HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 10/02/1990TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1990
COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY COUNCIL STAFF:
AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
7:30 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7600 Executive Drive
Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, Jean
Harris, Patricia Pidcock and Douglas Tenpas
City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the
City Manager Craig Dawson, City Attorney Roger
Pauly, Finance Director John D. Frane, Director
of 'Ianning Chris Enger, Director of Parks,
Recreation & Natural Resources Robert Lambert,
Director of Public Works Gene Dietz, and
Recording Secretary Roberta Wick
PLEDGE OF A'LEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
II. MINUTES
A. Special City Council Meeting held Thsday, September 13 1990 Page 2339
III CONSENT LALENDAR
A. Clerk's License List
B. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 35-90 - Amending Distribution of Page 2236
Eii-vfi5Tiambling Proceeds
C. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 30-90 - Composting Ordinance Page 2346
D. Resolution No. 90-225, Appointing Election Judges to Serve at the Page 2350
General Election to be held November 1990
E. PRESERVE SOUTH by BRW, Inc. Resolution (Resolution Page 2354
No. 90-246 - Denying 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 17-89-PUD-4-89 -
Proje't Withdrawn)
F. Award Contract for Southwest Area Sanitary Sewer, I.C. 52-197 and Page 2356
I.C. 52-198 (Resolution No. 90-248)
G. Approve Final Plat for Fairfield of Eden Prairie 3rd Addition Page 2359
-(-1c.IFed west of County Road 4 and north of Cedar Ridge Elementary
(
School Resolution No. 96:249T
Page 2345
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 1990 ASSESSMENT HEARING (Resolution No. 90-242) Continued Public
Hearing from September 18, 1990
B. HED UIST ADDITION by Don Hedguist. Request for Preliminary Plat
on 3. acres into 5 single family lots and road right-of-way with
variances for lot frontage on a public road to be reviewed by the
Board of Appeals. Location: 12900 Gerard Drive. (Resolution
No. 90-247 - preliminary Plat)
Page 2248
Page 2362
City Council Agenda - 2 - Tues.,October 2, 1990
C. PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE ISSUANCE OF APPROXIMATELY $6,000,000 IN
REFUNDING BONDS FOR EDEN COMMONS APARTMENTS PROJECT (Resolution No.
90-252)
D. FINAL APPROVAL FOR $14,850,000 IN REFUNDING BONDS FOR WELSH Page 2411
PARKWAY APARTMERTS. (Resolution N. 90-253)
V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Page 2419
VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
A. Resolution No. 90:251„ to Recommend to the Supreme Court Advisory Page 2420
Committee on thi-Rules of Criminal Procedure to Rescind the
Amendments to Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure 8.04 and 11.07
VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Request from Rottlund Development Residents regarding Trailway Page 2432
System on Kimberly Lane and Traffic Affecting Evener Way and
Kimberly Lane (Continued from September 4, 1990)---
B. Request from Lariat Center Merchants Association Regarding In/Out Page 2439
Access to Lariat Center
C. Approve Grading Plan for Edenvale Golf Course Page 2441
VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
A. Waste Management Commission - Multi-Family Recycling Page 2442
B. Human Rights & Services Commission - Martin Luther King, Jr.
Celebration Event Committee Report
IX. APPOINTMENTS
X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Councilmembers
1. Set Tuesday, October 9 1990 at 7:30 PM for Joint City Council/
Watershed District Meeting
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
1. Eurasion Watermilfoil Management Program Page 2443
F. Report of Finance Director
G. Report of Director of Public Works
I. Award Contract for Lime Sludge Removal and Disposal, I.C.
57:708 --TRIOTTUFTwill-67 50-250)
XI. NEW BUSINESS
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Page 2409
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
SPECIAL EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 13,1990
COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY COUNCIL STAFF:
5:u0 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7600 Executive Drive
Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson,
Jean Harris. Patricia Pidcock and
Douglas Tenpas
City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant
to the City Manager Craig Dawson,
Finance Director John D. Frane, and
Recording Secretary Jan Nelson
I. CALL TO ORDER/RO ,L CALL,
Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order. Al: members were
present.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Councilmember Pidcock requested that an item regarding the
Landfill Advisory Committee be added to item V., Other Business.
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to accept the
Agenda as published and amended. Motion carried unanimously.
III. PRULATATION OF RESU7TS OF_C:
RESOURCES. LTD
City Manager Jullie introduced Bill Morris and Diane Traxler of
Decision Resources.
Bill Morris reviewed the results of the residential and business
surveys pc formed by Decision Resources. He said the residential
survey was based on 403 randomly-selected households. He
reviewed seven key findings resulting from the survey:
1. This is "Gold C ilar" community—affluent, well-educated and
very white collar.
2. The City is very fiscally conservative on financial matters-
-54% said they would oppose a property tax increase to maintain
the 'current level of city services. Of those surveyed, 70%
considered their property taxes to be either relatively high or
excessively high.
3. This is a community of ardent environmentalists. Fifty-two
percent said top priority should be given to the blending of new
development with the natural beauty of the area. When asked what
City Council Meeting September 13, 1990
they liked most about the Eden Prairie, 41% answered in terms of
the natural beauty and environment of the City.
4. Respondents tended to favor "balanced or quality
development" with some concern expressed about the pace of
development. Very few were opposed to development. About 76%
consider development in the community to be well-planned.
5. Most City services rated above 80% in terms of excellent and
good designation. The only service receiving a moderate level of
criticism was street repair and maintenance. Street lighting and
property valuation and assessment were raised as issues by some
of the respondents.
6. A majority of those surveyed support the concept of a City
newsletter. There was a low level of knowledge about what the
Mayor and the City Council are doing; however, the name
recognition of the Mayo: and Councilmembers was very high.
7. There was a general sense of optimism about the future. The
quality of life was considered excellent or good by 98% of the
respondents.
Mr. Morris reviewed the findings of the Business Community
survey. He said there was, by and large. very little difference
between the business community and the residents. Business
owners and managers are even stronger fiscal conservatives than
residents. There were fewer business respondents who offered
opinions on City services. There was less contact with City Hall
and 1/3 were dissatisfied with their contact with the City.
There was support for a downtown area, along with strong support
for a Post Office in the downtown area.
Harris expressed surprise at the information starvation Zindings.
She said she would be willing to try a newsletter but she would
also want a survey done to see how useful it was.
Tenpas asked if people respond more to highlights of programs
than details. Morris said that they definitely do.
Anderson asked if he was talking newsletter or communications.
Morris said they asked specifically about a newsletter and 54%
said they would like to see one. Anderson said we have budgeted
for cable television coverage of Council meetings and asked if
that was discussed. Morris said those surveyed were asked if
they took cable television. He said in other communities that
televise City meetings, the newsletter tends to be the primary
source of information about the City.
Anderson said he was concerned about hiring staff for either
cable television production or newsletter production. Director
of Human Resources Natalie Swaggert said they have a need for
internal communication within City Hall that would compliment the
production of the suggested City newsletter. Morris said 49% of
the respondents said they would be likely to read a City
City Council Meeting September 13, :990
newsletter: whereas only 9% said they would be likely to watch a
cable broadcast.
Pidcock asked how the buciness eommunity responded to the idea of
a newsletter. Morris said they did not test that issue with the
business coemunity.
Peterson asked if the opposition was to increasing taxes in order
to continue services on to improve services. Morris said the
question was to continue the current services.
Peterson asked if there seemed to be a connection made between
the growing population and the requirement for additional
facilities to accommodate that population. Morris said that
connection does not seem to be made by most respondents.
Harris asked if respondents were aware of how their tax dollar is
distributed. Morris said those surveyed were asked what percent
they thought went to the City, and 40% said 10-20%.
Harris asked shout the new requirements to identify the level of
tax authority. Jullie said the notice of the hearing will
include the proposed levy by agency, what it was last year and
the percent increase. He said he thought that will still be
misleading as It does not tell the homeowner what the change in
his tax bill will be. He said the following year it will be
pareel-eoecifle so that nroperty owners will know exactly the
impact on their property.
Anderson said he thought it was important to explain to the
publie how ouch, is being spent and on what.
Peterson asked if it would be possible to include a mailing with
the tax notices that would explain more about the taxes. Jullie
said the notices come from Hennepin County but we could send a
separate notice. Pidcock said she thought it would be more
effective coming in the same envelope. Jullie said he would
check it out.
Tenpas said he thought the dissatisfaction with the City's
property valuation and assessment occurs in cc:relation with the
feeling that the property taxes are too high.
Harris said he is concerned that there is no easy solution to
the comments regarding the traffic problem. Peterson asked if
the questions focused on Inter-city or intra-city transportation.
Morris said It was a oomposito of both.
Tenpas asked if the traffic problems are related to major
highways or just to internal streets. Morris said the
frustration seems to center on the major highways and arteries.
Anderson said he thinks the problein has moved to Highway 494
since the flow of traffic through the community has been improved
as a result of the improvements to Highway 5 and other roadways.
city Ccuncil Meeting 4 September 23, 1990
Pidcock said the Regional Transit Board is talking about bus
service along 494 and the Bloomington strip.
Assistant to the City Manager Dawson asked if there are any other
communities in the :retropolitan area that are considered gold
collar or whose surveys have produced similar responses. MCY::12
said there is no identical comparison. He said the responses
regarding the environment are very similar to those from
Shoreview residents and the fiscal conservatism is similar to
Plymouth.
Tenpas said he thought the survey was very informative and he
would hope to continue to do this periodically. Pidcock said she
thought the survey gives the pulse of the community.
Morris said he will deal with action steps in the final report
where the numbers are broken down by regions, longevity of
residence. etc. He said there is an immediate need to deal with
the communication issue. He said they recommend doing such a
survey every three years, or every two years in rapidly growing
communities.
Anderson said he was pleased
quality of life in the City.
he overall high rating of the
IV. ZIeLCU1S.;;C:1,_ OF C2TY :LF-SLI.L ele;0130R OPERATIONS
Peterson noted that we are in the liquor business and asked how
much income was generated last year. Finance Director John Frane
said it generated 8145.000 in income last year.
Pidcock said she thought we should not be in the business. but
51% of the community approves of it.
Anderson said the community did vote for the liquor operations,
and he would vote to change it only if the issue was voted down
on another ballot.
Tenpas said he saw so need to change because of the 51% in favor
of the business and because the loss of income would probably
require a tax boost to compensate. He said we should take a look
at how to make the operations more profitable.
Harris said she agreed. She noted that there is a hard
opposition base of 20%, which means that 80% are comfortable with
the continued operation. Che said she looks on it as a way to
control the potential proliferatica of such businesses.
Tenpas asked what the gross sales were. Frane said they were
$2.5 million, but we will do better this year because sales at
the Prairie Village Mall location were off last year due to the
construction.
Anderson noted that he did not think the two locations are the
best places for liquor stores. Frane said staff had previously
discussed with the Council the hiring of a consultant to do a
city Cour.cil Meeting September 1C, Ic.P:1C
study, but the hirinc was placed on hold. He said it would cost
$15,000 to do a good study on it.
Tenpas said we know where the retail areas are :nth:s community
and we should ::ut i;1 the major center area. He said he
thought the Preserve Center location should be moved.
Discussion fdllowed regarding alternative sites for the current
stores and locations that might added.
Tenpas asked if S15.000 was the best price for such a consultant.
Franc said he is the best one for the job, based on
recommendations from other cities.
MOTION: Tenpas moved, seconded by Harris, to hire a consultant
to evaluate the City .-luor operations. Motion carried
unanimously.
V. OTHER =US -7.C.7
A. Advisory committe
Pidcock asked if the Council would consider giving plaques or
certificates to those reople who served on the Landfill Advisory
Committee.
Cullie said he thought framed certificates would be acceptable
and less costly than plaques.
Tenpas said he had a problem with giving them something and
thought some kind of special event might be more appropriate.
Pidoock said the oeople gave their time and effort on the project
and she thought they deserve recognition.
Anderson said he thought we had started a tradition of awarding
certificates for efforts in the community. He said he would go
along with awarding certificates, but not plaques because of the
expense.
Tenpas said there may be others who contributed to the effort but
who did not serve on the committee. Anderson said this has been
an issue sH.n..:e 1932 and he wouldn't want to overlook someone.
Harris said she had no problem with recognition. but would not
want to limit it.
Pidcock said we gave Susan Varlamoff a key to the City and a
certificate for her efforts when she left, and these people have
consistently given their time and efforts also.
Pidcock said the last meeting is scheduled for October 5th. She
thought it would he appropriate to give them certificates at the
meeting in gratitude for their participation.
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to give
certificates to the members of the Landfill Advisory Committee.
J:4
7
City Council Meeting 6 September 13, 1990
Tenpas said he would like to have staff put some thought into
this to come up with some special appreciation for all those
involved.
VOTE ON THE NO T ION: Motion carried unanimously.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Tenpas moved, seconded by Pidcock, to adjourn the
meeting at 6:33 PM. Motion carried unanimously.
LkA-Id
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST
October 2, 1990
CONTRACTOR (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM.)
Kubuki Restaurant
Moynihan Homes, inc.
Y. R. Sharp, Inc.
CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 FAMILY)
By George Design
First Choice Exteriors
Gardner Bros. Construction
MN. Craft Masters Coast.
Roto-Rooter
GAS FITTERS
Area Mechanical, Inc.
Schwab-Vollhaber-Lubratt
PLUMBING
Don Broil
Wayne Dauwalter Plumbing
Dan G. Johnson Plumbing
Plumber Teds
TEMPORARY LIQUOR
Eden Prairie Lions (Oct. 7, 1990)
PEDDLER
Jerome Held (couoon books)
Sean Pieropan (coupon books
These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for
the licensed activity.
) .
Pat Solie
Licensing
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 30-90
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
AMENDING CITY CODE CIIAPTER 9, SECTION 9.01 TO
INCLUDE NEW DEFINITIONS AND REGULATIONS FOR THE STORAGE
AND DEPOSIT OF YARD WASTE 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. I. 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 aim
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. "Garden" - Ground area for cultivation of flowers, vegetables and shrubs.
E. "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.
F. "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
1
• •.
other waste products, except yard waste, human waste or waste resulting from building
construction or demolition.
G. "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.
H. "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 "dumpsters" 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.
G. Yard waste may occupy a designated garden provided the yard waste does not
exceed six inches in height.
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.
2
I. 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;
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 Codt. 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 meting 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
3
I
Storage and Deposit of
Refuse and Yard Waste
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
COMPOST, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND
SECTION 9.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY
PROVISIONS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Summary: This Ordinance describes terms and conditions related to the storage
and deposit of refuse and yard waste within all zoning district.
Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication.
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the 6th day of September, 1990.
(A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.)
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 90-225
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie that
the following persons have agreed to serve as election judges and ar
e
appointed for the General Election to be held on November 6, 1990.
PRECINCT IA
Janet Dahlke
Ruth Ehlen
Ken Hookom
Lydia Martinson
Philip Olson
JoAnn Wronski **
PRECINCT IB
Judith Baker **
Dolores Brown
Anne !lawkins
William Jellison
Florence McMahon
Caroline Nelson
PRECINCT 2
Roberta Bronson
Loretta Ellison
Allene Hookom
Delores Klein
Irene Meyers
Kathleen Porta **
KING OF GLORY LUTHERAN CHURCH
17850-Thil5-51(IriFiTiT-
6961 Ticonderoga Trail
6630 Lochanburn Road
16741 Prairie Lane
8317 Red Rock Road
18543 Harrogate Drive
6630 Tartan Curve
EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY CENTER
16700 Valley View Road
7113 Muirfield Lane
7260 Tartan Curve
18099 South Shore Lane West
9560 Highview Drive
15739 Cedar Ridge Road
16300 Hilltop Road
6236 County Road 4
16920 South Shore Lane
16741 Prairie Lane
15701 North Lund Road
15628 South Eden Drive
15612 Sunset Circle
934-1708
934-4464
934-9464
934-2550
937-8787
934-5353
934-4226
937-8727
937-2153
934-0848
934-2253
934-0934
937-8741
937-8941
934-9070
934-3060
934-2550
934-9124
' 934-2850
934-6634
EDEN PRAIRIE ASSEMBLY OF GOO CHURCH
17171 Duck Lake Trail 934-2327
PRECINCT 3 EDEN PRAIRIE EVANGELICAL FREE CHURCH
17200 Valley View Road
937-9593
Fay Clark **
Nancy Fiorentino
Ann Hagen
Eileen Peterson
Mary Upton
Ethyl Wokasch
7392 Ontario Boulevard
16268 Edenwood Drive
16185 Edenwood Drive
16257 Edenwood Drive
16163 Edenwood Drive
15129 Lesley Lane
934-4460
937-8344
937-1610
937-2935
937-2938
937-8802
Res. No. 90-225
Page 2
PRECINCT 4
Priscilla Bailey
Cheryl Bridge
Gertrude Dahlberg
Jean Lee
Ruth Mital **
Catherine Rue
Alice Schultz
PRECINCT 5A
Leota Hales
June Hanson
Bernice Holasek
Joyce Myhre **
Alfred Nelson
Melody Villars
PRECINCT 5B
Shirley Carlon
Laverne Hales
Elaine Jacques
Shirley Jellison **
David Knaak
PRECINCT 6
Betty Fritz
Virginia Gartner **
Jinny Gibson
Kathlyn Nicholson
Dorothy Schwartz
Marie Wittenberg
Barbara Zupan
PRECINCT 7A
Adeline Bramwell **
Louise Doughty
Bonnie Helfand
Lyle Johnston
Laurie Pennebaker
Elaine Udstuen
ST. ANDREW LUTHERAN CHURCH
14100 Valley View Road
6950 Mariann Drive
7272 Gerard Drive
6319 St. John's Drive
13231 Kerry Lane
12762 Gordon Drive
6321 St. John's Drive
6325 St. John's Drive
IMMANUEL LUTHERAN CHURCH
16515 Luther Way
7946 Island Road
15711 Summit Drive
10020 Dell Road
15011 Summerhill Drive
16300 Hilltop Road
7616 Carnelian Lane
IMMANUEL LUTHERAN CHURCH
16515 Luther Way
7900 Timber Lake Drive, #215
7946 Island Road
9021 Riley Lake Road
9560 Highview Drive
7935 South Bay Curve
8226 Tamarack Trail
15769 Cedar Ridge Road
15776 Cedar Ridge Road
16201 Hilltop Road
15051 Scenic Heights Rpad
9880 Crestwood Terrace
8210 Hiawatha Circle
NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH
17101 Roberts Drive
14329 Fairway Drive
13200 Roberts Drive
15476 Village Woods Drive
8621 Basswood Road, #18
7284 Prairie View Drive
12774 Gordon Drive
937-2776
937-8885
941-8104
937-1299
937-1097
944-3481
937-1293
937-8171
937-8123
934-1746
937-8278
934-1185
937-2815
937-8941
934-0448
937-8123
934-2966
934-1746
445-1961
934-0934
934-0324
937-2480
937-1595
937-1374
937-1928
937-2289
934-0961
937-2488
941-7290
937-8987
941-2337
934-6704
944-9308
937-2623
941-3653
EDEN PRAIRIE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
15050 ScenicHeignts Road 937-8781
Res. No. 90-225
Page 3
PRECINCT 78
Connie Blad
Juliet Gleason
Viola McLain
Carole Meidinger
Dianne Prentice
Jim Rannow **
Bernice Sandness
PRECINCT 8
Rosalee Dwyer
Pauline Johnston
Marion Nesbitt
Bud Schwartz
Carole Sheridan
Barb Vanderploeg **
PRECINCT 9A
Leone Barta
Bernadine Beauvais
Barbara Cail **
Ann Cheatham
Nancy Little
Linda Rudberg
PRECINCT 98
Jeanne Brandt **
Rhoda Haas
Cherie Hansen
Carol Hegge
Isabell Iverson
Betty Schaitberger
ALTERNATES
Mary Boll
Geva Lou Severinson
HENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE
9200 Flying Cloud Drive
14315 Sorrel Way
8633 Darnel Road
14224 Chestnut Drive
15683 Cedar Ridge Road
9653 Crestwood Terrace
16316 Lincoln Lane
635 Prairie Center Drive, #217
EDEN PRAIRIE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
11609 Leona Road
8651 Basswood Road, #202
8621 Basswood Road, #18
8701 Black Maple Drive
15051 Scenic Heights Road
8908 Neill Lake Road, #F
8735 Leeward Circle
PAX CHRISTI CATHOLIC CHURCH
MOO Pioneer 17 7a7—
10065 Pioneer Trail
10285 Amsden Way
9205 Talus Circle
9236 Amsden Way
9450 Aspen Circle
10911 Jackson Drive
PAX CHRISTI CATHOLIC CHURCH
UTOO Pionee7 —TiFiTir
12300 Riverview Road
9955 Pioneer Trail
9445 Aspen Circle
10015 Pioneer Trail
12135 Oxbow Drive
12880 Pioneer Trail
8705 Westwind Circle
17684 Evener Way
944-9993
949-0500
944-6154
937-1798
937-2840
937-9083
937-8237
942-8013
941-2521
944-1354
944-9308
941-2387
937-2289
944-6643
941-5363
941-3150
944-1551
941-8152
941-5140
941-8592
944-2437
941-6977
941-3150
941-3316
944-2449
941-8690
941-2707
941-7465
941-1451
941-6306
937-0136
** Denotes head judge
Res. No. 90-225
Page 4
ADOPTED BY the Eden Prairie City Council on this 2nd day of October 1990.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
Preserve South
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #90-246
A RESOLUTION DENYING SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE I7-89-PUD-4-89
FOR THE PROPOSED PRESERVE SOUTH DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 17-89-PUD-4-89, authorizing first reading of a rezoning of
property for the proposed Preserve South, did receive first reading by the City Council at a
regular meeting on Junq 6, 1989; and,
WHEREAS, proponents for the development of Preserve South by Ed Flaherty have not,
since that date, completed the nececsary steps for finalizing the development as was reviewed by
the City at the time of first reading; and,
WHEREAS, owner of the property, Ed Flaherty, has requested that the development
proposal for Preserve South be withdrawn, and, therefore, that the zoning remain as
Neighborhood Commercial and Public Open Space on the property;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE that second reading of Ordinance 17-89-PUD-4-89 is hereby denied
and that the attendant requests for PUD Concept Amendment on approximately 18 acres,
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Neighborhood Commercial and Public Open Space
to Regional Commercial on 9.07 acres, PUD District Review on approximately 18 acres with
waivers, and Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Serv on 9.07 acres, and Preliminary
Plat of 13 acres into two lots for construction of a 25,248 square foot theater complex are also
hereby denied.
ADOPTED by the City Council on October 2, 1990.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John Frane, City Clerk
September 17, 1990
Mr. Don Uram .
City of Eden Prairie
7600 Executive Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
RE: Preserve South
Dear Don:
Lariat Companies, Inc. hereby requests that its application
for the above mentioned project be withdrawn as the proposed
tenant has reached a determination that it is unable to bear
the increase in costs of the project.
We want to extend thanks to the City Council and City Staff
for their time expended on the project.
Sincerely yours,
LARIAT COMPANIES, INC.
(-7A/00.za
Julie A. Skarda
Executive Vice President
JAS:kda
V r-C- J
11800 Sinaletree Lane • Suite 210 • Eden Prairie, NIX 55344 • (612)143-1404
SRF STRGAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCII,
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
TRANSPORTATION • CIVIL STRUCTURAL • PARKING • LAND SURVEYORS
SRF No. 0901372
September 27, 1990
Mr. Alan D. Gray, P.E.
City Engineer
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
7600 Executive Drive
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
RE: MITCHELL LAKE SANITARY SEWER
EDEN PRAIRIE I.C. 52-197 and I.C. 52-198
Dear Mr. Gray:
Bids were received and opened at 10:00 a.m. on Friday,
September 14, 1990, for the above referenced project. The bids
are shown on the attached Summary of Bids.
The Engineer's Estimate was $348,000. Favorable bids were
received: the low bid, submitted by Northdale Construction Co.,
Inc. was $323,684.60. We have had favorable experience working
with Northdale Construction Co., Inc. on past municipal projects
and recommend that the City Council award Improvement Contracts
52-197 and 52-198 to Northdale Construction Co., Inc. in the
amount of $323,684.60.
Sincerely,
STRGAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCH, INC.
14(0Calgt4j(-
es R. Dvorak, P.E.
,Associate
JRD:bba
Attachments
Suite 150, One Carlson Parkway North, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55447
612/475-0010 FAX 612/475-2429
:3
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 90-248
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the following
improvements:
I.C. 52-197 and 52-198 Mitchell Lake Sanitary Sewer
bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law. Those
bids received are shown on the attached Summary of Bids; and,
WHEREAS, the City Engineer recommended award of contract to:
NORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
as the lowest responsible bidder,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council
as follows:
The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to
enter into a contract with Northdale Construction Co., Inc. in
the name of the City of Eden Prairie in the amount of $323,684.60
in accordance with the plans and specifications thereof approved
by the Council and on file in the office of the City Engineer.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on October 2, 1990.
Gary Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST
John D. Frane, Clerk
SEAL:
nsulting Engineer
SUMMARY OF BIDS
I.C. 52-197
I.C. 52-198
DESCRIPTION: Mitchell Lake Sanitary Sewer
BIDS OPENED: September 14, 1990 - 10:00 a.m.
CONSULTING ENGINEER: Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch, Inc.
CHECKED BY: Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch, Inc.
Bidder
Northdale Construction Co., Inc.
Brown and Cris, Inc.
Progressive Contractors, Inc.
Kenko, Inc.
Richard Knutson, Inc.
Barbarossa and Sons, Inc.
Arcon Construction Co., Inc.
Bid Security Total Amount
5% $ 323,684.60
5% $ 334,353.00
5% $ 347,613.50
5% $ 351,618.41
5% $ 359,326.00
5% $ 381,547.00
5% $ 428,189.35
The undersigned recommend award of Contract to:
Northdale Construction Company, Inc.
as the lowest responsible bidder for this Improvement Contract.
Alan D. Gray. P.E.
City Engineer
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 90-249
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
FAIRFIELD OF EDEN PRAIRIE 3RD ADDITION
WHEREAS, the plat of Fairfield of Eden Prairie 3rd Addition has been submitted in a manner
required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the
Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder, and
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and
requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL:
A. Plat approval request for Fairfield of Eden Prairie 3rd Addition is approved upon
compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat
dated September 27, 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 October 2, 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. Julie, City Manager
Alan D. Gray, City Engineer
FROM: Jeffrey Johnson, Engineering Technician
DATE: September 27, 1990
RE: Fairfield of Eden Prairie 3rd Addition
(Resolution No. 90-249)
PROPOSAL: Centex Real Estate Corporation, has requested City Council approval of the final
plat of Fairfield of Eden Prairie 3rd Addition. This proposal is Phase III of the Fairfield
development and a further subdivision of Outlots A and B of Fairfield 2nd Addition.
Located west of Eden Prairie Road and north of Cedar Ridge Elementary School, the plat
contains 12.14 acres to be divided into 32 single family lots, one outlot and right-of-way
dedication for street purposes. Outlot A contains 0.13 acres and is intended for a trail
access to Cedar Ridge Elementary School. Ownership of Outlot A will be conveyed to
the City.
IIISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council July 19, 1988 per
Resolution No. 88-137.
Second reading of Ordinance No. 59-88-PUD-15-88, changing zoning from Rural to R1-
13.5, was finally read and approved by the City Council February 20, 1990.
The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report was executed February 20,
1990.
VARIANCFS: All variance requests not granted through the PUD waiver process must be
processed through the Board of Appeals.
UTILITIES AND STREETS: Municipal utilities, streets and walkways will be installed
throughout this project in conformance with City Standards and the Developer's
Agreement.
As described in the Southwestern Eden Prairie Development Phasing Study, it was
recommended that with subsequent phases of Fairfield the street connection of Braxton
Drive and Candlewood Parkway should be made to provide alternate access to the school
site as well as Fairfield. It is therefore recommended that the Developer revise his plans
Fairfield of Eden Prairie 3rd Addition
September 27, 1990
Page 2 of 2
to provide for this connection. Additionally, the alignment of Braxton Drive may require
adjustment to preserve trees as this road extends through the school site. Would
recommend that the final determination for the alignment of Braxton Drive be determined
prior to release of the final plat. Item No. 3 of the Developer's Agreement refers to
findings and conclusions of the Southwest Area Study and requires that prior to release
of the final plat the Developer shall enter into a special assessment agreement for the
following capital improvement projects:
A. Cedar Ridge storm sewer as described by feasibility report dated March, 1989
and designated I.C. 52-152.
B. Dell Road between Trunk Highway 5 and CSAH 1.
C. Scenic Heights Road between Riley Lake Road and CSAH 4, and designated I.C.
52-160.
PARK DEDICATION: The requirements for park dedication are covered in the Developer's
Agreement.
BONDING: All bonding requirements shall conform to City Code and the Developer's
Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Fairfield of Eden Prairie 3rd
Addition subject to the requirements of this report, the Developer's Agreement and the
following:
1. Receipt of street sign fee in the amount of $1,137.00
2. Receipt of street lighting fee in the amount of $4,644.00
3. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $1,280.00
4. Receipt of warranty deed for Outlot A
5. A determination of the final alignment for Braxton Drive
6. Execution of special assessment agreements for capital improvement projects.
JJ:ssa
Dsk:CC.90-249
cc: Centex Real Estate Corporation
Sathre Bergquist, Inc.
I
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #90-247
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT
OF HEDQUIST ADDITION
FOR DON HEDQIST
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Hedquist Addition for Don Hedquist,
dated September /7, 1990, consisting of 3.9 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 2nd day of
October, 1990.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
THRU:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
Mayor and City Council
Barbara Penning Cross, Landscape Architect %
Robert A. Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and
Natural Resources
September 13, 1990
Supplemental Staff Report to Planning Staff Report
of August 24 and September 7, 1990 for the Hedquist
Addition
This plan was reviewed several times by the Planning Commission.
Topics of discussion were the number of lots, benefits of public
versus private road systems, building pad depth, and the reduction
in the amount of tree loss. Specific issues for the Parks,
Recreation and Natural Resources Commission are:
DEDICATION OF THE FLOODPLAIN
Parks, recreation and natural resources staff recommend the
developer dedicate the Nine-Mile Creek floodplain to the City of
Eden Prairie. The floodplain, located in the northeast corner of
the property, is within the scenic easement mentioned in the August
24, 1990 Planning Staff Report. This recommendation is following
our policy and being consistent with what other developers and
surrounding landowners have done in the past. Staff also recom-
mends the scenic easement, at about the 910 contour, be shown on
the plans and enforced by the City.
PEDESTRIAN SYSTEMS
In the 1983 review of this project a trail connection was discussed
to connect the open space north of the property. The connection
was planned to go through the property just to the west. The City
Comprehensive Park and Open Space Plan has shown the proposed trail
connecting to Topview Park. The connection north from Topview Park
will be somewhat less direct, but with no sidewalks anywhere in the
neighborhood a trail connection from a public park makes more sense
than one from a deadend cul-de-sac with flag lots.
TREE LOSS AND REPLACEMENT
The Planning Commission had the developer revise the plan removing
one lot and add 70' building pads, since most homes within the City
are typically 70' deep. The Planning Staff also used a 25' flat
rear yard to determine tree loss. Calculating tree loss in this
manner resulted in a 52% loss. It is possible that the homes will
not be large and will not be constructed with level pads behind the
houses, as shown in the drawing. If this is the case, tree loss
could be as low as 23%. The Planning Staff has split the worse
case scenario with the best case scenario and compromised on a 37%
tree loss figure for replacement and bonding. The developer needs
to submit a tree replacement plan prior to Council review. Staff
recommends the developer reforest the site by placing all 261
caliper inches on site. The City has possible sites close to the
development where excess trees could be planted if the site cannot
accommodate all the replacement trees.
Parks, recreation and natural resources staff recommend approval of
this project based on this supplemental staff report and the
Planning Staff Reports.
SPC:mdd
hedquist/10
;14
:13.5
- ‘a.
,
PROPOSED SITE F
\i. :
\\.:f
r -
•N V -
,Z1t1
C-REG-SE
STAFF REPORT
FROM:
THROUGH:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Donald R. Uram, Planner
Chris Enger, Director of Planning
September 7, 1990
Hedquist Addition
LOCATION: 12900 Gerard Drive
APPLICANT/
FEE OWNER: Don Hedquist
REOUEST: Preliminary Plat of 3.9 acres into 5 single family lots and road right of
way.
BACKGROUND
This item was continued from the August
241-h Planning Commission meeting to allow
the proponent and Staff time to re-evaluate
the benefits of using a common driveway
and storm water run-off issues. The
Commission also wantal the adjacent
neighbors who attended the June 22nd
meeting re-notified.
PLANNING COMMISSION CONCERNS
In response, Staff mailed a letter dated
August 31st to each of the adjacent
neighbors informing them of the meeting on
September 10th.
The storm water run-off issue was discussed
with both the Watershed District and the City
RM-6. 5 4
AREA LOCATION MAP
- ill LI: 1 Ir.apn-CFse
{
Engineer. In order to eliminate any erosion problems, Staff recommends that the proposed storm
sewer be extended to approximately the 865 contour elevation. The storm sewer shall be located
adjacent to the sanitary sewer in order to minimize the amount of grading and tree loss associated
with utility construction.
By constructing a 30 foot common driveway, the building pads on Lots 4 and 5 would only be
able to be moved further up the slope 6 feet and 20 feet, respectively. The change in driveway
locations will not save additional trees. A joint driveway also requires the cooperation of all
homeowners for access and maintenance purposes permanently. By retaining the flag lots, access
can be provided by either a common driveway or individual driveways (if problems arise). It
has been staffs experience that individual driveways are preferred by homeowners.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat based on revised plans dated August 24, 1990
subject to the recommendations of the staff reports dated June 22nd, August 24th, and September
7, 1990 and subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to review by the City Council, the proponent shall:
A. Modify the utility plan to relocate the sanitary sewer extension into an area which
does not result in the loss of significant trees.
B. Extend the storm sewer to the 865 contour elevation.
C. Submit a tree replacement plan for 261 caliper inches.
2. Prior to final plat approval, the proponent shall:
A. Provide detailed utility storm water run-off and erosion control plans for review
by the City Engineer.
B. Submit plans for review by the Watershed District.
C. Provide a building plan for Lot 5 which conforms to the proposed grading limits
and setback requirements.
3. Prior to grading permit issuance, proponent shall notify the City and Watershed District
at least 48 hours in advance of grading. Stake the proposed grading limits with a snow
fence. Any trees lost outside the grading limits shall be replaced on an area inch per area
inch basis.
4. Prior to the release of the final plat, proponent shall submit to the City evidence of
recording restrictive covenants on the property which limits grading to the approved
2
plan. The restriction should also include a copy of the proposed grading plan and the
trees to be saved. The restriction should also depict the location of the conservancy
easement to the City beyond which no grading or tree loss can occur.
5. Prior to building permit issuance, the proponent shall pay the appropriate cash park fee.
HDQUIST.DRU
HDC
Heptember 6, 1990
City of Eden Prairie
Mr. Donald R. Dram, A. I. C. P.
Planner
7600 Executive Drive
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Dear Don,
I am sorry to state that Barbara and I will be out of the
city on September 10th and will not be able to attend the
hearing concerning the Hedguist addition. We were
present at the August 27th meeting and concur with the
decisions made by the Planning Commission at that tine.
Our primary concerns deal with the possibility of excess
housing density, water runoff onto our land, the
maintenance of a conservation easement, keeping the homes
as high up the hill as is possible for the above reasons
plus the maintenance of as many trees and wild area as
possible for the wild life that still present in this
area.
We appreciate your efforts to make this subdivision fit
into the area available with the least environmental
disturbance.
Best wishes,
Howard E Kaerwer
12800 GERARD DRIVE
EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55346
TELEPHONE: 612/941-2290
1 fil
c,/,_7/9(
P. i'47i--10
Space to Church on 32.7 acres, from Industrial to Neighborhood Commercial on three acres, and from
Industrial to Office on 2.5 acres for a church and other commercial and office uses, based on revised plans
dated August 24, 1990, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated June 22, August 10, and
August 24, 1990. Motion carried 5-1-0. Bauer voted NO.
Ruebling asked if all the plantings were to be done as part of Phase I. Franzen replied that this wis part
of the recommendations from the previous Staff Report.
MOTION 3:
Bye moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Eden
Prairie Assembly of God for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 39.21 acres for
construction of a church and other commercial and office uses, based on revised plans dated August 24,
1990, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated June 22, August 10, and August 24, 1990.
Motion carried 5-1-0. Bauer voted NO.
MOTION 4;
Bye moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Eden
Prairie Assembly of God for Planned Unit Development District Review on 32.7 acres, with waivers, and
Zoning District Amendment from 1-Gm, R1-22 and Rural to Public on 32.7 acres for construction of a
church and other commercial and office uses, based on revised plans dated August 24, 1990, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Reports dated June 22, August 10, and August 24, 1990. Motion carried
5-1-0. Bauer voted NO.
MOTION 5:
Bye moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Eden
Prairie Assembly of God for Site Plan Review on 32.7 acres for construction of a church, based on revised
plans dated August 24, 1990. subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated June 22, August
10, and August 24, 1990. Motion carried 5-1-0. Bauer voted NO.
MOTION 6;
Bye moved, seconded by Norman to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Eden
Prairie Assembly of God for Preliminary Plat of 39.21 acres into four lots and road right-of-way for
construction of a church and other commercial and office uses, based on revised plans dated August 24,
1990, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated June 22, August 10, and August 24, 1990.
Motion carried 5-1-0. Bauer voted NO.
Bauer stated for the record that he would have voted yes for the project if a traffic study had been done
and if that study had stated that the improvements to Dell Road would eliminate the traffic concerns voiced
by the residents.
MOTION 7:
Bye moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources
Commission that the trail system be examined to provide better access to the trail. Motion carried 6-0-0.
MOTION 8;
Bye moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the City Council that further review be conducted
related to the traffic issues on Evener Way. Motion carried 6-0-0.
R. HEDOUIST ADDITION, by Don Hedquist. Request for Preliminary Plat on 3.9 acres into 5 single
family lots and road right of way with variances for lot frontage on a public road to be reviewed by the
Board of Appeals. Location: 12900 Gerard Drive. A continued public hearing.
Franzen reported that there was some confusion regarding notices sent out to the residents. It had been
brought to the attention of Staff that several of the residents believed that this item had been withdrawn.
Staff, therefore, recommended that this item be continued for any final action until the residents could be
properly advised. Franzen noted that the proponent had agreed to a continuation.
Ruebling recommended that the proponent make a presentation this evening regarding the changes made
to date.
Frank Cardarelle, representing the proponent, stated that the tree loss had been reduced and 70-foot
building pads had been depicted on the plans. The plan consisted of 5 lots with 3 neck lots with private
drives to each. The tree loss was calculated at approximately 23%; however, the proponent was willing
to bond for the 37% tree loss.
Franzen reported that the changes made to the plans were based on the direction provided by the Planning
Commission at the last meeting to address tree savings and lot access. Franzen noted that a comparison
had been provided in the Staff Report related to private road access versus public road access. He added
that grading would be approximately 70% for a public road system.
Franzen stated that normally Staff would not recommend for a project to develop a proposal with variances;
however, there were times when flag lots were necessary to save the trees. Franzen noted that Staff used
a very specific criteria for the consideration of flag lots. The lot SIMS for this plan average approximately
30,000 square feet and the homes could be seen from the public road. Staff believed that this plan
provided for the least amount of impact on the adjacent properties. Franzen noted that the tree lass
percentages relied on the project being built according to the grading plan. Staff had planned for the larger
houses based on a reasonable market expectation. Franzen stated that the tree loss was higher than average;
however, based on the constraints for the property believed the calculated tree loss to be reasonable. It
would be Important for the deed restnctions and covenants to be placed on the property. Franzen reported
that Staff had looked into the benefits of removing the existing home, but found that additional tree loss
would occur. A conservancy easement would be given to the City and provisions included which
prohibited the removal of trees or grading in the area. Staff believed that the proponent had provided a
better plan.
Norman asked where the access would be located for the existing home. CaviareIle replied that the
driveway would remain as it exists today.
Howard Kaerwer, 12800 Gerard Drive, stated that he was pleased to see the improvements in the plan.
Kaerwer questioned the use of three separate driveways. The plan showed three 12-foot driveways, for
a total width of approximately 54 feet to allow for space between each drive. He noted that the driveways
would need to be sloped. Kaerwer stated that the original plan had shown a 24-foot wide private road.
Ile believed that a cul-de-sac could be possible depending on the cut-in. Kaerwer was concerned about the
drainage onto his property. He believed that the building pads were now closer to his property line, which
left no place for the water to drain. Kaerwer was pleased to see the conservancy easement.
Barbara Kaerwer, 12800 Gerard Drive, stated that she personally had an intense reaction to the tree loss
because she and her husband had planted many of the trees in the area. She was concerned about the use
of 3 separate driveways and recommended the use of a common drive so that the building pads could be
moved further up the hill. Kaerwer recommended that the lots be reduced to four. She noted that there
was still a significant amount of wildlife in the conservancy area and hoped that it would remain.
Ruebling asked why 3 separate driveways had been proposed. Franzen replied that the initial concern had
been for maintenance and private access.
Sandstad asked if the undeveloped property would be considered an outlot. Franzen replied that a
conservancy easement would he set up as part of a covenant.
Ruebling recommended that the proponent consider consolidation of the driveways to one common drive.
Hallett believed that the proponent had improved the plan.
Franzen stated that a letter would be mailed out to residents which had been at the first Public Hearing.
Kaerwer asked if the storm sewer line could be relocated. Franzen replied that another issue was storm
water drainage, which would drain into the valley. He added that he would talk specifically with Bob
Obermeyer and report back to the Planning Commission. Kaerwer asked if the storm water drainage could
be connected to Nine Mile Creek.
Ruebling summarized that the outstanding issues were the driveway access, sanitary sewer location, and
storm water drainage.
MOTION I:
Hallett moved, seconded by Bye to continue the Public Hearing to September 10, 1990. Motion carried
6-0-0.
C. DONNAY'S EDENVALE AND DONNAY'S EDENVALE H 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 19 lots and 1 outlot for construction of 50 multi-family units within 10
buildings. Location: South of Townline Road and northwest of Edenvale Blvd. A continued public
hearing.
Franzen reported that this parcel had been zoned medium density since 1982 and the proponent wanted to
continue to build multiple unit buildings.
Paul Donnay stated that 16 units had been approved in 1982. The approval was for four 4-unit buildings,
the same units as found at Round Lake. He added that Phase II would consist of two 4-unit townhouses.
three 6-unit buildings, and one 8-unit facility. Donnay stated that the plan had been designed to save the
larger trees.
Ruebling asked what was planned for the outlot. Donnay replied that the outlot was undevelopable; it was
a holding pond. Franzen added that it would be necessary to maintain the holding pond. Ruebling asked
if it would be a permanent pond. Franzen replied yes.
Ruebling noted that Mary Ericksen, 15157 Lesley Lane had been present to discuss the plan but had to
leave before the item was presented.
Doug Bakke, 15174 Patricia Court, stated that he had met with Donnay several times and was pleased with
the appearance of the units. Bakke added that Donnay had assured the adjacent residents that the backside
of the buildings would be made more attractive with shutters, etc. Bakke stated that Dormay had also
assured the residents that as much of the underbrush as possible would be left natural.
Hallett noted that brick and shutters for the backside of the buildings was not part of the Staff
recommendations. Donnay replied that shutters, dormers, and additional windows had been added to the
plans. Franzen concurred that the backside of the buildings were plain. Donnay stated that brick had also
been added to the back of the buildings. Donnay showed the Planning Commission the new design for the
backside of the buildings. Hallett asked Bakke if this design reflected what he had expected. Bakke
replied that this was exactly what had been discussed.
MOTION I;
Bauer moved, seconded by Hallett to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0-0.
F C01.1 f;' I LEP • E.LL rT ,
RIDER, BENNETT, EGAN & ARUNDEL
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
A ilaCAO”.C.
••• WU ia A •u•st
•Eian niti•Atte,
Te•lin D•Ocni
n
•nl., D ••n •••
: ••n ••••• ...VC...a", AA.
n ww•
07•4::7:DatanD
41.Ne
.11,.0 477.
,on••••
w AiDIA an
• :: .. .0....9on
DilbUtAn • AnDant
z000 umcot.r. CCM7 P.I
333 SOVTH SWENTH STRUT
MINNEAPOLIS, MLNNESOTA 55402
7EUE ,77 ../NE 191Z, 340.795+
7 CI.A5017 ,1.1 ie,Z. 175 0701
WiiteTIDI • ',NEI, Dia, fawn ••Fl
JOnw • ,,,,,
ca,Dia 11.0••
F:Dyn:4•Tr.rOaa RD
J 044.4. 0 Watt."
mt.o.f.n
••tv[4... Att.,
finCn•An a•fairiOna
Dina nt•Ow
alOna• • /Mt a•
at. /Wt. • S.D .nowl,
Oattnenl• n ,,,,, Or•
[1.1.0 •n •Oni.0110...
00.ii..1.0 • 6ansantwe
ADA,. • ann•-••n• U
...0011140w
Ot 7E7..7
00,
mono r•.• in W.V."
...on. •
AAAAA ODAS
J•nt• t •Oar••n
AAAAAAA °
•D•trot AAA .•••0•Aaa
Wit tta.... A DOA..
naywit.• nytn.l•
Tine,
340-8912
July 13, 1990
Mr. Don Uram
Assistant City Planner
City of Eden Prairie
7600 Executive Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Re: Hedquist Addition
Our File 2647/90-1768
Dear Mr. Dram:
VIA FACSIMILE
As you are aware, the above-referenced matter was recently
continued by the Planning Commission to their second meeting in
July (I believe that meeting is scheduled for July 23rd). It is my
understanding that the Planning Commission continued the item to
allow staff and the applicant time to address the Commission's
concerns and develop alternative plans. While we have been working
to address the Planning Commission's request, we will need more
time to finalize that process. Accordingly, we would respectfully
request that you continue the above-referenced matter for 30 days
until the Planning Commission's second meeting in August.
If you have any questions regarding this request, or other aspects
of the project, please don't hesitate to contact Mr. Hedquist or
myself. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this
request and your assistance With the project.
Very truly yours,
RIDER, BENNETT, EGAN & ARUNDEL
BY
TJP/kcl Timothy J. Pawlenty
cc: Donald Hedquist
Frank Cardarelle
Revised Site Plan C-REG-SE
This is a continued item from
the June 25th and July 23, 1990
Planning Commission meetings.
The Planning Commission
recommended that the
development plans be returned
to the proponent for the
following revisions: T 7 7-
1. Reduction in the number
of lots.
2. Review the benefits of a
public vs. private road.
3. Reduction in the amount
of tree loss.
4. Examine the possitility
for removal of the
existing house.
5. Provide for 70' building
pads on the grading plan.
hc..74/1
r
r-r" .>"
;PROPOSED SITE
,
•
\
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
THROUGH:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT/
OWNER:
REOUEST:
Planning Commission
Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
Donald Uram, Assistant Planner
Chris Enger, Director of Planner
August 24, 1990
Hedquist Addition
12900 Gerard Drive
Donald Hedquist
Preliminary Plat of 3.9 acres into 5 single family
lots and road right of way.
Background
The site plan has been revised
to reduce the number of lots
from 6 to 5. This results in a
reduction of density from 1.5
to 1.3 units per acre. The AREA LOCATION MAP
Lev i 1-17:J Ir--aprt-Cne!
site plan depicts a public street extension from Gerard Drive
farther into the site than the previous proposal and the use of
three flag lots. Lot sizes range from 22,050 square feet to 42,180
square feet with an average lot size of 28,950 square feet.
Proposed lots 2, 3, and 4 do not meet the minimum street frontage
requirement of 90 feet. The use of flag lots allows homes to be
built closer to the top of the slope away from the trees. The flag
lots would require a variance from the City code. Historically,
the City has permitted flag lots under the following conditions:
1. The flag lot would be considered in environmentally sensitive
areas such as woods, creeks, lakes, wetland and flood plain
areas if the use of the flag lot would substantially reduce
the impact of construction in the area.
2. An average lot size of approximately 30,000 square feet.
3. Houses must be visible from a public street and addresses
clearly marked on the street right of way. This is necessary
for emergency vehicles access.
4. The use of a flag lot results in the benefit of preservation
of open space through dedication to the City or perpetual
conservancy easements to the City.
5. Positive lot drainage to the nearest outlet which does not
impact other lots and homes.
6. Flag lots should not interfere with the orderly extension of
utilities.
7. Flag lots must be within 300 feet of the nearest fire hydrant.
The site plan, as proposed, is consistent with these guidelines.
Public Road vs. Private Road vs. Flag Lots
A five lot subdivision with a public road and 70' pads could be
developed. Public roads provides for emergency vehicle access and
City maintenance. Due to the width of a public road (50' of right
of way) and 30' of front yard setback, extensive grading and tree
loss will occur. The width of the roadway and setbacks push houses
farther down the slopes into the trees and results in a 70% tree
loss. Street frontage variances would be necessary.
A five lot subdivision with a private road and 70' pads could
provide emergency vehicle access if a turnaround is provided.
However, maintenance would rely upon the individual homeowners.
Even though the use of the private road reduces the building
setback by 20', there still will be extensive grading and tree
loss. Since the site drops off steeply from the road at the top of
the slope, house pads would be situated on the side slope in the
middle of the trees and results in a 48% tree loss. Street
frontage variances would be necessary on three lots.
A five lot subdivision with 70' pads and a cul-de-sac extended into
the site (current proposal) could be developed with three flag
lots. Emergency vehicle access could be provided on the public
street. A fire hydrant would be located off of the end of the
private driveways for fire protection. Three individual driveways
of 12' in width could be constructed. This allows for individual
maintenance. Grading and tree loss could be less than the other
two options if the plan is built exactly as proposed. Tree loss
could be 23%.
Grading and Tree Loss
The grading plan has been revised to depict 70' house pads. If the
plan is built exactly as proposed, tree loss could be 23%. However,
given the tightness of the site, topography, tree location, and
narrow but deep lots, house pads could be deeper than 70'. The
grading plan depicts a 3:1 down slope off the lower level.
Experience has shown that level pad areas behind houses are the
norm rather than the exception. For this reason, additional
grading should be anticipated and factored into the calculation of
tree loss. A worse case scenario would be 52% tree loss (747
inches). A reasonable grading approach might be to split the
difference for a 37% tree loss (531 inches). If tree loss is based
on 37%, a tree replacement plan for 261 inches of trees would be
required. Since the site is wooded, approximately 100 caliper
inches could be accommodated. The balance (161 inches) must be
replaced elsewhere.
A way to reduce tree loss without having to rely on building permit
review would be to remove an additional lot. This would provide
wider lots for longer but not as deep houses.
Sanitary Sewer
A sanitary sewer line connection is proposed to a 36" sanitary
sewer line on the north end of the site. The proposed location for
the sanitary sewer connection runs through the middle of the oak
trees, and 42" of trees would be lost. This sewer line should be
located away from the significant trees.
House Removal
Removal of the existing house would result in significantly more
tree loss whether it was a public road or private road. There
would also be additional grading and visual impacts on the property
owners to the west.
Conservancy Easement
As part of the previous proposal, a conservancy easement was
depicted on the site plans in areas which would not be disturbed
due to house pad or grading. This conservancy easement should be
modified to reflect the grading limits at the rear of the 70' depth
house pads. Since the easement would be granted to the City, any
encroachment with grading or house pad would require adaitional
review.
Conclusion
The site plan has been modified with one less lot and a public road
extended farther into the site than the previous plan. There is a
rationale for consideration of flag lots based on the guidelines in
the site plan section. Tree loss could be as low as 23% (330
inches) if it were known at this time exactly what style house
would be built. A 23% tree loss can only be achieved if the
grading plan is strictly adhered to.
Given the tightness of the site, topography, tree location and
narrow but deep lots, house pads could be deeper than 70'. The
grading plan depicts a 3:1 down slope off the lower level.
Experience has shown that level pad areas (20-30') are the norm
rather than the exception. Level pad areas provide access, erosion
control and room for decking or patios. For this reason,
additional grading should be anticipated and factored into the
calculation of tree loss. A worse case scenario would be a 52%
tree loss (747 inches). A reasonable grading approach might be to
split the difference for a 37% tree loss (531 inches). If the
Commission is comfortable with this grading approach, then tree
replacement would be 261 inches. Since the site is wooded,
approximately 100 caliper inches could be planted on-site. The
remaining 161 inches would have to be placed elsewhere.
If the Planning Commission is not comfortable with an approach that
relies on building permit review to minimize tree loss, an
alternative would be to remove an additional lot. This would make
the density of the project approximately 1 unit per acre.
Staff Recommendation
If the Planning Commission is comfortable with the revised site
plan as proposed, then one option would be to recommend approval of
the preliminary plat based on revised plans dated August 24, 1990
subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated June 22
and August 24, 1990, and subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to review by the City Council, the proponent shall:
A. Modify the utility plan to relocate the sanitary sewer
extension into an area which does not result in loss of
significant trees.
B. Submit a tree replacement plan for 261 caliper inches.
2. Prior to final plat approval, the proponent shall:
A'",;
A. Provide detailed utility storm water runoff and erosion
control plans for review by the City Engineer.
B. Submit plans for review by the Watershed District.
3. Prior to grading permit issuance, proponent shall notify the
City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance of
grading and stake the proposed grading limits with a snow
fence.
4. Prior to the release of the final plat, proponent shall submit
to the City evidence of recording of restrictive covenants on
property which limits grading to the approved plan. The
restriction should also include a copy of the proposed grading
plan and the trees to be saved. The restiction should also
depict the location of the conservancy easement to the City
beyond which no grading or tree loss can occur.
If the Planning Commission is uncomfortable with the site plan as
proposed and that the impacts on the site's natural features are
high, then one option would be to recommend that the development
plans be revised to depict one less lot on site.
NNI Tcn —
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner
THRU: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
June 22, 1990
Hedquist Addition
12900 Gerard Drive
APPLICANT/
FEE OWNER: don Hedquist
REOUEST: Preliminary Plat of 3.9 acres into 6 single family
lots and road right-of-way
BACKGROUND
The site is the location of RLS
No. 1570, a 1983 project for
Lillian Beckman. RLS No. 1570
subdivided the 4.9 acre tract
into 3 tracts. Tracts A and B,
containing 22,060 square feet
and 25,240 square feet
respectively are the locations
of two existing homes which
access Gerard Drive. Lot C,
containing approximately 3.9
acres, is the location of the
proposed subdivision. In a
staff report dated September 9,
1983, discussion revolved
around the future development
of Tract C and the adjacent
parcels (See Attachment A).
This illustration indicated the
joint development of the parcel
to the west and this property.
The 1983 drawing indicates a
development potential for this
site of approximately 4.5 lots.
The current proposal is to
subdivide the property into 6
single family lots includes the
existing single family home.
1
PROPOSED SITE
_
•
A. --, • r • ,
1 1:1 7!nEY—ri —
C-REG-SE
11M.:12..1
AREA LOCATION MAP
_rs . I Irs.orn_ccol! •
\ . F
A
"2Z
SITE PLAN/PRELIMINARY PLAT
This property is currently guided Low Density Residential and zoned
R1-22. Surrounding properties are also guided Low Density
Residential. Specific land uses include large lot, single family
homes zoned R1-22 to the east and west, Topview Acres 2nd and 3rd
Additions, zoned R1-22 to the south and Cardinal Creek 2nd
Addition, zoned R1-13.5 and Public Open Space to the north. Lot
sizes within the proposed subdivision range from a minimum of
22,000 square feet to a maximum of 33,300 square feet. The average
lot size is 26,366 square feet. All of the lots meet the minimum
requirements of the R1-22 Zoning District with the exception of
frontage on a public street. Variances are required for Lots 1 -
5 due to access being provided by a private road.
Access to the prOperty will be provided by both a public cul-de-sac
from Gerard Drive and a private road servicing Lots 1-5. The
private road is designed with a pavement width of 24 feet and
right-of-way of 30 feet. This design is consistent with other
private roads in the City. A Homeowner's Association must be
established for the ownership and maintenance of the private road.
The cul-de-sac measures approximately 180 feet in length and the
private road extends an additional 320 feet. Because the adjacent
parcel to the west must also be serviced by the cul-de-sac for
development in the future, the right-of-way is being platted along
the property line. The plans indicate future possible cul-de-sac
locations (See attached memo from Al Gray, City Engineer). The
adjacent property owners to the east and west have indicated that
they are not interested in the development of their property at
this time.
PEDESTRIAN SYSTEMS
The possibility for a trail connection to the north was previously
discussed as part of the approval for R.L.S. 1570. At that time,
it was anticipated that a trail connection would be made on the
Hanson property located directly to the west of this property.
With the development of the Comprehensive Park and Open Space Plan,
the trail connection has been relocated to Topview Park which is
located to the east of this site.
UTILITIES
Utilities are available to the site. Sanitary sewer and water
connections will be made to a 6-inch water line within Gerard Drive
and a 36-inch sanitary sewer line along the north property line.
Storm water discharge will be collected within a catch basin system
and discharged to the wetland area to the north. Runoff from the
2
rear of Lots 1-3 will continue to flow towards the east and
ultimately to the wetland area to the north. Storm water runoff,
utility, and erosion control plans shall be submitted for review
and approval by the City Engineer and Watershed District.
GRADING/TREE LOSS
Elevations on this site range from a high point of 936 adjacent to
the existing single family home to a low point of 860 along the
north property line. The wetland area to the north has a 100-year
Flood Plain elevation of 864. The site slopes in a north and
easterly direction. All of the lots are designed as walkout units
to take into consideration existing natural grades on the site.
Initially, grading will occur to allow for the construction of the
public and private roads to provide access to the lots. Individual
lot grading will occur as the units are constructed. The proposed
plan does not indicate any grading below the 910 contour elevation.
This limit is based on building pads measuring approximately 50
feet deep. Typically, building pads range in depths of up to 70
feet. Kingston Ridge and Starrwood, both projects designed by the
proponents surveyor, include building pads measuring 70 feet in
depth. Any pad deeper than 50 feet will substantially increase the
amount of grading and tree loss on the site. Because of this,
Staff recommends that either covenants restricting building pad
depths to 50 feet be placed on all lots, or that the grading plan
be revised to reflect 70 foot building pads.
There are a total of 1,437 caliper inches of significant trees on
the property. Based upon the proposed grading plan and 50 foot
building pads, a tree loss of 527 caliper inches or 36.7% is
expected. This results in a tree replacement figure of 257 caliper
inches. When tree loss exceeds 35%, Staff recommends alternatives
to the site plan. One way to reduce the amount of grading and tree
loss on the site is through the use a private road. Staff
recommended a private road when the original plan designed with a
public road depicted a tree loss of 1000 caliper inches or 69.6%.
Another way to reduce the amount of tree loss and overall grading
would be to eliminate one lot. With this alternative, Staff
recommends the elimination of the existing house and a cul-de-sac
bubble in this location. This alternative would result in
approximately 10% less tree loss on the project site.
ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT
As indicated in the previous section, if tree loss exceeds 35%,
alternatives are recommended. In a letter dated June 4, 1990, to
Mr. Frank Cardarelle and Mr. Don Hedquist, alternative development
scenarios were suggested (See Attached). The first alternative
recommended by Staff is the reduction in the number of lots from 6
to 5. This would help to decrease the amount of grading and
overall tree loss on the site, and would be more consistent with
3
the plan which was originally contemplated for the property in
1983. In addition, the proponent may continue to use the private
road which would help reduce the amount of setback or design the
project with a public road flag lots. Another alternative would be
to remove the existing home and place a cul-de-sac bubble in this
location (See Attachment B). Both alternatives would significantly
improve the subdivision of this property and would work best when
used in conjunction with each other.
CONCLUSIONS
The current development proposal depicts 6 lots accessed by a
private road. Even though the development proposal is designed
with a private road which reduces the amount of building setback by
20 feet allowing for the preservation of approximately 910 caliper
inches of trees, a significant impact still occurs to the existing
natural site features. This includes a minimum tree loss of 36.7%
and significant grading. The tree loss and grading is based on 50
foot building pads and reduced setbacks from a private road, which
is orly 24 feet in width. Natural environment impacts would be
greater if a public road with R1-22 setbacks was required. The
Planning Commission should expect that building pads typically
exceed 50 feet in depth and that any additional depth will increase
the amount of grading and tree loss. For example, with 70 foot
building pads, tree loss would exceed 48%. Because of this, Staff
feels that the subdivision of this property would be improved with
a reduction in the number of lots from 6 to 5. The project would
also be improved if the existing house were removed and the
subdivision designed with a cul-de-sac at that location.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Due to the natural environment impacts including tree loss and
grading, the Planning Commission may wish to consider the
elimination of one lot from the project, and/or a redesign to the
roadway to reflect a public street. If revisions are recommended,
the project be continued for a minimum of two weeks to allow for
revised plans. On the other hand, if the Planning Commission feels
that the project as submitted is acceptable, then Staff recommends
approval of the preliminary plat of 3.9 acres into 6 single family
lots based upon revised plans dated June 22, 1990, subject to the
recommendations in the Staff Report dated June 22, 1990, and
subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall:
a. Submit a tree replacement plan indicating a tree
replacement of 257 caliper inches.
b. Provide covenants restricting all building pad depths to
50 feet or submit a revised grading plan depicting 70
building pads for review and approval.
4
2. Prior to final plat approval, the proponent shall:
a. Submit detailed storm water run-off, 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 building permit issuance the proponent shall:
a. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours
in advance of grading.
b. Stake the construction limits with snow fencing. Any
trees lost outside the construction limits shall be
repladed on an area inch per area inch basis.
c. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee.
4. Sign a special assessment agreement for the construction of
the public road.
5. Submit homeowner's association documents.
6. Apply for and receive variances from the Board of Appeals for
lot frontage on a public street for all lots.
HEDQUIST.DRU:bs
5
n••
V IN2k111DVIIV TpisA L LocAT-q•I rPol\A C4N2Dki\li_ Ci2604- • • 1-11-1-IAN eta-40,P4 rt.41" ruye. t;e.vaLcpme.i,aiNA- v ckQ k too' r.rtiq .
-MEMORANDUM-
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Alan Gray, P.E., City Engineer
DATE: June 19, 1990
RE: Hedquist Addition
The purpose of this memo is to outline a process for the future
construction of a public road and the initial construction of a
private road over the proposed public right-of-way as shown in the
Hedquist Addition. The proposed Hedquist Addition shows a pubic
road extending south from Gerard Drive approximately 180 feet and
there terminating in a cul-de-sac. The public road right-of-way
would abut the property to the East and a portion of the right-of-
way for cul-de-sac construction would require easement or right-of-
way over the adjacent property.
The owner of the property to the East does not wish to grant an
easement for construction of the cul-de-sac at this time. There
is, however, a process by which a private road may be initially
constructed and converted in the future to a public road
terminating in a cul-de-sac to accommodate development of the
property easterly of the Hedquist Addition. The future public road
right-of-way shown within the Hedquist Addition should be platted
as an outlot. The outlot would be deeded to the City of Eden
Prairie. We would then enter into an agreement with the developer
of the Hedquist Addition for the initial construction of a private
road over the City-owned outlot and the future conversion of this
private road to a public street. The conditions of the agreement
would be approximately as follows:
1. The agreement would be written between the City of Eden
Prairie and the homeowners association for Hedquist Addition.
2. The agreement would allow the homeowners association to
construct and maintain a private road over the City-owned
outlot. The segment of private road over the outlot would be
constructed to residential street standards with concrete curb
and gutter. This would eliminate the need for future
assessments to the Hedquist Addition properties.
3. The City would retain the right to convert the segment of
private road within the outlot to a public street to
accommodate development of the property easterly of Hedquist
Addition. The right of the homeowners association to maintain
a private road over the outlot would be subordinate to the
City's right to convert this segment to a public street.
Hedquist Addition
June 19, 1990
Page 2 of 2
4. In the event that the property easterly of Hedquist Addition
develops in a manner that does not utilize the outlot and
segment of road within it for access, the City would deed and
the homeowners association would accept title to the outlot.
Through this process as described above the Hedquist Addition can
develop and initially construct a private road south from Gerard
Drive. The City has the ability to convert a segment of this
private road to a public road to accommodate development of the
property lying east of the Hedquist Addition at a future date. The
outlot may be converted in the future by including it in the plat
of the property east of proposed Hedquist Addition and designating
it as right-of-way on the plat. In the event that a public road is
not required to accommodate development of the property easterly of
the Hedquist Addition, the agreement would contain a provision to
revert title of the outlot back to the homeowners association for
private road purposes.
Attached to this memo is a copy of a special assessment agreement
with Transtar Corporation for the Moorhead Addition which contains
provisions similar to the agreement that would be developed for the
Hedquist Addition.
The Engineering and Planning Departments are currently reviewing
the proposed J&L Second Addition. J&L Second Addition is the
replat of Lot 7, Block 1, J&L Addition into two residential lots at
the intersection of Bennett Place and Blossom Road. There is an
existing house on Lot 7 with a footprint of 80 feet by 30 feet,
similar in size to the existing home being preserved in the
Hedquist Addition. As is being proposed in the Hedquist Addition,
Lot 7 of the J&L Subdivision was designed around the existing home.
The developers of the J&L Subdivision have now decided that it is
better to remove the existing home from the subdivision and plat
the subdivision without the constraints of the existing structure.
Similar consideration should probably be given to the Hedquist
Addition. If the existing home is removed, a better subdivision
design may be achieved. With the constraints of the existing home
removed, a public road with improved geometrics may be extended
into the property terminating in a cul-de-sac to serve new
residential lots and entirely eliminating the need for a private
road system. Removing the constraint of the existing home may
also result in improved lots.
ADG:ssa
(Revised 02/23/90)
Special Assessment Agreement No. 90-01
AGREEMENT REGARDING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
THIS IS AN AGREEMENT MADE THIS DAY of , 1990, between
the City of Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation, (the "City") and Transtar
Corporation, a Minnesota Corporation (the "Owner").
A. The Owner holds legal and equitable title to property described as
Lot 4, Block 1, Moorehead Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which property
is the subject of this Agreement and is hereinafter referred to as the
"Property".
B. Access to the Property from Bennett Place is over Outlot C, Moorehead
Addition which is owned by the City. Outlot C is planned to provide a portion
of future street right-of-way serving the Property and future lots which may
be subdivided from the property lying southerly and easterly of Outlot C.
C. The parties hereto desire to enter into an Agreement concerning
initial construction and maintenance of a private driveway serving solely Lot
4, Block 1, Moorehead Addition and future construction of a public street over
Outlot C, Moorehead Addition.
AGREEMENTS
IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Owner of Lot 4, Block 1, Moorhead Addition may construct a
private driveway over Outlot C between the Property and Bennett Place that
will serve only the subject property. Maintenance of the driveway shall be
the sole responsibility of the Owner of said Lot 4. The Owner hereby agrees
to save and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees from
any and all liability related to or arising out of the construction and/or
maintenance of a private driveway serving said Lot 4 over Outlot C.
2. The City may construct a public street and other utilities within
Outlot C to provide improved access to the Property and access for lots which
may result from the subdivision of property southerly and easterly of Outlot
C. The right of the Owner of said Lot 4 to maintain a private drive over
Outlot C is subordinate to the City's right to construct a public street and
shall terminate upon notification to the Owner of the City's intent to proceed
with construction of a public street. The City shall provide written notice
mailed to the address of record with Hennepin County Property Tax Division a
minimum of 30 days prior to commencement of street or utility construction.
3. The City shall not proceed with construction of a public street over
Outlot C until there is a City approved subdivision of property southerly and
easterly of Outlot C creating additional lots requiring access to a public
street and providing additional right-of-way which, when combined with Outlot
C shall provide sufficient right-of-way for a public street.
4. The Owner consents to levying of assessments against the Property
for the construction of a public street over Outlot C. The cost to be
assessed shall be twenty-five percent (25%) of the cost of the public street
improvements, not to exceed $8,500 if assessed in 1991. This maximum
assessment shall increase 8% each year after 1991 but in no event shall the
total amount assessed exceed $12,750. The City agrees that Lot 3, Block 1,
Moorehead Addition will not be assessed for street construction over Outlot C.
5. For purposes of determining the amount of the assessment, the cost
of the street improvements shall include, in addition to actual construction
costs, administrative, interest and engineering costs and fees incurred or
paid by the City in relationship to construction of the Improvements. Said
amount shall be subject to the maximum limits as described above.
6. The City's records for the Property will show the assessment
agreement.
2
7. The Owner waives notice of any assessment hearing to be held at
which hearing or hearings the assessment is to be considered by the City
Council and thereafter approved and levied.
8. The Owner concurs that the benefit to the Property by virtue of the
street improvements to be constructed exceeds the amount of the assessment to
be levied against the Property. The Owner waives all rights he has by virtue
of Minnesota Statute 429.081 or otherwise to challenge the amount or validity
of the assessments, or the procedures used by the City in apportioning the
assessment and hereby releases the City, its officers, agents and employees
from any and all liability related to or arising out of the imposition or
levying of the assessments.
TRANSTAR CORPORATION
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
A Minnesota Municipal Corporation
BY:
Thomas Gambucci
President
BY:
Gary D. Peterson
Its Mayor
BY:
Carl J. Jullie
Its City Manager
3
CityofEdenPraide
City Offices
( Executive Drive • Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3677 • Telephone (612) 937-2262
June 4, 1990
Cardarelle & Associates, Inc.
Frank Cardarelle
8110 Eden Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Dear Frank:
On Thursday, May 31, the Hedquist Addition was reviewed by the
Staff Development Review Committee. The following is a list of
Staff recommended revisions and/or comments regarding this
proposal:
1. A variance is required for the private street. Please
submit a variance application to the Board of Appeals for
a public hearing.
2. Retaining wall details are required.
3. What amount of tree loss will occur with the construction
of the public cul-de-sac.
4. Indicate the 100 year flood elevation on the plans.
5. Slopes may not exceed 3:1 on the lots. A 2:1 slope is
proposed for lot 2.
6. Based on the current plan, a tree loss of 474 caliper
inches has been calculated. A tree replacement plan
depicting 208 caliper inches is required.
7. Provide sanitary sewer extension sufficient to serve
properties to the west of this site. Topographical
information sufficient to evaluate feasibility of sewer
extension needs to be provided.
8. Explain future ownership possibilities of the 35 foot
strip parallel to the public roadway.
9. Need street name (Hedquist Lane?)
10. No cut, no mow easement to City or Homeowners
Association. Contact the Park and Recreation Department
regarding any dedication.
A-(9
11. Extend storm sewer to 100 year flood elevation or as
required to prevent slope erosion.
12. The proposed public cul-de-sac must be constructed in its
entirety. This will require that you receive permission
from the adjacent property owner to construct a portion
of the cul-de-sac on the property.
As indicated in the narrative, you may wish to proceed with the
plans as proposed. Please be advised that revised plans must be
submitted by June 8 to be scheduled for the June 25 Planning
Commission meeting.
As you are aware, this project has been in the discussion stages
for approximately 5 months. During this time, numerous land
development alternatives vre considered. This included the use of
a private road if it helped to reduce the environmental impact due
to grading and tree loss and possibly a reduction in the number of
lots. After reviewing your current proposal, it appears that a
significant site impact still occurs. Because of this, Staff
recommends that you consider a reduction in the number of lots from
6 to 5. This will significantly reduce the amount of site impact
expected with the development of this property. These lots could
be serviced by either a private road such as the current plans
indicate or a public road with flag lots. An additional item to
consider would be the removal of the existing house. As we have
experienced in the past, the developer typically wishes that the
older house would have been removed prior to the new homes being
built. This would also help to reduce the negative site impact due
to a more efficient road location. Please consider these
alternatives when reviewing your current plans.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
of Eden Prairie
Donald R. Uram, A.I.C.P.
Assistant Planner
cc: Don Hedquist
CARDAREL.DRU:sg
,L3L)0
ATTACHMENT B
DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
HEDQUIST ADDITION, EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
THIS DECLARATION, made this day of May, 1990 by Hedquist
Addition Partners, a Minnesota partnership, (hereinafter referred
to as "Declarant").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner of that certain real estate located
in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, and legally
described as follows:
Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 Block 1 Hedquist Addition,
according to the plat thereof now on file in the office
of the County Recorder for Hennepin County, Minnesota
(hereinafter referred to as the "premises")
NOW, THEREFORE, Declarant hereby declares that the premises shall
hereafter be held, sold, and conveyed subject to the following
covenants, restrictions, and conditions, which are for the purpose
of protecting the value and desirability of, and which shall run
with the premises and be binding on all parties having any right
title, or interest in the premises or any part thereof, their
heirs, successors, and assigns, and shall inure for the benefit of
each owner thereof.
1
1. Land Use and Building Type. No lot shall be used except for
residential purposes. No building shall be erected, altered,
placed, or permitted to remain on any lot other than (i) one
detached, single-family dwelling; and (ii) a private attached
garage, provided, however, that any purchases of a lot from
Declarant who erects a dwelling thereon may use such dwelling as
model for a period not exceeding 12 months from the date of
completion of such dwelling. For purposes of this Declaration the
term "lot" shall mean Lots I, 2, 3, 4 and 5 within Block 1 as shown
on the recorded plat of Hedquist Addition.
2. Dwelling Specifications. No dwelling shall be erected, altered
or placed on a lot or permitted to remain there other than one
detached single-family dwelling which does not meet or exceed all
the requirement of the Building Codes. All structures constructed
or placed on the property shall be completely finished on the
exterior thereof within nine months after commencement of
construction.
3. Dwelling Exterior. All dwelling exterior will be finished with
any one or more of the following materials: redwood or cedar
sidings, brick, stone or stucco. All exterior finish colors will
be of natural redwood, cedar, stone, brick or of earth tones paints
or stains and approved by the Architectural Review Committee. Roofs
will have a minimum of a 5/12 pitch and covered with cedar of
timber-line shingles. No metal, plastic or wood composition siding
materials will be used.
2
4. No Temporary Structures. No trailer, basement, tent, shack,
garage or any other structure of a temporary character shall be
used on any lot at any time as temporary or permanent residence.
5. Building Location. No building shall be located on any lot
except within the pad area as located on the developers plot plan.
All city ordinance (if in conflict with the developers plot plan)
for building locations on the lots will prevail. For the purposes
of the covenants and restrictions set forth in this paragraph 5,
eaves, steps fireplaces and open porches shall not be considered
as part of the building, provided, however, that this shall not be
construed to permit any eave, step, fireplace, or open porch on a
lot to encroach upon another lot. The area between the building
pads (as displayed on the developers plat) will be left undesturbed
terrain and vegetation, unless in the view of the Hedquist Addition
Architectiral Review Committee an exception can be given.
6. Easements for Utilities and Drainage. Utility, drainage and
Scenic easements are reserved as shown on the recorded plat of
Hedquist Addition. Within such easements no building, structure,
planting, fill or other material shall be placed on , or permitted
to remain, which may damage or interfere with the installation and
maintenance of utilities, or which may change the direction or
impede the flow of water over the drainage easements. Such
easements shall be maintained continuously by the owner of the lot
which is subject to said easements except that such owner shall not
be responsible for those improvements for which a public authority
or utility company has assumed responsibility.
3
7. Nuisances. No noxious or offensive activity shall be carried
on upon any lot, nor shall anything be done thereon which is or may
become an annoyance or nuisance to any owner of any lot.
8. Signs. No signs of any kind shall be displayed to the public
view on any lot except one sign of not more than five square feet
advertising the property for sale, or signs used by a builder or
Declarant to advertise the property during the construction and
sales period. This restriction shall not apply to permanent
entrance monuments which may be approved by the City of Eden
Prairie and erected by the Declarant.
9. Livestock and Poultry. No animals, livestock, or poultry of any
kind shall be raised, bred, or kept on any lot, except that dogs,
cats and other household pets may be kept provided that they are
not kept, bred or maintained for any commercial purpose. Dog
kennels are prohibited except when they meet the following
requirements: exterior dog kennels or runs shall be located so as
to be screened from the streets and from neighboring lots. The
fencing or outside run area shall be adjacent to the main structure
and shall not exceed 80 square feet in fenced area with a maximum
6 foot high fence. Dog kennel plans shall be reviewed and approved
by the Hedquist Addition Architectural Review Committee.
4
9c:
10. Garbage and Refuse Disposal. Trash, garbage or other waste
shall be kept in sanitary containers. All equipment for storage or
disposal of such material shall be kept in a clean and sanitary
condition, and screened from public view.
11. Recreational Equipment. Recreational equipment is defined for
the purposes of this Declaration as travel trailers, pickup campers
or coaches, motorized dwellings, trailers, snowmobiles, fish
houses, ATR'S boats and trailers. No such equipment shall be parked
as permitted herein unless it is in condition for safe and
effective performance for the function for which it is intended.
Recreational equipment which is parked on a lot for a cumulative
period of 30 days or mare in any calendar year will be treated for
purposes of this Declaration as being stored. No recreational
equipment may be stored on a lot unless completely enclosed in a
garage.
12. Fencing. All fencing or decorative walls shall meet with the
requirement of the City of Eden Prairie and shall be approved by
the Architectural Review Committee.
5
13. Architectural Review Committee.
a. There is hereby created an Architectural Review Committee
(Committee) which shall initially be composed of the
following:
NAME
Donald J. Hedquist
Sharon L. Hedquist
ADDRESS
6449 Lyndale Ave So
Richfield, Mn. 55423
6449 Lyndale Ave So
Richfield, Mn. 55423
A majority of the Committee may designate a representative to act
for it. In the event of death or resignation of any member of the
Committee, the remaining member or members shall have full
authority to designate a successor or successors. Neither the
members of the Committee, nor its designated representative, shall
be entitled to any compensation for services performed pursuant to
this Declaration. At any time after 90% of the lots affected by
this Declaration have been sold by the Declarant or its successors
and assigns, to owners who reside in dwellings constructed on said
lots then such owners of a majority of all of the lots affected by
this Declaration shall have the power to change the membership of
the committee, eliminate the Committee or modify its powers and
duties. Such action shall be effective only when evidenced by an
instrument which has been executed by such owners of a majority of
the lots and recorded in the office of the County Recorder ,
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
6
)
b. No structure, fence or wall and broadcasting or receiving
equipment, shall be erected, placed or altered on any lot until
the plans and specification and a plan showing the location of the
structure, elevation, and finished grade levels have been approved
as provided in Subparagraph c below by the Committee as to (i)
quality and type of workmanship and materials, (ii) external design
and harmony with any existing structure, and (iii) location with
respect to topography and finish grade elevation. Accompanying such
documentation, Shall be a name and address of the party to whom
approval or disapproval is to be mailed. Approval or disapproval
will be effective on date of postmark when mailed by first class
mail, postage prepaid and addressed to the named party. Plans and
specifications and site plans shall be deemed to have been received
by the Committee when one or more of the Committee members or its
designated representative acknowledges receipts of such documents
in writing
c. The Committee's approval or disapproval shall be in
writing. In the event the Committee fails to approve or disapprove
the plans and specifications and site plans within 30 days after
the same have been submitted to it, approval will not be required
and the restrictions, covenants, and conditions set forth in this
document shall be deemed to have been complied with.
14. Term. These covenants, restrictions, and conditions are to run
with the land and shall be binding on all parties and all persons
claiming under them for a period of thirty years from the date
these covenants, restrictions, and conditions are recorded. After
7
which time the same shall be automatically extended for successive
periods of 10 years unless an instrument signed by the then owners
of a majority of the lots have been recorded, agreeing to charge
the same in whole or in part.
15. Enforcement. Enforcement shall be by proceedings at law or in
equity either to restrain violation or to recover damages, against
any person or persons violating or attempting to violate any
covenant, restriction or condition.
16. Severability. Invalidation of any one of these covenants,
restrictions or conditions by judgment or court order shall in no
wise effect any of the other provisions which shall remain in full
force and effect.
HEDQUIST ADDITIONS PARTNERS
DONALD J. HEDQUIST
SHARON L. HEDQUIST
8
SCENIC EASEMENT
THIS INDENTURE made this day of May, 1990, by and between
Donald J. Hedquist and Sharon L. Hedquist, husband and wife,
hereinafter collectively referred to as Grantor and the CITY OF
EDEN PRAIRIE, a Minnesota municipal corporation hereinafter
referred to as CITY.
WHEREAS, Donald J. Hedquist and Sharon L. Hedquist are the fee
owners of the real property located in Hennepin County Minnesota,
legally described as;
Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 Block 1 HEDQUIST ADDITION
WHEREAS, Grantors and City wish to enter into an agreement which
will grant to City a scenic easement for the conservation and
preservation of the terrain and vegetation, and prohibit certain
acts destructive thereof, over a portion of said Lots, legally
described as;
The North 50 feet of Lots 4 and 5 Block 1 and the East 50 feet of
Lots 1 and 2 Block 1 and that part of Lots 3 and 4 Block 1 lying
Easterly of a line running from a point on the North line of Lot
4 a distance of 100 feet West of the most Northeast corner of said
Lot to a point on the Southerly line of Lot 3 a distance of 50.5
feet Westery of the Southeast corner of said Lot 3 all in Block 1
Hedquist Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises contained herein,
it is agreed by the parties as follows:
1. Grantor hereby grants, bargains, sells and conveys to City
and its successors and assigns an easement in, under, on and over
the Easement Area (hereinafter referred to as the "Scenic
Easement"), and the City hereby accepts the Scenic Easement.
2. The Scenic Easement is granted and accepted subject to the
following terms and conditions:
A. The Easement Area shall be preserved predominantly in
its natural condition. No trees shrubs, or other
vegetation shall be planted upon the Easement Area
without the prior written consent of City.
B. No building, public road, public walkways, public
bikeways, sign, billboard, utility, fencing, or other
man-made structure shall be placed in the Easement
Area without the written consent of City.
C. Grantor assumes the obligation of maintaining the
Easement Area, subject to the provisions hereof.
D. No trash, waste or other offensive material, soil or
landfill shall be placed upon or within the Easement
Area without the prior written consent of City.
001
E. No change in the general topography of the Easement
Area landscape, dredging, movement or removal of soil
shall be made without the prior written consent of
City.
F. The duration of the Scenic Easement is perpetual.
3. This agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the
parties, there successors and assigns.
4. Nothing contained herein shall impair and right of City now
or hereafter acquired to construct of maintain public
utilities in or on the Easement Area.
DONALD J. HEDQUIST
SHARON L. HEDQUIST
3,1 4
Barbara Kaerwer (Mrs. HowarclE. Kaerwer)
CC: Chris Enger and Don 14edquist.
barbara m kaerwer (
12800 gerard drive ,
erlen prairie minnesota 5534
2 941 2290 Ser,tember 19, 1990
TO EDEN PRAIRIE ccuNcIL mEma:Rs:
Gary D. Peterson
Douglas Tenpas -,.::
Patricia Pideeck
Richarci7AndUrSon
Jean Harris'''.
Dear Neighbors:- .
The Eden Prairie Council Agenda for October 2nd will include "The Hedquist
Addition" located on Gerard Drive just west of our property located at
12b00 Gerard Drjv'
One supposes,that:each plat and the approval procedure is idiosyncratic.
But I know it to!be the case here. To aid your understanding my husband and
I invite you .b!b.ciske A brief, snort hike as a group or as individuals, to
see the HedquiSt -,land and that portion of our land affected by your pending
decision. It woUId take about 30 minutes maximum for the hike, plus as
much additioral titre tor socializing as you wish. Daylight hours, bluejeans,
long-uleeves and Mosquito dope are advisable. -:Tour choice of time should be
r -1r to the October 2nd meeting so that Don Hedquist's Plans are not delayed.
' On October 2nd you mill be asked tosonsider7Ahdvote upon a proposal slightly
(significantly?) different from thatr!approvedby;-the Planning Commission but
supported by Don ged6ist and the Parks and Ra -areation Commissions In order to
save trees and wildlife habitat my husband and,roffered a 50 foot strip of our
land if Redquist ,Addition donated a contiguous 50 foot strip plus considera4 -
morei'all of whicte ;land connect to the future Wildlife Refuge land on the
Nine-mile Creek watershed, to become part of the E.P. Parks system. AND FURTHER,
if the 70-feo't pads and road system approved by the Planning Commission be
altered slightly so that the pads could be moved up a hill and away from thus-
saved trees and if part of the road become private and shared in a way Chris Enger
can best explzin. All 0.0ar? I thought not. Aus our cordialdnvitationl
I willcall each of yo very shortly,to:learn if you wish (or can) look at the
land with us. Familieb and hiking friends will also be welcomed.
',•;4;'*);
‘;‘,t)lo picasso soared woman (women in green) 1909, ddllection: stedelijk van abbe — muSeum, etndhoven. nederianas
Lir1V'''•
rAgIESCY1rn
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
STATE OF
DEPARTMENT
METRO REGION WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, 1N 55106
PHONENa 296-7523
Cebita#7-
MINNESOTA
FILE NO.
August 15, 1990
Mr. Chris Enger
City of Eden Prairie
7600 Executive Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Dear Mr. Enger:
RE: PROJECT PLANS TO BE REVIEWED AT JUNE 25, 1990 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING
We have reviewed the site plans (received May 30, 1990) which were
to be submitted for the June 25, 1990 Planning Commission meeting.
The following comments are offered for your files:
Menard's 6th Addition and Eden Prairie Rental Center (SW1/4 Section
11 Township 116 North, Range 22 West):
The project sites do not contain any OUR protected waters or
wetlands; therefore, no OUR protected waters permits are required.
The sites do not appear to be within a shoreland or floodplain
district.
William Reiling/U.S. Post Office (NE1/4 Section 22, Township 116
North, Range 22 West:
The project site does not contain any OUR protected waters or
wetlands; therefore, no DUN protected waters permit is required.
The site does not appear to be within a shoreland or floodplain
district.
Hedquist Addition (Eli NE1/4 Section 10, Township 116 North, Range 22
West:
Protected wetland 27-814W is on the northeast corner of the proposed
site. Any activity below the ordinary high water (OHW) elevation,
which alters the course, current or cross-section of protected
waters or wetlands, is under the jurisdiction of the OUR and may
require a OUR protected waters permit. No official OHW has been
established for wetland 27-814W. Please contact this office if
there is any question about whether the proposed activities will be
within protected wetland 27-814W and we can make arrangements to
estimate or officially determine, if necessary, the OHW.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Chris Enger
August 15, 1990
Page Two
The site does not appear to be within a shoreland district, however,
a portion of the site is adjacent to the floodplain for Nine tile
Creek. It appears that the portion of the site adjacent to the
floodplain has been set aside in a no construction-no cut-no now
easement, which is good.
The proposed plan does not indicate how the stormwater will be
managed. You are advised that the DNR would object to having the
stormwater routed directly to wetland 27-814W. Stormwater
sedimentation/treatment basins, or other appropriate stormwater
treatment features, should be included in the stormwater management
plan. If stormwater is routed directly to wetland 27-814W it can
cause sedimentation and water level bounces that are detrimental to
the basin's wildlife values and water quality.
Assembly of God (SE4 Section 7, Township 116 North, Range 22 West):
Comments to come under separate cover.
General Comments for All Projects:
If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per
day or 1 million gallons per year, the contractor will need to
obtain a DNR appropriation permit. You are advised that it
typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit
application.
Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during the
construction period. The Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and
Sediment Control Planning Handbook (Board of Water and Soil
Resources and Association of Metropolitan Soil and Water
Conservation Districts) guidelines, or their equivalent, should be
followed.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at
296-7523 should you have any questions regarding these comments.
Sincerely,
Ceil Strauss
Area Hydrologist
C262:kap
cc: B. Obermeyer, Nine Mile Creek WSD
Wetland 27-814W file
Nine Mile Creek file
May 29, 1990
City of Eden Prairie
Planning Department
Eden Prairie, Minnesota
Dear Sirs;
These plans are being presented to the City of Eden Prairie for the
purpose of subdividing the property known as 12900 Gerard Drive.
All City ordinances at the time of the submission of this
subdivision application had been complied with. The present land
zoning on this property is R22. All of the lots will meet or
exceed the R22 land requirements. The R22 zoning on this property
was dictated by the City and was not requested or partitioned for
by me.
The existing property will be divided into six residential lots.
The lots will vary in size from 22,000 to 34,000 square feet. The
lots will be supplied with City sanitary sewer and City water. The
sanitary sewer will be connected to the City sewer system (as noted
on the plans). The sanitary sewer will run in a Northerly
direction and will be connected to the existing sanitary sewer. The
City sewer line is running along the Northern boundary of this
property line. The water supply will be connected to the City
water main. The City water main is located in Gerard Drive.
The land requirements for a public street can be accomplished
within the boundaries of the subdivsion. The land requirements for
the six lots can also be accomplished with the public street.
I have reviewed this property subdivision using a public street and
using a private street. The private street will provide the best
use of the land and therefore will have the least impact on the
environment.
In conclusion I am requesting;
1. The subdivision of the land into six lots.
2. A public street be approved to the first 200 feet, as shown
on the plans.
3. A private street be approved for the ingress/egress to lots
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
4. The existing zoning be maintained at R22 which was established
by the City Planing Dept.
5. That Hedquist Development be permitted to connect to the City
sanitary sewer and City water.
6. The City of Eden Prairie except the "Scenic Easement" in
order to preserve the environment.
7. I have been working with the City staff for the past 5 months
on this six (6) lot subdivision. I am requesting that this
subdivision be given a prompt review and approval as
submitted.
If you have any additional questions please call.
Sincerely,
-•
Don Hedquist
6209 Balder Lane
Edina, Mn 55439
944-73956209
1,;4,1a
Member introduced the following resolution and moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO
THE ISSUANCE OF REFUNDING REVENUE BONDS
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 462C, MINNESOTA
STATUTES
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie,
Minnesota (the City), as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. By the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as
amended (the Act), the City has issued its Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds
(Eden Commons Limited Partnership Project), Series 1985 (the 1985 Bonds), to
finance a portion of the cost of the Eden Commons Apartments, a 196-unit
multifamily rental housing facility located at 11605 Wilder Drive in the City (the
Project).
1.02. The City has received a proposal from Eden Commons LaNel
Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership (the Partnership), that the
City issue and sell refunding bonds under the Act (the Refunding Bonds) to refund
in whole or in part the 1985 Bonds. Following the issuance of the Refunding Bonds,
the Partnership will be the owner of the Project.
1.03. A public hearing was held at 7:30 p.m. on October 2, 1990 on the
proposal that the City issue the Refunding Bonds to refund the 1985 Bonds.
Section 2. Approvals.
2.01. Preliminary approval is hereby given to the issuance of the
Refunding Bonds to refund the 1985 Bonds. The principal of, premium, if any, and
interest on each Refunding Bond, when, as and if issued, shall be payable solely
from the revenues of the Project and the property pledged to the payment thereof
and shall not constitute a debt of the City. The City Attorney and other officers of
the City are authorized in cooperation with Dorsey & Whitney, as bond counsel, to
initiate preparation of such documents as may be appropriate to the issuance of the
Refunding Bonds setting forth the detailed terms of the Refunding Bonds, the
security therefor and provisions for payment of the principal, premium, if any, and
interest thereon in compliance with state and federal statutes and regulations.
2.02. The Partnership has agreed to pay directly or through the City any
and all costs incurred by the City in connection with the issuance of the Refunding
Bonds whether or not the Refunding Bonds are issued.
2.03. The adoption of this resolution does not constitute a guarantee or
a firm commitment that the City will issue the Refunding Bonds as requested by the
Partnership. The City retains the right in its sole discretion to withdraw from
participation and accordingly not issue the Refunding Bonds should the City at any
time prior to the issuance thereof determine that it is in the best interest of the City
not to issue the Refunding Bonds or should the City, the Partnership and any other
parties of the transaction be unable to reach agreement as to the terms and
conditions of any of the documents required for the transaction.
2.04. All commitments of the City expressed herein are subject to the
condition that within twelve months of the date of adoption of this Resolution the
City and the Partnership shall have agreed to mutually acceptable terms and
conditions of the Refunding Bonds, the operative documents and of the other
instruments and proceedings relating to the Refunding Bonds and their issuance
and sale. If the events set forth herein do not take place within the time set forth
above, or any extension thereof, and the Refunding Bonds are not sold within such
time, this Resolution shall expire and be of no further effect.
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this
2nd day of October, 1990.
Mayor
Attest:
City Finance Director/Clerk
2
Resolution No.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, HENNEPIN COUNTY,
MINNESOTA, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE or $13,795,000
AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA,
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS (WELSH PARKWAY
APARTMENTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP PROJECT-FHA INSURED MORTGAGE
LOAN) SERIES 1990-A, AND $1,055,000 AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, TAXABLE MULTIFAMILY
HOUSING REVENUE BONDS (WELSH PARKWAY APARTMENTS LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP PROJECT - FHA INSURED MORTGAGE LOAN) SERIES
1990-8 AND APPROVING THE FORMS THEREOF AND AUTHORIZING THE
EXECUTION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS RELATING THERETO.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden
Prairie (the City), as followe:
Section 1. Findings. It is hereby found and declared
that: /1
1.1) The City is duly organized as a statutory city under
the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota and is
authorized, under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462A and
Chapter 462C (collectively, the Act) to develop and administer
multifamily housing programs, pursuant to a housing plan, which
programs may be financed by the issuance of the housing revenue
bonds of the City.
1.2) The City adopted a Housing Plan after a public
hearing thereon and review and comment by the Metropolitan
Council, pursuant to and in conformity with the provisions of
the Act.
1.3) The City prepared and approved a housing program (the
Program) under the Act to finance the coLetructiOn and
equipping of a 375-unit multifamily rental housing development,
located at 13905 Chestnut Drive in the City (the Project), by
Parkway Apartments Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited
partnership (the Former Owner); and the City Council and the
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency approved the Program as
required by the Act.
1.4) At least twenty percent (20%) of the unite in the
Project have been and will continue to be held for occupancy by
families or individuals with adjusted gross income not in
excess of eighty percent (80%) of the median family income
estimated by the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development for the Minneapolis/St. Paul Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Area, and an additional fifty-five percent (55%) of
the units in the Project have and will continue to have rents
maintained at levels affordable by individuals or families
whose adjusted gross income does not exceed one hundred ten
percent (110%) of such median family income.
1.5) The City conducted a public hearing regarding the
adoption of the Program, including the issuance of the City's
$17,000,000 Housing Development Revenue Note (Parkway
Apartments Limited Partnership Project) Series 1985 (the Note),
on July 25, 1985, after at least fifteen (15) days' public
notice thereof published in a newspaper of general circulation
in the City, at which members of the public were provided an
opportunity to express their views with respect to the Provers
and the financing of the Project with the proceeds of the Note.
1.6) The City issued the Note on October 8, 1985, and the
proceeds of the Note, in the amount of Seventeen Million
Dollars ($17,000,000), were disbursed to the Original Owner
under the terms of a Loan Agreement and a Disbursing Agreement
(collectively, the original Loan Documents), to pay the costs
of the Project in the manner provided in the Loan Documents.
1.7) Welsh Parkway Apartments Limited Partnership, a
Minnesota limited partnership (the Company) purchased the
Project from the Original Owner and assumed its obligatiOne
under the Original Loan Documents.
1.8) The Company has asked that the City issue its
Multifamily Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds (Welsh Parkway
Apartments Limited Partnership Project-PHA insured Mortgage
Loan) Series 1990-A (the Series A Bonds) in the aggregate
principal amount not to exceed Thirteen million Seven Hundred
Ninety-Five Thousand Dollars ($13,795,000) and its Taxable
Multifamily mousing Revenue Bonds (Welsh Parkway Apartments
Limited Partnership Project - FHA Insured Mortgage Loan) Series
1990-B (the Series B Sonde) a portion of the proceeds of which
Series A Bonds and Series B Bonds (collectively, the Bonds)
will be used to fund a Mortgage Loan to be insured by the
Government (as defined below), the proceeds of which Mortgage
Loan, together with certain funds provided by the Company and
the remaining proceeds of the Bends, will be used to refund,
redeem, and repay a like principal amount of the Note, to fund
certain reserve funds required under the indenture (as
hereafter defined) and to pay certain costs of 1,ssuance of the
Bonds.
1.9) It is proposed that the Mortgage Loan be evidenced by
a nonrecourse Mortgage Note (the FHA Note), executed by the
Company to First Trust National Association (the Trustee) and
secured by a Mortgage (the Mortgage) and a Security Agreement
(the Security Agreement) from the Company to the Trustee.
1.10) It is proposed that, in accordance with a firm
Colmnitment. for Insurance dated September 19, 1990 (the
Commitment), the FHA Note be endorsed for mortgage insurance by
the Federal Housing Administration of the United States
Department oL Housing and Urban Development (the Government)
pursuant to the provisions of Section 223(f) of the National
Housing Act, as amended, evidencing the Government's obligation
to insure the Mortgage (the Contract of Mortgage Insurance).
2 .
2 j2
1.11) It is proposed that the Bonds be secured by and
repaid from proceeds derived from the FHA Note; certain moneys
held by the Trustee, including funds and letters of credit in
the debt service reserve fund; and any proceeds of the Contract
of Mortgage Insurance.
1.12) It is proposed that:
(1) The City enter into an Indenture of Trust, dated as
of October 1, 1990 (the Indenture), with the Trustee, to
provide, among other things, for the issuance of the Honda
by the City;
(2) The Trustee and Nichols/Conlan Financial Company
(Mortgage Servicer) enter into a Mortgage Servicing
Agreement, pursuant to authority granted to the Trustee by
the City in the Indenture, under the terms of which the
Mortgage Servicer will make payment to the Trustee of
certain proceeds received by the Mortgage Servicer in
connection with the Mortgage Loan;
(3) The Company execute the FHA Note, pursuant to the
terms of which the Company is to make level monthly
payments of principal and interest necessary to repay the
Mortgage Loan;
(4) In order to secure the performance of the Company's
obligations under the FHA Note, the Company enter into the
Mortgage and the Security Agreement, both dated as of
October 1, 1990, granting the Trustee a mortgage and
security interest in the Project;
(5) The City, the Company, and the Trustee enter into a
Financing Agreement, dated as of October 1, 1990, under
which the proceeds of the Bonds would be loaned to the
Company in order to pay the cost of refunding the Note,
funding certain reserve funds under the Indenture and
paying certain costs of issuance in connection with the
Bonds. Under the Financing Agreement, the Company is to
make all payments due on the Mortgage Loan, and the Company
is to pay all costs of maintenance and repair, all taxes,
assessments, and insurance premiums concerning or in any
way related to the Project; and
(6) The Company and the City enter into an Amended and
Restated Supplemental Regulatory Agreement, dated as of
October I, 1990 (the Amended Supplemental Regulatory
Agreement), wherein the Company covenants that it will
comply with all requirements of Section 103(b)(4)(A) of the
Interndl Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, and the
regulations thereunder (the Code), and with all
requirements of the Act and any rules and regulations of
the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency.
3.
1.13) The City has receivod an offer (the Bond Purchase
Agreement) from Piper, Jaffrey & Hopwood Incorporated (the
Underwriter), for the purchase of the Bonds at an interest rate
not to exceed eight percent (8%) on the Series A Bonds and a
coupon rate not to exceed eight percent (8%) on the Series B
Bonds. The Bonds are to be offered and sold to prospective
purchasers of the Bends by two Official Statement (the Official
Statements).
1.14) No litigation is pending or, to the best knowledge of
the members of this Council, threatened against the City
questioning the organization or boundaries of the City or the
right of any officer of the City to hold his or her office, or
in any manner questioning the right and power of the City to
execute and deliver the Bonds, or otherwise questioning the
validity of the proposed Financing Agreement, the Indenture,
the Amended Supplemental Regulatory Agreement, the Bond
Purchase Agreement; or questioning the appropriation of
revenues for the payment of the Bonds or the right Of the CitY
to lend the proceeds of the Bonds to the Company.
1.15) All acts and things required under the Constitution
and the laws of the State of Minnesota to make the Financing
Agreement, the Indenture, the Amended Supplemental Regulatory
Agreement, the Bond Purchase Agreement, and the Bonds the valid
and binding obligations of the City in accordance with their
terms will have been done upon adoption of this Resolution and
the execution and delivery of the Financing Agreement, the
Indenture, the Amended Supplemental Regulatory Agreement, the
Bond Purchase Agreement, and the Bonds.
Section 2
• •
L •
ancLi..x.e.autiau_sal_Dasaiments.
2.1) Documents - Pursuant to the above, there have been
prepared and presented to this Council copies of the following
documents (in the aggregate, the Documents) all of which are
now placed on file in the office of the City Clprk:
(1) The FHA Note;
(2) The Mortgage;
(3) The Security Agreement;
(4) The Financing Agreement;
(5) The Indenture;
(6) The Amended Supplemental Regulatory Agreement;
(7) The Mortgage Servicing Agreement;
4.
)4/
(8) The Bond Purchase Agreement; and
(9) The Official Statements.
2.2) ges,Ser_iy.a.tien and Execution gf Document. - The forms
of the Documents listed above are approved, with such
variations, insertions, and additions as are deemed appropriate
by the parties thereto and approved by the City Attorney. The
Mayor and the City Manager are hereby authorized and directed
to execute, attest, and deliver the Financing Agreement, the
Indenture, the Amended Supplemental Regulatory Agreement, and
the Bond Purchase Agreement. All of the provisions of the
Financing Agreement, the Indenture, the Amended Supplemental
Regulatory Agreement, and the Bond Purchase Agreement, when
executed and delivered as authorized herein, shall be deemed to
be a part of this Resolution as fully and to the same extent as
if incorporated verbatim herein and shall be in full force and
effect from the date of execution and delivery thereof. The
Financing Agreement, the Indenture, the Amended Supplemental
Regulatory Agreement, and the Bond Purchase Agreement shall be
substantially in the forms on file in the office of the City
Clerk but with such variations, omissions, and insertions as
may be approved by the officers executing the same, which
approval shall be conclusively evidenced by such execution.
2.3) Autherlattelan_fer....I.I.Euience_and Sale of Bonds - For
the purpose of financing a portion of the cost of refunding the
Note, there is hereby authorized the issuance of the Thirteen
Million Seven Hundred Ninety-Five Thousand Dollar ($13,795,000)
aggregate principal amount City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota,
Multitamily Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds (Welsh Parkway
Apartments Limited Partnership Project-FHA Insured Mortgage
Loan) Series 1990-A and One million Fifty-Five Thousand Dollar
($1,055,000) aggregate principal amount City of Eden Prairie,
Minnesota, Taxable Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (Welsh
Parkway Apartments Limited Partnership Project-FHA Insured
Mortgage Loan) Series 1990-B. The Bonds shall be issued in
fully registered form, shall be in such denominations, shall
bear interest, shall be numbered, shall be dated, shall mature,
shall be in such form and shall have such other details and
provisions as are prescribed by the Indenture. The Bonds with
the longest term shall have a final maturity date of July 1,
2026.
2.4) S.peciel Obligations - The Bonds shall be special
obligations of the City, payable solely from the revenues
derived from the FHA Note, except to the extent payable from
the proceeds of the Bonds, including letters of credit and
funds in the debt service reserve fund, the proceeds of any
insurance or condemnation awards or amounts realized from the
Contract of Mortgage Insurance. The Bonds do not constitute a
debt of the City, nor does the City pledge its full faith and
credit to the payment of the Bonds. The Bonds shall not
constitute an indebtedness of the State of Minnesota, the
County of Hennepin, or the City within the meaning of any
5.
i4f
Amit
constitutional or statutory provisions whatsoever, me # shall
the Bonds constitute or give rise to a pecuniary liability or
be a charge against the general credit or taxing power of the
State of Minnesota, the County of Hennepin, or the City.
2.5) Eataz=21:Latjaszadz - The Bonds shall be executed by
the facsimile signatures of the Mayor and the City Manager and
the facsimile of the official seal of the City shall be
imprinted thereon. The Trustee is hereby appointed
authenticating agent pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Section 475.55, Subd. 1. All Bonds shall contain an
authentication certificate, to be executed by the Trustee as
authenticating agent.
2.6) abeence of Officers - In the absence of the Mayor or
the City Manager, any of the Bonds and any of the other
documents authorized by this resolution to be executed and
delivered, may be executed and delivered by any other member of
the City CounCil in place of the Mayor or City Manager, or such
other officers of the City as, in the opinion of the City
Attorney, have authority to execute and deliver such documents.
2.7) Sale of Bands - The offer of the Underwriter to
purchase the Bonds upon the terms and conditions prescribed in
the Bond Purchase Agreement is hereby found to be reasonable
and advantageous to the City and is hereby accepted; the Mayor
and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed on behalf
of the City to execute and deliver the Bond Purchase Agreement.
2.8) Official Statements . The City hereby consents to the
distribution of the Official Statements on file in the office
of the City Clerk by the Underwriter in connection with the
sale of the Bonds; however, the City makes no representations
with respect to, and assumes no reeponsibility for, the
contents of the Official Statements.
2.9) Trustee - The designation of First Trust National
Association, in St. Paul, Minnesota, as Trustee is hereby
approved.
2.10) Paying Agent - The Trustee is hereby appointed as
Paying Agent for the Bonds pursuant to the Indenture.
Section 3. Miscellaneous.
3.1) Jnvalidity - In case any one or more of the
provisions of this Resolution, the Financing Agreement, the
Indenture, the Amended Supplemental Regulatory Agreement, the
Bond Purchase Agreement, or any of the Bonds issued hereunder
shall for any reason be held to be illegal or invalid, such
illegality or invalidity shall not affect any other provision
of this Resolution, the Financing Agreement, the Indenture, the
Amended Supplemental Regulatory Agreement, the Bond Purchase
Agreement, Or the Bonds, but this Resolution, the Indenture,
6.
ol Li , .41
the Financing Agreement, the Amended Supplemental Regulatory
Agreement, the Bond Purchase Agreement, and the Bonds shall be
construed and enforced as If such illegal or invalid provision
had not been contained therein.
3.2) Be.‘011ari_ty_41.2,;Ltuluwal - The Bonds shall contain a
recital that the Bonds are being issued pursuant to the Act,
and such recital shall be conclusive evidence of the validity
of the Bonds and the regularity of the issuance thereof, and
that all acts, conditions and things required by the
Constitution and the laws of the State relating to the adoption
of this Resolution, to the issuance of the Bonds and to the
execution of the Financing Agreement, the Indenture, the
Amended Supplemental Regulatory Agreement, and the Bond
Purchase Agreement to happen, to exist, and to be performed
precedent to and in the enactment of this Resolution and
precedent to the issuance of the Bonds and precedent to the
execution of the Financing Agreement, the Indenture, the
Amended Supplemental Regulatory Agreement, and the Bond
Purchase Agreement have happened, do exist and have been
performed as so required by law.
3.3) Paristrantua - The officers of the City, attorneys,
and other agents or employees of the City are hereby authorized
to do all acts and things required of them by or in connection
with this Resolution, the Bonds, the Financing Agreement, the
Indenture, the Amended Supplemental Regulatory Agreement, and
the Bond Purchase Agreement for the full, punctual and complete
performance of all the terms, covenants, and agreements
contained therein.
3.4) Certiiicati.ons - The Mayor, City Manager, City Clerk,
and other officers of the City are hereby authorized and
directed to prepare and furnish to Larkin, Hoffman, Daly &
Lindgren, Ltd., )nd counsel, to the Company, to the Trustee,
to the Underwriter, and ,o counsel for such partiee, certified
copies of all proceedings and records of the City relating to
the Project and the Bonds, and such other affidavits and
certificates as may be required to show the facts appearing
from the hooks and records in the officers' custody and control
or as otherwise known to them; and all such certified copies,
certificates and affidavits, including any heretofore
furnished, shall constitute representations of the City as to
the truth of all statements contained therein.
3.5) peitnitions - Terms not otherwise defined in this
Resolution, but defined in the Indenture, shall have the same
meanings in this Resolution as provided in the Indenture.
7 .
3.6) Execution Dgte of Reaalution - This Resolution shall
be in full force and effect from and after its passage.
Adopted by the City Council on October 2, 1990.
(SEAL)
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
SRO : 1Z78
OCTOBER 2.1990
63016
63017
63018
3 3019
3020
63021
63022
63023
63024
63025
63026
63027
63028
63029
63030
63031
63032
63033
63034
63035
63036
63037
63038
63039
63040
63041
63042
63043
63044
3045
3046
63047
63048
63049
63050
63051
63052
63053
63054
63055
63056
63057
63058
63059
63060
63061
63062
83063
63064
63065
63066
63067
63068
(
03069
PAYROLL 9/7.90
PAYROLL 9/7/90
PAYROLL 9/7/90
PAROLL 9/7/90
SEPTEMBER "90 LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUM
PAYROLL 9/7/90
PAYROLL 9/7/90
PAYROLL 9/7/90
SEPTEMBER 90 UNION DUES
PAYROLL 9/7/90
SEPTEMBER "90 DISABILITY INSURANCE PREMIUM
OCTOBER "90 LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUM
PAYROLL 9/7/90
PAYROLL 9/7/90
PAYROLL 8/24/90 & 9/7/90
BLACKTOP FOR BIKE TRAILS-PARK MAINTENANCE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
AUGUST '90 FUEL TAX
CONFERENCE-LIQUOR STORE
REFUND-TENNIS LESSONS
REFUND-SAILING LESSONS
REFUND-SKATING LESSONS
REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS
REFUND-EMERGENCY WATER SAFETY CLASS
REFUND-WATER SAFETY CLASS
REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS
REFUND-SKATING LESSONS
REFUND-EMERGENCY WATER SAFETY CLASS
REFUND-EMERGENCY WATER SAFETY CLASS
REFUND-SKATING LESSONS
REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS
REFUND-SKATING LESSONS
REFUND DEPOSIT-DRIVEWAY INSTALLATION
COMPUTER-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT
-SERVICE-MUTUAL AID-WILLIAMS PIPELINE
INCIDENT-FIRE DEPT
MINUTES/EXPENSES-CITY COUNCIL
CONFERENCE-PLANNING DEPT
CONFERENCE-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT
REFUND-SOFTBALL ELIGIBILITY FEE
SCHOOL-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT
AUGUST '90 SALES TAX
POSTAGE-CITY HALL
CANINE TRIALS-POLICE DEPT
CANINE TRIALS REGISTRATION FEE-POLICE DEPT
SERVICE-PACKET DELIVERY
GRINDER WHEEL RENTAL/GAS-COMMUNITY CENTER
SPECIAL TRIPS & EVENTS/FEES PAID
CHANGE FUND-COMMUNITY CENTER
-CONFERENCE-HUMAN RIGHTS SERVICES &
COMMISSIONS
COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE
CROW WING COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES
FIRST BANK EDEN PRAIRIE
GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO
GUARANTEE MUTUAL LIFE COMPANY
HEWN CTY SUPPORT & COLLECTION SER
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
INTL UNION OF OPERATING ENG
MN TEAMSTERS CREDIT UNION
MUTUAL BENEFIT LIFE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-PERA
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-PERA
UNITED WAY
NORWEST BANK HOPKINS
J L SHIELY COMPANY
AT&T CONSUMER PRODUCTS DIV
AT&T
MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC 00-0P
NORTHERN STATES POWER 00
S WEST CELLULAR INC
U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE
HOLIDAY EXPO "90
JANICE ANDERSON
MARK BREMER
CATHY GREEN
BONNIE HAGEMAN
MARIANNE HARDER
ELIZABETH MARCH
CHERYL HARTELIUS
GAYLE MORIN
KATHY RUCKER
DARLENE SEPPMAN
ELLEN SHIPLETT
CAROLE SPINELLA
BONNIE WEBB
PATRICK J BYRNE
APPLE COMPUTER INC
BEDOMINGTON FIRE DEPT
BARB MALINSKI
MILE
KEYE PRODUCTIVITY CENTER
PERKIN ELMER
MACACADEMY
COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE
PATRICIA BARKER
TRAVEL PROFESSIONALS
U S POLICE CANINE ASSN
DANA GIBES
PETTY CASH-COMMUNITY CENTER
MINNESOTA ZOO
PETTY CASH
LEAGUE OF MN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISS
12513.48
155.00
61476.72
5005.20
2732.00
194.76
1848.04
32.00
1033.00
25.00
2702.39
152.00
30441.15
219.50
1060.00
678.86
134.85
114.73
55.25
11.12
99.18
5297.31
490.60
70.00
15.00
2.80
80.00
20.00
44.00
36.00
17.00
40.00
30.00
28.00
37.00
17.00.
37.00
1000.00
1438.86
658.44
155.49
175.00
125.00
100.00
249.00
22489.22
28.25
790.00
65.00
102.00
18.32
20.00
50.00
120.00
15453830
63070 MN RECREATION & PARK ASSN
83071 BOYD OIL DISTRIBUTING
63072 JIM LINDGREN
63073 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO
3074 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY
,3075 DEBORAH AUSTIN
63076 SHARON BUNTIN
63077 SHELLEY GOODALL
63078 KATHLEEN GRIFFITHS
63079 JANE KELLEY
63080 ASHLEY LARSON
63081 ADRIAN LARSON-MALL)
63082 KAREN OLCOTT
63083 LORI OLSON
63084 CINDY SANHAMEL
63085 LOUISE SCHURLE
63086 GINGER TRAUL
63087 ROBERT WESTMEYER
63088 LORICE WONER
63089 EAGLE WINE CO
63090 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC
63091 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO
63092 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO
63093 PRIOR WINE CO
63094 QUALITY WINE CO
63095 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS
63096 PRISCILLA BAILEY
63097 JUDITH BAKER
63098 BERNADINE BEAUVAIS
63099 CONSTANCE BLAD
3100 BARBARA CAIL
63101 SHIRLEY CARLON
63102 FAY CLARK
63103 GERTRUDE DAHLBERG
63104 [LUISE DOUGHTY
63105 RUTH EHLEN
63106 LORETTA ELLISON
63107 BETTY FRITZ
63108 VIRGINIA K GARTNER
63109 JULIET GLEASON
63110 RHODA C HAAS
63111 ANNE HAWKINS
63112 CAROL HEGGE
63113 BERNICE M HOLASEK
63114 ALLENE HOOKOM
63115 KENNETH HOOKOM
63116 ISABELL J IVERSON
63117 ELAINE M JACQUES
63118 SHIRLEY JELLISON
63119 WILLIAM JELLISON
63120 LYLE J JOHNSTON
63121 PAULINE JOHNSTON
63122 DELORES KLEIN
63123 DAVID C KNAAK
TOUCH FOOTBALL TEAM REGISTRATION/FEES PAID
OIL/OIL ANALYSIS KIT-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
EXPENSES-CANINE TRIALS-POLICE DEPT
SERVICE
SERVICE
REFUND-SKATING LESSONS
REFUND-TENNIS LESSONS
REFUND-SKATING LESSONS
REFUND-SKATING LESSONS
REFUND-ARCHERY CLASS
REFUND-SKATING LESSONS
REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS
REFUND-TENNIS LESSONS
REFUND-SKATING LESSONS
REFUND-STARING LAKE PARK BUILDING RENTAL
REFUND-TENNIS LESSONS
REFUND-1ST AID TRAINING CLASS
REFUND-SKATING LESSONS
REFUND-SENIOR CITIZENS PROGRAM/FEES PAID
WINE
LIQUOR
LIQUOR
LIQUOR
WINE
LIQUOR
SERVICE
ELECTION JUDGE WAGES
ELECTION JUDGE WAGES
ELECTION JUDGE WAGES
ELECTION JUDGE WAGES
ELECTION JUDGE WAGES
ELECTION JUDGE WAGES
ELECTION JUDGE WAGES
ELECTION JUDGE WAGES
ELECTION JUDGE WAGES
ELECTION JUDGE WAGES
ELECTION JUDGE WAGES
ELECTION JUDGE WAGES
ELECTION JUDGE WAGES
ELECTION JUDGE WAGES
ELECTION JUDGE WAGES
ELECTION JUDGE WAGES
ELECTION JUDGE WAGES
ELECTION JUDGE WAGES
ELECTION JUDGE WAGES
ELECTION JUDGE WAGES
ELECTION JUDGE WAGES
ELECTION JUDGE WAGES
ELECTION JUDGE WAGES
ELECTION JUDGE WAGES
ELECTION JUDGE WAGES
ELECTION JUDGE WAGES
ELECTION JUDGE WAGES
ELECTION JUDGE WAGES
77.00
2387.97
200.00
4046.57
22887.82
40.00
22.00
37.00
37.00
12.00
19.00
17.00
22.00
37.00
93.00
22.00
32.00
3.30
18.00
1690.90
13562.93
13074.66
9965.58
2709.53
9210.91
2744.96
102.00
120.75
103.50
96.00
124.25
96.00
122.50
102.00
99.00
102.00
99.00
97.50
126.00
96.00
100.50
97.50
124.25
97.50
99.00
100.50
97.50
97.50
120.75
100.50 :
99.00
96.00
99.00
94.50
8588063
ELECTION JUDGE WAGES
ELECTION JUDGE WAGES
ELECTION JUDGE WAGES
ELECTION JUDGE WAGES
ELECTION JUDGE WAGES
ELECTION JUDGE WAGES
EXPENSES-CANINE TRIALS-POLICE DEPT
CONFERENCE-STREET DEPT
OCTOBER 2.1990
63124 LESTER LABORE
63125 ADELINE L LEVIN
63126 NANCY LITTLE
1127 VIOLA MCLAIN
3128 RUTH MITAL
63129 JOYCE MYHRE
63130 ALFRED L NELSON
63131 CAROLINE NELSON
63132 MARION L NESBITT
63133 KATHLYN NICHOLSON
63134 PHIL OLSON
63135 LAURIE PENNEBAKER
63136 KATHLEEN PORTA
63137 JIM RANNOW
63138 LINDA RUDBERG
63139 BErrY SCHAITBERGER
63140 ALICE J SCHULTZ
63141 CAROLE J SHERIDAN
63142 MARY UPTON
63143 BARBARA VANDERPLOEG
63144 MELODY VILLARS
63145 MARIE WITTENBERG
63146 ETHYL L WOKASCH
63147 JO ANN WRONSKI
63148 JIM DEMANN
63149 TTTC
ELECTION
ELECTION
ELECTION
ELECTION
ELECTION
ELECTION
ELECTION
ELECTION
ELECTION
ELECTION
ELECTION
ELECTION
ELECTION
ELECTION
ELECTION
ELECTION
ELECTION
ELECTION
JUDGE WAGES
JUDGE WAGES
JUDGE WAGES
JUDGE WAGES
JUDGE WAGES
JUDGE WAGES
JUDGE WAGES
JUDGE WAGES
JUDGE WAGES
JUDGE WAGES
JUDGE WAGES
JUDGE WAGES
JUDGE WAGES
JUDGE WAGES
JUDGE WAGES
JUDGE WAGES
JUDGE WAGES
JUDGE WAGES
124.25
94.50
99.00
102.00
126.00
117.25
97.50
99.00
99.00
97.50
100.50
100.50
122.50
119.00
99.00
100.50
102.00
96.00
87.00
122.50
99.00
102.00
99.00
122.50
697.66 ]
60.0(t
63150 A 0 K RENTAL CENTER TRUCK RENTAL-ELECTIONS 148.18
63151 AAA TREE & YARD RECYCLING WASTE DISPOSAL-FORESTRY DEPT 2002.50
1152 GENE ABBOTT SCHOOL-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT 257.38
,3153 HERB ADOLPHSON EXPENSES-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT 15.00
63154 AIRLIFT DOORS INC TRANSMITTERS-FACILITIES DEPT 63.14
63155 AIRSIGNAL INC -SEPTEMBER '90 PAGER SERVICE-BUILDING 358.00
-INSPECTIONS DEPT/POLICE DEPT/FIRE DEPT/
COMMUNITY CENTER
63156 ROBERT ALDRICH -LAKE SUPERIOR HIKING TRAIL GUIDE-OUTDOOR 135.00
CENTER PROGRAM/FEES PAID
63157 AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY CO -UNIFORMS-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT/ 1280.42
-FACILITIES DEPT/STREET DEPT/EQUIPMENT
-MAINT/PARK MAINT/COMMUNITY CENTER/ANIMAL
-CONTROL/POLICE DEPT/MOP HEADS & TOWELS-
LIQUOR STORE
63158 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION BOOK-PLANNING DEPT 24.43
63159 ANSAFONE OF MN INC TELEPHONE REPAIR-CITY HALL 81.00
63160 EARL F ANDERSEN & ASSOC INC -SIGNS-STREET DEPT/RED SUPERSTRIPE-FIRE 802.93
DEPT/PARK MAINTENANCE
63161 ANDERSON'S GARDEN EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 102.50
63162 ANDRUS AGENCY INC SERVICE-CITY HALL SITE SELECTION 195.00
63163 LISA ARNE REFUND-OVERPAYMENT UTILITY BILLING 58.97
63164 DON ATKINS -EXPENSES-SUNBONNET DAY-HISTORICAL & 4.47
CULTURAL COMMISSION
63165 BARTON ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES INC SERVICE-HIGHWAY 5 TO COUNTY ROAD 4 9581.35
63166 BATTERY & TIRE WAREHOUSE INC -CEMENT/VALVES/LAMPS/BATTERIES/SPARK PLUGS- 769.70
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
, '3167 BELL ATLANTIC TRICON LEASING CORP -OCTOBER "90 COPIER LEASE AGREEMENT-POLICE 358.68
DEPT
1952431
OCTOBER 2.1990
63168 LINDSAY BERDAN
63169 BERRY COFFEE COMPANY
63170 BRUCE BETTENDORF
3171 BIFFS INC
,3172 BLEVINS CONCESSION SUPPLY COMPANY
63173 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON
63174 TERRY FRAUD
63175 BRAUN ENGINEERING TESTING INC
63176 BRO-TEX INC
63177 TONY BROUGH
63178 BRUNSON INSTRUMENT-MPLS
63179 BUSINESS RECORDS CORPORATION
63180 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC
63181 CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS
63182 CEDAR COMPUTER CENTER INC
63183 CHAPIN PUBLISHING COMPANY
63184 BILL CLARK OIL CO INC
63185 JAMES CLARK
63186 COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION
63187 COMPRESS AIR & EQUIPMENT CO
63188 COMPUTER BUYING SERVICE
63189 COPY EQUIPMENT INC
63190 CORPORATE RISK MANAGERS INC
63191 CUSHMAN MOTOR CO INC
63192 BILL DAGGETT
3193 DALCO
63194 DATASOURCE-CONNECTING POINT
63195 CRAIG W DAWSON
63196 RACHEL DENNIS
63197 DAN DESAULNIERS
63198 EUGENE DIETZ
63199 TED DDE
63200 DONS SOD SERVICE
63201 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU
63202 PAULA DUNNUM
63203 E P PHOTO
63204 EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY
63205 THE ECONOMICS PRESS INC
63206 EDEN INCENTIVES & PROMOTIONS
63207 EDEN PRAIRIE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
63208 EDEN PRAIRIE FIRE RELIEF ASSN
83209 EDEN PRAIRIE FOUNDATION
63210 DEB EDLUND
63211 JOHN H EKLUND
63212 ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY INC
63213 CHRIS ENGER
63214 EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS INC
63215 F M SERVICE & EQUIPMENT
TEEN VOLUNTEER WAGES
I,ERVICE
SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID
WASTE DISPOSAL-PARK MAINTENANCE
CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER
-JULY A AUGUST "90 ANIMAL IMPOUND SERVICE-
ANIMAL CONTROL
MILEAGE-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT
-SERVICE-MITCHELL RD EXTENSION & SANDY
-POINTE UTILITY & ROADWAY CONST/SUMMIT A
-MEADOWVALE & RED OAK DRIVES/HWY 5 SOUTH
FRONTAGE RD/MITCHELL LAKE SANITARY SEWER
TOWELS-POLICE DEPT
MILEAGE-FORESTRY DEPT
FIBERGLASS-PARK MAINTENANCE
COMPUTER PAPER-ELECTIONS
ROCK/GRAVEL-SEWER DEPT/PARK MAINTENANCE
RADIO-POLICE DEPT
TONER-CITY HALL
LEGAL ADS-MITCHELL LAKE SANITARY SEWER
OIL-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
SEPTEMBER "90 EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT
FINAL PAYMENT-SERVICE-HIGHWAY 5
HIGH PRESSURE AIR SYSTEM-FIRE DEPT
CONTROLLER/COMPUTER REPAIR-POLICE DEPT
OFFICE SUPPLIES-ENGINEERING DEPT
SEPTEMBER "90 SERVICE-INSURANCE CONSULTANT
FILTER-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID
-CLEANING SUPPLIES-FACILITIES DEPT/PARK
MAINTENANCE/COMMUNITY CENTER
COMPUTER CABLES-FINANCE DEPT
MILEAGE/EXPENSES-ADMINISTRATION DEPT
TEEN VOLUNTEER WAGES
SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID
AUGUST "90 EXPENSES-ENGINEERING DEPT
REFUND-OVERPAYMENT UTILITY BILLING
SOD-SEWER DEPT/PARK MAINTENANCE
EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT
AEROBICS INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID
FILM PROCESSING-HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION
AUGUST '90 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-CITY HALL
SUBSCRIPTION-ADMINISTRATION DEPT
AWARDS-FIRE DEPT
DUES-CITY HALL/LIQUOR STORES
1990 FIRE RELIEF STATE AID
-REIMBURSEMENT FOR PRINTS-HISTORICAL &
CULTURAL COMMISSION
MINUTES-PLANNING COMMISSION
WASTE DISPOSAL-FORESTRY DEPT
MASTER LOCKS/CAUTION SIGNS-SAFETY DEPT
SEPTEMBER '90 EXPENSES-PLANNING DEPT
POSTAGE-CITY HALL
-PRESSURE WASHER REPAIR-EQUIPMENT
MAINTENANCE
21.88
1139.50
139.50
1043.88
463.17
1134.00
145.00
17266.45
108.55
30.25
128.84
41.99
221.33
500.00
174.16
140.60
156.55
200.00
48998.24
10308.10
114.00
94.57
560.00
45.11
112.00
302.95
58.00
91.53
38.50
31.00
200.4W
37.23
3714.90
7.16
100.00
4.97
584.27
164.01
161.40
350.00
107876.00
180.00
125.00
245.00
120.18
200.00
6.70
75.00
19796147
OCTOBER 2.1990
83216 FAIRVIEW BLOOD TESTS-POLICE DEPT 54.88
63217 FEED RITE CONTROLS INC CHEMICALS-WATER DEPT 4714.29
( 3218 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP POSTAGE-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT 22.50
3219 FIRE INSTRUCTORS ASSN TRAINING SUPPLIES-FIRE DEPT 200.00
63220 FLOYD SECURITY KEYS-POLICE DEPT 108.00
63221 FOCUS ONE HOUR PHOTO PRINTS-ASSESSING DEPT 19.88
63222 FOUR STAR BAR & RESTAURANT SUPPLY SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES 541_50
63223 STUART FOX SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 31.00
63224 LYNDELL FREY -MILEAGE/EXPENSES-AFTERNOON PLAYGROUND 195.53
PROGRAM/SPECIAL TRIPS & EVENTS
63225 JACKIE FRIENDSHUH EXPENSES-OUTDOOR ADVENTURE PROGRAM 24.72
63226 LISA GANNON GOLF INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 540.00
63227 GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS INC RADIO REPAIR-POLICE DEPT 94.50
63228 GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORP CHAIN/PUMPER REPAIR-FIRE DEPT 142.63
63229 GETTING TO KNOW YOU ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES 163.35
63230 JOSEPH GLEASON SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 279.00
63231 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY 1990 MUNICIPAL CLIPPING SERVICE 150.00
63232 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC AUGUST '90 SERVICE 80.00
63233 W W GRAINGER INC -FOOT & TOE GUARDS/VOLT DETECTOR-SAFETY 310.42
-DEPT/LENSES/SAFETY GLASSES/COVERALLS/BINS-
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
63234 GRANT MERRITT & ASSOCIATES LTD -AUGUST '90 LEGAL SERVICE-FLYING CLOUD 12258.44
LANDFILL
63235 ALAN GRAY AUGUST '90 EXPENSES-ENGINEERING DEPT 200.00
63236 GUNNAR ELECTRIC CO INC -SERVICE-INSTALL 2 SMOKE DETECTORS & 185.00
BATTERIES-HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM
63237 MIRIAM GUTZMANN REFUND-OVERPAYMENT UTILITY BILLING 31.49
63238 AMY HAHN MILEAGE-AFTERNOON PLAYGROUND 47.00
3239 HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON INC -SERVICE-HAMILTON ROAD/CEDAR RIDGE STORM 25528.17
-SEWER/RED ROCK SHORES/WHITETAIL CROSSING
-CUL-DE-SAC/BLUFFS EAST 7TH ADDITION/CEDAR
RIDGE ROAD/CORRAL LANE
63240 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER COPY FEE-FINANCE DEPT 150.00
63241 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER -2ND HALF 1990 PROPERTY TAXES-RILEY LAKE/ 26445.40
-STARING LAKE/WOODLAND PONDS/MORE HOUSE/
EDEN INDUSTRIAL CENTER
63242 HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC RECORDS FILING FEE-HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM 10.00
63243 JOHN HENSRUD -EXPENSES-SUNBONNET DAY-HISTORICAL & 23.85
CULTURAL COMMISSION
63244 D C HEY COMPANY INC -4TH QUARTER '90 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT- 36.00
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
63245 HODGE BADGE COMPANY INC AWARDS-RECREATION ADMINISTRATION 17.50
508.40 63246 HOFFERS INC PAINT/PAINT THINNER-PARK MAINTENANCE
63247 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST #272 -EXPENSES-ELECTIONS/COPIES-RECREATION 77.19
SUPERVISOR/HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION
63248 INSTY-PRINTS PRINTING FORMS/BUSINESS CARDS-POLICE DEPT
63249 INTL OFFICE SYSTEMS INC -SEPTEMBER '90 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-CITY 156.00
HALL
63250 GARY ISAACS SOFTBALL OFFICIAL & COORDINATOR/FEES PAID
63251 J & R RADIATOR CORP RADIATOR REPAIR-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
63252 JERRY'S NEWMARKET EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT
63253 JOHNSON CONTROLS -4TH QUARTER '90 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-
COMMUNITY CENTER
'3254 B F JOHNSON CO BASE STATION RADIO-POLICE DEPT 1150.00
3255 NICKI KELJ1K TEEN VOLUNTEER WAGES 10.73
7652285
342.47
166.50
428.79
142.72
955.00
OCTOBER 2.1.990
63285 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMIS
63286 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMIS
63287 MID-CO SECURITY SYTEMS INC
63256 ELIZABETH KENNEDY
63257 scorr KIPP
63258 K1qOLU400D BEVERAGE CATERING
33259 ROBERT LAMBERT
63260 LANG PAULY & GREGERSON LTD
63261 LANO EQUIPMENT INC
63262 LMCIT
63263 L LEHMAN & ASSOCIATES INC
63264 LESMANN ENTERPRISES INC
63265 LIL RED E P GROCERY
63266 DAVID LINDAHL
63267 JAMES LININGER
63268 LIONS TAP
63269 LOGIS
63270 LYMAN LUMBER CO
63271 RODERICK MACRAE
63272 TIM MARTIN
63273 MASYS CORPORATION
63274 MATRX MEDICAL INC
63275 JAMES L MATSON
63276 MBA DESKTOP PUBLISHING PLUS
63277 MCGLYNN BAKERIES INC
63278 MCGLYNN BAKERIES INC
63279 MCGLYNN BAKERIES INC
63280 MEDICINE LAKE LINES
63231 MEDICAL OXYGEN & EQUIP CO
63282 METHODIST HOSPITAL
63283 METRO ALARM INC
63284 METRO PRINTING INC
63238 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP
63289 MIDWEST BUSINESS PRODUCTS
63290 MINNCOMM PAGING
63291 MINNESOTA BUSINESS FORMS
63292 MINNESOTA REAL ESTATE JOURNAL
63293 MINNESOTA STATE TREASURER
1 3294 SANDY MITCHELL
EXPENSES-HISTORICAL A CULTURAL COMMISSION 27.99
MILEAGE-PLANNING DEPT 5.00
-EXPENSES-SUNBONNET DAY-HISTORICAL A 96.00
CULTURAL COMMISSION
-SEPTEMBER '90 EXPENSES-PARK & RECREATION 326.81
DEPT
-APRIL '90 LEGAL SERVICE/AUGUST '90 33473.13
FLYING CLOUD LANDFILL
-FILTERS/CARTRIDGES/ELEMENTS-EQUIPMENT 167.49
MAINTENANCE
LIABILITY INSURANCE 44672.00
-AUGUST '90 LEGAL SERVICE-FLYING CLOUD 8854.00
LANDFILL
REPAIR & PAINT TRUCK BODY-EQUIPMENT MAINT 513.90
EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 15.13
EXPENSES-HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM 7.00
SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 19.00
EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 163.88
AUGUST '90 SERVICE 8244.97
-MASONITE/PLYWOOD/TREATED TIMERS-STREET 92.56
MAINTENANCE/PARK MAINTENANCE
MILEAGE/BUS SERVICE-OUTDOOR CENTER PROGRAM 84.25
TEEN VOLUNTEER WAGES 73.13
-OCTOBER '90 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-POLICE 1295.00
DEPT
1ST AID RESCUE EQUIPMENT-FIRE DEPT 84.22
CANINE SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 23.49
-TYPESETTING/PRINTING-FLYERS-OUTDOOR 528.00
-CENTER PROGRAMS/SENIOR PROGRAMS/HISTORICAL
& CULTURAL COMMISSION
EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 65.08
-EXPENSES-CITY HALL/POLICE DEPT/SENIOR 27.97
PROGRAMS
-EXPENSES-CITY HALL/POLICE DEPT/ADULT 185.50
PROGRAMS/SENIOR PROGRAMS
BUS SERVICE-SENIOR PROGRAMS/FEES PAID 150.00
OXYGEN-FIRE DEPT 65.10
EYE INJURY-POLICE DEPT 40.00
-4TH QUARTER '90 SECURITY MAINTENANCE 78.00
AGREEMENT-PUBLIC WORKS BLDG/FIRE STATION
-MAPS-ELECTIONS/FORMS-POLICE DEPT/BUSINESS 3663.00
CARDS-COMMUNITY CENTER
OCTOBER '90 SEWER SERVICE CHARGES 161364.88
AUGUST '90 SAC CHARGES 30294.00
-SEPTEMBER '90 SECURITY SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 329.17
AGREEMENT-POLICE DEPT
-BLACKTOP-STREET MAINTENANCE/BIKE TRAILS- 2260.48
PARK MAINTENANCE
OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY HALL/POLICE DEPT
-SEPTEMBER '90 PAGER SERVICE-SEWER DEPT/
STREET MAINTENANCE
PRINTING FORMS-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT
SUBSCRIPTION-PLANNING DEPT
AUGUST '90 BUILDING SURCHARGES
EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT
464.38
77.98
152.70
49.00
4553.13
11.37
30260169
OCTOBER 2.1990
1317 PRENTICE HALL PROFESSIONAL NEWSLE
-3318 PSQ LEASING & MAINTENANCE
63295 MONA MEYER & MCGRATH
63296 MOORE MEDICAL CORP
63297 WM MUELLER & SONS INC
"3298 MUNICILITE CO
63299 NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSN
63300 CITY OF NEW BRIGHTON
63301 PAT NIGON
63302 ARIK S NORDBY
63303 NORTHERN HYDRAULICS
63304 PAUL OHLIN SALES
63305 STACY PALESOTTI
63306 ANDREW PALILEO
63307 PAPER WAREHOUSE
63308 PENNZOIL PRODUCTS COMPANY
63309 PEPSI COLA COMPANY
63310 PERSONNEL POOL
63311 MARK PETERSON
63312 THE PINK COMPANIES
63313 PITNEY BOWES INC
63314 PLEHAL BLACKTOPPING INC
63315 PRAIRIE HARDWARE
63316 PRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN
63319 LEONARD QUIRAM
63320 R & R SPECIALTIES INC
63321 REFEREE
63322 AAGE REFFSGAARD
63323 RETAIL DATA SYSTEMS OF MN
63324 RIEKE-CARROLL-MULLER ASSOC INC
63325 ROAD RESCUE INC
63326 ROGER'S SERVICE
63327 PAUL ROHE
63328 RUFF-CUT
63329 TODD RUSSELL
63330 ST PAUL BOOK & STATIONERY CO
63331 SAVOIE SUPPLY CO INC
63332 SCHMIDT READY MIX INC
63333 KEVIN SCHMIEG
63334 WILBUR SCHULTZ
63335 DON SCHWARTZ
'3336 SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS DIVISION
4509103
AUGUST '90 SERVICE-FLYING CLOUD LANDFILL 5707.68
1ST AID RESCUE EQUIPMENT-FIRE DEPT 191.90
GRAVEL-PARK MAINTENANCE 54.87
-STROBE LIGHTS/CABLE/OUTLET BOXES/ 329.70
CONNECTORS FOR NEW VEHICLE-STREET DEPT
FIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES-FIRE DEPT 352.85
RECORD SEARCH-POLICE DEPT 3.00
TEEN VOLUNTEER WAGES 14.00
PRINTING-HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION 20.00
WALL BINS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 59.97
PAGER CASES-FIRE DEPT 362.50
TEEN VOLUNTEER WAGES 44.55
SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 64_00
-SKIRTING/MASKING TAPE/SPOONS/BOWLS/CUPS/ 131.25
PAPER TOWELS-HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMM
LUBRICANTS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 597.70
CHEMICALS-POOL OPERATIONS-COMMUNITY CENTER 28.00
SERVICE-FINANCE DEPT/SENIOR CENTER 210.70
-SANDPAPER/PRINTING/POSTERBOARD/STENCILS/ 46.21
-ART SUPPLIES-SUNBONNET DAY-HISTORICAL &
CULTURAL COMMISSION
2 FILE CABINETS-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT 888.00
-POSTAGE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT- 438.75
CITY HALL/POLICE DEPT
PAVER RENTAL WITH OPERATOR-STREET MAIN'? 1860.00
-WASHERS/BOLTS/NUTS-BUILDING INSPECTIONS 35.17
DEPT/ENGINEERING DEPT
-WEED TRIMMER & LINE/WEED TRIMMER REPAIR- 252.41
STREET & EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
SUBSCRIPTION-FIRE DEPT 118.01
-4TH QUARTER '90 TELEPHONE MAINTENANCE 1465.50
AGREEMENT-CITY HALL
-EXPENSES-SUNBONNET DAY-HISTORICAL & 37.75
CULTURAL COMMISSION
ZAMBONI BLADES SHARPENED-COMMUNITY CENTER 69.00
SUBSCRIPTION-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS 24.95_
EXPENSES-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT 15.00
-CASH REGISTER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT- 1117.20
LIQUOR STORE
SERVICE-MITCHELL RD EXTENSION/COUNTRY GLEN 26043.74
SOLENOIDS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 69.72
ALTERNATORS/STARTERS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 577.85
-SERVICE-DOOR INSTALLATION-15040 PIONEER 324.08
TRAIL-HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM
WEED MOWING SERVICE-WEED REMOVAL PROGRAM 535.00
TEEN VOLUNTEER WAGES 23.00
-OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY HALL/EQUIPMENT MAINT/ 437.79
COMMUNITY CENTER
CLEANING SUPPLIES-PARK MAINTENANCE 158.50
CEMENT-STREET MAINTENANCE 278.23
-AUGUST '90 EXPENSES-BUILDING INSPECTIONS 200.00
DEPT
SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 716.50
SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 496.00
LAB SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 210.00 ,
7,4 11 tz:
OCTOBER 2.1990
63337 SETON NAME PLATE COMPANY
63338 SHAKOPEE FORD INC
f 3339 SIGN A RAMA USA
.:3340 SIGNATURE CONCEPTS INC
63341 SIGNS R US
63342 AMANDA J SJOQUIST
63343 RANDY L SLICK
63344 W GORDA SMITH CO
63345 SNYDER DRUG STORES INC
63353 STRGAR ROSCOE FAUSCH INC
63354 SUPPLER ENTERPRISES INC
63355 SUPRA COLOR LABS INC
63356 NATALIE SWAGGERT
-3357 TARGET STORES
3358 TECHNICAL ADVISORY SERVICE INC
63359 TENNANT COMPANY
63360 E JOHN TROMBLEY
63361 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO
63362 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS
63363 KEVIN UELAND
63364 UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC
63365 USA TODAY
63366 VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PROPANE INC
63367 VICOM INC
63368 VIKING LABORATORIES INC
63369 VOSS ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY
63370 KEITH WALL
63371 REBECCA WARNER
63372 WATER PRODUCTS CO
63373 NICK WEBB
63374 TOM HERO
63375 WENCK ASSOCIATES INC
63376 WEST WELD
63377 JOEL WESTACOTT
63378 ROBERTA WICK
63379 SHELLEY WITTCOFF
( 3380 JONATHAN WORRE
7008654
SIGNS-SAFETY DEN' 28.39
-PEDAL/SW ITCHES/REPLACE GASKETS/OIL & 150.34
FILTER-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
OPEN HOUSE BANNER-FIRE DEPT 198.00
UNIFORMS-POLICE DEPT 954.00
STREET SIGNS-STREET DEPT 339.20
MILEAGE-FORESTRY DEPT 62.50
SCHOOL-ENGINEERING DEPT 204.60
-GAS/OIL SEAL/STRAP/GREASE/ANTI-FREEZE/OIL 102.18
EQUIPMENT MAINT/PARK MAINT/COMMUNITY CTR
-BALLOONS/FILM-SPORTS CAMP/TEEN WORK 28.37
PROGRAM/OUTDOOR ADVENTURE PROGRAM
EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 10.45
4TH QUARTER "90 SERVICE 3918.75
-LEGAL ADS-PLANNING DEPT/ENINGEERIFG DEPT/ 937.14
ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES
EYEWEAR-FIRE DEPT 60.00
MILEAGE-RECREATION SUPERVISOR 29.45
REFUND-OVERPAYMENT BUILDING PERMIT 163.80
-LIGHTBAR/LAMP ASSEMBLY/AMMUNITION- 1477.45
-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT/EQUIPMENT MAINT/
POLICE DEPT
-SERVICE-DELL ROAD/HIGHWAY 5 FRONTAGE RD/ 53940.87
MITCHELL LAKE SANITARY SEWER
CLEANING SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORE 5.48
PRINTS-POLICE DEPT 30.00
-SEPTEMBER "90 EXPENSES-HUMAN RESOURCES 214.60
DEPT
CHAIR/CUSHIONS-ROUND LAKE MARINA 41.98
SERVICE-FLYING CLOUD LANDFILL 159.70
PUMP/PUMP REPAIR-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 569.83
SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 19.00
OXYGEN/ACETYLENE-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 46.50
TELEPHONE SERVICE-POLICE DEPT 160.14
TEEN VOLUNTEER WAGES 42.90
-SANDPAPER/PIPE/WASHERS/CAPS-EQUIPMENT 208.15
MAINTENANCE
ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORE 30.00
GAS CYLINDERS-COMMUNITY CENTER 317.86
-JUNE '90 WIRE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT- 5.25
PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING
CHEMICALS-POOL OPERATIONS-COMMUNITY CENTER 214.25
LIGHT BULBS-PARK MAINTENANCE 26.32
SEPTEMBER '90 EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 209.00
MILEAGE-FINANCE/ELECTIONS 20.50
PLATE-WATER DEPT 72.50
TEEN VOLUNTEER WAGES 83.88
VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 45.00
AUGUST '90 SERVICE-FLYING CLOUD LANDFILL 4561.14
CUTTING TIPS/GLASSES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 53.26
-SOUND SYSTEM SERVICE-SUNBONNET DAY- 45.00
HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION
MINUTES-CITY COUNCIL 150.00
TEEN VOLUNTEER WAGES 32.81
SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 115.50
63346 SNYDER DRUG STORES INC
63347 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSI
63343 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC
63349 THE SPECTACLE SHOPPE INC
63350 DONNA STANLEY
63351 STIGLICH CONSTRUCTION CO
63352 STREICHERS PROFESSIONAL POLICE EQ
',110 G
OCTOBER 2.1990
63381 JULIE A YARUSSO
63382 TIM YERHOT
9383 TOE S YI
J384 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE
63385 FRED ZIEBOL
51520 VOID OUT CHECK
61400 VOID OUT CHECK
62295 VOID OUT CHECK
62808 VOID OUT CHECK
-198627
NOTARY COMMISSION FEE-POLICE DEPT
REFUND-OVERPAYMENT UTILITY BILLING
REFUND-OVERPAYMENT UTILITY BILLING
1ST AID SUPPLIES-SAFETY DEPT
RACQUETBALL INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID
5.00
34.98
55.63
45.10
45.00
137.50-
498.00-
100.00-
1436.48-
$950220.55
DISTRIBUTION BY FUNDS
10 GENERAL
11 CERTIFICATE OF INDEBT
15 LIQUOR STORE-P V M
17 LIQUOR STORE-PRESERVE
22 STATE AID CONST
31 PARK ACQUIST & DEVELOP
33 UTILITY BOND FUND
51 IMPROVEMENT CONST FD
57 ROAD IMPROVEMENT CONST FD
73 WATER FUND
77 SEWER FUND
79 RALF
81 TRUST & ESCROW FUND
82 FIRE RELIEF FUND
86 PARK PROG-CONTRIBUTIONS
87 CDBG FUND
$950220.55
334114.99
11137.80
48459.28
25200.43
9581.35
330.00
41683.16
123205.43
7472.58
22624.98
193096.35
19135.43
5577.19
107876.00
32.00
693.58
ROI/ERE I LANG
ROGER A PAUL
DAVID H GREGERSON.
RICHARD F ROSOW
MARE JOHNSON
JOSEPH A NILAN
JI SUN SY LANG. CPA
LEA De SOULS SPIELER
JEFFREY C APPELQUISP
21:1)11 U K LAI TCHER
CARRARA M ROSS
WILLIAM A M/LLER
LANG, PAULY & GREGERSON, LTD.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
370 SUBURBAN PLACE BUILDING
250 PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE
EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344
TELEPHONE: 0(2) 829-7155
FAX (6I 23 829-0713
MINNEAPOLIS OFFICE
4400 ITS CENTER
Si) SOUTH EIGHTH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55402
(HI2I11111-0755
FAX(61213494711
MEMO
REPLY TO EDEN PRAIRIE OMCE.
.Alw.rww410
AacweL4emAte./mw
TO: Carl Jullie, City Manager
FROM: Judith K. Dutcher
DATE: September 19, 1990
SUBJECT: Change in Rule 8.04 and 11.07
On January 1, 1991 a change in the Rules of Criminal
Procedure will be implemented which will have a direct and
substantial impact on the City of Eden Prairie's budget.
Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure 8.04 and 11.07 have been
changed so that a criminal defendant charged with a gross mis-
demeanor or felony can demand an Omnibus Hearing l which must be
held within fourteen (14) days of his/her first appearance in
court -(Ce ,p4e of Ru-le arc at-taehcd hereto). Under the current
rules the prosecution or the court can reserve the Omnibus
Hearing until the day of trial. The bench and prosecution in
Hennepin County and Ramsey County currently reserve the Omnibus
Hearing until the day of trial.
The new rules were drafted in 1989 by the Supreme Court
Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure and unanimously
approved and adopted by the Minnesota Supreme Court. The rationale
behind the rule change was to establish uniformity in the court
system and to reduce the number of cases which are ultimately
scheduled for jury trial. The committee believes that many cases
are set for jury trial in order to resolve Omnibus issues. In
reality, under the current rules, an overwhelming majority of the
criminal cases settle without the need for an Omnibus Hearing.
Many cases are set for trial because the defense attorney is
"judge-shopping", trying to find a lenient judge. Also, many
attorneys wait to plead their client the day of trial in order to
collect their legal fees. A study by the City Attorney's office
1 The purpose of an omnibus hearing is to determine whether
there is probable cause for the charges, whether it is fair and
reasonable to require the defendant to stand trial and to deter-
mine the admissibility of constitutionally challenged evidence.
!I /
reveals that in 1990 there have been 79 people charged with Gross
Misdemeanor offenses. There have been 67 pretrial conferences
and only 13 Gross Misdemeanor cases which were set for jury
trial. Of those 13 cases, only one (1) involved an Omnibus
Hearing. In the last three years there has been only one Omnibus
Hearing conducted by the City Attorney's office. This study
reflects that under the current rules of criminal procedure,
almost every case will settle without the need for an Omnibus
Hearing.
As the result of the new rule change there will be a drama-
tic increase in the number of Omnibus Hearings conducted. The
Hennepin County Public Defender's Office, as well as the Criminal
Defense Bar has indicated that they will no longer waive these
Omnibus Hearings, but will demand the hearings within fourteen
(14) days of their client's initial appearance. The Omnibus
hearing will enable the defense to question the officers about
the facts of the case and to use that information to formulate a
defense for trial. In addition, the rule change creates an addi-
tional hurdle for the prosecution to cross before eliciting a
plea from the defendant. The defense bar has indicated that they
believe that it would constitute malpractice to waive these
hearings under the new ..ule structure. The prosecution should
now anticipate that 100% of the gross misdemeanor and felony
cases will require an Omnibus Hearing. The officers that were
involved in the arrest of the defendant or in the investigation
of the case must be subpoenaed and made available to testify at
these Omnibus Hearings. An Omnibus Hearing can take anywhere
from a minimum of two hours to a full day of testimony. The
Hennepin County Bench has indicated that the Omnibus Hearings
will be held at the downtown courthouse and that the cases will
be called from a central pool of Omnibus Hearings from all of the
suburbs. The officers subpoenaed for the hearing would be
required to wait at the courthouse until their case is called.
The new rule change will have a substantial impact on the
Eden Prairie Police Department. There will be a dramatic
increase in the amount of overtime pay and compensation time
given to the officers. In addition, the new rule will undoubt-
edly create the need to hire additional officers to cover for
the officers who are waiting to testify. A study by the Eden
Prairie Police Department reveals that in 1989 there were 52
felony cases charged through the Hennepin County Attorney's
office and 101 gross misdemeanor cases charged through the City
Attorney's office. There is an average of three officers or
investigators involved in each case and an Omnibus Hearing lasts
an average of four hours. At $25.00 an hour the estimated impact
on the Eden Prairie Police Department's overtime budget for 1989
would have been an increase of $45,900.
The Hennepin County Bench and the Hennepin County
Prosecutors have expressed their concerns and objections to the
-2-
Supreme Court but have been unsuccessful in their attempt to pur-
suade the court to rescind the rule. It is crucial that the City
Council members be made aware of this rule change and its poten-
tial impact on the City of Eden Prairie. On September 18, 1990
there was a suburban prosecutors meeting and it was decided that
each city would pass a resolution and send that to the Advisory
Committee, as well as the Justices of the Supreme Court. This
must be done before October 6, 1990 so that it can be
discussed at a Rules Committee meeting.
—3—
RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Rule 8.06
influence to
• • .4
, ,te V.
151, State v.
67)1 of add).
date of the
issuee that
!tee of these
mined at the
•..ming attarr.
oldies Hear-
.; give notice
led by Rules
at order of
and defense .
Win permit.
any issues
h respect to
also result•
iRule 11.07).,
ith the court.
the prosecw
4! counsel at
,f the police
his rule the
physically In
ncerning the
police. This
the practice
caner cases
discovery is
where prose-
0 lubd.
;el it, of
subd.
.t. in expected
the investb
merit, the defendant shall be arraigned upon the
complaint or the complaint as it limy be amended or,
for gross misdemeanors under Minn,Stat. § 169.121
or MinnStat. § 169.129, a tab charge, but may only
enter a plea of guilty at that time. If the defendant
does not wish to plead guilty, no other plea shall be
called for and the arraignment shall be continued
igiuntil the Omnibus Hearing when pursuant to Rule
awn the defendant shall plead to the complaint or
the complaint as amended or such tab charge or be
given additional time within which to plead. If the
offense charged in the complaint is a homicide and
the prosecuting attorney notifies the court that the
case will be presented to the grand jury, or if the
iffense is punishable by life imprisonment, the pre.
entation of the case to the grand jury shall cont.
nence within 14 days from the date of defendant's
ippearance in the court under this rule, and an
ndietment or report of no indictment shall be re-
tuned within a reasonable time, If an indictment is
returned, the Omnibus Hearing under Rule 11 shall
to held as provided by Rule 1904,. solid. 5.
Intended effective August 1, 1987; amended December
8,1989. effective January 1. 1999.
iSee Rule 8.06 for Comment.
„ RULE 9.02 PLEA OF GUILTY
At an initial appearance under this rule, the de-
'endant may enter a plea of guilty to a felony, a
gross misdemeanor, or a misdemeanor as permitted
nder Rule 15. If the defendant enters a plea of
guilty, the preisenteicing and sentencing proce-
dures provided by these rules shall be followed.
Intended effective August 1, 1987; amended December
8,1989, effective January I, 1990.
;See Rule 8.06 for Comment.
RULE 8.03 1)EMANI) OR WAIVER
I ' OF IlEARING
If the defendant do. . l e d pload ititilly, (lie deftim
hug and the proseriii0li i-diall , itch iiii her waive or
lemand a hearing as pcovidoil by Role 11.02 on the
Amissibility at trial of any of the evidence specified t in the notice given by the prosecuting attorney
‘ander Rule 7.01 or the admissibility of any evidence
'obtained as a result of such evidence.
Rules 11.03 and 11.04, shall be held within the time
hereinafter specified.
lb) If hearing on either of the issues set forth in
Rule 8.03 is demanded, the Omnibus Bearing shall
also include the issues provided for by Rule 11.02.
(c) Tlw Omnibus Hearing provided for by Rule 11
shall be scheduled for a date not later than fourteen
(14) days after the defendant's initial appearance
before the court under this rule. The court may
extend such time for good cause upon motion of the
defendant or upon the court's own motion.
Amended effective August 1, 1987.
See Rule 8.06 for Comment,
RULE 8.04 l'I.EA AND TIME AND
PLACE OF OMNIBUS HEARING
J 7 TOT fir et ve A77157—try 1,7-991. See
preceding text for provisions effective
until January 1, 1991.]
(a) If the defendant does not plead guilty, the
Omnibus Hearing on the issues as provided for by
Rules 11.03 and 11.04, shall be held within the time
hereinafter specified.
HO If hearing on either of the issues set forth in
Rule 8.03 is demanded, the Omnibus Hearing shall
also include the issues provided for by Rule 11.02.
(c The Omnibus Rearing provided for by Rule 11
shall be scheduled for a date not Inter _than fourteen
(14) days after the defendant's initial appearance
before the court under this rule._ The court may
extend sueli time for good cause related to the
particular case upon motion of the prosecuting at-
torney or defendant cc upon the court's initiative.
Amended effective August 1, 1987; amended December
13, 1989, effective January 1, 1991,
See Rule 8.06 for Comment.
RULE 8.05 RECORD
A verbatim record shall be made of the proceed-
ings at the defendant's initial appearance before the
court under this rule.
See Rule 8.96 for Comment.
1SSee Rule 8.06 for Comment.
RULE 8.00 CONDITIONS OF RELEASE
RULE 8.04 PLEA AND TIME AND
PLACE OF OMNIBUS HEARING
Pub. Note: Effective(U;z7,17pIanuory 1, 1991. See
text following this 't .sion for provisions
effective January 1, 19911
'ha) If the defendant does not plead guilty, the
/modals Hearing on the issues as provided for by
In accordance with the rules governing hail or
release, the court may continue or amend those
conditions far defendant's release set by the court
previously.
Comment
Unless the offense charged in the complaint is a homi-
cide and the prosecuting attorney notifies the court that
the case will be presented to a grand jury, or the offense
117
Rule 8.06
MILES OF CRIAIINAL PROCEDURE
is minisliable by life imprisonment, upon the defendant's
initial appear:MN , berme Ilie colirt under this l'1,10 It/Ili/W-
ing a complaint charging n felony or gioss misdemeanor
Orlo Charge chargiligii grins 116311131331133' 1111der
109.121 or Mins.Snit. § 109.129 (within 11
days after the first appearance muter Ride 10, the defen-
dant atoll . optm request, he permitted In !dead guilty to
th e complaint, tali l'1131 w , or amended complaint (See
tholes 3,01, ROO. 2; 17.)15) as provided by !tale Di. At this
stage of the aim...Oiling, the tab charge or complaint whidi
was filed in the court, Or that roiliplaint as it inay lie
amended (Ride 17.051 or superseded (Rule 3.01, sirtirl , 21,
takes the place of the information under existilT Mintiest-
in law atlimi.Strit. §§ 028.29428.13 (11171)1 and provides
the b a si s for the co u rt's ninstliction over the proserotion
and the offenses charged in the complaint or the tab
charge.
If the defendant pleads guilty the procedures provided
by Rule IS shall he followed.
'Ilw defendant is not relmired to enter a idea 11)11111 the
appearance in court under Ilide 8. 'the defendant nay,
however, plead guiRy.
Under 8.03, if the defendant does not plead guilty,
and if the prosecution luis given the notiee prescribed It
Ride 7.01 both the ole(011,1,11 3131 the piesecotiou s hall he
r e qu i re d to either Nv8ive .1dinand a il,ediiiissen (State ex
re). Rasmussen v. Mimi 111 NW 'ii) 3
hearing. Mule
If the Rasmussen lieu: Mi r is oar ed till, the proseen-
lion and the defense, the Omnibus 11e:trine provided by
Rule 11 shall he held without a Rasmussen hearing. (See
RULE DISCIA)SURE BY
l'IB)SECUTI()N
Sohd. I. Disclosure by Prosecution Without
Older of (loud. 1Vi1hotit order of court exce)it, as
provided in Itide 9.01, sulni, 3, the prosecuting attor-
ney oil request of defense counsel shall, before the
dam so, for Omnibus Hearing provided for ti' Role
It, allow access at iitly reasonable time to all
tors within the prosecuting attorney's possession or
control which relate to the case and make the fol.
inwitnt disclosures:
(1) Trio/ Witnesses: G land lit ry Witnesses;
Other l'ers(ms.
(a) Th, prosecuting attorney shall disclose to
Ilf.f1.31Se 113111SO the names and addresses of the
persons intended to be called as witnesses al the
I rial big..) her with their prior record a convi,-
tions, if ally, within the prosecuting attorney's
:tenni! knowledge. l'he prosecuting attorney
shall permit defense counsel to inspect and repro-
duce such witnesses' relevant written or recorded
statements and any written summaries within the
prosecuting attorney's knowledge of the suit.
the initial comments to Rule II descrilling the there parts
of 1111 Omnibus Hearing.)
If the Rasmussen hearing is 111.1113131011, the !tearing
shall be held /IS part of the Omnibus Ilearing as provided
by Rule 11.02.
I 'rile (Minibus Rearing shall be commenced not later
than 14 (lays after the defendant's inithil appearance in
court under Rule 8 unless the time is extended for genii
cause related to Ilie particular case. ((tule 8.01). If the
time is extended, the Omnibus Hearin t still he
completed and the issues deckled ivittrlr(AV after the
defendant's initial appearance before the court under Hole
indium extended by the Court for good cause related to
the particular case. See Rides 11.0 1 and 11.07 and the
continents to Ride 11.
Under Role 8.01, if the often, charged in the complaint
is punishable by life impi imminent, or if it is a homicide
aint the prosecuting attorney notifies the court the case
will be presented to the grand jury, the defendant shalt
not be arraigned mum the complaint, and the case shall he
presented to the grand jury as provided by Role 801. If
311 indictment is returned, the (Minibus Hearing shall be
held as provided by Rule 19.04, subil. 5.
Rule 8 05 provides for a verbatim recant of the proceed-
ings antler Rule 8.
Under Role 0.00 the coort may in accordance with the
previsions of Ride 0.02 continue or amend tile bail or
conditions of relense set by the court previously.
Comment amended effective Atigust i 1987; amended
December 13, 1989, effective January I, 1995.
stance of relevant oral statements made by such
witnesses to prosecution agents.
(b) The fact that the prosecution has supplied
the name of in trial witness to defense counsel
shall not li e commented on in the presence of the
lel If do , def en d id Jul charged by indictment,
the a u.nding al 1. ney shall disclose In derellSe
1.3,1111tiel 111,, 11:11111.3 3 ,31 al11111,3803 Of the witnesses
who testified before the grand jury in the case
against the defendant.
(d) '1'lle prosecuting attorney shall disclose to
defense counsel Ilie natnes and the addresses of
persons having information relating to the case.
(2) Statements. 'file prosecuting attorney shall
disclose and permit defense counsel to inspect and
reProl1110 , 31Iy relevant. written ,ir recorded state-
ments which 'elate In it,, case within the possession
Or (111.1i MI 1.1 OW itioti, the existence of which
is known 1,v the pre• oiling attorney, and shall
provide ilefem,e collie,- with the substance of any
oral statements which relate to the ease.
RULE 9. DISCOVERY IN FELONY AND CROSS
MISDEM EA NOR CASES
(3)
f'CIIII
(.111111'
Intim
port,
nine,
rebut
also
grit
110
fel*
or r.
tilt,
;met
nue
ext n
def.
ha,
nte
de,
of
dn.
bit,
de
an
at
ri•
pi '
oh
118
EMS=
RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Rule 11
murt and Rule 10.02 establishes a different procedure
for making such a challenge. As to the I•asie for such a
challenge see City of St. Paul v, Webb, ',i Mimi. 210, 97
N.W,2t1 638 (1959).
As a general rule under Rule 10.02 no r11311,111.t, tf, the
personal jurisdiction of the court may be ,IGnile int a 1,311e-
ineutior case until after a complaint has been filed. There.
fore, a defendant who has been tab charged, must first
demand a complaint under Rule 4.02, subd. 5(3) before
raising the jurisdictional challenge. If no complaint is
Issued, the charge must he dismiased under Rule 4.02,
subd. 6(3). If a complaint is issued, it will often make any
possible challenge moot, since a valid complaint would give
the court jurisdiction even if the arrest was illegal. See
City of St. Paul v. Webb, supra. Once the complaint is
issued, the jurisdictional challenge becomes a question of
the sufficiency of the complaint.
, Rule 10.02 also provides that a motion to dismiss for
want of personal jurisdiction shall be made after entry of a
not guilty plea, and the entry of that plea does not waive
' the jurisdictional challenge. This reverses prior Minnesota
case law providing that ally plea waived a challenge to the
court's jurisdictioa. See State v. Stark, 288 Minn. 286, 179
, N.W.2d 697 (1970); State v. Mastrian, 285 Minn. 31, 171
N.W.24 695 (1969); State v. Barth, 286 Minn. 300, 170
• N.W.2d 543 (1969). (lot see also State v. Ilarbitz, 293
!. Minn. 224, 198 N.W.2,1 342 (1972) where the defendant
following a trial on the merits was permitted to challenge
on appeal the trial court's denial of the defendant's pre.
! trial motion to quash an improper indictment.
To initiate the challeage to the court's personal jurisdie.
don, notice must be given that a motMn to dismiss for
want of personal jurisdiction will be made. This notice
,must be given no more than 7 days after entry of the not
guilty plea or the challenge is waived anless the court for
good cause alumni grants relief from the waiver. The
jj notice may be given either orally in court or in writing
,directly to the prosecution. The challenge then proceeds
as in any other motion to dismiss under Rule 10.04.
Therefore, under Rule 10.04, sub& 1, n written motion
together with any necessary affidavits must be served at
least three days before the motion is to be heard and no
more than 30 days after the arraignment. Under Rule
.10.04, sub& 2 If a pretrial is held, the motion is normally
iheard there based on affidavits if available. If it is
necessary to hear testimony on the matter, or for other
am) cause, the motion need not be beard at the pretrial.
f the motion is not heard at the pretrial, it will be beard
Immediately prior to trial when any necessary witnesses
will most likely he present.
If the defendant's motion to dismiss is denied, Rule
7.06, subd. 4(1) provides that the defendant may continue
to raise the jurisdictional issue on direct appeal if convict-
ed following a trial. This procedure avoids the necessity
of seeking review by an extraordinary writ which often-
1se
times would delay a trial otherwise ready to proceed. This
procedure reverses prior case law. See State v. Stark,
so pro.
Rule 10.03 providing for waiver of defences, objections,
and requests not included in a motion under Rule 10.01
and then available—except lack of jurisdiction or failure to
charge an offense (See also Minn.Stat. (638.27 (19711.)—ia
based on ABA Standards, Discovery and Procedure Before
Trial, 5.3(b) (Approved Draft, 1970) and substantially fol-
lows the language of F.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(2).
The effect of a determination of a motion to dismiss
under this rule Is covered by Rule 17.06, aubd. 4.
That portion of Rule 10.03 providing that the defendant
does not waive defenses and objections by including them
with other defenses and objections is based on Minolt.
Civ.P, 12.02.
Under Rule 10,04, sub& 1 and salad 2, the pretrial
motions shall be in writing and shall be served upon
opposing counsel not later than three (3) days before the
Omnibus Bearing to be held under Rule 11 (unless the
time is extended for good muse) in order that the issues
raised by the motion may be heard at that hearing as
provided by Itule 11.03. Itule 10.04, subd. 1 should not
prevent the court from hearing at the Omnibus Hearing on
the court's initiative (See Rule 11.04.1 those issues which
first appear or arise at. that time if the parties do not need
additional time to prepare.
Under Rule 10.04, subd. 2, prstrial motions heard at the
Omnibus Hearing and those heard afterward shall be
determined by the time as provided by Rule 11.07, which
requires the Omnibus Hearing to be completed and all
Issues decided within 30 days after the defendant's appear.
ance under itule 8 unless a later time is jostified by good
cause related to the imrticidar cline. 1 ,1 misdemeanor
cases, under Rule 10.04, solid 1liret vial motions shall be
determined as provided by Rule 12.117.'
Rule 10.04, subd. 2 also provides in misdemeanor cases
an alternative method for disposing of a motion to dismiss
(including a motion to dismiss for want of personal juris-
diction) at the time of arraignment. If agreed to by the
prosecutor and defense counsel, the court may summarily
hear and determine a motion to dismiss at the arraign-
ment. In such eases the motion need not be in writing,
but a record shall be made of the proceedings and, in the
court's discretion, witneeses may be called. For those
cases in which there is no dispute over the facts, and the
law can he quickly and adequately argued, this alternative
procedure could provide ant immediate disposition avoiding
the delay and expense of further court appearances.
Comment amended December la, 1989, effective January
1, 1990. •
RULE II. OMNIBUS HEARING IN FELONY AND GROSS
jnl MISDEMEANOR CASES
If the defendant does not plead guilty at the
Initial appearance before the district court following
i'lcomplaint or, for a gross misdemeanor under
ginn.Stat. § 160.121 or Minn.Stat, § 160.129, fol-
lowing a tab charge, a hearing shall be held as
follows:
Amended December 13, 1989, effective January 1, 1990.
127
Rule 11.01 RULES OF CRIMINAL, PROCEDURE
quired f
When is
appropri
record.
ing shall
Amended
See Ito
RULE 11.01 PLACE OF HEARING
The hearing shall be held in the district court in
the juilivial district wherein the alleged offense was
committed.
Amended effective August I, 1987.
See Rule 11,11 for Comment.
RULE 11.02 HEARING ON
EVIDENTIARY ISSUES
Subd. 1. Evidence. If the defendant or prose-
cution has demanded a hearing on either of the
issues specified by Rule 8.03, the court shall hear
and determine them upon such evidence as may be
offered by the prosecution or the defense.
Suhd. 2. Cruss-Exitmination. Upon such hear-
ing, the defendant and the prosecution may cross-
examine the other's witnesses.
See Rule 11.11 for Comment.
RULE 11.03 MOTIONS
The court shall hear and determine all motions
made by the defendant, or prosecution, including a
motion that. there is an insufficient showing of
probable cause to believe that the defendant com-
mitted the offense charged in the complaint, and
receive such evidence as may be offered in support
or opposition. Each party may cross-examine any
witnesses produced by the other. A finding by the
court of probable cause shall be based upon the
entire record including reliable hearsay in whole or
in part. Evidence considered on the issue of proba-
ble cause shall be subject to the requirements of
Rule 18.06, staid. I.
See Itole 11.11 for Comment.
RULE 11.04 OTHER ISSUES
The court shall ascertain any other constitutional,
evidentiary, procedural or other issues that may lie
heard or disposed of before trial and such other
natters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial,
and shall hear and determine them, or continue the
hearing for that purpose as permitted by Rule
11.07.
If the prosecution bas given notice under Rule
7.02 of intention to offer evidence of additional
offenses, upon maim, a hearing shall be held to
determine their admissibility under Rule 404(b) of
the Minnesota Rules of Evidence and whether there
is clear sod convincing evidence that defendant COM-
nutted the offenses.
If the defendant intends to offer evidence of a
victim's previous sexual conduct in a prosecution for
violation of Minn.Stat. §§ 609.342 to 609.346, a mo-
tion shall be made pursuant to the procedures pre-
scribed by Rule 404(c) of the Minnesota Rules of
Evidence.
Amended December 13, 1989, effective January 1, 1990.
See ((tile 11.11 for Comment.
RULE 11.05 AMENDMENT OF
COMPLAINT
The complaint may be amended as prescribed by
these rules.
See Rule 11.11 for Comment.
I I 1.06 l'IXAS
A t, th e t .1,•/.•nnn 1 - tt may he permitted to
Plcad to the idle.- e clmiTiot m he complaint or, for
a gross tilisiltuncanor mulct linn.Stat. § 169.121 or
MiumStat. § 169.129, the tab charge or to a lesser
included offense, or an offense of lesser degree as
permitted by Rule 15.
Amended effective August 1, 1987; amended December
13, 1989, effective January I, 1990,
See Rule 11.11 for Continent.
RULE 11.07 CONTINUANCES;
DETERMINATION OF ISSUES
[PO. Note: Effective until January 1, 1.9.91. See
text following this version for provisions
effective January I, 19911
The court, may continue the hearing or any part
thereof from time to time an nay be necessary. All
issues presented at the Omnibus Hearing shall be
determined before trial. When issues are deter-
mined, the court shall make appropriate findings in
writing or orally on the record. The issues present-
ed at the Omnibus Hearing shall be consolidated for
hearing.
See Rule 11.11 for Continent.
RULE 11.07 CONTINUANCES;
DETERMINATION OF ISSUES
[Pub. Note: Effee4weJouthary-1,4991.—See
preceding text for provisions effective
until January 1, 1991.]
1.4 ,011 111011011 of ilw preoecuting attorney or the
defendant or '11,m the coolit'S initiative, the court
may continue the hearing or any part thereof from
time to time HS may be oecessary, but may not
continue it beyond 30 days after the defendant's
appearance under Rule 8 except for good cause .
related to the particular case. All issues presented
at the Omnibus !leering shall be determined within
10 days after the defendant's initial appearance
under Rule 8 unless a later determination is re-
procectii
Sub l.
the tem
pro:tend
the Fruit
(a) if
counsel,
when tli
oefender
dant ma
or settut
defend:II
expunge
(I)) Tit
transerii
(e) WI
copy sit
exhibits
the cost,
the coat
producit
Amended
See Ri.
111)1
Deleted-
RI
If the
shall p!
mennor
§ 169.1,
thus wit
not gull
dant shi
it not g
orally e
the der ,
sixty (6:
good et'
ney's itt
initiativ-
to trial
128
oaln
129
RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Rule 11.11
quired for good cause related to the particular case.
When issues are determined, the court shall make
aporopriate findings in writing or orally on the
record. The issues presented at the Oninibus Hear-
ing shall he consolidated for hearing.
Ascended December 13, 1989, effective loiciary I, 1991
See Rule 11.11 for Comment.
RULE 11.08 RECORD
Subd. 1. Recording. A verbatim record of the
proceedings shall he made.
Solid. 2. Transcript. Upon timely application to
the reporter, counsel for the defendant or for the
prosecution shall be furnished with a transcript of
the proceedings upon the following conditions:
(a) If the transcript is to be furnished to defense
counsel, the costs thereof shall be prepaid except
when the defendant is represented by the public
defender or assigned counsel, or when the defen-
dant makes a sufficient affidavit of inability to pay
or secure the costs and the court orders that the
defendant be supplied with the transcript at the
expense of the appropriate governmental unit.
(b) The prosecution shall he furnished with the
transcript without prepayment of costs.
(c) When a transcript is furnished to counsel, a
copy shall he filed with the clerk of the court.
Solid. 3. Filing. The record and all papers and
exhibits in the proceeding shall he filed or placed in
the custody of the clerk of the court. Upon order of
the court any exhibit may be returned to the party
producing it.
Amended December 13, 1989, effective January I, 1990.
See Rule 11.11 for Comment.
RULE 11.09 [REVIEW] [DELETED]
Deleted effective August 1, 1987.
RULE 11.10 PLEA; TRIAL DATE
If the defendant is not discharged the defendant
shall plead to the complaint or, for gross misde-
meanors under Minn.Stat. 6 169.121 or Minn.Stat
6 169.129, the tab charge or be given additional
time within which to plead. If the defendant pleads
not guilty, it trial date shall then he set. A defen-
dant shall he tried as soon as possible after entry of
a not guilty plea. On demand made in writing or
orally on the record by the pros , cuting attorney or
the defendant, the trial shall he commenced within
sixty (60) days from the date of the demand unless
gond cause is shown upon the tirosecuting attor-
ney's or the defendant's motion or upon the court's
initiative why the defendant shouli led Ice brought,
Iv trial within that period!. The I is, c period shall cod
begin to run earlier than the date of the not guilty
plea. If trial is not commenced within 120 days
after such demand is made and the not guilty plea is
entered, the defendant, except in exigent circum-
stances, shall be released subject to such nonmone-
tary release conditions as may he required by the
court under Rule 6.02, subd. 1.
Amended December IS, 1989, effective January 1, 1990.
See Rule 11.11 for Comment.
RULE 11.11 EXCLUSION OF
WITNESSES
Before or during any Omnibus or other pretrial
hearing or proceeding, witnesses may be seques-
tered or excluded front the courtroom, prior to their
appearance, in the discretion of the court.
Comment
If a defendant does not plead guilty at the Initial appear-
once before the district court under Rule 8, the Omnibus
Henring provided by Rate 11 shall be held. The initial
appearance may be continued, and if the defendant clues
not then plead guilty, the Omnibus Hearing shall be held
as provided by the rule.
The Omnibus Hearing provided by this rule is divided
into three parts: (I) the Rasmussen hearing (Rule 11.02);
121 the hearing of pre-trial motions of the defendant acid
prosecution (Rule 11.041; (3) the hearing on other pre-trial
issues brought up on the court's initiative (Rule 11.041.
The hearings on any of these parts may be combined and
heard simultaneously (Rule 11.071.
The current atatutory hearing on probable cause has
been replaced under these rules by a motion to dismiss the
complaint for lack of probable cause which is to be made
in accordance with Rule 10 and heard at the Omnibus
Hearing pursuant to Ride 11.03. If such a motion Is
made, the court shall base its probable cause determina-
tion upon time evidence set forth in Rule Mai, aubd. I. In
State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442, 239 N.W.24 892 (1976),
the Supreme Court discussed the type of evidence that
may be presented and considered on a motion to dismiss
the complaint for lack of _probable cause. lietliTln that
(rumor the rule prohibits a defendant from calling any
witness to testify for the purpose of showing an absence
of probable cause. In determining whether to dismiss a
complaint under Rule 11.03 for lack of probable cause, the
trial court is not simply reassessing whether or not proba-
ble cause existed to warrant the arrest. Rather, under
Florence the tristsguruntw dtterming6ased upon the
iiiiiiiiiiaosed by the record whether it is fair and reason- v ,
able fri -reOuire the defendant to stand trial.
If the defendant does not plead guilty upon the initial
appearance in the district court under Rule 8 following a
complaint or, where permitted, a tab charge or upon
arraignment in the district court under Rule 19.04, subd. 6
following an indictment, the Omnibus Hearing (See ABA
Standards, Discovery and Procedure Before Trial, 1.1,
6.1-5.3 (Approved Draft, 1970).) shall be held as provided
by Role II not later than fourteen (14) days after the
initial appearance or arraignment, unless the period is
Rule 11.11 RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
130
extended for good cause related to the particular case
(Rules 8.04; 19.(14, subd. 5).
By that time, the prosecution will have given the Ras-
mussen and Spreigl notices (Rules 7.01; 7.02; 19.04, sub&
6(I) and 12)1; the Rasmussen hearing will have beers either
waived or demanded (Rule 803); the discovery required
without order of court will have been completed (Rules
7.03; 19.04, subd. 7; 9.01, subd. 1; 9.02, staid. I); and
pre-trial motions will have been served (Rules 10.04, aubd.
1; 9.01, subd. 2; 9.02, subd. 2; 9.03. subd. 8; 18.02, subd.
2; 18.05, solids. 1 and 2; 17.03, subds. 3 and 4; 17.04;
17.06, said. 3; 20.01, mobil. 2; 20.03, sub& 1). (In the case
of an indictment the pre-trial motions should include any
motion to suppress based on the disclosures contained in
the Rasmussen notice under Rule 19.04, solid. 6 (I).)
The purpose of the Omnibus Hearing is to avoid a
multiplicity of court appearances and hearings upon these
issues with a duplication of evidence and to combine all of
tile issues that can be disposed of without trial into one
appearance and hearing. (See ABA Standards, Discovery
and Procedure Before Trial, 1.1, 6.3 (Approved Draft,
1970).)
If a Rasmussen hearing has been demanded under Rule
8.03 or other similar evidentiary issues presented by !no-
tion or otherwise (Rules 11.02, nub& 1; 11.03; 11.041, they
should he combined for hearing if possible (Rule 11.07).
Rule 11.02 covers the Rasmussen !searing demanded
under Rule 8.03 (or required by a motion to suppress in
the ease of an indictment). Upon the Rasmussen hearing
under Rule 11.02 trolls parties may offer evidence and
cross-examine the other's witnesses. The rule leaves to
judicial interpretation the consequences of the defendant's
testimony at a Rasmussen or similar evidentiary hearing,
that is, whether it may lie used against the defendant at
trial substhntively (See Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S.
377, 88 S.Ct. 9(7, 19 1..Ed.2d 1247 (1968)). or by way of
impeachment (cf. Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 91
S.Ct. 643, 213 1,04.2,1 1 (1971)).
By Rule 11.03 the court shall also hear all motions made
by the parties under Rule 10 (See also Rules 9.01, solid. 2;
9.02, solid. 2; 9.03, sant 6; 9.03, sub& 8; 18.02, sulsd. 2;
18.05, solid. 1 rind solid. 2; 17.03, sued, 3 and subd. 4;
17.04; 17.06; 17.00, staid. 3; 20.01, subd. 2; 20.03, subd.
I.) Motions not made upon grounds then known and
available to the parties are waived, except lack of jurisdic-
t)on or failure of the complaint or indictment to state an
offense, unless the et,n .1 .t grinds sum exception to the waiver
(Rule 10.03).
Rule 11.03 specifically permits a motion to dismiss a
complaint for lack of probable mum, but does not permit a
motion to dismiss an indictment upon this ground. See
Rule 19.04, solid. 5.
The court shall also on its initiative under Rule 11.04
ascertain and hear any other issues that can be heard and
disposed of before trial and nor other matters that would
promote a fair and expeditions trial. 'nig would include
requests or iRFIlleS arising respecting discovery (Rule 9),
evidentiary issues arising from the Spreigl notice (Rules
7.01, 19.04, solid. 0(2)), or other evidentiary issues, and is
broad enough to permit a pre.trial conference if the court
considers it necessary. (See F.R.Critn.P. 17.1.)
By Rule 11.05 the complaint may he amended at the
Omnibus Hearing as provided by Role 17.05, (See also
Rules 3.04, solid 2; 17.06, solid. 4.)
One of the issues that should he determined at the
01111111)110 Hearing is the admissibility of the testimony, of
any proposed witness who has been subjected to a hypnot-
ic interview concerning the facts of the ease. Ordinarily
under State v. Mack. 292 N,W.2d 764 (Minni1980) the
testimony of a previously hypnotized witness concerning
the subject matter adduced at a pretrial hypnotic interview
may not be admitted hi a criminal proceeding. Such
testimony may be elicited only to the extent that it covers
matters previously and unequivocally disclosed by the
witness to the authorities before the hypnosis.
Under State v. Wenberg, 289 N.W.2d 603 (Minn.11180), if
the prosecutor intends to impeach the defendant or any
defense witness with evidence of prior convictions. the
prosecutor must request a pretrial hearing on the admissi-
bility of such evidence. If possible this issue should be
heard at the Omnibus Hearing. See Rule 9.01, aubd. 1(5)
as to the reciprocal duties of the prosecutor anti defense
counsel to disclose the criminal records of the defendant
and any defense witnesses. As to the standards for
determining the admissibility of the impeachment evidence
see Rule 609 of the Minnesota Rules of Evidence, State v.
Jones, 271 N.W.2d 534 (Minn.1978), and State v. Broad
lette, 286 N.W.2t1 702 (Minn.1979).
If requested by motion under Rule 10, a hearing on the
admissibility of evidence of additional offenses shall be
held as part of the Omnibus Hearing. Before such evi-
dence may be considered adinissible it must be clear and
convincing. Additionally, according to State v. Hillstrom,
270 Minn. 174, 149 14.W.2d 281 (1967) such evidence is
admissible only if the prosecution's case is otherwise
weak. Because it may not be possible to determine the
strength of the prosecution's case until trial, it may be
necessary to continue final determination of this issue
under Rule 11.07 until that time.. The court, however,
should determine at the Omnibus Hearing whether the
evidence to he presented is clenr and convincing. If it
does not meet that standard or the other requirements of
Rule 404(b) of the Minnesota Rules of Evidence then the
court should determine before trial that the evidence is
inadmissible. Unless a later determination is justified by
good cause related to the particular case, Rule 11.07
requires that all issues presented to the court at the
minibus Hearing mast be decided within 30 days after the
defendant's initial appearance before the court under Rale
Under Rule 11.06 the defendant at the Omnibus Hearing
may plead to the complaint or indictment or, for gross
misdemeanors under MinnStat. § 169.121 or Minis Slat.
§ 169.129, the tab charge or to a lesser or different
offense as provided by Rules 14 and 15. See Rules 15.07
and 16.08 as to the standards and procedure for entering a
plea to a lesser or a different offense.
By Rule 11.07 the Omnibus Hearing or any part thereof
may be continued If necessary to dispose of the issues
presented. However, the Omnibus Hearing must be com-
pleted and any issues decided within 30 days after the
defendant', appearance under Rule 8 unless a later time is
'ustified by good cause related to the particular case. The
court should not as a general rule or practice bifurcate the
J.mmiirtriirs Hearing ur delay the hearing or any part of it
RULES O., CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Rule 12.02
iintil the day of trial. To do so violates the its p
o
s
e
o
f
these rules. See Rule 1.02 and the comments there
t
o
.
A
l
l
issues presented at the Omnibus Hearing shall be
d
e
t
e
r
-
mined within 30 days after the defendant's initial app
e
a
r
-
ance under Rule 8 unless a later determination is r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
for good cause related to the particular case. (S
e
e
a
l
s
o
Rule 10.04, subd. 2.1
Rule 11.07 requires appropriate findings upon the d
e
t
e
r
-
minations made on the issues presented at the Omn
i
b
u
s
Hearing in order that the Ivens for the determinations
m
a
y
clearly appear.
Rule 11.08, subd. 1, requires that a record of the Om
n
i
-
bus Hearing shall be made, and Rule 11.08, *whit.
2
p
r
e
.
scribes the circumstances in which a transcript m
a
y
h
e
furnished to the parties. The verbatim record requir
e
d
b
y
Rule 11.08, subd, 1, may be made by a court repo
r
t
e
r
o
r
recording equipment.
The intent of the Omnibus Hearing rules is that
a
l
l
issues that can be determined before trial shall be h
e
a
r
d
a
t
the Omnibus Hearing and decided before trial. C
o
n
s
e
-
quently, when the Omnibus Hearing is held before
a
j
u
d
g
e
oilier than the trial judge, the trial judge, excep
t
i
n
e
x
-
traordinary circumstances will adhere to the findin
g
s
a
n
d
determinations of the Omnibus Hearing judge. See
S
t
a
t
e
v. Coe, 298 N.W.2d 770 (Minn.1980) and State v. Hem
l
i
n
e
,
314 N.W.24 224 (Minn.15821, where this hisue wa
s
t
i
n
'
cussed, but not decided.
k defendant who is not discharged following the Omn
i
.
Hearing, shall plead to the indictment or complaint o
r
,
,r gross misdemeanors under Minn.Stat § 169,1
2
1
o
r
Minn.Stat. § 169.129, the tab charge in the district co
u
r
t
o
r
be given additional time within which to plead.
I
f
t
h
e
defendant pleads not guilty, a trial date shall be set.
(Rule 11.104
Rule 11.10 provides that a defendant ahall he brough
t
t
o
trial within 60 days after demand therefor is made
b
y
t
h
e
prosecuting attorney or defendant, unless good c
a
u
s
e
i
s
shown for a delay, but regardless of a demand the
d
e
f
e
n
.
dant shell be tried as anon as possible. (Rule 11.10
s
u
p
e
r
-
sedes Minn.Stat. § 611.04 (1971) requiring the defe
n
d
a
n
t
t
o
he brought to trial at the next term of court.)
For good cause the trial may be postponed beyon
d
t
h
e
60-day time limit upon request of the prosecuting atto
r
n
e
y
or the defendant or upon the court's initiative. G
o
o
d
came for the delay does not include court calendar co
n
g
e
s
-
tion unlees exceptional circumetances exist. See Mc
I
n
t
o
s
h
v. Davie, 441 W.W.II 115 (Minn.I989). Even if good
r
a
m
i
e
exists for postponing the trial beyond the 60-da
y
t
i
m
e
limit, the defendant, except in exigent circumstance
s
,
m
u
s
t
be released, subject to such nonmonetary release
c
o
n
d
i
-
tions as may be required by the court under Rul
e
6
.
0
2
,
subd. 1, if trial has not yet commenced within 1
2
0
d
a
y
s
after the demand is made and the not guilty plea entered.
Other sanctions for violation of these speedy trial provi-
sions are left to case law. See State v. Kasp
e
r
,
4
1
1
N.W.2d 182 (Minn.1987) and State v. Priberg, 495 N.W.2d
609 (Minn.1989).
Rule 11.10 does not attempt to set arbitrary time l
i
m
i
t
s
(other than those resulting from the demand), bec
a
u
s
e
they would have to be circumscribed by numerous s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
exclusions (See ABA Standards, Speedy Trial, 2.3
(
A
p
-
proved Draft, 10681.1 which are covered in any ev
e
n
t
b
y
the more general terms of the rule. (See ABA Stan
d
a
r
d
s
,
Speedy Trial, 2.3(h) (Approved Draft, 1968)).
Rule 11.10 does not specify the consequences of a fail-
ure to bring the defendant to trial within the time
l
i
m
i
t
s
set by the rule. (This differs from ABA Stan
d
a
r
d
s
,
Speedy Trial, 4.1, Pre-Trial Release, 6.10 (Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
Drafts, 1968) in which the consequences are set fo
r
t
h
.
)
The conmequences and the time limits beyond which a
defentianf is considered to have been denied the constit
u
-
tional right to a speedy trial are left to jodicial decision.
(See Barker v. Wings, 407 U.S. 614, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33
1..14,1.2i1 101 1111721.) The existence or absence
o
f
t
h
e
demand under Rule 11.10 provides a factor that m
a
y
b
e
taken into account in determining whether the defe
n
d
a
n
t
has been unconstitutionally denied a speedy trial
.
(
S
e
e
Barker v. Wingo, supra.)
Under Rule 11.10 the time period following the dem
a
n
d
does not begin to run earlier than the date of the not
guilty plea. The not guilty plea was selected
a
s
t
h
e
crucial date because the defendant is not require
d
t
o
s
o
plead until at or after the Omnibus Hearing (Rule
s
8
.
0
3
;
11.06; 11.101 and by that time all discovery and
p
r
e
t
r
i
a
l
proceedings will have been substantially compl
e
t
e
d
.
I
f
demand Is made before the not guilty plea, the
6
0
-
c
l
a
y
period starts to run upon entry of the plea. It is
contem-
plated that when the pretrial proceedings have been com
-
pleted, the court will require the defendant to ente
r
a
p
l
e
a
,
if the defendant has not already done so, in orde
r
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
defendant cannot delay the trial by ittentionally del
a
y
i
n
g
the plea. (Rule 11).
Comment amended effective August 1, 1981; amended
December 10, 1980, effective January 1, 1989.
RULE 12. PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND EVIDENTIAR
Y
DEARING IN MISDEMEANOR CASES
RULE 12.01 PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
See Rule 12.08 for Comment.
A pretrial conference may be held in such cases
and at such time 118 the court orders to consider the
motions and other issues referred to in Rules 12.0
2
and 12.03. Stich motions and other issues shall b
e
heard immediately prior to trial whenever there ha
s
been no pretrial conference or whenever the court
has so ordered for the purpose of hearing witnesses
or for other good cause.
RULE 12.02 MOTIONS
The court shall hear and determine all motions
made by the defendant or prosecution and receiv
e
such evidence as may he of fermi in support
o
r
opposition. The defendant may offer evidence
i
n
121
CITY OF EDMI PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN MUNN, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION # 90 - 21
A RESOLUTION 70 RECC#MEND TO 7HE SUPREME COURT ADVISORY conerrEt ON 1HE
RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE TO RESCIND IHE AMENCHENIS TO hINNESZTA RULES
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 8.04 AND 11.07
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure 8.04 and 11.07 have been
amended to require that the omnibus hearing in all felony and gross misdemeanor
cases be held within fourteen (14) days of a defendant's first appearance in
court; and,
WHEREAS, the current practice in Hennepin County is to reserve the omnibus
hearing until the day of trial; and
WHEREAS, the current practice of reserving the omnibus issues until the day
of trial results in an overwhelming majority of the cases being settled without
the need for an omnibus hearing or trial; and
WHEREAS, in the last three (3) years, the City of Eden Prairie has had to
conduct only one (1) omnibus hearing; and
WHEREAS, the defense bar and Hennepin County Public Defender's officer have
indicated that under the amended rules they will demand an omnibus hearing in
every gross misdemeanor and felony case; and
WHEREAS, the implementation of the amendments to Minnesota Rules of
Criminal Procedure 8.04 and 11.07 will have a substantial and detrimental impact
on the City of Eden Prairie by;
1) causing a dramatic increase in the overtime posts of the
Eden Prairie Police Department; and
2) creating the need to hire additional officers to handle
the law enforcement duties of those officers who are
needed to testify at omnibus hearings; and
3) creating the need to hire additional prosecutorial
personnel to handle the anticipated increase in
work load; and
WHEREAS, the amendment to Rules 8.04 and 11.07 will take effect on
January 1, 1991; and
WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Attorney's Office, the Hennepin County Public
Defender's Office, the Eden Prairie City Attorney's Office and the Eden Prairie
Police Department all strongly oppose the amendment to Rules 8.04 and 11.07.
6,)
h174, MKEREPDRE, BE IT RESOLVED, as follows:
1. The Eden Prairie City Council strongly urges the Supreme Court
Advisory Committee on the Pules of Criminal Procedure to
recommend that the Minnesota Supreme Court either exempt
Hennepin County from the amendments to Minnesota Rules of
Criminal Procedure 8.04 and 11.07 or repeal the amendments
entirely.
2. The Eden Prairie City Council strongly urges the Justices
of the Minnesota Supreme Court to reconsider the amendments
to Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure 8.04 and 11.07 and
either to exempt Hennepin County from the amendments or to
repeal the amendments entirely.
ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this day of
, 1990.
Mayor
ATITSr:
City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager
FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural
Resources,*,
DATE: September 27, 1990
SUBJECT: Petition from Residents of "The Ridge" Development
The City of Eden Prairie received a petition from residents of "The
Ridge" development requesting the City Council to provide a trail
access to the trail around Mitchell Lake marsh, adjacent to their
development. This petition was reviewed by the City Council at the
September 4, 1990 meeting, and the Council directed staff to
determine the best location for a trail and contact the developer
to determine the feasibility of accommodating this request.
After review of the site, staff determined the best location for a
trail access would be between Lots 18 and 19, off Kimberly Drive,
and subsequently sent a letter, dated September 10, 1990, to
Bernard J. Rotter of the Rottlund Company requesting to meet with
him to discuss the feasibility of the request.
On September 17th, staff called Mr. Rotter to arrange a meeting to
discuss the request. At that time, Mr. Rotter indicated that he
was not interested in providing a trail easement between any of the
lots in this subdivision, as those lots fronting the marsh were his
best lots and he did not want to "ruin the value of any of those
lots." Mr. Rotter estimated the loss of the value to each adjacent
lot at $10,000 per lot, if a trail were to be installed.
Staff requested Mr. Rotter to write a letter to the City Council
stating his point of view regarding this request. Mr. Rotter
indicated he would write the letter; however, as of September 26th
no letter had been received, so staff again discussed this issue
with Mr. Rotter. He indicated that he would sell a 20' trail
easement in the desired location for $20,000, plus he would require
the City to landscape on both sides of the trail.
LL:mdd
ridge/6
City of Eden Prairie
Cirlffices
Executive Drive • Eden Prairie, MN 55344.3677 • Telephone (612) 937-2262
September 10, 1990
Bernard J. Rotter
Rottlund Company, Inc.
5201 N. E. Riveg Road
Fridley, Minnesota 55321
RE: Petition from Residents
of "The Ridge" Development
Dear Mr. Rotter:
The City of Eden Prairie has received a petition from residents of
"The Ridge" development requesting the City Council to provide a
trail access to the trail around Mitchell Lake marsh adjacent to
"The Ridge" development. This petition was reviewed by the City
Council at their September 4, 1990 meeting. At that meeting, a
number of residents complained about the lack of access to the
"wetland trail" from their subdivision and asked the City to
explore alternatives to remedy that situation.
The City Council directed staff to determine the best location for
a trail and contact you or a representative of your company to
determine the feasibility of accommodating this request.
After an on-site inspection, staff have determined that the most
feasible location for a trail access to accommodate The Ridge
Subdivision would be between lots 18 and 19, off Kimberly Drive.
This would require a replat of a number of lots in order to develop
an outlot or trail easement of a minimum of 20' to accommodate this
request. We understand there would be some cost associated with
replatting and there may be some variances required for side yard
setbacks on several lots to accommodate a trail in this location.
I have enclosed a copy of the petition and a copy of a map
depicting the proposed location for a trail easement. The City
Council have requested staff to return to the Council at the
October 3rd meeting with information relating to the feasibility
and cost of this request. If your schedule permits, I would like
to meet with you within the next week to discuss this request.
ds,4 2A
Sincerel
Robert—A. Lambert
Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources
City of Eden Prairie
Bernard J. Rotter -2- September 10, 1990
I appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to
hearing from you in the near future. I can be reached at 937-2262,
ext. 270.
RAL:mdd
encl:
f v )7, b,11 '11 ---7111) L-<,--rprptki ?y, po2A •yl, • ,7 z t :77 29,n_ Li 4.*vnTrrIrvvi \Y at-4)rd oqj A I- 1-1,1'3)Tfli Al!D 'c 'Avpsani JOJ ITU:11-A7 a14 uo aJuld .notf 411 !7/ 37 51- 7O7 (Y) -01rurvr- / 77jyr7 )(UV 0 V-11AV, 1•7 ?)S-Z yfir? 11'114mun 5b5t YI,Gq/13'0 / 'pOdOT:lAr-IP •.,1411 M.41SAt: 11PAJ oiqpnipA s;q1 04 !-;sa3.71v! .44v!Jdo.idde oql 03 pasm oq plqop afqr(!r7Ao puln padoioAapun i Si aiaqi al!qm Jo ;i40:7.) u.=.1v1 ag outsl slql iT;;11 iqullodm! AJaA 11 laaj om :AJ:.+Aoasm 1:114.1 Jo 4110!! ul —luouldolaAap A110 ol 4ua3t31pu ou; SS:'7,DU 01 3lqI1 -o-4 1011 ii!in am lrtli AlivaDoJ paiaA.JI;tp aArq om riutmollej aql J'qVii.'IdaS 'APW:0111 UO 11:70110D aql ssaJppe ol Ill;,Inom 3u2ludo1aAap ,anp!M aql.Jo t.,:luapts'ol an phi.? Apaci 01,1,1.0f 7P-;1101V
tr.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
ENGINEERING DIVISION
-MEMORANDUM-
TO: Mayor Peterson and Councilmembers
THROUGH: Carl Jullie, City Manager
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Alan D. Gray, City Engineer
September 27, 1990
Evener Way/Hames Way Traffic
Residents appeared before the council on September 4 to voice concerns regarding traffic on
Evener Way. Since the September 4 meeting we have given neighborhood concerns additional
consideration and have met with neighbors to discuss potential solutions. Other than
neighborhood traffic which might tend to speed on certain segments of neighborhood streets, the
major problem seems to be traffic commuting to and from Chanhassen on Evener and Hames
Way due to difficulties with accessing TH 5 or traffic restrictions on TH 5 due to construction
activities. Traffic counts and observations by Public Safety have confirmed that vehicles leave
the Chanhassen Industrial Park and commute in an easterly direction via Evener Way between
4:00 and 5:30 p.m.
We believe that a significant improvement to this condition will be made upon completion of
Dell Road north of Trunk Highway 5 and the widening of Trunk Highway 5 between CSAH 4
and Dell Road together with the Dell Road intersection improvements, including signalization.
This would allow the Chanhassen Industrial Park located westerly of Dell Road convenient
access to TH 5 for eastbound commutes. We have agreed with the neighborhood to review
channelization options at the intersection of Evener and Dell to discourage the use of Evener
Way for intercommunity trips.
On an interim basis, to reduce intercommunity trips and to encourage a reduction in the number
of vehicles exceeding safe speeds for these residential streets, the Engineering Division
recommends the following sign installation:
1. Signs at the neighborhood entrances at the intersection of Evener and Dell and at Hames
and Valley View on orange construction media stating "No Through Traffic".
2. Advisory sign three curve locations for 20 mph. Those curve locations are at the
westerly end of Evener, on Evener between Kimberly and Lorence Way and on Hames
Way just southerly of Valley View Road.
September 27, 1990
Page 2 of 2
In addition, the Engineering Division will further evaluate the following:
1. The use of channelization medians at the intersection of Evener Way and Dell Road to
discourage the use of Evener and Hames for intercity trips to and from the Chanhassen
Industrial Park west of Dell Road.
2. Stop sign warrants at the intersection of Evener Way and Hames Way.
3. The use of Hames, Evener, Atherton and Heritage by traffic exiting the high school at
2:30 p.m. for destinations south of and westerly along TH 5.
ADG:ssa
Dsk:CC.EVENER-H.AME
September 25, 1990
City of Eden Prairie
7600 Executive Drive
Eden Prairie MN 55347
Attn: City Council Members
Re: Access Lo Lariat CenLer from Preirie Ceoier Drive
We are requesting that you place this issue on the City of Eden Prairie agenda,
at your earliest convenience.
As Merchants of the Lariat Center, we are constantly being asked by our customers
and the residents of Eden Prairie, to improve the access to the center from
Prairie Center Drive. Currently you must either do a u turn at the light on
169/212 or approach the center from another direction.
We have approximately 800 signed petitions from our customers/residents of Eden
Prairie, and would like to be able to provide these customer/residents with some
type of answer to indicate when the access would be improved.
Thank you for your prompt attention regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Lariat Center Merchants
Contact Larry Paumen A-Meat Shoppe
8431 Joiner Way
Eden Prairie MN 55347
943-2007
-; 4
5.10y4sTap,ces
C:1-1 MONMENNIINIM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
Mayor and City Council
Waste Management Commission
Multi-Family Recycling
September 5, 1990
Eden Prairie's residential recycling program is developing very
successfully. Tonnages of recyclable materials collected in Eden Prairie
are exceeding objectives established by Hennepin County; the amount of yard
waste diverted from landfills is remarkable; and the public costs to
provide collection services are among the lowest in the county. Hennepin
County in fact recognized Eden Prairie's "distinguished" achievement for
recycling in 1989 - and if the City's program had been in effect for the
full year, it would have qualified as one of a handful of "outstanding"
programs in the County.
The City has been able to achieve these results by focusing on collections
from low-density residential uses. It requires that licensed refuse
collectors provide collection of recyclables from residential customers who
do not use dumpsters for their garbage. While the City contracts with
Goodwill/Easter Seals to operate an attended drop-off center for
recyclables, as an alternative for recycling by multi-family residents it
is not altogether convenient or well-known. As all residents pay toward
recycling programs in the County's 595/ton tip fee, all residents should
have equally-accessible recycling opportunities. The City should extend
its requirement for on-site recycling to all residential customers.
Background Research: Approximately one-third of the City's 15,600 housing
units are condominiums, townhomes, or apartments - the types of dwellings
whose residents would not have convenient recycling collection on-site. If
these units were added to the City's program, the amount of recyclables
collected should easily increase by 20 percent.
With the Legislature mandating that the metropolitan area achieve 35
percent waste abatement through recycling within a few years, every unit of
government should take additional steps to increase recycling. Under the
plan adopted by the Metropolitan Council, counties are responsible for
meeting these objectives. Hennepin County has considered requiring its
municipalities to collect recyclables from all residential units in order
to maintain eligibility for its "generous" funding assistance program.
During this summer, the Waste Management Commission held two forums to
which refuse collectors and managers of multi-family residences were
invited. Commission members wished to determine how these on-site
recycling programs might be implemented, how costly and problematic they
may be, whether there were any easily adaptable models of success, and the
resources the City may need to commit to launching and maintaining this
program.
Forum participants sent a strong message that each multi-family complex was
unique, and the best way to approach recycling in this setting was for the
hauler and complex manager to develop a customized plan. They would not
necessarily want nor prefer that the City be involved in setting up
individual programs except when there may be some conflict with the City's
zoning performance standards.
-2-
Recycling collections will reduce overall garbage collection costs with a
sufficient minimum number of residential units (apparently around 50), and
e nearly all of the multi-family developments in Eden Prairie have more units
than this threshhold. The primary obstacle to effective multi-family
recycling lies with the residents - they must properly separate recyclable
materials from other trash to insure that buyers will accept the quality of
the load. Both management and tenants have an interest in proper waste
management in order to stabilize costs and rents.
Forum participants agreed that it was only a matter of time before
recycling would begin for multi-family residents. Economics, demands for
services from tenants, and the possibility of governmental mandates were
increasing the likelihood for recycling to begin soon. In fact, the cities
of Bloomington and Robbinsdale already require multi-family recycling
collections, and Edina, Minnetonka, and Plymouth are considering a January
1, 1991 date for implementaiton of these services.
Recommended Program: The Commission strongly prefers the multi-family
recycling system being considered by the City of Edina. It fits very well
with Eden Prairie's policy and practice that proper management of solid
waste is best handled by those who generate or collect these wastes.
Essentially, the program has three key elements:
1) That each multi-family residential use, develop and implement
its on-site source-separation recycling program by April 1,
1991;
2) That the management of each complex report to the City the
recycling program it plans to put in place;
3) That reports of the weights of recycled materials be reported
to the City on a monthly basis.
This approach maximizes the flexibility of the management entities and
haulers to devise programs, and it minimizes the resources the City would
need to make available for technical or financial assistance. In fact,
there should be no direct City costs other than what may be necessary to
educate residents about recycling.
The April 1, 1991 starting date is recommended because refuse collectors
believe equipment (e.g., specialized 90-gallon containers and trucks) may
not be readily available due to a number of cities requiring programs to be
on-line by January 1. Eden Prairie's program should be introduced with a
minimum of possible snafus to residents.
The multi-family program recommended by the Commission is straight-forward,
easy to understand, and consistent with the system of recycling for low-
density residential which is now in place. The City Council should direct
that amendments to the City Code be prepared in order to effect this
proposed extension of residential recycling services.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
DATE:
Mayor and City Council
Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission
Carl Jullie, City Manager
Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural
Resources4e/
September 26, 1990
SUBJECT: Eurasian Watermilfoil Management Program
Eurasian watermilfoil (EWM) is a plant native to Southeast Asia and
came to North America in 1942 as an aquarium plant. It is believed
it entered the U. S. waterways in the Potomic River basin area in
the late 1940 ,s. It was first found in Wisconsin nearly twenty
years ago in the Madison area and has now spread to over thirty
lakes in Minnesota. It was discovered in Riley Lake in late August
of this year.
It was first discovered in Minnesota in 1987 in Lake Minnetonka.
There is now an estimated 4000 acres of Lake Minnetonka covered
with EWM.
The plant multiplies primarily by fragmentation, resulting from
swimming and boating, in addition to natural wave action. One leaf
node is capable of taking root and establishing a new plant. Once
established multiple plants rise from the root system creating a
"bed of weeds."
The primary method for spreading is on propellers, boats and
trailers, bait buckets, anchors, and refuse thrown from boats by
careless boaters, as well as from harvesting machines. The plant
can also be spread by shore birds, ducks and geese. Eurasian
watermilfoil was discovered in Lake of the Isles, a lake with no
public access, in a far bay that is rarely used by canoeists, but
does provide habitat for a variety of waterfowl.
The weed grows extremely fast, up to 2" a day during the warm part
of the year, and will grow in ten to fifteen feet of water,
depending on water clarity. The growing season is from late April
until after the first frost in early October. The plant emerges
from a fibrous root system in soft muck and sand bottoms and grows
on a single stock until it is one to two feet below the water
surface: then forms multiple branches. These branches form a solid
reddish brown mat eight to ten inches thick, which is so dense that
it is capable of stalling power boats.
It is important to know that the plant presently cannot be
eradicated if infestation is severe. The key to control programs
is to monitor lakes and discover early on and remove plants by
hand, or through chemical treatment if there are too many for hand
removal. The DNR limits chemical treatment to 10-15% of the
"littoral" area of the lake. Once the infestation is beyond 15-20%
mechanical harvesting is the only method left for maintaining a
usable lake surface.
There is no biological control currently available; however, there
are several interesting studies currently underway. There are
several states and Canadian Providences that are experimenting with
a fungus which grows on the Eurasian watermilfoil and the DNR
indicates that Canada is in the early stages of investigating a
moth whose larva feeds on the plant. These techniques may take
several years to perfect and become available for wide spread
application.
As previously indicated, Lake Riley already has been infested with
the plant. The plant was spotted by a member of the Lake Watch
Committee, made up of Riley Lake homeowners. The City of
Chanhassen contracted with Lake Restoration, Inc. to complete a
survey of the lake. Lake Restoration found four other areas of
infestation.
The Department of Natural Resources has a contract with Lake
Restoration for removal and treatment of newly found areas of
Eurasian Watermilfoil. Lake Restoration will be attempting to
remove the plants found in Lake Riley by hand.
There are several lakes that are high risk lakes in the City of
Eden Prairie; they include: Lake Riley, Bryant Lake, Staring Lake,
Round Lake, Red Rock Lake and Mitchell Lake. Other lakes that
should be monitored include Smetana Lake and Duck Lake.
This weed may already be in lakes in Eden Prairie other than Riley
Lake. City staff recommends the first step in a management program
is to contract with a company such as Lake Restoration to complete
a survey of all of these lakes in order to determine if any other
lakes are infested and, if so, to initiate an eradication program
with the DNR.
The Department of Natural Resources will have field inspectors
available to identify the weeds when a EWM is suspected. They will
also coordinate the permit program for chemical or mechanical
control of the plant.
Eurasian watermilfoil reduces the usable area of the lake to depths
beyond 10-15' for boating, swimming, skiing, fishing, etc. Due to
the shallow nature of the majority of Eden Prairie Lakes, Eurasian
watermilfoil could render lakes such as Red Rock, Mitchell Lake,
and Staring Lake virtually unusable, if these lakes become infested
and the week is allowed to grow unchecked.
The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Department are
recommending the following program to control or manage Eurasian
watermilfoil:
1. City staff will hold a public information meeting at a school
in late October or early November of this year to educate lake
property owners and other interested citizens on how to
recognize EWM and what steps to take once it is found. This
meeting will also encourage property owners on each lake to
form "Lake Watch Committees" and to encourage interested
citizens in volunteering to assist the City in monitoring
Round Lake and Staring Lake.
2. The City will provide on-going education sessions at the
Outdoor Center providing current information on the status of
EWM in Eden Prairie lakes, and providing newly interested
citizens information on how to recognize EWM and describing
the City's management program.
3. The City will install EWM warning signs at all public
accesses.
4. The City will construct marker buoys to have available to
mark Eurasian Watermilfoil areas in lakes as soon as any EWM
weeds are found. These markers will warn boaters to stay out
the area and will mark the areas for contractors hired to
eradicate the weed.
5. The City will encourage the school district to teach children
how to recognize the weed in biology or ecology classes and
explain the danger of this weed to Eden Prairie's lakes, as
well as explaining what steps children ought to take if they
think they have identified this weed in any of our lakes.
6. The City will provide training on weed identification for all
full-time, part-time, and seasonal park staff including
lifeguards, waterfront and marina staff and will require park
attendants at Round Lake and Riley Lake to inspect all boats
prior to launching at these facilities when attendants are on
duty.
7. Staff recommends the City Council provide a budget of $4,500
per year to contract with a private vendor to provide three
seasonal inspections of each of the high risk lakes in the
City. An inspection should be provided in the spring, during
mid-summer, and in the fall. The City staff will encourage
property owners on each lake to form a lake watch committee to
provide on-going monitoring of the lake for Eurasian
watermilfoil and to notify the City of Eden Prairie and the
DNR if any milfoil is suspected.
Although the Department of Natural Resources has been provided a
limited budget for eradication of Eurasian watermilfoil, that
budget will not be able to cover the anticipated spread of EWM
throughout Minnesota. It is apparent that this program is most
likely temporary and costs for treatment will very soon be the
responsibility of the local municipality. The estimated costs for
this control program are as follows:
1. Sign cost - $40 per installation (unless signs are provided by
the DNR).
2. Brochures cost - $.05 per copy, if the City is to develop an
information brochure that should be provided to residents.
Estimated cost per year $150.
3. Treatment cost - estimated at $375 per acre.
4. Fifty-five gallon drum for waste receptacle at each public
access - $25 each.
5. Inspection cost - $4,500 for a complete inspection of seven
lakes three times per year.
The treatment costs may vary considerably by lake depending upon
the extent of any infestation; however, the treatment costs would
be minuscule compared to the weed removal cost if the weed is
allowed to grow.
At this time, City staff requests authorization to contract with a
private contractor to survey seven lakes this fall at an estimated
cost of $1,500, and requests the City Council to approve of the
proposed management program and budget of $4,500 for surveys of
these lakes during 1991. City staff is not requesting any funding
for treatment at this time, as we are unaware there are any lakes
that will necessarily require treatment in 1991; however, the City
may wish to provide a contingency fund of $4,000-$5,000 to be set
aside in the future for treatment of lakes for Eurasian
watermilfoil, as the question is not if Eurasian watermilfoil will
ever be infested in the rest of these lakes, but when.
BL:mdd
milfoi1/6
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1990
COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY COUNCIL STAFF:
AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
5:00 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7600 Executive Drive
Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, Jean
Harris, Patricia Pidcock and Douglas Tenpas
City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the
City Manager Craig Dawson, Director of Public
Works Gene Dietz, City Engineer Al Gray, and
Recording Secretary Jan Nelson
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
III. DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS FOR CITY HALL/MUNICIPAL BUILDING LAND
ACQUISITION
IV. DISCUSSION OF GOALS FOR CITY MANAGER FOR 1990 AND 1991
V. JOINT MEETING WITH RILEY-PURGATORY-BLUFF CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
BOARD OF MANAGERS (7:30 PM)
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
VII. ADJOURNMENT.
MURIA U U M
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Manager Carl J. Jullie
SUBJECT: Options for City Hall/Municipal Buildings and Land
DATE: October 5, 1990
Where to site a city hall and how to finance the purchase of the City's
corporate headquarters have been issues facing several Eden Prairie City
Councils. Following the defeat of the May 1986 referendum, the Council
appointed a "blue-ribbon committee" to study the space needs for the City's
administrative offices, to identify preferred sites, and to recommend methods of
financing. Late in 1989 the Council retained the services of Bud Andrus to
conduct further real estate research and, eventually, to negotiate the purchase
of property. At that time the Council indicated its earnest desire to select
and secure the future City Hall site during 1990.
Issues with other municipal buildings have arisen recently. MnDOT has finally
scheduled an interchange at Highway 5 and Mitchell Road in its mid-1990s capital
improvements program. Construction will require removal of the fire station and
at least half of the public works and parks maintenance building. The Council
has directed that expansion of the City's water treatment system take place at
the existing water plant; conceivably, this contruction could end up removing
the remaining half of the maintenance building. Planning for replacement of
this building should be considered in the near future.
One key decision will largely direct the land acquisition strategy: whether the
city hall and public works and parks maintenance building (and perhaps a fire
station) should be located together or near each other, or whether these sites
may be separate. There are several valid arguments for either side of this
issue. In any event, the 40,000 square-foot City Hall would need a mimimum of
five, and ideally eight acres. Replacing the maintenance building and providing
additional outdoor storage (for which the City has already reserved $150,000)
would require 15 to 20 acres. While combining these municipal buildings would
result in some economy of land use, it would also severely limit the number of
locations for the City to pursue. For financial and practical reasons, the need
for a permanent City Hall has more immediacy than the replacement of the public
works/parks and fire buildings.
Blue-Ribbon Committee: A Brief Review. The Residents Advisory Committee on City
Administrative offices met betwiell -iiTfober 1986 and January 1988. Its 22
members made several specific recommendations:
1. Building - a) 37,000 to 41,000 square feet on two levels.
b) Should look like it houses a public use.
c) Cost should be $70/square-foot (1986 dollars).
2. Site - a) Eight acres preferred; five acres minimum.
b) Should be centrally located and easily accessible.
c) Site does not need to be near other City buildings.
Preferred sites in order:
i) ADC Telecommunications (NE corner Mitchell
Road and Anderson Lakes Parkway).
II) Downtown site.
iii) Carmody property (Purgatory Creek on north
side of Anderson Lakes Parkway).
iv) Equitable hill (near present City offices).
v) Former City Hall site (as a bargaining point
for sites I - IV).
- z -
d) Price should be $3.00/sq. ft. (1987 dollars) or
$650,000 - $1,000,000, but should not be the major
criterion in selection.
3. Financing- a) Referendum-approved bonds are preferred because
t
h
e
y
have the lowest interest cost.
b) Certificates of participation are an acceptable form
of financing.
Recent Investigations: During the past year Mr. Andrus has persi
s
t
e
n
t
l
y
p
u
r
s
u
e
d
leads onseveral vacant properties and existing buildings with the
s
p
i
r
i
t
o
f
t
h
e
Committee's directions in mind. Mr. Andrus and staff focused fi
r
s
t
o
n
t
h
o
s
e
properties which met the size and location recommendations, and the
n
o
n
t
h
o
s
e
properties whose owners were willing and likely to sell. At this p
o
i
n
t
,
t
h
r
e
e
properties meet these criteria:
1) The Hartford Property, nine acres in the Prairie Lakes Business Park
fronting Prairie Center Drive between Preserve Boulevard and Rolling
Hills Road. At this time, Homart has indicated an interest to deve
l
o
p
this property as a power retail center.
2) MTS property, nearly eight acres south of Technology Drive and
abutting the west bank of Purgatory Creek. It is immediately west
of the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area.
3) Edenvale Corporate Park, the subdivision in which the present City
offices are located, which has several land configurations possibl
e
and could accommodate a new public works/parks facility.
Mr. Andrus's report and thorough review of properties studied is
a
t
t
a
c
h
e
d
t
o
this memorandum.
Financing: The City Council has reserved funds for land purchase
a
n
d
i
s
considering additional funding during the 1991 budget process. Th
e
s
e
f
u
n
d
s
include:
$150,000 Budgeted in 1989 and 1990 for purchase of
land for auxiliary storage of public works
and parks maintenance materials and
equipment.
$175,000 Proposed in the 1991 budget for the same
purpose as above.
$325,000 From water and sewer enterprise funds to
match the General Fund outlay as these
activities are included in Public Works.
$400,000 Included by the Council in the proposed
1991 budget for municipal building property
acquisition.
$250,000 Could be tapped from the $425,000 included
in the 1991 proposed budget for landfill
litigation.
$1,300,000 Available for property acquisition.
- 3 -
Council may recall that the proposed 1991 budget was prepared to draw down the
undesignated General Fund reserve to $1,500,000.
If the Council chooses to purchase land for a city hall only, use of the
enterprise funds identified above may need to be done through internal fund
borrowing. This loan would need to be repaid within five years. Additirnally,
Council would need to reconsider the timing and financial commitment to acquire
property for public works/parks storage.
Building costs have risen five to ten percent since 1986. At $75/sq. ft. for
the building and interior finishes, the cost would be $3 million. Additional
outlays would be needed for landscaping, parking, equipping the Council room for
cable casting, a new phone system, additional furniture and office partition
components, and possibly a computer system. These outlays are estimated to cost
approximately $1.0 - 1.25 million.
Long-term financing can be accomplished in two ways: 1) general obligation
bonds issued with authorization by referendum; or 2) certificates of
participation, a form of lease-purchase financing. While approval of a
referendum would result in the lowest interest rate, gaining this approval may
be difficult. Certificates of participation have a slightly higher rate of
interest, generally 0.10 - 0.15 percent, and do not require a referendum. These
certificates are not considered debt, and payments must be made from the general
fund which is, of course, subject to statutory levy limits. The City is already
paying approximately $260,000 annually in lease payments which could be credited
to these certificates in the future. The proposed 1991 tax levy approved by the
Council is $254,000 below the levy limit.
Schedule: A rule of thumb in the development and construction industry is that
two years are needed from the time a decision is made to proceed until buildings
of this size can be occupied and open for business. The current lease for 7600
Executive Drive expires on February 28, 1993. If a decision to begin the
construction process occurs after March 1, 1991, the Council should plan to
extend the current lease.
The Highway 5/Mitchell Road interchange is currently scheduled to have a bid
opening in January 1994. Presumably, the City will need to vacate buildings by
sometime during that year.
Expansion of the water plant will take four to five years to accomplish. The
additional capacity is not likely needed until 1995 at the earliest.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Manager Carl J. Jullie
SUBJECT: Goals for City Manager
DATE: October 5, 1990
The following is a suggested listing of goals to be included in the next
City Manager's Performance Review process.
1) Continue appropriate follow-up actions which are being taken
subsequent to the 1989 all-employee survey and resulting
management plan. Report on progress to the Council.
2) Begin implementation of a human resource planning process which
analyzes the City's organizational structure, reporting
relationships and job design in order to maximize staff
efficiency and effectiveness.
3) Initiate a plan which enhances customer service by creating
a City customer service strategy, develops customer friendly
service systems and, through training and reward, promotes a
staff culture that is more customer focused.
4) Present an updated Capital Improvements Program relating to the
funding for major capital projects.
It is recommended that the Council review these goals and amend the list as
you may deem appropriate. I will then plan to report to the Council in
December on my progress toward these goals. This would be included with my
usual performance review process which I suggest be done in December of
this year since my last review was just completed less than three months
ago.
Besides my regular duties, other ongoing activities and issues which I will
also be addressing in the coming months are:
1) Landfill closure and monitoring.
2) Finalized 1991 Budget.
3) City Hall and Public Works site.
4) Liquor Stores.
5) Monitor progress toward completion of needed transportation
projects i.e., Townline Road, Valley View Road, Dell Road,
County Road 4, County Road 18, T.H. 5, 1-94, and T.I.F.
projects.
6) Communications - City newsletter and Cable TV programming.
7) Work with the Municipal Legislative Commission on property
tax issues.
8) Year-end employee performance reviews and salary adjustments.
CJJ:jdp