HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 02/19/1985EDEN PRAIRIE
CITY COUNt-117A6ENDA
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1985
7:30 PM, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION
BUILDING ROOM 5
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson,
George Bentley, Patricia Pidcock and
Paul Redpath
CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie; Assistant
to the City Manager Craig Dawson; City
Attorney Roger Pauly; Finance Director
John Frane; Planning Director Chris
Enger; Director of Community Services
Robert Lambert; Director of Public
Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording
Secretary Karen Michael
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
II. MINUTES
A. Minutes of City Council meeting held Tuesday, December
18, 1984
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Clerk's License List
B. Award bid for grading of Franlo Park and Eden Valley
Park
C. Award quotes for play structures at Staring Lake Park,
Homeward Hills Park and Edenvale Park
D. Final Plat approval for Edenvale Executive Center
Trtgiilution No. -537—
E. Final Plat approval for Lake Heights 2nd Addition (Resolution
No. 85:STY
F. Final Plat approval for Coachman's Landing 2nd Addition
Tlution No. 85-5 747
G. Final Plat approval for Coachman's Landing 3rd Addition
rag-Olution No. -g:551—
H. Receive Feasibility Report for Sanitary Sewer Improvements -
Paulsen's 1st and 2nd Additions and Apple Groves - and set
Public Hearing for 7:30 PM March 19 1985 I.C. 52-061
(Resolution No. 85-3-87
I. Change Order No. 3, I.C. 51-308C
J. Change Order No. Ai I.C. 51-308A-2
Page 483
Page 496
Page 497
Page 498
Page 502
Page 505
Page 508
Page 511
Page 514
Page 515
Page 518
City Council Agenda - 2 - February 19, 1985
K. Resolution authorizing preparation of Feasibility Report
for Rowland Road I.C. 52-067 (Resolution No. 85-59)
L. APPLE GROVES by Northwest Properties. Adopting a Finding
of No Significant Impact for Environmental Assessment
Worksheet on Apple Groves (Resolution No. 85-50 - Finding
No Significant Impact)
M. EDEN COMMONS by Chasewood Development. Adopting a Finding
R-Wo Significant Impact for Environmental Assessment
Worksheet on Eden Commons (Resolution No. 85-52 - Finding
No Significant Impact)
N. Muirfield by Tandem Corporation. Adopting a Finding of No
Sli5TTTEint Impact for Environmental Assessment Worksheet
for Muirfield (Resolution No. 85-51 - Finding No Significant
Impact)
0. BERGIN AUTO BODY by James J. Bergin. 2nd Reading of
biRMince No. 4-85 within 1-2 Park District for one acre;
Adoption of Resolution No. 85-64 Approving Development Plan
for Bergin Auto Body; and Adoption of Resolution No. 85-65,
Approving Summary of Ordinance No. 4-85 and Ordering
Publication of Said Summary. (Ordinance No. 4-85 Zoning
Amendment within 1-2 District; Resolution No. 85-64, Approving
Development Plan; Resolution No. 85-65, Authorizing
Publication of Summary of Ordinance)
P. Final approval of Housing Revenue Bonds in the amount of
W65O,OOO.00 for Eden ComiTIOTITITIeTaTtion No. g:TIT
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Bluffs West Vicinity Storm Sewer Feasibility Report, I.C.
tTUN Tolution No. 85-01---
Page 520
Page 521
Pige 523
Page 524
Page 525
Page 530
Page 531
B. BLUFFS WEST 5TH ADDITION by The Bluffs Company. Request
for ZoningDistrict Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 for 14.5
acres and Preliminary Plat of 14.5 acres into 32 single
family lots. Location: South of Riverview Road, east of
West Riverview Drive. (Ordinance No. 106-84 - Zoning;
and Resolution No. 84-215 - Preliminary Plat) Continued
Public Hearing from January 22, 1985.
C. Request for Housing Revenue Bonds in the amount of $11,000,000.00
for Tanager Creek (Resolution No. 85-4gY Continua Public
Hearing from February 5, 1985.
D. Request for Municipal Industrial Development Bonds in the amount
of $1,700,000.00 for Roberts Litho
E. Street Name Change - Birch Island Road between Edenvale Boulevard and Co. Rd.17 -TOrdinance No.-67875-)-
V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 18563 - 18833
VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
Page 1952
& 2196
Page 468
Page 532
Page 533
City Council Agenda - 3 - February 19, 1985
VII. APPOINTMENTS
A. Appointment of Ad Hoc Committee members to study Referendum Page 540
Issues for the City of Eden Prairie (Continuedfrom February
5, 1985T --
B. Board of Appeals & Adjustments - Appointment of 2 members to
serve 3-three year terms effective March 1, 1985
C. Building Code Board of Appeals - Appointment of 2 members to
serve 3-three year terms effective March 1, 1985
D. Development Commission - Appointment of 2 members to serve 3-
year terms effective March 1, 1985
E. Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission of Eden Prairie -
Appointment of 2 members to serve 3-year terms effective
March 1, 1985
F. Historical & Cultural Commission - Appointment of 2 members
to serve 3-year terms effective March 1, 1985
G. Human Rights & Services Commission - Appointment of 2 members
to serve 3-year terms effective March 1, 1985
H. parks,. Recreation & Natural Resources Commission - Appointment
Of 2-Members to serve 3-year terms effective March 1, 1985
I. Planning Commission - Appointment of 2 members to serve 3-year
terms effective March 1, 1985
VIII. PETITIONS REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Request from Reuter, Inc. for discussion on allocation of Page 542
City's refuse
8. Request from Development Commission for joint meeting with the Page 543
City Council
IX. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Council Members
B. Report of City Manager
C. Report of City Attorney
I. Findings in connection with Welcome Home (Continued from Page 478
February 5, 1985) & 544
D. Report of Director of Public Works
I. Receive Rowland Road Feasibility Report, I.C. 52-067 Page 546
(R-J6Taion No. 83761)
XII. NEW BUSINESS
XIII. ADJOURNMENT
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1984
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
CITY COUNCIL STAFF:
7:30 PM, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BOARDROOM
Mayor Wolfgang H. Penzel, Richard Anderson,
George Bentley, Paul Redpath & George Tangen
City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the
City Manager Craig Dawson, City Attorney Roger
Pauly, Finance Director John D. Frane, Planning
Director Chris Enger, Director of Community
Services Bob Lambert, Director of Public Works
Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary Karen
Michael
INVOCATION: Mayor Wolfgang H. Penzel
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Councilman Bentley arrived at 8 p.m.; Councilman Anderson at 8:05 p.m.
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
The following item was added to the Agenda: VIII. C. Edenvale.
Penzel suggested the Council begin tonight's meeting with item VI. on the
Agenda as items prior to those needed at least 4 Council members for a vote.
MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve the Agenda and Other
Items of Business as well as a change in the Order of Business while awaiting
a quorum. Motion carried unanimously (Anderson, Redpath and Penzel.)
(For reasons of continuity, the Minutes are recorded in the form of the Agenda as
published.)
II. MINUTES
A. Regular City Council meeting held Tuesday, October 2, 1984
Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to approve the Minutes of the regular
City Council meeting held Tuesday, October 2, 1984, as published. Motion
carried unanimously.
City Council Minutes -2- December 18, 1984
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Set Public Hearing for January 22, 1985, 7:30 p.m., for easement vacation
in Muirfield
B. Final plat approval for Bluffs East 3rd Addition (Resolution No. 84-323)
Moved to IV A. for consideration with the zoning district change.
C. Final plat approval for Technology Park 2nd Addition (Resolution No. 84-324)
D. Set Public Hearing for January 22, 1985, 7:30 p.m. to consider name change
of South Shore Lane
E. Joint Powers agreement to respond to NSP rate filing relating to electric
rates for municipal water pumping
F. Clerk's License List
G. DIGIGRAPHICS SYSTEMS CORPORATION by Welsh Construction. 2nd Reading of
Ordinance No. 123-84, zoning district change from Rural to 1-2 for 5.75
acres, approval of Developer's Agreement for Digigraphis, and adoption
of Resolution No. 84-317, approving Summary of Ordinance No. 123-84 and
ordering publication of said Summary. 9.63 acres for warehouse, office,
research, assembly, storage facility. Location: northeast quadrant of
Valley View Road and Highway #169.
H. TECH THREE, by Technology Park Associates, 2nd Reading of Ordinance
No. 125-84, zoning district change from Rural to 1-2, approval of Develop-
er's Agreement for Tech Three, and adoption of Resolution No. 84-318,
approving Summary of Ordinance No. 125-84 and ordering publication of
said Summary. 4.35 acres for office/warehouse use. Location: south
of West 70th Street, west of Washington Avenue. (see Motion which follows.)
I. EDEN PRAIRIE ATHLETIC CLUB by William 0, Naegele, Trustee. 2nd Reading
of Ordinance No. 126-84-1'UD-12-84, Planned Unit Development District
Review of 17.7 acres and zoning district change from Rural to Commerical
Regional Service for 10.11 acres, approval of Developer's Agreement for
Eden Prairie Athletic Club, and adoption of Resolution No. 84-319,
approving Summary of Ordinance No. 126-84-PUD-12-84, and ordering publi-
cation of said Summary. 17.7 acres for an Indoor-Outdoor Athletic
& Fitness Center. Location: Prairie Center Drive at Singletree Lane.
J. Proposal from Fox, McCue & Murphy to serve as City's independent auditor
for the 1984 calendar year
K. Resolution No. 85-10, approving Fees for the City of Eden Prairie for
1985
L. Set Public Hearing for Diseased Tree Removal for January 22, 1985, at
7:30 p.m.
M. Request to the City Council to set a Public Hearing to review the decision
of the Board of Appeals & Adjustments regarding the 'Welcome Home'
proposal at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive for January 22, 1985
City Council Minutes -3- December 18, 1984
N. Request from Robert Worthington, Opus Corporation, for a three year
extension on the Opus Plaza Office Buildinq (see Motion)
0. Final approval for Municipal Industrial Development Bonds in the amount
Ir$T50,000.00 for Normar Investments (Resolution No, 84-326)
P. HIDDEN GLEN 2ND ADDITION, 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 139-84-PUD-4-84,
rezoning from Rural to R1-22 to PUD-4-84-R1-13.5, approval of Developer's
Agreement for Hidden Glen, and adoption of Resolution No. 84-327, approving
Summary of Ordinance No. 139-84-PUD-4-84 and ordering publication of
said Summary.
Q. Purchase Agreement with Dolejsi's for Hidden Glen Park
R. Dolejsi Land Donation
Relative to item "H.": MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Redpath, to
authorize delay of the construction of sidewalks in Techs I & II until
there is an overall plan and further development in the area. Motion
carried unanimously.
Relative to item "N.": MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Redpath, to
grant a two-year, rather than the requested three-year, extension on the
Opus Plaza Office Building. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to remove item "B." from
the Consent Calendar and to consider that with item IV. A. Motion carried
unanimously.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve items A and C - R,
as amended. Motion carried unanimously,
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. BLUFFS EAST 3RD ADDITION by The Bluffs Company. Request for zoning
district change from R1-13.5 to R1-9.5 for 9.63 acres for 29 single
family lots. Location: west of Franlo Road, south of Lee Drive.
(Ordinance No. 128-84 - amending Ordinance No. 105-84 - rezoning from
R1-13.5 to R1-9.5) (Continued Public Hearing from November 20, 1984, and
December 4, 1984)
City Manager Jullie stated notice of this Public Hearing had originally
been published on November 7, 1984, and property owners in the project
vicinity were notified at that time also.
Director of Public Works Dietz addressed his memorandum of December 18,
1984, which discussed this matter.
Penzel asked how the maintenance portion of the interim solution would
be paid for. Dietz said that would be spelled out in the assessment
agreement.
City Council Minutes -4- December 18, 1984
There was discussion as to the sequence of terms in the memorandum.
It was determined that item "C" should become "A" with items "A" and
"B" then becoming items "B" and "C" respectively.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Anderson, to adopt Resolution
No. 84-323, approving the final plat for Bluffs East 3rd Addition
subject to the conditions outlined in Director of Public Works Dietz's
memorandum of December 18, 1984, as amended. Motion carried unanimously.
Bentley indicated he felt the rezoning request goes against the intent
of the R9.5 zoning and stated he intended to vote against the request.
Wally Hustad, Sr. ,briefly reviewed the 13.5 zoning and noted the City
had requested a transition area from the 9.5 zone to the 13.5 zone which
is further to the south. It was his understanding they would then have
some flexibility in this transition zone which would also allow for a
better subdivision with added variety in house style.
Redpath asked if it would not be better to go through the variance
process rather than to request rezoning of these lots. Planning Director
Enger said the original request from the builder was for 26 variances;
since the number was that high, it was suggested to him that rezoning
might be better.
Bentley said the concept of transition.can be looked at in two ways:
the concept of density and that of the cost of housing. He said the
Council might be premature in requiring a transition zone at this time.
He noted that the 9.5 zone is being used to create a higher density on
a smaller lot. He indicated he has a basic aversion to that.
Tangen said he had no problem with this at all; he felt it has the
potential to be a nice looking area.
Joe Miller, builder, noted his reasons for wanting to see the request
granted. Hustad said the builder has tried very hard to mix housing
types.
MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Anderson, to close the Public Hearing
and to grant 1st Reading to Ordinance No. 128-84, rezoning on 23 lots
with the lots west of Meade Lane excluded. Motion carried with Bentley
voting "no."
MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Redpath, to direct Staff to prepare
an amendment to the prior Developer's Agreement relating to prior
Ordinance No. 107-84. Motion carried unanimously.
14(0
City Council Minutes -5- December 18, 1984
B. ROCKY ROCOCO PIZZA by The Preserve. Request for zoning district change
from Rural to Commercial Regional Service for 0.89 acres for a -restaurant
and preliminary plat of 0.89 acres into one lot. Location: southeast
quadrant of Highway #169 and Medcom Boulevard. (Ordinance No. 136-84 -
rezoning from Rural to Commercial Regional Service and Resolution No.
84-325 - preliminary plat)
and
C. YOUNGSTEDT SERVICE CENTER by The Preserve. Request for zoning district
change from Rural to Commercial Regional Service for 1.53 acres for a
restaurant and preliminary plat of 2.36 acres into one lot and two out-
lots for an auto service center. Location: southeast quadrant of High-
way #169 and Medcom Boulevard, (Ordinance No, 133-84 - rezoning from
Rural to Commercial Regional Service and Resolution No. 84-320 - pre-
liminary plat)
City Manager Jullie stated notice of these Public Hearings had been
published and property owners within the project vicinity had been
notified.
Don Hustad, architect for the proposals, addressed the requests.
Planning Director Enger indicated the Planning Commission had reviewed
these requests at its meeting on December 6, 1984, at which time it
voted to recommend approval subject to the recommendations included in
the November 23, 1984, Staff Reports, The Planning Commission requested
the site plan for Rocky Rococo be changed so there would be better
traffic circulation. Additional screening was requested along Prairie
Center Drive to mitigate the effect of the Service Center doors. These
changes will be made prior to issuance of a building permit.
Redpath asked what the rationale was for having the service doors on the
"outside" (facing the street). Enger explained there were several alterna-
tives and this one, along with proper screening, seemed to work the best.
Penzel said he did not particularly find the service doors attractive and
was reluctant to go along with the proposal. He asked if the Rocky Rococo
canopy might be considered a sign similar to those on Kentucky Fried
Chicken and Kinder Care. Enger said it is considered to be a similar
situation. Tom Rutland, representing Rocky Rococo, stated a 72 sq. ft. pylon
sign is usually included with their buildings in addition to the canopy.
Penzel said he had a problem with the overhead doors on the Service Center
and the fact that they will be visible from three blocks away on TH 169.
Hustad said there will be a berm on top of a 4' wall with plantings on top
of that which should provide adequate screening.
City Council Minutes -6- December 18, 1984
Anderson asked if bonding would be required for tree replacement. Enger
said a surety bond guarantees replacement trees for one year, but the
City can request replacement at any time.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to close the Public Hearing
on the Rocky Rococo request and to give 1st Reading to Ordinance No. 136-84,
rezoning. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to adopt Resolution No. 84-325,
preliminary plat approval of Rocky Rococo Pizza for The Preserve. Motion
carried unanimously.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to direct Staff to prepare
a Summary Resolution of Approval per Commission and Staff recommendations
and with the recommendation that the sign on the building be eliminated.
Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to close the Public Hearing
and to give 1st Reading to Ordinance No. 133-84, rezoning for Youngstedt
Service Center for The Preserve. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Tangen, to adopt Resolution No. 84-320,
approving the preliminary plat of Youngstedt Service Center for The Preserve.
Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to direct Staff to prepare
a Summary Resolution of Approval per Commission and Staff recommendations
and with the recommendation that, prior to 2nd Reading, a landscape plan
be provided with combinations of other screening devices being considered.
Motion carried unanimously.
D. REYNOLDS PRINTING. Request for Planned Unit Development District Review
and zoning district change from Rural to 1-2 for three acres and preliminary
plat of 13.6 acres into one lot and two outlots for an office/manufacturing/
warehouse facility. Location: southeast quadrant of Valley View Road and
Mitchell Road. (Ordinance No. 134-84 - rezoning from Rural to 1-2 and
Resolution No. 84-321 - preliminary plat)
and
E. EDENVALE EXECUTIVE PARK by Welsh Construction. Request for Planned Unit
Development District Review within the Edenvale 9th Industrial Park of 22.66
acres, with variance for more than 50% office use within the structure, and
zonino district change from Rural to 1-2 for approximately 9.0 acres for
office/warehouse facility. Location: southeast quadrant of Valley View
Road and Mitchell Road. (Ordinance No. 135-84 - rezonino from Rural to 1-2
and Resolution No. 84-322 - preliminary plat)
City Council Minutes -7- December 18, 1984
City Manager Jullie indicated notices of these Public Hearings had been
published and property owners within the vicinity of the projects had
been notified.
Tony Feffer, Investment Services Group, spoke to the Reynolds Printing
propbsal.
Paul Dunn, Welsh Construction, addressed the Edenvale Executive Park
request.
Planning Director Enger stated the Planning Commission had reviewed
these proposals at its meeting on November 26, 1984, at which time it
voted to recommend approval subject to the recommendations included
in Staff Reports dated November 23, 1984.
Anderson asked if there would be trailways to the Mr. Steak/McDonald's
area. Enger said that was not included in this request. He indicated
that grading is to be provided for the connection and the City is to
provide the Creek crossing. Kay Schumacher, Equitable, reviewed the
trails in this area. Anderson said he would like to see this connection
made in conjunction with this development. Anderson expressed concern
about how this overlooks the floodplain area.
There were no comments from the audience.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by ReOath, to close the Public Hearing
and to give 1st Reading to Ordinance No. 134-84, rezoning for Reynolds
Printing. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to adopt Resolution No.
84-321, approving the preliminary plat of Reynolds Printing. Motion
carried unanimously.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Tangen, to direct Staff to prepare
a Supplemental Agreement to the Edenvale 9th Addition Developer's Agreement
as per Commission and Staff recommendations. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to close the Public Hearing
and to give 1st Reading to Ordinance No. 135-84, rezoning for Edenvale
Executive Park. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Tangen, to adopt Resolution No. 84-322,
approving the preliminary plat of Edenvale Executive Park for Welsh Con-
struction. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Tangen, to direct Staff to prepare
a Supplemental Agreement to the Edenvale 9th Addition Developer's Agreement
as per Commission and Staff recommendations. Motion carried unanimously.
City Council Minutes -8- December 18, 1984
F. NORTH BAY OF TIMBER LAKES 2ND ADDITION, by Richard Miller Homes.
Request for zoning district amendment within RM-2.5 District (with
variances) and site plan review for 12 units within three buildings
on approximately 1.34 acres and preliminary plat of approximately
9.41 acres into three lots and one outlot. Location: northwest
quadrant of County Road No. 4 and Timber Lakes Drive. (Ordinance
No. 136-84 - amending Ordinance No. 326 within the RM-2.5 District
and Resolution No. 84-328 - preliminary plat)
City Manager Jullie indicated notice of this Public Hearina had been
published and property owners within the project vicinity had been
notified.
Terry Lamb, representing Richard Miller Homes, addressed the request.
Planning Director Enger stated the Planning Commission had reviewed this
request at its meetings on November 13, 1984, and November 26, 1984, at
which time it voted to recommend approval subject to the recommendations
included in the Staff Reports of November 9, 1984, and November 23, 1984.
Redpath asked if the neighbors concern regarding the landscaping and the
view of the lake had been addressed. Enger said those concerns were raised
at the first meeting of the Planning Commission; the first request had been
for two 4-unit buildings but this was changed to what has been discussed
this evening.
There were no comments from the audience.
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Redpath, to close the Public Hearing
and to give 1st Reading to Ordinance No, 136-84, rezoning. Motion carried
unanimously.
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Tangen, to adopt Resolution No. 84-328,
approving the preliminary plat of North Bay of Timber Lakes 2nd Addition
for Richard Miller Homes. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Tangen, to direct Staff to prepare
a Summary Resolution of Approval per Commission and Staff recommendations,
Motion carried unanimously.
G. APPENDIX E. A Public Hearing to discuss Appendix E, an optional appendix
to the State Building Code, which would permit the City of Eden Prairie to
exceed the current requirements of the State Buidling Code in respect to
the installation of automatic fire suppressions systems. (Ordinance No.
138-84)
City Manager Jullie noted there is no statutory requirement for a Public
Hearing for the Council to consider this item, however it was determined
best to have this reviewed under the Public Hearing format to allow a fully
open opportunity for the public to comment. Jullie indicated Staff had
notified those property owners whose buildings might be subject to this
new regulation in the event that additions to their buildings were requested.
1190
City Council Minutes -9- December 18, 1984
Jullie also stated the Development Commission had reviewed this matter
and had recommended the adoption of Appendix E.
Jack Hacking, Director of Public Safety; Phil Mathiowetz, Fire Marshal;
and Pat Coughlin, Richfield Fire Department, were present to answer ques-
tions and address the proposal. Mathiowetz reviewed the buildings and
what the Appendix would do.
Bentley asked what the possibilities were of the State adopting this as part
of the State Building Code. Mathiowetz said that was hard to predict; he
noted that 14 cities in the State have adopted Appendix E.
Redpath said he felt this would basically apply to new construction; he
asked which other buildings might be affected. Mathiowetz said only those
buildings which would have additions would be affected and only a small
number of buildings in Eden Prairie would fall into that category.
Penzel asked if this would lower insurance rates. Mathiowetz said there
can be significant insurance breaks when a building is sprinklered. He
noted that by putting sprinklers in a building, the size of the building
can be increased. There are also significant payoffs in the cost of
fire fighting as the result of sprinklers being included in a building.
Brad Hoyt, 7201 York Avenue South, Edina, stated he has never built a
building with a sprinkler system. He said the costs of insurance are
borne by the tenant of a building whereas the initial cost of the
sprinkler system is borne by the builder. Hoyt indicated some tenants
are not allowed in some buildings because they cannot get insurance.
He said he was not in favor of this because it is another government
regulation.
Jerome King, 10890 Northmark Drive, said he felt that there are trade-
offs -- the more money spent for sprinkling a building the less money
is spent on the building itself which will then result in an inferior
building. He indicated he had materials available which review this
issue and indicated a willingness to share these with City officials.
The problem of getting volunteer firemen was discussed. It was noted
that the number of firemen available during the daytime hours is limited.
Coughlin noted that because of the low daytime response, Appendix E
helps because of the built-in fire protection. He also stated that the
built-in fire protection costs are up-front costs and not an on-going
cost such as that of the pay to firemen.
Building Official Wayne Sanders said the main advantage to Appendix E
is that it allows larger buildings to be built. He stated that the loss
of business time is almost nil when there is a fire in a building which
has a sprinkler system in it.
411
City Council Minutes -10- December 18, 1984
Darrell Anderson, Design Partnership Architects, stated that fire
suppression systems are very costly in small buildings. He noted the
Uniform Building Code has a very stringent exit system included in it.
and is used to protect the small building occupant.
Redpath suggested the Council get and review the materials which King
mentioned.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to continue this Public
Hearing to the January 8, 1985, meeting of the City Council. Motion
carried unanimously.
H. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ADVERTISING SIGN DISTRICT AND PROPOSED AMENDMENT
TO PUBLIC DISTRICT DEFINITION (Ordinance No. 137-84)
City Manager Jullie indicated notice for this Public Hearing had been
published. He noted the proposed changes, as recommended by the City
Attorney, involve deletion of any reference to "quasi-public" in Chapter
11 of the Code and also an amendment relating to specific language in
the advertising sign zone which is also included in Chapter 11 of the
Code.
There were no comments from the audience.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Tangen, to close the Public Hearing
and to give 1st Reading to Ordinance No. 137-84. Motion carried
unanimously.
V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 17455 - 17739
MOTION: Tangen moved, seconded by Bentley, to approve the Payment of
Claims Nos. 17455 - 17739. Roll call vote: Anderson, Bentley, Redpath,
Tangen and Penzel voted "aye," Motion carried unanimously.
VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
There were none.
VII. APPOINTMENTS
City Manager Jullie noted Sandra Werts' memo of December 12, 1984, in which
this matter was discussed.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Tangen, to appoint Frank Cardarelle and
William McNeil to the Restoration Committee, Motion carried unanimously.
(Redpath, Tangen and Penzel.)
LI9
City Council Minutes -11- December 18, 1984
VIII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Dennis Maurer and Janet Rice, Southdale YMCA, regarding Youth Counseling
Services for Eden Prairie
Scott Beady, supervisor of the program, gave the history of the Youth
Counseling Services for Eden Prairie. He introduced Dennis Mauer and
Janet Rice who indicated they have an office in Eden Prairie and make
presentations in the high school, middle school and elementary schools.
Mauer and Rice are therapists. They reviewed the programs they have
available to Eden Prairie residents -- both children and families.
Beady said they are not asking for funds at this time but they will
be asking for the City's continued support of the program.
Anderson said he was concerned about the problems which might be unique
to Eden Prairie. Rice indicated those problems are transportation-for
youth j due to the lack of public transportation!s and boredom.
Bentley suggested that perhaps an improved internal circulation system
as well as an external system would help the youth. He asked if CDBG
funds might be available for that. Planning Director Enger said he
would check into that.
Penzel thanked Beady, Maurer and Rice for their efforts and for their
presentation this evening.
B. Doug Reuter request to speak to the issue of Residential Refuse Collection
Contract
Reuter called attention to his letter of November 27, 1984, in which
he suggested the City of Eden Prairie take bids for a residential refuse
contract.
Redpath said he felt the Legislature and the Metropolitan Council will
probably respond to this in the very near future. Reuter said the State
has charged the counties into looking at this problems. Bentley said he
would not like to see the government get involved in an area in which
private enterprise is doing a good job. Penzel said he felt this has
merit in looking into and suggested this be sent to the Recylcing Committee
for further evaluation.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Anderson, to refer this to the
Recycling Committee for its review.
Bob Carling, 6331 Industrial Drive, said the City should not look upon
this as a way to make money. He stated what he felt were some of the
pitfalls of containerized cans.
VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried unanimously.
11q3
City Council Minutes -12- December 18, 1984
C. Edenvale II Apartments -- Revised Plans
Planning Director Enger referred to his memorandum of December 18,
1984, in which the issue of the revised plans was addressed. Enger
indicated that, normally, a change of this magnitude would require a
new review by the Planning Commission.
James Cooperman, architect for the proposal, stated the change was
largely in the roof-line.
Enger stated the Planning Commission had not seen this plan; this was
to have been a transitional building.
Bentley said he felt there was a significant change in what had been
proposed and what was now scheduled to be built and that it should go
back to the Planning Commission for its review.
A representative for the proponent stated the reason for the change
was that a flat roof is easier to maintain.
MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Tangen, to refer this matter to
the Planning Commission for its recommendations. Motion carried unanimously.
IX. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
A. Charter Study Committee - Final Report
Ruth Charchian and Fred Hoisington, Co-Chairmen of the Charter Study
Committee were present to address the final report of the Committee.
They reviewed the Report and stated the Committee's recommendation
was that the this was not the time to adopt a Charter but that the
Charter rule issue be periodically reevaluated -- a two-year interval
basis was suggested.
The Council expressed its thanks to the Committee for the time and
effort it had put into formulating the Report.
X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Council Members
Tangen - noted this was his last meeting as a member of the City Council
and indicated the past four years had been a good experience. He thanked
the other members of the Council for being extremely dedicated servants
of the City. He said he felt progress had been made during the past four
years and was happy to have been a part of that. He thanked Mayor Penzel
for all of his help during this period. Tangen said he had made his
decisions not on friendships or influence, but on the basis of what was
best for the City of Eden Prairie and he hoped that no one would hold
that against him personally.
City Council Minutes -13- December 18, 1984
Penzel - indicated it had been a real pleasure to be a part of City govern-
ment. He thanked the citizens of Eden Prairie for the opportunity to
serve them. Penzel also thanked the Staff of the City.
Redpath - thanked Penzel and Tangen for their service to the City. He
said he felt the Council had worked pretty much in concert even though
there had been some disagreements along the way.
Penzel - stated that Gary Peterson, Paul Redpath, Carl Jullie and he
had appeared before the Metropolitan Council regarding the EIS for the
landfill. He noted that it will take another six months or so before
the process is completed.
B. Report of the City Manager
There was no report.
C. Report of City Attorney
1. Settlement of action against Barbarossa & Sons regarding damage
to property in Water Treatment Plant
City Attorney Pauly called attention to his memorandum of
December 13, 1984, in which this matter was addressed.
MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Tangen, to approve the
recommendation of the City Attorney to accept the settlement
offer in the City of Eden Prairie vs. Barbarossa & Sons, Inc.,
et al suit. Motion carried unanimously. (Redpath, Tangen and
Penzel).
2. Congressional Action
City Attorney Pauly noted that there had been recent Congressional
action regarding the granting of immunity to cities from antitrust
liability.
3. State of Minnesota Action
The Minnesota State Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals upheld
a couple of Court cases where the requirement of bringing action
on a municipality must be done within 90 days was determined to
be unconstitutional.
XI. NEW BUSINESS
There was none.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley, to adjourn the meeting at
11:40 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
415
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST
February 19, 1985
CONTRACTOR (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM.)
Kraus-Anderson, Inc.
Reynolds Construction, Inc.
Rutledge Construction Co.
ITT Schadow, Inc.
Woodson Development Co.
CONTRACTOR (j & 2 FAMILY)
A & G Builders
Frontier Midwest Corporation
Hand Construction, Inc.
Dave Johnson & Associates
Keprios Konstruction
PLUMBING
Carlson Plumbing
Consolidated Plumbing & Heating
Dolder Plumbing & Heating
McCarthy Plumbing & Heating
Nybo-Peterson Plumbing Co.
Royal Plumbing & Heating
Schulties Plumbing, Inc.
Zachman Plumbing
HEATING & VENTILATING
B & C Heating & Air Cond.
Cedar Valley Heating & Air Cond.
Consolidated Plumbing & Heating
Ron Erickson Heating & Air Cond.
Kleve Heating & Air Conditioning
Master Heating & Cooling
Riccar Heating & Ventilating
Royal Plumbing & Heating
THEATRE
Movies at Eden Prairie Center
GAS FITTER
B & C Heating & Air Cond.
Cedar Valley Heating & Air Cond.
Consolidated Plumbing & Heating
Ron Erickson Heating & Air Cond.
Kleve Heating & Air Conditioning
Master Heating & Cooling
VENDING
Q Petroleum
Servomation Corporation
CIGARETTE
Servomation Corporation
Snyder's Drug Store
3.2 BEER OFF SALE
Q Petroleum
TYPE B FOOD
Snyder's Drug Store
Q Petroleum
TYPE C FOOD
Q Petroleum
PRIVATE KENNEL
Harold Jenkins
RETAIL CANDY OUTLET
Morrow's Nut House
REFUSE HAULER
Village Sanitation
Waste Management - Savage
These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for
the li,ens ) activity.
ftl
at Soli LicensIng
4949
CONTRACTOR
BEGIN CONTRACTING
4H EARTH MOVERS
'FOREST LAKE CONTRACTING
BUSTING AND ENGSTROM
C. S. McCROSSAN
PREFERRED PAVING
Grading
$34,869.00
40,212.50
32,235.00
42,898.00
45,850.00
25.465.00
MMORANDUM
IHRU:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mayor and City Council
Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services
Carol M. Foy, Landscape Architect
February 12, 1985
Bids Received for the Grading and Alternate Paving at Frani° Road Par
k
and Eden Valley Park
On February 11, 1985, Community Services staff received, opened and p
u
b
l
i
c
l
y
r
e
a
d
b
i
d
s
for improvements to Eden Valley Park and Franlo Road Park. The work e
n
t
a
i
l
e
d
i
n
t
h
i
s
bid included the grading and base preparation at both parks, as well
a
s
a
n
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
bid for paving park roads, parking lots and tennis courts. Constructi
o
n
o
f
b
o
t
h
p
a
r
k
s
is to be compelted by May 30, 1985, in time for City crews to seed.
There were a total of 26 plan holders. The following bids were submi
t
t
e
d
:
EDEN VALLEY PARK
Alt. Paving Total
$11,575.00
$46,444.00
11,660.00
51,872.50
11,270.00
43,505.00
11,726.00
56,624.00
15,955.00
61,805.00
12,740.00
38,205.00
FRANI° ROAD PARK
Grading Alt. Paving Total
1115,838.18 $35,347.50 $151,185.68
114,443.50 32,800.00 144,243.50
91.475,20 32,089.00 123,564.20
115,039.76 34,694.00 149.735,76
126,399.50 37,875.00 164,274.50
79.556:00 35,095.00 114,651.00
Staff recommends awarding the contract to Preferred Paving for the gra
d
i
n
g
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
both Eden Valley Park and Franlo Road Park only for a total of $105,02
1
.
I
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
,
staff recommends postponing the alternate paving work for City crews t
o
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
o
r
f
o
r
contracting out later this year.
The estimated cost for grading Franlo Road Park was $83,000, and $25,0
0
0
f
o
r
t
h
e
E
d
e
n
Valley Park for a total of $108,000.
Funding for this project is provided for through cash'park fees.
CMF:md
MEMORANnUM
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mayor and City Council
Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services
Carol M. Foy, Landscape Architect
February 14, 1985
Bids on the Playstructures at Staring Lake Park, Homeward
Hills Park and Edenvale Park
On February 11, 1985, staff received, opened and read bids on three playstructures:
a "totlot" at Staring Lake Park and two multi-use playstructures; one each at Home-
Ward Hills Park and Edenvale Park.
Once again, the question of how to bid out playstructures occurred, and staff de-
cided the most equitable way was to budget $5,000 for each structure, and give each
company a very general design goal with some specifically required components. This
way, each company can be as creative as they wish and, hopefully, provide the City
with the most components/play experience for the money.
•
The City received three quotes for StaringLake, and four quotes for both Edenvale
and Homeward Hills Parks. Attached is each matrix used for scoring. An attempt
was made to develop the matrix such that items which could be readily counted and
were objective were more commonly used and carried higher point values. The more
subjective items carried less value.
On the whole, most companies met the basic required components. Where companies
excelled and differed occurred in some of the extra components, the creative arrange-
ments of components in developing other play spaces and the appeal of the apparatus
to all age groups. Price also differed somewhat between the bidders.
COMPANY STARING LAKE PARK EDENVALE PARK HOMEWARD HILLS PARK
price score price score price score
Landscape Structures $5,000 126 $5,000 103 $4,845 93
Hilan 5,000 87 5,000 97 . 5,000 82
Quality Industies 4,970 119 4,950 83 3,150 88
Big Toys 5,000 110 5,000 120
In the matrix, price received higher value points.
Based on the matrix system, staff would like to recommend purchase of the Staring Lake
Totlot Struture from Landscape Structures, and purchasing both structures for Edenvale
Park and Homeward Hills Park from Big Toys.
CMF:md
.
0 .
Fe q4 : . ,-,, •
C,
1 ! i
MI
. ,
, VA,Muoix.voti Cf-kr-PiA•
! 1
tb
c.
i .
.. ; ,
i -
! o4
„
, 6- •
-'' •
<))
e*
4'
t•- -
,
A"
.
%),
tDe.11.14
Lowex- Peafv. -ntutli-leuet.
Ni•J icle::,eled i , 1 , .
TO
't•.,`.t./ 21).);1 ,11.t, : i : i ,
)14.\00t-1114),/y
0.4A%-!f,f2-1//-c.c V.7 !
FAMPt l',?4QT:-.--- --\.`i
_
a
:cb -
0
o - -62
o- 4
a - 6
03- (0
a- 4 - 5
0 - 5 - (a
•
9'• '
o
o
°
sty
.'
%
,
t' n
o
\d'44Z.0 CR-4We I CArr-,
Ti‘VCROVen t '
11?.4, ,
14 grA4 0.1.11-{r7n..Rr
elliAlli 6L/1-1451.f4e,
00.1.,1 ow L..k.,p0e,e),
i 1
i t - :.
1
o
5;
0 7 2..
!
:
1
'
'..p., ,
9 3
..!.
A-
_r,
cp
v4
3?
Su •
-P•
•
'zsl.
.3Y,
6,‘
5-3
'Iz.
lnP
-1s.
•c- .
113-i-n- Lsor-- tiv.sces- .
ykm-N 0? k.C.5
CAV.41,0.1-101-3 ,-.)1
)...- q-auoz..-
0i:it OP c Cu:V., •
. eit--11-06113C{ 4API
•)ex.., et) ona-pcm,1
u.pe.t.,,
.:
f'Dit-z"
r171,-%
. .
•
_ . . _. • T CAI N-Y") 0 -,44
0-41-8
0 -4 -b
o (0
0 - A
0 - p?
0 -4 - ,E3 !
0-3 -&-. ;!
1
•
•
l4
•
1-t 1 P 1 ..
nV
UN 0 ...
1.4.1p 1=-,L. L.0 ID:I.SAJ V•
pa,-il }.5:0 c, u t.f.4.r.c.=.
• FIZ-f0,... •
(ICIq '
F
...
P La
0 ---•tv
Co -
i
);; 0 I 01 -*1-4-/
ttrallr reK-44`,,smic ' 31. ' •ri Alfr-pr her -1.71.1 0 CY0 0 c) fc.) 0 , , k)4 s% ;D. \.N. t I I ct c;a2t-t0dylovalcolctroi o (3- c-fritit 0-31CfraHci4 P -sovs6 0. c 11 0 0 tc. cacg 5 if -4, C-ifin‘kn r 00 80 e, e41C11,7(ralq vs- c+sggec--t, og 0 ..A31-rjextri
' • c!), 0; t .11),1k,Y, 0-0 - ›• .) , • -,-- P (--D;VAL-A.A POW, 6 G. c, 4 4 6 0 00 0 0 0 .2 4 3 8e. 3 to 3 4 (9 o co 4 44 4'000A:009 55443634 3 6 6,Co 0 4 4 :3 3 5 4 /7 obA0Xo,o D3D8.5Co.3e)to 6354 110
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 85-56
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
EDENVALE EXECUTIVE CENTER
WHEREAS, the plat of Edenvale Executive Center has been submitted
in a manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance
Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings
have been duly had thereunder, and
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan
and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota
and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EDEN PRAIRIE:
A. Plat approval request for Edenvale Executive Center is
approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the
City Engineer's report on this plat dated February 7, 1985.
B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a
certified copy of this Resolution to the owners and
subdividers of the above named plat:
C. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to
execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City
Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions.
ADOPTED by the City Council on February 5, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST
SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
SO2
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT
HISTORY:
VARIANCES:
Mayor Peterson and City Council Members
Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works
David L. Olson, Senior Engineering Technician
February 7, 1985
EDENVALE EXECUTIVE CENTER
The developer, Equitable Life Assurance Society, has requested
City Council approval of the final plat of Edenvale Executive
Center, a replat of Outlot D, Edenvale 9th Addition,
consisting of two lots and two outlots. Proposals presented
by Reynolds Printing and Welsh Construction have been combined
to form the plat. The Welsh Construction Proposal (Lot 1,
Block 1) involves the construction of 106,960 square feet of
Office/Showroom uses in two buildings. The Reynolds Printing
site (Lot 2, Block 1) will contain a 30,000 square foot
office/warehouse/manufacturing building. Outlots A and B will
continue to be owned by Equitable with platting and zoning
requests to be reviewed at a later date.
The preliminary plats for Welsh Construction (Lot 1, Block 1)
and Reynolds Printing (Lot 2, Block 1) were approved by the
City Council on December 18, 1984, per Resolution 84-322 and
84-321 respectively.
Zoning to 1-2 park was finally read and approved by the City
Council on January 8, 1985, per Ordinance 134-85 (Reynolds
site) and 135-85 (Welsh site).
Resolutions 85-6 (Reynolds site) and 85-7 (Welsh site)
summarize specific conditions for approval of the proposals.
The Developer's Agreement, which was executed for Edenvale 9th
Addition on June 11, 1984, will also apply to this plat.
A variance allowing 65% office use within the two buildings on
the Welsh site was authorized through Resolution 85-7.
All other variance requests must be processed through the
Board of Appeals.
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PROPOSAL:
'503
Page 2, Final Plat of Edenvale Executive Center, 2/7/85
UTILITIES AND STREETS:
All municipal utilities and streets necessary to serve the
sites will be installed by the developer in conformance with
City standards.
Resolutions 85-6 and 85-7 specify walkways to be installed by
Reynolds and Welsh.
PARK DEDICATION:
The requirements for park dedication are covered in the
Developer's Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend approval of the final plat of Edenvale Executive
Center subject to the requirements of this report, Resolutions
85-6 and 85-7, the.Developer's Agreement and the following:
I. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $1,200.00.
(Engineering fees for Outlots A and B will be due when
subdivision occurs.)
DLO:sg
cc: Mr. John Lassen, Equitable Life Assurance
Mr. Anthony Feffer, Investment Services Group
Mr. Brad Bainey, Welsh Construction
50q
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 85-57
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND ADDITION
WHEREAS, the plat of Lake Heights 2nd Addition Center has been
submitted in a manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie
Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all
proceedings have been duly had thereunder, and
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan
and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota
and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EDEN PRAIRIE:
A. Plat approval request for Lake Heights 2nd Addition is
approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the
City Engineer's report on this plat dated February 4, 1985.
B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a
certified copy of this Resolution to the owners and
subdividers of the above named plat.
C. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to
execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City
Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions.
ADOPTED by the City Council on February 5, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST
SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
5'06-
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PROPOSAL:
Mayor Peterson and City Council Members
Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works
David L. Olson, Senior Engineering Technician
February 4, 1985
LAKE HEIGHTS 2ND ADDITION
Pam
The developers, Lake Heights Ventures and Universal Land
Corporation, have requested City Council approval of the final
plat of Lake Heights 2nd Addition. This is a replat of Outlot
A, Lake Heights Addition located south of Anderson Lakes
Parkway and east of Homeward Hills Road in the North 1/2 of
Section 23. The site contains approximately 1.8 acres to be
divided into 4 lots.
HISTORY:
The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council on
December 4, 1984, per Resolution 84-310.
Zoning to RI-13.5 was finally read and approved by the City
Council on January 8, 1985, per Ordinance 130-84.
Resolution 85-3, approved by the City Council on January 8,
1985, summarizes specific conditions of approval of the
proposal.
VARIANCES:
All variance requests must be processed through the Board of
Appeals.
UTILITIES AND STREETS:
Municipal utilities necessary to serve this site have been
installed. The developer will be responsible to install any
necessary utility extensions in conformance with City
standards.
PARK DEDICATION:
Park dedication will conform to the requirements of the City
Code and Resolution 85-3.
5010
Page 2, Final Plat of Lake Heights 2nd Addition, 2/4/
8
5
BONDING:
Bonding must conform to City Code requirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend approval of the final plat of Lake Heights
2
n
d
Addition subject to the requirements of this report,
Resolution 85-3 and the following:
1. Receipt of street lighting fee in the amount of $468.
0
0
.
2. Receipt of engineering fee in the amouont of $150.00.
DLO:sg
cc: Mr. Steve Ryan, Lake Heights Ventures
Mr. john Lassen, Universal Land
Mr. Roy Hansen, Hansen, Thorp, and Pellinen, Inc.
'col
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 85-54
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
COACHMANS LANDING SECOND ADDITION
WHEREAS, the plat of Coachmans Landing Second Addition has been
submitted in a manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie
Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all
proceedings have been duly had thereunder, and
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan
and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota
and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL Of THE CITY Of
EDEN PRAIRIE:
A. Plat approval request for Coachmans Landing Second Addition
Is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the
City Engineer's report on this plat dated February 7, 1985.
B. Variance is herein granted from City Code 12.20 Subd. 2.A.
waiving the six month maximum time elapse between the
approval date of the preliminary plat and filing of the
final plat as described in said engineer's report.
C. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a
certified copy of this Resolution to the owners and
subdividers of the above named plat.
D. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to
execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City
Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions.
ADOPTED by the City Council on February 5, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST
SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
6(Z
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mayor Peterson and City Council Members
Carl Jullie, City Manager
Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works
David L. Olson, Senior Engineering Technician
February 7, 1985
COACHMANS LANDING SECOND ADDITION
do a
PROPOSAL: The developer, Butler Homes, is requesting Council approval
of the final plat of Coachmans Landing Second Addition, a
single family residential division containing 15 lots.
The proposal is a replat of Outlot B, Coachmans Landing
containing approximately 8.94 acres, and is located south
of Village Woods Drive and east of Red Rock Hills 3rd
Addition in the South 11 of Section 16. The ownership of
Outlots A and B will be retained by the Developer and
platted as part of the 3rd Addition.
HISTORY: The preliminary plat (known as Pheasant Oaks) was approved
by the City Council on April 18, 1978, per Resolution No.
78-57.
Zoning to R1-13.5 was finally read and approved by the City
Council on June 7, 1978, per Ordinance No. 78-17.
The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report
was executed on June 28, 1978.
The final plat now submitted for approval conforms with the
approved preliminary plat.
VARIANCES:
A variance from the requirements of City Code 12.20, Subd.
2.A waiving the six month maximum time elapse between the
approval date of the preliminary plat and filing of the
final plat will be necessary.
All other variance requests must be processed through the
Board of Appeals.
UTILITIES AND STREETS:
The requirements for installing municipal utilities,
streets, and walkways are covered in the Developer's
Agreement.
60(-)
Engineering Report
Coachmans Landing Second Addition
Page 2.
Vjllage Woods Drive now becomes an important part of the
area development,providing access to the Red Rock Hills and
Coachmans Landing Additions. For this reason the Engi-
neering Department recommends complete construction of the
remaining section of this roadway during the 1985
Construction season.
PARK DEDICATION:
The requirements for park dedication are covered in the
Developer's Agreement.
BONDING:
Bonding shall conform to the requirements of the
Developer's Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend approval of the final plat of Coachman Landing
Second 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 $460.00.
2. Receipt of street lighting fee in the amount of
$1,872.00
3. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $600.00.
4. Satisfaction of bonding requirements.
5. Receipt of street sign fee for Coachmans Landing in the
amount of $413.15 (Invoice 14827 )
6. Complete construction of Village Woods Drive during the
1985 construction season.
010: km
5 10
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
•
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 85-55
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
COACHMANS LANDING THIRD ADDITION
WHEREAS, the plat of Coachmans Landing Third Addition has been
submitted in a manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie
Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all
proceedings have been duly had thereunder, and
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan
and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota
and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EDEN PRAIRIE:
A. Plat approval request for Coachmans Landing Third Addition
is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the
City Engineer's report on this plat dated February 12,
1985.
B. Variance is herein granted from City Code 12.20 Subd. 2.A.
waiving the six month maximum time elapse between the
approval date of the preliminary plat and filing of the
final plat as described in said engineer's report.
C. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a
certified copy of this Resolution to the owners and
subdividers of the above named plat.
D. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to
execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City
Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions.
ADOPTED by the City Council on February 5, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST
SEAL
John D. Frane, Cler
6/i
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
'Mayor Peterson and City Council Members
Carl Jullie, City Manager
Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works
David L. Olson, Senior Engineering Technician
February 12, 1985
COACHMANS LANDING THIRD ADDITION
PROPOSAL: The developer, Butler Homes, is requesting Council approval
of the final plat of Coachmans Landing Third Addition. The
proposal is a replat of Outlot A, Coachmans Landing and
Outlots A and B, Coachmans Landing Second Addition
containing approximately 13 acres to be divided into 32
lots. The property is located south of Scenic Heights
Addition and west of Red Rock Hills 3rd Addition in the
south ;1 of Section 16.
HISTORY: The preliminary plat (known as Pheasant Oaks) was approved
by the City Council on April 18, 1978, per Resolution No.
78-57.
Zoning to R1-13.5 was finally read and approved by the City
Council on June 7, 1978, per Ordinance No. 78-17.
The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report
was executed on June 28, 1978.
The final plat now submitted for approval conforms with the
approved preliminary plat.
VARIANCES:
A variance from the requirements of City Code 12.20, Subd.
2.A waiving the six month maximum time elapse between the
approval date of the preliminary plat and filing of the
final plat will be necessary.
All other variance requests must be processed through the
Board of Appeals.
UTILITIES AND STREETS:
The requirements for installing municipal utilities,
streets, and walkways are covered in the Developer's
Agreement.
Engineering Report
Coachmans Landing Third Addition
page 2.
Village Woods Drive now becomes an important part of the
area development,providing access to the Red Rock Hills and
Coachmans Landing Additions. For this reason the Engi-
neering Department recommends complete construction of the
remaining section of this roadway during the 1985
construction season.
PARK DEDICATION:
The requirements for park dedication are covered in the
Developer's Agreement.
BONDING:
Bonding shall conform to the requirements of the
Developer's Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend approval of the final plat of Coachmans Landing
Second Addition subject to the requirements of this report,
the Developer's Agreement and the following:
1. Receipt of street sign fee in the amount of $1,035.00.
2. Receipt of street lighting fee in the amount of
$3,276.00
3. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $1,280.00.
4. Satisfaction of bonding requirements.
5. Receipt of street sign fee for Coachmans Landing in the
amount of $413.15 (Invoice #4827.)
6. Complete construction of Village Woods Drive during the
1985 construction season.
OLD: km
6'3
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 85-58
RESOLUTION RECEIVING FEASIBILITY REPORT
AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARING
WHEREAS, a report has been given by the City Engineer to the City
Council recommending the following improvements to wit:
I.C. 52-061, Paulsen's 1st and 2nd Additions and Apple Groves
Sanitary Sewer.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL:
1. The Council will consider the aforesaid improvements
in accordance with the report and the assessment of
property abutting or within said boundaries for all or
a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to
M.S.A. Section 429.011 to 429.111, at an estimated
total cost of the improvements as shown.
2. A public hearing shall beheld on such proposed improvement
on the 19th day of March, 1985, at 7:30 P.M. at the
Eden Prairie School Administration Building, 8100 School Road.
The City Clerk shall give published and mailed notice
of such hearing on the improvements as required by law.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on February 19, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, May
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, City Clerk
CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 3
10 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IC 51-308C
VALLEY VIEW ROAD AND INTERCHANGE AT 1494
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
January 9, 1985
BENNETT-RINGROSE-WOLSFELD-JARVIS-GARDNER, INC.
700 Third Street South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415
The following additions and deletions shall be made by contract amendment to
this project.
SCHEDULE A
(VALLEY VIEW ROAD)
ADDITIONS
Item
Estimated Unit
No. Item Unit Quantity Price Amount
1. 2341 Wear Course (Mod.) Ton 3,645.50 $ 12.46 *"." $45,422.93
2. Guard Rail Deign 08307 L.F. 187.50 • $ 18.15 $ 3,403.12
3. Tine and Materials L.S. 1.00 $1,089.50 $ 1,089.50
TOTAL ADDITIONS SCHEDULE A
$49,915.55
DELETIONS
Item
Estimated Unit
No. Item Unit Quantity Price Amount
1. 2341 Wear Course Ton 3,046.00 $ 11.80' $35,942.80
TOTAL DELETIONS SCHEDULE A
SCHEDULE B -
(1494 AND RAMPS)
$35,942.80
ADDITIONS
Item Estimated Unit
No. Item Unit Quantity Price Amount
1. RCP Construction Bend Each 1.00 $ 200.00 "-- $ 200.00
2. 6" Perforated 11'
Pipe Drain L.F. 125.00 $ 9.00 ' $ 1,125.00
3. Filter Aggregate Ton 27.85 $ 18.00' $ 501.30
Page 1 of 3
6/6-
SCHEDULE 13 (1494 AND RAMPS)
ADDITIONS (Continued)
Item
Estimated Unit
No. Itom Unit Quantity PrIce
Amount
4. Douglas Fur B-U, 10 1 -12' Tree
5. 4" Solid TP Pipe Drain L.F.
23.00 $ 250.00 $ 5,750.00
220.50 $ 9.50 S 2 094.75
TOTAL ADDITIONS SCHEDULE 11
$9,673.05
NECESSITY FOR AMENDMENTS
SCHEDULE A (ADDITIONS)
Item 1. The Minnesota Department of Transportation modified the Standard
2341 bitumlnous wear mixture as the result of numerous problems
encountered with the standard mix in recent years. The new mix
design will provide a more dependable wear course for this project.
Item 2. It was determined desirable to add guardrail along the curved section
of Topview Road due to the high fill.
Item 3. Extra work was necessary for installing a bituminous flume at
Roberts Drive and Topview Road, for installing five permanent barri-
cades on the TopvIew cul-de-sac and for providing additional
restraint on the 16" watermain as requested by the Water Department
In accordance with now City standards.
SCHEDULE A (DELETIONS)
Item 1. See Item No. 1 (ADDITIONS) above.
SCHEDULE B (ADDITIONS)
Item 1. A field construction bond was necessitated due to inability to
obtain precast concrete bend.
Items 2 Perforated pipe and filter aggregate were placed to intercept
3. water bearing seam along Ramp A to help avoid future frost
damage.
Item 4. Evergreen trees were placed between highway and adjacent property
as a visual screen.
Item 5. Solid pipe drain lequired to carry water away from perforated drain
behind each abutment was inadvertently left out of bid quantities.
Page 2 of 3
ENGINEER
Bennett-Ringrose-Wolsfeld-Jarvis-Gardner, Inc.
Title: /),t‘
ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT
TOTAL PREVIOUS CONTRACT AMENDMENTS
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL ADDITIONS CONTRACT AMENDMENT #3
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL DEDUCTIONS CONTRACT AMENDMENT #3
CONTRACT AMOUNT TO DATE
$3,152,064.95
$ 18,146.47
$3,170,211.42
$ 59,586.61
$3,229,798.03
$ 35,942.80
$3,193,855.23
CONTRACTOR
Shafer Contracting Company, Inc.
Title: Date:
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
City Engineer Date:
Page 3 of 3
61/)
CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 4
TO CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR
• IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT .IC 51-308A-2
PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE INTERCHANGE AT 1494
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
December, 1984
BENNETT-RINGROSE-WOLSFELD-JARVIS-GARDNER, INC.
700 THIRD STREET SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55415
The following work shall be added by contract amendment to this project.
SCHEDULE B
(LOCAL STREETS)
ADDITIONS
Estimated
Item No. Item Unit Quantity
•
1. 21" CM Pipe Sewer
1.F.
2. 21" Surge Basin
EA.
.3. 48" R.C. Pipe Apron EA.
w/Trash Guard
Unit Price
$ 32.00'
$ 850.00
$1,850.00
Amount
$ 1,024.00
$ 850.00
$ 1,850.00
32.0
1.0
1.0
TOTAL ADDITIONS SCHEDULE B $ 3,724.00
DELETIONS
Item No. Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Mount
1. 36" R.C. Pipe Sewer L.F. 20.0 $ 56.00 $ 1,120.00
Class III
TOTAL DELETIONS SCHEDULE B $ 1,120.00
Description and Location of Work
The above itemized work is located on Valley View Road (01d County Road 39) east
of Prairie Center Drive.
Page 1 of 2
5/7
Necessity for Amendment
SCHEDULE 8
ADDITIONS
Items 1-2
These Items were necessitated by the relocation of the bike path
to the south side of the roadway. The additional widening
steepened the grade of the pipe allowing a smaller pipe size but
Increasing the speed of flow, requiring a surge basin.
Item 3
The apron and trash guard were Inadvertently not included in
Contract Amendment 13.
DELETIONS
Item 1. See Item 1 above.
ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT
TOTAL PREVIOUS CONTRACT AMENDMENTS
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL ADDITIONS CONTRACT AMENDMENT #3
SUBTOTAL
$3,782,476.29
$ 82,313.98
$3,864,790.27
$ 3,724.00
$3,868,514.27
TOTAL DEDUCTIONS CONTRACT AMENDMENT /3 -$ 1,120.00
CONTRACT AMOUNT TO DATE $3,867,394.27
CONTRACTOR:
Shafer Contracting Company, Inc.
1 -1
Title: Date:
ENGINEER:
Bennett-Ringrose-Wolsfeld-Jarvis-Gardner, Inc. ,
Title: Vice President Date: /--..31:i-ey
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
City Engineer:'
Date:
Page 2 of 2
5-19
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 85-59
RESOLUTION ORDERING FEASIBILITY REPORT
WHEREAS, it is proposed to make the following improvements:
I.C. 52-057, Rowland Road Improvements
and assess the benefitted property for all or a portion of the cost of the
improvements, pursuant to M.S.A. 429.011 to 429.111.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council:
That the proposed improvements be referred to the City Engineer for
study with the assistance of RCM, Inc., and that a feasibility report
shall be prepared and presented to the City Council with all
convenient speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as to the
scope, cost assessment and feasibility of the proposed improvements.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on February 19, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
6'AO
MEMORANDUM
5,2 1
TO:
FROM:
THROUGH:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mayor and City Council
Chris Enger, Director of Planning
Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
February 15, 1985
Findings of No Significance fde' Environmental Assessment Worksheets
on Apple Groves, Eden Commons, and Muirfield Developments
. -
As you may recall, the procedures for approval of Environmental_ Assessment
Worksheets have changed recently, whereby the City cannot reach a "'finding of no
significance" regarding a project until all the comments from the vaeious agencies
have been submitted and reviewed by the City.
-
In the case of Apple Groves and Muirfield, questions •arose from the' 'Pollution
Control Agency (PCA) regarding noise volumes from Valley View Road for these two
projects. The City was requested to provide additional information to .the PCA,
giving more detail as to this aspect of the Environmental Assessment Worksheets for
these two projects. Staff has submitted this information to the PCP, answering
their remaining questions on this matter and thereby clearing the Environmental
Assessment Worksheets on these two projects.
In the case of Eden Commons, the original Environmental Assessment. Worksheet tad
been prepared for 250 units for the project based on their original request. A
revised Worksheet was necessary after the City approved a reduced number of units
(196) for the project. This project has also now cleared the review process.
Staff would recommend that the Council approve the resolutions for these three
projects, making findings of no significant impact based on the Environmental
Assessment Worksheets. .
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 85-50
• A RESOLUTION FINDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
WORKSHEET FOR APPLE GROVES, A PRIVATE ACTION, DOES
NOT REQUIRE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
WHEREAS, the City Council of Eden Prairie did hold a hearing on October 4,
1983 to consider the Apple Groves proposal of Northwest Properties; and,
WHEREAS, said development is located on approximately 40 acres of land
located southeast of the intersection of Valley View Road and Park View Lane in Eden
Prairie; and,
WHEREAS, the Eden Prairie Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on
the Apple Groves proposal of Northwest Properties and did recommend approval of the
Environmental Assessment Worksheet finding the project of no significant impact;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie,
Minnesota, that an Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary for the Apple
Groves proposal of Northwest Properties, because the project is not a major action,
does not have significant environmental effects, and is not of more than local
significance.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a Negative Declaration Notice shall be
officially filed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Council.
ADOPTED this 19th day of February, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
JOhn D. crane, City Clerk
c22
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 85-52
A RESOLUTION FINDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
WORKSHEET FOR EDEN COMMONS, A PRIVATE ACTION, DOES
NOT REQUIRE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
WHEREAS, the City Council of Eden Prairie did hold a hearing on October 16,
1984 to consider the Eden Commons proposal of Chasewood Development; and,
WHEREAS, said development is located on approximately 40 acres of land
located southeast of the intersection of Valley View Road and Park View Lane in Eden
Prairie; and,
WHEREAS, the Eden Prairie Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on
the Eden Commons proposal of Chasewood Development and did recommend approval of the
Environmental Assessment Worksheet finding the project of no significant impact;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie,
Minnesota, that an Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary for the Eden
Commons proposal of Chasewood Development, because the project is not a major
action, does not have significant environmental effects, and is not of more than
local significance.
- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a Negative Declaration Notice shall be
officially filed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Council.
ADOPTED this 19th day of February, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Franc, City Clerk
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 85-51
A RESOLUTION FINDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
WORKSHEET FOR MUIRFIELD, A PRIVATE ACTION, DOES
NOT REQUIRE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
WHEREAS, the City Council of Eden Prairie did hold a hearing on October 2,
1984 to consider the Muirfield proposal of Tandem Corporation/TCF Development Corp.;
and,
WHEREAS, said development is located on approximately 40 acres of land
located southeast of the intersection of Valley View Road and Park View Lane in Eden
Prairie; and,
WHEREAS, the Eden Prairie Planning Commission did hold a Public hearing on
the Muirfield proposal of Tandem Corporation/TCF Development Corp. and did recommend
approval of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet finding the project of no
significant impact;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie,
Minnesota, that an Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary for the Muirfield
proposal of Tandem Corporation/TCF Development Corp., because the project is not a
major action, does not have significant environmental effects, and is not of more
than local significance.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a Negative Declaration Notice shall be
officially filed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Council.
ADOPTED this 19th day of February, 1985.
Gary D.Aiterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane,.City Cle57 -----
1;4
Bergin Auto Body
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 4-85
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND
F
R
O
M
O
N
E
ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION
S
O
F
L
A
N
D
IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECT
I
O
N
1
1
.
9
9
WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance (hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto
a
n
d
m
a
d
e
a part hereof.
Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the zoning of the land be amended within the 1-2 Park District.
Section 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the zoning shall be, and hereby is amended within the 1-2 Park District and shall be included h
e
r
e
a
f
t
e
r
in the 1-2 Park District as amended.
Section 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violati
o
n
"
a
n
d
Section 11.99, entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in
t
h
e
i
r
entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 5. 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 Ede
n
Prairie on the 5th day of February, 1985, and finally read and adopted a
n
d
o
r
d
e
r
e
d
published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 1
9
t
h
d
a
y
o
f
February, 1985.
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1985.
Exhibit A
Legal Description
Outlot E, Edenvale Industrial Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 4-85
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN
L
A
N
D
F
R
O
M
O
N
E
ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPT
I
O
N
S
O
F
L
A
N
D
IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SE
C
T
I
O
N
1
1
.
9
9
,
WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Summa,: This Ordinance allows for a zoning district amendment for land within the 1-2 Zoning District, located north of Martin Dri
v
e
,
w
e
s
t
o
f
Corporate Way, known as Bergin Auto Body. Exhibit A, included with this
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
,
gives the full legal description of this property.
Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publtcation.
ATTEST:
/s/John D. Frane
/s/Gary D. Peterson City Clerk
Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the
day of , 1985.
(A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City C
l
e
r
k
.
)
•
Bergin Auto Body
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 85-55
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY
OF ORDINANCE 4-85 AND ORDERING THE
PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 4-85 was adopted and ordered published at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 19th day of February,
1985;
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. 4-85, 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 -brevier or eight-point type, as defined in
Minn. Stat. 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. 4-85 shall be recorded in the ordinance book,
along with proof of publication required by paragraph 8 herein,
within 20 days after said publication.
ADOPTED by the City Council on February 19, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
5 ,27
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 85-64
A RESOLUTION SETTING FORTH SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
OF COUNCIL APPROVAL OF BERGIN AUTO BODY
FOR AN AUTO BODY REPAIR BUSINESS ON 1.0 ACRE
BE IT RESOLVED that the proposal for Bergin Auto Body by James Bergin, for a 6,000
sq. ft. structure on approximately one acre, located at the northwest corner of
Corporate Way and Martin Drive, is herein approved subject to the following specific
conditions:
1. The development plans, preliminary plat, and erosion control and grading
plan, all dated February 12, 1985, and attached hereto shall apply.
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, developer/owner shall:
A. Submit to the City Engineer and Watershed District receive the
approval of the City Engineer and Watershed District for detailed
plans for storm water run-off and erosion control.
. B. Submit to the Director of Planning, and receive the 'Director's
approval of:
1) Overall signage and lighting plans.
2) Color samples of the intended color spectrum for the rock
face block and decorative break-off block materials for the
structure.
3) A revised landscape plan increasing the size and number of
proposed plant materials, adding coniferous trees.
C. Developer shall notify the City and Watershed District at least 48
hours in advance of any grading.
ADOPTED by the City Council on February 19, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Friiii7 —City Clerk
6g9
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John D.Frane, Finance Director
DATE: February 15, 1985
RE: Final Approval Housing Revenue Bonds for Eden Commons
(Chasewood) $9,650,000 - Resolution No. 85-63
The final documents have been approved by the City Attorney's
Office. The resolution will be in the Mayor's signature file.
JDF:bw
2/15/85
530
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 85-60
RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS AND
PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 22nd day of
January, 1985, fixed the 19th day of February, 1985, as the date for a public
hearing on the following proposed improvements:
I.C. 52-069, Bluffs West Vicinity Storm Sewer
WHEREAS, ten days published notice of the Council hearing through two
weekly publications of the required notice was given and the hearing was held
on the 19th day of Fabruary, 1985, at which all persons desiring to be heard
were given an opportunity to be heard thereon.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL:
1. Such improvement is hereby ordered.
2. The City Engineer, with the assistance of Hansen, Thorp, Pellinen
and Olson, Inc., are hereby directed to prepare plans and
specifications for the making of such improvement.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on February 19, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, Clii•
631
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John D. Franc, Finance Director
DATE: February 14, 1985
RE: Public Hearing H.B.P. Project (Roberts Litho) $1,700,000
The hearing is being held to satisfy federal laws concerning
the issuance of M.I.D.B.'s. No action is necessary by the City
other than the hearing. The project has not been allocated
money from the City's 1985 cap and this hearing makes no allocation.
JDF:bw
2/14/85
FEBRUARY 19,1985
563 MENARDS
,d564 DAVID CARSTENSON
18565 GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE
18566 LESLIE VILLELLA
18567 TODD LA FRENZ
18568 JANET CARLSON
18569 JASON WEDEL
18570 MINNESOTA UC FUND
18571 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
18572 TV FAN FARE
18573 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO
18574 AL DILLER
18575 SUPPLEES 7 HI ENTER INC
18576 DANA GIBBS
18577 WENDY BURNS CARLSON
18578 INTERCONTINENTAL PCKG CO
18579 EAGLE WINE CO
18580 JOHNSON BROTHERS WHOLESALE LIQUOR
18581 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO
18582 TWIN CITY WINE CO
18583 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC
18584 WORLD CLASS WINES
1 8585 QUALITY WINE CO
,586 PAUST1S & SONS CO
18587 CAPITOL CITY DISTRIBUTING CO
18588 PETTY CASH-COMMUNITY CENTER
18589 JASON-NORTHCO PROPERTIES
18590 PADGETT-THOMPSON
18591 U S POSTMASTER
18592 CHRISTOPHER SCHEME
18593 BRAD HERRICK
18594 KAREN THON
18595 TAMMY JOHNSON
18596 LISA KAY PEDERSEN
18597 NANCY BJORNBERG
18598 PATTI TRONGARD
18599 SHARON ELLERMANN
18600 RALPH KRATOCHVIL
18601 INTERCONTINENTAL PCKG CO
18602 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC
18603 TWIN CITY WINE CO
18604 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO
18605 JOHNSON BROTHERS WHOLESALE LIQUOR
18606 QUALITY WINE CO
18607 WELSH VILLAGE
18608 HENNEPIN COUNTY PARK
18609 CRAGUNS CONFERENCE
-8610 MINNESOTA GAS CO
.8611 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO
18612 NATIONAL ANIMAL CONTROL ASSOC
18613 INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF
18614 U S POS1MASTER
18615 ROYAL CROWN BEVERAGE CO
57048.45
LIGHT BULBS-COUNCIL CHAMBERS
VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL
CONFERENCE-COUNCIL MEMBER
REFUND-SKI TRIP
REFUND-SKI TRIP
REFUND -SKI TRIP
REFUND-SKI TRIP
UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS
CONFERENCE - CITY HALL
ADS - LIQUOR STORES
SERVICE
REFUND-SKI TRIP
FEBRUARY 85 RENT
PACKET DELIVERY
SKATING INSTRUCTOR/FEES PD
WINE
WINE
LIQUOR
LIQUOR
WINE
LIQUOR
WINE
WINE
WINE ,
WINE
CHANGE FUND-COMMUNITY CENTER
FEBRUARY RENT
CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT
POSTAGE-POLICE DEPT
REFUND-SKATING LESSONS
REFUND-SWIMMING LESSSONS
REFUND-POST NATAL CLASSES
REFUND-PRE NATAL CLASSES
REFUND -PRE NATAL CLASSES
REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES
REFUND-SWIMMINC CLASSES
REFUND SKATING CLASSES
EXERCISE CLASS INSTRUCTOR/FEES PD
WINE
LIQUOR
WINE
LIQUOR
LIQUOR
WINE
SKI TRIP
PARK RESERVATION
CONFERENCE-AN1MAL WARDEN
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUBSCRIPTION-POLICE DEPT
CONFERENCE-FIRE DEPT
BULK MAILING FOR 911 INFO-POLICE DEPT
MIXES
52.80
150.00
75.00
5.00
5.50
13.25
5.50
854.02
759.00
75.00
1237.93
198.00
3717.54
26.00
452.60
136.90
1172.56
2700.29
4331.63
366.23
3912.94
526.70
888.60
683.07
794.98
45.00
3887.22
347.0t,
745.00
18.00
9.50
18.05
26.00
26.00
28.50
13.00
4.00
35.00
1138.0t
6536.6c
484.71
10624.70
2235.2
2858.81
552.0,
12.0'
174.6
1372.9
1803.4(
12.0'
45.0
74.1(
.,633
18616 REX DISTRIBUTING CO INC
1 8617 CITY CLUB DISTRIBUTING CO
3618 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO
18619 BEER WHOLESALERS INC
18620 PEPSI/7-UP BOTTLING CO
18621 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CO
18622 THORPE DISTRIBUTING CO
18623 GRIGGS BEER 01ST INC
18624 KIRSCH DISTRIBUTING CO
18625 COCA COLA BOTTLING CO ,
18626 RICHARD KNUTSON INC
18627 EAGAN-MC KAY ELECTRICAL CONTRACTO
18628 A COMMERCIAL DOOR COMPANY
18629 A & H WELDING & MFG CO
18630 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC
18631 ORRIN ALT
18632 APWA
18633 AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS
18634 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOC
18635 EARL F ANDERSEN & ASSOC INC
18636 ARTISAN CONSTRUCTION
18637 DALE ARNDT
18638 ASPLUND COFFEE CO INC
18639 ASTLEFORD INTNL INC
18640 AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS
18641 AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS
'S642 AUTO-HDWE WAREHOUSE
.8643 BATTERY & TIRE WAREHOUSE INC
18644 BESTOS PRODUCTS CO
18645 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON
18646 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON
18647 BLOOMINGTON LOCKSMITH CO
18648 BOYER FORD TRUCKS INC
18649 BRAUN ENG TESTING INC
18650 BROWN PHOTO
18651 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC
18652 BURTON EQUIPMENT INC
18653 BUTCHS BAR SUPPLY
18654 CARGILL SALT DIVISION
18655 DAVE CARSTENSON
18656 CHANHASSEN BUMPER TO BUMPER
18657 CHANHASSEN LAWN & SPORTS
18658 C & N W TRANSP CO
18659 CLUTCH & TRANSMISSION SERVICE INC
18660 CLUTCH & U-JOINT BURNSVILLE INC
3661 COPY EQUIPMENT INC
18662 COUNTRY CLUB MARKET INC
BEER
BEER
BEER
BEER
MIXES
BEER
BEER
BEER
BEER
MIXES
SERVICE-ANDERSON LAKES PARKWAY
SERVICE-VALLEY VIEW ROAD
6 TRANSMITTERS-POLICE DEPT
TIRE RACK/2 SHELF RACKS-POLICE DEPT
OFFICE SUPPLIES
SUPPL1ES-POLICE DEPT
1985 DUES-ENGINEERING DEPT
LAB SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT
FILM-WATER DEPT
STREET SIGNS
SERVICE-STARING LAKE PARK BRIDGES
JANUARY 85 CUSTODIAL SERVICE
CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CTR
PARKING BRAKE CABLES-EQUIPMENT MAINT
SERVICE
SERVICE
SPOTLIGHTS FOR POLICE CARS
-BATTERIES/WIPER BLADES/OIL FILTERS-
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
SAFE-T-WAY TRANSFER UNITS-POLICE DEPT
DECEMBER 84 IMPOUND SERVICE
SERVICE-PURGATORY CREEK OUTFALL
KEYS-POLICE DEPT/REPAIR LOCKS AT CITY HALL
FAN CLUTCH-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
SERVICE-VALLEY VIEW RD/PRAIRIE CENTER DR
-FILM PROCESSING-PLANNING & POLICE/FILM-
ASSESSING DEPT $256.25
JANUARY 85 ROCK
SHELVES-WATER DEPT
SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES
SALT-STREET DEPT
VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID
-WRENCH/U-JOINT/BRAKE PADS/EXHAUST/
-CARBURATOR/AIR FILTER/WIRING/THERMOSTAT/
-HOSES/CREEPER/GAS FILTER/WASHER PUMP/
-BATTERY/CABLES/REGULATOR/OIL SEAL/BELTS/
FUEL LINE/OIL/HEATER/VALVES
OIL/RECOIL ROPE/RIM-FORESTRY DEPT
SERVICE-EDENVALE BLVD
CARBURATOR KIT/SHAFT-EQUIPMENT MAINT
CLUTCH ASSEMBLY/FLYWHEEL/WHEEL HUBS/
XEROX VELLUM-ENGINEERING DEPT
SUPPLIES-CITY HALL
325.0
7394.;
3010.0
3445.:
545.7'
4711.2
7712.4
2577.6
368.6'
405.5.
104299.3 -
500.0
124.0
324.8_
2291.4 '
33.2'
173.0
119.2
325.6,(
2423.3.i
4900.0.;
200.0
193.8
24.7c!
50.4 -
991.2 '
124.0-1
211.03
33.4:1
95.0c:
8798.4
85.2
165.1
6469.2:
423.51
1298.7:
1218.1,
125.51
671.9:
50.0(
1268.8 ,
11.5'
14547.6
148.0
462.?
137.3,
144.‘x
183959.02
18663 CURIE PRINTING COMPANY INC
1064 CURTIS INDUSTRIES
.65 CUTLER MAGNER CO
18666 WARD F DAHLBERG
18667 DALCO
18668 DAVIES WATER E0IPMENT CO
18669 CRAIG W DAMSON
18670 A B DICK CO
18671 EUGENE DIETZ
18672 DONS APPLIANCE & T V
18673 DORHOLT INC
18674 DRUMMOND AMERICAN CORP
18675 EAU CLAIRE COUNTY
18676 EDEN PRAIRIE HTG & AIR CONDITIONI
18677 EDEN PRAIRIE TRASHTRONICS
18678 CITY OF EDINA
18679 C T ELIASON PAINTING & DECORATING
18680 ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY INC
18681 EX1DE BATTERY SALES
18682 FLOOR CARE SUPPLY CO
18683 FLYING CLOUD SANITARY LANDFILL
18684 FOREST HILLS SCHOOL
18685 JOHN FRANE
18686 FRANZ ENG REPRODUCTIONS INC
18687 G & K SERVICES
688 GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS INC
.o689 GENERAL OFFICE PRODUCTS CO
18690 GUNNAR ELECTRIC CO INC
18691 HACH CO
18692 JACK HACKING
18693 HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON INC
18694 ROGER HAWKINSON
18695 HAYDEN MURPHY EQUIPMENT CO
18696 MARK HEMANN
18697 HENNEPIN CTY CHIEFS OF POLICE
18698 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
18699 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL CENTERS
18700 CHARLES HILKER
18701 MARCUS HILL
18702 HOLMSTEN ICE RINKS INC
18703 HONEYWELL INC
18704 HUDSON MAP CO
18705 IMPERIAL INC
18706 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL 01ST #272
18707 JM OFFICE PRODUCTS INC
18708 WAYNE JOHNSON
18709 JONAH USA LTD
18710 CARL JULLIE
18711 JUSTUS LUMBER CO
18712 KARULF HARDWARE INC
BUSINESS CARDS-PLANNING DEPT
GREASE LUBES-EQUIPMENT MAINT
QUICKLIME-WATER DEPT
FEBRUARY 85 EXPENSES
CLEANING SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CTR & FIRE DPI
-25 WATER GENERATORS/REPAIR LOCATOR-WATER
DEPT
EXPENSES
3 HOLE PUNCHED PAPER-CITY HALL
JANUARY 85 EXPENSES
TV FOR VIDEO TRAINING-POLICE DEPT
OFFICE SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT
PAINT-WATER DEPT
WITHHOLDING FROM EMPLOYEE PER COURT ORDER
REPAIR 3 HEATERS AT MAINTENANCE GARAGE
JANUARY 85 TRASH PICKUP
JANUARY 85 TESTS
PAINT THINNER-COMMUNITY CENTER
SAFETY GLASSES/EYE WASH-WATER DEPT
BATTERIES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
FLOOR FINISH/FLOOR SEAL-COMMUNITY CENTER
SERVICE-PARK MAINTENANCE
REFUND-WATER & SEWER BILL
JANUARY 85 EXPENSES
SERVICE-ENGINEERING DEPT & CENSUS
TOWELS/JACKETS/COVERALLS
RADIO REPAIR & PARTS
OFFICE SUPPLIES
BALLASTS-PARKS & CITY HALL
FLOURIDE-WATER DEPT
EXPENSES
SERVICE-BLUFFS WEST DRAINAGE
BASKETBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID
EQUIPMENT REPAIR-WATER DEPT
BASKETBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID
SCHOOL-FIRE DEPT
SERVICE-SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
SCHOOL-FIRE DEPT
BROOMBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID
VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID
HOCKEY GOAL FRAMES-COMMUNITY CENTER
MECHANICAL MAINTENANCE-WATER DEPT
STREET ATLAS-WATER DEPT
INSULATED WIRE/BOLTS & NUTS-POLICE DEPT
AUDITORIUM RENTAL-COMMUNITY SERVICES
OFFICE SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT
SERVICE-P/S BUILDING
SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER
EXPENSES
LUMBER-WATER/PARKS DEPT & CITY HALL
-SWITCH/BROOMS/KITCHEN FAN/HAMMER/LIGHT
-BULBS/SCREWS/PAINT BRUSHES/ENAMEL/OUTLETS/
-ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES/TAPE/FRAMES/SPONGES/
-HINGES/DRILL BITS/SPRAY PAINT/SPRAYER/
PUTTY KNIVES/WEATHERSTRIPS
36.55
297.85
3258.86
80.00
66.00
886.00
40.50
232.00
165.00
rgt
285.63
4.00
79.00
300.00 '
168.50
22.80
77.63 ,
136.08 ,
78.40 1
11.16
2918.62
165.00
68.63
353.04
562.73
188.55
134.40
90.62
228.74
2531.32
125.00
251.3S
113.0C
55.00
434.70
240.00
275.00
12NT
6986.00
24.22
220.0:
30.0_
600.01., 1
180.2:1
252.8/
1377.3'
2694034
63S
18713 TOM KEEFE
'14 RAY KERBER
-/15 KEYS WELL DRILLING CO
18716 KLING & ASSOCIATES INC
18717 MESH ATHLETIC SUPPLIES INC
18718 KRAEMERS HOME CENTER
18719 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK
18720 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE .
18721 DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYEE RELATIONS
18722 GREAT WEST LIFE INSURANCE CO
18723 AETNA LIFE INSURANCE CO
18724 MINNESOTA STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM
18725 INTL UNION OF OPERATING ENG
18726 PERA
18727 WESTERN LIFE INSURANCE CO
18728 MEDCENTERS HEALTH PLAN INC
18729 GROUP HEALTH PLAN INC
18730 PHYSICIANS HEALTH PLAN
18731 LA MASS MFG & SALES INC
18732 ROBERT LAMBERT
18733 LANCE
18734 LEEF BROS INC
18735 LARSEN ENGINEERING
736 LONG LAKE FORD TRACTOR
18737 LYMAN LUMBER CO
18738 MARKSMAN FLOOR & CARPET CLEANING
18739 MARSHALL AND SWIFT
18740 MATTS AUTO SERVICE INC
18741 MC DONALD'S PLUMBING
18742 MEDICAL OXYGEN & EQUIP CO
18743 MEDICINE LAKE LINES
18744 METRO FONE COMM INC
18745 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMM
18746 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMM
18747 MIDLAND PRODUCTS CO
18748 MILLER/DAVIS CO
18749 MINNESOTA COMMUNICATIONS CORP
18750 MINNESOTA ASSOCIATION OF ASSESSIN
18751 MINNESOTA BAR SUPPLY INC
18752 MINNESOTA SUBURBAN NEWSPAPERS INC
18753 MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC CO-OP
18754 M-V GAS CO
18755 MODERN TIRE CO
18756 W M MONTGOMERY
18757 R E MOONEY & ASSOCIATES INC
18758 MOTOROLA INC
1 8759 MTI DISIRIBUTING CO
.8760 MM MUELLER & SONS INC
18761 MUNICILITE CO
BASKETBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID
STRAW BALES-PARK MAINTENANCE
REPAIR PUMP-WATER DEPT
PAINT PRIMER-WATER DEPT
VESTS-BASKETBALL
-PAINT BRUSHES/MASKING TAPE/EXTENSION
-CORDS/SCREWDRIVERS/HAMMER/WRENCH/PLIERS/
CH1SEL/ELECIRIC SCREWDRIVER-POLICE DEPT
PAYROLL 2-8-85
PAYROLL 2-8-85
PAYROLL 2-8-85
PAYROLL 2-8-85
PAYROLL 2-8-85
PAYROLL 2-8-85
PAYROLL 2-8-85
PAYROLL 2-8-85
PAYROLL 2-8-85
PAYROLL 2-8-85
PAYROLL 2-8-85
PAYROLL 2-8-85
DEFLECTORS/BLADE GUIDES-WATER DEPT
JANUARY 85 EXPENSES
SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORE
-RUG SERVICE-CITY HALL/STREET DEPT/POLICE
DEPT
DASH LIGHTS-POLICE DEPT
BLADE EDGES-PARK MAINTENANCE
-LUMBER-LIQUOR STORE/PARKS DEPT & COUNCIL
CHAMBERS REMODELING
CLEAN LIQUOR STORE CARPETS
FORMS-ASSESSING DEPT
TOWING SERVICE
REFUND-PLUMBING PERMIT
OXYGEN-FIRE DEPT
BUS SERVICE-COMMUNITY SERVICES
FEBRUARY 85 PAGER RENTAL
MARCH 85 SEVER SERVICE
JANUARY 85 SAC CHARGES
CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMM CENTER
FORMS-ASSESSING DEPT
FEBRUARY 85 PAGER RENTAL
EMPLOYMENT AD-ASSESSING DEPT
SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORE
ADS-LIQUOR STORES
SERVICE
FUEL-SENIOR CENTER
WHEEL ALIGNMENT/BALANCE WHEELS
SERVICE-POLICE DEPT
PAINT-WATER DEPT
DUAL PAGERS-FIRE DEPT
BELTS-PARK MAINTENANCE
SAND-STREET DEPT
POWER SUPPLY-STREET DEPT
225.0f
40.0
3017.1:
271.70
45.80
328.91
20405.9
10662.9
15393.50 '
4399.0:
120.F
35.0:
668.85
16518.6 .
764.6:
5489.7( '
2014.30 1
12546.91 i
226.2.
55.301
234.15
189.0r '
62.4
324.6;
175.00
15.0
50.0:
1799.91,
97.2::
616.0,
93146.9 ,
10098.0 .
92.t.
25.7 ,
51.2.:,
52.E
36.'(
424,C
187.(
1177.7
3465.1
286.1
95.t.
20671421
c3G
REPAIR INTERCON-POLICE DEPT 49.50
TRAINING SLIDES-FIRE DEPT'
SERVICE 9715.16
BOND PAYMENTS 2448544.3;.
SERVICE 617.33
SERVICE 3042.6f
LOCKER PAINT-COMMUNITY CENTER 52.66
EXPENSES 67.25
REPAIR CAR SEAT-STREET DEPT 110.00
POP FOR CONCESSION STAND-COMMUNITY CENTER 374.50
ELECTRICAL SERVICE-COMMUNITY CENTER 958.95
EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 46.41
OFFICE SUPPLIES 15.00
MILEAGE 4.28
DOOR OPENER BRACKET-PARK MAINTENANCE 15.00
EXERCISE CLASSES/FEES PD 101.25
2 MINI SCOOP-STARING LAKE PARK 350.00
ZAMBONI PARTS-COMMUNTIY CENTER 414.70
BATTERIES/BATTERY CHARGER-WATER DEPT 58.80
VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL 425.00
-SERVICE-FLYING CLOUD DRIVE/NORSEMAN IND 9577.11
-PARK/ROWLAND ROAD/PRESERVE BLVD/PRAIRIE
CENTER DRIVE
VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD
40.00
TRIP SPRING FOR SNOW PLOW-EQUIP MAINT
276.66
SET UP NEW POLICE CAR
2897.42
STARTER/ALTERNATOR-STREET DEPT
194.15
PUMP TANK-RESEARCH ROAD
85.00
PORTABLE RESTROOMS
543.50
VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD
50.00
-4 CALCULATORS-PLANNING/PUBLIC WORKS/
1513.27
-COMMUNITY CENTER/ENGINEERING/TOOLS-POLICE
DEPT $1306.90
SERVICE-NEW CITY HALL SITE 263.7E
-WIPER MOTOR/FLYWHEEL/SWITCH/FRONT END 600.42
ALIGNMENT-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
PANEL LEGS-PLANNING DEPT 102.40
-OIL/ANTIFREEZE/TAIL PIPE/GREASE/GAS CAN/ 9103.54
DIESEL FUEL $6022.50/REGULAR GAS $2775.00
-SOCKET SET/REPAIR IMPACT WRENCH-EQUIPMENT 143.80
MAINTENANCE
FORMS-COMMUNITY SERVICES 58.08
SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 487.50
18762 NAP COMMERCIAL ELECTRONICS CORP
'-'63 NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOC
•.64 NSP
18765 NORWEST BANK MINNEAPOLIS NA
18766 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO
18767 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO
18768 NYSTROM INC
18769 CHARLES J PAPPAS
18770 PARK AUTO UPHOLSTERY
18771 PEPSI/7-UP BOTTLING CO
18772 PNEUMATIC CONTROLS INC
18773 CURT OBERLANDER
18774 OFFICE PRODUCTS OF MN INC
18775 STEVE OLSTAD
18776 OVERHEAD DOOR CO OF MPLS & ST PAU
18777 QUALITY FITNESS
18778 QUALITY INDUSTRIES INC
18779 R & R SPECIALTIES INC
18780 RADIO SHACK
18781 FRED RAZAV1
18782 RIEKE-CARROLL-MULLER ASSOC INC
18783 KAREN RINTA
18784 ROAD MACHINERY & SUPPLIES CO
18785 ROAD RESCUE INC
'86 ROGERS SERVICE CO
10787 ROTO-ROOTER SEWER DRAIN SERVICE
18788 SATELLITE INDUSTRIES INC
18789 ERIC SAUGEN
18790 SEARS ROEBUCK & CO
18791 SETTER LEACH & LINDSTROM INC
18792 SHAKOPEE FORD INC
18793 W E NEAL SLATE CO
18794 W GORDON SMITH CO
18795 SNAP ON TOOLS CORP
18796 SNAP PRINT-WEST
18797 SPORTS WORLD
18798 STANDARD SPRING COMPANY
18799 EMMET STARK
18800 STATE OF THE REGION
18801 STATE TREASURER
18802 STATE TREASURER
18803 DON STREICHER GUNS
1 R804 STS CONSULTANTS LTD
( 805 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET
18806 SULLIVANS SERVICES INC
249328986
CAR SEAT SPRINGS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 212.00
COMMUNITY BAND DIRECTOR-COMMUNITY SERVICES 340.00
DUES-MANAGER 13.00
FEE FOR ANNUAL REPORT OF WATER USE 10.00
FEE-WATER DEPT 15.00
SHOTGUN LOCKS/2 GUNS-POLICE DEPT 1057.50
SERVICE-VALLEY VIEW ROAD 73.50
-HUBS/MOULDING PACKAGE/RUSTPROOFING/VALVE 250.23
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
PUMP TANK-RESEARCH ROAD 50.00
S3P)
• 07 SUN ELECTRIC CORPORATION
1,...,08 SWANSON & YOUNDALE INC
18809 E A SWEEN COMPANY
18810 . MARC LEWIS THIELMAN
18811 LORNA THOMAS
18812 THOMPSON ENTERPRISES
18813 THORNBER GROUP COMPANIES
18814 KEVIN TIMM
18815 TRACY OIL CO INC
18816 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO
18817 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED
18818 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED
18819 VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PROPANE INC
18820 VAN WATERS & ROGERS
18821 VICOM INC
18822 VICOM INC
18823 VIKING LABORATORIES INC
18824 WATER PRODUCTS CO
18825 WAYZATA AUTO SERVICE INC
18826 WEST WELD
18827 T WILLIAMS GIFTS
18828 WILSON TANNER INCENTIVES
18829 WHOLESALE LIGHTING INC
,1 R830 XEROX CORP
( 331 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE
18832 ZIEBART OF MINNESOTA INC
18833 SOUTH HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES
1985556
EQUIPMENT PARTS-STREET DEPT
SERVICE-WATER DEPT
CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER
EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT
MILEAGE
REMODEL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
BALLOT COUNTER PROGRAMMING CHARGES
BASKETBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD
UNLEADED GAS
OXYGEN - STREET GARAGE
UNIFORMS-SEWER DEPT
UNIFORMS
GAS CYLINDER-COMMUNITY CENTER
CHEMICALS-WATER DEPT
SERVICE-COMMUNITY CENTER
-SERVICE-COMMUNITY CENTER
CHEMICALS-COMMUNITY CENTER
-METERS/METER CONNECTORS/SOLDER/GASKET/
ADAPTER/ONE 1" METER
CUTTING EDGES/FLAGS-PARK MAINTENANCE
WELDING RODS
FRAMES-CITY HALL
ENGRAVED PLATES-FIRE DEPT
LIGHT BULBS-WATER DEPT
SERVICE
1ST AID SUPPLIES-PARK MAINTENANCE
RUSTPROOFING-STREET DEPT
SERVICE CDBG PROGRAM
295.00
950.00
94.08
30.24
13.00
350.19
1489.00
145.00
7760.00
63.13
90.00
3205.35
208.03
483.08
52.61
687.60
49.70
1147.90
120.00
30.95
13.78
2.80
117.00
1345.7F
33.90
183.20
894.19
$2987773.91
February 19, 1985
Cash Disbursements by Fund number
Fund # Description
10 General
11. Certificate of Indebt
12 Certificate Debt Fund
15 Liquor Store- P V M
17 Liquor Store-Preserve
31 Park Acquist & Develop
36 P/S & P/W Bond Fund
44 Utility Debt Fund
45 Utility Debt Fd ARB
48 82 G.O. Debt-P/S & P/W Bldg
51 Improvement Construction Fd.
52 Improvement Debt Fund
55 Improvement Debt Fund ARB
73 Water Fund
77 Sewer Fund
87 CDBG Fund
90 Tax Increment Fund
91 Tax Increment Debt Fund
Amount
181,780.82
4,597.50
233,734.50
44,257.70
34,984.26
5,250.00
600.00
334,261.50
42,787.50
305,409.50
136,095.24
594.00
335,020.25
25,449.96
103,417.01
894.19
1,902.88
1,196,737.13
--$2987,773.94
539
MEMORANDUM
TO:
THBU:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mayor and City Council
. Carl Jullie, City Manager
Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services'
February 13, 1985
Appointment of Ad Hoc Committee Members to Study Referendum
Issues for the City of Eden Prairie
At the December 4th meeting, the Eden Prairie City Council instructed City staff to
"solicit names of those interested in serving on an ad hoc committee to consider the
needs for referenda for community facilities. This committee is to be broad based and
will exmaine bond needs for the next ten years."
The Community Services staff contacted various athletic associations within the
community, as well as the School District to ask for represenatatives to serve on an
ad hoc committee. At the February 5, 1985 meeting, City staff submitted a list of
15 people interested in serving on an ad hoc committee. At that meeting, the City
Council expressed concern over the balance of the committee noting ten of the fifteen
members represented athletic associations.
The City Council directed City staff to review the make-up of the ad hoc committee
• and to recommend a more balanced committee that would represent all of the City needs.
The Community Services staff feel it is very important to provide each athletic
association within the community with input into future needs within the community,
and also agree that the final recommendation to the City Council should come from
a committee that is more broad based oriented then the list of volutneers previously
submitted.
The Community Services staff would recommend that all of the athletic association
representatives be appointed to a sub-committee of the ad hoc committee that would
study outdoor recreation facilities and indoor recreation facilities, and that these
two groups each appoint 2 representatives to. the ad hoc committee to carry forward
the recommendations on priorities, etc. that the committees have made.
The Community Services staff would recommend that the ad hoc committee be made up of
the following: 2 school representives, 4 members at-large, 2 Commission represen-
tatives (Planning Commission and Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission),
1 Chamber of Commerce representative, 2 outdoor recreation representatives, 2 City
facility representatives, and 2 indoor recreation representatives.
Staff would recommend that the recreation facility sub-committees meet at least two
times prior tothe first meeting of the ad hoc committee, so the recreation facilities
committees are able to set regualr meeting dates and a deadline for final recommenda-
tions. These committees will also have to elect their representatives to the ad hoc
committee.
The following chart depicts the representatives that have been submitted by the various
groups or organizations to serve on this ad hoc committee. City staff requests the
City Council to approve the appointment of these representatives to the ad hoc committee
and to the sub-committees, and to approve 4 members at-large to serve on the ad hoc
committee.
_9/6
1. Merle Garnet' '2. Curt Connaughty 1. Bob Hallett 1. Fred • 1. 2. Moe Cook Hoisinger 2. 1. Bob Lambert 1. 2. John Franc 2. 1. 2. 3. 4. AD HOC COMMITTEL PD STUDY 5-10 YEAR CITY WIDE NEEDS THAT MAY REQUIRE REFERENDUMS School Representatives Members at Large Commission Chamber of Representatives Commerce Outdoor Recreation City Indoor !lee'. Facilities Representatives Facilities Outdoor Recreation Facilities Indoor Recreation Facilities Sub-committee Sub-committee Baseball- Gary Soderberg Hockey - John Reedy Football - Jim Ostenson Figure Skating - Lonnie Anderson Girl's Softball - Larry Schuster Boy's Basketball - Gene Haberman Soccer Association - Bob Woodcook Girl's Basketball - John komula Soccer Club - John Parrington . Wrestling - Swede Rasmussen Swimming - Steve Rux City Staff Liaison to Ad Hoc Committee Qs\ Stuart Alexander - City Athletic Facilities --- Chuck Pappas - Community Center/Recreation Facilities Jan Flynn - Senior Citizen Facilities Jack Hacking - Public Safety Facilities Craig Dawson - City Hall Gene Dietz - Public Works Facilities
CITY OFFICES / 8950 EDEN PRAIRIE ROAD / EDEN PRAIRIE. MN 55344.2499 / TELE •tIONE 1512I 937-2262
Sincerely, —
/
Garyg. Peterson
Mayor of Eden Prairie
CJJ:GDP:jp
Carl J.-Jtillie
City Manager
February 12, 1985
Mr. Paul Smith
Environmental Planner
Metropolitan Council
300 Metro Square Building
Seventh and Robert Streets
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101
Subject: Request from Reuter, Inc.
Dear Mr. Smith:
The undersigned have been contacted by representatives from Reuter, In
c
.
regarding their request that the City of Eden Prairie enter into a cont
r
a
c
t
with them which would direct all the mixed municipal solid waste "MSW"
collected within the City limits to be deposited at their proposed MSW
disposal site. We have been further informed that a decision by the C
i
t
y
Is needed by Friday, February 15th, because of time limits imposed by
t
h
e
Metropolitan Council.
In response to this request, we have informed the Reuter, Inc.
representatives that such consideration would require review by the C
i
t
y
Council and that the next scheduled meeting of the Council is Tuesday
evening, February 19th. Furthermore, in order to fully consider all
aspects and implications of this request, it appears likely that the
C
i
t
y
Council would require substantially more discussion time than would b
e
available at a single meeting.
The undersigned are not authorized to speak on behalf of the City Cou
n
c
i
l
on this matter. It is, however, our opinion that the proposal does h
a
v
e
merit and warrants the City's careful attention and full review.
Accordingly, we suggest that the Metropolitan Council consider extendin
g
the February 15th deadline for at least 60 days in order to provide a
reasonable time for appropriate review and consideration by the City of
Eden Prairie.
6-4.2
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, Made and entered into this day
of • 1985, by and between
Minnesota corporation (hereinafter "Corporation"), and the
City of
, located in the State of Minnesota
(hereinafter "City").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Corporation plans to construct, own, and
operate a solid waste pelletizing and resource recovery
facility in Hennepin County, Minnesota, and is in need of
solid waste to process at its proposed facility, and
WHEREAS, City is in need of a site to dispose of
the solid waste which is collected within its city limits and
desires to grant Corporation the exclusive rights.to take
delivery of such solid waste at its Facility after it has
been collected by the City's designated haulers, subject to
the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the conditions
and covenants expressed herein, the parties hereto, their
successors and assigns, agree as follows:
1. DEFINITIONS.
a. Acceptable Waste: Means garbage, refuse, and
other municipal Solid Waste from residential, commercial,
industrial and community activities which are generated and
collected in aggregate, but does not include Unacceptable
Waste or Non-processible Waste.
b. Facility: The Corporation's Solid Waste
pelletizing and resource recovery facility to be built in
southwestern Hennepin County.
c. Hazardous Waste: As defined by State or
Federal law from time to time.
d. Municipal Solid Waste (sometimes abbreviated as
"MSW"): Includes all solid waste City's designated haulers
now customarily collect. It shall not include Hazardous
Waste, Non-processible Waste, Unacceptable Waste, auto hulks,
street sweepings, ash, animals, or building or street
demolition material, except for that collected incidental to
normal garbage collection.
e. Non-processible Waste: Waste which cannot be
processed by the Facility due to its physical characteristics
or potential harmful effects, including but not ltmited to:
steel banding, baling wire, solvents, tree trunks or logs
greater than 6" in diameter or 4' in length or other
overweight or bulky waste, gasoline, kerosene, propane tanks
in any size, aerosol cans in quantity, pressurized tanks,
tires in quantity, fencing materials, pesticides and
insecticides in quantity, plastics in quantity, motor
vehicles, automotive engines, transmissions, rear ends,
springs, fenders or major parts of motor vehicles, trailers,
agricultural equipment, marine vessels, or similar items,
farm and other large machinery, liquid wastes, nonburnable
construction material, waste except paper products from the
-2-
following establishments: service stations, auto paint
shops, chemical plants, plastic processing plants and textile
plants.
f. Processible Waste: Garbage, refuse, and other
municipal Solid Waste from residential, commercial,
industrial and community activities which are generated and
collected in aggregate, but does not include Non-processible
Waste or Unacceptable Waste.
g. Unacceptable Waste: Waste which would likely
pose a threat to health or safety or which may cause damage
to or materially adversely affect the operation of the
Facility, including but not limited to: explosives,
hospital, pathological and biological waste, Hazardous Waste
and chemicals and radioactive materials, oil sludges,
cesspool or other human waste, human or animal remains,
street sweepings, ash, mining waste, sludges, asbestos in
identifiable quantities, demolition debris, waste with excess
moisture, hazardous refuse of any kind, such as cleaning
fluids, crank case oils, cutting oils, paints, acids,
caustics, poisons, drugs or other materials that may be
agreed to from time to time by the parties. If any
governmental agency or unit having appropriate jurisdiction
shall determine that certain chemicals or other substances
which are not, as of the date of this Agreement, considered
harmful or of a toxic nature or dangerous, are harmful, toxic
or dangerous, City and Corporation shall agree that such
chemicals or other substances shall be Unacceptable Waste.
-3-
h. Uncontrollable Circumstances: The occurrence
or non-occurrence of acts or events beyond the reasonable
control of the party relying thereon that precludes or
significantly impairs the operation of the Facility or the
performance by City hereunder including, but not limited to,
the following:
(i) Acts of God (but not including reasonably
anticipatable weather conditions), riots,
insurrections, war or civil disorder affecting
the performance of work, strikes, blockades,
floods, ice storms, blizzards, tornadoes,
landslides, lightning, earthquakes, power or
other utility failure and fires or explosions.
(ii) The adoption of or change in any federal,
state, or local laws, rules, regulations,
ordinances, permits, or licenses, or changes
in the interpretation of such laws, rules,
regulations, ordinances, permits, or licenses
by a court or public agency having appropriate
jurisdiction after the date of the execution
of this Agreement and providing such adoption
materially affects the performance of the
party claiming the event as an Uncontrollable
Circumstance.
(iii) A suspension, termination, interruption,
denial, or failure of renewal of any permit,
-4-
license, consent, authorization, or approval
essential to the operation, maintenance or
reconstruction of the Facility, if such act or
event is not the result of willful or
negligent action of the party relying thereon.
(iv) Orders and/or judgment of any federal, state,
or local court, administrative agency, or
governmental body, if not the result of
willful or negligent action or inaction of the
party relying thereon, provided, however, that
the contesting in good faith by such party of
any such order and/or judgment shall not
constitute or be construed to constitute a
willful or negligent action or inaction of
such party.
(v) Contamination of the Facility by Hazardous
Waste due to an incident occurring beyond the
control of Corporation or its employees or
agents which results in the shutdown of the
Facility for health or safety reasons for a
period longer than four days.
2. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL. City will cause to be
delivered to Corporation all of the MSW that is collected
from within City, and City agrees that Corporation shall have
the exclusive right to take delivery of all such MSW.
Corporation shall be fully responsible for the MSW after
-5-
delivery by City's designated haulers. MSW shall be
delivered to Corporation at the Delivery Point (as defined
below) in the same condition as when initially collected by
City's designated haulers, without removal of recyclable
waste or processing of any nature (in this condition the MSW
is referred to as "mixed MSW"). City acknowledges that waste
paper and cardboard are essential to Corporation's successful
production of marketable fuel pellets at its Facility, and
City agrees that it will take all necessary steps to ensure
that all waste paper and cardboard are included within the
MSW and not otherwise directed to or collected by any other
person.
3. APPOINTMENT AS RECYCLER. City hereby grants
Corporation the right to act as the exclusive recycler of MSW
collected within the City limits. In such capacity,
Corporation shall be given the option to collect recyclable
MSW directly from residents of the City pursuant to a source
separation recycling program as well as the authority to
recycle MSW after delivery thereof to the Facility by City's
designated haulers. The details of any recycling program,
including the method of collection of MEW, shall be
determined by Corporation in its sole discretion. All
recyclable MSW (in its mixed form or as separated at its
source) shall be delivered to Corporation's Facility by
City's designated haulers, unless otherwise directed in
writing by Corporation. In all events, parties delivering
such recyclable MEW shall pay the tipping fees provided in
Paragraph 6 hereof.
-6-
Corporation shall have the right to hold itself out
to residents of the City and commercial enterprises located
within the City limits as the only party authorized to
receive recyclable waste, and City agrees to cooperate with
Corporation in the implementation of Corporation's recycling
programs.
4. DELIVERY OF MSW. Corporation shall notify City of
the delivery point (the "Delivery Point") for the MSW. City
shall be responsible for assuring that its designated haulers
deliver MSW to the Delivery Point. The Delivery Point shall
be within Hennepin County and shall be accessible by public
roadway suitable for heavy truck traffic. City shall ensure
that its designated haulers deliver during normal business
hours as agreed to by the parties.
5. ACCEPTANCE OF MSW BY CORPORATION.
a. Corporation shall accept up to 146,000 tons of
Acceptable Waste per year at the Delivery Point, and shall
use its best efforts to accept and process an additional
14,600 tons per year of Acceptable Waste if such quantities
are delivered. It is contemplated by the parties hereto that
City will deliver up to tons per day of Acceptable Waste
to the Delivery Point (the "Expected Tonnage") and
Corporation hereby agrees to accept such amount, subject to
the provisions of Paragraph 9 hereof. In addition,
Corporation shall use its best efforts to accept and process
-7-
additional tonnage of Acceptable Waste delivered by City or
its designated haulers provided that City (or its designated
haulers) gives Corporation 14 days advance written notice of
any expected substantial increase in the tonnage to be
delivered. Corporation also shall be free to accept MSW from
other parties. Subject to applicable county and municipal
ordinances, Corporation shall keep the Delivery Point open
for the receiving of MSW from 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday
through Saturday, excluding holidays.
b. A vehicle may be denied entrance to the
Delivery Point if Corporation has a reasonable basis to
believe such vehicle contains significant amounts of
Hazardous Waste and/or any other Unacceptable Waste.
Corporation may require a hauler to recover and dispose of
MSW deposited upon the tipping floor at the hauler's expense
which contains significant quantities of Unacceptable Waste,
Non-processible Waste and/or Hazardous Waste.
C. In the event Hazardous Waste is contained in
the MSW delivered to the Facility by City or its designated
haulers, Corporation shall use methods and procedures
generally accepted within the industry to separate out
Hazardous Waste from the other MSW delivered to the Facility.
All such Hazardous Waste separated out prior to processing
shall be managed by Corporation in accordance with all local,
state and federal regulations. All verifiable costs for
separation, storage, transportation and disposal shall be
-8-
borne by City (or its designated haulers) and City agrees to
ensure that Corporation is promptly reimbursed for such
separation, storage, transportation, and disposal costs upon
receipt of documentation thereof. Hazardous Waste contained
in other Solid Waste generated outside the City and delivered
to the Facility shall be separated out by Corporation and
disposed of by Corporation. Corporation is responsible for
Hazardous Waste not separated out prior to processing and
shall dispose of such Hazardous Waste at its own expense.
City shall use its best efforts to assist Corporation in
complying with all Hazardous Waste laws, rules and
regulations as such laws may pertain to City's designated
haulers.
6. FEES.
a. Base Tipping Fee. Corporation shal.1 charge a
current base tipping fee of $35.00 per ton of MSW delivered
at the Delivery Point.
b. Annual Adjustment. This base tipping fee shall
be adjusted (but not below $35.00) effective as of January 1,
1986, and annually thereafter effective as of each January
1st (the "Adjustment Date") during the term of this
Agreement, and any extension or renewal hereof, by a
percentage equal to the percentage increase in the Index now
known as "United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer
Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers"
("CPIW") (1967=100) for Minneapolis-St. Paul as quoted by the
-9-
office of the Minnesota Department of Economic Security
(hereinafter referred to as the "Index"). Such adjustment
shall be accomplished by multiplying the aforementioned base
tipping fee ($35.00) by a fraction, the numerator of which
shall be the Index for the month of December immediately
preceding the Adjustment Date, and the denominator of which
shall be the Index for the month of December, 1984 (which
Index for December, 1984 is 323.8). Notice of the amount of
any such annual adjustment shall be communicated to City
within thirty (30) days of the Adjustment Date, and such
adjustment shall be retroactive to said Adjustment Date.
c. Adjustment Due to Increased Disposal Fee. The
base tipping fee shall be adjusted further upon ten (10) days
written notice to City in the event that Corporation is
charged more than $45.00 per ton (the "Disposal Fee") for its
disposition of Unacceptable or Non-processible Waste
(primarily the wet fraction of the MSW) that is delivered to
the Facility and which it must dispose of due to its
inability to pelletize such Waste. Such adjustment in the
base tipping fee shall be made on a dollar-for-dollar basis
with the increase in the Disposal Fee; provided, however,
that only that portion of the increase in the Disposal Fee
which exceeds the $45.00 threshold shall be counted for
purposes of determining the amount by which Corporation shall
adjust its tipping fee. For example, if the Disposal Fee
were increased from $42.00 per ton to $47.00 per ton at a
-10-
time when the base tipping fee, as adjusted pursuant to
Paragraph 6.b., was $37.00 per ton, then the base tipping fee
would be increased to $39.00 per ton (i.e. $37.00 +
($47.00-$45.00)). If the Disposal Fee were subsequently
increased to $50.00 per ton, the base tipping fee would be
increased to $42.00 per ton (i.e., $39.00 + ($50.00-$47.00)).
Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event that Hennepin
County, the Metropolitan Council, or some other governmental
or regulatory authority requires Corporation to charge a
given tipping fee, Corporation shall be entitled to increase
the tipping fee charged pursuant to this Paragraph 6 to
comply with said requirement.
d. Taxes. In addition to the amount of the base
tipping fee, as adjusted pursuant to Paragraphs 6.b. and
6.c., the tipping fee charged by Corporation shala be
increased by the amount of any federal, state, city, or
county taxes (or similar charges in the nature of taxes)
payable by Corporation (or which Corporation is required to
collect from parties delivering MSW to its Facility) in
connection with the delivery of MSW to Corporation or the
disposition by Corporation of that fraction of the MSW which
it is unable to process and pelletize at its Facility.
e. Payment of Fee. The tipping fee, as adjusted,
shall be paid by City or its designated haulers to
Corporation. The City shall use its best efforts to ensure
collection of all tipping fees, including exercising its
right of license revocation against any hauler who fails to
make timely payment of the tipping fees assessed.
7. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall commence
when Corporation and City mutually agree to begin delivering
MSW to the Delivery Point and shall continue for the term of
twenty (20) years thereafter.
8. CANCELLATION.
a. In the event that City fails to perform or
comply with any of the material agreements, covenants, or
conditions required on its part to be performed or complied
with under the terms of this Agreement, and if such failure
to perform or comply is not remedied within thirty (30) days
(ten (10) days with respect to the payment of tipping fees
and other charges due hereunder) after Corporation gives
written notice thereof to City (which notice shall specify
the nature of the default), then without further notice to
City, Corporation may, in addition to all other rights and
remedies it may have at law or in equity, terminate this
Agreement.
b. City agrees that it will not cancel this
Agreement for any reason within twelve (12) months after
commencement of the term hereof. After such twelve-month
period, City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement
upon thirty (30) days written notice to Corporation if the
Corporation's Facility fails to accept MSW for more than 45
working days during any consecutive twelve-month period,
-12-
unless such failure is excused by the occurrence of an
Uncontrollable Circumstance.
c. The parties hereto agree that this Agreement
may be canceled at the option of the City or Corporation upon
three months' written notice in the event that one or more of
the following conditions are not satisfied within eighteen
(18) months of the date of this Agreement:
(i) Corporation shall have received from the
Metropolitan Council a four hundred (400) ton
per day "set-aside" of MSW being generated in
Hennepin County for a period of at least
twenty (20) years from the date of this
Agreement.
(ii) Corporation shall have entered into agreements
with one or more cities within Hennepin County
to take delivery of an estimated four hundred
(400) tons per day of MSW for a period of at
least twenty (20) years from the date of this
Agreement.
(iii) Corporation shall have entered into agreements
with third parties for the sale of
substantially all of the densified refuse
derived fuel that will be produced from the
MSW agreed to be delivered to Corporation
during the term of this Agreement, which
agreements are in form and substance
satisfactory to Corporation.
-13-
(iv) Corporation shall have successfully completed
construction of the Facility with the capacity
to handle the MSW agreed to be delivered to
Corporation pursuant to this Agreement.
(v) Corporation shall have received all licenses,
permits, and approvals required for the
acquisition, construction, and operation of
the Facility.
9. INTERRUPTION OF SERVICE.
a. Equipment Failure. In the event that
Corporation is required to close down its Facility for more
than two consecutive days due to an equipment failure or
other operational interruption, Corporation reserves the
right to require City's designated haulers to haul their MSW
to an alternative disposal site of Corporation's choice until
notice is given that Corporation's Facility is again
operational. In such event, Corporation shall reimburse such
designated haulers for additional costs incurred by such
designated haulers solely attributable to higher tipping fees
charged by the owner or operator of the alternative disposal
site. Upon notice from Corporation that its Facility is
again operational, City's designated haulers shall again
commence hauling their MSW to Corporation's Delivery Point.
b. Maximum Capacity. Corporation reserves the
right to require City's designated haulers to haul their MSW
to an alternative disposal site at any time that Corporation
-14-
has accepted the maximum tonnage of MSW authorized by the
Metropolitan Council or otherwise permitted by law.
Corporation shall not be responsible for any additional costs
incurred by City's designated haulers as a result of hauling
MSW to an alternative site pursuant to this Paragraph 9.b.
10. COOPERATION. City and Corporation shall cooperate
and use their best efforts to ensure the most expeditious
implementation of the various provisions of this Agreement.
The parties agree in good faith to undertake resolution of
disputes, if any, in an equitable and timely manner and in
accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.
11. ARBITRATION. All claims, demands, disputes,
controversies and differences between the parties that may
arise concerning this Agreement shall be settled by
arbitration as herein set forth. Either party shall have the
right to serve written notice upon the other party requesting
arbitration of any issue dealing with this Agreement. Said
notice shall be given within ninety (90) days from the date
the controversy arose.
Within fifteen days after receipt of said notice,
each party shall select an arbitrator of their choosing who
shall be knowledgeable in the laws of contracts. When these
two arbitrators have been appointed, they shall select a
third mutually acceptable arbitrator. Upon all three
arbitrators being appointed, such arbitrators shall hold an
arbitration hearing at the City Hall,
-15-
Minnesota, within thirty (30) days after such appointment.
At the hearing, Minnesota Statutes 572.08 and subsequent
provisions shall apply and the three arbitrators shall allow
each party to present its case, evidence and witnesses, if
any, in the presence of the other party and shall render
their award. The award of the majority of the arbitrators
shall be binding on the parties hereto.
In all events, the costs of arbitration shall be
divided equally between the parties.
12. INDEMNIFICATION. Corporation will indemnify,
defend, and save harmless the City, its agents and employees
from all claims, damages, losses, liabilities, costs and
expenses whatsoever arising out of any act or omission on the
part of Corporation or its contractors, agents, servants or
employees in the performance of or in relation to any of the
work or services to be performed or furnished by Corporation
under the terms of this Agreement. Such indemnity shall be
limited to property damage or personal injury. These
indemnification provisions are for the protection of City and
Corporation only and shall not establish, of themselves, any
liability to third parties.
13. RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES. For the purposes of
this Agreement, Corporation shall be deemed to be an
independent contractor and not an employee of City. Any and
all agents, servants, or employees of Corporation or other
persons, while engaged in the performance of any work or
-16-
services required to be performed by City under this
Agreement, shall not be considered employees of City, and any
and all claims that may or might arise on behalf of City, its
agents, servants or employees as a consequence or any act or
omission on the part of Corporation, its agents, servants,
employees or other persons shall in no way be the obligation
or responsibility of City. Corporation, its agents,
servants, or employees shall be entitled to none of the
rights, privileges, or benefits of City employees except as
otherwise may be stated herein.
14. UNCONTROLLABLE CIRCUMSTANCES. In any event of
Uncontrollable Circumstance, the inability or delay in the
performance of any of the terms and provisions of this
Agreement shall be excused; provided, however, that the
Uncontrollable Circumstance is not caused by Corporation's or
City's breach of this Agreement or their negligence. A party
shall have the right to terminate this Agreement in the event
an Uncontrollable Circumstance results in or is likely to
result in the inability of a party to perform its obligations
under this Agreement for a period of six months.
15. COMMUNICATIONS. All communications or notices
required herein shall be in writing and either delivered in
person or sent by U.S. first class mail, postage prepaid,
certified mail return receipt requested and addressed as
follows:
-17-
If to Corporation:
410-11th Avenue South
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343
Attn: President
If to City:
or to such other address as any party may from time to time
designate in writing to the other party.
16. ASSIGNMENT. Neither City nor Corporation shall
assign its interest in this Agreement without the prior
written consent of the other; provided, however, that
Corporation may, without the consent of City, assign its
interest in this Agreement to any entity in which it Owns or
controls more than a fifty percent (50%) interest.
17. BINDING. This Agreement shall be bindiug on, and
shall inure to the benefit of, the parties hereto and their
respective successors and assigns.
18. SEVERABILITY. The provisions of this Agreement are
severable. If any paragraph, section, subdivision, sentence,
clause or phrase of this Agreement is for any reason held to
be contrary to law, or contrary to any rule or regulation
having the force and effect of law, such decision shall not
affect the remaining portions of this Agreement.
19. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement shall constitute
the entire agreement between the parties and shall supersede
all prior oral and written negotiations.
-18-
20. GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement shall be interpreted
and construed according to the laws of the State of
Minnesota.
21. COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in
more than one counterpart, each of which shall be deemed to
be an original but all of which taken together shall be
deemed a single instrument.
22. ALTERATION. Any alteration, modification or waiver
of the provisions of this Agreement shall be valid only after
it has been reduced to writing and duly signed by all
parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused
this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above
written.
REUTER, INC.
By
Its
And
By
Its
CITY OF
By
And
By
Its
Its
-19-
February 1985
PROPOSED WASTE DESIGNATION CONTRACT
Reuter, Inc., a public corporation incorporated in
the State of Minnesota and located at 410-11th Ave. So.,
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 wishes to enter into a contract with
the City of , Minnesota. We would like a contract
which would direct all the mixed Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
collected within your city limits to go to our proposed MSW
disposal site.
Reuter, Inc. has submitted a proposal to the Met
Council requesting an exclusion from the Hennepin County
Designation Plan in the amount of 400 tons of MSW per day.
Part of the process is to acquire contracts with
municipalities which will guarantee that we can get 400 tons
of MSW per day. The Met Council has given us until
February 15, 1985 to acquire these contracts.
We feel that a contract between Reuter and your
city will benefit your city in four ways. First, your city
will receive under a license agreement $2.00 per ton for
every ton of mixed MSW delivered to our facility from your
city. Second, since we will be performing a qualified
recycling function at our facility, you will be excluded from
the mandatory "source separation" recycling plan. Third,
your city will have, in operation, a "Solid Waste Management
Plan" which the Met Council wants all cities to iUbmit as an
element of their comprehensive plan prepared under the
Metropolitan Land Planning Act. Fourth, we plan to save each
household about $25.00 per year in expense.
We would like to elaborate on each of these four
points:
POINT ONE: LICENSE FEE. A license fee of $2.00
per ton of mixed MSW that comes to our facility from your
city will be paid on a monthly basis to your city.
POINT TWO: RECYCLING (SOURCE SEPARATION). We feel
recycling is an important and necessary function of the very
desirable goal of landfill abatement. The Met Council has
requested that the State Legislature require each
municipality to have a recycling operation functioning by
1/1/87 and that it become a MANDATORY OPERATION by 1/1/88.
The Met Council admits this will cost money to pay for the
extra containers for each household not to mention the
constant ongoing public education about recycling. Most
people will be extremely upset at the thought of being forced
to separate their garbage at home when it can be done at a
centralized facility. The Met Council admits that our type
of operation is not only a feasible alternative to source
separation, but also they are planning to use this type of
technology as a back up - in case source separation fails to
meet their objectives. (page 24, Met Council Publication
*12-84-160 dated December 1984) The Met Council objectives
are to pull 16% of the MSW out of the flow in the form of
recyclables. Our operation will double that amount by
pulling approximately 32% of the MSW out of the flow in the
form of recyclables -- 9% Metal, 10% Glass and 13% recyclable
paper products. (page 49, Met Council Publication #12-80-081
dated January 1981) Any city contracting with our facility
will be in compliance with the recycling objectives of the
Met Council without the needless expense and inconvenience of
a source separation project.
POINT THREE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN. Your
city will still file a Solid Waste Management Plan but the
plan will be easy to prepare because you will be reporting on
an operational plan rather than having to come up with a plan
on your own.
POINT FOUR: $25.00 SAVING PER YEAR PER HOUSEHOLD.
The current annual household cost for refuse collection
ranges from approximately $72.00 to $144.00. The Met Council
estimates that under the Hennepin County Designation Plan the
annual household cost "would increase by about $30.00 to
$55.00 from the current annual cost". (page 70, Met Council
Publication #12-84-160 dated December 1984) Some feel the
increase will be more like $50.00 to $60.00 per Household.
Under our plan, it should increase by $25.00 to $35.00 per
household. The savings total about $250,000.00 per year for
every 10,000 households in your city. It could mean as much
as $5,000,000.00 more in your community for every 10,000
households over the term of the contract.
Our system is the best way for your city to control
its own destiny with respect to the MSW problem we all face.
By working with us, your city will generate revenue, save
your residents from the cost and inconvenience of forced
recycling, save city staff time otherwise spent trying to
enforce recycling and establish your city as being
progressive and technologically up to date.
We can only enter into contracts with a few cities
as we cannot commit to accepting more than 400 tons of MSW
per day. We truly hope your city will be one of them. We
would prefer to have signed contracts for the Met Council by
February 15, 1985, but a letter from your city signed by the
Mayor and Council stating that you agree in principle with
our plan and that you propose to enter into a waste flow
-2-
contract with us should we be granted our request for
exclusion from Waste Designation may serve the same purpose.
Thank you for your timely consideration in this
matter.
Sincerely,
aA449
Edward J. cuter, President
Reuter, Inc.
-3-
IN A COMMENTARY BY NFAt R. PEIRCE DATED FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 1. 1985
AND PRINTED IN THE MINNEAPOLIS STAR & TRIBUNE THAT DAY, HE STATED
THAT TWO LARGE WASTE TO ENERGY MASS BURN FACILITIES CURRENTLY IN
OPERATION CARRIED TIPPING FEES OF $61.00 AND $62.00 PER TON. THE
FOLLOWING IS COMPARES THE AVERAGE COST PER HOME PER YEAR BETWEEN
THE TIPPING FEES CHARGED BY OUR PROCESS AND THE COST OF THE MASS
BURN FACILITY PROPOSED BY HENNEPIN COUNTY IN THE YEAR 1990 BASED
ON A 5% INCREASE IN FEES PER YEAR:
$61.50 IN 1984 DOLLARS IS AN AVERAGE OF THE TWO FACILITIES. AND
$35.00 IS THE PROPOSED STARTING FEE OF OUR FACILITY IN 1985
DOLLARS.
HENNEPIN COUNTY FACILITY
1984 $61.50
1985 $64.58
1986 $67.80
1987 $71.19
1988 $74.75
1989 $78.49
1990 $82.41 WHEN HENN. CO . GOES ON LINE
REUTER, INC. FACILITY
1985 $75.00
1986 $36.75 WHEN WE ODE ON LINE
1987 $38.59
1988 $40.52
1989 $42.55
1990 $44.68
1990 HENN. CO . TIPPING FEE $82.41
1990 REUTER, INC. TIPPING FEE
$44.68
TIPPING FEE DIFFERENCE $37.73 PER TON
ANNUAL REFUSE GENERATED PER HOUSE UNIT 1.50 TONS
AMOUNT PER YEAR SAVED PER HOUSE $56.60
TIMES 10,000 HOUSES 10.000
TOTAL SAVED PER YEAR PER 10,000 HOUSES $566,000.00
20 YEAR CONTRACT SAVINGS PER 10.000 HOUSES $11,320,000.00
6-5
Garbage burning: a business or a monopoly?
In a column last Friday, Neal Peirce wrote of the
emerging "Mg business" of garbage burning- In Its
critique last week of plans to burn Twin Cities area
garbage. the Citizens League went further. It ac-
cused state law and the Metropolitan Council of
pushing waste-disposal policies that would result in
a government-created, OPEC-like garbage-burning
"cartel." According to the league, existing law and
proposed council policial would assign each hauler
to a designated disposal site, eliminating competi-
tion and — because cost reimbursement 10 site
operators would be largely automatic — exposing
the community to "out-of-control costs."
Our reading of the plan now being considered bY
the council is a little different. The "designation"
strategy that so alarms the Citizens League Is only
one of the options the document says might be
pursued to assure the flow of material necessary to
fuel proposed garbage-to-enersy plants. Others are
economic incentives and contracts between the
plants and communities or haulers — which the
league also favors. Designation would occur only if
"absolutely required" and then under strict public
scrutiny and performance standards. Which meth-
od is best, says the plan, depends on the extent to
which waste movement must be controlled.
Still, the league has a valid concern. The council's
waste-management plan concedes that designation
is the "most restrictive method of waste assur-
ance," and an option that may "remove economic
Incentives ...." But it also puts a high priority on
controlling waste flows and assumes that designa-
tion will be necessary to make some burning plants
financially fusible. The plan also argues that eco-
nomic considerations should not be the only basis
for evaluating designation proposals.
But neither should sound economics be sacrificed. I
As the league MUM: out, the present system — in
which haulm are free to deliver wastes to the
landfills of their choice — generally works well,
and the resulting competition keeps prices in line.
Dumping untreated wastes In landfills must soon
stop. But economic incentives should remain, to
help contain the high costs of burning antrum*
trash and garbage: $345 million In estimated capi-
tal casts and tin million la annual operating costs.
The league makes sense when it urges reliance on
performance standards and a limitation of haulers'
deliverrsite choices to those that meet the stan-
dards. The league may go too far in also urging the
repeal of laws permitting designation. That would
eliminate a needed last resort. But only if garbage-
burning plants fall to operate competitively would
there be a seed to designate which haulers use
which plants.
SC1VE
LAST 3
ThrOUQrn Sunday 0 ,
,Jri 01 I
1 ,41 1 6 1 tUnt ,..1 Sto; C
Ith 54.7% ors evefy fa,
A Home Az‘sount a
f>oars:,,c; easy Co
Ever ,' Sor ,duY
scinpiing
Garbage-toomw9y pIaflts
turn into a big bu%iriess
51115 r elaaagaaes shit oil
•
6..6t1t,t11.1161 lieu of
cauleo, stela thr,iugs I painful
51,11,4
itte e s iii, ntto no,* et torib
pinto *ere xiesiguerd 15 Septiv
yul114 turned out
<IN!, dIlead Of the tr., hoot
CL n Ath 218 11(10111114r Min!
v.urnrd ,nelr
,
,651 ,,,! Cl
1 .5 41,0 -SlOW tioLattlytas
Lati lo st ilber,lonekl
•-• 1 ,14 iptzt,ditet
staling with 6 lirotorPo UI -s.
tr., Matta. that has operuird tot,
. east -,W5 tot Lurie years -- ale 5 8111
111* the day Alta they seem Li offer
,ttlAtttly Comsat:et the 1237 !billion
at l'eettalali, 1.1 1. approved
sties lieitietio was Westchester
oiuriry eielime In the '701 i Ls "tip-
ping" untaIngt fee is )ast 117 a ton
..,ignat CH, 1 houahl out the plant's
rituf, Inns Peetstin is • ine
race& 1ocniwricg1Cally advtint ra',
lint ghtriC *nth 00 of West nester
, 44 Cluhnlivailtlea da...t161,tat-
oncer 35'year‘oratracts 1518,1.0
Ire first regional 1 ,1401 1 ,
letiretie demnastrated some [tell-
,oen "{atilt s of;garttage" by
itcs..ttaq ,4 renuk n ti t. lade Use
WoACheStar pasat at au. ',Sweeten
enifln r1ts5 5 ret ,r011.ett
1,6 ,11 rent .1,A I te,ilt for the
..541 e,,,tr,o, the p181.1 yrssfl tt•I
tl,e .',n,rrn,sl .! !dol2, 1411
u.kt 1111,,relllorA
lu bslI.l 61 r !lln el, to be ittKlot,
41 S,',1,1:3 -Het 1,8 is reve,e
In ,..1,!n tres1 huwatt
vuv,i ,ogr, Ito its i611,trl,1 11,6 aval
1.!isp..nut; !needs f -..1 tu.r. air Iv,*
toin;,:ng 5, 55L tole xf sirotoi
Plank
1,x,• P 8184 lOdt 10 Neu,.
• I 115 1, g etter tries 5 'tag
, it lsfnt daily
Th
•
e 3 OW/ a It Ut1:111 un ltaira Is
:And I the Nu,ll,1 s la, gest Will be
filled h!, Ills .5.:t :van.) Nrighoor
5oAA16 su‘ 4 St he Jewish
and ffispanit tianoriiiy surround
log lire tiro, K. ••ao, 10112 tvatl:rd
I) 01,0 f,r 6ile 5l ine
mammon., too antois
Pitt silo, U 1 .5 S drier anirti
H Sn, 6,,ot ii,4lLSs,1t5tU !ILI!
lrlt.S11 mato p5u510151 through
the a, Snvals a 518051114
a, ach:e ,emerd in his 11 n fiten
lissro
• II, the of6 es.604 KL3th hit
make nuts tlita.gh hue harbot
gel To preyetti pollution. he agreed
to throe alOnlioring and expensise
entl.sion (stmt.; systems Ile abr.
ato ted Il11:1111111(10, ezpornsuun of the
etty's efforts to 11r1110te its ',Atha yr
purpet gla.* at,d metals AS a fit3Cit
Ile 8-u uses sun!, U 117155 63 ttie 1.1.1
• sit 1St Defense I und and the
Nbl,lal Resources De tense CourICII
tatilyri:o bort toner rolvoratas A the
hlg ft rinotriga al n, tend 1,, dtfalain
1.14, N riss,ishssi how,/ ieaiinIhtS
Can sort out nultertals tf they lite,
Rises the argurnext 11111 the 8:110411
{no sate 8s101 materially rethice
the waste stream, and Use markets
1,,r re or 10,1 nailer:Ha are unrest
Isle ,,as.
i {sss n ssait 1110.1 ,1 , tilld neighborhood •
CytIntel that indimdual entre •
Korean are rriolting good businaws
es tri re, y.,11155, and that plareys ti t n
on Minneatvila oud Witt, lorg Is-
ta11 n 1 his le Mad , real progress in
vt ,
s Ilk V 0111.11' re( Yt.1114 kecy
Ong lust lb per, ent of tOes k oft s
51vrt.tip woolti relieve the nted tor
tete t ,r:be e,,Or trash to-atean.
C -. 5'. rixily plunnetl there
6V5 Vt 1514 and entbryonte "Isla-Coo
It ...51e5 Is) brrot dowr
ity wort, ,,v bavt, been 10,51e0 ho
ne i5 r hoof; a nd C 1115 1,I ntl lull
gi-o,p, wt,e ,e Inc
City I. (lln Flt II 3: far has relex led Man
for 31 Ikon S.,,,,vdea plIth !or' a big
raw Cage to enertpt 1515111 11 la be ballt
polito ally sensitise South Phits
delphia But IIs likely tnat Philadel
phia arid se, erul tither rites now
considering Itch plants San Diego
and broward owns it ort Lauder
dalel bni n Ing them — Will 'eat IS
tne kg
planIs and s.sh!fli. ant tell. tig ef
fort ,
WIth a tilti d Ill (I
Corlit. Oil MC, I St hell' 1,,1,5 11.1
trash to/met KY UUSit WS!. is bhvaiL114,
5 1,11 ;La:
Line tat a pvtitlilan with aa early I
opportunity to run for governt,r at
senator Is rtIolve into 6 highil6y1,1,
private intitst ry
Altn,,iigh be is a Ill'elor3( 1 ,cnI,A1131
troth a !Mara: state freliietio now
argues 1561 priVbIlisitioli • - pri-
vate firms like Signal t5LI10Ing anU
34811er,Ili4 !Ong term respt,ristblitty
Tot waste, water and seNkt.r
61;1 be the order th Ille
1,6 Ft: 1,11 rlli Oght !:,t
5 151t4i5e Ill tin 285 :,nly 41,5
...n ve as run', It -re
ineit
the', time to pay astsvn..o, 81 sun,
to haut refuse to dIstant st,e, ti,
IStet hxalttles woi two, 11
with. yea/ I?, trayli dis;vistt1
klempiarack Loos istaad is paying
Sal • tan la damplIkOratige County,
N bail Mack cotreeys carry Pail.
•1 a4g1We traslk la • Harrisburg trash
toeteara pleat at a IOW cod of Slit a
51411,•
Billboard I(
even more
By John 14111et
Los Altos, tali!.
Ibis year marts the toll; &mutter
rY of the Highway tleautiricattoo A
but the Law that wia thought to ha
relegated 081,:to5 bilkertlaIng to I
dustbin Of Lultural grotesquerie! 1
failed
As many as 500,000 billboardS bar
uur halloo's highways, aa average
It bilitasaias for every 10 nines
federally supported paveme
Though estimates Slay, possil
310.000 new billhourstil base be
rret led since 1960 um
tOOptIol es in the act
Ca Tennessee, Louisan& and ott
states, billboard companies hese
proprialed the legal right to ciear•
trees on Use publlo nghtel-way
happen to be blocking motort
views ut billboards on prisate
allt1Arard$ as large as 2,500 sow
feet Dave become an Integra] part
the physical arid psyiihoiagical let
'cape. -
Where Ohl the Highway Bektutlfi
Mtn As I go wrong?
MEMORANDUM
TO:
City Council
FROM:
Development Commission
SUBJECT:
Joint Meeting
DATE:
February 13, 1985
The Development Commission is in the process of formulating
Its goals for 1985. It has been a few years since the
Commission last met with the City Council to identify issues
the Commission should address and the role the Council
wanted it to play. In the meantime, the memberships of the
Council and Commission have changed significantly. Now may
be an appropriate time for each body to meet and gain an
understanding of each other's expectations.
It is suggested thta we meet before the regular Council
meeting on April 16, 1985. The meeting could begin at 6:00
PM and issues be discussed over box lunches. Items
suggested for discussion include transportation, taxes,
possible studies of the Comprehensive Guide Plan,
communication with the business community, and the role of
the Development Commission.
CWD:jp
6zi3
FEB 14 Zi35
Welcome Home PHONE: 16121 4747052
JAMES JUST, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Mayor and City Council
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343
4250 STONEBRIDGE CIRCLE
MINNETRISTA, MN 55364
February 13, 1985
Dear Mayor Peterson and Council Members Anderson, Bently, Pidcock,
and Redpath:
We appreciate very much your consideration of our request to use the
facility at 7170 Rryant Lake Drive and the decision of the Council
at its meeting on January 22 that determined that Welcome Home may
use the facility for a respite care home for up to 16 mentally
disabled adults. It is our intention to cooperate as good neighbors
in addressing any issues that call for clarification as we proceed in
accordance with your decision of January 22.
Nevertheless, we believe some clarification is necessary of the points
raised by Mr. oneck in his February 5 letter to you. First, he
states, "...the legislature intended to affect only zoning districts,
not non-conforming uses within a zoning district." To our knowledge
there is no reason to accept this as fact. To the contrary, Minn.
Statutes 1982, sect. 245.812 was amended by adding a subdivision to
read, "It is the policy of the State that handicapped persons and
children should not be excluded by municipal zoning ordinances or
other land use regulations from the benefits of normal residential
surroundings."
With regards to Mr. Noneck ,s second point, that the Council would
not allow 16 unrelated adults to reside at the property, we believe
the language of the law does not lend itself here to interpretation.
Subd. 4 reads in part "...a licensed residential facility serving
from 7 through 15 persons shall be considered a permitted multi-
family residential use of property for purposes of zoning."
(It might be helpful here to note that both of the afore mentioned
amendments were adopted only for purposes of clarifying existing
language. Also, "7 through 16 persons" is part of the original
language of the law.)
And finally, ?s!r. Yoneck ,s third point sneaks to "extensive" alterations
and he contends they exceed a standard for routine maintenance. We,
however, are unaware of such n standard and respectfully submit that
Respgttftal
tephen K. Schele
Program Director/Administrator
any changes are in response to code requirements of various govern-
mental agencies. In fact, the home-like character of the building
is integral .to our program and the thrust of our efforts is to
preserve it.
Please let me know if you desire any further input from me or our
attorney.
cc: City Attorney Roger Pauly
1,2fir
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Peterson, Council Members Anderson, Bentley,
Redpath
FROM: Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. (by John M. Koneck)
DATE: February 15, 1985
RE: Findings and Conclusions regarding Welcome Home
INTRODUCTION
We represent several residents of Eden Prairie resid-
ing on Willow Creek Road. This memorandum concerns the
proposal of Welcome Home to use certain property located at
7170 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie, as a residence for 7 to
16 adults.
This matter was initially heard by the City Council on
January 22, 1985, on the issue of whether the property that
Welcome Home proposes to use constituted a duplex in 1969, and,
therefore, as a duplex, constitutes a present non-conforming,
legal use. After much debate, the Council found, by a three to
two vote, that the property was used as a duplex in 1969. One
or more Council members who voted to find that the property was
a legal non-conforming use as a duplex stated that they reached
that conclusion because of the advice of the City Attorney, who
stated that Minn. Stat. § 462.357, Subd. 7 and Subd. 8 placed
- 1 -
facilities of the type proposed by Welcome Home in a special
category and that the Council had little or no discretion to
deny Welcome Home's proposed use.
Thereafter, the City Attorney proposed certain Find-
ings and Conclusions for consideration by the City Council to
formalize its earlier vote. At its meeting on February 5, 1985,
upon the recommendation of the City Attorney, the Council voted
to continue its consideration of the Findings and Conclusions
to its next meeting to allow the development of the legislative
history relating to Minn. Stat. S 462.357, Subd. 7 and Subd. 8.
A portion of the relevant legislative history has been
set forth to you in correspondence from John M. Koneck dated
February 5, 1985, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit
A. The purpose of this memorandum is to set forth further in-
formation regarding the legislative history of Minn. Stat.
S 462.357, Subd. 7 and Subd. 8.
DISCUSSION
The bills that ultimately became Minn. Stat.
S 462.357, Subd. 7 and Subd. 8--House Bill 310 and Senate Bill
310--were considered by Minnesota Legislature in 1975. The
legislative history relating to Senate Bill 319 consists of
testimony for the Senate Committee on Health, Welfare and Cor-
rections on March 21, 1975, and presentation to the Senate at
its session on April 17, 1975. A transcript of this testimony
and presentation is attached to this memorandum as Exhibit B.
- 2 -
A similar legislative history from the House of Representatives
is not available at this time because the records of actions of
the House of Representatives during the time that House Bill
319 was considered are in the process of being moved at the
State Capitol and are unavailable. To determine the legisla-
tive history relating to House Bill 319, several of the spon-
sors of that bill have been contacted by Donald J. Sorensen to
determine their recollections regarding its purposes and the
intent of the legislature. Their responses are set forth on
the affidavit of Donald J. Sorensen attached hereto as Exhibit
C.
The legislative history of Minn. Stat. S 462.357,
Subd. 7 and Subd. 8, can be fairly summarized as containing
three themes:
1. The legislation is aimed at making certain resi-
dential care facilities permitted uses within zoning districts,
and is not aimed at making property constituting a non-conform-
ing use within a zoning district eligible for use by such
facilities. In other words, the legislative intent is to allow
residential care facilities for six or less persons in single
family zoning districts. Moveover, in multi-family zoning dis-
tricts, the legislative intent is to allow residential care
facilities serving seven to sixteen adults be a permitted use.
The legislature did not intend to allow a non-conforming
use--that is, a use not conforming with the requirements of the
- 3 -
zoning district in which the property was located--to be es-
tablished within that zoning district. The following colloquy
in the Committee hearing in the Senate relating to
Senate Bill 319 unequivocally establishes this:
Question:
. . Mould this allow 7 or 16 multi-family
residential zoning, in essence, I think you liken it
to a small apartment building or something.
Answer: Exactly
Question:
Would this allow tht'type of structure to be in-
stalled in say single family dwellings if met,
they--so, in essence where an apartment could not go
in, this structure could? And this use could be in.
Answer: Mr. Chairman, no. It would permit these
kinds of facilities to go into areas that were zoned
for apartment building.
Because no apartment building could be built at 7170 Flying
Cloud Drive, a residential facility for 7 to 16 persons cannot
be there. Thus, Welcome Home may legally operate on the prop-
erty a residential care facility for only six or fewer persons.
2. The legislature did not intend to give special
treatment to residential care facilities. Rather, its only
purpose was to make sure that the users of residential care
facilities were not discriminated against, and were treated
fairly. Welcome Home must be therefore treated in the same way
that any other potential user of the property located at 7170
Flying Cloud Drive would be treated. Since the City Council
has found that the property is a legal, non-conforming duplex,
- 4 -
at most 10 unrelated adults may reside in it. Thus, based on
the finding by the City Council, Welcome Home may legally
operate a residential care facility for only 10 or fewer per-
sons at 7170 Flying Cloud Drive.
3. The bill was not intended to exempt residential
care facilities from any other zoning requirements. This is
unequivocally established in the presentation by the senate
sponser of the bill to the senate:
It doesn't exempt them from any of the other zoning
laws as far as health concerns are considered or in
the case of a multiple dwelling, parking facilities,
or garbage collection or anything like that.
Thus, if the property is a non-conforming use, it cannot be en-
larged or expanded. Moreover, all zoning requirements relating
to lot size, set-back, dwelling area, building height, recrea-
tional areas, screening and landscaping, parking and access
requirements must be met. Moreover, because the property is
likely located within the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District
Flood Plain and the flood plain as defined within the Eden
Prairie City Code, the requirements of the Nine Mile Creek
Watershed District and Section 11.45 of the Eden Prairie City
Code must be met. In addition, if property is within the
Shoreline Management Profile as defined within 11.50 of the
Eden Prairie City Code, the requirements of 11.50 must be met.
As required by the Eden Prairie City Code, all of these matters
must be considered before a building permit relating to the
property can be issued.
- 5 -
SUMMARY
In view of the legislative history of Minn. Stat.
S 462.357, Subd. 7 and Subd. 8, we hereby request that the City
reconsider the matter originally considered at its meeting on
January 22, 1985, and that it find that the property was used a
single family dwelling in 1969 and currently is used in a
non-conforming illegal manner. Alternatively, we request that
the City Council defer its consideration of the Findings and
Conclusions proposed by the City Attorney until the City Build-
ing Department determines the extent to which modification must
be made to the property to comply with applicable zoning re-
quirements and the requirements of other governmental entities
having jurisdiction over the property. Deferal will enable the
City Building Department to determine whether it is even pos-
sible for Welcome Home to comply with legal requirements for
its proposed use of the property, and the City Council to make
a determination whether Welcome Home's proposed use of the
property constitutes an illegal expansion or enlargement of a
non-conforming use. Finally, in the event that the City Coun-
cil chooses not to follow either of the previous alternatives,
we request that the City modify the Findings and Conclusions as
set forth on pages 4 and 5 of my letter dated February 5, 1985,
a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
- 6 -
347-7038
February 5, 1985
1100 INTERNAIIOSAL CENTRE
SOO SELOND ',ESC/ ROUTH
MINITEs/01.13. MINNESOTA 11102
TELEX latIEST IREDRISSON 14•3
TELECOPIIR (El RI 54'•7071 ,
TELIPHONS (AIR) 047 7000
WRITES I TILER
nwm si—a,
f.l.rP '14=
:Z.1 n:1 7eF *
fn.".
...11 • MI MI f
...eV ft. O'f•
IssI , n •n•n!sm,..110
Vg
VI nVg
rj r TA IT pt
INCLUDING THE E4/RMER FIRM OF WRIGHT. WEST & DIESSNER
FREDRIKSON & 137-4t0
Mayor and City Council
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343
Dear Mayor Peterson and Council Members
Anderson, Bentley, Pidcock and Redpath:
I represent several Eden Prairie residents living on
Willow Creek Road. This letter concerns your consideration of
Findings and Conclusions relating to the request of Welcome
Home to operate a licensed residential facility on property
located at 7170 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota.
This letter is to request that your consideration of this issue
be continued in light of information contained in this letter,
or, alternatively, to propose certain Findings and Conclusions
in addition to those proposed by the City Attorney. Although
we request the Council reconsider its findings and Conclusions
and find that in 1969, the property was a single family dwell-
ing, I will not rehash in this letter information and arguments
that were presented at the last Council meeting.
During the hearing at which this matter was consid-
ered, one or more Council members candidly acknowledged that,
but for the existence of Minn. Stat. S 462.357, Subd. 7 and
Subd. 8, the Council would not allow the property located at
7170 Flying Cloud Drive to be used as a residence for 16 unre-
lated persons. It is our understanding that this position has
been taken because of an apparent belief that Minn. Stat.
S 462.357, Subd. 7 and Subd. 8 was designed to give special
treatment to residential care facilities. To paraphrase Mr.
Pauly, the statute places residential care facilities in a
special category in which such use must almost always be al-
lowed.
FREORIKSON & BYRON
Mayor and City Council
February 5, 1985
Fag,: 2
Since the hearing before the Council, this law firm
has researched the legislative history of Minn. Stat.
S 462.357, Subd. 7 and Suod. 8. It is clear from our research
that the legislature intended only to stop municipalities from
excluding residential care facilities from the list of permit-
ted uses in a zoning category. For example, regarding subdivi-
sion 7, Senator Keefe, the sponsor of the bill in the Senate,
stated, "It doesn't mean that they won't have to meet all of
the other requirements of zoning, it just means that they are
treated in the same way as a family is treated." Regarding subdivision 8, Senator Keefe stated. "arid it still would have to
meet all of the other regulations of multi-family zoning: park-
ing, and, uh, garbage facilities, and so on, everything that
apartment buildings are required to do, to meet, but that it
would be considered a permitted use and not require a special
use permit just for that case." These and additional excerpts
from Senator Keefe's testimony are included on Exhibit A at-
tached to this letter. The legislative history makes clear
that the legislature was only trying, first, to add the uses
provided in Minn. Stat. S 462.357 to the list of permitted uses
allowed within a zoning district, and second, to ensure that
residential care facilities be treated in the same way that
other permitted uses within a zoning district are treated. For
example, if density were not a concern for other uses within a
zoning district, then density could not be a concern with re-
gard to the residential care facility.
The legislative history affects the application of
Welcome Home in three ways. First, the legislature intended to
affect only zoning districts, not non-conforming uses within a
zoning district. Here, the property is in a rural zoning dis-
trict allowing single family--not multiple dwelling--uses.
Although the current use as a duplex is a non-conforming, legal
use (as found by the Council) the zoning district in which the
property is located remains the same: rural. According to the
legislative history, then, Welcome Home must meet the require-
ments of the zoning district. In a rural zoning district, sin-
gle family dwellings are allowed. Thus, a residential care
facility for 6 or less persons would be permitted but a fa-
cility housing 7-16 persons would not.
The legislative history has a second impact on Welcome
Home's application because several Council members and the city
attorney have indicated that, but fur the fact that this matter
involves a residential care facility as defined in Minn. Stat.
S 462.357, the Council would seriously consider arguments
FREORIKSCIN 5, BYRON
Mayor and City Council
Feoruary 5, 1985
Page 3
relating to density. In other words, the Council would not
allow 16 unrelated adults to reside in the property located at
7170 Flying Cloud Drive. Instead, because of the Council's
finding that the property is a non-conforming, legal use, the
property may be used as a residential duplex which would allow
10 unrelated adults to reside there. Thus, treating the resi-
dential care facility like any other user of the property (as
the legislature intended), only 10 persons could reside there.
Third, the legislative history affects the Council's
consideration of whether Welcome Home's application constitutes
an expansion of a non-conforming use. On the issue of when
"repair and maintenance" goes beyond "routine" and renders a
non-conforming, legal use a non-conforming, illegal use, the
City Attorney has cited Northwest Residence, Inc. v. city of
Brooklyn Center, 352 N.W.2d 764 (Minn. App. 1984). There, the
only physical alteration to the building was that two kitchens
were converted into one-person bedrooms and one kitchen was
converted into an office. The changes were so minor that they
were not even discussed by the Court on the issue of expansion
of a non-conforming use. Apparently, no walls were moved and
the only change was that the rooms were put to different uses.
Here, the situation is completely different. The following are
a partial list (gleaned from the presentation by Welcome Home
at the last Council hearing) of the extensive alterations to
the building that are proposed:
Build stairway on first floor
Remove and cover another stairway on the first floor
Move wall on second floor bathroom graded entrance
Build wall in furnance room
Build wall in current laundry room
Build wall in living/dining room
Substantial alterations in kitchen
Change porch to office
Change kitchen to reception area
Landscaping for volleyball
Change driveway
Change landscaping for parking
Add passage through bedroom on second floor
Divide building into two sides
Build wall on second floor to divide open living area
into two bedrooms
Build shower to second floor bathroom
Expand bathroom into areas covered by stairway
Remove closets from bedrooms
FREORIKSON & BYRON
Mayor and City Council
February 5, 1985
Page 4
These alterations do not constitute mere "routine repair and
maintenance.' Thus, if as required by the legislature, if
Welcome Home were treated as other applicants are treated, the
Council should find that the alterations constitute an en-
largement of a non-conforming use and therefore Welcome Home's
use must not be allowed.
Regarding the Findings and Conclusions considered this
evening by the Council, we have the following comments:
1. The Council has found that use of the property as
a residential duplex is a non-conforming, legal use of the
property because the property was used as a duplex in 1969.
Section 11.75 of the City Code provides that it prohibits the
enlargement and re-establishment after abandonment of non-
conforming uses. Thus, if Welcome Home undertakes alterations
considered greater than "routine maintenance and repairs," its
use of the property would be considered an enlargement of a
non-conforming use and would therefore be illegal. Thus, in
subparagraph (a) to Mr. Pauly's proposed Findings and Con-
clusions, we suggest that the following clause be added: In
the event that such remodeling goes beyond "routine maintenance
and repairs" it would constitute an unlawful enlargement of the
present non-conforming use, and therefore would not be permit-
ted.
2. As noted above, it is clear that, because of Minn.
Stat. S 462.357, Subd. 7 and Subd. 8, the Council is allowing a
use of the property located at 7170 Flying Cloud Drive that it
would otherwise not allow. It is not apparent, however, from
the face of the Findings and Conclusions that this is the basis
of the Council's decision. Therefore, in order to clarify the
Council's position, we suggest that the following be added as
subparagraph c: "The Council believes, on the advice of coun-
sel, that M.S. S 462.357, Subd. 8 and M.S. S 245.812, Subd. 4,
require that the Applicant be allowed to use the property as a
residential care facility for 7 to 16 persons (subject to the
conditions noted above). Were the applicant proposing a use
other than those contemplated by M.S. S 462.357, Subd. 8 and
M.S. S 245.812, Subd. 4, the Council would find that, because
the Applicant proposed to use the property as a residence for
16 unrelated adults, the use of the property is prohibited by
the City Code and would constitute an illegal, nun-conforming
use."
FREORIKSON & BYRON
Mayor and City Council
Feoruary 5, 1965
Page 5
3. Affidavits before the Council clearly establish
that the property is currently used as a residential triplex
dwelling. Because the Council has found that in 1969 the use
of the property was a duplex, its current use as a triplex
constitutes an illegal, non-conforming use of the property. We
request that this finding be clearly set forth in the Findings
and Conclusions.
In summary, in view of the legislative history we have
uncovered, we request that this matter be continued to allow
the City Attorney, the Council and interested parties to con-
sider this information further. In the alternative, we re-
quest that the Council adopt the additions above described to
its Findings and Conclusions.
Very truly yours,
/5/
John M. Koneck
JMK:wpc
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Roger Pauly
bcc: Mr. Daniel Grote
Mr. Donald Sorensen
EXHIBIT A
EXCERPTS FROM LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
ON MINNESOTA STATUTE 5462.357, SUBD. 7 AND 8
The following is a discussion of the Legislative Bill (No. 310) which
resulted in the above-named addition to Minnesota Statutes in the
Senate Committee on Health, Welfare, and Corrections. The
speaker was the Senate's bill sponsor, Senator Keefe, on March 21,
1975.
1. Concerning Section two of the Bill which resulted in
Subdivision seven Senator Keefe stated, "It doesn't
mean that they won't have to meet all the other
requirements of zoning; it just means that they are
treated in the same way that a family is treated."
2. Concerning Section three which resulted in Subdivision
eight: "And it still would have to meet all the other
regulations of multi-family zoning: Parking, and, uh,
garbage facilities, and so on, everything that apart-
ment buildings are required to do, to meet, but that
it would be considered a permitted use and would not
require a special use permit just for that case."
3. Senator Keefe was questioned by another committee
member. Question: "Would this provide that, would
this allow a 7 to 16 multi-family residential zoning,
in essence, I think you liken it to a small apartment
building, or something." Answer: "Exactly." Question:
"Would this allow that type of structure to be installed
in, say, single family dwellings if it met the, you know,
so in essence where an apartment building would not go
in, this structure could?" Answer: "Mr. Chairman, no,
it would permit these kinds of facilities to go into
areas that were zoned for apartment buildings."
Question: "Senator, why the number six? I'm just
curious." Answer: "Well Mr. Chairman, that seemed to
be the, a number that corresponded pretty well to the
size of a typical large family. It would be six resi-
dents; there would be two, probably two,staff people;
the two staff people might have one or two children of
their own. So that makes a family, in quotes, about
the size of a large family. And we think that's
pretty much equivalent to the kinds of things you're,
the kind of neighbors you're likely to get just from
private families moving in your neighborhood."
Question: "The six or fewer, does that include the
staff?" Answer: "No. Six or fewer are the mentally
retarded or the physically handicapped people, and the
staff are people in addition to that."
* * *
Question: "Mr. Chairman, Senator Keefe, it is usually
on these special use permits that these facilities
would be permitted. I'm wondering if there are areas
in the law that limit special use permits for variances
of one kind or another, would that bypass that?" Answer:
"Mr. Chairman, this would not. All this does is say
these are permitted uses for that kind of zoning. It
doesn't exempt it from any other zoning requirements.
Any kinds of parking or garbage collection or various
other kinds of, you know, space between the buildings
and the lot line; all these other things would con-
tinue to apply. These would be treated the same way
as a family would be treated. They would have to meet
the same kind of requirements that a family would have
to."
* * *
Question: "Does this set a precedent in bypassing local
zoning in any way?" Answer: "Mr. Chairman, no, I don't
think it does. I love to compare it to open housing laws
because, I think there are certain legitimate reasons to
restrict zoning that have to do with the safety or the
quality of the neighborhood. But I think that just the
kind of people that are going to move in should not be
one of those.
The following is Senator Keefe's testimony before the Senate
sitting as a committee of a whole on April 17, 1975.
1. Discussing Section two of the act which resulted in
Subdivision seven, Senator Keefe said "It would still
come under the same kind of zoning laws that family
homes do."
2. Discussing Section three which resulted in Subdivision
eight, Senator Keefe said "So what this amounts to is
just defining six or fewer as a family and sixteen or
fewer as something like an apartment building. Now it
doesn't exempt them from any other zoning laws as far
as health are considered or in the case of multiple
dwellings, parking facilities or garbage collection or
anything like that, but what it does say is that they
won't have to get a conditional use permit to go into
a situation like this."
B17
Hearing Before the Senate Committee
on Health, Welfare and Corrections
March 21, 1975
Senator Keefe: Yes, Mr. Chairman, this is a bill that
I think most of the members of the Committee have heard about
already. It's the bill regarding zoning community facilities
for the mentally retarded. I have asked to have passed out a
list of organizations that have officially endorsed the bill.
The bill was given prominent mention in the Governor's budget
state address and it's had considerable attention in the media.
You have before you, strike everything after the enacting
clause amendment, and that doesn't make as many substantive
changes. The substantive changes are mainly in section one.
There are a couple of minor changes on page two that I would
like to offer as part of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman: Senator, is this the list you are re-
ferring to.
Senator Keefe: That's the list I'm referring to.
Mr. Chairman: Who is that third individual on the
list.
Senator Keefe: Mayor Al Hostede. It's not spelled so
hot. That should be "stede".
Mr. Chairman: Thank you Senator.
Senator Keefe: Thank you Mr. Chairman.
- 1 -
Mr. Chairman: Very good.
Senator Keefe: Two changes are fairly minor. They
are changes that were put in the house for some reason.
think they make it a little bit clearer. One is on line 16.
Strike between and insert from and strike and and insert
through. That changes it from between 7 and 16 from 7 through
16 which maybe makes that a little bit clearer. The other
change is on line 26 after residence and before the period in-
sert of the residential facility for the mentally retarded or
physically handicapped. That's just strictly clarifying lan-
guage.
Mr. Chairman: Is there any questions on the amend-
ments. This is on page two, line 16 and lines 26. Any discus-
sion? All those in favor say Aye. Opposed. Motion carried.
Senator Keefe: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it
is a little bit easier to explain the bill a little clearer if
we explain sections 2 and 3 first and then section 1. Section
1 is the most complicated. Section 2 says that a residential
home for six or fewer mentally retarded or physically handicap-
ped persons is a permitted single family residential use for
zoning purposes. It doesn't mean that they don't have to meet
all the other requirements of zoning, but it just means that
they are treated in the same way that a family is treated.
Section 3 says that a residential facility for mentally re-
tarded or physically handicapped people with from 7 through 16
residents will be treated for zoning purposes as a multi-family
• 2-
dwelling and it still would have to meet all the other regula-
tions of multi-family zoning--parking, garbage facilities, and
so on--everything that apartment buildings are required to meet
but that it would be considered a permitted use and wouldn't
require special use permit for that case. Those two things are
intended--those two provisions are intended to prevent the
kinds of hassles that we have read about in the papers in the
past, when community facilities for the mentally retarded or
physically handicapped have tried to locate in various communi-
ties around the state. Now I might point out that the current
zoning situation hasn't actually prevented many of these fa-
cilities from locating. I think there is one that has actually
been turned down. There have been several that have withdrawn
because of a lot of pressure but whenever it's come to votes
except in one case to my knowledge that the local council has
always approved the facility but what its meant is that these
facilities have had to hire lawyers, they have had to go
through court cases with opponents, they have had to go through
a very expensive and complicated and delayed process in getting
located. Section 1 is the--
Mr. Chairman: Senator Keefe, do you want to finish it
or respond to questions.
Senator Keefe: Whatever the committee prefers.
Senator John Keefe: I have a question. I have a
question on Section Three. Mr. Chairman, Senator Keefe. I'm
just trying to assimilate this. Would this provide that--would
- 3 -
this allow the 7 to 16 multi-family residential zoning, in
essence. I think you liken it to a small apartment building or
something.
Senator Keefe: Exactly.
Senator John Keefe: Would this allow that type of
structure to be installed in say single family dwellings if met
the--this bill--so, in essence where an apartment could not go
in, this structure could? And this use could be in.
Senator Keefe: Mr. Chairman, no it would permit these
kinds of facilities to go into areas that were zoned for
apartment buildings. Section 1 gets at the other part of the
problems which is that excessive concentration is certain
neighborhoods of various kinds of community facilities. I have
in my district the neighborhood--the Whities neighborhood--
which is about six blocks by six blocks which as of a year ago
had 24 group homes in it of various sorts. We have often joked
that if we could just get those last two homeowners to move out
we could put a wall around it and call it the Whittles State
Hospital because that sort of excessive concentration really
sort of defeats the whole purpose of community facilities be-
cause it develops a little sort of local community that isn't a
community at all, it's a big institution made up of group homes
in effect. The section is only one page and you can read the
provisions. It gives the Commissioner of Public Welfare as
part of the licensing process the responsibility to consider
concentration.
- 4 -
Mr. Chairman: Senator Perpich.
Senator George Perpich: Mr. Chairman, Senator Keefe,
I was just wondering why this just took in mentally retarded or
physically handicapped? Why just those two groups?
Senator Keefe: Mr. Chairman, frankly because of the
political problems in going farther. I personally would favor
legislation like this if that would cover other types of group
homes as well. But when you get into questions of the mentally
ill, the chemically dependent or corrections halfway houses,
you run into politcal problems associated with the--and a
social behavior that is sometimes connected with these kinds of
problems that would make the bill more difficult to pass. It
is our feeling that we should start slow on this and when this
has been in effect for a year or two and been effective that at
that time we can consider carrying the legislation further.
Mr. Chairman: Senator North.
Senator North: Senator Perpich there is a bill that
we will be considering shortly that will have that effect for
the smaller homes six and under.
Mr. Chairman: Senator, why the number six, I'm just
curious.
Senator Keefe: Well Mr. Chairman, that seems to be a
number that corresponded pretty well to the size of a typical
large family. Would be six residents, there would be probably
two staff people, and the two staff people might have one or
two children of their own. So that makes a family in quotes
- 5 -
about the size of a large family and we think that that's pretty
much equilivant to the kinds of things, the kinds of neighbors
your likely to get just from private families moving in your
neighborhood.
Mr. Chairman: Senator Lewis.
Senator Lewis: Mr. Chairman, Senator Keefe, six or
fewer--does that include the staff?
Senator Keefe: No, six or fewer are the mentally
retarded or physically handicapped people and the the staff are
in addition to that.
Mr. Chairman: Further discussion. Senator Keefe
continue if you have any further comments.
Senator Keefe: Yes, Mr. Chairman, all section 1 does
is it gives the Commissioner of Public Welfare the power when
she is doing licensing for these facilities to take into con-
sideration concentration, to refuse a license it is going to
add to an excessive concentration in a certain neighborhood and
it sets up certain criteria that she is to take into considera-
tion. For instance, they shouldn't be within 300 feet of each
other and so on. The section 1 was originally somewhat shorter
but it was amended to include a little bit more restrictions on
the Commissioner of Public Welfare because of the feeling of
some units of local government that it would be unwise to give
the commissioner frankly too much power in this area and I had
no objection to that as did the people from MARC, You've seen
the list of people who was support the bill. There are a large
- 6 -
number of private citizens also who have been writing to me and
I sure have been writing to you about the importance of this
legislation. And I have Mr. Dan Connor from the Minnesota ARC
here and also Neil Mickenberg from Legal Aid in Minneapolis who
can answer any technical questions that I can't answer and I'd
be happy stand for questions and otherwise I would like to move
that Senator File 310 be recommended passed as amended.
Mr. Chairman: Senator Keefe we will proceed. Senate
file 310 be recommend and passed. Senator I have a question.
How soon after application does the welfare department have to
act?
Senator Keefe: They have 90 days, I understand.
Mr. Chairman: Are you satisfied that is a reasonable
length of time or is that too long.
Senator Keefe: Mr. Chairman, actually the problem is
not the zoning situation, the problem is that state and federal
licensing requirements for these kinds of facilities are very
strict. Actually you are a lot safer with a facility like this
going in then you are with private family that isn't required
to be licensed. Some of the families in our neighbor, the
children should be licensed.
Mr. Chairman: The only reason I raise the question at
the committee on closing of institutions we had testimony by
Mr. Hagen who indicated that he couldn't get an answer. It
took so long to get an answer from the department and I was
just curious about. They have 90 days. Does that include the
30 day written notice provision or not.
Senator Keefe: Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't be able to
answer that, but, yes, I guess it does.
Mr. Chairman: Very good. Further discussion on the
bill. Senator Renneke.
Senator Renneke: Mr. Chairman and Senator Keefe. Is
the main idea of the bill to limit concentration of these homes
in one area--these facilities in one area--or is there also an
effort here to bypass local zoning.
Senator Keefe: Mr. Chairman, its a double thrust.
One is to protect these facilities from the kinds of very
expensive hassles that they have had to go through to get
locations in other than the two or three neighborhoods where
there are a whole bunch of them. The other is to prevent the
excessive concentration in those neighborhoods. I'm not sure
Senator Ranke was here when I pointed out that actually very
few of these requests for special use permits have been
actually turned down. The difficulty is not so much that local
councils are turning them down, the difficulty is that they are
very involved hearing and court case processes that they have
to go through before they can get approved. Some of these
facitilies don't have a lot of capital at their disposal and
hiring a lawyer to go through a complicated hearing procedure
and then through court cases is difficult. I only know of one
special use permit that has been actually turned down but there
have been several who have withdrawn their requests after op-
position has arisen just because they couldn't afford to defend
their right to go into a neighborhood.
- 8 -
Senator Renneke: Mr. Chairman, Senator Keefe, it is
generally there on a special use permit the facility would be
permitted and I wonder if there are areas in the law that limit
special use permits or variances of some type or another.
Would that bypass that then?
Senator Keefe: Mr. Chairman, this would not--all this
does is say is that these are permitted uses for that kind of
zoning. It doesn't exempt it from any other zoning require-
ments, any kinds of parking, or garbage collection or various
other kinds of, you know, space between the building and the
lot-line. All those other things would continue to apply. But
these would be treated the same way a family would be treated.
They have to meet the same kind of requirements that a family
would have to.
Mr. Chairman: Further discussion. I might say
Senator I had a call yesterday from one of the larger banks in
the Twin Cities area expressing interest in your bill because
they've had one person apply for a loan to establish four
community facilities. And through the combination of the
Housing Finance Agency, the Welfare Department, and federal aid
were going to establish four community facilities and the
banker told me that cash flow was just tremendous under the
project and if this bill passed they would be able to establish
this regardless of local zoning. So it appears as though we
are going to have to take a very close look at the estab-
lishment of community facilities.
- 9 -
Senator Keefe: Mr. chairman, I think that it would
certainly be a lovely situation where we have too much demand
for putting up community facilities.
Mr. Chairman: Well, I guess I'm concerned that the
profits through the various combination of aids and capital-
ization by the housing finance agency that it does not--that we
get people to do this to go a good job and not for a profit. I
think that's what happened to the nursing homes. I think we
want to be very careful. I support the bill. I think it is
very very good and I think it is not germain to the issue we
are talking about today but I did get a call, I thought it was
interesting from a large financial institution in support of
the bill that didn't get hung up the local zoning. So I guess
they were right for the wrong reasons but nevertheless they
supported your bill.
Mr. Chairman: Senator Renneke:
Senaor Renneke: Mr. Chairman, Senator Keefe. Does
this set a precedence then in by-passing local zoning in any
way.
Senator Keefe: Mr. Chairman, no, I don't think it
does, I love to compare it to open housing laws because I think
there are certain legitimate reasons to restrict zoning that
have to do with the safety or quality of the neighborhood. But
I think just the kind of people that are going to move in
should not be one of them.
- 10 -
Mr. Chairman: Further discussion. Senator North.
Senator North: Mr. Chairman, Senator Keefe. tin terms
of the bypassing of the local municipal zoning ordinances for
facilities for six or fewer, what kind of regulations are there
on other types of people who also may live in the facility.
You know perhaps stepparents and some of their children there
plus 6. Is there any kind of regulation on that? The residen-
tial facility could be kinds of large if you include just--all
it says is six mentally retarded--and then could add another
four or five people who are not mentally retarded living in the
same facility.
Senator Keefe: Well, I don't know what the various
zoning ordinances would say about this Mr. Chairman but the
licensing provisions of the state and federal government are
very strict about space available and all kinds of other health
questions so I would think that anybody that had an unsually
large family and also six mentally retarded individuals unless
there were going into an unusually large house would run a
follow those regulations.
Mr. Chairman: What other department can respond to
that figure? That's a good question--whether or not a home
could be established with six mentally retarded and they could
also have four or five other people living in the home if the
department would allow that type of facility.
Senator Keefe: My helpers here say that they could do
that but if they wanted to they would have to meet space and
staff regulations. I don't know what those regulations are.
Perhaps, the department . . .
Mr. Chairman: So the department is saying that they
could be allowed to do that, there would be no loss in aid or
anything, they could in fact have six mentally retarded, and
they could have six other people there as well.
Senator Keefe: Well, yes, but, Mr. Chairman, as I
understand the aid just goes for the mentally retarded. You
couldn't, they wouldn't get extra money just to pay for their
own kids. As far as I know.
Mr. Chairman: But I think Senator Renecke's question
is that does it allow them to bypass all local zoning ordi-
nances for the whole. It is a question I think we ought to
check out before it gets to the floor. Senator Brown.
Senator Brown: It seems to me that all we are doing
in this bill is defining as a family a group that has more than
six--as a single family. I think of my own house. The people
who life right by us have 13 in the family. We only have 7 and
can't keep peace will all these legislative duties. But I
think that--I suppose you can say its bypassing the zoning but
we don't define for zoning purposes yet anyway that only so
many per household can be construed as a family, otherwise you
would become a multi-zoning dwelling.
Mr. Chairman: Further discussion. Senator Tennison.
Senator Tennison: Mr. Chairman and Senator Keefe. In
section three you have a reference that no conditions shall be
- 12 -
imposed on the homes which are more restrictive than those im-
posed on other conditional uses or special uses of residential
property in the same zones. Suppose some of the special uses
might be a corner grocery store.
Senator Keefe: Mr. Chairman I would like to call Neil Micken-
berg from Minneapolis Legal Aid.
Neil Mickenberg: Chairman and Senator Tennison.
Mr. Chairman: Who do you represent?
Neil Mickenberg: Excuse me, my name is Neil Micken-
berg. I am a staff attorney with Legal Aid Society of Min-
neapolis.
Mr. Chairman: Very good, thank you.
Neil Mickenberg: Mr. Chairman, Senator Tennison.
That was the reason we put in special uses of residential prop-
erty to make clear that the property would have to be used for
residential purpose or that special use would have to be of
residential property, not just in some places a grocery store
or a church for examply might be a special use within in a par-
ticular zone and we did put that language to make clear that it
would be special uses or conditional uses of the residential
property.
Mr. Chairman: Further discussion on Senate 310. If
not, the motion by Senator Keefe is that Senate file 310 be
recommended passed as amended. Anyone in the audience like to
speak for or against the bill. If not all those in favor way
aye. Opposed. Motion carried.
- 13 -
Session of the Minnesota Senate.
April 17, 1975
Mr. Chairman: Next order of business is No. 12,
General Orders, House File 319, Senator Keefe, S.
Senator Keefe: Mr. Chairman, I move that when this
Committee duly rises House File 319 be recommended pass.
Mr. Chairman: Senator Keefe.
Senator Keefe: Mr. Chairman, House File 319 can be
found on page 125 of the House Binder. There are some amend-
ments to make which are identical to the Senate file. Those
can be found on page 947 of the Senate Journal. The amendments
are strictly gramatical, a lot of sections are deleted and im-
mediately after the day following for the enactment and that
sort of thing so that the substance of the House File is what
we are really dealing with. This is a bill that deals with
community facilities for the mentally retarded and the physi-
cally handicapped. I can explain the bill the best by starting
with I think starting with section 2. Section 2 says that a
community facility for 6 or fewer mentally retarded citizens is
a permitted zoning use for single family zoning. It would
still come under the same kind of zoning laws that family homes
do. Section 3 provides that from 7 to 16 mentally retarded
residents, it would be a permitted use in a multiple dwelling
zone area. So what this amounts to is just defining 6 or fewer
- 1 -
as a family and 16 or fewer as something like an apartment
building. It doesn't exempt them from any of the other zoning
laws as far as health concerns are considered or in the case of
a multiple dwelling, parking facilities, or garbage collection
or anything like that. What it does say is that they won't
have to get a conditional use permit to go into a situation
like this. Now you have all read about the trouble that some
of these community facilities have had going into some com-
munities. The strange thing is that in only one case, in all
the cases that have come up, have they actually been prevented
from going into a neighborhood. What happens is that community
facilities have to hire a lawyer, they have to go through a
whole series of hearing processes, a lot of times they are
sued, or the city council is sued afterwards, and it is adding
so much to the cost of establishing one of these community
facilities, that this bill has been broadened. This bill has
the support of the League of Minnesota Muncipalities, which I
think is very important, the local governments support this
bill and the City of Minneapolis Department of Public Welfare,
the Minnesota Association for Retarded Citizens. Section 1 of
the bill puts certain additional requirements on the Commis-
sioner of Public Welfare for the licensing procedures for these
facilities. It prohibits the Commissioner from granting a li-
cense if it would create an excessive concentration. There are
some neighborhoods where there are so many group homes that
they aren't community facilities anymore. You can put a wall
- 2 -
around then and call them a state hospital. It drags the Com-
missioner to consider the various land use plans and so on and
prohibits from granting a new license if it is within 300 feet
of an existing facility, and so on, but just adds to the al-
ready very strigent health and welfare licensing requirements
that exist on these facilities. It only deals with facilities
of the mentally retarded and the physically handicapped so we
don't get into the questions that you do with corrections,
half-way houses, and so on, and Mr. Chairman I have no amend-
ments to offer, I would be delighted to answer any questions
and otherwise I renew my motion.
Mr. Chairman: Any discussion? Hearing none on the
motion, all those in favor will signify by saying "aye".
Floor: Aye.
Mr. Chairman: Opposed, "no".
Floor: No.
Mr. Chairman: The "ayes" have it. It is so ordered.
The next order of business is No. 13 on General Orders, Senate
File No. 753, Senator North.
- 3 -
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
DONALD J. SORENSEN, being first duly sworn, on oath
deposes and says:
That your affiant resides at 7121 Willow Creek Road,
Eden Prairie, Minnesota, and is an attorney duly licensed to
practice law in the State of Minnesota and maintains his profes-
sional offices at 812 First Bank Place West, 120 South Sixth
Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
That your affiant and all of his neighbors are concerned
with the proposal of Welcome Home, Inc. to expand the non-conforming
use of the property located at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive (formerly
Flying Cloud Drive).
That when your affiant first learned of a possible inter-
pretation of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.357 which would permit
the use of 7170 Bryant Lake Drive as a residential care facility
for up to 16 mentally ill persons, I contacted the Minnesota House
Of Representatives Index Department to find out who had been the
authors of the bill which was enacted as M.S.A. 5462.357. I was
informed that the chief author was Frank Knoll and that the other
authors were Lon Heinitz, William Kelly, Henry Savelkoul and Wesley
Skoglund. Only Wesley Skoglund was still serving in the legisla-
ture at this time.
That your affiant called Wes Skoglund. Mr. Skoglund stated
that as it was ten years since this legislation was passed he could
not remember exactly what was discussed during the enactment pro-
ceedings, however, that he could recall that:
1.) The intent of the legislation was to permit dis-
advantaged citizens the same rights to housing
accommodations as other citizens and to nromote
the dispersal of facilities for those disadvantaged
persons.
2.) That he could not recall any discussion about
expansions of non-conforming uses being permitted
or authorized under this legislation, however, he
did not believe that it was the intent of any of
the authors that the statute would he so inter-
preted.
That your affiant then called Frank Knoll, who is now a
Judge. Judge Knoll also stated that the passage of time limited
his ability to recall specifies of the legislative history of that
statute. He did make the following comments:
1.) The intent of the legislation was to grant equal
rights to the physically handicapped and mentally
retarded, but it was not intended to grant them
rights which were superior to other citizens.
2.) The purpose of the statute was to mandate that a
group home facility for up to six persons was to
be a permitted use in single family zoned districts
and that a facility of from 7 to 16 persons would
be a permitted use in multi-family zoned districts
throughout the state regardless of the provisions
of local zoning ordinances.
3.) The legislation was addressed to uses in zoning
districts and was not intended to permit the expan-
sion of non-conforming uses. We had a short dis-
cussion about the status of non-conforming uses
under Minnesota law. I then posed to him a hypo-
thetical question which was comprised of the facts
concerning the use of 7170 Bryant Lake Drive (i.e.
structure erected in two phases about 90 years aao,
possible constructive use as a duplex in 1969 when
ordinance was adopted which would render a duplex
use as a non-conforming use both as to site charac-
teristics and permitted use, later expansion of use
to a triplex and an application for use of the pro
-2-
perty as a group home for 16 persons based upon
the statute). He responded that in his opinion
the statute would permit the use of the premises
as an up to six person group home, but not as a
16 person facility.
4.) That I should talk with Melvin Hecht who is an
attorney and had lobbied for the bill on behalf
of the Minnesota Association For Retarded Citizens.
That your affiant called and spoke with Mr. Hecht, who
related to me essentially the same factors as had Rep. Skoglund and
Judge Knoll. He has a retarded child and had become associated
with MARC. That many municipalities refused to permit residential
facilities for retarded persons and that since all of the munici-
palities' zoning power was derived from the state, it was felt that
statutory definition of permitted uses in single family and multiple
dwelling districts would restrict the discrimination that was
practiced against retarded people. He stated that the intent of
his participation in the drafing and lobbying for the bill was to
grant equalrightsto the retarded and handicapped, but was not
intended to grant them special rights. I also posed to him the
same hypothetical question and he responded in the same manner as
Judge Knoll had.
Further, affiant saith naught.
DONALD J. SORENSEN
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this fourteenth day of February, 1985.
Notary PubliC
JON I CORNELIUS
NOTAR1 M;NNESOTA
HENNLNN MINTY
Cernrw.,ca Eons Dec 5, 1990
,,,,JVNANVIANSWANWAA.W.MAW I
-3-
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 85-61
RESOLUTION RECEIVING FEASIBILITY REPORT
AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARING
WHEREAS, a report has been given by the City Engineer to the City
Council recommending the following improvements to wit:
I.C. 52-067, Rowland Road Improvements
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL:
1. The Council will consider the aforesaid improvements
in accordance with the report and the assessment of
property abutting or within said boundaries for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to
N.S.A. Section 429.011 to 429.111, at an estimated
total cost of the improvements as shown.
2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement
on the 19th day of March, 1985, at 7:30 P.M. at the
Eden Prairie School Administration Building, 8100 School Road.
The City Clerk shall give published and mailed notice
of such hearing on the improvements asrequired by law.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on February 19, 1985.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
SEAL
John D. Frane, City cria