HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 09/18/1990AtatlYIJA
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1990 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
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 Meetin2 held Tuesday, September 4, 1990
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Clerk's License List
B. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 34-90 amending City Code Section
5.39 Relating to Licensin2 of Liquor Establishment Employees
C. Final Plat Appzoval for Anderson Lakes Center 2nd Addition, Future
STITof-U7S. P ost OfTiZe -(1-65iid at the N.W. Corner of Hwy.--1fig--
and AFIderson Lakes Parkway) Resolution No. 90-241
D. Maintenance for the More Property
E. ANDERSON LAKES CENTER 2ND ADDITION (EDEN PRAIRIE POST OFFICE)
by William S. Reiling. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No.
26-90, Rezoning from Rural to Office; Adoption of Resolution No.
90-235, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 26-90 and Ordering
Publication of Said Summary; and Adoption of Resolution No. 90-238,
Site Plan Approval. 5.4 acres for construction of branch post
office facility. Location: West of Highway 169, east of the
Columbine Road/Garden Lane Intersection. (Ordinance No. 26-90 -
Rezoning; Resolution No. 90-235 - Authorizing Summary and
Publication; Resolution No. 90-238 - Site Plan)
F. ST. ANDREW'S PARKING LOT EXPANSION by St. Andrew Church. 2nd
Reading of Ordinance No. 27-90, Zoning District Change from Rural
to Public; Approval of Supplement to Developer's Agreement for
St. Andrew Church Parking Lot Expansion; Adoption of Resolution
No. 90-234, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 27-90 and
Ordering Publication of Said Summary; and Adoption of
Resolution No. 90-237, Site Plan Approval. 3.2 acres for
construction of parking lot expansion. Location: Northwest
corner of Baker Road and St. Andrews Drive. (Ordinance No.
27-90 - Rezoning; Resolution No. 90-234 - Authorizing Summary
and Publication; Resolution No. 90-237 - Site Plan)
Page 2205 !
Page 2217
Page 2122
Page 2218
Page 2220
Page 2222
Page 2229
City Council Agenda - 2 - Tues.,September 18, 1990
G. 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 35-90 - Amending Distribution of
Lawful Gambling Proceeds
H. Chan ge Re ularl Scheduled Council Meeting of November 6
to :30 on Tuesday, November 13 1990 Due tF5iiTTict with
Election Elly
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. VILLAGE KNOLLS by Argus Development. Request for Planned
Development Concept Review on 42.7 acres, Planned Unit Development
District *dew with waivers on 8.7 acres, Zoning District
Amendment within the R1-13.5 District on 8.7 acres. Preliminary
Plat of 42.7 acres into 23 single family lots, 2 outlots and
road right-of-way for a residential development. Location: East
of Homeward Hills Road at Silverwood Drive. (Ordinance No.
21-90 - Zoning Amendment; Resolution No. 90-240 - Preliminary
Plat) A continued Public Hearing from August 21, 1990
B. EDEN PRAIRIE ASSEMBLY OF GOD by Eden Prairie Assembly of God.
Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Industrial and
Public Open Space to Church on 32.7 acres, from Industrial to
Neighborhood- Commercial on 3 acres, and from Industrial to Office
on 2.5 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 39.21
acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 32.7 acres with
waivers, Zoning District Change from I-General, R1-22 and Rural to
Public on 32.7 acres. Site Plan Review on 32.7 acres, Preliminary
Plat of 39.21 acres into 4 lots and road right-of-way for
construction of a church and other commercial and office uses to
be known as Eden Prairie Assembly of God. Location: State
Highway 5 at Dell Road. (Ordinance No. 33-90-PUD-12-90 - Rezoning;
Resolution No. 90-228 - Preliminary Plat; Resolution No. 90-229 -
PUD Concept Amendment) Continued from September 4, 1990
C. 1990 ASSESSMENT HEARING (Resolution No. 90-242)
D. DONNAY'S EDENVALE AND DONNAY'S EDENVALE II by Sunset Homes
Corporation. Request for Zoning District Amendment within the RM-
6.5 Zoning District on 7.3 acres, Site Plan Review, and
Preliminary Plat of 7.3 acres into 11 lots for construction of
54 multi-family units within 8 buildings. Location: South of
Townline Road and northwest of Edenvale Boulevard. (Ordinance
No. 36-90 - Zoning Amendment; Resolution No. 90-239 -
Preliminary Plat)
E. VACATION NO. 90-08 - DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ON BLUFFS
EAST FIFTH ADDITION —(Resolution No7-0:743)
V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS
VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
A. Composting Ordinance - 1st Reading of Ordinance No.30-90
Page 2236
Page 2238
Page 2248
Page 2264
Page 2274
1
Page 227E1
Page 227E4
City Council Agenda - 3 - Tues.,September 18, 1990
VII. PETITIONS REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Approve Hennepin County Layout Plan for CSAH 18 between 1-494 and Page 2281
the Minnesota River (Resolution No. 90-244T
VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
A. Historical & Cultural Commission - Discussion on Heritage
Preservation Ordinance
IX. APPOINTMENTS
X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Councilmembers
B. Report of City Manager
C. Report of City Attorney
D. Report of Director of Planning
E. Report of Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources
F. Report of Finance Director
G. Report of Director of Public Works
XI. NEW BUSINESS
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Page 2282
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS,
7600 Executive Drive
COUNC1LMEMBERS:
CITY COUNCIL STAFF:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, Jean
Harris, Patricia Pidcock and Douglas Tenpas
City Manager, Carl J. JuHie, Assistant to the City
Manager Craig Dawson, City Attorney Roger
Pauly, Finance Director John D. Franc, Director of
Planning Chris Enger, Director of Parks,
Recreation & Natural Resources Robert Lambert,
Director of Public Works Gene Dietz, and
Recording Secretary Roberta Wick
All Councilmembers present.
I. Am-ToyAI, op \ GENT);\ \ND oTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
MOTION
Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve the agenda.
Pidcook said she would like to add two items under Councilmembers
reports: (I) Information on signage; and (2) Appointment to RTB
Committee.
Motion to approve the agenda as amended carried 5-0.
MINUTES
A. City Council Meeting held TuesdayAugust 7 1990
MOTION
Anderson moved, seconded by Harris, to approve the Minutes of the
August 7, 1990 meeting.
Pidcock said on Page 12 of the minutes, Item V.. Payment of Claims,
should read "Pidrock moved" instead of "Peterson moved."
Motion to approve minutes as amended carried 5-0.
B. Soecial Cits_Council Meeting held Tuesday, AuguaL12,J,_090
MOTION
Anderson moved, seconded by Harris, to approve the minutes of
August. 21, 1990. Motion approved 4-0-1 with Pidcock abstaining.
City Council Minutes 2 September 4, 1990
C. City Council Meeting _held Tuesdav„_August 21, MD
MOTION
Harris moved, seconded by Tenpas, to approve the minutes of the
August 21, 1990 meeting.
On Page 4, fourth paragraph, first sentence should read, "Peterson
said with respect to this Item A, it would be inappropriate" instead of
"was be inappropriate." Peterson said on Page 11, under VILA., third
paragraph, should be "Jerry" LaBarre instead of "Claude."
Motion approved 4-0-1 with Pidcock abstaining.
D. Sjcjal City Council meeting held Thursday, August 23, 1990
MOTION
Tenpas moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve minutes of August
23.
Harris said on Page 4 of the minutes, fifth paragraph, third sentence
should read, "Harris commented that this proposal presents the best
opportunity for considering establishment of a reserve for capital
projects. She further stated that if taxes could be held to current
levels and a reserve fund begun, the City was acting prudently."
Minutes approved 4-0-1 with Pidcock abstaining.
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
Clerk's License List
B. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 31-90, Declaring a Moratorium on
Development by the Landfill
C. 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 34-90 amending City Code Section 5.39
Relating to Licensing of Liquor Establishment Employees
D. Cooperative Agreement with Department of Interior
F. _Approval of Final Plat of Bluffs East 9th Addition (located at the
Southwest Corner of Meade Lane and Antlers Ridge) Resolution No.
90-219
Approve Change Order No. 1 to the Contract for T.H. 5 Detached
Fronta.e Road, LC. 52-177
G. Approve MWCC Facility Connection Permit for Sanitary Sewer through
Delegard Property, I.C. 52-197 (Resolution No. 90-221)
City Council Minutes 3 September 4, 1990
H. Approve Easenent Agreement Over PIN No. 217_116-22-32-0003 for
Mitchell Road Improvements, J.C. 52-156
I. R. G. READ & COMPANY, INC. - Adoption of Resolution No. 90-200,
Denying 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 7-90, Zoning District
Amendment)
J. R. G, READ OFFICE/WAREHOUSE by R. G. Read & Company, Inc. 2nd
Reading of Ordinance No. 29-90 Request for Zoning District
Amendment within the 1-2 Zoning District on 3.79 acres; Approval of
Developer's Agreement for R. G. Read; Adoption of Resolution No.
90-222, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 29-90 and Ordering
Publication of Said Ordinance; 5 acres into 2 lots for construction of a
43,944 square foot office/warehouse building. Location: Edenvale
Industrial Park. (Ordinance No. 29-90 - Rezoning; Resolution No.
90-222 - Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 29-90; Resolution No.
90-223 - Site Plan)
MOTION
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve the Consent Calendar.
Approved 4-0-1 with Pidcock abstaining.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Vacation No. 90-07, Vacation of Right-of-Way for 180th Avenue West i
in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 18 (Resolution No. 90-220)
Jullie said this public hearing was properly published and mailed to
affected homeowners. This was basically a housekeeping item for the
Council but a public hearing was required for a vacation.
Anderson moved to close the public hearing and adopt Resolution No.
90-220 for Vacation of the Right-of-Way. Seconded by Pidcock.
Motion approved 5-0.
B. BLUFFS WEST 9TH ADDITION by Hustad Development Corporation.
Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 20.46 acres,
Planned Unit, Development District Review of 20.46 acres with waivers,
Zoning District Amendment within the R1.-13.5 Zoning District and
Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 14.16 acres with
Shoreland variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals,
Preliminary Plat: on 20.46 acres into 25 single family lots, 3 outlots,
and mad right-of-say. Location: North of Bluestem Lane and west
of Bennett Place. (Ordinan ce No. 32-90-PUD-11-90 - PUD & Rezoning;
Resolution No. 90-226 - PUD Concept; Resolution No. 90-227 -
Preliminary P(at)
City Council Minutes 4 September 4, 1990
Jullie said notice for this public hearing was mailed to 72 property
owners in the project area and published in the August 16, 1990 issue
of the Eden Prairie News.
Wallace Misted, representing Hustad Development Corporation,
explained the project. This was for a 20.46-acre parcel of land
between Homeward Hills Road and Bennett Place bisected by
Purgatory Road. There was a total of 25 lots for two separate
projects on one parcel of land. There would be a significant portion
of land that would be gifted to the City as part of the plat for open
space.
Mary McCawley, representing Hedlund Engineering, described the
detailed elements of the plat. She described three parcels and said
that a .6-acre outlot would be dedicated to the Park and Recreation
Board for trail purposes. On two lots, variances will be needed from
the shoreline management standards.
Roger said the Planning Commission reviewed this item at its August
13 meeting and approved it on a 6-0 vote subject to plans submitted
and recommendations in staff report dated August 10 and
supplemental report dated August 29. The August 10 staff report
recommended approval of the project subject to the following:
(1) Prior to City Council review, the proponent shall provide a tree
replacement plan for 952 caliper-inches of trees. A plan had been
submitted to place 211 caliper-inches of trees in the 7th and 8th
additions and 367 caliper-inches in the 9th addition, with a balance of
585 caliper-inches within given areas. On September 5 Enger had
received a plan for the balance of the 585 caliper-inches as boulevard
trees in the areas of the Bluffs additions.
(2) Develop alternative methods for the control of water run-off and
to minimize erosion on steep slopes adjacent to the creek. Staff had
suggested several plans. The bluffs were so delicate that roof drain-
off could affect them. The suggestion was made for a flat buffer area
behind each house so the grade to the creek did not begin
immediately in back of the house. The Planning Commission
suggested that prior to the second reading some alternatives for
stormwater erosion control specific to these types of steep lots be
included in the developer's agreement. The proponent had suggested
dedication of the creek valley and parts of the creek slope to the
City.
(3) ronstroct a five-foot-wide sidewalk along the south side of the
east-west street. and an eight-foot-wide bituminous trail from the col-
tle-sae to the crossing to Purgatory Creek.
City Council Minutes 5 September 4, 1990
(4) Prior to building permit issuance, the proponent shall provide
evidence of recording of restrictions of the deeds for lots within the
shoreland area advising future homeowners of the shoreland
ordinance regulations.
(5) Prior to grading permit proponent shall stake proposed
construction limits for snow fencing and provide erosion control
fencing within the graded area.
(6) Proponent shall apply for and receive Board of Appeals variances
for two lots at the high-water mark and building setback.
Lambert said the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed this
proposal at its August 20 meeting and recommended approval
unanimously according to the Planning Commission report and
recommendations.
Anderson asked if most of the deeds have been picked up for the
parcels of property along this section of the creek. Lambert said
that with the exception of this particular area, the City had most of
the deeds. Anderson also expressed concern about erosion on the
bluffs and asked about storm sewer in this area. Dietz said storm
sewers in Eden Prairie were limited because of the many
opportunities for water to drain into creeks or water bodies. In this
particular area, a storm sewer system might be installed to run the
entire length of the street and stubs could be built so that the homes
adjacent to the bluff could hook into them to provide a means to
install a catch basin in the back yard, if necessary.
Anderson asked Engel' if the damage to the bluffs had been caused
by rain this year or because there had been trampling of the
underbrush, or a combination of the two. Enger replied that it was a
combination of many things and that erosion behind homes was being
studied to see if it could be stopped. Homes with steep-pitched roofs
caused erosion if there was no back yard. House pads being below
the street, hard surfacing in back yards, and removal of natural
vegetation were other causes.
Anderson asked if the conservancy area was listed in the deeds.
Enger said that the City was getting covenants to show the
conservancy areas. It would show up on the deed and as a drainage
easement on the plat. Erosion on a private lot was the property
owner's responsibility.
Harris asked if the trail was to be constructed concurrent with the
development. Enger replied that this was correct.
Peterson asked about the process recommended to inform homeowners
of the restrictions was the conservancy area. Enger said that in the
conservancy area the developers had been required to file a covenant
with the property which the City had written. That covenant ran
City Council Minutes 6 September 4, 1990
with the land. In addition, a drainage easement had been required
because that was the form of easement the County would accept, and
this research would inform a potential buyer of an encumbrance on
the lot. Any type of search of the documents for the property would
point up the covenant on the lot.
Kim Culp, 9896 Purgatory Road, asked Hustad about the location of his
lot and how the development out affect his property. Hustad
explained the details by using the maps. He said believed there was
an easement toward the back of Culp's lot.
MOTION
Harris moved to close the public hearing and approve the first
reading of Ordinance No. 32-90-PUD-11-90 for PUD District Review
and Rezoning. Seconded by Pidcock. Motion approved 5-0.
MOTION
Harris moved to adopt Resolution No. 90-226 approving the PUD
concept. Seconded by Pidcock. Motion approved 5-0.
MOTION
Harris moved to adopt Resolution No. 90-227 approving the
Preliminary Plat. Seconded by Pidcock. Motion approved 5-0.
MOTION
Harris moved to direct staff to prepare a Developer's Agreement
incorporating the Planning Commission and staff recommendations and
including the language on stormwater erosion control prior to second
reading. Seconded by Pidcock. Peterson asked Enger to write a
memo regarding these provisions prior to second reading. Anderson
said he would like to have receipt of the deeds for the public land at
the time of the second reading. Hustad said that the intention was
that the deeds be part of the final plat and would attempt to
coordinate this before final plat.
Motion approved 5-0,
C, EDEN PRAIRIE ASSEMBLY OF GOD by Eden Prairie Assembly of God.
Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Industrial and
Public Open Space to Church on 32.7 acres, from Industrial to
Neighborhood- Commercial on 3 acres, and from Industrial to Office on
2.5 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 39.21 acres,
Planned Unit Development District Review on 32.7 acres with waivers,
Zoning District. Change from I -General, R1 -22 and Rural to Public on
32.7 acres. Site Plan Review on 32.7 acres, Preliminary Plat of 39.21
acres into 1 lots and road right-of-way for construction of a church
and other commercial and office uses to be known as Eden Prairie
City Council Minutes 7 September 4, 1990
Assembly of God. Location: Slate Highway 5 at Dell Road.
(Ordinance No. 33-90-PUD-12-90 - Rezoning; Resolution No. 90-228 -
Preliminary Plat; Resolution No. 90-229 - PU)) Concept Amendment/
Jullie said notice of the public hearing was mailed to 63 property
owners in the project area and published in the August 16, 1990 of
the Eden Prairie News.
Galen White, representing Eden Prairie Assembly of God Church,
explained the reasons for the congregation's need for a new building.
Dennis Batty of Batty and Associates, architect for the church portion
of the project, showed the Council aerial photos and drawings which
communicated the concepts for the church's 42-acre site at Highway 5
and Dell Road. The building would take place in two phases. The
plan included adequate parking for a church that would seat 3,000
persons in the first phase plus an additional 1,000 in the second
phase. He explained the plans for organizing traffic flow within the
property during the times that the church would be in use. He also
explained the plans for a terraced parking lot in the area where
berming would not be possible. The building itself would be 85
percent brick with the remainder being metal and glass. It would
have 150,000 square feet when completed. The plan was to leave the
wetlands intact. Four oak trees would be removed and the area
replanted with 700 caliper-inches of trees.
Darrell Fortier, representing Fortier and Associates, discussed the
land and zoning issues and why it was believed the changes were
justified. The church would own 42 acres of land which it could not
afford without subdividing a portion of it for other uses. The
current Guide Plan and Zoning divided the land into R1-22 and I-
General. He explained with maps and drawings how this plan would
work. The residential portion would have about 20 individual lots.
He said the plan saw 600 cars a day being generated from the
industrial portion, and 1000 from the church. The church would
generate traffic during off-peak hours on Sunday mornings and
Wednesday evenings.
Eager said the Eden Prairie Assembly of God Church requested
approval of a Comprehensive Guide Plan change for a two-phase
150,000 square-foot church on 32.7 acres, 3 acres of neighborhood
commercial and 2.5 acres of office. Zoning approval for the church
only was requested and PUD Concept approval was requested for
neighborhood and office uses. A PUP District Review with waivers
was requested for building height from 30 feet to 92 feet and front
yard setback for parking from 50 feet required to 40 feet along
Highway 5. The item was reviewed by the Planning Commission at the
July 9, August 13 and August 27, 1990 meetings. On August 27 the
Planning Commission voted 5-1 to recommend approval of the request
based upon the revised plans dated August 24, 1990. important
conditions of the recommendation were:
City Council Minutes 8 September 4, 1990
(1) No building could occur until Dell Road was upgraded from
Highway 5 to Valley View Road.
(2) A transition planting plan between the residential areas to the
north and the church property needed to be developed and
implemented concurrent with Phase 1. The transition must rely on
plant material since it was not possible to build a berm, and an
irrigation system would be required.
(3) Zoning approval to be granted for the church only with waivers
for building height from 30 feet to 92 feet and front yard parking
setback from 50 feet to 40 feet.
(4) PIM Concept approval to be granted for the commercial and office
areas only. Future development of these parcels would require a
zoning change and public hearing with Planning Commission and City
Council.
(6) The Church would return to the Planning Commission and City
Council for re-evaluation of parking prior to Phase 2 construction.
(6) Building architecture for the future office and commercial areas
would reflect a residential character and be compatible in terms of
exterior materials, colors, roof lines and detailing.
(7) A conservation easement to be placed over the drainage utility
easement, to insure that the wetland area will be preserved in its
natliral state.
Lambert said the Parks Commission had not had a chance to review
the proposal. The developer had agreed to construct a trail from Dell
road to the existing trail along the marsh and to the eastern border
to their property. Lambert recommended that the developer consider
dedicating the marsh to the City for the reason that the City could
then insure a long-term preservation of the marsh and preservation
of the entire ecosystem.
Paul Brown, the attorney representing the Church, said the Church
was not aware that. the City's policy had been to require the
developer to pay for the trail system. There was approximately 1600
feet of trail on the back of the property and it was his opinion that
it would be the residents that would benefit from it, and therefore
they would ask that the City pay for the construction of the trail.
The second issue was that the church wanted to retain ownership of
the wetlands.
Peterson suggested that the issue go to the Park, Recreation and
Natural Resources Commission before it. came back to the Council.
Pidcock suggested that a continuance would be appropriate.
City Council Minutes 9 September 4, 1990
Peterson suggested that the issue go to the Park, Recreation and
Natural Resources Commission before it came back to the Council.
Pidcock suggested that a continuance would be appropriate.
Anderson pointed out that the marsh in this area did not have
wildlife in it until the City raised the water level. In his opinion this
would be possible only if the land were owned by the City.
Teresa Waters, 18119 Evener Way, spoke about her concern about
traffic the church would generate. Traffic was a problem in the
neighborhood already as people use Evener Way for a shortcut to the
High School, Round Lake, and the Community Center. Also the
parking area would destroy their views of the marshland and Mitchell
Lake. In addition to the church, the commercial area would also
generate more traffic.
Ron Harvey, 7335 flames Way, spoke about the traffic patterns which
he considered to be dangerous because of the curve on flames
causing sight difficulty.
Pidcock asked if harriers such as had been constructed in South
Minneapolis were a possibility.
Pidcock moved to continue this item to the September 18 meeting.
Seconded by Tenpas. Motion approved 5-0.
V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS
MOTION
Anderson moved the payment. of claims, seconded by Harris.
Roll Call vote: Anderson, Harris, Pidcock, Tenpas, and Peterson all voting
"AYE". Motion approved 5-0.
VI. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
A. BORUCKI ADDITION by Jim Borucki. Denial of Preliminary Plat
(Resolution No. 90-230 - Preliminary Plat Denial)
MOTION
Tenpas moved, seconded by Anderson, to deny the Preliminary Plat,
Resolution No. 90-230. Motion approved 5-0.
VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Request from Rottlund Development Residents regarding TrailwaY
System on Kimberly Land and Traffic Affecting Evener Way and
iiimbeitylane
City Council Minutes 10 September 4, 1990
Judy McCorkell, 18223 Evener Way, spoke to the trailway issue. The
residents had been told by the builder that they would have access
to the trailway system and now have found out that they would not
have direct access. Her question was what direction they could take
to obtain direct access to the trail.
Lambert referred to the map of this area and suggested the following
options that were possible. One option would be to talk to Rottlund
Homes to see if replatting to allow for an outlot to provide access
were a possibility. Another option would be to talk to Donnay
Development to see if a connection could be made through these
properties. The third option would be for the City to purchase a lot.
Anderson asked Lambert to check the options and costs with the
Park, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission and come back to
the Council. He said he would like to see one connection.
Pidcock moved to refer this item to the Park, Recreation and Natural
Resources Commission for recommendation to the Council at its first
meeting in October. Seconded by Tenpas. Motion approved 5-0.
Teresa Waters, 18119 Evener Way, spoke to the traffic problems in the
area, and expressed her concern because of the number of children
in the neighborhood. She cited traffic studies that had been done by
the City. She believed a lot of traffic was going from Chanhassen to
the Crosstown highway, and about half the people were going over
the speed limit. She believed the completion of Dell Road would add
to the problems.
John Estall, 7407 flames Way, expressed his concern about the heavy
traffic in the neighborhood.
Peterson asked Dietz what the anticipated daily capacity was for a
local street. Dietz replied that Evener was a collector street and was
32 feet wide. It could handle 3000-5000 trips a day, even though this
number was not expected. The combined east-west traffic counts for
last Thursday were 592 and this was not high for a collector facility.
Regarding the concern about it being used as a shortcut, some
increase was expected over the next year as the neighborhood
developed. However, as Highway 5 was completed, Dietz said he
believed Highway 5 would be the choice of most drivers. As the
neighborhood filled up, there would be 600-1000 cars-per-day
volumes. The road was built for this. In his opinion, stops signs or
speed bumps would not Alleviate the speed problems. Studies
showed that people actually speed up between stop signs so they
would not address the safety issue and, in fact, would give people a
false sense of security. Enforcement of the speed laws by the Police
Department was difficult.
City Council Minutes 11 September 4, 1990
Tenpas suggested signage that such as "local traffic only" plus
patrolling would help the speed problems.
Anderson said he would like to see a recount done after school had
begun and patrolling at the times school began and ended.
Peterson asked Dietz about Waterford Road which had been used as a
shortcut at one time. Dietz said that in this area right turns were
prohibited during the morning rush hour traffic and this control had
been effective. That option would cut out about 50 vehicles. Any
hours longer than that would affect the neighbors' ability to use the
street.
Peterson said that he saw two things that the Council had agreed
upon: (1) To have staff ask the Police Department for increased
surveillance in the area, and (2) that staff continue to monitor traffic
counts and continue to communicate with residents.
Enger pointed out that a single family lot generated 10 average daily
trips, so if there were 300 units on Evener Way, this would result in
3000 trips from the neighborhood alone.
Teresa Waters said that the problem with speed was not from the
residents but from people using Evener Way for a shortcut.
MOTION
Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, that staff study this issue
further with any other appropriate agencies, and present the
findings and recommendations to the Council in 30 days. Motion
approved 5-0.
VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
IX. APPOINTMENTS
X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Councilmembers
1. Signage
Pidcock asked about the status of some signage to be placed in a
City right-of-way. Staff responded to her request.
2. RTB Appointment
Pidcock related that she had been appointed to the Local Officials
Advisory Committee of the Regional Transit Board.
City Council Minutes 12 September 4, 1990
B. Report of City Manager
C. Benoit offity_AttorneY
D. Report of Director of Planning
E. Report of Director of Parks. Recreation and Natural Resources
1. Name for Park Adjacent to Northwest Racquet Club
Lambert said that the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources
Commission recommended Pinnacle Park. Pidcock suggested
Holasek Hill Park. Lambert said he had suggested this name but
the Parks Commission voted for Pinnacle Park.
MOTION
Pidcock moved, seconded Anderson, by to name the park Holasek
Hill Park. Motion approved 5-0.
F. Report of Finance Director
G. Report of Director of Public Works
XI. NEW BUSINESS
XII. ADJOURNMENT
MO_TION
Anderson motioned to adjourn to an executive session at 10:00 p.m.
Seconded by Tenpas. Motion approved 5-0.
The executive session was held to discuss strategy relating to litigation
over the proposed expansion of the Flying Cloud Sanitary Landfill. The
session adjourned at 10:45 P.M.
„
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST
September 18, 1990
CONTRACTOR (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM.)
Design/Build of MN., Inc.
CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 FAMILY)
Metro Home Improvement
Wrase Builders, Inc.
HEATING & VENTILATING
McDowall Company
PLUMBING
M & D Plumbing & Heating, Inc.
Southwest Plumbing
PEDDLER
Paul Eugene Sanoski (firewood)
Kristi Lea Olson (coupon books)
These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for
the licensed activity.
14-.4
Pat Sofie
Licensing
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 90-241
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
ANDERSON LAKES CENTER 2ND ADDITION
WHEREAS, the plat of Anderson Lakes Center 2nd Addition has been submitted in a manner
required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the
Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder, and
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and
requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL:
A. Plat approval request for Anderson Lakes Center 2nd Addition is approved upon
compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat
dated September 13, 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 Eden Prairie City Council on September 18, 1990.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
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
FROM: Jeffrey Johnson, Engineering Technici
DATE: September 13, 1990
RE: Final Plat of Anderson Lakes Center 2nd Addition
PROPOSAL: The owner, William S. Reiling, has requested City Council approval of the final
plat of Anderson Lakes Center 2nd Addition located at the northwest quadrant of
Anderson Lakes Parkway and U.S. Highway 169. The plat consists of the
reconfiguration of Lots 1 and 3, Block 1 and Outlot B of Anderson Lakes Center into
three lots and three outlots. Lot 1 contains 5.38 acres and is the proposed site for the
new U.S. Post Office, Lot 2 contains 2.80 acres and is the present site of Anderson
Lakes Center, Lot 3 is 0.69 acres and is the present site of the Gliddon Paint Store.
Outlots A, B and C contain 3.20, 1.15 and 0.05 acres respectively. Ownership of Outlot
A will be retained by the owner for future development purposes while ownership of
Outlots B and C will be conveyed to the Minnesota Department of Transportation for
right-of-way purposes.
HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council July 17, 1990 per
Resolution No. 90-183.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 26-90, as well as site plan approval are scheduled for
the City Council meeting to be held September 18, 1990.
VARIANCES: Variance requests must be processed through the Board of Appeals.
UTILITIES AND STREETS: All municipal utilities, streets and walkways are currently in
place and available for extension to serve this site. It is intended that a joint-access be
utilized with the Post Office and the commercial property to the South. This will require
the filing of cross-access easement documents with Hennepin County which the developer
has agreed to do.
PARK DEDICATION: Park dedication shall conform to City Code requirements.
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Anderson Lakes Center 2nd
Addition subject to the requirements of this report, the developer's agreement and the
following:
I. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $1,330.00.
2. Execution of cross-access easements with the property to the South.
cc: William Reiling
Phil Nelson
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager
FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural
Resources
DATE: September 10, 1990
SUBJECT: Maintenance for the More Property
In 1981, the City of Eden Prairie purchased the home and 1.93 acres
owned by Earl and Helen More as a historical site. The purchase
agreement agreed to give the Mores the right to live on the
property free of rent for as long as Mr. and Mrs. More reside at
the home. The Mores also pay all utilities and for repairs to the
home not listed as major improvements. Mr. and Mrs. More are also
required to maintain the property.
Earlier this year, Mr. More slipped and fell injuring his shoulder
while walking out to the mailbox. He requested the City consider
assisting him to mow his lawn until he was able to do the mowing
again. Although some of Mr. More's relatives pitched in and helped
him mow early in the summer, Mr. More was able to do all of the
mowing on a riding lawn mower for the majority of the summer.
Mr. and Mrs. More have done an excellent job in maintaining that
property, and the property is in as good a shape now as it was when
the City purchased it nine years ago; however, Mr. More is ap-
proaching 85 years of age and it is difficult for him to mow the
lawn and remove snow from the driveway and walkway. Although, it
is not required of the purchase agreement, City staff would request
authorization to provide snow removal services and lawn maintenance
to the Mores for as long as they are able to live at the property.
Staff believe that it is in the best interest of the City to assist
the Mores to stay in this home for as long as possible. They have
done a fantastic job in restoring and maintaining this historic
site and the building is in excellent hands as long as they are
living there.
BL:mdd
The house with More
Couple helps turn home into historical treasure
MHZ 1101JOLAS4tOlUE Mew Is wow aimed by Ike CIty or IrolorPrelekv.lteket Pod
Hot mere remently One there snider a lilenevaary agreement Mtn the city. iflova tap Jew Brisket
By Joyce Kriske
Sitting under the vine-covered arbor.
a visitor might expect to be mined by a
woman Jr highbuttoned shoes caret ine
• parasol Or a man weannit a straw
hat, checking the time on his pocket
watch
It's a peaceful place, where you could
feel as though you were caught in a
time warp. That is. until the roar of a
truck on its way down Eden Prairie
Road ierksyou back to reality.
Earl and Helen More's patio. or the
arbor that is covered with an-year-old
grapevines. sits snugly behind the
stately renturyold boleti house at et07
Eden Prairie Rd A wind chime con.
tnbutes its gentle music to the scene
Fart calls his arbor the best home
room In Eden Prairie"
When the Mores purchased the house
in 19511. it was in a ''humble mess."
accord., to Helen Es en one thought
we were outdoor tree." Earl added
Prior to the purchase the Mores had
been looking fur • place for the antiques
they had accumulated over the years
But they had something smaller in
nund. like an apartment.
'Me had already sold sane stuff.-
Helen recalled. "but then t saw an ad
for this house." They came, they
looked. they bought They sold their
threeibedroom duple% in Minneapolis
and began restoring the old home Al
that Moe. Earl was employed as an
electnrian so work had to be done in
the evenings a nd on weekends
First tames major cleanup. Then a
well was dug—there *as no running
water. which meant no bathroom.
"We used to fill milk cans with water
at my daughter's house in Mm'
neap..." Helen recalled.
A /unlace was installed. Eurl did the
plumbing. followed by new walla and
cent..
"I did all bul the furnace myself."
said Earl "lever put in the cesspool
and septic tank myself
-We were ramping %or • lone, long
time.' added Helen. timeline "At least
15 years."
BUT THE MORES agree that it was
worth all the meat and tears. So does
the nee of Eden Prairie. because In
Aueust tell the city purchased teem the
Mores ihe Iniuse and the 1.93 acres on
which it Ms. The Mores. however.
retain life tenancy, which means then
can both Me there as long esthete wish
"We wanted to make sure we would
eventually own that property:' etc
placed Bob lambert. director of the
Community Services Department "We
were. Coburn, to own it and maintain
• • 4, PO We wanted to Make sure st vas
"preferred. They have done a fanlastle
job maintaining and preserving it -
Lambert said the city now owns two
properties that have been designated as
historic sites - the More home and the
Cumminsnirill home on Pioneer Trail
-We are in the prams of restonm
the Grill property." he said "It's a long
process. step by step "
Perhaps the best part to that the
made of the More home matches the
outside "IF s most impressive when
you walk inside." !anthers rani
merged "(Fs like going bark in time "
After walking through the arbor you
enter a kitchen where tour imagination
sees grandmother or greet-
grandmother making nreaeevm.has
can almost smell the bread in the oven.
The Ming and dining rooms are filled
with restored antiques China cabinets
and a dry sink in the dining room
display a mllertion of antique alai.
But perhaps the most impresave is
the matentic square grand Pieoo that
donunetee the hong room Behind
the six panelled stained Masa window.
which More crafted himself, Novoea
the piano's alumna wood teeth
variety of colors Those colon. says
Earl. change with every minute re
every day as the sun's position changes
Alter Plarl's retirement and the house
was completed. he started run.
centreline on frills for the inside Over
On campus
Freebutg studies abroad
Kristina Fnieborg, Eden Frain., is
one 01 11 students at the University of
Wisconsin-Eau Claire that is studying
abroad this summer at Me Institute
Technologic. Y de Estudlo Sigenores
in Monterrey Mexico Freeburg is a
junior studying somal studies.
Combs gets scholarship
home Candle at Eden Prarne was
the past few years Earl has none
needlepoint and chair caning Helen
has done a I. of furniture 'climbing
and the fruits of their Minn* are in
every nook and %Tann% of the house.
Crther products of Earl* heminsork
one of It Norman. le Community
College Auden. awarded a wholarNip
through the Normandale Foundation.
Contributors Included bank.,
organizations and business as sell as
indimduals and endowments for
memorial scholarships.
Bemidp graduates three
Three Eden Prone etude.a coon.
pitted undergraduate degree
requirements loiffsduale frown Sew.
Include Out paint... 000dranwil
figures. Illratuan !US and srained
• Earl calls the back porch Ns proudest
accomplohment. Originally. there had
been a porch on the south side 00 0000
house. but Mrs Douglas had it taken
off. F.ari said, because the porch didn't
Mk. sunlight into her kitchen. Earl
patterned it after the fro. porch. "Idol
Blithe fiber. mewl," ...-
The home Is now wallow for • Paint
lob, which Avon the way. It's hture Ls
secure somewhat widecided.
"When the Mores decide Ihe Rave the
house." lambert explained. "Hen the'
city takes posanann. Al that Row well
hoe to make a decision on whether sve
want to haves renter thereto maintain
it or whether we want to open to ogles a
. public place where we woad have to
heves eamialter or soave. go over CO'
dotty ham to open It tiO.
"The anginal thoue... he added,
owes that It might be a museum. Mule
the Ghll house mieht be more Me an
old working farm. The More louse
would be • wallothrough. donotaouch
N But that's up In the air. And there's no
homy. Earl. at.. and Helen a117.Mve
lots al years left to enjoy the property
they've worked so hard tomeserve
State Untversity this spring.
Among he 373 students ends..
were . Send ffredemekr. bachelor of
science degree in businese ad.
ministration: Caroline IJIlenthel,
bachelor al arts degree in scrialtdr.
and Amy is ntsrlientadt, bechelor of
arta degree in moorage
'. SHELDON SMITH was the original n builder of the house. anernine to Earl
1, Mare. His daughter mimed Frank
' ... theglas. and that's how It came to be
, boon as the Douglas place More
• believes the house was built in ap.
• proximately la., and, he said, it cost
• 0.500 to build.
i Douglas built the upstairs bedrooms
to make room for railroad travelen
i who got off at the nearby Eden Prone
stat/on on Eden Prone Road. After
staying overnight. Dowd. would often
J
Oar..oel them by stage to heir
deetinabon.
Bra Dangles was a telemellhe,
stooling to Helen Andersco's holt
1.Eden Prairie the First 100 years..
The r
hub tr'd ''''.:.7,1,^ :re,t,°:;.."1
I raereamery. Miller's General Store. a
I If blaellOnith ehop. grain elevator and
I 'est., pens were 05 located by tlw
I d Hach.
f ; "People stop a lot." stated Earl.
: referring borrows passersby..No1 so
nmeh now. but there used la be hardly •
;hook went by that someone didn't NV.
O People we.. to know if we wanted to
...sell or wanting to take picture. I think
we made dividends for Kodak mitt all
c the ochres
' '' .A couple of years ago.. he added.
HELEN AND EARL Moe are lo Iran el he Mourns etalned Mass wind. Nei .. hed • fellow sloe whose father had
Fart handcrafted for their home. watch Is Me kistonrat bolding et SIM Eden P.m, Wee the •••••••.. tee Mee., He.. • Rd. ilhow by Joyce Henkel minister from North Dakota. but he
• used to live nett door...thet house is
MEMO
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Donald R. Uram, Planner
DATE: September 7, 1990
RE: Eden Prairie Post Office
The Staff Report for the Eden Prairie Post Offi
c
e
d
a
t
e
d
J
u
n
e
2
2
,
1990, stated that prior to 2nd reading by the
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
,
t
h
e
developer shall submit architectural elevations,
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
samples, and colors for review by the Planning C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
C
i
t
y
Council. On September 4, 1990, the Post Office s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
p
l
a
n
s
f
o
r
Staff, Planning Commission and City Council revi
e
w
.
Staff review of the current plans indicated a numb
e
r
o
f
i
t
e
m
s
w
h
i
c
h
were different from the approved plans. These di
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
the omission of a wing wall designed to sc
r
e
e
n
t
h
e
l
o
a
d
i
n
g
facilities from #169 and the fence along #1
6
9
t
o
s
c
r
e
e
n
t
h
e
employee parking area. In a meeting with represe
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
s
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
Post Office on September 6th, these items were d
i
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
a
n
d
w
i
l
l
be included on the final plans. In addition,
t
h
e
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
required a combination of 6-, 8-, and 10-foot ever
g
r
e
e
n
t
r
e
e
s
a
l
o
n
g
the north property line designed to help scre
e
n
t
h
e
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
parking area and plant material along the retaini
n
g
w
a
l
l
a
n
d
f
e
n
c
e
to help "soften" the view. The proposed plans ind
i
c
a
t
e
4
-
,
6
-
,
a
n
d
8-foot evergreen trees and no plant material al
o
n
g
t
h
e
r
e
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
wall and fence. This item was also discussed a
n
d
p
l
a
n
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
revised to include these items.
Changes to the architectural plans include the e
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
skylight from the customer service area and a c
h
a
n
g
e
i
n
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
material color from a single color brick to two
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
b
r
i
c
k
colors. However, the colors proposed will stil
l
b
e
o
f
a
n
e
a
r
t
h
tone variety. Because of the size and length
o
f
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
,
Staff has made suggestions to the architect
i
n
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
a
d
d
interest to the building. This included prima
r
i
l
y
t
h
e
u
s
e
o
f
different brick patterns or colors. The architect
w
i
l
l
b
e
a
b
l
e
t
o
present alternatives for the Planning Commission
t
o
r
e
v
i
e
w
.
Because of the time it takes to revise the plan
s
,
r
e
v
i
s
e
d
p
l
a
n
s
will not be available for Monday night's meeting. The Post O
f
f
i
c
e
has agreed to return to the Planning Commiss
i
o
n
t
o
s
h
o
w
f
i
n
a
l
building elevations and colors prior to buildin
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
.
POMEMO.DRU:bs
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
St. Andrew Church Parking Lot Expansion
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE #27-90
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 District and be placed in the Public District.
SECTION 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall
be, and hereby is removed from the Rural District and shall be included
hereafter in the Public 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
Definitions 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 31, 1979, entered into
between St. Andrew Church and the City of Eden Prairie, and those certain
Supplements to Developer's Agreement between St. Andrew Church and the City
of Eden Prairie dated August 28, 1984 and September 18, 1990, which Agreement
and Supplements are 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 7th day of August, 1990, and finally read and adopted and
ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on
the 18th day of September, 1990.
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of
EXHIBIT A
St. Andrew Lutheran Church
(Parking Lot Expansion)
Guide Plan Change, Zoning District Change, and Site Plan Review
That part of Lots 29, 30 and 31, Auditor's Subdivision Number 225,
Hennepin County, Minnesota which lies northwesterly of the
northwesterly right of way line of the 100 foot highway easement as
described in Document Number 4725427 and lies northerly of the 50
foot highway easement as described in Document Number 4725427.
St. Andrew's Parking Lot Expansion
SUPPLEMENT TO DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
THIS SUPPLEMENT TO AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of 1990, by and between ST. ANDREW CHURCH, hereinafter "Developer", and the CITY
OF EDEN PRAIRIE, hereinafter "City":
WHEREAS, St. Andrew Church and City made and entered into a Developer's
Agreement, dated May 31, 1979, for construction of St. Andrew Church, (the
"Developer's Agreement") and a Supplement to such Developer's Agreement for
an addition to such church between Developer and City, dated August 28, 1984;
and,
WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Developer's Agreement for the
property referred to therein;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance #27-90,
Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and
maintenance of said property as follows:
1. The Developer's Agreement shall be and hereby is supplemented and
amended in the following respects:
A. Paragraph 1. shall be amended by adding the following:
"Developer also agrees to develop the property in conformance
with the materials revised and dated August 3, 1990, reviewed
and approved by the City Council on August 7, 1990, and
attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and
modifications as provided herein.
B. The following paragraphs shall be added:
"4. Developer has submitted to the City and obtained City's
approval of plans for screening and landscaping of Phases
I and II of the parking expansion areas for the property
as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto.
n5. With respect to Phase I of the parking expansion area,
Developer agrees that prior to issuance by City of any
grading permit for such Phase I, Developer shall:
A. Submit to the City, and obtain the City's approval
of a security for 150% of the cost of the materials
and implementation of such screening and
landscaping for the Phase I area, only.
B. Install snow fencing at the construction limits of
the wooded areas of the property and implement
erosion control measures and adequate protective
measures for the area to be preserved on the
property, all as depicted in Exhibit B, attached
hereto.
Developer agrees to confine grading for Phase I to that
area depicted as such in Exhibit B, attached hereto."
"6. With respect to Phase II of the parking expansion area,
Developer agrees that prior to issuance by City of any
grading permit for such Phase II, Developer shall:
A. Submit to the City and to obtain the City's
approval of a separate security for 150% of the
cost of the materials and implementation of such
screening and landscaping for the Phase II area,
only.
B. Submit to the City Engineer, and obtain the City
Engineer's approval of detailed plans for storm
water run-off and drainage from the lower level
parking area in said Phase II, all as depicted in
Exhibit B, attached hereto.
Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer
agrees to implement and construct, or cause to be
implemented and constructed, such storm water run-
off and drainage improvements, as approved by the
City Engineer, in accordance with Exhibit C of the
Developer's Agreement."
11 7 Developer acknowledges that the material proposed for hard
-
surfacing of the parking expansion areas as depicted in
Exhibit B, attached hereto shall be a plant mix bituminous
pavement."
2. Developer agrees to all the terms and conditions and accepts
t
h
e
obligations of "Developer" under the Developer's Agreement,
a
s
amended and supplemented herein.
St. Andrew Parking Expansion
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #90-234
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY
OF ORDINANCE #27-90 ORDERING THE
PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY
WHEREAS, Ordinance #27-90 was adopted and ordered published at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 18th day of
September, 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 #27-90, 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
Minnesota Statute, Section 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 #27-90 shall be recorded in the ordinance book,
along with proof of publication required by paragraph B herein, within 20
days after publication.
ADOPTED by the City Council on September 18, 1990.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
St. Andrew Parking Lot Expansion
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 27-90
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 REFRERENCE CITY CODE
CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY
PROVISIONS
TEE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Bummarv; This ordinance allows rezoning of land located at the
northwest corner of Baker Road and St. Andrew Drive, from the Rural District
to the Public 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.
Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication.
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 City Clerk.)
To:
Through:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Mayor and Members of City Council
Carl Jullie, City Manager
Roger A. Pauly
Gambling Ordinance
July 31, 1990
Pursuant to City Code §5.40, Subd. 9 an organization must
contribute 10% of its net profit to a fund administered and regu-
lated by the City to be disbursed by the City for lawful pur-
poses. In addition, an organization must expend 30% of its
expenditures on lawful purposes conducted or located within the
City's trade area. The City's trade area is defined to be the
geographical limits of the City. One of the changes in the
gambling law adopted by the 1990 legislature is that a trade area
defined by a City must include each City contiguous to the
defining City. I have prepared an amendment to City Code S5.40,
Subd. 9(b) to conform the Code to this new provision of state
law. A copy is attached for your consideration.
22"4)
ORDINANCE NO. 25.-7 1
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING
CITY CODE SECTION 5.40, SUBD. 9.(b) AMENDING THE DEFINITION OF
TRADE AREA AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND
SECTION 5.99 WHICH AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY
PROVISIONS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. City Code Sec. 5.40, Subd. 9.(b) is amended to
read as follows:
(b) Each Organization licensed to conduct lawful
gambling within the City, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes ;349.16,
must expend 30% of its expenditures for lawful purposes on lawful
purposes conducted or located within the City's trade area. The
30% of its expenditures shall be in addition to the 10% of its
net profits contributed to the City pursuant to Subd. 9.(a)
hereof. The City's trade area is hereby defined to be the
geographical limits of the City and the geograohical limits of
each City contiguous to the City to-wit: the cities of
Bloomington, Edina, Minnetonka, Chanhassen, Shakopee, and Savage,
Minnesota.
Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions
and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including
Penalty for Violation" and Section 5.99 entitled "Violation a
Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, be reference,
as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective from and
after its passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Eden Prairie on the day of , 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 , 1990.
day of
1
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
THROUGH:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
City Council
Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Eden Prairie Assembly of God
August 29, 1990
Eden Prairie Assembly of God is requesting approval of a
Comprehensive Guide Plan change for a two phase, 150,000 square
foot church on 32.7 acres, 3 acres of Neighborhood Commercial and
2.5 acres of office. Zoning approval is requested for the church
only, however, PUD Concept approval is requested for Neighborhood
Commercial and Office. A PUD District review with waivers is
requested for building height from 30 to 92 feet and front yard
setback for parking from 50 to 40 feet along Highway 5.
This project was initially reviewed by the Planning Commission at
the June 25, 1990 meeting. The Planning Commission was comfortable
with the Guide Plan change from Industrial to Church and the
building height and parking setback waivers. The Commission was
concerned about Highway Commercial uses located at the intersection
of Dell Road and Highway 5, screening of parking areas from Highway
5, and transition to the residential areas to the north. The
Planning Commission recommended a thirty day continuance and
directed the developer to revise the site plan for Neighborhood
Commercial uses, screening of the parking areas, and an effective
transition to the residential areas to the north.
The developer was not ready to present revised plans at the July
23rd meeting and requested a continuance to the August 13th
meeting. At the August 13th meeting, the developer presented a
revised site plan that provided Neighborhood Commercial uses,
however, the detailed plans regarding grading, drainage, screening
and transition had not been completed. The Planning Commission
recommended that the project be continued until the August 27th
meeting.
At the August 27th meeting, the Planning Commission voted 5-1 to
recommend approval the request based on the revised plans dated
August 24, 1990. Important conditions of the recommendation are:
1. No building can occur until Dell Road is upgraded from Highway
5 to Valley View Road.
(
2. The transition planting plan to the residential areas to the
north must be implemented concurrent with phase one. Since it
is not physically possible to construct a berm, and the
transition must rely exclusively on plant materials, an
irrigation system is required.
3. Zoning approval be granted for the church only with waivers
for building height from 30 to 92 feet and front yard setback
for parking from 50 to 40 feet on Highway 5.
4. PUD Concept approval be granted for the commercial and office
areas only. Future development of these parcels will require
a zoning change and a public hearing with the Planning
Commission and City Council.
5. The church will return to the Planning Commission and City
Council for a reevaluation of parking prior to phase two
construction.
6. Building architecture for the future office and commercial
areas will reflect a residential character and be compatible
in terms of exterior materials, colors, roof lines and
detailing.
7. A conservation easement shall be placed over the drainage/
utility easement to insure that the wetland area will be
preserved in its natural state.
At the August 27th meeting, surrounding residents raised additional
issues regarding screening, traffic on Evener Way and trail access
from the Ridge subdivision to the future trail around the wetland
area. The neighborhood questioned whether the landscaping required
a guarantee and how the plant materials would be maintained. City
Code requires a 150% guarantee which shall remain in effect until
one full growing season after the plant materials have been
installed. In addition, an irrigation system will be required to
maintain the plant materials.
Traffic on Evener Way should not be impacted significantly by the
development of a church, office and commercial uses along Dell
Road. Development on the church property cannot proceed until Dell
Road is upgraded. The majority of traffic on Evener Way at this
time is from the Chanhassen Industrial Park as an alternative way
to bypass Highway 5 construction. Other residential areas in the
City along Highway 169 have experienced additional traffic
bypassing Highway 169 construction.
The engineering and police departments have been aware of increased
traffic on Evener Way. In October of 1989, the engineering
department placed traffic counters on Evener Way to determine the
amount of traffic. The amount of traffic generated over a 24 hour
time period in one direction was 200 vehicles. This is
approximately 1/2 of the normal daily vehicles found on a typical
residential street in Eden Prairie. In addition, the police
department has patrolled the area and has stopped vehicles to
remind them that this is a residential street and to be concerned
about safety.
Residents in the Ridge subdivision to the north would like to have
a trail access constructed from the subdivision to the trail around
the wetland area. There are two trail access connections to the
wetland trail. One is currently built on the east side of the
wetland area. The second (future) trail access is on the west side
from Dell Road through the church property to the wetland trail.
The Planning staff would recommend approval of the project based on
revised plans dated August 30, 1990.
Planning Commission
Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
Chris Enger, Director of Planning
August 24, 1990
Eden Prairie Assembly of God
Eden Prairie Assembly of God Church
Frank Beddor, Jr.
Northeast Quadrant of Dell Road and Highway 5
1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from
Industrial and Public Open Space to Church on
32.7 acres, Comprehensive Guide Plan Change
from Industrial to Neighborhood Commercial on
3.03 acres, Comprehensive Guide Plan Change
from Industrial to Office on 2.5 acres.
2. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on
39.21 acres.
3. Planned Unit Development District Review on
32.7 acres with waivers.
4. Zoning District Change from I-General, R1-22,
and Rural to Public on 32.7 acres.
5. Site Plan Review on 32.7 acres.
6. Preliminary Plat of 19.2• acres inb 4 lots
and road right of way.
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
THROUGH:
PATE:
PROJECT:
APPLICANT:
FEE OWNER:
LOCATION:
REOUEST:
Background
This is a continued item from
the August 13, 1990 meeting.
The Planning Commission
recommended that the
development plans be returned
to the proponent for revisions
which included:
1. Revise the site plan to
consolidate commercial
uses into one lot and
resolve access and
circulation problems.
AREA LOCATION MAP
2. Limit the use of the neighborhood commercial area to
convenience gas, daily retail and family restaurant uses.
3. Provide a screening plan for the parking area from Highway 5.
4. Provide a screening and transition plan to the residential
areas to the north.
5. Provide a design framework manual for the office and
commercial areas.
6. Revise the preliminary plat to eliminate the proposed
commercial and office lots.
7. Revise the site plan to provide a sidewalk connection between
Dell Road and the trail around the wetland area.
8. Revise the site plan to provide an additional 41 parking
spaces.
Site Plan Revisions
1. Revise the site plan to consolidate commercial uses into one
lot and resolve access and circulation problems.
The site plan has been revised to move the 3 acre neighborhood
commercial area approximately 400 feet north of the
intersection of Dell Road and Highway 5. This provides for
better access into the sites and resolves turning movement and
vehicle stacking problems between the commercial lots and the
church parking.
2. Limit the use of the neighborhood commercial area to convenience gas, daily retail and family restaurant uses.
As a condition of approval of the Planned Unit Development,
neighborhood commercial could be defined based on the
definition in the zoning code and the Comprehensive Guide
Plan. The definition would be as follows: "acceptable future
uses shall be for the development of retail stores, offices
and personal service establishments patronized by the
residents of the immediate neighborhood with 1-1/2 miles of
the site, which minimizes impact on adjoining residential
area. The neighborhood commercial area may contain a small
neighborhood strip mall, convenience gas or family restaurant
or any combination thereof."
3. Provide a screening Plan for the parking area from Highway 5.
The grading plan has been revised to provide for berming to
screen the views of the parking area from Highway 5.
4. Provide a screening and transition olap to the residential
areas to the north.
A mass planting plan has been provided to screen the 959 car
parking lot to the residential areas to the north and east of
the site. The landscaping plan has been revised to provide an
additional 305 caliper inches along the northeast slope facing
the residential areas. The effectiveness of the plant
materials is limited, because they are planted on a side slope
which reduces the overall height, tree spacing is 30 feet
apart, and plant materials are small (2-1/2 to 3 inches). It
will take time for the plant materials to effectively screen
the parking areas. It is recommended that plant materials in
the transition area be planted concurrent with Phase I.
5. Provide a design framework manual for the office and
commercial areas.
A design framework manual has been prepared for the office and
commercial areas which provides guidelines on architecture,
exterior materials, lighting, signs, screening and
landscaping.
6. Revise the preliminary plat to eliminate the proposed
commercial and office lots.
The preliminary plat has been revised to depict one lot for
the church and a separate outlot for the office and the three
acre commercial area.
7. Revise the site plan to provide a sidewalk connection between
Dell Road and the trail around the wetland area.
The site plan has been revised to provide a sidewalk
connection from Dell Road to the trail around the wetland
area. In addition, the trail around the wetland area has been
relocated above the high water elevation (871.4).
8. Revise the site plan to provide an additional 41 parking spaces.
There is sufficient parking on-site in phase one to meet
parking demands for a 1000 seat sanctuary (334 spaces).
Phase two is 41 parking spaces short of code. In addition, many
existing churches have recently expanded parking areas which
suggests that parking demand exceeds the City Code requirement of
one space per three seats. The church has agreed to return to the
Planning Commission and City Council prior to phase two
construction to reevaluate parking needs. Additional parking can
be provided by:
A. Use of shared parking with the proposed office site (127
spaces).
B. Construct additional on-site parking of 50-60 spaces east of
the office building. (This would require extensive grading)
C. Reduce the size of the sanctuary area.
Staff Recommendation
Following are alternative courses of action for Commission
consideration:
I. If the Planning Commission feels that the proponent has
provided compelling reasons for the change in the
Comprehensive Guide Plan from Industrial and Open Space to
Church, Office, and Commercial, one option would be to
recommend approval of the guide plan change, PUD concept,
rezoning from Industrial and Rural to Church, and preliminary
plat based on plans dated August 24, 1990 and subject to the
following conditions:
A. Prior to final plat approval, proponent shall:
1. Provide detailed storm water runoff, utility and
erosion control plans for review by the City
Engineer.
2. Provide detailed storm water runoff and erosion
control plans for review by the Watershed District.
B. Prior to building permit issuance, proponent shall:
1. Pay the appropriate cash park fee.
2. Provide a trail easement to the City covering the
sidewalk and trails within church property.
3. Provide samples of exterior building materials for
review.
C. PUD approval is granted for neighborhood commercial and
office uses adjacent to Dell Road. Future development of
commercial and office parcels will require a PUD review
and zoning district change to be reviewed by the Planning
Commission and city Council.
D. Waivers are granted through the PUD district review for
building and spire height to 92 feet, and front yard
setback to parking from 50 to 40 feet along Highway 5 and
50 to 35 feet along Dell Road.
E. Building architecture for the future office and
commercial sites shall reflect a residential character
and be compatible in terms of exterior materials, colors,
roof lines and detailing.
F. The design framework manual will be used as a guide for
the development of future site plans for the commercial
and office areas along Dell Road.
G. PUD approval is granted for a neighborhood commercial
area of three acres in size. Acceptable future uses
shall be for the development of retail stores, offices
and personal service establishments patronized by the
residents of the immediate neighborhood within 1-1/2
miles of the site, which minimizes impact on adjoining
residential areas. The neighborhood commercial area may
contain a small neighborhood strip center, convenience
gas, family restaurant, or any combination thereof.
H. Construction of any building on this property is
contingent upon the upgrade of Dell Road from Highway 5
to Valley View Road. No construction may occur until the
contract has been let for Dell Road.
I. Two access points are depicted on the site plan into the
property, a full intersection access on the north and a
right-in only access on the south. No future median cuts
will be considered on Dell Road at the south entrance.
J. The sidewalk and trail shown on the site plan will be
constructed concurrent with Phase I.
K. The preliminary plat depicts a drainage utility easement
over the wetland area. Since the church does not propose
to dedicate this land area to the City, a conservation
easement shall be placed over the drainage utility
easement to insure that the wetland will be protected in
its natural state.
L. Prior to phase two construction, the church will return
to the Planning Commission and City Council for a review
of parking needs.
II. If the Planning Commission feels that the proponents have not
provided a compelling reason for the change in the comprehensive guide plan to church, commercial and office,
then one option would be to recommend denial of the project as
proposed.
MEMORANDUM
TO: 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/14t...
DATE: September 6, 1990
SUBJECT: Eden Prairie Assembly of God Development Proposal
The Eden Prairie Assembly of God development proposal at the
northeast quadrant of Dell Road and Highway 5 was reviewed by the
Planning Commission at meetings held on July 9, August 13, and
August 27th. The Planning Commission recommended approval as per
the August 24 Planning Staff Report, which included the following:
"Item J - The sidewalk and trail shown on the site plan will be
constructed concurrent with Phase I."
"Item K - The preliminary plat depicts a drainage utility easement
over the wetland area. Since the church does not propose to
dedicate this land area to the City, a conservation easement shall
be placed over the drainage utility easement to insure that the
wetland will be protected in its natural state."
The church preferred to obtain ownership of the property, but
agreed to put a conservation easement over the wetland area.
At the September 4, 1990 City Council meeting, the Director of
Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources recommended that in order
to be consistent with other recommendations on developments
adjacent to floodplain or marshes that the developer dedicate the
wetland area to the City in order to insure permanent protection
and management of this important natural resource. City staff
further recommended the church dedicate a trail easement and
construct a trail from Dell Road to the existing trail around the
marsh, and connecting the marsh trail from the church's northern
property line to the eastern property line adjacent to Highway 5,
as per the Planning Staff Report.
Representatives of the church indicated to the City Council that
the church would prefer to maintain ownership of the marsh and
requested that the City construct the trail on their property. The
City Council continued this item and asked that the City staff meet
with the developers and referred this item to the Parks, Recreation
and Natural Resources Commission.
On September 6, staff met with representatives from the Assembly of
God Church and were informed that the church will agree to dedicate
the marshland provided the City places a conservation easement over
that portion of the marsh. The church will agree to construct the
trail within its property, and would like the option of considering
having the City construct the trail and assessing the trail to the
church property.
City staff recommend the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources
Commission and the City Council approve the Assembly of God
development proposal under the following conditions:
1. Pay the appropriate cash park fees, which are limited to the
parcels of property zoned commercial and office.
2. Dedicate a trail easement and construct a trail as per the
August 24, 1990 Planning Staff Report. Funding for the
construction of the trail to be determined prior to second
reading.
3. Dedicate the marshland to the City of Eden Prairie. The City
of Eden Prairie to accept a conservation easement over this
wetland area.
BL:mdd
assembly/10
Eden Prairie Assembly of God
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 33-90-PUD-12-90
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND
FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING TEE LEGAL
DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE
CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 NI/CH, 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, R1-22 and I-General Districts and be placed in the
Planned Unit Development Public District (hereinafter "PUD 12-90-R-R1-22-1-
GEN
Section 3. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of
that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of , 1990,
entered into between Eden Prairie Assembly of God, and the City of Eden
Prairie (hereinafter "Developer's Agreement") and that certain supplement to
the Developer's Agreement, dated as of , 1990, entered into
between Eden Prairie Assembly of God and the City of Eden Prairie
(hereinafter "Supplement"). The Developer's Agreement and Supplement contain
the terms and conditions of PUD 12-90-R-R1-22-I-GEN, and are hereby made a
part hereof.
Section 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings:
A. PUD 12-90-R-R1-22-I-GEN is not in conflict with the goals of the
Comprehensive Guide Plan of the City.
B. PUD 12-90-R-R1-22-I-GEN is designed in such a manner to form a
desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries.
C. The exceptions to the standard requirements of Chapters 11 and 12
of the City Code that are contained in PUD 12-90-R-R1-22-I-GEN are
justified by the design of the development described therein.
D. PUD 12-90-R-R1-22-I-GEN is of sufficient size, composition, and
arrangement that its construction, marketing, and operation is
feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any subsequent
unit.
Section 5. The proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and
(
'lereby is removed from the Rural, R1-22 and I-General Districts and shall be
included hereafter in the Planned Unit Development Public District (PUD 12-
90-R-R1-22-I-GEN 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 6. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and
Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for
Violation" and Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby
adopted in their entirety by reference, as though repeated verbatim 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:
John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
- PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the
day of , 1990.
Eden Pr - -ie Assembly pf God_ ,
(t).-0,_R S
GUIDE PLAN CHANGE TO CHURCH, P.U.D. DISTRICT REVIEW,
'EZONING TO PUBLIC, SITE PLAN REVIEW _
The South 1076.58 feet of the West 1799.94 feet of the Sout
h
e
a
s
t
Quarter of Section 7, Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin Coun
t
y
,
Minnesota as measured at right angles to the south and wes
t
l
i
n
e
s
thereof, except that part thereof lying south of the north
l
i
n
e
o
f
State Highway No. 5 as delineated in Minnesota Department
o
f
Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 27-49. also except t
h
e
W
e
s
t
6
0
.
0
0
feet of said Southeast Quarter also except Tracts A and 13
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
below:
Tract A:
The north 231.00 feet of the south 1076.58 feet of the eas
t
4
6
4
.
0
0
f
e
e
t
of the west 524.00 feet of the Southeast Quarter of Sectio
n
7
,
T
o
w
n
.
s
h
i
p
116, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Tract 8:
The east 315.00 feet of the west 375.00 feet of the north
415:00 feet of the south 785.58 feet of the Southeast Quart
e
r
o
f
Section 7, Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnes
o
t
a
GUIDE PLAN CHANGE TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
The east 315.00 feet of the West 375.00 feet of the north
415.00 feet of the south 785.58 feet of the Southeast Qua
r
t
e
r
o
f
Section 7, Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minne
s
o
t
a
GUIDE PLAN CHANGE TO OFFICE
The north 231.00 feet of the south 1076.58 feet of the east
4
6
4
.
0
0
f
e
e
t
of the west 524.00 feet of the Southeast Quarter of Section 7, Township
116, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
P.U.D. CONCEPT REVIEW AND PRELIMINARY PLAT
The South 1076.58 feet of the West 1799.94 feet of the Southea
s
t
Quarter of Section 7, Township 116, Range 22, as measured at rig
h
t
angles to the South and West lines thereof, except that part
thereof lying South of the North line of Minnesota Department of
Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 27-49, according to the United
States Government Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin county,
Minnesota. :
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #90-228
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF
EDEN PRAIRIE ASSEMBLY OF GOD
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A CHURCH AND OTHER COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE USES
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Eden Prairie Assembly of God for
construction of a church and other commercial and office uses,
dated August 24, 1990 consisting of 39.21 acres, a copy of which is
on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the
provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and
amendments thereto, and is herein approved.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 4th day of
September, 1990.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
4
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEP/N COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #90-229
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE EDEN PRAIRIE ASSEMBLY OF GOD
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT AMENDMENT
TO THE OVERALL CRESCENT RIDGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code
provided for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) of certain areas
located within the City; and,
WHEREAS, the Eden Prairie Assembly of God development is
considered a proper amendment to the overall Crescent Ridge Planned
Unit Development Concept; and,
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public
hearing on the request of Eden Prairie Assembly of God for PUD
Concept Amendment approval to the overall Crescent Ridge Planned
Unit Development Concept and recommended approval of the PUD
Concept Amendment to the City Council; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on
September 4, 1990.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Eden
Prairie, Minnesota, as follows:
1. The Eden Prairie Assembly of God development PUD Concept
Amendment, being in Hennepin County, Minnesota, and
legally described as outlined in Exhibit A, is attached
hereto and made a part hereof.
2. That the City Council does grant PUD Concept Amendment
approval to the overall Eden Prairie Assembly of God
Planned Unit Development Concept as outlined in the
application materials.
3. That the PUD Concept Amendment meets the recommendations
of the Planning Commission dated August 27, 1990.
ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 4th day of
September, 1990.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
1 John D. Frane, City Clerk
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 90-242
RESOLUTION APPROVING 1991 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the City Council has met
and heard and passed upon all objectives in the proposed assessments for the following
improvements to wit:
(See Exhibit A attached)
NOW, THEREFORE, Be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie:
1. Such proposed assessments are hereby accepted and shall constitute the special
assessment against the lands in the final assessment rolls, and each tract of land therein
included is hereby found to be benefitted by the improvement in the amount of the
assessment levied against it.
2. Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period
of years as shown on Exhibit A. Installments shall bear interest at the rates shown on
Exhibit A, commencing January 1, 1991. No interest shall be charged if the entire
assessment is paid on or before November 15, 1990.
3. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County
Auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the County, and such assessments
shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes beginning
in 1991.
4. It is hereby declared to be the intention of the Council to reimburse itself in the future
for the portion of the cost of this improvement paid for from municipal funds by levying
additional assessments, on notice and hearings as provided for the assessments being
made, upon any properties abutting on the improvements but not herein assessed for the
improvement when changed conditions relating to such properties make such assessment
feasible.
5. The assessment data of Resolution No. 90-212 is herein revised in accordance with
Exhibit A attached hereto.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on September 18, 1990.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST
SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
1. I.C. 52-051
Street and utili y improvements on
Mitchell Road, T%in Lakes Crossing
and Staring Lake Parkway
Lateral Sewer = $16.40 Front Foot
Lateral Water = $17.78 Front Foot
Streets/Drainage = $63.51 Front Foot
Project Cost:
City Share:
Net Assessment:
20 Years at 8.5%
Deferred 1996
$1,967,588.00
$ 707,776.00
$1,259,812.00
1991
Parcel PIDi Property Owner Legal Description $Amount $Amount $Amount
21-11-0020
21-12-0013
21-12-0014
21-12-0015
21-12-0016
21-12-0017
21-12-0018
21-12-0019
21-12-0020
21-12-0021
21-12-0022
21-12-0023
21-12-0024
21-12-0025
21-12-0026
21-12-0027
21-12-0028
21-12-0029
21-12-0030
21-12-0031
21-12-0032
21-12-0033
21-12-0034
21-12-0035
21-12-0036
21-12-0037
21-12-0038
21-12-0039
21-12-0040
21-12-0041
21-12-0042
21-12-0043
21-12-0044
21-12-0045
21-12-0046
21-12-0047
21-12-0048
21-12-0049
21-12-0050
21-13-0001
21-13-0002
21-13-0003
21-13-0004
21-13-0005
21-13-0006
21-14-0001
21-14-0002
21-14-0003
21-21-0001
2 1-2 1-0002
Virgil Seifert
Robert Mason, Inc.
Robert Mason, Inc.
Robert Mason, Inc.
Robert Mason, Inc.
Robert Mason, Inc.
Robert Mason, Inc.
John David Welch
Robert Mason, Inc.
Robert Mason, Inc.
Charles Bardwell
Robert Mason, Inc.
Michael Schnieder
Robert Mason, Inc.
Robert Mason, Inc.
Robert Mason, Inc.
Robert Mason, Inc.
Lundgren Bros.
Robert Mason, Inc.
Robert Mason, Inc.
Robert Mason, Inc.
Robert Mason, Inc.
Robert Mason, Inc.
Robert Mason, Inc.
Robert Mason, Inc.
Robert Mason, Inc.
Robert Mason, Inc.
Robert Mason, Inc.
Robert Mason, Inc.
Michael Wingert
Robert Maxwell
Robert Mason, Inc.
Robert Mason, Inc.
L. Cramer Co.
Bruce Bren Homes
Bruce Bren Homes
Robert Mason, Inc.
Robert Mason, Inc.
Robert Mason, Inc.
Robert Mason, Inc.
Robert Mason, Inc.
Robert Mason, Inc.
Robert Mason, Inc.
Robert Mason, Inc.
Robert Mason, Inc.
John T. Sword
Craig Merriman
Richard McHale
George Lopuch
Robert Mason, Inc.
Unplatted 61,529.55
Boulder Pt Li Bl
Boulder Pt L2 Bl
Boulder Pt L3 Bl
Boulder Pt L4 Ell
Boulder Pt 1.5 B1
Boulder Pt L6 Ell
Boulder Pt 1.7 B1
Boulder Pt LIO 81
Boulder Pt Lll Bi
Boulder Pt L12 Bl
Boulder Pt L13 Ell
Boulder Pt 1.14 Ell
Boulder Pt L15 Ell
Boulder Pt L16 81
Boulder Pt 1.17 Bl
Boulder Pt L18 Bl
Boulder Pt 1.19 Bl
Boulder Pt 1.21 81
Boulder Pt L22 Si
Boulder Pt 1.23 Bl
Boulder Pt L24 Ell
Boulder Pt 1.25 81
Boulder Pt L26 Si
Boulder Pt Li 82
Boulder Pt L2 B2
Boulder Pt L3 B2
Boulder Pt L4 82
Boulder Pt L5 82
Boulder Pt L6 B2
Boulder Pt L7 B2
Boulder Pt L8 82
Boulder Pt L9 B2
Boulder Pt Lb O B2
Boulder Pt Li 83
Boulder Pt 1.18 83
Boulder Pt L19 B3
Boulder Pt L20 83
Boulder Pt 1.21 83
Boulder Pt LEI Ell
Boulder Pt L9 B1
Boulder Pt 1.27 81
Boulder Pt 1.28 81
Boulder Pt 1.29 Ell
Boulder Pt 1.30 81
Unplatted
Unplatted
Unplatted
Boulder Pt 1.20 111
Boulder Pt 1.2 B3
15,000.00
1,076.11
1,076.11
1,210.63
1,210.63
1,109.74
1,367.56
1,367.56
1,154.58
1,154.58
1,076.11
896.76
1,008.86
1,064.90
1,064.90
1,064.90
1,064.90
1,109.74
919.18
919.18
952.81
952.81
952.81
907.97
1,367.56
1,524.49
1,614.17
1,614.17
1,367.56
1,367.56
1,670.22
1,916.83
1,916.83
2,073.76
2,073.76
2,533.35
2,454.88
2,387.63
2,309.16
1,311.51
1,210.63
907.97
840.71
773.46
694.99
7,621.20
10,058.60
7,621.20
919.18
2,309.16
4,928.00
3,942.00
4,941.40
4,928.00
1. I.C. 52-051 (Page 2 of 3)
Deferred 1996 1991 Parcel PIMP Property Owner Legal Description SAmount 5Amount 5Amount
4,90
-
5.00
2,96
-
0.00
21-21-0003
21-21-0004
21-21-0005
21-21-0006
21-21-0007
21-21-0008
21-21-0009
21-21-0010
21-21-0011
21-21-0012
21-21-0013
21-21-0014
21-21-0015
21-21-0016
21-21-0017
21-41-0001
21-41-0008
21-41-0009
21-41-0010
21-41-0011
21-41-0012
21-41-0013
,21-41-0014
21-41-0015
21-41-0016
21-41-0017
21-41-0018
21-41-0019
21-41-0020
21-41-0021
21-41-0022
21-41-0023
21-41-0024
21-41-0025
21-41-0026
21-41-0027
21-41-0028
21-41-0029
21-41-0030
21-41-0031
21-41-0032
21-41-0033
21-41-0036
21-43-0005
21-43-0009
21-43-0024
22-13-0004
22-14-0006
22-22-0001
22-22-0062
22-22-0063
22-22-0064
22-22-0065
22-23-0001
22-23-0003
22-23-0004
22-23-0011
22-23-0012
22-23-0013
22-23-0014
22-23-0015
22-23-0016
22-23-0017
22-23-0018
Robert Mason, Inc.
Robert Mason, Inc.
Robert Mason, Inc.
Robert Mason, Inc.
Robert Mason, Inc.
Robert Mason, Inc.
Robert Mason, Inc.
Robert Mason, Inc.
Robert Mason, Inc.
Robert Mason, Inc.
Robert Mason, Inc.
Robert Mason, Inc.
Robert Mason, Inc.
Robert Mason, Inc.
Robert Mason, Inc.
Leland R. Kottke
Kingston Ridge Par.
Kingston Ridge Par.
Kingston Ridge Par.
Kingston Ridge Par.
Kingston Ridge Par.
Kingston Ridge Par.
Kingston Ridge Par.
Kingston Ridge Par.
Scott Nelson
Kingston Ridge Par.
Kingston Ridge Par.
Kingston Ridge Par.
S.J. Kroiss
Pemtom Company
Kingston Ridge Par.
Kenneth Klink
Patrick Bauer
John Tinucci
Craig Hoffman
S.J. Kroiss
Jeffrey Lukens
S.J. Kroiss
Jacqueline Page
Kingston Ridge Par.
Kingston Ridge Par.
James Shultis
David Kraemer
Aldis Beckman
Violet Lender
Robert Lambert
School Dist. 272
Douglas Corp.
Ernest Larson
Richard Stolfa
Keith Bandle
Gary Christensen
Starring Lake Part.
State of Minnesota
Bernard Hamilton
David Guille
Kenneth Sedor
Jan Pitzer
Michael Richardson
Robert Branham
Thomas Hosek
James Peterson
Susan Gallagher
Darrell Pearson
Boulder Pt L3 83
Boulder Pt L4 83
Boulder Pt L5 83
Boulder Pt L6 83
Boulder Pt L7 83
Boulder Pt L8 83
Boulder Pt L9 83
Boulder Pt Lb O B3
Boulder Pt Lll B3
Boulder Pt L12 83
Boulder Pt L13 83
Boulder Pt L14 B3
Boulder Pt L15 83
Boulder Pt L16 B3
Boulder Pt L17 83
Unplatted
Kingston
Kingston 1.2 81
Kingston L3 81
Kingston 1.4 81
Kingston L5 81
Kingston L6 81
Kingston L7 81
Kingston L8 81
Kingston 1.9 81
Kingston Lb O 81
Kingston Li 82
Kingston L2 82
Kingston L3 82
Kingston L4 32
Kingston L5 82
Kingston L6 B2
Kingston L7 82
Kingston Ll 83
Kingston L2 83
Kingston L3 83
Kingston L4 83
Kingston L5 83
Kingston L6 83
Kingston L7 83
Kingston L8 23
Kingston L9 83
Kingston L B
Unplatted
St. Lke 1st L4 81
Unplatted
Res.Farm 3rd L1B1
Re. Farm 3rd
Unplatted
Starrwood Lb O 81
Starrwood L11 81
Starrwood 1.13 Bl
Starrwood L14 81
Unplatted
Unplatted
Unplatted
Starrwood LI 81
Starrwood L2 B1
Starrwood 1.3 Ell
Starrwood L4 81
Starrwood L5 81
Starrwood L6 Ell
Starrwood L7 81
Starrwood L8 81
2,992.94
2,992.94
2,992.94
3,306.81
3,609.46
3,844.86
4,528.64
3,844.86
3,687.93
3,228.34
3,228.34
3,452.53
2,992.94
2,690.28
2,858.47
10,051.18
3,960.20
3,960.20
3,960.20
3,960.20
3,960.20
3,960.20
3,960.20
3,960.20
3,960.20
3,960.20
3,960.20
3,960.20
3,960.20
3,960.20
3,960.20
3,960.20
3,960.20
3,960.20
3,960.20
3,960.20
3,960.20
3,960.20
3,960.20
3,960.20
3,960.20
3,960.26
10,095.00
15,000.00
12,705.55
15,000.00
281,365.00
299,215.08
6,795.57
1,567.54
1,567.54
1,567.54
1,567.54
9,551.93
11,921.54
10,292.84
1,567.54
1,567.54
1,567.54
1,567.54
1,567.54
1,567.54
1,567.54
1,567.54
7,988.70
4,948.82
3,07
-
8.46
6,657.78
4,707.16
1. I.C. 52-051 (Page 3 of 3)
Deferred 1996 1991 Parcel PIDO Property Owner Legal Description $Amount $Amount $Amount
22-23-0019
22-23-0020
22-23-0021
22-23-0022
22-23-0023
22-23-0024
22-23-0025
22-23-0026
22-23-0027
22-23-0028
22-23-0029
22-23-0030
22-23-0031
22-23-0032
22-23-0033
22-23-0034
22-23-0035
22-23-0036
22-23-0037
22-23-0038
22-23-0039
22-23-0040
22-23-0041
,22-23-0042
22-23-0043
22-23-0044
22-23-0045
22-23-0046
22-23-0047
22-23-0048
22-23-0049
22-23-0050
22-24-0118
22-24-0119
22-24-0120
22-24-0121
Chris Wright
Ralph Grier
Patrick Denucci
Willard Ward
Paul Dow
Charles Mattson
John Tadich
Renee Stocker Co.
Starring Lake Par.
John Dougherty
Starring Lake Par.
Dennis Burton
William Clark
Kenneth Henderson
Michael Quinn
Stephen Stuckel
James Moen
Gary Kraemer
Starring Lake Par.
Clark Hussey
Darrell Pearson
Richard Bain
Tyrone Corbin
Robert Blakely
Mark Johnson
Shirley Krohn
Woodhaven Homes
Woodhaven Homes
Lyle Hanson
Thomas Kieffer
Robert Seitz
Starring Lake Par.
Jeffrey Rodmyre
Jeff Sell
John Jenkins
John Jenkins
Starrwood 1.9 BI
Starrwood 1.12 81
Starrwood LI 821
Starrwood 1.2 82
Starrwood 1.3 B2
Starrwood L4 82
Starrwood 1.5 82
Starrwood 1.6 82
Starrwood L7 82
Starrwood L8 82
Starrwood 1.9 82
Starrwood Lb O 82
Staxrwood Lll 82
Starrwood L12 82
Starrwood L13 82
Starrwood 1.14 B2
Starrwood LI5 82
Starrwood L16 82
Starrwood Li B3
Starrwood 1.2 83
Starrwood L3 83
Staxrwood 1.4 83
Starrwood 1.5 B3
Starrwood L6 B3
Staxrwood L7 83
Starrwood L8 B3
Starrwood Li 84
Starrwood L2 84
Starrwood 1.3 84
Starrwood 1.4 84
Starrwood L5 84
Starrwood
Jenkins Add. L181
Jenkins Add. 1.281
Jenkins Add. L3B1
Jenkins Add. L4B1
1,567.54
1,567.54
1,567.54
1,567.54
1,567.54
1,567.54
1,567.54
1,567.54
1,567.54
1,567.54
1,567.54
1,567.54
1,567.54
1,567.54
1,567.54
1,567.54
1,567.54
1,567.54
1,567.54
1,567.54
1,567.54
1,567.54
1,567.54
1,567.54
1,567.54
1,567.54
1,567.54
1,567.54
1,567.54
1,567.54
1,567.54
1,567.64
14,121.88
14,121.88
14,121.88
14,121.89
I.C. 52-066
Utility Improvements on City West
Parkway, West of Shady Oak Road
Project Cost:
City Share:
Net Assessment:
5 Years at 8.5%
$14,552.48
$ 0
$14,552.48
Deferred 1996 1991
Parcel P/DS Property Owner Legal Description $Amount $Amount $Amount
02-11-0017 Interstate Diesel RLS 1581 Tract 1 14,552.48
3. I.C. 52-123
Storm Sewer Improvements at County
Road 18 and County Road 1.
East Trunk Watershed $ 795.56/Ac
West Trunk Watershed $ 238.24/Ac
Lateral Storm Sewer $1,327.49/Ac
Project Cost:
City Share:
Net Assessment:
20 Years at 8.58
$108,514.66
$ 59,005.66
$ 49,510.00
Deferred 1996 ' 1991
Parcel PID# Property Owner Legal Description $Amount $Amount $Amount
25-42-0116
25-42-0117
25-42-0118
25-42-0119
25-42-0120
25-42-0121
25-42-0122
25-42-0123
25-42-0124
25-42-0125
25-42-0126
'25-42-0127
25-42-0128
25-42-0129
25-42-0130
25-42-0131
25-42-0132
25-43-0033
25-43-0188
25-43-0189
25-43-0190
25-43-0191
25-43-0192
25-43-0193
25-43-0194
25-43-195
25-43-0196
25-43-0197
25-43-0198
25-43-0199
25-43-0200
25-43-0201
25-43-0202
25-43-0203
25-43-0204
25-43-0205
25-43-0206
25-43-0207
25-43-0208
25-43-0209
25-43-0210
25-43-0211
25-43-0212
2 5-43-02 13
2 5-43-02 14
25-43-0215
2 5-43-02 16
25-43-0217
25-43-0218
25-43-0219
25-44-0002
25-44-0006
25-44-0007
Michael Halley
Michael Halley
Michael Halley
Michael Halley
Sunshine Realty
Don Faulks
Sunshine Realty
Sunshine Realty
Michael Halley
Sunshine Realty
Michael Halley
Trumpy Homes
Fisher Homes
Michael Halley
Sunshine Realty
Sunshine Realty
Michael Halley
Bluffs Company
Sunshine Realty
Trumpy
Michael Halley
Thomas Richardson
Sunshine Realty
Mark Charles Inc.
Adams Smith
Trumpy
Sons Const. Co.
Sunshine
Sunshine
Sunshine
Michael Halley
Sunshine
Sunshine
Dennis McCarthy
Michael Halley
Sunshine
Sunshine
Sunshine
Sunshine
Trumpy
Trumpy
Trumpy
Trumpy
Trumpy
Trumpy
Trumpy
Trumpy
Trumpy
Trumpy
Trumpy
Bluffs Company
Bluffs Company
Bluffs Company
Woodlnd Pnds L1B1
Woodlnd Pnds L2B1
Woodlnd Pnds L3B1
Woodlnd Pnds L4B1
Woodlnd Pnds L1B2
Woodlnd Pnds L2B2
Woodlnd Pnds 1.382
Woodlnd Pnds L4B2
Woodlnd Pnds L5B2
Woodlnd Pnds L6B2
Woodlnd Pnds L7B2
Woodlnd Pnds L8B2
Woodlnd Pnds 1.982
Woodlnd Pnds 1.184
Woodlnd Pnds 1.284
Woodlnd Pnds L384
Woodlnd Pnds L4B4
Unplatted
Woodlnd Pnds 1.10132
Woodlnd Pnds L1182
Woodlnd Pnds L12B2
Woodlnd Pnds L1B3
Woodlnd Pnds 1.283
Woodlnd Pnds 1.383
Woodlnd Pnds L4B3
Woodlnd Pnds L5B3
Woodlnd Pnds 1.683
Woodlnd Pnds 1.783
Woodlnd Pnds 1.833
Woodlnd Pnds L9B3
Woodlnd Pnds L5B4
Woodlnd Pnds L6B4
Woodlnd Pnds L7B4
Woodlnd Pnds 1.834
Woodlnd Pnds L9B4
Woodlnd Pnd L10B4
Woodlnd Pnd LI1B4
Woodlnd Pnd 1.12134
Woodlnd Pnd L13B4
Woodlnd Pnd L1484
Woodlnd Pnd L15134
Woodlnd Pnd 1.1634
Woodlnd Pnd L17B4
Woodlnd Pnd L18B4
Woodlnd Pnd L19B4
Woodlnd Pnd 1.2084
Woodlnd Pnd L21B4
Woodlnd Pnd L22B4
Woodlnd Pnd L23B4
Woodlnd Pnd 1.2434
Unplatted
Unplatted
Unplatted
80.22
80.22
80.22
80.22
80.22
80.22
80.22
80.22
80.22
80.22
80.22
80.22
80.22
80.22
80.22
80.22
80.22
6,716.98
80.22
80.22
80.22
80.22
80.22
80.22
80.22
80.22
80.22
80.22
80.22
80.22
80.22
80.22
80.22
80.22
80.22
80.22
80.22
80.22
80.22
80.22
80.22
80.22
80.22
80.22
80.22
80.22
80.22
80.22
80.22
80.40
1,209.93
1,002.41
18,204.85
3. I.C. 52-123 (Page 2 of 2)
Parcel PID# Property Owner
36-11-0002
36-11-0004
36-11-0008
36-11-0009
36-11-0010
36-11-0011
36-11-0012
36-11-0013
36-11-0014
36-11-0015
36-11-0016
36-11-0017
36-11-0018
36-11-0019
36-11-0020
36-11-0021
36-11-0022
36-11-0023
36-11-0024
36-11-0025
36-11-0026
Craig W. Halverson
Bluffs Company
Pemtom Company
John Magee
L.Tyler Peterson
Pemtom Company
Pemtom Company
Gene P. Bonnie
Pemtom Company
David Ingber
Todd Dokken
Ronald Szarzynski
Ramon Buck
Barbara Thompson
Wymon Henderson
Brian Cook
Scott Takekawa
Mark Koller
Bruce Foster
Pemtom Company
Pemtom Company
Deferred
Legal Description SAmount
Unplatted
Unplatted
Prairie Blff L1B1
Prairie Blff L2B1
Prairie Blff L381
Prairie Blff L481
Prairie Blff L5B1
Prairie Blff L681
Prairie Blff L781
Prairie Blff L881
Prairie Blff L182
Prairie Blff L282
Prairie Blff L382
Bucka Prairie Blff L482
Prairie Blff L582
Prairie Blff 1.632
Prairie Blff L782
Prairie Blff L8B2
Prairie Blff L9B2
Prairie Bluff
Prairie Bluff
1996 1991
$Amount $Amount
2,583.46
3,350.66
641.96
641.96
641.96
641.96
641.96
641.96
641.96
641.96
641.96
641.96
641.96
641.96
641.96
641.96
641.96
641.96
641.87
970.75
626.25
4. I.C. 52-144
Utility and Street Construction on
Bluff Road
Lateral Sewer $22.16 Front Foot
Lateral Water $22.18 Front Foot
Streets/St.Sewer $63.31 Front Foot
Widening Portion $ 2.14 Front Foot
Project Cost:
City Share:
Net Assessment:
20 Years at 8.5%
$523,329.27
$ 3,771.27
$519,558.00
Deferred 1996 1991
Parcel PI00 Property Owner Legal Description $Amount $Amount $Amount
36-13-0023
36-13-0025
36-14-0001
36-14-0002
36-14-0004
36-14-0005
36-14-0006
36-14-0026
36-14-0027
Hunted Development
Hustad Development
Audrae Diestler
Jeffrey Norgren
Barry Bain
Earl W. Houghton
Scott Gensmer
Creek Knolls Dev.
Creek Knolls Dev.
Creek Knolls
Creek Knolle
Unplatted
Unplatted
Unplatted
Unplatted
Unplatted
B.E. 6th 0.L.C.
B.E. 6th 0.L.D.
17,3
-
20.65
57,2
-
43.90
5,635.97
4,234.00
4,234.00
4,234.00
5,557.09
80,925.07
150,259.26
8,844.03
6,331.00
6,331.00
6,331.00
8,922.91
10,018.71
143,135.70
5. I.C. 52-152
Storm Sewer Improvements along
County Road 4 to Red Rock Lake
Oversizing based on contributing
percentage of total discharge
15" Storm Sewer = $1,030.04/Acre
Project Cost: $420,709.58
City Share: $ 90,963.38
County Share: $ 20,409.20
Net Assessment: $309,337.00
20 Years at 8.5%
Deferred 1996
1991 Parcel PIDO Property Owner Legal Description $Amount $Amount $Amount
17-43-0003
20-11-0017
20-11-0018
20-11-0019
20-11-0020
20-11-0021
20-11-0022
20-11-0023
20-11-0024
20-11-0025
20-11-0026
20-11-0027
20-11-0028
20-11-0029
20-11-0030
20-11-0031
20-11-0032
20-11-0033
20-11-0034
20-11-0035
20-11-0036
20-11-0037
20-11-0038
20-11-0039
20-11-0040
20-11-0041
20-11-0042
20-11-0043
20-11-0044
20-11-0045
20-11-0046
20-11-0047
20-11-0048
20-11-0049
20-11-0050
20-11-0051
20-11-0052
20-11-0053
20-11-0054
20-11-0055
20-11-0056
20-12-0001
20-13-0003
20-13-0004
20-13-0005
20-13-0006
20-13-0007
20-13-0008
20-13-0009
20-13-0010
20-13-0011
20-13-0012
20-13-0013
20-13-0014
20-13-0015
20-13-0016
Herbert Mason
Clark Champeau
Isaak Zolotonosov
Brian Pelto
Larry Corey
Centex Real Estate
David Eike
Richard Herzog
Bernard Boeser
Centex Real Estate
Centex Real Estate
Centex Real Estate
John Belanger
Michael Remme
Gary Gleason
Centex Real Estate
Centex Real Estate
Centex Real Estate
Centex Real Estate
Gary Dalby
Alan Roth
Timothy Dennis
Centex Real Estate
Centex Real Estate
Centex Real Estate
Centex Real Estate
Centex Real Estate
Centex Real Estate
Gerard Bryndal
Centex Real Estate
Centex Real Estate
Centex Real Estate
Centex Real Estate
Peter Ruliffson
Thomas Hanneman
Centex Real Estate
Centex Real Estate
Centex Real Estate
Centex Real Estate
Centex Real Estate
John Davis
Centex Real Estate
School Dist No 2
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
Unplatted
Fairfield Li Si
Fairfield L2 81
Fairfield L3 81
Fairfield Li 82
Fairfield L2 B1
Fairfield L3 82
Fairfield L4 82
Fairfield L5 82
Fairfield L6 82
Fairfield L7 82
Fairfield L8 82
Fairfield Li B3
Fairfield 1,2 83
Fairfield L3 83
Fairfield L4 83
Fairfield L5 B3
Fairfield L6 83
Fairfield 1,7 83
Fairfield L8 B3
Fairfield L9 B3
Fairfield 1,10 83
Fairfield Li 84
Fairfield L2 84
Fairfield L3 84
Fairfield L4 B4
Fairfield L5 B4
Fairfield L6 84
Fairfield L7 B4
Fairfield L8 B4
Fairfield L9 B4
Fairfield 1,10 B4
Fairfield Lll B4
Fairfield 1,12 B4
Fairfield L13 84
Fairfield Li 85
Fairfield L2 85
Fairfield L3 85
Fairfield L4 135
Fairfield Li B6
Fairfield L2 86
Fairfield
Unplatted
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
115,252.54
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
29,273.74
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
5. I.C. 52-152 (Page 2 of 3)
Deferred 1996 1991 Parcel PIDO Property Owner Legal Description $Amount $Amount $Amount
'0-13-0017
.0-13-0018
20-13-0019
20-13-0020
20-13-0021
20-13-0022
20-13-0023
20-13-0024
20-13-0025
20-13-0026
20-13-0027
20-13-0028
20-13-0029
20-13-0030
20-13-0031
20-13-0032
20-13-0033
20-13-0034
20-13-0037
20-14-0008
20-14-0009
20-14-0010
20-14-0011
,20-14-0012
10-14-0013
20-14-0014
20-14-0015
20-14-0016
20-14-0017
20-14-0018
20-14-0019
'0-14-0020
(3-14-0021
20-14-0022
20-14-0023
20-14-0024
20-14-0025
20-14-0026
20-14-0027
20-14-0028
20-14-0029
20-14-0030
20-14-0031
20-14-0032
20-14-0033
20-14-0034
20-14-0035
20-23-0001
20-24-0002
20-24-0003
20-32-0003
20-41-0001
20-41-0003
20-41-0021
20-41-0022
20-41-0023
20-41-0024
20-41-0025
20-41-0026
20-41-0027
20-41-0028
20-41-0029
0-41-0030
20-41-0031
20-41-0032
20-41-0033
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
John Peterson
Centex Real Estate
Centex Real Estate
Centex Real Estate
Centex Real Estate
John Neumeier
Centex Real Estate
Thomas Eagan
Centex Real Estate
Centex Real Estate
Centex Real Estate
Centex Real Estate
John Lotzer
Centex Real Estate
Centex Real Estate
J. Douglas Gillam
John Carlson
Joseph Riolo
Centex Real Estate
Robert Fafinski, Jr.
Centex Real Estate
Glenn Sullivan
Sabri Ayaz
David Hudson
Centex Real Estate
Centex Real Estate
Centex Real Estate
Centex Real Estate
Laurence Sowles
VS
John R. Rogers
Laurence Sowles
Harry Rogers
Harry A. Rogers
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Fairfield L14 84
Fairfield LIS 84
Fairfield L16 84
Fairfield L17 84
Fairfield L18 84
Fairfield L19 B4
Fairfield L20 B4
Fairfield L21 B4
Fairfield L22 B4
Fairfield L23 B4
Fairfield L24 84
Fairfield 1.25 84
Fairfield L3 B6
Fairfield L4 B6
Fairfield Li B7
Fairfield L2 87
Fairfield 1.3 87
Fairfield L4 B7
Fairfield L5 87
Fairfield 1.6 87
Fairfield L7 B7
Fairfield L8 87
Fairfield L9 87
Fairfield LIO 87
Fairfield Ll 88
Fairfield L2 138
Fairfield L3 138
Fairfield 1.4 88
Unplatted
Unplatted
Unplatted
Unplatted
Unplatted
Unplatted
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
1,297.85
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.48
385.68
4,748.48
25,751.00
23,999.93
1,720.17
14,369.45
10,900.09
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
5. I.C. 52-152 (Page 3 of 3)
Deferred 1996 1991
Parcel PID# Property Owner Legal Description $Amount $Amount $Amount
20-41-0034
20-41-0035
20-41-0036
20-41-0037
20-41-0038
20-41-0039
20-41-0040
20-41-0041
20-41-0042
20-42-0001
20-42-0006
20-42-0007
20-42-0008
20-42-0009
20-42-0010
20-42-0011
20-42-0012
20-42-0013
20-42-0014
20-42-0015
'20-42-0016
20-42-0017
20-42-0018
20-42-0019
20-42-0020
20-42-0021
20-42-0022
( 20-42-0023
20-42-0024
20-42-0025
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
Stanley J. Dressen
Westar Prop., Inc.
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. HOMOB
U.S. HOMO.
U.S. Homes
U.S. HOM03
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
U.S. Homes
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Unplatted
Unplatted
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
Cedar Ridge
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
453.22
22,752.56
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.50
447.15
6. I.C. 52-155
County Road 1 Bypass Lane for
Cedar Ridge Elementary School
(1) 208 of Project Cost ($9,582.76]
plus $8.26 Front Foot
Project Cost:
City Share:
Net Assessment:
$47,893.00
$ 0
$47,893.00
(2) $8.26 Front Foot 20 Years at 8.5%
Deferred 1996 1991
Parcel PI00 Property Owner Legal Description $Amount SAmount $Amount
20-13-0003 School Dist.i2 (1) Unplatted 26,391.86
20-24-0002 V S (2) Unplatted 12,621.28
20-42-0006 Wester Prop. (2) Unplatted
8,879.50
7. I.C. 52-171
Street and Utility Improvements
in Country Glen Addition
$358,504.00 + 19 Lots =, $18,965.21/Lot
Project Cost:
City Share:
Net Assessment:
5 Years at 8.5%
$360,339.00
$ 0
$360,339.00
05-21-0054
05-21-0055
05-21-0056
05-21-0057
05-21-0058
05-21-0059
05-21-0060
05-21-0061
05-21-0062
'05-21-0063
05-21-0064
05-21-0065
05-21-0066
05-21-0067
05-21-0068
05-21-0069
05-21-0070
35-21-0071
05-21-0072
Coffman Dev. Co.
Coffman Dev. Co.
Coffman Dev. Co.
Coffman Dev. Co.
Coffman Dev. Co.
Coffman Dev. Co.
Coffman Dev. Co.
Coffman Dev. Co.
Coffman Dev. Co.
Coffman Dev. Co.
Coffman Dev. Co.
Coffman Dev. Co.
Coffman Dev. Co.
Coffman Dev. Co.
Coffman Dev. Co.
Coffman Dev. Co.
Coffman Dev. Co.
Coffman Dev. Co.
Coffman Dev. Co.
Ctry Glen Li 81
Ctry Glen L2 81
Ctry Glen 1.3 Si
Ctry Glen L4 81
Ctry Glen L5 Si.
Ctry Glen 1.6 81
Ctry Glen L7 111
Ctry Glen 1.8 81
Ctry Glen LI B2
Ctry Glen L2 82
Ctry Glen L3 82
Ctry Glen 1.4 82
Ctry Glen Li 83
Ctry Glen 1.2 B3
Ctry Glen 1.3 133
Ctry Glen Li 84
Ctry Glen L2 84
Ctry Glen 1.3 84
Ctry Glen 1.4 134
1991
$Amount
18,965.21
18,965.21
18,965.21
18,965.21
18,965.21
18,965.21
18,965.21
18,965.21
18,965.21
18,965.21
18,965.21
18,965.21
18,965.21
18,965.21
18,965.21
18,965.21
18,965.21
18,965.21
18,965.22
Deferred 1996
Parcel PIDO Property Owner Legal Description $Amount $Amount
8. Supplementals
20 Years at 8.5%
1996 1991
Parcel PID,
Property Owner $Amount $Amount
Trunk Sewer and Water
14-34-0005 Horn
520.00
520.00
520.00
520.00
520.00
520.00
14-34-0025
16-33-0004
16-33-0005
17-44-0008
17-44-0010
18-23-0001
20-11-0001
20-13-0003
21-23-0030
21-24-0001
21-43-0005
21-41-0036
25-32-0002
26-41-0033
26-41-0037
27-11-0026
27-14-0017
36-14-0001
36-14-0002
36-14-0004
36-14-0005
36-14-0006
Flaherty 2nd
Red Rock Shores
Red Rock Shores
Red Rock Shores
Red Rock Shores
Schoer's Addition
Red Rock View
Cedar Ridge Elem.
Sandy Pointe
Sandy Pointe
Beckman
Kraemer
Moorhead Addition
Burnett Addition
Nelson Addition
Bentec Engineering
Bentec Engineering
Diestler
Norgren
Bain
Houghton
Gensmer
5,814.00
7,860.00
33,597.20
290,400.00
16,200.00
6,750.00
14,640.00
18,960.00
520.00
520.00
4,330.00
12,730.00
6,250.00
2,898.00
1996 1991
Parcel PIDt Property Owner $Amount $Amount
Weed/Tall Grass Cutting
02-14-0037
35.00
04-21-0010
30.00
04-31-0111
75.00
05-24-0053
25.00
06-21-0004
75.00
06-22-0036
50.00
06-22-0037
50.00
06-22-0038
50.00
06-22-0039
50.00
06-22-0040
50.00
06-22-0041
50.00
07-11-0080
75.00
07-21-0035
210.00
07-22-0048
75.00
07-23-0030
75.00
10-13-0078
30.00
17-13-0066
75.00
17-13-0067
37.50
25-31-0075
65.00
25-32-0025
75.00
26-11-0038
35.00
26-11-0056
35.00
26-32-0011
40.00
27-14-0007
70.00
35-12-0032
75.00
35-12-0033
75.00
35-21-0120
100.00
Connection Fees
27-11-0026 12,150.80
27-14-0017
1991
FTD O
SAmount
Trunk Sewer and water Exclusion
20-41-0003
19 yr. @ 8.5%
520.00
21-43-0019
17 yr. @ 11.0%
520.00
35-13-0017
18 yr. @ 8.0%
1,360.00
35-21-0001
18 yr. @ 8.0%
520.00
Lateral Sewer and Water Exclusions
20-41-0003
21-43-0019
25-32-0002
35-13-0017
35-21-0001
19 yr. @ 8.5%
17 yr. @ 11.0%
18 yr. @ 8.0%
18 yr. @ 8.0%
18 yr. @ 8.0%
3,311.00
1,963.09
9,500.46
5,133.91
9,332.53
Aenotice 52-132 152-132)
14-34-0005
48,362.28
Sac/Wee
05-44-0041
3 Years
1,570.00
Deferred 52-011A
14-12-0003
14-12-0008
14-24-0003
Lake Idlewild Deferments
14-11-0002
17,053.22
23,343.19
23,286.38
661.76
Special Assessment Agreement 89-10
Signal Phasing 08-44-0033
Turn Lane
Tax Forfeit Reassess
05-21-0016
05 -2 1-002 5
10-24-0002
6,115.83
13,000.00
13,235.77
35,793.24
PROPOSED SITE
1.-kr •R1-13
§TAFF REPORT
ZO: Planning Commission
FROM: Donald R. Uram, Senior Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
PATE:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
August 24, 1990
Donnay's Edenvale and Edenvale II Addition
North of Edenvale Boulevard, east and north of
Lesley Lane, south of Minneapolis and St. Paul
Railroad
APPLICANT: Paul Donnay
FEE OWNER:
REOUEST:
Eden Land Corporation
1. Zoning District Amendment within the RM-6.5
Zoning District on 7.3 acres.
2. Site Plan Review and Preliminary Plat of 7.3
acres into 19 lots and one outlot for
construction of 50 multiple family units.
BACKGROUND
This site is part of the
Edenvale 15th Addition which
was reviewed and approved by
the City Council on July 20,
1982. The remaining vacant
property, (Lots 2, 3, 6, and 7,
Block 2, Edenvale 15th
Addition), is currently zoned
RN-6.5 and guided Medium
Density residential.
The original Edenvale 15th
Addition was rezoned from Rural
to RN-6.5 for the construction
of 106 multiple family units.
This included 7-four unit
buildings, 1-six unit building,
1
and 9-eight buildings. A total of 50 units were built and
currently exist within 3-eight unit buildings, 5-four unit
buildings and 1-six unit building.
SITE PLAN/PRELIMINARY PLAT
The site plan depicts a total of 50 units on two sites. A total of
34 units will be constructed on the north site within 1-eight unit
building, 3-six unit buildings, and 2-four unit buildings. A total
of 16 units will be constructed on the south site within 4-four
unit buildings. A combination of condominium and townhouse style
units such as those constructed in the Donnay's Round Lake Estates
Addition are proposed.
All of the buildings meet the minimum setback requirements of the
RM-6.5 Zoning District. In this zoning district, two parking
spaces per unit, (one enclosed) are required. In addition to
garage and driveway parking, the plans indicate 20 additional
surface parking stalls on the northern property and 8 on the
southern property.
Access to the project will be provided by Patricia Court and Lesley
Lane. Private driveways will provide service to the individual
buildings.
GRADING
Elevations on the north property range from a low point of 890
within the wetland area in the northwest corner of the site to a
high point of 918 in the southeast corner. The entire site slopes
in a north and easterly direction. Minimal grading is required to
allow for the construction of building pads and the private
driveways.
Elevations on the south property range from a low point of 902
along the eastern property line to a high point of 926 in the
center of the site. The site slopes in all directions from the
high point. The proposed grading plan depicts a cut of
approximately 7 feet from the top of the hill to allow for the
construction of building pads and driveways.
UTILITIES
Utilities are available to this site by connections made to
existing utilities within Patricia Court and Lesley Lane.
Individual utility services have been installed on the north
property. These existing services can be used for the current
project. All sanitary sewer and water extensions required to serve
the project will be classified a public utilities. The final plat
must include utility easements to allow access for maintenance
purposes.
2
An overall storm water run-off system has not been designed for the
two project sites. on the north property, an existing 24-inch
outlet pipe discharges into the wetland area adjacent the railroad
tracks. No outlet from this pond currently exists. As part of
this project, a storm water outlet to Birch Island Lake is
required. The final design of this system will be determined by an
overall storm water management plan which must be done for the
entire project site. For the south property, a catch basin system
is designed within the project site to capture storm water run-off.
A proposed outlet is designed to discharge into the wetland area to
the east. Storm water run-off plans and calculations must be
submitted for review by the Watershed District and City Engineer.
ARCHITECTURE
The proponent has submitted architectural plans for review which
depict two building types, a 6 and an 8-unit condominium building
and a 4-unit townhouse building. The 8-unit building measures
approximately 160 feet in length and 60 feet in depth while the 6-
unit building measures approximately 110 feet in length and 60 feet
deep. The 4-unit townhouse building measures approximately 175
feet in length and 80 feet deep. All of the buildings are
approximately 30 feet in height. The townhouses are designed with
double car garages while the condominiums include a combination of
both single and double car garages. Primary building materials
include masonite lap siding and facebrick. To help insure
consistency with the existing multiple family residences, the front
building elevations should include additional facebrick while the
proposed building colors should be compatible.
PEDESTRIAN SYSTEMS
There is an existing 8 foot bituminous path along Edenvale
Boulevard and a 5 foot concrete sidewalk along Lesley Lane. No
other pedestrian systems are required from this development.
LANDSCAPE/TREE REPLACEMENT PLAN
The tree inventory depicts a total of 1,146 caliper inches. A
total of 408 caliper inches or 35% of significant trees will be
lost due to construction. Tree replacement is 193 caliper inches.
Due to the location of the trees and buildings on the project site,
a reduction in tree loss can only occur on the north property.
This could be accomplished by relocating buildings, decreasing the
number and/or size of the buildings, or eliminating the end loaded
garages. Staff recommends that these alternatives be examined as
a way to reduce tree loss.
Total landscaping required is 422 inches. This includes 229 inches
based on building square footage (73,250 square feet) and 193
inches of tree replacement. A total of 396 caliper inches of plant
material is shown on the plans. The landscape plan shall be
3
revised to depict an additional 26 caliper inches. The additional
plants should be evergreens installed on the south property between
the buildings.
TRAFFIC
Recent traffic counts have indicated a 24 hour traffic volume of
approximately 1,400 trips per day on Edenvale. Edenvale Boulevard
has a design capacity of approximately 7,000 trips per day. The
additional 50 units proposed will add approximately 400 trips per
day to Edenvale Boulevard.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of the Zoning District Amendment within
the RM-6.5 Zoning District on 7.3 acres and the Site Plan Review
and Preliminary Plat of 7.3 acres into 19 lots and 1 outlot for
construction of 50 multiple family units based on revised plans
dated August 13, 1990, and August 17, 1990, subject to the
recommendations in the Staff Report dated August 24, 1990, and
subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall:
A. Revise the landscape plan to reflect an additional 26
caliper inches of evergreen trees on the south property.
B. Submit an irrigation system plan.
C. Revise exterior building elevations to include additional
facebrick.
D. Submit samples of exterior building materials for review.
2. Prior to final plat, the proponent shall:
A. Submit detailed storm water and erosion control plans for
review by the Watershed District.
B. Submit detailed storm water, utility and erosion control
plans for review by the City Engineer.
3. Prior to grading permit the proponent shall:
A. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours
in advance of grading. Stake all grading limits with a
snow fence. Any trees lost outside the grading limits
shall be replaced on an area inch per area inch basis.
B. Stake the construction limits with erosion control
fencing.
4
4. Submit Homeowners Association documents for review.
5. Receive all necessary permits for the construction of the
storm sewer discharge pipe into Birch Island Lake.
6. The project should not proceed to second reading until a storm
water outlet plan to Birch Island Lake has been completed.
DONNAY3.DRU:bs
5
'"?
Roger A. Anderson & Associates, Inc.
Civil Engineering Consultants
Suite 107, 7415 Wayzata Blvd.
Minneapolis, MN 55426
(612) 546-7035
August
City of Eden Prairie
7600 EXecutive Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Attn: mr. Don Urea
Project Planner
Re: Edenvale Additions
Sunset Hbmes
Eden Prairie, MN
Comm. No. 9302
Gentlemen:
The following is to provide information regarding the proposed
development of Edenvale Add. and Edenvale 2nd Add. in the City of Eden
Prairie, MN.
Stormwater Pond - Edenvale Addition
There is an existing stanmmater pad located in the northeasterly
portion of the plat. The pond is about 2.5 acres in size. The pond has
the following features:
Inlet 24" RCP (City)
Elev. 891.87
Outlet 24" RCP (City)
897.71
Normal Water Varies Recently dry
(06/90)
Normal Water (per Orig. Plan) 892.00
High Water (per Crig.,Plan) 894.00
It does not amear that the water level has reached the outlet elevation
recently.
Land Development • Municipal • Highways • Railroads
.40
cif 13
NN'N'. ()El ,
AUG 1 7 1990
CITY OF •
EDEN PRAIRIE
August 13, 1990
EHenvale Additiens
Page 2
Runoff centributicns to the pond will increase slightly as the result of
the proposed develcment, but it is anticipated the chanoe will be well
within the capacity of the pond. The prommed low building elevatien
near the pond is 905.70, or about 8' above the pond outlet of 897.71. If
the cutlet culvert plugs or is otherwise unusable, emergency pond
overflow mould occur over the railroad trades at about elevation 902.
In mummery, the rand appears to be adequate for the existing and
prommed develoment, with no revisions necessary.
Utility Service
Edenvale Add. - Existing City sewer and water main linesrun through the
property. This will provide direct service to the northerly and easterly
buildings. Mainline sewer and meter extensions of about 200' will be
required to serve the westerly buildings. Also, storm sewer extensions
will be necessary to MOVACI9 ttmmetidevelopment. These are shown on the
preliminary plan.
Edenvale 2nd Addition - Three individual sewer and seater services were
provided during met censtructien. met sewer and meter mainline
extensions about 200' long will be required to service the proposed
buildings. A storm sewer system will be censtructed to collect water
free the developeent and, as requested by the City Engineering
Dept. ,will route the water to the rend at the SE corner of the site.
It is anticipated that all utility and storm sewer extensicns except
individual building services, would be dene as public improvements.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this letter.
VeZly,,,anz
Roger A. Anderson, P.E.
Satty r idkxen
15184 f—tnicia Count
Eden Puck/tie, Minnesota 55346
612 949 2242
Juty 19, 1990
City Councit-Eden Pnainie
City 066ices
7600 Executive Dnive
Eden Pnainie, Mn 55433-3677
City Councit Membets:
I kegket that I am unabte to attend the pubic meeting on Monday, July 23, 1990,in City Hatt, neganding the Sunset Homes Conponation
ponoposat to pace muttipie dwetting units in the veny smatt pancet o6 woodsy manshtand which is southeast o6 the Minneapotis and St. Paul Raitnoad and nokthwest o6 Patnicia Count. Howeven, I
am tequesting that you considen my wnitten comments.
I have two neasons 104 opposing the dettnuction o6 this smatt natunat habitat:
My 6i/xst neason is to de6end the cteatunes who atneady neeide in this anea, but who, atthough they have lokobabty tived thene 6ot thousands o6 yeant, cannot ptead 6ot theik tight to nemain thene. I think the dem lioxes, woodchucks, naccoona, geese, ducks, nabbita, and dozens o6 vanieties o6 binds have a mote Ifunctionat home in this atea than humans even could have. Ptease do not make ne6ugee6 oi these cneatunes.
My second neason 6on opposing the nequested zoning penmit ia that,
white the atea i4 just night 604 its curt/tent neeidents, it is
neatty too smatt and too cto6e to the taitnoad tnacks ion humans Living in muttipte-dwettings. White I enjoy the sight and sound oti the naitnoad at the distance it id 6nom my home, I can't
imagine being too much ctosen to it because oi the noise and vibnation as the tnains chug thnough sevenat times daily.
I can see no neason why the ionoposed 4ite,6on the muttipte dwettingt,which is nonth o6 Edenvate and east o6 Lettie Lane woutd be inappnopniate; thene6ote, I do not oppose that site. Ptease, be6one agneekng to Let the manshtand be destnoyed, witt you view it and tisten to the sounds that come pom it.
Thank you On youn considenation,
Satty A. Bendkxen
221
Donnay's Edenvale and Edenvale II
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE #36-90
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING ORDINANCE #8-82,
AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER I 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 Ordinance #8-82 be amended by adding the following:
'Section 2. That the plans dated September 13, 1990, reviewed and approved by the City Council
September 18, 1990, for Donnay's Edenvale and Edenvale II shall apply.
Section 3. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire
City Code Including Penalty for Violation' and Section 11.99, entitled 'Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby
adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 4. 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 1990,
and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the
1990.
ATTEST:
John D. Franc, City Clerk
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of 1990.
FXHIBIT A
1-EGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lots 6 and 7, Block 2, EDEN VALE 15th Addition
Lots 2 and 3, Block 2, EDENVALE 15TH aDDMON
7.1
t.,)
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #90-239
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT
OF DONNAYIS EDENVALE AND EDENVALE II
FOR SUNSET HOMES CORPORATION
HE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Donnay's Edenvale and Donnay's
Edenvale II, for Sunset Homes Corporation dated September 13, 1990,
consisting of 7.3 acres, a copy of which is on file at the City
Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden
Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and
is herein approved.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 18th day of
September, 1990.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
VAC# 90-08
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 90-243
VACATION OF A DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT ON
LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1,
BLUFFS EAST FIFTH ADDMON
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has certain drainage and utility easements described as
follows:
All drainage and utility easements on Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 as designated on the plat of
Bluffs East Fifth Addition recorded in the Office of the County Recorder, Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on September 18, 1990 after due notice was published
and posted as required by law;
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the said drainage and utility easements are not necessary
and have no interest to the public, therefore, should be vacated.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
1. Said drainage and utility easements as above described are hereby vacated.
2. The City Clerk shall prepare a notice of completion of proceedings in accordance
with M.S.A. 412.851.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on September 18, 1990
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Franc, City Clerk
• - ,
62716
62717
C 62718
2719
.32720
62721
62722
62723
62724
62725
62726
62727
62728
62729
62730
62731
62732
62733
62734
62735
62736
62737
62738
62739
62740
62741
62742
2743
62744
62745
62746
62747
62748
SEPTEMBER 18.1990
62750 NATL REGISTRY OF EMERGENCY MEDIA
62751 MN FIRE SERVICE CERTIFICATION BOA
62752 PETTY CASH
GINA MARIA'S PIZZA
MINNEGASCO
UNITED FIREFIGHTERS ASSN
UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE
MN ANIMAL CONTROL ASSN
TRAVEL PROFESSIONALS
JULIE MEINZER
U S POSTMASTER
SLEADRUG/ROBBERY SEMINAR
JASON-NORTHCO PROP LP#1
BIRTCHER WELSH
PERFORMANCE COMPUTER FORMS
CITY OF STILLWATER
DARCY FILLMORE
BILL HAYES
MARTHA KENNEY
KATIE KLDECXNER
KATIE MAGNUSON
PATRICIA & DAVID MARTIN
PATRICK MCAVEY
MIDWEST ASPHALT
MTS
ABBY THORNE
J C PENNEY
DANA GIBBS
AT&T
AT&T CONSUMER PRODUCTS DIV
U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS
NORTHERN STATES ROWER CO
PRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN
MITCH SCHNEIDER
STATE TREASURER
FEIST BLANCHARD CO
62749 DELEGARD TOOL CO
62753 AT&T
62754 AT&T CREDIT CORPORATION
62755 AT&T
62756 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY
62757 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS
62758 EAGLE WINE CO
62759 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC
62760 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO
'2761 PAUSTIS & SONS CO
11046204
EXPENSES-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT
SERVICE
DUES-FIRE DEPT
SCHOOL-POLICE DEPT
CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT
SCHOOL-POLICE DEPT
SCHOOL-POLICE DEPT
POSTAGE STAMPS-POLICE DEPT
CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT
SEPTEMBER '90 RENT-LIQUOR STORE
SEPTEMBER '90 RENT-CITY HALL
COPY PAPER-CITY HALL
CONFERENCE-CITY COUNCIL
REFUND-LIFEGUARD TRAINING CLASS
REFUND-STARING LAKE BUILDING RENTAL
-REFUND-STATE FAIR TRIP-SENIOR CITIZENS
PROGRAM
REFUND-TENNIS LESSONS
REFUND-LIFEGUARD TRAINING CLASS
-REFUND-STATE FAIR TRIP-SENIOR CITIZENS
PROGRAM
REFUND-LIFEGUARD TRAINING CLASS
REFUND-ROUND LAKE PARK BUILDING RENTAL
REFUND-STARING LAKE PARK BUILDING RENTAL
REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS
UNIFORMS-POLICE DEPT
SERVICE-PACKET DELIVERY
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
WEED WHIP LINE/OIL-WATER DEPT/PARK MAINT
CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT
PLAN REVIEWAL FEE-WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS
-MASTER CYLINDER/BRAKE ROTORS/SCREWS/NUTS/
-CALIPERS/BEARINGS/BELTS/HOSES/OIL PUMP
SCREEN/LEADS/SWITCHES-EQUIPMENT MAINT
-GLOVES/BATTERIES/SOLVENT/TANK CONVERSIONS,
-SANDER/POLISH PADS/BUFFING PADS/POLISH/
-CUT OFF TOOL/LENSES/NOZZLES/RATCHET
-WRENCH/TAIL PIPE EXTENSION KIT/DRILL BITS-
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
LICENSE-POLICE DEPT
STATE CERTIFICATION FOR 68 FIREFIGHTERS
-CHANGE FUND-SUNBONNET DAY-HISTORICAL &
CULTURAL COMMISSION
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
WINE
LIQUOR
LIQUOR
WINE
15.49
1204.73
50.00
1050.00
60.00
198.00
878.42
60.00
150.00
6983.36
21730.85
514.80
28.00
40.00
50.00
5.00
11.00
40.00
7.00
40.00
65.00
50.00
17.00
100.72
89.00
135.18
17.85
1455.37
10911.69
30.35
30.00
150.00
1309.71
665.81
15.00
680.00
200.00
308.12
93.67
375.51
29372.83
711.47
957.10
11047.48
18491.53
65.00
-
SEPTEMBER 18.1990
62762 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO LIQUOR 11135.83 62763 PRIOR WINE CO WINE 1135.91 62764 QUALITY WINE CO LIQUOR 8916.94 165 MARY ANN CARBONI REFUND-ROUND LAKE PARK BUILDING RENTAL 25.00 o2766 DENNIS COSGROVE REFUND-ROUND LAKE PARK PAVILION RENTAL 62.00 62767 EUGENE & RHODA GROVER REFUND-MN STATE FAIR TRIP-ADULT PROGRAMS 4.00 62768 MILDRED HEYER REFUND-MN STATE FAIR TRIP-ADULT PROGRAMS 2.00 62769 JIM STUKEL -BOUNDARY WATERS CANOE TRIP GUIDE-SPECIAL 630.00 TRIPS & EVENTS/FEES PAID
62770 NOVAK INTERIOR REMODELING COUNTER TOP & BASE-LIQUOR STORE 447.00 62771 TIM'S TOWER SERVICE -SUPPLIED & INSTALLED RADIO TOWER & 1450.00 TRANSMISION GROUNDING LINE-POLICE DEPT 62772 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES -PERMIT FEE FOR MAINTENANCE OF
C
U
L
V
E
R
T
A
T
75.00 RILEY CREEK & LAKELAND TERRACE 62773 SUBWAY EXPENSES-ELECTIONS 165.74 62774 GTE SUN COMMUNITY DIRECTORIES ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES 1888.38 62775 SUPPLEE'S 7 HI ENTER INC SEPTEMBER '90 RENT-LIQUOR STORE 4927.83 62776 UNIVERSITY Of MINNESOTA LICENSE-PARK MAINTENANCE 10.00 62777 ROBERT GASCH -ENTERTAINMENT-SUNBONNET DAY-HISTORICAL & 135.00 CULTURAL COMMISSION 62778 JACK PEARSON -ENTERTAINMENT-SUNBONNET DAY-HISTORICAL & 181.00 CULTURAL COMMISSION 62779 PETTY CASH CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT 767.00 62780 NORTH CENTRAL SECTION AWWA CONFERENCE-WATER DEPT 105.00 62781 HOLIDAY INN-CLEARWATER CENTRAL CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT 369.60 62782 MN ICE ARENA MANAGER'S ASSN CONFERENCE-COMMUNITY CENTER 290.00 62783 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE EXPENSES-ELECTIONS 28.03 62784 PETTY CASH EXPENSES-CITY HALL 82.23 q2785 ALL AMERICAN BOTTLING CORP MIX 452.40 788 BEER WHOLESALERS INC BEER 4765.40 62787 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO BEER 10115.40 62788 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CO BEER 31300.50 62789 KIRSCH DISTRIBUTING CO MIX 186.70 62790 HOME JUICE PRODUCTS MIX 70.80 62791 MARK VII DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEER 20353.95 62792 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO MIX 785.42 62793 PEPSI COLA COMPANY MIX 577.55 62794 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEER 36801.85 62795 BROWN & CRIS INC -SERVICE-FALCONS WAY STREET & UTILITY 56688.82 CONSTRUCTION 62796 RICHARD KNUTSON INC SERVICE-BLUFF ROAD 8725.75 62797 LANDWEHR HEAVY MOVING -SERVICE-SUMMIT & MEADOWVALE & RED OAK 193826.68 DRIVES NEIGHBORHOOD
62798 NODLAND CONSTRUCTION CO -SERVICE-CEDAR RIDGE STORM SEWER/MITCHELL 287789.37 RAOD & SANDY POINTE ADDITION IMPROVEMENTS
62799 A TO Z RENTAL CENTER -MOWER RENTAL-WATER DEPT/SPRAY PAINTER- 112.36 POLICE DEPT
62800 AAA TREE & YARD WASTE RECYCLING WASTE DISPOSAL-FORESTRY DEPT
270.00 62801 AARCEE -SLEEPING BAGS/LINERS/BACK PADS/LIFE 521.95 JACKETS-OUTDOOR CENTER PROGRAMS 62802 ACTION RADIO & COMMUNICATIONS COUPLERS-POLICE DEPT 105.00 62803 ADT SECURITY SYSTEMS SECURITY SYSTEM REPAIR-COMMUNITY CENTER
120.00 62804 ALPINE PRINT GALLEY LETTERHEAD/ENVELOPES-WATER DEPT 266.00 62805 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOC BOOKS-WATER DEPT 33.87 2806 EARL F ANDERSEN & ASSOC INC FLAG BASES-ELECTIONS 458.15
68714141
j s ,
SEPTEMBER 18,1990
62807 ANDERSON'S GARDEN
62808 APPLE COMPUTER INC
62809 ARMOR SECURITY INC
2810 ASTLEFORD INTL INC
62811 B & S TOOLS
62812 BARCO BEARING COMPANY
62813 PATRICIA BARKER
62814 BATTERY & TIRE WAREHOUSE INC
62815 BEACON COMPUTER SERVICE
62816 BENTEC ENGINEERING CORP
62817 BERENS MARKET
62818 BRUCE BETTENDORF
62819 RICHARD BEYER
62820 BLACKS PHOTOGRAPHY
62821 LOIS BOETTCHER
62822 BOYUM EQUIPMENT INC
62823 REBECCA BRAZYS
62824 BRO-TEX INC
62825 BROADWAY SIGNS & SPECIALTIES
62826 BURY & CARLSON INC
62827 BUSINESS CREDIT LEASING INC
62828 WESTON W BYRON
62829 C & H DISTRIBUTORS INC
)2830 CARLSONS LAKE STATE EQUIP CO
62831 CHANHASSEN LAWN & SPORTS
62832 CITY OF CHASKA
62833 CLEVELAND COTTON PRODUCTS
62834 CLUTCH & TRANSMISSION SER INC
62835 COMMERCIAL ASPHALT CO
62836 CORPORATE RISK MANAGERS INC
62837 LYNN CRIBAR
62838 CURTIS INDUSTRIES INC
62839 CUSTOM COMPUTER CABLE INC
62840 CUTLER MAGNER COMPANY
62841 DALCO
62842 DANNY'S TAILOR
62843 DATASOURCE - CONNECTING POINT
62844 DAVIES WATER EQUIPMENT CO
62845 MITCHELL DEAN
62846 DEN CON LANDFILL INC
62847 DIRECT SAFETY CO
32848 DPC INDUSTRIES INC
EXPENSES-COMMUNITY CENTER ADMINISTRATION 18.95
COMPUTER-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT 1436.48
REKEY DOOR CYLINDER-PARK MAINTENANCE 44.50
-INSULATOR/KEY/RADIATOR HOSES/AXLE SHAFT/ 575.00
SEAT BACKS & CUSHIONS-EQUIPMENT MAINT
-RATCHET WRENCHES/HOSE REPAIRS/TROUBLE 319.10
-LIGHT/TAPE/DIVIDER/HOSES/BLADES-WATER
DEPT/EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
COOLERS-WATER DEPT 84.70
EXPENSES-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT 36.65
SIGNAL/HUB CAPS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 99.15
PRINTER REPAIR-POLICE DEPT 25.00
LIFT STATION DIALER REPAIRS-SEWER DEPT 857.00
EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 70.74
SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 279.00
HORSESHOE AWARDS-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS 300.00
-FILM/FILM PROCESSING/FRAMES-WATER DEPT/ 174.24
-BULDING INSPECTIONS DEPT/POLICE DEPT/
FIRE DEFT/PARK PLANNING DEPT
-MINUTES-PARK RECREATION & NATURAL 73.95
RESOURCES COMMISSION
VACUUM TUBES-SEWER DEPT 830.97
MINUTES-CITY COUNCIL 150.00
PAPER TOWELS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 123.79
TROPHIES/PLAQUES-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS 1208.00
BLACKTOP FOR BIKE TRAILS-PARKS DEPT 968.32
OCTOBER '90 COPIER RENTAL-FIRE DEPT 182.75
SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 243.00
TOOLS/SERVICE CARTS-WATER DEFT 311.64
DOZER RENTAL FOR BIKE TRAILS-PARKS DEFT 2200.00
-CHAIN SAW-SEWER DEPT/BAR OIL/HEUIET/ 349.15
CARRYING CASE-WATER DEPT
-GOLF COURSE RENTAL-SUMMER SKILL 112.00
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
PAPER TOWELS-WATER DEPT 175.70
-SLACK ADUSTERS/WASHERS/DRIVE SHAFT 329.42
ASSEMBLY-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
-BLACKTOP-STREET MAINTENANCE/BIKE TRAILS- 29639.88
PARK MAINTENANCE
AUGUST '90 INSURANCE CONSULTANT SERVICE 560.00
MILEAGE-POLICE DEPT 117.00
-CLEANING SUPPLIES/DRILL BITS/SILICONE/ 433.22
SCREWS/KEYS-WATER DEPT/EQUIPMENT MAINT
CABLE/CONNECTORS-POLICE DEPT 125.00
QUICKLIME-WATER DEPT 20032.45
CLEANING SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT/COMMUNITY CTR 967.83
UNIFORMS-POLICE DEFT 8.00
-2 COMPUTERS/2 MONITORS/PRINTER-FINANCE 4006.00
DEPT/BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT
VALVE BOX REPAIR-WATER DEPT 366.44 i
MILEAGE-LIQUOR STORE 17.75
-JULY '90 WASTE DISPOSAL-SEWER DEPT/STREET 148.00
DEFT
TRAFFIC CONES/GLOVES-WATER DEPT 153.72
CHLORINE-WATER DEPT 2262.00
7041649
SEPTEMBER 18.1990
-EXPENSES-CITY HALL/POLICE DEPT/COMMUNITY 179.91
CENTER
EXPENSES-COMMUNITY CENTER 179.50
-DRILL BITS/SCREWS/WASHERS/NUTS & BOLTS- 584.67 ,
WATER DEPT
COLLARS-WATER DEPT 135.00
FILM/FILM PROCESSING-POLICE DEPT 72.31
TROPHIES-YOUTH TENNIS PROGRAM 51.60
CITY'S SHARE OF PRINTING UPDATE BROCHURES 326.00:
POP REIMBURSEMENT FOR CITY COUNCIL 24.40 .
MINUTES-PLANNING COMMISSION 250.00:
-GLOVES/HEARING PROTECTION MUFFS/FACE : 230.95'
MASKS-UTILITIES DIVISION/STREET DEPT
CULVERT ADJUSTMENT RINGS-SEWER DEPT 1188.00
DUES-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT 100.00
CHEMICALS-WATER DEPT 4596.70
KEYS-FIRE DEPT 40.00
-OCTOBER '90 COPIER INSTALLMENT PAYMENT- 300.00 :
POLICE DEPT
SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES 1056.24
MILEAGE-PLANNING DEPT 27.00
-COVERALLS/MOP HEADS-WATER DEPT/TOWELS- 592.05
PARK MAINTENANCE/LIQUOR STORE
MOWING SERVICE-PLEASANT HILLS CEMETERY 300.00
MILEAGE-PLANNING DEPT 26.001
SHEAVES-WATER DEPT 144.00,
BATTERY CONDITIONERS-F1RE DEPT 209.10;
ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES 82.50
ADVERTISING-COMMUNITY CENTER 69.00
AUGUST '90 EXPENSES-SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 1923.00i
HYDRAULIC OIL-WATER DEPT 358.731
JULY '90 SERVICE 396.75i
CABLE-WATER DEPT 136.75
HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 229.00,
LAB SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 455.97
TINTED DOOR GLASS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 116.52:
SIREN REPAIR-CIVIL DEFENSE DEPT 86.00
VOLLEYBALL COORDINATOR/FEES PAID 80.00
-FINAL PAYMENT-CITY'S SHARE FOR SIGNAL ON 3290.02:
SHADY OAK ROAD AT CITY WEST PARKWAY
-1ST HALF OF 1990 PROPERTY TAXES-DUNBERRY 90.95,
CIRCLE
JULY '90 BOOKING FEE-POLICE DEPT 367.90'
JULY '90 BOARD OF PRISONERS-POLICE DEPT 2357.95!
SERVICE-DAY CAMP/OUTDOOR ADVENTURE PROGRAM 219.00
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-FIRE DEPT 33.65'
FIELD MARKING PAINT-PARK MAINTENANCE 177.50'
-SECURITY SYSTEM MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT- 119.00,
WATER DEPT
-JULY & AUGUST '90 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT/ 2604.60
CHARTS-WATER DEPT
-3RD QUARTER '90 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT- 79.50i
SENIOR CENTER
-COVER ASSEMBLY/CLUTCH/BEARINGS/FLYWHEEL/
-TOOL BOX/DEFLECTOR SHIELDS/V-BELT/
-RADIATOR HOSES/BRUSHES/PAINT/PAINT
62849 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU
62850 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU
62851 DYNA SYSTEMS
62852 E M PRODUCTS INC
62853 E P PHOTO
62854 ECONOMY TROPHY
62855 EDEN PRAIRIE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
62856 EDEN PRAIRIE FIRE DEPT
62857 DEB EDLUND
62858 ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY INC
62859 ESS BROTHERS & SONS INC
62860 CITY OF FARIBAULT
62881 FEED RITE CONTROLS INC
62862 FLOYD SECURITY
62863 FORD MOTOR CREDIT CO
62864 FOUR STAR BAR & RESTAURANT SUPPLY
62865 MICHAEL D FRANZEN
62866 G & K SERVICES
62867 G T LAWN SERVICE
62868 KATE GARWOOD
62869 GENERAL FILTER COMPANY
62870 GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORP
62871 GETTING TO KNOW YOU
62872 GTE SUN COMMUNITY DIRECTORIES
62873 GOODWILL INDUSTRIES INC
62874 GOPHER OIL COMPANY
62875 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC
62876 W W GRAINGER INC
62877 BRAD GRAY
62878 HACH CO
62879 HARMON GLASS
62880 HEALY RUFF CO
62881 CHRISTINE HEIL
62882 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
62883 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
62884 HENN CTY-SHERIFFS DEPT
62885 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
62886 HENNEPIN PARKS
62887 D C HEY COMPANY INC
62888 HOFFERS INC
62389 HONEYWELL INC
62890 HONEYWELL INC
62891 HONEYWELL PROTECTION SERVICES
62892 HOPKINS PARTS CO
2455535
-THINNER/STRAINER-WATER DEPT/EQUIPMENT
MAINTENANCE
FINAL PAYMENT-COPIER-CITY HALL
424.32
-STEREOPHONIC HEADGEAR/HANDGUNS/SHOTGUNS/ 40410.00 '
-FIREARMS TRAINING SYSTEM-POLICE
FORFEITURE-DRUGS
-BUS SERVICE-SPECIAL TRIPS & EVENTS/CITY'S
864.66 i
SHARE OF CEDAR RIDGE PROGRAM
LIGHT BULBS/LAMPS-WATER DEPT 434.46
EXCAVATING SERVICE-BIKE TRAILS-PARK DEPT 9757.50
PRINTING-BUSINESS CARDS-POLICE DEPT 180.00
OIL & AIR FILTERS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 145.83
SOFTBALL OFFICIAL & COORDINATOR/FEES RAID 402.00
MILEAGE-LIQUOR STORE 13.75
OFFICE SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT/FIRE DEPT 133.50
PLYWOOD-POLICE DEPT 25.92
MOWING SERVICE-MILLER PARK 2000.00
KARATE INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 436.80
WEED TRIMMER STRING-PARK MAINTENANCE 30.00
DRILL/CASE & GROUT WELL #4-WATER DEPT 5610.00
SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 387.50
CHEMICALS-WATER DEPT 490.25
-FUNNELS/GAUGES/BRUSHES/PLUGS/ADAPTERS/ 510.86
-PAIL/SPONGES/FITTINGS/COUPLINGS/BATTERIES/
-WAX/FRAMES/SAW/HANDLES/CUSHION/CLIPS/
-SPRAYERS/TRASH CANS/INSECT REPELLANT/
PROPANE-WATER DEPT/STREET MAINTENANCE
-RELOCATION REIMBURSEMENT-HUMAN RESOURCES 162.50
DEPT
LAB SUPPLIES-SEWER DEPT/WATER DEPT 411.19
MILEAGE-FIRE DEPT 46.75
JUNE & JULY '90 LEGAL SERVICE-PROSECUTION 21190.05
-FILTERS/FILTER CARTRIDGES/COUPLINGS/NUTS 1846.88
-& BOLTS/CYLINDER/SWIVEL PIPE ADAPTERS/
STEEL PLATE/HOSES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
MILEAGE-HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION
68.15
SERVICE-PLEASANT HILLS CEMETERY
50.00
TOWING-POLICE DEPT
138.00
CONCRETE-STREET MAINT/PARK MAINT
457.00
SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID
356.50
TAPE-ASSESSING DEPT
16.97
BLADES-PARK MAINTENANCE
13.39
PANEL/SHELVING MATERIALS-POLICE DEPT
224.00
DUMP BOX SPILL SHIELD-EQUIPMENT MAINT
150.00
-BLACKTOP-STREET MAINTENANCE/BIKE TRAILS- 1100.78
PARK MAINTENANCE
AUGUST '90 PAGER SERVICE-UTILITIES DIVISON 58.48
-FIRE EXTINQUISHERS/ADAPTERSAJNIFORMS-FIRE 290.62
DEPT/WATER DEPT
EMPLOYMENT ADS-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT
99.90
BRACKET-FIRE DEPT
25.00
MILEAGE-POLICE DEPT
78.00
RADIO REPAIR-FIRE DEPT
155.32
-MAGNETIC MOUNT LIGHT/RESPONDERS-EQUIPMENT
325.38'
MAINTENANCE
62893 IBM CORPORATION
62894 RIVIERA FINANCIAL SERVICES
62895 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST #272
62896 INDUSTRIAL LIGHTING SUPPLY INC
62897 INGRAM EXCAVATING INC
62898 INSTY-PRINTS
62899 INTERSTATE DIESEL PRODUCTS INC
62900 GARY ISAACS
62901 MICHAEL W JACQUES
82902 JM OFFICE PRODUCTS INC
62903 •USTUS LUMBER CO
62904 KAHNKE BROTHERS INC
62905 KEVIN KASTELLE
62906 KAYE CORPORATION
62907 KEYS WELL DRILLING CO
62908 BRADLEY J KNUTSON
62909 KOCH INDUSTRIES INC
62910 KRAEMER'S HOME CENTER
62911 MARY KRAUSE
62912 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY
1 2913 CINDY LANENBERG
.2914 LANG PAULY & GREGERSON LTD
62915 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC
62916 PAUL MARAVELAS
62917 GEORGE MARSHALL
62918 MATTS AUTO SERVICE INC
62919 MCFARLANES INC
62920 CARL MCKENZIE
62921 MENARDS
62922 MERLINS HARDWARE HANK
62923 MID-CO SECURITY SYTEMS INC
62924 MIDLAND EQUIPMENT CO
62925 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP
62926 MINNCOMM PAGING
62927 MN CONWAY FIRE & SAFETY
62928 MN SUBURBAN PUBLICATIONS
62929 MINNESOTA WANNER CO
62930 VERONICA MORRISON
62931 MOTOROLA INC
62932 MUNICILITE CO
( 8952221
MILEAGE-POLICE DEPT 91.00
MILEAGE-POLICE DEPT 104.00
CRAFT SUPPLIES-OUTDOOR ADVENTURE PROGRAM 85.02
IN EMPLOYMENT ADS-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT 352.31
CLEAVERS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 119.71
-SERVICE-MEDCOM BLVD/STORM SEWER OUTLET- 12251.18
UTILITIES DIVISION
LAMPS-WATER DEFT 43.99
-BLACKTOP DISTRIBUTORS WITH DRIVER-STREET 800.50
MAINTENANCE
SERVICE-FLYING CLOUD LANDFILL 2920.00
REFUND-OVERPAYMENT FOR UTILITY BILLING 23.08
RIBBONS-WATER DEPT 32.90
CEMENT-SEWER DEPT 54.00
VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 472.50
STRESS TESTS-FIRE DEPT 37.00
GOLF INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 210.00
SERVICE-FINANCE DEPT 78.40
MILEAGE-COMMUNITY CENTER 25.50
-4TH QUARTER '90 POSTAGE METER RENTAL- 117.00
CITY HALL
-INSTALL RECEPTACLES/REPLACE LAMPS-LIQUOR 282.70
STORE
-PIPE CONNECTIONS/CLAMPS/ELBOWS/PIPE 14.45
ADAPTERS/TUBES/PVC PIPE-FIRE DEPT
-STOPS/CLIPS/TAPE/KEYS/GREASE/TERMINAL 96.92
-CONNECTORS/NUTS & BOLTS/BATTERY/CLEANING
SUPPLIES/SCREWS/SWITCH-COMMUNITY CENTER
-HARDWARE/LOCK/PULL/SPIKES/BOLTS/WASHERS/ 90.65
-INSECT REPELLANT/KEYS/VELCRO/GLOVES/RAKES/
-HINGES/SCREWS/GLASS/SCRAPER/SCREEN/RUBBER
CEMENT/TAPE/GLUE-PARK MAINTENANCE
SPRAY PAINT/ROPE/VELCRO-POLICE DEPT 17.83
PAINT-WATER DEPT 11.48
-TURNBUCKLE/HOOKS/NUMBERS/WEED LINE/PAINT/ 96.16
-PAINT BRUSHES/PUTTY KNIVES-EQUIPMENT
MAINTENANCE
-CHISEL/SUMP PUMP/CEMENT/TAPE/PAINT/NUTS & 187.64 !
-BOLTS/WASHERS/DOWELL RODS/BATTERIES/PITCH
FORKS-UTILITIES DIVISION
-PRINTING-EMPLOYEE NEWSLETTER-HUMAN 1813.95 !
-RESOURCES DEPT/REGISTERED VOTER RECEIPTS-
-ELECTIONS/SENIOR NEWSLETTER-SENIOR
-PROGRAMS/SUNBONNET DAY FLYER-HISTORICAL
& CULTURAL COMMISSION
-SERVICE-PAINTING CUMMINS GRILL KITCHEN & 362.00
PANTRY
PRESENTATION CLOCKS-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT 130.23
ZAMBONI WATER PUMP PFI''.In-COMMUNITY CENTER 42.00
-EXPENSES-HUMAN RESOURCES DEFT/OUTDOOR 87.88
CENTER PROGRAM
CASH REGISTER RIBBON-LIQUOR STORE 56.64
SERVICE-WASTEWATER FLOW STUDY 691.23
CLEANING SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 68.69
62933 BETH MUNDY
62934 LAURIE HENNING-NAGEL
62935 NASCO
62936 NATIONWIDE ADVERTISING SERVICE
62937 NORTHERN AUTOMOTIVE CORP
2938 JP NOREX INC
62939 NORTHLAND ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO
62940 NORTHWEST ASPHALT INC
62941 THE NOVEMBER GROUP
62942 KIM OBERMEYER
62943 OFFICE PRODUCTS OF MN INC
62944 OCHS BRICK & TILE CO
62945 NANCY OHM
62946 PARK NICOLLET MEDICAL CENTER
62947 DAN PERNULA
62948 PERSONNEL POOL
62949 CONNIE L PETERS
62950 PITNEY BOWES INC
62951 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY INC
62952 PRAIRIE HARDWARE
62953 PRAIRIE HARDWARE
62954 PRAIRIE HARDWARE
62955 PRAIRIE HARDWARE
62956 PRAIRIE HARDWARE
62957 PRAIRIE HARDWARE
62958 PRAIRIE HARDWARE
62959 PRAIRIE OFFSET PRINTING
62960 PRAIRIE PAINTERS
6261 PRIDE & PERFORMANCE INC
62962 R & R SPECIALTIES INC
62963 RAINBOW FOODS
62964 RETAIL DATA SYSTEMS OF MN
62965 RIEKE-CARROLL-MULLER ASSOC INC
62963 THE S T ROBB CO
2166854
SEPTEMBER 18.1990
62967 PONS ICE COMPANY
SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORE 229.65 62968 S & S ARTS & CRAFTS
CRAFT SUPPLIES-OUTDOOR ADVENTURE PROGRAM 440.62 82969 SAFETY & TRAINING SERVICES
SAFETY TRAINING VIDEO TAPES-WATER DEPT 723.00 2970 SAINT PAUL AREA CHAMBER OF COMER BOOK-HUMAN SERVICES DEPT 10.00 62971 SANCO INC
CLEANING SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 87.48 62972 SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS DIVISION
LAB SUPPLIES-WATER DEFT 53.77 62973 MARCI scorr
MILEAGE-POLICE DEPT 78.00 62974 SCRANTON GILLETTE COMMUNICATIONS SUBSCRIPTION-WATER DEPT 30.00 62975 SEELYE PLASTIC INC -PVC PIPE/COUPLINGS/PVC FITTINGS/PLUGS- 443.17
WATER DEFT
62976 SPEEDY SIGN A RAMA USA
NAMEPLATES & BRACKETS FOR TRUCK-FIRE DEPT 219.79 62977 SIGNS-R-US
STREET SIGNS-STREET DEPT 42.40 62978 SIMPLEX TIME RECORDER CO
PARTS FOR FIRE ALARM SYSTEM-COMMUNITY CTR 75.18 82979 SMITH & NEPHEW ROLYAN INC
BUOY MARKERS-PARK MAINTENANCE 284.64 62980 SNAP ON TOOLS CORP -WRENCHES/SCREWDRIVER SETS/PUNCH HOLDERS/ 237.45
-SOLDERING IRON CASES-UTILITIES DIVISION/
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
62981 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC
EMPLOYMENT ADS-PARK MAINT/FACILITIES DEPT 121.80 62982 SPORTS WORLD USA
VOLLEYBALLS/BAG-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS 50.85 62983 STANDARD SPRING CO -FRONT AXLE SPRINGS/PINS/BUSHINGS- 362.54
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
62984 THE KIRK STIEFF CO
PRESENTATION TRAYS-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT 229.19 62985 STOFFEL SEALS CORPORATION
FIRE PREVENTION BADGES-FIRE DEPT 233.00 62986 STIGLICH CONSTRUCTION CO
REFUND-OVERPAYMENT BUILDING PERMIT 163.80 62987 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET -HUB CAPS/BLOWER RELAY/HUBS & DISCS/ 1292.37
-SPINDLE/U-JOINT/SEALS/BEARINGS/SWITCHES/
-WINDOW MOTOR ASSEMBLY-WATER DEFT/
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
12988 SULLIVANS SERVICES INC
WASTE DISPOSAL-OUTDOOR CENTER 106.23 ,2989 JIM SUNDBERG
REFLECTIVE LETTERS-FIRE DEPT 5.28 62990 TANK RE-NU OF MINNESOTA
GAS TANK REPAIR-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 65.00 62991 TARGET STORES -WASTEBASKET/FILE BOX/FILES/STOOL/DIAPER 38.65
PAIL-CENTER CARE-COMMUNITY CENTER
62992 TOWN & COUNTRY DODGE -STRAINER/SCREWS/DISTRIBUTOR-EQUIPMENT 101.20
MAINTENANCE
62993 TRIARCO ARTS & CRAFTS INC -CRAYONS/CRAFT SUPPLIES-OUTDOOR ADVENTURE 43.58
PROGRAMS
62994 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS -INSTALLATION FOR 911 TRUNK LINE TESTING- 320.14
POLICE DEPT
62995 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED
BATTERY-SEWER DEPT 40.00 62996 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED
UNIFORMS-FIRE DEPT 638.65 62997 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED -UNIFORMS/BALLISTIC VEST -$466.00-POLICE 1488.00
DEPT
62998 UNIPOWER CORPORATION
LIGHT BULBS-WATER DEPT 22.89 62999 UNITED ELECTRIC COMPANY -LOGIC BOARD/DISTRIBUTION BOARD/DRIVER 1667.28
-BOARD & FUSES FOR SECONDARY BASIN-WATER
DEPT
63000 UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC
NUTS & BOLTS/PIPE FITTINGS-EQUIPMENT MAINT 332.72 63001 STRETCHERS PROFESSIONAL POLICE EQ 5 BALLISTIC VESTS-POLICE DEPT 2175.83 63002 VAN WATERS & ROGERS
CHEMICALS-WATER DEPT 1862.50 63003 VAUGHN DISPLAY
FLAG POLES-ELECTIONS 119.90 63004 VESSCO INC
CHLORINE LEAK DETECTOR-WATER DEPT 437.56 63005 VICOM INC -SEPTEMBER '90 WIRE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT- 7.00 COMMUNITY CENTER
3006 PETER VOSBEEK
EXPENSES-POLICE DEFT 27.50
1490861
63007 VOSS ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY
63008 WATER PRODUCTS CO
SEPTEMBER 18.1990
63009 SANDY WEFTS
63010 ROBERTA WICK
63011 WINSLOW PRINTING COMPANY
63012 XEROX CORP
63013 X-ERGON
63014 ZACK'S INC
63015 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE
62645 VOID OUT CHECK
62696 VOID OUT CHECK
243444
LAMPS-FIRE DEPT
-BUSHINGS/COUPLINGS/WATER LEVEL INDICATOR/
-CURB BOXES/RISERS/NOZZLE/METER REPAIR/
-REMOTE READERS/GENERATORS/WIRE/EROSION
-CONTROL MAT-WATER DEPT/STREET MAINTENANCE/
PARK MAINTENANCE
MILEAGE-RECREATION SUPERVISOR
MINUTES-CITY COUNCIL
ENVELOPES-CITY HALL
TRANSPARENCIES-CITY HALL
CLEANING SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT
-SHOVELS-WATER DEPT/CLEANING SUPPLIESL
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
-1ST AID SUPPLIES-STREET MAINT/PARK MAINT/
COMtUNITY CENTER
5.00
1991.24
77.10
200.00
761.73
227.50
291.61
421.11
286.15
447.00-I
1450.00-
$1021309.09
DISTRIBUTION BY FUNDS
176471.44
2536.17
102705.56
70749.32
350.00
40410.00
841.23
550320.64
62092.51
14423.59
407.73
0.90
10 GENERAL
11 CERTIFICATE OF INDEBT
15 LIQUOR STORE-P V M
17 LIQUOR STORE-PRESERVE
20 CEMETERY OPERATIONS
21 POLICE DRUG FORFEITURE
33 UTILITY BOND FUND
51 IMPROVEMENT CONST FD
73 WATER FUND
77 SEWER FUND
81 TRUST & ESCROW FUND
87 CDBG FUND
$1021309.09
MEMO
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Steve Durham, Zoning Administrator
DATE: September 6, 1990
RE: Proposed Ordinance #30-90 Amending City Code Cha
p
t
e
r
9
,
Storage and Deposit of Refuse and Yard Waste
The proposed ordinance amendment has been initiate
d
b
y
t
w
o
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.
First, the City in 1989 received concern regardin
g
c
o
m
p
o
s
t
i
n
g
i
n
a
residential district. Current City Code does not
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
c
o
m
p
o
s
t
and prohibits storage of grass clippings. Se
c
o
n
d
,
S
t
a
t
e
l
a
w
s
changed as of January 1, 1990, prohibiting yard
w
a
s
t
e
f
r
o
m
b
e
i
n
g
placed in landfills. Yard waste constituted any
w
h
e
r
e
f
r
o
m
8
%
t
o
15% of waste within landfills. It is likely a
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
E
d
e
n
Prairie residents are currently composting. Th
e
i
n
t
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
i
s
ordinance is to permit compost in response to cha
n
g
e
s
i
n
S
t
a
t
e
l
a
w
and establish guidelines for operation of a compos
t
i
n
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
districts.
Highlights of the Code include the following:
1) Definitions
A) "Compost" - a mixture of decaying organic matte
r
i
n
a
contained area.
B) "Yard Waste" - Lawn clippings and leaves.
2) Compost
A) A compost shall be established in such a manner so a
s
n
o
t
to create an odor or other condition that is a nuis
a
n
c
e
.
B) A compost may consist only of a yard waste generat
e
d
f
r
o
m
the site on which the compost is located.
C) Compost may not occupy any front yard setback and m
u
s
t
b
e
10' from any side or rear yard lot line.
D) No refuse may be included in a compost.
E) A compost shall not be larger than .025 to the t
o
t
a
l
l
o
t
area and in no case exceed 500 square feet or four feet in height. Every compost must be contained w
i
t
h
i
n
a
fenced area or enclosed container.
Composts are not permitted in commercial, offic
e
,
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
,
o
r
public zoned property without written permission
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
Eden Prairie.
1<(,,
Memo
Amending Ordinance #30-90
September 6, 1990
Page 2
A survey of surrounding metropolitan communities indicates that:
(1) no compost codes exist or; (2) addressing of compost is vague
and not specifically identified in code.
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals reviewed and recommended
approval of the proposed Code in February of 1990.
The City Attorney's office reviewed the proposed code as outlined
in Ordinance #30-90.
The Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the
proposed code at its September 10, 1990 meeting with the following
additions. (1) Amend code to define a garden. (2) Permit yard
waste to be stored in garden areas provided yard waste does not
exceed 6 00 in depth.
The Waste Commission will review the proposed code at its September
13, 1990 meeting. Results of that meeting will be available to
you.
Action - Should the City Council believe the proposed ordinance is
appropriate it is requested to set a date for 1st reading.
Should the City Council believe additional refinement is needed,
please give Staff direction.
CMPSTM02.SD:bs
•)f?' 1'1 r.t, • •
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO 30-90
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AMENDING CITY
CODE CHAPTER 9, SECTION 9.01 TO INCLUDE NEW DEFINITIONS AND
REGULATIONS FOR THE STORAGE AND DEPOSIT OF YARD WASTE AND
AND COMPOST BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND
SECTION 9.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS,
CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS:
Section 1. City Code Chapter 9, Section 9.01 shall be and is
amended to read as follows:
"SECTION 9.01 STORAGE AND DEPOSIT OF REFUSE AND YARD WASTE"
Subd. 1. Definitions. The following terms, as used in this
Section, shall have the meanings stated.
A. "Commercial Establishment" - Any premises where
commercial or industrial enterprise of any kind is carried on, and
shall include restaurants, clubs, churches, and schools where food
is prepared or served.
B. "Compost" - A mixture of decaying organic matter in
a contained area.
C. "Composting" - Any above ground microbial process
that converts yard waste to organic soil amendment or mulch by
decomposition of material through an aerobic process providing
adequate oxygen and moisture.
D. "Multiple Family Dwelling" - Any building used for
residential purposes consisting of two or more dwelling units with
individual kitchen facilities for each together with the lot or
parcel of land on which it is situated.
E. "Refuse" - Any organic material resulting from the
manufacture, preparation or serving of food or food products, and
spoiled, decayed or waste foods from any source, bottles, cans,
glassware, paper or paper products, crockery, ashes, rags,
discarded clothing, and other waste products, except yard waste,
human waste or waste resulting from building construction or
demolition.
F. "Single Family Dwelling" - Any single building
designed for or occupied exclusively by one family together with
the lot or parcel of land on which it is situated.
G. "Yard Waste" - Lawn clippings and leaves.
Subd. 2. Storage.
A. It is unlawful for the owner or occupant of a single
family dwelling to store refuse at the dwelling for more than one
week. All such storage shall be in five to one hundred gallon
metal or plastic containers with tight-fitting covers, which shall
be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition.
B. It is unlawful for the owner or occupant of a single
family or multiple family dwelling to store yard waste at the
dwelling for more than one week unless it is being composted in
accordance with the provisions of Subd. 3. herein. Yard waste must
be separated from refuse.
C. It is unlawful for the owner or occupant of a
multiple family dwelling to store refuse at the dwelling for more
than one week. All such storage shall be in containers as for
single family dwellings, except that so-called "du4'sters" with
tight-fitting covers may be substituted.
D. It is unlawful for the owner or occupant of a
commercial establishment to store refuse at the establishment for
more than forty eight hours. All such storage shall be in
containers as for residential premises, except that so-called
"dumpsters" with tight-fitting covers may be substituted.
E. It is unlawful to store refuse unless it is drained
and wrapped and in enclosed containers with tight-fitting covers.
F. No yard waste or refuse may be buried without
written permission from the City of Eden Prairie.
Subd. 3. compost.
A. It is prohibited for the owner or occupant of a
single family or multiple family dwelling to engage in composting
yard waste at the dwelling except as hereinafter provided.
1. A compost shall be established in such a manner
so as not to create an odor or other condition that is a nuisance;
2. A compost may consist only of yard waste
generated from the site on which the compost is located;
3. A compost may not occupy any front yard setback
and must be 10' from any side or rear yard lot line;
4. No refuse may be included in a compost;
2
2 29
5. A compost shall not be larger than .025 to the
total lot area and in no case exceed 500 square feet or four feet
in height. Every compost must be contained within a fenced area or
enclosed container.
B. It is prohibited for any person to compost yard
waste on public, commercial, office or industrial property without
written permission from the City of Eden Prairie.
Subd. 4. Deposit. It is unlawful for any person to deposit
refuse from any source, rubbish, offal or body of a dead animal in
any place other than a sanitary landfill or licensed disposal
facility.
Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions
and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including
Penalty for Violation" and Section 9.99 entitled "Violation A
Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as
though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective from and
after its passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Eden Prairie on the day of May, 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.
3
nAs•Iti
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 90-244
CSAH 18 LAYOUT APPROVAL
(1-494 to the Minnesota River)
WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Department of Public Works has prepared a preliminary
layout for the improvement of a part of County State Aid Highway No. 18, partially within the
corporate limits of the City of Eden Prairie, from 1-494 to the Minnesota River, and seeks the
approval thereof; and
WHEREAS, said preliminary layouts are on file in the office of the Hennepin County
Department of Public Works, being identified as layout #1 dated March, 1989, from T.H. 101
to F.A.I. 494.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that said preliminary layout for the improvement of
said CSAH No. 18 within the corporate limits is hereby approved subject to the analysis of the
attached comments and the inclusion of City utilities in locations to be determined.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on September 18, 1990.
Mayor Gary D. Peterson
ATTEST:
SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
MEMORANDUM
TO: mayor and City Council
Historical & Cultural Commission
Sandra F. Werts, Recreation Supervisor
John Hensrud, Chair, Heritage PreservAlcin Committee
DATE: September 12, 1990
SUBJECT: Heritage Preservation Ordinance
The Historical and Cultural Commission, at its May 3, 1990 meeting,
voted unanimously to recommend to the City Council acceptance and
approval of a Historic Preservation Ordinance for the City of Eden
Prairie.
The ordinance has been reviewed by the State Historic Preservation
Office and reviewed and redrafted a number of times by the City
Attorney's office, based on recommendations of the State Historic
Preservation Office and discussions with staff and the Historical
and Cultural Commission representative.
The enactment of a Heritage Preservation Ordinance is the first
step in becoming a Certified Local Government, a process the City
Council authorized the staff to pursue at its joint meeting with
the Historical and Cultural Commission and Restoration Committee on
July 19, 1988.
The Historical and Cultural Commission presented a draft of a
Historical Preservation Ordinance to the City Council at its
November 14, 1989 joint meeting. At that time, the City Council
voted unanimously for the Commission to proceed with the ordinance.
A copy of the Heritage Preservation Ordinance and an ordinance
establishing a Heritage Preservation Commission is attached, along
with a memo providing background information on the role of the
federal, state and local jurisdiction regarding heritage
preservation as prepared by Attorney Barbara M. Ross to City
Attorney Roger Pauly.
Why have a Heritage Preservation Ordinance?
Recently, some members of the Historical and Cultural Commission
attended an all day workshop for Heritage Preservation Commissions
and Certified Local Governments. When people heard they were from
Eden Prairie the return response was usually "you have history in
Eden Prairie"? Although, Eden Prairie developed as a farming
community in the mid and late 1800's, a few structures and
dwellings of the early Eden Prairie residents remain to provide
some historic reference in this rapidly developing community.
FROM:
The enactment of a Heritage Preservation Ordinance would:
a. Be the first step in becoming a Certified Local Government
(CLG). As a CLG, the City would become eligible for "pass
through" funds from the National Park Service. These funds,
which are matched by the local unit of government, may be used
to complete several types of historic research documents for
the City, such as a historic building and site inventory of
the city, contextual history studies, archeological studies,
and guide books. The funded projects cannot be site specific
or restorative. In 1989 $77,821 in CLG grants were approved
in Minnesota. These were awarded to eight jurisdictions. The
average grant was $6,000.
Currently, there are only 13 Certified Local Governments in
the State, which would give the City of Eden Prairie a
reasonable chance to receive grant funds.
b. Safeguard the cultural resources of the City by preserving
sites, structures and landmarks which reflect elements of the
City's cultural, socioeconomic, political or architectural
history.
c. Protect and enhance the City's historic attractions to
residents and visitors.
d. Foster civic pride in the beauty and notable achievements of
the past.
e. Require developers and property owners to be sensitive to Eden
Prairie's history - through consideration of siting and
adaptive reuse.
Summary of the Ordinance
Section 2, Subd. 3 allows the Commission to recommend preservation
sites and establishes the criteria for such sites. This criteria
is set forth in the Secretary of Interior's Guidelines.
The proposed sites are sent to the Planning Commission for review
and recommendation with respect to the City's Comprehensive Plan
and the Planning Commission's opinion of the proposed designations
effect on the surrounding neighborhood.
Public hearings are required prior to the Commission recommending
to the Council any property for designation as a Heritage
Preservation Site.
Subd 5. establishes the conditions when a Heritage Preservation
Site Alteration Permit is required. It also establishes the review
process, and the criteria used to review the application.
A decision as to who holds public hearings regarding application
for a Site Alteration Permit needs to be decided by the City
Council. The option of the Commission or the City Council to
review both have merit. City Attorney Pauly would like the Council
to have the opportunity to be the responsible body and set the tone
of the ordinance. Most Minnesota cities, however, use the
commission to receive public comments and leave appeals to the City
Council.
Site Alteration Permit hearings generally deal with issues such as
building additions, use of asphalt shingles versus wood shingles,
or wood framed double hung windows versus aluminum or vinyl.
Subd. 6 addresses emergency repairs.
Subd. 7 establishes the repository for documents.
Subd. 8 states where Heritage Preservation Sites are recorded.
What will the ordinance do?
1. The ordinance will allow the establishment of a Heritaoe
Preservation Commission. The commission will be empowered to
conduct inventories of historic properties; work for the
continuing public education with respect to the civic and
architectural heritage of the community; recommend acceptance
of contributions and grants; and may make application to the
National Register of Historic Places with the consent of the
City Council. The existing Heritage Preservation Committee
currently carries on many of these activities.
The Historical and Cultural Commission is recommending that a
Heritage Preservation Commission of no less than 9 and no more
than 13 members be established. Appointments to the
Commission would be made by the Historical and Cultural
Commission with the approval of the City Council, to include
the current members of the Historical and Cultural
Commission's Heritage Preservation Committee, plus additional
members needed to meet the guidelines for Certified Local
Government status. These guidelines request that all members
have a demonstrated interest and/or expertise in historic
preservation and that at least two members are preservation
related professionals. The Commission feels that the current
members of the Heritage Preservation Committee meet those
criteria. Allowing the Historic Preservation Commission to be
based on an ongoing board, would allow that committee to carry
on its current work and to call in the additional members that
would constitute the Historic Preservation Commission when
those issues are brought forward. Currently, in the City of
Cottage Grove their Parks and Recreation Commission is the
designated Historic Preservation Commission, with additional
members brought in when it serves in the capacity of a
Historical Preservation Commission.
i
2. Allow the City to designate Heritage Preservation Sites.
The buildings and dwellings of early residents seem to be
disappearing in record numbers. The State Historical Society
has conducted a partial field survey of Eden Prairie. They do
not believe their survey is adequate. Their survey identified
33 potential sites in September of 1988. It is possible that
some of these buildings have already been destroyed. There
may, however, only be a limited number of significant sites
that would be designated as heritage preservation sites. All
potential sites should be investigated thoroughly.
3. Reauire review of development near desianated historic sites.
By allowing sites to be designated as historic within the
City, the City Council could encourage developers to look at
how they site their developments or how an existing historic
structure could be adapted into the development. It could
encourage homeowners not to destroy the historic character of
the dwelling and to be sensitive to the time and period in
which the structure was built.
Immediate Affect on Community
The only buildings or sites that would be immediately affected by
this ordinance are those that would received a local heritage
preservation designation. To receive such a designation, these
sites must meet one or more specific criteria, which are listed on
page two of the ordinance dealing with Land Use Regulations. In
the beginning the only buildings we may be dealing with are those
owned by the City; namely, the Cummins-Grill Homestead, Smith-
Douglas-More House, and the Mathew Riley House. The number of
additional sites to be added in the near future may be limited.
Staff and Commission Review of Ordinance
The current draft of the ordinance has been reviewed by the
Planning Department staff and Planning Commission. Planning staff
directed their questions to City Attorney Roger Pauly. The
questions and Mr. Pauly's reply are attached. The Planning
Commission reviewed the ordinance at their September 10th meeting
and recommend that the ordinance be sent in its present form to the
City Council for review and discussion.
Kevin Schmieg, Director of the Inspections, Safety and Facilities
Department, reviewed the ordinance as the Inspections Department
would be involved in the review of permits. According to Schmieg,
they would be able to "flag" property in their files that are
designated historic sites, therefore, being able to review them
accordingly, if the owner would apply for a permit.
As a number of designated sites would be few in the near future,
implications on staff time would be minimal. The Historic
Preservation Committee is currently engaged in some of the duties,
and the part-time historic interpreter is able to assist in
research and with the site inventory.
Since this ordinance involves an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance,
the next step would be to hold a public hearing before the Planning Commission, before the ordinance is sent on to the City Council for
its first reading.
The next action of the City council is to decide which body would
be responsible for conducting public hearings in regard to review
of permits; the City Council or the Heritage Preservation
Commission.
Summary
The approval of a Heritage Preservation Ordinance and establishment
of a Historic Preservation Commission is not only for the present,
but for the future. It will provide the basis for evaluating Eden
Prairie's modern development in years to come. Hopefully, it will
help to establish that Eden Prairie has a past, and that past
provides a solid foundation on which the future is built. The work
of a Historic Preservation Commission will be ongoing in an effort
to preserve Eden Prairie's historic sites before the only ones left
are those in public ownership.
SFW:mdd
preserve/5
ANY OPINION OR INFORMATION GIVEN HEREIN IS CONVEYED PURSUANT TO THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND,_AS SUCH, IS NOT PUBLIC DATA AND SHOULD BE PROTECTED FROM FURTHER PUBLICATION AND
DISSEMINATION.
To:
Through:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Mayor and Members of City Council
Carl Jullie, City Manager
Roger A. Pauly
Historic Preservation Ordinance
September 13, 1990
Attached is a draft of an ordinance amending Chapter
2
o
f
the City Code establishing a Heritage Preservation Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
(Section 2) and expanding the powers and duties of the
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
Commission to include the making of recommendations to the
Heritage Preservation Commission relating to historic
s
i
t
e
s
a
n
d
structures. Also attached are two forms of ordinance
a
m
e
n
d
i
n
g
Chapter 11 providing for the designation of Heritage P
r
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
Sites and requiring a Heritage Preservation Site Alter
a
t
i
o
n
Permit in connection with changes in a preservation s
i
t
e
.
O
n
e
version of the ordinance provides that the public heari
n
g
o
n
t
h
e
matter will be held by the Council. The Council will t
h
e
n
m
a
k
e
the final decision on the request for the permit.
In this ver- sion the Commission will review the application and ma
k
e
i
t
s
recommendation to the Council. The alternative versio
n
o
f
t
h
e
ordinance provides for the public hearing to be held b
y
t
h
e
Heritage Preservation Commission and an initial decisi
o
n
t
o
b
e
made by the Commission. The applicant or any party a
g
g
r
i
e
v
e
d
b
y
the initial decision of the Commission will then have 1
0
d
a
y
s
i
n
which to perfect an appeal to the Council, which mus
t
t
h
e
n
r
e
v
i
e
w
the matter and make a final decision. If no appeal is filed within a period of 10 days the initial decision
of the Commission would become final.
For your further information I am enclosing a memo,
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
attachments, dated January 17, 1990 which summarizes
t
h
e
r
e
l
a
-
tionship between Federal, State and local law in reg
a
r
d
t
o
historic preservation.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 90 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MI
N
N
E
S
O
T
A
A
M
E
N
D
I
N
G
C
I
T
Y
CODE CHAPTER 2 ENTITLED "ADMINISTRATION AND G
E
N
E
R
A
L
G
O
V
E
R
N
M
E
N
T
"
SEC. 2.14, SUBD.2, BY (1) REDESIGNATING PARA
G
R
A
P
H
S
F
.
,
G
.
,
A
N
D
H. AS G., H., AND I., AND (2) ADDING A NEW
P
A
R
A
G
R
A
P
H
F
;
S
E
C
.
2.18, BY (1) ADDING A NEW SUBD. 3., AND (2) A
D
D
I
N
G
A
N
E
W
S
U
B
D
.
4., AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPT
E
R
1
A
N
D
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
2.99, WHICH AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENAL
T
Y
P
R
O
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
:
THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA O
R
D
A
I
N
S
:
Section 1. City Code Sec. 2.14, Subd. 2, is
a
m
e
n
d
e
d
b
y
redesignating paragraphs F., G., and H. as G.
,
H
.
,
a
n
d
I
.
respectively, and adding a new paragraph F., to read as follows:
F. To make recommendations to the Heritage
Preservation Commission with respect to the
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
o
f
p
r
o
-
posed Heritage Preservation designations to
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
plan of the City, and to provide its opinio
n
t
o
t
h
e
H
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
Preservation Commission as to the effect of
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
upon the surrounding neighborhood and any ot
h
e
r
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
c
o
n
-
sideration which may be relevant to the prop
o
s
e
d
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
to give its recommendation of approval, reje
c
t
i
o
n
o
r
m
o
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
of the proposed designation to the Council.
Section 2. City Code Sec. 2.18 is amended by
a
d
d
i
n
g
a
n
e
w
Subd. 3. and a new Subd. 4. to read as follo
w
s
:
Subd. 3 EsLihtshment of Heritage Preservation
Commission. The Preservation Committee of the Historical and Cu L i. tommission, composed of ten (10) members,
is hereby established as the Heritage Preser
v
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
f
o
r
the purpose of carrying out the provisions o
f
S
e
c
.
1
1
.
0
5
.
Commission members shall be appointed by the
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
a
n
d
Cultural Commission to serve in accordance w
i
t
h
t
h
e
g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
for Certified Local Government status. Membe
r
s
s
h
a
l
l
h
a
v
e
a
demonstrated interest and/or expertise in his
t
o
r
i
c
p
r
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
be residents of the community and, if availa
b
l
e
,
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
t
w
o
members shall be preservation related profes
s
i
o
n
a
l
s
(
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
the professions of history, architecture, arc
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
,
archaeology, planning, real estate, or law) a
n
d
o
n
e
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
be a representative of the County Historical
S
o
c
i
e
4
.
Subd. 4. Powers and Duties of the Commissio
n
.
T
h
e
Heritage Preservation Commission shall have t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
p
o
w
e
r
s
and duties in addition to those specified in
Sec. 11.05:
-1-
A. The Commission shall conduct a continuing sur-
vey of all areas, places, buildings, structures, or objects in
the City which the Commission, on the basis of information
available or presented to its, has reason to believe are signifi-
cant to the cultural, social, economic, political, or architec-
tural history of the City.
B. The Commission shall continually survey all
areas to determine needed and desirable improvements of older
buildings throughout the City, acting in a resource and advisory
capacity to owners of historically significant sites regarding
their preservation, restoration and rehabilitation.
C. The Commission shall work for the continuing
education of the citizens of the City with respect to the civic
and architectural heritage of the City. It shall keep current a
public register of designated and proposed Heritage Preservation
Sites and areas along with the plans and programs that pertain to
them.
D. The Commission may recommend to the Council
the acceptance of contributions offered to the City and to assist
the City staff in prepAration of applications for grant funds to
be made through to City for the purpose of Heritage
Preservation.
E. The Commission will on a continuing basis
collect and review City planning and development records, docu-
ments, studies, models, maps, plans, and drawings to be passed on
to the State Historical Society as a permanent record of City
history and development.
F. The Commission shall make no application to
the National Register of Historic Places or to the State of
Minnesota for the designation of a historic site or district
without the consent of the Council.
Section 3. City Code Chapter I entitled "General Provisions
and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including
Penalty for Violation" and Section 2.99 entitled "Violation a
Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference,
as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 4. 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.
-2-
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the
, 1990.
day of
-3-
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 90 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AMENDING CITY
CODE CHAPTER 11 ENTITLED "LAND USE REGULATIONS (ZONING)", SECTION
11.03, SUED. 6. BY ADDING TO PARAGRAPH E. A NEW PARAGRAPH 10, AND
BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 11.05, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY
CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS,
CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS:
Section 1. City Code Chapter 11, Sec. 11.03, Subd. 6.,
paragraph E. is amended to add paragraph 10 to read as follows:
10. Preservation of Heritage Preservation
Sites as designated by the Council
pursuant to Section 11.05 and
adherence to, and consistency with,
the City's policies and objectives
as reflected in the Heritage
Preservation Site Program.
Section 2. City Code Chapter 11, shall be and is amended by
adding Section 11.05 to read as follows:
SEC. 11.05. HERITAGE PRESERVATION SITES.
Subd. 1. Declaration of Public Policy and Purpose. The
Council of the City of Eden Prairie (hereinafter the "Council")
declares as a matter of public policy that the preservation, pro-
tection, perpetuation and use of areas, places, buildings, struc-
tures, and other objects that have historic, aesthetic or
community interest or value, benefits the health, prosperity,
education and welfare of the community. The purposes of this
chapter are to: (1) Safeguard the heritage of the City by pre-
serving sites and structures which reflect significant elements
of the City's cultural, social, economic, political, visual or
architectural history; (2) Promote the preservation and con-
tinued use of historic sites and structures for the education and
general welfare of the people of the City; and (3) Foster civic
pride in the beauty and notable accomplishments of the past.
Subd. 2. Definitions. The following terms, as used in
this Section, shall have the following meanings:
A. "Commission" - The Heritage Preservation
Commission established by Chapter 2, Section 2.18, Subd. 3.
1
B. "Heritage Preservation Site" - Any area, place,
building, landmark, structure, lands, districts, or other objects
which have been duly designated Heritage Preservation Sites pur-
suant to Subd. 3. G. of this Section 11.05.
Subd. 3. Designation of Heritage Preservation Sites.
A. Reports. The Council may direct the City
staff to prepare studies which catalog buildings, land, areas,
districts, or other _)jects to be considered for designation as a
Heritage Preservaticr 'Ate.
B. Criteria. The Commission shall recommend to
the Council that an area, building, district, or object be designated a Heritage Preservation Site upon determining that
such site possesses integrity and meets one or more of the
following criteria:
1. It has character, interest or value as part
of the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the
City, State of Minnesota or the United States;
2. Its location as the site of a significant
historic event;
3. It has yielded, or is likely to yield,
information important in pre-history or history;
4. It is associated with a person or persons
who significantly contributed to the culture and development of
the City;
5. It embodies distinctive characteristics of
an architectural style, period, form or treatment;
6. It represents the work of an architect
or master builder whose individual work has influenced the
development of the City;
7. It embodies elements of architectural
design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship which represent a
significant architectural innovation; or
8. Its unique location or singular physical
characteristics represents an established and familiar visual
feature of a neighborhood, community, or the City.
C. Planninl Commission Review. The Commission
shall advise the Planning Commission of the proposed designation
of a Heritage Preservation Site, including boundaries, and a
program for the preservation of a Heritage Preservation Site, and
secure the Planning Commission's recommendation with respect to
2
the relationship of the proposed heritage preservation designa-
tion to the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and the City Planning
Commission's opinion as to the effect of the proposed designation
upon the surrounding neighborhood and any other planning con-
sideration which may be relevant to the proposed designation.
The Commission may make such modifications, changes, and altera-
tions concerning the proposed designation as it deems necessary
in consideration of the recommendation and opinion of the
Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall also give its
recommendation of approval, rejection or modification of the pro-
posed designation to the Council.
D. Communications with State Historical Society.
A copy of the Commission's proposed designation of a Heritage
Preservation Site, including boundaries, and a program for the
preservation of a Heritage Preservation Site shall be sent to the
State Historical Society in accordance with Minnesota Statutes.
E. Hearials. Prior to the Commission recom-
mending to the Council any building, district, or object for
designation as a Heritage Preservation Site, the Commission shall
hold a public hearing on the proposed designation. Prior to such
hearing the Commission shall cause to be published in a newspaper
of general circulation notice of the hearing at least ten (10)
days prior to the date of the hearing, and notice of the hearing
shall be sent to all owners of the property proposed to be
designated a Heritage Preservation Site and to all property
owners within three hundred fifty (350) feet of the boundary of
the area to be designated a Heritage Preservation Site.
F. FindinAs and Recommendations. The Commission
shall make findings as to whether a proposed Heritage
Preservation Site is eligible for heritage preservation as deter-
mined by the criteria specified in Paragraph B of this sub-
division. If the Commission determines the site meets the
criteria in Paragraph B, it shall forward its findings to the
Council with its recommendation that the site be designated for
heritage preservation and its proposed program for the preser-
vation of the site.
G. Council Designation. The Council shall consider
the Commission's recommendation that a site be designated for
Heritage Preservation, together with the Planning Commission's
recommendations, and may, upon the request of the Commission, by
ordinance designate a Heritage Preservation Site.
Subd. 4. Additional Powers and Duties of the Commission.
A. The Commission may recommend to the Council
after review and comment by the City Planning Commission, that
certain property eligible for designation as a Heritage
Preservation site be acquired by gift, negotiation or by eminent
domain as provided for in Chapter 117 of Minnesota Statutes.
3
B. The Commission shall have the powers and duties
specified in Chapter 2, Sec. 2.18 in addition to those otherwise
specified in this chapter.
Subd. 5. Review of Permits.
A. Heritage Preservation Site Alteration Permit.
A Heritage Preservation Site Alteration Permit is required to do
any of the following in, on, or to a Heritage Preservation Site
in the City:
1. Remodel, alter, repair in any
kind or manner, including a change of color, that will alter
the exterior appearance of a historic building, site, or land-
mark.
2. Erect a building or any structure.
3. Erect signs.
4. Move from or to any building.
5. Demolish any building in whole or in part.
This does not apply to structures required to be demolished in
accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 463.
6. Alter or remove a land form in whole or in
part.
Any person seeking a Heritage Preservation Site Alteration Permit
shall file an application accompanied by detailed plans including
a site plan, building elevations and design details, and
materials necessary to evaluate the request and pay such fee as
provided by resolution of the Council. The Council shall make
the determination whether to approve or disapprove the permit.
B. Commission Recommendation. The Commission
shall review each application and make its recommendation to the
Council relative to the request for a Heritage Preservation Site
Alteration Permit. The Commission shall also review and make
recommendations to the Council concerning City activity that
could change the nature or appearance of a Heritage Preservation
Site.
C. Criteria For Heritage Preservation Site
Alteration Permit. All recommendations by the Commission and
decisions by the Council to approve, disapprove, and/or impose
conditions on a Heritage Preservation Site Alteration Permit
shall be in accordance with the program approved by the Council
and the State Historical Society for each Heritage Preservation
Site. The following General Standards for Historic Preservation
Projects issued by the Secretary of the Interior shall be used to
evaluate applications for Site Alteration Permits:
4
1. Every reasonable effort shall be made to
provide a compatible use for a property which requires minimal
alteration of the building, structure, or site and its environ-
ment, or to use a property for its originally intended purpose.
2. The distinguishing original qualities or
character of a building, structure or site and its environment
shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any
historic material or distinctive features should be avoided when
possible.
3. All buildings, structures, and sites shall be
recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have
no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier
appearance shall be discouraged.
4. Changes which have taken place in the
course of time are evidence of the history and development of a
building, structure or site and its environment. These changes
may have acquired significance in their own right, and this
significance shall be recognized and respected.
5. Distinctive stylistic features or examples
of skilled craftsmanship which characterize a building, struc-
ture, or site shall be treated with sensitivity.
6. Deteriorated architectural features shall
be repaired rather than replaced, whenever possible. In the
event replacement is necessary, the new material should match
the material being replaced in composition, design, color, tex-
ture, and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of
missing architectural features should be based on accurate dupli-
cations of features, substantiated by historic, physical, or pic-
torial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the
availability of different architectural ellements from other
buildings or structures.
7. The surface cleaning of structures shall
be undertaken with the gentlest means possible. Sandblasting and
other cleaning methods that will damage historic building
materials shall not be undertaken.
8. Every reasonable effort shall be made to
protect and preserve archeological resources affected by, or
adjacent to, any acquisition, stabilization, preservation, reha-
bilitation, restoration, or reconstruction project.
The Secretary of the Interior's Specific
Standards for Preservation Projects shall also be considered,
when appropriate.
D. Findin/s• The Commission shall make findings
as to whether a site alteration permit application should be
5
approved or disapproved, or conditions imposed, as determined by
the criteria specified in Paragraph C. of this subdivision.
E. Hearinas. Prior to the Commission making its
recommendation regarding an application for a Site Alteration
Permit for a Heritage Preservation Site, the Commission shall
hold a public hearing on the application. Prior to such hearing
the Commission shall cause to be published in a newspaper of
general circulation notice of the hearing at least ten (10) days
prior to the date of the hearing, and notice of the hearing shall
be sent to all owners of the property for which a Heritage
Preservation Site Alteration Permit application has been sub-
mitted and to all property owners within three hundred fifty
(350) feet of such property.
F. Limitations. If within sixty (60) days from
the filing of a Site Alteration Permit application the Commission
has not made a recommendation of approval or disapproval to the
Council, the application shall be forwarded to the Council for
approval or disapproval of the permit without the Commission's
recommendation.
G. Appeal to the Cia Council. The permit appli-
cant or any party aggrieved by the recommendation of the
Commission shall within ten (10) days of the date of the
Commission's recommendation, have a right to appeal such recom-
mendation to the Council. The appeal shall be deemed perfected
upon receipt by the City Clerk of two copies of a notice of
appeal and statement setting forth the grounds for the appeal.
The City Clerk shall transmit one copy of the notice of appeal
and statement to the City Council and one copy to the Commission.
The Commission, in any written recommendation that a permit
application be denied, shall advise the applicant of his/her
right to appeal to the City Council and include this paragraph in
all such recommendations.
Subd. 6. Emergency Repair. In emergency situations
where immediate repair is needed to protect the safety of the
structure and its inhabitants, the Building Department, the
department authorized to enforce the building code pursuant to
Chapter 10, Section 10.01, Subd. 2, may approve the repair
without prior Commission or Council action.
Subd. 7. Repository for Documents. The office of the
City Clerk is designated as the repository for at least one copy
of all studies, reports, recommendations and programs required
under this Section 11.05.
Subd. 8. Recording of Heritage Preservation Sites.
The office of the City Clerk shall record the designation of
buildings, lands or areas as Heritage Preservation Sites with the
Hennepin County Recorder or the Hennepin County Registrar of
Titles, unless the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles refuses
6
to record such designation, and shall transmit a copy of the
recording document to the Building Department.
Section 3. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General
Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code
Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99 entitled
"Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety,
by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 4. 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.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 90 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AMENDING CITY
CODE CHAPTER 11 ENTITLED "LAND USE REGULATIONS (ZONING)", SECTION
11.03, SUBD. 6. BY ADDING TO PARAGRAPH E. A NEW PARAGRAPH 10, AND
BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 11.05, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY
CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS,
CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS:
Section 1. City Code Chapter 11, Sec. 11.03, Subd. 6.,
paragraph E. is amended to add paragraph 10 to read as follows:
10. Preservation of Heritage Preservation
Sites as designated by the Council
pursuant to Section 11.05 and
adherence to, and consistency with,
the City's policies and objectives
as reflected in the Heritage
Preservation Site Program.
Section 2. City Code Chapter 11, shall be and is amended by
adding Section 11.05 to read as follows:
SEC. 11.05. HERITAGE PRESERVATION SITES.
Subd. 1. Declaration of Public Policy and Purpose. The
Council of the City of Eden Prairie (hereinafter the "Council")
declares as a matter of public policy that the preservation, pro-
tection, perpetuation and use of areas, places, buildings, struc-
tures, and other objects that have historic, aesthetic or
community interest or value, benefits the health, prosperity,
education and welfare of the community. The purposes of this
chapter are to: (1) Safeguard the heritage of the City by pre-
serving sites and structures which reflect significant elements
of the City's cultural, social, economic, political, visual or
architectural history; (2) Promote the preservation and con-
tinued use of historic sites and structures for the education and
general welfare of the people of the City; and (3) Foster civic
pride in the beauty and notable accomplishments of the past.
Subd. 2. Definitions. The following terms, as used in
this Section, shall have the following meanings:
A. "Commission" - The Heritage Preservation
Commission established by Chapter 2, Section 2.18, Subd. 3.
1
B. "Heritage Preservation Site" - Any area, place,
building, landmark, structure, lands, districts, or other objects
which have been duly designated Heritage Preservation Sites pur-
suant to Subd. 3. G. of this Section 11.05.
Subd. 3. Designation of Heritage Preservation Sites.
A. Rekorts, The Council may direct the City
staff to prepare studies which catalog buildings, land, areas,
districts, or other objects to be considered for designation as a
Heritage Preservation Site.
B. Criteria. The Commission shall recommend to
the Council that an area, building, district, or object be
designated a Heritage Preservation Site upon determining that
such site possesses integrity and meets one or more of the
following criteria:
1. It has character, interest or value as part
of the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the
City, State of Minnesota or the United States;
2. Its location as the site of a significant
historic event;
3. It has yielded, or is likely to yield,
information important in pre-history or history;
4. It is associated with a person or persons
who significantl; contributed to the culture and development of
the City;
5. It embodies distinctive characteristics of
an architectural style, period, form or treatment;
6. It represents the work of an architect
or master builder whose individual work has influenced the
development of the City;
7. It embodies elements of architectural
design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship which represent a
significant architectural innovation; or
8. Its unique location or singular physical
characteristics represents an established and familiar visual
feature of a neighborhood, community, or the City.
C. Plannin .g Commission Review. The Commission
shall advise the Planning Commission of the proposed designation
of a Heritage Preservation Site, including boundaries, and a
program for the preservation of a Heritage Preservation Site, and
2
secure the Planning Commission's recommendation with respect to
the relationship of the proposed heritage preservation designa-
tion to the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and the City Planning
Commission's opinion as to the effect of the proposed designation
upon the surrounding neighborhood and any other planning con-
sideration which may be relevant to the proposed designation.
The Commission may make such modifications, changes, and altera-
tions concerning the proposed designation as it deems necessary
in consideration of the recommendation and opinion of the
Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall also give its
recommendation of approval, rejection or modification of the pro-
posed designation to the Council.
D. Communications with State Historical Society.
A copy of the Commission's proposed designation of a Heritage
Preservation Site, including boundaries, and a program for the
preservation of a Heritage Preservation Site shall be sent to the
State Historical Society in accordance with Minnesota Statutes.
E. Hearings. Prior to the Commission recom-
mending to the Council any building, district, or object for
designation as a Heritage Preservation Site, the Commission shall
hold a public hearing on the proposed designation. Prior to such hearing the Commission shall cause to be published in a newspaper
of general circulation notice of the hearing at least ten (10)
days prior to the date of the hearing, and notice of the hearing
shall be sent to all owners of the property proposed to be
designated a Heritage Preservation Site and to all property
owners within three hundred fifty (350) feet of the boundary of
the area to be designated a Heritage Preservation Site.
F. Findings and Recommendations. The Commission shall make findings as to whether a proposed Heritage
Preservation Site is eligible for heritage preservation as deter-
mined by the criteria specified in Paragraph d of this sub-
division. If the Commission determines the site meets the
criteria in Paragraph B, it shall forward its findings to the
Council with its recommendation that the site be designated for
heritage preservation and its proposed program for the preser-
vation of the site.
G. Council Designation. The Council shall consider
the Commission's recommendation that a site be designated for
Heritage Preservation, together with the Planning Commission's
recommendations, and may, upon the request of the Commission, by
, or+Inance designate a Heritage Preservation Site.
Subd. 4. Additional Powers and Duties of the Commission.
A. The Commission may recommend to the Council
after review and comment by the City Planning Commission, that
certain property eligible for designation as a Heritage
3
Preservation site be acquired by gift, negotiation or by eminent
domain as provided for in Chapter 117 of Minnesota Statutes.
B. The Commission shall have the powers and duties
specified in Chapter 2, Sec. 2.18 in addition to those otherwise
specified in this chapter.
Subd. 5. Review of Permits.
A. Heritage Preservation Site Alteration Permit.
A Heritage Preservation Site Alteration Permit is required to do
any of the following in, on, or to a Heritage Preservation Site
in the City:
1. Remodel, alter, repair in any
kind or manner, including a change of color, that will alter
the exterior appearance of a historic building, site, or land-
mark.
2. Erect a building or any structure.
3. Erect signs.
4. Move from or to any building.
5. Demolish any building in whole or in part.
This does not apply to structures required to be demolished in
accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 463.
6. Alter or remove a land form in whole or in
part.
Any person seeking a Heritage Preservation Site Alteration Permit
shall file an application accompanied by detailed plans including
a site plan, building elevations and design details, and
materials necessary to evaluate the request and pay such fee as
provided by resolution of the Council. The Commission shall make
the initial decision whether to approve or disapprove the permit.
B. Criteria For Heritage Preservation Site
Alteration Permit. All decisions to approve, disapprove, and/or
impose conditions on a Heritage Preservation Site Alteration
Permit shall be in accordance with the program approved by the
Council and the State Historical Society for each Heritage
Preservation Site. The following General Standards for Historic
Preservation Projects issued by the Secretary of the Interior
shall be used to evaluate applications for Site Alteration
Permits:
1. Every reasonable effort shall be made to
provide a compatible use for a property which requires minimal
4
alteration of the building, structure, or site and its environ-
ment, or to use a property for its originally intended purpose.
2. The distinguishing original qualities or
character of a building, structure or site and its environment
shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any
historic material or distinctive features should be avoided when
possible.
3. All buildings, structures, and sites shall be
recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have
no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier
appearance shall be discouraged.
4. Changes which have taken place in the
course of time are evidence of the history and development of a
building, structure or site and its environment. These changes
may have acquired significance in their own right, and this
significance shall be recognized and respected.
5. Distinctive stylistic features or examples
of skilled craftsmanship which characterize a building, struc-
ture, or site shall be treated with sensitivity.
6. Deteriorated architectural features shall
be repaired rather than replaced, whenever possible. In the
event replacement is necessary, the new material should match
the material being replaced in composition, design, color, tex-
ture, and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of
missing architectural features should be based on accurate dupli-
cations of features, substantiated by historic, physical, or pic-
torial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the
availability of different architectural ellements from other
buildings or structures.
7. The surface cleaning of structures shall
be undertaken with the gentlest means possible. Sandblasting and
other cleaning methods that will damage historic building
materials shall not be undertaken.
8. Every reasonable effort shall be made to
protect and preserve archeological resources affected by, or
adjacent to, any acquisition, stabilization, preservation, reha-
bilitation, restoration, or reconstruction project.
The Secretary of the Interior's Specific
Standards for Preservation Projects shall be considered, when
appropriate.
C. Findings. The Commission shall make findings
in connection with its initial decision as to whether a site
alteration permit application should be approved or disapproved,
5
or conditions imposed, as determined by the criteria specified in
Paragraph B. of this subdivision.
D. Hearings. Prior to the Commission making its
initial decision regarding an application for a Site Alteration
Permit for a Heritage Preservation Site, the Commission shall
hold a public hearing on the application. Prior to such hearing
the Commission shall cause to be published in a newspaper of
general circulation notice of the hearing at least ten (10) days
prior to the date of the hearing, and notice of the hearing shall
be sent to all owners of the property for which a Heritage
Preservation Site Alteration Permit appl'-ation has been sub-
mitted and to all property owners withi. 'hree hundred fifty
(350) feet of such property.
E. Initial Decision Becomes Final Decision If No
Akkeal. Unless an appeal is made to the Council as provided in
subparagraph F. hereof the initial decision shall become the
final decision upon expiration of the time to appeal therefore.
F. Akeeal to the Citx Council. The permit appli-
cant or any party aggrieved by the initial decision of the
Commission shall within ten (10) days of the date of the
Commission's initial decision, have a right to appeal such ini-
tial decision to the Council. The appeal shall be deemed per-
fected upon receipt by the City Clerk of two copies of a notice
of appeal and statement setting forth the grounds for the appeal.
The City Clerk shall transmit one copy of the notice of appeal
and statement to the City Council and one copy to the Commission.
The Commission, in any written initial decision that a permit
application be denied, shall advise the applicant of his/her
right to appeal to the City Council and include this paragraph in
all such initial decisions.
G. Upon appeal, the Council shall review the ini-
tial decision and consider the application and all the files,
documents and records of the proceedings in the matter. The
Council may then affirm, reverse, or modify the initial decision,
including any conditions imposed, and adopt all or some of the
findings of the Commission made in connection with the initial
decision or such other findings as it deems appropriate. The
Councils' action shall constitute the final decision.
Subd. 6. Emergency Repair. In emergency situations
where immediate repair is needed to protect the safety of the
structure and its inhabitants, the Building Department, the
department authorized to enforce the building code pursuant to
Chapter 10, Section 10.01, Subd. 2, may approve the repair
without prior Commission or Council action.
Subd. 7. Repository for Documents. The office of the
City Clerk is designated as the repository for at least one copy
6
MEMO
TO Roger Pauly, City Attorney
FROM: Jean Johnson, zoning Administrator
DATE: August 27, 1990
RE: PROPOSED HISTORICAL ORDINANCE
Last week Chris Enger, Mike Franzen, Sandy Werts
a
n
d
I met to discuss the 2 drafts on the Historical Or
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
.
During our discussion, questions and comments cam
e
t
o
m
i
n
d
which we wish to pass onto your office. The ques
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
comments are:
1. Could this ordinance be set up similar to
Sec. 11.40, Subd.3,our PUD Zoning District
Supplement.
2. Do we leave designated sites in the zone they
have, or instigate rezoning to an Institutional
or Historical District or Overlay District.
Our concern is that many existing sites will not
meet the minimum lot size, setbacks, or other
performance standards.
3. In the future historical sites might serve
multiple purposes, i.e., bed and breakfast,
seminar and meeting rooms, restaurant use,
educational functions/keeping of animals,
gift shops, etc. Such uses would not be
permitted in the Rural or RI Districts which
historical sites will most likely be.
4. Shall we consider a Conditional Use Permit
Process to accomplish uses in item 3, similar
to Sec. 11.41 of our Code.
We would appreciate your offices' comments on the
s
e
i
s
s
u
e
s
that we have raised.
JJ:jj
cc: Sandy Werts
LANG. PAULY 6: GREGERSON. LTD.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ROBERT I LANG
ROGER A PAUL1
OH' ID H GREGERSON.
RICHARD F MOsON
MARA .1 JOHNSON
JOSEPH A NILAN
JOHN 1, LANG CPA
LEA De SOUZA SPECTER
JEFFREY C APPELOUIST.
JUDITH N. DUTCHER
BARBARA NI ROSS
WILLIAM R MILLER
• 11 in Nwrawear
{Al• 1...0n11•1
Jean Johnson
Zoning Administrator
City of Eden Prairie
7600 Executive Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
370 SUBURBAN PLACE BUILDING
2SO PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE
EDEN PRAIRIE. MINNESOTA 55344
TELEPHONE: (61218294355
FAN. (612) 829-0713
September 4, 1990
NIINNEAPOLlS OFFICE
44:$1hIS SE' It R
Xl/ TH EIGHTH CIA EFT
MIAALAPOLIS. AHAALSOTA T40:
tAI2015.07!!
FAX 1017)149471S
CITES TOED!, PA AIRIF OFFICE
RE: Proposed Historical Ordinance
Dear Jean:
I have reviewed your memo to me of August 27, 1990 and hav
e
the following comments.
As I read your memo, the main concern seems to be that the
r
e
may be uses which do not fit into a particular zoning dist
r
i
c
t
and how can that objective be accomplished.
Basically, the proposed ordinance is similar to the site
plan ordinance. In most instances, the site plan ordinanc
e
w
o
u
l
d
also apply. However, the criteria for permitting building
o
r
alteration of a structure, or in the case of the historica
l
p
r
e
-
servation ordinance, a site, may vary. The idea behind the
historical preservation ordinance is to preserve those str
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
and sites which have historical value in their historical
c
o
n
-
dition. What the ordinance does is to provide certain use
s
t
a
n
-
dards under the auspices of regulatory zoning. Therefore,
I
d
o
not believe there should be any conceptual departure from t
h
e
proposed format of the historical preservation ordinance.
T
h
a
t
,
however, does not answer what I understand to be the basic
question posed in your memorandum which is how can specific
u
s
e
s
fit into a particular zoning district, especially if they a
r
e
n
o
t
now authorized. I)-he P.U.D. concept in itself will not meet that
objective since a P.U.D. cannot be utilized to expand the n
u
m
b
e
r
of uses within a given zoning district. Furthermore, I do
n
o
t
believe that it is appropriate to use a P.U.D. for a single
u
s
e
in order to provide variances from zoning standards, such a
s
l
o
t
September 4, 1990
Jean Johnson
Page 2
size, set-backs, etc. I believe that as to variances, those are
best left to the Board of Appeals. As to the question of uses,
however, I think the suggestion expressed in Item 4 of your
Memorandum; i.e., conditional use permit, is perhaps the only
method short of an amendment to the permitted uses in the Code.
which, in each instance would accommodate anomalous uses such as
a bed and breakfast (having commercial characteristics) in a
residential district. A historical district designation would be
appropriate for an area of historic sites, but is there one in
the City? The problem with conditional uses, of course, is that
in order to preclude them from becoming automatic, it is
necessary to adopt standards which will afford surrounding pro-
perties adequate protection. It may be very difficult to antici-
pate in advance what standards might be appropriate to a given
situation. Therefore, I think the better strategy would be to
wait for one of these anomalies to appear on the horizon and then
draft a solution at that time. At a minimum we should wait until
historical sites are designated and catalogued. It might then be
possible to formulate appropriate standards as to those
designated structures or sites because we will then be presented
with concrete, rather than hypothetical, situations. While some
of us might be more adept in dealing with the abstract, most of
us are more so in dealing with the concrete.
(
,/--lince ely,
ROg lei. Pauly
RAP :55
City Council inuts 3 ovember 14, 19E9
tendency to specialize but believed a group needed to
present which maintained a broader view.
C. Heritaae Preservation Ordinance
:ohn Hensrud stated that the purpose of the Heritage
Preservation Ordinance was to become a certified local
government. This would allow the City to receive certain
funds which were not available at this time. The
Ordinance would establish a preservation process from a
legal standpoint. The draft before the City Council this
evening was based on the Red Wing Heritage Preservation
Ordinance. The main substance contained in Subdivision 3
was to establish a criteria for historical sites. The
Ordinance would be presented to the Planning Commission
first and then if approved presented to the City Council.
Hensrud said that public hearings would be held by the
Historical Cultural Commission prior to hearing at the
Planning Commission and City Council hearings.
Hensrud reviewed the main points of the ordinance.
Hensrud stated that the Commission would like to have the
Heritage Preservation Ordinance adopted as soon as
possible to allow Eden Prairie to join 19 other local
governments which currently receive funding. Hensrud
noted that this funding could be used to help complete the
Cummins-Grill Homestead. The external lighting and
security system had been completed, but there was still a
great deal of work which remained to be done, which could
not be done by volunteer labor. Hensrud stated that a lot
of interest had been shown by residents in the Cummins-
Grill Homestead and the Commission believed that it could
become a focal point for Eden Prairie heritage. The
Commission would like to see the house used partly as a
museum and as a place for residents to have gatherings.
Pidcock stated that the Historical Cultural Commission had
done a superb job and obviously enjoyed what it was doing.
MOTION:
Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to prepare a Heritage
Preservation Ordinance.
Peterson supported the concept.
Tenpas asked if the intent of the motion was to have Staff
review the draft of the Ordinance.
Peterson asked if the Planning Commission would get
involved in the implementation and involved in the
discussions related to the Ordinance. Lambert replied
City Council;-:inuzcs 4 Ncvenc ,,r 4
that the Director of Planning should be involved in the
discussions.
Harris believed that the normal review process should be
followed for the review of the Ordinance.
Motion carried unanimously.
Peterson asked what the process involved to become a
certified local government. Sandy Werts replied that an
application process was necessary, but the approval of the
Ordinance had to take place prior to the application.
Werts added that a copy uf the draft had been sent to the
State.
Anderson believed that the allowance of funds needed to be
taken into consideration as part of the budget
discussions.
Harris supported the acceptance of the Historical Cultural
Commission's recommendations.
Peterson believed that the Council should not bond future
City Councils to a commitment of $50,000 per year for the
Cummins-Grill Homestead.
MOTION:
Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to receive the
recommendations of the Historical Cultural Commission and
to provide $50,000 for 4 years for the restoration of the
Cummins-Grill Homestead. Motion carried unanimously.
Pidcock believed that the foundation needed to be
stabilized as soon as possible.
Anderson asked if the City Building Inspections Staff had
seen the Cummins-Grill Homestead. Anderson recommended
that Staff make recommendations to the Commission and the
City Council as to what needed to be accomplished
immediately. Anderson said that he did not want to see
anything happen to the structure.
Peterson asked if there was anything else besides the
foundation which would be needed to stabilize the
building. Hensrud replied that the ice box needed to be
replaced this year. Werts added that the tuck pointing
needed to be addressed this year. Hensrud noted that
funding might be available to accomplish the tuck point
work this year. Hensrud stated that the Commission would
like to have the kitchen work done this year, but this
needed to be coordinated with the electrical work.
MEMO
TO: Roger A. Pauly
FROM: Barbara M. Ross
DATE: January 17, 1990
SUBJECT: Historic Preservation Ordinance for City
of Eden Prairie
BACKGROUND
The City of Eden Prairie wishes to enact a Historic
Preservation Ordinance upon the recommendation of the Historical
and Cultural Commission. The City forwarded a copy of the
Ordinance for our review. The purpose of the Ordinance is to
meet the criteria for Eden Prairie to become a Certified Local
Government. This memo discusses the relationship between
federal, state, and local law in regard to historic preservation,
and sets forth the requirements for certification of local
governments.
DISCUSSION
I. NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,
16 U.S.C. 470, et. seq., established the legal and
administrative procedures for the national program
of identification, evaluation, and protection of
historic properties which is carried out primarily
by the state. The act was amended in 1980 to
provide for participation of local governments
through the certification process by the State
Historic Preservation Officer and the Secreta ,:y of the Interior.
A. National Register of Historic Places
The Act authorizes the Department of the
Interior to establish, maintain, and
expand a National Register of Historic
Places (Register). The Register is
maintained by the National Park Service,
and consists of a computerized listing
of properties that have been nominated
and accepted as having historic,
architectural, archaeological, engineering
or cultural significance at the national,
state or local level. Nominations can be
made by individuals, organizations, state
and local governments, and federal agencies.
The National Register criteria are applied
to each nomination to determine whether the
property qualifies. See Criteria and
Criteria Considerations attached hereto
as Exhibit A. In addition to meeting
one or more of the criteria, a property
must also have integrity of location,
design, setting, materials, workmanship,
feeling, and association.
A property that is listed in the Register,
or has been determined to be eligible for
inclusion in the Register, or may be
eligible but has not been evaluated, is
protected by Section 106 of the Act.
Section 106 requires that federal agencies
take into account the effect of their
actions and actions they may assist,
permit or license, on historic property.
Such federal agencies must give the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
a reasonable opportunity to comment on
actions that will affect historic
properties. The Advisory Council's role
is to encourage agencies to consider,
and where feasible adopt, measures that
will preserve historic properties that
would otherwise be damaged or destroyed.
The Advisory Council's regulations, set
forth in 36 C.F.R. Part 800, govern the
Section 106 process. The Council does
not have the authority to order an
agency to halt or abandon projects,
rather, its regulations emphasize
consultation among the responsible federal
agency, the State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO), local governments, and
other interested parties, to identify
and agree upon ways to preserve historic
properties. Local governments are
encouraged to take an active role in
the Section 106 process when undertakings
affect historic properties within their
jurisdiction. Moreover, the participation
of a local government is legally required
in some circumstances, such as when the
As
2
local government is operating under a
Community Development Block Grant Program.
See, 36 C.F.R. SEC 800.1(C)(2)(i).
A summary of the Council's regulations is
attached as Exhibit B.
B. State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO)
The National Historic Preservation Act
sets forth the responsibilities of the
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO),
the state officer that administers the
National Historic Preservation Program
at the state level. These responsibilities
include the following:
1. Insuring comprehensive state-wide
historic preservation planning;
2. Conducting a state-wide survey to
identify historic properties;
3. Nominating properties to the
National Register of Historic Places;
4. Administering the Federal Historic
Preservation Grants-In-Aid Program
within the State;
5. Assisting local governments in
developing historic preservation
programs and in becoming certified
to participate in the national program;
6. Advising and assisting in federal,
state and local historic preservation
projects;
7. Participating in review of federal,
state and local undertakings that
may affect historical properties;
and,
8. Providing public information, training,
and technical assistance in historic
preservation. In addition, under
National Park Service regulations,
SHPO's may participate in certification
of properties and projects for
historic preservation tax incentives.
In addition to the responsibilities under
federal law, SHPO's carry out duties under
state law. Minnesota Statute 5138.UHL
designates the Director of the Minnesota
Historical Society as the SHPO. The
responsibilities of the Minnesota SHOO are
to prepare, implement, and administer the
State Historic Preservation Plan and the
Federal Historic Preservation Act. The
Director of the Minnesota Historical
Society is to review and approve in writing
all grants and aid made by and funded by
state and/or federal agencies for histori n :
preservation purposes. The historical
society is also designated as a state
agency that administers the federal act
providing for preservation of historical
and archeological data, codified as 16 U.S.0
469-469C.
The Director of the Minnesota Historical
Society at the present time is Nina Archibald,
but most of her duties are carried out by
Britta Blomberg, Historic Preservation
Program Specialist.
C. Grants-In-Aid
The Act establishes a program of matching
grants-in-aid by which the National Park
Service assists SHPO's in carrying out
their responsibilities. SHPO's may
sub-grant portions of the funds to local
governments and others for approved
preservation projects.
D. Certified Local Governments
As amended in 1980, the Act provides for
certification of local governments whose
historic preservation programs meet
prescribed standards. Certified local
governments are eligible for special grants-
in-aid and technical assistance from the
SHPO. At least 10% of the annual Historic
Preservation Fund grants made to states
under the Act must be distributed to
certified local governments. In addition,
certified local governments participate
in the nominations to the National Register
of Historic Places, exchange information
with SHOD a, participate in state-wide
preservation programs and planning, and
receive publications and professional
assistance from state and federal agencies.
The requirements for certified local
governments are discussed below.
II. MINNESOTA HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACTS
A. Minnesota Historical Societies
Minnesota Statute §138.01, et. seq.,
establishes the Minnesota Historical
Society (MHS) and provides for its
funding. The Statute grants authority
to the MHS to exercise general
administration and control for certain
historic sites. It further authorizes
the establishment of County Historical
Societies, and provides for tax levies
by County Historical Societies that
are affiliated with and approved by the
MHS.
The MHS has been designated as the
state agency with the power to impint
and administer state and federal
historic preservation programs and
to distribute state and federal funds.
B. Historic Sites Act of 1965
The Historic Sites Act of 1965 designates
Sections 138.53-138.58 as a Registry of
State Historic Sites. The sites are
located on property owned by the state
and its subdivisions, the MHS, the
University of Minnesota, County Historical
Societies, cities, counties, the federal
government, and private persons. Section
138.585 lists state monuments.
In Section 136.60 the Act provides that
state and governmental subdivisions are
notified of the existence of state
historic sites on publicly owned property
and property owned by the MHS. The
state and its subdivisions are therefore
prohibited from altering the physical
features or historical character of said
sites without the prior written approval
of the MHS. There is no reference in
the act to prohibitions in regard to
historic sites of land that is privately
owned.
C. Historic District Act of 1971
A historic district is defined as a
number of structures, sites and open
spaces of historical and architectural
significance which together combine to
give such an area historic significance
to the state. See, Minnesota Statute
§138.72. The historic districts are
designated in 5136.73.
The Act provides in §138.74 that the
governing body of the subdivisions of
the state in which the historic districts
are located have the power to create
a historic district board or commission
for purposes of architectural control
of these areas. The board has the
power to provide special zoning conditions
for the historic districts, whether
privately or publicly owned; to impose
regulations governing construction,
alteration, demolition and use; to
adopt other measures to protect the
historic district; to amend zoning
ordinances to encompass the historic
districts; to prevent construction of
buildings of a character not in
conformity with the historic district;
and, to remove blighting influences.
D. Municipal Heritage Preservation Statute
Minnesota Statute §471.193 authorizes
local governments to engage in a com-
prehensive program of historic preser-
vation, and to promote the use and
conservation of historic properties for
the education, inspiration, pleasure, and
enrichment of the citizens of Minnesota.
The loc,11 governments are authorized to
establih a Heritage Preservation Commission,
with the Commission's powers to be delegated
or assigned by the ordinance establishing
the commission. Subdivision 3 of this Section
lists the powers that may be delegated to the
Commission. See, Minnesota Statute §471.193
attached hereto as Appendix D to Exhibit C.
The Commission members must be persons with
interest and expertise in historic preservation,
and must reside within the political subdivision
6
that enacted the ordinance. If possible,
a member of the County Historical Society must:
be included on the Commission.
Section 471.93 directs the Commission to send
proposed site designations and design
guidelines to the SHP() at the MHS for review
and comment. Further, an annual report
must be sent to the SHPO by the Commission
on or before October 31.
E. Minnesota Environmental Rights Act
Finally, the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act,
Minnesota Statute S116B.01-116B.13, provides for
a civil action for declaratory or equitable relief
for the protection of air, water, land, or other
natural resources, whether publicly or privately
owned. See, S116.B.03. The definition of
natural resources includes "historical resources."
See S1168.02.
Ili. PROCEDURES FOR APPLYING FOR AND MAINTAINING CERTIFIED
LOCAL GOVERNMENT STATUS
A. Requirements For Certification of Local
Governments in Minnesota
The National Historic Preservation Act contains
five broad standards which must be met by a
local government before it may be certified.
The standards, as discussed and explained by
the Minnesota Historical Society, are
attached hereto as Exhibit C.
B. Process For Certification of Local
Governments in Minnesota
The chief elected official of the appropriate
local governing body shall request certification
from the Minnesota SHPO. The request must
include the following:
1. A copy of the local Historic Preservation
Ordinance.
2. Copies of local inventory forms for all
sites and districts locally designated,
and assembly of available inventory
information on properties not locally
designated (i.e. property addresses,
maps, etc.).
7
3 Resumes for each of the members of the
Historic Preservation Commission. These
resumes must clearly show that all
members have a demonstrated interest
and/or expertise in historic preservation,
and that at least two members are
preservation related professionals.
If such professionals are unavailable,
an explanation should be attached. The
resumes should also indicate expertise
in the areas of architectural history,
archeology, and history, for the purpose
of establishing expertise to review
national register nominations.
The SHPO will respond within 60 working
days of the receipt of an adequately
documented written request. If the
local government meets the criteria for
certification, the SHP° will prepare
a written certification agreement that
lists the specific responsibilities of
the government when certified and forward
that agreement to the local government for
signature. When the signed agreement is
returned to the SHPO, the request and
agreement will then be forwarded to the
National Park Service for review by the
Secretary of the Interior. If the
Secretary does not take exception to the
request within 15 working days of
receipt, the local government shall be
regarded as certified by the Secretary.
C. Process For Monitoring And De-certification
of Certified Local Governments in Minnesota
I. The SHE'D will review the annual reports
submitted by certified local governments,
records of the administration of funds
allocated from the Historic Preservation
Fund and other documents as necessary,
to assure that each government is fulfilling
the required standards.
2. If the evaluation indicates that the
performance of a certified local government
is inadequate, the SHP° shall document
that assessment and delineate for the local
government ways to improve performance.
The certified local government shall have
a period of not less than 30 nor more than
8
180 days to implement improvements. If
the SHP° determines that sufficient
improvement has not occurred, the SUPO
will recommend de-certification of the
local government to the Secretary of
the Interior citing specific reasons
for the recommendation.
3. If a local government is de-certified, the
SHP() will conduct financial assistance
close-out procedures as specified in the
National Register Programs Manual.
IV. "TAKING" OF PROPERTY
An issue that may be raised by a property owner
affected by a historic preservation ordinance
is that there was an unconstitutional "taking"
of the owner's property. "Historic preservation
ordinances have been upheld as a reasonable
exercise of police power." State by Powderly v.
Erickson, 285 N.W. 2d 84,90 (Minn. 1979),
citing Maher v. City of New Orleans, 516F.2d
1051 (5th Cir. 1975). "The restrictions on
use of property which such ordinances impose
do not affect a taking of property, even though
the value of property is diminished." Id., citing
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New
York, 438 U.S. 104, 98 S. Ct. 2646, 57 L.Ed. 2d
631 (1978) and Maher v. City of New Orleans,
supra. "There is an unconstitutional taking
only if all effective use of the property is
prevented or if the owner is not permitted to
obtain a reasonable rate of return on his
investment." Id. citing Penn Central Trans-
portation Co. v. City of New York, supra and
Lafayette Park Baptist Church v. Scott, 553
S.W. 2d 856 (Mo. App. 1977). "The burden of
proof is on the person challenging the
government's action to establish that there
is an unconstitutional taking. "Id., citing
Lafayette Park Baptist Church v. Scott, supra
and Maher V. City of New Orleans, supra,
"or that he has been deprived of all reasonable
uses of his land." Id., citing, e.g. Czech v.
City of Blaine, 312 Minn. 535, 539, 253 N.W.
2d 272, 274 (1977).
Although the Erickson case specifically
involved an action brought under the
Minnesota Environmental Rights Act rather
than the Historic Preservation Act, similar
9
issues are involved, and it is clear the
Minnesota Supreme Court has adopted the
federal standard for "taking" of property.
In Erickson the owner of row houses in
Red Wing was enjoined from demolition of
the row houses on the basis that they were
historical resources. Although the court
enjoined the demolition, it held that the
property owner could not be forced to
renovate or sell the row houses, and suggested
the city institute condemnation proceedings.
The case was again before the court two years
later as the situation was unresolved. The
Court stated it was presented with a serious
dilemma by the legislature, in that the
legislature had mandated the court exercise
its equitable powers to grant remedies
necessary to protect historical resources
but had failed to provide a means to protect
such resources other than to prohibit their
destruction by property owners. The Court
went on to say that a permanent injunctiou
denying an owner the beneficial of th ,
owner's property except by requiring the
owner to make a substantial investment in
repairs and renovation, over the owner's
objection, would constitute a "taking". The
Court's resolution of the case was rather
unusual, as it held the injunction would
remain in effect until the legislature
acted or the property owner brought yet
another motion to dissolve the injunction.
The legislature has failed to respond, so
the dilemma remains.
Another case that is significant to the
taking issue is Carl Bolander & Sons, Inc.
v. Minneapolis, 378 N.W. 2d 826 (Minn. App.
1985). In this case Bolander filed an
application for a building permit to
expand an office building located in a
historic district. The application was
denied after the Minneapolis Heritage
Preservation Commission determined that
the proposed construction would impair
valuable historic attributes to the
district. The city planned to acquire
the property for a park, but did not
condemn it for two years. Bolander sued
for damages for the time between the
time the permit was denied and the property
was condemned. The court found there was
1 0
no "taking" of property by the city.
Id., at 829-830.
The Court distinguished cases that have
held a city has no discretion to deny
a building permit application that fully
complies with all requirements. Id., citing
e.g., Hay v. Township of Grow, Anoka County,
296 Minn. 1,206 N.W. 2d 19(1973), Zylka v.
City of Crystal, 283 Minn. 192, 167 N.W. 2d
45 (1969), and Maine Realty, Inc. v. Pagel,
296 Minn. 362, 208 N.W. 2d 758(1973). The
Court stated that the city in the Hay case
clearly discriminated between special use
permit applicants and denied applications
without explanation. Id., at 829. In
Zylka and Maine Realty the cities denied
special use permits without explanation,
and were therefore found to have acted
arbitrarily. Id. In contrast, the court
found there was no evidence of discrimination
or failure to give reasons for the permit
denial in the case at bar. Id.
As support for its holding the Court
relied on Almquist v. Town of Marshan,
308 Minn. 52,245 N.W. 2d 819, 826 (1976),
where the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld
a city's limited moratorium on building
permits so the city could engage in
long-range planning. Id., at 830. The
Court found the city's actions came within
the Almquist guidelines, in that the city
acted in good faith, did not discriminate
between applications, and that the
moratorium was of limited duration.
In sum, the taking standard is a difficult
one for a property owner to meet. It is
clear from State by Powderly v. Erickson
that cities can enjoin demolition of
historic sites, but cannot do so indefinitely.
In regard to building permits, the city must
not discriminate between applicants, must
give reasons for denying permits, and must
have a moratorium on permits for a limited
period of time. If a city follows these
guidelines, it is likely to prevail in a
taking action by an owner of historic
property.
11
• „ , e
11.11F •,1 r •• •. • c - ,
774,• • ,.."31111:..;') • `,.•;',,••‘,\,r••,,-.(.' -
• ,...'!.n,0.;::••;t.'.../-•k,•It•is • '
)54Vstiniikehil3N ....11•Ei•Vt:613;.•Y4,'•;•11c1.1: Tk .,5"11W•G•E•N C
The Section 106 Process in a Nutshell
The Council's regulations are set forth in a process consisting of five basic steps, as follows:
Identification and evaluation: The Federal agency responsible for the action identifies
the historic properties (if any) that exist in the area to be affected. Identification
involves assessing the adequacy of existing survey data, inventories, and other
information on the area's historic properties, conducting further studies as needed,
consulting with the SIIPO, local governments, and other interested parties, and
documenting thc results of the identification effort. It properties are woad that may be
eligible for the National Register but have not been listed or determined eligible for
listing, the agency consults with the SIIPO and, if needed, the Keeper of the National
Register to determine eligibility or ineligibility.
Effect delermininution If properties in, or eligible for, the Register exist in the area
that 'nay be affected by the action, the agency consults with the SIIPO in determining
what effect the action will have on them. The agency may find that the action will have
no effect on historic properties, no adverse effect on such properties, or adverse effects
on them. Local governments and interested members of the public are to be informed of
these findings.
The regulations provide specific criteria for determining whether an action will have an
effect, and whether the effect will be adverse. Generally, if the action may alter the
characteristics that make a properly eligible for the National Register, it is held to have
an effect, and if the alterations 'nay be detrimental to those characteristics, including
relevant qualities of the property's environment or use, they are held to be adverse.
.Consultn If the action will have an adverse effect, the agency consults with the
SIIPO, other interested persons, and sometimes the Advisory Council, to seek agreement
on ways to avoid or reduce the effects. Local governments, Indian tribes, affected
property owners, and others concerned should be involved in the consultation, and the
public should be given the opportunity to express their views. Local govenments must be
invited to participate in consultation regarding effects on historic properties within their
jurisdictions, if they so request.
If agreement is reached, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOM is drawn up and signed. If
agree neat cannot be reached, the formal comments of the Council are requested.
Agreement and Council comment: Acceptance of a MOA by the Council and
implementation of its terms by, or al the direction of, tne Federal agency satisfies the
requirement of Section 106 that the Council be 'iven a reaonable opportunity to
colnment;" it also demonstrates that the agency has "tithe! into •.ccount" the effects of
the action. If no agreement is reached, the comments of the Council are sent formally
to the head of the agency.
Proceed: Having obtained the Council's comments, the agency either carries out the
terms of the MOA or considers the formal comments in making its final decisions about
whether and how to proceed with the action.
hi 4— 71
Participation by Certified Local Governments and
Other Local Governments
The Council's regulations say that:
local governments arc encouraged to take an active role in the Section 106
process when undertakings affect historic properties within their jurisdiction.
When a local government has legal responsibility for Section 106 compliance
under programs such as the Community Development Block Grant Program,
participation as a consulting party is required. When no such legal
responsibility exists, the extent of local government participation is at the
discretiOn of local government officials. If the State Historic Preservation
Officer, the appropriate local government, and the Council agree, a local
government whose historic preservation program has been certified pursuant to
Section 101 (c) (1) of the Act may assume any of the duties that are given to
the State Historic Preservation Officer by these regulations or that originate
from agreements concluded under these regulations. (36 CFR Sec. 800.1
(c)(2)(i))
The regulations provide many opportunities for local governments to become aware of
and participate in the Section 106 process. Becoming knowlegeable about the process
and how to participate in it can help local commissions ensure that their concerns, and
their historic properties, are fully considered in Federal agency planning.
The Advisory Council offers regular training courses dealing with the Section 106
process; course schedules, publications, and other information on the process and related
topics can be obtained from:
=ttat
" :0:101,1`,A.Rrti„4,11 16,1',/ 0 • 6
A service - of the • ., r.1 i L , , National...ParService
• . r.1 ,Yt ,B E S ou 1 qfE,$).1.9;,.Vel:43:9,C4f.rigotVi N; !T. p N 0 c
‘r r ,
- jr -I k
..'iT .M1.‘713 0/).;r1; 1:1 1,14 PAl r A.3 E 041. ,„.C.4 • ,
The Criteria
Criterion A: A property may be registered if it is associated with events that have made
a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.
This means that a property can be registered if it Is associated with a particular event —
for example, the founding of a community, a battle, or an invention — significant in
history at the national, State, or local level. It also means that a property can be
registered if it is associated with a series of events or processes that have been
significant parts of "broad patterns" of national, State, or local history. Examples of the
latter might be the economic growth or decline of a community during a particular
period, the development of a transportation or communication system, a pattern of
agricultural land use, or a period of prehistoric environmental or cultural change.
Criterion 13: A property may be registered if it is associated with the lives of persons
significant in our past.
This criterion means that a property can be registered if it is associated with an
individual important in history at the national, State, or local level. Examples include
the founder of a community, an important writer or inventor, a political figure, or a
community leader.
Criterion C: This is a complex criterion with several subparts.
The first subpart provides that a property may be registered if it embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction.
This means that a property inay be registered if it is a good example of a particular kind
of architectural style, a kind of engineering, a kind of landscape architecture, or the
informal ("vernacular") forms of construction used in a region during a particular period.
The second subpart provides that a property may be registered if it represents the work of a master.
This allows the registration of properties designed or built by master architects,
engineers, landscape architects, or builders. The individual responsible for the properly
Exhibit_
does not necessarily have to be known by name; sonietimr:s the wotk of a master builder or artisan can be recognized in the vernacular architectur
e
o
f
a
l
e
g
i
o
n
,
o
r
e
v
e
n
i
n
t
h
e
prehistoric archeological record, when the name of the indivi
d
u
a
l
l
w
.
;
l
o
n
g
b
e
e
n
l
o
s
t
.
The third subpart provides that a property may be registered if it possesses high artistic values.
Such a property might be a building that includes fine murals or stonewor
k
,
o
r
f
i
n
e
l
y
designed landscape, or a site containing particularly impre
s
s
i
v
e
p
r
e
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
r
o
c
k
a
r
t
.
The final subpart provides that a property may be registered if it
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
s
a
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual
d
i
s
t
i
n
c
t
i
o
n
.
This criteria exception recognizes districts. A district ma
y
b
e
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
a
s
a
w
h
o
l
e
even though it may be composed of elements — sites, buil
d
i
n
g
s
,
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
a
n
d
o
b
j
e
c
t
s
—
that would not qualify individually. The identity of distri
c
t
s
r
e
s
u
l
t
s
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
g
r
o
u
p
i
n
g
o
f
their features and from their interrelationships. For exa
m
p
l
e
,
a
g
r
o
u
p
o
f
w
a
r
e
h
o
u
s
e
s
,
which do not individually look very significant, may be i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
a
s
a
g
r
o
u
p
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
o
f
their collective representation of mum architectural style, t
h
e
i
r
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
v
e
u
s
e
o
f
s
p
a
c
e
,
o
r
their collective association with a community's industrial d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
Criterion I): A property may be registered if it has yielded, or may be
l
i
k
e
l
y
t
o
y
i
e
l
d
,
information important in prehistory or history.
This criterion is usually applied to archeological sites an
d
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
,
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
i
n
g
e
i
t
h
e
r
historic or prehistoric time periods. It could also be ap
p
l
i
e
d
t
o
a
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
,
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
,
district, or object that could yield important informat
i
o
n
i
n
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
,
engineering history, or another field. Information may b
e
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
i
f
i
t
c
a
n
b
e
a
r
o
n
a
particularly significant research question about the past,
o
r
i
f
i
t
i
s
l
i
k
e
l
y
t
o
b
e
u
s
e
f
u
l
i
n
addressing research questions that may be developed by
a
r
c
h
e
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
s
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
s
i
n
t
h
e
future.
'Me Criteria Considerations
The Criteria Considerations are partial exceptions to, or li
m
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
n
,
t
h
e
e
l
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
properties for the ltegister.
Criteria Consideration A provides that a religious property is not eligible for
t
h
e
National Register unless it derives primary significance
f
r
o
m
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
o
r
a
r
t
i
s
t
i
c
distinction or historical importance. Thus a church may
n
o
t
b
e
r
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d
u
n
l
e
s
s
i
t
h
a
s
architectural or artistic value, or is associated with hist
o
r
i
c
a
l
l
y
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
e
v
e
n
t
s
o
r
processes. The site of a religious rite cannot be register
e
d
u
n
l
e
s
s
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
,
t
h
e
r
i
t
e
,
o
r
both are associated with broader cultural patterns of histori
c
a
l
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
.
Criteria Consideration II provides that a building or structure removed from its origi
n
a
l
location is not eligible for the National Register unless it i
s
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
p
r
i
m
a
r
i
l
y
f
o
r
i
t
s
architectural value or it is the surviving structure most i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
l
y
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
a
historic person or event. 'lids consideration recognizes t
h
a
t
t
h
e
o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
most historic properties contribute to their significance,
s
o
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
i
r
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
m
a
y
effectively sever them from their significant associations. A structure significant for its
architecture without reference to its surroundings may be eligible for the National
Register even if it has been tnosed, however, and if there is no other building to
represent a particular important event or person, a relocated building inay be registered.
Criteria Consideration C provides that a birthplace or grave is not eligible for the
Flariionat Register, unless it is that of a historical outsimuling in and
there is no other appropriate site or building direci Iv a:zmoi ,led with his or her
productive life. Thus the birthplace or grave of a columneit vs fneader is ordinarily not
eligible, but if there is nu other place where the founder can be remembered, the
birthplace or grave may be registered.
Crit.c.ria Consideration D provides that cemeteries are not eligible for the National
Register, unless they derive their primary significance from persons of transcendent
importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic
events. 'lids eonsideration excludes may ordinary cemeteries, but many cemeteries are
included in the Register. A cemetery containing the remains of many historically
important people limy be registered, as inay one whose tombstones or mortuary
architecture are particularly distinctive, or one where particular historical events have
occurred. Prehistoric and early historic cemeteries are usually eligible because of their
age and their association with events reflective of important historical processes.
Criteria Consideration E provides that a reconstructed building is not eligible for the
Register, except under certain exceptional circumstances. A reconstructed building can
be registered if the reconstruction is historically accurate, if the building is presented in
a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and if no other, original building
or structure survives that has the same association. In other words, "stage set"
reconstructions of historic places, such as "ghost towns" created out of whole cloth
where no historic town ever existed, cannot be placed in the National Register, but
buildings or structures can be registered if they are the only properties representing a
particular event, person, period, or type of construction.
Criteria Consideration 1' provides that properties that are primarily commemorative in
intent cannot be registered, unless design, age, tradition, or symbolic value invest such
properties with their own historical significance. Thus the statue of a town's founder
cannot be placed on the Register, unless it is an extremely good example or an artistic or
architectural tradition, or associated with traditions or events that give it its own
significance, apart front that of the founder.
Criteria Consideration (1 forbids the registration of properties achieving significance
within the past 50 years unless such properties are of exceptional importance. Fifty
years is a general estimate of the period of time necessary for the development of the
historical perspective necessary to evaluate significance. Properties associated with the
Depression are now becoming eligible for the National Register, for example, and more
and 'nom attention is being given to properties associated with World War II. Properties
associated with space exploration are now being listed in the Register even though they
are less than 50 years old, because of the exceptional importance of the events with
which they are associated.
. I. REQUIREMENTS WI& CERTIFICATION OF LOCAL GOVERNME
N
T
S
I
N
M
I
N
N
E
S
O
T
A
The federal law (National Historic Preservation Act Amendm
e
n
t
s
o
f
1
9
8
0
)
which established the certified local government progr
a
m
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
c
o
n
-
tains five broad standards, all of which must be met
b
y
a
l
o
c
a
l
g
o
v
e
r
n
-
ment before the local government may be certified. T
h
e
f
e
d
e
r
a
l
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
are further defined and amplified below.
A. Local government must "enforce appropriate state or l
o
c
a
l
l
e
g
i
s
7
lation for the denigna_tion and protection of historic
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
"
.
1. The local .government must have ado_p_ted a min/WRal_heritage
preservation ordinance under the provisions of Minnes
o
t
a
Statutes 471 t 193 : (Appendix D) The purpose of the ordinance
must be clearly stated.
2. The ordinance must contain a clearly defined process
f
o
r
t
h
e
survey and local designation of significant individual_his= toric_properties andior histnric dictrintc Both the criteria far deterts1ning_signiticallt_aroperties gild the procedure for designating those .proper ed, either within the ordinance oi —in other procedures adopted by the local
government. The process shall include forwarding all
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
designations to the Minnesota SHPO for comment befo
r
e
f
i
n
a
l
local designation is made, pursuant to Minnesota St
a
t
u
t
e
s
471.193 Subd. Properties shall not be removed from designated
status except in cases where there has been a proced
u
r
a
l
o
r
professional error in the designation process or wh
e
r
e
t
h
e
property has been destroyed or radically altered. Th
e
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
for local designation must provide for public commen
t
.
3. The ordinance must contain a clearly defined prckqeAs for the review of all_lor2PAUSLAItemarions, relocations, demolition,
or new construct:Aka:4111ln the boundaries of locally d
e
,
s
_
i
g
-
noted properties and/or districts.. Both the criteria
t
o
b
e
utilized in the evaluation of proposed actions and the pro-
cedure for reviewing those actions must be clearly st
a
t
e
d
,
either within the ordinance or in other procedures ad
o
p
t
e
d
b
y
the local government. The Secretary of the Interior's
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
for Rehabilitation should be utilized in developing t
h
e
r
e
v
i
e
w
criteria (Appendix E) The process of permit
review must provide for public comment.
4. The HPC must aaheLe:La Minnesota Statutes 1.18-13 and the procedures of the Division of Archives and Manuscripts
(
D
A
M
)
,
Minnesota Historical Society (see Appendix C) regardi
n
g
commission records.
5. Local governments should consult 36 CFR 67.8 Lo insure that local ordinances meet the certification criteria prusu
a
n
t
t
o
the Econest1c—Ber.031 eLy Tax Act 44,_( 1981 and the Tax Ref o rpLAct of 1976. Note that certification of a local governmen
t
u
n
d
e
r
the CLC procedures does not constitute certification
o
f
a
commission under the preservation tax incentives proce
s
s
.
(2)
B. Local government shall "have established an adequate and qualified
hisioric preseivation review comaission by State or local legis-
lation".
I. The local government shall have created a heritage preserva-
tion commission (HPC) to carry out the provisions of the
ordinance.
2. pPC membership shall be drawn frompersohs wIth demonstrated
interest and/or expertise in histclric_preservAl:ion. If
available in the community, at least two members of the UPC
shall be preservation-related professionals (including the .
professions of history, architecture, architectural history,
archaeology, planning, real estate, design, building trades,
landscape architecture, or law). For the purposes of com-
mission membership as described in this section, the pro-
fessional standards stipulated in Appendix A need not be met.
One member of the HPC must be a designated representative of
the county historical society in which the commission is
located, if available, pursuant to the Ninnesota Statutes
13471.193 Subd. 5.
Specific disciplines and professional qualifications must be
represented on the commission (or professional expertise must
be sought) when considering National Register nominations (see
1.3.C.) and other actions that will impact properties which
are normally evaluated by a professional in such a discipline.
1. The UPC's responsibilities regardingjocal_designation of
properties and building peraneview are mentioned in 1.A.2.
and I.A.3. above. Federal law prescribes that the commission
participate in the National Register nomination process as
follows:
a. Before a property within the jurisdiction of the cer-
tified local government may be considered by the State to
be nominated to the Secretary for inclusion on the
National Register, the SHP° shall notify the owner, the
applicable chief local elected official, and the local
PPC. The HPC, after reasonable opportunity for public
comment, shall prepare a report as to whether or not such
property, in its opinion, meets the criteria of the
National Register. Within sixty days of notice from the
SHPO, the chief local elected official shall transmit the
report of the commission and his/her recommendation to
the SHPO. Except as provided below, after receipt of
such report and recommendation, or if no such report and
recommendation are received within sixty days, the State
shall make the nomination pursuant to established pro-
cedures. The State may expedite such process with the
concurrence of the certified local government.
(3)
If the BPC chooses to initiate the nomination of a pro-
perty to the National Register and submits that nomina-
tion to the SHPO, the UPC may include the comments of the
chief local elected official and the flPC with the initial
submittal to the WO, along with a request that the 60
day comment period fur CLG's be waived. In such cases,
the SHP° will give the standard required 10 days notice
to both the property owner(s) and the local government of
the State Review Board meeting. The requireu 60 day CLG
review period may thus be waived.
b. If both the commission and the chief local elected offitial
recommend that a property not be nominated to the National
Register, the SHP° shall take so further action, unless
within thirty days of the receipt of such recommendation
by the SUM an appeal is filed with the State. If such
an appeal is filed, the State shall follow the procedures
for making a nomination pursuant to established procedures.
Any report and recommendations made under this section
shall be included with any nomination submitted by the
State to the Secretary of the Interior.
c. All nominations, when sent by the SHP() to the CLC for
commit, will be classified as primarily historic,
archaeological, and/or architectural in nature. If an
HPC does not have professional expertise in accordance
with the necessary federal qualifications in the appro-
priate area(s). 1 (see Appendix A), the HPC can 1) choose
not to comment on that nomination through the CLG review
process (in which case it should advise the SHP° of that
choice), or 2) obtain the opinion(s) of a qualified
professional or qualified professionals in the subject
area and consider the opinion(s) in their recommendation.
Under 2), both the credentials and the opinion(s) of the
consulted professional(s) should be submitted to the SOO
with the CLG recommendation. Even if the local govern-
ment chooses not to comment under the CLG process out-
lined above (for example, when professional expertise is
not available), comments on a nomination may be submitted
to the SHP° in as much as any interested party may submit
comments. The provisions of 1.b. above, however, would
not apply in such cases. The SHIT can provide assistance
in locating peofessionals in the various disciplines.
1 For an architectural nomination, the commission must have a
m
e
m
b
e
r
w
h
o
qualifies under the federal architectural history or hlatori
c
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
standards. For a history nomination, the connission
mim;i: have a member who qualifies under the federal history standards. For an a
r
c
h
a
e
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
nomination, the commission must have a member who qualifies
u
n
d
e
r
t
h
e
federal archaeology standards. If a nomination is classified
i
n
more than one area, the commission must have expertise in all app
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
areas in order to comment through the CLG comment process.
(4)
4. Federal guidelines also require that the unit of government
and the HPC possess certain financial qualifications in order
to receive federal pass-through funds. These will be ex-
plained in Section IV.
5. The functions of the MPG must be complimentary to and carried
out in coordination with the responsibilities of the SHP° as
defined in 36 CFR 61.3 (see Appendix B).
C. The local government "maintains a system for the survey and in-
ventory of historic properties".
1. The local government must carry out a systemaliic and con-
tinuing method of inventorying historic properties. This
survey information must be clearly organized and accessible to
the public. The SHP° should be consulted in the initial
development of such a system, and the inventory forms of the
SHP° should be used or, alternatively, local inventory forms
should be approved by the SHPO. The local inventory should
clearly indicate those properties which have been designated
locally as well as those listed on the National Register of
Historic Places.
2. The local government must submit a copy of the local inventory
form for each locally designated property and district to the
SHPO.
3. The local government must advise the SHPO on the status of the
local inventory on an annual basis (see E.2.e).
4. The local survey information submitted to the SHIT will be
integrated into the statewide inventory. The SHP0 may request
additional survey and inventory data from the local government
as part of the development of the state's comprehensive planning
process.
D. Local governments "provide for adequate public participation in the
local historic preservation programs, including the process of
recommending properties for nomination to the National Register."
1. All meetings of the commission shall adhere to the Minnesota
Open Meeting Law (Minnesota Statutes B471.705).
2. All National Register nominations on which the connission
chooses to comment (as outlined under I.B.3. above) must be
considered at an open meeting of the commission, with oppor-
tunity for public comment.
3. Both the local designation process and the building permit
review process (see I.A.2. and I.A.3.) must contain provision
for public comment on proposed actions.
(5)
4. All minutes of HPC meetings must be available for public
inspection during normal business hours.
E. Local government shall "satisfactorily perform the responsibilities
listed in points A-D above and those specifically delegated to it
under the Act by the Minnesota SHPO."
1. The local government will demonstrate performance of the
responsibilities listed in points A-D in an annual report to
be submitted to the SHIT by October 30 for each proceeding
year (October 1 - September 30).
2. This report must demonstrate an active commitment of the HPC
to an effective community preservation program. It should
contain, at minimum, the following information:
a. Number, names, and dates of local designations made
during the year. (Inventory forms on these sites should
have been submitted to the SHP() during the year as part
of the local designation process - see I.A.2.).
b. Number of building permits reviewed during the year, and
a summary of findings of the HPC on those reviewed.
c. Listing of members and officers of the HPC including
resumes for any new members, and an indication of the
commissioner who represents the county historical society.
d. Listing of 1) National Register nomination:: on which the
UPC has commented, and 2) National Register nominations
submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office for
nomination, during the year.
e. A summary of available inventory information currently
included in the local inventory. This might be done with
a simple listing of inventoried property addresses. Maps
and other material may also be useful. The location of
the inventory records should also be indicated.
f. Assurances that the HPC has adhered to: 1) the public
participation provisions as stipulated under Section D,
and 2) the procedures of the Division of Archives and
Manuscripts, Minnesota Historical Society, regarding
commission records.
g•
Descriptions of other activities, publications, etc.
undertaken by the HPC during the previous year and
planned by the HPC for the coming year.
(6)
3. l'he performance standards for the items listed in 1.5.2.,
above, will be as follows:
a. The UPC musi demonstrate an ongoing process of local
designation with a minimum of one designation a year.
(La situations where this may not be possible, as in very
small cities where the entire area of jurisdiction is
designated, the city should explain the reasons for a
lack of action.)
b. The HPC must show that all permits related to designated
properties are being reviewed, according to the procedure
set forth in the ordinance.
C. The requirements of Section I.B.2 must be met.
d. (Nu minimum.)
e. The inventory should be shown to be clearly organized and
accessible to the public.
f. (No minimum.)
5• (No minimum.)
4. At least one member of the UPC must attend a SHP0 statewide
HPC workshop each year. (If attendance at this workshop is
not possible, the SIM should be consulted for an alternate
.means of meeting this requirement.) Technical and other
information for commissions is available from the SUM
(7)
APPENDIX A
Apncodix A 1
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS STANDARDS
The following requirements are those used by the National Park
Service, and have been previously published in the Code of Federal
Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61. The qualifications define minimum
education and experience required to perform identification, evalu-
ation, registration, and treatment activities. In some cases,
additional areas or levels of expertise may be needed, depending on
the complexity of the task and the nature of the historic properties
involved. In the following definitions, a year of full-time profes-
sional experience need not consist of a continuous year of full-time
work but nsay be made up of discontinuous periods of full-time or
part-time work adding up to the equivalent of a year of full-time
experience.
History
The minimum professional qualifications in history are a grad-
uate degree in history or closely related field; or a bachelor's
degree in history or closely related field plus one of the following:
l. At least two years of full-time experience in research,
writing, teaching, interpretation, or other demonstrable
professional activity with an academic institution,
historic organization or agency, museum, or other pro-
fessional institution; or
2. Substantial contribution through research and publica-
tion to the body of scholarly knowledge in the field
of history.
Archeology
The minimum professional qualifications in archeology are a
graduate degree in archeology, anthropology, or closely related
field plus:
I. At least one year of full-time professional experi-
ence or equivalent specialized training in archeolog-
ical research, administration or management;
2. At least four months of supervised field and analytic
experience in general North American archeology; and
3. Demonstrated ability to carry research to completion.
In addition to these minimum qualifications, a professional in
prehistoric archeology shall have at least one year of full-time
professional experience at a supervisory level in the stmly of
archeological resources of the prehistoric period. A professional
Iii his archeology shall have at least one year of full-time
professional experience at a supervisory level in the study of
archeological resources of the historic period.
Appendix A .- 2
Architectural History
The minimum professional qualifications in architectural history
are a graduate degree in architectural history, art history, historic
preservation, or closely related field, with coursework in American
architectural history; or a bachelor's degree in architectural history,
art history, historic preservation or closely related field plus one
of the following:
1. At least two years of full-time experience in research,
writing, or teaching in American architectural history
or restoration architecture with an academic institution,
historic organization or agency, museum, or other
professional institution; or
2. Substantial contribution through research ant puhliea-
tion to the body of scholarly knowledge in the field
of American architectural history.
Architecture
The minimum professional qualifications in architecture are a
professional degree in architecture plus at least two years of
full-time experience iu architecture; or a State license to
practice architecture.
Historic Architecture
The minimum professional qualifications in historic architecture
are a professional degree in architecture or a State license to
practice architecture, plus one of the following:
1. At least one year of graduate study in architectural
history, preservation planning, or closely related
field; or
2. At least one year of full-time professional experi-
ence on historic preservation projects.
Such graduate study or experience shall include detailed inves-
tigations of historic structures, preparation of historic structures
research reports, and preparation of plans and specifications for
preservation projects.
APPEtIDIX B
Appendix B
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
The responsibilities of the State Historic Preservation Officer
are outlined in 36 CFR 61.3(b) as follows:
1. Direct and conduct a comprehensive statewide survey of
historic properties and maintain an inventory of such
properties;
2. Identify and nominate eligible properties to the
National Register of Historic Places and administer
other applications for the National Register;
1. Prepare and implement a comprehensive statewide
historic preservation planning process;
4. Administer the State program of Federal assistance
for historic preservation within the State;
5. Advise and assist Feueral, State, and local government
agencies in carrying out their historic preservation
responsibilities;
6. Cooperate with the Secretary, the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation, and other Federal, State and
local government agencies to insure that historic
properties are taken into consideration at all levels
of planning and development;
7. Provide public information, education, training, and
technical assistance relating to the National and
State historic preservation programs;
8. Cooperate with local governments in development of
local historic preservation programs and assist local
governments in becoming certified.
APPENDIX C
\ .
Appendix C
M
- 1
INNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY
OUNDE I) IN 1049
Rescalch Cenicf. 1500 Mississippi Street. St. Pito,. Minnesota 55101 • 11,12129eOMM
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECORDS
In the course of doing business each Historic Preservation Commis
s
i
o
n
generates records --the minutes, correspondence, maps, photographs, and
other files that document its activities.
Historic Preservation commissions are official units of the local
governments they serve, and their records are governed by the same
statute (M.S. 138.17) that governs all of Minnesota's government rec
o
r
d
s
.
Each commission carries out an important mission, and its records ar
e
valuable as primary sources of municipal, township, or county histo
r
y
,
as well as for their legal status as government records.
Historic Preservation Commission records may nut be destroyed or
transferred to any other agency, library, museum, or historical org
a
n
i
-
zation without the written permission of the State Archives at the
Minnesota Historical Society. The disposition of government record
s
i
s
outlined on the attached information sheet "Procedures for the Prope
r
Disposal of Government Records."
Minnesota Historical Society
Division of Archives and Manuscripts
1500 Mississippi Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
(612) 296-6980
Appendix C - 2
MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY
FOUNDED IN 1141 Research Cemer. 1500 AdIsSr•ss n pin 5I,cI. 51 Raul, AhrusesOla 55101 • 14153 2%49110
PROCEDURES FOR THE PROPER DISPOSAL OF GOVERNMENT RECORDS
Minnesota Statutes 138.17 governs the disposition of virtually all records of
state and local governmental units in Minnesota, except the Supreme Court and the
University of Minnesota. This statute is pre-eminent and takes precedence over any
prior or subsequent law unless that law is specifically exempted from 138.17.
1. Forms on which to apply for disposition of government records (called
PR-1 forms) may be obtained from the Division of Archives and Manuscripts
(DAM), Minnesota Historical Society, 1500 Mississippi Street, St. Paul,
MN 55101 (tel: 612-296-6980). It is the agency's responsibility to
list the titles, dates, and quantities of records to be disposed and to
return the form to DAM. DAM will secure the necessary signatures and
return the form to the agency.
2. It is then the agency's responsibility to destroy the records, if des-
truction is authorized; to arrange for transfer to the State Archives,
if so required; or to continue to maintain records, if so stated for
legal, fiscal, or historical reasons.
3. No specific method of destruction is prescribed. Local ordinances may
dictate what procedures must be followed. Recycling or incineration
is preferred, but burial in a landfill may be the only acceptable
alternative. Caution should be used in the destruction of any records,
especially those that contain confidential data.
4. Records having permanent historical or archival value will not be author-
ized for disposal. These records may be accepted into the State Archives
in DAM for permanent preservation. Staff members of DAM are available to
viAit the agency and consult with officials about which records may be
transferred to the Archives. No records may be transferred to any local
historical society, public library, museum, or other agency without written
permission of the State Archivist.
5. DAM will provide necessary boxes and packing instructions for records
designated for transfer to the State Archives, and will arrange for the
physical transfer in cooperation with the agency.
6. Microfilming of records does not automatically permit destruction of
the originals. Permission from DAM is required before the originals of
microfilmed records may be destroyed. If the records to be filmed are
designated permanent and archival the film must meet technical standards
established by DAM. The film must be tested by DAM before any permis-
sion to destroy the originals will be granted. Information on standards
and filming procedures is available from DAM.
Appendix C - 3
( .ocedures for the Proper Disposal of Government Records (cont.)
7. To avoid periodic requests Co dispose of similar records, agencies
should consider adopting a records retention schedule. An approved
schedule permits the regular disposition of certain types of records
without completing an "Application to Dispose of Public Records"
(PR-1 form). An annual listing of the types, dates, awl quatities
of records disposed according to schedules must be flied with the
State Archivist. Further information on Records Retention Schedules
can be obtained from the Records Management Division, Department of
Administration, 7th Fluor, 333 Sibley Street, St. Paul, MN 55101
(tel: 612-296-3122).
8. Disposition regulation applies to agency records regardless of data
privacy classification. The term "government records," as defined
by M.S. 138.17, includes records to which access may be restricted
by statute or administrative rule.
DAM: 1982
g'34
APPENDIX D
-,
,
Aopendi
State Fatah) lug Legislation for Heritage Preservat ion Commissions
(IS coin 151I5 Minnesota Statutes)
471,193 NIIJNICIPAL HERITAGE PRESERVATION.
Subdivision I. Policy. The legislature finds that the hiitorical, architectural,
archaeological, engineering. and cultural heritage of this state is among its most
importaut assets. Therefore, the put pose uf this section is to authorize local
governing bodies to engage in a comprehensive program of historic preservation, and
to promote the use and conservation uf historic properties for the education.
inspiration, pleasure, and enrichment of the citizens of this state.
Sybil. 2. heritage preservation commissions. The governing body of a statu.
tory or Ironic rule chatter city, county, or town as described in section 368.01,
subdivisions I and 1,1 may establish a heritage preservation commission to preset Sc
and moinote its historic resources according to this section. •
Subd. 3. Powers. The powers and duties of any commission established
imrsuant to this section may include arty power possessed by the political subdivision
creating the commission, but shall be those delegated or assigned by the ordinance
establishing the commission. These powers may include:
(I) the survey and designation of districts, sites, buildings. structures, and
objects that are of historical. architectuial, archaeological, engineering, or cultural
significance;
(2) the enactment of rules pose t o ng construction, alteration, demolition, and
use. including the review of building permits. and the adoption or other measures
apptopriate for the preservation. protection, and perpetuation of designated proper-
ties and areas;
(3) the acquisition try purchase, gift, or bequest, of a fee or lesser interest,
including preset vat ion restrictions, in designated properties and adjacent or associat-
ed lands which are important for the preservation and use or the designated
propel ties;
(4) requests to the politierd <otolivision to use its power of eminent clornain to
maintain or preserve designated properties and adjacent or associated lands;
(5) the sale or lease of air rights;
(6) the granting of use variations to a zoning ordinance;
(7) participation in the conduct of land use, urban renewal, and other planning
processes undertaken by the political subdivision creating the commission; and
(8) the removal of blighting influences, including signs. uosightly structures, and
debris, incompatible with the physical well.being of designated properties or areas.
Islo power shall he exercised by a commission which coon:11y to slaty law Of
denied a political subdivision by its chatter or by law. Powers of a commission shall
be exercised only in the in:miser prescribed by ordinance and lio action of a
ordinance unless expressly ant lici ized by ordinance.
Suits. 4. Exclusion. If a commission is established by the city of St. Paul, it
shell for the purpose of tIns section exclude any jurisdiction over the capitol area as
defined in section 15.50, subdivision 2.
Sub& 5. Commission members. C01111111 ,5i011 members must be pustnis with
demonstrated interest arid e‘pertise III historic preservation and must reside within
the political subdivision regulated by the Of11111311Ce establishing the commission.
Es-ety commissiiin shall include, if available, a member of a county historical society
of a county iii which the inuitielpality is located.
Subd. 6. Communication with the state historic preservation officer. Proposed
site designations and design guidcli:ws must be sent to the state historic preservation
officer at the Nlionesoca historical society, who shall review and comment on the
ploposal within 00 days 13y October 31 ()leach year, each commission shall submit
an aumial ieput t to the state historic preservation officer. The report must
Slitilill;1117e tile CO1111111St1011 .5 activities, includilig designations, ITVICWS. and other
activities dining the previous 12 months.
History: 11).55 c 7/a 1
APPENDIX E
APPENDIX E - I
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S STANDARDS FOR RD IABILITATION
The Secretary of the interior is responsible for establishing standards for all
programs under Departmental authority and for advising Federal agencies on the
preservation of historic properies listed or eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places. In partial fulfillment of this responsibility, the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation Projects have been
developed to direct work undertaken on historic buildings.
Initially used by the Secretary of the Interior in determining the applicability of
proposed project work on registered properties within the Historic Preservation Fund
grant-in-aid program, the Standards for Historic Preservation Projects have received
extensive testing over the years—more than 6,000 acquisition and development
projects were approved for a variety of work treatments. In addition, the Standards
have been used by Federal agencies in carrying out their historic preservation
responsibilities for properties in Federal ownership or control; and by State and local
officials in the review of both Federal and nonfederal rehabilitation proposals. They
have also been adopted by a number of historic district and planning commissions
across the country.
The Standards for Rehabilitation (36 CFR 67) comprise that section of the overall
historic preservation project standards addressing the most prevalent treatment
today: Rehabilitation. "Rehabilitation" is defined as the process of returning a
property to a state of utility, through repair or alteration, which makes possible an
efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions and features of the
property which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values.
The Standards for Rehabilitation are as follows:
1. Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a property
which requires minimal alteration of the building, structure, or site and its
environment, or to use d property for its originally intended purpose.
2. The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure, or site
and its environment shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic
material or distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible.
3. All buildings, structures, and sites shall be recognized as products of their own
time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier
appearance shall be discouraged.
4. Changes which may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the
history and development of a building, structure, or site and its environment. These
changes may have acquired significance in their own right, and this significance shAll
be recognized and respected.
APPENDIX E - 2
5. Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship which
characterize a building, structure, or site shall be treated with sensitivity.
6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced,
wherever possible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should
match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture, and other
visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should he
based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical, or
pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different
architectural elements from other buildings or structures.
7. The surface cleaning of structures shall be undertaken with the gentlest means
possible. Sandblasting and other cleaning methods that will damage the historic
building materials shall not be undertaken.
8. Every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and preserve archeological
resources affected by, or adjacent to any project.
9. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not
be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant
historical, architectural or cultural material, and such design is compatible with the
size, scale, color, material, and character of the property, neighborhood or
environment.
10. Wherever possible, new additions or alterations to structures shall be done in
such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future,
the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired.
In the past several years, the most frequent use of the Secretary's "Standards for
Rehabilitation" has been to determine if a rehabilitation project qualifies as a
"certified rehabilitation" pursuant to the Tax Reform Act of 1976, the Revenue Act
of 1978, and the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, as amended. The Secretary is
required by law to certify rehabilitations that are "consistent with the historic
character of the structure or the district in which it is located." The Standards are
used to evaluate whether the historic character of a building is preserved in the
process of rehabilitation. Between 1976 and 1982 over 5,000 projects were reviewed
and approved under the Preservation Tax Incentives program.
As stated in the definition, the treatment "Rehabilitation" assumes that at least
some repair or alteration of the historic building will need to take place in order to
provide for an efficient contemporary use; however these repairs and alterations
must not damage or destroy the materials and features—including their finishes—that
are important in defining the building's historic character.
APPENDIX E - 3
In terms of specific project work, preservation of the building and its historic
character is based on the assumption that (1) the historic materials and features and
their unique craftsmanship are of primary importance and that (2), in consequence
they will be retained, protected, and repaired in the process of rehabilitation to the
greatest extent possible, not removed and replaced with materials and features
which appear to be historic, but which are—in fact--new.
To best achieve these preservation goals, a two-part evaluation needs to be applied
by qualified historic preservation professionals for each project as follows: first, a .
particular property's materials and features which are important in defining its
historic character should be identified. Examples may include a building's walls,
cornice, window sash and frames and roof; rooms, hallways, stairs, and mantels; or a
site's walkways, fences, and gardens. The second part of the evaluation should
consist of assessing the potential impact of the work necessary to make possible an
efficient contemporary use. A basic assumption in this process is that the historic
character of each property is unique and therefore proposed rehabilitation work will
necessarily have a different effect on each property; in other words, what may be
acceptable for one project may be unacceptable for another. However, the
requirement set forth in the definition of "Rehabilitation" is always the same for
every project: those portions and features of the property which are significant to
its historic, architectural, and cultural values must be preserved in the process of
rehabilitation. To accomplish this, all ten of the Secretary of the Interior's
"Standards for Rehabilitation" must be met.
For further discussion see:
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation
and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Prepared
by the Preservation Assistance Division of the National
Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Published
by the U.S. Government Printing Office : 1983 - 416-688.
Copies available from the Minnesota SHPO.
CAMERA OPERATOR'S CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the microphotographs appearing on this roll of film are true,
accurate, and complete copies of the original records described below.
Reproductions intended to serve as permanent records comply with standards
established by the Minnesota Historical Society.
AGENCY OF ORIGIN:
RECORD SERIES:
INCLUSIVE DATES/NOS:
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
COUNCIL PACKETS
JANUARY 1977 - DECEMBER 1991
ROLL
18
BEGINS WITH:
ENDS WITH:
2/10/94
MARCH 1990
SEPTEMBER 1990
thea 1(7 'i naa)—
CAME OPERA OR S SIGNATURE DATE
CMI
CONCEPT MICRO IMAGING MINNETONKA. MN
PRODUCING LABORATORY CITY/STATE