 1988 assessed valuation, which I believed was too high, was $188,500.00 (land = $53,800; building = $134,700). In 1989, the valuation was increased to $207,200.00 (land = $59,100, building = $148,100) and this year's appraised valuation is $226,700.00 (land = $85,000; building = $141,700). This amounts to a 20.27% increase in the last two years. Last year when I received the Real Property Assessment Valua- tion Notice for my home I contacted the Assessing Office. I was informed that that valuation had been based on a neighborhood adjustment process, which I was unable to comprehend as it did not encompass the usual appraisal techniques with which I was familiar (i.e. , cost of replacement minus depreciation, comparable sales, and income approaches). I was told that there would be a full inspection of my home later that year so I decided to delay making a formal objection until that process was completed. Mr. John Sams thoroughly inspected my home last September. Last week I had the opportunity to review the assessment records and discuss this matter with him. Following my meeting with Mr. Sams I have had the opportunity to talk with various contractors regarding a number of the components which comprised the appraised valuation. Based upon all of the above and upon my knowledge and experi- ence, I respectfully take issue with the following facts and fac- tors in the assessing department's valuation: 1. Land value. This component is egregiously over valued. I understand that the assessing department's conclusion was based in part on land sales which had occurred in the Bryant Point area. I wish to point out that these are not true comparables. First, the Bryant Point subdivision is serviced with municipal water and sewer, while my lot is not. A number of years ago there was a feasibility study done in regard to installing sewer and water in my neighborhood. Because of the terrain involved and the lot sizes, my recollection is that the per lot cost was approximately $22,000.00. I believe that the per lot cost of installing sewer and water at this time would be at least 50% higher. I believe that anyone would acknowledge that a lot which is serviced by municipal sewer and water would sell for appreciably more than one that had a private well and septic system. Second, the value of Board of Review -2- April 2, 1990 raw land is greater than the land value of a parcel which already has a structure on it as the existence of the structure reduces the options to which the land can be put. My opinion as to land value is also based upon relatively recent land sales that are fairly good comparables. In 1981, my wife and Joel and Kathleen Harding purchased the land which is now Willow Creek 3rd Addition. This subdivision is immediately adjacent to the subdivision my home is located in. After over six years of attempting to sell Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Willow Creek 3rd Addition, those lots were sold in August of 1987 for $40,000.00 and $50,000.00 respectively. (The Certificates of Real Estate Value show slightly higher amounts as the purchasers paid a pro-rata portion of the 1987 real estate taxes on those lots.) Each of those lots is about one acre in size, is heavily wooded and each has an undivided one-fifth inter- est in two outlots which comprise about 400 feet of lake shore, including a permanent dock and a sand beach. While each of those lots has some advantages and disadvantages (which I will detail if you so desire) in comparison with the lot my home is on, it is my opinion that Lot 2 is at least as valuable, if not more valuable, than my lot. Accordingly, I do not believe that the assessed value of my land component of my home should exceed $50,000.00. (The assessor has set my land value at $85,000.00.) 2. I generally agree with a number of the general character- istics set forth on the City Assessor-Real Estate Data sheet. The ones I would disagree with are: (a) View. The assessor has categorized this as "1 positive", while I would classify it as "2 equal", with some negative aspects. The view from the front of my home includes Super Valu's building and parking lot, the radio towers, and the very dense Bryant Lake office complex. The views from the rear of my home include the Country Side Auto Parts and Lee Data's building and immense parking lot. The tree covered hills which were my views when I bought my lot are, for the most part, regrettably, a thing of the past. Because of the terrain and location of my lot, its views are generally less desirable than those of my neighbors. (b) Quality/Class. Mr. Sams has stated, and I to some extent agree, that this rating is based upon a number of factors, many of which are subjective. Mr. Sams' opin- ion is that my home should be classified as A-4, while i believe a B-6 is a more appropriate classification. When I built my home, I attempted to build as much square footage as I could afford and the result was that the construction was relatively Spartan. With a few ex- ceptions (the fireplaces, the kitchen cabinetry, the Board of Review -3- April 3, 1990 cathedral beam family room), the construction factors were identical with those used in the average rambler house built in various tract developments at that time. The factors which differentiate my home from a tract development rambler are items which this assessment process uses as separate add-on, increased value items. It appears to me to be unjust to both use those factors to increase the quality classification as well as to use them as add-ons to value. The significance of this quality classification lies in the square foot cost basis that is used for each classification. At a 2,300 square foot size, an A-4 classification uses a $47.76 per square foot multiplier, a B-5 classification uses a $45.56 multiplier, and a B-6 classification uses a $42.44 multi- plier, as the base point for the appraisal process. It is evident that this classification can have a large effect on the value that is ultimately derived. At 2,300 square feet, an A-4 classification starts with a $109,848.00 basis, a B-5 classification starts with a $104,788.00 basis, and a B-6 classification starts with a $97,612.00 basis. Accordingly, the assessor's begin- ning valuation is $12,236.00 higher than I believe it should be. Another factor to be considered in regard to the reasonableness of this classification, as it relates to the cost of construction, is there are but six rooms plus a bathroom on both the first floor and basement of my home. This relative sparsity of rooms means that there are fewer interior walls, less sheet metal work for the heating system, fewer interior doors, etc., all of which translates into a lesser construction cost than would have been occasioned by a home of this size having a larger number of rooms. (c) I am sure that each of you knows that the wood frame construction techniques of the 1960's used 2 x 4's rather than the 2 x 6's with exterior sheathing that is now used. The current construction techniques are far more energy efficient and a buyer will take the energy effi- ciency into account (i.e., the costs of heating and cooling) when a sales price is arrived at. (d) In an effort to make my home energy efficient, I had urea formaldehyde foam installed in all the exterior walls of my home a number of years ago before the pos- sible carcinogenic properties of that insulating material was known. The existence of urea formaldehyde foam must be disclosed to a buyer and will have a negative impact on my home's sale value and salability. Apparently, the assessor was not aware of this factor. In order to Board of Review -4- April 2, 1990 correct this situation it will be necessary to remove the wood siding of my home, remove the urea formaldehyde foam, install new insulation and re-affix the siding. I have not had an estimate of what the expense would be in such an endeavor, but it is safe to say it would be substantial. (e) I am continually amazed that the City Assessor's office considers the area between the service door of my garage and the front door to my home (that is 30 feet in length and six feet wide except where the bow window area of my living room extends into this walkway) which is covered by the eave of my roof to be a "porch". I am even more amazed that the alleged added value of this "porch" is stated to be in the depreciated amount of $1,310.00. The roof line of my garage was simply ex- tended to the area of my front door. Until two years ago, there were no supports for this extended eave area. However, because of some sagging in the roof, I had three 4 x 4 supports installed at a cost of $165.00. This area is basically a sidewalk. (f) Based on the computer generated program, the vari- ous added value items in the assessor's appraisal results in an alleged additional value of $69,560.00. I dispute the values set for many of these add-ons. (1) The asses- sor states that the added value of my 2-car garage is $9,090.00. One and a portion of a second wall of my garage are actually the walls of my house, the cost of which has already been taken into account in the base value of my home. Sussel informed me that the present cost of a four walled 24 x 26 garage would be from $6,000.00 to $7,000.00. (2) The assessor has added $2,200.00 for the fact that my house has a rear walkout. No excavating was needed to be done to provide for this walkout feature due to the terrain that existed on my lot. Apparently, it is the assessor's opinion that a wood frame wall plus windows is $2,200 more expensive to construct than a concrete block wall and windows. (3) The assessor has added $2,980.00 for my two patios, one of which is a 20 x 30 foot concrete slab in the front of my home and the other is a paving stone area under my deck in the back of my home. Neither of these patios is affixed to my home and, therefore, I believe they are more properly considered to be a part of the land value of my home. The assessor has predicated the valuation of these patios at $2.00 per square foot. I dispute this valuation basis for two reasons. According to a contrac- tor I talked with the life expectancy of a concrete patio Board of Review -5- April 2, 1990 is 30 years. Twenty-two years has already elapsed since this front patio was installed. By adding this item to the house value (where only a 22% depreciation factor was applied) the value of the front patio has been grossly over stated. This rear patio is comprised of paving stones over a sand base and was constructed 2-1/2 years ago. There is no concrete or mortar used in its con- struction and, accordingly, it is subject to heaving which will necessitate periodic re-laying of the stones. (4) Apparently, one bath is included in the base cost analysis of my home, so that an add-on of $6,000.00 is made for the other two baths that are in my home. One of the techniques that was used to hold down the cost of the construction of my home was to place all the plumbing piping in two areas. The basement bath's and the laundry room's pipes are located in one wall and the main floor's main bath and the bath in the master bedroom are located directly above and share the same stack of plumbing pipes. The plumbing for the bar in the basement (which has never been hooked up) is located directly beneath the kitchen sink. While one of the upstairs baths is rated good and the other average, each added bath is appraised to have an add-on value of $3,000.00. The fixtures in these baths are standard ones. There are no jacuzzis, wall mounted toilets or similar upscale features. (In point of fact, the toilets in the bath in the master bedroom and the basement bath are experiencing opera- tional problems and, despite repairs made to them, they no doubt will have to be replaced in the near future.) Because of the construction techniques used and the age and condition of the fixtures, a $6,000.00 add-on for two bathrooms is very unreasonable. (5) The assessing office has added $2,324.00 for the fact that my home is air conditioned, based upon $1.00 per square foot of my home. As my home has forced air heat, the furnace duct work provides the distribution system for the cooled air. Jerry Kleve of Kleve Heating and Air Conditioning has informed me that the maximum life expectancy of air conditioning components is 15 years and my system is now over 20 years old. Further, he has stated that my pres- ent system is very energy inefficient in comparison with the systems that are presently used. He estimated that it would cost $1,200.00 to replace my condenser. Again, it is evident that the value of this add-on has been significantly over stated and the depreciation factor used does not result in an accurate appraisal. (6) The assessing department has placed a add-on value of $3,591.00 for the screened gazebo I had constructed on Board of Review -6- April 3, 1990 the rear deck and classifies it as a porch. The assess- ing department basis was $21.00 per square foot. This gazebo/porch was constructed for me by Edward G. Howe 2-1/2 years ago. His original bid price was $1,900.00, but my wife and I decided to have interior wood added so that the total cost was $2,400.00. (7) The assessing office originally stated that the add-on value of the two fireplaces in my home was $8,400.00. When Mr. Sams and I discussed the fact that these two fireplaces are lo- cated on the same footings and the appraisal data book he used showed that the cost of constructing two fire- places was not double the cost of one fireplace, he stated he would reduce this item to $6,800.00. (The appraisal data book showed it should be $6,500.00 but because of the computer program used it could only be adjusted to $6,800.00.) In addition, this add-on ap- proach does not take into account the fact that the fireplace in the basement does not have an adequate air draw capability which means it cannot be used without the basement filling up with smoke. Essentially, the utility of the basement fireplace is as a brick area divider. (8) The assessing department places the value of the deck on the rear of my house at $11,508.00, based upon a $6.00 per square foot cost. The deck that had been on my home had rotted. Edward G. Howe removed the old deck and installed the existing one 2-1/2 years ago, at a cost of $7,686.00 including the portion under the gazebo/porch. (9) The assessing department states the value of my finished basement to be $23,467.00 which was arrived at by using a $12.00 per square foot multiplier. The base- ment (other than all the plumbing, some wiring, the basement bath, and the laundry room) was not finished at the time my home was originally constructed. The finish- ing of the basement occurred in about 1981. I purchased all of the materials myself, my brother who is a licensed master electrician put in the added wiring, and my wife, some friends and myself put up the added insulation and drywall, and the bar consists of kitchen cabinets pur- chased from T(nox Lumber Co. As the main bearing wall was necessarily already in place, all that was added were three 15 foot walls to create the three rooms plus the furnace room toward the front of the house, three clos- ets, six hollow-core stained and pre-hung door units, insulation and vapor barriers on the three concrete block walls, and drywall over the newly framed areas. No new windows were added as the wall to the rear was already windowed, doored, and finished as part of the original walkout construction. Even including the carpeting that Board of Review -7- April 3, 1990 was installed on the floor, my total cost for the fin- ishing of the basement was less than $4,000.00. If one were to factor in the value of the labor, a reasonable value of the finished condition of the basement is less than $10,000.00. 3. I also disagree with the depreciation factors that were used by the assessing department. The only depreciation factor considered was an item Mr. Sams described as a combination item that he informed me contained both physical and functional compo- nents. The life expectancy of a wood frame structure is generally stated to be 50 years. Although there is usually some value left in a structure at the end of its normal life expectancy and a straight-line depreciation factor would not realistically reflect the structure's market value, the 22% depreciation factor that the assessing department used does not accurately reflect the deprecia- tion that exists in my 22 year old home. As has been noted earlier herein, a number of components of my home (that have been included in the construction cost and add-ons) have a shorter life expec- tancy than the structure of my house itself. A buyer would take these items into account. As time has elapsed, construction tech- niques have changed for energy efficiency and aesthetic reasons and the design of homes has been altered to account for changed desires and expectations of home buyers. Examples of the physical deterio- ration of my home are such things as: numerous cracks in the batten siding; partial blockage of the water pipes because of the minerals in the well water; a 20 plus year old furnace and air conditioning which are not energy efficient; the flooring in the family room dips as it spans from its end support areas; plumbing fixtures that not only have outlived their life expectancies, but are also in colors that are no longer fashionable; the front concrete patio is depressed below the walkway from my garage to my front door because of settling; the garage floor and apron are starting to pock and flake; the drywall walls and ceilings have nail "poppings" and "ripplings"; etc. Although I am still proud of my home, a realis- tic assessment of it must acknowledge that its best days are a thing of the past. I submit that while 44% of the life expectancy of my home has expired, physical and functional depreciation alone should amount to not less than 30%. Taking all of the above factors into account, I believe that the fair market value of my home using the assessing department's approaches should he derived in the following manner: Board of Review -8- April 3, 1990 A. Land value (including landscaping improvements) S 60.000.00 B. House 1. Base construction cost - as B-5 $105,800.00 2. Add-ons (a) Garage $ 7,000.00 (b) Walkout 2,200.00 (c) Patios 2,400.00 (d) Additional baths 3,000.00 (e) Air conditioning 1,600.00 (f) Porch (gazebo) 2,400.00 (g) Fireplaces 6,500.00 (or less) (h) Deck 7,700.00 (i) Finished basement 2 Q 44.000.00 Total House Cost $149,800.00 3. Minus physical and functional depreciation (22%) - 33.000.00 $116,800.00 4. Minus urea formaldehyde foam correction - 10.000.00 (?) Building Value S106.800.00 C. Total Market Value $166,800.00 I fully realize that the above figure is $59,900.00 less than the Assessing Department's figure, but it also is more than 380% of what it cost me to acquire this land and construct this house. Thank you for your time in reviewing this matter. Yours very truly, Donald J. Sorensen 7121 Willow Creek Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 5344-3225 DJS/k Encl. • 1990 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: 9s Page 1 I. Sales Comparison Approach PIO: /r-//-R4- d-4c4,2a Owner: /2w'a/d e F/o.;e S.-encei Address: 7/a/ .vijlwi mint,! /Q/l ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO.1 COMPARABLE N0.2 COMPARABLE NO.3 7/.7/ b.//..., /,-,r.;'g /i-/.,-As //-//-a/ Address �__ 7nY/ a✓•%/.... Cr.eAr /Pc/ 7n,c r...!le:.. Crrr/r Rd ,,y/ ea%/.. C.,.,.6 Rd ' Proximity to Sublecl i�`��Illlllllll y 773�,,,, // m..o r f m��a�w��tr������m�. Sales Price S Y5 a�y l�l�llll(Il 1lllS f_pgr C1lullIB11Wiuullllll ao Price/Gross Liv Area S �S /Op�+` 0 i $ if 0 S s s Data Source g. farwn r . ,4 CA/ ',o.,./- F./e C.tv .��f f cAr VALUE AOJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION 1 •1-is Adornment DESCRIPTION F I-iS Adustmem DESCRIPTION J•I-ISMusmrra CCoonessioons ncing I it Illlilll Ilillllll .44.,e ��,r .".....c Oate of Sale/Time 7-88 +F7000 it 8C t,79oo V-Si - Location G,,,,a Ff,.a1 ef,-•- / Fy,../ f.a71400 Site/View God E�/ Er..n 1 E..../ Design and Appeal gee ti/,e/ E.,.o/ J,4.....r' .t room Quality of Construction Gen d 4f- • 1, e/ p< /"i�.r..fe - Age i9Gf3 .vsn 97n i9Gs .sv .ccr • Condition 47r...4( +eY'iP/ uoyi S/,,t'.,-.-rr, -,-Asno Above Grade bra .Bdfine, Barns total,BOnn, Batr Total ,Berms, eama Tote ,Bdnna, elan itt Room Count C .3 eV A '.s/ :/, 7 .3 :/ 7 :3 :'w ash":t a, a Gross Living Area 34, Sq.Ft. ,T.4as` Sq.Ft.( /e903 p o Sq.Fl. r ,a/. ,y,G C Sq.Ft.)-='••-' Basement 6 Finished .9904'e j•-• a/"7s. y-r /e03'� d.-• k..s Rooms Below Grade ''s"' m"a'I 6xo a. �,ra ` • ,„.... F-,. r yaoo ,sI s Ao.a ' ,:....ALA. �..b/ z....[..a..) •Aim -r7ooa ,c.�..../a.a.. -1G6� t RNdeea Functional utility . _,di/G 65,..../ Eo,,./ I r.r,:., * Soma i- Heating/Coding FA/AC <A/'e F.4/A,C 4-A/n7e- Garage/Carport —,-e,,,,,- 6, a-nor 7:II * /moo .9.G.r a/t 4-� .ys/f - rice ' ,reeP d P I Porches.PBbo. viz op i ! a4" ..A swr" s. c Pools,etc. vs P,a� + Z.ram ya,r•• p.c,, r VO0ea '� "4 r sm<. Special Energy Ellicient Items N.. .44.2., ..r/a„.1.Fireplace(s) .,7 3 - .2eeso a / , doom Other(e.g.kitchen toG..d k./,< v c„a A.re.r V. e..• k,Ael ,Ore .c.Acl equip.remodeling) 6m,� ,� ,v w/o * i�d . r-sort(-.i`�C� /.. . +dSx.c �. Net Atli.(total) 1 1X+ - ,-'S 3/oca + •-:$ S/900 (x + -'S 7ic 4 Indicated Value -: ! of Subject _LL — _ $ .?7/doe $ ?37 900 ' $ .+9sba Comments on Sales Comparison:A/ , ., 4 SQL. • ✓r hod b.. '/.,et. ,,, .0'.s+/i,,,;,t-/-/1t tunic rb .fir oe t<hal , t!e fi r/f"3 a•. clri•t., a1 ff. ea./0'3..m a pi'`='' a,tells. c..yc'a.7 /,r?.t.1 /,/,,.l- .E'�gr/'wf.....4./.ye/_Ti a/.+esf .'r m:...far,(sf a.r r..fee Id'•se..,rni s..wr rcce, sae. �.. nUicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach: as of January 2, 1990 1 Ays�aa Value Review Assessor's Being Appealed Appraisal Recommendation '"e+:a , Land Value R"coo a5oeen B'a000 ) Building Value ./VI 7c,o /Gnocao /35-90a °�. Total EMV aaG7pQ say/s000 ' ei? 0 900 af:: -fir Appraiser .7.777L,. _S4rs • Appeal No: 1-5 Page 2 Photo of Subject • I r• i�� Building Sketch • .39 rf D �1' 9 . c , :.o s 3i � I N - - � c 33 ap so io _Y.p i . Appeal No. 9 b Date Received tip, /T PID N 25-116-22 22 0028 Appraiser ,inhn Sams APPLICATION FORM 1990 EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF REVIEW (To be completed by owner - please print) Telephone Home: cj y 1- 7I6Ci Work: citi4-ci3K5 Name: \Ai%I ha m 0, Address of Property: tOcici t i1AC,Lo,;-t e-tirvt January 2, 1990 valuation as it appears on the notice: $ :L'2 7 l c c Date property was acquired: (, SC- Purchase Price: $ Zc.c:, oc)c Terms of Purchase: Additions and alterations since purchase: 0 O mac; Cost of additions and alterations: Is property listed for sale? I\)o If yes, at what price $ (attach copy of listing agreementj— Owners estimated market value as of January 2, 1990 is: S a-'7 0,non What are your reasons or documentation supporting the above stated value? (Please attach supporting information): aftf . l t035 Ivt.4, Qcc;— 3 Ccts° (C79 3 VL(4-Oro - L115 cDcE. J 12.02 /I.t+ C ru - 3oz)Oc c' 9- 341 7 0 9r 3 1'l Doo rs`f s L e I t s 4 rox kYs-rit Ss S,Z e (n wC„t l 4) Signature of Owner Please note: This form requests private or confidential data of applicant which is being collected for purposes of review by the City Assessor and the Eden Prairie Board of Review to assist in preparing for any appeals/objections herein. The submission of this data is not mandatory, however, in order to get an accurate assessment of the property prior to the hearing, such data is helpful. (To be completed by the Assessing Department) Prior year values: Land Building Total Property Class. 1/2/89 ligcco P100 �R--7oc l� 1/2/8B 6$CCr !- i 1/2/87 lac-rcp Last Inspection: 11/a/25 Appraiser: & Building Permits/Appraiser Comments: Sale History Date Source Sale Price Terms of Sale Comments _ft/21/& cko cc o lc•375eb / / S Board of Review Action: 1) Referred to Assessor for review: 2) Assessor's value adjusted to: 3) Assessor's value sustained: • 1990 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: qG Page 1 Sales Comparison Approach PID: as-_!/G-a.V-as-or,as Owner: • c+,.//;e,, c fie.- Ge<„a Address:,�.4q, ,,,,,, (-,,,.,e ,Qd • ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO.1 COMPARABLE NO.2 COMPARABLE NO.3 .73-V3-S/ Om-. -.39 .73-w.-a Address 9.?97 of .a /Ja- i.erc MO ei..... if.{ //ssa Arfc a .Qd Proximity to Sublecl !-IIIIIIIIIIIIIII Ilulll�ll .- ...i ear mie4 s.,... s,rrr<f Sales Price S aeQ ode IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIS 3, ..0 5S II Ill lllllllllll(lllll�s 3yso Price/Gross Liv.Area $ sx9 s/ CZ$ /nR's CZ) IIII S //7 4- wihIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I $ /n6 ,:t 0�i Data Source F.'h 4 c/v F,% /.Pr/ °n.....r F,le i G I • F.% S CT v • VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION 1.Hs Marsrmmr DESCRIPTION �.I.1S Adiwunwm DESCRIPTION I-IS aaa.m.m Sales or Financing Concessions N...c., N..c ,v.,.r • Date of Sale/Time y_r , /o-a9 •-a 9 /- 9 3 • • Location i/. (.."-1 V 4.....l V. 6e..4 V.Gen el ' S c/View o. i '- /h o. o p..4/40. _o.� o a' e. oy.r.. .,,h Gs/i L...... Gnti /.rr.4 LJC0% .L..L G./r Luria- Design and Appeal G .1 G,eJ .nJ G.e ar • Duality of Construction G.,..1 G..o.t G...r G..d • Age 19Rc ,91R 5' r i9RL. "98A Condition G,.,,4 4e^d 4-^4 qc^d Above Grade Toni .Perms. Bens Tout,Wm, Barns Tout .edms. Bats i To :aeons, BATS Room Count 9;3 :a6 9: s! :R6 9 :s• :a:s 9: ./ :.a& Gross Living Area sa 93 Sp.Ft. _LI93t/ Sq.Ft. a!=S Sp.Ft. +/evnn 3aShf Sq.Ft. - ,vaoo Basement&Finished /ro74< e...r /SL•' e...# g/.o.r 6...r ,yy7s, 6..+e' �''S'r f""' /rL'" A...dA Rooms Below Grade .ia i...s .r,:A Gi.ti,.1R.�c 0:wb./I -470 0 Ae. Le- C..'.:a t 0na�f�sj4 c.adi' ' '-Lrn...-. Functional Utility Gm ad e.........1 Gm d Gm.l Heating/Coding FA/.4 . j cc. �A,49L_ FA/AG Garage/Carport 4-e..- ae-1 3-Gel,.+r-F Q-L�- S-eo..o 4H ' Porches,Patio, as'' o/' • _ .5p - ,yy+_ s-.au bails'de.ir Pools.etc. �/[�'<......t 0.4,;, r<•' O..,_ - yFaoa mY'f sP I -aSbo s_s_,'a .-4 - ..Loe - Special Energy • Efficient Items N•.ix .vo It .ra..e-. r N. ' Fireplace(s) ,-F— . -F.- -.vsoo !-,u .3-fP • - soon . Other(e.g.kitchen v-a..J b,+.-t- v e..• "k v G...1 .F.:-tA v.a»1 A.:•( equip.,remodeling) •+ _ 0f ail), it � d Net Adj.(total) Rlllnlllll 111 I l—+ -S a —S 9sod + S oIndicatedValue of Subject � III Int S :R955oe _ I S 3/7eo 1_, _S 33No ce• Comments on Sales Comparison: C..,t< r/ it .../a.,4. s1#14. Co, 4.4 ,v., /,%e1' ,,o...tw- o e......f .F" o d-1..aL'''t C... �."7 .: ....1. erw Saw., ...Stele. off'a f4-ri of r- r/.•r..o, 4....< o ...../A-...,'. C;.ta r.3 L. .....i r<..:1-vo4. .1,,,•..,/,..yA1 /ocea/.an s//3 aa.va= Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach:: - as of January 2, 1990 .3os�oe - Value Review - Assessor's Being Appealed Appraisal . - Recommendation ..- .- . • Land Value /AASCeen 4.'soo0 4,5"000 Building Value /7.R700 ityboao /7.7700 Total EMV ;,aO7eae .?as aao 0.787700 Appraiser SL. 3,,,,, - Appeal No: 67`© Page 2 Photo of Subject • Building Sketch L - .3. • w.e1. . . . . pr:e • V-Y�t (4) . _ I .. • ar . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . 47 • • J) 1 Appeal No. /C y PID 05-116-22 12 0040 Date Received 4/6/1990 Appraiser Earl Zent APPLICATION FORM 1990 EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF REVIEW (To be completed by owner - please print) Telephone Home: 473'.1-4 y 8 9 Work: 9 35"•2 t 2, Name: ;)AWIK /Mal LOR I Address of Property: I(p51( f 3V l Ai- E•�' January 2, 1990 valuation as it appears on the notice: $ 2 31_ Date property was acquired: 1- gg Purchase Price: $ 2 LU,oso Terms of Purchase: r+oaTcro. Additions and alterations since purchase: nbw Cost of additions and alterations: nro,..t Is property listed for sale? to If yes, at what price $ — (attach copy of listing agreement Owners estimated market value as of January 2, 1990 is: $ L?A,0om3 What are your reasons or documentation supporting the above stated value? (Please attach supporting information): Ste let*-r 3-23-40 Cimed age- Signature of Owner Please note: This form requests private or confidential data of applicant which is being collected for purposes of review by the City Assessor and the Eden Prairie Board of Review to assist in preparing for any appeals/objections herein. The submission of this data is not mandatory, however, in order to get an accurate assessment of the property prior to the hearing, such data is helpful. (Tv be cumpieled by Lhe Assessing Departffierit) Prior year values: Land Building Total Property Class. 1/2/B9 3'OOO iSOCOC` 00000O IZ 1/2/88 -tooco — '-Oct t_ 1/2/87 re,o0 — t Ar,C0 c_ Last Inspection: t(/2_5l5i Appraiseaise— c✓( lepvt- Building Permits/Appraiser Comments: Sale History Date Source Sale Price Terms of Sale Comments ia/I /g8 ry olsow $ v.;C 2OO w C. pe one r I I $ 8oard of Review Action: 1) Referred to Assessor for review: 2) Assessor's value adjusted to: 3) Assessor's value sustained: March 23, 1990 Mr. Earl Zent City Assessors Office 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3677 Re: Property I.D.# 05-116-22-12-0040 Dear Mr. Zent: Our 1990 market value increased 5%. There are several reasons which we feel this is not justified. In reviewing homes sold on Ashby Lane, 16458 Ashby sold on 11-89 for $183,500 which was purchased in 1-88 for $175,000. This reflects about a 2% annual increase. I feel this entire $8,500 is due to an extensive deck addition, orating, and landscape investments. They have also planted �nj large trees. I " feel our new unpleasant view of the TimerCreek townhomes has decreased our market value (see photo). Our sewer connection broke, and our plumbers tell us this is due to a very poor organic soil under our front lawn. The front yard fill settled and broke the sewer pipe. Due to this soil, this may be a recurring problem which, also, has decreased our value. The completion of the house directly across the street - 16582 Ashby, with it's relatively low market value will make it very hard to get our market value for our house. We are losing four very large trees which would have a replacement cost of over $10,000. We are not going to replace these at this time. With these facts we feel that our property value has decreased at least $10,000 last year. We would like to see our market value decreased $10,000. We could live with the 1989 market value, but we cannot accept an increase in our property market value. Please feel free to call me at w rk at 935-2121 or home 934-4484. (We will be out of town April 6-13) Sire , Lw James & Lori Olson 16581 Ashby Lane, Eden Prairie, MN 55346 . . .• • • .•••• • . , . . I 1 4740 rr," ' . ' - . • 1 r Appeal No. 104 Page 1 `Sales Comparison Approach PI D: 05- I I(,-22--12.-o04.o Owner: 3 At+.t .s OL_SoN - • Address: 110581 ASHT3y 1..A0v _ _ 24ae -2114p ar ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO.1 COMPARABLE NO.2 COMPARABLE NO.3 1 Address (t° W NrrtNr 102`-A- v.\aKdR H 2 k ouG, It, -a-T3rw vocio I.w.e r.nLtC Z-12--t, CT S-2t-4U 5-41-4Z Proximity to Suh ct 1111111111111111111 IIAIIII swv,e rvc,rKt; t+<xo rve,Gwxx<t+oao II SalesPrice $ Price/Gross Liv.Area $ m,L IIIIlUI111111s (1111 11f11Ms��afoof IIIlnlllfl Usfgoo ll . , ii l 9q,los o IIDf[ll 'i Data Source 1 .. � J CR Mt Y S fSCRI, O1LS VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION •I-ISA4uatmed DESCRIPTION I-Ifaduslmea DESCRIPTIONN •IlsAdaa,tnwl Saks or FInancing W Concessions . — kI'Date of Sale/Time 5( O ( C(') -- /94 5/eA nil Location iTJ i9.14,L- , �+ry �4V AL �41 . V F+l Site/View + Vim. 24000*Wt�. ?50no'► 4r5c�oc) t5rrpa wy 4 Sari J Design and Appeal - A-', cr0. 2*,Can 2 ,c-o - -,Quality of Construction V h'D V V ( . =Qu4.L W4 a•� ,rnl. 1, Age I4pa 1485 +31erx] 14 8'L 14r3s :� Condition Y c50 'Z-/ZU At... i- a.. -FrUAL. ' Above Grade taui ;edam; Bath 6W;Bd,mf; Ba1M TOIL .Um. Bats Twat •Bdo,n. Baths V Room Court IL,; 3 :2/2, 8 ;3 :2/12 2. ; 2/2, c't :Q- '2%2 Gross Living Area 2142 Sq.Ft. 24-t0 Sq.Ft. 4\34.01) & So.Ft. 4-Acelop Basement$Finished C� w�art'N/o 9 n>O WO +I o q— Ft. 4- oco ? Rooms Below Grade v- t 3� `� 4 C/ o.We IoOU GT/ •vWvt/p. l loop tl I-IR M n.1" n)�L -1,tcti ) .F Ri 15, �► 4,I Functional Utility C Knci0 '�<J� _ - ).) "tuor.X F t rxXXJ Healing/Cooling ÷"A-w A/c. •-.A.r a A/G - a... A/c.„ F.A.w Afe, r Garage/Carport --3�,ATr ` 34,I Acr (24" iPorches,Patio, P. Nonl i- 5aro rq'P. ... Pools,etc --CctIC '{-\,SM -•p�� CO.e� 's Special Energy a Efficient gems • Fireplace(s) 2�/'P i T-/P ;+2CYXJ 11"/'P +'door) 1'F/'P 1 . Other(e.g.kitchen "iiLr,,-Jr -57-lnr5. -151-r InaS t "-eSL:r"is' )I Epep.remodeling) 'NW Rr:r-aCl1- WIATRt,ToraL MA.tRL1LLl. Nrlrra�'Prrx. -''., Net Adj.(total) i.+ --'s 3LoSOC3 —4-* --'a (lorr00 $ ;-, Indicated Value ( Ill of SubjectII_ s 2.58 4o0 11 s 2.4.5903 $21,bC '! Comments on sales Comparison:--ttE.e}rRer Cervn s O -trt S,r,I sas.W. R.r nc rnE.r ra3 cr,rvracti.Anp-rb 7-.IC S✓ayJEtT t raLl. o'r-ri4C Cnmit.x.,•4rap\Es -KE"'a.11RC0 Si-r As). r'v .sTS. -,T+£ Su73lECr$ ��-RE... TEta VAI.UC' ta'tt 2'S1 23(X7 I-- tt$'IZQ---'rie Sq.�41:_ rI LOLJE'r -PACCraGE Ptth.CE <.F Anry Co PgOiaklbLE TALC Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach $ ZSOtoco as of January 2, 1990 ' Value Being Appealed Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation ; Land Value 34c100 ebo —3Y'00 Building Value I(fl IcX) 2\011oo p 191 Ip "`` Total EMV Z31 coo 250ono Z-3`one') ..;,6.. Appraiser: =-t= _ P E-AL NO too ,L Z BLDG.SKETCH-MASTER COPY PtO' - O'S• tlte,=22- 12 -o( ) ADDRESS - 11c5fM A54--k"CY Lptir LEGAL DESC.- L ct-r? TorArF-,<,c crK wa e t ,, k ,,/ ,. DATE APP. MEAS. ALTERATIONS cP,t 1. , . . :i„ yy d '% 1; ,? I"I _3 Z y NEW I;'ph4 f ,x - ,:l, / / I 11 'e 1 1111 - . • SKETCH ?;L -o x 3£3 ✓` y2 'o�'�C d _ . 2.X3 VI ' 282 Yu y X- 14- 47 t _Id. 'Va. -DECK 1 GI?. ,j Z a L . . - . -38-.• dal : . : : : :.;:.:..: 8012 . . . •arro 2 Zq.. . 34 . .. . . . 1 a 1 B to zA .o // rL s z la a O-P It ,2 .. r. i Appeal No. IN, PID # 07-116-22 32 0037 Date Received 4/6/1990 Appraiser Earl Lent M1, r„,!.. APPLICATION FORM 1990 EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF REVIEW (To be completed by owner - please print) Telephone Home: 9a'y_S( /- Work: Name: 4,44../.. at �� tior✓ Address of Property: /9/// / fi 5 i<i e L A N e January 2, 199D valuation as it appears on the notice: $ 147 0,0 o Date property was acquired:0c}-/qga Purchase Price: $ /o‘o 00 Terms of Purchase: Additions and alterations since purchase: Cost of additions and alterations: ss: / Is property listed for sale? /1/0 If yes, at what price $ (attarh ropy of listing agreement 77ct/4+-4a. Owners estimated market value as of January 2, 1990 is: $ //S O O o .,,.1, What are your reasons or documentation supporting the above state va ue? p 6, f (Please attach supporting information): i natur of Owner Please note: This form requests private or confidential data of applicant which is being collected for purposes of review by the City Assessor and the Eden Prairie Board of Review to assist in preparing for any appeals/objections herein. The submission of this data is not mandatory, however, in order to get an accurate assessment of the property prior to the hearing, such data is helpful. (To be completed by the Assessing Department) Prior year values: Land Building Total Property Class. 1/2/B9 1-fGcC) at co T4On 1/2/88 a4(IoD CfriOr /i5SOO 1/2/87 d 3'7 O g7300 I i I.PGO Last Inspection: j/_/-7 Appraiser: Set, Ccu(� Building Permits/Appraiser Comments: Sale History Date Source Sale Price Terms of Sale Comments TT:IL cK✓ $ io ccC / / $ Board of Review Action: 1) Referred to Assessor for review: 2) Assessor's value adjusted to: 3) Assessor's value sustained: 1990 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: /Olo Page 1 Sales Comparison Approach PID: O'-/l6,- as 33 0037 • Owner: Ki.,r-- tt..) Sda.h,.e,o Address: /q1// h-.Av-at.0 -ice_ ITEM SUBJECT - COMPARABLE N0.1 COMPARABLE ND.2 COMPARABLE NO.3 '7- 3?-37 -7- -8,/ to-34-3D/1 � 7-II -.97 Address / ////fn.et.4••a 1909/ maple lea{' 4n,. b8?1 5.,.%ot., 14.361(/ev��/ il4tf S.S'+o'.. Lana- h/ Proximity to Subject IlIllI jhi] U111lllilljf 3/4 n,,1c Mae M;I e Sales Price $ ID1101.111111IDIll lllIs 13_ 000 II lull s /3/a5b I]1IIDit1111illflllllla /08000 Price/Gross Liv.Area $ 0 S Ivy.'° 10IIIII IIIIIIII IIIII I$ 9s.d' OIilllilILlllll[dims ya �a of lllllll(lllllllllllll Data Source Nr.•s+ w. roes G v '.?ALB en v ,nets VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION •14S apusaasal DESCRIPTION •t-IS Miusimeni DESCRIPTION •r4S Apusmenr Sales or Financing 1 -r Concessions - 11.1 t"iati,.-_ - Na,s-„-. — PAS by - Date of Sale/TimeSeiler _I p pp 3190 - 81i9 - 9189 - Location Good F;7,02 - '," — f a, SiteNiew a"' s /A., c,, nt ,s.s'"/ 2", - `o r t/ A - R74A'I Av ♦3o00/- Design and Appeal Av.°, /st;;, a d - E.E. - - Duality of Construction Av�Po. y 4 v - A v -S.E - A v•A ev -h c9* Av to R6• Av to Ai3+ Age 1983 148t +loco 148? - /QBS -'co,;•a Condition Good cod - GDoti - C.„od - Above Grade row ,&arms, Baths raw ,Baths, earns Tatar ;Baths; Baths Total ;Baths; Baths Room Count 5 ; ; 131'i (Q 1 3 : I 3/.4 (a ; .3 ; i SATGross Living Area I A tvo Sq.Ft. 1�l.o.5! Sp.Ft. - /3,g' Sp.Ft. -3e00 i a?to Sq.Ft. Basement 8 Finished Foe No'AO F•.Co o.lu -1500 c..ld t.,to -tSoo F"-u W)p -ISOcu Rooms Below Grade a e v i.eI 91,BA Fa 314 64 4-4000 P.O a 146r+ f4opp I BR no al4 BA tAobp Functional Utility Heating/Cooling F fa I .R C A I LR - K R/en — F A IeR - Garage/Carport ,aCnA,q# /v?Ca-n o A#( - • - d t'an_ - a eu.. Alt- -• . Porches.Patio, =c*.e.poncx ry4$F sex+.,.exnc.Li'SOS' r 3 a6o Pools.etc. lain 194 6r &AA_ N..)s.F - +3o0a deck -44•05r ant./Op SI Special Energy Efficient(tens Fireplaces) e1, I +10oo l t/oo0 i 4-lope Other(e.g.kitchen equip.,remodeling) Net Ad1(total) __I'LIT 1I,,II ;i+ 's NSoo fir-+ ---;s 3500 r✓+ •�-;s S.9oo Indicated Value of Subject 1 J ____ 'J$ /3(�,Soo s 13q 75o ___I_ s /33aoo Comments on Sales Comparison: ('o,np/,/LAt.a. ,u,,.j,3 oti,,, c,.n,.,/co, ,a,.ax.,to eL (o+noa.0-4-ts./ -l<a/ o ,TI'n.1..J p.a..rt.) and dsLK ol,.dt ALt, nos+ a em.oantv..A.s_ b.,4-&. AL.O.A44 AA/ -1-11.1 e lr7svp eo a,A-P.t.e..) ,Gax✓.tcaxf 7 il...t,C_io_ja/ ito;ILa /La.car,..,,v,,,sjo„r.g,.a) o-C 133 000• Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach: /3300o as of January 2, 1990•- Value Review - Assessor's- Being Appealed Appraisal Recommendation Land Value 4/3Foo 4/0000 NO000 Building Value '7 c'o 9500 0 9,3000 Total EMV /3r10C1O /33000 /3 Onc) Appraiser ,ens-1) Levn.tz, '1 Photo of Subject Appeal No: /O(o Page 2 l Building Sketch e . i2 /'.12 � CK, s '• • •SP;:: , __./2...'.....••.•.. i 28. ia::: ..;;::;::: : Appeal No. /mil PID i+ 26-116-22 22 0051 Date Received 4/6/1990 Appraiser Earl Zent/Lorna Lisell APPLICATION FORM 1990 EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF REVIEW (To be completed by owner - please print) Telephone Home: 941-0908 Work: Name: Shirty Mover Knutson and husband Robert Address of Property: 9372 Creekwood Drive. Eden Prairie MN 55344 January 2, 1990 valuation as it appears on the notice: $ /S Date property was acquired: 1980-85 Purchase Price: $ aprro' $gO,Onn Terms of Purchase: We bought raw land and self-contracted the house Additions and alterations since purchase: not aoolicable - we had house built Cost of additions and alterations: Not aoolicable Is property listed for sale? N. If yes, at what price $ (attach copy of listing agreement) Owners estimated market value as of January 2, 1990 is: $ g95.n00 to $inn.000 What are your reasons or documentation supporting the above stated value? (Please attach supporting information): That is more than we paid for it, and there is still a lot of work and many thousands of dollars to complete the house. r I /t Signature of Owner hirly M. Knutson Please note: This form requests private or confidential data of applicant which is being collected for purposes of review by the City Assessor and the Eden Prairie Board of Review to assist in preparing for any appeals/objections herein. The submission of this data is nbt mandatory, however, in order to get an accurate assessment of the property prior to the hearing, such data is helpful. (To be completed by the Assessing Department) Prior year values: Land Building Total Property Class. 1/2/89 3`1500 a��OQ / 73Cr 1/2/88 rO ,.caCc 1/2/87 COO i '?Ct) /r74c'C K Last Inspection: /b/YO Appraiser: ur.w Lise it Building Permits/Appraiser Comments: Sale History Date Source Sale Price Terms of Sale Comments / �— / / $ Board of Review Action: I) Referred to Assessor for review: 2) Assessor's value adjusted to: 3) Assessor's value sustained: • - " 1990 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: 109 Page 1 Sales Comparison Approach PID: aL._,/c-ae a.2 005/ Owner: �hitiFe h 7274 ay-v e t ) Address: 9379 L:ttf LJussi /Li ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO.1 COMPARABLE NO.2 COMPARABLE N0.3 ./6-aa-07 .24- -2a -/0 4- 2/-.77 Address 9496 del kiu,rs-d,9/ 94y g e-ekt-4,--u,-,4 /53 85 A.,./)s .:s Proximity to Subject 111;1�t all if f I cx.u-ttic / SJer.,k- ex.d&EQk - a,t' Sales Price S IIIIIIIIIHIII I111101111$1/4 coo ,11IIIIIUIIII1lllllllilI1111$ /74/o Il1lllllll IL11lllI1I11 llls 4 .• Price/Gross Liv.Area $ m$ Si,9,1 mIII III➢II)[IIUllnis 79"o mp1IllQ(1'�IHI�I]Il s 79sg zlllll l 111110111: Data Source Ce t,' GEL) e41.) VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION OESCRIPTION •I-ISAdwrn,onl DESCRIPTION •t-iSaaiwmeel DESCRIPTION •t-1$Adustment Sales or Financing Concessions - -- - DateolSatelTime I 3/gf 7/gQ - /o/yq Location .li- ` - p-e-e/ - �� site/viewig /c, e.z(, a,,4 - i-"'� Qal ., I t 6 000 Design and Appeal o�_ _ ?,drr . - Quality of Construction Atg rat/ p,e pg p,/ /}u- - qg Al - AB At) ,4 -- Age !R95' /994 -Attu /9-b f/.3-f00 /9A4t taboo Condition a,,-�4.i, (3,KI�rt. - fh/ — ad - Above Grade Iola! .Slims. Bans Total .Bdrnn:'Baths Total :Bdrnn, Bath Total ,Bdmn; Bann Room Count 8 : 52 : I i/a g : .3 :a 142 -a000 : 3 't,6- -/70o g: 'f ...1'6 t -250o Gross Living Area .i0-7P So.Ft. .2400 Sq.Ft- -/a/oerf) aia2�5(, So. t. -S4 0 s.79+/ So.Ft.i -S't/e0 Basement 8 Finished 9s )0 614.a11 97%Aaw,..J-' - 85°70 esa++� - i 2'7s 13,ur,.l1 Rooms Below Grade Le?,p Q,Si get loll.F . -II,Roo 9o.,,, „, 3/y b - '4n'4:-.,. I/-7d/o0 Functional Utility J Heating/Cooling Grp a/e_ ap4 A'/A — OP A1C- - Gff k'& 1 — Garage/Carport ..)eon.(lt.. 1/I'M a swa-st(2.4' -$30o aann(eka;wtt,)--Ai/ •' OM.- r -..n40e Porches,Patio. . mpg..p 4 0 s,..ty.4.tooth - ins. o.p P. f No0 0'f 4,'YB Pools,etc. ei- -,74p o dui. -1/900 Special Energy Efficient Items - Fireplace(s) a 1 -+/000 .2 _ d7 — . Darer(e.g kitchen /a%N(�tB equip.,remodeling)4- .j o OIL, 0-0-1, -//,/Oo Ca-n.,..o cXL. -/1,10 o Co-nyale -'I/a/o- Net Adj.(total) II I + S 4/4,40es - +I III'y--'S /O SO O' (f+ ;S //,Q00 Indicated n s o c Value II 1. __l fl . H._a /4446o ._- I.lEI1llu___Is ,bs goo 11 Ill I[. 111 ll Is/b.S; D0 Comments on Sales Comparison: -14 0' .1F -1-1, '4ra.1\ Cr t•Pt., - 7/t(di,^A»cp1 r�eiPu: ,/1,ce 1--cs-r,ea+cJ) .r idi,t./ IX.: L‘LL4 [Q ' .i Lf2y%eeiL .�2Z./-/rrrri�{-�-i!)ni_ 0.4I. • PC&kd�ers-m ihtru 7$. :tx, Py-r�'�M'��i In catetl Valtie by SalesJ Comparison App'ach: 14-2„r o00 as of January 2, 1990;.;-,G Value Review Assessor's ' Being Appealed Appraisal Recommendation Land Value 460oo _ 2/6000' 4/o00 Building Value //3300 /no.000 f,• :4, /00 r•OT cater Total EMV /59300 /44.M.c /it coo - Appraiser _ems . Appeal No: !c9 Page 2 Photo of Subject • K r.us.5 • Building Sketch W / z \ / 74 /\ 6 of / 2l \ 15 ee K e 5t • Appeal Nu. _ III PID # 24-116-22 21 0006 Date Received 4/9/1990 Appraiser Fdr1 Zpnt APPLICATION FORM 1990 EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD DF REVIEW (To be completed by owner - please print) Telephone Home: n)7`f L/ • /cf ( n Work: L ' �� x 3y5 Name: PI t.)rJ • -C'.1l( r: ;`.[/4J 40 -- Address of Property: • /- U `r,, !If,0 0! January 2, 1990 valuation as it appears on the notice: $ 1 x g 5�c C` Date property was acquired: 1Z,(• Purcha'e Price: $ t ;e0 Terms of Purchase: Y41. ,Xi N J Additions and alterations since purchase: DCL CL,.fc ex', t, ar'OC Cos of a iti n and alterations: IC:,CL)C, Is property li ed for sale? N() f yes, at what price $ _ (attach copy of listing agreement) • Dwners estimated market value as of January 2, 1990 is: $ 1- �yr �j' What are your reasons or documentation supporting the above sta vallue? (Please attach supporting information): Q c ' ;;,Y, �. -� ` lttLk t. Q c��a_.,e }�cam& e. kb--- i c I - L9 9-0 a cc et J tr, 1'\1 m G,cec£ 1 ow -FM ,Sce.�..Q.. Iceki (boo c c 5 r I , ( ' ; tt- f 'i-4w a 5.L Signature f Owner Please note: This form requests private or confidential data of applicant which is being collected for purposes of review by the City Assessor and the Eden Prairie Board of Review to assist in preparing for any appeals/objections herein. The submission of this data is not mandatory, however, in order to get an accurate assessment of the property prior to the hearing, such data is helpful. (To be completed by the Assessing Department) Prior year values: Land 6uildinq Total Pro ert Class. 1/2/89 .4 3000 131 oO J1(cGYJ 1/2/88 ' -Oc_ );?IC:. /747OC. 1/2/87 4-1000CTh 1..7 Ka:' /k7WO K. Last Inspection: l /g /El Appraiser: e.re 1, Z-e+'t Building Permits/Appraiser Comments: Sale History Date Source Sale Price Terms of Sale Comments 7 /7 $11s 3xO &O / / $ Board of Review Action: 1) Referred to Assessor for review: 2) Assessor's value adjusted to: 3) Assessor's value sustained: i Appeal No. 111 Page 1.` ''Sales Comparison Approach PID: 24_-ltto-22,2t - n0ob Owner: C-,.-gi'?A-z /-AA-Iry Address: 8105O`-- LncK 1 r PPLII-oR ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO.1 COMPARABLE NO.2 COMPARABLE NO.3 Address 8to42"C3 aaCK T11raCPL ebal-Y1.r�C-k MaP� $'C30.dry Trvwylp-CR d Proximity to Subject 24.-21-53 2.4.-21-`52 2_4--at-2-1III III III mom' -a�f ;KecKKcoo -A,,,,E,..mcg.bc;,,cco 1 - rti,..E t Saks Price s IIII 111111111III 1111 I s I: _.,4 II I Ili IIIIII ll II $ - -I. III 11111111 HIM 11$ Ee .•Price/Gross Liv.Area $ m$ 75. (d- m IIIII II III 1111Ill s :.t 01111111111 I@ll Ills (e2.- -t m 1HI IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I :' Data Source n-,LS Q V CRv,Yr1LS VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION ( .1-Is Aneenem DESCRIPTION r.1-Is Adesmeni DESCRIPTION I.1-rs Adlusnrenl C Saks or Financing Financing � I - � 1`�t F Date of Sale/Time -?/q0 ,- -6/ to/8I rn Location GCidVD •s-n.IJAL �A�At 0 SBe/View ... V..2m ?1kxy_s.GD +Seer) 2.5eb 0 +-5,17eN1 I"3P[t)*. c-TO +.yp ri Q Design and Appeal 2 e fD• 2z G b £ Z Guahty of Construction C-,rcD t UA.L �O` 2.Mt- A9e 1gi3el tcl£2_ �lJurat_ 14f34- ;-710. •O Conoitron A'vy..r rip `t uAL A.Vd,Ra'Fwar` I !- �..(! Above Grade turn .Bdme; Bane bial i Barns, Bane brat i emms, Bairn CC • Room Count 2 10 ,t ,21 Total 'Bane' Baths Gross Livng Area -a -87 sq. . Baseme mr d Finished l 5 w/o Ft. w�Ft. -F33{y f t Z'i,nQ Sq.Ft t. 4 8?[1C� l'Zfi re-)SO.2. -CA�j� 0 Rooms Below GradeI 18y w/0 1.• 1 cam/ +?nra ER-I;'t�r,, •NONE +5Y2 1-+'3 ) tvo t'jc:pp W Functional Utility C a .e,k3ru. .--p r� a Heating/Cooling T X.,,,,N�, A.,s, ,� s:_ v• L tl) Garage/Carport 9 C /•�'-r' - Nrr. V.A.' .v.� ? I A.w A.K. t' Porches.Patio, -OrCrrs "BECK/tiro H am• -ri 2'Ea � Poets.etc. S.P. ��-,�.w 1JECK +IooU • Special Energy Efficient Items f: Fireplace(sl I f fP 2�/r , -2 v Other(e.g.kitchen .•'-T)NS. c I -J 2 ,A1 -2f]LY, ESLT. INS ���r rr rS equip.,remodeling) r$�T.rauS, fy. Net M.(total) 17-4- s 4Z o� _-4 R-too + r-c:; icY7 Indicated Value (� of Subject 1 Rs 189"'�.ep 11 $ isq-30Q �����I 11 s 1S3tco Comments on Sales Comparison: S.,n cr LOT Is' `uo,O Pw5 A,p i .c,V lT ro L4,0612.5oN wKE5 -FeueK. rgn.10S No I f 2, seer AD ciYvc ra n+£SE1rr r?ARK. 51Z¢ pia.)ms-raa,c'NTS s�lcsninrr i,.u.s1y W.*O Ay= q�AUrrynrA.TfT `^' - o,xrcEo. -TUE 5U dNECra C2ttIR.E au-orO c�c it Ie3sexy) is kt 12.13 ite so. T'. -r,a,r Lm.,aaT-91.0 K.G,r`rfei(E'—na rr+c 2 Co MRs Lc...c.An-"o aN-rs S Bring 5-1 Kc a, ,.crI+Nsrel R.-Deem � �j 0- rs -ts.Id tax Irr Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach $ 1 0 : as of January 2, 1990 `, - , • Value Being Appealed Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value .ScYY) ,. "`" 5-SC aCo Building Value 1---- D I2eGJBC> , I2.' Total EMV - 1 Rg F3CYl I S x" y_ 1 g3.ce.jc) Appraiser: .t -t BLDG.SKETCH-MASTER COPY ��''�'�' �+o•l‘‘ e�E 2 PID - h - llo -2`' - 21 " ADDRESS �=s, t,�,^-K r++aC- Try LEGAL DESC.- L U- ,: , t se.,,•...N, .F.._•--- DATE APP. MEAS. ALTERATIONS 41% +Z Y nxws • • SKETCH g x .. . ........ 2xMb — - 1%22- � ptu< • % ,?k10 1a ^ 18 K �G X•5 44--Dasarv. r4 XZ --- e�. 22 1511_'� : 2a �g ‘o2b'•• vp v%c 1 z 24 .. 2A_ rP, sa aj 23 Appeal No. /I PIO ie 25-116-22 22 0023 Oate Received '—,a- Iyq� Appraiser John Sams APPLICATION FORM 1990 EOEN PRAIRIE BOARO OF REVIEW (To be completed by owner - please print) Telephone Home: 9y/_2 Y 3 9 _ Work: 49y•2YZ9 Name: bwRFNc 1. 47-rs Address of Property: icy, ,p- CNxue RcAA January 2, 1990 valuation as it ap ears on the notice: $ ,773 co Date property was acquired: _F. Purch se Price: $ 317,OOi, Terms of Purchase: £v4' 7' 77 , + Additions and alterations since purchase: Al"— -,71 Cost of additions and alteration : ",c cc, m6 77./ a Is property listed for sale? ,4 If yes, at what price $ (attach copy of listing agreement Owners estimated market value as of January 2, 1990 is: $ 330 3V0,000 What are your reasons or documentation supporting the above stated value? (Please attach supporting information): //JJ 41.d ,lEerz� Alit*irk. 4.411 gert, Alote-74 pv. ex•ri ag 2,000 ge A WO 00C, 323,ec6 x .71/_ 4274000. - Signature of Owner Please note: This form requests private or confidential data of applicant which is being collected for purposes of review by the City Assessor and the Eden Prairie Board of Review to assist in preparing for any appeals/objections herein. The submission of this data is not mandatory, however, in order to get an accurate assessment of the property prior to the hearing, such data is helpful. (To be completed by the Assessing Department) Prior year values: Land Building Total Pro ert Class. 1/2/89 /l5�.. ,0 3730C,C, 1/2/88 745QC asp be— 3350 CC" 1/2/87 75c'cc ,260ycc0 3aROL C Last Inspection: Lpn/m{ Appraiser: zph,,. JG‘aS Building Permits/Appraiser Comments: Sale History Date Source Sale Price Terms of Sale Comments _ $ Board of Review Action: 1) Referred to Assessor for review: 2) Assessor's value adjusted to: 3) Assessor's value sustained: PROPERT11AX APPEAL FOR 10842 MOUNT CURVE ROAD IkKR: Lawrence and Jacqueline Kitts PROPERTY ID: 25-116-22-22-0823 VAUZ FOR 1989 TAXES: 1336,100 VLIE FOR 1590 TAXES: 1373,666 Total Square footage for three levels including three season porch 4,40e. First floor square footage about 2,30D to 2,400. THE MARKET 1. There has been no appreciation in the Olympic Hills area for three years. 2. There are 14 holes'FOR SALE" on Mount Curve Road alone. 3. There are-23 ADDITIONAL HOMES'FOR SALE' IN WELTER WAY AREA. 4. Most of the homes'For Sale' have been on the market for over 18 months. 5. There are 24 lots 'FOR SALE" between Mt. Curve and Welter Way area. • 6. Most recent sales have been considerably below earket listing. 7. When I called listing agents for the holes most encouraged me to make an offer even well below listed price and felt the owners would give it strong consideration. HOME SALES 1. Most sales near market value are really purchases by a company for a transfering employee. 2. Other earket sales have involved favorable terns or transactions that make it appear to be a market sale. 3. Homes sold on a truly arms length basis have been sold below assessed market value. For example the home directly across the street from line is assessed at 1562,000. It finally sold after extensive redecorating and being on the market for over 2 years for 4420,000. 4. Another hole two doors down has been on the market for over one year. 5. A third home four houses from mine sold for after being on the market for 2 years. m POINT BEING—HOMES ARE NOT GETTING THE ASSESSED MARKET VALUE WHEN SOLD. VALUATION FOR 16842 -Property ID 25-1I6-22-22-0623 e --4 I 1 11. Should have appealed 1989 increase but did not notice til 1990 tax form arrived. 1 12. ND changes have been made to the house to increase value. 13. Based on the original market asssessment of 1338,166... I the fact that no increase has occurred in our selling market... I that most sales are artificially inflated or show drastic reductions I THE VALUEATION FOR MY PROPERTY SHOULD BE REDUCED TD ITS DRIGINAL BASIS OF 1336,160. Pace 1 30-Mar-90 PROPERTY TAX APPEAL FOR 10842 MOJNT CURVE ROAD OWPER: Lawrence and Jacqueline Kitts PROPERTY 1D: 25-116-22-22-0023 PROPERTY INFORMATION OR COMPARABLES IN TIE AREA Valuations seem fairly consistent but are simply to high for most properties. In reality most all property owners in the area should appeal their valuation. 4-- -+ I On Market I I Square Approx. Time I !Property ID/Owner Address Value Footage For Sale In Months I 10602 $411,808 X 1 1 4 + 1 10632 1555,008 1 4--- -+ 1 10662 1396,900 X 30 I ♦- • I 10692 1368,600 X 38-36 I +-- v 1 10722 1360,300 X 36 I + _—_------ ------+ 1 10759 SOLD? 24 I +----- — —— ----——-- -+ I 10782 1389,000 X 12 I I 10793 1562,808 /500 f.'?mu SOLD-1420 24 I I 10812 1317,800 I I 10827 1388,100 I 1TP ZSlI!-1i 22 23 10842 1373,000 BUILT FOR 1340,000 and market has gone down not I! 7 186.1:1:84868841-iin:Mts 10861 1350,000 48 I 4 .---- -+ IRS- 10902 1353,800 I I 10929 1253,888 X 16 I + -----, I 10932 1414,110 I 4 .----------- -- -- --+ I 10961 1345,100 1-329,000 30 I +- -4 1 11022 1444,000 X OFF NON 15 I + IJR- 11062 1411,000 I IMS- 11112 1461,080 3 TINS VARIOUS 1 IL- 11142 1335,800 SOLD- 1320? 3 I IJD- 11485 1385,000 I I 11473 1357,000 I IJH- 11491 1286,500 I Page 2 30-Mar-90 I • PROPERTY.TAX APPEAL FOR 10842 MOUNT CURVE ROAD OILER: Lawrence and Jacqueline Kitts PROPERTY ID: 25-116-22-22-0023 IJM- 11559 1382,800 SPECIAL DEAL 40 I +--_----'—'--_ --- ----------+ 100- 11622 1393,010 X 24 I ITN- 11682 1369,000 X 12+ Plat 3e-Mar-9e 1990 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: //y Page 1 Sales Comparison-Approach PID: .*c- //4-aa--VS-a1,c3 • Owner: h,,,,rune, j,..Ms Address: /4e5v.2 Av....,/4 r:,/,ee /Pd ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO.1 COMPARABLE NO.2 COMPARABLE NO.3 Address m.3-vs-VC" diV-33- • .•,a d.- „/V'a Alt Ct..e_ /Pit //sv.? .M/. /d„d Az Proximity to SubjectIHIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIUIIIIIII '- •/ Sales Price G HIIIIIIIHIIIIIIIIINIIIIIUE IN11111111111111111111111C llllllllllllllllflllllllllls .3 000 Price/Gross Liv.Area a m$ /as"s mIII)@IIIIll4,111is //s Z1 01111 III III II II III s /9/P. z11lII111111lllllllll II Data Source .4.F f o...rr r'a /•Ty F/. #G v A* f L VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION •t-iSMpsment DESCRIPTION �•I•ISAoiwimenr DESCRIPTION �•PISManrmea Sales or Financing Concessions ,Vo.r a- ti.♦ A�.L Dale of Sale/Time 9-e 9 R-A 9 /o-8 9 Location ./ Ste/View o���,a Ff.` F.o/ F?,../ aelr'Gamma. Ends L� Ep•../ Ey✓s/ Design and Appeal F..e// E.s/ Quality of Construction V.6aed 9✓a./ J 1 er / fa/ Age /9B6 /9ft4 /98q /Fez • Condition Y. 4d gruel f ,00 f/ p/ Above Grade Tole ,Bane, Rains Total ,Ben's Rains Total Gams. We Total Bans' Bans Room Count L , / :/i2 8 ;.3 :-7%a fl ; ..e ;asy 8 ; 3 ;.a% Gross Living Area p793 Sp.Ft. pg./ So-FI. s - ?.,,,ca 93S/ Sq.FI. -_ .SAS 9 SQ.Ft. _ ACib Basement 8 Finished /a 98'R t•«• /sn•. b..;. g al../god s. b♦„ ,sers &a..l Rooms Below Grade /a✓sr' f"�4 /•�Js`♦ O A ••A..4t v.l:+faad-.v es* 3G a C/-a-4.,l key, ►os-on N .4.-o At: f�Isee• .e.�4.,e.�..i4 *. Veao Functional Utility Ges.l .4-70..s/ 4 r.,/ F�.,./ Heating/Cooling .e1,4yL FA�..4C, Fw/AC. t9 qe Garage/Carport s"'-sµ se. 3-dam'- ny{. t 3000 ?-e�riff 4. aboo 37ra- f+ 9•/oQo Porches.Patio, /ys••• a-xaa /9f.. SP vya• sZ Pools,etc. 8,s• ea,o, 07 n er : S;s/♦♦'�as.k eaco"d..i „uses' A � t Voen ,A7••J..,(/ffa"/'1. ,B54a Hs4,1. Special Energy Efficient Items .Ns"ix. A..,.a New a dj„. Fireplace(s) p-f a-F� Other(eg kitchen c� "`'•*-. s.,..a —o••,/ �4 v A, vcwd 6.'.." E.u// A,4-,( equip.,remodeling) - h v 6.-a ,1p. .'/ r- / p, -f=Seca Net Adl.(total) 0 H-11.t _ + },S 7ppp + S ?Roc atIndicated Value $ �/t mG 11 $3R 7 oon , . S _gga�pp of Subject Comments on Sales Comparison: ,.-,/ :, e•A.„{ ,,, s'e Ay-2 f'3 p„^ e ..ked, -7 4 /(..•.s .4:4e We 3..d.4.'t-f. G...fr '''./t '_3 ear.. r.(+...4 e''or .sjn P . l.,p"i d._e. /am t n......4.r s, . s.✓,,-.sa.w.<sus 1°///es/ i/.a.Q/ a.,e• On O// 3 e.7e s /0//,..fa .w Indicatd Value by a.Sales Comparison Approach: as of January 2, 1990 3,e.,anee Value Review Assessor's Being Appealed Appraisal Recommendation Land Value /is neo ,isoaa iiS^ead Building Value aVtlaeoca aeaeeea et,oeb • Total EMV .9>3 se)n 37 Ann e 37pe,cs • Appraiser i" S...s . Appeal No: ) )T Page 2 Photo of Subject i . 1fI, v• 7 •.I it i ' Y r ''.- '''' 1.II*11, = ' ' .,,r- ;- L` -ate ,_ ^a'e'1s 4,.. ,ei, .��i'q ice. <(. Building Sketch 1'� • , ,I II,CY trr' .,L .. ^' G 4 Pr.L 'J + r ,Ly ,1 i,T., 1p\. �S .r 7' r^—....li.17e . . /y °: ) Ili °° ,'''' jr.Pr *w . % '6',. . / 31, ZS 9 N ,� . 6.1 ' /9 N;••• ' ' ,,/ ' . i'‘ -. Ye 71 . . • Ay-r„..7 var._ . • . ..79 • N . ,, • . I I Appeal No. Ii( PID # 17-116-22 12 0073 Date Received 4/11/1990 Appraiser tart Lent APPLICATION FORM 1990 EDEN PRAIRIE BOARO OF REVIEW ��"" (To be completed by owner - please print) Telephone Home: 21(-61-mc6 3 Work: ,5?)0 � 7(c::)L Name:Gu►"1 (11C... (.\/"ICAl,-tJ ., Address of Property: '(OU1C1 T.e.((e 17itl(c D(' January 2, 1990 valuation as it appears bn the notice: $ v,'5 50C) Date property was acquired: --7•4.) Purchase Price: $ (c3 yUC? Terms of Purchase: — Additions and alterations since purchase: Cost of additions and alterations: Is property listed for sale? ()D If yes, at what price $ --- (attach copy of listing agreement) Owners estimated market value as of January 2, 1990 is: $ (o5.00O What are your reasons or documentation supporting the above stated value? (Please attach supporting information): O-Cl e s bra I c_- aV h�5 c d(.J , S A Oct Dss -414, (.;kree,4, Iii rod , `i\\Ja V .ikTA ci-,01' kEur 4_1- zkld Ccm i,4.q Whs,ib+,., rlishel-) IQ-,S 1"7"P taut'S4 L614, Cei. Q` - r`rU - 2 ,cl r fray bats) {,,u F\ n K.ch 1)(A JAL 01 .Aku.k, .4rr.t,, S�-f-� T J1(-L., Eden Prairie I r,q,x,(,UU )(}u,d 0,ciu 16610 Mo.6moom 0./0//,600.WD. Signature of Owner 1 lud1sM C.u"/$66.000.CO. 1 79 Ca um.i Tn6/t116.000.WO. 1oCraYdA.cou"/s160,000.WD. .' form requests private or confidential data of applicant which 114iMaher o 44.1.00n D. 1 for purposes of review by the City Assessor and the Eden '10227u.Or./$102.00OWD. view to assist in preparing for any appeals/objections 16776 Penes*CYdo/S110,000.WD. 1 nmemw.uncird.,6i34,s00.wm sion of this data is not mandatory, however, in order to get 6Hi PYmUWMCourV6117.000.WD. ' 2nt of the propertyprior to the hearing, such data is 1064i 64.ari.r Or.T266.000.WO. 9 A/16603 Torrey Pine D0674,900.WD. (To be completea uy the Assessing Department) Prior year values: Land Building Total Property Class. 1/2/89 iE,30o •- 00 SOD KZ 1/2/B8 t5e,0O S930O 74400 Z_ 1/2/87 i51-7,G .: 57000 7 O K z Last Inspection: 9 /21/89 Appraiser: Earl Zent Building Permits/Appraiser Comments: W.A., fw4,..4 .1.4.-:cam -4-=- A, N,Ap cam . Sale History Date Source Sale Price Terms of Sale Comments moo/ /Er: y1.ir,Fr . 'jc' Nt-tti.) sa1.€_ .1/L%s c2t) $-USco LA)0 t�,,-, - 1 81 cQJ E9CCC' wU Board of Review Action: 1) Referred to Assessor for review: 2) Assessor's value adjusted to: 3) Assessor's value sustained: • e Appeal No. 116 Page 1 L Sales_Comparison Approach • PID: 17-1Uo-Z2-12•007.3 • Owner: c>+u-r`1414.. C-1IAtwICK Address: itod-Cq /-Ke yp„ve" VR. • REM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO.1 COMPARABLE N0.2 COMPARABLE NO.3 b/BS \tos"34-rr YAxae tstx. \b't3d_-ccs�Ci'Rn,e'F 1. Address o c`---Y R.arc oR, • �� 8- . rc-12. 57Q IZ-12..•b3 I'1;-12.4s3 Proximity to Subject fl II III IIII 11111111i1 Wou5eS ►...,may . Nfl-aou6m cvo •SA.,c_r.3totctsdkaaop t, Saks Price �taa4-oo ill IIII I Illlllls Sox Ill IIII Hints -'3 ,,,,,jlflIDl(IIIIfII�JI�I111111s.• mo Price/Gross Liv.Area $4h 02 0 S 5S o3 mlilllllfllllllflll9lll I II S 5.0.t� 01111111ID1 s 8.-03 0 I I I III II, I- Data Source V tvp snl C-RV , Mt_s CTiv 1 M�$ CRV VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION •pls Awol-nn. DESCRIPTION f1 .1-IS Ad,mm�n+ DESCRIPTION .t-IS Mononen Saks or Financing IIHI 11III CAD CConcessions1- 843 Date of Sale/Time 8/S8 to/89 d(FIR 12/AS N Location - .V - t rx�4t.. -�,1�w ,SikWew • d . �� oa- + x, e o -SgOU49 Osgand Appeal %/r qy� 3/ se 5 ,A2 ouakty of Construction A fi x)` � A gaAge Ig13 t4s3U 481 o Condition Avy. C-oo'D -6.000 AvG ud,L H Above Grade Total .Wm. BEN total .Bdm%, Bans Total;&Ions; Baths Total ,B Oons. Sane Q Room Count to ,t;• °S' '1 b . Q. Low i Gross Living Area 1.• ., So.Ft. I a •s Sq.Ft. 1440 So.Ft. . . a. Sq.FL 0 Basement 6 Finished 0/ o/ o 0 Rooms Below Grade tix,,,JC n,o,�` tv NE LI Functional Utility A.,y -.E'C,.tf.J.- 'F s-ccuA`. Heating/Cooling FA. v.A/C, -{"n•--A/C, A.sv P_)C.. 'F.r..wA/c, eGarage/Carport -r-v, '�,,r U. 1 -r-V• 7 C N. Porches,Patio -1]EC1e.rao,-r,o •tCV- Sr Jo, 1 • Pools,eta Apo • f'AECk _) . _ Special Energy 1 Efficient Items Areplace(s) 1"F/'P 1�-rr tr'/P t T(P . • Other(e.g.kitchen lam,t3- t a.oS r.1r ovs" tar-r i' s- - r,n/S equip.remodeling) • Net Adj.(total) III II + s;s -..... -`+ -:.e'l a 3 I--'I+ v-S to Zoo • t Subject Yam I�IIIIIIIII�S IMII t. of suhlect t31 S-C\\ `Z I I S TZSOp • r-, Comments on Sales Comparison: p, Gonges sezc St NIL A,.,0'E SAmr S . 3Lt y 'Ru'e-O4�i o+.a.y-Dtvr t:eta.CeS RtE Caa.SQe1u. 1 LTr L 0-r- s 'N-,-, v,E14 r u-Rt-t(XSo. Goon ram)2 is Ap�AGirssT To Cefhlts rZCrNI. •CQKP-.rvp 3 r malsaec,jrr- -ry m%c-c ELL l.A.(E . ,Etaar\L- Cers STO£RCCrienJ E.lurk) -Pr..) Con-PS- No. I * 2. Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach $Z5 5e,c, . ' ,W as of January 2, 1990 Value Being Appealed Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation : .x' Land Value 15ocx) I Spj ..- Building Value to() ----) ih5,)j Total EttV Z. 5e-r) ---r yle) ►Jo Ct-tAts) Appraiser: —fZ •., P PPF L. n10.1%6 Pac,E Z BLDG.SKETCH-MASTER COPY PID . .- CZ-1 Ito-22-12—• ADDRESS - '7Er-ci-�y -DR. LEGAL DESC.- DATE APR MEAS. ALTERATIONS Q-l�ii� _ IV n.r�JE • .5: -Orr is11111 SKETCH • • to_ .- /S 4 . 4-0 94I4 P,FTy -: . . . . . wn� � I \ '24- N • Appeal No. II"7 PID # 05-116-22 13 0023 Date Received 4/11/1990 • Appraiser John Sams APPLICATION FORM 1990 EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF REVIEW (To be completed by owner - please print) Telephone Home: '/3'/-//9 7 Work: 437- IgBG Name: ,P'LL;tiir'S + SceSn-n, SclieM71600 Address of Property: /be-37 A, C7-f1 riA-4 , )0cm January 2, 199D valuation as it appears on the notice: $ 4:S,_so 0 Date property was acquired: 7/s(,, Purchase Price: $ sEe Terms of Purchase: NF_u` (,,,;srx'weT�o� (CCE,rt•F Additions and alterations since purchase: Fi,Ji3NFD 4ru%e< ccca 5)e' ", ce7wPcErie.) Cost of additions and alterations: i,cec Is property listed for sale? 210 If yes, at what price $ (attach copy of listing agreement) Owners estimated market value as of January 2, 1990 is: $ /S2rrto What are your reasons or documentation supporting the above stated value? (Please attach supporting information): gnature of Owner/p Please note: This form requests private or confidential data of applicant which is being collected for purposes of review by the City Assessor and the Eden Prairie Board of Review to assist in preparing for any appeals/objections herein. The submission of this data is not mandatory, however, in order to get an accurate assessment of the property prior to the hearing, such data is helpful. (To be completed by the Assessing Department) Prior year values: Land Building Total Property Class. /89 33.h00 131o1) 1(5500 1/2/88 3?CGY? %?S-wC /57700 1/2/87 30QC0 iiy'C'C' 1 N44000 N. rn Last Inspection: 3 /3 /32 Appraiser: John Sams Building Permits/Appraiser Comments: Sale History Date Source Sale Price Terms of Sale Comments / / Board of Review Action: 1) Referred to Assessor for review: 2) Assessor's value adjusted to: 3) Assessor's value sustained: Board of Review Assesing Dept. City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN. 55344 To the Board Members: We wish to appeal to you to reconsider the 1990 appraised value of our home. We have enclosed several documents that we feel will substantiate our appeal. page• 1. Copies of original closing statement. 2. 3. Plot map of neighborhood with assessed values shown. Circled items have been sold at that price within the last two years. (ours is lot 8, block 2) 4. Pictures of homes sold in our development. 5. .! ,I 11 „ I. 6. Listings of homes sold in Eden Prairie. 7. .' ,' ,' 8. 11 .1 .. .1 II 11 Of the 84 properties sold in Eden Prairie in the past three weeks, only 13 of these exceeded our 1990 appraisal. We feel the housing values our decreasing rather than increasing. Any realtor you talk to will tell you it is a buyer's market for existing homes. We purchased one of the lowest priced lots in block 2 of the sub-division, yet our lot cost is now appraised as the third highest. Our 1990 appraisal is also higher than comparable homes in block 1, yet the lot costs in block 1 were $10,000-$15,000 higher. On the city assessor's worksheet, he stated that our house has 4 bathrooms, it does not. It also overstated the price of the fireplace at $3400. It is a free-standing fireplace with a brick front and was included in the price of the house. We did not pay extra for it. In closing we do not wish to be unfair, but we do desire to be treated fairly. Ras//p//ctfully ::b/itted,/ ail/ �. c. 6 esw Dennis E. Scheppmann Susan J. Scheppmann 16637 N. Manor Road Form Approved OMB No 2502 02651Eap 13.31•R . T A U.S.DEPARTMENT DF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT / . MINNESOTA SETTLEMENT STATEMENT y TITLE4 •. TYPE OF LOAN t' 1❑ENA 2(]FmNA 3 Q CONY UNIS 6 FILE NUMBER 7 LOAN NUMBER 8 MORTGAGE INSURANCE CASE NO. •❑VA 5❑CONY P.S C-3208 • C NOTE.inn form n IurnnNd to pyre.au•statement of.dual sIlNnenl costa Amounts Pad Ia and M in.wnitmom NNom a•/Nee/mew merMO S o.1 we•Ito ouls.M tn.clo5np they are shown bore for velamenon.l duNoos ant/ere not rnel Wed u.IN MO. O. NAME AND ADDRESS OF BORROWER E NAME AND ADDRESS OF SELLER. F. NAME AND AOORES6 OF LENDER: Der.ni6 E. Scheppmann Deut3ch Construction Co. Coldwell Banker Re6identia. SuNau J. Scheppmann Mortgage Services Inc. • • O PROPERTY LOCATION. 11. SETTLEMENT AOENT 1. SETTLEMENT DATE 1b637 North Honor Road Title Ins.Co.of Minnesota - July 14,1986 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PLACE OF SETTLEMENT. Ill West 3rd Ave., Shakopee, MN 55379 J.SUMMARY OF BORROWERS TRANSACTION K.SUMMARY OF SELLER'S TRANSACTION 100.GROSS AMOUNT DUE FROM BORROWER: E00.GROSS AMOUNT DUE TO SELLER: 1CI Contract islet price 401.Contract MIn Done 102 Prrwnst o.mter,q 102.Pmsmal property 103.Soli...11 m.ren 1o.101FO yet wne P1001 3.886.71 403. - '4. Oeutacb Co0str0Al1GO 94.000 nn cm. 105. e}}o�+{T1 Y 2�=OROn-- 105. /ERrE1Oldt rT atrdp0!r collar on...ma AO1.11nenN 101 OMB Pad 6Y riles rn ohm. • 106.Cny/lown tares In en6.[tee/town I..n to I . 107 County N... Io 2-d_1/7 57-nO 407 Courtly term to - . 108.Anenment. to 1 408.Annanent. to 109 409 • IIn 410. III. 411 112. At ISO. GROSS AMOUNT OUE 420. GROSS AMOUNT DUE • FROM BORROWER 177 747 71 TO SELLER 200.AMOUNTS PAID BY OR IN BEHALF OF BORROWER: 500.REDUCTIONS IN AMOUNT DUE TO SELLER: • 201 Stood Or Or money 501 E.cess dromro Imo outructionsl 207 Prnnrpal amount d op.Imhof ' 100.000.00 m m mt. 502.Sente . ar .to miler Pins 14001 _ -�� 203 E.,.pnq rent,l Totten rut,.to 503.E.istrnalmnlsl Jaen sagtCl o 2 204 504 Pay all of hilt mouses.lye 1 ' 205 505.Payoff of second mortgage Inn • • 70 508. • 207. 307 • 206 508. •- 209. 509. -'T.,\ Adlntmann ley awns unomd by seller AOlaftm.no/o it..unpaid oy WNr 710.GN/lo.sn tern 510.City/town Jaen 1n 211 County tarps I 511 County tram 212.M.e.mnml. to 512.Asn0nant. to 213 613. 214 514. 215 515. 216 516 217. 517. 218 51B 219 - 519 220. TOTAL PAID BY/FOR 520. TOTAL REOUCTION AMOUNT ' BORROWER 100,000.00 OUE SELLER 300.CASH AT SETTLEMENT FROM/TO BORROWER 600.CASH AT SETTLEMENT TO/FROM SE LER r 707 funsemounrdmIranbanterer wne 1201 T121 •7- ' 601 Gran amount due to viler 11.IN4201 302 Lou protons. re emonr.pare ny her lwernw.e Il 2201 `1 nflrpnn'n"!TI 602 Leo r.duclrms rm amount do.mew ante 5201 303,CASH I[J(FROM/1❑ TOIBORROWER 23.243.71 603.CASH I 0 T0110 FROM/SELLER • I bent t•rtW nnw I, ad Me NU 1 Samwm r Statement erre to Ito beat of m1 wowlalpe and Wad n•true•nd moose. moment of W NoOP. J MIA W anon..mesa on m n1 o ee fn....IMa nen.10150n thane,coney m e ec• e I name r.•r. •MOO IA IAA1R10.1 S.nlmW n..e w5 SIaI. l.frrs. !\n\ /'..cam+ x l • 60RR,OWERS D n L<LA SELLERS .Y.7. TIM 760 No OM• 1001 7.151 .4 zz `� L.SE TTLEMENT CHARGES 700.TOTAL BALESIRROKER S COMMISSEON based on price Si @ Y,. Division of Commission Hine 7001 as fellows: IAID FROM I ER S 1 ' 701.E Ia BORROWERS SELLERS 102.f FUNDS AT FUNDS AT -Y • 703 Co.mn,Nron'Nld.,Slnl.me.N m moo SETTLEMENT C 70e. S00.ITEMS PAYABLE IN CONNECTION WITH LOAN 501.Loan Awnnten Fen L%Le CqI4MMEll • 902.Loun D wount - Banker 1,000.00 SO]AooramlF.r 1_25 ' ro Caldwell Banker 1'250.OD Bd.Gmu crown 225.0R="_Coldwe.11 Banker $225 POC cos.It dr:,lney,unn cn 16.00 .Caldwell Banker 36 POC SOS.Ma hour..urut Ayerrc.000 Fn to 55.0D . S w 07_Amorren F. :1 9014EfE4wfee Taw Seretre fee 50.0) t 80913r7r0m.07 f•• 35.00 0'1.Undo rsrlt i 0a fee 150.00 } 900.ITEMS REQUIRED BY LENDER TO RE PAID IN ADVANCE 50.00 901 In,.r'e I"°'n I1.14 1O R!1 @f 27.40 Sox.Mo....Inwran,..rwnnrm It, m 7tliy 18 days 493.2D 903.Narard/moron Pr.mwm Ion 'Milo le ,. • 904 ...to • 1000.RESERVES DEPOSITED WITH LENDER toot o.,.d'nunao• 3 monm.eg 30.67 1002.Mor teas4 mwr.ru. on month 9Z.Ol :( yy,, h OnlM ar"Online. I month ({,'Lys• 1003 Coy r.e.p'fly lminr.ronm.t•f Yer month ^ '"J ] 1004 Coon.proper.M•n B month.•f Per month 1009.Apo°N minsm.nt. S. J 1006. enm.ff wr mono . onm.lf -..•C•7 low. 1° no r.'..'' -l t 1008. menlM@f Mr month -`fl 7.. 1100.TITLE CHARGES - _4 -�' 1 tot.Sot p'm.more'ovn°fey , • nos A rKt orht. e:n ° Tirle_Tns. Co..of Minnesc I 7nn.nn 1103.TiM,nemma"on r 'ta TiL1E-177e. CO. of Minnesota SO.OD 1101 Title inwgntr blml.. to -- ' 1109 Down,.....on ,o 1106.Notary Im le 1107 At'orn.Y',h. , (include Move hems numbers; !1� 1108.T.pe mwram. 5 a7�A-i • 1OTiG1E1t- . . M_I 1•eta 715.10 . (includes above itrm,numbers; -- y,• y1. weraq S 100.001 r1 ' • I 4... 1110.Ownei whe .Cot S 1(q.,. 1 Onto. InrItinn r•pnrt rn Title Inn. 41 tt • 1117 Ass.ncm.nr Srarrh to Title let Ca. Rf Minnesota 1113 20.00 • 1200.GOVERNMENT RECORDING AND TRANSFER CHARGES a.°mmn9 INA owns 23.00 :Mort..s :Roles..f 36.50 `� 1201.1707.CpY/crwnh In hHmm Deed f t r MorrseP S -- i 170].Sut'..Inw.t°A. OeME 1204. :Mo.toap.f 140.00 150.00 • 1x05. 1300.ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT CHARGES ']O,.Suri to 1307.Pool•nronlien 1e 1303. 1304. 1309 1000.TOTAL SETTLEMENT CHARGES I on lines 103,Section J and 502,Section K) 1.486.71 • ' MUD-,16-7e • The HUD.I Settlement Statement which I hey. r t prepared ill true endaceu rats attouM of this transaction.lhare soused or will cause the funds to be disbursed in accordance with this sleemen4 • . fwMnwil Atom Owe • WARNING:It it•crime le knowingly rnake/else slatemonll tonne United States on timer any ethereill'iier form.Penalties upon Conviction 1 Can include a line end Imprisonment. For details see:Title Ie U.S.Code section 1001 and Section 1010. _ 10021 r�.� e.•� . .. - I We31 boa 0/,he•I6MM0.f1 .i,.f`T •�TI W n en.al See 3,7x4.R 2z7 •'.r-,� t ;U;. Ili C---" _ i ,va.4e 414.07 o No.M 656./0 EXCEPTION -- 10 EXCEPTION - 2z4.00 ---- 380-0 Ada co 3a 00 Oa.Co RB_:wL 2A2 I -o p' ice__ 1 41 - -i -- (� - i It as 'II II N IAA =�I� �",$ O. kl....I j r I '� of It., \.0 .p 1 1 e,. '�i°O %, .. w y O ( T �, IN V IO O '^I I til ' O 1 IW o I /oct, s\*. VA a Zp3.-2�_�J U m; I, of OO. ! 1 _u1 — t.1 !O N ul i0 W n�I al Nt 60 /1 g�✓ N11�05'17"w O u / ` gi . !8 d Ig , .,--9r \ $2; 1 , )., w.(ni• Z WI 0 t'!1* I ti��g v\\, of �10.,'00 41s7 0 ro t74.79���- _81.94 I --glil y, / -,/\ y:�0--:- 1X Via:r�'•37"E i • ro3'2a•.r5"�Ii •;v3'2o ae'f n3r2a'a5'e _�S b[L i= ^IY W jm H v9i \ DIY/; W$`1°\ NI nI 81 wo a H vcni v 1 I \ Jtg r \ 7. \� c7 W \ c I _J--'I ° • O n4.ss n ca u �� ul � NF'z � or , ,1/+ � ts o C • Di cl Wo OI lu o \ ; I t,l °° o0 8a� ,p m v, 4 O...L° /H u /A. 1p76d �' N. l� '\ °9� ./�.1-- %$ B•'3'3�\ fin CO ro �_ia J L___ I L328i r dI •GOttl O`•d �,3/ �V,�+� 2 Br is LJ 0'•'1 • o\ +�tT o 1 O H Z,O.G3 a2 5 Jo., ( O 0 1 C m �, ti'GOae4'E �9l, If ? .4Gt,. " O I1 N R —I -�—'1- �I0p0 \_, P2�a \ \W CT 9 Z 20740 u I �!V Da qV. �\ \W y Z 1 +t01.7� -_JY Id L 1.0' w,\\\► /}1 to N .0 c. 1 ro o f O l I O\\\\N GIi 10 1..1 < 7ff l WD 41 1 • m C" ii I M .0 O • Iti t0 Y' ti v`; ` 17, ! i y ul 1W y,l IN mil 1_ « 1P.. 'I L I x Z n i� 01 la al `m V v' a1 N I Ig• `• � ov, a .a1 ion' 0 01 1o< 1 wial la OO... OF-°�7 C0 Li #66038 #8R-4 #BA-1/1/0 STY-4LV/ ASUM L-S149,900 10/31/89 6 DAYS PTS-0 50.6345 OLP-3149,900 S4143,600 U 1.1 .:.$^ v x "..•'..1 a k�,^` •, i, • " � �'�"E' 6453 168TH AVE W TAX S2325 /89/F MAP 40 -IA MUN EDEN PRAIRIE ZIP 56347 TWA SSAME LAKE AR 592 SU8 1 COU HENN ASBS 0 ASP U NEAR DUCK LOT 84X205 ACR.4 HS FOR 1990 /F YBL 1986 DIR DUCK LAKE TRAIL TO 168TH AVE WEST SPACIOUS 4-LEVEL CUSTOM HOME ON LARGE LOT...EXCELLENT LOC IN AREA OF HIGHER PRICED HOMES. IMMACULATE CONDIT'DN PLUS TONS OF EXTRAS. QUICK PDSSESSION... ASSUME VA 8.6 % NO OUALIFYINGIII LGL LOT 3 BLOCK 2 PURGATORY RIDGE PID 0511622130018 WAT CONN INCL REF,RNG,OWS,DSP,F/H L APROX L APROX SEW CONN MPH.D/P LR 2 15X15 18 2 14X10 FPL Y AIR C TERMS FHA,VA.CON,ASM,C/D,• DR 1 11X10 28 2 12X12 HEA FA /GAS MTG S108000 INT 8.5 % ID 1 INCL 38 2 11X10 EXT HBMAS EXF VA OD 86 ASM Y KT 1 14X11 48 3 21X14 8SM W.p,L PIN SB50 2MC N 2MA N FR 4 29X16 WK4 15X10 GAR 2.D.Y C/D POSSIBLE FSZ 1335 WILL BE SOLD BBT RI MBT Y FSF 2300 SDN 272 SDP 937.1650 #633584 AGN SUE BLACKSTONE 881.8503 BB Y SA 3.15 LTY ER Y E S.INC.,REALTORS 6349 OFPH 888-7001 APT 8BB-3714 1 X03159 AIR.A RSA 1I I(0 S-SPLI CONY L•1119.900 'i' 09177 61 IS/DAYS L6.5975 56-5797 LA-90000 INTO • ITS-00 S-S117.500,4 TYPE•FREL CAR OLP-5124.000 �P9 t . I14', •IY.'.V4.M r4 1.•d��4.Y•� ... MI w IERTH AVE.. IAI S1E10 'SIT MAP KO .11 ', VUN LOIN PIAIRR 1,S571E 14K W AS SO LAI( DST S91 SUR 3 COUNTY NE NN AR 0 PING N ,•51011169 AC 0 NS TOR 1989 -F 598171971 ]•CO RD 110 DUCK(III TRAIL NORTH ON 1111H wltl BUR 1 0N(0wN19 NOME ON GORGEOUS LOT SURROUNDED IT UPPER BRACK(7 HOMES IN VERY FRIENDLY NEI6H90101000 HOME WEDS IISI LI WILL FOR ENTERTAINING.TWO WALKOUT AREAS.t IRON TM FM NM AND 1 FROM THE IWISMD LAUNDRY RM-SEE SUPTI MINT 144I IN 1 Ill 1_MAJESTIC DAIS ADDITION •?OS 116 33 13.0084 CWCW-CO ;NCIRNGAWS-OS►.FAN ATHO. 1 A1104 CS CS-CO MPMWSH.ORY.OEC .TM,7111 IR 1 70117 FRY AM TTPVSSNA.CON.Cf9CIN •:IY 11117 7R M 11117 We SA CAS HMSO WT\9 • 38 I HATO FIT W000.S• Tr.(-CUT 009 ASIAN 4, I'I TA 17117 II M TORTS RSMT HAIY P41SO 7M CON 15MN ..it 71111 GAR 1• CO OWNER MIGHT CONSIDER II:, 1719 TS 1100 CAR17174 0'O w'17S.000 ON IA"947 V5199AN TI 3346 SD 772 IN 937-TES3 IS34194 A�SU1111GI N9-71EI S315 1 ER IIINA REIN tY INC SR7S Mom 9AA 7107 AP?944,7107 �( • As! � r '1,' ht:•o.,u•. ,. ruT y..: '•YO 57619A NUKE 1 ADO ESOT W 111TH AVE ••A HAI IONUS IS THE GARAGE H S AIL FINISHED WITH TILE ROOM.PANELLED WALLS. I D IS OF SUR T W'S ION STORAGE 1 TOOLS IHANOY MANS '•1 WI P10511 MAS SCREENS THAT ATTACH TO THE GARAGE 141R1 THAT MAKES FOR A 33E71•GET AWAY FOR TM NOT I AN/A NIGHTS THIS II USED IV PRESENT OWNERS AS A A'•,1.All SWAMI II AND AS A GARAGE All WINTER.WHAT A - 'AwIRIUNITY TOO TM NEW OWNER ••^wu 1 u015INOR00M W(OWL N IEVEl AS MASTER THINE IS 1N.ASY WAY 70 MAKI A 0001 THAT IIADS TO TM 111 SATH. ••4 WM11 iM IN117TO 155Y THI IATH110014. •• 1.CI l SNAPI O F AMIL Y NM W'OUCH N Pt uMIING W WALL I•o1TM100Y INN 12Y wit Thursday/March 22/1990/Star Triblm• Hennepin County real estate Information for tite weekly aneng of ea 724!den Prairie Rd./525.000.WD. 5717 Duncan Av./5144.000.WD. estate that has Won sold is Wan from 7247 Eden Prakls Rd./550.000.CD. 6564 Frame Ar.6.15150.751.WD. certificates of virtue.t the Hennepin County 7247 earn wow.Rd./521.000.WD. 411 Nanieon Ar.S./5100.000.WO. Corvmrmd Cents.CO denotes contact for 6957 Edg.brook PI✓560.000.CD. 5061 Interlaken Stotf/5295.000.WO. deed;LWO denotes limited warranty deed; 14439 Fairway Dr./561.587.WO. 14920 Ironwood Court/5160.500.WO. OCD denotes quit clam deed;PO denims 9653 Hampshire lane/555.000.WD. 4501 Oxford Av✓5106.700.PRO. probate deed:SO denotes executor deed; 79311sland Rd./5137.500.WO. 450S Sumysas Rd./1415.000.WD. PRD denotes pommel representative deed; 10100 Jumper Lam/$40.000.WD. 5710 Vernon Av.$./573.500.WD. WD denotes warmly deed;5WO denotes 10101 Juniper Lane/551.000.WD. special warranty deed. 10106 JurOam juniper La e//s°es00.WO.O Hopkins 16444 S.Manor Rd✓5146.500.WD. 19143 Maple Leal Dr./5105.000.WD. 6457th Ar.9/593.500.WD. Corcoran 104111 Misty Manning lane/5359.702.WO. 10151151 Av.a.,417/539.900.WO. 9161 Nall Lake Rd./575.500.WD. 109 Ridgewood Dr✓516.900.WD. 19200 trackman'Rd./5195.000.WD. 6921 Rosemary Rd./5125.000.WO. 119 Smotene Rd./626.500.CD. 19949 Lakin Rd./563.000.WO. 6132 Saratoga.Lane/5123.000.wD. 942 Westbrook.Way 415/135,000.WO. MO Lane/5139.600.WD. 721144 Stewart W.41115.900.CD. Deephaven D. 115 Swim* lcot8 00.199 tsmy0ro R6a500.WO. Long Lake 11905 Azure Rd./5100.000.WO. 90°5 Timber Litt.rd5102.000.WD. 574 N.amen Rd.N//5118.000.Co. 5160 Hooper take Rd./145,000.CD. 7571 T1mWout1/14:000.WO.w0. 262 Chaffee 6L/576,000.CD. 759f Villa CafrVf46.000.WD. 111764 Weston lay Rd./5220.000.WD. Eden Prairie Edina Medina 9461 Abbott Cowl/5345,150.WO. 450RWgsrlew Click/5150.000.WO. 9411 Abbot Cowt/$84,000.WO. 4213 W.42nd SL/6124,000.CD. 10229 Anders Ridge/$65.000.WD. 5732 Apache Rd./5530.000.WD. 1931 Autumn Terrea/S1t8.000.WD. 4370 Brookside Court 41321/5149.900.WD. Minnetonka 113076kastenr Lane/5580.000.WD. 5625 S.Creek Valley Rd./1170.000.WO. 15167 Boulder Paints Rd.:564.800.WO. 6005 Dewey Nan Rd./5250,000.WD. 3523 Arbor Lan./5127.500.WD. 11972 Chaekohe lane/990.000.WO. 9766 Dorset Lan./563S76.wD. 10311 A Ceder Lake Rd./$35,601.WD. 1606 Darrel Rd./5129200.yin). I I Star Tribune/Thursday/March 29/1990 a)w5 Real estate (Reunions ( information ler the weekly Hating cf Henn- 14924 Glen Oak St./3190 500.WO. Robbinsdale Cooper/ pm County real estate that bee been acid a 4035 Highland Rd./5127.000 WD. High schools Class of 1970,summer 1990,(800) taken from certificates of value at the Hen. 5541 Lakeland Rd./SI 11300 WO. 0010. neon County Government Center.The 3071 Lakeshore Blvd./596.000.CO. Alexander Ramsey/ St.Louis Perk/ amount published Is the amount hated on 4604 Lynwood Terrace/5117,500.WO Class o1 1970.July 14.938-1571. the certificate es the purchase pnce,but 17113 Minnetonka Blvd./5400.000.WD. Class of Central/ Augtr24.26,920.40: Anoka/ nocause mengege assumptions or sales on 14101 Mount Terrace/3134,500.WO. Paul Central/ contract for deed often mannve onlya down 5575 Nantucket Rd./S99.e00 WO. Class o1 1964.Aug 18.(BOOi 397-0010; Class Of 21, 23 e4 15,11 90,.Au- Daymanl the amounts given hero may not 11112 S.On Knoll Terrace/5100.000.co. 1970,fail 1990.476.2230. 1950,July 21,423.4461;1955,Auc reflect the total pnce of the sale.CD de. 3667 Oakton Ridge/5281.938 WO. Buffalo/ 888-5850. notes contract for deed;LWD denotes limit- 2290 Sherwood Coun/5146.000.WO. Class 011945,July 21,498-8538. St.Paul Johnson/ ad warranty deed;OCO denotes quit claim 15453 Sussex Dr.;591750 WD. Chaska/ Class of 1970,1990,731-3250. deed;PD denotes probate deed;ED denotes 15554 susecx Dr./583.995.WO. Class of 1980.Aug.18.920-2601. executor deed;PRO denotes personal repro. 15688 While Pine Dr.'S220.000.WD. St.Paul Mechanic Arts/ Farmington/ *emotive deed;WO denotes warranty deed; 4220 Wilson SL/$99.500.WO. Class of 1940.Sept.14-15,227.58. SWO denotes special warranty deed. 4136 Windndge Circle$123.000.CD. Class of 1965.Aug.4.460-6100. 1955.summer 1990,488-0865. 5187 wdodgate Coun/3169.000.WO. Fridley/ St.Paul Wilson/ Class of 1980,Aug.11,(800)397-0010. Class of 1943,August.484.5725. a Hopkins/ St.Thomas Academy/ Charthassen M innetrista Class 01 1950.July 21,935-7248;1970, Classes of 1940,1945.1950,1955, Aug.18.19,935-2121. 1960,1965,1970,1975,1980 and- 19011 E.Lake Or.17.750.000.WO 1598 N.County Rd.118.5130.000.WO. Howard Lake-Waverly 76141 um Av.N,/573,909.WD. All classes.June 23.543.2149. all May 4.5,454A090. 6325115vt Av.N.'S83.500.WO. Stillwater/ 205 Mork Circle/324,000.WO. Mound Minneapolis Central/ Class of 1970,July 21,430-1486. 206 Monk Circle/324.000.WD. Class of 1940.Sept.21-23,S34.4548: White Bear Lake/ 5219 Oxbow Pace.:5160.000.WO. 5579 Auditors Rd./5120.000 CD. 1960,June 29,544.6660;1970,June Class of 1945,June 15.17,429-70f 5319 Oxbow Place/3179.909.WO. 3024 Highland Blvd./5206.009.WD. 23,625-4520. 5320 oxbow Plaoe/3166.800.WO. 3031 Highland Blvd./572.500.CD. Mi lie Edison/ Other/9404Park91de Circle/5110.000.WO. 3017 Longfellow Lane/365.090.WO. Class of Jan 1938,April 28.789-9405; Other/ 2200 Tyrone Lane458,509.WD. Jan.and June classes of 1940,June 8. Deephaven 2724 Tyrone Lane/568.100.WD. 781.8846;1950,June 9.435-6147. Minneapolis International Minneapolis Patrick Henry/ Training in Communicatior 19920 CoMgewood Av.'31 30.000 WO. Orono Class of 1970.June 30,535.5054. All forrmer members,April 7,533.8 16452 Hesthcote Dr.4S175.000.w0. Minneapolis Roosevelt/ Oak Terrace Nursing Home 3659 Therese SV476.501.WO. 1858odanvood Dr.'717,000.WO. Class of Jan.and June 1930.May 5, Glen Lake TB Sanatorium/ 3271 Casco Circle 469.000 WD. 872.8574 or 835-5619;Jan.1941,Sept. All former employees and patients, 4680 Crestwood Trail'3107.000.wO. 29.31,721-4327;1970.Aug.11,443- 19,934.4100,ext.204. Eden Prairie 2565 Dunwoody Av.r5575.000 WD 2855:1975.Aug.18,832-5140;1985. University of Minnesota 4470 North Shore Dr.'585.009.WD. July 28,459.8222. College of Agriculture/ 11304 Blueatem Lane/$330.000.WD. 1447 Park Dr./5178.500.WD. Minneapolis South/ Classes of 1940 and 1965,May 16587 Chennautt Wsy'S154.850.WD. 20. 8816 Cottonwood Lane4180.390.WD. Class 011930.June 30.929-3896;1936, 7473. 9798 Crestwood Tenace4108.250.WD. Plymouth Sept.26,721-7978:January class of University of Minnesota - 8086 Curtis Lane'St03.500.WO. 1940.Sept.14.854-6892;1950,July 28, Institute of Technology/ 9519 Hartford/574.351.WD. 172002nd Av.N,/5112.900.WD. 729-5678. Class of 1940,July26-28.624.103C 19002 Joseph Curve/5108.500 WD. 18sosseh Av.N./sm000 w0. Minneapolis Washburn/ School,militaand professional 19164 Joseph Curve/5t 12.500.WD. 1712511th Av.N./575.550 WD, Januaryand June classes of 1940.June 10386 Juniper Lane/579.300.CD. 16830 24th Av.N./ group reunions that will inndhi in it S46.Oa0.WD. 22-24,929-9404,1950.June 22-24,835- 18943 Knells Lan:$169.500 WD. 10615 30th Av.N./550.000 WD. 1760. Twin Citiesctwillhrough u hstetl this 00l 4915 Laxaland Av.N.z 584,900.WO. 18435 N.30th P1.'157.000.WO. from be submitted throed i October.writingItem 9906 Linden Dr.'Sl12.000 WD 1054043rd Av.N./556,500 WD Mound/ must be in writing 10 de 7.25 Mncneh Ro.42.121.800.CD. 1163545th Av.N./5169,000 W D. Class 01 1980,Aug.3.5.588-0105. before publication.Neese mail or 8426 Morgan Lane/563.009 WO. 15505 47th Av.N.,199.900 WO Richfield/ liver 7148 MuiAsld Lane/5112.100.WD. 1560549th Av.N,/5105,100.WD. Class of 1965,July 28.861.4934. Community Reunions 16780 North Manor Rd./5241.000.WD. 11820 52nd Av.N./5106000 WO. Robbinsdale/ Star Tribune 9535 Olympia Dr,459.900 WO. 10799 53rd Av.N,4158.000 WD Class of 1945.Aug. , 9535 Olympia Dr.'3330.000 WD. 11025 53rd Av.N./580.000.WD 9 2 938-7812:1970, Minneapolis.42n nd Minn.S. 7375 Ontario Blvd.4165.000 WD. Aug.18.424-3610. Mi 55488 520D N.Cheshire Lane 11.000.000.9 WD. 5283 Sequoia Circle/S15i.000.WD. 0CononoLane/521'>90U w0. Robbinsdale Armstrong/ 10814 Snemran Or./5100.500 WO. 3000 County Rd.101:5125.000.OCD. Class of 1980,Aug.11.553-7842. 12000 Sunnybrcok Rd./530.296.WD. 15900 County Rd.9'$575,317.WD. 16477 Tristram Way/343.000.WD 4405N.Harbor Lane 5207.000 WD. 14325 Wealndge Dr.'3112.000 WD 655 Holly Lane/5228.000 WD. •9559 Woodndge Crrcie4120.500 WO. 1885ltheca Lane115.000.WD. DENTURE RELINE$95 '�; '- '' ' 6040 N.Jonquil Lane'$120.000.WD. 3510 N.Kilmer Lane 421C 000.CD. WHILE YOU WAIT -- "CELEBRATE WINTER" Edina 4710 Kmpsvrow Lane/3156 189 WO Dentures while you sleep. • LIVE ON TONKA 35 Nathan Lane,0120'S43.000 WD $400/MO&UP 472-4939 4075 W.51st SL,•tt0'S81,900 ED. 35 Nathan Lane.,#116455.183.WO. A location near you. 311 Arthur St./5218.765 WD. 1415 N.Oakwew Lans'3110.900 WD. 4619 Browndale 4v.4325.000.WD. 4160 N.Orchid Lane'5137.000.WD. 929-0378 ='s„ . 4522 Bruce Av./$355.000.WO. 4813 Orchid Lane,5100.243.WO. 7530 Cahill Rd.,a322C'$dS,000 WD. 4620 N.Orleans Lane 1129.800.WD. 6405 Colony Way,01 A,373.000.WD 3850 Plymouth Blvd.,#213/945.300.WD Portland A, S./570.000 466 Farce.v.S W09' 5625 Oa,nweod L ne'5138.5 WI). EDINA SHOE REPAIR 4640 France Av.S.'S150.000.WD. 5625 Otanwood Lane'31313.600.WD. 6566 France Av.S..0609�S125,OD0 WD 56250mnwsotl Lane'St38.500.WD. 312 Hanson Av.'564.500.WO. 4850 N.Ranchn,ew Lane4106.5D0 WD. 418 Hanson Av.5..53.800.OCD. 2335 Rosewood Lane 4.4146.000 WD. 4936 France Avenue S.•Peters s Edina Mall 7250 Lewis Ridge Pkwy.,#209/3139,500. 4310 Rosewood Lane/566.409.WD. r w0. 4310 Rosewood Lan/167.80o.WD. 6085 Lincoln Dr.,*115486.500 WD. 4980 Rosewood Lane 4234.500.WD. •Quality Shoe Repair C, 0e 6105 Lincoln Dr.,#328/591,500.WD. 4995 Roeewood Lane4199.500.WD. •Complete line of shoe&leather 7 4362 Sunnyeide Rd./5100.000 WD 5790 Rosewood Lane/649.900.WD 7115 Washington Av.S./51,725.000.CD. 18458 Tenaceview Lane/579.900.WI). Care products white 7220 York Av.S.,#109/574.000.WD. 4300 N.Trenton Lane,#215/550,250.WO. •Keys duplicated you 4900 T Lan e,,#320'$39.152.WD. 1310 Urbandale Lans'$137,000.WD. •Scissor&knife sharpening waits • Excelsior 3640vmewocd Lane 4217.000 WO. •Established 1946. e` 2400 N.Wadgesenum an Lan09.00000.WD. �/s Aw���� epa� ., 721 George S1.457 900 vr0 2400 N.xemum une'54.100.000 WO. 22 v Star Tribune/Thursday/April 5/1990 wS 7Y Real estate 4101 Thomas Av./5105.000.WD. 5241 Weetmill Rd/5110,000.WO. information for the weekly gating of Henne- Minnetrista • pin County real estate that has bean sold is Edina taken from certificates of value at the Hen- 7220 Hwy.7/5138.500.WD. • nepm County Oovemment Center.The 6816 Bernard Pl./5136000.WO. mount published is the amount listed on 5532 Brookvlsw Av✓590.300.CD. the certificate as We purchase price.but 7510 Cahill Rd./571,500_WD. Mound beeerrr mar1909e nsumpdons or lams** 5909 Concord Av./595,000.WO. contract for deed often involve only a down 3501 Fuller SLK93.500.WO. payment.the amounts given here may not 6105 Halifsa Av.S✓5122.000.ED. 5014 Bayport Rd✓562.000.WO. reflect the total price of the sale.CD de. 7129 Heatherton Trail/5122.000.CO. 6000 Beac wood/5120.000.CD. notes contract for deed:LWD denotes gmit- 7112 Lanham Lane/5300.000.WO. 2055Grandview S./550.000.WD. rid warranty deed:OCD denotes quit eisim 52249ichwood pr./155,000.WD. 3030 islandvlew Dr./5132,900.WO. deed;PO denotes probated'sd;ED dames 5605 Shannon Dr./5243.000.WO. 4240 Nor*Slav Dr✓56&500.WO. aaecumr deed:PRO denotes personal repo- 5917 View lane/5192.500.WO. 5410 Three Poinb Bled/540.900.WD. santeave deed:WO denotes warranty deed: 6612 Warren Av./5124,900.WO. SWD denotes special warranty deed. 5304 Windsor/5115.000.ED. 5633 Wooddale Av.5./5279.000.WD. Orono 20 Woodland Rd./5450,000.WD. • 21606M Av.N./5273.000.CO. Corcoran 3061 Farvlew Lane/51.050,000.CO. Excelsior 3525 ivy Pl.Ki40.aao.WD. • 6920 County Rd 19/55,500.WD. 150 let SL/S91.000.CD. Plymouth Deephaven Greenfield us1o26M Ar.Nr313a9oo.w0. 20560 Carson Rd.K111,500 WO. 1562526M Av.N,►A/574.996.WO. 7345 May SL;390,500.WD. 1563028Bt Av.N.,410/593.000.WD. 1582131 t Av.Nd383, 0.WO. Eden Prairie 14725 31st Av.N./589.00000.WO. Hopkins 13945 36M Av.N✓576.000.CD. 6850 Alpine Trail/5100.000.CD. 12320 43rd Av.14./545.000.WO. • 18521 Avon Court/5100.000.CD. 3086m An,N./359.900.WD. 1451544th An.N./5157,500.WD. 18521 Avon Court/5100,000.WO. 222 71h Av.N./5E3,900.WO. 1480545M Av.N./$135.000.WO. 7229 Bran Lane/577.250.WO. 3018th Av.N✓580,000.WD. 1100 A 152A00.WD. 9665 Buckingham Dr./5135.000.WO. 12600 5 S8th th Any.N.N./549.900.WD. 6250 Chaeewood Dr./5135.000.WO. 2380 Andter lmne/5204.500.WD- 14244 Chestnut Dr✓SBB,500.WD. Medina 2985 650 Juneau Lanee/554�0. OD. 15800 M Eden Dr./5107.000.WD. 7473 Eileen SL/$160.700.W D. 3120 Cedar Av./St25.000.WO. 2985 Lawndab Unm/520,000.W D. 17867 Evenly Way/5139.359.WD. 2985 LarntMle LaeeK340.996.WD. 6472 Fallbrook Rd,5199.950.WD. 2725 Meg110aa/575.000.WO. Hartford Circle,$79.900.WD. 39800roMd Lin/587,200.WD. 9529 He 16381 Hilltop Rd./595,000,WD. Minnetonka 2530 N.OuNnaladLrteKt3s.oa0.WD. 19207 Lotus View Dr.:5117.000.W O. 3200 N.Queensland Lana/5123.500.WO. 18844 Maple Leaf Dr./5125.000.WD, 4201 Chnsty Lane/5146.500.WO. 4414 WbaedaleCawt/596,000.CD. 9715 Mill Creek Dr./596,000.w0. 5831 Covington Terrace/575.000.WD. 2430Yuma LaeeK255,000.WD. 11352 Mount Curve Rd./5345.000.WD. 18305 Creeks Bend Dr./569,660.WD. 450 Zinnia Lane/336.000.WO. 8575 Pine Bluff Court/5115.000.WO. 1441 Durham Rd./5125.00Q WD. 8717 Purgatory Mt/5174,000.WD. 16804 Edgewood Av./5106.000.WO. 10446 Shemin Dr✓594.000.WO. 10441 Greenbrier Rd..#3M/543.502.WO. Shorewood 9380 Spring Rd./51 63.000.WD. 12605 W.Hgleway Rd./5260.000.WD. 7005 Springhill Clrcle/393.000.WD. 352E Denton Dr./5140.000.CD. 26325 Oak Leal TreB/$190,528.WO. 18369 Tristram Way/555,000.WO. 3016 Surry Lane/5105.000.WO. 6140 Old Chaska Rd/577.000.WD. 7362 Walnut Court/5140.000.WD. 15417 Suseea Dr./598.374.WO. • 8695 Westwlnd Circle/5115,000.WD. 17002 The Strand/590.000.WO. 6305 Whispering Oaks Dr./589,900.CD. • II 1 1990 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: I I '7 Page 1 Sales Comparison Approach • PIO: 05—I1G—.ca /3 ooa3 Owner: OemAis SHepcmann. • Address: lto(,3'7 ntvroni Rd. Al ITEM SUBJECT - COMPARABLE NO.1 COMPARABLE NO.2 COMPARABLE NO.3 3.ij-Qs 5./3.4 /O -t2.- 5 -2-04-3.1 Address ',:.J^ M...,G al GV53 / 4"` Ass.L) S 4 ka..._ 7a1b Proximity to Subpcl II Ill ,�u�,Q.....t 0 n,1. Z. )' Sales Price s tllllllllllllllll�s /q3 von illlll�DDIllllllllllll�s // ax MllIIfIllllllllll➢If s ISS000 Price/Gross Lb.Area S anS g/.3/ gill IIllillll3i; $ 94.19 MHO Milli II I III $ 8'7;5-i ania galI11G Data Source c7,v c..v ,U v VALUE ADJUSTMENTS OESCRIPTION OESCRIPTION •I-Is ad5nmem OESCRIPTION •I-IS Mustmem DESCRIPTION •t-IS**owe Cabsces ors ions Financing II)II)I IIIIIIIIII II I) I Ain ' — QJan. d,— N a_ Con Dale of Sale/Time /o/89 I — rf A9 — 346 e-3000 Location a .D..t.n...n) ; r5000 S. .-oa. ) —S000 Good — Stelview Av. 88Rv I — Ng. /Ai✓ l *7wo ay — Design and Appeal />001 A I - Gxod _ CPood Ouality of Construction Ab il, /c,la C.v./ Avl.06/saws+ ' -t ooQ Acday./sP.41 - de it;Pee toe 14.1 +3ooa Age /9Bv /9$4 - /984 t-/0O /9'79 : 1--7000 Condition „od - A✓e.aait. +:oo0 Good I - Above Grade Toni .Berms, Baits WI;Berms I Baits Tout ;Baits: Bars Twat ;Sdmu; Barns Room Count '1 :3 a. 1' r-1 :l°4 I S :3 :l 3/rl 7 13 ;Oh; Gross Living Area 30,3',I Sq.Ft. /Zvv Sq.Ft.t +9000 /g eR Sq.Ft. +5000 /7-70 Sq Ft.1 +9,006 Alma, mrs -;o,„to /.,AF I-, w � 8Ya 5 r./� r jC : 1'I O t /370!„;/ / ,b4., -zfoo iN,s.s.k do c... —, _ Rooms Below Grade re p+,9f_v o.Ao. F& it I rl,000 cc,a ar w-ewu — I ER ft 4-4400 Functional Utility Heating/Cooling FAICA FA)c.O - FAIcn — CAkA - Garage/Carport -2Can,(N air,to - 3the dtr -tm000 0Cta Art -goo e Porches,Patio, ,t.se 354 S. Aa,t.iao 5 F d.ap.3'7L S. Pools,etc. - - , — cud( 400 S,r Special Energy Efficient Hems Fireplace(s) I I I - I I Other(e.g kitchen equip..remodeling) _, Net Ad!.(total) j W 1✓+ ,eS a 9000 ,2'* -d D • T+ -�S 71voo0` Indicated Value 1 ., f ; of Subject I I i __-1-S /7a)Go0 ,s /75.295 `S /'7/OOpi Comments on Sales Comparison: Ceri,,,pn.uaJ,Qa, liv a.,..4L.e 00,...,4.vna:a,yit t,e0,_60 4 1,21. a - OW_,.•_4aJILOal. eA4tt.ARt a a +� -.- ?I A11 t .c.�ccenreAsL 1 A -Qp- to Sa c-n-PQna f A.Ad.to.a. ..e...E. Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach: rn000 as of January 2, 1990 '- Value Review -- Assessor's * Being Appealed Appraisal _ Recommendation >;la ' Land Value 331006 3 9000 N6 -. Building Value 151906 /330 o C / -` ,., Total EMV 1 lfib5130 /'7A D DU Appraiser 3313,-.013 C 6* v Appeal No: 1I7 Page 2 Photo of Subject • Building Sketch fF is Oe.k i- a 9` .- 7 „ .. . . - i t4 \ a�+ I �45Aa . . - f!a sa / / t.W.. \ 7! I AI a Is . Appeal No. 1a 33 PID #. 12-116-22 41 0007 Date Received 4/11/1990 Appraiser Steve SineTl APPLICATION FORM 1990 EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF REVIEW (To be completed by owner - please print) Telephone Home: Work: 1800843-0139 Name: KYLE FELDMAN, AGENT Address of Property: 9600-9700 76th STREET WEST. January 2, 1990 valuation as it appears on the notice: $ 8,122,000 Date property was acquired: UNKNOWN Purchase Price: $ UNKNOWN Terms of Purchase: UNKNOWN Additions and alterations since purchase: UNKNOWN Cost of additions and alterations: N/A Is property listed for sale? NO If yes, at what price $ (attach copy of listing agreement Owners estimated market value as of January 2, 1990 is: $ 6,011,210 What are your reasons or documentation supporting the above stated value? (Please attach supporting information): SEE ATTACHMENTS OF OPERATING STATEMENTS. DECENBER 31, 1987 MARKET VALUE APPRAISAL PREPARED BY COLDWELL BANKER. COPY AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. SignyEur�of"Ow4iner � �:� Please note: This form requests private or confidential data of applicant which is being collected for purposes of review by the City Assessor and the Eden Prairie Board of Review to assist in preparing for any appeals/objections herein. The submission of this data is not mandatory, however, in order to get an accurate assessment of the property prior to the hearing, such data is helpful. (To be completed by the Assessing Department) Prior year values: Land Building Total Propeity Class. 1/2/89 ,, ) coC -7co3o00 is�c C 1/2/88 7O NC C` K,aacco 1/2/87 it I 'rood ' '7ooL 7736DC1� Last Inspection: /_{� Appraiser: S~ £µsCI .Building Permits/Appraiser Comments: 7oiA is-sc6 4or S$,7c oco Sale History Date Source Sale Price Terms of Sale Comments —T / / / $ ******************************************************************************* Board of Review Action: 1) Referred to Assessor for review: 2) Assessor's value adjusted to: 3) Assessor's value sustained: STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS PROPERTY NAME: TECHNOLOGY PARK I 1, II MAP REFERENCE #: 12-116-22-41-0007 COUNTY AND STATE: HE:NNIPEN COUNTY, MINNESOTA INCOME 1989 1988 Gross Potential: 877,014 86.8% 873,030 87.9% Vacancy Loss: 277,576 31.77 223,571 25.67 Adjusted Gross: 599,436 59.3% 649,459 65.4% Other Income: 410,632 40.7% 343,506 34.6% i Effective Income: 1,010,070 100.0% 992,965 100.0% j EXPENSES • -------- Administration: 3,105 0.3% 1,356 0.1% Management: 23.492 2.37 28.856 2.9% Security: 2,35 0.2% ;,402 0.17. Legal & Accounting: 11,068 1.1% 8,802 0.9% Utilities: 27,398 2.3% 14,136 1.4% Water & Sewer: 8.144 0.8% 12,711 1.3% Insurance: 14,503 1.4% 11,888 1.2% Maint & Repairs: 42,536 4.2% 32,958 3.3% Refuse Removal: 72 0.0% 53 0.0% Advertising: 7.272 0.7% 2,224 0.2% Miscellaneous: 115 0.0% 3,502 0.4% Total Expenses: 136,040 13.5% 117,888 11.9% NET OPERATING i INCOME: 874,030 86.5% 875,077 88.17. CAI' RATE: 14.54 14.54 i INDICATED PROPERTY VALUE: 6,011,210 6,018,411 • • i . '! '11. ISIC sm.. 0 iviV`to 'P ma. c LS( .. l.' ...CPr .. 1_0 3 Y •N20= -£0.0ell • t•200 . 0' 1 • • i 00 R PV!,I en,. 0..,d Ca1Y , 9O- 'III nor 1 J,R-x rR, , _,�I I -_x' ' t• - N.I 1� . I prf cT I1 O' RV 10 .�.. II1.C� L: I •0 lai 6.A 1: ..� ".1 r rt -M of .. i nm .140 .n. to I I1 ti C' 0010, Z. `n--. p.. - ,. �0ti. , ,n6r. nr .w:R 14,r_ "C = I0C ...I r. 9 WOO ':'V! re.�. WVU, ..101... i1 R, ai',1• .>"!^I OT,. V oy. ? 0 0 -1 I a 7 .... n It �' .� '.1 •. yam. 10.0 ... . 4 .1 n9 1n '�'v on • ;•;/, CWnn -I,,,fl". -. 1'II. p. O • ..I o c.A 1 0 • 0 2 0 A • -I', O - O C' 2 'n -. • • I I I • a' , 1" • RI J .I O ; OI .'i O. �I O ' ; • ., O b ' 0 i 0 4. 0 A 1. 11 o 10 • f I 1 i i o a I f I I Wi > ~ I o II .' 11 u o •a a O+ o o oO je ai'.c p o _, r i ^ O o'c p 1 4 I 1 + r0. I 1 a e el o I1I a ' of o i + of to1 • I Oi O Cl O I C' 10 0I 0 1 ra V 1 O+ Pi I A' O o I p of o I I ! I I 1 f I I ( I i I } 1 I • I • I I • a I I I I 1 " I ' ! O 0 0 : 0 — •• o f e O m _ • 00 .41 O e• p p I i ' -4 • N O : O • p a W 0 I r • • • VCJo e W..0 • . 0M2-I . mama I i I I I ! ' ! ..r 1 I f • I - 1 I ' nrun1 • • I t ! I { f II • �0- • •• I i • ' I 1 'el _ � ii i I I I I I I • • ' I �L • :, :. : . a_.: ss. ._ : c.:l ..: :_ ; .; er , .,, .` ll ` ` ` ` l ` ` � r L ( 7 t J 1 II• 1 i• 1 I.l 0 SIfi2 MOO: t eIAZI1 /, OIn3 •i: MOZ 1 . '`' • I :' I ++I tn'1],1 nlf0'1: 1 f110 1 0 'rl m0111 0 Inc. I IOVV...WNJwI -I a>011f , .Ot n,,.Dt 00.D •• nlrlIulO • i rU 1>P..e ume0 •. r1 ..yJ0 •+.I10 ON O O' 4.--.2(.MD i�ti 09( -JO,� 009 it Sri • I W. \ •. nl us'�r �^.. of L• r , I.•.. r ' '. I. ",23 f• > T1.1•.. i 0....O •1 • M • .^I 1 .11i,104+00 'O.t II,:Y - Drnl> r I >1011 `i.S�../r,QC..J I.1... ' 1.1.1)J 010 0t KUt Vt .0 0 r,n Is.1.111'n 010•-• .w1:111 .1;.11QJ... m .1.. — Oyr1 I •e yf1 \>11 -. S T• {I n j a. 4..n i .3oa^''' „i rnm i 1.0 i I' v:ar ? • Wit.nm 5 n 10 ,: n. .. .4 .re.,• ::.ACCC I ,- III' .1 1 1 .11 on UI o Ott 1-1 0 +.` O_ ��rrKa K. rn 1 :1/ IT 0 I . , I T .a :I. A)111 I M .Z:C 1 1 0' -) .+Da:>D0D I ars o o Mr; ,>I 0 R ,3 I ••• r1 1 O 1 . .—. i �. x rmorremrnmrnny a '' Za PI .I oc es -.,1 0 1 I ^ `I a d, ij tawn,,.ri w u I I It A 1, 0 ' 1 o PUI0J.,w I 1.. I I ( ' • DI P. ^ 1 Pewmoe0o{ , 0 Of 1 0 ?1 0 01 0 e o I I Dr o.owlnomeei ' 0 01 1 o I OI o e1 o e 0 I I. n, D WOw.IOP00 1 0 0: '0 0 0 Cl O 0 O III; + y ,• I I I I ' i I Z I I 0p 1 e I e e j el se 'I I el e - 3' I ; o O I O OI 0 i e a of O ro 0 0 Of 10 oI a s 0 01 0 n; j I • I i I # I I }`` l 1 1 I I• ) l • i • i I N ; 1 e ul! I A • J Li Li • .4 .0 IV 0 O. IY a COI 4 O 0 1 0 0 J 0 P 0 VI 0 .1 0 ..1lfl e Li 2GNO P IOND ONO.1 menial 0 nem , OLIO. crow ' • N ro N \ CO 1 I 4 J _ - m11111111111 . > 44www.› .." •.......-1 _ , • r ,411111 tVt 1 It 1 . i 1 ,booln la aaaa.a - AT." oa00. Z ar. a.,....; ,r 4111.W..lte 0aZni: . ' I IP C ,... .. an .4 aa 1 ., ....,... ! A ,;,,,, o i,• ;, ' ... ... 00.Z m C au10ha , a COCC, , a V • . . ,.: -., 4 2 .01 i .... flu ,., ' V 0 G<C:f Z M M . ,-. A mne•In, - A . AgA . ., , •,...4.,-.5 rn . !WI , , , 331.212171 -4 n ormtrsmo m. o ......i .I Le , a t • r .. on, . r: .... s . i I i. " I ! 1 us, a 1 t X a -.10,04.1 I 1. ... j.j.• CI X a -I • -t•• 1 ....lob/ a, IC N a " 0 .Noli 21 e. .4 14 .4.-.14 I 1 s.66L61 ro • s Ca ...ma^I aosolAW Olj es ..1 ✓ . • , • I a 0.4.0 11 s• I to1 o aloUlUI I e. 14 O : X I 2 a I I I i , ... X .... . a -. 1 I ..-• 1 CO a Cs . , WWW. i .. N ' WWMM W W i 01.11aN 0 X 1 -10.40 , a ; maw* in . ; ..4 I I . I I I i 1 . . 1 1 i 1 . , . I I1 I . . , , V . r i , vc-4o 1 • I 0012.4 Plallafa I I.... I. I , • . I:11171 n WXS.. .Ca-• • ra a N % i , a a I , !I i ! I I I i 1— J I _ _._ 1.1. : 41. 4. • 111 6 { ( i 1 a . i .... ...010 • -1 00 O i NC !1 0C m I In1.. W f11c�m I -. OC m I n 2 T JIIIIIIIII y amda 1,1'ap NL.O.. 1 V.0 d-•. F6. , A'.:.... . .. ..70r ..Zo'3 PO ..2ap .. oo .. ....a3 < . 0 0a1 COLS DO♦ oaf4 aN CO- m • n F. -:-0 -al a +4 n ++2 1 3 ♦41, 0 I O CO W Co MO m n o a N Oo ° • O ♦ o Z m • Y n rrc •ri •r r1 • run N 004T om om 3 om 33 on 2 -1 0,903 a 1 1 d Plfa of oil m 01 In o1 m ♦ a'1♦m r + I corn noe no.0+ co no» no» a • 0 > .4 it !-In y n y n -1 n m O , i or me Nc inc inc Inc uN 1 I I .WO. WOO WOO WON WON .W00 n m -"n3 on. 1- a11• on. - "n- 0 Al n • WSyO dy ill'. dy4 tri. P\y r y 0 1.1 Nd 1" op2 d o 2 on- �Z .N z W -•/6 2 y 3 nx I ' on • nn nn nn nn » m U.. 002 o 0, 0 01 • 0 oI 0 0 0 a O 0 o� 0 0 0 0 o 0. 0 2 CO 0 al _ .. 1 a s 1 n 2 r a 1 I m m 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z 0 • o o! o of o 0f 0 e 0 20 a o o e a r OO f Z 1 Co 0 0 o 0 j 0 0 O x W 0 C.e o C. 0 0 n .. s 0 of o 0 0 e - Al f .4 a • I o O 0 0 OI 0 0 I ao 0L t o V i I I •I I it 40 IO 0 o 0 .d m y .11 o. 0 0 0 0 00 0 r I 0000 002. momm C O 0 404 004 + MOM a 0 CO \ 2 O V • • t I i 2 mo z r mo'i ` r iman I n r. 4 .o.omJ-nnnowmau 1 Pmm0 r (nnmo 1 (man r r z .11111111111 0000e00i00o0 0 r:• : . mrWr N •r O .. W FJA.0.1.0 J! on x N .1max P eyfaz I s I 1 e O.LWJ1W01(000 0 e003 O tv0'O3 4 >03. ! r A O Cp m li PPl0i0 (0(0 I0 PV0PN0P I�NA ! NA 'Z(040 , (0 V 0000000000000 2! JWO.+ -WOm n m M�1mmmm�I1-lrn0mm Olin •0•.In ...M3 I s A n (.4D 4N4s 0N4.+ I r -1 O V 2 NV 2 01(0 n s 4 3 o N WN W PN O I .. 3 OI OOV l o OOV o N! n0 I O o :0 ! ! CCCCCCCCCCCGC 0� 0 J 0 0 U1i oC 2 0 0 -A -n 0 • - nnnnnnnnnnnnn ! -4 •+ I ti s 222ZZZ22ZZ2i2 P P a A i r nnnnnnnnnnnnn ti to ti \ A 4444444I444e i n i 0 m m v AAAAAAADAAAIAA .+ 11 , 0 ti 0 0 O 2 0 00 n 0 OI 0 X 2 H MMMMMMMMMMM 0 2 0 e0 2 0 o! 0 r ••.....•.. - 0 O n 0 0 n 90 of o I -.o-NNW 1 2 0 9 (0 s • l WOVV1400 .....1 r C A O "0000 A l 1 ' A X D 00000lWWGo4�10. 0 O 0 O ` •O O ' s (0 oe000-00000be o o eI ` o o ! n s ooeoo-oeooe'oo 0 0 oI 0 0 , m O -I N ' A 2 I Ia 0 !j s ' 0 O 00 O 'I i 3 N O O 0'' o o 1 0 A i I o o oI o e1 I n • I I ! I ! o NL ' W W O 0 N 0 O 0 I,,,,PPP ! o .1 e N r •C40 oo.o Omsk m2mm • 0 A-3 • soo 2••i m00 ! mein A w • 0 • 2 0 .0 • • L1 I • +r ;.-; Al IX ,I0 r. .�uono 1A In I NI oD Popo C I K 'I 2 , NI ee/.12 ZJ II-4 O Y. c -4 1 V 2 r I N II D D G'J.O 1 -i A ti •Dlcl 111 -( 21/1 .2 -, Ir 11 A2 y O 0.7C I 11 3irfin D 1 1 10I 2-c 0 r .. :0Ifl s • �0oC7-44 I I VI v tt PI j I O r xin r D < 2▪ el . D ' r i I A I r 71 PI r 11 -1 n o f 2 A X Z -I • o N r 0 a Z V PNNP C A N JUMP MI A X a •O a NOJa I 2 a r-1 P WOam PCI I • D o 00Wa o N-ia u.G O �U1J w I � 1 2 o m .• ... a 000a a N 000.0 O N maON J :NUIJ 11 -I I i I 0W . I r ,coo soma msmlly 70+= )PD Z-4 WOO PION X P • Z 0 0 : • t : . . . . . 7 7 t t : - . . . . . . . 7 . . . .-. ._.7.I ( C, C ;.' a ( f...7 c :� ;0 0 ©. -0 ;-; . ra w �• � 1 II 4 f R Y • ,;3' yyp, ir4 ;i4r Appeal No. PID 412-116-22 12 DDD4 Date Received 4/13/1999 Appraiser Steve Sinell • APPLICATION FORM 199D EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF REVIEW (To be completed by owner - please print) Telephone Home: Work: 1800843-0139 Name: KYLE FELDMAN, AGENT Address of Property: 7100 - 7148 SHADY OAK ROAD January 2, 1990 valuation as it appears on the notice: $4,985,400 Date property was acquired: UNKNOWN Purchase Price: $UNKNOWN Terms of Purchase: UNKNOWN Additions and alterations since purchase: UNKNOWN Cost of additions and alterations: -N/A Is property listed for sale? NO If yes, at what price (attach copy of listing agreement Owners estimated market value as of January 2, 1990 is: $ $4,284,966 What are your reasons or documentation supporting the above stated value? (Please attach supporting information): SEE ATTACHMENTS OF OPERATING STATEMENTS. DECEMBER 31, 1987 MARKET VALUE APPRAISAL PREPARED BY COLDWELL BANKER. COPY AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST Si' ure of Owner Please note: This form requests private or confidential data of applicant which is being collected for purposes of review by the City Assessor and the Eden Prairie Board of Review to assist in preparing for any appeals/objections herein. The submission of this data is not mandatory, however, in order to get an accurate assessment of the property prior to the hearing, such data is helpful. (To be completed by the Assessing Department) Prior year values: Land Building Total Property Class. 1/2/89 -' OCC 1jg1-loo 4icts'S4400 {� I/2/88 -19#000 grkF¢O `1•'i1l54bQ :- 1/2/87 '7 9Y0o0 .345`'` 6 47'4(X ) C— Last Inspection: /_/ S Appraiser: 55'te,,.L Building Permits/Appraiser Comments: ,fv:.ct /v-$(o lir? IS 3o;i,coo Sale History Date Source Sale Price Terms of Sale Comments T / // $ ******************************************************************************* Board of Review Action: I) Referred to Assessor for review: 2) Assessor's value adjusted to: 3) Assessor's value sustained: . . STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS PROPERTY NAME: SHADYVIEW 11 MAP REFERENCE #: 12-116-22-12-0004 COUNTY AND STATE: HENNIPEN COUNTY, MINNESOTA INCOME 1989 1988 ------ Gross Potential: 524,141 72.9% 526.100 93.7% Vacancy Loss: 108,517 20.7% 179,319 34.1% Adjusted Gross: 415.624 57.87. 346.781 61.87. Other income: 303,575 42.2% 214.630 38.2% Effective Income: 719,199 100.0% 561,411 100.0% EXPENSES ----- Administration: 2.476 0.37. 1,055 0.2% Management: 17,406 2.4% 17,145 3.1% •Security: 53 0.0% 0 0.0% Legal & Accounting: 9,302 1.3% 12,713 2.3% Utilities: 12,858 1.87. 12. 136 2.2% Water & Sewer: 3,098 0.4% 6,711 1.27. insurance: 11,136 1.5% 7,701 1.4% Maint & Repairs: 32,106 4.5% 20,189 3.6% • Refuse Removal: 0.07. 299 0.17. Advertising: 6,572 0.9% 1,658 0.3% Miscellaneous: 1,198 0.2% 222 0.0% lot ] E;:penses: 96,165 13.4% 79.829 14.2% NET OPERATING INCOME: 627.074 86.67. 481,582 85.8% ---------- CAP RATE: 14.54 14.54 INDICATED PROPERTY VALUE: 4,284,966 3,712,118 ..........._____. ========== • BAND OF INVESTMENT RATE OF CAPITALIZATION -- INDUSTRIAL THIRD QUARTER 1989 Loan to Value Ratio: 74.60% Conventional Loan Rate: 9.79 7.303 Equity Ratio: 25.40% Safe Money: 7.72 ------- 1.961 Total Cap Rate: 9.264 Effective Tax Rate: 5.275 Total Cap Rate Including Taxes: 14.54 Sources: Cony. Loan Rate - AIREA Research Department First business week of Oct 1989 Loan to Value Ratio- AIREA Reasearch Department First business week of Oct 1989 Safe Money - Three Month Treasury Bills Moody's Bond Survey September 1989 • • E: O ( C' C C P' U 0 C.' le' i 0 rJ 0. 10 •I I 0 n 0 n -1 e n y 0 nI o n 3 p N. xrcz0 I \ xrcz \ xrcz \ xrcz C. x CO 0 In • 0 .X(02 10 .X(n2 N Tinz N Frnz 0 .X102 I I z 2 • 0 0114 ' o 0 1 1 1 0 OI11 O 0'111 0 4Y41 ) y y ' 1 r m3 m ! v mz 0 '11 fn n m WI T '44 m0f� ) n I I -1 07,70 I -4 .DU OO y N 02 y MMO n y N 400 -4 r O .�Ow o .. .. O IM ., • • I o..• fp -o a--A -_ -- m a c r • J N ..�'ae0 fUbo 1�p.L -'.0 0 0 -4 A 4(1'-4 rn ( ♦:0 O (4.I n .O}J (0 f0r ) in 0 • .I 0 J. ) a O -I 0 WI r n W . N fe: 0 ♦ N 2 N 01 10 A 01 0 n • �r 04z • r - y • . r U - ' ♦ c1110) P 01.I4.1< 0, 01071 ♦ omlx (0 OI.IW.+ ) I 1 0'1♦ rU .0j,OO I O 011 -0 O O',10) 0 0100 r • ..y I 00. .l)r ..W♦A I+PO L ,. no) I CO 00y I I 000 IF ' 2 thgl r 0 141 •NW� D� • 0%O 11 1.P -1C r01 ♦ (0 O r • O N. D W.. 2 -1.0 •0 NV W0 n ) 4 3 N a10 r N 40 0 N 04 y Iv We T fU .4 4 y 3 reen • .I n - •i no • - i no - I n) ... m Oa 01 N OD-1 (n N 01 O (0 NI., -eO o A O0 D0 O N 0 0 O 1 0 O 0 0 03 D Om 0 o et v0 -C 2 -m �1.11 01 0 0 n A ) • 0Yrn1 4 '14 �00 (1 10 r11 le • a• 1 0 , N 0' o e0 .. O o0 O 00 OO 0 017 ) 0 0 m 2 m M m M x t r o CT n 00 e9 00 ON 07 0 m o 00 00 a o e0 0 00 0 < • ti iU N 0 N M M A • :,-1 -1 Y 4 r. ' m T C , _ ✓ r r 1` c O O' o o D DI O OF 0 DI ) 0 • o l' 0 0 0 :I oI o of n ) • o o 0o o o /n y f:0 - L '.1 L ti o = 4 O O N O ♦ (o e o O o O OJ o eU1 o 00 o eD o OD 2 \ • e e o 0 0 OI O OI p el I n b • • • • ro ro u - 114 l J r:.. 1 0 J .4 01 N 01 0 D IJ W N, ro 0 _ 0 N O 0 0 e e O : e r oma1 Io A1-3 )N) -0001 o 0 ..iJ .. n N n 1111 n` .1 A • n N ! I 3 A xrCz (0 xrc2 z \' xrcz xrcZ • xrcz o in1 S 2 1 C Sln i N Gill zll (I I I 1 GDi•�2 1 i D 1 1 11 I:t 'R 1n➢ "R tni In, R R 113 'R n x 400:0 -4- ➢ to.3o0 -1 ln)o0 w4 r 3. J,: Jm OJT -.I" I 0,- C I r .s T I mo t V 3 • I •4 t.* I •Toi 4S I • ^ •N I(n3 Or x LW r4 R MN II inn a i . 3 1 r 1 0 • 0 3In II I 'Z W ( JG N, � - 4 ♦ - -I { ( N 1 1Y11 ^ Ill �RL1R l0R1-it11 J or. ( O 41R-I I ) I I n 1,IA • 11Jx n 1 P.`0Cl 3 • 0 113 I r In!R0 l.W 01 =-A or. ➢ ....or -0 ullmy ➢14y 4.. . CO•O 1 r-S I IR 0 In z0x SN1R ?01 1 40 W V i WON ewe!' 1 -WO 440.. f -WOr n m 0110 I F . --gin •cml> e01Z o012 ) 0 n . I . •-ex - Ol\.-i I IR,.G0 o'•-nn I • N\tin r -1 0 0.4 0 0..0 : 0.0 IR d 1 -.10 • f ) t 3 1 Iv VI r4W0r 0>� -n n.. Ulj eWnk 000 UI ..c00 I 0 0 0 i i I O N 00 0 • 02 0� • of 0 W' - Z W n R -n -.• 0 .. o > Im Z e1 a 70 1 r L r n n m 2 ni 'm eI 1 1 ♦ > 0 o p N 00 0; o WO > 0 0 • ox 0 Q i o 0 I OF 00 0 0 00 l 0 .N• .. IAl -I L c j 1 m ., 2 .. s > C r f r 0 > e• 0 eel a pJ o q e e I > In r 2 1. o o 0I : o 0 o m 4 -I ela I ( C t. re z I I u N e e o - ' o' e, of a ee .3. . I • -I -0 0 0 00 0 0 el 0 0, i 0 00i e I j N N 0 N ( O. i 0 O • I N O u rl 6 O. W 10 41 O • e • In r It. ( 7c.c 01112.4 i I MOOT 404 rooinK 010111 2 0 i 1 i s • c. 0 C.1 tr,,, c b`. 2, ;'1 bw :! O G- o • l CCICCCCCCCQI< 10 nl r I 0 n: -1 10 n r II ! • 22z22zz2221/ xrcz N xrcz - xrcz it ' 11,1 11 I I 11'.Ir, I (n Amz O. AN2 m A1O2 I I z z I I Its 41 611111 o n11y o 0,111 'I> I z m ma m •, mz 1 m4 2 Z _O o,ly l .n1 o> -4 N,or1 -1 (2o) II-I r m 1 wl.ari-1,-ldrd: I -Imm {,c,WD �-4m IC n r' '. • @ ' 1WW1 a FFt-�.t( ..=am (1114 II 0 2 t c+NWm.o•m. w6 m Ima i y D i. I • 1fT. v 1.rm z mm N I 1•m n I I (1 a re, In a c 1 I z m I i l • r In W 1' 2 ' 0• Nr m ti N (`W Nl, • JFn.9Z W 1010..,p m AM-m a I I • I 2 0 ev •m n V11U1 0 011-T I a olar I r 1 rn(n .01I !-. 0 2^-I ymr j 1 O • Woe-,t0000 a cma mos I am amin • 1010rn0N(0104..1? :n Nn I 2 2 j m o • V/ o000000000 -14ox ,,00 -02 n Ill mmmmmm I'14I •!olio 101I2 AM, ' > A n •-I-Iti-Iti-I.a.4 I mb.,a-IN NmH yV WN~N r1 -rr 0 • I 1 Al' 0'0 m ro NN z N O� 0 M x I n ^I n ? n ! m ««CC<CCCI O Wi O O J eN O O'. O z '2 0 nnnnnnnnnn - ' .. e� r 0 a aapsaaaasa�' z ' r zzzzzzzzz n l A 1 onnnnnnnnn a CO N a «<�«.4 m •ymm m a Al AAAAAAAAA.M 1" II •. z e <1• asasa sasses, 0 0 .. c I .N rHriti..i x r mmmmmmmmm 00 0eV 0 OV 1 I0 4 1 0e O o0.4 o e0 Ye P • • •- 1 o1Na, 0411 it r ' C • VW100W4OOli100•N1 o 0 0 O o OI s (ar1 00,0000000 0 ' O 0 l 0 0I I m . • II l 4 _ (0 0 • z • • 'r N • ' 0 O O' 0 04 0 O• I • 2 \ o a a oro o oe I n m I I . { 1 i i • • • I N I I N N " I l I. (.I O r 0• 0 la N 0 P COO 0 O r I I ao H0 I anti-( msmm i 0 1 >an W oyli - 1 2 a. • a I l . 1 I I I' • • :tJ �' . Cs 1, f:: 0'' Cu' .1 J 1 ff .,h.: =. -1I -wpppLpw o J -1 • • ec o r 1 con I D K o nI o 0 2 y m r • H D<90 N 0 A .acre m Q • I DA3 (w OI 3 'a 01 mr min 1 Ater- I alA 0 -II non- 1 0 9 0+ D D CD I r A 0 I I 0+ r -4 2 2 iC �pmfr i < _ • • la 0 e Al • 0 2 0 0 o 3. r r I A 1 A m 0 0 • . 1 -4A > 00 C s x < O C p. _ .. • r. N i a 0 w • al .om10 0 a > : ~ii PVIN( I Cl D D a: ouro j la -i • f r ♦' JON- 1 • al a Ooal1Y 4 • 0 ' 2 O 3.▪ A 1_1 CO▪ a V 0NN�( I -1 0-.fly 1 0 -1 JO.110 I 0 .1-{ 11 4 1 ' I i I L • 0 D I WC-40 0013-4 mAmm • O • DND agU1rC I i I 2a .. . . 013 in 41 1,12 L., nI 04. n +1 no to '',. Poo . n. Te Minn -, 40000 -$ 4.400. m 141,00 -11 1/111,101.3 -. en.,-or -• es•..... I "C.C. ••202 inern rn 0.0 . -1,NI 0 ...WI ...SC.! ..41. ...1, I-.•a r•rso -01/1 ,....tt a -.WI I ...al -. ' 0C-tr- ....J ... 2 -,L.a, 0 1> • • (0 • (0 ' . •... . I M.1 PI PU. 0 .4.11 r'l I.4-a II wo 0, . en •,..: - 1, Z ",•-••• •• , I'..... r- r. •.. r. . -. ,.. ,I ,,,,,,,,, .;.1 min....‹. •• .:..p.0%, .i,P1,3. • purl.... - ....4 4. 1... .I 4.11,1 '. .1-...1 •",S 1..... 1• .41.0.! r. II'.-• •••_-••.%•r' ..,%.., 4 '0.01, I 00 3' C.0 JO 0 Moro :4 I • 011.. .4/1•X 0,10 C.11..1 > 31 4/ 14,-11.: /4S..40 . 4.s..413 <4.4.-.14 3 t• -4 0' 14! 4.111 I- 0.1 .40 4.1 41 111-4 .4 0'1 1/10 14 1.01 .1114 0.4 . Z . ' (11.4 n= I• 003. m in -2 n •-i , -.in : a m I I, 9 0 • ... . ,. CI 31 1 1-• I 14 . I OP I 4., ' '4 Pt . • . ,L, . 1 In In : rn i en PI : . PI in rr. I in • I n ; n n . n I al an m •,-.1 0-0 I ....•, 0-0 .-,0•0 . a ..0 . rn, -.I 00 • 0i 00 I ..01 a0 c. .0 . 00 • 1.I. < 21 PI 'V i I r • P ; r- ' r r- ' . 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Z 0i a I o a 0 0 01 a 1 a 0 0 o . I I .. . I . , N 0 0 1 a in a i .6 N • co 0 a , I a ... . , Oa ,eV? 40 aa I mt 0 i 01 0 0 0 01 0 1 01 0 0 0 I I I , . I I / . I . , / .1 • I I I i ! 1 • I I , I i I , I i 1 1 I I I , 1 1 I / . ., f . 1.... , 1 4 I En VI Ul 01 0 -4 o .1 W -.1 0 • I -I ; -.• 0 0 • -1 NI 0 o o o RI 0 ,, r • I ,• ! , • , I . • •oc-na. . • , . 000.0 . • 1111113.4 • flamer; I • t , • • a • ! . . • j , . • i ...roc 1 • , • , • 1...x-n i , I I . ! , , , . I 3... 1 C01.. In Co _ i • N ... , . ! ' , 1 0 I • •10 i • I I I I I . • ' . , . 1 , I I I I I ' ' ••• I -1 I I I I I I • . . ' • • I . ::..,.:."::: ,:s,...:::—.1,..:::.::::::...—.t4- L. I. • 0 C l.. l.. l.. c L - 0 0 e (.. - t. C) _ • LI I i Nln_:.C1 ._I 44Ir01. y Vljey .0e.4 1/1?A001+ lit i f• 'O A 1 D..011 C .:1: el • rt-�I P r. -Dl,r j Y1JG \0.O( N eN 01 1" lul-..•,.. :.i - yJ t n 1 1 WI., •,ol m �NI In I. O j2 • 0T.2 D•0 n i 1 1 - I n<> I aoMI 0 ' ; i51 .n. Q ' .0 I 6• .II .• Oi y O. i a 4j O' 1 O Li e e O. el 1.1 0' Z� ,> . 1 i f 5/ i ii I sto ! 1 I m i m „ in 7 ! 1 C el lat o 0 o , o oI e o 0; o 1 0, o3I , Alz 6I Iv I { r 1 I j � I I- i I O OI O Ol I O el O O{ O I 20 ?i 434 ' I O O 0 0 O e O aI O 1 ZI 0 0 o 01 0 of e ale m. Nt. I I o 1 w IrO 1 roI O e0 O O, O 00 O O. OP SI \ 1 ;O Ot , O OI ; O Of I O O, OO W. 0 '0 0 : O 0, 0 0 1 ; I O Ol 1 ni 1 1 • I i 1 • • 1 1 • I 1 I i I I I I 1 I I 1 ! i I i I I I i { . I I , c I 1 I i 1 i• • i j • m P. a d inN - ti P N 111 m .G .1 0 a s O i VI P - Y I 1 15 .G O N W 0 S. o a - r i • • •OCti0 TO..? • • : 0111X0 a • • 15100 1911/111 . . ;mmo N \ O • • 1 I ! i I I I I 11 1 I i I I ; I i • J . L ._ •L • • • • 4. L. t .i.. • e L L L.• 4.1.14.44.4000000 1 4. -4i 4.0C.00 i1I .I,.. .444;4.44 00*001.0tF,. 44.0.174.10;0-4 0•:"4,104.'•. 4'.44•01clA10.I !' •I••144•.41..•1144 4000.,4.,.1.1n0,-40.41.4,1;)i,1 4s00011 1..,...41ia-i..Mi3,.10.. .0-0. 1-...,4D4444 00-44A404.4 4i1i47:4.4..n14r4.•. .4:4.1;1I 4.4t•-/.•4.1'CZ.0.,..0Ov0..0OI11•:•.;•. .11;.•..1-•:. !, 0•:•i' I0•t•..C.-....4....•:..5,: . '• • MINIM 1/.i . 0-40 •• 404.-01404,41.4...•44,0 ,,„ 0141 ,„ n -444,,,::. -....•.., 4.14,11.4 ..4.41..,:4: .c.'n',Vrrn-.4,-rre'n • 0..nr• ! .4.-n:r• 0-nr, •0.n• 0 , .. ,.....0 1, ....„ ,, •,...I. 0 .1,... 4.4 , -4 ....: 4.,.. „L.,. in 44.1 .... 4.1 ..•, g., 4,1 :...t 44.2 :44 -4 t 1 • .nt,,, , .,,P . rl 410. , 4140 ,,K.C•r<•:.,...-........< ot 441 0 0 0 0 ...4 40 04:4 O..0 OM ;,.• .4 el :03,1•30......1.2.3.0. -, -• c, i,i10,-,n;....,-,7,,,,I • rn , In r 1 I in 0 in 33033327.133021=2a . I In , 1,..PD.O..i..,.,...3..2.• • ..I C.7 ' 41 ow ..,1 00 IA 01 0 •,._ tnikernint...Ininin,n . 44 ,. .4.; C,!1 ' .4.1 071 ,.. 011 . 01 0 .44: 44 'V in. • 1 • ••••j. - • - I I I . ri 00 • ,-..00 IP , -I , ! ,-, ..,., CO el 0 . t 0 1 1 . -I ' I 40 O :0 . .44 01 1 An X. 0 1 1 I . ....- a.. , i " . a 3' r a 1 P ! — a tni .- ,....W 1.10 c..,n r r .11.4. -.0 OM , 33! a f..1.1000,000.0 0 e 0,0 t1 ' 0 0 1 1 I W ' In • •NOON0e0N.,.4 0 0 01 , 1 o 01 0 111 a U1.0111,000Ultn n 1 o e 01 0 .0. o, 1 M 0 • ' a • ', In . 0 t oi a 1 Mt -I ; ON 0 I a a. I al o. 01 00 1 0,e 31 .... 1 I el .0 0,a 0,a o 0 NI 0 NI a al 0 of a 0i. o el o Cl . t 1 I 1 I 1 Ir • ., 1 1 1 i 1 . 11 I • t I I . I t • i 1 4 i I t I i . I . I I , I ,. . I I II t, a I 1 a er .! LI • • tn .. • — tn I ..I , .0 VI W a 0 a a N a /; . . • • . 7•1.I...71. Ihn13.4 • • mama 1 . ., !... . C. ........ ; ...I\1.p.. I 21.71 1 I •I 14,13.-• 1. .COI..t . , ma N s., . . . 1 ' 0 1 • , • , . 1 , • / I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I . 1 I 1 . t 1 I .._- ._. :. .: .- 1 1 3..:J.1, :t.',:'.:..4.::'I'...1:.:;:.. •.... .s - • • • 1/4. L 1/4. 1/4- l. 0 0 e . 7 1/4- .. .. . ,..- .. .. . , 4., .....do • •• • • ' - ' -I T OMNI=r . . I I f 1 -1 ..o.4-.0.410 IN 1 2074 I• i , I I 0 NoNo I r IC 0,1101 % -I 0000 I 1 X 2,22 I:" 91 t I , ..0.,,I.0 I. 3.1 . C as 1 t• • 1 C.• II S•If A - .. 2 - ••• :•••£1,.. r .. I`,7•111.-. P,...P,:-, I'.. Z: -• ••'",,-• z . . 9 ..1.- . , 1 ..sr I • 2 •••: I 'ell 1. x •• •t• M I •••• 1/1 . i •111 11 i C 44. 4 •••• 1) . 2 •-, .1 . ' I ' 44 ••• ..• III I.J.4•I C i . ID •••1-402.1 I. 21 14 1 0 -4 N-4.4011 2 • ••I IR 14.2•ION 1 n, D . D a 01-411140 I 1 In -4 . r • i • III• -4-4101.4 I • ut N 00.044 44. 0 • 14 . I .... 1 ., 0 0 o . 0 111 o—ord- 1 I i 1 0 4.1114.0 0 ' I , , 0 00300 0 • .... 1110-0-• 0 , I I I , I I I I t I I . • • , J 1 I 1 1 I, . 1 ' ...I r 0 ..1, l• r •DC-10 01,12-1 1001,1111 t . ... 0 ••••-•• I 1...N0 1 . nN0I X••el 00-, I •<0.• i I 1 I M 0 N ‘ 1 i I 0 i0 . , --- -.--..• 1=00 �s LLehndorff&Babson Real Estate Counsel TO: Ad Valorem Tax Authorities and Others To Whom It May Concern RE: Eden Prairie Warehouse Shady View II LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION • This letter will introduce the Firm of Easley, McCaleb& Stallings, Ltd., which Is authoried to represent us concerning Ad Valorem Taxes on real and personal property. • Earley,McCaleb&Stallings,Ltd.is authorized to file returns,to investigate appraisals • and assessments,to appeal property values and taxes,to receive tax bills,to appear before administrative boards or agencies and where authoried,to appear before courts of competent jurisdiction. Easley,McCaleb,&Stallings,Ltd.,is authorized to act as agent,andlor attorney in fact,with those aforementioned rights on properties owned or controlled by the undersigned entity. The rights,powers,and authoriation of Easley,McCaleb&Stallings,Ltd.herein granted shall commence upon the execution of this letter of authorization and shall remain in force and effect thereafter until written notice of termination is recieved by Easley, McCaleb & Stallings, Ltd., or until the purpose for which this LETTER OF . AUTHORIZATION is given, is complete. • SCHOOL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF OHIO By: Lehndorff&Babson Real Estate Counsel, a Texas general partnership, as agent By: Lehndorff U.S.Equities,Inc., a Texas corporation,and its - General Partner Vice President RAND ALL J.RC57 Vice President The undersigned has hereunto set our hands and affixed our seals this the Arley o9,4&,_1989. ,.,, . , ... • .. • ...Cob,Spiry RAM•a„0r Sslt.O•IWS 1501•t:1n uS.HM•TLX:10133•Utopia,a10 uSSSN Appeal No. 1�S Date Received 4/13/1990 • PID # 12-116-22 42 D013 Appraiser StAVP Sinell APPLICATION FORM 1990 EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF REVIEW (To be completed by owner - please print) Telephone Home: Work: 1800-843-0139 Name: KYLE FELDMAN, AGENT Address of Property: 10000 76th STREET WEST January 2, 1990 valuation as it appears on the notice: $ 2955800 Date property was acquired: UNKNOWN Purchase Price: $ UNKNOWN Terms of Purchase: UNKNOWN Additions and alterations since purchase: UNKNOWN Cost of additions and alterations: N/A Is property listed for sale? NO If yes, at what price $ (attach copy of listing agreement Owners estimated market value as of January 2, 1990 is: $ 2,596,362 What are your reasons or documentation supporting the above stated value? (Please attach supporting information): SEE ATTACHMENTS OF OPERATING STATEMENTS. DECEMBER 31, 1987 MARKET VALUE APPRAISAL PREPARED BY COLDWELL BANKER. COPY AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. Si ure Owner. Please note: This form requests private or confidential data of applicant which is being collected for purposes of review by the City Assessor and the Eden Prairie Board of Review to assist in preparing for any appeals/objections herein. The submission of this data is not mandatory, however, in order to get an accurate assessment of the property prior to the hearing, such data is helpful. (To be completed by the Assessing Department) Prior year values: Land Building Total Property Class. 1/2/89 3hczcc as758cO aq 11� L 1/2/8B 38000C a57S'C0 ?ciS5800 G_ 1/2/87 3 SCCoo ;)/3SCOo ;245jS000 C. Last Inspection: a/_f Appraiser: S-�-,c S; Building Permits/Appraiser Comments: Sold I0-1:;6 -( $3,-Ioo,o00 Sale History Date Source Sale Price Terms of Sale Comments --7- /_ $ / /_ $ ******************************************************************************* Board of Review Action: 1) Referred to Assessor for review: 2) Assessor's value adjusted to: 3) Assessor's value sustained: • STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS PROPERTY NAME: TECHNOLOGY PARK III MAP REFERENCE it: 12-116-22-42-0013 COUNTY AND STATE: HENNIPEN COUNTY, MINNESOTA INCOME 1989 1988 Gross Potential: 381,317 97.47.. 370,161 92.3% Vacancy Loss: 98,637 25.9% 105,263 28.4% Adjusted Gross: 282,680 64.9% 264,898 66.1% Other Income: 152,850 35.17.. 135,989 33.9% Effective Income: 435,530 100.0% 400.887 100.0% EXPENSES Administration: 1,414 0.37. 640 0.2% Management: 12,763 2.9. 10,537 2.6% Security: 0 0.0% 534 0.1% Legal < Accounting: 6,229 1.47. 6,232 1.6% ssy Utilities: 6,538 1.5% 5,994 1.5% Water R; Sewer: 1.,904 0.4% 3,276 0.8% Insurance: 7.400 1.7%, 5,082 1.3% Maint & Repairs: 14.472 3.3% 13,844 3.5% Refuse Removal: 72 0.07. 169 0.0% Advertising: 6,542 1.5% 797 0.2. Miscellaneous: 685 0.2% 309 0.1% Total Expenses: 58,019 13.3% 47,414 11.8% NET OPERATING INCOME: 377.511 86.7% 353.473 88.2% CAP RATE: 14.54 14.54 INDICATED PROPERTY VALUE: 2,596,362 2,431,079 fur I s 0 0,1 I I 0 0,1 I i D y r▪ � in x oc..1 n i,,r000 --c1• -1 I.-O -I NL-w y r ,0 a 120e0I O 1�t 00 oo eZ .+ < o 1 I m oo IC Oct oZoz < r n Iee W-12 0o Ilbb++os m n r C• • I) IN MO m 0 _ m ro S f-� 0 D ' -+ vi00 loth r ow In 0 §. < WW1] • U cr, 0 Z m E 112.22 P ♦ O N of 9 W O F1 sc 1 m 0nm9 WO 0 wr�r1JD 0 0011-� s I 1 O �O-oi mJ; a WIIP3 O �lex r• 9 .N. mrWm .IPj FFrCon _Co S ti t0Ylorl0.4 N0� 1 N3 0. Imir U No- 00 IOe.Io9 W02 n m • ) CD 011 9C 0]IZ ) .9 0 3 r nor ti• 1kti• eh� r .4 0 0 I 0 P m (0 ) < 3 C < W Nen2 W 00n w 3 -I m 0 0. 09 0 0� O A CC N 0 0 1 OM 2 0 0 n 00 — -0 a nni 0 N )C r D)1 C r • 001 -4 I a 1 5 • <41 0 I 00 0 H� . 0 = o o X = 'Y. MT 0 0 n 00 000 0 r "+1 O .4 +W 2 W • W IV > -a G 7� .• . { .4m-n.- • PO 0 0 0 0 ) N IJNPP OOI 0 0 0 0 n w * o also. eel O O O m r+ -i ' r o ueoW i A0 40e 4 G S e 0 0 e 0 .3+ f e o o e eel ' I e e , O O J I I W WA1 • Oi auiaio lr 000412 1 • W' I0W041 m Iy 1 • 1 1. • i• { 1 • !• .. 1 w a .e ree IF,. w �.I + yy N W b 0 'l .0 W O • )0..0 ___.1 L 100.4 i I 05711119 t 0 A00 c ...DO { P 2 P • r c • i i Q t Q i t t i . . . . . . . , 4J..' ..* I ....7:0'. • . - ' ...17: • MINIM I 1 I , .. 00''.6.".. ..20. e-.eV. '`i ' ,,,,..• •' i • I . •11,0 1 1 'W to,-,II, ,,,... 411 4 • •Ill I (1. I I , 01 , • I Ii. ' I -I •• , g, "",, • • ,I , ',,1., I, ,,t t. 5 . - . • • •-•. ., , ,- if _ rirr:r. •'•1 '5'..r,.. . .,.in-.0 .1 win..., • .'....-.,::•' ,''''', - ...' ,'• -. i.i.•.,:r: - • ••,.•i . ...041 ..r•nr . ..-i-sr ,.....,,.. .:.•en 1,1mt L. .,.. r r.. 0 , t..7. ' ..in ...,0::::/ . L./4Z... ' 4....:. .0.41.4•.; -4,...,4 ',,,..-,,,,, ; .,..,,.....„ ..4.•4-4" . 4,0 • .4., t, . S.:. 14 1, - "1 04. II 1..i 1,10 I: ..., .n... :..i.. ... 1...4 t , CIO • 010 I 'at t ,. ,r, .,I in of) -.1 R. 0-4 ,.•I 0 ..,1,1 ...I 0 4.-I, e 411 .,:0 ,,t 0 0:4 .....7.. ....I I Z ,,.. ..1 . ,, . -:...S. -.... -....t ; -.I, ' ..•.1". '?:1: . ...‹ in I r... I I r , . AI in : 0 in . rn -.1 PI , 4 ,.., : t2 • n .- .n , . r .an= • i , I . I 1,,. -IC, i .t..... •:,..1 00 ; lie.1 ?t, .31 a I-• . 6,1 OD , . .1". C _,.. . m II .3 3c :: V .• film •,1 00 1 -,1 . .,i 0 F; •...I CO ir .'.; r .• ..,I 00 4 .-,1 e II e : ,..f CO . 0, I' VI I • I I . I... I • . I . .I. . 0 , I ••• —I, • . ,, el .0 I - •. r i 1 I I T 1 J.. i : 1 .[F••• m ,' , g. o o. 1 '0' a al 0 *'a i I I . ›, 0 • Z! •••- •is• ; ova o a 1 a 0 al a . et ... 0.3 0 : I 000 I e 0 I 0 0 01 0 el 0 4 t41, ... -I 1 1 1 A I 1 I 2 ' 1 i I A*; 1 • . t ' . . 3. ; I Z , , I • a ; ' a, e.... a e a. a 43I co ...• ... I 1 , • a 0, 0 . 0 0 SO 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 0 i ,• 0 i 0 1 00' 01 0 0•0 I i 1 , . , . I • . 1 I r i 1 I . •, I i I , 1 . • I . . 1 ; I 1 • i . I t . i • ,. •. . i , I I , . I .. . , • I ' . ' . • • . . • 1 , I . I • i 1 .1 i I I 0 I t, I ry • .4 ; 1...1 IA ••• . . . • . In , ' . . • ••• Yil o ul o o L.I 0 IT . • 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 . 0 0 • r . . . . AM.. 0012.1 IIIMM31 i I I-I O I . ! • .••••••• “3..13 i . . r.1331 X••CI I . • ; f . 31 a N s. 1 • Or I .• III I I I , I I I ! I I t I 1 I , . . I I 1 I . : I L - L IOW 6L LL LL • i. • ..1.4 . .._,...........--- ,„. , —....... _., - • • - i I n ,, _iiY 1 . :r - ,.„ L r Dr 1 ri 11 -1 m' nr n 1 1 • m, r , 1 - N 1.1 -wit ; I GI .0' OD WF-..0.1M I XII X i I J; 0 .IV1aw', I jt.. IA j t a �ew,atl 01 1. a a. o ulomt, I m ,- . .431.4.011 :. 1 I e NmOI..I ! I 4�' I .1 1 I 1 1 gI e 1 I 1 I MI 4.+4313;1 I 01 N01110.1 a 1 ai -woo`,..i M i t f 1 • I j i Dili I I I • ' i 1 i • I � ; j I 'OC:1C i I I I omn 9 I ' .. .... • I I 1 ,nNIO11 Iv • CO. ' m o N 0 1. r IIII III i i i ! I I 1 I L i-. • rt • • • j4 I�t{ z, 1 '.�"�'�.�SdL-��"''.-.4.r. �fig'ry'}�,w��1a lWY i.`' � •,x:'� 8� � "� • • r 1 �.h aka r {� J • • tr • • r� raw t +g �r t 4 t^ > -x sTART OF RETAKE The images appearing between this point and the End of Retake target are true, accurate, and complete copies of records that previously were not filmed or were filmed incorrectly. firr . 4' a. - ,�l, r 3. •1a ' „1 t: �' , • • c c sy.:�t� lea-its END OF RETAKE II Appeal No. 13 7 PID # 23-116-22 43 0016 Date Received y II714i 0 Appraiser John Sams APPLICATION FORM 1990 EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF REVIEW (To be completed by owner/- please print) Telephone Home: `i9-00,3 ..? n M S Of• �n Work: 33/ Name: Est fy �e L Address of Property: /j/f,Z. DG//y/.f -J IiR/f Kd January 2, 1990 valuation as it appears on the notice: 37.1660 Date property was acquired: 1- Purch se Price: $ A 70,bo Terms of Purchase: 4/0/d�� Additions and alterations since purchase: WO 1/5 Cost of additions and alterations: Is property listed for sale? //o If yes, at what price S (attach copy of listing agreement) Owners estimated market value as of January 2, 1990 is: $ .2 , sa What are your reasons or documentation supporting the above stated value? (Please attach supporting information):f 11622 MT, CukUE #2 fee., h...�.k0d 3 9 - t Cu,v-e, s, Sig ture 7.( Please note: This form requests private or confidential data of ap icant which is being collected for purposes of review by the City Assessor and the Eden Prairie Board of Review to assist in preparing for any appeals/objections herein. The submission of this data is not mandatory, however, in order to get an accurate assessment of the property prior to the hearing, such data is helpful. (To be completed by the Assessing Department) Prior_year values: Land Building Total Property Class. 1/2/89 : ?^^ 000 1/2/88 7,—/c•n) ,-os:-oo 1/2/87 ?507)`) ,c-'iop0 Last Inspection: / / Appraiser: Building Permits/Appraiser Comments: Sale History Date Source Sale Price Terms of Sale Comments —7- /_ $ / / $ Board of Review Action: 1) Referred to Assessor for review: 2) Assessor's value adjusted to: 3) Assessor's value sustained: • • 41990 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: /3 7 Page 1 ' Sales Comparison Approach • • PIO: a3-/ic-aa-.v.?-ou/G • • Owner: 7�lro.e.as 60/4, Address: Jle.sa mf 4t6re tea/ ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO.1 COMPARABLE NO.2 COMPARABLE NO.3 .?3-../'/-/a ;eV-33-.7 . 3-4,3-33 Address „ e dda /ivra exit G.rr /9d i..' Ae...,.f c«.. .PJ 934/R 4/P:. Q, Proximity to Sublecl �1�II II�IINIHIIII`i!IUi „�.,,n' , ...f A� �''e, _,I� Sales Price $ ae9 coo 11111IlLw u, 1$ =7e PIIII!I[llll l lltJs T t IITTTII `11U11h11{Ill II lfs = ,j Price/Gross Liv-Area $ ios CO. 0$ ier,,bA Cn s ,,$-Z9 0I111jIII�I1111i101flll1$ 1i9'2 a� llllllllllllllll Data Source fy<<,R,7a.,ee ,e,-k GAv l ei...nee• r.Je #co* ....77e #Cre4i VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION .I-ISMasiment' DESCRIPTION .1-toMiasmal DESCRIPTION •(-ISmoment Sales or Financing Concessions ll ... .v..a .y. , �„ „e- Date of Sale/Time �+ Ullll a-cal., in-B9 a-st.9 5-139 Location (('�, JJ ,se�, �/ Site/View o.�1eG Heil Ts6 e•a .*,..,1/e Gee.( S,�� ,:f. .a.,re..� •topoc Sy.:Ald t et.oPr --In ovo c)w a oo..d - Design and Appeal E...//i E9u,/ eta..,,/ ef.,a 1 Quality of Construction v a.,.d Eyr/o./ E•,.,./ tr...../ Age i9Bs- /9R3 i9R,t "993 Condition ,/ 6„ G.. I Y 'o d (Pep d Above Grade Trial~e0rms Baths tout K. edrms Baths bias B rm, Baths Total tDams y Baths Room Count 9:.3 ;. a , 3 :d ya 9 .. .a h A, 3 :a is Gross Living Area a7av/ Sq.Ft. qg%9 Sq.Ft..- t•so= , 3ssL Sq.Ft. -4.2sznca a7o Sq.Ft. Basement&Finished lase" 4'..r „" 6"'' ' 807•.44+4 /aea.•.+a-r Rooms Below Grade aeo•' F:•►i /osb+` •.•••.a.,4 .v., 6._t Pf..:t 6-. ._AdYd.4 -/s000 .4.Ze. .44,i f + Jaao o ,s_.. u_ii 11,di -i naken Functional Utility ael c al G d r;m..I ., ,.,./ Heating/Cooling FsfralL -A19/of_ �A�QG FA,,G614. Garage/Carport 3-,� g•F • r• ..- a /-arit .5-1,r ft• ?•ems o_d-+ ; Porches.Patio, lay s e5 e A /. s-s.%.le..A ,a',"' sP i Est•'3-s..a I Pools.etc. S.3r" de..A /dot°'P.'o Fo•' o ...I //JP3- oP .:Q.,", fs t yotzo ,2s0 fu •.r"�+,:1 -Lssio 1sb"et.4/.are Pe.L: -/tmv Special Energy Efficient Items y e tioe_n n� Fireplace(s) y—Fib a-F/a ?—m•• .1-A:e. ♦ ex.= -F� , CMr Other(ep kitchen V. 6..d.4,.;e( V.6.ad A,d.-A Er.r,/ .*- A V G..d A,I..{ equip.,remodeling) /r +ism G..d 9 Nor Adi(total)del ll I l I III II + i7,s i�Jsao + i -s ,. �j+ x-'s BonoIndicated Vale III I�I II IIIIIIIII� .I $ 3/Seo -• of Subject $ �q coaSee $ 3?9aoo Comments on Sales Comparison:,, r'? ,A,,, ,:, •.57ie7. C...,,,,,a/i...1 ,..e S A.re it sf .., s•,!„,7/e. (..-e.,/e..yao. J-s/m.Y. ,.fir'4'3 S 4' !n._• -c.a...l -r,4s- la/et el ..,-,af ..-._.7.Af• et C••Q //a3 F"4/ . Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach: as of January 2, 1990? ,- .3JG noea Value Review Assessor's . Being Appealed Appraisal Recommendation Land Value iipPoo iio 00o ii4 ter, Building Value =V3-000 acx�oo ...1204,rnu -,,,- i Total EMV sat eoc 3//,na7ro .."/r„...CLoa Appraiser T.4„ ...5.4..s • rfl_990 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: /37 Page. t Sales Comparison Approach • • PIO: .23- iiG-ate- s,3-^n/r • Owner: Address: ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO.t COMPARABLE NO.2 COMPARABLE NO.3 Address 9ooi P`rv.r. /1/d Proximity to Subject 1II1 W2W1l•111111lllllhI yA Sales Price s Llllll ll�li(111fl�ills JIllllll{IlII111111111111111fs Il11f111CIIIRIII0IIIs • Price/Gross Liv.Area S CI1$ 9y., 0 h S mnIVElITIS r lilllllIDllllllllhllll. Data Source Gifu F ATia VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION .I-VS*Susses DESCRIPTION 1_41-13++entmem DESCRIPTION .bls*assures Sales or Financing r I III Concessions J l _Now. Date of Sale/Time 4-R 9 . Location 6. Site/view of k. w.o y saoo Design and Appeal �i.r. n iJ,oao Quality of Construction E../ Age /9a3 3 • • Condition vi abairIf Above Grade bras.ae.ms. Bilha brae BE,ms Baths moral:Bams, Bath, total;Se ms; Batts• Room Count io :_s, '..2 I j Gross Living Area �7 y/ Sq.Ft. 34_a 4 Sq.Ft. Basement&Finished /447+" da-♦ �r o0o Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft. Rooms Below Grade "`°a, "'".44. 1 f is.Aw %i'N, -/so00 o Functional Utility E,..ro/ Heating/Cooling ..%9 AP e • Garage/Carport . .{{ .. .. Porches.Patio, i,p+` x.�. • Pools.etc. GG+" oP Special Energy Efficient hems . Wane • • Fireplace(s) srx Other(e.g.kitchen E'.ru e, equip.,remodeling) .Good Net AO(total) —I 11•_l_.jJ + .,-.$ a9S00 —1+ _.-S r+ '_ —:S . Indicated Value of Subject I ' $ 3i coo $ $ f Comments on Sales Comparison: ,. v,: f...3. en.,„,4 ;, ,,Alt. el,ras Ai f i45rs/ ,'„ < /e C c,...,ti..iw� -1.54..A, L.-gw. `-7 1'N A..., s....tJoe! :,%u_ i / d Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach: as of January 2, 1990 Value Review Assessor's Being Appealed Appraisal . Recommendation Land Value • Building Value . • Total EMV Appraiser Appeal No: /37 Page 3 Photo of Subject • . . R4-41•••••i • lit_ --‘"... • - . , ,. .... . . .. .......,,, , -- • _.............„--,--,- . ..... ,,,, __. _ __,......„i„i•:.--0.41$02r, -.....*- ,,,..4.,.. ...-,___. - , • Building Sketch • 1 •6• ••• • • •.. .. . ... ..... . 6 • •,• 1 • • • ID• .•./t clog.d • • - 0,...4 g•ta..• r t/; . ..•"•*1,•A •.. '.e• ••.•6',.—40a(45 ,#•1.". '•. .•• ., .•.• .2.-' -4•.-:• .• '• .- •'' '.• . ...•-' ..•...•..• '• , ......--, . ' Fte I: ! Y7:5: S : • -"..•, . ..... I I • ! . • . • 31" .... . • -• -••••cl . • • •, • xi . ... .. -. ••I A,.•. .• •.• • je•• . ._ ! • . . • • •• • ' • •••.... • ••••••• • • • •.• • - tS • I, .. . ... .. • • • •• •• •• . • • • • •.,..... . .. . .. • . •, - • . • J r• . , . •. • •, . . ,, • •. • • • . 4•, 1" • . • I Al D . p,‘• . .• • •.• . ... . .. ,•• • , • 1,t , , - - , . .. . . , • . . . .. " 4 4 • - 4 • oo 's v i.,' • Il" • r• •t • • ..... •a, •-I 6 . I t.• • , • . . Appeal No. IH$ 04-116-22-43-0104 Date Received 4/19/ 90 t ,e.f1F.Y1 Q-C • Appraiser Lorna Lisel l APPLICATION FORM 1990 EDEN PRAIRIE BDARD OF REVIEW (To be completed by owner - please print) Telephone Home: cj3''- Work: 1 i-.j - c Name:T)ple. L . 9- !/ACL1 A C-2C&)Z Address of Property: /,*'Si ilicxc•<</ C`t-• January 2, 1990 valuation as it ap ears on the notice: $ •') . 4/CC Date property was acquired: Purchase Price: $ ,cA cc o Terms of Purchase: Additions and alterations since purchase: .li4cc,4f.;i — G al/Ljatt' uz,iJrz,) Cost of additions and alteratio s: % Is property listed for sale? ,(Jcl If yes, at what price $ (attach copy of listing agreement) Owners estimated market value as of January 2, 1990 is: $ 2?oo•000 What are your reasons or documentation supporting the above stated value? (Please attach supporting information): 0'co /-+A,k ��e Lfu4yr�Ay HAY31r.c' >NA, 5/%a I X plus (et c`1VE. lUcca' it) / „Ec7/A> c,/n9 (.( q/is k'af/I' 3 Ll 7K;ue wit," (,ru.,elt ,r,b/,�,9 n / Signaturtu�of Ow Please note: This form requests private or confidential data of applicant which is being collected for purposes of review by the City Assessor and the Eden Prairie Board of Review to assist in preparing for any appeals/objections herein. The submission of this data is not mandatory, however, in order to get an accurate assessment of the property prior to the hearing, such data is helpful. (To be completed by the Assessing Department) Prior year values: Land Building Total Property Class. 1/2/89 46500 163400 209900 R 1/2/88 45000 158100 203100 R 1/2/87 338600 141200 179800 R Last Inspection: 3/2.5/._87 Appraiser: Lorna Lise11 Building Permits/Appraiser Comments: Sale History Date Source Sale Price Terms of Sale Comments WD /8 CRV $ 17490082700 774900 LID Board of Review Action: 1) Referred to Assessor for review: 2) Assessor's value adjusted to: 3) Assessor's value sustained: ... , ,...,.- . . - p,y;:, ••• - ,,- ,. -,- -• .• . ....• ... • • r ,,i21.s.1.:.,.:.:,•- 1990 Eden Prairie Board of Review - Appeal No: iii.§- Page 1 J . . Sales Comparison Approach 'J..-.-. . PIO: ew-i i&-.2.1 '/3 0/.94/ ____ Owner: ,(90_lt. Address: i 48,-1 A A•1444-44-efU .,C...f i . ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO.1 COMPARABLE NO.2 COMPARABLE NO.3 ."4...2,7 i3 01,4 t -i,4,•.7A 4:::. °clog 0,i-/4.-aa 51..9 ea 7A Address i'llq /11:,-.6a"7, 4.99, Rzwe.,) C.0- /4'44;ti ..e-teirturrid Ci-- /5/965-1.4,,,,44...4 di- ... Proximity to saw' 1111111111111111 19111111 vy.,.. 4-., ...t ..,tiLd„.4t.f..h , I te,r5 Sales Price $ 11111;11 BMUS-7/ e o 11111 111111E1M11$-7e'i,aeo JI 1111111 111111111111s iz coo PriceiGross Led Area $ Z$ 9,-17 C41 $1-1.Aa mlINIIIIIHMIIHR1 s 77.44 c41.11111 MOUE I. Oata Source d._re V eizti Ur) VALUE ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION I .i•is imminent DESCRIPTION •(-Is women, DESCRIPTION 1.1.1s minim., Sales or Financing • -., ___ --, Concessions ""-- — — — — ---- •:., Date of Sale/Time -741.9 — 3//9 — 749 — -. Location 9.0-owt. 9."'"( — ?"34 — —Site/View te-pei— '-& — le-e-ri — — -. Design and Appeal 9‘ 4 q.0-4 - ye-pi- - gyafi- - Duality of Construction .Ay 43 - A 1 - - "A4 #11-Soo Age 11,1 1111 — 1179 7'...700 47 /gee) -,, ,r. Condition .?"14" eiv."4-- — — — :":-..:........ Above Grade blal .ElOrms. Baths Total ,Bdons, Ube bia:titease brat ItZiease . . '.._,.. Room Count S : 4 :1,k, q i 4 ',1414Ya - 1 ;-5 ;;'/' - - -.--. - Gross Living Area ,2g741 SO Ft .2.VO0 Sq Ft. o-isoo ;3oS Be Ft. -d,oe ..,,vie? So.Ft. —41/00 .: Basement S.Finished misietir...ilik.d. nto iy.a.t4 4414.4 ,,-//,ado A.44.4,,,,,,t.44A .0..,,,3,, fop stit.;,_:.A...4 - ..._.,,. Rooms Below Grade F,11 'IA 4 ersa. cAr;,a N.,8,..ra., •fr.7000 _..-:- Functional Ubity Heating/Coolec a f A Aid. c r q 44. - C Ficit a Id.,. — gPsi Ra. - •)".‘.- Garage/Carport ),..„,.4tt 61;0 A de..i.eat .576'a - .0 tao—A4t 41/0 — .0Liti..eit 451.16: — ,'--- Porches,Patio. ci.e.a.aPo on. .. ,it.,..k,Ap...--, d t....k. d......L 40 *'' Pools,etc. sp4.......fr....k.:1.- diu,A.., 7.• - ea 'V"P".4-' 7'"15 00 ilrtre.t.1974.cd,i --..Vite;) 3t.i.: po4L Special Energy 100.41.-0-...41 y-eo-.2od ~ht., 1 4.2.00 46,146,07 Efficient Berns . --• Fireplace(s) .2 / e-io co / 4.-/000 1 ley f-joeit, : .. Other(e.g Widen ,L'...':.::" equip,remodeling) Net Ad.(total) '1ffla ilf ,, 1,7+ -I-7:s ?So o f + i-,4 19,4,04, E?:+ [-is 153e>0 .,...-.?::, Indicated value 1...--,24- ue subject MU L 11 II_ 1;-Lq57go, I III $.2R,,44, I_ I . $..vo ________ -.,-.- Comments on Sales Comparison: -1k1a4-4-u.J."..40-4 1.41 a4"12 4-t._A.01 ehL, eto'retp.4.(a-14J IN 74-1. O..0 711.1 0 4 A o 6 le...) ,a,..oro...c, 1-44. Czuks4d- e2.4.4e4u84$4.0/• ., ..,.......... . . .., ... -- ---"--'''' , ..... L....,'...'.V.;:,-f. Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach:4_740,4410 J. as of January 2, 1990"1-, ,,-. .. Value Review '' Assessor's Being Appealed Appraisal . Recommendation • .. 7-- Land Value Alt soe, ,16 e;en, 46 soo • Building Value 163,/op /7V,stet, /4.talop Total EMV Jog goo a„,0.,10 0 409,9 0 0 - - - - - Appraiser In • . . . ' . Appeal No: /4S Page 2 Photo of Subject , r ik. i .iirl",- . . v. r 7"1 . ' . Ri.b • i 1, ® 4 1 N I ` Building Sketch i i i J .1_s1.bw4+3�. 'DECK J 5 O,M W �+' At �\ b Wi d a 4 1 2s A. B a10 l � ! /a 1 A l b ! elec..-O Oulu 7 40 i I • ji. 1 Appeal No. ISO Date Received LIjp114C Appraiser 1.5,t it., CcoK PID If 22-116-22 24 0119 APPLICATION FORM 1990 EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF REVIEW (To be completed by owner - please print) Telephone Home: 5 3 y- 7 7/5/ / Wor /v 9 S 'Rln(,fi3 Name: Jofl& `3e K/,U5 6k/4:.ruti�erl/4/J Sc eJ Address of Property: g7cl(o {'/e5i�t`'A:' CRGL P January 2, 1990 valuation as it appears on the notice: $ 8 c� 2�ac Date property was acquired: Purchase Price: $ Terms of Purchase: Additions and alterations since purchase: Cost of additions and alterations: Is property listed for sale? If yes, at what price $ (attach copy of listing agreement Owners estimated market value as of January 2, 1990 is: $ What are your reasons or documentation supporting the above stated value? (Please attach supporting information): Signature of Owner Please note: This form requests private or confidential data of applicant which is being collected for purposes of review by the City Assessor and the Eden Prairie Board of Review to assist in preparing for any appeals/objections herein. The submission of this data is not mandatory, however, in order to get an accurate assessment of the property prior to the hearing, such data is helpful. (To be completed by the Assessing Department) Prior year values: Land Building Total Property Class. 1/2/89 8000 ---- 8000 R 1/2/88 N/A N/A 1/2/87 N/A N/A Last Inspection: L/ /10 Appraiser: Barb Cook Building Permits/Appraiser Comments: Sale History Date Source Sale Price Terms of Sale Comments // ******************************************************************************* Board of Review Action: 1) Referred to Assessor for review: 2) Assessor's value adjusted to: 3) Assessor's value sustained: 1990 Eden Prairie Board of Review Appeal No: /50 Page 1 Land Sales Comparison Approach PID: 21 - //10 -.?a ..2k/ 01/9 Owner: %AL*. 1,�. it S..S.Q Address: $1910 ...Q•a1-uvo C ad-01.-.70 OV oug .71-114o•Da 4/ 00a9 41-nu-aa vl003° $804 11..J.,r„ CJ., /U '79 Qua..... 144(.63 Q tao,.4116..1) Subject Comparable #1 Comparable #2 Comparable #3 Item Data Data Adj. Data Adj. Data Adj. Sale Price RSOoo — 9400O — Scoot) — Specials Assumed None — Ahme_ — Nana- — Date Sold 7/g9 to 189 — /ll 139 Location/5.j,- V•Gocd E??uaO — f$,4l.Suu,,,,,. —/0000 11,415 -10000 Lot Size 34000 3d000 — r,7(o0o0 r-4000 is-000 t-5000 Land Improvements SW SSW — Sww ` — S'"LL) — VLaw AlSfIIM111 ga.h..- f(utaP — Ef4«a17 — PtuaA — TotaltAdjustments L., — S000 —50oo Indicated Value SS000 SfLoOOO 130000 Value Being Appealed Review Appraisal Assessor's Recommendation Land Value go000 gSOOO fIO C)10 -- Building Value Total EMV n $00o0 8500 0 p Appraiser cub Co-&-fr--. Previous Year EMV ROOD ,;0 s,;- • ..Gjtc . .co, _ f woe-cLrL.., ct c csw a c11.,_,...ua*u 11aoo..ca P r>rr.0 4.4 0Au_ I .c;a ....0o.t Lti a ,rw,,.f" .t 4 ./ Lc". '° /-C. %?r f' �0.tic L ticro-c1 A, , a,-,c� trry � Qan,.., ,a/u.v4,z,, IY oad , All eempaJ a1 ae.t a.t-t -Ike, //z/Ro u alu., / 80,000. • Memorandum To. Eden Prairie Board of Review • From. Steve Sinell, City Rssessor � Subjects MLS information regarding houses priced in excess of $250000 Date: May 9, 1990 I've attached the information that was provided to Doug Tenpas and forwarded to us for reuiew. Ue reviewed the summary information as provided and added the values as assigned by our office, calculated the ratio of assessor's value to price, and indicated which neighborhood the properties are located. The summary statistics are: Sold properties: Mean 96.31 Median 95.63 Active listings: Mean 85.76 Median 81.05 Uithdrawn/expired/cancelled listings: Mean 89.93 Median 89.81 This additional information supports the previous information supplied to the board by the Assessing Department which indicated the 1990 estimated market values as assigned are generally lower than the sale prices actually achieved. The sellers asking prices and expectations are generally higher than the 1990 estimated market values. • Je.L� 7oC%.r A� ftyid t td. �o�i nlJ (`% 10 90 9 M4. du,- Pei .Q.+ d 3a9,900 //c/90 -Arced/ (as-as-30) (,�../ 3oc►,7oo 14) 196;M✓ — , 93,8ov //g3 a M4 L. 2d 3i9,900 3/„/96 F(}tl (a3- L/3- a) d 3/7WO /la Igo — a 449,600 0 /04o0 Mf ?d d . 309,006 /;4)1/a9 FYp4 (0)6-as-a9)_ G,, 2 �. ar 3,99,966 :c _ 140 fMV — �' 8 _ aGO, oo .-- ,j �;� /d //(09d M+ etuLIZI Yazd 3'24aoo /0/3i/1 Xp'l 3-43-/7 e,,,,/kY , z � 359,900 '/a/ o FM v — 3 Lto,000 /078o M4- £ .'d `Wq9,966 is/3&/89 Ekfrl &a5-a'-sa ) i.d. 433,600 _ 5/3,190 Xpcl y, 399,coo i90 M J ,339000 ��( 9533 C � ��• �ca. o� c9.9S 500 '�I 196 �0 v (,•..Eed dl gy 90 v /4a100 fM V a6,8,ai0 64-et) 2t -t c.� LrJr. pAw 6.4.4 _441/2.44id io?8a m4.6..,Pd -pt.o os /49,9Ov /a/3,/s9 (a5-at•Sa) ,� �D 433,666 3/31/90 i fs .-Z2 / .399, COD /9961m - 389,000 • /0(,(0g M-I-e Fe cJ N59,6o0 /3oI89 05-ar-5o) sad 398,006 �laakrG / 99 O M v - 3 96, 90o - �tao�x SaJea - 36,,,o0 o 1)-(_12-44i4,61• (7 9a P > ,a4t,d a 3q,9av /a 13 t* (96,-fa- ,0 Sod a 56 oaa 3/"l RO 990 CMv aya,ao o (0 ere ,da (.14 t Ct e-ci e e0 ) o- I 12e.Aue.., Pacw1......) do4..,..ect,,...i -Le— jaa),, ) AA..1:„.,0 AL.,_4 .„4.4..C.CLet.2-<, '744,2V, ..A.zt.d., a. ioak,12.4i 0 /..I.J.A...,.-,-- 6.k..• _iti.A.,„ci uo_i....,...4_..... a.....0 ,I i '2- 1 q 0 Li5 _...(24.4.1—t-c1.- Em.), I. 62,a.... IC/ 0,u,..., ai.e-0 O.C.A..A.A.A.AAL..... --J,Qt•A ii...ei...) . . 61- , i i • • • . • 3 • PROPERTY TYPE? FUNCTION? SO SEARCH OFF-THE-MARKET LISTINGS ! PROPERTY TYPE? 1 DISTRICT(S)? 592 • LIST/SALE PRICE (RANGE)? 250,000-900,000 DONE) ENTER ADDITIONAL SEARCH PARAMETERS (HIT 'RETURN' ? MPX=47 `'' '. ? MPY=5A • f` Try LISTING ADDRESS AREA PRICE DATE MT OFFC BR STYLE � :' SOLD#643278 9492 PAINTERS R 592 0250,000 03/11/90 69 5067 5 2 ST* EXPD#643989 9514 BENNETT PL 592 $255,900 03/01/90 47 5128 3 2 ST* SOLD#580613 9260 OVERLOOK T 592 $260,000 08/05/89 141 6236 4 RAMB* SOLD#601183 8899 HIDDEN OAK 592 $277,000 08/09/89 84 5875 4 2 ST* �; , ` EXPD0607004 9492 PAINTERS R 592 $284,900 12/31/89 201 5067 4 2 ST* EXPD#622187 9533 BENNETT PL 592 $299,500 04/01/90 184 5242 3 2 ST* .V SOLD#603567 11202 MT CURVE R 592 *$300,000 07/14/89 37 6203 6 2 ST* SOLD1t583391 9540 OLYMPIA DR 592 $302,948 04/04/89 11 5875 4 2 ST* SOLD#627893 9517 OLYMPIA DR 592 $305,000 02/27/90 161 5011 4 2 ST* SOLD#575266 11055 MOUNT CURV 592 $308,000 04/25/89 44 5011 4 2 ST* .T SOLD#593744 9366 OLYMPIA DR 592 $317,000 02/11/90 300 5013 4 2 ST* SOLD#621449 9397 OLYMPIA DR 592 $317,000 10/13/89 50 6274 5 2 ST* d •D#626563 11832 MT CURVE R 592 $319,900 03/11/90 183 5011 4 2 ST* SOLD#583066 8973 KNOBLE CT 592 $320,000 05/15/89 20 6235 5 2 ST* SOLD#581406 8743 BENTWOOD D 592 $320,000 05/31/89 49 6236 4 RAMB* DD4607252 10961 MOUNT CURV 592 $329,000 12/27/89 185 5011 3 2 ST* y , CCANC#620512 10929 MT CURVE R 592 $329,900 01/05/90 105 5877 4 3 ST* l- SOLD#631605 9535 OLYMPIA DR 592 $330,000 12/07/89 26 5875 4 2 ST* y; EXPD#626192 9571 OLYMPIA DR 592 $339,000 04/01/90 155 5019 4 2 ST* SOLD#603065 9001 PRESERVE B 592 $343,000 07/07/89 26 6236 4 2 ST* SOLD#629124 11352 MT CURVE R 592 $345,000 01/20/90 112 5877 5 2 ST* WITH#624249 11772 MT CURVE R 592 $348,500 12/13/89 97 5894 3 2 ST* EXPD4616065 11742 MOUNT CURV 592 $359,000 02/16/90 186 6203 4 2 ST* SOLD#567099 9313 OLYMPIA DR 592 * $359,000 08/18/89 287 5019 4 2+ST* @ XPD#619784 11682 MT CURVE R 592 $374,900 12/31/89 140 5875 5 2 ST* `s SOLD#583843 11412 MT CURVE R 592 $375,000 10/30/89 217 6236 3 2 ST* SOLD#639299 10662 MT CURVE R 592 $378,000 02/22/90 79 5113 6 2 ST* SOLD#619430 11501 WELTERS WA 592 $380,000 09/24/89 23 6235 4 2 ST* i:: SOLD#635680 11405 MT CURVE R 592 $386,500 03/27/90 91 5011 5 '2 ST* _`4 -SOLD#593808 10793 MT CURVE 592 $415,000 06/14/89 57 5208 5 2 ST* CANC#606089 11022 MT CURVE R 592 $429,000 12/27/89 198 5011 4 RAMB* ' GiXPD#643148 10782 MT CURVE R 592 $433,000 03/31/90 93 6129 5 2 ST* SOLD#616585 11709 WELTERS WA 592 $435,000 09/08/89 20 5875 4 2 ST* SOLD#656445 10902 MOUNT CRV 592 $442,000 04/09/90 1 5011 3 RAMB* WEXPD#629659 10782 MT CURVE R 592 $449,900 12/31/89 93 5884 5 2 ST* EXPD#611122 10662 MOUNT CURV 592 $459,000 11/30/89 133 5287 5 2 ST* SOLD#629532 9427 OLYMPIA DR 592 0520,000 12/04/89 7 5287 5 2 ST* EXPD#615389 94 OLYMPIA DR 592 $575,000 11/26/89 125.5287 5 2 ST* EXPD#575710 94 7 OLYMPIA DR 592 $595,000 11/15/89 2435019 3 RAMB* co- -� , ' DO YOU WISH TO REVISE THE CURRENT SEARCH CRITERIA (Y OR N)? N PROPERTY TYPE? -f LRThTrPT1 M? DT * = A Q� /'� 4N,.)940 inza,,•1 • -ma.-- -, - - ' 96, 3 I 614,,ts5 -- • 1,,. 2,....1..., - 55,-14, 54 0 ‘44,4110,,-,/„,,,f...^,e)jitt.•<..,`',,P__ CO• 9 3 Sq.$1-4 p....,......t.i e.............0.4 01,r-a yi........v,-,.....0 . PT.L.. 1990 E m 4 Ictqo ema Rat. A- .._ iI A i ono a 4-7, i:50 q 4.fir_ WALIZAII-Aug &Leda.2.4 2,L.-1 a-24 P•.4/00 koeit-karec5 81,c•3 Zu2r-A..• Ma-t2.$%Lk_ - , as-aa- 7 :lab L•o() gy,sg- 0.12try 114.14r,9,-0 • 34,2t A•1 3 aoo ol.'7704.45 /00•00 thg"1"6" °44-4-' .2 4- P ASI,boo Covet 91.94 *Wiri:A-.67 Pt,. duly-.P---4 24. -.21 aoi c,e•c., Sq•`I if 09.,-,2....z. fr)•ei, .5.-1--, 'ar.-aa-- it • /as 0 6 (?Ze»,f6." 4426' 61-k' ' ),, ,,,. OW/4n,et/146 qi4.3/ witittcAo ,11.,,,,tro...A."...7 a..., •,v,_ ii....t,g A 84 qoo 4.5,AS Lt..),Pitzm Pg,... 0....t.4 &NA at„. I/...-70 0 • 4.456 ZiSqoo 95,.q/ 0.-1/4...40.•-.:. 1,4-4,1g kt00 •9S•S 5- oi.airs gal, 4.14,-, .2 s-43-51 .2..P L/00 76•02 02,..r•to,.-.. lat., z (04.- As-4a-A2. ..25-100 72••t..4 Op...its_14.44.g.,„t„, s- I'r -/4 74•1 i .14KA.4,-*ea..64)A.,+ .a../- A i-3/ , :3,-JSioo • /04' la 40,52,131,4&K. i'l-.-Lito 1*1‘' 44, d5,1 Doc,pcb...t,Q 59'I)(" ,4*-). =-,- 4-12-51.2 1 1-4,..• A,-.5_-_-22-5c. - ' ....er ....h......., BAlt , at.- /1- '7/ 1900 c.,(X) 900-`,1) - Lalaku.ra, Puwies. 0...en...... 2-,.a, •24-r t- 11 z is,ca.) q I.qs ixo-..e...4 1....)06••44, actel. . A%-qi-4/ ?..z..%000 q.7,(3-1 • - -.,..- -01241,,..÷._ 4...ast- (..14-. •_ ,2 :...,..4ct- s asggoc-, s9.si 00-r•f• t.1--.2.QL, Le‘4•-• -a s---4 a-ao a 87 soo - - So•I-7 0 , 4.A.S1.- :.f..54 7 00 9s•so 0.0-11--p--• 14..sa. t.o‘6-- 25- ‘13-ls ,-4-1,-)s-00 z40,0u4 go.t..q .c. -- I-LAI, tio-t- - OUNCIL th VoreeS $2,(01 • 0-2-61-...f.--.. 1,1•-D-0, tosIAL. a -Lig_to •,5,-//,,Ioc.) ioS.00. - -1•1••••-,-, 14.-Lct, 14-t.L. 415-Al-54. 3 Zq loo 5q.,% coco A .`lio•,,k.. Pw.%atit.ta, .5•ck 24.-iF-4/ 0c-Do 1t- Toe/ calt,4 CA,V1 41444 MO V6i."." /35.42 cirvia...L. 4,09,- 144,, as .».-34 4014•000 -• -•- - to s,50 cs..„.„.„,..4.,..„.. 14...0.1„ -Tu. .2,4.53...C. .-0,441,' 14A-0-. '7`14•%.$ .25-pi-12 coc, _s_i,12,..---- 3s 3 800 we0 yi,, •-,-,' as--aa-at . 5- . 0 000 5/.•4to • 0/24-).-1.-. /4-1•1.= '-E, Vi(PCI 00 .... • - 5,7s-aoo ../'7 ocso oca.kiz atisdkamaa a 40 S.%i'• • u341....1.•toA_A QD L.,ee (10-e.h.t.A, f ' •••'5.-75-3 cx., sy"7000 I I 0. , 44>-11-S. I QS•I 9 •-,1 4 4 c11...a.,......, •• ' , . • ' •• •-.4,-...---.. - - • ' - -.-••.4-,54,,..,',1/C,,4 --- -- - FUNCTION? SA SEARCH ACTIVE LISTINGS PROPERTY TYPE? 1 DISTRICT(S)? 592 LIST PRICE (RANGE)? 250,000-695,000 ENTER ADDITIONAL SEARCH PARAMETERS (HIT 'RETURN' WHEN DONE) ? LD=1/1/89+ ? MPX-47 MPX-47 MISSING KEYWORD OR "_" . ? MPX=47 ? MPY=5A LISTING ADDRESS AREA SUB PRICE OFFC FSF YBL BR TBA STYLE #625610 9717 BRASSIE 592 1 $275.000 5875 2737 1987 4 4 2 ST* #661394 9533 BENNETT 592 1 $284,900 5242 4400 1980 3 3 2 ST* 4?#643392 10929 MT CURVE 592 1 $309,700 5877 2900 1985 4 3 2 ST* NEW 11664764- 9591 AMESBURY 592 1 $315,000 5875 2800 9999 3 3 2 ST* 41663159 11832 MT CURVE 592 1 $317,000 5148 3000 1985 4 4 2 ST* ) 636655 10961 MT CRV R 592 1 $329,900 5011 4760 1983 3 4 2 ST* #653994 8980 KNOBLE C 592 1 $334.900 5875 3435 1986 4 4 2 ST' 11628361 9571 OLYMPIA 592 1 $339,000 5011 3000 1990 4 4 2 ST* • 11626276 9483 AMESBURY 592 1 $342,000 5875 3000 9999 4 3 2 ST* 41656825 9465 AMESBURY 592 1 $357.500 5875 3300 9999 4 4 2 ST* 6)644979 11682 MOUNT CU 592 1 *.$359,900 5875 4650 1986 5 4 2 ST* 11645780 8810 HIDDEN 0 592 2 Ar$379.000 5148 4800 1985 4 4 2 ST* 11663413 11322 MOUNT CU 592 1 W$395,000 5877 5125 1983 4 4 2 ST* .40649247 :0732 MT CURVE 592 1 $399,500 5113 5000 1987 5 4 2 ST* 41653280 9360 OLYMPIA 592 1 $399,900 5116 4300 1984 5 4 2+ST* 11624570 11728 WELTERS 592 2 $414,000 6235 3000 1589 3 3 2 ST* . . 1660849 11792.-WE1:PERS 592 1 $424,900 5116 5000 1988 5. 4 2+STD - - 640577 11622 MT CURVE 592 1 $459,000 6555 1985 4 2 RAMR* #592828 11f.39 WELTER'S 592 1 $479.900 6007 3333 1989 4 3 2 ST* 11651950 10602 MOUNT CU 592 1 $489.000 6236 4350 1988 3 4 RAMB* #662539 9463 OLYMPIA 592 1 $497,900 5875 4645 1990 4 5 RAMB* 41656795 17761 WELTERS 592 1 $510,000 6129 4855 1989 5 4 2 STD _ • DO YOU WI:.H TO REVISE THE CURRENT SEARCH CRITERIA (Y OR N)? N • Iw --;.".10•N•.?- .. • • Px.1). /990 EMU 1+40 AtV Ret,o • ..4%, a.,a goo 1 7 NSS 311.41 076-'44-2..) .P 000 t? :f kJ!". tb")r64?-11 9.q53°Q -9447 • cr..11Avr.p...-•1•4410. tr..2.2r W.tialAn 041.14riht: ?,XICI(000 . 0 14.141 V-15-too PLI,101- ' 14,44 1 t4,;",,,p.*o,av- q b 106 74•4-1 . 5Sie000 po.A.1.1 • zas 44;:t/r.Gt 40'St,. RAA.. 1.-I f-to/ era-2r Watin.ft Rote ae.JuA. Zult g,-.11 Soo o oo o autleft feeS q4..4-1 0 su-r-e--,- 441‘. . U3I7 g °op c5oo pose- 4621. , l4 && s o .14 og • Lioi4•••70 0 .5'7 0000 Mullet- tee-5 95, 0 ,'Lt.L ...*64 7 'Re?DOC) 97,3 7 0 1-1:4-- :25'.ai. a$scloc, 1.).24 14.-a_Lft ..75-4 3- 3 I 5- plc.,09 , WAS/Jan-ft RA,*aou_ft. at.,la-Pi-. ge000 •l'"•7 oar,- 5 4tr000 oTw &eJUAJ - - Of246.'-P-•-• 4,04-I+4" as-21-52 3'14 Sco Rote ac.4,14, /.3 f1339 1.04.11A.A.PuAtr. -al • . • •• • - FUNCTION: SA • SEARCH ACT1Vc LISTINGS FROPERTY TYPE': 1 DISTRI0T(S)? 592 LIST PRICE iRANGE)? 250,000-695,000 ENTER ADDITIONAL SEARCH PARAMETERS (HIT 'RETURN' WHEN DONE) LD=171/89* ? MPX-47 • MPX-47 MISSING KEYWORD OR "=" `l MPX=47 ? MPY-SA LISTING ADDRESS AREA SUB PRICE OFFC FSF YBL BR TBA STYLE #625610 9717 BRASSIE 592 1 $275,000 5875 2737 1987 4 4 2 ST* #661394 9533 BENNETT 592 1 $284,900 5242 4400 1980 3 3 2 STY aP*643392 10929 MT CURVE 592 1 $309,700 5877 2900 1985 4 3 NEW #664764 9591 AMESBURY 592 1 $315,000 5875 2800 9999 3 3 2 STD 663159 11832 MT CURVE 592 1 $317,000 5148 3000 1985 4 4 2 ST* 636655 10961 MT CRV R 592 1 $329,900 5011 4760 1983 3 4 2 ST4 )1653994 8980 KNOBLE C 592 1 $334.900 5875 3435 1986 4 4 .. ST" 4625361 9571 OLYMPIA 592 1 $339,000 5011 3000 1990 4 4 2 ST4 #626276 9483 AMESBURY 592 1 $342,000 5875 3000 9999 4 3 2 ST* #656825 9465 AMESBURY 592 1 $357.500 5875 3300 9999 4 4 2 ST* 60644979 11682 MOUNT CU 592 1 $359,900 5875 4650 1986 5 4 2 ST* 4645780 881.0 HIDDEN 0 592 2 $379,000 5148 4800 1985 4 4 2 STD --4663413 11322 MOUNT CU 592 1 $395,000 5877 5125 1983 4 4 2 ST4 aNb49247 10732 MT CURVE 592 1 $399,500 5113 5000 1987 5 4 2 ST* 4E53280 9360 OLYMPIA 592 1 $399,900 5116 4300 1984 5 4 2*ST* 4624570 1172E WELTERS 592 2 $414,000 6235 3000 1989 3 3 2 ST* 466084S 11792 WELTERS 592 1 $424,900 5116 5000 1988 5 4 2+S'T* 640577 11622 MT CURVE 592 1 $459,000 6555 1985 4 2 RAMP* 11139 WELTER'S 592 1 $479,900 6007 3333 1989 4 3 7. ST* 465195!) 1_0602 MOUNT CU 592 1 $489.000 6236 4350 1988 3 4 RAMS* 06675 9 9463 OLYMPIA 592 1 $497.900 5875 4645 1990 4 5 }AMB N656745 11761 WELTERS 592 1 $510,000 6129 4855 1989 5 4 2 ST* YOU 'Wi H TO REVISE THE CURRENT SEARCH CRITERIA (Y OR N)? N 1 - • PROPERTY TYPE? FUNCTION? SO SEARCH OFF-THE-MARKET LISTINGS PROPERTY TYPE? 1 DISTRICT(S)? 592 LIST/SALE PRICE (RANGE)? 250,000-900,000 ENTER ADDITIONAL SEARCH PARAMETERS (HIT 'RETURN' WHEN DONE) ? MPX=47 ? MPY=SA LISTING ADDRESS AREA PRICE DATE MT OFFC BR STYLE SOLD#643278 9492 PAINTERS R 592 $250.000 03/11/90 69 5067 5 2 ST* EXPD#643989 9514 BENNETT PL 592 $255,900 03/01/90 47 5128 3 2 ST* SOLD#580613 9260 OVERLOOK T 592 $260,000 08/05/89 141 6236 4 RAMB* SOLD#601183 8899 HIDDEN OAK 592 $277,000 08/09/89 84 5875 4 2 ST* EXPD#607004 9492 PAINTERS R 592 $284,900 12/31/89 201 5067 4 2 ST* EXPD41622187 9533 BENNETT PL 592 $299,500 04/01/90 184 5242 3 2 ST* SOLD#603567 11202 MT CURVE R 592 $300,000 07/14/89 37 6203 6 2 ST* SOLD#583391 9540 OLYMPIA DR 592 $302,948 04/04/89 11 5875 4 2 ST* SOLD#627893 9517 OLYMPIA DR 592 $305,000 02/27/90 161 5011 4 2 ST* SOLD#575266 11055 MOUNT CURV 592 $308,000 04/25/89 44 5011 4 2 ST* SOLD#593744 9366 OLYMPIA DR 592 $317,000 02/11/90 300 5013 4 2 ST* SOLD#621449 9397 OLYMPIA DR 592 $317,000 10/13/89 50 6274 5 2 ST* cXPD#626563 11832 MT CURVE R 592 $319,900 03/11/90 183 5011 4 2 ST* SOLD#583066 8973 KNOBLE CT 592 $320,000 05/15/89 20 6235 5 2 ST* SOLD#581406 8743 BENTWOOD D 592 $320.000 05/31/89 49 6236 4 RAMB* XPD4I607252 10961 MOUNT CURV 592 $329,000 12/27/89 185 5011 3 2 ST* ICANC#620512 10929 MT CURVE R 592 $329,900 01/05/90 105 5877 4 3 :T4 SOLD#631605 9535 OLYMPIA DR 592 $330,000 12/07/S9 26 5875 4 2 ST* $ EXPD4626i92 9571 OLYMPIA DR 592 $339,000 04/01/90 155 5019 4 2 ST* SOLD#603065 9001 PRESERVE B 592 $343,000 07/07/89 26 6236 4 2 ST* SOLD4t629124 11352 MT CURVE R 592 $345,000 01/20/90 112 5877 5 2 ST* WITH#624249 11772 MT CURVE R 592 $348,500 12/13/89 97 5894 3 2 ST* EXPD#616065 11742 MOUNT CURV 592 $359,000 02/16/90 186 6203 4 2 ST* SOLD4t567099 9313 OLYMPIA DR 592 $359,000 08/18/89 287 5019 4 2+STY (EXPD#619784 11692 MT CURVE R 592 $374,900 12/31/89 140 5875 5 2 ST* • SOLD#583843 11412 MT CURVE R 592 $375,000 10/30/89 217 6236 3 2 ST* SOLD#639299 10662 MT CURVE R 592 $378,000 02/22/90 79 5113 6 2 ST* SOLD#619430 11501 WELTERS WA 592 $380,000 09/24/89 23 6235 4 2 ST* SOLD#635680 11405 MT CURVE R 592 $386,500 03/27/90 91 5011 5'2 ST* SOLD#593808 10793 MT CURVE 592 $415,000 06/14/89 57 5208 5 2 ST* • CANC#606089 11022 MT CURVE R 592 $429,000 12/27/89 198 5011 4 RAMB* EXPD#643745 10782 MT CURVE R 592 $433,000 03/31/90 93 6129 5 2 ST* SOLD#616585 11709 WELTERS WA 592 $435,000 09/08/89 20 5875 4 2 ST* /�S,,O�'LD#656445 10902 MOUNT CRV 592 $442,000 04/09/90 1 5011 3 RAMB* EXPD#629659 10782 MT CURVE R 592 $449,900 12/31/89 93 5884 5 2 ST* EXPD#611122 10662 MOUNT CURV 592 $459,000 11/30/89 133 5287 5 2 ST* SOLD#629532 9427 OLYMPIA DR 592 $520,000 12/04/89 7 5287 5 2 ST* EXPD#615389 9427 OLYMPIA DR 592 $575.000 11/26/89 125. 5287 5 2 ST* EXPD#575710 9487 OLYMPIA DR 592 $595,000 11/15/89 243•5019 3 RAMB* DO YOU WISH TO REVISE THE CURRENT SEARCH CRITERIA (Y OR N)? N PROPERTY TYPE? VT mom T(,T77 DT LISTING .N 663413 -- ACTIVE LISTING TYP: 1 AR : 592 BR : 4 AD : 11322 MOUNT CURVE RD LDR: 04/03/90 MT : 24 OLP: $395,000 LD : 04/01/90 LO : 5877 LP : $395,000 OMD: SO : SP : XD : FIN: • MPX: 47 MPY: 5A SUB: 1 SDN: 272 YBL: 1983 FSZ: 1828 FSF: 5125 ACR: .4 LNA: NEIL TAX: 10599 MTG: INT: 0 PIN: LAM: PTS: TBA: 4 FBT: 3 TBT: 0 HBT: 1 QBT: 0 MBT: Y BBT: Y BCD: M SA : 3.15 BB : Y FP : Y LTY: ER LAK: LVIE STY: 2 STORY EXT: WOOD BR/ST AIR: C HEA: FA FUE: GAS FPL: L A M 3 GAR: 3 A Y DIN: SEP DIN RM EAT IN KIT BSM: W F D S SBA: FULL MSTR FULL BSMT MAIN FLR 2ND FLOOR WAT: CONN SEW: CONN IN1: REF RNG DWS DSP MIC F/H IN2: MPH WSH DRY FLT TRC SEC D/P POR WHP SAU HWF ASM: N TRM: CON EXF: CLR ROM. FUMTT.V ROOM AMUSEMENT R DEN LISTING 4 606089 -- CANCELLED TYP: 1 AR : 592 BR : 4 AD : 11022 MT CURVE RD LDR: 06/12/89 MT : 198 - ----$459,000 .I J n = 9 LD : 06/12/89 LO : 5011 LP : $429 �j yie OMD: 12/27/89 SO : SP : #8t XD : 01/30/90 FIN: (. MPX: 47 MPY: 5A SUB: 1 SDN: 272 YBL: 1983 FSZ: 2913 FSF: 5264 ACR: 0 LNA: .TAX: 8959 MTG: 320000 INT: 8.75 PIN: LAM: PTS: TBA: 4 FBT: 3 TBT: 0 HBT: 1 QBT: 0 MBT: Y BBT: Y BCD: M SA : BB : FP : LTY: ER LAK: POND STY: RAMBLER EXT: STUCC AIR: C HEA: FA FUE: GAS FPL: L F A M W 2 3 GAR: 3 A Y DIN: SEP DIN RM BRKFST AREA BSM: W F SBA: FULL MSTR FULL BSMT MAIN FLR WAT: CONN STREE SEW: CONN IN1: REF RNG DWS DSP MIC F/H IN2: MPH TRC VAC SEC D/P POR WHP SAU ASM: N TRM: CON EXF: CON ARG L101114U R blOUbJ -- LAVIM.M.L • TYP: 1 AR : 592 BR 4 AD ; 11742 MOUNT CURVE RD ' • LDR: 08/17/89 MT : 186 OLP: $359,000 LD : 08/16/89 LO : 6203 LP : $359,000 OMD: 02/16/90 SO : SP : XD : 02/16/90 FIN: MPX: 47 MPY: 5A SUB: 1 SDN: 272 YBL: 1983 FSZ: 1880 FSF: 4800 ACR: 0 LNA: NEILL TAX: 6695 MTG: INT: 0 PIN: LAM: PTS: TBA: 4 FBT: 2 TBT: 1 HBT: 1 QBT: 0 MBT: Y BBT: Y BCD: M SA : 3.15 BB : Y FP : Y LTY: ER LAK: LVIE STY: 2 STORY EXT: WOOD AIR: C HEA: FA FUE: GAS FPL: F A M GAR: 3 A Y DIN: SEP DIN RM EAT IN KIT BRKFST AREA BSM: W F L SBA: FULL MSTR 3/4 BSMT MAIN FLR WAT: CONN SEW: CONN IN1: RNG DWS DSP MIC F/H IN2: MPH FLT SEC D/P SUN WHP ASM: N TRM: CON OTH EXF: CLR • SRM: FAMILY ROOM AMUSEMENT R DEN LISTING N 624249 -- TEMPORARILY WITHDRAWN TYP: 1 AR : 592 BR : 3 AD : 11772 MT CURVE RD LDR: 09/08/89 MT : 97 OLP: $348,000 LD : 09/07/89 LO : 5894 LP : $348,500 OMD: 12/13/89 SO : SP : XD : 01/09/90 FIN: MPX: 47 MPY: 5A SUB.: 1 SDN: 272 YBL: 1984 FSZ: 2131 FSF: 3537 ACR: .5 LNA: TAX: 6895 MTG: 178000 INT: 0 PIN: LAM: PTS: TBA: 3 FBT: 2 TBT: 0 HBT: 1 QBT: 0 MBT: Y BBT: N BCD: M SA : 3.15 BB : Y FP : Y LTY: ER LAK: STY: 2 STORY EXT: SHAKE BR/ST AIR: C HEA: FA FUE: GAS FPL: F 2 GAR: 3 A Y DIN: SEP DIN RM BSM: W SBA: FULL MSTR WALK THRU 2ND FLOOR WAT: CONN SEW: CONN IN1: RNG DWS DSP WSO MIC IN2: FLT TRC SEC D/P SUN WHP • ASM: N TRM: CON CIN EXF: CON SRM: FAMILY ROOM DEN LISTING # 644979 -- ACTIVE LISTING TYP: 1 AR : 592 BR : 5 AD : _11692 MOUNT CURVE RD LDR: 01/19/90 MT : 97 OLP: $374,900 LD : 01/18/90 LO : 5875 LP : $359,900 OMD: SO : SP : XD : FIN: MPX: 47 MPY: 5A SUB: 1 SDN: 272 YBL: 1986 FSZ: 1957 FSF: 4650 ACR: .45 LNA: NEILL TAX: 8444 MTG: 257000 INT: 10.25 PIN: 2485 LAM: PTS: TEA: 4 FBT: 2 TBT: 1 HBT: 1 QBT: 0 MBT: Y BBT: Y BCD: M SA : 3.15 BB : Y FP : Y LTY: ER LAK: LVIE STY: 2 STORY EXT: WOOD MET/V STUCC BR/ST AIR: C HEA: FA FUE: GAS FPL: F A M 3 GAR: 3 A Y DIN: SEP DIN RM BRKFST AREA BSM: W L D SBA: FULL MSTR 3/4 BSMT MAIN FLR 2ND FLOOR WAT: CONN SEW: CONN IN1: REF RNG DWS DSP MIC F/H IN2: WSH DRY TRC D/P SUN POR WHP HWF ASM: Y TRM: CON ASM CIN EXF: CON SRM: FAMILY ROOM AMUSEMENT R DEN oxM: LISTING # 619784 -- EXPIRED TYP: 1 AR : 592 BR : 5 AD : 31682 MT CURVE RD LDR: 08/17/89 MT : 140 OLP: $374,900 LD : 08/15/89 LO : 5875 LP : $374,900 OMD: 12/31/89 SO : SP : XD : 12/31/89 FIN: MPX: 47 MPY: 5A SUB: 2 SDN: 272 YBL: 1986 FSZ: 1957 FSF: 4650 ACR: .45 LNA: NEILL LAKE TAX: 8806 MTG: 257556 INT: 10.42 PIN: 2376 LAM: PTS: TBA: 4 FBT: 2 TBT: 1 HBT: 1 QBT: 0 MBT: Y BBT: Y BCD: M SA : 3.15 BB : Y FP : Y LTY: ER LAK: LVIE ' STY: 2 STORY EXT: WOOD STUCC BR/ST AIR: C HEA: FA FUE: GAS FPL: F A M 3 GAR: 3 A Y DIN: SEP DIN RM BRKFST AREA BSM: W F L D SBA: FULL MSTR 3/4 BSMT MAIN FLR 2ND FLOOR WAT: CONN SEW: CONN IN1: REF RNG DWS DSP MIC F/H IN2: WSH DRY TRC D/P POR WHP HWF ASM: Y TRM: CON CIN 0TH EXF: CON SRM: FAMILY ROOM AMUSEMENT R DEN //e t MI. ea/-tie. iej 7-3 N9 .c,s-f C1471C 1$31'/9<<t `,'/15/KJ (dike/lec/ LISTING # 60725.2 -- EXPIRED • TYP: 1 AR : 592 BR : 3 AD : "10961 MOUNT CURVE RD LDR: 06/29/89 • MT : 185 OLP: $349,900 LD : 06/27/89 LO : 5011 LP : $329,000 IA7 dol OMD: 12/27/89 SO : SP : XD : 12/27/89 FIN: MPX: 47 MPY: 5A SUB: 1 SDN: 272 YBL: 1983 FSZ: 1950 FSF: 4760 ACR: 0 LNA: TAX: 7252 MTG: 207000 INT: 000 PIN: LAM: PTS: TBA: 4 FBT: 2 TBT: 0 HBT: 2 QBT: 0 MBT: Y BBT: Y BCD: M SA : BB : FP : LTY: ER LAK: STY: 2 STORY EXT: BR/ST AIR: C HEA: FA FUE: GAS FPL: 3 GAR: 0 A D DIN: SEP DIN RM BSM: F L SBA: FULL MSTR 1/2 BSMT MAIN FLR WAT: CONN SEW: CONN IN1: RNG DWS DSP F/H IN2: MPH D/P WHP SAU ASM: N TRM: CON CIN OTH EXF: CON SRM: LISTING # 636655 -- ACTIVE LISTING TYP: 1 AR : 592 BR : 3 AD : 10961 MT CRV RD LDR: 01/06/90 MT : 111 OLP: $329.900 ",,a LD : 01/04/90 LO : 5011 LP : $329,900 ��5 d OMD: SO : SP : XD : FIN: MPX: 47 MPY: SA SUB: 1 SDN: 272 YBL: 1983 FSZ: 1950 FSF: 4760 ACR: 0 LNA: TAX: 9800 MTG: 207000 INT: 0000 PIN: LAM: PTS: TBA: 4 FBT: 2 TBT: 0 HBT: 2 QBT: 0 MBT: Y BBT: Y BCD: M SA : 3.15 BB : Y FP : Y • LTY: ER LAK: STY: 2 STORY EXT: BR/ST AIR: C HEA: FA FUE: GAS FPL: 3 GAR: 3 A Y DIN: SEP DIN RM BSM: F L SBA: FULL MSTR 1/2 MSTR MAIN FLR WAT: CONN SEW: CONN IN1: RNG DWS DSP F/H IN2: MPH D/P WHP SAU ASM: N TRM: CON CIN OTH EXF: CON SRM: FAMILY ROOM AMUSEMENT R DEN LISTING # 620512 -- CANCELLED TYP: 1 AR : 592 BR : 4 An : 10929 MTSuvvF RD LDR: 09/22/89 MT : 105 QLP: $329,900 LD : 09/22/89 LO : 5877 LP : $329,900 OMD: 01/05/90 SO : Sp • XD : 01/22/90 FIN: MPX: 47 MPY: 5A SUB: 1 SDN: 272 YBL: 1985 FSZ: 1650 FSF: 2900 ACR: 0 LNA: NEIL LK TAX: 6138 MTG: INT: 0 PIN: LAM: PTS. TBA: 3 FBT: 2 TBT: 0 HBT: 1 QBT: 0 MBT: Y BBT: N BCD: M SA : 4.05 BB : Y FP : Y LTY: ER LAK: LVIE STY: 2 STORY EXT: BR/ST AIR: C HEA: FA FUE: GAS FPL: F A 2 GAR: 3 A Y DIN: SEP DIN RM EAT IN KIT BRKFST AREA BSM: F U S SBA: FULL MSTR MAIN FLR 2ND FLOOR WAT: CONN SEW: CONN IN1: REF RNG DWS DSP F/H IN2: MPH BUS FLT SEC D/P SUN WHP HWF ASM: Q TRM: CON CIN • EXF: ARG SRM: FAMILY ROOM LISTING # 643392 -- ACTIVE LISTING TYP: 1 AR : 592 BR : 4 AD : 10929 MT CURVE RD LDR: 03/05/90 MT : 55 OLP: $309,700 LD : 03/01/90 LO : 5877 LP : $309,700 OMD: SO : XD : FIN: MPX: 47 MPY: 5A SUB: 1 SDN: 000 4 YBL: 1985 FSZ: 1650 FSF: 2900 ACR: 0 LNA: NEILL LK TAX: 7229 MTG: INT: 0 PIN: LAM: PTS: TBA: 3 FBT: 2 TBT: 0 HBT: 1 QBT: 0 MBT: Y BBT: N BCD: M SA : 4.05 BB : Y FP : Y LTY: ER LAK: LVIE STY: 2 STORY EXT: WOOD, BR/ST AIR: C HEA: FA FUE: GAS FPL: F A GAR: 3 A Y DIN: SEP DIN RM EAT IN KIT BRKFST AREA BSM: F D S SBA: FULL MSTR MAIN FLR 2ND FLOOR WAT: CONN SEW: CONN IN1: REF RNG DWS DSP IN2: SEC D/P WHP HWF ASM: N • TRM: CON EXF: ARG SRM: FAMILY ROOM DEN LISTING M 629659 -- EXPIRED TYP: 1 AR 592 ER : 5 AD : 10782 MT CURVE RD LDR: 10/03/89 MT : 93 OLP: $449y9QQ.._ LD : 10/01/89 LO : 5884 LP : S449,900 OMD: 12/31/89 SO : SP : XD : 12/31/89 FIN: MPX: 47 MPY: 5A SUB: 1 SDN: 272 YBL: 1907 FSZ: 3566 FSF: 5011 ACR: 0 LNA: TAX: 9883 MTG: 315000 INT: 9.50 PIN: 2460 LAM: PTS: TEA: 4 FET: 3 TST: 0 HET: 1 OBT: 0 MBT: Y BBT: Y BCD: M SA : 3.15 BB : Y FP : Y LTY: ER LAK: STY: 2 STORY EXT: BR/ST AIR: C HEA: FA FUE: GAS FPL: F A 2 GAR: 3 A DIN: SEP DIN RM BRKFST AREA BSM: W F L SBA: FULL MSTR FULL BSMT WAT: CONN SEW: CONN IN1: REF RNG DWS DSP MIC F/H IN2: MPH SEC D/P POR ASM: N TRM: CON EXF: CON SRM: FAMILY ROOM AMUSEMENT R DEN LISTING 8 643148 -- EXPIRED TYP: 1 AR : 592 BR : 5 AD : 10782 MT CURVE RD LDR: 12/30/89 MT : 93 OLP: $449,900 LD : 12/30/89 LO : 6129 LP : $433,000 • OMD: 03/31/90 SO : SP : XD : 03/31/90 FIN: • MPX: 47 MPY: 5A SUB: 1 SDN: 272 YBL: 1907 FSZ: 3566 FSF: 5011 ACR: 0 LNA: TAX: 9883 MTG: 315000 INT: 9.50 PIN: 2460 LAM: PTS: TEA: 4 FBT: 3 TBT: 0 HET: 1 QBT: 0 MET: Y BET: Y BCD: M SA : 3.15 BB : Y FP : Y LTY: ER LAK: STY: 2 STORY EXT: BR/ST AIR: C HEA: FA FUE: GAS FPL: F A 2 GAR: 3 A DIN: SEP DIN RM BRKFST AREA 8SM: W F L SBA: FULL MSTR FULL BSMT WAT: CONN SEW: CONN IN1: REF RNG DWS DSP MIC F/H IN2: MPH SEC D/P POR HWF ASM: N TRM: CON OTH EXF: CON SRN: FAMILY ROOM AMUSEMENT R DEN LISTING M 649247 -- ACTIVE LISTING TYP: 1 AR : 592 BR : 5 AD : 10782 MT CURVE RD LDR: 04/13/90 MT : 15 OLP: $399,500 LD : 04/10/90 LOO : 5113 LPLP : $399,500 OMD: XD : FIN: MPX: 47 MPY: 5A SUB: 1 SDN: 272 YBL: 1987 FSZ: 3500 FSF: 5000 ACR: .4 LNA: GOLF COURS TAX: 10122 MTG: 315000 INT: 9.5 PIN: 2460 LAM: ' PTS: TBA: 4 FBT: 3 TST: 0 HBT: 1 QBT: 0 MET: Y BBT: Y BCD: M SA : 3.15 BB : Y FP : Y LTY: ER LAK: STY: 2 STORY EXT: BR/ST AIR: C HEA: FA FUE: GAS FPL: F A 2 • GAR: 3 A DIN: SEP DIN RM EAT IN KIT 8SM: W F L SBA: FULL MSTR MAIN FLR WAT: CONN SEW: CONN IN1: REF RNG DWS DSP MIC IN2: MPH SEC D/P POR HWF ASM: N TRM: CON CIN EXF: CON SRM: FAMILY ROOM AMUSEMENT R DEN LISTING # 637182 -- ACTIVE LISTING TYP: 1 AR : 592 BR : 5 LDR: 01/26/90 MT ,OL i 10722 MT nTrn..E RD 6146 LPP: $429,900 LD : 01/26/90 LO : JMD: SO : $4 , 00 XD : FIN: SP 4PX: 47 MPY: 5B IBL: 1987 FSZ: 2040 SUB: 1 ACR; 272 FSF: 5281 CR: TAX: 8252 0 LNA: MTG: INT: 0 PIN: 'BA: 4 FBT: 2 TBT: 1 HBT: 1 QBT: 0 MBT: YL BBT: Y BCDPTM ;A : 3.15 BB : Y FP : Y ,TY: ER LAK: :TY: 2 STORY EXT: WOOD BR/ST SIR: C HEA: FA DE: GAS FPL: F A 2 AR: 3 Y DIN: SEP DIN RM S F L BRKFST AREA M: W AT: CONN SEW: SBA: FULL MSTR 3/4 BSMT Ni: RNG DWS CONN DSP MIC F/H N2: MPH FLT D/P POR WHP HWF SM: N RM: CON RF: CLR RR: 9 LISTING # 611122 -- EXPIRED TYP: 1 AR : 592 BR : 5 AD : 10662 MOUNT CTTRVR RD LDR: 07/27/89 MT : 133 OLP: $459,fO0 LD : 07/22/89 LO : 5287 LP : $459,000 OMD: 11/30/89 SO : SP : XD : 11/30/89 FIN: MPX: 47 MPY: 5A SUB: 1 SDN: 272 YBL: 1986 FSZ: 2115 FSF: 5250 ACR: 0 LNA: N/A TAX: 10156 MTG: INT: 00 PIN: LAM: PTS: TBA: 4 FBT: 2 TBT: 2 HBT: 0 QBT: 0 MBT: Y BBT: Y BCD: M SA : BB : FP : LTY: ER LAK: STY: 2 STORY EXT: WOOD BR/ST AIR:' C HEA: FA FUE: GAS FPL: L F M GAR: 2 Y DIN: SEP DIN RM EAT IN KIT BSM: W L SBA: FULL MSTR 3/4 BSMT MAIN FLR WALK THRU WAT: CONN STREE SEW: CONN IN1: REF RNG DWS DSP MIC F/H IN2: MPH TRC SUN POR ASM: N TRM: VA CON ' CIN EXF: CON RPM: LISTING N 639299 -- SOLD ' TYP: 1 AR : 592 BR : 6 AD : 10662 MT CURVE RD LDR: 12/08/89 MT : 79 OLP: $449,000 LD : 12/05/89 LO : 5113 LP : $449,000 OMD: 02/22/90 SO : 5128 SP : $378,000 Sci b XD : 05/05/90 FIN: 9 MPX: 47 MPY: SA SUB: 1 SDN: 272 YBL: 1986 FSZ: 2100 FSF: 5200 ACR: .33 LNA: GOLF COURS TAX: 10156 MTG: INT: 0 PIN: LAM: PTS: TBA: 4 FBT: 2 TBT: 2 HBT: 0 QBT: 0 MBT: Y BBT: Y BCD: M SA : 3.15 BB : Y FP : Y LTY: ER LAK: STY: 2 STORY EXT: WOOD BR/ST AIR: C HEA: FA FUE: GAS FPL: L A M 3 GAR: 3 A DIN: SEP DIN RM EAT IN KIT BSM: W F L SBA: FULL MSTR 3/4 BSMT MAIN FLR WAT: CONN SEW: CONN IN1: REF RNG DWS DSP MIC F/H IN2: MPH WSH DRY ASM: N TRM: CON CIN EXF: CON SRM: FAMILY ROOM AMUSEMENT R IMPMAI MI VILMIY.w........•••.••• .00 mill II.tolK f 1'" Lf') EL 1 UIML iNI1I IMTIOLM 2T • 'fT� I: . 1 w0MOI •QMMDI„ 1 rY 1,, 12'r!' •D IIIWOM M wept VONM Mn •.+ ,{'_+ •, .......i 0 MOW TN NQMIIN Pr1I� - • It1N MOM Y WYMOMMM itrin1-/ '!.q �.fY �[ J MARRO m A Caa.111C IN • ti" 44i I !■ �1 ` I L'` '. .M IMITI MIA P IMCYTM ',VI r• / r r.' .:�s•,�r .!••ew^MY \1.- 0 INN OAR no LAM•w 00NY •:lY.. !Nt alit.IOA tor tLPi1MWIYII \IYII N tUN RV/N:.• N YI YY lc O LII TINNNCNM0M01 LIO}I MVIIIMAN ( TMY • OIAD NTDRIMMMw owMO A WO ION MIMM MUPI 4M;4I WIN' AMINO MAIM •IIU,'' M*AISMOT t IOW CROW,imic WV00A AI. OPT in WII mart MN MUM Or1M 99I LWMIY MO so WW1 MO LonnMnNMIMTOO I/ IN TMRI TIM SR,10IINOIIIt1 it KO l•II to,I7ID 1N RI INl IR K � OM CM N II SWINTD MNT MIM1li MO Lonna MI]IYDTM qMM0000 110wMn/WiNiORN/RY mow/011MY1]ON WM 400700I AV AMIPIYILT M.G.MD 1AIJN1rN MARS 01O0m01131401 MA MAMIT IMI it WMRr.LY1 O ..MONO MARRON IMC3MMM than O OW,ROW P PIM • mt tOM MO wMM M 11N MIRA Am MG ITW 00T MAMA ISM N1aR.11m7M101 AOWII' ....AMA COO MM11I10/Y AMR,AISNOWIt.Mt1N lorM. ml•EMM ARITMO.ACURNI Mr1MIMIM x0lrrmMNM.VAAtVN 93 A01 INN WTI N MOW,A09 IQ MIMII P 0N0I0LL WNO , , MCMONI]NItM.ApMAN ONNTINw1GMAitw Ll}CA1OR Cw VON YON m1aR1 0 I 1 MNYN7100 u It..N,IA MC*CO. •NAMIQONMIrN0.• OM 1K{nn1�I W Kt0 NI. . _Ct•A. _,,:-� •P' I LA •w II+I ] M9 MN-• .70 AR IUA 11 L Illn 'r Wt RI y-- Yli♦ OI nU7 lit IYN IT r1 W TOO MINM a 1Nu it AAA�N99 M i IA W GIG Ol 10U 01 Ma II 00V 111W M1L0 *S ce AIM N O -IU Y IN11 - If Mr IMF..MRON ASON ■i9 N^�] III A• m • • • A 12I11 M IOW 1• CO,S‘INS I ,Inl - - I • ... Aln rx Mp 11NN • .50T MY M II1r TVA200 '01 mO1. N II III BPIM1 MSR 0 5OO III .Or AN i.00NNrMlt N411N)]toWCAA W IM{7M V, Nri10w0M TM NNITY2 WON.0MM1MN All MIJIU .- MOW IMONVIRIV OW Roo wino .. miNiemommoMmulmilimINAIWIMMOMMII M 64 ST•CO $399.900 01ND NLMLE OUT NOT WANANTEED - w ,/y Y 0 . y�I NII•NM I••0 .,.11 yP-f,I„ {ty .v.-. !Z • y'� N AO IO IDIN11 ADO TOM RIM PA A• N It IA 1} M Iri MOI1/1N I•,..I tm IOMMMIIMR IIIN NW ROOM 0NMI $At vi.4 IMAM Mt AN NYNO1.000IO PNINITNNM9 •. • • MOON CON'OM YIIIMMNONLLU . • T HMI PM MI AMMO IO xWwN11M IWI 1M 11NIC1111 NMMTOOO MOORS 1IM0YMMIII01M.I0rr01N NOW. MT ILA nYODu401 r1M- N TOD.IN I AMIK,u NOW IN , .. MOON MD NN1n .n 1011MM1.ACLAW 0 MAIM 7NOMa N1WNMwTM NNLrNM .YwnD GNAT NOONAIONIYTMIN IMMIX*TM tW OIDYM 1mr1G wn1P11 GNN MYMw NIIIN0IMO *n*.1.1 MOM NyL.N1,010_01101T AV TNNMMiNM W*o1GM IOWtC9SPT.TMIIINRMIM GpAaGMMIWN1YOfVNMNMOI ,., ONO MION Mom GN4 Dm.NON cm IMMND MOIM1MM0l4f N}M 100101m - M MMMR,0111WNM.IM MTIMN 1111TA11NAl • M*MOWN WWI TO M M0YTN 1M MIT. mCPNYP.MOrr YOIN IIIr WWII AMAMI.IMIMADOIN MI COCOMO WON ;WIN 1M Wort R MOM.INRINN WW1.a OMMI OMNI.m WMMAMR N Mm I:wCO MO N1.N4Dwt P'WL.• Mt MO ROM AM MARI W M M tot NM).m MAIM MNAMIAM I.O.NN.MA TM CaPt M M{UMOM .CONMII CMMrIMPIM MotoA NM WO .0051n WO 3MRNR14P/01M WN1 1.111 I YC iW15 I N AIANO MD MRI. .SCNINIWICM OP MIR. ' 1 Ran1 MIN . EN I0 _ .OW INn1 W IITRA t1OMN VW AP Mr AM MMII MEWL. ITS CM DOO IIMN 1N%Oa mI CMMnMOO SW COUP. I MYII Nov N IYICON 01 PINM.NMCNTOM USIIi{MM .AwMMn UMPT OR 1ta INTNr WIYN mMMYt 1MMI1�'i70]• m1 IOP OTMR NAMNm MNmI 11On 074*0 MI11TW MNRO'Mi wl ni MMYN IION MAN 110 MA AI{1NIP MAR. •ANM IMP INS 1tI 0r OW NAIITOIAN411 WNW fl100 n*T0 .NS NOT CORNS IMGM001 IMN. / L // a fi] III 3 Im1! wMI?M WWI MD YAtWIIA1M' • J J51f it' �>J)3,/ n wmwlw s] nR .... .,. - n DUNK Mn Onv Mi00M RM YU MOO . Br29,900 MRY•CM I1 IYYFIAN•C M09.000 947219 19p 211 Al SA}91FD91A9TIOM O10lit0IIftLU BUT IgTWMIWRFD . N•CI9®®gU OUT NOT WMWRFD .. ... . LO1 MO 11711I IWH]ADO nil{Mm{nYLMk 1 r41U1tt TONWYNp • 0, I.MMt N COMA Lot MITM rN10 An1Lr MO Atxn P wAarl w • 11,,'' MN0NTN\CNfa MA. • O'. `A ..I .. f.NNW..1INNMN1 OMNI MIT OUT ... • ,•R'L• Ly,1�••!M,y:�:•?t,2, *MNY'Tr arm NMAn ma nut 1 A L�_ ,I 1•. mMN wGMN11 MOM _ .1.1 I {IYLC0 WINWINCICIAO 1MMO0IINTY • .. 1 �•• 1 OMNI NP1 NIO YINWN 1NOM*. A MIA?LmO NO CAM MA W,YOIrtt -' --•_.EN .�� . 000 CONK.MN M1N Nw.NW LIAOI - $1MN w/ r u MOUNr MD fLAOMp NTM10C ON 11YIIIWIIII CN IW'AS IIMII tM gemM MN MU II N I1Mfi wIOpNIP0 MNMIM\ MMIMNOIM MN11A N1O NNW k YRP API NOM MOON AM A WAR PM NATO - NS1IO RNI to„NIM MAOY NI mMMwY 1 MNY NOIII OM IMMTRWIM .., L `I111I17M111 KO qM I t i 1M NI rP I{00yr1 II {MMRI sum TLIfx YAINs I0*0 00tIin% %PAO 44,NwTMTO4MNW9.11O;0111 .W r�R•WO VC.CUT 0I 000M-MNMMY AN 00MM01I1 YTTMNDOM - .. DvI MM/WYMPATRIN1UI OPN MW,IINNWIMP,It MAT * 1MNY AIM11 Mrtx CONTMMr M MOOR AMMO (.'AMMO MONMON THAT WNI M FOR IIIMINSO.MrN LOGtP N OW CNMY I MM • MtWM�AMIwMILOT I0 MOMS WNW ISM AYIAI CAM WMMILM MA.NI0*0INMIt1M1nRSM YMINYMNIOR{IM • ▪ NIMS.IIOMNGNMINW1NMYnRW t UMIRAPRIMI ORAMOIVITIM - ('Itet tP WANITT 101IIT N/M �AMAMrInNNDO1 w(MM MMB. I.MIMI AM M IIt MMCM.M MOKM W TNMI NOM NNP P IIIMNOINDva LOn NCI MN..MO Y, 11 L :._ Cot CW CO •NN.OM/O p.YK1M Pm q IM00M10pMC • CIO11• 01*W.0IY.N' M� WO y1P,wR,xOI LI nI{n TO O1 r117 AOC IMY1.. ..ON 2 YL ME OD llll110 nln YIR MS Rot Una= AO MO.n • r� Irl W ILw IM•M • 01 M I]I.1 1I WIIMOM• COW DOOM NMA ,, maw IT. W co MA AMM IOW 1{ lOrtl NOT ;DWI MIDON 91N ', ce"' 1 toy MKON EMN M VW N I1111 r 00Ymr .. Mpl-1M0 IMII 1IIr M1 w 51I N tI' )1 MVP 11 11 KI NMlIN1 N117111M u1NT11]] 610 IIM M]S MMn,M. on'PM U7.110. i,'y Yi MT10N - `;, • INFORMATION DEEMED RELIABLE BUT NOT GUARANTEED • :I L15 ) • I • • • 1266 .W,lx V 4847140 7 BO 1.1,0146 BOMB.CI 8439.900 847249 66D 2.0,1 BAST S7•ABGI S439,9 .. NM4TIOI IMBUED WLE NaT N01 GUARANTIED VO4MA7100E E0 NLlf BT 07 GUARANTEED NF • i 1....31E1 itl • 4,4 ,l ; i '+* +tau a;+ fit+,, ;6• , • NO17004 T S ,A r 1012 MOUNT C1MN 111/11 1111,1 N I'u91011 SPIT.4 N t011)NM110F011 -----_-r gSTOW NI NM IJ 004N110141111 WON CN47 CAM I\4NAMC MUM IOTA MANB 0I04247 11 wM .MY M 1CA WA II61J11 IT w W p 40910011 C ' CMW,111MS••ACISRAM COW.11L101100a. DISISN SW CI4N1r NM •IV W14,11:RWW10111 UOIM/ .01 LWM„NMI ...._ _—..._._....�.__._ __u• NIN ON . 11.1at M al.NxM t•1NNA WI. ,I Il1A49An04•I .-.o tM 419 _1,50,11 ,,s 1.131.101A,) uo , +9M ! ON N 01U6I01Ca1 DIMROAII_C11.170ON SOAR•Cf SUSp MUK,1M OUINpMf•,NN IO X 1001•WIN 7.140M11f(W PIVF S.fciACMNfAfNfM NOW 1DA,f 11140001.111.1.11111 UPIPMIOIp{111 W10Vt WIN IN{WAfiC141NaSONS OIN11NfON19 M4U0F • Uti00V111L0041141ON0AiM1411111 WNu15111,14 ON iN 11.11011114Nu2•NO PMC MAI 1UMCfdY19MIg1N 1M4 OM MMII 4.1147 WNk4U0 VB.44 Kµ4 M iW aOUf IWU NM,N I WI,ORF If N104,1 TO fN MC0M014000 ,VW OWN lilt W,nrWMif0 M IOS.MI 4 UNNIU1 nMR Uf SUP11WMf OP1 SPACES 114 1 UIMI9VRtWNTT 4A SIMµa,a1 f4M1 71.1 IM111ACA .__. _-- __._. Calf 1 • M,A-t 5ISO 100N _ .yr.J U 1 t W . WWKIOd N1NW 11Y,*W11.PNv1O 0♦ !00 RCD'C•IwC '1Mnw6nv we vnl 41 ao j1,-Vd�uWW Cf 04,O0 Yt. • • •JNAuw WMCN SUt1.iNMWu11M vWB T( B 61, SIRJ MC l W4 W , II J rm..I C vAgM.[W_ 1,MhU.M4MIXYtUwlA1lv11 M 1141116111101.1111a 0.6N'U J0 R115 ON 111111 ,1 t J IRAT IA 016{,1450 NSI S100 ,n a•44441 SMW1 S wi r e. I 11 l MI0L0M1L1 v.1•W,NWN WiM J 0 1 (loll TT 111W1011 AI sT4,,. "1t CM. WNO ASHY 41 1110 a JIMn kxl µp00.n'I,M W W7S1 Af 10Ib1110RAG SM4W0000410 PAM t111 AS 4 IIl1I!Taw I (4064N 1NLU Aou I 1J1104 111111 11 10 YBN IYW4 61 1VU U4MM "114011 111hAAi• W V ION.NW CONv 1uW1 1!IT.Ni,l 1131 IW 7. Wvl iJ •1MM•10NIN4100M worn vALIMO 5l04OSMIMIUI IPO+„Ism; LJg� 110 f411_1_00,1IALLI,57001 BSMi 6., NS!B6., T,T 7701 41U J11 W9071EN 9111IM 14 BIM rAT.7NBA�� 110 173 T.0,7 MN 1191: I, 60I,..111A11 144.909'111 5116 1.I1M Vt SJJS MMl•u M.REA,4 1171,I,V.161 YN AIT 91.71 Coax...NMI1 1101...VS 1171 41920 1174 • U17141 1kdn.S01111/KU1511M0N 011N90�N�W1I A01pn 1 WN1f0A 004 'f W MCNNN.M10 WOO WWI M 11110E NON LION NON*40406 101t1N0 NA0w400 n0011 NM t01 'NM IONA NW WICK •6MCM 11•5MG•0KLOM M01N4 N.G.IMMO NOON On M41 •CUIIOM DI MONO WIWN NO 11.141 600110MNI WIWWM ONANMTK SI.90µ1,1.11 NOW 01,001010414.•74100011 MC • 4 N11PANT.4,4N114 001A N 1Ut1* 1•CUW1WM00w•1111 M 0V11,7M•C11.MX 1Mt1Y4Jn1 . •"N4 .Op11C*Nn 4 1AND WON CORM COUM0A f4Muav1N16 w1NMWK1 MfW1 CI wax NAT., w KaN O 11Nu1 M 0 14 WAND UNITING COWIN DOM.MJO 1104.4041 MAW ICCIACI Sl1WINNA r. A SA*',' DILUIl aM44144.WfaIMvfMU*M wwit.•WA NNW • •OOIWF•11)I11110004 NO0M O4M 10.06 MNAI,Imlay NI ..31111. II LOFTT6 W fn w000 101440 670 0*l1Ilf al0 I MIN NOON • I • ' w w:• tr•'I .l.0 e I { •,NfAMVM60M111 NAIL4IM•11 W0V16OW IwIal L4xWff10111'M11r,CNN WIN CW)d1OIS CAM1f0..4NWN Tr 6 • BWIM 0M71A1MYEM14M01.WM*0I SWANN&MN ,x4,0aI la Aww•FU M 14 ION CAW 111101 uw .A..J .4 11(, ON AW,Nf11 kW 005141I Id 44,10A5114B Mtn •MUCH MINI FT MVO At••IO 6MN.lUM ANA•NMI R i ? �P--- 1,NN="{. •0N•AIWAkf01/IIIIL AMIN IIMI.NAI.NUINWMCK MI 0004 301116 Iµ4•MA!Mt W4ISa171014 1101101f I '�1104.1 I;-,vEl 4; 1,IJl MOM,NPvI MI IA ,IIMM ID711,IB1 IOWLANMl 6 MN,L*OM Mn W 0 TO 66004 PCfN Al INCNG 11111 NM 0.1kJMY4R0.1014 NIC11CtA111 v6µ6a IXIMRC N1140U COM4. i1M1101MM • CM.M01IIITi L MIS •• 0001 MM 1Akwa0161PlMxµ AP116 •1N LIMO ROOM4WYUNWk1*IN010007N10ANC1 CMVl49M1 III 7 LOCK tAMO4.M10MORD0Y4 OIk1.lOCA 110 ln1MLf N Ww,1 w15N11Mr111iMOWCMM1010*0 IO UfµUN 0Y1N 140 WILL MO4 COMM.L,10WWO WiN OINN It•IMJI POUND IONII•f1MI/4 RI AW61 v.110 CLOCK AM4Nb C6141,AM74OM, 411.46446 IRD0CN 00066 WAN.10 NM 1M6404 UNM MCOMO NOON • '311,440 won.. • POno S.ACV4SNA,t1S.MO0MM671 W 11111O6M7 emu 1N AN • 1L U4 •A51ONTIN IU14k WONG ROOM r0Uwa14110 uV1 NIS ,WHIP UP MCU101 MWM1t MOµ* ,100001S1404 IONIUMI AMO*WCM,4Yf911 U 57W1 4WWI5f0tf W 1111M15•IMN WI,N U1,04•IN w110 N.UMO µSNT Vt '1 r 8. VW NOw Ms ION WM 16iA t1400,0% - 10U ACafONk 0/011001,4 WIN MAX SAN • •LA4 • uNUN•JN rm • •1 fuaNA1.J AM 10446411.4 • 'W S•1•N.1. i,. •.IC.1.1 IVn •'. _ ;"116)247 6 B01'1.11AS2 ST.C S435.000 M100MA1101 DUMP RELIABLE BUT N01 GUARANTEED t ' •'L 1,6 c, _ PHOTO NOT AVAILABLE •• • 1 7-.._104 NU._._ 1A914100 41/4 M7 .N 111UA Is,1 UO 1,111YUUgM. 15 W1117601 17rw11 A00 roan Wul,MM It !a MN• tV 111.7 wMN { • OIOI W4f,NM61NM W,f w1N,NMINN•1MAA M0I166M4Wt1.09CONM1OWNUM4110N1 ALL*V00W MIA1 0+611F +N1 C14M114€ 4 0 MMON 96,MVV•uil16WIMDNIWN10MWfM1100*MA'AM; WW1 NIwC1W10 11J1,71 1MOM,ISN,1 :.N11N, NOM•pa,v.1 ram,.11u'ROVE VON MS NM4 CIM,M1 W wI.lUC1PONC NAM TIP 0A.MN�5UM1AN1,0111•N0,0M,�ta_ •.i0M111V.WO 411,10 COW I,MJ MI*Kilt vOU VI NCUON ITT IM N•1M1.640011110W a„ 04*000l010100I110011114 IN AND 10141171 MI 10011 Mtf LOMA 11,41 1MCd1915NM M aVMRCN11 COMM Ca1 Wix OW TOP N•16.1 S1C01,v1UP1K 14 141 MAINS. INS.IN MO WI NA 11,001UIINACI oo ,It6,MW0,.Wa11 UN,I CNW WI111M 40002:16A1n01WM NM14NINMWi1,MB111WPAA•N 1,14M w(I4N sum roM0 5104511M7IUON. w(14 07..6LLM1=�Wfj IN11ON 4 0116101 10 5N0V, U•OFOM1.10061 an 1NSCOMN won A PACO.I CAN CN•M 11U1V N 10,t1411 MINK rut n. •11.D0O•.WD PA,Ct0N 1110WON 00,O 714 C0000*1 LAMKAPIO'MN NA1s nos HONE•NNYM 10 NO MU 061*1J It 004,1—CW CO 7MO MgLW6.0V NC U v1MO CUl OW6161f•01DI1M,DON 6 SC4 WM00W1 'N';l N C54(O MM,r I,.OfC TOT.15.IW MI RIM,01.1N LOCK CA,6IMU,N N1UX11, T •0504•111,J IR1 WC'L1*' M MMl6,N 1M1NI MM1L1 M�II„a,.a N 1Y1t�NII N OAB'N',a I\D *MIK.10 VI.WOOS 1wiµMT ANINNI. C i111t0 W�t1111 1I WOOOI'I,4, 41 WD ASMN W 1M1Mt„•IO•Ck6MM 111,WONCN•M1S 1 11�1111011 Y 1110 MON WO M4N MCC,N ASMM YNIMIIANOOu41i.WgyNal `1.1 2I111 II :11111 14 1• W.II 1 1001i1OM4 MMW,MM MI10.0 COWAN NAP 1 1 111 0#.1111, Ts.0 11AU Al M1101.1L,11011MM1101.0.0•I4YN 1Yl_N• VS'11 I_I A11 �SO 271 M1,617 16110 1 140611 • 6,.1(M NM.M,ION S19 11. • 0040 40.11'051✓ 114 LPN.Mt 1011 4'M,.1 ii �lNs a O`.OJOJ -- EXPIRED TYP: 1 AR : 592 BR : 4 AD : 11832 MT CURVE RD LDR: 09/12/89 MT : 183 OLP: $329000.� LD : 09/11/89 LO : 5011 LP : $319,900 OMD: 03/11/90 SO : SP : XD : 03/11/90 FIN: MPX: 47 MPY: 5A SUB: 1 SDN: 272 YBL: 1985 FSZ: 1478 FSF: 3000 ACR: 0 LNA: TAX: 5908 MTG: INT: 0000 PIN: LAM: PTS: TBA: 4 FBT: 1 TBT: 2 HBT: 1 QBT: 0 MBT: Y BBT: Y BCD: M SA : 3.15 BB : Y FP : Y LTY: ER LAK: STY: 2 STORY EXT: WOOD AIR: C HEA: FA FUE: GAS FPL: L F GAR: 3 DIN: SEP DIN RM BSM: W SBA: FULL MSTR 3/4 BSMT MAIN FLR 2ND FLOOR WAT: CONN SEW: CONN STREE IN1: REF RNG DWS DSP WSO IN2: SEC POR ASM: N TRM: CON EXF: CLR SRM: FAMILY ROOM SRM: LISTING M 663159 -- ACTIVE LISTING TYP: 1 AR : 592 BR : 4 AD : 11832 MT CURVE RD LDR: 04/12/90 MT : 16 OLP: $317.000 LD : 04/09/90 LO : 5148 LP : $317,000 OMD: SO : SP : XD : FIN: MPX: 47 MPY: 5A SUB: 1 SDN: 272 • YBL: 1985 FSZ: 1478 FSF: 3000 ACR: 0 LNA: TAX: 5885 MTG: 219236 INT: 10.625PIN: 2000 LAM: PTS: TBA: 4 FBT: 2 TBT: 1 HBT: 1 QBT: 0 MBT: Y BBT: Y BCD: M SA : 3.15 BB : Y FP : Y LTY: ER LAK: STY: 2 STORY EXT: WOOD AIR: C HEA: FA FUE: GAS FPL: L F 2 GAR: 3 A DIN: SEP DIN RM BRKFST AREA BSM: W L SBA: FULL MSTR WAT: CONN SEW: CONN IN1: REF DWS DSP WSO IN2: MPH SEC D/P POR WHP HWF ASM: 0 TRM: CON CIN EXF: ARC SRM: FAMILY ROOM 1 OFMIS 5 D • r , Jr! r ,,t .............................. t Ii 01,1 i1,1-"111 ••!,, •, '•••1•1 'r,,,,,•,I,Tt4;• lF- r L• ,.! I i 'Lr',1 •• rf•:11" •,••• 1c 1:1,14C,C, : : r ,(1) 1. 111:11 ("011- 0,2i-‘4 AFT:. , • T E 143r, 11I•20(Orr ; TOT: •": r 1:27 2 .0 r , DCD . ; rEr. i 10,N) STY: F, C.IZT U.:0 6,S F F 3 1 W •. • •:101.- ,11 111:11 FE . .r• 1.1f ET 1 :TI:01: ;%1 '11", ,1 , 0E11 11, F •••,'F.',, • ••-•11.1, - k! !!4 ; , seldf7,7i, '01)r r• • 1-"‘; : 11, ..tizzicto i 11k, 1!,•.,, 1: r,I ': "d.• tT, r1,"••-r, 7, it,••• , r • 1 ,", r 101-.11, .:•1, A , - t•I ":111 1 • rn. I I • I I • " • __MORS TYP: 1 AR 592 BR : 3 AD : 10529 MOUNT CURVE RD LDR: '02/13/90 MT : 72 OLP: $259 900 LD : 02/12/90 LO : 6541 L -' S9,900 OMD: SO : SP : XD FIN: MPX: 48 MPY: 1A SUB: 1 SDN: 272 YBL: 1989 FSZ: 2060 FSF: 3720 ACR: .5 LNA: TAX: 1672 MTG: INT: 0 PIN: LAM: PTS: TBA: 3 FBT: 2 TBT: 1 HBT: 0 QBT: 0 MBT: Y BBT: Y BCD: M SA : 2.7 BB : Y FP : Y LTY: ER LAK: STY: RAMBLER EXT: BR/ST AIR: C HEA: FA FUE: GAS FPL: L A 3 GAR: 3 DIN: SEP DIN RM EAT IN KIT BSM: W D SBA: FULL MSTR FULL BSMT 3/4 BSMT MAIN FLR WAT: CONN SEW: CONN IN1: RNG DWS DSP IN2: D/P ASM: N TRM: CON CIN EXF: CLR SRM: AMUSEMENT R DEN LISTING NUMBER(S)? LISTING M 651950 -- ACTIVE LISTING TYP: 1 AR : 592 BR : 3 AD • 10602 MOtTN'1' CURVE RP . LDR: 03/21/90 MT : 37 OLg$489,000 LD : 03/19/90 LO : 6236 LP : $-469,000 '1 OMD: SO : SP : XD : FIN: MPX: 47 MPY: 5A SUB: 1 SDN: 272 YBL: 1988 FSZ: 2400 FSF: 4350 ACR: 0 LNA: TAX: 11328 MTG: 246165 INT: 9.75 PIN: LAM: PTS: TBA: 4 FBT: 3 TBT: 0 HBT: 1 QBT: 0 MBT: Y BBT: Y BCD: M SA : 2.7 BB : Y FP : Y LTY: ER LAK: STY: RAMBLER EXT: WOOD BR/ST AIR: C HEA: FA FUE: GAS FPL: L 3 GAR: 3 DIN: SEP DIN RM EAT IN KIT BSM: W F L D S SBA: FULL MSTR FULL BSMT MAIN FLR WAT: CONN SEW: CONN IN1: DWS DSP IN2: MPH BUS TRC SEC D/P WHP ASM: I TRM: CON CIN EXF: ARG SRM: AMUSEMENT R 1 • LI2TIRS ADDRESS AREA PRICE Dt,TE MT OFFC 01. S eLE 311L.WI663I!!73 3492 PAINTERS 0 592 $250,000 03/11/90 69 5067 5 2 594 9516 F!7NNETT RC 592 $255,900 03/01/90 47 5122 3 2 -;',- - SD1.D14.5 . 9230 OVERLOOK: T 592 '5230,000 08/05/1 9 141 4. 4 RAMR* S3LD#60112S 1409'1 HIDDEN OAK 592 $277,,-)00 oEs/o9/09 34 5215 4 2 ST* C.:41FD#60764 9i,v2. PAINTERS R 592 $284,900 12/31/29 201 5067 4 2 STx ,.XP..1.24132.2137 9523 BENNETT PC 59a $299,500 04:01/90 164 5242 ? ? ST* 33T04602567 11202 MT CURVE R 592 *300,000 07/14/29 37 E 14) GL,' PIA DR 592 $302,948 04/04/E9 11 537: 2 ST* 311,04627335 3511 OLYMPIA DR 592 $305,000 02/27/90 161 4 2 3T* 7111..111t575E,.:46 11055 MSUNT CURV 592 *308,000 04/25/89 44 5011 4 ? SI* 300E/415;3746 91,6:3 OLYMPIA DR 592 $317,000 02/51/90 300 501:,c 4 2 24- 33LD*621449 1477 OLYMPIA DR 592 $317,000 10/12/89 50 6.274 5 a SI* 1:32 LT CURVE R 592 $219,900 03/11/90 1S3 1/311 4 2 214* 'EOLDO:S1,40 f,tENTWOOD D 592 s3a0,000 05/31/89 49 &27..3 4 1- ,!'w1; • KNOBLE CT 592 $320,000 05/15/39 20 6235 5 21* • 0/FD44,0725.2 I04*,1 MOUNT CURV 5913 $329 000 12/ _ /39 isn 5011 3 2 ST* GANCA62.0512 . 9P,",, Mt CURVE R 592 $229,900 01/05/90 105 58'77 4 30L201621605 1535 CIL.YMPIA DR 592 $330,000 12/07/89 2.4 5375 4 2 ST* E21)23026172 4121 OLYMPIA DR 592 'a:329000 04/01/90 155 5019 4 2 ST* ,CiLD#63C65 .V,61 PRESERVE 8 592 $243,000 07/09/89 26 6226 4 2 ST !iT CURVE R 592 $345,000 01/20/90 112 5377 5 2 3T, 111H44624249 11712 'II CURVE R 592 $368,500 12/13/89 97 5394 S 2 3T* E1F0461.6065 11'42 MOUNT CURV 592 $359,000 02/16/90 186 6203 4 2 33* '..PL:AV ;,?.r, OL*NEIA DR ..-.77. ,,,..... .rrtrf. 17-1-81/tN, 227 5019 4 :141*31* " 592 *374,900 12/31/29 140 5005 5 1? 3T4'10,11k , ..L 1. 12 MT CURVE R 592 $375,000 10/30/39 217 6236 3 2 SOLD441,.3Y1299 , /,01.-1 MT CURVE R 592 $372,000 02/22/90 79 5113 6 2 ST* S OLD#6194301 WELIERS WA 592 $3300000 o9/24/69 • 6225 4 2 ST* 3OLD#635520 11405 MT CURVE R 592 $286,500 03/27/90 91 5011 5 2 ST* S 0LD*t'i30,S,3 101403 MT CURVE 592 $415,000 06/14/39 5-7 5208 5 2, , C'4NC44 .:6099 !1.1;2.2 MT CURVE 0 592 $429,003 12127/69 195 5011 4 RAM:4*-Ronka 221D#64142 1722 MT CURVE R 592 $432,000 03/31/90 9I A129 t 0,31..0# 1.414i111, 11709 WELTERS WA 592 $435,000 09/02/29 2w) 5875 4 2 .201._646545 10'902 MOUNT CRV 592 $442,000 04/09/90 1 5011 3 04140* E2P13146276:9 10722 MT CURVE R 592 $449,900 12/31/39 92 58;94 5 2 0171, 162/2 MOUNT CURV 592 $459,000 11/3 /69 122 5227 5 2 ST+ sda : ::::001144-62953 V427 OLYMPIA DR 592 $520,000 12/04/29 7 5207 5 2 El EiPD15111,144 9217 OLYMPIA DR 592 $575,000 11/26/89 125 5207 5 2 ET* EXPO4575710 96'07 OL.YMPIA DR 592 $595,000 11/15/29 243 5019 • 3 14411E4* TO YUO I.01,14 TO REVIE,E THE CURRENT SEARCH CRITERIA 3 OR N) 1 N PRO,,,ERIY 1-t10? D-E SYTEM D LINE 4422: LOCOED OFF - CONNECT TIME 3 MILUVES C APR ED . - • •