The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCity Council - 05/07/1991 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, MAY 7, 1991 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER 7600 Executive Drive COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Douglas Tenpas, Richard Anderson, Jean Harris, H. Martin Jessen, and Patricia Pidcock CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City Attorney Roger Pauly, Finance Director John D. Frane, Director of Planning Chris Enger, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works Gene Dietz, and Recording Secretary Roberta Wick PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL PROCLAMATION FOR SENIOR AWARENESS WEEK (Resolution No. 91-119) Page 853 I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS II. MINUTES A. Special City Council Meeting held Tuesday. April 9, Page 854 1991 B. City Council Meeting held Tuesday. April 16. 1991 Page 860 III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. FAIRFIELD 1991 AMENDMENT by Centex Real Estate Page 874 Corporation. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 10-91-PUD-4-91. Zoning District Amendment within the R1-9.5 Zoning District on 23 acres:_ Approval of Developer's Agreement; Adoption of Resolution No. 91-106, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 10-91-PUD-4-91 and Ordering Publication; 23 acres into 61 single family lots and road right-of-way to be known as Fairfield 1991 Amendment. Location: North of Stanley Trail. north of Candlewood Parkway (Ordinance No. 10-91-PUD-4-91, Zoning District Amendment; Resolution No. 91-106, Authorizing Summary) City Council Agenda May 7, 1991 Page Two B. Final Plat Approval of Bell Oaks Estate, located Page 884 south of Riverview Road in the south 1/2 of Section 36 (previously known as Timber Bluff) Resolution No. 91-108 C. Final Plat Approval of Fairfield of Eden Prairie 4th Page 887 Addition, located west of Eden Prairie Road and south of future extension of Scenic Heights Road Resolution No. 91-109 D. Approve Agreement with Hennepin County for permanent easement through Rail Line at Valley View Roast E. Approve Agreement with Soo Line Railroad Company for page 890 storm sewer crossing F. ROGER'S BODY SHOP - Authorizing One-Year Extension of Page 891 the Term of the Developer's Agreement for Roger's Body Shop (Second Extension) G. Release of Special Asessment Agreement with Kingston Page 892 Ridge LTD Partnership for the construction of Staring Lake Parkway H. Revoke trunk utility assessments to George Schroers Page 895 property in Section 22 I. Approve conveyance of Outlot C. Red Rock Shores to Page 896 Parry Rogers J. Clerk's License List Page 898 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Page 899 VI. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS VII. PETITIONS. REOUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. Request from G. E. Capital Leasina for Goose Page 900 Population Control VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS. COMMISSIONS & COMMITTEES A. I-494 Corridor Commission - Request for Council Page 906 Endorsement of I-494 Corridor Commission's TDM Beliefs and Goals (Resolution No. 91-107) City Council Agenda May 7, 1991 Page Three IX. apPOINTMENTS X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS A. Reports of Councilmembers B. Report of City Manaaer C. Report of Finance Director' 1. Recommendations regardina Liquor Operations Page 912 2. 1st Quarter Budget Report D. Director of Public Works 1. Award Contract for 1991 Bituminous Seal Coating. I.C. 52-228 XI. OTHER BUSINESS XII. ADJOURNMENT r.: Proclamation The City of Eden Prairie Resolution No.91-119 Senior Awarness Week May13-20,1991 WHEREAS,senior citizens are important members of our community;and WHEREAS,senior citizens provide valuable resources to our community;and WHEREAS,the community wishes to acknowledge the services and programs available to seniors and their families; NOW,THEREFORE,I,Douglas B.Tenpas,Mayor of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota,do hereby proclaim May 13 through May 20,1991 to be: 'Senior Awareness Week in the City of Eden Prairie,Minnesota. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on this Zth day of May.1991, IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have affixed the seal of the City of Eden Prairie. Douglas B. lenpas,Mayor on behalf of Councilmembers: Richard Anderson Jean Harris H.Martin Jessen Patricia Pidcock ATTEST: John D.Franc,City Clerk • • J UNAPPROVED MINUTES SPECIAL EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 1991 6:00 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Douglas Tenpas, Richard Anderson, Jean Harris, H. Martin Jessen, and Patricia Pidcock CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, Finance Director John D. Frane, Director of Planning Chris Enger, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works Gene Dietz, Captain Jim Clark and Recording Secretary Jan Nelson I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Tenpas called the meeting to order at 6:25 PM. All members were present. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried unanimously. III. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. General Fund Capital Improvement Needs City Manager Jullie referred to the memo dated April 5 from Assistant to the City Manager Dawson regarding General Fund Capital Improvements over the next several years. He noted that about $20 million of debt will be required to finance all of the proposed facilities. He said that for every $1 million of debt that is issued during a 20-year period, there will be a $100,000 per year repayment obligation from our general operations. This translates into about $3.25 per year of additional tax on a $125,000 homestead. Harris asked if we will be retiring any bonds during that time. Finance Director Frane said he would have to check on that. City Council Meeting 2 April 9, 1991 Jullie said they have generally projected that by keeping the tax rate constant we will be able to cover operation and maintenance costs; however, some of these improvements would be an addition to our present tax rate. Jessen asked what other improvements will be required that aren't on this list or that aren't covered in the general fund. Jullie said those would include the water plant expansion and some non-General Fund road projects. He said there is a yearly $400,000 road fund included in the General Fund that would cover such things as deferments and such a fund will be required for several more years. Director of Public Works Dietz said that the $400,000 road fund covers the costs of road improvements that aren't covered by state aid as well as other small projects that are not assessable. Tenpas asked where the money will come from for the new water tower. Jullie said that will come from the trunk water operating fund. Harris asked what the time table is for Fire Station #1. Jullie said MnDOT will have to fund that since it is being wiped out for highway expansion, and it will need to be funded in 1993. Harris asked when MnDOT will provide the funds so that we know how far up front we have to fund for that facility. Dietz said they are recommending that the negotiations be completed with MnDOT by July of next year and that the land site should be selected by year-end this year. Dietz said that we will go through an appraisal process with MnDOT and we will then use the proceeds to apply towards the new facility. He said the land we buy will probably be less expensive than the present location; however, we will need a larger facility than the present one. Harris asked if we plan to relocate the fire station with the public works and park maintenance facility. Dietz said they will be separate, and there will be more options for land for the fire station as it will require only an acre or so. He said they need 15 acres for the maintenance facility and potential sites for that would be too far from the current site for the fire station. Pidcock asked if the CPT building might be used for several of the proposed facilities since it is for sale and has both office and warehouse/storage space. Dietz said it would not work for the maintenance facility �s) City Council Meeting 3 April 9, 1991 because there is no cold storage area. He said they also need 3-4 acres of outside storage that probably would not fit in that area. Pidcock said she thought someone should go out to the CPT building and see if it might work for some of the projects since it is in a good location and has easy access to highways. Harris noted that the schedule projects three referenda within a five-year period and said she thought we will really have to prepare the citizens for a schedule like that. Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Lambert said before we discuss any of the referenda we should seek more input from the citizens in another survey to determine what they would be willing to pay for. He said until we have that information he would not predict any specific dates for any of the proposed project. Anderson asked what kind of conclusions we expect to come to tonight as far as authorization or other action. Jullie said this is just a first stage and this meeting was intended as a work session. Jessen said it would be desirable to have a compiled capital improvement plan within 60 days or so in order to that we know how it all fits together. He said he thought that would be important to manage the total debt service cost. Tenpas said that 70% of those surveyed in the last survey said taxes were too high or relatively high. He said he thought it was important to know the bond structure and also to pursue ways to take some of the projects off the referenda and return them to the private sector. Jessen said he was confused because there was a second sheet of ice listed in the proposed facilities at a cost of $1 - $1.25 million, and it also appears in 1992 as a $1.2MM lease-revenue bond. Jullie said anything outside of levy limits needs to be structured as a lease payment to show that there is sufficient revenue coming in to make the lease payments. He said the City would then be paying for the annual operation and maintenance while the revenue would pay for the construction. Tenpas said he thought long-term municipal leases could be structured for facilities such as a new City Hall and that some of the projects could then be taken off the list for a referendum. Harris said she thought that we are being asked first to recognize that these are legitimate needs over the City Council Meeting 4 April 9, 1991 next decade, and then we need to engage in a continuing dialogue on how best to structure the financing. In response to the earlier discussion on the CPT building, Director of Planning Enger reported that the building is 151,000 square feet of office, 42,000 manufacturing and 24,000 warehouse, or a total square footage of 215,000. He noted that those figures were for the original construction plans. Pidcock said she would like Staff to look at it and see what could be used and what the price would be. Jessen asked if we are paying Tor the Boyce property out of the General Fund. Lambert said the money was borrowed from park fees and the utility fund and is being paid back out of the General Fund. Tenpas said he would like to see at what point with run off and increased growth we could do all these things without increasing the tax capacity rate. He said we could then make a determination on some of these things and put together a bond repayment schedule that matches. Harris agreed and said that such information might present more than one option so that we could make choices. Pidcock said she would like to see some sort of bar graph on the cost of various sites for City Hall versus the current lease costs. Anderson said he would like to have more information on the proposed water park as he wasn't sure that was the sort of thing that would pass on a referendum. Lambert said he didn't think that would need a referendum. Tenpas said he thought about $7.5 million of the projects on the list could be financed by some means other than a referendum. A discussion followed about the possibilities for lease back financing of some of the projects. Jessen asked what the Public Works storage site was. Dietz said that was a dedication of General Fund money to buy a site to store Public Works equipment. Jessen said he thought there was room to make the schedule happen by removing capital expenditures from the General Fund and replacing those expenditures with the proposed facilities. Pidcock asked if some TIF financing would be coming off. Jullie said quite a lot of that has been reflected in our current tax rate, but there will be some that will be coming off. City Council Meeting 5 April 9, 1991 Jessen asked if we have some TIF District improvements that will be made somewhere along the line. Jullie said about $12 million of projects have been identified, and we have about $9 million allocated for that; however, there would be no General Fund money going to that. Jessen said he thought we have focused in on just one small part of the capital improvements for the City and that there might be more room for give and take among the various types of improvements than we have been considering. He said he thought we need to line up all the funding sources and make some well-reasoned choices. Tenpas said he thought we were on the right direction here and that it has to make sense to the Councilmembers before we can sell it to the community. Tenpas said we also have to be cognizant of what the school district is doing. Tenpas said he thought it might be beneficial to have some firm come in for a short presentation on what is going on in the area of public financing. The consensus was that such a presentation was a good idea. Anderson said he recalled some discussion several years ago regarding establishing a port authority and then asked what that would do for us. Jullie said as things evolved we got all the powers that a port authority has. Jessen asked if there is a commitment from the Riley/Purgatory Creek Watershed District for the money to fund the Purgatory Creek Recreation area. Lambert said he will be submitting a petition for the Council to forward to the Watershed District for a feasibility study that would determine the exact cost and cost sharing figures for that project. Jessen asked what the status of land acquisition is in the Purgatory Creek area. Lambert said they hired Don Brauer to get ten property owners to sign for a dedication of property or to give an easement for trail purposes; however, none of the ten agreed to either option. He said they will be bringing an alternate plan to the Council in a couple of weeks. Tenpas said he thought that we should have some information on different options and costs for the second sheet of ice. Lambert said some volunteers have worked to obtain cost estimates and revenue projections and they will also be bringing that information to the City Council Meeting 6 April 9, 1991 Council after it has been discussed by the Parks Commission. Pidcock asked what the status of the golf course is. Lambert said there is no land available as yet; however, the Metropolitan Airport Commission has indicated a desire to acquire more land and a golfcourse would not be an unreasonable use for some of the property they would acquire. Jessen asked what the schedule for that is. Lambert said he thought they are waiting to see the results of the deal regarding the extension of the runway. A discussion followed regarding the profitability of a golf course, the degree of control the City might have regarding the expansion of the runway, and possible uses for additional land required for that expansion. Tenpas asked what the $800,000 for Police Station expansion included. Captain Clark said they will expand out to the south with additional office space for the administrative detectives and support staff. Dietz said the time line is short for a site for the replacement of the Public Works facility. Jessen said he thought we especially need to determine the location for the Fire Station very soon. III. OTHER BUSINESS There was none. IV. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Anderson, to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 PM. Motion carried unanimously. / EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL UNAPPROVED MINUTES TIME: 7:30 PM Tuesday, April 16, 1991 LOCATION: City Hall Council Chambers, 7600 Executive Drive COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Douglas Tenpas, Richard Anderson, Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock and H. Martin Jessen CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager, Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City Attorney Roger Pauly, Finance Director John D. Frane, Director of Planning Chris Enger, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works Gene Dietz, and Recording Secretary Roberta Wick PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Present: Richard Anderson, Acting Mayor; Jean Harris, H. Martin Jessen, Patricia Pidcock Absent: Douglas Tenpas PRESENTATION Q PROCLAMATION DECLARING APRIL 21-27, 1991 MS DISABILITY ACTION WEEK al EDEN PRAIRIE (Resolution No. 91-88) Acting Mayor Anderson announced Disabilities Action Week in Eden Prairie from April 21-17 and presented a copy of the proclamation to Eden Prairie resident, Justin Cutshall. DISCUSSION WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF HENNEPIN PARKS Jullie introduced Douglas Bryant, Superintendent of Hennepin Parks, as well as James White and Judith Anderson, representing the Suburban Hennepin • Regional Park Board. James White, representing District 4 which includes the City of Eden Prairie, said that agreement had been reached between Hennepin Parks and the City on the Rowland Road improvements. Jessen asked where the trail project for Bryant Lake Park stood on the priority list. White said priorities for 1992 projects would be set within a week and added that he believed it was important to build the trail system which would tie the various suburban community parks together within the next two years. Bryant said that Bryant Lake Park was one of the projects planned for presentation to the State Legislature and the Metropolitan Council for funds in 1992. However, he added that one of the difficulties had been that Capital • Improvements Funding from the State of Minnesota had been greatly decreased in the last eight years. He said the State had agreed to fund $5 million in the last biennium, with the Metropolitan Council agreeing to fund another $15 • i, i Eden Prairie 2 April 16, 1991 City Council Minutes million. He said that State aids in homestead credits had been cut by approximately $500,000 in the last nine months and there was a possibility that the Legislature would cut $800,00 from Operation and Maintenance Funding in the present session. A budget crisis could result from these cuts. Hennepin Parks had asked the Metropolitan Council to extend the deadline for the Capital Improvements request until after the legislative session so it would know how much money would be available for Operation and Maintenance. Harris asked about the status of the trail which crosses the International School property. Bryant said Hennepin Parks was very supportive of the project, and it would work with the City to see that the trail connection through this property was completed. Jessen asked about the status of Anderson Lakes Park Reserve and relocation of the nature center. White said that because of the increase in human population in the area, many types of wildlife had taken refuge in the Anderson Lakes Park Reserve. He also said Hennepin Parks had written to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requesting that it investigate what the impact would be to the wildlife if the human population were given full access to the area. Up to the present time, it had been difficult to keep people out of the wildlife area, but plans were in process to make the area on the west side of Anderson Lakes Parkway a wildlife sanctuary. Bryant said that it was necessary for the City and Hennepin County to make some decisions relative to improvements to Anderson Lakes Parkway and how much of the park would be taken for right-of-way. Jessen asked what the City could do to assure money would be available to develop the trail system in Bryant Lake Park. Bryant suggested the City support this action by a resolution to the Metropolitan Council, along with any support that could be given at the legislative level. I. APPROV&L Off' AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS Pidcock moved, seconded by Jessen, to approve the agenda. Pidcock requested the addition of the following items under X.A Councilmembers Reports: (1) Hearings at the State Capital on Fiscal Disparities; (2) Senior Volunteers Recognition at the Earle Brown Center; (3) Back-up for Councilmembers. Jullie requested that Item J under III. Consent Calendar, be deleted. He also requested addition of Item X.B.2, Support for Brady Bill. Agenda approved as amended 4-0. Eden Prairie 3 April 16, 1991 City Council Minutes II. MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, APRIL 1991 MOTION Jessen moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve the Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting held Tuesday, April 2, 1991. Jessen requested a correction on 9 of the Minutes. Motion to adjourned was approved 4-0 instead of 5-0. Minutes approved as amended 3-0-1 with Harris abstaining. III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Clerk's License List, B. Award Contract for Portable Engine-Generator Set, I.C. 52-215 C. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 11-91 Regarding Dum in Household Refusg in EittAig, Trasj_i Receptacles D. Arbor Day Proclamation (Resolution No. 91-89) E. Request, bi Jim Osberg, 6879 Alpine Trail, Liar Land Alteration Permit to Excavate Wildlife Pond in Backyard F. Authorize Application for Permit to Connect to Metropolitan Waste Control Facilities in Hedquist Addition (Resolution No. 91-103) G. Approve Easement Agreement, for Masters Property on Beach Road H. FAIRVIEW MEDICAL HEALTH CLINIC QR EDEN PRAIRIE by Fairview Hospital and Healthcare Services. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 9-91, Zoning District Change from Rural and I-2 to Office on 2.9 acres; Approval of Developer's Agreement; Adoption of Resolution No. 91-90, Authorizing Summary and Ordering Publication of Ordinance No. 9-91; Adoption of Resolution No. 91-59, Site Plan Review on 2.9 acres for construction of a 15,200 square foot medical health care clinic to be known as Fairview Medical Health Clinic of Eden Prairie. Location: East of Prairie Center Drive and south of Technology Drive (Ordinance No. 9-91-PUD-3-91 - Zoning District Change; Resolution No. 91-90 - Authorizing Summary and Ordering Publication; Resolution No. 91-59 - Site Plan Review) I. TIMBER LAKE DRIVE TOWNHOMES by the Pemtom Company. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 8-91, Zoning District Amendment within the RM-2.5 Zoning District on 2.11 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals; Approval of Developer's Agreement; Adopt • Resolution No. 91-91, Authorizing Summary and Ordering Publication of Ordinance No. 8-91; Adopt Resolution No. 91-53, site plan Review • • Ian r Eden Prairie 4 April 16, 1991 City Council Minutes on 2.11 acres for construction of 16 townhouse units in 4 buildings to be known as Timber Lake Drive Townhomes. Location: Northeast corner of Timber Lake Drive and Island Road. (Ordinance No. 8-91 - Zoning District Amendment; Resolution No. 91-91 - Authorizing Summary and Ordering Publication; Resolution No. 91-53 - Site Plan Review) J. BLUFFS WEST 9TH ADDITION by Hustad Development Corporation. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 32-90-PUD-11-90, Zoning District Amendment within the R1-13.5 Zoning District and Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 14.16 acres with shoreland variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals; Adoption of Resolution No. 91-92, Authorizing Summary and Ordering Publication of Ordinance No. 32-90-PUD-11-90; 25 single-family lots, 3 outlots and road right-of-way. Location: North of Bluestem Lane and west of Bennett Place. (Ordinance No. 32-90-PUD-11-90 - Zoning District Amendment and Zoning District Change; Resolution No. 91-92 - Authorizing Summary and Ordering Publication) (This Item was deleted from the Consent Calendar) K. BLUFFS EAST EIGHTH ADDITION by Hustad Development. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 39-90, Zoning District Change from Rural and R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 3.5 acres; Adoption of Resolution No. 91-93, Authorizing Summary and Ordering Publication of Ordinance No. 39-90; 15 acres in 8 single-family lots. Location: Bluff Road between White Tail Crossing and Wild Duck Pass (Ordinance 39-90 - Zoning District Change; Resolution No. 91-93 - Authorizing Summary and Ordering Publication) MOTION Harris moved, seconded by Jessen, to approve the Consent Calendar as amended with the deletion of Item J. Motion approved 4-0. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. YEAR XVII CDBG by the City of Eden Prairie. Adopt Resolution No. 91-83, Approve Program for Year XVII CDBG Funds and Authorize its Submittal: Adopt Resolution No. 91-84 - Amending Year XVI Statement of Projected Use of Funds. (Resolution No. 91-83 - Approving Program for Year XVII CDBG Funds, Authorizing Submittal; Resolution No. 91-84 - Amending Year XVI Statement of Projected Use of Funds) Jullie said notice for the federally-required public hearing had been published in the April 4, 1991 issue of the Eden Prairie News. He said the City was eligible to apply for approximately $80,000 in CDBG funds and recommendations from the Human Rights and Services Eden Prairie 5 April 16, 1991 City Council Minutes Commissions for the use of the funds were as follows: Greater Minneapolis Daycare Association $18,640; Household and Outside and Maintenance for Elderly $5,250; Housing Rehabilitation Deferred Loan Program $30,000; Pool Chair Lift for the Physically Disabled $1,400; and Scattered Site Housing Assistant Program $24,580. He called Council's attention to the corrections to be made in the copy of Resolution No. 91-83 to reflect the above amounts. There were no comments from the audience. Jessen moved to close the public hearing and adopt Resolution No. 91-83 and Resolution No. 91-84. Seconded by Pidcock. Motion approved 4-0. B. REQUEST FOR REFINANCING MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS FOR TANAGER CREEK L T_Hl, AMOUNT OF $10,400.000 Jullie said notice for the public hearing was published in the March 28, 1991 issue of the Eden Prairie News. Tanager Limited Partnership was requesting a refinancing of the $10,400,000 in Housing Revenue Bonds for the Tanager Creek Apartment project. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION Jessen moved, seconded by Harris, to close the public hearing. Motion approved 4-0. V. PAYMENT py CLAIMS MOTION Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve payment of claims. Payment of claims approved with Harris, Pidcock, Jessen, and Anderson all voting "AYE". VI. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. Revenue Bond Fees (Resolution No. 91-105) Continued from April 2, 1991 Jullie said this was a continued item from April 2, 1991 at which time motions to continue the fee and to remove the fee both failed on a 2-2 vote. He referred to the background memo in the packet which related three options for Council decision. • Eden Prairie 6 April 16, 1991 City Council Minutes Harris and Jessen said they supported continuing and clarifying the present policy as described in Option 1. MOTION Harris moved approval of Resolution 91-105 amending Resolution No. 91-08, continuing the present policy of imposing the 1/8% fee on all new projects, including all forms of refinancing. Seconded by Jessen. Motion approved 4-0. B. Request for Approval fps Refinancing Multi-Family Housing Revenue Bonds for Tanager Creek in the Amount gf S10 400.000 (Resolution No. 91-104) MOTION Harris moved to approve Resolution No. 91-104, seconded by Pidcock. Motion approved 4-0. C. Resolution No. 91-87 Providing fct a Reduction of the Interest Rate on the TriCor Industrial Development Bond Jullie recommended this item be continued to the May 5, 1991 meeting. MOTION Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, that this item be continued to the May 5, 1991 meeting. Motion approved 4-0. D. EATON INDUSTRIAL ADDITION by The Eaton Corporation. Adopt Resolution No. 91-79, Preliminary Plat of approximately 47 acres into 2 lots with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals to be known as Eaton Industrial Addition. Location: 15151 Highway 5. (Resolution No. 91-79 - Preliminary Plat) Jullie explained this was a platting request and said notice of the discussion was mailed to owners of 23 properties in the project area and published int he April 4, 1991 issue of the Eden Prairie News. The Eaton Corporation was proposing to divide its 47 acres into two lots. Peter Knaeble, representing Krueger and Associates, explained the details of the project using maps and charts. Enger said the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project at its April 8, 1991 meeting subject to the conditions of the April 5, 1991 staff report. The Engineering Department recommended that right-of-way dedication not take place at the present time, but Eden Prairie 7 April 16, 1991 City Council Minutes rather after the Highway Department determined the width and dimensions of the right-of-way. Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat into two lots subject to the April 12, 1991 memorandum which was updated from the Planning Commission meeting of April 8, 1991. In addition, prior to release of final plat the proponent shall provide a construction schedule and proper financial security for the construction of a water main to Lot 2. Also, concurrently with the release of the final plat the proponent shall file a cross-access easement for the purposes of providing access to Lot 2. Finally, the proponent shall acknowledge that within 30 days of notice by the City, it shall dedicate to the City an agreed-upon portion of right-of-way over Lot 1 for the construction of the extension of Technology Drive through the property. • • MOTION Jessen moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve Resolution No. 91- 79 - Preliminary Plat and direct staff to prepare the development agreement. Motion approved 4-0. VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS A. Singletree Plaza Development Proposal - Request for Comments from Council regarding Variance from Building Floor Area Ratio of .20 to .24 Kelly Doran, representing The Robert Larsen Partners, gave background information on the property and the project. He said • his request for comments concerned Floor Area Ratio coverage only and that the proponent would return to the Council at another time with the details of the entire development project. He said the reason for requesting .24 FAR was that the anchor tenant for the development had requested expansion space. The proponent recommended the Council change FAR for the entire Major Center area as it believed the present policy of FAR of .20 was too restrictive. He stressed that at this time the proponent was looking • for Council guidance on the FAR issue only. • Dale Beckman, representing BRW, explained the issues surrounding traffic and drainage on the site with the use of drawings and maps. He explained the plans for parking and landscaping as well. Enger said the proponent wanted a reading from the Council on the FAR issue before it went ahead with the project. He pointed out that the staff report in the packet was not a complete analysis of the site plan. He said the Council would have to decide whether or not it would set a precedent by changing the FAR because there was no hardship issue involved, nor would it be a decision based upon meritorious design. ( ):> Eden Prairie 8 April 16, 1991 City Council Minutes Jessen said he would favor an increased FAR in the Major Center Area because this was the area that the City wanted to encourage people to come to for shopping. Harris agreed. Harris asked if the anchor tenant could be replaced with a tenant that would agree to the .20 FAR requirement. Doran said that the tenant had indicated that in the event the FAR would not be changed that it would buy the site and build a free-standing building. Donald Brauer, representing the adjacent property owners, Naegele and Teman, said he had understood that the City would establish a zoning ordinance classification in the Major Center Area which would be different from other parts of the City. He encouraged the Council to consider this type of action rather than a variance. He recommended amending the ordinance to affect the remaining two large sites for commercial development as well. He said increasing the FAR in the Major Center Area would result in less peak-hour trips because the traffic would be concentrated in one area. He also said he did not support putting a public right-of-way on Commonwealth Drive but rather favored making it a private roadway so that trees could be planted along side of it. Enger said he would be willing to make a comparison on Floor Area Ratio with other communities. He pointed out that the ordinance spoke to either a waiver through the PUD process or a variance. Variance would require a hardship and a waiver through the PUD process would require meritorious design or design better than could be accomplished under the ordinance. He recommended that Council be persuaded that the development would be a better design at .24 than at .20 before it agreed to the variance. Pidcock said she would like to see some plans for some public transportation in the area. Jessen suggested exploring opportunities that would allow the City to • get maximum development with minimum parking. He suggested having a special meeting within the next two weeks to discuss the potential for the area. Harris and Anderson supported this suggestion. MOTION Harris moved that Council hold a meeting with the affected property owners and the City staff to explore the possibilities and options for the properties in the Major Center area. Seconded by Jessen. Doran said he supported the Council proceeding in this way. Motion approved 4-0. t�.J . Eden Prairie 9 April 16, 1991 City Council Minutes B. Request from Don Atkins Jullie said Mr. Atkins had requested to speak with Council on erosion control issues. Staff had met with Mr. Atkins and had a fairly good understanding of his concerns. Don Atkins, 9580 Eden Prairie Road, said he was concerned that measures to prevent soil erosion were not being taken in the City and encouraged Council and staff to give attention to this matter. He was also concerned that developers were not seeding the property within the required 72 hours after a project was finished, thus causing further erosion. After further Council discussion, there was general consensus that • • erosion-control requirements in the development agreements should • be more strictly enforced by the City. Anderson requested staff to provide information on existing ordinances on erosion control and whether or not they were effective, so that Council could decide whether or not the ordinances needed to be strengthened. VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, do COMMITTEES IX. APPOINTMENTS X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS A. Reports of Councilmembers 1. Fiscal Disparities Pidcock said she had been requested to substitute for Mayor Tenpas to give testimony on behalf of the City on fiscal disparities at the State Capitol. However, because she was not able to reach the hearings in time, Craig Dawson of the City staff had given an excellent presentation on behalf of Eden Prairie. She thanked Dawson for a job well done, and distributed copies of the testimony to Council members for their information. 2. Senior Volunteer Recognition at Earle Brown Center in Brooklyn Center. Pidcock said she had attended a reception in Brooklyn Center to honor senior volunteers. Several Hennepin County commissioners and officials from other cities in the metropolitan area were present. She said she was one of only two representatives from Eden Prairie and was disappointed that the volunteers from Eden Prairie were not better represented. 1 Eden Prairie 10 April 16, 1991 City Council Minutes 3. Back-up for Councilmembers Pidcock suggested that it would be appropriate for the Council to establish a policy of having a back-up person appointed for any Councilmember who was scheduled to represent the City in an official capacity. An example of the situation had been Mayor Tenpas being called out of town when he had been scheduled to represent the City on fiscal disparities at the State Capitol. Harris said she agreed that the Council should work out a system to cover these situations. Jessen also agreed and suggested that when a Councilmember was scheduled to represent the City in an official capacity, it be placed on the calendar so that all Councilmembers were aware of it. B. Report of City Manager 1. Funding for Video Equipment Jullie said that after investigation staff had found that the budget allocation for this item was short by approximately $13,000. Therefore, he asked if Council wished to increase the allocation before proceeding on the purchase of this equipment which would allow the broadcast of Council meetings via cable television. MOTION Jessen moved to authorize the expenditure of additional money to obtain necessary the video equipment. Motion failed for lack of a second. Harris said she would favor waiting until a permanent City Hall site was established so that the equipment could be installed at the time the new facility was built. She also said it was difficult to justify the additional expenditure at a time when other needs of the community had been delayed for lack of funds. She further stated that she would like to wait until the new newsletter • had been evaluated as a way to communicate with the community. Jessen said he believed that it was important to the people of the community to have access to the government, and he believed televising Council meetings was an good way to accomplish this. Pidcock said she would favor spending the money if the City had a permanent City Hall. However, because the present facilities were temporary, she favored using the newsletter as a communication vehicle. Anderson said he believed it was much more cost-effective to install video equipment at the time a new building was built, and Eden Prairie 11 April 16, 1991 City Council Minutes he would favor waiting for a permanent City Hall before televising Council meetings. MOTION Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to delay purchasing cable television equipment until such time as a permanent City Hall was built. Motion approved 3-1 with Jessen voting Nay. 2. Support for Brady Bill Jullie called Council attention to the communication from the National League of Cities regarding the Brady Bill which addressed the issue of gun control. Each Councilmember expressed support for the bill and Jullie was directed to communicate this information to the National League of Cities. C. Report of Planning Director 1. Discussion of Changes on Screening 2 Tr Areas Enger suggested that the City ordinance be amended to require screening of dumpsters. He cited cases where shopping centers had left the responsibility for trash hauling to individual tenants, resulting in an unsightly number of dumpsters. He called Council attention to the report on Page 832 of the packet. He also suggested that the Council could direct the issue to the Planning and Waste Management Commissions for further study and • recommendation. • Harris said she favored directing staff to draft a proposed • amendment to the ordinance to address the issue. Anderson said he agreed. He said he would like the City to do a better job of screening dumpsters and also would like to see individual businesses to be more responsible the debris from their properties. Enger suggested adopting a requirement for trash enclosures as a policy before it was made into an ordinance. After further discussion, Council agreed to request recommendations from the Planning Commission and the Waste Management Commission as to what City policy should be in the matter. • • • ;•J Eden Prairie 12 April 16, 1991 City Council Minutes D. Report o2$ pirector of Public Works 1. Options for Seal Coating Trails Dietz said from a cost effectiveness standpoint, Eden Prairie was the leader in the metro area on the trail system, using hot asphalt overlaid with trap rock. However, the material was rather abrasive and some people (usually skaters) objected to it. An alternative would be to use an emulsion-type product and he recommended trying Plushtex on the park trails only. Plushtex would be more costly over a ten-year period because it did not have the life expectancy of the trap rock system, but the advantage would be that it was not as abrasive. Lambert said he did not believe that the City would afford an emulsion-type of seal coating over all the trails in the City. He added that complaints were received only for approximately a month after seal coating. After the areas had been plowed in the winter, no complaints were received. He said he favored limiting the emulsion-type seal coating to Round Lake Park and Staring Lake Park. MOTION Pidcock moved to approve seal coating of trails in the Round Lake and Staring Lake Park areas with Plushtex. Seconded by Jessen. Motion approved 4-0. 2. Approve Layout Plan No. 4 tqr T.H. 212/Prairie Cente prive Interchange, I.C. 51-348 (Resolution No. 91-77) Dietz reviewed the Layout Plan as presented by MnDOT and recommended approval. MOTION Pidcock moved adoption of Resolution No. 91-77 approving the Layout Plan for T.H. 212/Prairie Center Drive Interchange, I.C. 51- 348. Seconded by Harris. Motion approved 4-0. 3. Award Contracts for Materials Bids, LC. 52-226 (Resolution No. 91- 94) Dietz called Council attention to the Summary of Bids for materials. He said that ordinarily Class 5 100% crushed aggregate was bid for gravel road surfacing materials. This year it was suggested that Class 5 Recycled Asphalt be tested. Therefore he recommended awarding bids to J. L. Shiely Company for Class 5 Aggregate-Virgin, and to Midwest Asphalt Company for Class 5 Aggregate-Recycled. 17f Eden Prairie 13 April 16, 1991 City Council Minutes MOTION Harris moved adoption of Resolution No. 91-94 awarding contracts for materials bids, I.C. 52-226 to J. L. Shiely Company and Midwest Asphalt Company. Seconded by Pidcock. Motion approved 4-0. 4. Award Contract for Hydrant Painting, I.C. 52-211 (Resolution No. 91-95) Dietz recommended awarding the contract to Central Sandblasting Company. MOTION Harris moved to approve Resolution No. 91-95 accepting the bid from Central Sandblasting Company for Fire Hydrant Painting, I.C. 52-211. Seconded by Pidcock. Motion approved 4-0. 5. Award Contract for Street Striping, I.C. 52-227 (Resolution No. 91- 96) Dietz recommended awarding the bid to AAA Striping. MOTION Jessen moved adoption of Resolution No. 91-95 awarding the contract for Street Striping, I.C. 52-227 to AAA Striping. Seconded by Harris. Motion approved 4-0. 6. Award Contract for Diesel Crack Sealer, I.C. 52-220 (Resolution No. 91-97) • Dietz said a new diesel crack sealer machine was needed. He said that because the MacQueen Equipment, Inc.'s Bearcat machine met the criteria established by the City for this machine better than the Craftco machine which was also considered, it was recommended that the contract be awarded to MacQueen • Equipment, Inc. MOTION Harris moved to adopt Resolution No. 91-97 awarding the contract for a Diesel Crack Sealer, I.C. 52-228 to MacQueen Equipment, Inc. Seconded by Pidcock. Motion approved 4-0. 7. Award Contract for Eden Hills Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvements, LC, 52-21Z (Resolution No. 91-98) Dietz recommended awarding the special assessment project in the Eden Hills Neighborhood to Brown and Cris, Inc. d7� j Eden Prairie 14 April 16, 1991 City Council Minutes MOTION Jessen moved adoption of Resolution No. 91-98 awarding the contract for Eden Hills Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvements, I.C. 52-212 to Brown and Cris, Inc. Seconded by Pidcock. Motion approved 4-0. 8. Award Contract for Valley View Road ,Improvements, I.C. 52-22i (I.C. 51-272A) Resolution No. 91-99 Dietz recommended awarding the contract for the improvement of Valley View Road to Imperial Developers, Inc. • MOTION Pidcock moved adoption of Resolution No. 91-99 awarding the contract for Valley View Road Improvements, I.C. 52-221 (I.C. 51- 272A) to Imperial Developers, Inc. Seconded by Harris. Motion approved 4-0. XI. OTHER BUSINESS XII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to adjourn at 11:00 PM. Motion approved 4-0. i Fairfield 1991 Amendment CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 10-91-PUD-4-91 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA,REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT,AND,ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA,ORDAINS: Section I. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance(hereinafter, the"land")is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be removed from the R1-9.5 District be placed in the Planned Unit Development 4-91-RI-9.5 (hereinafter"PUD 4-91-R1-9.5). Section 3. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of February 6, 1990, entered into between Centex Real Estate Corporation, a Nevada corporation,and the City of Eden Prairie(hereinafter"Developer's Agreement")and that certain supplement to the Developer's Agreement,dated as of May 7, 1991,entered into between Centex Real Estate Corporation, a Nevada corporation,and the City of Eden Prairie(hereinafter"Supplement"). The Developer's Agreement and Supplement contain the terms and conditions of PUD 4-91-RI-9.5,and is hereby made a part hereof. Section 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. PUD 4-91-R1-9.5 is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Guide Plan of the City. B. PUD 4-91-RI-9.5 is designed in such a manner to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries. C. The exceptions to the standard requirements of Chapters I I and 12 of the City Code that are contained in PUD 4-91-R I-9.5 are justified by the design of the development described therein. D. PUD 4-91-R1-9.5 is of sufficient size, composition, and arrangement that its construction, marketing,and operation is feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any subsequent unit. Section 5. The proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be,and hereby is removed from the R1-9.5 District and shall be included hereafter in the PUD 4-91-R1-9.5,and the legal descriptions of land in each district referred to in City Code Section 11.03,subdivision 1,subparagraph B, shall be and are amended accordingly. Section b. City Code Chapter 1 entitled"General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation"and Section 11.99 entitled"Violation a Misdemeanor"are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference,as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 7. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 2nd day of April, 1991,and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 7th day of May, 1991. ATTEST: John D. Frane,City Clerk Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1991. P.U.D. •rx.:.rvr AMNDMINT EXHIBIT A PAGE 1 OF 3 All those parts of the following described land which lie southeasterly of the southeasterly right-of-way of the Minneapolis, and St. Louis Railroad: All that part of the South 3/8 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 . of Section 20, Township 116, Range 22, lying West of County Road No. 4. • The West 2/3 of South 3/8 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 20, Township 116, Range 22. All that part of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast I/4 of Section 20, Township 116, Range 22, which lies West of County Road No. 4, except that part thereof described as follows: Commencing at a point 279 feet West of the Northeast corner of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 ,of Section 20, Township 116, Range 22, which point is the center of so called Murphy Ferry Road; thence West 442 feet; thence South 340.8 feet; • _i..thence East on a line-parallel to the North line of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 to a point in center of the so called road; thence Northwesterly along the center of said road to the place of beginning, and except the southerly 450.00 feet of said Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 20 and that part which lies southwesterly of the following described line; Beginning at a point 615.00 feet west of the east line of said Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter and 300.00 feet • northerly of the south line of said Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter; thence northwesterly to a point on the west line of said Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter, 750.00 feet north of the southwest corner of said Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter as measured along said west line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter and there terminating. That part of the North 5/8 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 lying West of County Road No. 4, except Road, Section 20, Township 116, Range 22. The Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 except Railroad right- of-way, Section 20, Township 116, Range 22. North 5/8 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 20, Township 116, 5/8 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 age 22. North way, Section 20, Township 116, Range 22. / exc�t Railroad right-of- way, 2/7 J EXHIBIT A PAGE 2 OF 3 That part of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 17, Township 1I6, Range 22, described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of the Southwest I/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section; thence North along the East line of said Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4, a distance of 914 feet; thence deflecting to the right at an angle of 81 degrees. 37 minutes, a distance of 244 feet, more of less, to the center line of Shakopee Road; thence Northerly along the center line of said Road a distance of 830 feet to the point of beginning of the tract of land to be described; thence Westerly to a point 1748.95 feet North of the South line of said Section and in a line described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section; thence West along South line of said Section 274 feet; thence deflecting to the right at an angle of 9I degrees, 58 minutes. 30 seconds a distance of 1748.95 feet to said point; thence South along said line a distance of 1748.95 feet to the point.in the South line of said Section distant 274 feet West of the Southeast corner of said Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4; thence West along said South line to the Southwest corner of said Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4; thence North along West line of said Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 to a point 1 rod South from the Northwest corner of said Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4; thence East parallel with the North line of said Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 to a point distant 1 rod Southeasterly measured at a right angle from Southeasterly line of the right-of-way of the Minneapolis, and St. Louis Railroad; thence Northeasterly parallel with and 1 rod distant from said right-of-way to the intersection of a line drawn North 87 degrees, 45 minutes West from a point in the center line of the Shakopee Road distant 528.3 feet Northerly form the South line of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section 17, which said point is determined by measuring along the center line of said Road; thence South 87 degrees 45 minutes East to the said center line of said road; thence Southeasterly along said center line to the point of beginning. East 1/3 of South 3/8 of Northeast 1/4 of Northwest 1/4 and South 3/8 of • Northwest 1/4 of Northeast 1/4, Section 20, Township 116, Range 22. That part of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest I/4 of Section 17, Township 116, Range 22, lying Southeast of the Railroad right-of-way. 1 EXHIBIT A PAGE 3 OF P.U.D. DISTRICT REVIEW - ZONING DISTRICT ANENDL'1!.*1T - PRELMLN Ry PLAT 3 - All c: •.utlot I s..; those carts of Cutlots B. C, D. C and H. FA_RF:E,.. OF E;!-`. FRAIR:E , iDDITICN, according to the rer:orded plat thereof,, exc.-Tr. `.hat par,. e-..,.,,.d! with n FAIRFIELD CF EDE: PRAIRIE 2RD >DDITIC,;. acc r::n_ to t_a :•-„!,.1 plat ther..nf, i•hich !:es e.cte.,.. „f the follcwing described line: • Ccmmenciat o: the southwest corner of Lot 5 of Blcck 6 in said, FAIRFIELD CF EDDi PRAIRIE 3RD ADDITION; thence westerly along the northerly line of said Addition 223.96 feet to the point of bc'inning of the line to be described; thence North 23 degrees West, 11.58 feet; thence northwesterly 299.21 feet along a. tangential curve, to the left, having a central ar.ile of 10 degrees 55 .minutes 33 seconds and a radius of 1566.69 feet: thence North•33 clogi. es 56 minutes 33 seconds West, tangent to the last described curic. 56.30 feet; thence northerly 372.12 feet along a tangential curve, to the right, having a central 'angle of 74 degrees 11 minutes 43 seconds and a radius of 237.36 feet; thence North 40 decrees 15 minutes 11 seconds East, tangent to the last describe! curve, 313.55 feet; thence northeasterly 308.75 feet along a ttng••nt.ial curve. to the left, having a central angle of 23 degrees 43 minutes 39 second_, and a radius of 455.62 feet: thence North ! degree 25 minutes 32 seconds East. tangent to the last d•:scr...•1 curve, 201.27 feet to the north line cf sa:d Qutlot. 1 G. and `n:.: lioe there terunating. i L -?`' • { Fairfield 1991 Amendment CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO.91-106 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE 10-91-PUD-4-91 AND ORDERING THE PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 10-91-PUD-4-91 was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 7th day of May, 1991. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance No. 10-91-PUD-4-91, which is attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that said text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of said ordinance. B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a body type no smaller than non-pareil or six-point type,as defined in Minn.State.sec.331.07. C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance shall be posted in the City Hall. D. That Ordinance No. I0-91-PUD-4-91 shall be recorded in the ordinance book, along with proof of publication required by paragraph B herein,within 20 days after said publication. ADOPTED by the City Council on the 7th day of May, 1991. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk i,79 Fairfield 1991 Amendment CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO.10-91-PUD-4-91 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA,AMENDING THE ZONING OF CERTAIN LAND WITHIN THE R1-9.5 DISTRICT AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.9, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS,CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA,ORDAINS: Summary: This Ordinance amends the zoning of land within the R1-9.5 Zoning District located north of Stanley Trail and north of Candlewood Parkway subject to the terms and conditions of a developer's agreement. Exhibit A,included with this Ordinance,gives the full legal description of this property. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. ATTEST: John D. Frane,City Clerk Douglas B.Tenpas, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the—day of 1991. (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.) ? f � L (' 3 Fairfield 1991 Amendment SUPPLEMENT TO DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT THIS SUPPLEMENT TO AGREEMENT,made and entered into as of 1991, by CENTEX REAL ESTATE CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as"City"; WHEREAS,the parties desire to amend the Developer's Agreement between Centex Real Estate Corporation and the City of Eden Prairie for Fairfield Phases 2-6, dated February 6, 1990, (hereinafter the"Developer's Agreement)for that portion of the property designated on Exhibit B as"the Amended Area"; NOW,THEREFORE,in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance#10-91-PUD-4- 91,Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon,development,and maintenance of the Amended Area as follows: 1. The Developer's Agreement shall be and hereby is supplemented and amended in the following respects: A. Paragraph I. shall be amended to read as follows: "Developer shall develop the Amended Area of the property in conformance with the materials revised and dated February 6, 1990, reviewed and approved by the City Council on December 15, 1988,and in conformance with the materials revised and dated March 22,1991, reviewed and approved by the City Council on April 2, 1991, and attached hereto as Exhibit B,subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. B. The following paragraphs 14. - 17. shall be added: 14. Concurrent with site grading within the Amended Area,and prior to issuance by City of any building permit for any lots abutting Scenic Heights Road within the Amended Area,Developer agrees to implement the Berm Planting Plan as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Said Planting Plan, located along the south side of Scenic Heights Road, includes construction of a berm and planting of coniferous and deciduous trees. Developer agrees to provide a security in the amount of 150%of the cost of construction and implementation of said Planting Plan in accordance with the Landscape and Screening requirements of City Code. 15. Concurrent with street and utility construction within the Amended Area, Developer agrees to construct,or cause to be constructed, sidewalks and trails in the following locations: A. A five-foot wide concrete sidewalk along the west side of Braxton Drive. B. An eight-foot wide bituminous trail along the east side of Braxton Drive. C. A five-foot wide concrete sidewalk along the north and west sides of Thatcher Road. Developer agrees to construct said sidewalks and trail in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 16. Prior to issuance by City of any building permit for the any lot within the Amended Area as depicted in Exhibit B,attached hereto, Developer agrees to submit to the Director of Planning, and to obtain the Director's approval of,an architectural diversity plan for the Property,which provides for a mixture of housing unit types. Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer agrees to • implement,or cause to be implemented,such architectural diversity plan,as approved by the Director of Planning,in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C,attached to the Developer's Agreement. 17. Developer agrees to provide for a Notice of Conditions to be signed for acknowledgement purposes by all future owners or transferees of lots within the Property. Said Notice shall inform future owners or transferees of the location of future Scenic • Heights Road and future Highway#212 and that noise levels from said roads may exceed the Minnesota Pollution Control standards during the 6:00 A.M. to 7:00 A.M. hour during week days. 2. Developer agrees to all the terms and conditions and accepts the obligations of "Developer" under the Developer's Agreement, as amended and supplemented herein. `7.-i'1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties to this Agreement have caused these presents to be executed as d e day and year aforesaid. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Douglas B. Tenpas,Mayor Carl J. Jullie,City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this_day of ,1991,by Douglas B. Tenpas and Carl J. Jullie, respectively the Mayor and the City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation,on behalf of said corporation. Notary Public CENTEX REAL ESTATE CORPORATION By Its STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 1991, by , the of CENTEX REAL ESTATE CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation,on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 91-108 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF BELL OAKS ESTATE WHEREAS, the plat of Bell Oaks Estate has been submitted in a manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder,and • WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL: A. Plat approval request for Bell Oak Estate is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated May 2, 1991. 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 May 7, 1991. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Alan D. Gray, City Engineer FROM: Jeffrey Johnson,Engineering Technici e: i DATE: May 2, 1991 , SUBJECT: Bell Oaks Estate PROPOSAL: Bell Oaks Company has requested City Council approval of the final plat of Bell Oaks Estate,a single family residential subdivision located south of Riverview Road in the South Half of Section 36. The plat contains 38.46 acres to be divided into 14 single family lots,three outlots and right-of-way dedication for street purposes. Outlots A and B contain 0.93 acres and 17.31 acres respectively. Ownership of Outlots A and B will be retained by the developer, with eventual transfer of ownership to the homeowners association. Outlot A will contain a private street, and Outlot B contains flood plain of the Minnesota River. Outlot C is a 150-foot strip of land along the Minnesota River intended to be donated to the City for a future trail corridor. HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council November 15, 1988 per Resolution No. 88-258. A second reading or Ordinance No. 50-88-PUD-14-88,changing zoning from Rural to PUD-14-R1-22 and from Rural to PUD-14-R1-44,was finally read and approved at the City Council held April 2, 1991. The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report was executed April 2, 1991. VARIANCES: Variance is necessary from City Code 12.20 Subd.2.A.waiving the six-month maximum time elapse between the approval date of the preliminary plat and filing of the final plat. All other variances not granted through the Planned Unit Development District Review must be processed through the Board of Appeals. UTILITIES AND STREETS: The street within this development is proposed to be private with controlled access. Sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer are proposed to be publicly owned and maintained and will be installed throughout this project in conformance with City Standards. tt Final Plat-Bell Oaks Estate May 2, 1991 Page 2 of 2 PARK DEDICATION: As outlined in the Developer's Agreement,the Developer shall provide the City with a scenic easement along the southern portion of Block 2. Prior to release of the final plat, the Developer shall provide the City with proof of filing of scenic easement with Hennepin County. All other requirements for park dedication are covered in the Developer's Agreement. BONDING: Financial security to cover the installation of utilities proposed to be publicly owned and maintained must be provided prior to release of the final plat. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Bell Oaks Estate subject to the requirements of this report,the Developer's Agreement, and the following: 1. Receipt of street lighting fee in the amount of$1,404. 2. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of$560. 3. Receipt of scenic easement over southern portions of Block 2. 4. Satisfaction of bonding requirements. JJ:ssa cc: Bell Oaks Company Mike Gair, McCombs Frank Roos Associates • Cif CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 91-109 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF FAIRFIELD OF EDEN PRAIRIE 4TH ADDITION WHEREAS, the plat of Fairfield of Eden Prairie 4th Addition 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 4th Addition is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated May 2, 1991. 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 May 7, 1991. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane,Clerk !' MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Alan D. Gray,City Engineer FROM: Jeffrey Johnson,Engineering Technic' DATE: May 2, 1991 SUBJECT: Fairfield of Eden Prairie 4th Addition PROPOSAL: Centex Real Estate Corporation has requested City Council approval of final plat of Fairfield of Eden Prairie 4th Addition. This proposal is a continued subdivision of the Fairfield planned unit development. The plat contains 10 acres to be divided into 29 single family lots and right-of-way dedication for street purposes. HISTORY: 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. VARIANCES: All variance requests 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. Prior to the release of the final plat,the Developer shall enter into a Special Assessment Agreement for the capital improvement projects of Dell Road between TH5 and CSAH1 and Scenic Heights Road between Riley Lake Road and CSAH4. 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. j Final Plat- Fairfield of Eden Prairie 4th Addition May 2, 1991 Page 2 of 2 RECOMMEENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Fairfield of Eden Prairie 4th 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$454.00. 2. Receipt of street lighting fee in the amount of$3,186. 3. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of$1,160. 4. Satisfaction of bonding requirements. 5. Execution of Special Assessment Agreement. JJ:ssa cc: Dan Blake, Centex Sathre Bergquist,Inc. • 270 R/-1: rMAC COPY • PIPE LINE CROSSING PERMIT NO. 28263 THISAGREEMENT,m •on entered ..ttt. — Iet_mad* e ate. bro March — ra91 .wane Dam.. SOO LINE RAILROAD COMPANY,o•n....nod Mn.Moron.••we-eats.•..comaw.r..ne CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, 7600 Executive Drive, Eden Prairie, MN 55344 .pony e..n•omen*o.n w.n•n•,.a,•e u•.n.... WITNESSETH' •. Ye.Rat row Company grants to Ina uo•n•ee •tm,•aon to mat ,anp,,•bean• PVC 1 PIN Come.nr pod.,and h.c.e2b the SWEn NE Em••w. +henry paths. a seen., 4.o.ro.ea 116 olom PM Con..R•nge22W . cdunD at Hennepin .•.0 nor Ede.Prairie ,ab..a Minnesota • a•Malang*of app.owmI•• r 150 .en. •t Raero.e svey.r stabs 30+01 In dm location wbnw,n• and m ao0Oottanpo with.tie e. b•••news on m n we Cow .E•nn R w a. .n .ta 1 •pop ew moats.•nwnw,, d.ree Eew ,b.at. naet na boa Nan 10.0 tit b...n.b bb a.n•rw et any ol 0404 mom.on askt[mom,.to sIIte n ms w,wnbn•mwwn.no ate torn,. b OD uow.M..pia Y e storm sewer in.m•: tn•,o",.oin••e.m.u_wed«6n'C:r•a°'°�ra'°i•Sat meµ m amt 29419 w i•4Fi!° °x.F.' k•'�Ai4R1,:a°SI:•S•°.w°'; �ayy�b••p•�0.9'i"s.wia.P'PssaMetKa•9e•o• Conwae.y`°wbaZa.r.op••44.=to erxyss3mutswtzt".Ois°'0•°"• sacs rrcr= 1B "...rlt%11M.pNmMIpR M]01�Yf9f T,u. t[� p e�t�t xlb.1%glltltapr.•DWAMOX1W1{i[]Nliy� ad•D•t111I �IMJMblsa rp Yarx%iY]lFifNa%M%OtY1P.lH1Yb1Yt1116M� %YMXKAIIK�OMlpClx�•tN! bit mY1M11�( lY a % yWly p • Tat lw•n••• nor M awuowrq M DAD.•empnT. w •w•an+pOO ww,wr DM Datlf o•e°•"�o Many•CAT Enor.,m:v,.0 vw•ii•• „Cow ozooMm:pr••o•of Mt MM. w, t ab we m4.sent an prebnp•who u tO b•°p� gar tW non•u Mdt eadl wa•u~tlN•pArww•mew•n• M Robbi.cCowwwr:Prole v v aAO'"•" ••to•r a w p.onO1owv w e"'••a.w,. _ Tat• peep M• TM Railroad MOM* M p.m..aini•w,u. •.p,mM w an"w°•..m•nw.n. • any Y a^•• oreowr hpwwxa MY 3 TM nsom snot not Mo.,On any mt. • Inot orm Sew WMum•mGp,Opi Yew o• �°•agrm••dYu•nen to•bc�x,°•i4A t•aummo0.30000 la. rw tau out o•g ropf00�CM qa n li Co7i,pa° w p Gn,N E'° w.wmwe14•m*fl•i n j gypfafto.In.' br ym•" p� e n eni3 11• br ,w✓Coed.Hobo y np,nOor w ,wr..entwM nom consa•r me•bay*Do •t mpgun• mm�arp wen t e • tnpi�•�•C to a _•mw 00 nines 0.040, .a,MawM,one •••.Men tuns Mu, rwbw•d m..•nA ww•ah ra1•mwr.*..Radom. `'n'M •Wn .•Oro Cwp•M•b.11 pM,wine b ICa°ci°,iepnng.O�waM•q Mu Mnwpi•eeP•M W M7g.••4•wrpw,,a7:1 h•p:,":•pntr,t.y n MNnhY VBp•O«r""pw be,mennM nO•rd,w pbnn, upon.4• T• °•WCo ta• iatw.wQ ,rudewCoa tb,M•,�y•OrppwtY Owv�,pM cater n vw�.tM 10°•C%dr�rro•„i a•asap •mw b nw b us. n, •nw p mr,p or perp•n,amir,t nww p1 1°y°r••1O°�1p1.• °'^nee n tM an w•me.bn na pr••nwn,w u+a Mmdae,w, .ari nd• M.b er..n dodo,upon.im:•tC pw.w..r.pn••n•"e wa.«.Mnw•«a ISO•°�O•wnwe°t O t.. o m:•g;•^O•••m�iMh wore.e'.M r.t,t i,'at.Y,.=r nr"14CO°0ew(; n1.Riut•r.,naw CY•a,M,Mnr own.aM:0v.. arm. ,.t'a .aw Ob4RWln�Nllbaa%xaIX%lRtlEaNa�l itl teWla%alY%�M�ItYMrMnMat M�liltbN�ly�Y itiNu%bY afw.bgtRi�,RiR�tptyjyy�Canwral11n mx1OMM .a ,f; .b :.ap�p:w�� me d::�e a•�•ma;•w.e:n; Copra• n°°.:a b..,w:: ma ,.mb n.• ".. �"_',':;r. ' '«,::.Coat° ; �". an .u."•nnhn :e °� , L•.;mM°p:n.w • ..n..maw, ,eow.:Mee•.Moot nee w Moab.•mourns my;onion a .pew tat m•condo..b.a•ad wM,n»w why. am a:N pWom mloo S WHEREOF, .ne p.n...nM ,,le n•.caul...a..p.«m.m.o d.fluty..wu.w«•a m. .Y and WO SOO LINE RAILROAD COMPANY w ITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE RY NOT TO BE RECORDED IN PUBLIC RECORDS 1t]5 ROGERS BODY SHOP, INC. 1301 West 79th St. • Bloomington, MN 55420 Is (612)881.4252 April 8, 1991 City of Eden Prairie Attn: Mayor Peterson City Council and Mr. Carl Julie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 RE: Roger's Body Shop - Extension of Zoning Approval Dear Mr. Julie: This letter is written to again request an extension to the zoning change to the proposed Roger's Body Shoo, on Highway 169/212, south of Anderson Lakes Parkway. In the Spring of 1988, the Eden Prairie City Council approved a zoning change from Rural to Industrial 1-2. Market projections for building expansion has been temporarily changed, causing a delay in construction timing. I am requesting this additional extension of the zoning approval as previously granted for the City Council. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me. Sincerely, Roger Lindeman Roger's Body Shop, Inc. RL/jw 7Q ` RELEASE OF LAND This Release of Land is executed by the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation("City"),and is dated as of May 7, 1991. FACTS 1. A certain Agreement Regarding Special Assessments("Agreement")dated May 11.1989, was executed by and between the City, and Kingston Ridge Limited Partnership. a Minnesota Partnership which Agreement was filed as Document No.5540406 with the Hennepin County Recorder on June 5. 1989. The Agreement related to the property described therein as: Lots I through 10,Block I;Lots 1 through 7,Block 2;Lots 1 through 9,Block 3; Kingston Ridge, Hennepin County,Minnesota. 2. The special assessments contemplated by the Agreement have been levied and the time for appeal has expired. 3. To evidence the fact that the special assessments have been levied and the time for appeal has expired,the City is executing this Release of Land. • 1 ./v1v THEREFORE, the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation, hereby releases the Property described above from all obligations and conditions set forth in the Agreement Regarding Special Assessments dated May 11. 1989 filed with the Hennepin County Recorder as Document No.5540406 on June 5. 1989. This Release of Land shall not release or discharge the Property from the lien of any special assessments levied by the City pursuant to the Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Eden Prairie has executed the foregoing instrument. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, A Municipal Corporation BY: Douglas B. Tenpas Its Mayor BY: Carl J. Jullie Its City Manager 2 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) • • The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1991,by Douglas B.Tenpas and Carl J.Jullie,the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of said corporation. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 A7 RELEASE.0 RFR/01-14-88 3 Pain No.30.M-OUIT CLAIM DEED M Nessete uniform Canvey...Blanks 1197E1 Cursorellona PxrnerNa - - - lu Iairvvluel le No delinquent taxes and transfer entered;Certificate of Real Estate Value 1 I filed 1 I not required Certificate of Real Estate Value No. .19 County Auditor • by Deputy • STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: S • Date: .19 • (reserved for recording data t • FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, The City of Eden Prairie • ,a municipal corporation under the laws of MinnesoT5__ ,Grantor,hereby conveys and quitclaims to Harry A. Rogers Grantee(s), real property in Hennepin County .Minnesota,described as follows: Outlot C, Red Rock Shores, according to the recorded plat thereof on file or of record in the Office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota • r neap.to on back) • together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto. City of Eden Prairie • • By Its Mayor By • Its Ci tie Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA • COUNTY OF The foregoing was acknowledged before me this day of ,19 • by nnog1as R Tonnac and Carl J. Jullle • the Mayor and City Manager ' • of the City of Eden Prairie ,a municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota ,on behalf of the corporation NOTARIAL truer OR SEAL(OR OTHER TITLE OR RANE, SIONAtof C Or MEIN tARYNNo ACRNOwLEDaMLN, W raiileiimi n^4e rei,u iapaPieerei aLe L V' bole--•Way • Harry A. Rogers 9100 Eden Prairie Road THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAr Tro5riNASiE AND Aooasen. Eden Prairie, MN 55347 Engineering Oepartment City of Eden Prairie • 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 MEOW2q') CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST May 7, 1991 CONTRACTOR (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM.) GAS FITTER The Carpenters Contracting, Inc. All-American Mechanical, Inc. Carpentry Plus D & 0 Electric, Inc. Harris Construction Ditter, Inc. Morcon Construction, Inc. Metro Gas Installers, Inc. Moynihan Homes, Inc. Torn Motzko Plumbing & Heating Sass Construction, Inc. J. R. Murdock & Son Plb. & Htg. Steadfast Home Repair Service Wm. F. Ridler Plumbing & Heating Bill Tombers Stucco Tim's Quality Plumbing CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 FAMILY) HEATING & VENTILATING American Handyman Can D & D Electric, Inc. Anderson Master Builders Ditter, Inc. Corrigan Custom Homes Golden Valley Heating & Air Conditioning E. L. Construction, Inc. F & T Construction, Inc. Harvey Homes, Inc. SEPTIC SYSTEMS Stephen Longman Builders Tom Maurer Construction Sul 1i van's Services, Inc. Metro Prairie Construction Co. Joe Miller Construction SCAVENGER Kevin J. Moberg Construction Post Construction, Inc. Sul 1i van's Services, Inc. Ramsey Homes Rich & Mery Cosntruction, Inc. TYPE B FOOD S & M Builders, Inc. Doug Schoen Construction, Inc. Snyder Drug (W. 78th Street) T.W. Specialties Snyder Drug (Prairie Center Dr.) Tampa, Inc. Tollefson Construction CIGARETTE Unibilt, Inc. Saeid Basiri (Half Time Restaurant) Paragon Pool & Patio Snyder Drug (W. 78th Street) Snyder Drug (Prairie Center Drive) PLUMBING PEDDLER A Handy Plumbing Corp. Jim Easter Plumbing Gerald Albert Bensfield (Real Estate) Tom Motzko Plumbing & Heating Terrance Peter Godfrey (Seafood) J. R. Murdock & Son Plb. & Htg. Larry Russell Peterson (Pet Supplies) Wm. F. Ridler Plumbing & Htg. Roto-Rooter Services Co. TEMPORARY LIQUOR Sunrise Plumbing, Inc. Tim Quality Plumbing Children's Heart Fund (CM Chi's Tomas/Suburban Plb. & Htg. Restaurant) Village Plumbing These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for th likens d activity. ,1J 4 _ Pa So ie, icensing %� j -MEMORANDUM - TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Alan Gray, City Engineer DATE: May 2, 1991 SUBJECT: Outlot Co Red Rock Shores Addition In 1990 Scenic Heights Investment developed the plat of Red Rock Shores on the west side of Red Rock Lake. The plat is adjacent to property owned by Mr.Harry A.Rogers. To accommodate the extension of Red Oak Drive northerly through the plat of Red Rock Shores to future Scenic Heights Road, an agreement was reached between Scenic Heights Investment and Mr. Harry A. Rogers for the exchange of property. The City was to act as a intermediary in the property exchange. Mr. Rogers deeded a triangular piece of ground to the City of Eden Prairie and in turn the City deeded this parcel to Scenic Heights Investment to incorporate into the plat as part of the right- of-way for Red Oak Drive. A portion of Scenic Heights Investment property was platted as Outlot C and was to be exchanged for the right-of-way segment from the Roger's property. Scenic Heights Investment has deeded Outlot C to the City of Eden Prairie. The City's conveyance of Outlot C to Mr. Harry A. Rogers will complete the real estate transaction. ADG:ssa -MEMORANDUM - TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Alan Gray, City Engineer DATE: May 2, 1991 SUBJECT: Trunk Utility Assessments George Schroers Property Mr. George Schroers has requested that the City revoke trunk utility assessments levied against 25.5 acres of his homestead in Section 22. The assessment of$76,500 was levied in September, 1990. At that time the property had been sold by Mr. Schroers to the Burl Corporation and the City had approved a final plat for Shroers 1st Addition on the 25.5 acres that have been assessed. Mr. Schroers is again in possession of his homestead in Section 22. The current City policy is that trunk assessments are not levied until development. Due to the timing of the default in the sale of this property, we levied the assessments and in fact the project is not proceeding at this time. Based on our policy and in an attempt to be consistent in our application of it to Mr. Schroers, staff recommends that the current assessment be revoked and that trunk assessments be levied in the future at time of development of the property. ADG:ssa MAY 7.1991 14420 PETTY CASH EXPENSES-CITY HALL 84.22 14421 PETTY CASH -CHANGE FUND-HISTORICAL & CULTURAL 100.00 COMMISSION 22 GFOA CONFERENCE-FINANCE DEPT 980.00 1..423 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER CITYS SHARE OF MUNICI-PALS BANQUET 31.50 14424 MAUNA CONFERENCE-ADMINISTRATION 20.00 14425 CITY OF RICHFIELD MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION & EXCISE TAX 4228.44 14426 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE PAYROLL 4/5/91 12665.73 14427 CROW WING COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES CHILD SUPPORT DEDUCTION 155.00 14428 FIRST BANK EDEN PRAIRIE PAYROLL 4/5/91 63864.56 14429 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO PAYROLL 4/5/91 6209.00 14430 GUARANTEE MUTUAL LIFE COMPANY APRIL 91 LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUM 2782.94 14431 HENN CTY SUPPORT & COLLECTION SER CHILD SUPPORT DEDUCTION 194.78 14432 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 PAYROLL 4/5/91 2168.72 14433 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE PAYROLL 4/5/91 32.00 14434 INTL UNION OF OPERATING ENG APRIL 91 UNION DUES 1129.00 14435 MEDCENTERS HEALTH PLAN INC APRIL 91 HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM 16934.30 14436 MN TEAMSTERS CREDIT UNION PAYROLL 4/5/91 25.00 14437 MUTUAL BENEFIT LIFE APRIL 91 DISABILITY INSURANCE PREMIUM 2975.37 14438 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-PERA MAY 91 LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUM 162.00 14439 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-PERA PAYROLL 4/5/91 32746.26 14440 PHYSICIANS HEALTH PLAN OF MN APRIL 91 HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM 31984.00 14441 UNITED WAY PAYROLL 4/5/91 218.25 14442 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER LICENSE-PARK MAINTENANCE 10.00 14443 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 14444 WARD DAHLBERG REFUND-REIMBURSEMENT APRIL 91 INSURANCE 310.00 14445 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE MARCH 91 SALES TAX 21546.72 14446 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 969.10 ' 47 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR 5010.83 18 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO LIQUOR 5070.31 14449 PRIOR WINE CO WINE 974.35 14450 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO LIQUOR 5864.37 14451 QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS CO LIQUOR 4195.01 14452 THE WINE COMPANY WINE 365.00 14453 WORLD CLASS WINES INC WINE 62.00 14454 TROUT AIR FIELD TRIP/SPECIAL EVENT 297_50 14455 SIMON & SCHUSTER ART PROJECT-AFTERNOON PLAYGROUND 30.31 14456 HAZARD CONTROL INC CHAIN-FORESTRY DEPT 72.75 14457 ALAN GRAY MARCH 91 EXPENSES-ENGINEERING DEPT 200.00 14458 LANG PAULY & GREGERSON LTD ADDITIONAL FEE-JANUARY 91 LEGAL SERVICE 12.40 14459 AT&T SERVICE 104.09 14460 PETTY CASH-COMMUNITY CENTER EXPENSES-COMMUNITY CENTER 27.02 14461 MINNESOTA ANIMAL CONTROL ASSOCIAT DUES-ANIMAL CONTROL DEPT 20.00 14462 MINNESOTA CRIME WATCH CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT 75.00 14463 AM ACADEMY OF ORTHOPEDIC SURGEONS TRAINING TEXTEOOKS-FIRE DEPT 19.95 14464 PRINTMARK INDUSTRIES REFLECTIVE STICKERS-POLICE DEPT 89.80 14465 MN PARK SUPERVISORS ASSN CONFERENCE-PARK MAINTENANCE 35.00 14466 MN COMMUNITY BAND FESTIVAL --REGISTRATION FEE-1991 COMMUNITY BAND 30.00 FEE 14467 POSTAGE BY PHONE SYSTEM POSTAGE FOR POSTAGE METER-POLICE DEPT 1500.00 144G8 CITY OF RICHFIELD MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS 37.00 14469 BEACH PARTY PRODUCTIONS DEPOSIT-ENTERTAINMENT-JULY 4TH CELEBRATION 500.00 14470 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA CONFERENCE-ENGINEERING DEPT 95.00 14471 VENTURA PUBLISHING INC BOOKS-PARK & RECREATION DEPT 59.95 72 HALLBERG MARINE BOAT TRAILER-FIRE DEPT 334.00 22758851 `r^9' MAY 7,1991 14473 HAUSER ARTISTS -ENTERTAINMENT-HISTORICAL & CULTURAL 1350.00 COMMISSION 14474 JOANNE BARTEL REFUND-CPR CLASS 3. 14475 BRENDA BERG REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 15.G5 14476 MICHELLE BOMBARD REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 14.00 14477 SANDY CARAVELLI REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 14.00 14478 CANDACE FROMM REFUND-BICYCLE MAINTENANCE-OUTDOOR CENTER 15.00 14479 TRACY CREWING REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 37.00 14480 JOHN LITTLE REFUND-GOLF LESSONS 31.00 14481 MALIA LONG REFUND-LIFEGUARD TRAINING CLASS 52.71 14482 CHRISTINA PLOSZAY REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 20.00 14483 CAROL SMITH REFUND-CPR CLASS 32.00 14484 CINDY TOBIN REFUND-SIIMMING LESSONS 15.25 14485 SHERRY WHITE REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 17.00 14486 ANITA WIPPERFURTH REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 17.00 14487 CITY OF RICHFIELD MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION & EXCISE TAX 944.15 14488 INTL PERSONNEL MGMT ASSN CONFERENCE-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT 195.00 ' 14489 GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE CONFERENCE-SAFETY DEPT 15.00 14490 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY SERVICE 148.74 14491 MINNESOTA VALLEY ELEC1'hIC CO-OP SERVICE 63.00 14492 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY SERVICE 484.44 14493 AT&T SERVICE 118.16 14494 AT&T CONSUMER PRODUCTS DIV SERVICE 141.95 14495 AT&T SERVICE 411.47 14496 AT&T CREDIT CORPORATION SERVICE 93.67 14497 U S WEST CELLULAR INC SERVICE 112.73 14498 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE 5307.58 14499 DON PAVEK REFUND-OUTDOOR CENTER RENTAL 3" ') 14500 AAI CORPORATION CONFERENCE-FIRE DEPT 49, J 14501 BRINGERS EXPENSES-CITY COUNCIL 91.15 14502 HEAVENLY HAM EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 20.00 14503 NORCOSTCO COSTUME RENTAL FOR OPEN HOUSE-POLICE DEPT 32.90 14504 BILL OTTING REFUND-HOUSE MOVING DEPOSIT 1000.00 14505 MCDONALDS EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 27.06 14506 CRAGUNS CONFERENCE CENTER CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT 186.81 14507 MN ASSN FOR CRIME VICTIMS CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT 40.00 14508 PETTY CASH-POLICE DEPT EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 38.89 14509 MN RECREATION & PARK ASSN CONFERENCE-PARK & RECREATION DEPT 12.00 14510 OPTIMIST CLUB OF EDEN PRAIRIE SOFTBALL TOURNAMENT/FEES PAID 2700.30 14511 LORI DAHLSTRO1 REFUND-FIRST AID CLASS 48.00 14512 JENNIFER RISSER REFUND-LIFEGUARD TRAINING CLASS 62.00 14513 ST DAVIDS SCHOOL REFUND-OUTDOOR CENTER RENTAL 21.20 14514 CITY OF RICHFIELD MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION 18.50 14515 VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS -DRUG & CHEMICAL ABUSE LITERATURE-TO BE 250.00 REIMBURSED 14516 HOPKINS POSTMASTER POSTAGE-UTILITY BILLING 748.03 14517 COPMIISSIONER OF REVENUE PAYROLL 4/19/91 12871.87 14513 FIRST BANK EDEN PRAIRIE PAYROLL 4/19/91 65032.01 14519 DAVE BRAZIL CONFERENCE ADVANCE-WATER DEPT 40.00 14520 PETTY CASH EXPENSES-CITY HALL 55.62 14521 MCKAYS FAMILY DODGE -4 3/4 TON PICKUPS-UTILITIES DIVISION/PARK 43283.00 MAINTENANCE 14522 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET CO -3/4 TON PICKUP-PARK MAINT/3 S-10 PICKUPS- 4019'1 3E STREET MAINTENANCE 14523 ALLENE HOOKUM -REFUND-PRAIRIES/STREAMS & GHOSTS-OUTDOOR 'r.00 CENTER PROGRAM 17701052 C{ C. 1' 14514 KEN HOOKUM -REFUND-PRAIRIES,STREAMS & GHOSTS-)UTIX}OR 7.00 CENTER PROGRAM 14525 KATHY POMERANTZ REFUND-GOLF LESSONS 31.00 14526 BILL PROSEN REFUND-TENNIS LESSONS 4.40 14527 LINDA WALTON REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 17.00 � '.8 JASON-NORTHCO PROP LPlt1 MAY 91 RENT-LIQUOR STORE 6842.83 \. 29 U S WEST CELLULAR INC SERVICE 386.34 14530 CITY OF RICHFIELD MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION & EXCISE TAX 944.15 14531 CITY OF RICHFIELD MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION 8.50 14532 HOPKINS POSTMASTER POSTAGE-SENIOR CENTER NEWSLETTER 105.11 14533 EDEN PRAIRIE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE -ORCHESTRA TICKETS-REIMBURSED BY CITY 220.00 EMPLOYEES 14534 AAA ABBOTT PLUMBING & HTG SINK PLUMBING REPAIR-WATER DEPT 49.10 14535 DENICE ABELN GYMNASTICS INS1hUCTOR/FEES PAID 390.00 14536 ACE CHEMICAL PRODUCTS INC CLEANING SUPPLIES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 253.95 14537 AG SYSTEMS INC CENTRIFUGAL PUMP-PARK MAINTENANCE 306.20 14538 AIRSIGNAL INC -PAGER SERVICE_POLICE DEPT/FIRE DEPT/ 387.00 COMMUNITY CENTER 14539 ALEXANDER BATTERY NORTH FLASHLIGHT BATTERIES-FIRE DEPT 40.32 14540 ALLSTAR CONSTRUCTION -ROOF REPAIRS-11995 SUNNYBROOK RD-HOUSING 2362.00 REHABILITATION PROGRAM 14541 EARL F ANDERSEN & ASSOC INC SIGNS-STREET MAINTENANCE 1195.90 14542 KEN ANDERSEN TRUCKING WASTE DISPOSAL SERVICE-ANIMAL CONTROL DEPT 50.00 14543 DON ANDERSON HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 180.00 14544 ANDERSONS GARDEN EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 18.50 14545 ARDOR INC HELIUM TANK & VALVE RENTAL-SOCIAL PROGRAMS 57.10 14546 TODD ANGUS EXPENSES-ASSESSING DEPT 11.00 14547 AM NATL STANDARDS INSTITUTE SAFETY PUBLICATION-SAFETY DEPT 24.00 14548 ASTLEFORD INTL INC -BEARINGS & GEARS-$1063/GASKETS/STEERING 3297.32 -SECTOR-$1063/REPLACE PARKING BRAKE/ -REPAIRED STEERING GEAR & WINDSHIELD WIPER- EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 1:.,49 ATLAS FOUNDATION CO LOG SKIDDER RENTAL-FORESTRY DEPT 1950.00 14550 AUDIO VISUAL WHOLESALERS PROJECTOR BULBS-FORESTRY DEPT 26.00 14551 B & S TOOLS -CHISEL/SOCKET HOLDERS/WRENCH HOLDERS/ 1193.35 -SCRAPER/WRENCHES/BRUSHES/ADAPTORS/VISE -GRIPS/POWER RAM/HOSES/LEAD SETS/TIMING LIGHT/METER-UTILITIES DIV/EQUIPMENT MAINT 14552 BAKER POOLS INC ROPE ANCHORS-POOL MAINTENANCE 146.75 14553 PATRICIA BARKER -EXPENSES-AWARDS PROGRAM-HUMAN RESOURCES 24.50 DEPT 14554 BATTERY & TIRE WAREHOUSE INC -BATTERIES/SIGNAL LIGHTS/WINDSHIELD WASHER 1689.81 -FLUID/GLASS CLEANER/HOSE CLAMPS/SPARK -PLUGS/BEARINGS/THERMOSTATS/MIRRORS/ TERMINALS/WIRE-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 14555 BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS INC SCOREBOARD CLEANER-ICE ARENA 56.00 14556 BELL ATLANTIC TRICON LEASING CORP MAY 91 COPIER LEASE AGREEMENT-POLICE DEPT 358.68 14557 BERGIN AUTO BODY INC -REPAIR & PAINT POLICE VEHICLE-EQUIPMENT 1975.98 MAINTENANCE 14558 BATTCHER & AERO ELECTRIC CONST -REPLACED LAMPS IN WATER TANK RED FLASHING 184.00 BEACON-WATER DEPT 14559 DIANE BIERBAUM -CRAFTS INSTRUCTOR-AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM/ 260.00 FEES PAID 14560 BLACKS PHOTOGRAPHY -FILM/FILM PROCESSING-BUILDING INSPECTIONS 170.46 -DEPT/POLICE DEPT/FIRE DEFT/FORESTRY DEFT/ _„2425 OUTDOOR CENTER /RECREATION ADMINISTRATION 14561 BRIAN BLANCH TELEPHONE REIMBURSEMENT-POLICE DEPT 39.52 14562 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON -MARCH 91 ANIMAL IMPOUND SERVICE-ANIMAL 556.00 14563 IRIS BOETTCHER CONTROL DEPT MINUTES-HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION 47 • 14564 BOUSTEAD ELECTRIC & MFG CO PULL GEAR REPAIR-PARK MAINTENANCE 50, 14565 BOYD HOUSER CANDY & TOBACCO CO CANDY-POOL LESSONS 45.30 14566 DAVID BRAZIL LICENSE-WATER DEPT 7.00 14567 BRUCE BREN HOMES REFUND-PARK DEDICTION FEES 720.00 14568 BROADWAY AWARDS PLAQUES-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS 674.00 14569 BRO-TEX INC TOWELS/COVERALLS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 243.33 14570 BURNSVILLE SANITARY CO WASTE DISPOSAL-STREET MAINTENANCE 126.98 14571 C & S PRINTING -PRINTING-FLYERS/POSTERS-ICE SHOW- 150.00 COMMUNITY CENTER 14572 CARLSON & CARLSON ASSOC MARCH 91 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE-HUMAN 475.00 RESOURCES DEPT 14573 CEDAR COMPUTER CENTER INC -2 COMPUTERS & MONITORS & 1 PRINTER-$5581- 10147.90 -ADMINISTRATION/PRINTER-$848-FINANCE DEPT/ -COMPUTER & MONITOR-$2219-ASSESSING DEPT/ PRINTER-$1499-STREET MAINTENANCE 14574 CENTER FOR URBAN STUDIES COMPUTER SOFTWARE-PLANNING DEPT 12.00 14575 CENTRAIRE INC -FURNACE REPAIR-RILEY/JACQUES HOUSE-PARK 369.00 MAINTENANCE 14576 JAMES CLARK APRIL 91 EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 200.00 14577 CLASSLINE INC POCKET ID-POLICE DEPT 32.50 14578 CLEMENT COMMUNICATIONS INC SAFETY POSTERS-SAFETY DEPT 404.56 14579 CLUTCH & U-JOINT BURNSVILLE INC HUBS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 176.82 14580 CEI JACKHAMMER-WATER DEPT 155.59 14581 COMM CENTER CONNECTORS/ANTENNAS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 211.50 14582 COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICE-I 494 TRAFFIC STUDY 15000 n0 14583 FIRE CHIEF SUBSCRIPTION-FIRE DEPT 5 14584 CONCEPT MICROFILM INC MICROFILMING-PLANNING DEPT 1801.46 14585 CONTINENTAL SAFETY EQUIP INC FACE MASKS-PARK MAINTENANCE 70.31 14586 COPIER ALTERNATIVES COPIER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-CITY HALL 137.88 14587 COPY EQUIPMENT INC -OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY HALL/POLICE DEPT/ 282.81 PARK MAINTENANCE/PLANNING DEPT 14588 CLIFF CRACAUER SCHOOL-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 143.75 14589 BARBARA CROSS MILEAGE/PRINTS-PARK PLANNING DEPT 119.33 14590 CROWN MARKING INC -NAME PLATES-CITY COUNCIL & COMMISSION MEMBERS 47.80 14591 CULLIGAN - METRO -SERVICE-OUTDOOR CENTER/STARING LAKE PARK 59.80 BUILDING 14592 CURTIS INDUSTRIES INC -CLEANING SUPPLIES/GREASE/WASHERS/SCREWS/ 603.20 LABELS-WATER DEPT/EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 14593 CUTLER MAGNER COMPANY QUICKLIME-WATER DEPT 14594 DALCO CLEANING SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 4208. 14595 DAN & DANS MINUTEMAN PRESS PRINTING-SCHEDULES-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS 208.977 14596 CRAIG W DAWSON MILEAGE/EXPENSES-ADMINISTRATION 45.5 14597 DAYSTAR BUILDERS INC CARPENTRY WORK-HOMEWARD HILLS PARK BARN 95.00 14598 DECISION RESOURCES LTD SERVICE-BUSINESS COMMUNITY SURVEY 850.00 14599 EUGENE DIETZ MARCH 91 EXPENSES-ENGINEERING DEPT 200.00 14600 EORADUS CORPORATION -2ND QTR 91 WARNING SIRENS MAINTENANCE 700.00 AGREEMENT-CIVIL DEFENSE DEPT 720.00 14601 DYNA SYSTEMS DRILL BITS-WATER DEPT 316.5E 4104976 MAY 7.1991 14602 E P PHOTO FILM/FILM PROCESSING-POLICE DEPT 84.17 14603 EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY MARCH 91 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-CITY HALL 622.88 SO4 EDEN INCENTIVES & PROMOTIONS FIRE & POLICE AWARDS-POLICE DEPT 561.40 305 EDEN PRAIRIE ANIMAL HOSPITAL CANINE SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 240.00 14606 EDEN PRAIRIE FIRE DEPT POP REIMBURSEMENT-CITY COUNCIL 44.75 14607 EDEN PRAIRIE TIRE & AUTO SERV WHEEL ALIGNMENT/TIRES-EQUIPMENT MAINT 1072.15 14608 CITY OF EDINA MARCH 91 WATER TESTS-WATER DEPT 215.00 14609 DEB EDLUND MINUTES-PLANNING COMMISSION 125.00 14610 EDUCATION AIDS FIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES-FIRE DEPT 481.74 14611 JOHN H EDLUND MARCH 91 WASTE DIPOSAL-FORESTRY DEPT 420.00 14612 MARK EKLO HOMES REFUND-PARK DEDICATION FEE 800.00 14613 ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY INC -SAFETY VESTS/HEARING PROTECTION DEVICES/ 1477.60 -FULL FACE RESPIRATORS/VALVES/GASKETS/ OVERSHOES-STREET MAINTENANCE/WATER DEPT 14614 EPPA SEARCH WARRANT SERVICE-POLICE DEPT 30.00 14615 CHRIS ENGER APRIL 91 EXPENSES-PLANNING DEPT 239.16 14616 ENVIRO-TECH EROSION CONTROL MAT-DRAINAGE CONTROL DEPT 322.50 14617 EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS INC POSTAGE-CITY HALL 21.07 14618 F M SERVICE & EQUIPMENT -PRESSURE WASHER THERMOSTAT SWITCH & KNOB- 77.00 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 14619 FAIRCHILD MARKETING ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES 350.00 14620 FEED RITE CONTROLS INC CHEMICALS-WATER DEPT 4810.50 14621 FIDELITY PRODUCTS CO GARBAGE BAGS/SIGN-WATER DEPT 255.16 14622 FINLEY BROS ENTERPRISES WINDSCREENS/TY-WRAPS-PARK MAINTENANCE 502.00 14623 TREASURER-NM' FIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES-FIRE DEPT 87.50 14624 FIRSTAR SHELARD 8ANK SEARCH WARRANT RESEARCH FEE-POLICE DEPT 200.00 14625 SANDRA FISHER -SERVICE-ICE SHOW COSTUMES-COMMUNITY 100.00 COMMUNITY CENTER 326 THE FITNESS STORE SEATS/UPHOLSTERY-FITNESS CENTER 153.40 .�627 FLEX COMPENSATION INC SERVICE-FLEXIBLE BENEFIT ON-GOING SUPPORT 245.00 14628 FLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL COMPANY PIPE PRCOFER-SEWER DEPT 175.23 14629 FLOYD SECURITY PASSCARDS-LIQUOR STORE 5.00 14630 FOCUS ONE-HOUR PHOTO FILM/PRINTS-SAFETY DEPT 6.79 14631 FOUR STAR BAR & RESTAURANT SUPPLY SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES 577.13 14632 JOHN FRANE APRIL 91 EXPENSES-FINANCE DEPT 200.00 14633 FRONT LINE PLUS AXES-FIRE DEPT 103.75 14634 G & K SERVICES COVERALLS/TOWELS/MOP HEADS-WATER DEPT 1090.05 14635 GETTING TO KNOW YOU ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES 99.00 14636 THE GLIDDEN COMPANY -PAINT/PAINT TRAY/MASKING PAPER/PAINT 253.45 THINNER-FIRE DEPT/WATER DEPT 14637 GOODYEAR COMMERCIAL TIRE & SERVIC TIRES-WATER DEPT/EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 2130.98 14638 GOPHER OIL COMPANY LUBRICANT-WATER DEPT 450.80 14639 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC SERVICE 180.00 14640 GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSN BOOK-FINANCE DEPT 93.90 14641 W W GRAINGER INC SHELF RACKS-SEWER DEPT 199.40 14642 LEROY GUBA HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 280.00 14643 GUNNAR ELECTRIC CO INC -INSTALLED SERVICE TO NEW POLE-SEWER DEPT 89.79 14644 HACH CO LAB SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 358.17 14645 HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON INC -SERVICE-CEDAR RIDGE STORM SEWER/RIVERVIEW 32640.78 -RD/RED ROCK SHORES/WHITE TAIL CROSSING -CUL DE SAC/BLUFFS E 7TH ADDITION/CEDAR -RIDGE RD & CORRAL LN/BLUFFS E 8TH -ADDITION/BLUFFS E 9TH ADDITION/CEDAR RIDGE ESTATES 2ND ADDITION 5247220 MAY 7,1991 14646 HARMON GLASS WINDSHIELD-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 188.77 14647 W H HARRIS & ASSOCIATES CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT 295.('0 14648 HAYDEN MURPHY EQUIPMENT CO CUTTERS/PIN-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 274 14649 HAZARD CONTROL INC -SAFETY GOGGLES/GLASSES/SAFETY VESTS/ 147...4 GLOVES-SAFETY DEPT/PARK MAINTENANCE 14650 HEALY-RUFF CO SIREN DECODER BOARD-CIVIL DEFENSE DEPT 1262.00 14651 LAURIE HELLING MILEAGE-RECREATION ADMINISTRATION 97.00 14652 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER FILING FEES-FINANCE DEPT/PLANNING DEPT 282.00 14653 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER FEBRUARY 91 BOARD OF PRISONERS-POLICE DEPT 1383.00 ' 14654 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL INSTITUTE SCHOOL-FIRE DEPT 99.75 14655 D C HEY COMPANY INC -COPIER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-FIRE DEPT/ 124.20 TONER/DEVELOPER-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 14656 HOFFERS INC PAINT/PAINT THINNER-PARK MAINTENANCE 923.0049.09 14657 ICMA DUES-ADMINISTRATION 14658 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST #272 .-1ST PAYMENT-FAMILY CENTER GRANT-$2500- 5450.15 -COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPT/ROOM RENTAL- -ORGANIZED ATHLETICS & PRESCHOOL PLAYGROUND -PROGRAM/BUS SERVICE-SPECIAL TRIPS & EVENTS PROGRAM 14659 INDUSTRIAL LIGHTING SUPPLY INC LIGHT BULBS-WATER DEPT 102.43 14660 INSTY-PRINTS PRINTING-FORMS/BUSINESS CARDS-POLICE DEPT 91.50 14661 INTERSTATE DETROIL DIESEL INC MUFFLER-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 54.20 14662 GARY ISAACS -VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL & OFFICIALS 496.00 COORDINATOR/FEES PAID 14663 J & R RADIATOR CORP RADIATOR REPAIR-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 137.50 14664 JM OFFICE PRODUCTS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-FIRE DEPT/UTILITIES DIV 417.23 14665 JOHNSON CONTROLS REPLACED FURNACE THERMOSTAT-COMMUNITY CTR 134.89 14666 CARL JULLIE MARCH & APRIL 91 EXPENSES-ADMINISTRATION 90 "' ' 14667 BOB KAMPING SERVICE-ICE SHOW-COMMUNITY CENTER 10C 14668 KRAEMERS HOME CENTER -CABLES/CLAMPS/CONNECTIONS/SANDPAPER/ 279.60 -NUTS & BOLTS/DRILL BITS/HOSE/EXTENSION -CORDS/BLADE/BATTERIES/CHISEL/SANDER/ -FITTINGS/VALVE-FIRE DEPT/PARK MAINT/ UTILITIES DIVISION/EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 14669 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY LAB SUPPLIES/CABINET-$537-UTILITIES 1034.57 14670 LAKELAND FORD TRUCK SALES -BRAKE VALVE/CLUTCH ASSEMBLY/FRONT END 712.95 ALIGNMENT-WATER DEPT/EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 14671 ROBERT LAMBERT -MARCH & APRIL 91 EXPENSES-PARK & 287.75 RECREATION DEPT 14672 LAMETTRYS COLLISION -REPAIR & PAINT S10 BLAZER/2 POLICE 1189.60 VEHICLES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 14673 LANG PAULY & GREGERSON LTD -FEBRUARY 91 LEGAL SERVICE/MARCH 91 18004.92 -SERVICE-PROSECUTION/MARCH 91 SERVICE- FLYING CLOUD LANDFILL 14674 LANO EQUIPMENT INC FRAME WELDING-SEWER DEPT 75.00 14675 ROBERT LANZI MILEAGE-ATHLETIC COORDINATOR 144.75 14676 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES EXPENSES-CITY COUNCIL 20.00 14677 LIL RED E P GROCERY EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 27.90 14678 LEEF BROS INC COVERALLS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 113.69 14679 LINHOFF CORPORATE COLOR PRINTS-FORESTRY DEPT 9.10 14680 UJGIS FEBRUARY 91 SERVICE 7761.99 14681 LONG LAKE FORD TRACTOR INC GUARD ASSEMBLIES/U-JOINT-PARK MAINTENANCE 59.85 14682 MARK LOURIS KARATE INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 78.00 14683 LUNDGREN BROS REFUND-PARK DEDICATION FEE 76( 14684 LUNDS EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 10 ...a 4284918 1 MAY 7.1991 14685 LYMAN LUMBER CO -TIMBERS/TREATED LUMBER/PLYWOOD/CEDAR 1273.28 -SIDING-POLICE DEPT/STREET MAINT/PARK MAINTENANCE/SEWER DEPT 1 36 MACWAREHOUSE COMPUTER SOFTWARE-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT 59.50 14687 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC -SWEEPER REPAIR/BUSHINGS/SPRING/SPROCKETS/ 3321.73 -BEARINGS/GASKETS/SEALS/REPLACED SWEEPER -GEARS & REPAIRED TRANSMISSION-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 14688 JIM MARKHAM -FISHING INSTRUCTOR-OUTDOOR CENTER PROGRAM/ 72.00 FEES PAID 14689 GEORGE MARSHALL SERVICE-PLEASANT HILLS CEMETERY 50.00 14690 GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY VIDEO TAPES-PARK & RECREATION DEPT 175.00 14691 ROBERT H MASON INC REFUND-PARK DEDICATION FEES 1520.00 14692 MASYS CORPORATION -MAY 91 COMPUTER SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE 1295.00 AGREEMENT-POLICE DEPT 14693 MATRIX VIDEO INC -SERVICE-RECRUITING TAPES-TO BE REIMBURSED 25.00 BY OTHER FIRE DEPARTMENTS 14694 MATTS AUTO SERVICE INC TOWING SERVICE-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 35.00 14695 MBA DESKTOP PUBLISHING PLUS -TYPESETTING-SUMMER BROCHURE-RECREATION 1500.00 ADMINISTRATION 14696 JULIA MCFADDEN CONFERENCE-COMMUNITY CENTER 41.42 14697 MCGLYNN BAKERIES INC EXPENSES-RECREATION ADMINISTRATION 30.54 14698 MCGLYNN BAKERIES INC EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT/FIRE DEPT 20.46 14699 MCGLYNN BAKERIES INC EXPENSES-CITY HALL/POLICE DEPT/SENIOR CTR 191.19 14700 AHMAD MCGOWAN BASKETBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 57.00 14701 A MEAT SHOPPE EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 181.69 14702 MEDICAL OXYGEN & EQUIP CO OXYGEN-FIRE DEPT 69.75 14703 MENARDS -HOSE CLAMPS/DRYWALL/ARTIFICIAL GRASS/ 94.10 -BRICK/HINGES/SUPPORT CLIPS/MAGNETS-POLICE DEPT/PARK MAINTENANCE/COMMUNITY CENTER 14704 MERRILL CORPORATION -PRINTING-SPRING BROCHURE-RECREATION 5134.00 ' ADMINISTRATION 14705 METRO SALES INC COPIER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-POLICE DEPT 1665.00 14706 METROPOLITAN MECHANICAL CONTR INC PIPE LEAK REPAIR-COMMUNITY CENTER 297.26 14707 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMIS MARCH 91 SAC CHARGES 19305.00 14708 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMIS MAY 91 SEWER SERVICE CHARGES 156146.00 14709 MID-AMERICA BUSINESS SYSTEMS TONER/PAPER-CITY HALL 127.06 14710 MID-AMERICA GOLF SUPPLY -GOLF BALLS-SPRING SKILL DEVELOPMENT 240.25 PROGRAM 14711 MID-CO SECURITY SYTEMS INC -CAMERA SWITCHING SYSTEM REPAIRED-POLICE 77.50 DEPT 14712 MIDLAND EQUIPMENT CO -PRACTICE TARGETS-POLICE DEPT/STEEL PLATE- 48.56 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 14713 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP BLACKTOP/SEALCOATING-STREET MAINTENANCE 1182.75 14714 MIDWEST BUSINESS PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY HALL/POLICE DEPT 635.38 14715 MINNCOMM PAGING APRIL 91 PAGER SERVICE-UTILITIES DIVISION ' 58.48 14716 THE MPLS INSTITUTE OF ARTS SERVICE-TOUR-ADULT PROGRAMS/FEES PAID 30.00 14717 MINNESOTA BAR SUPPLY INC SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES 151.90 14718 MINNESOTA BUSINESS FORMS BUSINESS CARDS-CITY HALL 74.27 14719 MN CONWAY FIRE & SAFETY -FLASHLIGHT LIGHTS/HELMETS/WRENCHES/KNEE 628.40 -BOOTS/FIRE EXTINGUISHER RECHARGING/PULL -P1NS/O-RINGS/FIRE EXTINQUISHERS-FIRE DEPT/ SEWER DEPT -70 MINNESOTA FORESTRY ASSN TREES-FORESTRY DEPT 150.00 A. MN STATE TREASURER MARCH 91 BUILDING SURCHARGES 2092.55 19805702 MAY 7.1991 14722 MINNESOTA WANNER CO HOSES/GAUGE-PARK MAINTENANCE 26.35 14723 MIRACLE RECREATION EQUIPMENT PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT-CARMEL PARK 11214 00 14724 THOMAS H MONTGOMERY CONFERENCE-FIRE DEPT 13 ' 14725 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO HOSE-PARK MAINTENANCE 18..9 14726 NATIONWIDE ADVERTISING SERVICE IN EMPLOYMENT ADS-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT 598.50 14727 JANICE NELSON -MINUTES/EXPENSES-HUMAN RIGHTS & SERVICES 306.67 COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL 14728 BETH NILSSON SKATING INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 16.00 14729 NORTH STAR ICE SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORE 207.57 14730 NORTHERN TRAILER ROLLERS/SCREWS-SEWE DEPT 12.94 14731 NORTHLAND BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS DICTAPHONE REPAIR-POLICE DEPT 78.00 14732 NORTHGATE COMPUTER SYSTEMS COMPUTER-STREET DEPT 3338.00 14733 OAK PARK BUS CTR REFUND-OVERPAYMENT UTILITY BILLING 417.45 • 14734 ROBERT OLSON EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 11.00 14735 PARK NICOLLET MEDICAL CENTER STRESS TESTS/PHYSICAL EXAMS-FIRE DEPT 2063.00 14736 PEDERSON SELLS EQUIPMENT CO INC FITTINGS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 15.34 14737 PEPSI COLA COMPANY CARBON DIOXIDE TANKS-COMMUNITY CENTER 30.00 14738 PERSONNEL POOL SERVICE-COMMUNITY SERVICES 1289.10 14739 PATRICIA PIDCOCK EXPENSES-COUNCIL MEMBER 13.00 14740 THE PINK COMPANIES -CARPETING-HOMEWARDS HILLS PARK BARN- 11603.65 $10203/CHAIRS-$1400-POLICE DEPT 14741 PITNEY BOWES INC -COPIER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-COMMUNITY 129.00 CENTER 14742 PLANT & FLANGED EQUIPMENT CO -HEAD GASKETS/SEAL KITS/PUMP/VALVES-WATER 702.00 DEPT 14743 PLAQUES PLUS INC PLAQUES-CITY COUNCIL 740.25 14744 KEN POSSIN ICE SHOW EXPENSES-COMMUNITY CENTER 81.31 14745 POWER BRAKE EQUIPMENT CO -BRAKES/HUB BOLTS/RIM CLAMPS/SWITCHES- 63? '9 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 14746 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY INC -WIRE PLUGS/INSTALLED FIXTURE/PUMP REPAIR- 287.80 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE/COMMUNITY CENTER 14747 PRAIRIE OFFSET PRINTING INC PRINTING-EMPLOYEE NEWSLETTER/FORMS-HUMAN 295.45 14748 PRAIRIE VILLAGE PET HOSPITAL KENNEL COSTS-ANIMAL CONTROL DEPT 36.80 14749 PRECISION BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC DICTAPHONE HEAD-PARK & RECREATION DEPT 13.88 14750 JERRY PRODOEHL EXPENSES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 15.00 14751 JOYCE PROVO MILEAGE-ADMINISTRATION 6.50 14752 PUMP & METERS SERVICE INC -TRUCK HOIST REPAIR/ANCHORS/NUTS & BOLTS- 139.70 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 14753 R & R MARINE INC MOTOR REPAIR-PARK MAINTENANCE 38.58 14754 R & R SPECIALTIES INC -ZAMBONI BLADES SHARPENED/STUDDED TIRES/ 562.40 ICE BLADE SHARPENED/FILTER-ICE ARENA 14755 RANDAL SPORTS & MEDICAL PRODUCTS EXERCISE SYSTEM-COMMUNITY CENTER 2375.00 14756 RETAIL DATA SYSTEMS OF MN -REGISTER CHARGE KEYS PROGRAMMED-LIQUOR 75.00 STORES 14757 REUTER RECYCLING INC WASTE DISPOSAL-PARK MAINTENANCE 58.10 14758 RIVER BLUFF TREE FARM TREES-FORESTRY DEPT 2648.00 14759 RMAA DUES-ENGINEERING DEPT 10.00 14760 ROAD MACHINERY 6 SUPPLIES CO DUST CAPS & PLUGS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 114.97 14761 ROLLINS OIL CO GAS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 8317.25 14762 ROSEMOUNT ENGINEERING REFUND-OVERPAYMENT UTILITY BILLING 14493.24 14763 ROTTLUND HOMES KIMBERLY DRIVE TRAIL EASEMENT 13000.00 14764 RUBENSTEIN & ZIFF INC COSTUMES-ICE SHOW-COMMUNITY CENTER 87.59 14765 SAFETY-KLEEN CORPORATION CARBURETOR CLEANER-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 107.00 14766 SAFETY & TRAINING SERVICES SAFETY TRAINING VIDEO TAPES-WATER DEFT l2 ; 14767 SALLY DISTRIBUTORS INC -KICKBALL/FOOTBAGS-SPECIAL TRIPS & EVENTS 24....00 PROGRAM 7654414 14768 CITY OF ST PAUL SCHOOL-POLICE DEPT 695.00 14769 SANCO INC CLEANING SUPPLIES-PARK MAINT/CCMMUNITY CTR 234.01 14770 THE SANDWICH FACTORY INC EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 26.39 14771 SAVOIE SUPPLY CO INC CLEANING SUPPLIES-STREET MAINTENANCE 186.00 y '2 SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS DIVISION LAB SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 53.82 1 3 SEARS BLINDS-PARK MAINTENANCE 21.20 14774 SEELYE PLASTIC INC -CHECK VALVES/COUPLINGS/PLUGS/PVC PIPE- 251.93 WATER DEPT 14775 SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES -1ST QUARTER 91 SENIOR OUTREACH SERVICES- 1107.25 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPT 14776 SETON NAME PLATE COMPANY SAFETY LABELS-SAFETY DEPT/WATER DEPT 195.80 14777 ALAN SHILEPSKY CONSULTING INC -SERVICE-COMPUTER SOFTWARE CONSULTANT- 1728.00 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 14778 SHRINERS HOSPITAL FIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES-FIRE DEPT 55.00 14779 SIGN A RAMA USA -VEHICLE DECALS & STRIPES/POLICE CAR 886.75 GRAPHICS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 14780 SIGNATURE CONCEPTS INC .UNIFORMS-POLICE DEPT 59.97 14781 SILK SCREEN INK LTD T-SHIRTS-SPECIAL TRIPS & EVENTS PROGRAM 344.70 14782 SIMPLEX TIME RECORDER CO SCOREBOARD REPAIR-COMMUNITY CENTER 588.16 14783 STEVEN R SINELL APRIL 91 EXPENSES-ASSESSING DEPT 218.50 14784 SNAP ON TOOLS CORP -WRENCHES/SOCKETS/CLEANER/WRENCH EXTENSION/ 581.70 -PROTRACTOR/IMPACT GUN/MAGNET/SOCKET SETS/ -SCREW DRIVERS/PUNCH-UTILITIES DIVISION/ EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 14785 SOUTHDALE YMCA -YMCA YOUTH OUTREACH PROGRAM-COMMUNITY 2770.00 SERVICES 14786 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC EMPLOYMENT ADS-PARK MAINTENANCE 393.90 14787 SNYDER DRUG STORES INC EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 25.37 14788 SPECIALTY SCREENING VEHICLE EMBLEMS-FIRE DEPT 177.00 14789 SPLATTERS TS DISPLAY CASE-COMMUNITY CENTER 250.00 ( 0 SPORTS TECHNOLOGY INC -DIVING STAND TEE/NUTS & BOLTS-POOL 84.66 MAINTENANCE 14791 STARS RESTAURANT -SERVICE-RESERVE OFFICERS BANQUET-HUMAN 723.64 RESOURCES DEPT 14792 STOREFRONT YOUTH ACTION INC -1ST QUARTER 91 YOUTH COUNSELING & 2575.00 REFERRAL SERVICES/COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPT 14793 STRAND MFG CO INC SHAFT & LARGE RINGS-SEWER DEPT 180.65 14794 STREICHERS PROFESSIONAL POLICE EQ -TRAFFIC WANDS/BARRICADE TAPE/FLUORESCENT 2014.32 -MARKING PAINT/FLASHLIGHT CHARGERS/ -HOLSTERS/FLASHLIGHT REPAIR/LIGHT BAR -& SIREN REPAIRS/LIGHT BAR & SIREN ASSEMBLIES-POLICE DEPT/EQUIPMENT MAINT 14795 NATALIE SWAGGERT APRIL 91 EXPENSES-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT 200.00 14796 SWEDA INC MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-COMMUNITY CENTER 230.00 14797 SWEDLUND SEPTIC SERVICE SERVICE-OUTDOOR CENTER 80.00 14798 TARGET STORES BOOMBOX-FITNESS CLASSES-COMMUNITY CENTER 129.99 14799 KATHERINE TEKIELA -CRAFT INSTRUCTOR/EXPENSES-AFTERSCHOOL 100.70 -PROGRAM & SPRING SKILL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM/FEES PAID 14800 SCOTT THOMPSON REFUND-PARK DEDICATION FEE 760.00 14801 TOTAL DISPLAYS INC -3 TABLETOP DISPLAY UNITS & CARRYING CASES- 506.00 FIRE DEPT 14802 MIKE TOLLIVER -INSTALLATION OF CARPET/FLOOR STONE-FIRE 454.00 . DEPT `t8941 4 MAY 7.1991 14803 TRAVELERS DIRECTORY SERVICE ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES 260.00 14804 JEFF TRESIDDER -TYPESETTING-RECRUITMENT TAPES-TO BE 6F '0 REIMBURSED BY OTHER FIRE DEPARTMENTS 14805 TRIARCO ARTS & CRAFTS INC -CRAFT SUPPLIES-PRESCHOOL PLAYGROUND 76.10 PROGRAM/SPECIAL TRIPS & EVENTS PROGRAM 14806 US WEST CELLULAR PORTABLE ANTENNA WINDOW CLIP-POLICE DEPT 44.00 14807 US WEST MARKETING RESOURCES DIRECTORY-ADMINISTRATION 227.00 14808 UNIGLOBE CONFERENCE-CITY COUNCIL 449.00 14809 UNITED BUSINESS MACHINES INC PRINTER REPAIR-POLICE DEPT 50.00 14810 UNITED LABORATORIES INC LAB SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 280.30 : 14811 UNITED WAY OF THE MPLS AREA VIDEO TAPE-COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPT 7.50 14812 UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC -DRILL BITS/COUPLINGS/FITTINGS/WASHERS- 503.89 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 14813 LARISSA UZZELL SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 40.00 14814 VAN WATERS & ROGERS CHEMICALS-WATER DEPT 1550.00 14815 VESSCO INC ROPE/TIRE/TRANSMISSION OIL-WATER DEPT 51.79 14816 VICOM INC -APRIL 91 WIRE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT- 489.00 COMMUNITY CENTER 14817 VICTORIA REPAIR & MFG STEEL PLATE/TUBING/CHANNEL IRON-SEWER DEPT 270.15 14818 VIKING LABORATORIES INC CHEMICALS-COMMUNITY CENTER 785.08 14819 VISION ENERGY PROPANE CYLINDERS-ICE ARENA 113.52 14820 VWR SCIENTIFIC INC LAB SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 89.80 14821 KEITH WALL APRIL 91 EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 200.00 14822 WATER PRODUCTS CO FITTINGS/OIL HOLE SCREWS-WATER DEPT 271.80 `'. 14823 WATERITE INC PUMP SEAL-COMMUNITY CENTER 18.95 14824 THOMAS E WEKO MILEAGE-AQUATICS SUPERVISOR 22.50 14825 WELSH CONSTRUCTION CORP SERVICE-PROPOSED CITY HALL 5625.00 14826 WENCK ASSOCIATES INC SERVICE-FLYING CLOUD LANDFILL 1I' ,5 14827 WEST WELD SUPPLY WELDING WIRE-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 34;85 14828 ROBERTA WICK MINUTES-CITY COUNCIL 150.00 14829 JONATHAN WORRE SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 24.00 14830 X-ERGON DRILL BITS-WATER DEPT 96.16 14831 ZAHL EQUIPMENT CO HOSE REELS/FITTINGS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 2009.00 14832 ZACKS INC -REELS/GARBAGE BAGS/BRUSHES/HANDLES/GLOVES/ 401.35 SLIP HOOKS-EQUIPMENT MAINT/PARK MAINT 14833 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE -1ST AID SUPPLIES-STREET MAINTENANCE/ 100.40 COMMUNITY CENTER 14834 ZIEBART OF MINNESOTA INC RUST PROTECTION-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 979.95 14835 ANDREW ZYNGA REFUND-OVERPAYMENT UTILITY BILLING 71.49 14836 LAND OF LAKES TILE CO -SERVICE-SWIM LOCKERROOM CERAMIC TILE WORK- 4800.00 COMMUNITY CENTER 13477 VOID OUT CHECK 30.31 14146 VOID OUT CHECK 15.25 2027607 $879981.06 J, 2 • DISTRIBUTION BY FUNDS 10 GENERAL 517952.98 11 CERTIFICATE OF INDEBT 334.00 15 LIQUOR STORE-P V M 31948.61 17 LIQUOR STORE-PRESERVE 18421.91 21 POLICE DRUG FORFEITURE 25.00 30 CASH PARK FEES 4560.00 31 PARK ACQUIST & DEVELOP 11214.00 51 IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 33768.28 57 ROAD IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 15000.00 73 WATER FUND 51815:63 77 SEWER FUND 189986.15 79 RALF 140.00 81 TRUST & ESCROW FUND 2410.00 87 CDBG FUND 2384.50 $879961.06 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission THROUGH: Carl Jullie,City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert,Director of Parks,Recreation and Natural Resources—Rt— DATE: April 29, 1991 SUBJECT: Request by G. E. Capital Fleet Services for Geese Population Maintenance Program In 1989 G.E. Capital Fleet Services received approval from the City of Eden Prairie to remove six to eight pair of geese from their property to a different locality. This removal was coordinated by Dr. Jim Cooper of the University of Minnesota. The actual number of geese removed was 59,as the geese had hatched broods by the time of the removal in early July. The request by G.E. Capital Fleet Services today is to obtain approval for an ongoing maintenance program, as it appears this will be required on a regular basis. • The major problems caused by the geese are sanitation problems and the concern that,although there are only six pair of geese on the site at this point, the numbers could rise dramatically within a few years and cause a major sanitation problem. Although this site is adjacent to the Anderson Lakes Park Reserve,which was acquired to protect waterfowl habitat,City staff do not believe that removal of six to eight pair of geese from this site will cause any negative impact on the goose population in Eden Prairie or Anderson Lakes Park Reserve. BL:mdd geese/bob 9 UJ iG • GE Capital ( UE Cauuat Reef Services A unit el;ieneral tlectrit Can'tat Cmannon Thee!,aoual Dnve,Eden Prarne.Me!55344 02 223-!COO April 16, 1991 City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Attention: Mayor and City Council Subject: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL GE CAPITAL FLEET SERVICES PROPERTY GEESE POPULATION MAINTENANCE PROGRAM As you know, GE Capital Fleet Services property has been home to Canadian Geese for several years. The geese population creates two problems for us: 1) Safety - Each year, employees are attacked by geese as they walk on the grounds to and from their cars 2) Sanitation - Goose droppings are a continuing problem requiring continual pressure washing of the entryway and drives plus grooming of our walking `f path. Two years ago we received approval from the City of Eden Prairie to remove the geese from the GE Capital Fleet Services property and move them to a different locality. This removal was coordinated by Dr. Jim Cooper of the University of Minnesota. We were referred to Dr. Cooper by the Department of Natural Resources. The "flightless" geese were picked up approximately 5-6 weeks after hatch (about June 19th through July 14th). At that time, we thought a one-time approval was sufficient. However, within two years the geese have returned to their previous numbers and again require removal. We are now requesting permission to institute an "ongoing maintenance program" for removal of geese from the GE Capital Fleet Services site on an as needed basis. Dr. Cooper assures us this program will not affect the larger population of geese in the adjacent commercial or residential areas. Attached is information he has provided to us on that topic. Thank you, again, for your help and approval. Your )truly --] . ditti Brinkhaus Hager, Lai. Estate & Facilities 1 3 I � UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA I College of Natural Resources TWIN GTIES De0 F nrtment of tebenes 6 Wddlte 200 Hodson Hnit J , 1980 Folwetl Avenue t ;St.Paul.Minnesota 55108 Monday, April 15, 1991 Ms. Judy Brinkhaus Manager Real Estate and Facilities General Electric Capital, Fleet Services 3 Gelco Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Judy: Attached is a statement about the potential effects of maintenance of low numbers of geese at your location would have on the frequency of geese in adjacent residential neighborhoods. Please review and call me if you want changes or additions. g Sincerely yours, Dr. James A. Cooper Associate Professor and Wildlife Extension Specialist attachment t ` t t j UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA I College of Natural Resources TWIN CITIES Department of Fisheries&WAd6la 200 Hodson Matt 1900 Fo'wet!Avenue St.Paul,Minnesota 55108 Monday. April 15, 1991 Effects of site specific goose translocation at the General Electric property on adjacent residential populations Prepared by: Dr. James A. Cooper. Associate Professor and Wildlife Extension Specialist. Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108 (612-624-1223) The degree that removal of nuisance Canada geese from a given location affects geese at adjacent sites has been one of the objectives of my research. The reasons for investigating this aspect of goose behavior were twofold. First, the question of whether removing geese at one site would control numbers at a nearby location was raised by people interested in controlling the birds at both sites. Secondly, other folks have been concerned that control at an adjacent site would eliminate the birds in their neighborhood. My findings indicate that controlling nuisance geese at a given location has not eliminated the species at capture sites, and has little effect on goose numbers in adjacent areas. The key to understanding the effects of removing Canada geese at a given location is a knowledge of their social behavior. Geese are highly social animals with individuals staying in families and families in clans. Female members of a clan mate with males from another clan, but continue to use the same areas for nesting and feeding year after year. Clans tend to be territorial and as a result do not readily share their nesting or foraging areas with other geese in spring and summer. During the summer broodrearing period, they are flightless and thus restricted to feeding sites within a limited area. (Such groups are the major cause of concern by golf course managers and other grounds keepers and the ones we commonly capture) When all of the flightless geese arc captured and removed at a location, the effect on an adjacent sites has been minimal. Removal does not appear to affect adjacent populations because these birds do not typical spend little time in the territory of another clan. c iAPP 1 7 '91 12:Ob (1�• 0132 PAGE.003 If removal is done every year, the target population will decline approximately 15 to 25% per year. Typically, annual removal becomes cost ineffective after 4-5 years, and an every-other-year removal is recommended to keep numbers low. If the initial removal is followed by an alternate year removal, the population drops the first year but recovers by the second so that there is no long term effect. In summary, the alternate year removal being done at the General Electric property in Eden Prairie should stabilize the population at current levels and not reduce birds in adjacent residential areas. Annual removals would reduce the population and have only minor effects on nearby populations. me • :Ity of Eden Prairie IMCUErirr :ity or es is '60( acutive Drive • Eden Prairie,MN 55344-3677• Telephone(612)937-2262S~ April 22, 1991 Ms.Judith Brinkhaus,Manager Real Estate&Facilities GE Capital Fleet Services Three Capital Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Dear Ms. Brinkhaus: In an effort to process your request to institute an ongoing maintenance program for removal of geese from GE Capital Fleet Services site, we will be reviewing this request at the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission meeting on May 6th. This meeting will be held at the City Prairie City Hall at 7:30 p.m. I would request that you provide the Commission with a brief presentation on the reasons for the request and answer any questions they may have regarding this program. I have attached a letter to the Bloomington residents located adjacent to Anderson Lakes,just west of Highway 18. These residents expressed some concern about the program two years ago and may have some concerns or questions regarding an ongoing maintenance program. They have been invited to the meeting to provide input and they may also have some questions. This item will also be reviewed by the City Council Tuesday evening, May 7th at 7:30 p.m. The Parks,Recreation and Natural Resources Commission will be meeting in the lunch room on May 6th, as the City Council will be having a special hearing in the Council Chambers. I look forward to meeting you on May 6th. Sincerely, Robert A. Lambert Director of Parks. Recreation and Natural Resources City of Eden Prairie ( RAL:mdd enclosure: -)t 1 Wgc••Paw CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 91-107 RESOLUTION REGARDING ENDORSEMENT OF I-494 CORRIDOR COMMISSION TRAVEL-DEMAND MANAGEMENT BELIEFS AND GOALS • WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie is the official governing body of the City of Eden Prairie;and WHEREAS, the City Council encourages improvements to allow maximum use of transportation facilities;and WHEREAS, the 1-494 Corridor Commission was established to implement recommendations of I-494 traffic study which include the development of Travel-Demand Strategies and a model ordinance for the member Cities;and WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie is a participant in the I-494 Corridor Commission;and WHEREAS,after study, the Commission has adopted nine(9)underlying beliefs and eight(8)goals regarding Travel-Demand Management;and WHEREAS, City Council support of said beliefs and goals is important to the success of future I-494 Corridor Commission work;and WHEREAS,a successful Travel-Demand Management strategy will help mitigate traffic congestion on the roads and freeways serving Eden Prairie. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie that full support and endorsement of the beliefs and goals presented by the I-494 Corridor Commission regarding Travel- Demand Management is hereby granted. • BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby directed to forward copies of this Resolution to the Commission of the Minnesota Department of Transportation,the MnDOT District 5 Engineer, 1-494 Corridor Commission and the Chair of the Metropolitan Council. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 7th day of May, 1991. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, Clerk Bloomington Eden Prairie Edina Minnetonka Richfield April 10, 1991 Aayor,City Council,Mgr. City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Dr. Eden Prairie,MN 55344 Re: Council Support for Travel-Demand Management Strategies in the 1-494 Corridor The 1-494 Corridor Commission(Joint Powers Organization)was established in 1988 to help improve traffic conditions on Interstate Highway 494. The Commission is working toward this objective by planning for increased highway capacity and improved transit service,and by developing strategies for voluntary and mandatory travel-demand management(TDM)programs. TDM reduces congestion by diverting commuters into higher-occupancy means of travel(for example,transit, car pools and van pools)and away from peak travel periods(a.m.and p.m. rush hours). The Commission's efforts in 1991 are focusing on completing a model TDM strategy for our cities. The congestion problem cannot be solved only by increased highway capacity and transit service in the 1.494 corridor. The effort to reduce congestion on 1-494 through TDM needs the active support of your city council. To introduce you to TDM,please view the short,seven-minute video accompanying this letter. An aggressive TDM program will be a key opportunity to mitigate congestion on 1-494 land on adjacent city arterials and collector streets), while maintaining employment and growth in our business communities. An effective TDM program will also help ensure adequate circulation during reconstruction on any of the highways and freeways that serve our cities. This is important because any proposed new highway lanes or bridges will temporarily narrow and reduce our current highway capacity. Action Requested 11 The Commission is requesting that you support the travel-demand management effort by endorsing the enclosed beliefs and goals. The endorsement will be a signal to the community that member cities and agencies are unified in the belief that it is in the public interest to manage the demand on our roadway system and to decrease single-occupancy automobile commuting. 2) The Commission is also requesting information from each city and agency about the progress it has made as an employer in its own TOM program. A TDM strategy includes ridesharing, variable work hours("flextime"), parking management(for example, restriping and signing of parking lots for preferential use by car pools or van pools, compacts and motorcycles),subsidies for transit use or close-in parking for car or van pools,and improved facilities for bicycle commuters. We are interested in your current progress because we want our future model strategies taken seriously by the business community,the region and our constituents. Please contact your JPO Staff member with questions about this request or information you have about TDM efforts. We would greatly appreciate your cooperation in improving traffic conditions in the 1-494 corridor, which is crucial to the future of all our cities. Sincerely, <aren J.Af derson, 1991 Chair William W.Weaver, 1991 Vice Chair 1-494 CORRIDOR COMMISSION -JOINT POWERS ORGANIZATION f ATTACHMENT#1 1991 Direction The 1-494 Corridor Commission intends to explore all the travel-demand management(TDM)solutions it can identify,ranging from public relations and advertising efforts to encouraging innovative land use policies. As part of the implementation process for a model(TDM)strategy and policy/ordinance, underlying beliefs, goals,objectives,policy and ordinance language will be adopted by the Joint Powers Organization(JPO). Presently,the JP0 has agreed upon the following underlying beliefs and goals: IPO Under/v/ng Beliefs Regarding Travel-Demand Management 1) We need to expand the 1-494 transportation system. 2) Travel-demand management strategy within the 1-494 corridor needs to begin making an impact by 1995 and make an increasingly significant impact on commuter behavior by the present design year of 2010. 3) A coordinated metro-wide TDM strategy is needed to fully address regional traffic congestion. 4) The JP0 will develop a TDM strategy that will be easy to understand,can be administered with a minimum of staff additions,and will have reasonable fees for noncompliance. .) An informed public will support the intent of our TDM strategy. 6) We should support ongoing Regional Transit Board, Southwest Metro and municipal legislative agendas and efforts as they relate to TDM and the 1-494 corridor strategies. 7) Greater attention needs to be given to land use planning that allows for pedestrian, bicycling, and transportation modes other than driving alone within the 1-494 corridor specifically,and throughout each of our cities generally. 8) Application of TDM strategies to new businesses and development is expected and that application to existing businesses over time will be necessary to make a meaningful and noticeable impact on 1-494 or any of its intersecting roads and freeways. 9) Each city as an employer should be able to demonstrate to its constituents through its own TDM programs that it is serious about a balanced approach to traffic congestion and will do as much as reasonably possible to be an appropriate role model. ATTACHMENT#1 (cont.) ,/PO Goals rewarding a model Travel-Demand Manaoement Strategy 1) Support the construction of an adequate transportation system throughout the 1-494 corridor. 2) Address and examine present zoning and land development standards to encourage TDM site planning and land use goals. 3) Reduce the number of peak-period single occupant vehicles and raise the number of high occupant vehicles throughout the 1-494 corridor measurably using a variety of incentives by the year 2000 (currently 1.1 persons per auto with Metropolitan Council goal of 1.3 persons per auto by the year 2010). 4) Develop the final model strategy via consensus among the Corridor Commission communities, maintaining communication with and having support by the private sector. 5) Have the selected core strategies of the model policy/ordinance applied to targeted areas of the 1- 494corridor first. 6) Utilize the phasing element of the strategy to link all communities with a common strategy by the year 2000. 7) Prioritize the reconstruction improvements in the 1-494 corridor to enhance regional TOM and existing street connections between cities and minimize interruptions to operating TDM programs. 8) Develop a strong on-going public relations and education program as part of the balanced approach to traffic congestion. ( `•t ;F (L� ATTACHMENT#2 8ackoround and Status of 1-494 Corridor Study Recommendations Because of increasing traffic congestion,the expectations of further growth and severe funding limitations,the Metropolitan Significance Review of both the Mall of America and the Homan proposals emphasized the need for a transportation planning study of the 1-494 corridor. Participants in the planning process included our five cities, the Metropolitan Council, Minnesota Development of Transportation(MnDOT),Regional Transit Board(RTB),Metropolitan Airports Commission(MAC)and Hennepin County. Initiated in 1986 and concluded in October of 1987,the 1-494 Corridor Study prepared by the engineering firm, BRW, concluded that 'a balanced approach between land development,new roadway facilities,transit services,travel-demand management,and funding would be required'in order to achieve reasonable return on investment of our transportation dollars regarding I- 494 and the road network that leads to and from 1-494. Short Rance Goals Progress Eleven short-range goals of the Corridor Study were to be completed by early 1991. The following four goals are substantially complete: 1. Implement a joint powers agreement; 2. Begin an Environmental Impact Statement; 3. Creat a private sector Transportation Management 4. Meter highway entrance ramps between 34th Avenue and (TMO);ganization and Highway169.and • f The following three goals are nearing completion: 5. Short-range interchange and lane improvements on 1-494; 6. Short-range transit planning;and 7. Work on the 1-494 Financial Plan. The last four goals will continue throughout the next two years: 8. Prepare and Implement a model TDM strategy and ordinance; 9. Comprehensive/Guide Plan amendments to assure that travel demand and facilities/services are balanced; 10. Monitor land use development,traffic volumes and user characteristics;and 11. Obtain positive changes to frontage road and freeway access as opportunities arise. "tedium-Rance Goals The Corridor Study set four medium-range goals for the years 1991 to 1995 which the JPO will continue to work on. They are to: 1. Implement a travel-demand ordinance in each city; 2. Recommend and implement transit service improvements; 3. Monitor land use development,traffic volumes to assure and ael characteristics; at TDM and transportation 4. Amend the 1.494 Corridor Plan as appropriate services/facilities are balance. A . w r IA A A A A A A 4 A A A A A A A A A A A F A A 511 A AA A A A A I t{� A A AAAAA A A j; N A A A A A A A A A A A AAAAA •• A A `y�� WO. A A AAAAA A g; i Q A A AAAA A a A A AAAAA A ^ • A AA AA A '� ►.1 A w AA A A °" A c A A A A,A •• A {��.c A A A A AAA A A AAA A A L• ❑. A Q.- A A A A A A A $ ?' A A A A A LT WA A A A A w g A A AA A o .2 A A A A A A 2 A e. sF A A A A gq SW * w a r... ...11 A A A A A A A A A A CZ C.; V z om,,•T A A A A ; z • Q• A A A A A A .c o zt A A AA o O Q s., A A A E ea •2 ,e . ✓ / , 0 7 . T.. L. C !n 14 v E C T 'O �315 `Zo 12 -2QO as ® 1 f F °o N 9 ; etc G r a n Pi r � C E " +�' Q ^eE 241a vY " C 8 - �'0 .= � F�at '�` P. 0 � •a 5 � 3'n oy�'� 3 5 Z O g §�a o �'�: c u m v v 1.3 y 411 gm 2 i3 L m py., EE 2�C� e i pE o . o.....x EE o� 3 Ste$} p k., C ¢,o U o y c ul U V fi e O G 7, uE 3 9 tc C I , E Fi l e ' .; • A. ua CO -fa p^ u -F, gP_3 i c 'E r r80 O• Fc-z z uo e, ddzcu u < x x§��$88 �1 TO: Mayor and City Council 4. THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: John Frane, Finance Director DATE: April 15, 1991 RE: Consultants' Report on Liquor Operations According to the report the Rainbow Food Store has the largest drawing power of any food store in town; it actually draws from outside of Eden Prairie. The report recommends adding an additional store in the Rainbow Foods area. We would keep the existing stores in their present locations. Prairie Village Mall Store If the new store drew enough customers from the PVM store 1 so it became unprofitable it would be closed and at some future time when southwestern Eden Prairie was developed , a store could be located near County #1 and County *4. Preserve Center Store We should spiff it up and do more sales promotions. In addition we should keep an eye out for a different location, possibily at County #i and County #18. We request authorization to employ a Real Estate Consultant to negotiate for a site in the Rainbow area. If a site cannot be purchased at the right price, we would then search for a site in the Major Center Area. The lease at the Preserve Center expires on June 1; we have been offered a new lease for three years with an optional 2 year extension. The first two years would be a our present rate with $0.18 per year increases in subsequent years. We request authorization to sign it. The Prairie Village Mall lease runs until September of 1992. • • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF REVIEW AGENDA MONDAY, MAY 6, 1991 6:00 P.H. COUNCIL CHAMBER 7600 EXECUTIVE DRIVE BOARD OF REVIEW MEMBERSZ DOUGLAS TENPAS, RICHARD ANDERSON, JEAN HARRIS, PATRICIA PIDCOCK, H. MARTIN JESSEN BOARD OF REVIEW STAFF: CITY MANAGER CARL J. JULLIE, CITY ASSESSOR STEVEN SINELL, AND RECORDING SECRETARY JAN NELSON PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL I. RECONVENE BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING II. APPROVAL OF BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES OF MEETING HELD THURSDAY APRIL 18, 1991 III. REVIEW OF ITEMS CONTINUED FROM APRIL 18, 1991 IV. OTHER BUSINESS V. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 91-120, ACCEPTING THE f' 1991 ASSESSMENT VI. ADJOURNMENT t. UNAPPROVED MINUTES CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF REVIEW THURSDAY, APRIL 18, 1991 7:00 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive BOARD OF REVIEW MEMBERS: Chairman Douglas Tenpas, Richard Anderson, Jean Harris, H. Martin Jessen, and Patricia Pidcock BOARD OF REVIEW STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, City Assessor Steve Sinell, Hennepin County Representative Larry Miller, and Recording Secretary Jan Nelson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: All members were present. I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tenpas. City Manager Jullie stated notice of this meeting had been properly published in the Eden Prairie News and had been included with each valuation notice sent to homeowners. Tenpas explained the purpose of the meeting, reviewed the procedures to be followed during the meeting, and explained the process for further appeal by property owners. Jullie said the Board is required to reconvene within 20 days of this meeting to hear any appeals continued from tonight's meeting. He said each appellant would be notified of the date and place of the second meeting. II. ORDER OF BUSINES A. personal Appeals 1. ARNIE FJELLAND - Appeal resolved. 2. RICHARD & CATHERINE ELLENSON The Ellensons were not present. 3. GORDON STODOLA Mr. Stodola said he was appealing the valuation on the portion of his property that has been classified as Residential Homestead Secondary since 1983. He Board of Review 2 April 18, 1991 distributed a map showing the layout of the area. He said the valuation of $35,000 is much higher than similar properties he researched and that there are drainage problems on the property, partly because of the development around his property. Sinell said this is a 1.8 acre property adjoining their primary residence, and the only issue appears to be the value of the property. Sinell said they would like to have the appraiser and the Engineering Department take a look at it and give an opinion on the problems. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Harris, to refer the Stodola property, PID 05-116-22 42 0003, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 4. DENNIS NORDBERG - Appeal resolved. 5. JOHN DAVIS II - Mr. Davis said he had appeared before the Board of Review in 1989 to appeal an increase from $159,000 to $184,000. He said he asked then that his valuation be on a parity with his neighbors and that tonight he is again asking for parity. Davis referred to his letter of April 1, 1991 which showed market value and square footage figures for several similar style homes in his area. He noted that his home is 16% larger than the average of those similar homes, but it is valued over 26% more than those homes. Sinell said the location and over-all quality of the home is considered in addition to the size. He said he would like to have an appraiser complete a review of the property and share the results with Mr. Davis. He noted that the Board set the value of the property in 1989 and that value hasn't changed. Pidcock asked when the last on-site valuation was done. Sinell said it was done in 1989. Davis said he had offered to have staff perform a review but they said it wasn't necessary. He said he didn't understand why they now want to come back to review the property at this point. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock, to refer the Davis property, PID 24-116-22 43 0036, to staff for further review. Tenpas said he would like to see the Council take action on some of these requests tonight. He said he Board of Review 3 April 18, 1991 would be inclined to go with the proponent's estimated value of $160,200. Jessen asked if it was standard practice to not do the market comparisons on a property until after the first Board of Review meeting. Sinell said notices are sent to 14,800 people every year and staff resolves as many appeals as possible before the meeting in order to limit the number having to appear at this meeting. He said in this case a preliminary review of the property indicated that the valuation of $184,000 was supportable. Harris said it would be useful to have information on recent sales in the neighborhood. Anderson called the question. Vote on the Motion: Motion carried with Tenpas opposed. 6. ANDRZEJ PECZALSKI - Mr. Peczalski said he thought the value of his property should be $129,400 because of the fact that recent values have not changed that much. He said the value was increased to $132,400 a few months after he paid $126,000 for the property and the only improvement he has made is central air conditioning. He presented figures on several properties in his neighborhood that have sold recently which he used as a basis for his requested value of $129,400. Sinell said they would like to continue working on an appraisal of this property and to check out the comparables Mr. Peczalski referred to. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to refer the Peczalski property, PID 25-116-22 41 0039, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 7. GERALD & ROSE ANN JENSEN - The Jensens were not present. Sinell said they asked this to be considered their written appeal. He said staff is working on a market comparison and would like time to complete that. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Jessen, to refer the Jensen property, PID 07-116-22 42 0040, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. Board of Review 4 April 18, 1991 8. FRED PURCELL - Mr. Purcell said he had no complaint with the valuation of his house; however, recent street improvements and development in the area have caused drainage problems on his land. He said they now have water in the basement because they are getting drainage from a larger area. Purcell said he would like the drainage pipe upgraded and moved to the property line; or, alternatively, he would like a reduction of $9,600 in the valuation of his land. Jullie asked Purcell if he had seen a copy of a memo from City Engineer Alan Gray to Steve Sinell that was just written today addressing storm drainage on the property. Purcell said he had not. Sinell said this appears to be a two-part appeal: one would be the market value of the property assuming there is no drainage problem affecting the property; and the other determining whether the drainage issue has had a negative effect on the value of the property. He said they are working on a market comparison and just received the memo from Gray, so they would like this referred back to staff. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Jessen, to refer the Purcell property, PID 21-116-22 22 0024, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. Tenpas noted that he would like to see the resolution of the drainage issue before the assessing department handles it. 9. STANLEY & GRETCHEN DORR - Appeal resolved. 10. BRUCE & KATHY RIEMER - The Riemers supplied a list of homes in their neighborhood whose valuations did not increase as much theirs did. Mrs. Riemers said their market value was increased to $158,000 immediately after they purchased the home for $151,400. She said that was lowered to $152,800 after they protested the increase; however, this year the value was again increased to $155,700. She said they have added a deck to their home, but several homes in the neighborhood that have added decks have not had an increase in their valuation. Sinell said staff found several comparables in the neighborhood that would sustain the $155,700 valuation Board of Review 5 April 18, 1991 and asked that this be referred back to staff to put the appraisal together with the comparables and return to the Board at the next meeting. Anderson asked if the assessor had been through the home. Mrs. Riemer said the assessor was out for the initial assessment and came out the other day to measure the square footage of the home from the outside. MOTION: Jessen moved, seconded by Harris to adjust the valuation of the Riemer property, PID 22-116-22 12 0028, to $153,000. Motion carried unanimously. 11. LEONARD KODET - Mr. Kodet was not present. Sinell said this property was reviewed at the Board's direction in 1990 and in 1989. He said the value was set at $90,700 by the Board in 1990 and that is still short of what the house would probably sell for. He said they have found comparables that indicate a value range of $95,000 - $102,800 in the neighborhood. Sinell said Mr. Kodet is asking that the valuation be set at $85,000 because of the adverse effect of such things as the Eden Prairie Road congestion and no City sewer and water. MOTION: Jessen moved, seconded by Pidcock, to sustain the estimated market value on the Kodet property, PID 04-116-22 23 0039, at $90,700. Motion carried unanimously. 12. RONALD ANDERSON - Anderson said the appraiser was out last week and reduced the value by $7,000, which he considered a step in the right direction. He said that lots in their neighborhood are generally selling for less than the purchase price. Because of that he said they feel the lot price should be lowered; however, the appraiser was reducing the house value by $7,000. Anderson also said that there was a house in his neighborhood that has gone through five growing seasons without any lawn coverage and it is now an eyesore because of the erosion damage. Sinell said they are working on comparables for this property and have found a range of $252,000 - $270,000. He said the suggested value of $245,000 would be a fairly consistent value with the comparables. Board of Review 6 April 18, 1991 MOTION: Pidcock moved to accept the appraiser's suggested valuation on the Anderson property, PID 16- 116-22 33 0010, to $245,000. Motion died due to lack of a second. MOTION: Harris moved to adjust the estimated market value of the Anderson property, PID 16-116-22 33 0010, to $243,000. Harris withdrew the motion. Tenpas asked what the average increase in value was for Eden Prairie. Sinell said it was a little over 1%. Pidcock said it was 1.4%. Jessen asked what improvements have been made to the property recently. Anderson said they have put about $17,000 in the house; however, he wanted the value of the land to be reduced. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock, to adjust the estimated market value of the Anderson property, PID 16-116-22 33 0010, to $240,000. Motion carried unanimously. 13. LOUISE & DALE SCHURLE - Appeal resolved. 14. MICHAEL & KATHLEEN HAMMILL - Appeal resolved. 15. MICHAEL PAN - Mrs. Pan said they object to the lot valuation because, although their lot is the smallest in the neighborhood, it is valued at $58,000 which is more than most of the other properties. Tenpas asked how much the land valuation went up. Sinell said the land is now valued at $58,000 and it was valued at $48,900 in 1990. Harris asked why there was such a large jump. Sinell said the neighborhood was one that was revalued this year, and many times values in a neighborhood will show fairly large increases when the revaluation occurs. Sinell said he would like to have it referred back to staff to finish the appraisal and to specifically address the size of the lot. Anderson asked if there has been a general evaluation in property adjacent to water areas. Sinell said properties on lakes are appreciating at a much faster Board of Review 7 April 18, 1991 rate than similar property off the lake, and the same is true to a lesser extent for other properties with similar amenities. Pan said she didn't understand why there was such a large range in the neighborhood since her valuation is $5,000-$10,000 more than her neighbors. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to refer the Pan property, PID 17-116-22 21 0017, to staff for further review. Anderson said he would like to have some information on lakeshore property valuations when this comes back to the Board because he has received phone calls on this situation. Vote on the Motion: Motion carried unanimously. 16. MARSHALL SIMONS - Mr. Simons said his property has an estimated value of $73,000 and he just bought it in October for $68,000. He said he thought the purchase price should indicate the value of the property. He said they upgraded the carpet for $700, so he thought the valuation should be $68,700. Sinell said this was a purchase of a previously foreclosed property. He said they have sales in the area with purchase prices of $72,700-$82,900. Tenpas said he thought the fair market value should be what the purchase price was, especially for such a recent sale. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Harris, to adjust the 1991 estimated market value of the Simons property, PID 15-116-22 33 0015, to $70,500. Jessen said he didn't see the object of splitting the difference with the property owner since it was such a recent purchase. Anderson said he thought the sale price is only one of the criteria, and such things as distressed sales and other circumstances must also be considered. Sinell said he understood the property was foreclosed and the Simons bought it from the VA. Vote on the Motion: Motion defeated with Jessen, Tenpas and Pidcock opposed. Board of Review 8 April 18, 1991 MOTION: Jessen moved, seconded by Pidcock, to adjust the 1991 estimated market value of the Simons property, PID 15-116-22 33 0015, to $68,700. Motion carried with Anderson opposed. 17. RAYMOND RICE - Mr. Rice said he has made no improvements to his property and yet he had a 12% increase in valuation. He said the Board decreased his valuation to $325,000 in 1989 and he didn't think it should have been increased from that value. MOTION: Jessen moved, seconded by Pidcock, to defer discussion on this property. Motion carried unanimously. 18. DONALD & YVETTE PATON Sinell said this was a written appeal and staff would like time to complete the review. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Harris, to refer the Paton property, PID 17-116-22 13 0025, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 19. RAYMOND & CHRISTINE MURRAY - Appeal resolved. 20. ROBERT WIENS - Mr. Wiens said his valuation was reduced by the Board in 1989 to $128,300. He said there have been no changes to his house except that there is now a house to the left that was graded so that it drains onto his property and blocks his view. He showed pictures of comparable homes that he had completed research on. Sinell said this entire neighborhood was reviewed for the 1991 assessment. He said their preliminary information indicates a range of $165,000-$175,000 for this property. He said some of the properties in this area have very positive views and others don't. He said staff would like to complete the appraisal of the property and do research on the comparableE Mr. Wiens provided. Wiens said he thought $30,000 worth of view was out of line. MOTION: Jessen moved, seconded by Pidcock, to refer the Wiens property, PID 05-116-22 14 0057, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. Board of Review 9 April 18, 1991 21. LONNY & ALISON GULDEN - Mr. Gulden said he appealed his valuation last year and the appraiser agreed that his property should be valued at $185,000, with $52,500 for the lot and $132,500 for the house. He said the entire area was reappraised late last year and his assessed valuation went up to $202,600. He said the land increased $12,500 and the house increased $5,100. He said he didn't believe the lot could have increased 24% in value in six months. Gulden said his lot abuts Anderson Lakes Parkway directly across from the athletic fields. He said the property also adjoins land that is zoned for multi- family. Sinell said the Lake Heights neighborhood was revalued this year. He said they did a market comparison of the neighborhood and came up with a range of value from $211,000 and up. Gulden shared information on other comparables in the neighborhood that would indicate a considerably lower value. Sinell said he would like to check out the comparables Gulden shared. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to refer the Gulden property, PID 23-116-22 13 0018, to staff for further review. Tenpas said he would like to see all of the information Mr. Gulden provided included in the staff review. Anderson said at one time the City brought in some assessors as neutral parties for those situations where there was disagreement. Jullie said there was a difficulty getting people that are knowledgeable about the market and that we discontinued the practice. Tenpas said there is a great deal of subjectivity in the appraisal business and we seem to have the same problems every year with property owners presenting comparable properties that substantiate their valuation and staff presents the opposite. He said he thought it was apparent that any changes we have made in the process have not helped alleviate the problems. Anderson said he thought we need an independent party to come in and determine the right value. He asked what it would cost to appraise an average property in Eden Prairie. Pidcock said it would be about $150. Board of Review 10 April 18, 1991 Tenpas said he thought we should look at a commission or a body that has some experience in this area that could review the appeals. Vote on the Motion: Motion carried unanimously. 17. RAYMOND RICE - The Board continued discussion of Mr. Rice's appeal at this point. Sinell said this property was part of a revaluation neighborhood. He said they have comparables that indicate a value of $423,000. Tenpas asked how many houses there were on the cul-de- sac. Rice said there are four. Tenpas said he would like to see more comparables and • an analysis of the cul-de-sac showing the market values for the rest of the homes. Anderson noted that Mr. Rice had the option of obtaining an independent appraisal to provide additional information on his property. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to refer the Rice property, PID 17-116-22 24 0015, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 22. MARK PETERKA - Appeal resolved. 23. ELIZABETH MCCARTNEY - Appeal resolved. 24. SCOTT ELFSTROM/LAKE PLACE APARTMENTS - Appeal resolved. 25. MARRIOTT CORPORATION - Sinell said they have additional information and need to do a further analysis on this property. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Jessen, to refer the Marriott Corporation property, PID 11-116-22 44 0021, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 26. RESIDENCE INN/MARRIOTT - Sinell said they have received information on income and expenses so they can perform a complete analysis. Board of Review 11 April 18, 1991 MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Jessen, to refer the Residence Inn/Marriott property, PID 11-116-22 43 0003, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 27. DONALD BROMEN - Sinell said this was a written appeal and they would like it referred back. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to refer the Bromen property, PID 11-116-22 42 0041, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. 28. DENNIS & LORI CURRAN - Appeal resolved. 29. PENTTI LEHTONEN - 30. FREDERICK LAWRENCE - 31. ROBERT LUPO - 32. STEPHEN & JESSICA FOSTER - 34. LAURA LITTELL - 35. WILLIAM KEEGAN - 36. ROBERT P. KRUELL - MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock, to refer the following properties to staff for further review: Pentti Lehtonen PID 35-116-22 12 0014 Frederick Lawrence PID 24-116-22 21 0075 PID 24-116-22 21 0108 Robert Lupo PID 02-116-22 12 0030 Stephen & Jessica Foster PID 24-116-22 32 0018 Laura Littell PID 07-116-22 14 0049 William Keegan PID 02-116-22 12 0043 Robert P. Kruell PID 06-116-22 32 0027 Motion carried unanimously. 33. NATIONAL BUREAU OF PROPERTY ADMIN. (GE CAPITAL FLEET SERVICES) - Sinell said this was an appeal on multiple parcels and they indicated in a letter that they want to retain the right to continue their appeal to Hennepin County. Board of Review 12 April 18, 1991 MOTION: Jessen moved, seconded by Harris, to sustain the estimated market value on the following National Bureau of Property Admin. properties: PID 13-116-22 13 0005 PID 13-116-22 24 0012 PID 13-116-22 24 0013 PID 13-116-22 24 0014 PID 13-116-22 24 0015 PID 13-116-22 24 0016 PID 13-116-22 24 0017 PID 13-116-22 24 0018 PID 13-116-22 24 0019 PID 13-116-22 24 0020 PID 13-116-22 24 0021 PID 13-116-22 24 0022 PID 13-116-22 24 0023 PID 13-116-22 24 0024 PID 13-116-22 24 0025 PID 13-116-22 24 0026 PID 13-116-22 24 0028 PID 13-116-22 23 0003 PID 13-116-22 23 0005 Motion carried unanimously. 2. RICHARD & CATHERINE ELLENSON - The Ellensons still were not present. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock, to refer the Ellenson property, PID 17-116-22 12 0068, to staff for further review. Motion carried unanimously. B. Written Communications Written communications received were included in the Personal Appeals. C. Schedule Reconvene After discussion, the Board agreed to reconvene at 6:00 PM on Monday, May 6. III. CLOSE MEETING MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Jessen, to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 PM. Motion carried unanimously. Memorandum To: Eden Prairie Board of Review //}� From: Steven R. Sinell, City Assessori�O�-�_ Subject: May 6, 1991 Reconvene of the Board of Review Meeting Date: Hay 3, 1991 The Board of Review is scheduled to reconvene on May 6th at 6:00 P.H. in the Council Chamber. The Assessing staff has prepared reports on the properties that were referred to staff at the April 18th meeting. I've listed our recommendations on each property that was reviewed and have attached copies of the staff reports to the taxpayers application on the items that we haven't reached value agreement with the taxpayer. Appeal# Owner/Pid Assessor's Recommendation #2 Richard & Original Value $ 74,900 Catherine Ellenson Review Appraisal $ 78,500 17-116-22 12 0068 Recommend no change in value. #3 Gordon Stodola Original Value $ 35,000 05-116-22 42 0003 Review Appraisal $ 26,000 Recommend the value be reduced to $26,000 OWNER AGREES #5 John Davis II Original Value $184,000 24-116-22 43 0036 Review Appraisal $174,000 Recommend the value be reduced to $174,000. Owner disagrees. #6 Andrzej Peczalski Original Value $132,400 25-116-22 41 0039 Review Appraisal $129,400 Recommend the value be reduced to $129,400. OWNER AGREES #7 Gerald & Original Value $139,700 Rose Ann Jensen Review Appraisal $130,000 07-116-22 42 0040 Recommend the value be reduced to $130,000. OWNER AGREES #8 Fred Purcell Original Value $129,600 21-116-22 22 0024 Review Appraisal $125,000 Recommend value be reduced to $125,000. OWNER AGREES #15 Michael Pan Original Value $222,900 17-116-22 21 0017 Review Appraisal $238,000 Recommend no change in value. Appeal* Owner/Pid Assessor's Recommendation *17 Raymond Rice Original Value $371,500 17-116-22 24 0015 Review Appraisal $342,000 Recommend value be reduced to $342,A00. OWNER AGREES #18 Donald & Original Value $ 84,700 Yvette Paton Review Appraisal $ 91,000 17-116-22 13 0025 Recommend no change in value. #20 Robert Wiens Original Value $160,000 05-116-22 14 0057 Review Appraisal $166,000 Recommend no change in value. #21 Lonny & Original Value $202,600 Alison Gulden Review Appraisal $194,000 23-116-22 13 0018 Recommend value be reduced to $194,000. OWNER AGREES *25 Marriott Corp./ Original Value $8,200,000 Courtyard Review Appraisal $5,800,000 11-116-22 44 0021 Recommend the value be reduced to $5,800,000. Owner disagrees. *26 Marriott Corp./ Original Value $5,749,000 Residence Inn Review Appraisal $5,850,000 11-116-22 43 0003 Recommend no change in value. #27 Donald Bromen Original Value $264,500 • 11-116-22 42 0041 Review Appraisal $215,000 Recommend the value be reduced to $215,000. Owner disagrees. *29 Pentti Lehtonen Original Value $386,100 • 35-116-22 12 0014 Review Appraisal $350,000 Recommend the value be reduced to $350,000. OWNER AGREES *30 Frederick Lawrence Original Value $101,500 24-116-22 21 0075 Review Appraisal $ 94,500 24-116-22 21 0108 Recommend the value be reduced to $94,500. OWNER AGREES #31 Robert Lupo Original Value $187,400 02-116-22 12 0030 Review Appraisal $180,600 Recommend the value be reduced to $180,600. OWNER AGREES Appeal# Owner/PID Assessor's Recommendation #32 Stephen & Original Value $158,800 Jessica Foster Review Appraisal $152,000 24-116-22 32 0018 Recommend the value be reduced to $152,000. OWNER AGREES #34 Laura Littell Original Value $ 81,000 07-116-22 14 0049 Review Appraisal $101,000 Recommend no change in value. #35 William & Original Value $282,000 Sandra Keegan Review Appraisal $256,000 02-116-22 12 0043 Recommend the value be reduced to $256,000. OWNER AGREES #36 Robert Kruell Original Value $ 85,400 06-116-22 32 0027 Review Appraisal $ 72,500 Recommend the value be reduced to $72,500. OWNER AGREES Appeal # 2 Page 1 APPLICATION FORII 1991 EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF REVir,r: 'D APR 7991 PID#J7_11fi_29_19_p06p Appeal* - Appraiser EEZ Date Recd. • (To be completed by owner - please print) Telephone Home: 937-5490 Name: Richard and Catherine 311enson Work: • Address of Property: 166% Terrey Pine Drive, iden Prairie, h.N 55347 January 2, 1991 valuation as it appears on the notice: S 77,300 ** ** 1/2/91 Terms of Purchase: Contract for Deed EMV Date property acquired, 1988 Purchase price: S 74,000.00 $74,900 Additions and alterations since purchase: ** See Attached Sheet ** • Cost of additions and alterations: ** See Attached Sheet ** Is property listed for sale? '+o If yes, at what price S (attach copy of listing agreement) Owner's estimated market value as of January 2, 1991 is: S 7509es66 $69,041 * What are your reasons or documentation supporting the above stated value? (Please attach supporting information): ** See Attached Sheet ** * After application was submitted Mr. Ellenson changed his opinion as to the 1/2/91 Estimated Market value .i ll �ti/hr4.;ro 'r<vn) Signature of Owner Please Note: This form requests private or confidential data of applicant which is being collected for purposes of review by the City Assessor and the Eden Prairie Board of Review to assist in preparing tor any appeals/objections herein. The submission of this data is not mandatory, however, in order to get an accurate assessment of the property prior to the hearing, such data is helpful. (To be completed by the Assessing Department) Prior year values: Land Building Total Property Class Jan. 2, 1990 15000 62300 77300 RPs. _Homestead Jan. 2, 1939 15200 49100 6430D Rac Hemactaad Jan. 2, 1988 14500 46800 61300 Rac Hnmactead Last Inspection: j/./9 Appraiser:Far1 7Pnt Building Permits/Appraiser Comments: Sale History Date Source Sale Price Terms of Sale Comments 12/_/ 87 CRV S 74000 11% CO -3 / 84 CRV S 72225 WO Board of Review Action: 1) Referred to Assessor for review: 2) Assessor's value adjusted to 3) Assessor's value sustained Appeal #2 Page 2 Richard and .;atherine :Monson 'ierrey ='iae Or. Edon rrairie, .; 55347 <'^ ":2 hone: (312) 937-5490 391 Property Acquired - 1933 Purchase Price - a 74,000.00 Assessed Larket Value - 1938 a 31,300.00 Additions and Alterations since Purchase: The only vor:: :Ie have partly completed is sheetroc=an;; one (1) room and one (1) 1/2-.;ath in the basement. This area was framed in and rouh plumbin;; and rrlrin; done when ue purchased the property. 'de have sheetroc::ed, installed four (4) doors and hardware, tiled in Sath and installed toilet, cabinets and sin':, and finish rooduor`:. This is the only thing ::o have added to this property since we purchased it. The total cost for materials pas: Laterials w 9'?1.10 Did all of the :nor': myself, about 50 hours . 15.00 ,er hr. This would amount to w 750.00 About one-half of this uori: was done in 1939 and one-half in 19.'0, v17/1.10 1989 Assessed I.arhet Value $ 64,300.00 Add material and labor 1,741.10 S% Js,0 1,10 If assessment incrcases for 1770 was the same as 1939 $ 3,000.00 Our valuation could ci,041.10 not be w 77,300.00 Staff Report Appeal ; 2 P_a_9e To: Board of Review From: Earl Zent, Appraiser II Through: Steven R. Sinell, City Assessor Subject: 16658 Terrey Pine Drive, PID# 17-116-22 12 0068 Property Description The subject property is an average quality, 1076 sq. ft. 2 story twinhome, with 2 bedrooms built in 1981. There are 2 baths, one fireplace, basement finish of 343 sq. ft., a double attached garage, a 276 sq. ft. deck, and 120 sq. ft. screened porch. • Appraisal Process The market comparison approach to value was used for this review. This approach compares the subject property with comparable properties that have recently sold. This approach processes sale prices into indications of value tor the subject property by making reasonable adjustments to the comparable properties to adjust for differences. The market comparison approach is based on the principal of substitution, and is the most easily understood and most objective of the three approaches to value. It is considered the most reliable as it is based on the actual actions of willing buyers and sellers in the open market. Conclusion The market comparisons indicate a range of values for the subject property. The range is from S77,000 to S79,500. No adjustments were necessary for any major differences. However, adjustments for minor differences were indicated. Comparable #3 was given the most weight. Comparables #1 and #2 aid in suppporting the final conclusion of value. The most probable market value for the subject is $78,500 as of January 2, 1991. The value being appealed is $74,900. The market comparison at S78,500 indicates that the assessment of S74,900 is not in excess of market value. Subject Photos) Appeal► 2 Page 4 Front of Subject Looking Northeast f • J,. fit a°t s _ • � �" . fC / V Fit . i Sales Comparison Analysis Appeal A 2 Page 5 jj 1 isll bo h O CD CS, er O' I G O O N rfl - M' a)'a1 O O It ' 0 L I c 1LL}--c-`-a"t .+ �______ �I L1' z N- i `c ro m Q MIII3 t- -- 7 a! - - ��+++---�� a - 1 'O'a) Q a a r- > I m .--e I(n 4- 0- -C-1-3 a L > a.-I O ,C ,a.y a-, a . UO H L a, w "_" i t N o -w 4 CO ,.--44 t0 CO 7—�.-+ (n C I7 I0 .- .- m N 0"I--I- L C _ EE a-+ a .-• a__ _ (n eo sr e0 a) ,a , 0 tD C 0 ca �^ I O Z f- W E I/N 7 m 7 N 7 7 U C J-> +i (1)IC (O 0'O) O' = a n 01 0- C' 0 O E �l tD N 1=-t W W , tf)NV W W N CO .--. m IX I� IV LIB I • • a - o Ip0 l O ololo 0 O o o oi I fo UI j r. N O y t ^ •kh C t __1___ d.,_ It__II a, i T I�� l 1 - s - � �� 44 • i M a S. a _. so 1: CD C a m _- 4-a+ N -0 Li- -'7 4- c� omE✓ •I j(14-' 1 a' >, r N- •r 4- m'au n =^O j U i C i0 .e 0 e N C) U) a d S. ++ ea CC N m L 0 m C r0 C twp•r ear I U a. in W 00 7 W 7 _ .--.N .O ea a C C N + 4- a)10 f1 N I I 0. IO'.-I _ t-O) 7 7 U 0 O 0 L _ QN W I.--.IW .T a. LoN Q Q z W C X N1�''aap1, ;-7 1n i I a- W W N L Fr IU i : I I 0 0 I 0 0 OI C) I w la 1 O I O O O O O O 7iC r- F- O O 0 .wr .fir U) O".O 10- 1I SC M OI I N 5... Ih I0' 0 CO 1 C•e-IC CD IM .1 i + + + + + I Ai^�' :^-_ a L U U ____1__,__v__� !3 > - Q 1 I E Il., as • a> a .--. V)4- I a Ip O L > O 0- C a> _" a! i N • a, C C w ~p m•- • U .-4-4 0 _ v tD Cr C v a, 7 aI. U a) N V a, O a L +-' ea ea m n m 0 •-i- L C C E r) a) F�-1 t0 C 0 7 a) U) 7 W 7 -O z a ea ea O O a, a! + N c cot�} O'O) - a. .--.N 7 7 U C C C C t 0 Lc', •rl V)L=-: Z N W Q N W W i° n O- C- 0 0 ^+> tt--•• `� )A 0 w W N C C X • t=-a v, _a,. 92 m _ L_ 3 a L _M =1 � c a) 0 I S u- ) 34+-,ICU d Z I CU a c09 m •w �a O 0 6) a) S. a) C __' >' .--. (s•' L 0 t {(.71 IWO w a,•r' O Cs__, a, C 4- b 4-' _.__ 4 4- a, C i>+> I --> N'' F-. L O ¢• O).-. >) a) E tD • 01 a, (F 4- a N a, m p - U� �CC e0 S. O) a, m N n 0'0- e6 U L co e•- vl co V)f--=-jN L • o Sa- O to ,n L U Q Q 0la tD C-y 4- -_=-_,N > C V, a) W L _ .r N M > JJ H i.) I —a.r Q O > Cr)- a, - a- U)R Q Q N O t0 E i a . lD 11;�-, 1 ---1 U N,Q I.-. > .- LO M N n .--. N ! N ,. c - C •- .A ' - .rIL ICI , - w I` 1 a u5. Eju 3 MI co� O 2 0,0U, . I lc. E 11 � ya eo c JI u a O >, we ' n ' c 2 Li: c >. ao - SY = s- ch It � i e- EYm �»Lu 2 i _ 1 l-IC c - IvL) c E'' "Oo 0o m a> g o I_ i; uGILL oI m ` o o n c I s '5 c C70 > cmcUUa ,-' w- -5- o'a> ,..' -0 Jc a> ` a;^ V = om;o4 >a>Irn > o '>' L'§ � E0 ` o 4Uc °> ` a S Y V O -n U a 6i C y N jii • N0 Rc o p a, t0 2sN V ` -5 u(7) 3 .�kIaIO, !U 2 3 in O OlC Ua ¢ 5122 e_ = ig a nw lii o ° z o (-) Equalization Review Appeal * 2 Page 6 Actual Sale Assessor's Sales Price 1/2/91 EMV Ratio Comparable #1 $73,000 S63,000 86.30% Address 16535 Terrey Pine Dr. PID, 17-116-22 12 0055 Comparable #2 S76,000 $69,100 90.92% Address 16507 Terrey Pine Dr. PID, 17-116-22 12 0053 Comparable #3 $77,000 $72,100 93.64% Address 16618 Terrey Pine Dr. PID, 17-116-22 12 0075 This table shows if we are treating the subject property in a fair or "equalized" manner with respect to the comparables used. Dividing the assessors assigned EMV by the actual sales price yields the sales ratio. For the subject property, using the above comparables, we have the following, 1. Most probable selling price S78.500 2. Valuation being appealed $74,900 3. Owner's request $69,041 4. Assessors Recommendation $74.900 5. Indicated Sales Ratio 95.41% (Assessors recommended EMV divided by the most probable sale price) its... -V. aF ' .S.... '!' Appeal #2 Page 7 `~ ` t Neighborhood Map; � _= ', : , • _ _ci . '.7... a%:::: .. : ..V4 l'‘..- ' 4'i _,':7", • e•'1 i . ..... ' 2: te.... .. .' eb, ,:a.-t. wit, \J j F ° sr,. ��M. .jr 1I. Jd r4,`♦:AK(� • �' 1 CO i y4I -.'.."A 4 P::: 1 ....• f . ' ;s ,. a *-- n, r .1.. :Lre, R ; 1$`: a - Q , ; Op � t i t. P 1 c.'_ • Y +! v ., ' �,• :) _ia i . S'4w,[�'r,°•,�. - gti, comp 2 y pilaw.wtIsct a • ,.. S.- . �t QQ,�, r.•Y'Y•. `Ar rrr. yla p.! \- - 4 �4 r'i Q -6-, ear '.•� a. r^ie �.. d .r S. p vt q e .,y. M !K. .y .•t j �•.d, ,e> slt t _ 1 a• s: e��ry i�� • 4 .:..' .yd': s M U - - ice.mod. \'•N•AJ,r Cr':.,.� •;0.-2,7'''.- •r yam-- i1 .�l�Eki'--2't='a34}•�-�•''�•"•' .. _ �. — -.�="'" •tea•"�6EN—PRAiRIE_xa_a_i��D— - �-�►�-:s�+Qi"�'r?� -0 s ,ram 4 •.n .-no*•iY4.- LY --t'•L..—.tl L .. •._1 n v. `- - w.n f� a'T' rrl.■ �N..a .wa•n.n \�t ,nYe. aY f.N•w a. �3 3 q„•r•w•av •uxn ..� t or • e. • u •• „ 1 r . T lli: . ` .r 72\s - 0• r.A. y ( w. ry pp1•houflA i .i ti'• aN:.^ii.i J '*Ia ; i7 O A. aat M - mai j ilk r _ - as . N • I- ! MI y Q➢ i t i «? • to1 et _ C. y L qM f l� f, r� r •�9 tit 15 •kf a .r� � •�� nCi• Mra lq1 b A n .•• 2 JNl rt Mt APPLICATION FORf1 Appeal 5 Page 1 • 1991 EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF I RECD APR 2 1991 ?ID* 24-116-22-43-0036 Appeal* 3"/ AppraiserEEZ Date Recd. (To be completed by owner - please print) Telephone Home: co-,1C,Otc5 Name: Work: 4-. -v:�Ut-5 Address of Property: January 2, 1991 valuation as it appears on the notice: S Terms of Purchase: Date property acquired: �'•,. 1��`1� Purchase price: $ 7^7" Additions and alterations since purchase: Cost of additions and alterations= Is property listed tor sale? ..1r It yes, at what price S (attach copy of listing agreement) Owner's estimated market value as of January 2, 1991 is: $ 1LO?.00' What are your reasons or documentation supporting the above stated value? (Please attach supporting information): • Signature of Owner Please Note: This form requests private or confidential data of applicant which is being collected for purposes of review by the City Assessor and the Eden Prairie Board of Review to assist in preparing for any appeals/objections herein. The submission of this data is not mandatory, however, in order to get an accurate assessment of the property prior to the hearing, such data is helpful. (To be completed by the Assessing Department) Prior scar values: Land Buil.inq Total Property Class Jan. 2, 1990 55000 129000 184000 Res. Homestead Jan. 2, 1989 55000 129000 184000 Res. Homestead Jan. 2, 1988 36700 123200 159900 Res. Homestead Last Inspection: 8 / 9/ 88 Appraiser: Earl Zent Building Permits/Appraiser Comments: Sale History Date Source Sale Price Terms of Sale Comments 9/ / 78 CRV S 24900 WD Lot sale --/_/— S Board of Review Action: 1) Referred to Assessor for review: 2) Assessor's value adjusted to : 3) Assessor's value sustained Appeal H 5 Page 2 CD APR 2 1991 Eden Prairie Board of Review April 1, 1991 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 ATTN: Earl Zent The purpose of this evaluation is to appeal the 1991 market value on my home at 9303 Talus Circle. The home has 2,475 square feet and has been valued at $184,000. The following are two story colonial style homes located in "Amsden Hills" in the Preserve: 1991 Address Total Sq. Ft. Market Value 94 isewood Circle 2137 138,300 9455 Leaftop Circle 2163 136,100 9495 Leaftop Circle 1995 131,500 9445 Aspen Circle 2163 137,300 9502 Garrison Way 2004 141,100 9661 Clark Circle 2004 123,200 AVERAGE 2077 134,583 Although my home is 16% larger than the average home on the above comparison, my 1991 market value is over 26% larger. This 10% difference represents a dollar difference of $24,000.00. Information for this comparison was provided by the Eden Prairie Assessors Office. Based on this comparison, I request that the 1991 market value on my home be lowered to a figure more equitable and more consistent with my neighborhood. Sincerely, • John & Kelly Davis 9303 Talus Circle Eden Prairie, MN 55347 941-6065 Staff Report Appeal I 5 Page 3 To: Board of Review From: Earl Zent, Appraiser II Through: Steven R. Sinell, City Assessor Subject: 9303 Talus Circle, PID# 24-116-22 43 0026 Property Description The subject property is a good quality, 2557 sq. ft. 2 story, 4 bedroom house built in 1979. There are two and one-half baths, one fireplace, a daylight basement with no finished area, a 3 car garage, a 204 sq. ft. deck, and a 144 sq. ft. screened porch. The building site slopes to the front and back of the lot, the back yard is wooded, and it is located on a cul-de-sac. Appraisal Process The market comparison approach to value was used for this review. This approach compares the subject property with comparable properties that have recently sold. This approach processes sale prices into indications of value for the subject property by making reasonable adjustments to the comparable properties to adjust for differences. The market comparison approach is based on the principal of substitution, and is the most easily understood and most objective of the three approaches to value. It is considered the most reliable as it is based on the actual actions of willing buyers and sellers in the open market. Conclusion The market comparisons indicate a range of values for the subject property. The range is from $189,600 to $200,400. The comparable properties are similar to the subject in quality, style and location. Adjustments were made to adjust for the major differences, such as building size, amount of basement finish, age, and amenities. Some weight is placed on all three comparables. The most probable market value for the subject is $192,000 as of January 2, 1991. Current listed properties from the subject's neighborhood further support the indicated market value and are included as an addendum to the sales comparison approach. A review of the subject's property value using the mass appraisal technique, indicates an appraised value of $174,000. I recommend a value of $174,000 be placed on the subject for January 2, 1991. • Subject Photo(s) Appeal,# 5 Pane 4 Front of Subject Facing East ; 04,2 it f, • • • Sales Comparison Analysis Appeal I 5 page 5 • o--_ I O 7 7 O 0l 0 �� 0.- E a- co O 0 COC41 cs rn �c i CO V�0 wO a,0 '" . I + + c + + ..+,! U1+a1 CC S-CCv., _ \w a, a 0 �' � �m S. Q70 a_ U N 8 U O m N VI) N V 7 1 V'O I `e --to J 9 .p 0 a,a, 0 I. C i 0/ f 2 N .n C7 - -- CT 4-w .-IU O>^_-09 as I U O CI �'._ _E N ^ 7t V N i CT CT UI '- !/) Z 0 to V 0 .a co to kO N CS tpI 10 ,6 N N N '6 • OJ lOrCL) C La as 7 Cl'- � 7 co 7-- --O N C 07.II 7 U C $ + y17, asu -).^,..—, N O'al Cr q N I� O O' CO CO o E�1 U N W 7 W .-•W Z W W M lO O Z .1 0 I N! I co F 0C 0 0�0 0 0 4i o O C O t0M O O co O CO W Iy O 2 .--. N V M N Cl) of O 'L N E O _ . + -0 Z I .- I C1 , 1 + I L .--. N L + +- yC� V I O co A�I I _.__._______ __.__ ^ C/� SIG CC — -o P. .M w • L L) VI IA 0- ' l0 O N O N to 4._ V !+, 1` N C/ I a- >. �- -a 0 - 7_ r O ul C;Y ,0 U ¢ CJ i 0 O-+, 4-4- O 0 -ri O"Of 00- W ' C .- 0 L r- A a Vf 4- O'O' - 0 CU...4,, C E -0 - o z rn 0 1- 4 �'co co .'-..6 Id al a VI `� v 3- + El ro u 7 7 UCO V C `�U M W N W �--. W QD N .--.N 0-O' .�-1 l0 O O-C >b0 • ! M W W N N N 2 3 CI'-C N - EI W . 1 -_ t O O O I 0 O ,O O .-I C +a 0 -- , I '.0 N Cr) M .44 O U N E p N-- J .., ,,, 0 U 0 2 ICO=_ - N C U w U + +.0 + 1 7 Ja i CJ C . v)f N ,� - C I - r .. .n 4- S cc �- J MI u _ �� .. E vi r� p� Q •y a N O m N o +,4- N m _ �,•r- v ai O U t0 oa ¢ C I >, C')' Cr z`~ 7 O ea 0) O>. .A 0 O 'p '6 O'o 0)I b m COCOp N H ^ L 0' c O E`~ C N E 0,0_' Q 01 7 . N 0 I- 7 - --O C') la RS c, `� 0 ,- N O I01 n U .n W 7 w.�.W ' 1� N .N-..N-. 0- . n')N CO •p p+� tit C i U I N .Q r--•fn W W C.0 �` 3 �_ 'H„ C) El a E ..w a V ) q 4, fi_ 7 N. . 0 (.1 O N to 4- Y N V n E -- EN U •.- 9 .p O -- - C 4- 4, 4, I0 - a E mU 0- I N E • CJ 4-W F V)a) O u1 U,_ CS > V ^ Q •- N S. N V) M V)`--_ V S- CT CT 0- 0 O� wp,_ - V 10 -0 T-0-- '--V) O CJ V•..-- q N Vf N 0 M a _ 0 .- N 0 N- 0 - N O C 0 C U V V Sr >, ' y C 0,1.- 0 7 0 0'0 ; .3 0 0 st 0 Cl CS N �,I i t--_ -� �I�,NI� (0I� a za LD -a t+,.,N ti ,, o F., , I nCT u Z G '0L C...) (I) 0, ri O �n' .- c i= n - °° .g > d E' To of. 10 C a cr. G_ _ 7. V cu _ (I)ik >. ij � O j Q w (n C O C N .; O A d C .n 5 _ `>°�, m C ! vE d m m : m a' u -m a, o. 3. . > E rn E m Cmuu c -0 m'g n d Y . a d `..p 7 a O U _N W .O NNf C O O O_ N O l0 a� xV`g� y'g y =a _, O F4u L Q O- (n C b > InU1O1 <T) OjO QIU Q ¢ C7 Ali 42 0, S.P G... .`• S . Addendum to Sale Comparison Appeal ; 5 Paqe 6 Properties currently listed for sale in the subject neighborhood: Current Building Listing 1991 Square Address Type Price EMV Feet 9205 Talus Cir. 2 Story $182,000 $180,400 2756 9355 Talus Cir. 2 Story $198,500 $188,700 2700 9240 Talus Cir. 2 Story $194,900 $177,500 2512 9311 Amsden Way 2 Story $199,900 $170,400 2370 Each of the listed properties vary slightly with respect to property characteristics such as location, size, basement finish, garage stalls, etc. The property located at 9205 Talus Circle is located adjacent to Anderson Lakes Parkway. The listing agent indicates that the potential buyers consider being adjacent to Anderson Lakes Parkway a negative influence. The agent also indicates two offers at S170,000 have been turned down within the last three months. Equalization Review Appeal • 5 page / Actual Sale Assessor's Sales Price 1/2/91 EMV Ratio Comparable #1 5182,000 5165,400 90.9% Address: 9295 Talus Circle PID: 24-116-22 43 0033 Comparable S2 $189,000 5170,500 90.2% Address: 10005 Amsden Way PID: 25-116-22 12 0083 Comparable S3 5171,300 5154,500 90.2% Address: 9650 Clover Circle PID: 25-116-22 13 0018 This table shows if we are treating the subject property in a fair or "equalized" manner with respect to the comparables used. Dividing the assessors assigned EMV by the actual sales price yields the sales ratio. For the subject property, using the above comparables, we have the following: 1. Most probable selling price S192,000 2. Valuation being appealed S184,000 3. Owner's request S160,200 4. Assessors Recommendation 5174,000 5. Indicated Sales Ratio 90.63% (Assessors recommended EMV divided by the most probable sale price) • k;,tC 1' _:),'° E� ' (,..,tle,t"�r, e ..? � gip"' "' Appeal _ 5 Pale s �_��+vr, S+r +�j'' s �7+�,p 9 �'gp'-+ psi.",..', ;.w�"'J °'h�wt�l l 'Lu?w` .! ft, + \lSiaC "' r 1ig�.. g1..'yP� �� er .,i�e'n .w E1\\ �\ V�> r. '�'. �f 2s� 1 l's � 1 E � ,9,°° �..- _ I City Map %h � �„R"� , 1' "' C "` , ". a ..� :`~£�1,`t_! 5 7°4 A'y"1pe-t. ,� r��9�\ .3 i r h 2`, V.1 1. ('J',d „,/ -. 4..4...."' ( 1 ,,... ,- �0. a ' l l -fh �^'� @°w.:�o ` North i,..1171:. / • l'th- _ 1 .-. ,-',' 4,7:i 4.,:i.6., : IT,7"4 %, A ' '..;-,;.-7— I(f ,,,,e-- f,-5, ,,, Itler,br / T1 1.,,,,..,.,1• ' •i,,,,,,qa. ,N,..44...;.:, l` s 4. r."S {' .yarn�Yy,� Fide 'Y t `,,. 4`1c7Yi P`'-.yI ■ 1 F ':.. Z6tFil' Y FY � J.( aTy' +ebat, „., . C^w��0 ,I t!' ,,... .. , j EEE YF _ # j 3 .. -...,...,„,„. ., L , „ • '� , I rye: ..,i ' ��r if( a t �,�` • [ r F EDEN PRA1 E-.,,. n, *' . �.�C fa: A d`�.,.� k RCS `-r J w J '�.4�M tP.y�� P • `- .may' I. ��,I 9 T! S y r Z ((9{ y -Mr 1 l a I r77 ,.. 7) 1 .Y_ M y'(K.l T R 9 i11�2 I � r .. i • • e� b _ �1. Q ,,rye. `-- - 31 p4�.Y•9j _ `4 O APPLICATION FORM Appeal # 15 Page 1 • 1991 EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF art MAR 2 9 1991 PID# 17-116-22 21 0017 Appeal# Appraiser LL Date Recd. (To be completed by owner - please print) Telephone Home:931.88ov �`l�Clk�4EL Work:CM Name: pp�� n,.^ Address of Property: / /8c2. -sf-r January 2, 1991 valuation as it appears on the notice: S 2Z-'z1900 Terms of Purchase: Date property acquired: Purchase price: S Additions and alterations since purchase: Cost of additions and alterations: Is property listed for sale? NO If yes, at what price S (attach copy of listing agreement) Owner's estimated market value as of January 2, 1991 is: SAOS 000 What are your reasons or documentation supporting the above stated value? (Please attach supporting information): SEE Arrft4 • gnature o Owner Please Note: This form requests private or confidential data of applicant which is being collected for purposes of review by the City Assessor and the Eden Prairie Board of Review to assist in preparing for any appeals/objections herein. The submission of this data is not mandatory, however, in order to get an accurate assessment of the property prior to the hearing, such data is helpful. (To be completed by the Assessing Department) Prior year values: Land Building Total Property Class Jan. 2, 1990 48900 162100 211000 Res. Homestead Jan. 2, 198S 48000 159000 207000 RPc HnmPctPad Jan. 2, 1988 45000 108500 153500 Res. Homestead Last Inspections 3 /JJ/j Appraiser:J nrna I icg11 Building Permits/Appraiser Comments: 10/90 - Porch Sale History - Date Source Sale Price Terms of Sale Comments 1 /2$/ 88 CRV S 219400 9% WD _ --/_/_ S Board of Review Actions 1) Referred to Assessor for reviews 2) Assessor's value adjusted to : 3) Assessor's value sustained 1 Appeal # 15 Page 2 March 28, 1991 Lorna Lisell City Assessor 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: Property I.D. 17-116-22-21-0017 Michael & Kristin Pan (owners) 7982 Island Road Eden Prairie, MN 55347 The referenced property is located in the Timber Lakes addition at Mitchell Lake in Western Eden Prairie. The property has a 1991 market value established at $222,900.00. The owner's estimate a market value as of January 2, 1991 of $205,000 which is supported by the following information: °All of the five (5) comparables listed are in the same square foot and/or room size layout. °All except 7951 are lakeshore property. °All comparables have lot sizes larger than the referenced property. °All comparables sold for $200,000.00 or less. COMPARABLES 7906 Island Road - 4 Bedroom, 2 story walkout *7924 Island Road - 4 Bedroom, 2 story walkout 7936 Island Road - 4 Bedroom, 2 story walkout 7950 Island Road - 4 Bedroom, Multi-level 7951 Island Road - 4 Bedroom, Multi-level *7924 Island Road sold and closed last month at $196,000.00. There are currently four (4) other homes listed on Island Road with selling prices • of $169,000 to $199,000. We respectfully request that you consider this re-evaluation to $205,000.00. I will contact you by Friday, March 29, 1991 in the event that an application for review needs to be filed by April 1, 1991. v ,,,Home: 937-88 0 Work: 936-2402 Staff Report Appeal * 15 Page 3 To: Board of Review From: Lorna Lisell, Appraiser II Through: Steven R. Sinell, City Assessor Subjects 7982 Island Road, PID# 17-116-22 21 0017 Property Description The subject property is a very good quality 2312 sq. ft., two story, 4 bedroom house built in 1989. There are three and one-half baths (the master bath having a whirlpool tub and separate shower stall), two fireplaces, a walkout basement with 718 sq. ft. of finished area, a three car attached garage, a 168 sq. ft. glazed porch and a 366 sq. ft. deck. The building site slopes down to Mitchell Lake, is wooded, and is a typical Eden Prairie lakeshore lot. Appraisal Process The market comparison approach to value was used for this review. This approach compares the subject property with comparable properties that have recently sold. This approach processes sale prices into indications of value for the subject property by making reasonable adjustments to the comparable properties to adjust for differences. The market comparison approach is based on the principal of substitution, and is the most easily understood and most objective of the three approaches to value. It is considered the most reliable as it is based on the actual actions of willing buyers and sellers in the open market. Conclusion The market comparisons indicate a range of values for the subject property. The range is from $227,800 to $253,700. The comparable properties are similar to the subject in style and location. Adjustments were made for major differences, such as site/view, quality, size, basement finish and amenities. Comparables *1, *3, *4 and #5 have sites that are similar to the subject. All six comparables support the market value of the subject. Weighing all six comparables equally, I find the most probable market value for the subject is $238,000 as of January 2, 1991, the assessment date in question. The value being appealed is $222,900. The market comparison at $238,000 indicates that the assessment of $222,900 is not in excess of market value. :0 , •• Appeal . lf 11)iert Prior o(s). * I Frolit Vi,--,,./ or r,trtn]ect .:*.!...... .ti.,",-t'r... ;..... .."1",-,`-' ",t-f:'--1;:."'"..A.,irt.Iq.;!-.'.!-.; ::,.....-i:r.P.';-....?........';,.......,,i--. , I • ....::i,,-....-',^4,1#k". 1,. ' ',., -r•-•- 4!, ,-...-1,,,7,---"-‘ .' •" . ,- ,„:„.,'. r.= .• ilt::LI ::'17t.';':;;-.!...:7,7:'''' ,)k• .liitiq . 'S..- ‘......:L.—17,- .,.. , .... i I s'a. ' 'f.-.,•.:';:.0';'' ' ". - , ' ,\', - _ • :'..,:,.,.-.-.A:•:,•11:3Nt',-':,... Zak /,-a. . .__ --,7-,---; ., .1 • - • ,.71 2. - a •' ... -..... ,_,., i I •••• '7. - ; ,...........:., :. •-.1,44;','" --' ... -. '....iir-t....:ia,... .._... ..., __ V1PW t Torn r-,1,3,.n ot Sub 1,--,.'t 1....,nkinq at rear or. lot . . . '.--, . 'it li` -• — •.11.1.--n:-;,i;41ci.:., . . : . . • --..4 -4,-4,- il 1 1 1.---:;,,;, - .'''''-. - •-' ' 7- -- - ..13 ,--.,,,,..,...,-,;4,:-.,., ilifithili.-4( i,.12" , 7 , '", '-..d; •„,.. A• rola f , , i...a.,#7.-•,. -, 1' — ^ -44 i ; . - 0 1'1 . 11101111Mr 1:. I . ', 1:- I I l' 111111.11 't ii Aiwa , , I •,, 0. ‘, , I. )0r •= - %go : .• . ,,,..„,.... ...,..•..„ .., ,..„,....,..,.,..,:.,..i. _.„....,. _-...........•--- .u,,,,,y,-,,,...-..._•;• • Subiect Photolel Appeal* 15 Page 5 View from dock looking at back of Subject y= p ` , ,n .1! to • - .' Sales Comparison Analysis Appeal i 15 Page 6 F�_: O O O o • o f C o 0 o O rn O O o o 0 i ! CO N V I CO CO O m' a) -=y ( ~ V W > M n ' O •,- N -- 1 + M Z C7 N + L N C71 -_-- ___._ _�_-._-. UV __ + [_--_ I. . _ C CC = 0 U h cf) .--0 ¢ 0 0 _ �. ..0'iN v •4-. L a ♦+ _- I\ 11 0 3 - I o al o I-0 L N `n4- U v I O al N a Y 0 1 0 - 4- ++ 4-, L E - M •73^ o U 7 CT Q to U CO ,- - V > N C CO- •\ m , N N CT 2 iCA 1 Ip 0 to O Z .--. O O i L 0' 0 - --CO CO•--. .0 .0 C. .• +1 • 1 U' •�(.7 0 a) a CT O - M CO 0 0 U CF.i 0 "-1> - C.7> > (.7 F CO N -C CT CV 0 M (7C' 0 --•N .-U W M NZ I N X .. 0 0 0 • ni O O O 0 0 0 O O O O N E O O 0' 0 0 O O L 00 00 0 l N,4) UI) .^-.,..0U a) 0 - V CO Lp en .c.. .. .p r- N > 0,• L1 N to 0,0 S. C' -- _ 1 N 10 Z 0 IN +I + + I + ++ + a) + J N I • C al m • q a) -__ ____11__ __�------¢ 01 - v E ILL av cc aY U a —� 0 n3 1-0O O NN U a! N 'I�` VN77 o on � a .0C.o ar CO ¢ +�+ I C� E .Lv) N 4-,4• E C > c ICT v >, >,C V m C++) 0 i C 1O 0' 4L.,v0i0YN-.--' CY I Uu ••- CO 0 L i CO _ 0 .- L CT N - 49 CCt) .-E-1Frs.' U p O -. O a) a) 0, 0 1 -N M 4- O C�j 0. 0,C D >I> > C.? q N O, 7 U N UI) COm L + Ej ¢ 0 CT Cf)N �7oX[, 0 a to I n CO Z W M CO•"• N Z, 1X C VI I I] d O 0 O O O O• i� I O O O O O 00 OI 0 O 0 •-4{(11 C yj _ U) • O0 0 VCO c. O0 OM O • 0 � re, Or1 ? N. O ( 7 In 0 V 01t"..�_� N JCU 0 NLl ' + 1 1 I + K QY ¢ 7 0 '" li U CA _y d 2 U dGC M L 0 A -C 0 a,o 0 2 Cs- 4'.0 UO ' C 1 ., - 4- �' L a/ M .4. a. Y 0 0 1 N y U U CO C S • > 2 .O C7 C7 E . C no 4- L U J a M CT•,- .- 0 N N L N CC v) \A >,CO V m M V1 4- .O i CT Cl. .0.0 VI CT 4-, a S Cr, U LL) a O,77 V i L CO O._ .--. N .0O CO + a1 7 E 0 C CO 0 0 a O,a) 0 C. CO O CT U C-N to= O \ O O> > •--1 C7 m N N In Z W O Z 0 C >G 7_ Z CO C D 0 CO_ M CO ,-• Z... X _ Un _ N X, U i • . C Y N Z m U a,� L 1-- O O a)-O m N cn V-4' N Y -0 CT 4-1 U CO •O cl-CO 0- 0 ..0 0 O E •y N C a) a-,a_, 5 3 • ¢ •4- a) .p 4.4• L J C D 0 0- - 4, d V' N e0 CT O, cc w -_I co 0 '0 >a >,O, I V1 VI \ i CT CT .0 .O CO _) O _.. 0 0 i L CO O - 'C') f\ U vs to C CT.-CI) _.N _ _. 0 a1 a) CT 0, N O,CO Q CO CO a H 'N. In'vl In C— 4 C7> > (J_ 05 .-.N. I77 M VD N M•._ 'E a. 2, o.aw I I O i .r l U .0 ¢ EnE m = m .Li1 eD0 I.L. I C y a. z LL: o- .--' u = LL .-- •¢ o ¢ a 3 - -C - > �o i0 -2 C a �Ia E o o c a c E1046 5 S a „E _ x4 0 Q _ (n ? C 0 C 0 N .. C- U1 4, �,,, N Ca C'Cli(7 J O v N �C , C .-. D > U J Nm o UE.N W U d 0- 0 c1 v = T N 0 F ' C o m `�' m ¢ To E ro" 0 = n", E rn E 8 m 5 6 '.2 g d d 15-2- ¢ `ii cn E ¢ d m a C� > cn U o info 0 ¢ u I< ¢ 6 (0 2 x rn A.P a-- a v m a_ c Sales Comparison Analysis Appeal II15 Page O ,olof 0 0 0 of o 0 0 r- O I CD CD CDI O I O CD 0 0 oE- E 0 0 N. l0 0) 0. 0 0 CO 0 IO — O •-4 001 M V .-• M N. lO 'O - N. U) N. CD + N. I a z " ^su � C 0 ;__ • N + + + .O + + } + L .- > { .. I I Q 7 ° L') I 1.- C . m ` I Cc L) - �� +) a • U = I I < L Z C p IN C.) -C v I� 0_ CY)=-- o 0 N.II In L U-O C o m a)-�o d 4-1 '- - •� O'er ••- +-+a� a� ` == U CI__ N. E O,O E iN C Q i�+tiL L C • C iNIJ a E N.CC w C) 0 -0 V >) 0 OD O-_ __O)In C) S. n 0 .00) O C' + O C0)IOOC. 00O N- 0 U )O C. N +I 7. . In=7 oI�Ioo CJ co.-.co - N. S. U co .- Z 0.O YL+— i N. CO 0> � O) 0 V 0 vs • { I L NZ I .N 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 C:) 0 0 M CO en0O o 0 CVO• .M 0. 0.• 1•.•N _Ca w U) 00) ¢- C., en 0• S. M 04_ 0 N. •�01 + + + + L C 0 CD 4 1 ! �� yPk I • CC .O. CJ__ _ ..\"'I LL • C-. (..) t C) U 69 N < 0 S- n 7 C)-0 m •Cr y \ 0-O U) C I a 0:I♦-)-- u ,C 0 N.0)w.4- L .O ..- L o .O IA F-1 O d co o -- -- a..a..4..) U C I C) N. E . E 0 4 Q C) 14) C , I C .O I E.--1 U C) •• -a -0 >) -0 .n d M .n 'O C C I.O C) N,- r0 I co,cc I C 0) 0 O i O co O In 0 O) L VI V) .0 I aN^� In CeIU Ili1 O � O OC) O 0) O -- --O CO .n U .0 r-- O = •--. (0 c0 CO .•CO - 0 CO S.. U 0 lO v en + • =_y o NN 01COCO 0 en II I CO 00 000 CDO O,CD ._f' OO OOO O O O O I l0v CO• N M OM 0 CD to ✓ o=-6� 6 I • C./ C:)Ocz, •" M N Z O C • 1 } } 1 I } .O } i } m▪ MI } I n 2 CC N O - CZ -1-, C, .0 C) _� M C In O m CV In -C S. RI .6 CJ --y-. V) 1>1>i) O CO 2 G COO E CT,- Q i-,lF 4 ^4-) U O N G V' N C .O L C O1.n E U N ,- CT V CT CT CJ t�.. .d V) ,o \ N lO 4- C) i .n of ea to > O C 0 -o-o >)I 0 N. '- --0..Q U CO _0 e + CC •,- O) 0 0 1{I O 0)CO O A n. M O L U CO CO en\U 0 0 0 CJ 0 0, 0 8 0,N..• 0 CO to T.,„. - o_I V Cp C.D> 0 •--.10 Ili CV N•--. N.• Z Ll i. - H S O 1 m N vl n m I w_ C E Ti.� I a)' '71 0 '0 U I ' - E IEC 1C7 T C . L • (n-1 > C 0. G Q 1 Towi V @ v) a Q a P aN v i w -I e> y ' : O - U osa0 = o ' eE0' Og~I TC = < R 0 c P. 0 m U U = , m_ cv n ,_ 0a) o U c' v ° y ' v mEI f ? woO ' , = a a' Em E ga L ' m = a . `° gvI% " ati m C m c o 0 24 „ 2 , '9 c)� 2 II n w p _ oE D. Q d <nId 2 > (!)U 8 3 ! O O,p1U QC: 0 8CC tiS0 2� �w i- et 3 2-. 3 Equalization Review Appeal I 15 Page 8 Actual Sale Assessor's Sales Price 1/2/91 EMV Ratio Comparable S1 $250,000 $221,600 88.6% Address: 7919 South Bay Cur. PID: 17-116-22 24 0001 Comparable 82 $229,900 $195,600 85.0% Address: 15766 Village Woods Dr. PID: 16-116-22 32 0035 Comparable 83 $223,000 $202,700 90.9% Address: 15386 Village Woods Dr. PIDt 16-116-22 34 0044 Comparable 84 $204,000 $184,600 90.5% Address: 7906 Island Road PID: 17-116-22 12 0009 Comparable 85 $196,900 $177,000 89.9% Address: 7924 Island Road PID: 17-116-22 12 0012 Comparable 86 $170,000 $158,500 93.2% Address: 7948 South Bay Cur. PID: 17-116-22 21 0028 This table shows if we are treating the subject property in a fair or "equalized" manner with respect to the comparables used. Dividing the assessors assigned EMV by the actual sales price yields the sales ratio. • For the subject property, using the above comparables, we have the following: 1. Most probable selling price $238,000 2. Valuation being appealed S222,900 3. Owner's request S205,000 4. Assessors Recommendation $222,900 5. Indicated Sales Ratio 93.6% (Assessors recommended EMV divided by the most probable sale price) Appeal 4 15 Page 9 Y.:.' ,..,7 SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE ,.1-6) [.;,' r - '1 ii ':' i, ] - '... .• I Ul] tt,i.... .-* k 1.. k•AA'S , U. ,s,,"*. . a Iti4GEEI r. -7 - - i. 3- CITY OF •. '" _s000,00 ot g:=- DEI\I --*--1 N ' ., v.041 so • %, 0 *b6 %1•D 0 • Ar \I Q. ......• • -./127-3IEC-T 11 .." /.. .#.6 3 • ' 1\ 9 i36*0 ,06 - • • ,4 "0 • I%).'. ' , OAP ...A.' .° . A .—on ' ?* ,. 'P .4 OY 57c• CO J .4,•7 ° ? %4° / 111. ''.'lc:731) (F).C.:4-t7,'-e'l %.0 \ III-.2,14 sy C. 'Too !.•.\ ,oes- -boP / .2s,P -A A .•\ I / 0„ \o/ Go'. ,,,. +. of- ° e .a.0 T 3 IA .1\ ?0 .55 • , SI. 00114.0.04/ \ !.• A:t ' liWt.\_ g.3501'c.4i6 '.0': .is. , c=?O'-- --- i -) - la..i- .. ,.,. ‘',..Q.6,„,,,N % ‘,e2, - c, ,.. ---‘--- ovt,,, , ,,,L;,:. • .%.,., it • a..,Tet.E.Pipl' ts .0*-- ,A ---- .6, -, Vi?•14.‘`,..,' ' : kh 92 o 5'5 (1,41,0 ‘t—) es, ti,..1\ i ''''':) ', • fts-06. `e 9z.% . •° Zia AO D.\ . vo ft ,g.•A ____ % ,, . ...0... ../. \‘• ...404, ......,my 10,...:.-----,-7r. 0.0 .-• .0,-_b, - _p, . .. -. . •.01..to/ . _.,:......,... OENOTES PROPOSED SURFACE DRAINAGE --;.:1,11 in 1..u,P 0 OENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET SCALE: I INCH . 30 FEET/ • DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND PROPOSED GARAGE FLOUR .974.3 FEE / X000.0 DENDTES EXISTING ELEVATION PROPDSEU LOWEST FLDOR •884.6 FEET/ (000.0) OENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION PROPOSEO TOP OF BLOCK •894-7 FEET, I HEREBY CERTIFY TO JOHN KLINGELHUTZ THAT THIS IS A TRUE ANO CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF A SURVEY OF THE BOUNOARIES OF: Lot 19, Block 1, TIMBER LAKES, according to the recorded plat . . thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. • ANO OF THE LOCATION OF A PROPOSED BUILOING. IT 00ES NOT PURPORT TO SHOW IMPROVEMENTS . OR ENCROACHMENTS, IF ANY, THEREON. AS SURVEYED BY ME, OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION, THIS )I144 DAY orFE6guAeV, 1987. ' 1 ;-• ' . Ir . ,... ,. SIGNED!' JAMBI R, HILL, INC. r.\ . , --.; . .1* I --- ! 17 1'N4 * i Comp 3 / /...„,./1 rt.. • 4\ \\,..," , '..,: ..4S. •,. '.., !,,,_. ,:......--t-":. 4.7-„!..:1 - . T-- /" \- ., / / .mot Area Map ` ': ly ;.r•• - .. got./ Pea 1 . 15 Page 10 i a •i ;r '.et '1 ,y II Lam. B - \ n/ao'Z IOo 1i-± mama r,„--•s+,4,.,,,;.14-, „ .-- --- '..,- MIN. . g--- , . .. - 40, 1 • 4 • 1p1l� .,� �� , \--'--- 1 442011 M : • is ' iikatiltscraria I i ',. ' a' ,21 \`�; "ta 1././ 4 \ i Ali vx .c -- - /4-1° '''''' ' , e 1 1.°oi•. •s r. . , : I, l. Ur .. — -xirua r{)) .. ..1 .,•..)f.f J i LfM .I�It_,•..�._0�%il` 1 tI t: 4.1 „, -,5 / • — a 'si �i • -..,-,,,,;,,"_',I. t e a f }{�`� c ("it' 4"\' _Y .,,jam : \?..,•! •,• .. .e •'..S—'x l • Appeal 13 Page 1 . APPLICATION FORH — 1991 EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF REVIEW p �'B APR 2 1991 PID# 17-116-22 13 0025 Appeals /n Appraiser CC Date Recd. (To be completed by owner - please print) Telephone Home:b'/6-17i-/ro-n2 � Work:g/6 -ran-,279So Name: {pet/L)L P A/• ! /!1/T TTL A. i J J G N Address of Property: 3 1 l /1"186R-1b Pie. F9fZn/ ?P,a-/R/ 77i5/. January 2, 1991 valuation as it appears on the notice: S Y'l 7ei Terms of Purchase: cAsd notr6e4< Date property acquired: S-/3-6'? Purchase price: S S'.ZO7"D• Additions and alterations since purchase: i/IL- Cost of additions and alterations: Nf/l- Is property listed for sale? h/s9 If yes, at what price S (attach copy of listing agreement) Owner's estimated market value as of January 2, 1991 is: s76:ZdV What are your reasons or documentation supporting the above stated value? (Please attach supporting information): ?NGsi N6xr Deeti- 4'odl GLoso, ate Y-IY-9/ SAcC PRi 7 ♦ c - r' Eri -6-1- .r " hCHc c�or/aiF T :b/S WAS //-/'o LF,sS -PPT?h&.sGo MAeL1.6T //atvi OP agS31P %/f FQ;ee,Qb 'e / SNOYs-# in; OLt coo A-ceozili / 4 ignature of Owner Please Note: This form requests private or confidential data of applicant which is being collected tor purposes of review by the City Assessor and the Eden Prairie Board of Review to assist in preparing tor any appeals/objections herein. The submission of this data is not mandatory, however, in order to get an accurate assessment of the property prior to the hearing, such data is helpful. (To be completed by the Assessing Department) Prior year values: Land Building Total Property Class Jan. 2, 1990 1R20l 61900 Rnlfln Rec Nnn-Homec±pad Jan. 2, 1989 18200 61900 80100 Res. Non-Hompctead • Jan. 2, 1988 18000 61100 79100 RPc Nnn-Hampctead Last Inspections )_/L/g) Appraiser:J nrna I isell Building Permits/Appraiser Comments: 11/86 - Deck Sale History Date Source Sale Price Terms of Sale Comments L/ 2�/aL CRV $ 82000 9% WI1 3-/_/Z$ CRV S 643R9 Wfl Board of Review Action: 1) Referred to Assessor for review: 2) Assessor's value adjusted to - 3) Assessor's value sustained y0..,,'pplOva6 ta'A Appeal = 18 Page 2 • 716440 ......_... __ - Uniform • .ni attp110A6E StaternE r10101 �au:f — :.ID.manl sl.nmani - - )Pe—aiteen _ -- 1lIIA 7UfmflA a1F]con.tnuon.lUnmaw.d_ ..OVA 6Ocomentlmtltnlond -- --_ ,- menr y.loth nvmDer 6.Monoaw Inaa,ance c.1.number . 1005 716550 ld . serInn lo form la Anntsned to 0owl.you a rapsment dacbN set tlement cnl Amounts onhf 0 and by Am sanlamaM.gonlx.Mown. m.d.d"ty.ae1'• no ynr0 0001t 1w 0b0,7.Ivey x.hewn Axe ter byo.mabn purpe,.1 and ere 001.46040h to 101e11 --- lame and eddy i,u1 be, E.Herne and addle"el seller A Name and add,...el lender-- 1 • • .ANIS R. SEECER DONALD N. PATON NOR WEST MORTGAGE. ING. m YVETTCCCE A. PA, 15025 GLAZIER AVENUE ;41 CREENBRI AR ROAD /201 Ilya. Orc�'<`'EYt1' ' S, OSpa.• r^0 G` I SUITE 201 VNETONKA, MN 55434 , APPLE VALLEY MN 551246300 - 4nv.�ry b�xb,n N.sxuem.nLp.nl •--_I.SaWem nl eta. 52 TIMBER LAKE DRIVE WALSH TITLE 03/10/91 EN PRAIRIE , MN 55347 612/035-3320 • DI SBU iSEMENT MEP IN COUNTY, MU DAa_k:-9.91J_@(3.1_ . F 3 BLOCK 5 Me.of settlement " MBEIt LAKES TOWNIIOMES 4020 W.77TII STREET /220 EDI NA MN 55435 met.,y of 0e,0w11 DanActbn -- R.Svmm.,y of S:O1r f D;mutton ' t 0,,.Amount Du.l,em DarrAmmanl, 100.Gros,Amol Si,.to Seller'"--- I01.Convects.. e OU Cer,nner,_lpke_.._ ______ 4000i0() P'k —_ 04000._ =arynaxry 107.PorfonnrproMrh• - -_---_ S;nrcmcm charm to bonrewx tine"OW 7,4t08.I8 401 -_ . ___ SOS ___-- Adjustments los Imams oald by seller In edr.nce Adjustments for items paid by setter In ad..nce 'C,hAmen tales to 406.CIlpfown level in ._.__ ._.._.-._._ . Cemm11 rn.nf le __---_ 102.County Heel b Aslnf lmm,tl ro Isfl.Affnlamenlf to • ASWcitatoil-W05.3/18=373179I-_._..-._..--43,94 jeer AssaclATlOti WES 3710-373I791-------45 94.. -------'--------- ale .a _ I noes amount dot from borrow., 87,452.12 470.Cross amount due to setter 84,043.94 ' . ._._. . ._... . ..____.__..__.._._. a Arnow-oh Paid By Or to Den_Nf Cl.DOf.w _r. tr 500.Beductfenl In Amount Ow To SOW ._.._...__ . Uep_ofnxtatalmoncy __ _ .-2000..00 SOI.Frcass deposn0a.tfbucllons) --------_3T7 r.lnTEpa amount of new Awls) 6•l2v00-O0.502.Sell Mmenlchx ,to seat tbnarl0D) -76,_O__ L I Evbrmp foals)WWI auejaN4 501 Eell(hp ba,Val Nam aWyVel to _ - 504 Payoff li And mongap.ben FLEET MICE - 68,495 99 ,. I SOS Payoff,of mood maim*loan I SDLACKUL_EEF� Ct1ICA00_TITLE__.--.)75 age. .. t . s06 O --509.. __- -- Adjuf Lrrcnll ter N.ml united by lolNl AdjoUmants for llama unpaid by lei4y • . • 1 Glylown 10.01 In 5l0 Ggdown meet to Cowry Nro j/1/91______,3/.19/i1 722.8.4_Sit.County fem 171/91 ro 719751-----_.. •- •.Alsaamenn to SC men" -ro-----'--- _ �--- - ----- 517. NON HOMESTEAD PORTION 1991 TAXES It784. 1_ S _ lI y�SSmIATION DUF�.:y7 �7/t�r-499.1..—._ _.:So. SOS St& -.._____S1n- .___-___--_ _. 5f0. .__..-____ n.real paid byno,borrower 69,472.61 S20.tel.t,eduction.mom,due Wier 77,350.69 • 0 Cnh Al Settlement Irernao Bor,owtr 600.Ceti;At SHllement yeIefom Seller .:0_14KAovntdua,mmbx row e.nn.170/ @ ` =7 452 1260c Cron amount amount A.to sepx(Am aral 84,043.94 -1 2.tv,•mnvnts polo hew Darrow,fern.220 " .- __ --- _-.--_--_L_Li72.4b6or.t.n.ansr,t.mdwa.dx�w.57�- f77,550.69 I Cash KLi Imm ❑r Borrower Sol Cott ' ---'----- 17,979.2 t r Li!wen Baler 6,693.25 Ate nil bne,.-Oman Caney-SwoNm.Apron Pit-SOW I IPA),.}lf,. Ns IOn_ Appeal # 18 Page 3 JANUARY 2,1991 REAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT VALI...._.. .._.___ CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE • 7600 EXECUTIVE DRIVE PROPERTY I.D. EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 17-116-22-13-0025 TELEPHONEt 612 937-2262 Y -YtTePM• 17-116-22-13-0025 1991 MARKET VALUE 84,700. CLASSIFICATION 48 DONALD PATON . 102 SOUTH 3RD ST. ST. JOSEPH, MISS. 64501 PROPERTY TYPE RESIDENTIAL NON-HOMESTEAD The Eden Prairie Board of Review will meet Thursday, April 18.1991 at 7100 P.M. in the Council Chambers, 7600 Executive Drive, Eden Prairie to review the 1991 market values and classifications. If you intend to appeal, please call the Eden Prairie Assessing Dept. at 937-7415 for an appointment and application form to be returned by April 1. For an appointment to the Hennepin County Board of Equalization, which meets .Tuna 17. 1991 . rail 1414—n07A harnea _Tuna 10. 1991 - . Il 1 I A• ppeal # 18 Page 4 to ' t"a13 April 1, 1991 CITY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE--AT CITY HALL 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Dear Sirs: Please find enclosed the application form for the reduction of assessment on the property located in Eden Prairie, at 8061 Timberlake Drive. I would appreciate your letting me know about an adjustment; and/or if there is any other information you need from me. Sincerely, Donald N. Paton, CHA General Manager DNP/sr Enclosure ST.JOSEPH DOWNTOWN CONFERENCE CENTER 102 South Third street•St.Jowl,.MO 84501•8161270.8000 1.229•Feint&Edmond Shoot Exits tretgey Inn Sr Jouen°Pontoon Cmtennce Curer r Owwc I Ogmed to Mreet SPwe Awaits* Staff Report Appeal ; 18 Page 5 To: Board of Review From: Lorna Lisell, Appraiser II Through: Steven R. Sinell, City Assessor Subject: 8061 Timber Lake Drive, PID# 17-116-22 13 0025 Property Description The subject property is an average quality, 1064 sq. ft. split entry, 3 bedroom town house built in 1978. There are 2 baths, a walkout basement with 532 sq. ft. of finished area, a 2 car tuck under garage, and a 260 sq. ft. deck. Appraisal Process The market comparison approach to value was used for this review. This approach compares the subject property with comparable properties that have recently sold. This approach processes sale prices into indications of value for the subject property by making reasonable adjustments to the comparable properties to adjust for differences. The market comparison approach is based on the principal of substitution, and is the most easily understood and most objective of the three approaches to value. It is considered the most reliable as it is based on the actual actions of willing • buyers and sellers in the open market. Conclusion The market comparisons indicate a range of values for the subject property. The range is from $86,000 to $100,000. The comparable properties are similar to the subject in quality, style and location. Adjustments were made for major differences, such as site/view, size, basement finish and amenities. Comparables #1 and *3 had views of the lake, which the subject did not. Considering all three comparables to have equal weight, i find the most probable market value for the subject is $91,000 as of January 2, 1991. The value being appealed is $84,700. The market comparison at $91,000 indicates that the assessment of $84,700 is not in excess of market value. Subject Photo(s) Appear__ ' Pa9e b View of Subject Front. 1 = rricrr . t --- •n• .�.w rL .L._ i _" 1 , • Ai > r View of Subject Rear r r s n; ys w :ter Sales Comparison Analysis Appeal * 18 Page 7 o 0 0 O7�1 0 O O 0 O O O s 0_-i E O 0 �O 0, •.O 0, 0 ,0 O 'L.: N „. N scr O m M Ow C-- a , 1 O co Z I + L N �i J p c U N N. co X n v .c 7 C11C CC N v x >, ' - V L ' Li Q Cl O ro r ... U co dI . JE R _ _ _. 7.4--C f'S 0—�M a .w �' u U C U_. t In Q C 0 ro 0 RI [ N. O' Cr L .0 a NI NL N—_y N.> (n 0 . 0-• O^ DI C7 V ' C) r i N 0 I CO ce E=1O C W Z IlA W C I 5- .. --N. N 7 U O •n •-• 7 C i '1 Ot to_.•+V N 5-C 0 0 r- 0`- NM W N. N Z ro OAF- [— 7 > O a, O to O0� I L --f U) N< c.7 -4 U) .--I to 0 r 0 0 01 0 E 0 O^ O 0 00 •N ,O O 0 j t—_, = 1 N CO COZ MI N cr, 03 + j 1 L S. J 1 Vl x o � (nn I IL c c US CO of G Y Z F+ m ."'� to i-14- 7 -0 VI ^ d �I CL ro O 01 -X N J E_ R. '_ __ a+a� . 0 0 In 0_ ,- r ro ro QI E N. �- 7 4-4- _C C X U C U I N.>.Q C 0) ro MI S. 7 N N; v �I ' � 7o C > a roS CT Cr rov C! ' N.E C-- MU to OIU) W WQ '0 CO f_-_ -_N U' UI ro L N N .0 E N Cl + ^I dE q __�T Z 00 0) > A O N.N. IS U O O -•-1 V us�' -CI•C COF-� N C7I.•+Q to W Ni Ni N.7 f M L . r N N _ 00 0 00• 0 00 001 005 U F 1 0 00 IO 0 10 10 CO v 00 = - .'1 t M ..0 L C 0)' ID ro ,,, E E Nii 3 L L O ro Z O) T _ - I I an C u v �D v Inv J _- __ _ ��____.=.Y c c S_ ..:I 7 U e'A M CO 0 0 In N p 1LL .w I G) _ O ro 0_ CU Z • m I(n 4-Y f U a'C t Cc4- na. Y { O 4- 7 4-I C a)�, 6 O L CO __ 4-, 4-.0 .0 E qI OL U J 0 V IZ C 7 E M O I Cr 0 5- O'U r VI .I 0) U r'1 _ L co .--I ro to UI 0 7-0 X C low 0) V K W C o ro L -0 CO'0-- _-.-I V t'n 7 U 0 4- + •r UD E E 03 V 0 c 0, 7 O) O t` 0 _ Y On- MI ' I 0 `i <S > 0 CT 0 iO Ip .-.7 L.L. N. N.Z N. .•-ICI CO COF-� V. J Z W tnl< U) .-I U) 8 �"'.0 i l_, Ul In, d li ,- ro C U 5- Z I.•+ V yj W V 7 '00 N C '0: O/> O I}} to `~ CCI) x 0.) W E',�O o. il ty m l V- U 7 4-t 41 OU L ^.0v U.ro C oO In Q i CT L• CN0) N t... .U w W O U CC f•._ __O In f_ :n O 7 L�Ox O� U O \ O P m �O N 11 Q V O a c C COJ c�- MU CD '-I Q $ C)t.n l CO N,N Z 0 Z .•-I•r_r___ E 11 A co{ v 0 U co g rg go O as `3' C A c rn io o " .S I E S. " C E C7 �' 0, u.E _ In z v' J `j w N ~ G o d a LL 3 - c n 4 y�y� Y a io _ = La_l O N N I U C o ('•) q j N O IC a C= N OI? r0 .N.. . ~ a O` O a O N V) O N T = U J Nm Q-I Oi d N Cl W C d .• N d Ci E N � - N = c �' E '^ E .S v t Ui S d A ri Q E L aa.) = cC J =C 0 U cu t9 N C 0 0 0 0 0 c co N U- a..� y L 7pp d a N 5 , O ^I ryroi a A O ed 7 O O A O N N N W li. O a) Z C O U 9 I. * In3IaI ifi o O .2'3 ¢ 2 6 m¢ u x c7 8� I Equalization Review Appeal 4 18 paQe 8 Actual Sale Assessor's Sales Price 1/2/91 ENV Ratio Comparable 41 $92,900 $88,100 94.8% Address: 8065 Timber Lake Dr. PID: 17-116-22 13 0021 Comparable 42 $96,000 $85,900 89.5% Address: 8079 Timber Lake Dr. PID: 17-116-22 13 0036 Comparable 43 $105,000 $89,600 85.3% Address: 8082 Timber Lake Dr. PID: 17-7.16-22 13 0040 This table shows if we are treating the subject property in a fair or "equalized" manner with respect to the comparables used. Dividing the assessors assigned EMV by the actual sales price yields the sales ratio. For the subject property, using the above comparables, we have the following: 1. Most probable selling price S91,000 2. Valuation being appealed 884,700 3. Owner's request $75,200 4. Assessors Recommendation $84,700 5. Indicated Sales Ratio 92.0 % (Assessors recommended EMV divided by the most probable sale price) Appea I g 18 Page 9 11/2 SEC. !, r. ffS ff. z Neighborhood Map 11) (1 2) N e GOVT LOT I a 2 a I ,O GOVT LOT 2 (14/,. :ma• mit,•11. ,„ r ,.. I•1 .,, . '. ' . 711, „:,..,,11:44 7 aormiff 1..... —71"--44..... isr4;" .----7,--41.4 ..„ ""...'..• 4..;:r. ' ,4,'41:- t 44 11.! str t:::,.... ... •—1; i r 4-4.:",41,••,,- • ...3 , ; . •. 1 "•• 4, ' 7,.- "1 ,+.‘ ;'•_„";.• t-•:::•:?:i• :**ut*,t ••-'.:',., ::11-; i,•ig.:*1•11; ....-- * • •=4.-..„4•,, ..1 4, • ',.•,. ;1,,,'—,..ie....--•. ''•*/,''''.1.7.,:..:g • Sl• ,';,,'i ,• - - ..,OINE _ ,... .7 ...d • /9.t. -I I .,••••1•••;la.......?.....4.,,.,•.: ir-••• , lit?„:1, •....,.. . 0•.t,ir.), -,. . 7 ,,„, ;,, . , - .._-±,-,•••,, d,- , • ... ,,., ,• . ..„ , , .. ii Roo sir or ,-.• li — TINIEZ 4 .--,4„4' j., ' "-* ••••..•• ,,', A ;I:„'.., '.:I ''... . 4 ql ,.;, • .",.l. , -., "LAKES •. '. ""-.` - ,.'..• '1:,. .,"' '4," .4. ... &V i .4"1 ....a,4-1-'*.q., .,• ,;11;,. Nes . ,,,,,,, . 1.41DIM Ili z.lBai .-C.4 ,-.,tic a. 1;.. J. 111;,,,,,,I) .... l'uo.„• •• „ 1 '. .. ''." , • • 1 ''' •2:', ..n, %II.. ' '''' I 7if . ., ,,,,''''''..., , i •;+1 ,.*. , 1 "101 , ''''" '''‘''34 rap "".... ' ''. '; 'i‘'.- ... 1 .•1 ', 1,1 I 1 •. 17, • , J....1..4 ,',L.„ ,.. "" ,./'T. , , * ?it 1..,• 1 • ,4, ' - ';;'' N. Jil.i • ' '4;,_ ' 4,i ,^ •••,/:1.-' elf 4 . • . i i --.• ,;•'.,1'1/4.„.../,',;.,,,‘,;,? , , ..'..,,,,'. ",:...... ..,a.....L.,...4 71.,.:.0.1.1,' i 4.,:\ ..:t" /, l' . .. .•., •4, 0,1 . •....,,,. z , . ., , t.,!...1, ? 0 271.. - -',,,„r,4;.4...4......0•„n'I;„,I,I,,/.,,"'•I:•4--,•\,,,,.''.'.;—,.,.•,:,.\•,—,_,,. ,,,.1..,.•.,:. 1-1.1,:,,•,t';-.-.,-',‘0/m,."..-.°'3Fi,\:o7•,,-:.ie:)\.0.;‘,f'-,r'.. ." . - • , / N i,,,$4,.7:•-,.'.,.7..!.X,r_,,.,W.7,,4':. . ' ,...,,., , , ,. I : IAfr: - 4 1=1 ,ks„ 4. '•r.d' .. '• if Subject', : - 14re''6 's • '' — .-. ' SMIREE- ?WI' .^. V.1.! '''." ei'ct, .... i 4j.' 1=1:11).. .4i'Ac:::Ei "''i • ' ''' t--- " '.. 60$ ,...., •"e ' ,-'V , ":?•',/ ' tx, .1 s 0- I — -4:r s-,.'•\ IA)4''% I... t!1:4 ';. I'.4„.4\'"":' _'.444- .-4 4,r15. 4.11,-0) ,"-ti c7:-I-V .' ' 1.,... s„; \c.;,,It. _,..v.‘ '',,„ :-. %„,.; - L.,...--4-`4''."--,,,, ,,,=•.e..,,,,, , ,,.' Alx....., 1.t, / „,;.• , , .z,\ ,,,--, . - ,„,,.: ,., , . .• ,,,...,%,_' Z,t P„, "Aro ,,, ", , , tir.r.' .. . :"'' .s..''i, 2 ..4.:.'" '1';.'li'' "*"',.....:rji.,'"I`ViT'7-Y...,L. •' *.j1,1.'11 .7• '1.-"-V -•%.-r-^' '" 1.'t' ulttC. .01 iv-'•••••••)1 1. / / —1—(y ni GOVT LOT 3 GOVT LOT 3 Mlit et (i-4--0 • i QI A ' PM SSP 1 soca Da' ,•(.4,, 1 ... — -. .-- — OURS*.0 t 4 ..;1.:41 11..{11 31'Ill 11/ LECE.VO .-.. wood• APPLICATION FORM Appeal $ 20 Page 1_ 1991 EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF REVI KEC'0 APR 1 PID>F 05-116-22 14 0051Appeals A2 Appraiser 'IS Date Recd. 1991 (To be completed by owner - please print) Telephone Home: 93'1-7051 \ ( Work: 5:.1�l-3$58 Name: P Address of Property: /l.'G8 ( yl/j<<,,,, K}1. January 2, 1991 valiation as it appears on the notice: S/Go.cou Terms of Purchase: 1310Y0 ? Date property acquired: /,ex Purchhse pprice: S Additions and alterations since purchase: {,t _ -� G�cc i� (.L e J.r� /� F.!/ pet in 13Sj Cost of additionsiind alterations: Is property listed for sale? er) It yes, at what price S (attach copy of listing agreement) Owner's estimated market value as of January 2, 1991 is: S , What are your reasons or documentation supporting the above s ated value?� (Please attach supporting information): ti,,�` pr, Ca,�►, k- /7(1rncS ir1 Ulcc-. Z lY 1), fe'ecic..el 1551 rirrl�� (Aaur�j in GCec. s�ign�'ature Owner Please Note: This form requests private or confidential data of applicant which is being collected for purposes of review by the City Assessor and the Eden Prairie Board of Review to assist in preparing for any appeals/objections herein. The submission of this data is not mandatory, however, in order to get an accurate assessment of the property prior to the hearing, such data is helpful. (To be completed by the Assessing Department) Prior year values: sand Building Total Property Class • Jan. 2, 1990 35700 99000 134700 RPc Hnmpctpad Jan. 2, 1989 34000 94300 128300 • Rpc HnmPctpad Jan. 2, 1988 34000 inRcnn 142500 RPc Hompctpad Last Inspection: 7 / 9 /90 Appraiser: John Sams Building Permits/Appraiser Comments: Sale History Date Source Sale Price Terms of Sale Comments 9 /Z/aL CRV S 135,500 Cash --/_/_ S Board of Review Actions 1) Referred to Assessor for review: 2) Assessor's value adjusted to : 3) Assessor's value sustained Staff Report Appeal # 20 Page 2 To: Board of Review From: John Sams, Appraiser II Through: Steven R. Sinell, City Assessor Subject: 16468 Manor Road South, PID# 05-116-22 14 0057 Property Description The subject property is good quality, 2016 sq. ft., two story, five bedroom home built in 1987. There are three and one-half baths, (the master bath having a whirlpool tub and separate shower stall), one fireplace, a walkout basement with 650 sq. ft. of finished area, a two-car attached garage and a 198 sq. ft. deck. The building site sits on a hill that allows a view overlooking Purgatory Creek. Appraisal Process The market comparison approach to value was used for this review. This approach compares the subject property with comparable properties that have recently sold. This approach processes sale prices into indications of value for the subject property by making reasonable adjustments to the comparable properties to adjust for differences. The market comparison approach is based on the principal of substitution, and is the most easily understood and most objective of the three approaches to value. It is considered the most reliable as it is based on the actual actions of willing buyers and sellers in the open market. Conclusion The market comparisons indicate a range of values for the subject property. The range is from $165,800 to $173,800. The comparable properties are similar to the subject in quality, style, and location. Adjustments were made for the major differences, such as site/view, basement finish, size and amenities. Comparable #1 and *3 have sites with views similar to the subject. Comparable #2 is the most recent sale. I placed the most weight on comparables #1 and #3 because of similar sites with views of Purgatory Creek and the minor amount of adjustments. I find the most probable market value for the subject is $166,000 as of January 2, 1991. The value being appealed is $160,000. The market comparison at $166,000 indicates that the assessment of $160,000 is not in excess of market value. Subject Photo(s) Appeal*__ 7J Page View or subject taciny east. I • i View trom rear or home Lacing north nIii,,, ��i .. I. ( I Ill I tia,...... 1 1 111 1 I;ha,,. ".1111 I '; 1 •. Subject Photo(s) Appeal* 20 Page 4 View from underneath subject's deck facing east f.; / 2__ 1 View from underneath subject's deck facing northeast • II _ Sales Comparison Analysis Appeal 120 Page 5 EJ _ I olo o I o o I i ',---r---_, E Oo (Do o 0 0 0 0 0 Op - _ N O.-1 10 N. M a O N CO M 7 N N. ,�_ 1 W ‘.0y O (AL= L C r..... - 1 1 1 + • 1 U1 + 1 J E' B 1 - Y a N { cc a�. t J`• `I� Q44- .02) 0.• E.0��I i n. m > .� al m . v, I mar 0 maI< ' j O Jl�r_ M �a N U �� E{I QC '4-4- 'U — Co Er- c m a a' a N. - If • fl .0 N "' L -• J J 7 co O m I a.N 4- ,a a 0-0- 0 E, - c L E N. •�I W O I .-1 CT 0 Co 0_ CAM 7 J L. VI N Cr a n - 10 N a -N. LA_.co 6. .-. W W .-.C0 N.-1 0 0- CS a LA C ...se.0 + - I I i �� Nl.-IZ W W Umm 0 0 Z a o • — 1 M .-13Z i i i 1 OO 0io 0 0 0 O us O O M ti In O CO CO •,-.4N O_- = NI M -C CD a N ~ N W aE ani c 4-L .0 a 0. .CI a < L. >'J o0-' Z L. N ' V•O . 44 • O▪ c a a' c .-a .- i '- r (A us r 4-a� 0 L"s c i V m LL.¢ a ^. a a to t0 0 n M N R 4- Y 4, ff O In (U (U t- U c :C 7 4- J 7 m O m •^ la 10 Q tU '- E l CT I 10 f.00E_Hm Iw O . C O' 010 _,_-.-.N 70 i 1')0- C a 5 { \. L.—r-. I O Z 4!I 40 W 4J .-4 C7 •-' 0 S Cr a U 0 3.0 + m J C== _ tiZ W W V 10 Z _ N. In CV O O X -' iU) _ t +} oIOOIo aa0O l _'1 F O InmIn In U,.-O N N. V L 0- = i ‘.0 ‘.0 ....4 .-1 a N .C • CU 4-, O r_ 7 10 l i In Cr SD 10 O 1 `° Z 2 10'- l 1 + + 1 + N U ...i Ina J CU C f J'I—� 1 •__- 3 a J 0 on o. • .0 0. VI 4-,4 (.- U 0_ 4-,1 01 ZO. A m N LA 4-, U • CO a a) (a 0CS•!Y 0 r- - -- 4- m 0 . l -01 I O .0 i' i' U i CU In U ¢ .-.- .- ,- g M • us N N J♦, .ti, • CA+4 N r-. U CU O a 10 Ia a n - o m a-•r a Y 4- 0 E 4k 10 N I J •Cn C CT 7 0 0 7 CO O m n N C U VI Cn• O- a O \ o-o- a- a' Cr, O._ -_.r L 0)Cr a Y.0 + ' a) 10 m IS .- V Z NI W W W W .-1 C.'J - N O 4- 10 a a-N C '- n N. 0 0 U 0 a 0`� 1-0 LA_ 14 0 0 Cr 0- O CO 2 N 3 2 y-. a I I U) _ Z 1 W W N 2 a O_. i - •L a s • 1 n N a �^CC • u • 4•1 i•1' E a - 6. -0 is L CU 0. E 1 0 3 C a Nn U m� I.-)0 I+ + 4-,.0 N o w0O ..Oa U - -- 4- V1 C N J- I tY n • N ID • m .on U i\ > A ' a O . rC U a 4. 7 7 CO ,r,. _ _ \ T O4- U> 0 M 10 a ~ - O O i i tom _ N U1 4- .. i In 0- a C cc0-.0 . .- U----01 0 0 CU CU m 0 -010 VI C Y a-, H 10 a •.. _ 0 0 > > 01 0 ., .0.C) 0< Um O I" E In 0 CT LC, Z .-1 a LAj • ~ --?v)I.N 0_ t- -1 O10la la ~I UI 1 OCO'C C7 117IN...11] { 3 CO -U _ aI` I C C O Ui U U c1' a.,°i O E. Q W g E. 0 N ~ f- C1 C Q U - • >. I U 7VOWO 1J � i2 ��I ; Q � -- • � ^ � La aCJ na - aoOO O A a� _ � �[ p _O � n co _ TI -I O p a W OCA O ODU � CU W— r NN ..• NCla0 mW ou 62C i. '= a, J E n .g c v NN Ty 'o . $ a u o NINA I NNca ` is 00m0JU a�'U= U_ ndn E Ip dlmIC p ¢ m U O JoIO il O q U a ¢ o m f 1 2 CI�QQ 4 g 1 O i 2 a Ng UN • SISA1VNV NOSIHVdWO3 S31VS • Sales Comparison Analysis Appeal s20 Page 6 1 I 0 o l¢ , E -.Mill a----7 i on billibilk_....:_---=7- • a dl o1 o 00 00 0 O O U) 4)O .--1 )O Q1 • O 21 U) O .l0 N cc) 4) O --1 Q' N Q1 u) N • O -= r w as C.-.-. N4. l+ + 1 + + + a- gtin El E :I LL _. r lw y, ea , • as 4,a-, 1�� < V p m' as U V • 7 R • ro Q1 1� > L N 4- ro 0 O-0 !Y Ul U N as 4-as ^++ U 0�n ¢ i .- E O Q'•0 ro 4- E • m• r-- U U) O -. ro co 1�.-o m - Q1 N C 0' co N v 0 a—_ a`� C a1 0 0 7 7 OD o _ J CO L N Cr 3 vc E=-1 of 0 � o c CYo- a. o - I.-. V4- 0 R N C } t0 ro ro •,-, Z .--,C7 .-• W La,. (A n l CO 0 7 U O C 0 0 X .--.f N I Ls_ j F 1�1 O 0 0 CT N V 0 Z Z ---1,-,,---1,-,,: I Z CD W .--.c0 Z .--. X O O OO O • O O O O O R O O 0 0 1� Ou) 0 70 O O 1� 01 l0 P') 0'O co CD O LWCV .--) v CO 1 k0 Z C so{`-= N . + I 1 + N .--i W Ul.--s t= J R + < O 021 r LL .0 U) N a ++ to in Cr CU - _:^ a U -0 M s . -.. 0- > U > p m t� 4- ro 0 .1.1-, O S.- U) U d 0 -- N • N 4-1 4-4- I, .0 U 0 0 Q a••' R 0- ++ so .U 01 L .-- E V CO N C 0'0- 7 a+ If) U) U) U)N U) CO ro C) I6 co to-o m I!) - i N N 0- 0 E C') L E- C -.0 4- 7 7 CO 0-- _.N N4- V R R N U) N 1 V U) R M .- U 0 O 0 C 0'Cr 01 0 N 01 0 7 U CO CO C .).0 + t0E N_-1` LL Z W W .--.. _ . 0 0 0- 10'‘.0 0 f- • 01 .--1 Z O W .--1.--1 Lc) Z .--. R 0 X •g Q• U s _ r _ o • ft, -. I D I > , � ma vI ? i < o < ii3 Cc, • o f o g.„. _4 o C . • W ` NiU C .0 UNC F ep O O Es, -adEYCU _ W r. ?I - 0 7 < _ CCO C73 > Cm A U U a-V W- Npi " _ N ac? p o o 9y C mE N o .S Uu `_ m - gp' -. ? t ] - . 5) g A . a 76 DE a 'o i " 7 a i o m o = u $. o'2 o y i o , `a- ` 2 = u E < a Na C > NUC ..1 NC 0 < U < 5 Cm¢ , ,_ a� W S 5 g 2 ,S 0 U • -SISA1VNV NOS111VdWO0 S31VS • .• Equalization Review Appeal if20 Page 7 Actual Sale Assessor's Sales Price 1/2/91 EMV Ratio Comparable *1 $165,500 $160,800 97.2% Address: 6568 Mistral Lane PID: 05-116-22 14 0044 Comparable *2 S152,000 S134,800 88.7% Address: 6544 Mere Drive PID: 05-116-22 14 0002 Comparable *3 S178,000 $169,600 95.3% Address: 16458 Ashby Lane PID: 05-116-22 13 0049 Comparable *4 $167,000 $155,600 93.2% Address: 6435 Here Drive PID: 05-116-22 13 0042 Comparable *5 $146,500 $135,500 92.5% Address: 16444 Manor Rd. S. PID: 05-116-22 41 0025 This table shows if we are treating the subject property in a fair or "equalized" manner with respect to the comparables used. Dividing the assessors assigned EMV by the actual sales price yields the sales ratio. For the subject property, using the above comparables, we have the following: 1. Most probable selling price S166.000 2. Valuation being appealed $160,000 3. Owner's request S136,500 4. Assessors Recommendation $160,000 5. Indicated Sales Ratio 96,4% (Assessors recommended EMV divided by the most probable sale price) f , Neighborhood Map .40 mw r ANT Appeal # 20 Page 8 .. . AI irs ,k.„... ..., ... , ... ,ilitifilm. i . .,, , ,. .... ., .. ,..... . _ ,,,,,,01..,,,.,,, i\k. ,.. .....,, i N,, • . ‘ • AN - glylikr T_4-,,,, c;tz er\ OM , i 3. 10 •We "Oil -,',- 'Wit ME I ' ' 1114, • Ay;.._: - a P& 7.--- ... liTintielallef5,Nrk • -• , - -------Ci r__._. carcia., .--.... ,, ,. 0114,4450iffira liliro. f -.45..-. . • 1 ,Egirw :41agairoinat4 ,,, il ,. ..-Eaptgatalmir .1,,,iiit.;, 1. m A i PA1.#...1 ..... eu....inilet pp. MO 1:1:"'di N‘ lizstli I 4' ,;„-Erii:, clelbillir; ' 1 n P pp ,... . ... . . .... El 2 •lilt ::,.., g S•T ! 111 ..trinitita ovii, 42,,iii . 4tit,„ to, , . , , Subjecb et d, 4=11 . 'A., .•-, . 141:10 ,:".1- 2 •'AP'', o. . 6 .._ . . , A., In, I its . •7., . J. :p......' •. o' 4 to . 10.• . • ... . ' tiso . . • ..., 1 V ''' & . 0,4', ',I, ';,, 11111 illi , ...Iiiii i , 7.' in ..A'.11Fil ; 1 ......!:• .IS i ".." :„ ik,7. ,I4 ".•''''' ''' . et. .VS 22 ! a. , A , , :1\ . ,,,i,t . :'.,.., t I i, ••:".. p• ,. .•:.n ..".,.,. • , s •,it........0_1410,,-,---.....,_,...9.. •ct.ID 0. . , : WI iniOiS 6, 10 -•.'--...." •:: „ IL ad NI / ' I ti, I is. n OW I :•1". .I.' . • ••,•••0 l A a::'* (•:,"" I; . I i..,tT jrat , ...Mil I IR Z', ,.,a r• 00 ciD • s 7 .-• - ..t """;,:, , .. ..c. ;11911 Et infil ,',..: ,..- ' .-;8.,,,,,,,. -::!..' • . u.., .. ..:,'' ...V.' .: ..1,,,.,•?. .f ,A,4•"' ,*.' "" v.,.,-% . PPP-o1-1y91 14:45 FPi_JM MHPRIOTT .ul-'P r 7u *rBS��HGy1e1��75411 P.02 • APPLICATION FORM Appeal # 25 Page 1 1g91_1'DEN pRATQrr anARD OF RCVT5N • �� OECD APR 1 1991 pips 11-116-22- 44-0021 Appeals S. Sine7� • Appraiser ate Recd. (To be completed•by owner - please print) Telephone Homes • Name: Marriott Corporation Nork,L3flfl Q 64 Address of Property, 111g1 Viking Drive January 2, 1991 valuation as it appears on the notices S 000 Terms of Purchases N/A Date property aequireds Cooed 2/11/89 Purchase prices SfliA Additions and alterations since purchases Cost of additions and alterations, Is property listed for sale? 110 (attach copy of listing agreement) I! yes, at what pri0e S -- owner's estimated market value as of January 2, 1991 is, Sa,4f_nnn What are your reasons or documentation supporting the above stated v lue? (Pleae attach sgpporthfn Eormatio ), The assessmentdoes no retiiect the of the rem e6taCe using the income annr�h See Attachments A Signature of Owner • Manager.of Property Tax for Marriott Corp. Please Notes This form requests private Or confidential data of applicant which is being collected for purposes of review by the City Assessor and the Sden Prairie Board of Review to assist in preparing for any appeals/objections herein. The submission of this data is not mandatory, however, in order to assessment of the property prior to the hearing,get an accurate Deloful g, such data is (To be completed by the Assessing Department) Prior Year values, La do Jan. 2, 1990 1.1gn_nnn �#�`ILMI dotal Property last 7 Jan. 2, 1989 -- -nln-nqp R inn nnn fnmmarrial Jan. 2, 1988 .hLA Last Inspections / / Appraiser, Building Permits/Appraiser Comments, Sale History at Source Sale�r_ iea Ter s of sal. --/.—/_ Hoard of Review Actions I) Referred to Assessor for review, 2) Assessor's value adjusted to , 3) Assessor's value sustained s Appeal #25 Page 2 • CZ APR 1991 Marriott Drive rriolt Marriottn CorporationaHeadquarters Tee Washington,597 D.C.20058 Internauonai Headquarters Telex:89597 MARCORP BHDA BY U.S. POSTAL SERVICE OVERNIGHT DELIVERY March 28, 1991 City of Eden Prairie Board of Review 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie ., MN 55344 RE: Parcel I: 11-116-22-44-0021 Address: 11391 Viking Drive • Unit is 31-1T9 To Whom It May Concern: Please be advised that Marriott Corporation as manager of the referenced property wishes to appeal the 1991 real estate assessment of $8,200,000. Attached is the required application form. If additional information is required please feel free to call me at (301) 380-8664. Thank you in advance. Sincerely, aedilt LL-144-- Heather J. Reichardt Manager, Property Tax & Appraisal Dept. 938.01 Attachment /hjb • cc: James R. Vinson, Dept. 938.01 Appeal # 25 Page 3 RECO APR 1 1991 ATTACHMENT A Application for 1991 Eden Prairie Board of Review Parcel ID 11-116-22-44-0021 Courtyard by Marriott Basic Data: Owner: Marriott Corporation Reasons supporting reduction in FMV for the subject property: 1. This property opened in 1989 and is still in the start-up phase. It has not yet stabilized in the marketplace. As can be seen on Attachment D, Property Components of Value, the capitalized losses that are incurred during the start-up phase of a hotel property as well as pre-opening expenses are considered intangible personal property. This value component should not be taxed as part of the real property of the subject. 2. In order to show the impact on net operating income of both the income attributable to the Marriott tradename (goodwill) and the FF&E (furniture, fixtures and equipment) present at the property, please refer to the attached stabilized operating statement (Attachment B). Deductions have been made for the market cost of management (and the reservation system) provided by Marriott as well as for reserves for replacements (both FF&E and short-live building components) . See Attachment C for actual historical income and expense information. The income attributable to the return on the original FF&E investment is deducted also. The capitalized value of the resulting net operating income attributable to real estate only is $4,228,000. 3. The current FMV assessment on this property equates to $55,035 per hotel room. The Residence Inn FMV assessment is $44,900 per hotel suite (also under protest) . This is inequitable considering the fact that Residence Inn suites are somewhat larger than Courtyard hotel rooms. Although the Courtyard property is newer than the Residence Inn, the difference should not be a nearly 25% higher assessment. 4. Nationally, the hotel industry has suffered a severe recession over the past one to two years. Because the FMV assessment for this property was not reduced in 1991, the assessment office has not taken into consideration the general economics of the hotel market. Heather J. Reichardt Manager, Property Tax March 29, 1991 • Attachment B r��-ltttvvAppeal # 25 Page 4 Minneapolis Eden Prairie Courtyard 77 AP 1 Unit 179 1991 Date 29-Mar-91 Initials RJR Assessment Tear 1991 Stabilized Statement of Income 8 Expense Stabilized as of January 1, 1991 Rae/Occp. Rate/ADR 149 / 65.0%/ $57.25 Amount Ratio Occp Rm Revenues: Rooms 2,023,800 75.5% 57.25 , Telephone 150,200 5.6% 4.25 Food 8 Beverage 491,400 18.3% 13.90 Other Operated Departments 14,100 0.5% 0.40 Rentals&Other Income 0 0.0% 0.00 Total Revenues 2,679,500 100% 75.80 Departmental Expenses: Roams 507,300 25.1% 14.35 Telephone 35,400 23.6% 1.00 Food&Beverage 395,900 80.6% 11.20 Dther Operated Departments 0 0.0% 0.00 Total Departmental Expenses 938,600 35.0% 26.55 Unallocated Expenses: General and Administrative 330,500 12.3% 9.35 Base Management Fee 93,800 3.5% 2.65 Residence Inn Systems Mgmt Fee 67,000 2.5% 1.90 Marketing 109,600 4.1% 3.10 Meat, Light and Power 136,100 5.1% 3.85 Repairs and Maintenance 141,400 5.3% 4.00 Other Unallocated Expenses 0 0.0% 0.00 Total Unallocated Expenses 878,400 32.8% 24.85 Fixed Expenses: Real Estate Taxes 400,000 14.9% 11.32 Personal Property Taxes 0 0.0% 0.00 Licenses and Permits 12,000 0.4% 0.34 Equipment Rentals 1,500 0.1% 0.04 Property Insurance 10,000 0.4% 0.28 Total Fixed Charges 423,500 15.8% 11.98 Reserves for Replacements 134,000 5.0% 3.79 Net Income to Real Estate 8 Tangible Personal Property 305,000 11.4% 8.63 Capitalization N01 to Real 8 Tangible Personal Prop. 305,000 Add Back Real Estate Taxes 705,000 Less ND1 Attributable to Return on FF&E: Replacement Cost Hew per Unit 8,000 Times Number of Rooms x 149 Cost of Replacement 1,192,000 Depreciated to Mid-Point of Useful Life x 50.0% 596,000 Times Return on Investment x 12.5% 74,500 (74,500) Equals NCI Attributable to Real Estate before R.E. Tax 630,500 Basic Rate of Capitalization 10.0% Add: Real Estate Tax load 4,9% Total Cap Rate 14.9% Real Estate Value Indicated S4,228,314 a.aa. S/Roam $28,378 Appeal # 25 Page 5 i : ;8 o mpvmOmmm= o o >o m< gm n ]� m0 ^ OmmAZ=AC C rD-mD-si8P WoOA �A9CO ZNi \ p p LL a�m� RR R ynn p Z pp pCpC p>p O 9N N+ b p a nanam e 3 TIl p „ ;it ZN1 H m N r AS T m O O 1g� 1f�1 m T C w>m m v a A AN H•f F i mit AAV g -ri gt TV J O 9 n Apo n f? Jw am N m s>Ayp 111 ti N �(iJ�O m V . la lm( Ti F.N m a y.. % N It - O N '. 2. n :tt i F CN II + I 3d LZ. V CC1yy N N .O a P nl v yE -- P w o O RV pop %�`r t 'if., Oup.opp v p.Vw N �.pp-[ M W O O A d O P O II O + O P N P N P O N W A N O ON N O O O O o vV CI 0 V O °common oor'o ONO+ OOAPOO >< NV it tlx '5 .1x ; xk.N 'i ixfi g 33 s_ I�I o n' p o W O O O O O O m V O O W W O P o O+A R O O A W O Pp. ~ g€ h`" s 82C2w8N a oT.wwM t, 81= a of gsb r' .iQ ad To 11 liO N + N W P V�VI+N N NoP O NNi i MN •O+ viP. nnZ "NN O .O O P+N� M O jW + o-..AOW .i e »; 1 V A OOPONOPO IIp2yyP OO+.OWS O ONYIO W O+2 51V11 OO pOp w n DC W 0 0 0 O O ggO W .0 O N N N A V O N O A Q_ gO O W O O V N w ,O °lry Li x kKH x#x .i agxxx" x ag O. i a`fxx N ,03 II + .VI RN 11 W ,0 000000.0 O O+WNO P O+=W OONWOA S 3V I w tow o•oo.SSik g oaN°,1S :1 oo�_1 k Si+'wog sli il 11 <in q.� N -..P u O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O O O O O Ogg oat n 0 0000 0 0000Oo Oi5 la s !l e mmmmm A A % p% _ % mAA N O OOjpA mmaoAAA% A AOnnm A RA p0 gN NR N ii n m ,/ 2... 11 % 2IC2I22%% % IACIOIAC%2 A AAA% A 222%22 MR N L Io ryp4, �l 11 4, 2" 1ii II .0 0 0000000 0 00000 0 0000 0 000000 O V 1621 II m m O m A m m k O o i& riA AFAAAAA A mmm A AAOA S AWAAA 00"3 IP < O K_O II r Jo 0~] mmmm m% AAAAAAAAAAAmmmmmmm1,R4 % %A%JAAIe A AOAAA A ACAA A ApyZIZ ir I Attachment D Appeal # 25 Page 6 COMPONENTS OF VALUE - OPERATING HOTEL PROPERTY Total Property Entrepreneurial \ Value Profit \ } ✓ Corporate Goodwill } } A ) Intangible Going-Concern/Business ) Personal L Value: } Property a. Pre-marketing } U b. Pre-opening salaries } c. Absorb initial losses / E / Working Capital \ / Cash on Hand } } C Inventories } } Tangible Personal O Supplies ) Property } S } FF&E } T / / S Development Profit \ } } } Improvements } } Real Estate } (Assessable Value) } } Demolition/Sitework } } } Land / HJR Marriott Corporation 3/91 1 Staff Report Appeal I 25 Page 7 To: Board of Review From: Steven R. Sinell, City Assessor Subject: 11391 Viking Drive, Courtyard by Marriott PID# 11-116-22 44 0021 Property Description The subject is a 149 room, good quality, motel. The project was built in 1988, is three stories, has two meeting rooms, a restaurant, an indoor pool, surrounding a courtyard area. Appraisal Process The income approach and the cost approach to value were used in this appraisal. The sales comparison approach was not used because of a lack of sold comparable properties of this type. The income approach is considered reliable when adequate income and expense and capitalization rate information are available. The cost approach tends to set the upper limit of value and is most appropriately used when appraising new or nearly new properties. Conclusion The income approach indicates a value for the subject property of $5,460,000. The cost approach indicates a value of $6,410,000. As this project has just completed its first full year of activity I've placed some weight on the cost approach to value but I've placed more weight on the income approach as the subjects income appears to be at a stabilized level. After considering all factors I find the most probable market value for the subject is $5,800,000 • as of January 2, 1991. The value being appealed is $8,200,000. The review appraisal at $5,800,000 indicates that the assessment of $8,200,000 is in excess of market value. My recommendation is that the value be reduced to $5,800,000. Subject Photo(s1 Appeal* 25 Pane 8 Subject Photo �� 1 11f t. .yl T } ...3" i,�t�3'6 S .�y µ Appeal # 25 Page 9 PID # : 11-116-22-44-0021 Building Address: 11391 Viking Drive, Eden Prairie Building Name : Courtyard by Marriott Surveyed By : Steve Sinell Date of Survey : 4/29/91 Appraisal for : Board of Review Occupancy: Hotel Floor Area: 85,499 square feet Number of stories: 3.0 Class: Masonry Average story height: 10.0 feet Cost rank: Average/Above Average Effective age: 3 years Cost as of: 4/91 Heating and Cooling: Hot & Chilled Water 100% Units Cost Total Base Cost 85,499 57.32 4,900,803 Heating & Cooling 85,499 16.22 1,386,794 Elevators 85,499 1.88 160,738 Sprinklers 85,499 1.61 137,653 Basic structure cost 85,499 77.03 6,585,988 Extras: Fireplace includes heatalator 3,255 canopy 1 ,000 22.00 22,000 gazebo 164 27.00 4,428 pool 14x52 728 31.00 22,568 whirlpool 5,000 paving 52,500 1.00 52,500 Subtotal 109,751 Replacement Cost New 6,695.739 Less Depreciation: Physical and Functional <2.0%> <133,914> Locational <20.0k> <1,339,147> Total Depreciation <22.0%> <1,473,061> Depreciated Cost 5,222,677 Miscellaneous: Land 1,190,000 Total 6,412,677 Rounded to nearest 510,000 6,410,000 Cost data by MARSHALL and SWIFT 149 hotel rooms, 2 meeting rooms, restaurant, indoor pool, 2 elevators. Land value of 51,190,000 is 56.50 per sq.ft. The actual project costs were land and building of $7,471,752 plus $1,212,248 of furniture, fixtures and equipment for a total project cost of 58,684,000. 4 Appeal # 25 Page 10 INCOME APPROACH Courtyard by Marriott PIO: 11-116-22-44-0021 1990 Ruerage Occupancy s 6S.90X 1990 Ruerage Oaily Rates $S7.19 Total Gross Revenues $2,613,982 less Departmental Expenses - 814,904 less Unallocated Expenses - S31,SS1 less Fixed Expenses - 19,709 Net Operating Income $1,247,818 before Real Estate Tax, Reserues for Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment (FF&E) or Management Fee less Management Fee - 156,839 (6X of total gross revenue) less Reserves for Replacement of FF&E - 130,699 (SX of total gross revenue) less return on FF&E - 121,225 (actual cost $1,212,248 x 10X) Net Income Attributed to Real Estate $ 839,OSS Capitalized at 15.37X (10.OXORR,5.37XETR) / 15.37X = Indicated Ualue of $5,459,044 Rounded to $5,460,000 �0-:77: 1U•Uy rrtUll tUtN rRH1R1E TO ' 1800638810836962 P.02 • APPLICATION FORM Appeal # 26 Page 1 1991 EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF REVIEW pip* 11-1I6-22-43-0003 p�(p S. Sine11DAPRI Appeal* Appraiser Date Recd. 499/ (To be completed by owner - please print) Telephone Home: or.kNames Eden Prairie Hotel Co./Lessee: Residence Inn by Marriott, inc. Address of Property: 7780 Flying Cloud Drive January 2, 1991 valuation as it appears on the notice, $5,749,0OU Terms of Purchase: Date property acquired:August 1988 Purchase price: S * Additions and alterations since purchase: Cost of additions and alterations: Is property listed for sale? No It yes, at what price $ (attach copy of listing agreement) owner's estimated market value as of January 2, 1991 is: 34,600,000 What are your reasons or documentation supporting the above atate4 value? (Please attach supporting information): See Attachments * Took over leasehold interest of prior management company. Signature of Owner Please Note: This form requests private or confidential data of applicant which is being collected for purposes of review by the City Assessor and the Eden Prairie Board of Review to assist in preparing for any appeals/objections herein. The submission of this data is not mandatory, however, in order to get an accurate assessment of the property prior to the hearing, such data is Jlelpful. (To be completed by the Assessing Department) Prior year values: d Building Total an Property Class Jan. 2, 1990 h 1.089.000 4,66(.000 5.749M00 Cnmmarrial Jan. 2, 1989 1.037.300 4.437.700 5.475_nnn Jan. 2, 1988 943,000 4_034.00O 4 4.977.011 Cnmmprcial Last Inspection: / / Appraiser: fnrrynPrial Building Permits/Appraiser Comm entsr Sale History Date source Sale Price Terms of Sale Comments —/_-/ g --/ /_ S Board of Review Action: 1) Referred to Assessor for review: 2) Assessor's value adjusted to 3) Assessor's value sustained , - Appeal # 26 Page 2 AECD APR 1 199t Marriott Drive a /��`rr�� Marriott Corporation Washington,D.C.20058 International Headquarters 301/380-9000 BY U.S. POSTAL SERVICE OVERNIGHT DELIVERY March 28, 1991 City of Eden Prairie Board of Review 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie , MN 55344 RE: Parcel I: 11-116-22-43-0003 Address: 7780 Flying Cloud Drive Unit #: 57-116 To Whom It May Concern: Pleas be ae7ised that Marriott Corporation as manager of the referenced property wishes to appeal the 1991 real estate assessment of $5,749,000. Attached is the required application form. If additional information is required please feel free to call me at (301) 380-8664. Thank you in advance. Sincerely, 41-Cat. Heather J. Reichardt Manager, Property Tax & Appraisal Dept. 938.01 Attachment /hjb cc: James R. Vinson, Dept. 938.01 Aarrtott Heather I.Reichardt Manager Propen,Appranai Marriott Corporation Marriott Drive Washington.D.C.20058 301/380.8664 301/380-6962 FAX 1 ,^,ppea1 # 26 Page 3 'e0 APR I 1991 ATTACHMENT A Application for 1991 Eden Prairie Board of Review Parcel ID 11-116-22-43-0003 Residence Inn by Marriott Basic Data: Owner: Eden Prairie Hotel Company Lessee: Residence Inn by Marriott (by lease agreement, Residence Inn, a subsidiary of Marriott Corporation, has all control over payment and contesting of real estate taxes) Reasons supporting reduction in FMV for the subject property: 1. As can be seen on Attachment B, the economic indicators for this property have been decreasing or stable for the past several years: a. Occupancy percentage has decreased from 81.0% in 1987 to 71.0% in 1990. b. Average daily room rate has only increased 3.9% over 4 years of operation (a compounded annual rate of increase of only 1.29% per year). c. Gross revenues have decreased approximately $200,000 over the past four years. 2. In contrast to the decreasing economics for this property, the fair market value assessment has increased annually at an extremely high rate: 1987: $4,602,400 1988: 4,740,000 +3.0% 1989: 4,977,000 +5.0% 1990: 5,475,000 +10.0% 1991: 5,749,000 +5.0% These high increases in the fair market value placed on the property by the assessment office do not fairly represent the value trend experienced by the property during the period 1987 through 1990. 3. It is the opinion of the Marriott Property Tax Department that this assessment should have remained the same starting in 1987. The actual operations of the property have not demonstrated the increases that the assessment office has projected each year. eather J. Reichardt Manager, Property Tax, Dept. 938.01 March 29, 1991 Appeal x 26 Page 4 m0 O mOmOmmp77 i 2MVAi O Or$jQ m O �OOmQ+1pm pK § 2. tO in N N _ Cpp rpm y/ .g O nv a.vg V= liev- _ m N)y X ry ry p�N p Cp p s C --i 2 q ' a pr a Ha0 2 " g" g ' n a ma .= N naiad N ,<, ag o-. o IlG S gmH mzmN_�pmm ' v =_.a ' ram- m « 3 OM1saxy12111 ar ammm —gm 1• .1:..R CH J N 11 N W _ N N P ^T II V O P Nd m ppNNW p.. OD V B N F •m V O N t• t•g N ••0 P P N F N • ]C ii+ 'p w OVPV Pvv NP+pPp �0O PN - N +P W �.pp _ C 11`O P o+000Nv N OP%OOe W .WOn00 4N1 OO,000N 00 m p V ryO. II V .p p J V[ 11 N N OOOOOON N• •0•6•.•0.•0 .p Zt o- O+WOOF x ggym "mn V Op OOOOOo.O �Oy p pp Op VIWFP VwV Ppp+Opp-., :W:1 O+NOOv N 11 N m O:OOOO= W ON+ W V NOP Op♦NOOp r '. ]NH M.:n a 'n A _n O p N N fmi �O yyO!1 PSSn��Ndppp Fd pWVp��n�0 A r N F V N r M ^�b SIP P OpWpOOVNV O 0^INOV O p000 N o.p�F�11 P J n O N O O V O i b O O �p�� 11 pp ^4^ 4 V :: p0000p000 + p.VPPO pVV Opn pOg C F7'NN pO 8O yN NP N g "N N JI NJf N JI Jf� iW! NiOI Jf Jmf N NNNiP! N NJf JNf it ilN N �fN 1 ^^ 11 N p m 000000N + ONFFV V ......0Z % O++000. RN n N N qO P omoog Fn OW+VWiO N NNOP N O V,+OpWFp I ' V 11? O ,i3K II Pi 4 V Oe Oe N P N N NdP N NdV 0 cow yNN0.COF N OAV004A V ApV!,1 P v.o S g Op i� :!!::n N vp ! kON N ON Ni N LN Nf f x NC NW00 Pp gxx �H tRo3 N. V. •C v h 6 O pOO0000i n • • •p••v m• ± u^oPl Op+pppNpFpFp'r�p av p II N o"VOOOF P OPOpNO N+OV g OPF000 3' N' � N NNN N NpN N •FN NO 1O O m Oo p OgNp pOmVp O + W ppp V 0.0000, O .6 O. NO 0.N00+ 0.4 ,A� I +NN^ + NOON0006 W OPn.ANO pp00c1 O+W00$ . ppp p . p o p pR m] N R Ka !pN `O OOppNOOON P OpFNWN n O+O+ po p p O+NOONN `•N 0 W O%m 8882 W p P 2+V O a N p 0 N S O V N O O P .1 Staff Report Appeal i 26 Page 5 To: Board of Review From: Steven R. Sinell, City Assessor Subject: 7780 Flying Cloud Drive, Residence Inn by Marriott PID* 11-116-22 43 0003 Property Description The subject property is a 128 unit, all-suite motel. The project was built in 1984, consisting of 17 two story buildings (16 residence buildings and an office building) with eight suites per residence building. This project, like most all-suite motels, has no bar, restaurant, or banquet facilities. The subject is located on Flying Cloud Drive. This location gives the property good access from Highways 494 and 169. Appraisal Process The income approach and the cost approach to value were used in this appraisal. The sales comparison approach was not used because of a lack of sold comparable properties of this type. The income approach is considered reliable when adequate income and expense and capitalization rate information are available. The cost approach tends to set the upper limit of value and is most appropriately used when appraising new or nearly new properties. Conclusion The income approach indicates a value for the subject property of $5,800,000. The cost approach indicates a value of $6,070,000. As this project has a five year income history I've placed the most weight on the income approach and little weight on the cost approach. After considering all factors I find the most probable market value for the subject is $5,850,000 as of January 2, 1991. The value being appealed is $5,749,000. The review appraisal at $5,850,000 indicates that the assessment is not in excess of market value. Hy recommendation is that the value remain at $5,749,000. Subject Photo(s) Aaaealt 26 Page 6 Subject Photo 4,...- _ � .. fly i 1 i 1. Ai Appeal # 26 Page 7 PID # : 11-116-22-43-0003 Building Address: 7780 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie Building Name : Residence Inn by Marriott Surveyed By : Steve Sinell Date of Survey : 4/29/91 Appraisal for : Board of Review Occupancy: Motel Floor Area: 94,240 square feet Number of stories: 2.0 Class: Frame Average story height: 9.5 feet Cost rank: Above Average/High Effective age: 7 years Cost as of: 4/91 Heating and Cooling: Warmed & Cooled Air 100% Units Cost Total Base Cost 94,240 61.05 5,753,352 Heating & Cooling 94,240 6.73 634,235 Sprinklers 94,240 1.51 142,302 Basic structure cost 94,240 69.29 6,529,889 Extras: Fireplaces 112 1 ,000.00 112,000 Replacement Cost New 6,641 ,889 Less Depreciation: Physical and Functional <7.0%> <464,932> Locational <20.0%) <1,328,377> Total Depreciation <27.0k> <1,793,309> Depreciated Cost 4,848,580 Miscellaneous: Land 1,226,000 Total 6,074,580 Rounded to nearest $10,000 6,070,000 Cost data by MARSHALL and SWIFT All suite hotel/motel containing 128 suites in 16 residential buildings plus 1 gate house(office) building. The land value of $1,226,000 is $6.50 per sq. ft. Appeal # 26 Page 8 INCOME RPPRORCH Residence Inn by Marriott PID: 11-116-22-43-D003 1990 Ruerage Occupancy : 71.80X 1990 Average Daily Rate: $68.00 Total Gross Revenues $2,406,223 less Departmental Expenses - 461,983 less Unallocated Expenses - 678,672 less Fixed Expenses - 6,431 Net Operating Income $1,259,137 before Real Estate Tax, Reserves for Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment (FF&E) or Management Fee less Management Fee - 144,373 (6X of total gross revenue) less Reserues for Replacement of FF&E - 120,311 (SX of total gross revenue) less return on FF&E - 102,400 (cost estimated at $8,000 per unit $1,024,000 x 10X) Net Income Attributed to Real Estate $ 092,053 Capitalized at 15.37X (10.OXOAR,S.37XETR) / 15.37X = Indicated Ualue of $5,803,858 Rounded to $5,000.000 APPLICATION FoRit Appeal = 27 Page 1 1991 EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF REVISIT RECO APR 5 1991 PIDS 11-116-22 42 0041 Appeal# ✓ Appraiser SRS Date Recd. (To be completed by owner - please print) Telephone Home: Work: 439-7812 Name:Donald n, f?romen C.O.D. Kingwood Mcunt agent fnr Metropolitan Federal Bank, fsb - Owner Address of Property: 7500 Market Place Drive January 2, 1991 valuation as it appears on the notice: S 2F4,5nn Terms of Purchase: Foreclosure Date property acquired: Purchase price: $ N/A Additions and alterations since purchase: N/A Cost of additions and alterations: N/A Is property listed for sale? yes It yes, at what price slso.00n (attach copy of listing agreement) Owner's estimated market value as of January 2, 1991 is: S18n.Dnn What are your reasons or documentation supporting the above stated value? (Please attach supporting information): Recent letter from Shenehon-Goodlund-Tavior. Inc. updating 10/31/89 appraisal. See market information attached Signature of Owner Donald D. Bromen Kingwood Mgmt, Managing agent for Owner Please Note: This form requests private Or con idential data of applicant which is being collected for purposes of review by the City Assessor and the Eden Prairie Board of Review to assist in preparing for any appeals/objections herein. The submission of this data is not mandatory, however, in order to get an accurate assessment of the property prior to the hearing, such data is • helpful. (To be completed by the Assessing Department) Prior year values: Land Building Total Property Class Jan. 2, 1990 32000 260000 292000 Commercial Jan. 2, 1989 69000 277000 346000 Commercial Jan. 2, 1988 69000 241000 310000 Commercial Last Inspection: _/_/ Appraiser: Building Permits/Appraiser Comments: Sale History Date Source Sale Price Terms of Sale Comments / / S /—/_ S Board of Review Action: 1) Referred to Assessor for review: 2) Assessor's value adjusted to : 3) Assessor's value sustained • • Appeal #27 Page 2 11C'D APk 5 Qo ' KINGWOOD 1991 � MANAGEMENT PROFESSIONAL REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT (612)439-7812 P.O.Box 2010•Stillwater,Minnesota 55082 April 5, 1991 Steve Sinell City Assesors Office Eden Prairie City Hall 7600 Executive Drive • Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Mr. Sinell: Please find enclosed our application for our appeal/re-evaluation of the real estate taxes for the property we represent at 7500 Market Place Drive, Eden Prairie, HN, PID # 11-116-22 42 0041. Working towards the same goals, "`-, Donald D. Bromen Managing Agent for Metropolitan Federal Bank, fsb a I Appeal #27 Page 3 _.-'_, SHENEIION-GOODLUNDTAYLOR,INC. 6255 DULUTI E STREET,MINNEAE'ut.1S,M1,155422 612544.98GO January 15, 1991 Mr. David Wicklund Metropolitan Federal Bank P.O. Box 2687 Fargo, North Dakota 58108 RE: 7500 MARKET PLACE DRIVE, EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA (Update Appraisal; Original Appraisal Dated October 31, 1989) Dear Mr. Wicklund: In accordance with your request, we have made a preliminary study of the above referenced property as of January 10, 1991. As we discussed, my evaluation of the property deals solely with the land and building and their value as real estate. The preliminary study consisted of a • thorough inspection of the interior and exterior in order to obtain accurate information as to its size and condition. Although the above referenced property is unique in many aspects, a comparative study of other similar property sales was undertaken to ascertain how the market in general values this type of real estate. The comparative sales are enclosed for your review. The subject condominium is occupied by three tenants. The leases are short term in nature, i.e. 5 years or less and have the implication of market value. Market resistance may occur since the unit is not free-standing, i.e. a condominium unit is located on the second floor. Based upon this preliminary study, it is your appraiser'a belief that if a complete appraisal were made, the final most probable market value estimated is $180,000. You have indicated that a this letter would be satisfactory. You should clearly understand that the value is based on the Sales Comparison Technique only. This approach was the only approach considered because it is upon this basis that office condominium units are sold. If your needs should change and a full appraisal report would be desired, we would be happy to complete the remaining research that It would necessitate. Please feel free to call should any questions arise. • Very truly yours, • S RUM N-GO DLUND-TAY , INC. z. Donal E. Taylor, MAT, SRPA REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS • ANALYSTS Appeal # 27 Page 4 Is .M.ca va 1J•,.Y r,IKO rGLlNI no P.3 ADO c ' 0111 b Co V N P W «�1+ IZ hn nIn Ob Mu n1 s Nm 1-. b KP (/� G U 00 a 60 : O Y r N y p a .'Y :. tl .Ti .H GbA ebA N wsx t w p- H 4e tt hb Pn t �Y 3.A V N G 8 C M .O n ." O H n pp A •i A P . M «Fy• L. 0p A 2 Y O V. P tfp 2.P .1 72 « A < N M A n V pNp • t M n O O PN N N 1• N •• O 0 O yV P W A O If.l Gl 8 & 8 RP gN P pSA. upupnh o$ I. 6 ao $ I� • o O O o' O u c u oa c t�' E• E Q 4 8 8 R ERN - 8 In >♦ » is � B B 1 3 S 2 Clizi, g C n • S 2 N x G(ii M. N 0 UP 01 w O O I': p O Kw 2 n (V Oa O . t 0 r • r r V V s m N In. TC 1y g • P N b .D O O o O . ll.l M Y M N w M . . .yN n , N N N m .o W v W P N N O N O N qN F. q> u o o - o u o o - . 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 �m w M P N to': ! F N :4 y. p v wu`� AWWOwNN N O N P. .g Q Pn Q U 2 .� 2 ? ✓ w . o u CO A- n MN • N4 mP 0 Ow. 8N 0. O OaML v v '/4 O N • 1 It M Appeal # 27 Page 5 rm- Vl P O W N Y • PI n In O I N H E p m Ea v PO y P 6 0 r� o �^r 1% tU+I. o o u V2 tl m :M o Px 0n O n ~0 ft+ �Q • " M.l vol.". yay n r ti G h a„ 2 r'_ Ii dLC'8 APR g A V V m P " ".`4 a1 a 1+ y '�''' p ��J� M O V! PM F. FR H pr K Y M 4 A A 1� n N Y N M N a V N F.N Y O yN W O M O N\IV WWO Nv NpN 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1H2•1 N N N N - �ii N N 'P 2 N V M N N N 1i N i N N .f H 0mrm 0 0 0 $ Ys 0 $k�1 P k N m N N W N H\E V N I +� + + + I V I P A W A O V.O N o N A ZU yy U 0 N ' In + +I . vI 1 I V Y � U r tY ' m n1 8N uN o O 8 I I L L L I I - I R 0 a a u la � 2 0 a I 1 i u I 1/ I 1 1 IF O 0 �1.. + :i v v .. U I I 1 5>N N W H W . M N W O W 2` i i i I I i i i 1 I! < + + ti I U o i i 1 I 1 W V. 1: a N. o o U a a u a u u " a sx P A � WYNW WAWN q\�II ' W • MOW i Staff Report Appeal ! 27 Page 6 To: Board of Review From: Steven R. Sinell, City Assessor Subject: 7500 Market Place Drive PID* 11-116-22 42 0041 Property Description The subject property is a 3,715 sq. ft. office condominium building that was built in 1984. The building is of good quality wood frame construction and is finished with three office suites surrounding common rest room and coffee facilities. The subject is located on Market Place Drive which is south of Valley View Road between highways 494 and 212. This location gives the property very good access to the freeway system. Appraisal Process The income approach, sales comparison approach, and the cost approach to value were used in this appraisal. The income approach is considered reliable when adequate income and expense and capitalization rate information are available. The cost approach tends to set the upper limit of value and is most appropriately used when appraising new or nearly new properties. The market comparison approach is considered reliable when adequate sales information is available and is most applicable to properties that tend to be owner occupied. Conclusion The income approach indicates a value for the subject property of S212,000, the cost approach a value of $247,000, and the sales comparison approach a value of $225,000. The sales comparison approach shows active market information, including an active listing for the subject, and is considered reliable. The income approach is based on the subjects own income and expense information and is considered reliable. The cost approach is considered unreliable, because of the over built office • market, as little or no current cost information is available. After considering all factors I find the most probable market value for the subject is S215,000 as of January 2, 1991., The value being appealed is $264,500. The review appraisal at • $215,000 indicates that the assessment is in excess of market value. My recommendation is that the value be reduced to $215,000. Subject Photo(s) Aaaea1t 27 Page Subject Photo r ed---�•.. 1 Appeal # 27 Page 8 Income Approach 3725 sq. ft. @ $15.00 $ 55,875 Potential Gross Rent less 10% rent concession - 5.588 $ 50,287 less 10% vacancy - 5.029 $ 45,258 Effective Gross Rent less operating expenses - 14,900 Net Operating Income (NOI) S 30,358 (Before Real Estate Tax) Overall Rate 9.0% Effective Tax Rate 5.37% Capitalization Rate 14.37% Net Operating Income $30,358 divided by Capitalization rate 14.37% Equals $211,260 rounded to $212,000 Appeal # 27 Page 9 PID # : 11-116-22-42-0041 Building Address: 7500 Market Place Drive, Eden Prairie Building Name . Surveyed By : Steve Sinell Date of Survey : 5/1/91 Appraisal for : Board of Review Occupancy: Office Floor Area: 3,725 square feet Number of stories: 1.0 Class: Frame Average story height: 12.0 feet Cost rank: Above Average Effective age: 7 years Cost as of: 4/91 Heating and Cooling: Warmed & Cooled Air 100% Units Cost Total Base Cost 3,725 65.03 242,237 Heating & Cooling 3,725 16.17 60,233 Basic structure cost 3,725 81.20 302,470 Less Depreciation: Physical and Functional <4.0%> <12,098> Locational <25.0%> <75,617> Total Depreciation <29.0%> <87,715> Depreciated Cost 214,754 Miscellaneous: Land 32,000 Total 246,754 Rounded to nearest $1,000 247,000 Cost data by MARSHALL and SWIFT Appeal 27 Page 10 Sales Comparison Approach Comp 1 7490 Market Place Dr. 3824 sq ft Office Townhouse Eden Prairie, MN Built 1981 Sold 10/89 for $300,000 or $78.45 per square foot Comp 2 4952 Lincoln Drive 1000 sq ft Office Condo. Edina, MN Built 1983 Sold 6/90 for $72,500 or $72.50 per square foot Comp 3 5831 Cedar Lake Road 5316 sq ft Office Condo. St. Louis Park, HN Built 1984 Sold 2/90 for $340,000 or $63.95 per square foot Subject 7500 Market Place Dr. 3725 sq ft Office Condo. Eden Prairie, MN Built 1984 Offered for sale as of December 20, 1990 for $225,000 or $60.40 per square foot. Metropolitan Federal Bank foreclosed on the property and is now liquidating. Correlation After adjusting for differences in time of sale and location, the sold comparables support the asking price of the subject as the most probable value. Indicated value by the sales comparison approach is $225,000. 1 Appeal d 27 Page 11 • \ \;\ • • _1OIL ,' r` • -m ASSESSORS DATA EXCHANGE PROPERTY USE Office Townhouse COMPLEX NAME Lake Ridge Office Park MUKIa"NAmE Eden Prairie ADDRESS NAME 7490 Market Place Drive -... 14 11-116-22-42-0005 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION //''CC VtfARXET DATA C Year Built 1981 `'` Sale Amount S 300,000 Condition Good Sale Date 10/16/89 Size of Building: Terms Cash - WD 1st Floor Area 3824.S Ft. Buyer School Service Employees #284 Gross Bldg. Area (G.B.A.) .3824 '-9q.Ft. Seller Gary H. & Jacoueline R. Frana Net Rental Area (N.R.A.) e3824') Sq.Ft. Sales Analysis: Type of Construction Wnr(cl'fram., Gross Rent Multiplier Ceiling Height Sale Per Sq.Ft. G.B.A. $ 78.45 Type of Use: (�i `f Sale Per Sq.Ft. 1st Floor $ 78.45 Basement None\ �� Sale Per Sq.Ft. N.R.A. $ 78.45 1st Floor Offices-1 Capitalization Rate Upper Floors Rental Data: Mezzanine Gross Annual Income Owner S Office Area 100% Vacancies Occupied Heating Package units Expenses S Air Conditioning 100,1 Net Operating Income S Sprinklered Nn Rent Schedule: Elevators Nn Zoning Office Land Area 7650 SF + cnmmon area Utilities-fklAll utilities ASSMT. YEAR 19 89 EMV - LAND S 76,000 BLDG. S 281,000 TOTAL 357,000 COMMENTS: Proierty was on the market for 2 1/2 years. School Service Employees/284 intend to occupy the property. Information Source: CRV/Norm 8-lorness/Purchase Agreement/Closing Documents Submitted By: Steve Sinell CONFIDENTIAL Date: 1/12/90 Q� Appeal : 27 Page 12 reik e-� , sc pp�'nn ~ rt _'—sue-_�_= .—^ --c,c r -may _.. J' -2,.L * _; ... a !''. '!£L, ASSESSORS DATA EXCHANGE . PROPERTY USE Office Condo COMPLEX NAME Prime Professional Center MUNIC NAME Edina ADDRESS NAME 4952 Lincoln Dr. PID 0 30-117-21-23-0038 CPROPERTY DESCRIPTION MARKET DATA Year Built 1983 Sale Amount $ 72,500 Condition GOOd Sale Date 6-4-90 Size of Building: - Terms 18,125 cash + 54,375 @ 10% for 5 yrs. 1st Floor Area 1,000 Sq.Ft. Buyer M. J. Madden Gross Bldg. Area (G.B.A.) 1,000 Sq.Ft. Seller TCF Bank Net Rental Area (N.R.A.) 1,000 Sq.Ft. Sales Analysis: Type of Construction Wood frame/brick veneer Gross Rent Multiplier Ceiling Height 8' Sale Per Sq.Ft. G.B.A. $ 72.50 Type of Use: Sale Per Sq.Ft. 1st Floor $ 72.50 Basement None Sale Per Sq.Ft. N.R.A. $ 72.50 1st Floor Office Capitalization Rate 2 Upper Floors Rental Data: Mezzanine Gross Annual Income $ Office Area Vacancies Heating GFA Expenses $ Air Conditioning CAC Net Operating Income $ Sprinklered No Rent Schedule: Elevators No Zoning POD-1 Land Area Condo Utilities-Trackage All except tracks ASSMT. YEAR 19 90 EMV — LAND $ 13,100 BLDG. $ 67,900 TOTAL 81,000 COMMENTS: Information Source: CRV-Records Submitted By: MJS - Edina CONFIDENTIAL Date: 71 Oct 90 4118, Appeal s 27 Pale 13 TC �+]�L KJt ,IjYy p. ,•_ 1 ';` ! .4 L± • r^i'Y'cur' Y • • o�s < y r �+.Jf.... s._!arr�i • • 3..° .••, „ s.1"::;•••4 yr'r,r, ".. , it,_ -, ASSESSORS DATA EXCHANGE PROPERTY USE Office Condo COMPLEX NAME Sunset Ridge Business Pk. MUNIC NAME St. Louis Park ADDRESS NAME 5831 Cedar Lakee Road PID # 04-117-21-34-0024 \� Condominium #446 Unit J D V PROPERTY DESCRIPTION MARKET DATA Year Built 1984 Sale Amount. .% . . . $ 340,000 Condition GOOd Sale DDa /90 Size of Building: Terms :13\000 DN- 290,000 CD @ 10% 1st Floor Area 5316 Sq.Ft. uyer\\ Gross Bldg. Area (G.B.A.) Sq.Ft. ller Net Rental Area (N.R.A.) t. \�\��Tr s Analysis: Type of Construction F .Il• 1_ Gross Rent Multiplier Ceiling Height iN1111031, Sale Per Sq.Ft. G.B.A. $ 63.95 Type of Use: G ` Sale Per Sq.Ft. 1st Floor $ Basement Sale Per Sq.Ft. N.R.A. $ let Floor ts.....Mra Capitalization Rate g Upper Floors '' Rental Data: Mezzani Gross Annual Income $ Of ice ea Vacancies Hea .A. Expenses $ Air n tioning Yes Net Operating Incor. $ Spri ed Rent Schedule: Elevators Zoning DDD Land Area w, of ownership Utilitiesxllrsxkagex All ASSMT. YEAR 19 90 EMV - LAND $ 108.800 BLDG. $ 316.500 TOTAL 425.300 COMMENTS: Information Source: CRV & Files Submitted By: Jack Pasternacki CONFIDENTIAL Date: 4/26/90 APPLICATION FORH Appeal #34 Page 1 1991 EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF REVIEW q�y,,� PIDtt 07-116-22 14 0049 �C( APR Appear Appraiser !L Date Rec�w 7 41 (To be completed by owner - please print) Telephone Home: �ry___., i//7 Name: �f/p/ � f// Work:bpie ' `"` '��' L • Address of Property: 7350 Lf/1//' 'r Zan January 2, 1991 valuation as it appears on the notice: $ i-/ Terms of Purchase: 7 �f� Date property acquired: 1,0,7' Purchase//pri e: $Additions and alterations si ce purchase: grvitf/W pjv. �7�� Cost of additions and alterations: /y—Oe Is property listed for sale? it,iQ It yes, at what price $ (attach copy of listing agreement) Owner's estimated market value as of January 2, 1991 is: $ 7,7i-'01V What are your reasons or documentation supporting value? (Please attach supporting informaton) es he a��a state r • / - �/ �litG.c �j i,., ii i i -42 — i/f' '"j /may. _ ! 1 / -�ZC-LL4c /7I�4in Ytcer-Gie", Signat f Owner Please Note: This form requests Q, ior of applicant which is being collected rfor purposes fofereviewntialdbyathe City Assessor and the Eden Prairie Board of Review to assist in preparing for any appeals/objections herein. The submission of this data is not mandatory, however, in order to get an accurate assessment of the property prior to the hearing, such data is helpful. (To be completed by the Assessing Department) Prior year values: Landb Building Total Property Class Jan. 2, 1990 57000 81000 Res. Hmestead Jan. 2, 1989 24000 57000 81000 Res. Homestead Jan. 2, 1988 20000 55500 75500 Res. Homestead Last Inspection: 9/_/88 Appraiser:Barb Cook Building Permits/Appraiser Comments: Sale History Date Source Sale Price 11Z/Zj/�7 CRV S R77()(t Terms of Sale Comments --/ / 105� WIl — — $ Board of Review Action: 1) Referred to Assessor for review: 2) Assessor's value adjusted to 3) Assessor's value sustained , Staff Report Appeal * 34 Page 2 To: Board of Review From: Lorna Lisell, Appraiser II Through: Steven R. Sinell, City Assessor Subject: 7350 Williams Lane, 07-116-22 14 0049 Property Description The subject property is an average quality, 912 sq. ft. split entry, 3 bedroom house built in 1987. There is 1 bath, the basement has 220 sq. ft. of finished area, and a 2 car attached garage. The building site is a flat cluster lot, not wooded and located on a cul-de-sac. Appraisal Process The market comparison approach to value was used for this review. This approach compares the subject property with comparable properties that have recently sold. This approach processes sale prices into indications of value for the subject property by making reasonable adjustments to the comparable properties to adjust for differences. The market comparison approach is based on the principal of substitution, and is the most easily understood and most objective of the three approaches to value. It is considered the most reliable as it is based on the actual actions of willing buyers and sellers in the open market. Conclusion The market comparisons indicate a range of values for the subject property. The range is from $99,500 to $103,200. The comparable properties are similar to the subject in quality, style age and location. Adjustments were made for major differences, such as site, basement finish, size and amenities. Comparables #1 and #3 have sites that are similar to the subject, and have a minor amount of adjustments and I placed the most weight on those two comparables. I find the most probable market value for the subject is $101,000 as of January 2, 1991, the assessment date in question. The value being appealed is $81,000. The market comparison at $101,000 indicates that the assessment of S81,000 is not in excess of market value. Subject Photo Appealt 34 Pace 3 o View of subject front _ - - 14 } Sales Comparison Analysis Appeal ♦ 34 Page 4 -ti o 3111 0 O O n EI O O C,--y I O O- in O = i O R- - + 2 O,O=- I W O — _ Cn >t io j -C 1n V) A i r_' a+ I� o 7 Z L •,-, 11---. d LLB O O lm- to 4- U a +< • U N CL L+ I OU n C aJ 7 CL .- I.- A E 4- Q L+ Y th a C-M O.'U aJ O a a 10 L '0 a Cs.CO O n3 U C i0 O L U CA C CT O a-+ > a0., O a in O a N + as ~ w O > O.-- -- 0) L V L - .ti J E C) z MI\ O In Ow O w ¢ LD _ CO U Ua - _ V 0 L U 0 I� in I U Oc CD O Ot - I.__ LL N C f IOI O 00 O Ol0 O E O O 00 . .i O O O N R N N M N O- 4 N I C•') N n O g -D w O ti a , a I I I I L _ CC ID O—1 - a.>• -Ca I ¢ 3 C 7_ aJ 61 CQ 4-4- U d L am; O L $ C) Cam- E. 0 - __ a L P.C.C.- 0 U 01 2 a •4- i.., 4- N 4- U Cu C aJ•.-100 E C -. a to a n V E O 4- 0 4- to I QJ C 7 O C. 7 7 aJ 00 O a N N Id L I., S- L_I ce Cn 0 � O a CT > CS O - ini fT g , 0 „,_______ „,, Z --I W N W ¢ �--I LD F -..,U0 to L Vf • + ..J E1 ] o+ _ OI In a to +��-• • I I V H� i ,_ ,_ L I` V r+1 O 0 Cl U W I Cu UI V) i lam' - + C I W N N I d l— I r I II OO CDO 0 0 CD C7 _ OIO 0 OW O CD CDOI p NI l0 CT N CO CO I t.0 w' O+ O C + I 2 CI I I I I _�___.. _ __._. _ 11 _ __.___.. _.. _._____.R.�.__ -___ ___.._ I CO W O ~`flI ¢ Y LI I - •_ 1 ¢ >+ L. in U M Vl CL =0 0 ��T C O L 0 0_ L O O b .-`g+ +-4- a C'X a - �- v - -_ 4- i N a-+ N f X I O U ..-—r+ 7 CL _ 4.., i-I 4- a - r i .- a N 00 •4- ¢ to .0 U V C C t• O.) 2 a O CD C • U U C 0 a aJ aa a ID V a CO Cr ICr A lO i Cn C - C ++ O > CO O m N U. a N aJ • ,�J E 0 0 O \ C. V) Cr > 01 0_- -- U. U a C' +r. o . z Cl)w O w Q r+C7 A co U u -. 0 E rts_ V' CO Ib Z In N I U '4 C7+n 0 N N 1] .-In. I• V 'w C H .- L L JZ`` a-+ g .--I I7 .4- MI U +� LAJ N O4 __ __� 4-N a-+ +- a dI 0 Cl aJ. a aJ 4- C � o aI OCT CT L. O CT E_ N • aJ a Y COI CICe U— I- a s la A N C'O U J +> O O.- .I CO L ++ L L n la $ In In -. L I a a E 0 In u-,. I.In W \ aJ N N a CO 0-- __CT ^ a •C C N n..- aDa 12 O_fit CD >I' > > CT OI a NO U 0 L In it F. _ ¢ Q ¢ '1 U' v -•N Q O z �v •__.✓'il tni U .----_-I .0 I 11 I (TN .,.N I Cf=t E O 1 I 1 ; 1�! o O y I U �I I0. Iw I I coI O 1 E n .0 u, N T LT._ u i m • In a to C :N G C ¢ sr_ C- O ...rr,, U d C O O'J N ? LL N N a U O E' C cd 0 7 0 `a c0 N N -2 7 N - _>.i`2I_o ? o Klan a .o o C = a Cm 2 Ci7 t`_i w- d Cr ... _ O C N O C:J C.J J a, C N N V d y N VE'. d N J O C N I4 7 t0 N C > E p N O I C g V O 3 2; g L-j Q U Cn a o ¢ is o v o u 7 o B o �v o o p� g p p [� y 'o ¢ dCnd C) � CnUIO J C O QIU < CL C.7 m2 LL S U' 00 an Ct ON Z C O 3 'SISAIVNV NOSIHVdWOO S31VS • .. Equalization Review Appeal * 34 Page 5 Actual Sale Assessor's Sales Price 1/2/91 ENV Ratio Comparable *1 $108,000 $90,700 84.0% Address: 17604 Lorence Way PID: 07-116-22 14 0003 Comparable 42 $124,500 $91,500 76.5% Address: 17712 Lorence Way PID: 07-116-22 14 0012 Comparable *3 $104,000 $86,200 82.9% Address: 17637 Lorence Way PID: 07-116-22 14 0037 This table shows if we are treating the subject property in a fair or "equalized" manner with respect to the comparables used. Dividing the assessors assigned EMI/ by the actual sales price yields the sales ratio. For the subject property, using the above comparables, we have the following: 1. Host probable selling price S101.000 2. Valuation being appealed $ 81,000 3. Owner's request $ 79,000 4. Assessors Recommendation ; 81,000 5. Indicated Sales Ratio 80.2% (Assessors recommended EMI/ divided by the most probable sale price) T. 11 I 5'). ,L, Appeal # 34 Page 6 • . 2 Neighborhood Map 01) , \ i N1119 NS 1, [ ...d../ , .., _ .. .... . . .. •, .,,,...„....; , , ..1,,,, 7...,\,;:, ,;;,,,, A te., ,,, ,,‘, il .., j":.• .., ,,,...,,.,,,", --mien 7-41.1-L:3 ‘'''''' ,V, . ; ' • • '1!'"" • ...*. • ''. 1 s '!" . ---'.•• :--..-7.: - . , ,, ..i.,, I ', . .. _ . '' 11 li;:::i.„?....,,,....r.,,,:t) ,,;* Vit; :1.1..11,:.,V, . ,,,. ....„,t NI .;-......%•.1/111$ ! ::14 d ,,5,,1,••;'NI 4_164;., . -,.• , , ,. ,.; -- ,..„, •.6 ''''‘• cif" *'T-N,'V .4,;'.'' ,' :":::....--- • ; i' ilAt- ;,.17t...1..„1,113eitt :,.. ,,,,f(1,7.-ii-. ,,,-1- ,-ciciewirdefc.1.7 %S.,,x,,‘,..-.....,,..,,,. •—•,. ... . . . . ,1 (4. 4., ("' • XIV,..-•(7. 'Jo z M.;• '%IVAIL'7'` ''., 151,4"."' . .tf.,!..s, VIII/\rd •. „.. . d is,:. „:, . !d,d ::30:111_ir.,4,.1",...:,t MI t\Uf. '... ..\-,,4,, , ... lig4'"-:-.'' -,, '44_ ..--; 424114 ,,,"... v-w • )11L. . ,.!•:,..,:iffes,, .,,,:,,, ,:.,-,„1, --• r , , , •,4,, IN, ,:..'' .`",',.,',.:, '-!"---1 (---,1,,,,, .. . VA ,,,,-, .., , 4, ......,..,..."1,., ,,.. ,.. . :• . ,4, 4. .. , ..iin••••-4 ,t",- ;tr.' 7' : 1'11,1,.‘,•7,L.'' t ' L., !.. . •• .. 0."... ..m.i 17.i. .. . ...411• t.,i ,...4,_•.........4.....' ,.i 4:)...i, ..-• ... ..0,,, • , .'-'- i . 4,,47," ,1* „; ;..t„ - ...!,7...•,,,,.:. •,.., J 0":1:'4'. k ... • ' . •-- .1 .; (41 ••••,,,• ' . , 4 'i.k k• _ VIEW tn.*.r:.._N3,ii- — ,•-\!., • f.11 • ".g.A.- ,. .. •., , • • . it • . ' ,t. . 44,(...!- ------1-•:." ' ,:.„ MI. 0 ., .-..p.: ..., • c.. 1:7.",-;,,-;-,......._•• .•c,., .-.• . N." ' ,• • c- • , -.• tifitilly 4721" ...t.,-..___., 0-:E.--‘-' .3 .,,,I. rif."1." • -. • ..:., . .„..:•- i.s......$ 1--. .PO — ----.4-,4.. '.*''---- . •./ •:'. ' . ..7.,, .4%-•: !4:1;_=4^ ; ..n,II, ...r.: ••. IJ • - ''' ,.i'—',11,t— -6•!!," 1.1 '",. •. • -••:!•;11 . ••••,. •1.. ••••::•••r: ,• r..:,.tt.:?,:::: ''' "" .4' '';''Pi !4?..:•'...'-°"' '—'1. i .." . •,. ••14.r, . . :.,,,,,,,, !, "*"..../„.••. . . . '( • 20 .,,,','"Hr...c. .. ---4-i• "-:-..:,.' ' '77 .. gill i r.-, ,. ,,,, ,,,w1; .-,:- ,. 4.4.-:c.:4 ,--,, ../ ,.., ,„. • TIIILLI ,:,k, -\. -..--- - • -, t •' /gor.r" g;<1''-;'''fri . MI1114444 ail . . ,, ..-.. E . , --,0.3:44,,,-"G'.`..''', ..• ,, -' MAN c- • ILI • 4.. ' ''',IPS .i>, OM .41... e • 4.i.t. , ';;' ::‘'1\-.-''' ''',, '.\'7:.. • -0.il. - '1 •:"41 7- ,.4Ait .:•'. .';. :'r''. . ...jig At& 10 4.12:t0 n-A- rim 5 • •::,, :,4 .'• '''''- t AntL:i ub ect, .- OEM'..,.., iii : .2•.,... .. :. ,:,, .;:, soe - - ,r.. I AIN,4:41A:IS' ..,` - . - , . ..• ,--,;. '' 4,"*. sok• Itifiat.-.. eit.4 -.• ir .11,,,, .,,, _.„-.„ . . . .-i. . ,....p, -- • .„9 . mdigtmll .. ., • ,,, .,;.,,,,,„....• ..,• ..i...,.,.,..., ,. t...,-- gmutor.,,,,... 4.1,1 ,F... ,..,, .„ ,.,.........„ ,,, 7.<.- .. ,,,,. •-••,'1212, . . _ • I 1,41..(V ,n••• „d .`.” •••,••f t. ..0. t d !Se .....< r. I':,,r''' r.,••••.',,:%,,. ..„,-%,,. .,1. '. ir...'unNTRe—'"A'_„ . ...:.-7.12:771t,,,,i2...,........ -..___:. • PKOI N, 4' At 0* ‘8; .. 1 • --' , STORY SERER DISTRICT TYVIORRT NETREPIN COUNTY',iTIVESOTA ifel.i10 - - -.-•- EOM OISTRICT FINRYORRI TAIERSKO DISTRICT DONNOARY BURE,U CR PUBLIC seR,ncE DEPARTIENT CC PROPERTy TAR ,y1,y1-‘97 INCRE4ENT 801.00ARy ,TTO PU&IC RECORDS SORNET oivisio4 1 — - --- T CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 91-120 3 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING 1991 ASSESSMENT 1 WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statute No. 274.01 the Board of Review met; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the 1991 assessment be accepted. ADOPTED by the City Council on Hay, 6, 1991. • Douglas B. Tenpas, President Board of Review ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk 1 i1 x I M q 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager FROM: Craig W. Dawson, Assistant to the City Manager DATE: May 17, 1991 SUBJECT: Agenda for Council Workshop on Community Development Beginning at 6:00 PM, we will look at a number of community development issues. The workshop is designed to discuss current policies and review the development approval process. Among the specifications for this study session identified earlier this year were: 1. "Hometown Downtown" 2. Development review and approval process 3. Supporting and encouraging development 4. Southwest Eden Prairie development The Economic Growth and Development Committee of the Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce has been invited to attend this study session. It is not intended that this be a "joint meeting"; rather the Chamber Committee may be called upon or ask to participate in the discussion when appropriate. A number of reports follow as background for this meeting: a) Introduction to Hometown Downtown concept from September 1987 b) Memorandum on Urban design framework for MCA c) Possible tools for facilitating development of an Eden Prairie "downtown" d) Guide for the Eden Prairie development review process. e) 1990 Development Summary Department heads involved in the development and construction processes will be present. CWD:jdp Attachments if Home - Town ti :.:::.J:�......�:. . :M. Downtown" ,:ti:}.yi;M:i•.✓f!:!:! i:i:i J:Y::ti::.: J:•J'Jy'•r'J'fJ**1=Ma f �'�.•�{p�.y: yyS y�..nrrSv.�nIL•11..••.CC.1C y'��:'}L:LM1J V J. YJX y�yy yyY.f.LJ.�v.vn•.•ry�.;.][�.al •gp}{` v.•L'��{ ..�!.\:{'JJJJ:YJt.Y.i N..1.•:..y:•: �y fyS�j45 ;} Ly 11 RYi i 1 IY:, .. Z. L I= kt 1.Can• .,�� `pl V. gllarj \/�� i ��j A'-1lL-Jrl�i� i :ti•: :v Fv A' 1 v_-:,:___.-?„,,,-— :": ' - - dmir—mr."•-• 7-411: .- ;::: nc J4 .-AI) -7 ''b / ' 0 . ♦ :: +.:M;$;t:.:. .::.:e:* -%i:'.J'.J'}ir'}v:ri.v...}y fv'.yqr.�Ser+vvLvyv ?{ b'YrGL�'AY gyp-Al4Y•yJy'h': Jm:•;J?iMJy}YJe:Y y. y f• y. i • JTh1?aB % Cnnr�erf� for • Eden Prairie • • Downtown Development MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Chris Enger, Director of Planning THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager DATE: September 21, 1987 SUBJECT: PLANNING, PROCESSING, AND BUILDING OF AN EDEN PRAIRIE DOWNTOWN From its inception, the Major Center Area (MCA) was planned as a "regional retail center," or, "constellation center" to the Metropolitan Area. The primary area of the MCA is about 1,000 acres in size. This is a huge commercial area, brought about • by the intersecting of major highways--Highway #5, Highway #169, I-494, and future Highway #212. The general development pattern of the MCA is fairly well established, now, due to the number of individual large areas of development and Planned Unit Developments now underway. These include Hartford-16D acres, Vantage- 110 acres, Wilson Ridge-60 acres, Super Valu-12D acres, Gelco-24 acres, Eden Prairie Center-12D acres, Eden Glen-18 acres, Preserve Commercial Area F-22 acres, Preserve Commercial Area G-30 acres, Castle Ridge-16 acres, MTS-160 acres, Edenvale Business Center-1DD acres, Northrup King Farm-200 acres, Menard's area-B0 acres. What the community of Eden Prairie is lacking is an identifiable community "downtown." The Community Commercial shopping centers (Prairie Village Mall and the Preserve Mall) provide commercial areas for parts of the community, but community- oriented retail and services are not located in an identifiable area for the overall community. This community downtown (town square, village center, or main street area) can become a reality within the MCA and the two areas can support each other. This special area could evolve on either side of Singletree Lane, anchored on the east by Eden Prairie Center, and on the west by the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area and Park Plaza Development. The area could be made up of five to six major properties, totalling 80-100 acres, and, after a successful start, add properties. The property owners could join together with the City to form a property owners' association for the planning and implementation of a special downtown area. The group could jointly decide on goals, including land use, architectural and site design, and public features, such as streetscape, parks, plazas, etc. Land use and design, then, could be developed for the area by jointly formulating a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Planning/Architectural firms. The Planning/Architectural consultant could develop a general land use plan which would be oriented toward Community Commercial uses, supported by Regional uses. The consultant chosen could develop an architectural theme for the future buildings and common architectural elements to be incorporated id each design within the "downtown." The study could involve the design of public features such as the streetscape and common exterior site elements to be included on each site. The study should also result in the creation of a mechanism, or process, for review of individual projects • to assure that they help implement the overall theme of land use and design features of this special downtown area. It is possible that additional properties could be incorporated in the area, and that possibility should be allowed and planned for in any study. This special downtown area would provide a bridge between a future urban park/plaza on the west and the Eden Prairie Center on the east. It would be developed with _land uses and a design theme to clearly be Eden Prairie's community downtown area. It would be a magnet for activities, and it could be a modern expression of Eden _Prairie's beginnings. This would be the appropriate place for street fairs, art exhibits, crazy daze, town festivals, civic spaces, places, and events, a farmer's _market, parades, gatherings, shopping--a retail, recreational, and civic focal point for the community. The reality of this type of place depends upon: 1) The market place 2) The desire of the property owners 3) The interest and support of the City, and, 4) The cooperation of all parties involved to make it their plan, not any one specific entity's plan. Process: 1) Gain consensus of property owners 2) Gain consensus of City Council 3) Jointly form and endorse a common goal 4) Jointly develop a Request for Proposal for a private Planning/Architectural firm 5) Jointly select a design consultant 6) Jointly review, approve, endorse, and commit to a design product process, and implementation for a special "downtown Eden Prairie" within the Regional Major Center Area. A EDEN PRAIRIE HOMETOWN DOWNTOWN GOALS FOR DEVELOPMENT 1) Develop a combination of land uses which serve as a commercial service and recreational focal center for the community of Eden Prairie. This would be unique within new suburban communities. 2) While land uses could be regional in nature, they should be primarily targeted toward and of service to, the community of Eden Prairie. Land uses which are not primarily of service to the community, i.e. hotels, apartments, office buildings, should not occupy a large percentage of this special area, but may be appropriate if they provide major support to other community uses, such as restaurants and shopping. 3) The uses should be compatible, supportive, related, and oriented to pedestrian use. The whole area together should act as a one-stop, one-park magnet to allow people to utilize the whole area, not just stop at one shop and drive on. 4) Uses should be designed to allow year-round pedestrian use without burying everyone within an "interior environment." For example, on clear, calm, winter days, activities and uses should be oriented and provided for in protected areas outside as they are in European cities. A future skyway, or partially enclosed walkway, system may have application. 5) Could include civic functions such as a museum, conservatory, parks, farmers' market, library, government service centers, etc. 6) There should be a clear, central, identifiable architectural "theme" established, which is especially reflective of Eden Prairie. The theme architectural elements should be expressed in site work (i.e. landscaping, paving, signs, lighting, etc.), exterior materials, period of architecture. 7) The City streets, site plans, and common areas, should utilize common materials and design approach to exterior furniture, landscaping, paving, lighting, signage, etc. Streetscape elements: Special street lights Special stop lights Street landscaping (planters) Special street details (curbing, Waste Containers surfacing, pedestrian, etc.) Clocks Pennants/flags Information Kiosks Sitting areas Bollards Bus shelters Public streets Private walks/parking lots 8) Common areas, "vest pocket" parks, promenades, sidewalk plazas, fountains, squares, etc., are all elements which should be considered as major features within the area. 9) Should be served by a local and regional transit system (i.e. bus, possibly LRT stop). Result should be a distinctively designed, cohesively coordinated downtown which serves Eden Prairie, making the difference between a suburb and a "new town." [[[\\\ ' MEMORANDUM TO: Carl I. Jullie, City Manager FROM: Chris Enger,Director of Planning Bob Lambert,Director of Parks, Recreation,&Natural Resources Gene Dietz,Director of Public Works Craig Dawson,Assistant to the City Manager SUBJECT: Urban Design Framework for Major Center Area DATE: March 22, 1991 Recommendation: A unique and timely opportunity now exists to make the Major Center Area a coherent and identifiable area. Services of urban design professionals should be retained to develop a framework for public and private improvements currently planned in this area. Background: The Major Center Area has long been identified as an area of special importance to Eden Prairie and one which is not common for suburban areas. In fact,in the late 1960's the Metropolitan Council designated this area to be a "constellation center". It is approximately 1,000 acres in which a variety of urban activities occur--retail, office, high-density housing, transportation,and parks and public spaces. The City has demonstrated its commitment to the successful development of this area by establishing of one of the largest area tax-increment financing projects in Minnesota to provide the initial road improvements. The MCA has also benefitted from a number of private investments which have occurred during the last 15 years. It has reached a critical mass where the remaining development(both public and private)can make the MCA a vibrant market place,or a hodge-podge of buildings on either side of Flying Cloud Drive. Cub Foods has offered to incorporate a gateway feature in its proposed development in the northeast part of the MCA. It is an opportunity to announce the retail core of the MCA to traffic along I-494 and Prairie Center Drive. Such a gateway is an important urban design element. Further thought suggests that the whole area encompassed within the Prairie Center Drive/Highway 5 ring should be viewed as a whole,and that a strong urban design framework can integrate land uses in a manner which will be inviting to the public and attractive for further development. Results from the Decision Resources,Ltd.community survey indicate that a majority of residents would like to see a"downtown" Eden Prairie. They cited a desire for"a sense of community" or "a central place" in supporting this concept. Visual, urban design features can bring this about. 1 Memo Urban Design Framework for Major Center Area March 22, 1991 What Is In Urban Design: In his address on the State of the urban Environment,Minneapolis Mayor Don Fraser identified the many elements of urban design. "...It sets the stage for public life,defining how well our buildings, streets,and parks meet the needs of our citizens...It creates an identity...It can affect our pocketbooks by shaping the environment in which investment decisions will be made by individuals and businesses..." "...How we relate to(the connection between our citizens and the land)symbolizes and sends a message about who we are and what is important to us...Urban design must be concerned with creating a cohesive whole. It must look to the integration of the City's policy planning and its physical environment:our streets,sidewalks,buildings,fixtures, and landscape treatment... How comfortable we feel in our environment is tied directly to(how urban design)invite(s)activity and impart(s)a sense of human scale." Urban design frameworks in cities are not uncommon. Many are recognized by their special appeal. In Minneapolis are the Nicollet Mall, the new Convention Center, Orchestra Hall/Peavey Plaza,and the Sculpture Garden. Suburban examples include downtown Wayzata, and 50th&France and Edinborough/Centennial Lakes in Edina. What Do We Have To Do: Eden Prairie has a number of public improvements in the MCA which will be needed regardless of the existence of a design framework. If we look at these facilities in an integrated manner, and plan for a number of well-designed enhancements, the MCA can become a unique and exciting focus for the community. Among the public facilities identified for the MCA area two-million-gallon water tower(perhaps 200 feet tall), a major entrance to the Purgatory Creek Recreation A'rea, a City Hall, streetlighting, sidewalks,and a number of intersection improvements. What could be done?: *The water tower could be a major focal point for a downtown plaza or a traffic circle, if carefully designed. "Street architecture--signs, streetlights, sidewalks, benches, kiosks, trash containers, planters, bus stops, mini-plazas, fountains, banners--can be done as part of public improvement projects or in conjunction with public and private developments. "Gateway features--one with Cub Foods, and three to five others placed strategically around the roadway entrances to the MCA. - 2 • Memo Urban Design Framework for Major Center Area March 22, 1991 S A pedestrian overpass from development on the Teman/Bermel parcels(perhaps from a downtown water tower plaza?)to the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area. •A trail linking the PCRA through the Rosemount property to Lake Idlewild to take advantage of its function as an urban lake. S A design framework for the balance of the development in the MCA. Design elements would be able to bring visual coherence,continuity, a sense of human scale, an invitation to leave one's car,and a sense of place in the largeness of the MCA and of Eden Prairie. Retaining Design Services: Urban design professionals should be retained to develop a framework for the MCA. They can bring their experience, access to resources, and fresh perspective to the opportunities of this project. Whether one firm or a design team is selected, we will be able to work synergistically to blend the preferences and expectations of the • community with the ideas developed by our consultant. We can benefit from the concepts and approaches of several firms in the selection process. • Proposals can call for firms to submit designs as the basis of the work they would perform for the City. From non-successful entries,staff could identify a number of interesting elements and direct that they be further evaluated by the design firm selected. The American Institute of Architects has developed a number of guidelines for this approach for services. According to a number of criteria identified by the AIA,appropriate conditions exist for the City to use this technique: • ' 'rI'he project has a wide degree of design exploration. "The project is on an important site...it may be unusual in its visual impact. 'The project has features...that deserve a fresh examination by the design community. 'The project will benefit from this additional public interest. To be successful with this approach, the guidelines suggest that evaluation of design concepts be done by a qualified jury, that the projects be sufficiently financed, and that the design program be soundly and adequately developed. Staff can work with a number of interested panics in the design and development field in Eden Prairie(and perhaps with the University of Minnesota)to undertake the planning of this process. 3 Memo Urban Design Framework for Major Center Area March 22, 1991 Given the amount of work which will be involved with the submission,the City should consider some sort of stipend to some(perhaps the top three entries)or all of the participating firms. Financing the Services: This important component needs further examination. It appears that these services would be eligible for some type of funding from the$9+ million in tax increment receipts during the next three years. Presumably, the City's administration expense would be the eligible funding activity. Many of the design elements for physical improvements could be included in the TIF program. The list of eligible improvements is scheduled to be amended in order to include the recommendations of the TIF Capital Improvements Committee. These design features could also be identified in the plan amendments. Some of the design elements can be included in the architecture or landscaping of private developments. As the City requires meeting performance standards in these areas anyway, substituting these special features can be accomplished at little or no extra costs to developers or the City. Summaries: Development of the MCA is at a critical juncture. Action can be taken which will make it a unique activity center or a fairly typical suburban agglomeration. The City has a number of improvements to make in the MCA;it can take advantage of the visibility of these facilities with sensitive urban design instead of utilitarian considerations. In partnership with private interests in the area,the City can assemble a design framework which can accentuate the advantages of the area and spur private economic development. As the City's in-house resources are limited,obtaining the services of a professional urban design firm or team will allow the City to pursue the opportunities now presented in the MCA to develop a special community identity. With endorsement of the concepts included in this memorandum,we will begin the process of developing a well-thought-out program to which urban design firms can respond. Prior to advertising for design services,we will develop a design selection process and cost estimates for the selection process,as well as for the entire project,and review this proposal with the Council. MEM0322.CE:bs 4 x POSSIBLE TOOLS FOR FACILITATING DEVELOPMENT OF AN EDEN PRAIRIE "DOWNTOWN" 1. The City has statutory authority for review and approval of land use requests including: a)general land use;b)Planned Unit Development;c)zoning;and d)subdivision. 2. The City may grant variances from performance standards in its code through the Board of Appeals for"hardship"situations or waivers through the PUD process for meritorious design. Setbacks may be varied, Floor Area Ratios may be increased, parking dimensions or numbers may be changed if warranted,etc. 3. The City can coordinate development plans or create its own plan to help facilitate or entice development. 4. The City can promote certain uses for certain sites. 5. The City has over 9 million dollars of TIF money available from the original district which can be used for park improvements, road construction, sidewalks, street architecture, water system improvements,etc. 6. The City can create a new TIF District. Although the new district could have more limitations of use under the 1990 law with less total dollars, we would still be able to fund such projects as roads,parks, convention facilities,parking ramps,and pedestrian skyways. The amount of money available from normal intensity of suburban development of an approximate 40 acre area could be up to 2.8 million. 7. The City could use its Housing and Redevelopment Authority to issue Housing Revenue Bonds for a housing project. 8. The City can develop a downtown park. 9. The City can build a City Hall which would be part of a larger overall City Center. 10. The City could provide design services to help create a certain design character in the downtown area. CITY SUPPORT AND ENCOURAGEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT IN EDEN PRAIRIE INFORMATION One of the primary ways in which the City encourages and supports development is through the collection and dissemination of information. The following type of information is available: Land-Use Inventories:City keeps a record of all vacant lots and land,building sizes and square footage. Project Profile: A yearly record and map of all new development proposals including zoning, acreage,and developer name is maintained. Community Profile:A yearly community profile is published which includes information on current housing,population,and employment characteristics. The profile is used by many realtors in developing and describing Eden Prairie in"market studies". Other ways in which the City provides information specifically to the development community are by: Helping developers in the site selection process by informing them of developable land locations and land use possibilities. By taking a proactive approach, the City is acting as a recruiter for new development. Development Research:The City also undertakes special studies such as the MCA Traffic Study and the Southwest Area Study which are designed to provide an overall development framework. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW The review of a development proposal is perhaps the most critical point at which the City can have an impact on the perception of "support". The City has worked with the Chamber of Commerce and the Developers Forum on improving the review process. The attached letter dated July 7, 1987 to the Economic Growth Committee indicate the changes that were made to improve the process. The City continually reviews and improves the Land Development Application Procedures and Requirements with the most recent update in February 1991. Development Review Committee:A committee consisting of members from Engineering, Building, Parks, and Planning meet twice a month to review all new development proposals. The comments from this meeting are given to the developer so all plan revisions/additions can be accomplished at one time. Other Agencies: The City also acts as an advoratP and coordinates the development process with other agencies such as the DNR,MnDOT,Metropolitan Council,Watershed District,and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. City subsidizes the development review process:Fees charged for reviewing development proposals do not cover the costs of reviewing. These costs are primarily staff time. Design by planners/engineers: Staff advises,recommends,and suggests improvements to development proposals which help to improve efficiency, marketability, and possibly reduce development costs. One of staffs main objectives is to help the developer get through the review process as smoothly as possible. City/County/State road planning, acquisition and construction: For example, the upgrading and construction of Highway 5 will allow for development to occur in s.w. Eden Prairie. Other examples include coordinating development review with the plans for upgrading CSAH 62 and U.S. 169. OTHER DEVELOPMENT ISSUES The City also encourages innovative development by utilizing various design"tools" which are available through the zoning code such as: PUD Process Quality codes: Code requirements for exterior materials, screening, tree preservation, landscaping, etc. which help to maintain property values. Mixed land uses. Allowing for phasing to occur. Developer's Agreements FINANCIAL The City also provides a number of financial incentives to encourage development. These include: City Finances Public Improvements:When projects are petitioned,the City will sell bonds to pay for the improvement costs and thus finance the development. The city is repaid through the assessment process. Feasibility reports:If petitioned,the City will undertake the responsibility for designing and constructing the infrastructure for new development. This lowers the up front cost of development which allows many"small" developers the opportunity to develop their land. City Provides Capital Improvements of Infrastructure: In a developing community,new development typically impacts existing neighborhoods. In cases where infrastructure improvements are necessary,the City does defer assessments for existing residences until such time as they develop. This allows for development to continue while not adversely affecting existing homes. Development Subsides:In certain cases,the City has subsidizes development through the use of tax increment financing for infrastructure improvements and elderly housing. Letter of Credit used to guarantee subdivision improvements can be drawn down against to pay for actual improvements. OTHER The City is also very aggressive in maintaining relationships and participating in committees which are concerned with development issues. These include memberships in: AMM,LMC, Vision 2001 Facilities,Southwest Metro,Southwest Area Coalition,I-494 Corridor Commission, Eden Prairie Foundation,Rotary,Adopt a Highway,Developer's Forum,and the Chamber of Commerce. Members of City Staff participate in the following Chamber subcommittees: Economic Development Transportation Airport As part of this relationship,the City and Chamber recently had a joint display at the Twin Cites Commercial Real estate exhibition. CONCLUSIONS The City acts in a number of ways to encourage and support development. Some of the primary ways in which this support is shown are by: Providing Information _ Assisting with the Development Review Process Providing Financial Incentives Maintaining Relationships Participating with Organizations interested in land development Through these methods,the City will continue to support and encourage development in Eden Prairie. n i CITY OFFICES!7600 EXECUTIVE DRIVE!EDEN PRAIRIE,MN 55344-2499!TELEPHONE(612)937-2262 `den MEMORAMOUII prairiE: TO: Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce Economic Growth Committee Attention: Marge Friederichs Executive Director FROM: City Manager Carl J. Jullie C. SUBJECT: City Process Regarding Developmen Proposals DATE: July 7, 1987 Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the issues which have been raised by the Economic Growth Committee regarding the City's process which is utilized for review of development proposals. As you know, I did meet separately with Char Johnson and Marge Friederichs to discuss this issue in detail and I also attended the June 12th Economic Growth Committee meeting for further review and discussion. Subsequent to the June 12th meeting, Chairperson Char Johnson and I agreed that it would be helpful for me to summarize my response to the action areas which have been suggested by the Committee. Accordingly, the following response is submitted for your reference. Three major action areas for the City were suggested by the Committee. These are: I) Leadership training, 2) Analyzing the process internally and 3) Creating a Developer's Forum. In addition, the goal of the Committee's effort in this area was stated "To establish the reputation that Eden Prairie is one of the best cities to work with". Under "Leadership Training" the following specifics were suggested: A. Emphasis on attitude (friendly, helpful, respectful, personable), and on people skills (dealing with natural confrontations). B. Skills for all levels - Council, Management, Staff, Commissions Response: I do often stress to City Staff that I insist that we always present a courteous, friendly and responsive approach when dealing with the public and each other. It is vitally important for us to always be fair, impartial and consistent with all property owners regardless of their personalities or particular expertise. We know very well that if someone were to be mis- treated in any respect, it would not go unnoticed. I very seldom receive any complaints that staff members have been discourteous or unprofessional in any respect. In order to help staff maintain their competence and professionalism, the City Council has given a generous budget for training purposes. For example, we reimburse 100% cost for tuition for successful completion of appropriate training and continuing education. Our department heads and supervisors are • required to attend continuing education classes. All but two of • our department heads have attended week-long management skills and development courses such as those sponsored by Wilson Learning and the St. Thomas College Management Center. We also employ Carlson 8 Carlson Associates, licensed psychologists, who provide our Employee Assistance Program. They City staff each year. Past topics haveput included StressfManage- ment and Employee Motivation, including effective supervisory • skills. Also Department Heads and other staff members attended a presentation by author Thomas. Peters regarding Excellence in Management. Each month supervisors receive copies of the publication "Bits and Pieces", which is a mixture of humor and anecdotes on ways to be an effective supervisor. On occasion I also distribute copies of articles from the Public Manaoement magazine which present helpful ideas on improving management skills. Very recently a four-page article on i mprovin communication skills was forwarded to each City department. Several City staff members recently attending a Municipals Conference which highlighted improving their interpersonal skills. In summary, I believe that the City has a large and ongoing commitment to keep our City staff positive, well-motivated, effective and professional in all aspects of our work. With respect to enhancing skills for all levels, we have recently developed a revised orientation process for new board and commission members. We now have a general orientation session at which all board and commission members are invited to attend and learn about not only their general duties but also the df.ties and activities of other boards and commissions so that we can begin to develop a sense of team work and common purpose. In addition to the general orientation, several of the major boards and commissions devote part or all of their first meetings of the year to orientation issues. In addition, staff members spend time with new members to give an opportunity for detailed discussion of the duties and issues that may be involved with the particular board or commission. The City Council also has initiated a very fine process of interviewing all candidates for boards and commissions to help ensure the best possible representation. It has also been common practice for new City Councilmembers to spend at least one hour with each City Department Head in order to help ensure a thorough understanding of all the various City departmental functions. Also the League of Minnesota Cities sponsors training sessions for all newly will elected and appointed City officials. This Fall our City Council foster ess which will mbark further sense eofc teamwork gamong eCouncilmembershand City Staff as well. Under analyzing the process internally, the following specifics were suggested: A. Staff Discussion: What must have and best ways to achieve; B. Compare our process with other cities process (learn from them); C. Hold semi-annual developer/Council dialogue; D. Upfront education for developers; E. Develop a Review Committee (staff) to be assigned to each incoming proposal; F. Require staff report to be written by lead staff person; - 3 - G. Expedite process through elimination of 2nd Reading; and H. Consider having staff draw up development agreement rather than attorney. Response: Following are general response statements regarding the above listed specific action areas: 1. With the new City Office spaces we have consolidated the Planning Department into one office for improved communications. We have also located the Engineering, Planning, Building Inspections, Parks & Recreation Departments in one general area of the building also for improved communications. 2. We do provide for the assignment of one planner to development projects as soon as a firm proposal is identified to insure consistency of information and responses all the way through the process. 3. Planning Commission meetings are managed so that each development project is assured equal time in a fair and rational hearing. We limit Planning Commission meetings to three new projects per meeting plus any projects which may have been continued from prior meetings or other projects which are very straight- forward. 4. We have been devoting increased staff time to projects before they reach the Planning Commission in an effort to iron out all problems, thereby preventing lengthy continuances. We strongly encourage developers to work out any particular problems with adjoining neighborhoods prior to Commission or Council meetings. 5. We have created and filled our City Engineer position plus additional engineering technical staff to help facilitate review of new development projects. 6. We have instituted certain time management techniques in the Engineering Department to increase efficiency and allow more time for review of development projects. 7. Careful screening of developer meetings is implemented to help assure the right individual departments are represented for more productive meetings. I have instituted a policy of multi- department head/City Manager meetings on each Tuesday morning in order to help assure a unified and consistent approach regarding major land use decisions and policy implementations. 8. We have reinstituted the multi-department technical staff , project review meeting to go over new proposals in detail to help prevent any miscommunications between departments and resulting "surprises" for developers. _ 4 - 9. Weekly Project Profile - Status of all development proposals is prepared by the Planning Department and distributed biweekly to other City departments. . 10. We have instituted the City Manager's biweekly update to the City Council to appraise the Council of significant issues and developments prior to Planning Commission review and also including the status immediately after Planning Commission action. 11. The City has encouraged the active involvement of the City's staff and also Councilmembers in Chamber of Commerce activities, including membership on the Board of Directors and various committees. The Council has also encouraged staff to be actively involved in various service clubs so that we can be better in touch with the leadership elements of the community. Planning staff has recently revised and clarified development procedures and prepared a new checklist and procedures format. 12. The time elapsing between 1st and 2nd Reading of rezoning ordinances is typically 30 days. The developer's agreement which is prepared during this time is an important document in that it provides for a concise summary of all the approval conditions, and provides some protection for the City and developer in terms of helping to avoid any future misunder- standings as to the conditions of approval. During this 30-day time the developer's engineers are usually preparing working drawings for the grading and utility plans plus the final plat. These items plus getting other agency approvals (i.e., Watershed District, Metro Council, County permits, variances, etc.) all typically take at least 30 days. So in effect, time needed for the developer's agreement is not wasted. City Staff does prepare all developer's agreements and the City Attorney does review them prior to Council aproval. The City Planning staff has prepared an annual update and analysis of development statistics and provides market research information in a Community Profile format. This information is available to developers upon request. Planning staff has prepared a year-end summary recapping all develop- ment proposals, their status, timing and major issues involved in review. During 1986 the City reviewed proposals totalling 123,000 square feet of commercial space, 385,000 square feet of industrial space, 383,000 square feet of office space, and 1,470 residential units. Our records further indicate that the average length of time for review of development proposals was 3.5 months for office/industrial/ commercial projects, and 3.8 months for residential projects. This amount of time compares favorably with the review time required by other communities. During 1986 the City reviewed a total of 62 projects, of these 4 were withdrawn and none were denied. This record seems to indicate that the development review process in Eden Prairie is working quite well indeed. - 5 - Eden Prairie residential population increased by 4,000 in 1986 and our employment population increased by 3,500. If that pace were to • continue, Eden Prairie would be completely developed in all land use categories within the present MUSA line by 1995. A major policy question to be addressed by the City Council in the months ahead may well be to determine what pace of development is in the best interests of our entire City. I agree that the City Council and staff and commissions must make every possible effort to assure that our development review process continues to be predictable, consistent and as smooth as possible in all respects. Under "Create a Developers Forum" the following specifics were suggested: A. Chamber do this. B. Serve as brainstorming and informational session. Response: I believe this is a very fine suggestion and we will be prepared to fully participate. I trust that the foregoing will be found to be responsive to the several thoughts and suggestions raised by the Economic Growth Committee. I do share your goal of establishing Eden Prairie as one of the best cities to work with. Working together with a positive and cooperative attitude on the part of both the City and our developers will help assure that we will indeed reach this goal. CJJ:jdp cc: Mayor and City Council Chris Enger, Director of Planning Gene Dietz, Director of Public Works Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services •