Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 05/21/1985 t CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF REVIEW TUESDAY, MAY 21, 1985 6:30 PM, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, ROOM 5 BOARD OF REVIEW MEMBERS: Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson George Bentley, Patricia Pidcock and Paul Redpath BOARD OF REVIEW STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, City Assessor Steve Sinell, City Staff Appraisers Jim Donna, Torn O'Brien and Lorna Thomas, Hennepin County Representative, and Recording Secretary Karen Michael PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL I. RECONVENE BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING II. APPROVAL OF BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES OF MEETING HELD THURSDAY. MAY 2� r9g III. REVIEW OF ITEMS CONTINUED FROM MAY 2 1985 IV. OTHER BUSINESS V. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 85-122, ACCEPTING THE 1985 • ASSESSMENT VI. ADJOURNMENT. i-( UNAPPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF REVIEW CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE THURSDAY, MAY 2, 1985 7:30 PM, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, ROOM 5 BOARD OF REVIEW MEMBERS: President of the Board Gary D. Peterson, Richard Anderson, George Bentley, Patricia Pidcock and 1 Paul Redpath BOARD DF REVIEW STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, City Assessor Steve Sinell, City Staff Appraisers Jim Donna, Tom O'Brien and Lorna Thomas, Board of Review Advisors Joanne Irvine, Jerry Kingrey and Regan Massee, Hennepin County Representative Ken Bjorn, and Recording Secretary Karen Michael PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Board Member Patricia Pidcock was absent. I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Board of Review President Gary D. Peterson. Peterson explained Board Member Pidcock was absent because of the death of her mother. Peterson introduced the members of the Board of Review Advisors and explained their function. City Manager Jullie stated notice of this meeting had been published in the Eden Prairie News on April 10 and April 17, 1985; notice of the meeting was also included on each valuation notice which was sent to homeowners. Jullie said the purpose of this meeting was to allow any tax payer to come before the Board of Review to request the Board to take any action to amend the classification or property valuation which the City Assessor and his Staff has determined to be appropriate to that property. He noted that the valuation was as of January 2. 1985 and is the basis for taxes which are payable in 1986. Jullie said that Hennepin County handles the abatement process. Jullie reviewed the definition of "estimated market value": the usual selling price at the place where the property to which the term is applied shall be at the time of assessment; being the price which could be obtained at private sale Ef and not a forced or auction sale. Jullie introduced City Staff present. II. ORDER OF BUSINESS . A. Personal Appeals 1. THOMAS HERZOG - 16040 Alpine Way - 08-116-22 11 0059 Mrs. Herzog indicated they had purchased the property for $90,6D0 in November of 1984 and said the home had been on the market for six month. She stated the condition of the property was such that it should not have an Estimated Market Value of $107.400. Sinell said he felt the $90,600 sale to be a distressed sale. Board of Review Minutes -2- May 2, 1985 Bentley asked if it wasn't a bit unusual for a property to be assessed higher than a sale price. Sinell indicated this sale appeared to be under very unusual circumstances. Redpath asked what the value was in 1983; Sinell said $112,200 in 1983 and $124,200 in 1984. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Anderson, to refer the Herzog property, PID No. 08-116-22 11 0059, to the Board of Advisors for its review. Motion carried unanimously. Bentley asked that the process following the Board of Review Meeting be explained. Hennepin County Representative Bjorn noted the next step in the process would be an appearance before the County Board of Equilization which will be meeting in September; the contact person is Jean Bierbaum, 348-5076. 2. ROGER SWIGERT - 13164 Cardinal Creek Road - 03-116-22 44 0002 Swigert indicated the value of his property had been increased by 41,1 - 5%. He said he felt home values have been reduced in the Cardinal Creek area and indicated the reasons for these reduced values. He stated he would like to see the assessed values in the Cardinal Creek area remain the same for 1965 as they were for 1984.. he said he could see no reason for an increase. Sinell noted the property was purchased in September of 1983 for $250,000; the 1964 Estimated Market Value was $226,000 and for 1985 was $236,500, 3. RONALD EZERSKI - 13192 Cardinal Creek Road - 03-116-22 41 0004 Ezerski noted similar reasons for requesting no increase in the value of his property and also distributed copies of a letter from the Corporate Relocation Division of Elliott Realty regarding property values in the Cardinal Creek area, (Copy attached to these Minutes.) Ezerski noted his EMV had none from $234,000 last year to $245,000 this year. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to refer the Swigert property, PID No, 03-116-22 44 0002, and the Ezerski property, P1D No. 03-116-22 41 0004, to the Board of Advisors for its review. Motion carried unanimously, 4. CLIFFORD THOMPSON - 6559 Kurtz Lane - 04-116-22 24 0050 Thompson stated his home was built in 1964 and for most of the time since then the assessed value of his home and that of his neighbor had been the same. This year the value of the Thompson home was in- creased to $9000 above that of his neighbor. (Assessor's EMV for 1985 = $87,000.) MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley, to refer the Thompson property, PID No. 04-116-22 24 0050, to the Board of Advisors for its review. Motion carried unanimously. Board of Review Minutes -3- May 2, 1985 5. HOYT DEVELOPMENT Steve Hoyt, representing Hoyt Development, stated Hoyt Development has eleven pieces of property in Eden Prairie; they are requesting temporary special treatment on four of these properties. He indicated he has additional information on these properties which was not available when he last met with City Assessor Sinell. Hoyt said they are in basic agreement with what the estimated market value is even though there have not been many sales in the Shady Oak area on which to develop comparables. He then reviewed the basis on which properties such as those owned by Hoyt Development are bought and sold -- usually based on a 10% return on investment and sold to an institution. Shady View I - 12-116-22 11 0011 Hoyt said this property was 38% vacant on January 2, 1985, and requested the estimated market value for 1985 be $1,860,000, (Assessor's EMV = $2,263,000.) Shady View II - 12-116-22 12 0004 • Hoyt stated this property was 27% vacant on January 2, 1985, and requested the estimated market value for 1985 be $3,140,000; $314,000 net operating income was generated by this property. (Assessor's EMV = $4.317,000.) Bachman's - 12-116-22 41 0005 & 12-116-22 42 0007 Hoyt indicated this property was 19% vacant on January 2, 1985; it will be fully leased to Bachman's as of June, 1985, Hoyt stated they have $1,660,000 invested in the building and a loan on the building for $1,750,000; the income generated from the building last year was not enough to pay the debt service on the building. (Assessor's EMV = ` $1,771,000 - partial construction.) Technology Park - 12-116-22 41 0007 Hoyt said Hoyt Development had not requested the City to put in streets or utilities in this area but had chosen to do them themselves. He indicated he felt this building was worth about $4,100,000 on January 2, 1985; the Assessor's EMV was $4,343,000 - partial construction. He said he would like to see the EMV on this building reduced. City Assessor Sinell said that if they were to follow the straight economic theory when assessing commercial and industrial properties, there would be many peaks and valleys. Hennepin County Representative Bjorn said that the valuation of a building depends on the market; it is not necessarily reflected in the current income status of the property. 7 Board of Review Minutes -4- May 2, 1985 MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Anderson, to refer the properties discussed by Steve Hoyt: Shady View I, PIO No. 12-116-22 11 0011; Shady View II, PlD No. 12-116-22 12 0004; Bachman's, PID Nos. 12-116-22 41 0005 & 12-116-22 42 0007; and Technology Park, PID No. 12-116-22 41 0007, to the City Assessor for further review based on new information which is now available. Bentley asked which buildings had been built with Industrial Revenue Bonds. Hoyt said Shady View II, $3,950,000 and Bachman's, $1,750,000. Bentley said he would like to find out what the legal ramifications are of reducing the estimated market value to below the amount of the Industrial Revenue Bonds, should the Council consider a potential reduction in the EMV. VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried unanimously, 6. ROSEMARY SOLTIS - 11003 Spoon Ridge - 25-116-22 23 0012 Soltis indicated the value of this property has not increased very much in the last four years; the same "soft market" is being experienced here as is being experienced in the Cardinal Creek area. She said she would like to have a reduction, (Assessor's EMV = $220,200.) MOTION: Redpath moved. seconded by Bentley, to refer the Soltis property, PID No. 25-116-22 23 0012, to the Board of Advisors for its review, Motion carried unanimously. { 7. WILLIAM QUIRK - 14308 Charing Cross - 03-116-22 32 0051 Quirk stated his estimated market value is about 10% more than his neighbors (Assessor's EMV = $102,000.) Quirk referred to a home in his neighborhood which had sold for considerable less than what his home is valued at. City Assessor Sinell said this had been reviewed by the Board of Review last year and the value was reduced from $106,000 to $102,000; the $102,000 is the same for 1984 and 1985. MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to sustain the recommendation 1 of the Assessor. Motion carried with Anderson abstaining. t} 8. F & L ENTERPRISES - 6331 Industrial Drive - 03-116-22 22 0016 Bernie Fink, representing F & L Enterprises, said he felt the assessment was too high (Assessor's EMV = $252,000.) Fink indicated this property is between two railroad tracks, it is across from a facility which burns so the odors are awful, and there is a lot of noise. City Assessor Sinell noted this property had been reviewed for the 1984 8oard of Review as well as for the 1985 EMV; the 1985 EMV includes the value of another building which was constructed during 19B4 and was given a value of $61,000. Board of Review Minutes -5- May 2, 1985 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson. to refer the F & L Enterprises property, PID No. 03-116-22 22 0016, to the Board of Advisors for its review. Motion carried unanimously. 9. OIANNE & PAUL REESE - 6982 Edgebrook Place - 03-116-22 44 0018 Paul Reese stated the 1984 estimated market value was $285,000. He said he purchased the home in November of 1984 for $240,000; it had previously sold in 1982 for $335,000. Reese said he felt the 1985 EMV of $240,000 was too high as he believed the EMV was based on a percentage of the selling price. City Assessor Sinell said that, based on last year's sales, the estimated market values in the City of Eden Prairie averaged 931 - 94% of the sale price; he noted that would mean that there would be a number of properties above that as well as below that average. • MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Redpath, to refer the Reese property, PID No, 03-116-22 44 0018, to the Board of Advisors for its review, Motion carried unanimously. 10. CHERNE CONTRACTING CORP. - 9855 West 78th Street - 13-116-22 13 0011 Bill Cherne, representative for Cherne Contracting Corp., indicated the problem with this property was similar to that expressed by Steve Hoyt. He noted this building was 45 - 50% vacant during 1984 and that in actuality only 25% of the building is being used. He stated ( the market values in Eden Prairie seem to be pretty much as they should be; however, those in Edina and Bloomington are low. County Representative Bjorn said each community has its own assessor and does the job according to his or her best ability. He explained that the "Big 7" (those cities in Hennepin County with populations over 30,000) are governed by Department of Revenue (State) regulations whereas Hennepin County has jurisdiction over cities such as Eden Prairie. There was discussion as to how the disparities might be lessened, MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley, to direct City Attorney Pauly to investigate the County's process and authority with respect to ensuring equalization in the determination of estimated market values of real estate among all the cities within Hennepin County. Motion carried unanimously. City Manager Jullie said he would ask City Attorney to report to the Council on this at the May 21st meeting of the Board of Review. Cherne stated the primary reason for his request was because of the vacancy factor. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to refer the Cherne property, PIO No. 13-116-22 13 00I1, to the City Assessor for further review. Motion carried unanimously. Board of Review Minutes -6- May 2, 19B5 7. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley, to reconsider action taken on property owned by William Quirk, 14308 Charing Cross, PIO No. 03-116-22 32 0051. Motion carried unanimously. Anderson said he had just been made aware of a property mentioned by Quirk during his presentation and would like to have this referred to the Board of Advisors. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley, to refer the Quirk property, PID No. 03-116-22 32 0051, to the Board of Advisors for • its review. Motion carried unanimously. 11. JOHN AND MARIE NOLAN - Atherton Townhouses The Nolans had a question regarding procedure. 12. GORDON WEBER & STEVE HYATT - 7655 Mitchell Road - 10-116-22 33 0009 • Weber stated they had recently signed a lease with an option to purchase the building which former housed Chester's Family Restaurant. He said the EMV on the building is $474,600; the restaurant adjacent to theirs is larger and the taxes are less. He said he would like to have this reviewed. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Bentley, to refer the Greenstreets property, PID No. 10-116-22 33 0009, to the Assessor for his review. Motion carried unanimously, B. Written Communications Written communications were received from the following (and are attached to these Minutes): 1. GARY & JACQUELINE FRANA - 7490 Market Place Drive - 11-116-22 42 0005 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to sustain the Assessor's estimated market value on the Frana property, PID No. 11-116-22 42 0005. Motion carried unanimously, 2. SUSEE & LEE LTD., Chestnut Apartments - 15-116-22 32 0001 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to sustain the Assessor's estimated market value on the Susee & Lee Ltd. property, PID No, 15-116-22 32 0003. Motion carried unanimously. 3. PRAIRIE LAKES OFFICE PARK - 11000 Prairie Lakes Drive - 13-116-22 32 0003 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to sustain the Assessor's estimated market value on the Prairie Lakes Office,Park property, PID No, 13-116-22 32 0003. Motion carried unanimously, Board of Review Minutes -7- May 2, 1985 4. MARVIN F. POER AND CO. - 9910 - 74th Street West - 12-116-22 14 0013 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to sustain the Assessor's estimated market value on the Marvin F. Poer and Co. property, PID No. 12-116-22 41 0001. Motion carried unanimously. 5. PROPERTY EVALUATION SERVICES - 7400 Washington Avenue - 12-116-22 41 0001 and - 10200 Crosstown Circle - 01-116-22 13 0021 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Anderson, to sustain the Assessor's estimated market value on the Property Evaluation Services properties, PID Nos. 12-116-22 41 0001 and 01-116-22 13 0021. Motion carried unanimously. 6. URBAN ASSOCIATES - 8015 Glen Lane - 12-116-22 13 0036 MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath. to sustain the Assessor's estimated market value on the Urban Associates property, PID No. 12-116- 22 13 0036. Motion carried unanimously. 7. BRIAR HILL COMPANY LTD. PARTNERSHIP - 09-116-22 12 0002 Darlene Mayer was present earlier in the evening to go on record as reserving the right of the Briar Hill Company to request an abatement. MOTION: Bentley moved, seconded by Redpath, to sustain the Assessor's estimated market value on the Briar Hill Company property, PID No. 09-116-22 12 0002. Motion carried unanimously, 8. DOUGLAS SKANSE - 7180 Washington Avenue - 12-1I6-22 11 0006 and - 9600 Valley View Road - 12-116-22 11 0007 MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Anderson, to sustain the Assessor's estimated market value on the Skanse properties, PID Nos. 12-116-22 11 0006 and 12-116-22 11 0007. Motion carried unanimously. III. CLOSE MEETING MOTION: Redpath moved, seconded by Bentley, to adjourn the Meeting of the Board of Review at 10:07 p.m. to reconvene at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 21, 1985. Motion carried unanimously. t 19 BOARO OF REVIEW CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE E. MAY 2, 1985 ASSESSOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS (Assume no additional information will be presented by the appellant.) 1. Thomas Herzog Residential - Homestead 16040 Alpine Way 1985 EMV = $107,400 08-116-22 11 0059 Purchased 11/84 - S90,600 Staff has reviewed. Recommend referral to Board of Review Advisors. 1 2. Roger Swigert Residential - Homestead 13184 Cardinal Creek Rd. 1985 EMV = $236,500 03-116-22 44 0002 Purchased 9/83 - $250,000 Staff has reviewed. Recommend value be affirmed or referred to Advisors. 3. Ronald Ezerski Residential - Homestead 13192 Cardinal Creek Rd. 1985 EMV = $245,000 03-116-22 41 0004 Purchased 5/83 - $260,000 Staff has reviewd. Recommend value be affirmed or referred to Advisors. 4. Clifford Thompson Residential - Homestead 6559 Kurtz Lane 1985 EMV - $87,000 04-116-22 24 0050 Staff has reviewed. Recommend referral to Advisors. 5. Hoyt Oevelopment Shady View I Commercial - office/warehouse 12-116-22 11 0011 1985 EMU = S2,263,000 Shady View II Commercial - office/warehouse 12-116-22 12 0004 1985 EMV = S4,317,000 Bachman's Commerical - office/warehouse 12-116-22 41 0005 & 1985 EMV = S1,771,000 - partial (I 12-116-22 42 0007 construction (Building crosses property line 0005 = S905,000; 0007 = $866,000 Technology Park Commercial - office/warehouse 12-116-22 41 0007 1985 EMV = $4,343,000 - partial construction City Assessor has reviewed above mentioned properties for 1985, recommend they be referred back to Assessor if additional information . becomes available, or no change. 6. Rosemary Soltis Residential - Homestead 11003 Spoon Ridge 1985 EMV = $220,200 25-116-22 23 0012 Recommend referral to Advisors. 7. William Quirk Residential - Homestead 14308 Charing Cross 1985 EMV = $102,000 03-116-22 32 0051 The 19841EMV which s was the setmby the he • 1984 Board of Review. Recommend referral to Advisors or no change. 8. F & L Enterprises Industrial Property (Bernie Fink) 1985 EMV = $252,000 6331 Industrial Drive City Assessor reviewed value for ( 03-116-22 22 0016 1984 Board of Review and for 1985 EMV. 1985 EMV includes value of another building. • 9. Dianne & Paul Reese Residential - Homestead 6982 Edgebrook Place 1985 EMV = $240,000 03-116-22 44 0018 Property sold 11/84 for $240,000, had sold previously for $335,000 in 1982. Recommend referral to Advisors. 10. Bill Cherne Commercial - office Cherne Contracting Corp. 1985 EMV = $6,000,000 9855 West 78th Street New construction appraisal by City 13-116-22 14 0011 Assessor. No information from Mr. Cherne indicating value is incorrect. Recommend value be affirmed. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1. Gary & Jacqueline Frana Commercial - office 7490 Market Place Drive 1985 EMV = $326,900 11-116-22 42 0005 Property is a 3841 square foot wood frame office building. Recent sales of comparable prop- erties indicate a value of between $96.00 and $100.00 per square foot of gross building area; supports the current assessment. t 2. Susee & Lee Ltd. Apartment Chestnut Apartments 1985 EMV = $3,200,000 15-116-22 32 0001 City Assessor has reviewed the property. Recommend no change. 3. Prairie Lakes Office Park Commercial - office Merrill Lynch Hubbard, Inc. 1985 EMV = $10,200,000 11000 Prairie Lakes Drive New construction appraisal for 1985. 13-116-22 32 0003 Property recently sold for $12,600,000. New owners have not provided any additional information. Recommend no change. 4. Marvin F. Poer and Co. Commercial - office/warehouse 9910 - 74th Street West 1985 EMV = $2,460,000 12-116-22 14 0013 City Assessor has reviewed the property. Property was purchased in 1982 for $2,800,000. Recommend no change. 5. Property Evaluation Services Commercial - office/warehouse 7400 Washington Avenue 1985 EMV = $4,200,000 12-116-22 41 0001 City Assessor and County Assessor Staff have reviewed the property. Recommend no change. 10200 Crosstown Circle Commercial - office/warehouse 01-116-22 13 0021 1985 EMV = $2,000,000 City Assessor has reviewed the property. Recommend no change. 6. Urban Associates Commercial - retail & restaurant 8015 Glen Lane 1985 EMV = $768,000 12-116-22 13 0036 New construction appraisal for 1985. Urban Associates have indicated that they do not want to share the income and expense data on the subject prop- erty. Recommend no change. CORPORATE RELOCATION DIVISION OF ELLIOTT REALTY April 30, 1985 Mr. & Mrs. Ronald Ezerski 13192 Cardinal Creek Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Ron and Leslie; This correspondence is in answer to your request for information on the current real estate market in Eden Prairie. It is always fun to be the bearer of good news and never of bad news. However, I owe you my honesty. The upper bracket ($200,000 plus) has been at best, dormant since your aquisition of your home at 13192 Cardinal Creek Road. This is borne out by the most recent Greater Minneapolis Area Multiple Listing Statistics: 4 Bedroom Homes (January - March 31st) 1985 1984 Number of units offered for sale 95 80 Number of units currently on market 58 46 Number of units sold 37 34 Average list price $139,598 $154,252 Average sale price $133,613 $148,517 Average Difference in Price (list/sale) $ 5,985 $ 5,735 The two primary upper bracket markets of Eden Prairie, Cardinal Creek and Olympic Hills/Preserve areas have experienced market times in the 24 - 36 months and declining market values of 10 - 20% in some cases. As you know, we at Elliott Realty, Inc. primarily serve the k' relocated executive market. A vast majority of the incoming executive families won't even consider Eden Prairie due to the ^ excessive real estate tax burden. ii4) //) ff:) 5113 WEST 98TH STREET.BLOOMINGTON.MINNESOTA 55437 612/8318010 THE THINK OF EVERYTHING PEOPLE 1 CORPORATE RELOCATION DIVISION OF ELLIOTT REALTY -2- Even though most of our clients are in the 50% income tax bracket, they say no - due to the fact that they too are more than concerned with resale. If Eden Prairie continues with their unprecedented real estate tax increases, we will see many families suffer both financially and emotionally. Such was the case in the sale of 6982 Edgebrook Place: Original sale price $335,000 Improvements made 28,700 2nd sale price 240,000 Net Loss $123,700 And this does not take into consideration items such as sale costs of more than $17,000, a real shame. Sure, market conditions played a role in this situation, but the buyer . obtained a 9% mortgage, therefore the real culprit, in my opinion, is the real estate tax in Eden Prairie. When you purchased your home, we didn't know what the true tax burden was going to be. Now that we are finding out the real truth, my only hope is that this correspondence can assist you in your efforts to inform the city of Eden Prairie as to what they are doing to the residents who are its foundation. S cerely, Gary D. E liott President/Broker (41411):N1/4) 5113 WEST 98TH STREET.BLOOMINGTON.MINNESOTA 55437 612/8318010 THE THINK OF EVERYTHING PEOPLE LAW orrice, APR 23 1985 f/ PHILLIPS,GROSS 61 AARON, P. A. • • 700 MIDLAND RANK SUILDINO RERT M.GROSS 'Lox M.PNILLIPS MINNEAPOIIS.MINNESOTA 5540i . ALLEN N.AARON IS131333.66T1 STEVEN G.POTACN #13-273 April 22, 1985 Eden Prairie Board of Review c/o Eden Prairie City Assessor 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Gentlemen: Re: Real Estate Taxes of Gary and Jacqueline Frana - Property No. 11-116-22 42 0005 On behalf of our clients, Gary and Jacqueline Frana, we are writing you this letter to state that our clients believe that the proposed 1985 market value for their property of $326,900 is excessive and should be reduced to the 1984 valuation of $305,000. Our clients are therefore applying to the Board for a review of the assessment with respect to the 1985 market value. Any response to this letter should be sent to the undersigned. • Sincerely, PHILLIP GROSS & AARON By J017176-1 -Bert M. bmg/k cc: Mr. Gary Frana fusee Sc Etc Eitd. APR 2 9 1985 ATTORNEYS AT LAW • SUITE EEO•RICRYICLD SANK OWLOING JAN HENRY$,SCE 6625 LYNOALC AvENuE SOUTH DAVID W.LEE RICHFIELD,MINNESOTA 55423 EDWARD J.Su9EC 16121 E6648711 LE°AL ASSISTANT CYNTNIA L.CNAMOSSLIN LBIZA1.ASSISTANT April 25, 1985 Mr. Steve Sinell Eden Prairie City Assessor 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 • RE: Notice of Intent to Appeal Assessed Market Value of Chestnut Apartment P.I.N. 15-116-22 32 0001 Our File: 1182.12 Dea Mr. Sinell: I am the attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Smith and and Mr. and Mrs. Olsen, owners of Chestnut Apartments located at 14042 Chestnut Drive, Eden Prairie. Please be advised that this letter is submitted as notifica- tion to your office and the City of Eden Prairie that it is my intention to file a petition on behalf of the Smiths and Olsens appealing the January 2, 1985, assessment of market value at $3,200,000.00 on Chestnut apartments. We estimate market value should be assessed at $2,800,000.00 or less. Please advise me if anything further is required at this time to preserve our right to appeal said assessed market value prior to the May 15, 1986, date for payment of taxes on said pro- perty. id Very truly yours, SUSEE EE, LT . { BY Jan Henry Susee JHS/cc cc: Roscoe and Harriet Smith Robert and Doris Olsen A • • der 2♦ 198 RE"tL PPC:PERTY Ab47:£M!.."4 VALUATION NOTIrE CITY JF £OIN TRAL'IE rot, PR),IFIE CITY ASS,_SSO= PPCF£RTY I.O. 665: LDE? PPOIVTC •' AJ 45.116.22 32 0001 Eo- �k.tIcic.s .•:. 5534' TELEPHC4E: (61i) 937221,,1 11K5 VRfCL* YRL:E 3s1471::J' 15--116.22 32 .'.1 - CL;=s'rICA7TON 30 rL:EP1 A SMITH • 67t9 SAMUEL ROAO PROPERTY TYPE ArAPYPCIT FF fDINA♦ M:. 55435 kCN-NIMiSTEAO • 4. Tr E0It. f)AkD (IF RCYTri: kiLL vCET 1N THUR50AY HAY, 2 1985 LT 7:3i r.N. IN THc. SC-IOGL ACMIN. *LCS.s RCOM 5♦ Q100 SC43 t. PCAJs EO£A PPAIRiT. ALL 'PEALS APE DONE 8Y CALLING THE ASS[S.ING CEPT. Ts[ CTT. HCAPO CF UGJALTZATT'N v,",LL MEET ON JULY 61 196S. TFLE. NO. s346-5076. APR 3 0 1985 LAPP. LAZAR. LAURIE & SMITH rt CHARTERED Rn 1.100 1,62.01N J.RM1rn ATTORNEYS AT LAW MOO FIRST BANK PLACE WEST OnSALD T.LAURIE ISO SOUTH SIXTH STESET RAYMOND M.LAOAn MIN.THAPOLIs.MINNESOTA 564011 3 WILLIAM.B.LAPP DwAIO A LInnw TELEPHONE(DID)60S•CSIS �. FNANm w1NA0001. ORmIOTMn N IIOWARD JOHN N.ORNDLRR 00U0L00 J.01.164E April 26, 1985 JONN k OTOmnNRR O I001160O T.T00140014 O 6SOO1Y O.PUOOn Local. Board of Review City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55431 Re: Prairie Lakes Office Park Merrill Lynch Hubbard, Inc. 11000 Prairie Lakes Drive PID No. 13-116-22 32 0003 Dear Chairperson: Our firm represents the above-referenced claimant with regard to the January 2, 1985 assessment of the above-referenced property. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 85271.01 subd. 5 and 278.01 subd. 1, we are mailing this letter to you on behalf of the claimant as an appearance by written communication before this Board to appeal the assessment of the property. We do not intend to make a personal appearance. Please direct all further communications regarding this matter to me. Thank you. Sincerel / � f Benja ian J ith BJS:md 85-119 MARVIN F. POI:R AND COMPANY AD VALOREM TAX SERVICE 1200 HARGER ROAD.SUITE WO OAK BROOK.1LLINOIN BOOIII TELEPHONE(3.2)325.7B30 May 1, 1985 Eden Prairie Board of Review 8950 Eden Prairie Road . Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: 1985 Property Tax Appeal I.D.#12-116-22-14-0013 Dear Board Members: Marvin F. Poer and Company represents Prairie View Business Center, owned by Amberjack, Ltd., in matters pertaining to property taxes. We are in receipt of the 1985 real property assessment valuation notice indicating a market value of $2,460,000 representing an increase of 10% compared to the 1984 market value of $2,223,600. We request that this letter be entered as our appeal of the 1985 market value, as determined by the City Assessor for the following reasons: 1. There is no evidence to suggest that market values have increased by 10% in one year in Eden Prairie or Hennepin County. 2. The Assessor's value is based on the presumption that 65% of this building is finished office space when, in fact, only 45% is office space; 20% is research and development space consisting of painted block walls, v/a tile and acoustical ceiling; 35% is warehouse space. 3. As a result of the above, the subject property is assessed in excess of other similar properties. If not uniformly assessed, this property is at a competitive disadvantage when leasing space because of the higher tax cost. It is requested that the Board of Review consider the above O££ICES N. DALLAS-ATLANTA-OAA OOOOK.ILL -PASAO£NA.CA -WASHINGTON,D C -ORLANDO LANCASTC R,PA -PHOENIX-SEATTLE-HOUSTON-SAN ANTONIO Eden Prairie Board of Review May 1, 1985 Page Two factors and reduce the 1985 market value to an amount not to exceed $2,150,000. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, MARVIN F. POER AND COMPANY Nicholas J. Muros Division Manager NJM/v d MAT 9 i9d5 Property Evaluation Services MIAMI VALLEY TOWER, 40 West Fourth Street, Sulte 720, Dayton,OH 45402 Tel(513)426-0801 April 29, 1985 , . Board of Review, City of Eden Prairie c/o City Assessor City of Eden Prairie 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Re: P.I.N. 12-116-22-41-0001 7. P.I.N. 01-116-2 2-13-00 21 Dear Board Members: On behalf of the owner of the above referenced properties, we respectfully ask that this letter be considered as our request for adjustments to the 1985 tax appraisal. Based on the data enclosed, we request the following adjustments: Assessor's Value Value Requested 1. P.I.N. 12-116-22-41-0001 $4,200,000 $3,700,000 2. P.I.N. 01-116-22-13-0021 2,000,000 $1,725,100 Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted/ for the Prudential Insurance Company of America, L_ -•-.�-i1gl! ames E. Holter, ASA Sr. Vice President Suite 720, Miami Valley Tower 40 West Fourth Street Dayton, Ohio 45402 (513) 226-0801 JEH:pd i ( Enclosures 1 , k 1 1 1 ASSESSMENT APPEAL DATA , 10250 Crosstown Circle Eden Prairie, MN } i I Use: Multi-tenant office/warehouse Age: 1979 Gross Area: 74,693 S.F. N.R. Area: 73,171 S.F. Occupancy: 1/2/85 - 81.07% 1/2/84 - 70.5% 1/2/83 - 100% Operating Statement: Attached Rent Ro: Suite Tenant S.F. Term Rent P.S.F. 1A Digigraphie 14,717 10/1/84-5/31/85 31,710 2.15 1BF Vacant 6,993 1BR Brandon Gal. 14,710 10/8/84-M to M 36,780 2.50 1CF Vacant 6,858 1CR Barrett Moving 14,736 10/16/84-1/31/85* 60,999 4,14 1D MN Cable Syst. 15,157 4/1/84-9/30/97 77,216 5.09 *After 1/31/85 lease goes to M to M. i 1 Proforma Analysis s t P.G.I. 73,171 S.F. @4.50 = 329,270 t V & CL @12% -39,512 E.G.I. 289,758 Expenses, op. and ins. $.40 P.S.F. 29,268 N.O.I. (N.I. R.E.T.) 260,490 (Actual 1984 - $218,298) Capitalized @ *15.1% 1,725,099 say $1,725,100 *Rate 10.5% 10.5 R.E.T. 106.99 x 43% 4.6 1 1 I . __1 . Property Evaluatioi.cervices STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS 10250 Crosstown Circle ' Eden Prairie, MN P.I.N. 01-116-22-13-0021 1982 1983 1984 Total Revenue 329,463 272,357 265,928 Expenses: Cleaning 403 - 0 - - 0 Utilities 5,091 3,314 7,209 General Up. 3,979 6,963 8,413 l R & M 2,359 5,122 6,453 Admin. 8,054 13,211 24,864 Ins. 931 757 691 Total Expenses 20,817 29,367 47,630 N.O.I. (NJ. R.E.T.) 308,640 242,990 - 218,298 1 fJ ASSESSMENT APPEAL DATA u 7400-50 Washington Eden Prairie, MN Use: Multi-tenant office/warehouse Age: 1975 Gross Area: 157,297 S.F. N.R. Area: 147,648 S.F. Occupancy: 1/2/85 - 83.9% 1/84 - 82.4% 3/83 - 77.7% Operating Statement: Attached Rent Roll: Attached Proforma Analysis In our opinion the 1984 statement of operations is representative on a proforma basis after an adjustment for potential increased occupancy. 1984 net operating income (N.I. R.E.T. & Sp. Assmts.) $540,407(1) Add for potential increased occupancy (+4%) + 21,616 Estimated proforma N.O.I. 562,023 Capitalized @* 15.1% Indicated value: 3,722,006 say 3,700,000 • *Base 10.5% (1) includes tenants R.E.T. contribution R.E.T. $106.99/999 x 43% = 4.6% Property Evaluation Services STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS East Eden 7400-50 Washington Eden Prairie, MN Years ending 12/31/83 and 12/31/84 1983 1984 Total Revenue $582,841 $641,789 ExpeUtilities $ 21,081 $ 9,931 R & M 35,347 18,849 General Opr. 11,585 19,763 Admin. 35,449 50,775 Ins. 2,260 2,064 Total Operating Expenses: $105,722 $101,382 N.O.I. (N.I. R.E.T. & Sp. Assorts.) $477,119 $540,407 '8 .ram Property Evaluation .ervices RENT ROLL 7400-50 Washington Eden Prairie 1/8/85 TENANT/ AREA SUITE SUBLESSEE (SF) TERM RENT PSF A-01 Vacant 8,079 A-02 Centraire, Inc. 4,253 2/01/83 1/31/85 18,678 4.39 A-03 Companion Computer C 4,853 6/28/83 9/30/86 (1)18,095 3.73 A-04-06 Cy Decosse 12,746 10/01/84 11/30/87 17,052 1.34 A-07 Vacant 2,830 A-08 Fastner House 4,000 10/06/84 M/to/M 12,000 3.00 A-09 Pilot Industries 4,840 11/01/84 1/31/90 (2)19,248 3.98 A-10 Research 3,640 8/01/84 7/31/85 14,632 4.02 A-11 Oscar Mayer Co. 3,190 7/01/81 6/30/86 18,829 5.90 A-12&13 Peterson & Knitting 7,280 3/01/84 2/28/89 52,013 7.14 A-14-18 Fastener House of MN 18,513 1/01/81 12/31/85 69,283 3.74 A TOTAL 74,224 B-01-03 DHL Airways, Inc. 17,609 3/15/83 3/31/86 73,161 4.15 B-01F Data Source Systems 1,626 4/01/84 5/31/86 (3)11,776 7.24 B-01MZ Robert M. Toney 1,600 10/01/82 9/30/85 9,000 5.63 B-02F Philip B. Richman 1,000 10/01/84 9/30/85 7,800 7.80 B-04F Vacant 603 B-05 Cassidy Electronics 4,253 5/01/83 4/30/85 16,938 3.98 B-06 Vacant 3,640 B-07-08 Computer Depot 5,500 1/01/85 2/28/85 13,750 2.50 B-09-10 Vacant 7,010 B-09F Vacant 1,600 B-11 S. G. Graphic Comm. 3,190 4/01/83 3/31/86 (4)15,133 4.74 B-12-19 Burnco Dist. Co. 25,793 10/01/83 9/30/88 95,698 3.71 B TOTAL 73,424 (1) 3 months free rent (2) 3 months free rent (3) 2 months free rent (4) 1 month free rent Urban Associates 4940 Viking Drive Edina, Minnesota 55435 Telephone (612)835-6626 May 2, 1985 Eden Prairie Board of Review C/O Eden Prairie City Assessor 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MinnesotasJ�� 55344 12" RE: Parcel Number -116-22 13 0036 • 8015 Glen Lake' Gentlemen, The purpose of this letter is to contest the property valuation for the referenced property as of January 1, 1985. In comparison to other similar shopping center properties in Eden Prairie, our assessment is unjustly high. There are three other similar shopping center properties in Eden Prairie. The comparable assessed values are as follows: BUILDING GROSS ASSESSED ASSESSED VALUE PROPERTY SQUARE FOOTAGE VALUE-1985 PER SQ. FT. BLD. 1. Prairie Village Mall 83,000 Sq. Ft. $2,520,000 $3D.36/Sq. Ft. N/W/C of Highway 5 & Highway 4 2. Preserve Village Center 7B,116 Sq. Ft. $2,870,000 $36.74/Sq. Ft. S/W/C of Highway 18 & Anderson Lakes Parkway 3. Mitchell Rd - PDQ 10,188 Sq. Ft. $ 544,000 $53.4O/Sq. Ft. S/W/C of Mitchell Road and Valley View Road Subject 11,420 Sq. Ft. $ 768,000 $67.25/Sq. Ft. 801 Glen Lake Comparables Number 1 and 2 are most similar to the subject property in that all three are brick structures with an interior finish of equal quality and with very similar locational values. It would cost approximately the same per square foot of gross building area to rebuild or replace all three properties. Page Two It is tremendously unfair that our assessed valuation is twice that of Comparables Number 1 and Number 2. The tenants within alTtTiree properties pay their pro-rata share of Real Estate Tax payments. This means that in 1986, our tenants will pay two times the taxes that will be paid by the tenants within these comparable properties. This provides them with a grossly unfair advantage over my tenants. It will also make it impossible for me to compete with the other centers for tenants, as my leases expire. I agree that my assessment per square foot should be somewhat higher than Comparable 1 and 2, but not twice as high! That is simply not equitable. A more fair assessed value would be $50.00 per square foot or $550,000. Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely yours, David L. Reimer P.S. A note of interest - We have a 19,100 square foot, three year old, shopping center within the S/E/C of Highway 18 and Anderson Lakes Parkway in Bloomington. The center is identical in quality to the subject property in all respects. It was assessed at a value of $757,200 for January 1, 1985. This is an assessed value of $39.64 per square foot of gross building area, as compared to $67.25 per square foot for the subject property in Eden Prairie. cc: Jim Christenson BRIAR HILL COMPANY LTD. PARTNERSHIP - 09-116-22 12 0002 Darlene Mayer represented this property but had to leave before she could testify. City Manager Jullie noted she had been in attendance and spoke on her behalf. DOUGLAS R.SKANSE 6651 Auto Club Road Bloomington,Minnesota 55438 612/941.6651 ti STATEMENT OF APPEARANCE BY WRITTEN COMMUNICATION Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 274.01 (subd. '1) and 278.01 (subd. 1), the undersigned, Douglas R. Skanse, hereby appears by written Communication before the Local Board of Review of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, and states that: - (1) The undersigned has an interest in certain real property located in Eden Prairie, Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, which is identi- fled by property identification numbers 12-116-22 11 0006 and 12- 116-22 11 0007 (the "Property"). (2) For purposes of real estate taxes payable during 1986, the Property assessment value exceeds the actual fair market value of the Pro- perty as of January 2, 1985. (3) The undersigned hereby appeals the assessment referred to above and requests that the value on which the assessment is based be reduced. Date: May 2, 1985 Douglas R.Skanse . I 9 MEMDRANDUM TO: Board of Review FROM: City Assessor Steve Sinell SUJBECT: Recommendations of Board of Review Advisors. DATE: May 17, 1985 1. Thomas Herzog Residential - Homestead 16040 Alpine Way 1985 EMV = $107,400 08-116-22 11 0059 Board of Advisors' recommendation: reduce value to $94,000 2. Roger Swigert Residential - Homestead 13184 Cardinal Creek Rd. 1985 EMV = $236,500 03-116-22 44 0002 Board of Advisors' recommendation: reduce value to $215,000 3. Ronald Ezerski Residential - Homestea • d 13192 Cardinal Creek Rd. 1985 EMV = $245,000 03-116-22 41 0004 Board of Advisors' recommendation: reduce value to $235,000 4. Clifford Thompson Residential - Homestead 6559 Kurtz Lane 1985 EMV - $87,000 04-116-22 24 0050 Board of Advisors' recommendation: reduce value to $79,000 5. Rosemary Soltis Residential - Homestead 11003 Spoon Ridge 1985 EMV = $220,200 25-116-22 23 0012 Board of Advisors' recommendation: no change. 6. William Quirk Residential - Homestead 14308 Charing Cross 1985 EMV = $102,000 03-116-22 32 0051 Board of Advisors' recommendation: reduce value to $92,000 7. F & L Enterprises •Industrial Property (Bernie Fink) 1985 EMV = S252,000 6331 Industrial Drive Board of Advisors' recommendation: 03-116-22 22 0016 no change. 8. Dianne & Paul Reese Residential - Homestead 6982 Edgebrook Place 1985 EMV = $240,000 03-116-22 44 0018 Board of Advisors' recommendation: no change. SS:km • MEMORANDUM TO: BOARD OF REVIEW THROUGH: CARL JULLIE, CITY MANAGER FROM: ROGER A. PAULY, CITY ATTORNEY SUBJECT: AUTHORITY OF COUNTY TO EQUALIZE ASSESSMENTS DATE: MAY 14, 1985 We have been requested to summarize the statutes authorizing the county to adjust and equalize the valuations of property within the county. Following is a summary of the pertinent provisions. 1. All property shall be valued at its market value, which is that value the property is fairly worth in money. Minn. Stat. §273.11, Subd. 1. This standard of valuation applies to all assessors and review boards. Minn. Stat. §273.11, Subd. 5. 2. The duty of the city assessor is to view and appraise the value of property as provided by law, but all the bookwork shall be done by the county assessor, and the value of all property subject to assessment and taxation shall be determined by the county assessor. Minn. Stat. §273.061, Subd. 7. 3. The county assessor has duties to instruct, supervise, and guide local assessors. They include regular examination of all conveyances of land outside the corporate limits of cities of the first and second class, filed with the county recorder of his county. From the information obtained by comparing the considera- tion shown with the market values assessed, the county assessor Memorandum to Board of Review Page Two May 14, 1985 shall make recommendations to the County Board of Equalization of necessary changes in individual assessments or aggregate valuations. At the request of either the Board of County Commissioners or the Commissioner of Revenue, he shall investigate applications for re- ductions of valuation and abatements and settlement of taxes, examine the real property involved, and submit written reports and recommendations. Minn. Stat. §273.061, Subd. 8. 4. Additional duties of the county assessor are to make all assessments based on the appraised values reported to him by the local assessors and to make all changes ordered by the local boards of review relative to the assessed value of the property of any individual. A local board of review shall have the power to reduce assessments upon petition of the taxpayer. He shall also investi- gate and make recommendations relative to all applications for the abatement of taxes or applications for the reduction of the assessed valuation of any property. Minn. Stat. §273.061, Subd. 9. 5. The county assessor shall examine the assessment appraisal records of each local assessor and shall immediately give notice in writing to the governing body of any deficiencies in the assessment procedures with respect to the quantity of or quality of the work done and indicating corrective measures to be undertaken. Minn. Stat. §273.064. 6. In cities having a population of 30,000 persons or more, the powers and duties of the county assessor within such cities shall be performed by the duly appointed city assessor, provided A Memorandum to Board of Review Page Three May 14, 1985 that the county assessor shall retain the supervisory duties con- tained in S273.061, Subd. B. (See the duties described in para- graph 3 above. None of those duties provide for the original determination of assessed valuations by the county assessor as is the case in cities having populations under 30,000.) Minn. Stat. 5273.063. 7. The county commissioners, or a majority of them, with the county auditor, shall form a board for the equalization of the assessment of the property of the county, including the property of all cities whose charters provide for a board of equalization. The board shall meet annually and shall examine and compare the returns of the assessment of property of the several towns and equalize the same so that each tract or lot of real property shall be entered on the assessment list at its market value. Minn. Stat. ( §274.13. The board shall raise the valuation of each tract of real property which, in its opinion, is returned below its market value to such sum as believed to be the market value thereof. Minn. Stat. §274.13, Subd. 1(a) (1) . The board shall reduce the valuation of each tract which, in its opinion, is returned above its market value to such sum as is believed to be the market value thereof. Minn. Stat. §274.13, Subd. 1(a) (2) . CONCLUSIONS 1. In cities of less than 30,000 population, the county •' assessor has the authority to make the determination of assessed valuation of property. I Memorandum to Board of Review Page Four May 14, 1985 2. In cities of more than 30,000 population, the city assessor is authorized to make the determination of assessed valuation of property. 3. In cities of more or less than 30,000 population, the county assessor has supervisory authority, which includes monitoring values of real property in the county and making recommendations to the County Board of Equalization to make changes in valuations of property within the county. 4. The County Board of Equalization has authority to equalize gg assessments of property situated in various cities within the county. RAP:cw CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA • RESOLUTION NO, 85-122 ' A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING 1985 ASSESSMENT " WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statute No., 274,G11 and WHEREAS, the Board of Review mete NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED; that the .1985 assessment be accepted. ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie on this 21st day of May 1985, Gary D. Peterson, President Board of Review ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY, MAY 21, 1985 7:30 PM, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, ROOM 5 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, George 8entley, 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 ROLL CALL I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS • II. CONSENT CALENDAR A. BRYANT LAKE BUSINESS CENTER, PHASE II by Welsh Companies, Inc. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 8-SS, Zoning District Change from C-Regional to I-2 Park for 7.96 acres; Approval of Developer's Agreement for 8ryant Lake Business Center, Phase II; and Adoption of Resolution No. 85-99, Approving Summary of Ordinance No. 8-85 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. 7.96 acres into two lots for construction of three office/warehouse buildings. Location: South of Valley View Road, East of Market Place Drive. (Ordinance No. 8-85 - Rezoning from C-Regional to I-2 Park; Resolution No. 85-99 - Approving cN Ordinance Summary and Publication) Continued from May 7, 1985. B. Final Plat approval for Red Rock Heights (Resolution No. B5-103) Continued from May 7,1985 C. Final Plat approval for Hoyt Roberts Addition (Resolution No. 85-120) D. Eden Prairie 8aseball Association Request E. Prairie East Neighborhood Petition for Additional Playground qiht \ quipment i�� F. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 15-85, Amendment to Landscape "4. Ordinance and Amendment to R1-9.5 and R1-13.5 Districts G. Resolution No 85-123, Authorizing Dispatch and Use of City Equipment and Services ty City Manager in Emergency Situations City Council Agenda - 2 - Tues.,May 21, 1985 H. Authorization for services from PACE Laboratories for Page 1143 training I. Final Approval for MIDB's in the amount of $1 700,000.00 Page 1144 for H.B.P. Partnership Resolution No. 85-124) III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CARDINAL CREEK 3RD ADDITON - Request for Reconsideration of Page 1144A Previous Council Action. B. RIDGEW00D WEST PLAT V by Centex Homes, Inc. Request for Page 1145 Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 88 acres; Planned Unit Development District Amendment on 6.03 acres, with variances; Zoning District Change from R1-13.5 to R1-9.5 on 6.03 acres; and Preliminary Plat of 6.03 acres into 27 single family lots. Location: Saratoga Lane, South of Wellington Drive. (Resolution No. 85-116 - Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment; Ordinance No. PUD-2-85-16-85 - Rezoning from R1-13.5 to PUD-2-85-R1-9.5; and Resolution No. 85-117 Preliminary Plat) C. THE OAKS BUSINESS CENTER by Steiner Development, Inc. Page 1155 Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 16.88 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review on 16.88 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park on 13.68 acres; and Preliminary Plat for three lots and one outlot. Location: North of Valley View Road and Golden Triangle Drive. (Resolution No. 85-118 - Planned Unit Development Concept; Ordinance No. PUD-3-85-17-85 - Rezoning from Rural to PUD-3-85- I-2 Park; and Resolution No. 85-119 - Preliminary Plat) IV. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS NOS. 20176 - 20463 ('`n Page 1166 V. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS VI. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS A. Lueck sewer/water connection fee. Request for hearing as to Page 1019 amount B. Consider petition for paving Crestwood Terrace between Page 1173 CSAH and plewood Estates (Resolution No. 85-121 VII. APPOINTMENTS A. Appointment of member to the Citizen Advisory Committee to Page 1177 review Community Development Block Grant proposals VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY CDMMISSIONS IX. REPORTS OF OFFICERS,_ BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Councilmembers B. Report of City Manager City Council Agenda - 3 - Tues.,May 21, 1985 C. Report of City Attorney D. Report of Director of Community Services 1. Anderson Lakes Outlet Page 1179 E. Report of Finance Director 1. IDR Guidelines Page 1184 X. NEW BUSINESS XI. ADJOURNMENT • /1'D p G jda, v f ; -( 1 ) 01 l — 0 / / j/6 0,0 0 L -J e yea 9 I /;3Yf 1 r /i' ,1 teaI — 3,1.00 • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 85-103 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF RED ROCK HEIGHTS WHEREAS, the plat of Red Rock Heights 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 4 PRAIRIE: A. Plat approval request for Red Rock Heights is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated May 13, 1985. B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this Resolution to the owners and subdivision of the above named plat. C. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions. ADOPTED by the City Council on May 21, 1985. Gary IL Peterson, Mayor ATTEST SEAL { John D. Franc, Clerk IIQL • • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members • THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works FR OM: David L. Olson, Senior Engineering Technician �, 0 . DATE: May 13, 1985 SUBJECT: RED ROCK HEIGHTS PROPOSAL: The Developers, William Gilk and Jerry Halmrast, have requested City Council approval of the final plat of Red Rock • Heights, a single family residential plat located west of Scenic Heights West Addition and south of Scenic Heights Road • in the South 1/2 of Section 16. The submitted plat is Phase 1 of the overall 49 lots (33.0 acres) development proposal. This phase contains 23 lots and 3 outlots on approximately 11.85 acres. Outlot A, containing 1.10 acres, consists largely of marsh land adjacent to Red Rock Lake. Outlot B, containing 0.08 acres, will be the site of a permanent sanitary sewer lift station. Outlot C consists of a ponding area and contains 0.63 acres. The three outlots will be deeded to the City concurrent with recording of the final plat. HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council on March 19, 1935, per Resolution 85-69. • Ordinance 7-85, zoning the property to RI-13.5, was finally read and approved by the Council on May 7, 1985. The Developer's Agreement referred to in this report was executed on Hay 7, 1985. • VARIANCES: A variance from the minimum lot size (City Code Section 11.50) was reviewed by the City Council on May 7, 1985. All other variance requests must be processed through the Board of Appeals. UTILITIES AND STREETS: All municipal utilities and streets will be installed throughout the development by the developer in conformance with City standards. • } • Page 2 Final Plat Red Rock Heights, 5/13/85 Item 3 of the Developer's Agreement covers the financial arrangements for operation and maintenance of a permanent sanitary sewer lift station and credits for oversizing the storm sewer and water main systems._ The final costs and payment schedule must be arranged prior to release of the final plat. 1 PARK DEDICATION: Park dedication will conform to City Code requirements. Additional requirements are covered in the Developer's Agreement. BONDING: Bonding shall conform to the requirements of the City Code and Developer's Agreement. RECOMMIENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Red Rock Heights, subject to the requirements of this report, the Developer's Agreement and the following: 1. Receipt of street sign fee in the amount of $660.00. 2. Receipt of street lighting fee in the amount of $3,744.00. 3. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $920.00. • 4. Receipt of recordable warranty deeds for Outlets A, 8 and C. 5. Satisfaction of Item 3 of the Developer's Agreement. 6. Satisfaction of Bonding requirements. DLO:sg cc: Mr. Jerry Halmrast Mr. Bill Gilk Mr. Ron Krueger 4 • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 85-120 • A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF HOYT ROBERTS ADDITION • WHEREAS, the plat of Hoyt Roberts 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 Hoyt Roberts Addition is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated May 13, 1985. B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this Resolution to the owners and subdivision of the above named plat. C. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City . Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions. ADOPTED by the City Council on May 21, 1985. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk (. • CITY or EDEN PRAIRIE ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works .FROM: David L. Olson, Senior Engineering Technician ea DATE: May 13, 1985 SUBJECT: HOYT ROBERTS ADDITION PROPOSAL: Hoyt Development has requested City Council approval of the final plat of Hoyt Roberts Addition. The plat contains 9.62 acres, of which 4.62 acres are intended for the construction • of an office/warehouse building. Included in the plat is the dedication of part of the right-of-way for the extension of Technology Drive (a public hearing concerning the construction of Technology Drive is proposed for a future Council meeting). The site is located west of CPT and North of Eden Prairie Methodist Church in the North 1/2 of Section 16. HISTORY: • The preliminary plat of 9.62 acres was approved by the City Council on February 5, 1985, per Resolution 85-41. Zoning of 4.62 acres to 1-2 Park was finally read and approved by the City Council on March 5, 1985, per Ordinance 5-85. The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report was executed on March 5, 1985. VARIANCES: All variance requests must be processed through the Board of Appeals. UTIILITIES AND STREETS: With the exception of a storm sewer line, to be located within the 20' easement shown on the plat, all on-site utilities will be privately owned and maintained. The Developer must enter into an easement agreement with the City for the construction of Technology Drive. This agreement must be executed prior to release of the final plat. PARK DEDICATION: Park dedication shall conform to the requirements of the City Code. 0,0 • • • Page 2, Final plat of•Hoyt Roberts Addition, 5/13/85 • BONDING: Bonding in conformance with the City code will be required to cover utilities to be installed by the Developer and intended for public ownership and maintenance. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Hoyt Roberts Addition • subject to the requirements of this report, the Developer's Agreement and the following: • 1. Receipt of street lighting fee in the amount of $1,404.00. 2. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $962.00. • 3. Execution of assessment agreement for Technology Drive. 4. Satisfaction of bonding requirements. DLO:sg cc: Mr. Brad Hoyt Mr. Ron Krueger • i 1 • • ill .1EMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services DATE: May 7, 1985 SUBJECT: Eden Prairie Baseball Association Request Attached to this memo is a letter from Gary Soderberg, President of the Eden Prairie Baseball Association, requesting approval of the City of Eden Prairie for appropriation of $3,000 for the purpose of providing electricity to four youth baseball/softball fields at the Flying Cloud Field Complex. The Baseball Association would like to form a 4th/5th grade level "jugs" pitching machine league for the 1985 baseball season. This type of league uses a pitching machine, rather than a pitcher, and greatly benefits the youth in that program for several reasons: 1. Most 4th and 5th graders can't pitch a strike often enough to be • consistent. • e • 2. One good pitcher can dominate the league. 3. The batters are generally afraid of digging in at the plate (and rightly so) due to the lack of control of the 4th and 5th grade pitchers. 1 4. Pitching a baseball at that level can cause permanent injury to elbows and shoulders of young baseball players. As Mr. Soderberg has indicated, the jugs machine could be used for batting practice for all age levels of youth baseball, as well as youth softball. The Community Services staff is currently discussing the possibility of a summer recreation daytime "jugs" league recreational program during July and August, and would use these same facilities. The Community Services staff recommends funding to a maximum mount of $3,000 the underground wiring system for fields 5, 6, 7 and 8 at Flying Cloud Fields. The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission reviewed this request on May 6, 1985 and unanimously supported funding this request. BL:md • �f3a 1 II ..J _.J t en,^3n 1 t ire:rJ 16700 Valley View Road°Eden Prairie,Minn.55344 i . i April 18, 1985 f i I Honorable Mayor Peterson 6 The City Council of Eden Prairie City of Eden Prairie Eden Prairie, MN RE: Park and Recreation Appropriations Gentlemen: I On behalf of the Eden Prairie Youth Baseball Association, I would like to request the approval from the City of Eden Prairie of an appropriation of $3000 for the purpose of providing electricity to four youth baseball/softball fields at the I Flying Cloud Field Complex. Approximately 1300 feet of underground wire would be ( required to acquire electric outlets at fields number 5, 6, 7 and 8. The cost j for this project has been estimated by Prairie Electric Company of Eden Prairie i and assumes a work order to include trenching, wiring, tapping an existing circuit and labor. Electricity is needed to allow us to form a 4th/5th grade level "jugs" pitching 1 machine league for the 1985 baseball season and to allow additional fields for use as practice facilities for both boys baseball and girls softball. In addition, this would provide the proper facilities for a possible daytime youth "jugs" league recreational program during the July—August summer months. At the present time, our association owns four pitching machines but has access to electricity on only one youth baseball field. This year the boys baseball program will probably field as many as 13 teams for youth ages 9 — 13 years. It is therefore important that additional properly wired playing fields be obtained this spring. Thank ytiu for your consideration of this request. Sinter y, Gary S. S.derberg Presiden. Eden P irie Baseball Association GSS/lb • H33 I • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council • t Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission i THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services—Ai-- DATE: April 26, 1985 SUBJECT: Prairie East Neighborhood Petition for Additional Playground Equipment Several months ago, Colleen Sponberg, 9924 Balmoral Lane, contacted the Director of Community Services to request the City install playground equipment for pre-school age children at Prairie East Park. Ms. Sponberg indicated that the majority of the families that live in that area have pre-school age children that are too young to use, the existing play equipment at Prairie East Park. She requested that the City install play equipment that is suitable for pre-school age children. Ms. Sponberg was informed that at this point in the City's development, the City has limited funds for developing all of the neighborhood parks to provide facilities for all age groups. The City has attempted to provide basic playground equipment for elementary school'age children in each of the neighborhood parks and to provide expanded age • range equipment at the community parks. Ms. Sponberg was also informed that when the existing playground structure was installed several residents adjacent to the site were concerned about installing the backstop, play equipment and tennis courts because of the noise that would be generated from those facilities, and they were assured by the person who sold them their home that Prairie East Park would be a "natural area". It was suggested that if the City received a petition from the neighborhood with the majority of the residents concurring that the City should install additional pre- school play equipment that perhaps some equipment could be installed if Council authorized the funding. Attached to this memo is a copy of a petition containing signatures from 159 households. One hundred and fifty eight households supported the petition. Some of the additional information provided is as follows: . 1. In the 12 homes on Buckingham Drive, directly east of the park, there are currently 14 children under the age of six. 2. Balmoral Lane alone has 24 children under the age of six. 3. The petition indicates the neighbors would like the following equipment: swings, sandbox with backhoe digger, climbing equipment, a 5' high slide, a 2 1/2' wide slide approximately 4' high, a balance beam no higher that 6" off the ground, monkey bars 5' high, a swinging wooden bridge. • Prairie East Park is an B acre neigborhoad park that was dedicated by the developer as a part of the negotiations for approval of Prairie East 4th, 5th, 6th, 1th and 8th Additions. As a part of that approval process, the City also acquired Franlo Park, and has been paying for Franlo Park from the cash park fees received from all of the homes constructed in the half mile radius from the intersection of Franlo .Road and County Road 1. Prairie East Park was to be developed as a small passive park for neighborhood play. The ballfield was never meant to be a competition field, but merely a place where neighborhood families and children could play ball. After meeting with several residents of the nighborhood, and discussing their needs and how they would like to see this park developed, the Community Services staff ( recommend the following: 1. Install a multi-platform landscape structure facility with two low slides attached to the 4-5' platform. (This facility is presently located at Edenvale Park, it is a landscape structure facility that would match the existing facility at Prairie East Park. Earlier this year, the Council authorized installing a Big Toys Playstructure at Edenvale Park.) 2. Purchase and install a pre-school age climber that would handle several children at the same time. 3. Purchase and install a 3 seat swing set, 1 infant seat, 2 belt seats. 4. Purchase and install a backhoe digger. 5. Purchase and install a park bench to be installed adjacent to the playstructure. 5. Install the merry-go-round that had been removed from Round Lake Park several years ago. 7. Remove all of the existing pearock underneath the existing playstructure and install sand. (_ 8. Expand the sand retaining structure to the north to include the expanded playstructures. The estimated total cost for sand and play equipment would be $2000, plus labor. If this was approved by mid-May 1985, the installation could take place by mid- summer. BL:md • I 113S s k 41100)\ ' TOTLOT IMPROVEMENTS �� �, / �� I swings Ø4N' . merry-go-rofi . 2 b©ckhoes /, . 4 transtered pt•tfor & slides . 1 5. climber k , ' • . . tOY wit 0 S' swa .4.0 . 'e AoriAll 0 .yorcatiock- ex it "''..(-4-1. /\ ,,, F" {, NJ - i i i (41"\ 16...„ 10 1 \ 14\ "N. 'v... i ( 40, II Tl " i rNM7c2-0vn G}Cir411A ra201 If 1 i i • 1 • i i April 23, 1985 s ATTENTION EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS COMMISSION, • • WE. THE RESIDENTS LOCATED NEAR PRAIRIE EAST PARK. WOULD LIKE RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT INSTALLED IN THE PARK THAT IS SUITABLE FOR PRE—SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN. • • i **it awa*****rara+**11-1 1-************ *r +r4r 1144HH t* 1 Ili Total number of households canvassed! 159 * 1 * TOTAL NUMBER OF SUPPORTING HOUSEHOLDS! i58 * Ii31 • I 1 THE FOLLOWING HOUSEHOLDS HAVE BEEN CONTACTED AND HAVE PROVIDED THEIR SUPPORT FOR THIS PETITION WITH THEIR SIGNATURESt • i BUCKINCHAM DRIVE BALMORAL LANE NOTTINGHAM TR. CROMWELL DRIVE LINDEN DRIVE 9680 9830 10137 8811 9758 9682 9833 10178 9820 9762 9684 9838 10204 9821 9764 96E6 9840 10214 9830 9766 9688 9842 10244 9861 9768 9835 9844 10254 9871 9860 9865 9846 10267 9881 9864 9895 9848 10277 98E4 9902 9900 9853 10284 9886 . 9904 9950 9873 10294 9890 9908 10000 9876 10297 9900 9910 10025 9883 10310 9901 • 10050 9886 10317 9910 FRIAR DRIVE 10075 9893 10319 9920 9600 10100 9896 1033o 9921 9630 10125 9906 9930 9635 10150 9913 BALSAM LANE 9940 9665 10175 9916 1036i 9690 10305 9918 10370 ARCHER LANE 9695 10325 9920 10371 9721 9720 . 10345 9922 10372 9726 9875 • 10365 9924 10373 9731 10372 9926 10374 9736 SQUIRE LANE 10374 9933 10376 9751 9645 10376 9936 10380 9781 . 9734 10378 9943 10381 9786 9758 1038o 9946 10385 9791 9765 10385 9953 10386 9801 10395 9956 10391 OLYMPIC CIRCLE 10460 9963 10394 GARRISON WAY 10420 10470 9973 10395 9530 10435 10490 9976 9550 10465 10495 9983 SPOON RIDGE 10495 10500 10830 HAMPSHIRE LANE 10500 10505 9693 10520 •*,****** **********************4******* ** *****. Y*' Total number of households canvassed, 159 x * * *• TOTAL NUMBER OF SUPPORTING HOUSEHOLDSt « * 158 * ************.* I***************************-***** . iZ i1 • ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 1 • 1 ** Our petition is seeking tot lot size equipment.en We a fwantive fswt g swings, sssaanddebox area with a back-hoe digger. climbing equipment. a 21 foot wide slide approximately 4 feet high. a balance beam no higher than 6" off the ground, monkey bars 5 feet high. a swinging wooden bridge. Two examples of the type of park equipment we are seeking are located one half mile east of Eden prairie on Bloomington Ferry Road and on Pioneer Trail. ** In the 12 homes on Buckingham Drive directly east of the park, there are currently 14 children under the age of six. e **Balmoral Lane alone has 24 children under the age of six. ** Some petitioners would also likes • -an ice rink in the winter -a basketball court and play -the softball field maintained such that teams could practice • there -a "Slow - Children Playing" sign on Buckingham Drive -tarps on the tennis court fence because it is too windy to play up there -a wading pool -a big wheels race track. which could also be used for roller skating II -a tree fort -a space ship -an old car. train, airplane . l _ . i • i • • .. j. lib() I � PETITION FOR PARK EQUIPMENT MARCH 27 r 1985 COMMISSION: ATTENTION EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS COMMIS WOULD LIKE WE. THE RESIDENTS LOCATED NEAR PRAIRIE EAST PARK, RECREATIONAL DQUIPIILINSTALLED IN THE PARK THAT IS SUITABLE FOR PRE-SCHOOL AGE CH ILDR EN ADDRESS NAME . . gf-42k=f'1-)t-'4144-u-2-4; _______ Ci..7_0 ____ _ feziidek-_ to -_ �=---______ : /.. 4 I A--------- / -/-_L-_---------_- - ,• -,41-gS4rj .. 3.ktn..,"1.1ti:Lt-e*A.____________L_________ - ice/ LI1.=L--- _____________________--_-_t_ ,d2.___ _c_),..).:o- _______________________Ei______ ,,.3 ___ 642_,-,:&,2-;--__—7__ _9_o'Z4_C1//2<„_._,"///e-: _1-.:-_/..'%_____ 4 d _9:7G5/�1__?,1 ______ u.:,___- -per---- I q 9 ,� cu 1g�5 ,G.� ) ARP it ;! f,!.n 1 / ri( VC''' J ! j t l April 19, 1985 i Government Administrator s i Dear Sir: The City of St. Louis Park, through its Emergency Preparedness Director/ ( Fire Chief, is a member of the Metropolitan Emergency Managers Association (MEMA). A standing committee of that organization was charged with the responsibility of determining the most efficient way of providing assistance to each other in the event of a disaster. After about six months of investigating the many different Mutual Aid Pacts I (Police, Fire, and Public Works), they determined that the most efficient way to handle most requests for aid would be to leave the present Mutual Aid Pacts as they are. In the event of a request for assistance which would involve several different departments, that request should be directed to the administrative branch of the Government. The Committee developed a resolution prototype, to be adopted by each municipality, that would authorize a City Administrator or his designee to send equipment and personnel to assist a stricken area, at their request, in the event of a disaster, with or without a formal Mutual Aid Pact. The City of St. Louis Park adopted this resolution on April 16, 1985. I am recommending it to you for your consideration for your community, If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact Chief John Kersey at 920-3000, ext. 56. Sincerely, • amen Brimeyer, City Manager / City of St. Louis Park ---- 5005 minnstonks boulevard • st.fouls park,minnesota 155410 • phone 1612)020'3C10 11'6 (date) 1 ( RESOLUTION NO. )?3 i RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING DISPATCH AND USE OF CITY EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES BY CITY MANAGER IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS WHEREAS, the City Council finds that instances have occurred in the past and can be anticipated in the future wherein there is a danger by fire, L hazard, casualty or other similar occurrences taking place or occurring out- side the territorial limits of the City of ; and by the suddenness thereof it would be impossible or impractical for the City Council to meet and authorize the dispatch and use of City equipment and personnel to combat such fire, hazard, casualty or other similar occurrence; therefore, BE IT RESOLVED by the Pi81rk. City Council as follows: I The Council finds it desirable and necessary to authorize the City Manager or his designee to exercise discretion, considering atllitimes s and in each case the internal needs of the City of and in- habitants, to dispatch City equipment and personnel as deemed necessary to combat such occurrence whether it takes place within or without the City limits. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such dispatch and use as directed by the City Manager or his designee shall be fully authorized as an act of the City i of and all provisions for compensation of personnel, rental ( of equipment, liability insurance coverage, workman's compensation insurance and all other safeguards and matters pertaining to the City, its equipment and personnel, shall apply in each case as if specifically authorized and . directed by this City Council at such time, whether or not the governing body i or authority of the place in which the fire, hazard, casualty or other similar occurrence exists, has previously requested and provided for assistance and ! the use of the equipment and personnel under a mutual protection 1 agreement or other type protection agreement with the City of FURTHER, the City Manager or his designee shall recall, order and 1 terminate the use of such equipment and personnel when the need for their use no longer exists, or earlier, when at his discretion it appears in the best interest of the City of Adopted by the City Council i l te19{ 2.11197S Attest: Mayor i City Clerk dI Reviewed for administration: Approved as to form and legality: i City Manager City Attorney i l LP. MEMORANDUM { TD: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager ,� FROM: Craig W Dawson, Assistant to the City Manager I SUBJECT: Professional Services for Employee Training for Right-to-Know Law DATE: May 14, 1985 In 1983 the Minnesota Legislature enacted the Employee Right-to-Know Law so that employees could be informed and trained about potentially hazardous substances which they may encounter in their workplace. The Act requires employers to assemble material safety data sheets (MSDSs), implement a labeling system, provide training on an annual basis, and inform employees of their rights under this law. The law is difficult to administer effectively. It requires the employer to collect MSDSs and to rectify any defects in them which may have been made by the manufacturer. Experience among employers throughout Minnesota has shown that manufacturers frequently do not complete MSDSs accurately. From a practical standpoint, it takes a person with expertise in industrial hygiene to verify the documentation required by the Act and to explain the effects of a variety of chemical compounds and gases in employee training sessions. This is an expertise which does not exist on City staff. Staff has investigated three programs which are marketed for compliance with the Act. The League of Minnesota Cities provides this program as a basic service within its workers compensation insurance fund, the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT). The City does not participate in LMCIT because it has obtained more favorable rates from other insurance carriers. Health EduTech has offered an interactive video training program for $4500, but the firms services cover none of the other components of the Act. PACE Laboratories has offered a complete set of services; estimated costs for doing an inventory and providing training are $2500. Staff has discussed the fees proposed by PACE Labs and is comfortable that much of the work performed by City staff can be reviewed by PACE at a cost below its standard fee. PACE Labs recently completed its program for the City of Maple Grove, an organization similar in size to the City of Eden Prairie, for approximately $1200. However, variable costs in PACE Laboratories's fees are in MSDS reviews; several cities have identified more than 300 substances for which MSDSs were needed. A review on this scale may run as high at $2500. Staff prefers to do this more extensive program to ensure all documentation is complete and accurate in order to reduce the City's potential liability. Such an approach also indicates the City's sincere interest in providing the utmost safety for our employees. Reconmendation: It is recommended that the City Council authorize PACE Lahorat.ories to assist the City in implementing the Minnesota Right-to-Know Law at a cost not to exceed $5000 from the unallocated account of the General Fund. It is anticipated that costs for these services should be well below this maximum fee. CWD:jp 11119 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: John Frane DATE: May 15, 1985 RE: Final approval MIDB'S H.8.P. Partnership (Roberts Litho) - $1,700,000 - Resolution 85-124 This project received preliminary approval on March 19th and is part of the City's "cap". The city attorney's office has reveiwed and approved the F documents. The resolution will be in the Mayor's siganture file. 4 C 1141 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 85-116 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE RIDGEW00D WEST PLAT V PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT AMENDMENT TO THE OVERALL RIDGEWOOD WESTOVER PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code provided for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) of certain areas located within the City; and, WHEREAS, the Ridgewood West Plat V is considered a proper amendment to the overall Ridgewood Westover Planned Unit Development Concept; and, WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on the request of Centex Homes, Inc., for PUD Concept Amendment approval to the overall Ridgewood Westover Planned Unit Development Concept for Ridgewood West Plat V and recommended approval of the PUD Concept Amendment to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on May 21, 1985; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The Ridgewood West Plat V PUD Concept Amendment, being in Hennepin County, Minnesota, and legally described as outlined in Exhibit A, is attached hereto and made a part hereof. • 2. That the City Council does grant PUD Concept Amendment approval to the overall Ridgewood Westover Planned Unit Development Concept as outlined in the application materials for Ridgewood West Plat V, dated March 21, 1985. 3. That the PUD Concept Amendment meets the recommendations of the 1 Planning Commission dated April 22, 1985. ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 21st day of May, 1985. • Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk HAS CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION #85-117 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF RIDGEWOOD WEST PLAT V FOR CENTEX HOMES, INC. BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Ridgewood West Plat V, for Centex Homes, Inc., dated March 21, 1985, consisting of 6.03 acres into 27 single family lots, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 21st day of May. 1985 • . Gary D. Peterson, Mayor 4 , ATTEST: 4 John D. Frane, City Clerk • STAFF REPORT • • TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: April 19, 1985 PROJECT: Ridgewood West 5th Addition • LOCATION: East of Mitchell Road, North of Cumberland Road APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: Centex Homes Midwest, Inc. • REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 88 acres. 2. Planned Unit Development District Amendment on 6.03 acres, with variances. 3. Zoning District Change from R1-13.5 to R1-9.5 on 6.03 acres. 4. Preliminary Platj offjt6.D3 acres into 27 single family lots. Background This site is currently guided for 'Y/j i �µ„�6�1�� Medium Density Residential land �Cr 'r. • i, uses. The Comprehensive Guide Plan _RWi \ depicts surrounding land uses as { Medium Density Residential. This 2� project is part of the original 1978 S PROPOSED SITE approval of the Ridgewood West -� single family subdivision of 176 , , •1 i ,I.• lots. At that time, Centex opted for the single family subdivision, � � � , �Ir C..40,,b)� i W even though it was a change from the "'• , - :, • ��', �) Red Rock Sector Plan, which 7\ .. = ^ 7/ 1 designated this area as five to ten ,/ \ „t��� `� \;\.0 I units per acre. The zoning to R1- ; / �., 13.5 was approved prior to the ( > i'• rr`` City's Comprehensive Guide Plan ` _Pz: _ `. update in 1978. The draft Com- \ _�� �- .,�K , prehensive Guide Plan was changed to �6'\��t ` reflect Low Density Residential. In z 1982-83, Centex Homes requested a eca�sw 4�.o e° I Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from 22 Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on approximately - — - kb.- _""�-_- � _ �, 64 acres. • IlIl1 ACEA LCCA oON MAP C • Ridgewood West 5th Addition 2 April 19, 1985 fThe orginal Planned Unit Development was also amended in 1982-83 on 64 acres, involving 168 small single family and cluster lots, and 168 condominium units (8, 12 and 16-unit manor homes). The 1982-83 Planned Unit Development Concept Plan identifies this 6.03-acre site for 40 units in three buildings (two, 16-unit buildings, and one, 8-unit building). An Environmental Assessment Worksheet was prepared for this project as part of the Ridgewood West 2nd Addition, involving 64 acres, in which there was a finding of no significant impact. Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment The Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 6.03 acres, is a change from 40 multiple family attached units, to 27, detached small single family and cluster lots. There is a density change from 6.6 to 4.5 units per acre. Although the concept change represents a net reduction in density, the new concept plan must be reviewed under a different set of assumptions since there is a change from a multiple family use to a single family use. These assumptions would include architectural control, building setbacks, housing variety, parking, and transition. Site Plan The site plan involves the platting of 27 small single family and cluster lots at a density of 4.5 units per acre, which is comparable to densities previously approved for Ridgewood West Phase 1-3 for single family homes and cluster lots. The average lot size is 8,776 square feet. The minimum lot size is 6,230 square feet. The largest lot size is 10,830 square feet. Eight of the lots are greater than 9,500 square feet. The R1-9.5 district has a maximum Floor Area Ratio of 0.15 for one- story buildings, and 0.25 for two-story buildings. For the smallest lot, the maximum house size will be 934 square feet for one-story, and 1,557 square feet for two-story. Under the Planned Unit Development, the proponent will be requesting the following variances: 1. Minimum lot size to 6,230 square feet. 2. Front, rear, and side yard setbacks for clusters (see attached setback diagram). 3. Front yard setback requirement to 25 feet for Lots 1-7, Block 1, and Lots 1, 4, 5, and 8, Block 2. All lots on the south side of Wellington Drive will have a 30-foot front yard setback in order to maintain 25 feet of green area between the building and the five-foot concrete sidewalk, which will be constructed on private property. Grading/Utilities ( Since the site is relatively level, a minimal amount of site grading will be necessary to provide level building pad areas and positive drainage from the front of the units to the street. T Ridgewood West 5th Addition 3 April 19, 1985 • Utility improvements will include the construction of an eight-inch sewer line and ( six-inch water line in Wellington Drive. The six-inch water line will connect to an existing water line in the Deer Creek Addition, and will also loop along Wellington Drive to an existing eight-inch water line in Cumberland Road. Storm water run-off is proposed to drain south along Saratoga Lane, then easterly along Wellington Drive to an existing pond. Architecture The architectural style will be the Victorian and Colonial Traditional, one-and-one- half, and two-story units, similar to those existing in Phases 1-4 of Ridgewood West, with development standards, covenants, and restrictions, including architectural control. The primary building materials will be aluminum siding and brick. To compliment the architecture, screening fences will be utilized throughout the site to create privacy areas for each of the units. This privacy fencing should be extended to screen the parking areas and driveways where cluster lots are proposed. This fence should be a minimum of three feet in height, set back ten feet from the driveway and supplemented with landscaping. (See Attachment A) Decks have been constructed on lots in Phases 1-3 of the Westover project in the front, rear, and side yards. In order to maintain a clean curb appeal, the decking should be constructed in the rear yards only. Since setback property lines are tight, the proponent should provide a development plan, which includes the location of decks. Since most of the decks previously constructed have been above grade, they are required to meet minimum setbacks. Since this development is proposed for R1-9.5 zoning and small lots, the proponent 1. will be required to comply with City policy, which requires a housing plan, identifying unit types on individual lots such that no two units be alike side by side, opposite, or diagonally across from each other. Though no unit types have been submitted with this proposal, Staff expects that a limited number of unit types and facade treatments will be planned in order to maintain consistency with single family and cluster lots constructed in other areas of Westover. Landscaping Continuity of site design is important in subdivisions where lots are small and units are closer together than more traditional housing neighborhoods. There should be commonality among lighting, landscaping, and privacy fencing. The proponent should provide an overall landscape, fencing, and street lighting plan for review. Streets Saratoga Lane was originally envisioned in the multiple family Planned Unit Development Concept to be a cul-de-sac. Saratoga Lane is now proposed to be extended into the Deer Creek neighborhood. Saratoga Lane will have to be vacated by the City Council at the time of final plat approval. The looping of Wellington Drive will also be completed concurrent with this project. Pedestrian Systems A five-foot wide concrete sidewalk will be constructed on private property on the south side of Wellington Drive. This sidewalk extension will complete the sidewalk loop along Wellington Drive to Cumberland Road. 11.49 Ridgewood West 5th Addition 4 April 19, 1985 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff would recommend approval of the request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment, Planned Unit Development District Review, with variances, a Zoning District Change from R1-13.5 to R1-9.5 and a Preliminary Plat of 6.08 acres into 27 lots, based on plans dated March 21, 1985, subject to the Staff Report, dated April 19, 1985, and subject to the following: 1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall: A. Provide an overall development plan, keying specific unit types and facades to individual lots in accordance with City policy. B. Provide an overall site development plan, which indicates the proposed decking, landscaping, and site fencing. This plan should also include a three-foot high privacy fence located parallel to the driveway entrances to screen parking areas on all cluster lots. 2. Prior to Final Plat approval, proponent shall: A. Submit detailed erosion control, grading, drainage, sewer, water, and road plans to the Engineering Department for review. B. Submit detailed grading, drainage, and erosion control plans to the Watershed District for review. C. Vacate right-of-way along Saratoga Lane. 3. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee. B. Concurrent with building construction, proponent shall construct a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk on private property along the south side of Wellington Drive to be maintained by the Homeowners' Association. 4. The project will maintain the previously approved development restrictions for architectural control, landscaping for each unit, ornamental street lighting, consolidation of mail boxes, privacy fencing, and the Homeowners' Association. (ICJ _- • • A 2•ut 1'. 6M10- 11 - earpe . 4. t.I 1 r L 4b- . -9 :91 ,csk. . tea. .,.. \tip' A� s • sl 1 10 8 la 4s? ,tatRD . I i. Rear Yard Sethark i • 20'average setback to structure f • • 15'minimun,snthack to structure including above grade deck The rear yord of a clustered courtyard is the area adjacent to the perimeter lot lines,eaceyt ter area adjacent to a public road. On-grad'paths;a not snhiert In rear yrd whack react rem.'cts.hooever, they nest it.kept cat et easehients. f l:v stet tacks are coo:leered a part of the I structure and are r:e,ired to root a IS rear yard i con:k. If the floor plans hnlic to an'ave.'milt dart ay f:r a;eta a Jcck•hot uo deck Is to be built or • planned at this tiro, a rvto i,t,n 3' a f' s^ace retold to provided. Elevates decks will be con;ttered u,ea K„teriu ning~race rca, yard setbacks. Dlfc Rrva Sothtick I t • 25'minimum setback to structure tram R.O.'I. Private hurt Se!:•,tk ' • 20'mini*..m setiok alone drictvay to structure • 15'minirw.a s,•tb..ck to structuto i A IS'setback is rdroi•en frt.e the private court to the structure. The setback to 1e4':ured perpendicn tar f,,,the Pr ivatu road)pr.4mrty line to the structure. ( A?0'setback is reth.trod iron,th.'private Cant pr:perty lsn,,to the garage. The seat:, I•.a'.!IQ shortest dt St..a,betveto the garage and the ca,aon outlet far the shared drive.ray. . 5111•Yard trthuct air minima,,n.:e star fearape si.'.)using a douale gasp.•,measurement - .I l •10' e,nlnun or,.lid^(house sae) The side roil of a rIl..-red courtyard art thy a,ea;adja.ont to the titterlor lot that;betinei.cah lot. 1111 Dui: cnr.cic en / f m a r.y r Y i i r • 1 1 Na JJ7 , UTLOTA \ A--7-7(. ._ 2 0 % j . „., • I\b:aol„t• 24. Ic • If,: ,. _ ,,,,, \ 3 ` 1 xt e 1 cwt.r / ..sfwvro:a 4 • \ 1`I .. - -'1\1 I run.eni1 3 ;� �1 to.f•.}.-IJ I 1 /"II „pps•1• - 1 j_— I`--i Y_ __ ,\ ,I+o, rb i4/c •�, j 1 1 .10- _ t / I .,e • a eomtsr 4 , .0 ii t;1 ,rent 3 .. , f N.. ./..., .OUTtOT B: :,� 1 1 •f: u' — e / o i 1 ' e,mrx ; N 1 i w i z a" fi i' E .. 1 �N r00100 6 1 � '� j 1 if Tr.' 7 `=s + " Wellington Drive —��j � 6,50.5. . / A5b,7° r 4 \ s << zO'c''... 41C.\:::: . c 3 u1 3 --,�-`<<, 1. • / ht -�,<t•A ,. a• t 1 4. t ^% rn:plc lJG{�fftQ I�L7 r� >-' r Arr tiaJr A - . y Planning Commission Minutes 14 April 22, 1935 `{ C. RIDGEWOOD HCST PLAT V, by Centex Homes, Inc. Request for Planned t Unit Uevelop:nc-nt Concept Amendment on 83 acres; Planned Unit Development District Amendment on 6.03 acres, with variances; Zoning District Change from R1-13.5 to R1-9.5 on 6.03 acres; and, Preliminary Plat of 6.03 acres into 27 single family lots. Location: Saratoga Lane and South of Wellington Drive. A public hearing. Mr. Tom Boyce, proponent, reviewed the proposed plan with the Commission. He stated that they were proposing 27 single family cluster units in an area currently designated for 64 condominium units. lie added that they would be preparing an overall development plan, keying specific unit types to . specific lots. Also, they would prepare an overall site development plan, t indicating the location of walkways, fencing, mail boxes, plant materials, etc., similar to other completed phases of the development. 1 Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report of April 19, 1935, evaluating the request. Chairman Schuck asked for comments and questions from members of the audience. There were none. MOTION 1: Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to close the public hearing. Motion carried--5-D-1 (Marhula abstained) MOTION 2: 3 Motion was Trade by Gartner, seconded by Johannes, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Centex Homes for Planned unit Development £. Concept Amendment on 83 acres, for Ridgewood West Plat V, based on written materials dated March, 1985, plans dated April 3, 1935, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 19, 1935. Motion carried--5-0-1 (Marhula abstained) s MOTION 3: i Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Centex Homes for Ridgewood West Plat V for Planned Unit Development. District Review, with variances, and Zoning I District Amendment from R1-13.5 to R1-9.5 for 6.03 acres, based on written j materials dated March, 1985, plans dated April 3, 1985, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated April 19, 1985. g ( Motion carried-5-0-1 (Marhula abstained) MOTION 4: I •- - i Motion was made by Gartner, seconded by Bye, to recommend to the City i l 063 - • Planning Coxui:sion Minutes 15 April 22, 1985 • • ' Council approval of the request of Centex Wrmcs for Ridyetiood West Plat V for Preliminary Plat of 6.03 acres into 27 single tanti ly lots, based on written ea,Lerials dated (larch, 1985, plans dated April 3, 1985, subject to • the reco:;:.::cndetions of the Staff Report dated Apr i 119, 1935. Motion carried--5-0-1 (llarhula abstained) • • • • • • • • • 115L1 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION #85-118 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OF THE OAKS BUSINESS CENTER FOR STEINER DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code provided for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) of certain areas located within the City; and, WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on the Oaks Park Business Center PUD Development by Steiner Development and considered their request for approval for development (and variances) and recommended approval of the requests to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on May 21, 1985; NOW, THEREFORE, BY RESOLVED, by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The Oaks Park Business Center by Steiner Development, being in • Hennepin County, Minnesota, is legally described as outlined in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 2. That the City Council does grant PUD Development approval as N.F outlined in the plans, as revised, dated April 17, 1985. 3. That the PUD Development meet the recommendations of the Planning Commission dated April 22, 1985. ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 21st day of May, 1985. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk • { lI5�� CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION #85-119 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF THE OAKS BUSINESS CENTER, FOR STEINER DEVELOPMENT, INC. , BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of The Oaks Business Center, for Steiner Development, Inc., dated March 19, 1985, consisting of three lots and one outlot, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 21st day of May, 1985. • ( Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: 1 John D. Frane, City Clerk • • rice 1 STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: April 19, 1985 PROJECT: The Oaks Business Center LOCATION: North of Valley View Road, west of Braun's Warehouse APPLICANT: Steiner Development FEE DWNER: Braun, Keiser, and Company i. REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development District Review on 16.88 acres. • 2. Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 Park on 13.68 acres. 3. Preliminary Plat of 16.88 acres into three lots and one outlot. pK• J.• L._ Background , 1-2" ; 78- 3 ? _ , , S. 1-5 RK -7 This site is currently guided for "" T I-5 PRK" I High Density Residential and In- 80-2 dustrial. The Comprehensive Guide 12-2 Plan depicts surrounding land uses 12 M-2.5 ?9' 7 31,. as Industrial to the north and east I-2pM -7-2 I; of the site, High Density Res- ,l. y, ; (PROPOSED SITE idential and Industrial to the south •may i t of the site, and Open Space to the west of the site. High Density ,. , ,,41*� t Y " Residential land use for this site % 12-1 ...,/. ♦+� • ? may not be a viable use today, since t_RE�_G `,-. ,•� S¢I •/ 7Tr19 the site is bordered by existing , . +- / . �! industrial land uses on the north, s O i r•Att•A,•... : -8 1-2 PK _ ,� • east, and west. Staff expects an Qf . • _ c' industrial use to the south in the AA 8044 ;.• ,,.-. future. F I-2 ,h,t • COo_ This site was initially proposed as , . .' / . ; L a multiple family Planned Unit r N a Development in 1978, called Briar- .e field Estates, involving 27,3 acres cn. c cu for 140 units, with 90 apartments, . - . _ ., and 50 duplexes. The project was �--� given first reading; however, in r II. wi �, AF A LOCATION ION MAP t The Oaks Business Center 2 April 19, 1985 ( 1980, the proponent withdrew the request because of pending plans for Braun's Warehouse Distribution Center. In 1980, the City Council approved the Braun's Warehouse Distribution Center, rezoning approximately 9.4 acres of land from Rural to I-2 Park for a 135,000 square foot Industrial building. A preliminary plat was also approved for one lot of 9.4 acres, and an outlot of 16.88 acres. The existing site character can be described as relatively level to gently rolling. The land is higher on the eastern half of the property and lower on the western half, which is a flood plain area depicted as Open Space on the Comprehensive Guide Plan. The site is heavily wooded. A tree inventory of the site indicates a total of 184 trees, of which 129, or 7D%, are oak trees. Box elder, maple, elm, and aspen, make up the remaining 30% of the trees on-site, or 55 trees. Site Plan The site plan involves the construction of three, office/warehouse buildings, totalling 167,500 square feet of building area. The Floor Area Ratio of the project, based upon 13.6 acres of developable land, is 0.28. 1-2 Park zoning would allow a maximum Floor Area Ratio of 0.30. Building and parking areas meet required setbacks for I-2 Park zoning. Lot 3 does not have access on a public street and a variance will be necessary under the Planned Unit Development District Review. Since there are common driveways, ( service areas, and parking areas, the proponent should prepare a shared parking and access agreement for review. Two new driveways are proposed along Valley View Road, west of the intersection of Valley View Road and Golden Triangle Drive. There is adequate spacing between driveways, and between the easterly driveway and the intersection of Golden Triangle Drive. A third access would be shared with an existing driveway on the Braun site. A shared access agreement should be submitted for Staff review prior to building permit issuance. A total of 498 parking spaces are provided. For speculative office/warehouse buildings, the Code requires 472 parking spaces, based upon 1/3 office, at five spaces per 1,000, 1/3 assembly, at three spaces per 1,000, and 1/3 warehouse, at 0.5 spaces per 1,000. If figured a 50% office and 50% warehouse, the Code requires the provision of 462 parking spaces. Staff feels that adequate parking is provided. Grading The existing topography can be described as relatively level to gently rolling. There is a 3L2-acre flood plain area on the western half of the property. Approximately one-half acre of land, or 15%, would be filled in the flood plain. The flood plain encroachment must be approved by the Watershed District. Site grading on Lots 1 and 3 will require between two to four feet of fill. Grading on Lot 2 will require cuts as much as 18 feet. The 852 finished grade elevation for the building pads is approximately eight to ten feet lower than Valley View Road. Regraded areas along the flood plain are proposed at slopes of 2.5/1 and will require special stabilization to control erosion. Regrading along Valley View Road is at a 3/1 slope. Proposed grades on the parking areas are minimal. The proposed access to the Braun's site is at an eight per cent grade. The Oaks Business Center 3 April 19, 1985 Utilities Sewer and water service can he provided to this site. There is an existing 33-inch sanitary sewer along the western edge of the property. The utility plan indicates a connection to an 18-inch sanitary sewer line running across the northwest corner of the site. Water service can be provided to this site by a connection to an existing 12-inch water line in Valley View Road. The twelve-inch water line should be extended to the west property line. Storm water run-off is proposed to drain towards the flood plain area. A 48-inch storm sewer pipe will be extended from the Min-Tex project to the flood plain area. In addition, there will be an extension of 15-inch storm sewer lines from the Braun's site and from Valley View Road. The sizes of the 15-inch pipes increase to 27-inch and 36-inch, respectively, to handle additional storm water run-off from the Oaks project. The 36-inch storm sewer line in the center of the project should be relocated to the northwest to save more of the existing oak trees. Details of all outlet structures must be submitted for the City's Engineering Department for review. These outlet structures should be designed to minimize erosion and control siltation discharge to the flood plain area. These outlet structures should also be designed architecturally to blend in with the existing natural features. Architecture Three, one-story, 15-foot high office/warehouse buildings, with twelve-foot clear height in the interior, are proposed. The primary building materials will be face brick and glass around the perimeter of the building. The buildings are proposed in a letter "C" configuration, and the loading areas will be screened from adjacent properties and from Valley View Road. The brick and glass perimeter exterior will be wrapped around and into the first loading bays. Brick faced block is proposed as the primary building material for the loading facilities. Brick faced block can be described as concrete block, with a brick textured pattern. Staff feels that this is an acceptable building material and should be painted to match the color of the brick. Rooftop mechanical units will be consolidated in the center of each building and screened with a continuous metal panel. landscaping A tree inventory supplied by the proponent indicates a total of 184 trees (3,900 caliper inches on-site). 129 trees are oak, and the remaining 55 trees are box elder, maple, elm, and aspen. Of the 129 oak trees on-site, 70 trees (54 per cent) will be saved, and 59 trees (46 per cent) will be lost. The total caliper inches of oak trees on-site is 2,811 inches. 1,420 inches, or 51%, will be saved, and 1,391 inches, or 49%, will be lost. Any development on this site will result in some tree loss since the oak trees are scattered across the site. Staff does feel that the loss of 59 oak trees and 1,391 caliper inches is significant. Staff has discussed three ways of approaching the tree loss problem with the proponent. One, the development plans could be modified for thata wouldtisavenathleastl75%gofntheeoakotreesaon-site.diTwo,ena building replacement The Oaks Business Center 4 April 19, 1985 program could be implemented on a caliper inch per caliper inch basis as follows: Since the total caliper inch of oak trees on-site is 2,811 inches, 75% of this total would by 2,108 caliper inches. Since the site plan retains 1,420 caliper inches, the difference would be 688 caliper inches. Three, a combination of tree replacement and a modified site plan could be implemented. The landscape plan provides a total of 1,211.50 caliper inches, of which 523 are designated for the caliper inch requirement, based on the building square footage, and the remaining 688.50 caliper inches are designated as tree replacement. Tree replacement is concentrated along the edge of the flood plain, which helps replace the tree mass lost due to construction. Trees proposed in the road right-of-way may be acceptable, since there is excess right-of-way in the southeast corner of the site, due to the relocation of Valley View Road. This would be subject to approval of the City's Engineering Department. Parking will be screened along Valley View Road by plantings and berming. Pedestrian Systems The City's overall trail system includes an 8-foot wide bituminus pathway proposed along the south side of Valley View Road, the west side of Golden Triangle Drive, and the west property line. The proponent should construct the segment of trail abutting the west property where determined by the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission. The site plan should be modified to provide a connection from this site to the trail. Signage and Lighting The proponent has submitted an overall signage plan, which depicts two monument signs along Valley View Road. In addition, there will be individual tenant signs on the building exteriors next to the entryways. The size of the tenant signs will be two feet by four feet. Lettering should be of a consistent size and style for all tenant signs and monument signs. An overall lighting plan has been submitted, which depicts 15-foot high, high pressure sodium lighting around the perimeter of the site. This lighting should be downcast cut-off luminars in order to minimize glare off-site. Street improvements Valley View Road needs to be upgraded in connection with this project. The road should be widened to 37 feet and the profile modified to improve sight vision distance. The developer will he responsible for one-half the cost of a twelve-inch water main and one-half the cost of a 37-foot wide industrial street. If timing for inclusion of this construction cannot occur concurrent with the Golden Triangle Road project, a special assessment agreement may be necessary to allow the improvements at a future date. STAFF RECOMMFNDATIONS Staff would recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development District Review, Rezoning from Rural to I-2 Park, and a Preliminary Plat of 16.88 acres into three lots and one outlot, based upon plans, dated March 19, 1985, subject to the 1166 The Oaks Business Center 5 April 19, 1985 • (. recomme ndations in the Staff Report, dated April 20, 1985, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall: A. Modify the site plan to provide liaetrail connection to the proposed . park trail on the west property B. Modify the grading plan to relocate the 36-inch storm sewer pipe in the center of the site to save more oak trees. • C. Modify the grading plan to extend the twelve-inch water main in Valley View Road to the west property line. 2. Prior to Final Plat, proponent shall: or Submit detailed storm water run-off approoval for filling anRe d erosionan control plansrs for A. the Watershed District. rev by in the flood plain. B. Submit detailed neeriutility ng Departmentnwater for run.off plans for review by the City's Eng permit issuance, proponent shall: ( 3. Prior to Building A. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee. B. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance of grading. C. Dedicate to the City, Outlet A, free and clear of all mortgages, liens, and encumbrances. D. Submit color samples of the brick, brick faced block, and metal 4 panel for review. g construction, construct an 8-foot wide bitumifnse q, Concurrentrailalong with ebuiest property and at bituminus trail connection from I trail along the west p P Y site. 1 I , • . ' I • , 7,, \\ _ (, . .,,. ., .. / ' /• -. . .,.. / / \ . 1.:. /:1 /••/.4 )I • •,,,4 • \ . , 7 (0.1'......,.'',';'.::'-', : , ,r //// I c. "1, • — i ! / z.". `,....:,!, . •' ''t. ; . \........ -"/k -. ( I-Vi. .1:'''sc'il.:!,,:;; '',‘ •\ '44 i ,.., --,.._-•-•.._„. .. . ', j. ;( ./• ' 14••1 ' -Cb---"'N, ..i ))''--- ,,-,,4 • /1 , ••••4•4:-.er, 7,77'114-\ • • •/ \) -- /\''• 0-,t / '•4 4,'. ..'A ^• lk ..'. •-• . •. ••. . •• • . .......... ' -: ; ..k \k 1,tk ........).01.,.:' .,..'r ---i7.—• si 7., . . \ 2 \.., " -‘;---- do, \ *'.// , 1 1.___,, A .,-.: ... _ . . , _--- t , ,. t , ' . . A ...,...e..3'n. 7\ k•?..., M . s"..4." ...8,,\.c.;.,..t....4.. '1111:.t...*;.:. ' i•, , ,i .-.....„.... ...-... .1. \ \,......01 . ''''''..Z.V.• (..fi, ..,,,,, ' \t,. /S....L...\. < -----'''''''j"--&-.'4",i•.... .1,..b .i.. '7.N ..... ....••a• 1 U.S. • _____,‘..„__s , -------._ -,..____.___2f 9 PA!,Iligguitu .0........ -..... •' :71.........'.....N. \,',, - -----._ "i—"--=----____----_:7----, ,•., '44' -.. --a.:-.---.',... .i. . .,, ( . .. . .\._, , _ . . , ij."....--k...........„ v.:. T. • • 4.n Ei !.' .'s• : . r- \ . ( • I, i' ' ''. '..'. -1'. - •' r' A •; -1'...i ) :, ..il . . .... . — ., 1 o', ' . f• . ''.— ...4 . * •14 .V.* -A• •i•-.\\•4,4,-,('S x f.01,•t IAA': ;N.:, .i• : ,44,--- . . - -• ' 1'J-4,4 -- _—A .......„.., • Ai'll .44k • :t ! I I • _...)i 1 0 F I 1.. I. A G it I 1 f..?' ...--,-.:-•1-t-:-.:--... .......---- ...... ... .. .• • .• ......_.. . .. _ — , • - - _, ._....__ • MEMORANDUM TO. Parks, Recretion and Natural Resources Commission FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services DATE: May 2, 1985 SUBJECT: Supplementary Staff Report to the April 19, 1985 Planning Staff Report on the Oaks 8usiness Center The Daks Business Center has several components that should be reviewed carefully by the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission. The •purpose of this report is to highlight the Planning Staff information regarding the site character, the proposed grading plan, the landsdcape plan, the pedestrian system and the proposed dedication. The 16.8 acre site is located north of Valley View Road and directly east of existing parkland that abuts Nine-Mile Creek, and privately owned permanent open space north of the parkland. The site is heavily wooded and contains approximately 3 1/2 acres of floodplain on the western half of the property. Approximately one-half acre of land, or 15% of the floodplain will be filled. This must be approved by the Watershed District. A tree inventory, supplied by the proponent, indicates a total of 184 trees on the site. One-hundred and twenty-nine trees are oak; the remaining are boxelder, maple, elm and aspen. The Planning Staff has determined that 688 caliper inches of hardwoods would be lost with the development of this site. The revised landscape plan provided by the developer replaces 688 caliper inches on site with a variety of hardwoods, as well as trees native to floodplain areas. The majority of the landscaping will be on the floodplain side of the building. The developer is proposing to dedicate the 4 acre Outlot A, on the west side of the site, and has agreed to construct an 8' bituminous trail system from Valley View Road to the northwest property line. The alignment of this trail system should be approved by the Director of Community Services and reviewed by the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission. The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal at their April 22nd meeting and recommended approval as per the April 19th Planning Staff Report. The Community Services Department recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development District Review, rezoning from Rural to 1-2 Park, and preliminary plat of 16.8 acres into 3 lots and one outlot based on plans dated March 19, 1985, and subject to the Planning Staff recommendations on page 5 of the April 19, 1935 Planning Staff Report. BL:md • 1113 Planning Commission Minutes 15 April 22, 1985 • • • • • • • • E. THE. O,S GUSIllESS CENTER, by Steiner Development, Inc. Request for • Ptunrieil Unit Dc reln,u^nk Concept Review on 16.88 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review on 16.83 acres; Zoning District: Change from Rural to i-2 Park on 13.68 acres; and, Preliminary Plat for three lots and one outlet. Location: North of Valley View Road and Golden Triangle Drive. A public hearing. Mr. Grog t?unonccaux, architect far proponent, reviewed the site features and • characteristics of the proposed develi{:maul: plan with the Commission. lie explained that the exterior perimeter of the structures would be where the office uses would be located within the project. Planner Franzen reviewed the findings and recoaanendations of the Staff • Report dated April 19, 1985, with the Commission. He stated that there had been a request received from a property owner in the area, whose project name was "Puy': Park Rosiness Center," to have proponents change the name of their project, as it was so similar to that of the existing project. Marhula asked if the area along the west side of the site was a designated wetland by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Planner Encrer responded that it was not. i•lartnila asked if the floor area ratio calculation included proposed 0atint A in the calculation. Planner Franzen stated that: Out lot A Was nut included. • Chairman n Schnck asked for co'adnents and questions from members of the audience. 'where were none. Motion wale; made by Johannes, secoul•rel by Gartner, to close the public • 11G1� Planning Cor,:r,ission Minutes 16 April 22, 1985 hearing. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOT 10,1 2: Motion was made by Johannes, seconded by Gartner, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Steiner Development, Inc., for Planned Unit Development Concept on 16.83 acres for the Oaks Business Center, based on written materials and plans dated April 3, 1985, revised plans dated April 17, 1935, subject to the reco,rhnendations of the Staff Report dated April 19, 1935. Motion carried--6-0-0 • MOTION 3: (•lotion was made by Johannes, seconded by Gartner, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Steiner Development, Inc., for Planned Unit Develops nt: District Review and Zoning. District Change from Rural to I- 2 Park for 13.68 acres for the Oaks Rosiness Center, based on written materials and plans dated April 3, 1985, revised plans dated April 17, 1985, subject to the recocnendations of the Staff Report dated April 19, 1935. Motion carried--6-0-0 MOT1Ot; 4: • Motion was made by Johannes, seconded by Gartner, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Steiner Development, Inc., for Preliminary Plat of 16.83 acres for three lots and one outlot for the Oaks Business Center, based on written materials and plans dated April 3, 1985, revised plans dated April 17, 1935, subject to the recoucnendations of the Staff Report dated April 19, 1935. Motion carried--6-0-0 • i�. 1 • MAY 21,1985 4_ ., VOID OUT CHECK 14.00- 20176 BILL TRANTINA REFUND-TENNIS CLASSES 20.00 20177 JEFF JOHNSON REFUND-TENNIS CLASSES 17.00 20178 DAWN MORVIG REFUND-TENNIS CLASSES 20.00 20179 MINDY THEISSEN REFUND - TENNIS CLASSES 20.00 20180 BOB CRISTOFONO REFUND-TENNIS CLASSES 17.00 20181 PEGGY CRISTOFONO REFUND-TENNIS CLASSES 17.00 20182 DOROTHY BRODENSON REFUND-TENNIS CLASSES 20.00 20183 CONNIE GOHLA REFUND-TENNIS CLASSES 17.00 2D184 TIM OLSON REFUND-TENNIS CLASSES 17.00 20185 MICH.AEL HOLDHAM REFUND-TENNIS CLASSES 17.00 20186 MIKE LANGER REFUND-TENNIS CLASSES 17.00 20187 OORTHY BRODERSON REFUND-1ENNIS CLASSES 20.00 20188 JOHN WELLS REFUND-GOLF CLASSES 25.00 20189 EVELYN WELLS REFUND-GOLF CLASSES 25.00 20190 HOPKINS POSTMASTER POSTAGE-SUMMER BROCHURE 799.71 20191 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 1221.01 20192 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 945.21 20193 hINNESOTA GAS CO SERVICE 311.52 20194 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 20195 SUPPLEES 7 HI ENTER INC MAY RENT 5432.48 20196 MINNESOTA STATE DOCUMENT CENTER BOOKS-POLICE DEPT 744.3D 20197 LUKE ABBOTT REFUND-SKATING CLASSES 3.00 20198 MARY ANN BELLES REFUND-SKATING CLASSES 12.00 9 MARTHA BENSON REFUND-SKATING CLASSES 18.00 2b,..,0 LONI BLISS REFUND-SKATING CLASSES 18.00 20201 DANNY FLEISHER REFUND-SKATING CLASSES • 12.00 20202 JEFFREY FLEISHER REFUND-SKATING CLASSES 12.00 20203 LYNN HALL REFUND-PRE-NATAL CLASSES 26.00 20204 ERIC HUBERT REFUND-SKATING CLASSES 3.00 20205 ESTELLE HUBERT REFUND-SKATING CLASSES 3.00 20206 LOIS RIESGRAF REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 17.00 20207 PAT SPRINGER REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 2.25 20208 IONE WINTER REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 13.00 20209 SHAREE ZILKA REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 2.25 20210 QUALITY WINE CO WINE 234.71 20211 INTERCONTINENTAL PCKG CO WINE 360.96 20212 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR 3835.39 20213 JOHNSON BROTHERS WHOLESALE LIQUOR WINE 2897.07 20214 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO LIQUOR 6001.20 20215 PAUSTIS & SONS CO WINE 172.74 20216 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 1652.05 20217 PRIOR WINE CO WINE 110.61 202I8 AIS CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT CORP MOWER BLADES-EQUIP MAINTENANCE 97.84 20219 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK PAYROLL 5-3-85 19003.97 20220 CO?MISSIONER OF REVENUE PAYROLL 5-3-85 10183.17 20221 DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYEE RELATIONS PAYROLL 5-3-85 14645.52 20222 MINNESOTA SATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM PAYROLL 5-3-85 35.00 2Q723 AETNA LIFE INSURANCE CO PAYROLL 5-3-85 120.00 '4 GREAT WEST LIFE INSURANCE CO PAYROLL 5-3-85 5218.00 1UC25 INTL UNION OF OPERATING ENG MAY 85 UNION DUES 647.85 20226 P E R A PAYROLL 5-3-85 16411.39 i 20227 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 4.70 20228 MARK ELVEROG REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 12.00 20229 MATTHEW ALDAG REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 13.10 9150800 Ii 4 I i 20230 RALPH KRATOCHVIL EXERCISE CLASS INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 48.50 '" 20231 ANDERSON GARDEN STORES LANDSCAPE MATERIAL-P/S BLDG 148.86 20( VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 202.4 ROYAL CROWN BEVERAGE CO MIXES-LIQUOR STORE 96.35 20234 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CO BEER-LIQUOR STORE 7434.30 20235 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO BEER-LIQUOR STORE 4638.25 20236 KIRSCH DISTRIBUTING CO BEER-LIQUOR STORE 346.80 20237 PEPSI/7-UP B0TTLING CO MIXES-LIQUOR STORE 531.00 20238 TWIN CITY HOME JUICE CO MIXES-LIQUOR STORE 47.76 20239 COCA COLA BOTTLING CO MIX-LIQUOR STORE 612.79 20240 REX DISTRIBUTING CO INC BEER-LIQUOR STORE 325.00 20241 BEER WHOLESALERS INC BEER-LIQUOR STORE 5816.25 20242 CITY CLUB DISTRIBUTING CO BEER-LIQUOR STORE 9314.85 20243 THORPE DISTRIBUTING CO BEER-LIQUDR STORE 14372.97 2D244 MARK VII SALES BEER-LIQUOR STORE 2926.95 20245 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE LICENSE-LIQUOR STDRES 108.OD 20246 SAHORA F WERTS CHANGE FUND-COMMUNITY CENTER 100.00 20247 TWIN CITY WINE CD • WINE 115.36 20248 QUALITY WINE CO WINE 1705.37 20249 JOHNSON BROTHERS WHOLESALE LIQUOR LIQUOR 805.33 2D250 INTERC0NTINENTAL PCKG CO WINE 896.50 2D251 PRIOR WINE CO WINE 305.00 2D252 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 1317.91 20253 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO LIQUOR 5801.69 20254 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR 6462.70 20255 CRAGUNS PINE HEARTH LODGE HOTEL EXPENSES-CITY MANAGER 229.22 247`6 KELLY JOHNNSON REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 15.00 2 JAMES COLVIN REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 13.00 20258 NICOLE BARTO REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 15.00 2D259 JESSICA JENN REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 15.00 2D260 JDE ARNDT REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES ,00 15.00 2026I JAMES SCHROEOER REFUND-MEMBERSHIP FEES 1 2D262 ESTELLE HUBERT REFUND-ICE SHOW 15.00 {{ 20263 ERIC HUBERT REFUND-ICE SHOW 15.00 20264 AMY LENDT • REFUND-SKATING CLASSES 2D265 PAUL ZADACH REFUND-SWIMMING CLASSES 12.00 20266 KAY HENDRICKSON REFUND-MANTORVILLE TRIP 20267 BOBBI MENTZER REFUND - MANTORVILLE TRIP 27.00 20268 LDRRAINE TODO REFUND-MANTORVILLE TRIP 27.00 20269 JUDY TODD REFUND-PIANT0RVILLE TRIP 27.OD 20270 MICHELLE AKINS REFUND-MANTORVILLE TRIP 27.00 20271 POLLY H BROWN REFUND-MANTORVILLE TRIP 27.00 20272 C R JOHNSON REFUND-MANTORVILLE TRIP 27.00 20273 CAROL DOLLY REFUND-MANTORVILLE TRIP 27.00 20274 JOYCE M BELLEFEIULLE REFUND-MANTORVILLE TRIP 27.00 20275 LOIS CAMBELL REFUND-MANTORVILLE TRIP 27.00 20276 JEAN WILLIAMS REFUND - MANTORVILLE TRIP 27.00 20277 CHRISTINE WATT REFUND-MANTORVILLE TRIP 27.00 2D278 ETHYL WOKOSCH REFUND-MANTORVILLE TRIP 27.0D . 20279 BERNETTE BRANDON REFUND-MANTORVILLE TRIP 27.00 i 2028D ANDERSON GARDEN SHOPPE FLOWERS-P/S BLDG 44.00 2 1 P1INNES07A POST BOARD FEE-FOLIC£ DEFT 15.00 2. .2 GARY HORTON EXPENSES-COMMUNITY CENTER 78.42 20233 ACRO-MINNES0TA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 135.93 6530306 • N 20284 ALLIED STEEL & ENGINEERING REINFORCING BARS FOR P/S BLDG PARKING LOT 18.00 20285 AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY CO MOPS-LIQUOR STORE 9.05 207 AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK BOND PAYMENTS 75263.11 201 AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS CHEMICALS-WATER DEPT 100.38 20288 ANACOMP PROJECTOR-WATER DEPT 656.75 20289 ANDY'S NORTH TOPPER-BLDG DEPT 269.00 2029D DALE ARNDT APRIL CUSTODIAL SERVICE-CITY HALL 200.00 20291 ASSOCIATED ASPHALT INC BLACKTOP-STREET DEPT 409.86 20292 AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS SERVICE 64.27 20293 AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS SERVICE 769.60 20294 AUTO CENTRAL SUPPLY -PAINT SUPPLIES/PAINT HARDENER/CYLINDER/ 528.38 REGULATOR/AIR CAP 20295 BATTERY & TIRE WAREHOUSE INC OIL FILTERS/BATTERY-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 152.31 20296 BEACON PRODUCTS COMPANY SOFTBALL FIELD LINING COMPOUND-PARK MAINT 246.00 20297 JIM BERGSTROM EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 88.49 2029E BLACK & VEATCH SERVICE-WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION 7734.51 20299 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON MARCH 85 IMPOUND SERVICE 480.00 # 20300 LOIS BOETTCHER SERVICE -MINUTES PARK & REC COMM MTG 75.00 20301 BOYER FORD TRUCKS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 45.76 203D2 BRAUN ENG TESTING INC SERVICE FLYING CLOUD DR/ANDERSON LAKE PKWY 3109.10 20303 BROWN PHOTO -FILM PROCESSING-POLICE DEPT/PLANNING/ 162.07 I, WATER/ENGINEERING DEPT 20304 BRUNSON INSTRUMENT CO -LEVEL/TRANSIT/TRIPOD-PARK MAINTENANCE/ 699.00 EQUIPMENT REPAIR-ENGINEERING DEPT 20305 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC ROCK 1477.43 20306 BSN CORP TENNIS NETS-PARK MAINTENANCE 403.3D 20307 BURGER BROS INC -ELECTRIC MOTOR & BATTERY FOR ROUND LAKE- 479.9D PARK PODNTON BOAT t 20 ,,,, BURTON EQUIPMENT INC 2 TRAY CARTS-WATER DEPT 62.10 20309 BUTCHS BAR SUPPLY SUPPLIES - LIQUOR STORES 358.30 20310 CHANHASSEN BUMPER TD BUMPER -SPARK PLUGS/DISTRIBUTOR CAP/ROTO/AIR 1453.83 f -FILTER/BELTS/GREASE/PLIER/OIL FILTER -WHEEL WEIGHTS/BRAKE SHOES/GASKET/ • THERMOSTAT/PLUG WIRES/IGNITION WIRES 20311 CHAPIN PUBLISHING CO -LEGAL ADS-PAULSENS ADDITION/SEAL COATING 352.92 BACKHOE BIDS/PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE 20312 CHEMLAWN LAWN SERVICE-P/S BLDG 961.00 20313 CLEAN SWEEP INC STREET SWEEPING 8616.40 i 20314 COMPU-TRENDS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 49.00 20315 CONSTRUCTION BULLETIN SUBSCRIPTION-ENG DEPT 55.00 20316 CONTICO INTERNATIONAL INC TOOL TRAYS-POLICE DEPT 7.10 20317 CONWAY FIRE & SAFETY INC VINYL COVER-P/S BLDG 215.60 20318 COPY EQUIPMENT INC XEROX VELLUM 3.80 203I9 COUNTRY CLUB MARKET INC COFFEE-CITY HALL 144.07 20320 CROWN RUBBER STAMP CO STAMPS-COMMUNITY CENTER • 85.03 20321 CRT ADVERTISING INCENTIVES ADS-LIQUOR STORES 195.00 20322 CUSHMAAN MOTOR CO INC HYDRAULIC DRAG FOR BALLFIELDS-PARK MAINT 1248.00 20323 CUSTOM FIRE APPARATUS INC REPAIR FIRE ENGINE #4 860.00 20324 CUTLER MAGNER CO QUICKLIME-WATER DEPT 1511.53 20325 WARD F DAHLBERG MAY 85 EXPENSES 80.00 20326 EUGENE DIETZ APRIL 85 EXPENSES 165.OD 1 20327 DRISKII.LS SUPER VALU SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER/CITY HALL 43.26 204 DUSTCOATING INC MAGNESIUM CHLORIDE-PARK MAINT & STREET 9216.00 201z1 DENNIS EARLEY MILEAGE-LIQUOR STORE 36.00 11916021 y 20330 JOY EASTMAN MILEAGE-COMMUNITY CENTER 74.59 20331 THOMAS E EASTMAN EXPENSES-COMMUNITY CENTER 71.91 20332 EAU CLAIRE COUNTY WITHHOLDINGS FROM EMPLOYEE PER COURT ORDER 6.50 2033"^ EDEN PRAIRIE TRASHTRONICS APRIL 85 TRASH PICKUP 325.00 201 CITY OF EDINA APRIL TESTS 97.50 20335 JEFFREY ELWELL MILEAGE-COMMUNITY CENTER 65.75 20336 EMERGENCY MEDICAL PROOUCTS INC -FIRST AIO SUPPLIES-FIRE DEPT/2 PORTABLE 1444.13 RESUSICITATORS 20337 EMPIRE-CROWN AUTO INC MUD FLAPS/TIMING LIGHT/FLOOR MATS/SHOCKS 321.93 20338 EPA AUDIO VISUAL EQUIPMENT CARTS-WATER OEPT 157.92 20339 ESS BROTHERS & SONS INC HINGES-GLUE-SEWER DEPT 309.00 20340 FEDERAL SIGNAL CORP INTOXILYZER-POLICE OEPT 3520.34 i. 20341 FEED RITE CONTROLS INC CHLORINE-WATER DEPT 648.15 20342 FLOYD SECURITY PASSCAROS-LIQUOR STORES 5.00 20343 FLYING CLOUD SANITARY LANOFILL SERVICE 55.11 20344 FIRE INSTRUCTORS ASSN OF MN DUES-FIRE OEPT • 25.00 20345 FIRESTONE STORES 8 TIRES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 624.04 20346 FITNESS STORE EXERCISE EQUIPMENT-POLICE OEPT 505.00 20347 CAROL FOY SUPPLIES-PARK PLANNING 2.32 20348 JOHN FRANE APRIL 85 EXPENSES 165.00 20349 G & K SERVICES TOWELS/JACKETS/COVERALLS/MOPS 333.85 20350 G L CONTRACTING INC SERVICE-ATHERTON WAY AND BAKER ROAD 3116.45 20351 GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS INC RADIO REPAIR & PARTS 745.22 20352 GLENROSE FLORAL & GIFTS PLANTS-COMMUNITY CENTER 18.79 20353 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTERS 8 TIRES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 367.28 20354 GOPHER OIL COMPANY OIL-WATER DEPT 160.75 20355 GRAPHIC CONTROLS CORP PARTS-WATER OEPT 80.43 20356 OALE GREEN CO BLACK OIRT-STREET OEPT 8.00 2Q' ' HAYOEN MURPHY EQUIPMENT CO TAMPER-WATER OEPT 795.00 2&..d HENNEPIN CTY CHIEFS OF POLICE SCHOOL-POLICE OEPT 125.00 20359 HOIGARDS SHOWER CURTAIN-FIRE DEPT 10.00 20360 HOLI.ISTEN ICE RINKS INC ICE RINK REPAIRS-COMMUNITY CENTER 4220.19 20361 HOWE INC FERTILIZER-PARK MAINTENANCE. 255.31 20362 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST #272 APRIL 85 CUOTOOIAL SERVICE/COMMUNITY ED 3632.37 20363 INTL CITY MANAGEMENT ASSOC SUBSCRIPTION-CITY MANAGER 280.00 20364 INTL CONFERENCE OF BLOG OFFICIALS BOOK-BUILOING OEPT 50.00 1 20365 JAK OFFICE PRODUCTS CO OFFICE SUPPLIES 90.76 20366 JM OFFICE PRODUCTS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 12.59 20367 JUSTUS LUMBER CO LUMBER-COMMUNITY CENTER 141.05 20368 KARULF HARDWARE INC -PAINT/GLOVES/BATTERIES/CORKS/COUPLINGS/ 1267.84 -SPONGES/CEMENT/ELBOWS/BRUSHES/CABLE/ -DUST PANS/HINGES/WIRE/SCREWS/TAPE/ -SANDPAPER/DRILL BITS/LIGHTER/STAIN/ -TWINE/GARBAGE CANS/EXTENSION COROS/ -MARKERS/WATER COOLER/TOWELS/KEYS/ -PAPER PLATES/NAPKINS/BLADES/OIL/SHOVEL/ PAINT THINNER 20369 PENNY KING EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 22.48 20370 KOKESH ATHLETIC SUPPLIES INC -BASES/HOME PLATE/ANCHORE TOPS/SHIRTS- 869.25 It SERVICES 20371 KRAEMERS HOME CENTER -PIPE/PAINT/BROOM HANDLE/WRENCH/BOOSTER 179.22 CABLES/WASHERS/BOLTS & NUTS/HOSE 20372 RALPH KRATOCHVIL EXERCISE CLASSES INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 8.00 i 3 RON KRUEGER & ASSOCIATES INC SERVICE-FRANLO ROAD PARK 1150.00 2636402 20374 LA HASS MFG & SALES INC REPAIR LATCHES ON TOOL BOXES-WATER DEPT 381.78 20375 LANCE SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES 88.87 20376 LAND OF LAKES TILE CO TILE-COMMUNITY CENTER 222.70 20377 GREG LARSON SPORTS INC GOLF BALLS/WIFFLE BALLS-SUMMER PROGRAMS 141.86 .41 2034 LAUY,KA ASSOC REFUND SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PAYOFF 4204.94 203).. LEEF BROS INC SERVICE-CITY HALL/P/S & P/W BUILDING 261.05 20380 LOCK JOINT REPAIR CYLINDER-WATER DEPT 909.00 20381 14CQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC FILTER-EQUIPMENT MAINT/TRUCK-STREET DEPT 11789.97 20382 MARKS EDEN PRAIRIE STANDARD GAS-SQUAD CAR 33.71 20383 MEDICAL OXYGEN & EQUIP CO OXYGEN-STREET GARAGE 42.00 20384 METRO ALARM INC 2ND QUARTER 85 ALARM SYSTEM-POLICE DEPT 72.00 20385 METROPOLITAN FIRE EQUIP CO CHEMICALS-FIRE DEPT 354.45 20386 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMM JUNE 85 SEWER SERVICE 93146.96 20387 MIDWEST FENCE & MFG CO SNOW FENCE-PARK MAINTENANCE 898.50 2038E MINNESOTA COMMUNICATIONS CORP MAY 85 PAGER SERVICE-WATER DEPT 25.75 20389 MPLS AREA CHAPTER EQUIPMENT RENTAL-COMMUNITY CENTER 33.OD 20390 MINNESOTA BAR SUPPLY INC SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES 30.00 20391 MINNESOTA RLC & PARK ASSOC SOFTBALL REGISTRATIONS/FEES PAID 2784.00 20392 MINNESOTA SUBURBAN NEWSPAPERS INC ADS-LIQUOR STORES 105.00 20393 MINNESOTA SUBURBAN NEWSPAPERS INC ADS-LIQUOR STORES 84.00 20394 MINNESOTA TREE INC TREES-FORESTRY DEPT 553.00 20395 MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC CO-OP SERVICE 36.25 20396 MODERN TIRE CO WHEEL ALIGNMENT 94.40 20397 MINNESOTA VALLEY LANDSCAPE INC TREES-FORESTRY DEPT 780.00 20398 MINNESOTA VALLEY WHOLESALE INC TREES-FORESTRY DEPT 387.05 20399 WTI DISTRIBUTING CO DISTRI➢UTOR CAP/TUNE-UP KIT-PARK MAINT 150.46 20400 MUNICILITE CO STROBES-WATER DEPT 512.00 20401 WM MUELLER & SONS INC SAND-STREET DEPT 145.39 20409 NCR CORP INK ROLLER FOR CASH REGISTER-COMMUNITY CTR 68.14 20( NORWEST BANK MINNEAPOLIS NA SERVICE 50.97 20404 NORWEST BANK MINNEAPOLIS NA BOND PAYMENT 28164.42 20405 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO SERVICE 426.80 20406 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO SERVICE 5012.47 20407 OFFICE PRODUCTS OF MN INC PRINT WHEEL-CITY HALL 100.65 20408 DAVE PAVELKA REFUND PARK RESERVATION 45.00 20409 PEPSI/7-UP BOTTLING CO POP FOR CONCESSION STAND-COMMUNITY CENTER 72.00 20410 HARRY E PICKA FLOWERS-PARK DEPT 165.00 20411 PITNEY BOWES COPIER SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 89.95 20412 PRAIRIE OFFSET PRINTING PRINTING-PLANNING DEPT 379.71 204I3 ROAD MACHINERY & SUPPLIES CO 2 FIBERGLASS STANDARD SERVICE BODIES 8953.02 20414 ROADWAY EXPRESS INC FREIGHT CHARGES-FIRE DEPT 47.74 20415 ROBBINSDALE FARM SUPPLY INC DOG FOOD-POLICE DEPT 419.05 204I6 RETAIL DATA SYSTEMS OF MINNESOTA RIBBONS FOR CASH REGISTER-LIQUOR STORES 112.86 20417 RIEKE-CARROLL-MULLER ASSOC INC -SERVICE-PAULSENS/APPLE GROVE SEWER/ 4705.25 -FLYING CLOUD DRIVE/NORSEMAN IND PARK/ PRESERVE BLVD/PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE 204IB ROGERS SERVICE CO REPAIR ROTOR & STARTER-EQUIPMENT MAINT 76.55 204I9 ST PAUL BOOK & STATIONERY CO OFFICE SUPPLIES-KIDS KORNER/COMMUNITY CTR 53.11 20420 WAYNE R SANDERS EXPENSES-BUILDING DEPT 40.70 20421 KURT A SANDNESS HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 60.00 20422 SATELLITE INDUSTRIES INC PORTABLE RESTROOMS-PARK DEPT 46.02 20423 SAY ELECTRIC IN,CORP ELECTRICAL WORK AT POLICE DEPT 376.44 ' 20424 SETTER LEACH & LINDSTROM INC SERVICE-CITY HALL 283.38 20r SHAKOPEE FORD INC BODY REPAIR ON SQUAD CARS/SWICH 167.60 16318492 1110 • • 20426 W GORDON SMITH CO -REGULAR GAS $3208.07/POWER STEERING 3493.72 -PUMP/OIL/BOLTS/PUt4P NOZZLE/FITTINGS/ DISC PADS 2 "'7 SNAP PRINT-WEST PRINTING-COMMUNITY SERVICES 81.12 26 SNYDERS DRUG STORES INC SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 37.76 20429 SOUTH HENNEPIN HSC SERVICE-SOUTH HENN HUMAN SERVICES 2700.00 20430 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC ADS-LIQUOR STORES 150.72 20431 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC EMPLOYMENT ADS-COMMUNITY SERVICES 90.00 20432 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC EMPLOYMENT ADS-COMMUNITY CENTER 52.50 20433 STRESS CARE CENTERS INC CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT 125.00 20434 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET REPAIR TAILGATE-POLICE DEPT 32.00 • 20435 STEVE SULLIVAN OPEN GYM SUPERVISOR/FEES PAID 30.00 ; 20436 SULLIVANS SERVICES INC PUMP TANK-RESEARCH ROAD 50.00 20437 SUPPLEE ENTERPRISES INC SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES 14.13 20438 T & E DYNAMIC DEVELOPMENT REFUND SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PAYOFF 758.63 20439 THOMPSON & KLAVERKAMP LEGAL SERVICE 5771.65 20440 TITLE INS CO REFUND SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PAYOFF 315.86 20441 TRACY OIL CO INC UNLEADED GAS 8794.40 20442 TRI-STATE TREE SERVICE INC TREES-FORESTRY DEPT 1490.00 20443 TRUCK & BUS GROUP 1985 TRUCK-PARKS DEPT 11671.7D 20444 TV FANFARE PUBLICATIONS INCORP ADS-LIQUOR STORE 65.00 20445 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO OXYGEN-STREET DEPT 12.60 20446 TWIN CITY PRINCING & LABEL INC LABEL TAPE-LIQUOR STORES 432.00 20447 TWIN CITY TESTING TESTS-COMMUNITY CENTER 310.63 • 20448 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED SHIRTS/PARKAS/SIRENS $447000-POLICE & FIRE 10169.70 20449 UNITED LABORATORIES INC CHEMICALS-WATER DEPT 211.20 20450 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICES UNIFORMS-CITY EMPLOYEES 314.60 20451 VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PROPANE INC GAS CYLINDERS-COMMUNITY CENTER 126.24 ? VESSCO INC EQUIPMENT REPAIR -WATER DEPT 293.08 26,03 VICOM INC SERVICE-COMMUNITY CENTER 4.23.00 20454 VI KING LABORATORIES INC CLEANING SUPPLIES-COt4MUNITY CENTER 46.84 20455 JEFF WALZ POSTERS-COMMUNITY CENTER 50.00 20456 WATER PRODUCTS CO -252 5/8 IN METERS $1I312.28/180 HORNS 18548.73 2295.00/150 PRESSURE REGULATORS $4785.00 20457 SANDRA F WERTS EXPENSES 3.63 20458 SANDRA F WERTS EXPENSES 33.10 20459 WESTBURNE SUPPLY INC REGULATOR-COMMUNITY CENTER 19.55 20460 XEROX CORP SERVICE 221.29 20461 RICHARD KNUTSON INC SERVICE-ANDERSON LAKES PARKWAY 22385.67 20462 NORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION CO SERVICE-EDEN ROAD & SINGLETREE LANE 34620.52 20463 SHAFER CONTRACTING INC SERVICE-VALLEY VIEW ROAD 21864.00 14581057 $616330.78 May 21, 1985 Cash Disbursements by Fund Number Fuhd H Description Amount • 10 General $158,477.35 11 Certificate of Indebt 33,168.84 15 Liquor Store-Prairie Village Mall 49,423.87 17 Liquor Store-Preserve 38,008.88 •31 Park Acquistion & Development 1,150.00 33 Utility Bond Fund 7,742.16 44 Utility Debt Fund 32,712.61 45 Utility Debt Fund ARB 63,157.99 51. Improvement Construction Fund 64,747.04 52 Improvement Debt Fund 23.58 • 55 Improvement Debt Fund ARB 12,863.75 73 Water Fund 38,698.44 77 Sewer Fund 93,997.09 90 Tax Increment Fund 22,159.18 Total $616,330.78 • • 1199, • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 85-121 WHEREAS, it is proposed to make the following improvements: I.C. 52-079, Crestwood Terrace Paving between CSAH 1 and Maplewood Park Estates 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 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 May 21, 1985. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL • John D. Franc, Clerk • • • TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members THROUGH: Carl J. Juilie, City Manager FROM: Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works DATE: May 10, 1985 SUBJECT: Petition for Improvements to Crestwood Terrace Attached for your review is one page of four pages of the petition that was submitted from residents living along Crestwood Terrace. The specific request is that Crestwood Terrace between Pioneer Trail and the Maplewood Park Estates subdivision would be paved. The next attachment shows those address locations of the signatures on the petition. Thirty eight lots were shown on the petition and approximately 40 signatures. If you choose to proceed with the project and request a feasibility report, I have attached a Resolution for your use. This Resolution presumes that the City Council is authorizing the feasibility on its own initiative as opposed to establishing that owners of 35% of the frontage adjacent to the improvement signed the petition. In fact, as you will note, only two of the properties adjacent to the proposed paving signed the petiton. In both instances, only one person of the household signed. Therefore, I don't believe the petition is adequate for purposes of allowing simple majority votes on the improvement. Since the effort required to produce a feasibilty report will be nominal, it would be well to go through the process and let everyone know what the associated costs will be. EAD:sg 111�( • i CITY 01' 1:D1iN PRhI1t1E, MINNESOTA 3 PETITION }'O12•JACAL IMPROVEMENT To The Eden Prairie City Council: The undersigned property owners herein petition the Eden Prairie City Council to consider making the following described Location ts(s): Sanitary Sewer -- .• Watennain Storm Sewer r / / Street Paving �� - ': or • Other ' Street Address or Other Names of Petitioners Legal Description of G� Property to be Served (Must Be Property Owners) yLCtr.r._s . T (7ce// a- .A.I /.�- ,_a�.,�► ;- ,4,1 14. r Gistk_ C,eC�-/C`_.(__,. )tom- (_S..'Ale I(e.I(,','_ i_ «,►' �:f�,,-.j„ ....... -- ( (ror City u'e) I Date Received _ ..... --- - I.C. !',?-fl79 Project Mn. j>�,' .S_.`_ :•;•_,1 . :/../ ..t..i./:::•:: ,',40',,‘ ;;..<- . :,r.,1:!:•:•1 '::::: //,' ' ::::- :•:- ./. ii:::1H::•: . . : : : ' I• :.:.1-• :: :' '. . . ............................._________:____..-177 1 1 . . . .• 1 i 0:•:/- / • st4 :•:;,,z:::::' _,.." I I 1 ',%:::,?'::: :•::•• / ts 1 1 • - •:-' .. , ___„„..../.------= :•-:-• / -- li • . I --- 1 . 1 ci I ix ce At , .• 1 . r - 0 ....N." . • , . . . . . . ( • - -- . .'',... n r .--1 — — • '.s.-.;-• - - 1 --; —:7---.7.---- , , --.• _ . '•,./...."...•••••"s- 1 • .11 ' - 1 . . .. . • ... • N.......„.s\ . \ ' ( NY' ' . 0• li1G • OFFICE OF PLANNING& DEVELOPMENT o C-2353 Government Center i,,;� a ' Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0533 HENNEPIN _it (612) 348-6418 • • April 10, 1985 • Mr. Chris Enger 'City of Eden Prairie • 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Mr. Enger: • Under the new Urban Hennepin County Citizen Participation Plan, a single Citizen Advisory Committee replaces the previous four Planning Area tizen Advisory Committees. The plan provides Eden Prairie the . opportunity of making an appointment to the Citizen Advisory Committee. This appointment must be a citizen of your community and not serving in any. local governmental elected, appointed or staff capacity. e appointment would be for a one-year period, beginning with the date of - the appointment, after which another city will make an appointment. The Committee will be holding its next meetings on April 16 and 23, 1985. Please provide the name and address of your appointee as soon as possible. Should you have any questions, please contact me at 348-5859. Thank you for your cooperation. • Sincerely, 1144 .12LY:i5)-- La y 8lackstad Senior Planner mlg • HENNEPIN COUNTY on equal opportunity employer l Il 1 • r� v ..._;At11 1c,S5 Uee.0U-r 11, 1984 Mr. Mayor & City Council City of Eden Prairie Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Re: Appointment to Planning Commission • Dear Mayor, I am a resident of Eden Prairie and have a strong interest in serving on your Planning Commission. I have lived in the Minneapolis area all my life, from 1973-1981 I did reside in Edina and the last two years my wife Kathy and myself have lived in Eden Prairie. We are expecting our first child in May and plan to raise our children in Eden Prairie believing this is the finest young community locally. After graduating from the University of Minnesota I became a Registered Architect and have been practicing for eight years in both commercial and residential projects. Having lived in Edina I am aware of the positive effects of a well planned community. Eden Prairie is growing and so far planned quite well with still more growth potential, planning is of critical importance at this stage. I hope you will consider my services for your next appointment. With my experience, interest and sensitivity, I believe I can assist you in the planning of Eden Prairie. Thank you for your consideration. W Timothy Whitt n 8980 B Neill Lake Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager • FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services DATE: May 2, 1985 SUBJECT: Anderson Lakes Outlet • Attached, for your review, is a letter from Brian Borg, Bloomington Drainage Engineer, to Gene Dietz, Eden Prairie City Engineer, regarding controlling the elevation on Anderson and Bush Lakes. Also, attached, for your review, is a copy of the minutes of the regular meeting of the Board of Managers of the Nine-Mile Creek Watershed District dated March 20, 1985 concerning discussion of the proposed Anderson Lakes outlet project. The City of Bloomington has requested the Nine-Mile Creek Watershed District to participate in an improvement project for Bush Lake and Anderson Lakes in Bloomington and Eden Prairie. This project would provide outlets from Bush Lake to East Anderson Lakes and from North Anderson Lakes to Nine-Mile Creek. These outlets to these landlocked lakes would provide lake elevation controls for these lakes during high water periods, and would help maintain lakes t- levels during low water periods through the augmentation pump in Bush Lake. The Watershed District has suggested that all of the governmental bodies affected by this project should participate in the cost of the project. It has been suggested that Eden Prairie, Bloomington, Hennepin County Park Reserve District, Nine-Mile Creek Watershed District and the Metropolitan Council share equally the cost of the project. The estimated cost to the City of Eden Prairie would be $16,32O. City staff recommend the City of Eden Prairie participate in this project. Neighborhood concerns have changed over the last four years from concerns over the extremely low water elevation in the Anderson Lakes to concerns over the existing high water elevation in 1985. The augmentation well in Bush Lake and the outlet to Nine-Mile Creek will stabilize the elevation of these lakes and the cost to the City of Eden Prairie is very reasonable, if all governmental agencies participate in this project. BL:md q�q • 1119 ��'wi.,i,ay,\ q, �, '1 clty of QL)D bloomington,minnesota f 0""4, ''''t...\ . ..•• . ./eustrc ; °i Cit 1` LJ I 42151vost Old Srakorne Pond•Ato!'minrJton.Minnnsoto 55431•(612)881-5811 �woRtcs/ I April 3, 1985 )' • . City of Eden Prairie ' Attn: Eugene A. Dietz Director of Public Works ' 8950 Eden Prairie Road • Eden Prairie, MV ' 55344 Re: Controlling Elevation on Anderson and.Bush-Lakes . 1 i Dear Mr. Dietz: • The Hydrological Study of Hyland-Bush-Anderson Lakes recommended that outlets be ( tailed for these landlocked lakes. We are proposing that outlets for Bush Lake ai,a Anderson Lake outlets be constructed at this time and are asking for cooperative • funding from various sources. The Hydrological Study of Hyland-Bush-Anderson Lakes was published in November 1971 by Barr Engineering Company for Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, Hennepin County I. Park Reserve District, and the City of Bloomington. The portion of the study dealing with Anderson Lakes is attached. Basically the report recommends that a pumped out- let be provided for Bush Lake and that Anderson Lakes be maintained at a relatively high level by use of this pump. The study recommends, however, that the pumping station not he constructed until the Anderson Lakes are provided with a gravity out- let to Nine Mile Creek. These proposed outlets will have a great benefit for land abutting these lakes, most of which is proposed to be public park land. By providing lakes with outlets, the flood levels during wet periods will be controlled at manageable elevations. During dry periods, augmentation of Bush Lake from the existing well, and Anderson Lakes from Bush Lake, will keep the lakes up at desirable levels, such that the fluctua- tion between flood levels during wet periods and augmentation level during dry periods, will only be approximately two feet. With the lake levels being predict- able within such limits, park improvements such as picnic areas and hiking and biking trails can be placed close to the lakes for the enjoyment of the users, yet would not be flooded during wet periods. arc proposing construction of these outlets at this time for three reasons. First, the City has scheduled improvement of West Bush Lake Road for 1985; second, private property through which Anderson Lake outlet will pass is being developed. Third, AN Al f IMAA1IVF ACTION roost. )N'ORTm INITY tb8tOYtR i. - .........,,,, .killlm(ot r - 2 - April 3. 1985 /. aome landlocked lakes in Minnesota are having considerable problem with high water. The estimated cost of the facilities is as follows: Bush Lake eoutelett -b$30.0t00; Anderson Lake outlet - $65,000; total - $95,000. It is proposed Cost of $95,000 be shared equally among the cities of Eden Prairie and Bloomington, the Hennepin County Park Reserve District, Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, and the Metropolitan Council. The actual cost will be determined upon completion of the work and the amount billed accordingly. A letter of intent to participate would be sufficient. If one entity decides not to participate, the cost to each of the others would in- crease, or the project would be aborted for now. The cost of maintenance and operation of the well on Bush Lake, the lift station from Bush to Anderson, and the necessary storm sewer system shall be considered in the management plan for this regional park. Preliminary plans are available for this work. Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions. please feel free to contact us. We would be glad to meet to discuss this matter further at any time. Respectfully, � 11. Brian N. Borg, P.E. City Drainage Enginee BNB/an cc: John Pidgeon, City Manager Russ Langseth, Director of Public Works Encl. • • • • • is . 1. Amendment to permit issue by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to Gustafson E. Associates for a wetland area adjacent to Crosstown Highway between County Road 18 and Gleason Road in the City of Edina. 2. Various Minutes of meetings of Bloomington Natural Resources Commission. 3. Notice of Park Improvement Funding Requirements during calendar year 1984. 4. Notice from Al Hoffman, of Business Agency, Inc., . regarding status of liability insurance coverage for Watershed District. 5. Minutes of 509 section of Minnesota Association of Watershed District for January, 1985. Treasurer's Report. Mr. Steven Stuart of Robert Lapic & Associates was present to submit the Treasurer's report. Lengthy discussion ' followed on the Treasury Report, including the status of itemization of proposed funding requests submitted to the district for appropriate funding of cooperative projects. During the course of discussion, the Managers requested Mr. Stuart to prepare and maintain a running tabulation of funding requests as a separate report from the financial statement. Following further discussion on the Treasury Report, it was moved McClelland, seconded by Lofthus, that the report as submitted be approved and the bills identified in that report be authorized for payment. Upon vote, the motion carried. Proposed Project - Bush - Anderson Lakes Outlet - Bloomington Mr. Brian Borg of the City of Bloomington was present to discuss that City's request to the Watershed District to participate in an improvement project for Bush Lake and Anderson Lakes in Bloomington and Eden Prairie. The Managers reviewed the correspondence received from the City of Bloomington dated February 20th, 1985, outlining this proposed project. Mr. Borg reviewed the present engineering plans and specifications detailing the varying alternatives for this project, including the installation of either an open channel or a pipe connecting Bush Lake and Anderson Lakes. Mr. Borg stated that Bloomington is requesting that the Watershed District pay one-half the cost of this project as a cooperative project with Bloomington. Responding to inquiries from the Managers, the Bloomington representative noted that the first phase of the project is expected to cost approximately } -3- } ii L • • • ( $50,000. General discussion followed during which the manager expressed concern that various governmental bodies who might be affected by this project as well as being benefited from the undertaking of this project, have not as yet been contacted and requested to participate in this project. Specifically, the Managers mentioned that the City of Eden Prairie and Hennepin County Park Reserve District should be requested to participate in the project. The Managers also expressed a concern that the project might benefit private properties and that those owners likewise should be contacted regarding possible financial participation if this project is to be undertaken. Discussion was also held regarding whether or not this project should be •.one of a cooperative venture with various governmental bodies or whether it should be undertaken under the district's basic water management funding authorization. Following discussion in which the Managers did comment favorably upon the project • noting the public benefit to be derived from the project, it ► was moved by Kulak, seconded by Lofthus that the Watershed District conceptually agree to participate in this project provided that other governmental bodies likewise participate in the project, it being the express understanding of the Managers that the Watershed District's final decision to participate in this project be determined once other local units of government have indicated their willingness to participate and upon what basis. Upon vote, the motion carried. The Managers also \(' reemphasised the fact that they did not believe the district should pay any costs for a storm water project, where there is a particular special benefit to be derived by individual property owners. Rather, the district would want to limit its 3; financial participation to the public aspects of this project. In that regard, the Managers requested Mr. Borg to break out those costs attributed to the proposed public aspects of this project so that the Watershed District can evaluate a cost breakdown when it discusses further its financial participation. Bredesen Park - Construction Status. Mr. Dickson distributed various photographs depicting the current status of construction of Bredesen Park. The Managers were advised that the project is nearing completion with the chain-link fence to be one of the last major aspects of the contract yet to be completed. Further discussion followed during which Mr. Dickson advised the board that the project has generally progressed in accordance with contract specifications. He highlighted various change orders as well as certain costs overruns resulting from soil conditions discovered after the project had commenced. The Managers were advised that the project will most likely cost approximately 15% more than initially projected. Following discussion, the Managers requested the district's engineer to continue to -4- tt TO: Mayor and Council FROM: John Frame DATE: May 15, 1985 RE: MIDB Guidelines/charges for tax exempt financing s We suggest the Council adopt the following criteria for the allocation of the City's MIDB "caps" I. No project will be considered until a first reading of a zoning ordinance which is consistent with the intended use has been passed. If the Council desired to grant MIDB approval of the project suitable action would be taken. This amounts to a first come first serve, if the project is acceptable, allocation system. It does, however, put considerable pressure on the planning staff and the planning commission. II. In the case where projects will compete for allocation in excess of the amount available the following criteria could be used to eliminate projects until the number of dollors is equal to or less than the available "cap" A. Flo closing before August 1st. A 1% deposit will be required which would be refunded if the project is closed before August 1st ; B. Retail use C. Spec building (40% or more leased to persons other than the owner(s) ie or the owners) business D. Large requests E. Applicants business is not presently in the City F. Ratio of jobs to bonds issued. In the case of spec projects skip this criteria G. Cut cards or I. Above II. A. Above and then cut cards We also recommend a yearly charge of 1/8 of 1% on the outstanding principle balance of MIDB and Housing Revenue Bonds issued by the City for projects which do not now have a preliminary resolution. (